Re: Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as "model aircraft parts"?

I can only say for sure; the copies you sent to me, were sent to DOT and that DOT responded they had received them from me. As for as what you say you sent DOT, I have no way of knowing what you sent, only that DOT claims to have recieved no documentation directly from you via US Postal or FAX. As for as up and up goes, I would find it obsurd to believe, DOT acknowledges comunication with me, a third party, and not you, a primary party of intrest on this issue; and I quote from the original letter to DOT:

"It is now my understanding; Mr. Irvine is still claiming no response from you or your office. I find it difficult to believe Mr. Irvine has complied with the instructions provided him, with no response from your office; unless, he is taking liberties with the truth, there are problems he has failed to disclose, and or both".

Now, I could post the whole letter. If you would like, I'll give it consideration???? But then, I think you may have a copy, right??

Fred W

Believe it.

The proof is they also lost the letter from ACS, the letter from DPT and the letter from me personally. ALL of them.

Jerry

So you're saying that Fred does have more info which you are desperate to keep hidden from the public?

He was dead-on about your illegal shipping, and proved it. That's not "changing the subject".

Prove it. You keep saying you sent things to DOT, and DOT says they never received them. Why is it that DOT never received the things that you allegedly sent them, but no one else has that problem? No other manufacturers have reported problems with DOT not receiving their paperwork, so why should we believe that your stuff somehow got sucked into a "Jerry-only" wormhole?

So you say, but that is not proof, one way or another. As a result, we are left with the history of both sides: Other manufactures of motors such as AT, AMW, Loki, and others have not experienced your problem. On the other hand, we have you, by nothing more than the postings on RMR, alleged questionable business dealings on more than one occasion, and then, we have my experience with you, not to mention all of your former partners and their alleged experiences with you. I have no problem concluding to believe DOT and I don't believe I'm in the minority.

Fred

So the DOT only loses letters sent to them by you?

Ho Jerome ... we are here to help you :) We love you Jerome and we want you to love yourself as you should be. We are not judgemental of you any more. We understand that you are not happy with yourself and we want to let you know that you are not a bad man, you just ACT like one.

You do this to distance yourself from people who really do care and love you. Your fear of us has turned you against us, and frankly Jerome, there is NO reason to fear us.

We just want to help you help yourself :)

It must be the "Skippy Guard".. Kind of like "Depends".. Remove those nasty stains before they start!

How could ACS send letters, as per the "$40k" paperwork, they didn't exist! (but then again, neither did USR, by Skippy's own statement!). Has Skippy checked with some of the other "less than 2" employees of DPT, to make sure the paperwork really got mailed? I'll bet the redhead in the mailroom lost it on purpose! She was probably a TRA/NAR spy!

"USR" doesn't exist but two other companies with very similar names are registered in California to James Franz:

U.S. Rockets, Airframes & Components, LLC. U.S. Rockets, Energetic Materials, LLC.

see:

So while "US Rockets" isn't registered it is a very fine point. Of course the U.S Rockets web pages make it look like USR exists. ("U.S. Rockets was founded in 1980") But it doesn't mention those extra words in its name anywhere and the only contact is Jerry.

While Dynamic Propellant Technologies LLC is also listed, their website is not currently reachable.

Wait a darn minute ... based on this new information, this implies that Jerome has no REAL company ... just a storage shed full of old dirty body tubes and a few nose cones from 1980 something!

Jerome, this is a very crucial step for you and for us. We love you Jerome, so please understand that in order to free yourself from your delusions, one of the two things must occur right now:

1)Either post an image of your "warehouse" and stock with a current Time Magazine showing CLEARLY and not photoshoped into place ... or 2)Be honest with us and most of all yourself and admit that there really is no "Jerome owned US Rockets" and that you are trying to yeild false influence from an empty shell corporation.

Now I know this may be hard, but the truth will set you free Jerome.

So to one Jerome Irvine, either show us the PROOF or come clean ...

If an image of your inventory does not appear anywhere within the next

72 hours, then we know, we ALL know you are fake.

Jerome this could be a turning point in all of our lives ... do you have an inventory or don't you? Either post the unedited, unaltered picture or bring this lie to a halt. The choice is yours Jerome ... and we all praying to God that you do the right thing in your darkest hour of need.

Do the right thing Jerome! I know you can do it!

Skipy, I mean Jerome, is a very mentally sick man these days ... please have patience with him as I think I can save him from himself. Let you know as Jerome's online treatment continues ...

ADVERTISEMENT LEGAL DISCLOSURE OF COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL REGULATIONS YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED! Case 1:00-cv-00273-RBW Document 116 Filed 03/16/2009 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) TRIPOLI ROCKETRY ) ASSOCIATION, INC., and ) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ) OF ROCKETRY, ) v. ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ) Civil Action No. 00-0273 (RBW) ) BUREAU OF ALCOHOL TOBACCO ) & FIREARMS, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ____________________________________) ORDER The plaintiffs filed this action nine years ago challenging the defendant's regulation as an explosive under 18 U.S.C. § 841(d) (2006) a chemical compound known as ammonium perchlorate composite propellant ("APCP"), which is commonly used in the motors of hobby rockets. After the Court ruled on the parties' initial cross-motions for summary judgment in this case, the plaintiffs appealed and the District of Columbia Circuit, reviewing the matter de novo, held that the defendant's classification of APCP as an explosive based on its determination that the substance functions by deflagration violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (2000), because the decision was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law, Tripoli Rocketry Ass'n, Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 437 F.3d 75 (D.C. Cir. 2006). The Circuit Court therefore remanded the matter to this Court "with instructions to remand the case to the agency for Case 1:00-cv-00273-RBW Document 116 Filed 03/16/2009 Page 2 of 4 further consideration consistent with [its] decision." Id. at 84. The remand was ordered because the Court found that "[t]he agency ha[d] never provided a clear and coherent explanation for its classification of APCP." Id. at 81. The Court further found that the agency "ha[d] never articulated the standards that guided its analysis" that would permit a court sitting in review to "determine whether [the defendant's] judgment reflect[ed] reasoned decisionmaking." Id.; see also April 20, 2006 Order. In its October 13, 2006 memorandum the agency informed the Court that it had complied with the Circuit's mandate and was affirming its earlier decision to classify APCP as an explosive. Defendant's Notice of Agency Decision (Oct. 13, 2006). The plaintiffs thereafter amended their complaint, the defendant filed its answer to the amended complaint, and both parties crossed-moved again for summary judgment on the certified administrative record. The parties came before the Court on March 13, 2009, for a hearing on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. Upon consideration of the parties' written submissions, the administrative record presented to the Court, the applicable legal authority, the oral arguments presented by the parties, and for the reasons expressed by the Court at the hearing on the motion, the Court finds that the agency's decision does not satisfy the standard for evaluating agency rulemaking because it was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Specifically, the defendant did not adequately explain why it came to the decision it did in light of contrary evidence in the administrative record submitted by the plaintiffs, which tended to show that APCP can burn at a rate lower than that which the defendant designated as the threshold, and "which, if true, . . . would require a change in Case 1:00-cv-00273-RBW Document 116 Filed 03/16/2009 Page 3 of 4 [the] proposed rule.'" La. Fed. Land Bank Ass'n, FLCA v. Farm Credit Admin., 336 F.3d 1075, 1080 (D.C. Cir. 2003); see D&F Afonso Realty Trust v. Garvey, 216 F.3d 1191, 1195 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (quoting Public Citizen, Inc. v. F.A.A., 988 F.2d 186, 197 (D.C. Cir. 1993) ("'[t]he requirement that agency action not be arbitrary or capricious includes a requirement that the agency adequately explain its result . . . .'"). Here, the agency's shortcoming was its failure to articulate any rationale for finding that the relevant and significant evidence in the record that conflicted with its position was unpersuasive, which it seemingly out-of-hand dismissed merely because it was contrary to the agency's ultimate conclusion. As to the appropriate remedy to impose for the agency's failing, the Court has discretion to choose between vacatur of the agency's decision or remand to the agency without vacatur. See Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 429 F.3d 1136, 1151 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (quoting Allied-Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 988 F.2d 146, 150-51 (D.C. Cir.1993) ("[T]his court is not without discretion. 'The decision whether to vacate depends on the seriousness of the order's deficiency . . . and the disruptive consequences of an interim change that may itself be changed.'"). Considering the number of years that have elapsed during which time the plaintiffs have awaited final resolution of the merits of their claims, the fact that this matter has already been remanded once to the agency for further action consistent with the Circuit's decision, and it appearing that vacating the agency's decision will not pose any serious threat to the public's health or safety, the Court will vacate the agency's decision to classify APCP is an explosive pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 841(d).1 1 an explosive within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 841(d), nothing in this decision prevents it from Should the defendant choose to reinstate the policy that ACPC is properly classifiable as 3 Case 1:00-cv-00273-RBW Document 116 Filed 03/16/2009 Page 4 of 4 Because the plaintiffs have conceded that were the Court to grant summary judgment in their favor on Count One of their third amended complaint "will moot all of remaining counts" of their complaint, Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment on Count 1 at 1-2 n.1, the Court having now granted summary judgment on Count One will dismiss all the plaintiffs' remaining counts of the complaint as moot. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that the defendant's decision to classify APCP as an explosive under 18 U.S.C. § 841(d) is VACATED. It is further ORDERED that the remaining counts of plaintiffs' third amended complaint are DISMISSED as moot and therefore this case is dismissed in its entirety. SO ORDERED this 16th day of March, 2009. _________/s/______________ REGGIE B. WALTON United States District Judge redrafting the rule in accordance with the tenets of the APA or from seeking an explicit statutory classification from Congress.

4 2

I thought this troll was dead.

It is as if you have no idea that different laws/regulations have different definitions (carefully described in the law and regulations) for the same term.

Even if APCP didn't meet the DOT's definition for explosive (it does) the next step back is not "model aircraft parts". Flammable solid perhaps. But that is still a hazardous material under DOT regulations and subject to shipping restrictions and requirements. Which you knowingly flouted. You and the less than 2 employees.

A reputable lab (recognized by DOT in other words) would run the UN tests on samples of your "model aircraft parts" and say "UN 1.3". Perhaps 1.4 in limited quantities.

Of course the big difference between the ATF and DOT is that the DOT has standards and procedures for testing and classifying materials. Hmmm, digging up the old DOT appeal determination (2003) I see that you claimed that you would submit the propellant for testing and classification. It would appear that you flat out lied to the DOT. They found no evidence of testing and if you had test results showing your propellant was no more hazardous than paper (and what an awful propellant that would be), you would cite it here. Twenty years should have been enough time.

Uggh, feeding trolls makes me feel slimy.