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



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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Scott Schuckert wrote:

What country do you live in?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Scott Schuckert wrote:

Doesn't sound preposterous to me -- they died as a direct result of an illegal act.

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Erbas-White wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Grayvis wrote:

I agree, but the description of this case was not one of arson.
David Erbas-White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Erbas-White wrote:

Sounds like they were treating it more like a meth lab.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Erbas-White wrote:

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

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.

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Scott Schuckert wrote:

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.

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

This should be in the FAQ.
--
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
Scott Schuckert wrote:

There is nothing "interpretive" about shipping 200lb of class 1 hazmat, marked as "model airplane parts", when you know better and knowingly attempt deception.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Scott Schuckert wrote:

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.

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Scott Schuckert wrote:

If they were single occurrences, that would be one thing. But they're part of a consistent pattern of behavior.

"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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

He means (LIMP), folks
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
AZ Woody wrote:

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

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, 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, exemptions don't apply to prohibited persons, such as yourself... and any of those less than two employees.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

Was your "destructive device" a PAD, Jerry?
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.