Maindrian Pace Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 MCSO Press Release 07/24/14 On July 23, 2014 Multnomah County Sheriff's Office detectives and Special Investigations Unit detectives served a search warrant in Unincorporated East Multnomah County and recovered a green 1970 Plymouth Barracuda 2 door hardtop vehicle. The Plymouth had been reported stolen in 2001, and purged from the Law Enforcement Data System (LEDS) as a stolen vehicle years after. Barring a court order to the contrary, the Plymouth will be returned to its registered and titled owner. The Plymouth is not in drivable condition, with many essential parts and components missing. Efforts continue to recover the remainder of the vehicle. No arrest has been made by MCSO at this time, the case will be presented to the Multnomah County District Attorney's Office for review. The vehicle is not available for media to view at this time as the investigation continues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ1971 Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 MCSO Press Release 07/24/14 On July 23, 2014 Multnomah County Sheriff's Office detectives and Special Investigations Unit detectives served a search warrant in Unincorporated East Multnomah County and recovered a green 1970 Plymouth Barracuda 2 door hardtop vehicle. The Plymouth had been reported stolen in 2001, and purged from the Law Enforcement Data System (LEDS) as a stolen vehicle years after. Barring a court order to the contrary, the Plymouth will be returned to its registered and titled owner. The Plymouth is not in drivable condition, with many essential parts and components missing. Efforts continue to recover the remainder of the vehicle. No arrest has been made by MCSO at this time, the case will be presented to the Multnomah County District Attorney's Office for review. The vehicle is not available for media to view at this time as the investigation continues. Good to see. Looks like justice has prevailed. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustangGuy23 Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 Good to see. Looks like justice has prevailed. ? Except that it sounds like it was stripped... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted July 25, 2014 Author Share Posted July 25, 2014 This case turned out correctly (finally!). Too bad the car has apparently been stripped. Which brings up another question: the storage garage had charged for storage and "repairs." I wonder if the car was intact when the "current possessor" picked it up from the garage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vintagestang Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 I would be willing to bet that when it was stripped the visible VIN numbers were ground off. If this happened to me I would steal it back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Geiger Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 Guys.. too much drama. The way it probably went down: 1. Car gets stolen. Thief gets rid of it to unsuspecting buyer almost immediately as a 'drag car- no title'. 2. Car goes through several sets of hands 3. Car winds up inoperable and sits 4. Current owner buys inoperable, no title car with the vision of getting the title (several services are always listed in Hemmings to get titles for cars with 'lost' titles) and restore it someday. He puts it in a storage facility, time gets away from him. 5. Storage facility loses record of who owned it, so they go to DMV for info, turning up the original owner. (ask me sometime how a bank lost my in-laws safety deposit box) 6. Storage facility contacts original owner, in the meantime currrent owner redeems car and takes it home. I honestly don't think the current owner is involved in any big plot with stolen cars. He seems to be wealthy (his house is described as an estate) and had no idea the car was once stolen. He's probably as shocked as anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted July 25, 2014 Author Share Posted July 25, 2014 Guys.. too much drama. The way it probably went down: 1. Car gets stolen. Thief gets rid of it to unsuspecting buyer almost immediately as a 'drag car- no title'. 2. Car goes through several sets of hands 3. Car winds up inoperable and sits 4. Current owner buys inoperable, no title car with the vision of getting the title (several services are always listed in Hemmings to get titles for cars with 'lost' titles) and restore it someday. He puts it in a storage facility, time gets away from him. 5. Storage facility loses record of who owned it, so they go to DMV for info, turning up the original owner. (ask me sometime how a bank lost my in-laws safety deposit box) 6. Storage facility contacts original owner, in the meantime currrent owner redeems car and takes it home. I honestly don't think the current owner is involved in any big plot with stolen cars. He seems to be wealthy (his house is described as an estate) and had no idea the car was once stolen. He's probably as shocked as anyone. Well, that's one way it could have happened. But it doesn't explain how the current "owner" just coincidentally happened to pay the bill and pick up the car right after the garage had sent out the letter to the "real" owners... or why the garage let him take possession of the car when they knew who the real owners are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DynoMight Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 Well, that's one way it could have happened. But it doesn't explain how the current "owner" just coincidentally happened to pay the bill and pick up the car right after the garage had sent out the letter to the "real" owners... or why the garage let him take possession of the car when they knew who the real owners are. They probably sent the letters at the same time and the Whites came up as the original owner, but the Lee dude came up as the guy who is storing it... But they don't know if the Lee guy actually owns it, but he was storing it, so it was presumably his... even though he doesn't have the title, hmmm... at least they got their car back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted July 25, 2014 Author Share Posted July 25, 2014 hmmm... at least they got their car back. Well, part of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danno Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 (edited) 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. Edited July 25, 2014 by Danno Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brizio Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 The owner had his car back, or part of it, since the car is missing pretty much all... Here the guy that had it for the last years interview by Lars Larson Show. https://soundcloud.com/thelarslarsonshow/lee-sitton-tries-to-justify-why-he-should-be-allowed-to-keep-richard-whites-stole-1970-cuda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted July 25, 2014 Author Share Posted July 25, 2014 Very interesting interview. The guy sounds like a real weasel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted July 25, 2014 Author Share Posted July 25, 2014 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. And in this case there is no evidence to the contrary! The "current possessor" admits he bought the car without a title. He admits he never applied for a title to the car, and he has no title in his possession. In fact, in the radio interview linked to in the above post, the guy says that after he bought the car he called DMV and asked who the legal owner of the car is, and he was told "Richard White." Since he had bought the car (according to him) not from Richard White, but from a guy named Mr. Stanley (who has admitted selling the car to the "current possessor"), he should have figured that something wasn't right. The Whites, on the other hand, do have the title. They bought the car new, and they never sold it or gave it away. They reported it stolen in 2001, they still have a copy of the police report, and at that time they were the original and only owners/title holders. There had never been any sale or transfer of title by the Whites to anyone else.. So once the car was stolen, what happened to it was completely beyond the control of the Whites. The car could have changed hands several times, there could have been multiple replacement tiles issued... but the bottom line fact is that on the day the Whites reported the car stolen, it had been in their possession the entire time, and they had not sold or transferred title to anyone. That's easy enough to look up and validate. At the time the car was stolen, they were the legal owners. And they are still the legal owners, because no matter how you slice it, once that car was stolen, any resale of that car was illegitimate. Only the car's owner can sell the car. Any subsequent sale of the car by anyone other than the Whites, after it had been reported stolen by the Whites, is illegitimate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustangGuy23 Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 Just listened to the interview. A few things I took away from it: 1. Buying a vehicle for $5000 and not obtaining a title is not normal. 2. Mr. Sitton keeps referring to a bill of sale. A bill of sale means nothing. Anyone can create a bill of sale. As someone mentioned earlier I can make a bill of sale and sell you my neighbor's car. Doesn't mean you own it. 3. Mr. Sitton was done wrong. He got screwed plain and simple. But he's doing nothing to help himself. He says he's being black barred by the media, but yet he continuely snaked his way around the interview questions and just seems like a jerk. 4. He says the DMV would not give him address. I don't know about his state specifically, but in states I'm familiar with the registered owner name and address of a vehicle are public information that can be obtained by anyone with the VIN of the vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scalper Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 Wow there is just part of the shell left,.. very sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted July 25, 2014 Author Share Posted July 25, 2014 Just listened to the interview. A few things I took away from it: 1. Buying a vehicle for $5000 and not obtaining a title is not normal. 2. Mr. Sitton keeps referring to a bill of sale. A bill of sale means nothing. Anyone can create a bill of sale. As someone mentioned earlier I can make a bill of sale and sell you my neighbor's car. Doesn't mean you own it. 3. Mr. Sitton was done wrong. He got screwed plain and simple. But he's doing nothing to help himself. He says he's being black barred by the media, but yet he continuely snaked his way around the interview questions and just seems like a jerk. 4. He says the DMV would not give him address. I don't know about his state specifically, but in states I'm familiar with the registered owner name and address of a vehicle are public information that can be obtained by anyone with the VIN of the vehicle. Agreed. This guy Sitton is coming off looking more and more like a real weasel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brizio Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 I don't know how the condition of the car was when Sitton bought in early 2000. But if you buy a drag racing Cuda, you vill transfer the title asap end bit the BLAH_BLAH_BLAH_BLAH out of it... At least, I would do so... The question is... He parked a running car in the storage, or a semi-rolling chassis? Looking a the picture it looks too clean to be sitting in a storage for years... Sitton also say that he over the year spent money on the car, for what that's why he did not want give it back to the owner. I don't get it. He spent money for doing what on the car? There is nothing on it left... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted July 25, 2014 Author Share Posted July 25, 2014 An interview with the real owner of the car, Richard White, on the same radio program as the Lee "current possessor" Sitton interview (Lars Larson Show, Portland): http://larslarson.com/richard-white-vs-lee-sitton-battle-for-the-1970-cuda/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1930fordpickup Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 After hearing this guy with his guarded answers I am not sure if he is guilty or just does not want to admit he was had by a friend of his. I will say this car is very clean as in no dust all over it for sitting this many years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted July 25, 2014 Author Share Posted July 25, 2014 After hearing this guy with his guarded answers I am not sure if he is guilty or just does not want to admit he was had by a friend of his. I have a feeling that's exactly what it is. He unwittingly bought a stolen car, he never bothered to contact the Whites after he found out they were the title holders, and now he's embarrassed and is trying to rationalize everything. Listen to the Richard White interview I linked to. Mr. White says that Sitton called him and wanted White to pay him $5,000 for the return of his car. Sitton was basically trying to make White pay for the return of his own car! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted July 25, 2014 Author Share Posted July 25, 2014 From KATU.com today (Portland TV station)... Rick White purchased the car brand new in 1970 and raced the car at Portland International Raceway. He said someone stole the car from his garage in 2001. "It was a very upsetting time. It was hard to even think about it being gone," said Jackie White (his wife). The Whites still hold the car's title. They received a letter last month saying there was a lien on the car for thousands of dollars in unpaid storage and service fees at Budget Towing. They said they contacted Budget Towing, but found out that the man who was storing it there had already paid the money owed and took possession of the car. The Whites called police, but said police told them the statute of limitations had run out, and officers could not write a search warrant and could not go and seize the car. That meant the car stayed put at the gated estate of Lee Sitton, the man who paid off the storage fees at Budget Towing. Sitton said he bought the car legally from a friend in 2001, though he did not get a title. He said he did not steal the car. But the Whites were finally able to find a resolution. They filed a new stolen car report with police. Sgt. Pete Simpson with the Portland Police Bureau said the new report allowed police to reopen the case and get a search warrant for the car. Multnomah County sheriff's deputies served the warrant Wednesday and seized the car. The Whites were able to see the car Thursday for the first time in 13 years. "I'm elated," said Jackie White. "Finally, the car's not in his garage, it'll be in ours. Where it belongs." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1930fordpickup Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 I think the more this is looked into the more people will be in trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blunc Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 maybe Mr. Sitton got his $5000 worth of parts off the car while the police were figuring out how to legally return the car to the Whites. $20,000 will probly be needed to return the car to the condition it was in when it was stolen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted July 25, 2014 Author Share Posted July 25, 2014 Who we still haven't heard from is this mysterious "Mr. Stanley" who allegedly sold Sitton the car in 2001 without a title, just a "bill of sale." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1930fordpickup Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 He is long gone by now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.