From: Stephen Grammont (islander@midmaine.com)
Date: Sun Apr 02 2006 - 11:45:57 PDT
Arthur is correct (hope it doesn't go to his head <g>). If it looks
like a duck and is doing duck like behavior, it doesn't matter if it
quacks like a duck. To the observer it is a duck and that's that.
I've grown up in a family environment of "loop hole" finders. I used
to think my grandfather was the king of twisting the system to his
benefit and was in awe of every scheme he told me about. Well, when he
died and the IRS took an interest in his estate I found out exactly how
bad he ultimately was at the shell games. Gray areas and loop holes
rarely work out if the authorities decide to challenge them, especially
since he REALLY WAS trying to skirt the law. This is why I try to play
by the rules as much as possible (yeah, I do skirt them sometimes). It
doesn't guarantee a hassle free and just experience within the rules of
law (especially when dealing with insurance companies), but the chances
are MUCH greater than if you purposefully try to operate "outside the
box".
BTW, quick message to Jeff. Honestly, I don't think people are really
jumping on you personally. I know I certainly was not. You put forward
an interesting concept, with caveats, and that's all. Nothing wrong
with that. Having said that I think it is a totally reckless and
incredibly stupid thing for someone to actually do, but hey... if
someone wants to put their liberty at stake to save a few bucks...
whatever. I don't care since I'm not the one who will go to jail if
the gamble fails. But if said person gets busted and legislation is
enacted to ban military vehicles because they are a risk to Homeland
Security, well... I'll have something different to say about the matter
:-)
Steve
> Right (not)
>
> Tell that to a judge, and he'll be laughing out loud. It's not what
> you say
> (or have printed on your BDU's) it's what the perception of a
> reasonable
> person would be.
>
> APB
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrick Jankowiak" <recycler@swbell.net>
> To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
> Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 12:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [MV] Unimog insurance problems (Maine)
>
>
> | If you like to wear BDUs, make sure you got no 'army' name tapes on
> them.
> | then you are not impersonating.
> |
> | Arthur Bloom wrote:
> |
> | > Yesterday was April 1st. I think your advice would have been
> appropriate
> | > then.
> | >
> | > Today, it seems to be the worst possible advice I have seen on
> this list
> in
> | > several years. If a person were to follow your advice, and get
> into an
> | > accident, the sh*t storm that would follow would be of Biblical
> proportions.
> | >
> | > Can you say "Leavenworth"? Can you say "20 years of hard labor"?
> Can you
> say
> | > "All assets (house, land, bank accounts, business interests)
> forfeited"?
> | >
> | > ..."Local and state police have no jurisdiction over the National
> Guard..."
> | > is what you think? They DO have jurisdiction over criminal
> impersonation in
> | > the first degree, which in NY is a Class D felony. They DO have
> jurisdiction
> | > over persons driving without a license, registration, insurance,
> inspection,
> | > or other documentation.
> | >
> | > Please tell us your were April Fool-ing.
> | >
> | > APB
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | > ----- Original Message -----
> | > From: "Jeff" <jcerniglia@sbcglobal.net>
> | > To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
> | > Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 9:16 AM
> | > Subject: Re: [MV] Unimog insurance problems (Maine)
> | >
> | >
> | > |
> | > | Or you can do like a lot of guys do and just make sure
> | > | it has good realistic National guard markings and
> | > | camo, always wear BDU's while driving it and just
> | > | drive it just so with no reg. I know some guys who
> | > | have done this for years and have never ever been
> | > | stopped. Local and state police have no Jurisdiction
> | > | over the National guard and usually do not mess with
> | > | their vehicles. Kind of the radical approach but it is
> | > | done.
> | > |
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | --- Sonny Heath <sonny@defuniak.com> wrote:
> | > |
> | > | > Steve,
> | > | >
> | > | > I think I know how to get around it. Slide yourself
> | > | > a cabover camper on the
> | > | > bed and attach it with bolts and register it as a
> | > | > recreational vehicle.
> | > | > Your insurance will drop to about $300.00 a year for
> | > | > full coverage. Thats
> | > | > what I did in Florida. My liability insurance alone
> | > | > and tag was about
> | > | > $5000.00 a year and now the same vehicle only
> | > | > heavier is about $350.00 a
> | > | > year for full coverage and a tag.
> | > | >
> | > | > Sonny
> | > | > ----- Original Message -----
> | > | > From: "Glenn Shaw" <milspectruck@verizon.net>
> | > | > To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List"
> | > | > <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
> | > | > Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 5:51 PM
> | > | > Subject: Re: [MV] Unimog insurance problems (Maine)
> | > | >
> | > | >
> | > | > > The CDL also requires a Road Te$t. Renewing my
> | > | > CDL is 170.00 each time it
> | > | > > comes up. I would avoid it if you can.
> | > | > >
> | > | > > Glenn
> | > | > >
> | > | > > -----Original Message-----
> | > | > > From: Military Vehicles Mailing List
> | > | > [mailto:mil-veh@mil-veh.org] On
> | > | > > Behalf
> | > | > > Of Stephen Grammont
> | > | > > Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 10:02 AM
> | > | > > To: Military Vehicles Mailing List
> | > | > > Subject: Re: [MV] Unimog insurance problems
> | > | > (Maine)
> | > | > >
> | > | > >
> | > | > > Hello Arthur,
> | > | > >
> | > | > >> Are you talking about full coverage? Liability
> | > | > only? Fire & theft?
> | > | > >> Collision? What level of liability? $100/$300K?
> | > | > That would be the
> | > | > >> minumim I would have,
> | > | > >
> | > | > > I didn't even ask what the coverage amount was
> | > | > because I was in shock.
> | > | > > It was for liability and collision. The point is,
> | > | > that was my single
> | > | > > "take it or leave it" option, which just doesn't
> | > | > sit well with me.
> | > | > >
> | > | > >> and $1300 doesn't seem out of line.
> | > | > >
> | > | > > As I said, I currently have THREE vehicles with
> | > | > equal or greater
> | > | > > coverage for just about the same amount of money.
> | > | > In another state
> | > | > > $1300 is probably a bargain, but up here everybody
> | > | > I mentioned it to
> | > | > > had their eyes pop out in surprise. So relative
> | > | > to my other insurance,
> | > | > > it's an incredibly large difference. I was
> | > | > guessing around $600 due to
> | > | > > the weight.
> | > | > >
> | > | > >> You can register it as an
> | > | > >> historical vehicle, and pay about $350. That
> | > | > would, however, limit
> | > | > >> your use
> | > | > >> of the truck.
> | > | > >
> | > | > > Limit it to the point of uselessness,
> | > | > unfortunately, so that isn't an
> | > | > > option. The insurance quoted was for either
> | > | > commercial or agriculture
> | > | > > (they won't do passenger due to the weight), so no
> | > | > difference based on
> | > | > > how I register it. I might save money on the
> | > | > registration itself, and
> | > | > > perhaps don't need a CDL (checking into that
> | > | > Monday), but it apparently
> | > | > > doesn't change my options vis a vis the insurance
> | > | > company.
> | > | > >
> | > | > >> A CDL is not required to drive a vehicle with
> | > | > air-ASSISTed brakes, any
> | > | > >> more
> | > | > >> than it would be required for vaccuum-assisted
> | > | > brakes. The key word is
> | > | > >> air-over-HYDRAULIC. That means that the brakes
> | > | > still work
> | > | > >> hydraulically even
> | > | > >> if the air supply fails. Tell them that.
> | > | > >
> | > | > > Apparently this is not the case in Maine. I was
> | > | > first tipped off by a
> | > | > > friend who is a commercial tower and he said I'd
> | > | > need one. Not
> | > | > > believing him, I called down to the head office
> | > | > and was told the same.
> | > | > > But I'm not done since I still don't believe them.
> | > | > On Monday I'm going
> | > | > > to call down again and this time request they
> | > | > direct me to the exact
> | > | > > paragraph in the motor vehicle code that specifies
> | > | > that air assisted
> | > | > > brakes are worthy of a CDL.
> | > | > >
> | > | > >> How did the subject come up in your discussions
> | > | > with the Dept. of
> | > | > >> Motor Vehicles? Did they ask you, or did you
> | > | > offer the info? You need
> | > | > >> to say nothing and offer no facts when dealing
> | > | > with the
> | > | > >> state-sanctioned Mafia known as the DMV. Nowhere
> | > | > else is your right to
> | > | > >> remain silent more useful.
> | > | > >> Go to another office, and this time, let them do
> | > | > the talking.
> | > | > >
> | > | > > Very bad advice. Two reasons:
> | > | > >
> | > | > > 1. Ignorance is no excuse. If I'm pulled over
> | > | > and someone figures out
> | > | > > that I need a CDL, I'm busted. Period. It won't
> | > | > matter if old Harlan
> | > | > > down at Augusta DMV didn't remember to ask me what
> | > | > kind of brakes it
> | > | > > has. I'm supposed to know that I need a CDL.
> | > | > First time I get busted
> | > | > > I can probably talk my way out of it, but since I
> | > | > live in a small town
> | > | > > my chances that it is the same cop is about 1 in
> | > | > 4. So might as well
> | > | > > get it if I need it.
> | > | > >
> | > | > > 2. Insurance companies love technicalities. If I
> | > | > get into an
> | > | > > accident, and I don't have the required license to
> | > | > drive the Mog, guess
> | > | > > what? My insurance company will null and void my
> | > | > coverage, arguing
> | > | > > that I was not legally allowed to drive the
> | > | > vehicle and therefore am
> | > | > > not covered under the policy since it only covers
> | > | > legal drivers. I'll
> | > | > > be on my own to face whatever liability resulted
> | > | > from my accident. All
> | > | > > the money I spent on my insurance would not be
> | > | > refunded either.
> | > | > >
> | > | > > I've had enough experience with insurance
> | > | > companies (the state
> | > | > > regulated Mafia) to know, for a fact, that they
> | > | > always wind up winning.
> | > | > > Doesn't even matter if they are within the law.
> | > | > If they want to screw
> | > | > > you (and they generally do) they will. Giving
> | > | > them an excuse like an
> | > | > > incorrect driver's license is equal to dropping
> | > | > your drawers and
> | > | > > bending over before they even tell you that was
> | > | > what they had in mind.
> | > | > > Apologies to any insurance folks on this list...
> | > | > but I have good reason
> | > | > > to say these things.
> | > | > >
> | > | > > The thing is I don't care about the CDL. It's $35
> | > | > and a written test.
> | > | > > Despite the surprise it isn't a big deal,
> | > | > especially when it is put
> | > | > > next to the risks of not getting one. The big
> | > | > deal is the insurance
> | > | > > cost, which has nothing to do with needing or not
> | > | > needing a CDL.
> | > | > > That's what I'm trying to find a way around.
> | > | > >
> | > | > > Steve
> | > | > >
> | > | > >
> | > | > > ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> | > | > > To unsubscribe, send e-mail to
> | > | > <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> | > | > > To reach a human, contact <ackyle@gmail.com>
> | > | > > Visit the searchable archives at
> | > | > http://www.mil-veh.org/archives/
> | > | > >
> | > | > >
> | > | > > ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> | > | > > To unsubscribe, send e-mail to
> | > | > <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> | > | > > To reach a human, contact <ackyle@gmail.com>
> | > | > > Visit the searchable archives at
> | > | > http://www.mil-veh.org/archives/
> | > | > >
> | > | > >
> | > | > > --
> | > | >
> | > | === message truncated ===
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> | > | To unsubscribe, send e-mail to <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> | > | To reach a human, contact <ackyle@gmail.com>
> | > | Visit the searchable archives at http://www.mil-veh.org/archives/
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | --
> | > | No virus found in this incoming message.
> | > | Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> | > | Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.4/299 - Release Date:
> 3/31/2006
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> | >
> | > ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> | > To unsubscribe, send e-mail to <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> | > To reach a human, contact <ackyle@gmail.com>
> | > Visit the searchable archives at http://www.mil-veh.org/archives/
> | >
> |
> | ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> | To unsubscribe, send e-mail to <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> | To reach a human, contact <ackyle@gmail.com>
> | Visit the searchable archives at http://www.mil-veh.org/archives/
> |
> |
> | --
> | No virus found in this incoming message.
> | Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> | Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.4/299 - Release Date:
> 3/31/2006
> |
> |
>
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ackyle@gmail.com>
> Visit the searchable archives at http://www.mil-veh.org/archives/
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 18 2006 - 21:43:32 PDT