 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Rockets / June 2005"Jerry Irvine"
Does anyone know who "Jerry Irvine" is? And what is the whole deal with the "TRA BOD," it seems to be a big issue in this forum. > Does anyone know who "Jerry Irvine" is? And what is the whole deal with > the "TRA BOD," it seems to be a big issue in this forum. The BOD engages in fraudulant and obviously anti-consumer activities, with the support or ignorance of the members. I cite examples of such. TRA "lackeys" post personal attacks against me in response because the fact is the TRA BOD is indeed fraudulant etc in such way[s[ it is truly indefenseable. Jerry  SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >> Does anyone know who "Jerry Irvine" is? And what is the whole deal with >> the "TRA BOD," it seems to be a big issue in this forum. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Jerry Poor Jerry. As you can see the world is against him. The US Governemnt is too Jerry. You forgot to mention that. >> Does anyone know who "Jerry Irvine" is? And what is the whole deal with >> the "TRA BOD," it seems to be a big issue in this forum. > > The BOD engages in fraudulant and obviously anti-consumer activities, > with the support or ignorance of the members. I was curious if you actually fly rockets. Signaturegcisko@hotmail.com > I cite examples of such. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jerry Can't wait to see what happens now. That's a big can 'O' Whoop a.s you opend :-) Clint > Does anyone know who "Jerry Irvine" is? And what is the whole deal with > the "TRA BOD," it seems to be a big issue in this forum. > Does anyone know who "Jerry Irvine" is? And what is the whole deal with > the "TRA BOD," it seems to be a big issue in this forum. This may help some: ROBERT L. WEISS, ESQ. BAR #118796 1001 Partridge Drive, Suite 105, Ventura, CA 9 3 003 (805) 650-1717 Attorney for: Plaintiff, Franklin Kosdon Bob Kloss, Brian Teeling, & John Lee SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF VENTURA FRANKLIN KOSDON; BOB P. KLOSS;) Case No. 117435 ) JUDGMENT BRIAN TEELING; and JOHN LEE ) Plaintiffs, ) vs. ) JERRY IRVINE, individually, ) and dba U.S. ROCKETS; ) JERRY IRVINE, dba POWERTECH; ) DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE ) Defendants , ) This action came on regularly for trial on July 10, 1996 in Department 22 of the California Superior Court, County of Ventura, before the Honorable Burt Henson, presiding. The plaintiffs Franklin Kosdon, Brian Teeling, Bob P. Kloss, and John Lee (hereinafter collectively "Plaintiffs"), and cross-defendants Brian Teeling, Bob P. Kloss, and John Lee (hereinafter collectively "Cross-Defendants") appeared by their attorney of record, Robert L. Weiss. The defendant and cross-complainant, Jerry Irvine, and Jerry Irvine d.b.a. U.S. Rockets, appeared by his attorney of record, Grant Kennedy. And Related Cross Actions ) A jury of 12 persons was regularly impaneled and sworn. KosdonVjudgment Witnesses were sworn and testified. After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the jury was duly instructed by the Court and the cause was submitted to the jury with directions to return a verdict on special issues. The jury deliberated and thereafter returned into court with its verdict consisting of the special issues submitted to the jury and the answers given thereto by the jury, which said verdict was in words and figures as follows as to each of the respective claims. With respect to Plaintiffs claim for breach of contract, the jury found that defendant Jerry Irvine breached a contract with each of the Plaintiffs and that each plaintiff was damaged in the respective amounts as follows for the breach of contract: Franklin Kosdon in the amount of $1,3 00.00, Brian Teeling in the amount of $1,399.84, Bob P. Kloss in the amount of $400.00, and John Lee in the amount of $3,500.00. With respect to Plaintiffs claim for conversion, the jury found that Jerry Irvine interfered with the money and profits of Powertech as to each of the Plaintiffs; that a portion and share of the money and profits of Powertech interfered with by defendant Jerry Irvine, was a portion and share which was owned, due or should have been fairly distributed to each of the Plaintiffs; that defendant Jerry Irvine took the money and profits of Powertech exclusively for himself without sharing it with his partners, and without sharing it each of the Plaintiffs; that the interference by defendant Jerry Irvine was a substantial interference as to each of the Plaintiffs; the interference by Jerry Irvine with the money and profits of Powertech was an intentional interference as to each of the Plaintiffs; that the damages suffered as a result of defendant Jerry KosdonVjudgment Irvine's interference with the money and profits of Powertech were such that the interference was a substantial factor in causing such damages as to each of the Plaintiffs; and that the amount of the damages caused by defendant Jerry Irvine's conversion of money and profits of Powertech as to each of the Plaintiffs was respectively as follows: as to Franklin Kosdon, in the amount of $4,847.50; as to Brian Teeling, in the amount of $4,847.50; as to Bob P. Kloss, in the amount of $4,847.50; and, as to John Lee, in the amount of $9695.00. With respect to Plaintiffs claim for fraud and deceit, it was stipulated and agreed that as to each of the Plaintiffs, that cause of action would proceed on the basis of false promise as opposed to misrepresentation, and the jury found that defendant Jerry Irvine made a promise as to a material matter to each of the Plaintiffs; that at the time that defendant Jerry Irvine made the promise, that Defendant Jerry Irvine did not intend to perform it as to each of the Plaintiffs; that the Defendant made the promise with an intent to defraud each of the Plaintiffs; that each of the Plaintiffs, at the time each Plaintiff acted, was not aware of the Defendant's intention not to perform the promise; that each of the Plaintiffs acted in reliance upon the promise made to them; that each of the Plaintiffs was reasonably justified in relying upon the promise by the Defendant; and that Defendant's promise did cause damage to each of the Plaintiffs; and, that at the point in time that the promise was made as to each Plaintiff and their reliance, no dollar amount of damages had been suffered. With respect to Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages, the jury found that Jerry Irvine was guilty of fraud, malice and KosdonXjudgment ~ .3 oppression by clear and convincing as to each of the Plaintiffs on the tort causes of action, and determined to award punitive damages against Defendant Jerry Irvine in favor of each Plaintiff as follows: as to Franklin Kosdon, in the amount of $2,000.00; as to Brian Teeling, in the amount of $2,000.00; as to Bob P. Kloss, in the amount of $2,000.00; and, as to John Lee, in the amount of $2,000.00. With respect to Cross-Complainant Jerry Irvine's claim for breach of contract, the jury found that no Cross-Defendant breached their contract with Jerry Irvine. With respect to Cross-Complainant Jerry Irvine's claim for conversion, the jury found that no Cross- Defendant converted property belonging to Jerry Irvine. With respect to Cross-Complainant's claim of Unfair Competition, Cross-complainant dismissed said cause of action during trial. With respect to the accounting issues and the partnership personal property, the Court found that the items were of negligible value, and determined that those items currently in the possession of Brian Teeling, John Lee, and Bob Kloss, be returned to Jerry Irvine at such time that Jerry Irvine satisfies the Judgment made herein. As to Franklin Kosdon, it was determined that an arson fire had destroyed those items that had been in his possession and that Franklin Kosdon was absolved of any obligation to return such items. The court further diminished the award in favor of Franklin Kosdon on the breach of contract cause of action to zero and reduced the damages on the conversion cause of action down to $2,847.50 by virtue of the prior small claims judgment obtained by Franklin Kosdon against Jerry Irvine. It appearing by reason of said special verdicts that: Plaintiff, Franklin Kosdon, is entitled to judgment against Kosdon\judgment ~f» ~~ Defendant, Jerry Irvine, in the amount of $ 4,847.50. 1 2 It appearing by reason of said special verdicts that: Plaintiff, Bob P. Kloss, is entitled to judgment against Defendant, 3 Jerry Irvine, in the amount of $ 7,247.50. It appearing by reason of said special verdicts that: Plaintiff, Brian Teeling, is entitled to judgment against Defendant, Jerry Irvine, in the amount of $ 8,247.34. It appearing by reason of said special verdicts that: Plaintiff, John Lee, is entitled to judgment against Defendant, Jerry Irvine, in the amount of $ 15,195.00. It appearing by reason of said special verdicts that: Cross-Defendants are entitled to Judgment in their favor against Cross-Complainant, Jerry Irvine, and therefore that said Cross- Complainant take nothing by way of his cross-complainant. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That Plaintiff Franklin Kosdon have judgment, against Defendant Jerry Irvine, and Jerry Irvine, d.b.a. U.S. Rockets, for breach of contract reduced to zero, and for conversion in the amount of $2,847.50, and punitive damages on the conversion in the amount of $2,000.00, for a total judgment in the sum of $4,847.50. That Plaintiff Bob P. Kloss have judgment, against Defendant Jerry Irvine, and Jerry Irvine, d.b.a. U.S. Rockets, for breach of contract in the amount of $400.00, and for conversion in the amount of $4,847.50, and punitive damages on the conversion in the amount of $2,000.00, for a total judgment in the sum of $ 7,247.50. That Plaintiff Bob P. Kloss have judgment, against Defendant Jerry Irvine, and Jerry Irvine, d.b.a. U.S. Rockets, for Kosdon\(udgment breach of contract in the amount of $400.00, and for conversion in the amount of $4,847.50, and punitive damages on the conversion in the amount of $2,000.00, for a total judgment in the sum of $7,247.50. That Plaintiff Brian Teeling have judgment, against Defendant Jerry Irvine, and Jerry Irvine, d.b.a. U.S. Rockets, for breach of contract in the amount of $1,399.84, and for conversion in the amount of $4,847.50, and punitive damages on the conversion in the amount of $2,000.00, for a total judgment in the sum -of $8,247.34. That Plaintiff John Lee have judgment, against Defendant Jerry Irvine, and Jerry Irvine, d.b.a. U.S. Rockets, for breach of contract in the amount of $3,500.00, and for conversion in the amount of $9695.00, and punitive damages on the conversion in the amount of $2,000.00, for a total judgment in the sum of $ 15,195.00. That Cross-defendants Brian Teeling, John Lee and Bob P. Kloss have judgment in their favor as and against Cross-complainant Jerry Irvine. Further that Cross-complainant Jerry Irvine take nothing by way of his cross-complaint. It is further ordered and decreed that at such time Defendant Jerry Irvine pays the judgments as set forth above, Brian Teeling, Bob Kloss and John Lee shall return to Jerry Irvine the partnership assets currently in their possession and control. Dated: Honorable Burt Henson, Judge of the Superior Court Kosdonjudgment > > Does anyone know who "Jerry Irvine" is? And what is the whole deal with > > the "TRA BOD," it seems to be a big issue in this forum. > > This may help some: Several people have asked you several times each what you claimed constituted a false promise. No answer. Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >>>Does anyone know who "Jerry Irvine" is? And what is the whole deal with >>>the "TRA BOD," it seems to be a big issue in this forum. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Several people have asked you several times each what you claimed > constituted a false promise. Who would they be? On what dates did these "people" ask me? More importantly, how is it relevant to the fraud judgment I have against you? > No answer. > > Jerry > >>>Does anyone know who "Jerry Irvine" is? And what is the whole deal with > >>>the "TRA BOD," it seems to be a big issue in this forum. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > > > Jerry No answer. Of course. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > Does anyone know who "Jerry Irvine" is? And what is the whole deal with > the "TRA BOD," it seems to be a big issue in this forum. Wow, that's about the most perfectly crafted troll I've ever seen! ;) Jerry Irvine is the creation of a hacker hiding in the "mother of all spider holes" somewhere near Victorville. It's just a program that randomly generates newsgroup postings which consist largely of irrational rants and egotistical boasting. "TRA BOD" is actually a dyslexic spelling of "body art" and is really only a big issue for WOLPAK BOB. > "TRA BOD" is actually a dyslexic spelling of "body art" and is really > only a big issue for WOLPAK BOB. Noooo, that were Amos in t'Woolpack, lad, not Bob. Amos and Mr. Wilks, and Seth Armstrong, them was the days, when I were a lad.... :-) (USA: Google "Emmerdale farm") G. SignatureGraham J. Platt graham (a) bowhunter (d) demon (d) co (d) uk TRA #10112 L2 > Does anyone know who "Jerry Irvine" is? And what is the whole deal with > the "TRA BOD," it seems to be a big issue in this forum. Just to be complete, it took me a long time to realize that TRA BOD is Tripoli Rocketry Association Board of Directors. Correct me if I am wrong. I have no opinion on the issue yet as I haven't had enough exposure to them. Kurt Savegnago >> Does anyone know who "Jerry Irvine" is? And what is the whole deal with >> the "TRA BOD," it seems to be a big issue in this forum. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Kurt Savegnago I'll admit that I had doubts about them for years and stayed away. Over the past 3-4 years new leadership came on board. Since that time, I have nothing to complain about. There have been some lingering issues related to HPR magazine which they are trying to correct. Iit has taken a long time and there are still problems but, I know they are trying. IMO everything I've heard Jerry complain about happened 10 years ago and is no longer valid. >>>Does anyone know who "Jerry Irvine" is? And what is the whole deal with >>>the "TRA BOD," it seems to be a big issue in this forum. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > IMO everything I've heard Jerry complain about happened 10 years ago > and is no longer valid. More like 15 years. >>>>Does anyone know who "Jerry Irvine" is? And what is the whole deal with >>>>the "TRA BOD," it seems to be a big issue in this forum. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >More like 15 years. I was trying to be conservative. 8-) > >> Does anyone know who "Jerry Irvine" is? And what is the whole deal with > >> the "TRA BOD," it seems to be a big issue in this forum. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > lingering issues related to HPR magazine which they are trying to > correct. Iit has taken a long time 15 years is a long time? > and there are still problems but, > I know they are trying. Like late or never magazines? Like vendors being banned over ATF issues TRA has sued to claim are not applicable? Like self-overregulating regulations authored by them? For example? None of those are 10 years old. They are happening today, right now. Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >> >> Does anyone know who "Jerry Irvine" is? And what is the whole deal with >> >> the "TRA BOD," it seems to be a big issue in this forum. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Like late or never magazines? Yep. Just like it. >Like vendors being banned over ATF issues TRA has sued to claim are not >applicable? > >Like self-overregulating regulations authored by them? > >For example? Nope. They require vendors to have permits because the ATF says so. They do not want to put members into a position with ATF that could result in a BIG FINE. >None of those are 10 years old. They are happening today, right now. > >Jerry Those guys are doing the best they can. If you want to rejoin, you know what you need to do. > >Like vendors being banned over ATF issues TRA has sued to claim are not > >applicable? > Nope. They require vendors to have permits because the ATF says so. Simply false. It is by "Board vote in 1994" according to their own written admission (TMT rules extract). NOT by "ATF order". In fact ATF asked TRA SPECIFICALLY NOT TO ENFORCE FOR THEM. I see you simply do not get that!! > >None of those are 10 years old. They are happening today, right now. Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >> >Like vendors being banned over ATF issues TRA has sued to claim are not >> >applicable? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Jerry TRA is not enforcing for ATF any more than they are enforcing for DOT. All they are doing is making sure that motor manufacturers comply with applicable laws so that members (& TMT) are not a party to illegal shipping and manufacturing. Here's an example of what niether TRA nor NAR want their members and motor certification people to be a party to - http://rspa-atty.dot.gov/appeals/Irvine-app.pdf Know what I mean BIG FINE? Did you pay that fine yet? > > >Like vendors being banned over ATF issues TRA has sued to claim are not > > >applicable? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Jerry ... SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >> > >Like vendors being banned over ATF issues TRA has sued to claim are not >> > >applicable? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >... WHAH WHAH WHAH Learn some new lines. > >> Simply false. It is by "Board vote in 1994" according to their own > >> written admission (TMT rules extract). NOT by "ATF order". In fact ATF > >> asked TRA SPECIFICALLY NOT TO ENFORCE FOR THEM. > WHAH WHAH WHAH > > Learn some new lines. Off-topic retort. That IS the best you can do ON THE TOPIC. ROFL SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 "Phil Stein" <PStein@ArielSystems.spamsks.net> wrote in message " Learn some new lines" "Know what I mean BIG FINE? Did you pay that fine yet?" Phil your message content could use an upgrade also. If you want Jerry to change his then quit posting the same dribble over and over. His one post will draw posts form the same four or five nimrods. It looks like a 5 to 1 ratio from the hater gallery. >"Phil Stein" <PStein@ArielSystems.spamsks.net> wrote in message >" Learn some new lines" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >will draw posts form the same four or five nimrods. It looks like a 5 to 1 >ratio from the hater gallery. The difference if that Big Fine is a classic and is not a figment of my imagination. > >"Phil Stein" <PStein@ArielSystems.spamsks.net> wrote in message > >" Learn some new lines" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > The difference if that You are the hater gallery lover. To what end? SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > Phil your message content could use an upgrade also. If you want Jerry to > change his then quit posting the same dribble over and over. His one post > will draw posts form the same four or five nimrods. It looks like a 5 to 1 > ratio from the hater gallery. Point. The judge said that exemptions at 55.141 apply to our rocket motors. Section 55.141 (a) begins: General. This part shall not apply with respect to..." (and then enumerates the various exempted circumstances). The exemption relieves us from the ENTIRE burden of compliance to all regulations of "part 55", not just from only those parts dealing with user permits. Also in part 55 are to be found requirements for manufacture, storage, etc., and the definition of "explosive materials" (in section 55.11) that invokes the "List of Explosive Materials provided for in section 55.23". That means that BATF can "list" things as "explosive" all they want, but that doesn't act to bring PAD's within the definition of "Explosive Materials" - neither their creation and distribution (whether or not considered "commercial"), nor their acquisition, storage and use, are subject to Part 55. What part of "this part shall not apply to..." are you having such trouble understanding? Where does is "commercial manufacturer of what is classified as a LE" excluded from the exemption? From: Rick Dickinson <rtd@notesguy.com> I have had enough law classes, and have done well enough in them, to be able to read and comprehend legal documents, and to draw substantive, supportable conclusions from what I read. The study of law is about learning to pick out what's important, and paying attention to the details. While fair play (aka "equity") is part of the law, attention to detail is a far bigger part. If the law says something, you won't go far wrong by taking it extremely literally, as written. The interesting thing, to me, is that Dave and I have not been contradicting what the lawyers said. We have been taking what they have said, what the judge said, and what the law says, reading them all, and drawing the conclusion that the law says what it means. and All I have been saying is that: 1) The judge ruled that fully assembled rocket motors are, for now, correctly classified as Propellant Actuated Devices (PADs), as listed in Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 555 (formerly known as Part 55), Section 841(a)(8). 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8), in full, reads as follows: "(8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.". 2) 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8) is only one of 9 exemptions mentioned under 27 CFR 555.841(a), which reads, in full: "(a) General. Except for the provisions of Secs. 55.180 and 55.181, this part does not apply to:" 3) The term "this part" in 27 CFR 55.841(a) has a specific legal meaning, in context. It refers, specifically, to the particular Part of the particular Title containing the phrase "this part". In other words, it refers to Part 55 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (aka 27 CFR 55). This reading is made even more obvious by the fact that the sub-section 841(a) mentions several other sections within the part it's talking about specifically by number. 4) The provisions of sections 55.180 and 55.181 relate to "plastic explosives", which are defined in 27 CFR 55.180(c)(4) as "(4) Plastic explosive means an explosive material in flexible or elastic sheet form formulated with one or more high explosives which in their pure form has a vapor pressure less than 10-\4\ Pa at a temperature of 25 deg.C, is formulated with a binder material, and is as a mixture malleable or flexible at normal room temperature. High explosives, as defined in Sec. 55.202(a), are explosive materials which can be caused to detonate by means of a blasting cap when unconfined." 5) I don't think anyone has ever even alleged that the rocket motors we are talking about are "formulated with one or more high explosives", so the provisions in sections 55.180 and 55.181 of this part (part 55) are clearly not applicable. 6) Since 27 CFR 55.180 and 55.181 are clearly not applicable, what we are left with is an exemption from all of 27 CFR 55. As you can see by perusing http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/27cfr55_02.html , Part 55 regulates all aspects of "Commerce In Explosives", from licensing to storage, to disposal, transportation, or what to do if any is stolen. See 27 CFR 55.41 for general information on Licenses and Permits, for instance. 7) An unequivocal exemption from essentially all of 27 CFR 55 (with the twin exceptions of the sections relating to plastic explosives I mentioned above) means that LEUPs are not needed. It also means that LEMPs are not needed for manufacturing PADs. Assembling a PAD is an unregulated activity, at least as far as the federal explosives regulations in 27 CFR 55 are concerned. and Actually, the PAD exemption specifically exempts PADs from "this part", referring to 27 CFR Part 55 (now renumbered to part 555), which is the term for the section of the law that contains the PAD exemption, and the storage, permitting, and other regulations concerning explosives. By exempting PADs from "this part" using verbiage within "Part 555" (nee 55), PADs are exempt from *all* of the regulations therein. Note: this is *including* the regulations requiring permits for manufacturers and dealers. Do a web search for "27 CFR 55" and read it yourself if you don't beleive me. - Rick "Use the Source, Luke" Dickinson Dave W: 10 year old documents like 27 CFR part 555 (recently renumbered in implementing the "homeland security act" updates), which contains the exemption at section 141(a)(8) unchanged from when the whole part was numbered "part 55": this sure suggests to me that the Intent of the Legislature, in acting to close the so-called "loophole" involving in-state transfers of actual "Explosives", nevertheless intended to leave the P.A.D. exemption intact. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >>>>Like vendors being banned over ATF issues TRA has sued to claim are not >>>>applicable? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > ... jerry=Zippy > >>Simply false. It is by "Board vote in 1994" according to their own > >>written admission (TMT rules extract). NOT by "ATF order". In fact ATF > >>asked TRA SPECIFICALLY NOT TO ENFORCE FOR THEM. > jerry=Zippy Off-topic retort. That IS the best you can do ON THE TOPIC. ROFL SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >>>>Simply false. It is by "Board vote in 1994" according to their own >>>>written admission (TMT rules extract). NOT by "ATF order". In fact ATF [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ROFL Do you have evidence of your claim about the ATF? When did the ATF ask TRA to not ask for valid LEMPs? > >>>>Simply false. It is by "Board vote in 1994" according to their own > >>>>written admission (TMT rules extract). NOT by "ATF order". In fact ATF [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Do you have evidence of your claim about the ATF? When did the ATF ask > TRA to not ask for valid LEMPs? In fact ATF asked TRA SPECIFICALLY NOT TO ENFORCE FOR THEM. ROFL SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >>>>>>Simply false. It is by "Board vote in 1994" according to their own >>>>>>written admission (TMT rules extract). NOT by "ATF order". In fact ATF [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > ROFL Do you have evidence of your claim about the ATF? When did the ATF ask TRA to not ask for valid LEMPs? > Do you have evidence of your claim about the ATF? When did the ATF ask > TRA to not ask for valid LEMPs? Jerry Irvine replied: >> Off-topic retort. That IS the best you can do ON THE TOPIC. You ignored the two questions above and edited them out of your idiotic reply. Is that the best YOU can do, Jerry? Funny, every time someone tries to get some hard evidence or verifiable cites out of you, all you do post unrelated drivel and then have the gall to claim that THEY are off-topic. > You ignored the two questions above and edited them out of your idiotic > reply. Is that the best YOU can do, Jerry? Funny, every time someone > tries to get some hard evidence or verifiable cites out of you, all you > do post unrelated drivel and then have the gall to claim that THEY are > off-topic. Because it's inconvenient, he chooses to ignore it. > > You ignored the two questions above and edited them out of your idiotic > > reply. Is that the best YOU can do, Jerry? Funny, every time someone [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Because it's inconvenient, he chooses to ignore it. The judge said that exemptions at 55.141 apply to our rocket motors. Section 55.141 (a) begins: General. This part shall not apply with respect to..." (and then enumerates the various exempted circumstances). The exemption relieves us from the ENTIRE burden of compliance to all regulations of "part 55", not just from only those parts dealing with user permits. Also in part 55 are to be found requirements for manufacture, storage, etc., and the definition of "explosive materials" (in section 55.11) that invokes the "List of Explosive Materials provided for in section 55.23". That means that BATF can "list" things as "explosive" all they want, but that doesn't act to bring PAD's within the definition of "Explosive Materials" - neither their creation and distribution (whether or not considered "commercial"), nor their acquisition, storage and use, are subject to Part 55. What part of "this part shall not apply to..." are you having such trouble understanding? Where does is "commercial manufacturer of what is classified as a LE" excluded from the exemption? From: Rick Dickinson <rtd@notesguy.com> I have had enough law classes, and have done well enough in them, to be able to read and comprehend legal documents, and to draw substantive, supportable conclusions from what I read. The study of law is about learning to pick out what's important, and paying attention to the details. While fair play (aka "equity") is part of the law, attention to detail is a far bigger part. If the law says something, you won't go far wrong by taking it extremely literally, as written. The interesting thing, to me, is that Dave and I have not been contradicting what the lawyers said. We have been taking what they have said, what the judge said, and what the law says, reading them all, and drawing the conclusion that the law says what it means. and All I have been saying is that: 1) The judge ruled that fully assembled rocket motors are, for now, correctly classified as Propellant Actuated Devices (PADs), as listed in Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 555 (formerly known as Part 55), Section 841(a)(8). 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8), in full, reads as follows: "(8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.". 2) 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8) is only one of 9 exemptions mentioned under 27 CFR 555.841(a), which reads, in full: "(a) General. Except for the provisions of Secs. 55.180 and 55.181, this part does not apply to:" 3) The term "this part" in 27 CFR 55.841(a) has a specific legal meaning, in context. It refers, specifically, to the particular Part of the particular Title containing the phrase "this part". In other words, it refers to Part 55 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (aka 27 CFR 55). This reading is made even more obvious by the fact that the sub-section 841(a) mentions several other sections within the part it's talking about specifically by number. 4) The provisions of sections 55.180 and 55.181 relate to "plastic explosives", which are defined in 27 CFR 55.180(c)(4) as "(4) Plastic explosive means an explosive material in flexible or elastic sheet form formulated with one or more high explosives which in their pure form has a vapor pressure less than 10-\4\ Pa at a temperature of 25 deg.C, is formulated with a binder material, and is as a mixture malleable or flexible at normal room temperature. High explosives, as defined in Sec. 55.202(a), are explosive materials which can be caused to detonate by means of a blasting cap when unconfined." 5) I don't think anyone has ever even alleged that the rocket motors we are talking about are "formulated with one or more high explosives", so the provisions in sections 55.180 and 55.181 of this part (part 55) are clearly not applicable. 6) Since 27 CFR 55.180 and 55.181 are clearly not applicable, what we are left with is an exemption from all of 27 CFR 55. As you can see by perusing http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/27cfr55_02.html , Part 55 regulates all aspects of "Commerce In Explosives", from licensing to storage, to disposal, transportation, or what to do if any is stolen. See 27 CFR 55.41 for general information on Licenses and Permits, for instance. 7) An unequivocal exemption from essentially all of 27 CFR 55 (with the twin exceptions of the sections relating to plastic explosives I mentioned above) means that LEUPs are not needed. It also means that LEMPs are not needed for manufacturing PADs. Assembling a PAD is an unregulated activity, at least as far as the federal explosives regulations in 27 CFR 55 are concerned. and Actually, the PAD exemption specifically exempts PADs from "this part", referring to 27 CFR Part 55 (now renumbered to part 555), which is the term for the section of the law that contains the PAD exemption, and the storage, permitting, and other regulations concerning explosives. By exempting PADs from "this part" using verbiage within "Part 555" (nee 55), PADs are exempt from *all* of the regulations therein. Note: this is *including* the regulations requiring permits for manufacturers and dealers. Do a web search for "27 CFR 55" and read it yourself if you don't beleive me. - Rick "Use the Source, Luke" Dickinson Dave W: 10 year old documents like 27 CFR part 555 (recently renumbered in implementing the "homeland security act" updates), which contains the exemption at section 141(a)(8) unchanged from when the whole part was numbered "part 55": this sure suggests to me that the Intent of the Legislature, in acting to close the so-called "loophole" involving in-state transfers of actual "Explosives", nevertheless intended to leave the P.A.D. exemption intact. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > > >Like vendors being banned over ATF issues TRA has sued to claim are not > > >applicable? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > written admission (TMT rules extract). NOT by "ATF order". In fact ATF > asked TRA SPECIFICALLY NOT TO ENFORCE FOR THEM. You've obviously (and intentionally) missed Phil's point. TRA requires manufacturers show LEMPs when submitting motors for cert because ATF requires manufacturers to have LEMPs. Any manufacturer who does not have an LEMP is operating illegally in the eyes of the ATF. Furthermore, ATF has never told TRA that they should not ask manufacturers for LEMPs. If you believe otherwise, post a verifiable cite. > You've obviously (and intentionally) missed Phil's point. TRA requires > manufacturers show LEMPs when submitting motors for cert because ATF > requires manufacturers to have LEMPs. I didn't miss the point. I called you and your ilk liars. I have first hand experience that claim is false. With no fines. > Any manufacturer who does not > have an LEMP is operating illegally in the eyes of the ATF. And you are an expert in contravention to the law, how? Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >> You've obviously (and intentionally) missed Phil's point. TRA requires >> manufacturers show LEMPs when submitting motors for cert because ATF [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Jerry Are you making motors that you sell? If so, we can get ATF to settle this once and for all. May I arrange a visit? > >> You've obviously (and intentionally) missed Phil's point. TRA requires > >> manufacturers show LEMPs when submitting motors for cert because ATF [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Are you making motors that you sell? If so, we can get ATF to settle > this once and for all. May I arrange a visit? Get a clue. Simply read the law. The judge said that exemptions at 55.141 apply to our rocket motors. Section 55.141 (a) begins: General. This part shall not apply with respect to..." (and then enumerates the various exempted circumstances). The exemption relieves us from the ENTIRE burden of compliance to all regulations of "part 55", not just from only those parts dealing with user permits. Also in part 55 are to be found requirements for manufacture, storage, etc., and the definition of "explosive materials" (in section 55.11) that invokes the "List of Explosive Materials provided for in section 55.23". That means that BATF can "list" things as "explosive" all they want, but that doesn't act to bring PAD's within the definition of "Explosive Materials" - neither their creation and distribution (whether or not considered "commercial"), nor their acquisition, storage and use, are subject to Part 55. What part of "this part shall not apply to..." are you having such trouble understanding? Where does is "commercial manufacturer of what is classified as a LE" excluded from the exemption? From: Rick Dickinson <rtd@notesguy.com> I have had enough law classes, and have done well enough in them, to be able to read and comprehend legal documents, and to draw substantive, supportable conclusions from what I read. The study of law is about learning to pick out what's important, and paying attention to the details. While fair play (aka "equity") is part of the law, attention to detail is a far bigger part. If the law says something, you won't go far wrong by taking it extremely literally, as written. The interesting thing, to me, is that Dave and I have not been contradicting what the lawyers said. We have been taking what they have said, what the judge said, and what the law says, reading them all, and drawing the conclusion that the law says what it means. and All I have been saying is that: 1) The judge ruled that fully assembled rocket motors are, for now, correctly classified as Propellant Actuated Devices (PADs), as listed in Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 555 (formerly known as Part 55), Section 841(a)(8). 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8), in full, reads as follows: "(8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.". 2) 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8) is only one of 9 exemptions mentioned under 27 CFR 555.841(a), which reads, in full: "(a) General. Except for the provisions of Secs. 55.180 and 55.181, this part does not apply to:" 3) The term "this part" in 27 CFR 55.841(a) has a specific legal meaning, in context. It refers, specifically, to the particular Part of the particular Title containing the phrase "this part". In other words, it refers to Part 55 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (aka 27 CFR 55). This reading is made even more obvious by the fact that the sub-section 841(a) mentions several other sections within the part it's talking about specifically by number. 4) The provisions of sections 55.180 and 55.181 relate to "plastic explosives", which are defined in 27 CFR 55.180(c)(4) as "(4) Plastic explosive means an explosive material in flexible or elastic sheet form formulated with one or more high explosives which in their pure form has a vapor pressure less than 10-\4\ Pa at a temperature of 25 deg.C, is formulated with a binder material, and is as a mixture malleable or flexible at normal room temperature. High explosives, as defined in Sec. 55.202(a), are explosive materials which can be caused to detonate by means of a blasting cap when unconfined." 5) I don't think anyone has ever even alleged that the rocket motors we are talking about are "formulated with one or more high explosives", so the provisions in sections 55.180 and 55.181 of this part (part 55) are clearly not applicable. 6) Since 27 CFR 55.180 and 55.181 are clearly not applicable, what we are left with is an exemption from all of 27 CFR 55. As you can see by perusing http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/27cfr55_02.html , Part 55 regulates all aspects of "Commerce In Explosives", from licensing to storage, to disposal, transportation, or what to do if any is stolen. See 27 CFR 55.41 for general information on Licenses and Permits, for instance. 7) An unequivocal exemption from essentially all of 27 CFR 55 (with the twin exceptions of the sections relating to plastic explosives I mentioned above) means that LEUPs are not needed. It also means that LEMPs are not needed for manufacturing PADs. Assembling a PAD is an unregulated activity, at least as far as the federal explosives regulations in 27 CFR 55 are concerned. and Actually, the PAD exemption specifically exempts PADs from "this part", referring to 27 CFR Part 55 (now renumbered to part 555), which is the term for the section of the law that contains the PAD exemption, and the storage, permitting, and other regulations concerning explosives. By exempting PADs from "this part" using verbiage within "Part 555" (nee 55), PADs are exempt from *all* of the regulations therein. Note: this is *including* the regulations requiring permits for manufacturers and dealers. Do a web search for "27 CFR 55" and read it yourself if you don't beleive me. - Rick "Use the Source, Luke" Dickinson Dave W: 10 year old documents like 27 CFR part 555 (recently renumbered in implementing the "homeland security act" updates), which contains the exemption at section 141(a)(8) unchanged from when the whole part was numbered "part 55": this sure suggests to me that the Intent of the Legislature, in acting to close the so-called "loophole" involving in-state transfers of actual "Explosives", nevertheless intended to leave the P.A.D. exemption intact. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >>>>You've obviously (and intentionally) missed Phil's point. TRA requires >>>>manufacturers show LEMPs when submitting motors for cert because ATF [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > something, you won't go far wrong by taking it extremely literally, as > written. jerry irvine has never studied law. Only in his own mind is jerry a lawyer. Here's a legal document for you to analyze: ROBERT L. WEISS, ESQ. BAR #118796 1001 Partridge Drive, Suite 105, Ventura, CA 9 3 003 (805) 650-1717 Attorney for: Plaintiff, Franklin Kosdon Bob Kloss, Brian Teeling, & John Lee SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF VENTURA FRANKLIN KOSDON; BOB P. KLOSS;) Case No. 117435 ) JUDGMENT BRIAN TEELING; and JOHN LEE ) Plaintiffs, ) vs. ) JERRY IRVINE, individually, ) and dba U.S. ROCKETS; ) JERRY IRVINE, dba POWERTECH; ) DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE ) Defendants , ) This action came on regularly for trial on July 10, 1996 in Department 22 of the California Superior Court, County of Ventura, before the Honorable Burt Henson, presiding. The plaintiffs Franklin Kosdon, Brian Teeling, Bob P. Kloss, and John Lee (hereinafter collectively "Plaintiffs"), and cross-defendants Brian Teeling, Bob P. Kloss, and John Lee (hereinafter collectively "Cross-Defendants") appeared by their attorney of record, Robert L. Weiss. The defendant and cross-complainant, Jerry Irvine, and Jerry Irvine d.b.a. U.S. Rockets, appeared by his attorney of record, Grant Kennedy. And Related Cross Actions ) A jury of 12 persons was regularly impaneled and sworn. KosdonVjudgment Witnesses were sworn and testified. After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the jury was duly instructed by the Court and the cause was submitted to the jury with directions to return a verdict on special issues. The jury deliberated and thereafter returned into court with its verdict consisting of the special issues submitted to the jury and the answers given thereto by the jury, which said verdict was in words and figures as follows as to each of the respective claims. With respect to Plaintiffs claim for breach of contract, the jury found that defendant Jerry Irvine breached a contract with each of the Plaintiffs and that each plaintiff was damaged in the respective amounts as follows for the breach of contract: Franklin Kosdon in the amount of $1,3 00.00, Brian Teeling in the amount of $1,399.84, Bob P. Kloss in the amount of $400.00, and John Lee in the amount of $3,500.00. With respect to Plaintiffs claim for conversion, the jury found that Jerry Irvine interfered with the money and profits of Powertech as to each of the Plaintiffs; that a portion and share of the money and profits of Powertech interfered with by defendant Jerry Irvine, was a portion and share which was owned, due or should have been fairly distributed to each of the Plaintiffs; that defendant Jerry Irvine took the money and profits of Powertech exclusively for himself without sharing it with his partners, and without sharing it each of the Plaintiffs; that the interference by defendant Jerry Irvine was a substantial interference as to each of the Plaintiffs; the interference by Jerry Irvine with the money and profits of Powertech was an intentional interference as to each of the Plaintiffs; that the damages suffered as a result of defendant Jerry KosdonVjudgment Irvine's interference with the money and profits of Powertech were such that the interference was a substantial factor in causing such damages as to each of the Plaintiffs; and that the amount of the damages caused by defendant Jerry Irvine's conversion of money and profits of Powertech as to each of the Plaintiffs was respectively as follows: as to Franklin Kosdon, in the amount of $4,847.50; as to Brian Teeling, in the amount of $4,847.50; as to Bob P. Kloss, in the amount of $4,847.50; and, as to John Lee, in the amount of $9695.00. With respect to Plaintiffs claim for fraud and deceit, it was stipulated and agreed that as to each of the Plaintiffs, that cause of action would proceed on the basis of false promise as opposed to misrepresentation, and the jury found that defendant Jerry Irvine made a promise as to a material matter to each of the Plaintiffs; that at the time that defendant Jerry Irvine made the promise, that Defendant Jerry Irvine did not intend to perform it as to each of the Plaintiffs; that the Defendant made the promise with an intent to defraud each of the Plaintiffs; that each of the Plaintiffs, at the time each Plaintiff acted, was not aware of the Defendant's intention not to perform the promise; that each of the Plaintiffs acted in reliance upon the promise made to them; that each of the Plaintiffs was reasonably justified in relying upon the promise by the Defendant; and that Defendant's promise did cause damage to each of the Plaintiffs; and, that at the point in time that the promise was made as to each Plaintiff and their reliance, no dollar amount of damages had been suffered. With respect to Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages, the jury found that Jerry Irvine was guilty of fraud, malice and KosdonXjudgment ~ .3 oppression by clear and convincing as to each of the Plaintiffs on the tort causes of action, and determined to award punitive damages against Defendant Jerry Irvine in favor of each Plaintiff as follows: as to Franklin Kosdon, in the amount of $2,000.00; as to Brian Teeling, in the amount of $2,000.00; as to Bob P. Kloss, in the amount of $2,000.00; and, as to John Lee, in the amount of $2,000.00. With respect to Cross-Complainant Jerry Irvine's claim for breach of contract, the jury found that no Cross-Defendant breached their contract with Jerry Irvine. With respect to Cross-Complainant Jerry Irvine's claim for conversion, the jury found that no Cross- Defendant converted property belonging to Jerry Irvine. With respect to Cross-Complainant's claim of Unfair Competition, Cross-complainant dismissed said cause of action during trial. With respect to the accounting issues and the partnership personal property, the Court found that the items were of negligible value, and determined that those items currently in the possession of Brian Teeling, John Lee, and Bob Kloss, be returned to Jerry Irvine at such time that Jerry Irvine satisfies the Judgment made herein. As to Franklin Kosdon, it was determined that an arson fire had destroyed those items that had been in his possession and that Franklin Kosdon was absolved of any obligation to return such items. The court further diminished the award in favor of Franklin Kosdon on the breach of contract cause of action to zero and reduced the damages on the conversion cause of action down to $2,847.50 by virtue of the prior small claims judgment obtained by Franklin Kosdon against Jerry Irvine. It appearing by reason of said special verdicts that: Plaintiff, Franklin Kosdon, is entitled to judgment against Kosdon\judgment ~f» ~~ Defendant, Jerry Irvine, in the amount of $ 4,847.50. 1 2 It appearing by reason of said special verdicts that: Plaintiff, Bob P. Kloss, is entitled to judgment against Defendant, 3 Jerry Irvine, in the amount of $ 7,247.50. It appearing by reason of said special verdicts that: Plaintiff, Brian Teeling, is entitled to judgment against Defendant, Jerry Irvine, in the amount of $ 8,247.34. It appearing by reason of said special verdicts that: Plaintiff, John Lee, is entitled to judgment against Defendant, Jerry Irvine, in the amount of $ 15,195.00. It appearing by reason of said special verdicts that: Cross-Defendants are entitled to Judgment in their favor against Cross-Complainant, Jerry Irvine, and therefore that said Cross- Complainant take nothing by way of his cross-complainant. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That Plaintiff Franklin Kosdon have judgment, against Defendant Jerry Irvine, and Jerry Irvine, d.b.a. U.S. Rockets, for breach of contract reduced to zero, and for conversion in the amount of $2,847.50, and punitive damages on the conversion in the amount of $2,000.00, for a total judgment in the sum of $4,847.50. That Plaintiff Bob P. Kloss have judgment, against Defendant Jerry Irvine, and Jerry Irvine, d.b.a. U.S. Rockets, for breach of contract in the amount of $400.00, and for conversion in the amount of $4,847.50, and punitive damages on the conversion in the amount of $2,000.00, for a total judgment in the sum of $ 7,247.50. That Plaintiff Bob P. Kloss have judgment, against Defendant Jerry Irvine, and Jerry Irvine, d.b.a. U.S. Rockets, for Kosdon\(udgment breach of contract in the amount of $400.00, and for conversion in the amount of $4,847.50, and punitive damages on the conversion in the amount of $2,000.00, for a total judgment in the sum of $7,247.50. That Plaintiff Brian Teeling have judgment, against Defendant Jerry Irvine, and Jerry Irvine, d.b.a. U.S. Rockets, for breach of contract in the amount of $1,399.84, and for conversion in the amount of $4,847.50, and punitive damages on the conversion in the amount of $2,000.00, for a total judgment in the sum -of $8,247.34. That Plaintiff John Lee have judgment, against Defendant Jerry Irvine, and Jerry Irvine, d.b.a. U.S. Rockets, for breach of contract in the amount of $3,500.00, and for conversion in the amount of $9695.00, and punitive damages on the conversion in the amount of $2,000.00, for a total judgment in the sum of $ 15,195.00. That Cross-defendants Brian Teeling, John Lee and Bob P. Kloss have judgment in their favor as and against Cross-complainant Jerry Irvine. Further that Cross-complainant Jerry Irvine take nothing by way of his cross-complaint. It is further ordered and decreed that at such time Defendant Jerry Irvine pays the judgments as set forth above, Brian Teeling, Bob Kloss and John Lee shall return to Jerry Irvine the partnership assets currently in their possession and control. Dated: Honorable Burt Henson, Judge of the Superior Court Kosdonjudgment jerry, Are you making motors that you sell? > jerry irvine has never studied law. > Only in his own mind is jerry a lawyer. That was glaringly obvious in court. h >>jerry irvine has never studied law. >>Only in his own mind is jerry a lawyer. > > That was glaringly obvious in court. > > h 'Lawyer in his own mind'? Thought it would be closer 'Legend in his own mind' :) Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75 > >>jerry irvine has never studied law. > >>Only in his own mind is jerry a lawyer. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > TRA#5512 > IEAS#75 Lawyer in adverse rmr poster's minds. Legend in adverse rmr poster's minds. God in adverse rmr poster's minds. Humble servent to common rocketeers in my own mind. Slight variance in opinion to be sure. Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >>>>jerry irvine has never studied law. >>>>Only in his own mind is jerry a lawyer. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Jerry jerry, Are you kissing your own a.s? Remember: jerry=Zippy > Humble servent to common rocketeers in my own mind. "Humble"? Now that has GOT to be one of the funniest things you have EVER posted! The really sad thing is that it wasn't an attempt at humor, I'm quite sure. > > Humble servent to common rocketeers in my own mind. > > "Humble"? Now that has GOT to be one of the funniest things you have > EVER posted! > > The really sad thing is that it wasn't an attempt at humor, I'm quite sure. Haven't been to a launch with me lately, eh? SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >>>Humble servent to common rocketeers in my own mind. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Haven't been to a launch with me lately, eh? If you truly had humility, it'd show online, as well as in person. > >>>Humble servent to common rocketeers in my own mind. > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > If you truly had humility, it'd show online, as well as in person. Nope. You are a full on dickhead online. I hear you are not like that at all in person. LEARN. Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > > If you truly had humility, it'd show online, as well as in person. > > Nope. Why not? Do you have multiple personalities? Are you aware that there are treatments available these days that can help? > You are a full on dickhead online. Coming from you, that's a compliment. Apparently it means, "Someone who doesn't fall for Jerry's BS hook, line, and sinker". c > Nope. > > You are a full on dickhead online. I hear you are not like that at all > in person. Par for the course; the conversation turns where you don't like it, so it goes to personal attacks, swearing, or changing the subject. In this case, we score two out of three. >> Nope. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >it goes to personal attacks, swearing, or changing the subject. In this >case, we score two out of three. Poor Jerry - who said those Medicare cuts backs don't hurt anyone? Jerry - if you have any pills left, please take them. >>>Nope. >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Jerry - if you have any pills left, please take them. But not all at once :) Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75 > > >> You've obviously (and intentionally) missed Phil's point. TRA requires > > >> manufacturers show LEMPs when submitting motors for cert because ATF [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Section 55.141 (a) begins: General. This part shall not apply with > respect to..." (and then enumerates the variou s exempted circumstances). We all know what the law says. We also know what the judge has said, including the unfavorable stuff you like to ignore. The issue is, will the ATF uphold and enforce YOUR interpretation of the law? Apparently you don't really believe what you're preaching, Jerry. If you did, you would welcome the chance to have them prove you are correct. Instead, you writh like a worm on a hot sidewalk at the mere mention of ATF involvement. > We all know what the law says. We also know what the judge has said, What part of REALITY do you not get?? The judge said that exemptions at 55.141 apply to our rocket motors. Section 55.141 (a) begins: General. This part shall not apply with respect to..." (and then enumerates the various exempted circumstances). The exemption relieves us from the ENTIRE burden of compliance to all regulations of "part 55", not just from only those parts dealing with user permits. Also in part 55 are to be found requirements for manufacture, storage, etc., and the definition of "explosive materials" (in section 55.11) that invokes the "List of Explosive Materials provided for in section 55.23". That means that BATF can "list" things as "explosive" all they want, but that doesn't act to bring PAD's within the definition of "Explosive Materials" - neither their creation and distribution (whether or not considered "commercial"), nor their acquisition, storage and use, are subject to Part 55. What part of "this part shall not apply to..." are you having such trouble understanding? Where does is "commercial manufacturer of what is classified as a LE" excluded from the exemption? From: Rick Dickinson <rtd@notesguy.com> I have had enough law classes, and have done well enough in them, to be able to read and comprehend legal documents, and to draw substantive, supportable conclusions from what I read. The study of law is about learning to pick out what's important, and paying attention to the details. While fair play (aka "equity") is part of the law, attention to detail is a far bigger part. If the law says something, you won't go far wrong by taking it extremely literally, as written. The interesting thing, to me, is that Dave and I have not been contradicting what the lawyers said. We have been taking what they have said, what the judge said, and what the law says, reading them all, and drawing the conclusion that the law says what it means. and All I have been saying is that: 1) The judge ruled that fully assembled rocket motors are, for now, correctly classified as Propellant Actuated Devices (PADs), as listed in Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 555 (formerly known as Part 55), Section 841(a)(8). 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8), in full, reads as follows: "(8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.". 2) 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8) is only one of 9 exemptions mentioned under 27 CFR 555.841(a), which reads, in full: "(a) General. Except for the provisions of Secs. 55.180 and 55.181, this part does not apply to:" 3) The term "this part" in 27 CFR 55.841(a) has a specific legal meaning, in context. It refers, specifically, to the particular Part of the particular Title containing the phrase "this part". In other words, it refers to Part 55 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (aka 27 CFR 55). This reading is made even more obvious by the fact that the sub-section 841(a) mentions several other sections within the part it's talking about specifically by number. 4) The provisions of sections 55.180 and 55.181 relate to "plastic explosives", which are defined in 27 CFR 55.180(c)(4) as "(4) Plastic explosive means an explosive material in flexible or elastic sheet form formulated with one or more high explosives which in their pure form has a vapor pressure less than 10-\4\ Pa at a temperature of 25 deg.C, is formulated with a binder material, and is as a mixture malleable or flexible at normal room temperature. High explosives, as defined in Sec. 55.202(a), are explosive materials which can be caused to detonate by means of a blasting cap when unconfined." 5) I don't think anyone has ever even alleged that the rocket motors we are talking about are "formulated with one or more high explosives", so the provisions in sections 55.180 and 55.181 of this part (part 55) are clearly not applicable. 6) Since 27 CFR 55.180 and 55.181 are clearly not applicable, what we are left with is an exemption from all of 27 CFR 55. As you can see by perusing http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/27cfr55_02.html , Part 55 regulates all aspects of "Commerce In Explosives", from licensing to storage, to disposal, transportation, or what to do if any is stolen. See 27 CFR 55.41 for general information on Licenses and Permits, for instance. 7) An unequivocal exemption from essentially all of 27 CFR 55 (with the twin exceptions of the sections relating to plastic explosives I mentioned above) means that LEUPs are not needed. It also means that LEMPs are not needed for manufacturing PADs. Assembling a PAD is an unregulated activity, at least as far as the federal explosives regulations in 27 CFR 55 are concerned. and Actually, the PAD exemption specifically exempts PADs from "this part", referring to 27 CFR Part 55 (now renumbered to part 555), which is the term for the section of the law that contains the PAD exemption, and the storage, permitting, and other regulations concerning explosives. By exempting PADs from "this part" using verbiage within "Part 555" (nee 55), PADs are exempt from *all* of the regulations therein. Note: this is *including* the regulations requiring permits for manufacturers and dealers. Do a web search for "27 CFR 55" and read it yourself if you don't beleive me. - Rick "Use the Source, Luke" Dickinson Dave W: 10 year old documents like 27 CFR part 555 (recently renumbered in implementing the "homeland security act" updates), which contains the exemption at section 141(a)(8) unchanged from when the whole part was numbered "part 55": this sure suggests to me that the Intent of the Legislature, in acting to close the so-called "loophole" involving in-state transfers of actual "Explosives", nevertheless intended to leave the P.A.D. exemption intact. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > > We all know what the law says. We also know what the judge has said, > > What part of REALITY do you not get?? Reality is a foreign concept to you, Jerry. That's why you keep quoting people like Rick and Dave instead of posting any real proof that the ATF agrees with your interpretation of the regs. Rick and Dave are not the ATF, they do not have the ATF's authority, and they do not speak for the ATF. Neither do you. If you really believed and practiced what you preach, you'd be openly manufacturing and selling motors and would not squirm away from any involvement with the ATF. There would be no reason to avoid them if they truly agreed with your interpretation of the regs, because you would be legal in their sight. No, you don't believe it at all. What you do believe is that you can hide from the ATF, operate under the table, and avoid detection, and that this should be viewed as "compliance" and treated the same as legitimate manufacturers. I > posting any real proof that the > ATF agrees with your interpretation of the regs. The judge said that exemptions at 55.141 apply to our rocket motors. Section 55.141 (a) begins: General. This part shall not apply with respect to..." (and then enumerates the various exempted circumstances). The exemption relieves us from the ENTIRE burden of compliance to all regulations of "part 55", not just from only those parts dealing with user permits. Also in part 55 are to be found requirements for manufacture, storage, etc., and the definition of "explosive materials" (in section 55.11) that invokes the "List of Explosive Materials provided for in section 55.23". That means that BATF can "list" things as "explosive" all they want, but that doesn't act to bring PAD's within the definition of "Explosive Materials" - neither their creation and distribution (whether or not considered "commercial"), nor their acquisition, storage and use, are subject to Part 55. What part of "this part shall not apply to..." are you having such trouble understanding? Where does is "commercial manufacturer of what is classified as a LE" excluded from the exemption? From: Rick Dickinson <rtd@notesguy.com> I have had enough law classes, and have done well enough in them, to be able to read and comprehend legal documents, and to draw substantive, supportable conclusions from what I read. The study of law is about learning to pick out what's important, and paying attention to the details. While fair play (aka "equity") is part of the law, attention to detail is a far bigger part. If the law says something, you won't go far wrong by taking it extremely literally, as written. The interesting thing, to me, is that Dave and I have not been contradicting what the lawyers said. We have been taking what they have said, what the judge said, and what the law says, reading them all, and drawing the conclusion that the law says what it means. and All I have been saying is that: 1) The judge ruled that fully assembled rocket motors are, for now, correctly classified as Propellant Actuated Devices (PADs), as listed in Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 555 (formerly known as Part 55), Section 841(a)(8). 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8), in full, reads as follows: "(8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.". 2) 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8) is only one of 9 exemptions mentioned under 27 CFR 555.841(a), which reads, in full: "(a) General. Except for the provisions of Secs. 55.180 and 55.181, this part does not apply to:" 3) The term "this part" in 27 CFR 55.841(a) has a specific legal meaning, in context. It refers, specifically, to the particular Part of the particular Title containing the phrase "this part". In other words, it refers to Part 55 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (aka 27 CFR 55). This reading is made even more obvious by the fact that the sub-section 841(a) mentions several other sections within the part it's talking about specifically by number. 4) The provisions of sections 55.180 and 55.181 relate to "plastic explosives", which are defined in 27 CFR 55.180(c)(4) as "(4) Plastic explosive means an explosive material in flexible or elastic sheet form formulated with one or more high explosives which in their pure form has a vapor pressure less than 10-\4\ Pa at a temperature of 25 deg.C, is formulated with a binder material, and is as a mixture malleable or flexible at normal room temperature. High explosives, as defined in Sec. 55.202(a), are explosive materials which can be caused to detonate by means of a blasting cap when unconfined." 5) I don't think anyone has ever even alleged that the rocket motors we are talking about are "formulated with one or more high explosives", so the provisions in sections 55.180 and 55.181 of this part (part 55) are clearly not applicable. 6) Since 27 CFR 55.180 and 55.181 are clearly not applicable, what we are left with is an exemption from all of 27 CFR 55. As you can see by perusing http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/27cfr55_02.html , Part 55 regulates all aspects of "Commerce In Explosives", from licensing to storage, to disposal, transportation, or what to do if any is stolen. See 27 CFR 55.41 for general information on Licenses and Permits, for instance. 7) An unequivocal exemption from essentially all of 27 CFR 55 (with the twin exceptions of the sections relating to plastic explosives I mentioned above) means that LEUPs are not needed. It also means that LEMPs are not needed for manufacturing PADs. Assembling a PAD is an unregulated activity, at least as far as the federal explosives regulations in 27 CFR 55 are concerned. and Actually, the PAD exemption specifically exempts PADs from "this part", referring to 27 CFR Part 55 (now renumbered to part 555), which is the term for the section of the law that contains the PAD exemption, and the storage, permitting, and other regulations concerning explosives. By exempting PADs from "this part" using verbiage within "Part 555" (nee 55), PADs are exempt from *all* of the regulations therein. Note: this is *including* the regulations requiring permits for manufacturers and dealers. Do a web search for "27 CFR 55" and read it yourself if you don't beleive me. - Rick "Use the Source, Luke" Dickinson Dave W: 10 year old documents like 27 CFR part 555 (recently renumbered in implementing the "homeland security act" updates), which contains the exemption at section 141(a)(8) unchanged from when the whole part was numbered "part 55": this sure suggests to me that the Intent of the Legislature, in acting to close the so-called "loophole" involving in-state transfers of actual "Explosives", nevertheless intended to leave the P.A.D. exemption intact. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >> >> You've obviously (and intentionally) missed Phil's point. TRA requires >> >> manufacturers show LEMPs when submitting motors for cert because ATF [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Simply read the law. Usual bs snipped- I'll take that as a yes. I'll get to work on it tomorrow. > > You've obviously (and intentionally) missed Phil's point. TRA requires > > manufacturers show LEMPs when submitting motors for cert because ATF [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I called you and your ilk liars. So back it up with verifiable proof, or sit down and shut up. > I have first hand experience that claim is false. With no fines. You've made that claim many times before and have always refused to provide any proof whatsoever. > > Any manufacturer who does not > > have an LEMP is operating illegally in the eyes of the ATF. > > And you are an expert in contravention to the law, how? Depends on how you define it. Is an "expert in contravention to the law" one who knows how to keep his nose clean and avoid a big fine? Or is one who has contravened the law so much that he now owes the government a big fine, has been forced out of the motor business, and is so afraid of possible prosecution that he has to keep his business arrangements wrapped in secrecy? > > > You've obviously (and intentionally) missed Phil's point. TRA requires > > > manufacturers show LEMPs when submitting motors for cert because ATF [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So back it up with verifiable proof, or sit down and shut up. Okay. But I warn you in advance, you will ignoire it. The judge said that exemptions at 55.141 apply to our rocket motors. Section 55.141 (a) begins: General. This part shall not apply with respect to..." (and then enumerates the various exempted circumstances). The exemption relieves us from the ENTIRE burden of compliance to all regulations of "part 55", not just from only those parts dealing with user permits. Also in part 55 are to be found requirements for manufacture, storage, etc., and the definition of "explosive materials" (in section 55.11) that invokes the "List of Explosive Materials provided for in section 55.23". That means that BATF can "list" things as "explosive" all they want, but that doesn't act to bring PAD's within the definition of "Explosive Materials" - neither their creation and distribution (whether or not considered "commercial"), nor their acquisition, storage and use, are subject to Part 55. What part of "this part shall not apply to..." are you having such trouble understanding? Where does is "commercial manufacturer of what is classified as a LE" excluded from the exemption? From: Rick Dickinson <rtd@notesguy.com> I have had enough law classes, and have done well enough in them, to be able to read and comprehend legal documents, and to draw substantive, supportable conclusions from what I read. The study of law is about learning to pick out what's important, and paying attention to the details. While fair play (aka "equity") is part of the law, attention to detail is a far bigger part. If the law says something, you won't go far wrong by taking it extremely literally, as written. The interesting thing, to me, is that Dave and I have not been contradicting what the lawyers said. We have been taking what they have said, what the judge said, and what the law says, reading them all, and drawing the conclusion that the law says what it means. and All I have been saying is that: 1) The judge ruled that fully assembled rocket motors are, for now, correctly classified as Propellant Actuated Devices (PADs), as listed in Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 555 (formerly known as Part 55), Section 841(a)(8). 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8), in full, reads as follows: "(8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.". 2) 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8) is only one of 9 exemptions mentioned under 27 CFR 555.841(a), which reads, in full: "(a) General. Except for the provisions of Secs. 55.180 and 55.181, this part does not apply to:" 3) The term "this part" in 27 CFR 55.841(a) has a specific legal meaning, in context. It refers, specifically, to the particular Part of the particular Title containing the phrase "this part". In other words, it refers to Part 55 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (aka 27 CFR 55). This reading is made even more obvious by the fact that the sub-section 841(a) mentions several other sections within the part it's talking about specifically by number. 4) The provisions of sections 55.180 and 55.181 relate to "plastic explosives", which are defined in 27 CFR 55.180(c)(4) as "(4) Plastic explosive means an explosive material in flexible or elastic sheet form formulated with one or more high explosives which in their pure form has a vapor pressure less than 10-\4\ Pa at a temperature of 25 deg.C, is formulated with a binder material, and is as a mixture malleable or flexible at normal room temperature. High explosives, as defined in Sec. 55.202(a), are explosive materials which can be caused to detonate by means of a blasting cap when unconfined." 5) I don't think anyone has ever even alleged that the rocket motors we are talking about are "formulated with one or more high explosives", so the provisions in sections 55.180 and 55.181 of this part (part 55) are clearly not applicable. 6) Since 27 CFR 55.180 and 55.181 are clearly not applicable, what we are left with is an exemption from all of 27 CFR 55. As you can see by perusing http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/27cfr55_02.html , Part 55 regulates all aspects of "Commerce In Explosives", from licensing to storage, to disposal, transportation, or what to do if any is stolen. See 27 CFR 55.41 for general information on Licenses and Permits, for instance. 7) An unequivocal exemption from essentially all of 27 CFR 55 (with the twin exceptions of the sections relating to plastic explosives I mentioned |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message