On Feb 17, 2:10�pm, "
wrote:
On Feb 17, 7:24?am, wrote:
On Feb 17, 6:52 am, "KH6HZ" wrote:

wrote:
I suggest you go to your local Post Office and ask them about renting
a PO Box then using it for other people.

Perfectly 100% legal within postal regulations.

Sure it is.

What do the Postal Regulations say about it?

Since you're the "expert" Brain, why don't you tell us?

Free clue: Be sure to refer to the pre-9/11 / Patriot Act postal
regulations.

My PO Boxes were all pre-9/11 Patriot Act. ?Thanks for the distractor.

* *Darn! *I don't have a Post Office Box! *I guess I can't be
* *an amateur... *:-(

Sure you can, Len. There's no FCC
requirement for a PO Box nor residence
address. Just a valid mailing address. You
could use your Lanark Street address or the
address of your "northern house" if you can
receive mail from FCC there.

No problem at all.

But I don't think you will ever be a radio amateur.
Just a hunch.

The government can be defrauded as well as anyone, and there was no
misunderstanding. ?It was poor amateur practice.

Says you. But then, you don't count.

Someone counted. ?Someone counted up your call signs and mailed you a
letter.

* *Tsk, even thewww.ah0a.orgsite COUNTED. *Poor Mikey D.
* *was way down on the list...but still there.

FCC rules do not limit the number of clubs that
someone may be a trustee for.

It's because the individual incessantly tells others how to live their
ham-lives, then defrauds his friend and the FCC.

Neither the FCC nor my friend were defrauded, despite your repeated
foot-stomping and tantrums to the contrary.

I don't think he's your friend anymore, or at least he's not defending
you. ?But now you have Jim.

The FCC? ?Riley takes care of that business like he took care of you.

* *Riley Hollingsworth, Special Counsel to the FCC, has about
* *700,000 (give or take) licensees to "count" and "take care
* *of." *I doubt he would even blink twice at Mikey D's dozen.

Was it really a dozen?

* *But he DID notice once and that got on the "notices."

"Enforcement letters".

Now if all this was so "legal" as Mikey D sez, why would it
* *get into the "notices?"

"Enforcement letters".

It appears FCC wanted more information about
the clubs.

*If it was so "legal" then it should
* *never have been there.

Only if you assume guilt without proof. In the
USA, there's a basic principle of
"innocent until proven guilty".

* *No sweat, the Guru and Reknowned Historian is all for
* *code-tested amateur extras...they can do no real wrong
* *in his eyes.

Who is this "Guru and Renowned Historian"? I
do not know the person.

Also, there are no non-code-tested Amateur Extras
at all. Not yet, anyway. That situation will soon
change - just watch the thread "ARS License
Numbers" for updates. Perhaps I will update the
numbers there more frequently than twice-per-
calendar-month. Perhaps not.

As for me, it appears that there was a
misunderstanding about the intent of the
Part 97 rules concerning vanity calls for
clubs - particularly in what a group must do
to meet FCC's defintion of a "club" and qualify
for a club callsign.

*All "very legal." *barf

Who was harmed by the assignment of those
vanity callsigns?

It is clear that some callsigns, such as four-character
ones, are considered more desirable by many
amateurs. Were any of the disputed callsigns part
of a desirable group?

Were other amateurs wanting the callsigns,
but unable to get them because of the
"clubs" having them?

Have any of those callsigns been reassigned under
the vanity program?

It is interesting that you identify the trustee of those
callsigns as a "code tested extra", but not as
a no-code-test advocate.

Jim, N2EY