ROL NEWS--AeroTech Files for Chapter 11

More Bullcrap from the horses ass.

Were you speaking to me, sir?

It makes a difference because it is not simply one persons word against another. The law is very clear. I keep trying to get to see that for yourself, and you refuse. It is not a matter of debate like PAD or not, explosive or nor, etc. Legal predicent regarding the rules of responsibility in commerce/shipping was set hundreds of years ago and has changed very little. Go look it up. Or do not do so and continue to speak from a position of ignorance.

Bottom line, Fred is wrong. As is anyone else who tells you that. They may choose to believe that as you have, but that only makes it clear that they have not researched the law on the matter.

You do seem to feel obligated to repeat Fred's position so why not mine.... No, it is your RESPONSIBILITY to speak truth and fact when you have knowledge of same. You, however, seem to feel it appropriate to ignore that you have also heard conflicting information whevener you reply to someone you feel may not have seen this thread. And that is intellectually dishonest.

So, you agree that you have no definitive information on the subject. I recommend that you either refrain from posing on the subject, acknowledge that you have been made aware of two differing positions, or at least preface all posts on the matter with the statement immediately above.

Indirectly, you have done precisely that. You regularly respond to posts on the subject in an authoritative tone and fail to inform the reader of your ignorance on the subject. Whether intentional or not (I suspect the former), you lead the reader to believe that you do have personal knowledge of the regulations related to shipping and receiving motors.

Some people?!? Nice attempt to shit focus off Ray. You would be some people also, Ray.

BS. As I said, I bet my personal liberty against my knowledge of that law daily. That carries a little more credence that some off the cuff comment made on RMR. But if that's not good enough, check the facts for your self. The annotated codes are available online and in mony larger libraries.

The proof is there. I have read it. Have you? No. Then why do you continue to post from a position of ignorance?

It should, it's the law. But I would welcome such a response....

Jerry,

Ray appears to make a habit of making these types of statements based purely on heresay. I appears that he has no problem regurgitating what someon else has said without any attempt to verify it for himself. I suggest that you save yourself the legal fee's and just ignore him.

Philip

"Jerry Irv> So why do you [RauDunakin] make conclusive declarations of illegality knowing you do

I do. Save myself the legal fees.

Link?

Jerry

So far, that's all I've seen is one person's word against another. You say it's not illegal to knowingly receive improperly shipped motors. TRA/NAR and Fred say it is.

Then show me the law that says so!

Because no one is giving specific, complete legal cites to prove it one way or another. Just, "I say it is!" vs "I say it ain't!"

Fine, prove it! Somebody please PROVE something!

Why should I accept your word without proof, and reject everyone else's? I have repeatedly stated that until the legality is proven one way or another, it's ALL just hearsay; and it's premature to argue for or against the cert requirements until this is definitively settled.

As for Jerry and his alleged legal knowledge and assinine threats, I've seen him in court. He lacks even the most rudimentary understanding of the difference between evidence and hearsay, among other things.

More Bullcrap from the horses ass.

WHO SAID THAT???

WHO SAID THAT???

Huh? Why arbitrarily pick one?

Until what is definitely settled?

And what if any effort is going into settling it by those claiming it is unsettled when it is not?

Jerry

No, I was referring to jerry. Sorry for the confusion.

Sadly, I'd have to disagree. At least not since Dan Meyer left. The honest truth is that talented engineers very rarely make good businessmen. Gary is definitely the former and not the latter.

AT should have been paid for all their losses from their insurance company. It's their insurance company, AND the owners and other tennants of the Palm St. building (and their insurance company) that should be sueing the county big time.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

That's a pretty darn good idea.

Joel. phx

You disbelieve and refute the proof that is in Jerry's hands. Period. The document is real.

Maybe you think he FORGED it? I mean that is a serious federal offense...

So maybe you should instead get a clue as to how Jerry, or any manufacturer might have such a document, with consideration to the time frame it was obtained, and DOT procedures then and since.

The proof has been proferred and rejected by the ignorant.

~ Duane Phillips.

But the DOT says no.

THIS should be in the FAQ.

But you forgot to mention that if ACS gets that treatment then it can be used BY REFERENCE by similar vendors. Hazmat free shipping.

Just Jerry

"Shun Jerry at ** ALL ** cost." - TRA "The higher the better." - Bruce Kelly and Chuck Rogers

Simply false. They say NOTHING as the law commands them to.

What law?