As usual, you purposely avoid quoting the actual ruling, instead
substituting your own interpretation of what he said.
Repeating the same erroneous garbage and irrelevant CFRs doesn't make
it truth.
_
Correct. They are also irrelevant to the issues at hand, such as ATF
policy. ATF follows their own interpretation of the regs, not yours or
Rick's or Dave's.
And I note that you still refuse to quote the judge's ruling verbatim.
How many inspections have you had? Be specific. If you don't have a
permit, why is the ATF inspecting you? Didn't you tell the ATF you were
exempt? Why so many inspections for "exempt" product? Be specific.
Finally.
I will.
NO inspectons are required for exempt products.
Inspections are required for non-exempt goods and for permit holders
generally.
Tell us about ONE of your inspections Brian.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
I've had no inspection/s.
Why would I need an inspection? For What?
Now that we have that settled, answer my questions
If you don't have a LEMP, why have you had so many inspections by the ATF?
If rocket motor manufacturers are exempt from the ATF, why do you have
so many inspections?
Be specific, not retarded.
I'm the third plaintiff.
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 you like to know?
Not relevant to PAD's of course.
It's not like you ever add value to the conversation and set a positive
example for me.
See, I ask the impossible all the time.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
Once again, when pinned down you claim it's all a big secret. Your
manufacturing facility is secret, the ownership of US Rockets is a
secret, your reason for needing a LEMP when you say you don't need one
is a secret, the name of the ATF agent is secret, etc ad nauseum. Real
convenient for you, but don't expect anyone to accept it in lieu of
actual proof.
So what if I'm a liar? I'm also a con man and convicted felon and
child molester! Does that make me a bad man? Michael Jackson isn't a
bad man, and the BATF doesn't care if he is! Want to wack off now? I
don't need a LEMP for the manufacture, distribution and use of cocaine
and meth-amphetamine. If being a con-man, liar, drug dealer, glue
sniffer, child molester, wife beater, thief, scumbag makes me a bad
man, then I guess I should just sit down and shut up.
Not!
Point!
First off, I don't see any proof that you've ever had an ATF
inspection. Secondly, you claim that you don't make the motors
yourself, that you get them from a secret source. So it's entirely
possible that they may have searched whatever location you chose to
make known without ever finding your manufacturing facility.
In any case, if you actually had an unverifiable verbal agreement that
contradicts published ATF policy, it's utterly useless.
http://v-serv.com/usr/ATFexempt.htm
That is clearly an official ATF statement and the relevant regs have NOT
changed since then.
Period.
Why do you (and TRA, AT, AT dealers) WANT ATF to have unnecessary and
improper ("Restricted Access"-tm and LEMP) jurisdiction over us anyway?
Seriously.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
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.