• 

  Dec. 8, 2009 11:07 a.m. Sownman New Reader

  Events like this one are one of my pet peeves. ICE seized a very rare Italian car because it "doesn't meet American safety and polution standards and is a ""real"" danger to public health and safety"

  It's just one car. It accerates, brakes, handles far better than anything American makers ever produced, and certainly pollutes less than any bus. Another one of many great cars that the FEDS (isn't it supposed to be our government ?) make illegal to own. This particular one is stolen from its legal owner to be sold so Obama can spend the money on some social program.

  http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/0912/091207sanjuan.htm

• 

  Dec. 8, 2009 12:49 p.m. WilD Reader

  Well, the rules are the rules, it is too new to be imported as a motor vehicle if it doesn't meet DOT and EPA standards. On the other hand, it is private property and I think it should remain with it's rightful owner for off-road or display use.

• 

  Dec. 8, 2009 2:59 p.m. Rza HalfDork

  From the article: "According to the affidavit filed in support of the seizure warrant, Zampoli's import agent stated on customs documents submitted when the car entered the country that it was worth $125,000, even though the car originally sold new for approximately $600,000. The import form and related documentation also stated the vehicle was being brought in for temporary use, specifically maintenance and repairs, and had to be exported within one year. In addition to the customs violations, investigators say the car does not comply with U.S. environmental and transportation safety regulations."

  It sounds like theres more going on than just siezing a non-emissions and non-safety compliance vehicle. I think the guy screwed up with the paper work for bringing it into the country. He should have done his homework; its his own fault-or his import agent's.

• 

  Dec. 8, 2009 4:07 p.m. Leo Basile Reader

  When I bought my BDR from a fellow in New Zeland I thought that I would give customs a call, just so I knew how much money I should have and various paperwork that always seems to be forgotten when dealing with "The Man".

  The first thing out of the Customs Agents mouth was to bring the letter from Ford stating that the motor was EPA and DOT compliant.

  BTW, Whats Fords phone number? LOL...After a brief disscusion of the motor...Sorry motor PARTS...and my car, he have me some very sound advice.
  

  I totally feel for the guy...but like anything...A good recon is priceless.

  Leo

• 

  Dec. 9, 2009 8:32 a.m. TJ Dork

  Yep, the public safety was in jeopardy. [/sarcasm]

  Rules are rules and just becuase you are really rich doesn't get you a free pass to violate them. That being said, the rules are stupid and idiotic.

  Maybe he should of listed it as a Diablo and got it through.

• 

  Dec. 9, 2009 10:24 a.m. Sownman New Reader

  Rza wrote: From the article: "According to the affidavit filed in support of the seizure warrant, Zampoli's import agent stated on customs documents submitted when the car entered the country that it was worth $125,000, even though the car originally sold new for approximately $600,000.

  Not a huge stretch in my mind. $600,000 in 1994, a super car that never took off and the company no longer in existance. Could easily be seen as a "great rarity" or a "white elephant" Value in 2001 of a 7 yr old failed supercar with no support after the .com market bust could easily be $125,000.

  The car was sitting in a museum, on display, not driving the freeways putting the public (LOL) in danger. There is no valid reason ANY motor vehicle should not be welcomed to the US on a one off collector basis like this one was.

  Bringing it to the US is not criminal, seizing it is.

• 

  Dec. 9, 2009 2:56 p.m. Series6 New Reader

  In this PC world actually, it would be better for the car to be gone. Think about it.... You go to a museum and see a one off or limited production car in a collection, go home and look at your one somewhat common car and feel bad. Think of all the whining and feelings of being not as okay, destroying the car prevented....

  But then there's that nagging "preserving a part of history".

• 

  Dec. 9, 2009 5:13 p.m. Leo Basile Reader

  Then you run your credit car up trying to buy one...And Obama bin Biden says thats it not your fault...Its those damn Italians!

• 

  Dec. 9, 2009 6:04 p.m. ronbros Reader

  It seems as tho,, WE THE PEOPLE,ARE THE VICTIMS OF THE INSANE.

• 

  Dec. 10, 2009 12:03 a.m. mattmacklind PowerDork

  Zampolli is the co-founder of the company that built the car in question. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets indicted for something totally unrelated here in a bit. There's probably a little more to the story than a misunderstood traveler with a rare, unfederalized car.

• 

  Dec. 10, 2009 5:10 a.m. BoxheadTim Reader

  As some other people suggested, I also think there's a lot more to this.

  There are provisions for importing a car that's not 25 years old yet if it's rare enough and if it's for racing or display purposes. I'd guess that this car would meet those guidelines.

  It's not like the person who imported this car couldn't have known that they were bringing it into the country on a temporary permit.

• 

  Dec. 10, 2009 4:34 p.m. Leo Basile Reader

  Would the real John Delorean stand up.

• 

  Dec. 11, 2009 9:55 a.m. 63Alpine New Reader

  with all these crazy emmision laws and safety laws, im ure the years of being able to modify a car in any way are numbered. its for our own good, im sure someone out there needs to protect us from ourselves. Do you know there are actually people out there that exceed the speed limit sometime???!!!

• 

  Dec. 11, 2009 12:11 p.m. Ian F HalfDork

  Public safety or not, I have little sympathy for the guy... it's not like these are new regulations or anything. Attempting to bring a non-legal car into the US without doing some legal due-diligence before hand is just plain stupid...

• 

  Dec. 11, 2009 6:31 p.m. aeronca65t HalfDork

  Ian F wrote: Public safety or not, I have little sympathy for the guy... it's not like these are new regulations or anything. Attempting to bring a non-legal car into the US without doing some legal due-diligence before hand is just plain stupid...

  +1

  I brought a car in from Canada this year. Not that hard if you make even a modest effort to do the right thing. Just dot all you "I"s and cross all your "T"s.....it's no big deal unless you're lazy or stupid.

• 

  Dec. 14, 2009 11:42 a.m. Sownman New Reader

  I brought a car in from Canada this year. Not that hard if you make even a modest effort to do the right thing. Just dot all you "I"s and cross all your "T"s.....it's no big deal unless you're lazy or stupid.

  Illegal car, or just a Canadian car ?

  If Illegal tell me how you know FOR CERTAIN that the feds won't ever decide to seize it ?

  What exacty contributes to making a car illegal ? Nothing that I can imagine should make a car illegal for offroad and or display purposes.

• 

  Dec. 14, 2009 3:34 p.m. Ian F HalfDork

  Sownman wrote: If Illegal tell me how you know FOR CERTAIN that the feds won't ever decide to seize it ?

  Well, nothing is "certain" in life... but in general, once a car makes it into the country and gets some sort of legitimate title, it's reasonably safe... there are enough gray-market cars already running around as testament to that. Guaranteed? No. But chances are it'll be safe if you don't draw attention to yourself.

  I have enough experience with dealing with the govt and knowledge of my mother beign a retired govt worker to know that if you play nice and be respectful, there are usualyl ways to get around the rules sometimes. Given the connection between the car in question and the guy who was trying to bring it in, I'm sure there are ways... Instead, he apparently pissed off the wrong people and nobody can stone-wall like a p/o'd govt worker...

  What makes a car illegal is when it doesn't have the papers saying the model has been through the battery of US-DOT (safety) and EPA (emissions) tests.

• 

  Dec. 15, 2009 11:09 a.m. Sownman New Reader

  Yes I understand the DOT and EPA but what I asked was....

  What exacty contributes to making a car illegal ? Nothing that I can imagine should make a car illegal for offroad and or display purposes.

  This car I mentioned was as best I know from the story not driving the hiways.

  I no longer carry delusions about inherrant "goodness" of our government. Watching the courts approve use of immenant domain law to seize homes and land so developers can build malls was enough for me. Watching banks that had not declared bankruptcy and could have benefited from TARP get seized and stolen from their stockholders ie Wachovia and Washington Mutual erased the last of my delusions.

• 

  Dec. 15, 2009 4:26 p.m. BoxheadTim Reader

  Sownman wrote: Yes I understand the DOT and EPA but what I asked was.... What exacty contributes to making a car illegal ? Nothing that I can imagine should make a car illegal for offroad and or display purposes.

  ... apart from importing it under the wrong category. The car should've been importable under the above exemptions (display purposes or race car - IIRC you're even allowed to drive it at appropriate events) but of course that might have cost additional money rather than importing it in the "temporary with a foreign plate on" category.

• 

  Dec. 15, 2009 6:47 p.m. aeronca65t HalfDork

  I'm with Ian. I'm not sure anything in life is CERTAIN. I fly a plane that's almost 60 years old and I race a 40 year old sports car.

  Worse yet, I drive on Rt. 80 and the New Jersey Turnpike several times a week. ;)

  There ain't nothing CERTAIN in my life! If I can get up out of bed every day and have a laugh with my friends and family I consider myself on the plus side of the equation.

  If you read the link that you provided, you'll read the following:

  "The import form and related documentation also stated the vehicle was being brought in for temporary use, specifically maintenance and repairs, and had to be exported within one year."

  The guy broke the law and got the book thrown at him. I think that's the way it's supposed to work. You wanna dance.....you gotta pay the band.

  Quoting you: "This particular one is stolen from its legal owner to be sold so Obama can spend the money on some social program."

  I'm not sure where you learned this but the president of the United States really doesn't have the authority to collect money from private citizents and spend it as he likes. It's part of our federalist check and balances system. Neither Obama, GW Bush, Clinton, GH Bush, Reagan, etc could get away with that.
  

  It's always interesting to see a message on a non-political webforum with a political "point" to it. There are so many political places on the web where you can vent about DemocratsRepublicansSocialistsCommunistVegetariansEtc. Sure, I know you "can", but why the bring that stuff here?

  I have a ton of pilot friends and racing friends that have different political opinions than me. Many have strong political opinions.....so do I. But we always put that crap aside and focus on having fun with our toys. You must be fun at a party.

• 

  Dec. 16, 2009 10:23 a.m. Sownman New Reader

  aeronca65t wrote: I'm not sure where you learned this but the president of the United States really doesn't have the authority to collect money from private citizents and spend it as he likes. It's part of our federalist check and balances system. Neither Obama, GW Bush, Clinton, GH Bush, Reagan, etc could get away with that.

  Wanna bet ? But point taken you're correct, I shouldn't bring politics other than those that specifically relate to cars into a discussion. I will never agree with governmental seizure of private property except in felony cases and after guilty verdicts. Failure to fill out form properly or failure to export vehicle on time SHOULD be a misdemeanor and hearing then possible fine.

  In this case there has been a $125,000 or $700,000 dependant on vehicle value fine assesed without benefit of charges or trial or verdict.

  BTW conversation without personal insult or sarcasm no matter what the topic of the website is preferable

  Steve

• 

  Dec. 16, 2009 10:59 a.m. aeronca65t HalfDork

  Sownman wrote: BTW conversation without personal insult or sarcasm no matter what the topic of the website is preferable Steve

  Yes, I agree with you on that. We probably don't share political views but I bet we like the same types of cars. Cars is what I'm here for. :)

You'll need to log in to post.