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

  Quoted Text Here  

I'd feel a whole lot better about having that document scoured for inaccuracies by people like Wickman, Rosenfeld, Cessaroni, Kosdon, (the AMW guys, whose names I don't know), etc. than only a DC lawyer.
  Quoted Text Here  
If he thinks this is "eating our own", he ought to try getting in the middle of the ham radio morse code debate.

Glen Overby wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I have faith that those, and others, will get their chance. I also hope that none of that analysis is discussed here on RMR or other public forums. Big brother is watching and is taking notes. Anything you say can and will be used against us.

Alex Mericas wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
You make it out to sound like there is some magic bullet hidden that will either make or break the case. This is a court of law -- either the case gets won on merit or it doesn't. Facts, whether discussed here or in court, will still be facts. It doesn't change the fact based on where it was last seen.

Darrell D. Mobley wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Sshhhh! You're not supposed to talk about the agicma ulletba in public.

Darrell D. Mobley wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Which org?
Didn't both NAR and TRA want people to look at the data presented and pass on comments? (I seem to recall reading this, if not from the Pres, a member a BOT or BOD).
The longer it takes to scan, the less time for review.. That makes sense.
I can see where the BOT/BOD might not like comments as to errors/omissions/etc to presented on places like RMR/ROL/RP/TRF/etc, as there's a feeling that the BATFE scans the public lists and they don't want any issues to be known to the gov beforehand, but I'd kind of hope that the BOD/BOT might appreciate these comments in a private email.

AZ Woody wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
You aren't a lawyer and still you figured that out...
  Quoted Text Here  
Maybe so, but you can't just sue the United States government and hope to live in a vacuum either. That's just nonsensical. RMR/ROL/RP/TRF aren't going to dry up and go away just because some people don't want the ATF to see public discussion about this subject. Every member who has donated a dime to the legal fund has paid for the right to discuss the case, and if the case can't be won on merit then maybe we bit off the wrong bite. If these same people want certain posturing to be posted on these sites, then they need to contact these sites and request this posturing.

Darrell D. Mobley wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
It's on the shelf, right next to Emily Post's "Etiquette, 17th Edition", which tells people not to share private correspondence in public places without permission of the sender.
To the readers of this news group:
I would caution you to take what appears to pass as truthful information regarding the timing and process of the NAR/TRA litigation against BATFE from sources other than Ken Good or myself with a grain of salt.
Online speculation about our litigation not based on a detailed understanding of administrative law in general, and the practices of the Federal District Court of Washington, DC in particular does not help our cause.
Relative to this particular litigation, only the associations' counsel possess this level of experience and knowledge.
The assertion presented here and in other forums that we have an extremely limited amount of time to review and comment on the BATFE's amended administrative record is false and incorrect.
When we have an electronic copy of the Administrative Record available for public consumption, Ken and I will have additional commentary about the litigation, particularly around the review that needs to be done and its timing.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mark B. Bundick mbundick - at - earthlink - dot - net NAR President www - dot - nar - dot - org
"A dark night in a city that knows how to keep its secrets, but high above the quiet streets on the twelfth floor of the Acme Building, one man is still trying to find the answers to life's persistent questions. Guy Noir, Private Eye."

snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
The scheduling order states December 18, 2006. If that is not the date, then what is it? Can the divulging of a simple date break the case?

Whatever the reply from NAR/Tripoli, ATFE will have enough time to analyze and prepare a reply to it. Discussing the reply beforehand will not give them any advantage.