"Jerry Irvine"

wrote:


WHAH WHAH WHAH
Learn some new lines.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Off-topic retort. That IS the best you can do ON THE TOPIC.
ROFL
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
" Learn some new lines"
"Know what I mean BIG FINE? Did you pay that fine yet?"
Phil your message content could use an upgrade also. If you want Jerry to change his then quit posting the same dribble over and over. His one post will draw posts form the same four or five nimrods. It looks like a 5 to 1 ratio from the hater gallery.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The difference if that Big Fine is a classic and is not a figment of my imagination.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are the hater gallery lover.
To what end?
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Point.
The judge said that exemptions at 55.141 apply to our rocket motors. Section 55.141 (a) begins: General. This part shall not apply with respect to..." (and then enumerates the various exempted circumstances).
The exemption relieves us from the ENTIRE burden of compliance to all regulations of "part 55", not just from only those parts dealing with user permits. Also in part 55 are to be found requirements for manufacture, storage, etc., and the definition of "explosive materials" (in section 55.11) that invokes the "List of Explosive Materials provided for in section 55.23". That means that BATF can "list" things as "explosive" all they want, but that doesn't act to bring PAD's within the definition of "Explosive Materials" - neither their creation and distribution (whether or not considered "commercial"), nor their acquisition, storage and use, are subject to Part 55.
What part of "this part shall not apply to..." are you having such trouble understanding?
Where does is "commercial manufacturer of what is classified as a LE" excluded from the exemption?
I have had enough law classes, and have done well enough in them, to be able to read and comprehend legal documents, and to draw substantive, supportable conclusions from what I read. The study of law is about learning to pick out what's important, and paying attention to the details. While fair play (aka "equity") is part of the law, attention to detail is a far bigger part. If the law says something, you won't go far wrong by taking it extremely literally, as written.
The interesting thing, to me, is that Dave and I have not been contradicting what the lawyers said. We have been taking what they have said, what the judge said, and what the law says, reading them all, and drawing the conclusion that the law says what it means.
and
All I have been saying is that:
1) The judge ruled that fully assembled rocket motors are, for now, correctly classified as Propellant Actuated Devices (PADs), as listed in Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 555 (formerly known as Part 55), Section 841(a)(8). 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8), in full, reads as follows: "(8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.".
2) 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8) is only one of 9 exemptions mentioned under 27 CFR 555.841(a), which reads, in full: "(a) General. Except for the provisions of Secs. 55.180 and 55.181, this part does not apply to:"
3) The term "this part" in 27 CFR 55.841(a) has a specific legal meaning, in context. It refers, specifically, to the particular Part of the particular Title containing the phrase "this part". In other words, it refers to Part 55 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (aka 27 CFR 55). This reading is made even more obvious by the fact that the sub-section 841(a) mentions several other sections within the part it's talking about specifically by number.
4) The provisions of sections 55.180 and 55.181 relate to "plastic explosives", which are defined in 27 CFR 55.180(c)(4) as "(4) Plastic explosive means an explosive material in flexible or elastic sheet form formulated with one or more high explosives which in their pure form has a vapor pressure less than 10-\4\ Pa at a temperature of 25 deg.C, is formulated with a binder material, and is as a mixture malleable or flexible at normal room temperature. High explosives, as defined in Sec. 55.202(a), are explosive materials which can be caused to detonate by means of a blasting cap when unconfined."
5) I don't think anyone has ever even alleged that the rocket motors we are talking about are "formulated with one or more high explosives", so the provisions in sections 55.180 and 55.181 of this part (part 55) are clearly not applicable.
6) Since 27 CFR 55.180 and 55.181 are clearly not applicable, what we are left with is an exemption from all of 27 CFR 55. As you can see by perusing http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/27cfr55_02.html , Part 55 regulates all aspects of "Commerce In Explosives", from licensing to storage, to disposal, transportation, or what to do if any is stolen. See 27 CFR 55.41 for general information on Licenses and Permits, for instance.
7) An unequivocal exemption from essentially all of 27 CFR 55 (with the twin exceptions of the sections relating to plastic explosives I mentioned above) means that LEUPs are not needed. It also means that LEMPs are not needed for manufacturing PADs. Assembling a PAD is an unregulated activity, at least as far as the federal explosives regulations in 27 CFR 55 are concerned.
and
Actually, the PAD exemption specifically exempts PADs from "this part", referring to 27 CFR Part 55 (now renumbered to part 555), which is the term for the section of the law that contains the PAD exemption, and the storage, permitting, and other regulations concerning explosives. By exempting PADs from "this part" using verbiage within "Part 555" (nee 55), PADs are exempt from *all* of the regulations therein.
Note: this is *including* the regulations requiring permits for manufacturers and dealers.
Do a web search for "27 CFR 55" and read it yourself if you don't beleive me.
- Rick "Use the Source, Luke" Dickinson
Dave W:
10 year old documents like 27 CFR part 555 (recently renumbered in implementing the "homeland security act" updates), which contains the exemption at section 141(a)(8) unchanged from when the whole part was numbered "part 55": this sure suggests to me that the Intent of the Legislature, in acting to close the so-called "loophole" involving in-state transfers of actual "Explosives", nevertheless intended to leave the P.A.D. exemption intact.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

jerry=Zippy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Off-topic retort. That IS the best you can do ON THE TOPIC.
ROFL
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

Do you have evidence of your claim about the ATF? When did the ATF ask TRA to not ask for valid LEMPs?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In fact ATF asked TRA SPECIFICALLY NOT TO ENFORCE FOR THEM.
ROFL
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

Do you have evidence of your claim about the ATF? When did the ATF ask TRA to not ask for valid LEMPs?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Grayvis wrote:

Jerry Irvine replied:

You ignored the two questions above and edited them out of your idiotic reply. Is that the best YOU can do, Jerry? Funny, every time someone tries to get some hard evidence or verifiable cites out of you, all you do post unrelated drivel and then have the gall to claim that THEY are off-topic.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Because it's inconvenient, he chooses to ignore it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The judge said that exemptions at 55.141 apply to our rocket motors. Section 55.141 (a) begins: General. This part shall not apply with respect to..." (and then enumerates the various exempted circumstances).
The exemption relieves us from the ENTIRE burden of compliance to all regulations of "part 55", not just from only those parts dealing with user permits. Also in part 55 are to be found requirements for manufacture, storage, etc., and the definition of "explosive materials" (in section 55.11) that invokes the "List of Explosive Materials provided for in section 55.23". That means that BATF can "list" things as "explosive" all they want, but that doesn't act to bring PAD's within the definition of "Explosive Materials" - neither their creation and distribution (whether or not considered "commercial"), nor their acquisition, storage and use, are subject to Part 55.
What part of "this part shall not apply to..." are you having such trouble understanding?
Where does is "commercial manufacturer of what is classified as a LE" excluded from the exemption?
I have had enough law classes, and have done well enough in them, to be able to read and comprehend legal documents, and to draw substantive, supportable conclusions from what I read. The study of law is about learning to pick out what's important, and paying attention to the details. While fair play (aka "equity") is part of the law, attention to detail is a far bigger part. If the law says something, you won't go far wrong by taking it extremely literally, as written.
The interesting thing, to me, is that Dave and I have not been contradicting what the lawyers said. We have been taking what they have said, what the judge said, and what the law says, reading them all, and drawing the conclusion that the law says what it means.
and
All I have been saying is that:
1) The judge ruled that fully assembled rocket motors are, for now, correctly classified as Propellant Actuated Devices (PADs), as listed in Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 555 (formerly known as Part 55), Section 841(a)(8). 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8), in full, reads as follows: "(8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.".
2) 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8) is only one of 9 exemptions mentioned under 27 CFR 555.841(a), which reads, in full: "(a) General. Except for the provisions of Secs. 55.180 and 55.181, this part does not apply to:"
3) The term "this part" in 27 CFR 55.841(a) has a specific legal meaning, in context. It refers, specifically, to the particular Part of the particular Title containing the phrase "this part". In other words, it refers to Part 55 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (aka 27 CFR 55). This reading is made even more obvious by the fact that the sub-section 841(a) mentions several other sections within the part it's talking about specifically by number.
4) The provisions of sections 55.180 and 55.181 relate to "plastic explosives", which are defined in 27 CFR 55.180(c)(4) as "(4) Plastic explosive means an explosive material in flexible or elastic sheet form formulated with one or more high explosives which in their pure form has a vapor pressure less than 10-\4\ Pa at a temperature of 25 deg.C, is formulated with a binder material, and is as a mixture malleable or flexible at normal room temperature. High explosives, as defined in Sec. 55.202(a), are explosive materials which can be caused to detonate by means of a blasting cap when unconfined."
5) I don't think anyone has ever even alleged that the rocket motors we are talking about are "formulated with one or more high explosives", so the provisions in sections 55.180 and 55.181 of this part (part 55) are clearly not applicable.
6) Since 27 CFR 55.180 and 55.181 are clearly not applicable, what we are left with is an exemption from all of 27 CFR 55. As you can see by perusing http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/27cfr55_02.html , Part 55 regulates all aspects of "Commerce In Explosives", from licensing to storage, to disposal, transportation, or what to do if any is stolen. See 27 CFR 55.41 for general information on Licenses and Permits, for instance.
7) An unequivocal exemption from essentially all of 27 CFR 55 (with the twin exceptions of the sections relating to plastic explosives I mentioned above) means that LEUPs are not needed. It also means that LEMPs are not needed for manufacturing PADs. Assembling a PAD is an unregulated activity, at least as far as the federal explosives regulations in 27 CFR 55 are concerned.
and
Actually, the PAD exemption specifically exempts PADs from "this part", referring to 27 CFR Part 55 (now renumbered to part 555), which is the term for the section of the law that contains the PAD exemption, and the storage, permitting, and other regulations concerning explosives. By exempting PADs from "this part" using verbiage within "Part 555" (nee 55), PADs are exempt from *all* of the regulations therein.
Note: this is *including* the regulations requiring permits for manufacturers and dealers.
Do a web search for "27 CFR 55" and read it yourself if you don't beleive me.
- Rick "Use the Source, Luke" Dickinson
Dave W:
10 year old documents like 27 CFR part 555 (recently renumbered in implementing the "homeland security act" updates), which contains the exemption at section 141(a)(8) unchanged from when the whole part was numbered "part 55": this sure suggests to me that the Intent of the Legislature, in acting to close the so-called "loophole" involving in-state transfers of actual "Explosives", nevertheless intended to leave the P.A.D. exemption intact.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

You've obviously (and intentionally) missed Phil's point. TRA requires manufacturers show LEMPs when submitting motors for cert because ATF requires manufacturers to have LEMPs. Any manufacturer who does not have an LEMP is operating illegally in the eyes of the ATF.
Furthermore, ATF has never told TRA that they should not ask manufacturers for LEMPs. If you believe otherwise, post a verifiable cite.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I didn't miss the point.
I called you and your ilk liars.
I have first hand experience that claim is false. With no fines.

And you are an expert in contravention to the law, how?
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Are you making motors that you sell? If so, we can get ATF to settle this once and for all. May I arrange a visit?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Get a clue.
Simply read the law.
The judge said that exemptions at 55.141 apply to our rocket motors. Section 55.141 (a) begins: General. This part shall not apply with respect to..." (and then enumerates the various exempted circumstances).
The exemption relieves us from the ENTIRE burden of compliance to all regulations of "part 55", not just from only those parts dealing with user permits. Also in part 55 are to be found requirements for manufacture, storage, etc., and the definition of "explosive materials" (in section 55.11) that invokes the "List of Explosive Materials provided for in section 55.23". That means that BATF can "list" things as "explosive" all they want, but that doesn't act to bring PAD's within the definition of "Explosive Materials" - neither their creation and distribution (whether or not considered "commercial"), nor their acquisition, storage and use, are subject to Part 55.
What part of "this part shall not apply to..." are you having such trouble understanding?
Where does is "commercial manufacturer of what is classified as a LE" excluded from the exemption?
I have had enough law classes, and have done well enough in them, to be able to read and comprehend legal documents, and to draw substantive, supportable conclusions from what I read. The study of law is about learning to pick out what's important, and paying attention to the details. While fair play (aka "equity") is part of the law, attention to detail is a far bigger part. If the law says something, you won't go far wrong by taking it extremely literally, as written.
The interesting thing, to me, is that Dave and I have not been contradicting what the lawyers said. We have been taking what they have said, what the judge said, and what the law says, reading them all, and drawing the conclusion that the law says what it means.
and
All I have been saying is that:
1) The judge ruled that fully assembled rocket motors are, for now, correctly classified as Propellant Actuated Devices (PADs), as listed in Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 555 (formerly known as Part 55), Section 841(a)(8). 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8), in full, reads as follows: "(8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.".
2) 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8) is only one of 9 exemptions mentioned under 27 CFR 555.841(a), which reads, in full: "(a) General. Except for the provisions of Secs. 55.180 and 55.181, this part does not apply to:"
3) The term "this part" in 27 CFR 55.841(a) has a specific legal meaning, in context. It refers, specifically, to the particular Part of the particular Title containing the phrase "this part". In other words, it refers to Part 55 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (aka 27 CFR 55). This reading is made even more obvious by the fact that the sub-section 841(a) mentions several other sections within the part it's talking about specifically by number.
4) The provisions of sections 55.180 and 55.181 relate to "plastic explosives", which are defined in 27 CFR 55.180(c)(4) as "(4) Plastic explosive means an explosive material in flexible or elastic sheet form formulated with one or more high explosives which in their pure form has a vapor pressure less than 10-\4\ Pa at a temperature of 25 deg.C, is formulated with a binder material, and is as a mixture malleable or flexible at normal room temperature. High explosives, as defined in Sec. 55.202(a), are explosive materials which can be caused to detonate by means of a blasting cap when unconfined."
5) I don't think anyone has ever even alleged that the rocket motors we are talking about are "formulated with one or more high explosives", so the provisions in sections 55.180 and 55.181 of this part (part 55) are clearly not applicable.
6) Since 27 CFR 55.180 and 55.181 are clearly not applicable, what we are left with is an exemption from all of 27 CFR 55. As you can see by perusing http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/27cfr55_02.html , Part 55 regulates all aspects of "Commerce In Explosives", from licensing to storage, to disposal, transportation, or what to do if any is stolen. See 27 CFR 55.41 for general information on Licenses and Permits, for instance.
7) An unequivocal exemption from essentially all of 27 CFR 55 (with the twin exceptions of the sections relating to plastic explosives I mentioned above) means that LEUPs are not needed. It also means that LEMPs are not needed for manufacturing PADs. Assembling a PAD is an unregulated activity, at least as far as the federal explosives regulations in 27 CFR 55 are concerned.
and
Actually, the PAD exemption specifically exempts PADs from "this part", referring to 27 CFR Part 55 (now renumbered to part 555), which is the term for the section of the law that contains the PAD exemption, and the storage, permitting, and other regulations concerning explosives. By exempting PADs from "this part" using verbiage within "Part 555" (nee 55), PADs are exempt from *all* of the regulations therein.
Note: this is *including* the regulations requiring permits for manufacturers and dealers.
Do a web search for "27 CFR 55" and read it yourself if you don't beleive me.
- Rick "Use the Source, Luke" Dickinson
Dave W:
10 year old documents like 27 CFR part 555 (recently renumbered in implementing the "homeland security act" updates), which contains the exemption at section 141(a)(8) unchanged from when the whole part was numbered "part 55": this sure suggests to me that the Intent of the Legislature, in acting to close the so-called "loophole" involving in-state transfers of actual "Explosives", nevertheless intended to leave the P.A.D. exemption intact.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

jerry irvine has never studied law.
Only in his own mind is jerry a lawyer.
Here's a legal document for you to analyze:
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
jerry, Are you making motors that you sell?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Grayvis wrote:

That was glaringly obvious in court.
h
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.