Alleged "settlement" was 2 Sep 99. Recordings with FBI, after Daniels went missing according to Kleve, were in 2000. How can you record Daniels if he does not communicate with Kleve? How can anyone correctly say that 2000 is not after 1999? Alleged "missing" bank statements. Ohio law requires one to bring a claim against an estate within 6 months of death. Ask yourself why? Evidence already given in Ohio court case addressed bank statements, many of which were from near the time period and showed no unusual or large deposits. Most importantly, whose burden is it to prove Swaters paid Kleve? Ever hear the expression you can't prove a negative? Ms Lawson testified to this in Ohio, where she maintains is the only correct jurisdiction for the ownership dispute. Before you make such inaccurate statements, I suggest you carefully consult the court transcripts, the voice recording transcripts, the actual UK court order, the UK Appeal Court briefs, UK Appeal Court letters . . . Circumstances and "facts" are simply NOT as you represent. Just sayin' . . . wish I could say more. Mr Anderson has more to reveal than he has posted thus far. Ask him to post it all. Joe *
Dear Mr. Kim, Answer to your 1st paragraph. It was written that Justice Flaux did accept the evidence of Mr. Lancksweert in judgment paragraph 17 where Justice Flaux said: I formed a favorable impression of him (Mr. Lancksweert) as a man of integrity and I ACCEPT HIS EVIDENCE. Perhaps this Ferrari 250 was NOT challenged in the courtroom by OJ (Ocean Joe) because he was not familiar with it. This is the first time I heard of this Mystery Ferrari and I was there during that time frame. Paragraph 151 and 157 prompted my inquiry to the Ferrari Chat population for additional information. (Attached) The people I have already talked to said the car doesnt exist. If this Ferrari does exist and KK or his daughter KKL owned the referenced Ferrari 250 roadster since 1999 then that would be proof positive the Daniels/Kleve transaction was concluded. If not, then perhaps we should conclude this was a scam on an 86 year old feeble man. ________________________________________________________________________ Answer to paragraph #2 In 1989 Kleve stated he was informed that his rusted out Ferrari hulk was worth 3 million dollars in an article by Mellissa M. Lauer. Kleve heard that from an individual in the Ferrari Owners club. ________________________________________________________________________ Answer paragraph #3 If you read judgment paragraph #151 as written by Justice Flaux it says: In relation to the monies, he said his understanding was there was a bunch of money in a trust account AND a 340,000.00 car sitting in a warehouse. (Attached) The mention of the car being a Ferrari 250 was written by Justice Flaux in his judgment paragraph #157 on the last line. I know of NO AGREED settlement between Kleve and Daniels. The Kleve/Daniels debacle was that Daniels would seize the Ferrari 375 Plus #0384 from Europe and transport it back to Ohio for compensation. There was No mention of selling the Court Ordered title in lieu of the Ferrari return. Kleve was told there were funds in New York and stated that to me and my P.I. Kleve also stated to me and my P.I. he did not receive any of the funds. ________________________________________________________________________ Answer paragraph #4 Kleve taped the conversations because he suspected he was being cheated. I knew he was taping conversations. If Kleve was not being cheated then the item being sold would have a Bill of Sale signed by Kleve to the buyer. There was no litigation against Daniels by Kleve because Daniels collected the cash and put on his party hat. ________________________________________________________________________ Answer last paragraph # 5 The basis of our ownership in chassis #0384 would be best answered by the U.K. High Court of Justice. Bonhams is privy to that information as well. If you refer to judgment paragraph #5 (Justice Flaux findings) where it was stated; the car had been bought by Ms. Lawsons father Karl Kleve from James Kimberly in a damaged condition in 1958. That is factually incorrect. Another statement on the same paragraph #5 (Justice Flaux findings) states that Guy Anderson sold Michel Kruch / LExceptional Automobile the 375 Plus #0384. That too is factually incorrect. .I originally sent the Ferrari 375 Plus to myself using Michel Kruch/L Exception Ave DeFre 98 Brussels, Belgium address. (Shippers testimony attached 1989) Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
I still do not understanding or question the OC/OJ reasoning behind in accepting the London Courts in the HoA - unless Swaters & Co. insisted on London, knowing it would be more favorable. Seems to me that Joe put himself in a position of weakness by going before a UK court.
I still do not understanding or question the OC/OJ reasoning behind in accepting the London Courts in the HoA - unless Swaters & Co. insisted on London, knowing it would be more favorable. Seems to me that Joe put himself in a position of weakness by going before a UK court.
I still do not understand or question the reasoning in the OC/OJ accepting the London courts in the HoA - unless Swaters & Co. insisted knowing it would be more favorable should litigation take place. It would seem Joe placed himself in a position of weakness by going before a foreign jurisdiction - and without doubt far more costly.
Joe, the much respected Justice Flaux and Lord Justice Longmore do not agree with you or your analysis of English Law. Based upon the evidence and not your opinion, they reached the same conclusion that Daniels was paid and Swaters was entitled to rely on his authority to act on Kleves behalf. Given the evidence that Daniels was paid and the settlement agreement was valid, to continue to suggest the "burden of proof" is on Swaters is both ridiculous and shows a lack of understanding of English law. The only evidence to the contrary is a statement from Lawson that she did not see any large deposits on the bank statements before they were lost. What proof do you have that Kleve or any member of his family were not paid in cash ? There may well have been compelling reasons why Kleve wanted cash (and/or a car as has now been revealed) and avoid the payment going into his bank account and this can also be a creditable reason why the cheques were endorsed. The facts are, you simply have no idea because as Justice Flaux says "you were not there and have no first hand knowledge". https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/swaters_v_lawson_judgment_final_10_11_15_read_-only.pdf 141:One of the more extravagant allegations advanced by Ms Lawson and Mr Ford is that Mr Daniels stole the settlement funds. This allegation is unsupported by any evidence. I have already said that, as regards the U.S. $225,000 he was entitled to be paid 30% of any sum recovered pursuant to the Contract with Mr Kleve of 23 August 1995, up to a ceiling of U.S. $250,000, which was not exceeded. So far as the balance of the settlement funds, the U.S. $400,000, is concerned, I have already referred at [109] above to the fact that, the day after the Settlement Agreement was executed, Mr Daniels appears to have endorsed that cheque in favour of Mr Kleve, a strong indication that Mr Kleve did receive those funds. I set out in the next section of the judgment the other evidence which supports the conclusion that he did receive the funds. Whilst it is true that, in an affidavit sworn in the Ohio proceedings on 9 July 2010, Ms Lawson states that she went through her fathers bank records after his death and there was no payment of U.S. $625,000 or $400,000, she has neither produced the bank records in the present proceedings nor come to court to be cross- examined about her assertion that there was no trace of the payment. 
 I do not have access to all of the documents for "careful consideration" but the full judgement is essential reading as it is an opportunity for the Fchat members to see the arguments put up by both sides rather than the selective information that has been posted in the past. The conclusions are made after listening to these arguments and reviewing the many hundreds of pieces of evidence and expert witnesses. You may disagree and tell the Judiciary that they have got it all wrong and do not understand but you have simply failed to prove your point in a jurisdiction you accepted
Equally, I could never understand why Joe signed the settlement agreement accepting English jurisdiction then immediately tried to wreak it. Having agreed to London on the HoA, Ford also accepted jurisdiction by making a counter claim to the title in an English court and failing to appeal this decision in time. Joe will of course see things differently and I await the appeal on the appeal on the appeal
Not picking sides but I'm genuinely curious - why doesn't the court demand a stronger paper trail to support the claim of payment - be it cash, check, a trust fund, the title to another "roadster", etc? Several comments here seem to imply that Justice Flaux accepted or refused testimony based on the reputation of the witness, rather than the weight of the evidence itself. Is this a difference between US and UK law, or a peculiarity of this case?
An answer in general terms is that any trial of a contested issue of fact turns on the burden of proof and on the concept of abuse of discretion. At the outset of trial there is real world status quo. A party wants the court to issue an order to change the status quo. That request turns on a rule of law. A rule of law has elements: a set of facts which, if true, leads to the desired result. The party who wants change has the burden to show it to be more likely than not that each fact, required to establish each of the requisite elements, is true. If the party fails to do so with respect to one or more element, the status quo will not be disturbed. The concept of abuse of discretion is that a trial judge's finding of fact is subject to appellate challenge only if there is *no* evidence to support it. There can be ten pieces of evidence on the "yes" side of the factual dispute and only one piece of evidence on the "no" side. If the judge finds for the "no" side, that ruling cannot be reversed on appeal. The theory is that only the trier of fact -- a judge or a jury -- was able to view the witnesses' testimony and to assess their credibility, e.g., by demeanor cues.
180 Bill has helpfully provided the legal aspect of your question. Specifically to this case, there was no dispute between the parties that Kleve's agent had been paid. The disagreement boiled down the authority of the agent to enter into the transaction and the responsibility of the purchaser to question his actions. For what ever reason, Lawson refused to take part in the hearing leaving only her witness statements as testimony. Her absence and the fact that Ford could not comment on the events before his involvement effectively allowed comments on the events around the time of the settlement agreement to go unchallenged. If by "reputation of the witness" you are reffering to Lawsons attorney, to the layman the Judges comments were not surprising. Apart from his financial interest in the outcome of the case I found it difficult to believe his testimony that Kleve had actually told him the settlement agreement was a fraud and yet he decided to do nothing. Extract para 19. Mr Ford called Mr Timothy Smith, who as I have said, is an Ohio criminal attorney who was an acquaintance of Mr Kleve and provided advice to him at various times. His evidence was confused and implausible. He has acted for Ms Lawson in the Ohio litigation since August 2013 and, like her, refuses to acknowledge the jurisdiction of this court. He has a financial interest if the litigation is concluded in favour of Ms Lawson and Mr Ford and he also accepted that he had been in some professional trouble, having been on probation in the United States and therefore suspended from practice. I had doubts as to his probity and did not consider him a reliable witness.
Evidence is an important topic -- one of my favorite topics. You have apparently seen some, but not all, appeal documents. I caution you about popping off on incomplete information. Buckle up, this race is still underway, and twists and turns lay ahead! Will you be attending some of the 18 April - 6 May trial? Joe *
This is the most ridiculous statement. To suggest that the serial litigator Karl Kleve, his attorney Tim Smith and the FBI all knew that Daniels had used the Power of Attorney to pocket $625,000 and yet they all did nothing is laughable. To add to this, it is also likely that Kleve told his family and yet they, and subsequently Ford, have steadfastly ignored pursuing their rogue agent Daniels for the money for retribution. This lack of action speaks volumes to anyone with a modicum of common sence. Are you sure Joe is not writing your script ? Justice Flaux extract para 154: The charitable explanation for what Mr Kleve told Mr Crook on 5 June 2000 and for his getting Mr Smith to send the fax of the Settlement Agreement with the figure of U.S. $3 million in it the following day is that he was an old man (by then he was 86 years old) and was confused. A more cynical view would be that, although he knew in September 1999 that there had in fact been a settlement at U.S. $625,000, he remained dissatisfied and convinced he could get more money, he wanted to create the impression that he had only been prepared to settle for U.S. $3 million and that the settlement at U.S. $625,000 was something he had not been prepared to agree. That explanation of what was going on is borne out by Mr Smiths assertion in his witness statement, that he ran into Mr Kleve on the street on about 6 June 2000 and Mr Kleve said he had heard a rumour that people thought he had sold his Ferrari but he had not, which Mr Smith claimed was consistent with what Mr Kleve had told Mr Smith earlier about not being willing to sell for U.S. $750,000 but that he could get U.S. $3 million if he could get the Car back to the United States. During the hearing, we heard that you and your brother had turned up, unannounced, at Wexners Office requesting an audience and had left leaving a folder of papers suggesting you have a claim to the claim. Judge Flaux concluded that if you did have a creditable claim then you should indeed put up or shut up in the High Court Are you seriously suggesting that the transcript of a shipping clerk saying you were listed as the consignee when the car was shipped to Belgium gives you a creditable claim to the title ? Bonhams, et al. must be shaking in their boots
Yes and I look forward to meeting you again. I may not agree with you or your methods but I am grateful for the entertainment you have provided. I am likely to miss the first couple of days and I am taking a road trip (three Ferraris and two Maclarens) to mark the centenary of the Battle of Verdun. The visit will be a poignant reminder of what happens when a dispute escalates into a futile conflict between two powerful and egotistical parties that only profits the manufacturer of munitions. Sounds familiar ? Otherwise, what is you opinion on Mr Anderson's comments ?
Kim, looks like I need to be there for the entirety of the first two days to ensure we get full coverage on here. Maybe we need to split duties thereafter as I certainly won't be able to manage all days if I am to remain married Can anyone please confirm the first date? I have seen both 18th and 19th mentioned. Look forward to saying hello again Joe. We did meet briefly after a court session last year.
Thanks Francis. Like you I will not make it everyday. We should get a running order on the first day as I would like to be there for the testimony of the key players Wexner, Carpenter and Brooks. Although Joe has become a bit of a side show to the main event of Wexner vs Bonhams I would like to hear his explanation for taking over six months to ship the parts ( Allen Markelson made a statement on this) and I do enjoy his contrast to the formal pomposity of the English Legal System
You really must read the appeal. The points I raise about the evidence are irrefutable. I believe the trial court got it wrong. Oral argument on my appeal has been set for 15 November 2016. Joe *
Joe, every one of your appeal applications were refused as being (close to but not quite) totally without merit with no reason to grant any stay of execution nor any reason why the trail set for 18th April should not proceed. The fact the your oral pleading is set for November, six months after the hearing, indicates the importance the Court are giving to your "irrefutable" evidence.
Agreed. I will certainly be there for the Wexner, Carpenter, Brooks days. Those now form the crux of the case and I anticipate a bit of theatre. But as you say. Joe is entertaining and I wouldn't want to miss his input. F
Dear Mr. Kim, I hope this is NOT where you begin to go off the rails. As I explained to you before, I prefer polite over impolite. Line 1 This is the most ridiculous statement ..as you said. Who do you think Mark Daniels really is? Do you believe he is a JOHNNY DO GOODERor do you believe Daniels, the bounty hunter, had Kleves best interest at heart? So do you honestly believe that Kleve needed Daniels to cash his check. Answer to Paragraph #1 Since Kleve was a serial litigator in Ohio ( Pro Se) that is totally different then going to Florida to find and serve a lawsuit on Daniels. Are you under the impression that Daniels would voluntarily gave up the cash long after the title and paperwork were already turned over to Lancksweert? Why do you think Lancksweert needed that paperwork? Come on you can hazard a guess on that one, cant you? Kleve said he wanted the restored/recreated Ferrari back from Europe. Oh by the way, when talking to the feeble Kleve in the late 90s, it was not unusual for him to fall asleep every 15-20 minutes or so. This went on for most of our meetings. FACTOID: A Belgium lawyer representing M.Kruch and P. Lancksweert flew from Belgium to New York to connect with another lawyer named Nick Ackerman. The two lawyers flew to Ohio to conclude a transaction between the Belgiums and Karl Kleve. The two lawyers returned empty handed from their journey. So where are these documents and why does this not appear in the judgment of the Honorable Justice Flaux? Perhaps OJ ( Ocean Joe) was not privy to that information when it was time to cross examine Lancksweert. Answer to Paragraph #2 I did not go to LBrands, /Victoria Secret in Ohio who said I did? My brother had a dossier of information I prepared pertaining to the 1954 Ferrari 375 Plus #0384. He delivered that info to the buyer of the Ferrari through his head of security. If you are familiar with this case you would know what is in that dossier and you could comment on that information. The fact that this dossier has made it to the UK High Court should be proof of the value of the information. The Honorable Justice Flaux has ruled on many things from documents he was allowed to see and the testimony he has heard. . Justice Flaux could not issue rulings from withheld documents. Justice Flaux ruled Kleve was paid using a Ferrari 250 beautiful 340,000.00 roadster. Where is that Kleve Ferrari 250 roadster payment? Kleve stated to me and my P.I. first hand in 1999/2000 HE WAS NOT PAID. As I said earlier, Kleve was told there was money in New York and he was baffled by that. He was waiting for the return of a restored/recreated Ferrari. Judgment paragraph #5 The car had been bought by Ms Lawsons father Karl Kleve from a James Kimberly in a damaged condition. That is factually inaccurate. The car was not sold by Kimberly to Kleve. The Bill of Sale currently being used by the U.K. court system is a fraudulent document. Kleve stated under oath he never had any such document or title for the Ferrari in 1989(Attached) If you want to date the forged document a simple acid test will guarantee the year the Forged document was manufactured (circa 1999). This would be the least someone would do pertaining to an $18,350,000.00 transaction to a trusting buyer. In a later post, I will tell you how the 1954 375 plus left the ownership of Jim Kimberly in 1955. Kimberly did not sell to Kleve. I will tell you where the car was located on March 20, 1958 and that Plus was in mint condition. I can also state that Howard Hively did not sell the1954 Ferrari 375 Plus #0384 to Kleve. I originally sent the Ferrari 375 Plus Hulk to myself using my friend Michel Kruchs address in Brussels, Belgium. I did not transfer ownership of the Ferrari to Michael Kruch and I know that my partner Christian did not sell or assign his portion either. So, please explain to me why Justice Flaux concluded we sold our Hulk to Belgium when it was shipped for restoration. The title issue claims Michel Kruch passed title to Swaters via a bill of sale. How did that happen? I did not pass title to Michel Kruch so how can Michel Kruch pass title to Swaters. ( Attached) It is baffling why OJ did not hammer home the claimed Belgium ownership. Now that may be the game changer you mentioned. Your last statement is quite curious. Bonhams must be shaking in their boots. Perhaps they are; here is how I will address that. On June 27, 2014 a 1954 Plus Ferrari originally know as #0394 then recently converted back to #0384 was sold to an innocent U.S. buyer. . At the hammer, 10,700,000.00 pounds sterling convertible was paid for the star offering at Bonhams Goodwood event by an unsuspecting U.S. citizen. That price in pounds equates to $18,350,000.00 U.S.D. +or- paid for said offering. At the current rate of today that U.S.D. purchase equivalent is now $15,119,000.00 (thats a $3,231,000.00 U.S.D. shortfall.) Now that, along with a 2,000,000.00 GBP ( $3,670,000.00 U.S.D.) Zanotti claim. (reduces the amount available again) UK lawyers fees will most likely approach $12,000,000.00 U.S.D. (approximately 8,000,000.00 G.B.P as reported in the UK rags) $18,350,000.00 sale price of the Plus $3,231,000.00 rate of exchange shortfall $3,670.000.00 Zanotti claim $12,000,000.00 Lawyers fees _____________ -$551,000.00 U.S.D. negative balance (not including Bonham commission, owners or claimants payouts) Yes! This might be cause for concern by the Bonhams auction house. So who has the ability to pay back the innocent and unsuspecting buyer his 18,350,000.00 plus fees, punitive damages, and exchange rate fluctuations? And say its NOT TRUE that Bonhams left the mighty Plus sitting in a container for almost 2 years now? WOW! Who would do that to a rolling sculpture/ work of art. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
The thing that baffles me Mr Anderson (Seespotrun) is why it is only now that you have reappeared on the scene. As Justice Flaux pointed out you neither pleaded, nor were called as a witness during the earlier hearing which determined ownership at the time of the auction. I am therefore unclear whether what you now put forward on this forum has any relevance to the ongoing court case.
Good question. The 6 June 2000 Kleve-Crook transcript records that Mr Crook said that Mr Daniels said that there "was" a "car" or "some roadster" and it was what "Kleve requested" and was "a $340,000 car sitting in a warehouse, waiting for somebody to come and get it." EVERY WORD about that "car" is hearsay and should be inadmissable evidence unless it is one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule, such statements made by a deceased person. At the 19-20 Oct 2015 UK trial, notices were filed to allow consideration of hearsay evidence for Mr Kleve (deceased) and Mr Swaters (deceased). As to the Kleve-Crook conversation, twice and consistently, Mr Kleve's position in that very conversation was that the last settlement "offer" he made was supposed to be - "$3 million . . . Those other numbers are strictly fictitious as far as I am concerned." See Ferrari Chat post #602 on thread page 31. It has the transcript excerpt attached. At the 19-20 Oct 2015 UK trial, Ms Swaters did not call Mr Daniels nor Mr Crook as witnesses. Joe *
December 2014: Well there as surprise, the hatchets are now buried and Joe and Guy are now the best of friends. The cynical view is that Anderson waxing lyrical on his ownership serves as yet another Ford harpoon into Wexners in a desparate attempt to create new disputes, claims and litigation Whether or not a roadster or a Ferrari was or was not included in lieu of some of the cash settlement to Karl Kleve is completely immaterial to the final determination by both Justice Flaux (and subsequently Lord Justice Longmore on appeal) and is not a ruling as has been suggested. Joe, it really is a load of olds codswallop (I am avoiding the word ridiculous as it is now deemed impolite) to continue to suggest that Swaters is under any obligation to call Daniels as a witness in order to ascertain how Kleve was finally paid. It has been proved that Daniels was paid and Daniels was authorized to enter into the Settlement Agreement Forget irrelevant earlier posts and read the relevant Judgement Extract Para 164: In my judgment, given that Mr Daniels had actual, alternatively apparent, authority to conclude the Settlement Agreement on behalf of Mr Kleve and that the Settlement Agreement has not been fraudulently altered as Ms Lawson and Mr Ford originally contended, that Agreement was a valid and binding contract which bound Mr Kleve. It settled all the disputes as to ownership and passed title to the Car to Mr Swaters.
