Brad wrote:
mustangdriver wrote:
Brad first off please know I reply to this meaning nothing but to be respectful, but the NMUSAF did indeed offer to let the CAF continue to operate the P-82. After the 2nd time of telling them where to go, the CAF was told that it would be static only. The first two attempts to work something out, were going to leave the CAF able to fly the P-82. It was only when court and lawyers were invloved that the "Static" terms were brought inalong with other aircraft.
Don't worry about hurting my feelings Chris, I'll be fine. Just don't pee on my foot and tell me it's raining. As you have a habit of doing, you are so fast to defend the Air Force Museum that you don't bother with the facts.
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."
"
I know there are fixed opinions out there as to who is in the right and who in the wrong, but the quote of court evidence above seems to quite clearly support Chris' claim of the facts?
The highlighted section seems to be showing from 2002 to 2006 the NMUSAF attempted to negotiate with the CAF in regards to ownership, possession and operation of the aircraft. Static display doesnt normally get described as operation?
Of course it does depend on the actual details of the negotiations, and perhaps only those who were present ie Metcalf and Rice really know what was proposed and rejected, but it seems to me that the CAF had no interest in negotiating in those days as it did not concede the NMUSAF had any ownership rights in any case? and so would not intend to accept any proposal that required that acknowledgement?
There has been a court case, (and now an appeal? as well), both upholding the NMUSAF's rights, resulting in the aircraft being returned to the NMUSAF.
Lets leave the dust to settle on an argument long lost? no amount of disagreements here will change the situation.
Chris is a strong supporter and volunteer of the NMUSAF, others are members and supporters of the CAF, while many of the rest of us think highly of both institutions, theres no point taking Chris to task just because we dont like the outcome?, the decision's been made, "twice".
regards
Mark Pilkington
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
