|
This information is currently being
updated.
THE AASCR GOVERNANCE AND DEVELOPMENT MODEL AND PROCESS
INTRODUCTION
The AASCR Governance and Development Model and Process was founded by Derek A. Conant.
BACKGROUND
The AASCR Governance and Development Model and Process, to continue to shine successfully at anything new, a world of experience
must supply or otherwise feed the resource behind the formula of efficiency.
DEREK CONANT vs FTC
Conant's depth and understanding of governance development processes began to crystallize through his litigation activity
and direction against the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the US Department of Transportation (DOT), the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Vehicle Research Test Center (VRTC) and certain vehicle manufactures (OEMs), and certain vehicle electronic
anti-lock brake system manufactures, regarding vehicle anti-lock brake system (ABS) safety, electronic ABS component failure
and vehicle electronic computer system failure, and concerning the general definition of the anti-lock brake
system, or ABS, as a whole.
In 1995-1996, the above-mentioned FTC lawsuit eventually went to trial with Conant spearheading the action where he successfully
turned the lawsuit around and against the FTC and other US Government agencies.
Conant was able to prove at trial that electronic anti-lock
brake systems, electronic ABS components and vehicle electronic computer systems are not reliable and can fail. Furthermore, Conant
proved at trial that vehicles equipped with an electronic anti-lock brake system can catastrophically fail without any kind of
forewarning or symptom, causing serious personal injury or death.
Conant also proved during the trial special-interest and collusion, whereby, the US Government, through the FTC, DOT, NHTSA
and VRTC, were actively engaged with certain OEMs to cover up or otherwise hide facts regarding ABS safety, electronic brake component
failure and electronic computer system failure. At the time of trial, Conant showed that DOT and NHTSA received, or otherwise were aware,
of thousands of complaints describing people in the US that reportedly were injured or had died as a direct result of ABS failure and/or
vehicle electronic computer system failure.
Conant successfully shook the very core and foundation of the FTC and other Government agencies. The FTC and other Government
agencies did not expect Conant to give such a vigorous, extensive and thorough fight and without compromise.
Conant was able to show the US Government involved in special-interest and collusion, using the FTC to illegally attack a
small family company that held exclusively certain international trademarks and international patents concerning a unique braking
device that certain OEMs and vehicle electronic anti-lock brake system manufactures, and brake system component manufactures, wanted quashed.
In the guise of an advertising practice case, the US Government used the FTC's administrative power and authority
to launch a full-scale attack against the small family company that Conant represented. The FTC's ultimate goal was to completely
discredit the owner of the company, completely discredit the company and its products, and all company trademarks and patents,
making it illegal for the owner of the company, and the company et. al., to operate within the US.
With the evidence at trial Conant was able to prove the FTC impropriety. Conant convinced the court, interested parties
and opposition, that the appearance of impropriety, with special-interest and collusion, showed that the FTC overstepped its discretion
and authority. Conant also demonstrated that he would be relentless in his pursuit. To that end, the FTC realized that continuing
its action and complaint at that point would risk limiting its advertising practice jurisdiction.
The trial that Conant represented against the FTC forced the FTC to give significant and favorable concessions to Conant with
a dismissal of the FTC action and FTC complaint as a whole.
Upon Conant winning the lawsuit against the US Government, this caused the FTC, DOT and NHTSA, VRTC and OEMs, to scramble
and manufacture an immediate and aggressive response, an administrative defense and national advertising campaign to limit liability,
that suggested consumers are the root cause of electronic ABS failure and vehicle electronic computer system failure.
The NHTSA advertising campaign suggested that consumers are to blame for electronic ABS failure and vehicle electronic
computer system failure, because consumers do not know how to use the ABS brake systems. The NHTSA advertising campaign went further
to explain that consumers should trust electronic ABS, or vehicle electronic computer systems, and disregard natural
physical sense, or instincts, that a person might experience while driving in an emergency situation to control a vehicle.
The advertising campaign explained that when braking in an emergency, hold the brake pedal to the floor without
pumping the brakes. Trust and allow the computer to do the braking for you. (This explanation and excuse is roughly now the standard
adopted by NHTSA and OEMs today regarding electronic ABS and electronic vehicle computer systems.)
With the NHTSA advertising campaign, NHTSA illegally and arbitrarily created for itself and the vehicle industry a
sweeping administrative protection and rule, a powerful and effective administrative blind-eye, designed to inhibit its investigation
processes concerning existing and future complaints, reported to or learned by NHTSA, regarding electronic ABS failure and/or vehicle
electronic computer system failure.
Conant's opinion regarding the NHTSA advertising campaign was that NHTSA was to blame not the consumer. Furthermore, with the
high volume of general complaints and reported deaths with NHTSA regarding electronic anti-lock brake system failure and vehicle
electronic computer system failure, NHTSA knew it was blatant to suggest that consumers should trust electronic ABS, or vehicle
electronic computer systems, and disregard natural physical sense, or instincts, that a person might experience while driving in an
emergency situation to control a vehicle.
Conant did not pursue NHTSA regarding its national advertising campaign and its absurd position regarding vehicle safety in that
matter. Conant's litigation and trial was over regarding the FTC, whereas, the FTC settled its interest in the matter in light of the facts.
Click here for more information.
DEREK CONANT & DNSGA
AASCR
DEREK CONANT & ICANN
AASCR
DEREK CONANT & VERISIGN
AASCR
DEREK CONANT & US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
AASCR
DEREK CONANT & ALLDNS | VALUESERV | GROUPSEEK | LAWYERINGNET
AASCR
DEREK CONANT & SAVE VETERANS
AASCR
DEREK CONANT & AASCR
AASCR
THE AASCR BOARD OF DIRECTORS (BoD)
AASCR
THE AASCR SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION (SO)
AASCR
THE AASCR APPROVED PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION (APO)
AASCR
THE AASCR AUTHENTICATION AND ACCREDICATION (AA)
AASCR
THE AASCR PUBLIC FORUM (PF)
AASCR
Accrediting Autonomous Systems in Cybernetic Research (AASCR)
2020 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. #453
Washington, D.C. 20006 U.S.A.
Copyright © 2010 Derek A. Conant. All Rights Reserved. AASCR is a DCA Global Communications Media Company
|