Apparently Jim Kimberly did pretty damn good with a "100 % fraud" car. It existed and was stolen from Kleve in Ohio. Denying that is a delusional position to take. There are people on here that saw it there. Perry
dogday: Unless your are Jess Pourret your standing to make claims on what is a real GTO ain't worth squat. Since I know you are not Jess then I have the answer. Jeff
There was a hearing today. One topic was Ford's Motion to Compel Discovery of certain documents that Gardner has failed to produce. In Gardner's attempt to rebut that Motion, his attorney filed an affidavit. See below. In paragraph 3, look at what was revealed. In today's oral argument Gardner's attorney revealed that this "Agreement" was made in early 2014 - - - early 2014 - - - early 2014. January of 2014 also coincides with some other curious events with those same parties to that agreement. Now, do you see what I mean by poisons that lurk in the mud? IMHO, it is only the tip of the iceberg. The implications to a consignor and the abuse of a duty and position of trust, are astounding to me. Joe * Image Unavailable, Please Login
I am planning for my retirement as a Bonhams mind reader. But before I go, the information that Bonhams entered into a joint defense agreement with Christopher Gardner and Florence Swaters, in January 2014, suggests that Bonhams agrees with you, that its status as your agent terminated in September 2013. Can you think of any respect in which Bonhams would have treated you differently, if it had concluded that you and your claims are ciphers with respect this car?
Okay. http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/138135184-post12.html Now that I've put up, you can take your own advice and follow through on the second half of that type deal. The real truth in the matter is You are 100% air, fake, fraud. I have no interest in getting you banned from this board. That's not my business. However, I would love for you to go back on your meds or do whatever it is you need to do to deal with objective reality. Your screeds about world conspiracy add nothing to this thread. And no, I have no interest in your 'evidence'. You have your free pass from Mr. Rob Lay so say what you like. Remember though, with privilege comes great responsibility.. Every time you post, the only purpose you serve is to validate Ocean Joe's assertions about new guests spreading disinformation. Good day.
I can confirm that Readplays (Mr. David Powers) writes is the truth. His 2008.10.22 post, written over a year before I bought my 70% interest from Kristi Kleve-Lawson, describes a letter and original 0384AM parts that we found in the Kleve estate in 2010. The "Ferrari Museum" letter he refers to is the letter that Jacques Swaters' attorney actually sent, after removing all traces and references to Swaters, Garage Francorchamps, and after adding the misleading reference to the Ferrari Museum - which was not involved - because, at the time, Jacques Swaters knew it was a stolen Ferrari and Jacques could not admit to being in possession of that stolen Ferrari. The parts that Mr. Powers mentions were also part of the Kleve estate. See photograph below, taken in 2013. The distributor is next to the hub spinner in the foreground. The tires on borrani rims are being loaded on the trolley. The body panels lean againts the storage walls. Good memory Mr. Powers! Joe * Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Again, '(tax) crooks love crooks!' That is the main truth in the matter at hand. It is all about who can get away with the larges amount of cash that they can, period. Without anyone ever trying to stop them (FBI etc.). This 100% fraudulent court case is all about major-creed, so what is new, right. It will never ever change. The U.S. criminal court systems is in the tank, forever, anyone at the FBI will tell you the same thing. There is NO-Gov-Funding happening in matters like this one. Period.
Joe, I am intrigued by the recent odometer mileage debate. The original bill of sale gives an odometer mileage that corresponds with the title documents but do you or Mr Powers ever recall seeing an odometer on the car or can anyone post a picture showing one fitted. Kim Image Unavailable, Please Login
OJ, "you are not the baby's daddy!" For your records: https://autos.yahoo.com/news/us-marshals-auctioning-off-rare-muscle-car-collection-163054978.html
there is no reason to dwell on odometer readings, they have been made moot by statue everywhere for collector cars... odometer statements are designed to prevent fraud in "new or newer" cars in general commerce ( consumer protection ) where lower mileage can bring better prices. Generally odometer statements apply to cars less than 10 years old that are generally thought to be used as basic transportation where the mileage represents the remaining useful life. The markets have determined that cars over 10 years are fully depreciated, used up and pose no threat to the general buying public from diminished value by tracking their mileage. There are not enough survivors worth tracking where mileage would be the determining factor of value to the general public...
If the US Government's Federal Bureau of Investigation actually uses this fool then they need new vetting procedures. Maybe in his deranged world FBI stands for something else. Wonder if his theme song is "They are coming to take me away, ha ha, he he". Then remember that the flip side was the entire song backwards.
The information stated above is completely true and quite accurate. "Great Observation"! The 1954 Ferrari 375 Plus #0384 was exported to the USA in 1954 with a Ferrari race instrument cluster. The 1954 Ferrari 375 Plus chassis #0384 with its famous 'notched headrest' is pictured here in Europe (LeMans 1954) without a speedometer. Therefore, the speedometer statement made in reference to the Ferrari is a false statement. Image Unavailable, Please Login
the statement about mileage / odometer is TOTAL BS... read the F'n statues, Seespotrun apparently has not read the statue when attesting to mileage, there are 3 choices, the actual is true as represented, the mileage shown is not accurate or the actual mileage is completely unknown....
Someone with the same name as you has been previously involved in a long running case with Gardner & Ford in France, I quote from a 2008 post in the Bugattibuilder forum: "This affidavit was by Cointreaus new witness, Bugatti middleman Bugatti middleman Mr. Patrick Faucompre. Faucompre issued the new affidavit after implicating a unsuspecting American Bugatti Club member under questionable circumstances in a phone conversation. The Faucompre document was deemed fictitious with the outraged Club member emerging immediately to issue a statement to the High Court of Angers that Faucompre had lied." Are you the same person mentioned on the Bugattibuilder forum ? M
Good find wrxmike. Yes it is the same person. I know the author of that article. Mr. Faucompre made a faux-pas then and he makes a faux-pas now with his odometer observations. My involvement with that French case started four or five years after the case had begun. Gardner was making no headway in the lower courts with his French attorney. Gardner's gullwing and Bugatti had been seized, while the dispute centered on another Bugatti and a pre-war Mercedes. I visited and helped Gardner's French attorney Xavier Vahramian (Lyons, FR) and later, gave a small assist to his French attorney Antoine Barret (Angers, FR) to grasp the classic car nuances of the complicated, classic car subject matter case. Handwriting analysis in that case played a significant role. That help in the French case is what got me noticed by the husband of debc who realized Kristi Kleve Lawson was in need of similar specialized, classic car subject matter help with her Ferrari 375 Plus #0384AM when she was served by Swaters on February 12, 2010. Link to the article: April 3, 2008 article at Bugatti: 2008 news Stand by for some developments on the Ohio front as I await a couple of new court orders. Joe *
Joe, can you explain what the faux-pax on the odometer is ? I am not questioning the ownership of 0384 by Karl Kleve but the reference to the odometer on the bill of sale and mileage on the Ohio BMV title implies there was an odometer fitted. However, Mr Faucompre and others have suggested otherwise, so can you explain the difference ?
I would answer your questions as follows, the point being to illustrate how this is a distraction -- it is actually a non-issue being raised by people involved in the 1989 theft in their laughable attempt to legtimize their theft by nit-picking obscure, irrelevant details which they cannot prove. So, here is my answer and analysis, 1) Please provide the Ohio and the Federal Odometer Statement Statute(s) that were in place in March of 1958, and that applied to a private Bill of Sale. [I don't think there are any at that time.] 2) Please explain your present reason (55 years later) for challenging Jim Kimberly's stated belief in March of 1958 that his odometer in his disassembled Ferrari read 4,340 miles. 3) Please provide the evidence you have that Jim Kimberly's stated belief in March of 1958 was, in his mind, false as opposed to mistaken. My information is that Kimberly owned many, many race cars and that the car in question was basically disassembled and at a Hively dealership at the time of sale. I do not know if, in March of 1958, an error was made and a part from another Ferrari had been tossed into the bundle of parts that came with the Ferrari that Kleve bought. In order for anyone to challenge that, the challenger must have different, provable evidence about the bundle of parts Kimberly provided in March of 1958. 4) I think it is well established that when Kleve obtained the disassembled Ferrari, it was not running and came with a bundle of parts. While in Kleve's possession, no more miles were logged on his Ferrari in any manner, thus the mileage amount did not change. 5) "To the best of my (our) knowledge" statements made on subsequent documents are not false statements, as they were apparently made the same way I made my statement, by simply relying on Kimberly's initial statement and the fact that it had been disassembled (not-running). Again, this odometer silliness illustrates how present Ferrari Chat members are distracted by a non-issue that has been raised by people involved in the 1989 theft in their laughable attempt to legtimize their theft by nit-picking obscure, irrelevant details. I actually spoke to one of those 1989 people a few months ago and he raised this precise odometer issue. He said more, and I just listened. I hope the above helps. Joe *
Joe, Can you respond to these two items regarding the Ohio cases as posted by 180 out? Jeff I wonder what happened in Judge Martin's courtroom today, in the Gardner v. Ford case. According to the docket there was a hearing of some kind today. I'm also wondering what it means, where the docket states that the "Status" of the September 2 trial is "Inactive." One more thing: there is a Motion to Dismiss calendared for October 14. Something's going on. I wonder what it is.
Joe, Not my list of questions answered but thanks anyway ! However, strange as it may seem, my question to you, Mr Power and any other chatter was actually about the car (shock, horror) and not about your legal case. You set this hare running by posting a studio picture of the 0386 dash in post 1814, suggesting the the dial configuration had been changed to add a speedometer. My interest and only question, was simply to ascertain when or why this may have occurred as I could find no photographic evidence to dispel the opinion of Monsieur Faucompre's and his odometer "faux-pax". There really is no need to give me the legalise "best of my (our) knowledge", "simply relying" or any other promotion of your legal position as a simple "don't know" will suffice. Are there any enthusiasts left who are willing to come out of their bunker and share their knowledge ? Kim
agreed; I have never seen an odometer on a 1950s, even serial-numbered Ferrari and am curious to see it.
This is my experience....at a certain age, it goes to "NA" or "exempt" and no one cares. How many have actually REGISTERED for road use, a four or five digit VIN Ferrari...it's like taking the day behind the Looking Glass....seriously.
One can click on the "inactive" label on the Ohio court's docket and an explanation of the term is provided. My interpretation of the explanation is, the item labeled "inactive" has been superseded by a later item, and in fact that docket shows a scheduled hearing that is later than the one labeled "inactive". Regards, Showme1946
