First Howard v City of Burlingame had to do with two things the first was a
local antenna ordinance and the second was Mr. Howard attempt to cover
attorney fees . It had nothing to do with the local or federal government's
attempt to regulate the content of the programming on the radio. Mr. Howard
believed he had the right under federal law to erect any antenna he wanted.
The court ruled that he did not have that right. The court said that the
city only had to accommodate Howard in some fashion, and suggested some
possible compromises. The Court of appeal said PRB-1 requires nothing more
than a balancing of the city's interest in promoting aesthetics and safety
against the amateur's desire for an effective antenna. If no suitable
compromise can be worked out with a particular amateur, his request for an
antenna can be rejected outright. No where in that ruling was it argued
about the content of a radio station or the first amendment right to uses a
radio. That court case had to do with PRB-1 and local antenna ordinances not
free speech and the content of a station. Howard believed he had a federal
right to erect an antenna as high as he wanted under PRB-1 (and not under
the first amendment) another misconception some amateurs have. I really didn't
look who was in the Dunifer case I was only concerned about the courts
ruling. It is ruling that other courts have looked upon when the FCC has
taken pirate operators to court. With the same results. That a person has no
right to broadcast without a license and has no right to challenge the rule
when that person hasn't applied for a license or a waiver. See Prayze FM vs.
FCC, Grid Radio vs. FCC, Any and All Radio Transmissions Vs FCC, Kind Radio
Vs FCC.

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.

Todd N9OGL


"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:27:42 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

That is one of the of the problem in the Amateur Radio service. The
Amateurs
only look at Part 97 and think that all these other rules don't apply to
them but in fact it does. Section 326 of the Communication Act of 1934 as
amended applys to all radio services. The same apply to section 301 and
section 501 or section 401....ect, ect

In _Howard v City of Burlingame_ (full citation given a while back
in another context) the Ninth Circuit clearly quoted the Comm Act
that an amateur license does not convey any rights other than that
which the FCC explicitly grants - Uncle Vern was attempting to
recover Section 1983 and 1988 damages for the City claiming that it
violated his "free speech rights" (which the court held non-existant)
by denying him a permit to erect an antenna structure of his own
choosing (which the court also held that he did not have any right
to).

And BTW, you quoted _Dunifer_ in your other post. If you read the
entire case, not just the decision, you would know that I was the
FCC's case supervisor in that case, and there's a lot more to that
case and how, when, and why the judge so ruled than appears in the
decision.

Where do you practice Communications Law, Todd?

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
Principal Attorney
Communications Law Center
San Francisco, CA






----== 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 =---


-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 02:54:23 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

First Howard v City of Burlingame had to do with two things the first was a
local antenna ordinance and the second was Mr. Howard attempt to cover
attorney fees . It had nothing to do with the local or federal government's
attempt to regulate the content of the programming on the radio.

I quote from the Ninth Circuit's opinion published at 937 F2nd
1376: [EMPHASIS added]

Howard then filed this lawsuit, claiming that the City's
ordinance and its decision were preempted by an FCC ruling known
as PRB-1. HE ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE CITY HAD VIOLATED THE FIRST
AMENDMENT AND 42 U.S.C. SEC. 1983, INTER ALIA. On cross-motions
for summary judgment, the district court held that PRB-1
preempted the City's decision-making powers and required it to
"reasonably accommodate" Howard's request. It found the City's
grounds pretextual, ordered the City to reconsider the matter
and suggested some avenues for compromise. IT ALSO GRANTED
SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE CITY ON HOWARD'S OTHER SEVEN CLAIMS,
WHICH IT TERMED "MAKEWEIGHT."

II. Free Speech Claim and Cross-Appeal

The district court correctly held that the City's zoning
ordinances are legitimate, content-neutral time, place and
manner restrictions, with only a tangential relationship to
speech. [ Citations deleted ] CONTENT-NEUTRAL ZONING ORDINANCES
SUCH AS THESE HAVE LONG BEEN HELD TO BE PERMISSIBLE RESTRICTIONS
ON FREE SPEECH. See, e.g., City Council of Los Angeles v.
Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 808, 80 L. Ed. 2d 772, 104
S. Ct. 2118 (1984); Schroeder v. Municipal Court of Los Cerritos
Judicial District, 73 Cal. App. 3d 841, 141 Cal. Rptr. 85
(1977), appeal dismissed, 435 U.S. 990, 56 L. Ed. 2d 81, 98 S.
Ct. 1641 (1978) (LIMITATION OF ANTENNA HEIGHT NOT "BLANKET
PROHIBITION" ON EXPRESSION). We therefore affirm on this point
as well.

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.

In other words you are not a lawyer but you like to play one in
public....

A pity that that "member of the House Subcommittee on
Telecommunication" doesn't get his/her advice from real
communications attornies who. like myself, have no other axe to
grind except to support quality communication regulation and
compliance therewith.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

IT ALSO GRANTED
SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE CITY ON HOWARD'S OTHER SEVEN CLAIMS,
WHICH IT TERMED "MAKEWEIGHT."

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.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 23 Dec 2004 20:30:29 GMT, N2EY wrote:

IT ALSO GRANTED
SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE CITY ON HOWARD'S OTHER SEVEN CLAIMS,
WHICH IT TERMED "MAKEWEIGHT."

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

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.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...
On 23 Dec 2004 20:30:29 GMT, N2EY wrote:

IT ALSO GRANTED
SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE CITY ON HOWARD'S OTHER SEVEN CLAIMS,
WHICH IT TERMED "MAKEWEIGHT."

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

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.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane


Hello, Phil

I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but when purchasing a home
and one time in traffic court, I hired a real lawyer. Funny thing, all the
lawyer jokes aside, if you need one, don't go in trying to do it yourself.

Balance a couple of hundred bucks per hour for an attorney against the
repercussions that might occur if you save that bit of money )

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.

I suspect she will not pass go, nor collect $200.00 LOL



Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

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 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?

the breasts of 2 healthy neonates)
2 large lemons (fresh lemons always, if possible)
Olive oil
Green onions
Salt
pepper
cornstarch
neonate stock (chicken, or turkey stock is fine)
garlic
parsley
fresh cracked black pepper

Season and sauté the cutlets in olive oil till golden brown, remove.
Add the garlic and onions and cook down a bit.
Add some lemon juice and some zest, then de-glaze with stock.
Add a little cornstarch (dissolved in cold water) to the sauce.
You are just about there, Pour the sauce over the cutlets,
top with parsley, lemon slices and cracked pepper.
Serve with spinach salad, macaroni and cheese (homemade) and iced tea...



Spaghetti with Real Italian Meatballs

If you don?t have an expendable bambino on hand,
you can use a pound of ground pork instead.
The secret to great meatballs, is to use very lean meat.

1 lb. ground flesh; human or pork
3 lb. ground beef
1 cup finely chopped onions
7 - 12 cloves garlic
1 cup seasoned bread crumbs
½ cup milk, 2 eggs
Oregano
basil
salt
pepper
Italian seasoning, etc.
Tomato gravy (see index)
Fresh or at least freshly cooked spaghetti or ot

of water to a boil.
Add sausage, salt, crab boil, lemons and garlic.
Drop potatoes in, boil for 4 minutes.
Corn is added next, boil an additional 11 minutes.
Put the live babies into the boiling water and cover.
Boil till meat comes off easily with a fork.



Oven-Baked Baby-Back Ribs

Beef ribs or pork ribs can be used in this recipe,
and that is exactly what your dinner guests will assume!
An excellent way to expose the uninitiated to this highly misunderstood
yet succulent source of protein.

2 human baby rib racks
3 cups barbecue sauce or honey glaze (see index)
Salt
black pepper
white pepper
paprika

Remove the silverskin by loosening from the edges,
then stripping off.
Season generously, rubbing the mixture into the baby?s flesh.
Place 1 quart water in a baking pan, the meat on a wire rack.
Bake uncovered in 250° oven for 1½ hours.
When browned, remove and glaze,
return to oven and bake 20 minutes more to form a glaze.
Cut ribs into individual pieces and serve with extra sauce.



Fresh Sausage

If it becomes necessary to hide the fact that you are eating
human babies, this is the perfect solution.
But if you are still paranoid, you can substitute pork butt.

5 lb. lean chuck roast
3 lb. prime baby butt
2 tablespoons each:
salt
black, white and cay