wrote in message
oups.com...
The "broadcasting" charge///////crap flushed///////


Not a single of your assertions has any basis in factual
law. Maybe they do at a Dallas, TX beer bar but not
in a court of law, or hadn't you noticed your IP is
dangling in the open?

So... I take it you don't agree? Fine with me if you don't.

But let's watch and see what happens. Eventually we will all know who
was right.

Like I said, don't take the seemingly slow pace of this as an
indication of the eventual outcome. Having observed the workings of
government, it may be slow, but it does eventually get the job done.

The FCC with all it's problems will eventually deal with Mr Baxter. It
will take awhile yet, but they will deal with him just like they are
dealing with Jack Garretson who is sitting in jail right now and faces
FCC imposed fines too. You know it's sorta funny that he used a lot of
the same arguments I hear used to justify K1MAN's position and it seems
that they will have about the same impact.

And, just as an aside.. My IP is quite safe, I assure you.

wrote in message
ups.com...

And, just as an aside.. My IP is quite safe, I assure you.


Doesn't look like it to me...
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.62.8.128

Of course, you are probably posting from work by the looks of it... Do they
allow that at your place of employment?

wrote in message
///////more crap flushed/////////


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

get a life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Love the substance in your replies.. Takes a lot of thought eh?

Don't get me wrong, Glenn, I'm really on your side, but you have some
legal misconceptions. Consider this post as "playing devil's
advocate", if you desire. I really am trying to help you.

"The FCC has declined to provide a requested hearing, and the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution requires a hearing and due
process of law before they can collect a dime much less the "ORDERED"
"fine" of $21,000. Even a traffic ticket gets a hearing, right?"

ANSWER: You weren't denied due process because, in your responses to
the NAL, you deliberately refused to answer the questions you were
asked. Therefore you raised no substantial or material questions of
law or fact that required a hearing. A hearing is only required when
substantial and material issues of law or fact are raised by the
pleadings. [See, for example, Title 47 USC Sec. 309(e), which deals
with license applications.] This is also why, for example, a court can
grant a demurrer or a motion for summary judgment in a civil case and
deny a litigant his right to trial. This is just another way of saying
you don't have the right to a hearing in the abstract; there has got to
be a reason for holding one. Also, you are going to get a hearing
before the U.S. District Court, so you can't claim you are being denied
a hearing.


"Therefore, the next step for the FCC, by statute, is to now sue K1MAN
for the claimed $21,000 in Federal District Court in Bangor, Maine
where K1MAN would demand a trial by jury (trial de novo), subpoena
witnesses (Hollingsworth, Boston Office Engineers, hams,
etc.), file motions, etc. The FCC can't even bring such a suit, of
course, because the minimum claim in Federal District Court is
$50,000."

ANSWER: That's incorrect. First, the monetary jurisdictional minimum
has now been raised to $75,000.00, but it only applies to diversity
jurisdiction cases. The Forfeiture Order enforcement action will
instead be a federal question jurisdiction case, to which the monetary
jurisdictional minimum doesn't apply.

In addition, wrote:
Once they deny his pending application, and they will, things will get
very interesting indeed. K1MAN will have no authority to operate and
you can bet the FCC will be ready to deal with him if he does.

ANSWER: Nope. Title 47 of the USC, Sec. 307(c)(3) says he has the
right to continue operating until his appeal from the possible denial
of his renewal is finally decided.

-Bill Crowell, N6AYJ

Sorry, I was inaccurate in my statements when I left out the appeal
process.. As you said, when his renewal application is decided and
Baxter appeals (which he will), and IF the appeal does not reverse the
decision (which seems likely) THEN he will loose his authority to
operate.

So, if my understanding of the process here is correct, the events go
as follows:

1. Renewal Application is timely filed (Already done)
2. Application is set-aside for review (Already done)
3. The Review determines that the application will be denied (Pending
now)
4. The decision to deny is appealed (Not done yet, must be done
after denial)
5. The Appeal causes a hearing where the decision to deny is argued
6. The appeal hearing is decided

So, if you assume that the FCC will deny the application and Baxter
will appeal the decision, then he will retain his authority to operate
until the outcome of the hearing.

Am I correct?

Larson E. Rapp wrote:
"PowerHouse Communications" wrote:

Doesn't look like it to me...
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.62.8.128

Of course, you are probably posting from work by the looks of it...

OrgName: InterVoice, Inc.
OrgID: INTERV
Address: InterVoice, Inc. 17811 Waterview
Address: Parkway
City: Dallas
StateProv: TX
PostalCode: 75252
Country: US

NetRange: 204.62.0.0 - 204.62.9.255
CIDR: 204.62.0.0/21, 204.62.8.0/23
NetName: INTERVOICE
NetHandle: NET-204-62-0-0-1
Parent: NET-204-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
NameServer: NS1.INTERVOICE-BRITE.COM
NameServer: NS1-AUTH.SPRINTLINK.NET
NameServer: NS2-AUTH.SPRINTLINK.NET
Comment:
RegDate: 1994-06-20
Updated: 2001-03-12

RTechHandle: GP40-ARIN
RTechName: Preston, Greg
RTechPhone: +1-214-454-8871
RTechEmail:

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2006-04-02 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

Here's "an old friend's" aka Marky C. Morgan:

AC5-Webproxy26.direcpc.com (66.82.9.65)

66.82.0.0 - 66.82.255.255
Hughes Network Systems
11717 Exploration Lane
DirecWAY Network Management Center
attn: Network Security Manager
Germantown, MD
US


Network Security Manager

+1-301-601-7205

wrote:
Larson E. Rapp wrote:
"PowerHouse Communications" wrote:

Here's "an old friend's" aka Marky C. Morgan:

AC5-Webproxy26.direcpc.com (66.82.9.65)
so what

now run along and get help or runi in a traffic

an old freind wrote:
wrote:
Larson E. Rapp wrote:
"PowerHouse Communications" wrote:

Here's "an old friend's" aka Marky C. Morgan:

AC5-Webproxy26.direcpc.com (66.82.9.65)
so what

So direcpc's abuse dept will be flooded with complaints about you,
stupid.