Jump to content

Replica


Recommended Posts

Arthur,

No one of any consequence has ever objected in any forum as to how I describe the succession of the Thompson. By any consequence, I mean anyone with any standing or right to object. It appears to me all the previous owners in the chain of succession are fine with the succession of the Thompson. I was not referring to the authors you mentioned. However, Richardson is hung up on the corporate succession angle, Herigstad goes along with whatever Richardson says, Cox did not address the topic of succession and Helmer is the author that reported all the different owners after the Thompson was sold by Maguire. Without Helmer's book, no one may have known how the Thompson left Maguire and ended up with Numrich. I have been called a lot of things but fickle has not been included in the group until now. Apparently, no one from Maguire Industries (Now Components Corporation) or any Maguire family members have ever voiced a claim for the Thompson since it was sold in 1949.

 

Phil,

I thought you recognized that a product line succession from one company to another was possible without a complete corporate succession occurring. Hang in there; it will all be clear one day. As to Doug Richardson's use of the word license, I feel it best if he explains his reasons for that choice of words. After all, he is a member of the broad and able to post himself. However, I do agree it would indicate a business type relationship between Maguire and Kilgore.

 

TAS1921AC – TGTMTTR is an excellent suggestion in reading material. Please do not forget the footnotes. I really don't care how anyone believes the Thompson moved from General Thompson to Maguire to Kilgore to Willis to Numrich. However, I want everyone to know there is a lot more to the story than the corporation succession angle some pundits narrowly espouse with no reference to anything else. TGTMTTR is an excellent start to learn what happened with the Thompson. Other material is available, most of it cited on this board when this topic is discussed. I always encourage everyone to read as much as possible and make their own decision - but keep an open mind as new information on the Thompson seems to be uncovered on a fairly regular basis.

 

And for everyone else - thanks for taking the time to read and post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE
Such proprietary rights could have been conveyed with or without being attached to the parent corporation.

Phil,

I knew you understood the concept. Now let's both be quiet and let the lawyers tell us all of George's claims for the last 45 plus years coupled with the previous owners silence mean absolutely nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source new!
rep‧li‧ca  /ˈrɛplɪkə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rep-li-kuh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a copy or reproduction of a work of art produced by the maker of the original or under his or her supervision. 
2. any close or exact copy or reproduction. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PhilOhio,

 

I'm just going to say that I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the corporate legal aspects that you've argued in this thread recently. I'm not offering a specific argument against it; we should just agree to disagree on the subject. I hope we can still get together and shoot black powder cannons, though!

 

All,

 

I do have some additional background information I want to offer for those who are interested in this thread. If you go back a bit, you will see that the following points have been made against the succession of the Thompson from 1916 to 2006:

 

- PhilOhio relates that he toured Numrich Arms in 1967, and was offered a TSMG made up from a "crates" receiver. He indicates that when he wanted to purchase one in 1968, he was told that the company had run out of stock. (I don't doubt the validity of this, and am thankful for the firsthand account provided by Phil.)

 

- Arthur says that no Thompsons were produced with receivers made from scratch between 1944 and 1975. (I believe he revises the latter date to 1974 now, but that is a very small point.)

 

If the above assumptions are valid, I am curious what could account for the apparently transferable Thompson Submachine Guns advertised in the No. 3 Numrich Catalog dated April 1, 1973. (And no, it was not an April Fool's Day joke, but I would not be surprised to see that offered as an answer...) This catalog does not have any semi-automatic Thompsons available, as it was issued prior to those guns being approved by BATF.

 

Just for reference, this is the cover of the catalog, demonstrating prominent display of 2 of Numrich's products for which they claimed to be successors to the companies who previously manufactured the guns. (Hopkins and Allen and Auto-Ordnance)

 

http://www.sturmgewehr.com/dalbert/Thompson%20Catalogs/1973_Catalog_Cover_Web.JPG

 

On the back of the catalog, we see pictures of the 2 primary managers of the Numrich business, George Numrich and Ira Trast, along with another claim of succession to the companies listed, including Auto-Ordnance.

 

http://www.sturmgewehr.com/dalbert/Thompson%20Catalogs/NAC_Officers_Web.JPG

 

Here we have a 3-page advertisement, almost exactly as appeared in the two 1950's flyers I posted earlier in the thread. We see the addition of a summary about private ownership of Thompson Submachine Guns in the top right hand corner of the ad, and 1921/28 and M1/M1A1 Model Thompsons available for $325.00.

 

http://www.sturmgewehr.com/dalbert/Thompson%20Catalogs/WH_Ad-1_Web.JPG

 

http://www.sturmgewehr.com/dalbert/Thompson%20Catalogs/WH_Ad-2_Web.JPG

 

http://www.sturmgewehr.com/dalbert/Thompson%20Catalogs/WH_Ad-3_Web.JPG

 

One image was used twice within the catalog, and I thought it should be included with both captions. It appears to be approximately 40 Model 1928 Thompsons lined up and ready to go. Can these be accounted for outside of Numrich manufacturing receivers? I have a couple of scenarios in my mind that might be possible to refute them. However, I think it is documentation that should be seen for all to make their own decision.

 

http://www.sturmgewehr.com/dalbert/Thompson%20Catalogs/TSMG_Tested_Web.JPG

 

I realize the number of Thompsons in the world is rounded up in their photo description...

 

http://www.sturmgewehr.com/dalbert/Thompson%20Catalogs/Assembly_Web.JPG

 

The catalog includes the following summary of the TSMG, which again promotes private ownership of Thompsons, and references Numrich Thompson manufacturing.

 

http://www.sturmgewehr.com/dalbert/Thompson%20Catalogs/WH_TSMGSummary_Web.JPG

 

Another item I would point to that supports the likelihood that Numrich made their own receivers is an account in the 1967 Gun Digest article by Ray Bearse. (By the way, this is an excellent, 13-page summary of the different TSMG's, and history of the weapon, and was published while Bill Helmer was still finishing his research for TGTMTTR.) In the article, Bearse references several .30 Carbine Thompsons and 9mm Thompsons made up by Numrich in 1954. He notes an example that may have been one of the Numrich experimental models in .30 Carbine. He notes some technical specifications, and states that the model 1928 had no markings on the right hand side of the receiver, but that the left side was marked as follows:

 

THOMPSON SUBMACHINE GUN

CAL. 30 SHORT RIFLE M1

SELF LOADING CARTRIDGE

 

Again, my opinion on Thompson succession is well known. It was not something I just decided to begin arguing one day. I am a historian, and there is a lot of history I have found that points to a line of Thompson succession from 1916 to the present day. My main quest is to get as much information out there for others to see, so that if you are interested, you can decide your own opinion for yourself. At the very least, you get to see a lot of neat old advertisements for the Thompson in various forms and stages, and the Thompson is what brings us all together on this wonderful board.

 

There is a lot more to this...

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3,000,000 Thompsons made, and so few are legal to own today. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/sad.gif

 

Makes you wonder how many magazines there are out there.

 

Norm

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dave i like the thompson table kinda remind's me of d-day and all those phoney tank's and plane's. the blow up canvass kind.and the brit's with the wooden thompson's and rifle's and part's piece's to fool the german's.remember the "propaganda war"

 

just make's you wonder if that table is the same.layed out frame's and grip's.....or old stock of course.since they did own real thompson's at one point.

 

it has been fun reading all this.and the great research.and all the paper stuff..which was just that sale's and promotion..heck macy's just took over "marshall field's " and "robinson may" store's..and the way they are promoting it.you'd think the only store in the world that sold any kind of good's..even before the old sear's catalog..{which by the way by what i know never sold thompson's.

 

now if all this sucksession is really true. doe's it really mean.. that all wes-hurlee gun's are now worth a min. of $25,000.00 each? and military are now $40,000.00. and the first which i guess would be colt, $75,000.00?????

 

and if all that is now fact. will after the 2008 election's it all be a mute point.because if any more law change's come into being...those dealer's and collector's will be glad to get part's value..

 

in the whole grand scheme of thing's we are such a very small group who really give a second thought to this stuff.

 

and on any world new's. a thompson is a bleep.{yes i know about the one in the wall in il.}heck they could not even get the story straight. wink!

 

have fun with it all. when it get's testy time consuming research.arguement's. bad time's, name calling.it is not fun anymore and become's tiresome...and some will read and not care anymore.kinda like some election's.or for that matter anything else in life. including my post's...have a good one stay safe.thanks for the paper info you posted. good read. take care,ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave,

 

I'm not sure that these Numrich periodicals shed any light on legal Thompson succession but they sure are an insight into G.S.'s sense of humor, whether intended or not.

 

This following ad copy is determined by you to be from 1959:

 

"All Parts Listed Are New

50% Discount On Used

No Frames Or Receivers Available"

 

So G.N. was not in the manufacturing of receivers or frames in the 1950's, yes? Now in G.N.'s 1973 ad he makes a very revealing claim in three different and actually unrelated segments:

 

"Numrich Arms is the exclusive manufacturer."

 

He must mean assembler since we still can't find any scratch made Numruch TSMG's. But the question is did Numrich buy anything other than the crated assets from Willis. G.N's claim to the contrary and Ray Bearse's quoting G.N.'s claim to the contrary is still not proof.

 

"Final assembly of "our" world famous Thompson Submachine Gun."

 

What is the date of that posed photo of the ASSEMBLER using a screwdriver on the reinforcement bolt on the stock? It sure isn't from the 1970's. Knowing Numrich's indifference in using 1920's and 1930's AOC ads in his 1950's, 1960's, and now, 1970's ads, this photo is curious to say the least.

 

What happened to the 40 TSMG's in the photo that you claim were made from scratch by G.S? Ronald has been in the MG dealer/hobby since the late 1960's/early 1970's and he has never seen one of these. Nor did J. Curtis Earl. who we know was in the business since the 1950's, and he claims to have seen everything.

 

"Over 3 million times tested, battle tried Thompson's have been manufactured to date."

 

This last part is really too much. Exactly what part did Numrich play in the "manufacture" of any of these 3 million TSMG or any that saw combat in WWII? Helmer states that the receivers G.N. used to assemble TSMG's already had orignal AOC stampings on them.

 

Where are the TSMG's with brand new G.N's stampings and not just "NAC" prefix and suffix stamps? Looking at G.N.'s own letterhead logo, the borrowed British lion in the shield grasping the "N," you would think he couldn't wait to put that prideful mark on a newly made Numrich Arms TSMG.

 

Numrich is still using 1920's AOC ads even in 1973 with the now updated $325 price tag. You mean to tell me that G.N.'s plant was going full tilt in turning bar stock steel into complete receivers and frames and yet he couldn't hire a photographer to take a picture of one of these completed phantom G.N made TSMG's, or even a current photo of one of these receivers being made in his bustling factory?

 

"I am a historian, and there is a lot of history I have found that points to a line of Thompson succession from 1916 to the present day."

 

We are all amateur historians or we wouldn't be on this board. But I see you more of a Numrich advocate and collector of Thompson paper paraphernalia than an historian in the strict sense of the discipline. You and TD do not have the requisite partisan detachment to determine the accuracy of your documents, which, to this point, consist solely of G.N.'s own PR campaign. It's great that you have amassed these G.N. ads from the different decades, but looking for proof of succession in G.N's own ad copy is not good historical research. That would be the same as looking at Mike Romanoff (1890-1972) Beverly Hills restaurant ads to determine if he were really a descendant of the Russian royal family, which he in fact claimed he was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur,

 

Here's a document from outside the Numrich enterprise for you to consider. I'm sure it will not change your mind, but I offer it to show that I'm not limited to Numrich paper items for my research.

 

http://www.sturmgewehr.com/dalbert/Thompson%20Catalogs/Savage_Letter_091063_Web.JPG

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a long and fascinating discussion. I will

"weigh in" on one aspect of this. There is no evidence

that the photo of the line-up of Thompsons was

in fact taken at the Numrich factory.

I do not think that because the guns were advertised

automatically means that they were actually available

or in production. Numrich Arms was a large sprawling

enterprise and it was certainly a real piece of publicity

and salesmanship to hype the Thompson.

If these early NAC guns exist, they'd have turned

up somewhere by now. I doubt that they are being

collected in secret.

I'm reminded of the Pedersen Device for the M1903

Springfield. This was a top secret project, all were

supposed to have been destroyed, etc. and yet

some of them of them survived and have even been

offered at gunshows. The alleged NAC Thompsons

are far less rare than Pedersen Devices yet

no one has ever seen one...

 

Bob

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

find out what was left in g.n.'s estate sale.and ask ira trast.i remember back in the early day's asking ira about a "new thompson" he told me back in early seventie's.all old stock is sold off. and whatever gun's they had completed had been long sold off. along with new in box a.o.drum's for around $35.00...then much later 1975 i bought a semi 27 from him...then later his new made wes-hurlee's, and m1a1 model's...i kinda had dibb's on a few so ended up buying over 15... thats my story and i'm sticking with it..

 

number of thompson's i've owned over 125 number i have seen..around a 1,000 or so...so if you factor in between earl,cox,helmer,richardson,douglas, spengel,williamson,kenny,jerry,vollmer,smith,landie's, lomont, harris.and everybody else on my "quest story list..

 

not really too many still hidden away..safe guess maybe a 1,000 or so.

 

i loved this stuff for it's history..and never made anything up.just followed the gun..wink!

 

pleeeeze somebody show me that numrich complete made gun...not some assembly of part's and something rehashed."That's History" have fun.take care,ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur,

It's nice to know David and I are so partisan in our research given we are going against what you describe as the accepted history of the Thompson Submachine Gun. I am not going to speak for Dave, but I have found all this history you cite does not hold up to close scrutiny. I am guessing David too has discovered all is not as you continually post.

 

Bob,

QUOTE
There is no evidence that the photo of the line-up of Thompson’s was in fact taken at the Numrich factory.

With all due respect, it's also possible Bill Helmer faked the letter from Savage David has posted since during the time of this letter and catalog publication date, this was a very hot topic for firearm historians:)

 

I think it is highly possible you and Ron may have actually seen some Numrich manufactured receivers over the years and did not even realize it. Not that this is necessary to show the continual lineage of the Thompson. It is obvious David has done the math…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave & TD,

 

The last paragraph in the Savage letter stating "Numrich Arms Corp of West Hurley owns all the assets of the Auto Ordnance Corp. and now produces them for Police use, etc" has never been in dispute. Notice Roe Clark did not say "owns Auto-Ordnance Corp," but owns the assets of that company and he didn't say Numrich manufacturers but "produces" Thompsons.

 

The fact that Helmer used this letter in his "TGTMTTR" as a reference never constituted any documentation that Numrich purchased anything other than crated assets from Willis. Remember, Helmer was explicit in saying that he never saw any legal documentation from 1951 that expressly states Numrich bought anything other than the assets.

 

What we do know from your collection of G.N. catalogs is that his copy did not live up to reality. The fact that G.S. was indifferent to incorporating 1920'2/30's pictures and ad copy in his current catalogs does not substantiate his claim, or your's and TD's claim, that he actually made any TSMG's, it actually serves to undermine these claims.

 

Now TD says TSMG collectors and dealers may have held a Numrich made TSMG but didn't identify it as such? That would be a neat trick. How does even a novice miss the Mammaroneck or West Hurley address stamped on the right side of a receiver made between the years 1951 and 1974?

 

Why did Trast use the West Hurley New York address on his version of the TSMG and 1927 in 1975, but Numrich , a guy with his own British coat of arms crest, not identify where his phantom TSMG was made?

 

So the absence of G.S scratch made TSMG's is irrelevant to AOC succession? Yet you still cling to the notion such an animal exists. Faith can produce a G.N. scratch made TSMG as well as succession? How about the absence of any Maguire/Kilgore/Willis documentation stating anything other than crated assets were sold? Or is that just another irksome question that has nothing to do with succession either? You have certainly perfected the all purpose answer to any questions regarding succession.

 

Please, what is this math you and Dave keep referring to? Is there a magical algebraic computation that I am missing? Is there a Thompson Archimedes Principle and a secret hand shake only known to Numrich successor club members?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ronald,

 

The list of TSMG authorities/collectors/hobbyists/dealers who have never seen a scratch made George Numrich Thompson Submachine Gun bears another mention:

 

J Curtis Earl,

Roger Cox,

Bill Helmer,

Doug Richardson,

Gordon Herigstat,

William Douglas,

Robert Thomas Spengel,

William York,

Ross Capawana,

R. J. Vollmer,

Ike Ziros,

Bob Landie's,

Tommy St. Charles,

Irv Kahn,

Dick Wray,

Ed Anthony,

Fred Rexer,

Ron Rudin,

Hy Hunter,

Kenny,

Jerry,

Smith,

Lomont,

Harris,

 

and who could forget:

 

Dave Albert & TD

etc

etc

etc

 

Of course this has nothing to do with succession, sure, but is definitely has something to do with truth in advertising. A feature sadly lacking in G.N.'s catalogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur,

QUOTE
Of course this has nothing to do with succession, sure, but is definitely has something to do with truth in advertising.

Good Deal. I can see you are off that having to manufacture to continue succession theme. This is progress in that you now recognize another side to this story of the Thompson after it left Maguire - even if you do not agree with it. Manufactures versus produces - a difference? I think you are grasping at straws here. Please keep an open mind as more and more information is uncovered all the time.

 

Truth in Advertising - Wow, the theme of this thread has really expanded. Instead of pointing out some of General Thompson's puffing during Auto-Ordnance Corporation advertisements and publications, I will acknowledge same and move on.

http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/popcorn.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/popcorn.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/popcorn.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since G.N's own catalogs make for a quicksand foundation for your proposals, I figured I'd throw you a bone. But if G.N. is being less than forthright about manufacturing TSMG's, it doesn't inspire confidence in his claim to all things AOC either. In fact, if he embellishes something so basic and easy to check, as we are doing now, like the existence of disseminated TSMG's, it isn't such a leap of faith to believe he would embellish ownership of the AOC/Thompson name and bullet logo. The proof of ownership of these things that seem lost (or misappropriated) to history. To this day we still do not have access to these documents. The very same documents he never produced at the time he was in business, and, apparently, was never asked to produce at any time he was alive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur,

I think you are realizing that all the years George Numrich claimed ownership and succession of the Thompson from the Auto-Ordnance Corporation without one protest from anyone, much less the previous owners, indicates there very well may be something to his claims. After all, given what he acquired in 1951, there was nothing Thompson left to secure. I am not surprised George never produced any documents concerning the purchase of the Thompson; this is standard business practice. And your right, no one ever cared about his rights or questioned his claims to succession until after he had formed a new Auto-Ordnance Corporation to market along with the old Thompson’s, the new Thompson semi-automatic rifles. While I am not that far into the story, the thought that Kahr Arms did not perform some due diligence prior to purchase to know exactly what they were buying is not believable by me. Keep an open mind. I suggest if you really want to disprove the succession to George, attempt to prove it. You may surprise yourself.

Thanks,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You look at the crates, and I look at the dates. The amount of distance your chain has to stretch violates all principals of metal elasticity. From 1944 until 1975, when Trast finally made a scratch version of a TSMG, is too much of a gap to extend a relationship from Maguire's AOC to Trast's new AOC, the very same AOC he sold to Rev. Moon.

 

Had this distinction between the two AOC entities been brought to light back in the mid 1970's, when all the participants were alive, and the only time since 1944 when a truly "new" TSMG was truly being manufactured, then the discussion today would be moot. Trast would have been obliged to submit all the credentials proving that his AOC was the same AOC that existed back in 1944. It didn't happen then. But it surely doesn't mean that succession wins by default.

 

The undeniable fact is that the more "evidence" you and TD submit the more we see that proving a negative, that G.N. never bought anything but crates, is not even a factor since the positive proof of succession is still invisible. These Numrich ads serve as an abrasive edge upon which the imaginary chain keeps rubbing up against. The inevitable popping sound will deafen your ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see, the last Colt produced Thompson came off the assembly line in 1922. When was the first Savage Thompson manufactured? It seems the passage of a lot of time in between production is a normal occurrence in Thompson history. Numrich and Trast are not required to produce anything (but apparently they did to Kahr Arms). The sale of the Thompson after Maguire and their claims has stood the test of time. If you are really interested in proving your point, show me some documentary evidence that establishes your position. I am very open on all of this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Norm,

 

Will this be a Hammer Film?

 

TD,

 

The quintessential difference between the time the original AOC contracted Colt to make TSMG's and the 18 year gap before Savage was contracted by the original AOC to make TSMG's again, is that the Original AOC never folded up shop. When AOC did fold up shop in 1944, that signaled the end of the chain. Its elementary my dear Watson. Through slight of hand, you have shifted the onus to prove succession to those who do not buy into it. I can understand the rational behind your shell game, but the problem with all con games is that there isn't any pea under any of the three shells. We turned over all the shells and exposed G.N.'s ruse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Sep 9 2006, 05:18 PM)
Ronald,

The list of TSMG authorities/collectors/hobbyists/dealers who have never seen a scratch made George Numrich Thompson Submachine Gun bears another mention:

J Curtis Earl,
Roger Cox,
Bill Helmer,
Doug Richardson,
Gordon Herigstat,
William Douglas,
Robert Thomas Spengel,
William York,
Ross Capawana,
R. J. Vollmer,
Ike Ziros,
Bob Landie's,
Tommy St. Charles,
Irv Kahn,
Dick Wray,
Ed Anthony,
Fred Rexer,
Ron Rudin,
Hy Hunter,
Kenny,
Jerry,
Smith,
Lomont,
Harris,

and who could forget:

Dave Albert & TD
etc
etc
etc

Of course this has nothing to do with succession, sure, but is definitely has something to do with truth in advertising. A feature sadly lacking in G.N.'s catalogs.

a rogue's gallery of thompson wheeling and dealing.and i just wonder if any had some good deal's?wink!

 

and in about ten or twenty year's no more...about six have passed on already.at it's highest point i had 200 name's in thompson collecting around 1985/89.

 

in the total picture that really is not too many in a world of six billion.

 

in the far future when nick is old and grey and this place is a shell of itself...somebody will chime in and ask what was it all about...and can my phaser work on stun?

 

and what is this 100rd.disk thing with the name kahr stamped on it really worth? because he located a abandoned warehouse with 5,000 of them. and wondered did he need a form six to import to freakastan in the war to find ben and jerry?so they could use them in all the thompson's that had been turned in around 2008 when his grandpa fought the "Big One"to end all war's...

 

and that's the fact's..2036...

 

take care,ron

 

gort nicto mirada klingtoe,get the f-out!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Mar 2 2007, 07:57 PM)
http://www.cswnet.com/~luther/REVOKECR.pdf

ATF denied WH 1928 smg C&R status back in March, 2006, two months after application, and we are just hearing about this now? Could it be the possible replica status was a C&R hurdle that ATF balked at?

I guess you aren't a member of ANY Thompson association, either one, or you would have known about this the day Carol wrote the letter. It was approved. And then later they decided against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur, maybe this post being brought back to life falls into the category of Postenis Envy.

 

Now..c'mon guys a little humor in the wee hours of the morning when you cant sleep never hurt anyone! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/nono.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur – BATFE did not deny the WH C&R status. They approved it on 12 Jan 06 http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif . Then on 3 Mar 06 they revoked their approval http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/sad.gif because they realized that the approval letter had been sent out before the required legal review of the ruling was accomplished.

 

I did speak to the BAFTE about this in the last 30 days and the FTB has not been idle. They have been working closely with the legal office on the review. The legal office is short staffed and things are taking longer than planned.

 

Thus the WH C&R status was not denied but is still under review.

 

Speaking just for myself, I am confident that we will prevail.

 

Bill Troy

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...