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

97 views
Skip to first unread message

Dave Grayvis

unread,
May 27, 2004, 12:47:14 AM5/27/04
to

LeRoycom

unread,
May 27, 2004, 1:01:47 AM5/27/04
to

.

RayDunakin

unread,
May 27, 2004, 1:49:57 AM5/27/04
to
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.

Paxton

unread,
May 27, 2004, 1:58:38 AM5/27/04
to
Just roll over and die already.

Pax


Word of Reason

unread,
May 27, 2004, 6:56:32 AM5/27/04
to
Dave Grayvis <davegr...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<mpetc.3619$mK4...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>...

Could it be greed and a lack of ethics?

Scott Schuckert

unread,
May 27, 2004, 7:18:37 AM5/27/04
to
In article <20040527014957...@mb-m10.aol.com>, RayDunakin
<raydu...@aol.com> wrote:

> 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

unread,
May 27, 2004, 8:50:22 AM5/27/04
to
Hey Jerry, looks you have a new supporter. His words have a familiar
ring to us previous believers/suckers..

Fred

RayDunakin

unread,
May 27, 2004, 3:19:18 PM5/27/04
to
<< 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

unread,
May 27, 2004, 3:36:13 PM5/27/04
to
In article <20040527151918...@mb-m10.aol.com>,
raydu...@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:

> << 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:01ro...@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

unread,
May 27, 2004, 3:45:47 PM5/27/04
to
Jerry Irvine wrote:

> In article <20040527151918...@mb-m10.aol.com>,
> raydu...@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:
>
>
>><< 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, 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

unread,
May 27, 2004, 4:01:08 PM5/27/04
to
Dave Grayvis wrote:
> 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

unread,
May 27, 2004, 4:11:10 PM5/27/04
to

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?

Jerry Irvine

unread,
May 27, 2004, 4:12:21 PM5/27/04
to
In article <Lzrtc.1270$n65...@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
Dave Grayvis <davegr...@netscape.net> wrote:

> Jerry Irvine wrote:
>
> > In article <20040527151918...@mb-m10.aol.com>,
> > raydu...@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:
> >
> >
> >><< 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,

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!


> 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

unread,
May 27, 2004, 4:16:33 PM5/27/04
to
Jerry Irvine wrote:


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

David Weinshenker

unread,
May 27, 2004, 4:18:32 PM5/27/04
to
Dave Grayvis wrote:
> 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

unread,
May 27, 2004, 4:21:12 PM5/27/04
to
David Weinshenker wrote:

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

Jerry Irvine

unread,
May 27, 2004, 4:29:51 PM5/27/04
to
In article <40B64D18...@earthlink.net>,
David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:

:) 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:

Jerry Irvine

unread,
May 27, 2004, 4:32:12 PM5/27/04
to
In article <B0stc.1277$n65...@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
Dave Grayvis <davegr...@netscape.net> wrote:

That makes you stupid and myopic.

Engage the discussion or be plonked.

Your choice.

Dave Grayvis

unread,
May 27, 2004, 4:34:38 PM5/27/04
to
Jerry Irvine wrote:

> In article <40B64D18...@earthlink.net>,
> David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Dave Grayvis wrote:
>>
>>>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:
>

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.

Dave Grayvis

unread,
May 27, 2004, 4:49:53 PM5/27/04
to
Jerry Irvine wrote:

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

unread,
May 27, 2004, 4:51:45 PM5/27/04
to
In article <Rvstc.1285$n65...@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
Dave Grayvis <davegr...@netscape.net> wrote:

Plonk.

All evidence retained.

Jerry Irvine

unread,
May 27, 2004, 4:55:17 PM5/27/04
to
In article <01rocket-D4BA3E...@corp.supernews.com>,
Jerry Irvine <01ro...@gte.net> wrote:

> > >>>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

unread,
May 27, 2004, 5:01:30 PM5/27/04
to
Jerky bovine wrote:

> Repetition is next to godliness.
>


What does that mean, exactly?

Doug Sams

unread,
May 27, 2004, 5:19:17 PM5/27/04
to
> Jerky bovine wrote:
>
> > Repetition is next to godliness.

Dave Grayvis wrote:
>
> 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

unread,
May 27, 2004, 5:40:01 PM5/27/04
to
On Thu, 27 May 2004 13:18:32 -0700, David Weinshenker
<daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:


>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"?


Brian Efforts

unread,
May 27, 2004, 5:41:55 PM5/27/04
to
On Thu, 27 May 2004 21:19:17 +0000 (UTC), "Doug Sams"
<doug_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:


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


THAT should be in the FAQ.

default

unread,
May 27, 2004, 5:20:48 PM5/27/04
to

"David Weinshenker" <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:40B64D18...@earthlink.net...

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?


default

unread,
May 27, 2004, 5:12:47 PM5/27/04
to
> Jerry Irvine wrote:

> > 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.)

Phil Stein

unread,
May 27, 2004, 5:54:44 PM5/27/04
to
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.

Phil Stein

unread,
May 27, 2004, 5:57:13 PM5/27/04
to
It's invalid - the formula isn't shown. That could be a report for
table salt.


On Thu, 27 May 2004 13:12:21 -0700, Jerry Irvine <01ro...@gte.net>
wrote:

Phil Stein

unread,
May 27, 2004, 6:00:53 PM5/27/04
to
So that's why you're the rocket god?


On Thu, 27 May 2004 13:55:17 -0700, Jerry Irvine <01ro...@gte.net>
wrote:

>

Jerry Irvine

unread,
May 27, 2004, 6:06:26 PM5/27/04
to
In article <cqocb0l9qj7ai55bn...@4ax.com>,
Phil Stein <PSt...@ArielSystems.spamsks.net> wrote:

> 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?

W. E.Fred Wallace

unread,
May 27, 2004, 6:12:55 PM5/27/04
to

Jerry Irvine wrote:
>
> In article <20040527151918...@mb-m10.aol.com>,
> raydu...@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:
>
> > << 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
>

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

unread,
May 27, 2004, 6:10:12 PM5/27/04
to
In article <HyE5L...@news.boeing.com>,
"default" <undeli...@mail.com> wrote:

> > Jerry Irvine wrote:
>
> > > 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.

>
> 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.

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

Pay me.

NOW.

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

--

W. E.Fred Wallace

unread,
May 27, 2004, 6:17:03 PM5/27/04
to

W. E.Fred Wallace

unread,
May 27, 2004, 6:17:37 PM5/27/04
to

Jerry Irvine wrote:
>
> In article <01rocket-D4BA3E...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Jerry Irvine <01ro...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> > > >>>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.
>
> --

Jerry Irvine

unread,
May 27, 2004, 6:15:25 PM5/27/04
to
In article <HyE5y...@news.boeing.com>,
"default" <undeli...@mail.com> wrote:

> "David Weinshenker" <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:40B64D18...@earthlink.net...
> > Dave Grayvis wrote:
> > > 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?

> 3) Non-regulated rocket motors
> 4) Non-regulated rocket propellant

Perhaps.

> 5) Unclassified rocket motors
> 6) Unclassified rocket propellant

False since there WERE tests and classifications.

> 7) Safe and sane rocket motors (okay, that's kinda funny)

Has a legal meaning in fireworks.

>
> Anyway, see a trend here, Dave?

Trolling?

> 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.


> 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?
>
>

--

J.A. Michel

unread,
May 27, 2004, 6:01:10 PM5/27/04
to
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/


W. E.Fred Wallace

unread,
May 27, 2004, 6:19:03 PM5/27/04
to

Jerry Irvine wrote:
>
> In article <cqocb0l9qj7ai55bn...@4ax.com>,
> Phil Stein <PSt...@ArielSystems.spamsks.net> wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> --

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

Jerry Irvine

unread,
May 27, 2004, 6:16:15 PM5/27/04
to
In article <vvncb05qeenb089hb...@4ax.com>,
Brian Efforts <eff...@symbols.com> wrote:

That has a legal meaning.

They were grains.

Jerry Irvine

unread,
May 27, 2004, 6:17:03 PM5/27/04
to
In article <40B667E7...@olg.com>,

"W. E.Fred Wallace" <wall...@olg.com> wrote:

> 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

unread,
May 27, 2004, 6:21:02 PM5/27/04
to

Well Jerry, Answer the question, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket

W. E.Fred Wallace

unread,
May 27, 2004, 6:28:24 PM5/27/04
to

Jerry Irvine wrote:
>
> In article <40B667E7...@olg.com>,
> "W. E.Fred Wallace" <wall...@olg.com> wrote:
>
> > 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

David Weinshenker

unread,
May 27, 2004, 6:29:58 PM5/27/04
to
Jerry Irvine wrote:
> 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

David Weinshenker

unread,
May 27, 2004, 6:32:12 PM5/27/04
to
Jerry Irvine wrote:
> 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

unread,
May 27, 2004, 6:42:15 PM5/27/04
to
In article <c95of8$tll$1...@www.flugmodellbau.de>,
"J.A. Michel" <jm4...@spamnotalltel.net> wrote:

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

Jerry Irvine

unread,
May 27, 2004, 6:45:39 PM5/27/04
to
In article <40B66C6C...@earthlink.net>,
David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:

The spell is working....

Jerry Irvine

unread,
May 27, 2004, 6:50:11 PM5/27/04
to
In article <40B66BE6...@earthlink.net>,
David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Jerry Irvine wrote:
> > 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.

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.

>
> 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.

>
> This seems to be the simplest explanation that I can think of.
>
> -dave w

--

W. E.Fred Wallace

unread,
May 27, 2004, 7:05:06 PM5/27/04
to

Jerry Irvine wrote:
>
> In article <40B66BE6...@earthlink.net>,
> David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Jerry Irvine wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> Something along those lines definitely happened. He was brought before
> the TRA BOD in 8-01

BS, never happened..

>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.
>
> >
> > 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.

BS, pure and simple..

>
> 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

W. E.Fred Wallace

unread,
May 27, 2004, 7:06:32 PM5/27/04
to

Jerry Irvine wrote:
>
> In article <c95of8$tll$1...@www.flugmodellbau.de>,
> "J.A. Michel" <jm4...@spamnotalltel.net> wrote:
>
> > 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
>

Answer the question Jerry, Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors

W. E.Fred Wallace

unread,
May 27, 2004, 7:08:04 PM5/27/04
to

Jerry Irvine wrote:
>
> In article <40B66C6C...@earthlink.net>,
> David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Jerry Irvine wrote:
> > > 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

Jerry Irvine

unread,
May 27, 2004, 7:07:09 PM5/27/04
to
In article <40B67422...@olg.com>,

"W. E.Fred Wallace" <wall...@olg.com> wrote:

> Jerry Irvine wrote:
> >
> > In article <40B66BE6...@earthlink.net>,
> > David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Jerry Irvine wrote:
> > > > 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.
> >
> > 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

almax

unread,
May 27, 2004, 7:19:41 PM5/27/04
to
"Dave Grayvis" <davegr...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:mpetc.3619$mK4...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...

because he could.


W. E.Fred Wallace

unread,
May 27, 2004, 7:24:42 PM5/27/04
to

Jerry Irvine wrote:
>
> In article <40B67422...@olg.com>,
> "W. E.Fred Wallace" <wall...@olg.com> wrote:
>
> > Jerry Irvine wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <40B66BE6...@earthlink.net>,
> > > David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jerry Irvine wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Something along those lines definitely happened. He was brought before
> > > the TRA BOD in 8-01
> >
> > BS, never happened..
>
> I witnessed it!!!

Never happened..

>
> I was there.

See above..

>
> How can I have a real conversation with someone who disputes clear fact?

Admit you are a liar, simple..

>
> Jerry
>

almax

unread,
May 27, 2004, 7:41:18 PM5/27/04
to
"Dave Grayvis" <davegr...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:mpetc.3619$mK4...@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.

David Schultz

unread,
May 27, 2004, 7:53:29 PM5/27/04
to

Scott Schuckert wrote:
> In article <20040527014957...@mb-m10.aol.com>, RayDunakin
> <raydu...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>

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.

> (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

unread,
May 27, 2004, 8:24:08 PM5/27/04
to
In article <7qKdnbZ6iKm...@buckeye-express.com>,
"almax" <a...@unverified.com> wrote:

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

Dave Grayvis

unread,
May 27, 2004, 8:25:28 PM5/27/04
to
Jerry Irvine wrote:


> Remember that silly NAR/ATF lawsuit?
>
> Jerry
>

How does that have anything to do with the DOT?

Dave Grayvis

unread,
May 27, 2004, 8:29:09 PM5/27/04
to
David Weinshenker wrote:

Need a hankie?

Jerry Irvine

unread,
May 27, 2004, 8:31:09 PM5/27/04
to
In article <40B67FC4...@127.0.0.1>,
David Schultz <ab...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

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

>
> 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!

>
> "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.

>
>
> 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.

>
> "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

--

Dave Grayvis

unread,
May 27, 2004, 8:31:51 PM5/27/04
to
Jerry Irvine wrote:

> In article <c95of8$tll$1...@www.flugmodellbau.de>,
> "J.A. Michel" <jm4...@spamnotalltel.net> wrote:
>
>
>>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.

Explain in detail how The DOT lied. In detail.

Dave Grayvis

unread,
May 27, 2004, 8:36:26 PM5/27/04
to
David Schultz wrote:


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

David Weinshenker

unread,
May 27, 2004, 8:39:13 PM5/27/04