Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 =--- |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 =--- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message ... Wrong. You can't challenge the violation in court like you can a traffic ticket. FCC fines are enforced by the Treasury Dept as uncollected debts, -not- as violations of FCC rules. I've read where some who have gotten NAL's have had their day in court in front of an administrative law judge. CFR 47 and the rules under it are considered administrative law and can thus be heard in court. Some have even won their cases. Check it out for yourself. I will. Got a link? Here is how the whole process works in all of its gory detail. http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi...i on=retrieve What I meant was that the FCC has the power to write their own rules under the CFR to enforce the USC as they see fit. Since the power of the FCC is not balanced by a watchdog agency, They are. It's called the Congress of The United States. If you don't keep up with Ham related things such as zoning-convents-home owner associations, where they restrict erection of antenna towers etc. and the PRB-1 issue, you won't know. The FCC has made a ruling granting a partial over ruling of such restrictions for TV antennas. Also it states that "reasonable accommodations" have to be made for Ham antennas. Its not a blacket override. Many Hams have requested that the FCC issue an order more specific. I bring this up as a point because the FCC said they will not issue such an order unless directed by Congress by way of law making. So as you can see they can't make up any rules they like. They are bound by the Congress, and any treaties they sign, like at the last world administrate radio conference. I will agree that they do have a wide latitude in what they can do, but it is non the less has bounds. For an example to support my opinion, read 18 USC subsection 2511. This is the law that prohibits interception of communication. The law includes exceptions for reasons such as law enforcement. But even law enforcement agencies are required to jump through hoops in order to intercept communications and use it as evidence. Yet the FCC has written themselves a blank check: The same law permits the FCC to intercept communications without any warrant or showing of probable cause. You forgot about the "in pain view" argument the courts use when no search warrant is in hand to admit evidence. Besides they don't always have to have audio recordings. Signal strength, direction finding antennas used to find the location of the transmitter, and frequency measurements do real good without violation the so called privacy of the communication. As for the idea that congress controls the FCC, I should remind you that many big bill packages (such as the spending bill currently before this lame-duck congress) are filled with subtle laws (as well as pork-barrel spending) that get passed without ever being read because the bill is so large. Business as usual. That's why the president needs the line item veto power. One such law that almost snuck through in this bill was one that would have put a cap on lawsuits against drug companies even if the company knew beforehand that their product was bad. There are plenty of bad laws like this that slip through congress without even a blink. And you can bet that the FCC slips their own bills through, too. So while congress may -technically- control the FCC, the reality is that they don't. Except when something get under their skin. It won't be the first time Congress has pasted a law specifically to address an issue with some Federal Agency. The commissioners are controlled by the lobbyists hired by corporate fat-cats, and most of congress their partisan politics to worry about little things like bad laws. That may be a cynical perception, but nonetheless accurate. I agree there. Wrong. Notice what happens when a cop is on the road Tell that to the truckers I see routinely doing 60+ MPH in crealy marked 55 MPH zones, cops or not. Cops don't ticket truckers for speeding? Boy, that's news to me! I've only known one trucker that never got a speeding ticket, but he had only been driving for a month. I'm sure he has a few by now. I've seen some that can use a few more. Police presence DOES make a difference. But only if they know for sure they will actually do something. I was in Georgia driving south of Atlanta, on my way to Macon for a work assignment, driving on I75 a week ago. I got routinely passed by truckers doing well over 70 MPH, which is the posted speed limit. I also saw plenty of 4 wheelers getting pulled over for speeding. I can't recall seeing any of the hordes of speeding 18 wheelers getting pulled over. And I saw plenty of cops everywere I went. Maybe those 4-wheelers should get themselves CB radios...... When you see the 18 wheelers blowing by the cop on the side of the road with his radar going, and doesn't stop them makes you wonder. snip I doubt it. When they have the violator on audio tape They screw criminals all the time with wire taps etc. Seems to me if it was so unconstitutional some sharp attorney would have put that baby to bed a long time ago, and permanently too. As far as anything transmitted over the air there really is no reasonable expectation of privacy without extraordinary measures being taken, such as using encryption. It then becomes like the "in plain sight" rules the street cops use when finding edvidence. Perhaps. But again, every law enforcement agency -except- the FCC requires a warrant to obtain a wiretap. And even if the audio is admissible as evidence, it's up to a jury -- NOT the FCC -- to determine the weight of that evidence. See the link I posted about how the whole legal process works with the FCC. That's a constitutional violation in and of itself. snip The issue is not about a person's right to use a radio transmitter, but about the protections of the accused that are -supposed- to be guaranteed by the constitution. Like, 'innocent until proven guilty in a court of law'. Last time I checked the FCC is not a part of the judicial branch. They can accuse but they CANNOT determine guilt. That's why their citations are notifications of APPARENT liability. Like I said above, if you don't like it take it to the judge. Same as a speeding ticket. You still missed the issue: You get an NAL because you have been found guilty without a trial. You get a speeding ticket with out a trial too. You can appeal the ruling but only to the FCC, so you are basically appealing to the prosecution. If you refuse to pay the fine then your case is forwarded to the Treasury Department for collection; i.e, the only case you can bring before a judge is an issue of law regarding the DEBT -- NOT the violation that -resulted- in the debt. Gee. I'm getting tired of saying this. See the link I posted above about the legal process. If someone uses a radio transmitter in violation of the law then by all means they should be held accountable. But the -means- by which that person is brought to justice by the FCC is unconstitutional and they know it. Anybody who disagrees with an FCC NAL can have their day in court and there is nothing the FCC can do to stop it. The FCC's use of the NAL precludes standing in any court. No. It is reviewable by the Court of Appeals. http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_158.pdf Read the last few lines of the last paragraph on page 3. I'll quote it here. __________________________________ Apart from this and other limited exceptions not relevant here, jurisdiction over final FCC orders is exclusively vested in the Courts of Appeals. Section 402(a) of Title 47, United States Code, provides that "[a]ny proceeding 4 to enjoin, set aside, annul, or suspend any order of the Commission . . . shall be brought as provided by and in the manner prescribed in chapter 158 of Title 28." 47 U.S.C. § 402(a). That chapter, in turn, provides that the Courts of Appeals have "the exclusive jurisdiction to enjoin, set aside, suspend (in whole or in part), or to determine the validity of . .. . all final order of the Federal Communications Commission made reviewable by section 402(a) of title 47." 28 U.S.C. § 2342(1). __________________________________________________ ___________ This particular motion for the plaintiff failed because it was apparently filed in District Court. The only way you can challenge their laws is indirectly; i.e, habeus corpus, civil suit, temporary injunction, congressional intervention, etc, etc. The problem is that the people who would benefit the most from standing do not have the means to mount an indirect challenge. And -that's- how the FCC can prevent you from having your 'day in court'. Read it from the horse's month in the above quote. EVERY person has the constitutional right to challenge ANY law. The problem is that the FCC has been very careful about preventing any such challenges. Ah no. Quite right -- you can't challenge the law unless you have standing, as I said before. For the violator it sure is. Unless you're a big corporation a private person doesn't stand much of a chance when the FCC has the wealth of the Federal Treasury behind it to spend on legal proceddings. I can asure you their legal budget is bigger that your's or mine. Exactly! And that's why any fine against a large company by the FCC will never be large enough to justify any such challenge -- they will simply write it off as an expense, just like Twisty explained. That is an economic decision by the company. It's a tactic used by the FCC based on the expected economic decision by the company. So far it has worked well. And sometimes not. Read through the FCC enforcement logs and you'll see that several Hams have gone to court to keep the FCC from pulling their Ham ticket. Now just how much economic sense does that make? None. It was done as a mater of principle. There is nothing that prevents them from pursuing the issue in court if the money is not a concern. But money -is- a concern, as you have already stated. Yes, but still some go ahead anyway. snip The Supreme Court picks and chooses which cases it wants to hear based on how widely it would affect the law of the land. That's naive. No. Its very well documented. The Supreme Court gets cases filed by the truck load. They pick and choose which ones they wish to hear if they feel it will make a substantial difference in the existing laws. Row vs. Wade, the abortion case, is one case in point. Otherwise they decline to hear the case. Every other agency of the government operates under the table to some extent. What makes you think the FCC is any different? What do they do "under the table"? Wear knee pads? snip See this link http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2....access.gpo.go v/cfr_2002/octqtr/pdf/47cfr0.11.pdf Look under section 0.13. You have to read between the lines, but I think you'll get the drift. The chairmen can exert influence over what the commission does in an indirect manner. And that was all I implied by my prior statement. The Office of the Inspector General is not the Commission Chairman. And any commissioner can influence the commission in the way you stated. Anyway, when you get tired of reading -between- the lines try reading the lines as explicitly written regarding the job of Chairman: I did. What you forget is that only specifies the minimum requirements for the job. No were does it say that is the limit of his duties. http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...r/47cfr0.3.htm http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...47cfr0.211.htm snip If you read through the relevent sections of Part 0 (linked above) you will see that the chairman is nothing more than a representative and a facilitator. He is -not- the controlling force of the FCC. If he was then it wouldn't be called a "commission". So why are the lobbyists always trying to get the chairman's era? If he doesn't matter why are they wasting their time with him? As you should know what is said on paper, how it should work, may not always match how it really gets done. The lobbyists go after the commissioners just as much as the chairman, maybe even more so. You just don't hear about it on the news. snip I've read reports where the interference was so bad that in one or more foreign countries have pulled the plug completely on BPL. In reported case here in the USA about reported interference the BPL provider was unable to resolve the problems even after months of tweaking the system. There is a new technology on the horizon that may just obsolete BPL anyway, the 802.16 for a wireless MAN (Metropolitan Area Network). Even government corruption has it's limits. So does tolerating the digital trash generated by BPL. Enough people complained about it that is why it got canned. snip You missed -my- point: ham radio is none of my business. In reality it is to a degree. It isn't called a "service" for nothing you know. One of the primary reasons for the existence of Ham Radio is to provide emergency communications. This is something that affects Hams and non Hams alike. Just ask Keith here on the group. That's one main reason why he got his Ham ticket, and I'm sure he has put it to good use the last several months. Well, I've been in the middle of at least three situations that should have been ideal examples of what you describe: Mt. StHelens; hurricane Gloria; and Spokane's ice storm of '96. But in all of those emergency situations, ham radio activity consisted mostly of small-talk and QRM. And in all three cases the bulk of non-PSP emergency communication was done by CB radio. After listening to the ham bands for 30 years I can say with great confidence that ham radio sucks when it comes to those types of situations. Time and time again CB radio has proven itself to be the communications backbone when landlines fail. Tell that to the Police and Fire officials during 9/11. You can also ask Keith on this group what he thinks. He is a Ham and has done plenty of emergency comms in his job. I -am- a CBer, Gee, I didn't know that. ;-)) Some people in this newsgroup are -not- CBers, which is why I affirmed myself as one. Suit yourself. and IMO you can stick a much bigger thorn in the FCC's ass if you pester your congressional rep. It happens. Evidently it doesn't happen enough. Yup. It still won't get anything accomplished, but at least you're forcing the FCC to answer to someone with some authority. Why do you think some of what is happening is happening? Maybe not enough to suit some people, but some progress is being made. All I see happening is the ARRL taking a step forward after being pushed back three steps. That's not progress, it's damage control. If there is one sure thing in life its change. Assuming things are going to stay the same just isn't reasonable. So if it's bad its going to get better. Or worse. And I made no assumption about things not changing, although sometimes change can be very slow. Since I have a poor track record as a prognosticator, I no longer make assumptions about the future except that it will come. Were is that dang time machine they keep sying is "just around the corner"? 8-)) -- Leland C. Scott KC8LDO Wireless Network Mobile computing on the go brought to you by Micro$oft |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 =--- |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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 =--- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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.. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 =--- |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
'keyclowns' prevail! | Policy |