375+ # 0384 | Page 144 | FerrariChat

375+ # 0384

Discussion in 'Vintage (thru 365 GTC4)' started by tongascrew, Jul 26, 2006.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. readplays

    readplays Formula 3

    Aug 22, 2008
    2,344
    New York City
    Full Name:
    Dave Powers
    Hello Yale,

    Thanks very much, I appreciate it.

    Mbzgurl is a friend (associate, whatever) of a banned user who was allegedly Joe Ford's financier. That's enough for them to not get along.

    I do.
    http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/138135184-post12.html

    There's been a lot posted on here in the last few years that's false for the simple reason that some would gain financially if the truth were distorted.
    A case in point would be the tactic of referring to 0384 not by its identity ('0384'), but as an "abandoned hulk".
    0384 was stored outside by Karl Kleeve on Harrison Avenue in Green Township/Cincinnati, Ohio on a 2 acre lot he owned.
    While he did dismantle it (and he did suffer from dementia as he got older), it was on his property and he never abandoned it.
    The 'hulk' term is also inaccurate and is used as a pejorative in the effort to obscure the truth. The truth is that the real historical value (and therefore financial) is in the original chassis and accompanying body stolen from Kleeve, that Swaters retained alongside the shiny red recreation he commissioned in the 90's.

    For the record, I'm glad Ocean Joe is persistent in his quixotic efforts. We've never met and I've never spoken with him. We have messaged back in forth once or twice in the last 7 years.
    There's been a lot said about Joe and his choices and tactics. I'm not here to defend him- he's perfectly capable of doing that himself.
    I'm glad Joe has been persistent for this reason: I've been around long enough to see and to know the big picture.

    I was aware in August of 1990 that the car was with Swaters in Belgium and that he was playing games to keep it away from Karl Kleeve. For the rest of the time that Karl Kleeve had the mental faculty to do so, he tried to get Swaters to return the car. For many years I would run into him in Cincinnati- downtown, or at car shows, or wherever- and the answer was always the same.. Karl was trying to get his Ferrari back and Swaters would not consent.

    It is a matter of public record that Jacques Swaters was in contact with Karl Kleeve and stated in writing that he would offer financial compensation but not return Karl Kleeve's stolen property, 1954 Ferrari 375 Plus #0384.
    That is a fact.

    Karl only ever wanted his car back. Swaters would not agree to return the stolen property he possessed.

    Wikipedia tells us that as a teen, Jacques Swaters is alleged to have aided the Resistance against the Nazis in WWII. I have no reason to doubt that. Anyone who was a part of those efforts deserves to be considered a hero.

    That said, people are complicated.
    To anyone who knew Jacques Swaters, I would ask you to consider this;
    If your prized possession was stolen and kept from you overseas,
    If the possessor of your stolen goods wrote to you and said you could not have your car back,
    Would that be all right with you?
    Everything hunky dory?
    All okay?

    Really?

    A lot of time has passed thanks to Mr. Swaters efforts to hold Karl at bay.
    Time that has given rise to a great many lies and bs, and has provided the vultures with the opportunity to impugn Karl Kleeve's character at will.

    At a certain point it ceases to matter what the truth about Karl was other than this: his property was stolen, he wanted it back, and the guy who had it had no intention of ever returning it.

    We all have our own version(s) of the truth.
    In my mind, I see myself as that old Knight guarding the (real) holy grail in the Indiana Jones movie.
    In the mind of many Fchatters, I'm sure, I'm seen as that guy who won't shut up- and they don't care anymore.. and why won't I let it go.

    At the end of the day, I'm reminded of something Seymour Bernstein said in the terrific documentary about him ('Seymour') by Ethan Hawke:
    'When you reach a certain age*, you don't care any more and you tell people the truth".
    *While I'm a generation X'er, my involvement with this case is quite long in the tooth.

    Lastly, when I worked on the recovery efforts, my supervisor was my friend Bill Victor.
    Bill was a guy of unimpeachable integrity who gave me the opportunity to be part of a community of gear heads trying to help one among us who was dealing with a great personal loss.
    Karl and Bill are gone but I'm still here and I'm not ready to shut up yet.

    Dave
     
  2. yale

    yale Formula Junior

    May 2, 2004
    744
    New York City
    Thank you Dave.
     
  3. ginge82

    ginge82 Formula 3

    Jul 23, 2012
    1,361
    Europe
    Full Name:
    Art Corvelay
    'A prized possession'...that was allowed to rot in a field.

    The car should NEVER have been taken without documented consent but lets not pretend that this car was valued by Kleve and cared for. That is quite ridiculous to suggest.
     
  4. francisn

    francisn Formula 3

    Apr 18, 2004
    1,938
    Berks, UK
    Full Name:
    francis newman
    #3579 francisn, Nov 25, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2015
    On the evidence presented in the London court, the very impressive Justice Flaux ( and yes I was there to witness it) took a very different view to you. It is a measured judgement based on the factual evidence presented to the court. Not hearsay or anecdotes. Read the judgement fully and tell me where you disagree.

    Joe had his chance to present his and Lawson's case. Judge Flaux found against them.

     
  5. readplays

    readplays Formula 3

    Aug 22, 2008
    2,344
    New York City
    Full Name:
    Dave Powers
    Not a field as the lot was neither rural, nor a farm.
    2 acre vacant lot (now apartment buildings) in the city limits of Cincinnati, Ohio.
    Don't mean to be pedantic but this thread has seen a lot of attempted distortions through semantics.
    To be clear, I don't think you personally are doing that.. just want to acknowledge a lot of people have.

    I agree that 0384 (and 3589, and 0052, along with other Ferraris) is something I personally would NEVER leave outside in the elements.

    Again, 'taken without documented consent' is a 5 dollar word for STOLEN.
    0384 wasn't taken, it was stolen.
    That is a matter of indisputable historical fact.

    As to whether it was valued by Kleve, in point of fact; it was, I knew it to be so as did everyone involved in the recovery efforts, it was reiterated to me for years after 1990 in the form of Karl Kleve repeating to me on many occasions that he was still trying to get it back.
    It was valued by him and I attest to that fact.

    Cared for?

    The laziest, most tired, most hollow statement you will find on Fchat with regards to other people's property is as follows:

    'It's his car, he can do what he wants with it'.
    I hate seeing that in print.

    It's used to justify reducing a great historical artifact to rubble and replaced modern metal as a result of wrecking a car in historic 'racing'.
    It's used to justify King Ralph ralphizing all the history out of great competition ferraris during the course of a shine (sorry, 'restoration').
    It's used to justify all manner of lame behavior and poor custodianship on the part of people who can write a check for a car.

    But at the end of the day, it's true.
    And it goes both ways. Though you and I would never do to a car what Karl did, it was his and it was his to do what he wanted to do with.

    He took the engine out and did some other partial dismantling. His justification was he wanted to prevent theft.
    While he was of diminished mental capacity due to dementia, he certainly had the presence of mind to know what he had and to take steps (in his own way) to safeguard it.

    I'm not justifying how he took care of 0384 or the many other cars in his possession.
    I don't agree with it.

    That doesn't change the fact that it was stolen.
    No one had the right to do that.
    It is quite ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
     
  6. mbzgurl

    mbzgurl Karting

    Oct 3, 2010
    138
    #3581 mbzgurl, Nov 25, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2015
    Hi Yale,
    Thanks, you are correct. I found out a long time ago about Joey's business ethics, long before this Ferrari deal ever happened. Joe amazes me, about just how good he is at what he does. In fact, I'd like to sic 'em on a couple people I know.
     
  7. francisn

    francisn Formula 3

    Apr 18, 2004
    1,938
    Berks, UK
    Full Name:
    francis newman
    That is all totally irrelevant. The London court decided earlier this month that the 2nd Sept 1999 settlement agreement between Kleve and Swaters is valid, based on various expert witness statements, much of which were not contested by Ford.

    As I wrote before, read the judgement which is linked to earlier in this thread.

     
  8. mbzgurl

    mbzgurl Karting

    Oct 3, 2010
    138

    Not true! I am not a friend or an associate of Joe's financier. And, I don't know you either, so why do you make these ridiculous statements about me?
    I think I get along just fine with Joey. I actually like the guy.
     
  9. readplays

    readplays Formula 3

    Aug 22, 2008
    2,344
    New York City
    Full Name:
    Dave Powers
    Agree to disagree.
    I don't know you but after you PM'ed me (on 7/17/14), I figured out who you were.
    I respect your privacy and will not publish any of your personal details.

    Thanks
     
  10. readplays

    readplays Formula 3

    Aug 22, 2008
    2,344
    New York City
    Full Name:
    Dave Powers
    Hello Francis,

    Thank you for attending and reporting on the proceedings. I look forward to reading Justice Flaux's findings when I can make the time to sit down and read through it. If I have anything to add in response to that in the future, I will publish it here.

    I understand you are presenting the finding of the court and that those findings went against what Joe Ford presented.

    I congratulate Justice Flaux for impressing you and Kim and some of the responding readers with his efficiency and the soundness of his judgments. I'm quite sure if I have the occasion to meet him, I'll be duly impressed.

    I apologize for the sarcasm, Mr. Newman.
    While in my business school training I only had 3 semester hours of Business Law, my grandfather and namesake was a highly regarded judge and attorney and was friends and law school classmates with a famous US Supreme Court justice. Additionally, my aforementioned namesake was himself named after a famous ancestor we share, the last seated hanging judge in my home state (19th century- we're not *that* backward here in the colonies).

    All this to say, while I sincerely respect Justice Flaux's work to remedy this case and I look forward to reading his findings, He and I have different jobs

    It is the charge of the right honorable Mr. Justice Flaux of the Her Majesty's British High Court, in exchange for certain compensation, to adjudicate the mess that is the legal case regarding ownership (etc.) of 1954 Ferrari 375 Plus 0384.

    It is the charge of Dave Powers, citizen of New York City and State, native of Cincinnati, Ohio, as participant and material witness to the case of Karl Kleve (deceased) and the theft of his personal property, the aforementioned Ferrari bearing the chassis number 0384, to bear witness to what I know to be true. My compensation was set forth by Cicero with the following edict: 'Virtue is its own reward'.

    Our statement, findings, and records may diverge. They may, on the face, seem to contradict each other.

    And that's fine.
    I'm not questioning Justice Flaux's ability to adjudicate successfully based on the factual evidence presented to the court.
    I'm simply presenting and discussing what I know to be true, having been present for the recovery and some subsequent occasions which are part and parcel to the history of the theft of 0384.

    The fact that Joe Ford cannot prove to the court certain events of the 1990s, which predate the involvement of Joe Ford, Justice Flaux, Florence Swaters, et al- has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not they are true.

    "It's not what you know, it's what you can prove" (TRAINING DAY)

    If I know something to be true, and if Joe Ford cannot prove that very same thing in a court of law, that doesn't diminish the fact that it's true.
    It (my previous statements you replied to) is anything but irrelevant.
    It is a part of the historical record, stated here by me- someone who was present and acquainted with what happened.

    I am not here, 'trying the case' on Fchat in opposition to Justice Flaux's findings. What I am doing is speaking up when others attempt to 'try the case' on Fchat for their own gain and do so in opposition to what I know to be true.

    Thank you again for your work to keep this thread informed with the court developments in London.

    Best Regards,
    Dave
     
  11. francisn

    francisn Formula 3

    Apr 18, 2004
    1,938
    Berks, UK
    Full Name:
    francis newman
    Sorry Dave

    There was a 2nd Sept 1999 settlement between Kleve and Swaters. Now there was some dispute of the validity of that, but Judge Flaux decided on the evidence presented (including by Ford) that it is valid. So assuming the London Court has precedence anything that happened before 2nd Sept 1999 is now therefore irrelevant.

    Ford appeared before the London Court and in doing so agreed to its jurisdiction. Lawson had previously been represented before the court, therefore agreeing to its jurisdiction, but subsequently reversed that and didn't appear. I don't know how that effects her. But she and Ford are now liable for over £400K sterling costs in the UK

    F

     
  12. francisn

    francisn Formula 3

    Apr 18, 2004
    1,938
    Berks, UK
    Full Name:
    francis newman
    Hi Dave

    Just to add to my previous reply. What you have written is historically interesting, and I don't mean to belittle it, but as I pointed out in my previous post, the Justice Flaux judgement renders anything pre the 2nd Sept 1999 settlement rather irrelevant - unless Joe Ford manages to find a way to resurrect the whole thing :)


     
  13. readplays

    readplays Formula 3

    Aug 22, 2008
    2,344
    New York City
    Full Name:
    Dave Powers
    Hi Francis,

    Jacques Swaters paying Mark Daniels as agent to Karl Kleve an agreed upon amount, and Karl Kleve receiving that amount in full via Daniels makes for a great story for Swaters' side.
    I am aware of no definitive evidence that exists or has existed that satisfies all of those conditions.
    It certainly is in complete contradiction to all that I know to have happened.

    Swaters team can claim what they like and Kleve is long gone. Unfortunately, the burden of proof falls to Joe Ford who wasn't around the case back then. I certainly can't fault Justice Flaux for his findings. Were I in his position, I'm sure I'd reach the same conclusion.

    My previous post may have been poorly written. It's definitely time for dinner.
    But again, I'm not attempting to retry the case.

    It is the received wisdom that 0818 is not 0818. Yet a Classiche certification attests to the opposite and in absence of contrary evidence, it is the legal document of record.

    Joe Ford and Kristi Kleve Lawson may wind up with tremendous losses in terms of court rulings and levies.
    Swaters' heir and daughter Florence may walk away with all the proceeds, and Mr. Leslie Wexner may take home 0384 and do what he wishes with it.

    Even if all of that happens, it doesn't change the history of what Jacques Swaters knew about the theft, and what Jacques Swaters did while in possession of 0384.
     
  14. readplays

    readplays Formula 3

    Aug 22, 2008
    2,344
    New York City
    Full Name:
    Dave Powers
    Thank you Francis. I understand and completely agree with your conclusions.

    Dave
     
  15. francisn

    francisn Formula 3

    Apr 18, 2004
    1,938
    Berks, UK
    Full Name:
    francis newman
    Sorry again Dave

    0818 is 0818. Nothing to do with this.

    Whatever happened Kleve/Daniels is now irrelevant.

    The court agrees the 2nd Sept 1999 Swaters/Kleve settlement. That gives Florence Swaters ownership. Who knows what now happens with the HOA fight.

    You may well have emotional attachment to what happened back then, but this is the current reality.

    F





     
  16. readplays

    readplays Formula 3

    Aug 22, 2008
    2,344
    New York City
    Full Name:
    Dave Powers
    Hi Francis,

    I will try one last time.

    I''m not posting about the court case.
    I'm not criticizing the rulings of Justice Flaux.
    The Court is limited in scope to; what is now in front of it, and, what evidence/testimony from the past is in the record or now entered (pursuant to addressing the issues now in front of the court).

    My discussion concerns what happened in the past, not what is happening now.
    You are correct that what I'm talking about has no relevancy to the ongoing court case.
    That is why I have been limiting my responses of late to questions of historical record. Mostly I've been reading with interest the court developments and not posting.
    It is when someone makes a post about the past history that is inaccurate or deceptive, or one where they have no first hand knowledge of the events they pretend to describe... that I chime in.

    Thanks,
    Dave
     
  17. francisn

    francisn Formula 3

    Apr 18, 2004
    1,938
    Berks, UK
    Full Name:
    francis newman
    Fair enough Dave

    F

     
  18. mbzgurl

    mbzgurl Karting

    Oct 3, 2010
    138

    Dave,

    Your "first hand" experience of "being" there had nothing to do with the reality of the 375+ transaction. You obviously didn't know that Karl Kleve filed 225 lawsuits, and not one of them was in relation to the Ferrari. You also knew nothing about Kleve receiving $45,000k from the FBI for the purchase and he did nothing about returning that money in order to get the Ferrari back. Plus, you knew nothing of Kleve’s financial reality and how he paid cash for all his real estate from 1999 to 2002 with "no income". You didn't know about Daniels either, or the payments he got from Swaters. Nor did you know about Kristie Lawson offering the parts and the titles for sale for $750,000 down to $250,000 (by November 2009), and then for $100,000 in February 2010. Your one-sided Kleve-Ford back up is based only on hearsay, is backed with no documents and comes from Joe Ford's mouth. Your targeted posts and personal messages to get people expressing opinions other than that of Joe Ford's has been relentless. You manage to dance your way through this.

    What happened in the London Court was not the menu dejour of Fchat. It was all about REAL evidence and experts that crushed Ford, while Kristie Lawson ran for the hills. Instead of defending Karl Kleve which would have cost her nothing, she chose not to show up in London because, she was nailed by the truth. That truth is; Kleve was paid in 1999 and everything after that was Lawson and Ford returning to the money well as penniless litigants with promises to PayUp if the Ford Machine grinded Florence into a plup. Kleve was precisely who he was, and nothing more. There is no need to think that he didn’t deserve all he got, took and lied about. His legacy will live on as one of the craziest of all Ferrari owners.
     
  19. mbzgurl

    mbzgurl Karting

    Oct 3, 2010
    138
    Dave,

    You are either a script reader, or an actor. The facts of the past you had no clue about. Everyone knew Karl Kleve, and he was then and is now the same Bit Actor, now that the story is told with supporting documents. You didn't see any documents. Really, you couldn't have known what Kleve was doing. You didn’t even apply any facts to your own denial by fiction. What you think is inaccurate or is deceptive, was the role you assumed after being sucked into the Ford-Kleve circus. Once the facts and law rolled in last month, you turned off that part of your performance.

    Only Kleve knew the truth, of his own actions for decades. Now, the car is out the bag that is based on documents and not by blogger fiction.

    I know one player personally, and that’s Joey Ford. What I said then, is the truth proven today in the Highest Court in London….

    Mbzgurl
     
  20. Ocean Joe

    Ocean Joe Formula Junior
    Rossa Subscribed

    Mar 21, 2008
    450
    Boca Raton, Florida
    Full Name:
    Joseph Ford III
    To The Ferrari Community,

    Mbzgurl does not know me personally, but Christopher Gardner once did - Gardner is the one who claimed I was his attorney, but the arbitrators recently set him straight on that.

    I think Mbzgurl = Gardner posting under another's name based on the constant personal attacks on me, which is trademark Gardner, adding nothing to this thread.

    Joe

    *
     
  21. Enigma Racing

    Enigma Racing Formula 3

    Jun 1, 2008
    1,111
    London
    Full Name:
    Kim
    Why did you lose then and could you post the outcome of the arbitration ?
     
  22. mbzgurl

    mbzgurl Karting

    Oct 3, 2010
    138
    Joey,
    Oh please!!!! Come on!

    You and I have attempted business in the real car world (until you pulled a "Joey" on me) and you know it. Why are you always in denial? Is it because you truly can't remember things? Or are you being selective? Maybe it's drugs and alcohol?

    A win is a loss to you. Words have a different meaning in your world. You were indeed Gardner’s attorney (spelled out in your own words in an email you sent me), and the AAA fined you $467,000 for that. How will you pay that Judgement??? Another financing agreement?

    MBZGurl
     
  23. Enigma Racing

    Enigma Racing Formula 3

    Jun 1, 2008
    1,111
    London
    Full Name:
    Kim
    Joe are you coming to the case management hearing on Friday as I believe it will be quite significant.

    Two points

    You have a cost order against you and I am interested to hear how you and Lawson will argue that you are unable to pay the costs of the hearings, that you knew in advance were going to be incurred, at the same time as claiming you have the ability to argue the ten day hearing on the HoA. Given your position on paying the current award against you and the current cost estimates till the end, I am sure the other parties will not want to participate in the HoA hearing unless they have assurances that you or your "investors" will cough up if you lose. Going Pro Se may cost you nothing but if the other parties have to pay someone to respond to you arguing every point they will be rightly concerned if your investors are being selective in what they are prepared to pay for.

    Secondly, I am interested to learn your position on the HoA this Friday given that Swaters now owns the car the HoA is the only agreement that gives you the money.
     
  24. BBBBBBB

    BBBBBBB Formula Junior

    Jun 6, 2015
    345
    Full Name:
    Ben
    Need help, what is "AAA" ? American Anonym Alcoholics ?
    Ben
     
  25. JGalt

    JGalt Rookie

    Jul 30, 2014
    12
    New Orleans
    American Arbitration Association
     

Share This Page