La Contessa lawsuit....

Post by **mdmf007** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:17 pm

Even without "Proper contact information" you cannot simply burn an abandoned vehicle. There are laws regarding how to handle vehicles left behind.

Step 1 (very clearly spelled out in NRS codes) is to contact the Sheriffs department.

From there your burden is met. THEY will contact the owner via License plate, or VIN plate. The registered owner is responsible for the vehicles costs. They (registered owner) is given 30 days to remove or Sheriff will have it impounded by a tow company. From there the tow company will remove it and bill the registered owner for the tow and storage. If they do not pay - it is sold at auction and monies applied towards the tow companies bill. If it fetches less at auction than the costs, the bill goes to collections.

Sherrif is always sending letters out to registered owners of vehicles that are stolen, stripped and dumped in the desert.

Post by **Elderberry** » Fri Apr 03, 2009 9:25 pm

Plus, from some of the articles I read, it seems that the new property owner had a long running dislike for BM to begin with; and he sort of struck me as the kind of person that took pleasure just burning the thing on general principles.

JK

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:00 pm

Igneouss wrote:.. was parked on friendly property and welcomed by the ranch owner. .. La Contessa was used for other playa events as well as BM Then ranch changed hands. New owner allowed old owner to stay on as tenent. La Contessa folks believed all was well. But old owner had unrelated problems and moved to town.. Regular contact was maintained with original property owner. Unrelated events broke the lines of communication long enough for the evil to occur.

thanks for clarifying, per usual these things are seeped in innuendo and rumor.

but if contact was maintained with original property owner who gave permission, then i wonder whats the time from when land ownership changed to when it was burned? granted, its not easy to move it to another place, even after searching and finding an alternative place to store it. but there's still the story of it being left at the org's ranch far longer than desired or allowed, and i heard several org people (incl dpw) tried tracking down who to contact to move it without success.

Even without "Proper contact information" you cannot simply burn an abandoned vehicle. There are laws regarding how to handle vehicles left behind. ..Step 1 (very clearly spelled out in NRS codes)..

i still think it was wrong to just burn it, but im not sure those laws apply when its not a registered or licenced vehicle. or at least its different in some states where permission isnt needed after so long, because its intended to remove ugly abandoned autos from sight.

Toolmaker · Post by **Toolmaker** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:45 am

We should have been invited to witness the burn at the least.

The lawsuit is a lil over the top, I could build a new one for 200,000. A savings of 700,000 can be had with one PM to me.

The real problem when folks have disputes is that there are always at least 3 stories/sides. Side A, Side B, and the truth which we will likely never know.

The vehicle was great even though it could have been made better, safer, and operated and stored in a more responsible manner. Considering the owners track record with the ORG I don't doubt that there was some liability on the vehicles owners in this. True that it shouldn't have been burned but if the owners really cared so much they would have shown more desire to keep tabs on it and had it stored somewhere else. I certainly would have moved it after the property was sold considering who the buyer was and his PROVEN track record against the burner community.

Lets all rally behind the big duck as the mutant to worship. That is until I bring the Badger with coattail slides on the rear for egress and a stripper pole under his tophat. The flame cannon gets mounted poking out the ass and the eyes have a colored constant flame effect. Of course this will be AFTER I win some money in the WSOP or lottery.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:03 am

The org's spent millions cleaning up, grading and fencing its property to comply with Washoe County regs, same as neighboring property owners. Likewise, the BLM in the last fifteen years has hauled off probably hundreds of abandoned vehicles, as well as burning and bulldozing a number of abandoned ranch buildings in the vicinity, ostensibly to restore the "viewshed" along the routes of the old emigrant trails. So you might pardon the intentions and actions of some rancher following local practice to comply with the gov't... or not, as you wish.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 8:18 pm

erm... if improving the looks of the area was the motivation, then they should be burning down about half the trailers people live in instead. that ship was probably one of the better things to look at... just below the aesthetic scale of random road kill that makes pretty stain pictures embedded pavement for the rest of us to take rorschach guesses over.

chiefdanfox · Post by **chiefdanfox** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 12:01 am

jkisha wrote:...he sort of struck me as the kind of person that took pleasure just burning the thing on general principles.

JK

I think that makes him a Burner.

Post by **Elderberry** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 7:39 am

chiefdanfox wrote:
jkisha wrote:...he sort of struck me as the kind of person that took pleasure just burning the thing on general principles.

JK
I think that makes him a Burner.

LOL, In an ironic sort of way, you'd be right.

JK