[John V.]

Originally Posted by johnta1

This would be a great example of why VIN swapping is illegal.

The only reason to swap the VIN is for monetary gain.
If the Cobra guy destroys his car, he's SOL.

Why wouldn't you keep the VIN of the 'parts car' your going to swap the GTO VIN onto?

Put all your GTO parts on the Tempest and use the Tempest VIN?

Because you want to deceive people and get more money.

Otherwise, there is no need to swap VIN's.

John, money is the cynical reason. The reason you would do it legitimately is because you OWN the wrecked car and the proof is the Title.

If you buy a donor, you might not get a Title, or else it may have a Salvage Title that by law cannot be re-Titled for road use. Or you might obtain necessary parts from multiple donors. Using the Tempest VIN makes no sense if you don't have Title to that VIN.

In the world of true classic cars (a world where Pontiac GTOs are pedestrian wannabes) and extraordinary one-off custom bodied cars, donors cars are non-existent. Restoration involves fabricating necessary parts. At least some of these have serial nos. bolted to the frame. You can bet nobody with a V16 Cadillac or Duesenberg is swapping his tag to a donor rather than repairing/restoring whatever needs fixing.
, including the area of the frame (or the entire frame) where the VIN tag was attached.

You can say it is about the money, but nobody is denigrating the practice in that world. Rather, such painstakingly meticulous restorations are admired.

Originally Posted by johnta1

In most states, (might be Federal too) if the damage is bad enough that a VIN has to be removed/transferred, the State DMV will issue a new VIN.
(if not also giving you a rebuilt/junk title)

I believe this only applies where there has been an Insurance settlement. AFAIK, a car owner is under no obligation to forfeit his property and remove the VIN tag. And if he chooses to fix it, that is his business. This might be murkier for cars that have VIN labels on virtually every body part. At minimum, the owner may have to prove that the parts used were legally purchased. But this would not apply to a '64 GTO.

Originally Posted by johnta1

With the replacement parts from the factory, like the door pillar, that part didn't come off a car that had a VIN or come with it's own VIN.

As I've stated, the door pillar is just another part, it isn't made special just because the factory attached the VIN tag to it. I don't see how salvaging a pillar that once had a VIN tag attached to it makes a difference.

[64woodwheel]

Originally Posted by Bluesugar

A GTO dealer installed option on a Lemans,('64/65 only)...Is that permissible??!!!..now we have a whole new can of worms to cook

I'm the type that never says never, but there wasn't one that I am aware of (and really no can of worms either). But if you have the part number for the dealer installed GTO accessory package, I'd be interested in learning more about it.

[bbnotop]

John, agreed. I have seen a show where only the frame of a rare racing Ferrari was found, (identified by the numbers on the frame) and a car was hand built on top of it. When done was valued at millions, with only the frame as the original part.

As long as there is no attempt to deceive, then let the market value rebuilt cars.

[johnta1]

I have seen a show where only the frame of a rare racing Ferrari was found, (identified by the numbers on the frame) and a car was hand built on top of it. When done was valued at millions, with only the frame as the original part.

There's a difference from building everything by hand and just using a different car/model and calling it the original.

[John V.]

Originally Posted by johnta1

There's a difference from building everything by hand and just using a different car/model and calling it the original.

John, if somebody swaps a body onto a GTO frame or swaps a GTO VIN onto a Lemans roller and claims "original", that is wrong. It is NOT different if somebody fabricated a body by hand amd claims "original". It would still be wrong. You're assuming the guy who swaps the body will lie about the restoration process. If the facts don't add up, such as he says original but all the body dates don't match up to the VIN, then any buyer should be suspicious. If the Seller is lying about that, what else is he lying about? Value should fall in a hurry when Sellers are so obviously lying.

My presumption is that the restorer/seller will be honest about the work done and proud of it if he has done it well. If it is done poorly, my own eyes will tell me what I need to know about value, won't matter what the seller claims.

Originally Posted by 64woodwheel

I'm the type that never says never, but there wasn't one that I am aware of (and really no can of worms either). But if you have the part number for the dealer installed GTO accessory package, I'd be interested in learning more about it.

Chad, I'm quite certain there wasn't a GTO Accessory Package for '64.

However, all of the unique parts could be ordered individually as Service Parts.

The easiest/cheapest one to convert was probably a 4 spd 326HO (4 bbl) Lemans with the Sales Code 612 Handling Kit.

You got the same 3.23 axle as in the GTO, with or without the Safe-T-Track option, same as a GTO.

The 4 spd was same as in the GTO. You could choose the 3 spd, but you would need to specify the floor shifter. I believe that was available in a non-GTO, but specifying the 4 spd keeps it simple. You would reuse the bellhousing and the complete clutch set-up and driveshaft. The GTO auto trans was different internally, so let's not go there.

The Handling Kit meant you would get the 15/16" dia. front stabilizer bar, same bar that was std in the GTO so no change needed. You also got the same HD shocks that would be used in a GTO with this option. And the same Quick Ratio manual steering box as in a GTO with this option.

You could convert a regular manual steer or power steer option Lemans, but you would need to change the front stabilizer bar to GTO specs in that case. And unless your Lemans was instead equipped with the Sales Code 621 Heavy Duty Springs & Shocks, you would also need to change the shocks to GTO specs.

Either way, you would have to swap the front and rear springs to GTO springs, the Lemans generally would have come equipped with different springs.

But that would be it, no other suspension or steering differences.

For the interior, the only change would be to swap the Lemans dash nameplate for the GTO nameplate, plus swap the upper dash panel for the GTO panel with the swirled insert (the insert was not separately serviced, so you would need the entire GTO panel).

That would be it for the interior.

In the engine compartment, Pontiac did NOT service complete engine assemblies, so you would need to purchase the entire GTO 389 fitted block, includes pistons. The Service Replacement block would NOT get the factory manifest stamp code or a Motor Unit No.

Keeping it simple, the 4 bbl intake is reused, but you need to purchase the GTO 4 bbl carb.

I think the crank and rods are same, so will be reused.

The 326HO Starter Motor is same as GTO, so is the Alt, so they will be reused.

You also need to separately purchase the GTO heads and GTO cam for the Engine build.

You will need to purchase the chrome valve covers, oil fill cap, and air cleaner assembly.

You will need to purchase the tall core support and tall 2" radiator plus the GTO 18" fan and fan clutch.

You will reuse the Timing Chain & Cover and Harmonic Balancer.

You will need to purchase the GTO Distributor. And the GTO upper oil tube & dipstick.

The exhaust manifolds, exhaust pipes, and tail pipes are same (326HO came std. with dual exhaust), but you will need to purchase the GTO mufflers.

I think that pretty well covers the engine and exhaust.

You will need to purchase (5) GTO 14x6 wheels along with (5) GTO 7.50x14 Whitewall or Red Line Tires. Brakes and drums are same. Wheel cover choices were same too.

For the Body Exterior, you need to swap the Lemans badge on the decklid for the GTO badge, I believe this is a direct swap.

You will need to purchase the GTO hood and hood scoop ornaments (since you could special order a GTO with the standard Tempest hood, this swap is technically not necessary).

You will need to purchase the blacked out GTO grille panels and GTO Grille badge.

You will need to remove the 326 front fender badges and fill the holes and paint. Then purchase the GTO fender badges, drill the holes for the badges, and mount.

You will need to remove the rear quarter louver ornaments, fill the holes and paint. Also remove the rear quarter Lemans badges, fill the holes and paint.

Then purchase the GTO rear quarter emblems, drill the holes for the emblems, and mount.

I may have missed some details. But I offer this outline to show that a dealer conversion would have been a pretty enormous/expensive undertaking. The 326HO was also quite rare, far rarer than a GTO.

If you started with a common 2 bbl 326, the task would have been even more expensive requiring the purchase of the 4 bbl intake and throttle linkage parts.

The only way to prove such a conversion was dealer performed would be if documentation with receipts exist. But even in the unlikely event anybody took their new Lemans to a dealer and spent a small fortune to convert it to GTO specs, it still would not be a factory GTO even with the documentation of the work performed. Most hobbyists would devalue it for that reason.

So it really doesn't make a difference whether a GTO Accessory Package existed. Hobbyists want to know how it left the factory.

I put this "to-do" list together in part to show that converting a Lemans today to GTO specs is no small feat. To do it well is a challenge, personally I admire such craftsmanship. Perhaps one of the most well done '64 GTO convertible restorations ever was done using a Lemans (with no VIN tag swap as far as is known). I know the story although I never researched the car. The guy who restored it thought it was a GTO when he started the no expense spared restoration. That car was most likely a Lemans when it left the factory, but some of these cars are laundered theft cars with a swapped VIN tag, such cars are factory GTOs but might be wearing a Lemans VIN tag, put there by an auto thief in the '60s. These cars will have all the indications of being GTOs but confound hobbyists because the VIN (hence the PHS document) does not match to the physical evidence.

Even using a donor Lemans body shell would require body work to fill trim holes. Making this work undetectable requires some skill.

Swapping the '64 VIN tag is made more challenging by the simple fact it was spot welded on, not riveted.

There are so many details that need to be done well to make the undertaking worth more than the cost. That helps explain why I think the work is to be admired, not criticized.

In the end, bbnotop was correct to point out that a car is just a collection of parts.

Why do we attach value all out of proportion to the intrinsic value of the parts themselves?

For me, it is because the '64 GTO evokes a mental image of a time in my life. The story behind the people who made it possible, the factories where they were assembled, the engineers and designers who imagined it. What it felt like to drive them (and sometimes race them) when they were new. Stuff like that makes the collection of parts so much more fun for me. It doesn't matter if the PHS doc says it was not built as a GTO or if the VIN tag is swapped to a different door pillar. In the end, if the finished product is able to evoke those mental images for me, then it is in the spirit of a '64 GTO as far as I'm concerned. And valued accordingly.

[Bluesugar]

This was quite a nice explanation wright-up by "John V" that I was asking about(if a Pontiac dealer put the GTO option(parts) on a "64/'65" Lemans, would/could you consider it to be a real made,legit GTO,since it was an option)....We know that there were dealer installed extras put on cars(factory produced items that the car was not born with)that the buyer wanted and this seems to be accepted(these items won't show up on the vin research)and is thought to be correct for more "value" but I gather that a factory born Lemans with a GTO option installed by an authorized Pontiac dealership would be looked down upon as not being the "real deal"

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by Bluesugar

This was quite a nice explanation wright-up by "John V" that I was asking about(if a Pontiac dealer put the GTO option(parts) on a "64/'65" Lemans, would/could you consider it to be a real made,legit GTO,since it was an option)....

No.

No different than a dealer installing a Tripower on a 4 bbl car (or a '67 GTO).

It is "dealer installed", not "factory" (by definition).

K

[dld]

Well , GTOAA concourse judgeing was explained in recent legend mag. to say they are not Judging on PHS docs and any option that was offered on that year was ok. Then a clone would be ok. So sounds like a body change or any other adjustment for that year would be ok. Just Thinking

[Bluesugar]

the can of worms is cooking!!,,..I recall that the 4th(?) gen. of A-Bodies('71/'72)(it started in '72) went back to the option of a GTO package on the Lemans series,and you could have the front end looking like a GTO from the factory,probably even ordered with a 400 c.i. power plant,..the Goat was an option again!!, not a separate model,..so the cowl plate could not give info on what it was,or what it wasn't...yes the PHS is truely a blessing,but nobody had access to that info then and I know many patrons were dooped at buying something they felt(convinced that the dearlership was telling them what they wanted to hear to make a sell!)was correct,..I won't even go to the topic of the nova/ventura style.

[The Champ]

Originally Posted by dld

Well , GTOAA concourse judgeing was explained in recent legend mag. to say they are not Judging on PHS docs and any option that was offered on that year was ok. Then a clone would be ok. So sounds like a body change or any other adjustment for that year would be ok. Just Thinking

It's been a few years since I've been to a GTOAA meet with my car.

But for any year where the GTO was an option of another car ('64, '65, '72, '73 and '74 were the years - I believe) - you needed the PHS to document that the car was in fact a GTO.

Once established as a real GTO, it was/is permissable to add options.

I don't believe a clone is allowed to be entered in the GTO classes. But I could be wrong.

[dld]

You are probably correct.

[64woodwheel]

Originally Posted by Bluesugar

the can of worms is cooking!!,

Why in 1964, would anyone go to all the trouble of cloning a GTO when all you had to do was order one? The term "clone" probably hadn't even been used to describe a car at that time. I know that some personality types like to buy into conspiracy theories or whatever, but as far as a Lemans being accurately cloned into a GTO in 1964 is pure nonsense. It may have happened like John V states, as a result of VIN swapping with a stolen car. But I will reiterate, there is no can of worms and nothing to cook.

[Ron Landis]

Originally Posted by The Champ

It's been a few years since I've been to a GTOAA meet with my car.

But for any year where the GTO was an option of another car ('64, '65, '72, '73 and '74 were the years - I believe) - you needed the PHS to document that the car was in fact a GTO.

Once established as a real GTO, it was/is permissable to add options.

I don't believe a clone is allowed to be entered in the GTO classes. But I could be wrong.

and exactly why our '64 will never be judged...even in Popular Vote. Funny thing is...most folks looking at the car couldn't tell me why it is NOT a GTO. The "5N" thing was only certain plants...right? No biggie...never denied what the car was and I put @ $30k in it just to have what I wanted. Real deal would cost me @ double at the time. Many a true '64 GTO out there today I wouldn't trade for and I don't feel ANY guilt about going the "Day Two" resto route. JMHO. As was said...a nicely done car is just that. I've seen some "unreal unreal" cars! Ron

[Hedgehead]

Originally Posted by Ron Landis

and exactly why our '64 will never be judged...even in Popular Vote. Funny thing is...most folks looking at the car couldn't tell me why it is NOT a GTO. The "5N" thing was only certain plants...right? No biggie...never denied what the car was and I put @ $30k in it just to have what I wanted. Real deal would cost me @ double at the time. Many a true '64 GTO out there today I wouldn't trade for and I don't feel ANY guilt about going the "Day Two" resto route. JMHO. As was said...a nicely done car is just that. I've seen some "unreal unreal" cars! Ron

Well said.

[dld]

[QUOTE=Ron Landis;4882451]and exactly why our '64 will never be judged...even in Popular Vote.

Does seem a little discriminating. If you can take a GTO and install tint glass p/w p/s p/b and what ever else and not get kicked for points. y not add GTO option to a Lemans ...like Pontiac did. Humm!

You know you really don't compete against other cars in concourse. You compete against the class rules and what is deemed as correct for that build. A striped Lemans should be able to score as well as a well equipped GTO . Options only add complexity.

[geeteeohguy]

Even if the O.P.'s rusty '64 GTO never gets restored, it has already contributed a lot to this hobby thru this thread. And nothing's been done to it yet! I know of much nicer cars that have remained silent and have contributed much less! Great thread, guys.

[Terry Gartner]

Yes, I sure I'm glad I asked.

I'm just glad I have you guys to help guide me.

[Tom Vaught]

Build the car for yourself, for NO ONE ELSE!

Going to Car Shows, Like the Nationals) is great for some who strive perfection with the correct date coded belts, pulleys, water pump, etc etc etc and good for them if that is what they are into. Collect some wood, get a bunch of admiring people wishing that their car was restored as well, etc.

Keith Seymore's 65 GTO is a survivor. (His dad's car I believe). Paint is cracked, chips here and there, faded a bit, and yet I really smile every time I see that car. He kept it and because it is his he can do WHATEVER he wants with his car. PERIOD.

My car was built with a Mechanical Linkage when I got it from the Zone Office (thru my uncle the Pontiac dealer). Ok so it is not how it probably was when it rolled down the assembly line as a vacuup secondary car. I DO NOT REALLY CARE.

My car, as received, did not have power brakes. The Build sheet says they were there at one time. They apparently were removed and replaced with a non power set-up. I DO NOT REALLY CARE.

The frame has been swapped by me for a mint 1966 convertible GTO frame. the number on the frame does not match. I DO NOT REALLY CARE.

The rear quarters have been changed after a pizza car incident on the right side and a snow plow blade cut the quarter on the left side. They have been repaired very well using LeMans parts. The holes have been filled in the quarters. The weld slag is still there. I DO NOT REALLY CARE.

And, the list goes on and on. I have no desire to compete in a car show as I have nothing to prove. I DO NOT REALLY CARE.

So Terry, here is my advice, do whatever it takes to bring this car back to whatever level of car makes YOU happy and what YOU can afford.

If you buy a parts car and move parts one way or the other, both cars are YOUR cars and you can do what makes you happy. You have broken no laws, you have moved parts around. I think that once you get YOUR car the way that you want it you will have it forever.

If it ever goes down the road you can say, this is exactly what I did. If you want the car this is what I need, if you want to pass on the car, have a nice day. It is YOUR CAR. IT is a REAL GTO. No one has the right to judge you on what you do with YOUR property. As was said, if you document everything then there is no fraud. You are repairing your car. Be it one piece or a 1000 pieces. High end collectors do this all the time.

So the deal in my mind is keep good records and if anyone asks, this is what I did.

Get that 64 GTO on the road TERRY!

Tom Vaught

[Tom Vaught]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud

A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud. In the U.S. legal system, fraud is a specific offense with certain features.

Fraud is most common in the buying or selling of property, including real estate, Personal Property, and intangible property, such as stocks, bonds, and copyrights. State and federal statutes criminalize fraud, but not all cases rise to the level of criminality. Prosecutors have discretion in determining which cases to pursue. Victims may also seek redress in civil court.

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

These elements contain nuances that are not all easily proved. First, not all false statements are fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must relate to a material fact. It should also substantially affect a person's decision to enter into a contract or pursue a certain course of action. A false statement of fact that does not bear on the disputed transaction will not be considered fraudulent.

Second, the defendant must know that the statement is untrue. A statement of fact that is simply mistaken is not fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must be made with intent to deceive the victim. This is perhaps the easiest element to prove, once falsity and materiality are proved, because most material false statements are designed to mislead.

Third, the false statement must be made with the intent to deprive the victim of some legal right.

Fourth, the victim's reliance on the false statement must be reasonable. Reliance on a patently absurd false statement generally will not give rise to fraud; however, people who are especially gullible, superstitious, or ignorant or who are illiterate may recover damages for fraud if the defendant knew and took advantage of their condition.

Finally, the false statement must cause the victim some injury that leaves her or him in a worse position than she or he was in before the fraud.

A statement of belief is not a statement of fact and thus is not fraudulent. Puffing, or the expression of a glowing opinion by a seller, is likewise not fraudulent. For example, a car dealer may represent that a particular vehicle is "the finest in the lot." Although the statement may not be true, it is not a statement of fact, and a reasonable buyer would not be justified in relying on it.

The relationship between parties can make a difference in determining whether a statement is fraudulent. A misleading statement is more likely to be fraudulent when one party has superior knowledge in a transaction, and knows that the other is relying on that knowledge, than when the two parties possess equal knowledge. For example, if the seller of a car with a bad engine tells the buyer the car is in excellent running condition, a court is more likely to find fraud if the seller is an auto mechanic as opposed to a sales trainee. Misleading statements are most likely to be fraudulent where one party exploits a position of trust and confidence, or a fiduciary relationship. Fiduciary relationships include those between attorneys and clients, physicians and patients, stockbrokers and clients, and the officers and partners of a corporation and its stockholders.

A statement need not be affirmative to be fraudulent. When a person has a duty to speak, silence may be treated as a false statement. This can arise if a party who has knowledge of a fact fails to disclose it to another party who is justified in assuming its nonexistence. For example, if a real estate agent fails to disclose that a home is built on a toxic waste dump, the omission may be regarded as a fraudulent statement. Even if the agent does not know of the dump, the omission may be considered fraudulent. This is constructive fraud, and it is usually inferred when a party is a fiduciary and has a duty to know of, and disclose, particular facts.

Fraud is an independent criminal offense, but it also appears in different contexts as the means used to gain a legal advantage or accomplish a specific crime. For example, it is fraud for a person to make a false statement on a license application in order to engage in the regulated activity. A person who did so would not be convicted of fraud. Rather, fraud would simply describe the method used to break the law or regulation requiring the license.

Fraud resembles theft in that both involve some form of illegal taking, but the two should not be confused. Fraud requires an additional element of False Pretenses created to induce a victim to turn over property, services, or money. Theft, by contrast, requires only the unauthorized taking of another's property with the intent to permanently deprive the other of the property. Because fraud involves more planning than does theft, it is punished more severely.

Federal and state criminal statutes provide for the punishment of persons convicted of fraudulent activity. Interstate fraud and fraud on the federal government are singled out for federal prosecution. The most common federal fraud charges are for mail and wire fraud. Mail and wire fraud statutes criminalize the use of the mails or interstate wires to create or further a scheme to defraud (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1341, 1342).

Tax fraud against the federal government consists of the willful attempt to evade or defeat the payment of taxes due and owing (I.R.C. §7201). Depending on the defendant's intent, tax fraud results in either civil penalties or criminal punishment. Civil penalties can reach an amount equal to 75 percent of the underpayment. Criminal punishment includes fines and imprisonment. The degree of intent necessary to maintain criminal charges for tax fraud is determined on a case-by-case basis by the Internal Revenue Service and federal prosecutors.

There are other federal fraud laws. For example, the fraudulent registration of Aliens is punishable as a misdemeanor under federal law (8 U.S.C.A. § 1306). The "victim" in such a fraud is the U.S. government. Fraud violations of banking laws are also subject to federal prosecution (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 104 et seq.).

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines recommend consideration of the intended victims of fraud in the sentencing of fraud defendants. The guidelines urge an upward departure from standard sentences if the intended victims are especially vulnerable. For example, if a defendant markets an ineffective cancer cure, that scheme, if found to be fraudulent, would warrant more punishment than a scheme that targets persons generally, and coincidentally happens to injure a vulnerable person. Federal courts may require persons convicted of fraud to give notice and an explanation of the conviction to the victims of the fraud (18 U.S.C.A. § 3555).

All states maintain a general criminal statute designed to punish fraud. In Arizona, the statute is called the fraudulent scheme and artifice statute. It reads, in pertinent part, that "[a]ny person who, pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud, knowingly obtains any benefit by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises or material omissions" is guilty of a felony (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-2310(A)).

States further criminalize fraud in a variety of settings, including trade and commerce, Securities, taxes, real estate, gambling, insurance, government benefits, and credit. In Hawaii, for example, fraud on a state tax return is a felony warranting a fine of up to $100,000 or three years of imprisonment, or both, and a fraudulent corporate tax return is punished with a fine of $500,000 (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 231-36). Other fraud felonies include fraud in the manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance (§ 329-42) and fraud in government elections (§ 19-4). Fraud in the application for and receipt of public assistance benefits is punished according to the illegal gain: fraud in obtaining over $20,000 in food coupons is a class B felony; fraud in obtaining over $300 in food coupons is a class C felony; and all other public assistance fraud is a misdemeanor (§ 346-34). Alteration of a measurement device is fraud and is punished as a misdemeanor (§ 486-136).

In civil court, the remedy for fraud can vary. In most states, a plaintiff may recover "the benefit of the bargain." This is a measure of the difference between the represented value and the actual value of the transaction. In some states, a plaintiff may recover as actual damages only the value of the property lost in the fraudulent transaction. All states allow a plaintiff to seek Punitive Damages in addition to actual damages. This right is exercised most commonly in cases where the fraud is extremely dangerous or costly. Where the fraud is contractual, a plaintiff may choose to cancel, or rescind, the contract. A court order of Rescission returns all property and restores the parties to their precontract status.

Fraud is also penalized by administrative agencies and professional organizations that seek to regulate certain activities. Under state statutes, a professional may lose a license to work if the license was obtained with a false statement.

One particularly well publicized area of fraud is Corporate Fraud. Corporate fraud cases are largely governed by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 USCA §§ 78a et seq.), along with other rules and regulations propagated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. These laws were a response to the market turmoil during the 1930s and well-publicized corporate fraud cases.

The Securities Exchange Act and the SEC regulate anything having to do with the trading or selling of securities and stocks. They govern fraudulent behavior ranging from stock manipulation to insider trading. They also provide for civil and criminal penalties for corporate fraud.

Despite the act and the SEC, in the early part of the twenty-first century, corporate fraud began to seem endemic. Such well-known companies as energy trader Enron, Telecommunications company WorldCom, cable provider Adelphia, and other lesser-known firms went into Bankruptcy as a result of corporate fraud. In light of these events, Congress decided to tighten up corporate fraud requirements with the passages of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (U.S. PL 107-204).

Among other features, Sarbanes-Oxley required expanded and more frequent disclosure by public companies of their finances to prevent fraud. It created a Public Company Accounting Oversight Board to register and regulate accounting firms and accounting practices. It also enhanced the SEC's power to monitor and investigate compliance with securities laws, adding stiff penalties for fraudulent behavior by corporations, their officers, and their accountants.

So if you disclose that you use a donor body and moved the door pillar of the legit GTO to the other car, you have personally committed no fraud. Now if the next guy happens to forget that you told him you moved the Door Pillar and he sells the car HE COMMITTED FRAUD, not you!

It is all about the money TERRY! Everyone is afraid that they will get stuck with your car down the road with a moved door pillar. If you document everything then how can anyone say anything. It is your car, you are allowed to pay people to do work or do it yourself. You can change any part that you want on YOUR car. As long as you are honest there will never be an issue with your real GTO.

Tom Vaught

[i82much]

Originality is great but ... don't get wrapped around the axle unless you want a show car. You go back to 1964, you give a guy (A) a brand-new 64 GTO Tripower, 4 speed, 3.90's or (B) an otherwise identical brand new 1964 Tempest with an IA2 505 instead, said fella takes option B 11 times out of 10.