Terry L. Van Volkenberg, ex-KC5RF (was FCC Daily Digest 03/19/2014)
 

On 3/20/2014 12:36 AM, Paul W. Schleck wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In writes:


(Moderator's Note: Only FCC Part 97 Amateur Radio related actions are shown below.)


Daily Digest

Vol. 33 No. 49 March 19, 2
014



[...]

TERRY L. VAN VOLKENBURG. Adopted a Consent Decree in this proceeding. Ac
tion by: Regional Director, South Central Region, Enforcement Bureau. Adop
ted: 03/19/2014 by Order/Consent Decree. (DA No. 14-312). EB http://hrau
nfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-14-312A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...A-14-312A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...A-14-312A1.txt

(Moderator's Note:

Amateur or Part 97 match found in contents linked at URL:

10. Relinquishment of Amateur License. Mr. Van Volkenburg holds an amateur license
amateur license. Mr. Van Volkenburg provided a signed letter requesting the Commission cancel his
amateur license prior to signing this Consent Decree.

)

[...]


This appears to be a very different outcome from those of Glenn
J. Rubash, KC0GPV, and Brian R. Ragan, KF6EGI, who each initially got
five-figure fines from the FCC for running unlicensed broadcast radio
stations on FM. Instead, Mr. Van Volkenburg got only a $1,000
"donation" to Uncle Sam, payable in monthly installments of $100, plus
"only" relinquishing his amateur radio license. Mr. Van Volkenburg's
alleged offense, interfering with law enforcement communications, seems
more serious than those of the previous two, but his more favorable
outcome might have been the result of obtaining competent legal
representation, and effectively negotiating a plea bargain (or "consent
decree" to be precise).

The monetary forfeiture strikes me as a slap on the wrist, and a
significant reduction from the original five-figure fine in the 2013
Notice of Apparent Liability, but there is the more serious loss of his
license. Pragmatically, I suppose that we should support such consent
decrees if they are in the interest of justice, rather than let the
original offenses grind through the legal system over many years (e.g.,
Glenn Baxter, K1MAN).

(73, Paul, K3FU)


Paul,

You missed one important line from Page 2 (III.5): "In response to the
NAL, Mr. Van Volkenburg provided financial documentation
demonstrating that he is unable to pay the proposed forfeiture."

I doubt he had "competent legal representation" if he didn't have any
money. And to someone who can't keep food on the table, $1,000 is a lot
of money. As opposed to a $500K fine to an NFL team owner, which is
just a "slap on the wrist" to a billionaire. It's all a matter of
degree and resources.

I also support Consent Decrees, where appropriate. And obviously the
only other alternative would be to jail him - which I don't is a great
answer, either.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================