375+ # 0384 | Page 147 | FerrariChat

375+ # 0384

Discussion in 'Vintage (thru 365 GTC4)' started by tongascrew, Jul 26, 2006.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. wrxmike

    wrxmike Moderator
    Moderator Owner

    Mar 20, 2004
    7,573
    Full Name:
    Mike
    What I find ironic is that OJ, despite the many negative claims made about him, does not appear to have a criminal record....
    Your thoughts ?
     
  2. mbzgurl

    mbzgurl Karting

    Oct 3, 2010
    138
    #3652 mbzgurl, Dec 9, 2015
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2015
    Joey knows what he's doing. He's good at what he does. What does a criminal record have to do with anything? Why do you find that ironic?
    Is he supposed to have one? How do you know if he doesn't have a record? Did you do a background check on him? Why? Strange comment.
     
  3. ilconservatore

    ilconservatore F1 Veteran

    May 18, 2009
    8,369
    Cincinnati Ohio
    Is anyone else surprised by the lack of attention paid by Justice Flaux to the ambiguous chassis number? The change to 0394 is the puzzle piece that casts the most doubt on Swaters' version of the story, yet it seems to have been dismissed entirely by the courts as a historical confusion. If it indeed there was any attempt to obscure the true identity of 0384, Swaters could not legally take title and the entire case falls apart.

    In the US, alteration of an vehicle identification number without proper documentation can be a felony offense. Why didn't the OC push this angle harder?
     
  4. Enigma Racing

    Enigma Racing Formula 3

    Jun 1, 2008
    1,111
    London
    Full Name:
    Kim
    Ford argued extensively that Swaters deliberately concealed the car using 0394AM however there is no evidence that the car ever carried this number on the chassis or chassis plate and the only evidence submitted by Ford were copies of magazine articles and references to 0394AM in correspondance with the FBI. The judgement issued by Justice Flaux goes into the detail and conclusion that there was reasonable doubt over the actual number and the forensic analysis used by Swaters to determine what he was actually buying. This was posted earlier in answer to the same question.

     
  5. cheesey

    cheesey Formula 3

    Jun 23, 2011
    1,921

    it's not about what ID number was physically on the car, any legal search was immediately chilled by any document that identifies the car as something other than 0384... it prevents those with 0384 documentation from exercising claims against a car claimed to be 0394... it created concealment and fraud during that time, preventing recovery, proper litigation and deliberate confusion to the courts
     
  6. Enigma Racing

    Enigma Racing Formula 3

    Jun 1, 2008
    1,111
    London
    Full Name:
    Kim
    Not according to the London High Court judgement
     
  7. cheesey

    cheesey Formula 3

    Jun 23, 2011
    1,921
    #3657 cheesey, Dec 9, 2015
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2015
    then the court has erred and created an entry point for appeal... during the period the car was held under the false ID as 0394, it was protected from any action by anyone holding a claim knowing it as 0384... concealing and harboring stolen goods is a crime and basic estoppel

    the impression is that Flaux was guided by his inflated ego and the sizzle of the litigation, using the "my way or the highway" to interpret what was before him...relying on the litigation in Belgium was true and correct
     
  8. johngtc

    johngtc Formula Junior
    Owner

    Mar 4, 2005
    817
    Yorkshire, UK
    Full Name:
    John Gould
    Cheesey, are you a trained lawyer? You seem to have an interesting perspective on this case but unfortunately your profile discloses nothing.

    John
     
  9. cheesey

    cheesey Formula 3

    Jun 23, 2011
    1,921
    not a lawyer but successful in litigation of this nature
     
  10. francisn

    francisn Formula 3

    Apr 18, 2004
    1,938
    Berks, UK
    Full Name:
    francis newman
    On a par with the senior Judge in the commercial section of the High Courts of Justice in London whose published judgement takes into account evidence presented addressing all your points?
     
  11. francisn

    francisn Formula 3

    Apr 18, 2004
    1,938
    Berks, UK
    Full Name:
    francis newman
    Well let's see if Joe succeeds in his application to appeal against Justice Flaux's decision not to allow him leave to appeal against his judgement in the preliminary hearing which gave title of car and parts at the time of the auction to Swaters. Then we'll know whether or not you are right.

     
  12. francisn

    francisn Formula 3

    Apr 18, 2004
    1,938
    Berks, UK
    Full Name:
    francis newman
    To add to my previous response Flaux also took into account the Sept 1999 Swaters/Klieve/Daniels settlement which on the evidence presented to the court he judged to be valid. You seem to want to ignore that.

     
  13. cheesey

    cheesey Formula 3

    Jun 23, 2011
    1,921
    this saga is like a magic show, full of misdirection... where the courts are the audience watching the magicians (lawyers) ply their trade, leaving others asking "how did they do that" while trying to glean reality from the misdirection
     
  14. 180 Out

    180 Out Formula 3

    Jan 4, 2012
    1,206
    San Leandro, CA
    Full Name:
    Bill Henley
    Then there are those who chose a "reality" long before all the evidence was in and who will cling to that choice long after.
     
  15. Ocean Joe

    Ocean Joe Formula Junior
    Rossa Subscribed

    Mar 21, 2008
    450
    Boca Raton, Florida
    Full Name:
    Joseph Ford III
    I can't go into details other than to say I was disappointed by the "preliminary issue" decision and am appealing it, for good reason. You all know my track record on that front.

    If you are good with contracts, and have read the decision, you can find out what one of my key arguments will be. It is very straightforward, and is irrefutable. That's the only type of argument that wins on appeal. I challenge 180 Out to find it as he seems to be good with contracts.

    I am glad the other site cleaned up its act. Let's just say I have friends to thank for that. I believe they are based in - - - - - - - - , Ohio.

    And don't for a second think MBZGurl is not MBZGuy - and I don't mean the Anderson type.

    And who says I haven't tried to settle? Many moving parts make it difficult.

    On another car note -- 29M -- any confirmation?

    Joe

    *
     
  16. 180 Out

    180 Out Formula 3

    Jan 4, 2012
    1,206
    San Leandro, CA
    Full Name:
    Bill Henley
    I would definitely start to worry if I could successfully read the mind of Joe Ford, and divine what it is that he thinks to be a winning contract-related appeal from Justice Flaux's ownership ruling. But one contract-related thing I do think OJ has missed, is that the only parties to the HoA who agreed to suspend litigation of the ownership issue, and to reserve Ohio jurisdiction over the ownership issue pending the distribution of the sale proceeds, are the four parties who were actually asserting ownership claims at the time. That would be Ford, Lawson, Swaters, and Gardner. Put another way, there is nothing in the HoA which restricted Bonhams in this regard.

    Of course at the time of formation of the HoA, in March 2013, Bonhams had no personal interest in the parties' claims to ownership, beyond the HoA's covenant that the four claimants had waived and released their substantive claims in exchange for a 50/50 split of the sale proceeds. However, when Ford and Lawson reneged on that covenant, and when Copley/Wexner asserted against Bonhams a multi-million pound damage claim based on the controversy that Ford and Lawson had created, Bonhams found itself very much interested in the parties' ownership claims.

    Given that the parties had agreed in the HoA to litigate just such a dispute in London, and that English law should be controlling, it should come as no surprise that Bonhams would request an adjudication of the ownership issue in a London High Court action. When Bonhams did do this, in July 2014, a 15-day deadline began to run for Ford and Lawson to challenge the London Court's jurisdiction over the ownership issue. Their agreement that English law shall be controlling bound Ford and Lawson to the 15-day deadline, even if the English rules of civil procedure were not sufficiently binding in their own right. By inaction Ford and Lawson freely chose to waive their right to make the jurisdictional challenge. They added to that waiver, when they filed a counter-claim in which they made their own affirmative request for an adjudication of the ownership issue by the London Court.

    Game-set-match, I think.
     
  17. mbzgurl

    mbzgurl Karting

    Oct 3, 2010
    138
    Joey,
    There you go again. I thought we already discussed this and you were fine with it. Now what's wrong? Geesh, I'm not CG.
     
  18. 360modena2003

    360modena2003 Formula 3

    Jul 11, 2009
    2,329
    Wasn't a forensic examination requested to determine if the chassis number was adulterated/changed at some point?
     
  19. francisn

    francisn Formula 3

    Apr 18, 2004
    1,938
    Berks, UK
    Full Name:
    francis newman
    There was an X-ray analysis of the stamped chassis undertaken by Sabena at the time of the original importation into Belgium, The 3 and the 4 were clearly identifiable but the middle number was indeterminate and could have been an 8, or equally a 9.

    I am not aware that there has ever been any suggestion that the stamping was adulterated/changed at any point





     
  20. Drive550PFB

    Drive550PFB Two Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    When reading this thread, I put a whole role of duct tape around my skull and it still explodes.
     
  21. 360modena2003

    360modena2003 Formula 3

    Jul 11, 2009
    2,329
    Who requested this analysis?
     
  22. Jeff Kennedy

    Jeff Kennedy F1 Veteran
    BANNED Owner Silver Subscribed

    Oct 16, 2007
    6,546
    Edwardsville, IL
    Full Name:
    Jeff Kennedy
    Swatters contingent. They used this as part of the rationale of why it was reasonable to claim the car to be 0394.
     
  23. BigTex

    BigTex Seven Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Dec 6, 2002
    79,143
    Houston, Texas
    Full Name:
    Bubba
    You spin quite the tale..

    The issue I have is that IF Mr. Kleve had actually received the $625K, I don't think he would have been sleeping in the TransAm

    Not that there's anything wrong with that, I have done it myself.
    With a guest!

    Back to your "It's over" crowing......I would say that IF the car turns a wheel legally on an Ohio road, with it's new owner.
    I bet he will have a guest too!
     
  24. francisn

    francisn Formula 3

    Apr 18, 2004
    1,938
    Berks, UK
    Full Name:
    francis newman
    #3674 francisn, Dec 10, 2015
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2015
    Or, as could be quite reasonably argued, they were in real doubt. If you read the transcripts in the London judgement on preliminary matter paras 52 onwards (which are posted yet again in Enigma's post no 3654 of yesterday it shows Swaters trying to get to the truth from a position of uncertainty rather than a desire to find a reason to call it 0394.

    You will no doubt disagree.

     
  25. francisn

    francisn Formula 3

    Apr 18, 2004
    1,938
    Berks, UK
    Full Name:
    francis newman
    Who knows what an eccentric old man might do. Creature comforts didn't seem to be a high priority, but then I never met him so have no idea.

     

Share This Page