[saverocketrylater.tra]

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

"big fine", You talking bad about TRA alleged ethics, is like the fox telling everyone else to stay out of the chicken coup, because it's bad to eat the chickens.. Example; http://rspa-atty.dot.gov/appeals/Irvine-app.pdf .
  Quoted Text Here  
But yessssssss.
Fred

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Poor jerry.
Maybe some day you'll acquire some ethics.

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
"Everyone"?? The only people with a grudge against TRA are you, Cato and Bob K. Funny thing is, all three of you have such different views about how the hobby should be run, you'd be at each other's throats if it wasn't for your shared hatred of TRA.

  Quoted Text Here  
I actually believe this is how you see things.
That's what's at variance.

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Quiet everyone, Jerry is giving a sermon about ethics. This should be good!
Here's an excerpt you'll not want to miss...
"When purposfully trying to deceive a government agency, it's always best to do so alone for secrecy. However, never tell anyone your're working alone. Rather, tell them you work for a company of less than two individuals, so blame can be deflected to the company, rather than yourself."
Jerry Irvine

I am still somewhat unknowledgable about this forum and it's contributors, but perhaps someone can bring me up to speed...
I get the impression that there's a certain individual here who is, shall we say, "special"? You know, their elevator button is stuck on one floor, and it's the imaginary sub-basement floor that no one knows about except for him, where all sorts of imaginary monsters and playpals come out to torment him and/or play with him? But no matter what, he can't help but push that button over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over....

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
That's correct except that some of the monsters that haunt him are not imaginary.
Poor Jerry.

Phil Stein wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Yep. Those are the monsters with names like DOT, ATF, CSFM, etc.
P

  Quoted Text Here  
What I find interesting about your behavior, is the sheer energy you expend changing the subject, and attacking the messenger rather than addressing the message. ANY of several messages.
You could qualify to be a Nazi for sure.

Vince wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Yeah, You got the "gist" of it.
I used to be "business" partners with mr. special. The rest of the partners, along with Myself, had to sue mr. special for fraud.

  Quoted Text Here  
Had to google search to see what you were talking about.
Not just one, but a whole group of them. May I suggest a filter on everyone in this thread? Or pay a visit to somewhere rockets are the focus,... www.rocketryforum.com

  Quoted Text Here  
It is all about making rec.models.rockets about anything but rockets.
Kinda like TRA.
After all, TRA has formally adopted NFPA-1122 and NFPA-1125 and NFPA-1127 which demand delays be tested.
Does TRA do it? No thanks.
NAR and CAR despite any requirements to the contrary have not "formally adopted" rules only to ignore them.
NAR and CAR had the forsight to either comply or say no comment.
TRA is bold indeed.
Jerry
I assume you will IGNORE this fact and both change the subject and attack the messenger. Reminder: while ignoring the actual message above.
Snipped as usual. So inconvenient.

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
This newsgroups IS all about rockets on the rare occasions when Jerry goes into hiding for a while. Unfortunately he always comes back and resumes spewing BS. That's why he's been kicked off all the moderated forums -- he won't stick to posting about rocketry. Here, where there is no moderator, he hijacks every thread and posts all the drivel his sick little brain can conjure. When anyone counters his BS, he blames them for fouling the newsgroup. Jerry's big on blaming others for the results of his own actions.
  Quoted Text Here  
Dear Newbies: This is a classic example of Jerry's unsubtantiated claims. He has no proof to back it up, yet he states it as if it were fact. He hopes that by repeating this kind of stuff over and over, he can occasionally sucker some poor newbie into accepting it at face value. Ask him for specific, verifiable proof and he'll give you speculation, opinion, conjecture, quotes of his own posts, quotes of other people's posts (often out of context), misdirection and changes of subject -- anything but real proof. Press him hard enough for proof, and you'll find yourself on his enemies list. He may even threaten to sue. But not to worry, the courts have declared him a "vexatious litigant" (someone who files suit as a form of harassment) and restricted his ability to sue.
BTW, I can post the case summary if you want verification, or you can look up the case number yourself. Others have posted the fraud judgement against Jerry, and the DOT ruling. I'm sure they'd be happy to repost those if necessary.
Here's something else of interest to those deciding whether or not Jerry is to be believed... One of the requirements for motor certification is that manufacturers must have an Low Explosives Manufacturer Permit from the ATF. Jerry repeatedly insists that the ATF does not require this permit for rocket motor manufacturers. He even says that the ATF told him he doesn't need that permit. Yet on his own website, he posted the following statements:
"To avoid "interaction" with alphabet regulators we no longer resell contracted motors." "ATF "knowingly and falsely" claimed PADs are not exempt despite 27 CFR 555.141-a-8."
And here's what the ATF has to say about it:
http://www.atf.gov/explarson/0504rocketryqa.pdf
In particular, check out question #3... "3. I would like to manufacture and distribute single use rocket motors and/or propellant reload kits. What ATF license is required? Only a manufacturer's license is required. Licensed manufacturers may engage in the business of manufacturing explosive materials for purposes of sale or distribution or for their own use. It is not necessary for a licensed manufacturer to also obtain a dealer's license to engage in business on his or her licensed premises as a dealer in explosive materials. See 27 CFR § 555.41(b)(3)."
You see, it's much easier for Jerry to blame his problems on TRA than it is to admit he's not operating legally in the eyes of the ATF.

  Quoted Text Here  
It is all about making rec.models.rockets about anything but rockets.
I felt it important to reiterate this before reading Ray's rant.
Thank you.
Jerry
  Quoted Text Here  
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Lie.
Correct.
Correct.
Correct.
It is NOTABLE that TRA's own policy prevents me from living the lifestyle and sticking it in their face (full force) while selling unregulated motors.
Ironic, eh?
  Quoted Text Here  
Or to cite the ACTUAL law and the reading thereof :)
The judge said that exemptions at 55.141 apply to our rocket motors. Section 55.141 (a) begins: General. This part shall not apply with respect to..." (and then enumerates the various exempted circumstances).
The exemption relieves us from the ENTIRE burden of compliance to all regulations of "part 55", not just from only those parts dealing with user permits. Also in part 55 are to be found requirements for manufacture, storage, etc., and the definition of "explosive materials" (in section 55.11) that invokes the "List of Explosive Materials provided for in section 55.23". That means that BATF can "list" things as "explosive" all they want, but that doesn't act to bring PAD's within the definition of "Explosive Materials" - neither their creation and distribution (whether or not considered "commercial"), nor their acquisition, storage and use, are subject to Part 55.
What part of "this part shall not apply to..." are you having such trouble understanding?
Where does is "commercial manufacturer of what is classified as a LE" excluded from the exemption?
I have had enough law classes, and have done well enough in them, to be able to read and comprehend legal documents, and to draw substantive, supportable conclusions from what I read. The study of law is about learning to pick out what's important, and paying attention to the details. While fair play (aka "equity") is part of the law, attention to detail is a far bigger part. If the law says something, you won't go far wrong by taking it extremely literally, as written.
The interesting thing, to me, is that Dave and I have not been contradicting what the lawyers said. We have been taking what they have said, what the judge said, and what the law says, reading them all, and drawing the conclusion that the law says what it means.
and
All I have been saying is that:
1) The judge ruled that fully assembled rocket motors are, for now, correctly classified as Propellant Actuated Devices (PADs), as listed in Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 555 (formerly known as Part 55), Section 841(a)(8). 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8), in full, reads as follows: "(8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.".
2) 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8) is only one of 9 exemptions mentioned under 27 CFR 555.841(a), which reads, in full: "(a) General. Except for the provisions of Secs. 55.180 and 55.181, this part does not apply to:"
3) The term "this part" in 27 CFR 55.841(a) has a specific legal meaning, in context. It refers, specifically, to the particular Part of the particular Title containing the phrase "this part". In other words, it refers to Part 55 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (aka 27 CFR 55). This reading is made even more obvious by the fact that the sub-section 841(a) mentions several other sections within the part it's talking about specifically by number.
4) The provisions of sections 55.180 and 55.181 relate to "plastic explosives", which are defined in 27 CFR 55.180(c)(4) as "(4) Plastic explosive means an explosive material in flexible or elastic sheet form formulated with one or more high explosives which in their pure form has a vapor pressure less than 10-\4\ Pa at a temperature of 25 deg.C, is formulated with a binder material, and is as a mixture malleable or flexible at normal room temperature. High explosives, as defined in Sec. 55.202(a), are explosive materials which can be caused to detonate by means of a blasting cap when unconfined."
5) I don't think anyone has ever even alleged that the rocket motors we are talking about are "formulated with one or more high explosives", so the provisions in sections 55.180 and 55.181 of this part (part 55) are clearly not applicable.
6) Since 27 CFR 55.180 and 55.181 are clearly not applicable, what we are left with is an exemption from all of 27 CFR 55. As you can see by perusing http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/27cfr55_02.html , Part 55 regulates all aspects of "Commerce In Explosives", from licensing to storage, to disposal, transportation, or what to do if any is stolen. See 27 CFR 55.41 for general information on Licenses and Permits, for instance.
7) An unequivocal exemption from essentially all of 27 CFR 55 (with the twin exceptions of the sections relating to plastic explosives I mentioned above) means that LEUPs are not needed. It also means that LEMPs are not needed for manufacturing PADs. Assembling a PAD is an unregulated activity, at least as far as the federal explosives regulations in 27 CFR 55 are concerned.
and
Actually, the PAD exemption specifically exempts PADs from "this part", referring to 27 CFR Part 55 (now renumbered to part 555), which is the term for the section of the law that contains the PAD exemption, and the storage, permitting, and other regulations concerning explosives. By exempting PADs from "this part" using verbiage within "Part 555" (nee 55), PADs are exempt from *all* of the regulations therein.
Note: this is *including* the regulations requiring permits for manufacturers and dealers.
Do a web search for "27 CFR 55" and read it yourself if you don't beleive me.
- Rick "Use the Source, Luke" Dickinson
Just Helpful Jerry

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
etc....
The attentive reader will note that despite all his one-word denials, Jerry still hasn't backed up anything with proof.
  Quoted Text Here  
Notice too, how he sticks to his lie even after being confronted with the ATF's own statement that motor manufacturers DO need a permit?
  Quoted Text Here  
Again, he provides no proof. He has been asked to do so regarding this particular claim for years and always refuses.
  Quoted Text Here  
No one's stopping you. You don't need TRA's permission to manufacture motors without ATF permits. Go right ahead, stick it in the ATF's face and let's see what really happens.
(Note: Jerry often expresses a desire to be a "test case", but always avoids it like the plague.)
  Quoted Text Here  
Folks, this is another of Jerry's favorite tactics. He claims we all just have to cite the regs and the ATF will miraculously change their policy. Of course, it's not his neck on the line. HE won't do it. He _claims_ he did, but like all his claims he refuses to provide any proof. He wants the rocketry orgs to stick their necks out instead of his own, just so that he can sell his illegally manufactured, unshippable motors. And he goes ballistic if anyone suggests making a call to the ATF to see if they'll verify his claim.
  Quoted Text Here  
Again, Jerry ignores the fact that this case isn't settled, and distorts the judge's partial ruling to fit his own interpretation. The specifically refused to address that particular issue, stating that it was "not properly before the court" at that time. But Jerry only hears what he wants to hear.
And then Jerry goes on to post his usual quotations from posters to this forum, as if that is more authoritative than the ATF's own published statement of policy.

  Quoted Text Here  
Calling you a liar is not a denial. It is an affirmative statement.
Each of these subjects and the related proof or references to thereof have indeed been posted to rmr over the years.
Fetch.
  Quoted Text Here  
Lie.
The law is controlling. Thank goodness.
The judge said that exemptions at 55.141 apply to our rocket motors. Section 55.141 (a) begins: General. This part shall not apply with respect to..." (and then enumerates the various exempted circumstances).
The exemption relieves us from the ENTIRE burden of compliance to all regulations of "part 55", not just from only those parts dealing with user permits. Also in part 55 are to be found requirements for manufacture, storage, etc., and the definition of "explosive materials" (in section 55.11) that invokes the "List of Explosive Materials provided for in section 55.23". That means that BATF can "list" things as "explosive" all they want, but that doesn't act to bring PAD's within the definition of "Explosive Materials" - neither their creation and distribution (whether or not considered "commercial"), nor their acquisition, storage and use, are subject to Part 55.
What part of "this part shall not apply to..." are you having such trouble understanding?
Where does is "commercial manufacturer of what is classified as a LE" excluded from the exemption?
I have had enough law classes, and have done well enough in them, to be able to read and comprehend legal documents, and to draw substantive, supportable conclusions from what I read. The study of law is about learning to pick out what's important, and paying attention to the details. While fair play (aka "equity") is part of the law, attention to detail is a far bigger part. If the law says something, you won't go far wrong by taking it extremely literally, as written.
The interesting thing, to me, is that Dave and I have not been contradicting what the lawyers said. We have been taking what they have said, what the judge said, and what the law says, reading them all, and drawing the conclusion that the law says what it means.
and
All I have been saying is that:
1) The judge ruled that fully assembled rocket motors are, for now, correctly classified as Propellant Actuated Devices (PADs), as listed in Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 555 (formerly known as Part 55), Section 841(a)(8). 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8), in full, reads as follows: "(8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.".
2) 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8) is only one of 9 exemptions mentioned under 27 CFR 555.841(a), which reads, in full: "(a) General. Except for the provisions of Secs. 55.180 and 55.181, this part does not apply to:"
3) The term "this part" in 27 CFR 55.841(a) has a specific legal meaning, in context. It refers, specifically, to the particular Part of the particular Title containing the phrase "this part". In other words, it refers to Part 55 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (aka 27 CFR 55). This reading is made even more obvious by the fact that the sub-section 841(a) mentions several other sections within the part it's talking about specifically by number.
4) The provisions of sections 55.180 and 55.181 relate to "plastic explosives", which are defined in 27 CFR 55.180(c)(4) as "(4) Plastic explosive means an explosive material in flexible or elastic sheet form formulated with one or more high explosives which in their pure form has a vapor pressure less than 10-\4\ Pa at a temperature of 25 deg.C, is formulated with a binder material, and is as a mixture malleable or flexible at normal room temperature. High explosives, as defined in Sec. 55.202(a), are explosive materials which can be caused to detonate by means of a blasting cap when unconfined."
5) I don't think anyone has ever even alleged that the rocket motors we are talking about are "formulated with one or more high explosives", so the provisions in sections 55.180 and 55.181 of this part (part 55) are clearly not applicable.
6) Since 27 CFR 55.180 and 55.181 are clearly not applicable, what we are left with is an exemption from all of 27 CFR 55. As you can see by perusing http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/27cfr55_02.html , Part 55 regulates all aspects of "Commerce In Explosives", from licensing to storage, to disposal, transportation, or what to do if any is stolen. See 27 CFR 55.41 for general information on Licenses and Permits, for instance.
7) An unequivocal exemption from essentially all of 27 CFR 55 (with the twin exceptions of the sections relating to plastic explosives I mentioned above) means that LEUPs are not needed. It also means that LEMPs are not needed for manufacturing PADs. Assembling a PAD is an unregulated activity, at least as far as the federal explosives regulations in 27 CFR 55 are concerned.
and
Actually, the PAD exemption specifically exempts PADs from "this part", referring to 27 CFR Part 55 (now renumbered to part 555), which is the term for the section of the law that contains the PAD exemption, and the storage, permitting, and other regulations concerning explosives. By exempting PADs from "this part" using verbiage within "Part 555" (nee 55), PADs are exempt from *all* of the regulations therein.
Note: this is *including* the regulations requiring permits for manufacturers and dealers.
Do a web search for "27 CFR 55" and read it yourself if you don't beleive me.
- Rick "Use the Source, Luke" Dickinson
  Quoted Text Here  
Proof posted above. Ignore it again?
It is proof.
Sufficient for ATF but NOT Ray or TRA. Ironic or moronic?
  Quoted Text Here  
So TRA should simply renew the certs of the motors that under their own rules require ONLY motors and money to be submitted.
Shit or get off the pot. Put it to the test.
Show me.
  Quoted Text Here  

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
A statement without proof.
  Quoted Text Here  
And the law gives the ATF power to interpret the regs, and to enforce their interpretation of the regs. By law, the only way to change their policy (interpretation and/or enforcement) is by taking them to court, as TRA has done.
Also, that statement from ATF proves that you lie when you say that ATF does not require LEMPs for rocket motor manufacturers.
  Quoted Text Here  
You posted no such proof. All you did was repeat your quote of Rick's opinion. Rick is not ATF.
  Quoted Text Here  
As you know, TRA cannot renew certs on motors that do not meet current cert standards.
s

  Quoted Text Here  
Why are you MOTIVATED to discourage manufacturers from enjoying the last few remaining rights they do have?
  Quoted Text Here  
That's NOT what the rules say.

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Why did you lie by saying that the ATF does not require LEMPs for motor manufacturers? Why are you telling manufacturers to disobey the ATF? Why are you telling everyone that you are in compliance with the ATF without a LEMP, when the ATF says that rocket motor manufacturers must have LEMPs?
k

On 21 Jun 2005 09:07:09 -0700, " snipped-for-privacy@aol.com"
  Quoted Text Here  
Ray, I'm getting nearly as tired of seeing Jerry repost my words as you are. However, if you read my words, you'll see that I never claimed to be ATF. And, in the oft-reposted quote, the only opinion that I expressed was that the judge's ruling on the law, and the law itself, should be taken at face value. The rest of my post (that Jerry constantly quotes) was just me making a series of quotes from the actual law, itself, and putting those quotes into context.
I'm not a lawyer, and I am, therefore, both unwilling and unable to lawfully render legal opinions. I do not, and I will not, engage in the unlawful practice of law without a license. I am strictly a non-professional at this point, although I have had several college classes on the law, have taken the Law School Admission Test (93rd percentile, if I recall correctly), and am planning to attend law school as soon as I have finished my undergraduate degree.
I have repeatedly emphasized the fact that I am not a lawyer, and am pleased to note that Jerry has kept that portion of my post intact as part of his "quote". However, while I'm not a lawyer, I'm not illiterate, either, and I am quite capable of reading carefully, and deriving precise meaning from the written words of others.
So, while I am unwilling to render professional legal advice or opinions, I am willing, however, to read the text of the actual laws and regulations "on the books", and to read the written opinions of judges who have ruled on matters of law. And, I'm willing to offer the non-professional opinion that maybe we couldn't go too far wrong by taking what the judge says and taking what the law says both literally, and at face value.
- Rick "IANAL" Dickinson