Busy day to day Sean so in it may take a while to answer all of your questions First question and short answer is that Daniels was not party to the 1999 contract he was simply an authorised signatory. He was also not the one trying to sell the title and parts. I recommend reading all of the documents on the Swaters website to understand their perspective and ask you the same question ? Long answer using OJ's much used lottery ticket example. I employ a man to sell lottery tickets and he turns up at your house holding his tin and waiving his photo iD. He sells you a ticket and you pay him. Some months later you find out you have the winning ticket and you turn up at my house with your ticket wanting your winnings. I admit I employed the man and sent him to your house but tell you I cannot find the money for your ticket and that the winning ticket is actually mine. I then go on to call you a crook claiming your ticket was a forgery. Who are you going to go after, the man with the winnings or his employee who sold you the ticket ?
Sean, short & concise and definitely post of the day. Swaters must have known exactly what he was doing. By '99 I would suppose that either he or Lanksweert had decided to tie up the loose ends. They would just as likely thought senile old man in Ohio lets pay an amount and see if it sticks. I don't believe even Florence new what had taken place. I reckon for all she knew the car was hers and that the sale had concluded in '99 or '89 and what were these hillbillies in Ohio doing selling her parts and stuff. Btw, I don't believe that Mark Daniels was working for KK for one minute, he was as likely working for the BC, just like the thieves in '89, since by the time the deal had "concluded" since it was highly likely old man KK was never going to agree to sell. Directly or indirectly that's where their payday was. Finally OJ stated there is no innocent purchase law in Belgium, which answers a question I have long pondered. I don't guess Belgium is any more corrupt than any other country but I wonder who got bribed or what to accept all of the dodgy dealings in 1989/1990 not limited to, low customs valuation compared to value, claim it was only parts, seizure and release, changing vin and of course the wee matter of purchasing stolen property, knowingly or not. None of which were ever dealt with. Happy days.
Sean, an excellent question and this along with the time it took Swaters and his partner to resolve the injustice has always troubled me. As you say, $625,000 is a lot of money to pay in 1999 to then wait 10 years to collect the parts. I re-read the 1999 settlement agreement posted on the Jaques Swaters website and looked at the documents with a surprising result The Case of ?0384AM? | Jacques Swaters Firstly, Swaters was given a theft release and a cancelled title in 1999, so there appears to be no reason for him to believe he didn't have title or to make a claim. Secondly, and the most surprising, is that I could find no reference in the settlement agreement to Swaters ever buying the parts. This is very curious as the claim in 2010 makes reference to the parts. You would think that if he did buy the parts then there would be a reference and a list attached in the agreement. I may have missed something but if Swaters only wanted to purchase the title then this would explain why he only took action 10 years later, after he discovered that someone else was trying to sell it. The alternative sinister answer and my question to you is, if Swaters knew the 1999 settlement was a fraud then why do you think he would risk or what had he to gain in paying out "sooo much money" to buy a title that Kleve and his daughters would always claim to be their own ? Kim
Kim, None of us actually know Jacques Swaters but there are two options there imo. He could be an absolute upper class snob, you English would know all about that eh . Or maybe he is one of the sadly few to have been in a position of money, power and prestige and NOT become a ****. And so much depends on the answer. For a little texture he may also have done his own research OR may have relied on his advisers. There are two options in my mind, either he came out of '99 having been assured by Lanksweert and Daniels that he now owned #0384AM, had full and clear title to it and all was sweet. OR if he did his own research and wasn't a complete ****, he would know that he had possibly been scammed but status quo prevailed and since he had no plans to move or sell the car it didn't matter. The fact that JS wrote the cheque to Mark Daniels makes the second option more likely. Florence probably wouldn't have known anything other than my father bought a car in 1990 and these people are messing with my business. But none of us actually knew either of the Swaters and so its all supposition, innit.
My understanding is that Lancksweert wanted Swaters to buy him out in 1997 - 1998. Swaters refused due to the lack of title and lack of marketability of their jointly owned 0394AM, and the fact that 0384AM was still listed as stolen in the NCIC database. Lancksweert attempts to deal with Daniels. The back and forth spans months and months. When it appears that Lancksweert is serious Kleve asks around and get other offers up to $3,500,000. This is in the documents and taped conversations. So Lancksweert is somehow in contact with the person from Georgia below, only days before the NYC deal with Daniels, which results in Lancksweert obtaining the forged documents. That is what Swaters got from Lancksweert - forged documents. And then, poof, abra-cadara, 0394AM becomes 0384AM. Kleve is on record in 1999 as never having authorized a sale by anyone AND in stating that Kleve's price is $3,500,000. Later, Lancksweert is successful in convincing Swaters to buy Lancksweert out. In 2010, Lancksweert admits in his affidavit that the Ohio parts were expressly excluded from the 1999 "sale". The fact that Lancksweert believed Daniels in 1999 when he said the parts were stolen and thus "excluded" speaks volumes - as does the fact that apparently, Lancksweert did not tell Swaters that the parts were excluded because years later, Swaters is demanding the parts from Kleve's estate. Now you understand the Lancksweert-Swaters dynamic, and the connection to the Georgia man named below. And for those legal eagles out there, the remedy for when a rogue agent goes rogue, and the victim did his due diligence and acted properly, is to make the victim whole, by holding the principal liable for the acts of the agent, i.e. pay the victim the $625,000 -- the "sale" is NEVER a real sale and the car is put back to its stolen status. I do not think Lancksweert qualifies for due diligence, so in this case the remedy is for Lancksweert to sue Daniels to get his money back. Swaters actually began such an effort with a Swiss attorney - Daniels stonewalled him. The below is from Swaters' docs produced in Ohio court. If anyone has better evidence and info, please post it. Joe * Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Now if you are going to insult the English I will have to start my sheep jokes ! I never met Jacques Swaters but have formed an opinion based on what I read and what people, who did know him, have to say about the man (and they do read this forum). Personally, I would not buy a car knowing it was stolen, with the justification that I was saving it for the nation, but equally I am not someone to judge the man based on IMHO opinions posted on this website or from people who clearly have their own agenda. One thing for certain is he was not an "upper class snob", he was far from it. Read his website and his obituaries, if you have not already done so, to see he was a man who suffered hardship but did something with his life. About Jacques | Jacques Swaters
Sean, this has become a self perpetuating myth and yes it is still funny to think the best way to hide a 375+ was to put it on display at the Ferrari museum. Please someone, post the evidence that Swaters actually re-numbered the car and it ever had a chassis plate with 0394AM stamped on it. It is accepted that the number was referred to and clouded the initial investigation by the Belgium authorities but the purchase was publicised and the real identity was widely known. The FIA documents, the Belgium registration, the Bill of Sale to Swaters, the Kruch invoice and the import documents all show 0384AM. Only the new engine was numbered 0394AM no doubt because 0384AM was already in existence. Maybe Joe can post a copy of something tangible other than references to 0394AM in Barchetta or a magazine. What about copy of the often referred to bill of lading for the "automobile parts" ? Kim
Per post 612, Cavallino was certainly informed that the Swaters car was #0394AM as published in period and that wouldn't have been accidental. Who knows who told who and what was said but they must have been told the car was #0394AM. And if he admitted owning stolen property ahem #0384AM then why no action by the police, FBI, US congressman that tried to repatriate etc. They were all either put off by the #0394AM claims or someone was getting bribed. I am happy to be proven wrong but I don't see any other way. Honestly Kiwis only like sheep because they keep you warm at night and they never talk LOL. Even us Kiwi's have the occasional inbreds, ahem, upper class toff's but I can only imagine what some parts of the UK must be like. Anyway jolly good show old chap.........
Timmmmy, Google 0394AM and you will find plenty of period photos of the car racing I have acknowledged the use and ambiguity of 0394AM in this case from the outset. What I am asking for is posting of the evidence as I do not believe the car was ever stamped or documented with the number Happy to be proved wrong !
Does anybody here have an idea how much Mr. Swaters paid for the original engine from Mr. Leydorf in 2003/2004?
for what it's worth, MSN did a bit on billionaires today... the have Les Wexner as the wealthiest in the State of Ohio at 5.1 Billion... Victoria's Secret is one of his brands... which should be enough grunt to go up against Bonhams
Yes, all Wexner has to do is purchase a majority of the Members of Parliament and persuade them to reverse 500 years of common law by repealing the requirement that a fraud claimant must not have known the truth about the defendant's allegedly false representation. Sofa cushion money for a 5.1 billionaire.
Brilliant ! Lots of posting on "that other" website A full transcript of the 8th August 2013 court hearing and interesting references to the conspicuously absent Mr Daniels A statement that there was a hearing on 3rd November 2014 where Judge Martin ordered the Gardner/Ford arbitration to be finished by 1st June 2015. Oj's defence of the Gardner claim which include a reference to a "crossclaim against co-defendant Kristin Kleve Lawson" Finally, that OJ has responded to the stakeholders claim in London and is demanding 100% of the total proceeds
there is no need, he is irrelevant, Daniels has nothing to proffer or to refute with current litigation... his role has played out... if the litigants thought there was something to be gained in the current round of litigation from his testimony they would have sought his presence through subpoena or deposition
The interesting thing about Joe Ford's October 28, 2013, Answer and Counterclaim, that has been uploaded and linked in That Other Site, is that it alleges that the Heads of Agreement continues to define the rights of its signatories, notwithstanding that the September 2013 Goodwood Festival had come and gone with no auction of #0384. A pleading allegation can be nothing more than a placeholder, a device to reserve a claim which might be deemed waived if it is not asserted in an Answer and Counterclaim. But this is the second example this week of Joe Ford representing to Judge Martin that the HoA continued to be an enforceable contract after September 2013. The other additional instance -- many additional instances actually -- are in the transcript of the December 16, 2013, hearing (also uploaded this week to That Other Site), wherein Joe Ford's attorney Rinear relied on the terms of the HoA to oppose Christopher Gardner's motion to reform the "70/30" Ohio title. One example is where, Rinear told Judge Martin that, as of that date (December 16) the HoA continued to be effective to negate Ohio jurisdiction over Gardner's motion to reform the "70/30" title. Here's Rinear at p. 8 of that transcript: "And in that Heads of Agreement, it even says, which is filed in Judge Nadel's courtroom, this document, under paragraph 4, Bonhams, the European contingent in the ohio parties, will all work closely together to resolve all problems related to the car's history and ownership, and present a detailed and transparent account of the car's ownership from new. So they all agreed that Bonhams would deal with any title issues so that the title could be transferred." Here's Judge Martin and Rinear at p. 12: "THE CQURT: Is it your client's position that Bonhams, at this point anyway, has the exclusive right to transfer this vehicle, sell the vehicle, handle all the stuff and resolve any title issues if they exist? "MR. RINEAR: Yes. . . . ". . . [A]s it stands right now, Bonhams holds everything." Again at pp. 34-35 of the transcript: "MR. RINEAR: . . . Judge Nadel . . . chose the route that the parties [i.e., Ford, Lawson, Swaters and Gardner] asked him to go, which was just ship it all to Bonhams, . . . all of them sent powers of attorneys over, all of them sent instruction letters to Bonhams saying please hold the money until we figure out how we're dividing it. "THE COURT: And Bonhams has got all that stuff? "MR. RINEAR: And Bonhams has got it all right now. That title is secure where it sits. Nobody can sell this car. Nobody can transfer this car or do anything with this car [that is, Judge Martin cannot grant Gardner's request to reform the "70/30" title] because Bonhams holds everything. There was also this exchange between Gardner's attorney and Judge Martin, in the presence of Ford's attorneys Smith, Rinear, and Collins, to which they did not object: "MR. GOTTESMAN: Your Honor, this case will come down to at some point a simple question of the distribution of the proceeds of the sale [which of course had not yet happened]. "THE COURT: I know. "MR. GOTTESMAN: okay. The title for purposes of that does not matter. Mr. Collins and I have discussed that. I think Mr. Smith agrees the title, which normally would direct how proceeds are distributed, is not going to change what -- we're not going to argue that the title dictates distribution." Yet another such piece of contradictory evidence is that Ford's three attorneys sat silent when Judge Martin said this, at p. 53: "But my suggestion would be that you all call Bonhams and say -- and get some judgment from them as to what they need to be done to maximize the sale price of this car, which everybody agrees should be [done] -- nobody is talking about putting an engine in this thing and putting it on a boat and driving it home." The significance of Joe Ford's reliance on the provisions of the HoA in a post-September 2013 time-frame, to support his interests as he then perceived them, include the fact that they give real-world evidentiary support to the representation at p. 130 of Bonhams' June 2014 catalog: "Today – with all relevant litigation settled - this magnificently presented ex- González Silverstone-winning, ex-Maglioli Mille Miglia and Le Mans works Ferrari is now poised to enter a caring new ownership." Of course this post-September 2013 reliance also belies Joe Ford's present vehement claim that the HoA expired in its entirety when Bonhams failed to auction it at the September 2013 Goodwood Festival. I accept that Joe Ford now perceives it to be in his interest to adopt the posture that he and Lawson, when they signed the HoA in May 2013, intended that everyone's litigation claims should be liquidated in September 2013 or not at all (although I don't understand why he sees a benefit for him and Lawson in this result). But it is undeniably the case that this posture is a recent invention.
Your statement is incorrect. The claim/counterclaim refers to the dispute about the HOA. Nowhere does the claim/counterclaim say the HOA extends to rights, obligations, or auctions beyond the expressly defined Sept 2013 auction -- the HOA set forth and affected pre Sept 2013 rights, duties, obligations. Asking for relief at a later point in time AS WE ARE NOW DOING does not mean you must then believe the HOA still affects or applies to current obligations or other undefined auctions. That was Gottesman's speculative belief and it was wrong the moment he said it, as was the Court's agreement with that speculative belief. The issue here is about authority from an owner to sell his property. If Bonhams truely had the authority it claimed to have, then the deal would have closed 4 months ago. It just goes to prove a very basic tenet of law - you can't sell someone's property without their permission. PERIOD. Well, that was NOT the case. It is merely a judge musing about how he perceives things at that point in time, a very early and uniformed point in time. The call to Bonhams was NOT made. So Bill you are repeatedly incorrect about your statements because you take things out of the context. A Judge musing about his thoughts at a particular point in time are nothing more than musing about his thoughts at a particular point in time. My posture about the HOA having expired has been consistently expressed. The NEW EVIDENCE will be a gamechanger. AGAIN, you are flat out wrong. I made my position clear that the HOA would expire and did expire. I posted it on this Ferrari Chat. See my July 29, 2013 Default Notice. See my August 2, 2013 Reply to Swaters Motion to Enforce the HOA. See my September 24, 2013 POA Withdrawal. [F Chat p64, post 1268; F Chat p52, post 1205] -- below is my 2013.08.02 Reply to Swaters Motion to Enforce. Please take care as I think many readers look up to your analysis. My position about HOA expiration and limitation to a Sept. 2013 auction is old, consistent, and repeatedly articulated, regardless if the HOA is an agreement to agree or a legally enforceable contract. And the NEW EVIDENCE will be a gamechanger. Be on the lookout for UK and US media coverage this weekend .... and pass the popcorn! Joe * Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Thank you Bill I do not understand Kristie Kleve Lawsons current position in this. We can see from the Swaters settlement defence in para 22(1) a reference to a purported transfer of her interest to Gardner. We already know she received payment from Gardner for her remaining 30% (copy of the affidavit is posted). We also know the Judge Nadel declared the March 2011 title and the sale and option agreement null and void and Ford has generously supported the reversal. My question is, could Gardner or Ford have a claim to reinstate the original deal for the additional 30% (leaving a 10% lien) and negate the Court order ? I can see why Judge Nadel would make such an order for contempt but in reality the change in percentages made little or no difference to the claim for breach of contract. We have also seen in para 30 of Fords answer to the Gardner claim that he has referred to a crossclaim against Lawson for breach of contract and declaratory judgement. Maybe OJ can explain what is going on
Of course you have greater knowledge than anyone on this board of the context of the December 2013 hearing on Gardner's motion to reform the "70/30" title, and of the context of your October 2013 Answer and Crossclaim. But unless someone who was present at the December 2013 hearing comes forward to deny it, it comes through loud and clear in the 60-page transcript that no one in that post-Goodwood courtroom believed or contended that the HoA had expired in September 2013. No one! It also is the case that, in your post-Goodwood Answer and Crossclaim, you plead as follows: "Pursuant to Ohio [law] . . . Ford requests an Order of this Court declaring the rights, duties and obligations of the parties hereto under the contractual agreements at issue. Pursuant to the "Heads of Agreement," the Agreements between Gardner and Ford, and the other contractual agreements at issue, Defendant, Joseph Ford requests a declaration that Plaintiff Gardner breached the agreements, and is entitled to take nothing." As I wrote in my previous post, you are alleging that the HoA continued to define your rights and obligations in this post-Goodwood context. I also already wrote that a pleading allegation may be asserted solely in order to preclude a claim of waiver. But it is also true that nowhere in your admissions and denials of the allegations of Gardner's Complaint, nowhere in 11 affirmative defenses, and nowhere in two Counterclaims do you allege that the HoA had expired in September 2013. I wrote a week ago that I did not want to take the time to read the December 2013 transcript, to see if it verified or refuted your claim that Mr. Rinear intended to limit his comments regarding the effect of the HoA to the pre-Goodwood era . Obviously I changed my mind and I did read the full transcrip. That's an hour of my life I'll never get back. But I also don't want to take the time to read the various documents you cite today. I note that all of them pre-date the September 2013 Goodwood Festival, and that in the pre-Goodwood era you perceived your interests to be best served by a contention that the HoA was binding on the parties. So I doubt that any of these pre-Goodwood documents include a statement on your behalf that, if the September 2013 auction did no occur, then the HoA would cease to have any further effect. If I am wrong, please show me the document where you stated this. Also, let's keep in mind that the primary relevance of these disputes regarding your ever-changing litigation posture has to do with whether Bonhams breached a duty when it represented in its June 2014 catalog that "all relevant litigation [is] settled." That statement can only be actionable if high level Bonhams personnel actually knew it to be false, or if such persons had a duty to discover its falsity and negligently failed to do so.
I think it best for all to focus on the results of the hearing on a particular motion, not on the back and forth, sometimes rambling, that occurs during a hearing. What is the outcome? The outcome on that Motion to Reform the Title is that the Court would not CHANGE THE OHIO TITLE, and it lists FORD AND LAWSON AS OWNERS WITHOUT ANY LIENHOLDER. Wrong again. That statement goes without saying that it is to determine rights and remedies pursuant to the HOA while the HOA was in effect (i.e. between signing until expiration). Who interprets that to mean anything else? That is just goofy. You are wrong. September 24, 2013 does not predate September 14, 2013, thus they are before and after. I did, in the prior post-- the July 29, 2013 notice of default. Wrong again Bill. I have no dog in that fight - the buyer was deceived by Bonhams, not me. Appeals were pending, thus in ANY world the relevant litigation is not settled. I make no such claim that I relied on the catalogue. I do not think Copley claims he relied on the catalogue either. Lawyers for Copley articulated their claim, extremely well IMHO. Read it, all of it. It does not rely on what you think it relies on. IMHO Bonhams acted deceptively and is in trouble. Joe *
The one thing that I have been waiting for is thus: If the Bonham's/Copley/Wexner auction acquisition fails -- what happens with 0384AM at that point: Does Swaters daughter retain possession? If she does (and is tired of the legal issues), what is to prevent her from just burying it in the back of a storage garage in Europe for 20+ years and dealing with it later. (whatever bitsa parts from the OC per the court order go back to Ohio of course)
The outcome is that, in a post-Goodwood hearing, Gardner asked Judge Martin to reform the "70/30" title; that Ford -- with three attorneys to represent him -- opposed on the ground that the HoA defined the parties' rights and duties, and on the ground that under the HoA Bonhams was to perform a future sale and at the conclusion of that sale Bonhams had the sole discretion to decide what to do with the "70/30" title; and that Judge Martin agreed. Because Ford relied on these contentions to get the relief he requested -- an order to deny Gardner's request -- from December 2013 on, Ford is bound to these contentions as a party admission, regardless of what his personal contentions may have been prior to or after that date. And as long as we're focusing on how judicial officers have actually ruled, let's also remember that Judge Nadel on a number of occasions, the Court of Appeals on one occasion (soon to be two), and Judge Martin an unknown number of times have, in contested proceedings, ruled that the HoA continues to control the parties' rights and obligations with respect to #0384. Then call me goofy. When a party files an Answer and Counterclaim which, in 30 paragraphs of admissions and denials, 11 affirmative defenses, and two affirmative counterclaims for relief, fails to mention that this party contends that the HoA had expired in September 2013, and when six weeks later this same party represents to the judge who is hearing this same case that the HoA continues at that time to define the parties' rights and obligations with respect to #0384, an objective observer would conclude that the party's request for a judicial declaration of his rights and obligations under the HoA with respect to #0384 included rights and obligations which would continue in effect in the post-Goodwood period, including through a future Bonhams auction. You got me there. Nearly every year that I can remember, September 24 has postdated September 14. But it is also the case that, in December 2013, you continued to contend that the HoA controlled your rights and obligations with respect to #0384, and this party admission preempts everything that went before it. I don't think we've seen a copy of the Copley-Wexner writ. But it is my understanding that Copley-Wexner seek to undo the sale, return the car and get Wexner's money back, on the ground that Bonhams' catalog, and other private representations, that Wexner could export the car to the USA, and that these representations were false. The catalog representation is the only public representation we outside observers know of. To paraphrase Trotsky, you many not be interested in Wexner's war, but Wexner's war is interested in you. It is surprising that you don't see the extreme danger to which you have exposed yourself and Kristi Lawson.
Not once did Judge Martin ever make such a ruling. PERIOD. Goofy. ;-) Gardner Complaint Paragraphs 17 and 18 alleged the HOA to be a settlement agreement that resolved the Swaters case. The Ford Answer denied both allegations. The Lawson Answer denied both allegations. Do you know how many attorneys, on two continents, once shown the HOA, say it only applies to the Sept. 2013 auction? (Ans: All) Is the phrase "all claims and counterclaims...waived and permanently extinguished on distribution of funds" a condition? (Ans: Yes) Can a "Dismissal with Prejudice" be a "Dismissal with Prejudice" if it has a condition? (Ans: No) Swaters rejected the Haas Ap. 18, 2013 Proposed Order (we agree to stay; once paid, we dismiss with prejudice). Then Swaters removed the condition per her My. 20, 2013 Proposed Order and a 4pp rewrite of a Settlement Agreement (dismiss with prejudice, unconditionally, etc, etc). Was Swaters performing as the HOA contemplated? (Your Ans: ? . The answer of many others - No.) I was totally content to continue litigating in Ohio because we were winning. The HOA promised us a payday in six-months at a reduced 50/50 split. IMHO the NEW EVIDENCE will be a game changer. Joe *
It seems to me that all of the answers are already listed within the pages of F-chat. Belgium Customs cleared the Ferrari #0384 to LException Automobile in March of 1989. At that time, Swaters was not aware the car was in Belgium. The vehicle was shipped to Belgium for restoration purposes. The Ferrari 375 Plus #0384, as it was identified, cleared customs into Belgium since it was not listed as stolen in the USA. Note: All import/export vehicles are checked exiting/entering the US thru US Customs, The same process is required by Interpol for vehicles entering or exiting Europe. The 375 plus was not reported stolen with NCIC in 1988/89 90 and beyond until 1997. In 1997, after being approached by an interested party who was going to HELP Kleve GET BACK his Gran Prix racer. That party helped acquire a Court Ordered Ohio title in Kleves name. With the newly purchased Court Ordered title in hand, and only 4340 documented original miles [sic],along with a Power of Attorney signed by Kleve, the interested party set out to seize the Ferrari in Europe. There was only one problem with that scenario, that same car now wears the identity of #0394 and not #0384. The Ferrari with only 4340 original miles, as certified in 1997 by an Ohio Court Ordered title .. could finally be legally listed as STOLEN for the first time EVER. That newly listed stolen report was later lifted after money changed hands in 1999. Attempts to relist this very same car as STOLEN have been tried again since 1999, but No Deal, that CARD had already been played. Question: So who was it that signed the mileage statement without an odometer or speedometer in the 375 Plus?
Perhaps you're bored and think people on this thread are forgetful. Your misleading and self-serving statements have been debunked repeatedly in the past. Please stop spamming this thread. http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/vintage-thru-365-gtc4-sponsored-vintage-driving-machines/114840-375-0384-a-94.html#post143333491
