"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
"JJ" wrote in message
...
Steveo wrote:
JJ wrote:

Steveo wrote:

JJ wrote:


Steveo wrote:


Another ham radio operator busted:

March 3, 2004


Mr. Mark A. Glover
10632 Artcraft Avenue
Garden Grove, CA 92640


Amateur Radio License KE6TTL: Warning Notice


Dear Mr. Glover:


In reference to your letter dated February 26, 2004, concerning
the Catalina Amateur Repeater Association, enclosed is the letter
sent to you requesting that you not use the repeater.


Our letter of February 2, 2004, explained the right of the
repeater association to make such a request. If there are any
further questions, please feel free to contact us.


If you have an objection to the decision of the repeater owner,
you are free to pursue legal action locally. No Commission hearing
procedures are provided in such matters.


Enclosu 1


CC: FCC Western Regional Director
Catalina Island Repeater Association

Just how is this ham busted? Did he receive a NAL, get a fine, go
to jail? No, the FCC just stated the problem is of repeater usage
is between this amateur radio operator and the repeater owner.


Some of you ham boys call an nal an automatic multi-thousand
dollar fine, when you try your bull**** scare tactics in
rec.radio.cb.

Do you know the outcome of his nal, JJ?

He did not get a NAL twit, he just got a letter from the FCC and it
plainly stated that the problem was between the ham and the repeater
owner. Here is the last sentence of the letter, get some six year old
to explain it to you. "No Commission hearing procedures
are provided in such matters."


Heh, so unless you're busted and fined you haven't broken
any rules. You running two meters now, dip****?

Maybe if I type r e a l s l o w you might be able to understand. The
ham in question did not break any FCC rules, he had a problem with the
repeater owner who requested he not use the repeater anymore. The FCC
in their letter to the ham plainly states the problem is between the
ham and the repeater owner, there were no FCC rules broken. Again, the
ham was not "busted" because he broke no FCC rules.
Is that too hard for you to understand dipwad? It must be, evidently I
am expecting too much of you as a cber to understand such a simple
thing.


He broke the rule of "no malicious interference". However the FCC at
this particular moment simply chose to issue a warning rather than "bust
him". The enforcing agency always has the choice of how far to go in
"busting" someone. The FCC also made it quite clear that the repeater
owner has every right to bar him from the repeater and further that if he
continues he will be subject to enforcement actions.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Don't bother trying to explain anything to JJ, he's a CBer wannabe.

AC5IU was exonerated. Tapes were being played of him, and the 'highly
trained FCC personel' couldn't tell the diff.

Dan/W4NTI

"Jerry" wrote in message
...

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...




ALBUQUERQUE, NM: The FCC sent a Warning Notice March 14, 2000, to
Amateur
Extra licensee Dean M. Brown, AC5IU, advising him that information from
the
FCC's High Frequency Direction Finding Center in Columbia, Maryland,
indicates that the licensee "deliberately interfered with the radio
operations of other licensed amateurs on the 20-meter amateur band on
March, 2, 2000."

BERKELEY HEIGHTS, NJ: The FCC sent a Warning Notice March 14, 2000, to
Advanced licensee Ronald Marshott, N2NGY,


My word! And these guys were a pre-restructuring Extra and an Advanced,
both of
whom passed a high speed code test.....


And your point? They were doing wrong, they got caught.

J



+++++++++++++++++==============+++++++++++++++++== =========
"I'm having roast rabbit for Easter Dinner" :-)

"Jerry" wrote in message
...


They'll get theirs soon.


J

Hello, Jerry and all

I had previous problems with tires being dumped in the yard of the house
behind mine. Repeated calls to the city resulted in nothing - until I
obtained the services of an attourney. Within a week, the city cleaned up
the mess and billed the owner.

Lately, the city has become *much* more responsive. I suspect the FCC may
as well, what with the Janet Jackson debacle. I sent a couple of emails
concerning a *lot* of activity next door. Cars stopping, someone going to
the house and then leaving withing 60 to 90 seconds. Hmmmm .... one day I
saw three cars stopped. Then a van. Then the marked cars pulled up on both
sides of the street. I could hear the banging as they searched the house.
Flashes as pictures were taken. Three people did not pass go. They did not
collect $200.00 LOL. Guess where they went?

Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.647 / Virus Database: 414 - Release Date: 3/29/04

Steveo wrote:

JJ wrote:

evidently I
am expecting too much of you as a cber to understand such a simple thing.


You're not a ham. What's your call?

Make up your mind, first you say I am not a ham, then you ask for my
call. I am a ham and my call is non of your business.

Dee D. Flint wrote:

"JJ" wrote in message
...

Steveo wrote:

JJ wrote:


Steveo wrote:


JJ wrote:



Steveo wrote:



Another ham radio operator busted:

March 3, 2004


Mr. Mark A. Glover
10632 Artcraft Avenue
Garden Grove, CA 92640


Amateur Radio License KE6TTL: Warning Notice


Dear Mr. Glover:


In reference to your letter dated February 26, 2004, concerning the
Catalina Amateur Repeater Association, enclosed is the letter sent to
you requesting that you not use the repeater.


Our letter of February 2, 2004, explained the right of the repeater
association to make such a request. If there are any further
questions, please feel free to contact us.


If you have an objection to the decision of the repeater owner, you
are free to pursue legal action locally. No Commission hearing
procedures are provided in such matters.


Enclosu 1


CC: FCC Western Regional Director
Catalina Island Repeater Association

Just how is this ham busted? Did he receive a NAL, get a fine, go to
jail? No, the FCC just stated the problem is of repeater usage is
between this amateur radio operator and the repeater owner.


Some of you ham boys call an nal an automatic multi-thousand
dollar fine, when you try your bull**** scare tactics in
rec.radio.cb.

Do you know the outcome of his nal, JJ?

He did not get a NAL twit, he just got a letter from the FCC and it
plainly stated that the problem was between the ham and the repeater
owner. Here is the last sentence of the letter, get some six year old to
explain it to you. "No Commission hearing procedures
are provided in such matters."


Heh, so unless you're busted and fined you haven't broken
any rules. You running two meters now, dip****?

Maybe if I type r e a l s l o w you might be able to understand. The
ham in question did not break any FCC rules, he had a problem with the
repeater owner who requested he not use the repeater anymore. The FCC in
their letter to the ham plainly states the problem is between the ham
and the repeater owner, there were no FCC rules broken. Again, the ham
was not "busted" because he broke no FCC rules.
Is that too hard for you to understand dipwad? It must be, evidently I
am expecting too much of you as a cber to understand such a simple thing.



He broke the rule of "no malicious interference". However the FCC at this
particular moment simply chose to issue a warning rather than "bust him".
The enforcing agency always has the choice of how far to go in "busting"
someone. The FCC also made it quite clear that the repeater owner has every
right to bar him from the repeater and further that if he continues he will
be subject to enforcement actions.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


I did not see anything in the letter metioning malicious interference.
Where did the FCC make state there could possibably be enforcement
actions? They plainly state to the amateur, "you are free to pursue
legal action locally. No Commission hearing procedures are provided in
such matters."

JJ wrote:
Steveo wrote:

JJ wrote:

evidently I
am expecting too much of you as a cber to understand such a simple
thing.


You're not a ham. What's your call?

Make up your mind, first you say I am not a ham, then you ask for my
call. I am a ham and my call is non of your business.

BZZZT, wrong answer. No call means you're not a ham, but a CBer
wannabe.

Steveo wrote:
JJ wrote:

Steveo wrote:


JJ wrote:


evidently I
am expecting too much of you as a cber to understand such a simple
thing.


You're not a ham. What's your call?

Make up your mind, first you say I am not a ham, then you ask for my
call. I am a ham and my call is non of your business.


BZZZT, wrong answer. No call means you're not a ham, but a CBer
wannabe.

Believe whatever floats your boat steveie, it bothers me not one whit.

JJ wrote in message ...
Steveo wrote:
JJ wrote:

Steveo wrote:


JJ wrote:


evidently I
am expecting too much of you as a cber to understand such a simple
thing.


You're not a ham. What's your call?

Make up your mind, first you say I am not a ham, then you ask for my
call. I am a ham and my call is non of your business.


BZZZT, wrong answer. No call means you're not a ham, but a CBer
wannabe.

Believe whatever floats your boat steveie, it bothers me not one whit.

He's not a ham. Where JJ hails from, they are called "agitators."

JJ wrote:
Steveo wrote:
JJ wrote:

Steveo wrote:


JJ wrote:


evidently I
am expecting too much of you as a cber to understand such a simple
thing.


You're not a ham. What's your call?

Make up your mind, first you say I am not a ham, then you ask for my
call. I am a ham and my call is non of your business.


BZZZT, wrong answer. No call means you're not a ham, but a CBer
wannabe.

Believe whatever floats your boat steveie, it bothers me not one whit.

Ok'y dok'y JJ. See you in rec.radio.cb as usual.

ps. you don't need a call there, as you well know.