"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


Still Dead link.

As Frank has stated, when are you going to show a court
case where someone was issued a NAL and went to court
to contest it, not before the FCC.

Landshark


--
That does suck..sometimes you're the
windshield..sometimes you're the bug.

From: (Leland=A0C.=A0Scott)
"Twistedhed" wrote in message
... Large
corporations pay fines opposed to having their folks go to jail. The
obvious exceptions were the Michael Milkens.

You forgot about the savings and loan

scandals,

I did no such thing. Familiarize yourself with Michael Milken.

the Enron executives going to jail,

Martha Stewart etc.

Like I said,,the obvious exceptions are where there were victims in
their crimes and someone suffered a monetary loss. Martha Stewart
deserved her jail sentence. That cash she profited from was someone
else's loss,,most likely a smaller investor. The smaller investor lost
his investment from Martha's wrong doing. Although the courts did not
present a proper case involving insider trading, Stewart was convicted
of obstruction for lying, which she readily and most certainly did
commit in effort to conceal her illlegal deal borne of inside
information.
_
That's not how it works with franchises.
Franchises are required to carry certain items.

But not all items.

Come again? When one opens a McDonalds franchise, yes, they are required
to carry of the items one finds on the traditional McDonald's menu. Ask
hot tempered Mayner about it..he has experience with Burger King,,he'll
tell you the same thing.

How many time have you heard, but never

really paid attention to, the statement at the

end of commercials etc. that states "At

participating stores"? Just because it is a

franchise doesn't automatically mean they

carry everything a company own store does.

What you speak of is an exception, and is referred to as a "promotion".

In fact I've been in many Pilot Travel centers

and I specifically check the two-way radio

section out just for fun.



Well, far be it from another to criticize how you find your "fun".


Funny how some of

them you don't see even one of those import

radios the FCC has fined Pilot over.


And even funnier still,,,I was on the road since ornithological dining
day and went to the Pilot
I sometimes stop at,,,,,,,,nothing changed.
Besides,,,it has nothing to do with the requirements. More
realistically, they sold out. Check them again next month after their
new deliveries are in.
_
The fines are paid and its business as usual. These companies usually
don't fight these fines. In fact, there is no large corporation has
lodged such a court room battle (which you speak of concerning radio
gear, amps, etc) for the exact reason you mention...it is much easier
tand cheaper to pay the fine and continue,,,,,business-as-usual.

After they remove the offending product.

Not the corporations.

Look how skittish the TV stations are after the

Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction". It was

only a $550K fine to the network.

I'm sure it

didn't dent their bank account very much. It

wasn't much bigger than the fine that Pilot got.
The networks are running scared about what

they show on the air to the point where some

local stations wouldn't air the uncut movie

"Saving Private Ryan" for veterans day

because they were afraid they would get

slapped with another fine.

Umm, that's the first time I heard that. In fact, that was not even the
reason given by most media outlets for not showing that movie. The
stations aren't worried about the fines, they are worried about losing
their licenses. An article appeared in last Wednesday's Times affirming
this. Concerning the showing of PR, it was right before the election and
the decision to show a realistic movie portraying the realistic manner
in which war is conducted right before the election was a no-brainer. I
visited a website that illustrated,,,no,,PROVED that all the affiliates
that refused to show the movie were born of political agendas..IE:
republican controlled media outlet (such as R Murdoch). You may research
this yourself, but I am telling you that ALL the affiliates that refused
to conform (illustrating yet ANOTHER non-conservative trait) to the
regular scheduled broadcasting were of political agenda.

--

Leland C. Scott

KC8LDO

Wireless Network

Mobile computing

on the go brought

to you by Micro$oft


_
Those radios are still easily ordered from Pilot, even if they aren't on
the shelf.

KC8LDO wrote:
I bring this up as a point because the FCC

said they will not issue such an order unless

directed by Congress by way of law making.


Which means nothing more than the FCC's refusal to do so. They merely
invoked Congress as their reasoning for not doing so. It's called
passing-the-buck, something the FCC excels at and has for years and
years and years.


So as you can see they can't make up any

rules they like.


You are cornfusing rules for laws, again.=A0=A0
The FCC saying they need congress for such matters is bull****. They can
indeed enact rules to their liking,,,,they already ahve the authority to
do such by Congress,,,such is part of the reason for existence of the
FCC. They most certainly can clarify their own rule without an act of
congress.
Look, the bottom line is they don't *want* to clarify this rule, as it
would bring only another issue to the FCC which would require involvment
and spent time and money.

From: (Leland=A0C.=A0Scott)
"Twistedhed" wrote in message
... But you MUST
consider the probability factor. What you propose is deviation from the
norm concerning the FCC.

Not really. Take a look at the other

enforcement actions for such things as tower

height and lighting etc.

Toward corporations and commercial stations only. The only deviation
from the FCC regarding enforcement is against commercial broadcasters.
The bar was raised.


You have a better chance of
hitting the lotto. Not going to happen. You are discounting the monetary
factor, here. I believe you are missing the monetary picture here of why
the huge companies stay in business year after year when only the
littles ones are closed and put out of business.

The FCC's aim is not to put anybody out of

business, but to bring them in to compliance

with FCC regulations.

Their aim is besides the point,,,heck, you should know that as long as
you have been around radio. Everyone knows they aren't truly concerned
with enforcement at this level,,,yet, that is supposed to be their
"aim". It's a wink-wink type thing and action is taken ONLY when
repeated complaints are lodged against individuals. IF their aim was
true enforcement, do you not believe for one second the FCC might have
some enforcement initiated on their own against such ops? After
all,,,one doesn't need look far. Large fines cripple small businesses,
the larger ones pay it and do business as usual. If you check the thread
properly you will find it wasn't I who initially mentioned the FCC
closing these businesses and putting them out of business or that it was
ever any "aim" of the FCC,,,I merely responded to the claim.
_
Cite a single case involving the FCC tossing a white collar exec in jail
for a similar charge.

I don't have any at my finger tips, but that

doesn't mean that there aren't any.

Giving the benefit of doubt to a negative that exists only in thought is
not logic nor scientific thought and thus is immediately discarded.


And if by chance there are non there is

always a first time. As they say with investing

"past performance is no indication of future

returns",

I always heard the opposite. In fact, that is exactly why blue chip
stock continues to be a recommended staple in anyone's portfolio who is
seeking safe, conservative investments. Ask any broker or financial
advisor WHY they recomment these stocks,,,,,,,,it's "based on past
performance".

I was referring to lost profits from removing the
product line from their travel centers.

Yes, that was understood and my reply stands. They will not remove the
product line. They will pay the fine and continue.
_
Your position is based upon suppositions, the "if" factor, and the
assumption the FCC is changing the manner in whcih they operate, as
opposed to reality,,..business-as-usual within the FCC and minimal
enforcement.

I remember comments being offered up a year
or two ago along the line that the FCC wasn't

going to do anything about 10m intruders.

And I say you are wrong. If anyone posted such a thing, it was a sock
puppet. Post it.


Looks like they are doing something now.

They have ALWAYS taken after unauthorized transmissions on the hammie
bands whenever they receive complaints. Only the unitiated to hammie
radio are unfamiliar with the inner going-ons at the FCC regarding radio
enforcement.

Assuming that the FCC won't get more

aggressive in the future is not being smart.

Assuming anything isn't smart.,,even the opposite.

All it takes is a change in the leadership of the

FCC. Imagine if a new FCC chairmen is

appointed, and is a Ham with an ax to grind

about the present situation?
=A0
The chairman yields no influence over the commission to which the the
others do not have access.

Hypothetically speaking, to answer your hypothetical juxtaposition
regarding the chair vs. the commission....such a person wouldn't be able
to rise to such prominence. If they had an ax to grind, they are clearly
are not in charge of their emotions. Such a person with a communication
deficit as you allude would never be in charge of the agency responsible
for governing such communcations.
_
=A0In fact, Riley has written the FCC considers many of these
complainants a pain-in-the-ass..he didn't come out and say those exact
words,

Well what exactly did he say?

You paraphrased him regarding hammies with an "ax to grind". He claimed
"these type are often worse than the offenders." Hell, ask Jerry what he
said,,,,,,,he knows it well because he and I discussed this exact ordeal
when Hollingsworth said it. He wasn't too happy with it then, either.
Google it,,,it's there.
JO took the same reaction to Riley's words that you are now, only he had
no choice but to not challenge it because he read the words for himself.

I'm sure others

would like to read the comments for

themselves and make their own

determination. I know I would. I have been to

ham fests where he was a

speaker, and I don't get the impression that

you got.

Others have read what he said AND heard it. He posted it on the
rainreport when he was addressing this subject a few years ago when he
was still doing the rainreport. In fact, a quick archive google search
will reveal this exact conversation and thread in this group regarding
his words back when he said them.

_
but DID say these type hammies (Oxendine)
are often worse than the offenders themselves. An incredible statement
from the head enforcement officer at the FCC.

And just what "type" is that?

Someone whose world is constructed upon failed agitation attempts and
using hammie radio as their personal tool of harassment.
Proof positive: Please point to the post in any of the hammie groups
where k4kwh posts hammie enforcements.
In fact, when the hammie busts are compared to the cb busts, it is no
small wonder the Oxendines of the world outnumber the cbers getting
busted for stupid behavior on a regular basis. Truth is in the numbers.
_
I'm not an apologist for Jerry but I see his

point.

Then by all means, explain his lack of interest in posting hammie
enforcements in the hammie groups. His actions, much like your views,
are based in personal emotive response and based upon personal likes and
dislikes..his dislike for cb, as well as your own.


If he has to be a thorn in the FCC's Butt, so

be it.



Sure,,and that's exactly what some freebanders may reply to you when you
demand an explanation of why they do what they do.



I have yet to see any government

agency that didn't perform better if wasn't for

some citizen getting on their case about doing

the job they are being paid to do.


Really? Here are but a few examples...the IRS (self-explanatory), NASA
(NASA's failure rate is at all time-high regaridng the space program),
Bureau of Land Management (millions of acres not accounted for (for
which money was allocated AND taken), millions more damaged because of
bureaucratic ineptitude despite mulitudes of scholars, scientists,
commissioned study groups, etc. complaining AND testifying before
congress to the incompetency of the government. The FDA (A pill
manufactured by Eli Lilly is sent to all parts of the world for
labeling. Many originate here in the US before being shipped off. The
same pill that is manufactured here, can end up in Canada, cheaper than
it is here in the US. The FDA does not permit the RE-importation of this
US-manufactured pill from Canada, and invoke a multitude of fraudulent
reasons of why one can not do this) has been under not only consumer
attack and complaints for years, but has absolutely zero supporters on
this specific matter, EXCEPT for the US government via the unAmerican
Bushwhacker. The INS, the CIA, and the FBI...again,,all
self-explanatory. See 911 related issues. But let's focus on the
incompetence of the FCC and those who have this ax to grind you speak
of, such as you astutely mentioned in replying to my comments concerning
Oxendine.
--
Leland C. Scott

KC8LDO

Wireless Network

Mobile computing

on the go brought

to you by Micro$oft

KC8LDO wrote:
I talked to a Ham buddy who just so happens

to be a cop.

He said most cops don't bother with truckers

because they don't know enough about

trucking law specifically so they don't like to

mess with them.



Your podunk leo friend is a tragedy...he must be a local cop of a small
town. ALL HP officers are well versed in such law regarding carriers and
laws pertaining to the road. The DOT is for getting particular. The HPs,
whether county or state, ALL "mess" with the truckers and actively
enforce speeding truckers in addition to cars.


The other thing that I have to give the truckers
is it sure doesn't make much sense to have

trucks going 55 MPH, posted truck speed limit,
when 4 wheelers are doing 70 MPH,



Learn yourself about stopping distance. The difference between the two,
the truck vs. the car, should be more than enough to satisfy this issue
that "doesn't make sense" to you.


It would make more sense for all the traffic to

be doing roughly the same speed.

And we can drive the same vehicle, live in the same cookie cutter
houses, and wear the same uniform,,er, clothes.

I also think the cops don't bust the truckers to

much for speeding because if they did then it

would be a real pain with the 4 wheelers

having to pass them.



????



With the truckers moving at about the same

speed as the rest of the traffic, without getting

too far above the posted truck speed limit, the

need for passing and possible accidents is

reduced.




It's not the truckers causing the problems on the road. It's people in
cars that don't understand big trucks need almost the length of two
football fields to stop safely at the speed limit.

"Twistedhed" wrote in message
...

Learn yourself about stopping distance. The difference between the two,
the truck vs. the car, should be more than enough to satisfy this issue
that "doesn't make sense" to you.



I agree mostly here. But with a tounge-in-cheek comment.

Can a big-truck stop faster than a four wheeler when they a

a. Higher off the ground and can see farther ahead
b. Logged more miles than 99% of all 4 wheelers (experience)
c. Less likely to be applying make-up, chatting on the phone, while beating
the kid in the back seat, and reading the paper.

All while the person in the SUV is trying their damndest to jerk this top
heavy vehicle around a big-truck going 20MPH slower while getting it on damn
near two wheels.

I'm no Billy Big-Rigger, But I've been on the road long enough to see first
hand, understand, and respect the needs of truckers.

"100% of everything we touch has come to us at some time on a freight
hauler." I've never seen this printed on the back of a trailer, someone
should!

Chad

"Landshark" wrote in message
news

"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

Then try this one.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...47cfr1_03.html

Plenty of stuff to read. The details are all spelled out there. You will
have to do some jumping around from subsection to subsection. When you're
done I think you'll have a better feel for how the FCC goes about it's
business. It's not as Macavelian as Frank and the others would have you
believe. There is legal recourse, in front of an Administrate Law Judge. And
If you don't like the results then you can go to an Appeals Court. The FCC
does have Congressional oversight. In fact many Federal agencies have a
Congressional oversight committee that directs their actions. We the public
may not hear about it much, but then again how may people really have that
much interest in how their government works to go and find out? Most people
don't even know who their state's congressional members are by name.

Some may complain that the court hearings are done under the FCC. This gets
back to what I mentioned in another post about what is "a court of law". I
didn't make that statement lightly. It was meant to get one thinking about
the subject. Twist provided a quickie definition. The proceedings may not
fit everybody's stereotype of "a court of law" but it is one never the
less. You can also play all the word games you want too, by calling the FCC
regulations "rules", but they are officially "administrate law", which any
attorney can tell you.

Let me know what you think after you had time to read the material. I'm not
going to debate it any further since it's all there for anybody to read. I
will admit some of the explanations are a bit confusing. I suppose it would
help to have a legal background to fully comprehend the details.


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

Wireless Network
Mobile computing
on the go brought
to you by Micro$oft

"Twistedhed" wrote in message
...
Your podunk leo friend is a tragedy...he must be a local cop of a small
town.

No he just got a promotion and is in charge of security at the airport.
Before that he did road patrol work for a number of years.

ALL HP officers are well versed in such law regarding carriers and
laws pertaining to the road.

You know all the HYW cops? I talked to a real one and he says otherwise.
There is a big difference between knowing the ordinary motor vehicle code
verses the very specific regulations that govern interstate and intrastate
trucking.

The DOT is for getting particular. The HPs,
whether county or state, ALL "mess" with the truckers and actively
enforce speeding truckers in addition to cars.

Tell that to the buggers doing 70+ MPH in Georgia passing me like I'm
standing still. Some of those mothers must be going 80 down the hills.



The other thing that I have to give the truckers
is it sure doesn't make much sense to have

trucks going 55 MPH, posted truck speed limit,
when 4 wheelers are doing 70 MPH,



Learn yourself about stopping distance. The difference between the two,
the truck vs. the car, should be more than enough to satisfy this issue
that "doesn't make sense" to you.

So the truck drivers aren't smart enough to leave more following distance
when they're speeding? Gee some of them don't even do it at 55.



It would make more sense for all the traffic to

be doing roughly the same speed.

And we can drive the same vehicle, live in the same cookie cutter
houses, and wear the same uniform,,er, clothes.

I don't know about you but IMHO it would be safer if we didn't have the
frequent lane changes. Every time somebody changes lanes there is the chance
they don't look first and then bang, and that goes for both 4 wheelers and
18 wheelers. Having everybody doing roughly the same speed would greatly
reduce the need for passing.

It's not the truckers causing the problems on the road. It's people in
cars that don't understand big trucks need almost the length of two
football fields to stop safely at the speed limit.

The truckers are as much to blame as the drivers of the 4 wheelers. I've
personally seen those huge chrome grills completely filling my rear window
too often. If they fill my rear window they are MOST DEFIANTLY TOO CLOSE. I
just had to put up with this B.S. on 401 the past couple of days on a trip
from Detroit to Woodstock Ontario Canada. I'm doing 100 KmPH, the posted
limit, but oh no that wasn't fast enough for the truckers who were doing
routinely 110 KmPH to 120 KmPH. I had them just 4 to 5 feet off the rear
bumper of the rental car, then they pass me by cutting me off by leaving
about 5 feet between me and the end of their trailer when they serve back in
to my lane. The satisfaction I get is when they end up in the ditch on the
side, or in the median ditch, from losing control of their rigs on the
slippery pavement with windy conditions while driving like idiots too fast.
That highway, 401, is well known for that in Canada.

--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

Wireless Network
Mobile computing
on the go brought
to you by Micro$oft

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message
...

"Landshark" wrote in message
news

"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

Then try this one.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...47cfr1_03.html

Plenty of stuff to read. The details are all spelled out there. You will
have to do some jumping around from subsection to subsection. When you're
done I think you'll have a better feel for how the FCC goes about it's
business. It's not as Macavelian as Frank and the others would have you
believe. There is legal recourse, in front of an Administrate Law Judge.
And
If you don't like the results then you can go to an Appeals Court. The FCC
does have Congressional oversight. In fact many Federal agencies have a
Congressional oversight committee that directs their actions. We the
public
may not hear about it much, but then again how may people really have that
much interest in how their government works to go and find out? Most
people
don't even know who their state's congressional members are by name.

Some may complain that the court hearings are done under the FCC. This
gets
back to what I mentioned in another post about what is "a court of law". I
didn't make that statement lightly. It was meant to get one thinking about
the subject. Twist provided a quickie definition. The proceedings may not
fit everybody's stereotype of "a court of law" but it is one never the
less. You can also play all the word games you want too, by calling the
FCC
regulations "rules", but they are officially "administrate law", which any
attorney can tell you.

Let me know what you think after you had time to read the material. I'm
not
going to debate it any further since it's all there for anybody to read. I
will admit some of the explanations are a bit confusing. I suppose it
would
help to have a legal background to fully comprehend the details.


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO



Well, I've seen that before Leland, it proves Frank's
& mine statement that the FCC rules are just that, rule's
not laws. As such no real way to get out of a NAL fine
without taking the FCC to civil court and a lawyer.......
Lots of bucks to get that lawyer working for you.

(f) Notice of apparent liability. Before imposing a forfeiture
penalty under the provisions of this paragraph, the Commission or its
designee will issue a written notice of apparent liability.
(1) Content of notice. The notice of apparent liability will:
(i) Identify each specific provision, term, or condition of any act,
rule, regulation, order, treaty, convention, or other agreement,
license, permit, certificate, or instrument of authorizationwhich the
respondent has apparently violated or with which he has failed to
comply,
(ii) Set forth the nature of the act or omission charged against the
respondent and the facts upon which such charge is based,
(iii) State the date(s) on which such conduct occurred, and
(iv) Specify the amount of the apparent forfeiture penalty.
(2) Delivery. The notice of apparent liability will be sent to the
respondent, by certified mail, at his last known address (see Sec. 1.5).
(3) Response. The respondent will be afforded a reasonable period of
time (usually 30 days from the date of the notice) to show, in writing,
why a forfeiture penalty should not be imposed or should be reduced, or
to pay the forfeiture. Any showing as to why the forfeiture should not
be imposed or should be reduced shall include a detailed factual
statement and such documentation and affidavits as may be pertinent.
(4) Forfeiture order. If the proposed forfeiture penalty is not paid
in full in response to the notice of apparent liability, the Commission,
upon considering all relevant information available to it, will issue an
order canceling or reducing the proposed forfeiture or requiring that it
be paid in full and stating the date by which the forfeiture must be
paid.
(5) Judicial enforcement of forfeiture order. If the forfeiture is
not paid, the case will be referred to the Department of Justice for
collection under section 504(a) of the Communications Act.

"Landshark" wrote in message
. com...

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message
...

"Landshark" wrote in message
news

"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

Then try this one.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...47cfr1_03.html

Plenty of stuff to read. The details are all spelled out there. You will
have to do some jumping around from subsection to subsection. When
you're
done I think you'll have a better feel for how the FCC goes about it's
business. It's not as Macavelian as Frank and the others would have you
believe. There is legal recourse, in front of an Administrate Law Judge.
And
If you don't like the results then you can go to an Appeals Court. The
FCC
does have Congressional oversight. In fact many Federal agencies have a
Congressional oversight committee that directs their actions. We the
public
may not hear about it much, but then again how may people really have
that
much interest in how their government works to go and find out? Most
people
don't even know who their state's congressional members are by name.

Some may complain that the court hearings are done under the FCC. This
gets
back to what I mentioned in another post about what is "a court of law".
I
didn't make that statement lightly. It was meant to get one thinking
about
the subject. Twist provided a quickie definition. The proceedings may
not
fit everybody's stereotype of "a court of law" but it is one never the
less. You can also play all the word games you want too, by calling the
FCC
regulations "rules", but they are officially "administrate law", which
any
attorney can tell you.

Let me know what you think after you had time to read the material. I'm
not
going to debate it any further since it's all there for anybody to read.
I
will admit some of the explanations are a bit confusing. I suppose it
would
help to have a legal background to fully comprehend the details.


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO



Well, I've seen that before Leland, it proves Frank's
& mine statement that the FCC rules are just that, rule's
not laws. As such no real way to get out of a NAL fine
without taking the FCC to civil court and a lawyer.......
Lots of bucks to get that lawyer working for you.

(f) Notice of apparent liability. Before imposing a forfeiture
penalty under the provisions of this paragraph, the Commission or its
designee will issue a written notice of apparent liability.
(1) Content of notice. The notice of apparent liability will:
(i) Identify each specific provision, term, or condition of any act,
rule, regulation, order, treaty, convention, or other agreement,
license, permit, certificate, or instrument of authorizationwhich the
respondent has apparently violated or with which he has failed to
comply,
(ii) Set forth the nature of the act or omission charged against the
respondent and the facts upon which such charge is based,
(iii) State the date(s) on which such conduct occurred, and
(iv) Specify the amount of the apparent forfeiture penalty.
(2) Delivery. The notice of apparent liability will be sent to the
respondent, by certified mail, at his last known address (see Sec. 1.5).
(3) Response. The respondent will be afforded a reasonable period of
time (usually 30 days from the date of the notice) to show, in writing,
why a forfeiture penalty should not be imposed or should be reduced, or
to pay the forfeiture. Any showing as to why the forfeiture should not
be imposed or should be reduced shall include a detailed factual
statement and such documentation and affidavits as may be pertinent.
(4) Forfeiture order. If the proposed forfeiture penalty is not paid
in full in response to the notice of apparent liability, the Commission,
upon considering all relevant information available to it, will issue an
order canceling or reducing the proposed forfeiture or requiring that it
be paid in full and stating the date by which the forfeiture must be
paid.
(5) Judicial enforcement of forfeiture order. If the forfeiture is
not paid, the case will be referred to the Department of Justice for
collection under section 504(a) of the Communications Act.

You and Frank need to do some more reading. The appeal court process is
there too, but both of you like to conveniently ignore it. As far as the
regulations go, that they are only "rules", go tell that to an attorney
and watch him laugh at you. Better yet get a NAL yourself and tell that
wopper to the judge.


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

Wireless Network
Mobile computing
on the go brought
to you by Micro$oft