me109me109 wrote:
mustangdriver wrote:
For as much heat as the NMUSAF takes on here, this one can't be chalked up to them.
Chris, we've argued this many times. Being the son of the Chief of Staff at the time of this debacle, I can say that one side CAN, rightfully, blame the NMUSAF (more specifically Metcalf). I guess it just matters which side you're entrenched on. On this issue, I'm CAF you're NMUSAF. We both had documents "proving" our sides. You view it differently and won in court, but that doesn't mean you [NMUSAF] weren't in the wrong. The venue, and judge can determine a case. Anyway, I'll stop talking about it.
Yours in friendly disagreement,
T
As someone who admires both organisations from afar, and read the court transcript of the first case when it was linked into this site, its getting tiresome to hear this issue still being argued on "party lines".
All of the documents "proving" each sides arguments should have been put into the case, which apparantly happened, two court cases reviewed them and found on the basic facts that the USAF provided the P-82 on a conditional donation (loan) to the CAF, and that the CAF defaulted on that arrangement by advertising the aircraft for sale, and that the aircraft therefore was required to be returned to the USAF.
It seems to me the gripe with Metcalf arises from his decision to enforce the legal rights of the USAF?, if this aircraft was being retained by an overseas museum who had it on "loan" and had defaulted and wouldnt return it, I suspect he would be getting pats on the back?
I think the whole mess started with the creation of a "conditional donation" rather than a more clear "long term loan" , and then worsened by the passing of time, turnover of participants on both sides, and perhaps poor records of documents/discussion?, leading many in the CAF to consider the aircraft was theirs, an honest assumption, and a reasonable position to reject the claims of the NMUSAF and to challenge their claim, but in any case the case went to court twice, and the NMUSAF prevailed.
Apparantly other than the two people apparantly directly involved in the CAF and NMUSAF negotations from 2002 to 2006 (Metcalf and Rice according to court records?) everyone else seems to be simply cheering for their "home" side based on second hand opinions etc?
Quote:
Word for word off of the court papers.
" Major General (retired) Charles Metcalf, Director of the NMUSAF, learned of the
exchange in the January 2003 issue of the magazine “Air Classics.” (Plt. Mot. Summ. J. Attach
2, Ex. 11.) He then informed Mr. Bob Rice (“Mr. Rice”), the CAF’s Executive Director, in
writing that the attempted sale of the F-82 violated the terms of the Certificate. (Id.) In the letter dated December 2, 2002, General Metcalf indicates that the F-82 was conditionally donated to the CAF Museum and the donation certificate contains the provision that the title of the F-82 would revert back to the USAF, at the Government’s option, if the F-82 was no longer used for the purpose and/or end use for which it was donated or retention was no longer desired. (Id.) In addition, General Metcalf indicates that he considers the information contained in the January 2003 issue of Air Classics as written notice that the CAF no longer wishes to retain the F-82.(Id.) Finally, the letter is considered by General Metcalf as formal notification that the NMUSAF is exercising the option to retain title to the F-82. (Id.) Then, out of an abundance of caution, the CAF cancelled the agreement to trade the F-82. (Cowan Decl. 10.) However, neither the CAF nor the AAHM agree with the Government’s position that the F-82 should be returned. (Id.) From late in 2002 until April of 2006, the USAF, represented primarily by General Metcalf, and the CAF, represented primarily by Mr. Rice, attempted to agree on ownership, possession, and operation of the F-82. The discussions between these individuals did not result in an agreement. The F-82 has not been returned to the NMUSAF and remains with the CAF. (Id.)"
"In an effort to settle this dispute, General Metcalf offered to loan the F-82 to the CAF for
static display purposes only. The CAF has apparently elected to decline this offer.The CAF also argues that forfeiture would be inequitable because the USAF explicitly gave its approval for the CAF to fly the F-82 and had knowledge of the F-82’s flying status and failed to object. In support of this argument, the CAF cites two documents. The first is the 1966 Release and DD Form 1149. This document is titled “Requisition and Invoice Shipping Document” and is merely a record that the F-82 was transferred from Lackland AFB to the CAF pursuant to the April 15, 1966 letter releasing the F-82. It is not any indication of ownership or indication that the Certificate was no longer valid."
But I really worry when its claimed in relation to this issue that the state or judge would have resulted in a different outcome of a case? sure a particular judge might put less weight to some evidence or fact incorrectly, thats why appeals go to a higher court?
but are we really implying here there is a local home ground advantage in US justice?
I dont think any of us will really be convinced here by others simply claiming their side is "right" or to what Metcalf and the NMUSAF "did or didnt" offer Rice and the CAF, the court has heard the testimony and made its decision as to the "donation" agreement, and the right of the NMUSAF to require return of the aircraft.
Surely after two court cases we can stop the "we was robbed" responses to this issue? or claims that the courts got it wrong and its all
"Metcalf's fault?" Its not a game of sport, with one wrong decision by the umpire letting the wrong team get over the line with a higher score?
If there is more evidence and documents to "prove" or to support the CAF position why wasnt it tabled in the first two court cases?, if all of the evidence was tabled, accept the judgement or appeal? if there really is local bias in courts surely a Federal court of appeal would be impartial and fair?
The CAF looses nothing by accepting the outcome and moving on, the aircraft is already returned, and perhaps over time the wounds can heal?
regards
Mark Pilkington
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
