|
From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) (Twistedhed) wrote in news:27747-41B49239-184 @storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net: 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. He said what he said who care how long ago it was Only you. i said I wasnt George 5 years ago you still slobber about it daily, I do no such thing. You are so entwined and controlled, you mass delude yourself into believing the entire contingency picks on you. Get a self-image and fix that damged psyche and bruised ego. you still provide posts that I made years ago who knows who I am today, Stay relevant. you can't have it both ways you derilict in florida. Your anger and insults are confirmation of everything of which you are accused. _ =A0=A0Your 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. Yes Exactly. every assumption you made is incorrect it is all you have of your miserable life. Jockstrap on the wall and all. There is no escaping your penchant for men's underwear. Having my underwear on your mind for years is not a healthy thing. In fact, I, and the world, via Freud, am convinced heterosexual males do not frequently indulge in your obsessed topic. So remeber whatever I said in the past has no bearing on what I say today, alkl because Twistys says So. LOL,,,,,your dainty little hands are shaking. What Twists says, is the radio one used years ago has no relation to the one he uses today. Regardless who says it, you will not comprehend it, as you are preoccupied with the garment that houses my nads. Again,,,get help, it's out there. |
"Twistedhed" wrote in message ... From: pam (itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) (Twistedhed) wrote in news:27747-41B49239-184 @storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net: 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. He said what he said who care how long ago it was Only you. i said I wasnt George 5 years ago you still slobber about it daily, Ummm, George Busch WA3MOJ could stop using a radio, give up his Ham license, stop doing a lot of things, but he still has the same name. Unless he wants to go through the hassle of changing it legally. I do no such thing. You are so entwined and controlled, you mass delude yourself into believing the entire contingency picks on you. Get a self-image and fix that damged psyche and bruised ego. you still provide posts that I made years ago who knows who I am today, George Busch WA3MOJ, angry person with most of the people on Rec.Radio.CB, but he'll try to say it's everyone else that's angry at him......... LOL!!!! So remeber whatever I said in the past has no bearing on what I say today, alkl because Twistys says So. LOL,,,,,your dainty little hands are shaking. What Twists says, is the radio one used years ago has no relation to the one he uses today. Regardless who says it, you will not comprehend it, as you are preoccupied with the garment that houses my nads. Again,,,get help, it's out there. Just as long as Geo can go about his trollish ways on Rec.Radio.CB Landshark -- Is it so frightening to have me at your shoulder? Thunder and lightning couldn't be bolder. I'll write on your tombstone, ``I thank you for dinner.'' This game that we animals play is a winner. |
"Landshark" wrote in message . com... "Twistedhed" wrote in message ... From: pam (itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) (Twistedhed) wrote in news:27747-41B49239-184 @storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net: 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. He said what he said who care how long ago it was Only you. i said I wasnt George 5 years ago you still slobber about it daily, Ummm, George Busch WA3MOJ could stop using a radio, give up his Ham license, stop doing a lot of things, but he still has the same name. Unless he wants to go through the hassle of changing it legally. I do no such thing. You are so entwined and controlled, you mass delude yourself into believing the entire contingency picks on you. Get a self-image and fix that damged psyche and bruised ego. you still provide posts that I made years ago who knows who I am today, George Busch WA3MOJ, angry person with most of the people on Rec.Radio.CB, but he'll try to say it's everyone else that's angry at him......... LOL!!!! So remeber whatever I said in the past has no bearing on what I say today, alkl because Twistys says So. LOL,,,,,your dainty little hands are shaking. What Twists says, is the radio one used years ago has no relation to the one he uses today. Regardless who says it, you will not comprehend it, as you are preoccupied with the garment that houses my nads. Again,,,get help, it's out there. Just as long as Geo can go about his trollish ways on Rec.Radio.CB Landshark And if GEO was not WA3MOJ, the "real" owner of the call would have told us my now. I suggest stepping up the harassment of the call to bring it to a head. Either he is, and can't do squat about it, or he is not, and the real owner should know that GEO took ownership of it long ago, and played into having an innocent ham harassed. |
It's all pretty clear cut Lanshark. You don't pay the NAL and challenge it
in district court, or pay it, then go the appeal court route. If you read the whole quoted section that's what the court says, in legal speak, near the end. Anyway the original point made by several people was you can't challenge a NAL in court. I think that myth has been dispelled. You raised another issue, is it really worth the cost? You might have a point there. I guess it all depends on the about of the NAL. a couple of grand maybe not, but for $10K yeah I think it would if one feels confident they have a strong case. On a side point who were you replying to in regards to a post about a radio and refering to them using my name? I never mentioned anything about a radio, just a comment about you getting a NAL for first hand experience. I think you got me confused with somebody else. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
"U Know Who" wrote:
And if GEO was not WA3MOJ, the "real" owner of the call would have told us my now. I suggest stepping up the harassment of the call to bring it to a head. Either he is, and can't do squat about it, or he is not, and the real owner should know that GEO took ownership of it long ago, and played into having an innocent ham harassed. And Geo shouldn't mind since harASSment is his only motivation for posting to this group. |
itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote: "Landshark" wrote in news:mrttd.39840$6q2.28541 @newssvr14.news.prodigy.com: Ummm, George Busch WA3MOJ could stop using a radio, give up his Ham license, stop doing a lot of things, but he still has the same name. Unless he wants to go through the hassle of changing it legally. Yes If George Busch has the name george busch then his name is george Busch, I am not george busch you souped up homo. Is your dads call WA3MOJ? Why did you use that call in your sig? |
"U Know Who" wrote in message ... "Landshark" wrote in message . com... "Twistedhed" wrote in message ... From: pam (itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) (Twistedhed) wrote in news:27747-41B49239-184 @storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net: 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. He said what he said who care how long ago it was Only you. i said I wasnt George 5 years ago you still slobber about it daily, Ummm, George Busch WA3MOJ could stop using a radio, give up his Ham license, stop doing a lot of things, but he still has the same name. Unless he wants to go through the hassle of changing it legally. I do no such thing. You are so entwined and controlled, you mass delude yourself into believing the entire contingency picks on you. Get a self-image and fix that damged psyche and bruised ego. you still provide posts that I made years ago who knows who I am today, George Busch WA3MOJ, angry person with most of the people on Rec.Radio.CB, but he'll try to say it's everyone else that's angry at him......... LOL!!!! So remeber whatever I said in the past has no bearing on what I say today, alkl because Twistys says So. LOL,,,,,your dainty little hands are shaking. What Twists says, is the radio one used years ago has no relation to the one he uses today. Regardless who says it, you will not comprehend it, as you are preoccupied with the garment that houses my nads. Again,,,get help, it's out there. Just as long as Geo can go about his trollish ways on Rec.Radio.CB Landshark And if GEO was not WA3MOJ, the "real" owner of the call would have told us my now. I suggest stepping up the harassment of the call to bring it to a head. Either he is, and can't do squat about it, or he is not, and the real owner should know that GEO took ownership of it long ago, and played into having an innocent ham harassed. Dude if he didn't have to use a self addressed envelope, you know damn well George would have informed himself. Landshark -- Is it so frightening to have me at your shoulder? Thunder and lightning couldn't be bolder. I'll write on your tombstone, ``I thank you for dinner.'' This game that we animals play is a winner. |
"Steveo" wrote in message ... itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: "Landshark" wrote in news:mrttd.39840$6q2.28541 @newssvr14.news.prodigy.com: Ummm, George Busch WA3MOJ could stop using a radio, give up his Ham license, stop doing a lot of things, but he still has the same name. Unless he wants to go through the hassle of changing it legally. Yes If George Busch has the name george busch then his name is george Busch, I am not george busch you souped up homo. Is your dads call WA3MOJ? Why did you use that call in your sig? More than once, why did he admit it a half a dozen times he was him, because he is George Busch WA3MOJ. Also EBAy items he sold on there had his call. Landshark -- Is it so frightening to have me at your shoulder? Thunder and lightning couldn't be bolder. I'll write on your tombstone, ``I thank you for dinner.'' This game that we animals play is a winner. |
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message ... It's all pretty clear cut Lanshark. You don't pay the NAL and challenge it in district court, or pay it, then go the appeal court route. If you read the whole quoted section that's what the court says, in legal speak, near the end. Have you ever gotten a NAL? Have you sent back the paperwork to the FCC that goes with the NAL? If the answer is no, then you don't know. If it's yes then you know that you have to give them, Full name, Social Security #, employment info, assets info etc etc. As I have said in previous posts, I know two people that got them, both were found guilty, though they filed motions with the commission saying they weren't. They then were told that if they didn't pay, their wages would be garnished, liens on their houses. They were told by the FCC & a lawyer (They both had different lawyers) that was the only way or sue them in Federal court. Say what you want, but you can't just say "I don't agree, I want a trial" They start collecting the fine right away when the commission says you are guilty. Anyway the original point made by several people was you can't challenge a NAL in court. I think that myth has been dispelled. You raised another issue, is it really worth the cost? You might have a point there. I guess it all depends on the about of the NAL. a couple of grand maybe not, but for $10K yeah I think it would if one feels confident they have a strong case. Same point, spend $9,000.00 on a lawyer, for a $10,000.00 fine? One of the persons I know was fined $30,000.00 plus for his NAL, his lawyer told him to pay the fine or make arrangements for payments, he would be spending close to that to sue the government to reduce fines. You saw above what they did to him. On a side point who were you replying to in regards to a post about a radio and refering to them using my name? I never mentioned anything about a radio, just a comment about you getting a NAL for first hand experience. I think you got me confused with somebody else. Not really, I may have read into this more than what you meant: "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." But the way accusations fly in here, I figured you were saying I would feel better about operating a linear or export radio. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Landshark -- Is it so frightening to have me at your shoulder? Thunder and lightning couldn't be bolder. I'll write on your tombstone, ``I thank you for dinner.'' This game that we animals play is a winner. |
itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote: Steveo wrote in news:20041208065604.290 : itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: "Landshark" wrote in news:mrttd.39840$6q2.28541 @newssvr14.news.prodigy.com: Ummm, George Busch WA3MOJ could stop using a radio, give up his Ham license, stop doing a lot of things, but he still has the same name. Unless he wants to go through the hassle of changing it legally. Yes If George Busch has the name george busch then his name is george Busch, I am not george busch you souped up homo. Is your dads call WA3MOJ? Why did you use that call in your sig? I didnt use any call in my sig, you assclowns were quick to jump the gun when those random letters and numbers were in advertly at the bottom of my post. More lies from WA3MOJ. btw, it wasnt a sig file braniac. You ended your post with it. |
"Landshark" wrote:
"Steveo" wrote in message ... itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: "Landshark" wrote in news:mrttd.39840$6q2.28541 @newssvr14.news.prodigy.com: Ummm, George Busch WA3MOJ could stop using a radio, give up his Ham license, stop doing a lot of things, but he still has the same name. Unless he wants to go through the hassle of changing it legally. Yes If George Busch has the name george busch then his name is george Busch, I am not george busch you souped up homo. Is your dads call WA3MOJ? Why did you use that call in your sig? More than once, why did he admit it a half a dozen times he was him, because he is George Busch WA3MOJ. Also EBAy items he sold on there had his call. Landshark Bagged ant tagged! |
itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote in : Steveo wrote in news:20041208065604.290 : itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: "Landshark" wrote in news:mrttd.39840$6q2.28541 @newssvr14.news.prodigy.com: Ummm, George Busch WA3MOJ could stop using a radio, give up his Ham license, stop doing a lot of things, but he still has the same name. Unless he wants to go through the hassle of changing it legally. Yes If George Busch has the name george busch then his name is george Busch, I am not george busch you souped up homo. Is your dads call WA3MOJ? Why did you use that call in your sig? I didnt use any call in my sig, you assclowns were quick to jump the gun when those random letters and numbers were in advertly at the bottom of my post. btw, it wasnt a sig file braniac. "random letters and numbers" --- same old spin..yet again... Heeyahahahahaha!!! |
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:10:00 -0000, BP
wrote: itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote in : Steveo wrote in news:20041208065604.290 : itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: "Landshark" wrote in news:mrttd.39840$6q2.28541 @newssvr14.news.prodigy.com: Ummm, George Busch WA3MOJ could stop using a radio, give up his Ham license, stop doing a lot of things, but he still has the same name. Unless he wants to go through the hassle of changing it legally. Yes If George Busch has the name george busch then his name is george Busch, I am not george busch you souped up homo. Is your dads call WA3MOJ? Why did you use that call in your sig? I didnt use any call in my sig, you assclowns were quick to jump the gun when those random letters and numbers were in advertly at the bottom of my post. btw, it wasnt a sig file braniac. "random letters and numbers" --- same old spin..yet again... Heeyahahahahaha!!! Isn't that how the F.C.C. assigns their callsigns.? Kind of like a lotto drawing? |
|
From:
"Landshark" wrote: Have you ever gotten a NAL? =A0=A0I know two people that got them, both were found guilty, One of the persons I know was fined $30,000.00 plus for his NAL, Mark lets stop for a minute and discuss why you know so many people who have gotten NALs snip Hahaha,,,you ain't the moderator despite your pleas for status and the power to actually have some type control over this group. You do not have permission to change this topic to one that seeks an answer to your unhealthy curiosities about other folk's personal lives...hehe,,deal with it and get the hell over yourself, genius. Go buy a law book, felon. |
"itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge" wrote in message ... Steveo wrote in news:20041208065604.290 : itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: "Landshark" wrote in news:mrttd.39840$6q2.28541 @newssvr14.news.prodigy.com: Ummm, George Busch WA3MOJ could stop using a radio, give up his Ham license, stop doing a lot of things, but he still has the same name. Unless he wants to go through the hassle of changing it legally. Yes If George Busch has the name george busch then his name is george Busch, I am not george busch you souped up homo. Is your dads call WA3MOJ? Why did you use that call in your sig? I didnt use any call in my sig, you assclowns were quick to jump the gun when those random letters and numbers were in advertly at the bottom of my post. btw, it wasnt a sig file braniac. He has a point. Most of his sentences and thoughts are composed of random letters and numbers. It could happen. :-) |
On 08 Dec 2004 11:35:41 GMT, Steveo
wrote: "U Know Who" wrote: And if GEO was not WA3MOJ, the "real" owner of the call would have told us my now. I suggest stepping up the harassment of the call to bring it to a head. Either he is, and can't do squat about it, or he is not, and the real owner should know that GEO took ownership of it long ago, and played into having an innocent ham harassed. And Geo shouldn't mind since harASSment is his only motivation for posting to this group. Oh and wanting to suck up to icecold |
"U Know Who" wrote:
"itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge" wrote in message ... Steveo wrote in news:20041208065604.290 Is your dads call WA3MOJ? Why did you use that call in your sig? I didnt use any call in my sig, you assclowns were quick to jump the gun when those random letters and numbers were in advertly at the bottom of my post. btw, it wasnt a sig file braniac. He has a point. Most of his sentences and thoughts are composed of random letters and numbers. It could happen. :-) Dood is on the brink. |
"Landshark" wrote in message om... "Leland C. Scott" wrote in message ... It's all pretty clear cut Lanshark. You don't pay the NAL and challenge it in district court, or pay it, then go the appeal court route. If you read the whole quoted section that's what the court says, in legal speak, near the end. Have you ever gotten a NAL? NO. Have you sent back the paperwork to the FCC that goes with the NAL? If the answer is no, then you don't know. If it's yes then you know that you have to give them, Full name, Social Security #, employment info, assets info etc etc. As I have said in previous posts, I know two people that got them, both were found guilty, though they filed motions with the commission saying they weren't. They then were told that if they didn't pay, their wages would be garnished, liens on their houses. They were told by the FCC & a lawyer (They both had different lawyers) that was the only way or sue them in Federal court. So they had crummy attorneys. Doesn't change the facts of the opinion written by the appeals court in the AT&T case. If you go back and read that section again you'll see that the FCC was mistaken about how things work. The FCC had issues with the points raised by the AT&T NAL yet the court agreed with AT&T. It seems to me that your buddy's attorney likely brought the "party line" from the FCC. It wouldn't be the first time that a lawyer missed rulings in case law that would have materially helped their client. Happens more often that you think. Say what you want, but you can't just say "I don't agree, I want a trial" They start collecting the fine right away when the commission says you are guilty. As you say "try", until they have to go to court. Then it's a new ball game. Anyway the original point made by several people was you can't challenge a NAL in court. I think that myth has been dispelled. You raised another issue, is it really worth the cost? You might have a point there. I guess it all depends on the about of the NAL. a couple of grand maybe not, but for $10K yeah I think it would if one feels confident they have a strong case. Same point, spend $9,000.00 on a lawyer, for a $10,000.00 fine? One of the persons I know was fined $30,000.00 plus for his NAL, his lawyer told him to pay the fine or make arrangements for payments, he would be spending close to that to sue the government to reduce fines. You saw above what they did to him. The expense of going to court is a wholly different issue. I'll agree with you that it could be an expensive option. And at times it doesn't make sense to pursue the legal course of action. On a side point who were you replying to in regards to a post about a radio and refering to them using my name? I never mentioned anything about a radio, just a comment about you getting a NAL for first hand experience. I think you got me confused with somebody else. Not really, I may have read into this more than what you meant: "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." But the way accusations fly in here, I figured you were saying I would feel better about operating a linear or export radio. No. 8-)) My point was you could pay a lawyer to get the same information here for a whole lot less. By the way what did that guy do to get a $30K NAL anyway? Must have really ticked somebody off big time. The normal forfeitures are around $7500 for the kinds of illegal crap people do that gets mentioned here in the group. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
Lancer wrote in :
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:10:00 -0000, BP wrote: itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote in : Steveo wrote in news:20041208065604.290 : itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: "Landshark" wrote in news:mrttd.39840$6q2.28541 @newssvr14.news.prodigy.com: Ummm, George Busch WA3MOJ could stop using a radio, give up his Ham license, stop doing a lot of things, but he still has the same name. Unless he wants to go through the hassle of changing it legally. Yes If George Busch has the name george busch then his name is george Busch, I am not george busch you souped up homo. Is your dads call WA3MOJ? Why did you use that call in your sig? I didnt use any call in my sig, you assclowns were quick to jump the gun when those random letters and numbers were in advertly at the bottom of my post. btw, it wasnt a sig file braniac. "random letters and numbers" --- same old spin..yet again... Heeyahahahahaha!!! Isn't that how the F.C.C. assigns their callsigns.? Kind of like a lotto drawing? They (FCC) don't seem to be too picky, ..do they.. ?? Hell!..If Geo and dougay got callsigns, then they'd probably issue callsigns to any sleazy reprobate, creep, that wanders in from the streets and back alleys... |
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message ... It's all pretty clear cut Lanshark. You don't pay the NAL and challenge it in district court, or pay it, then go the appeal court route. If you read the whole quoted section that's what the court says, in legal speak, near the end. Anyway the original point made by several people was you can't challenge a NAL in court. I think that myth has been dispelled. You raised another issue, is it really worth the cost? You might have a point there. I guess it all depends on the about of the NAL. a couple of grand maybe not, but for $10K yeah I think it would if one feels confident they have a strong case. On a side point who were you replying to in regards to a post about a radio and refering to them using my name? I never mentioned anything about a radio, just a comment about you getting a NAL for first hand experience. I think you got me confused with somebody else. -- Leland C. Scott when a hearing is being held for some reason other than the assessment of a forfeiture (such as, to determine whether a renewal application should be granted) and a forfeiture is to be considered as an alternative or in addition to any other Commission action. However, these procedures may be followed whenever the Commission, in its discretion, determines that they will better serve the ends of justice. Now take a look here (1) Before imposing a forfeiture penalty under the provisions of this paragraph, the Commission will issue a notice of opportunity for hearing. The hearing will be a full evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge, conducted under procedures set out in subpart B of this part, including procedures for appeal and review of initial decisions. A final Commission order assessing a forfeiture under the provisions of this paragraph is subject to judicial review under section 402(a) of the Communications Act. Notice it doesn't say a court, it says an "administrative law judge" Before the commission. (2) If, after a forfeiture penalty is imposed and not appealed or after a court enters final judgment in favor of the Commission, the forfeiture is not paid, the Commission will refer the matter to the Department of Justice for collection. In an action to recover the forfeiture, the validity and appropriateness of the order imposing the forfeiture are not subject to review. Notice the turn it over to the DOJ & Treasury dept, try to tell them I'm going to appeal it to a court of law. (3) Where the possible assessment of a forfeiture is an issue in a hearing case to determine which pending application should be granted, and the applicant facing a potential forfeiture is dismissed pursuant to a settlement agreement or otherwise, and the presiding judge has not made a determination on the forfeiture issue, the order of dismissal shall be forwarded to the attention of the full Commission. Within the time provided by § 1.117, the Commission may, on its own motion, proceed with a determination of whether a forfeiture against the dismissing applicant is warranted. If the Commission so proceeds, it will provide the applicant with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the forfeiture issue (see paragraph (f)(3) of this section) and make a determination under the procedures outlined in paragraph (f) of this section. (h) Payment. The forfeiture should be paid by check or money order drawn to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The Commission does not accept responsibility for cash payments sent through the mails. The check or money order should be mailed to: Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482. (i) Remission and mitigation. In its discretion, the Commission, or its designee, may remit or reduce any forfeiture imposed under this section. After issuance of a forfeiture order, any request that it do so shall be submittedas a petition for reconsideration pursuant to § 1.106. (j) Effective date. Amendments to paragraph (b) of this section implementing Pub. L. No. 101-239 are effective December 19, 1989. [43 FR 49308, Oct. 23, 1978, as amended at 48 FR 15631, Apr. 12, 1983; 50 FR 40855, Oct. 7, 1985; 55 FR 25605, June 22, 1990; 56 FR 25638, June 5, 1991; 57 FR 23161, June 2, 1992; 57 FR 47006, Oct. 14, 1992; 57 FR 48333, Oct. 23, 1992; 58 FR 6896, Feb. 3, 1993; 58 FR 27473, May 10, 1993; 62 FR 4918, Feb. 3, 1997; 62 FR 43475, Aug. 14, 1997; 63 FR 26992, May 15, 1998; 65 FR 60868, Oct. 13, 2000] § 1.83 Applications for radio operator licenses. (a) Application filing procedures for amateur radio operator licenses are set forth in part 97 of this chapter. (b) Application filing procedures for commercial radio operator licenses are set forth in part 13 of this chapter. Detailed information about application forms, filing procedures, and where to file applications for commercial radio operator licenses is contained in the bulletin ''Commercial Radio Operator Licenses and Permits.'' This bulletin is available from the Commission's Forms Distribution Center by calling 1-800-418-FORM (3676). [47 FR 53378, Nov. 26, 1982, as amended at 58 FR 13021, Mar. 9, 1993; 63 FR 68920, Dec. 14, 1998] § 1.85 Suspension of operator licenses. Whenever grounds exist for suspension of an operator license, as provided |
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message ... "Landshark" wrote in message om... "Leland C. Scott" wrote in message ... It's all pretty clear cut Lanshark. You don't pay the NAL and challenge it in district court, or pay it, then go the appeal court route. If you read the whole quoted section that's what the court says, in legal speak, near the end. Have you ever gotten a NAL? NO. Have you sent back the paperwork to the FCC that goes with the NAL? If the answer is no, then you don't know. If it's yes then you know that you have to give them, Full name, Social Security #, employment info, assets info etc etc. As I have said in previous posts, I know two people that got them, both were found guilty, though they filed motions with the commission saying they weren't. They then were told that if they didn't pay, their wages would be garnished, liens on their houses. They were told by the FCC & a lawyer (They both had different lawyers) that was the only way or sue them in Federal court. So they had crummy attorneys. Doesn't change the facts of the opinion written by the appeals court in the AT&T case. If you go back and read that section again you'll see that the FCC was mistaken about how things work. The FCC had issues with the points raised by the AT&T NAL yet the court agreed with AT&T. It seems to me that your buddy's attorney likely brought the "party line" from the FCC. It wouldn't be the first time that a lawyer missed rulings in case law that would have materially helped their client. Happens more often that you think. Say what you want, but you can't just say "I don't agree, I want a trial" They start collecting the fine right away when the commission says you are guilty. As you say "try", until they have to go to court. Then it's a new ball game. Anyway the original point made by several people was you can't challenge a NAL in court. I think that myth has been dispelled. You raised another issue, is it really worth the cost? You might have a point there. I guess it all depends on the about of the NAL. a couple of grand maybe not, but for $10K yeah I think it would if one feels confident they have a strong case. Same point, spend $9,000.00 on a lawyer, for a $10,000.00 fine? One of the persons I know was fined $30,000.00 plus for his NAL, his lawyer told him to pay the fine or make arrangements for payments, he would be spending close to that to sue the government to reduce fines. You saw above what they did to him. The expense of going to court is a wholly different issue. I'll agree with you that it could be an expensive option. And at times it doesn't make sense to pursue the legal course of action. On a side point who were you replying to in regards to a post about a radio and refering to them using my name? I never mentioned anything about a radio, just a comment about you getting a NAL for first hand experience. I think you got me confused with somebody else. Not really, I may have read into this more than what you meant: "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." But the way accusations fly in here, I figured you were saying I would feel better about operating a linear or export radio. No. 8-)) My point was you could pay a lawyer to get the same information here for a whole lot less. By the way what did that guy do to get a $30K NAL anyway? Must have really ticked somebody off big time. The normal forfeitures are around $7500 for the kinds of illegal crap people do that gets mentioned here in the group. -- Leland C. Scott Well, he was running a home base set up, supposedly 10,000 watts. Down the street, maybe a couple of blocks was the local PBS station. They told him that he was coming over practically everything in the station, I'd believe it. I wasn't there, but I saw the NAL and the judgment, so that's why I know what they said. Take a read here, it's not a case it the direct rules http://tinyurl.com/6ec86 Landshark -- Is it so frightening to have me at your shoulder? Thunder and lightning couldn't be bolder. I'll write on your tombstone, ``I thank you for dinner.'' This game that we animals play is a winner. |
WA3MOJ-itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote: Really now I have an ebay account ... Laugher..can you post it so I can see what I have bought and sold. Do you still have your 32 pill, prozac? |
itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote: You ended your post with it. so what does that mean. It's your dads call? |
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 21:40:48 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote: Steveo wrote in news:20041208102852.677 : itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: Steveo wrote in news:20041208065604.290 : itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: "Landshark" wrote in news:mrttd.39840$6q2.28541 @newssvr14.news.prodigy.com: Ummm, George Busch WA3MOJ could stop using a radio, give up his Ham license, stop doing a lot of things, but he still has the same name. Unless he wants to go through the hassle of changing it legally. Yes If George Busch has the name george busch then his name is george Busch, I am not george busch you souped up homo. Is your dads call WA3MOJ? Why did you use that call in your sig? I didnt use any call in my sig, you assclowns were quick to jump the gun when those random letters and numbers were in advertly at the bottom of my post. More lies from WA3MOJ. who is wa3moj btw, it wasnt a sig file braniac. You ended your post with it. so what does that mean. I end my post with assclown does that mean it is a Ham call sign?? Yep, same thing assclown ^^^^^^^Ham radio call sign |
itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote: Steveo wrote in news:20041209001556.279 : itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge wrote: You ended your post with it. so what does that mean. It's your dads call? thought I was Prozac, make up your mind you clueless assclown. What would that have to do with your dad being WA3MOJ, George Busch? |
"Landshark" wrote in message om... Well, he was running a home base set up, supposedly 10,000 watts. Down the street, maybe a couple of blocks was the local PBS station. They told him that he was coming over practically everything in the station, I'd believe it. Most consumers electronics now days isn't sheilded as well as it used to be. Now almost everything comes in a plastic box. Metal cabinets are disappearing more and more. That cheap spray on aluminium crap, I've seen used on the inside of those plastic boxes, I don't think works nearly as well as a good metal cabinet IMHO. Maybe Frank would like to comment on this. I should think he would have some experience along this line. I wasn't there, but I saw the NAL and the judgment, so that's why I know what they said. But why $30K? That seems far above what you would expect. What did he do, give the FCC a hard time? Take a read here, it's not a case it the direct rules http://tinyurl.com/6ec86 The quote below is from that section above. ----------------------------------------------------------- (1) Before imposing a forfeiture penalty under the provisions of this paragraph, the Commission will issue a notice of opportunity for hearing. The hearing will be a full evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge, conducted under procedures set out in subpart B of this part, including procedures for appeal and review of initial decisions. A final Commission order assessing a forfeiture under the provisions of this paragraph is subject to judicial review under section 402(a) of the Communications Act. (2) If, after a forfeiture penalty is imposed and not appealed or after a court enters final judgment in favor of the Commission, the forfeiture is not paid, the Commission will refer the matter to the Department of Justice for collection. In an action to recover the forfeiture, the validity and appropriateness of the order imposing the forfeiture are not subject to review. ---------------------------------------------- While there are some conditions that the FCC says has to be fulfilled to qualify, it's not the whole story. What you posted are the rules, sure, just as the US Constitution are rules too. However as we know most court cases cite "case law" where prior higher court decisions, which have interpreted "the rules", are used to support the current legal argument. That's what happened in the AT&T case. The AT&T case was a NAL for "phone slamming", and the appeals court disagreed with the FCC's interpretation of it's own rules. Unfortunately for the FCC the appeals court decision is what counts. A court decision at this level can be cited in other court cases to the detriment of the FCC. -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com