"Landshark" wrote in message
om...

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message
...
It's all pretty clear cut Lanshark. You don't pay the NAL and challenge
it
in district court, or pay it, then go the appeal court route. If you
read
the whole quoted section that's what the court says, in legal speak,
near
the end.

Have you ever gotten a NAL?

NO.

Have you sent back the
paperwork to the FCC that goes with the NAL?
If the answer is no, then you don't know. If it's yes
then you know that you have to give them, Full name,
Social Security #, employment info, assets info etc etc.
As I have said in previous posts, I know two people
that got them, both were found guilty, though they filed
motions with the commission saying they weren't. They
then were told that if they didn't pay, their wages would
be garnished, liens on their houses. They were told by
the FCC & a lawyer (They both had different lawyers)
that was the only way or sue them in Federal court.

So they had crummy attorneys. Doesn't change the facts of the opinion
written by the appeals court in the AT&T case. If you go back and read that
section again you'll see that the FCC was mistaken about how things work.
The FCC had issues with the points raised by the AT&T NAL yet the court
agreed with AT&T. It seems to me that your buddy's attorney likely brought
the "party line" from the FCC. It wouldn't be the first time that a lawyer
missed rulings in case law that would have materially helped their client.
Happens more often that you think.

Say what you want, but you can't just say "I don't
agree, I want a trial" They start collecting the fine right
away when the commission says you are guilty.

As you say "try", until they have to go to court. Then it's a new ball game.


Anyway the original point made by several people was you can't challenge
a
NAL in court. I think that myth has been dispelled. You raised another
issue, is it really worth the cost? You might have a point there. I
guess
it
all depends on the about of the NAL. a couple of grand maybe not, but
for
$10K yeah I think it would if one feels confident they have a strong
case.

Same point, spend $9,000.00 on a lawyer, for a $10,000.00
fine? One of the persons I know was fined $30,000.00
plus for his NAL, his lawyer told him to pay the fine or make
arrangements for payments, he would be spending close to that to sue the
government to reduce fines. You saw above what they did to him.

The expense of going to court is a wholly different issue. I'll agree with
you that it could be an expensive option. And at times it doesn't make sense
to pursue the legal course of action.



On a side point who were you replying to in regards to a post about a
radio
and refering to them using my name? I never mentioned anything about a
radio, just a comment about you getting a NAL for first hand experience.
I
think you got me confused with somebody else.

Not really, I may have read into this more than what you meant:
"All I can figure out is you want to believe this so you can justifiy FCC
regulation violations in your own mind, feel better about it, and excuse
others for being held accountable."

But the way accusations fly in here, I figured you were saying
I would feel better about operating a linear or export radio.

No. 8-)) My point was you could pay a lawyer to get the same information
here for a whole lot less.

By the way what did that guy do to get a $30K NAL anyway? Must have really
ticked somebody off big time. The normal forfeitures are around $7500 for
the kinds of illegal crap people do that gets mentioned here in the group.
--
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
om...

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message
...
It's all pretty clear cut Lanshark. You don't pay the NAL and challenge
it
in district court, or pay it, then go the appeal court route. If you
read
the whole quoted section that's what the court says, in legal speak,
near
the end.

Have you ever gotten a NAL?

NO.

Have you sent back the
paperwork to the FCC that goes with the NAL?
If the answer is no, then you don't know. If it's yes
then you know that you have to give them, Full name,
Social Security #, employment info, assets info etc etc.
As I have said in previous posts, I know two people
that got them, both were found guilty, though they filed
motions with the commission saying they weren't. They
then were told that if they didn't pay, their wages would
be garnished, liens on their houses. They were told by
the FCC & a lawyer (They both had different lawyers)
that was the only way or sue them in Federal court.

So they had crummy attorneys. Doesn't change the facts of the opinion
written by the appeals court in the AT&T case. If you go back and read
that
section again you'll see that the FCC was mistaken about how things work.
The FCC had issues with the points raised by the AT&T NAL yet the court
agreed with AT&T. It seems to me that your buddy's attorney likely brought
the "party line" from the FCC. It wouldn't be the first time that a lawyer
missed rulings in case law that would have materially helped their client.
Happens more often that you think.

Say what you want, but you can't just say "I don't
agree, I want a trial" They start collecting the fine right
away when the commission says you are guilty.

As you say "try", until they have to go to court. Then it's a new ball
game.


Anyway the original point made by several people was you can't
challenge
a
NAL in court. I think that myth has been dispelled. You raised another
issue, is it really worth the cost? You might have a point there. I
guess
it
all depends on the about of the NAL. a couple of grand maybe not, but
for
$10K yeah I think it would if one feels confident they have a strong
case.

Same point, spend $9,000.00 on a lawyer, for a $10,000.00
fine? One of the persons I know was fined $30,000.00
plus for his NAL, his lawyer told him to pay the fine or make
arrangements for payments, he would be spending close to that to sue the
government to reduce fines. You saw above what they did to him.

The expense of going to court is a wholly different issue. I'll agree with
you that it could be an expensive option. And at times it doesn't make
sense
to pursue the legal course of action.



On a side point who were you replying to in regards to a post about a
radio
and refering to them using my name? I never mentioned anything about a
radio, just a comment about you getting a NAL for first hand
experience.
I
think you got me confused with somebody else.

Not really, I may have read into this more than what you meant:
"All I can figure out is you want to believe this so you can justifiy FCC
regulation violations in your own mind, feel better about it, and excuse
others for being held accountable."

But the way accusations fly in here, I figured you were saying
I would feel better about operating a linear or export radio.

No. 8-)) My point was you could pay a lawyer to get the same information
here for a whole lot less.

By the way what did that guy do to get a $30K NAL anyway? Must have really
ticked somebody off big time. The normal forfeitures are around $7500 for
the kinds of illegal crap people do that gets mentioned here in the group.
--
Leland C. Scott

Well, he was running a home base set up, supposedly
10,000 watts. Down the street, maybe a couple of blocks was
the local PBS station. They told him that he was coming over
practically everything in the station, I'd believe it.
I wasn't there, but I saw the NAL and the judgment, so that's why I know
what they said.

Take a read here, it's not a case it the direct rules

http://tinyurl.com/6ec86

Landshark

--
Is it so frightening to have me at your shoulder?
Thunder and lightning couldn't be bolder.
I'll write on your tombstone, ``I thank you for dinner.''
This game that we animals play is a winner.

"Landshark" wrote in message
om...


Well, he was running a home base set up, supposedly
10,000 watts. Down the street, maybe a couple of blocks was
the local PBS station. They told him that he was coming over
practically everything in the station, I'd believe it.

Most consumers electronics now days isn't sheilded as well as it used to be.
Now almost everything comes in a plastic box. Metal cabinets are
disappearing more and more. That cheap spray on aluminium crap, I've seen
used on the inside of those plastic boxes, I don't think works nearly as
well as a good metal cabinet IMHO. Maybe Frank would like to comment on
this. I should think he would have some experience along this line.

I wasn't there, but I saw the NAL and the judgment, so that's why I
know
what they said.

But why $30K? That seems far above what you would expect. What did he do,
give the FCC a hard time?


Take a read here, it's not a case it the direct rules

http://tinyurl.com/6ec86

The quote below is from that section above.

-----------------------------------------------------------
(1) Before imposing a forfeiture penalty
under the provisions of this paragraph,
the Commission will issue a notice
of opportunity for hearing. The
hearing will be a full evidentiary hearing
before an administrative law judge,
conducted under procedures set out in
subpart B of this part, including procedures
for appeal and review of initial
decisions. A final Commission order assessing
a forfeiture under the provisions
of this paragraph is subject to judicial
review under section 402(a) of the
Communications Act.
(2) If, after a forfeiture penalty is imposed
and not appealed or after a court
enters final judgment in favor of the
Commission, the forfeiture is not paid,
the Commission will refer the matter
to the Department of Justice for collection.
In an action to recover the forfeiture,
the validity and appropriateness
of the order imposing the forfeiture
are not subject to review.
----------------------------------------------

While there are some conditions that the FCC says has to be fulfilled to
qualify, it's not the whole story. What you posted are the rules, sure, just
as the US Constitution are rules too. However as we know most court cases
cite "case law" where prior higher court decisions, which have interpreted
"the rules", are used to support the current legal argument. That's what
happened in the AT&T case. The AT&T case was a NAL for "phone slamming", and
the appeals court disagreed with the FCC's interpretation of it's own rules.
Unfortunately for the FCC the appeals court decision is what counts. A court
decision at this level can be cited in other court cases to the detriment of
the FCC.

--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

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