Well, they caught up with Chris Gardner

Unless Marcel, hypothetically being, you arrive at a plea bargain or perhaps agree with the Authority on the terms of an extradition.... for example.

 

The docket in Ocean Joe Ford's Wisconsin case, Richard Mueller & Joe Ford v. TL90108, has a recent addition, one which suggests a fact pattern familiar to followers of the long-running thread 375+ # 0384.

To explain: In Mueller & Ford v. TL90108, Ocean Joe has joined forces with Mr. Mueller -- the sole heir to the original owner of Talbot Lago #TL 90108 -- after having acquired an unknown percentage interest in Mueller's claim to the car. The named defendant is an LLC created by the famous car-collecting dentist, Richard Workman, at the time of Dr. Workman's purchase of #TL 90108 from Christopher Gardner.

Familiar Fact #1 would be OJ's acquisition of some part of the original claimant's interests in the disputed car.

Familiar Fact #2 is that OJ and his co-claimant entered into mediation with the defendant. Mediation is a form of alternative dispute resolution in which the parties agree to present their claims to an impartial third party -- identified in the present case as one "Judge Jones" -- and to be bound only to the terms to which they mutually agree at the mediation. This is in contrast to arbitration, in which the third party enters a resolution that is binding on the parties, regardless of their personal agreement with its terms.

Familiar Fact #3 is that the parties reached a settlement at mediation. This fact is reported in the Wisconsin court's docket entry for November 1, 2021.

Familiar Fact #4 is stated in the docket entry arising from a Status Conference on December 20, 2021, that "Parties report differing views on term sheet resulting from Mediation." Followers of the 375+ # 0384 thread will recall that OJ and his co-claimant in that case, Kristi Kleve Lawson, similarly abrogated the Heads of Agreement to which they had previously agreed.

At the December 20 Status Conference the parties also informed the Court that "Judge Jones is prepared to address [the] dispute by 01/20/2022." The Court responded by calendaring a further Status Conference for February 23, 2022.

Familiar Fact #5 would be -- as set forth in the docket entry for the February 23 Status Conference -- that the parties continued to dispute the terms of their mediation settlement agreement. The Court responded by calendaring a further Status Conference for April 8.

The docket entry for April 8 reports that the dispute remained unresolved and that the parties were awaiting something further from Judge Jones. The Court calendared a further Status Conference for May 19.

At the May 19 Status Conference the parties reported that they had received Judge Jones's "Decision" and that it will take until May 31 to "complete . . . the remainder of the work."

Familiar Fact #6 is that, at the May 19 Status Conference, OJ's attorney David Turek also stated that he will be filing a "Motion to set aside the Decision." The Court calendared a hearing on that motion for 3:00 (EDT) on July 27. (The May 19 docket entry also states that a video link to that hearing will be available at https://iframe.dacast.com/live/4dafbf46-ed15-c11c-fa22-a58262833632/d0924b16-c457-6aed-a64f-3b3b3290d539 ).

This brings us current on the Mueller & Ford v. TL90108 case. In short, OJ acquires an interest in an heir's interest in a stolen car. OJ and his co-claimant enter into a settlement with the present record owner. OJ thereafter abrogates the settlement, in hopes of leveraging better terms for himself. The result: Endless years of litigation and big paydays for some happy lawyers. Also, the car stays put where it started and no one gets as good a deal as they would have got if OJ had performed under the original settlement agreement.

I wonder if another Familiar Fact is also present in this case: That Richard Mueller has come to regret selling a part of his interest in #90108 to Ocean Joe, and otherwise aligning with OJ in this matter. We know that the Cincinnati KK Klan did come to that conclusion. I expect that time will tell.

 

Hey, Ferrarichatterers, that July 27 hearing on Ocean Joe's motion to shred his settlement agreement will take place at 3:00 Central Daylight Time, not Eastern. Ironically I originally posted CDT but started thinking about OJ's Ohio case involving #0384 and edited my post to state EDT. Sorry for the confusion.

 

Reserving my bag of microwave Jiffy-Pop right now.......expecting Familiar Fact #7; that yet another agreement is left in the dust and OJ keeps on keepin' on........

 

Familiar (Alleged) Theory 7 - Allegedly OJ in August 2013 signed an agreement with RM acquiring 80% of car and recovery rights - even 80% of movie rights plus the option to buy out from RM. Contractually perhaps Mueller had to do what OJ advised. It was no secret as to where the car was being refurbished - at Concept in the center of France. 'Perhaps' OJ knew exactly where the car was all along? Many in the car industry knew about it - the works were shown off with open pride. Articles were written online. Maybe there was no need for any secrecy in its refurbishment if the car was purchased legitimately from RM?

Why did OJ not contact the Authorities immediately after signing the agreement with Mueller in 2013? An 'International Car Detective' should not have a problem locating something being so openly created. 3 years went by before the sale. Perhaps a complete car was a better result. It needed hundreds of thousands of Euro to be spent on it to get it sale ready. Perhaps a complete car that had sold and an alleged 'theatrical' back story was the ultimate ideal scenario? If OJ could bury CG in the process it was an even better result for him after losing so much in the 375 case.

As a general inquiry, I wonder what is the legality of when a car is registered on to a stolen car list after the 'owner' is perhaps aware of its location for many years prior to reporting - if it can be proved the 'owner' knew about it?

All just a theory based on information found online.

 

I believe this question raises the same issue as the Wisconsin Supreme Court addressed in its opinion in the Ford & Mueller v. TL90108: Is a lawsuit seeking the return of stolen property time-barred by the applicable statute of limitation or statute of repose?* In its opinion the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Ford's and Mueller's claim for so-called wrongful detention -- "You have my stuff; give it back" -- is subject to a six year statute of repose, and that the six years began to run at the moment when the defendant took possession of #90108. According to the allegations of the Ford/Mueller complaint, this took place in 2015. Thus, the filing of their action in February 2017 was not time-barred.

Other states may have a different rule -- e.g., a claim for the return of stolen property accrues as soon as the claimant knows, or reasonably should have known, of its location -- but in Wisconsin a new clock starts to run whenever possession of the thing passes to a new owner.

*According to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, a statute of limitation requires a claimant to file an action within "X" number of years after the discovery of the claim for relief, while a statute of repose begins to run as soon as the conduct giving rise to the claim has occurred, regardless of when the claimant acquired actual knowledge.

 

Nice AP

 

Thought I’d add my experience of this psychopath…..
Early 2000’s my father his partner and I set about looking to add to the collection of cars we’d restored - I found an obscure website that listed some interesting pre war restoration projects. Amongst them were an Alfa Romeo 2.3 8C and 2 Zagato body 2.3 6C. We expressed an interest and Gardner arrived in the UK with his arse on fire.
We discussed the projects, he produced patchy paperwork and pictures of non matching number parts for the 8C - chatting Pebble Beach once completed….he also couldn’t keep his mouth shut about a recently acquired Talbot Lago coupe…..with his horn rimmed glasses, he told of travelling to Egypt as a 19 year old and brought back stolen artifacts to sell to museums. That put me on alert.

My father did his due diligence whilst Gardner romanced his partner, a non car guy, with the potential profit….

Dad got hold of Simon Moore who for those who don’t know is the guy to see about the history of pre was Alfa Romeo. He then travelled to Lausanne to look at the cars. “My little Thierry” was how Gardner described his restoration engineer - my father ripped a blank cheque up in Gardners face and walked away - he stated some of those parts never came from Arese’

This led to my father and his partner splitting acrimoniously with a 3 year court case!

My little Thierry kept the original Talbot Lago 2 carb engine in leu of debt Gardner had built up working on various projects which would explain the incorrect engine in it.

Gardner pressed on the £250,000 sale with my father’s now ex partner but then disappeared. With the money and projects.

We cracked on with other projects, and I’m not sure what happened to the 8C chassis #14 or 6C’s.
It would be seen as justice if this man does get locked up, he’s been tricking, lying and stealing from people his entire life.

 

sad to read this

 

A quick update.

On Thursday, June 16, 2022, Gardner was extradited and escorted from Switzerland to Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

On Friday, June 17, 2022, Gardner appeared at his 1st hearing and the Judge (Federal criminal court) found it appropriate to detain him pending trial.

 

I checked the U.S. Government "Pacer" on-line facility on CG's federal criminal case -- styled as U.S. v. Gardner, E.D. Wisc. case no. 2:19-cr-99 -- and found a couple interesting items. First, the court docket indicates the filing on June 16 of notices of appearances for two Milwaukee attorneys on behalf of Christopher Gardner. They are Nicole Masnica and Jason Luczak. No Zack "Thor" Gottesman this time around.

Next in order is a line item dated June 17, which reads "Arrest of Christopher Gardner." On this same date a U.S. Magistrate Judge held a hearing described as "Initial Appearance / Arraignment & Plea / Detention Hearing." CG pleaded not guilty to all five counts of the May 2019 indictment I summarized in a previous post. The court set trial for August 26, 2022.

Another entry indicates the US Attorney made a motion for pre-trial detention at the June 17 hearing, and that the court granted this motion. The court's written order recites six grounds in support: (1) The US Attorney had proven "by a preponderance of evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance as required"; (2) The "Weight of evidence against the defendant is strong"; (3) CG is "Subject to [a] lengthy period of incarceration if convicted"; (4) There is a "Lack of significant community or family ties to this district"; (5) CG has "Significant family or other ties outside the United States"; and (6) "He also has substantial financial resources."

Another interesting line item is that the US Attorney is moving for a designation that this is a "complex" case. I can't guess why that would be, in light of the facially cut-and-dried nature of the allegations in the indictment itself. Criminal Local Rule 12(a) suggests that a case can be designated "complex" "by reason of the number of parties, the novelty of legal or factual issues presented, the volume of discovery materials, or other factors peculiar to that case." In CG's case there are only two parties -- the government and the defendant -- and the volume of documents is small. So these two factors do not apply.

Regarding the other three factors, Ocean Joe might have information regarding the novelty of the legal issues, the novelty of the factual issues, and/or "other factors." I myself have been wondering if there are not some viable factual disputes regarding the transfer of title from Richard Mueller to CG, as memorialized in the documents that CG presented to the Stockton PD in 2005. (See Post #12, above. What has me wondering is that, if the facts are as cut-and-dried as those alleged in the District Court indictment, why haven't Mueller and OJ moved for summary judgment in their Milwaukee state court case against Dr. Workman's LLC? The docket in that case does show that their attorneys know how to file a summary judgment motion, because they had one on file seeking summary adjudication of two or more affirmative defenses alleged by the LLC in that case.

This leads me to another fact suggesting murkiness in the chain of title: that OJ and Mueller dropped their summary judgment motion. That motion was filed to knock out the LLC's affirmative defenses described as "In Pari Delicto" and "Unclean Hands." I am guessing that the LLC is alleging that OJ and Mueller are not entitled to restoration of the Talbot Lago on the grounds that (a) one of both of them are equally as guilty as the LLC (in pari delicto) and/or that they have failed to act equitably in their own conduct. One example of this would be that they knew of the disposition of the Talbot Lago for many years -- i.e., that CG was in open possession of the car and that he was treating it to an expensive restoration -- and that they took no action to retrieve the car until after CG had completed the restoration and/or until CG had sold the car to a deep-pockets defendant. I wonder if OJ will share what is the nature of the LLC's in pari delicto and unclean hands allegations; why he and Mueller have dropped their motion for summary judgment of these allegations; and why would they even consider settlement if the facts regarding title to this Talbot Lago are as indisputable as they seem to be to those of us on the outside looking in.

 

Another question for OJ: Now that CG is physically present in Milwaukee, and easily served with summons and complaint in the state court case, will OJ and Mueller -- or the LLC -- be adding CG as a party to the state court case?

 

The docket in Ocean Joe's Wisconsin state court case has a few items that OJ left out of Wednesday's "quick update." Specifically, on June 13 the defendant TL90108 LLC filed a Motion to Enforce Parties' Settlement, together with a Motion to File Under Seal. The second motion would be seeking an order that the LLC's moving papers should be accessible only to the parties and to court personnel. This would be odd, given that the hearing on the motion -- July 27 at 3:00 p.m. CDT -- will be broadcast to the world (on this video link). Maybe the LLC is also moving to quash this.

The first motion appears to seek an order that OJ and his co-plaintiff Richard Mueller comply with the terms of the settlement to which they agreed at mediation with Judge Jones in December 2021.

Also on June 13, OJ's attorney David Turek filed a Motion to Declare Settlement in Principle Term Sheet Unenforceable and Invalidate Imposed Settlement Documents. This would be OJ's effort to abrogate whatever agreement the parties reached -- voluntarily -- at the December mediation. And, like the LLC, OJ is also moving for an order to seal his moving papers.

This penchant for secrecy is extremely unusual for a simple commercial lawsuit. I wonder what embarrassing or otherwise damaging secrets these parties wish to conceal.

 

Something that has not been discussed here relating to '(2) The "Weight of evidence against the defendant is strong";'

What is the weight of evidence is based on the deposition by Christopher Burke as reported by the MJS.

Does anyone know anything further about this?

https://eu.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2022/02/23/milwaukee-man-linked-2001-heist-rare-talbot-lago-sports-car-under-arrest-switzerland/6787097001/

Quote:-

Burglar details 2001 theft
Christopher Burke recounted the theft in a deposition. He said at the time, Gardner was dating Burke's mother, and convinced him Lieske was hiding the car in Milwaukee from its lawful owner. Burke said he hired another helper at a bar.

The men traveled from Florida with Burke's truck from his storm shutter business. He said he drilled out the lock on the door but had to wait until later into the night because the old shop was in a mostly residential area.

After he got inside, he said he spent all night disassembling the car. He said the crew backed up the truck in the morning and loaded all the parts in about 15 minutes. Then they drove to the Jacksonville, Florida, area.

 

I have downloaded a copy of the US Attorney's motion for pre-trial detention, filed June 17. Regarding the seriousness of the offense, the US Attorney states that, if convicted CG faces a maximum of 90 years in prison, and a guideline range of 7 to 9 years. Serious business indeed!**

Regarding the strength of the evidence, the US Attorney avers as follows:

"Multiple witnesses will provide detailed, credible, and corroborated information concerning: (1) the defendant’s theft of the 1938 Talbot Lago T150C-SS Teardrop Coupe . . . in 2001; (2) the fact that he did not lawfully purchase this vehicle from the prior owner’s heir in 2005; and (3) the defendant’s material misrepresentations and concealment of material facts in connection with his sale of the vehicle in 2015.

"The government anticipates that witnesses will testify that they, along with the defendant, stole the vehicle from Roy Leiske’s garage in Milwaukee in 2001. And witnesses will testify that Leiske’s heir sold a vehicle to the defendant in 2005, but it was not the TL 90108. The defendant over time has provided several contradictory bills of sale related to his purported purchase of the vehicle in 2005. Though some of these documents purport to be notarized, the individual whose name appears on them will testify that he did not notarize documents relating to the purported sale in 2005. Some of the bills of sale are dated the same day but differ with respect to the details of the transaction, such as payment terms or even which vehicles were being sold. Some of the documents even purport that the heir sold to the defendant another rare Teardrop Coupe (not just one with chassis number 90108, but also others with numbers 90111 and 90115). Similarly, the defendant stated in a deposition in a civil case in 2014 that he purchased vehicle 90111, in addition to 90108, from Leiske’s estate. The evidence will show that Leiske only ever owned one Talbot Lago Teardrop Coupe.

"Witnesses will testify to false representations the defendant made in 2015. For instance, the statement that the defendant had free and clear title to the vehicle was false because the defendant and others stole it in 2001 and the defendant falsified documents purporting to show that he purchased it in 2005. Also false is the statement that the defendant sold the vehicle with its original engine, number 17317C. Witnesses will testify that the engine the defendant sold with the vehicle in 2015 was not the original two-carburetor engine (which the FBI later recovered in France) but a three-carburetor engine of the same period.

"Overall, the witnesses’ accounts of events will be corroborated by contemporaneous documents, records, and other evidence. This will be compelling evidence of guilt at any trial in this case, which weighs heavily in favor of detention."​

Regarding the reference to the FBI's recovery in France of the OE two-carb engine #17317C, that averment is repeated in the same Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story that AndreMatvei has linked to in Post #41. Specifically, this newspaper story states that the OE engine presently resides at an FBI field office located in St. Francis, WI, a suburb of Milwaukee.

This newspaper story also reports on Dr. Workman's allegations against Joe Ford of unclean hands ("He who seeks equity must do equity") and in pari delicto (the plaintiff was a participant in the same wrongful conduct from which he now seeks relief). Here is a block quote from the newspaper story:

"By the defense's theory, Ford knew by 2005 that Gardner had the car and that it was stolen. . . .

"They were willing to wait years for someone like Workman to come along and unwittingly pay millions for the restored Talbot Lago so Ford could claim it was Mueller's all along and take possession without having to invest in the expensive restoration. . . .

"[Workman's lawyers] accuse Mueller of essentially agreeing to go along with the plot, by selling Ford a stake in the car. Therefore, they claim, Mueller also has 'unclean hands' and should be unable to recover the car or any damages. Allowing either plaintiff to recover, they say, would amount to unjust enrichment, since it was Workman who put all the money into purchasing and finishing off the car.

"Essentially, Workman says as soon as Ford had a suspicion, he should have reported Gardner to the police, which might have stopped the sale. . . .

"In 2009, Ford saw the actual car, disassembled, in France or Belgium. 'On information and belief,' according to Workman, Ford had knowledge or reason to believe Gardner had obtained it 'through illicit means and that the vehicle was reportedly stolen.'

"Further, Workman claims, Ford repeatedly referred to an authoritative 2002 book about French streamlined cars that included a section on Lieske's Talbot Lago. That section indicated the car was reported stolen in 2001."​

It would appear that Dr. Workman's probability of a successful ruling on these defenses is what persuaded OJ and his co-plaintiff, Richard Mueller, to engage in the mediation with Judge Jones in December 2021. One factor to consider is that equitable issues such as Dr. Workman's defenses, as well as plaintiffs' request for an order to restore them to possession of the car, are decided by the court, not the jury. One would expect a judge to be less susceptible to extraneous or emotional appeals than a jury. This factor might have added to plaintiffs' doubts about the strength of their claims.

In any event, we shall see at the hearing on the parties' competing motions, whether the agreement reached at the December mediation will be enforced or rejected by the court. It's still on calendar for 3:00 CDT on July 27. Video link here.

Sorry for the long post, but I find the information set forth in these quotations to be fascinating. OJ is characteristically selective with the information he shares in these threads. So it's good to have these other sources.

** CG is charged with four counts of wire fraud, consisting of two emails to Dr. Workman's agent in May and August 2015, stating that he had clear title to the car; an August 2015 email repeating this claim; and causing Workman's agent to wire $6.8 million to CG in September 2015. The fifth count consists of shipping the car to the USA in December 2015.

 

There's some new information in Christopher Gardner's federal criminal case. On July 3 C.G.’s attorneys filed a motion seeking C.G.’s pre-trial release on $100,000 bond, together with home detention at his daughter's home in Colorado. There is also an Opposition Brief that the U.S. Attorney filed July 11. The point of interest is that the representations set forth in C.G.’s motion are the first time we have heard from C.G. regarding the theft of Talbot-Lago #TL 10908, and also the government’s replies.

Regarding the merits of C.G.’s motion, a request for pre-trial release presents at least two issues: the risk of additional criminal conduct and the risk that the defendant will flee. The risk of C.G. engaging in additional acts of wire fraud or international transportation of stolen cars within the next few months or years is probably negligible. Regarding the risk of flight, the elephant in the room is the fact that C.G. did violate the terms of his house arrest in Italy when he returned to his home in Switzerland without authorization in late November 2021. This history will surely be the focus of the U.S. district judge who will hear the motion. Only upon a satisfactory justification of C.G.’s flight from Italy will the U.S. court grant pre-trial release. C.G.’s Italian flight being the court’s focus, it should have been C.G.’s attorneys’ focus as well.

In my opinion they have fallen short. They start out OK, averring that C.G. never intended to run and hide from the charges set forth in the District Court’s May 2019 indictment. They state that C.G. had been aware for many years of the claims that Richard Mueller and Ocean Joe were making regarding #10908, including knowledge of the 2017 filing of R.M. & O.J’s civil case against Dr. Richard Workman’s LLC. They state that C.G. made no effort to flee, conceal his identity, or otherwise avoid a criminal prosecution of R.M.’s claims of theft, and furthermore that C.G. was cooperating with the FBI during their pre-indictment investigation, in 2018. We members of the peanut gallery might like to hear C.G.’s explanation for how he came to be in possession of #10908, which must have taken place sometime between its theft in 2001 and C.G.’s purchase of R.M.’s interests in 2005, but none is offered. That’s OK; such a narrative would not necessarily be part of a motion for pre-trial release.

We might also like an explanation for why C.G. appears to have done nothing to deal with the May 2019 indictment prior to his arrest in Italy. According to C.G.’s attorneys, what happened is that Interpol had issued a “Red Notice” in response to the U.S. indictment. When C.G. and his daughter, visiting from America, tried to check into a hotel in Genoa Italy on June 15, 2021, the Red Notice alerted the Genoa police and they arrested him on that day. We may make allowances for the COVID-related constraints on international travel between January 2000 and June 2021, but still, it is mysterious why C.G. had not been more aggressive in dealing with the U.S. indictment prior to being randomly arrested while on a holiday with his daughter, more than two years after the issuance of the indictment and a U.S. warrant for his arrest.

Regardless of C.G.’s apparent complacency with respect to the pending criminal case against him, the focus of the present motion should be to justify his further complacency regarding the terms of his home confinement, as ordered by the Italian courts. C.G.’s attorneys do not even get to this issue until page page 7 of their motion. The better practice is to come out of the gate hard in your motions, in the first one or two pages, before the judge starts drifting and yawning and daydreaming about something more interesting than your client’s problems. Instead, C.G.’s attorneys spend 7 pages reciting the material facts of the case. This is good stuff for the peanut gallery, but not optimal for getting the relief requested.

In any event, C.G.’s justification consists entirely of the contention that for 16 years he has suffered from ill health, and that because his personal health insurance would not pay for his treatment in Italy, and because he was was not a resident of Italy (presumably meaning that he was not eligible for benefits under Italy’s National Health), he simply could not get proper treatment unless he returned to Switzerland. He also states that this was his Italian attorney’s advice. Left unsaid is, why did C.G. not pay for his treatment in Italy out of his own pocket? Also, why did he not at least apply to the Italian court for an orderly transfer to Swiss custody, citing his medical needs? Another possibility would have been to waive extradition and agree to travel to Milwaukee for arrest and arraignment. Each of these options was open to C.G. My experience with trial judges is that they are more protective of their own perquisites and processes than just about anything else. Simply put, the U.S. district judge is going to be very unhappy with C.G.’s complacency with respect to the court-ordered terms of his pre-extradition release in Italy.

Also, by C.G.’s attorneys’ own account, the health benefits of the flight from Italy seem to have been fleeting. According to their account, C.G. hopped a train from Florence to Geneva in late November 2021. “Mr. Gardner was arrested at his home approximately three weeks later on December 17, 2021. . . [and] was held in custody for several months in Switzerland pending extradition. Mr. Gardner was extradited on June 16, 2022 and flown into Chicago, from which he was intended to be transferred to the Eastern District of Wisconsin in the custody of U.S. Marshals.” In other words, C.G. traded five months of house arrest in Florence for three weeks of freedom in Geneva, followed by apparently six months of jail time in Switzerland, followed in turn by his present indefinite confinement in a county jail 70 miles north of Milwaukee. The health benefits of this history are questionable, particularly if we assume that absent the flight from Italy the U.S. Magistrate might have granted pre-trial release on bail.

That said, we should not minimize C.G.’s very serious health challenges. Rather than repeat them, I will attach to this post jpegs of the first ten pages of his motion for pre-trial release, and attach the final nine pages to a second post. The details of his medical conditions begin at the bottom of page 15.

Turning to additional new representations set forth in C.G.’s motion: First, C.G.'s attorneys deny the allegation in the government's May 2019 indictment, that C.G. personally participated in the March 2001 theft of #90108. In support of that denial C.G.’s attorneys represent that C.G.’s passport records show that he was not present in the U.S. in March 2001; that he was instead in Europe. In its Opposition Brief the government responds that it is true that the records of a passport ending in x3086 do support C.G.’s claim, but that from 1998 through 2001 C.G. was also using a U.S. passport ending in x7832, and that the records of x7832 show that C.G. had entered the U.S. “in January 2001, prior to the theft of the vehicle in this case in early March 2001."

Oops. It is curious that C.G.'s attorneys would commit such an "own goal.” The merits of the substantive case against C.G. are only tangentially related to the present motion to be released on bail. If his attorneys’ representation, that his passport records prove that he was not present in the U.S. in March 2001, could be so easily refuted, C.G. would have been much better off if this representation had not made its way into the present motion.

Second, both sides agree that C.G.'s written title to #90108 arises from Richard Mueller’s sale of some kind of Talbot-Lago to him by in 2005. In its original motion for pre-trial detention, filed June 17, 2022, the government represents that this sale did not involve #90108 (it apparently involved a Talbot-Lago sedan, not a teardrop coupe), and that C.G. used the paperwork from that sale to forge the documents on which he now relies for his title to #90108. In their July 3 motion, C.G.'s attorneys deny that C.G. had any interest in buying this sedan; that C.G. “has a witness, the broker of the deal, to demonstrate this fact”; and that the only Talbot-Lago that C.G. ever purchased from R.M. was #90108.

The government’s representations regarding the 2005 R.M.-to-C.G. sale could not be more at odds with C.G.’s version. As the government wrote in its original motion to deny bail:

“[W]itnesses will testify that [Roy] Leiske’s heir [i.e., R.M.] sold a vehicle to the defendant in 2005, but it was not the TL 90108. [C.G.] over time has provided several contradictory bills of sale related to his purported purchase of the vehicle in 2005. Though some of these documents purport to be notarized, the individual whose name appears on them will testify that he did not notarize documents relating to the purported sale in 2005. Some of the bills of sale are dated the same day but differ with respect to the details of the transaction, such as payment terms or even which vehicles were being sold. Some of the documents even purport that the heir sold to the defendant another rare Teardrop Coupe (not just one with chassis number 90108, but also others with numbers 90111 and 90115). Similarly, the defendant stated in a deposition in a civil case in 2014 that he purchased vehicle 90111, in addition to 90108, from Leiske’s estate. The evidence will show that Leiske only ever owned one Talbot Lago Teardrop Coupe.”​

Another, related “own goal” by C.G.’s attorneys is their representation that an article published in the March 2015 issue of a Swiss magazine called “Art en Suisse” reports that C.G. had bought both #90108 and two additional Talbot-Lago chassis from R.M. in 2005. If the Art en Suisse article had in fact reported this three-car deal as fact, it would have been inconsistent with the attorneys’ own central averment in the present motion, that C.G. ever only bought one thing from R.M.: R.M.’s rights to Roy Leiske’s stolen teardrop coupe #90108. You would expect the attorneys to have dealt with that inconsistency, but they do not seem even to have noticed it.

And in fact the Art en Suisse article reports no such thing; rather, it states that prior to 2015 C.G. had formulated a plan “which will see one original Talbot Lago T150 SS Teardrop rebuilt to exacting standards as well as two new-build, second-series Teardrops created using original chassis and engines.” To that end,

“. . . about ten years ago, [C.G.] found an original Goutte d’Eau – a Teardrop – that was disassembled and needed restoration. This car he bought. He then calculated the restoration costs, which led him to the realisation that he would have to build so many moulds, models and pieces for the one car, that it was almost as easy to build a model set so more Teardrops could be built, rather than simply restoring the original.

“Chris then found and acquired two original chassis and original Talbot Lago T150 SS engines. It is because of the engine and racing-built chassis that the Teardrop was so extraordinarily fast, with its 4.5-litre, dual-hemispherical head, six-cylinder engine fitted with a Wilson pre-select racing gearbox.”​

In other words, the 2015 Art en Suisse article reports that Chris bought a basket case teardrop car in 2005 (“about ten years ago”), and that only after determining that he could not adequately amortize the costs of restoration with just the one car did he decide to build two “second series” cars using period correct frames and engines. He must be grinding his teeth to read his attorneys’ representation that the article quotes him as stating that he bought a car and two chassis from R.M. in 2005.

Third, it appears to be central to C.G.’s defense to portray R.M. as a complete, albeit guileless, scoundrel. According to their theory of the case, R.M. first took C.G.’s money in 2005 and signed away in writing his interests in his uncle’s stolen teardrop coupe. “[T]his vehicle [was subsequently] removed from the stolen cars database after police verified the sale to Mr. Gardner back in 2005. Questions regarding the 2001 theft were only raised again after Mr. Gardner’s former attorney, Joe Ford, became involved in the matter and pushed R.M. to have the vehicle relisted as stolen, signing a contract with R.M. that the two would wait until its restoration was completed by Mr. Gardner and sold to another before they would make an effort to obtain the title.” The quote is from C.G.’s moving papers. To this the attorneys add the representation that “R.M., for his part, sent through his counsel an extortion letter to Mr. Gardner following his arrest, advising him that now was the time to pay him $20 million to put a stop to this case, further calling into question his already questionable credibility.” In short, R.M. is a really bad guy.

A sidebar about this $20 million “extortion letter”: One must wonder how R.M.’s attorney could represent that R.M. had the power to call off the dogs of the U.S. Justice Department, even if he were to try. The charges against C.G. have to do with four emails he sent to promote the 2015 sale of #90108 to a third party, and a fifth count for the transportation of the car to the United States. I suppose these charges would collapse if the government were unable to prove that C.G. lacked clear title at the time of these transactions. But if R.M. were to recant the evidence he has given thus far to the FBI and to the U.S. Attorney, he would be exposing himself to criminal liability.

There are two more new pieces of information in C.G.’s motion to be released on bail. First, C.G.’s attorneys contend that Ocean Joe “served as Mr. Gardner’s personal legal counsel from 2005 to 2012, and assisted him in the purchase of the Talbot Lago from R.M.” On this ground they conclude that the attorney-client privilege prevents the government from using any evidence that O.J. has regarding #90108.

C.G.’s attorneys also contend that C.G. sold #90108 to “dealer Paul Russell,” rather than directly to Dr. Workman and/or his LLC. I am not sure why, but this is what they represent in the present motion. Maybe it’s to set up a defense of some kind.

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 Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Well, that’s it for the new information. C.G.’s attorneys will be filing a Reply Brief on Friday, July 15. This filing might add more details we have not previously seen.

 

The final nine pages of C.G.'s motion for pre-trial release: 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 Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

First of all, thanks 180 for all the work!

If those health issues are really true, then it doesn't look like Mr Gardner is likely to even see the end of this trial.

 

You can see the truth of Christopher's medical condition in any of his recent photos, in the irregular line of his jaw, where so much of it has been surgically removed. I hope no one sees me as a member of the C.G. lynch mob. My take on this case is that little that we have heard from either side is consistent with other things we do know about C.G. in general and #TL 10908 in particular. So much gap-filling information is missing from his motion. He would be much better off if he could get Zack "Thor" Gottesman up from Cincinnati to represent him in this Milwaukee case.

 

Concur: Thanks, as always Bill, for all the work to make this more clear for the rest of us.

 

Christopher Gardner got some very bad news yesterday, when U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman denied his motion for pre-trial release on $100,000 bond and home detention with C.G's daughter in Colorado. This means that C.G. will remain in county lockup until he is either set free at the conclusion of trial or pursuant to a very lenient plea bargain (unlikely), or he is transferred to a federal prison pursuant to a less-generous plea bargain or a guilty verdict at trial. It is also the case that his attorneys have agreed to vacate the previously calendared August 26 trial date. Additionally, this matter has been granted complex case status, which promises to add further delay to the commencement of trial. (It turns out the government has compiled 45 gigabytes of documentary evidence.) In other words, in the absence of a plea bargain, C.G. is looking at spending many months, if not years, as a guest of the sheriff of Dodge County, Wisconsin. (The Milwaukee federal court uses county jails for pre-trial detention.)

I am attaching jpegs of Judge Adelman's 8-page order to deny.

It also appears that C.G.'s fate will be at the mercy of some not-too-competent defense attorneys. I hate to say I told you so (actually I don't mind), but C.G.'s attorneys in both their Opening Brief and their Reply Brief failed to address the elephant in the room: that C.G. had been released on home detention in Italy and he had fled without seeking permission to do so, with only a very flimsy explanation that he -- a man of substantial financial resources -- could not possibly access effective health care in Florence Italy, and was therefore compelled to flee without seeking leave of court. In fact C.G.'s attorneys did not even request a hearing on their motion for pre-trial release, wherein they could have responded in real time to the court's difficulties with their arguments! In a case where so many questions remain unanswered, to waive a hearing is unconscionable.

Speaking of C.G.'s attorneys' arguments, they advanced a very strange one in their Reply Brief: That the physical object, if you will, that C.G. sold to Dr. Workman's agent might not actually be Talbot Lago teardrop coupe #TL 10908; that it may be a fake. I am afraid I do not follow the logic of this argument. It is based on a newspaper story published in the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal on June 2, 2022. I'll attach jpegs to a second post. This story quotes David Cooper, a Milwaukee area restorer, who says he inspected the object at an unspecified shop in France on an unspecified date. He observed that the front crossmember of this object was not forged, as would be the case with an authentic 1938 T150-C SS chassis, and that this fact alone proves that Dr. Workman's object is a fake. C.G.'s attorneys actually attached a copy of this newspaper article to their Reply Brief. In the text of their Reply they cite the article for the following:

"Furthermore, while the government claims that the vehicle sold by Mr. Gardner and ordered held by the government is the same vehicle stolen in the 2001 theft of Mr. Lieske, there is disagreement among experts, none of whom are associated with Mr. Gardner, as to whether the car in question is even the same Talbot Lago. In a June 2, 2022 article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, auto historian and restoration expert David Cooper of Cooper Technica was interviewed and claims that he is “positive” the car in question is a replica of the 1938 Talbot Lago in question, still worth millions of dollars, but not the authentic Talbot Lago coupe once owned by Mr. Lieske. . . . If the car in question is a replica or any vehicle other than that which was owned by Mr. Lieske, then the indictment as it stands is certainly problematic and unsupported. The simple fact that the there are questions between experts as to whether this is the same vehicle certainly undermines the government’s claims that the case against Mr. Gardner is a strong one."​

Even we members of the peanut gallery will see this as a lot of blah-blah-blah on the part of C.G.'s attorneys. Remember, C.G. is not charged with the crime of theft of #10908; he is charged with four instances of sending emails falsely representing that he had clear title to the for-real, one-and-only #10908. Evidently his attorneys consider it a viable defense to refute the charge that he falsely represented clear title to the object that he was selling, while admitting the falsity of all representations he may ever have made that the object he was selling was the for-real, one-and-only #10908. As car collectors we would agree that it is a greater offense to sell a counterfeit car than to lack clear title to a genuine car. A buyer can usually cure defects in title, but no one can do anything about the immutable falsity of a known counterfeit.

There is also the related issue of, how did C.G. come into possession of the assemblies he presented to the Stockton Police Department in 2005, assemblies which were at that time still officially listed as stolen property? One witness has apparently testified that he was a party to the 2001 theft, and that C.G. was the hands-on ringleader of this adventure. I can see how C.G. could defend the theft charge, per se, with this new theory that the objects he presented to the Stockton P.D. were counterfeit, but like Lucy Ricardo he's still got some 'splainin' to do.

In any event, it is sad to think of a 66 year old man with shaky health, formerly a prosperous European car restorer and trader, spending interminable months if not years locked up in a county jail, while his inept attorneys push the papers around to no useful end, giving his interests no greater consideration than those of any other client. And at the same time presenting five figure invoices on a regular basis.


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

 

Here is the Sentinel Journal story:


Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

....In any event, it is sad to think of a 66 year old man with shaky health, formerly a prosperous European car restorer and trader, spending interminable months if not years locked up in a county jail, while his inept attorneys push the papers around to no useful end, giving his interests no greater consideration than those of any other client. And at the same time presenting five figure invoices on a regular basis.


Boo-friggin-hoo.

If he had faced the music years ago, he would have been released ages ago, and could lived his (unfortunately sickly) golden years in much better peace and much – much – better comfort. He has no one to blame for his current address than himself.

Arrogance, entitlement, greed and a seeming pure degree of sociopathy - all coming to a 100% reasonable conclusion. (And it seems almost quaint to mention the minor concept that maybe he shouldn't have started burglarizing classic car restoration shops and/or stealing cars to begin with – or never began to defraud fellow car collectors...) It is an unusual combination of blue - and white - collar criminality; it's hard to imagine a 45 year-old University Club, Wall Street Ponzi schemer pulling off commercial burglaries or Grand Theft Auto heists.

This unrepentant, fugitive, long-time con man who has created so much damage to other people's lives is getting exactly what he worked so hard to earn. And, btw, beyond the vast amounts of legally earned money he has cost people over the years, think of the impact on those people's quality of life, THEIR stress-related health problems. How about just all the time – the actual, literal time – this POS robbed people of? And being a father of daughters, it made my heart drop when I read the accounts of him being arrested while with his daughter, or that his daughter was to put up a bond if he was released. Con artists typically inculcate their own family members to have unquestioned, blind loyalty (sometimes even accomplices) – but essentially just another mark. Hopefully not the case here, but the thought of it just just makes the whole sad affair all the more tragic and pointless.

But...he is exactly where he should be – and should have been long ago.

(And speaking of time, I appreciate 180out's – and everyone else's – detailed posts.)