Are hybrids always HPR?

jerry, which is it, "surprised" or "disappointed"?

And, why do the "outsiders" and "the banned" apply their own rules in "a way that clearly demonstrates their heavy duty hypocrisy"?

And, in what way do the "outsiders" and "the banned" clearly demonstrate "their heavy duty hypocrisy"?

Hey jerry, what brand of model glue do you use? It sounds like some good stuff.

I am curious. Did you even read Izzy's posts re TRA and NFPA issues?

They seemed self verifying.

I doubt it since you arrived after he left and then ONLY to harsss me mindlessly. Years later you still do not post actual content except maybe on automotive electrical, which is off-topic anyway.

And not helpful.

Jerry

I know we were partners. Why do say, I don't know that?

But what, "perfect example of self-regulation" were you referring to?

Are you asking "for", or "offering"?

This is what you do with your day instead of Powertech making $20,000 per month as it was on track to do.

Sad.

Predictable.

Jerry

Yes. What a load of garbage.

you ARE on glue! How does something "seem self verifying"?

Hey glueboy, I've been here since you big t shirt ripoff.

How is your post on topic?

In your opinion.

That would have been nice. But then you went and defrauded the rest of the powertech partners. Got sued and convicted of civil fraud. Had a judgment in excess of $60,000 assessed against you, not to mention penalties and interest.

Do you Have My money?

Poor sad jerry.

Poor sad predictable jerry.

No matter how many times people ask you, you seem to leave out the "how" of this.

I've heard both sides of the story and have no issues with how it was handled by TRA. Interpet that as you see fit.

You mean he wasted more time than I have. Unlike you, I do not feel that coming up with flawed analysis means that he accomplished anything. Iz's objective was nothing more than a witch hunt. Unfortunate for you and him that no one agreed with his analysis.

His posting were nothing more than combining Jerry and Cato into one sock puppet claiming conspiracy.

Now you're all caught up.

Jerry Irvine wrote:

Who asked?

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

Wouldn't that be giving away one of your trade secrets?

Woodman,

Chill out. Seriously dude, relax. All you ever do is bitch and whine about political jibberish. Take a step away from the keyboard and take your blood pressure pills. Don't you have some Alphas to ship around the world or something? Walk over to the hobby shop and buy some NFPA/CPSC/CSFM/FUCKU approved A8-3s for them or something. Or maybe if you had some balls you would buy some SRS G motors and try them out. You know, fly rockets... Ever heard of it?

Your Friend, Jamal

AZ Woody wrote:

"proposal"

approve this

1122/1127? (not

understand

now...)

regulating" for

1122/1127),

1122/1127? (not

Your belief that anything not specifically permitted is prohibited, is an un-American way of thinking.

understand

What do you care? Are you a NAR member under the age of 18?

If it bothers you that much, don't fly those motors.

regulating" for

1122/1127),

Oh, get your panties unknotted, Woody. Sheesh, you're getting to be worse than Bob K. about this stuff. Are you so anal about all the other rules and regulations in the world? Don't you ever exceed the speed limit, or cross the street between intersections? Would you freak out if someone tore off the "do not remove" tag from a mattress?

The ATF doesn't give a hoot about our safety code. They sure as hell aren't trying to regulate APCP as an explosive just because someone, somewhere, might be modifying a delay or flying a G hybrid.

Thanks to all who contributed to this thread. From the discussion I got a start on understanding what seems pertinent: the relationship between the various regulatory bodies, regulations, and what applies in a given situation.

Two things I found particularly interesting. If I read the ROP correctly, NFPA 1122 definition of what constitutes a model rocket engine is being re-written to include hybrids (or, I guess more accurately, to not exclude any specific motor configuration), and classify primarily on thrust class. Suggesting to me that, when the modifications are implemented, small hybrid motors will be model rocket motors by definition, bringing up the question of the NAR position of Level 1 being required for hybrids because they are not model rocket engines as described by NFPA 1122.

The second thing I found interesting was the applicable state law. Vermont has adopted NFPA 1122, 1125, & 1127 as regulation.... but the 1998 edition specifically. I'm not quite sure what that means, really. I'll check into it, and get an interpretation from an individual in the Fire Marshall's office who has been quite helpful in the past. That and a dollar might get me a cup of coffee, but will certainly give me a sense of where the regulatory agencies stand. This is significant as here they are also the enforcement agency, so how they interpret the regulations is as significant as the regulations themselves.

The short answer to my original question seems to be... it will be probably be legal (here) to launch some of the G class hybrids under LMR notification, if not now at least in the forseeable future. Still more digging to do, but at least I have a sense where to look.

Thanks again!!

Kevin OClassen NAR 13578