|
BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Leland C. Scott" wrote: "Twistedhed" wrote in message ... The ONLY way to change this is via legislation, and we all know the angry hammie who is pre-occupied with such nonsense is merely reactive, not proactive. As silly as it is it just so happens that its the "angry hammie", a.k.a. the ARRL, that is going to save the CBer's behind. What I'm talking about is the direction the FCC is going in regards to the BPL issue. Whether you like it or not BPL is going to affect everybody using HF, irregardless if they so happen to be a Ham or CBer. It would be much more productive if the bandwidth on this news group wasn't wasted debating the same old issues, but instead joining together in a united front to fight the FCC, and the deep pocket corporations, wanting to pollute the airwaves with RF trash from the digital signals on the power lines using BPL.The CBers really need some kind of national origination to represent their interests. Right now they're getting a free ride, so to speak, courtesy of the ARRL. Anything that benefits the Ham community in regards to stopping BPL also benefits CBers as well since your band, 11m, is right there next to the 10m Ham band. Both bands would be heavily affect by BPL noise. Just something for you to think about while you're ready to pound away at your keyboard in response. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft Again, if ANYTHING changed since the seventies regarding enforcement, it is that now is the best time as any to buy a radio and begin freebanding. Enforcement is practically non-existent unless you draw major attention to yourself with splatter and bleed. Business as usual, and with the cooler weather comes the skip,,,,,27.555 is kicking up major contacts again and no one on the freq is remotely concerned with a single hammie's angry, jealous, errant, and reactive behavior. Happy holidays. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 00:12:08 -0500, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in : "Frank Gilliland" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:15:29 -0500, "Leland C. Scott" wrote in : "Twistedhed" wrote in message ... But you MUST consider the probability factor. What you propose is deviation from the norm concerning the FCC. Not really. Take a look at the other enforcement actions for such things as tower height and lighting etc. Enforcement is but a shadow of what it once was. Back in the early '60s the FCC would yank your CB license and/or slap you with a fine just for violating the time-out rule, and they popped hoardes of CBers for that and many other minor violations. Looking at the enforcement efforts of the FCC for the past several years there are two trends that become apparent: the number of FCC enforcement actions have been steadily declining, and the fines have been steadily increasing. That I have heard mentioned before with the addtional comment being that this is the case due to lack of funds. That could explaine why the fines have been going up I suppose. Name one federal agency that doesn't claim to suffer from a lack of funding. snip The FCC's aim is not to put anybody out of business, but to bring them in to compliance with FCC regulations. Think about it: a federal agency with the power to execute searches without a warrant, Big deal. If you read the terms of the license grant from the FCC the licensee agrees to station inspections, i.e. without a warrant, so the licensee doesn't have a bone to pick. They knew the rules of the game before hand. I have used that argument myself but I have since found out that it doesn't wash: Many CBers -don't- know the rules. And while any person can refuse a station inspection, most CBers (and many hams) are not aware that such a refusal can be used as 'evidence' against him, and is therefore a violation of the 5th amendment. impose penalties without due process, Oh, there is due process. If you don't like the fine then you can go to court. Not much different when you get popped for speeding. Don't like the ticket then talk to the judge. Wrong. You can't challenge the violation in court like you can a traffic ticket. FCC fines are enforced by the Treasury Dept as uncollected debts, -not- as violations of FCC rules. and make up their own rules as they go; The rules are clearly spelled out in CFR 47. What I meant was that the FCC has the power to write their own rules under the CFR to enforce the USC as they see fit. Since the power of the FCC is not balanced by a watchdog agency, and because their rules are written and enforced in a manner that prevents any constitutional challenges, they are effectively a rogue agency. yet the violations continue unabated. And the only benefits from their actions are seen by the Treasury Dept. The problems don't seem to be limited to just the FCC regulations. For example look at your speedometer the next time you're out driving, the posted speed limits, and the other drivers on the road. Seems like more cops on the road doesn't deter many from doing 80+ MPH on the expressways. Wrong. Notice what happens when a cop is on the road -- everyone slows down. Spokane is a classic example of what happens when there are too few cops to enforce the law. Driving in this town is nothing short of treacherous. You can drive all day and not see a cop. I've been hit 16 times in as many years, three times while my car/truck was parked on the street in front of my house, and just recently my GARAGE was hit. I was even rear-ended once by an ambulance! Why? Because there aren't enough police to enforce the law so people ignore them and drive any way they want. On the other side of the coin, I went to Bellingham a couple years ago and WOW what a difference! Cops were highly visible, almost everybody drove -under- the speed limit, and I didn't see anybody driving like they were drunk (common in Spokane). Police presence DOES make a difference. Cite a single case involving the FCC tossing a white collar exec in jail for a similar charge. I don't have any at my finger tips, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any. And if by chance there are non there is always a first time. As they say with investing "past performance is no indication of future returns", in other words they, the FCC, could do so at their discretion. They won't. If they did there would be constitutional challenges to their rules and the FCC would probably lose I doubt it. When they have the violator on audio tape That's a constitutional violation in and of itself. with signal strenght readings, frequency counter readings, spectrum analyzer screen shots etc, when they go to court they're cooked. Besides, were in the constitution does it say that a citizen has the right to use a radio transmitter, much less in any maner they choose? The issue is not about a person's right to use a radio transmitter, but about the protections of the accused that are -supposed- to be guaranteed by the constitution. Like, 'innocent until proven guilty in a court of law'. Last time I checked the FCC is not a part of the judicial branch. They can accuse but they CANNOT determine guilt. That's why their citations are notifications of APPARENT liability. If someone uses a radio transmitter in violation of the law then by all means they should be held accountable. But the -means- by which that person is brought to justice by the FCC is unconstitutional and they know it. If it isn't there then there is no constitutional right to challenge. EVERY person has the constitutional right to challenge ANY law. The problem is that the FCC has been very careful about preventing any such challenges. -- at the very least it would be a costly trial. For the violator it sure is. Unless you're a big corporation a private person doesn't stand much of a chance when the FCC has the wealth of the Federal Treasury behind it to spend on legal proceddings. I can asure you their legal budget is bigger that your's or mine. Exactly! And that's why any fine against a large company by the FCC will never be large enough to justify any such challenge -- they will simply write it off as an expense, just like Twisty explained. That's also why the fines are never enough to incite any legal challenge in the courts, It's not always about the money. I have read where some have gone to court just over the principle of the mater. The money wasn't the main consideration for them. And those cases are usually settled out-of-court before they reach the Supreme Court. Everyone has a price. or to people and companies that do not have the financial resources to mount such a challenge. And that's a shame too. It's not just the FCC that does this. How many people have gotten screwed over because they don't have the money to stand up for their rights in court? Too many. You are absolutely correct. Justice is for the rich. snip the FCC wasn't going to do anything about 10m intruders. Looks like they are doing something now. A token effort, just enough to keep the hammies thinking that they aren't being ignored. There are only around 750K licensed Hams in the USA. I would suppose only a fraction of them are making complaints to the FCC. The FCC could as well just ignore the complaints all together. The fact that they're not doing so would suggest the enforcement action isn't simply to placate those complaining, but a genuine effort at enforcement action as limited as it is currently. 750K is a significant number of people, and if the FCC dropped enforcement of the ham bands there would be an equally significant backlash. Not just because of the numbers, but also because those people have a license -- a 'contract' with the government -- to use those bands. If the FCC welches on 750K contracts you can bet that there would be hell to pay. Assuming that the FCC won't get more aggressive in the future is not being smart. All it takes is a change in the leadership of the FCC. Imagine if a new FCC chairmen is appointed, and is a Ham with an ax to grind about the present situation? The chairman has very little power to change the workings of the FCC. The chairmen sets the tone for the whole agency. The commissioners take their cue from him. Here's the link to Part 0 (Commission Organization): http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...47cfr0_02.html Where in there does it say anything even remotely close to what you describe as the role of the chairman? It is the commission as a whole that has the power in that agency, and therefore it is controlled by whomever controls the commissioners. Yeah, the chairmen, like I said. If you read through the relevent sections of Part 0 (linked above) you will see that the chairman is nothing more than a representative and a facilitator. He is -not- the controlling force of the FCC. If he was then it wouldn't be called a "commission". Since there is so much corporate interest in the other aspects of the FCC, the ARS and CB will always be generally ignored -regardless- of who sits in the big chair. It's well documented that the current chairmen has an agenda that seems to be mainly fueled by corporate money being offered for valuable spectrum and that dang BPL crap. That's been true of the whole commission, and it's been true for many, many years. As for the BPL issue, don't put the cart before the horse: wait to see just how much of a problem it causes -in fact-, and if it's enough of a problem that makes 750K hams feel the FCC is ignoring their 'contracts' then you will probably see some corrective actions by the FCC. snip Jerry has chosen a course of action. I may not agree that it's the -best- course of action, but then I'm not a ham and don't see things from his perspective. Give it a few minutes of thought then. The worst that can happen is you may even agree with him on some points. 8-)) You missed -my- point: ham radio is none of my business. I -am- a CBer, and IMO you can stick a much bigger thorn in the FCC's ass if you pester your congressional rep. It happens. Evidently it doesn't happen enough. It still won't get anything accomplished, but at least you're forcing the FCC to answer to someone with some authority. Why do you think some of what is happening is happening? Maybe not enough to suit some people, but some progress is being made. All I see happening is the ARRL taking a step forward after being pushed back three steps. That's not progress, it's damage control. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message ... Name one federal agency that doesn't claim to suffer from a lack of funding. I'm thinking........ Maybe the IRS? 8-)) I have used that argument myself but I have since found out that it doesn't wash: Many CBers -don't- know the rules. And while any person can refuse a station inspection, most CBers (and many hams) are not aware that such a refusal can be used as 'evidence' against him, and is therefore a violation of the 5th amendment. I would like to see some legal opinions in that area. You do rasie an interesting point. Wrong. You can't challenge the violation in court like you can a traffic ticket. FCC fines are enforced by the Treasury Dept as uncollected debts, -not- as violations of FCC rules. I've read where some who have gotten NAL's have had their day in court in front of an administrative law judge. CFR 47 and the rules under it are considered administrative law and can thus be heard in court. Some have even won their cases. Check it out for yourself. What I meant was that the FCC has the power to write their own rules under the CFR to enforce the USC as they see fit. Since the power of the FCC is not balanced by a watchdog agency, They are. It's called the Congress of The United States. If you don't keep up with Ham related things such as zoning-convents-home owner associations, where they restrict erection of antenna towers etc. and the PRB-1 issue, you won't know. The FCC has made a ruling granting a partial over ruling of such restrictions for TV antennas. Also it states that "reasonable accommodations" have to be made for Ham antennas. Its not a blacket override. Many Hams have requested that the FCC issue an order more specific. I bring this up as a point because the FCC said they will not issue such an order unless directed by Congress by way of law making. So as you can see they can't make up any rules they like. They are bound by the Congress, and any treaties they sign, like at the last world administrate radio conference. I will agree that they do have a wide latitude in what they can do, but it is non the less has bounds. Wrong. Notice what happens when a cop is on the road Tell that to the truckers I see routinely doing 60+ MPH in crealy marked 55 MPH zones, cops or not. Police presence DOES make a difference. But only if they know for sure they will actually do something. I was in Georgia driving south of Atlanta, on my way to Macon for a work assignment, driving on I75 a week ago. I got routinely passed by truckers doing well over 70 MPH, which is the posted speed limit. I also saw plenty of 4 wheelers getting pulled over for speeding. I can't recall seeing any of the hordes of speeding 18 wheelers getting pulled over. And I saw plenty of cops everywere I went. Cite a single case involving the FCC tossing a white collar exec in jail for a similar charge. I don't have any at my finger tips, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any. And if by chance there are non there is always a first time. As they say with investing "past performance is no indication of future returns", in other words they, the FCC, could do so at their discretion. They won't. If they did there would be constitutional challenges to their rules and the FCC would probably lose I doubt it. When they have the violator on audio tape They screw criminals all the time with wire taps etc. Seems to me if it was so unconstitutional some sharp attorney would have put that baby to bed a long time ago, and permanently too. As far as anything transmitted over the air there really is no reasonable expectation of privacy without extraordinary measures being taken, such as using encryption. It then becomes like the "in plain sight" rules the street cops use when finding edvidence. That's a constitutional violation in and of itself. with signal strenght readings, frequency counter readings, spectrum analyzer screen shots etc, when they go to court they're cooked. Besides, were in the constitution does it say that a citizen has the right to use a radio transmitter, much less in any maner they choose? The issue is not about a person's right to use a radio transmitter, but about the protections of the accused that are -supposed- to be guaranteed by the constitution. Like, 'innocent until proven guilty in a court of law'. Last time I checked the FCC is not a part of the judicial branch. They can accuse but they CANNOT determine guilt. That's why their citations are notifications of APPARENT liability. Like I said above, if you don't like it take it to the judge. Same as a speeding ticket. If someone uses a radio transmitter in violation of the law then by all means they should be held accountable. But the -means- by which that person is brought to justice by the FCC is unconstitutional and they know it. Anybody who disagrees with an FCC NAL can have their day in court and there is nothing the FCC can do to stop it. EVERY person has the constitutional right to challenge ANY law. The problem is that the FCC has been very careful about preventing any such challenges. Ah no. For the violator it sure is. Unless you're a big corporation a private person doesn't stand much of a chance when the FCC has the wealth of the Federal Treasury behind it to spend on legal proceddings. I can asure you their legal budget is bigger that your's or mine. Exactly! And that's why any fine against a large company by the FCC will never be large enough to justify any such challenge -- they will simply write it off as an expense, just like Twisty explained. That is an economic decision by the company. There is nothing that prevents them from pursuing the issue in court if the money is not a concern. That's also why the fines are never enough to incite any legal challenge in the courts, It's not always about the money. I have read where some have gone to court just over the principle of the mater. The money wasn't the main consideration for them. And those cases are usually settled out-of-court before they reach the Supreme Court. Everyone has a price. The Supreme Court picks and chooses which cases it wants to hear based on how widely it would affect the law of the land. or to people and companies that do not have the financial resources to mount such a challenge. And that's a shame too. It's not just the FCC that does this. How many people have gotten screwed over because they don't have the money to stand up for their rights in court? Too many. You are absolutely correct. Justice is for the rich. I have to agree with you here. snip the FCC wasn't going to do anything about 10m intruders. Looks like they are doing something now. A token effort, just enough to keep the hammies thinking that they aren't being ignored. There are only around 750K licensed Hams in the USA. I would suppose only a fraction of them are making complaints to the FCC. The FCC could as well just ignore the complaints all together. The fact that they're not doing so would suggest the enforcement action isn't simply to placate those complaining, but a genuine effort at enforcement action as limited as it is currently. 750K is a significant number of people, and if the FCC dropped enforcement of the ham bands there would be an equally significant backlash. Not just because of the numbers, but also because those people have a license -- a 'contract' with the government -- to use those bands. If the FCC welches on 750K contracts you can bet that there would be hell to pay. Assuming that the FCC won't get more aggressive in the future is not being smart. All it takes is a change in the leadership of the FCC. Imagine if a new FCC chairmen is appointed, and is a Ham with an ax to grind about the present situation? The chairman has very little power to change the workings of the FCC. The chairmen sets the tone for the whole agency. The commissioners take their cue from him. Here's the link to Part 0 (Commission Organization): http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...47cfr0_02.html Where in there does it say anything even remotely close to what you describe as the role of the chairman? See this link http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2.../47cfr0.11.pdf Look under section 0.13. You have to read between the lines, but I think you'll get the drift. The chairmen can exert influence over what the commission does in an indirect manner. And that was all I implied by my prior statement. It is the commission as a whole that has the power in that agency, and therefore it is controlled by whomever controls the commissioners. Yeah, the chairmen, like I said. If you read through the relevent sections of Part 0 (linked above) you will see that the chairman is nothing more than a representative and a facilitator. He is -not- the controlling force of the FCC. If he was then it wouldn't be called a "commission". So why are the lobbyists always trying to get the chairman's era? If he doesn't matter why are they wasting their time with him? As you should know what is said on paper, how it should work, may not always match how it really gets done. Since there is so much corporate interest in the other aspects of the FCC, the ARS and CB will always be generally ignored -regardless- of who sits in the big chair. It's well documented that the current chairmen has an agenda that seems to be mainly fueled by corporate money being offered for valuable spectrum and that dang BPL crap. That's been true of the whole commission, and it's been true for many, many years. As for the BPL issue, don't put the cart before the horse: wait to see just how much of a problem it causes -in fact-, and if it's enough of a problem that makes 750K hams feel the FCC is ignoring their 'contracts' then you will probably see some corrective actions by the FCC. I've read reports where the interference was so bad that in one or more foreign countries have pulled the plug completely on BPL. In reported case here in the USA about reported interference the BPL provider was unable to resolve the problems even after months of tweaking the system. There is a new technology on the horizon that may just obsolete BPL anyway, the 802.16 for a wireless MAN (Metropolitan Area Network). snip Jerry has chosen a course of action. I may not agree that it's the -best- course of action, but then I'm not a ham and don't see things from his perspective. Give it a few minutes of thought then. The worst that can happen is you may even agree with him on some points. 8-)) You missed -my- point: ham radio is none of my business. In reality it is to a degree. It isn't called a "service" for nothing you know. One of the primary reasons for the existence of Ham Radio is to provide emergency communications. This is something that affects Hams and non Hams alike. Just ask Keith here on the group. That's one main reason why he got his Ham ticket, and I'm sure he has put it to good use the last several months. I -am- a CBer, Gee, I didn't know that. ;-)) and IMO you can stick a much bigger thorn in the FCC's ass if you pester your congressional rep. It happens. Evidently it doesn't happen enough. Yup. It still won't get anything accomplished, but at least you're forcing the FCC to answer to someone with some authority. Why do you think some of what is happening is happening? Maybe not enough to suit some people, but some progress is being made. All I see happening is the ARRL taking a step forward after being pushed back three steps. That's not progress, it's damage control. If there is one sure thing in life its change. Assuming things are going to stay the same just isn't reasonable. So if it's bad its going to get better. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message ... "Frank Gilliland" wrote in message ... Name one federal agency that doesn't claim to suffer from a lack of funding. I'm thinking........ Maybe the IRS? 8-)) I have used that argument myself but I have since found out that it doesn't wash: Many CBers -don't- know the rules. And while any person can refuse a station inspection, most CBers (and many hams) are not aware that such a refusal can be used as 'evidence' against him, and is therefore a violation of the 5th amendment. I would like to see some legal opinions in that area. You do rasie an interesting point. Wrong. You can't challenge the violation in court like you can a traffic ticket. FCC fines are enforced by the Treasury Dept as uncollected debts, -not- as violations of FCC rules. I've read where some who have gotten NAL's have had their day in court in front of an administrative law judge. CFR 47 and the rules under it are considered administrative law and can thus be heard in court. Some have even won their cases. Check it out for yourself. Was that after only one NAL? or after multiple NAL's and multiple times that you paid the fine they imposed? Heard? I've never heard that. On the other hand, it could happen, but only after many NAL's & many hearings with the FCC before you would go to a Federal Court. What I meant was that the FCC has the power to write their own rules under the CFR to enforce the USC as they see fit. Since the power of the FCC is not balanced by a watchdog agency, They are. It's called the Congress of The United States. If you don't keep up with Ham related things such as zoning-convents-home owner associations, where they restrict erection of antenna towers etc. and the PRB-1 issue, you won't know. The FCC has made a ruling granting a partial over ruling of such restrictions for TV antennas. Also it states that "reasonable accommodations" have to be made for Ham antennas. Its not a blacket override. Many Hams have requested that the FCC issue an order more specific. I bring this up as a point because the FCC said they will not issue such an order unless directed by Congress by way of law making. So as you can see they can't make up any rules they like. They are bound by the Congress, and any treaties they sign, like at the last world administrate radio conference. I will agree that they do have a wide latitude in what they can do, but it is non the less has bounds. Did they go before Congress to get the "rule" on the "export" radio's? I don't think so. They, like the IRS can take almost any existing law and interpret it their own way and create a new "rule". That's why they are called rules, not laws. Wrong. Notice what happens when a cop is on the road Tell that to the truckers I see routinely doing 60+ MPH in crealy marked 55 MPH zones, cops or not. Police presence DOES make a difference. But only if they know for sure they will actually do something. I was in Georgia driving south of Atlanta, on my way to Macon for a work assignment, driving on I75 a week ago. I got routinely passed by truckers doing well over 70 MPH, which is the posted speed limit. I also saw plenty of 4 wheelers getting pulled over for speeding. I can't recall seeing any of the hordes of speeding 18 wheelers getting pulled over. And I saw plenty of cops everywere I went. Well Lee, they cracked down on truckers out here. It was all over the news how they were giving a zero tolerance for a month on all big rigs. The issue is not about a person's right to use a radio transmitter, but about the protections of the accused that are -supposed- to be guaranteed by the constitution. Like, 'innocent until proven guilty in a court of law'. Last time I checked the FCC is not a part of the judicial branch. They can accuse but they CANNOT determine guilt. That's why their citations are notifications of APPARENT liability. Like I said above, if you don't like it take it to the judge. Same as a speeding ticket. Not really. Again, you have to appear before the FCC and pay the fines before you can begin to contest their ruling. How many times can you afford to have an attorny apera on your behalf? If someone uses a radio transmitter in violation of the law then by all means they should be held accountable. But the -means- by which that person is brought to justice by the FCC is unconstitutional and they know it. Anybody who disagrees with an FCC NAL can have their day in court and there is nothing the FCC can do to stop it. See above. EVERY person has the constitutional right to challenge ANY law. The problem is that the FCC has been very careful about preventing any such challenges. Ah no. Ah, Frank's right. For the violator it sure is. Unless you're a big corporation a private person doesn't stand much of a chance when the FCC has the wealth of the Federal Treasury behind it to spend on legal proceddings. I can asure you their legal budget is bigger that your's or mine. Exactly! And that's why any fine against a large company by the FCC will never be large enough to justify any such challenge -- they will simply write it off as an expense, just like Twisty explained. That is an economic decision by the company. There is nothing that prevents them from pursuing the issue in court if the money is not a concern. That's also why the fines are never enough to incite any legal challenge in the courts, It's not always about the money. I have read where some have gone to court just over the principle of the mater. The money wasn't the main consideration for them. And those cases are usually settled out-of-court before they reach the Supreme Court. Everyone has a price. The Supreme Court picks and chooses which cases it wants to hear based on how widely it would affect the law of the land. or to people and companies that do not have the financial resources to mount such a challenge. And that's a shame too. It's not just the FCC that does this. How many people have gotten screwed over because they don't have the money to stand up for their rights in court? Too many. You are absolutely correct. Justice is for the rich. I have to agree with you here. snip the FCC wasn't going to do anything about 10m intruders. Looks like they are doing something now. A token effort, just enough to keep the hammies thinking that they aren't being ignored. There are only around 750K licensed Hams in the USA. I would suppose only a fraction of them are making complaints to the FCC. The FCC could as well just ignore the complaints all together. The fact that they're not doing so would suggest the enforcement action isn't simply to placate those complaining, but a genuine effort at enforcement action as limited as it is currently. 750K is a significant number of people, and if the FCC dropped enforcement of the ham bands there would be an equally significant backlash. Not just because of the numbers, but also because those people have a license -- a 'contract' with the government -- to use those bands. If the FCC welches on 750K contracts you can bet that there would be hell to pay. Assuming that the FCC won't get more aggressive in the future is not being smart. All it takes is a change in the leadership of the FCC. Imagine if a new FCC chairmen is appointed, and is a Ham with an ax to grind about the present situation? The chairman has very little power to change the workings of the FCC. The chairmen sets the tone for the whole agency. The commissioners take their cue from him. Here's the link to Part 0 (Commission Organization): http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...47cfr0_02.html Where in there does it say anything even remotely close to what you describe as the role of the chairman? See this link http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2.../47cfr0.11.pdf Look under section 0.13. You have to read between the lines, but I think you'll get the drift. The chairmen can exert influence over what the commission does in an indirect manner. And that was all I implied by my prior statement. It is the commission as a whole that has the power in that agency, and therefore it is controlled by whomever controls the commissioners. Yeah, the chairmen, like I said. If you read through the relevent sections of Part 0 (linked above) you will see that the chairman is nothing more than a representative and a facilitator. He is -not- the controlling force of the FCC. If he was then it wouldn't be called a "commission". So why are the lobbyists always trying to get the chairman's era? If he doesn't matter why are they wasting their time with him? As you should know what is said on paper, how it should work, may not always match how it really gets done. Since there is so much corporate interest in the other aspects of the FCC, the ARS and CB will always be generally ignored -regardless- of who sits in the big chair. It's well documented that the current chairmen has an agenda that seems to be mainly fueled by corporate money being offered for valuable spectrum and that dang BPL crap. That's been true of the whole commission, and it's been true for many, many years. As for the BPL issue, don't put the cart before the horse: wait to see just how much of a problem it causes -in fact-, and if it's enough of a problem that makes 750K hams feel the FCC is ignoring their 'contracts' then you will probably see some corrective actions by the FCC. I've read reports where the interference was so bad that in one or more foreign countries have pulled the plug completely on BPL. In reported case here in the USA about reported interference the BPL provider was unable to resolve the problems even after months of tweaking the system. There is a new technology on the horizon that may just obsolete BPL anyway, the 802.16 for a wireless MAN (Metropolitan Area Network). snip Jerry has chosen a course of action. I may not agree that it's the -best- course of action, but then I'm not a ham and don't see things from his perspective. Give it a few minutes of thought then. The worst that can happen is you may even agree with him on some points. 8-)) You missed -my- point: ham radio is none of my business. In reality it is to a degree. It isn't called a "service" for nothing you know. One of the primary reasons for the existence of Ham Radio is to provide emergency communications. This is something that affects Hams and non Hams alike. Just ask Keith here on the group. That's one main reason why he got his Ham ticket, and I'm sure he has put it to good use the last several months. I -am- a CBer, Gee, I didn't know that. ;-)) and IMO you can stick a much bigger thorn in the FCC's ass if you pester your congressional rep. It happens. Evidently it doesn't happen enough. Yup. It still won't get anything accomplished, but at least you're forcing the FCC to answer to someone with some authority. Why do you think some of what is happening is happening? Maybe not enough to suit some people, but some progress is being made. All I see happening is the ARRL taking a step forward after being pushed back three steps. That's not progress, it's damage control. If there is one sure thing in life its change. Assuming things are going to stay the same just isn't reasonable. So if it's bad its going to get better. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft Landshark -- The world is good-natured to people who are good natured. |
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:04:38 -0500, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in : "Frank Gilliland" wrote in message .. . Name one federal agency that doesn't claim to suffer from a lack of funding. I'm thinking........ Maybe the IRS? 8-)) Touche'. I have used that argument myself but I have since found out that it doesn't wash: Many CBers -don't- know the rules. And while any person can refuse a station inspection, most CBers (and many hams) are not aware that such a refusal can be used as 'evidence' against him, and is therefore a violation of the 5th amendment. I would like to see some legal opinions in that area. So would I since it's only my opinion. But what -isn't- my opinion is the 4th Amendment, which is very specific about searches and seizures. You do rasie an interesting point. Wrong. You can't challenge the violation in court like you can a traffic ticket. FCC fines are enforced by the Treasury Dept as uncollected debts, -not- as violations of FCC rules. I've read where some who have gotten NAL's have had their day in court in front of an administrative law judge. CFR 47 and the rules under it are considered administrative law and can thus be heard in court. Some have even won their cases. Check it out for yourself. I will. Got a link? What I meant was that the FCC has the power to write their own rules under the CFR to enforce the USC as they see fit. Since the power of the FCC is not balanced by a watchdog agency, They are. It's called the Congress of The United States. If you don't keep up with Ham related things such as zoning-convents-home owner associations, where they restrict erection of antenna towers etc. and the PRB-1 issue, you won't know. The FCC has made a ruling granting a partial over ruling of such restrictions for TV antennas. Also it states that "reasonable accommodations" have to be made for Ham antennas. Its not a blacket override. Many Hams have requested that the FCC issue an order more specific. I bring this up as a point because the FCC said they will not issue such an order unless directed by Congress by way of law making. So as you can see they can't make up any rules they like. They are bound by the Congress, and any treaties they sign, like at the last world administrate radio conference. I will agree that they do have a wide latitude in what they can do, but it is non the less has bounds. For an example to support my opinion, read 18 USC subsection 2511. This is the law that prohibits interception of communication. The law includes exceptions for reasons such as law enforcement. But even law enforcement agencies are required to jump through hoops in order to intercept communications and use it as evidence. Yet the FCC has written themselves a blank check: The same law permits the FCC to intercept communications without any warrant or showing of probable cause. As for the idea that congress controls the FCC, I should remind you that many big bill packages (such as the spending bill currently before this lame-duck congress) are filled with subtle laws (as well as pork-barrel spending) that get passed without ever being read because the bill is so large. One such law that almost snuck through in this bill was one that would have put a cap on lawsuits against drug companies even if the company knew beforehand that their product was bad. There are plenty of bad laws like this that slip through congress without even a blink. And you can bet that the FCC slips their own bills through, too. So while congress may -technically- control the FCC, the reality is that they don't. The commissioners are controlled by the lobbyists hired by corporate fat-cats, and most of congress is too busy with their partisan politics to worry about little things like bad laws. That may be a cynical perception, but nonetheless accurate. Wrong. Notice what happens when a cop is on the road Tell that to the truckers I see routinely doing 60+ MPH in crealy marked 55 MPH zones, cops or not. Cops don't ticket truckers for speeding? Boy, that's news to me! I've only known one trucker that never got a speeding ticket, but he had only been driving for a month. I'm sure he has a few by now. Police presence DOES make a difference. But only if they know for sure they will actually do something. I was in Georgia driving south of Atlanta, on my way to Macon for a work assignment, driving on I75 a week ago. I got routinely passed by truckers doing well over 70 MPH, which is the posted speed limit. I also saw plenty of 4 wheelers getting pulled over for speeding. I can't recall seeing any of the hordes of speeding 18 wheelers getting pulled over. And I saw plenty of cops everywere I went. Maybe those 4-wheelers should get themselves CB radios...... snip I doubt it. When they have the violator on audio tape They screw criminals all the time with wire taps etc. Seems to me if it was so unconstitutional some sharp attorney would have put that baby to bed a long time ago, and permanently too. As far as anything transmitted over the air there really is no reasonable expectation of privacy without extraordinary measures being taken, such as using encryption. It then becomes like the "in plain sight" rules the street cops use when finding edvidence. Perhaps. But again, every law enforcement agency -except- the FCC requires a warrant to obtain a wiretap. And even if the audio is admissible as evidence, it's up to a jury -- NOT the FCC -- to determine the weight of that evidence. That's a constitutional violation in and of itself. snip The issue is not about a person's right to use a radio transmitter, but about the protections of the accused that are -supposed- to be guaranteed by the constitution. Like, 'innocent until proven guilty in a court of law'. Last time I checked the FCC is not a part of the judicial branch. They can accuse but they CANNOT determine guilt. That's why their citations are notifications of APPARENT liability. Like I said above, if you don't like it take it to the judge. Same as a speeding ticket. You still missed the issue: You get an NAL because you have been found guilty without a trial. You can appeal the ruling but only to the FCC, so you are basically appealing to the prosecution. If you refuse to pay the fine then your case is forwarded to the Treasury Department for collection; i.e, the only case you can bring before a judge is an issue of law regarding the DEBT -- NOT the violation that -resulted- in the debt. If someone uses a radio transmitter in violation of the law then by all means they should be held accountable. But the -means- by which that person is brought to justice by the FCC is unconstitutional and they know it. Anybody who disagrees with an FCC NAL can have their day in court and there is nothing the FCC can do to stop it. The FCC's use of the NAL precludes standing in any court. The only way you can challenge their laws is indirectly; i.e, habeus corpus, civil suit, temporary injunction, congressional intervention, etc, etc. The problem is that the people who would benefit the most from standing do not have the means to mount an indirect challenge. And -that's- how the FCC can prevent you from having your 'day in court'. EVERY person has the constitutional right to challenge ANY law. The problem is that the FCC has been very careful about preventing any such challenges. Ah no. Quite right -- you can't challenge the law unless you have standing, as I said before. For the violator it sure is. Unless you're a big corporation a private person doesn't stand much of a chance when the FCC has the wealth of the Federal Treasury behind it to spend on legal proceddings. I can asure you their legal budget is bigger that your's or mine. Exactly! And that's why any fine against a large company by the FCC will never be large enough to justify any such challenge -- they will simply write it off as an expense, just like Twisty explained. That is an economic decision by the company. It's a tactic used by the FCC based on the expected economic decision by the company. So far it has worked well. There is nothing that prevents them from pursuing the issue in court if the money is not a concern. But money -is- a concern, as you have already stated. snip The Supreme Court picks and chooses which cases it wants to hear based on how widely it would affect the law of the land. That's naive. Every other agency of the government operates under the table to some extent. What makes you think the FCC is any different? snip See this link http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2.../47cfr0.11.pdf Look under section 0.13. You have to read between the lines, but I think you'll get the drift. The chairmen can exert influence over what the commission does in an indirect manner. And that was all I implied by my prior statement. The Office of the Inspector General is not the Commission Chairman. And any commissioner can influence the commission in the way you stated. Anyway, when you get tired of reading -between- the lines try reading the lines as explicitly written regarding the job of Chairman: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...r/47cfr0.3.htm http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...47cfr0.211.htm snip If you read through the relevent sections of Part 0 (linked above) you will see that the chairman is nothing more than a representative and a facilitator. He is -not- the controlling force of the FCC. If he was then it wouldn't be called a "commission". So why are the lobbyists always trying to get the chairman's era? If he doesn't matter why are they wasting their time with him? As you should know what is said on paper, how it should work, may not always match how it really gets done. The lobbyists go after the commissioners just as much as the chairman, maybe even more so. You just don't hear about it on the news. snip I've read reports where the interference was so bad that in one or more foreign countries have pulled the plug completely on BPL. In reported case here in the USA about reported interference the BPL provider was unable to resolve the problems even after months of tweaking the system. There is a new technology on the horizon that may just obsolete BPL anyway, the 802.16 for a wireless MAN (Metropolitan Area Network). Even government corruption has it's limits. snip You missed -my- point: ham radio is none of my business. In reality it is to a degree. It isn't called a "service" for nothing you know. One of the primary reasons for the existence of Ham Radio is to provide emergency communications. This is something that affects Hams and non Hams alike. Just ask Keith here on the group. That's one main reason why he got his Ham ticket, and I'm sure he has put it to good use the last several months. Well, I've been in the middle of at least three situations that should have been ideal examples of what you describe: Mt. StHelens; hurricane Gloria; and Spokane's ice storm of '96. But in all of those emergency situations, ham radio activity consisted mostly of small-talk and QRM. And in all three cases the bulk of non-PSP emergency communication was done by CB radio. After listening to the ham bands for 30 years I can say with great confidence that ham radio sucks when it comes to those types of situations. Time and time again CB radio has proven itself to be the communications backbone when landlines fail. I -am- a CBer, Gee, I didn't know that. ;-)) Some people in this newsgroup are -not- CBers, which is why I affirmed myself as one. and IMO you can stick a much bigger thorn in the FCC's ass if you pester your congressional rep. It happens. Evidently it doesn't happen enough. Yup. It still won't get anything accomplished, but at least you're forcing the FCC to answer to someone with some authority. Why do you think some of what is happening is happening? Maybe not enough to suit some people, but some progress is being made. All I see happening is the ARRL taking a step forward after being pushed back three steps. That's not progress, it's damage control. If there is one sure thing in life its change. Assuming things are going to stay the same just isn't reasonable. So if it's bad its going to get better. Or worse. And I made no assumption about things not changing, although sometimes change can be very slow. Since I have a poor track record as a prognosticator, I no longer make assumptions about the future except that it will come. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:01:05 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote in : snip The Supreme Court picks and chooses which cases it wants to hear based on how widely it would affect the law of the land. That's naive. Every other agency of the government operates under the table to some extent. What makes you think the FCC is any different? I should rephrase this: The Supreme Court only selects cases that are presented to it. Unless the outcome can be 'assured', the FCC prevents potentially hazardous cases from going that far up the ladder either by offering settlements (and/or kickbacks) that are too good to pass up, or by simply dropping the case. Those tactics are underhanded attempts to avoid an unfavorable ruling by the Supreme Court. Such a ruling could very possibly collapse the legal foundation of the FCC's operation. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Skyler King wrote in message ...
BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!! "Leland C. Scott" wrote: "Twistedhed" wrote in message ... The ONLY way to change this is via legislation, and we all know the angry hammie who is pre-occupied with such nonsense is merely reactive, not proactive. As silly as it is it just so happens that its the "angry hammie", a.k.a. the ARRL, that is going to save the CBer's behind. What I'm talking about is the direction the FCC is going in regards to the BPL issue. Whether you like it or not BPL is going to affect everybody using HF, irregardless if they so happen to be a Ham or CBer. It would be much more productive if the bandwidth on this news group wasn't wasted debating the same old issues, but instead joining together in a united front to fight the FCC, and the deep pocket corporations, wanting to pollute the airwaves with RF trash from the digital signals on the power lines using BPL.The CBers really need some kind of national origination to represent their interests. Right now they're getting a free ride, so to speak, courtesy of the ARRL. Anything that benefits the Ham community in regards to stopping BPL also benefits CBers as well since your band, 11m, is right there next to the 10m Ham band. Both bands would be heavily affect by BPL noise. Just something for you to think about while you're ready to pound away at your keyboard in response. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft Again, if ANYTHING changed since the seventies regarding enforcement, it is that now is the best time as any to buy a radio and begin freebanding. Enforcement is practically non-existent unless you draw major attention to yourself with splatter and bleed. Business as usual, and with the cooler weather comes the skip,,,,,27.555 is kicking up major contacts again and no one on the freq is remotely concerned with a single hammie's angry, jealous, errant, and reactive behavior. Happy holidays. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft -- Well, BPL is good for something I guess...anything that makes a keyclown miserable is a good thing. |
"Landshark" wrote in message om... "Leland C. Scott" wrote in message ... "Frank Gilliland" wrote in message ... Name one federal agency that doesn't claim to suffer from a lack of funding. I'm thinking........ Maybe the IRS? 8-)) I have used that argument myself but I have since found out that it doesn't wash: Many CBers -don't- know the rules. And while any person can refuse a station inspection, most CBers (and many hams) are not aware that such a refusal can be used as 'evidence' against him, and is therefore a violation of the 5th amendment. I would like to see some legal opinions in that area. You do rasie an interesting point. Wrong. You can't challenge the violation in court like you can a traffic ticket. FCC fines are enforced by the Treasury Dept as uncollected debts, -not- as violations of FCC rules. I've read where some who have gotten NAL's have had their day in court in front of an administrative law judge. CFR 47 and the rules under it are considered administrative law and can thus be heard in court. Some have even won their cases. Check it out for yourself. Was that after only one NAL? Yeah, why not? You don't need to get more than one speeding ticket to get your day in court do you? Did they go before Congress to get the "rule" on the "export" radio's? So where did the huge volume of laws on the books come from when all this country started with are a handful of articles under the US Constitution? I don't think so. They, like the IRS can take almost any existing law and interpret it their own way and create a new "rule". That's why they are called rules, not laws. Its call "Adminastrive Law". Ask an attorney. He'll tell you the same thing. Wrong. Notice what happens when a cop is on the road Tell that to the truckers I see routinely doing 60+ MPH in crealy marked 55 MPH zones, cops or not. Police presence DOES make a difference. But only if they know for sure they will actually do something. I was in Georgia driving south of Atlanta, on my way to Macon for a work assignment, driving on I75 a week ago. I got routinely passed by truckers doing well over 70 MPH, which is the posted speed limit. I also saw plenty of 4 wheelers getting pulled over for speeding. I can't recall seeing any of the hordes of speeding 18 wheelers getting pulled over. And I saw plenty of cops everywere I went. Well Lee, they cracked down on truckers out here. It was all over the news how they were giving a zero tolerance for a month on all big rigs. The issue is not about a person's right to use a radio transmitter, but about the protections of the accused that are -supposed- to be guaranteed by the constitution. Like, 'innocent until proven guilty in a court of law'. Last time I checked the FCC is not a part of the judicial branch. They can accuse but they CANNOT determine guilt. That's why their citations are notifications of APPARENT liability. Like I said above, if you don't like it take it to the judge. Same as a speeding ticket. Not really. Again, you have to appear before the FCC and pay the fines before you can begin to contest their ruling. No. How many times can you afford to have an attorny apera on your behalf? Have you paid any FCC fines? If someone uses a radio transmitter in violation of the law then by all means they should be held accountable. But the -means- by which that person is brought to justice by the FCC is unconstitutional and they know it. Anybody who disagrees with an FCC NAL can have their day in court and there is nothing the FCC can do to stop it. See above. EVERY person has the constitutional right to challenge ANY law. The problem is that the FCC has been very careful about preventing any such challenges. Ah no. Ah, Frank's right. You guys need to read this before going any further. Sample court motion below. http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_158.pdf Offical FCC legal process. The link below should be all on one line to work. http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi...i on=retrieve This should settle the argument permently if you understand legal terms. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message ... Wrong. You can't challenge the violation in court like you can a traffic ticket. FCC fines are enforced by the Treasury Dept as uncollected debts, -not- as violations of FCC rules. I've read where some who have gotten NAL's have had their day in court in front of an administrative law judge. CFR 47 and the rules under it are considered administrative law and can thus be heard in court. Some have even won their cases. Check it out for yourself. I will. Got a link? Here is how the whole process works in all of its gory detail. http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi...i on=retrieve What I meant was that the FCC has the power to write their own rules under the CFR to enforce the USC as they see fit. Since the power of the FCC is not balanced by a watchdog agency, They are. It's called the Congress of The United States. If you don't keep up with Ham related things such as zoning-convents-home owner associations, where they restrict erection of antenna towers etc. and the PRB-1 issue, you won't know. The FCC has made a ruling granting a partial over ruling of such restrictions for TV antennas. Also it states that "reasonable accommodations" have to be made for Ham antennas. Its not a blacket override. Many Hams have requested that the FCC issue an order more specific. I bring this up as a point because the FCC said they will not issue such an order unless directed by Congress by way of law making. So as you can see they can't make up any rules they like. They are bound by the Congress, and any treaties they sign, like at the last world administrate radio conference. I will agree that they do have a wide latitude in what they can do, but it is non the less has bounds. For an example to support my opinion, read 18 USC subsection 2511. This is the law that prohibits interception of communication. The law includes exceptions for reasons such as law enforcement. But even law enforcement agencies are required to jump through hoops in order to intercept communications and use it as evidence. Yet the FCC has written themselves a blank check: The same law permits the FCC to intercept communications without any warrant or showing of probable cause. You forgot about the "in pain view" argument the courts use when no search warrant is in hand to admit evidence. Besides they don't always have to have audio recordings. Signal strength, direction finding antennas used to find the location of the transmitter, and frequency measurements do real good without violation the so called privacy of the communication. As for the idea that congress controls the FCC, I should remind you that many big bill packages (such as the spending bill currently before this lame-duck congress) are filled with subtle laws (as well as pork-barrel spending) that get passed without ever being read because the bill is so large. Business as usual. That's why the president needs the line item veto power. One such law that almost snuck through in this bill was one that would have put a cap on lawsuits against drug companies even if the company knew beforehand that their product was bad. There are plenty of bad laws like this that slip through congress without even a blink. And you can bet that the FCC slips their own bills through, too. So while congress may -technically- control the FCC, the reality is that they don't. Except when something get under their skin. It won't be the first time Congress has pasted a law specifically to address an issue with some Federal Agency. The commissioners are controlled by the lobbyists hired by corporate fat-cats, and most of congress their partisan politics to worry about little things like bad laws. That may be a cynical perception, but nonetheless accurate. I agree there. Wrong. Notice what happens when a cop is on the road Tell that to the truckers I see routinely doing 60+ MPH in crealy marked 55 MPH zones, cops or not. Cops don't ticket truckers for speeding? Boy, that's news to me! I've only known one trucker that never got a speeding ticket, but he had only been driving for a month. I'm sure he has a few by now. I've seen some that can use a few more. Police presence DOES make a difference. But only if they know for sure they will actually do something. I was in Georgia driving south of Atlanta, on my way to Macon for a work assignment, driving on I75 a week ago. I got routinely passed by truckers doing well over 70 MPH, which is the posted speed limit. I also saw plenty of 4 wheelers getting pulled over for speeding. I can't recall seeing any of the hordes of speeding 18 wheelers getting pulled over. And I saw plenty of cops everywere I went. Maybe those 4-wheelers should get themselves CB radios...... When you see the 18 wheelers blowing by the cop on the side of the road with his radar going, and doesn't stop them makes you wonder. snip I doubt it. When they have the violator on audio tape They screw criminals all the time with wire taps etc. Seems to me if it was so unconstitutional some sharp attorney would have put that baby to bed a long time ago, and permanently too. As far as anything transmitted over the air there really is no reasonable expectation of privacy without extraordinary measures being taken, such as using encryption. It then becomes like the "in plain sight" rules the street cops use when finding edvidence. Perhaps. But again, every law enforcement agency -except- the FCC requires a warrant to obtain a wiretap. And even if the audio is admissible as evidence, it's up to a jury -- NOT the FCC -- to determine the weight of that evidence. See the link I posted about how the whole legal process works with the FCC. That's a constitutional violation in and of itself. snip The issue is not about a person's right to use a radio transmitter, but about the protections of the accused that are -supposed- to be guaranteed by the constitution. Like, 'innocent until proven guilty in a court of law'. Last time I checked the FCC is not a part of the judicial branch. They can accuse but they CANNOT determine guilt. That's why their citations are notifications of APPARENT liability. Like I said above, if you don't like it take it to the judge. Same as a speeding ticket. You still missed the issue: You get an NAL because you have been found guilty without a trial. You get a speeding ticket with out a trial too. You can appeal the ruling but only to the FCC, so you are basically appealing to the prosecution. If you refuse to pay the fine then your case is forwarded to the Treasury Department for collection; i.e, the only case you can bring before a judge is an issue of law regarding the DEBT -- NOT the violation that -resulted- in the debt. Gee. I'm getting tired of saying this. See the link I posted above about the legal process. If someone uses a radio transmitter in violation of the law then by all means they should be held accountable. But the -means- by which that person is brought to justice by the FCC is unconstitutional and they know it. Anybody who disagrees with an FCC NAL can have their day in court and there is nothing the FCC can do to stop it. The FCC's use of the NAL precludes standing in any court. No. It is reviewable by the Court of Appeals. http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_158.pdf Read the last few lines of the last paragraph on page 3. I'll quote it here. __________________________________ Apart from this and other limited exceptions not relevant here, jurisdiction over final FCC orders is exclusively vested in the Courts of Appeals. Section 402(a) of Title 47, United States Code, provides that "[a]ny proceeding 4 to enjoin, set aside, annul, or suspend any order of the Commission . . . shall be brought as provided by and in the manner prescribed in chapter 158 of Title 28." 47 U.S.C. § 402(a). That chapter, in turn, provides that the Courts of Appeals have "the exclusive jurisdiction to enjoin, set aside, suspend (in whole or in part), or to determine the validity of . .. . all final order of the Federal Communications Commission made reviewable by section 402(a) of title 47." 28 U.S.C. § 2342(1). __________________________________________________ ___________ This particular motion for the plaintiff failed because it was apparently filed in District Court. The only way you can challenge their laws is indirectly; i.e, habeus corpus, civil suit, temporary injunction, congressional intervention, etc, etc. The problem is that the people who would benefit the most from standing do not have the means to mount an indirect challenge. And -that's- how the FCC can prevent you from having your 'day in court'. Read it from the horse's month in the above quote. EVERY person has the constitutional right to challenge ANY law. The problem is that the FCC has been very careful about preventing any such challenges. Ah no. Quite right -- you can't challenge the law unless you have standing, as I said before. For the violator it sure is. Unless you're a big corporation a private person doesn't stand much of a chance when the FCC has the wealth of the Federal Treasury behind it to spend on legal proceddings. I can asure you their legal budget is bigger that your's or mine. Exactly! And that's why any fine against a large company by the FCC will never be large enough to justify any such challenge -- they will simply write it off as an expense, just like Twisty explained. That is an economic decision by the company. It's a tactic used by the FCC based on the expected economic decision by the company. So far it has worked well. And sometimes not. Read through the FCC enforcement logs and you'll see that several Hams have gone to court to keep the FCC from pulling their Ham ticket. Now just how much economic sense does that make? None. It was done as a mater of principle. There is nothing that prevents them from pursuing the issue in court if the money is not a concern. But money -is- a concern, as you have already stated. Yes, but still some go ahead anyway. snip The Supreme Court picks and chooses which cases it wants to hear based on how widely it would affect the law of the land. That's naive. No. Its very well documented. The Supreme Court gets cases filed by the truck load. They pick and choose which ones they wish to hear if they feel it will make a substantial difference in the existing laws. Row vs. Wade, the abortion case, is one case in point. Otherwise they decline to hear the case. Every other agency of the government operates under the table to some extent. What makes you think the FCC is any different? What do they do "under the table"? Wear knee pads? snip See this link http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2....access.gpo.go v/cfr_2002/octqtr/pdf/47cfr0.11.pdf Look under section 0.13. You have to read between the lines, but I think you'll get the drift. The chairmen can exert influence over what the commission does in an indirect manner. And that was all I implied by my prior statement. The Office of the Inspector General is not the Commission Chairman. And any commissioner can influence the commission in the way you stated. Anyway, when you get tired of reading -between- the lines try reading the lines as explicitly written regarding the job of Chairman: I did. What you forget is that only specifies the minimum requirements for the job. No were does it say that is the limit of his duties. http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...r/47cfr0.3.htm http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...47cfr0.211.htm snip If you read through the relevent sections of Part 0 (linked above) you will see that the chairman is nothing more than a representative and a facilitator. He is -not- the controlling force of the FCC. If he was then it wouldn't be called a "commission". So why are the lobbyists always trying to get the chairman's era? If he doesn't matter why are they wasting their time with him? As you should know what is said on paper, how it should work, may not always match how it really gets done. The lobbyists go after the commissioners just as much as the chairman, maybe even more so. You just don't hear about it on the news. snip I've read reports where the interference was so bad that in one or more foreign countries have pulled the plug completely on BPL. In reported case here in the USA about reported interference the BPL provider was unable to resolve the problems even after months of tweaking the system. There is a new technology on the horizon that may just obsolete BPL anyway, the 802.16 for a wireless MAN (Metropolitan Area Network). Even government corruption has it's limits. So does tolerating the digital trash generated by BPL. Enough people complained about it that is why it got canned. snip You missed -my- point: ham radio is none of my business. In reality it is to a degree. It isn't called a "service" for nothing you know. One of the primary reasons for the existence of Ham Radio is to provide emergency communications. This is something that affects Hams and non Hams alike. Just ask Keith here on the group. That's one main reason why he got his Ham ticket, and I'm sure he has put it to good use the last several months. Well, I've been in the middle of at least three situations that should have been ideal examples of what you describe: Mt. StHelens; hurricane Gloria; and Spokane's ice storm of '96. But in all of those emergency situations, ham radio activity consisted mostly of small-talk and QRM. And in all three cases the bulk of non-PSP emergency communication was done by CB radio. After listening to the ham bands for 30 years I can say with great confidence that ham radio sucks when it comes to those types of situations. Time and time again CB radio has proven itself to be the communications backbone when landlines fail. Tell that to the Police and Fire officials during 9/11. You can also ask Keith on this group what he thinks. He is a Ham and has done plenty of emergency comms in his job. I -am- a CBer, Gee, I didn't know that. ;-)) Some people in this newsgroup are -not- CBers, which is why I affirmed myself as one. Suit yourself. and IMO you can stick a much bigger thorn in the FCC's ass if you pester your congressional rep. It happens. Evidently it doesn't happen enough. Yup. It still won't get anything accomplished, but at least you're forcing the FCC to answer to someone with some authority. Why do you think some of what is happening is happening? Maybe not enough to suit some people, but some progress is being made. All I see happening is the ARRL taking a step forward after being pushed back three steps. That's not progress, it's damage control. If there is one sure thing in life its change. Assuming things are going to stay the same just isn't reasonable. So if it's bad its going to get better. Or worse. And I made no assumption about things not changing, although sometimes change can be very slow. Since I have a poor track record as a prognosticator, I no longer make assumptions about the future except that it will come. Were is that dang time machine they keep sying is "just around the corner"? 8-)) -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message ... You guys need to read this before going any further. Sample court motion below. http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_158.pdf Ummm, Lee, that's cool, but that was a song writer, Radio Station, their Lawyers filing a civil case. That's why it's Sarah Jones vs. The FCC................. Do you have that option to pay their fine , then take them to court? That wasn't a Ham or a cb'er. Not many people can have a lawyer, let alone multiple lawyers go to court for a Nal. Offical FCC legal process. The link below should be all on one line to work. http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi...i on=retrieve This should settle the argument permently if you understand legal terms. Dead link. No argument settled -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Landshark -- That does suck..sometimes you're the windshield..sometimes you're the bug. |
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:20:15 -0500, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in : "Frank Gilliland" wrote in message .. . Wrong. You can't challenge the violation in court like you can a traffic ticket. FCC fines are enforced by the Treasury Dept as uncollected debts, -not- as violations of FCC rules. I've read where some who have gotten NAL's have had their day in court in front of an administrative law judge. CFR 47 and the rules under it are considered administrative law and can thus be heard in court. Some have even won their cases. Check it out for yourself. I will. Got a link? Here is how the whole process works in all of its gory detail. http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi...i on=retrieve Linkus mortis. What I meant was that the FCC has the power to write their own rules under the CFR to enforce the USC as they see fit. snip For an example to support my opinion, read 18 USC subsection 2511. This is the law that prohibits interception of communication. The law includes exceptions for reasons such as law enforcement. But even law enforcement agencies are required to jump through hoops in order to intercept communications and use it as evidence. Yet the FCC has written themselves a blank check: The same law permits the FCC to intercept communications without any warrant or showing of probable cause. You forgot about the "in pain view" argument the courts use when no search warrant is in hand to admit evidence. Besides they don't always have to have audio recordings. Signal strength, direction finding antennas used to find the location of the transmitter, and frequency measurements do real good without violation the so called privacy of the communication. The point was that they make their own rules. Regardless, evidence is fine as long as it's used IN A COURT OF LAW. As for the idea that congress controls the FCC, I should remind you that many big bill packages (such as the spending bill currently before this lame-duck congress) are filled with subtle laws (as well as pork-barrel spending) that get passed without ever being read because the bill is so large. Business as usual. That's why the president needs the line item veto power. I agree, and that's something Clinton pushed to get passed. But a bigger problem is the lack of representation in the house. Check this out: http://www.thirty-thousand.org/ One such law that almost snuck through in this bill was one that would have put a cap on lawsuits against drug companies even if the company knew beforehand that their product was bad. There are plenty of bad laws like this that slip through congress without even a blink. And you can bet that the FCC slips their own bills through, too. So while congress may -technically- control the FCC, the reality is that they don't. Except when something get under their skin. It won't be the first time Congress has pasted a law specifically to address an issue with some Federal Agency. I see it as kind of a back-washing policy..... "You ignore my bill and I'll ignore your's." snip Cops don't ticket truckers for speeding? Boy, that's news to me! I've only known one trucker that never got a speeding ticket, but he had only been driving for a month. I'm sure he has a few by now. I've seen some that can use a few more. True story. And along those lines, the worst offenders I see are the buss drivers who almost -never- get a ticket. Maybe city employees are exempt or something..... snip Maybe those 4-wheelers should get themselves CB radios...... When you see the 18 wheelers blowing by the cop on the side of the road with his radar going, and doesn't stop them makes you wonder. I don't see that too often. Come to think of it, I've never seen anybody blow a radar speed trap and not get caught. Maybe the cop you saw was asleep? snip Perhaps. But again, every law enforcement agency -except- the FCC requires a warrant to obtain a wiretap. And even if the audio is admissible as evidence, it's up to a jury -- NOT the FCC -- to determine the weight of that evidence. See the link I posted about how the whole legal process works with the FCC. ............. snip You still missed the issue: You get an NAL because you have been found guilty without a trial. You get a speeding ticket with out a trial too. A traffic citation is not a determination of guilt, you can contest the citation in a court of law, and you can appeal the finding of the court through the judicial system. You can appeal the ruling but only to the FCC, so you are basically appealing to the prosecution. If you refuse to pay the fine then your case is forwarded to the Treasury Department for collection; i.e, the only case you can bring before a judge is an issue of law regarding the DEBT -- NOT the violation that -resulted- in the debt. Gee. I'm getting tired of saying this. See the link I posted above about the legal process. ................ snip The FCC's use of the NAL precludes standing in any court. No. It is reviewable by the Court of Appeals. http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_158.pdf Read the last few lines of the last paragraph on page 3. I'll quote it here. __________________________________ Apart from this and other limited exceptions not relevant here, jurisdiction over final FCC orders is exclusively vested in the Courts of Appeals. Section 402(a) of Title 47, United States Code, provides that "[a]ny proceeding 4 to enjoin, set aside, annul, or suspend any order of the Commission . . . shall be brought as provided by and in the manner prescribed in chapter 158 of Title 28." 47 U.S.C. § 402(a). That chapter, in turn, provides that the Courts of Appeals have "the exclusive jurisdiction to enjoin, set aside, suspend (in whole or in part), or to determine the validity of . . . all final order of the Federal Communications Commission made reviewable by section 402(a) of title 47." 28 U.S.C. § 2342(1). _________________________________________________ ____________ This particular motion for the plaintiff failed because it was apparently filed in District Court. No, it failed because Nora Jones had no standing in the case. The NAL was issued to the station, not Jones, and hence her action opposing the NAL was dismissed. Now the -station- could file a civil suit contesting the order of the FCC, and that's perfectly consistent with what I have already explained (you can address the debt, not the violation). But even if this case was a suit filed by the station it would have been dismissed, or at least suspended, because the forfeiture order was not yet final. Notice that the document also cites 47 USC 504(a), which states that forfeitures can only be recovered [not contested] in a civil suit [as I noted before], and that any such action will be a trial de novo. That last part has me at a loss since there was no "trial" in the first place. But that's what it says. In any case, the procedure is expensive, win or lose. The only way you can challenge their laws is indirectly; i.e, habeus corpus, civil suit, temporary injunction, congressional intervention, etc, etc. The problem is that the people who would benefit the most from standing do not have the means to mount an indirect challenge. And -that's- how the FCC can prevent you from having your 'day in court'. Read it from the horse's month in the above quote. The case you cited supported my statement nicely. Thank you. snip And sometimes not. Read through the FCC enforcement logs and you'll see that several Hams have gone to court to keep the FCC from pulling their Ham ticket. Now just how much economic sense does that make? None. It was done as a mater of principle. Where are those enforcement logs? Not the whole list, just the ones where hams were able to contest their NAL's in court? There is nothing that prevents them from pursuing the issue in court if the money is not a concern. But money -is- a concern, as you have already stated. Yes, but still some go ahead anyway. Perhaps. Perhaps not. If anyone has done so in the past they either weren't successful or they dropped the issue. snip The Supreme Court picks and chooses which cases it wants to hear based on how widely it would affect the law of the land. That's naive. No. Its very well documented. The Supreme Court gets cases filed by the truck load. They pick and choose which ones they wish to hear if they feel it will make a substantial difference in the existing laws. Row vs. Wade, the abortion case, is one case in point. Otherwise they decline to hear the case. Every other agency of the government operates under the table to some extent. What makes you think the FCC is any different? What do they do "under the table"? Wear knee pads? I explained my response better in the other reply. snip The Office of the Inspector General is not the Commission Chairman. And any commissioner can influence the commission in the way you stated. Anyway, when you get tired of reading -between- the lines try reading the lines as explicitly written regarding the job of Chairman: I did. What you forget is that only specifies the minimum requirements for the job. No were does it say that is the limit of his duties. His job description doesn't exclude riding a horse through Arlington Cemetary on Veteran's Day while wearing a tutu and singing "God Save the Queen". So does that mean he should? snip Well, I've been in the middle of at least three situations that should have been ideal examples of what you describe: Mt. StHelens; hurricane Gloria; and Spokane's ice storm of '96. But in all of those emergency situations, ham radio activity consisted mostly of small-talk and QRM. And in all three cases the bulk of non-PSP emergency communication was done by CB radio. After listening to the ham bands for 30 years I can say with great confidence that ham radio sucks when it comes to those types of situations. Time and time again CB radio has proven itself to be the communications backbone when landlines fail. Tell that to the Police and Fire officials during 9/11. I wasn't there. Were you? You can also ask Keith on this group what he thinks. He is a Ham and has done plenty of emergency comms in his job. Feel free to ask him yourself. His experiences are different than mine so he may have a different perception. But in the three disasters I witnessed and experienced firsthand, CB radio ruled and ham radio was lame. snip If there is one sure thing in life its change. Assuming things are going to stay the same just isn't reasonable. So if it's bad its going to get better. Or worse. And I made no assumption about things not changing, although sometimes change can be very slow. Since I have a poor track record as a prognosticator, I no longer make assumptions about the future except that it will come. Were is that dang time machine they keep sying is "just around the corner"? 8-)) It's still in the future, of course. But they use it to come back and do things in our time. Like during the JFK assassination. Ever wonder what happened to his brain? It's in the future! Who planted the "magic bullet" on the gurney? A time traveller! Jeez, Lee, isn't all this obvious? (yes, I'm joking!) ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:20:15 -0500, "Leland C. Scott" wrote in : "Frank Gilliland" wrote in message snip Cops don't ticket truckers for speeding? Boy, that's news to me! I've only known one trucker that never got a speeding ticket, but he had only been driving for a month. I'm sure he has a few by now. I've seen some that can use a few more. True story. And along those lines, the worst offenders I see are the buss drivers who almost -never- get a ticket. Maybe city employees are exempt or something..... snip Maybe those 4-wheelers should get themselves CB radios...... When you see the 18 wheelers blowing by the cop on the side of the road with his radar going, and doesn't stop them makes you wonder. I don't see that too often. Come to think of it, I've never seen anybody blow a radar speed trap and not get caught. Maybe the cop you saw was asleep? LOL!! Again they had it on the news about a zero tolerance for all major Highways to the state borders. Some of the bordering states were even participating. Now while it was supposed to be a crack down on turckers, a TV station was with a CHP officers interviewing her when her Lidar gun started to read 95 mph, 95 mph! She pulled over the Nissan and gave him a ticket. Don't think she was sleeping :) snip Perhaps. But again, every law enforcement agency -except- the FCC requires a warrant to obtain a wiretap. And even if the audio is admissible as evidence, it's up to a jury -- NOT the FCC -- to determine the weight of that evidence. See the link I posted about how the whole legal process works with the FCC. ............ snip You still missed the issue: You get an NAL because you have been found guilty without a trial. You get a speeding ticket with out a trial too. A traffic citation is not a determination of guilt, you can contest the citation in a court of law, and you can appeal the finding of the court through the judicial system. You can appeal the ruling but only to the FCC, so you are basically appealing to the prosecution. If you refuse to pay the fine then your case is forwarded to the Treasury Department for collection; i.e, the only case you can bring before a judge is an issue of law regarding the DEBT -- NOT the violation that -resulted- in the debt. Gee. I'm getting tired of saying this. See the link I posted above about the legal process. ............... snip The FCC's use of the NAL precludes standing in any court. No. It is reviewable by the Court of Appeals. http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_158.pdf Read the last few lines of the last paragraph on page 3. I'll quote it here. __________________________________ Apart from this and other limited exceptions not relevant here, jurisdiction over final FCC orders is exclusively vested in the Courts of Appeals. Section 402(a) of Title 47, United States Code, provides that "[a]ny proceeding 4 to enjoin, set aside, annul, or suspend any order of the Commission . . . shall be brought as provided by and in the manner prescribed in chapter 158 of Title 28." 47 U.S.C. § 402(a). That chapter, in turn, provides that the Courts of Appeals have "the exclusive jurisdiction to enjoin, set aside, suspend (in whole or in part), or to determine the validity of . . . all final order of the Federal Communications Commission made reviewable by section 402(a) of title 47." 28 U.S.C. § 2342(1). ________________________________________________ _____________ This particular motion for the plaintiff failed because it was apparently filed in District Court. No, it failed because Nora Jones had no standing in the case. The NAL was issued to the station, not Jones, and hence her action opposing the NAL was dismissed. Now the -station- could file a civil suit contesting the order of the FCC, and that's perfectly consistent with what I have already explained (you can address the debt, not the violation). But even if this case was a suit filed by the station it would have been dismissed, or at least suspended, because the forfeiture order was not yet final. Notice that the document also cites 47 USC 504(a), which states that forfeitures can only be recovered [not contested] in a civil suit [as I noted before], and that any such action will be a trial de novo. That last part has me at a loss since there was no "trial" in the first place. But that's what it says. In any case, the procedure is expensive, win or lose. The only way you can challenge their laws is indirectly; i.e, habeus corpus, civil suit, temporary injunction, congressional intervention, etc, etc. The problem is that the people who would benefit the most from standing do not have the means to mount an indirect challenge. And -that's- how the FCC can prevent you from having your 'day in court'. Read it from the horse's month in the above quote. The case you cited supported my statement nicely. Thank you. snip And sometimes not. Read through the FCC enforcement logs and you'll see that several Hams have gone to court to keep the FCC from pulling their Ham ticket. Now just how much economic sense does that make? None. It was done as a mater of principle. Where are those enforcement logs? Not the whole list, just the ones where hams were able to contest their NAL's in court? There is nothing that prevents them from pursuing the issue in court if the money is not a concern. But money -is- a concern, as you have already stated. Yes, but still some go ahead anyway. Perhaps. Perhaps not. If anyone has done so in the past they either weren't successful or they dropped the issue. snip The Supreme Court picks and chooses which cases it wants to hear based on how widely it would affect the law of the land. That's naive. No. Its very well documented. The Supreme Court gets cases filed by the truck load. They pick and choose which ones they wish to hear if they feel it will make a substantial difference in the existing laws. Row vs. Wade, the abortion case, is one case in point. Otherwise they decline to hear the case. Every other agency of the government operates under the table to some extent. What makes you think the FCC is any different? What do they do "under the table"? Wear knee pads? I explained my response better in the other reply. snip The Office of the Inspector General is not the Commission Chairman. And any commissioner can influence the commission in the way you stated. Anyway, when you get tired of reading -between- the lines try reading the lines as explicitly written regarding the job of Chairman: I did. What you forget is that only specifies the minimum requirements for the job. No were does it say that is the limit of his duties. His job description doesn't exclude riding a horse through Arlington Cemetary on Veteran's Day while wearing a tutu and singing "God Save the Queen". So does that mean he should? snip Well, I've been in the middle of at least three situations that should have been ideal examples of what you describe: Mt. StHelens; hurricane Gloria; and Spokane's ice storm of '96. But in all of those emergency situations, ham radio activity consisted mostly of small-talk and QRM. And in all three cases the bulk of non-PSP emergency communication was done by CB radio. After listening to the ham bands for 30 years I can say with great confidence that ham radio sucks when it comes to those types of situations. Time and time again CB radio has proven itself to be the communications backbone when landlines fail. Tell that to the Police and Fire officials during 9/11. I wasn't there. Were you? You can also ask Keith on this group what he thinks. He is a Ham and has done plenty of emergency comms in his job. Feel free to ask him yourself. His experiences are different than mine so he may have a different perception. But in the three disasters I witnessed and experienced firsthand, CB radio ruled and ham radio was lame. snip If there is one sure thing in life its change. Assuming things are going to stay the same just isn't reasonable. So if it's bad its going to get better. Or worse. And I made no assumption about things not changing, although sometimes change can be very slow. Since I have a poor track record as a prognosticator, I no longer make assumptions about the future except that it will come. Were is that dang time machine they keep sying is "just around the corner"? 8-)) It's still in the future, of course. But they use it to come back and do things in our time. Like during the JFK assassination. Ever wonder what happened to his brain? It's in the future! Who planted the "magic bullet" on the gurney? A time traveller! Jeez, Lee, isn't all this obvious? (yes, I'm joking!) ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
"Landshark" wrote in message . com... "Leland C. Scott" wrote in message ... You guys need to read this before going any further. Sample court motion below. http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_158.pdf Ummm, Lee, that's cool, but that was a song writer, Radio Station, their Lawyers filing a civil case. That's why it's Sarah Jones vs. The FCC................. Do you have that option to pay their fine , then take them to court? That wasn't a Ham or a cb'er. Not many people can have a lawyer, let alone multiple lawyers go to court for a Nal. Offical FCC legal process. The link below should be all on one line to work. http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi...i on=retrieve This should settle the argument permently if you understand legal terms. Dead link. No argument settled The junk above should be all on one line. When I pasted it to the post it got split in to two lines. Try putting everything on one line. It should work. Its a direct copy of what was in IExplorer's address bar. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message ... "Landshark" wrote in message . com... "Leland C. Scott" wrote in message ... You guys need to read this before going any further. Sample court motion below. http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_158.pdf Ummm, Lee, that's cool, but that was a song writer, Radio Station, their Lawyers filing a civil case. That's why it's Sarah Jones vs. The FCC................. Do you have that option to pay their fine , then take them to court? That wasn't a Ham or a cb'er. Not many people can have a lawyer, let alone multiple lawyers go to court for a Nal. Offical FCC legal process. The link below should be all on one line to work. http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi...i on=retrieve This should settle the argument permently if you understand legal terms. Dead link. No argument settled The junk above should be all on one line. When I pasted it to the post it got split in to two lines. Try putting everything on one line. It should work. Its a direct copy of what was in IExplorer's address bar. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft Nope, you're still clueless. |
"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:20:15 -0500, "Leland C. Scott" wrote in : "Frank Gilliland" wrote in message .. . Wrong. You can't challenge the violation in court like you can a traffic ticket. FCC fines are enforced by the Treasury Dept as uncollected debts, -not- as violations of FCC rules. I've read where some who have gotten NAL's have had their day in court in front of an administrative law judge. CFR 47 and the rules under it are considered administrative law and can thus be heard in court. Some have even won their cases. Check it out for yourself. I will. Got a link? Here is how the whole process works in all of its gory detail. http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi...ID=60034850378 3+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve Linkus mortis. I posted a message to Landshark. The two lines above should be all on one line with no space between the "?" and the "W". Try it again. What I meant was that the FCC has the power to write their own rules under the CFR to enforce the USC as they see fit. snip For an example to support my opinion, read 18 USC subsection 2511. This is the law that prohibits interception of communication. The law includes exceptions for reasons such as law enforcement. But even law enforcement agencies are required to jump through hoops in order to intercept communications and use it as evidence. Yet the FCC has written themselves a blank check: The same law permits the FCC to intercept communications without any warrant or showing of probable cause. You forgot about the "in pain view" argument the courts use when no search warrant is in hand to admit evidence. Besides they don't always have to have audio recordings. Signal strength, direction finding antennas used to find the location of the transmitter, and frequency measurements do real good without violation the so called privacy of the communication. The point was that they make their own rules. There is a public review process were people can send their comments to the FCC. If the FCC decides to ignore those comments then about the only recourse is court, or get the US Congress to pass a law, i.e. direct the FCC, to do its bidding. Not a great process, but that's what we're stuck with for now. Regardless, evidence is fine as long as it's used IN A COURT OF LAW. So what exactly is a "Court of Law"? Think about it. Then if you manage to get the link above working that should give pause for thought after reading the material. As for the idea that congress controls the FCC, I should remind you that many big bill packages (such as the spending bill currently before this lame-duck congress) are filled with subtle laws (as well as pork-barrel spending) that get passed without ever being read because the bill is so large. Business as usual. That's why the president needs the line item veto power. I agree, and that's something Clinton pushed to get passed. But a bigger problem is the lack of representation in the house. Check this out: http://www.thirty-thousand.org/ One such law that almost snuck through in this bill was one that would have put a cap on lawsuits against drug companies even if the company knew beforehand that their product was bad. There are plenty of bad laws like this that slip through congress without even a blink. And you can bet that the FCC slips their own bills through, too. So while congress may -technically- control the FCC, the reality is that they don't. Except when something get under their skin. It won't be the first time Congress has pasted a law specifically to address an issue with some Federal Agency. I see it as kind of a back-washing policy..... "You ignore my bill and I'll ignore your's." Partisan politics as usual. Its a wonder that anything useful gets done in Congress. Makes me sick when the Democrats are fighting with the Republicans, thus stalling a bill that really would be a big benefit to the people, all because one party or the other wants to screw the other party over a previous bill, or who got elected to office. snip Cops don't ticket truckers for speeding? Boy, that's news to me! I've only known one trucker that never got a speeding ticket, but he had only been driving for a month. I'm sure he has a few by now. I've seen some that can use a few more. True story. And along those lines, the worst offenders I see are the buss drivers who almost -never- get a ticket. Maybe city employees are exempt or something..... Here come the conspiracy theories and the Black Helicoppers. 8-)) snip Maybe those 4-wheelers should get themselves CB radios...... When you see the 18 wheelers blowing by the cop on the side of the road with his radar going, and doesn't stop them makes you wonder. I don't see that too often. Come to think of it, I've never seen anybody blow a radar speed trap and not get caught. Maybe the cop you saw was asleep? No. I talked to a Ham buddy who just so happens to be a cop. He said most cops don't bother with truckers because they don't know enough about trucking law specifically so they don't like to mess with them. The other thing that I have to give the truckers is it sure doesn't make much sense to have trucks going 55 MPH, posted truck speed limit, when 4 wheelers are doing 70 MPH, posted speed limit, and having the 4 wheelers constantly weaving in and out of the right lane passing the slow moving trucks. I get sick of doing it when I'm on the road and have to drive a few hundred miles to get to a customer's site. It would make more sense for all the traffic to be doing roughly the same speed. I also think the cops don't bust the truckers to much for speeding because if they did then it would be a real pain with the 4 wheelers having to pass them. With the truckers moving at about the same speed as the rest of the traffic, without getting too far above the posted truck speed limit, the need for passing and possible accidents is reduced. snip Perhaps. But again, every law enforcement agency -except- the FCC requires a warrant to obtain a wiretap. And even if the audio is admissible as evidence, it's up to a jury -- NOT the FCC -- to determine the weight of that evidence. See the link I posted about how the whole legal process works with the FCC. ............ snip You still missed the issue: You get an NAL because you have been found guilty without a trial. You get a speeding ticket with out a trial too. A traffic citation is not a determination of guilt, Yeah it is. The cop as an official law enforcement officer in the writing of the ticket has determined that you have violated the motor vehicle law, i.e. guilty. The point of going to court is in the hope that the judge would DISAGREE with the cop and dismiss the ticket. If that wasn't true than anybody could just ignore paying the fine. But we all know if you did that then a bench warrant is issued and you are now guilty of breaking another law. You also don't need to go to court to pay the fine either. If you take the time to read the back of the ticket where you sign the thing, one of the choices, is a section where you DENY GUILT, and request a court hearing. Now if you weren't already "guilty" then why do you need to deny it? Think about that one. you can contest the citation in a court of law, and you can appeal the finding of the court through the judicial system. You can appeal the ruling but only to the FCC, so you are basically appealing to the prosecution. If you refuse to pay the fine then your case is forwarded to the Treasury Department for collection; i.e, the only case you can bring before a judge is an issue of law regarding the DEBT -- NOT the violation that -resulted- in the debt. Gee. I'm getting tired of saying this. See the link I posted above about the legal process. ............... snip The FCC's use of the NAL precludes standing in any court. No. It is reviewable by the Court of Appeals. http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_158.pdf Read the last few lines of the last paragraph on page 3. I'll quote it here. __________________________________ Apart from this and other limited exceptions not relevant here, jurisdiction over final FCC orders is exclusively vested in the Courts of Appeals. Section 402(a) of Title 47, United States Code, provides that "[a]ny proceeding 4 to enjoin, set aside, annul, or suspend any order of the Commission . . . shall be brought as provided by and in the manner prescribed in chapter 158 of Title 28." 47 U.S.C. § 402(a). That chapter, in turn, provides that the Courts of Appeals have "the exclusive jurisdiction to enjoin, set aside, suspend (in whole or in part), or to determine the validity of . . . all final order of the Federal Communications Commission made reviewable by section 402(a) of title 47." 28 U.S.C. § 2342(1). _________________________________________________ ____________ This particular motion for the plaintiff failed because it was apparently filed in District Court. No, it failed because Nora Jones had no standing in the case. Read the very top of the motion and you'll see it was filed in the wrong court, District Court. In fact the quote above was written by the court as one of the several points why the motioned was denied. They wanted to make the point it was not filed with the right court. I would think anybody with a legal background reading the motion would have been able to figure that out. The NAL was issued to the station, not Jones, and hence her action opposing the NAL was dismissed. That was only one of several reasons. See my comment above. Now the -station- could file a civil suit contesting the order of the FCC, and that's perfectly consistent with what I have already explained (you can address the debt, not the violation). But even if this case was a suit filed by the station it would have been dismissed, or at least suspended, because the forfeiture order was not yet final. Notice that the document also cites 47 USC 504(a), which states that forfeitures can only be recovered [not contested] in a civil suit [as I noted before], and that any such action will be a trial de novo. That last part has me at a loss since there was no "trial" in the first place. But that's what it says. In any case, the procedure is expensive, win or lose. You have to read the material at the link I posted you had trouble getting to work. There is a lot of stuff to read there. The only way you can challenge their laws is indirectly; i.e, habeus corpus, civil suit, temporary injunction, congressional intervention, etc, etc. The problem is that the people who would benefit the most from standing do not have the means to mount an indirect challenge. And -that's- how the FCC can prevent you from having your 'day in court'. Read it from the horse's month in the above quote. The case you cited supported my statement nicely. Thank you. Not really. There is a section mentioned in the motion about a section in the CFR's, Code of Federal Registry, that explains in detail the process. As typical of any legal motion only the parts that directly supports the exact situation at hand are ever quoted. Assuming there isn't any more to it is naive. snip And sometimes not. Read through the FCC enforcement logs and you'll see that several Hams have gone to court to keep the FCC from pulling their Ham ticket. Now just how much economic sense does that make? None. It was done as a mater of principle. Where are those enforcement logs? Not the whole list, just the ones where hams were able to contest their NAL's in court? Read section 13. There you'll see what is meant by a "review by the commission", i.e. in front of an Administrative Law Judge. http://www.w6trw.com/Articles/Gerritsen.htm Read the sectioned titled "Burton Trial". http://www.arnewsline.org/newsline_archives/Cbbs060.txt You also claimed that nobody watches or over sees the FCC. I told you that the Congress does do it. Read the following. Read the whole thing. http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publica...paper/main.asp Now what is interesting here is at the top. When you request a "hearing" with the commission you have your day in court as I've stated before in front of an Administrative Law Judge. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-03D-01A1.pdf So as I've stated previously Fank that the US Congress, or a Congressional committee, does in fact over sees the FCC contrary to your assertions. And also as I've said you get you day in court with a NAL in font of an Administrative Law Judge that you have asserted doesn't happen. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
"Leland C. Scott" wrote:
No. I talked to a Ham buddy who just so happens to be a cop. He said most cops don't bother with truckers because they don't know enough about trucking law specifically so they don't like to mess with them. The other thing that I have to give the truckers is it sure doesn't make much sense to have trucks going 55 MPH, posted truck speed limit, when 4 wheelers are doing 70 MPH, posted speed limit, and having the 4 wheelers constantly weaving in and out of the right lane passing the slow moving trucks. I get sick of doing it when I'm on the road and have to drive a few hundred miles to get to a customer's site. It would make more sense for all the traffic to be doing roughly the same speed. The Ohio Turnpike just raised trucks to 65 mph and lowered their gate fees a tad. Truckers were avoiding the green stamp, so it's all about the money. |
Steveo wrote:
"Leland C. Scott" wrote: No. I talked to a Ham buddy who just so happens to be a cop. He said most cops don't bother with truckers because they don't know enough about trucking law specifically so they don't like to mess with them. The other thing that I have to give the truckers is it sure doesn't make much sense to have trucks going 55 MPH, posted truck speed limit, when 4 wheelers are doing 70 MPH, posted speed limit, and having the 4 wheelers constantly weaving in and out of the right lane passing the slow moving trucks. I get sick of doing it when I'm on the road and have to drive a few hundred miles to get to a customer's site. It would make more sense for all the traffic to be doing roughly the same speed. The Ohio Turnpike just raised trucks to 65 mph and lowered their gate fees a tad. Truckers were avoiding the green stamp, so it's all about the money. I still avoid the green stamp. Less cops on 20, 250, and 224. Nicer drive, too. -SSB |
SideBand wrote:
Steveo wrote: "Leland C. Scott" wrote: No. I talked to a Ham buddy who just so happens to be a cop. He said most cops don't bother with truckers because they don't know enough about trucking law specifically so they don't like to mess with them. The other thing that I have to give the truckers is it sure doesn't make much sense to have trucks going 55 MPH, posted truck speed limit, when 4 wheelers are doing 70 MPH, posted speed limit, and having the 4 wheelers constantly weaving in and out of the right lane passing the slow moving trucks. I get sick of doing it when I'm on the road and have to drive a few hundred miles to get to a customer's site. It would make more sense for all the traffic to be doing roughly the same speed. The Ohio Turnpike just raised trucks to 65 mph and lowered their gate fees a tad. Truckers were avoiding the green stamp, so it's all about the money. I still avoid the green stamp. Less cops on 20, 250, and 224. Nicer drive, too. -SSB There ya go. I like the stamp for car travel, they keep it in good shape. Set the cruise at 70 and glide.. |
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 23:43:56 -0500, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in : "Frank Gilliland" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:20:15 -0500, "Leland C. Scott" wrote in : "Frank Gilliland" wrote in message .. . Wrong. You can't challenge the violation in court like you can a traffic ticket. FCC fines are enforced by the Treasury Dept as uncollected debts, -not- as violations of FCC rules. I've read where some who have gotten NAL's have had their day in court in front of an administrative law judge. CFR 47 and the rules under it are considered administrative law and can thus be heard in court. Some have even won their cases. Check it out for yourself. I will. Got a link? Here is how the whole process works in all of its gory detail. http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi...ID=60034850378 3+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve Linkus mortis. I posted a message to Landshark. The two lines above should be all on one line with no space between the "?" and the "W". Try it again. I did it right the first time. I just did it again. Rebooted in ME and tried it. Blank page. I'm guessing you didn't cut-n-paste the entire URL. What I meant was that the FCC has the power to write their own rules under the CFR to enforce the USC as they see fit. snip For an example to support my opinion, read 18 USC subsection 2511. This is the law that prohibits interception of communication. The law includes exceptions for reasons such as law enforcement. But even law enforcement agencies are required to jump through hoops in order to intercept communications and use it as evidence. Yet the FCC has written themselves a blank check: The same law permits the FCC to intercept communications without any warrant or showing of probable cause. You forgot about the "in pain view" argument the courts use when no search warrant is in hand to admit evidence. Besides they don't always have to have audio recordings. Signal strength, direction finding antennas used to find the location of the transmitter, and frequency measurements do real good without violation the so called privacy of the communication. The point was that they make their own rules. There is a public review process were people can send their comments to the FCC. If the FCC decides to ignore those comments then about the only recourse is court, or get the US Congress to pass a law, i.e. direct the FCC, to do its bidding. Not a great process, but that's what we're stuck with for now. Public opinion has little influence on elected officials except when they write their campaign speeches, and even less influence in offices that are not publically elected. Regardless, evidence is fine as long as it's used IN A COURT OF LAW. So what exactly is a "Court of Law"? It's a place where the accused can receive a fair hearing, where the presiding authority extends "to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." Think about it. I did. Your argument is a semantic spin. Then if you manage to get the link above working that should give pause for thought after reading the material. Pending a functional link. As for the idea that congress controls the FCC, I should remind you that many big bill packages (such as the spending bill currently before this lame-duck congress) are filled with subtle laws (as well as pork-barrel spending) that get passed without ever being read because the bill is so large. Business as usual. That's why the president needs the line item veto power. I agree, and that's something Clinton pushed to get passed. But a bigger problem is the lack of representation in the house. Check this out: http://www.thirty-thousand.org/ One such law that almost snuck through in this bill was one that would have put a cap on lawsuits against drug companies even if the company knew beforehand that their product was bad. There are plenty of bad laws like this that slip through congress without even a blink. And you can bet that the FCC slips their own bills through, too. So while congress may -technically- control the FCC, the reality is that they don't. Except when something get under their skin. It won't be the first time Congress has pasted a law specifically to address an issue with some Federal Agency. I see it as kind of a back-washing policy..... "You ignore my bill and I'll ignore your's." Partisan politics as usual. Its a wonder that anything useful gets done in Congress. Makes me sick when the Democrats are fighting with the Republicans, thus stalling a bill that really would be a big benefit to the people, all because one party or the other wants to screw the other party over a previous bill, or who got elected to office. SOP. Both parties do it. That's why I vote for third-party candidates. snip Cops don't ticket truckers for speeding? Boy, that's news to me! I've only known one trucker that never got a speeding ticket, but he had only been driving for a month. I'm sure he has a few by now. I've seen some that can use a few more. True story. And along those lines, the worst offenders I see are the buss drivers who almost -never- get a ticket. Maybe city employees are exempt or something..... Here come the conspiracy theories and the Black Helicoppers. 8-)) Well you realize that if the CIA didn't publically admit that they perform covert operations, anyone who suggested they did would be labeled as a conspiracy theorist. And don't forget about the secret tests on an unwitting public of various chemical and biological agents even -after- such tests were admitted and claimed to have ceased. That's just one in a list of conspiracies that -did- exist. So it's not a good idea to dismiss these ideas just because they have little or no hard supporting evidence. Maybe the pilots of those black helicoptors moonlight as school bus drivers. Or maybe the FCC is covertly used as a 'prototype' agency to develop and refine techniques to be used by other agencies to skirt the constitution. Even better, perhaps the seeds of false conpiracies are intentionally leaked by the government in order to distract public attention away from the -real- conspiracies. But putting all conjecture aside, have -you- ever seen a bus driver get a speeding ticket? snip Maybe those 4-wheelers should get themselves CB radios...... When you see the 18 wheelers blowing by the cop on the side of the road with his radar going, and doesn't stop them makes you wonder. I don't see that too often. Come to think of it, I've never seen anybody blow a radar speed trap and not get caught. Maybe the cop you saw was asleep? No. I talked to a Ham buddy who just so happens to be a cop. He said most cops don't bother with truckers because they don't know enough about trucking law specifically so they don't like to mess with them. The other thing that I have to give the truckers is it sure doesn't make much sense to have trucks going 55 MPH, posted truck speed limit, when 4 wheelers are doing 70 MPH, posted speed limit, and having the 4 wheelers constantly weaving in and out of the right lane passing the slow moving trucks. I get sick of doing it when I'm on the road and have to drive a few hundred miles to get to a customer's site. It would make more sense for all the traffic to be doing roughly the same speed. I also think the cops don't bust the truckers to much for speeding because if they did then it would be a real pain with the 4 wheelers having to pass them. With the truckers moving at about the same speed as the rest of the traffic, without getting too far above the posted truck speed limit, the need for passing and possible accidents is reduced. I agree that a slow vehicle can be a hazard. But some states have a law that requires driving in the right-most lane except to pass. Of course very few people follow that law -or- the speed limits. But while adherence to the law is the responsibility of the individual, enforcement of the law is the responsibility of the cops. If the cops don't take their responsibilites seriously then neither will the civilians. snip Perhaps. But again, every law enforcement agency -except- the FCC requires a warrant to obtain a wiretap. And even if the audio is admissible as evidence, it's up to a jury -- NOT the FCC -- to determine the weight of that evidence. See the link I posted about how the whole legal process works with the FCC. ............ snip You still missed the issue: You get an NAL because you have been found guilty without a trial. You get a speeding ticket with out a trial too. A traffic citation is not a determination of guilt, Yeah it is. The cop as an official law enforcement officer in the writing of the ticket has determined that you have violated the motor vehicle law, i.e. guilty. The point of going to court is in the hope that the judge would DISAGREE with the cop and dismiss the ticket. If that wasn't true than anybody could just ignore paying the fine. But we all know if you did that then a bench warrant is issued and you are now guilty of breaking another law. I don't know how they do things on the other side of the country, but a ticket here in Washington is a statement that the officer has "probable cause" to believe you committed the stated infraction or violation, a statement to which you must respond before determination of guilt is made. If you fail to respond within a specified time after having been given notice then a judgment of guilty can be entered. But you are -never- denied the right to contest the ticket -before- any determination of guilt. You also don't need to go to court to pay the fine either. If you take the time to read the back of the ticket where you sign the thing, one of the choices, is a section where you DENY GUILT, and request a court hearing. Now if you weren't already "guilty" then why do you need to deny it? Think about that one. Again, in Washington your choices are 1) admit the infraction and pay the fine; 2) admit the infraction and mitigate the fine; and 3) contest the infraction. And don't forget that 'infraction' does not mean 'conviction'. Also, it clearly states that if you don't respond in the specified time that the court will find you guilty of the infraction. Now how can you be found guilty -twice- for the same violation? Think about -that- one. you can contest the citation in a court of law, and you can appeal the finding of the court through the judicial system. You can appeal the ruling but only to the FCC, so you are basically appealing to the prosecution. If you refuse to pay the fine then your case is forwarded to the Treasury Department for collection; i.e, the only case you can bring before a judge is an issue of law regarding the DEBT -- NOT the violation that -resulted- in the debt. Gee. I'm getting tired of saying this. See the link I posted above about the legal process. ............... snip The FCC's use of the NAL precludes standing in any court. No. It is reviewable by the Court of Appeals. http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_158.pdf Read the last few lines of the last paragraph on page 3. I'll quote it here. __________________________________ Apart from this and other limited exceptions not relevant here, jurisdiction over final FCC orders is exclusively vested in the Courts of Appeals. Section 402(a) of Title 47, United States Code, provides that "[a]ny proceeding 4 to enjoin, set aside, annul, or suspend any order of the Commission . . . shall be brought as provided by and in the manner prescribed in chapter 158 of Title 28." 47 U.S.C. § 402(a). That chapter, in turn, provides that the Courts of Appeals have "the exclusive jurisdiction to enjoin, set aside, suspend (in whole or in part), or to determine the validity of . . . all final order of the Federal Communications Commission made reviewable by section 402(a) of title 47." 28 U.S.C. § 2342(1). _________________________________________________ ____________ This particular motion for the plaintiff failed because it was apparently filed in District Court. No, it failed because Nora Jones had no standing in the case. Read the very top of the motion and you'll see it was filed in the wrong court, District Court. In fact the quote above was written by the court as one of the several points why the motioned was denied. They wanted to make the point it was not filed with the right court. I would think anybody with a legal background reading the motion would have been able to figure that out. Read the thing again: "In cases in which the plaintiff is not the subject of the forfeiture order, the circuit court has jurisdiction. See, e.g., Ill. Citizens, 515 F.2d at 403." So if Jones wanted to intervene in the forfeiture process she needed to go to the circuit court. And until the forfeiture order was final, she had no standing to file civil suit in district court under the ACT decision (which is what she did). IOW, her lawyer was a moron. The NAL was issued to the station, not Jones, and hence her action opposing the NAL was dismissed. That was only one of several reasons. See my comment above. Likewise. Now the -station- could file a civil suit contesting the order of the FCC, and that's perfectly consistent with what I have already explained (you can address the debt, not the violation). But even if this case was a suit filed by the station it would have been dismissed, or at least suspended, because the forfeiture order was not yet final. Notice that the document also cites 47 USC 504(a), which states that forfeitures can only be recovered [not contested] in a civil suit [as I noted before], and that any such action will be a trial de novo. That last part has me at a loss since there was no "trial" in the first place. But that's what it says. In any case, the procedure is expensive, win or lose. You have to read the material at the link I posted you had trouble getting to work. There is a lot of stuff to read there. Still awaiting a working link. The only way you can challenge their laws is indirectly; i.e, habeus corpus, civil suit, temporary injunction, congressional intervention, etc, etc. The problem is that the people who would benefit the most from standing do not have the means to mount an indirect challenge. And -that's- how the FCC can prevent you from having your 'day in court'. Read it from the horse's month in the above quote. The case you cited supported my statement nicely. Thank you. Not really. There is a section mentioned in the motion about a section in the CFR's, Code of Federal Registry, "Code of Federal Regulations" that explains in detail the process. As typical of any legal motion only the parts that directly supports the exact situation at hand are ever quoted. Assuming there isn't any more to it is naive. The problem is that the findings are simpler than even -you- suggest. snip And sometimes not. Read through the FCC enforcement logs and you'll see that several Hams have gone to court to keep the FCC from pulling their Ham ticket. Now just how much economic sense does that make? None. It was done as a mater of principle. Where are those enforcement logs? Not the whole list, just the ones where hams were able to contest their NAL's in court? Read section 13. There you'll see what is meant by a "review by the commission", i.e. in front of an Administrative Law Judge. http://www.w6trw.com/Articles/Gerritsen.htm The document states that this hearing is to determine his eligibility to obtain a license, -not- a hearing to contest a violation. Also, the phrase "review by the commission" is not in that document. Read the sectioned titled "Burton Trial". http://www.arnewsline.org/newsline_archives/Cbbs060.txt He wasn't contesting an NAL -- he was charged with six felonies! Of course they are going to put him in front of a judge. Do you have a case where someone was issued an NAL and contested it in a court of law? You also claimed that nobody watches or over sees the FCC. I told you that the Congress does do it. Read the following. Read the whole thing. http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publica...paper/main.asp Very good page. Again it tends to support my argument -- it lays out a lot of complaints against the FCC, and points out that the very few actions taken by Congress were overruled by the courts. Now what is interesting here is at the top. When you request a "hearing" with the commission you have your day in court as I've stated before in front of an Administrative Law Judge. http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-03D-01A1.pdf That hearing was to contest a termination order, not a violation or forfeiture order. So as I've stated previously Fank that the US Congress, or a Congressional committee, does in fact over sees the FCC contrary to your assertions. And also as I've said you get you day in court with a NAL in font of an Administrative Law Judge that you have asserted doesn't happen. So far your references haven't proven squat. I said that an NAL (which includes the resulting forfeiture order) cannot be contested in a court of law, administrative hearings included. You disagreed while providing links that do nothing to support your position. I said that the FCC operates mostly unchecked and you provide a link that supports -my- position. I'll make this real easy: Don't bother to find links to pages that sound like they -might- support your position because so far none of them have. Instead, focus on -just one- example of where someone contested, sucessfully or not, an NAL in a court of law. And I don't mean contesting the fine but the -violation-. Show that he was able to present evidence and call witnesses in front of a judge or jury, that he was given the chance to prove that he did not commit the violation, and that the ruling could have reversed (or did reverse) the final forfeiture order by the FCC. If you can do that I'll concede this entire thread. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message ... "Landshark" wrote in message . com... "Leland C. Scott" wrote in message ... You guys need to read this before going any further. Sample court motion below. http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_158.pdf Ummm, Lee, that's cool, but that was a song writer, Radio Station, their Lawyers filing a civil case. That's why it's Sarah Jones vs. The FCC................. Do you have that option to pay their fine , then take them to court? That wasn't a Ham or a cb'er. Not many people can have a lawyer, let alone multiple lawyers go to court for a Nal. Offical FCC legal process. The link below should be all on one line to work. http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi...i on=retrieve This should settle the argument permently if you understand legal terms. Dead link. No argument settled The junk above should be all on one line. When I pasted it to the post it got split in to two lines. Try putting everything on one line. It should work. Its a direct copy of what was in IExplorer's address bar. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Still Dead link. As Frank has stated, when are you going to show a court case where someone was issued a NAL and went to court to contest it, not before the FCC. Landshark -- That does suck..sometimes you're the windshield..sometimes you're the bug. |
|
KC8LDO wrote:
I bring this up as a point because the FCC said they will not issue such an order unless directed by Congress by way of law making. Which means nothing more than the FCC's refusal to do so. They merely invoked Congress as their reasoning for not doing so. It's called passing-the-buck, something the FCC excels at and has for years and years and years. So as you can see they can't make up any rules they like. You are cornfusing rules for laws, again.=A0=A0 The FCC saying they need congress for such matters is bull****. They can indeed enact rules to their liking,,,,they already ahve the authority to do such by Congress,,,such is part of the reason for existence of the FCC. They most certainly can clarify their own rule without an act of congress. Look, the bottom line is they don't *want* to clarify this rule, as it would bring only another issue to the FCC which would require involvment and spent time and money. |
|
KC8LDO wrote:
I talked to a Ham buddy who just so happens to be a cop. He said most cops don't bother with truckers because they don't know enough about trucking law specifically so they don't like to mess with them. Your podunk leo friend is a tragedy...he must be a local cop of a small town. ALL HP officers are well versed in such law regarding carriers and laws pertaining to the road. The DOT is for getting particular. The HPs, whether county or state, ALL "mess" with the truckers and actively enforce speeding truckers in addition to cars. The other thing that I have to give the truckers is it sure doesn't make much sense to have trucks going 55 MPH, posted truck speed limit, when 4 wheelers are doing 70 MPH, Learn yourself about stopping distance. The difference between the two, the truck vs. the car, should be more than enough to satisfy this issue that "doesn't make sense" to you. It would make more sense for all the traffic to be doing roughly the same speed. And we can drive the same vehicle, live in the same cookie cutter houses, and wear the same uniform,,er, clothes. I also think the cops don't bust the truckers to much for speeding because if they did then it would be a real pain with the 4 wheelers having to pass them. ???? With the truckers moving at about the same speed as the rest of the traffic, without getting too far above the posted truck speed limit, the need for passing and possible accidents is reduced. It's not the truckers causing the problems on the road. It's people in cars that don't understand big trucks need almost the length of two football fields to stop safely at the speed limit. |
"Twistedhed" wrote in message ... Learn yourself about stopping distance. The difference between the two, the truck vs. the car, should be more than enough to satisfy this issue that "doesn't make sense" to you. I agree mostly here. But with a tounge-in-cheek comment. Can a big-truck stop faster than a four wheeler when they a a. Higher off the ground and can see farther ahead b. Logged more miles than 99% of all 4 wheelers (experience) c. Less likely to be applying make-up, chatting on the phone, while beating the kid in the back seat, and reading the paper. All while the person in the SUV is trying their damndest to jerk this top heavy vehicle around a big-truck going 20MPH slower while getting it on damn near two wheels. I'm no Billy Big-Rigger, But I've been on the road long enough to see first hand, understand, and respect the needs of truckers. "100% of everything we touch has come to us at some time on a freight hauler." I've never seen this printed on the back of a trailer, someone should! Chad |
"Landshark" wrote in message . com... "Leland C. Scott" wrote in message ... "Landshark" wrote in message . com... "Leland C. Scott" wrote in message ... You guys need to read this before going any further. Sample court motion below. http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_158.pdf Ummm, Lee, that's cool, but that was a song writer, Radio Station, their Lawyers filing a civil case. That's why it's Sarah Jones vs. The FCC................. Do you have that option to pay their fine , then take them to court? That wasn't a Ham or a cb'er. Not many people can have a lawyer, let alone multiple lawyers go to court for a Nal. Offical FCC legal process. The link below should be all on one line to work. http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi...i on=retrieve This should settle the argument permently if you understand legal terms. Dead link. No argument settled Then try this one. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...47cfr1_03.html Plenty of stuff to read. The details are all spelled out there. You will have to do some jumping around from subsection to subsection. When you're done I think you'll have a better feel for how the FCC goes about it's business. It's not as Macavelian as Frank and the others would have you believe. There is legal recourse, in front of an Administrate Law Judge. And If you don't like the results then you can go to an Appeals Court. The FCC does have Congressional oversight. In fact many Federal agencies have a Congressional oversight committee that directs their actions. We the public may not hear about it much, but then again how may people really have that much interest in how their government works to go and find out? Most people don't even know who their state's congressional members are by name. Some may complain that the court hearings are done under the FCC. This gets back to what I mentioned in another post about what is "a court of law". I didn't make that statement lightly. It was meant to get one thinking about the subject. Twist provided a quickie definition. The proceedings may not fit everybody's stereotype of "a court of law" but it is one never the less. You can also play all the word games you want too, by calling the FCC regulations "rules", but they are officially "administrate law", which any attorney can tell you. Let me know what you think after you had time to read the material. I'm not going to debate it any further since it's all there for anybody to read. I will admit some of the explanations are a bit confusing. I suppose it would help to have a legal background to fully comprehend the details. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
"Twistedhed" wrote in message ... Your podunk leo friend is a tragedy...he must be a local cop of a small town. No he just got a promotion and is in charge of security at the airport. Before that he did road patrol work for a number of years. ALL HP officers are well versed in such law regarding carriers and laws pertaining to the road. You know all the HYW cops? I talked to a real one and he says otherwise. There is a big difference between knowing the ordinary motor vehicle code verses the very specific regulations that govern interstate and intrastate trucking. The DOT is for getting particular. The HPs, whether county or state, ALL "mess" with the truckers and actively enforce speeding truckers in addition to cars. Tell that to the buggers doing 70+ MPH in Georgia passing me like I'm standing still. Some of those mothers must be going 80 down the hills. The other thing that I have to give the truckers is it sure doesn't make much sense to have trucks going 55 MPH, posted truck speed limit, when 4 wheelers are doing 70 MPH, Learn yourself about stopping distance. The difference between the two, the truck vs. the car, should be more than enough to satisfy this issue that "doesn't make sense" to you. So the truck drivers aren't smart enough to leave more following distance when they're speeding? Gee some of them don't even do it at 55. It would make more sense for all the traffic to be doing roughly the same speed. And we can drive the same vehicle, live in the same cookie cutter houses, and wear the same uniform,,er, clothes. I don't know about you but IMHO it would be safer if we didn't have the frequent lane changes. Every time somebody changes lanes there is the chance they don't look first and then bang, and that goes for both 4 wheelers and 18 wheelers. Having everybody doing roughly the same speed would greatly reduce the need for passing. It's not the truckers causing the problems on the road. It's people in cars that don't understand big trucks need almost the length of two football fields to stop safely at the speed limit. The truckers are as much to blame as the drivers of the 4 wheelers. I've personally seen those huge chrome grills completely filling my rear window too often. If they fill my rear window they are MOST DEFIANTLY TOO CLOSE. I just had to put up with this B.S. on 401 the past couple of days on a trip from Detroit to Woodstock Ontario Canada. I'm doing 100 KmPH, the posted limit, but oh no that wasn't fast enough for the truckers who were doing routinely 110 KmPH to 120 KmPH. I had them just 4 to 5 feet off the rear bumper of the rental car, then they pass me by cutting me off by leaving about 5 feet between me and the end of their trailer when they serve back in to my lane. The satisfaction I get is when they end up in the ditch on the side, or in the median ditch, from losing control of their rigs on the slippery pavement with windy conditions while driving like idiots too fast. That highway, 401, is well known for that in Canada. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
"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 guys need to read this before going any further. Sample court motion below. http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_158.pdf Ummm, Lee, that's cool, but that was a song writer, Radio Station, their Lawyers filing a civil case. That's why it's Sarah Jones vs. The FCC................. Do you have that option to pay their fine , then take them to court? That wasn't a Ham or a cb'er. Not many people can have a lawyer, let alone multiple lawyers go to court for a Nal. Offical FCC legal process. The link below should be all on one line to work. http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi...i on=retrieve This should settle the argument permently if you understand legal terms. Dead link. No argument settled Then try this one. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...47cfr1_03.html Plenty of stuff to read. The details are all spelled out there. You will have to do some jumping around from subsection to subsection. When you're done I think you'll have a better feel for how the FCC goes about it's business. It's not as Macavelian as Frank and the others would have you believe. There is legal recourse, in front of an Administrate Law Judge. And If you don't like the results then you can go to an Appeals Court. The FCC does have Congressional oversight. In fact many Federal agencies have a Congressional oversight committee that directs their actions. We the public may not hear about it much, but then again how may people really have that much interest in how their government works to go and find out? Most people don't even know who their state's congressional members are by name. Some may complain that the court hearings are done under the FCC. This gets back to what I mentioned in another post about what is "a court of law". I didn't make that statement lightly. It was meant to get one thinking about the subject. Twist provided a quickie definition. The proceedings may not fit everybody's stereotype of "a court of law" but it is one never the less. You can also play all the word games you want too, by calling the FCC regulations "rules", but they are officially "administrate law", which any attorney can tell you. Let me know what you think after you had time to read the material. I'm not going to debate it any further since it's all there for anybody to read. I will admit some of the explanations are a bit confusing. I suppose it would help to have a legal background to fully comprehend the details. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Well, I've seen that before Leland, it proves Frank's & mine statement that the FCC rules are just that, rule's not laws. As such no real way to get out of a NAL fine without taking the FCC to civil court and a lawyer....... Lots of bucks to get that lawyer working for you. (f) Notice of apparent liability. Before imposing a forfeiture penalty under the provisions of this paragraph, the Commission or its designee will issue a written notice of apparent liability. (1) Content of notice. The notice of apparent liability will: (i) Identify each specific provision, term, or condition of any act, rule, regulation, order, treaty, convention, or other agreement, license, permit, certificate, or instrument of authorizationwhich the respondent has apparently violated or with which he has failed to comply, (ii) Set forth the nature of the act or omission charged against the respondent and the facts upon which such charge is based, (iii) State the date(s) on which such conduct occurred, and (iv) Specify the amount of the apparent forfeiture penalty. (2) Delivery. The notice of apparent liability will be sent to the respondent, by certified mail, at his last known address (see Sec. 1.5). (3) Response. The respondent will be afforded a reasonable period of time (usually 30 days from the date of the notice) to show, in writing, why a forfeiture penalty should not be imposed or should be reduced, or to pay the forfeiture. Any showing as to why the forfeiture should not be imposed or should be reduced shall include a detailed factual statement and such documentation and affidavits as may be pertinent. (4) Forfeiture order. If the proposed forfeiture penalty is not paid in full in response to the notice of apparent liability, the Commission, upon considering all relevant information available to it, will issue an order canceling or reducing the proposed forfeiture or requiring that it be paid in full and stating the date by which the forfeiture must be paid. (5) Judicial enforcement of forfeiture order. If the forfeiture is not paid, the case will be referred to the Department of Justice for collection under section 504(a) of the Communications Act. |
"Landshark" wrote in message . com... "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 guys need to read this before going any further. Sample court motion below. http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_158.pdf Ummm, Lee, that's cool, but that was a song writer, Radio Station, their Lawyers filing a civil case. That's why it's Sarah Jones vs. The FCC................. Do you have that option to pay their fine , then take them to court? That wasn't a Ham or a cb'er. Not many people can have a lawyer, let alone multiple lawyers go to court for a Nal. Offical FCC legal process. The link below should be all on one line to work. http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi...i on=retrieve This should settle the argument permently if you understand legal terms. Dead link. No argument settled Then try this one. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...47cfr1_03.html Plenty of stuff to read. The details are all spelled out there. You will have to do some jumping around from subsection to subsection. When you're done I think you'll have a better feel for how the FCC goes about it's business. It's not as Macavelian as Frank and the others would have you believe. There is legal recourse, in front of an Administrate Law Judge. And If you don't like the results then you can go to an Appeals Court. The FCC does have Congressional oversight. In fact many Federal agencies have a Congressional oversight committee that directs their actions. We the public may not hear about it much, but then again how may people really have that much interest in how their government works to go and find out? Most people don't even know who their state's congressional members are by name. Some may complain that the court hearings are done under the FCC. This gets back to what I mentioned in another post about what is "a court of law". I didn't make that statement lightly. It was meant to get one thinking about the subject. Twist provided a quickie definition. The proceedings may not fit everybody's stereotype of "a court of law" but it is one never the less. You can also play all the word games you want too, by calling the FCC regulations "rules", but they are officially "administrate law", which any attorney can tell you. Let me know what you think after you had time to read the material. I'm not going to debate it any further since it's all there for anybody to read. I will admit some of the explanations are a bit confusing. I suppose it would help to have a legal background to fully comprehend the details. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Well, I've seen that before Leland, it proves Frank's & mine statement that the FCC rules are just that, rule's not laws. As such no real way to get out of a NAL fine without taking the FCC to civil court and a lawyer....... Lots of bucks to get that lawyer working for you. (f) Notice of apparent liability. Before imposing a forfeiture penalty under the provisions of this paragraph, the Commission or its designee will issue a written notice of apparent liability. (1) Content of notice. The notice of apparent liability will: (i) Identify each specific provision, term, or condition of any act, rule, regulation, order, treaty, convention, or other agreement, license, permit, certificate, or instrument of authorizationwhich the respondent has apparently violated or with which he has failed to comply, (ii) Set forth the nature of the act or omission charged against the respondent and the facts upon which such charge is based, (iii) State the date(s) on which such conduct occurred, and (iv) Specify the amount of the apparent forfeiture penalty. (2) Delivery. The notice of apparent liability will be sent to the respondent, by certified mail, at his last known address (see Sec. 1.5). (3) Response. The respondent will be afforded a reasonable period of time (usually 30 days from the date of the notice) to show, in writing, why a forfeiture penalty should not be imposed or should be reduced, or to pay the forfeiture. Any showing as to why the forfeiture should not be imposed or should be reduced shall include a detailed factual statement and such documentation and affidavits as may be pertinent. (4) Forfeiture order. If the proposed forfeiture penalty is not paid in full in response to the notice of apparent liability, the Commission, upon considering all relevant information available to it, will issue an order canceling or reducing the proposed forfeiture or requiring that it be paid in full and stating the date by which the forfeiture must be paid. (5) Judicial enforcement of forfeiture order. If the forfeiture is not paid, the case will be referred to the Department of Justice for collection under section 504(a) of the Communications Act. 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. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
"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? You can not contest a NAL in a court of law, you have to contest it before the FCC. If you lose, you can then take it to civil court. As for the rules/ law, most of the FCC codes are only rules, as such the FCC enforces them with NAL's, that's how they circumvent the legal system. I don't have to worry about NAL Lee, you would have more to worry about than I. Landshark -- That does suck..sometimes you're the windshield..sometimes you're the bug. |
"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 http://www.cultureandfamily.org/arti...yi d=cfreport -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
"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 http://www.cultureandfamily.org/arti...yi d=cfreport 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. Landshark -- Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen. |
"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 http://www.cultureandfamily.org/arti...yi d=cfreport 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 -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
"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. |
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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- II Before considering the merits of AT&T's challenge, we must address the Commission's argument that we lack jurisdiction over appeals from NAL forfeiture proceedings. The this is a NAL forfeiture proceeding appeal Landshark. It says so VERY CLEARLY. It is being challenged in a court of law, specifically : United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT So what part of "NAL", "Appeal", "United States Court of Appeals" etc. don't you understand? NAL procedure is just one of two ways in which the Commission may impose forfeiture penalties, each of which comes with a different set of jurisdictional requirements-differences that are relevant to the issue before us. Gee guess what? The court even says the NAL precedures are "relevant to the issue before us". Even the court once again says this is about a NAL, regardless of how much you want to spin it. See generally Action for Children's Television v. FCC, 59 F.3d 1249, 1253- 54 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (describing the two forfeiture procedures). Under the first and more formal procedure, the Commission provides notice to the alleged violator and affords it an opportunity for a hearing before an administrative law judge, And as I've said before one avenue is a review in front of an administrative law judge as I've asserted several times before, despite Frank's protestations to the contrary. who may then choose to impose forfeiture penalties. 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(3)(A). The resulting forfeiture order is then subject to review in the court of appeals. Id. If the penalty Gee Landshark it says right here in the court's own words you can appeal the NAL, i.e. the forfeiture order. remains unpaid once the forfeiture determination becomes final, the United States may bring a collection action in district court. Id. § 503(b)(3)(B). 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 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. Despite its broad statement of its holding, Pleasant Broadcasting provides little support for the Commission's theory. To begin with, Pleasant Broadcasting deals not with the question of post-compliance review of forfeiture orders, but rather with a forfeiture subject's challenge to an unpaid forfeiture order. The court's reasoning reflects the importance of that distinction. Limiting its holding to cases in which section 504's ''special review mechanism'' is both adequate and available, the court distinguished Illinois Citizens, 515 F.2d 397, in which this court accepted jurisdiction over public-interest groups' challenge to a Commission forfeiture for broadcasting obscene and indecent materials despite the 7 fact that the broadcaster had already paid the penalty. Under those circumstances, where section 504 proceedings to collect the forfeiture ''would never have been instituted,'' Pleasant Broadcasting says that section 504 review is ''unavailable,'' and court of appeals review pursuant to section 402(a) is therefore ''appropriate.'' Id. at 501, 502-03. Although Illinois Citizens involved a third-party challenge to a paid forfeiture order, the same logic applies when the forfeiture subject itself seeks to bring a post-compliance challenge: Because payment renders section 504 review ''unavailable,'' court of appeals review pursuant to section 402(a) is ''appropriate.'' Pleasant Broadcasting's holding, moreover, rests at least in part on the court's concern that allowing forfeiture subjects to bring challenges to forfeiture orders in courts of appeals would give them the proverbial ''two bites at the apple'': They would ''be able to challenge the forfeiture order in a court of appeals on the basis of the administrative record and, if unsuccessful, TTT litigate all issues de novo in the district court, with a right of appeal to the court of appeals.'' Id. at 501. Even under the Commission's theory, that danger does not exist here. Because section 504(a) review is, by its terms, available only in recovery actions, AT&T will get just one bite. In the end, Pleasant Broadcasting tells us only that section 504(a) establishes district courts as the exclusive forum for challenges to unpaid forfeiture orders. Like section 504(a) itself, it has no effect on court of appeals jurisdiction to review challenges to paid forfeiture orders. To be sure, as the Commission points out, allowing forfeiture subjects to choose between challenging unpaid forfeiture orders in district court and challenging paid forfeiture orders in the court of appeals means that they can control the forum of review by deciding whether or not to pay the penalty. The obvious answer to this concern is section 504(a)'s plain language: By limiting district court jurisdiction to unpaid forfeitures, it gives forfeiture subjects that very choice. Such forum-controlling compliance choices, moreover, are common 8 in statutes providing for judicial review of regulatory decisions. The Communications Act itself contains another such provision, which allows telecommunications carriers subject to orders that conclude complaint-initiated investigations either to appeal the order in the court of appeals under section 402(a), 47 U.S.C. § 208(b)(3), or, assuming the order requires the payment of money, to refuse to comply and instead wait for the complainant to file a petition in district court, id. § 407. Moreover, even where, as here, a statute fails to make the choice explicit, but rather provides only a special procedural mechanism for the government to collect payments owed to it, that choice nevertheless remains; the collection mechanism has no effect on the payer's ability to obtain post-compliance review pursuant to generally applicable jurisdictional principles. Again the court states that you have a review course of action. They, the court, even cite further case law to support their postion. For example, in the customs context, where Congress granted exclusive jurisdiction to the Court of International Trade over suits for the recovery of certain civil penalties, 28 U.S.C. § 1582(1), penalty subjects may ''obtain[ ] judicial review in the Court of International Trade by refusing to pay the penalty and waiting for the government to commence an enforcement action.'' Trayco, Inc. v. United States, 994 F.2d 832, 837 (Fed. Cir. 1993). But they also have ''the option, and more importantly, the right'' to pay the penalty and later ''initiate suit in the district court to challenge the penalty'' pursuant to the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2). Id. Similarly, here, where AT&T has already paid the penalty rather than wait for the Government to commence a recovery action, it has the option-and the right-to initiate suit in the court of appeals pursuant to section 402(a). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 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. 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 acountable. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:15:00 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote: "Leland C. Scott" wrote in : 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 Hey Nad, Mark Beck from fremont California is afraid of pussy so he beats around the bush. LOL! you try and suck up to Leland by calling him a gonad? The Comcast Queer strikes again! |
"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. |
|
From: (I=A0Am=A0Not=A0George)
"Landshark" wrote Christ Leland, get a grip. As stated before, I run a bone legal Cobra 148, no amp. since when did bone legal cobras run on 27.775..... _ Search Result 1From: Landshark ) Subject: This 'may" make Soviet Voober happy View: Complete Thread (21 articles) Original FormatNewsgroups: rec.radio.cb Date: 2001-12-03 18:57:08 EST That's cool, I only hangout between 27.775 & 26.775 myself when I have something up and running. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0I try to avoid 10 meters or anywhere near it as much as I can. =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A 0=A0=A0=A0Landshark -- _ They don't.,,but bone legal hammie rigs, do. Your lack of communication skill has you selectively taking a post from years ago and misinterpreting it as having some type relation to his posts of today or what radio he runs today. Your calculated but ignorant and misdirected misinterpretation is that he was using the same radio back then as he does today. Assumptions have always added to your joyously expressed communication deficits and lack of intellect. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com