[lawsuit]

Shultz posted a link t a Tripoli copy of the ATF summary judgement points and authorities

ATFpointauthmotsummjudg.pdf (or whatever)

Page 14 is the smoking gun.

It constitutes fraud and perjury by defendants and defendant's attorneys.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Loading thread data ...

Can you include the poster's full name or the title of the post? I can't find it.

(or just post the link)

Reply to
David

Correct, and thanks for posting the link.

My own website shows the UN flammable solid limit (international equivelent to DOT) wherein material under 2.2mm/s is an unregulated plastic and not even a 4.1 Flammable solid.

formatting link
Yes ATF declares APCP a "deflagrating explosive" even though it does neither deflagrate as defined, or explode as defined or as tested.

That should tell you the state of federal regulation in this country. Government agencies declare themselves experts by fiat, then ignore all science, customer feedback, fact, or political will (especially the law), and literallly do whatever they want to, to increase their jurisdiction, political power, and magnitude of puritanism.

Jerry

NAR and TRA are NOT helping either.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

formatting link

Reply to
zak orion

From "CFR concerning PAD's" thread.

formatting link

Reply to
David Schultz

In looking over the 10 or so pages I've checked out it appears the village idiot could win this case. It's a very transparent and naive defense for the feds. If this was the United States of America it would be a slam-dunk win for the good guys. But I do not recognize where I live anymore. They were stupid enough to add (incorrect information on) the Challenger? What a bunch of horse's asses. That could damn near be treason.

Chuck

Chuck Rudy

VooDoo Digital Productions

formatting link

Reply to
Chuck Rudy

Thanks Gary :)

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

As I have repeatedly cautioned in this and other forums, discussion of the litigation is not helpful to our cause. If you wish to do this, I would recommend setting up a private secure channel in which only those known to the participants can debate away.

Finally, please rest assured the NAR / TRA legal team has addressed all the points raised in this particular thread and more in their response to the ATF motion.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mark B. Bundick mbundick - at - earthlink - dot - net NAR President www - dot - nar - dot - org

Reply to
Mark B. Bundick

I agree, it should be easy to rebut, and we should win this if technical considerations have any play at all.

But, it does CLEARLY state that ATFE's current official position is that rocket motors are not PADs. Therefore Jerry's argument that we could all just treat them as exempt today does not match ATFE's current position, even if one or two agents have been persuaded to igore rocket motors.

Reply to
David

It means that not only should you waive the orange book in front of your agent's face you should give them a copy of the documents presented here and ask then, "is this the agency YOU want to work for".

Do you know what the definition of is is?

Or device?

Or "personal criminal liability for professional acts"?

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Fair enough.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

OMG...

I don't know about you, but the bottom of page 14 where they talk about the Challenger Accident, and that the SRB's released their energy too fast and exploded or whatever...BULL CRAP! If the SRB's HAD exploded (over-pressurized?) there would have been nothing left! In all actuality, NASA had to activate the detonation charges because they were heading back towards land and populated areas! If they were even paying attention to ANY of the reports released by any one of the agencies, they would notice that a o-ring failure let hot gases and/or flame out the side of the SRB and it burned a hole thru the side of the External Tank, which then ignited the Liquid Hydrogen fuel, then the disaster occured because of this, NOT because of the AP in the SRB exploding! This is a total and complete LIE. ARRRGH!!!!!

Jason

Reply to
Jason Toft

They just don't get it Mark. I know you can't say something like this, but I can.

HEY you stupid son-of-a-bitch, SHUT UP!!!! You seem to be a pretty smart person because you have pointed out some potential flaws in the opposition's defense. Now granted, they have their guys looking over it too, but they may have missed some angles and it looks like you're on their side helping them firm up their case. So, please, STOP DISCUSSING THE LAWSUIT IN PUBLIC. YOU MAY JUST HELP THE BASTARDS!

sincerely, steve

Reply to
default

I noticed that too... the writer of this section OBVIOUSLY doesn't know crap about what happened to the Space Shuttle Challenger. They are USING this incident for scare tactic. Truly sad and sick. These are the times when you can tell it is a lawyer speaking, and not someone who knows anything about the issue.

Also the part about high power rockets "catastrophic launch". By that whole section, they try to give the effect that APCP can act in a dangerously uncontrolled fashion. Bad airframes, bad, propellant mixes, and container breaches are NOT APCP going out of control... quite the contrary, it continues to burn, and in some cases, gets put out as the fragments come apart... acting in exactly the expected manner.

The burn rate is obviously vaguely stated and stated in a "scare-tactic" manner; not to mention being fouled up. "no clear division exists" = we can regulate and control anything we please. Their way of saying, "We do not have to prove it."

They focus mostly on the debate and trying to sound reasonably winning using diversions from the real issue: is APCP dangerous enough to warrant national-level control? No, they don't want to have to fight it at that level, so, divide, divert, and conquer.

The bulk of it focuses on, "We said it, we believe congress gave us the right to do so, and we define it; so the courts are not supposed to interferre.". They try towards the end to claim that it was them who exacted the PAD exemption. It was not. The actual phrases in code written by ATF, yes; but not the fact that Congress ordered that such things were were not to be controlled by that effect.

Additionally, notice they spend a lot of definition time on "machine", "machine", "machine"... but totally drop the ball on "gas generator device", proferring only a quick and contrived definition for such, and quickly reverting, and refocusing back to "machine". No mention of the electronics, or other systems/payloads involved in higher-power rocketry (which is the very style of rocketry they are trying to control). *Honestly* *I* did not know if *I* believed that rockets were PADs as defined until I read their legal mumbo. Now I *KNOW* they easily fit the description, despite the frequent attempts at redirecting "machine". Seriously, by the way they were attempting to define it, it would rule out *all* things that the Congress-specific exemption was written for. Absolutely nothing is a PAD when the view is restricted only to the propellant itself. This whole section is poor at best. The BATF cannot take away what congress already permitted explicitly. I think we should expect to see the BATF changing their definition of a PAD soon to further their claim. The general definition of "machine" itself was poor defense. But what else can they do... they are trying to effect bad judgement.

Most of the historical cases they reference are to refer to their mighty and awesome scope of power... more intimidation. Pitiful when one realizes that the BATF is now under the Justice department. Sooo...

My final concerns are: Those who actually participate in this sport/hobby/profession may see the contradictions, but will those Judges/law-makers be truly concerned enough to take the time enough to see the consequences of such faulty logic/rule making? Hard to believe in when our "checks and balances" seem to have become blurred and unstable.

Our law-interpreters have police-power who in turn has law-making power.???

~Duane Phillips.

Reply to
Duane Phillips

Thank you for posting the link to the rebuttal. I missed it first-go-round. And they address most of the problems with the ATF points. Nice.

~Duane Phillips.

formatting link
>

formatting link

Reply to
Duane Phillips

So should we file criminal charges for perjury, fraud and extortion?

And for the record my very recent comments on this topic have had huge negative GOVERNMENTAL commercial impacts (in excess of $500,000) to date and are carefully being watched and responded to in a punative and illegal fashion.

rmr matters, it turns out.

HARD PROOF.

God bless.

Please have mercy on my soul, you over zealous government regulators and their synchophants.

My checkbook may be expendable, but my rights are not. You will have to pry my rights from my cold dead fingers, and from those of my 1000 attorneys, and friends, and the attorneys of those friends. GFL you sick fu¢ks!

Jerry

Pardon my French :)

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Mark B. Bundick replied:

I don't understand how comments from someone such as myself can be harmful. I am not a member of the NAR/TRA legal team; I am not privy to any of their internal discussions or strategic plans. Why should BATF pay any attention to what I say? For all they know, I'm just an unemployed doofus with a high-school education, theorizing off the cuff. (Actually, that's a fairly accurate characterization :-) If that's the kind of information they want to base their legal arguments on, it can only be to their detriment.

I probably shouldn't have posted, though... but not out of paranoia. Rather because my post was redundant, as Mark has pointed out. I should have read the NAR/TRA response at before wasting bandwidth by repeating what had already been said almost a year ago! My point about the Challenger incident is covered in footnote 10 (page 15) and my comments on APCP burn rates are handled in numerous places throughout.

So, I brought nothing to the discussion; it turns out I didn't say anything that hadn't already been said in official NAR/TRA court filings. I apologize for having wasted everyone's time.

(BTW the point in footnote 24 had never occurred to me -- kudos to whoever came up with that one!)

And "steve" -- thanks for calling me smart; it's good for my ego to hear that every once in a while. But you may want to adjust the dosage on whatever it is you're taking -- it seems to be a little off.

Reply to
Gordon S. Hlavenka

Your buddy probably wouldn't want his soon-to-be ex-wife's lawyer to hear you say 'do you think she'll use that time you accidentally hit her with that stick?'. 1000 people can come up with 10s of thousands of ways to see things and they just might not have thought of 'the one'.

Joel. phx

2, he asked nicely. 3, the lawyers said so. 4, if we ain't gonna listen to the lawyers, why we paying them?
Reply to
Joel Corwith

Reply to
Alex Mericas

But is is interesting to see WHAT they USE and WHAT they find.

They seem to be morons.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

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.