"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

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


You don't comprehend it do you? You can not contest a
NAL in a court of law, you have to contest it before the FCC.
If you lose, you can then take it to civil court. As for the rules/
law, most of the FCC codes are only rules, as such the FCC enforces them
with NAL's, that's how they circumvent the legal system.
I don't have to worry about NAL Lee, you would have more
to worry about than I.

Landshark


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

"Landshark" wrote in message
. com...

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


You don't comprehend it do you?

I understand it just fine.

You can not contest a
NAL in a court of law, you have to contest it before the FCC.

http://www.fcc.gov/oalj/
http://newmedia.cityu.edu.hk/cyberla...dminlaw03.html
http://www.ku.edu/~kulaw/library/admin_res.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of Application of
RICHARD A. BURTON
For General Mobile Radio Service License
)
)
)
)
)



FCC File No. 0000920745
Docket No. 03-188




HEARING DESIGNATION ORDER


Adopted: August 6, 2003 Released: August 7, 2003


By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau:


INTRODUCTION
1. By this Hearing Designation Order, we commence a hearing before an FCC
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to determine whether the captioned
application by Richard A. Burton (Burton) for a new General Mobile Radio
Service (GMRS) license should be granted. As discussed below, Burton has
been convicted on four separate occasions for the unlicensed operation of a
radio transmission apparatus in violation of Sections 301 or 318 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act).[1] In addition, Burton had his
amateur radio license revoked in 1981 for willful and repeated violation of
the Commission's regulations governing the Amateur Radio Service.[2] In
1992, his application for new amateur radio station and operator licenses
was designated for hearing based on character qualifications issues arising
from the 1981 license revocation and the first two of his four felony
convictions[3] for unlicensed radio operations.[4] Based on the information
before us, we believe that Burton's history of repeated violations of the
Act and our Rules raises a substantial and material question of fact as to
whether he possesses the requisite character qualifications to be a
Commission licensee. Because we are unable to make a determination on the
record currently before us that grant of Burton's application for a new GMRS
license would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity, we
hereby designate the application for hearing, as required by Section 309(e)
of the Act.[5]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

http://www.nlgcdc.org/briefs/microra...sition_pi.html

http://www.cultureandfamily.org/arti...yi d=cfreport


--
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
. com...

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


You don't comprehend it do you?

I understand it just fine.

You can not contest a
NAL in a court of law, you have to contest it before the FCC.

http://www.fcc.gov/oalj/
http://newmedia.cityu.edu.hk/cyberla...dminlaw03.html
http://www.ku.edu/~kulaw/library/admin_res.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of Application of
RICHARD A. BURTON
For General Mobile Radio Service License
)
)
)
)
)



FCC File No. 0000920745
Docket No. 03-188




HEARING DESIGNATION ORDER


Adopted: August 6, 2003 Released: August 7, 2003


By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau:


INTRODUCTION
1. By this Hearing Designation Order, we commence a hearing before an FCC
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to determine whether the captioned
application by Richard A. Burton (Burton) for a new General Mobile Radio
Service (GMRS) license should be granted. As discussed below, Burton has
been convicted on four separate occasions for the unlicensed operation of
a
radio transmission apparatus in violation of Sections 301 or 318 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act).[1] In addition, Burton had
his
amateur radio license revoked in 1981 for willful and repeated violation
of
the Commission's regulations governing the Amateur Radio Service.[2] In
1992, his application for new amateur radio station and operator licenses
was designated for hearing based on character qualifications issues
arising
from the 1981 license revocation and the first two of his four felony
convictions[3] for unlicensed radio operations.[4] Based on the
information
before us, we believe that Burton's history of repeated violations of the
Act and our Rules raises a substantial and material question of fact as to
whether he possesses the requisite character qualifications to be a
Commission licensee. Because we are unable to make a determination on the
record currently before us that grant of Burton's application for a new
GMRS
license would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity, we
hereby designate the application for hearing, as required by Section
309(e)
of the Act.[5]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

http://www.nlgcdc.org/briefs/microra...sition_pi.html

http://www.cultureandfamily.org/arti...yi d=cfreport


He's filing for a license, what does that have to do
with contesting a NAL before a court of law?
I'll say it again, you can not contest a NAL before
a court of law. You keep posting this stuff, none shows
the contesting of a NAL before a court of law.


Landshark


--
Courage is what it takes to stand up
and speak; courage is also what it
takes to sit down and listen.

"Landshark" wrote in message
. com...

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

"Landshark" wrote in message
. com...

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


You don't comprehend it do you?

I understand it just fine.

You can not contest a
NAL in a court of law, you have to contest it before the FCC.

http://www.fcc.gov/oalj/
http://newmedia.cityu.edu.hk/cyberla...dminlaw03.html
http://www.ku.edu/~kulaw/library/admin_res.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of Application of
RICHARD A. BURTON
For General Mobile Radio Service License
)
)
)
)
)



FCC File No. 0000920745
Docket No. 03-188




HEARING DESIGNATION ORDER


Adopted: August 6, 2003 Released: August 7, 2003


By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau:


INTRODUCTION
1. By this Hearing Designation Order, we commence a hearing before an
FCC
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to determine whether the captioned
application by Richard A. Burton (Burton) for a new General Mobile Radio
Service (GMRS) license should be granted. As discussed below, Burton has
been convicted on four separate occasions for the unlicensed operation
of
a
radio transmission apparatus in violation of Sections 301 or 318 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act).[1] In addition, Burton had
his
amateur radio license revoked in 1981 for willful and repeated violation
of
the Commission's regulations governing the Amateur Radio Service.[2] In
1992, his application for new amateur radio station and operator
licenses
was designated for hearing based on character qualifications issues
arising
from the 1981 license revocation and the first two of his four felony
convictions[3] for unlicensed radio operations.[4] Based on the
information
before us, we believe that Burton's history of repeated violations of
the
Act and our Rules raises a substantial and material question of fact as
to
whether he possesses the requisite character qualifications to be a
Commission licensee. Because we are unable to make a determination on
the
record currently before us that grant of Burton's application for a new
GMRS
license would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity, we
hereby designate the application for hearing, as required by Section
309(e)
of the Act.[5]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----------

http://www.nlgcdc.org/briefs/microra...sition_pi.html


http://www.cultureandfamily.org/arti...yi d=cfreport


He's filing for a license, what does that have to do
with contesting a NAL before a court of law?
I'll say it again, you can not contest a NAL before
a court of law. You keep posting this stuff, none shows
the contesting of a NAL before a court of law.

Read section II very carefully. There is a difference between paid and
unpaid NAL's and whether you can challenge them in district court or in an
appellate court. From my reading it appears that as long as you DON'T
immediately pay the forfeiture you can challenge the NAL in district court.
It's a bit much to read, full of legal theory and citing sections of
different CFR's and case law, but does confirm what I have said all along -
you can challenge a NAL in court.

http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opi...03/01-1485.pdf


--
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
. com...

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

"Landshark" wrote in message
. com...

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


You don't comprehend it do you?

I understand it just fine.

You can not contest a
NAL in a court of law, you have to contest it before the FCC.

http://www.fcc.gov/oalj/
http://newmedia.cityu.edu.hk/cyberla...dminlaw03.html
http://www.ku.edu/~kulaw/library/admin_res.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of Application of
RICHARD A. BURTON
For General Mobile Radio Service License
)
)
)
)
)



FCC File No. 0000920745
Docket No. 03-188




HEARING DESIGNATION ORDER


Adopted: August 6, 2003 Released: August 7, 2003


By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau:


INTRODUCTION
1. By this Hearing Designation Order, we commence a hearing before an
FCC
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to determine whether the captioned
application by Richard A. Burton (Burton) for a new General Mobile
Radio
Service (GMRS) license should be granted. As discussed below, Burton
has
been convicted on four separate occasions for the unlicensed operation
of
a
radio transmission apparatus in violation of Sections 301 or 318 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act).[1] In addition, Burton
had
his
amateur radio license revoked in 1981 for willful and repeated
violation
of
the Commission's regulations governing the Amateur Radio Service.[2] In
1992, his application for new amateur radio station and operator
licenses
was designated for hearing based on character qualifications issues
arising
from the 1981 license revocation and the first two of his four felony
convictions[3] for unlicensed radio operations.[4] Based on the
information
before us, we believe that Burton's history of repeated violations of
the
Act and our Rules raises a substantial and material question of fact as
to
whether he possesses the requisite character qualifications to be a
Commission licensee. Because we are unable to make a determination on
the
record currently before us that grant of Burton's application for a new
GMRS
license would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity, we
hereby designate the application for hearing, as required by Section
309(e)
of the Act.[5]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----------

http://www.nlgcdc.org/briefs/microra...sition_pi.html

Dude, this is a: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION" It's an injunction to prevent him from Broadcasting,
nothing to due with a NAL.

1 United States Telephone Association v. F.C.C., No. 92-1321, No. 93-1526,
1994 U.S. App. Lexis 17002.
2 Had defendant, rather than plaintiff, come to this Court seeking
injunctive or declaratory relief, the F.C.C. would be vehemently urging
denial of review pending exhaustion of administrative remedies. In fact, in
a very similar case, Dougan v. F.C.C., 94 C.D.O.S. 2735, No. 92-70734 (9th
Cir. 1994) the F.C.C. argued to the Ninth Circuit that the only avenue for
judicial review in these cases is appeal to the District Court after the
F.C.C. has initiated formal enforcement proceedings to seize the forfeiture
amount.


http://www.cultureandfamily.org/arti...yi d=cfreport

Again, this says before the FCC commissioners, nothing about a court of
law.



He's filing for a license, what does that have to do
with contesting a NAL before a court of law?
I'll say it again, you can not contest a NAL before
a court of law. You keep posting this stuff, none shows
the contesting of a NAL before a court of law.

Read section II very carefully. There is a difference between paid and
unpaid NAL's and whether you can challenge them in district court or in an
appellate court. From my reading it appears that as long as you DON'T
immediately pay the forfeiture you can challenge the NAL in district
court.
It's a bit much to read, full of legal theory and citing sections of
different CFR's and case law, but does confirm what I have said all
along -
you can challenge a NAL in court.

http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opi...03/01-1485.pdf

OK, so AT&T, which has more lawyers than you & I have friends filed a
petition. They also paid the fine first, so again,
where is the common person going with this? Hire a bunch
of lawyers that will end up costing you more than the fine?

Landshark


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