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.