LETTER TO G4WNE FROM FCC SPECIAL SERVICES
DIVISION CHIEF Robert H. Mc Namara - 2 November 1989:







Dear Mr. Black:





This responds to your letter to Chairman Alfred C. Sikes


concerning Mr. Glenn A. Baxter, licensee of amateur radio


station K1MAN. You state that station K1MAN interferes with


your communications by transmitting recorded one-way


communications.





We are familiar with the nature of the transmissions by K1MAN
and find that they fall in the same category as the information
bulletins transmitted by amateur station W1AW, which is
licensed to the American Radio Relay League's Headquarters
Operators' Club. Amateur service information bulletins are
authorized by Section 97.111(b)(6) of the Commissions's rules,
47 C.F.R. Paragraph 97.111(b)(6).


I trust this is responsive to your inquiry.


Sincerely,

(signed)

Robert H. Mc Namara
Chief, Special Services Division
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554

anyone sating that there has been any real change in the content of
K1MAN since th edtae given here 2 NOV 89
N9OGL wrote:
LETTER TO G4WNE FROM FCC SPECIAL SERVICES
DIVISION CHIEF Robert H. Mc Namara - 2 November 1989:







Dear Mr. Black:





This responds to your letter to Chairman Alfred C. Sikes


concerning Mr. Glenn A. Baxter, licensee of amateur radio


station K1MAN. You state that station K1MAN interferes with


your communications by transmitting recorded one-way


communications.





We are familiar with the nature of the transmissions by K1MAN
and find that they fall in the same category as the information
bulletins transmitted by amateur station W1AW, which is
licensed to the American Radio Relay League's Headquarters
Operators' Club. Amateur service information bulletins are
authorized by Section 97.111(b)(6) of the Commissions's rules,
47 C.F.R. Paragraph 97.111(b)(6).


I trust this is responsive to your inquiry.


Sincerely,

(signed)

Robert H. Mc Namara
Chief, Special Services Division
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554

Yes, the content has changed vastly: 1) His rhetoric has risen to
leading a conspiracy against the US governmnet, i.e. urging hams not to
follow FCC interpretation of Part 97 while urging them to follow his
construction, 2) He now has a call in radio show, which may or may not
be violative, 3) He has involved himself and ham radio in many
instances of foreign policy, 4) There is now a commercial twist that
was never present in 1989, 5) He has begun defaming the man in charge
(Riley Hollingsworth], not present in 1989.

Even if his rule construction in certain aspects is correct and the
FCC's, incorrect, our system affords a way to handle that situation
through declaratory ruling in the administrative sector. None of us
has the right to urge others into non-compliance. Moreover, to defame
Riley Hollingsworth amounts to leading a conspiracy against our
government, because if we listen to Baxter, we're supposed to disregard
Hollingsworth, anti-thetical to a functioning Republic. Tieing into
his bulletins his Web Site, where he advertises money-making endeavors
is commercial, a Part 97 no-no. Supporting revolutions, such as the
one in Bougainville, clearly violates the Patriot Act, because none of
us can presume to do foreign policy, especially over ham radio.

This piece, not a complete analysis by any means, is but the tip of the
iceberg.

has he even been on the air recently?? haven't heard him in quite a while
on the old frequencies on 20m and 75m he had been occupying.

"Morris" wrote in message
oups.com...
Yes, the content has changed vastly: 1) His rhetoric has risen to
leading a conspiracy against the US governmnet, i.e. urging hams not to
follow FCC interpretation of Part 97 while urging them to follow his
construction, 2) He now has a call in radio show, which may or may not
be violative, 3) He has involved himself and ham radio in many
instances of foreign policy, 4) There is now a commercial twist that
was never present in 1989, 5) He has begun defaming the man in charge
(Riley Hollingsworth], not present in 1989.

Even if his rule construction in certain aspects is correct and the
FCC's, incorrect, our system affords a way to handle that situation
through declaratory ruling in the administrative sector. None of us
has the right to urge others into non-compliance. Moreover, to defame
Riley Hollingsworth amounts to leading a conspiracy against our
government, because if we listen to Baxter, we're supposed to disregard
Hollingsworth, anti-thetical to a functioning Republic. Tieing into
his bulletins his Web Site, where he advertises money-making endeavors
is commercial, a Part 97 no-no. Supporting revolutions, such as the
one in Bougainville, clearly violates the Patriot Act, because none of
us can presume to do foreign policy, especially over ham radio.

This piece, not a complete analysis by any means, is but the tip of the
iceberg.

Morris wrote:
Yes, the content has changed vastly: 1) His rhetoric has risen to
leading a conspiracy against the US governmnet, i.e. urging hams not to
follow FCC interpretation of Part 97 while urging them to follow his
construction,

well I hear alot any govt conspriay stuff ont he air these days

2) He now has a call in radio show, which may or may not
be violative,

not sure how but it would a change

3) He has involved himself and ham radio in many
instances of foreign policy, 4) There is now a commercial twist that
was never present in 1989, 5) He has begun defaming the man in charge
(Riley Hollingsworth], not present in 1989.

was not flaming others though in those days?

Even if his rule construction in certain aspects is correct and the
FCC's, incorrect, our system affords a way to handle that situation
through declaratory ruling in the administrative sector. None of us
has the right to urge others into non-compliance.

I could find a lot of people to disagree with you, there is a well
established (outside Ham radio) tradition of civl disobeince


Moreover, to defame
Riley Hollingsworth amounts to leading a conspiracy against our
government, because if we listen to Baxter, we're supposed to disregard
Hollingsworth, anti-thetical to a functioning Republic.

I'll have to pass that one onto Carl Rove with the suggestion that GW
start arresting his opponents for treason

Tieing into
his bulletins his Web Site, where he advertises money-making endeavors
is commercial, a Part 97 no-no.

but does the ARRL mention its website which certainly involved in
fundrasing and has links to comercail sitie

Supporting revolutions, such as the
one in Bougainville, clearly violates the Patriot Act, because none of
us can presume to do foreign policy, especially over ham radio.

Suporting govt change is NOT a violation of the patroit act.



This piece, not a complete analysis by any means, is but the tip of the
iceberg.

I thank you for it, but honestly I don't see anything beyond some
suggestions that Baxter might be best dealt by Mental health and not
the FCC. He seems to be not a nice person, but is not in and of itself
a rules violation

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Morris wrote:
Yes, the content has changed vastly: 1) His rhetoric has risen to
leading a conspiracy against the US governmnet, i.e. urging hams not to
follow FCC interpretation of Part 97 while urging them to follow his
construction,

well I hear alot any govt conspriay stuff ont he air these days

2) He now has a call in radio show, which may or may not
be violative,

not sure how but it would a change

3) He has involved himself and ham radio in many
instances of foreign policy, 4) There is now a commercial twist that
was never present in 1989, 5) He has begun defaming the man in charge
(Riley Hollingsworth], not present in 1989.

was not flaming others though in those days?

Even if his rule construction in certain aspects is correct and the
FCC's, incorrect, our system affords a way to handle that situation
through declaratory ruling in the administrative sector. None of us
has the right to urge others into non-compliance.

I could find a lot of people to disagree with you, there is a well
established (outside Ham radio) tradition of civl disobeince


Moreover, to defame
Riley Hollingsworth amounts to leading a conspiracy against our
government, because if we listen to Baxter, we're supposed to disregard
Hollingsworth, anti-thetical to a functioning Republic.

I'll have to pass that one onto Carl Rove with the suggestion that GW
start arresting his opponents for treason

Tieing into
his bulletins his Web Site, where he advertises money-making endeavors
is commercial, a Part 97 no-no.

but does the ARRL mention its website which certainly involved in
fundrasing and has links to comercail sitie

Supporting revolutions, such as the
one in Bougainville, clearly violates the Patriot Act, because none of
us can presume to do foreign policy, especially over ham radio.

Suporting govt change is NOT a violation of the patroit act.



This piece, not a complete analysis by any means, is but the tip of the
iceberg.

I thank you for it, but honestly I don't see anything beyond some
suggestions that Baxter might be best dealt by Mental health and not
the FCC. He seems to be not a nice person, but is not in and of itself
a rules violation


A sensible comment from 'an old friend'....again I am amazed....wait a
minute.....'an old friend' recognizing Glenn Baxter is in need of a rubber
room......right off the bat, eh? Perhaps a bit of experience 'old
friend'?

Dan/W4NTI

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Morris wrote:
Yes, the content has changed vastly: 1) His rhetoric has risen to
leading a conspiracy against the US governmnet, i.e. urging hams not to
follow FCC interpretation of Part 97 while urging them to follow his
construction,

well I hear alot any govt conspriay stuff ont he air these days

2) He now has a call in radio show, which may or may not
be violative,

not sure how but it would a change

3) He has involved himself and ham radio in many
instances of foreign policy, 4) There is now a commercial twist that
was never present in 1989, 5) He has begun defaming the man in charge
(Riley Hollingsworth], not present in 1989.

was not flaming others though in those days?

Even if his rule construction in certain aspects is correct and the
FCC's, incorrect, our system affords a way to handle that situation
through declaratory ruling in the administrative sector. None of us
has the right to urge others into non-compliance.

I could find a lot of people to disagree with you, there is a well
established (outside Ham radio) tradition of civl disobeince


Moreover, to defame
Riley Hollingsworth amounts to leading a conspiracy against our
government, because if we listen to Baxter, we're supposed to disregard
Hollingsworth, anti-thetical to a functioning Republic.

I'll have to pass that one onto Carl Rove with the suggestion that GW
start arresting his opponents for treason

Tieing into
his bulletins his Web Site, where he advertises money-making endeavors
is commercial, a Part 97 no-no.

but does the ARRL mention its website which certainly involved in
fundrasing and has links to comercail sitie

Supporting revolutions, such as the
one in Bougainville, clearly violates the Patriot Act, because none of
us can presume to do foreign policy, especially over ham radio.

Suporting govt change is NOT a violation of the patroit act.



This piece, not a complete analysis by any means, is but the tip of the
iceberg.

I thank you for it, but honestly I don't see anything beyond some
suggestions that Baxter might be best dealt by Mental health and not
the FCC. He seems to be not a nice person, but is not in and of itself
a rules violation


A sensible comment from 'an old friend'....again I am amazed....wait a
minute.....'an old friend' recognizing Glenn Baxter is in need of a rubber
room......right off the bat, eh? Perhaps a bit of experience 'old
friend'?

even agre with you and get flamed for it

OTOH I did not mention a rubber room either, simple mental health work
very few people are need of the rubber room. I have no evidence that
K1MAN would even benifit from one let alone need it

I take it then you agree with me that K1MAN is not much of an issue for
the FCC then

Dan/W4NTI

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
ups.com...

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Morris wrote:
Yes, the content has changed vastly: 1) His rhetoric has risen to
leading a conspiracy against the US governmnet, i.e. urging hams not
to
follow FCC interpretation of Part 97 while urging them to follow his
construction,

well I hear alot any govt conspriay stuff ont he air these days

2) He now has a call in radio show, which may or may not
be violative,

not sure how but it would a change

3) He has involved himself and ham radio in many
instances of foreign policy, 4) There is now a commercial twist that
was never present in 1989, 5) He has begun defaming the man in charge
(Riley Hollingsworth], not present in 1989.

was not flaming others though in those days?

Even if his rule construction in certain aspects is correct and the
FCC's, incorrect, our system affords a way to handle that situation
through declaratory ruling in the administrative sector. None of us
has the right to urge others into non-compliance.

I could find a lot of people to disagree with you, there is a well
established (outside Ham radio) tradition of civl disobeince


Moreover, to defame
Riley Hollingsworth amounts to leading a conspiracy against our
government, because if we listen to Baxter, we're supposed to
disregard
Hollingsworth, anti-thetical to a functioning Republic.

I'll have to pass that one onto Carl Rove with the suggestion that GW
start arresting his opponents for treason

Tieing into
his bulletins his Web Site, where he advertises money-making endeavors
is commercial, a Part 97 no-no.

but does the ARRL mention its website which certainly involved in
fundrasing and has links to comercail sitie

Supporting revolutions, such as the
one in Bougainville, clearly violates the Patriot Act, because none of
us can presume to do foreign policy, especially over ham radio.

Suporting govt change is NOT a violation of the patroit act.



This piece, not a complete analysis by any means, is but the tip of
the
iceberg.

I thank you for it, but honestly I don't see anything beyond some
suggestions that Baxter might be best dealt by Mental health and not
the FCC. He seems to be not a nice person, but is not in and of itself
a rules violation


A sensible comment from 'an old friend'....again I am amazed....wait a
minute.....'an old friend' recognizing Glenn Baxter is in need of a
rubber
room......right off the bat, eh? Perhaps a bit of experience 'old
friend'?

even agre with you and get flamed for it

OTOH I did not mention a rubber room either, simple mental health work
very few people are need of the rubber room. I have no evidence that
K1MAN would even benifit from one let alone need it

I take it then you agree with me that K1MAN is not much of an issue for
the FCC then

Dan/W4NTI


Your ability to understand is obviously defective. Let me try again.

I think K1MAN has mental problems. As you apparantly do also.

I think MAN is a discrace to Ham Radio, and should be removed for several
infractions of the rules and regulations.

I am HAPPY not to hear his "opinions" on his "First ever Ham Radio Call in
Talk SHow".

Dan/W4NTI

On 9 Sep 2005 19:31:08 -0700, N9OGL wrote:

LETTER TO G4WNE FROM FCC SPECIAL SERVICES
DIVISION CHIEF Robert H. Mc Namara - 2 November 1989:


(signed)

Robert H. Mc Namara
Chief, Special Services Division
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554

There never was a "Special Services Division" for Bob McNamara to be
chief of.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Yes there was a Special Services Division of the Private Radio Bureau
when McNamara wrote his letter in 1989. Having been in contact on 20
meters with Kenneth Black in the U.K., I received a copy of this letter
from the recipient, who said he received it via regular mail in the UK.
In addition, I flew to DC and interviewed Mcnamara, together with
Counsel Tom Fitzgibbons, for the express purpose of airing over ham
radio. Accordingly, the interviews ran for a few weeks over Baxter's
Network, then called the IARN.

Bob Sherin, W4ASX