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
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
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:
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.
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..
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+
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.