action: organizational structure

NAR A corporation (Colorado) A 501-c-3non-profit

TRA A corporation (Alaska) A 501-c-3

ARSA an unincorporated association

Begin by disputing any of these as initial facts.

Corporations: Jurisdiction is state department of corporations,and state courts. There are specific rules (laws and regulations and rulings) coverning the corporation promulgated by the state legislature and by the state department of corporations.

501-c-3 Jurisdictionis IRS and federal courts. There are specific rules (laws and regulations and rulings) coverning the corporation promulgated by the federal legislature and by the Internal Revenue Service (sic).

Well, for starters Jerry, I don't feel like going back and digging out the exact post, but you recently said something to the effect of ARSA, because of it's non-entity status, had more freedom to lobby on behalf of the hobby, than do our non-profit organizations, due to reasons legal. So just maybe there is purpose for all of the groups to be here, now.

And to repost something I said earlier in this NG:

Personally, I do recognize the problems that can happen when the membership has no guaranteed written and publicized way to interact and solve differences (or refuses to follow those ways). Many a valiant culture in the past started with benevelent leaders who were followed on by tyrants. At this point, ARSA is basically a non-entity, but they have an awesome paradigm and focus WRT motors...

Personally, it appears on the surface to me that these two organizations are similar in organizational structure, with the exception of varying degrees of leadership quality.

I would love to know any structural differences between the two...

Is voting the same? (timing/positions/etc.)

Is the level of authority proportioned between different levels and the membership the same?

What about procedures for redress (whether effective or not)?

IMHO, I think both could and should be GREAT organizations, if only they would use the law to help the members acheive their goals WRT the hobby, and stand up for the right to NOT be a policing agency for matters external to the actual enjoyment and safety of the hobby.

Will it take new structure to achieve this? Is it to hard to teach an old dog new tricks? Or can the organizations continue to grow by experience and change? Tradition is only useful if it is good tradition, and enhances the fulfillment of the primary functions of the club.

I inherently like JW. I like what he stands for. I chose to join on the basis of 3 merits:

1) I like what JW stands for. 2) I like his actual performance in putting his money and efforts where his mouth is. 3) After feeling tied down by overly-restrictive and senseless club rules, the lack of constraints was and is very refreshing and appealing. It is this 3rd point that applies to this topic.

Something I said in other posts also: "

- It may be true that ARSA doesn't stack up on several [organizational] levels that [a person] feel[s] are important.

- It may be also true that [a person] disagree[s] with how another group's actions may affect [his/her] enjoyment of the hobby. "

No. TRA is more top heavy. Necessitated by cover-up and secrecy.

Both fail to use them.

Exactly.

Right.

You mean like suing the ATF to put a stop to excessive regulation, and working with other agencies to keep rocketry legal?

"a ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" Warnings came years before action... this is now damage control. I respect and support the action of the suit. But I feel they did before, and continue now to maintain certain policies that restrict and hurt the hobby.

>

Ray, let me explain something simple, mainly for the benefit of those capable of actually understanding.

I will preface by saying I was (involuntarily and inappropriately) exposed to 10 years of litigation by Kosdon in 4 venues, and numerous criminal investigations courtesy of TRA, NAR, and several motor manufacturing vendors (all of which have gone out out of business or had major accidents). I am an "expert." And I survived.

1. For a decade or more AT has run ads in HPR magazine (official magazine of TRA), Sport Rocketry magazine (official magazine of NAR) stating that some of their motors are "Easy Access-sm" and some are "Restricted Access-sm" and require ATF permits. That blatently false statement is shown fraudulant by 27 CFR 55.141-a-8 and by the NAR's and the TRA's very own lawsuit papers also citing 27 CFR 55.141-a-8 and a long list of points and authorities in support of same.
2. For 4-5 decades NAR and Estes have worked with DOT in a couple of very simple ways. Estes received DOT approvals "by reference". That is to say the product was not tested and packaged in a way to have it classified into a lower hazard class than it might be by pure default. Hence Estes D12's are 1.4S and Estes E9's are 1.4C. Aerotech also did the same and all of their materials are classified "by analogy" whether substances (propellant) or articles (motors), and whether 1.4S, 1.4C, or

1.3C.

2a. CTI did actual testing of its articles in special packaging and has HARD approval to ship up to 54mm L motors as 1.4C by comparison. 2002-3

2b. ACS did actual testing of its substances and has HARD removal of its propellant from explosive hazard class consideration below 3.3x36" dimension per "grain" or "particle". 1986

1. For 2 decades commercial vendors (Composite Dynamics, Estes, Centuri, Crown Rockets, Vulcan Syatems, Flight Systems) with the tacit approval of NAR have sought and received "DOT exemptions" as a means to ship high hazard class materials classified by analogy as lower hazard classes in limited quantities and with specified packaging following testing. This testing is substantially differentiated from the tests required to lower the NATURAL hazard class. The following exemptions were issued: DOT-E-7887 (1978), DOT-E-10996 (1996). 7887 allows some Class C (now

1.4S and 1.4C) materials to be shipped as Flammable Solids 5.1. 10996 allows Class 1.3C (Former Class B) materials to be shipped as 1.4C.

1. 1.4S ships by USPS, UPS, Fedex ground and air.1.4C ships by UPS, Fedex ground and air. 1.3C ships by Fedex limited airport to airport and by commercial truck only. The limitations arenot imposed by law (UPS used to take 1.3C), but by the added rules DOT has added to make shipping the material so onerous as to make it impractical to ship at all. That fact alone is in diametric opposition to public statements and pledges by the agencies (DOT, DOC, DOD, BOE, ATF) to make commerce free flowing and the hazmat code designed to merely properly treat material according to actual identified and tested hazard. It has morphed into a huge bureaucracy of paperwork, regulations, fines and tag teams to enforce it all, this giving carriers HUGE incentives to avoid the madness, being rational themselves unlike the government agencies breaching (DOT, ATF) every pledge they ever made (remember the American Indians?).

2. NAR in its most recent BoT statement following its meeting in 8-03 (remember this is the now litigation aware and allegedly regulatory trained NAR). Stated they would not certify motors DOT classified 1.1 from ACS-Reaction Labs even if they were legal to ship in commerce. a. Restraint of trade even if it were true that any ACS-Reaction Labs substance or article was classified 1.1 (presumably 1.1C), which it is not nor has it ever been alleged until the NAR BoT vote 8-03, not even by a recalcitrant DOT! b. The papers regularly re-submitted to NAR since 1986 and referenced for the purpose of this vote were papers properly issued by DOT and valid for classification of articles (UN-0186 Rocket Motors) 1.3C, which is the SAME hazard class as motors already certified from Aerotech, AMW, and others. Therefore up to 2003 NAR has been unfairly preventing the certification of properly classified motors from ACS while allowing motors of the same hazard class to be certified by AeroTech, for example.

1. Related to (1.), NAR has also illegally demanded manufacturers supply a ATF LEMP as evidence the manufacture of their motors is legal. However ATF itself exempts propellants and ALL propellant actuated devices from the regulations in 27 CFR 555.141-a-8 as evidenced by the most current publication (4-03) of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), as recognized by NAR and TRA themselves in a lawsuit they filed in about

2002 and as further evidenced by their continued agressive reliance on it in their "points and authorities in support of summary judgement" from 2003.

1. Motors manufactured by ACS-Reaction Labs (LISTED AS VARIOUS BRANDS INCLUDING ACS AND USR) and properly submitted and tested by TRA and listed by TRA and NAR on the joint certified motor list were current and certified as recently as August 2000. Yet now they are "decertified" despite repeated attempts to offer motors for renewal certifications (which have no paperwork requirements since the paperwork was long since APPROVED). Cite:
   formatting link
   I demand motors be immediately accepted for renewal certifiction testing, and with no new paperwork requests.

Jerry

4.1 not 5.1

bravo!! BRAVISIMO!!!

well done, indeed, Jerry!

thank you for taking the time to draft this

for the readers, could you provide a link to, or post the descriptions of 1.4S, 1.4C and 1.3C

and yes, I do remember the American Indians and the horrific injustices that were perpetrated on them by a 'civilized' U.S. government. I remember them quite often in fact

Bunny,

as the scan of the certication list Jerry has referenced is of insufficient resolution and contrast to permit easy verification of his claim, could you confirm that ACS or USR rocket motors had indeed been certified by NAR and/or TRA in the past?

and if you would, describe the circumstances under which they were decertified?

your cooperation would be much appreciated

- iz

Jerry Irv> Ray, let me explain something simple, mainly for the benefit of those

...Because I snookered 'em once, and I shouldn't be asked to snooker 'em again. Besides, how can I generate the papers again, when I don't even know which batch I showed 'em the first time!

GenerallyassumingNOspecific tests:

1.4S 30g NEW 1.4C 62.5g NEW 1.3C unlimited mass (literally gents)

NEW=net "explosive"weight.

What if some propelants burn under 2.2mm/s and are not even 4.1 Flammable Solids?

What if some propellants cannot explode and burn over 2.2mm/s and are

4.1 Flammmable Solids?

Mere Godlike Jerry with tests IN HAND!!!!!

DOT fears me more than any other human on the planet.

I have proof.

Here is buttfuck BunDICK's typical response (from email)

Thank you for your input.

Kind regards, Mark B. Bundick, President National Association of Rocketry

and

Using belligerent or caustic language in messages gets NAR members no better or worse service from me.

Therefore I SHALL use it to the maximal extent humanly possible for emphasis.

NAR 24333 SR insured

Jerry is your only savior.

Lying sack of shit anon poster. Resembling Steve Bloom