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

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

... Hollingworth and his gestopo stomping on free speech.

His what?

Do get me wrong I'm all for ham radio but I am not for this crap of
ham radio operators or the FCC gestopo atempts to control the
content of
amateur radio stations.

You want us to get you wrong? I'm sold. Watch out for those "gestopo
atempts".

You never did tell me about this "micro broadcasting movement".

What do you want to know about the micro-broadcasting movement???

Is it made up of scofflaw types who have determined that the FCC has no
authority to regulate broadcasting? What is the legal standing of this
"movement". Why does the "movement" receive no play in the several
leading newsmagazines or on TV news shows? Is the objective of the
"movement" to take to the airwaves in defiance of the FCC?

Those questions will do for the moment.


The movemen began due to lack of community progams, consolidation of the
airwaves. As for news magazines an TV news shows there have a number of
article in the papers (Wall Street Journal, Reason Magazine as well as
other) as for news on television it has be talked about on both CNN and FOX.
I think the whole purpose of the movement was to change the system which it
did with the introduction of Low Power FM.



I myself joined the movement in 1998 after I had applied six times for a
license with waivers for a community that didn't have a service. The FCC
wouldn't consider my applications or waivers (which the Federal courts
have
told them repeatly that they (FCC) "must consider waivers" So my opinion
of
the FCC is that they are nothing buts LIARS, and are below pond scum.

You're quite sure that what you interpret as the FCC's non-consideration
of your applications wasn't consideration and rejection? Was it that
your applications and requests for waivers were for something quite
outside the regulations?

The Federal Communication Commission dismissed my application because
according to them I didn't file during a filing window. However under 47 CFR
1.3 the FCC could of consider my waiver. Because under 47 CFR 1.3 the FCC
may consider waivers at anytime if good cause is shown. In my waiver I was
going to provide a television service to a community that doesn't have a TV
service. Which In my humble opinion would constitute a good cause.


I'm sure that if you include terms like "LIARS" and "below pond scum" in
your communications with the FCC, you'll get some special attention.


No it was only after the fact that they didn't consider my waiver I started
calling them liars. They are liars because they would go to court against
pirate radio operators and tell a judge that all a person had to do was
apply for a license and ask for a waiver. But the reality they wouldn't
consider applications or waiver and the FCC dismissing my application proves
that the FCC are nothing but worthless LIARS.


You might want to consider that amateur radio might not be for you,
Todd.
There seems to be some confusion in your mind as to its basis and
purpose.
It is not a broadcasting service.

Not true, Amateurs may run Information Bulletins so, amateur's are not
completely banned from some for a Broadcasting. There is of course a
difference between Broadcasting and Information Bulletins. Broadcast are
programs directed either relayed to the general public. while information
bulletin are bulletins directed to the amateur community with information
dealing with amateur radio. A bulletin according to Webster is a piece of
information directed to the public or a group. So you see some form of
"Broadcasting" is allow. My progam which I run on 10 meter deals with issues
and information concerning Amateur Radio.

If you invest in a 100mw Part 15 AM transmitter and find yourself a nice
clear spot on the BCB, you can play announcer to your heart's content.

Part 15 device are never have nor are attended for broadcasting. Part 15
device are short range as a matter of fact part 15 device are suppose to
have the range to cover a person's yard. I know it can be said that a part
15 device can go farther, however part 15 was not attended for that purpose.

Todd N9OGL

Dave K8MN





----== 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 =---

"Todd Daugherty" wrote in message
...

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
If you invest in a 100mw Part 15 AM transmitter and find yourself a nice
clear spot on the BCB, you can play announcer to your heart's content.

Part 15 device are never have nor are attended for broadcasting. Part 15
device are short range as a matter of fact part 15 device are suppose to
have the range to cover a person's yard. I know it can be said that a part
15 device can go farther, however part 15 was not attended for that
purpose.

Todd N9OGL

Funny story: I used to use a Part 15 device on CB channel 14, 27125 kHz, to
practice CW with my niece. She lived approx. 15 linear miles away and we
were able to copy each other FB through some pretty "CBish" QRM.

BTW, the trick to remaining legal while "getting out" with a Part 15 device
is to get the device itself as high as humanly/safely possible. The power
and key cables were then brough down into the shack. A seperate high
performance rcvr rounded out the package. No coax loss because...no coax.
Just comply with the ERP restrictions and let your height be your might.
Fond memories indeed.

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

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
...
"Todd Daugherty" wrote in message
...

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
If you invest in a 100mw Part 15 AM transmitter and find yourself a
nice
clear spot on the BCB, you can play announcer to your heart's content.

Part 15 device are never have nor are attended for broadcasting. Part 15
device are short range as a matter of fact part 15 device are suppose to
have the range to cover a person's yard. I know it can be said that a
part
15 device can go farther, however part 15 was not attended for that
purpose.

Todd N9OGL

Funny story: I used to use a Part 15 device on CB channel 14, 27125 kHz,
to
practice CW with my niece. She lived approx. 15 linear miles away and we
were able to copy each other FB through some pretty "CBish" QRM.

Part 15 power range depends o the frequency and band for example on the AM
band it is 100 miliwatts while on the FM broadcast band it's 250 microvolt
per meter at 3 meters. on 13 MHz. the power is 10,000 microvolts per meter
at 30 meters.

BTW, the trick to remaining legal while "getting out" with a Part 15
device
is to get the device itself as high as humanly/safely possible. The power
and key cables were then brough down into the shack. A seperate high
performance rcvr rounded out the package. No coax loss because...no coax.
Just comply with the ERP restrictions and let your height be your might.
Fond memories indeed.

I would have no problem with Part 15 device except I think the one thing
holding part 15 device back is that some community tight restriction on
antenna heights.

Todd N9OGL

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







----== 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 Mon, 10 Jan 2005 04:14:18 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

The [ "microbroadcasting" ] movemen began due to lack of community progams,
consolidation of the airwaves.

Nah - the movement always existed - I chased pirate radio stations
before you were born, run by folks whose main raison d'etre was to
try to pull the FCC's chain, and the folks who trained me chased
pirate radio stations during WW-II.

I think the whole purpose of the movement was to change the system which it
did with the introduction of Low Power FM.

The ONLY reason [ note the emphasis ] that there is a "Low Power FM"
service is that Judge Claudia Wilkin of the Federal District Court
for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division was
refusing to enjoin Stephen Dunifer and his alter-ego "Free Radio
Berkeley" from transmitting without authorization unless the FCC
started that service, and she sat on that ruling for two years,
while other judges issued such injunctions without any delay.

The FCC blinked first just to get her off the dime, so to speak.

I myself joined the movement in 1998

Todd Come Lately

after I had applied six times for a
license with waivers for a community that didn't have a service. The FCC
wouldn't consider my applications or waivers (which the Federal courts
have told them repeatly that they (FCC) "must consider waivers"

[ See above ]

So my opinion of the FCC is that they are nothing buts LIARS, and
are below pond scum.

All because they decided that you didn't quailfy for a waiver....

You're quite sure that what you interpret as the FCC's non-consideration
of your applications wasn't consideration and rejection? Was it that
your applications and requests for waivers were for something quite
outside the regulations?

The Federal Communication Commission dismissed my application because
according to them I didn't file during a filing window. However under
47 CFR 1.3 the FCC could of consider my waiver. Because under 47 CFR
1.3 the FCC may consider waivers at anytime if good cause is shown. In
my waiver I was going to provide a television service to a community that
doesn't have a TV service.

Notice your own words -- MAY consider. Not must consider. And even
if they did consider, they are under no obligation to grant said
waiver - especially of filing windows. In that regard, if everyone
else has to wait for a window YOU have to wait for one as well. What
makes your "good cause" more gooder than the next person's "good
cause"?

Which In my humble opinion would constitute a good cause.

Not in the more qualified opinions of your "elders and betters" of
the Commission.

Sorry, Buddy, that won't fly in the real world of broadcast regulation.

I'm sure that if you include terms like "LIARS" and "below pond scum" in
your communications with the FCC, you'll get some special attention.

"Very" special attention. There's a special file for such.

No it was only after the fact that they didn't consider my waiver I started
calling them liars. They are liars because they would go to court against
pirate radio operators and tell a judge that all a person had to do was
apply for a license and ask for a waiver. But the reality they wouldn't
consider applications or waiver and the FCC dismissing my application
proves that the FCC are nothing but worthless LIARS.

Namecalling will get you very far in this business, friend.

Anyone can ask for a waiver - no lie there. Whether the waiver will
be granted or not depends on what the applicant wants the Commission
to waive.

Take your losses like a man and try again, this time getting
everything right. Then they'll get to the nitty-gritty about
whether you qualify to be permitted to operate a station or not.

With the attitudes which you have exhibited here, don't be surprised
if they decide that you are not.

I feel sorry for the Congressrep whom you are attempting to "advise"
on this matter of broadcast regulation.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 04:14:18 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

The [ "microbroadcasting" ] movemen began due to lack of community
progams,
consolidation of the airwaves.

Nah - the movement always existed - I chased pirate radio stations
before you were born, run by folks whose main raison d'etre was to
try to pull the FCC's chain, and the folks who trained me chased
pirate radio stations during WW-II.
True, "pirate radio" has been around since the advent of regulations. but
what became the modern grassroot movement didn't begin until the mid 80's.

I think the whole purpose of the movement was to change the system which
it
did with the introduction of Low Power FM.

The ONLY reason [ note the emphasis ] that there is a "Low Power FM"
service is that Judge Claudia Wilkin of the Federal District Court
for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division was
refusing to enjoin Stephen Dunifer and his alter-ego "Free Radio
Berkeley" from transmitting without authorization unless the FCC
started that service, and she sat on that ruling for two years,
while other judges issued such injunctions without any delay.

NO the only reason low power FM was created was due to the continued growth
of pirate radio. the FCC would shut down two pirate stations and three more
would come on the air. It's really shame to since Dunifer can apply for
license since the Radio Broadcast Preservation Act of 2000 bars all pirates
from getting a license.

The FCC blinked first just to get her off the dime, so to speak.

I myself joined the movement in 1998

Todd Come Lately

after I had applied six times for a
license with waivers for a community that didn't have a service. The FCC
wouldn't consider my applications or waivers (which the Federal courts
have told them repeatly that they (FCC) "must consider waivers"

[ See above ]

So my opinion of the FCC is that they are nothing buts LIARS, and
are below pond scum.

All because they decided that you didn't quailfy for a waiver....
There's a difference at a denial and a dismissal....and the courts have also
told the FCC that they must take a serious look at waivers. That includes
the reason while there is a denial of the waiver so that person can file a
appeal in the US court of Appeal. .

You're quite sure that what you interpret as the FCC's
non-consideration
of your applications wasn't consideration and rejection? Was it that
your applications and requests for waivers were for something quite
outside the regulations?

The Federal Communication Commission dismissed my application because
according to them I didn't file during a filing window. However under
47 CFR 1.3 the FCC could of consider my waiver. Because under 47 CFR
1.3 the FCC may consider waivers at anytime if good cause is shown. In
my waiver I was going to provide a television service to a community that
doesn't have a TV service.

Notice your own words -- MAY consider. Not must consider. And even
if they did consider, they are under no obligation to grant said
waiver - especially of filing windows. In that regard, if everyone
else has to wait for a window YOU have to wait for one as well. What
makes your "good cause" more gooder than the next person's "good
cause"?

yes but they must either grant and deny a license. and waiver may be
consider at anytime filing windows don't apply. I also think that by
dismissing my the commission has hurt this community by not consider the
waiver for a "community that has no local television service" So where is
the public interest? Others? what others? Not that many people in this
community can afford to apply for a license or could care less to apply for
a license.

Which In my humble opinion would constitute a good cause.

Not in the more qualified opinions of your "elders and betters" of
the Commission.

Sorry, Buddy, that won't fly in the real world of broadcast regulation.

I'm sure that if you include terms like "LIARS" and "below pond scum"
in
your communications with the FCC, you'll get some special attention.

"Very" special attention. There's a special file for such.

No it was only after the fact that they didn't consider my waiver I
started
calling them liars. They are liars because they would go to court against
pirate radio operators and tell a judge that all a person had to do was
apply for a license and ask for a waiver. But the reality they wouldn't
consider applications or waiver and the FCC dismissing my application
proves that the FCC are nothing but worthless LIARS.

Namecalling will get you very far in this business, friend.

Anyone can ask for a waiver - no lie there. Whether the waiver will
be granted or not depends on what the applicant wants the Commission
to waive.

Again they have to grant or deny a application and show good cause why it's
in the public interest to deny the license and waiver.

Take your losses like a man and try again, this time getting
everything right. Then they'll get to the nitty-gritty about
whether you qualify to be permitted to operate a station or not.

With the attitudes which you have exhibited here, don't be surprised
if they decide that you are not.

I feel sorry for the Congressrep whom you are attempting to "advise"
on this matter of broadcast regulation.

--
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 Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:34:14 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

The ONLY reason [ note the emphasis ] that there is a "Low Power FM"
service is that Judge Claudia Wilkin of the Federal District Court
for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division was
refusing to enjoin Stephen Dunifer and his alter-ego "Free Radio
Berkeley" from transmitting without authorization unless the FCC
started that service, and she sat on that ruling for two years,
while other judges issued such injunctions without any delay.

NO the only reason low power FM was created was due to the continued growth
of pirate radio.

You are telling me "NO" when I was the one who prepared all the
paperwork for the Dunifer case, read every filing, and sat at the
table for each and every hearing?

What planet are you living on, fella? That was MY case.

It's really shame to since Dunifer can apply for
license since the Radio Broadcast Preservation Act of 2000 bars all pirates
from getting a license.

You must have made a typo - Mister Dunifer cannot be granted a
license. Plain fact. The choice was his.

So my opinion of the FCC is that they are nothing buts LIARS, and
are below pond scum.

All because they decided that you didn't quailfy for a waiver....

There's a difference at a denial and a dismissal....and the courts have also
told the FCC that they must take a serious look at waivers. That includes
the reason while there is a denial of the waiver so that person can file a
appeal in the US court of Appeal. .

Most probably the waiver was denied and the application was dismissed.
The net result was that you didn't get the license.

Notice your own words -- MAY consider. Not must consider. And even
if they did consider, they are under no obligation to grant said
waiver - especially of filing windows. In that regard, if everyone
else has to wait for a window YOU have to wait for one as well. What
makes your "good cause" more gooder than the next person's "good
cause"?

yes but they must either grant and deny a license. and waiver may be
consider at anytime filing windows don't apply.

Please explain this in English. Also regard your own word "may".
Even if they did consider it, it can be denied. What part of the
process do you fail to understand?

Don't feel too bad. Some of the waivers that I have applied for on
behalf of clients have been granted, some have been denied. It's a
crapshoot and a regular part of the regulatory game. Get used to it.

I also think that by
dismissing my the commission has hurt this community by not consider the
waiver for a "community that has no local television service"

Your thoughts and the Commission;s obligations are two different
things, it appears.

So where is the public interest? Others? what others?

Every other applicant who missed the filing window.

Not that many people in this community can afford to apply for a license
or could care less to apply for a license.

Ah, in other words the community isn't really panting for the station.
Mister Daugherty wants the station..... Now the picture becomes clearer.

Namecalling will get you very far in this business, friend.

Anyone can ask for a waiver - no lie there. Whether the waiver will
be granted or not depends on what the applicant wants the Commission
to waive.

Again they have to grant or deny a application and show good cause why it's
in the public interest to deny the license and waiver.

Missing the filing window is prima facie "good cause" for returning
the applicatin as defective, which apparently they did. You were
free to appeal to the full Commission and from there to the U S
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. By not doing so, you
lost your chnace to get the decision reversed.

And you are misinterpreting the "public interest" requirement. The
Comm Act mandates the Commission to make a finding that the public
interest will be served before granting a license. It does not
mandate the Commission to show why a dismissal is in the public
interest, only that the dismissal must be according to the established
Rules and other applicable law.

Looks like you are unlettered in Federal Administrative Law as well.

Stay warm, Todd. It's cold out there.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:34:14 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

The ONLY reason [ note the emphasis ] that there is a "Low Power FM"
service is that Judge Claudia Wilkin of the Federal District Court
for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division was
refusing to enjoin Stephen Dunifer and his alter-ego "Free Radio
Berkeley" from transmitting without authorization unless the FCC
started that service, and she sat on that ruling for two years,
while other judges issued such injunctions without any delay.

NO the only reason low power FM was created was due to the continued
growth
of pirate radio.

You are telling me "NO" when I was the one who prepared all the
paperwork for the Dunifer case, read every filing, and sat at the
table for each and every hearing?

The pirate movement continued to grow long after dunifer.

What planet are you living on, fella? That was MY case.

It's really shame to since Dunifer can apply for
license since the Radio Broadcast Preservation Act of 2000 bars all
pirates
from getting a license.

You must have made a typo - Mister Dunifer cannot be granted a
license. Plain fact. The choice was his.

The judge stated that dunifer and his bunch was barred from operating any
broadcast equipment until they first obtain a license from the FCC.

So my opinion of the FCC is that they are nothing buts LIARS, and
are below pond scum.

All because they decided that you didn't quailfy for a waiver....

There's a difference at a denial and a dismissal....and the courts have
also
told the FCC that they must take a serious look at waivers. That includes
the reason while there is a denial of the waiver so that person can file
a
appeal in the US court of Appeal. .

Most probably the waiver was denied and the application was dismissed.
The net result was that you didn't get the license.

Which boils back to what all the pirates were say....why should I spend the
time and money to try to obtain a license which apparently the FCC doesn't
want to give me.

Notice your own words -- MAY consider. Not must consider. And even
if they did consider, they are under no obligation to grant said
waiver - especially of filing windows. In that regard, if everyone
else has to wait for a window YOU have to wait for one as well. What
makes your "good cause" more gooder than the next person's "good
cause"?

yes but they must either grant and deny a license. and waiver may be
consider at anytime filing windows don't apply.

Please explain this in English. Also regard your own word "may".
Even if they did consider it, it can be denied. What part of the
process do you fail to understand?

Sec. 1.3 Suspension, amendment, or waiver of rules.

The provisions of this chapter may be suspended, revoked, amended,
or waived for good cause shown, in whole or in part, at any time by the
Commission, subject to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure
Act and the provisions of this chapter. Any provision of the rules may
be waived by the Commission on its own motion or on petition if good
cause therefor is shown.

Cross Reference: See subpart C of this part for practice and
procedure involving rulemaking




Don't feel too bad. Some of the waivers that I have applied for on
behalf of clients have been granted, some have been denied. It's a
crapshoot and a regular part of the regulatory game. Get used to it.

I also think that by
dismissing my the commission has hurt this community by not consider the
waiver for a "community that has no local television service"

Your thoughts and the Commission;s obligations are two different
things, it appears.

So where is the public interest? Others? what others?

Every other applicant who missed the filing window.

Not that many people in this community can afford to apply for a license
or could care less to apply for a license.

Ah, in other words the community isn't really panting for the station.
Mister Daugherty wants the station..... Now the picture becomes clearer.

No the cost and up keep of a station is something that not everyone can
afford. and again The majority of people in this community could careless
about broadcasting. they are more worried about other things.

Namecalling will get you very far in this business, friend.

Anyone can ask for a waiver - no lie there. Whether the waiver will
be granted or not depends on what the applicant wants the Commission
to waive.

Again they have to grant or deny a application and show good cause why
it's
in the public interest to deny the license and waiver.

Missing the filing window is prima facie "good cause" for returning
the applicatin as defective, which apparently they did. You were
free to appeal to the full Commission and from there to the U S
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. By not doing so, you
lost your chnace to get the decision reversed.

The United States court have stated that "the FCC MUST consider waivers"
(WAIT RADIO v FCC 1969) "The FCC must take a serious and hard look at waiver
request" Turro v FCC (1989)
..
And you are misinterpreting the "public interest" requirement. The
Comm Act mandates the Commission to make a finding that the public
interest will be served before granting a license. It does not
mandate the Commission to show why a dismissal is in the public
interest, only that the dismissal must be according to the established
Rules and other applicable law.

Looks like you are unlettered in Federal Administrative Law as well.

Stay warm, Todd. It's cold out there.

--
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 =---

Well then again like what Judge Randolph said in Greg Ruggerio v. FCC (2003)

"No one has a First Amendment right to a license," Red Lion Broad. Co. v.
FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 389 (1969), and it follows that no one has a First
Amendment
right to apply for a license."

Then why apply????

Todd N9OGL

Phil Kane wrote:



Not that many people in this community can afford to apply for a license
or could care less to apply for a license.


Ah, in other words the community isn't really panting for the station.
Mister Daugherty wants the station..... Now the picture becomes clearer.


And the FCC is big and mean just because he wants his station and they
won't let him have it. BWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! Big, bad, mean ole
FCC. They won't let Toddyboy have his license so that means they are liars.

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

:
: You are telling me "NO" when I was the one who prepared all the
: paperwork for the Dunifer case, read every filing, and sat at the
: table for each and every hearing?
:
: What planet are you living on, fella? That was MY case.
:

OM Phil,

Attached find a sample of his work from his new "blog" page. Do you wonder
why his applications are not viewed with favor?

Ciao!

--
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord,
make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it."
- Voltaire
--


Following from his "blog" ---- enjoy!


Written by Todd Daugherty N9OGL


On February 8, 2002 the United States Court of Appeal ruled the Radio
Broadcast Preservation Act (RBPA-2000) was unconstitutional (Greg Ruggiero
vs. FCC 2002) then to a shock the court of appeals overturned it's own
decision ruling that the RBPA of 2000 was constitutional. (Greg Ruggiero Vs
FCC 2003). I'm writing this "paper" because I feel that there was something
that should have been said but wasn't and since I tell it as it is I will
say it. There is also a problem with the recent ruling (Greg Ruggiero Vs FCC
2003) which I've also added to this paper.


The first comes from that Bitch Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson who stated in
the 2002 ruling


"By contrast, the License restriction here applies to the entire class of
those who as of the time of their license application have unlawfully
engaged in LPFM broadcasting. Further the restriction substantially furthers
the plain intent of the Congress which believed that "the operation of an
unlicensed station demonstrates a lack of commitment to follow the basic
rules and regulations which are essential to having a broadcast service that
serves the public, and those individuals or groups should not be permitted
to receive a licenses in the LPFM service." H.R. Rep. No. 506 at 8 (2000).
What could be more reasonable or logical than to suspect that those who
ignored the commission LPFM broadcast regulation in the past are likely to
do so in the future and therefore to head them off."


First, you must not have to be very intelligent to be a ****ing judge of the
court of appeal.it seems if they can let this dumb ass bitch and her little
bitch whore buddies on the bench then anyone can..


"What could be more reasonable or logical than to suspect that those who
ignored the commission LPFM broadcast regulation in the past are likely to
do so in the future and therefore to head them off."


Did I ****ing miss something here??? Listen bitch the FCC NEVER had any LPFM
rules prior to the passing of the LPFM rules in 1999. You and your ****ing
whores in the Court of Appeal are the stupidest mother ****ers on the
planet. For years the FCC went around telling you that all a person had to
do was fill out an application and ask for a waiver..well guest what you
****ing sluts THE FCC ****ING LIED TO YOU!!! The FCC has NEVER considered
application and waiver for LPFM ..and you stupid ****s believed them all
these years. That's why a lot of people went on the air..because the FCC
wouldn't consider applications and waivers for a low power service. Bitch my
group applied six times for a license with waiver and that is why we went
pirate.because the FCC wouldn't even consider are application or are waiver
for a community with no service..and by the way bitch.the two congressman
who wrote that bill and were the chief sponsor of the RBPA of 2000 are no
longer in congress because they were voted out by the people of their state
because of that ****.


And now.2003 for the king bitch whore Ginsburg.


"In 1999 the Commission proposed to modify its low-power Radio rules and
sought public comment upon whether it should "create two classes of low
power radio service, both of which would operate in the existing FM radio
band: a 1000- watt primary service and a 100-watt secondary service." Id. at
p 1. The Commission also sought comment upon whether it should establish "a
third, 'microradio' class of low power radio service that would operate in
the range of 1 to 10 watts." Id. at p 1."


The commission proposed?? That's a bunch of **** the FCC didn't propose it
someone else did in a Petition for Rulemaking.that's a bunch of ****ing ****
quit smoking your ****ing crack.


"The Congress ultimately responded to the Commission's decision by enacting
the Radio Broadcast Preservation Act of 2000 (RBPA), Pub. L. No. 106-553,
114 Stat. 2762, s 632,"


The Congress responded not out of concern of what the FCC was doing but by
the huge load of cash they were getting from the National Association of
Broadcasters (NAB). My dickhead congressman John ****less (Shinkus)


Got paid $14,000 from the NAB for the RBPA but that's ok..I'm going make
sure that son of bitch mother ****er isn't elected again!


" We reject also Ruggiero's claim that the character qualification is
overinclusive because it prohibits all pirates, including those good pirates
who stopped broadcasting illegally when ordered to do so, and those "former
pirates [who] subsequently have become model citizens," from obtaining a
license. All unlicensed LPFM broadcasters violated the Communications Act.
Any unlicensed broadcasting demonstrates a willful disregard of the most
basic rule of federal broadcasting regulation."


Then perhaps " former pirates" like WBCQ shouldn't have a license..and tell
me you stupid ****...when did the disregard to the legal process become
legal..You stupid **** head has basically given the FCC the go ahead to
disregard not only the judiciary process but the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA). Your stupid thinking is regardless to what a federal judge or an
administrative judge says a pirate is a pirate regardless to what legal
challenge they may bring and regardless of any fact or findings. Your
****ing retarded thinking is that a pirate is guilty regardless of any
evidence.well ****, why do we do that with murders..Hell, Bob Butt much
killed Joe Dickless but hey there's evidence he not guilty.**** he's guilty
regardless of any evidence. That the same ****ing **** you did with pirates
then it should apply to any other crime. Perhaps Mr. Ginsburg you should
stop kissing congress and the federal government ass.


And now a few words from my favorite dickhead.Judge Randolph.


"There is in short no chilling effect and Ruggiero therefore


cannot invoke the overbreadth doctrine."


This has to be one of the stupidest mother ****er on the planet...No
chilling effect??? How about the ability to allow an agency to disregard any
legal proceeding as prescribed under the APA not to mention your next stupid
****s comment..


"No one has a First Amendment right to a


license," Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 389


(1969), and it follows that no one has a First Amendment


right to apply for a license."


Then why apply??? If no one has a "right" as you put it to apply for a
license then why have a licensing system?? Just like the **** stupid *******
you are; you've created one of the biggest loopholes a pirate would love!
Because like you said no one has a right to apply for a license..thus, a
person really shouldn't have to apply since there is no right. Despite what
you and your little bitch whore buddies in the NAB may think as the
secretary of commerce Herbert Hoover once stated The First Amendment and
radio fall hand in hand..and it stupid ****s like you in the court of appeal
that are destroying not only free speech but destroying the legal process.


As for the U.S. Supreme Court..there just as **** stupid as these ****ing
idiots..you know at one time I had great respect for the U.S. Supreme Court.
But now..by allowing this stupid ****s to destroy the legal process and
basically misread Red Lion Broadcasting and bend it to their own ****ing
will I think the U.S. Supreme Court has got to **** hell and my respect is
now gone. Because they along with those stupid **** in the U.S. Court of
Appeal has failed to grasp reality of what is really go on in the world.


Todd Daugherty


Taylorville, Illinois


December 2003