 |
 | 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 / July 2005[Trolls} Received the holy grail and are silent
Had it for YEARS and didn't know it. IRONICALLY if TRA simply renews USR motors per its own rules, they will be 100% legal (really). Let me SHOW you. :) Or not :-( Can you even imagine ??????????? I Can. 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 > Had it for YEARS and didn't know it. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Jerry Jeeeeeees....who put the quarter in you?!?!?!?!? Wait, it's saturday night.... I'll take my twin 40's of maddog over your rum-n-cokes any day :) Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75 > Had it for YEARS and didn't know it. Had what?? > IRONICALLY if TRA simply renews USR motors per its own rules, they will > be 100% legal (really). Jerry, you're delusional. Even if TRA ever became deranged enough to cert your motors, it would not make them legal. You still don't have ATF permits to manufacture them, so in the eyes of the ATF they would be illegal to sell. Nor do you have the DOT permits to ship them, so they'd still be illegal to ship. Club certification would not change these facts. Furthermore, certification of motors wouldn't erase your felony conviction for possession of a destructive device, which makes you a "prohibited person" according to ATF. > Let me SHOW you. So far you haven't even shown us this alleged "holy grail" referred to in the title of your post, whatever that may be. > Jerry, you're delusional. Even if TRA ever became deranged enough to > cert your motors, it would not make them legal. Yes it would. > You still don't have > ATF permits to manufacture them, The MANUFACTURER does (for other purposes entirely), but the ATF has CLEARLY said to them the sport motors are not subject to that permit at any point in time. I have posted the cites over and over. A judge even concurred and you STILL defame it. You are untrainable. The good news is the folks that matter, the manufacturer, and the ATF all agree sport motors are all exempt. ONLY the TRA is out of synch. Therefore it is a FACT that if TRA simply followed its own rules (I have cited them over and over as well) on motor renewals and required ONLY motors and money in the case of USR just as it does with all its other "manufacturers", then the motors would be available again immediately. > so in the eyes of the ATF they would > be illegal to sell. You do not have the authority or expertise to say the exact and precise opposite of the ATF's own statements to the manufacturer. To the extent TRA goes along with this, they are in "restraint of trade". > > Let me SHOW you. > > So far you haven't even shown us this alleged "holy grail" referred to > in the title of your post, whatever that may be. 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 points to ponder: A: the BATFE changes its rules and regs to suit itself at its own whim. B: BATFE did not go through proper procedures during recent rule making. C: BATFE has done this several times in the past. D: TRA certification is beating a dead horse. Have you tried NAR or the Canadians? if so did they say the same. NYET! E. Per all the fecal material that has been posted here by yourself Mr. Irvine and all the other fecal matter that has flown in responses. I politely ask for you to simply give it up. Unless Moses should return with the next five commandments saying that Irvine is good, Irvine is right. It is not going to happen in my lifetime or yours. All the continued bantering of this matter is doing is embarressing yourself and allowing us to see what a huge waste of basic component chemicals you are. >> Jerry, you're delusional. Even if TRA ever became deranged enough to >> cert your motors, it would not make them legal. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Jerry > > Jerry, you're delusional. Even if TRA ever became deranged enough to > > cert your motors, it would not make them legal. > > Yes it would. Prove it. > > You still don't have > > ATF permits to manufacture them, > > The MANUFACTURER does (for other purposes entirely), but the ATF has > CLEARLY said to them the sport motors are not subject to that permit at > any point in time. Prove it. > I have posted the cites over and over. A judge even concurred and you > STILL defame it. You are untrainable. You've posted no cites from the ATF. Where is the ATF's statement saying that your manufacturer doesn't need a LEMP? > The good news is the folks that matter, the manufacturer, and the ATF > all agree sport motors are all exempt. Prove it. I've posted a statement from the ATF which says manufacturers DO need a LEMP. If they have since changed that policy, please post their statement saying so. > Therefore it is a FACT that if TRA simply followed its own rules (I have > cited them over and over as well) on motor renewals and required ONLY > motors and money in the case of USR just as it does with all its other > "manufacturers", then the motors would be available again immediately. First off, they do not require "motors and money only" from other manufacturers. All manufacturers must show proof that they are in compliance with ATF, DOT, and state laws. Secondly, even if your problems with ATF went away, you still don't have DOT approvals, nor do you have CSFM permits. > > so in the eyes of the ATF they would > > be illegal to sell. > > You do not have the authority or expertise to say the exact and precise > opposite of the ATF's own statements to the manufacturer. No, I just have the ATF's own statements which I have posted before and will now post again. You have nothing but a record of lying. http://www.atf.gov/explarson/0504rocketryqa.pdf In particular, check out question #3... "3. I would like to manufacture and distribute single use rocket motors and/or propellant reload kits. What ATF license is required? Only a manufacturer's license is required. Licensed manufacturers may engage in the business of manufacturing explosive materials for purposes of sale or distribution or for their own use. It is not necessary for a licensed manufacturer to also obtain a dealer's license to engage in business on his or her licensed premises as a dealer in explosive materials. See 27 CFR § 555.41(b)(3)." That's the ATF's official, published statement saying that they require LEMPs for rocket motor manufacturers. If you have another official statement from them that contradicts that, post it. Also, if it predates their current published position, then it's not their current policy -- it would only be useful for overturning their current policy, through the court. > > You still don't have > > ATF permits to manufacture them, > > The MANUFACTURER does (for other purposes entirely), but the ATF has > CLEARLY said to them the sport motors are not subject to that permit at > any point in time. Oh, I forgot one other thing. Even IF your manufacturer was 100% legal, YOU still couldn't get their motors certified. Only the manufacturer can submit motors for certification. Your mystery manufacturer will have to come out from under that cloak of secrecy and submit the motors if they ever want to have them certified. s > > > You still don't have > > > ATF permits to manufacture them, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > YOU still couldn't get their motors certified. Only the manufacturer > can submit motors for certification. He can maybe submit one motor manufactured by him, then sell those manufactured by his "manufacturer". Like someone certifying a J350 and then make them manufactured by another one. > > Oh, I forgot one other thing. Even IF your manufacturer was 100% legal, > > YOU still couldn't get their motors certified. Only the manufacturer [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > manufactured by his "manufacturer". Like someone certifying a J350 and then > make them manufactured by another one. To do that, Jerry would have to be a manufacturer. He says he isn't. Both he and the other manufacturer would have to have LEMPs and state permits, and of course the motors would have to be legal to ship. i > He can maybe submit one motor manufactured by him, then sell those > manufactured by his "manufacturer". Like someone certifying a J350 and then > make them manufactured by another one. That's two manufacturers; you need the proper paperwork for both. -Kevin GOOD GOD! Pardon me for not following this thread, but has anybody noted its length? 1183 messages and counting! It must be some kind of record! > > He can maybe submit one motor manufactured by him, then sell those > > manufactured by his "manufacturer". Like someone certifying a J350 and then [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -Kevin > GOOD GOD! > > Pardon me for not following this thread, but has anybody noted its > length? > > 1183 messages and counting! It must be some kind of record! Yep, and still not even a hint as to what the "grail" of the title is supposed to be. h > GOOD GOD! > > Pardon me for not following this thread, but has anybody noted its > length? > > 1183 messages and counting! It must be some kind of record! Probably not yet. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it with religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal > Probably not yet. Probably a new record for volleys of... Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! Did Not! Did Too! >> Probably not yet. > > Probably a new record for volleys of... Is not! SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it with religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal > Is not! Is Too! Is Too! Is Too! >> Is not! > > Is Too! > Is Too! > Is Too! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Homeland Security Administration: The Gestapo of the 21st Century >>>Is not! >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! > IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! IsNot! Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too! > Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is Too!Is I am just glad you made so many copies ALL missing a key space character. 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 > Oh, I forgot one other thing. Even IF your manufacturer was 100% legal, > YOU still couldn't get their motors certified. Only the manufacturer > can submit motors for certification. Your mystery manufacturer will > have to come out from under that cloak of secrecy and submit the motors > if they ever want to have them certified. While other issues are real, this is a silly TRA-only rule. Under the TRA rule, Quest motors would not be certifiable. Nor would the motors sold under the PML or former Rocketvision labels. And for that matter, neither would the Aerotech by Ellis motors, including the infamous spongy J350. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org People who exercise their embryonic freedom day after day, little by little, expand that freedom. People who do not will find that it withers until they are literally "being lived." They are acting out scripts written by parents, associates, and society. --Stephen R. Covey >> Oh, I forgot one other thing. Even IF your manufacturer was 100% legal, >> YOU still couldn't get their motors certified. Only the manufacturer [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >the PML or former Rocketvision labels. And for that matter, neither would >the Aerotech by Ellis motors, including the infamous spongy J350. As far as I can tell it is not a rule. Of course if you were not certified, it would be necessary to reveal the manufacturer and the manufacturer would have to be certified. Of course, there probably is no manufacturer other than Jerry which is why he doesn't want to reveal the name. Life is tough when you are the manager, consultant and employee of a company the employees less than two employees. > While other issues are real, this is a silly TRA-only rule. Under the TRA > rule, Quest motors would not be certifiable. Nor would the motors sold under > the PML or former Rocketvision labels. And for that matter, neither would > the Aerotech by Ellis motors, including the infamous spongy J350. Nope, just have AeroTech submit the PML motors and you're fine. That's exactly what was stated was the proper way to go about it. For example, SkyRipper uses AT slugs as preheaters, and as such provides documentation to that effect, to show the proper DOT paperwork is in place. -Kevin >> While other issues are real, this is a silly TRA-only rule. Under the TRA >> rule, Quest motors would not be certifiable. Nor would the motors sold under [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > For example, SkyRipper uses AT slugs as preheaters, and as such provides > documentation to that effect, to show the proper DOT paperwork is in place. OK, Jerry, GO FOR IT! Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin Historical Review of Pennsylvania. 1759 > >> While other issues are real, this is a silly TRA-only rule. Under the TRA > >> rule, Quest motors would not be certifiable. Nor would the motors sold [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > OK, Jerry, GO FOR IT! Neither Tripoli nor NAR honors the NFPA language on shipping approvals. They "go their own way". Please, NAR prove me wrong. Jerry > Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" > >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- > Benjamin Franklin Historical Review of Pennsylvania. 1759 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 >>>>While other issues are real, this is a silly TRA-only rule. Under the TRA >>>>rule, Quest motors would not be certifiable. Nor would the motors sold [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Jerry They already have. you Just weren't paying attention. > >> While other issues are real, this is a silly TRA-only rule. Under the TRA > >> rule, Quest motors would not be certifiable. Nor would the motors sold under [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Bob Kaplow Bob, Jerry "go for it"? If you live to be a hundred, you will die first. Fred > OK, Jerry, GO FOR IT! As I understand it, NAR S&T has already rejected the motors, due to invalid shipping documents. DOT happens to agree with them on that. -Kevin > > OK, Jerry, GO FOR IT! > > As I understand it, NAR S&T has already rejected the motors, due to > invalid shipping documents. What are your source(s) for that claim? 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 >> > OK, Jerry, GO FOR IT! >> >> As I understand it, NAR S&T has already rejected the motors, due to >> invalid shipping documents. > >What are your source(s) for that claim? Common knowledge. Many people know about you sending motors to the S&T guy's house in an unlabeled package. If that isn't bad enough, his kid opened the package. > > Oh, I forgot one other thing. Even IF your manufacturer was 100% legal, > > YOU still couldn't get their motors certified. Only the manufacturer [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > While other issues are real, this is a silly TRA-only rule. So have Jerry submit his mystery motors to NAR, Bob. >> > Oh, I forgot one other thing. Even IF your manufacturer was 100% legal, >> > YOU still couldn't get their motors certified. Only the manufacturer [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >So have Jerry submit his mystery motors to NAR, Bob. I think the problem there is I think the S&T guy is that same one who's kid opend one of Jerry shipments that came via US Mail in an unmarked box. The kid opened it and it contained model aircraft parts - er I mean rocket motors. He was not amused. One thing I'll say for Jerry - he makes a lasting impression on people. >> > Oh, I forgot one other thing. Even IF your manufacturer was 100% legal, >> > YOU still couldn't get their motors certified. Only the manufacturer [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So have Jerry submit his mystery motors to NAR, Bob. I wish he would. If only to see what TRA does when USR motors are on the NAR cert list. Probably the same as they now do for Kosdon motors... Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin Historical Review of Pennsylvania. 1759 > I wish he would. If only to see what TRA does when USR motors are on the NAR > cert list. Probably the same as they now do for Kosdon motors... Probably so. 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 >>> > Oh, I forgot one other thing. Even IF your manufacturer was 100% legal, >>> > YOU still couldn't get their motors certified. Only the manufacturer [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" I've spoken to Jack Kane from NAR S&T about this. He isn't going to cert motors unless thay meet legal requirements. Don't you think Jerry has already tried this angle? > Don't you think > Jerry has already tried this angle? Is that a rhetorical question? 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 > Had it for YEARS and didn't know it. > > IRONICALLY if TRA simply renews USR motors per its own rules, they will > be 100% legal (really). > > Let me SHOW you. Well, please explain... Fred > Had it for YEARS and didn't know it. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Jerry jerry, Are you a first strike felon, or are you a second strike felon? >jerry, Are you a first strike felon, or are you a second strike felon? If you're referring to the case that was posted about last week, it looks to me like he's not a felon anymore: http://170.164.50.60/openaccess/CRIMINAL/minute.asp?courtcode=X&casenumber=FWV01 8813&defnbr=75199&defseq=1&otnmseq=0&dsn=&actioncode=HRS&actiondate=20010619&act iontime=8.3 According to what I'm seeing, it looks like his plea was changed to Not Guilty, and the charges were dismissed, upon completion of his probation. Here's the relevant quote: TERMINATION OF PROBATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1203.3 PC GRANTED. DEFENDANT DISCHARGED. CONVICTION(S) HERETOFORE ENTERED IS SET ASIDE; A PLEA OF NOT GUILTY IS ORDERED ENTERED AND THE CASE IS DISMISSED PURSUANT TO SECTION 1203.4 PC. So, he may not be a "convicted felon" after all. At least, not for this case, any more. - Rick "Interesting reading" Dickinson SignatureEvery parliament or congress worldwide should be equipped with a hundred-pound chunk of sodium in the entrance foyer, such that any politician who really really wants to make his mark can lift his leg and do so. -- Anthony de Boer > If you're referring to the case that was posted about last week, it > looks to me like he's not a felon anymore: There are two counts; go to the summary page and look at the plea information -- count 1 has no plea, and is the one I would guess was expunged. Count 2 still has a guilty plea. I'd bet that if both counts were expunged, jerry would've stated as much. -Kevin >> If you're referring to the case that was posted about last week, it >> looks to me like he's not a felon anymore: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -Kevin I'm gonna let You guys in on a little secret I've been keeping to myself. It makes Me chuckle every time I think about it. Antonio J. Bestard, jerry's criminal defense attorney, happens to be a member of the Western Pyrotechnic Association, as am I. But that's not how I know Him. Antonio Bestard has a brother who happens to be married to My sister. Which makes Antonio Bestard a member of My extended family. :) Poor jerry. > Antonio J. Bestard, jerry's criminal defense attorney, happens to be a > member of the Western Pyrotechnic Association, as am I. But that's not > how I know Him. Antonio Bestard has a brother who happens to be married > to My sister. Which makes Antonio Bestard a member of My extended > family. :) Which makes any information about Jerry that finds its way from his lawyer to you a violation of lawyer client privelege. A VERY serious ethical breach. So what is it that you've heard from your extended family member? Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin Historical Review of Pennsylvania. 1759 > Which makes any information about Jerry that finds its way from his lawyer > to you a violation of lawyer client privelege. A VERY serious ethical > breach. Only if it's information that's covered by attorney-client priviledge. -Kevin > > Which makes any information about Jerry that finds its way from his lawyer > > to you a violation of lawyer client privelege. A VERY serious ethical > > breach. When the attackers are as insidious as they are it is hard to defend. The best way is not to play. I watch in amazement as the HPR market drops precipitously and TRA "causes" it (NAR and AT and Magnum RIP too) and users act like "it cannot be helped". The opposite is true. 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 zippy the pinhead wrote: > When the attackers are as insidious as they are it is hard to defend. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > zippy > zippy the pinhead wrote: > > > When the attackers are as insidious as they are it is hard to defend. While we are on the subject, why not post a (long) list of actions you have taken against me. Legal filings, turn-ins, "reports" to clubs, arrangements with third parties (ie Tim Collins) etc. It would certainly be eye opening to the typical rmr reader. You live to deal with me. Your rmr posts only hyper-emphasize that. 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 zippy the pinhead wrote: >>zippy the pinhead wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > zippy Poor zippy. > zippy the pinhead wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Poor zippy. Well? 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 >While we are on the subject, why not post a (long) list of actions you >have taken against me. Jerry - good to hear you're getting some action. 8-) > > zippy the pinhead wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > parties (ie Tim Collins) etc. It would certainly be eye opening to the > typical rmr reader. You know Jerry, you could have just gone about your own business, quietly making illegal motors and selling them under the table to your local buds, and no one would care. But no, that's not good enough for you, you'd rather spend 15+ years lying about how legal you are, and how TRA/NAR/everyone-else-in-the-world is evil just 'cause they won't be co-conspirators to your schemes, and telling everyone to "live the lifestyle" while hiding the fact you got a felony conviction for "living the lifestyle". You're walking around carrying a huge "KICK ME" sign of your own making, and then complaining when someone kicks you. > When the attackers are as insidious as they are it is hard to defend. > > The best way is not to play. Bake up all the conspiracy theories you want, but the facts are that you cannot legally make or possess motors, and the DOT has found you guilty of illegally shipping them. Contrary to how you may want to spin it, the difficulties you encounter are your own fault, and you continue to be your own worst enemy. > I watch in amazement as the HPR market drops precipitously and TRA > "causes" it (NAR and AT and Magnum RIP too) and users act like "it > cannot be helped". More spin, more deflection of your own problems onto someone else. -Kevin > and you continue to be your own worst enemy. Then why do you ignore my challenge to report your SOURCES for your CLAIMS re NAR submissions. Be real. Or be not. As I expect. P.S. How's the TRA website going? It lacks discussion about HPR magazine deficiencies and TMT motor test delay data. YOU are the webmaster. "Just do it". 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 > Then why do you ignore my challenge to report your SOURCES for your > CLAIMS re NAR submissions. Because it's not relevant, and you have been given that same information, despite any claims you might state to the contrary. You're well aware of what you must do to address the motor problem, but you either cannot (due to convictions) or will not, due to your own lack of willingness to comply with federal regulations. -Kevin >> Then why do you ignore my challenge to report your SOURCES for your >> CLAIMS re NAR submissions. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >-Kevin Today I came across an old message from TMT stating what Jerry has to do to get his motors certified. It's 'just' what everyone else has done. Poor Jerry can't get special treatment. > >> Then why do you ignore my challenge to report your SOURCES for your > >> CLAIMS re NAR submissions. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Poor Jerry can't get special treatment. In article <38s3c1l148p4m66vnuuoncf8hcs7mbb0u4@4ax.com>, > On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:47:44 -0700, Jerry Irvine <01rocket@gte.net> > wrote: > > >It lacks discussion about HPR magazine Instead it promotes it WITHOUT comment about deficiencies. It is a MONOLOGUE. > deficiencies and TMT motor test > >delay data. > > TRA web site does not discuss HPR Yes it does. Therefore (and I say this cautiously), you are a LIAR. It endorses HPR magazine. It seeks subscriptions for it. HPR in this context is HPR Magazine (not the sport as a general rule) ""owned"" and edited by Bruce Kelly (still) despite the --known-- and repetitious failures. > I suspect there > may be some news coming about HPR. Huh? > The TMT delay data is there by virtue of the fact that if a motor > passes, the delay has to be within the tolerances as specified ny > NFPA. Let's be clear. In hear that. I do. I challenge the truth of that. I challenge not living up to disclosure of ANY (note ANY) delay DATA. Seriously. If it was collected, and we both know it mostly was not, it would be TRIVIAL to publish it on a WEBSITE. Seriously. I cofounded TRA. All I ask is it actually TRY to live up to the promises it unilaterally makes. It might NEVER succeed 100%. But to NEVER "TRY" is unacceptable. INHO #012. Jerry TRA #012 > Are you and Bob still worried about the delays in the AT M's > (that don't exist.) Also, TMT maintains their section of the web site > themselves. Maybe you should contact them. I'm sure they'll be happy > to hear from you. "Contacting" them is futile. 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 > > Then why do you ignore my challenge to report your SOURCES for your > > CLAIMS re NAR submissions. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -Kevin In article <38s3c1l148p4m66vnuuoncf8hcs7mbb0u4@4ax.com>, Phil Stein <PStein@ArielSystems.spamsks.net> wrote: > >It lacks discussion about HPR magazine Instead it promotes it WITHOUT comment about deficiencies. It is a MONOLOGUE. > deficiencies and TMT motor test > >delay data. > > TRA web site does not discuss HPR Yes it does. Therefore (and I say this cautiously), you are a LIAR. It endorses HPR magazine. It seeks subscriptions for it. HPR in this context is HPR Magazine (not the sport as a general rule) ""owned"" and edited by Bruce Kelly (still) despite the --known-- and repetitious failures. > I suspect there > may be some news coming about HPR. Huh? > The TMT delay data is there by virtue of the fact that if a motor > passes, the delay has to be within the tolerances as specified ny > NFPA. Let's be clear. In hear that. I do. I challenge the truth of that. I challenge not living up to disclosure of ANY (note ANY) delay DATA. Seriously. If it was collected, and we both know it mostly was not, it would be TRIVIAL to publish it on a WEBSITE. Seriously. I cofounded TRA. All I ask is it actually TRY to live up to the promises it unilaterally makes. It might NEVER succeed 100%. But to NEVER "TRY" is unacceptable. INHO #012. Jerry TRA #012 > Are you and Bob still worried about the delays in the AT M's > (that don't exist.) Also, TMT maintains their section of the web site > themselves. Maybe you should contact them. I'm sure they'll be happy > to hear from you. "Contacting" them is futile. 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 > It lacks discussion about HPR magazine... Kevin T. wrote: > > TRA web site does not discuss HPR Jerry replied: > Yes it does. Make up your mind, Jerry. > I challenge not living up to disclosure of ANY (note ANY) delay DATA. Big deal, no one cares what you "challenge". Oh, and there's nothing to "live up to". There is no requirement to post the test data, only the test results. > I cofounded TRA. An early member, certainly, but "cofounder"? TRA was founded by people in Pittsburgh and Cincinnati, especially Francis Graham, Tom Blazanin and Mark Weber. It grew out of the Tripoli Rocket Club, was briefly called the Tripoli Rocketry Society, and then became the Tripoli Rocketry Association in April 1985. The first Interim BOD consisted of J.P. O'Connor, Mark Weber, Tom Blazanin, and Francis Graham. s > An early member, certainly, but "cofounder"? TRA was founded by people > in Pittsburgh and Cincinnati, especially Francis Graham, Tom Blazanin > and Mark Weber. Ask Blazanin yourself. 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 >It lacks discussion about HPR magazine deficiencies and TMT motor test >delay data. TRA web site does not discuss HPR because it's not a a discussion web site. Even you should be able to comprehend that. I suspect there may be some news coming about HPR. Maybe you could discuss that on your web site. The TMT delay data is there by virtue of the fact that if a motor passes, the delay has to be within the tolerances as specified ny NFPA. Are you and Bob still worried about the delays in the AT M's (that don't exist.) Also, TMT maintains their section of the web site themselves. Maybe you should contact them. I'm sure they'll be happy to hear from you. > (that don't exist.) Also, TMT maintains their section of the web site > themselves. Maybe you should contact them. I'm sure they'll be happy > to hear from you. I've done so several times, without response. Including within the past few days. At t he same time I contacted NAR S&T about the data that is missing from their site, and already got a commitment to fill in whatever is still missing ASAP. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. -- Charles A. Beard > > (that don't exist.) Also, TMT maintains their section of the web site > > themselves. Maybe you should contact them. I'm sure they'll be happy [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > their site, and already got a commitment to fill in whatever is still > missing ASAP. Key word. Commitment. > You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a > reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about > repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the > struggle for independence. -- Charles A. Beard 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 > > (that don't exist.) Also, TMT maintains their section of the web site > > themselves. Maybe you should contact them. I'm sure they'll be happy [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > their site, and already got a commitment to fill in whatever is still > missing ASAP. Bob, have you also contacted CAR? I seem to recall someone saying that CAR too does not post delay test data. > > > (that don't exist.) Also, TMT maintains their section of the web site > > > themselves. Maybe you should contact them. I'm sure they'll be happy [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Bob, have you also contacted CAR? I seem to recall someone saying that > CAR too does not post delay test data. Maybe they will tell him to get bent as well. SignatureTweak > Bob, have you also contacted CAR? I seem to recall someone saying that > CAR too does not post delay test data. It tool less than 10 minutes to get a response from them that they would find the data. I still haven't heard from TMT... Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org We have awakened a sleeping giant and instilled in it a terrible resolve. -- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, WWII. >> Bob, have you also contacted CAR? I seem to recall someone saying that >> CAR too does not post delay test data. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD". I have. He's going to be on the road for a few weeks. That doesn't mean he's going to answer you when he gets back. When I asked, he was pretty clear that TMT feels giving it Pass/Fail complies with NFPA and that's what's important. Have you asked S&T if they can provide you with the delay data from TMT? TMT tells me that they supply it to them when they test motors that might be usable in competition. I guess that would be G and below. >> (that don't exist.) Also, TMT maintains their section of the web site >> themselves. Maybe you should contact them. I'm sure they'll be happy [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the > struggle for independence. -- Charles A. Beard >> Which makes any information about Jerry that finds its way from his lawyer >> to you a violation of lawyer client privelege. A VERY serious ethical >> breach. > > Only if it's information that's covered by attorney-client priviledge. And if it's not covered by priviledge, then that makes him a stupid gossip. NOT what one wants in an attorney. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org People who exercise their embryonic freedom day after day, little by little, expand that freedom. People who do not will find that it withers until they are literally "being lived." They are acting out scripts written by parents, associates, and society. --Stephen R. Covey >>>Which makes any information about Jerry that finds its way from his lawyer >>>to you a violation of lawyer client privelege. A VERY serious ethical [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And if it's not covered by priviledge, then that makes him a stupid gossip. > NOT what one wants in an attorney. Bob, weren't you booted from TRA for being a stupid gossip on rmr? >>>>Which makes any information about Jerry that finds its way from his lawyer >>>>to you a violation of lawyer client privelege. A VERY serious ethical [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Bob, weren't you booted from TRA for being a stupid gossip on rmr? That's grounds. We only like smart gossips. 8-) > TERMINATION OF PROBATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1203.3 PC GRANTED. > DEFENDANT DISCHARGED. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So, he may not be a "convicted felon" after all. At least, not for > this case, any more. Alas, the way the BATFE regs are written, you don't need to be convicted, just charged. And you don't have to be charged with a felony, but with something that COULD have resulted in felony charges. Like tax evasion. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin Historical Review of Pennsylvania. 1759 > Alas, the way the BATFE regs are written, you don't need to be convicted, > just charged. And you don't have to be charged with a felony, but with > something that COULD have resulted in felony charges. Like tax evasion. Don't you just love rules like that? So much for "We the people"! The ATF has been using that technique in conjunction with state cops for decades to "pick off" fireworks "artisans" one by one very quitely. They have shifted to rocketeers and dealers of pyro goods now. It is a clear violation of civil rights since it is an actual and TRUE conspiracy. 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 >>Alas, the way the BATFE regs are written, you don't need to be convicted, >>just charged. And you don't have to be charged with a felony, but with [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Jerry jerry, Is the BATFE investigating you? Poor jerry. > >>Alas, the way the BATFE regs are written, you don't need to be convicted, > >>just charged. And you don't have to be charged with a felony, but with [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > jerry, Is the BATFE investigating you? The word is out.... >> >>Alas, the way the BATFE regs are written, you don't need to be convicted, >> >>just charged. And you don't have to be charged with a felony, but with [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >The word is out.... Poor Jerry. Caught living the lifstyle. > Let me SHOW you. We're still waiting for you to show us that Grail. I guess Jerry never made it past the Black Knight. > > Let me SHOW you. > > We're still waiting for you to show us that Grail. > > I guess Jerry never made it past the Black Knight. Maybe this Grail is actually a part of that Great Mosaic, and it all will eventually be revealed. (Or, more likely, dug up in various other legal proceedings.) SignatureMike KD7PVT NAR #70953 - Sr/HPR Level-1 ~ BEMRC - NAR Section #627 NO Junk Email, please! Real email to: amphoto [at] blarg [dot] net. <WANTED: Experienced Kamikaze Pilot> > I guess Jerry never made it past the Black Knight. Correction: Jerry IS the Black Knight, insisting to the end that he's invincible, that it's only a flesh wound, even as he lays bleeding in a pile of his own severed limbs. http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_sounds/hg/wound.wav 8 >>I guess Jerry never made it past the Black Knight. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 8 LMAO!!!! Isn't there a MP dvd box set available? Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75 > Let me SHOW you. We're still waiting, Jerry. Where's that "grail" you claim to have? http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_sounds/hg/agrail.wav a "Greg Cisko" <gcisko@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:... > about this. WFT??? After all, we are talking motor certs here. Should be WTF :-) Signaturegcisko@hotmail.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.