375+ # 0384

If you have been following this Saga, then how could you be baffled?
I don’t remember leaving the scene.
My involvement contradicts the information in the findings.

1) I did not sell #0384 to Michel Kruch. (Fact)
My partner, Christian Hollinger put up 50,000.00 and did not sell/transfer his ownership.
After we won in Atlanta 1989 the 50,000.00 was not returned to Christian or me.

2) Kleve was supposedly paid using a 340,000.00 Ferrari 250 roadster and cash.
So where is this Phantom Ferrari?

No one has produced a VIN number for the Ferrari 250 roadster. There was no purchase order/receipt for this Ferrari produced in the High Court. No one has seen this mystery Ferrari and I have not seen this Ferrari when Kleve and I were together in Ohio.


Why would the U.K. court NOT demand proof? This is so easy since cars have ID, Cars can be tracked, Bank deposits have records, and Bank withdrawals have records.

Furthermore:

Swaters/Lancksweert were not sure the Ferrari chassis was #0384. WHAT?

I sent chassis #0384 to Belgium to be restored.
There was NO confusion what number I sent.
So who illegally converted the chassis number to #0394?

What about the Sabina x-ray? Why was that done?

The car is shipped to Ferrari. 1990
Ferrari can lift the VIN and even date the metal.
Ferrari knew what car it was. FOR SURE.

Now read the testimony given in Court.

What I put on the Forum is for all. They draw there own conclusions.


Now this is what baffles me!

Why doesn’t Bonhams refund the money to the buyer, issue an apology, and end all of this.

 

I hate the idea to be so dum to be part of this specific forum...
But reading this, I have to say, that while Belgium is famous for the maneken piss ( spelling) he is not well known for being a great panel beater . This is the last country I would send a car for restoration,,,specially as US had very good quality shops at that time, think of Hill and Vaughn, and others, and Italy was chosen by Bardinon whenever he has to rebody or restore cars. U.K because of the classic car tradition would come second in Europe. But Belgium??

 

Guy, I have and you are talking unsubstantiated utter rubbish. Please post where in your testimony you said anything other than you "brokered the car" for a fee, you "did not buy the car" and you shipped the car to Belgium under the instruction of the buyer.

The Forum can indeed draw their own conclusion as to; why this fabricated interest was not told, under oath, to the Atlanta Court; why you have waited till now to come up with this fairytale; and why you are not claiming in Court.

Justice Flaux has made his own conclusion and has chosen to ignore you. Your new best mate and cheerleader Joe is predictably silent

 

Thank you for your question.

A master panel beater who worked for NART was located a few miles from me. He was trained and employed by Aston Martin for years and moved here to work his magic. I used him many times. He could have easily built the body for the Plus. His name was Robby Robinson. But, this ‘thing’ was in such sad and dilapidated condition it needed much more than a body.

There were others that could tackle this project here but Europe was the only place for a complete and total restoration/recreation. The Ferrari carcass was ultimately going to be rebuilt in Italy but the best place to import was Antwerp, Belgium.

 

Hello Kim,

In reference to my Post # 3901 where you extracted the sentence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEESPOTRUN
Now read the testimony given in Court


The testimony in court was part of the VIN change topic that should have been HAMMERED by OJ for being an illegal act. The VIN change could very well be a criminal act. ( Attached)

Question: Is swapping VIN numbers in UK or Europe NOT against the law?
It is against the law here in the U.S.A. Vehicle ownership over here is attached
to the VIN number.

Oh by the way, the current VIN number shown to be attached to the chassis should be referred to as a ‘quick release’ VIN.

Since when did Ferrari SPA start using screws instead of rivets or brads to fasten VIN plates? Who stamped that plate? Looks like the expert work of a 12 year old. If the buyer sees that plate he would have reason enough to get a full refund from the sale. ( Attached)

Take a good look at a real Ferrari plate and how it fastens and the size and type of numbers used to punch the smaller Factory plate. Wait… if you are still a non-believer I will post the original plate and the correct numbers with their style and size.


By 1990, when the carcass arrived in Italy it was verified that the chassis I sent to Belgium was the “One and Only #0384. Both Swaters& Lancksweert knew #0394 was not a car and both knew #0386 was not manufactured. Both Swaters and Lancksweert were in the Ferrari business and if they did not know they should have known.
Shame, Shame, Shame.

Now for your other statement that I read about.

Do you even know in what context that statement was made?

Question: Justice Flaux actually told you” he has made his own conclusion and has chosen to ignore me”? So how are you so privileged to have these conversations with the Honorable Justice Flaux?
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Have we ever seen on this thread either a good-quality closeup photograph, or pencil-trace, of the actual chassis number stampings on the longitudinal frame member itself?

 

Guy, I have followed your advise, read your testimony and have posted extracts to enable members of the forum to reach their own conclusion on your statement "My partner, Christian Hollinger put up 50,000.00 and did not sell/transfer his ownership."

Where's Joe when you need him ?

COURTROOM DEPUTY STEWART: Mr. Anderson, if you will
raise your right hand and be sworn.
(Witness sworn)
COURTROOM DEPUTY STEWART' If you will please have a
seat and state your full name for the record.
A My name is Guy John Anderson.

Direct Guy Anderson 282
Q But you have done restoration?
A Yes, I have for several years.
Q Well, what did you think about what it would be worth
if you restored it?
A The car is impossible to be restored. If you took a
car like that, you could perhaps use it as a pattern to
reconstruct the duplicate, but this car in its There is
not enough there. If you want to restore a car, you have
to start with something. You have to at least have a
motor. You have to have something to start with to
restore. You could reconstruct from thin air a car similar
to this, but that car is not restorable.
Q Were you interested in purchasing that car for $50,000?
A NO, SIR.

Direct Guy Anderson 287
Q All right. Was he still interested in seeing it?
A Yes, he was interested.
Q All right. And what did he say to you?
A Well, he asked me in what price range the car would be
available for, and I told him that the guy was asking
$50,000 for what was left. And I also told him that he
would have to pay a brokerage fee on top of that. And he
said fine.
Q And to whom was he going the pay the brokerage fee?
A HE WAS GOING TO PAY THE BROKERAGE FEE TO ME.
Q Did he agree to do that?
A Yes.

Direct Guy Anderson 289
Q Was GILES CHRISTIAN INTERESTED in the car?
A Yes, he was.
Q And was there discussion about his purchasing it?
A Yes, Brad said $50,000, he would sell the car for that
much.
Q What did Mr. Christian say?
A He looked it over and he looked at the paperwork and
reviewed the paperwork and tried to find the serial number,
and he said, "I'1l buy it for that."
Q All right. What happened next?
A Well, after that, he said, I asked Giles if he wanted
to put a deposit on the car. He said yes. He went back
out to the car, picked up some money, walked back over. I
was standing behind the car. To my left was Brad Kettler
against the wall. And Giles walked over, handed me a pack
of money, and I handed it to Brad, and I asked him how much
there was, and he said, "Ten thousand dollars."
Q All right. What was the next discussion?
A It was after the ten thousand dollars, we decided that,
well, Giles decided that he would have to wait for the
balance of the money and that it would be several days
before he came back to pick up the car.

Direct Guy Anderson 292
Q what happened then?
A The money was split up. THE $40,000 WAS PAID BY THE
FRENCHMAN TO BRAD. And I gave the commission, which was
half of my commission to Mr. Kelley for a finder"s fee on
the car. And we went over to the area where the car was,
the truck followed us and we pulled it up and loaded it on
to the truck.

Direct Guy Anderson 294
Q did you, Guy Anderson, or Worldwide Exchange get a
bill of sale from Mr. Kettles?
A No, sir.
Q Why not?
A I DIDN'T BUY THE CAR.

Direct Guy Anderson 295
Q Okay. And how was it to be shipped?
A Via container.
Q And what arrangements did you make for a container, if
any?
A I called up the broker, the customs house broker and I
booked a 20 foot container, destination Antwerp, over the
phone.
Q And in whose name? Who was the sender, if you will,
that you booked?
A I was the sender, Worldwide Exchange.
Q A11 right. And who was going to be the recipient,
which I believe is the consignee?
A The consignee was booked to me.
Q Why?
A Well, Christian travels quite a bit and he didst know
whether or not he would be in that area at the time. If
ship it to myself, I can have most anyone pick up the
goods, the contents, because I get a copy of the bill of
lading in my name.

Direct Guy Anderson 298
Q All right. And so what did you do to change the name
from yours to his?
A Well, we met and had lunch out at the airport. Yusen
is right near the airport, and we were talking, and he
said, "Well, I'11 just go ahead and go over there and
change it myself." Well, he had a business card and he
walked into Yusen and he said, "Please change the bill of
lading and put this as the consignee." I was with him
because I had to clear it.
Q And who is this person?
A His name is Michael Cruch, but his real name is Michele
Cruch. He's French.
Q All right. All right. And did the bill of lading get
changed, the consignee from you to Mr. Cruch?
A Yes. Yuki changed it on the spot. She called up and
she made arrangements. She did all the paperwork right in
front of us and she called up the docks where the car was
in the container and told them that she would be sending
through the information for the new consignee.

Direct Guy Anderson 310
Q At that point in time, did you know that you had
brokered a stolen car?
A No.
Q Did something unusual happen to you on the morning of
the 13th, the next morning?
A Yes.
Q What was that?
A In the morning, there was a knock on the door. I
answered the door. Agent May was there, Theodore May was
there. There was another agent off to his right. He
identified himself. He says, "I'm with the F.B.I. We have
some questions for you."
Q What did they say to you?
A They asked me about the stolen Ferrari and I didst
know what they were talking about. And then he said,
"We're going to put you under arrest, so you have to come
with us and we're going to book you." And that was pretty
much that inside the house.
Q Did you get in the car?
A Well, I was handcuffed, yes, and I went to the car. I
was bound with my arms behind me and I got in the back of a
brown car.
Q Did you have a discussion with Mr. May?
A Yes, I did.
Q What did he ask you?
A He started talking to me about a partially disassembled
Grand Prix Racing Ferrari that I had and at first I didn't
know what he was talking about until I figured out that he
was talking about this thing here.
Q All right. What did you tell him about it?
A I asked him if he had seen it. And he said no. And I
said, "Well, there is no car there. There is nothing.
It's a frame and a part of the body work” And he says
"Well, you put an order in to steal this thing”
enraged and I said “no I did not”
Q All right
A I was in the car driving to the Federa Bureau, the
and I told him, I said, "I DIDN'T EVEN BUY THE CAR." I TOLD HIM THAT A FRENCHMAN
BOUGHT THE CAR. I TOLD HIM THAT I RECEIVED A BROKERAGE FEE FOR THE CAR AND I told
him everything about the car on the way down there
Q Did you tell him you got a twenty-five hundred dollar commission
A Yes, I told him that Gary Kelley received twenty-five hundred dollars too.

Cross Guy Anderson 339
Q You also testified on the one hand that Gerald Rough
identified It as a 375 Plus, correct?
A Yes, he did.
Q And then you testified on the other hand
A Well, well wait. I was told by Kettler that Gerald
Rough had identified it. I didn't talk to Gerald Rouse. I
didn't call Gerald Rough. He came up with this. Now, he
either gets it from a Ferrari authority or the factory.
That's it. This is a build sheet. It's known as the car's
birth certificate. This is what they use when the car is
born. You don't just pull them out of your hat. He told
me that Gerald Roush gave him this. Gerald Roush said the
car was 0384, and this was a picture of it driving in 1954
is what he told me.
Q And you obviously believed that, because you then
proceeded to broker the car?
A HE ASKED ME IF I WANTED TO BUY IT. I TOLD HIM I DIDN'T
WANT TO BUY IT. I TOLD HIM I CAN HELP HIM SELL IT. I DID
BROKER THE CAR, YES.
Q So you believed what he said, that Mr. Rough had
identified it as a 384 plus?
A Yes.
Q And therefore you went ahead with the brokering of it?
A YES, I DID.

Cross Guy Anderson 341
Q Okay. Thank you. Now, on the other hand, you
testified that you thought that all it was was a hunk of
junk?
A Most definitely.
Q And you also testified that nothing could be done with
it, couldn't be restored, nothing?
A I SAID IT DEFINITELY COULD NOT BE RESTORED, DEFINITELY.
Q And then on the other hand, a hunk of junk that you
think it is, you brokered it for $50,000'?
A The $50,000 price tag came from Gerald Rouse. Not
only was the car viewed by Rough, but Gerald Roush said
that's what the value was in its current state. This was
told to me by Brad Kettler.
Q But it can't be both, can it? It can't be a hunk of
junk and worth $50,000, isn't that right?
A TO ME, IT'S GARBAGE. TO THE BUYER, I DON’T KNOW WHAT
HE WANTS TO DO WITH IT. ONE MAN'S JUNK IS ANOTHER MAN'S
TREASURE. I COULDN'T TELL YOU. AS A BROKER, I OFFERED THE
CAR. Kind of like in real estate. If a guy wants a lot of
money for a house, thats not the broker's problem. They
just offer it. If someone says I like it, I want to buy I
it, you don't ask them questions why they want to buy it.
You say okay, fine. Ill sell it to you. I'll have it
brokered to you. That's it.

Cross Guy Anderson 353
Q Nor did you receive a bill of sale to keep in your
files to show a legitimate transaction had taken place?
A A bill of sale for what?
Q A copy of a bill of sale of the transaction?
A AS I SAID, I DIDNT BUY THE CAR. I DON'T NEED THE BILL
OF SALE.
Q So you had no paperwork or anything to show, have a
receipt or bill of sale for your records, correct?
A No, no. I didn't get a bill of sale on the car,
nothing whatsoever.
Q Or a copy of one?
A No.

 

It seems from the above that the car was stolen, brokered to a buyer without any bill of sale from the original owner. Then imported to Belgium because it's easy to 'wash' a stole car there by denying you knew it was stolen? It would seem that by this testimony, he maintains he didn't have a bill of sale, or title, to him, and he is not selling it, but brokering this deal? Something smells. Perhaps I can 'broker' a deal on my neighbors Bentley and make a few thousand.

One of the most famous Ferrari's there is, and you don't have a bill from a seller, the owner, to move it on? Incredible. Seems there are a lot of hands in this, and many are not telling the whole story. Seems it still goes back to it being a stolen car, and you cannot force a sale by taking it and then negotiating it's purchase. And if a car can be created out of thin air, why couldn't the remains of 0384 be restored as the basis for the car?

Perry

 

stolen property cannot be sold... title cannot be passed on stolen property by court or otherwise... universal concept anywhere in the world, no court or jurisdiction can close ownership gap in lineage, especially in a contested ownership lineage, without a release from the owner or a period of quiet remains contested... there is no such thing as "washing" ownership...

is the theft issue still in play ?

 

I suspect that based upon the way that Guy Anderson has made some partial statements that he has the trail of transactions from Jim Kimberly that led to 0384 being in Kleve's possession. I would then speculate that somehow Mr. Anderson is going to claim that the paperwork proving/demonstrating ownership stopped pre-Kleve.

Sure sounds like there are going to be a series of people asserting some form of ownership claim.

 

Exactly my point. It seems that Anderson is skirting the issue. How can you sell/broker a car that is not for sale because it's stolen. And the entry to Belgium fits because they view a purchase of a stolen car as 'OK' if you don't know it's stolen, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

Perry

 

Kleeve did not have a bill of sale either nor did he registered the car ..when he owned it. And whoever he bought it from did not give him either an invoice nor a bill of sale. And likely no one has been able to see the original bill of sale to Kimberly. Those were the times, modern paperwork is important, but this is a modern concept. If no one can prove he purchased this car properly ( and with proper funds, who knows) may be the car should return to Ferrari SPA, at least they can ( hopefully ) demonstrate that they manufactured the car, and may be they just leased it to the racers in period...who knows, if we are all inventing new stories, I guess the buck stops at Ferrari SPA!

Incidentally neither the Elgin marbles ( the one form the Parthenon) nor Mona Lisa ( la gioconda by Leonardo da Vinci) came with an invoice or a bill of sale,,still they are at the British museum and at the Louvre. So long for stolen property that cannot be acquired . And I would be interested to know how many museum have stolen pieces on their walls or in their reserves!

And again the story of this Ferrari is not unique. From memory the late Peter Ustinov had his Hispano sold illegally by the workshop where it was supposed to be restored, in France, Not Belgium ( in the mid seventies) and was never returned. The Fench Supreme Court estimated that the buyer had been acting in good faith, and end of story.

Again like everyone, I feel very upset that the car was stolen from the person who was at that time the guardian. I don't dare call Kleeve the owner as it seem very difficult to establish under which conditions he actually legally acquired the car and from whom,,does not meant it was not correct, but might be impossible to prove in the absence of documents and records.

Anyway I feel very bad even if he was an eccentric, tried somewhat to outsmart everyone who was involved in the recovery and ultimately robbed by pretty much everyone involved,,,I feel bad because I had a car stolen, and even while offering substantial amount of money for information leading to its recovery, never came back. I took the insurance money, and yes I still read the classified, and funnily enough may be the title cannot be passed properly to the chain of following owners , but as it was 15 years ago, at some point you have to turn the page. Obsession is a bad habit, Kleeve, Joe, and some others should know that by now!

 

Apparently not......

 

No....any Ferrari imported to America in those days, went thru Chinetti in NYC. He was personally placing the cars, to get the best exposure for Ferrari. That's where the paper trail (thru Kimberly, anyway) would have been.

Ask Coco.....

Somehere in Kleve's piles of trash was the paperwork.
But the challenge for the heirs of a hoarder like that, is the mountians of useless stuff you have to sort, to find it.
Most often it goes to the landfill, by the trailer load, as Jeff describes his involvement......

 

Dear Kim,

Thank You for spending an inordinate amount of time filtering and “partial posting” only portions of the testimony you pre selected. Was that by design?

Why not allow the readers to examine the full pages and subject matter in its entirety?

The technique you use is a wonderful tool; I like to refer to as the ‘Prosecutor Ploy.’
Lawyers have been known to use this same underhanded method of selective extraction.

I really enjoy F-Chat and the internet; it exposes these types of situations.

This same F-Chat and internet allows the other side to expose that selective extraction.

So why not post the following?

1) Post the FBI file that chronicles my travels to Ohio in March 1989 and the accidental discovery that there was NO Ferrari listed stolen in Ohio. Not #0384, not #0394 not even a Gran Prix racer.

2) Post the transcript where the lead lawyer grilled the FBI agent about NOT verifying the information provided to the FBI by the defendants.

3) Post where I said under oath that: “I DID NOT BUY THE CAR… THE FRENCHMAN DID” and how that directly related to the $50,000.00 U.S.D. paid in CASH by the same Frenchman who had the funds wired from France.

NOTE: I will apologize now to the F-Chat readers because the site will only let me post 4 pages at one time. We start with page 282 283 284 then 285.

Perhaps the F-Chat readers will now begin to understand what is really going on and take a good look at that CONTRIVED Belgium VIN #0394.

NOW I must ask;
Kim, are you a lawyer posing as a racer.
Or, are you just working with Bonhams?

It’s OK if you are working for Bonhams, I/we have no ill will towards them.
Bonhams is a broker with absolutely no incidence of ownership in relation to this 375 Plus.

Question: Since Bonhams is not an owner, then why don’t they just issue a refund to the innocent buyer and put an end to this?

Question 2): Why did Bonhams NOT put all claimants in a room and hash out a settlement?
Question 3) It has been stated that Bonhams paid Zonatti a monetary claim but that would be impractical since they do not own the car. Bonhams would have to get approval from the consignee for such an expense. Will you please post that transaction as well?

Question 4) Why would the U.S. buyer accept a V-5 registration issued in England for this bag of worms? And why don’t the Belgium’s have title to the Plus?

It has been said, the buyer is a really good guy and purchases from auction houses in order to avoid just this type of ordeal.

Now you often mention OJ (Ocean Joe) in your posts. Why is that?

Maybe OJ could post a notarized letter from KKl verifying her father KK did not receive a Ferrari 250 or any other $340,000.00 dollar roadster. That would go a long way for the readers to understand that any money paid, did NOT get paid to Mr. Karl Kleve.

AS KLEVE TOLD ME!

 

Guy, rather than rant at me and demand that I post documents I have neither seen nor possess, why not simply answer the question and post your own supporting documents ?

Your reaction and silly accusations to my posting of your own words under oath speaks volumes

 

Cheesey, the theft issue has been settled and the English Court have issued a judgement that Florence Swaters owned the car (see below) This may be against your "universal concept anywhere in the world" but sadly it is true in Belgium and any further doubt was eliminated by the 1999 Settlement Agreement that was found valid. If you haven't already done so, I recommend reading the full judgement as it includes expert witness evidence on both US and Belgium Law on this point.

Joe will of course tell you otherwise but his dismissed appeal and last minute decision to amend his pleading on the HoA and remove all claims for recission, repudiation, frustration and expiry suggest a lack of confidence on his part. You may also have noticed that he has suddenly dropped his “I’m not the kinda guy you cheat in a contract or in court” mantra at the bottom of his posts. Given the results so far, including the Arbitration, its no surprise he no longer believes that’s true.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/swaters_v_lawson_judgment_final_10_11_15_read_-only.pdf

Extract paragraph 198. Accordingly, for all the reasons set out in this judgment, the answer to the preliminary issue is as follows. As at 27 June 2014, before the auction of the Ferrari model 375 Plus Grand Prix Roadster, serial no. 0384AM (the “Car”), Ms Swaters had title to the Car including, for the avoidance of doubt, the spare parts.

 

Kleeve did not have a bill of sale either nor did he registered the car ..when he owned it. And whoever he bought it from did not give him either an invoice nor a bill of sale. And likely no one has been able to see the original bill of sale to Kimberly. Those were the times, modern paperwork is important, but this is a modern concept. If no one can prove he purchased this car properly ( and with proper funds, who knows) may be the car should return to Ferrari SPA, at least they can ( hopefully ) demonstrate that they manufactured the car, and may be they just leased it to the racers in period...who knows, if we are all inventing new stories, I guess the buck stops at Ferrari SPA!

I respectfully disagree. You cannot compare a SALE between willing parties and a THEFT when the owner is not involved. And you state, that is the way these things were done in the past. I imagine, because it was a race car, it was not titled because it couldn't be driven on the street? Not many race cars are titled are they?

It is unfortunate that Belgium does not see stolen property the same as the US.

Perry

 

Agreed and they are one of the few Countries that do. We are the same as the US but until relatively recently there was an anomaly in English Law that allowed stolen title to be conveyed in Bermondsey Market (explained below)

Market overt or Marché ouvert (Law French for "open market") was an English legal concept originating in mediaeval times governing subsequent ownership of stolen goods.

In general, the sale of stolen goods does not convey effective title. However, under 'marché ouvert', if goods were openly sold in designated markets between sunrise and sunset, provenance could not be questioned and effective title of ownership was obtained. The law originated centuries ago when people did not travel; if the victim of a theft did not bother to look in his local market on market day—the only place where the goods were likely to be—he was not being suitably diligent.

One designated market was Bermondsey Market in south London, explaining its 4am opening hour and unsavoury reputation. A relatively recent case of stolen goods sold there was in the early 1990s when several portraits by well-known 18th Century portrait painters, stolen from Lincoln's Inn each sold for less than £100 from an outside stall. Since they had been sold in 'market overt', the purchaser was able to keep them.

The Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act 1994 was enacted to abolish 'Marché ouvert' in 1995.

 

My point was different. No body know anymore the reality , and frankly seem no body cares either. Everyone is using whatever arguments that seem correct for him or her, to defend only its best interest . In front of as many jurisdictions that they can. Nothing wrong there, but we ie the outside readers of this saga, don't have to share this or that view, and our personal judgement at the end is irrelevant as we don't have personal interest at stake.

May be we can have a moral view, but again in front of so many versions of known and unknown facts, not sure anyone can have a reasonable conclusion, as we can see from all the shooting form the hip this topic is provoking.

So my comments was that , because we are dealing with very old stuff, no one can prove almost anything and everyone can permanently assume or pretend whatever.

So may be in a provocative way, same as questions raised by others like where is the chassis plate ( as if this was a key element to identify a Ferrari!) , I was wondering how Kleeve could prove he actually bought the Ferrari and from whom ( as on this point there are already several versions!) . Can anyone prove in the absence of paperwork, that he bought and paid the car to the previous owner etc. How can anyone be sure Kimberly did not leave the car on the side of the road after a race, and someone stole it ( even if he did not report it at the time!?), hence Kleeve could not be the next lawful owner! I know of cars roting in fields outside and no body can actually buy or save them as it is impossible to find a legal owner. Of course if you advertise it is worth 10 m usd, a lot of people will claim their grand mother put it there, and it is their property,,,

So yes we can assume Kleeve was the legal owner, we can assume the car was stolen, we can assume it was resold ( although it seem we already have different version of this) , we can assume a settlement was reached or not, we can assume the money or part of was passed to Kleeve, or not, we can assume a settlement was agreed among the parties of the HOA or not, we can assume Bohnams was aware or not, we can assume the buyer and or his representative was aware or not,,only one conclusion, any reasonable person should get out of being involved with any car with such history, or for that matter from any car with any sort of even remote, issue.

My other suggestion would be to have the car destroyed back to the condition where it was when stolen, and given back to KKL, with interdiction to change its aspect and interdiction to sell,,,suddenly you will see there is absolutely no interest into this car. So the final conclusion of all this, the ultimate reason of this saga is greed, just greed. Nothing else.

 

An excellent post and conclusion.

There is no one in this saga that comes out untarnished

 

I have always tried to limit my posts on this case to the post-HOA period. One reason is to avoid the nihilism, relativism, and confusion of posts like this. Prior to the HOA, each party to the HOA other than Bonhams had competing and mutually exclusive real-world claims to ownership of #0384. The parties agreed to release these real-world claims in exchange for covenants on the part of each of them to sell #0384 at auction, and split the proceeds. Although Joe Ford and Kristi Lawson almost immediately proceeded to breach their covenants, it is now the case that no party except Lawson denies that the HOA is currently effective and enforceable. Therefore the parties' real-world claims to ownership have ceased to exist.

(Regarding Lawson, her puppet master Ford has instructed her to adopt the pretense of defaulting on the London proceedings in the vain hope to renew the Ford-Lawson attack on the HOA in Ohio. This effort to bail the Titanic with a teaspoon is sad to see, and has no chance of success. But Ford has no moral compunctions regarding his continued exploitation of Lawson's misplaced loyalty. Why change now?)

 

Hello,

The original stamped Frame number #0384 was not legible due to rust.

The Ferrari 375 Plus #0384 chassis sunk up over a foot in mud.
It laid there through rain, snow, sunshine, wind and hail for more than 25 years.

The attached engine bay photo vividly depicts the rusted out original frame.

Due to neglect and open air storage in Cheviot Ohio the ‘Original Ferrari Chassis’ could only be used as a pattern to replicate it.

The newly built replacement chassis was stamped professionally sometime between 1990 and 1992.

Jacques Swaters website reported the Ferrari 375 Plus raced with a Chevrolet motor. That is wrong because the factory Ferrari engine mounts were still on the original frame. Those V-12 mounts were untouched.

The late Gerald Roush from the Ferrari Market letter informed the seller in Atlanta that the original motor from #0384 was used in a race boat.

What is with that over stamped number on the engine? Originally looks like a 2 underneath. What’s up with that? It was reported in magazines that it is the original engine. Do they mean an original Ferrari motor? Or original to the car?
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

So you're saying Swaters had a 100% ALL-BRAND-NEW chassis made???

 

So what is left over from the original car for Wexner or any new owner to use safely?

The body is replica.
The chassis is replica.

Anything else? Is the engine in a usable state, etc?