Well, they caught up with Chris Gardner

There is news in Ocean Joe's Wisconsin state court case. This is the case where O.J. has joined forces with Richard Mueller -- the sole heir of Roy Lieske, the victim in the 2001 theft of Talbot Lago #TL 90108 -- to sue #90108's current custodian, TL90108 LLC, for an order to restore possession to O.J. and R.M. On May 30, I wrote in Post #27 that plaintiffs had recently informed the court that they intended to seek an order to abrogate the terms of a purported settlement, terms which apparently arose at a session of mediation in November 2021. The defendant LLC responded with a motion to enforce the settlement. The court calendared a hearing for July 27, and ordered that it would be broadcast to the public on Zoom. Both sides subsequently applied for orders to seal the record in this case. These applications were granted and the Zoom broadcast was cancelled. Nonetheless the court's on-line docket does report that the July 27 hearing did take place and reports further that the court had announced its decision on July 29, as follows: "Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion and DENIES Defendant's Motion."

In other words, five and a half years after its filing this case is back at square one, process-wise. Given that the parties previously agreed to a settlement in November -- albeit with an apparent disagreement about the specific terms of that settlement -- one might expect that they could easily reconcile their disagreements and reach a settlement a second time. Terms of settlement, together with good faith performance of such terms, would be a departure for O.J., but there's a first time for everything. In the absence of a second settlement this case will continue to drift indefinitely, with no trial date on calendar, and with the new wild card that Christopher Gardner is now physically present in Wisconsin and would be easily served with summons, if either side decides to add C.G. as a defendant.

It is also the case -- now that C.G.'s attorneys have lost their motion for pre-trial release, agreed to vacate the trial date, and failed to file written opposition to the government's ultimately successful motion for a complex case designation -- C.G.'s federal criminal case is also postured to drift indefinitely, with C.G. rotting in county jail for the duration. When I wrote previously that this is a sad result for C.G., what I meant is that his motion for pre-trial release was eminently winnable. Where his attorneys went so wrong is that they made the silly argument that the District Court had no choice but to release C.G., rather than to acknowledge that pre-trial release is an issue well within the court's discretion. With respect to most issues a court's decision falls either within the scope of the court's discretion, or it is said to be an abuse of discretion. C.G.'s attorneys argued that the test for pre-trial release is whether the defendant presents a "serious" risk of flight; that the government had failed to establish "seriousness" in its previous representations to the U.S. Magistrate; and that therefore the District Court was required to reverse the Magistrate's order to deny bail. This is really an appellate court type of argument, not an argument properly attuned to the fact that the District Court would be ruling de novo; that the Magistrate's order is not binding on the District Court.

C.G.'s attorneys having whiffed on the correct approach -- to try to persuade the district judge to exercise his acknowledged discretion in their client's favor -- they necessarily failed to address the factors most likely to influence his discretion. The most powerful factor would be that the judge does not want to be made to look a fool, by reversing the duly-entered, in-place-and-performing, order of the lower court, and thereafter seeing the defendant take flight and once again evade arrest. The whispered conversations and side-long glances of his co-workers, if this were to happen, would be extremely disagreeable. Second, pre-trial release ultimately rests on the trustworthiness of the defendant. When he gives his word that he will appear in court as needed, can he be trusted to keep it? Facts available to the court in this regard are that C.G. has a prior conviction for filing false customs documents with respect to the intended use of non-federalized European imports; that he has represented clear title to a well-known stolen car, with no explanation as to how he came into possession of the car prior to the alleged grant of title to him; that he knew of the May 2019 filing of the indictment accusing him of wire fraud and the importation of a stolen car, yet he did not submit to the court's jurisdiction until he was randomly picked up in Italy in June 2021, and even then he fought extradition; and finally that he gave his word to the Italian courts that he would remain in home detention in Florence during the pendency of his extradition proceedings, then fled to Switzerland without seeking leave of court. Notwithstanding the heavy weight of these known facts, C.G. had a very good chance to overcome them, if his attorneys had only tried to do so. They did not. Instead they focused on their silly argument, that the government had previously failed to demonstrate "seriousness" to the U.S. Magistrate, and that therefor the District Court must disregard the known facts about C.G.'s trustworthiness. They could have suggested a much higher bail amount, one that would have shown a solemn commitment not to flee. They did not. Most importantly, they could have requested a live hearing on their application, with C.G. present in court to look the judge in the eye and promise to appear whenever called upon to do so. They did not. As a former litigation attorney, I hate to see this kind of bungling on any level; much less where the stakes could actually be life and death for the client. This is what makes me sad.

In any event this thread seems likely to go dark indefinitely, as both O.J.'s state court action and C.G.'s federal criminal case quietly drift downstream.

 

Thank you very much for your case reviews, very understandable even by a lay-person.
What might be the next move for any of the parties to move the case forward, particularly in view of C.G.'s fragile-appearing health?
Or is the next move to simply ....... wait..........?

 

Bill and All Others,

As to the Wisconsin civil case 2017-CV-000867 styled Mueller v TL90109 LLC, I think there should be a separate thread for it. If others agree, then please start one and I will post updates to it. There is a major David v. Goliath battle underway. I welcome 180 Out or anyone else to post actual case documents (preferably in chronological order) on that new thread. I am limited as to what I can say, but I can always defend myself against Christopher Gardner's accusations. All should keep in mind that 180 Out can only comment on what is written and publicly available as opposed to the entire universe of facts and behind-the-scenes dynamics. I can assure you that Mueller and I are not back to square one and the likely next-at-bats are the prior filed Motions for Partial Summary Judgement with the new Judge. The court-ordered mediation of October 29, 2021 turned into an unfortunate detour -- FYI, I walked out of the Dec 8, 2021 mediation session for good reason. We proved our reasons in court on July 27, 2022 (followed by the oral decision of July 29, 2022). Also, all were reminded that time can be a friend to a museum caliber collectible such as 90108. On March 7, 2022, its sister car 90107 sold for $13,425,000 at Goodings' Amelia Island Auction. That pegs our value upwards by millions and it significantly increases our detention damages that IMHO are already running at over $30k per month. FYI, the Wisconsin Supreme Court specifically stated that detention damages start on the date TL90108 LLC acquired possession.

As to Wisconsin criminal case 19-CR-99 styled U.S. v Christopher Gardner ("CG"), I think this thread should stay dedicated to it. I do not think it will be a sleeper for very long. Some clues for the sleuths of this site are below. If you are a sleuth, don't delay because scrubbing off the net has already started. Months ago CG's facebook account "Pinot Noir" got scrubbed. His Instagram accout (@Onebugatti) disappeared. A couple of days ago the Figoni-Paris Instagram site (@figoniparis) became "Sorry, this page isn't available." Remember, the FBI turned over about 45 gigabytes of data. On a side note, I doubt if CG's attorneys made the errors as 180 Out suggests. My suspicion is that CG's attorneys are just starting to realize who their client really is, and CG's attorneys opted not to make more proclamations about him nor to risk him being cross-examined. I may post some documents from the internet that support my suspicions. If you are curious and are handy searching on the net, start with Laura Babsie (@le-babs) on Instagram to meet CG's daughter. Then, as to CG's health issues, look for a red 1931 Bugatti T51 alleged VIN 51138 at Monthlery vintage races in 2015 (decal 254) and again in 2019 (decal 265) (try you tube and try other race connected sites). Note the driver racing the steeply banked course. Then look for the black Talbot Lago roadster (alleged Pourtout) at the Swiss concours at Chateaux de Coppet in 2016, 2017. Then try RM's Villa Erba auction during Villa D'Este concours in 2017. Much has been scrubbed from the net but a good sleuth can find lots of recent and very curious activity that suggests good health and extensive travels.

Also, there is a civil case in Illinois state court 2020-L-008773 styled TL90108LLC v Christopher Gardner, that stands in contrast to statements made by CG's Wisconsin attorneys.

Ocean Joe

 

I find surprise the name Pat Craig has not appear yet.

Questions...

Was Pat Craig representing Mueller in the sale of the parts in 2005 and broker the deal between Gardner and Mueller via another US dealer contacted by Craig?

Was Pat Craig paid for his introduction by Gardner along with Mueller for the parts/car/title?


I expect we will hear more about them in due time and sure the two broker will be able to provide light as they were 'perhaps' intrinsic involved in the deal and would know what was sold to Gardner and when.

 

@tritone: What I expect for the immediate future in Christopher Gardner's criminal case is that the U.S. Magistrate will set a new trial date at a Scheduling Conference currently calendared for 9:30 a.m. on September 22 and that, in setting a trial date, C.G.'s attorneys will not be pushing for speed. Instead they will want a generous amount of time to review the 45 gigabytes of evidence the government has produced (or will produce) to them. There is also a provision in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for a Preliminary Hearing. I don't know if C.G.'s attorneys have waived his rights to a Preliminary Hearing, or if the parties have stipulated to delay it. In the meantime C.G. will remain locked up in the Dodge County jail, where he will be subjected to the pressure to accept a plea bargain that open-ended pre-trial detention tends to exert.

@GBTR6: @mbzgurl is a real person. At least there was a woman's voice on the phone, identifying herself as @mbzgurl, in a couple phone calls I received back in the heyday of the 375+ # 0384 thread.

@Ocean Joe: It's good to get O.J.'s input, however incomplete and misleading it may be. As O.J. mentions, my knowledge of the facts of this case are limited to what is publicly available in the federal Pacer system; the minute orders and document titles set forth in the docket of O.J.'s Wisconsin state court case against Dr. Workman's LLC; and the random and infrequent newspaper reports published on-line by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. (It is ironic that O.J. invites us to start a new thread to post up documents from the files in his Wisconsin state court case, given that both he and the LLC have successfully moved to ban all public access to these files.)

In any event, here are a few responses to O.J.'s latest post:

O.J.'s motion for Partial Summary Judgment, in which he is seeking the dismissal of the LLC's affirmative defenses of unclean hands and in pari delicto, is unlikely to succeed. Regarding the facts that the LLC intends to submit in support of these defenses, the Journal Sentinel has reported the following:

"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."​

(The quote is from a Journal Sentinel story posted February 23, 2022.)

Additionally, I have a transcript of O.J.'s direct examination by Zack Gottesman in the Ohio case of Gardner v. Ford -- posted on-line all those years ago by the banned Ferrarichatterer @Max Vito -- in which O.J. admits to corresponding with C.G.'s former employee Thierry Bizon at least as early as July 2013 regarding various Talbot-Lagos, including #90108.

By contrast, according to the Wisconsin Supreme Court's published opinion in O.J.'s appeal from a trial court order to dismiss his case, O.J. and his partner Richard Mueller have falsely alleged in their Complaint to the following effect:

"The Talbot Lago here--a 1938 model--mysteriously disappeared from a Milwaukee business in 2001. It reappeared in 2015 after being purchased in Europe by TL90108, LLC (TL). When TL tried to obtain title in Illinois, it triggered a hit on a stolen vehicle report."

". . . After hearing that the prized vehicle had turned up, Plaintiffs Richard Mueller and Joseph Ford III demanded its return from TL, claiming to be the rightful owners. When TL did not oblige, Mueller and Ford brought an action for replevin seeking possession of the vehicle and damages."
​

Essentially O.J is asking the Milwaukee trial judge to deny the LLC its right to a jury trial of its contentions that O.J. and R.M. have behaved inequitably in this matter (unclean hands) and/or that their acts and omissions are contributory causes of the injuries from which they now seek relief (in pari delicto). Given the falsehoods that O.J. and R.M. have already filed at every level of the Wisconsin court system, the chances of the trial court entering such an order are non-existent. Rather, with no trial date on calendar, no settlement process underway, and no dispositive motions available to either side, process-wise this case is very much back at square one.

Regarding O.J.'s contention that the LLC's continued retention of #90108 is causing him an injury worth $30,000 per month, I expect there may be some high-dollar collectors reading this thread who would like to know his secret of netting this kind of money from the possession of an 84-year-old hobby car. Costs of storage, maintenance, repairs, transportation, and insurance: these things we Ferrari owners know. Making $30,000 per month from the mere possession of a hobby car -- as distinguished from selling the car at a profit -- would be a new experience.

Regarding O.J.'s contention that C.G.'s attorneys calibrate the skill and energy they deliver on behalf of a client, according to their assessments of the client's personal villainy, that would be a novel approach for a criminal defense attorney. This might be how O.J. would practice law, but I have never seen this in any other attorney. I expect it would be hazardous to the health of such an attorney, if his clients were to find out.

Regarding O.J.'s suggestion that we Ferrarichatterers should cyber-stalk C.G.'s daughter, again this might be how O.J. does business, but I'll pass.

Regarding TL90108 LLC's Chicago state court case -- in which the LLC as plaintiff has named C.G. as a defendant, apparently alleging fraud -- a review of the on-line docket in this case indicates that it has been pretty much on permanent vacation. The Complaint was filed August 19, 2020. As of this writing, nearly two years later, the LLC has apparently not attempted to serve C.G., notwithstanding his known presence in the Dodge County lockup since June 17. The LLC faces a tricky situation here. Of course the LLC would like to get a judgment that C.G. should return Dr. Workman's $6.8 million, in the event the LLC loses to O.J. and R.M. in Wisconsin. On the other hand, to prevail in the Wisconsin case -- to retain possession of #90108, with a clear title and with no award of damages to O.J. and R.M. -- requires the LLC to endorse C.G.'s contention that he acquired R.M.'s rights to the car in 2005. It has been my guess that this tension explains why the LLC has not named C.G. as a cross-defendant. On the other hand, I have no guesses as to why C.G. and R.M. have not named C.G. as a direct defendant. There's something fishy about that, something that O.J. could explain, but that he finds it not to be in his interest to do so.

 

180 Out,

Earlier I asked you (or anyone with genuine interest) to post actual docs because they are superior to "hearsay" or incomplete, selective snippets.

Bias and/or unfamiliarity with actual docs renders your commentary deeply flawed. The newspaper got actual docs, including 1 of the 3 thief's confessions, so I urge you to do the same. The FBI located and interviewed the 2nd thief who confirmed the 1st thief's story. All that is left is for Gardner to give testimony, if his attorneys do not dissuade him. My guess is that one day Gardner will confess.

Also, at least take the time to familiarize yourself with Wisconsin law if you intend to comment about my motives or claims or damages. In this case the stakes are very high when one party holds another party's $13.5 Mil property hostage. That IMHO is what is happening here.

For example, in Wisconsin, detention damages are set by statute at 5% interest on the value of the property being detained. So, since 90107 recently sold for $13,425,000, I argue that 90108's value now is similar (or higher). One easy calculation is thus 5% of $13,425,000 = $671,250 / yr = $55,937.50 per month. That is the statutory disincentive to not detain another's property or hold it hostage. It is akin to damage from being deprived of use and enjoyment, by statute! I think you should have known this or should have discovered this since it is at the core of my and Mueller's complaint.

Now, since 90108 has been detained since August 2015, which is the detention start date according to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, then one justifiable calculation can be on the average value assuming straight-line appreciation. My expert valued 90108 as of the August of 2015 start date of detention to be $6,250,000. As of the 2022.03.04 sale of 90107, I can justify 90108's March 2022 value at $13,425,000. So, $6,250,000 + $13,425,000 / 2 = $9,837,500 average value using straight-line appreciation. In that scenario, monthly damages = $40,989 / month. I posted a very conservative number earlier, so now you know how conservative it really is. Total damages in that scenario can be calculated as $40,989 x # months detained = $40,989 x Ag 2015-Mar 2022 = $40,989 x 80 mos. = $3,279,120. Then from Mar 2022 - Aug 2022, it is (5% x $13,425,000) /12 x 5 months = ($671,250 / 12) x 5 months = $55,937.5 x 5 = $279,687.5 of detention damages since Mar of 2022. So, a total detention damages if calculated as above is thus $3,379,120 + $279,687.5 = $3,658,807.5. So, one way to calculate our total claim in this case is for the return of our car and payment of detention damages of $3,658,807.50.

Also, it is significant that the Defendant TL90108 LLC sent 3 partner attorneys and 1 associate attorney to the 2022.07.27 hearing to declare the mediation settlement documents unenforceable. Let me repeat, TL sent 4 attorneys, 3 of which were partners. Plaintiffs Mueller and Ford each sent 1 attorney. Mueller and Ford won that argument, and it is a BIG DEAL. I expect TL to try and appeal the 2022.07.29 Order. If so, those detention damages keep climbing at $56,000 per month.

Now you know why it is unwise to hold stolen property hostage, especially when it is very valuable. Deprivation of use and enjoyment. Keep that in mind.

I will stand for correction if any of my math is incorrect. I invite you to check my math. If there is a way to justify higher values (and I think there is) then my detention damages claim will adjust upwards.

Defendant's claim that Mueller and I are in cahoots with Gardner is just an allegation without evidence. Since discovery yielded no evidence to support TL's allegations, we filed our Motion for Summary Judgment on that issue as well as on the issue of ownership. I expect those to be soon set for a hearing.

Also, 90117 is up for auction by RM Sotheby's at Pebble Beach / Monterey Portola Hotel in about 2 weeks. I will be there. That sale will be another useful data point (lower? higher?) for valuation of 90108 and for detention damage impacts. The Le Mans race history unique to 90117 make it EXTREMELY desirable and that sale may set another world record.

Exciting times!

Sincerely,

Ocean Joe

 

180 Out and All Interested,

Also, as the Fed increases interest rates, that 5% detention damage rate figure goes up. So, I will have to check the dates and update for the rate rises when the day comes to calculate, as will I also have to update the value of 90108 at different points in time when material.

It may already be at 6% x $13,425,000 / 12 = $805,500 / 12 = $67,125 per month detention damages.

If at 7%, then 7% x $13,425,000 / 12 = $939,750 / 12 = $78,312.50 per month detention damages.

If the value of 90108 increases to say $15,500,000, then maybe it is 7% x $15,500,000 / 12 = $1,085,000 / 12 = $90,417 per month detention damages.

Again, one should not hold stolen property hostage from the owner, especially when a unique and valuable collectible. The Wisconsin Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY made the issue of detention damages crystal clear to this very Defendant at oral argument and in their decision. It is available on video but one may need to sign in with an account: Wisconsin Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Richard A. Mueller v. TL90108, LLC - WisconsinEye (wiseye.org)

Stay tuned. IMHO, my thinking is that TL should have given the stolen car back to its owners RM + JF when we 1st made demand, before we filed suit. Instead, IMHO TL decided to hold the stolen car hostage, even as it costs TL millions more in attorney fees, using the court process to try and wear us down.

It is not working.

IMHO, such acts by TL are an improper use of the court system, and it exposes them to an abuse of process claim by us if we win this lawsuit . . . as I anticipate we will.

Time will tell.

Ocean Joe

 

I am new to this thread but maybe you can explain something to me: I have trouble understanding the calculation here.

1st: the car, when stolen, was dismantled, so it was not worth the value of a state of the art restored Goutte D’Eau, and the restoration was not paid by the lawful owner.
2nd: will a judge calculate the damage on today’s (well, in two weeks with the Pebble Beach auctions) value, when a Goutte D’Eau was not worth this price in 2015? Maybe the right calculation would be based on an average price each year since 2015?

Thank you and again I apologise if the question seems idiotic, as I said I’m new on this thread and don’t know much about American legislation!

 

Sitting here in San Leandro, CA, I have no access to court papers or deposition transcripts in Ocean Joe's state court case, Mueller et al vs. TL90108 LLC. I suppose I could hire a Milwaukee area process server to go to the courthouse to copy O.J.'s court papers at $0.50 a page, although this would be limited only to the filings that O.J. and the LLC have not moved to seal. I could also buy copies of deposition transcripts, at multiple hundreds of dollars apiece, if I knew which court reporter took the deposition. But this kind of effort would be disturbingly obsessive, don't you think? Like cyber-stalking Christopher Gardner's daughter. So I'll pass.

At the same time I can't pass on taking a shot at someone who is actually a party to a piece of litigation and writes that personal bias "renders" a financially disinterested bystander's on-line scribblings "deeply flawed." For good or ill, bulll***t artists can be very successful in this world (just look at Donald Trump!), but when they get into trouble is when they start to believe their own bull***t (just look at Donald Trump!)

Why does this passage make me think of Scrooge McDuck in a red-striped onesie cavorting in a giant vault of gold coins?

In any event, O.J. has chosen to cite no source for his contention that "in Wisconsin, detention damages are set by statute at 5% interest on the value of the property being detained." As is usually the case when a party invents a rule of law and omits any citation to a controlling authority, it took some digging to figure out the source of O.J.'s bizarre contentions. I think I found it in Wisconsin Statutes section 138.04. Here is a copy and paste of this provision, including for the terminally curious my insertion of hot links to the authorities included in the statute's on-line annotations. You will notice that the terms "detention damages" appear nowhere in section 138.04:

138.04  Legal rate. The rate of interest upon the loan or forbearance of any money, goods or things in action shall be $5 upon the $100 for one year and according to that rate for a greater or less sum or for a longer or a shorter time; but parties may contract for the payment and receipt of a rate of interest not exceeding the rate allowed in ss. 138.041 to 138.056, 138.09 to 138.14, 218.0101 to 218.0163, or 422.201, in which case such rate shall be clearly expressed in writing.

History: 1981 c. 45 s. 51; 1999 a. 31; 2009 a. 405.

A creditor is entitled to interest on a liquidated claim from the time payment was due by the terms of the contract and, if no time is specified, then from the time demand was made or from commencement of the action. Estreen v. Bluhm, 79 Wis. 2d 142, 255 N.W.2d 473 (1977).

A merchant who first informed the customer of the 24 percent interest to be charged on an open account in statements of the account provided after the account was opened violated s. 422.302 (2). The merchant was only entitled to interest under this section. Severson Agri-Service, Inc. v. Lander, 172 Wis. 2d 269, 493 N.W.2d 230 (Ct. App. 1992).

The writing expressing the interest to be charged need not be subscribed by the party charged. Advance Concrete Forms v. Mc Cann Const. 916 F.2d 412 (1990).

Prejudgment interest in Wisconsin personal injury cases. Brennan. WBB Aug. 1983. [Sorry, I can't find on-line access to this Wisconsin Bar Bulletin article.]​

If you read the cases included in the annotations you will see that the legislative intent of section 138.04 is both to make interest available to parties to a contract where the contract is silent as to interest, see Advance Concrete Forms v. Mc Cann Const. 916 F.2d 412 (1990), and to limit the amount of such interest in cases where the creditor seeks unilaterally to charge a rate greater than 5%. See Severson Agri-Service, Inc. v. Lander, 172 Wis. 2d 269, 493 N.W.2d 230 (Ct. App. 1992).

O.J. apparently would contend that section 138.04 also provides for an award of prejudgment interest -- interest accruing before the dollar amount of the defendant's judgment debt has actually been determined by a jury at the conclusion of trial -- at the statutory rate of 5% per annum. (I must use the word "apparently" because as already mentioned O.J. has chosen not to share the authority for his bizarre contentions.) It is true that prejudgment interest is available in civil actions in Wisconsin, but only in the rare cases where either the dollar amount of the injury from which the plaintiff is seeking relief is readily ascertainable, or where plaintiff's damages are "liquidated." One Wisconsin case has stated the rule as follows: "Prejudgment interest in Wisconsin is recoverable only in cases that involve liquidated damages or damages susceptible of reliable and reasonably accurate methods of calculation." Benke v. Mukwonago-Vernon Mut. Ins. Co., 110 Wis. 2d 356, 329 N.W.2d 243 (emphasis added).

"Liquidated damages" refers to a mutually agreed amount that is expressly set forth in the parties' written contract. See Wisconsin Statutes section 402.718 There is no contract between plaintiffs and defendant in the present action, so neither can there be any liquidated damages.

As for "damages susceptible of reliable and reasonably accurate methods of calculation" Benke v. Mukwonago-Vernon Mut. Ins. Co., supra, by O.J.'s own admission there are no such damages in the present action. He cannot even establish a readily ascertainable value of the object as to which he is seeking the remedy of replevin, and has instead invented, without authority, an "average" value stretching across seven years. To this innovation O.J. adds the further admission that he himself can come up with multiple alternative calculations of the principal amount to which prejudgment interest could apply.

Note too that all of O.J.'s theories would depend on the jury's resolution of conflicting expert opinion evidence, a process which would not begin to take place until the close of evidence at trial, and which generally starts with expert estimates standing apart from each other by orders of magnitude.

If the trial court were to go down O.J.'s garden path, the analysis would have to begin with the identification of that collection of objects to which O.J. and Richard Mueller actually have a claim for restoration of possession. That analysis would in turn depend on the elements of a claim for "replevin," one of the two forms of relief O.J. and R.M. are seeking. (The other is a judicial declaration of ownership of these objects.) The Wisconsin Supreme Court, in its opinion in this very action, has stated the elements that a plaintiff must prove in order to qualify for the remedy of replevin:

"Replevin is an action for possession where the factual question that must be resolved is which party is entitled to possession of the disputed property. [Citation and quotation marks omitted.] To succeed on a replevin claim, the court or jury must find:

"(a) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property involved.
"(b) Whether the defendant unlawfully took or detained the property involved.
"(c) The value of the property involved.
"(d) The damages sustained by the successful party from any unlawful taking or unjust detention of the property to the time of the trial.
​

"Wis. Stat. § 810.13(1). This statutory provision tracks the requirements for replevin at common law."​

As can be seen, the pivotal issue is a plaintiff's "entitle[ment] to possession of the property involved." In the present action, all parties agree that the property to which R.M. -- and derivatively O.J. -- are entitled to possession is limited to those objects which were present in Roy Leiske's workshop in pre-burglary March 2001. R.M. and O.J. cannot show that they are entitled to the possession of any parts that were subsequently added to Roy Leiske's March 2001 collection. This would include parts that C.G. claims to have legitimately purchased from R.M. in 2005 (see the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's February 23, 2022 story on this matter); the non-original engine installed by C.G.; body, chassis, and interior parts fabricated in C.G.'s shops or by his vendors: in short, all the additional parts which ultimately gave rise to the object currently known as Talbot Lago #TL 90108. Nor can R.M. and O.J. make a claim to the value of the 4,700 hours of labor that C.G. claims to have invested in this object. Regardless of one's personal opinion as to any factual dispute over the extent of R.M.'s claim to possession, it is this dispute itself which makes it impossible as a matter of law to make a pretrial determination of the dollar amount of "damages susceptible of reliable and reasonably accurate methods of calculation" quoting Benke v. Mukwonago-Vernon Mut. Ins. Co., supra. It follows that the 5% interest provided by Wisconsin Statutes section 138.04 is not available to O.J. and R.M.

Another point that seems to have escaped O.J.'s notice is that an LLC is liable in tort only to the extent of the assets titled to the LLC. In this case, that would be #90108, and probably very little else. Therefore, even in O.J.'s best case scenario, once he and R.M. take possession of $90108 the LLC will be an empty shell, "unable to respond in damages" as the lawyers put it.

As to the issue of what is cognizable as "detention damages" in a claim for the replevin remedy, the published cases that I can find involving unliquidated damages are limited to (a) instances where the value of the property has diminished since the commencement of the wrongful detention by the defendant, either through depreciation or through the defendant's intervening consumption of some part of the property, e.g., a collection of logs, or (b) instances where the property was capable of generating a net profit, e.g., a share of a dividend-paying stock.

Also, if it is impracticable for the defendant to restore the plaintiff to possession of "the property involved," Wis. Stat. § 810.13(1) -- as would seem to be the case with respect to Roy Leiske's March 2001 collection of objects -- then the "detention damages" awarded by the jury consist of the fair market value of the property. If the plaintiff has won an award of the fair market value of the property, and where as here the fair market value of the property has appreciated since the commencement of the wrongful detention, then there is no rationale for any additional "detention damages."

As a final note, the measure of damages in tort cases -- i.e., claims for breaches of civil duties not arising from contract -- is the amount of money necessary to compensate the plaintiff for such injuries as he or she can prove at trial. This well-settled rule is the basis of my snarky comments in Post #56, that most of us are familiar with the endless expenses of owning a special interest car, but to contend that our possession of our money pits could bring us a net value of $30,000 is beyond understanding. Now we know that the basis of O.J.'s contention is a misapplication of the 5% interest rate that Wisconsin law provides in the case of a contract in which no interest rate is specified. Under traditional tort law principles we can agree that O.J. and R.M. are entitled to compensatory damages in whatever amount they can prove at trial to be adequate to relieve the injury of not having possession of Roy Leiske's basket case of objects since the commencement of the LLC's ownership in 2015. But there is no basis for O.J.'s pipe dream of 5% prejudgment interest running against some unknown principal value of the LLC's fully restored #90108.

I hope the reader understands that the foregoing is merely a first draft of a legal brief on these issues, based on a few hours of Google-based legal research by a non-Wisconsin retired attorney. O.J. can easily blow me out of the water if he can cite a statutory or case-law authority expressly stating that "in Wisconsin, detention damages are set by statute at 5% interest on the value of the property being detained." I am fairly confident he cannot. But if I am wrong it wouldn't be the first time.

 

I did not know you are retired. Congrats. However, as you suspected, there is Wisconsin case law that blows your argument out of the water, cited in our Motion for Summary Judgment brief filed on October 4, 2021 (doc 477). The case is Barclay Brass & Aluminum Foundry v. Resnick, 35 Wis. 2d 620 (1967) Sup. Ct. of Wis., June 30, 1967.

Quoting the Justice:

". . . In Bigelow v. Doolittle, supra, this court held that the plaintiff was entitled to interest upon the property from the time it was taken from him. . . .

631 46 Am. Jur., Replevin, p. 80, sec. 148, states that: 'The general rule in replevin is that damages will be the value of the property at the time of taking, with interest from that time ....'

We conclude, therefore, that interest should have been allowed from September 1, 1962, the date of the conversion."


Our MSJ may need to be updated or supplemented due to appreciation and passage of time. I do have an expert for valuation. In our case, the Judge already ruled that improvements made to the stolen property before TL90108 LLC acquired possession belong to the owner (i.e. RM + JF) of the stolen property, not the acquirer. TL90108 LLC did not obtain ownership from Gardner, TL only acquired possession. Also in our case, the Wisconsin Supreme court has already indicated that detention begins on the date TL90108 LLC acquired possession. Per our brief, the 5% interest rate is simply the Wisconsin legal rate.


Ocean Joe

 

https://rmsothebys.com/en/auctions/mo22/monterey/lots/d0009-1938-talbot-lago-t150-c-ss-teardrop-coupe-by-figoni-et-falaschi/1234021

Sold at $7,625k.

With the theatre that has been 'created' and eternal debates as to what is original - 90108, if it were even remotely saleable in the foreseeable future, in any of the possible outcomes, would be worth substantially less than 90117 and certainly a fraction of 90107 (as Enzo Anselmo Ferrari points out).

0384M has the luxury of when it is one day sold - likely by Les Wexner's executors, of becoming an ex Les Wexner car...or even wrapped up as part of a larger collection as a whole. The debacle will not be forgotten for many years to come.

The car should have sold for substantial amounts more had the surrounding 'theatre' been fully settled pre auction - incalculable amounts more of course had it not been stolen in the first place.

The only lawn 90108 will ever see is a wealthy man's yard - not a billionaire's playground.

We Citizen Sleuths continue to watch Verbal striving to become Söze.

 

Adding in Sotheby's 10% buyer's premium, the out-the-door price of the Monterey teardrop was $8,387,500.

 

what would a no stories one fetch?

 

It has been much time since any update on this forum.

180 Out - Do you having any view on the progress in this story?

Thank you

 

My July prediction that both O.J.'s Wisconsin case seeking possession of the car, and C.G.'s federal criminal case, would go dark indefinitely, continues to hold up. The latest in the criminal case is that C.G.'s attorneys have received two extensions of the deadline for filing pre-trial motions. The deadline is now January 18. On that date the PACER system should make available a host of court filings, that I will try to remember to check out. There should be a good deal of new (to us) factual representations in those filings. At the trial court level the Wisconsin case is on hold while the LLC appeals O.J.'s efforts to shred the result of a mediation process that took place in late 2021. At the appellate level the record on appeal has been filed and Dr. Workman's attorneys have filed their Opening Brief.

Meanwhile #TL 90108 continues to work on its patina in the custody of the FBI, and Christopher Gardner continues to make new friends in the Dodge County jail.

 

My old friend, the late Raymond Milo told me a story of CG putting a deposit on a Bugatti owned by some old Frenchman. Later, he doctored the documents to appear as if the car was paid in full and collected the car from where it was stored. According to Milo, he (CG) was caught and sent to jail for this, Raymond said that 'such crimes involving Bugattis in France usually end with the criminal behind bars with an athletic North African'...- all of this happened 20-22 years ago.

 

@180 Out - as we arrive 3 months ongoing, did you manage to look into the PACER findings in updated way? We appreciate your expert explanation.

 

I confess have been less diligent in my attendance to Christopher Gardner's criminal case than his $400/hour (est.) defense attorneys, but not by much. After requesting and receiving multiple extensions, on March 10, 2023 they finally filed their Reply Briefs in support of a set of three pretrial motions. The original deadline was July 20, 2022! I'll take a look at these new filings and post something up.

 

Dear 180 Out,

I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to provide a brief summary of developments in the case of United States vs. Christopher Gardner since January. As of the latest documents, the defense has filed various motions, including motions to inspect and test the vehicle involved, motions to suppress evidence, and motions to exclude testimony. The defense has also requested additional time to finalize their plans for independent testing of the vehicle.

In light of these developments, I am questioning if you have any new insights or understanding of the case. Your expertise and analysis have been valuable in the past, and would all greatly appreciate any updates you can provide regarding the recent documents and their potential implication.

Thank you for your kind attention, and we much look forward to hearing from you.

 

Hello Perry, I'm here. No alias. It's really me.

 

"@GBTR6: @mbzgurl is a real person. At least there was a woman's voice on the phone, identifying herself as @mbzgurl, in a couple phone calls I received back in the heyday of the 375+ # 0384 thread."

Hello Darling,
Yes, I am a woman with a voice that's been quietly watching.

 

Ha! So true. There is no doubt that Joey is very good at what he does, a copycat criminal. After all, he watched the movie "The Usual Suspects" fifty-six times.

 

So I have heard.

My preference is the film 'The Godfather' - I hope to watch it again in the near future.