At the risk of being flamed I think lunarlos wrote "many" and not
"all" pioneers. The SNOAR article from 1991 was pretty involved and
I feel sad for all the parties. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a
few coke heads and speedballers involved in rocketry then and now.
I think the vast majority, then and now, were just regular people
wanting to have fun. Lunarlos may have been with a crowd of users
who just so happened to like HPR. I mean what the heck, it "is"
California! :) (Sounds like that is where he lives. He can correct
me if he choses to do so.)
He said himself his drug comments were speculation and I took it
as a hypothesis. It is an explanation of some observations that is
NOT necessarily the TRUTH. Only the subject of question would know
My opinion is Jerry wants rocketry to be accessible, easily for one
to partake of and the way the current laws are written, too restrictive.
People always hammer him with the shipping incident that resulted in a
substantial fine. Cripes, I asked a postal worker if they take "special
precautions" with rocket engines or have a "special place" for items of
that nature in the post office. She replied, "No".
We all know and maintain that our engines are safe and I think all of
the hazardous material restriction placed on shipping is overkill.
One thing though, you can't lie to the govermit or they get mad!
Some of the other documentation out there concerning Jerry is a bit
unusual and actually quite bizarre. Is it simply eccentricity?
Is it substance abuse? Is it sociopathic? I don't know and neither
does anyone else. (It is easier to treat substance abuse though if
the person wants to be helped.)
It is true that from what I have seen here, alot of folks don't care
for Jerry. Some of whom he allegedly owes money to. Could be lunarlos
"made all this up"? Possibly, but his hypothesis is one fit to the
facts as he presented and should not be taken as an insult to
the early HPR folks.
Hello Again Kurt,
Let me fill in some blanks:
As SOME of you have figured out, I was indeed involved in HPR back in
the 1970s. I was also involved in flying off lakebeds in the Mojave
area. I have personally met Jerry, and was very impressed with him
back then, however I am not impressed today.
I knew and flew with people in the the Southern CA area. I remember
driving to Korey Kline's house in San Gabriel and going through SMOG as
thick as fog along the way!
While I no longer call California home, it was an AWESOME place to be
working as an aerospace engineer during the 1970s ... the money and the
technology ... oh baby!
As to the drugs, I am ONLY guessing. Trying to figure out Jerry Irvine
is trying to figure out why you wife gets mad at you for no reason ...
just crazy! I have asked Jerry to comment on my questions and
assertions, so lets give him a day a two as he might be busy doing
something else in real life.
As to the people back then, yes after an afternoon of flying, it wasn't
uncommon for a bong to appear and be passed around, but these are
adults, and they have to live with their decisions.
I also believe that Jerry wants model rocketry to exist, grow, and that
he make a few bucks along the way. Nothing wrong with self-enterprise
... its what has made the United States of America so friggin powerful
on the planet!
No insult to those early people at all. For the record, I had better
state the following:
G. Harry Stine - perfect record
Vern Estes - perfect record
Lee Piester - perfect record
Bill Roe - perfect record
Gary R. (aerotech) - perfect record
Frank Kosdon - perfect record
Korey Kline - perfect record
Chuck Rogers - perfect record
Those are just the early pioneers off the top of my head, that to MY
knowlege, have never wronged ANYONE! Hope that clears things up.
your knowledge is incomplete
Subject: Re: [TRA motor certs] USR
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 20:37:36 -0800
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed wrote:
representatives authority to an alternate party if the authority granted was
The bylaws of the corporation do not allow for proxies for Directors,
only for members voting for Directors. You can 'posit' all the
authority you want, but there is no framework to allow it.
The bylaws are clear: a quorum of Directors must be PRESENT in order
for a meeting to be called to order, and from there, a majority of
those present may then conduct the business of the Corporation.
I repeat: using proxies by Directors is not in the bylaws. Any actions
taken under such auspices are not legal.
And again, Ray, this is obviously not getting through to you.
It doesn't matter if every Director gave Chuck their proxies and he
voted exactly the way they wanted. Proxies are not valid for Directors
unless specifically enumerated in the bylaws. They are not enumerated
in the TRA bylaws, in fact, there is explicit wording requiring the
PRESENCE of Directors for a quorum.
Therefore, even if Chuck voted the way the Directors 'would have' voted
(only we'll never know, because part of the process of being a Director
involves listening to arguments), it was an ILLEGAL vote, thus it has
no standing in law. Why do I say law? Because the bylaws are a legal
agreement that the Corporation has made with the government, in order
to be granted 'corporate' status. That is why bylaws must be submitted
to the Secretary of State for approval.
Why is the value of argument important? Because that is part of the
policy/decision making process. I once chaired a board that had (IIRC)
thirteen members. We were taking a vote over an extremely volatile
issue for the group. At the beginning of the discussion I asked for a
'sense of the room' as to how they were leaning, and it was 2 for, 11
against. After the argument/discussion was completed, it was 13 for,
none against (I felt like in "12 Angry Men" <G>).
I'm hoping this will eventually sink in, but I'm beginning to have my
Listen carefully. Sit down, make sure there are no distractions, and
1) The by-laws define how a Director's meeting is held.
2) In order to use proxies, the use of proxies must be defined in the
3) The by-laws require a Director's 'presence' in order to form a
4) Holding a meeting and taking action on behalf of the corporation
outside of the constraints outlined in the by-laws makes the meeting
invalid (illegal), and any party who so chooses would be able to bring
legal action against TRA (and win). Further, it could lead to
dissolution of the corporation.
Was that clear enough for you? Or do we need to break it down even
Frankly, your inability to see that TRA has, in fact, done 'bad things'
is getting a bit tiresome. I'm all for TRA, I'd like them to clean up
their act, and in some regards they've begun to do that. But one of
the reasons they have been able to get away with things for SOO long is
the ostrich approach that you are the poster-boy for.
Then obviously you've never been involved in contracts, by-laws, or
I appreciate your pointing out that TRA had previously taken illegal
actions, as well...
Just because they had a 'precedent' of using proxies does not make it
legal. If they want to use proxies, they have a path to do so--it's
called changing the by-laws (and re-filing them with the Secretary of
State). Otherwise, any actions taken under those circumstances were
not legal actions.
If Ed Tindell resigned, though, he certainly had the right to do so,
and it didn't need to be at a meeting--but the meeting itself was never
=W. E. Fred Wallace wrote:
Replied on list...
Second, I do not have a page and paragraph to cite for you, as IANAL.
However, I have been involved in the past over a period now spanning
decades in 3 separate 501(c)3 non-profit organizations, sat in all the
legal meetings during the formation of one of them, was Chairman of
one, and was involved as a Director in the change and resubmission of
by-laws. These organizations ranged in size from (on the low end) 800
members to (on the high end) upwards of 10,000 members. I am also
currently involved with the establishment of another 501(c)3
non-profit, which I'll be happy to announce here as soon as its
complete (it is space related, not hobby related).
Further, as a businessman, I've been involved in many 'contract' cases,
and (not to be immodest) have never been found to be wrong when I've
raised a 'legal' question in relation to both business contracts and
the non-profit corporation interactions--some of the lawyers involved
were somewhat shocked to find out that I WASN'T a lawyer.
Finally, I have informally discussed this situation with a friend, who
is a lawyer, and specializes in just this kind of stuff (I have no need
to pay him to provide me with the specific cites related to this, I'm
not THAT interested <G>). Those are my qualifications and sources.
If you would like to approach it from the common sense point of view,
simply read the by-laws, and they are plain on their face. First, the
by-laws make SPECIFIC PROVISION for members to vote for the directors
and officers by proxy. Second, the by-laws make SPECIFIC REFERENCE to
the presence of a certain number of directors to call a meeting.
Third, (and this is indirectly inferred from the first), if the by-laws
had MEANT to allow the use of proxies by directors, they would have
been enumerated, just as they were for members, and reference for them
would have been made in relation to the presence of directors for a
There are further problems, in that in order to use a proxy for a vote,
the motion itself must be published (at least to the directors and in
the minutes) with sufficient notice (I do not know if this was done,
I'm simply raising it as a question), and the proxy can only be for
predetermined, specific actions, such as a) solely for purposes of
quorum, or b) for quorum and to vote specifically on a specific motion.
I am unaware of a 'blanket proxy', as this would allow for one
individual to run a corporation by themselves, but with the 'corporate'
mantle, which is precisely the opposite of the reason for a
BTW, as I write this, I'm vaguely remembering one of the times we had
to change the by-laws of one of the organizations (it was about 15
years ago, so my memory is a little hazy about the specifics), but I
believe it was something 'similar' in that we had 'assumed' that
certain things that were assigned to the 'members' also applied to the
directors, and it did not, thus the by-laws had to be amended to
reflect what our 'belief' was.
I hope this sufficiently answers your questions...
IIRC Ed did not resign as president. He was voted out off office by an
illegal coup staged by Rogers. Later, he did resign in disgust from
left as Tripoli. And the organization has been in CYA mode ever since.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
Subject: Re: [TRA motor certs] USR
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 06:37:10 -0500
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:57:51 +0000, RayDunakin wrote:
Er... you seem to have confused proxy voting, a corporate standard,
with absentee balloting... another corporate standard.
If the parameters given are correct then yes, they relinquished their
And if the TRA bylaws mandated presence by Directors, and did not
mention proxies for Directors, then it was unconstitutional.
And if it had occured in Indiana with a non-profit corporation with the
same constitutional setup it would have been quite illegal.
First become familar with the difference between proxies nd absentee
The simple facts stated here in the group in regards to various TRA
activities, as verified by the TRA and supporters themselves, make it
very clear that the TRA lacks the constitutional setup, regulatory
background, and bureaucratic experience base to be making the decisions
it makes for the people the claims to be making them for.
And the hobby suffers for this lack.
It is a cowboy-style group. Which is not a bad thing except that it has
taken on regulatory powers and government cognizance... without the
neccessary background to do the job properly.
TRA is on an earnest well meant "world-saving!" power-trip... but the
bill for this vacation from reality has come due.
And thousands in the hobby are paying the price.
-- Chuck Stewart
=original thread at http://tinyurl.com/coodw and
So what's your point? As it turned out, (on advise of a corp. attorney),
"Proxy voting" is an excepted way of accomplishing BOD voting, unless
specifically forbidden by the corp. charter, (in most states). Did you
find something to the contrary in Alaska coperate law, during your
futile attempt to dig up frozen dirt?? Page and par., PLEASE....
YOU can't use the language properly. I think that more than qualifies
you for the appelation you try to place upon me.
And FYI, I attended a launch last month (not PARA, in case you're
How about you?
Probably, you and Brandine and Q-Bert never leave the trailer.
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 20:17:29 -0500, "W. E. Fred Wallace"
As I've said before - anytime, anywhere.
I've been to Culpeper before. Why would I introduce myself? You can't
speak English anyway, Cletus.
Much as I love making fun of the retarded, I'll leave it at this:
"Your honor, I refer the court to the case of rubber vs. glue".
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.