Get A Copy Of The ATFE (900 page) Report?

Does anyone have a link to a PDF file or know where I can get a copy of
the ATFE report on the APCP burn rate tests? I'm looking for the 900+
page gorilla report. I'm curious about how they came up with the
numbers.
John Wickman
Reply to
John Wickman
Loading thread data ...
Your curiosity and the deponent's errata aside, what happens if the numbers in the 900 page report have basis?
Anthony J. Cesaroni President/CEO Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
formatting link
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota (905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
Reply to
Anthony Cesaroni
I don't think anyone has converted it to a PDF yet though there is a lot of hungry modelers who want to see it.
Kurt
Reply to
Kurt
I don't know where to get a copy the report, but I think that they used a proctologist to get the numbers. Christopher Brian Deem NAR 12308 TRA 2256 level II
John Wickman wrote:
Reply to
Christopher Brian Deem
Since there is no mention of it on the court records site, the ATF has not yet delivered it to the court and NAR/TRA. The ATF appears to interpret the following order from the court: "1. The administrative record shall be provided to opposing counsel and filed with the Court by October 31, 2006."
as meaning that they will do it on that date. Never do today what you can put off till tomorrow.
Reply to
David Schultz
My biggest issue with them issuing a 900+ page report is the fact that there is no possible way that the judge can read through the entire thing and even if he does, he won't understand 3/4 of the terminology nor should he be expected to.. What the BATFE is doing is downright idiotic.. I can only hope that the judge gets pissed off enough at them for pulling this crap and throws them out of court.. That being said, I've already begun making the switch over to hybrids..
Reply to
cgiucf
I actually was encouraged by the summary ATF submitted. If I was the judge, I'd read that, look at the data submitted by NAR/TRA, and based on that and past performance conclude that ATF was trying to put one over on me. And when a judge gets that idea in his head, it's curtains for offending side.
Nine hundred pages of additional BS would only seal the deal.
So what it really comes down to is whether or not this judge has a good nose for bovine exhaust and the integrity to act against a federal agency trying to bury him in it.
But no one should think for a moment that a win for our side will be the end of it. If ATF loses, they'll use some kind of 'nuclear' option against us. Probably go whining to HSA and change the definition of "destructive device" to include all rockets regardless of propellant that are not exempted fireworks and are over 62.5. And then the whole cycle starts again.
Heck, they'd just change that definition to read, "Anything that ATF says is a destructive device." And that's that. We're just buying time with lines of retrenchment, but there's value in that.
Meanwhile, stay out from under the dinosaur's foot. +McG+
Reply to
kmcgrmr
Maybe you could go trick-or-treating at the ATF's DC office? :-) Remember to dress as the "99.9% harmless nerd".
The mean, conspiratorial side of me thinks that they're quickly trying to finish up writing the 900+ pages today so they can file it with the court by close of business today. Given the date, they should not only run a spelling checker on it, but also a spell checker.
Reply to
Glen Overby
Filed 31 October 2006:
DEFENDANT?S NOTICE OF FILING OF ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD Pursuant to the remand of this matter from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and this Court for reconsideration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives respectfully gives notice of the filing of the administrative record relating to its decision that ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (?APCP?) is an explosive as defined in Title 18, Chapter 40 of the United States Code. Due to its length, the administrative record is being submitted to the Clerk?s Office in paper form only and will be available for public viewing in the Clerk?s Office between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The record?s certification and index are also included. Due to a numbering error, and not an omission of any material, defendant notes that the administrative record does not contain pages 1242-43. A copy of the administrative record is being served on counsel for plaintiffs on this date.
You can either travel to Washington, DC or wait for NAR/TRA to scan and post it.
Reply to
David Schultz
To the best of my recollection, they've never done this with any of the other proceedings.
The court should take the statement:
Due to its length, the administrative record is being submitted to the Clerk's Office in paper form only
and turn it on it's head: due to the size, the document is _required_ to be filed in electronic form. This paper form only shit is another tactic; it is better for the BATFE if this document does NOT have wide distribution and wide scrutiny.
I assume that pacer doesn't scan documents, but only redistributes electronic filings? I assume that pacer's documents would have a compilation copyright applied to them so they couldn't be posted ot the net?
Has anyone investigated what the clerk's office charges for copying of the pages?
Reply to
Glen Overby
Glen,
Having you been hanging out with Buzz McD? You're starting to talk like a Texan :)
Doug Not that Buzz actually sounds like a Texan...
Reply to
Doug Sams
Geeze, the guy moves out of state and you turn your back on him! Well, we're still working on converting him to local dialects.
Let me just say that some of Buzz's rockets have names I recognize, they're a bit bigger than the, um, "stock" estes versions :-)
Glen
Reply to
Glen Overby
I know that several documents that don't appear on PACER except as a notice of filing are on the TRA web pages.
"What are the acceptable uses of the data obtained from the PACER system? The PACER system provides electronic access to case information from federal courts across the United States. The information gathered from the PACER system is a matter of public record and may be reproduced without permission. However, the PACER customer assumes all responsibility for consequences that arise from use of the data."
Standard fees for FOIA type requests are upwards of $.10 a page.
Patience. The 30 October joint statement said: "By October 31, 2006, BATFE must file with the court any and all additional material to the administrative record on its determination of APCP as an explosive. Both counsel and members will have opportunity to review this material."
This tells me that it will be scanned and posted.
Reply to
David Schultz
As of the date of the joint statement, the NAR/TRA had no idea the ATF was going to submit the documentation in paper and not electronic format, so the statement that the "members will have the opportunity to review this material" was both premature and incorrect. However, both organizations have agreed to split the costs to have the document scanned for review by the membership, so it's moot.
However, the clock is ticking. We now have 47 days to review the document and file a supplemental complaint. Every day spent with the document not converted is another day we lose in review.
Reply to
Darrell D. Mobley
If you don't think we haven't got the best people-people in our organizations, check out what the Prez said to me in email about the above quote:
"Is this sort of legal speculation by non-lawyers who don't practice in the DC circuit really helpful?"
I don't know where the correspondence course for "how to wins friends and influence people" comes from, but I think I will send a copy to him.
Why is it that this is one of those few hobbies that believe in eating their own?
Signed, Messenger.
Reply to
Darrell D. Mobley

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.