Rocketry Planet

WASHINGTON, District of Columbia USA — On July 28, 2009, TRA/NAR asked Judge Reggie Walton’s US District Court for additional time to file their reply to BATFE’s memorandum opposing reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs. The original deadline for TRA/NAR to file their reply memorandum was August 4, but the rocketry hobby organizations requested that it be extended for an additional six days resulting in a new proposed deadline of August 10.

TRA/NAR explained that it was unable to prepare the reply memorandum by the original deadline since “Defendant’s memorandum [in opposition to reimbursement] presents several complex and unique arguments as to why the relief sought by Plaintiffs should be denied outright by this Court, or at least substantially reduced. Responding to this memorandum will require time-intensive legal and factual research and analysis.”

BATFE had sought and was granted two time extensions to file its opposition memorandum, and as a result, TRA/NAR stated in the motion that “the additional requested time [by TRA/NAR] to reply is thus necessary because the allotted time for Plaintiffs’ reply coincides with previously scheduled vacations for Plaintiffs’ counsel.” Alluding to that further, TRA/NAR commented that “Plaintiffs did not oppose either of Defendant’s requests for extension of time to file their response. Allowing Plaintiffs a reasonable amount of additional time to reply is fair under all of the circumstances.” Counsel for TRA/NAR indicated in the motion that BATFE does not oppose the request allowing TRA/NAR additional time.

The motion is recorded as document no. 122 on the US District Court docket for this case and is attached below along with document 122-2, which is the proposed order submitted by TRA/NAR.

Reader comments:

#1 Re: Article: TRA/NAR Request More Time to File Reply Memorandum

Quote:

. . . requested that it be extended for an additional six days resulting in a new proposed deadline of August 10.

“Defendant’s memorandum [in opposition to reimbursement> presents several complex and unique arguments as to why the relief sought by Plaintiffs should be denied outright by this Court, or at least substantially reduced. Responding to this memorandum will require time-intensive legal and factual research and analysis.”

Complex and unique = lying sack of sh*t

Universal translator output.

P.S. NAR/TRA should "amend their request for relief" to include those fees incurred since ending of the case, as well as those fees not originally requested, as the court MIGHT find just and proper, plus ADDITIONAL RELIEF AS THE COURT MIGHT FIND JUSTIFIED.

Suggestions for relief:

1. Specific performance to exempt 1.4 from 27 CFR 555.141-a-7
2. Treble damages
3. Editing of FedReg listed regulations to exclude the new PAD exclusion.
3. Finding that the BP exemption applies to sporting uses aside from Antique firearms, including rocketry.
4. Declare rocket gods by name with a top 10 initially.

Just Jerry on 07-28-2009 10:57 PM

#2 Re: Article: TRA/NAR Request More Time to File Reply Memorandum

Quote:

Suggestions for relief:

1. Specific performance to exempt 1.4 from 27 CFR 555.141-a-7
2. Treble damages
3. Editing of FedReg listed regulations to exclude the new PAD exclusion.
3. Finding that the BP exemption applies to sporting uses aside from Antique firearms, including rocketry.
4. Declare rocket gods by name with a top 10 initially.

I especially like #4.

Steve_Shannon on 07-29-2009 03:27 AM

#3 Re: Article: TRA/NAR Request More Time to File Reply Memorandum

Quote:

I especially like #4.

hahahaha!

Rocketflyer on 07-29-2009 08:25 AM

#4 Re: Article: TRA/NAR Request More Time to File Reply Memorandum

Last night I had a bizarre dream. I dreamt I was in Judge Walton's courtroom and he asked for counsel to approach the bench. He looked staight at the defense counsel and said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dISKvZetkQI&NR=1

tmacklin on 07-29-2009 11:04 AM

#5 Re: Article: TRA/NAR Request More Time to File Reply Memorandum

Via use of a minute order, Judge Reggie Walton approved NAR/TRA's 7/28/09 motion requesting additional time to file its reply memorandum. The following entry was made this morning on the US District Court docket for this case.

7/29/09 Docket Entry:
"MINUTE ORDER granting 122 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. The plaintiffs shall file their reply by August 10, 2009. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on 07/29/09. (lcrbw2) (Entered: 07/29/2009)"

James L.

James L. on 07-29-2009 12:31 PM

#6 Re: Article: TRA/NAR Request More Time to File Reply Memorandum

Maybe we should add a #5": Consider all rocket motors as Model Airplane Parts....

frederocket on 07-29-2009 02:00 PM

#7 Re: Article: TRA/NAR Request More Time to File Reply Memorandum

Today's the day for our response to the BATFE's challenge of our request for reimbursement of our legal fees. I'm looking forward to reading our legal team's reply.

It'll be interesting to see how our legal team responds. Most (all?) the points the ATF raised seem easy to counter. Some of the ATF's points are so ridiculous, however, that our attorneys may have had trouble avoiding a response that sounds snide or belittling.

Claiming that our side failed to follow a "Local Civil Rule" is one such point. The cited rule only applies to "nondispositive motions." Our motion for Summary Judgement is a "dispositive motion." IANAL, but it only took a few minutes with Google to learn that. Earlier in the case, the ATF had to file a "Notice of Errata" admitting that they had misinterpreted another one of the "Local Civil Rules." They seem to have a problem with rules.

And, I can't imagine how to respond to the section where the ATF states that because they were unable to show that APCP functions by explosion then it necessarily follows that there must be some cases where it does.

-- Roger

jadebox on 08-10-2009 01:35 PM

Registered users can add comments and discuss this article. To participate, please login or register.