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 Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:22:20 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

I am afraid Dave is not even good entertainment... more of a
boring/repetitive slug...

He reminds me of an old woman with nothing better to do than harass anyone
in disagreement with them.

. a Chihuahua, nipping at ones ankles--best ignored.

However, when not here, he is most likely in his mobile, pursuing truckers
(complete with a rotating caution light on his trunk and wearing a bunch of
pseudo-official badges, patches and ball caps purchased at ham fests), I
suppose it is better to have him here than out annoying the truckers, at
least they can get some honest work done then! grin

I see stereotyping is a standard method of operation for you. As
opposed to actually dissecting your issues and discussing their
relative worth.

Any society that expects to live together must enact rules which set
limits on what people can do to one another, and generally set's
boundaries on an individual's right of access and right of property.

Anyone who thinks that these rules are overly restrictive or otherwise
"wrong" need to do some serious research on history and sociology.

This applies to the radio spectrum as well. There are millions of
licensed users who are granted the privilege of operating on a
specified band of frequencies to accomplish a particular task. Things
like wireless internet, cell phones, GPS, the drive-in at a fast food
joint, long haul telephone service, satellite and broadcast radio,
television, and many more conveniences that some of us take for
granted, need clear spectrum to operate properly. That is why the FCC
controls who goes where. What do you suppose would happen if the FCC
were to disappear and anyone was allowed to transmit on any frequency
they pleased?

Common citizens have access to certain portions of spectrum to conduct
personal business or engage in hobby talk. As you demonstrate
increased responsibility and technical competence, you are granted
increased privileges. That is why ham radio has more bands, modes, and
power. A ham license is a certificate that demonstrates that the
holder has passed tests showing that he understands the FCC
operational rules, as well as possessing enough technical skill to
operate higher power transmitters, erect proper antenna systems, and
mitigate interference complaints.

That is not to say that there aren't CB operators equally qualified in
these areas. But until they prove their competence, the FCC does not
recognize it.

Eliminating ham radio and replacing it with a "no-holds-barred" radio
service where people are allowed to run class "C" amps on AM, or
running 10 KW into a poorly decoupled antenna, generating RFI, etc.,
is a recipe for disaster.

One way to illustrate how anarchy is a poor choice for RF spectrum
management, is by turning the tables. If there are no rules, then you
might think it's a good thing. But what if you were engaged in a radio
activity that you enjoyed. All of a sudden that activity was
interrupted by another station creating interference. You could no
longer partake in what it is that you enjoy, thanks to the
interference from the other station. Now, what do you do? There is no
FCC to complain to right? Who stands up for your right of access?

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 =----

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:15:07 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:25:36 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

So, you began breaking the law again by returning to the freeband after
you told the group you no longer do so because you "grew up" and are
setting responsible behavior patterns for your daughter by folllowing
the law.
No, I am not on the freeband. I am active on

both Ham radio AND CB. Leave it to you to

draw the wrong conclusion from a statement.


Let's see again what you said...

I won't try to argue that point as I agree that

some people conceivably do "return" (or never
left in the first place) to the CB and freeband.

I'm still somewhat active on both to this day.


Leave it to you to say something that explicity claims one thing, and
then come back and try and explain what you "really meant" because
you're communiction skills suck in conveying "what you really mean". Gee
Dave, since you're entrance in this group your posts are chock full of
you coming back and telling people what you really meant with your
words..the problem is with you, not the contingency who you need
re-explain yourself..but then again, that's how you are, always blaming
everyone but yourself.

-
Some of those who obtained licenses can
never go back because their voices are too
easily recognized and their hammie "friends"
will report their ass for freebanding.

I'm not so sure that this is as prevalent as you

claim.
=A0

You're not sure of all kinds of things, so what....only -you- claimed
anything was "prevalent" . You're having difficulties again, Davie.
That's cool...but entertain, for a moment, if you would, the notion you
are subscribing. If you do not believe me, then you mistakenly believe
the FCC is actively patrolling the air for violators. This info can be
found simply by extolling a little leg work.....but I'm telling you, the
FCC does NOT actively patrol the air seeking violations by hammies or
cbers.

Just how do you KNOW that?

I've told you on many occasion how I know this. Just because you can't
remember or comprehend such does not mean it merits redundant repeating
for your benefit. All you need know is that I know it, just like the
laws surrounding the roger beep issue which you did not know. Needing
the hows and WHY other people are educated on matters you are not is
off-topic and serves only to illustrate you have a great deal difficulty
believing anything if you are not already clued in on it ore aware of it
and for some odd reason, when others know something you do not, you
begin to twitch andget cornfused and your sudden fascination with how
others are educated on subjects you are not begins to magically morph
into your preferred topic as opposed to the original one.
_
=A0They end up being
****ed off (then issed upon) hammies.

You discount the possibility that while exposed
to ham radio, that many people find respect

for the rules, and have a change of attitude.

I didn't discount it at all, as I know what you say to be true, but what
I say is just as true.
Members belong to both camps.

Yet you lambast me for my change in attitude.

Never. I cite your double-speak and hypocrisy.
The anger toward such freebanders can be seen in your own posts.

Despite your many claims, I harbor no "anger".
Stating facts that doesn't sit well with you, is

not the same thing as "anger".

Stating facts has you chasing your tail with semantics. You call people
criminals with nothing more than your mistaken ignorance that "saying it
on usenet is the same as a guilty plea in a court of law".

An admission of guilt is an admission of guilt.

This is not a court of law. There is no judge or

jury. If you admit to partaking in an illegal

activity, then you did it.


I was the third man on the grassy knoll.

Anything more is simply a formality.

Your education is shining, David. Another future moment to embrace
regarding your kid's perusing of your posts some day.
_
Although you
have been given the correct information regarding the judicial system,
you continue to mistakenly believe you may publicly refer to one as a
criminal even if they were not convicted in a court of law.

You do not need to be convicted of an action

to make the reality of that action known.


There is no reality of any action once the courts find you anything
other than guilty. Why is this so difficult for you?

You continue to fall back on the flawed

concept that you're only guilty when caught

and convicted.

This "flawed concept" you invoke is THE basis for the US justice system.
Just because you take issue with certain laws protecting those from
libel or slander that you would undeservedly and illegallly refer,
does not mean you get to ignore those laws. Again, your hypocrisy is
illustrated brilliantly..


As if you really are not breaking the law

because the feds never witnessed you doing

it.


Stay with me, David,,as you are sinking fast trying desperately again to
misattribute things to othersthat are said only by your lips.

That's as absurd as the philosophical

question of whether a tree still makes noise

when it falls in the forest, and no one was

there to hear it.


It is, but keep in mind only -you- are putting forth such a position and
it is great that you can now regognize your blather for what it
is..absurd.
-
Several
years ago you were making posts chastising hammies as being too uptight
and uppity and technical who look down on cbers.

Because in many cases, it's true.

Not "in many cases"..you stated "For the most part" in your post when
you referred to the hammies... using the same sterotyping you just
hypocritically took another to task for employing. .

So now you're back to your old game of

obfuscation and semantic word games.


You mean this is where you come back and say you meant something else
and need to explain just what you REALLY meant when you said "for the
most part".

There are hams who are stuffy and uptight.

But they are legal. The converse is also true.

Many outlaw CB'ers feel that they have a right

to do just what (and where) they please

without due regard for the rights of anyone

else.

Same is true with many hammies,

But they are not here claiming any perceived

right to do so.


You have it half right,,,"preceived" was finally a correct term, as
-you- are the only one speaking of any "right" to break the law. Come to
think of it, it has always been you falsely accusing cbers of claiming
some "right" to break the law, yet no one is furthering that
position,,except YOU.
_
yet for some reason, you do not voice
your concern for those you hold in higher regards, higher esteem,,,you
know,,those who are supposed to lead by example.

So, you posit that because there is a certain

percentage of "bad hams" who break the

rules, that that gives you a right to do it on the

freeband?

I posit nothing of the sort. Your ****-poor suppositioning is
responsible for your incoherent assumptions.

=A0=A0RFI, direct interference, and public nuisance

issues do not seem to affect them.

"Them" is not limited exclusively to cb users.

No, but responsible radio operators on either

service, will cooperate to minimize such

issues.
=A0

Such as many good and decent freebanders. You were taught this long ago
when you had your clock cleaned reegarding any interference you claim
can come from use of the freeband to other services. This subject took a
little clarifying on your behalf, as you couldn't handle the truth that
the band parallels the ten meter band in capabilities and conditions
leading to any imagined interference you claim. This defeat led to you
down the path of of more assumptions on your behalf and the invocation
that freebanders are more prone to use dirty amps than ten meter ops.
Your off topic desperate ploy signaled your defeat.


=A0Either behavior is reprehensible, and I've

defended each respective group when on the

receiving end of such stereotypical prejudice.

Yet, you continue to employ it yourself.

Not at all.


Of course, That ever-growing list of regs here that have told you your
actions has been hypocritical are all wrong and you are correct.

Lately it's the hams who are unfairly on the

receiving end of this prejudice.

Why is it unfair to illustrate the same behavior committed by hammies
that you complain about when committed by cbers?

Because as a matter of percentage, the

number of law breaking hams compared to

licensed users, is much smaller than the

amount of illegal operators compared to legal

CB'ers.


Going by the numbers provided by the FCC, you are dead wrong.

Everyone on the freeband is illegal.


Very good, David. Now try and explain away how this translates into your
claim that there are A) More users on the freeband than illegal hammie
ops and B) supply anyything at all that supports your contention, other
than invoking your subjective and incorrect "empirical observation",
because when we invoke another of your terms (statistical probability)
and employ its methodology (inof supplied by the FCC) you are dead
wrong, as such proves just what the feds correctly deem a more serious
problem. You have always had a hard-on over the manner in which the feds
enforce hammie radio but not cb and it manifests in your heathen-like
behavior among our fine little group of freebanders and cbers, who, for
the most part, are better ops than yoursel, as you **** all over the
hammie creed based on your personal incorrect judgements, ignorance of
the law, and anger over such.

You don't need fancy equipment to figure it

out. Mere presence of a station there is all that
is needed to make the very accurate empirical
observation.


Such techniques are flawed in your employ, as you are unable to
comprehend the correct definition of it. Need shown again where you
muffed the term and claimed it was something it wasn't? It would be my
pleasure,,really.

On the other hand, a ham running twice the

power output on 75 meters would not be

readily apparent to someone listening as the

signal would only be 3db stronger.

During your admitted
freebanding and illegal operating years, not
once will you find a post by yourself calling
others names or expressing nosey concern for other people's business
that does not affect
you.

I still don't.


Dude, you have been calling anyone who disagrees with you names for
years, (often accompanied by the obligatory self-excusing your behavior
with the now infamous but pathetic and defeated "if the shoe fits" line)
but you go on and illustrate your manias via denial.

I'm not the one trying desperately to find out

personal information (often

incorrectly like the name of my wife) about

other people.

Yes, you were. In fact, you initiated the personal info game with me and
everyone knows it. You were told long ago to stay out of the personal,
off-topic arena. Once you violate this, you have nothing to say when
your initiated behavior is returned.

.I did nothing of the sort.


Sure you did, Davie..you were told time and time again that your
personal comments regardng anyone that posted things you had problems
with were off-topic and to remain on topic.

I attempted no such action against you or

anyone else. I challenge you to prove

otherwise. Believe me, if you were that

important enough to make me want to find out

information, I would have. And trust me, it

would not be wrong.



I call your bluff again, David, as I have been doing for years. You're
all talk.

Also worthy of note is the time you spend

reviewing my 10 year span of messages to

this newsgroup. One might consider that as

bordering on obsession.

One might, but I have a photographic memory.

Yes, but you weren't around here when those

beginning posts were first left almost 10 years

ago. You had to deliberately review them.


Some folks relax by hitting a baseball, some folks relax by playing
checkers....I relax by playing usenet. The particulars are an item and
topic only to yourself.


Besides, that "photographic memory" of yours

is flawed, otherwise you would be accusing

me of things that I never did. Such as claiming
the case against Doug was "withdrawn", or

that Keith was somehow involved, or any

other such accusation you have confused with
another person (or just plain invented) and

then tried to attribute to me.


"Anarchy" plus sock puppets =3D statistical probablity.
_
There,, now there's another
little tidbit of information for you to wallow in. I remember just about
everything, and in most cases you refer, I merely have to type in the
pertinent key words of your past posts and voila!....no time at all
spent other than three clicks right to the passage needed to illustrate
your incorrectness, hypocrisy, and double-talk, and lies.

Sure, that's why you keep making those

glaring errors.


The face of your much-tried lies are the errors. Let's revisit the
thread where you lost your cool, threatened me, and lied not once, not
twice, but every time your threat was mentioned....you have a real
problem with that one.
_
However, after having your
clock cleaned in reec.radio.cb by cbers for your oft extended hypocrisy,

reec (reek?) a freudian slip?

Which speaks volumes of how you think.

On a higher plain than you? Probably.


Of course, all those people who tried to gently tell you that you suffer
a great deal from frequent hypocrisy couldn't possibly be correct,
because they are all wrong and you are right. In fact, you are always
right and everone else that illustrates your negativty is somehow
collectively wrong.
_
That you attribute such behavior (name calling, attacking those who
merely dx or freeband) to "growing up", illustrates the fact you were an
incredible late bloomer and extremely slow learner who hasn't fully
matured yet, as your behavior continued well in to your thirties.

Well, then if I'm still "growing up", then you

have yet to start because you are still

engaged in that illegal behavior.


I'm not the one that made the farcical connection between the
two...again -you- did.

And even when corrected, I'm sure you'll still

come back sometime in the future and claim

that I "admitted" to still actively freebanding.


So now you are saying you never did?
Gee Dave, you're really tweaked. I apologize if I am rendering you
completely incoherent, but such happens with malicious liars not unlike
yourself.
_
In fact, you still are
illegal and have no right to say anything to anyone,

I assume you have some proof of this? Yea I

know, you have tons of proof, but you're not

about to post it.

No Dave, that isn't the standard reply, but I'll
remind you since you struggle with memory impairment. You initiated
unsolicited claims,,many of them. When challenged for proof, you
declined for personal reasons. You are still free to provide proof for
any of your unasnwered claims, and then, as proper decorum and
communicative technique dictates, will have your inquiries answered with
proof in turn.

Like I said........ You have no proof.
=A0

And like I said,,,you lie. About everything.
_
=A0as for starters, the address you provided the FCC is not your primary
residence and the fact that you fail to correct this matter with the FCC
even after being informed you are illegal, leaves you no credibility
with anything you may say regarding other's actions.

You really, REALLY need to go back to

whatever source of information gathering you

use and either fire them, demand your money

back, or something. Because, quite frankly,

you are embarrassing yourself every time you

make these erroneous claims. My listed

address in the FCC database is exactly my

primary (only) residence. I am doing nothing

illegal.

So the real question is, Who do you think I

really am (today)? What do you think is my

"real" address?

Not concerned with your personal world, Dave,,that;s reserved for you to
cause yourself great pains concerning others.

You are the one making the personal claims.

I toss things back over the sharp fence post upon which you sit.

It

obviously concerns you. Your words say one

thing, but your actions betray your true

motivations.


There's that crystal ball again. Tell me, oh delusional seer of all,
these motivations only you see expressed in my entrance to the group.


The only thing I can figure is that the

commonality of my name (Next after Smith

and Jones), has you so confused, that you

believe I'm someone different than who I

actually am (There are 3 Dave Hall's in my

company's phone directory, talk about

confusion).

Agreed. Perhaps you can explain how you mistakenly feel your unsolicited
but invoked claim regarding a company directory relates to anything,

It's an example of just how common my name

is.


Your name is nothing. Your license plate was confirmation. Wake up,
David. You're not up to this type game.


It's the ultimate irony for someone like you,

who craves anonymity.


There goes your self-projection and problems with cb..lol.

You go to great pains to hide who you are,

while I gladly reveal my name.


Not only did I offer to meet with you even after your direct threat, I
offered to post pics of me in this group at the designated place on the
designated day with the day's newspaper date visible to prove I was
there after you cowardly tried to say I wouldn't show after YOUR great
pains and threats to find ME. Get over yourself. You're all bull****.

Yet even when armed with that information,

your efforts to seek further information about

me have proved to be dismal failures. When

you have a name as common as mine, you

really can hide in plain sight. Perhaps now you
will finally "get it".......

=A0=A0The fact that my phone number is unlisted

removes me from many people searches.

You go on thinking that.

Oh so you have looked? Call me sometime

then big boy......
=A0

You had your chance, tough guy, and ran like the yellow cur you are.


=A0That also explains why you keep insisting that
my wife's name is "Kimberly

T. Hall", and that she's a "teacher".

She may not teach now, but she tried to at least once.

Yea, ok, whatever you say.

Hahahah,,it's not what I say, its what SHE said.
No wonder your dithering blather gives way to nervous paranoia.

In

conclusion, you continue to trust unreliable

sources which provide you erroneous

information and then accuse others of things

.which are incorrect.



Gee Dave,,,when someone emails me your webpage to alert me to the fact
that your license plate was visible in the picture, and the address the
plate traced to doesn't match the one you provided to the FCC as your
personal address, you may have to explain those discrepancies some day.

It is not my credibility that

is in question here, it's yours.

But wait? Wasn't it you who just accused ME

of trying to obtain people's personal

information?

It was also myself that instructed you years ago that off-topic personal
information is not relevant to these pages,

Yet here you are demonstrating to the world

just how much effort you go through to do just

that when you make personal information

comments about other people. And lest you

try to use the excuse that it's my fault, how

.many people have you accused Frank of

being over the years?


And how many people have you hurled unsolicited claims regaridng your
education to, but fail to provide when asked? IOW, your regurgitations
are important enough, according to you, to invoke, but not provide
for....now THAT is the Davie we have all come to know and remember as
hypocritical, cowardy, and a liar.

And you call me hypocritical. Sheesh.......


So does a growing list of regs in here.
But nothing hypocitiical at all about giving you back your initiated
behavior.

Bad behavior is inexcusable regardless of who
started it.


You would be amazed at how much would evaporate once you cease
initiating it, but you are unable, as you lack self-control and
emotional stability, whcih leads you to find fault with everyone you
disagree and go off on off-topic tangents regarding self-invoked
unsolicited and always unsubstantiated claims
about others.

When you were growing up and in school, it

didn't matter who started the fight, you BOTH

got suspended. Both are equally culpable.


Ummm..no. When I was going to school, we didn't get suspended for
fighting, Dave. Fights were so common where I went to school that the
only thing that would get one suspended was hitting a staff member,
drugs, or possession of a weapon.


Using the excuse; "Well, he started it!" is truly

feeble and a poor justification for your own

foibles.
=A0


The same justification you set forward regarding the invasion of
Afghanistan,,then,,,Iraq. Again, your hypocrisy brilliantly illustrated
when you are held to your own bull****...ha..I love it,,,what better way
to begin my workweek(end)?
_
=A0In fact, you were warned on many occasion that this is what your
initiated behavior would degrade to.

But I never claimed or threatened to find out

personal information about anyone.

You did, Dave, and continue to do it to all you disagree in the form of
unsolicited claims regarding your education and your imagined and
oft-hallucinations and fancying yourself schooled in medical diagnoses.
But, again, if the information is
incorrect, ignore it and toss it out the window...but for some obvious
reasons, you chose to bitch about it.

Only to illustrate your obvious hypocrisy


Tel us again the last exchange we had after you threatened to come down
here and give me something.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:04:46 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: (John=A0Smith)
(You waste your time, attempting to show logic
to Dave, he is obivously a ham or "ham
groupie."
He is just here to stop any progressive
changes--write your congressmen!!! Anyway,
whether he does what he does or not--the
winds of change begin to blow....
Regards,
John )

Dave is capable of giving good entertainment when he remains cool, stays
on topic, and steers clear of emotional outbursts.

Why thank you! That's the closest thing to a

compliment that I've seen in a while. Now how
'bout a big hug?

Dave

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj


I'll settle for staying on topic in the future. Maybe it can even lead
to a Fresca some day.

From: (John=A0Smith)
(I am afraid Dave is not even good entertainment... more of a
boring/repetitive slug...
He reminds me of an old woman with nothing better to do than harass
anyone in disagreement with them.
a Chihuahua, nipping at ones ankles--best ignored.
However, when not here, he is most likely in his mobile, pursuing
truckers (complete with a rotating caution light on his trunk and
wearing a bunch of pseudo-official badges, patches and ball caps
purchased at ham fests), I suppose it is better to have him here than
out annoying the truckers, at least they can get some honest work done
then! grin
Regards,
John)


-

Well, when he is here he isn't on the air, at least.

From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)
(I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:1918-4270FF3E-
:
From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)
LOL there he goes again accusing innocent

people. why not come to my house pussy boy

Ill pay the gas

Off you go now,,disappear for a week and reappear the day Dave Hall
comes back, why don't you : )

get your stories straight tipsy you said I was

dave hall a few months ago then reniged, and

stevoe says I am chris busch... you both

havent the foggiest do you.

What scares the living hell out of you, is one of us is correct.

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

(I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)
(I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:1918-4270FF3E-
:
From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)
LOL there he goes again accusing innocent

people. why not come to my house pussy boy

Ill pay the gas

Off you go now,,disappear for a week and reappear the day Dave Hall
comes back, why don't you : )

get your stories straight tipsy you said I was

dave hall a few months ago then reniged, and

stevoe says I am chris busch... you both

havent the foggiest do you.

What scares the living hell out of you, is one of us is correct.

Bagged and tagged.

Yes, and we have great laws which protect us from unthinkable evils!!!
1) Can't spit on sidewalk...
2) Can't be naked in public...
3) Can't use profane language in public...
4) No urninating on public lands.. (but, sometimes I just can't hold it!)
5) No fishing without a licence...
6) No hunting without a licence...
7) No using the ham bands without a licence...

Now, the bleeding heart liberals are going to cry when we start executing
people for violating these laws, but, YOU MUST HAVE ORDER!!!!

John