I did about 13 years ago in Virginia, and nearly got arrested at the DMV. My Ferrari's serial #, 11199, also happened to be the serial number of a stolen trailer. I managed to convince the DMV head and the armed County cop on the premises that my 1968 Ferrari was not a stolen trailer. So they added an "e" to the end of my serial on the registration and title to differentiate it from the hot trailer.
Joe, Some questions: 1. Do you know what rationale was used by Bonhams to allow them to justify proceeding with the offering although you and Lawson objected? 2. Any more information on the miraculous last minute title claim right before the auction? 3. Do you have knowledge of any potential bidders that stayed away from the auction because of the legal commotion? Jeff
pity the next owner as he tries to explain the addition of a character to the serial number when he tries to register the car in his home state... the car is stolen or you get pulled over for some reason and they try to verify the registration with the numbers on the car... :=) :=) this is an example how car documents get fouled up, a seemingly simple change to expedite registration can potentially foul up future identification of the car
No ****. And some people on this thread have know idea. Title/ownership/bill of sale. I have first hand experience, my father left me 3 cars 2 no title no bill of sale. All three 1960-1966. New posters with the Kleve never owned it, it's a fake, odometer statement is wrong. Have not a single clue of the history of title/registration in the US. State by state. Trolls they are. I hope to enjoy a double cheesy burger with cheesy fries next time I'm in your area. <moderators I admit to trolling Max Vito here. All in fun. Forgive me please.
A.K.A.: Mr. Giles Christian Faucompre ~ I have been reviewing the case, analyzing it, and thinking. Now that you seem to feel complacent about posting to this thread, can we clarify a few questions here? You can start by explaining who Giles Christian is, and what that name has to do with you and the theft of 0384AM. Were you part of the conspiratorial enterprise of the theft of Karl Kleve's Ferrari? Were you using an alias known as Giles Christian, and were you (Giles) handling the $50,000 cash for Guy Anderson in February 1989? Back when the heat was on Guy Anderson and Michael Kruch in 1989, did you suggust pawning the car off to Swaters? Were you in fact the organizer or one of the rackteers for Michael Kruch? What is your involvement within the 'period' when the two 'replica' cars - 0386AM and 0398TF were constructed? At the time of the Kleve theft in 1989, did you have “Aerial” photos of Karl Kleve's junk yards/properties? Lets discuss post #1132, and your odometer concerns... What is your reason for pressing the issue of an odometer statement? Especially since there was no odometer to begin with. It’s a bit ludicrous as you claim to be an expert on Ferrari 375 Plus race cars. Did you (Giles Christian or Patrick Faucompre) fill out the odometer statements for both Ferrari 0386AM and 0398TF? Did you assist in the FIA papers of 0386AM in 1993? What 'other' auction house directed you to use paperwork from Ferrari #0364AM to paint a picture that you make out as a lead-in to James Kimberly's signature and address as being an illusion of 0384AM ownership? Does that make any sense? Has the FBI contacted you at any time, especially recently, about your ‘supposed ’ confidential association with BIG name collectors of other rare Ferrari cars and of course the cars that you own, the fake ones? By the way, how is your ongoing relationship with Guy Anderson these days? Have you taken any trips to Parma or Posadas lately? Or are you still living in Washington?
Paraquat ( aka banned lethal weed killer ) is certainly standing up to his handle in short order, while joining the saga well equipped, from a different perspective... the bet is to watch the "weeds" dry up and blow away, not to be seen again
Well, whoever Paraquat is, he has access to info that only I thought I had. Paraquat's questions are quite good. Again, I thought only the innermost circle had the info to give rise to such questions. Add the name Christian Hollinger to the list of "persons of interest." And for those Ferrari researcher/detectives who are really on their game, can you identify this freshly bodied "car" in the Oct. 4, 1993 photo below? Care to explain the significance of the buidling and Borgo Montassu address of the second photo? Maybe somebody out there has updated photos of this "car" with its owners - please share. Mr. Marcel, perhaps you can contribute on this photo with some names. Joe * Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
As to ? #1: Yes, I think I do. FWIW, one of the new court orders finally hit the electronic court docket. I will post it tomorrow. As to ? #2: Paraquat raised some interesting points that bear on the last minute claim made right before the unauthorized "auction". It is my view that if Bonhams had a competent research team or consultants, or had Bonhams consulted me, before the unauthorized "auction", then Bonhams would already know the answer to my questions on my post #1858, and would know how it is connected to that last minute claim, a claim which in my view is a calculated deception. It is now almost two months since the unuathorized "auction," and Bonhams still conceals all Zanotti claim documents from Ford and from Lawson. What are they hiding? Why was it concealed at the outset? Why continue to conceal it? As to ? #3: Yes, I know of interested, qualified buyers that DID NOT participate. Joe *
Zanotti had a Mechanic's Lien on the car, possibly for building the body, or the many missing component parts, engine work or almost anything. Work that was done in Europe to have validity. Just a wild guess......whatever it was must have had legs. $2M isn't exactly chump change.....
This question has been asked many times by the nice people of F-chat. Answer: There was NOT a speedometer in the 375 Plus when it was imported into USA or when exported from Europe. (1954) Therefore, someone signed In Ohio . a false odometer statement to secure paperwork for a 1955 Ferrari while applying for court ordered title. (1997) That B.O.S. dated 1958 describes a motor vehicle sale directly from Kimberly to Kleve. False! Kleve did not have access to the vehicle in that year or any year in the 50s. Kleve stated his involvement with the Ferrari began in the 1960s. The document being displayed as a Bill of Sale is a forged document designed to create a False chain of ownership. A simple acid test to the original document would prove the date in which that forged document was created. There are many statements in F-chat declaring that a title was not needed to establish ownership. Then, why do some F-chat observers base their opinions on the newest title document as proof of ownership? Would not a simple bill of sale from Karl Kleve to his daughter achieve the same result? Answer is; No, No, No, it would not. In order to established credible proof, the ownership/ title document needs to be certified by inclusion into state records. If there is no original proof of purchase then a Court Ordered title would have to be applied for. A Court Ordered title in Ohio is one that is not supported by original ownership documents. Lets look at the posted Proof of Ownership; namely the 1958 Bill of Sale directly from Jim Kimberly to Karl Kleve. 1) Date: March 20 1958 March 23 1958 Kimberly would have been at Sebring testing and then racing his Maserati 200. 2) 2340 des Plaines Ave in Chicago, Illinois area. That is track housing and not a mansion that Kimberly was accustomed to living in. Kimberly was a multi-millionaire playboy and hosted parties for his important friends, actors & actresses, politicians, and race buddys. Google the address and have a look. Can you see Kimberly hosting his lavish parties there? 3) Price of 2500 was paid in 1958. False! That price was not stated by Kleve, however he did state another price. 4) Year of the car was 1954- 1955. Jim Kimberly certainly knew the year he bought the Ferrari. If that document was submitted to Ohio BMV then why is it not on the title. 5)Jim Kimberly sold the Ferrari to a Mr. Howard Hively as a beautiful running and driving vehicle. Hively went on to race the vehicle for years. Then, how could this BOS document make sense to anyone. 6)Odometer 4340 statement on the Bill of Sale , The odometer statement would be a fraudulent statement associated to this fraudulent Bill of Sale. No Speedometer therefore no odometer. 7) No documents could be produced in the 1989 court proceedings in Georgia since the documents did not exist. However, now a Bill of Sale document has mysteriously appeared in Europe sometime between 1999 and 2004. Has that false document been submitttied as evidence in Ohio as proof of ownership? 8) The automobile is in damaged condition. FALSE! The car was perfect and included spares in 1958 and beyond. 9) Finally the form of the Bill of Sale, the structure of the bill of sale and the signature. Jim Kimberly was a Paper Magnate. He earned his fortunes on paper. He monogrammed his paper plates with the Scuderia Kimberly logo in gold on red. He monogrammed his napkins and all other paper products in association to his name and activity he was engaged in. But now, we are to believe he would make such a Bill of Sale. Lets summarize: The vehicle was not listed stolen in 1989 since there was no Title or proof of ownership. The title document has not been produced because it did not exist. The bill of sale used to establish chain of ownership is a fraudulent document. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
I am no expert in signature analysis (well of the graphology kind at least), but it looks like there are some real differences between the two signatures.
One day someone will ask why as to the above choice of words. That is not true. Check the sworn deposition testimony, which stood up on cross by your attorney. Please, hire a lawyer and have him write a brief on the subject. Then we can talk, intelligently. Again, not true, for example, in this very case, in which state records (i.e. titles) were purged periodically. Thus Kleve went through the Court process and re-established his ownership, and the title was re-issued. This re-issuance does not mean his ownership only began on that date, it means a title reflective of his ownership was issued that date. If you have the Bill of Sale from Ferrari to Kimberly, post it. If you have the Bill of Sale from Kimberly to Hively, post it. Back up your statements with evidence. Since you seem to know so much, could you tell me which witness Guy Anderson intimidated as described in the February 1990 court records. Was this intimidation related to the 1989 trial, the year before? Are the intials of the witness YT? Also, please explain the VIN plate atop the VIN plate issue on the racing Pantera in a deal between Guy Anderson and Michel Kruch using the port of Antwerpt. Yeah, lets. You have no credibility and you show no evidence. Why now? Why try to change 1989 history? Post the letter that you received in January of 2014. Joe * Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
The truth from Karl Kleve in 1998: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWvJGV_3NNU Also seems pretty lucid for an 85 year old.. ( hey Max ? )
I'm sure they will say "It's a fraud. That's an automaton, not Karl Kleve!" "Foul!!" " He never existed" He seems real specific on title transfer from Kimberly. Seems to dispel a lot of the nonsense being spewed on here. Perry
Posted on the court case Gardner v Ford 8/22/2014 NOTICE OF APPEALABLE JUDGMENT SENT BY ORDINARY MAIL TO ALL PARTIES REQUIRED BY LAW. 8/20/2014 ENTRY GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION I assume this is given after the numerous submissions and filing.
Agreed and given this was the year before the disputed sales agreement he certainly does not sound like a man that was interested in selling. Interesting he confirms that Daniels had his power of attorney and in my mind, the obvious exclusion of Daniels from this legal case is the big unanswered question. If the Ohio Contingent claim he overstepped his authority in signing the numerous sale related documents/agreements, then why are they not pursuing him too ? Either they have a claim for the money Kleve did not receive on a valid contract or for a claim for part he played in constructing an invalid contract. To me, the obvious answer is that Florence Swaters is an easier and more lucrative target
My surmising of the OC logic on this: - Agree on where more money is available - Daniels lacked the authority to make the deal he did with Swaters - Swaters knew that the deal was flawed - Swaters was colluding with Daniels to execute a known flawed deal
The current legal conflict started in 2005, when Kristine Kleve Lawson engaged Kruse International to auction some of Karl Kleve's vehicles and the Ferrari parts. Jacques Swaters'attorney sent a letter to Kristine Kleve Lawson demanding that the parts be turned over to Jacques Swaters, and Kristine Kleve Lawson then withdrew them from the auction. Jacques Swaters position seemed to be that, when he purchased "the Ferrari" from Karl Kleve under the disputed contract, he also became the owner of the parts that Karl Kleve had taken off the car before it was stolen. Jacques Swaters apparently claims that the parts were still part of the car, even though they were removed from it. Perhaps Jacques Swaters didn't know the parts still existed until he saw the auction listing. ? So to recap this started when Jacques Swaters filed the lawsuit to clear up the title to the car and to claim ownership of the VIN plate, hood, fuel tank, steering wheel, wheels, instruments and other body parts that Karl Kleve had taken off the Ferrari before it had been stolen. That turned out to be a bad move on Swaters part, because the defence of that case ended up lifting the lid on the theft of the car again, (thanks largely to OJ research).In the end to settle that dispute the parties agreed to sell the car and split the proceeds. What it means is that the Swaters heirs, instead of obtaining the remaining bits and retaining the car, agree to a deal where they ends up with 50% of the value of the car & bits. The current legal action stems from a dispute amongst the Ohio contingent, but has snowballed in to something much larger than that, with more parties involved and again raised the ownership stakes because parties claim that the settlement and sales agreement is null and void because it had expired because of non performance.
I agree but this is the OJ/Ohio Contingent view of life and still needs to be proved in a court of law. The Belgium Contingent see things differently
There is something insidious about your posts on this forum. You have evaded answering questions, or/either, your answers are fragmented, incomplete disclosures, abstract mumbo jumbo and its time for some real answers, time for the truth. Lets talk intelligently and hear it now. Start posting clear and complete answers in plain english to the questions asked of you on this forum. You are leaving out major parts to the story, and IMO there is a reason why you are deliberately avoiding answering the questions. Since, I cant quite seem to place my finger on exactly what your problem is, instead, let me ask you this . ¿Are you about to marry your niece? If so, please dont muster our intelligence with perfidious posts and continue to evade questions, answer only in garbled half truths and withhold important facts to the fable. Another thing, your lack of technical knowledge on the plus series is apparent, adds even more suspicion to your dubious claim of 70% title rights to 0384AM, makes a prudent observer wonder what the hell is really going on. Its enough to make one chunder. Have you ever in your lifetime seen a Ferrari 375 Plus or examined one? or for that matter sat, drove, smelled, bought, or touched any other vintage Ferrari in your glorious car career? I doubt you have, your total knowledge seems to be a Wiki. I cant understand this statement here; "You know of a buyer for more than the auction price", but, yet, you failed to appear at the Goodwood Festival of Speed auction with these supposed high bidders. Why werent you and Kristie at Bonhams? Reading all that is posted in this thread, I have yet to see anything that you have actually done to entitle you to a percentage in this entire deal. Can you explain what you did that constitutes a contribution to an ownership position on a car that you have never seen, touched or examined? Seems clear that you are a one-sided party to this agreement, with zero genuine ownership interest. Tell us, where did you get the money to pay Kristie Kleve Lawson for the parts and your 70% interest in the first place and what was the total amount you gave her? Certainly not by selling clams on eBay. Still digging? Better get a new shovel. You might need to dig yourself out of the mud from where its you that is lurking. BTW....I have access to a link with all the Joe Ford depositions, both printed and video taped. He puts on a stupendous display of his grandiose delusions, which doesn't surprize me. Reality is, he is a gloating old fat man pretending he's a famous young superhero who thinks he owns 70% of a $16,000,000 Ferrari 375+ and sells clams for a living. Really?
I agree with your logic Jeff although the OC still have to prove Swaters actually knew and colluded and that Daniels exceeded his POA in the Courts. We always forget that the architect of the deal appears to have been Swaters partner Lancksweet but as you say, the best tactic is forget who was most at fault and go where the money is and in this case it is Florence, the daughter of Jaques Swaters, who now owns the car. Step 1: Throw as much mud as you can at her recently deceased father (proof or not as dead men can't sue) in the hope that she is embarrassed enough to settle in order to protect the memory of her father. Step 2: Negotiate a settlement. Step 3: In the event that things do not work out as planned then return to Step 1 and start again. K
You have that right. It is clear that those who slander Karl Kleve have a their own, self-serving agenda. Ad-hominem attacks often indicate that the truth resides with the one being attacked. So, while engaged in the quest for truth, let me toss out the below. It is relevant in ways that will be revealed in due time. For now, notice the tractor on the right. It has the ability to answer questions. Question - Did the posters named metalfinder, chris gardner, onebugatti, flobert, neil dubois, old racer, chrikky, and paraquat attend different schools or the same school? Smart tractor. Joe * Image Unavailable, Please Login
Ditto Jaques Swaters ! (but I do agree a great injustice was done to Karl Kleve in Europe and the US)
