Don't get me wrong, Glenn, I'm really on your side, but you have some
legal misconceptions. Consider this post as "playing devil's
advocate", if you desire. I really am trying to help you.

"The FCC has declined to provide a requested hearing, and the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution requires a hearing and due
process of law before they can collect a dime much less the "ORDERED"
"fine" of $21,000. Even a traffic ticket gets a hearing, right?"

ANSWER: You weren't denied due process because, in your responses to
the NAL, you deliberately refused to answer the questions you were
asked. Therefore you raised no substantial or material questions of
law or fact that required a hearing. A hearing is only required when
substantial and material issues of law or fact are raised by the
pleadings. [See, for example, Title 47 USC Sec. 309(e), which deals
with license applications.] This is also why, for example, a court can
grant a demurrer or a motion for summary judgment in a civil case and
deny a litigant his right to trial. This is just another way of saying
you don't have the right to a hearing in the abstract; there has got to
be a reason for holding one. Also, you are going to get a hearing
before the U.S. District Court, so you can't claim you are being denied
a hearing.


"Therefore, the next step for the FCC, by statute, is to now sue K1MAN
for the claimed $21,000 in Federal District Court in Bangor, Maine
where K1MAN would demand a trial by jury (trial de novo), subpoena
witnesses (Hollingsworth, Boston Office Engineers, hams,
etc.), file motions, etc. The FCC can't even bring such a suit, of
course, because the minimum claim in Federal District Court is
$50,000."

ANSWER: That's incorrect. First, the monetary jurisdictional minimum
has now been raised to $75,000.00, but it only applies to diversity
jurisdiction cases. The Forfeiture Order enforcement action will
instead be a federal question jurisdiction case, to which the monetary
jurisdictional minimum doesn't apply.

In addition, wrote:
Once they deny his pending application, and they will, things will get
very interesting indeed. K1MAN will have no authority to operate and
you can bet the FCC will be ready to deal with him if he does.

ANSWER: Nope. Title 47 of the USC, Sec. 307(c)(3) says he has the
right to continue operating until his appeal from the possible denial
of his renewal is finally decided.

-Bill Crowell, N6AYJ