QrZdoTKoM wrote:



Who appointed YOU, to keep us informed????

If you don't like it, don't read it.

QrZdoTKoM wrote:


Are you the Moderator now????

I don't see the word MODERATED in the group title.

October 29, 2004


Mr. Glenn A. Baxter
RR 1 Box 776
Belgrade Lakes, ME 04918


Warning Notice: Amateur Radio license K1MAN
Case #EB-2004-07

Dear Mr. Baxter:


On September 15, 2004, we notified you that we had received
approximately a dozen complaints that your Amateur radio station's
transmissions started while the communications of individual operators
and groups such as the Salvation Army Team Emergency Radio Net, which
was handling health and welfare traffic for this season's hurricane
victims, were ongoing. The letter cited an April 14, 2004 warning
issued to you about your transmissions starting while existing
communications were ongoing, and warning you that your publishing a
"transmission schedule" does not give you the right to begin
transmitting on a certain frequency at a certain time if there are
ongoing communications on that frequency.


Pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 308(b), we requested you to respond to the
letter within 20 days from receipt certifying: 1) what action(s) you
are taking to correct the deficiencies in the operation of your
station; and 2) specifying what method of station control you have
implemented for your Amateur radio station transmissions.


Your response dated October 14, 2004, in which you stated that "No
corrective actions are necessary at K1MAN" and "No changes are needed
with regard to station control..." failed to furnish the information
requested by the Commission.


In addition to the above mentioned complaints, we have received
additional complaints of interference from your station's
transmissions starting at 9:31 PM on 3.890 MHz on October 16, 2004;
6:23 PM on 3.800 MHz and 7:59 PM on 3.977 on October 19, 2004; and
7:59 PM on 3.977 MHz on October 20, 2004. We also note that, according
to your web page, your station now transmits on 14.275 MHz from 11 PM
until past 6 PM the following day.


We are affording you an additional 20 days from receipt of this letter
to furnish the information requested in our September 15, 2004 letter.


Additionally, pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, you are requested to provide the name, call sign,
and address of the control operator(s) on the additional dates and
times mentioned above (9:31 PM on 3.890 MHz on October 16, 2004; 6:23
PM on 3.800 MHz and 7:59 PM on 3.977 on October 19, 2004; and 7:59 PM
on 3.977 MHz on October 20, 2004), and to describe the method of
station control used each time the station was transmitting. You are
also requested to furnish that information for the 19 hour
transmissions recently begun on 14.275 MHz.


In an inquiry of this type we are required to notify you that a
willfully false or misleading reply constitutes a separate violation
made punishable under United States Code Title 18, Section 1001.
Failure to reply also constitutes a separation violation of Commission
rules.


CC: FCC Northeastern Regional Director
FCC Boston Office District Director

QrZdoTKoM wrote:

Splinter wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:02:14 GMT, "King Zulu"
wrote:


It sounds like QRZ isn't the only organization that's about to take
Baxter
off their list. Let's see, how many decades did it take to do the
obvious?

ak



I had a feeling that Riley would not accept K1MAN's reply, and
this does indicate that Riely's about had it. The impression I got is
that he's patient, to a point, then, if his patience runs out with
someone, then, things get very uncomfortable.
I suspect that the next series of emforcement letters won't be
asking for an explaination, but, more along the lines of a NAL telling
him to caugh up a decent amount of dough, or maybe accompanied with an
in rem seizure. But, I'm not going to second-guess the next move as
that's up to K1MAN.


If the FCC does that, then they need to head directly on over to W1AW,
and do the exact same.

Why? Does W1AW transmit their bullitens for monitary gain like K1MAN?

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Splinter wrote:
Remeber when I said that the FCC had "future enforcement
actions" with K1MAN? Here's the most recent letter to the guy from
Riley:

October 29, 2004
...
Pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 308(b), we requested you to respond to the
letter within 20 days from receipt certifying: 1) what action(s) you
are taking to correct the deficiencies in the operation of your
station; and 2) specifying what method of station control you have
implemented for your Amateur radio station transmissions.

Your response dated October 14, 2004, in which you stated that "No
corrective actions are necessary at K1MAN" and "No changes are needed
with regard to station control..." failed to furnish the information
requested by the Commission.

And why shouldn't he have said that? His stations works. It's fully
functional and therefore doesn't have any operational deficiencies. :-(

Granted, I'm ignoring the content and jamming issue, but the FCC really needs
to come out and say directly what they mean - not using language which can be
sidestepped. He "addressed" the deficiencies by saying that there are none
(implying that his equipment is working perfectly). Poor operating practice
does not equate to deficient operation of the equipment.

In addition to the above mentioned complaints, we have received
additional complaints of interference from your station's
transmissions starting at 9:31 PM on 3.890 MHz on October 16, 2004;
6:23 PM on 3.800 MHz and 7:59 PM on 3.977 on October 19, 2004; and
7:59 PM on 3.977 MHz on October 20, 2004. We also note that, according
to your web page, your station now transmits on 14.275 MHz from 11 PM
until past 6 PM the following day.

19 hours straight! He must have alot [of nothing] to say!

In an inquiry of this type we are required to notify you that a
willfully false or misleading reply constitutes a separate violation
made punishable under United States Code Title 18, Section 1001.
Failure to reply also constitutes a separation violation of Commission
rules.

Which practically never gets prosecuted. The U.S. Attorneys, nationwide,
usually don't even bother with more than 3 cases of 18 USC 1621, Perjury - the
"stronger" crime, a year, so they certainly aren't going to bother with this
provision. The failure to enforce the law makes 18 USC 1001 a joke.

Riley has really scared him now.

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:51:47 GMT, D. Stussy wrote:

He "addressed" the deficiencies by saying that there are none
(implying that his equipment is working perfectly). Poor operating
practice does not equate to deficient operation of the equipment.

In FCC practice, "operation of the station" by a licensee covers
more than mere operation of the equipment and does in fact include
operating practices and non-technical rule compliance.

The U.S. Attorneys, nationwide, usually don't even bother with more
than 3 cases of 18 USC 1621, Perjury - the "stronger" crime, a year,
so they certainly aren't going to bother with this provision.

Unless the agency has an IOU which it can cash in.

The failure to enforce the law makes 18 USC 1001 a joke.

It doesn't make the law a joke - it makes the U S Attornies a joke.

Don't get me started on what cases they will or will not take, and
for whom.... ggg If it wasn't for the "retirement annuity offset
provision", I could have been a Special Assistant U S Attorney
handling monetary and asset forfeiture cases for the FCC after I
regained my failing eyesight (one of the reasons for my retirement)
several years ago.

Riley has really scared him now.

Look at it from the aspect of an attorney-advocate.... if the
defendant-client is put on actual notice but does the proscribed
action, and for some unique reason the prosecution decides to make
an example out of him or her (cash in the agency's IOU) what defense
can the defendant raise? The defense of latches does not apply in
criminal matters - the fact that the above may or may not happen
or that others do it with no punishment can't be used to justify the
violation.

Add to that "lack of candor" is one of the main reasons why a
license is suspended, revoked, denied, or not renewed. As long as
that is available, the U S Attorney has a hook to wiggle out of
doing his or her job.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

He "addressed" the deficiencies by saying that there are none
(implying that his equipment is working perfectly). Poor operating
practice does not equate to deficient operation of the equipment.


In FCC practice, "operation of the station" by a licensee covers
more than mere operation of the equipment and does in fact include
operating practices and non-technical rule compliance.


I wonder when the last time a ham got busted for operating
a broken transmitter (broken in the sense that it made too
much harmonics, splatter, and such). Our Yauicowood boxes
rarely drift out of spec like this.

Robert Casey wrote:


He "addressed" the deficiencies by saying that there are none
(implying that his equipment is working perfectly). Poor operating
practice does not equate to deficient operation of the equipment.


In FCC practice, "operation of the station" by a licensee covers
more than mere operation of the equipment and does in fact include
operating practices and non-technical rule compliance.


I wonder when the last time a ham got busted for operating
a broken transmitter (broken in the sense that it made too
much harmonics, splatter, and such). Our Yauicowood boxes
rarely drift out of spec like this.

Jacking the mike gain, misadjusting a speech processor or overdriving a
linear amplifier can cause splatter. A defective relay or switching
diode on a highpass/lowpass filter board can permit illegal levels of
harmonics. Those things are faily common failures in modern rigs.

Dave K8MN