Local Guy's R33s to be crushed

By non-titled cars I meant using a less-than-legal means (such as the guy here's method - wash the title through two states) to obtain the title, which has been given here as advice.

And again, these R33's are normally 100% legal. Ding-dong bought shells with no VIN's and re-attached the VIN's himself (that act isn't necessarily illegal, but how he did it was). Had these cars not been a victim of that circumstance he A: wouldn't have had issues titling them and B: they wouldn't be getting crushed right now.

m4ff3w wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: This wouldn't be a problem if the government didn't have stupid laws on what cars you can and can't bring into the US.

If we could bring in anything we wanted, I wonder if the insurance companies would insure them.

Self insure instead?

So you can pay for the damages you cause to a Mercedes? Or the time spent in a hospotal that a pedestrian that you hit has to do? Wow, you have some serious cash.

m4ff3w wrote: Self insure instead?

Could... last I checked CA law was that you either had to have proof of insurance OR a reciept for a $30k bond held by the DMV.

volvoclearinghouse wrote: Tell me again why we need to have car titles? I mean, I understand having to pay a user fee to register and use a car on publicly paid-for roads, but why does the government have the right to tell us what cars we may or may not drive? Provided, of course, those cars do not pose any more risk to the other cars on the road than any other car. Yes, I know, Libertarianism...where does my fist end and your nose start?

Because roads are public property?

Crushing the cars is stupid. Confiscate and sell? Yeah that would be ok. The cars are now know to the gov, could have numbers assigned to them and tagged for show/ display only until 25 yrs old. As odd as the phrase is, why punish the cars? Forcing this guy to give them up at a huge financial loss is punishment enough for him. Crushing the cars punishes us ALL. There are so few of these left you'd think people would be more careful with them.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

Sky_Render wrote: The import laws were created due to automobile manufacturers lobbying for them. They were afraid people would import "grey market" cars instead of buying their new cars. The prosecutor in this case should be beaten over the head with a large, dead trout.

I think a live flapping trout would be just as sufficient in this case.

I work in seafood, I'll do it with a whole 30#+ halibut.

DETAILS people, details! Read the article first!

Yeah but nobody CARES what the details are when the end doesnt justify the means. I dodge title bullE36 M3 all the time. There is absolutely no moral imperative for me to jump through the hoops that make many car's titles more expensive than the cars themselves. There IS a moral issue in 'sticking it to em' JUST because it's your job (by choice, which is always very telling) to prop up an amoral and apathetic law. Not to mention the glaring likelihood that the officials involved are on a power trip 90% of the time which is why they are in those positions in the first place. Nobody drafted them to be douchebags for a living. They are morally compromised people leaning on giant, faceless, unaccountable institutions to backstop their petty, exploitative power trips. Couch it in any legalese you want, but it's predatory. Driving a skyline down the road just ISNT.

DaewooOfDeath wrote:

volvoclearinghouse wrote: Tell me again why we need to have car titles? I mean, I understand having to pay a user fee to register and use a car on publicly paid-for roads, but why does the government have the right to tell us what cars we may or may not drive? Provided, of course, those cars do not pose any more risk to the other cars on the road than any other car. Yes, I know, Libertarianism...where does my fist end and your nose start?

Because roads are public property?

Yes, roads are public property, but its a very grey area when you start getting into what are my rights to use that public property as I see fit vs. other people's rights. One could argue that any car older than 20 years old pollutes far too much and is far less safe than any newer car and thus should not be allowed on the roads. Yet we do just the opposite in many states, and don't even require safety inspections.

Odds are about 95% that any given accident is not caused by a problem with the car but by driver error. It would seem that regulating what cars we are allowed to drive is not exactly the low hanging fruit of the safety world. And if you're talking pollution, again, a 1956 Chevy pollutes far more than that Skyline, and we allow those on the road with hardly any discussion, so there's not much of an argument there, either.

Vigo wrote:

DETAILS people, details! Read the article first!

Yeah but nobody CARES what the details are when the end doesnt justify the means. I dodge title bullE36 M3 all the time. There is absolutely no moral imperative for me to jump through the hoops that make many car's titles more expensive than the cars themselves. There IS a moral issue in 'sticking it to em' JUST because it's your job (by choice, which is always very telling) to prop up an amoral and apathetic law. Not to mention the glaring likelihood that the officials involved are on a power trip 90% of the time which is why they are in those positions in the first place. Nobody drafted them to be douchebags for a living. They are morally compromised people leaning on giant, faceless, unaccountable institutions to backstop their petty, exploitative power trips. Couch it in any legalese you want, but it's predatory. Driving a skyline down the road just ISNT.

A beautiful rant. :-)

So why doesn't the county sell them overseas or as race cars and recoup some of the taxpayers money that they burned up prosecuting this guy. Is there any state in the union right now who couldn't use the money. Put the one that was in the movie on e-bay and let the bidders go wild.

Vigo wrote: Yeah but nobody CARES what the details are when the end doesnt justify the means. I dodge title bullE36 M3 all the time. There is absolutely no moral imperative for me to jump through the hoops that make many car's titles more expensive than the cars themselves. There IS a moral issue in 'sticking it to em' JUST because it's your job (by choice, which is always very telling) to prop up an amoral and apathetic law. Not to mention the glaring likelihood that the officials involved are on a power trip 90% of the time which is why they are in those positions in the first place. Nobody drafted them to be douchebags for a living. They are morally compromised people leaning on giant, faceless, unaccountable institutions to backstop their petty, exploitative power trips. Couch it in any legalese you want, but it's predatory. Driving a skyline down the road just ISNT.

bravo!

Now compare that to the "I work in a parts store" thread where counter guys on GRM are telling stories about being douchebags to customers because they don't know to ask just the right question. Sucks to be on the other side of the counter sometimes.

volvoclearinghouse wrote:

DaewooOfDeath wrote:

volvoclearinghouse wrote: Tell me again why we need to have car titles? I mean, I understand having to pay a user fee to register and use a car on publicly paid-for roads, but why does the government have the right to tell us what cars we may or may not drive? Provided, of course, those cars do not pose any more risk to the other cars on the road than any other car. Yes, I know, Libertarianism...where does my fist end and your nose start?

Because roads are public property?

Yes, roads are public property, but its a very grey area when you start getting into what are my rights to use that public property as I see fit vs. other people's rights. One could argue that any car older than 20 years old pollutes far too much and is far less safe than any newer car and thus should not be allowed on the roads. Yet we do just the opposite in many states, and don't even require safety inspections. Odds are about 95% that any given accident is not caused by a problem with the car but by driver error. It would seem that regulating what cars we are allowed to drive is not exactly the low hanging fruit of the safety world. And if you're talking pollution, again, a 1956 Chevy pollutes far more than that Skyline, and we allow those on the road with hardly any discussion, so there's not much of an argument there, either.

The wisdom of banning certain cars is certainly up for debate, but as for the right to control what you toodle around in, who else is going to control the roads the public paid for?

I have no idea why they won't allow a Skyline. But I also don't wonder who they think they are to control such things.

As for why, if I had to guess, I would suspect it has to do with liability. Not that the US is insanely litigious or anything.

Keith wrote: Now compare that to the "I work in a parts store" thread where counter guys on GRM are telling stories about being douchebags to customers because they don't know to ask just the right question. Sucks to be on the other side of the counter sometimes.

Yah, the bureaucrats I know tend to spend most of their days getting yelled at. I can think of things I'd prefer to do.

Handy dandy tip, being nice to a bureaucrat is one of the most productive things you can do. People who get crapped on a lot will often go to the moon for you in exchange for pleasantries.

4cylndrfury wrote: I mean, I guess we should all count our blessings...the local crime enforcement money pit...errr...division has enforced all laws regarding drug and violent crime! hooray!!! All the local schools must be at 100% of state grade standards, everyone has a job, and there must not be any gun or other felonious crime occurring if they have the time and resources available to tackle such a heinous criminal as your Brother in Law!

I'm pretty sure DOT investigators have nothing to do with stopping drug crime, violent crime, keeping guns off the street, etc.

It wasn't a FBI SWAT team going to catch automotive fraud. It was someone whose job it is to catch automotive fraud (a DOT investigator).

just sayin......

Gearheadotaku wrote: Crushing the cars is stupid. Confiscate and sell? Yeah that would be ok. The cars are now know to the gov, could have numbers assigned to them and tagged for show/ display only until 25 yrs old. As odd as the phrase is, why punish the cars? Forcing this guy to give them up at a huge financial loss is punishment enough for him. Crushing the cars punishes us ALL. There are so few of these left you'd think people would be more careful with them.

For the sake of argument, let's pretend that the Maserati Biturbo was not a US-legal model and is being brought in from Italy.

Insert "Maserati Biturbo" everywhere in this disucssion where it says "Skyline GT-R" and I bet nobody is in here crying about "how few are left" or "how rare they are."

I'm not for crushing cars, but I have to obey the laws (hence why I don't have a Lancia Delta in my garage), so I have NO pity for people who break the laws regarding car importation. Douches like that will make the gov't stiffen the laws further and make it harder for the rest of us in the future.

Just like the a-holes who daily-drive antique-tagged cars and tempt the state gov't to revoke antique car exemptions for those of us who use them for weekends/club events/things they're allowed to be used for..

Oh, and that paint job.....

Attaching VIN number plates from other cars to cars with no VIN number plates is a little bit shady no matter who you are and what you are trying to do. Try to sell cars that way should attract law enforcement officers like flies.

None of the 'insurance wont cover you' or 'you're unsafe to other cars on the road' arguments hold any water in light of the ability to design, build license, get Vin, and get Haggerty stated worth insurance policy for your kit car, or even moreso for completely homebuilt cars like locosts. I strangely feel like a stock skyline gtr is safer for you than any locost or cobra replica. I also think a stock styline polutes less than most motors going into said homebrew cars. If it isn't really road safety at issue, and its not really pollution at issue, what is it? Special interest ball washing, in this case Detroit.

Gearheadotaku wrote: Crushing the cars is stupid. Confiscate and sell? Yeah that would be ok. The cars are now know to the gov, could have numbers assigned to them and tagged for show/ display only until 25 yrs old. As odd as the phrase is, why punish the cars? Forcing this guy to give them up at a huge financial loss is punishment enough for him. Crushing the cars punishes us ALL. There are so few of these left you'd think people would be more careful with them.

So what would you suggest for a penalty, then?

And since part of the fraud in this case is changing the VIN to a different car, the car now has inconsistent information which then makes it virtually impossible to track who owned or would own the car. What do you suggest happens to it? Bear in mind- if I took a 10 dollar bill, and doctered it up to be 100, then instead of getting back into circulation as a 10, it gets destroyed.

This is the piece of property that is part of the fraud- what choices do you have with the car?

As for selling it abroad- yea, spending the shipping costs to send it anywhere, with a VIN that's not actually legal, working out the paperwork for that- sure it will make money....

simplecat wrote: None of the 'insurance wont cover you' or 'you're unsafe to other cars on the road' arguments hold any water in light of the ability to design, build license, get Vin, and get Haggerty stated worth insurance policy for your kit car, or even moreso for completely homebuilt cars like locosts. I strangely feel like a stock skyline gtr is safer for you than any locost or cobra replica. I also think a stock styline polutes less than most motors going into said homebrew cars. If it isn't really road safety at issue, and its not really pollution at issue, what is it? Special interest ball washing, in this case Detroit.

Nope, sorry. Nothing to do with Detroit. Mercedes-Benz is the company who lobbied the government for these import laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_import_vehicles#United_States

I once, in my ignorant youth, cut the tags off my mattress. Do you think they'll burn down my neighborhood to teach me a lesson?

Dude got caught and should do the proverbial "time." I don't see why that should include crushing the cars.

poopshovel wrote: Dude got caught and should do the proverbial "time." I don't see why that should include crushing the cars.

So what do you do with it? Bearing in mind that it is now fradulent. Can't really sell it, since it's a car made by a manufacturer, they probably won't re-issue a VIN for it. Since it's made by a company, it's unlikely that a state can make up a new VIN for it- laws that cover that year of car have VIN rules.

It's basically no longer legal tender. If Nissan isn't willing to stand behind it, then what?

I understand it getting destroyed due to the switched VIN numbers. I just still think it is bull crap we can't import vehicles we want into the US.

93EXCivic wrote: I understand it getting destroyed due to the switched VIN numbers. I just still think it is bull crap we can't import vehicles we want into the US.

You can, if they're over 25 years old.

Problem is, by that time it would be pretty hard to find parts. R33 Skylines (my personal favorite generation) are getting close to 25 years old now, but I think finding parts for them would be pretty freaking hard!