Jerry Seinfeld Sued over Sale of Alleged Fake Porsche

DCc--LuW0AEs9BR

Jerry Seinfeld has just been sued over claims that he sold a company a rare vintage Porsche Carrera sports car that allegedly turned out to be a counterfeit.

The lawsuit against Seinfeld alleges that when the comedian auctioned off the classic car for a winning bid of $1.54 million, he knew that it was “not authentic.”

Seinfeld’s lawyer, Orin Snyder, has denied the claims and called the suit “frivolous.”

An entity called Fica Frio Limited bought the vehicle in March of 2016 at an auction that took place in Amelia Island, Florida. Seinfeld himself was allegedly in attendance at the auction.

In a complaint filed in a Manhattan federal court, the car is identified as a 1958 Porsche 356 A 1500 GS/GT Carrera Speedster, which was sold at an auction that featured the “Jerry Seinfeld Collection” of cars. The lawsuit quoted Spike Feresten, who was the host at the auction.

Feresten also happens to be a former writer-producer for the “Seinfeld” television show and, as host at the auction, used a punch line that referenced the iconic sitcom.

“Jerry has been generous enough to let me drive an awful lot of his collection,” Feresten said. “And I can tell you: They’re real and they’re spectacular.”

Seinfeld’s current hit Internet show, “Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee,” displays his passion for classic cars combined with his love of stand-up comedy.

The auction summary of the Porsche indicated that it was “From the Jerry Seinfeld Collection” and was a “stunning example of a rare thoroughbred Porsche.”

The 1958 Porsche was marketed at the auction as “one of 56” with “lightweight aluminum panels,” according to the suit.

“This exceptionally rare 1500 GS/GT Carrera Speedster is surely among the finest restored examples of a highly sought-after four-cam Porsche,” the marketing material indicated.

Between 1955 and 1959, Porsche built 151 Carrera Speedsters, and less than 60 percent of the cars had the GS/GT trim that the plaintiff believed the car possessed.

According to the lawsuit, a year later in March of 2017, Fica Frio had the car evaluated by a Porsche expert who determined that it was “not authentic.”

The suit quotes a voicemail that Seinfeld allegedly left for the buyer in June of 2018.

“[I want to] offer my apology for this nuisance and assure you that you will be completely indemnified in full and not have to keep the car and get all your money back,” Seinfeld purportedly said. “I did want to apologize to you personally for that happening.”

The comedian allegedly added that his experts never suspected there was anything wrong with the car, according to the suit.

Seinfeld also purportedly said that he “would also love to know how your guys figured it out because…my guys did not I guess see anything amiss with the car when I bought it.”

Fica Frio claims that Seinfeld has not paid back the money, and the company desires to rescind the sale, giving the car back to Seinfeld, with the purchase price going back to the buyer. Perhaps even more important to settlement discussions, the lawsuit seeks punitive damages from Seinfeld, which in theory may be considerable.

According to Seinfeld’s attorney, “Jerry has been working in good faith to get to the bottom of this matter. He has asked Fica Frio for evidence to substantiate the allegations. Fica Frio ignored Jerry and instead filed this frivolous lawsuit.”

The attorney added, “Jerry consigned the car to Gooding and Company, an auction house, which is responsible for the sale. Nevertheless, Jerry is willing to do what’s right and fair, and we are confident the court will support the need for an outside evaluator to examine the provenance of the car.”

Determining the authenticity of vintage cars is not as cut and dried as it would appear. The vast majority of civil suits end in some sort of settlement between the parties.

In an interesting little twist, one classic episode of “Seinfeld” deals with a plot line that bears a resemblance with regard to the “authenticity” theme.

The George character on the TV show is about to purchase a 1989 Volvo sedan, but the car salesman talks him into buying a 1989 LeBaron convertible instead. The smooth talking salesman is able to get George to believe that the vehicle was previously owned by famed actor Jon Voight.

It turns out that the car was indeed owned by a Mr. Voight, who was not an actor but rather a periodontist, and happened to bear the same first name but with the alternate spelling of “John.”

As Seinfeld, via his attorney, attempts to obtain some leverage for the negotiation process, he might ask Jerry how George handled his bad “Voight” deal.

The Democrats Sham Lawsuit

fec-hillary-dnc-lawsuit-009-01-800x416

After more than a year, scores of interviews, mountains of documents, raids on witnesses, and tens of millions of dollars squandered away, there is still no evidence to support the allegation that President Donald Trump was involved in any type of “Russian collusion.”

In what appears to be a desperate attempt to get the “L” off its forehead, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has filed a lawsuit against the Russian government, the Trump campaign, and WikiLeaks, putting forth a wild conspiracy theory to try and divert attention away from its embarrassing loss in the 2016 presidential election.

A host of federal laws that were supposedly violated are cited in the suit, including the Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and tried-and-true fave of the left, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

The lawsuit is a redux of the 1972 DNC lawsuit during the Watergate investigation against then-President Richard Nixon’s reelection committee, which ended in 1974 when the Dems took a settlement of $750,000 from the Nixon campaign on the same day Nixon vacated the Oval Office.

In a statement contained in a press release, current DNC Chairman Tom Perez publicized the suit using identical phrases that CNN and MSNBC guests and hosts have been parroting for almost two years.

Perez claimed the lawsuit was filed because “Russia launched an all-out assault on our democracy” in an act of “unprecedented treachery.”

The timing of the legal maneuver is a huge tell. Recent news coverage has been splattered with stories about the much-anticipated book tour of former FBI Director James Comey, which has not exactly been going according to plan and has even managed to elicit its share of ridicule and disdain.

Two news stories involving the Obama appointed Inspector General have cracked the liberal media firewall: 1) a criminal referral on the fired former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe; and 2) the launch of a new investigation into Comey over the release of his self-incriminating memos.

Meanwhile President Trump’s poll numbers have hit a high-water mark and seem poised to go even higher with the historic news that North Korea may be willing to denuclearize. At the same time the Democrat generic ballot numbers appear to be falling.

Adding to a growing political anxiety for the DNC is the fact that the organization is running short of cash. It is for this reason and so many others that the group has seemingly adopted the Saul Alinsky strategy of pinning your political rival with the dirty deed you have committed.

Audaciously, this is the same DNC that rigged its own primary, as former interim DNC chairperson Donna Brazile has documented. It is also the same DNC that colluded with the Russians for real on the DNC bought-and-paid for fake dossier.

Legally speaking, the Democrats may rue the day that they filed this action. In civil lawsuits, defendants are entitled to conduct discovery, including having the ability to subpoena the production of documents and other evidence and depose witnesses under oath.

Republicans would no doubt jump at the chance to subpoena the DNC computer server and obtain the communications and documents that show how, in its own primary process, the DNC swindled the supporters of 2016 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

The DNC repeatedly refused to allow the FBI to access its server so that law enforcement could verify the allegation that Russia had hacked the server during the presidential campaign. Instead the DNC reached a dubious arrangement with the FBI in which a third-party company conducted forensic investigations on the server and shared details with the FBI.

The list of documents and witnesses involved with the purchase of the fake dossier and the subsequent FISA abuse scandal is lengthy and includes the names of McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, and Glenn Simpson, all of whom could be deposed as a result of the DNC lawsuit.

Additionally, defendants in the suit would be able to bring a host of counterclaims including ones that might involve defamation, conspiracy to defraud, and federal election money laundering.

Allegations that the Hillary Clinton campaign laundered millions of dollars in contributions from big name donors could also potentially become a part of the discovery effort.

As reporter Amy Chozick outlines in her book, “Chasing Hillary,” during the very same time period that the DNC lawsuit contends the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russia, the Clinton campaign was engaging in an effort to elevate President Trump’s candidacy and tie him to the mainstream of the Republican Party.

Some Democrats are wise enough to see that the DNC lawsuit poses a whole slew of problems for them, as illustrated in the comments below:

— California Rep. Jackie Speier described the suit in a CNN interview as an “ill-conceived” idea that is “not in the interest of the American people.”

— Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the legal action is a “silly distraction.”

— Gloria Borger, the reflexively liberal chief political analyst at CNN, said that the DNC lawsuit is a “100% stunt” designed to “raise money,” adding that “they want to keep the story moving.”

The DNC needs to come to grips with the reality that it was a main player in the rigging of the 2016 presidential election, handing the nomination for president to a flawed candidate, who was under criminal investigation at the time of her nomination and who flat-out lost an election that diehard Democrats believed she already had in the bag.