NMUSAF Asserts Ownership Over CAF P-82

Ryan Keough · **Posted:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:21 pm

See the full press release from the CAF at:

http://www.warbirds-online.org/2008/09/ ... -with-caf/

Discuss...

Young Shep · **Posted:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:25 pm

Very glad to see that the CAF is speaking out about this and will hopefully rally some support. They could have rolled over as the USAFM has deeper pockets I'm sure...

maxum96 · **Posted:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:28 pm

Ugh

Forgotten Field · **Posted:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:36 pm

Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, and the P-82. Isn't anybody getting tired of the government taking what is NOT theirs...?

Taylor Stevenson · **Posted:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:58 pm

Ok everyone, this is something we really need to rally around. This issue has and will continue to affect museum and collectors across the nation. For those of us who want to see these priceless pieces of aviation history fly, we must do all we can to spread the word about what the bureaucrats at the NMUSAF are doing. Going to court is simply going to cost a charitable organization and the United States taxpayers a lot of money. I'm sure the bureaucrats wouldn't be doing this if the money came out of their wallets.

Obergrafeter · **Posted:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:41 pm

Just a question.............If the decision was July 1, how come we haven't heard anything until today? Was there a gag order or us mushrooms just left out here on our own?

mike furline · **Joined:** Wed May 05, 2004 3:45 pm **Posts:** 2635

If we take the CAF article at face value and they have a paper trail showing ownership since 1968, how do you lose in court???

Why did the Judge rule in the NMUSAF favor?

Regards,
Mike

airnutz · **Posted:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:44 pm

mike furline wrote:

If we take the CAF article at face value and they have a paper trail showing ownership since 1968, how do you lose in court???

...and where in the following provisions could they have found the CAF at fault?

Statute: 10 U.S.C. 2572.
Donor Agency: Any military department (Army, Navy, and Air Force) or the Coast Guard.

Type of Property: Books, manuscripts, works of art, historical artifacts, drawings, plans, models, and condemned or obsolete combat material.

Eligible Recipients: Municipal corporations; soldiers’ monument associations; museums, historical societies, or historical institutions of a State or foreign nation; incorporated museums that are operated and maintained for educational purposes only and the charters of which denies them the right to operate for profit; posts of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States or of the American Legion or a unit of any other recognized war veterans’ association; local or national units of any war veterans’ association of a foreign nation which is recognized by the national government of that nation or a principal subdivision of that nation; and posts of the Sons of Veterans Reserve.

Obergrafeter · **Posted:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:46 pm

You make a Law 101 mistake trying to apply logic to law. Don't work. Notice where the trial was heard..............Ohio, next question.

airnutz · **Posted:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:49 pm

Obergrafeter wrote:

You make a Law 101 mistake trying to apply logic to law. Don't work. Notice where the trial was heard..............Ohio, next question.

Touche' Ober...I'll go back to my shadetree bench now.. :roll:

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:56 pm

Obergrafeter wrote:

You make a Law 101 mistake trying to apply logic to law. Don't work. Notice where the trial was heard..............Ohio, next question.

LOL. Maybe them Yankees still remember the old CAF name...

On a more serious note, what might be the best strategy here? I'm thinking of writing my congressman... Does anyone here want to comment on whether or not that would be a good move? What other options can be exercised?

Ryan

Old Shep · **Joined:** Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:49 pm **Posts:** 219

All:

I hope more folks get on board as we fight this deal out. If Lex (I believe that is his name) can fight and win against the Navy re: the Corsair deal, because of his persistence and public outrage, then we ought to be able to prevail against the Air Force Museum's director.

Ober: we didn't go public with things until today as our attorney was working out the details of the appeal process. As I've said all along, when we can talk about this, we will talk: no holds barred.

Mike; how did we lose? Well, the decision to have the case heard in Ohio hurt us...we believe that the judge did not review our presentation as carefully as perhaps he should or could have. We hope the appeals court will review the evidence a bit more "judiciously."

We were convinced, by the way, that had the summary judgement gone against the Air Force Museum that they would have appealed, just as we are doing. So, this was almost destined to move to the next level. Of course, the Air Force has almost unlimited resources to fight this in court: we need enthusiasts in the warbird community to join with us in the court of public opinion.

Hope we keep this thread going so more people know what is happening. I'll be glad to answer all questions if I'm able.

Old Shep

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:03 pm

Old Shep,

I was able to work something out to get Lex and the "Col" :shock:

on the radio here in San Antonio a while back during the Corsair fight. I'd be willing to try again with this if you want! Please let us know what kinds of things are helpful. Obviously, if something that we think is helpful (like writing a congressman) is something you'd rather not be done for strategy purposes, that'd be nice to know as well.

Ryan

Obergrafeter · **Posted:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:07 pm

Can Midland have some type of coordinated attack figured out to give us at Airsho to help? Like Ryan suggests write our Congressman, send me to meet personally with Sarah or whatever it takes to fight buearacracy whever we find it.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:19 pm

Well, I have to be honest and say that I really don't know much about this P-82 deal. I am split on it and I will say why. First off, if the NMUSAF does own it, and actually thinks that they do own it, then I agree with them making sure ownership is established. I think anyone here would do the same thing. And let's look at this from a fair standpoint. The P-82 has been wrecked for years, and nothing done to it, and then the CAF was going to trade it for a P-38. That is how this whole thing started. If you yourself thought you owned that P-82 wouldn't you say something? So it isn't so much of a fact that the NMUSAF showed up and said they are taking the B-24.
Now here is where I have a problem. First off if the P-82 belongs to the NMUSAF, will is stay in Texas and fly? No. Does it fly now? No. Has it flown in the last 10 years? No. And was it going to fly with the CAF? No. Once again it was going to be traded. If the P-82 belongs to the NMUSAF, WTF are we going to do with it. We alread have the most famous one on display, "Betty Joe", and have another in Lackland AFB.
Now remember I am a member and volunteer of both organizations in question here. I just hope this gets answered fast and the P-82 gets back in the air.

Warbird Information Exchange

NMUSAF Asserts Ownership Over CAF P-82

Who is online