Warbird Information Exchange

August, if that was true, then why did the USAF pull the EXACT SAME THING on the Collings Foundation and their F-4 parts when they tried to get one of the engines that by LAW they own from AMARG?

I'm sorry, but this case can't be heard or considered in a 100% void. Past and continuing actions of all parties must be considered. The CAF has operated this aircraft as owned since it received its paperwork and did so IN GOOD FAITH. The Collings Foundation signed their contract in good faith as well. If what the USAF is stating is true, then they acted IN BAD FAITH because they had no intention of ever honoring the contracts they signed because they knowingly allowed people not authorized to sign the contracts do so. In that case, both the CAF and Collings Foundation have additional legal claims against the USAF because of this.

The situation is by no means unique. If the USAF successfully proves that it does not have to uphold its own contracts simply by claiming that the person signing them doesn't have permission, then no contract that an organization has with the USAF or USAFM is worth the paper it's written on.

CAP, I know nothing about the Collings F-4 situation, but I do know that the facts in the F-82 case are so peculiar that I highly doubt that the F-4 situation is the "exact same thing" as the F-82 case.



Well, maybe it did, maybe it didn't.



Absolutely incorrect. Have you read the briefs and opinion? I think you don't know what the USAF is stating.



Okay, now I'm sure you don't know what the USAF is stating.

August

August,

Any success finding that PDF?

Ryan

_________________
Aerial Photographer with Red Wing Aerial Photography currently based at KRBD and tailwheel CFI.
Websites: Texas Tailwheel Flight Training, DoolittleRaid.com and Lbirds.com.

The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD. - Prov. 21:31 - Train, Practice, Trust.

Ditto, apparently I missed that thread(Ike), so I'm in the dark on some aspects of this.

I went back to the thread Ryan Keough started back in Sept. but the aforementioned PDF(page 2) is an invalid link.
It would be nice if the folks who apparently know more than most of us please link the proper info so we can
read it and be brought upt to speed..please?

EDIT

_________________
He bowls overhand...He is the most interesting man in the world.
"In Peace Japan Breeds War", Eckstein, Harper and Bros., 3rd ed. 1943(1927, 1928,1942)
"Leave it to ol' Slim. I got ideas...and they're all vile, baby." South Dakota Slim
"Ahh..."The Deuce", 28,000 pounds of motherly love." quote from some Mojave Grunt
DBF

Thanks a million for that post.

I'm not a lawyer, but have read the court decision when August provided a link in an earlier post, and it is well worth reading before firing off "shoot from the hip" opinions on who is wrong and who is right, or what the flow on precedents and risks are for others.

It seems clear to me that the only precedents being set by that judgement relate to other aircraft held on similar "conditional donations" from the USAF, I can't see any precedent extending to aircraft disposed of through sale/ scrapping, recovered from crash sites etc, while each of those might have their own documentation or ownership disputes arising from irregularities? the F-82 ruling did not seem to be really based on such issues.

The precedents relating to those holding USAF aircraft on conditional donation would seem to be that the USAF can (and will) seek its return if the donation conditions are breached, and that the holder of that donated aircraft cannot dispose of, or sell the aircraft, as they do not obtain any ownership rights under that "conditional donation".

The use of the term "conditional donation" to describe these arrangements seems the cause of most of the confusion and argument, had the arrangement been titled "conditional loan" there would be less mis-understanding or dispute in the first place.

The issue relating to the "second" document claimed to be giving ownership to the CAF does seem very specific, it is bound up with the CAF request to the USAF to assist in the provision of ownership details to FAA to allow aircraft registration, as August said, the purpose of that document needs to be taken into account, not just the authority of someone to sign it.

It would be great if August could repost that document for download and perhaps if willing refer people to specific paragraphs as there is still seems to be a lot of uninformed opinions.

Obviously the CAFs' lawyers may consider there are errors in the judgement which can be overturned on appeal, however if or until that happens, the USAF are shown to have always owned it, and able to require its return under the terms of the conditional donation, no great ramifications for those holding aircraft not obtained under such an agreement.

regards

Mark Pilkington

_________________
20th Century - The Age of Manned Flight
"from Wrights to Armstrong in 66 years -WOW!"

I have re-uploaded the decision at the link below. Rapidshare seems to have a new rule allowing only 10 downloads of a free upload, so first come, first served. I guess any of the first 10 could re-upload it and get us another 10, and so on, and so on.

http://rapidshare.com/files/208989045/7 ... n.pdf.html

The briefs and exhibits are also very interesting but, although they are public, out of courtesy to the parties I would not post them without permission.

August

Someone please repost that. The quota for the above link has been filled.
Or just PM it to me.

Try this: http://www.lbirds.com/Downloads/OtherDo ... 8_Opin.pdf

It's hosted on my website for now, if it crashes my website...

Ryan

_________________
Aerial Photographer with Red Wing Aerial Photography currently based at KRBD and tailwheel CFI.
Websites: Texas Tailwheel Flight Training, DoolittleRaid.com and Lbirds.com.

The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD. - Prov. 21:31 - Train, Practice, Trust.

from avwebinsider... good little write up:

"March 13, 2009

Note To the Air Force: Butt Out


By Paul Bertorelli



Adults.

Every organization needs at least one. But it looks like the U.S. Air Force Museum is coming up one short. I'll get to the adult part in a moment, but first the reprise.

Earlier this week we reported that the Commemorative Air Force lost a court fight with the Air Force Museum over custody of one of the rarest of warbirds, an F-82 Twin Mustang. The CAF got its F-82 from the Air Force free and clear back in the 1960s and evidently had the paper work to prove it. But now the Air Force Museum wants the F-82 back. The CAF sued to keep it, but a district court in Ohio sided with the Air Force. During the court case, the CAF produced an unambiguous paper trail suggesting that all of this was legit. In other words, they didn't exactly swipe it in the middle of night from the pole on which it was perched at Lackland Air Force Base.

But the court didn't buy it. There's apparently a reversionary clause somewhere that says the government owns everything forever.

The CAF pledged to appeal the case, but in the meantime, they offered to drop the case if the Air Force would allow CAF to keep the F-82 as a static display. No deal, says the Air Force. Ship it back. So, at the moment, the CAF says it will comply, but it's pursuing the appeal.

Here's the adult part: Wasn't there someone—anyone—in the Air Force Museum who could hold both palms up and say not only is this not worth the expense of a court case, it is a PR disaster to boot. The irony is that the Air Force already has an F-82 in its collection. Here's a picture of it.

So what's going on here? Nothing but a bureaucratic turf war by the heavy hands of the Air Force museum. They can, so they are. Since they already have an F-82, they don't need two. There's no discernible national interest for the Air Force to waste taxpayer money on retrieving an airplane that they clearly transferred to private owners but now want back solely because they don't like former military airplanes to be flown out of their control.

The Air Force's position isn't entirely without merit. There's always a real risk that an irreplaceable military aircraft that flies could be lost in a crash. On the other hand, seeing an airplane actually fly rather than reposing in some dusty static display has a raw appeal and that's what the CAF is all about. Here, the Air Force seeks to deny the airplane-interested public the choice of seeing both—a museum piece and a flying example. More troubling, are they now going to go after every warbird owner out there with giveback claims?

So, I dunno…with my usual solomonic dispassion as a neutral bystander, I would just say this to the Air Force: Grow up. Get over it. Move on. Stop being a bully and wasting taxpayer money on stupid stuff like this. Let the CAF keep the F-82 and if they rebuild the thing and are unlikely enough to drive it into a smoking hole, that's their business. With reward comes risk.

It would be nice if the Air Force understood that."

_________________
Taylor Stevenson

I'm sure glad the writer wasn't biased

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

Well it is a darn shame both those engines were lost in transit.
I think ya ought to just send them to me. And spread the rest of the parts around the members on this site. Give them a shell. Its just that simple.


So what all this says is a contract is now as good as nothing.
I say if the government wants to take something back, take back all the land given to railroads and logging companys and spread it out to us people that want to homestead .
This all tells me I can sell something and then go take it back. Hmmm I want all my money that I have had to pay in taxes back now.

If they weren't so stupid about wanting to destroy and melt down all this stuff there would be many available. So what they also should do is demand all the scrap back that they sold. And if the big companys can"t bring it all back, then make them pay the value in todays dollars.
Yeah all this sounds like nonsense, just like it all is, pretty much nonsense. I just think this is the tip of the iceburg.

On the other hand, the CAF has not been able to make the aircraft flyable since Ed Messick pranged it in the HRL over 20 years ago.

And until some one can majically come up with the correct prop, it won't fly.

_________________
If God had wanted man to fly behind a flat motor, Pratt Whitney would've built one.

The P-82 Squadron had a deal going on props right before the CAF HQ traded the aircraft away. The Squadron already had the gear and had completed quite a bit of work. Basically, the last large items to take care of was getting those props, the engines, and some minor other things.

The opinion of the Summary of Judgment seemed pretty one sided. "The Certificate" was the be all-end all of the case. It seemed pretty open and shut as per the .pdf file.
Up until this little doosey.....



I would have been interested in hearing the opinion of the same Summary of Judgement had it taken place in Texas.

Regards,
Mark

_________________
Once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards... for there you have been and there you will long to return. Leonardo daVinci