X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 01:36:27 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao07.cox.net ([68.230.241.32] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c2) with ESMTP id 725480 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 22:34:09 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.32; envelope-from=rickschrameck@cox.net Received: from [192.168.1.101] (really [68.108.32.101]) by fed1rmmtao07.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20050918023319.IHTA11028.fed1rmmtao07.cox.net@[192.168.1.101]> for ; Sat, 17 Sep 2005 22:33:19 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <432CD1ED.3080000@cox.net> X-Original-Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:33:17 -0700 From: Rick Schrameck User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Macintosh/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: Re: [LML] Re: FAA trying to stop us. References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000003050604050806040508" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------000003050604050806040508 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Scortt, Thanks. We have a lawyer that spent 15 years working for the FAA and he has great input. I suggested you all speak to a lawyer friend that might help you understand what position the FAA could take if the new order is put in effect, that's all. Rick Sky2high@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 9/17/2005 10:53:02 AM Central Standard Time, > rickschrameck@cox.net writes: > > If any of you have access to a friendly lawyer, not one that owns > a kit > company, have them read the new proposed order highlights that > Carl has > given you. I believe the lawyer will tell you that the FAA has given > themselves more power than the old order did. > > Rick, > > Thanks a lot for bringing this to a head. Contact a Lawyer? Never. > > Builders, talk to your DAR, EAA and the FAA - Do not contact a lawyer > because that will not get your airworthiness certificate. Neither > will the judge that will rule that you owe fees in excess of what you > thought the the cost of flying would be. > > Rick, you contact a lawyer who should tell you that you got your cart > before the horse. Right now, this is your problem - you are clever, > solve it. > > Darn, And I said I was through with this silly topic. > > Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk > LNC2 N92EX IO 320 SB 89/96 > --------------000003050604050806040508 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Scortt,

Thanks. We have a lawyer that spent 15 years working for the FAA and he has great input. I suggested you all speak to a lawyer friend that might help you understand what position the FAA could take if the new order is put in effect, that's all.

Rick

Sky2high@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 9/17/2005 10:53:02 AM Central Standard Time, rickschrameck@cox.net writes:

If any of you have access to a friendly lawyer, not one that owns a kit
company, have them read the new proposed order highlights that Carl has
given you. I believe the lawyer will tell you that the FAA has given
themselves more power than the old order did.

Rick,

Thanks a lot for bringing this to a head. Contact a Lawyer? Never.

Builders, talk to your DAR, EAA and the FAA - Do not contact a lawyer because that will not get your airworthiness certificate. Neither will the judge that will rule that you owe fees in excess of what you thought the the cost of flying would be.

Rick, you contact a lawyer who should tell you that you got your cart before the horse. Right now, this is your problem - you are clever, solve it.

Darn, And I said I was through with this silly topic.

Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk
LNC2 N92EX IO 320 SB 89/96

--------------000003050604050806040508--