News

Story of 250 GT Cabriolet s/n 0799 update

Discussion in 'Vintage (thru 365 GTC4)' started by mariafaga, Nov 24, 2016.

  1. bhallingby

    bhallingby Rookie

    May 16, 2008
    6
    Sharon, CT
    Full Name:
    Barney Hallingby
    Thank you, Timmy! Keep up the good work on the auctions! You are going to be a busy guy in two weeks! Cheers, Barney
     
    Christian.Fr and Timmmmmmmmmmy like this.
  2. bhallingby

    bhallingby Rookie

    May 16, 2008
    6
    Sharon, CT
    Full Name:
    Barney Hallingby
    Your post is based on the same fundamental misunderstandings of the law on which the position of Gerber and his Swiss lawyer, Oliver Weber, is based. A default judgment by a U.S. District Court is as good as any judgment, even a judgment entered after a jury verdict. In the US, it is entitled to recognition in both state and federal courts under the Full Faith and Credit and Supremacy Clauses of the United States Constitution, and other laws. And it will be recognized and enforced by the courts of many countries, depending on their particular laws. In Switzerland, default judgments of the United States are entitled to the same recognition as any other judgment recognized by Swiss law.

    As to the Spanish court judgments, they cannot be avoided simply by shouting “corruption.” Rather, there must be specific proof of corruption affecting the particular judgment in question, or proof of general corruption of the entire court system in the country. Gerber offers no “proof” of either. Only rants and a couple of inadmissible newspaper articles. He will never be able to void those judgments based on a claim of corruption.

    Moreover you misunderstand that Gerber actually did show up in the Connecticut court. He didn’t just “not show up.” He showed up, attacked the merits of the case by claiming the car was stolen, and filed thousands of pages of documents. And then ran away. Tellingly, he passed up the opportunity to put his evidence in front of a court with jurisdiction over the car and me. Most likely because he was afraid he would lose. Which he would have. Because there is no proof that the car was stolen. And neither Gerber nor you have ever put forward any.
     
    tomgt likes this.
  3. sixcarbs

    sixcarbs F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    Dec 19, 2004
    5,334
    SF
    I know a judgment is a judgment. Well done!

    Loking forward to seeing the car at Villa D'Este. Looks like a great car.
     
  4. Timmmmmmmmmmy

    Timmmmmmmmmmy Formula 3

    Apr 5, 2010
    1,910
    NZ
    Full Name:
    Timothy Russell
    Car auctions are my interest so it is no problem at all..... Exciting times with that much heavy metal on offer :)
     
  5. davidoloan

    davidoloan Formula Junior

    May 6, 2009
    531
    Full Name:
    David
    I’ll give you 1 Euro for it, but not more than one euro.
     
  6. Christian.Fr

    Christian.Fr F1 World Champ

    Jun 9, 2005
    18,851
    Full Name:
    Christian.Fr
  7. 375+

    375+ F1 Rookie
    Rossa Subscribed

    Dec 28, 2005
    4,893
    Fantastic shot.
     
    Christian.Fr likes this.
  8. Christian.Fr

    Christian.Fr F1 World Champ

    Jun 9, 2005
    18,851
    Full Name:
    Christian.Fr
  9. bhallingby

    bhallingby Rookie

    May 16, 2008
    6
    Sharon, CT
    Full Name:
    Barney Hallingby
    See even more pix at @0799GT on Instagram and Twitter!!
     
    Christian.Fr likes this.
  10. fredy2000

    fredy2000 Rookie
    BANNED

    Oct 3, 2013
    1
    Mr. Hallingby, I studied your press release and your website.

    I have some questions for you, as I don't understand all your points:

    1. Why do you believe that the local Connecticut court has jurisdiction over every citizen in the world? And why did you not file your action in Switzerland, where Dr. Andreas Gerber lives and where the investigations of Interpol and Swiss Police started?

    2. Is it correct that Dr. Andreas Gerber denied the jurisdiction of Connecticut court, because the procedure violated (from his point of view) international law (Lugano Convention), as well as his constitutional rights as a Swiss (which require the action to be filed at the domicile of the defendant)?

    3. Is it correct that the Connecticut judgement is only a default judgement (because Dr. Gerber refused to participate in the procedure)?

    4. Can you confirm that the Connecticut judgement was actually written by your attorney and simply signed by the judge without a pre-trial discovery and without a hearing of witnesses and experts?

    5. Did you have recognized and executed the Connecticut judgement in Switzerland through Swiss authorities? If not, why not?

    Thank you for answering my questions.
     
  11. bhallingby

    bhallingby Rookie

    May 16, 2008
    6
    Sharon, CT
    Full Name:
    Barney Hallingby
    Here are the responses to you questions:

    1. Why do you believe that the local Connecticut court has jurisdiction over every citizen in the world? And why did you not file your action in Switzerland, where Dr. Andreas Gerber lives and where the investigations of Interpol and Swiss Police started?
    The Connecticut court has undisputed jurisdiction to determine title to the car because it has jurisdiction over the car. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1655 (providing jurisdiction “to remove . . . any . . . cloud upon the title to real or personal property within the district where any defendant cannot be served within the state”); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 47-31 (“an action may be brought by any person claiming title to . . . any interest in . . . personal property . . . against any person who may claim to own the property.)” Throughout the long history of the car, no one in the world has ever claimed adverse title to the car against a current owner and possessor of the car except Bernhardt Freidli (who lost) and Gerber. The claims of both Gerber and the Freidli heirs have been eliminated by the judgment. There is no one left with any claim, and I own the car as against everyone. We did not file in Switzerland because the car is in Connecticut, and that is where I live. Where investigations may have taken place is irrelevant.

    2. Is it correct that Dr. Andreas Gerber denied the jurisdiction of Connecticut court, because the procedure violated (from his point of view) international law (Lugano Convention), as well as his constitutional rights as a Swiss (which require the action to be filed at the domicile of the defendant)?
    That was his claim, but that is not the law. Neither the Lugano Convention nor the Swiss Constitution apply to the United States, and neither can usurp the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. The Lugano convention applies only in countries in the European Union, along with Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. The U.S. is not a signatory. The Swiss Constitution, similarly, applies only in Switzerland; and Art. 30, para. 2 of the Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation applies only to suits located in Switzerland. Moreover, the law of foreign countries and treaties to which the U.S. is not a party do not limit or affect the jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts, which is governed solely by U.S. law. See, e.g. U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2 (extending the U.S. judicial power to all cases between U.S. citizens and foreign citizens); 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (granting the U.S. district courts original jurisdiction in all diversity and alienage actions); Randall v. Arabian American Oil Co., 778 F.2d 1146 (5th Cir. 1985) (rejecting “outright the notion that the law of a foreign country can unilaterally curtail the power of our federal courts to hear a dispute even though the dispute involves rights fixed by the laws of another nation);” Veitz v. Unisys Corp., 676 F.Supp. 99 (E.D. Va. 1987) (“the power for federal courts to hear cases and controversies derives from the Constitution and United States law. While they may choose to recognize laws of foreign nations, our courts are not limited by foreign sovereign law short of treaties or other formal agreements, even in matters regarding rights provided by foreign sovereigns.”).

    3. Is it correct that the Connecticut judgement is only a default judgement (because Dr. Gerber refused to participate in the procedure)?
    First and foremost, the judgment is not “only a default judgment”. Default judgments stand on the same footing as any other judgment and are as recognizable and enforceable as any judgment, including one entered after full trial and jury verdict. Second, Gerber actively participated for over three months, including filing the equivalent of an attack on both jurisdiction and the merits, the attack on the merits likely having waived any objection to personal jurisdiction over him.

    4. Can you confirm that the Connecticut judgement was actually written by your attorney and simply signed by the judge without a pre-trial discovery and without a hearing of witnesses and experts?
    After due deliberation and the exercise of her independent discretion and judgment, Judge Arterton adopted the Order proposed by my counsel because it said what she wanted it to say. It is typical for lawyers to submit proposed orders, particularly in cases such as this, and judges sometimes adopt them as written if they believe they appropriately provide as the judge desires. Often they do not do that. But it is not a rubber stamp process as you suggest, and it is not unusual. There was no discovery because Gerber refused to participate and abandoned the litigation, violating along the way discovery rules and orders before he quit, and there was no hearing or witnesses because, again in her discretion, Judge Arterton thought it appropriate to rule on the papers and the record, which again is not unusual.


    5. Did you have recognized and executed the Connecticut judgement in Switzerland through Swiss authorities? If not, why not?
    No, because it is not necessary.
     
    donv and Timmmmmmmmmmy like this.
  12. mariafaga

    mariafaga Rookie
    BANNED

    Jun 30, 2013
    13
    Mr. Hallingby is running a PR-show in order to create the illusion that everything is fine with Ferrari 0799GT (obviously in order to sell the car). Of course nothing is fine with the car. Ferrari 0799GT is considered as a stolen car by EVERY involved law enforcement agency (Interpol, Swiss police, Connecticut State Police, Spanish Police etc.). Mr. Hallingby's “press release” and statements are very manipulative. Mr. Hallingby does not mention the pending criminal procedures and the investigations of Connecticut State Police at all. Take a close look at the website www.stolenferrari.is and you will realized how Mr. Hallingby is trying to manipulate the Ferrari Community.

    Mr. Hallingby has following legal problem:

    Mr. Hallingby did not respect the civil procure according to the so called Lugano Convention (which is a European treaty) and according to Swiss law. It is a general legal principle (and constitutional right) in Europe that any action must be filed at the domicile of the defendant. US judges don't care about this legal principle and that's why Dr. Gerber refused to participate in such an illegal procedure (illegal because it violated his constitutional rights). Because of the violation of the said principle, no Swiss court, no European court and no other court outside the US will recognize Mr. Hallingby's judgment from Connecticut. And Mr. Hallingby has not even started a procedure to have his judgment recognized. He knows very well that there is no chance of having the Connecticut judgment recognized in Switzerland.

    What is the Connecticut judgement worth if it cannot be executed in another country?

    Mr. Hallingby writes that there is no need for such an execution of the judgement in another country. This is nonsense! If Mr. Hallingby wants to sell Ferrari 0799GT the title must be cleared worldwide and not just in Connecticut.

    To make it very clear:

    1. Hallingby’s judgement has NO legal effect in Europe or in any other country outside of the US.

    2. Hallingby’s judgement is only a declaratory judgement with NO impact on the criminal procedures pending in Europe.

    3. Had Mr. Hallingby been in good faith, he would have filed his lawsuit against Dr. Gerber in Switzerland. He did not, because he knew that there was no chance of upholding his no-theft theory in Swiss courts.
     
  13. ArtS

    ArtS F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed Owner

    Nov 11, 2003
    5,942
    Central NJ
    mariafaga,

    Interesting...

    Didn't the CT police confiscate the car from Mr. Hallingby in CT? Thus, isn't CT the domicile of the defendant? Didn't Dr. Gerber wage a public campaign against Mr. Hallingby in the United States? To me it seems a bit unnecessary for Mr. Hallingby to humor Dr. Gerber's wishes at this point.

    Sincerely,

    Art S.
     
  14. bhallingby

    bhallingby Rookie

    May 16, 2008
    6
    Sharon, CT
    Full Name:
    Barney Hallingby

    ‘Art S.’ has it exactly right! The Connecticut court has jurisdiction (both the car and I reside there) and ruled that I own the car! Game, set, match! So did the Spanish courts get it right when they ruled (twice!) that the car was not stolen. Double game, set, match! Gerber/Weber, using the nom de plume ‘Mariafaga’ to conceal their identity so they do not appear to be acting in the US, have it totally wrong. For the right story, see my website www.Ferrari0799GT.com and my previous postings. The relevant legal documents are attached to the website and are incontrovertible and unassailable. These are FACTS, not cheap, unsubstantiated accusations! Conclusion: I and only I own 0799 GT. Finally, I will no longer respond to these desperate posts from Mariafaga.
     
  15. davidrosenbaum

    BANNED

    Jun 30, 2013
    1
    I get the impression that Mr. Hallingby is desperate. Now he has a judgment, but it does not improve his legal position. Must be frustrating. That is the consequence of ignoring international civil law.
     
    turbo-joe likes this.
  16. angelo505

    angelo505 Rookie
    BANNED

    Oct 2, 2013
    1
    Art. S., you are confusing civil proceedings with criminal proceedings. Dr. Gerber and his partner filed their criminal complaints (regarding the theft of the cars) in Switzerland and Spain. The Connecticut State Police became active, because the stolen car and the suspect (regarding the crime of larceny) are located in Connecticut. This has nothing to do with a campaign, but with the normal progress of criminal proceedings.

    In a civil lawsuit, the situation is different. According to international civil law, the action muss be filed at the domicile of the defendant, which is Switzerland and not Connecticut.
     
  17. claudinedubois

    BANNED

    Jul 1, 2013
    4
    Mr. Hallingby claims in his "press release" that the Connecticut court is the “only court in the world” with jurisdiction for the Ferrari 0799. This allegation is false and once again a manipulation by Mr. Hallingby. According to international law and all European legislations, defendants must be sued at their place of residence. Mr. Hallingby has not respected this international rule, which is why the Connecticut judgment cannot be enforced internationally, which even Mr. Hallingby admits.

    Attached you will find a letter of Attorney Oliver Weber (who represents the Swiss victim Dr. Andreas Gerber). He sent that letter on 31 May 2018 to various car dealers, auction houses etc. around the world, and consequently AFTER the Connecticut judgement.

    The fact that Attorney Oliver Weber is able to send such a letter without legal consequences proves the very limited legal effect of the Connecticut judgment.
    Dr. Gerber is entitled to express his claim to the car internationally
    . Mr. Hallingby cannot stop Dr. Gerber from doing so, which illustrates Mr. Hallingby’s weak position, his legal problems and the limited legal effect of the Connecticut judgement. Mr. Hallingby was simply too cowardly to file his action in Switzerland, where Dr. Gerber resides. Of course Mr. Hallingby was aware that he would have lost the lawsuit in Switzerland as he has lost the lawsuit against the Cavallino magazine and the Ferrari Market Letter. Did you know that Mr. Hallingby had to pay a compensation to Cavallino and to Ferrari Market Letter? In order to hide the loss of the lawsuit, Mr. Hallingby obliged Cavallino and Ferrari Market Letter to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

    See the following link regarding the New York Court's dismissal of Mr. Hallingby's action:

    http://stolenferrari.is/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/35-dismissal-order-by-the-southern-district-court-of-New-York-January-5-2012.pdf
     

    Attached Files:

  18. sixcarbs

    sixcarbs F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    Dec 19, 2004
    5,334
    SF
    Well, the only true test of the CT decision would be if Mr. Hallingby decided to sell the car. If it trades at full market value then I would say the CT judgment is accepted. My guess is nobody would buy the car without a significant discount from market value, whatever that is.

    Reminds of the discussion going on in the classified section right now about a car that had a salvage title in the past but now has a clean title. Car is still at a deep discount because of the past salvage title.

    What a mess!
     
  19. mariafaga

    mariafaga Rookie
    BANNED

    Jun 30, 2013
    13
    Ferrari 0799GT is on the market!
    Mr. Hallingby is desperately trying to sell the car. But he hasn't found a fool yet who wants to buy a stolen car.
     
  20. Timmmmmmmmmmy

    Timmmmmmmmmmy Formula 3

    Apr 5, 2010
    1,910
    NZ
    Full Name:
    Timothy Russell
    I love how we have had three posters with less than 10 posts to their names post within an hour of each other, all claiming various things in support of one side or another.
     
    SonomaRik likes this.
  21. ylshih

    ylshih Global Moderator
    Global Moderator Owner Advising Moderator Honorary

    Mar 21, 2004
    13,256
    Northern CA
    Full Name:
    Yin
    #46 ylshih, Sep 16, 2018
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2018
    claudinedubois, angelo505, davidrosenbaum, fredy2000 are the same user as mariafaga. First 4 accounts permabanned. 30 day ban for mariafaga for creating sockpuppets. Permanent ban of the mariafaga account may result if this behavior continues on return.
     
    Texas Forever and turbo-joe like this.
  22. ylshih

    ylshih Global Moderator
    Global Moderator Owner Advising Moderator Honorary

    Mar 21, 2004
    13,256
    Northern CA
    Full Name:
    Yin
    celinedeblue permabanned as another attempted sock puppet of mariafaga. 60 days added to mariafaga's ban for continued violation of single user account rule.
     
    Timmmmmmmmmmy likes this.
  23. Ed Niles

    Ed Niles Formula 3
    Honorary

    Sep 7, 2004
    2,320
    West Hills, CA
    Full Name:
    Edwin K. Niles
    You doubters can look up "in rem jurisdiction" on wiki.
     
    Timmmmmmmmmmy likes this.
  24. Jeff Kennedy

    Jeff Kennedy F1 Rookie
    Owner

    Oct 16, 2007
    4,552
    Edwardsville, IL
    Full Name:
    Jeff Kennedy
    Ed,

    I did the wiki look up and still can't determine from their definition if a ruling in a US Federal Court binds parties in other nations to the US court's decision.

    What would happen if the US court made one decision and a Swiss or EU court made an opposing decision, assuming that the first one to make a decision does not automatically preclude the second court from reaching a decision?

    Jeff
     
    Texas Forever likes this.
  25. ylshih

    ylshih Global Moderator
    Global Moderator Owner Advising Moderator Honorary

    Mar 21, 2004
    13,256
    Northern CA
    Full Name:
    Yin
    #50 ylshih, Nov 26, 2018
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2018
    FredA and sergio1975 permabanned as yet more attempted sockpuppets of mariafaga. 90 days added to mariafaga ban. If he had respected the first ban he would have been back posting in mid-Oct or the second ban in mid-Dec; now the ban expires mid-March 2019. He will soon lose the privilege of ever posting again about 0799 on this site if he keeps this up.
     
    Timmmmmmmmmmy and Enzojr like this.

Share This Page