Go Back   FerrariChat.com > Model Specific Discussions > Vintage (thru 365 GTC4) - Sponsored by Vintage Driving Machines

Reply
 
Share/Bookmark LinkBack Thread Tools
  #621  
Old 08-16-2012, 06:41 PM
wbaeumer's Avatar
F1 Veteran
Consultant
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Niles View Post
I have no idea who is right and who is wrong here. I write only to express my displeasure about "trying the case in the press". This is why Gloria (you know her name) is disliked in the legal community; she (I am told) has never tried a jury case all by herself, but her name is everywhere thanks to her press agent. Joe (true name unknown to me?) has made this thread his own private soap-box, presenting his version of the truth ad nauseum. His version may well be the right one, but I would like to see this case tried in the proper forum, with a jury made up of citizens uncontaminated by what we read here.
Just one (crabby old) man's opinion! (and I'm sure an unpopular one).
Ed, I agree with you totally!
It seems to me that this complicated law-suit is also negotiated rather than only before the court - but without the Swaters-party!
Whatever was discussed here does not have any influence on the judicial verdict.
__________________
Ciao!
Walter
www.internationalMASERATIresearch.com
Reply With Quote
Non-Sponsor Ads
  #622  
Old 08-16-2012, 08:49 PM
ArtS's Avatar
F1 Rookie
Rossa Subscribed
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Central NJ
Posts: 4,928
Ed,

While in general I agree with you. I'm not certain I agree in this particular case. Mr. Kleve had been trying to get information to build a case for many years. Mr. Kleve died trying. By maintaining this thread, Joe is attempting raise awareness in order to get additional information from the Ferrari community to support his case.

I doubt that this thread is so widely read that it will taint a jury should a trial occur.

Regards,

Art S.
Reply With Quote
  #623  
Old 08-16-2012, 09:23 PM
Ocean Joe's Avatar
Formula Junior
Rossa Subscribed
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Full Name: Joseph Ford III
Posts: 329
My Garage
UPDATE on Swaters v Lawson - Kleve's Stolen Ferrari 375 Plus 0384AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Niles View Post
I have no idea who is right and who is wrong here. I write only to express my displeasure about "trying the case in the press". This is why Gloria (you know her name) is disliked in the legal community; she (I am told) has never tried a jury case all by herself, . . . but I would like to see this case tried in the proper forum, with a jury made up of citizens uncontaminated by what we read here.
Just one (crabby old) man's opinion! (and I'm sure an unpopular one).
Hello Ed,

1) This is Joe. I have posted documents to show not only my full name but also the fact that I am a party, not an attorney trying a case in the media.

2) Swaters, with his reputation in the community and with the misplaced trust of others, has been plying his case since 1990. I await your complaint about that, and about his "contaminations", assuming you are as fair-minded as you believe yourself to be.

3) Swaters, with his website, his reputation, on NPR radio, has been plying his case in the media after Swaters filed suit in Ohio. I await your complaint about that and about his "contaminations", assuming you are as fair minded as you believe yourself to be.

4) Heck, it may be that it is you who has already been contaminated. I am just helping you to wash away years of the falsehoods LOL.

So, my take is that both parties (not their attorneys) are on their chosen soap boxes, and I can assure you that Kleve was the truthful one.

And by the way, the 500 plus FBI docs (added to the prior 471 FBI docs) are ALL from the Swaters' discovery.

This saga about Karl Kleve's stolen 1954 Ferrari 375 Plus #0384AM has been of interest to the Ferrari community since the outset - even the FBI made note of that, and made note of Swaters' false claim of buying not knowing it was stolen, Swaters' false claim that the car he possessed was 0394AM despite knowing the factory made no such car, etc. Now this very same actor with prior false claims has set foot in an Ohio courtroom with a yet another claim that his own experts are confirming as . . . .

If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask.

Note how some Ferrari community members have acted responsibly and honorably, taken a stand for what is right, and called Swaters out on what he did. Kudos to them. The FBI made note of that too.

It does not always take a courtroom or a jury to decide what is right and wrong.

FYI, the below doc is an FBI doc from an FBI report dated 5/5/95.

Cordially,

Joe, co-Defendant with Kleve's heir in the Ohio lawsuit now underway.


*
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 0015.jpg (104.1 KB, 1007 views)

Last edited by Ocean Joe; 08-16-2012 at 09:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #624  
Old 08-16-2012, 10:07 PM
F1 Rookie
Not Subscribed
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,825
I think Mr. Niles' point is that you take every opportunity to declare this to be a "stolen" car and/or to argue your case. As he points out, you may well be right, and you may well win (or not). But, there's an old quote that may be appropriate in circumstances like this...

Thou "...doth protest too much, methinks" - Shakespeare.

I've generally avoided posting in this thread because it is a complex case, I've said my peace early on, and I figured I'd let the facts come out at trial. And, while this is all indeed interesting (and I have met quite a few folks in the Ferrari world who aren't exactly on the up and up), and I am following it, I think you risk turning people off or against your cause.

Anyway, regardless of how this turns out, it's a fascinating story.

CW
Reply With Quote
Non-Sponsor Ads
  #625  
Old 08-17-2012, 03:33 PM
WilyB's Avatar
Formula Junior
Rossa Subscribed
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NoVA
Posts: 983
My Garage
If as “Quelqu’un” mentions, Worldwide Exchange in Atlanta settled the theft case but giving back the ill-gotten $4500 to Karl Kleeve, didn’t that make the sale of the chassis and spares on Feb. 22, 1989 to Exception Automobile legal?

“Quelqu’un” also mentions that it is Exception Automobiles’s owner, Michael Kruch that went first to the local police to declare their suspicion that the car might have been stolen. Clever move or proof of innocence?

In his conclusion “Quelqu’un” affirms that Jacques Swaters, lacking the title, the engine or the VIN plate “stupidly” but somewhat legally used S/N 0394AM for his replica to be “left in peace”. Later he missioned Philippe Lancksweert to get the title from Karl Kleeve in order to change the status of his $500K S/N 0394AM replica to a >$5MM S/N 0384AM historical car.

Fascinating story indeed.
Reply With Quote
  #626  
Old 08-22-2012, 05:28 AM
Formula Junior
Not Subscribed
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Centre Europe
Full Name: Christopher
Posts: 288
Value of the 375 Plus

Quote:
Originally Posted by WilyB View Post
Later he missioned Philippe Lancksweert to get the title from Karl Kleeve in order to change the status of his $500K S/N 0394AM replica to a >$5MM S/N 0384AM historical car.Fascinating story indeed.
If a simple 500 mondial is selling for $3M this week - And records are being set daily now across the marketplace, this is a $12,000,000 Ferrari 375 Plus laundering job that continues through the DNA pool of Swaters up to today. I am glad Ocean will go the distance now with a Febuary 2013 trial before normal citizens of the USA. Will it take that to form an opinion in our community ? I think not. It took playing this out in the media to get them trapped and nailed. It also uncovered well known good guys and bad guys - in this community. As the cars approach art-market levels of value, there will come more of these greed induced crimes IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #627  
Old 08-22-2012, 11:26 AM
Ocean Joe's Avatar
Formula Junior
Rossa Subscribed
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Full Name: Joseph Ford III
Posts: 329
My Garage
Jacques Swaters, Phillipe Lancksweert, Michel Kruch

Quote:
Originally Posted by WilyB View Post
If as “Quelqu’un” mentions, Worldwide Exchange in Atlanta settled the theft case but giving back the ill-gotten $4500 to Karl Kleeve, didn’t that make the sale of the chassis and spares on Feb. 22, 1989 to Exception Automobile legal?

“Quelqu’un” also mentions that it is Exception Automobiles’s owner, Michael Kruch that went first to the local police to declare their suspicion that the car might have been stolen. Clever move or proof of innocence?

In his conclusion “Quelqu’un” affirms that Jacques Swaters, lacking the title, the engine or the VIN plate “stupidly” but somewhat legally used S/N 0394AM for his replica to be “left in peace”. Later he missioned Philippe Lancksweert to get the title from Karl Kleeve in order to change the status of his $500K S/N 0394AM replica to a >$5MM S/N 0384AM historical car.

Fascinating story indeed.
It gets better.

Patrice only has a few pieces of the puzzle, so he does not yet have it right.

Patrice's blog - http://www.gatsbyonline.com/main.asp...d=725&cat=auto

Below are some FBI tidbits and some of my "opinion" as comments.

Soon I expect to make a presentation to the FBI to connect a few dots, show how they have been played, and maybe re-initiate / re-invigorate them to get some closure. The dots will certainly be connected for Ohio's Judge Nadel to rule upon.

It is now only a matter of time.

Joe

*
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 0017.jpg (115.0 KB, 788 views)
Reply With Quote
  #628  
Old 08-22-2012, 01:15 PM
Formula 3
Not Subscribed
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Santa Monica
Full Name: Cheddar, The
Posts: 1,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Niles View Post
I have no idea who is right and who is wrong here. I write only to express my displeasure about "trying the case in the press". This is why Gloria (you know her name) is disliked in the legal community; she (I am told) has never tried a jury case all by herself, but her name is everywhere thanks to her press agent. Joe (true name unknown to me?) has made this thread his own private soap-box, presenting his version of the truth ad nauseum. His version may well be the right one, but I would like to see this case tried in the proper forum, with a jury made up of citizens uncontaminated by what we read here.
Just one (crabby old) man's opinion! (and I'm sure an unpopular one).
I share this sentiment. Though I too have no idea who is truly right or wrong here, the uninhibited finger pointing, unsupported accusations of complicity and general one-sidedness leave a very bad taste in my mouth. At various points it reads like a bad 9/11 conspiracy theory, with a few too many mustache-twirling "bad guys." All rights & wrongs aside, this thread's claims make the plaintiffs far less sympathetic to my eyes than they would be otherwise.

Let it play in court, I say. But that's just my equally crabby opinion!
Reply With Quote
  #629  
Old 08-22-2012, 01:59 PM
F1 Rookie
Rossa Subscribed
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Edwardsville, IL
Full Name: Jeff Kennedy
Posts: 3,178
My Garage
I for one do find this all interesting. Now of course Joe is going to tell the story to the best advantage of his viewpoint. We as the readers should be cognizant of this and leave room for the possibility of alternative versions of this story. By doing all of this I do suspect that tidbits of information have come about from people here that Joe did not already know about.

We all may not like it but the world of Ferrari has some underbelly areas that exists.

Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #630  
Old 08-22-2012, 05:25 PM
Formula Junior
Not Subscribed
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
Full Name: Timothy Russell
Posts: 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalfinder View Post
If a simple 500 mondial is selling for $3M this week - And records are being set daily now across the marketplace, this is a $12,000,000 Ferrari 375 Plus laundering job that continues through the DNA pool of Swaters up to today. I am glad Ocean will go the distance now with a Febuary 2013 trial before normal citizens of the USA. Will it take that to form an opinion in our community ? I think not. It took playing this out in the media to get them trapped and nailed. It also uncovered well known good guys and bad guys - in this community. As the cars approach art-market levels of value, there will come more of these greed induced crimes IMO.
Here, here, and even if it is fairly vulgar, it is great to have some of this out in the open, information in all its cold hard nakedness is the only way. For you whom state that we are only hearing one side, maybe BUT ................

What other reason for all of this is there

1 - Someone stole the car (And it was NEVER returned)
2 - The car was very strangely imported and exported through several countries in an incredibly short period of time, for no reason whatsoever.
3 - It was stolen from the Belgian customs lockup
4 - The number of supposed owners in this car matched the number of owners that needed to have owned the car before the law stated you were no longer guilty of receiving stolen goods
5 - The car was then registered as a different chassis number, and renumbered after the 10 year limit expired.
6 - Swaters/ Lanksweert and their agents spent a lot of time and effort trying to buy the "rights" to 0384AM

Either this is a miraculous set of coincidences or it is something altogether fishy............

IMO, I think Ocean Joe is working for his supper, But for a Ferrari fan that quite likes supporting the underdog I want him to "finish the job"
Reply With Quote
  #631  
Old 08-22-2012, 05:39 PM
Formula 3
Not Subscribed
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,156
there is no statue of limitations on stolen property ( including cars )...

recently an owner noticed his stolen Austin Healy ( reported stolen many many years earlier ... maybe 30 + ) for sale on eBay, he called the authorities, who returned the car to him...
Reply With Quote
  #632  
Old 08-22-2012, 05:52 PM
F1 Rookie
Rossa Subscribed
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Edwardsville, IL
Full Name: Jeff Kennedy
Posts: 3,178
My Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesey View Post
there is no statue of limitations on stolen property ( including cars )...

recently an owner noticed his stolen Austin Healy ( reported stolen many many years earlier ... maybe 30 + ) for sale on eBay, he called the authorities, who returned the car to him...
I believe you are referring to US law and not Belgian. That appears to be one of the points here.

Jeff
Reply With Quote
Non-Sponsor Ads
  #633  
Old 08-23-2012, 11:10 AM
Ocean Joe's Avatar
Formula Junior
Rossa Subscribed
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Full Name: Joseph Ford III
Posts: 329
My Garage
Belgian Civil Code Does Not Change the Outcome

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Kennedy View Post
I believe you are referring to US law and not Belgian. That appears to be one of the points here.

Jeff
In 1989 and 1990, the issue of whether Belgian law protected Kruch then Swaters was raised. Though the Belgian code (based on France's Napoleonic code) has different phrases and terms, it reaches the same result.

The underlying premis is that to purchase in good faith one must buy for value and without notice.

Value means you must give near market value, as at an auction or from a dealer (i.e. arms' length, near retail). It does not mean a thief cuts a deal with a dealer, sells for 1/100 of the value, who sells again for 1/100 the value, and all is well.

Notice means you, as a prudent buyer, do those tasks to confirm that what you are buying is on the up and up. So, if a vehicle has questionable paperwork, or fraudulent paperwork, or is missing its VIN plate, or is reported stolen, or has an illegible VIN, etc, then the prudent things requires you research until concluded. Neither Anderson, nor Kruch, and certainly not Swaters qualify.

The failure to return a known stolen car puzzled the FBI as they knew in 1989 and 1990 that there were too many red flags to be a good faith purchase. As the U.S.Attorney noted, the Belgians were uncooperative.

Kruch was stuck with his fraudulent $4,500 paperwork for something he likely paid over $50,000 for, so even if in good faith, reclamation could not be allowed. Enter Swaters, stealthily, who without admitting possession, assumed he could impress Kleve into selling - when Kleve refused to sell, the car went underground under a new number.

Joe

*
Reply With Quote
  #634  
Old 08-23-2012, 11:14 AM
Napolis's Avatar
Three Time F1 World Champ
Honorary
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Full Name: Jim Glickenhaus
Posts: 31,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean Joe View Post
In 1989 and 1990, the issue of whether Belgian law protected Kruch then Swaters was raised. Though the Belgian code (based on France's Napoleonic code) has different phrases and terms, it reaches the same result.

The underlying premis is that to purchase in good faith one must buy for value and without notice.

Value means you must give near market value, as at an auction or from a dealer (i.e. arms' length, near retail). It does not mean a thief cuts a deal with a dealer, sells for 1/100 of the value, who sells again for 1/100 the value, and all is well.

Notice means you, as a prudent buyer, do those tasks to confirm that what you are buying is on the up and up. So, if a vehicle has questionable paperwork, or fraudulent paperwork, or is missing its VIN plate, or is reported stolen, or has an illegible VIN, etc, then the prudent things requires you research until concluded. Neither Anderson, nor Kruch, and certainly not Swaters qualify.

The failure to return a known stolen car puzzled the FBI as they knew in 1989 and 1990 that there were too many red flags to be a good faith purchase. As the U.S.Attorney noted, the Belgians were uncooperative.

Kruch was stuck with his fraudulent $4,500 paperwork for something he likely paid over $50,000 for, so even if in good faith, reclamation could not be allowed. Enter Swaters, stealthily, who without admitting possession, assumed he could impress Kleve into selling - when Kleve refused to sell, the car went underground under a new number.

Joe

*
Has the Judge ordered the car back to the US for inspection?

Is this ever going to trail?

Where is the car now?

Is it being properly maintained or rotting away?
__________________
Not putting miles on your Ferrari is like not having sex with your Girl Friend so she'll be more desirable to her next Boy Friend. http://p45c.com/
https://www.facebook.com/ScuderiaCameronGlickenhaus
Reply With Quote
  #635  
Old 08-23-2012, 12:31 PM
BigTex's Avatar
Six Time F1 World Champ
Rossa Subscribed
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Houston, Texas
Full Name: Bubba
Posts: 61,368
IIRC it was last seen leaving public display at the Factory.....there was a video of it "going up the truck"....

I think Classiche is going into production.....
Reply With Quote
  #636  
Old 08-23-2012, 02:54 PM
Ocean Joe's Avatar
Formula Junior
Rossa Subscribed
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Full Name: Joseph Ford III
Posts: 329
My Garage
UPDATE Trial Date, Depositions, Location of Car

Quote:
Originally Posted by Napolis View Post
Has the Judge ordered the car back to the US for inspection?

Is this ever going to trail?

Where is the car now?

Is it being properly maintained or rotting away?
*

Judge decided it was easier for me to go to Italy to inspect, than to ship car here.

Trial date February 13, 2013, though may be delayed, IMO for the last time if delayed. Swaters' side is dragging their feet about depositions.

Car is supposed to be in safe storage at Ferrari factory.

I can only assume Ferrari factory is taking care of maintenance, but I do not know.

Joe

*
Reply With Quote
  #637  
Old 08-23-2012, 04:19 PM
WilyB's Avatar
Formula Junior
Rossa Subscribed
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NoVA
Posts: 983
My Garage
Quote:
Yes, notwithstanding my proclaimed innocence, I was convicted for attempted extortion against Messrs Olivier Gendebien and Bernardo Favero at the end of a long legal case started in 1993 with my exposing of the real provenance of a car presented by those two gentlemen as a Ferrari 375 Plus with identity 0386AM. Sentence and fine suspended and then judicial pardon.
Franco Lombardi, post #16: 250 Monza

Quote:
Replica:

93 - new car, body by Rod Jolley, correct 375 Plus engine (0398TF),
chassis cross member is from PF Coupe
http://www.barchetta.cc/english/all....am.375plus.htm

Obviously 1989 was an interesting year for the 375+.
Attached Images
File Type: png SWA925.PNG (121.2 KB, 648 views)
Reply With Quote
  #638  
Old 08-23-2012, 05:22 PM
Formula Junior
Not Subscribed
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Centre Europe
Full Name: Christopher
Posts: 288
Wink

[QUOTE Obviously 1989 was an interesting year for the 375+.[/QUOTE]

I know the restorer. I think his mother restored paintings of Jesus
Attached Images
File Type: jpg imagesCAKQGK8I.jpg (8.7 KB, 632 views)
Reply With Quote
  #639  
Old 09-10-2012, 02:21 PM
Ocean Joe's Avatar
Formula Junior
Rossa Subscribed
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Full Name: Joseph Ford III
Posts: 329
My Garage
Is Jacques Swaters' website down?

Ferrari Community,

Is it my net provider or is the Swaters website down?

Also, I will pay a $100 reward to the first person that emails me a good scan of the 1989 ad of this Ferrari 375 Plus for sale that I am told was run in some UK media and $100 reward for the ad in some 1989 Monaco media.

Joe

*
Reply With Quote
  #640  
Old 09-10-2012, 02:36 PM
Formula Junior
Not Subscribed
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Centre Europe
Full Name: Christopher
Posts: 288
Wink changing the numbers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean Joe View Post
Ferrari Community,

Is it my net provider or is the Swaters website down?
Joe

*
It's not down, I think they are changing the numbers - again .
Reply With Quote
Non-Sponsor Ads
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:24 PM.


FerrariChat.com has no association with Ferrari S.p.A.
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.