The FCC Break their own rules
 

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



Todd N9OGL




----== 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 Wed, 22 Dec 2004 06:11:04 -0600, 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

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

(b) look up the case law based on that section and see why there is
no "free spech" right in an amateur license.

--
Phil Kane

Hello, Phil

I notice that the broadcast giants are getting right into line with the
administration.

Just for grins, I looked up the *big* newsmakers.

From ABC news:
1) Mosul attack was suicide bomber
(ok, sounds like news)
2) Duct tape fashions
(huh? Run that by me again? *Top* news?)

Top science news:
1) Site of Jesus' miracle said to be found
2) New forest plan would lessen restraints.
(hmmm ... how'd that get by, unless it has been "spun" properly?)

Censorship doesn't seem at work here; but fear might.

I've been bookmarking news sites in Australia and England. I don't worry
about the BBC or Voice of America HF broadcasts as many have left the
airwaves and BPL will likely take out the rest.

I'm hoping that some of these news sites (not from the middle east, of
course - I'm talking Australia and England with a *perhaps* on Canada) don't
suddenly "disappear" due to "technical difficulties" ....


Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim



"Phil Kane" wrote in message
news.com...
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 06:11:04 -0600, 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

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

(b) look up the case law based on that section and see why there is
no "free spech" right in an amateur license.

--
Phil Kane

The courts have decided over and over again that the FCC rules are to be
"content-neutral" as a matter of fact some FCC rules in the past have been
thrown out because they were not "content-neutral".Sable Communications v.
FCC: The Government may, however, regulate the content of
constitutionallyprotected speech in order to promote a compelling interest
if it chooses the least restrictive means to furtherthe articulated
interest... The Government may serve this legitimate interest, but to
withstand constitutionalscrutiny, 'it must do so by narrowly drawn
regulations designed to serve those interests without
unnecessarilyinterfering with First Amendment freedoms. It is not enough to
show that the Government's ends arecompelling; the means must be carefully
tailored to achieve those ends'""The must-carry rules are content-neutral,
and thus are not subject to strict scrutiny" Turner Broadcasting Co. Inc v.
FCC (U.S. Supreme Court 1994) The FCC rules are content-neutral only if the
content-based regulation of communication media is narrowly tailored to a
compelling government interest. As for free speech on the radio. The Supreme
Court has repeatedly stated that there is no constitutional right to use
radio facilities without a license and that the FCC has the authority to
regulate the radio spectrum. See Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S.
367, 388 (1969). See National Broadcasting v. United States 319 U.S. 190,
227 (1943) ("The right to free speech does not include . . . The right to
use the facilities without a license,"). See Dunifer v. FCC (1997) ("Mr.
Dunifer doesn't have the right to challenge the constitutionality of the FCC
rules, including the his first amendment challenge because Mr. Dunifer never
applied for a license or asked for a waiver"). See Wait Radio v. FCC; the
U.S. Court of Appeal returns an application and a waiver to FCC to have the
FCC take a look a "hard-look" at the waiver including Wait Radio first
amendment challenge.

Todd N9OGL

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
news.com...
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 06:11:04 -0600, 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

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

(b) look up the case law based on that section and see why there is
no "free spech" right in an amateur license.

--
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 =---


-----------== 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 =-----

Phil,

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

Todd N9OGL

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
news.com...
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 06:11:04 -0600, 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

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

(b) look up the case law based on that section and see why there is
no "free spech" right in an amateur license.

--
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 =---


-----------== 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 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

(b) look up the case law based on that section and see why there is
no "free spech" right in an amateur license.
--
Phil Kane



BULL****!

73,

Lloyd




What are you Lloyd, a bot that automatically posts the
above in response to anything Phil posts? Otherwise tell
us why it's BS.

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

"The Government may, however, regulate the content of constitutionally
protected speech in order to promote a compelling interest if it chooses the
least restrictive means to further the articulated interest"

(Sable Communication V FCC). The court in Howard ruled that the ordinance
was in fact legal because it had the city's "compelling interest" and was
"least restrictive mean".

The reason many courts rule in favor of the city like in Howard is the
simple notion that a antenna and tower are not part of the radio apparatus.
A since it is not part of the radio apparatus it falls with in the
regulatory realm of the local government. You can ask any judge and they
will tell you the same thing. As for 42 USC 1983 in Orin Snook vs. The City
of Missouri City Texas the court stated that 42 USC 1983 only applied to
federal agencies and that Orin Snook like Howard wasn't entitled to it.

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 attorneys who. like myself, have no other axe to
grind except to support quality communication regulation and
compliance therewith

I don't play "lawyer" I'm someone from his district who has a compelling
interest in radio. After all, unless you forgot it's the "public airwaves"
and those who are in the public should have a right to address some
concerns. As for being a lawyer..I could be one, I am intelligent enough to
become one however, I'm right now looking to possibly get my degree in
physics.



Todd N9OGL




----== 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 =-----

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
news.com...
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 06:11:04 -0600, 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

(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)


http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/usc...6----000-.html

You went on stating 42 USC 1983 (which is in a set of rules that has nothing
to do with radio or radio communication) but what I'm talking about is a FCC
rule and has been since long before the FCC. The Secretary of Commerce
Herbert Hoover, back when he regulated radio in the 1920's supported the
creation of that law because he believed the government shouldn't infringe
on the first amendment. That the government job when it regulated radio was
to set time, allocate frequencies, and issue licenses. He was the one to
push 47 USC 326 onto the Federal Radio Commission and then was it added as a
rule under the Federal Communication Commission. The only content the
governement (FCC) was and is allowed to regulate over radio, and televsion
is Obscene and Indecent material and that's it. The FCC thinks they can
regulate the content of amateurs or should I say restrict what they say
because it was thought out and believed that if you wanted to talk about
stuff beyond amateur radio service then that person should apply for a
broadcast license. That's why under part 97 it's illegal to broadcast in
the amateur bands, however amateur can run one way bulletins directed
towards amateurs. Broadcasting means programming that is directed towards
the public. There is however, a "grey line" betrween one way bulletins and
broadcasting. When does a one way bulletin become a broadcast? and again is
the FCC really allowed to regulate the content of that station? This idea
that all a person has to do is apply for a license is nothing more then a
sick joke created by the FCC to use against those who go on the air without
a license. It is a excuse created by the FCC to use in court. The FCC
licensing structure dealing with broadcasting has become complex and
expensive thus, making broadcasting beyond the reach of an average person.
The normal cost for a broadcast station is between $50,000 to as high a
$1,000,000. Amateur Radio should remain a place where free speech should be
allowed to continue to grow without FCC interference.

Todd N9OGL

(b) look up the case law based on that section and see why there is
no "free spech" right in an amateur license.

--
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 =---


-----------== 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 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

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 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.

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 =---


-----------== 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 =-----

"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.

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 =---


-----------== 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
=-----

"anon" wrote in message
...

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
news.com...
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 06:11:04 -0600, 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

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

(b) look up the case law based on that section and see why there is
no "free spech" right in an amateur license.

--
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 =---


-----------== 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 =-----

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."

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.

By the way, what does the micro broadcasting "movement" have to do with
amateur radio? I'm set on sticking with the amateur radio "movement".

Dave K8MN



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 =---

-----------== 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 =-----

"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
By the way, what does the micro broadcasting "movement" have to do with
amateur radio? I'm set on sticking with the amateur radio "movement".

Dave K8MN



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 =---

-----------== 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
=-----





----== 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 =-----

"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 =---

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

fry in peanut oil till crispy golden brown, drain on paper towels.



Lemon Neonate

Turkey serves just as well, and in fact even looks a bit like a
well-dressed baby. By the time you turn the child?s breast into
cutlets, it will be indistinguishable. The taste of young human,
although similar to turkey (and chicken) often can be wildly
different depending upon what he or she has consumed during its
10 to 14 months of life...

4 well chosen cutlets (from 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 other pasta

Mix the ground meats together in a large bowl,
then mix each of the other ingredients.
Make balls about the size of a baby?s fist
(there should be one lying around for reference).
Bake at 400°for about 25 minutes -
or you could fry them in olive oil.
Place the meatballs in the tomato gravy, and simmer for several hours.

Lloyd wrote:

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

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 06:11:04 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

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

(b) look up the case law based on that section and see why there is
no "free spech" right in an amateur license.
--
Phil Kane



BULL****!

There you go describing yourself again.

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

Phil Kane wrote:


Where do you practice Communications Law, Todd?

Right here on the internet, after all he has access to communications
web sites so that makes him a expert.

Todd Daugherty wrote:


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.

Who?

Dr Kalib Herbolaznar wrote:

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


73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane




Hey Kane,

**** you and **** the horse you rode in on too!

Merry Christmas!

Dr Kalib Kolozarhob


Ah, another cber wakes up from his drunken stupor and realizes it is
Christmas.

Todd Daugherty wrote:



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.

Oh oh, Toddy boy has been down at the local mall hiding behind the
artificial bushes, spying on the jr. highschool kids and learning kewel
new words to punctuate his posting with in an effort to impress everyone.


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 =---


-----------== 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 =-----

6 cloves garlic
bunch green onions, chopped

Cut the children?s butts and the beef roast into pieces
that will fit in the grinder.
Run the meat through using a 3/16 grinding plate.
Add garlic, onions and seasoning then mix well.
Add just enough water for a smooth consistency, then mix again.
Form the sausage mixture into patties or stuff into natural casings.



Stillborn Stew

By definition, this meat cannot be had altogether fresh,
but have the lifeless unfortunate available immediately after delivery,
or use high quality beef or pork roasts (it is cheaper and better to
cut up a whole roast than to buy stew meat).

1 stillbirth, de-boned and cubed
¼ cup vegetable oil
2 large onions
bell pepper
celery
garlic
½ cup red wine
3 Irish potatoes
2 large carrots

This is a simple classic stew that makes natural gravy,
thus it does not have to be thickened.
Brown the meat quickly in very hot oil, remove and set aside.
Brown the onions, celery, pepper and garlic.
De-glaze with wine, return meat to the pan and season well.
Stew

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 cayenne peppers
celery salt
garlic powder
parsley flakes
brown sugar
1 teaspoon sage
2 onions
6 cloves garlic
bunch green onions, chopped

Cut the children?s butts and the beef roast into pieces
that will fit in the grinder.
Run the meat through using a 3/16 grinding plate.
Add garlic, onions and seasoning then mix well.
Add just enough water for a smooth consistency