375+ # 0384

Hey Leggy….
It IS too bad the "Max Facts" were removed. The "other site" certainly did state actual documented facts and shared legal documentation of exactly what Joe "had something to do with". By doing so, it exposed Joe's true character, which most of the readers on "this site" were previously dummied or stupified by all his deliberate lies and deceptive con games. That is until "the other site" gave them a wake-up call. Nothing wrong with that!

I wouldn't call it "character assassination" either. It's more like "Characdar Awareness". The other site is pure satire and fact…. the fact part allows readers and people like you the ability to tell a good person from a bad one. "Characdar" ~ Radar for a person's character.

Besides, the "Other site" has more entertaining reads than this site. It implores a sense of accurate dry humor, which most of the followers on "this site" have taken this Ferrari fiasco too seriously and lost insight, especially whenever there was mention of the truth of the matter, the matter meaning Mr. Fraud and his frivolous filings.

I don’t see anyone of this "Ferrari Community" or even you coming to the defense of Jacques Swaters, who has been proven an absolute victim who's been wrongly and unjustifiably accused of being dishonest in Ford’s pleadings and game changers. The truth has been pronounced in both of the Courts, and the majority of those facts you could only read on the Madd Max Site.

Florence Swaters is also his victim. Her lawsuit against Kristie Lawson for fraud was as accurate in 2010, as it has been proven today. I don’t see you mentioning anything in your one-sided post about their "character assassinations" detonated by Ocean Joe. The literary use by the official FerrariChat site’s bias by the moderators on this thread actually contributed to the slander against the Swaters, continually fueled by one FChat poster named Ocean Joe. Let’s not forget, he's "not the kinda guy you cheat, in a contract, or in a court", but, he didn't win in either Court, did he?

I think Max's site served it's purpose, and there is no point listing anymore. It's done.

 

At the title hearing Joe was throwing around allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, bias and concealment against Bonhams, Swaters and the English legal system. Justice Flaux showed great restraint and even went so far as to excuse Joe's behaviour as being a reflection of the "Americans natural distrust of the Europeans"

If this is indeed a generally held belief, then did it start with the American Indians after seeing their land stolen by the Pilgrim Fathers ?

 

I expect Justice Flaux recognized early on that it would be less time consuming to give Joe Ford wide scope to say his piece, than to try to cure Joe Ford's woeful ignorance of the rudiments of law, evidence, and courtroom behavior. In fact Joe Ford's centrifugal splattering of all around him with accusations of dishonesty and corruption is an example of what the psychologists call projection. At any rate I am not aware of any general American belief that Europeans are more likely to lie and cheat than any other group.

Regarding superleggera's remarks about The Other Site, what I get is that he disapproved of the posting of photos and descriptions of Ford and Lawson offspring, and "Max Vito's" exaggerated characterizations of some of the players. On balance, and since Joe Ford entered Witness Protection in about June of this year, The Other Site has offered more hard facts about the London litigation than we have been getting on this one. With Joe Ford, Chris Gardner, and Max Vito now in radio silence, we are not going to have a lot to talk about pending either a global settlement or the trial of the Ford-Lawson "frustration" attack on the HoA.

 

We can enjoy the Christmas Break and look forward to the case managment hearing in February

 

Kim

I too was intrigued by this. In the Seespotrun posts on here Anderson uses the words "I sent it to Belgium for restoration". That doesn't actually state whether he sold the hulk or not, after all he could sell it and still send it for restoration. It's a matter of interpretation of words. It does seem strange that it has taken him 26 years to stake a claim to the car! The evidence to the London Court (not disputed when given) as outlined in the judgement is that Kruch purchased the hulk from `Anderson's company in 1989.

Anyway - as Judge Flaux said he was not an original claimant it was an invalid claim at this late stage.

I am also bemused as to why Joe should take up the cudgels on behalf of Anderson (other than an attempt to besmirch Bonhams) as a large part of what Seespotrun has written on here is an attempt to cast doubt on whether Klieve ever actually had Ohio title to the car (as opposed to ownership) and the legalites of the subsequent titles filed by Lawson and Ford.

Anyway, I feel it's all a bit of a diversion at the moment but may or may not come back into play depending on the London court's eventual judgements and how the Ohio courts view them.

 

Whoa, there..little filly.

If you go ALL they way back to the beginning of this very thread, you see the post of OldGuy, who most of us know and respect (as far as his opinion in this matter) and in his post, he very accurately points out that "Swaters owns the car, legally, in Europe"

It turns out, long after all the principals are dead, that this remains the fact.

It does not undo the original theft of the machine.
I think that is the part, that grates upon most of us Ferrari owners.

If I leave it in an Austin alley, or behind a Chicken Coop in Lost Pines....whatever.
The original theft was a wrong, perpetrated against it's owner.

All the legal efforts since that time, to legitamize the car, worldwide, are unable to reverse that fact. That remains the reason for the drepressed value of this car.

The auction, had it made that fact clear, could have saved everyone a lot of time and money.

 

Florence Swaters is simply a member of the Lucky Sperm Club.

Into each life, a little rain must fall.

 

I think it's a matter of "out running the (reach of the) Law"....

You would think Joe, from Florida, would understand..

It's a bit like life on the high seas........you have legal maritime boundaries, and once past that, it's far more important the flag you fly, and the arsenal you keep racked up, at ready!!!

 

Yes - the theft was wrong, but Swaters (who wasn't the thief)tried to make amends with the Sept 1999 settlement with Klieve/Daniels. Now whatever happened to the proceeds of that settlement (and Max had some plausible theories) Judge Flaux has been satisfied that it was legal and not, as Joe claims, fraudulent.

Swaters eventually bought Klieve's right to the car. It wasn't just a legal trick to legitimise it. It may have been late but it was done.

 

Excellent!

 

I imagine Kristie Lawson and Joe Ford are members of that "Other Club".

 

Francis,

With all due respect, you are quoting from revisionist history initiated by confederates who have visited this site and planted these seeds in an attempt to obscure the truth.

Swaters was not the thief, but possession of stolen goods is still a serious crime.
I cannot state with any certainty when it was the he first knew 0384 was stolen, but I was made well aware (sorry to bang the same old drum) in August of 1990 that Jacques Swaters was in possession of her.
I honestly believe and will only ever believe that the idea of holding the rightful owner at bay for 10 years and then 'trying to make amends' is hogwash.
It's all well and good for someone to be a friend or to have a sterling reputation (speaking to others in the wings on this site) but at a certain point you have to look at their actions objectively and see them for what they are.
Jacques in no way did the right thing.
Not when he knew he was in possession of stolen property which he steadfastly refused to return to the rightful owner, against the owner's wishes, until said owner was no longer with us.

This would be news to Karl Kleve.

 

Club de spermatozoïdes chanceux en Belgique

 

stolen goods of any kind cannot be transferred...

title with defect has been the basis in the UK and Belgian court rulings... their rulings apply only within their jurisdiction as they cannot close continuity outside their respective jurisdictions

 

Sorry Cheesey

This is not revisionist theory. Whatever the rights and wrongs of what went on before Sept 1999, it has now been found in the London court that Swaters purchased from Klieve/Daniels the ownership of the car. Whatever Klieve/Ford/Lawson may claim thereafter that agreement has been found to be valid. No-one wishes to speak ill of an old man who at best was eccentric and at worst was suffering from severe dementia, but for whatever the reasons he undoubtedly made some strange decisions, the truth of which we will now never now. But that is no reason for keyboard warriors to denigrate the reputation of Jacques Swaters, a distinguished and nourable man

But that is not a reason to make

 

Francis you are contradicting yourself.
In your above quoted, and most recently published post- you are speaking of the findings of Justice Flaux's proceedings.
I do not dispute his findings as you and I have discussed earlier.

In your immediately previous post that I was referring to, you were not citing the facts of the case but rather your opinion on what the history may have been;
wherein you state your opinion that Swaters alleged settlement offer of 1999 was an attempt to make amends for the crime of possession of stolen property,
and wherein you summarize in what you believe to have been Swaters motivation to make a settlement effort,
and I quote:

And again I state, a courtroom finding may provide remedy to a legal case, but it cannot rewrite history.

I was there.
I saw all this unfold.
I knew Karl Kleve for all those years and I saw the duress imposed upon him by Jacques Swaters choices.
For the record, again, he worked for the return of his stolen property and Jacques Swaters prevented this.

My posts here are the result of principle, not emotion.
The modern day history of 0384 is largely the history of its theft.Who the players were, what either of them did to help the Allies in WWII, and the fact that I knew one of them is not what motivates me.
That I knew a wrong occurred and was prolonged is the only matter of consequence.

I seek no quarrel with you but if the reputation of Jacques Swaters has been denigrated in any way by these affairs, it has been at his own hands. Not mine.

 

stop making things up, about which nothing was said...

no one was impugned, or history assailed

 

I'm not suggesting a rewrite of history, and yes, I accept much was MY opinion, just as much of what you write is YOUR opinion, no doubt coloured by the one side you saw and experienced, which could not have been the whole story because you were not also in Belgium and inside Swaters mind. All that I am saying is that I object to the denigration of Swaters reputation, just as I have also personally tried very hard not denigrate Karl Klieve. I applaud your support for Klieve and the bits that you witnessed

Now whatever the reasons behind what happened in 1999 and leading up to it, the court has decided that the settlement was done an legal and you accept that. Let's move on and agree to disagree about all the rest of it.

 

Cheers to that my friend.

 

the potential exists that evidence with defect was used in the findings of both the UK court and Belgian courts. Litigation originated in US judicial system. The Belgian and UK findings ( regardless of how they were arrived at cannot independently clear any prior defect in any jurisdiction not their own.

 

the potential exists that evidence with defect was used in the findings of both the UK court and Belgian courts. Litigation originated in US judicial system. The Belgian and UK findings ( regardless of how they were arrived at ) cannot independently clear any prior defect in any jurisdiction not their own.

 

It’s over Dale.

Karl Kleve has been found out, along with his daughter Kristie Kleve Lawson, "Phatboy" Ray Lawson, and the internet Baffoon….Ocean Joe III. Their scheme to use the stolen wreck in 1989 for a trick on Jacques Swaters, began with Karl’s contrived "scheme". Karl Kleve never filed a law suit for the car’s return from Swaters. It was a haphazard plan from the getgo to get the car back AFTER Swaters would restore it, and this was Karl's only so called work of fame.

It’s a well known fact Karl plotted that. Kleve’s behavior was not clean. From his trail of letters, to deliberately recording the FBI agents, were all predictable behaviors of someone not straight. The London Court saw it, and saw that Kristie Kleve continued the same Kleve legacy by coining more fake Ohio titles. Similar to the ones used in the Kleve grab for the $625,000k from Swaters.

Daniels gave Karl Kleve his dish. We’ll never know the truth and it doesn’t matter now. We never saw Joe Ford or Kristie Kleve calling on Daniels for anything, did we? But, we all know Kleve was paid by Swaters, and Kleve signed the 1999 settlement agreements. He left the amount "blank", because, that was Kleve’s only legal strategy to be able to bail out of the contract. Those facts, like so many others Dale, you knew nothing about. They have passed you by. The forensic results spelled it out in London when it was presented to one of the top Judges in England, and also put before the top law firms and expert witnesses in the world, with more than 25 legal minds with criminal and contract law backgrounds. It was all heard, and all the universal laws were applied to write it down in history…. what the "real deal" was, and not the fiction plays you've written here.

Dale, it's doubtful you knew anything about the real story. You grabbed most of your scripture from reading the "Tales of Ocean Joe". Your presence in Ohio was cleaning up Karl Kleve’s junk yards, which makes you not a witness to anything here. Kleve was only under duress while he was jailed in a mental institution, then he scaled the wall to get out of that. Once he did that, he returned to filing lawsuits against everyone except the "ones" that he accused; Daniels, Swaters, and the thieves. Kleve did nothing to present his own good will. Kleve didn’t attempt to "work" things out for the return of his carcass, instead he used his "Kleve Logic" and plotted a scheme to get a completely restored car back. It’s that same logic we see in the David Copperfield of the London Courtroom.

Swaters followed the law, Kleve didn’t. Kleve conspired. Swaters cleared Kleve's problem by buying the car. Jacques’s daughter Florence even went the distance to give Kristie Lawson 30% of the proceeds of an $18,000,000 million dollar car and Kristie Lawson still continued walking in her fathers shoes, reneging again, because of a legal formula custom made by Joe Ford.

Joe and Kristie Kleve Lawson did precisely what Karl Kleve did. They planned a scheme and gambled on another way to sell something that wasn’t theirs to sell. Now, in the real world, Joe and Kristie are under the gun to pay over $700,000 in damages to Swaters, Bonhams and Gardner’s bills, which hasn’t hit yet.

All toll, for Karl Kleve, Kristie Lawson and the new David Copperfield, the lottery ticket they held in their very hands was consumed by greed. In the end, the Universe Wins and the winners remain winners, and the losers… well……they lost.

 

Speak for yourself. There is a lot that I know that I have never posted here and never will.

You know nothing and you never have- other than what Chris Gardner has spoon fed you. You're a mouthpiece for him and nothing more.

I don't know if your spelling my name wrong is him rubbing off on you or just more of your trolling. Either way, I don't care.

Your personal attacks on me and others, your attempts to belittle those who you don't agree with, and your bull**** in general is getting old.

There are rules to this forum which you continue to break.
I have cited them and called you out and you continue to ignore that.
If you can't play by the rules then get lost, Cynthia.

 

We've been through this before, but once again, and with updates: in March 2013 the only parties with substantive claims to ownership -- Swaters, Lawson, Ford, and Gardner -- agreed to release these claims in exchange for a 50/50 split of the proceeds of an auction sale. Subsequent to entering into that agreement, Lawson and Ford refused to perform their part of the deal, making a September 2013 auction a factual impossibility. A "compromise" that Joe Ford proposed at that time -- that the split be changed to 70/30 -- tipped Ford's hand as to what he has really been after, from March 2013 to the present: at least 70% of the proceeds of sale.

When this offer got no takers, Ford and Lawson went on to attack the HoA. Ultimately they ginned up two grounds of attack. One of these -- fraud in the inducement -- was resolved against them as a matter of law last week. The other ground -- that the HoA expired by its own terms in September 2013 -- remains to be tried. If that contention prevails, then we will revert to an HoA-free state of affairs.

The HoA-free reality, prior to the formation of the HoA in March 2013, was that there was an at-issue dispute over ownership of The Car and the Ohio parts. The HoA-free reality of today would be that Swaters is the sole owner of The Car and the Ohio parts.

The converse reality -- that the HoA did not expire in September 2013 -- continues to be that the substantive claims of ownership have been released, and that the OC is entitled to 50% of the auction proceeds.

Whichever reality prevails -- that the HoA expired in September 2013, or that it continued to be effective and binding in June 2014 -- it will be the case that good title was conveyed to Copley/Wexler at the June 2014 auction.

A judgment to that effect will be binding on the only parties with substantive claims to ownership -- Swaters, Lawson, Ford, and Gardner -- no matter what the jurisdiction. Principles of res judicata preclude Lawson and Ford from relitigating the London judgment.

It says here that the Ohio courts will rubber stamp the London judgment and will order the Ohio BMV to issue a new title to Copley/Wexner.

If Joe Ford knew a lick of law he would acknowledge this fact. Instead, he will either try in London to extort an unjustifiably large share of the proceeds to buy his silence, or he will continue to stir the pot stateside until the last trial court order and the last appeal has been resolved against him.

 

Rules?? A bullpucky spoon fed old ignorant mouthpiece belittling attack troll, get lost, can't play, can't spell Dell, Dale, Dael, Daily, Doowadiddy, Dayle, Clydesdale, Dalebaugh in Ohio rubs off, doesn't care, you ignore that. Take a pill and chill. Relax-ay-voo, because it's all over now. Davey, did I get that right?
I never called you by your name. You missed the point. "Dale" is short for a word with a different meaning…..Dalehileman…..it's appropriate.