"Phil Kane" wrote in
ganews.com:

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 21:43:17 -0500, JAMES HAMPTON wrote:

Of course, one never knows. We just had a nurse's aide arrested for
impersonating a *registered* nurse. She had worked for several *years*
without being caught.

One of the first questions on the Bar Admission form in most if not
all states is whether you have ever been prosecuted for the
unlicensed practice of law (which includes giving legal opinions and
interpretations to others).

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane



Phil, you know as well as anyone that a post on a newsgroup is not a legal
opinion.

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 21:43:17 -0500, JAMES HAMPTON wrote:

Of course, one never knows. We just had a nurse's aide arrested for
impersonating a *registered* nurse. She had worked for several *years*
without being caught.

One of the first questions on the Bar Admission form in most if not
all states is whether you have ever been prosecuted for the unlicensed
practice of law (which includes giving legal opinions and
interpretations
to others).

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane



Hello, Phil

I am active in a number of groups. One medical and another few radio
groups.

Invariably, if someone is really worried about a problem, the best advice is
to seek someone out who is an expert. If blood sugars are running way too
high, see your doctor. Immediately.

If one is putting up a tower and is in the country and the tower is not
located near the house, you can likely get a foundation recommended by the
tower manufacturer and guy it per recommendation. If, however, you are
located in a village, city, or suburb .... you'd best get the proper
permits, hire a lawyer, and a construction firm that has extensive
experience in towers, high street lighting, signal poles, or relevant
experience in supporting structures that must withstand high winds.

I am *not* a lawyer, but in such a situation, I'd suspect I'd want to cover
my rear end with boiler plate and be able to show proof that the
installation is guaranteed, by someone other than myself, for winds higher
than have ever existed in the area.

As they often say, "get it in writing". I'd be nervous about handing out
any recommendations in a professional area in any case; on the Internet, it
is tantamount to suicide


Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA
ps - how has your weather been? Crazy like a lot or not?

"Todd Daugherty" wrote in message
...

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Todd Daugherty wrote:

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 18:45:19 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

(a) it's not an FCC rule and is open to court interpretation.


What do you mean it's not an FCC rule?? I think you better look again
try
47
USC 326 or Title 47 of the United States Code (Telegraphs,
Telephones,
and
Radiotelegraphs), Chapter 5 ( WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION),
Subchapter
3
(SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO RADIO), Part 1 (General Provisions),
Subsection 326 (Censorship)

You didn't quote an FCC Rule (which are codified in Title 47 of
the Code of Federal Regulations). You quoted a Federal statute
(which is codified in the U.S. Code). THEY "AIN'T" THE SAME !!

So that's means no one should have to abide by Section 301 sense it's
not
a
FCC rule. right?
and secondly where in any of my ****ing post did I state I'm a lawyer?
NOWHERE! So my in my ****ing opinion don't put words in my mouth.


Phil asked you the following:

"Where do you practice Communications Law, Todd?"

You replied:

"As for your question I have been very active in the micro broadcasting
movement and I'm very knowledgeable when it comes to radio law. I am
current working with a member of the House Subcommittee on
Telecommunication in regards to the FCC and the licensing processing
including filing windows and waivers."

And if you read my other post I stated
"I don't play "lawyer" I'm someone from his district who has a compelling
interest in radio."
Just like everyone else who has concerns can write and petition the
government. After all it is the "PUBLIC AIRWAVES" and the public has the
right to be concerned about what's going on.

You didn't really provide an answer to Phil's question. Now you've
resorting to multiple occurrences of the "eff" word in defending the
indefensible. You've done so in barely corherent sentences. Do you
really want to argue communications law with an expert in the field?

There is really a heuristic approach you could try, Todd. Go ahead an
push the envelope on the free speech issue on the air and see if the ax
falls on you. If it never does, your theory is right or the feds aren't
paying any attention to you right now.

As I stated the only speech on the radio the FCC is allowed to regulate is
Obscene and indecent material.


Todd N9OGL


Hello, Todd

I believe that 3rd party traffic is also restricted to most of the countries
in the world. Depending upon what country you pass 3rd party traffic to,
the FCC might be the least of your problems


Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

On 24 Dec 2004 14:35:46 GMT, Alun wrote:

One of the first questions on the Bar Admission form in most if not
all states is whether you have ever been prosecuted for the
unlicensed practice of law (which includes giving legal opinions and
interpretations to others).

Phil, you know as well as anyone that a post on a newsgroup is not a legal
opinion.

You know that, I know that, but does the person who is foolish
enough to joust with a better-armed person know that??

One loses that one anyhow by using the "eff" word, indicating a
basic inability to deliver a convincing argument in polite society.
I didn't even want to get into the fact that "microbroadcasting" is
really a cover name for the movement to legalize unlawful i.e.
pirate/unlicensed/unlawful broadcasting.....

I paid my dues on that battle, and anyhow I have better things to do
than to keep trying to educate the obviously education-resistant. I
may even do some serious ham radio this weekend....

Enjoy the holidays.....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

I am *not* a lawyer, but in such a situation, I'd suspect I'd want to cover
my rear end with boiler plate and be able to show proof that the
installation is guaranteed, by someone other than myself, for winds higher
than have ever existed in the area.

A "Professional Engineer" can do that, if he signs the paperwork
and adds his license number to it. But not all PEs will do
a tower, as any guy not familiar with towers is not gonna risk
getting their license pulled.

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 22:17:51 GMT, robert casey wrote:

I am *not* a lawyer, but in such a situation, I'd suspect I'd want to cover
my rear end with boiler plate and be able to show proof that the
installation is guaranteed, by someone other than myself, for winds higher
than have ever existed in the area.

A "Professional Engineer" can do that, if he signs the paperwork
and adds his license number to it. But not all PEs will do
a tower, as any guy not familiar with towers is not gonna risk
getting their license pulled.

Yup. One of the major reasons that Civil Engineering PE licensees
get disciplined in those states with which I am familiar with is
doing/signing structural work (such as tower design/certification)
without holding the required Structural Engineering co-license.
Close on the heels of that in all disciplines is signing off on work
that the licensee did not do or supervise or was not competent to do
in the first place.

Not to mention what his/her malpractice insurance company will
do in those circumstances.

(As you probably know, in the real world of practically any
profession, statutes and regulations do not have nearly as much
leverage compared to the pressure that the insurance companies
can exercise.)

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

In article ws.com, "Phil
Kane" writes:

OK, I'll bite....

What does "makeweight" mean in that context?

My guess is that it's a formal term for "filler" or "bafflegab",
meaning stuff to fill out the claims so it looks impressive.

When the attorney charges by the word (or by the pound) it's an
essential ingredient in any filing. ggg

So I was right!

Look at the stuff that Todd has been throwing out here on this
thread. He can certainly use a session or two on how to write
acceptable Points and Authorities and convincing argument if he
still wants to continue playing lawyer.

I've seen this problem before...as a nonlawyer I will sum it up this way:

Some people confuse the way "the law" *is* with they way *they think it should
be*. The courts, of course, don't work that way.

Personal example:

Some time back, two acquaintances of mine wanted to do work on their houses
that required a variance from the township.

One simply applied for a building permit, with the idea that if a variance was
needed, the township would tell him. At first the township didn't, because
folks who give out permits aren't the ones who do variances and zoning. Of
course eventually the mistake was caought, which started a whole merry-go-round
of proceedings and delayed the project for months and months.

The other checked with an attorney who was experienced in doing variances and
other related work in the township. RE attorney said "yeah, you need a
variance, here's how to get one". Other one followed all the steps (sealed plot
plan, pictures, signed testimonial letter from neighbors saying they had no
objection, etc.) Township gave out the variance with no problems at all.

Now of course some folks will yell that you should be able to do whatever you
want with your own property. Which makes a lot of sense until what A does on
A's property has a major impact on B's property. And in any event, that's not
how real estate works in most built-up areas.

We see the same thing in radio, with the added attraction that some folks feel
that because they have an understanding of the technical end of things, they
automatically know how the regulatory end of things works - or should work.

But they don't.

73 es Holly Hippodays

Jim, N2EY

On 25 Dec 2004 03:30:48 GMT, N2EY wrote:

We see the same thing in radio, with the added attraction that some
folks feel that because they have an understanding of the technical
end of things, they automatically know how the regulatory end of
things works - or should work.

But they don't.

73 es Holly Hippodays

And a Hollow Hippiday to you....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Todd Daugherty wrote:
I hear all this crap about K1MAN violating the FCC rules but the FCC
violates their own rules..

Sec. 326. - Censorship

Nothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to give the
Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or
signals
transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition
shall be
promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the
right
of free speech by means of radio communication.

This is not about the content of Baxter's transmissions, except
where pecuniary interest has been breached.

It's about broadcasting and interference with other lawful users
of the Amateur spectrum. Period.

Steve, K4YZ

Jim,
Hello, Third party traffic is done through treaties. Treaties which the U.S.
have to abide by.
Todd






"JAMES HAMPTON" wrote in message
...

"Todd Daugherty" wrote in message
...

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Todd Daugherty wrote:

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 18:45:19 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

(a) it's not an FCC rule and is open to court interpretation.


What do you mean it's not an FCC rule?? I think you better look
again
try
47
USC 326 or Title 47 of the United States Code (Telegraphs,
Telephones,
and
Radiotelegraphs), Chapter 5 ( WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION),
Subchapter
3
(SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO RADIO), Part 1 (General Provisions),
Subsection 326 (Censorship)

You didn't quote an FCC Rule (which are codified in Title 47 of
the Code of Federal Regulations). You quoted a Federal statute
(which is codified in the U.S. Code). THEY "AIN'T" THE SAME !!

So that's means no one should have to abide by Section 301 sense it's
not
a
FCC rule. right?
and secondly where in any of my ****ing post did I state I'm a lawyer?
NOWHERE! So my in my ****ing opinion don't put words in my mouth.


Phil asked you the following:

"Where do you practice Communications Law, Todd?"

You replied:

"As for your question I have been very active in the micro broadcasting
movement and I'm very knowledgeable when it comes to radio law. I am
current working with a member of the House Subcommittee on
Telecommunication in regards to the FCC and the licensing processing
including filing windows and waivers."

And if you read my other post I stated
"I don't play "lawyer" I'm someone from his district who has a compelling
interest in radio."
Just like everyone else who has concerns can write and petition the
government. After all it is the "PUBLIC AIRWAVES" and the public has the
right to be concerned about what's going on.

You didn't really provide an answer to Phil's question. Now you've
resorting to multiple occurrences of the "eff" word in defending the
indefensible. You've done so in barely corherent sentences. Do you
really want to argue communications law with an expert in the field?

There is really a heuristic approach you could try, Todd. Go ahead an
push the envelope on the free speech issue on the air and see if the ax
falls on you. If it never does, your theory is right or the feds
aren't
paying any attention to you right now.

As I stated the only speech on the radio the FCC is allowed to regulate
is
Obscene and indecent material.


Todd N9OGL


Hello, Todd

I believe that 3rd party traffic is also restricted to most of the
countries
in the world. Depending upon what country you pass 3rd party traffic to,
the FCC might be the least of your problems


Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---