Rocketry Planet

WASHINGTON, District of Columbia USA — Legal counsel for Tripoli Rocketry Association (TRA) and the National Association of Rocketry (NAR) filed a motion, today, with Judge Reggie B. Walton in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia asking the court to allow TRA/NAR to file a supplemental motion for reimbursement of legal fees. 

The plaintiffs, TRA/NAR, have already filed one motion on June 15, 2009 seeking reimbursement of $395,196.99 for attorneys' fees and legal costs from the defendant, BATFE, after Judge Walton ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on March 16 that ammonium perchlorate composite propellant should no longer be designated as an explosive by the defendant.  In an effort to fight reimbursement to the plaintiffs, BATFE responded on July 21 by filing a memorandum of opposition in which it made it made several arguments as to why it should not have to pay. In a reply memorandum filed today, TRA/NAR refuted BATFE's claims that reimbursement should not be allowed.

TRA/NAR have continued to incur legal expenses after the March 16 ruling as their counsel had to prepare the June 15 motion seeking reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs as well as the memorandum of reply filed today.  When the hobby rocketry organizations recently asked Judge Walton for additional time to respond to BATFE's memorandum of opposition, TRA/NAR stated in a filing with the court on July 28, "Defendant's [24 page] memorandum 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."

TRA/NAR explained in the request to the court today that if "granted, Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion will seek reimbursement for only those attorneys' fees and costs incurred in preparing Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, filed August 10, 2009."  Since today's filing was only seeking permission to file a supplemental claim for reimbursement, there were no exhibits of detailed attorneys' fees and costs submitted.

Document: Plaintiffs' Motion to File Supplemental Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs (31KB Adobe PDF)

Reader comments:

#1 Re: Article: TRA/NAR file motion to submit for supplemental fees

At some point, do lawyer fees wind up costing more than any money we can expect to recover?

New Ocean on 08-11-2009 01:39 PM

#2 Re: Article: TRA/NAR file motion to submit for supplemental fees

I think that's the whole point here. The BATFE is forcing us to rack up more legal fees in order to recover the fees from the original lawsuit. This motion seeks additional reimbursement for legal fees incurred SINCE the judge's decision in our favor.

If the judge agrees, the longer the BATFE tries to stall, the more money we will eventually collect.

SCE to AUX on 08-11-2009 01:50 PM

#3 Re: Article: TRA/NAR file motion to submit for supplemental fees

Quote:

I think that's the whole point here. The BATFE is forcing us to rack up more legal fees in order to recover the fees from the original lawsuit. This motion seeks additional reimbursement for legal fees incurred SINCE the judge's decision in our favor.

If the judge agrees, the longer the BATFE tries to stall, the more money we will eventually collect.

Even if the judge rules 100% in our favor which is likely, we are only getting back about 80% of what we spent and 0% of the "opportunity costs of volunteers" who charged no fees and logged no hours.

Any money awarded and actually paid is a partial refund of OUR OWN MONEY.

The government never gives full refunds nor pays as agreed without a fight.

Jerry

Just Jerry on 08-11-2009 02:49 PM

#4 Re: Article: TRA/NAR file motion to submit for supplemental fees

Well,

At least it would be 80% of our own money and the government would be partially financing
the rocketry suit against itself. Yeah, Yeah, I know it's taxpayer money, but I think it
will go to good use in the respective organizations that fought for this. I'm still waiting for the
world to go to hell and anarchy to rule since APCP was dropped off of the list.

Kurt

ksaves2 on 08-11-2009 10:03 PM

#5 Re: Article: TRA/NAR file motion to submit for supplemental fees

I'm still waiting for the explosives loophole in the language to be tried out as a new way to regulate.

New Ocean on 08-12-2009 12:19 PM

#6 Re: Article: TRA/NAR file motion to submit for supplemental fees

Quote:

I'm still waiting for the explosives loophole in the language to be tried out as a new way to regulate.

If BATFE does try to take any action to regulate APCP, look for our legal counsel to immediately turn to Judge Walton for relief. Matter of fact, I think NAR/TRA will take BATFE to court again anyway since BATFE still has not complied with the first item in the letter (http://www.rocketryplanet....es/pdf/ATFE-06-09-09.pdf) that our counsel sent to them on June 9, 2009. BATFE's statement on page 11 of its July 21 memorandum of opposition (http://www.rocketryplanet....es/pdf/ATFE-07-21-09.pdf), "it is undisputed at this point that APCP satisfies the current statutory and regulatory requirements for classification as an explosive under at least some circumstances," should be setting off alarm bells with our counsel. I suspect that our attorneys have some timetable by which they expect BATFE to de-list APCP in the Federal Register, and if it does not, they will file a motion with Judge Walton to force de-listing. I would also suspect that the timetable will be running out fairly soon.

James L.

James L. on 08-12-2009 01:45 PM

#7 Re: Article: TRA/NAR file motion to submit for supplemental fees

As I watch the passing parade of life in these United States, I often get the feeling that I'm on the deck of the Titanic watching my fellow passengers feverishly polishing the brass railings while the iceburg gouges a gaping hole in the hull.

tmacklin on 08-13-2009 11:19 AM

#8 Re: Article: TRA/NAR file motion to submit for supplemental fees

my friend and I were talking about the legal system last night, and we were also bemoaning the fact that the legal system is no longer about right and wrong/guilt or innocence...it's all about what you can prove (through sincere or insincere methods). Prosecutors are more emphatic about getting a verdict than they are the truth. They take the evidence and decide who they can build a case against instead of seeing where the evidence points. You then have to disprove their theories. Very much a guilty until proven innocent situation. Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and the rest have been rolling in their graves for years...

Loopy on 08-13-2009 12:09 PM

#9 Re: Article: TRA/NAR file motion to submit for supplemental fees

Quote:

Prosecutors are more emphatic about getting a verdict than they are the truth. They take the evidence and decide who they can build a case against instead of seeing where the evidence points.

You are right this is bad, but it is also unethical. It is just not prosecuted. That sounds like a feedback loop.

Quote:

ETHICS FROM A PROSECUTOR'S POINT OF VIEW
Prosecution Ethics
"It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys, including any special prosecutors, not to
convict, but to see that justice is done."

(a) refrain from prosecuting or threatening to prosecute a charge that the prosecutor knows is
not supported by probable cause;

(b) refrain from conducting or assisting in a custodial interrogation of an accused unless the
prosecutor has made reasonable efforts to be assured that the accused has been advised of
any right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been given reasonable
opportunity to obtain counsel;

(c) not initiate or encourage efforts to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of
important pretrial, trial, or post-trial rights;

(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor
that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and in connection with
sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information
known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a
protective order of the tribunal; and

(e) exercise reasonable care to prevent persons employed or controlled by the prosecutor in a
criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited
from making.

The adversarial model contemplated by the rules pits the defense attorney against the prosecuting attorney, with both of the attorneys governed by the rules of court and the disciplinary rules. While the newer rules also represent an effort to discourage abusive adversarial tactics, the adversarial model continues to be firmly established in the court. This is somewhat at odds with the historical context and purpose of the court. The court had been created with the ideals of "rehabilitation" of the defandant and "protection" of the public as worthy goals. All parties, the state, the judge, the social worker, the public defendant, everyone in the process, are presumed to have the same goal and interest in the defendant's welfare.

So much for theory.

Jerry

http://www.google.com/#q=p...sa=N&fp=82e34627c46f57f4

Just Jerry on 08-15-2009 09:09 PM

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