Search Warrants and All

[agro1]

Excal - what is so important ?? They were/are investigating cars registered in CA that were titled by Titles Unlimited - and it has been discussed MANY times that title washing is illegal in CA - is it really that hard to understand ???
I don't see what all the fuss is about...;

Ron61 - You didn't upset me at all, no prob man...You are entitled to your own opinion just as Steve C and Flatliner are, and just as I am too...

[Bill Wells]

my take...

i bet vprhunter is alive and well and posted under a new id to remain anon in tipping off others thereby remaining anon in his effort ...he did you calif folks a favor ! smart move, we know the dmv's read these too...others have confirmed firsthand that they were visited too, and so posted here. so forgetting vprhunter has not reposted, he at least got others to come forward with their experience. no one would make this up...imagine the others you have not heard about ! just the beginning of the tip of the iceberg perhaps.

as turk said, the issue/subject of this thread should remain on topic in my book and not become a law enforcement officer pro / con, those folks don't do these assignments on their own, they do their job as instructed.

of concern to many outside of calif is what starts on the west coast frequently moves east. their calif dmv/atty gen;ls action(s) dont go unnoticed by other states, rest assured, they know and they are watching . TU and other title washing companies exist and have 'registered' cars in most likely most all the states. there have been many threads in past yr or more advising against these washing companies, so the fact there is a problem should not be new news...the timing is now where before folks 'wondered if or when'.

pjs5o, from michigan. there are no emissions laws affecting these cars in michigan. and they can be registered as 65/66's in some cases . some were done using TU and some without TU, different dmv offices have handled that issue differently. but registration as 65/66s do exist. most however, have gone the long way, the 'assembled car' registration route with an assigned mich vin affixed to the car following safety and vehicle inspection by a police agency. mine for instance is registered as a 1998 mich assembled vehicle with their assigned mich vin having precedence over the original vin assigned by my mfr.

my guess is based on the initial inquiry by CHP over the original list of cars they are now looking for that they will widen their probe and others will be added to their target list. my guess is other states will watch and follow. my guess is if you used TU or any other washing co to assist in a 65/66 registration that you will want this thread to remain on target ...as forewarned will be helpful and you can go to school so to speak on the book lessons learned here from those affected who were brave enough to post and advise you. good luck to all....bill

[agro1]

Bill makes a good point - If CA is doing it, others will soon follow - that should be the important thing here. But then again, in CA we have the resources to waste time and energy on such a revenue generating problem...

[Chaplin]

All of the title service companies claim that the service they provide is legal. However, as has been noted, title washing is illegal. Thus, I think there is (or should be) a distinction between title washing and legitamately using one of these services to obtain a title.

For example, exactly what is title washing? Is it getting a new title and changing the VIN for an existing vehicle (possibly stolen) so that it can be re-sold? If so, this would be clearly illegal and not, what I susepct most cobra owners are doing. However, is creating a title for a car that did not previously exist and therefore never had a title also considered title washing? How can you "wash" a title on a car that never had a title in the first instance? They are fundamentally different issues. If you use a title service to obtain a title for a vehicle that never had a title for the purpose of avoiding paying what in some circumstances could be significant sales tax, then that is fraud and also illegal, but again that is a fundamentally different issue than simply obtaining a title.

Does anyone know the legal definition of "title washing" whether in CA or elsewhere?

[agro1]

Chaplin et al. - This may be of some assistance:

http://hc-fcu.org/hffo98/0800_a.htm

[teamfour]

Never mind.

[mr bruce]

Titles Unlimited says rite in their paperwork that they don't do "kit" cars.State DMVs are the only ones allowed to issue VIN numbers for "kit" cars. If your MFG put a VIN number on your MCO it better have the correct 17 letter/digit sequence.

[Bart Carter]

Originally posted by mr bruce


...it better have the correct 17 letter/digit sequence.

1965 cars did not have a 17 letter/digit sequence.

[mr bruce]

That's rite. And these cars were not built in 1965. Only 1100 Cobras , or so ,were. There are NO time machines. You can NOT build a car after 1965 and call it a 1965, even if your MFG puts that on the MCO. THE STATE is the one to issue the VIN number. If your MCO doesn't have the 17 digit/letter sequence, THE MANUFACTURER AIN"T DOING IT RITE.They are sliding thu the rapidly closing loophole.

[Mr.Fixit]

So you guys all want catalytic converters instead of sidepipes, and to have to meet all the standards of a 2003 year car? There are completley legal ways to get your car titled as a 65, titles unlimited is not one of them. Year of the engine is a popular criteria. I don't want to explain how to here, need these loopholes to stay open for the good of all of us.

[dshapero]

All,

Normally I just stay in lurk mode. But for everyones edification I will spill what I know on the CA registration front

The process is a complex one involving more than just the state agencies. Start here in CA with the DMV and the BAR (smog police), in addition understand that the NHTSA and DOT also have a part to play.

For those new to the process: There is a correct and LEGAL way to register cars in CA (and every other state). If you want I will explain the CA version to you in detail (dshapero@houseofcobras.com).

We also recently had the "DMV SWAT Team" here at the office (five cars - 10 investigators), and after six hours of checking every VIN and all the files, they decided that all was well. They are just doing their job and every one of them was polite and helpful. Even the lead investigator that came here concluded that if the CHP gives it a VIN and the DMV gives it a registration, we (the public) have to assume it is valid. Those people that are second purchasers are faultless, though they will have to wade through the junk.

For everyones background we (House of Cobras) have seen all this "stuff" for a while. The challenge here in CA has always been the BAR, NOT the DMV. We want to get the cars smog exempt, and the "easiest" way was to title the cars as 1965, for many years the DMV took no action, now they are. It was ALWAYS the wrong way to do it. Now both they (DMV) and we have to pay the price for taking the easy route. The correct route is also a fairly easy fix. If it is not a 1965, then register it as a SPCN, and get the smog exemption. That is the only way. By the way, I have NO doubts that if the investigations team starts to go after every "built" car in So-Cal, the number of exemptions will just get raised. It's a huge economy, and everyone needs the money.

Now to open another can of worms... You all realize (or maybe you don't) that part of the challenge with VINs is that the Feds and the State of CA differ on what should have a VIN attached to it (what is a kit exactly). The next challenge is the states that allow a car to be registered as a 1966 (based on the engine), then get sold to someone in CA. Is that now fraud? By the State of NJ, on the State of CA.

Hmmmm.

[Chaplin]

dshapero-
It seems they told you the same thing they told cobrap51d, which was that the second owner was faultless. What about the first owner who uses a title service, but pays all appropriate taxes and such? Did they give you any indication what they would do in that scenario?

Thanks.

[agro1]

What could they do ?? If he/she lives in another state that allows cars to be titled that way, then the CA DMV would have no case...Now, if that person, lets say - intentionally used a title service and sold the car in CA, knowingly - well then he could be in trouble. But proving his intent would be difficult. It's not against the law to be stupid...

[Harris]

Agro.
I spent 31 years in law enforcement, some 7 years in traffic. I've spent enough time around people like you that I' m proud of myself for never having to shoot one of your kind. There is a big difference between stupid and ignorant, but on second thought, after reading your ramblings I think that gap has narrowed.
Larry Harris
Medal of Valor 1970

[agro1]

Harris - So lemme guess, your retired and now working on good one liners...I'd go back to your day job jerkoff.

If you had paid attention you would realize my criticism is not of the LEO's per se, but WHO they work for.

Sorry guys, I tried to get it back on topic but you all know I have impulse control problem

[Chaplin]

Agro-
I did notice the attempt to get back on topic- I'm proud of you for making the effort. I think you've grown as a person Now if you can just work on that outburst control problem

[agro1]

Chaplin - I'll try, but this damn straight jacket is making it difficult to type -

[Dan Stryffeler]

Quote from an earlier post;

"There are NO time machines. You can NOT build a car after 1965 and call it a 1965, even if your MFG puts that on the MCO."

Even if your name is Carroll Shelby!

Sorry guys, couldn't help myself...

- Dan

[Excaliber]

Argo1,,,,,You gave it a good shot at getting back on target, proud of you. Must be hell lining up them "holy cross hairs" in that scope to take a "shot" with that stragiht jacket on.


Ernie

[agro1]

What crosshairs ??? I use a semi-auto shotgun - haven't you been paying attention ????