"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
news
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
news

"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
news

"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
news
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
news
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 =---