"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message
...
Read section II as I've stated and quit beating around the bush ignoring
the
contents. It specificaly mentions NAL, the review process etc. It's all
mentioned right there. I'll quote for you since you can't read.
http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opi...03/01-1485.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the less formal NAL procedure at issue in this case,
the Commission issues a notice of apparent liability to the
alleged violator, affording it only the opportunity to show, in
writing, why no forfeiture penalty should be imposed. Id.
§ 503(b)(4). The Commission may then issue an order directing
payment of the proposed forfeiture, reducing the amount
to be paid, or canceling the forfeiture altogether. 47 C.F.R.
§ 1.80(f)(4). If the order becomes final and the forfeiture
subject refuses to pay, then Communications Act section
504(a) permits the Commission to refer the matter to the
Department of Justice for commencement of a civil action to
recover the forfeiture in a district court, where the forfeiture
subject is entitled to a trial de novo. 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).
The Commission argues that unlike the formal hearing
forfeiture process, where the Communications Act expressly
gives courts of appeals jurisdiction to review forfeiture orders,
the less formal NAL forfeiture proceedings are not
subject to review in courts of appeals. The plain language of
the Communications Act indicates otherwise. Section 402(a),
the Act's general review provision, vests in courts of appeals
exclusive jurisdiction over ''[a]ny proceeding to enjoin, set
aside, annul or suspend'' or determine the validity of final
Commission orders, 47 U.S.C. § 402(a); see 28 U.S.C.
§ 2342(1)-a category that includes forfeiture orders, see
You know Lee, read what you want, but the above says the
exact same thing I've been saying. As Twist would invoke,
try to stay on topic, don't let your anger get in the way.
i.e. "NALs. The Appellate court disagrees with the FCC, and guess who
wins
that argument? The court. They even cite the relevant CFR section.
Illinois Citizens Comm. for Broad. v. FCC, 515 F.2d 397, 402
(D.C. Cir. 1974) (holding that the court of appeals has jurisdiction
over a third party's challenge to a paid forfeiture
order pursuant to section 402(a)). And although section
504(a) creates an exception to that general rule, that exception
is, by its express terms, limited to government actions for
the recovery of forfeiture penalties: Section 504(a) provides
that NAL forfeitures ''shall be recoverable TTT in a civil suit
in the name of the United States'' brought in the district
court, and that ''any suit for the recovery of a forfeiture
6
imposed pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be a
trial de novo.'' 47 U.S.C. § 504(a) (emphasis added). Because
section 504(a) says nothing about district court jurisdiction
where the forfeiture has already been recovered, it
appears to leave court of appeals jurisdiction intact where, as
here, the forfeiture subject has paid the assessed penalty.
Though the Commission agrees that section 504(a) deals
only with challenges to unpaid forfeiture orders, it argues
that section 504(a) nevertheless overrides section 402(a), albeit
implicitly, for purposes of challenging paid forfeiture
orders. For that proposition, the Commission relies on
Pleasant Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 564 F.2d 496 (D.C. Cir.
1977). Addressing the question of court of appeals jurisdiction
over NAL forfeiture orders, Pleasant Broadcasting
states that ''section 504 of the Communications Act of 1934
vests exclusive jurisdiction in the district courts to review, in
the first instance, licensee challenges to forfeiture orders.''
Id. at 497 (citation omitted). According to the Commission,
Pleasant Broadcasting holds that section 504(a) vests exclusive
jurisdiction in district courts for review of all forfeiture
orders, paid or unpaid. And because section 504(a) contains
no provision for post-compliance review, the Commission argues,
Pleasant Broadcasting means that forfeiture subjects
must either bring a pre-compliance challenge in district court
or bring no challenge at all; payment effectively renders
forfeiture orders unreviewable.
Again, "You" have to sue the Federal Government to get
your money back. Gee, $8,000.00 fine, $15,000.00 attorney
fee's, doesn't make sense to me.
Major snipage (Again Lee not everyone has a dozen attorneys
on retainer to fight the FCC)
Why are you so resistance to the idea that there is a jurisdictional
review
process? And as you can read above there are two ways to do it, prepay the
fine or not.
Really, I saw it the other way. For the informal NAL you had to pay, then
sue the Fed's to appeal.
Depending on the choice made determines how the process is
done, i.e. which court you have to go to.
You seem to want to really believe
that the FCC is some kind of rouge agency that does as it pleases without
any checks and balances.
No, not at all. But they do have limited autonomy to perform
functions written into thier "rules".
It just isn't so. All I can figure out is you want
to believe this so you can justifiy FCC regulation violations in your own
mind, feel better about it, and excuse others for being held accountable.
Christ Leland, get a grip. As stated before, I run a bone legal Cobra 148,
no amp. so don't fantasize about me getting popped. See above about
letting your anger cloud your judgment.
--
Leland C. Scott
Landshark
--
That does suck..sometimes you're the
windshield..sometimes you're the bug.