I'm wondering if the "pressure from TRA not to sell Jerry motors for indy launches" went farther than has been explicitly mentioned here: perhaps someone from TRA ratted _him_ to DOT and got him "caught in the middle" with DOT making "you're part of the Conspiracy if you don't cooperate with the Investigation" noises at him.
The above is strictly speculation - and I know it sounds like cold-heartedly suspicious speculation - but _someone_ - and it appears that it wasn't the sender, the receiver, or the carrier - made the initial complaint to DOT and got the whole fuss started.
This seems to be the simplest explanation that I can think of.
On the other hand the fine is a separate issue from right and wrong in terms of the law and regulations since any objective person (or judge) can read the order and see for themselves DOT had to lie their ass off to achieve it.
It becomes a reasonable debate to discuss what "should have been".
Something along those lines definitely happened. He was brought before the TRA BOD in 8-01 after I was refused reinstatement. He was decidedly in no comment mode toward me for the first time ever after that.
And for the first time he did not arrive back home with a boatload of motors in his van.
Exactly. I can certify that speculation as FACT.
Not sure how much I do know I am legally allowed to disclose since narcs have protection unless they admit their role as Wallace has done.
How can I have a real conversation with someone who disputes clear fact?
Jerry
[whether] "Mr. Irvine has complied with the instructions provided him, with no response from your office unless he has taken liberties with the truth, there are problems he has failed to disclose, resulting in a delay in the response from you or your office, and or both."
Scott Schuckert wrote: > In article , RayDunakin > wrote: >
From the appeal document:
"The July 14, 1986 BOE report of examination specified the dimensions of the samples of solid propellant submitted to BOE, but that report cannot be read to indicate that a smaller quantity of this material is not an explosive."
I made this argument ages ago. But Jerry has labeled me a "moron" so my opinion doesn't count. The DOT however cannot be dismissed so easily.
"RSPA?s Office of Hazardous Materials Technology has confirmed that, based on the composition of the solid propellent described in BOE?s July 14, 1986 report of examination, any quantity of this material would be expected to be properly classified as an explosive."
Jerry was apparantly given a chance to come into compliance with the hazmat regulations which would have certainly reduced the fine. But Jerry said he would do something and then didn't.
"During a subsequent telephone conference on September 26, 2002, Mr. Irvine stated that he would submit the rocket motors and solid propellant for examination, classification, and approval. However, there is no indication that any further examination has been conducted."
Jerry is lucky that the DOT hasn't brought the big guns to bear on him yet:
--------------
49 CFR Sec. 107.333 Criminal penalties generally.
A person who knowingly violates Sec. 171.2(g) or willfully violates a provision of the Federal hazardous material transportation law or an order or regulation issued thereunder shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.
---------------
Three violations could net Jerry up to 15 years. RMR would be a much quieter and saner place.
They "conclude it" but do not justify how their reading is the OPPOSITE of a common man reading. JUST LIKE ATF AND PADs.
The language cannot either.
Okay, maybe only a moron context specific :)
Stop fixating!
As of new samples submitted today.
But NOT in 86 and not if grandfathered by virtue of being issued a proper classification on the super-exempt material as this WAS (which they LIED about in the pleading).
This distinction is CENTRAL to the case.
Huh? The DOT KEPT losing the papers. Over and over.
You did not disclose the true nature of the contents. You falsely labeled it as "model aircraft parts", when they are rocket motors/reloads consisting of an unclassified hazmat.
You didn't put "nothing" on that label, and it's clear that a box of "nothing" wouldn't weigh 210 pounds.
You do not have papers that say that, nor do you have papers which say you can ship motors deceptively labeled as "model aircraft parts".
You only have an outdated document showing that someone, somewhere once had some kind of APCP tested and that the quantities tested deserved a Class B explosive classification. It says nothing about you or your propellent, nor does it specifically address smaller quantities.
Dave, that may well be the case, but it's irrelevant. If Jerry would simply say, "I think the DOT regs are excessive and I refuse to comply with them", that would be fine. He's not saying that. He's lying about being legal when he clearly is not, and then compounding matters by attacking everyone who catches him in the lie.
If Jerry wants to openly defy DOT and ship motors whatever way he wants to, so that he can become a martyr for "living the lifestyle", then he should do so and cut the crap.
If Jerry simply wants to do business under the table and get away with as much as he can without getting caught, more power to him. But again, he should cut the crap and stop making these ridiculous claims. Insisting he's legal when he clearly is not, and attacking everyone for pointing out the facts, is just asking for trouble.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.