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.