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