# Stolen 1998 Tayana 58' Cruiser - S/Y LINDA S - ON. 1074851, HIN TYA58090D899



## jssimms (Mar 27, 2008)

Dear Members,

We are maritime lawyers in Baltimore. We would be grateful for any information that you have that might help us find and recover a stolen 1998 58' Tayana Cruiser, the S/Y LINDA S - U.S. Coast Guard No. 1074851, HIN TYA58090D899, Call Sign WDA2675 - formerly owned by Dale (Bob/Robert) and Linda Kars. There is a reward.

Our client is Lehman Brothers Bank FSB, Capital Crossing Division, Boston. Capital Crossing holds the mortgage on the boat. The boat's former owners, Dale and Linda Kars, lived in Highland, Michigan (near Detroit) and defaulted on the mortgage. Capital Crossing accordingly brought suit in the U.S. District Court, Detroit. The U.S. District Court on March 1, 2007 entered judgment in favor of Capital Crossing (copy below), transferring to Capital Crossing the title to the boat, with a monetary judgment of $607,429.39.

Dale and Linda Kars however, sometime in 2006 disappeared into the Caribbean with the boat - and have been living on it since then. Our information is that they have been sailing in the southern Caribbean; they have been spotted at Grenada, St. Maarten, Chaguaramas (Trinidad) and Margarita Island (Venezuela). They may also have sailed recently up to the Tampa Bay area; Dale Kars has relatives in the Lakeland, Florida area (the Kars list Dale Kars' brother's business in Lakeland, as their address for Coast Guard purposes, but they do not live there).

The Kars refuse to return the boat to Capital Crossing, despite the Court's Order. It is stolen. It is possible that the Kars have repainted the name on the boat, and removed one or more of the Coast
Guard identification numbers. The boat remains U.S. Flag registered, however; current Coast Guard registration information, below.

Unfortunately, the bank does not have a photo of the actual boat, however, 58' Tayanas, particularly, those crewed only by two people, are relatively unusual. The boat color would be either blue, or hite. 

Any and all information, even old information, would be very helpful, and as I mentioned, there is a reward for information leading to the recovery of the boat. Please contact me by return at any of the
numbers below and/or by email.

Best regards, Steve
J. Stephen Simms
Simms Showers LLP
20 S. Charles Street, Suite 703
Baltimore, Maryland US800-537-6930 (toll free, U.S.)
410-783-5795
410-510-1789 (f)
410-365-6131 (m)
_________________________________________
Vessel Documentation Query by Name 

Vessel Name: LINDA S USCG Doc. No.: 1074851
Vessel Service: RECREATIONAL IMO Number: *
Trade Indicator: Recreational Call Sign: *
Hull Material: FRP (FIBERGLASS) Hull Number: TYA58090D899
Ship Builder: TA YANG YACHT BUILD CO Year Built: 1998
Length (ft.): 58
Hailing Port: ANNAPOLIS MD Hull Depth (ft.): 16
Owner: ROBERT D KARS
5333 S FLORIDA AVE
LAKELAND, FL 33813 Hull Breadth (ft.): 16.1
Gross Tonnage: 56
Net Tonnage: 50
Previous Vessel Names: No Vessel Name Changes Previous Vessel
Owners: No Vessel Owner Changes
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Capital Crossing Bank,
Case No. 06-cv-11778
Plaintiff, Hon. John Feikens
v.
Robert D. Kars and Linda S. Kars,
Defendants,
_________________________________________/

JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT

The Clerk's entry of default having been entered against Defendants
Robert D. Kars and Linda S. Kars;

THEREFORE, upon the request of the Plaintiff, and pursuant to Rule 55
(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT is hereby entered in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants Robert D. Kars and Linda S. Kars in the amount of $607,429.39, plus daily interest and costs of this action. Capital Crossing hereby is awarded full ownership, right, title and interest, and immediate right of possession, wherever it may be found, of the sailing vessel LINDA S, U.S. Coast Guard Official Number 1074851 ("Vessel"). The judgment amount shall be reduced by the amount of any proceeds of sale of the Vessel net of Capital Crossing's expenses related to this action, the judgment, or the Vessel.
s/John Feikens
John Feikens
United States District Judge
Dated: March 1, 2007

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of record
by electronic means or U.S. Mail on March 1,
2007.
s/Carol Cohron
Deputy Clerk


----------



## CharlieCobra (May 23, 2006)

Huh, good luck with that.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

It's posted on the Tayana Owners Group(TOG) site also.


----------



## GreenEgg (Mar 23, 2008)

You might want to see if boatsdepot.org has it.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Go Kars !!!


----------



## artbyjody (Jan 4, 2008)

Maybe "Dawg" should go after them! That is if he is out of jail yet... wonder what the reward is finding a 600K boat - a 1979 MacGregor?


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Hey folks, come on. We have helped other owners try to locate stolen vessels. If this information is legitimate (and I have a feeling _someone_ is working to verify it ), then we are talking about a serious case of theft.

If the information has been misrepresented, then the Kars should come ashore, contact an attorney, and clear this up.


----------



## artbyjody (Jan 4, 2008)

Having done repo before - what the poster should do is post links to actual newspaper entries or court system documents....online - these kinda postings can be misleading - and could merely be someone doctoring things up to find a spouse etc... just because it has some clip and paste with a case number - there needs to be a official link to it somewhere...I could not find the actual info from the case number within Michigan, and yet the law firms is in Maryland?

Not exactly right there...


----------



## Freesail99 (Feb 13, 2006)

I agree with Jody on this.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I'd have to agree with bassett boy... links to actual newspaper articles or court documents would make far more sense, and give the original poster far more credibility.


----------



## onremlop (Jan 13, 2007)

Any time someone steals your $600,000 is not noble, but, prove it. Need documentation.


----------



## jimmyb116 (Feb 20, 2007)

I would help an owner find his boat but not the bank find the owner! or a lawyer get rich I'm sure his cut is far more than the reward.


----------



## wchevron (Oct 19, 2007)

isn't camraderie's boat a blue & white tayana?


----------



## artbyjody (Jan 4, 2008)

wchevron said:


> isn't camraderie's boat a blue & white tayana?


 do not want to admit it - but I laughed at that one....


----------



## Stillraining (Jan 11, 2008)

Glad you said it and not me....



sailingdog said:


> I'd have to agree with bassett boy...


OK you all ...you know this is my dream boat ...I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT....HONNEST...

BUT At 600K + I can tell you for sure it will remain little more then a dream...


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

ehehehehehehe

there's allways one every day...$607.000 for a Tayana...eheheheheh from 1998.....what a sucker...


ehehehehehehheehheeheheh

well maybe it was free after all


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

i just checked the docs & file "06-cv-11778" thru "pacer", its legit.


----------



## artbyjody (Jan 4, 2008)

cardiacpaul said:


> i just checked the docs & file "06-cv-11778" thru "pacer", its legit.


 Are there links? there has to be public record to make it a issue...


----------



## denby (Feb 21, 2007)

wchevron said:


> isn't camraderie's boat a blue & white tayana?


Yes it is. OK Cam come clean.


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

they used to have fed. court docs on line for "free", now you have to pony up with a cc in order to view them.

U.S. Party/Case Index - PACER Service Center

Some fed cases are public, I've yet to figure out why, at 8 cents a page I don't look all that often.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Hey Mr. Lawyer...you need a Lawyer to defend you..your Customer is ripping you off... that boats is not worth that much....

I mean...$607 grand??? are you nuts.....you will never get your money back..even if you recover the boat...

Get a Lawyer to sue your customer...he's cheating you

Look one a year less that "yours" for $100.000 less!!! SEE HERE and this one even has an address, ergo easier to find

Lawyer man...I have this friend, his name is Max-On, he can actually sue the guy that said that POS is woth 607 K!!!!


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

> Hey folks, come on. We have helped other owners try to locate stolen vessels.


If this was an individual whose boat had been stolen, I would be able to empathise, would certainly help if I could. But I think there's something karmic at work here...


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Thanks for the verification CP... You're a good man regardless of what CD says behind your back.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

> If this was an individual whose boat had been stolen, I would be able to empathise, would certainly help if I could. But I think there's something karmic at work here...


To each their own, but sorry, I just can't get on board with that. I'd like to own a Tayana 58 and not have to pay for it too, but that's not how it works. And let's remember we're not talking here about a homeless family that is squatting on a derelict...


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

even though the tub might not be worth the full 607k, you have to remember they "pile on" at this point. attorney fees, repo fees, paperwork fees, the sun is shining fees, its going to rain fees, you name it, its in there. 

While I don't know the back story, from what I gather, these people bought the boat, didn't make payments, then took off for parts unknown. not cool. 

Just because you buy a boat doesn't mean you can hike off with it. This is why financeing for these type boats is "harder" to obtain. Even though the bank has "colateral" (sp) is ummm, movable, hideable, and with a little work, and a little cash, it can be a different color in oh, a week or two. Yes, in small marinas a 58 ft tayana is going to raise a few heads. but in the majors, you'd be suprised to see a head turn.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

> we're not talking here about a homeless family that is squatting on a derelict...


...nor is this some cash-strapped, honourable person who has lent judiciously. Bear Sterns packaged this mortgage long ago, with thousands of others and sold it into the capital markets. Thousands are losing their homes right now - the Kars were lucky enough to be able to sail theirs off into the wild blue yonder.

Not something I'd do, or would want my family to do, but the world is a more colourful place with characters like them


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Stealing a boat ain't gonna get anybody into Heaven, but even if I knew for certain where that boat was I wouldn't lift a finger to post its location here or anywhere else. I'm gonna help some lawyer line his pockets? Yeah, right. I don't think so. http://www.fotolode.com/images/fstbttms/Emoticons/****you.gif

You know what they say about 100 lawyers chained to a rock at the bottom of the ocean? It's true!


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Hey..for half that price they can have mine!! 
Hull #'s are legit.

JSSimms...suggest you put your notice out on the Caribbean Safety and security Radio Net which operates daily for cruisers in the Caribe. 
Welcome to the Caribbean Safety and Security Net


----------



## artbyjody (Jan 4, 2008)

Someone call Discovery Channel - "Repo at Sea", i'd watch and volunteer to film it... The actual Repo series died on Discovery... guess it hit at home with the viewers.. but nothing like a low speed at sea chase... its good for a season... everyone wins!!! And we can prevent CAM from being mistaken as the target of interest on the hull #...


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

camaraderie said:


> Hey..for half that price they can have mine!!
> Hull #'s are legit.
> 
> JSSimms...suggest you put your notice out on the Caribbean Safety and security Radio Net which operates daily for cruisers in the Caribe.
> Welcome to the Caribbean Safety and Security Net


Hey...Cam....we understand why you getting rid of that boat...maybe when these people realize what boat they stole (thieves), they will return it and sue the owner for having them sail in that POS....


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Does the owner of that Tayana have a SWAN 601 by any chance???

I am very interested in one this one here will do, thank you...one thing for sure..I would be harder to catch...it actually sails fast, unlike a Tayana, I mean...how slow are this guy's chase boats???? all he has to do is get a boat that does more than 3 knots to catch them


----------



## wfahey (Mar 26, 2008)

Wouldn't it be against some privacy law to post all that personal information on a website? I work for a health care company and we have to be super careful about what we send through secure e-mail to other employees that have a need to know.


----------



## artbyjody (Jan 4, 2008)

wfahey said:


> Wouldn't it be against some privacy law to post all that personal information on a website? I work for a health care company and we have to be super careful about what we send through secure e-mail to other employees that have a need to know.


If it is a matter of PUBLIC RECORD.. then the issues you face professionally do not interfere with the already court mandated public findings... so legally they can do it... sadly...as CardiacPaul pointed out - while not actually public (meaning free)... it is there...

Correlate it as like the most "10 most wanted".... but leave the sheep out of the equation....


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

wfahey said:


> Wouldn't it be against some privacy law to post all that personal information on a website? I work for a health care company and we have to be super careful about what we send through secure e-mail to other employees that have a need to know.


In a way I don't see why he can't...he is not saying the KArs have AIDS, and she has Gonorrea, he is packed with Sifilis, and she had a runny nose last week is he??

The ran away without paying..so he is pissed off...in a way I understand the guy...


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

wfahey,
There is a judgement against them, well technically probably against the hull, in a Federal court. If the Fed's want to, they can post their photos and the boat's photos in every post office from Marathon Key to Adak.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Regardless what you think about banks and lawyers and 'helping the man', there is a selfish reason that everyone here should be pissed about...

People like this are defaulting on their credit (hard to get boat loan credit to boot), and hopefully they will be held accountable, because if not, who's paying for it? The rest of us...perhaps not 'directly', but think about it a tiny bit and I'm sure you'll get the idea.

I'm guessing that based on their scenario they likely aren't insured either...so, if you're out sailing and you don't want to watch out for them for the sake of doing the right thing for the law/bank, then at least note the description so that you can give them a wide berth when you see a boat that matches the description. If you encountered a collision with people like this I can pretty much guarantee that you wouldn't see a shiny dime from them regardless to 'at fault'.

Personally I hope they're found, prosecuted and the bank is able to recoup some cash.

...And just as a footnote...I'm a guy who is very cynical towards big banks in general, but theft is theft and it's wrong...period. My two pennies.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

> Not something I'd do, or would want my family to do, but the world is a more colourful place with characters like them


Well, there's a point we can agree on!!


----------



## SailorMitch (Nov 18, 2005)

*It's American Dollars!*



Giulietta said:


> Hey Mr. Lawyer...you need a Lawyer to defend you..your Customer is ripping you off... that boats is not worth that much....
> 
> I mean...$607 grand??? are you nuts.....you will never get your money back..even if you recover the boat...
> 
> ...


Alex -- given the massive drop in the value of the greenback, the boat is only worth about 150 euros, so don't sweat it.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Newfdogs..I agree with you....


But please admit..they are pretty stupid too....

Thay could have taken a SWAN...and took a TAYANA !!! 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*My view*

I'm Irish, and a bit of a rebel to authority sometimes. I'm rooting for the Kar's to win this one and keep the boat and live a live of adventure on the "lam".


----------



## mtboat (Oct 14, 2007)

I think it would be interesting to hear their story. I don't agree with stealing, but I would like to know why. Obviously it is a big theft, not clepto or spur of the moment, almost impossible to get away with for long. What drove them to such extreme action? Were they getting hosed? If they are outside the U.S. are they breaking any laws? I meant Who's jurisdiction and law enforcement does this fall under? Is it possible they could get away with it?


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Gui...if they hadn't bought above their financial means to begin with this whole scenario could have been avoided.

Having said that...better a Tayana than the MacGregor that they probably should have bought...from what I hear with the proper fitting out a MacGregor could make a perfect liveaboard and probably circumnavigate with moderate comfort...hehehe.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

maolan...I have no issue with 'sticking it to the man' if he's in the wrong. However, when *you* go to the man and ask *him* for money so *you* can do what *you* want, and *you* agree to his terms, and *he* does *you* the favor of granting you what *you* want...the man is in the right and *you* deserve to have the man stick it back to you...just make sure you're not bent over when he finds you!!


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Newf...actually it's GIU, but never mind now....

These idiots remind me of Bill Clinton...what a joke he was....the man was the most Powerfull man in the world...leader of the free world...he could have had any woman he wanted...he would just have to bang his hand on the desk and say:

Get me Cindy Crawford, or Michelle Pfeiffer, or even Monica Belluci (ahhh Monica)...but no...he had to go and screw the fatest ugliest BEATCH he could find around....


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

mtboat said:


> I think it would be interesting to hear their story. I don't agree with stealing, but I would like to know why. Obviously it is a big theft, not clepto or spur of the moment, almost impossible to get away with for long. What drove them to such extreme action? Were they getting hosed? If they are outside the U.S. are they breaking any laws? I meant Who's jurisdiction and law enforcement does this fall under? Is it possible they could get away with it?


The boat may be seized and held by US Marshals in any US port or US territory or protectorate. The process to seize it in a foreign port is lengthy but can be accomplished.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

sailaway21 said:


> The boat may be seized and held by US Marshals in any US port or US territory or protectorate. The process to seize it in a foreign port is lengthy but can be accomplished.


Actually, at least in Portugal I know of, if a boat is wanted in the US, the Portuguese authorities will hold it for them until a delegate arrives to decide the destination...we have a sort of agreement with reagrds to that..I don't know about the rest of Europe...

I know because I asked about having a US boat visit us, and one thing they said was that the boat would have to have all papers legalized, insurance, taxes paid and all that..they will ask for a proof of purchase by owner, not by holder...something to do with Portugal being an easy arrival point for atlantic crossers..criminals get shipped back too...(altogh I think that criminals after seeing our prisions prefer to get jail in the US)


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

giu,
Usually in those cases the country seeking to seize the boat or ship, in this case the US, must have all the required paperwork done within the specific country in question (Portugal) before the boat calls there. It makes it very difficult because there is no telling which country the boat may call upon and it's unlikely she will stay long enough for the proper papers to be filed and acted upon. This happens all the time with merchant ships with liens against them. The lein is against the ship itself.


----------



## sidney777 (Jul 14, 2001)

Is a boat "Stolen" if it is not paid for ?
A car that is not paid for can be repossesed, but, I have never heard that it was "Stolen".
Are boats different in eyes of the law ?

I have never heard of something being considered " Stolen" that was on a Loan. There are no Debtors Prisons in the USA.


----------



## Harvester (Mar 1, 2008)

jssimms said:


> Dear Members,
> 
> We are maritime lawyers in Baltimore. We would be grateful for any information that you have that might help us find and recover a stolen
> 1998 58' Tayana Cruiser, the S/Y LINDA S - U.S. Coast Guard No.
> ...


This post is intentionally missleading:

Somebody owns a boat and enjoys sailing with it. then someone else takes it from him and sails it away: THIS IS STEALING A BOAT!!! And I'll feel sympatethic with the poor victim and help him/her if I can.

But a couple, Dale and Kinda, own a boat called Kinda and enjoy sailing with it. And due to financial problems they fly away to be caribian on their boat (in 2006) and leave everything behind. The morgage is unpaid and the house goes to forclousure. After the forclousure, there is an outstanding debt of 600K, so the bank sues them to take over other assets, including the boat they had left with. But once they get the court decission, the bank can not get its hands on the boat because Dale and Kinda are not showing up again with it. THIS IS NOT STEALING, and a lawyer damns know very well. I don't know the US criminal laws but I'm sure they don't call it "Stealing" but something else (in my country it is something like "unrightfull keeping of goods").

Why are these lawyers intentionally missleading us? Obviously, it is much more dramatic to say "Stolen boat" than "Bank and its lawyers seek help to get over some poor devils that failed financially and saile away on their boat" (yes, it was THEIR boat when they sailed away). And by the way, the reward will be a percentaje of the money the bank gets by selling the boat. So, not much. But, "hey, those stupid sailing bozzos on sailnet don't know any better so let's say 'Stolen boat, mention the 600K and a reward' and they will run to help us get our money".

So, the very first word this lawyer posted in his history in Sailnet ("Stolen ..." on the title of the thread) was a LIE! And an insult to sailneters intelligence.

Did Dale and Kinda do the right thing? Sure not. But if I knew where they were I would be more inclined to help them than to help a Bank and a liar that is treating me like an idiot.

So, as far as I am concerned, Good luck to Dale and Kinda on this one! And you, liar, J. Stephen Simms
from Simms Showers LLP, get out of here!

(BTW, and I am a lawyer myself)


----------



## bobwebster (Jan 25, 2005)

This is not a stolen vessel. It's an unpaid loan, with the boat as collateral. The boat can be reposessed, according to the court order, but it has not been stolen.


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

Uhhh, actually, it is Grand Larceny.

"The U.S. District Court on March 1, 2007 *entered judgment in favor of Capital Crossing (copy below), transferring to Capital Crossing the title to the boat*, with a monetary judgment of $607,429.39."

When the judge signed his name to the papers, it was no longer the Kors property, it became Capital Crossings.

The Kors can do one of two things, 
pony up 607k to satisfy the judgement, or hand over a boat that no longer belongs to them.


----------



## kbyte (Jun 6, 2007)

Maybe they got a "sub-prime" loan.

If they can hold out just a little bit longer Hillary will pay it off for them.


----------



## kwaltersmi (Aug 14, 2006)

Very interesting thread.

Before we pass Sailnet judgement on either the bank/lawyer or the Kors, I'd like to know the Kors intentions. Did they hatch a plan to make off with the boat without making payments? Or did they run into hard financial times after initially intending to make good on their loans?

If they planned from the beginning to not pay for it and hightail it to St. Somewhere, then that's morally and ethically wrong, not to mention the legalities. 

If they're in a financial bind and intended to pay but simply can't, then I feel bad for them but still think the moral/ethical thing to do is give up the "ship", so to speak. Regardless of the corruption within banks and rampant mortgage fraud in the U.S., the Kors still likely signed on the dotted line and had a right to read what they were signing.

I'm not sure what I'd do if I had information about their whereabouts. Even though many on this thread are siding with the Kors are at the very least have stated that they won't help the lawyer, I'm willing to bet there's plenty of us here who will pass along information for the reward.


----------



## kwaltersmi (Aug 14, 2006)

By the way, it looks like the reward for helping out may only be $2,500 if the boat in the following link is the same as in this thread: International Maritime Accident Investigations - Alerts

edit - If you follow the link, there's another spot that lists $15k as the reward.

Apparently there's a "stolen Tayana" epidemic, as this one http://boatman.netsourcecomputing.com/images/isabella_stolen.pdf is also missing.


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

jimmyb116 said:


> I would help an owner find his boat but not the bank find the owner! or a lawyer get rich I'm sure his cut is far more than the reward.


If what he is saying is true, the bank is the owner. I pay my mortgage. They don't have to?


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

Giulietta said:


> Hey Mr. Lawyer...you need a Lawyer to defend you..your Customer is ripping you off... that boats is not worth that much....
> 
> I mean...$607 grand??? are you nuts.....you will never get your money back..even if you recover the boat...
> 
> ...


It is not the value of the boat. It is the amount remaining on the loan (including interest) which was probably accellerated due to their default.


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

Fstbttms said:


> Stealing a boat ain't gonna get anybody into Heaven, but even if I knew for certain where that boat was I wouldn't lift a finger to post its location here or anywhere else. I'm gonna help some lawyer line his pockets? Yeah, right. I don't think so. http://www.fotolode.com/images/fstbttms/Emoticons/****you.gif
> 
> You know what they say about 100 lawyers chained to a rock at the bottom of the ocean? It's true!


Not to start/continue a needless debate, but the theft of secured property affects all of us in such ways as higher insurance rates, higher interest rates on mortgages, more hoops to jump through in the loan application process, etc. I'm not sure I understand all the sympathy for the thieves. If someone stole your neighbor's car out of their driveway, would you look the other way? I'm not sure how this is different except that they stole a whole lot more.

And the lawyer ain't gonna get rich off this case. He is likely being paid by the hour and is just doing his job like the rest of us.


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

newfdogs said:


> Regardless what you think about banks and lawyers and 'helping the man', there is a selfish reason that everyone here should be pissed about...
> 
> People like this are defaulting on their credit (hard to get boat loan credit to boot), and hopefully they will be held accountable, because if not, who's paying for it? The rest of us...perhaps not 'directly', but think about it a tiny bit and I'm sure you'll get the idea.
> 
> ...


I'm with you.


----------



## ehmanta (Sep 12, 2006)

I'm not real familiar with bankruptcy laws, but if someone legally declares bankruptcy, can they be evicted from their primary dwelling? How about if their primary "dwelling" is a boat? 
If these people were to have declared bankruptcy, I wonder what kind of obligations they would be under instead of the jam they're in now???


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

Harvester said:


> This post is intentionally missleading:
> 
> Somebody owns a boat and enjoys sailing with it. then someone else takes it from him and sails it away: THIS IS STEALING A BOAT!!! And I'll feel sympatethic with the poor victim and help him/her if I can.
> 
> ...


This is simply off the wall. So you have personal knowledge that the loan wasn't on the boat? Or that the bank has not obtained legal and equitable title to it by proper legal process? It seems like you are taking a huge leap of logic based on sympathy for bandits.


----------



## T34C (Sep 14, 2006)

I think Cam- is actually running a Tayana theft ring. He is going out stealing these slow, RV style boats, changing the name on the stern so all read "Camraderie", then selling them as his own. He continues to use his position here on sailnet, where we all know he has a boat for sale, as part of his cover.


----------



## Freesail99 (Feb 13, 2006)

> I think Cam- is actually running a Tayana theft ring


I swear he changed his signature from Tayana 58 Ketch to Tayana 52 Ketch


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

T34C said:


> I think Cam- is actually running a Tayana theft ring. He is going out stealing these slow, RV style boats, changing the name on the stern so all read "Camraderie", then selling them as his own. He continues to use his position here on sailnet, where we all know he has a boat for sale, as part of his cover.


Interesting theory. It would certainly seem to explain why his Tayana despite years on the market "hasn't sold yet". It just never seems to move, does it? Always on the market. And yet, his "broker" seems to be doing rather well. Hmmmmm. And he has been keeping an unusually low profile on this one....

   

More likley he's on the road to Annapolis to make sure HIS boat is still there!!


----------



## Brezzin (Dec 4, 2006)

The one thing that that's missing is the Kars had to have qualified for that loan when the loan was made. This means that they had a substantial net worth at that time. Were not talking about some down on their luck drifters here, we are definatly talking about people that knew better. Regardless, All of our insurance premiums go up.


----------



## AjariBonten (Sep 7, 2007)

I guess I'll kick in on this one with a few comments.......

1) Based on what I have read here, I do sympathize with the Kars. Having been in some real financial trouble in the past I understand the temptation, if that is what happened. If it was their plan from the beginning, that's another story altogether; but we really don;t know about that, do we?

2) The actions of these people, and others like them, cost us in myriad ways. Much like the fact that we pay for shoplifted merchandise and insurance fraud through higher prices and premiums.

It costs us in other less direct ways as well.

>> When you go to finance your next boat; and the bank asks for 10% more of a down-payment than they did last year, who you gonna thank?

>>>When your mortgage insurance costs more on your next loan, who you gonna thank?

>>>> When it starts to take longer and longer to check in and out of other countries as you cruise because they start checking papers more and more closely; who you gonna thank? (esp those unfortunate enough to be sailing in similar vessels at the time)

I'm not suggesting that this event and others like it are solely responsible for these problems; but they contribute in a clear and predictable way.

3) In response to those who are asking why so many on this forum are in support of the Kars, I think it should be obvious.

>> Americans have a long history or romanticizing the "bad guy". Who are some of our popular figures? Jesse James, Butch & Sundance, Bonnie & Clyde, Al Capone, 

>>> Americans are rebels. We were born as a nation of rebels. What country do most Americans have an affinity for? Australia, born of convicts. We respect those who stick their finger out at "the man", even if we (Like my post above) disagree with them. I think even while we revile them we secretly envy them.

The bottom line it that it is a sad situation, no matter who is in the right or wrong. Either way, their dream is coming to an end at some point, more likely sooner rather than later. They're not likely to become pirates now, are they?


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Hey...I'm keeping a low profile cause I cannot believe this is even being debated. This is grand theft...they may have excuses...seems like everyone can justify their actions these days...but the bank owns the boat and these two stole it. I just don't get the morals or ethics that root for thieves. 
Is that plain enough!? At some point they are gonna be trading in their foul weather gear for orange jump suits.


----------



## PorFin (Sep 10, 2007)

Cam -- I couldn't agree more. When you boil it down to bascis, they are cruising around on someone else's boat, without the owner's permission, and the owner is pissed and wants their boat back.



camaraderie said:


> At some point they are gonna be trading in their foul weather gear for orange jump suits.


As much as I'd like to see this happen, I ain't betting on it. My money is on a really, really expensive lawyer negotiating a surrender of the vessel in return for a symbolic (but probably expensive) slap on the wrists with no jail time. I gotta think that if these folks could qualify for the loan in the first place they've probably got a whole lot of loot stashed in offshore banks.

PF


----------



## Brezzin (Dec 4, 2006)

PorFin said:


> they've probably got a whole lot of loot stashed in offshore banks.
> 
> PF


At first I was going to disagree with this but then I got to thinking that the care and feeding of a 10 yr old 58 foot boat would indicate that the kars must have an income source be it jobs or bank accounts. either way that boat will end up on the bottom or abandoned and the Kars will be in the wind long before they busted.


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

> 3) In response to those who are asking why so many on this forum are in support of the Kars, I think it should be obvious.
> 
> >> Americans have a long history or romanticizing the "bad guy". Who are some of our popular figures? Jesse James, Butch & Sundance, Bonnie & Clyde, Al Capone,
> 
> >>> Americans are rebels. We were born as a nation of rebels. What country do most Americans have an affinity for? Australia, born of convicts. We respect those who stick their finger out at "the man", even if we (Like my post above) disagree with them. I think even while we revile them we secretly envy them.


I think you are dead on. But I have never understood this. Maybe I am hopelessly naive but I have neverly felt overly-sympathetic to outlaws. I have a vivid memory of standing in a room filled with people when the O.J. verdict came down and the cheering that ensued, even from those who must have known that knew he did it. I bet that the same people who are cheering for the modern day Jesse Jameses and B&Cs would be clamoring for the death penalty for them if one of their victims was in their family.

Just recently, I was drawn into a debate when a coworker expressed outrage that a person had been sentenced to 10 years for insurance fraud, which she described as a "victimless crime." Am I alone in thinking that these grey shades of morality/legality are costing our society dearly?


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I am not saying I agree with any of this, etc... but the only thing that bothers me about this (somewhat dissagreeing with Cam) is how he postured the original thread. It seems to me a little deceptive. Is it theft? I guess, but instead of saying:

*Stolen 1998 Tayana 58' Cruiser... (blah, blah, blah)*

I would have prefered:

*Previous owners take boat out sailing and will not return after not making payments and WE WANT IT BACK!*

Though both are correct, the second better portrays the reality. I guess it just would not jhave the preferred impact of the first, huh? I especially like the part about the reward though (grin): Turn in these thieves and we give you a reward. Whatever.

I also urge everyone not to make snap judgements without knowing BOTH sides of the story. I have learned that lesson the hard way many times. I am just making this up, but what if the Kars sent in their check to the bank to pay it off and the funds were missplaced and applied to something else and they refused to give the money back? What if they both have cancer and will be dying shortly and wanted a chance to see a few more sunsets before returning? What if the Kars do not know and have been making placements and they are not being applied correctly?

I am just making all that stuff up, but the point is: we only know one side of the story.

I also agree that thes types of things, assuming that they just bought it and sailed off into the sunset, do make our premiums higher and more difficult to qualify for loans. It does affect us, indirectly. On the other side, I do not like turning in my neighbors. This is between the bank and them and the bank has some risk in these loans. This is one of the risks.

Instead of coming to a sailing forum asking us to turn in a fellow sailor, go out and hire some repo guys to track down and get the boat for you. I wont stop you. I wont help you. That is between you and the owners. If it is not worth you hiring the guys to do that, then why in the world is it worth my time to keep a look out for it???

Just my contrary opinions - from someone that pays his bills and would never do 'steal', though.

- CD


----------



## Stillraining (Jan 11, 2008)

Alex...My last Hospital room had more appeal then this thing....Looks great from the outside though and no doubt it sails well...Will you buy it please I would like a ride...2.7 mil????...Ill take the Tayana..Besides I didnt have that may kids to crew it as hangin on that rail..



Giulietta said:


> Does the owner of that Tayana have a SWAN 601 by any chance???
> 
> I am very interested in one this one here will do, thank you...one thing for sure..I would be harder to catch...it actually sails fast, unlike a Tayana, I mean...how slow are this guy's chase boats???? all he has to do is get a boat that does more than 3 knots to catch them


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I think if we are going to romanticize or however you spell such a big word PLEASE not Al Capone etc How about Anne Bonnie and Mary Read or Calico Jack the snitch Rackam.......etc etc lol


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

> I also urge everyone not to make snap judgements without knowing BOTH sides of the story. I have learned that lesson the hard way many times. I am just making this up, but what if the Kars sent in their check to the bank to pay it off and the funds were missplaced and applied to something else and they refused to give the money back? What if they both have cancer and will be dying shortly and wanted a chance to see a few more sunsets before returning? What if the Kars do not know and have been making placements and they are not being applied correctly?


CD, I commend your instincts in wanting to get both sides of the story but this kind of thing (mistakes of that nature at the bank) happens much more often in movies of the week than it does in real life. If there were mistakes by the bank (which certainly can happen) maybe they only owe 528k instead of the 600. Would their actions then be justified?

The legal system requires due process of law. You normally can only get a default judment if you serve the Complaint on the defendants. Accordingly, these folks have likely had every opportunity to present their side of the story but opted to run instead. And recall that these appear to be two relatively sophisticated people, who at least at one time had money and who likely would have more understanding of the import of receiving a summons and complaint than many of us would.

There very well may be a compelling tale of woe that caused them to flee with the boat, such as failed business, debilitating expenses, but I would guess that it has nothing to do with fraud by the bank. And even if they have suffered personal financial tragedies, wouldn't turning over the boat be the right thing to do?


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

> I just don't get the morals or ethics that root for thieves.
> Is that plain enough!?


I think it's the "stickin it to the man" attitude showing itself, and one also has to be willing to ignore principles.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I understand that this has turned into a "Repo"..........
but having said that, are these owners now charged with FELONY THEFT?
I would assume they would need to be "served" (notified) of the Court's Proceeding......what if they avoided being served????

I'm not knowledgeable about "Marine Law"......
but I know (when I was in the auto business) that when we sent out "repo" guys to pick up a vehicle that was being driven/hidden by the owner, he was NEVER charged with anything...... of course, a big difference between a corvair and a BIG TAYANA!


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

CBinRI said:


> CD, I commend your instincts in wanting to get both sides of the story but this kind of thing (mistakes of that nature at the bank) happens much more often in movies of the week than it does in real life. If there were mistakes by the bank (which certainly can happen) maybe they only owe 528k instead of the 600. Would their actions then be justified?
> 
> The legal system requires due process of law. You normally can only get a default judment if you serve the Complaint on the defendants. Accordingly, these folks have likely had every opportunity to present their side of the story but opted to run instead. And recall that these appear to be two relatively sophisticated people, who at least at one time had money and who likely would have more understanding of the import of receiving a summons and complaint than many of us would.
> 
> There very well may be a compelling tale of woe that caused them to flee with the boat, such as failed business, debilitating expenses, but I would guess that it has nothing to do with fraud by the bank. And even if they have suffered personal financial tragedies, wouldn't turning over the boat be the right thing to do?


Not to me. My inaction does not condone it. But I do not, and realize I never could, fully understand their reasons for taking off. If someone was driving around a car that they could not make payments for, I would not turn them in either. You could make the statement: Yeah, but everybody has to have a car to survive. Well, everyone has to have a home too (and this is their home). As I recall, Texas has enacted legislation that boats do not count as homes and can be repo'd like cars... with the owners to live under a bridge. You think for one second this bank that you are about to help would give a rats butt what happens to these owners (bridge or not)?? There is no compassion or thought, only the letter of the law.

I would not take off for the sunset in my boat without paying for it. Neither would 99% of the other people on this forum. But I sure as H*** would not turn in my neighbors either.

It also really rubs me wrong how he posted this "stolen tayana" thread.

CBinRI, I agree that the odds (probably over 99%) are that they ran into hard times and decided they would sail off with their boat versus paying for it. Still... do you really know? And turning in my neighbor to help out a bank (especially for some reward... that is absurd) just sounds communistic USSR to me:

_Watch your neighbors, help the state, turn them in if they break the law...._

- CD


----------



## sailhog (Dec 11, 2006)

I know it's just romantic stupidity to root for the Kars, but I'd like to point out how the banks I've dealt with have stolen from me. We have a home equity loan which we receive every month. The post date is almost always the 19th. The due date for the loan is the 24th. We usually get the statement on the 23rd. We've never "paid on time" and therefore get a $15 late fee each month. Of course it's impossible to pay on time, which I pointed out to the bank by sending the payment in via certified mail. Still got the late fee.

In another instance, my wife and I took out a $10,000 loan because I couldn't get her pregnant, and we were going to adopt from another country. There was penalty of $600 if we paid the loan off early, and pointed out that I wanted the clause removed. New documents were drawn up, signed, and then my wife found out she was pregnant one month later. When I went to pay off the loan, I was told that I was going to have to pay a $600 early payment fee. I told them I'd had it removed, but alas it was still in there. I had neglected to double-check the second document to see that the clause had been removed. 

Obviously, you can't have people stealing money from citizens and institutions in a civil society, or else the financial system will break down. The Kars will eventually learn this. However, I think it would be nice if someone pointed out the same thing to the banking community. 

Let's face it: bankers are vile people. Who else in our society goes to so much trouble to dress as though they're respectable? They go to church, they wear suits, their hair is well groomed, and they steal from people every day of their working lives.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

I guess we can't be too harsh on these theives...I understand that we must call them *undocumented emigrants* now!!


----------



## sailhog (Dec 11, 2006)

It's going to be hard for authorities to find a 58-inch Tayana. If I were them, I'd hide under a dock and wait for things to cool down.


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

Cruisingdad said:


> Not to me. My inaction does not condone it. But I do not, and realize I never could, fully understand their reasons for taking off. If someone was driving around a car that they could not make payments for, I would not turn them in either. You could make the statement: Yeah, but everybody has to have a car to survive. Well, everyone has to have a home too (and this is their home). As I recall, Texas has enacted legislation that boats do not count as homes and can be repo'd like cars... with the owners to live under a bridge. *You think for one second this bank that you are about to help would give a rats butt what happens to these owners (bridge or not)?? There is no compassion or thought, only the letter of the law.*
> 
> I would not take off for the sunset in my boat without paying for it. Neither would 99% of the other people on this forum. But I sure as H*** would not turn in my neighbors either.
> 
> ...


And why the hell should they? They have an obligation to their shareholders and employees. Let the deadbeats go to work and live in a lesser boat (a Catalina perhaps?). Where is it written that you have an inalienable right to live in an extravagant luxury yacht, rent free? This is theft, plain and simple.

I've heard others compare this to a landlord/tenant situation and I think that is not far off. I've sat in housing court and heard people murmer about the "greedy" or "rich" landlord who is evicting them, when very often that landlord can't make their mortgage payment because they are not getting the rent income the tenant agreed to pay.

Yes, banks are different because they are larger but they, too, have obligations. When people default and then steal the collateral for the loans, bank employees are fired, shareholders suffer (many of them mom and pop) and the economy suffers as a whole.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Wrong or right..I would turn them in...

We still have to deposit faith and hope for the moral functioning of our institutions, as those institutions are what was created to protect us from abuse...bad or good their principle is to be obeyed..they are there for the comon rightousness of all citizens

I would tell where they are, simple and trully.


----------



## kwaltersmi (Aug 14, 2006)

sailhog said:


> I know it's just romantic stupidity to root for the Kars, but I'd like to point out how the banks I've dealt with have stolen from me. We have a home equity loan which we receive every month. The post date is almost always the 19th. The due date for the loan is the 24th. We usually get the statement on the 23rd. We've never "paid on time" and therefore get a $15 late fee each month. Of course it's impossible to pay on time, which I pointed out to the bank by sending the payment in via certified mail. Still got the late fee.
> 
> In another instance, my wife and I took out a $10,000 loan because I couldn't get her pregnant, and we were going to adopt from another country. There was penalty of $600 if we paid the loan off early, and pointed out that I wanted the clause removed. New documents were drawn up, signed, and then my wife found out she was pregnant one month later. When I went to pay off the loan, I was told that I was going to have to pay a $600 early payment fee. I told them I'd had it removed, but alas it was still in there. I had neglected to double-check the second document to see that the clause had been removed.


Sorry to wander from the topic, but...

Sailhog - I can understand your frustration with both situtations, but I'm willing to bet both could have been avoided if you read the papers you signed. There's not a mortgage/equity loan around that I'm aware of that doesn't state in the contract that the borrower owes the money (ie must make timely payments) regardless of whether or not the lender sends out monthly billing statements. Harsh as it may sound, the billing statements are a "courtesy". The second situation also could have been avoided by reading the 2nd re-worked contract. Sorry to say, but blaming the bank in these situations is the easy way out. My point is...read before you sign!!! I learned this the hard way too.

CD - I agree with CBinRI. Taking both sides into account and not jumping to conclusions is the prudent course of action. However, I think it's a bit far fetched to ask us to liken folks cruising the Caribbean on a T58 to a homeless person under a bridge. Everyone does indeed have to have a home, but I doubt a "stolen" T58 is the only option for the Kars. If they had the means to get approved for a huge boat loan, they can certainly get back to work and earn enough to rent an apartment somewhere in the States.

And to ask "What if they both have cancer and will be dying shortly and wanted a chance to see a few more sunsets before returning?" is a bit far fetched as well. As awful as cancer is, it shouldn't be an excuse from moral/legal/ethical standards.

Carrry on!


----------



## Aasem (Sep 3, 2006)

*Sheesh!*

Those of you who deny this is "stealing," or who claim the original post is "misleading," are very wrong. The post was straight forward, and this is stealing in every respect. The person who held an opposite view and claimed to be a lawyer needs to either go back to law school, or admit that he/she is not a lawyer.

The only imaginable argument in favor of the mortgagors (the thieving would-be owners) is that they were not served and had no actual notice of the lawsuit. That does not absolve them of guilt for failing to pay, but it could explain why they did not contest the lawsuit.

They could very well have been crossing oceans when service was attempted. When service is not possible, there are a variety of methods for substitute service, and the last resort is service by publication of a notice in major newspapers in their area. They might not know they've been sued and have a judgment against them.

On the other hand, it's difficult to imagine they could have successfully contested the lawsuit even with actual service. Mortgagees don't repossess after one late payment. I would imagine they would be very forgiving if some attempt were made to bring the debt current. After all, boats are not selling like hot cakes now, and the economy and dollar are in the dumps. The last place they want to be is is at a foreclosure auction, and I suspect the mortgagors left them very little choice.

I hope they are caught. They're idiots for not contacting the lender when they became unable to pay so something could be worked out. They stole the boat, and they know it -- regardless of whether they know about the judgment.

When they're caught, I'll be at the auction with my checkbook.


----------



## Harvester (Mar 1, 2008)

CBinRI said:


> This is simply off the wall. So you have personal knowledge that the loan wasn't on the boat? Or that the bank has not obtained legal and equitable title to it by proper legal process? It seems like you are taking a huge leap of logic based on sympathy for bandits.


Well. I don't have other knowledge than the original post. And I just made a supposition of what might have happened. So, I admitt I should had added some "maybe's" when talking about Dale-and-Linda-Kars' story.

So, MAYBE Dale and Linda Kars were two lovely romantic persons who failed financially or MAYBE they are a couple of crooks. We don't know anything about that. But we do know for certain that:
- this lawyer lied intentionally in order to trick our sympathy and our collaboration twards his business interest. 
- He thought that we all are stupid enough to fall in his lie.
- He played with something very sensitive for boat owners, which is the mere idea of going to our port one day and finding out that the boat is gone (at least this is what I think about when I read "Stolen boat").

I do believe that the system is there, and if you want to change it, fight for it, but not the Jesse James way. And professionally I have been sometimes in a similar position as that law firm, so they are doing the right thing by pursuing all legal action and doing his best for the interest of their client. This is rightful and this is not what I critizice.

But, obviously, you can not expect the same level of collaboration from sailors in the two different situations: if it is only about a financial dispute I may make a phone call or send an email if I come accross incidentally with Dale and King on "their" boat. But if I heard that any of you guys got his boat stolen this is a different story. And if by any chances there is suspicion that the boat may be in the Barcelna area, you guys can count on me for going marina by marina having a look with a few printed photos.

And this is why that lawyer lied to us, insulted our intelligence and tried to use us. And this is the only reason why I feel more sympathy towards Dale and Linda than towards this lawyer. And because of that, if I ever come accross them in their boat, I don't think I will bother to collaborate with justice in this particular case. I will, though, in any other, and as I said my level of cooperation will depend on how sorry I feel for the victim.

Sorry about my ranting posts but, Hey, I'm a hot blooded iberian that lives by a hot sea and can't help letting myself go when I am off-duty.


----------



## Stillraining (Jan 11, 2008)

Well there is one thing for sure...They ain't having a grand oll care free time looking over their shoulder all the time...

I have had my back against the wall a couple times with banks over the years with heavy equipment loans...I haven't lost a piece of equipment yet but I did have to part with a Piece of real estate to show good faith enough for the banks to be willing to work with me...

And they will if they can...They dont want the boat...or my equipment just whats due them...

We complain that banks only loan money to thoes that dont need it...if they always got there money that would not be the case...

I sympathize with their predicament...but I would hate their life right now worse then loosing that boat even if it was my home...

I would have given it back and lived in a 20 footer if it meant a clear conscious...

Just my opinion and what I would do...

Banks have helped us all at one point or another in our lives...I appreciate the relationship I have with mine..and do every thing I can to protect it and work things out with them...Sometimes I have gone backwards as far as how much they can extend credit to me...that isn't their fault...One thing to remember to a large degree that boat represents some one else's wealth lent out to the Kars...not just the banks money...they have a responsibility to get it back or eat it...


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

kwaltersmi said:


> Sorry to wander from the topic, but...
> 
> Sailhog - I can understand your frustration with both situtations, but I'm willing to bet both could have been avoided if you read the papers you signed. There's not a mortgage/equity loan around that I'm aware of that doesn't state in the contract that the borrower owes the money (ie must make timely payments) regardless of whether or not the lender sends out monthly billing statements. Harsh as it may sound, the billing statements are a "courtesy". The second situation also could have been avoided by reading the 2nd re-worked contract. Sorry to say, but blaming the bank in these situations is the easy way out. My point is...read before you sign!!! I learned this the hard way too.
> 
> ...


Well, they may be in the Carrib because if they sail it in US waters it will get repod.

I am NOT making excuses for them... I do not agree with stealing... the point was would you turn them in without knowing all the facts and both sides of the story??

- CD


----------



## Aasem (Sep 3, 2006)

Harvester said:


> And this is why that lawyer lied to us, insulted our intelligence and tried to use us. And this is the only reason why I feel more sympathy towards Dale and Linda than towards this lawyer. And because of that, if I ever come accross them in their boat, I don't think I will bother to collaborate with justice in this particular case. I will, though, in any other, and as I said my level of cooperation will depend on how sorry I feel for the victim.
> 
> Sorry about my ranting posts but, Hey, I'm a hot blooded iberian that lives by a hot sea and can't help letting myself go when I am off-duty.


Ah, so you're not a US lawyer? That explains why you don't have a clue about what you're talking about.

The original posting lawyer did not lie in any respect. I don't know how things are structured in your part of the world, but things are obviously different here.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Aasem said:


> I don't know how things are structured in your part of the world, but things are obviously different here.


Lawyers in our part of the World are human beings...like us...I swear...

(sorry Max...just a joke for you)


----------



## sailhog (Dec 11, 2006)

kwaltersmi said:


> Sailhog - I can understand your frustration with both situtations, but I'm willing to bet both could have been avoided if you read the papers you signed. There's not a mortgage/equity loan around that I'm aware of that doesn't state in the contract that the borrower owes the money (ie must make timely payments) regardless of whether or not the lender sends out monthly billing statements. Harsh as it may sound, the billing statements are a "courtesy". The second situation also could have been avoided by reading the 2nd re-worked contract. Sorry to say, but blaming the bank in these situations is the easy way out. My point is...read before you sign!!! I learned this the hard way too.


I appreciate your point. However, in the case of my latest home equity loan, the amount due changes, as it's based on the current interest rate published in the WSJ that month. In past loans, I've always received the statement at least two weeks before they are due. Why send out a statement via mail five days before the payment is due? To nickle and dime your way into greater profits.

As for the 2nd reworked contract, I have no doubt that it was again a case of deliberate, systemic deception. With a red face, the loan officer claimed she had "no recollection" of my request for the change, even though only about a month had passed. She was lying, and she knew that I knew she was lying. It was my own fault for not reading the reworked document, and I paid $600 for it. What do I get for my $600? I get to tell the world that all bankers are soulless pieces of ---t.

It's a creepy human being who aspires to be a banker.


----------



## PorFin (Sep 10, 2007)

sailhog said:


> It's a creepy human being who aspires to be a banker.


I take it you feel most bankers aspire to be Mr. Potters instead of George Baileys...

Ooops -- a little late for holiday humor - sorry


----------



## jssimms (Mar 27, 2008)

*Web Site with Documents/Confirmation - Stolen 1998 Tayana 58' Cruiser - S/Y LINDA S -*

Thank you for the posts, in response - Please go to this web site - home.earthlink.net/~simms7835795/ - to see all pertinent documentation (U.S. District Court judgment, Complaint, court Docket Sheet, Coast Guard Abstract, Mortgage Documents, etc.), as well as for web links to Capital Crossing and our law firm.

We and Capital Crossing would be grateful for all leads. Again there is a reward, and we will keep confidential the identities of all providing information.

Best regards, Steve
J. Stephen Simms
Simms Showers LLP
800-537-6930 (toll free, U.S.)
410-783-5795
410-510-1789 (f)
410-365-6131 (m)
410-560-9889 (h)
simmsshowers.com


----------



## timebandit (Sep 18, 2002)

It's clear to me that they do not know the boat is stolen or the lawyer would know where to find them. 
I am sure when they find out the boat is no longer theirs that they will give it back.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

timebandit said:


> It's clear to me that they do not know the boat is stolen or the lawyer would know where to find them.
> I am sure when they find out the boat is no longer theirs that they will give it back.


Ehhh????? Ummm... Yep, certainly. What you said...

- CD


----------



## Harvester (Mar 1, 2008)

Aasem said:


> Ah, so you're not a US lawyer? That explains why you don't have a clue about what you're talking about.
> 
> The original posting lawyer did not lie in any respect. I don't know how things are structured in your part of the world, but things are obviously different here.


Not that different, it seams:

_*Steal. *This term is commonly used in indictments for larceny ("take, steal, and carry away") and denotes the commission of theft, that is, the felonious taking and carrying away of the personal property of another, and without right and without leave of consent of owner, and with intent to keep or make use wrongfully.

*Misapropiation. *The act of missappropiating or turning to a wrong purpose; worng appropriation; a term which does not necessarily mean peculation, although it may mean that. Term may also embrace the taking and use of another's property for sole purpose of capitalizing unfairly on good will and reputation of property owner._

So it seems that legally the term "misappropiation" would have been much more accurate. It is true that in popular usage "stealing" may include the unlawful appropiation of things which are not technically the subject of larceny, e.g., immovables. But a lawyer is expected to use the technical rather than a confusing popular meaning of the word stealing. He knew very well what he was doing.

Aasem, I am not an American lawyer, but I represent American companies both in Europe and South America and have spent quite some time in their American headquarters discussing legal differences between different countries. So I know enough about the American legal system to make guesses that turn out to be accurate in 99% of the cases (just like in this occassion, I'm afraid).

And your comment about me not having a clue of what you guys are talking about was unnecesarily harsh. I come here to have fun and try not to offend anyone. And you may disagree with may posts but I think they were not only respectful to everyone in Sailnet but even nice: I even volunteered to go out of my way to seek after your boat if it is ever stolen... or misappropiated.



Giulietta said:


> Lawyers in our part of the World are human beings...like us...I swear...
> 
> (sorry Max...just a joke for you)


  
I have met some nice American lawyers too. But it is true that most of them when they put on their "lawyer hat" seem to feel the need to come accross as agressive in a pretty unpleasant way (in a similar way as Parisians need being hated and behave as abnoxious as they can to make it).

It may work in the US but in international deals it is definately a great handicap for them.

And European lawyers don't get this kind of cartoons:


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

Timebandit, 
love ya man...
what color is the sky in your world?


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

thanks for posting that, you oil skinned lawyer. (kidding, really, thanks for posting, my credit card couldn't handle the 16 cents that the "man" wanted" 

anyway, looks like they bought the boat in nov. of 1998.
suit filed for nonpayment in april 2006
BOTH parties served on may 30,2006
missed answer date, either in person or by counsel on 6/21/2006
entry of default on 7/3/2006
default granted 3/1/2007...

folkies... thats damn near a year for someone to have duct taped the paperwork to a beluga or dolphin or something. There is no good excuse, they knew this was happening and they took off with it.


----------



## timebandit (Sep 18, 2002)

Yup!
They are just low life crooks.


----------



## sailhog (Dec 11, 2006)

PorFin said:


> I take it you feel most bankers aspire to be Mr. Potters instead of George Baileys...
> 
> Ooops -- a little late for holiday humor - sorry


George Bailey killed himself because of what Mr. Potter did to him.


----------



## Harvester (Mar 1, 2008)

cardiacpaul said:


> thanks for posting that, you oil skinned lawyer. (kidding, really, thanks for posting, my credit card couldn't handle the 16 cents that the "man" wanted"
> 
> anyway, looks like they bought the boat in nov. of 1998.
> suit filed for nonpayment in april 2006
> ...


Damn it! It is allways the same with my English: tell me a joke and I will understand all of it... except for the last sentence, the punch line!!! 
What does "oil skinned" mean? 

Ok. Back to the case: What about the people that thinks that by giving up the house the morgage is cancelled and are surprised when they find out that it only is to the extent that it is covered by the price of the forclousure sale, otherwise they remain debtors for the oustanding amount? Why is't it possible that Linda and Dale thought so and left with the only thing they thought they had left (just like Timebandid suggested before he chaned his mind)?

You allways have to hear the other party. This is a basic principle in all the decent legal systems in the world. "The judge that makes a decission without hearing one party commits an injustice, even if the decission is fair" (written some 2000 years ago by Seneca)


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

cardiacpaul said:


> thanks for posting that, you oil skinned lawyer. (kidding, really, thanks for posting, my credit card couldn't handle the 16 cents that the "man" wanted"
> 
> anyway, looks like they bought the boat in nov. of 1998.
> suit filed for nonpayment in april 2006
> ...


I will also point out that that is about 8 years of payments... right? They may not seem quite so crooked now. Not condoning it... just saying that they did not buy it, put down their money, and skip town.

Also, that would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 140,000 down, and about 6500/month just in payments. $6500*12*8= $624,000. That plus the original 140000 is $764,000... not far off of what that boat probably cost new.

Given that the first half of the loan is primarily all interest, and assuming a 20 year note, I doubt the bank is quite as far upside down as we might be led to believe.

In essnse, has the bank really lost that much money?? Again, I am not condoning this... just asking whether my math is that far off?? So how much ahas the bank really lost?

- CD


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

Has anyone thought that may have simply disappeared due to sinking or victims of piracy??

What if they just died?? That can be a possibility, no??

Look at the "mystery" boat in Sines marina, in Portugal..


----------



## Harvester (Mar 1, 2008)

Giulietta said:


> Has anyone thought that may have simply disappeared due to sinking or victims of piracy??
> 
> What if they just died?? That can be a possibility, no??
> 
> Look at the "mystery" boat in Sines marina, in Portugal..


That's it!
They realized they were losing everything so decided to go on their last sailing cruise before turning their loved boat to the bank. But they were hit by a hurricane and sunk. And here we are saying all theese nasty things about them...


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)

Hey, anyone know where I can get another Tayana 58? I got a good deal on one already, and I need a second one to finish this catamaran project...


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

2Gringos said:


> Hey, anyone know where I can get another Tayana 58? I got a good deal on one already, and I need a second one to finish this catamaran project...


Have you ever heard the saying:

"Two bads don't make a good" ?????


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)

Yeah, I heard that recently, but I thought it was something about another Clinton as president...


----------



## timebandit (Sep 18, 2002)

This changed my mind------
"BOTH parties served on may 30,2006"
So they knew.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

timebandit said:


> This changed my mind------
> "BOTH parties served on may 30,2006"
> So they knew.


Off course they know....

they buy a boat...paid it for a while..then stopped paying....off course they knew...that's why they are GONE


----------



## Stillraining (Jan 11, 2008)

That's a good one...



2Gringos said:


> Yeah, I heard that recently, but I thought it was something about another Clinton as president...


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Giulietta said:


> Has anyone thought that may have simply disappeared due to sinking or victims of piracy??
> 
> What if they just died?? That can be a possibility, no??
> 
> Look at the "mystery" boat in Sines marina, in Portugal..


Giu,

That thought occurred to me as well, but then I realized if this was the case their families would have been contacting the Coast Guard/authorities when they did not return from whatever voyage they might have been on. That would have been several years ago and the court certainly would have been made aware of this issue.

CD, 
I would have thought the price of this boat new in 1998 to be in the neighborhood of $1.2-1.5 million.


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

_"You allways have to hear the other party. This is a basic principle in all the decent legal systems in the world. "The judge that makes a decission without hearing one party commits an injustice, even if the decission is fair" (written some 2000 years ago by Seneca)"_

They were personally notified of the court action on 5/30/2006. They had AMPLE opportunity to answer ANY party. The bank, the court, even the god-forsaken lawyer.

The court gave them 9 MONTHS before a lawful final order was placed. Thats plenty of time. 
They didn't do diddly except cast off.

They could have wrote, called, sent a note, something, but they did nothing.

The bank doesn't want the boat, they just want the contract they signed to be honored.

I find it just a litle bit distressing that almost 30% of the people that have answered the polls here don't feel that a legal, binding contract has any meaning. The flotsam about the method of delivery for the notice by the lawyer is just that, garbage. I don't care if he wrote it on his kids underwear and hoisted up a flagpole, its legal paper. Its legit. deal with it. Yea, maybe he should have bought an ad. Would that make you feel better about having someone hike off with a boat?

Me loaning a screwdriver to a dockmate and not getting it back doesn't make them a crook, it makes them forgetful.

Me taking out a loan on a boat then not paying for it and taking off with it... does.


----------



## chucklesR (Sep 17, 2007)

cardiacpaul said:


> _"You allways have to hear the other party. This is a basic principle in all the decent legal systems in the world. "The judge that makes a decission without hearing one party commits an injustice, even if the decission is fair" (written some 2000 years ago by Seneca)"_
> 
> They were personally notified of the court action on 5/30/2006. They had AMPLE opportunity to answer ANY party. The bank, the court, even the god-forsaken lawyer.
> 
> ...


Well spoken, well said. 
Even if there was no verification of notice delivery, they knew. The second time the monthly bill came due and they didn't pay, they knew.

The second they signed the contract in the first place they knew (one does not loan the money for a million dollar boat to folks with no credit history). They knew exactly what they were doing every second of every day of their little vacation around the caribe and I hope it ruined every morning cup of coffee, every sunset and every landfall for them. I hope they had nightmares of discovery every time they went into a port. I don't care what their sob story of lost jobs, investments etc.. might be. I'd rather live in cardboard box than be a pirate, and make no mistake, these people are pirates - everyone of us is their victim and paying for them with higher insurance and interest rates.

I can't believe so many of you think there must be some un-dotted I or un-crossed T and that these people should not be turned in. I REALLY can't believe there are so many of you that would simply turn them in because of your misinterpretation of the 'golden rule'. This is not a 'do unto others as you would have done' example, this is a total disregard of you, yours, and the rules of civilization.

Not turning them in goes against everything I know and feel about the laws and ways of the sea. Thank you for reminding me that not all of us live by the same moral codes, I'll be watching for that on the water.
These people are pirates, and have no honor - they deserve none from us.


----------



## Freesail99 (Feb 13, 2006)

I don't think it's about honor, or who is right or who is wrong. To me, it's about minding my own business. I am not my brother's keeper. There are thousands of law enforcement types to deal with this. They are getting paid, no matter what. If you do there job for them, will they be sitting on their butts, drinking coffee and eating donuts? Having lived with a prosecutor for 5 years, I got an inside view on how the legal systems works, depending on what side of the bed they ( read she ) got up on.


----------



## orient (Jul 5, 2004)

Chuckles, very well stated.


----------



## chucklesR (Sep 17, 2007)

Freesail99 said:


> I don't think it's about honor, or who is right or who is wrong. To me, it's about minding my own business. I am not my brother's keeper. There are thousands of law enforcement types to deal with this. They are getting paid, no matter what. If you do there job for them, will they be sitting on their butts, drinking coffee and eating donuts? Having lived with a prosecutor for 5 years, I got an inside view on how the legal systems works, depending on what side of the bed they ( read she ) got up on.


That's the same kind of opinion that fosters the 'no snitch' attitude in our inner cities and why drive by shootings and drugs on our street corners are so prevalent. 
Freesail, nothing personal but I'm really, really glad my neighbors don't act like that. I prefer living next to folks that watch my back and help me just like I do them. Fear of police doesn't keep someone from towing my dinghy out of my driveway - fear that a neighbor will see it and take a picture/report it does.

What are you going to do out on the water when you have trouble and the boater 100 yards away decides it's none of their business as you burn to the waterline, tread water with no PFD etc..they'll just watch and wait for the coast guard to help you - even tho you'll be dead by the time they arrive? After all, you sinking is none of their business now is it? Those coast guard guys are just sucking down coffee and donuts - make them do what they are paid for! 
Have fun out there all by yourself.


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

_"I don't think it's about honor, or who is right or who is wrong. To me, it's about minding my own business. I am not my brother's keeper. There are thousands of law enforcement types to deal with this. They are getting paid, no matter what. If you do there job for them, will they be sitting on their butts, drinking coffee and eating donuts? Having lived with a prosecutor for 5 years, I got an inside view on how the legal systems works, depending on what side of the bed they ( read she ) got up on."_

Nothing personal here, but lets suppose we're dock mates... me, just minding my own business, cuz I'm not my brothers keeper, just notices two unknowns hop aboard your boat, and cast off. I don't call you, Hell, I don't care, I'm minding my own business remember?

Two weeks later the locals show up at my door... You know, I was just minding my own business. 
Your eyes are a little glazed over, did you just have a donut?


----------



## Freesail99 (Feb 13, 2006)

I have always been out there by myself, works well for me. No man is an island, but .....
Taking action for someone you know, and someone you heard about on some thread on sailnet are to far very different things. I have helped more friends then I can count. But sticking your nose where it doesn't belong is another thing. If you can't see that ...... well past that donut.


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)

I am with you on that, Freesail. I am not disputing that what they supposedly did was wrong. But its a civil, legal matter between them and their bank. I don't care much for lynch mobs or vigilante justice.


----------



## BreakingWind2 (Jan 3, 2008)

Freesail99 said:


> I don't think it's about honor, or who is right or who is wrong. To me, it's about minding my own business. I am not my brother's keeper. There are thousands of law enforcement types to deal with this. They are getting paid, no matter what. If you do there job for them, will they be sitting on their butts, drinking coffee and eating donuts? Having lived with a prosecutor for 5 years, I got an inside view on how the legal systems works, depending on what side of the bed they ( read she ) got up on.


Well, I was sitting back minding my business and reading the banter back and forth but now you have struck a nerve! I am one of those law enforcement types and while I have heard and dished out many donut comments, I cannot agree with your "who gives a sh&t" attitude.

I am fortunate I don't live next door to you. I can picture you looking out the window watching some arseh*ole breaking into your neighbours house and just sitting back down cause "you're not your brothers keeper." Its your attitude that results in increased insurance premiums, increased policing costs, increased court costs because you were too lazy to wipe the crumbs off your shirt to phone the police.

This is the second thread I've read where you make the comment that you used to live with a prosecutor....don't know whether you are bragging but she musta pissed you off to make you as jaded as you are.

At the end of the day, these people knew about the defaulted loan, were properly notified and just pissed off in defiance. Just because we all enjoy sailing and dream of being pirates sailing around the Caribbean, it doesn't make it right.

Okay, gonna jump down off the soapbox.


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

I vote for a public linching....


HANG 'EM....HANG 'EM....HANG 'EM....HANG 'EM....

Justica Popular!!! Morte as ovelhas....


----------



## Freesail99 (Feb 13, 2006)

BreakingWind2 said:


> Well, I was sitting back minding my business and reading the banter back and forth but now you have struck a nerve! I am one of those law enforcement types and while I have heard and dished out many donut comments, I cannot agree with your "who gives a sh&t" attitude.
> 
> I am fortunate I don't live next door to you. I can picture you looking out the window watching some arseh*ole breaking into your neighbours house and just sitting back down cause "you're not your brothers keeper." Its your attitude that results in increased insurance premiums, increased policing costs, increased court costs because you were too lazy to wipe the crumbs off your shirt to phone the police.
> 
> ...


Yet you sound like one too, by any chance did you also happen to read this 3 post later ?

I have always been out there by myself, works well for me. No man is an island, but .....
Taking action for someone you know, and someone you heard about on some thread on sailnet are to far very different things. I have helped more friends then I can count. But sticking your nose where it doesn't belong is another thing. If you can't see that ...... well past that donut.

As far as the prosecutor, we're still friend with benifits.


----------



## sailhog (Dec 11, 2006)

I propose that we keel haul freesail99 to demonstrate our outrage at the opinions he has expressed in this forum.

Breakingwind2, love your name, but you need to Bogart someone's joint.


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)

The bank should just hire Dog to go get em. Or some other bounty hunter.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

> I'm not sure I understand all the sympathy for the thieves.


Because they have gone ahead and done something that deep, down inside millions of people all over the world wish they had the guts to do, and it looks like they are getting away with it.

As far as the "making loans harder to get" thing goes... This is Lehman Brothers that made the loan - an Investment Bank - not a local Savings and Loan. If an Investment Bank is lending you 6 or 7 hundred thousand dollars, they have been doing business with you for a while and have probably already made profits through your investment activity well in excess of whatever they are agreeing to lend you. You don't waltz in off the street and get a huge loan just cause you pay your Visa bill promptly.

The Kars sailed off in 2006, in 2007 the bank repossessed. An appreciable period of time. Who knows what the Kars plans or motives were ? I'm reasonably sure that the attorneys haven't spent a lot of time finding out. For all we know, the post here and "search" activities could be window-dressing on the part of the bank in order to substantiate a hefty insurance claim, because, rest assured, that mortgage was underwritten and Lehmans will not end up with any significant loss.

How can you ascertain that there is anything occurring here other than one investment banker absconding with his boat while his buddy back at the office goes into shock and awe mode in order to look like they're trying to find him ???

Also, mind that this is an investment bank, one of many involved in the subprime cartel whose lending practices are currently under scrutiny by more than one American regulatory and law enforcement agency. There is no honour among thieves it is said. So, if it should turn out to be the case that a predatory Wall Street firm currently engaged in turning the truly poor out of their homes with the goal of securing their bonuses in a down year, should happen to have been burned by someone whose ethics were as non-existent as their own, well excuse me if I think that there might be a little karma at work here...

And finally - how do we know that the Kars are not sitting on some seabed somewhere ? They left in 2006. It's 2008, no-one can find them or their big, slow, aesthically sub-standard, water-wallowing condo. Perchance they ran into heavy weather and the second tier offshore craftsmanship just couldn't hold it together...  

I think that there is a possibility that the Kars were involved in some type of investment banking, that they had a huge mortgage on an over-piced house, that the mortgage on the house probably got called as real estate values tanked, that they couldn't sell the house and gave the keys back to the lender, that the banker eventually went to court and processed seizure of all their assets and they now find themselves (unwittingly perhaps) sailing a boat that they don't own anymore.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

> Not turning them in goes against everything I know and feel about the laws and ways of the sea.


There are no "laws of the sea". 200 miles out you're on your own.

That is and has always been big part of it's allure. The ocean offers a long and thoroughly disreputable history of giving succour to thieves, murderers, vagrants, convicts, brigands, privateers...pretty well everyone except the lazy and the stupid.

The Kars are perhaps more at home on the water than many.


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)

Sing it, brother.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

I'm tending towards siding with the Hog on this one. Not because I want to condone the Kar's apparent actions in any way though.

My dealings with banks (and insurance company's) has always been similar to Hog's example. They promise one thing and then, when you call them up, they proceed to bury you in bureaucratic paperwork. Asking them to reconcile the billing date with the due date is impossible because the "system" is set up that way and they can't change it. What they mean is, they won't change it for you. They just pass you along to the next functionary who can't do anything. You realize after a while that you're never going to get to the person who makes decisions and will help you. Seemingly, that person doesn't exist; just the bureacracy exists.

I've dealt with these people on matters large and matters small and the undieing refrain is, you can't get there from here. Screw 'em. They can find there own damn boat. It's not even in my self-interest to help them. If fraud, theft, and non-payment went down to zero tomorrow how soon do you think it would be before that reduction was reflected in the bank's offered term's, if ever?

I'm not in favor of defrauding anyone but I've got some trouble raising my sympathy level for a banker or his attorney. You guy's are gettin' the big bucks, go find your own damn boat. Hint: your's is the one with two sticks pointing up in the sky.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

sailhogI propose that we keel haul freesail99 to demonstrate our outrage at the opinions he has expressed in this forum.




sailaway21I'm tending towards siding with the Hog on this one. 

Well, lets gett'er done, any chance we can talk freesail into taking a scraper and brush along


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

May I suggest an old fashioned North Carolina pig pickin' as an alternative!


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

sailaway21 said:


> I'm not in favor of defrauding anyone but I've got some trouble raising my sympathy level for a banker or his attorney. You guy's are gettin' the big bucks, go find your own damn boat.


Finally you've said something I agree with 100%!


----------



## Freesail99 (Feb 13, 2006)

poopdeckpappy said:


> sailhogI propose that we keel haul freesail99 to demonstrate our outrage at the opinions he has expressed in this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I feel the love, keep it coming.


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)

camaraderie said:


> May I suggest an old fashioned North Carolina pig pickin' as an alternative!


I see what she did to your left leg with that cleaver. And you are carrying a spoon? What, you planning to stir something up?


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Cam,
I knew you were married to a redhead but well, uh, she *has* looked better. (g)


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

would you believe mother in law??


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Is she also you're sister?


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)

I gotta tell ya, that guy looks just like a guy I knew in the Falmouth Rod and Gun Club...


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

These people ARE thieves. They ARE making things worse for the rest of us who want to get a boat loan. If you have issues with the banking system, that is a separate matter. These people are thieves.
I would turn them in in a heartbeat, reward or not.


----------



## theartfuldodger (Sep 4, 2006)

There are no warrants or wants posted for the boat or persons, as of this morning checked with the coast guard, so becareful you might be the one getting yourself in trouble on the bases of what someone else posted. My question, what is the real story if the law is not interested in them.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Artful...the law has no interest in civil enforcement which is what the listed (and researched and confirmed) judgment is. The action is for recovery of the boat...not the arrest of the prior owners. 
Indeed...the bank may not WANT to get a criminal indictment issued as the boat might then be held as evidence for several years. Just a possibility but it happened to some friends of ours in different circumstances.


----------



## theartfuldodger (Sep 4, 2006)

So if there is no warrants then why are we calling them thieves, as in our country you are innocent until proven guilty filed papers or no papers, Sorry but when something is reported stolen, Police are usually involved. So why not here, I suggest the banks either do their job and collect or stop relying on innocent bystandards. I doubt that they will back you up if you help them reward or not, if something was to go wrong in your aiding them. As for the bank lending the money, they do so with a risk involved anyway, and if they lose they get to write it off, don't they. Sorry but I see someone else getting hurt in this case, somewhere down the line. See it for what it is a bad loan with lost collateral, and they can't collect, but I do wish them luck.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

I don't need a warrant to know if someone is a thief. If I see someone break into a Casino hotel room and walk out with a laptop D) I don't need a judge to tell me that person is a thief. 
If I see a couple has been served with notice and lost a court judgment and then leave the country with the property in question...they are thieves. No better than the CEO's who raid pension funds and leave for Brazil. 
The bank has offered a reward for information which is a legitimate way for them to efficiently search for the thieves and initiate recovery. Nothing wrong with that. How the hell else do you think they are gonna find a single boat somewhere outside of the USA?


----------



## lgherb (Jul 2, 2006)

Just think if these people set off on their dream of circumnavigation and shortly after they cast off the trust that they had set up to autopay their boat loan went horribly wrong. The fund that was yielding great interest suddenly dried up, the auto payments stopped being made because of non-sufficient funds, and the bank carrying the loan freaked out because suddenly they could not find these people (because they had moved out of their house and started their voyage.)

This has the making of a great "Lost In America" type screwball comedy, where a couple retires and shortly thereafter become unwitting poster children for yuppie greed and become outlaws on the run without even knowing it.

Lgherb


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

lgherb said:


> Just think if these people set off on their dream of circumnavigation and shortly after they cast off the trust that they had set up to autopay their boat loan went horribly wrong. The fund that was yielding great interest suddenly dried up, the auto payments stopped being made because of non-sufficient funds, and the bank carrying the loan freaked out because suddenly they could not find these people (because they had moved out of their house and started their voyage.)
> 
> This has the making of a great "Lost In America" type screwball comedy, where a couple retires and shortly thereafter become unwitting poster children for yuppie greed and become outlaws on the run without even knowing it.
> 
> Lgherb


There is the little problem of them actually being served with notice of foreclosure procedings before they left...bu otherwise it would probably do well with the American Idol/ Survivor crowd and we could phone in all sightings weekly while Paula Abdul cries over their misunderstood performance under sail and blames it on sunspots and GPS interference.


----------



## ScuzzMonkey (Jun 26, 2006)

Having, for unrelated reasons, just spent the bulk of the last two days in the company of a bunch of law students, lawyers, and judges regaling one another with stories of all the astonishingly unjust and underhanded ways that judgements are actually arrived at in the American legal system, I have a lot of trouble viewing this whole matter as black and white.

While on the one hand I guess I believe that we have to have some system which we all try to abide by to adjudicate such matters, even when it's unfair, on the other I can't help but think you'd better think on your feet and do what you need to do, even if it isn't necessarily legal, because the law isn't something you can trust as an individual. Sure, on the whole it works out okay for society. But there are just too many problems at the level of the individual case to rely on justice being served. That's pretty abstract for all of us here; I imagine it's a little more personal for the Kars.

Whether what they did was _right_ or _wrong_ is probably impossible for any of us to say from what we know. The fact that it's not _legal_ doesn't matter as much to me. Much that is legal is wrong; not a few things that are illegal are nonetheless right. Whether or not you get away with it is arbitrary at best. I guess I'm saying I think it's folly to trust the idea of pinning morality to law, as some here seem to. It should be the other way around; law should spring from morals. But unfortunately legal doesn't mean right and illegal doesn't mean wrong in our system today.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Giu,
You've obviously been spending too much time with Joel.


----------



## sailhog (Dec 11, 2006)

theartfuldodger said:


> Mr Giulietta
> Trying to figure out if your suffering from something when all of a sudden out of no where you wish to make your presents known...


I'd like my presents made known. I got a candy cane from Santa, a pair of velvet-lined handcuffs from this really weird uncle of mine, and a gold-plated butt plug from proctologist. Anyone else care to make their presents made known?


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

sailhog said:


> I'd like my presents made known. I got a candy cane from Santa, a pair of velvet-lined handcuffs from this really weird uncle of mine, and a gold-plated butt plug from proctologist. Anyone else care to make their presents made known?


I just got a do it yourself colonostopy kit as a present. Maybe I'll go try it now.


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)

I got an all-expenses paid vacation at someplace called Chernobyl. I don't know who sent it, but it was in an envelope with a Democratic National Committee return address.


----------



## buckeyesailor (Mar 9, 2008)

FINALLY! this thread is becoming worth reading........


----------



## sailhog (Dec 11, 2006)

theartfuldodger said:


> xxx


No one here cares if you fool around with the English language, but we can't quietly stand by while you rape it in the --s.


----------



## theartfuldodger (Sep 4, 2006)

and i think you should check this thread it's not the off topic one it's the other one you are commenting on, although this should have been placed there, its not really sailing related but then that is my thoughts as small as they may be


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Last time I checked, "stolen" was defined as "wrongfully taken". Very different from "wrongfully retained", which is what appears to have happened here. I would have expected lawyers to use more technical words like "an action in replevin" referring to the recovery action...but maybe they said "stolen" to keep it simple.

I'm surprised something that big, which has to check in through "Customs" in every country, could stay unreported. Don't any of the Carib countries maintain a "hot list" and make phone calls to report the arrival of a stolen/lost/SAR status vessel !? Or, how much mordida does it take to hide a 58'er? Or do you just have to dock it at the customs guy's brother in law's marina?

That would make "lost at sea" or "sunk" potential scenarios. Although, Alex, you forgot that they may have crossed the Bermuda Triangle and the whole boat may be enroute to, or cruising on, Antares or Spica by now.[vbg]


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

It may be time to just let it go.........


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

*OK...Mass Deletions Completed...let's all get back on topic or leave it alone. 
****************

*HS...actually Webster defines stealing a bit more broadly than you do and would include the Kars actions:
_* 1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully 
b: to take away by force or unjust means *_<they've>_* 
c: to take surreptitiously or without permission 
d: to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share *_

As to the Caribe...things are a bit more paper based than they are here. Word of mouth works better than computers and in some places the right amount of "paper" goes a long way. As an example..one might be able to take up residence at Marina Hemmingway (Havana) for quite a while without adverse consequences. It would be relatively easy to check in a lot of places and remain hidden for some time before moving on in my opinion. What does get immediate attention is if you take off from one place without settling your bills! 
</they've>


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Cam, there are sadly many "Websters" companies now, a lawyer takes his definitions from Black's or other legal sources, not the same dictionaries that grade-schoolers use. Especially when making public statements that someone has commited a crime, one expects a lawyer to use the specific technically correct crime.

Not that I'm questioning what really happened here, it just stood out as odd to call this "stolen" when the creditor may actually never have had physical possession of the boat. Dunno, there are multiple jurisdictions involved and each could define things differently.

You think the Cubans don't have any entry rules? Heck, give n that a reasonable finder's fee might be 10% and some 60,000$US would be a fortune in hard currency in Cuba....it probably is worth sending a letter to the marina. (Of course the USPS doesn't traffic with Cuba, but somehow the mail gets there and back anyway.<G>)


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)

I can think of several places down this way where a few bucks would get you cleared in without much hassle.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Do some start with D.R.?


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

hellosailor said:


> Cam, there are sadly many "Websters" companies now, a lawyer takes his definitions from Black's or other legal sources, not the same dictionaries that grade-schoolers use. Especially when making public statements that someone has commited a crime, one expects a lawyer to use the specific technically correct crime.
> 
> Not that I'm questioning what really happened here, it just stood out as odd to call this "stolen" when the creditor may actually never have had physical possession of the boat. Dunno, there are multiple jurisdictions involved and each could define things differently.
> 
> You think the Cubans don't have any entry rules? Heck, give n that a reasonable finder's fee might be 10% and some 60,000$US would be a fortune in hard currency in Cuba....it probably is worth sending a letter to the marina. (Of course the USPS doesn't traffic with Cuba, but somehow the mail gets there and back anyway.<G>)


Black's law dictionary provides a virtually identical definitionof "stolen":

"Acquired, or possessed, as a result of some wrongful or dishonest act or taking, whereby a person willfully obtains or retains possession of property of another which belongs to another, without or beyond any permission given, and with the intent to deprive the owner of the benefit of ownership (or possession) permanently."

I'm having a little trouble understanding what was wrong with the lawyer using this term. I can understand why people would not want to get involved in calling the bank to report them, but why are we apologizing for the actions of the Kars. We know that these are fairly sophisticated people whe were served with papers and that instead of defending themselves they ran away, taking with them a valuable asset that at best, they knew was collateral for the loan, and at worst, they knew they did not own. Why the hesitancy to call them what they are, which is thieves?


----------



## chucklesR (Sep 17, 2007)

I'll stand in as the example thereof (grade schoolers) and say that looks like the same definition *the retains possesion of property which belongs to another, without or beyond any permission given* is particulary clear given the judgement. 
I learned in the sandbox during kindergarden not to take things that don't belong to me. I reckon some folks don't learn that even much later in life.

Since this one failed, and most of the other semantic dancing is just that what's the next reason to excuse piracy?


----------



## soul searcher (Jun 28, 2006)

Dear Mr. Simms and Capital Crossing,
For $4000.00 per month plus expenses I will scour the Entire Caribbean and the entire World if need be. To locate your property.
I will leave no country, Island, anchorage, gunkhole, or watering hole unchecked.
I will provide Photographic evidence of of the searched locations here on sailnet.
The best way to catch a sailor is with another sailor.
I will not stop until the vessal is located or you run out of money.

Matt


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Hmmm...Tayana 58, judgement over 600k, Yachtworld asking more like 550K, let's say the boat can fetch 475K in a fast sale if that's possible in this market. That money placed elsewhere in a 6% mortgage loan or CD could be earning $28,000 a year in interest, although I've seen some notes paying 8% very recently...that's 38,000/annum or $3166 per month in lost interest on the principal.

They'd have to be nuts--or in a hurry--to pay more than $3166 per month to locate the boat, and that's without factoring in the cost of any reward.

These are capitalists, after all. (Well, not the lawyers.) If they spend more than $3000 a month looking for the boat, that just means they figure they'll never get $475k for it when and if they do recover it. Or they'd be betting big on recovering it significantly faster.

But why pay salary, when there are repo men already out there, actively in the business on commission?

I'd work the phones/faxes/mail to the chandleries, bars, and customs men, and let them all know there's a fast $5000 reward for information leading to the capture of the vessel. Might take a month to get all the mail out...but any good clerk could do that legwork. Hey, Mister Simms, for three grand (half up front, there's postage and telecom to be paid you know) maybe I'll take on that job! Well, no, make it four grand, I don't want to chisel down the market against Matt.<G>

Karma's a *****, bankers a (ahem), but what bartender or dock boy is going to think twice about making five crime by reporting a stolen boat?!


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I think we have now achieved "We've beaten this one to death".


----------



## soul searcher (Jun 28, 2006)

H.S.
Think of the Tax write off they will get. Don't sell your self short.


----------



## chucklesR (Sep 17, 2007)

Not to beat a dead horse too much, but I read somewhere the reward is either 15 or 20k for information leading to the boats return.


----------



## kwaltersmi (Aug 14, 2006)

$15k reward. Posted a couple of times somewhere in this and the other thread. Too damn long to go back and find the links!


----------



## primerate84 (Jun 14, 2006)

I know this has gone on too long, but I wanted to put my two cents in. For full disclosure, I am president of a community bank, and although we don't make $600,000 boat loans, I have made loans for boats in the $75,000 to $100,000 range for long-standing customers. In reading some of the posts, bankers (ie, me) were called vile, and "the man", and various other negative comments. Let me boil this down to its basic terms. The Kars borrowed the money from the bank to buy the boat. They promised contractually to repay that money under terms mutually agreed upon. They also agreed to return the boat if they defaulted on the loan. This was all spelled out to them before they signed. They were notified by certified mail and regular mail of the event of their default and the terms of curing the default. They instead decided to "screw the man" and take off with the collateral. By law, the bank is allowed to transfer the title into their name in order to sell the collateral and apply the proceeds to the loan. The fact that the Kars took off with the boat DOES make it stolen. It is no longer their property.

For all of you that want to romanticize their actions, be aware that you will be paying for the loss the bank takes on the loan. Actions by criminals (yes, they are criminals) like them only increases the cost to borrow and tightens the lending restrictions already on the boat buying public. So encourage others to "stick it to the man" and be prepared to pay cash for your boat in the future.

Some of these comments by sailors are extremely dissapointing. And by the way, make sure you read what you are signing. Ignorance is no excuse for a bi-lateral contract.


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

primerate84 said:


> I know this has gone on too long, but I wanted to put my two cents in. For full disclosure, I am president of a community bank, and although we don't make $600,000 boat loans, I have made loans for boats in the $75,000 to $100,000 range for long-standing customers. In reading some of the posts, bankers (ie, me) were called vile, and "the man", and various other negative comments. Let me boil this down to its basic terms. The Kars borrowed the money from the bank to buy the boat. They promised contractually to repay that money under terms mutually agreed upon. They also agreed to return the boat if they defaulted on the loan. This was all spelled out to them before they signed. They were notified by certified mail and regular mail of the event of their default and the terms of curing the default. They instead decided to "screw the man" and take off with the collateral. By law, the bank is allowed to transfer the title into their name in order to sell the collateral and apply the proceeds to the loan. The fact that the Kars took off with the boat DOES make it stolen. It is no longer their property.
> 
> For all of you that want to romanticize their actions, be aware that you will be paying for the loss the bank takes on the loan. Actions by criminals (yes, they are criminals) like them only increases the cost to borrow and tightens the lending restrictions already on the boat buying public. So encourage others to "stick it to the man" and be prepared to pay cash for your boat in the future.
> 
> Some of these comments by sailors are extremely dissapointing. And by the way, make sure you read what you are signing. Ignorance is no excuse for a bi-lateral contract.


I agree. At the same time, I respect those who would not take affirmative actions (such as calling a bank or collections lawyer) toward securing the collateral for the bank. I would probably call in this circumstance. I understand and respect that others might not.


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)

Didn't that bank looking for the boat recently make the news for something else? Something familiar about that name...


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

primerate84 said:


> I know this has gone on too long, but I wanted to put my two cents in. For full disclosure, I am president of a community bank, and although we don't make $600,000 boat loans, I have made loans for boats in the $75,000 to $100,000 range for long-standing customers. In reading some of the posts, bankers (ie, me) were called vile, and "the man", and various other negative comments. Let me boil this down to its basic terms. The Kars borrowed the money from the bank to buy the boat. They promised contractually to repay that money under terms mutually agreed upon. They also agreed to return the boat if they defaulted on the loan. This was all spelled out to them before they signed. They were notified by certified mail and regular mail of the event of their default and the terms of curing the default. They instead decided to "screw the man" and take off with the collateral. By law, the bank is allowed to transfer the title into their name in order to sell the collateral and apply the proceeds to the loan. The fact that the Kars took off with the boat DOES make it stolen. It is no longer their property.
> 
> For all of you that want to romanticize their actions, be aware that you will be paying for the loss the bank takes on the loan. Actions by criminals (yes, they are criminals) like them only increases the cost to borrow and tightens the lending restrictions already on the boat buying public. So encourage others to "stick it to the man" and be prepared to pay cash for your boat in the future.
> 
> Some of these comments by sailors are extremely dissapointing. And by the way, make sure you read what you are signing. Ignorance is no excuse for a bi-lateral contract.


I have, for the most part, chosen to steer clear of this thread for the last many days because there have been soooo many comments missconstrued on both sides.

First, I will state that my stance on not turning them in has softened. I thought about this thread over the weekend and put myself in the shoes of the bank that had made the loan. Assuming that what we guess is true (that they stopped making payments and headed off for the sunset), it is hard to have much pity on them. I feel there have been some very good arguments made to actively, and without remorse or reward, turn them in.

However, I still question why I have to get involved in your disputes. It has been called my civil duty and been pointed out that there are not enough law enforcement to realistically watch over every single crime. I agree with the second (though I seriously doubt the police are out there looking for them... maybe I am wrong??), but am not completly convinced of the first. I feel in many respects it is a matter between a debtor and a debtee and not my "civic duty" to get involved in a matter I had nothing to do with. The argument could be made that I would want someone to turn them in for me if the roles were reversed... I can see that. But if the roles were reversed and had willingly and knowingly made a loan (with the risks it entails) and they had made many years of payments, only to run off half way through it... would I hire a lawyer to come on bulletin boards and start posting "STOLEN BOAT FROM CD... PLEASE HELP!"

I think my answer is no. I think the answer for many of you is no. Again, in my opinion, the bank did not intend for them to run off with their property. However, IT DID KNOWINGLY AND WILLINGLY PARTICIPATE AND ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THESE PEOPLE. There have been many references on these threads to someone coming and stealing property and me not turning them in. That is not a fair comparrison. If I saw someone stealing your boat, of course I would do something (and not just call the police). I think there is a difference here. At least I have drawn a difference... that being that the bank was an active participant on what is essentially a loan gone bad.

There have been references to crimes against humanity... none of those are fair from any side. I doubt there is a person on this board that would not get involved (and not just call the police) should they see someone being hurt.

I for one am not one of those 'stick it to the guy personalities... though I am not sure which thread that came from. That is not fair. But I feel one question that should be considered is whether the bank has any fault in this matter too? I just do not feel they are quite the innocent bystander that they have been portrayed... the vicitm of a crime against humanity, etc. And if it is extremely important to get back a multi-hundred thousand dollar piece of property that was not returned when the loan defaulted (what you call stolen), hire a professional to track it down. I would.

Just some thoughts. And in the end, maybe I would call the bank and turn them in... but I would have to think about it.

- CD

PS I would also like to ask that everyone act in a civil manner on this thread or I will lock it and/or delete it alltogether. Respect each others opinion even if you do not agree with it. No name calling, please.


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)

Is it true that tax dollars, via the Federal government, insure loans and bail out banks that have financial difficulties? This is not a comment, it's a question.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

CD,
I think that response is well tought out and expressed. I don't think anyone here would actively go looking for the boat, the dilema arises if we see it go sailing by. Some would not do a thing, others would think long and hard before making a decision, and other would reach for the phone immediately. All are valid responses and in the end there is no need for us to force our opinions on others as a lot of us have done here. The good news is we're all thick skinned enough to let it pass and get on with Sailnetting.


----------



## TrueBlue (Oct 11, 2004)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/archdiver/untitled-1.jpg


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

TrueBlue said:


> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/archdiver/untitled-1.jpg


HAHAHAHAHAHAA! I agree. Can I merge this thread with the solar thread!?? How about a few nice pics of Giu before he goes away!???

- CD


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)

I was hoping for at least one good lawyer joke out of all this.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

2Gringos said:


> Is it true that tax dollars, via the Federal government, insure loans and bail out banks that have financial difficulties? This is not a comment, it's a question.


For the most part, no, the federal government does not insure loans. The government, through the Savings Bank Life Insurance program, does insure your regular savings accounts (up to I think $10,000 per account) in case your bank goes under. However, the unprecedented government "bail out" you hear about on the news now will insure private loans and will essentially bail out some banks. The government does not portray this as a bail out of banks who made stupid loans and engaged in irresponsible behavior; they view it as protecting those innocent third parties who made responsible investments based on the offending banks' irresponsible behavior. With our economic health so intertwined with the banking system, we can't afford to have the banks fail. Sort of like the old saw: if you owe the bank $1000 and you can't pay, that's your problem; if you owe $10,000,000, that's the bank's problem. I guess the new corallary is: if everyone owes the bank money and they can't pay, that's everyone's problem and the government's going to step in. Want to the subprime mess explained in a way that even a sailor can understand? Check out this website:

Law Librarian Blog: Friday Fun: The Subprime Primer

None of this has anything to do with the debtors at hand. If the original post is factual, the loan they defaulted on was a boat loan, not a home mortgage. It would not be part of this subprime mess, and tax dollars would not be subsidizing this bad loan.


----------



## whroeder (Aug 20, 2007)

Giulietta said:


> Have you ever heard the saying:
> 
> "Two bads don't make a good" ?????


No, but I have heard the joke that two Whites don't make a Wong


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Primerate, overall I agree with you. it's just the "stolen" I think is incorrect. They didn't wrongly take possession of the boat--which would be stealing it. They HAD possession and apparently refused to relinquish it, which IIRC is another crime completely. That's something in between, say, in your business asking for the EAR and being told the APR. They may be similar--but they are not the same. 

Or for that matter, the instant Bible test: There's no commandment against killing in the ten commandments. There's a commandment against MURDER, and the difference between the two (murder and homicide) is a huge one, both in ancient times and modern, in pretty much every society.

I was just surprised to hear a lawyer say "stole" when the crime doesn't seem to be "theft". Or perhaps it is, and the gentlemen could tell us precisely which criminal charges have been filed in what jurisdiction, simply as a matter of curiousity.

Not that it will matter much to the repo men, or the guys who slap the cuffs on whoever is found onboard.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

MStern-

The Feds insure the first $100,000 of your account...the rest can go bye-bye... 

As for HS's point...

I'd agree. This is a case of wrongful possession...not theft.. They had rightful possesion of the boat initially.... but by defaulting--they gave up the right to possess the boat. However, I would be hard pressed to say they stole it. This strikes me more as a REPLEVIN action than anything else.


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

2Gringos said:


> Is it true that tax dollars, via the Federal government, insure loans and bail out banks that have financial difficulties? This is not a comment, it's a question.


My understanding is The FDIC (federal deposit insurance corp.) does insure depositors ( me and you) of a bank against a banks insolvency. Such as a bank officer who runs off to the islands with all the banks deposits. The bank can insure itself against bad debits (bad loans) but that is by private insurance Co's. In order to collect they must show that they made a reasonable effort to recover their loss. That is processes they are going through now. Even if the bank finality collects from their insurer on the bad loan it will be just a percentage and it drives up the cost the next time you or I go for a loan.


----------



## buckeyesailor (Mar 9, 2008)

2Gringos........yes.......there is the FDIC among others who bail ...er...cover losses by depositors.....then there's the good old bureaucratic US Government who bails out whatever is in their best interest (read: Lobbyists) etc.

but it's not for everyone.....and that doesn't and shouldn't cover someone who made a load to someone who for whatever reason didn't pay it back according to the terms.....

I'm all with the banker guy.....(primerate84)....
I had a run in with banks many years ago but didn't default.......I paid it back......and got a bad credit rating for slow pay along the way.......but I PAID IT BACK......it was never their fault.....it was mine.....I wanted more than I could afford.....
I'm back on top now and the feeling is...........priceless.


----------



## chucklesR (Sep 17, 2007)

The other thread on this, the one that WAS locked had a paste from Black's Legal dictionary. I'm no lawyer but the guy who posted it seemed to be.

In that definition wrongful posession was the same as stolen. It is not semantics. 
If we were on the playground in kindergarten and you had (irregardless of how you came to posess) my apple, if you refuse to give it back and instead take a bite (lowering it's value as time and wear/tear does to a boat) you are a thief and have stolen from me.
It's not semantics. 

While we are on the topic of semantics - these folks are not criminals. I've modified my position based on the information as posted in both these threads. Information that is available that is. 
No warrants have been filed, no criminal warrants. 
As a strictly civil matter I have to change my position. I'd be hands off unless they personally pissed me off or gave me reason to turn them in. Even for a reward (tho that's a tough one). 

If the owners want the boat, let them call it stolen for real and issue warrants in criminal courts. Civil court is just not the same.

That's a 180 degree turn for me.


----------



## buckeyesailor (Mar 9, 2008)

Chuck.....If you possess something that isn't legally yours then it is illegal.......call it wrongful possession or theft.....it's all the same in they eyes of "right and wrong"
and if they did something illegal......then they are "criminals"....Charged/Tried/Convicted or not......right is right.....wrong is wrong.

We only have one real JUDGE.......He knows......and they know....if they're in the wrong or not...

I'm not trying to rub anyone the wrong way......just opining....


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

I am starting to see the light myself. If I take off in a car, I stoped paying for then I am "suspect" until I am caught. Then I am a "detainee" until I am tried. At trial I am the "defendant." After the jury passes down the verdict then I am a "criminal." But I didn't change, I was "broke" when I quit making the payments and I will be "broke" in jail.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

> I know this has gone on too long, but I wanted to put my two cents in. For full disclosure, I am president of a community bank,


_which is a fair bit up the ethics chain from an incestment bank_


> and although we don't make $600,000 boat loans, I have made loans for boats in the $75,000 to $100,000 range for long-standing customers. In reading some of the posts, bankers (ie, me) were called vile, and "the man", and various other negative comments.


 I'm sure it was all in jest 


> Let me boil this down to its basic terms. The Kars borrowed the money from the bank to buy the boat.


 We don't know this. The lawyers have not posted anything except the fact that title to the Kars boat was transferred some time after they had left on a cruise. We don't know what the loan/mortgage was for. It may have been for something entirely different, with the boat proffered as collateral, it may have been for the boat, it may be an ex-wife with a creative investment banker boyfriend going after unpaid child support...


> They promised contractually to repay that money under terms mutually agreed upon.


They probably promised to pay something yes.


> They also agreed to return the boat if they defaulted on the loan.


Possibly


> This was all spelled out to them before they signed.


Much in the same manner that all the good folks whose homes are in foreclosure right now had everything "spelled out" when they were signing their usurious "mortgages" ??? I am sure that each and every one of them received the benefit of hours and hours of patient explanation of the forms they were signing, couched in the simplest of layman's terms - NOT! This is why the concept of "sticking it to the man" is such an appealing one to so many.


> They were notified by certified mail and regular mail of the event of their default and the terms of curing the default. They instead decided to "screw the man" and take off with the collateral.


There is no information to confirm this whatsoever. All we know is that the loan is in default. There is a very real possibility that the Kars are no longer amongst the living.


> By law, the bank is allowed to transfer the title into their name in order to sell the collateral and apply the proceeds to the loan. The fact that the Kars took off with the boat DOES make it stolen. It is no longer their property.


This is true yes...not having the boat does make it more difficult to sell it 


> For all of you that want to romanticize their actions, be aware that you will be paying for the loss the bank takes on the loan.


We have also paid for the losses incurred as a result of: 9/11, Katrina, Idiotic hedging maneuvers conducted by junior bankers, etc. etc. etc. The cost of the Kars action to each of us is in the order of two or three millionths of a cent. I'm happy to cough up. The entertainment so far has been worth far more than the price.


> Actions by criminals (yes, they are criminals) like them only increases the cost to borrow and tightens the lending restrictions already on the boat buying public.


 So do the actions of predatory mortgage brokers, unethical loan officers and avaricious incestment bankers. Let's all tune in about 36 months from now and see who is off to jail becuse there's going to be a fair passle of folks. The light is going to shine on the financial community like it hasn't shone before, courtesy of the FBI, et. al. Crimes have been committed on a scale that people around the world are affected by. There are folks in Europe who can't access some of their retirement income because of what took place in the US of A encouraged and abetted by your banking community. Mr. Keating's efforts in the S & L environment are nothing compared to what's going to become apparent over the next year and a half.


> So encourage others to "stick it to the man" and be prepared to pay cash for your boat in the future.


I have been paying cash for my boats for thirty years. I pay cash for my cars. I paid cash for my house and my cottage and I pay cash for everything else I buy. The reason I can do this is because I avoid bankers and have never listened to the advice of an "investment professional". You folks on the lending side had best hope that the rest of the world doesn't start following the lead of myself and others like me, cause you'll be out of work and you might might have to earn a living by doing something physical that creates a tangible item of value.... 

Please don't take this personally, as it is certainly not meant to be an assault on your character or the way you make your living. I would encourage you though, to spend some time looking at things from the perspective of others in the world.


> Some of these comments by sailors are extremely dissapointing.


Yes but some are quite amusing and some are quite thoughtful . It takes all kinds to make an interesting world. Glad we have them. !

Good Luck !


----------



## Rockter (Sep 11, 2006)

You are making excuses for these people, claiming to be a banker with it.
You are right, the world is full of evil. but don't make excuses for it.
If you steal a boat, it's wrong. 
Don't steal boats, don't make excuses for those that do.
It is your word... boat, loan, repay.
When you word is gone, for money you ain't got nuttin.... just like those vile thieving bankers.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Makes me think of an electronic bill payment I made to a credit card from a certain major company with a national name. Apparently I made a typo and the payment went to the company with a non-existant account number (one extra digit) and my correct name, on it. 

The company accepted the payment, credited it to their general funds (since the account number didn't exist), didn't bother looking to see if the name matched anyone that owed them money. If I had set that up as a repeating transaction, i.e. a monthly loan payment....

They would have just said "No, he hasn't paid us, repo the boat!" and if I was out cruising, expecting the autpmatic payments to be made all by themselves...

I doubt that's what happened here, but it happens to folks every day in this age of customer disservice and corporate antagonism. (Who needs customers, there's seven billion more rubes out there, if we count the Chinese.)

It will be interesting to see where it all resolves, when and if it does. Meanwhile, if I see that boat, for $15K I'm calling it in. I can't see that they just don't check their mail, no one can stay out drunk and partying for THAT long.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - changes are it is a duck. Arguing semantics about the word "stolen" does not change the fact that the Kars should no longer be using and living on the boat (assuming they are alive). 

It has been known since the beginning of time that whatever happens bank will always get their money back. With a bank you can do it the easy way or the hard way but they will spare no expense nor effort in recouping what is contractually theirs.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Fact of the matter is that the Kars may no longer be on the boat, or living for that matter. A 58' Tayana would be a pretty ripe target for modern day pirates, who would probably pass up a 30' boat.



winchwench said:


> If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - changes are it is a duck. Arguing semantics about the word "stolen" does not change the fact that the Kars should no longer be using and living on the boat (assuming they are alive).
> 
> It has been known since the beginning of time that whatever happens bank will always get their money back. With a bank you can do it the easy way or the hard way but they will spare no expense nor effort in recouping what is contractually theirs.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

> A 58' Tayana would be a pretty ripe target for modern day pirates, who would probably pass up a 30' boat.


 Which is just one more in a long, long line of reasons that I am happy to own the boat that I do.


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)

chucklesR said:


> If the owners want the boat, let them call it stolen for real and issue warrants in criminal courts. Civil court is just not the same...


Chuckles is right. IF this is theft, then by god it's grand larceny. Right? Wouldn't stealing half a million bucks worth of something be a criminal matter by definition?

If they "stole" ( as many claim here) a half mil, then it's felony theft, or grand larceny, or something. Why isn't that the charge? Wouldn't that get some police somewhere at least mildly interested? BOLO the boat? Return it to it's rightful owner and all that?

Why isn't that what's going on? Why can't the boat's "legal owners" report it stolen and press charges?


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Probably because nothing was "stolen", that is, physically TAKEN from the new owners. Remember the new owners were awarded title--but the original owners has POSSESSION. Which is why I keep saying, I'm not at all sure any "theft" or "stolen" has occurred. You must POSSESS something before it can be stolen from you, and the new title holders apparently never actually possessed the boat--they only possessed a title assignment.

Little things like that can make a difference in what police, or international authorities, can do. They might see this as a title dispute--a civil matter--rather than a criminal theft. And if this is just a civil matter, that might just be enough to tie hands.

Counselor? Is the matter civil or criminal? Has any formal criminal charge been pressed?


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

> Why isn't that what's going on? Why can't the boat's "legal owners" report it stolen and press charges?


The "theft" was not an overt act or tort on the part of the defendants. In order for criminal charges to stick, intent has to be proven. Because the Kars are absent, there is really not much one can do to ascertain their motives. The boat can be reported as missing/stolen/whatevered and a warrant for their arrest can be issued in absentia in the US.

A fair number of foreign countries do not have extradition treaties with the US, and those that do have them usually limit their enforcement efforts to serious criminal matters i.e.: murder / rape / being a Republican. 

So, unless the Kars happen to sail back into the arms of the Coast Guard, or someone decides they need the 15K and turns them in, they're not in any great danger of arrest. Dishonest yes, slimy yes, but no worse than a lot of what's happening in corporate boardrooms every day. Just not sanctioned by the powers that be. I wouldn't lend them my tools but I gotta smile when I think about it.


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

Remind me to not let many of you borrow my car.

I am really suprised at some of you, although I shouldn't be I guess.

I see things like "we don't know", and "any bank can"
and "its none of my business' and its "between the bank and them"...

What a crock.

Quote:
Let me boil this down to its basic terms. The Kars borrowed the money from the bank to buy the boat.

We don't know this. The lawyers have not posted anything except the fact that title to the Kars boat was transferred some time after they had left on a cruise. We don't know what the loan/mortgage was for. 
It may have been for something entirely different, _nope_ with the boat proffered as collateral, it may have been for the boat, it may be an ex-wife with a creative investment banker boyfriend going after unpaid child support...

_
actually, we do "know" its in the court documents, they took the loan out for purchase of the boat. _

Quote:
They promised contractually to repay that money under terms mutually agreed upon.

They probably promised to pay something yes. 
_
Yes, again, its a one pager, in the court documents, both of them signed them, a copy for each of them. something close to 4900.00 a month_

Quote:
They also agreed to return the boat if they defaulted on the loan.

Possibly 
_
not "possibly", again, read the documents, its right there. they did agree to return the collateral should they default. (with other terms as well, again, signed by both of them) _

Quote:
This was all spelled out to them before they signed.

Much in the same manner that all the good folks whose homes are in foreclosure right now had everything "spelled out" when they were signing their usurious "mortgages" ??? I am sure that each and every one of them received the benefit of hours and hours of patient explanation of the forms they were signing, couched in the simplest of layman's terms - NOT! This is why the concept of "sticking it to the man" is such an appealing one to so many. 
_
nope, again, not in the same manner, its all spelled out, in rather large type and they both affixed a john hancock. Don't presume they had no idea what they were signing, the terms are simply worded. _

Heres what we do "know" 
they took out a loan for over 600k in November of 1998, using the boat as collateral.

They used the brothers address in florida to USCG Doc the boat.

Sometime before April 13th 2006, they started to miss payments. Suit filed.

On May 30th, they were duly notified by an officer of the court, (process server, county constable, whomever) that they were in default of said note and to answer in a court of law. The brother thus far "doesn't know where his brother is" ... yea right, my family is spread out all over, but I've got phone numbers. I'll bet if you have used a relatives address for anything, they have got a damn good idea where YOU are. 
If they were dead or missing, the brother would say so.

I guess its alright if YOU don't answer a summons? I suppose its alright if YOU IGNORE a COURTS notice to appear? You're right, I don't know your intent, just your actions. Or dare I say it... inactions. Nice bunch of folks.

Sometime AFTER May 30th, 2006 but before July 1st, 2006 Not only did they not hire a lawyer to answer this, or answer this themselves, they hiked off with the boat to parts unknown.

Riddle me this Batman, how long does it take to prepare for an almost 1 and 1/2 years vacation/cruise? looks like about 30 days.

Call me crazy and paint me pink, but how nieve does one have to be to think there was anything else going on?

All the parties held they're collective hand on their butts until 2/23/2007...'cuz thats just how long the process takes.

This couple was given EVERY opportunity to answer for their actions. They CHOSE not to. 
Final judgement awarded by DEFAULT, on 03/01/2007.

Say what you want, I find it very distressing that there are so many people here that play the "what if" game. I call "bullshite"

I'm sad to see that many of you have such little respect for laws, due process, or the court system. How many of you have so little faith in "the system" that you'd actually believe that a team of lawyers, the Federal District Court and the plaintiffs are all in cahoots somehow to deprive this couple of their cruising pleasures? How many Federal crimes would have been committed in filing a false suit? How many lawyers would lose their bar card over that little tidbit?

While it may not be "criminal" at this point, hey, nobody can know what the FORMER owners that FAILED TO ANSWER FOR THEIR ACTIONS intent was, you'd have to be a nattering nabob to not draw a dotted line.

I'm here to tell ya, If I see the tub, I'm not only turning it in, I'll do what I can to impede the progress of the tub till somebody with a gun and a badge shows up. Yea, I could get into trouble or even get hurt. But there comes a time to do the right thing.

I'd expect no less from my fellow man. Maybe I should. Maybe I shouldn't expect help when my place is broken into. Maybe I should just chalk it up to experience. I know, what a dumbass I was not to bolt the windows shut, imagine that, I never thought someone would break and crawl thru that window and steal our stuff in the light of day.

Perhaps when my motel is broken into, and my laptop is stolen while I sleep, I shouldn't expect anyone to at least write a letter, help me look for it, oh, I dunno, why should they, hey, the guy probably deserved it, right? Isn't that what you're saying? I know, its none of your business.

To say that "its between the bank and them" is a very myopic and selfish, if not downright anarchic (is that a word?) viewpoint, I thought we were supposed to be able to count on one another. I guess not.

No, I'm not my brothers keeper, but I should be able to be counted on, not count me out.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Thanks for renewing my faith in my fellow man. not. 
I am saddened this day.


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)




----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

CP...I entirely agree. The willingness to invent and postulate alternate explanations for these thieves which flies in the face of all logic leaves me simply appalled. Bankers and lawyers are cast as the evil-doers and the people that reneged on their promises and stole away in the night with property that was not theirs are the "victims". BS.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

I largely agree with CP too, except on one important point. 

I haven't been following this thread closely during the last few days, but back at the beginning I got the clear impression that a large majority of folks felt the Kars had committed a crime (call it what you like). The other thread (with the survey) seemed to agree with these stats. 

So, CP take heart, don't lose faith in all your fellows. A large majority of them agree with you.


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)

uh...the poll was not about whether or not they were wrong. Or whether or not what they did was a crime. Or even about whether or not it was civil, criminal, contractual, etc. 

The poll was whether or not people would turn these complete strangers in to the bank's lawyer. And last time I looked at it, it was running around 63% who said they would do so on principle. They would even let the bank keep the reward money. Plus another ten percent who would do it for the reward.
Thats over 70% who would help the bank's lawyers.

So, what's the whining about? It's never going to be unanimous.


----------



## primerate84 (Jun 14, 2006)

Sailormann, I don't take it personally; I consider the source. You obviously do not reside in the United States and do not know what a community bank is. You also are fortunate to be able to pay cash for everything. Unfortunately, not everybody can and my bank serves a very important function in our local area. And no, we never made a sub-prime loan or deal with mortgage brokers or investment bankers. But then, that wouldn't matter to you because you lump all bankers into the same group. I echo CP's sentiments.


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

CP, I am 100% with you. I have stayed away from this because of my tendency to get a bit overly worked up when I hear the "screw the bank, they've got enough money" arguments. I still believe in the sanctity of business transactions, and would suggest that the Rule of Law benefits all of us and should even apply when one party has more assets than the other.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

camaraderie said:


> CP...I entirely agree. The willingness to invent and postulate alternate explanations for these thieves which flies in the face of all logic leaves me simply appalled. Bankers and lawyers are cast as the evil-doers and the people that reneged on their promises and stole away in the night with property that was not theirs are the "victims". BS.


Amen. Nuff said. Now, will someone please solicit funds for a well-publicized but poorly planned world cruise so we will have something else to ***** about?


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

CB...*"should even apply when one party has more assets than the other."

*CB...you ignorant bourgeoisie tool of the ruling class. Your membership in the World Workers Party is hereby revoked. The day is coming when you and your running dog cronies at the bank will be overwhelmed by the armies of class warfare and victim-hood!


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Everyone,

I am very disspointed to have to tell everyone of the full disclosure here.

It turns out that Cardiac Paul, CBinRI, TB, Cam, and John Pollard are trying to get financing for a new Catalina 400. It is disgusting to find out that they have been intercepting the Kars payments that were supposed to go to the bank, THEN they are going to turn them in for the reward on top of that.

Sad, sad day. But some fine yachts are worth a little white collar crimes, I guess. _What they do not understand is that just because you own the worlds finest yacht, it does not mean that you will be great on the BBQ or good looking_. Those are traits you are born with. But being seen in the Ferrari of sailboats does help, I guess.

So what say you, with this disclosure, that this thread die a quiet death?? If not, I have photoshop and am not afraid to use it.

- CD


----------



## hphoen (Apr 3, 2003)

CD,

Let's move on! This one's been beat to a pulp.

As an alternate form of entertainment, I note for your viewing and reading pleasure that the Freebirds (aka "The New Bumfuzzles"), have recently updated their "Adventures"

https://www.befreebirds.com/Our_Adventures.html

And the plot thickens...

The saga of the unpaid French sailmaker takes a nasty turn, as the Freebirds are served with papers in St Maarten, and Lawyers get into the act.

Meanwhile, Brad injures his pinkie in a boating accident, and Petra dons her nurse's uniform to deal with the medical crisis.


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

Cruisingdad said:


> Everyone,
> 
> I am very disspointed to have to tell everyone of the full disclosure here.
> 
> ...


Rats, you're on to us. You know all that stuff I said about making a phone call, you didn't think I was serious, did you? Let's keep this our little secret.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

CD-
"If not, I have photoshop and am not afraid to use it."
And how do you think I got the title to this nice shiny 58'er transferred into my name? Fully paid with no lienholders, no less.[g]

But for four grand a month, I'll still take her back down to look for the missing one.[vbg]

"So Rick, why did you come to Casablanc?"
'Well, I came for the waters'
"But Rick, there are no waters in Casablanca."
'I know. I was deceived.'


----------



## artbyjody (Jan 4, 2008)

just some info reading:

Sailingahead.com - How to identify a stolen Boat


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Cruisingdad said:


> But being seen in the Ferrari of sailboats does help, I guess.


I've never heard anyone refer to Pacific Seacraft and Tayanas in this way, but sure what the heck!


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Buying a Catalina! They've obviously gone mad reading this thread.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

> Remind me to not let many of you borrow my car.


Okay



> I am really suprised at some of you, although I shouldn't be I guess.
> 
> I see things like "we don't know", and "any bank can"
> and "its none of my business' and its "between the bank and them"...
> ...


Which are posted here on which page here ???? I believe that you had the opportunity of accessing some files which support the claim of the OP. The rest of us have not.

A long, long time ago I used to believe everything that people posted on the internet, but that phase only lasted about 12 hours.



> They promised contractually to repay that money under terms mutually agreed upon.
> 
> They probably promised to pay something yes.
> 
> ...


See above



> Quote:
> This was all spelled out to them before they signed.
> 
> Much in the same manner that all the good folks whose homes are in foreclosure right now had everything "spelled out" when they were signing their usurious "mortgages" ??? I am sure that each and every one of them received the benefit of hours and hours of patient explanation of the forms they were signing, couched in the simplest of layman's terms - NOT! This is why the concept of "sticking it to the man" is such an appealing one to so many.
> ...


The Kars probably did understand what they were signing, however the preceding paragraph was not a reference to the Kars, and you have taken it out of context.

Curious how it doesn't seem to bother you that a whole bunch of your fellow citizens have lost far more proportionally than Lehman's will ever lose, and you're totally okay with it.

I don't think that the Kars did a great thing, but it's not one of the capital crimes of the century. It's amusing. Larcenous, underhanded and a whole bunch of not-so-nice things but amusing and a bit refreshing. The human spirit lives on. 

And as far as the cases that have been made by various folk here regarding how absolutely wrong and terrible it was for them to do something like this and how it does nothing but jack up the price of things for everyone else - get a grip. This not the first, or the worst, or even a significant theft. There are far worse things occurring on a daily basis. Some of them are committed by common criminals and some of them are being committed by the people you know and trust.

If you want to get incensed about something - follow the lead of your FBI and start looking at the criminal activity that has demolished your housing industry.

GO KARS !

'nuff said


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)

Gasp! You are romanticizing these bloodthirsty pirates?

Oh Jesus, what if they reproduce???


----------



## denby (Feb 21, 2007)

Cruisingdad said:


> Everyone,
> 
> I am very disspointed to have to tell everyone of the full disclosure here.
> 
> ...


Lets see here, this post is full of,,, lets say untruths.

1st,* It turns out that Cardiac Paul, CBinRI, TB, Cam, and John Pollard are trying to get financing for a new Catalina 400.*
Who in their right mind would buy a Catalina?

2nd, _*But some fine yachts are worth a little white collar crimes*_, A Catalina a fine yacht???

3nd, *great on the BBQ or good looking * Good looking? CD can't be talking about himself. 

4th, *the Ferrari of sailboats* Maybe up to the level of old VW bug of sailboats.


----------



## denby (Feb 21, 2007)

Didn't they hang horse thieves at one time?


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

denby said:


> Didn't they hang horse thieves at one time?


 Although not practiced in modern times. hanging horse thieves is still legal to date in most states as it was never taken off the books... cool huh?
see Dumb Laws thread.


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)

And if I had a pony, I'd ride it on my boat.

(Lyle Lovett)


----------



## primerate84 (Jun 14, 2006)

Hey Sailormann, the Kars want to borrow $500,000 from you. They heard you have money and they promise to pay you back. Honest. They are great "human spirits" and they said that qualifies them for the loan. Honest. They're really good people at heart. Just somewhat misunderstood. Oh, they also want it in small, unmarked bills.


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

And don't come hasslin' them if they take off for parts unknown. I heard some of your type have made mistakes with some of the numbers, plus we haven't heard their side of the story. I'm pretty sure they've got good hearts, though. You've got plenty more where it came from anyway, don't ya?


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

> Hey Sailormann, the Kars want to borrow $500,000 from you. They heard you have money and they promise to pay you back. Honest. They are great "human spirits" and they said that qualifies them for the loan. Honest. They're really good people at heart. Just somewhat misunderstood. Oh, they also want it in small, unmarked bills.


God love them... but I'm not in the business of lending money and while I'm not poor, I am not wealthy enough to be comfortable giving away $500,000.00. If I were in the business of lending money, I would not be lending it on floating, mobile assets that are easily painted.

Let me clarify my position:

If the Kars did indeed run away with the boat, and are not wrecked and perished, then I don't condone what they did. It was dishonest.

Of all of the dishonest acts committed in 2006 or 2007 (whenever it took place) it is one of the most entertaining and the consequences of the act are not especially serious.

While I don't think that anyone or any institution is deserving of a $600,000.00 loss, if it's going to happen, I can't think of an institution that I would rather see it happen to than an investment bank.

When someone I have never heard of before posts things on internet boards, I rarely take them at face value - particularly if they identify themselves as attorneys. Lawyers are hired guns, and their professional responsibility is to advocate one side, and ONLY one side of an argument. I want to hear both sides before I decide who I believe is in the right and who is not.


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)

Y'all know why lawyers all wear neckties?


(It keeps their foreskins from slipping up over their faces)


----------



## artbyjody (Jan 4, 2008)

*



Stolen 1998 Tayana 58' Cruiser - S/Y LINDA S - ON. 1074851, HIN TYA58090D899

Click to expand...

*


> *Boat Located; Settlement Pending*
> 
> 
> _ Last edited by jssimms : 9 Hours Ago at 09:42 AM. Reason: Boat Located; Settlement Pending_


_



*Figured I would update you guys since Simms is too ungrateful to inform us himself (his post#1 was edited a few hours ago)  So you guys can stop looking for it now...*
_


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

So, who's buying the next round with the reward money?

P.S. Thanks for the update Jody. You seemed to be following this closely. And you are paying cash for a new boat. Hmmmmm.


----------



## artbyjody (Jan 4, 2008)

JohnRPollard said:


> So, who's buying the next round with the reward money?
> 
> P.S. Thanks for the update Jody. You seemed to be following this closely. And you are paying cash for a new boat. Hmmmmm.


Hmmmm indeed...lol see my post on the story of the delivery thread in off-topic - hence why I stumbled upon it... his story is much more in line...


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

*While mr. simms may have deleted his original post to the detriment of this thread. I present it here in its entirety (pardon the highlghting) in hopes that we may learn the full story one day:*

Dear Members,

We are maritime lawyers in Baltimore. We would be grateful for any information that you have that might help us find and recover a *stolen*
*1998* *58*' *Tayana* *Cruiser*, the *S/Y* *LINDA* *S* - U.S. Coast Guard No.
*1074851*, *HIN* *TYA58090D899*, Call Sign WDA2675 - formerly owned by Dale
(Bob/Robert) and *Linda* Kars. There is a reward.

Our client is Lehman Brothers Bank FSB, Capital Crossing Division, Boston. Capital Crossing holds the mortgage on the boat. The boat's former owners, Dale and *Linda* Kars, lived in Highland, Michigan (near Detroit) and defaulted on the mortgage. Capital Crossing accordingly brought suit in the U.S. District Court, Detroit. The U.S. District Court on March 1, 2007 entered judgment in favor of Capital Crossing (copy below), transferring to Capital Crossing the title to the boat, with a monetary judgment of $607,429.39.

Dale and *Linda* Kars however, sometime in 2006 disappeared into the
Caribbean with the boat - and have been living on it since then. Our
information is that they have been sailing in the southern Caribbean;
they have been spotted at Grenada, St. Maarten, Chaguaramas (Trinidad)
and Margarita Island (Venezuela). They may also have sailed recently
up to the Tampa Bay area; Dale Kars has relatives in the Lakeland,
Florida area (the Kars list Dale Kars' brother's business in Lakeland,
as their address for Coast Guard purposes, but they do not live
there).

The Kars refuse to return the boat to Capital Crossing, despite the
Court's Order. It is *stolen*. It is possible that the Kars have
repainted the name on the boat, and removed one or more of the Coast
Guard identification numbers. The boat remains U.S. Flag registered,
however; current Coast Guard registration information, below.

Unfortunately, the bank does not have a photo of the actual boat, however, *58*' Tayanas, particularly, those crewed only by two people, are relatively unusual. The boat color would be either blue, or white.

Any and all information, even old information, would be very helpful,
and as I mentioned, there is a reward for information leading to the
recovery of the boat. Please contact me by return at any of the
numbers below and/or by email.

Best regards, Steve
J. Stephen Simms
Simms Showers LLP
20 *S*. Charles Street, Suite 703
Baltimore, Maryland US
800-537-6930 (toll free, U.S.)
410-783-5795
410-510-1789 (f)
410-365-6131 (m)
_________________________________________
Vessel Documentation Query by Name

Vessel Name: *LINDA* *S* USCG Doc. No.: *1074851*
Vessel Service: RECREATIONAL IMO Number: *
Trade Indicator: Recreational Call Sign: *
Hull Material: FRP (FIBERGLASS) Hull Number: *TYA58090D899*
Ship Builder: TA YANG YACHT BUILD CO Year Built: *1998*
Length (ft.): *58*
Hailing Port: ANNAPOLIS MD Hull Depth (ft.): 16
Owner: ROBERT D KARS
5333 *S* FLORIDA AVE
LAKELAND, FL 33813 Hull Breadth (ft.): 16.1
Gross Tonnage: 56
Net Tonnage: 50
Previous Vessel Names: No Vessel Name Changes Previous Vessel
Owners: No Vessel Owner Changes
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Capital Crossing Bank,
Case No. 06-cv-11778
Plaintiff, Hon. John Feikens
v.
Robert D. Kars and *Linda* *S*. Kars,
Defendants,
_________________________________________/

JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT

The Clerk's entry of default having been entered against Defendants
Robert D. Kars and *Linda* *S*. Kars;

THEREFORE, upon the request of the Plaintiff, and pursuant to Rule 55
(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT is hereby entered in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants Robert D. Kars and *Linda* *S*. Kars in the amount of $607,429.39, plus daily interest and costs of this action. Capital Crossing hereby is awarded full ownership, right, title and interest, and immediate right of possession, wherever it may be found, of the sailing vessel *LINDA* *S*, U.S. Coast Guard Official Number
*1074851* ("Vessel"). The judgment amount shall be reduced by the amount of any proceeds of sale of the Vessel net of Capital Crossing's expenses related to this action, the judgment, or the Vessel.

*s*/John Feikens
John Feikens
United States District Judge
Dated: March 1, 2007

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this
document was served on the attorneys of record
by electronic means or U.S. Mail on March 1,
2007.
*s*/Carol Cohron
Deputy Clerk
**************************************************************
*NOTE FOR NEW READERS: 
EDIT: AS of 4/14/08 the vessel and the Kars are still missing. 
*


----------



## artbyjody (Jan 4, 2008)

Thanks Cam... As I personally wished that on a thread this long he had not edited the first and original post starting this...

Perhaps maybe Simms will actually post the gory details of where it was etc... doubtful, but it would be a nice service to the community as he did use this as a venue and yep - we want the details and pics..

Thanks again Cam!


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Ain't google great? Nothing is ever gone!!


----------



## artbyjody (Jan 4, 2008)

camaraderie said:


> Ain't google great? Nothing is ever gone!!


You didn't use super moderator powers  - damn congrats! But again - cool you did that...


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Thanks Cam...


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

and the moral of this story is.....

Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale, 
A tale of a fateful trip 
That started from this tropic port 
Aboard this sailing ship....


the boat sunk off the coast of south america
last summer. they ran aground and lost the only home
they "didn't" really own after all....although, i thought
they owned the boat...but what did i know? i'm just a daughter
who never knew their business and never asked because
i've got my own humble life several states away and it wasn't
my business to ask.

family, of which i am...worried for months and months.
and those who are saying they were served in person
on May 30th 2006....are WRONG. they were gone in
February of 2006 and never returned. they weren't in the US
in May...that is fact. 

for 2 years i've gotten 3 phone calls...the last 
call i received last summer, was to ask for financial help after they sunk the boat and a place to stay since she didn't have a home to go
back to. i couldn't help, and i have to live with that.

do i agree or condone what they have done? NO! 
but people fall on hard times....it can happen to any
of us at any time. sometimes in desperation...people
do desperate things.

to read people here speculating on what these "thieves" did...it's, well...sad.
i don't even know the whole story and if you want to be frank...personally...i prefer NOT to know. i don't want any part of it...because i can't help. but...i really have a hard time reading people wishing my mother and her husband "get what they deserve". if you know them and feel they are getting their karmic rewards...that's one thing. but if they are strangers to you....why wish them ill? until you've been in a situation...it's best not to judge.

what's that saying? judge not, lest ye' be judged?

so...there's your story....or an update, if you will

regards


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

thanks for the update Silverking


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

your welcome pirate...this seemed to be a pretty hot topic and it
took me awhile to get through it, but felt you all needed an update
since mr simms didn't really provide one. all that i've learned on their
situation...i mostly learned from google myself. it's how i found this forum tonight and this thread...i was googling the boat name to see what i could learn, as i too am in the dark on what REALLY happened. while i don't want to know...i still need to know, if that makes any kind of sense. if i could get the details from the source...i would, but since i've not had any contact since last summer, that's not happening.

and a bit selfishly...i'm kinda defending my mother here...she is after all...my mother and no matter what has happened...she's someone i care very much about. she would be very upset to learn of me posting her business here....but i had to try to set some details straight. seems like you all had more details of their business then i've ever found...so thanks for that. i'm actually shocked at the amount of details you have here. kinda scary really lol.

as to the fate of the tayana...couldn't tell ya. it sunk...i received proof that it sunk via email from someone who gave them shelter at the time. she sent me a picture after she called me and we spoke on the phone. she found me because my mother called me from her house (that 3rd and last phone call) and my number showed up on this womans phone bill. for all i know they could be in prison in venezuela. i guess some here would find that a fitting end for two crooks huh?


----------



## artbyjody (Jan 4, 2008)

Silver - thanks for posting that update regardless. I do know how painful it must be regardless of whatever rift exists with the family. There are always many parts to a story...but online we do like to speculate - nothing personal meant probably by anyone...


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Let's see some proof silverking that you are who you say you are and that the boat sank. Even if what you've said is true...they're still thieves. 
The lawyer said they had a settlement...not a sinking. Burden of proof is on you...Usually a 58 foot boat sinking makes news somewhere. 
Dubious.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

camaraderie said:


> Let's see some proof silverking that you are who you say you are and that the boat sank. Even if what you've said is true...they're still thieves.
> The lawyer said they had a settlement...not a sinking. Burden of proof is on you...Usually a 58 foot boat sinking makes news somewhere.
> Dubious.


I knew that coming...i was trying to be compassionate


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

camaraderie...you'd think it would make news wouldn't you? it didn't though, and 
believe me...i googled everything just to see what news it did make. 

then again...we're talking venezuela...which is where the boat was indeed sunk. i'm sure mr simms could verify that fact.

i suppose by proof...you want to see the pic...is that right? perhaps i'll do that, since your the mod here and all. hmmm...what can i say for you to know i am who i say i am...and i speak the truth?

jody...painful..yes. i understand the speculation though...i post on many internet forums myself. it just is hard to read when it is family.

i'll post the pic...but let me upload it first to a site. look at it while you can (save it if you wish) because it won't stay up too long...sorry.

be right back

oh...but i can't post an image or link because i don't have 10 posts. well dang cameraderie...however will i prove this burden?

i will be back tomorrow afternoon. this gal needs to get some sleep. my law enforcement type husband will want breakfast before his shift tomorrow. he's got a busy week. not chasing down boaters though...thank goodness lol.


----------



## Stillraining (Jan 11, 2008)

Silverking...Thanks for surfacing...that took guts...

I was on the fence about this hole affair...and what it ended up boiling down for me was ..If I had knolage of them and was asked by authority's I wouldn't lie...but I would not have run and called 911 if I saw them either...

I can understand your position possibly theirs too..

Best of luck to you..


----------



## Stillraining (Jan 11, 2008)

I Want to catch a big one on a fly some day...(Tarpon ) ...I'll take chocolate chip...


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

personally, I think the last thing I would have a mind to do would be taken a picture of my sunken or sinking home, be like taking a picture of your house burning to the ground.

kinda odd to me


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)

Something doesnt seem quite kosher, but I can't put my finger on it. Call it gut feeling.

In any case, I got beat up on this forum because I wouldn't turn people in to banks and lawyers.

What is a 'law-enforcement type'? Is that a police officer? A school official? 
Seems a strange term to use for a husband's profession.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I'm not buying it either. Even if I did it doesn't change the fact they stole the boat.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Freesail99 said:


> I don't think it's about honor, or who is right or who is wrong. To me, it's about minding my own business. I am not my brother's keeper. There are thousands of law enforcement types to deal with this. They are getting paid, no matter what. If you do there job for them, will they be sitting on their butts, drinking coffee and eating donuts? Having lived with a prosecutor for 5 years, I got an inside view on how the legal systems works, depending on what side of the bed they ( read she ) got up on.


here we go...the law enforcement type comment. 

i'll be back later


----------



## Freesail99 (Feb 13, 2006)

silverking said:


> here we go...the law enforcement type comment.
> 
> i'll be back later


What they don't have Dunkin Donuts where you live? (g)


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

Freesail99 said:


> What they don't have Dunkin Donuts where you live? (g)


Can't be Rhode Island, then. There's one on every corner.


----------



## RickQuann (May 27, 2005)

" if anyone knows what a silverking is ...you get a cookie  "


In addition to being the grandest of game fish, it's also a backcountry skiff that's pretty common throughout the Keys. Tarpon = brute force .... and on a flyrod, the hookup on a life time.


----------



## kwaltersmi (Aug 14, 2006)

This thread remains interesting. Why do I get the feeling that it will soon get locked down/edited/deleted by our mods in the near future? Seems like many of the most interesting threads turn sour eventually (remember the Flicka thread?).

Anyway...

Is there a chance that the boat could have been intentionally sunk by its' owners? Or could the sinking have been faked? Not trying to pile on to Silverking, just brainstorming and playing David Curuso for a bit.


----------



## Ilenart (Jul 23, 2007)

This threads been pretty weird for the last 100 posts, an its not improving!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Stillraining (Jan 11, 2008)

Tough crowd...Volcano eruption ? What volcano eruption ...I didnt feel it..I didnt see it ....Never happened...Mt Saint who?..never heard of it...Prove it..


----------



## artbyjody (Jan 4, 2008)

You know - Simms did (and reference the thread that I posted that announced this) that a settlement had been reached. Usually that means one thing - the boat was found. Obviously if the boat payments had been skipped out on - there probably was a lack of insurance - so doubtful a insurance payment was made...

Now assuming Silverking is legit - then perhaps she was suckered as well because the hunt for it began well before the judgment. In fact soley based on the fact that lack of payments had been made ,the bank had the rights to repo it without a court order anyways. It doesn't take a court order to repo a car or such. This of course assumes that a loan was made for the boat and the boat was not secured by means of another mortgage on a home. If was a mortgage from another home - then the home would be under collection as well. If the boat is just collateral etc maybe the rules are a bit different. The judgment however in any case was so that is a legal documentation of efforts exhausted and to make it grounds for a criminal action against.

The picture could be real, the events could be real or could be merely presented and mailed to said daughter merely to provide a distraction. Kinda like mailing a picture of a wrecked but similar car - to ones mom knowing that she is the emergency contact listed on the loan application. Thinking that it will throw everyone off the track...

So, I have to say that maybe not all ducks are in the row here, but I am no banker, lawyer, law enforcement, or a baker (or even actually a starving artist)...

But it sure is fun to speculate....


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Barely conceivable:
That a company could make a loan secured by the title to a 3/4 million dollar yacht, and not require insurance on it? Resulting in a loss claim instead of a repo action?
I wonder what kind of "settlement" with penniless castaways makes that work. But then again, I'm so easily baffled.


----------



## artbyjody (Jan 4, 2008)

hellosailor said:


> Barely conceivable:
> That a company could make a loan secured by the title to a 3/4 million dollar yacht, and not require insurance on it? Resulting in a loss claim instead of a repo action?
> I wonder what kind of "settlement" with penniless castaways makes that work. But then again, I'm so easily baffled.


Oh I am sure they had insurance at ONE time - probably coupled with the payment - but if you are not making the payment, then the insurance company is not being paid and therefore - canceled insurance.

However, since that is a new boat, do not be confused here as I learned the hard way. The bank has insurance on it as well. So even if you default, insurance lapses, and it gets totaled - the bank has insurance on it that will pay most of the remaining actual value of the boat. Something a lot of people do not know.

I know firsthand as when a new truck I had got totaled the insurance company (State Farm) refused to pay for it as they stated I was in violation of the policy. The bank enacted their policy to cover the loss and I was dutifully relieved of having to pay on a loan where I had no property. But, I knew about that so , the attempts to get me to pay for it when I did have proof of insurance etc...


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

silverking said:


> i believe, if you know how to read posts...i said "the woman who called me sent me the picture"...i clearly stated this in my second post in reply to pirate. the pictures were taken by her AFTER the initial accident...not by the crew of the lindaS. hope that clears that up for you.


Ahh yes, that clears it up very conveniently


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Jody-
"then the insurance company is not being paid and therefore - canceled insurance. " And typically--if the financing was typical--the insurance policy is made out to the lienholder, and the insurer notifies the lineholder immediately on any lapse. At which point the lienholder sends out a clear letter that they'll be calling in the note and taking the boat (car, plane, whatever) immediately.

Oooh, look! My 54' Hinckley just sank! It must be true, after all, I'm on the beach and there's no boat in sight!

Nah, it's not THAT easy.[g] I guess we could check the USCG documentation database next year to find out if the boat is still titled in the US or not. I can wait. Heck, I HAVE to wait, now that my Hinckley has sunk!

She's currently documented as:

Vessel Name: LINDA S USCG Doc. No.: 1074851 
Vessel Service: RECREATIONAL IMO Number: * 
Trade Indicator: Recreational Call Sign: * 
Hull Material: FRP (FIBERGLASS) Hull Number: TYA58090D899 
Ship Builder: TA YANG YACHT BUILD CO Year Built: 1998

Length (ft.): 58 
Hailing Port: ANNAPOLIS MD Hull Depth (ft.): 16 
Owner: ROBERT D KARS 
5333 S FLORIDA AVE 
LAKELAND, FL 33813 Hull Breadth (ft.): 16.1 
Gross Tonnage: 56 
Net Tonnage: 50

Previous Vessel Names: No Vessel Name Changes 
Previous Vessel Owners: No Vessel Owner Changes

No date shown for the last renewal though.


----------



## theartfuldodger (Sep 4, 2006)

after following this thread, I've come to realize that "Jissimms" came here to be a member to just post his statements and look for help. As I follow other sites as well as this one and they pretty much have all similiar threads on topics which are here yet this one never surfaced except here, and why is that I wonder. It makes me reflect on this sites effectiveness.


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)

silverking said:


> since when are school officials in law enforcement? lol


Are you kidding? "School officials" are busting kids right and left for sexual harrasment, illegal possession of ibuprofen, habitual use of peanut butter,and any politically incorrect thoughts they can possibly attribute to them. School Officials are the enforcement and recruitment arms of the liberals in America.


----------



## Stillraining (Jan 11, 2008)

At one time they would have had to have had it...Banks always require there collateral to be insured.. 

Jody's spot on with the cancellation that would come for non payment of premiums..

Jody I did not know banks took out there own ins. at there own expense... doubled insured...very interesting..I bet they get a way better deal then we do..


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

So where's the picture of the sunken boat silverking? Can't figure out how to post a picture for viewing on the internet? Send to to my E mail and I'll do it for you just use sailcamaraderie and then at yahoo dot com.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

i tried to post the pic last night cam...however i need 10 posts in order to post an image or a link on this forum. i also asked you to pm me since you are a mod so that we could work it out. but i'll email you then.


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

silverking said:


> i tried to post the pic last night cam...however i need 10 posts in order to post an image or a link on this forum. i also asked you to pm me since you are a mod so that we could work it out. but i'll email you then.


just one more post to go we are all waiting


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

******, you've got it backwards! "School Officials are the enforcement and recruitment arms of the liberals in America." Hell no, the compulsory education system in the US was designed early in the industrial revolution to provide well-behaved drones to work in factories. Put your hand up, ask permission, wear a uniform, don't express free thought, and never challenge arbitray authority. The goal is not to educate--but to produce worker drones.

So that would be agents of the Conservatives and Establishment--not agents of liberals.

There are other school systems and other approaches to education rather than drone production, but the mass of the US school system ain't one of them.

Silverking-
Hurricane insurance, whatever...Mr. Simms could, I'm sure, answer all of that. There's all kiinds of what-ifs, all that any of us KNOW for sure, is that this entire situation sounds odd.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

hellosailor said:


> ******, you've got it backwards! "School Officials are the enforcement and recruitment arms of the liberals in America." Hell no, the compulsory education system in the US was designed early in the industrial revolution to provide well-behaved drones to work in factories. Put your hand up, ask permission, wear a uniform, don't express free thought, and never challenge arbitray authority. The goal is not to educate--but to produce worker drones.
> 
> So that would be agents of the Conservatives and Establishment--not agents of liberals.
> 
> ...


Hello,

Looks like you did a repeat.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Silverking...did you get a bounce back cause I don't have any mail from you.?


----------



## artbyjody (Jan 4, 2008)

She can post images now:




Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 10
Rep Power: 0
silverking is on a distinguished road

So lets see the goods!


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

silverking said:


> hello...yep..it is ODD. i'm one of the first to admit that. you have no idea
> how it's been for family...and there IS family left behind. not only me, but other children and aunts, uncles, neices nephews. they left without a word to
> any of us..as far as their situation goes. we knew they were going on a trip...we just didn't know they weren't ever coming back...or what their situation was. like i said...i'm states away and didn't know, the others are spread out as well.
> 
> ...


You have 10 posts. You should be able to post a pic if you cannot send it to Cam.

This site occasionally has difficulty in doing a direct upload. I suggest joining photobucket.com as one option. It is free. You can upload the pic there.

Here are the steps to doing it. Just click on this link. Note: It is the second address down on Photobucket that you have to click to link here... not the top one.

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/general-discussion-sailing-related/28958-steps-posting-pictures.html

- CD


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

I think I found it:










   

P.S. Photo credits not mine. found this on the web without attribution. Apologies and compliments to the photographer.


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

silverking said:


> yep...sure did cam....user unknown. i just resent. let me know if you get it.
> 
> i will let cam make the decision as to whether he feels it's legit...if he does...he can post it...or i will do so later when i get back from my appointment.


Ya right and the check is in the mail! But, I guess you know all about that!


----------



## Stillraining (Jan 11, 2008)

JohnRPollard said:


> I think I found it:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


John is that for real?... Looks to unreal too me.....Pretty cool gag if not real though..


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Stillraining said:


> John is that for real?... Looks to unreal too me.....Pretty cool gag if not real though..


Still,

That's real. It's a J40 that ran aground while sailing transatlantic from New England to Europe. The owner plotted the Great Circle Route and then fed the waypoints into his GPS, which was interfaced to the autopilot. Unfortunately, the chart he used for plotting the GCR was a large scale hurricane tracking map that did not include an important detail: Sable Island!! Imagine their surprise when the mid-night-watch saw breakers ahead!

Here is the before shot:










Sorry about the diversion, but this thread needed a little levity while we wait with bated breath for the much anticipate "authentic" photo.


----------



## Stillraining (Jan 11, 2008)

Thanks John..Wow...My heart just sinks when I see beautiful boats like that washed up and destroyed like that...I cant imagine how the owners feel sitting there helpless and all...happy to be alive but gut wrenching to say the least..


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I wonder if theyre still down below waiting it out???


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

I got it. Working on sizing. Thank you silverking. I believe you are legit and will post pix in just a little while.


----------



## Spiritman (Jan 10, 2008)

Hmmm..... I was counting the reward money already!


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

camaraderie said:


> I got it. Working on sizing. Thank you silverking. I believe you are legit and will post pix in just a little while.


Congrats on passing your initiation! it's a tough one.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Here's the pix sent by Silverking. The first is what certainly appears to be a sunken T58...I cropped it a bit to fit here but there are lines running to it from shore. Certainly does not appear to be worth $650k anymore.








The next picture with the person blocked out is of the "owner" and his recovered gear. Note the propane stove someone removed. Wonder how muc is left of the boat now. 








I would further confirm that as silverfish reported...the Kars were never personally served with court papers. They had left the country and legal service was accomplished by running a series of notices in the newspapers to the satisfaction of the court which then issued the papers for recover of the vessel. 
Finally...there has been NO settlement of this case at this point in time. The boat and the Kars are still being sought.


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

Cam, Why do you say there has been no settlement? does that not contradict what the attorney said?


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

said indeed.


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)

Who blocked the owner out? Seems a photo of the person they are looking for would be of some help to those who want to turn him in.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Cam,

These are poor quality photos for sure. But it appears that the boat sank while at anchor, with all sails furled, or went aground while under power or adrift. Peculiar....

As suggested early in the thread, the boat was painted blue.


----------



## denby (Feb 21, 2007)

2Gringos said:


> Who blocked the owner out? Seems a photo of the person they are looking for would be of some help to those who want to turn him in.


You're right 2G, but it isn't Cam's place to publish the persons photo.


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

JohnRPollard said:


> Cam,
> 
> These are poor quality photos for sure. But it appears that the boat sank while at anchor, with all sails furled, or went aground while under power or adrift. Peculiar....
> 
> As suggested early in the thread, the boat was painted blue.


I guess they repained it from the red they had me paint it. but folks it's hard to paint a boat underway! ya there were a few paint runs but only from the deck to the water line. Maybe, thats why I never heard from them again, they didn't like the paint job?


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

To answer the questions asked:
1. The block of Mr. Kars face was done by Silverking who did not want his face splashed on the internet. 
2. Sorry for the size of the pix...my higher rez ones show lines running from the top of the mast to shore which indicates some effort being made to right the boat. There is another long line from shore to the stern. There is nothing I can see on the bow roller/anchor so that remains a mystery. Some sail is showing on the main and though the angle is bad it looks like a foot or two of a in-mast furling main is visible. 
3. Due to confidences which I am not at liberty to share publicly I can state that there is no settlement but that is all I can say at this point but I am confident 100% that this information is true.


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

What a web we weave!


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)

Soooo...the bank has the boat's location ( Venezuela), they have enough evidence to go to the insurance company they bought insurance from, and next it should be...

Maybe the insurance company chasing the Kars? Wait a minute, the Kars didnt sink the boat. Nor hire or defraud the banks insurance company... So the bank gets paid off, the Kars are high and dry, and their credit rating is shot. IS this the end? Tune in again next week, for the next exciting episode of.....

As the Worms Turn...


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

I was going to ask about your level confidents and the reason for that was, since this appeared here, I've read numerous reports on Ty58's being stolen; the last one I read awhile back was in Lat38 which had this description



> _******** is a Tayana 58 RS (raised salon) cutter with a *dark blue* *hull* with white cabin tops, weathered teak decks, *a tan dodger/bimini, mast furling mainsail, and staysail/jib on roller furlers with tan sun guards.* _


Another interesting quote was

_



She looks a lot like an Oyster, and has been mistaken for one many times.

Click to expand...

_

_Playing devils advocate, this could be just another poor souls boat, and possibly not even a Ty_


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

I don't have confidence in the photos I posted. I simply posted the photos sent by Silverfish who could not post them herself. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that she is telling the truth as she knows it. 
The only thing I have confidence in is that the boat is missing still as are the Kars and the search continues.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

camaraderie said:


> Nevertheless, it is my opinion that she is telling the truth as she knows it.


I've always had a level of respect your opinion, with that said, I'll stfu.

my apologies silverking


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

"As the Worms turn" ?

I think you're tuning in to the wrong soap opera. This channel is showing, "As the Anchor Drags". It's a long-running series of great scope with tremendous holding power for it's audience.


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

camaraderie said:


> The only thing I have confidence in is that the boat is missing still as are the Kars and the search continues.


So what's up with the settlement statement from the attorney?


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

I might be a little slow on the uptake but, does this mean that now there are a whole bunch of people chasing around after no money?


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

No matter what it's a sad ending to a fine boat. What a shame.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

OK...more news! The attorney who started this thread Steve Simms, has now put pictures of the original boat and all court documents on an on line site for everyone's perusal. 
He is of the opinion that the pictures I posted above show a nice blue boat but offer no proof that this is THE boat Linda S. which is in question. It would be easy to prove if the hull #'s could be matched and until then the case will remain open and in active search mode.

I believe the blue boat IS the lindaS with a paint job as all the portholes and rubrail are in the same place and it appears to be the hull and rig of a T58 and there just are not a lot of sunken t58s out there! I would note that if the boat is indeed sunk and worthless that the Kars could simply e-mail or send a letter to Simms or have family do so saying where the boat is as this would not reveal where they are NOR is the vessel any further use to them. Otherwise they will continue to be pursued and I believe they will be found in short order. 
Here's some pix of the boat and the website with links to loan and court documents.

http://home.earthlink.net/~simms7835795/


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Hey Cam!,
Our drive-in movie theater closed about thirty years ago. Did you have to post the photo in Cinemascope?


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

Thank you Cam for staying on top of this!


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Unfortunate situation all around.

Never, ever, ever, ever, no matter how good an idea it seems at the time, go into debt to buy a boat !

If the Kars had settled for a used but serviceable Alberg 37 and paid cash for it - well they'd probably still be out there having the time of their lives.

Newbies take heed !


----------



## artbyjody (Jan 4, 2008)

Sailormann said:


> Unfortunate situation all around.
> 
> Never, ever, ever, ever, no matter how good an idea it seems at the time, go into debt to buy a boat !
> 
> ...


But then think about all those in the boat loan industry and the lawyers that try to recoup the loses when bills get out of hand. You know they have to eat to... And the other plus - resale on the auction block! Of course we do hope that its a not a salvage title... none the less...

Personally - unless the picture was identified as the boat in question - and I assume it was... There would have to be some record of the boat painted. Unless of course Simms website is merely portraying the picture of a similar one or before it got painted (but the boot stripe would not of been on there before a paint job...)....

My analysis of the photo of the boat in the water - it was a professional paint job. Look at the bottom paint - its clean as a whistle... If one was merely trying to paint and dodge - they would of forgone the boot stripe (at least I would), skipped the bottom job because you have to save the mullah to be on the run. My instincts tell me that the boat is still at large...but I don't know the whole story and I doubt any one does except the Kars themselves. The supporting evidence, whilst the daughter claims (sorry talking about you third person) rough communication etc with mom - if there is one thing to be said is that family is turned to first regardless how strained the relationship is... Stuck in Venezuela after a shipwreck - sinking etc... sure seems to me one of those moments where you try to re-connect as the fear of something comes to mind. Yet, photo comes from a friend of someone, but not them themselves? Doesn't quite add up scenario wise although it apparently happened.

Naturally just conjecture and my own interpretation of the events as it is presented here. If it is indeed true - there are only a handful of yards in that region that could of professionally painted that boat - and it took at least 4 weeks to get done. There'd have to be some trace left behind...besides a sunken Tayana.


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

Sailormann said:


> Unfortunate situation all around.
> 
> Never, ever, ever, ever, no matter how good an idea it seems at the time, go into debt to buy a boat !
> 
> ...


And it was almost 5k a month, too.


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

Hard to tell from the angle, but it appears that the sunken boat does not have a hard top/pilothouse. The Linda K does.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Xort-

Given the angle, and that you can barely make out the gooseneck and boom, I doubt you can really tell from that photo whether the boat does or does not have pilothouse.


----------



## hphoen (Apr 3, 2003)

Someone decided the photos were taken in Venezuela. How did you come to that conclusion? Not challenging, just curious.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

sailaway21 said:


> "As the Worms turn" ?
> 
> I think you're tuning in to the wrong soap opera. This channel is showing, "As the Anchor Drags". It's a long-running series of great scope with tremendous holding power for it's audience.


Hahahahaha. Good one! 

I am trying to imagine circumstances where I would climb out to the masthead to secure lines run from/to shore, after the boat had sunk and heeled over so dramatically. That would be very tricky, and to what purpose? If I were trying to track down this boat, I'd be suspicious too.

If I were the deceptive type, trying to hide a boat from the rightful owners -- after repainting it and hiding out in distant lands for a year or two only to discover that my name and a description of the boat were plastered all over the internet -- I might fake a "shipwreck" in shallow water. I would "salvage" the boat first, maybe even removing such things as the propane stove (that would be a cumbersome item to remove from the boat shown wrecked in the photo.) I would find a nice shallow ledge in a protected cove where I could do a controlled flooding of the boat, and lean it over on its side gently against a bar. Before I leaned it, I'd secure several lines from the mast head to the shores, to help control the lean and also help right the boat after the photos were taken. I would make sure some family members got grainy copies of a few photos, but no other information about my whereabouts. Hopefully those photos would make the rounds on the internet and....????


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)

funny.....I was thinking along the same lines....


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

You do have to wonder exactly how the boat got into the situation it is in. The water there appears to be far too shallow for the boat to be there in the course of normal sailing. The tides aren't very high in Venezuela from what I understand.


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)

Or the photo was taken in the Bay of Fundy?


----------



## hphoen (Apr 3, 2003)

The boat has a bit of the main out. Maybe they made landfall in the dark, hove to to wait until dawn, but miscalculated the drift and ended up on the rocks.


----------



## theartfuldodger (Sep 4, 2006)

In comparing the port holes in the side to the boat grounded and the one displayed by Simms are different boats if in fact the boat they are showing is the real one.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

hphoen said:


> The boat has a bit of the main out. Maybe they made landfall in the dark, hove to to wait until dawn, but miscalculated the drift and ended up on the rocks.


That looks to me like the sliver of sail often seen protruding from in-mast mainsail furlers.



theartfuldodger said:


> In comparing the port holes in the side to the boat grounded and the one displayed by Simms are different boats if in fact the boat they are showing is the real one.


I thought the same at first, but not so sure now. I think there is a strange glimmer on the blue boat that at first looks like a hull portlight, but is just a reflection. That said, portlight configuration is one of the distinguishing features of most boats -- would be worth altering them to throw people off.


----------



## theartfuldodger (Sep 4, 2006)

well if the couple were on the lamp, such things as changing the look of the boat would cost a lot, so if they had that kind of money it would have to be some where, either on the boat or in some kind of an account, of which might be traceable and attachable mayby. That being said the hull number will only be the real proof, but how would one know even that to be proveable, other than being right there and see it first hand, being that it sunk.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Of course, it is rather hard to tell much from the photos, since the ones on Simms site are about the size of postage stamps and the larger one is anamorphically distorted. The ones that Cam posted for Silverking are fairly low resolution as well.


----------



## theartfuldodger (Sep 4, 2006)

Here is another passing thought, one who has been to Venezuela for a period of time, when checking out the pic of gear on the dock, didn't look right. So I decided to downlaod picture and check it out. Firstly silos in back ground are not found on the coast as all agriculture farming is in land, not mention never seen silos like these, would suggest as well the barns don't look right either . Another odd thing when checking the hill sides I don't see the red soil something very apparent when you see the shore of this country. For one who has been there this picture I feel is not of Venezuela. Just another observation.


----------



## theartfuldodger (Sep 4, 2006)

Have to restate idenity of the two pictures, with clearing up the pictures and removing glares, I sized both boats and over layed them and they do match


----------



## TrueBlue (Oct 11, 2004)

Facinating photos and difficult to compare when each is at a different level of resolution and aspect ratio. I downloaded four of the images and attempted to resize for a fairer comparison.

You decide . . .


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Thanks TB...that's a better comparison. The high rez shots I have of the sunken boat show:
1. A scrap of mainsail out...looks like an in mast furler. 
2. A small bimini 
3. Aluminum toe rail.
4. All ports in the same place as the yeard photos of Linda S
5. Two stern through hull in the same place.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Could be the angle of the photo but the small bimini on the sunken boat looks a bit far forward from where it should be. All else looks the same.


----------



## TrueBlue (Oct 11, 2004)

All that seems to effectively connect the two boats Cam, but one thing seems strange to me. The white boot stripe on the sunken vessel, between the red bottom paint and dark blue hull, seems to be aligned with the yard boat's dark blue boot stripe.

It seems to me that if a white hull is painted dark blue, the choice of allowing a band of white gel coat to remain, as a separation for the existing blue stripe, would make sense. The notion that the dark blue boot stripe is painted white makes much less sense.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I noticed that the rub rail for the stbd side ends forward of the portlight on the original, at or aft of the port light on the sunken boat. Maybe it is just the lighting? Just looks like it is off close to a foot to me. Other than that (assuming the cabin top is not visible at that angle), it sure does look like a Tayana.

- CD


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)

You guys would argue over a calendar, wouldn't ya.

I am curious that unless I missed it here ( which is entirely possible) nobody has questioned why the boat sank in the first place in that shallow, protected location.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Gringos...no information on "why" but I've seen similar things in moderate conditions when an anchor doesn't hold properly...the boat ends on a reef and the tide goes out. Could be that simple of something more devious. No way to know.


----------



## kwaltersmi (Aug 14, 2006)

Who's to say it actually sunk? These could easily be doctored/chopped photos. I'm really not always a skeptic, but there's just too little to go on at this point, unless of course, Cam shares the other details he seems to be holding back.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

2Gringos said:


> You guys would argue over a calendar, wouldn't ya.
> 
> I am curious that unless I missed it here ( which is entirely possible) nobody has questioned why the boat sank in the first place in that shallow, protected location.


Some of us have way too much free time on our hands. It's great!


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

2Gringos said:


> I am curious that unless I missed it here ( which is entirely possible) nobody has questioned why the boat sank in the first place in that shallow, protected location.


That was essentially the gist of my earlier post.



camaraderie said:


> Gringos...no information on "why" but I've seen similar things in moderate conditions when an anchor doesn't hold properly...the boat ends on a reef and the tide goes out...


True, but usually a boat in this situation is not a total loss and can be refloated. Unless these is major hull damage. If I wanted to get the bounty hunters off my back and the boat truly was a total loss, I'd have been sure to get photos of the major damage. Even another angle (easily taken from the point of land in the background) would have quelled suspicions.

Cam, can you tell us why the lawyer Mr. Simms posted that the boat had been "located and settlement is pending" if that is not the case?


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"nobody has questioned why the boat sank in the first place in that shallow, protected location." Boat swings, hits rock, sinks. What's unusual about that?

Hose clamp rots off, boat floods, sinks. Happens all the time.

Cam, can you look at the high-res pictures taken in the parking lot, and see what flags are flying from the crossed yard-arm mast in the picture? It looks like there are two of them, the lo-res version is too pixelated to make them out. I would assume one is for the nation they are in, the other for a "state" or facility?

They should tell us reams.

And I see there is a church next door, but can't make out any helpful detail from it. Got a list of "Venezualan churches by oceanside facilities" by any chance? [g] Which sects put up plain white crosses on the roof?


----------



## 2Gringos (Jan 4, 2008)

The tide, or winds, in Venezuela change direction and velocity quickly enough to swing a boat against a rock hard enough to knock a hole in it? That would happen day one, the first time the tide changed, right? Must be newbie sailors, I guess. Never anchored before.

These people lived aboard, right? And sailors don't have bilge alarms or pumps? In $ 800,000 boats?

These boats don't have stainless steel hose clamps?


----------



## jssimms (Mar 27, 2008)

*Update: Stolen 1998 Tayana 58' Cruiser - S/Y LINDA S - ON. 1074851, HIN TYA58090D899*

Dear List Members:

Many thanks for those helping with information and suggestions to locate Dale and Linda Kars, and the LINDA S. This is an update.

The boat continues to be stolen. About two weeks ago, we received a call from a lawyer representing Dale and Linda Kars. The lawyer said that Dale Kars had told the lawyer where the boat was located, but, as a condition to that wanted a complete release from our client, Lehman Brothers Bank, as a condition to revealing the boat's location. The bank, in return, asked to have the boat independently surveyed, without revealing to the bank the location of the boat. This was rejected.

This thread includes the post from a person posting as Linda Kars' daughter, with photos of the boat, apparently sunk; our experts examining the photos, however, confirm that the boat in the photo is not the LINDA S.

As posted earlier, if the boat is sunk, then there should be no problem with Dale and Linda Kars allowing independent confirmation of that (again, though, the photos posted earlier are not photos of the LINDA S). If it is not sunk, then Dale and Linda Kars should turn it over without condition. Our calls to Dale Kars' lawyer to follow up on this have not been returned.

We and our client, Capital Crossing - Lehman Brothers Bank, continue to be grateful for all assistance to locate the LINDA S, 1998 Tayana 58' Cruiser - ON. 1074851, HIN TYA58090D899.

Further information about the boat, Federal Court judgment against Dale and Linda Kars, and photos of the actual LINDA S, are posted at the link in the Moderator's earlier message; we have updated this site with further information.

We also welcome messages off list and your calls with questions about this, as well as leads on or suggestions for locating Dale and Linda Kars. All leadson request will be kept confidential, and there continues to be a reward for information that leads directly to recovering the LINDA S.

Best regards, Steve
J. Stephen Simms
Simms Showers LLP
800-537-6930 (toll free, U.S.)
410-783-5795
410-510-1789 (f)
410-365-6131 (m)
410-560-9889 (h)


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

jssimms said:


> Dear List Members:
> 
> Many thanks for those helping with information and suggestions to locate Dale and Linda Kars, and the LINDA S. This is an update.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the update.

- CD


----------



## tommyt (Sep 21, 2002)

We went six days and I thought this thing was finally dead. Be warned....in six months I am going to resurrect this thing, SD is going to yell at me for resurrecting a dead thread, and I am going to blame it on feigned interest in the outcome. 
Hopefully one of the many 24 hour news wanna be's does an article on the lynching of this couple in a small remote island nation somewhere. Then we can start a new thread on how dreadful it is to hang boat thieves when all they reall want is to live their dream. On OUR money!


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

silverking said:


> as to the fate of the tayana...couldn't tell ya. it sunk...i received proof that it sunk via email from someone who gave them shelter at the time. she sent me a picture after she called me and we spoke on the phone. she found me because my mother called me from her house (that 3rd and last phone call) and my number showed up on this womans phone bill. for all i know they could be in prison in venezuela. i guess some here would find that a fitting end for two crooks huh?


This gets better and better. A bogus photo, sent to a family member by "someone who gave them shelter", presented as "proof" that the boat sank.

When that didn't work, now they want amnesty in exchange for disclosing the location of the property they stole.

I think we can assume the Kars are reading this thread.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Hi Steve...thanks for the update. Did you conclude that the sunken boat was not the Linda S. from the picture or from other sources? If you concluded she was not the Linda S. from the picture...what feature did you find not matching other than the hull color. Might help someone else spot her if there was something distinctive.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Ah dear me, I suppose that the alleged daughter's IP address will now be part of a "conspiracy to defraud" criminal action.

I figure I'm still good for a 10% finder's fee if I can find the boat before anyone else does. Heck, for $65 grand maybe I'LL start sending out faxes and emails.


----------



## denby (Feb 21, 2007)

Silverking made 5 post on Sailnet all on this thread. Kars daughter or the Kars them selves? The plot thickens.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

The posts were made by a US based person who I believe is the daughter of Mrs. Kars. I have no reason to doubt her sincerity and if the pix are bogus...my guess is that she is a victim rather than a perpetrator of the scam. 
I still think the boat in the pictures is the same one having looked at both quite carefully and in higher resolution than available here on line. That is why I hope Steve can clarify exactly why he thinks the boat is different. If it is different...it IS a Tayana...so it would also be interesting to hear what the story on it is!!


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

Does anyone else have a problem with the ethics involved in the conditional release of the boat's whereabouts?


----------



## denby (Feb 21, 2007)

erps said:


> Does anyone else have a problem with the ethics involved in the conditional release of the boat's whereabouts?


I don't think it's a question of ethics, lawyers do this type of thing all the time. Kars lawyer probably knows he's not going to get payed much to handle the case so he offers the boat to get the Kars off the hook.


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

Yeah maybe although it could also be construed as continuing to knowingly deprive someone else of their property. Seems like the Kars were getting the benefit of the doubt before, but they're using up that coin now IMO.


----------



## denby (Feb 21, 2007)

The Kars may think the bank is closing in on them and they are looking for a way out.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

The slot she pickens...


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

erps said:


> Does anyone else have a problem with the ethics involved in the conditional release of the boat's whereabouts?


Kinda like ransom, maybe they should ask for a fully fueled airplane next, running and waiting at the nearest airport.

this whole story stinks like old crum


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

> Kinda like ransom, maybe they should ask for a fully fueled airplane next, running and waiting at the nearest airport.


Yeah, that's what I'm talkin' about. I wouldn't think a lawyer would be able to get involved in something like that.


----------



## artbyjody (Jan 4, 2008)

I think I called that one, although I guess Simms in good faith removed / edited his original post on the matter it was in good faith.

I think the daughter knows more than is told. Probably sitting in a internet cafe in Lisbon with family on the boat arranging a visit to Creotia. Seriously what are the odds she would be married to a law enforcement officer and does anyone actually think he wouldn't be pissed about it - much less if it was something she had no idea about would be happy she promoted here online the poor me and my parents - this is what I got - it sunk theory. No married to law type - means instant credibility - just like a hot dog vendor selling coffee serves it in a Starbucks cup you think you are getting Starbucks coffee...

The picture was off - no way on the run would repaint and get the bootstripe... and not have a professional looking job.

So, Sims and everyone else - you have to ask since the CG registration is only good for a few years at max - they are either inland somewhere on a mooring ball, or friends dock (a 600K boat - someone has friends)- or somewhere that looks the other way. 

Lets play a game.

The picture is real. And its a Tayana. 

Where could one get away with transferring hull ids - hurricane areas. Anyone check Louisiana, like New Orleans...where a sunken or declared salvage Tayana would be.... That part seems easy enough to come with as that picture of the supposedly - the one - is of the wrong foliage for Venezuela. How easy would it be to use insurance lists for totaled Tayanas and cross ref on possible transfers. 


There were no known public records of Venezuela sinking's - but I bet if Simms did his research, and compiled all known sinking claimed against insurance or labeled as salvage - location of said picture can be made and the Kars are probably not that far away from the source.

Secondly, a supeona could be issued to the lawyer that is making the deal...as a previous court order trumps. At best money well spent hiring a devious private investigator that can track under the table where the lawyer got the money from - as it was either cash (and a certified mail at that) or bank wired...

I need new sails so hope my tips help...


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

erps said:


> Does anyone else have a problem with the ethics involved in the conditional release of the boat's whereabouts?


 Yes. And I believe that it would be a risky strategy for a lawyer to get involved in (on behalf of the Karrs).


----------



## chucklesR (Sep 17, 2007)

What's the risk for their attorney?

There are in so far as we know, and certainly Simms has had ample opportunity to tell us different - no criminal charges made or pending against the Karrs. Lawyers can not be compelled to give dispositions, surely not for civil matters. While I'm not an attorney IMO it is strictly a civil matter.

Don't get me wrong, I don't condone what the Karr's are doing, and I fully realize that smucks like them raise my interest and insurance rates.

I"m curious about the USCG Documentation renewal. It was renewed at the brothers address in Florida, after they absconded with the boat, we don't have a date on that but supposing, and I'm pretty sure it was, it was done after the judgement was issued in favor of the bank doesn't that mean *the Bank did not even go through the trouble of notifying the Coast Guard *of the judgement? Certainly the documentation would not have be renewed - and the Karrs would have had extreme difficulty in clearing into any foreign port?
*If the bank wants the boat, list it as stolen and report it as a criminal act.*

If I didn't make payments on my house, was evicted and refused to go - how long do you think it would take for the sherriff to get called and come by to escort me from 'my' house?

Ask yourself - what's going on here?


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Chuckles...the judgement by default was entered 3/1/07. Until that time, the Kars were the owners of record on the boat. Thus, they could have changed the address of ownership at anytime up to that date and presumably somewhat beyond that date if the Coast Guard was not immediately notified. Given that they left well prior to that date, they could easily have entered various countries with the documentation BUT the documentation papers for the latest renewal would have been sent to the Florida address and forwarded to the Kars wherever they were by family. 
My guess is that if the boat is still afloat...they will have some difficulty entering a new country with her and are stuck leaving her wherever she presently sits. They, of course can move about freely with their passports...but that leaves a record as well. Not sure if one can access those on a civil matter. 

Jody...why would you say that is not Venezuelan foliage? It and the construction look quite typical for that part of the world. I think it is a very logical place for them to have taken the boat as it is much easier to hide there than in the rest of the Caribe and authorities are not particularly anxious to cooperate with the USA. Yankee $$'s there can buy a lot of cooperation.


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

Sailormann said:


> I think that there is a possibility that the Kars were involved in some type of investment banking, that they had a huge mortgage on an over-piced house, that the mortgage on the house probably got called as real estate values tanked, ...


Property values didn't start decreasing in Oakland County, MI until 2007. The rate-of-growth started slowing well before that, in selected communities. Even in 2008, I believe some communities have either flattened-out or actually started increasing again. Oakland County is a highly-desirable location, and Highland Township is on the expanding north-west edge of Metro-Detroit.

If they found themselves upside-down on their home mortgage in that area in 2006, they had to have screwed-up pretty badly. (E.g.: Serial home equity loans to pay off short-term [e.g.: credit card] debt, and so-on.)

Jim


----------



## chucklesR (Sep 17, 2007)

Quoting Silverking


> the boat sunk off the coast of south america
> last summer. they ran aground and lost the only home
> they "didn't" really own after all....although, i thought
> they owned the boat...but what did i know? i'm just a daughter
> ...


Quoting court docs - served via alternate service:


> 06/21/2006 7 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed.. (Beamer, Dirk)
> (Entered: 06/21/2006)
> 06/21/2006 6 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Linda S. Kars served
> on 5/30/2006, answer due 6/19/2006. (Beamer, Dirk) (Entered: 06/21/2006)
> ...


Bold highlight mine.

No one said they were served in person, but they were served legally. Running and hiding does not provide benefits of escaping responsibility.

The disposition of Dale Karrs brother indicated that in June 2007 they were in St Martin (he sent them money) prior to that they were in Bonaire. Prior to that he renewed/changed address on the USCG Doc's. 
Renewal only last one year - and the bank was looking for them in May 2006 - a year prior to the judgement. 
In short, there was/is a two year gap in there that the bank could/should have used to file with the USCG to prevent renewal.

Somewhere between Feb 2006 and June 2007 the Karr's 'lost millions' and now resort to begging for money from family (per the disposition) and yet they got the boat painted professionally. 
58 ft Tayanna's or anythings don't maintain cheap. God we all know that.

Silverking indicates the boat sank shortly after that,(last summer) i.e., shortly after Simms and co started subpeona's on the family members. Coincidence? I doubt it. She (silverking) maintains no direct contact I suspect because to admit contact would subject her to subpeona's - it also makes her story less than convincing.

A run from St Martins to Venuzala in June/July would be a reasonable thing to do for one escaping from both American law and hurricanes.

I remain unconvinced the boat sank. That might even be the boat in the picture provided. Looks a little wet inside; but not as bad as they ones I've seen sink at the pier and get resurrected. Gemini Hull 885 went over last year in June. It's been refloated, rebuilt and sailing already mostly on elbow grease and determination. 
Irregardless. 
What's the whole point in turning in the boat via an attorney - I don't get that.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

> Gemini Hull 885 went over last year in June.


Multihulls seem to be doing this more and more frequently...  Must be global warming ...


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Chuckles-
I don't think we know if the boat was in fact repainted, didn't the attorney say the shiny black hull is NOT their boat? Or, it wouldn't be the first time someone beat out a boatyard on a paint job if they got it painted and skipped.
It is sadly common in the US for subpeonas to be served by what is called 'sewer service', i.e. the process server, who gets paid by the head, can't locate someone so they throw the subpeona in the sewer and swear it was served. That's not a cynic speaking, that's something every judge and lawyer knows about.

Turning a boat in via an attorney? Sure, why not, the attorney is not allowed to discuss certain things and cannot be arrested for representing his client. If the Kars showed up to talk--they could be arrested. Using a third party is the only way for them to go. If they made any other contact for negotiation (phone, email, mail) they could be traced and arrested. That the title holder hasn't pressed criminal charges (which would bring in the FBI and perhaps Interpol and put the boat and their passports on watch lists) truly amazes me.


----------



## chucklesR (Sep 17, 2007)

Sewer service or alternate service - You take out a loan with a object as collateral - when you quit sending in checks you know it's not yours anymore.


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

> Turning a boat in via an attorney? Sure, why not, the attorney is not allowed to discuss certain things and cannot be arrested for representing his client.


Seems like an attorney could be arrested for assisting their client in the continuation of a crime though. Do attorneys help their clients to dig holes to bury bodies without any worries that they could be arrested?

I'd sure like to hear from another attorney on this. Sailormon6, are you out there?


----------



## denby (Feb 21, 2007)

Don't know about the sewer service you speak of, but in Connecticut the sheriff has to deliver the subpoena's or return it to court. I had a sheriff case me around for four days in Connecticut, finally catching up to me at 10 pm to hand me a subpoena and $5. I was going to court as a expert consultant and charging the lawyers $100 per hour for my time and expertize. The $5 was for travel expenses.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Just for the record...in Chicago...when the Kars could not be found to be served in person, ads of notification were taken out in the local papers to notify them of their court date. This constitutes a LEGAL service of supeona and thus Silverfish was right that the Kars were never served *in person*...while Steve Simms and the court documents are correct in posting that they were *legally* served.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

erps said:


> Seems like an attorney could be arrested for assisting their client in the continuation of a crime though.


Client/Attorney privilage conversations are protected

just ask OJ


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

> Client/Attorney privilage conversations are protected
> 
> just ask OJ


Gotcha Pappy, and I don't want to beat a dead horse (but gonna do it anyway) but I would think the first thing the Kars' attorney should have done is to tell their client to return the boat, because that's what the law requires. I thought I read in another thread that attorneys take an oath of some sort. A bunch of 'em must cross their fingers while taking it.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

There are the makings of a great movie of the week - perhaps even a Hollywood feature - here. The more I hear, the more I hope it goes on for years


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

I thought that a lawyer is obligated to report a crime. If you tell your lawyer "I shot her" he cannot cover that up. That is the speculation as to why OJ changed attorney's early on. 
Max?


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

Boy, you guys are in real need of some education about what attorneys can and cannot do for their clients. I used to be a prosecuting attorney, so I know a little bit about this. First, no an attorney cannot help you bury a body. That is in and of itself a crime, and is not a protected confidence. The attorney would be prosecuted for that just like his client. However, if you committed a crime and confess that to your lawyer, it is still his job to see to it that you get due process in your trial. He is not allowed to put you on the stand and assist you in giving false testimony. However, everything you tell him (including the confession) is protected under the attorney-client confidential communication doctrine. No court can make your lawyer take the stand to testify against you. Think about it for a second: if they could make your lawyer testify against you, who would ever be truthful with their lawyer? Sorry xort, the only time there is ever a question as to whether a lawyer has to turn in his own client is if the lawyer has reason to believe that a FUTURE crime may be undertaken or if someone's life or safety is at risk. The lawyer has no more obligation to turn the Kars in than you do if they had approached you for your help.

With the Kars, it sounds to me like they hired a lawyer to represent them for the very reason suggested by Hellosailor: to insulate themselves from direct contact with law enforcement or bank officials until they make a deal.


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

Thanks for jumping in mstern. In this particular case, would it be ethical for the Kars' attorney to advise them, "don't tell them where the boat is, until you get them to sign a waiver?"


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Ray-
You've got to learn "weasel talk".[g]
If a lawyer says "Don't tell them..." that might be construed as obstruction of justice. If a lawyer says "Well, IF you tell them...but IF you didn't tell them..." and simply discusses hypotheticals without counselling actions...that's something else again. And one reason you'll see the lawyers in mob films (there is no Mafia, I have Sicilian friends who told me so) often called "Counsellor".

And of course, we don't know where the Kars are, or what country and rules their lawyer has to operate under. Those laws will vary from place to place.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

erps said:


> Thanks for jumping in mstern. In this particular case, would it be ethical for the Kars' attorney to advise them, "don't tell them where the boat is, until you get them to sign a waiver?"


An interesting question. Any lawyer should be counselling the Kars to (with apologies to the U.S. Navy) "give up the ship". It is then the attorney's job to cut the very best deal he can on behalf of his client. With that in mind, at the same time he is telling his clients to give up the boat, he may also advise them that a good strategy would be to use the boat as a bargaining chip in getting that "very best" deal. In fact, since the location of the boat is the only bargaining chip they have, I would be surprised if their lawyer didn't advise them to use it in the negotiations. Of course, none of us will ever likely know all of the details of these negotiations, so this is just speculation.


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

erps said:


> Seems like an attorney could be arrested for assisting their client in the continuation of a crime though. Do attorneys help their clients to dig holes to bury bodies without any worries that they could be arrested?
> 
> I'd sure like to hear from another attorney on this. Sailormon6, are you out there?


There is an exception to the attorney/client privilege where a lawyer participates in furthering a fraud or in the commission of a crime.

If a client comes to you and says "I killed my wife last night, what should I do?" it is privileged. But it's different if he says "I'm planning to kill my wife tonight. Meet me outside of my house at midnight with some clean clothes and a plane ticket." If you did so, the conversation relating to it would not be privileged.

In one case, you are conferring with him in your role as advocate and the deed had already been done. Society has decided that people should be able to confer openly and freely with their counsel without fear that their candor will do in their defense. But if counsel is involved in an ongoing crime or fraud, that logic would not necessarily apply.


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

> But if counsel is involved in an ongoing crime or fraud, that logic would not necessarily apply.


Hi Mr. Attorney, I have someone buried in my backyard that I was going to hold for ransom. The family wants their kid back and I've chickened out. Can you give me some advice.

Hello Mr. Criminal. Well, for one thing, don't tell them where the kid is until you can get the best deal for yourself. I"ll be your middle man so it will be harder for you to be brought to justice. That will cost you one wheel barrow of money please, no checks.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

CBinRI said:


> There is an exception to the attorney/client privilege where a lawyer participates in furthering a fraud or in the commission of a crime.


Also, in the past decade or so federal courts have narrowly defined the A/C privilege as covering only the information provided by the client to the attorney, but not vice versa (at least in civil matters, which this appears to be).


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Speaking of reviving old threads... I recently became aware that the stolen boat website currently lists the Tayana 58 Linda S as recovered. Ever curious I wrote Mr. Simms to see what the resolution was. Here's an update:

1. The boat has NOT been recovered. It is still missing and the Kars have not either paid their debt or been found. 
2. The blue boat sunk in the harbor that we thought could be the Linda S is INDEED the Linda S. ...We were right! Apparently this was disclosed during negotiations with the Kars lawyer at some point. 
3. The present thinking is that the boat is in Venezuela proper or one of the offshore islands and is probably pretty well stripped and is in no condition to sail. No word on the Kars beig there but they did try to negotiate a reduction of their debt for disclosing the location of the boat. Isn't that cool?  The bank said no BTW. 
4. There remains a reward for finding the boat if it still exists in relatively good condition. The bank will also be interested in selling it. The Kars documentation has now expired so they can no longer move it from country to country even if it is seaworthy.

I continue to hope for some justice and retribution in this whole affair but I think the best chance will be if some one recognizes one of the pictures we have of the boat half sunk and can identify the place. To that end I post the pictures once again and enlarged. The face of Kars was excised before it was sent to me so no "moderation" is taking place here. Note the Venezuela flag and the bust of what appears to be Simon Bolivar to my eyes. *SOMEONE out there must know this place!!

*















Note...I have pix that are 2x this size but don't want to screw the page up. PM me with your email if you think you know where this is and want a closer look.


----------



## Stillraining (Jan 11, 2008)

Idiots......Boatless fugitives and still in debt.......thinking better on it now I bet.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Tidbits:
Assuming the photo was taken in Venezula, the photo in th eparking lot is taken at midday facing north. There's a church just north of the parking lot, and on the ridge on the horizon is a large stack--probably an industrial smokestack--painted black and white. That stack would probably be shown as a landmark on marine charts.

So a good starting point would be bays that are open to the west, have land and a major stack to the north of them. Presumably the flagpole means this area has some sort of marine purpose, a beach? ramp? something that might show it on a map as well. And a cove that is perhaps 10' deep, where the boat went over.

I'd bet latts & atts would run the photos to get more exposure to them. The flags on the staff probably could tell us a great deal--if they could be rendered.

Does the stark nature of the cross (not a crucifix) on the church tell us anything about the denomination?

Do the twin silos say anything specific to any aggie types?

Simon Bolivar--assuming that's him--probably means he made landfall, or slept there, or the vista beyond is in some other way significant. Did Bolivar make any particularly historic landings on a west coast?


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

to me it looks lik a railroad yard of some type, the silos aren't the aggie type. , but there does seem to be a trailer (over the road type) sitting on a rail car and just to the left of the silos, an open air type of structure with a railcar half sticking out.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

The right hand flag on the staff looks more like Columbia than Venezuela, although the two are way too similar to be sure. The stack in the distance is painted similar to the El Faro light in Vz, but the geography doesn't match up. 

I've emailed the Columbian DIMAR asking if the lighthouse looks familiar.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

HS...zooming in it looks like the Venezuelan flag to me as all stripes seem to be same width and there appears to be a symbol of some kind.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Dunno, I thought the marking on the blue field was artifacts, and the yellow looked more like "Columbian yellow".

We can always hope FARC win and change the Vz flag, I suppose....

Surely someone remembers a big red and white striped lighthouse on a bluff or cliff, somewhere in South America.

*[LATER]*

Cam, the folks at DIMAR are fast and certain: The picture was not taken anywhere in Columbia, and they suggest Ecuador as most likely. The frou-frou in the middle of the flag would also match up to the Ecuadorian version of the ubiqous "other" tricolor, as well.

Got an Ecuadorian light light available?


----------

