"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

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

"Landshark" wrote in message
news

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

"Landshark" wrote in message
news
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message
...
You guys need to read this before going any further.

Sample court motion below.

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

Ummm, Lee, that's cool, but that was a song writer, Radio
Station, their Lawyers filing a civil case. That's why it's Sarah
Jones
vs.
The FCC................. Do you have that option to pay their fine ,
then
take them to court?
That wasn't a Ham or a cb'er. Not many people can have a lawyer, let
alone
multiple lawyers go to court for a Nal.


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



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

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

Dead link. No argument settled

Then try this one.

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

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

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

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


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO



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

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

"Landshark" wrote in message
. com...

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

"Landshark" wrote in message
news

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

"Landshark" wrote in message
news
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message
...
You guys need to read this before going any further.

Sample court motion below.

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

Ummm, Lee, that's cool, but that was a song writer, Radio
Station, their Lawyers filing a civil case. That's why it's Sarah
Jones
vs.
The FCC................. Do you have that option to pay their fine ,
then
take them to court?
That wasn't a Ham or a cb'er. Not many people can have a lawyer, let
alone
multiple lawyers go to court for a Nal.


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




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

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

Dead link. No argument settled

Then try this one.

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

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

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

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


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO



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

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

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


--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

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