375+ # 0384

Agreed although you could say the 1999 settlement was his belated attempt to do this.

 

We all agree if we live in a place where stolen property remains stolen property irrespective of how many people subsequently buy it

 

Yes and no, does anyone have a plausible explanation how (why) Belgian customs released the "parts" (AKA "car) other than an outright act of corruption?

I can imagine a very different outcome if German or UK customs would have been involved instead.

I strongly recommend to the individual that purchased this "car" to think long and hard before putting it on U.S. territory. (I would also include aircraft/vessels carrying U.S. flag.)

 

1: Inherited stolen property is still stolen property no matter how many times it has been "washed".

2: Swater et all started the litgation by suing Kleve heirs for the parts of the car that where not originally stolen, they saw Lawson as a "soft target". Repeat OJ / Lawson did not initiate this action.

3: OJ was retained by Lawson to represent her interests and strategise the defence against the opportunistic bid by Swaters mentioned in (2). If Lawson "sold" some of her potential stake in the car to OJ, so what, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" to some people.

In fact OJ has done such a good job of representing Lawsons interests that the parties agreed to sell the car and spit the proceeds. It is grasping at straws to support your viewpoint when you mention Daniels/ the Belgian dealer etc in the current context - if there was any weight to those claims the Swaters heirs would be relying on that to establish ownership, indeed they only agreed to the sale of #0384 when they finally understood / realised there was a problem with the title of the car as it was still listed as stolen in the USA. That's no longer disputed by the Swaters heirs and no one has sent the car back to the USA to this day - why do you think the auction happened in the UK when most of the big buyers are in the US where the car has a significant "place'.

4: The villans in this matter currently are not OJ/Lawson or even the Swaters heirs.

M

 

Jacques Swaters as a seasoned collector of vintage automobiles and with specific knowledge on Ferrari, must have known of the questionable origin of such a rare "vehicle".

 

It was a very small bird !

 

We all agree. The point that is continually missed, unfair as it is, is that in Belgium you can legally buy a stolen car from a motor dealer after the Kings Adudicator has said so

 

Regardless of what happened, and looking forward, Bonhams should have more accurately represented the "state of affairs" to the bidders.

All these issues should have been duly addressed AND "airtight" resolved before the car was even mentioned to go on auction. Furthermore, the Injunction Order was completely ignored.

I again fail to understand how such a established auction house offered a car when there is a pending court case in the U.S. - basic due diligence (and plain common sense) would dictate to first wait and reach a firm settlement, and then proceed to offer the car.

 

The answer to the Belgian customs question can be found in what happens next.

Swaters tells us that on January 14, 1990 the Procurer du Roi releases the car to Michel Kruch (L'Exception Automobile) because they could find no criminal wrongdoing. Swaters provides that letter to the Ohio court. This Belgian release is despite the fact that on Feb 22, 1989 the Bill of Sale to Kruch is 1954 Ferrari 375 Plus VIN 0384AM for $4,500, and the Feb 25, 1989 Bill of Lading is for "racing automobile parts." (Fraudulent description; fraudulent valuation - honest people do not make such declarations; thieves who need to dishonestly export to escape customs detection of a stolen car do -- then there is the fraudulently understated price.) As of Nov. 1989 at the trial in Atlanta, the "as is" value is as high as $1,000,000 per contemporaneous sworn expert testimony of Stanley Nowak. FBI field reports indicate that in the weeks after the theft, the car was offered for sale in Europe for $800,000 to $1,000,000; European buyers saw the Ferrari Market Letter stolen car ad and called the FBI. That is the context in 1989-1990.

Kruch is a Brussels, Belgian car dealer. So if the Belgian Procurere du Roi releases the car "free and clear" to Kruch, why does he instantly sell the car to Swaters + Lancksweert for the alleged $100,000? Swaters provided the 1pp March 15, 1990 Bill of Sale and the 3pp March 15, 1990 side agreement in Ohio court.

The questions that are significant IMHO are why sell at the car, when it has allegedly been released "free and clear," for 1/5 to 1/10 the value to Swaters? Why did Swaters and Kruch have the same New York attorney in 1989-1990? Is it significant that Swaters sold a new Ferrari 375 Cabriolet with a 4.9 liter engine to the King of Brussels?

And why, in 1999, does Swaters/Lancksweert admit that Karl Kleve is the owner of a 1954 Ferrari 375 Plus VIN 0384AM that was removed from his possession and then try and buy it from him?

This is why we were in a strong position in Ohio court in 2012-2013 and that is what prompted an attempt at settlement. The promise of a payday in six months (at below what we thought we would get in Court) is the only reason we agreed to interrupt (stay) Ohio litigation, and when paid, to then end (dismiss) Ohio litigation altogether. That did not happen, so it was back to the drawing board IMHO.

FYI, there is no Belgium statute that allows one to simply keep stolen property. There is a Belgian CONSUMER statute designed to refund money paid by a good faith purchaser who buys a car at an open auction (i.e. pays near fair value and relies on the auction house and a true auction) or from a car dealer (again, the buyer pays at market value and the dealer is a regulated entity). Only the victim has the right to refund that purchase price. As to Kruch, the $4,500 was 1/10 of what he paid, so he would not give back to Kleve. The ridiculously low price to Kruch and then to Swaters shows neither "sale" was a "sale" nor an arm's length transcation. Who sells at 1/5 to 1/10 to 1/100 of the value? Those are not "sales." They are . . . .

Joe

*

 

...are bull droppings... which the BC cannot avoid or prevented from stepping in... tainting their position

 

What is the current status of the Ohio court case? Any injunction ordered or requested?

 

There are three Ohio cases:

Ohio trial court case A1001370: Swaters v Lawson – filed 2010.02.12 - ongoing, awaiting result of appeal C1400270
Ohio trial court case A1306451: Gardner v Ford, Lawson – filed 2013.09.24 - ongoing, Gardner v Ford portion of case ordered to arbitrate, discovery still underway with hearings to compel compliance with rules.
Ohio trial court case A1404305: Ford, Lawson v Swaters, Gardner – filed 2014.07.23 - ongoing, awaiting return of service on Gardner and Swaters

London

Bonhams v Lawson, Ford, Gardner, and Swaters, Claim 2014 folio 836 - the "Stakeholder Claim" -- A proceeding designed to hold property for distribution to claimants after a UK court hearing. Bonhams had hoped the sale would be a "fait accompli" such that all that was left is to divide up the sale proceeds. Since the "sale" is not a sale and IMHO will be unwound, I expect the stakeholder claim to be terminated as Buyer gets ALL his money back - full hammer plus commission plus attorney fees. The four respondents have responded. Skeleton argumnets due no later than two days before the hearing. A hearing is set for March 19, 2015.

Copley Motorcars Corp & Another v Bonhams 1793 Ltd, Swaters, and Gardner, HC14B02817 - the "Rescission Claim" -- A proceeding where buyer seeks to have the "sale" rescinded since Bonhams AND two others (a seller and a potential lienholder) misrepresented their ability to convey title and misrepresented status of litigation. Swaters has responded. I do not know if Gardner responded. Attorneys for Copley gave Bonhams one last chance to make the sale happen, Bonhams asked for a mere with our UK attorneys, who directed all settlement talks to our Ohio attorneys, whereupon Bonhams refused to contact our Ohio attorneys, and Copley's deadline expired.

There are two Zanotti cases, status/details unknown. I think there is a related hearing in Nov.

The other case cited on that "other site" is not yet public.


Joe

*

 

The HOA has flaws, before even reaching the new evidence.

Attached is Swaters' May 20, 2013 proposed order drafted by her attorney Scott Jones after Swaters refused to sign the Haas April 18, 2013 proposed order. [Ferrari Chat, p119, post 2378]

Within hours of receipt of Swaters May 20, 2013 proposed entry, I refused to sign because Swaters added signatories and removed the contingency (condition precedent) of extinguishing claims and counterclaims on distribution of funds with the proposed unconditional Dismissal with Prejudice.

So, it can be argued that:

1) the HOA was not a contract because there was no meeting of the minds on that essential issue of how/when to end Ohio litigation - or maybe it was only an agreement to agree, (same result either way for HOA) OR,

2) Swaters, and then Bonhams, breached the HOA by demanding we sign their version which was an unjustified change that removed the contingency - or maybe an agreement to promptly, once paid, enter an agreement discontinuing all action in Ohio in such form as is appropriate under OHIO law (an ambiguity, construe against drafter i.e. as Ford construes because a Final Judgment cannot be conditional under Ohio law; end result, a STAY, - thus Swaters in breach by that analysis). [2013.07.29 Ford Default Notice @ Ferrari Chat p64 post 1268]

In no case can one say we were obligated to sign a change to the HOA. The stalemate that resulted is why the clock ran out on the Sept 2013 auction, which is why I also blamed the breach on Bonhams since they too insisted on the change to rewrite the HOA without the contingency.

Note how Gardner is invited to sign Haas' April 18, 2013 Proposed Order and Swaters' May 20, 2013 Proposed Order -- as financier.

Joe

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

 

But you still signed it under legal advise

But you still signed it under legal advise

But you still signed it under legal advise.

Joe, the HOA provides for disputes to be resolved in London. Bonhams are now suing you in London for damages and a declaration that they had authority to sell the car (part of the defence against Copley). It's now November, when are going to counter claim ?

 

All of the logical explanations for the above "transaction(s)" involve criminal activity on the part of the BC at the time. That's is why I question the decision by Jacques Swaters to not just pay Karl Kleve 3 million dollars back in 1999 and wash that stain is also beyond me. No-one but KK and JS would have known all of the facts and the whole saga would have disappeared. That JS chose to use a "roguish" Mark Daniels to try and reach settlement without getting his hands dirty says a lot in my book.

 

I agree that Swaters and his partner dragged their heels on doing the right thing however it was Kleve that appointed Daniels not them. OJ has upped his FBI valuation from post 251 when it was $500k which may explain why the 1999 settlement agreement figure was for a lot less then $3m.

Why Daniels was not included included in the Ohio litigation and what happened to the money remains a question consistently ignored

 

Kim,

First, you reach all the way back to post 251 then you misquote it to make a false comparison. My statements are accurate. At the time of the theft the FBI estimates were $500,000. Months later at trial, the experts testified with much more accuracy and market knowkledge. Those were boom days, as the experts testified. So, your statement about me changing my valuation is false and only shows your bias, and willingness to distort truth to attempt to make your point. In my book, you lose credibility.

Daniels' absence from proceedings was discussed and answered many many posts back, and I see you chose NOT to reveal that but to instead make a false statement about Daniels being "consistently ignored". Again, your bias is bad - you ignore facts and make false statements.

Joe

*

 

Joe

I must have missed it, please repeat why you did not include Daniels in your litigation in your fight for justice. After all he was authorised and acting on behalf of Karl Kleve and he was given $625,000 in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. Are you not the slightest bit curious as to what he has to say about the validity of the 1999 agreement or what he did with Kleve's money ?

As to your accusation of distortion, below are your posts. My reference to post 251 was simply in response to Timmmmmmy's suggestion to paying $3m in 1999. What do you think it was worth then ?

Finally (not finially in case you try that one) as to your continued accusation of bias when I try to post the other side of the argument. Why do you not simply post the full transcripts of the Court hearings which show the arguments from both sets of attorneys together with the Judges comments instead of you own and equally biased interpretation of events ?

Alternatively, please give me your permission to post them on your behalf so we can all make our own minds up

 

STAY-AUCTION-DISTRIBUTE-DISMISS

Joe, so what you are saying is that you wanted Bonhams to auction the car, the buyer to have paid over the money, all commissions and costs to be put on hold and the buyer to wait for his valid title until after the distribution has been made ?

So in this case, the buyer has to wait until you have completed your arbitration battle with Gardner (not even started yet) to determined who gets what before he gets a valid title and his hands on the car

Do you believe this is a workable solution and if you do, what effect do you think it would have had on the value of the car at auction ?

Surely the objective at the outset was to maximise the value from the sale.

I am beginning to think that Bonhams did you a favour in stating that all disputes had been settled before the auction

Kim (a.k.a Bias of Chelsea)

 

Kim can you answer why Swaters did not include Daniels in his lawsuit against KKL?

You have missed it.

I mean he paid a lot of money. What about his parts. The title.

Why did he wait so long to file after paying sooo much money in 1999?

 

Now your speaking for Swaters.

How do you know his intentions in 99?

Maybe he was attempting to cover the stolen car he possessed?

Belated attempt and all....

 

Kim I'm glad to humor you.
Maybe Swaters was just mistaken about the serial number of his car when he allowed it to be shown under a serial number that NEVER existed to a chassis.

It was just a clerical error. And you know Swatters maybe didn't have the contacts at the factory to confirm any of the relevant info.

BUT WAIT.

No Jacques Swaters had keys to the front door.

It just dosent work Kim. Swaters knew exactly what he had.

But why represent the car as something it is not.

What did have to HIDE?

 

Can any one speculate on why Jacques Swaters could not and did not ask for summary judgement in Ohio?

I mean this car was a jewel in most collections.

There is evidence he knew it was stolen at the time of the 99 settlement.

The stakes being so high. Can't we see cancelled checks and a solid signed agreement, that stands up to professional scrutiny?

Maybe Jacques had a bad day.

But didn't he own a Ferrari dealership? I'm sure he had done thousands of deals.

Maybe it was just a day....

Maybe this one slipped by him.

 

Follow what is agreed in the contract, not some wishful revision of it. THAT is what I am saying.

No, at the time of signing the HOA, Gardner was a mere financier with no ownership claim, resolvable in arbitration independent of a sale. So the choice you construct is a false choice in consistent with the historical timeline. Once Gardner changed his claims, it gave Bonhams a new, sound reason to not promote any auction until resolved.

You set up a false choice, so I will not play that game. Buyers of Ferraris at this level can respect a catalogue that would properly say something like "The litigants have given us Ohio court documents that automatically extinguish all claims and counterclaims simultaneous with the distribution of sale funds. The litigants offer to attend a formal closing to wish the new owner the best with this rare, fabulous piece of automotive history from the Golden Age of Racing." There are many ways to faithfully accomplish the HOA's stated provisions. You don't need to force this sale into the conventional protocols one uses for a $100,000 sale at an auction - make it a special closing, what would be more fitting?

We did not sign nor incorporate Bonhams standard conditions into the HOA, so no need to go there.

It is no surprise that you would think that way. IMHO making such a statement a misrepresentation - it is something one should not do. Bonhams was warned not do do it. The rest, as they say, is history.

Joe

*

 

So why was Gardner party to the contract ?

So you seriously believe that any purchaser is going to shell out $18m and then hang around until after some mystical distribution event until you hand over his keys at your "Golden Age" party ?

Speechless !........although the thought of the your formal closing party photograph with everyone smiling did make me smile

And it is no surprise you have yet again ducked the important Daniels questions and passed on my offer to post the full court transcripts so we really see what is going on

Kim