Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#25
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Rules changes/enforcement at Dayton Hamvention | Boatanchors | |||
RILEY SAYS K1MAN BROADCASTS ARE LEGAL | Policy | |||
RILEY SAYS K1MAN BROADCASTS ARE LEGAL | General | |||
FCC Amateur Radio Enforcement Letters for the Period Ending May 1, 2004 | General | |||
There is no International Code Requirement and techs can operate HF according to FCC Rules | General |