"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
Name one federal agency that doesn't claim to suffer from a lack of
funding.

I'm thinking........ Maybe the IRS? 8-))

I have used that argument myself but I have since found out that it
doesn't wash: Many CBers -don't- know the rules. And while any person
can refuse a station inspection, most CBers (and many hams) are not
aware that such a refusal can be used as 'evidence' against him, and
is therefore a violation of the 5th amendment.

I would like to see some legal opinions in that area. You do rasie an
interesting point.

Wrong. You can't challenge the violation in court like you can a
traffic ticket. FCC fines are enforced by the Treasury Dept as
uncollected debts, -not- as violations of FCC rules.

I've read where some who have gotten NAL's have had their day in court in
front of an administrative law judge. CFR 47 and the rules under it are
considered administrative law and can thus be heard in court. Some have even
won their cases. Check it out for yourself.

What I meant was that the FCC has the power to write their own rules
under the CFR to enforce the USC as they see fit. Since the power of
the FCC is not balanced by a watchdog agency,

They are. It's called the Congress of The United States. If you don't keep
up with Ham related things such as zoning-convents-home owner associations,
where they restrict erection of antenna towers etc. and the PRB-1 issue, you
won't know. The FCC has made a ruling granting a partial over ruling of such
restrictions for TV antennas. Also it states that "reasonable
accommodations" have to be made for Ham antennas. Its not a blacket
override. Many Hams have requested that the FCC issue an order more
specific. I bring this up as a point because the FCC said they will not
issue such an order unless directed by Congress by way of law making. So as
you can see they can't make up any rules they like. They are bound by the
Congress, and any treaties they sign, like at the last world administrate
radio conference. I will agree that they do have a wide latitude in what
they can do, but it is non the less has bounds.

Wrong. Notice what happens when a cop is on the road

Tell that to the truckers I see routinely doing 60+ MPH in crealy marked 55
MPH zones, cops or not.

Police presence DOES make a difference.

But only if they know for sure they will actually do something. I was in
Georgia driving south of Atlanta, on my way to Macon for a work assignment,
driving on I75 a week ago. I got routinely passed by truckers doing well
over 70 MPH, which is the posted speed limit. I also saw plenty of 4
wheelers getting pulled over for speeding. I can't recall seeing any of the
hordes of speeding 18 wheelers getting pulled over. And I saw plenty of cops
everywere I went.



Cite a single case involving the FCC tossing a white collar exec in
jail
for a similar charge.

I don't have any at my finger tips, but that doesn't mean that there
aren't
any. And if by chance there are non there is always a first time. As
they
say with investing "past performance is no indication of future
returns",
in
other words they, the FCC, could do so at their discretion.


They won't. If they did there would be constitutional challenges to
their rules and the FCC would probably lose

I doubt it. When they have the violator on audio tape

They screw criminals all the time with wire taps etc. Seems to me if it was
so unconstitutional some sharp attorney would have put that baby to bed a
long time ago, and permanently too. As far as anything transmitted over the
air there really is no reasonable expectation of privacy without
extraordinary measures being taken, such as using encryption. It then
becomes like the "in plain sight" rules the street cops use when finding
edvidence.



That's a constitutional violation in and of itself.


with signal strenght
readings, frequency counter readings, spectrum analyzer screen shots etc,
when they go to court they're cooked. Besides, were in the constitution
does
it say that a citizen has the right to use a radio transmitter, much less
in
any maner they choose?


The issue is not about a person's right to use a radio transmitter,
but about the protections of the accused that are -supposed- to be
guaranteed by the constitution. Like, 'innocent until proven guilty in
a court of law'. Last time I checked the FCC is not a part of the
judicial branch. They can accuse but they CANNOT determine guilt.
That's why their citations are notifications of APPARENT liability.

Like I said above, if you don't like it take it to the judge. Same as a
speeding ticket.

If someone uses a radio transmitter in violation of the law then by
all means they should be held accountable. But the -means- by which
that person is brought to justice by the FCC is unconstitutional and
they know it.

Anybody who disagrees with an FCC NAL can have their day in court and there
is nothing the FCC can do to stop it.

EVERY person has the constitutional right to challenge ANY law. The
problem is that the FCC has been very careful about preventing any
such challenges.

Ah no.

For the violator it sure is. Unless you're a big corporation a private
person doesn't stand much of a chance when the FCC has the wealth of the
Federal Treasury behind it to spend on legal proceddings. I can asure you
their legal budget is bigger that your's or mine.


Exactly! And that's why any fine against a large company by the FCC
will never be large enough to justify any such challenge -- they will
simply write it off as an expense, just like Twisty explained.

That is an economic decision by the company. There is nothing that prevents
them from pursuing the issue in court if the money is not a concern.



That's also why the fines are never enough to
incite any legal challenge in the courts,

It's not always about the money. I have read where some have gone to
court
just over the principle of the mater. The money wasn't the main
consideration for them.


And those cases are usually settled out-of-court before they reach the
Supreme Court. Everyone has a price.

The Supreme Court picks and chooses which cases it wants to hear based on
how widely it would affect the law of the land.



or to people and companies
that do not have the financial resources to mount such a challenge.

And that's a shame too. It's not just the FCC that does this. How many
people have gotten screwed over because they don't have the money to
stand
up for their rights in court? Too many.


You are absolutely correct. Justice is for the rich.

I have to agree with you here.



snip
the FCC wasn't going to do anything about 10m intruders. Looks like
they
are
doing something now.


A token effort, just enough to keep the hammies thinking that they
aren't being ignored.

There are only around 750K licensed Hams in the USA. I would suppose only
a
fraction of them are making complaints to the FCC. The FCC could as well
just ignore the complaints all together. The fact that they're not doing
so
would suggest the enforcement action isn't simply to placate those
complaining, but a genuine effort at enforcement action as limited as it
is
currently.


750K is a significant number of people, and if the FCC dropped
enforcement of the ham bands there would be an equally significant
backlash. Not just because of the numbers, but also because those
people have a license -- a 'contract' with the government -- to use
those bands. If the FCC welches on 750K contracts you can bet that
there would be hell to pay.


Assuming that the FCC won't get more aggressive in the
future is not being smart. All it takes is a change in the leadership
of
the
FCC. Imagine if a new FCC chairmen is appointed, and is a Ham with an
ax
to
grind about the present situation?


The chairman has very little power to change the workings of the FCC.

The chairmen sets the tone for the whole agency. The commissioners take
their cue from him.


Here's the link to Part 0 (Commission Organization):

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...47cfr0_02.html

Where in there does it say anything even remotely close to what you
describe as the role of the chairman?

See this link

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2.../47cfr0.11.pdf

Look under section 0.13. You have to read between the lines, but I think
you'll get the drift. The chairmen can exert influence over what the
commission does in an indirect manner. And that was all I implied by my
prior statement.


It is the commission as a whole that has the power in that agency, and
therefore it is controlled by whomever controls the commissioners.

Yeah, the chairmen, like I said.


If you read through the relevent sections of Part 0 (linked above) you
will see that the chairman is nothing more than a representative and a
facilitator. He is -not- the controlling force of the FCC. If he was
then it wouldn't be called a "commission".

So why are the lobbyists always trying to get the chairman's era? If he
doesn't matter why are they wasting their time with him? As you should know
what is said on paper, how it should work, may not always match how it
really gets done.



Since there is so much corporate interest in the other aspects of the
FCC, the ARS and CB will always be generally ignored -regardless- of
who sits in the big chair.

It's well documented that the current chairmen has an agenda that seems
to
be mainly fueled by corporate money being offered for valuable spectrum
and
that dang BPL crap.


That's been true of the whole commission, and it's been true for many,
many years. As for the BPL issue, don't put the cart before the horse:
wait to see just how much of a problem it causes -in fact-, and if
it's enough of a problem that makes 750K hams feel the FCC is ignoring
their 'contracts' then you will probably see some corrective actions
by the FCC.

I've read reports where the interference was so bad that in one or more
foreign countries have pulled the plug completely on BPL. In reported case
here in the USA about reported interference the BPL provider was unable to
resolve the problems even after months of tweaking the system. There is a
new technology on the horizon that may just obsolete BPL anyway, the 802.16
for a wireless MAN (Metropolitan Area Network).



snip
Jerry has chosen a course of action. I may not agree that it's the
-best- course of action, but then I'm not a ham and don't see things
from his perspective.

Give it a few minutes of thought then. The worst that can happen is you
may
even agree with him on some points. 8-))


You missed -my- point: ham radio is none of my business.

In reality it is to a degree. It isn't called a "service" for nothing you
know. One of the primary reasons for the existence of Ham Radio is to
provide emergency communications. This is something that affects Hams and
non Hams alike. Just ask Keith here on the group. That's one main reason why
he got his Ham ticket, and I'm sure he has put it to good use the last
several months.

I -am- a CBer,

Gee, I didn't know that. ;-))

and IMO you can stick a much
bigger thorn in the FCC's ass if you pester your congressional rep.

It happens.


Evidently it doesn't happen enough.

Yup.


It
still won't get anything accomplished, but at least you're forcing the
FCC to answer to someone with some authority.

Why do you think some of what is happening is happening? Maybe not enough
to
suit some people, but some progress is being made.


All I see happening is the ARRL taking a step forward after being
pushed back three steps. That's not progress, it's damage control.

If there is one sure thing in life its change. Assuming things are going to
stay the same just isn't reasonable. So if it's bad its going to get better.


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

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

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

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
Name one federal agency that doesn't claim to suffer from a lack of
funding.

I'm thinking........ Maybe the IRS? 8-))

I have used that argument myself but I have since found out that it
doesn't wash: Many CBers -don't- know the rules. And while any person
can refuse a station inspection, most CBers (and many hams) are not
aware that such a refusal can be used as 'evidence' against him, and
is therefore a violation of the 5th amendment.

I would like to see some legal opinions in that area. You do rasie an
interesting point.

Wrong. You can't challenge the violation in court like you can a
traffic ticket. FCC fines are enforced by the Treasury Dept as
uncollected debts, -not- as violations of FCC rules.

I've read where some who have gotten NAL's have had their day in court in
front of an administrative law judge. CFR 47 and the rules under it are
considered administrative law and can thus be heard in court. Some have
even
won their cases. Check it out for yourself.

Was that after only one NAL? or after multiple NAL's and multiple times
that you paid the fine they imposed?
Heard? I've never heard that. On the other hand, it could happen, but only
after many NAL's & many hearings with the FCC before you would go to
a Federal Court.


What I meant was that the FCC has the power to write their own rules
under the CFR to enforce the USC as they see fit. Since the power of
the FCC is not balanced by a watchdog agency,

They are. It's called the Congress of The United States. If you don't keep
up with Ham related things such as zoning-convents-home owner
associations,
where they restrict erection of antenna towers etc. and the PRB-1 issue,
you
won't know. The FCC has made a ruling granting a partial over ruling of
such
restrictions for TV antennas. Also it states that "reasonable
accommodations" have to be made for Ham antennas. Its not a blacket
override. Many Hams have requested that the FCC issue an order more
specific. I bring this up as a point because the FCC said they will not
issue such an order unless directed by Congress by way of law making. So
as
you can see they can't make up any rules they like. They are bound by the
Congress, and any treaties they sign, like at the last world administrate
radio conference. I will agree that they do have a wide latitude in what
they can do, but it is non the less has bounds.


Did they go before Congress to get the "rule" on the "export" radio's?
I don't think so. They, like the IRS can take almost any existing
law and interpret it their own way and create a new "rule". That's
why they are called rules, not laws.

Wrong. Notice what happens when a cop is on the road

Tell that to the truckers I see routinely doing 60+ MPH in crealy marked
55
MPH zones, cops or not.

Police presence DOES make a difference.

But only if they know for sure they will actually do something. I was in
Georgia driving south of Atlanta, on my way to Macon for a work
assignment,
driving on I75 a week ago. I got routinely passed by truckers doing well
over 70 MPH, which is the posted speed limit. I also saw plenty of 4
wheelers getting pulled over for speeding. I can't recall seeing any of
the
hordes of speeding 18 wheelers getting pulled over. And I saw plenty of
cops
everywere I went.

Well Lee, they cracked down on truckers out here. It was all over
the news how they were giving a zero tolerance for a month on
all big rigs.



The issue is not about a person's right to use a radio transmitter,
but about the protections of the accused that are -supposed- to be
guaranteed by the constitution. Like, 'innocent until proven guilty in
a court of law'. Last time I checked the FCC is not a part of the
judicial branch. They can accuse but they CANNOT determine guilt.
That's why their citations are notifications of APPARENT liability.

Like I said above, if you don't like it take it to the judge. Same as a
speeding ticket.

Not really. Again, you have to appear before the FCC and pay the fines
before you can begin to contest their ruling. How many times can you
afford to have an attorny apera on your behalf?


If someone uses a radio transmitter in violation of the law then by
all means they should be held accountable. But the -means- by which
that person is brought to justice by the FCC is unconstitutional and
they know it.

Anybody who disagrees with an FCC NAL can have their day in court and
there
is nothing the FCC can do to stop it.

See above.


EVERY person has the constitutional right to challenge ANY law. The
problem is that the FCC has been very careful about preventing any
such challenges.

Ah no.

Ah, Frank's right.

For the violator it sure is. Unless you're a big corporation a private
person doesn't stand much of a chance when the FCC has the wealth of the
Federal Treasury behind it to spend on legal proceddings. I can asure
you
their legal budget is bigger that your's or mine.


Exactly! And that's why any fine against a large company by the FCC
will never be large enough to justify any such challenge -- they will
simply write it off as an expense, just like Twisty explained.

That is an economic decision by the company. There is nothing that
prevents
them from pursuing the issue in court if the money is not a concern.



That's also why the fines are never enough to
incite any legal challenge in the courts,

It's not always about the money. I have read where some have gone to
court
just over the principle of the mater. The money wasn't the main
consideration for them.


And those cases are usually settled out-of-court before they reach the
Supreme Court. Everyone has a price.

The Supreme Court picks and chooses which cases it wants to hear based on
how widely it would affect the law of the land.



or to people and companies
that do not have the financial resources to mount such a challenge.

And that's a shame too. It's not just the FCC that does this. How many
people have gotten screwed over because they don't have the money to
stand
up for their rights in court? Too many.


You are absolutely correct. Justice is for the rich.

I have to agree with you here.



snip
the FCC wasn't going to do anything about 10m intruders. Looks like
they
are
doing something now.


A token effort, just enough to keep the hammies thinking that they
aren't being ignored.

There are only around 750K licensed Hams in the USA. I would suppose
only
a
fraction of them are making complaints to the FCC. The FCC could as well
just ignore the complaints all together. The fact that they're not doing
so
would suggest the enforcement action isn't simply to placate those
complaining, but a genuine effort at enforcement action as limited as it
is
currently.


750K is a significant number of people, and if the FCC dropped
enforcement of the ham bands there would be an equally significant
backlash. Not just because of the numbers, but also because those
people have a license -- a 'contract' with the government -- to use
those bands. If the FCC welches on 750K contracts you can bet that
there would be hell to pay.


Assuming that the FCC won't get more aggressive in the
future is not being smart. All it takes is a change in the leadership
of
the
FCC. Imagine if a new FCC chairmen is appointed, and is a Ham with an
ax
to
grind about the present situation?


The chairman has very little power to change the workings of the FCC.

The chairmen sets the tone for the whole agency. The commissioners take
their cue from him.


Here's the link to Part 0 (Commission Organization):

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...47cfr0_02.html

Where in there does it say anything even remotely close to what you
describe as the role of the chairman?

See this link

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2.../47cfr0.11.pdf

Look under section 0.13. You have to read between the lines, but I think
you'll get the drift. The chairmen can exert influence over what the
commission does in an indirect manner. And that was all I implied by my
prior statement.


It is the commission as a whole that has the power in that agency, and
therefore it is controlled by whomever controls the commissioners.

Yeah, the chairmen, like I said.


If you read through the relevent sections of Part 0 (linked above) you
will see that the chairman is nothing more than a representative and a
facilitator. He is -not- the controlling force of the FCC. If he was
then it wouldn't be called a "commission".

So why are the lobbyists always trying to get the chairman's era? If he
doesn't matter why are they wasting their time with him? As you should
know
what is said on paper, how it should work, may not always match how it
really gets done.



Since there is so much corporate interest in the other aspects of the
FCC, the ARS and CB will always be generally ignored -regardless- of
who sits in the big chair.

It's well documented that the current chairmen has an agenda that seems
to
be mainly fueled by corporate money being offered for valuable spectrum
and
that dang BPL crap.


That's been true of the whole commission, and it's been true for many,
many years. As for the BPL issue, don't put the cart before the horse:
wait to see just how much of a problem it causes -in fact-, and if
it's enough of a problem that makes 750K hams feel the FCC is ignoring
their 'contracts' then you will probably see some corrective actions
by the FCC.

I've read reports where the interference was so bad that in one or more
foreign countries have pulled the plug completely on BPL. In reported case
here in the USA about reported interference the BPL provider was unable to
resolve the problems even after months of tweaking the system. There is a
new technology on the horizon that may just obsolete BPL anyway, the
802.16
for a wireless MAN (Metropolitan Area Network).



snip
Jerry has chosen a course of action. I may not agree that it's the
-best- course of action, but then I'm not a ham and don't see things
from his perspective.

Give it a few minutes of thought then. The worst that can happen is you
may
even agree with him on some points. 8-))


You missed -my- point: ham radio is none of my business.

In reality it is to a degree. It isn't called a "service" for nothing you
know. One of the primary reasons for the existence of Ham Radio is to
provide emergency communications. This is something that affects Hams and
non Hams alike. Just ask Keith here on the group. That's one main reason
why
he got his Ham ticket, and I'm sure he has put it to good use the last
several months.

I -am- a CBer,

Gee, I didn't know that. ;-))

and IMO you can stick a much
bigger thorn in the FCC's ass if you pester your congressional rep.

It happens.


Evidently it doesn't happen enough.

Yup.


It
still won't get anything accomplished, but at least you're forcing the
FCC to answer to someone with some authority.

Why do you think some of what is happening is happening? Maybe not
enough
to
suit some people, but some progress is being made.


All I see happening is the ARRL taking a step forward after being
pushed back three steps. That's not progress, it's damage control.

If there is one sure thing in life its change. Assuming things are going
to
stay the same just isn't reasonable. So if it's bad its going to get
better.


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

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


Landshark


--
The world is good-natured to people
who are good natured.

"Landshark" wrote in message
news

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

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
Name one federal agency that doesn't claim to suffer from a lack of
funding.

I'm thinking........ Maybe the IRS? 8-))

I have used that argument myself but I have since found out that it
doesn't wash: Many CBers -don't- know the rules. And while any person
can refuse a station inspection, most CBers (and many hams) are not
aware that such a refusal can be used as 'evidence' against him, and
is therefore a violation of the 5th amendment.

I would like to see some legal opinions in that area. You do rasie an
interesting point.

Wrong. You can't challenge the violation in court like you can a
traffic ticket. FCC fines are enforced by the Treasury Dept as
uncollected debts, -not- as violations of FCC rules.

I've read where some who have gotten NAL's have had their day in court
in
front of an administrative law judge. CFR 47 and the rules under it are
considered administrative law and can thus be heard in court. Some have
even
won their cases. Check it out for yourself.

Was that after only one NAL?

Yeah, why not? You don't need to get more than one speeding ticket to get
your day in court do you?


Did they go before Congress to get the "rule" on the "export" radio's?

So where did the huge volume of laws on the books come from when all this
country started with are a handful of articles under the US Constitution?

I don't think so. They, like the IRS can take almost any existing
law and interpret it their own way and create a new "rule". That's
why they are called rules, not laws.

Its call "Adminastrive Law". Ask an attorney. He'll tell you the same thing.


Wrong. Notice what happens when a cop is on the road

Tell that to the truckers I see routinely doing 60+ MPH in crealy marked
55
MPH zones, cops or not.

Police presence DOES make a difference.

But only if they know for sure they will actually do something. I was in
Georgia driving south of Atlanta, on my way to Macon for a work
assignment,
driving on I75 a week ago. I got routinely passed by truckers doing well
over 70 MPH, which is the posted speed limit. I also saw plenty of 4
wheelers getting pulled over for speeding. I can't recall seeing any of
the
hordes of speeding 18 wheelers getting pulled over. And I saw plenty of
cops
everywere I went.

Well Lee, they cracked down on truckers out here. It was all over
the news how they were giving a zero tolerance for a month on
all big rigs.



The issue is not about a person's right to use a radio transmitter,
but about the protections of the accused that are -supposed- to be
guaranteed by the constitution. Like, 'innocent until proven guilty in
a court of law'. Last time I checked the FCC is not a part of the
judicial branch. They can accuse but they CANNOT determine guilt.
That's why their citations are notifications of APPARENT liability.

Like I said above, if you don't like it take it to the judge. Same as a
speeding ticket.

Not really. Again, you have to appear before the FCC and pay the fines
before you can begin to contest their ruling.

No.

How many times can you
afford to have an attorny apera on your behalf?

Have you paid any FCC fines?



If someone uses a radio transmitter in violation of the law then by
all means they should be held accountable. But the -means- by which
that person is brought to justice by the FCC is unconstitutional and
they know it.

Anybody who disagrees with an FCC NAL can have their day in court and
there
is nothing the FCC can do to stop it.

See above.


EVERY person has the constitutional right to challenge ANY law. The
problem is that the FCC has been very careful about preventing any
such challenges.

Ah no.

Ah, Frank's right.

You guys need to read this before going any further.

Sample court motion below.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_158.pdf

Offical FCC legal process. The link below should be all on one line to work.

http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi...i on=retrieve

This should settle the argument permently if you understand legal terms.


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

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

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 16:04:38 -0500, "Leland C. Scott"
wrote in :


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
.. .
Name one federal agency that doesn't claim to suffer from a lack of
funding.

I'm thinking........ Maybe the IRS? 8-))


Touche'.


I have used that argument myself but I have since found out that it
doesn't wash: Many CBers -don't- know the rules. And while any person
can refuse a station inspection, most CBers (and many hams) are not
aware that such a refusal can be used as 'evidence' against him, and
is therefore a violation of the 5th amendment.

I would like to see some legal opinions in that area.


So would I since it's only my opinion. But what -isn't- my opinion is
the 4th Amendment, which is very specific about searches and seizures.


You do rasie an
interesting point.

Wrong. You can't challenge the violation in court like you can a
traffic ticket. FCC fines are enforced by the Treasury Dept as
uncollected debts, -not- as violations of FCC rules.

I've read where some who have gotten NAL's have had their day in court in
front of an administrative law judge. CFR 47 and the rules under it are
considered administrative law and can thus be heard in court. Some have even
won their cases. Check it out for yourself.


I will. Got a link?


What I meant was that the FCC has the power to write their own rules
under the CFR to enforce the USC as they see fit. Since the power of
the FCC is not balanced by a watchdog agency,

They are. It's called the Congress of The United States. If you don't keep
up with Ham related things such as zoning-convents-home owner associations,
where they restrict erection of antenna towers etc. and the PRB-1 issue, you
won't know. The FCC has made a ruling granting a partial over ruling of such
restrictions for TV antennas. Also it states that "reasonable
accommodations" have to be made for Ham antennas. Its not a blacket
override. Many Hams have requested that the FCC issue an order more
specific. I bring this up as a point because the FCC said they will not
issue such an order unless directed by Congress by way of law making. So as
you can see they can't make up any rules they like. They are bound by the
Congress, and any treaties they sign, like at the last world administrate
radio conference. I will agree that they do have a wide latitude in what
they can do, but it is non the less has bounds.


For an example to support my opinion, read 18 USC subsection 2511.
This is the law that prohibits interception of communication. The law
includes exceptions for reasons such as law enforcement. But even law
enforcement agencies are required to jump through hoops in order to
intercept communications and use it as evidence. Yet the FCC has
written themselves a blank check: The same law permits the FCC to
intercept communications without any warrant or showing of probable
cause.

As for the idea that congress controls the FCC, I should remind you
that many big bill packages (such as the spending bill currently
before this lame-duck congress) are filled with subtle laws (as well
as pork-barrel spending) that get passed without ever being read
because the bill is so large. One such law that almost snuck through
in this bill was one that would have put a cap on lawsuits against
drug companies even if the company knew beforehand that their product
was bad. There are plenty of bad laws like this that slip through
congress without even a blink. And you can bet that the FCC slips
their own bills through, too.

So while congress may -technically- control the FCC, the reality is
that they don't. The commissioners are controlled by the lobbyists
hired by corporate fat-cats, and most of congress is too busy with
their partisan politics to worry about little things like bad laws.
That may be a cynical perception, but nonetheless accurate.


Wrong. Notice what happens when a cop is on the road

Tell that to the truckers I see routinely doing 60+ MPH in crealy marked 55
MPH zones, cops or not.


Cops don't ticket truckers for speeding? Boy, that's news to me! I've
only known one trucker that never got a speeding ticket, but he had
only been driving for a month. I'm sure he has a few by now.


Police presence DOES make a difference.

But only if they know for sure they will actually do something. I was in
Georgia driving south of Atlanta, on my way to Macon for a work assignment,
driving on I75 a week ago. I got routinely passed by truckers doing well
over 70 MPH, which is the posted speed limit. I also saw plenty of 4
wheelers getting pulled over for speeding. I can't recall seeing any of the
hordes of speeding 18 wheelers getting pulled over. And I saw plenty of cops
everywere I went.


Maybe those 4-wheelers should get themselves CB radios......


snip
I doubt it. When they have the violator on audio tape

They screw criminals all the time with wire taps etc. Seems to me if it was
so unconstitutional some sharp attorney would have put that baby to bed a
long time ago, and permanently too. As far as anything transmitted over the
air there really is no reasonable expectation of privacy without
extraordinary measures being taken, such as using encryption. It then
becomes like the "in plain sight" rules the street cops use when finding
edvidence.


Perhaps. But again, every law enforcement agency -except- the FCC
requires a warrant to obtain a wiretap. And even if the audio is
admissible as evidence, it's up to a jury -- NOT the FCC -- to
determine the weight of that evidence.


That's a constitutional violation in and of itself.
snip
The issue is not about a person's right to use a radio transmitter,
but about the protections of the accused that are -supposed- to be
guaranteed by the constitution. Like, 'innocent until proven guilty in
a court of law'. Last time I checked the FCC is not a part of the
judicial branch. They can accuse but they CANNOT determine guilt.
That's why their citations are notifications of APPARENT liability.

Like I said above, if you don't like it take it to the judge. Same as a
speeding ticket.


You still missed the issue: You get an NAL because you have been found
guilty without a trial. You can appeal the ruling but only to the FCC,
so you are basically appealing to the prosecution. If you refuse to
pay the fine then your case is forwarded to the Treasury Department
for collection; i.e, the only case you can bring before a judge is an
issue of law regarding the DEBT -- NOT the violation that -resulted-
in the debt.


If someone uses a radio transmitter in violation of the law then by
all means they should be held accountable. But the -means- by which
that person is brought to justice by the FCC is unconstitutional and
they know it.

Anybody who disagrees with an FCC NAL can have their day in court and there
is nothing the FCC can do to stop it.


The FCC's use of the NAL precludes standing in any court. The only way
you can challenge their laws is indirectly; i.e, habeus corpus, civil
suit, temporary injunction, congressional intervention, etc, etc. The
problem is that the people who would benefit the most from standing do
not have the means to mount an indirect challenge. And -that's- how
the FCC can prevent you from having your 'day in court'.


EVERY person has the constitutional right to challenge ANY law. The
problem is that the FCC has been very careful about preventing any
such challenges.

Ah no.


Quite right -- you can't challenge the law unless you have standing,
as I said before.


For the violator it sure is. Unless you're a big corporation a private
person doesn't stand much of a chance when the FCC has the wealth of the
Federal Treasury behind it to spend on legal proceddings. I can asure you
their legal budget is bigger that your's or mine.


Exactly! And that's why any fine against a large company by the FCC
will never be large enough to justify any such challenge -- they will
simply write it off as an expense, just like Twisty explained.

That is an economic decision by the company.


It's a tactic used by the FCC based on the expected economic decision
by the company. So far it has worked well.


There is nothing that prevents
them from pursuing the issue in court if the money is not a concern.


But money -is- a concern, as you have already stated.


snip
The Supreme Court picks and chooses which cases it wants to hear based on
how widely it would affect the law of the land.


That's naive. Every other agency of the government operates under the
table to some extent. What makes you think the FCC is any different?


snip
See this link

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2.../47cfr0.11.pdf

Look under section 0.13. You have to read between the lines, but I think
you'll get the drift. The chairmen can exert influence over what the
commission does in an indirect manner. And that was all I implied by my
prior statement.


The Office of the Inspector General is not the Commission Chairman.
And any commissioner can influence the commission in the way you
stated. Anyway, when you get tired of reading -between- the lines try
reading the lines as explicitly written regarding the job of Chairman:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...r/47cfr0.3.htm
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...47cfr0.211.htm


snip
If you read through the relevent sections of Part 0 (linked above) you
will see that the chairman is nothing more than a representative and a
facilitator. He is -not- the controlling force of the FCC. If he was
then it wouldn't be called a "commission".

So why are the lobbyists always trying to get the chairman's era? If he
doesn't matter why are they wasting their time with him? As you should know
what is said on paper, how it should work, may not always match how it
really gets done.


The lobbyists go after the commissioners just as much as the chairman,
maybe even more so. You just don't hear about it on the news.


snip
I've read reports where the interference was so bad that in one or more
foreign countries have pulled the plug completely on BPL. In reported case
here in the USA about reported interference the BPL provider was unable to
resolve the problems even after months of tweaking the system. There is a
new technology on the horizon that may just obsolete BPL anyway, the 802.16
for a wireless MAN (Metropolitan Area Network).


Even government corruption has it's limits.


snip
You missed -my- point: ham radio is none of my business.

In reality it is to a degree. It isn't called a "service" for nothing you
know. One of the primary reasons for the existence of Ham Radio is to
provide emergency communications. This is something that affects Hams and
non Hams alike. Just ask Keith here on the group. That's one main reason why
he got his Ham ticket, and I'm sure he has put it to good use the last
several months.


Well, I've been in the middle of at least three situations that should
have been ideal examples of what you describe: Mt. StHelens; hurricane
Gloria; and Spokane's ice storm of '96. But in all of those emergency
situations, ham radio activity consisted mostly of small-talk and QRM.
And in all three cases the bulk of non-PSP emergency communication was
done by CB radio. After listening to the ham bands for 30 years I can
say with great confidence that ham radio sucks when it comes to those
types of situations. Time and time again CB radio has proven itself to
be the communications backbone when landlines fail.


I -am- a CBer,

Gee, I didn't know that. ;-))


Some people in this newsgroup are -not- CBers, which is why I affirmed
myself as one.


and IMO you can stick a much
bigger thorn in the FCC's ass if you pester your congressional rep.

It happens.


Evidently it doesn't happen enough.

Yup.


It
still won't get anything accomplished, but at least you're forcing the
FCC to answer to someone with some authority.

Why do you think some of what is happening is happening? Maybe not enough
to
suit some people, but some progress is being made.


All I see happening is the ARRL taking a step forward after being
pushed back three steps. That's not progress, it's damage control.

If there is one sure thing in life its change. Assuming things are going to
stay the same just isn't reasonable. So if it's bad its going to get better.


Or worse. And I made no assumption about things not changing, although
sometimes change can be very slow. Since I have a poor track record as
a prognosticator, I no longer make assumptions about the future except
that it will come.





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 03:01:05 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote in
:

snip
The Supreme Court picks and chooses which cases it wants to hear based on
how widely it would affect the law of the land.


That's naive. Every other agency of the government operates under the
table to some extent. What makes you think the FCC is any different?


I should rephrase this: The Supreme Court only selects cases that are
presented to it. Unless the outcome can be 'assured', the FCC prevents
potentially hazardous cases from going that far up the ladder either
by offering settlements (and/or kickbacks) that are too good to pass
up, or by simply dropping the case. Those tactics are underhanded
attempts to avoid an unfavorable ruling by the Supreme Court. Such a
ruling could very possibly collapse the legal foundation of the FCC's
operation.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---