We are the only auto maintenance/fabrication shop that provides 100% transparency on parts and labor pricing!
(And we’re not here to coddle your feelings. You’re an adult—deal with adult problems like one.)

Here’s the Deal:
We called every shop in the Michiana area to quote us on a 2004 Chevy Impala Driver Side Strut Replacement.
Every single one quoted us between $480–$700 for parts and labor.
They claimed the parts cost $400+, and the labor would be around $80, with a 2-5 day wait.

In reality, the parts cost $80 from AutoZone, and we charge $200 for labor.
Your total cost? Under $300, with same-day service in most cases. That’s over a $100 savings by choosing our transparent pricing.

We keep it simple. We believe in finding action through "F.A.S.T." Service—and we mean FAST. 

How "F.A.S.T." Service Works: 

We offer a wide selection of Affordable Manufacturing Services To Members

Felony Charges Dismissed Amidst Overwhelming Evidence of Corruption

The felony charges previously filed against Centsless Creations LLC have been dismissed in light of overwhelming physical evidence of corruption and misconduct by South Bend Police.

On January 20th, 2023, a video was recorded that clearly shows South Bend PD violating our rights by unlawfully barring entry to our property and seizing our private belongings. They then perjured their reports to attempt to justify these illegal actions. This is an ongoing pattern of misconduct, where local authorities engage in fraudulent practices to cover up their actions. But this time, they got caught red-handed.

The video, filmed live, captures the moment South Bend Police officers engaged in what can only be described as false pretenses to victimize a local, mentally handicapped businessman—only to escalate matters with the filing of felony charges six months later in an apparent attempt to intimidate us and prevent a federal lawsuit. The absurdity of this situation is underscored by the fact that over $250,000 worth of property is still missing, and the police are trying to quietly cover up their crimes.

The Real Reason Staff are Leaving

James Muller's team is fleeing because of the recorded phone calls and emails where his office ignored all requests for help before his subordinates launched an unlawful assault on our business and homes. This was not the first time such actions have taken place. St. Joe County has worked tirelessly to cover up incidents like this, much like they did when the South Bend PD robbed Mr. Peppers' home in 2014, unlawfully detaining him for over five days without charges.

The Changing Story and the Evidence

Six months after the events of January 20th, 2023, the police suddenly changed their narrative. They filed a report, claiming things that are inconsistent with the evidence and the testimonies of seven credible eyewitnesses who confirmed that Mr. Peppers was in Chicago on the same day. What happened to the "unknown person hooking" claim? Where did that come from, and why didn’t any officers mention it in the original video? What happened to the illegally parked vehicles, including one on our neighbor’s property? These discrepancies are a clear sign of harassment and intimidation, and we are not going to let them slide.

Why did they only target vehicles registered to Centsless Creations LLC, especially when they ignored illegally parked vehicles elsewhere in the neighborhood? Why the specific targeting? We can only conclude that this was an act of harassment—plain and simple.

Why the City's Actions Violate the Law

We are not simply making claims—we have the legal backing to call out these actions. The unlawful actions by South Bend PD and city officials violated several state and federal laws, including:

1. Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The unlawful barring of entry to our property and the seizure of private property without a warrant or legal justification constitutes a violation of our Fourth Amendment rights.

2. Indiana Constitution, Article 1, Section 11 – This provision guarantees protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, mirroring the Fourth Amendment. The police's actions also violate this state constitutional right.

3. Indiana Code § 35-41-3-2 (Use of Force in Defense of Home) – This statute allows individuals to use reasonable force to defend their home or property from unlawful intrusion. If officers unlawfully entered our property, this law provides justification for self-defense against their illegal actions.

4. Indiana Code § 35-44.1-2-1 (Perjury) – If police officers knowingly filed false reports, this could be a violation of Indiana law against perjury. Their deliberate misrepresentation of the facts is a criminal offense under this statute.

5. Indiana Code § 35-44.1-2-2 (False Informing) – This law makes it an offense to provide false information to law enforcement. If officers knowingly filed false or misleading reports about the situation, they could be charged under this statute for false informing.

6. Indiana Code § 35-33-1-1 (Arrests and Warrants) – This law governs how arrests and seizures should be conducted. Officers cannot arrest or seize property without a valid warrant or probable cause, which appears to be lacking in this case.

7. 42 U.S. Code § 1983 (Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights) – Under this federal statute, we have the right to file a civil rights lawsuit for any actions taken by law enforcement or government officials that deprive us of our constitutional rights. The unlawful seizure of property, false reporting, and intimidation tactics are violations that could lead to a lawsuit under 42 U.S. Code § 1983.

8. First Amendment – Retaliation for speaking out about government misconduct is prohibited by the First Amendment. If the police or city officials retaliated against us for exercising our free speech, this would constitute a violation of our constitutional rights.

9. Indiana Civil Rights Law (IC 22-9-1) – If police officers engaged in discriminatory actions or unlawful harassment, such actions could fall under this statute, which protects individuals from harassment and discrimination by public servants.

The City's Response

We filed a lawsuit with the City of South Bend on January 22nd, 2023. The city responded after three months, claiming that they had no evidence. Our federal lawsuit was signed on June 19th, and yet, six days later, prosecutors rushed to file charges against us on June 30th—a mere six months later. They claim we are an “extremely dangerous person” but failed to present any actual evidence to support this.

Our Legal Rights

As stated in Indiana Code § 35-41-3-2, we are justified in using reasonable force to protect our property, our businesses, and ourselves against unlawful actions—especially when performed by a public servant who oversteps their authority. Public servants who act illegally shed the protection of the law and open themselves up to accountability for their actions.

When officers act outside the bounds of the law, their actions are not protected under the veil of authority—and that’s exactly what’s happening here. Our First Amendment rights allow us to speak freely about this situation, and we are exercising those rights by bringing attention to the corruption and misconduct taking place within South Bend’s police department and city leadership.

Demand for Accountability

It’s time for the city to explain why police reports do not match their own recorded statements. Why do city records not align with the facts? We have the evidence—the video, the audio, and the witness statements. South Bend’s corruption has been exposed, and we can prove it.

We will continue to seek justice, expose this corruption, and hold those responsible accountable. The city cannot continue to sweep these crimes under the rug. The truth is out there, and we’re not backing down.

Indiana Code Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure § 35-41-3-2

Sec. 2. (a) In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen's home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant.  By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the other robust self defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed.  Accordingly, the general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime.  The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.  Provisions concerning civil immunity for the justified use of force as defined in this section are codified under IC 34-30-31.

(b) As used in this section, “public servant” means a person described in IC 35-31.5-2-129 or IC 35-31.5-2-185.

(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.  However, a person:

(1) is justified in using deadly force;  and

(2) does not have a duty to retreat;