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

LeRoycom

2004-05-27 05:01:47 UTC

RayDunakin

2004-05-27 05:49:57 UTC

We all know why he did that -- it's because he can't ship his motors legally,
so he has to hide what he's shipping.

The real question is why does Jerry keep making a lightning rod of himself? He
KNEW he was shipping illegally, so the smart move would be to keep his mouth
shut and his business under the table. Does he do this? No! Instead, he loudly
and repeatedly insists that he's perfectly legal, that he's been screwed by
TRA/NAR, and that everyone who catches him in a lie is a traitor/liar/etc.

Figuratively speaking, Jerry's standing on a mountaintop during a thunderstorm
holding a ten foot steel launch rod, and bitching 'cause he keeps getting
fried.

Scott Schuckert

2004-05-27 11:18:37 UTC

Post by RayDunakin
The real question is why does Jerry keep making a lightning rod of himself? He
KNEW he was shipping illegally, so the smart move would be to keep his mouth
shut and his business under the table. Does he do this? No! Instead, he loudly
and repeatedly insists that he's perfectly legal, that he's been screwed by
TRA/NAR, and that everyone who catches him in a lie is a traitor/liar/etc.

Hmmm... Don't neglect the possibility that he's right. To parapharase
something James Mason said in "Heaven Can Wait", the probability
someone is right increases the more people try to convince him he's
wrong.

It may well be that shipping his motors is perfectly legal by the word
of law, which is what Jerry seems to maintain - but that doesn't mean
he can't be prosecuted; the word of law meaning little these days.

(Heck, 90% of what the IRS does isn't supported by law)

Sometimes you just have to rub blue mud in your navel if that's the
local custom - and calling them "model airplane parts" could be
considered such an accomodation. There's even a shred of truth in it,
at least as much as there is in 5 year-olds being accused of "making
terroristic threats".

WallaceF

2004-05-27 12:50:22 UTC

Hey Jerry, looks you have a new supporter. His words have a familiar
ring to us previous believers/suckers..

Fred

Hmmm... Don't neglect the possibility that he's right. To parapharase
something James Mason said in "Heaven Can Wait", the probability
someone is right increases the more people try to convince him he's
wrong.
It may well be that shipping his motors is perfectly legal by the word
of law, which is what Jerry seems to maintain - but that doesn't mean
he can't be prosecuted; the word of law meaning little these days.
(Heck, 90% of what the IRS does isn't supported by law)
Sometimes you just have to rub blue mud in your navel if that's the
local custom - and calling them "model airplane parts" could be
considered such an accomodation. There's even a shred of truth in it,
at least as much as there is in 5 year-olds being accused of "making
terroristic threats".

RayDunakin

2004-05-27 19:19:18 UTC

<< It may well be that shipping his motors is perfectly legal by the word of
law, which is what Jerry seems to maintain >>

If he really believed that, he wouldn't have disguised the contents by labeling
it "model aircraft parts".

<< Sometimes you just have to rub blue mud in your navel if that's the local
custom - and calling them "model airplane parts" could be considered such an
accomodation. >>

That's not a "local custom" or accomodation to the law. It's just cheating to
get around a law.

Jerry Irvine

2004-05-27 19:36:13 UTC

Post by RayDunakin
<< It may well be that shipping his motors is perfectly legal by the word of
law, which is what Jerry seems to maintain >>
If he really believed that, he wouldn't have disguised the contents by labeling
it "model aircraft parts".

Disclusure is not disguise.

If you claim I thought I shipped explsives as nothing, you miss the
point.

If you admit I have papers that say they are NOT explosives, you get the
point.

Of course the DOT monologue and menu of lies in administrative orders is
going to take the most aberrant position possible. They are a
bureaucracy!

Look at the ATF!

But then you miss the point so often it is either intentional or you
cannot comprehend basic logic and english. Or both.

Jerry

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:***@gte.net>
Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com
My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv

Dave Grayvis

2004-05-27 19:45:47 UTC

Disclusure is not disguise.
If you claim I thought I shipped explsives as nothing, you miss the
point.
If you admit I have papers that say they are NOT explosives, you get the
point.
Jerry

You lied, plain and simple. How is labeling class B materials, as
"model aircraft parts", disclosure? How is that not fraudulent on ANY
level?

No, you do not have ANY paperwork authorizing you to ship class B materials.

The point is, you, jerry irvine are a liar, so do everybody a favor and
sit down and shut up.

David Weinshenker

2004-05-27 20:01:08 UTC

Post by Dave Grayvis
No, you do not have ANY paperwork authorizing you to ship class B materials.

The point is that requiring propellant, in the forms and formulas encountered
in sport rocketry products, to be shipped and stored as "Explosives, Class 1"
(or "class B materials" by the old designations) is excessive and overly restrictive.
Such a designation overstates the actual hazards associated with handling the
material in practice, and creates unnecessary hassles in its commerce, transport,
and use.

-dave w

Dave Grayvis

2004-05-27 20:11:10 UTC

Post by Dave Grayvis
No, you do not have ANY paperwork authorizing you to ship class B materials.

Wipe your chin.

Actually, the point is, "Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as
"model aircraft parts"?". That's the point. Got it now?

David Weinshenker

2004-05-27 20:18:32 UTC

Post by Dave Grayvis
Actually, the point is, "Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as
"model aircraft parts"?". That's the point. Got it now?

How would you label them? "Scary Dangerous Flammable Rocket Motors
that Don't Actually Qualify For The 'Class 1 Explosives' Hazard
Category But We Want Everyone To Think They Do"??

-dave w

Dave Grayvis

2004-05-27 20:21:12 UTC

Post by Dave Grayvis
Actually, the point is, "Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as
"model aircraft parts"?". That's the point. Got it now?

How would you label them? "Scary Dangerous Flammable Rocket Motors
that Don't Actually Qualify For The 'Class 1 Explosives' Hazard
Category But We Want Everyone To Think They Do"??
-dave w

Is that the only possibility you can come up with? I think you I.Q. is
showing.

Jerry Irvine

2004-05-27 20:29:51 UTC

Post by Dave Grayvis
Actually, the point is, "Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as
"model aircraft parts"?". That's the point. Got it now?

How would you label them? "Scary Dangerous Flammable Rocket Motors
that Don't Actually Qualify For The 'Class 1 Explosives' Hazard
Category But We Want Everyone To Think They Do"??
-dave w

:) They would have fined me for that too, but it would look great in the
pleading!!

Top 10 things Jerry should label the next "exempt" shipment:

Dave Grayvis

2004-05-27 20:34:38 UTC

Post by Dave Grayvis
Actually, the point is, "Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as
"model aircraft parts"?". That's the point. Got it now?

How would you label them? "Scary Dangerous Flammable Rocket Motors
that Don't Actually Qualify For The 'Class 1 Explosives' Hazard
Category But We Want Everyone To Think They Do"??
-dave w

:) They would have fined me for that too, but it would look great in the
pleading!!

The question is, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as "model
aircraft parts"?

For Christ's sake, it's a jerry thread, try to stay on topic.

Brian Efforts

2004-05-27 21:40:01 UTC

On Thu, 27 May 2004 13:18:32 -0700, David Weinshenker

Post by David Weinshenker
How would you label them? "Scary Dangerous Flammable Rocket Motors
that Don't Actually Qualify For The 'Class 1 Explosives' Hazard
Category But We Want Everyone To Think They Do"??

Wipe your chin again.

If Skippy is so sure of himself why didn't he label them "Rocket
Motors"?

Jerry Irvine

2004-05-27 22:16:15 UTC

Post by Brian Efforts
On Thu, 27 May 2004 13:18:32 -0700, David Weinshenker

Wipe your chin again.
If Skippy is so sure of himself why didn't he label them "Rocket
Motors"?

That has a legal meaning.

They were grains.

default

2004-05-27 21:20:48 UTC

Post by Dave Grayvis
Actually, the point is, "Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as
"model aircraft parts"?". That's the point. Got it now?

How would you label them? "Scary Dangerous Flammable Rocket Motors
that Don't Actually Qualify For The 'Class 1 Explosives' Hazard
Category But We Want Everyone To Think They Do"??
-dave w

A non-ass-kisser would have come up with some better words, Dave.

How 'bout

1) Non-explosive rocket motors
2) Non-explosive rocket propellant
3) Non-regulated rocket motors
4) Non-regulated rocket propellant
5) Unclassified rocket motors
6) Unclassified rocket propellant
7) Safe and sane rocket motors (okay, that's kinda funny)

Anyway, see a trend here, Dave? All the descriptions mention rocket motors or propellant.
If Jerry was really trying to set a new benchmark, why did he hide in subterfuge and
deception?

Jerry is a very crafty, deceptive, dishonest man, Dave. He has you under his spell. You
are totally brainwashed by the man. It is a classic case of... what do they call it when
an older man seduces a young boy?

Jerry Irvine

2004-05-27 22:15:25 UTC

Post by default

Post by Dave Grayvis
Actually, the point is, "Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as
"model aircraft parts"?". That's the point. Got it now?

How would you label them? "Scary Dangerous Flammable Rocket Motors
that Don't Actually Qualify For The 'Class 1 Explosives' Hazard
Category But We Want Everyone To Think They Do"??
-dave w

A non-ass-kisser would have come up with some better words, Dave.
How 'bout
1) Non-explosive rocket motors
2) Non-explosive rocket propellant

Why use the word explosive?

Post by default
3) Non-regulated rocket motors
4) Non-regulated rocket propellant

Perhaps.

Post by default
5) Unclassified rocket motors
6) Unclassified rocket propellant

False since there WERE tests and classifications.

Post by default
7) Safe and sane rocket motors (okay, that's kinda funny)

Has a legal meaning in fireworks.

Post by default
Anyway, see a trend here, Dave?

Trolling?

Post by default
All the descriptions mention rocket motors
or propellant.
If Jerry was really trying to set a new benchmark, why did he hide in subterfuge and
deception?
Jerry is a very crafty, deceptive, dishonest man, Dave. He has you under his
spell.

Spell? The same person that made a H2O2 rocket and H2O2 you couldn't do
on your best day is able to be put under spells?

Cool!

Dave W.

Make me 5000 gallons of 90% H2O2.

Make me 5000 gallons of 90% H2O2.

Make me 5000 gallons of 90% H2O2.

Make me 5000 gallons of 90% H2O2.

I have a spaceplane I want to fly :)

You will comply.

Post by default
You
are totally brainwashed by the man. It is a classic case of... what do they call it when
an older man seduces a young boy?

David Weinshenker

2004-05-27 22:32:12 UTC

Post by Jerry Irvine
Dave W.
Make me 5000 gallons of 90% H2O2.
I have a spaceplane I want to fly :)

E-mail me this time next year.
We're just in the pilot plant
stage now.

-dave w

Jerry Irvine

2004-05-27 22:45:39 UTC

Post by Jerry Irvine
Dave W.
Make me 5000 gallons of 90% H2O2.
I have a spaceplane I want to fly :)

E-mail me this time next year.
We're just in the pilot plant
stage now.
-dave w

The spell is working....

W. E.Fred Wallace

2004-05-27 23:08:04 UTC

Post by Jerry Irvine
Dave W.
Make me 5000 gallons of 90% H2O2.
I have a spaceplane I want to fly :)

E-mail me this time next year.
We're just in the pilot plant
stage now.
-dave w

The spell is working....
Jerry

Answer the question Jerry, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors
as "model
aircraft parts"?

RayDunakin

2004-05-28 01:14:53 UTC

<< How would you label them?>>

I don't know, Dave. Maybe he should have his own propellent properly tested by
a currently approved agency, and then label it according to its DOT
classification. You know, like the legitimate manufacturers do?

Of course, if he doesn't want to be a legitimate manufacturer, that's fine too.
He can run a black market operation if he wants. I don't have a problem with
that. But that comes with certain limitations; such as keeping a low profile,
not getting your motors certified, missing out on the mass market, etc. You
have to stick doing business with folks who don't care if the motors they buy
were legally made or legally shipped, and you shouldn't go around daring people
to prove you wrong and asking to be a "test case".

Phil Stein

2004-05-27 21:54:44 UTC

You may or may not be right but, no one can dispute the result of not
following the law. My suggestion is that people follow the law or
regulation or whatever you want to call it.

On Thu, 27 May 2004 13:01:08 -0700, David Weinshenker

Post by Dave Grayvis
No, you do not have ANY paperwork authorizing you to ship class B materials.

Jerry Irvine

2004-05-27 22:06:26 UTC

Post by Phil Stein
You may or may not be right but, no one can dispute the result of not
following the law. My suggestion is that people follow the law or
regulation or whatever you want to call it.

How do you do that when it varies from person to person and from time to
time and away from the written documents?

Remember that silly NAR/ATF lawsuit?

Jerry

W. E.Fred Wallace

2004-05-27 22:19:03 UTC

How do you do that when it varies from person to person and from time to
time and away from the written documents?
Remember that silly NAR/ATF lawsuit?
Jerry
--

Answer the question, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as
"model
aircraft parts"?

Dave Grayvis

2004-05-28 00:25:28 UTC

Post by Jerry Irvine
Remember that silly NAR/ATF lawsuit?
Jerry

How does that have anything to do with the DOT?

Phil Stein

2004-05-28 01:22:44 UTC

You could start by indicating what is actually in the box.

Once there was an investigation statred, they found that you there
was no way you didn't intensionally mislabel the box. If you had done
it properly, you might have had an argument on the other points.

How do you do that when it varies from person to person and from time to
time and away from the written documents?
Remember that silly NAR/ATF lawsuit?
Jerry

J.A. Michel

2004-05-27 22:01:10 UTC

You are a pathetic Jerry suck-ass. Obviously, you think what Jerry did is
alright. Just because you THINK the regulations are "excessive and overly
restrictive" doesn't mean that it's OK to slap a "model aircraft parts"
label on a 210 pound crate of rocket motors and ship it. It's wrong,
fraudulent, and illegal. If this were not true, Jerry would not be sitting
on a 40,000 fine.

If you weren't so busy being a Jerry suck-ass, you might be able to
understand this very simple concept.

--
Joe Michel
NAR 82797 L2
http://home.alltel.net/jm44316/

Jerry Irvine

2004-05-27 22:42:15 UTC

Post by J.A. Michel
You are a pathetic Jerry suck-ass. Obviously, you think what Jerry did is
alright. Just because you THINK the regulations are "excessive and overly
restrictive" doesn't mean that it's OK to slap a "model aircraft parts"
label on a 210 pound crate of rocket motors and ship it. It's wrong,
fraudulent, and illegal. If this were not true, Jerry would not be sitting
on a 40,000 fine.
If you weren't so busy being a Jerry suck-ass, you might be able to
understand this very simple concept.
--
Joe Michel
NAR 82797 L2
http://home.alltel.net/jm44316/

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".

Jerry

W. E.Fred Wallace

2004-05-27 23:06:32 UTC

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".
Jerry

Answer the question Jerry, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors
as "model
aircraft parts"?

John Stein

2004-05-28 14:40:09 UTC

It's funny how Jerry answers for Dave and Dave answers for Jerry, isn't it?

John

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".
Jerry

Answer the question Jerry, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors
as "model
aircraft parts"?

Dave Grayvis

2004-05-28 15:17:28 UTC

Post by John Stein
It's funny how Jerry answers for Dave and Dave answers for Jerry, isn't it?
John

That's what lovers do.

Phil Stein

2004-05-28 15:38:25 UTC

Siamese twins. Attached at .... never mind. 8-)

On Fri, 28 May 2004 09:40:09 -0500, "John Stein"

Post by John Stein
It's funny how Jerry answers for Dave and Dave answers for Jerry, isn't it?
John

Post by J.A. Michel
You are a pathetic Jerry suck-ass. Obviously, you think what Jerry

did is

Post by J.A. Michel
alright. Just because you THINK the regulations are "excessive and

overly

Post by J.A. Michel
restrictive" doesn't mean that it's OK to slap a "model aircraft

parts"

Post by J.A. Michel
label on a 210 pound crate of rocket motors and ship it. It's wrong,
fraudulent, and illegal. If this were not true, Jerry would not be

sitting

Post by J.A. Michel
on a 40,000 fine.
If you weren't so busy being a Jerry suck-ass, you might be able to
understand this very simple concept.
--
Joe Michel
NAR 82797 L2
http://home.alltel.net/jm44316/

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".
Jerry

Answer the question Jerry, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors
as "model
aircraft parts"?

John Stein

2004-05-28 18:20:40 UTC

ROFL!

John

Post by Phil Stein
Siamese twins. Attached at .... never mind. 8-)
On Fri, 28 May 2004 09:40:09 -0500, "John Stein"

Post by John Stein
It's funny how Jerry answers for Dave and Dave answers for Jerry, isn't it?
John

Post by J.A. Michel
You are a pathetic Jerry suck-ass. Obviously, you think what Jerry

did is

Post by J.A. Michel
alright. Just because you THINK the regulations are "excessive and

overly

Post by J.A. Michel
restrictive" doesn't mean that it's OK to slap a "model aircraft

parts"

Post by J.A. Michel
label on a 210 pound crate of rocket motors and ship it. It's wrong,
fraudulent, and illegal. If this were not true, Jerry would not be

sitting

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".
Jerry

Answer the question Jerry, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors
as "model
aircraft parts"?

RayDunakin

2004-05-28 16:08:05 UTC

<< It's funny how Jerry answers for Dave and Dave answers for Jerry, isn't it?
First time I've ever seen a dual ventriloquy act. :)

Dave Grayvis

2004-05-28 00:31:51 UTC

Explain in detail how The DOT lied. In detail.

RayDunakin

2004-05-28 01:04:36 UTC

<< The point is that requiring propellant, in the forms and formulas
encountered in sport rocketry products, to be shipped and stored as
"Explosives, Class 1" (or "class B materials" by the old designations) is
excessive and overly restrictive. >>

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.

Chad L. Ellis

2004-05-28 14:29:09 UTC

How would you know? You are not conducting a rocket motor business are you?
There are many things in life that seem excessive. Get over it and comply or
go away. Why don't you go to the rental car companies and complain that they
are enforcing state laws by requiring a valid driver license to rent a car.
Nobody will deny that Jerry has been around the hobby for a long time but
you will have a difficult time finding those that think he is good for the
hobby. That situation was created and fostered by his actions. He knows it
and it's what makes him angry. With all of his supposed knowledge he could
form his own rocketry org and make the rules that he has tried to have TRA
implement. The only problem is 6 members won't cut it. Jerry could fix
things and sell a ton of motors but it slaps his "Look what they did to me"
mantra in the face. If he wanted to make $$$ he would change things.

Post by Dave Grayvis
No, you do not have ANY paperwork authorizing you to ship class B materials.

Jerry Irvine

2004-05-28 14:41:35 UTC

Post by Chad L. Ellis
How would you know? You are not conducting a rocket motor business are you?
There are many things in life that seem excessive. Get over it and comply or
go away. Why don't you go to the rental car companies and complain that they
are enforcing state laws by requiring a valid driver license to rent a car.
Nobody will deny that Jerry has been around the hobby for a long time but
you will have a difficult time finding those that think he is good for the
hobby. That situation was created and fostered by his actions. He knows it
and it's what makes him angry. With all of his supposed knowledge he could
form his own rocketry org and make the rules that he has tried to have TRA
implement. The only problem is 6 members won't cut it. Jerry could fix
things and sell a ton of motors but it slaps his "Look what they did to me"
mantra in the face. If he wanted to make $$$ he would change things.

If I wanted to sell to 2500 (listed and party approved) screaming
whiners you mean.

The old days were better. There were HPR lone rangers all over the place.

Jerry

Post by Chad L. Ellis

Post by Dave Grayvis
No, you do not have ANY paperwork authorizing you to ship class B

materials.

Post by David Weinshenker
The point is that requiring propellant, in the forms and formulas

encountered

Post by David Weinshenker
in sport rocketry products, to be shipped and stored as "Explosives, Class

Post by David Weinshenker
(or "class B materials" by the old designations) is excessive and overly

restrictive.

Post by David Weinshenker
Such a designation overstates the actual hazards associated with handling

the

Post by David Weinshenker
material in practice, and creates unnecessary hassles in its commerce,

transport,

Post by David Weinshenker
and use.
-dave w

Chad L. Ellis

2004-05-28 15:20:41 UTC

"If I wanted to sell to 2500 (listed and party approved) screaming whiners
you mean."

Jerry

Their money spends just the same. It's probably for the best. The motor
supply is strong right now and another mfg. would probably have a tough time
starting out in a saturated market. :-(

I just received the a shipment of the Pro75 reloads. Packaging is first
rate. Really nice stuff. The M1400 will fly this weekend.

Jerry Irvine

2004-05-28 17:20:19 UTC

In article <dNItc.24113$***@fe1.texas.rr.com>,
"Chad L. Ellis" <***@pcm.net> wrote:

snip chaff

Post by Chad L. Ellis
I just received the a shipment of the Pro75 reloads. Packaging is first
rate. Really nice stuff. The M1400 will fly this weekend.

So post more about those cool products.

Chad L. Ellis

2004-05-28 18:23:16 UTC

What would you like to know? The packaging info wasn't meant as a slam. I
meant the internal packaging of the grains and the other parts needed. CTI
always does a nice jog with protecting the products.

Post by Jerry Irvine
snip chaff

Post by Chad L. Ellis
I just received the a shipment of the Pro75 reloads. Packaging is first
rate. Really nice stuff. The M1400 will fly this weekend.

So post more about those cool products.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com
My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv

Jerry Irvine

2004-05-27 20:12:21 UTC

Disclusure is not disguise.
If you claim I thought I shipped explsives as nothing, you miss the
point.
If you admit I have papers that say they are NOT explosives, you get the
point.
Jerry

You lied, plain and simple. How is labeling class B materials,

NOT Class B materials. That much we DO know to an utter certainty!!

Therefore your question assumes facts proven opposite. Not merely not in
evidence.

Here:

www.v-serv.com/usr/images/ACS.BOEreport.jpg

Hey dude. It says what it says!

That has to stick in your craw really, really bad!

Post by Dave Grayvis
as
"model aircraft parts", disclosure? How is that not fraudulent on ANY
level?
No, you do not have ANY paperwork authorizing you to ship class B materials.
The point is, you, jerry irvine are a liar, so do everybody a favor and
sit down and shut up.

Dave Grayvis

2004-05-27 20:16:33 UTC

Disclusure is not disguise.
If you claim I thought I shipped explsives as nothing, you miss the
point.
If you admit I have papers that say they are NOT explosives, you get the
point.
Jerry

You lied, plain and simple. How is labeling class B materials,

NOT Class B materials. That much we DO know to an utter certainty!!
Therefore your question assumes facts proven opposite. Not merely not in
evidence.
www.v-serv.com/usr/images/ACS.BOEreport.jpg
Hey dude. It says what it says!
That has to stick in your craw really, really bad!

A lot of hot air, but still no answer to the question.

Jerry Irvine

2004-05-27 20:32:12 UTC

Disclusure is not disguise.
If you claim I thought I shipped explsives as nothing, you miss the
point.
If you admit I have papers that say they are NOT explosives, you get the
point.
Jerry

You lied, plain and simple. How is labeling class B materials,

A lot of hot air, but still no answer to the question.

That makes you stupid and myopic.

Engage the discussion or be plonked.

Your choice.

Dave Grayvis

2004-05-27 20:49:53 UTC

Disclusure is not disguise.
If you claim I thought I shipped explsives as nothing, you miss the
point.
If you admit I have papers that say they are NOT explosives, you get the
point.
Jerry

You lied, plain and simple. How is labeling class B materials,

A lot of hot air, but still no answer to the question.

That makes you stupid and myopic.
Engage the discussion or be plonked.
Your choice.

Answer the question, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as "model
aircraft parts"?

After you answer that one, you can try this one, how is fraudulently
mislabeling hazardous materials as inert, NOT a violation of federal law
and more importantly, how negates the PAD exemption! How were the
motors manufactured, transported or properly labeled for their intended use?

Jerry Irvine

2004-05-27 20:51:45 UTC

Post by RayDunakin
<< It may well be that shipping his motors is perfectly legal by the
word
of
law, which is what Jerry seems to maintain >>
If he really believed that, he wouldn't have disguised the contents by labeling
it "model aircraft parts".

Disclusure is not disguise.
If you claim I thought I shipped explsives as nothing, you miss the
point.
If you admit I have papers that say they are NOT explosives, you get the
point.
Jerry

You lied, plain and simple. How is labeling class B materials,

A lot of hot air, but still no answer to the question.

That makes you stupid and myopic.
Engage the discussion or be plonked.
Your choice.

Answer the question, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as "model
aircraft parts"?
After you answer that one, you can try this one, how is fraudulently
mislabeling hazardous materials as inert, NOT a violation of federal law
and more importantly, how negates the PAD exemption! How were the
motors manufactured, transported or properly labeled for their intended use?

Plonk.

All evidence retained.

Jerry Irvine

2004-05-27 20:55:17 UTC

Post by Jerry Irvine
www.v-serv.com/usr/images/ACS.BOEreport.jpg
Hey dude. It says what it says!
That has to stick in your craw really, really bad!

Plonk.

:)

Repetition is next to godliness.

Dave Grayvis

2004-05-27 21:01:30 UTC

Post by Jerry Irvine
Repetition is next to godliness.

What does that mean, exactly?

Doug Sams

2004-05-27 21:19:17 UTC

Post by Jerry Irvine
Repetition is next to godliness.

What does that mean, exactly?

Well, I was taught that someone who keeps trying the same thing, over
and over, expecting a different outcome was, well, not very smart. But
Jerry continues trying to solve all his business problems via rmr,
droning on and on with the same ol' stuff, saying the same crap, and
getting the same responses.

You'd think he'd realize someday that no matter how much you whine and
cry on rmr, you can't get a LEMP, DOT numbers or NAR certification here.

So I wouldn't say "Repetition is next to godliness." I'd say "Jerryness
is next to dumbassness."

But tha'ts JMO.

Doug

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Brian Efforts

2004-05-27 21:41:55 UTC

On Thu, 27 May 2004 21:19:17 +0000 (UTC), "Doug Sams"

Post by Doug Sams
So I wouldn't say "Repetition is next to godliness." I'd say "Jerryness
is next to dumbassness."

THAT should be in the FAQ.

Phil Stein

2004-05-27 22:00:53 UTC

So that's why you're the rocket god?

Post by Jerry Irvine
Repetition is next to godliness.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com
My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv

W. E.Fred Wallace

2004-05-27 22:17:37 UTC

Post by Jerry Irvine
www.v-serv.com/usr/images/ACS.BOEreport.jpg
Hey dude. It says what it says!
That has to stick in your craw really, really bad!

Plonk.

:)
Repetition is next to godliness.
--

Answer the question, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as
"model
aircraft parts"?

W. E.Fred Wallace

2004-05-27 22:17:03 UTC

Post by RayDunakin
<< It may well be that shipping his motors is perfectly legal by the
word
of
law, which is what Jerry seems to maintain >>
If he really believed that, he wouldn't have disguised the contents by
labeling
it "model aircraft parts".

Disclusure is not disguise.
If you claim I thought I shipped explsives as nothing, you miss the
point.
If you admit I have papers that say they are NOT explosives, you get the
point.
Jerry

You lied, plain and simple. How is labeling class B materials,

A lot of hot air, but still no answer to the question.

That makes you stupid and myopic.
Engage the discussion or be plonked.
Your choice.

Answer the question, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as "model
aircraft parts"?
After you answer that one, you can try this one, how is fraudulently
mislabeling hazardous materials as inert, NOT a violation of federal law
and more importantly, how negates the PAD exemption! How were the
motors manufactured, transported or properly labeled for their intended use?

Plonk.
All evidence retained.

Answer the question, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as
"model
aircraft parts"?

Phil Stein

2004-05-27 21:57:13 UTC

It's invalid - the formula isn't shown. That could be a report for
table salt.

Disclusure is not disguise.
If you claim I thought I shipped explsives as nothing, you miss the
point.
If you admit I have papers that say they are NOT explosives, you get the
point.
Jerry

You lied, plain and simple. How is labeling class B materials,

Rick Dickinson

2004-05-28 18:13:04 UTC

On Thu, 27 May 2004 17:57:13 -0400, Phil Stein

Post by Phil Stein
It's invalid - the formula isn't shown. That could be a report for
table salt.

I'm pretty sure that table salt won't explode under *any*
circumstances. Not even in 36" x 3.30" diameter castings.

- Rick "Just a thought" Dickinson

--
"The vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world.
And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice."
- George W. Bush (Washington DC, Oct 27 2003)

Phil Stein

2004-05-28 18:36:21 UTC

There has to be a way to get it to. I'll leave the details to others
that know more than I do. <--ok guys here's an easy opening.

Post by Rick Dickinson
On Thu, 27 May 2004 17:57:13 -0400, Phil Stein

Post by Phil Stein
It's invalid - the formula isn't shown. That could be a report for
table salt.

I'm pretty sure that table salt won't explode under *any*
circumstances. Not even in 36" x 3.30" diameter castings.
- Rick "Just a thought" Dickinson

RayDunakin

2004-05-28 01:33:37 UTC

<< NOT Class B materials. That much we DO know to an utter certainty!!
Here:
www.v-serv.com/usr/images/ACS.BOEreport.jpg >>

Now Jerry, did you really think no one would look at that document? Or maybe
you hoped it was too blurry to read. Because that document recommends that the
tested material be given a Class B classification in certain quantities. It
does NOT say that smaller quantities are not Class B. It doesn't address
smaller quantities at all.

Oh, and it doesn't say "Jerry Irvine" or "U. S. Rockets" either, and the
propellent formula has been redacted. What proof do you have that _your_
propellent is the same propellent that was tested?

Jerry Irvine

2004-05-28 13:09:21 UTC

Post by RayDunakin
<< NOT Class B materials. That much we DO know to an utter certainty!!
www.v-serv.com/usr/images/ACS.BOEreport.jpg >>
Now Jerry, did you really think no one would look at that document? Or maybe
you hoped it was too blurry to read. Because that document recommends that the
tested material be given a Class B classification in certain quantities.

Furthermore smaller sizes were addressed in the recommendation as
follows:
W.S. Chang, BOE Chief Chemist wrote 7-14-86:
It is recommended that the material represented by this sample [sample
representing all size ranges] is described as Propellant Exoplosive,
Solid and classed as a Class B Explosive [fire hazard but minimal
projection or blast hazard] when the material [note only when the
material]
is shipped [only when shippping] in a cast form [particle size is a hard
solid form, ie. NOT a powder] with the minimum dimensions of 36.00"h x
3.30"d.
[a solid cylinder 3.3 x 36 inches] [emphasis mine]

Post by RayDunakin
It
does NOT say that smaller quantities are not Class B. It doesn't address
smaller quantities at all.

ONLY WHEN

Jerry

W. E.Fred Wallace

2004-05-28 17:51:00 UTC

Furthermore smaller sizes were addressed in the recommendation as
It is recommended that the material represented by this sample [sample
representing all size ranges] is described as Propellant Exoplosive,
Solid and classed as a Class B Explosive [fire hazard but minimal
projection or blast hazard] when the material [note only when the
material]
is shipped [only when shippping] in a cast form [particle size is a hard
solid form, ie. NOT a powder] with the minimum dimensions of 36.00"h x
3.30"d.
[a solid cylinder 3.3 x 36 inches] [emphasis mine]

Post by RayDunakin
It
does NOT say that smaller quantities are not Class B. It doesn't address
smaller quantities at all.

ONLY WHEN
Jerry

Answer the question Jerry, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors
as "model
aircraft parts"?

Rick Dickinson

2004-05-28 18:23:57 UTC

Post by RayDunakin
It
does NOT say that smaller quantities are not Class B. It doesn't address
smaller quantities at all.

ONLY WHEN
Jerry

Actually, Jerry, you've added a word, there. As you quoted (but with
typos fixed and your editorial additions removed), it says:

-> It is recommended that the material represented by this sample is
-> described as a Propellant Explosive, Solid and classed as a Class
-> B Explosive when the material is shipped in a cast form with the
-> minimum dimensions of 36.00"h x 3.30"d.

The word "ONLY" does not appear before the word "WHEN".

Thus, while the document specifically states that a propellant slug of
at least that size should be classed as a Class B Explosive, it makes
no limitations on what to do with smaller slugs.

Was 3.30"d x 36.00"h the exact size of the propellant slugs that
ACS-Reaction Labs submitted for testing? Based solely on the careful
wording of the document, I suspect that it was. Care to confirm or
deny?

Thanks,

- Rick "Astute Reader" Dickinson

--
"The vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world.
And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice."
- George W. Bush (Washington DC, Oct 27 2003)

default

2004-05-27 21:12:47 UTC

Post by Jerry Irvine
If you admit I have papers that say they are NOT explosives, you get the
point.
Jerry

Then why not lable the 200 pounds of rocket motors as "non-explosive rocket propellant"?
Or better yet, "Unregulated Rocket Propellant".

Jerry (and ass kisser Dave): If you two trolls really thought that Jerry was some kind of
civil disobedient trend setter, then why didn't Jerry flont the fact that his shipment
contained unregulated non-explosive rocket motors instead of lying about it and trying to
hide them under a false name?

steve

Jerry, I have $50 right here that says you will not answer this question truthfully and
forthright.

steve bloom

(truthfully and forthright will be judged by the readers of rmr. Hint; It ain't no
Jerry-Speak.)

Jerry Irvine

2004-05-27 22:10:12 UTC

Post by default

Post by Jerry Irvine
If you admit I have papers that say they are NOT explosives, you get the
point.
Jerry

Then why not lable the 200 pounds of rocket motors as "non-explosive rocket propellant"?
Or better yet, "Unregulated Rocket Propellant".

I'll add those to the top 10.

Post by default
Jerry (and ass kisser Dave): If you two trolls really thought that Jerry was some kind of
civil disobedient trend setter, then why didn't Jerry flont the fact that his shipment
contained unregulated non-explosive rocket motors instead of lying about it and trying to
hide them under a false name?

How could I have flaunted it any more than I did? It had the paper work
with the shipment and the paperwork was presneted in the administrative
action, AND the paperwork was presented to Ken Allen prior to shipment.

Which incidentally he agreed to keep in "commercial" confidence. That
went out the window when he went the "narc" route I guess.

Post by default
steve
Jerry, I have $50 right here that says you will not answer this question truthfully and
forthright.

Pay me.

NOW.

Post by default
steve bloom
(truthfully and forthright will be judged by the readers of rmr. Hint; It ain't no
Jerry-Speak.)

David Weinshenker

2004-05-27 22:29:58 UTC

Post by Jerry Irvine
Which incidentally he agreed to keep in "commercial" confidence. That
went out the window when he went the "narc" route I guess.

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.

-dave w

Jerry Irvine

2004-05-27 22:50:11 UTC

Post by Jerry Irvine
Which incidentally he agreed to keep in "commercial" confidence. That
went out the window when he went the "narc" route I guess.

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.

Post by David Weinshenker
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.

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.

Post by David Weinshenker
This seems to be the simplest explanation that I can think of.
-dave w

W. E.Fred Wallace

2004-05-27 23:05:06 UTC

Post by Jerry Irvine
Which incidentally he agreed to keep in "commercial" confidence. That
went out the window when he went the "narc" route I guess.

Something along those lines definitely happened. He was brought before
the TRA BOD in 8-01

BS, never happened..

Post by Jerry Irvine
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.

BS, pure and simple..

Post by Jerry Irvine
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.

Gotcha jerry; Answer the question, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket
motors as "model aircraft parts"?

Jerry Irvine

2004-05-27 23:07:09 UTC

Post by Jerry Irvine
Which incidentally he agreed to keep in "commercial" confidence. That
went out the window when he went the "narc" route I guess.

Something along those lines definitely happened. He was brought before
the TRA BOD in 8-01

BS, never happened..

I witnessed it!!!

I was there.

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."
- W.E. "Fred" Wallace, MDRA 6-26-01 letter to DOT

W. E.Fred Wallace

2004-05-27 23:24:42 UTC

Post by Jerry Irvine
Which incidentally he agreed to keep in "commercial" confidence. That
went out the window when he went the "narc" route I guess.

Something along those lines definitely happened. He was brought before
the TRA BOD in 8-01

BS, never happened..

I witnessed it!!!

Never happened..

Post by Jerry Irvine
I was there.

See above..

Post by Jerry Irvine
How can I have a real conversation with someone who disputes clear fact?

Admit you are a liar, simple..

Post by Jerry Irvine
Jerry

RayDunakin

2004-05-28 05:41:19 UTC

Big Fine wrote:
<< I can certify that speculation as FACT. >>

LOL! Your "certification" isn't worth the pixels it's displayed with.

<< 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. >>

Translation: "I'm cornered, so I'll make up some BS about being legally
restrained from saying more."

Dave Grayvis

2004-05-28 00:29:09 UTC

Post by Jerry Irvine
Which incidentally he agreed to keep in "commercial" confidence. That
went out the window when he went the "narc" route I guess.

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.
-dave w

Need a hankie?

David Weinshenker

2004-05-28 00:39:13 UTC

Post by Dave Grayvis
Need a hankie?

Yeah. You're creaming in your jeans so hard over Jerry's
hassles that you're making a mess all over the place, and
we need to clean up after you: http://tinyurl.com/2klcs

-dave w

RayDunakin

2004-05-28 01:41:09 UTC

Dave W. wrote:
<< The above is strictly speculation...>>

Not just speculation, but an attempt to shift the blame away from the person
who committed the crime.

<< 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. >>

Well now, didn't Jerry say he needed to be busted in order to take on the DOT?
Maybe Jerry turned himself in -- after all, if he didn't get busted he'd never
have the chance to achieve his alleged goal.

W. E.Fred Wallace

2004-05-28 02:14:14 UTC

Post by RayDunakin
<< The above is strictly speculation...>>
Not just speculation, but an attempt to shift the blame away from the person
who committed the crime.
<< 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. >>
Well now, didn't Jerry say he needed to be busted in order to take on the DOT?
Maybe Jerry turned himself in -- after all, if he didn't get busted he'd never
have the chance to achieve his alleged goal.

I think they call it self flagellation; or is it self deification
fixation..(:-)

RayDunakin

2004-05-28 01:37:46 UTC

<< How could I have flaunted it any more than I did?>>

By labeling it honestly.

W. E.Fred Wallace

2004-05-27 22:21:02 UTC

Post by default

Post by Jerry Irvine
If you admit I have papers that say they are NOT explosives, you get the
point.
Jerry

Then why not lable the 200 pounds of rocket motors as "non-explosive rocket propellant"?
Or better yet, "Unregulated Rocket Propellant".
Jerry (and ass kisser Dave): If you two trolls really thought that Jerry was some kind of
civil disobedient trend setter, then why didn't Jerry flont the fact that his shipment
contained unregulated non-explosive rocket motors instead of lying about it and trying to
hide them under a false name?
steve
Jerry, I have $50 right here that says you will not answer this question truthfully and
forthright.
steve bloom
(truthfully and forthright will be judged by the readers of rmr. Hint; It ain't no
Jerry-Speak.)

Well Jerry, Answer the question, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket
motors as "model aircraft parts"?

W. E.Fred Wallace

2004-05-27 22:12:55 UTC

Disclusure is not disguise.
If you claim I thought I shipped explsives as nothing, you miss the
point.
If you admit I have papers that say they are NOT explosives, you get the
point.
Of course the DOT monologue and menu of lies in administrative orders is
going to take the most aberrant position possible. They are a
bureaucracy!
Look at the ATF!
But then you miss the point so often it is either intentional or you
cannot comprehend basic logic and english. Or both.
Jerry

The point is; 40 grand to the man, on demand, lost on appeal-- hey we
now know the deal and listen to him squeal...

Jerry Irvine

2004-05-27 22:17:03 UTC

Post by W. E.Fred Wallace
The point is; 40 grand to the man, on demand, lost on appeal-- hey we
now know the deal and listen to him squeal...

I have not squaled once.

W. E.Fred Wallace

2004-05-27 22:28:24 UTC

Post by W. E.Fred Wallace
The point is; 40 grand to the man, on demand, lost on appeal-- hey we
now know the deal and listen to him squeal...

I have not squaled once.

Answer the question Jerry, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors
as "model
aircraft parts"?

RayDunakin

2004-05-28 00:51:07 UTC

Big Fine wrote:
<< Disclusure is not disguise.>>

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.

<<If you claim I thought I shipped explsives as nothing, you miss the point.>>

You didn't put "nothing" on that label, and it's clear that a box of "nothing"
wouldn't weigh 210 pounds.

<<If you admit I have papers that say they are NOT explosives, you get the
point. >>

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.

David Schultz

2004-05-27 23:53:29 UTC

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.

Post by Scott Schuckert
(Heck, 90% of what the IRS does isn't supported by law)
Sometimes you just have to rub blue mud in your navel if that's the
local custom - and calling them "model airplane parts" could be
considered such an accomodation. There's even a shred of truth in it,
at least as much as there is in 5 year-olds being accused of "making
terroristic threats".

--
David W. Schultz
http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz

Jerry Irvine

2004-05-28 00:31:09 UTC

Post by David Schultz

They "conclude it" but do not justify how their reading is the OPPOSITE
of a common man reading. JUST LIKE ATF AND PADs.

Post by David Schultz
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.

The language cannot either.

Okay, maybe only a moron context specific :)

Stop fixating!

Post by David Schultz
"RSPA¹s Office of Hazardous Materials Technology has confirmed that, based on
the composition of the solid propellent described in BOE¹s July 14, 1986
report
of examination, any quantity of this material would be expected to be properly
classified as an explosive."

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.

Post by David Schultz
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.

Huh? The DOT KEPT losing the papers. Over and over.

Post by David Schultz
"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

W. E.Fred Wallace

2004-05-28 02:23:50 UTC

Post by David Schultz

They "conclude it" but do not justify how their reading is the OPPOSITE
of a common man reading. JUST LIKE ATF AND PADs.

Post by David Schultz
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.

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.

Jerry

Answer the question, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as
"model
aircraft parts"?

Word of Reason

2004-05-28 09:55:33 UTC

"W. E.Fred Wallace" <***@olg.com> wrote in message news:<***@olg.com>...
<snip>

Post by Dave Grayvis
Answer the question, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as
"model
aircraft parts"?

Becaue Jerry lacks morals, integrity and honor ... that should about cover the
bases?

RayDunakin

2004-05-28 06:13:20 UTC

Jerry wrote:
<< They "conclude it" but do not justify how their reading is the OPPOSITE of a
common man reading. >>

Actually it seems like a real stretch to claim that the tested propellent isn't
hazmat under a certain size, when the document never addresses that issue.

"RSPA1s Office of Hazardous Materials Technology
has confirmed that, based on the composition of
the solid propellent described in BOE1s July 14,
1986 report of examination, any quantity of this
material would be expected to be properly
classified as an explosive."

<<As of new samples submitted today.>>

So you're admitting that if the material were submitted for testing today, it
would be classified as "explosive" by DOT even in smaller quantities?

<< But NOT in 86...>>

As I said above, that's a stretch. The document does not say that smaller
quantities are not Class B. It simply fails to address that issue.

<< ...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). >>

Exactly how did they lie?

<< The DOT KEPT losing the papers. Over and over. >>

No, they never said they lost them, they said they never received them. Since
no one else has had any problems with DOT either losing things or failing to
receive them, one must assume that you never actually sent what you claimed to
have sent.

Jerry Irvine

2004-05-28 13:06:57 UTC

Post by RayDunakin
As I said above, that's a stretch. The document does not say that smaller
quantities are not Class B. It simply fails to address that issue.

You are simply wrong.

Furthermore smaller sizes were addressed in the recommendation as
follows:
W.S. Chang, BOE Chief Chemist wrote 7-14-86:
It is recommended that the material represented by this sample [sample
representing all size ranges] is described as Propellant Exoplosive,
Solid and classed as a Class B Explosive [fire hazard but minimal
projection or blast hazard] when the material [note only when the
material] is shipped [only when shippping] in a cast form [particle size
is a hard solid form, ie. NOT a powder] with the minimum dimensions of
36.00"h x 3.30"d. [a solid cylinder 3.3 x 36 inches] [emphasis mine]

Jerry

RayDunakin

2004-05-28 15:08:53 UTC

Big Fine wrote:
<< It is recommended that the material represented by this sample [sample
representing all size ranges]>>

Where does it say that the sample "represents ALL size ranges? It does NOT say
that.

<< ...is described as Propellant Exoplosive, Solid and classed as a Class B
Explosive [fire hazard but minimal projection or blast hazard] >>

Class B is Class B.

<< when the material [note only when the material] is shipped [only when
shippping] in a cast form [particle size is a hard solid form, ie. NOT a
powder] with the minimum dimensions of 36.00"h x 3.30"d. [a solid cylinder 3.3
x 36 inches] [emphasis mine]>>

The word "only" is yours too. You added that to change the meaning of the
document. As written, it contains no minimum size limitation on the
classification of the material -- it simply fails to address smaller sizes. And
no one has said anything about "powder", so why are you throwing that in there?

Scott

2004-05-28 16:44:27 UTC

Post by Jerry Irvine
The language cannot either.
Okay, maybe only a moron context specific :)
Stop fixating!
Jerry

OH this is rich, Jerry telling others to "STOP FIXATING!" This from a
person who can turn every post on RMR into and anti-TRA/NAR rant and
how the world is conspiring againts Poor FIXATING Jerry.

Take a clue from yourself Jerry and STOP FIXATING!!!

Scott

Jerry Irvine

2004-05-28 17:18:24 UTC

Post by Scott

Post by Jerry Irvine
The language cannot either.
Okay, maybe only a moron context specific :)
Stop fixating!
Jerry

OH this is rich, Jerry telling others to "STOP FIXATING!" This from a
person who can turn every post on RMR into and anti-TRA/NAR rant

NOT every one.

But ones where the analogy fits.

Quite a few I admit.

Post by Scott
and
how the world is conspiring againts Poor FIXATING Jerry.
Take a clue from yourself Jerry and STOP FIXATING!!!
Scott

This message was in reply to a nice guy who took a comment I made
probably about his position on ATF (which was moronic) and extrapolating
that to mean he was a moron on all things at all times.

Nope.

Logical break.

Jerry

Want an example of fixation? Read several posts from Dave Grayvis, Fred
Wallace and Ray Dunakin. THEY are fixated.

W. E.Fred Wallace

2004-05-28 17:53:15 UTC

Post by Scott

Post by Jerry Irvine
The language cannot either.
Okay, maybe only a moron context specific :)
Stop fixating!
Jerry

OH this is rich, Jerry telling others to "STOP FIXATING!" This from a
person who can turn every post on RMR into and anti-TRA/NAR rant

NOT every one.
But ones where the analogy fits.
Quite a few I admit.

Post by Scott
and
how the world is conspiring againts Poor FIXATING Jerry.
Take a clue from yourself Jerry and STOP FIXATING!!!
Scott

This message was in reply to a nice guy who took a comment I made
probably about his position on ATF (which was moronic) and extrapolating
that to mean he was a moron on all things at all times.
Nope.
Logical break.
Jerry
Want an example of fixation? Read several posts from Dave Grayvis, Fred
Wallace and Ray Dunakin. THEY are fixated.

Answer the question Jerry, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors
as "model
aircraft parts"?

Chad L. Ellis

2004-05-28 18:25:06 UTC

The answer will not come. He needs plausible deniability.

Post by Scott

Post by Jerry Irvine
The language cannot either.
Okay, maybe only a moron context specific :)
Stop fixating!
Jerry

OH this is rich, Jerry telling others to "STOP FIXATING!" This from a
person who can turn every post on RMR into and anti-TRA/NAR rant

NOT every one.
But ones where the analogy fits.
Quite a few I admit.

Post by Scott
and
how the world is conspiring againts Poor FIXATING Jerry.
Take a clue from yourself Jerry and STOP FIXATING!!!
Scott

This message was in reply to a nice guy who took a comment I made
probably about his position on ATF (which was moronic) and extrapolating
that to mean he was a moron on all things at all times.
Nope.
Logical break.
Jerry
Want an example of fixation? Read several posts from Dave Grayvis, Fred
Wallace and Ray Dunakin. THEY are fixated.

Answer the question Jerry, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors
as "model
aircraft parts"?

Phil Stein

2004-05-28 18:34:01 UTC

Fred,

THese are getting old & repetitious. Can you change them a little?
Maybe do some with a mosaic theme?

Phil

On Fri, 28 May 2004 13:53:15 -0400, "W. E.Fred Wallace"

Post by W. E.Fred Wallace
Answer the question Jerry, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors
as "model
aircraft parts"?

Dave Grayvis

2004-05-28 00:36:26 UTC

Post by RayDunakin

Post by RayDunakin
The real question is why does Jerry keep making a lightning rod of

himself? He

Post by RayDunakin
KNEW he was shipping illegally, so the smart move would be to keep

his mouth

Post by RayDunakin
shut and his business under the table. Does he do this? No! Instead,

he loudly

Post by RayDunakin
and repeatedly insists that he's perfectly legal, that he's been

screwed by

Post by RayDunakin
TRA/NAR, and that everyone who catches him in a lie is a

traitor/liar/etc.

Post by Scott Schuckert
Hmmm... Don't neglect the possibility that he's right. To parapharase
something James Mason said in "Heaven Can Wait", the probability
someone is right increases the more people try to convince him he's
wrong.
It may well be that shipping his motors is perfectly legal by the word
of law, which is what Jerry seems to maintain - but that doesn't mean
he can't be prosecuted; the word of law meaning little these days.

"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."
--------------
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.

Patience, the wheels of justice grind slowly, but they do grind.

Paxton

2004-05-27 05:58:38 UTC

Just roll over and die already.

Pax

Word of Reason

2004-05-27 10:56:32 UTC

Dave Grayvis <***@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<mpetc.3619$***@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>...

Could it be greed and a lack of ethics?

almax

2004-05-27 23:19:41 UTC

"Dave Grayvis" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message news:mpetc.3619$***@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...

because he could.

almax

2004-05-27 23:41:18 UTC

"Dave Grayvis" <***@netscape.net> wrote in message news:mpetc.3619$***@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...

Oh Grave, where are the motors ?

I'm more interested in what happened to the 200 pounds of grains
then I am about why Jerry calculated the mislabeling of the manifest.
We all know why, don't we ? no mystery that I can see.

Heck, he just should have labeled them propellent activated device parts.
He still would have gotten the fine, but the rmr fodder would not be as
great.

Has anyone volunteered to take those un-regulated motors off of Ken's hands
?
I'm sure Ken does not want them around and all, right ?

Maybe you could call it a disposal service.

Jerry Irvine

2004-05-28 00:24:08 UTC

Post by almax
Oh Grave, where are the motors ?
I'm more interested in what happened to the 200 pounds of grains
then I am about why Jerry calculated the mislabeling of the manifest.
We all know why, don't we ? no mystery that I can see.
Heck, he just should have labeled them propellent activated device parts.
He still would have gotten the fine, but the rmr fodder would not be as
great.
Has anyone volunteered to take those un-regulated motors off of Ken's hands
?
I'm sure Ken does not want them around and all, right ?
Maybe you could call it a disposal service.

He has refused three formal efforts by firms hired by me to take them
off his hands.

Speaking of Grayvis, where are the 400+ pounds of motors HE is allegedly
keeping "in trust"?

Seriously.

Jerry

Phil Stein

2004-05-28 01:32:21 UTC

I guess Ken has them too.

He has refused three formal efforts by firms hired by me to take them
off his hands.
Speaking of Grayvis, where are the 400+ pounds of motors HE is allegedly
keeping "in trust"?
Seriously.
Jerry

W. E.Fred Wallace

2004-05-28 02:32:52 UTC

Post by almax
Has anyone volunteered to take those un-regulated motors off of Ken's hands
?
I'm sure Ken does not want them around and all, right ?
Maybe you could call it a disposal service.

He has refused three formal efforts by firms hired by me to take them
off his hands.

From what I hear, I'm sure if you contact Bob Lynch at DOT, he may
help you with your little disposal problem.

Seriously.

Fred

Post by Jerry Irvine
Jerry

Phil Stein

2004-05-28 01:30:56 UTC