Has Mark Daniels been deposed yet? In Kleeve's later life (i.e. IIRC Kleeve died in 2003), did he ever assert in writing (or via a legal filing) that he was wronged/duped by Lancksweert/Swaters (and/or Daniels) as a result of the 1999 Settlement Agreement, and that the settlement price was in fact supposed to be $2.5M, not $625K? Or, did allegations of wrongdoing by Lancksweert/Swaters (and/or Daniels) only first emerge AFTER Kleeve's death? (i.e. via Kleeve's daughter)
The Ohio Court recently ruled that Daniels was not a necessary party so it is unlikely he will be deposed. In essence, the court is saying the dispute between Swaters and Kleve heirs can be decided without Daniels. As to the rest of your question, the prior poster is correct about post #184. Kleve had no clue what really happened. Kleve had signed his $2.5M proposal on July 16, 1999, sent it to Daniels, who signed it three days later, then nothing more happened. Kleve did not know of the betrayal that occurred in NYC about six weeks later. Note the dates on the signatures of the alleged settlement agreement. Kleve continued to act as owner, and even got a duplicate title on Ap 20, 2001 when he could not find his original title, and kept in contact with FBI as he tried to get them to do something overseas. We now know that Daniels had the original title, and gave it to Lancksweert on Sept 2, 1999. Again, the key to understanding what went on is to simply put yourself in Kleve's shoes, and then see who did what and when. Whose name is conspicuously absent from all the documents -- is that how honorable people act? *
Your previous posts seem to indicate that it's your and Kleeve-Lawson's belief that Daniels was central to the deception inflicted upon the elder Kleeve. Therefore, I'd like to know if you/Kleeve-Lawson have brought a civil action against Daniels. If so, has Daniels been available to be served? Another question: what were the circumstances/representations made by Daniels which lead to the elder Kleeve releasing the ORIGINAL title to Daniels (which seemingly contains the elder Kleeve's signature releasing his ownership interest)?
It seems if there's a case, it would be Kleve vs. Daniels? It seems possible Swaters acted in good faith. I mean, he paid (I think) $100,000 for the car the first time, $625,000 the second time, restored it, still doesn't have all the parts, and now this? Hopefully things will move along quickly and the truth will be revealed.
Daniels' deception is with - or - against Lancksweert. Lancksweert has an action against Daniels since Daniels allegedly took his money and then gave Lancksweert things he did not own or have authority to give. The question becomes why did Lancksweert pay Daniels the $225,000 direct, assuming it was truly paid? (The status of BOTH checks is that they are a third party check on a Swiss account and Swaters has yet to produce any Swiss account statements showing the account was funded and then later withdrawn via negotiation. This whole business of Swiss accounts on New York third party check face stinks. It may be that they are all untraceable shams. Don't you find that suspicious? ) Why do you assume Kleve "gave" the title to Daniels? There is no basis for that assumption, and it is contradicted by other Kleve documents which kept Daniels on a short leash, for example, the June 16, 1999 Letter of Authority. Giving anything of value to Daniels conflicts with all of Kleve's actions. *
What good faith did Swaters take? Paying the wrong people and restoring a stolen car? Blah ! Innocent and honorable people do not . . . - renumber a car from 0384AM to the counterfeit VIN number 0394AM, after the Belgian officials released it as 0384AM and you bought it as 0384AM ; - use agents who refuse to disclose their relationship with you and who refuse to disclose that you possessed 0384AM; - pay money to an agent of a car owner, and a possessor of a stolen car rather than pay the car owner himself ; - pay money from untraceable Swiss bank accounts in conjunction with paying an agent rather than the owner; - use lawyers to force the heirs of an owner to relent to such suspicious tactics and terms as above. Jacques Swaters actions now will be closely watched . This ordeal will be remembered more than his last race. Even Swaters knows to ask himself the question : Did Kleve ever get money for his stolen car ? I think he knows the answer. Swaters had all rights to take control over a settlement directly with Kleve . His choice was to pay the wrong people and to put an employee salesman in charge of his personal moral interest involving a VERY stolen car. Swaters choose to distance himself for 20 years - there must be reason for that . Instead of picking up the phone and saying ,'' Mr. Kleve, how do we settle this? '' , he failed to do that and suspiciously created 20 years of questionable and bizarre acts that we see uncovered today. These acts are his own responsibility, he's the driver ! If Swaters obides to respect the court order and produce his bank records along with original documents instead of waffling since July then you will see that the train is much closer in the tunnel than anyone can imagine.
I may be totally out of order on this as all I know of this matter is what I have read in this thread. However my impression - and as I say it's only an impression - is that Kleve was not an easy man to deal with. Might that not be a reason for Swaters to be happier to deal with Kleve's agent?
Because Daniels had the Title in hand.......did he take it by stealth?? Kleve was unaware what had happened to it, apparently.....swept off the table during a meeting between the two? That's an interesting question....
What exactly was the nature of the relationship between Kleeve and Daniels? For what reason(s) would Kleeve allow his Ohio Certificate of Title to show National Search Services (Daniels' company) as the lienholder? (as clearly seen on the older/non-dupicate Title document. I think it would somewhat strain credulity to believe that NSS appearing as the lienholder occurred WITHOUT the elder Kleeve's knowledge/consent/cooperation/involvement/approval, etc.
What exactly was the nature of the relationship between Kleeve and Daniels? For what reason(s) would Kleeve allow his Ohio Certificate of Title to show National Search Services (Daniels' company) as the lienholder? (as clearly seen on the older/non-dupicate Title document). I think it would somewhat strain credulity to believe that NSS appearing as the lienholder occurred WITHOUT the elder Kleeve's knowledge/consent/cooperation/involvement/approval, etc.
I have no opinion about most of this; I learned a looooong time ago not to decide a case based on articles, statements of interested parties, etc. I just want to mention that about half of the 375 MMs had S/N swaps, many or most by the great factory which can do no wrong.
As stated before in this thread, Kleve had a specific contract with Daniels / NSS, contingent on recovery, to locate and recover, which also allowed Daniels' NSS to place a lien on the title. No one has ever suggested otherwise. *
Joe, So I understand this correctly, are you saying that NSS was empowered to place a lien on the title but instead of releasing their lien instead transferred the entire title? Was the basis of NSS being empowered to place a lien on the title to protect their ability to get a recovery settlement from Kleve? Jeff Jeff
The lien is a security interest. It is to assure Daniels got paid from after completing his work. Daniels was a party to the $2.5 Million settlement proposal so he would have to release his lien as part of that settlement. BUT . . . . One of the reasons I think this was an inside job is that the title shows that Daniels released his lien almost a week before Lancksweert even signed the settlement agreement, and almost three to five weeks before the Swiss funds from the foreign drawn checks would have cleared. That is odd; that is suspicious. I tell you the more you peel away the layers, the more the entire settlement agreement looks like a sham. If Swaters produces those bank records and proves that BOTH checks were real, were funded, and were irrevocably paid, then we will all finally see where the money came from, whose money it was, if the money was really there, much less did it change hands. It still does not excuse Lancksweert's paying the wrong guy!!! So far, Swaters has failed to comply with that discovery request for those docs -- it is like two months late and sanctions will soon be sought. I guess some subpoenas are soon gonna fly from the Belgian tax authorities about this Swiss account, unless it is normal for Belgians to bank that way. As far as transferring title, there was no transfer as Daniels had no authority to transfer. Daniels did sign with "POA" but he had no POA! ("POA" is Power of Attorney) PLUS the very settlement contract Swaters attempts to enforce in Ohio makes transfer contingent on full payment to "Kleve and Daniels" -- that was never done and Swaters does not even allege he made full payment. A little birdie out of Atlanta mentioned that his unnamed client had a LPOA dated August 18, 1999. ("LPOA" is Limited power of Attorney) Not only can that NOT be the LPOA referred to in the alleged settlement agreement signed by Kleve on July 16, but note that Swaters does not have the original to the Aug 18, 1999 LPOA. That LPOA was only recently included in a court filing by Swaters. Even a casual view of the Aug 18, 1999 LPOA shows the signatures are odd and the notary seals look like tenth generation copies cut and pasted from earlier docs. *
Archive info on the 375 plus is fairly well documented, down to the fuel they used. It was an important step in a direction short lived, so Enzo kept good records that are well perserved on this precise model. Considering 0384AM, it's one of the better documented. Ed, you have been a detail Ferrari guy for 38 years. Do you know of any 375 plus that has had a chassis number change to a number that never existed on a 375 Ferrari ? a number refered to by Ferrari as a phoney number ? I can think of just one.....and it wasn't the great factory that changed it.
Ocean Joe, So Daniels effectively "stole" the Ohio Certificate of Title from Kleeve? (otherwise, how did it end up in Daniels' hands?) Does Daniels still exist? If so, it sounds more and more like Kleeve-Lawson's (and by extension, your) beef lies as much, if not more, with Daniels as it does with Swaters/Lancksweert. What does Daniels have to say for himself? Have you/Kleeve-Lawson filed a civil action against Daniels? Have the authorities criminally filed against Daniels?
You need to think through what you are saying. Kleve has not been wronged by Daniels but for a missing title, useless legally and easily replaced with a duplicate. Bear in mind to do anything with a title legally, you must be the named owner or have a valid Power of Attorney. Daniels is powerless to convey Kleve's property, thus Daniels has not harmed Kleve. However, either Daniels has harmed Lancksweert, or Daniels and Lancksweert have harmed Swaters. Therein lies the causes of action. Kleve's heirs have several ways to rebut Swaters claims, the easiest being to assume the contract was a binding "contract", and then show that since Lancksweert failed to pay $625k as required in full to "Kleve and Daniels", then, in accord with that very contract paragraph 5, Kleve is excused from any obligations arising out of it. For that reason the obligation to transfer parts or docs was excused. This is a legal argument that will one day be placed squarely before the judge. The above are contract law issues that are many years old and commonly followed by courts. It may take a few minutes to understand the principles at work but if you are familiar with the basic premises of contracts, you should understand . . . . no tickee, no laundry, i.e. no payment, no transfer. There are several other legal arguments that all end the same way - there was no completed or valid settlement and transfer, thus the car is still stolen. (By now, surely, you must be wondering why would Lancksweert, a seasoned car dealer, pay Daniels direct, at odds with the express and explicit contract paragraph 5, AND in conflict with the June 16, 1999 Letter of Authority? The answer is obvious. Stop and think about it.) *
(1) Are you trying to imply that Lancksweert somehow took a backhander/spiff from Daniels behind Swaters' back? (2) How can you assert with a straight face that Kleeve "has not been wronged by Daniels but for a missing title?" As Kleeve and Daniels were seemingly "partners" in the quest to either (a) recover possession of the car, or (b) enter into a financial settlement agreement -- all sides agree that BOTH Kleeve and Daniels signed the last page of the 1999 Settlement Agreement -- how can it be that the Kleeve estate absolves Daniels of all responsibility, including the seeming failure of Daniels to pass on the full amount of proceeds due to Kleeve per their internal partnership? How in good conscience can your side let Daniels off-the-hook willy nilly, especially when it would appear from all indications that Lancksweert/Swaters acted in good faith in their entering of the Settlement Agreement and renumeration of the attendant funds.
Terra, First, read what I said. Keep in mind that the words "partner" or "agent" or "principal" or "contract" have very precise meanings when you are in court. Daniels either harmed Lancksweert, or both Daniels and Lancksweert harmed Swaters because Daniels received the money. Daniels did not take Kleve's car nor Kleve's money, thus Kleve has no beef with Daniels. A dealer as seasoned as Lancksweert does not pay the wrong guy by accident. Again, for the cheap seats, a dealer as seasoned as Lancksweert does not pay the wrong guy by accident. Do you really think Lancksweert paid the $225k direct to Daniels, a non-owner, by accident, instead of making a single $625k payment to "Kleve and Daniels" as required by contract? I find that hard to believe. The jury will never buy it. The better, more credible explanation in my view is that Daniels and Lancksweert were in cahoots. There is a reason they avoided Ohio, and avoided all contact with Kleve, including picking up the parts in Ohio after paying $625,000. Daniels and Kleve - "Partners" you say? - Read the meaning of the word "partners". You will see that they were not partners and there was no "partnership". Daniels was a mere agent, and Kleve was the principal. Those words have very precise meanings and attendant liabilities in court. Finally, you should ask how can Swaters let Daniels off the hook? The documents that Swaters possesses shows that Daniels was self-dealing and that he lacked appropriate authority to transfer Kleve's property, and had no authority to be paid instead of Kleve. That is a matter between Lancksweert and Daniels, and if Lancksweert sold his interest to Swaters, then Swaters can step into Lancksweerts shoes and go after Daniels. You need to understand what a contract is when you are in court so you can then sort out the parties' obligations. Here, Kleve signed off that he wanted $2.5 million payable to Kleve (per pp1 and 2 of Kleve's docs) but then Lancksweert offered and signed at $625,000. Thus, as to Kleve and Lancksweert, there was no meeting of the minds thus no contract. Kleve has the legal option to tell the court even if you think pp 1 and 2 were not switched, and that the price was $625,000, then you must conclude that Lancksweert failed to pay, and thus Kleve is not obligated and there is no transfer. Further, Daniels lacks a valid POA to transfer title or sign on Kleve's behalf. And it does NOT appear that Lancksweert and Swaters acted in good faith. When you say that, I am beginning to think you are a shill for Swaters or Lancksweert. How can you suggest, with a straight face, that renumbering a stolen Ferrari with a counterfeit serial number is "good faith". Get real. You need to read the docs BEFORE you form your conclusions.
Francis, I suspect that Kleve was very difficult to deal with however, that is irrelevant as he was (is?) the owner of the car. Think about it: I want Bob's car. Bob is a very difficult individual and is letting his car rot and does not want to sell (at least not for a price I am willing to pay). As a work around, I take Bob's car and pay Bob's very friendly neighbor for it. Why did I pay Bob's neighbor? Because he is much easier to deal with and is willing to accept a much better price for Bob's car than Bob is. Now I have Bob's car at a price I am happy with and I had a very pleasant transaction with Bob's neighbor. Only one minor problem: Bob never sold his car, thus it's still Bob's car! I look forward to seeing the documents that are still missing in this case. i am curious if they will confirm Ocean Joe's case or make it take an unexpected left turn. Regards, Art S.
How long are bank records maintained? When (or if....) Swaters produces his checks, can they be verified by other sources as to "where it went"?
