Skippy -vs- DOT

$40,000.00

That is a bunch of PADS.

What is that doublewide worth? Put the wheels back on the palace and drive it down to the DOT. See what they will give ya fer it.

All your advice to just do this and just do that. Well after reading the judgement I see what you just doing this and that gets you.

If the judge had only stated that APCP shipped in a box marked "Model Aircraft Parts" were PADS you would be covered.

Reply to
CajunMan
Loading thread data ...

How many?

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Remember Jerry telling all of us to go for it?

40,000 clams. Holy shit.

And Jerry wasn't man enough to tell us first.

Reply to
Gene Coteen

Hey anonymous troll. Go for what?

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

You know, "live the lifestyle".

Forty thousand dollars! and that was just the DOT. (the nice guys)

Think what the BATFE is gonna' do to him, once they get a hold of his ass!

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

$40,000.00

That is a bunch of PADS.

Reply to
GCGassaway

Well, as I read it, they WOULDN'T have expired if Jerry had completed the proper paperwork to instantiate a transfer. I also found it quite curious that Jerry was able to 'produce' several letters that he wrote that were not able to be 'found' in the other parties files. I wouldn't be as suspicious about this if Jerry had also produced letters from the other party, responding to his other letters, etc. I simply find it far too convenient that one party in the suit has 'copies' of the letters that were sent, but not proof (such as certified letter receipts, or the aforementioned responses, etc.) that they were TRULY sent to the other party. Again, I simply find it suspicious enough to raise a 'reasonable doubt' in my mind. I also find it interesting that up to this point Jerry has been stating that the 1986 letter 'proves' that he was right, and has restated that the document doesn't expire, while knowing full well that he had responded to the goverment points that it HAD, in fact, expired (because of lack of proper transference).

I also re-read the original 1986 letter, and have to agree with the interpretation that they don't say that slugs smaller than that specified are not explosive, they simply say that slugs larger than the specified size ARE. The only possible interpretation of that is that slugs smaller than the specified size MIGHT be explosive, and since the letter didn't say so, it is appropriate to infer that they could be, and treat them accordingly. In other words, since the material is nominally considered hazardous, then the responsibility would lie with the claimant to demonstrate that BELOW a certain size the material IS NOT explosive. That is NOT what the original letter states.

The only inference I can draw is that the testing lab did their tests on the chunk that they were provided, and weren't asked to try and determine a 'minimum acceptable' size that might be considered non-hazardous. If I were the cynical type, I would almost believe that the wording of the original document was intentionally vague, but who knows?

David Erbas-White

Reply to
David Erbas-White

So let me get this straight, W. E.Fred Wallace has a SUPERNEWS account AND an ALTOPIA account?

What does W. E.Fred Wallace look like?

Just in case I meet him at a launch one day.

Reply to
Mark

I hear Bubba squealing with delightful anticipation...

Reply to
W. E.Fred Wallace

Hey slick, this is my email, wallacewe,@olg.com, or you can call me at 301.952.8525. BTW, I have no altopia account. Do you have the balls to contact me? BTW, I'll be at LDRS this year for sure and BALLS if I can get the time off from work. Who are you anyway; sounds like an alligator mouth and a canary a$$ hiding under the bed.

Fred Wallace

Reply to
W. E.Fred Wallace

Hey, Fred - it looks like you've been talking so much of the same kind of trash as the Altopia troll[s] that folks are starting to find it hard to tell the difference...

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

Yea, but I back it up. Crawl back under your bridge; hurry now..

Fred

Reply to
W. E.Fred Wallace

By turning DOT-snitch, it now appears...

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

Your opinion, aint it a bitch?????(;-) the bridge-the bridge, go-go now...

Reply to
W. E.Fred Wallace

Correct.

But more to the point when stating he was there to "help".

Talk about supreme breach of fiduciary duty.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

So, let me get this straight... it wouldn't have "counted" if Jerry hadn't been caught? The bad guy is the one who reports the violation?

It's guys who think like that who keep the lawyers in business.

Reply to
David

Reminds me of the creep who sold our neighborhood out to the township. He's not long for this world and very lonely. We're not visiting. It's cruel. No one gives him a glance. If he had the strength he'd try to apoligize. But the damage was done and he has the title.

Reply to
Chuck Rudy

JI was just waiting to get caught.. Dave W.. Don't blame the messenger!

Seem the motors from "USR" (a nonexistent company by JI's own admission) were also shipped to TMT and S&T over the last few years. I'd bet using the same "legality" that he got busted for. Seems that neither S&T or TMT "turned him in"! (kind of indicates that all his rants about TRA and NAR are meaningless!)

While JI "claims" that TRA and NAR were "out to get him", seems he caught himself here! (to the tune of $40k).

Reply to
AZ Woody

This is only the beginning. Skippy needs to Iz himself from the public eye for about 24 months. Will he listen?

Nope.

Reply to
Gene Coteen

You assume a lot.

  1. The firm DOT sued does not exist.
  2. The motors were shipped using governmental approved paperwork
  3. DOT LIED about the papers NOT having 1.3C status (for other larger units) and about a dozen or more other things.

They are no better than ATF. They just have legislative mandates to fine excessively. Ask Aerotech.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

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.