375+ # 0384

Relevant edited extracts from the judgement

37. On 15 March 1990, a written sales contract was entered into between L’Exception Automobile, represented by its chief executive, Mr Kruch, and Garage Francorchamps represented by its directors, Mr Swaters and Mr Lancksweert, for the sale of the chassis. The preamble to the contract stated: (i) the vendor had purchased the wreck of a vehicle presented as a Ferrari 375 Plus with the chassis number given as 384AM, in the United States in February 1989; (ii) the vendor had lawfully imported this wreck to Belgium from the United States and paid the import duties; (iii) there had been legal proceedings in the United States against various persons suspected of having concealed the wreck which had allegedly been stolen from its owner; (iv) that in August 1989, having learnt that the wreck was sought by the judicial authorities, the vendor immediately informed the authorities of the fact that it owned the wreck which had been stored in its garage for several months; (v) that the wreck was therefore put under seal at the garage and the vendor was interviewed by the Belgian judicial authorities; (vi) that following detailed explanation by Mr Kruch as to how he had purchased the wreck in good faith and as to his peaceful, public, continued and unequivocal possession of the wreck, the seals were lifted on 14 February 1990, with the vendor having free use of the vehicle, as set out in the letter from the public prosecutor which was annexed to the contract; (vii) that the vendor had had a technical assessment carried out by Sabena Technics, their report also being annexed to the contract, which established that the 3 and the 4 were legible but there was doubt as to whether the middle figure was an 8 or a 9 and that their assessment showed the numbers were those struck originally and not therefore altered by subsequent improper modifications; and (viii) the purchaser was a professional in the field of vintage Ferraris and prior to the agreement had had every opportunity to examine the wreck in detail and form a detailed opinion with regard to its origin and history, taking account notably of its consultation of the archives of the Ferrari factory in Italy.

52. Mr Swaters exhibits to his affidavit in the Ohio proceedings material which precedes the sale contract which supports the case that there was uncertainty as to the chassis numbers of the Ferrari 375 Plus cars, even in the 1950s when they were being raced. For example, in an article from 1984 in Cavallino magazine, which describes itself as the magazine for Ferrari enthusiasts, it is stated that the 375 Plus cars were built solely for the offensive of the half dozen races of the Sports Car Championship of 1954, there were only a few constructed and many early Ferrari race cars have disappeared because Ferrari usually set them aside when done with them.

53. In relation to the 1954 races, the article describes how in the Tour of Sicily, a 375 Plus driven by Umberto Maglioli went off the road and crashed heavily, but it is not known which chassis this was and whether it was repaired. The article describes how two 375 Pluses were entered in the Mille Miglia in May 1954, one for Farina and one for Maglioli. Farina’s car went off the road and hit a tree and the chassis of that car is reportedly known as 0386AM. It was said to have been discarded as beyond repair, but that was not definite. Maglioli’s car was reported as 0394AM, with certain distinctive features such as a streamlined headrest and a more penetrating nose, but that car crashed as well. In the next race at Silverstone a car similar in appearance to 0394AM appeared driven by Froilan Gonzalez, which won the race. The article then describes how other evidence suggests that the car which won at Silverstone was in fact 0392AM.

54. The article continues that at Le Mans in June 1954, Ferrari entered three cars, one driven by Maglioli and Paolo Marzotto, numbered 3 which some commentators have said was 0394AM, because of its similarity to the winner at Silverstone, but the competition record for 0392AM states that it was car number 3. Having described subsequent races, the article stated: “There is a great deal of confusion over all these 375 Pluses, not only at Le Mans, but at all the other races as well. The only thing that can be stated with any certainty is that the real winning car may never be known conclusively.”

55. Another example, which Mr Swaters exhibits to his affidavit, of the confusion over the chassis numbers is Ferrari Album 2 from 1981 which describes the car driven by Gonzalez at Silverstone and then driven by Maglioli and Marzotto at Le Mans in 1954 as 0394AM, which was then sold to Jim Kimberly. The Album includes photographs of “0394AM” at Silverstone where it was driven to victory by Gonzalez and of Mr Kimberly in practice in 0394AM at March Field in 1954. Mr Swaters also exhibits a Ferrari Market Letter from March 1986 which includes a photograph with the caption: “Jim Kimberly’s 375 Plus S/N 0394. Car did not finish the 1954 24 Hours of Le Mans, with Paolo Marzotto and Umberto Maglioli.” The text of the letter states: “Attempting to put together the individual history for each car requires a heavy reliance on the physical appearance of the cars. Until recently, given the fact that S/N 0384 was not believed to have been a 375 Plus and S/N 0386 had been destroyed, it was fairly simple-only S/N 0394 had the streamlined nose. But now S/N 0384 can lay claim to the same feature.”

64. At around the same time, there was correspondence about the Car between Mr Swaters and a well known Ferrari expert in the United States, Mr David Seibert, editor of Prancing Horse Magazine. Mr Seibert sent a fax to Mr Swaters on 3 April 1990 saying he was fairly certain that 0384AM was the car driven by Marzotto in the 1954 Mille Miglia where it crashed. He said he had a copy of the assembly sheets indicating the car was revised for the Carrera Messicana run in November 1954, but he did not believe it ran in the race.

65. Mr Swaters’ response on 4 April 1990 to this fax was enthusiastic:
“Thank you very much for your fax of yesterday. What a wonderful documentation you sent me.

Don’t you think that this car, which is definitely the 0384 is the car that was entered by Ferrari at the Mille Miglia for Maglioli at the Le Mans Marzetto/Maglioli and Silverstone Gonzales?

At the three events Ferrari entered the car under the number 0394. But 0394 according to the factory was never build, was only an engine sold to Vandervell/Whitehead.

According to Ferrari documentation, 0384 was rebuild 1954 Sept 2 and sold to Kimberly.

On the chassis of this car you can found the number 03?4. The ? is for sure either a 8 or a 9. That’s why I think it possible that, by mistake they entered 0384 at the Mille Miglia, Le Mans and Silverstone under the number 0394.

Last week I was in Maranello and looked through the archives and found:

0384 KIMBERLY

0392 GOLDSMITH

0396 EDGAR

0398 VALIENTE

0400 DESTROYED BY THE FACTORY

Do you know what happened between KIMBERLY and KARL KLEVE (Cincinnati)??”

66. This information was evidently derived from Mr Swaters’ own researches into the history of the Car, both from the various publications which he exhibited to his affidavit twenty years later and in the Ferrari archives. This version of the history contradicts what Mr Seibert was fairly certain about in his fax, as Mr Seibert admits in his subsequent fax referred to below.

67. Mr Seibert responded to Mr Swaters’ fax the following day saying that: “if this chassis really ‘owns’ the history usually ascribed to 0394, many questions might be answered. My belief that 0384 was the Marzotto car (crashed) from the 1954 Mille Miglia was based on the assumption that 0394 was a different car, that the car crashed by Farina was 0386 and that Marzotto was driving a 4.9 liter car. By process of elimination this would most likely have been 0384. If, instead, this is the car which is usually described as 0394, then its history would include the Maglioli entry at the 1954 Mille Miglia. Marzotto and Maglioli at Le Mans and Gonzalez at Silverstone. The car would then have been sold to Jim Kimberly who sold it to Howard Hively of Cincinnati, Ohio. Another interesting fact, tending to support your theory, is that I have data sheets for several 375 Pluses: 0384, 0392, 0396 and 0398. These seem to be the only ones sold from the factory, if 0400 was destroyed and 0394 was only an engine. On the other hand, if the Maglioli MM car was 0384, then I’m not sure of the identity of the Marzotto car-could it perhaps have been 0400?”

68. Mr Swaters responded the next day saying he had asked Ferrari to search in the old documentation for something more “and at actual point they think 0394 may have existed and been sold with another engine and that engine 0394 have been sold to Vandervell. They are specially trying to find the original invoice to Kimberly.”

 

That might be 500 billable hours Ed!!!

 

Yea...you gotta warm up.....

 

Agreed

 

The case managmeent hearing is coming up in three weeks time. Following the recent hearings, the title and parts belong to Florence Swaters and Zanotti has has no interest in the car so my question is what is stopping the case being settled ?

On the face of it, there is no reason why Wexner cannot now take delivery of his car and yet he continues to press his claim against Bonhams, Swaters and Gardner. Why Wexner continues to ignore Ford/Lawsons part in this dispute is also a mystery.

A key player in the dispute has hitherto been ignored and that is Copely Motors. Afterall, it was they that did all of the due diligence on the car (including talking to Joes salesman David Clark), it was they that signed the auction contract and paid the money and it is in their name that is on the legal claim.

I have just Googled Copley Motors and was surprised by the result. On the face of it they are not even specialist Ferrari dealer as their website showroom lists Landrover, Mercedes and Porsche and the pricipal marques.

Has anyone had dealing with Copely Motors and can someone offer an explanation as to why Mr Wexner chose them to spend $18m of his money on 0384AM ?

 

He needed a Buyers Agent in the room?
No faith in telephone bidding?

It's interesting reading, that Swater's purchase (of the frame) had some indemnification language in it.

 

From the other site -- apparently Joe is responding to Max directly now?

No clue why Joe no longer posts on this website (after numerous years of posts on 0384 legal / ownership aspects) given he has no intent of actually complying with or abiding by the Justice Flaux and the UK court system decision in regard to ownership.

At least it made for an interesting Friday on a story that appears to have no final chapter or conclusion as of yet...

 

Max always makes entertaining reading and while a lot of what he writes is factually correct he does put a rather colourful slant on everything, and you can never be sure what is real and what is not;-)

 

I am not posting nor responding to (or on) the other site, and caution all to be wary of the totally fabricated documents being posted there.

I have refrained from posting here because the UK court issued an order that I do not want to run afoul of.

Of course I am disappointed with the recent preliminary issue orders of 10 November 2015 and plan on appealing same.

Joe

*

 

Welcome back Joe.

On what basis are trying to appeal Justice Flaux's judgement and has permission to appeal been granted ?

 

I am shocked that my letter to the Judge and the parties already appears on that "other site."

I am not shocked by 180 Outs' biased comments. There is substance to all my claims, unfortunately, my claims are not always apprehended at the trial court level, as evident by the five Ohio appeals that Lawson/Ford won, and a sixth appeal court win by their dismissal of a frivoulous Gardner appeal.

The subject matter of this case can be quite technical and overwhelms most lay people in short order. I still can't get my mom to think that the Stolen Portion in January of 1989, as is, was worth $500,000 according to Ferrari author, expert, and Cavallino editor Stan Nowak. As you may know, Stan bought the 375 Plus 0398AM for Ralph Lauren as he was building his collection, in 1986 I think, so Stan is (was) one of the very few (and best) on the planet with first hand experience as well as expert knowledge. The US government called him as their Ferrari expert witness at the 6-9 November 1989 trial. He passed away in 1991.

I quoted the first 3 or 4 paragraphs of Stan Nowak's editorial in my opening statement at the 19-20 October 2015 UK hearing. See the June 1989 Cavallino issue #51.

I can't go into the particulars of my appeal and I do have my reasons.

Joe

*
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The Other Site posted up this letter from Joe Ford to the Court. Its meaning and intent are not apparent. To bleat "not fair" like a child is not a legal argument. I expect that Justice Flaux is as befuddled as the rest of us as to what would have constituted "fairness" in this case. Justice Flaux's published decision indicates he granted wide latitude to Ford to present his case on the merits with respect to the ownership issue. It would be good to hear from Joe Ford one example of prejudice that he incurred as a result of trying the ownership issue in London as opposed to Cincinnati. Would he cite the fact that Kristi Lawson voluntarily chose not to appear at the London trial? She was not a witness to the 1999 transaction and could not have given evidence. In any event it is obvious to all that the purpose of her choice to stay home is to set up yet another fraudulent Ford/Lawson pretext in the Ohio courts.

Regarding Joe Ford's London appeal, I predict its substance to be another untimely challenge to London jurisdiction over the ownership issue. This will require the appellate court to ignore that Ford and Lawson themselves defaulted on the 15-day deadline to move to exclude jurisdiction over Bonhams' July 2014 request for an adjudication of the ownership issue, and Ford and Lawson's own version of that same request, affirmatively stated by them in their own Cross-Claim against Bonhams. It is also the case that the High Court has ruled on that challenge and that Ford and Lawson chose not to make a timely appeal from that ruling. I do not expect the appellate court to be as incompetent as it would have to be to grant a hearing to these embarrassingly frivolous arguments.

Edit: Sorry for the confusion, but after I posted up this post I saw that Joe Ford's letter to the judge had his personal info on it. So I deleted the post, blacked out the info, and reposted. I didn't notice that Joe Ford posted up a reply. Just keep in mind that this post preceded Joe Ford's #3563. It's good to have Joe Ford back in the saddle. Comparing Justice Flaux's ability to comprehend and apply English law to his mother's understanding of the market value of Ferrari parts: that ought to go over big in London.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Joe. It is great to have you posting again as it was all becoming a bit one sided.

Given that you have shown no reticence in publishing private information on others on this website including your former client Gardner (as determined by the Florida Arbitration ruling) it is difficult to accept you complaining when others do the same to you. Although I have the greatest of sympathy for anyone caught up in litigation in the London Courts, it cannot be said that you were not warned of the consequences when you made the decision to reject the terms of the HoA and try to scupper the sale.

While sitting in the Court behind an abundance of expensive lawyers (the cost of which has been ordered against you) I did wonder what might have been had you accepted the HoA and promoted the sale. Firstly, Wexner or somebody else may have paid more for the car without the whiff of problems that were being circulated by your agent prior to the sale. Secondly, you could have made a joint and more rational decision on how to deal with the Zanotti claim. Thirdly, if you hadn’t put Gardner into default under the financing agreement you would not have ended up in losing at the Florida Arbitration and having to share your 50% of the OC proceeds with Lawson and pick up the litigation costs. Finally, and most significant of all, you would not be writing to Justice Flaux pleading poverty on the first wave of costs awarded against you.

What I find most surprising about your letter is that if you are intending to breach Justice Flaux’s order for costs because your “resourses” are already “exhausted” after a two day title hearing then how did you possibly think you were going to go all the way to the end of this litigation defending your and Lawson’s claims for a breach of the HoA when you and your council were acutely aware of the cost management projections ?

What is also curious about your and Lawson’s similar letters, is that you both squeal about the injustice and cost of having to fight a two day hearing on title in London, having already started one in Ohio, at the same time saying that in preference, you are happy to fight an astronomically expensive ten day hearing on the HoA. Sounds like your contingent investors are cherry picking the arguments that want to pay for.

Joe, No need to expand on this as Max Vito has helpfully provided a dropbox link to various documents, including your PRO SE SKELETON ARGUMENT RE: APPEAL REQUEST. If my understanding on what is posted on the other site is correct, Justice Flaux has refused your request to appeal his decision on title and has already issued an order preventing you taking legal action in any Court of tribunal other than the High Court of England and Wales.

Where exactly are you intending to appeal ?

 

I was there

Judge Flaux refused leave to appeal his decision. He did however tell Joe that he could appeal that decision (ie the leave to appeal, not the ability to appeal) but left him in no doubt that he thought that even an appeal against a decision to not allow an appeal would fail.

Joe can act for himself in doing that (and frankly what I saw of him in court, he doesn't have the ability to do that effectively), but otherwise it will cost him more money which he admits he doesn't have so presumably won't be able to hire counsel.

So I think the chance of any appeal against Judge Flaux's decision is absolutely nil

How that stacks out in Ohio remains to be seen.

F

 

I wrote this while 180out and Enigma were posting their replies.

All I can say is that Joe completely misses what Judge Flaux had repeatedly told him in court, that English Law (under which this case is being heard, and which both Joe and Lawson agreed to) is based on factual evidence. Joe keeps on relying on anecdote and opinion which Judge Flaux keeps on reminding him is not valid.

F

 

Read the thread Rob

 

I wish I could answer that.

 

Ohio remains unsettled, in spite of all the mechanizations... opinions created in three separate judicial systems, all of which have yielded their own version to claim of title... allowed for 3 distinct claims to ownership which are discontinuous... lineage must be continuous, without defect, before title can be passed... each jurisdiction has ruled as it pleases (which they are entitled to ), but stands alone, confined by its' borders of jurisdiction, as long a defect is present from the prior jurisdiction...

 

A Defective Ferrari Title and a Homeless Man wannabe Ferrari owner

As long as there is a homeless clam digger bum with an expired law license living under a rock screaming, "I won the Ferrari!", your argument would be valid in Cheeseyville. But, in the real world, such a homeless man would not be taken seriously and would be quickly slapped down in any juristiction. It’s obvious you did not read Judge Flaux's ruling or the evidence either, so, more than likely, you can’t understand it. It is the most comprehensive ruling on Swaters vs Kleve, and the actual "Real –Time" ownership decision. Maybe you should read it before gobbing off.

Ford is a vindictive litigator and nothing more. He’s lost every case he’s ever been involved with. His proclaimed six wins in the Appeals Court are not wins at all. If you want to read it, it’s in the posted court documents. Joe cherry picks situations to cause stress to his victims. He did it to Florence Swaters, he even planned to disrupt the funeral of Jacques Swaters (read the court filing by Swaters in London). Then, when Terry Myer would not go his way on the recovery of "Ocean Joe’s 0384 engine", Joe turned Terry into the IRS criminal division. When Gardner caught him conning, he attacked in the same manner, just like he’d turn in any reader in this thread, including you.

The reason his Ferrari fraud lives in Ohio is because of the poor quality of Judge's in the Cincinnati courts….from drunks, to drug heads, to burned out public elected officials, they are all clowns in Clownville. Just read the transcripts! You only have to look at the video of those court moments on Max’s site to figure it out. But, despite all of Ocean Joe’s "Wins" in Ohio, the Courts in Clowntown ruled that all issues are to be determined in the London High Court. Step one of that process was WHO owned the Ferrari? Step two is; Was the HOA a valid agreement and who defaulted in it?

It was evident that Karl Kleve was not only riddled with dementia most of his life, but, he also played the con-game in the recovery of his "abandoned Hulk". It’s public knowledge that once the car was stolen, (and it was at ONE time stolen) he decided not to do anything to recover it. He could have, but he didn't.

Kleve filed 225 law suits from 1980 to 2001, and not one of those were against Mark Daniels, Jacques Swaters or anyone else involved with his Ferrari. Kleve was given $45,000 from the Atlanta trial award in November 1989. He chose not to use those funds in the recovery. He told everyone he went to Belgium, yet he had no passport. This "car-guy" Kleve told many people he associated with that he’ll wait until Swaters restores the car first, then he'd make his move. That's what he did once Mark Daniels emerged as his agent. Daniels withheld part of Karl's money because, Kleve withheld the parts in the 1999 settlement. Kleve felt the deal was not settled. His discision was calculated, and leaving the settlement amount blank was his own legal strategy, sort of an Ocean Joe understanding of the law for a man who was Pro-Se in over 225 Ohio law suits as a "Plaintiff".

Karl Kleve, being a similar type character as Joe Ford played the system. He coined fake titles, he made false statements to obtain documents and when Swaters was finally reeled into his scheme, he took Swaters money and used it to purchase real estate at public auctions, and buried the rest of the cash in glass jars. Then a few years later, he coined another series of fraudulent documents. He passed false documents claiming his ownership of the Ferrari to Kristine Kleve on his death. Kristie Kleve, in the typical Kleve way, continued the farce collaborating with Joe Ford to defend in Karl’s honor.

Ford's game of "Cherry-Picking" reeled in "investors", his own family members, and some F-Chat bloggers, and then joined the "Ferrari Club" and chest beat his way into costing millions of dollars to people who did nothing to deserve this! Many on this thread have been mislead, lied to, fooled, and have followed Ocean Joe right over the cliff, the cliff he stood on the edge of like a drunk batting balloons. Joe Ford III is NEVER wrong, even his Mother will tell you that.

Kristine Kleve, IMHO is certainly aware of who her father really was. She had the chance to settle, solve and close an honorable deal, even though it was riddled with confusion and the normal shuffling that Ocean Joe used in this entire thread. She choose to go Joe's way, and the way her father did his business. The London High Court heard Joe for 2 days, and read his entire claim. They called him out for who he really is, and not for the Internet Intruder who lurks for victims from Terry Myer, to Florence Swaters, to Christopher Gardner.

Judge Flaux's decision was deliberate, and was handed down by his intense review of the facts and documents, discarding the untruths of Joe's internet blogs hollering "I own a 375 Plus". Even a mother would be ashamed, knowing the facts that were admitted in the London Court about Joe Ford using his son’s money to fund his "cherry picking". That is totally amoral and unacceptable, it's sickening what this guy does.

In the end, truth "usually" prevails, albeit too late for too many.

 

1.1 No "Flaming": Please do not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another user.
You have repeatedly flamed users in this thread, mbzgurl.
In this instance you are flaming Fchat users cheesey and OceanJoe

This from someone who will not publish her name because of 'spies'.

The dementia aside, this is a bold-faced lie.
You and your banned friend need to stop trying to use Fchat as a place of record for your false narratives.

The truth bell is tolling for thee, mbzgurl.

 

Wow Dave, I liked that MBZ girl post. It seemed to be an accurate assessment. Even though she is probably someone Joe took advantage of at some point. Not sure why you or anyone else here would stick up for any side of this HBO Series/Riddle of the Sphinx case. Unless of course you knew more then us poor readers about what is really going on, if there is a 'really' here.