Ok Jerry - a simple yes/no is all that's required

  Quoted Text Here  

Those are all potentially interesting topics (if they involved you directly or you have an obsessive disorder) but have nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was talking about using a court verdict as proof of guilt or innocence.
Law IS interpretation these days; what the letters on the page actually say is of lesser importance. (IMHO, and only from what little I've read of the case, the "letters on the page" would not have convicted everyone's favorite whipping boy).
For example, there was a recent local case where a gentleman was charged with two counts of first degree murder - because two firemen were killed trying to extinguish his home. Preposterous? Of course. But the DA "interpreted" things because the fire was caused by the cord on a lamp the homeowner was using to grow a marijuana plant. Fortunately, the judge kicked those charges; but believe me, DA's don't file 'em unless they think they can win.
So bitch all you want about Irvine or anyone else - you may even be right. but not because a court said so.

Scott Schuckert wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
What country do you live in?

Scott Schuckert wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Doesn't sound preposterous to me -- they died as a direct result of an illegal act.
  Quoted Text Here  
Regardless of whether you agree with the verdict, the fact of the conviction can't be denied.
BTW, I might disagree with the verdict in Jerry's case myself, if I knew the details. He won't say what the "destructive device" was, but if it was just a rocket motor I would disagree with that. Unless a rocket motor is being used in an intentionally destructive way, it is not a "destructive device".
The point is, regardless of whether Jerry or I agree with the authorities, our opinions do not override their authority. The ATF says you need an LEMP to manufacture motors. The DOT says you need valid EX numbers to legally ship motors. CSFM says you need a state permit to manufacture, sell or import/export motors. Those are facts that can't be denied simply because Jerry disagrees with them. There is only one way to change those facts, and that is through the courts.
o

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
And you know that, how?
Do you KNOW that the cord had anything to do with his growing illegal pot? Do you KNOW whether or not he was even growing pot illegally (i.e., it could have been under a 'medicinal' exemption, which is currently just as litigated as the BATFE case with us)? Was there actually a case that PROVED that a) the cord was directly responsible, and b) that the cord was solely used for an illegal act, and c) that there was, for example, no negligence in some other way (i.e., the firefighters oxygen tank wasn't filled or was defective).
Ray, use the same standards you hold Jerry to. There are a whole lot of 'ifs' in this story, and I have to agree that until all those holes are plugged, it was a foolish prosecution and an example of an overzealous district attorney.
David Erbas-White

David Erbas-White wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I have no knowledge of the above case, but in the case of arson, murder charges can be filed if someone dies as a result of the fire, including a fireman, even if his death was caused by a traffic accident on the way to the fire.

Dave Grayvis wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I agree, but the description of this case was not one of arson.
David Erbas-White

David Erbas-White wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Sounds like they were treating it more like a meth lab.

David Erbas-White wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
In this case, the charge was thrown out. In Jerry's case, the charges were not thrown out, and he was convicted. So this story was never relevant to Jerry's conviction in the first place.
H

  Quoted Text Here  
Certainly not a direct result; a very tenuous connection at best. Sort of like charging the bottler of scotch with vehicular homicide, if someone misuses their product and then... oh wait, we DO that.
  Quoted Text Here  
Agreed. And THAT is the crux of the matter. I stay out of the way of law enforcement because they can make life miserable for me - not because I respect their laws. STILl has nothing to do with right and wrong, and should not be used as an example of how moral, trustworthy, etc. someone is.
Whipping boy Irving (apparently) depended on the letter of the law, rather than what it's enforcers wanted to apply it to - with predictable results.

Scott Schuckert wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Wrong. When someone says that he has legal EX numbers and DOT approvals to ship his motors, then gets fined by DOT for deceptively and illegally shipping them as "model aircraft parts" and without the proper EX numbers and paperwork, that fine proves he was lying. When someone says all you have to do to is read the regs to the authorities to be allowed to possess or manufacture motors without a permit and then we find out he's been hiding a felony conviction related to possessing or manufacturing motors, that conviction proves he's been lying.
  Quoted Text Here  
Yes, the results we've all been predicting every time he says, "Live the lifestyle". That DOT fine and felony conviction prove that "living the lifestyle" is not the free ride that Jerry says it is.

  Quoted Text Here  
This should be in the FAQ.

Scott Schuckert wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
There is nothing "interpretive" about shipping 200lb of class 1 hazmat, marked as "model airplane parts", when you know better and knowingly attempt deception.

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Obviously, not everyone argees with you. Jerry is a repeat offender when it comes to misintrepreting regulations and taking liberties with the truth. Don't fall for his bs.

Scott Schuckert wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Something "wrong"? I don't know about that. Something illegal? Definitely. I wouldn't consider speeding to be "wrong" but it IS illegal.
The fact is, it's nearly impossible for anyone with a felony conviction for possession of a destructive device to obtain an ATF explosives permit or a CSFM permit.
  Quoted Text Here  
It's interesting you should mention that, since Jerry has also repeatedly claimed that you _can_ fight the feds just by "living the lifestyle" and "reading them the regs". Well, neither of those tactics was effective in preventing his DOT fine, and apparently it didn't help him avoid a felony conviction either -- a conviction which he claims we are all at risk of, though he refuses to say what the "destructive device" was.
Sadly, it seems that Jerry's not quite bright enough to have learned his lesson, since he still refuses to admit that the feds don't give a hoot about his interpretation of the regs, or anyone else's interpretation, and that they aren't going to change their policies just because someone "reads them the regs". But maybe others can learn from Jerry's example.

Scott Schuckert wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
If they were single occurrences, that would be one thing. But they're part of a consistent pattern of behavior.
  Quoted Text Here  
"Screwed up" implies unintentional. But to label a HazMat as something that it's not, while at the same time claiming you "live the lifestyle" and also claiming you have documentation allowing you to make the shipment is an intentional act, which matches the pattern of behavior.
-Kevin

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
He means (LIMP), folks

AZ Woody wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Its very simple Woody and its why poor sad jerry has such a hard time getting to grips with this.
Under the SEA the following is stated quite clearly and on TWO counts porr jerry is unable to hold ANY explosives, explosive device or pre-cursors to make the same.
I quote from the SEA - "persons under indictment for, or convicted of a felony, fugitives from justice, unlawful users of or persons addicted to controlled substances, and persons adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution were prohibited from receiving or possessing explosive materials. The Act added aliens (other than permanent resident aliens and other excepted aliens), persons dishonorably discharged from the military, and persons who have renounced their U.S. citizenship to the list of prohibited person"
Now if you are generous you could probably consider jerry an alien (might explain some of the behaviour) but most likely its count #1 "A convicted Felon", and count #2 "mentaly defective"
So poor jerry cannot handle anything listed on the explosives list.
But we all know jerry clings to those much doctored documents, claiming he is legal, is this not akin to poor adolf in his bunker, I will prevail.. Not in this lifetime :-)
Remeber Jerry, lithium is your friend.

  Quoted Text Here  
Even if what you claimed were true, propellant actuated devices are excluded from the "explosives list" since both the list itself and the exemptions from that list are BOTH contained in 27 CFR Part 555.
Being Australian and an anti-Jerry zealot I can see why you might be cloudy on this.

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
jerry, exemptions don't apply to prohibited persons, such as yourself... and any of those less than two employees.

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Was your "destructive device" a PAD, Jerry?