with the local dealers, who were his regular customers, and those good relations depended in part on the successful passage of title from those dealers to their customers. Id. at 711-12, 109 S.Ct. 1443. As a result, the mailing of the title applications was an incident of a “scheme which did not reach fruition until the retail dealers resold the cars and effected the transfer of title,” id. at 712, 109 S.Ct. 1443, because only then did Schmuck’s customers, the car dealers, have customers satisfied with Schmuck’s cars. That is to say, the Schmuck mailings, while not directly contributing to the “duping of either the retail dealers or the customers,” were nonetheless “incidental to an essential part of the scheme.” Id. (citing United States v. Shryock, 537 F.2d 207, 208-09 (5th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>)). In upholding the convictions, the Schmuck
recognizing that in 1982 kentucky converted to a new title system for motor vehicles under which the secured creditor must perfect its security interest by noting the lien on the certificate of title to the motor vehicle holding that the statutory definition of motor vehicle is not controlling holding that a local motor vehicle departments mailing of title applications to state headquarters furthered a dealers odometertampering scheme holding that the sensible and popular understanding of what a motor vehicle accident entails necessarily involves the motor vehicle being operated as a motor vehicle  holding that plaintiff who slipped and fell on ice while securing cars on his employers motor vehicle carrier preparing to travel was very close to the vehicle and engaged in a task related to the vehicle and therefore was an occupier of a motor vehicle