Riley to K1MAN..."No sell"
 

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


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


--
Dan, KD8AGU
Please remove ".nospam" to reply via email.

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


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


--
Dan, KD8AGU
Please remove ".nospam" to reply via email.


ROTFLMAO.

What are ya trying to say? You told us so???

You've got to fu*king kidding me.

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

"Splinter" wrote in message
...
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


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


--
Dan, KD8AGU
Please remove ".nospam" to reply via email.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:36:37 -0500, QrZdoTKoM QrZdoTKoM@QrZdoTKoM
wrote:




ROTFLMAO.

What are ya trying to say? You told us so???

You've got to fu*king kidding me.

Not kidding, and to be honest, I wasn't gloating, just
establishing a reference point.
OK, I can understand if you're a K1MAN supporter and I'm not
even going to question that right of yours, but, if you got some flame
against me for relaying an enforcement letter that leads this Ham to
believe that Riley's about had enough of K1MAN's alleged flaunting of
FCC regulations and the interference that he has been alleged to cause
to the Boy Scouts and others, then, do so. It's public knowledge that
there's a lot of people that are upset at K1MAN. There were 45 pages
of comments on QRZ.com and the vast majority basicalloy said that QRZ
was within their rights, and that Glen Baxter should take a hike.

--
Dan, KD8AGU
Please remove ".nospam" to reply via email.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:44:25 -0500, "Lloyd"
wrote:


"Splinter" wrote in message
.. .
Remeber when I said that the FCC had "future enforcement
actions" with K1MAN? Here's the most recent letter to the guy from
Riley:
//drivelsnipped//




Are you familiar with USCFR 1011.4A sub r 8821.028b ?

Nevermind, it is obvious you are just another lightweight
who shoots his mouth on Usenet and doesn't have a clue.
ROTFLMAO!


73,

Lloyd

Excuse me, buddy...What you got against me? All I did was
post yet another enforcement letter from the FCC. That's in the
Public Record. If you doubt it, look at the ARRL site for the exact
letter.
Listen...I don't appreciate being flamed for doing what I feel
is the right thing and that this group needs to know. This group
isn't rec.radio.amateur.flamers, it's rec.radio.amateur.policy and
that tends to lead me to believe that discussions on policy issues are
relevant information, not to flame anyone for relaying the info.
If you got nothing even neutral to say, please remain quiet,
the group will appreciate that and future flames will be ignored.


--
Dan, KD8AGU
Please remove ".nospam" to reply via email.

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.

--
Dan, KD8AGU
Please remove ".nospam" to reply via email.

Splinter wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:36:37 -0500, QrZdoTKoM QrZdoTKoM@QrZdoTKoM
wrote:




ROTFLMAO.

What are ya trying to say? You told us so???

You've got to fu*king kidding me.


Not kidding, and to be honest, I wasn't gloating, just
establishing a reference point.

A reference point? Damn dude, everyone saw what was coming, you're no
Nostradamus. We don't need an "insider" to keep us up to speed.


OK, I can understand if you're a K1MAN supporter

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm not a K1MAN supporter. I also feel
what ND8V and WD4AWO are doing by jamming warrants letters from Riley
also. 2 wrongs don't make a right.


and I'm not
even going to question that right of yours, but, if you got some flame
against me for relaying an enforcement letter that leads this Ham to
believe that Riley's about had enough of K1MAN's alleged flaunting of
FCC regulations and the interference that he has been alleged to cause
to the Boy Scouts and others,

You know, as well as most on here with an open mind, that the Boy Scouts
were setup to take the fall. If you can't see that, you're blinded with
rage about K1MAN. Keep in mind, I'm not a K1MAN supporter.


then, do so. It's public knowledge that
there's a lot of people that are upset at K1MAN. There were 45 pages
of comments on QRZ.com and the vast majority basicalloy said that QRZ
was within their rights, and that Glen Baxter should take a hike.

--
Dan, KD8AGU
Please remove ".nospam" to reply via email.

So what if there were 45 pages at QRZ, big deal! QRZ doesn't make the
rules, or enforce the rules. QRZ is a private web site, and Fred can run
as he sees fit. If he wishes to conduct meaningless polls on his site,
that's his business. The opinions of others, does not influence my
position on K1MAN.

If, and I say IF, K1MAN is indeed in violation of the current FCC rules,
they will deal with it. Not Mikey, Bobby, you, or QRZ.Com.

I heard Fat Mikey say on 14.272 today, to another ham, if you don't like
what he (ND8V) is saying, spin the dial. Fat Mikey should heed his own
advice. Pot, kettle, black.

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.

--
Dan, KD8AGU
Please remove ".nospam" to reply via email.

Splinter wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:44:25 -0500, "Lloyd"
wrote:


"Splinter" wrote in message
. ..

Remeber when I said that the FCC had "future enforcement
actions" with K1MAN? Here's the most recent letter to the guy from
Riley:

//drivelsnipped//




Are you familiar with USCFR 1011.4A sub r 8821.028b ?

Nevermind, it is obvious you are just another lightweight
who shoots his mouth on Usenet and doesn't have a clue.
ROTFLMAO!


73,

Lloyd


Excuse me, buddy...What you got against me? All I did was
post yet another enforcement letter from the FCC. That's in the
Public Record. If you doubt it, look at the ARRL site for the exact
letter.
Listen...I don't appreciate being flamed for doing what I feel
is the right thing and that this group needs to know.

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


This group
isn't rec.radio.amateur.flamers, it's rec.radio.amateur.policy and
that tends to lead me to believe that discussions on policy issues are
relevant information, not to flame anyone for relaying the info.
If you got nothing even neutral to say, please remain quiet,
the group will appreciate that and future flames will be ignored.


--
Dan, KD8AGU
Please remove ".nospam" to reply via email.

QrZdoTKoM wrote:
Splinter wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:44:25 -0500, "Lloyd"
wrote:


"Splinter" wrote in message
...

Remeber when I said that the FCC had "future enforcement
actions" with K1MAN? Here's the most recent letter to the guy from
Riley:


//drivelsnipped//




Are you familiar with USCFR 1011.4A sub r 8821.028b ?

Nevermind, it is obvious you are just another lightweight
who shoots his mouth on Usenet and doesn't have a clue.
ROTFLMAO!


73,

Lloyd



Excuse me, buddy...What you got against me? All I did was
post yet another enforcement letter from the FCC. That's in the
Public Record. If you doubt it, look at the ARRL site for the exact
letter.
Listen...I don't appreciate being flamed for doing what I feel
is the right thing and that this group needs to know.


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


This group

isn't rec.radio.amateur.flamers, it's rec.radio.amateur.policy and
that tends to lead me to believe that discussions on policy issues are
relevant information, not to flame anyone for relaying the info.


If you got nothing even neutral to say, please remain quiet,
the group will appreciate that and future flames will be ignored.

Are you the Moderator now????

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

If you want to be "In Charge" start your own damn Usenet group.

But I'll be dammed if you're going to come in here and tell me what I
can and can not post.

Got it Skippy?




--
Dan, KD8AGU
Please remove ".nospam" to reply via email.

"Splinter" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:36:37 -0500, QrZdoTKoM QrZdoTKoM@QrZdoTKoM
wrote:

. . . ., and that Glen Baxter should take a hike.
--
Dan, KD8AGU


Dan - While I agree with the thought, I do need to correct you. Baxter's
affected first name is spelled "Glenn." I.'m sure all the Glen's of this
world would appreciate the disassociation of their name with this rascal and
would like you to use the correct spelling of his name. Rest assured, we all
know of whom you are discussing, so the spelling is a trivial matter. I hope
this doesn't start a large number of court petitions for name changes from
Glenn to Glen after the FCC finally takes action and Baxter makes the news.

ak

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


Maybe I'm nieve(sp), but I thought the guys at W1AW would
move up or down the band some to avoid QRMing someone
(that they can hear, there is a rule saying "listen before
you transmit"). Hams know to look up or down the band
if they don't find W1AW on the expected frequency.

Robert Casey wrote:


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


Maybe I'm nieve(sp), but I thought the guys at W1AW would
move up or down the band some to avoid QRMing someone
(that they can hear, there is a rule saying "listen before
you transmit"). Hams know to look up or down the band
if they don't find W1AW on the expected frequency.

I've been in RTTY QSO, when W1AW came on, and wiped us out, so no, they
don't always listen.

The problem I have is there are about 3 to 6 so called "hams" that hang
around MAN's published frequencies waiting for his broadcast to start.
Then they start bitching about MAN QRM'ing them.

The main problem on 20M is Fat Ass Mikey ND8V, and dumb ass Bobbie
WD4AWO, not K1MAN.

Keep in mind, I DO NOT support K1MAN, but at the same time I damn sure
DO NOT support what the Tennessee Toilet Tick (WD4AWO) and the Kalamazoo
Cuckoo (ND8V) are doing either. If Mikey and friends don't like what is
going on, on 14.275, well like Fat Ass Mikey likes to say, "Turn the
damn dial".

In article et, Robert Casey
writes:

I thought the guys at W1AW would
move up or down the band some to avoid QRMing someone

Look at the W1AW weekday schedule:

Simultaneous CW bulletins on 8 different frequencies 3 times a day

Simultaneous RTTY bulletins on 7 different frequencies twice a day

Simultaneous SSB bulletins on 8 different frequencies once a day

Simultaneous CW code practice on 8 different frequencies 4 times a day (except
Monday when it's only 3 times a day)

W1AW has scheduled transmissions for 44 hours a week.

73 de Jim, N2EY



W1AW transmits CW, RTTY and SSB bulletins

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
nk.net...


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


Maybe I'm nieve(sp), but I thought the guys at W1AW would
move up or down the band some to avoid QRMing someone
(that they can hear, there is a rule saying "listen before
you transmit"). Hams know to look up or down the band
if they don't find W1AW on the expected frequency.

Bob - Perhaps the ARRL has an update to their position in 1988.
ak
-------------------------------
From ARRL to the Bermuda ham representative,
copied to Baxter, the IARU Secretary, and the FCC.

May 13, 1988
----------------------

Rather than wait to have you ask, I thought I should provide some
clarification of the letter dated May 4 that you have been sent by Glenn
Baxter, K1MAN.

Mr. Baxter states, "Our amateur broadcast practice 1s Identical to that of
W1AW." I believe he is referring to the practice of transmitting bulletins
without first ensuring that the frequencies to be used are clear of other
amateur communications. As has been discussed on occasion In QST, W1AW
transmits simultaneously on eight frequencies 1n as many amateur bands. The
bulletin transmitters are crystal-controlled, a limitation we hope will be
remedied shortly. The number of frequencies being used simultaneously, and
the technical limitations of the equipment now in use, make it impossible to
adjust the transmitter frequencies before a bulletin is to be transmitted;
the need to adhere to the published bulletin schedule precludes delaying the
broadcasts until the particular frequency is clear.

However, we are not unmindful of the need to minimize the impact of bulletin
transmissions upon ongoing amateur communications, particularly in the
crowded voice subbands. To that end, except in the event of a communications
emergency, voice bulletins are transmitted only twice a day by W1AW and are
limited to just a few minutes; the exact length of the bulletins depends on
the amount of news to be conveyed. Bulletins are not sent simply to fill out
a predetermined length of time.

I believe it 1s fair to say that our understanding of Section 97.113(d)(2)
of the FCC Rules is somewhat different from Mr. Baxter's. This Section,
which explains one of the exceptions to the general prohibition of
broadcasting in the Amateur Radio Service, provides that "Information
bulletins consisting solely of subject matter relating to amateur radio" are
not considered broadcasting. W1AW operations conform to a narrow
interpretation of this provision.

Accordingly, IARN and W1AW practice are far from "identical."

Finally, I should mention that there is no recent "FCC ruling" having any
relevance whatsoever to "frequency coordination" outside of the bands
available for repeater or auxiliary operation. It follows that no one has
"authority" to perform such coordination in the name of the FCC or, for that
matter, any other entity. Cooperation in the efficient use of the limited
amateur spectrum is essential, but by definition, cooperation is not a
one-way street.

73,
David Sumner, K1ZZ
ARRL Executive Vice President

I think James is saying that W1AW doesn't have to follow the rules;
too busy to be bothered.

IIRC there are special rules for club stations of clubs with
more than ten thousand members....

"Splinter" wrote in message
...
Remeber when I said that the FCC had "future enforcement
actions" with K1MAN? Here's the most recent letter to the guy from
Riley:

(---cut)

A very good letter from RH to the AH in ME. (grin)

I get the distinct impression from reading
the letter that the Boston FCC Field Office will
be making a "dunkin doughnutz run" up to
Belgrade Lakes in the very near future.

Let's hope it's sooner rather than later and that they have
two or three U-Haul trucks in tow to collect some vintage
ham radio gear for bid a future GSA or similar auction venue.....

: )

"King Zulu" wrote in message
news:RLRmd.419221$D%.240350@attbi_s51...
-------------------------------
From ARRL to the Bermuda ham representative,
copied to Baxter, the IARU Secretary, and the FCC.

May 13, 1988
----------------------

Rather than wait to have you ask, I thought I should provide some
clarification of the letter dated May 4 that you have been sent by Glenn
Baxter, K1MAN.

Mr. Baxter states, "Our amateur broadcast practice 1s Identical to that of
W1AW." I believe he is referring to the practice of transmitting bulletins
without first ensuring that the frequencies to be used are clear of other
amateur communications.

For years I have observed/heard K1MAN transmit up to 30
Minutes prior to his "broadcast" using his unique brand
of "precursory frequency preemption". The specific method being
an announcement proclamation of: "IARN Bulletins, coming
up in 30 minutes...15 minutes...10 minutes....etc"
This practice noted above is nothing more than a thinly veiled
overt display of arrogant frequency capturing, performed by this
clown from Belgrade Lakes. (Baxter likely thinks that K1MAN
is a six-locomotive-on-the-point Norfolk Southern freight drag
with 400 coal cars in tow and he toots his big horn in advance
of every grade crossing. Perhaps this is not the best
example to equate him but U get the idea dear readers)

I believe it 1s fair to say that our understanding of Section 97.113(d)(2)
of the FCC Rules is somewhat different from Mr. Baxter's. This Section,
which explains one of the exceptions to the general prohibition of
broadcasting in the Amateur Radio Service, provides that "Information
bulletins consisting solely of subject matter relating to amateur radio"
are
not considered broadcasting. W1AW operations conform to a narrow
interpretation of this provision.

Accordingly, IARN and W1AW practice are far from "identical."

Agreed!

What many Hams / SWL's also curiously fail to
notice at first glance is that, on a consistent basis
greater than 50% (fifty percent!) of the 'program
content' of IARN H.F. Bulletin broadcasts consist
of material which is created by and produced by
sources OTHER THAN the IARN and k1man.

In any other media venue (apart from ham radio?)
this would be known as blatent plagiarism.

It really makes one wonder what Mr Baxter's true
alteriour motives are, concerning all this arcane
broadcasting he engages in. I seem to feel there
is more to this than just and over-inflated ego.
Who else or what other person in a healthy
mental mindset would pour so much
time and energy into such a goofy endeavor as
something like this?

Splinter wrote:

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:44:25 -0500, "Lloyd"
wrote:


"Splinter" wrote in message
. ..

Remeber when I said that the FCC had "future enforcement
actions" with K1MAN? Here's the most recent letter to the guy from
Riley:

//drivelsnipped//




Are you familiar with USCFR 1011.4A sub r 8821.028b ?

Nevermind, it is obvious you are just another lightweight
who shoots his mouth on Usenet and doesn't have a clue.
ROTFLMAO!


73,

Lloyd


Excuse me, buddy...What you got against me? All I did was
post yet another enforcement letter from the FCC. That's in the
Public Record.

Keep posting them, it really gets ole lloyd's shorts in a knot.

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