Re: The AT auction

Well Jerry, at 6' and 225, small is not quite how I'm known. A little fat around the gut, a bruiser, and a brawler would be more like it. Ken Good seems to think I'm a bit of a rascal to. (;-)

Fred

And just how did they lead by example? The contrary is in fact historical evidence. The addition of such to the lawsuit was rendered due to legal advice.

What enforcement?

Talking about dots and titles here Ray, not principles of the storm. It has relation to the next statement which you chose to separate...

But they still have allowed previous companies to ship under these paradigms... the association of such would lend weight to the issue.

~ Duane Phillips.

"conspiracy to commit unlawful acts"... wow Fred. The man is trying to get non-lethal, non-dangerous, hobby rocket motors to a launch site, and it is "conspiracy to commit unlawful acts". You do have it in for him. You seem only to reinforce everything Jerry is saying. No remorse. No attempt to clear paths. Brutal.

Just what unlawful acts? Why criminalize instead of search for solutions? Sounds like even Ferrell tried looking for solutions with you, but you cut it off..., "No more talking! Only DOT paperwork!!!" Even when he tried to discuss alternate transportation methods. At the time you were probably claiming he needed ATF permits too... apparently so, because you were discussing storage requirements... you were wrong.

I don't know what to say Fred... I guess the lines in the sand are drawn. You know, I agree with you on how you did nothing wrong or unethical... right up to the point until you sent that letter to the DOT... backing out is your right... having an opinion about Jerry's affairs is your right... but you went wrong when you conveyed the hint at that "opinion" to the DOT while in the trust and confidence of the person you claimed to be helping... and you have no remorse that it will probably cost plenty, just to deal with it.

And now you are calling me a gutter lawyer.

I don't intend to discuss this anymore. Good-Day.

~ Duane Phillips.

Your insinuation is your opinion. And it still leaves devoid the issue of blocking a safely classified material from commerce regardless of the character of the owner.

~ Duane Phillips.

Exactly!

I see you "get it".

Of course my saying that simple obvious thing will mark you as a "Jerry supporter". I suggest you wear that badge with GREAT HONOR.

Fred so far from "get's it". He has his. He has LEUP access to HPR motors at a site near him and with high but "acceptable fees" and high "access requirements" he sets so they are of course acceptable to him.

He is the receiver of such fees on behalf of a club he is a major leader of, so his ego is stroked on several levels. He is stoked.

The swath of damage he creates in his wake is major. He either does not care or does not see. Either way it is truly evil.

Also FULLY unnecessary.

Fully.

He is an evil, hateful, little man.

I bet you do not see me say that about very many people!

Jerry

Gee Phil, how does the recent court ruling factor in on TRA requirements? No change yet? Thought so.

~ Duane Phillips.

Please let me quote the DOT verbatim,"

"At the same time, it appears proper to dismiss U.S. Rockets ftom this case. U.S. Rockets presently has an internet web site

at which customers may place orders for rocket motors and propellants (many of which actually exceed the 36" x 3.3" dimensions in the DOE test report)."

Sounds like an endorsement to me!

This despite Fred Wallace!!!

FUCK YOU FRED AND THE SHITTY HORSE YOU RODE IN ON. (Where is the 1 million volt shock feature on this newsreader?)

Pardon the profanity, it is HIGHLY justified.

Jerry

"Wrong. The correct way would have been to be very clear about the freedoms and live the lifestyle in the first place... as goes the old addage: "An ouce of _prevention_ is worth a pound of cure.""

- Duane Phillips

The question is does TRA comply with the recent court ruling?

~ Duane Phillips.

Jerry?

Nope.

Jerry's vendor?

Yep.

ALWAYS.

TRA also has clearly ILLEGAL requirements.

But you consider that a separate issue, eh? I DO NOT.

Jerry

EXACTLY.

So why bother to even file suit? Seriously.

The lawsuit for TRA was entirely about distracting from its own irregularities. For NAR it was largely about prophylactic measures on the obvious.

Both positions are mentally retarded as compared to simply living the lifestyle WHILE THE SUIT ON THE OBVIOUS IS PENDING.

Jerry

For two decades only ONE vendor has been fully advocating the ATF exemption that has been in place for rocket motors continuously throughout that time. U.S. Rockets.

A Federal judge recently affirmed this obvious position at a cost of only $300,000.00 to NAR and TRA members and interested non-member supporters.

The clubs NAR and TRA refused for years to recognize the obvious language in the law:

Code of Federal Regulations:

27 CFR 555.141 exemptions (a) (8) "Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes."

Propellant actuated devices are defined in that code thusly:

27 CFR 555.11, "Propellant Actuated Device. Any tool or special mechanized device or gas generator system which is actuated by a propellant or which releases and directs work through a propellant charge."

Even the "Orange Book", the ATF's "crib notes" is clear on the point:

page 10 (page 62 of the "Orange Book")

1. Who must meet storage requirements? All persons who store explosive materials must store them in conformity with the provisions of Subpart K of the regulations, unless the person or the materials are exempt from regulation. [18 U.S.C. 842(j), 845; 27 CFR 55.29, 55.141, 55.164,

55.201(a)]

The most notable passage from the recent court order is as follows:

"In addition, the Court finds that the ATF's pronouncement that sport rocket motors are not PADs is invalid because it was made without compliance with the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the OCCA and the APA."

-Civil Action No. 00-273 (RBW) SO ORDERED this 19th day of March, 2004. REGGIE B. WALTON United States District Judge

You will note that NAR and TRA both STILL demand ATF permits as a prerequisite for motor certifications, a provision they illegally added about 1994. ATF has given them a POLICE ORDER to cease and desist enforcing for them, which NAR and TRA have ignored. ALL vendors of TRA/NAR HPR certified motors demand ATF permits for the sale of motors to end users in direct violation of the law.

Therefore since NAR and TRA refused to comply with the law prior to the filing of their own lawsuit asking for a ruling on the obvious, and since the judge ruled "in their favor", they STILL continue to illegally DEMAND ATF permits to transact EXEMPT goods.

Please never wonder again why there is a shortage of motors and motor vendors. There are at least 20 motor vendors in the wings ready to rock and roll as soon as NAR and TRA and their vendors rescind their illegal demands. U.S. Rockets motors were the first certified by TRA and they were arbitrarily decertified without notice or any ramp-down time in late 1997.

U.S. Rockets was the original proposer of LMR and the original proposer of HPR,both of which were adopted by NAR. U.S. Rockets principals founded the HPR industry itself by offering the FIRST industry magazine, the first distribution system for the vendors and of course the first motors.

U.S. Rockets and its Founder Jerry Irvine was AeroTech's first customer and their largest dealer for three years.

U.S. Rockets nationally promoted LDRS-1, 2, and 3 thus making it the national launch that it is. Thank you founding host Chris Pearson.

U.S. Rockets has the ONLY comprehensive website of rocket laws on the internet.

Not at all Phil. Lol... airplanes full of propellant... baggage... Lol.

Actually, it has been kind of interesting. I was genuinely curious, and I finally got enough out of Fred to understand where he "lives". Enough said.

I am not perfect. I just wanted to understand Fred's side of the issue.

~ Duane Phillips.

No Phil. Whats the matter? It bother you that someone actually sides with Jerry on some things?

~ Duane Phillips.

I doubt that. More likely it would simply be about equal to the sum total of TRA/NAR memberships.

ATF said APCP and rocket motors were regulated, not me. ATF said permits were required, not me. I said he should do what every other manufacturer had to do, which was obey the law as enforced. (BTW, the ATF lawsuit has nothing to do with DOT regulation of APCP and rocket motors.) Jerry chose to neither comply with ATF nor fight them legally. His approach was to simply ignore them. Which is fine for him if he wants to take the risk of getting busted, but he has no right to expect others to do the same.

You either haven't been paying attention, or you are intentionally misconstruing what I and others have said. The issue was never MY interpretation, or NAR's, or TRA's. It was the ATF's interpretation that was the crux of the whole thing, and had to be obeyed until the court forced them to change. ATF is the authority having jurisdiction, right or wrong. If they are wrong, the only way to legally challenge them is in court. You can do it the way NAR/TRA did, by suing them while maintaining compliance. Or you can defy them and risk spending time in jail while your case slowly works its way through the legal system.

Similarly, it is the DOT that is the authority on shipping APCP and rocket motors. If Jerry thinks they aren't enforcing the laws properly he should challenge them in court.

Yes, Phil, I have my own opinion.

Tell me Phil, have you noticed any rumbling of changes in TRA due to the court ruling? Or are they still practicing like the PAD exemption doesn't exist, and requiring LEUPs?

~ Duane Phillips.

I can't wait to see the TRA party line answer to this!!

Absolutely!

Definitely!

You do not side with my profanity :)

Jerry

You've only proved that you know what DOT will accept. You _haven't_ proved that you've met any of those definitions to the satisfaction of the DOT.