News

Story of 250 GT Cabriolet s/n 0799

Discussion in 'Vintage (thru 365 GTC4)' started by SonomaRik, May 2, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cavallino-Rampante

    Aug 3, 2005
    38
    Elizabeth, NJ, USA
    Full Name:
    Bruno
    Since it is very likely that FML and Cavallino will lose this case, and be forced to pay damages, they may have grounds to sue Oliver Weber and the other sources claiming the 250 GT was "stolen".

    The criminal justice system in CT has ruled that the Ferrari was not stolen, and returned it to its rightful owner. The argument that CT did not prosecute the case for lack of funds is absurd. Clearly, the statement that the Ferrari was “stolen” is false.

    Next, Barney must show that these false written statements caused him harm. Barney’s personal reputation has been tarnished and the value of his Ferrari has been diminished.

    Finally, Barney must show that FML and Cavallino published the false information without properly researching the accuracy and truthfulness of the claim.

    IMO, somebody was looking for an easy payout to keep this matter quiet and make it go away. I would consider that blackmail. Since Barney didn’t pay, they went after him by publishing these false statements. I believe they underestimated Barney’s resolve to fight them, both in criminal and civil courts.

    If I were FML and Cavallino, I’d get my checkbook ready and prepare a retraction.

    This matter is far from over.
     
  2. Napolis

    Napolis Three Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Honorary

    Oct 23, 2002
    32,118
    Full Name:
    Jim Glickenhaus


    The Judge has clearly ruled that there IS enough evidence for this case to go to trial.
     
  3. Jeff Kennedy

    Jeff Kennedy F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed Owner

    Oct 16, 2007
    5,035
    Edwardsville, IL
    Full Name:
    Jeff Kennedy
    Having read some of the publicly recorded discovery documents it is clear that some level of research was done. So what level of research is the threshold?

    Although both publications may have used less than stellar judgement in running the ads it raises the question to what extent a publication (any publication) needs to render a legal opinion about the veracity of an advertiser's claim.

    Having read some of the filings (not necessarily the most recent ones) there may be more grey to this.

    Jeff
     
  4. Napolis

    Napolis Three Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Honorary

    Oct 23, 2002
    32,118
    Full Name:
    Jim Glickenhaus
    Ditto.
     
  5. Bryanp

    Bryanp F1 Rookie
    Silver Subscribed

    Aug 13, 2002
    3,703
    Santa Fe, NM
    I have looked at every one of the 88 docket items available thru on-line docketing, and have read every pleading and dispositve motion. I am also an attorney, but am neither an expert in defamation nor am I a member of the NY bar. That said, I have a radically different opinion of this case than you, Jim G and others here.

    As far as the judge ruling that there is clearly enough evidence to go to trial; there has been no evidence ruled on thus far - it is being collected now in discovery. What Judge Cedarbaum has ruled is that the plaintiff has made sufficient allegations to state a valid cause of action - and it took the plaintiff three tries before it was able to meet that minimum threshold. That is not intended to be a commentary on Barney's case or his lawyers - as far as I know, all counsel involved are experts in defamation; the motions and responses so far demonstrate that this case will be a highly technical trip through the esoteric nuances of NY defamation law. There is no home run here for either side; and anyone who says differently has no idea what they're talking about.

    There are so many factual and legal mis-statements in this thread that it has become an absurdity. There have also been defamatory statements. Threads like this and the one re: 0384 where there is pending litigation are a really bad idea.

    Makes you just want to go for a drive . . .
     
  6. Napolis

    Napolis Three Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Honorary

    Oct 23, 2002
    32,118
    Full Name:
    Jim Glickenhaus
    Brian

    This case is going to trial.

    That is fact.

    The motion to dismiss was denied.

    Best
     
  7. xs10shl

    xs10shl Formula 3

    Dec 17, 2003
    2,017
    San Francisco
    How is this so likely? There was clearly reasonable cause for the police to act on the evidence presented and confiscate the car. This happens every day to many people. A Judge sorts out the mess, and hopefully, the rightful owner regains posession.

    Just based on the fact the the car was confiscated at all would lead me to the conclusion that there was a justifiable evidence that the car may in fact have been stolen. I'm happy it was resolved, but I can't see any damages beyond the inability to use the car for a while.

    As to libel charges, I don't recall seeing anywhere in the ad that the car was stolen by the plaintiff. I for one felt sorry for the owner when I saw the ad, thinking that he may have paid for a car that turned out to be stolen. But I never thought any less of him. I actually did not know his name until it was revealed in this thread.

    Given the protections afforded to publications under the law, I just can't imagine a jury would convict a publication of slander when there is clear (but incomplete) evidence at the time the ad ran that the car may actually have been stolen at some point in it's life. Unless someone can point to a Supreme Court case showing the contrary . . .
     
  8. BigTex

    BigTex Seven Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed Owner

    Dec 6, 2002
    72,314
    Houston, Texas
    Full Name:
    Bubba
    The person that ran the ad KNEW where it was.

    It was a shakedown.

    That VIN (and it's current owner) will live forever in Internet infamy, thereby diminishing the real world value of the car.

    And he has the 'loss of use" issue as a slam dunk.

    And somewhere in Europe the previous owner is upset, but IMO has himself to blame for the odd ownership structure as well as offsite storage in Spain, in a garage apparently operated by the Mob.

    It would all make a great movie....
     
  9. Napolis

    Napolis Three Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Honorary

    Oct 23, 2002
    32,118
    Full Name:
    Jim Glickenhaus
    By the serial number and the owners address the add
    clearly identified Barney.

    The add defamed Barney by stating Barney bought a stolen
    car knowingly or was an idiot who hadn't done rudimentary
    due diligence.

    The add caused the car to be seized.

    The car was returned Barney by the State of Connecut.

    We shall see.



     
  10. xs10shl

    xs10shl Formula 3

    Dec 17, 2003
    2,017
    San Francisco
    #685 xs10shl, Jun 2, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2011
    Fair enough.

    I consider myself pretty knowledgeable, yet I've bought enough lemons in my time to know that it's just par for the course. And unless you've got a 100% track record on buying stocks, I'd say you've probably had your share of lemons too. Does that make us idiots as well?

    It would be more likely that the plaintiff could sue his broker (who should have known the history) for advising him to buy the car in the first place
     
  11. No Doubt

    No Doubt Six Time F1 World Champ
    Consultant

    May 21, 2005
    62,955
    Vegas+Alabama
    Full Name:
    Mr. Sideways
    No.

    Just stop. You've just continued the madness. You are acting as though buying that car was a bad idea above.

    But the car is fine. The title is fine. Claiming otherwise as you are insinuating above *is* the defamation.
     
  12. BigTex

    BigTex Seven Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed Owner

    Dec 6, 2002
    72,314
    Houston, Texas
    Full Name:
    Bubba
    I think he actually bought it a lttle below the market $$ at that time???

    Let's review what we know.......:D :D :D
     
  13. BigTex

    BigTex Seven Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed Owner

    Dec 6, 2002
    72,314
    Houston, Texas
    Full Name:
    Bubba
    Personally, I pick out my vintage Ferraris MYSELF...

    We don' need no stinkin' BROKERS!!!!!

    I know what kind of fasteners the factory used on VIN plates, TEK screws and bubble gum are definately RED FLAGS to the deal...
     
  14. dantealdente

    dantealdente Karting

    Nov 7, 2009
    60
    to follow your analogy; apples and oranges. the car was not defective, heck it was not even stolen. if it was stolen then yes, sue the broker and the seller and godspeed to you, but it was not. if napolis or yourself have ever purchased a stolen (fraudulent) stock then yes, that would make you guys idiots that i would most likely never hire to manage my portfolio.

    there is a thread here that discussed the integrity of one of the defendants and this is yet another example of it's shortcomings. i don't mean to speak ill of the deceased but don't portray yourself as a "journal of record" if you will let yourself be a pawn in a shakedown for a short buck. so in light of this i don't think it would be a huge loss if there was a change in management.
     
  15. xs10shl

    xs10shl Formula 3

    Dec 17, 2003
    2,017
    San Francisco
    #690 xs10shl, Jun 2, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2011
    For the record, I'm not insinuating anything, and have no stake in the outcome of this case unless all of our First Amendment rights somehow end up being compromised (which I doubt will happen).

    In doing a little research today, I discovered that it IS possible for a publisher to be pursued for publishing false and misleading claims made by a 3rd party. That frankly surprises me, but I suppose in today's world anything is possible. From the reading, It boils down to "reasonable basis" for the claims made in the ads.
     
  16. velocetwo

    velocetwo F1 World Champ

    Dec 11, 2006
    12,461
    Left Coast
    oh no :-0
     
  17. VIZSLA

    VIZSLA Four Time F1 World Champ
    Owner

    Jan 11, 2008
    41,186
    Sarasota
    Full Name:
    David
    If you give it some thought it makes sense and I don't believe it's a recent development.
     
  18. ggjjr

    ggjjr Formula Junior

    Nov 11, 2003
    828
    Detroit
    Full Name:
    George
    Bryan,
    Thank you. Yours is the most informative post on this subject, to date.

    George
     
  19. Texas Forever

    Texas Forever Four Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Apr 28, 2003
    42,437
    Texas!

    I disagree. I’m not a lawyer, but as a CPA, I know a little bit about damage models. Let’s say the Plaintiff wins. What is his damage claim for loss of value? After all is said and done, the car wasn't stolen. If he loses, well, he loses.

    Instead of a car, suppose this was a Picasso. If the painting was proved to be legitimate, would it be worth any less if someone earlier had said it was stolen? The only concern would be a clear “title.”

    Truth is, I doubt the trial court is going to give a damn about any of our comments. So much for wasted words.

    Dale
     
  20. Napolis

    Napolis Three Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Honorary

    Oct 23, 2002
    32,118
    Full Name:
    Jim Glickenhaus
    Dale

    I disagree. If for example a Picasso is tainted with a whiff of "Looting" for example it's value is hugely diminished.

    This car is tainted because of the adds run by FML and Cavallino and this taint is real and was communicated to Barney after the adds ran. The diminution of value in this case IMO is millions of dollars. It will be a "story" car for a long, long, long time.

    As some of us will be testifying I remain hopeful that the Jurors will be interested in what some of us have to say.

    Cheers
     
  21. Texas Forever

    Texas Forever Four Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Apr 28, 2003
    42,437
    Texas!
    Yeah, but... if the plaintiff wins his case, there is no "whiff." So where's the damage?

    Here's my point, this should not go down in a court room. Reasonable people should be able to get together to work this out. I dunno. Slug it out, or have a last man standing drinking contest. Whatever, this is just a car. Life is short. Death is forever.

    Dale
     
  22. dantealdente

    dantealdente Karting

    Nov 7, 2009
    60
    you are making the assumption that everyone who heard about the car being seized would also hear about the outcome of that case and then believe it. it's a pandora's box, once damage of this sort is done it cannot be undone completely.
     
  23. Napolis

    Napolis Three Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Honorary

    Oct 23, 2002
    32,118
    Full Name:
    Jim Glickenhaus

    Exactly. The damage the multiple adds did to Barney and the car's reputation is deep and wide and will linger for a long, long time.
     
  24. of2worlds

    of2worlds F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Apr 6, 2004
    13,900
    ON
    Full Name:
    CH
    That could be a 'hard sell' for the lawyers on both sides. For some jurors their only interest in the car is making sure they arrive home with their new 'hair do' intact or they can squeeze into the closest parking space near the mall entrance. Cars to them are simply an appliance and esoteric details will have about the same appeal for them as watching fresh paint dry. Bored stiff they would rather be just about anywhere else. May the best suit win...
    CH
     
  25. Texas Forever

    Texas Forever Four Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Apr 28, 2003
    42,437
    Texas!
    Frankly, this is not the place to discuss the nuances of legal strategies and/or expert witness testimony regarding valuations. I doubt the trial court will care what a bunch of car guys say on a Ferrari chat board.

    However, I am deeply concerned about the chilling effect this case will have (and already has had) on anybody who says anything about a valuable car. Even if the plaintiff does not win this case, you would have to be a natural-born fool not to realize the danger of saying anything in public.

    Jim, you did the right thing when you were attacked about your car. You opened the books. You presented the evidence. You were 1000% transparent. And I believe it worked. Many of those who initially doubted you, now accept your car as 0846. It is too bad this case didn't follow the same path. Going to court is like peeing into the wind. You get wet and end up smelling bad.

    Dale
     

Share This Page