On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 21:27:10 GMT, robert casey wrote:

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


That's commercial broadcast radio and TV.

That was a trick question which we used to spring on new agents
during their training. Actually there is more, all with required
format and time, which are applicable to broadcast statsions:

Station ID (most radio services as well)
EAS/EBS weekly and monthly tests (cable systems as well)
Renewal filing announcements
Lottery/"gaming" activities (special rules apply)
Candidates for elective public office ("equal time" requirements)
Recorded material identification
Advertiser identification

(Rule sections available for those who are real masochists.)

Unfortunately, the "Fairness Doctrine" (requiring balanced viewpoints
on "controversial issues of public importance") has gone by the
wayside. More effort was spent on determining what a "controversial
issue of public importance" was than in presenting the "balanced
viewpoint".

And we hams think that the FCC rules pose burdens...... !!!

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

of lamb, stuffed chicken, roast pork spiral ham,
Cranberry pineapple salad, sweet potatoes in butter, vegetable platter, tossed salad with tomato and avocado, parsley new potatoes, spinich cucumber salad, fruit salad
Bran muffins, dinner rolls, soft breadsticks, rice pilaf, croissants
Apple cake with rum sauce, frosted banana nut bread sherbet, home made brownies
Iced tea, water, beer, bloody marys, lemonade, coffee

The guests select food, beverages, silverware... everything from the buffet table.
They move to wherever they are comfortable, and sit with whoever they choose.
Provide trays so your guests will not spill everything all over your house from
carrying too much, nor will they have to make 10 trips back and fourth from the
service stations.



Roast Leg of Amputee

By all means, substitute lamb or a good beef roast if the haunch
it is in any way diseased. But sometimes surgeons make mistakes,
and if a healthy young limb is at hand, then don?t hesitate to cook
it to perfection!

1 high quality limb, rack, or roast
Potatoes, carrot
Oil
celery
onions
green onions
parsley
garlic
salt, pepper, etc
2 cups beef stock

Marinate meat (optional, not nece

Phil Kane wrote:

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 21:27:10 GMT, robert casey wrote:


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


That's commercial broadcast radio and TV.


That was a trick question which we used to spring on new agents
during their training. Actually there is more, all with required
format and time, which are applicable to broadcast statsions:

Station ID (most radio services as well)
EAS/EBS weekly and monthly tests (cable systems as well)
Renewal filing announcements
Lottery/"gaming" activities (special rules apply)
Candidates for elective public office ("equal time" requirements)
Recorded material identification
Advertiser identification

There's also a rule that mandates the broadcast of
"public or community service" programming that noone
will want to listen to on Sunday morning. If you
want to get the license renewed you better, that is...

"Phil Kane" wrote in
ganews.com:

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??


So, you're bluffing him?

I have studied the rules covering UPL (unauthorised practice of law) quite
extensively, the reason being that I'm a patent agent and it's a constant
concern for me. My licence authorises me to perform services that generally
are the practice of law, and that's no problem as such, as it's a federal
licence (federal trumps state!). Potential problems arise over certain
services that may or may not be covered by the licence, and/or may or may
not be the practice of law.

The UPL rules vary enormously from state to state. In some states, such as
here in MD, the rules are quite specific, and in some others there are
vague statutes but case law provides a definition of the practice of law.
Generally, however, it seems that providing a legal opinion is the practice
of law, except in Utah!

Other things that law school professors deem to be the practice of law may
or not be, depending on state law. For example, drafting a contract is the
practice of law in many (but not all) states, but if standard forms are
used then it is often still not the practice of law, and here in MD it is
only the practice of law if the contract is for real estate, and not merely
for personal property, at least AFAIK.

Getting back to legal opinions, there has been no practice of law unless
what has been given really is a legal opinion. Generally, there must have
been some consideration (payment!), or failing that, at least some form of
client relationship, which doesn't normally exist in Usenet postings. As
you said, you know that, I know that, but others may not.

One loses that one anyhow by using the "eff" word, indicating a
basic inability to deliver a convincing argument in polite society.

I agree that using the F word is inappropriate, and usually the resort of
someone who has already lost the argument.

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.....


There is a legitimate argument in favour of licence free broadcasting at
low power levels. You would know the details far better than I do, but I
think the lowest class of broadcasting licence in the US authorises 5kW. I
have known people who were involved in pirate broadcasting at much lower
power levels, say 50 or 100W, and who were not making any money atall from
doing so, just doing it for it's own sake. I could almost have been tempted
to join them if I didn't have a ham licence to put at risk.

Who's to say there isn't a place for that kind of thing? Most of the
proposals I have seen don't really fit very well, though, as they have
talked about 'community' broadcasting with 'community' content, whereas
most of the pirates tend to be music stations, even those who are low power
and carry no ads.

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




Happy New Year!

73 de Alun, N3KIP

United States Code are also part of the FCC rules
Todd N9OGL


"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 !!

As a wannabe lawyer you should know the difference. You have
demonstrated above that you do not.

You went on stating 42 USC 1983 (which is in a set of rules that has
nothing
to do with radio or radio communication)

Looks to me like a statute, not a rule. Gotta keep the nominclature
straight if you want knowledgeable people to consider it.

Do you know the difference between substantive law and procedural
law ??

but what I'm talking about is a FCC rule and has been since long
before the FCC.

You quoted no FCC Rule, and in any event, no FCC Rules existed
before the formation of the FCC.

Go get your degree in physics.

Perhaps you will find a way to repeal Newton's Laws, which after
all can violate one's freedom of movement and expression.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane






----== 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 =---

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 01:44:38 GMT, robert casey wrote:

There's also a rule that mandates the broadcast of
"public or community service" programming that noone
will want to listen to on Sunday morning. If you
want to get the license renewed you better, that is...

That went away about 20 years ago with the demise of the mandatory
Program Log and the dreaded Composite Week Analysis.

And even before you =could= get the license renewed even if the
station did not meet the specified "quotas" for different program
types - all it took was an evidentiary hearing before an ALJ rather
than staff renewal.

All gone now, and nobody misses it.....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 08:00:43 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

United States Code are also part of the FCC rules

You get ZERO on the first exam in Legal Research. U S Code contains
statutes passed by The Congress. The FCC Rules, part of the Code
of Federal Regulations, are regulations promulgated by the Commission.

Go and learn.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On 26 Dec 2004 11:12:02 GMT, Alun wrote:

So, you're bluffing him?

Who, me? Heaven forfend... ggg

I have studied the rules covering UPL (unauthorised practice of law) quite
extensively, the reason being that I'm a patent agent and it's a constant
concern for me. My licence authorises me to perform services that generally
are the practice of law, and that's no problem as such, as it's a federal
licence (federal trumps state!). Potential problems arise over certain
services that may or may not be covered by the licence, and/or may or may
not be the practice of law.

The UPL rules vary enormously from state to state. In some states, such as
here in MD, the rules are quite specific, and in some others there are
vague statutes but case law provides a definition of the practice of law.
Generally, however, it seems that providing a legal opinion is the practice
of law, except in Utah!

When what you are doing is authorized by license, whether Federal
or State, as long as you are within the activities authorized by
that license, you are covered.

This issue of Federal/State can get to be "interesting". For
instance, if an attorney is not admitted to the Bar in State A but
is admitted in any or all other states, the U S Court of Appeals for
the circuit that includes State A, the Supreme Court of the US, and
specialized Federal agencies, that attorney cannot represent clients
in State A matters or in the state courts of State A, requires
filing for special admission (equivalent to "reciprocity") on a
case-by-case basis in the Federal courts in State A, and cannot open a
law office or use a letterhead holding him/her out as an attorney in
State A, although s/he can represent any clients before the
specialized Federal agencies as long as the proper disclaimer is
made.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...
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

Well said, Phil. Hope I can catch you OTA.

--
Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384
QRP ARCI #11782

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 16:20:45 -0500, Bert Craig wrote:

$21,000.00 sentence can be handed down while putting the onus on the accused
to prove themselves innocent (From a 1934 Act, I might add.) before a
administrative judge borders on the obscene.

Follow the bouncing ball....

The Notice of Liability (NAL) says "apparently liable to....for....."
and gives the subject a chnance to say "hey, FCC, that isn't fair
and antyhow I can't pay because...." The Notice of Forfeiture (NOF)
is the next step and that says "you are liable.....for ......" and
the issuing officer is required to consider and evaluate the
subject's reply (or failure to respond) in finalizing the amount in
conjunction with the Regional Counsel of the Enforcement Bureau.

The penalty can be challenged in several ways. The subject can
request Reconsideration on the Bureau level (several steps above the
issuing officer) and further up, a Review by the full Commission.

Or the subject can just refuse to pay. Then, the next move is up to
the Commission to force payment in either of two ways - a full
evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge or a full
trial de novo in Federal District Court. In either case, the burden
of proceeding (going to trial) and the burden of proof (proving the
violation that the subject is accused of) are upon the FCC. IOW,
the subject is innocent until proved guilty by a preponderance of
evidence before a neutral tribunal and the subject gets his/her "day
in court". Either proceeding can be appealed to the Federal
Appellate Courts where the subject will have to prove that the FCC
didn't follow the procedural rules to the letter - rarely does the
Court of Appeals reverse the FCC on substantive matters within the
FCC's competence.

BTW, this proceure is outlined in Sections 503 and 504 of the Comm
Act, which were amended in major part in 1978 to increase the
penalties to current levels and define the procedures outlined
above.

But until someone has the
stones (...and the discretionary means.) to challenge that process...that's
the way it is. (I guess I'm just a good old "checks and balances" kind of
guy.) This likely means never.

Several have tried but none have succeeded, including broadcasters
who have taken the procedure up to the Supreme Court of the United
States. It really doesn't have to get that far, because in legal
procedural cases, the decisions of the U S Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia are considered "the word of God" by the Federal
regulatory agencies.

I for one thank Phil for sharing the results of his vast experience and his
relationship with the FCC with us. If he didn't care, he would simply say
nothing...and we would remain ignorant.

I love to teach the subject.....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane