"Jerry Irvine"

formatting link
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
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Loading thread data ...
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.
Reply to
Dave Grayvis
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
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Then why were you inspected so many times, by the ATF?
Why won't you answer the question?
What are you trying to hide?
If you are exempt, why would you, jerry irvine, need a permit and inspections?
Inspections for what?
Reply to
Dave Grayvis
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.
Reply to
Dave Grayvis
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.
Reply to
raydunakin
If you have had inspections, you are not exempt.
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
Reply to
Dave Grayvis
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.
_
Reply to
raydunakin
Liar! That document is NOT an official ATF statement. In fact, it doesn't even contain any statements from the ATF, just your usual CRF quotes. The rest is just a bunch of stuff you pieced together, including DOT and USPS regs unrelated to the ATF, plus a lot of "commentary" gleaned from r.m.r. postings and your own rantings.
Here's one of the statements you apparently personally made in that document: "ATF are a bunch of slimy beaurucrats turned cops, looking for self-justification and lowering themselves to law-abiding soft targets and getting them on "technicalities" to do it."
You also called the ATF a "Rogue agency and boys gone wild". Now why would you say that if indeed they agree with your intepretation of the regs, and their enforcement is as favorable towards rocket manufacturers as you claim it to be?
Whether or not the regs have changed is not the issue, and you know it. ATF policy is the issue, and that HAS changed. While they once considered rocket motors to be PADs, now they do not.
We don't, which is why we're suing them. Of course, you know that but since you can't provide a single shred of hard evidence to support your self-serving claims, you resort to misdirection and lies instead.
W
Reply to
raydunakin
Why not? Do you have multiple personalities? Are you aware that there are treatments available these days that can help?
Coming from you, that's a compliment. Apparently it means, "Someone who doesn't fall for Jerry's BS hook, line, and sinker".
c
Reply to
raydunakin
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
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
If you cannot even agree a statement on ATF letterhead is official, one cannot have a discussion with you on ANY level.
Honestly.
Jerry
The reg has not changed.
If you cannot even agree with the obvious, one cannot have a discussion with you on ANY level.
Honestly.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Rick's.
The CFR's are what they are independent of the crap irrelevant you spew or irrelevant TRA spews.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine

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.