Warbird Information Exchange

What about "No harm, no foul"?

CAF thinks they have full ownership. Decides to trade P-82.

USAF says"we still own it", only provisional ownership to CAF.

CAF says, "OK", we won't trade it, we'll keep it.


Or is that just to simple?

Mike

No, the CAF made that exact argument. The rest of the conversation, more or less, was:

USAF: "Too late, you breached, we get it back."

CAF: "But we won't do it again, we promise. Anyway looky here, we got a sponsor now."

USAF: "How do I know you won't do it again? You tried once."

CAF: "But we didn't know you cared then! Now we know."

USAF: "Sorry, no dice. We're taking it back."

Court: "USAF is right. They get it back if they want."

August

Wow August, you should have posted that 6 pages ago!

If I understand correctly, the only reason the CAF breached was they thought they had ownership free & clear because of unauthorized USAF personnel giving them ownership.???


Mike

Actually the reason the CAF 'breached' was they had ownership free & clear because of a document that gives them ownership free and clear, when they traded their asset for a P-38 the "General" decided he wanted it.

_________________
Taylor Stevenson

Mike see rules #1 and 2 of Law 101 for an answer to your question.

That is not the case either. I won't sit here and claim to know a ton about this, but the one thing I do know is that it was talked about years ago that the NMUSAF still owned that P-82. This wasn't something that someone just decided to go after. I can recall back to atleast early 2000 conversation going on about the USAF still owning it. That conversation was also discussed among the CAF members as well.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

Another comment....or two or three...

John: the original "client" who was interested in a full-blown restoration of the airplane has been replaced by another "client" who wishes to remain anonymous at this point, so there is a strong possibility that the airplane would be restored to flying condition if it was to remain in the CAF fleet.

August; It is also our contention (and the opinion of our legal people) that the judge in this case did not really review all of our case as carefully as he might have. Our legal firm is not made up of a bunch of country yahoos: when they say that we have a strong case, that appealing the summary judgement was the correct move to make, then we feel on firm ground to give them the go-ahead. Believe me, these folks could make a LOT more money than what they are getting from the CAF, so they aren't stringing us along just to collect a paycheck.

A relevant part of this issue (and one that I rather poorly tried to reference in an early post) is that of "agents acting on behalf of the government." The CAF accepted the P-82 on a "good faith" basis that it was indeed given to us by people who could do so. As others on this thread have pointed out, if motivated, NO ONE's ex-military equipment could be considered "theirs" if DoD, or the USAF, or the Navy or whomever says "the guy that signed the papers back then really wasn't authorized to do so." That is the principal involved in all of this as I see it, and I think it is one worth fighting over. In this case, general officers signed the original paperwork; a federal agency accepted the paperwork as legal and binding, and the CAF acted in good faith on that basis.

It is sort of distressing that some are using this as a opportunity to portray the CAF in a negative light. As Doug Rozendaal mentioned, we made the original agreement to trade the P-82 to someone who had the wherewithal to restore it to flying condition. The airplane was not going to be restored by the CAF because there was no sponsor or sponsor group willing to step up financially to make that happen. In exchange we received a flying P-38 (a unit had already raised the money to properly maintain and operate that airplane) and the P-82 would once again fly. This was a win-win situation. It was when General Metcalfe first questioned this deal that we should have gone to the mat in my opinion: however, we tried to "unring" a bell, feeling that we could return everything to the status quo. As events have unfolded, obviously that has not been the case.

CAF President Steve Brown is working up "talking points" for those of you to use if you wish to write your government representatives, and I will post them here when I receive them. Speaking for the General Staff, we really appreciate any and all efforts made to publicize this issue and to help us with words of support.

Old Shep

Agreed 100%!

This is not just a CAF issue, but should be of concern to all owners and operators of warbird aircraft. Personally, I can assure you that we do *not* have a line item in our restoration budget that covers this kind of legal activity.

I’ll bet Rick Siegfried over at EAA/Warbirds has heard about this, but it would be very worthwhile to get a formal position on this as we prepare to contact our elected representatives.

_________________

Commemorative Air Force
Experimental Aircraft Association
Warbirds of America

What are you waiting for? Join us!

Best way to contact me- email my last name @gmail.com

Hell, if you want to look at it, look at the SR-71 that the USAF recently "repossessed". The group did all the work and spent all the money to restore the aircraft with the promise from the USAF to be able to display it only to have it taken back when they finished. In this case, there was a loan document, but that loan document also said that they weren't supposed to take back the aircraft unless it wasn't being cared for properly and it was.

To me, it's this kind of unchecked ability to void anything they want without any repercussions that is what we're fighting. Now they're trying to say that a General Officer doesn't have the ability to donate an aircraft to another organization using the proper forms and procedures set forth to do so in the regulations at the time. As such, what the USAF is attempting to assert is that basically they can take back any airplane at any time no matter what was done previously just because they want to.

If this was two private corporations and the same thing was happening, the court would have required proof that those staff members who signed the documents were not authorized to do so, knew that they weren't authorized to do so, and that the accepting party knew it as well or else the agreement would be found to be a legally binding document. This is where the CAF has a problem. This case wasn't reviewed with that kind of scrutiny. The Judge accepted what the USAF said as fact without requiring proof that would be required of other groups to prove it as fact.

This has been very interesting to follow.
I think the AF has a legitimate concern about donations being traded or sold for monetary gain by private entities, non-profit or not. If the CAF would have completed the trade they would have gained a very valuable asset in return for a broken airplane they never purchased but accepted as a donation with conditions attached.

I think the CAF had a duty to return the 82 to airworthy condition in the 20 years that have passed since the accident.

I think that the slippery slope we are on is that all donations of aircraft or artifacts by the government will stop.

Les

The CAF was looking to trade the airframe to someone willing to put the time, effort, and money into getting it flying...in the mean time there are these...


John Meyer must be doing 360s... gee...did he fly an H model in combat during the attack Jan 1st, 1945?????
WOW an original Pinball P-63 with all the armor languishing in the same place
here's a great project
wow...hey, isnt that a P-82?...why are we screwing with the CAF we already have our own wreck
AND...AND the almighty solution...fiberglass replicas...they don't care if its raining...salty air...or snow...alittle bondo and fresh paint...good to go

end of rant

Jim Harley

Took the words right out of my mouth, Jim, several times !

_________________
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass..."
Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto

[quote="John Beyl

Doug,

No third degree with bright lights, dripping water and thumb screws just curiosity but could you please clarify for me, this statement you wrote:

“…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.)”

I have to assume this document surfaced after the judge heard both sides of the argument and had adjourned to make his decision or else it would have been the piece of ‘Slam dunk’ documentation the CAF needed to retain ownership of the P-82. If it was known of at the time of the hearing, for heavens sake why was it not brought into evidence?

I would refer you to the oft quoted here law 101 phrase

We would agree that it is a slam dunk. My understanding is that the AF museum position is the person that granted the free and clear title 40 years ago was not authorized to do it.
I’m certainly not a lawyer but even to me none of the documentation presented on behalf of the CAF proved any kind of permanent ownership. They appear to be clear and unquestionable. One a statement of conditional donation, the other a release so the CAF could get it licensed and fly it. What am I missing?

In your fifth point you wrote: “…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.” That seems to disagree with what the Old Shep wrote earlier. In one of his posts he mentioned that the party once interested in paying to restore the aircraft has withdrawn their original offer to do so. If this is true, and if the CAF were to retain ownership of the aircraft, what would be its future with the organization?

There are other interested and capable parties.

The P-82 has always been a favorite of mine. That said I would like to see the CAF retain ownership of the airplane and eventually return it to flying status and operate it.

Thanks,
John[/quote]

We have a clear title from the FAA with no restrictions. We (the board) believed we owned the airplane outright when we did the trade, and had no idea about either the conditional donation or the subsequent unconditional donation. Again, my understanding is that the AF museum doesn't dispute we have a unconditional donation, only that the person who issued that letter was not authorized to do it.

Bear in mind this all happened 40 years ago. It goes without saying that none of us (the current board) were invovled in the organization when this deal was made.

_________________
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal

All in all I'm very impressed with the CAF's willingness to publicly discuss this issue. It shows an openness not normally seen in organizations of that nature.