Danno

Dirty nice.

I know it sounds like an anathema, but titles are not the end-all, be-all. Titles are prima facie evidence of ownership, but prima facie evidence can be defeated by direct or testimonial evidence to the contrary. That's why a disputed ownership situation goes to a judge for determination, not to an internet forum. You'll note in the press release Mike Schnur quoted, they said the whole Cuda mess will be sent to the prosecutor to decide if criminal charges are appropriate. The cops aren't calling that one. Whether the prosecutor files criminal charges or not, it will still be up to a civil court judge to determine ownership of the Cuda. As has been mentioned, there are services (some legitimate, many not) out there that can procure "legal" titles for any classic or collector vehicle for a fee, to (wink, wink) replace YOUR lost title, etc. There are many ways to launder a vehicle's title through state motor vehicle departments. I'm not going to provide examples because I'm not going to put on Vehicle Theft 101 classes on the internet. But trust me, titles can be deceiving ... intentionally or otherwise. Evaluation of the totality of the facts and circumstances is often necessary to determine true ownership. We've already talked about multiple changes of hands, with each new buyer being farther and farther removed from the theft. But there are other situations that come up ~ like the owner who gets drunk or drugged and signs over his title but didn't intend to, or the guy in a divorce whose wife sells off his muscle car while the divorce proceedings drag on for months or years, or the yahoos who carry their titles around in their gloveboxes with their insurance cards, etc. And there's always the instances where MVD offices are burglarized and blank title forms are stolen and later used. Plus, counterfeit titles show up occasionally. There are situations - perhaps like the Cuda - where more than one "owner" has a title. MVD records can be manipulated. I recently worked a case where a gomer figured out a flaw in the MVD system and managed to get his hands on no less than three legitimate, state MVD-issued titles for one car, then used each one of them to secure title-loans (none of which was paid). Each one of those . . . on the face . . . was a legitimate title. The three lenders had to go to court to sort out their repossession and recovery rights. Also, in the press release you saw what I brought up previously: old records get purged and that muddies up the waters and slows down the ultimate determination. Oh, and another note about the Cuda and all its travails: Remember all the stink raised about why didn't they get a search warrant and go get the Cuda? And one of the cops was quoted as saying they couldn't because of the statute of limitations? And that created some stink? But, yet, that's exactly what they were doing when he was being interviewed. Of course he wasn't going to go on the news and announce 'We're going to get a search warrant and go get the Cuda.' The Cuda coulda been long gone by the time a judge issued a search warrant if the cops had broadcast that's what they were doing. Better to fall on the sword by looking stupid than to jeopardize the case by telegraphing your strategies. And a PS, in case it needs to be said: Getting a search warrant is not as easy and instantaneous in the real world as it appears on TV or in the news.

It's not just McDonald's. That's true of any/every restaurant, even the vaunted 'high-end' high-dollar places and socially-acceptable joints favored by vegans, isolationists, organic-fetishists, tree huggers, and nuevo-riche foody snobs.

Very nice.

Whoa! That's cool. Can't wait to see it finished.

Scott, The Spiderman kit also has three complete sets of extra wheels & tires, including Fuchs mags and Porsche-style mags.

Nice.

Very nice! Nothing as elegant as a fully dressed '58 Impala.

Decent!

1/12 Scale ~ ~

Looks good.

First Disclaimer: I am not conversant in Oregon law at present (although I have been in the past), and laws change, laws are different from state to state, etc. Having said that, however, these are NOT unusual situations. These things happen every day. The only reason this one hit the news and registers on the 'what the . . . ' scale is because it involves a classic muscle car and it involves an ancient theft. I am very sympathetic to the original owner. I had a very similar thing happen to me, and I'm an auto theft investigator! I know it seems like it should be cut and dried, but it's usually not. That's why this WILL end up in court. There's no other way for it to be resolved. Yes, the original owner still has a title to the car. That does not mean it's the only title to the car. There are still states where a title can be obtained for a stolen car. Titles get "laundered" all the time or new titles issued on a bill of sale with a bond posted. It's a process to provide for lost or misplaced titles. Some states have more stringent rules than others. And, trust me . . . the bad guys know which states are easy. They just show up with a bill of sale and a story. The state makes an effort (more diligent in some than others) to confirm the bill of sale, but if one guy lies and another swears to it . . . And, being an old, pre-17 digit VIN, it's not going to show up easily. Believe it or not, law enforcement agencies delete stolen vehicle listings periodically. IF the car was uninsured at the time of the original theft (which I suspect is the case here), the car will drop off computer systems at whatever point in time the law enforcement agency purges its computer files of old, unrecovered stolen vehicles. They all do it, because so many vehicles are stolen and have been stolen that they must at some point dump old files to make room for more thefts. There is a finite limit to storage capabilities. Insured vehicles are easier to find. The Insurance Services Office and the National Insurance Crime Bureau maintain computer records of vehicles reported as stolen for which insurance claims are made. But they do not keep records of vehicles that are not insured. Another factor comes into play. If the vehicle was insured, the insurance company pays the insured and the title is signed over (by 'power of attorney' from the insured) to the insurance company. Insurance companies usually submit paperwork to the state motor vehicle department to convert the title from the insured to the insurance company. When they do, the state issues a new title with the insurance company appearing as the owner. However, two more layers of strange things can happen at this point. One, the insured is not actually required to surrender the title (if it is a title-holding state) to the insurer. The 'power of attorney' form allows the insurance company to take legal title without having the paper title. In this case, the insured may keep the paper title which appears to show him as the owner. The other thing that can happen is that some insurance companies don't change the title over until the vehicle is recovered. They do that to save the expense of MVD title fees in the event the car is never recovered. The longer the vehicle is unrecovered, the longer they hold the paperwork but have not filed it with the state. Stupid? Yeah, but since many stolen vehicles are never recovered, they save some money. Even stupider is that sometimes they just plain lose the paperwork. But, that's another story. Another thing to consider here is that even if the original owner still has the original title, he might lose ownership of the vehicle by process of law. For example, if a vehicle is left with a mechanic, shop, or a storage facility, the mechanic/shop/storage facility or towing company may file a lien against the vehicle to recover charges owed. In most states, they have no obligation to find the true owner than to check with the state for the last owner on file, then mail a redemption notice to the owner of record at the address in MVD files. Believe me, despite laws that require people to update their addresses with MVD, a huge percentage never do. A vehicle titled for a long time may have an address the owner has moved from - even dozens of times. The notice goes to the address of record but never gets to the owner. The holder of the lien then files a simple affidavit and gets title to the vehicle in lieu of the unpaid charges (actual or fictitious) since the previously titled owner did not respond, pay the charges, or challenge the lien. That happens a lot, especially with towing companies. They count on the required notice going to an old or bad address and the actual owner never knowing until after they get the title transferred to them. Then guess what? They have "legal" title to the vehicle. They can sell it. The buyer gets "legal" title to the vehicle. If he sells it, the next buyer gets "legal" title and so on. If the vehicle is later discovered to have been stolen at some point in the chain of events, the most recent buyer may very likely have had no clue, but thinks he bought the vehicle legitimately. The actual thief is many layers removed from the current possessor. For any and all of these reasons (and who knows how many other permutations there are out there), any time there's a challenge as to ownership in situations like these, it will go to a court to decide who has the superior claim to the vehicle. And none of that even discusses VIN switching or cloning, where the VIN of the vehicle is altered to appear like another vehicle. We've had a severe problem with these types of situations in Arizona, where stolen vehicles are outfitted with what appears to be a clean title and then sold to an innocent third party. Usually on street corners or Craigslist. If the third party bought the car for a ridiculous amount or had other clues that would have told a reasonable person that the sale was not on the level, the car will usually go back to the original owner and the third party's ownership interest will be deemed invalid. However, if the third party paid a reasonable amount and legitimately had no reason to suspect it was 'too good to be true,' then the ownership interest may go to the third party. Especially if the vehicle was insured and paid off and the insurance company was the legal owner. Once the original owner was "made whole" by the insurance company, no matter what sentimental attachment was involved, the original owner has no claim to the vehicle. And, courts tend to rule against insurance companies in these matters if they are the titled owner instead of the original owner. If the original owner had no insurance and was just out the car, the courts tend to give the original owner much greater ownership interest than the third party buyer, but it's not guaranteed. It doesn't seem to be as obvious a 'no-brainer' to the courts as it is to you and I. There are very complex issues involved in these situations, and it takes a lot of investigation to get to the bottom of what's right and what's wrong. Far more investigation - and legal wrangling - than any news bimbo is going to do for a 15 second segment of the nightly news. Second Disclaimer: There are so very many possibilities involved that a model car forum discussion can go sideways every few sentences. Yes, it seems the original owner should get it back and there should be little discussion. But, there may be extenuating circumstances we don't know about that might persuade even us differently. And, neither the cops nor us are judges. Even lawyers might disagree, but the one, single, solitary judge who has jurisdiction over this case is the only person that will be able to make the call. Now, I have to get back to work. I have some stolen cars to deal with.

Really? After the thrashing and trashing Revell got over the Mustang? According to a lot of posters, that was as incompetent as any kit manufacturer gets.

I know they are totally different body styles. And, I agree about accurate S&H stripes not fitting the '70 roofline. My comment was that I fear it might be another half-baked end-around to get a product on the shelves with existing tooling. There's been no suggestion of a new-tool '74-75-76 Torino, and the re-issuance of the stock '70 shortly before the S&H seemed suspiciously like over-utilization of existing stock. I'll be very glad to see a new-tool '74/5/6 Torino.

Well, Scott, if you are truly in the know, you are right: I'll be pleasantly surprised. I would just hate to think of them taking an all-too-common shortcut by pushing a re-issued '70 kit out the door with the S&H graphics. Hope you're right!

Supercilious bloviating.

Too early to tell . . . not enough information in that story. These things are always a whole lot more involved than a short blurb on the news will disclose. And, they generally don't sound so sensational when you learn the rest of the story. There's nothing that says a thief can hang onto stolen property after three years. The story indicates the current possessor bought the car in the past few years, not that he stole it. There are laws making possession of stolen property illegal, and the statutes of limitations don't run during the time the stolen property is 'possessed.' What makes these situations so complicated is that the current possessor may have made a good-faith purchase of the vehicle from someone he had legitimate reason to believe had bona-fide ownership interest in the vehicle and could lawfully convey title to the current possessor. When the original owner/victim comes forth and attempts to claim the vehicle, litigation is required because both parties have claims under the law and a court must determine whose ownership interest is superior. There are a lot of factors involved, and if a situation involves a truly innocent buyer, there are two victims, not just one. In most instances, there isn't a great deal of time elapsed between the theft and the third party purchase and discovery/recovery of the vehicle. In those instances, the court often returns the vehicle to the original owner but requires him to reimburse the third party buyer for any repair, upgrade, or improvement investments. It gets immensely more complicated when you have years ~ or decades ~ of intervening time and/or multiple changes of hands, or significant increase in value (appreciation) rather than typical depreciation. So, yeah. It sounds sensational and shocking, but there's a LOT more to the story.

Don't you have enough projects, yet? Ambitious!

Interesting!

4 hours? Unbelievable. Hard to imagine parting line cleanup, priming, primer drying, painting, color coat curing, clear-coating, clear coat curing enough to handle for final assembly without fingerprint embossing! Heck, it almost took four hours to type that out! Good job over all; great job considering the time element.

On-going 'wow!'

I'm a little suspicious of the Starsky & Hutch Torino . . . they're re-issuing the '70 Torino a couple of months before the indicated release date for the S&H Torino. That suggests it will be a '70 with the S&H stripes on a decal sheet.

Nice. But the wheels are too big.

Very nice, Mark.

Cool.