In article >,
Highway Star > wrote:

> Don Bruder wrote:
>
> > >if you simply set up a Nevada corporation, then register
> > > the vehicle with the corporation (which technically "owns" the auto).
> > > This can be done through an advertised agent for a few hundred bucks.
> > > It's worth it for other reasons too, such as if you have suits against
> > > you and don't want the car seized. You can create a separate corporation
> > > for each vehicle you "own," if you want to get really baroque about it.
> >
> > Get pulled over in one of those vehicles while carrying a license
> > showing a California residence, and face a nifty new $1000 "payable
> > *RIGHT NOW*, no negotiation, no court appearance, no appeal, just shut
> > up and cough up the cash, or kiss your license and car goodbye" fine.
> >
> > It's a nice, shiney new law (less than 6 months old now, I think - I
> > want to say it went into effect in January, but it may have been shortly
> > before that) that very few know about yet. It went through pretty much
> > "under the radar", probably due to our new Governator taking office and
> > taking attention off the lawmakers. It's aimed SPECIFICALLY at exactly
> > what you're talking about doing as a way of "retrieving" the fees that
> > have been lost to such (already illegal, but until recently, the law has
> > been toothless as a 90 year old chihuahua) circumvention of the
> > registration process. Several local folks have been nailed by it
> > recently here in Butte County, and although the outcry has been loud and
> > long, they're finding out the hard way that it's quite literally "You
> > can pay right here, right now, or we can revoke your license and impound
> > your car on the spot. Make your choice."
> >
> > Rumour has it that Nevada is not only cooperating with this one, but
> > actively pointing out "This car, with this Nevada plate, is registered
> > to someone who used a California license in the registration process".
> > At this point, I'm not sure if that's fact or "just rumour", and haven't
> > got a clue how I'd go about finding out one way or the other, so you get
> > to decide for yourself how much reality is involved.
>
> If true, this is a troubling development. Are you sure we're talking
> about a _corporation_ registration, not an individual (which I know is
> illegal.) With a corporation it is the company that owns the car and
> that is named on the registration, _not_ the individual driver. For
> instance, the Nevada registration in my car clearly states the owner as
> "XXXX Inc.," giving the address of the resident agent in Carson City. It
> does _not_ bear my individual name. If some bureaucrat in Nevada is
> telling the California bureaucrats, "This car, with this Nevada plate,
> is registered to someone who used a California license in the
> registration process," as you quoted, he/she is way off base. The car in
> question would _not_ be registered to "someone who used a California
> license," it would be registered to the company with the Nevada address.
> Of course, the corporate paperwork has to be in order and one must
> specify that the vehicle will mainly be used in Nevada.

Dunno. All the information I have is the summary I already posted of
what the 3-4 column inches worth of newspaper article said on it a month
or two back, I think it was, and the scuttlebutt I've been hearing
around town. The quoted text was my summation of what the rumour mill
has had to say about it. Details on exactly how it's decided that a
registration is bogus, how/when the information gets shared, or whatever
else beyond what I've already said... <shrug> I just plain don't know.
All I do know is that there was a newspaper article about a few local
folks being popped on it, including a mention that it was a recently
effective law. That part's as reliable as the newspaper - In my opinion,
when talking about the local rag, that might not be saying very much
sometimes...

The scuttlebutt I've heard says Nevada is helping enforce it, but that's
all it is: The scuttlebutt. (But, as mentioned above, my personal
opinion is that there's every chance that the scuttlebutt could be more
accurate than the local fishwrap. It has been on several occasions in
the past.)

Probably something somebody ought to look up. Doubtful it'll be me
wading through the legalese, though! I ain't got enough motivation - My
car is registered here in Cali, in my name, at the same here-in-Cali
address as on my Cali-issued license, with all the proper fees and taxes
and insurance and whatnots paid, which, from what I've been able to
figure out so far means it's a law that (presumably...) can never impact
me without some kind of massive beaureaucratic fumble happening first.

So I ain't particularly worried about it.

On second thought, maybe I *SHOULD* be scared... Beaureaucrats are known
for fumbling, and it often turns out to be massive... <snork> Now
there's a candidate for the understatement of the week!

--
Don Bruder - - New Email policy in effect as of Feb. 21, 2004.
I respond to Email as quick as humanly possible. If you Email me and get no
response, see <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd/main/contact.html> Short
form: I'm trashing EVERYTHING that doesn't contain a password in the subject.