375+ # 0384

So you claim rights to the remains of 0384AM because you bought it in Georgia from someone else. How did that someone else acquire rights and ownership of 0384AM? You've explained that they just drove up to Kleve's lot, loaded up the remains of 0384AM on a trailer, and drove away - thus just assuming ownership, without any compensation to the owner? (and again, removing it prior to the County action to impound - not sieze - so ownership of the items at that time remained with Kleve).

And you seriously expect us to believe that this is fair and just?

Well, I don't believe it is fair and just, no matter the lawyer weasel-ease you spin behind it.

Let's go back to the sob story you painted for the poor, stressed neighbors who had to suffer the horrors of the neighboring junkyard - you painted such a heartbreaking scenario, and asked if we felt any sympathy for their "cruel ordeal"... I already answered truthfully in the negative.

Who I feel sympathy for is an old man suffering from a mental illness, who was taken avantage of by sleazy sharks who felt zero sympathy for him and just stole from him to try to score an illegal gain. My father died 5 years ago from Alzheimers, and I suffered through his declining mental and cognitive abilities, watched him become a shell of his former self, watched him lose his intelligence, thoughts, memories. I saw the confusion, the fear, I saw more than a few instances where he could have been taken advantage of by the unscrupulous for a financial loss that he never would have realized or understood. My father was lucky, he had family and friends watching for him and caring for him in those few years where he was not yet in a care facility.

So your victim story is for the neighbors who had to endure a junkyard across the road, and your contempt and scorn for Karl Kleve is extremely evident. You like to toss around phrases like "escaped mental patient" - so we see just how sympathetic you are to victims of mental illnesses. Do you think the mentally ill give up their rights to their own hard-earned assets and property, that those assets are up for grabs, free for the taking, because the mentally ill person did not maintain them to your standards? (You made that statement just in the last 2 days). Do you believe as indicated that playing lawyer weasel-ease with the mentally ill is fair game, that it's just fine to con them out of property that is rightfully theirs because they're missing a 30 year old piece of paper, even though they were rightfully in possession of that property?

Yes, Mr. Anderson, you've painted a pretty thorough picture of your view of the world for this case - and it's a pretty ugly picture. In my opinion, you remind me of someone who is not at all a nice person, and I wouldn't trust someone like this with a nickel to do the right, honourable, morally correct thing. You suggested you'd present the information for FerrariChat members to decide - and even though you constantly refuse to answer any direct questions, you weasel around pointed asks with completely unrelated babble, the picture is still clear enough. Your anonymous friends who hide their identities have similar modus operandi, pop in here to make unjustified accusations, refuse to answer questions, post nonsense like "the car never existed" (thanks Joe Ford for those photos documenting the existence in Kleve's possession). What a fine bunch of outstanding humans you all seem to be, based on what's been posted here.

 

Gordon, the reference to the charge of fraud relates to the claim made by Gardner for 100% of the proceeds which is now the subject of both a court case and the arbitration. On page 63 of the transcript, OJ does indeed confirm that he is "slamming on the brakes" and does not want a later auction as a direct result of the fraud claim.

Otherwise, and it may well be weasel-ease, but after listening to all of the arguments covered in the transcript posted by MBZGIRL, the Judge went on to issue the order for Contempt and facilitate the car being sold by Bonhams after the auction date in the HOA. Your interpretation of the HOA may well result in an "end of agreement" but the arguments have a long way to run.

Finally, I may not agree with the extreme views posted here and on the "other site" but I am grateful that contributors post the transcripts of the hearings as I can actually read both sides of the argument and what the Judge says as opposed to trying to understand what is going on based on what is selectively posted here.

K

 

Thank you for the new pictures Joe although it is sad to see such a great car deteriorating over the period of time depicted.

Did you ever get any evidence that the car was actually re numbered 0394AM ?

 

+1

 

Joe, we have seen excerpts from the theft trial hearing, can you or others post a copy of the complete hearing ?

I agree there must have been "red flags" but on the face of it, the Court did not convict. Paying cash for cars and parts is certainly not uncommon especially when they appear to have come from a salvage yard and I wonder how many purchasers take the trouble to check out the stories by contacting the previous owner.

 

what we have been told by the antagonists so far about the car before left the US...

car= 0384 in parts or intact

mysteriously found itself on Kleve's property
Kleve did not purchase the car
Kleve is not the owner
the car does not exist
the car is a fake
the car is declared genuine
mysteriously appears in Georgia
the car is not stolen from Kleve
Kleve cannot claim ownership
( to name a few recurring themes, add to the list if you like )


the car somehow manages to be Kleve's property as determined by several Ohio courts, Kleve is never charged for anything about his ownership , while others making claims find themselves defending theft charges...yet they continue to claim the car like a moth attracted to a flame

 

One thing I am totally sure of in this mess is that many have been VERY generous when using the word 'stored' whilst in Ohio.

Left to decay to the point of mostly unusable is more accurate.

 

Kim

The 1989 trial transcript is 3" thick. Plus, based on your statement above, you would not even know what you are reading.

The 3 Defendants that were let loose in Nov 1989 were let loose because they claimed they did not know it was stolen when they bought it, and the prosecution could not prove that they knew it was stolen when they bought it. PERIOD.

There was ZERO doubt that it was Kleve's car.

There was ZERO doubt that it was stolen, or as Bonhams misrepresented to the world, "removed unbidden - from Kleve's land" -- what a croc.

As to any "sale" that did not have Kleve as seller - nemo dat quod non habet

Anderson admitted that the "hulk" in the Bill Victor photograph matched what he BROKERED. Game over Anderson - identification is complete ( a VIN is but one way of many ways to identify, as Anderson & Co. learned in 1989).

The Defendants in 1989 actually claimed they did NOT know what the VIN was, contrary to what SeeSpotLie said a few posts prior.

You need to understand how the US court system works, and what the "takeaway" of a particular court proceeding or court document is. ( I have suggested that Bonhams hire a REAL Ohio lawyer, and not rely on two fatally BIASED lawyers - Jones/Gotteseman, who have other interests to advocate.)

Swaters gave Bonhams ZERO ownership documents. Let me repeat. ZERO. When we signed the HOA, the universe of docs was disclosed and known, and there is no good faith way to claim what Bonhams claimed - that Swaters acquired any rights in 1999.

All Swaters acquired in 1999 was the right to sue Daniels for a refund. When Lancksweert signed that 1999 document as Swaters' partner, he admitted before a notary that as of 1999, Kleve was the owner of 0384AM. THAT IS HUGE and Bonhams deliberately suppressed that. ( It is HUGE because it exposes the truth on the 1989 docs and the truth about OWNERSHIP of the car.)

Now, Bonhams is now looking for ways to undermine Kleve by looking into such bulls*#t as the dash panel because it had no odometer in 1954, hoping to somehow defeat the Ohio title with a claim about mileage and the odomoeter. That is literally what some Bonhams hi-paid London attorneys are doing - and it shows me how mis-informed and clueless they are while they scramble to overcome the irrefutble fact that litigation was ongoing (Ohio appeal A1001370 or Ohio BMV block on ANY title conveyance) and Bonhams had no authority from Ford and Lawson. Those are three independent reasons a sale cannot close, and should not have been attempted.

What a croc. Do you know what I mean when I say what a croc?

I am not referring to shoes or Crocodylinae LOL.

Joe

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

not an unfair statement for an UNinitiated observer, the reality is there are many more historic cars rejuvenated and sold for much higher prices beginning with a lot less... there is plenty of documentation for restored cars beginning with a pile of rusty trash, just take a look for yourself... it is the lure of big money that brings out the under belly of greed in the car trade... this topic gives credence to cliché's about used car salesman and their lawyers

 

One decayed pile of unusable parts sold as a car does not excuse another pile of decayed unusable parts being contested in court.

It would be interesting for someone that has been hands on with this car in its current state to give the run down of what survived being 'stored' in Ohio all those years as to be usable today.

 

This applies to Swaters' ownership claims, and sheds the light of truth on the Swaters' suspect March 15, 1990 documents, all of which I think Bonhams misrepresented and misrepresents.

Note how Swaters is capable of distinguishing OWNERSHIP from POSSESSION in 1999.

Swaters admits that Kleve is the OWNER at least up to that date of September 2, 1999, and next, Swaters attempts to buy from an unauthorized seller.

I hope tha all who claim to be "historians" correct their accounts to match the historic record. ( And while you are at it, point out for all the "tree" in the 1988 photograph of the eninge bay. If you can't , then stop spreading that myth too. V-8 engine, another myth. Do your homework!)

(And Art, welcome. And Art, usability has NOTHING to do with ownership, so why do you introduce such a false concept into our discussion? See the last photograph of post 2973 to see what would have happened to 0384AM had it not been stolen. It would have been salvaged by Kleve's friends (see post 12 and post 15 for an example of what honorable, honest people do) within a couple months of the date of its theft, who were responsible for gathering up many of the other Ferrari artifacts that were not stolen. The Ferrari and those parts would ALL be safe and sound, preserved, for some future legitimate transaction involving nothing but original DNA.)

Correction to post 2894, paragraph 2 - the word "bought" should be "brokered" as that is what they claimed occurred in 1989.

Joe

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

again become familiar with what you are talking about, you apparently don't have any knowledge of where restorations can begin to arrive a finished result... there are posts in this topic that cover what has been used, replaced, and reserved in this particular case... as has been said all high end restorations usually are well documented in line items, photos and video... look around and educate yourself to rid yourself of wrong preconceptions, and keep you from making baseless comments

 

I know very well the difference of a genuine restoration of a whole car and building a virtually new one around very few salvageable parts left over from being 'stored'.

Only those that have been hands on with this car as it is today can determine which one is most applicable here. The rest is hot air, bravado and an attempt to distort reality from the comfort of an armchair.

 

I am amazed that Ocean Joe is still trying to make a CASE that Kleve was going to restore the slight remains of a1955 Ferrari Grand Prix racer, silver in color, and partially disassembled, since Kleve stated that only the wheels were removed in his complaint.

It is obvious that the (OJ) picture story positively proves the intentional dissection and abandonment of a Ferrari in a step by step photographic series.

OJ is claiming ownership by attaching to a well known story using a fraudulently acquired title that OJ would NOT post the fraudulent Kleve affidavit. The title is useless and it is now known the Courts were fooled by lies.

Remember the famous Kleve statement? “He took all of the good stuff off of the car”
well then, Kleve then abandoned and discarded the junk outside unprotected in the elements for more that 25 years.

The price of 1,600 was stated paid during the Kleve testimony in the Atlanta Federal Trial. But the newspaper article posted 16,000.00. So is that an innocent mistake or is that done by design?

Furthermore;

Kleve did not find the car; I told him where the Hulk went. Additionally the story about France, Saudi Arabia and other parts of the world….just more ‘Urban Legend’

Kleve was offered the return of the Hulk by me and he looked the other way.
The lead FBI agent was also offered the return of the Hulk and refused the return as well. I posted this earlier so no need to repost the same information.

Then when all of this happened, someone who wanted to stir-up the cesspool, located Kleve and lied to him saying, the junk was worth 3,000,000.00 Dollars and Kleve lost it.

Kleve even stated in that same interview that he never thought the Ferrari could be worth that much. That incident allowed Kleve to walk away from all of the other seized junks in his scrap pile.

The State of Ohio crushed the junks, cleared off of the Nuisance property using the Ohio nuisance laws.
If you want to look up Nuisance laws in Ohio, it will explain to the readers how Kleve lost his abandoned junk.

P.S. Kleve did not go to Belgium as stated in the article.
The picture dated 1988 is wrong. The car had a tree growing thru it in the Stan Nowak pictures and the cutting down of that tree and other sapplings were well know in the courtroom.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

If you have scanned copies, can you post the Stan Nowak pictures? (thx)

 

Anderson admitted that the "hulk" in the Bill Victor photograph matched what he BROKERED. Game over Anderson - identification is complete ( a VIN is but one way of many ways to identify, as Anderson & Co. learned in 1989).

The Defendants in 1989 actually claimed they did NOT know what the VIN was, contrary to what SeeSpotLie said a few posts prior.

Joe

*[/QUOTE]

The only person who did not know the VIN number was Kleve.

Anderson had and still has his very own pictures of the Hulk ( taken in Tucker, Georgia) as identified by Gerald Roush to be #0384 and not by anyone named Bill Victor.

So, why would the US Government ask me to certify an obvious abandoned Hulk via a photograph that they could NOT prove was stolen. I fail to see the association there.



Why dont you produce the pictures of the Hulk with the tree growing throught it, that was used as evidence. Thats the latest picture that was taken in the 80's and not your earlier picture taken much earlier than 1988. BTW. That was a good sized tree.

P.S. its not over until the fat lady sings.

 

Just look at Jaguar D-Type XKD505 that was rebuilt from just one front frame, nothing more and is accepted in various circles due to its containing the only known remains from the original 1955 Le Mans winner. The interesting point that is continuously argued is whether that makes it original, authentic, real or any other descriptor and everyone disagree's. What #0384AM is at point is all of the remains of #0384AM with some additional remade OEM parts from approximately 1990 including engine, and that is pretty much the status quo for 99% of actual 1950s racing cars.

 

I am amazed that you think it matters in the slightest what Kleve intended to do with the automobile which he owned - his property, his to do with as he liked, whether you like it or not. I am saddened that a once great racing car was left to decay like that - I'd never suggest, as you have done frequently, that he deserved to have it stolen because of the way he treated it.

It is obvious that the OJ pictures were posted to dispute the contention that the car never existed, and that Kleve never had a genuine 0384AM.

Again, so what? Kleve owned it, as you acknowledged to me in the case of my own Ferrari, I can do what I like with my car no matter what you think, Kleve legally could do whatever he wanted with his car no matter what you thought, and nothing he did to that car justifies theft of the car.

WHEN? Relative to the time of the State impounding (again, you haven't answered the question of the difference between impound vs seizure) the cars from that lot (say, which of the two lots where he stored cars was the Ferrari in, versus the lot ordered cleaned up?), when were the remains of 0384AM removed? Prior to the State cleaning up the remains and impounding them? Then the car was stolen before any State impound or actions, and stolen when it belonged clearly to Kleve. PLEASE ANSWER THIS!

 

Your post as with so many recent posts miss a trick, if Karl Kleve didn't own #0384AM, who did? And then you MUST ask the following question(s)

- It cannot be anything other than #0384AM or a fake since every other 375 Plus is traced unless you are going to try to claim that every Ferrari expert is wrong (in which case we might as well argue the moon landings or the Kennedy assassination since you are experts on conspiracies)
- If not #0384AM then did Jacques Swaters own a fake (if so then its a whole new level of fraud)
- Did Bonhams sell a fake (ditto)
- If it is real then can you assume the car is still owned by Kimberly? (Unlikely but I like to keep an open mind)
- If so then Guy Anderson, Jacques Swaters and everyone else are guilty of receiving and owning stolen property (Still) (And I don't believe Guy's claims that the BOS is a fake, they appear self serving)
- And if so then someone had better contact the Kimberly heirs and expediate the return of the vehicle quick smart (didn't think so)

I cannot see any situation where they can claim Karl Kleve didn't own the car that doesn't involve them admitting other crimes! Because from the moment the car was built in Maranello it was owned by somebody and can't simply be owned by nobody. Please Seespotrun, tell me otherwise

 

You sir, are a breath of fresh air!

I give you a picture of the remains as photographed by me in January 1989. Two weeks after the junk was positively identified by Gerald Roush of the Ferrari Market letter. Could you analize the condition of the Hulk for the readers please?

I will tell them what I first saw when the door opened to the storage room to reveal the
horrible condition the frame was in.

You will notice upon inspection the car had sunk up over a foot in the Ohio mud. The mud was washed off aprox 3 weeks prior to my inspection but the metal was still wet from being submerged in mud for 25 yeas or more. Look closely and the mud was now adobe in the tube frame end.

You will also observe that Kleve hack sawed the rear support arm off of the abandoned Hulk for one of his projects, and then hacked the beautifully intricate head rest support tubes. You will also notice the complete back end was beyond repair and that a car that runs in excess of 180 MPH would no longer ever be able to do that using this rusted out metalwork.

Now if you think this is bad, then you will need to see the frame cradle section. The same cradle section that never had a Chevrolet engine installed in it. BTW Look at the hacked wiring, there has been no fire as previously stated, there has been no accident damage as previously stated and there has been no damaged condition other than the damage that Kleve inflicted on the Hulk.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Analyze to what end? To determine if there's a point where theft of those remains is justified? Are those remains of a car? Sure. Is it 0384AM? Sure! End of case. Did Kleve mistreat the car enough to justify someone else stealing it from him? NO.

Are you still suggesting that it matters what Kleve did with 0384AM while he owned it? Is it sad that it was hacked up and left to deteriorate? Sure is. Sad, not a legal justification for theft.

So, Seespotrun, would you mind answering the direct question I posed to you above? You've ignored it multiple times already -

WHEN WERE THE REMAINS OF 0384AM REMOVED FROM KLEVE'S PROPERTY - BEFORE OR AFTER THE STATE-ORDERED IMPOUND?

Also, please have a go at explaining to us the difference between impound and seizure - did the State own the junk removed from the property? Or is impound a holding process where fines are assessed and the owner liable for the fines, while retaining ownership of the property? At what point does the owner of the contents of the impounded items lose ownership of those items? Again, tie that back to when the remains of 0384AM was removed.

Your protests of innocence are losing more credibility each time you ignore that question - does it make you uncomfortable? Would you really rather not answer that question because it destroys your whole abandonment and "we were doing the world a favour" argument?

You want to participate in illuminating this case for us, please answer ALL the questions posed to you, rather than just cherry-picking the easy pitches...

 

Joe, ownership and the state of the car's condition are two completely separate issues. Not only have many been VERY kind in suggesting that this car was 'stored' in Ohio for many years given its condition evidenced in photographs, but you also offer that the car/ decayed parts would all be 'safe and sound' and 'preserved'. Woolly mammoths have had more favourable preservation conditions.

Lets hope that no more important Ferrari's are kept this way for future generations because I doubt there was much original car left to restore and be usable today by a new owner given its prior treatment.

The only thing sadder than the ownership battle is the fact that such a great car was left to decay so badly, no matter who owned/owns it. Theft is never justified but neither is the treatment the car had whilst being 'stored'.

 

Mr. Anderson,

Thank you for sharing the pictures. I'd love to see more if you are willing to share.

Obviously, Mr. Kleve was not a good custodian, besides the fact he allowed the car to survive. Based on what has been written, he had issues and too much on his plate. Sometimes owners of property are their own worst enemies. There can even be an argument made that the theft benefited the car (I'd love to steal some old 2+2's that are about to be converted into replica GTOs, rescuing them from that fate). That said, your ownership argument doesn't make any sense to me. If I take parts/stuff out of a junkyard without paying for them and without the yard owner's permission, aren't I stealing them?

Also, if the town had taken possession, wouldn't a paper trail be available through the town indicating this?

Regards,

Art S.

 

For Gordon C. and the rest of the readers. I don't think this has been posted previously on this site. From September 24, 2013.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Dear Art,

You are very welcome; I will release more info to further show the real story and not the lies that have been posted.

Would you like to see the abandoned 30 foot Kleve sitting in the woods rotting away?

Kleve was not a good custodian; he was the mad scientist that destroyed one of the most beautiful cars that has ever been built. Imagine this if you will, just another 5 years sitting in the mud and game over. 1 375 Plus Ferrari lost forever.

Kleve did not allow the car to survive. He did his best to let the earth swallow the remains.

Kleve had issues and it all had to do with the destruction of buildings, cars and properties. Kleve needed an intervention and the State of Ohio obliged.

A theft was not known or discussed in Georgia pertaining to the Good Faith purchase.
A document alleging a prior theft was proven false.

Ownership in the Great State of Georgia is determined by the sale and the intent of that sale.

Good Faith criteria:

The seller has to represent the item as being without liens, without encumbrances, and not stolen.
The seller, under NO circumstances, can mention the item is ‘Stolen’ whether stated or implied. If it is stated or implied the purchase can not be a Good Faith purchase.
The seller must represent himself as the owner, representative or agent to be able to sell the item.
The purchase price paid for the item must be in line with its value.
After this criteria has been met you can then title/register the item that has been sold.

If you check in your state you most likely have the same or similar laws pertaining to a Good Faith purchase.

Now you talk about perhaps wanting to steal a 2+2 Ferrari that has been converted into a GTO replica. I can say DON’T.

But if someone brings to you, a Hulk 2+2 that he rescued from an abandoned scrap yard that was condemned by the city and state for clean up.

Then yes, you will qualify for a good faith purchase and in court you will see how powerful that intent really is.

There are people out there that lie, cheat, and steal and it is not your obligation to try to change the world. Just do your due diligence and if everything checks out, buy the item, then you have made a Good Faith attempt prior to purchase.

Title/register that item and the goods will be yours to do with as you wish.

Then any person claiming ownership can only go back to the seller. Not you, since you have made a ‘Good Faith’ purchase.

The Court Order to remove the Kleve junks may still be available. Perhaps one of the kind lawyers in this group can find that and post it.