|
K1MAN Has a Case ...
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 |
Indeed I think (not having hread him directly) that the K1MAN case
shows what happened when the Govt in this case plays fast and loose, as is my experence thewhole govt does these days sincreasingly , regardless of the party in power. It seems likely that K1MAN has slowly based on the history driffted/felt pushed down these paths by a Govt that rather than make clear diffinition relies on a "wink and nodd", rather doing it job and writting regulation that can used in all cases it can forsee and then addressing what comes up later Like the case of "Ham Aid" a worthy idea, but an idea at varance with the letter of the rules ( I also disagree on wether the rules should read as they do) but rather than confront the issue head on, we rely on spin. We could say you know this may be against the rules but this disater can't wait, we will follow the Presients lead in cutting though the red for now and deall with writing better rules later. Instead we ignore these rules and what then is to stop tanother fella like K1MAN form finding a donor (or creating a donor) and paying Hams pointing to Ham Aid as precident Due process does not mean short circuting the law when ever it suits you 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. cut ing for breity |
"an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Indeed I think (not having hread him directly) that This right here explains your problem. You form opinions based on knowledge you admit you don't have. Amazing indeed. Dan/W4NTI |
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 |
Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Indeed I think (not having hread him directly) that This right here explains your problem. You form opinions based on knowledge you admit you don't have. Amazing indeed. not at all. It gives me a certain amount of objectivity, and the abilty to form a judgements based on the facts involved without being prejudged by hearing what I suppose could a very offensive fellows and allowing my judgement to swayed by emotion Dan/W4NTI |
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 ah you are less of a cynci than I. These I follow the word in B5 spoken by the rnager Marcus, "I take great comfort in the fact they universe is unfiar, otherwise I'd have to believe when something bad happened to us that we deserve it" |
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 |
John wrote: John Smith wrote: Morris: cut In my opinion the problem has been greatly exacerbated by the FCC timidity. Sadly I say you dead on here without hearing any of K1MAN's stuff 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). cutting brevieity 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. It was me that dan was flaming for not having heard K1MAN but you might usrprises I happen to believe all views have the right to be heard even if say K1MAN's "information" was a set of talking points for the American NAZI party with some window dressing conecting to the ARS in the absense of rules I would likely grudgingly support him, since I am conviced leting the govt engage in any kind of censorship is far more dangerous than anything K1MAN can possiblity manage John |
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 |
There is little doubt Baxter has several contacts (leaks, informants,
etc.) inside the FCC. The commission continues to be powerless to rectify its internal security problems. Commercial interests have taken full advantage of FCC informants, and one can be certain over the years that Baxter has developed several credible sources of information inside the FCC. Just one case in point. Two commission employees in the Northeast/DC areas would become aware of imminent CB enforcement actions. They would email others specific details about the imminent enforcement effort, and worse yet, would discuss it on ham repeaters. Within hours, illegal CB equipment was pulled from shelves, and local freeband frequencies would go quiet. Legal CB channels, area ham repeaters, and email would be full of specific details of the pending enforcement actions. The same two commission employees served as valuable sources of information for commercial interests, allowing them lead time to prepare for FCC inspections. Overheard a ARRL official once say he guessed there were dozens of reliable sources of information inside the FCC. |
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 |
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 |
In article
Lloyd wrote: you an others are just jelous of k1man but nobody could stop him since 1987 and it is to late now. barf will probaly merger with the iarn if the talks go good and then they will grow biger than the arrl. barf and the Says the "self-appointed" barfie Lloydie....who Herb Schoenbaum thought was an idiot. Along with the rest of the ham community. iarn are in talks right now so watch out. k1man is a great man and he will lead us to victory and bring a new day to ham radio esp after cw is droped from the exam and real radio hobbiests can become hams and iarn members. barf and iarn rule!!!!! That's our Lardass Lloyd Davies, always running his stupid mouth never knowing what the hell he is talking about. You are waiting to see if they will drop the code to get your General, Davies, you are too stupid and lazy to EARN your General, you want it handed to you because you are not all there. Sort of "affrimative action," you want the standards lowered because you can't pass them as they currently stand. On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Bob Sherin, W4ASX wrote: In all deference Lloyd, I take issue with you. He is neither great nor is the FCC afraid of him. Rather, I believe with age mental disorder is advancing and the FCC today is into cost effectiveness, which means solve problems without litigation. Lloyd Davies, N0VFP is a mentally ill retard. LARDASS Davies admits he's mentally challenged in http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/...eid=1073965472 "I have no problems with learning code. I get stuck after I work on about 5-10 letters. I cannot go any further. I'm stuck. I get a mental block." |
"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 |
Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message ups.com... cut 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. K1MAN's own words say so so of course I do, but I don't think that is reason to confine him. Indeed I am very slow to suggest that anyperson should be confined I think MAN is a discrace to Ham Radio, and should be removed for several infractions of the rules and regulations. and I have not heard the allegation let alone the proof of it. the realy serious matter are Control ops issues, and allegation of interference in H&W traffic but the latter as presented by Hans looks more like a missing understanding than something calling for banning him form the service, prehaps a fine. I am HAPPY not to hear his "opinions" on his "First ever Ham Radio Call in Talk SHow". and that sound like a personal problem to me, after all it is clear you are never open to opinions that vary from your own Dan/W4NTI |
John Smith wrote:
There is little doubt Baxter has several contacts (leaks, informants, etc.) inside the FCC. The commission continues to be powerless to rectify its internal security problems. Commercial interests have taken full advantage of FCC informants, and one can be certain over the years that Baxter has developed several credible sources of information inside the FCC. Just one case in point. Two commission employees in the Northeast/DC areas would become aware of imminent CB enforcement actions. They would email others specific details about the imminent enforcement effort, and worse yet, would discuss it on ham repeaters. Within hours, illegal CB equipment was pulled from shelves, and local freeband frequencies would go quiet. Legal CB channels, area ham repeaters, and email would be full of specific details of the pending enforcement actions. The same two commission employees served as valuable sources of information for commercial interests, allowing them lead time to prepare for FCC inspections. Overheard a ARRL official once say he guessed there were dozens of reliable sources of information inside the FCC. Care to site a source for those statements? |
Not true, I dug out an FCC rule book from late 80's and there was a
Special Services Division in the Private Radio Bureau. Todd N9OGL |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:49 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com