"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:



Here's a few more Jerry..it's a friggin' scroll of abuse reports.


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." The FCC also cited information that the licensee "failed
to identify and used a disguised voice." FCC Special Counsel for Amateur
Radio Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth warned Brown that operation of the
type described "will not be tolerated," and he requested the licensee
contact him to discuss the matter.

BERKELEY HEIGHTS, NJ: The FCC sent a Warning Notice March 14, 2000, to
Advanced licensee Ronald Marshott, N2NGY, to advise him that information
before the Commission indicates the licensee has been "deliberately
interfering with the radio operations of other licensed amateurs on the
75-meter band." The FCC also said it has information that the licensee
"failed to identify, identified by call signs not your own, and have made
threats to other licensees." FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio
Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth warned Marshott that operation of the type
described "will not be tolerated" and could result in a fine and revocation
proceedings. Hollingsworth requested the licensee contact him to discuss
the matter.

CRANE, MO [UPDATE]: The FCC wrote former Amateur Radio licensee Lonnie H.
Allen on March 15, 2000, setting aside the March 8 grant of a Technician
license, KC0HJP. On February 23, the FCC canceled Allen's General license,
N0TBO, after he failed to appear for retesting by January 31, as requested
December 6, 1999. FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement Riley
Hollingsworth said it was setting aside Allen's most recent Amateur Radio
grant "due to allegations that raise questions about your qualifications to
hold an Amateur Radio license." The FCC said that Allen took a Technician
examination March 4 under the supervision of a W5YI-VEC volunteer examiner
team. For now, that application will revert to pending status.
Hollingsworth said the FCC would write Allen within two weeks "requesting a
response to complaints about the operation of N0TBO." Hollingsworth warned
Allen that, in the meantime, he has no authority to operate radio
transmitting equipment.

SALISBURY, NC: The FCC wrote Technician licensee Thomas F. Reynolds Sr,
N4TFR, on March 14, citing information before the Commission that the
licensee has been using ham gear on the Citizens Band and other frequencies
and has been selling "transmitting equipment not meeting the Commission's
certification standards" over the air on those frequencies. The FCC said
its information indicates the licensee has been using FM and LSB on 27.320
and 27.375 MHz and transmitting at power limits above those authorized for
the Citizens Band. The FCC said operating uncertificated equipment at
excessive power levels constitutes unlicensed radio operation and
jeopardizes Reynolds' ham ticket. "Such operation will subject you to
criminal prosecution and in rem seizure of transmitting equipment," the FCC
warned. The FCC gave Reynolds 20 days to respond to the allegations and
said the information he submits will be used to determine what action, if
any, to take in the matter. In late February, the FCC wrote nearly
identical letters to three other amateur licensees in Salisbury.

And this is what helps keep the ham bands from becoming the sewer pit of
communications like the cb band.

JJ wrote:
Steveo wrote:


Here's a few more Jerry..it's a friggin' scroll of abuse reports.


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." The FCC also cited
information that the licensee "failed to identify and used a disguised
voice." FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement Riley
Hollingsworth warned Brown that operation of the type described "will
not be tolerated," and he requested the licensee contact him to discuss
the matter.

BERKELEY HEIGHTS, NJ: The FCC sent a Warning Notice March 14, 2000, to
Advanced licensee Ronald Marshott, N2NGY, to advise him that
information before the Commission indicates the licensee has been
"deliberately interfering with the radio operations of other licensed
amateurs on the 75-meter band." The FCC also said it has information
that the licensee "failed to identify, identified by call signs not
your own, and have made threats to other licensees." FCC Special
Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth warned
Marshott that operation of the type described "will not be tolerated"
and could result in a fine and revocation proceedings. Hollingsworth
requested the licensee contact him to discuss the matter.

CRANE, MO [UPDATE]: The FCC wrote former Amateur Radio licensee Lonnie
H. Allen on March 15, 2000, setting aside the March 8 grant of a
Technician license, KC0HJP. On February 23, the FCC canceled Allen's
General license, N0TBO, after he failed to appear for retesting by
January 31, as requested December 6, 1999. FCC Special Counsel for
Amateur Radio Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth said it was setting aside
Allen's most recent Amateur Radio grant "due to allegations that raise
questions about your qualifications to hold an Amateur Radio license."
The FCC said that Allen took a Technician examination March 4 under the
supervision of a W5YI-VEC volunteer examiner team. For now, that
application will revert to pending status. Hollingsworth said the FCC
would write Allen within two weeks "requesting a response to complaints
about the operation of N0TBO." Hollingsworth warned Allen that, in the
meantime, he has no authority to operate radio transmitting equipment.

SALISBURY, NC: The FCC wrote Technician licensee Thomas F. Reynolds Sr,
N4TFR, on March 14, citing information before the Commission that the
licensee has been using ham gear on the Citizens Band and other
frequencies and has been selling "transmitting equipment not meeting
the Commission's certification standards" over the air on those
frequencies. The FCC said its information indicates the licensee has
been using FM and LSB on 27.320 and 27.375 MHz and transmitting at
power limits above those authorized for the Citizens Band. The FCC said
operating uncertificated equipment at excessive power levels
constitutes unlicensed radio operation and jeopardizes Reynolds' ham
ticket. "Such operation will subject you to criminal prosecution and in
rem seizure of transmitting equipment," the FCC warned. The FCC gave
Reynolds 20 days to respond to the allegations and said the information
he submits will be used to determine what action, if any, to take in
the matter. In late February, the FCC wrote nearly identical letters to
three other amateur licensees in Salisbury.

And this is what helps keep the ham bands from becoming the sewer pit of
communications like the cb band.

So you enjoy reading -all- the enforcement archives here? Jerry Ox has
taken it upon himself to post -all- the CB enforcement to rec.radio.cb.

The best part is, it's totally on topic for rec.radio.amateur.policy,
when you tight ass hams get ran.

"Steveo" wrote in message
...
So you enjoy reading -all- the enforcement archives here? Jerry Ox has
taken it upon himself to post -all- the CB enforcement to rec.radio.cb.

The best part is, it's totally on topic for rec.radio.amateur.policy,
when you tight ass hams get ran.

Hi gang!

Jerry has a legitimate concern, but I think he misses a point. I honestly
believe (and I may take flak) that most folks are reasonably law abiding.
Whether hams or cbers, it isn't unlike the traffic situation here. Most
folks are reasonably law abiding. By reasonably, I mean most folks stop or
slow down to 1 or 2 mph for a stop sign. If it is a rolling stop and no one
is coming, is it really wrong to continue? Then there are the flaming
idiots like the guy who nearly hit me yesterday. There were problems with a
couple of intersections at a bridge connecting the expressway a few years
back. People would go into the intersection on yellow even though there was
no place to go (cars backed at the second intersection). Consequently,
gridlock occured. They fixed that about three years ago with left turn
signals, allowing the traffic to clear from the bridge. Now (like the idiot
yesterday), some folks stop, see the light also red at the sidestreet, and
then gun it and go through the intersection (never mind the fact that the
other traffic has a green left turn arrow on). This stupid mentality goes
on in our society regardless of a license (amateur or driver) and I would
not paint all drivers as stupid or inconsiderate just because of that one
licensed driver. Neither would I paint all cbers or amateurs the same way
because of the actions of a few.

I suspect I'll be pushing up daisies, however, long before the flames die
out around here LOL.

Hope you all have a great day!

73 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

Well? They got what they deserved, right? Do the crime,
pay the fine, etc. It suits me....................


Jerry
"Steveo" wrote in message
...
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

Here's a few more Jerry..it's a friggin' scroll of abuse reports.


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." The FCC also cited information that the licensee "failed
to identify and used a disguised voice." FCC Special Counsel for Amateur
Radio Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth warned Brown that operation of the
type described "will not be tolerated," and he requested the licensee
contact him to discuss the matter.

BERKELEY HEIGHTS, NJ: The FCC sent a Warning Notice March 14, 2000, to
Advanced licensee Ronald Marshott, N2NGY, to advise him that information
before the Commission indicates the licensee has been "deliberately
interfering with the radio operations of other licensed amateurs on the
75-meter band." The FCC also said it has information that the licensee
"failed to identify, identified by call signs not your own, and have made
threats to other licensees." FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio
Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth warned Marshott that operation of the type
described "will not be tolerated" and could result in a fine and
revocation
proceedings. Hollingsworth requested the licensee contact him to discuss
the matter.

CRANE, MO [UPDATE]: The FCC wrote former Amateur Radio licensee Lonnie H.
Allen on March 15, 2000, setting aside the March 8 grant of a Technician
license, KC0HJP. On February 23, the FCC canceled Allen's General license,
N0TBO, after he failed to appear for retesting by January 31, as requested
December 6, 1999. FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement Riley
Hollingsworth said it was setting aside Allen's most recent Amateur Radio
grant "due to allegations that raise questions about your qualifications
to
hold an Amateur Radio license." The FCC said that Allen took a Technician
examination March 4 under the supervision of a W5YI-VEC volunteer examiner
team. For now, that application will revert to pending status.
Hollingsworth said the FCC would write Allen within two weeks "requesting
a
response to complaints about the operation of N0TBO." Hollingsworth warned
Allen that, in the meantime, he has no authority to operate radio
transmitting equipment.

SALISBURY, NC: The FCC wrote Technician licensee Thomas F. Reynolds Sr,
N4TFR, on March 14, citing information before the Commission that the
licensee has been using ham gear on the Citizens Band and other
frequencies
and has been selling "transmitting equipment not meeting the Commission's
certification standards" over the air on those frequencies. The FCC said
its information indicates the licensee has been using FM and LSB on 27.320
and 27.375 MHz and transmitting at power limits above those authorized for
the Citizens Band. The FCC said operating uncertificated equipment at
excessive power levels constitutes unlicensed radio operation and
jeopardizes Reynolds' ham ticket. "Such operation will subject you to
criminal prosecution and in rem seizure of transmitting equipment," the
FCC
warned. The FCC gave Reynolds 20 days to respond to the allegations and
said the information he submits will be used to determine what action, if
any, to take in the matter. In late February, the FCC wrote nearly
identical letters to three other amateur licensees in Salisbury.

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.

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?

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."

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****?

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.