Looking for pic of 41 yellow apache, with "41 APACHE" airbrushed on black dash panel
04-27-2011 | 09:04 AM
#91
Registered
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,679
Likes: 3
From: At the office.
Also, and this is not to cause wakes, but if the engines and drives are 100% known to be from this boat (and they are) do these recently sold parts (or proceeds) not legally belong to the insurance company at this point since they've paid a substantial claim on them??? Seems to me it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference if someone knew they were buying/selling stolen goods or not, they legal belong to the insurance company. These key parts are just as valuable as the hull itself, if not more so and the insurance company paid out a claim for them...
04-28-2011 | 07:02 AM
#93
Registered
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,679
Likes: 3
From: At the office.
Still waiting for some insight regarding some of the above questions and observations.
Where did the pics come from that were used to advertise the engines and drives? The boat was clearly in the background! This doesn't seem like a tough case to crack!
And since the insurance company already paid a claim on this boat, why do they not care about the potentially most valuable part of this thing... the engines, drives, etc? Sure seems to me that legally they should have ownership of the parts or the proceeds from those sales, yet they don't seem to care about them... all they care about is the dead carcass???
This entire thing is really, really odd!
04-28-2011 | 06:18 PM
#94
Banned
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 9,373
Likes: 1
From: Arlington Tx
Please permit this message to clarify the circumstances, while simultaneously apologizing to all for my delinquency in attending to OffshoreOnly.com. Due to other commitments it is a challenge to visit and read all the posts. I am one of the persons involved in unraveling the misfortunes of the Apache named Running Bear. As you know the vessel was reported stolen in March 2010 while temporarily located at a closed concrete contractor's former office location in Royal Palm Beach FL. The claim against the vessel was paid by the insurer to the owner(s). More recently in mid March 2011 and within hours after some advertisements surfaced in OffshoreOnly. com involving the engines and related equipment, some dedicated and knowledgeable members of OffshoreOnly.com notified me. (Thanks again, the assistance was very helpful). The circumstances with regard to the engines, sterndrives and related equipment are clear. The person who placed the advertisement on OffshoreOnly.com, James Harpold, had purchased the engines, sterndrives and equipment in good faith and without a hint of notion that they originated from a boat that was reported stolen. He and his associates were immediately helpful to our investigation and have provided very helpful information that sheds light on the circumstances in their totality. In that James Harpold had acquired the engines, sterndrives and equipment in good faith, paid good money, and had no idea the equipment originated from a stolen boat, it was not within the realm of equity to challenge an ownership issue regarding the engines and sterndrives. James Harpold has since maintained regular contact with me and is oontinuing to assist in the investigation. In discussions I know that recently James Harpold sold the engines, sterndrives and equipment to another person located in South Carolina. Obviously the person in South Carolina is familiarized with the events and just like James Harpold, he has no involvement in the circumstances of the theft of the boat and he also acquired the engines and sterndrives in an entirely legitimate transaction. I will pay more attention to keeping all of you informed, and yes the roll out will take months. Meanwhile, we all know where the engines and sterndrives are, can anyone tell me where the hull and the trailer are? Again, all of you have been exceedingly helpful. Thanks and regards. Matthew Schmahl.
2) How does the person he sold the stolen goods to get to keep them?
04-28-2011 | 07:29 PM
#95
Registered
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,928
Likes: 6
04-29-2011 | 06:34 AM
#96
VIP Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,314
Likes: 1,556
From: Maryland
I liken this to a situation where a dying parent puts the house in the childrens name at the 11th hour to defer tax/penalty. there are laws stated for time frame for such transactions...but that is just my common sense take on it
04-29-2011 | 06:39 AM
#97
Registered
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 55
From: Kingsville----lake erie
Timeframe is an intersting way of looking at it.
but from the sounds of it boat was in storage, was stolen, and stripped of engines and drives etc --- which were then sold (with pics of said stolen boat in back ground)
Stolen property is just that stolen.
There must be more to it than is being said?
Or are all those stripped out hulls going through the Repo yards in the right? and taking their engines out because it is just the hull that has the numbers?
but from the sounds of it boat was in storage, was stolen, and stripped of engines and drives etc --- which were then sold (with pics of said stolen boat in back ground)
Stolen property is just that stolen.
There must be more to it than is being said?
Or are all those stripped out hulls going through the Repo yards in the right? and taking their engines out because it is just the hull that has the numbers?
04-29-2011 | 07:11 AM
#98
Registered
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 1
If that is the case, then the seller deciding to reuse the original photos was not the best decision.
04-29-2011 | 08:57 AM
#99
Registered
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,215
Likes: 378
From: Plainville/Old Lyme, CT Boca Raton, FL
u guys would all be on the other side of the fence if you were the guy that, unknowingly bought stolen parts and paid for them in good faith. now u have to GIVE them back to the insurance company??????? you would all be very willing to return them for no money right guys????????
04-29-2011 | 08:59 AM
#100
VIP Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12,314
Likes: 1,556
From: Maryland
Good point. But it begs the question, was the photo taken when the parts were legitimately removed from the boat during a repower which occured before the hull theft and then the photos subsequently re-used when buyer decided to sell the parts.
If that is the case, then the seller deciding to reuse the original photos was not the best decision.
If that is the case, then the seller deciding to reuse the original photos was not the best decision.
