|
Attention, Jerry Oxendine (on topic)
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 |
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. |
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..... +++++++++++++++++==============+++++++++++++++++== ========= "I'm having roast rabbit for Easter Dinner" :-) |
Steveo 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 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. Hey Jerry, have you seen this too? http://exax.net/fcc.htm |
WHO could forget this clown getting spanked by Charlie!?!
N8WWM guilty of FCC violations. According to the FCC, N8WWM, Dog Adair committed several violations over the air at the expense of the Toledo Amateur Radio Club by utilizing their repeater to break the law. The amateur club received a warning letter from the FCC concerning Adair's violations and were told to take steps to make certain the violations by Adair will not be repeated. Adair not only hurt the entire image of amateur radio with his inexcusable behavior, but damaged the reputation of yet another entity trying to further the good of amateur radio. It's a shame when bad apples like these make it so clubs can't even trust their own users to abide by the rules they were sworn to uphold. Adair is also an infamous presence on the internet. A google search of "N8WWM" reveals a peek into the world of the individual identified as Adair. In addition to FCC violations, Adair has, in the past, been accused of being a prolific spammer, breaking several internet laws and violating several terms of service agreements with internet providers. Steveo wrote: Steveo 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 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. Hey Jerry, have you seen this too? http://exax.net/fcc.htm |
Robert Casey wrote:
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..... +++++++++++++++++==============+++++++++++++++++== ========= "I'm having roast rabbit for Easter Dinner" :-) I'm having pork. :) |
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. |
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: 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? |
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:
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****? |
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. |
"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" :-) |
"Steveo" wrote in message ... Steveo 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 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. Hey Jerry, have you seen this too? http://exax.net/fcc.htm They'll get theirs soon. J |
"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 |
And your point? They were doing wrong, they got caught. They shoulda known better, if they could do high speed code..... ;-) |
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. |
"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 |
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? |
"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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com