On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 05:19:51 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:24:02 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :


the commission usually sends a warning to an alleged
violator prior to issuing an NAL. If the warning is ignored then the
subsequent NAL is prosecuted as a violation that was done both
willingly and -intentionally-.

Ok, you win that one. That is usually the case.


The facts
are that there ARE illegal intruders on 10 meters. The how's and why's
are irrelevant.


Intent is -very- relevant because some of those dopes don't know that
they are operating illegally.

(and there are those who think we should open up the whole spectrum to
dopes like that. A perfect example of why there are licenses and
rules)

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. At least it didn't used to be. With
all the liberals running around looking to paint every lawbreaker as a
victim, I guess ignorance might be a legitimate excuse now.


I see it a little differently: When we the people are subject to
mountains of laws that can be fully understood only by an army of
lawyers, ignorance can be a very reasonable excuse in many cases. It's
simply impractical (and nearly impossible) for the average citizen to
know and understand all the laws that apply to every circumstance.

I agree, the law was never intended to be so complicated that only a
legal expert can comprehend all the nuances of it. I tend to believe
that lawyers do this deliberately to justify and continue their
existence.

Even worse is when a seemingly cut and dry law get's "what-if'd" to
death in a courtroom battle of hypotheticals which may never occur.
This is why you are required to sign dozens of forms for what should
be a simple transaction in many cases.

And many of those that -do- know they
are illegal are not aware of the severity of the consequences if they
get caught.

Since you saw fit to bring violent crimes into the picture in the
beginning, I'll refer back to them when I make the point that someone
claiming that he didn't know the gun was loaded, would hardly be
absolved of the crime of killing someone based on that excuse alone.


It has happened.

Sure it has happened. When someone desperately wants to escape for
responsibility, they (and by proxy, their lawyer) will do and try
anything to get them off. The absurdity of such defense tactics, just
makes me shake my head.


But even when it didn't, the lack of intent has
certainly been a factor in determining the punishment.

Well sure, killing someone completely by accident is a far different
thing than deliberately murdering someone.

But what I was talking about, but probably didn't use the best example
in doing so, is that you can't kill someone in cold blood and then
claim that you didn't know it was wrong or illegal, and expect much
leniency.

The same thing applies to radio operation to some degree. The claim
that you didn't know you were running on an illegal frequency may not
hold much water, since the FCC requires that you read and understand
the rules before operating, and by the act of your operation, they
assume that you know the rules. It's sort of the same language they
use for software licenses. "By installing this product, you agree to
the terms of the license" etc.

I hate to bring this up, since I can't "prove it", but I once read an
account in a CB magazine (It may have been S9's Washington Outlook),
back in the day, which covered FCC busts of illegal CB'ers. This one
bust involved a group of SSB'ers who had formed a club on a freeband
channel. One of the guys who was busted made a claim that he didn't
know he was operating illegally, since the radio he was using had been
purchased by another person, who had (unbeknownst to him allegedly)
swapped a standard channel crystal (it was a 23 channel rig) for one
which would produce an illegal channel. The operator further claimed
that he assumed he was operating on channel 23 (or whatever it
actually was, I don't remember), as that is what his channel selector
showed. The FCC didn't buy his story, based on other evidence that
indicated that he was all too aware of what was going on.


Hence the FCC's pre-NAL warning letter to notify them that
such operation is illegal and subject to heavy penalties, giving them
the opportunity to rectify their ignorance before they get popped for
several thousand dollars.

Do you get a warning when you get pulled over for speeding? Sometimes
you do, sometimes not. Do you get a warning when you rob a bank? Rape
someone? Assault? Do you get a chance to claim ignorance and promise
that you won't do it again?


There is a defense known as 'justifiable homocide'. I understand that
it's rarely used, but it has been a successful defense in some cases.

Yes, there is a "justifiable homicide" defense. Usually this works
best in abusive domestic situations, where severe emotional and
physical abuse leads to violence as the only solution. By definition,
self defense is also considered a justifiable homicide.

But justifiable homicide is not the same thing as claiming ignorance
of the existence of homicide law.


It's true that the FCC usually sends out warning notices first, but
they don't have to. That's called discretion (the better part of
valor).


Actually, they do need to send out those notices in almost all cases.
The reason behind it is the FCC's pseudo-constitutional system of law
enforcement and the need to establish "willful and malicious" conduct
of the violator. This bypasses the criminal court system, forwards the
forfeiture order directly to the DOJ for collection, and pre-empts
evasion of payment if the violator files for bankruptcy -- an NAL is a
debt that cannot be discharged under any chapter of bankruptcy law. If
the debt -was- dischargeable then the FCC would be forced to file an
adversarial complaint and subsequently defend their law enforcement
practices in Federal court, which is something they have no intention
of doing because they would lose.


This is interesting. The FCC has in the past taken certain violators
to criminal court. In the vast majority of cases though, you are
correct. There would seem to be some threshold which determines their
course of action.

What I am especially curious about is your assertion that if the FCC
took a clear violator to federal court that they would lose. Why do
you feel that way? I would presume that once the FCC decided to act
upon a violator that they would have enough evidence to prove their
case.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:56:45 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 05:19:51 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:24:02 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :


the commission usually sends a warning to an alleged
violator prior to issuing an NAL. If the warning is ignored then the
subsequent NAL is prosecuted as a violation that was done both
willingly and -intentionally-.

Ok, you win that one. That is usually the case.


The facts
are that there ARE illegal intruders on 10 meters. The how's and why's
are irrelevant.


Intent is -very- relevant because some of those dopes don't know that
they are operating illegally.

(and there are those who think we should open up the whole spectrum to
dopes like that. A perfect example of why there are licenses and
rules)

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. At least it didn't used to be. With
all the liberals running around looking to paint every lawbreaker as a
victim, I guess ignorance might be a legitimate excuse now.


I see it a little differently: When we the people are subject to
mountains of laws that can be fully understood only by an army of
lawyers, ignorance can be a very reasonable excuse in many cases. It's
simply impractical (and nearly impossible) for the average citizen to
know and understand all the laws that apply to every circumstance.

I agree, the law was never intended to be so complicated that only a
legal expert can comprehend all the nuances of it. I tend to believe
that lawyers do this deliberately to justify and continue their
existence.


Maybe a few think that way, but I think it's mostly to protect against
the ambulance-chasing opportunists that force court interpretation of
every little flaw, as you stated with the following:


Even worse is when a seemingly cut and dry law get's "what-if'd" to
death in a courtroom battle of hypotheticals which may never occur.
This is why you are required to sign dozens of forms for what should
be a simple transaction in many cases.

snip
It's true that the FCC usually sends out warning notices first, but
they don't have to. That's called discretion (the better part of
valor).


Actually, they do need to send out those notices in almost all cases.
The reason behind it is the FCC's pseudo-constitutional system of law
enforcement and the need to establish "willful and malicious" conduct
of the violator. This bypasses the criminal court system, forwards the
forfeiture order directly to the DOJ for collection, and pre-empts
evasion of payment if the violator files for bankruptcy -- an NAL is a
debt that cannot be discharged under any chapter of bankruptcy law. If
the debt -was- dischargeable then the FCC would be forced to file an
adversarial complaint and subsequently defend their law enforcement
practices in Federal court, which is something they have no intention
of doing because they would lose.


This is interesting. The FCC has in the past taken certain violators
to criminal court. In the vast majority of cases though, you are
correct. There would seem to be some threshold which determines their
course of action.

What I am especially curious about is your assertion that if the FCC
took a clear violator to federal court that they would lose. Why do
you feel that way? I would presume that once the FCC decided to act
upon a violator that they would have enough evidence to prove their
case.


It's not a matter of taking someone to court on criminal charges, it's
about the NAL system of enforcement. The evidence may be overwhelming
and uncontested, but the procedure is probably unconstitutional as the
Supreme Court has suggested in at least one opinion. So the FCC avoids
any constitutional challenge to the NAL, even to the point of settling
before it goes to court. You suggested that there is some threshold
they use to decide which actions to take, and I would suggest that you
are right -- a critera based on the willingness and resourcefulness of
the accused to mount a legal challenge against the FCC's NAL system.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:32:41 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

snip
It's true that the FCC usually sends out warning notices first, but
they don't have to. That's called discretion (the better part of
valor).


Actually, they do need to send out those notices in almost all cases.
The reason behind it is the FCC's pseudo-constitutional system of law
enforcement and the need to establish "willful and malicious" conduct
of the violator. This bypasses the criminal court system, forwards the
forfeiture order directly to the DOJ for collection, and pre-empts
evasion of payment if the violator files for bankruptcy -- an NAL is a
debt that cannot be discharged under any chapter of bankruptcy law. If
the debt -was- dischargeable then the FCC would be forced to file an
adversarial complaint and subsequently defend their law enforcement
practices in Federal court, which is something they have no intention
of doing because they would lose.


This is interesting. The FCC has in the past taken certain violators
to criminal court. In the vast majority of cases though, you are
correct. There would seem to be some threshold which determines their
course of action.

What I am especially curious about is your assertion that if the FCC
took a clear violator to federal court that they would lose. Why do
you feel that way? I would presume that once the FCC decided to act
upon a violator that they would have enough evidence to prove their
case.


It's not a matter of taking someone to court on criminal charges, it's
about the NAL system of enforcement. The evidence may be overwhelming
and uncontested, but the procedure is probably unconstitutional as the
Supreme Court has suggested in at least one opinion.

"Probably" unconstitutional? How so?


So the FCC avoids
any constitutional challenge to the NAL, even to the point of settling
before it goes to court. You suggested that there is some threshold
they use to decide which actions to take, and I would suggest that you
are right -- a critera based on the willingness and resourcefulness of
the accused to mount a legal challenge against the FCC's NAL system.

If, as you allege, the NAL system is constitutionally flawed, there
would be far more people challenging FCC NAL's and winning. This goes
beyond simple citizen's 2-way radio issues. Big guns like Howard Stern
have been fined by the FCC, and his respective companies forced to
pay. They can afford some heavy legal muscle. If the NAL system was
unconstitutional, you would think that these fines would have been
overturned in a legal battle on that basis. Then, of course, the FCC
would have to refine their methods if they wish to remain effective in
enforcement.


Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 06:49:08 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
It's not a matter of taking someone to court on criminal charges, it's
about the NAL system of enforcement. The evidence may be overwhelming
and uncontested, but the procedure is probably unconstitutional as the
Supreme Court has suggested in at least one opinion.

"Probably" unconstitutional? How so?


For many of the same reasons Bush's Patriot Act is unconstitutional:
you don't have the right to a fair trial or to contest all evidence;
the accused is not afforded the right to be "presumed innocent until
proven guilty" because guilt is presumed (or, in the words of the FCC,
"liability" is "apparent"); and guilt is determined by the accuser
which is a conflict of interest. Not only that, but the procedure was
concocted without any legal history or precedent -- they just came up
with the idea and made it law. According the the Supreme Court, that's
not "due process of law".


So the FCC avoids
any constitutional challenge to the NAL, even to the point of settling
before it goes to court. You suggested that there is some threshold
they use to decide which actions to take, and I would suggest that you
are right -- a critera based on the willingness and resourcefulness of
the accused to mount a legal challenge against the FCC's NAL system.

If, as you allege, the NAL system is constitutionally flawed, there
would be far more people challenging FCC NAL's and winning. This goes
beyond simple citizen's 2-way radio issues. Big guns like Howard Stern
have been fined by the FCC, and his respective companies forced to
pay. They can afford some heavy legal muscle. If the NAL system was
unconstitutional, you would think that these fines would have been
overturned in a legal battle on that basis. Then, of course, the FCC
would have to refine their methods if they wish to remain effective in
enforcement.


"Heavy muscle" costs money, and big businesses make their decisions
based on monetary values, not moral principles. Recent examples are
Proctor & Gamble's decision to pull their commercials from "Queer Eye"
and "Will & Grace", and Bill Gates pulling his support of gay rights
legislation, all because of boycotts by some culturally intolerant
right-wing religious homophobes. The god-squads do not represent the
majority by any means, but they can put a dent in the profits of these
corps who, BTW, will eventually reverse their decisions after the gay
rights groups begin their own boycotts. Money, not constitutionality,
is the motivating factor behind the decisions of big business.

Back to the topic.... The FCC fines have increased over the years but
have never exceeded the cost of mounting a full-scale legal challenge;
so the companies just take the hit, pay the fine and kiss FCC butt.
I'm sure that someday the FCC will slap someone with an NAL based on a
faulty financial assessment of a company and get challenged, but I'm
also sure they have a contingency plan in case that ever happens.
After all, they have had plenty of time to plan strategies to defend
against any possible legal confrontation. But until that day comes,
the FCC will continue operating as a rouge government outside the
boundries of the Constitution.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 05:45:19 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 06:49:08 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
It's not a matter of taking someone to court on criminal charges, it's
about the NAL system of enforcement. The evidence may be overwhelming
and uncontested, but the procedure is probably unconstitutional as the
Supreme Court has suggested in at least one opinion.

"Probably" unconstitutional? How so?


For many of the same reasons Bush's Patriot Act is unconstitutional:
you don't have the right to a fair trial or to contest all evidence;
the accused is not afforded the right to be "presumed innocent until
proven guilty" because guilt is presumed (or, in the words of the FCC,
"liability" is "apparent"); and guilt is determined by the accuser
which is a conflict of interest.

It's not much different than getting a speeding ticket. You are
presumed guilty by virtue of the citation, and have to go to court to
prove innocence, if you are so inclined. Nothing unusual about that.


Not only that, but the procedure was
concocted without any legal history or precedent -- they just came up
with the idea and made it law.

The idea that every law has to have "legal history" is ludicrous. At
some point in history a precedent has to be set based on little more
than circumstances. Laws which deal with technology which did not
exist 200+ years ago, cannot have much history. There has to be a
definite beginning.


According the the Supreme Court, that's
not "due process of law".

Not in the sense of a criminal court. But then again, neither would
the handling of summary offenses such as littering or speeding.


So the FCC avoids
any constitutional challenge to the NAL, even to the point of settling
before it goes to court. You suggested that there is some threshold
they use to decide which actions to take, and I would suggest that you
are right -- a critera based on the willingness and resourcefulness of
the accused to mount a legal challenge against the FCC's NAL system.

If, as you allege, the NAL system is constitutionally flawed, there
would be far more people challenging FCC NAL's and winning. This goes
beyond simple citizen's 2-way radio issues. Big guns like Howard Stern
have been fined by the FCC, and his respective companies forced to
pay. They can afford some heavy legal muscle. If the NAL system was
unconstitutional, you would think that these fines would have been
overturned in a legal battle on that basis. Then, of course, the FCC
would have to refine their methods if they wish to remain effective in
enforcement.


"Heavy muscle" costs money, and big businesses make their decisions
based on monetary values, not moral principles.

That may be true, but at some point, it becomes cheaper to fight the
charge than to continually pay fines as was the case with Stern.

Recent examples are
Proctor & Gamble's decision to pull their commercials from "Queer Eye"
and "Will & Grace", and Bill Gates pulling his support of gay rights
legislation, all because of boycotts by some culturally intolerant
right-wing religious homophobes.

What you call a "right wing homophobe", others might call correcting
blind acceptance of abhorrent behavior. You open that door, and it
becomes only a matter of subjective degree as increasingly more
decadent behavior is attempted to be justified by those who partake in
it.

The god-squads do not represent the
majority by any means, but they can put a dent in the profits of these
corps who, BTW, will eventually reverse their decisions after the gay
rights groups begin their own boycotts.

Most businesses don't care what they think. The most vocal of these
activists do not represent significant buying power. And, as you
pointed out so accurately, it's all about money.


Money, not constitutionality,
is the motivating factor behind the decisions of big business.

True in most cases.


Back to the topic.... The FCC fines have increased over the years but
have never exceeded the cost of mounting a full-scale legal challenge;

I'm not so sure of that. But if it is true, that only serves to
illustrate just how lawyers have corralled the legal field beyond the
means of anyone who wishes to challenge perceived unfair practices.


so the companies just take the hit, pay the fine and kiss FCC butt.
I'm sure that someday the FCC will slap someone with an NAL based on a
faulty financial assessment of a company and get challenged, but I'm
also sure they have a contingency plan in case that ever happens.

Are you implying that the FCC only contemplates fining those who they
feel cannot mount a successful legal challenge? I'm not sure I buy
into this level of conspiratorial thought.


After all, they have had plenty of time to plan strategies to defend
against any possible legal confrontation. But until that day comes,
the FCC will continue operating as a rouge government outside the
boundries of the Constitution.

The Constitution does not specifically define many agencies and
policies in the federal government, such as the NSA, black ops, Area
51etc.. The Constitution could not possibly foresee the need for many
of them, including the FCC. The creation of the FCC is perfectly
legal, as it falls under the discretion of the congress, even if you
may disagree with their tactics.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:39:04 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 05:45:19 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 06:49:08 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
It's not a matter of taking someone to court on criminal charges, it's
about the NAL system of enforcement. The evidence may be overwhelming
and uncontested, but the procedure is probably unconstitutional as the
Supreme Court has suggested in at least one opinion.

"Probably" unconstitutional? How so?


For many of the same reasons Bush's Patriot Act is unconstitutional:
you don't have the right to a fair trial or to contest all evidence;
the accused is not afforded the right to be "presumed innocent until
proven guilty" because guilt is presumed (or, in the words of the FCC,
"liability" is "apparent"); and guilt is determined by the accuser
which is a conflict of interest.

It's not much different than getting a speeding ticket. You are
presumed guilty by virtue of the citation, and have to go to court to
prove innocence, if you are so inclined.


Not in my state. You aren't found guilty unless you admit to the
infraction, ignore the ticket, or lose the contest in court. I've
already hashed this out with Leland a while back.


Nothing unusual about that.

Not only that, but the procedure was
concocted without any legal history or precedent -- they just came up
with the idea and made it law.

The idea that every law has to have "legal history" is ludicrous. At
some point in history a precedent has to be set based on little more
than circumstances. Laws which deal with technology which did not
exist 200+ years ago, cannot have much history. There has to be a
definite beginning.


Actually, the common and statutory laws of England were adopted for
the US, and the laws that were contrary to the Constitution were
thrown out. You can't just make up laws on a whim -- they have to be
founded on pre-existing law, be it statute, common or case law.


According the the Supreme Court, that's
not "due process of law".

Not in the sense of a criminal court. But then again, neither would
the handling of summary offenses such as littering or speeding.


Call them 'summary offenses' or 'civil infractions', they are still
violations of law and subject to due process under the Constitution.
You still have the right to appear in court, to contest the evidence,
to appeal the ruling, etc, etc. And unless you can find a state that
convicts upon being cited, you are still innocent until proven guilty.


So the FCC avoids
any constitutional challenge to the NAL, even to the point of settling
before it goes to court. You suggested that there is some threshold
they use to decide which actions to take, and I would suggest that you
are right -- a critera based on the willingness and resourcefulness of
the accused to mount a legal challenge against the FCC's NAL system.

If, as you allege, the NAL system is constitutionally flawed, there
would be far more people challenging FCC NAL's and winning. This goes
beyond simple citizen's 2-way radio issues. Big guns like Howard Stern
have been fined by the FCC, and his respective companies forced to
pay. They can afford some heavy legal muscle. If the NAL system was
unconstitutional, you would think that these fines would have been
overturned in a legal battle on that basis. Then, of course, the FCC
would have to refine their methods if they wish to remain effective in
enforcement.


"Heavy muscle" costs money, and big businesses make their decisions
based on monetary values, not moral principles.

That may be true, but at some point, it becomes cheaper to fight the
charge than to continually pay fines as was the case with Stern.


It appears that they found it cheaper to eliminate Howard Stern than
risk further fines. Indirect censorship at it's finest (and no, I
don't like Howard Stern).


Recent examples are
Proctor & Gamble's decision to pull their commercials from "Queer Eye"
and "Will & Grace", and Bill Gates pulling his support of gay rights
legislation, all because of boycotts by some culturally intolerant
right-wing religious homophobes.

What you call a "right wing homophobe", others might call correcting
blind acceptance of abhorrent behavior. You open that door, and it
becomes only a matter of subjective degree as increasingly more
decadent behavior is attempted to be justified by those who partake in
it.


Oh man..... I could stand on this soap box for hours, but I won't.
I'll just give you one glaring example of what's -really- abhorrent: A
TV censorship system where war and murder are suitable for all viewers
but Janet Jackson's nipples are strictly off limits. And if you need
more examples just ask, cause I have a long list of things "abhorrent"
ranging from the Bush administration to dandelions.

But back to the topic, it's not up to you or any right-wing fanatic
group to dictate how others should live their lives. If you are a
Christian, great, but don't push your religion on me. You have your
values, I have mine, and others have theirs. And if you can't accept
the concept of "E Pluribus Unum" then leave.


The god-squads do not represent the
majority by any means, but they can put a dent in the profits of these
corps who, BTW, will eventually reverse their decisions after the gay
rights groups begin their own boycotts.

Most businesses don't care what they think.


Hogwash. I just gave you two recent examples of major corps bowing to
pressure from these fanatics.


The most vocal of these
activists do not represent significant buying power. And, as you
pointed out so accurately, it's all about money.


They don't represent a -significant- part of the economy but they
-can- put a dent in the profits, which is what I already said. Corps
make their decisions based on numbers, and if they think that dropping
ads from a couple shows is going to be less expensive than a dent in
profits from a small boycott then you can bet your bottom dollar that
the ads will be yanked.


Money, not constitutionality,
is the motivating factor behind the decisions of big business.

True in most cases.


Back to the topic.... The FCC fines have increased over the years but
have never exceeded the cost of mounting a full-scale legal challenge;

I'm not so sure of that. But if it is true, that only serves to
illustrate just how lawyers have corralled the legal field beyond the
means of anyone who wishes to challenge perceived unfair practices.


That's a very good point. Justice is for the rich because lawyers are
greedy *******s.


so the companies just take the hit, pay the fine and kiss FCC butt.
I'm sure that someday the FCC will slap someone with an NAL based on a
faulty financial assessment of a company and get challenged, but I'm
also sure they have a contingency plan in case that ever happens.

Are you implying that the FCC only contemplates fining those who they
feel cannot mount a successful legal challenge?


Cannot or will not.


I'm not sure I buy
into this level of conspiratorial thought.


Well, conspiracies do exist. And if my conclusions are true, the FCC
wouldn't call it a conspiracy. In fact, I wouldn't either. I -would-
call it a grossly unethical and unfair method of law enforcement. The
FCC would probably call it "cost effective management" or some similar
euphamism.


After all, they have had plenty of time to plan strategies to defend
against any possible legal confrontation. But until that day comes,
the FCC will continue operating as a rouge government outside the
boundries of the Constitution.

The Constitution does not specifically define many agencies and
policies in the federal government, such as the NSA, black ops, Area
51etc.. The Constitution could not possibly foresee the need for many
of them, including the FCC. The creation of the FCC is perfectly
legal, as it falls under the discretion of the congress, even if you
may disagree with their tactics.


I never claimed the FCC was established illegally. My contention is
that they are using procedures that are unconstitutional.






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:52:55 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:39:04 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 05:45:19 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 06:49:08 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
It's not a matter of taking someone to court on criminal charges, it's
about the NAL system of enforcement. The evidence may be overwhelming
and uncontested, but the procedure is probably unconstitutional as the
Supreme Court has suggested in at least one opinion.

"Probably" unconstitutional? How so?


For many of the same reasons Bush's Patriot Act is unconstitutional:
you don't have the right to a fair trial or to contest all evidence;
the accused is not afforded the right to be "presumed innocent until
proven guilty" because guilt is presumed (or, in the words of the FCC,
"liability" is "apparent"); and guilt is determined by the accuser
which is a conflict of interest.

It's not much different than getting a speeding ticket. You are
presumed guilty by virtue of the citation, and have to go to court to
prove innocence, if you are so inclined.


Not in my state. You aren't found guilty unless you admit to the
infraction, ignore the ticket, or lose the contest in court. I've
already hashed this out with Leland a while back.


I guess it all depends on your perspective. You are given a ticket.
You can either accept it (Admit guilt) or fight it. If you fight it,
your only chance is to hope that either the cop doesn't show up, or
that the conditions were such that the judge might agree that you
might not "deserve" the ticket. But it basically amounts to you
"fighting" for your innocence. The court tends to side with the police
barring concrete evidence to the contrary.


Nothing unusual about that.

Not only that, but the procedure was
concocted without any legal history or precedent -- they just came up
with the idea and made it law.

The idea that every law has to have "legal history" is ludicrous. At
some point in history a precedent has to be set based on little more
than circumstances. Laws which deal with technology which did not
exist 200+ years ago, cannot have much history. There has to be a
definite beginning.


Actually, the common and statutory laws of England were adopted for
the US, and the laws that were contrary to the Constitution were
thrown out.

Our whole system of government was modeled after the parliamentary
system in England. It was, after all, the most prevalent model for the
founding fathers at the time. They took the time to "correct" what
they perceived were the flaws in the English system.


You can't just make up laws on a whim -- they have to be
founded on pre-existing law, be it statute, common or case law.

But every law had to start sometime. If there was never a condition
that needed a specific law before, you can't very well have one to
base it on.





According the the Supreme Court, that's
not "due process of law".

Not in the sense of a criminal court. But then again, neither would
the handling of summary offenses such as littering or speeding.


Call them 'summary offenses' or 'civil infractions', they are still
violations of law and subject to due process under the Constitution.
You still have the right to appear in court, to contest the evidence,
to appeal the ruling, etc, etc. And unless you can find a state that
convicts upon being cited, you are still innocent until proven guilty.

But in most of those cases, the burden of proving that innocence is
yours, even if it might not be worded quite that way.


"Heavy muscle" costs money, and big businesses make their decisions
based on monetary values, not moral principles.

That may be true, but at some point, it becomes cheaper to fight the
charge than to continually pay fines as was the case with Stern.


It appears that they found it cheaper to eliminate Howard Stern than
risk further fines. Indirect censorship at it's finest (and no, I
don't like Howard Stern).

First off, WNBC thought it better to eliminate Stern. Then he moved to
infinity and the rest was history. He was such a cash cow for them
that the fines were justifiable compared to revenue realized. In fact
the publicity surrounding the FCC and Stern actually increased
interest (ratings) in his show.

Infinity did not "eliminate" Stern. Stern quit to move to Sirius
Satellite radio where, he feels, his "creativity" would not be so
constrained by the FCC rules of decency. The gamble he's making is
whether the tongue dragging set that lives and dies by his every
guffaw will shell out the money to listen to him on Sirius. Mel
Karmazin, Viacom's COO who jumped ship to become the CEO of Sirius,
seems to think so.

I'm waiting until the FCC gets into the Satellite radio scene.


What you call a "right wing homophobe", others might call correcting
blind acceptance of abhorrent behavior. You open that door, and it
becomes only a matter of subjective degree as increasingly more
decadent behavior is attempted to be justified by those who partake in
it.


Oh man..... I could stand on this soap box for hours, but I won't.

Probably a wise move. There's way too much subjectivity.


I'll just give you one glaring example of what's -really- abhorrent: A
TV censorship system where war and murder are suitable for all viewers
but Janet Jackson's nipples are strictly off limits. And if you need
more examples just ask, cause I have a long list of things "abhorrent"
ranging from the Bush administration to dandelions.

What I find abhorrent is a decline in social morality, and a growing
sense that tolerance should be universal and unlimited.


But back to the topic, it's not up to you or any right-wing fanatic
group to dictate how others should live their lives.

Why not? A group of people sat together and drew up the framework of
the laws that we live under today.


If you are a
Christian, great, but don't push your religion on me.

This has little to do with any specific religion.


You have your
values, I have mine, and others have theirs.

So, then who get's to pick the "right" choices?


And if you can't accept
the concept of "E Pluribus Unum" then leave.

I accept the concepts of "one nation Under God", and "endowed by our
creator".



The god-squads do not represent the
majority by any means, but they can put a dent in the profits of these
corps who, BTW, will eventually reverse their decisions after the gay
rights groups begin their own boycotts.

Most businesses don't care what they think.


Hogwash. I just gave you two recent examples of major corps bowing to
pressure from these fanatics.

Gay fanatics? That's who I was referring to. They don't represent
enough buying power to make any difference.


The most vocal of these
activists do not represent significant buying power. And, as you
pointed out so accurately, it's all about money.


They don't represent a -significant- part of the economy but they
-can- put a dent in the profits, which is what I already said.

So who would you rather **** off, a group of abhorrent activists, or
mainstream Christians?


Corps
make their decisions based on numbers, and if they think that dropping
ads from a couple shows is going to be less expensive than a dent in
profits from a small boycott then you can bet your bottom dollar that
the ads will be yanked.

Well sure. It is all about money. So far mainstream Christians still
outnumber gay groups.


Money, not constitutionality,
is the motivating factor behind the decisions of big business.

True in most cases.


Back to the topic.... The FCC fines have increased over the years but
have never exceeded the cost of mounting a full-scale legal challenge;

I'm not so sure of that. But if it is true, that only serves to
illustrate just how lawyers have corralled the legal field beyond the
means of anyone who wishes to challenge perceived unfair practices.


That's a very good point. Justice is for the rich because lawyers are
greedy *******s.

Exactly! And that only underscores the point that with enough money
you can hire enough defensive legal power to beat almost any criminal
or civil charge. ABSCAM alumnus Ozzie Meyers was once quoted as
saying "If you have enough money in this country, you can do almost
anything".

O.J. is a free man today because of such practices.


so the companies just take the hit, pay the fine and kiss FCC butt.
I'm sure that someday the FCC will slap someone with an NAL based on a
faulty financial assessment of a company and get challenged, but I'm
also sure they have a contingency plan in case that ever happens.

Are you implying that the FCC only contemplates fining those who they
feel cannot mount a successful legal challenge?


Cannot or will not.


I'm not sure I buy
into this level of conspiratorial thought.


Well, conspiracies do exist.

Yes, but I'm concerned about the ones you choose to believe in.


And if my conclusions are true, the FCC
wouldn't call it a conspiracy.

In this case "IF" is a mighty big word. One that is not
interchangeable for fact.


In fact, I wouldn't either. I -would-
call it a grossly unethical and unfair method of law enforcement. The
FCC would probably call it "cost effective management" or some similar
euphamism.

There have been cases over the years brought by people who tried to
claim that the IRS and income tax itself was unconstitutional. There
seems to be some credibility to the claim. But in every case, it gets
shot down. I suspect that a similar claim against the FCC would be
treated in a similar fashion.


After all, they have had plenty of time to plan strategies to defend
against any possible legal confrontation. But until that day comes,
the FCC will continue operating as a rouge government outside the
boundries of the Constitution.


Down with the man!



The Constitution does not specifically define many agencies and
policies in the federal government, such as the NSA, black ops, Area
51etc.. The Constitution could not possibly foresee the need for many
of them, including the FCC. The creation of the FCC is perfectly
legal, as it falls under the discretion of the congress, even if you
may disagree with their tactics.


I never claimed the FCC was established illegally. My contention is
that they are using procedures that are unconstitutional.

I would be very interested in the hows and whys of this alleged
unconstitutionality.

I suspect a great deal of subjectivity in this interpretation. Many
people who claim to adhere to the strict wording of the constitution,
would find many of our laws and governmental agencies to be
"unconstitutional". The whole abortion law, as a result of Roe V.
Wade, is one such example, as it was established as a result of a
judicial ruling rather than a legislative action.

Like the Bible, and religion in general, it's surprising at how many
different interpretations you can find from a single source of
information.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

From:
(For many of the same reasons Bush's Patriot Act is unconstitutional:
you don't have the right to a fair trial or to contest all evidence; the
accused is not afforded the right to be "presumed innocent until proven
guilty"
because guilt is presumed (or, in the words of the FCC, "liability" is
"apparent"); and guilt is determined by the accuser which is a conflict
of interest. )

It's not much different than getting a speeding

ticket.

Correct. Both are NON-criminal matters,

You are presumed guilty by virtue of the

citation, and have to go to court to prove

innocence, if you are so inclined. Nothing

unusual about that.

You have it backwards. There is no "virtue" of being presumed guilty and
never was. The court must prove your guilt, not the other way around.
When you walk into court, you say nothing initially, as it is up to the
other party to prove your guilt. Your entire concept of the justice
system is wrong.


The idea that every law has to have "legal

history" is ludicrous. At some point in history a

precedent has to be set based on little more

than circumstances.

The "precedent" becomes the history and the laws were derived from the
colonist's home land except those deemed to infringe upon the new
concept of freedom they were employing.


(According the the Supreme Court, that's not
"due process of law". )

Not in the sense of a criminal court.

The matters you peak of are non-criminal in nature and in law.

But then again, neither would the handling of

summary offenses such as littering or

speeding.

And freebanding and dxing also would NOT be handled by a criminal court.