On 5/27/2010 7:53 AM, N2EY wrote:
On May 25, 10:08�pm, wrote:
Amateur radio operator charged

Not just charged. He was found guilty, and fined almost $2000, plus
the equipment.

What I found most interesting was this:

For the purposes of section 113, any
person who erects, constructs,
establishes, maintains, or is in
possession of any radio transmitter is
presumed to have used the radio transmitter.
In this case, Mr Potter was
found in possession of radio transmitting
equipment that was capable of
operating at a significantly higher power
than the Amateur Radio Operators
General Licence allows.

They didn't have to prove he used it, just that he had it.

I'm not sure how I feel about that.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Though under the law there, and under selected laws here, possession is,
as they say 9/10ths (And enough to get conviction) (I might add the laws
here are not, far as I know, radio laws)

They had a You Tube Video of him actually using the transmitter at
several thousand watts..

Given that video,, Were I on a jury.. I'd say "Proved".. Even though I
know You Tube Videos are often faked.