375+ # 0384

exactly, these legal battles are not for the timid in resources. There have been many contributors to this topic that have made simplistic assumptions of the efforts needed to bring any case to fruition or made simplistic comments about the time it has taken...
For starters communication as we now know it was in its' infancy, snail mail and long distance telephone was still mainstream. Fax was coming into view, while the internet was unheard of. It took a long time for information to be gathered and be moved around, leading to long periods of time between communications. I would guess that each side has already committed at least a million plus each, that is not chump change which adds to the complexity of getting a resolution

 

Joe, talking about coincidences.

I compiled a timeline as you suggested and was struck by the coincidence of Copley/Wexner using the same arguments and supporting documents in their claim against Bonhams as yours as well as some of the documents you had given to Dave Clark before the auction.

Also coincidental that Copley/Wexner had all of this information to hand in just over two weeks after they first read FChat and discovered there was a problem from the one and only post by Ray Lawson

 

1) Your timeline is missing the key affidavit info.

2) It is no secret that Wexner's Ohio attorneys and my Ohio attorneys talked and exchanged documents a few days after learning of the Buyer's identity.

3) I find it more than odd (and more than a coincidence) that when a man from Belgium has trouble in 2005 with an Ohio heir about an upcoming 2005 Ohio auction, the man from Belgian then hires an attorney in Atlanta, Georgia who operates across the street from Guy Anderson's 1989-1998 attorney. That is suspiciously ODD to me, and IMHO it should be ODD and SUSPICIOUS to any unbiased onlooker. An honest dispute would involve the Belgian party selecting a Cincinnati, Ohio attorney. Maybe they thought there was a ten year statute of limitations as to events surrounding the 1999 "settlement" agreement, so they dared not set foot in Ohio.

4) I checked the F Chat posts and Phatboy's 2014.07.05 post #1173 is the FIRST to complain about the auction, with reasons, several days AFTER the auction, so it make sense that it was the first to alert Copley that Bonhams, after not promptly conveying title, had misrepresented certain events to him. Phatboy even advises the buyer to contact the Ohio attorneys.

My first complaining post was on 2014.07.08 as post #1210.

So, your point is . . . ?

Joe

*

 

Joe, how did you know they knew ? given they found out on a Saturday and the solicitors letter was on Bonhams desk by the Tuesday

and please explain why having attorneys in the same city is a problem, after all you and Gardner both have solicitors in London

 

Kim

Please avoid the pronouns. Who is the "they" and what did they know that you say I knew they knew?

And I do not find it strange that an experienced businessman acts quickly, especially after paying $18,000,000 a few days prior and then finding out that litigation is not resolved, title cannot be conveyed, and Bonhams KNEW this but misrepresented otherwise to get paid.

And I do find it unreasonable and illogical for you to equate or argue any equivalency of:

Ohio issue, Ohio party, Belgian party, and the thus suspicious choice of a Georgia attorney,

with

London issue, London party, Swiss party, US party, and the thus LOGICAL correct choice to hire a London attorney.

Your logic is fatally flawed.

One of my favorite quotes: None are so blind as those who refuse to see.

Also, two new Orders signed in A1306451.

Joe

*

 

Geez....

Forget the legal fees...

Imagine what Marcel Massini's history file is gonna be on this one...

 

Here's a rough draft:

"In 2010, Swaters filed suit in Cincinnati, Ohio, alleging that Kleves's heirs were planning to sell spare parts to the car, that he had allegedly purchased from Kleves. This litigation led to claims and counterclaims regarding the ownership of the car itself. The parties stipulated to a settlement which waived these claims and which named the London auction house of Bonhams to act as their agents to sell the car. Retail clothing magnate Les Wexner -- an Ohio resident himself -- purchased no. 0384am at auction in June 2014 and the car has remained in his collection of significant Ferraris ever since."

Apologies to MM, whose writing style is undoubtedly better than this.

 

Very interesting coincidence that the final winner at auction was also a resident in Ohio, what were the probabilities on that?!!

 

Questions for Joe:

- Do you know where #0384 is physically at currently?

- Have you filed anything in the UK legal system to prevent the return of #0384 by Swaters (daughter) to a "legal safe heaven" (Belgium or Italy) pending legal decisions upcoming in Ohio or the UK?

 

Dear Read Plays,

I do not find you combative in your response to my questions. I also do not find any answers in your response to my questions, but that is just what was expected.

I am not here to satisfy your concerns or whims. You seem charming but name dropping is taboo in all social circles, including Chat.

I have raised questions that some would consider pertinent to this discussion. I would also like for you to know that it is very nice that you have toned down your rhetoric to allow us to just talk. That is what this is all about.

Kleve was interviewed many times during this period of time and what he said does not correlate to what has been claimed on this site.

You stated that: “As a reminder, #0384AM was a stolen car from January 1989 until last summer (2013)".
Are you stating that as a matter of fact or a matter of opinion?

Your statement above claiming a stolen Ferrari listed on NCIC with a valid police report is just hogwash. If you can post supporting evidence then do so, if you can not, then please don’t state things that you know nothing of.

Since I believe that a picture is worth a 1000 words, here is the location that the pertinent discovery (no valid police report) was made in March of 1989. The person/persons who made the inquiry did discover that the police knew of Karl Kleve and Kleve had just been released from the jailhouse on nuisance violations that same morning.
( picture taken March 1989)

This information was pulled from post # 1708 and the following statement was made:

I can say that the FBI officially added the VIN to its 1989.01.27 FBI report a few days after that report was first taken. I can also say that the Green Township Police literally recovered the dataplate to Kleve's stolen car a few days after Kleve made his first theft report to them on 1989.01.24. The detectives who recovered the stolen VIN plate had ZERO doubt as to the VIN of Karl Kleve's stolen Ferrari.

This is just more hogwash. The FBI did not know the VIN number in January of 1989 and still did not know the VIN number in March of 1989. The so called VIN plate was not recovered and turned over to the Green Township Police department in January 27 1989 as stated. More Hogwash! That same referenced VIN plate could not be used in court in Atlanta since it had no reference to the manufacturer ‘Ferrari’. Nowhere on the subject plate did it say Ferrari.

If that statement were even remotely true then how come the FBI did not know the VIN number in March of 1989. Take a look at the date of the posted document.

 

I have an interesting question for seespotrun which I will ask in public. What is your interest in this case, or should that be, how do you intend to PROFIT from the re-writing of Kleve's oft stated ownership? That's one question I believe everyone on this thread would be interested to hear the answer to. And I am confident it will be a simple answer.

 

The same is true of you with a key difference;

You ask me a bunch of obfuscatory questions about documents. Questions that are carefully arranged to purport your nonsensical conspiracy theory. Your hope is that someone who knows nothing of this case as a casual reader will be duped into believing your deceptive yarn.

I don't know anything about any documents. I'm not an attorney nor have I ever had anything to do with the court proceedings.
My role in this case is clearly stated on page 1 of this thread and has been a matter of public record since August of 2008.

You however have completely ignored my questions altogether;
Who are you?
Who are you?
Who are you?

What is your interest in this case?

Why are you attempting to rewrite the public record, now that there's $MONEY$ to be had? (Or, perhaps in your case, grabbed at?)

I know you won't truthfully answer these questions or anything tangentially related to them.

I'm simply stating them again for all to see, so that they can draw their own conclusions about you, 'SEESPOTRUN', who showed up to the party on payday with a story to sell.

I love the condescension. You're at about a 10 on a scale of 1-10. Can you go any further? Really exaggerate it..

It's funny for the guy with no name to try and call someone out for 'name dropping'.
You and I know very well that by identifying others involved who can vouch for me, I'm establishing bonafides for who I am and what I say- as I've done since I showed up here more than 6 years ago.

I know you wish you could do the same thing but then again, you'd have to take the mask off and come out of hiding. You wouldn't want that to happen because then the truth would set everyone free from your blathering.

No. What this is about is a discussion where the Fchat community has been 'just talk(ing)' for 6+ years.
You showing up and trying to BS everyone is just you trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

O RLY?

That's Post #2, Page 1 of this thread, as I'm quite sure you're aware.
http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/135955297-post2.html
So, you're saying the world's foremost expert on vintage Ferraris is wrong, and you, no-name mystery guy is right? Got it.
I have some money. Can you sell me a bridge to Brooklyn or swamp land in Florida? Thanks.

I have never stated anything to the effect of 'a stolen Ferrari listed on NCIC with a valid police report' (although I like how you tried to put words in my mouth. Zero points for cleverness).

Karl Kleve's stolen Ferrari is a matter of public record and I have corroborated facts of the case based upon my presence and participation in the recovery in 1990, the year after the theft occurred.
End of story.

Do you even know what you've posted?
That's a picture of Cincinnati Police Department District Three Headquarters, 3201 Warsaw Avenue, Price Hill (suburb in the city of Cincinnati), Ohio.
Great. Thanks for more meaningless obfuscation.

Oh! The case, she is sol-ved! (this sentence is to be read in the voice of Inspector Clouseau).
The only thing that's hogwash is your posts.

 

IMHO the questions you ask are novel, and show that you are fishing to see what documents exist which contradict your fraudulent Nov. 2013 attempt to claim ownership.

It is beyond opinion - it is fact. The man who stole Kleve's 1954 Ferrari 375 plus VIN 0384AM admitted it, and entered into a plea bargain with the US Government. Guy Anderson testified that when he (Guy Anderson) was arrested and handcuffed on the morning of March 13, 1989, the FBI told him that they believed Guy Anderson was "the one who put an order in to steal" Kleve's Ferrari. [1989 Trial Tran. p. 312:3-4] Swaters' 1999 documents admit Kleve was the owner of 0384AM, and Swaters' forensic document expert proved that Swaters' 1999 documents were forged (pages 1 and 2 were altered) after Kleve signed but before Lancksweert signed. The signatures are on page 3 and are dated July 16 and September 2, 1999. The time lag between signatures makes me suspicious without even knowing of the expert report.

The price for me to post the evidence is for you to identify yourself. Until then, rest assured that the FBI's amendment that added the VIN 0384AM information is dated February 24, 1989. Other FBI and Green Township Police documents show they knew the VIN to be 0384AM as early as February 15, 1989. There was already the Ferrari Market News Letter's stolen "Ferrari 375 Plus VIN 0384AM" ad dated Feb 4, 1989 [Ferrari Chat p23 post #452]. That ad with the 0384AM VIN was likely prepared days prior to the Feb. 4, 1989 publication.

SeeSpotRun's posted document (a repeat of his p57 post #1122) which ONLY PROVES the FBI did not put the VIN in the document - it does not prove anything else about the extent of FBI or police knowledge at that point in time.

Right about now SeeSpotRun is realizing that an arresting entity often chooses not to release all of its information to a suspect in connection with an initial arrest and indictment. That way more information can be gleaned, corroborated, rebutted, etc.

FYI, Guy Anderson made an unusual trip with his wife Ta _ _ _ _ , his baby La _ _ _ _, and mother-in-law Pa _ _ _ to Cincinnati, Ohio from Thursday, March 9, 1989 to Sunday, March 12, 1989. Anderson returned to Marietta, Georgia only to then be promptly arrested and handcuffed on Monday morning, March 13, 1989 by FBI Special Agent Theodore May.

*

Give it up SeeSpotRun.

*

Joe

*

 

Joe,

I suspect that SEESPOTRUN will never answer any question but instead use the Max Vito tactic - use more tangential blather, resort to insults and then go away to hang out with Max after being banned. Since Spot is likely Guy Anderson he should remember that unindicted is not the same as innocent.

Jeff

 

Just when I think this thread has jumped the shark, this happens. It's the gift that keeps on giving. I'd like personally to thank readplays for his contributions.

 

Just my 2 cents...What's going to end up happening is all parties involved are going to litigate this thing to death for a few more years, the market is going to turn on them like a pit bull, the car's value is going to tank, and instead of playing nice with each other, getting the car sold and all parties cashing in...they are going to have to wait until the next run-up in value and by then they will all be dead or too old to care.

 

Readplays, an awesome rebuttal of all points in post 2513. Jeff, I would one up you and say Seesportrun will disappear and another unknown poster using a non de plume will post stating that he was there in 89 and aliens stole #0384AM and then will proceed to re-tell every conspiracies from the Kennedy murders to the moon-landings. Seespotrun and his kin should solve those conspiracies before trying to promote #0384AM as one. Hell follow his line of thought and we will be picketing for "justice for Guy Anderson". Oh that's right, he admitted stealing the car. NEXT please.

 

Hello Timmmmmmmy,

I have read all of the information on this site and do not understand why so many readers do not have more questions than they do.

I am fascinated that statements made in F-chat, other than the status quo, are immediately condemned as something other than what they actually are.

Perhaps the people “in the know” can explain these statements away:

1) During an interview with Karl Kleve, Kleve was asked if he knew Jim Kimberly personally; Kleve stated, “He did not know Kimberly, and has never heard of him.”

2) During that same interview, Kleve was asked about a Bill of Sale and he stated:
“He did not have a Bill of Sale.”

3) Kleve was asked in what year he acquired the Ferrari 375. To which his answer was:
“In the early 1960’s.”

4) Kleve was asked about the company that approached him to HELP recover his car in 1997: He said, “That company was commissioned to seize the Ferrari in Europe.”

Question: If Kleve commissioned a recovery company to seize his property, then how is it that instead of repossessing the car, the company ended up selling Kleve’s paperwork?

What Kleve expected to happen from 1997 to1999 and what actually happened are two entirely different scenarios.

Now, here is my answer to your question:

F- Chat stands for “Ferrari Chat” and not “Financial Chat.” I was not aware that this was a financial forum.

I do not think it is possible that one could profit from listing facts about an alleged stolen car that was not listed stolen.

The following statement is simple and subject to challenge:

If anyone can produce a valid police report, including the Vehicle Identification Number, along with a copy of a 1989 title in Kleve’s name, then please post it.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

My reply will be neither as pithy nor as concise as Readplays will be but here goes.

I have read all of the information on this site and do not understand why so many readers do not have more questions than they do.
A - If you have read it, you will already know the answer to all of the questions you ask below or know that nobody has any answer (either affirmative or negative).

I am fascinated that statements made in F-chat, other than the status quo, are immediately condemned as something other than what they actually are.
A - Because you need to actually give some information other than oft repeated I know the truth but mine is one that obfuscation with circular arguments based on some minor point that may have happened.

Perhaps the people “in the know” can explain these statements away:

1) During an interview with Karl Kleve, Kleve was asked if he knew Jim Kimberly personally; Kleve stated, “He did not know Kimberly, and has never heard of him.”
A - Maybe he didnt, everyone in the anti Ocean Joe group has claimed he was senile or maybe he simply didnt know him personally. More likely though, 1 - this was 25 - 30 years later and 2 - If I go and buy a car, even an expensive one, even a racing car I may not even know the seller let alone personally.......... What is "personally" except for an entirely subjective term. Kimberley may have used an agent (secretary, business manager, underling) to sell the car.

2) During that same interview, Kleve was asked about a Bill of Sale and he stated:
“He did not have a Bill of Sale.”
A - Not all cars do have a bill of sale, this has been discussed to death. It may have been sold via a contract or even a handshake and exchange of benjamins. It wasnt registered so didnt need documentation that a registered car would.

3) Kleve was asked in what year he acquired the Ferrari 375. To which his answer was:
“In the early 1960’s.”
A - And your point is?

4) Kleve was asked about the company that approached him to HELP recover his car in 1997: He said, “That company was commissioned to seize the Ferrari in Europe.”
A - And your point is?

Question: If Kleve commissioned a recovery company to seize his property, then how is it that instead of repossessing the car, the company ended up selling Kleve’s paperwork?
A - Ocean Joe has already posited a narrative for this, you did say you had read all of the posts..... That will explain what is likely to have happened but bless, we werent there so who knows what Mark Daniels did or didnt do. We only know the result.

What Kleve expected to happen from 1997 to1999 and what actually happened are two entirely different scenarios.

Now, here is my answer to your question:

F- Chat stands for “Ferrari Chat” and not “Financial Chat.” I was not aware that this was a financial forum.

I do not think it is possible that one could profit from listing facts about an alleged stolen car that was not listed stolen.

The following statement is simple and subject to challenge:

If anyone can produce a valid police report, including the Vehicle Identification Number, along with a copy of a 1989 title in Kleve’s name, then please post it.

A - And a little recap
1 - You havent answered my question, who is Seespotrun?
2 - You appear to be suggesting the following
2a - The car was never owned by Karl Kleve (either he stole it from Kimberley or that he somehow came upon it) well Seespotrun I suggest that you get in your time machine and return to the 70s and claim it (well, try to - as Montgomery Burns would say, release the hounds). Otherwise put up or you know what to do.
3 - You are also trying to claim (without doing so) that the car wasnt stolen because the Police report didnt contain the VIN number, again big deal. The FBI considered it a stolen car. Oh, you are saying the FBI are also flat - earthers?
4 - You have made all of these claims before, as have many other people that also claim some great knowledge. How about a new claim. Lets call it the smoking gun. Go on, dare you.

Anyway, its been fun. Next time actually add something to the discussion

 

TO : TO Y'ALL OUT THERE IN FERRARI CHATLAND.
FROM: ALLEN MARKELSON, N.A.R.T RACER., USAC CHAMPION NOMINATED TO THE RRDC.

LIONS & TIGERS & BEAR, OH, MY.

I HAVE NO COMPLAINT WITH JOSEPH FORD III, KNOWN TO Y'ALL AS OCEAN JOE.
SO WHY IS HE SEEKING TO DEFAME. ME ? IT IS IN HIS INTEREST TO REMAIN ON FRIENDLY TERMS WITH ME. BECAUSE, AS HE STATES I MAY WELL BE CALLED AS A WITNESS IN THE UPCOMING HEARING TO BE HELD IN LONDON. MY BEST ESTIMATE IS THE CASE WILL GO BEFORE THE LONDON HIGH COURT NEXT MAY OR JUNE, 2015.

EXCEPT, JOEY IS BROKE. THE BRITS REQUIRE A BARRISTER TO REPRESENT YOU AND THEY ARE VERY EXPENSIVE --- TEY DO NOT WORK ON A CONTINGENCY . ALL JOEY'S LAWYERS ARE LOOKING AT WORTHLESS CONTINGENCY AGREEMENTS. EXAMPLE: JOEY'S OHIO LAWYER, HERB HAAS, ESQ. BILLED JOEY FOR $167,000. NOW, HERB IS LOOKING TO GET PAID FROM GARDNER ---- NO WAY JOSE ( AS WE SAY IN MIAMI ).

AS TO MY CREDIBILITY ?. WE SHALL LEAVE THAT TO THE LONDON HIGH COURT. CONSIDER THAT MY NAME, ALONG WITH MY INTELL TEAM IS POSTED IN THE CHAPEL OF WESTMINSTER ABBEY " FOR SERVICES TO THE CROWN ". WE WERE SO HONORED BY THE DOWAGER QUEEN MOTHER IN FEB. 1996 WHEN SHE WAS CLOSE TO 100 YEARS OLD.
AS THE BRITS MIGHT SAY, "HE WAS MENTIONED IN DISPATCHES ". BY THE WAY JOEY, YOU KNOW I AM A COUNTER-TERRORIST INTEL OFFICER. AS SUCH GETTING ARRESTED IS AN OCCUPATIONAL HAZARD --- NO WORRIES , MATE.

 

Has this project been cancelled? We got to number three of ten on November 17; radio silence since then.

 

+1 and I hope it will include the "games changing" evidence we've been promised

 

Joe, I have updated the timeline as I forgot to include the 13 May 2014 order stopping you interfering with the Bonhams sale. Can you explain if you continue to be bound by this order after your "jurisdiction" appeal was upheld on 28th May

Otherwise, can you fill in any blanks especially what is happening in London. Have you served your defence yet ?

TIMELINE

30th April 2014. Ford and Clark contact with Copley/Wexner ceases

3rd May 2014. Expiration of Fords offer of 30th April, to Florence Swaters for Dave Clark to sell the car within 30 days for $25m splitting his 10% with Bonhams and allowing him to overcome "Bonhams threats to Clarks buyers". The offer revises the HOA 50/50 split with the BC getting 41% and the OC 59% (split Ford 30/Lawson 15/Gardner 14%)

6th May 2014. Ford court deposition. Page 298 confirmation that Dave Clark was trying to sell the car to Wexner for $25m on the basis that Bonhams authority has expired. Clark used evidence (page 305) including the "transcript testimony that I the right to protect and advance my interests ", the 17th August Court order and a copy of the Ohio BMV (8/5/2012) showing Ford and Lawson as the owner.

6th May 2014. Ford court deposition. Page 307 in response to a question is Swaters was aware of Wexner interest Ford responds " I think I might have said something". When also asked if Mr Wexner would be discouraged to bid at the Bonhams Ford replied "he is not going to buy it at auction"

NEW * 13th May 2014. Contempt and Court order against Ford/Lawson requiring POA and undertaking not to impede the sale, dispute Bonhams authority, or soliciting offers through David Clark

28th May 2014. Ford appeal to reverse the 19/8/13 order is granted

29th May 2014. Fords UK solicitors, Wilmots, send Bonhams a copy of the judgment and claims they have no authority to sell the car.

6th June 2014. Wilmots contact Bonhams stating they “do not want to pursue injunctive relief” as there is “apparently a continuing discussion about the way the proceeds will be held”

9th June 2014. Judge Nadel dismisses case A1001370 and confirms jurisdiction to London

20th June 2014. Ford /Lawson appeals the case dismissal

24th June 2014. Copley seeks Bonhams advise if they are giving a “free passage guarantee” for easy import and titling in the USA

24th June 2014. Ince (replacement Ford solicitor) letter to Bonhams “will not oppose the auction…provided the entire hammer price is placed in an Ohio escrow account”

25th June 2014. Jones Day (Bonhams solicitor) responds to Ince “our clients do not accept that Mr Ford has any possible basis on which to challenge the sale”

25th June 2014. Ince letter willing to “proceed” if one important matter can be agreed is how the proceeds are dealt with.

26th June 2014. On the eve of the auction, Ince UK and Smith on behalf of Lawson notify Bonhams that they have no authority.

26th June 2014. Zanotti claims the car to be sold is not 0384AM

27th June 2014. Mr Stu Carpenter claims oral representations were made by Bonhams and Ferrari experts that everything had been “put to bed”. Car sells to Copley/Wexner for £10,984,200 including buyers commission of £1,380,200 due to Bonhams.

5th July 2014 (Saturday). Wexner reads the Ray Lawson (a.k.a Phatboy) post (1173 page 59) on FChat and is first aware that Bonhams falsely claimed that the litigation had been settled.

7th July 2014. Zanotti claim discontinued.

8th July 2014 (Tuesday). Mischon de Reya solicitors on behalf of their client Wexner/Copley demand their money back.

8th July 2014. Stakeholder proceeds issued by Bonhams

21st July 2014. Wexner /Copley issue proceeding against Bonhams to rescind the contract and seeking damages, alleging:

1. That title cannot be registered in Ohio because “as appears probable” Ford/Lawson are unwilling to surrender their title so Wexner could suffer imprisonment even if he were to “operate” the car in Ohio
2. Fraud by Bonhams and misrepresentation through the Octaine magazine article, in that they knew there was a dispute and made false statements with the objective of earning substantial fees.

1st October 2014. Bonhams files a defense against the Copley/Wexner claim

17th October 2014. Bonhams issue proceedings against Ford/Lawson

3rd November 2014. Judge Martin Ohio, orders arbitration between Ford and Gardner before 1st June 2015.

?? November 2014. Ford claiming 100% of the proceeds and counter claiming against Lawson

 

8th September 2014. Court order requiring arbitration on Gardner v Ford case A1306451

30th September 2014. Lawson answers to Fords claim and cross claim against her

23rd November 2014. Court sets a dismissal hearing of 3rd February 2015 on the unknown Ford case A1404305 filed 23rd July 2014 against Swaters and Gardner