"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message
...
"Landshark" wrote in message
. com...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message
...
"Landshark" wrote in message
. com...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message
...
You and Frank need to do some more reading. The appeal court process
is
there too, but both of you like to conveniently ignore it. As far as
the
regulations go, that they are only "rules", go tell that to an
attorney
and watch him laugh at you. Better yet get a NAL yourself and tell
that
wopper to the judge.
You don't comprehend it do you?
I understand it just fine.
You can not contest a
NAL in a court of law, you have to contest it before the FCC.
http://www.fcc.gov/oalj/
http://newmedia.cityu.edu.hk/cyberla...dminlaw03.html
http://www.ku.edu/~kulaw/library/admin_res.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of Application of
RICHARD A. BURTON
For General Mobile Radio Service License
)
)
)
)
)
FCC File No. 0000920745
Docket No. 03-188
HEARING DESIGNATION ORDER
Adopted: August 6, 2003 Released: August 7, 2003
By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau:
INTRODUCTION
1. By this Hearing Designation Order, we commence a hearing before an
FCC
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to determine whether the captioned
application by Richard A. Burton (Burton) for a new General Mobile
Radio
Service (GMRS) license should be granted. As discussed below, Burton
has
been convicted on four separate occasions for the unlicensed operation
of
a
radio transmission apparatus in violation of Sections 301 or 318 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act).[1] In addition, Burton
had
his
amateur radio license revoked in 1981 for willful and repeated
violation
of
the Commission's regulations governing the Amateur Radio Service.[2] In
1992, his application for new amateur radio station and operator
licenses
was designated for hearing based on character qualifications issues
arising
from the 1981 license revocation and the first two of his four felony
convictions[3] for unlicensed radio operations.[4] Based on the
information
before us, we believe that Burton's history of repeated violations of
the
Act and our Rules raises a substantial and material question of fact as
to
whether he possesses the requisite character qualifications to be a
Commission licensee. Because we are unable to make a determination on
the
record currently before us that grant of Burton's application for a new
GMRS
license would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity, we
hereby designate the application for hearing, as required by Section
309(e)
of the Act.[5]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----------
http://www.nlgcdc.org/briefs/microra...sition_pi.html
Dude, this is a: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION" It's an injunction to prevent him from Broadcasting,
nothing to due with a NAL.
1 United States Telephone Association v. F.C.C., No. 92-1321, No. 93-1526,
1994 U.S. App. Lexis 17002.
2 Had defendant, rather than plaintiff, come to this Court seeking
injunctive or declaratory relief, the F.C.C. would be vehemently urging
denial of review pending exhaustion of administrative remedies. In fact, in
a very similar case, Dougan v. F.C.C., 94 C.D.O.S. 2735, No. 92-70734 (9th
Cir. 1994) the F.C.C. argued to the Ninth Circuit that the only avenue for
judicial review in these cases is appeal to the District Court after the
F.C.C. has initiated formal enforcement proceedings to seize the forfeiture
amount.
http://www.cultureandfamily.org/arti...yi d=cfreport
Again, this says before the FCC commissioners, nothing about a court of
law.
He's filing for a license, what does that have to do
with contesting a NAL before a court of law?
I'll say it again, you can not contest a NAL before
a court of law. You keep posting this stuff, none shows
the contesting of a NAL before a court of law.
Read section II very carefully. There is a difference between paid and
unpaid NAL's and whether you can challenge them in district court or in an
appellate court. From my reading it appears that as long as you DON'T
immediately pay the forfeiture you can challenge the NAL in district
court.
It's a bit much to read, full of legal theory and citing sections of
different CFR's and case law, but does confirm what I have said all
along -
you can challenge a NAL in court.
http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opi...03/01-1485.pdf
OK, so AT&T, which has more lawyers than you & I have friends filed a
petition. They also paid the fine first, so again,
where is the common person going with this? Hire a bunch
of lawyers that will end up costing you more than the fine?
Landshark
--
That does suck..sometimes you're the
windshield..sometimes you're the bug.