Researching any info re: Paul Cunningham, Competition Cobra privateer

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by CompClassics

Why would Hasselrig have Al Abidin dying in the crash of 2049 at the Riverside crash in 1963? When in fact it was Paul Cunningham that died in the crash of 2049 a couple of months later at Willow Springs? Now we know Hasselrig promised to repair his car in 1967. As Ned had pointed out the photos dated March of 1967 was supposed to be when Hasselrig took possession of 2049 but in fact 2049 was being dropped off for repairs per the promissory note agreement. But then Al Abindin was supposedly dead already, but in fact Al Abidin did not die until 2014.

All the paper work seems to indicate that Ann was the original owner, not Al. And all of the notes to purchase the wreck were between Ann and Hasselrig. So Ann seems like the person to bring as a witness regardless of whether Al was alive or not at the time.

It could be just a misunderstanding on Hasselrig's part about who died in the crash and what race it happened at.

It seems irrelevant what Al has to do with this. His mother was the original owner of the car and his mother sold the car to Hasselrig. So if you want to bring someone to court I would say bring Ann. She would be the one to verify or contradict the legitimacy of the paperwork, not her son. Ann would have been the one to go to the DMV with Hasselrig about the title.

Now back to wild speculation on my part (strictly for our entertainment purposes):
As I speculated earlier, what if Ann had sold the car to Paul around July or August of 1963 and given the paper title to Paul, but for whatever reason, Paul never got around to sending the title into the California DMV with his and Ann's signatures. As far as California is concerned Ann is still the legal title holder.

Plus if SAI asks the DMV who the title holder is, they will be told Ann in that case. And if Ann paid off the bank in August 1963, from the proceeds of the sale, guess what, the bank comes back and tells SAI that there is no bank lien on the car, Ann apparently owns it outright. In that case, SAI knows they can proceed with the mechanics lien against the person on record of owning the car outright, Ann Abidin (not Ann and the bank).

So now the weird part: why do Ann and Al go and pick up the car from SAI when notified that SAI is getting the mechanics lien? If I was Ann, I think I would just let it go to the mechanics lien and not worry about it. Unless ... she is worried that the Cunningham family is going to eventually come back after a while with the paper copy of the title that she signed over to Paul. And then the Cunningham family will be upset that Ann let the wreck go to the junk yard when after all maybe Paul's widow, brother, step son or daughter might want the wreck?

So maybe 3 years pass and Ann is tired of waiting for someone from the Cunningham family to show up with the paper title to collect the car from her. And there is some guy named Hasselrig who saw the wrecked Cobra under a tarp in Ann's backyard when he stopped by to do an autobody estimate on the damaged Abidin family Edsel stationwagon in the driveway. Maybe at that point Hasselrig convinces Ann to get a duplicate title from the state and sell him the car for $100 down and $400 on a promisory note that includes the condition to quickly fix the Edsel stationwagon. Luckily Ann's sister is a Notary public and can help with the paperwork.

Now given this situation, where Ann knows that she sold the car to Paul in 1963 and then later sold the car again to Hasselrig in 1967, do you think Ann would want to show up in court to testify about selling the car to Hasselrig under oath?

OR there is another possibility. Ann did not sell the car to Paul. She collected the wreck from SAI when notified of the potential mechanics lien. She was the first owner and sold it to Hasselrig in 1967 and Hasselrig was the second owner.

[CompClassics]

Deleted

[CompClassics]

Deleted

[Nedsel]

Lots of questions, but no great answers. Lots of data appears to be getting ignored. John wonders why there is no Bill of Sale between Abiden and Haselrig in the court papers. Maybe because one never existed? And while there is the notation about repairing Abiden's car, there is no mention of what car. Anyone who saw the photos of the wrecked 2049 has to know that it was unlikely to be able to be repaired at all given the state of spare parts at that point, and surely not for $400. Not to mention, why would Lanse be paying Abiden to fix her car? It appears they struck a deal on having Lanse repair some body damage on a different car after Lanse agreed to buy the Cobra. There is nothing to show that the note regarding repair of a car was on the back of a document relating to 2049. There are various documents in the case file referring to a series of payments "to pay off the Cobra" as well as CA DMV papers in Haselrig's name following his acquisition. As for what goes in the Registry, we examine the preponderance of evidence and make a judgement based upon it. As I have said previously, I have no dog in this hunt and continue to welcome supported documentation - not speculation - to arrive at the most rational series of events to record the car's history. All input is welcomed, as long as it is supported by factual evidence.

[CompClassics]

Deleted

[CompClassics]

Deleted

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by CompClassics

“ There are various documents in the case file referring to a series of payments "to pay off the Cobra" as well as CA DMV papers iHaselrig's name following his acquisition.”

Please provide the documents that refer to “to pay off the Cobra”, I seem to be missing those documents in my court records.

That would be interesting if John and Ned each have a different subset of the court documents. I suspect that neither John nor Ed went out and bought their copies of the court documents the way that I think Michael is trying to do now.

Is it possible that Hasselrig and Wesselink supplied both John and Ned with whatever they have? If so, I wonder if they intentionally left out some of the pages. I wonder what else John or Ned might be missing then. Maybe if Michael buys a copy of the court documents, he might end up with a more complete set of pages then either John or Ned.

[USC_COWBOY]

Originally Posted by 1ntCobra

That would be interesting if John and Ned each have a different subset of the court documents. I suspect that neither John nor Ed went out and bought their copies of the court documents the way that I think Michael is trying to do now.

Is it possible that Hasselrig and Wesselink supplied both John and Ned with whatever they have? If so, I wonder if they intentionally left out some of the pages. I wonder what else John or Ned might be missing then. Maybe if Michael buys a copy of the court documents, he might end up with a more complete set of pages then either John or Ned.

I'm trying, I contacted the actual court personnel where the case was heard and requested on-line a copy of the case, they responded "no problem" and sent me an email with my request embedded in it and they instructed me to click on their link to confirm my request. That was 10 days ago or so and nothing yet, just the sound of crickets.

I have stated before that our family was in possession of the Cobra in July of 1963, where it was before, I don't know, but there was never another person connected to the Cobra after that date except for our family. Something happened at that period of time, I contend that our family bought the Cobra at that point and owned it until we lost contact with it.

Ned is reluctant to consider the Cunningham ownership, even though it is common to just sell with a bill of sale for a race car not to ever be driven upon the public streets, or even to have a registration. The Abidin documents presented so far are also non-conclusive as to the ownership, and even what has been shown here is weird as to the type of documents, and the apparent monkeying around with them, missing watermarks, scraps of torn paper, court docs that have Al Abidin as being killed several months before Paul was killed in the car.

Step back and view the total scene, the principal characters in this merry-go-round ownership is convoluted to say the least, and along the way certain people have done illegal things, presented false misleading documentation, and to top off the sundae, the so-called cherry on top, we have a superior court that appears to be incompetent.

The official SAAC history should be reconsidered and rewritten to expose the mess, no one should be able to claim and use the Cunningham Cobra for their personal gain, SAAC owes all of us this transparency. Even though our family may never be able to assert our ownership no on else should be able to do so either.

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by USC_COWBOY

I'm trying, I contacted the actual court personnel where the case was heard and requested on-line a copy of the case, they responded "no problem" and sent me an email with my request embedded in it and they instructed me to click on their link to confirm my request. That was 10 days ago or so and nothing yet, just the sound of crickets.

I have stated before that our family was in possession of the Cobra in July of 1963, where it was before, I don't know, but there was never another person connected to the Cobra after that date except for our family. Something happened at that period of time, I contend that our family bought the Cobra at that point and owned it until we lost contact with it.

Ned is reluctant to consider the Cunningham ownership, even though it is common to just sell with a bill of sale for a race car not to ever be driven upon the public streets, or even to have a registration. The Abidin documents presented so far are also non-conclusive as to the ownership, and even what has been shown here is weird as to the type of documents, and the apparent monkeying around with them, missing watermarks, scraps of torn paper, court docs that have Al Abidin as being killed several months before Paul was killed in the car.

Step back and view the total scene, the principal characters in this merry-go-round ownership is convoluted to say the least, and along the way certain people have done illegal things, presented false misleading documentation, and to top off the sundae, the so-called cherry on top, we have a superior court that appears to be incompetent.

The official SAAC history should be reconsidered and rewritten to expose the mess, no one should be able to claim and use the Cunningham Cobra for their personal gain, SAAC owes all of us this transparency. Even though our family may never be able to assert our ownership no on else should be able to do so either.

So nobody else should be able to assert ownership of the car? Well it seems someone has asserted ownership of the car. Perhaps you don't think it is correct, ethical or logical that they have the title to the car, but according to the legal system in the state of California, they are the "legal" title holders.

And what are Ned and SAAC supposed to do about that? If Ned and SAAC were to contradict the results of the Hasselrig court case without any real evidence to back that up, don't you think that Hasselrig and Wesselink are going to sue Ned and SAAC? I would think so. Ned and SAAC would probably prefer that someone else, like yourself provides some real evidence to back up your claim. If someone goes to court over this, it would most likely have to be you. Unless you find some real evidence or win a court battle against Hasselrig and Wesselink, I don't see Ned or SAAC wanting to risk being sued.

[Nedsel]

Originally Posted by CompClassics

“ There are various documents in the case file referring to a series of payments "to pay off the Cobra" as well as CA DMV papers iHaselrig's name following his acquisition.”

Please provide the documents that refer to “to pay off the Cobra”, I seem to be missing those documents in my court records.

OK, here is one taken from the court records that mentions the Cobra:

[CompClassics]

Deleted

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by CompClassics

Thank you Ned for posting the “Post It”!
First let’s compare the two receipts for payments from Hasselrig to Abidin, you can plainly see the differences in the receipt slips, the White being a 1/2 page concise document. Let’s look at the yellow “Post It” receipt, very sloppy and it has that all important connection to the “Cobra”, does anyone here know when “Post Its” were first sold to the public?

The left edge of the small yellow paper looks like it is perforated. I have not seen "Post Its" with a perforated edge before.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by 1ntCobra

The left edge of the small yellow paper looks like it is perforated. I have not seen "Post Its" with a perforated edge before.

It's not a Post-It. They were introduced in 1980.

[Nedsel]

Typically, if one is involved in a court case, they bring their best evidence into play. While I understand John's interest in trying to poke holes in whatever Haselrig and Wesselink have presented to prove their case, I remain more focused on anything that might shed light on, or be relevant to, the Paul Cunningham ownership allegations. I'm not going to speculate on the validity of the documents used in the 1992 court case because I believe sharper and more experienced legal minds have already done so. And I would point out that, just as John wondered why there was no Bill of Sale presented, one might ask, if what appears to be a beat-up Post-It scrap is the best these guys can come up with, why didn't they dummy up something much better? And the rational answer would be because the documents presented were legitimate and there was no attempt at entering phony paperwork into evidence. So it would be great if we could move off this particular line of thought at this point.

[CompClassics]

Deleted

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

Typically, if one is involved in a court case, they bring their best evidence into play. While I understand John's interest in trying to poke holes in whatever Haselrig and Wesselink have presented to prove their case, I remain more focused on anything that might shed light on, or be relevant to, the Paul Cunningham ownership allegations. I'm not going to speculate on the validity of the documents used in the 1992 court case because I believe sharper and more experienced legal minds have already done so. And I would point out that, just as John wondered why there was no Bill of Sale presented, one might ask, if what appears to be a beat-up Post-It scrap is the best these guys can come up with, why didn't they dummy up something much better? And the rational answer would be because the documents presented were legitimate and there was no attempt at entering phony paperwork into evidence. So it would be great if we could move off this particular line of thought at this point.

I have a feeling that if and when Michael gets his own copy of the court documents that he is going to start posting pictures of the documents and trying to poke holes in their legitimacy the same way that John is doing now.

Perhaps sharper more experienced legal minds have come to the correct conclusions, but you might remember a bunch of years ago that some apprently very sharp legal minds did their best to convict OJ Simpson of murder and failed. So just because Hasselrig and Wesselink's lawyers won their case, does not necessarily mean that the legal minds came to the correct, ethical, logical and moral conclusions, it just means that Hasselrig and Wesselink won their court case and have the legal title to CSX2049.

Anyway, if in 1985 when Hasselrig moved the "vehicle" to the new location, that "vehicle" consisted of a bent headlight trim ring and a philips head screw that might have been from CSX2049, it seems that "vehicle" and the legal title to CSX2049 will be good enough to create a brand new CSX2049, regardless of what John and Michael might think. Also even if John or Michael can find some smoking gun in the court papers, I don't see that changing anything, unless they use the smoking gun to sue to get the title or get the title invalidated. But what is the chance of that happening and it would probably waste a bunch of money that Michael could use for something else.

[Nedsel]

I would once again plead for documentation over speculation. What is currently in the Registry is documented and won't change without better facts than we already have.

[sunman]

You can see Pauls back at the start/finish line 1:55-2:00 and racing other Cobras after 10:00 in the 10-13-1963 GP/GT video. He entered another #37 car for the GP owned by Chieftain Pontiac but did not race it. According to SCCA he entered about 50 races mostly as owner, about 7 or 8 were his Cobra, the handful not his were Chieftains.
He hung out with the people in the video and if the online Calif SCCA records are accurate you are calling Paul a liar and a poser based on his entry’s.
The world changed a week after his accident, imagine what the family went through.
He said it was his, it was his.

[peterpjb]

time for a little summary so far:



the original remindings of 2049 are in David Harts car, at least the frame


there are no relevant original parts in the Hasselrig/Wesselink build


the court document that led to the title ownership of Hasselrig/Wesselink is full of false facts and contradictions


SAAC doesn’t want to be sued


Michael is the only person here that is a witness of time, place and the case

[CompClassics]

Deleted