Model Forum / General / Rockets / January 2007

Good question Dave but I don't think the hierarchy is going to release
much info as it would tip Rocketry's hand.  Better to show the judge
what idiots the ATF is in this matter and not let them be able to
prepare for it before hand.

I did see the notice in a list-serv that legally, they (ATF) were not in
a good position.

I wouldn't mind seeing an announcement to the effect that "Were on top
of this and will be ready for our day in court."

I hate to say it but I am giving blind trust to the people running the
show and if there is a negative outcome because they weren't prepared,
I'd be extremely sad.

I wouldn't expect any word about the case until sometime between March 23rd
and July.

The following is from the Joint NAR/TRA statement from October:

"Assuming Judge Walton does not need to be briefed, a Count 1 ruling could
be issued any time after the March 23, 2007 filings. However, Judge Walton's
docket is extremely crowded, with over 150 motions pending in his court.
Members may also be aware that his courtroom has been assigned the trial of
former Chief of Staff to the Vice President, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a high
visible prosecution.
We have received questions from members about the length of this process.
There is a real backlog in the Federal courts, and our case is not
fundamentally different in timing than any others pending in the DC Circuit.
We are simply part of the backlog, and there is little counsel or the courts
can do about it. "

Roy

nar12605

The next scheduled event is on 31 January. Plus, in case you missed it,
Judge Walton is currently in the middle of the Scooter Libby trial so he
doesn't have a lot of spare time.

Here is the scheduling order:
http://home.earthlink.net/~schultdw/regulation/Court%20order%2010-17-06.pdf

I am not sure what is due next week but I suspect that we will see cross
motions for summary judgment.

As far as I can  tell, the ATF will not get any opportunity to correct
the burn rate data. That was a filing for the administrative record and
they should have gotten it right. The ATF might try to minimize the
error in the arguments due over the next few months. Sort of a reprise
of their "inartfully drafted" argument. But then the ATF never flatly
stated any boundary between burning and deflagration.

The ATF had two chances to get the burn rate data correct. The first
opportunity was in hiring someone to do the testing that had a clue
about how solid propellant motors work. The second was when the ATF
reviewed the test report.

The choice is pretty simple: Either the ATF are experts and deliberately
lied to the court, or they are not experts and their opinion in this
instance counts for nothing.

Take your pick.

I personally view it as yet another attempt to paper over an
indefensible decision and I am quite optimistic about the outcome. But I
will still renew my permit in May because it could take a while.