K4YZ wrote:
A simple search on Google turned up more than 8 pages of articles
on K1MAN.

Toddie's correct that "K1MAN's been around a long time. He's
been
fighting the FCC since at least 1988 for as far back as I was willing
to look.

So that means the FCC has quite a few years of documentation on
him
for his upcoming October 2005 renewal.

So...If Toddie wants to say "See, I can do what I want too",
then
he can look at it from that angle.

I say Riley and Company has had enough and the hammer is
falling.


To Toddie, I say go ahead and spend the money on legal issues if
you want...I'd rather spend them on enjoying Amateur Radio.

Of course your posts in here have pretty well set the tone for
what kind of reaction you can expect. People don't want to get
"information" from the decietful, dishonest or the lame.

You're all three.

BTW...The two of you had asked me to post where K1MAN had ever
been cited for misconduct or fines levied. Here's one right off the
top. Granted it's timed, but it was from many to choose from and
establishes the pattern.

I am sure there are far more.

Good luck, Toddie!

Steve, K4YZ



K1MAN FCC field Operations Bureau Chief, Richard M. Smith, has moved
to
stop the International Amateur Radio Network bulletins from being
transmitted on the hambands. In a four page letter dated August 27th,
Smith affirmed a $1500 monetary forfeiture imposed on Glen Baxter
K1MAN
last year by the FCC's Belfast, Maine Monitoring Station. Baxter was
cited for alleged broadcasting and alleged interference caused by the
broadcasts. Baxter immediately requested reconsideration by the Field
Operations Bureau. He argued that his broadcasts were, in fact, FCC
authorized information bulletins. He also claimed that the alleged
interference was no different than that caused by the ARRL's W1AW
when
it takes to the air each day. But Smith disagreed and upheld the
charges and the imposed $1500 fine. As a result, K1MAN now says that
he
will take the matter to the full Commission. On September 29th Baxter
filed a six page Petition for Review that requests the commission
undertake the resolution of the issues involved in the case. Baxter
has
also issued a statement that says he will continue to fight even if
it
means taking the case to the United States Supreme Court. The
government also appears to be getting ready for a long and involved
legal fight.

The full commission dismissed it.....here's a an article from 2004:


ENFORCEMENT: FCC AGAIN WRITES TO K1MAN

The FCC has again written to Glenn Baxter, K1MAN, and the commissions
note
has both good and bad news for the Belgrade Lakes, Maine radio amateur.
On
the positive side, the April 14th letter informs K1MAN that a review of
his
transmissions indicates that he is complying with the Amateur Service
regulations
regarding broadcasting and bulletins and station control.

The negative? The FCC alleges that K1MAN is in violation of rules
regarding use
of his Amateur station for pecuniary interest and those regarding
deliberate
interference to ongoing communications.

Also, the letter again told Baxter that his "felony affidavit
complaints" will not be
accepted by the regulatory agency. He was also reminded that all
frequencies in
the Amateur Radio Service are shared. No frequency is assigned for the

exclusive use of any station, and that Baxter's station has no
greater rights to a
frequency at any particular time than does any other Amateur station.

NEWSLINE ~ 2004

So try again....


Todd N9OGL

The FCC has again written to Glenn Baxter, K1MAN, and the commissions
note
has both good and bad news for the Belgrade Lakes, Maine radio amateur.

On
the positive side, the April 14th letter informs K1MAN that a review of

his
transmissions indicates that he is complying with the Amateur Service
regulations
regarding broadcasting and bulletins and station control.


So my take on this is the the full Commission got on the Enforcement
Bureau ass for violating the content control rules.


The negative? The FCC alleges that K1MAN is in violation of rules
regarding use
of his Amateur station for pecuniary interest and those regarding
deliberate
interference to ongoing communications

So they are trying something else..

Todd N9OGL

On 18 Mar 2005 07:43:33 -0800, N9OGL wrote:

So my take on this is the the full Commission got on the Enforcement
Bureau ass for violating the content control rules.

(A) There was no "Enforcement Bureau" at the time. The current
Enforcement Bureau has a lot more muscle and leverage in Commission
legal circles than the Field Operations Bureau had at that time.

(B) That was the "old" Commission where content wasn't anything
they wanted to deal with. Although I do not agree with some of
their recent decisions on broadcast media content, there's a whole
new ball game playing at the Portals nowadays.

My own two electron's worth.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...
On 18 Mar 2005 07:43:33 -0800, N9OGL wrote:

So my take on this is the the full Commission got on the Enforcement
Bureau ass for violating the content control rules.

(A) There was no "Enforcement Bureau" at the time. The current
Enforcement Bureau has a lot more muscle and leverage in Commission
legal circles than the Field Operations Bureau had at that time.

(B) That was the "old" Commission where content wasn't anything
they wanted to deal with. Although I do not agree with some of
their recent decisions on broadcast media content, there's a whole
new ball game playing at the Portals nowadays.

My own two electron's worth.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane



The all "new" Portals is nothing more than a classic bureaucratic
reshuffling
of the deck chairs. Looks good but accomplishes nothing.

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 19:51:37 -0500, Kwise wrote:

The all "new" Portals is nothing more than a classic bureaucratic
reshuffling of the deck chairs. Looks good but accomplishes nothing.

Tell that to CBS and the other broadcasters who after 70 years have
been hit with monetary forfeitures which, although miniscule in
comparison to the dollar amounts that they normally deal with, are
a heck of lot higher than things were in the past, and could be much
higher in the future now that The Congress added a bunch more zeros
to the amounts, and this new Chairman wants to put cable and
satellite broadcasts in the same pot.

Whether the FCC should or should not be doing it is not the question
here.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 19:51:37 -0500, Kwise wrote:

The all "new" Portals is nothing more than a classic bureaucratic
reshuffling of the deck chairs. Looks good but accomplishes nothing.

Tell that to CBS and the other broadcasters who after 70 years have
been hit with monetary forfeitures which, although miniscule in
comparison to the dollar amounts that they normally deal with, are
a heck of lot higher than things were in the past, and could be much
higher in the future now that The Congress added a bunch more zeros
to the amounts, and this new Chairman wants to put cable and
satellite broadcasts in the same pot.

Whether the FCC should or should not be doing it is not the question
here.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane



Oh but weren't we blaming all that on the "Bush Religious Fundamentalist
Zealots" just a few weeks ago. You change your mind like people
change their underwear. Same bureaucrats same agency, just different
bells and whistles. Same bureaucrats sleeping at the same desks they
been comatose at for the last four decades.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZ

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 19:51:37 -0500, Kwise wrote:

The all "new" Portals is nothing more than a classic bureaucratic
reshuffling of the deck chairs. Looks good but accomplishes nothing.

Tell that to CBS and the other broadcasters who after 70 years have
been hit with monetary forfeitures which, although miniscule in
comparison to the dollar amounts that they normally deal with, are
a heck of lot higher than things were in the past, and could be much
higher in the future now that The Congress added a bunch more zeros
to the amounts, and this new Chairman wants to put cable and
satellite broadcasts in the same pot.

Whether the FCC should or should not be doing it is not the question
here.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane




"The shameless delusion of all bureaucrats is to not only convince the
public but themselves as well that they actually perform some useful
function in
life."
=Reggi VanClefner

N9OGL wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
A simple search on Google turned up more than 8 pages of articles
on K1MAN.

Snip to...

The full commission dismissed it.....here's a an article from 2004:


ENFORCEMENT: FCC AGAIN WRITES TO K1MAN

The FCC has again written to Glenn Baxter, K1MAN, and the commissions
note
has both good and bad news for the Belgrade Lakes, Maine radio
amateur.
On
the positive side, the April 14th letter informs K1MAN that a review
of
his
transmissions indicates that he is complying with the Amateur Service
regulations
regarding broadcasting and bulletins and station control.

The negative? The FCC alleges that K1MAN is in violation of rules
regarding use
of his Amateur station for pecuniary interest and those regarding
deliberate
interference to ongoing communications.

Also, the letter again told Baxter that his "felony affidavit
complaints" will not be
accepted by the regulatory agency. He was also reminded that all
frequencies in
the Amateur Radio Service are shared. No frequency is assigned for
the

exclusive use of any station, and that Baxter's station has no
greater rights to a
frequency at any particular time than does any other Amateur station.

NEWSLINE ~ 2004

So try again....

And your own cite once again is your undoing, Toddie...

Read it again...

The negative? The FCC alleges that K1MAN is in violation of rules
regarding use
of his Amateur station for pecuniary interest and those regarding
deliberate
interference to ongoing communications.

I specifically stated that K1MAN has a track record of
misconduct issues to warrant reconsideration of a renewal in October
2005.

YOUR post simply acknowldeged what I said...he's got a track
record of misbehaviour that continues today.

Other threads in this NG have also that he's returned to his
previous patterns of "operation".

Just like I said.

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
N9OGL wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
A simple search on Google turned up more than 8 pages of articles
on K1MAN.

Snip to...

The full commission dismissed it.....here's a an article from 2004:


ENFORCEMENT: FCC AGAIN WRITES TO K1MAN

The FCC has again written to Glenn Baxter, K1MAN, and the
commissions
note
has both good and bad news for the Belgrade Lakes, Maine radio
amateur.
On
the positive side, the April 14th letter informs K1MAN that a
review
of
his
transmissions indicates that he is complying with the Amateur
Service
regulations
regarding broadcasting and bulletins and station control.

The negative? The FCC alleges that K1MAN is in violation of rules
regarding use
of his Amateur station for pecuniary interest and those regarding
deliberate
interference to ongoing communications.

Also, the letter again told Baxter that his "felony affidavit
complaints" will not be
accepted by the regulatory agency. He was also reminded that all
frequencies in
the Amateur Radio Service are shared. No frequency is assigned for
the

exclusive use of any station, and that Baxter's station has no
greater rights to a
frequency at any particular time than does any other Amateur
station.

NEWSLINE ~ 2004

So try again....

And your own cite once again is your undoing, Toddie...

Read it again...

The negative? The FCC alleges that K1MAN is in violation of rules
regarding use
of his Amateur station for pecuniary interest and those regarding
deliberate
interference to ongoing communications.

I specifically stated that K1MAN has a track record of
misconduct issues to warrant reconsideration of a renewal in October
2005.

YOUR post simply acknowldeged what I said...he's got a track
record of misbehaviour that continues today.


Interference has nothing to do with his "content"(as I've repeat over
and over his content except Pecuniary interest is LEAGAL!. The same go
mine, as long as it's amateur related it don't matter if it's
opinionated or not it's legal.) and as for Pecuniary Interest, all he
has to do is stop advertising his website. But I think your missing the
point here...these are NOT NAL or Final "ORDER" from the FCC they are
only warning letters, which basically don't mean ****.
Todd N9OGL


Other threads in this NG have also that he's returned to his
previous patterns of "operation".

Just like I said.

Steve, K4YZ

HERE'S ANOTHER.......



April 14, 2004


Mr. Glenn A. Baxter
RR 1 Box 776
Belgrade Lakes, ME 04918


Amateur Radio license K1MAN


Dear Mr. Baxter:


This letter explains in what ways your Amateur station has come into
compliance with Commission rules since our letter to you of January 29,
2002; and notifies you of two areas of operation that, if not
corrected, will lead to enforcement action against your license and/or
designation of your renewal application for a hearing.


By letter dated January 29, 2002, the Commission notified you that your
understanding of various Amateur Radio Service rules was incorrect. We
outlined your apparent misconceptions regarding station control,
publishing a transmitting schedule and how that related to
interference, threats made to licensee complainants, including threats
made with so-called "felony complaint affidavits", broadcasting and
broadcasting of tape recordings and telephone conversations.


The January 29 letter detailed complaints received by the Commission,
and explained that your method of station control, i.e., "a timer from
Radio Shack", did not achieve compliance with the Commission's Rules
when you were not present at the control point for your station and,
therefore, did not satisfy the Commission's Rules regarding automatic
control of a station. We explained to you that to comply with the
Commission's Rules you must be at the transmitter, or at the
transmitter control point, every moment your station is transmitting
when your station is locally or remotely controlled; and that if the
station is controlled by telecommand from the control point using a
radio link, the frequencies used for telecommand must comply with the
Section 97.201 requirements for an auxiliary station (may transmit only
on the 1.25 m and shorter wavelength bands, except 219-220,
222-222.150, 431-433 and 435-438 MHz segments).


By letter dated March 4, 2003, the Commission's Boston Office notified
you that Commission monitoring and numerous complaints filed with the
Commission indicated that the problems outlined in January 2002 had not
been corrected. The letter stated that your Amateur station was
apparently being used for broadcasting various programs having nothing
to do with Amateur Radio; and that transmissions from your station were
being used for deliberate interference and for communications in which
you apparently had a pecuniary interest. The Boston Office letter
stated that transmissions started and ended erratically, were sometimes
repetitive and abruptly ended with no identification as required by
Commission rules, and that such operation indicated that the
transmissions were not under proper control of a licensed operator. The
letter noted also that you continually broadcast notices of so-called
"felony complaint affidavits " that you claimed to have filed with the
United States Justice Department against other Amateur Radio licensees
whom you perceived to have interfered with your broadcasts, or refused
to relinquish their operating frequency to you.


The Boston Office's letter stated that transmissions from your Amateur
station included references to a degree program and directed listeners
to your website that advertised an "American Radio School Technician
Degree in Electronics" for "$299.95". On that web site you solicited
donations for radio equipment, advertised a credit card, and solicited
donations and advertised for "IARN" and "AARA". The letter from the
Boston office pointed out that such use of your station was in apparent
violation of Section 97.113(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, which
prohibits "Communications for hire or for material compensation, direct
or indirect...." and "Communications in which the station licensee or
control operator has a pecuniary interest..."


The letter from the Boston Office requested that you provide
substantial additional information about the operation of your station,
including submission of a log detailing the information on a weekly
basis until further notice. In January 2004, the Boston office notified
you that you could discontinue the log submissions, and referred the
case to this office.


We have reviewed the information you submitted, as well as numerous
complaints filed against your station. Additionally we have reviewed
tape recordings made by Commission personnel of your transmissions at
various times during 2003 and 2004 subsequent to the Boston Office
letter of March 3, 2003.


It is the finding of this office that you are, with some exceptions,
generally in compliance with the Commission's rules in the Amateur
Service related to broadcasting and information bulletins, and we
explain as follows. Broadcasting is prohibited in the Amateur Radio
Service, with some exceptions. Section 97.3(a)(10) defines broadcasting
as "transmissions intended for reception by the general public, either
direct or relayed." One-way transmissions are limited in the Amateur
service, but an exception is allowed in Section 97.111(b)(6) for
"Transmissions necessary to disseminate information bulletins."


Information bulletins are defined by Section 97.3(a)(26) as messages
"directed only to Amateur operators consisting solely of subject matter
of direct interest to the Amateur service." There are no specific time
limits placed upon information bulletins by Commission rules. A review
of your programs at random times since March 3, 2003 indicates that
your transmissions were directed to Amateur Radio operators, not to the
general public, and that the individual bulletins were related to the
Amateur Radio Service. The only notable exception was the offering of a
reward for information leading to the identity of parties making
threatening telephone calls to you.


The station control problems outlined to you in warnings from the
Commission appear, with minor exceptions, to have been corrected.
During the monitoring period your station abruptly ended transmission
with no identification in one instance, and started transmissions in
mid-sentence in another instance.


There are, however, two areas in the operation of your Amateur station
that must be corrected in order to avoid enforcement action and/or a
designation of your renewal application for hearing to determine if you
are qualified to remain a licensee. These a 1) deliberate
interference resulting from your commencing operation on top of ongoing
communications, in violation of Section 97.101(a) and (d); and 2) use
of your Amateur station for pecuniary interests, in violation of
Sections 97.113(a)(2)and (3).


Regarding deliberate interference, we receive continuing complaints,
and our monitoring verifies, that your transmissions start up on top of
existing communications of individual licensees as well as nets such as
the Salvation Army Team Emergency Radio Network. Such operation
constitutes deliberate interference. Stations engaging in ongoing
communications are not obligated to stop transmitting when K1MAN wants
to start transmitting on a frequency, and complainants are so advised
by the Commission. You appear to believe that the publication of a
transmission schedule gives you the right to begin transmitting on a
certain frequency at a certain time, even if the frequency is occupied.
It does not.


All frequencies in the Amateur Radio Service are shared--no frequency
is assigned for the exclusive use of any station, and your Amateur
station has no greater rights to a frequency at any particular time
than any other Amateur station. Section 97.101(d) of the rules
prohibits an Amateur station from willfully or maliciously interfering
with any radio communication or signal. Moreover, publishing a schedule
is merely one of the several conditions necessary for the control
operator of a club station to accept compensation for transmitting
information bulletins, pursuant to Section 97.113(d) of the
Commission's rules. Your station K1MAN, however, is not a club station.



Regarding use of an Amateur station for pecuniary interest, we note
that your Amateur Radio program transmissions regularly advertise your
web page at www.K1man.com, and on those pages you advertise items for
sale by the American Amateur Radio Association (AARA), including T
shirts, hats and a "Technician Degree Diploma". You advertise the sales
commissions and "overrides" that your State Directors and Section
Managers can receive, and detail ways in which your Section Managers
can earn money by recruiting members, selling hats, name badges or T
shirts.


Section 97.113(a)(2) prohibits communications for hire or for material
compensation, direct or indirect, paid or promised. Section
97.113(a)(3) prohibits communications in which the station licensee or
control operator has a pecuniary interest.


We remind you that any attempts to threaten or intimidate Amateur radio
licensees operating on the Amateur bands will reflect adversely upon
your qualifications to remain a Commission licensee, and would be the
subject of a license revocation or renewal hearing. By letter dated
December 11, 2001, you were warned against the sending of your
so-called "felony complaint affidavits" to various Amateur Radio
licenses that you perceive to either cause interference to your station
or which do not relinquish to you the frequency on which they are
operating.


Complainants were advised by the Commission to forward any such
"affidavits" they received to the Commission, and that they could
otherwise be ignored. The United States Attorney for your jurisdiction
also warned you that the mailing of such "affidavits" is contrary to
law. Apparently you have discontinued those threats. We also remind you
that, in regard to the taping and broadcasting of telephone calls, you
must comply with applicable state laws.


In conclusion, failure to correct the deliberate interference caused by
K1MAN, and the continued use of K1MAN for pecuniary interests, will
lead to enforcement action against your license. Either would be
sufficient to designate your renewal application for an evidentiary
hearing to determine if you are qualified to remain a Commission
licensee.


An adverse finding in regard to threats to complainant licensees, or
violation of state law regarding recording and broadcasting telephone
conversations, would lead to enforcement action against your license
and would be sufficient to designate your renewal application for an
evidentiary hearing to determine if you are qualified to remain a
Commission licensee. You would have the burden of proof in such a
proceeding.


You should be aware that in 1990, the Commission revised its character
qualifications policy, expanding the types of non-FCC-related
misconduct that it would consider as bearing on licensee or applicant
character qualifications (Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in
Broadcast Licensing, Policy Statement and Order, 5 FCC RCD 3252 (1990)
(Character Policy Statement), recon. granted in part, denied in part, 6
FCC Rcd 3448 (1991), further recon. granted, 7 FCC Rcd 6564 (1992). The
Commission concluded that "a propensity to comply with the law
generally is relevant to the Commission's public interest analysis, and
that an applicant's or licensee's willingness to violate other laws,
and, in particular, to commit felonies, also bears on our confidence
that an applicant or licensee will conform to FCC rules and policies.
The 1990 Character Policy Statement applies to Amateur Radio licensees
just as it does to all other FCC licensees ( See, e.g., Herbert L.
Schoenbohm, Decision, 13 FCC Rcd 15028 (1998), recon. denied, 13 FCC
Rcd 23774 (1998), aff'd in part, dismissed in part sub nom. Schoenbohm
v. FCC, 204 F.3d 243 (2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 405 (2000);
Leslie D. Brewer, Order to Show Cause, Notice of Order of Suspension,
Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, and Notice of Apparent Liability for
a Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 5671, licenses revoked, 16 FCC Rcd 12878
(2001).

Accordingly, we will continue to review the operation of K1MAN in light
of the issues outlined above.


CC: FCC Northeastern Regional Director
FCC Boston Office District Director
Honorable Paula D. Silsby, United States Attorney, US Department of
Justice, District of Maine
Timothy D. Wing, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U. S. Department of Justice,
District of Maine