John Smith wrote:
Morris:

Without a doubt, and with only a quick overview of the K1MAN vs. ARRL
issue, it is apparent that either ARRL must mend its ways or K1MAN be
allowed to continue in some form.

Once a great man, which I USED TO RESPECT, asked me, and point blank, "Who
says the world has to be fair." Of course, I knew the correct answer, "I
DO!"

John

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 05:30:45 -0700, Morris wrote:


He's crossed the line numerous times: doing foreign policy, defaming
Riley Hollingsworth, going commercial. But he has a case

When Ervin Duggan was FCC Chief Commissioner in the 80s, Baxter
received two NALs similar to the present. Dutifully, he spent a great
deal of time on his response, serving same on the FCC by regular mail.
When the mail was "lost," Baxter resorted to Federal Express with no
better result.

So, here was an agency, pre-Hollingsworth, that had issed two NALs and
had purposely sandbagged K1MAN's answer -- with good reason.

In his answer, Baxter cited two documents of probative value. One was
a letter to Kenneth Black of Ulmerton, UK, responding to his complaint,
that gave K1MAN's operation a clean bill of health, equating it to W1AW
bulletins. It was signed by Robert McNamara, Chief of the FCC,
then-Private Radio Bureau.

The other was a declaratory order on the subject of the length of
Information Bulletins with a footnote that referred to W1AW published
schedules. The essence of the order was, information bulletins cannot
be proscribed by time limits since they are so varied. Rightly or
wrongly, Baxter has drawn his authority to come on when he does from
that Order's footnote.

Small wonder the FCC disregarded K1MAN's answer, which essentially held
that the issue of the NALs had already been settled in his favor. In
legal argot, res judicata.

Though most hams, including myself, want to march Baxter right out of
this service, justice dictates something else. The FCC, it seems to
this commentator, has the burden of first addressing its previous NALs
of the 80s which were never resolved.

An agency of government simply cannot throw a flurry of similar charges
at a citizen, selectively unresponsive to those that can be defended,
while arbitrarily limiting its attention to subsequent charges.
Certainly, to the extent the previous NALs are similar, the legal
principle of collaterol estoppel comes into play in Baxter's behalf.

I don't like what Baxter does any more than you. Indeed, I think he
lost his way years ago. But if we're to have justice for all in these
United States, then we must afford K1MAN justice. Let's not throw out
the baby with the bath water.

Bob Sherin, W4ASX


In my opinion the problem has been greatly exacerbated by the FCC timidity.
I think they were afraid to make a ruling based on content not being
information bulletins and waited for other grounds (as well as numerous
complaints). Having heard K1MAN I would say that the only portions of
his broadcasts that meet any reasonable definition of information
bulletins were rebroadcasts of ARRL bulletins or the RAIN report. The
rest bore no resemblance to the intent of the rules (my opninion
obviously, but I think it reasonably represents the content).
While I sometimes think Dan is more rude than he should be, he is dead
on here. If you heard MAN even once you would never equate what he did
with what W1AW does.
John