Homeland Security took my 110 - Page 73 - Defender Source
Defender Source  

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


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1441  
Old July 27th, 2014, 04:38 PM
The Dro
Status: Offline
Dro
1988 Ninety
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Annandale, VA
Posts: 6,560
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugbier View Post
One word

CITROEN

Every bloody 2cv, 3cv, Ami8, Mehari that is in this country have been reconstructed as their frame bend in couple of years, their motor blow faster than a $ 5.00 hooker ( Ask Shane, he used to use them *LOL* )
And the rules do not apply to them

The Greed of few in the name of capitalism has caused this situation, nothing else, the envy on JLRNA seeing people collect $ 150,000 , the pissing between importer/restorers in US soil, and the likes

I couldn't care less of the expert interpretation of the law, and if safety is the concern, well, we should not be able to see Bucket T, A models with mustang rausch engine on them

Now, back to the cheap Whisky and Beagle Porn *LOL*
And don't forget the Renault and Mini.
__________________
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
 
  #1442  
Old July 27th, 2014, 04:39 PM
evilfij's Avatar
evilfij
Status: Offline
evilfij
I have never seen a rover in person
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: on the internet
Posts: 14,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by ipgregory View Post
I don't see anything I posted referring to imports specifically? The letter may, but the code doesn't. Title 18, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 511 This covers VIN Tampering and it says in part: Sec. 511. Altering or removing motor vehicle identification numbers (a) A person who - (1) knowingly removes, obliterates, tampers with, or alters an identification number for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle part.
Post the whole law:

(b)
(1) Subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a removal, obliteration, tampering, or alteration by a person specified in paragraph (2) of this subsection (unless such person knows that the vehicle or part involved is stolen).
(2) The persons referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection are—
(A) a motor vehicle scrap processor or a motor vehicle demolisher who complies with applicable State law with respect to such vehicle or part;
(B) a person who repairs such vehicle or part, if the removal, obliteration, tampering, or alteration is reasonably necessary for the repair;
(C) a person who restores or replaces an identification number for such vehicle or part in accordance with applicable State law; and
(D) a person who removes, obliterates, tampers with, or alters a decal or device affixed to a motor vehicle pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Act, if that person is the owner of the motor vehicle, or is authorized to remove, obliterate, tamper with or alter the decal or device by—
(i) the owner or his authorized agent;
(ii) applicable State or local law; or
(iii) regulations promulgated by the Attorney General to implement the Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Act.

Note b2B
__________________
*not legal advice*
Reply With Quote
  #1443  
Old July 27th, 2014, 04:40 PM
sonoronos's Avatar
sonoronos
Status: Offline
Ed
None
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 5,209
Registry
end of story.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #1444  
Old July 27th, 2014, 04:56 PM
ipgregory's Avatar
ipgregory
Status: Offline
Ian Gregory
'97 D90 ST #1008
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Henderson, NV USA
Posts: 1,083
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilfij View Post
Post the whole law: (b) (1) Subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a removal, obliteration, tampering, or alteration by a person specified in paragraph (2) of this subsection (unless such person knows that the vehicle or part involved is stolen). (2) The persons referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection are— (A) a motor vehicle scrap processor or a motor vehicle demolisher who complies with applicable State law with respect to such vehicle or part; (B) a person who repairs such vehicle or part, if the removal, obliteration, tampering, or alteration is reasonably necessary for the repair; (C) a person who restores or replaces an identification number for such vehicle or part in accordance with applicable State law; and (D) a person who removes, obliterates, tampers with, or alters a decal or device affixed to a motor vehicle pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Act, if that person is the owner of the motor vehicle, or is authorized to remove, obliterate, tamper with or alter the decal or device by— (i) the owner or his authorized agent; (ii) applicable State or local law; or (iii) regulations promulgated by the Attorney General to implement the Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Act. Note b2B
I stand corrected on non-imports, thx Ron and apologies to nathanwind and sonnoros.

So l guess B2C covers replacement as long as you get a new state issued id stamp and document it?

Ian
Reply With Quote
  #1445  
Old July 27th, 2014, 04:57 PM
Jonesy's Avatar
Jonesy
Status: Offline
Craig
87 D110 (Ruby)
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Leesburg, VA
Posts: 4,346
Registry
enough ian.....you are wrong!!!!!!
__________________
"The difference between stupidity and genius, is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
  #1446  
Old July 27th, 2014, 04:57 PM
Uncle Douglas's Avatar
Uncle Douglas
Status: Offline
Doug Crowther
A defender in every driveway-motto
D-90 Source Vendor
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Gods Country- Central Virginia
Posts: 11,541
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by ipgregory View Post
I posted an excerpt from the code but also if you refer to the letter Doug mentions that posted or linked to earlier in the thread it clearly states you cannot put a new frame under an old body as well.


The letter is confusing in its other statement regarding new body on old frame for the reasons Doug and I talked about but its pretty clear and in agreement with the code on the new frame/old body part. I also don't see how this would only apply to imports either. It appears to apply to all vehicles.


Again, the code seems to have provisions for manufacturers that we don't have access to so the Toyota swaps are not pertinent.
The opinion letters are pertinent and applicable to vehicles entering the country. Ie the letter and import codes are coming from the Import Department @ DOT. These opinions are not meant to be applicable beyond the entry process. Once a vehicle leaves the docks having been granted entry it may as well be a 32 ford roadster as far as ones ability to restore or modify it to your hearts content.
__________________
Good judgement comes from experience,experience comes from bad judgement.

Dividing Creek Imports
Worldwide Land Rover Shipment and Importation Service
Bespoke Restoration & Modification work


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

410.693.1391


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #1447  
Old July 27th, 2014, 04:57 PM
ipgregory's Avatar
ipgregory
Status: Offline
Ian Gregory
'97 D90 ST #1008
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Henderson, NV USA
Posts: 1,083
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonoronos View Post
end of story.
For NAS trucks I would say yes.

------ Follow up post added July 27th, 2014 02:59 PM ------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonesy View Post
enough ian.....you are wrong!!!!!!
I just admitted so in the post above and apologized. So why the post?

------ Follow up post added July 27th, 2014 03:02 PM ------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Douglas View Post
The opinion letter and code are pertinent and applicable to vehicles entering the country. Ie the letter and codes are coming from the Import Department @ DOT. These opinions are not meant to be applicable beyond the entry process. Once a vehicle leaves the docks having been granted entry it may as well be a 32 ford roadster.
The code is not just about imports which was why I took the stance I did but I misread it and Ron corrected me. I am happy he did because it gives us more freedom than I thought we had. That's why Ron is a lawyer and I am not (he can read)....
Reply With Quote
  #1448  
Old July 27th, 2014, 05:06 PM
sonoronos's Avatar
sonoronos
Status: Offline
Ed
None
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 5,209
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by ipgregory View Post
I stand corrected on non-imports
Can you help us understand your distinction between an "import" and a "non-import"?

------ Follow up post added July 27th, 2014 06:07 PM ------

Quote:
Originally Posted by ipgregory View Post
For NAS trucks I would say yes.
And for ROW trucks?

Again, it is not clear to us what intermediate steps in reasoning you are applying to create an artificial distinction between "import" and "non-import" trucks. It is difficult to understand if you are asking us to convince you of the law or if you are trying to convince us of something.

The law is clear, there is no distinction between a NAS truck and a ROW truck once it is registered and titled in the United States.

If you are trying to convince us of something - perhaps that you feel ROW trucks are less valuable than NAS trucks, or their import is devaluing NAS trucks - then that is a different issue.
Reply With Quote
  #1449  
Old July 27th, 2014, 05:32 PM
ipgregory's Avatar
ipgregory
Status: Offline
Ian Gregory
'97 D90 ST #1008
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Henderson, NV USA
Posts: 1,083
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonoronos View Post
Can you help us understand your distinction between an "import" and a "non-import"? ------ Follow up post added July 27th, 2014 06:07 PM ------ And for ROW trucks? Again, it is not clear to us what intermediate steps in reasoning you are applying to create an artificial distinction between "import" and "non-import" trucks. It is difficult to understand if you are asking us to convince you of the law or if you are trying to convince us of something. The law is clear, there is no distinction between a NAS truck and a ROW truck once it is registered and titled in the United States. If you are trying to convince us of something - perhaps that you feel ROW trucks are less valuable than NAS trucks, or their import is devaluing NAS trucks - then that is a different issue.
Once trucks are here and have cleared import I have nothing I can show you in writing or a source I can currently quote to say there is any difference in the rules that are not governed by the EPA. I have already given what the EPA have stated about how they interpret their waiver as separating the rules regarding import from NAS trucks. If the way I word it suggested that there is a difference other than in the EPA rules then it's because i still consider that part to be gray and yet to be firmly established.
Reply With Quote
  #1450  
Old July 27th, 2014, 05:35 PM
evilfij's Avatar
evilfij
Status: Offline
evilfij
I have never seen a rover in person
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: on the internet
Posts: 14,684
What the law is and how the .gov is interpreting it seem to be two very different things so I have given up trying to figure anything out.
__________________
*not legal advice*
Reply With Quote
  #1451  
Old July 27th, 2014, 05:35 PM
mgreenspan's Avatar
mgreenspan
Status: Offline
Matthew Greenspan
Land Rovers
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nevada City
Posts: 1,719
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by ipgregory View Post
I just admitted so in the post above and apologized. So why the post?
Because the majority here refuse to believe that there is even a possibility that anybody did anything wrong.

Ron's post about if repairs are required it's cool if it's documented. How many puma bodies on puma galvanized frames(not early 110 frames w/ 2.5 mounts or V8 mounts that were galvanized) that have puma or 300tdi engines were imported? Did every vehicle with anything done to it even have the documentation?
Reply With Quote
  #1452  
Old July 27th, 2014, 05:42 PM
the rover shop
Status: Offline
shayne young
89,93 & 95 camel trophy 110s 06 130
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: ft lauderdale florida
Posts: 5,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugbier View Post
One word

CITROEN


Every bloody 2cv, 3cv, Ami8, Mehari that is in this country have been reconstructed as their frame bend in couple of years, their motor blow faster than a $ 5.00 hooker ( Ask Shane, he used to use them *LOL* )
And the rules do not apply to them

The Greed of few in the name of capitalism has caused this situation, nothing else, the envy on JLRNA seeing people collect $ 150,000 , the pissing between importer/restorers in US soil, and the likes

I couldn't care less of the expert interpretation of the law, and if safety is the concern, well, we should not be able to see Bucket T, A models with mustang rausch engine on them

Now, back to the cheap Whisky and Beagle Porn *LOL*
Mann, I feel sorry for that SHANE guy...thank god my name is shaYne... And what do you mean..used to....lol...
Reply With Quote
  #1453  
Old July 27th, 2014, 05:52 PM
Rugbier's Avatar
Rugbier
Status: Offline
Gustavo
110 Tdi - 110 N/A - D3 HSE - RRS SC
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Peoples Republic of Marylandistan
Posts: 5,884
Registry
Man took me forever to type that long message on the iPhone with fat Italian sausages

Cut me some slack


BTW the USED TO, was out of respect to Mrs Rover Shop, she doesn't need to know what she marry LMAO
__________________
NO SIGNATURE
Reply With Quote
  #1454  
Old July 27th, 2014, 05:53 PM
Uncle Douglas's Avatar
Uncle Douglas
Status: Offline
Doug Crowther
A defender in every driveway-motto
D-90 Source Vendor
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Gods Country- Central Virginia
Posts: 11,541
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgreenspan View Post
Because the majority here refuse to believe that there is even a possibility that anybody did anything wrong.
Not sure where that comment comes from.


The people whom Will is trying to help (what this thread is about)did not do anything wrong.

The person they bought their trucks from, perhaps, that is whom the govt is pursuing and building a case against. We all saw a few of the ebay ad's back then. Unlike some insensitive individuals here, I am not bent on helping them build that case with my posts here.

That said, Will has been quite clear in asking that discussion/posts be limited to angles that will help him in his case to get these trucks returned, and that posters be mindful of and sensitive to, the actual audience. Obviously many don't give a damn about that outcome and selfishly just want to argue for arguments sake. I'm guilty of rising to the bait a few times, this post is a good example, as was my last response to you.

He does not and will not represent the original importer/culpable party. Not one post here, that I have read, says no wrong was committed, but this thread isn't about the importer, or the case or lack thereof against him. It is and continues to be limited to what the posted warrant says and is limited to since it is unsealed, the trucks named on that warrant, and the effected owners.
__________________
Good judgement comes from experience,experience comes from bad judgement.

Dividing Creek Imports
Worldwide Land Rover Shipment and Importation Service
Bespoke Restoration & Modification work


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

410.693.1391


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #1455  
Old July 27th, 2014, 06:25 PM
Jonesy's Avatar
Jonesy
Status: Offline
Craig
87 D110 (Ruby)
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Leesburg, VA
Posts: 4,346
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgreenspan View Post
Because the majority here refuse to believe that there is even a possibility that anybody did anything wrong.
I would expect if you have anything more than a high school diploma you may be able to read....if that is a fact you need to review a few of the other posts. The majority on this board understand completely what happened. Good bad or ugly, most know what went on years ago. It is newby twats that post up on here with theories that ruin really interesting threads.
__________________
"The difference between stupidity and genius, is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
  #1456  
Old July 27th, 2014, 08:09 PM
the rover shop
Status: Offline
shayne young
89,93 & 95 camel trophy 110s 06 130
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: ft lauderdale florida
Posts: 5,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugbier View Post
Man took me forever to type that long message on the iPhone with fat Italian sausages

Cut me some slack


BTW the USED TO, was out of respect to Mrs Rover Shop, she doesn't need to know what she marry LMAO
Next time use your fingers... And stop bragging.. Pedro says your sausage ain't that fat...
Reply With Quote
  #1457  
Old July 27th, 2014, 08:11 PM
Jonesy's Avatar
Jonesy
Status: Offline
Craig
87 D110 (Ruby)
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Leesburg, VA
Posts: 4,346
Registry
^^^brilliant^^^
__________________
"The difference between stupidity and genius, is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
  #1458  
Old July 27th, 2014, 09:30 PM
cgalpin's Avatar
cgalpin
Status: Offline
Charles Galpin
'94 D90 ST, '63 SeriesIIA
Site Team
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: South Riding, VA
Posts: 11,590
Registry
This is why I have been advocating the "single aussie per thread" rule...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by pendy
I'm here for the D's
Reply With Quote
  #1459  
Old July 27th, 2014, 11:50 PM
TeriAnn's Avatar
TeriAnn
Status: Offline
Teriann Wakeman
1960 Dormobile
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Flagstaff, AZ USA
Posts: 244
Registry
Seeing as how we are leagues off the thread subject:


[QUOTE=the rover shop;550353<snip>Your 1971 series wasn't designed for the power of a 3.5, the brakes etc are designed to stop the vehicle purely based on the weight and speeds it could achieve with the engine it was released with..<SNIP> You are still strapping a rocket in Fred flintstones car... His feet can't stop it quick enough..lol..[/QUOTE]

If he is talking about the engine swap in a 109 he is basically building a Stage I Series Land Rover.

The Stage I with the 3.5L engine used the same brakes as was used on the six cylinder 109.

Or perhaps he was reproducing one of the factory prototype 88's in which the LR factory installed a V8 to test out how Series trucks would work with a 3.5 engine.

The LR factory has already been there, done that and introduced a model based upon that conversion (1979 - 1985)
__________________
TeriAnn
1960 Land Rover Dormobile, The go anywhere class B RV
1961 Triumph TR3A. Life is too short not to drive a classic British roadster.


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.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #1460  
Old July 28th, 2014, 05:41 AM
mgreenspan's Avatar
mgreenspan
Status: Offline
Matthew Greenspan
Land Rovers
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nevada City
Posts: 1,719
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Douglas View Post
The people whom Will is trying to help (what this thread is about)did not do anything wrong.
I'm not saying that they did anything wrong knowingly and am happy that Will is helping them and getting vehicles back that he can. I'm sure the owners that have had them returned have had one of the best feelings ever going from thinking your truck has been taken forever to it returning in about a week.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Douglas View Post
Not one post here, that I have read, says no wrong was committed
EDIT(This is not directed to you specifically but as typed it appears that way)END EDIT I must have misunderstood the anti-government sentiments and all the ramblings about rights violations as no wrong was committed in this situation whatsoever. Not that the government is just trying to do its job and conduct this investigation how they see fit. It must be the way that everybody skirts around the issue as its discussed and then comes to the consensus that the government is wrong and they are right regardless of what the laws say.
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 11:45 AM.


Copyright