Tue Sep 09, 2008 12:40 pm
I still say "deteriorate further". Unless the answer to the following is "yes".
Is maintenance being performed on it to prevent deterioration?
If the answer is yes, fine. If not, I contend it's being allowed to deteriorate. Obviously, I'm not an a/c owner, but I'd think a modicum of PM is required on every a/c. Is this not true? Anyone...Bueller...anyone...
Mudge the argumentative
Is maintenance being performed on it to prevent deterioration?
If the answer is yes, fine. If not, I contend it's being allowed to deteriorate. Obviously, I'm not an a/c owner, but I'd think a modicum of PM is required on every a/c. Is this not true? Anyone...Bueller...anyone...
Mudge the argumentative
Tue Sep 09, 2008 12:51 pm
Old Shep wrote:We believe that this is a case we can win, and it most definitely is a case we (the entire warbird community) MUST make.
May I ask why the entire warbird community must make this case? Is it not just a contract dispute over one airplane and not in any way a referendum over warbird ownership and operation?
Old Shep wrote:Several people are prescient enough to see the writing on the wall about private ownership of surplus government equipment.
I very much understand this point, but I do not understand how the fate of the P-82 is in any way tied to the private ownership of surplus government equipment. There is no way a win by the USAFM would give them any precedent to then go seize any additional warbirds. At best a win by the USAFM would mean that the P-82 returns to Dayton and the one or two other flying warbirds operated under such contracts would not be able to be sold by the parties they were donated to. This is hardly the sky is falling outcome that some here fear.
Pooner makes a point in the other thread that this case could cause the reintroduction/public debate over the demil bill. That is indeed a reasonable fear. I do not doubt that many politicians, bureaucrats, and maybe even members of the public fear the private ownership of former military aircraft. However, I think it is necessary to keep in mind who own many of these aircraft...exceedingly wealth private collectors. I just can’t see Rod Lewis sitting on his hands if such a bill was reintroduced and passed and the USAFM was knocking at his door trying to seize his $10m+ P-38 or $2m+ TP-51.
In fact an argument can be made that it is in the best interest of the warbird community for the CAF to settle this lawsuit quickly and privately and not interject what is a contract dispute over one airplane into the public debate. Such a long drawn out public debate could give a voice to the anti-flyer faction and allow parties to introduce much more dangerous legislation that could effect the ability of civilians to own and fly all ex-military aircraft. In addition, could a win in this case by the CAF so hurt the pride of certain powerful parties such that they will use it as an excuse to find other avenues to threaten all warbirds and not just one Twin Mustang? Some food for thought at least.
Jim
Tue Sep 09, 2008 12:56 pm
I have read with interest this delima. With being a delima set in the Great State of Texas, I would suggest, that someone pull together a packet of detailed information and get it to the Representative/Con-gressman in the district of where the Twin Mustang is housed, and let them know that the citizens would like congressional support in the complete and total release of the aircraft from the USAFM, NAFM/Government. See if they can get this in the ear of the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committe...$hit will happen.
Tue Sep 09, 2008 1:09 pm
Gary, let us suppose for the sake of argument that the USAF is right and that the airplane belongs to it, as finally determined by the courts (which, by the way, is their job -- not Congress's). If so, then what you are saying is, "Let's pressure our Congressmen to take the USAF's F-82 and give it to CAF."
But why stop there? And why pick that airplane and that recipient? Why not say, "Let's pressure our Congressmen to take the Swoose from the USAF and give it to Paul Allen?" Heck, we could distribute the entire contents of the NMUSAF among deserving private recipients.
The question here is who owns it, not who we would prefer to have it.
August
But why stop there? And why pick that airplane and that recipient? Why not say, "Let's pressure our Congressmen to take the Swoose from the USAF and give it to Paul Allen?" Heck, we could distribute the entire contents of the NMUSAF among deserving private recipients.
The question here is who owns it, not who we would prefer to have it.
August
Tue Sep 09, 2008 1:10 pm
AirJimi2 wrote:
My sentiments exactly.
Mudge the sycophant
This is hardly the sky is falling outcome that some here fear.
My sentiments exactly.
Mudge the sycophant
Tue Sep 09, 2008 7:23 pm
All,
A few points that haven't been made here:
First, at the time the "trade" for the P-38 was made, the CAF believed, and we still do, that we own the airplane outright. We hold a clear FAA title, and we (the board of directors) were not aware of either of the USAF transfer agreements dating back to the '60s.
Second, when we became aware of the agreements, even though we believed then, and still do believe, that we own the airplane outright, we undid the "trade" as a measure of good faith. (in retrospect, that might have been a mistake. We have a clear title and a document from the Air Force that transferred the airplane to us without restrictions that post-dates the restricted donation.)
Third, at the time we made the "trade" we had no benefactor willing to undertake the project and the party to the "trade" had the desire and the resources to make the airplane fly again. We believed it was in the best interest of the airplane to allow someone who could restore it to have a take a turn as the custodian of the airplane. All of us would love to see a P-82 fly and we believed that the "trade" would make that happen in short order. What an exciting thought
Fourth, We believed a flying P-38 would be more useful in our mission of telling the story of airpower in preserving freedom than a P-82 restoration project without a benefactor.
Fifth, The situation has changed. Since that time there has been serious interest in undertaking the restoration on behalf of the CAF by parties with the resources to do it.
Finally, the CAF has negotiated in good faith from the start and the AF museum has been unwilling to discuss any option other than, send it back.
There was a time when the CAF philosophy was to acquire and hang on to any and everything and someday, when we were able, we would undertake the project. That was not in the best interest of the airplanes, and that has changed. The new position is, if we can't restore an airplane, we should let someone else who can become the custodian of the airplane. Our effort to sell the Mauler to Eric was an example of that. The decision to trade the P-82 was in the best interest of the airplane under the circumstances at that time.
The circumstances are different today, the CAF is now in a position to be a good steward of the P-82, we believe we own it outright and the Air Force Museum is trying to take it from us. They won the first round with a home court advantage and they have a much larger legal budget than us. That horse can not be let out of the barn.
This case has implication to all warbird owners and enthusiasts.
Any and all support is needed and appreciated.
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
CAF Board Member
A few points that haven't been made here:
First, at the time the "trade" for the P-38 was made, the CAF believed, and we still do, that we own the airplane outright. We hold a clear FAA title, and we (the board of directors) were not aware of either of the USAF transfer agreements dating back to the '60s.
Second, when we became aware of the agreements, even though we believed then, and still do believe, that we own the airplane outright, we undid the "trade" as a measure of good faith. (in retrospect, that might have been a mistake. We have a clear title and a document from the Air Force that transferred the airplane to us without restrictions that post-dates the restricted donation.)
Third, at the time we made the "trade" we had no benefactor willing to undertake the project and the party to the "trade" had the desire and the resources to make the airplane fly again. We believed it was in the best interest of the airplane to allow someone who could restore it to have a take a turn as the custodian of the airplane. All of us would love to see a P-82 fly and we believed that the "trade" would make that happen in short order. What an exciting thought
Fourth, We believed a flying P-38 would be more useful in our mission of telling the story of airpower in preserving freedom than a P-82 restoration project without a benefactor.
Fifth, The situation has changed. Since that time there has been serious interest in undertaking the restoration on behalf of the CAF by parties with the resources to do it.
Finally, the CAF has negotiated in good faith from the start and the AF museum has been unwilling to discuss any option other than, send it back.
There was a time when the CAF philosophy was to acquire and hang on to any and everything and someday, when we were able, we would undertake the project. That was not in the best interest of the airplanes, and that has changed. The new position is, if we can't restore an airplane, we should let someone else who can become the custodian of the airplane. Our effort to sell the Mauler to Eric was an example of that. The decision to trade the P-82 was in the best interest of the airplane under the circumstances at that time.
The circumstances are different today, the CAF is now in a position to be a good steward of the P-82, we believe we own it outright and the Air Force Museum is trying to take it from us. They won the first round with a home court advantage and they have a much larger legal budget than us. That horse can not be let out of the barn.
This case has implication to all warbird owners and enthusiasts.
Any and all support is needed and appreciated.
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
CAF Board Member
Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:29 pm
"This case has implication to all warbird owners and enthusiasts. "
How so?
I have been following this story with some interest, but would understand that this relates to some US warbirds covered under some specific types of transfer agreement / sale.
I would assume the vast majority of warbird owners worldwide are pretty much in the clear.
How so?
I have been following this story with some interest, but would understand that this relates to some US warbirds covered under some specific types of transfer agreement / sale.
I would assume the vast majority of warbird owners worldwide are pretty much in the clear.
Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:57 pm
For now...I would assume the vast majority of warbird owners worldwide are pretty much in the clear.
I would not say that the sky is falling on the warbird community, but I do think a precedent is being set. If what we are being told is correct, that the "conditions of loan" were removed in a later contract and clear title was issued to the CAF, then the NMUSAF is seizing property that they have no right to. If a transfer of title does not mean transfer of ownership then what makes you think that it stops there. The idea that it doesn't immediately affect the warbird community directly is naive, who will be next?
Chunks
Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:03 pm
Another thing mentioned by the judge is that the USAF personnel handling the transaction did not have the authority to transfer ownership in the manner the CAF claims, therefore they could not have. As agents of the US government however, the USAF individuals may have indeed done so even if they were not authorized.
As an example, I am not authorized by my company to give a supplier contractual direction, but legally I can and my company is responsible. I may get fired over it, or the company may then sue me, but the authority my company gives me is different than contractual law.
As an example, I am not authorized by my company to give a supplier contractual direction, but legally I can and my company is responsible. I may get fired over it, or the company may then sue me, but the authority my company gives me is different than contractual law.
Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:26 pm
So why doesn't the gumbit sue the Air Force Officers that didn't have authority to do anything? OK now for Law 101 rule number three "Thou shall not sue a turnip"
Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:31 pm
Another thing mentioned by the judge is that the USAF personnel handling the transaction did not have the authority to transfer ownership in the manner the CAF claims, therefore they could not have. As agents of the US government however, the USAF individuals may have indeed done so even if they were not authorized.
Excellent point Brandon.
Here are my thoughts after reading the latest posts. I hope I 'splain them adequately.
The people who did the transfer may not have had the authority but the CAF had no reason to believe that they didn't and entered into the agreement in good faith. I think the USAF is responsible for the actions of their representatives and should honor the contract. Sometimes you have to "bite the bullet" and take the loss. This is no financial loss to the USAF but they have now turned it into a "loss of face" situation. IMHO, they've put themselves in a position where they have only two options.
1) Pursue this case until they win (their legal resources can simply outlast the CAF's)
2) They can save face by saying, "In the best interests of the preservation of the historical significance of the aircraft, the CAF may retain the a/c and have clear legal title."
Depends on how they want the public to view them. And the public WILL hear about it, one way or another.
Mudge the simplistic
Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:45 pm
That would be great Mudge except for Rules #1 and 2 of Law 101..............if its' reasonable or makes common sense it ain't gonna happen.
Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:31 pm
Posession is 9/10ths of the law as they say, so the longer the CAF can delay the return, the better chance they will have to eventually work something out. If they return it tomorrow, or enter into an agreement to accept it on loan, they are sunk and it will NEVER fly again.Obergrafeter wrote:That would be great Mudge except for Rules #1 and 2 of Law 101..............if its' reasonable or makes common sense it ain't gonna happen.
Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:25 am
A few quick thoughts..........
Posession has NOTHING to do with it. If they give it back now or if the USAFM comes and takes it, there is no difference in the eyes of the court.
There is NO home court advantage in Federal Court, sorry guys. If you read the ruling, its based on the documents that were produced and it seems to make legal sense to me.
Next, the Federal Government is NOT bound by the actions of its AGENTS. Combine that with the legal principle of "You can't give better title than you have" and what you get it is that the USAF Officers in 1966 or whenever couldnt give the F-82 away in violation of the law.
Think about it for a minute.........
An Army Officer at Ft. Knox says you can have all the gold there...... Does that make it yours? Not hardly..........
If you have ever dealt with the IRS they will tell you that they are NOT bound by the opinions of their employees. If you call the IRS and ask 20 people the same question you are going to get 20 different answers. You can't shop around until you find the one you like.
Another example that most of us should remember happend at Chino with the Navy coming in to grab and demil some F-14s. The way I heard it was that a Navy Officer decided to sell a few F-14s that were scrap to get some funds for the Officer's Club or something..... He didn't have the aurhtority to cirumvent the demil procedures or the bidding procedures and the REAL NAVY came and took everything back.....
I can say that I'm sure the CAF didn't act in bad faith in trying to trade the F-82. I'm sure that they thought they owned it since for 40 years or so they thought they owned it. I'll bet nobody was still around that was there in 1966. However they should have done some homework and checked and double checked and got an opinion from their lawyers that it was OK to offer this airplane for trade. Maybe they thought they didn't need an opinion or they didn't want to spend the money. If they got the YES TRADE it opinion from the lawyers, the outcome would have beendifferent.
Then the CAF could have sued the ATTYs for malpractice since they relied upon an incorrect opinion and lost the F-82. The settlement should have been enough to buy a P-38 or fix the old ScatterBrained Kid..........
Just my thoughts.....
Mark H
Posession has NOTHING to do with it. If they give it back now or if the USAFM comes and takes it, there is no difference in the eyes of the court.
There is NO home court advantage in Federal Court, sorry guys. If you read the ruling, its based on the documents that were produced and it seems to make legal sense to me.
Next, the Federal Government is NOT bound by the actions of its AGENTS. Combine that with the legal principle of "You can't give better title than you have" and what you get it is that the USAF Officers in 1966 or whenever couldnt give the F-82 away in violation of the law.
Think about it for a minute.........
An Army Officer at Ft. Knox says you can have all the gold there...... Does that make it yours? Not hardly..........
If you have ever dealt with the IRS they will tell you that they are NOT bound by the opinions of their employees. If you call the IRS and ask 20 people the same question you are going to get 20 different answers. You can't shop around until you find the one you like.
Another example that most of us should remember happend at Chino with the Navy coming in to grab and demil some F-14s. The way I heard it was that a Navy Officer decided to sell a few F-14s that were scrap to get some funds for the Officer's Club or something..... He didn't have the aurhtority to cirumvent the demil procedures or the bidding procedures and the REAL NAVY came and took everything back.....
I can say that I'm sure the CAF didn't act in bad faith in trying to trade the F-82. I'm sure that they thought they owned it since for 40 years or so they thought they owned it. I'll bet nobody was still around that was there in 1966. However they should have done some homework and checked and double checked and got an opinion from their lawyers that it was OK to offer this airplane for trade. Maybe they thought they didn't need an opinion or they didn't want to spend the money. If they got the YES TRADE it opinion from the lawyers, the outcome would have beendifferent.
Then the CAF could have sued the ATTYs for malpractice since they relied upon an incorrect opinion and lost the F-82. The settlement should have been enough to buy a P-38 or fix the old ScatterBrained Kid..........
Just my thoughts.....
Mark H
Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:03 am
Just tell me what to say top my representatives to get them to raise holy hel l with the NMUSAF for trying to take the F-82. The FAA says the owner is the CAF. The paperwork says it is theirs. If the NMUSAF gets this past, why not try to void the bill of sale for all the other aircraft which were sold surplus after the war? Hey- just because they sold it doesn't mean it is your's, does it? Even though they took your money... I can think of a couple cars I used to own I'd like to get back- and the precedent the NMUSAF would set would be that take-backs were legal, despite paperwork...
I find it similar to the Navy's attempt to take their toys form their owners...
As for me, if I ever get the time, I'll hand build a warbird from a pile of aluminum and steel and plans, and dare them to say its theirs...
Robbie
I find it similar to the Navy's attempt to take their toys form their owners...
As for me, if I ever get the time, I'll hand build a warbird from a pile of aluminum and steel and plans, and dare them to say its theirs...
Robbie