On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:51:47 GMT, D. Stussy wrote:

He "addressed" the deficiencies by saying that there are none
(implying that his equipment is working perfectly). Poor operating
practice does not equate to deficient operation of the equipment.

In FCC practice, "operation of the station" by a licensee covers
more than mere operation of the equipment and does in fact include
operating practices and non-technical rule compliance.

The U.S. Attorneys, nationwide, usually don't even bother with more
than 3 cases of 18 USC 1621, Perjury - the "stronger" crime, a year,
so they certainly aren't going to bother with this provision.

Unless the agency has an IOU which it can cash in.

The failure to enforce the law makes 18 USC 1001 a joke.

It doesn't make the law a joke - it makes the U S Attornies a joke.

Don't get me started on what cases they will or will not take, and
for whom.... ggg If it wasn't for the "retirement annuity offset
provision", I could have been a Special Assistant U S Attorney
handling monetary and asset forfeiture cases for the FCC after I
regained my failing eyesight (one of the reasons for my retirement)
several years ago.

Riley has really scared him now.

Look at it from the aspect of an attorney-advocate.... if the
defendant-client is put on actual notice but does the proscribed
action, and for some unique reason the prosecution decides to make
an example out of him or her (cash in the agency's IOU) what defense
can the defendant raise? The defense of latches does not apply in
criminal matters - the fact that the above may or may not happen
or that others do it with no punishment can't be used to justify the
violation.

Add to that "lack of candor" is one of the main reasons why a
license is suspended, revoked, denied, or not renewed. As long as
that is available, the U S Attorney has a hook to wiggle out of
doing his or her job.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane