Dee D. Flint wrote:

"JJ" wrote in message
...

Steveo wrote:

JJ wrote:


Steveo wrote:


JJ wrote:



Steveo wrote:



Another ham radio operator busted:

March 3, 2004


Mr. Mark A. Glover
10632 Artcraft Avenue
Garden Grove, CA 92640


Amateur Radio License KE6TTL: Warning Notice


Dear Mr. Glover:


In reference to your letter dated February 26, 2004, concerning the
Catalina Amateur Repeater Association, enclosed is the letter sent to
you requesting that you not use the repeater.


Our letter of February 2, 2004, explained the right of the repeater
association to make such a request. If there are any further
questions, please feel free to contact us.


If you have an objection to the decision of the repeater owner, you
are free to pursue legal action locally. No Commission hearing
procedures are provided in such matters.


Enclosu 1


CC: FCC Western Regional Director
Catalina Island Repeater Association

Just how is this ham busted? Did he receive a NAL, get a fine, go to
jail? No, the FCC just stated the problem is of repeater usage is
between this amateur radio operator and the repeater owner.


Some of you ham boys call an nal an automatic multi-thousand
dollar fine, when you try your bull**** scare tactics in
rec.radio.cb.

Do you know the outcome of his nal, JJ?

He did not get a NAL twit, he just got a letter from the FCC and it
plainly stated that the problem was between the ham and the repeater
owner. Here is the last sentence of the letter, get some six year old to
explain it to you. "No Commission hearing procedures
are provided in such matters."


Heh, so unless you're busted and fined you haven't broken
any rules. You running two meters now, dip****?

Maybe if I type r e a l s l o w you might be able to understand. The
ham in question did not break any FCC rules, he had a problem with the
repeater owner who requested he not use the repeater anymore. The FCC in
their letter to the ham plainly states the problem is between the ham
and the repeater owner, there were no FCC rules broken. Again, the ham
was not "busted" because he broke no FCC rules.
Is that too hard for you to understand dipwad? It must be, evidently I
am expecting too much of you as a cber to understand such a simple thing.



He broke the rule of "no malicious interference". However the FCC at this
particular moment simply chose to issue a warning rather than "bust him".
The enforcing agency always has the choice of how far to go in "busting"
someone. The FCC also made it quite clear that the repeater owner has every
right to bar him from the repeater and further that if he continues he will
be subject to enforcement actions.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


I did not see anything in the letter metioning malicious interference.
Where did the FCC make state there could possibably be enforcement
actions? They plainly state to the amateur, "you are free to pursue
legal action locally. No Commission hearing procedures are provided in
such matters."