To tell or not to tell.....

Isn't this the same dilema that faced Monica Lewinsky?

Well based on the poll , the majority of people here would keep their mouths shut and continue to purchase from the dealer.

What is that rule about ignorance of the law:

Ignorantia juris non excusat - Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law does not excuse" or "ignorance of the law excuses no one") is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content. In the United States, exceptions to this general rule are found in cases such as Lambert v. California (knowledge of city ordinances) and Cheek v. United States (willfulness requirement in U.S. federal tax crimes).

Problem is that today, you could be doing an activity that is moral, above-board and still go to prison

Jonathan

Jonathan, after all procedures ended, exactly none of that is true.

But there were four industry participants that tried really, really hard for that to be true and posted lots of intermediate elements, as publicly and repetitiously as they could, of claims later resolved in my favor.

None of them simply tried to purchase product from me and pay for it. Of course.

Virtually nobody was willing to publicly say "innocent till proven guilty" or whatever the terms is for that jurisdiction, or when all was resolved, jump on board to support a willing and able vendor. It was always about their ego to try to "take down" someone they felt was "too big for his britches".

I for one always made sure the events I hosted and the companies I sold stuff through sold as many brands and facilitated as many brands as possible. The Lucerne launches I hosted for example acted as an incubator for 12 motor brands and 20 or so kit brands and 50 or so accessory brands over the years.

I think we can agree few of those were 100% legal all the time, but it is also true the authorities allowed the activity because we notified them of our actions and procedures and how the laws didn't understand it well. It was not till people started dropping the dime they felt any duty to investigate, and even then they kept trying to let it go, but they kept getting the calls for years. Eventually they acted in a way to get folks attention and make example of folks for which they had "extensive files" due to these very motivated TRA leaders. They also used banning and taking over clubs and even at one point threatened to enact a plan to take over NAR! That was resolved with a treaty between TRA and NAR where they never bring up the obvious mistakes and bad policies of the other. But TRA sure targets particular vendors and props up others. Kosdon for one was their favorite son despite no state permit, no ATF permit and the CSFM himself clearly stating no motor ever shipped was legal!

Yes my company had a state permit, a ATF permit, existing certified motors and they banned me anyway, refused to renew motors, motors that were actually tested and paid for were never listed, and motor submitted and not tested ended up in the Kelly personal motor collection and at flight events at Tripoli Las Vegas, Blazanin's group at the time.

Unfairness and selective enforcement is the norm. All claims should be observed with ultimate skepticism

On top of all that we have regulatory negligence as shown by the recent allowance of motors up to 125g which was part of my proposal that was adopted in the late 80's to adjust FAA to 125g and conform NAR and NFPA to same. 50% of that proposal was fully adopted, total mass, not per motor mass. We also see the CPSC 80N thrust limit for CHILDREN transferred to model rocketry to adults and even now over 15 years later, maintained in the 2012 NFPA 1125 code despite the now adoption of uniified 125g motors. Those are limited to 80N for ADULTS and makes a crazy category of "HPR" motors within the legal limits of model rocketry as far as the law, but over 80N and under 125g motors are declared only usable by adults with HPR level 1 cert (under 3000 people worldwide). Before these crazy club rules were made up out of thin air, we used to sell F100's and G120's in stores and dealers as "model rocket motors".

Let's just say the clubs are imperfect and not quick (decades) to identify and fix known imperfections, and very quick (real time internet posts) to vilify those bringing up those imperfections.

Needs fixin'.

Jerry

Then that link of the court papers that was around for a few years, the court documents showing the fine, and the arrest and booking records were just all made up?

OK, I have a bridge for sale; it needs painting every few years but it pays for itself with toll booths on both ends.

Its in a great location between San Francisco and Marin CA and has a great view of the Pacific Ocean.

Now the price I am asking is on the high side, but within a year or two, it would have paid for itself!

I do take paypal and we can ink the deal without having to actually meet; I will forward you the deed to the bridge once payment is received...

J

ok ,,cool ... is the poll finished now ?

Which you, for one, actively encourage and facilitate.

If you cannot see it in front of your face you are more than willing to ask leading libelous rhetorical questions, make libelous inferences based on no fact, and proactively propose a fraudulant transfer.

Just stop. It's you.

I doubt it. When not flying, many in the the "rocket community" love to ressurect dead horses, regardless of whether the grudge is based on fact or fantasy. And for some, as long as Jerry Irvine has a pulse, the issue will never die.

No no, JI is a side-show as he no longer has any relevance outside of his clique there in Clairmont, CA.

The real issue is about what to do when you received rocket motors illegally. Now JI's experience shows what can go terribly wrong should the system exercise its ability to 'hammer down' the nail that sticks up.

We have all heard the horror stories when the BATF, IRS, and Treasury Department, come down on citizens whether they are guilty or not.

I for one will accept motors shipped without HAZMAT and not get involved with educating the shipper. Should the propellant be detected by the Postal Service, and they come to me for information, I guess I will feign complete knowledge of shipping regulations and take on the role of victim. Isn't that BAU in America these days?

Jonathan

Ignorance of the law may not be a legal defense, but therein lies no duty of a purchaser to ensure that a seller is shipping via legal means.
That is the purview of the seller only as the purchaser ultimately has ZERO decision power to force said seller to ship via any method.
I have never heard of any court within the USA holding a purchaser liable for ANYTHING due to a method a seller used for shipment.

Quite frankly to put it in PLAIN FREAKING ENGLISH, the duty lies TOTALLY with the shipper to ensure goods ship via legal method. I have no desire EVER as a purchaser to play some sort of Bat-Rastard Shipment Cop.
All I care as a purchaser is that I get my goods in a timely fashion for the lowest possible cost including shipment cost. How the seller chooses to do that I DO NOT CARE nor do I feel ANY sort of moral obligation to know how they do so. I do NOT want to know.

Anyone that wants to be 'shipper cop' for their OWN transactions, be my guest; just keep their stinkin snoots out of MY transactions, thank you.

__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!!

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't !
Failure may not be an OPTION, but it is ALWAYS a POSSIBILITY.
ALL systems are GO for MAYHEM, CHAOS, and HAVOC !

You know what? Until and unless somebody posts the actual warrant, arrest report and court order for the allegeded crime/s and/or civil judgement against Jerry Irvine being suggested here, I for one must suspend judgement. As the Wendy's commercial says, "Where's the beef?"

As for the heavy hand of government regulators, I personally received a letter from the US DOJ, Office of Consumer Litigation dated May 5, 2005, as part of a witch hunt orchestrated by the CPSC in conjunction with the BATFE. The late Darrell Mobley posted this matter on Rocketry Planet under Rockets and Regulation...Firefox Today... etc. I can post the link if anyone is interested.

Don't spit on the sidewalk.