Re: The Mosaic is revealed...

Some call your attitude "gamblers ruin".

Some troll.

Yeah the lurkers support you. Right.

Even with a 40,000 clam fine you still think what you did was OK.

Narcs keep the LAW in business. People will do amazing things for money. I bet the narc that helped the DOT with the case did it for free. You make it sound like the LAW using a narc is some kind of negative thing. When someone is caught you always give them the opportunity to hand you the bigger fish. In your case the pond was empty after they pulled you out. It's a natural human nature kinda thing to minimize the responsibility in a legal situation like this but finger pointing and saying that it also happened to someone else is just weak. Write the check and move on.

So why did they want to?

Was it a question of feeling like they had to do _something_ (if only for the sake of appearing to defend a regulatory principle) once an external party had made a point of complaining?

-dave w

1. They have WIDE latitude (example ATF and explosives list and NPRM's) and can do essentially whatever they want.
2. Unless someone has the gumption to sue to correct, when they overtly violate the law.

The interesting thing about that DOT document is that the trolls will of course read it in a bipolar way-Jerry loses, DOT wins- and ignore the many details a careful reader will understand as widely false and irrational.

The problem is it didn't happen to Aerotech so TRA is not going to co-fund my defense like they did for Gary, and NAR is not going to use this to "deal with the DOT" despite the ONLY test report ever done showing APCP does not have explosive properties below HPR sizes, AND the fact the misstatements are sufficiently obvious to make a case DOT is arbitrary, capricious and fraudulant in the process. Something that MUST be shown to overcome their presumption of expertise as a government agency.

So I predict this opportunity I risked $40,000 ($57,000 really at the time) to deliver to NAR (rather than settling early) will be squandered.

Jerry

If you like that, troll me.

If you don't like that, forward a copy of this message to NAR President Mark Bundick with your recommendation he spend a measley $50,000 or so persuing this avenue.

Jerry did it to himself. He made money selling the motors.

Nope.

your stories sure do change a lot.

Does us rockets exist? Did it ever exist?

Blaming the messenger again?

No judge at all.

Precisely.

Yep!

Not exactly. But I was not a party.

Precisely, and more to the point, the ONE thing I fixated on was the CENTRAL tennet of the lawsuit JUDGEMENT, not the procedural claims made.

Totally precisely.

Well, it is on rmr!!!!!!

Precisely.

This should be in the FAQ. At the tippy top.

Yes, but until the JUDGE told said so, we were stuck with whatever the ATF set as policy. The ATF said rocket motors were no longer exempt as PADs. Jerry did not get a judge to force ATF to obey the law, TRA/NAR did.

As I said before, almost everyone in the hobby said the same thing. So why single out Jerry as if he was the lone voice in the wilderness or something??

Our previous stance was to challenge them legally, the way you're supposed to. Not flaunt the law and hope that you'll be found innocent ten years later.

Yep, when the ATF decided that rocket motors were no longer exempt as PADs.

I got AGENTS to follow the law and PUBLISHED my methods, which were REJECTED by the folks who ended up getting permits for EXEMPT goods and then SUING, because they felt "victimized" by their own failures to advocate the law as written to agents who in no way understood rocketry.

Untrue statement. Few acknowledged it was "useable".

What Agents?

What "methods" of yours, did those Agents publish?

Jerry,

You said that youi have a test report that shows APCP does not have explosive properities bleow HPR sizes. Is this report available for viewing, is it on line? I would like to see it.

Thanks,

Bev

Jerry Irv> , and NAR is not going to use

No problem.

The formulation is "typical" AP/Al/HTPB prpellant.

Hope this helps make positive progress somewhere, somehow.

How is one to know if it is "typical", if the formula is redacted?

Which agents? How many of them? What are their names?

That's the way the law works. If an enforcement agency won't listen to reason, you have take them to court and have a judge slap them down. In the meantime, if you don't follow their policies you risk getting busted.

The statement is true. Almost everyone in the hobby agreed the rocket motors are PADs. Whether or not the PAD exemption was "useable" is irrelevant to the truth of the statement.