Homeland Security took my 110 - Page 36 - Defender Source
Defender Source  

Go Back   Defender Source > Non-Technical Discussions > Misc. Chit-Chat


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #701  
Old July 18th, 2014, 03:49 PM
down_shift's Avatar
down_shift
Status: Offline
Russell
94' D90 ST & 06' LR3
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Leesburg, VA
Posts: 4,036
Registry
The lone NOVA rig on the list....
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	white 110.jpg
Views:	232
Size:	54.6 KB
ID:	98954  
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #702  
Old July 18th, 2014, 03:50 PM
Viggen's Avatar
Viggen
Status: Offline
Jarrod
none
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arlington, Va
Posts: 774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red90 View Post
So, according to that list, they claim most of the vehicles were imported a few months before they were allowed and that is the reason for the seizures. Good lord. What a waste of tax payer money.
What? What are you talking about?

Did you not see this?
date of first registration as 4/19/1988
Date of production 5/9/1988
Model year claimed 1987

How can you claim a vehicle to be the model year BEFORE it was actually produced? How can you register a vehicle that was not yet produced?

Honestly, the Fed seems to have a pretty good case for a lot of these.
Reply With Quote
  #703  
Old July 18th, 2014, 03:54 PM
The Dro
Status: Offline
Dro
1988 Ninety
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Annandale, VA
Posts: 6,560
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viggen View Post

What? What are you talking about?

Did you not see this?
date of first registration as 4/19/1988
Date of production 5/9/1988
Model year claimed 1987

How can you claim a vehicle to be the model year BEFORE it was actually produced? How can you register a vehicle that was not yet produced?

Honestly, the Fed seems to have a pretty good case for a lot of these.
That's probably flipped dates. Otherwise doesn't make sense.
__________________
Mine is NTO... It was new, Now I'm Taking it Off.
Quote:
Online speculation will not replace onsite inspection.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #704  
Old July 18th, 2014, 04:02 PM
dave_lucas
Status: Offline
Dave Lucas
None
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: CO USA
Posts: 2,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viggen View Post
What? What are you talking about?

Did you not see this?
date of first registration as 4/19/1988
Date of production 5/9/1988
Model year claimed 1987

How can you claim a vehicle to be the model year BEFORE it was actually produced? How can you register a vehicle that was not yet produced?

Honestly, the Fed seems to have a pretty good case for a lot of these.
I just used the one on top since the dates were ODD. Rover said it was made after it was first registered that does not add up. That is all I was trying to point out with that one was the dates did not add up.

Look at the 5th one down the list ~ 3 months off of 25 years
Reply With Quote
  #705  
Old July 18th, 2014, 04:02 PM
Abu Buckwheat
Status: Offline
Malcolm
2005 Defender 110 TD5 Station
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Mideast-Africa-Albany
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by down_shift View Post
The lone NOVA rig on the list....
Jeez without seeing the frame and engine externally that's almost certainly a 1984 LR 110. Are they claiming it was brought in before 2009?

This is a sad day for all involved. Also when did COLOR CHANGE from the original become a factor in importation!?
Reply With Quote
  #706  
Old July 18th, 2014, 04:23 PM
Viggen's Avatar
Viggen
Status: Offline
Jarrod
none
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arlington, Va
Posts: 774
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave_lucas View Post
I just used the one on top since the dates were ODD. Rover said it was made after it was first registered that does not add up. That is all I was trying to point out with that one was the dates did not add up.

Look at the 5th one down the list ~ 3 months off of 25 years
So, the VIN obviously is not correct...right?

Law is the law. Right? I will try that line when I pay my bills. "But, collections department guy, it is only three months late. Why are you hassling me?"
Reply With Quote
  #707  
Old July 18th, 2014, 04:30 PM
Willh's Avatar
Willh
Status: Offline
Will Hedrick
Use to own NAS #96, #1778, & #1008
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Wake Forest, NC, USA
Posts: 1,227
Registry
Good evening everyone,

I just wanted to share one more piece of information before taking a much needed brake for the evening.

I've been in communication with the general counsel for Jaguar Land Rover North America today. It was relayed to me from their counsel's office late this afternoon that they have provided CBP and the US Attorney with a document that is meant to revise the document which was included in the Complaint, which I posted a little earlier.

I have not seen the revised document as yet, and JLR's counsel has referred me to the US Attorney to request a copy, which I have. I expect to receive a copy of this revised document on Monday.

I have a good idea of what I expect the revised document to include, but I am not going to say anything until I've layed eyes on it.


So......how's that for a cliffhanger?
__________________
.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Please feel free to visit my website at:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Quote:
Willh is the F'n man! Defender of the Defenders! - Overlander
Reply With Quote
  #708  
Old July 18th, 2014, 04:37 PM
dave_lucas
Status: Offline
Dave Lucas
None
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: CO USA
Posts: 2,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viggen View Post
So, the VIN obviously is not correct...right?

Law is the law. Right? I will try that line when I pay my bills. "But, collections department guy, it is only three months late. Why are you hassling me?"
All I was saying is that there is obviously some inconsistencies with the data.

And that from a HUMAN prospective with feelings it is sad to take away someone’s pride and joy over a few months difference.

Sorry that the zeros and ones that comprise your thought process cannot understand compassion but your robotic thought process should be able to understand that the numbers provided by rover on at least one (I have not looked at them all) do not add up.
Reply With Quote
  #709  
Old July 18th, 2014, 04:41 PM
Red90's Avatar
Red90
Status: Online
John B.
1991 Defender 90, 200TDI
Site Team
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Calgary
Posts: 8,804
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viggen View Post
What? What are you talking about?

Did you not see this?
date of first registration as 4/19/1988
Date of production 5/9/1988
Model year claimed 1987

How can you claim a vehicle to be the model year BEFORE it was actually produced? How can you register a vehicle that was not yet produced?

Honestly, the Fed seems to have a pretty good case for a lot of these.
What that is saying is the importer claimed it to be a 1987 vehicle. But it was actually built in 1988. They imported in 8/16/2012, thus making it 24 years and 3 months old. They seized the vehicle because it was 9 months too new to import. As to why the registration date is shown before manufacture, I have no idea. For most of these, it just seems the importer was not checking build dates close enough. There are only 12 or so that they are claiming are truly "newer" vehicles. Spending huge amounts of money to seize vehicles that missed the letter of the law by a small amount is a bit over the top, IMO. They could have found another avenue to "make this right".
__________________
Pissing people off on the "net" since 1983.

Land Rover. Turning owners into mechanics since 1948.
Reply With Quote
  #710  
Old July 18th, 2014, 04:42 PM
The Dro
Status: Offline
Dro
1988 Ninety
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Annandale, VA
Posts: 6,560
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willh View Post
So......how's that for a cliffhanger?
A good one.
__________________
Mine is NTO... It was new, Now I'm Taking it Off.
Quote:
Online speculation will not replace onsite inspection.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #711  
Old July 18th, 2014, 04:45 PM
discotdi
Status: Offline
Todd Miller
Land Rover
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Fairburn, GA USA
Posts: 1,029
I'll go ahead and say it. It's going to include a shit load more vehicles for seizure!
The first salvo has been fired. Now the real shooting begins.
Reply With Quote
  #712  
Old July 18th, 2014, 04:59 PM
Viggen's Avatar
Viggen
Status: Offline
Jarrod
none
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arlington, Va
Posts: 774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red90 View Post
What that is saying is the importer claimed it to be a 1987 vehicle. But it was actually built in 1988. They imported in 8/16/2012, thus making it 24 years and 3 months old. They seized the vehicle because it was 9 months too new to import.
I do not necessarily think that it is the age of the vehicle. It was the fact that there are three dates on the paperwork that are incongruous. Forget the import age. Look at it as someone who enforces the law would. Then, it would seem to make perfect sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave_lucas View Post
All I was saying is that there is obviously some inconsistencies with the data.

And that from a HUMAN prospective with feelings it is sad to take away someone’s pride and joy over a few months difference.

Sorry that the zeros and ones that comprise your thought process cannot understand compassion but your robotic thought process should be able to understand that the numbers provided by rover on at least one (I have not looked at them all) do not add up.
As for the empathy part, I do empathize with having something taken away from you. It is even worse if you did nothing wrong. In this case, there were very, very many trucks that were brought in that were, in fact, non conforming. I, personally, set eyes on a couple when I drove down there, with money in hand, to purchase a 90. I drove home a couple hours later. Why? The 90 was a royal sack of crap BUT it was supposed to be a 1985 AND it was powered by a 300tdi with an OBD port. "1985" Lucas Electrical Company was SO far ahead of its time it pioneered on board diagnostics. Who knew? I, knowing what the law states, walked away. I have empathy and compassion, but sometimes, those zeros and ones that make me less "human" than you, they matter...
Reply With Quote
  #713  
Old July 18th, 2014, 05:14 PM
dolomiti
Status: Offline
Scott
1987 One Ten
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 21
It seems like this could be the beginning of numerous investigations.
Reply With Quote
  #714  
Old July 18th, 2014, 05:15 PM
meatblanket's Avatar
meatblanket
Status: Offline
Mike Simpson
1955 86 1986 ExMOD 110
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Golden CO USA
Posts: 552
Registry
Paragraph 19 references a list of 110 vehicles.


Then in paragraph 20, the agent added 3 more vehicles to that list, "making the total 114 vehicles". This literally does not add up.
Reply With Quote
  #715  
Old July 18th, 2014, 05:22 PM
DannyboyUpstate's Avatar
DannyboyUpstate
Status: Offline
Danny Harrington
1983 110 3-door
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Albany, NY!!
Posts: 395
Registry
I still can't get over that they are saying mine is a 2000. Yeah that's right, it's 12 years old. With a welded frame and aluminum turning to dust everywhere.
Reply With Quote
  #716  
Old July 18th, 2014, 05:29 PM
The Dro
Status: Offline
Dro
1988 Ninety
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Annandale, VA
Posts: 6,560
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by meatblanket View Post
Paragraph 19 references a list of 110 vehicles.

Then in paragraph 20, the agent added 3 more vehicles to that list, "making the total 114 vehicles". This literally does not add up.
And on page 15 of 19, it's mentioned 51 vehicles
__________________
Mine is NTO... It was new, Now I'm Taking it Off.
Quote:
Online speculation will not replace onsite inspection.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #717  
Old July 18th, 2014, 05:36 PM
meatblanket's Avatar
meatblanket
Status: Offline
Mike Simpson
1955 86 1986 ExMOD 110
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Golden CO USA
Posts: 552
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dro View Post
And on page 15 of 19, it's mentioned 51 vehicles
That's the number of the 110 (or 110 +3 = 114) vehicles that were determined to be <25 years old.

I'm not understanding though how they came up with the much later dates of manufacture for VINs that decode as compliant (>25 years old). Maybe that will be explained in the revised document.
Reply With Quote
  #718  
Old July 18th, 2014, 05:39 PM
The Dro
Status: Offline
Dro
1988 Ninety
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Annandale, VA
Posts: 6,560
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by meatblanket View Post

That's the number of the 110 (or 110 +3 = 114) vehicles that were determined to be <25 years old.

I'm not understanding though how they came up with the much later dates of manufacture for VINs that decode as compliant (>25 years old). Maybe that will be explained in the revised document.
A cliffhanger
__________________
Mine is NTO... It was new, Now I'm Taking it Off.
Quote:
Online speculation will not replace onsite inspection.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #719  
Old July 18th, 2014, 06:03 PM
Jymmiejamz's Avatar
Jymmiejamz
Status: Online
Jimmy
1995 D90 SW #365
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 3,468
Registry
Thanks for posting that Will, my girlfriend is studying for the New York Bar right now and enjoyed reading it. It was also nice having her explain some of it to me.

My question is what happens if a Defender was illegally imported a year early, but is now eligible for import?
__________________
Car Camping Collective founding member and Treasurer
Reply With Quote
  #720  
Old July 18th, 2014, 06:06 PM
meatblanket's Avatar
meatblanket
Status: Offline
Mike Simpson
1955 86 1986 ExMOD 110
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Golden CO USA
Posts: 552
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jymmiejamz View Post
My question is what happens if a Defender was illegally imported a year early, but is now eligible for import?


That's a very good question. I'm thinking CBP will take the position that passage of time doesn't turn an illegal import into a legal one. I guess we'll find out eventually.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Defender Source > Non-Technical Discussions > Misc. Chit-Chat

Tags
110, ecu

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Took the plunge, now have lots o questions! GreenRover Defender Technical Discussions 8 June 11th, 2010 06:50 PM
It took 2 months... CDN90 Misc. Chit-Chat 12 December 19th, 2009 08:47 AM
Random photo I took today but the D110 snuck in! ORover Misc. Chit-Chat 3 December 17th, 2007 01:05 PM
Took 10 years... G37 Infiniti norros Misc. Chit-Chat 3 September 10th, 2007 10:43 AM
I took the plunge and bought a D90! Now.... jaherring Defender Technical Discussions 21 August 5th, 2004 01:14 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:45 AM.


Copyright