Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedsel
Real 1, you may misinterpret any part of my original post at your convenience. Nothing in it is hearsay. A man here in San Diego was contracted by the seller, who identified himself as a probate attorney and offered him what he claimed was CSX 3160. He did not take down the caller's name as he was not interested in the car being offered him, nor does he know why he was contacted, beyond the fact that he is a known collector. This individual went to the trouble of finding the last known owner of the car as listed in the SAAC Registry, and that is who contacted me. Which is why I posted the note above. It's that simple and straightforward.
|
Why thank you Ned. Yes, everything you say I interpret (not misinterpret) at my convenience. Your position on the "other issue" was noted by me to be patently bias from the outset and gee, what do you know...you were even kind enough to finally admit it after it was smoked out. Your personal views on the "other issue" moreover directly conflict with SAAC's World Registry. Apparently you have no use for the Registry definitions.
Seems there is a pattern with you. You now have your own personal definition of "hearsay" too which conflicts with the classic definition of "hearsay" in the Fed. R. Civ. Pro. which nearly every State has adopted or modeled their rules of evidence on. I have no interest or desire in educating you on this issue since apparently authoritative texts and rule books don't seem to mean much to you anyway.
Not surprising the other "legal" genius liked your post above.
As far as having nothing to go on you do know the probate attorney (or "supposed" attorney as you later stated) is in Los Angeles. Right? You are accusing people of fraud based on blatant raw hearsay regarding what the attorney then later described by you as the "supposed" attorney (oh, I'm sorry your definition of hearsay is different) then said to your friend who then said it to you and now you are saying that to us. All perfectly reliable. ....Oey.
How about contacting the authorities in Los Angeles or DMV to see if any vehicles have been transferred into the title of Estates recently? They can't pass title otherwise.
Also this "collector" or (as
I am now saying) "supposed" collector,... was he called on his cell phone? If so, he didn't need to take the number down. Its likely stored on his phone's history. If on a land line, does he have a system that stores numbers? Did you ask? Further, since this "supposed" collector knew it was clearly a scam did he try and obtain any info such as the car's previous owner, whether it had clear title, in whose name it was titled at present etc... He didn't even get the attorney's name or write it down
knowing it was a scam... and he's a collector???? But wait....of course, he contacts Ned the SAAC 3000 registrar to sound the alarm with no real info to relay. Yup. Makes perfect sense. Funny, the attorney didn't identify himself at all by name?. Sooo he just said , "Hi I'm a probate attorney (skip name here) as soon your collector friend answered the phone and then stated " I have an Cobra to sell, CSX 3160 for 280K with a short block Roush". That's it???? He just volunteered and blurted out this particular detailed info? This info wasn't provided by way of any questions or discussion? This detailed info was provided yet nothing else? You "collector" friend,... and just curious here.....is he routinely contacted with scams involving rare original cars? I mean is this routine for him??? Gee, if not, it would seem to me he might remember more from this discussion. $hit like that doesn't happen every day with him... does it???. Kinda stands out I would think.
Yeah, this all sounds "real" believable to me. Yup. Seems to me perhaps you were sold a bill of goods on the story.
I have no issue with posting a warning but perhaps your "alarm" should have been more "equivocal".
Further, if there is a person dumb enough to think he is buying an original Cobra for $280K with a Roush short block likely that person is clearly too dumb to do any due diligence at all so your "alarm" is not likely to reach that group of dummies.