Quote:
Originally Posted by CompClassics
Ned, I have been keeping our conversation between us and mostly confident up until your last post but it appears you want to open this door.
Why is the SAAC Registrar taking it for granted that someone owns a car that has been reported to him as being built with parts belonging to cars other than 2049? Why is it that the SAAC Registrar is not questioning irrefutable testimony that the parts inspected during the court case were not from 2049 and were in fact from something other than a Cobra, to be more precise an AC Bristol. This was sworn testimony by Dave Dralle, someone SAAC acknowledged as an “Expert in all things Cobra”. Why is a SAAC Registrar not questioning a car that has been criticized by an expert in a court case when that Registrar has a copy of the courts findings in front of him and the Registrar has ample opportunity to digest and scrutinize the questionable information in that court case document? Why is it that a specific CSX number used in an “owner” fishing trip (page 377 of the 2019 SAAC Registry) was conducted and parts related to that CSX number were provided as parts for the current 2049 build, these parts with the CSX number (CSX2582) were reported to the SAAC Registrar (by me) as being included in the build by Hasselrig? They were more than provided, they were cut from an existing original door and grafted into the replacement door of the new body chassis that was obtained after the court case. This by the owner of a “respected body shop”. I still have photos of the grafting in of the CSX number and the piece that was cut from the new door to make room for it. Why does it appear that California DMV paperwork has been tampered with from the court case, to the point of removing a state seal, this doesn’t raise red flags? By the way which person in the photos is Lanse? Did Lanse get the trailer with the purchase? Have you ever met Lanse or Wesselink in person? I have.
As far as I am concerned and or at least until the information comes to light that proves one way or the other that UC Cowboy can lay claim to the car is up in the air at this point and I have stated this in my posts previously. As far as I am concerned 2049 met it’s fate in a salvage yard after SAI obtained a mechanics lien. After that 2049 was scattered to the wind until there seemed to be a mad rush by a few individual to lay claim to the title. I will quote a line from the SAAC Registrar’s own statement in the 2019 Registry page 377 entry related to CSX2582, “certain lower life forms that generally takes shape in the question, “ Can I build a Cobra from junk parts and no title?” I guess we don’t have to worry about the “title”, do we?
|
John, you are apparently stuck on the idea that if someone restores a former race car they legitimately own, they are limited to the use of original parts from the original car. Of course, if those have been stolen, that's a difficult trick. The purpose of the court case in CA was to verify Haselrig's ownership of the CSX 2049 VIN. He presented enough evidence to convince the court he owned the rights to the car. I am not in a position to refute their findings, nor has anyone else stepped forward with a credible claim to ownership of this car. We all know it can't be rebuilt with its original chassis (which is in Europe) or body work (which is destroyed) but he says he has miscellaneous mechanical parts from the car. As the Cobra Registrar, I accept the findings of the court and allow Haselrig to lay claim to the title/ ownership of the 2049 VIN. And just like many other wrecked race cars, 2049 is being rebuilt with a lot of new parts. Yet that does not alter the fact that Haselrig retains the right to identify it as CSX 2049. There is no hiding the fact that it will be a new car. Should it be called something other than the car to which Haselrig holds the legal CA paperwork and title? If so, why?