Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
FCC, Forfeiture Orders and Pending Applications
In a brief (and I do mean brief) review of various laws that have been talked about lately in this group, I happened upon a debt collection policy of the FCC. It is interesting reading if you have any debts with the FCC. http://www.fcc.gov/debt_collection/#overview And I quote from the page referenced above: "The rules provide that if you fail to pay debts owed to the FCC, the debts will be referred to the Department of Treasury for collection. Your failure to pay will be reported to credit reporting agencies, and you will be unable to obtain any licenses or other benefits from the FCC." Remember the phrase "you will be unable to obtain any licenses or other benefits from the FCC." But does a forfeiture order constitute a debt to the FCC? Under the right conditions, it sure does. I quote the law from 47 U.S.C: Section 503(b) "If any person fails to pay an assessment of a forfeiture penalty determined under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, after it has become a final and unappealable order or after the appropriate court has entered final judgment in favor of the Commission, the Commission shall refer the matter to the Attorney General of the United States, who shall recover the amount assessed in any appropriate district court of the United States. In such action, the validity and appropriateness of the final order imposing the forfeiture penalty shall not be subject to review." Section 402(C) "Such appeal shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court within thirty days from the date upon which public notice is given of the decision or order complained of." It seems clear that the process here is that when a Forfeiture Order is issued you have 30 days to file an appeal or the order of the FCC becomes final ("final and unappealable order" as section 503 puts it). So if there is no appeal the Order becomes final by default 30 days after it is issued. Appeals must be presented in the proper form with enough detail to provide a good basis for the appeal, and they must be filed with the proper court. A judge then would review the appeal and could either agree to hear the appeal or simply deny the appeal at this point. The appeal process could take just a few days (if the filed appeal has no merrit) or years if it goes to trial. But remember that an appeal MUST be filed within 30 days to stop the Forfeiture Order from becoming final. The most interesting thing that I found is how the FCC treats those who owe them money. IF one has a "final" order it is basically a debt owed to the FCC. This will impact any future or pending applications which are filed by anybody with such a final Forfeiture Order because of the "Red Light Rule" that deals with the FCC's debt collection processes and policy. If you owe money to the them, FCC *HAS* to deny any license application including applications for renewal. They actually have no choice in the matter. The FCC's "Red Light Rule" prevents them from granting any applications for persons or organizations that are in debt to the FCC unless arrangements to pay the debt are made. This rule was adopted in 2004. (And I quote from the policy): "Under the rules adopted here, the Commission will not approve any applications or other authorizations until we determine that all delinquent debt to the Commission by entities using the same taxpayer identifying number (TIN) is paid or satisfactory arrangements are made for payment." So, if you have an unappealed Forfeiture Order that is 30 days old, it becomes "final" and the amount of the order is considered a debt owed to the FCC. If you further refuse to pay said Forfeiture after it's final any pending renewal application, or file one, it must be rejected by the FCC. So.. If you are issued a Forfeiture Order on the 28th of March, you have until the 27th of April to file the appeal. After that point any pending renewal applications that you have filed are going to be denied by virtue of the "Red Light Rule". Assuming the FCC grants a grace period of say 30 more days for the appeal and takes an additional 30 days to process the administrative paper work, your licence renewal application will be denied some time in June. Best of luck in the appeal, but your license is not going to be renewed no matter what you do... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
FCC, Forfeiture Orders and Pending Applications
By my count, he has 7 days left to appeal or this Forfeiture Order will
be final invoking the Red Light Rule which will cause the rejection of the renewal application and the loss of his operating privileges. The only part of the NAL that I've even heard an argument about in this forum is the broadcasting charge, and all the arguments used where dismissed by the FCC in the Forfeiture Order. The failure to answer their questions, causing interference, failure to ID, and lack of proper station control charges are by all accounts slam dunks for the FCC. There may be an appeal, but I'd bet it will be a *short* one. I think the FCC is intentionally waiting for the Forfeiture Order to become final so they can reject the renewal application. It then becomes a no questions asked decision that is *clearly* the FCC following their procedures to the letter. It will side step a whole bunch of issues that K1MAN would love to try and use to muddy the water in court. What do they have to loose here? Nothing but time and a whole lot of trouble. Think of it from their perspective. We wait until the fines become final then flush the renewal application due to the Red Light Rule if he refuses to pay. If he starts to talk about paying up you either ask for the $21k up front or you get an agreement from him that his renewal gets flushed (along with a other conditions) when he tries to get on the "easy checks" payment plan. In the unlikely event he comes up with the $21k to pay the fine the issue is closed, so you use the issue to reject the still pending application for renewal. Anyway you slice this the license is history. Why get wrapped up in a brawl about the renewal? Just be patient and do it the easy way. The only thing K1MAN can do now is delay things, and even that may not be for very long. I think the FCC is playing from the position of strength and we are but a few moves away from "Check and Mate" no matter what this guy does. There just remains some question about the number of moves before the game over the license is over, but it's going to be over with the FCC on top. Then the real fun will begin... I guess they won't be able to fine him for not providing his call every 10 min.. He won't have one. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
FCC, Forfeiture Orders and Pending Applications
On 20 Apr 2006 12:50:39 -0700, wrote:
By my count, he has 7 days left to appeal or this Forfeiture Order will be final invoking the Red Light Rule which will cause the rejection of the renewal application and the loss of his operating privileges. The only part of the NAL that I've even heard an argument about in this forum is the broadcasting charge, and all the arguments used where dismissed by the FCC in the Forfeiture Order. The failure to answer their questions, causing interference, failure to ID, and lack of proper station control charges are by all accounts slam dunks for the FCC. There may be an appeal, but I'd bet it will be a *short* one. just because the FCC reject it does not mean the courts will I think the FCC is intentionally waiting for the Forfeiture Order to become final so they can reject the renewal application. It then becomes a no questions asked decision that is *clearly* the FCC following their procedures to the letter. It will side step a whole bunch of issues that K1MAN would love to try and use to muddy the water in court. What do they have to loose here? Nothing but time and a whole lot of trouble. indeed I agre with you there Think of it from their perspective. We wait until the fines become final then flush the renewal application due to the Red Light Rule if he refuses to pay. If he starts to talk about paying up you either ask for the $21k up front or you get an agreement from him that his renewal gets flushed (along with a other conditions) when he tries to get on the "easy checks" payment plan. In the unlikely event he comes up with the $21k to pay the fine the issue is closed, so you use the issue to reject the still pending application for renewal. Anyway you slice this the license is history. Why get wrapped up in a brawl about the renewal? Just be patient and do it the easy way. I don't know why so many hams have done so but I think it will playing out for qiuite some time The only thing K1MAN can do now is delay things, and even that may not be for very long. I think the FCC is playing from the position of strength and we are but a few moves away from "Check and Mate" no matter what this guy does. There just remains some question about the number of moves before the game over the license is over, but it's going to be over with the FCC on top. Then the real fun will begin... I guess they won't be able to fine him for not providing his call every 10 min.. He won't have one. _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
FCC, Forfeiture Orders and Pending Applications
The only part of the NAL that I've even heard an argument about in this
forum is the broadcasting charge, and all the arguments used where dismissed by the FCC in the Forfeiture Order. The failure to answer their questions, causing interference, failure to ID, and lack of proper station control charges are by all accounts slam dunks for the FCC. There may be an appeal, but I'd bet it will be a *short* one. just because the FCC reject it does not mean the courts will That the appeal would be a short lived is my opinion, to be sure. (Wishful thinking perhaps? After all, due process does take time in our legal system.) However, the up holding of the fine, or at least some of the fine seems to me to be a no brain-er. Assuming he argued successfully that he's not been "broadcasting" the rest of the charges are going to be very hard to argue using the 1st and 5th amendments and if the FCC successfully argues any of the points in court a fine will be then "final" and unappealable. For instance, how would one successfully argue that the station had a legal control operator in this case? There was obviously some automated or remote control of the station, yet it seems that at times nobody was actually monitoring what the station was transmitting. FCC knocks on the door during while the station is active on at least two occasions and nobody is home? Yet when questioned about how he was controlling his station he simply says that it was always legal? I can agree that he has the right to remain silent and not incriminate himself, but if that's what is going on here the FCC is obviously going to prove their point. If he really has a legal control point in his car or strapped to his belt, then it would be in his best interest to disclose this to the FCC when they ask or he's going to get fined for withholding the information. Either way it's an affirmed fine that you won't be able to wiggle out of in court. There are other issues too that will be very difficult for him in court. Why do you think the FCC waned to know *who* was the control operator of the station on specific days and times? Think about that and read the rules in part 97 about control operators, you will see what I mean. If he says "I don't know" then they got him on failing to keep control of his station properly, if he says "I was" they get him on the same thing. IF he has somebody else there then the BOTH get in trouble when the rules got broken. They got him in a corner, and unless he appeals in the next few days this dance is over because the fine will become final and his license renewal will be rejected by the Red Light Rule. So.. If he chooses to wait until the government files suit to collect the fine he's going to loose his license before he sees the process server drive up his driveway. After all, the FCC cannot refer the case to collection until it's final, and that's part of the process that includes the Red Light Rule I'm talking about. He has 30 days to appeal by law. They may give him some extra time to file the appeal, but if he doesn't do anything they will soon consider the fines final and turn the debt over to collections. This then means they have to reject his pending renewal as their debt collection process requires. If I had to guess, I'd say he's going to do nothing and wait for the FCC to make the next move. They eventually will consider the FO final and start debt collections and reject the renewal application. This is what he wants because it seems to me he lives for the conflict and looks forward to the day when he operates without a license. After all that will ratchet up the pressure on the FCC and give more visibility to his cause. Nothing much will change, except that we will then be hearing about how his license was illegally not renewed and that he really does have a license despite what the FCC says. This will continue until he either runs out of money to pay the electric bill because of the collection of the fines he will have racked up, or his equipment is confiscated by the FEDS at the request of the FCC. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
FCC, Forfeiture Orders and Pending Applications
The only part of the NAL that I've even heard an argument about in this
forum is the broadcasting charge, and all the arguments used where dismissed by the FCC in the Forfeiture Order. The failure to answer their questions, causing interference, failure to ID, and lack of proper station control charges are by all accounts slam dunks for the FCC. There may be an appeal, but I'd bet it will be a *short* one. just because the FCC reject it does not mean the courts will That the appeal would be a short lived is my opinion, to be sure. (Wishful thinking perhaps? After all, due process does take time in our legal system.) However, the up holding of the fine, or at least some of the fine seems to me to be a no brain-er. Assuming he argued successfully that he's not been "broadcasting" the rest of the charges are going to be very hard to argue using the 1st and 5th amendments and if the FCC successfully argues any of the points in court a fine will be then "final" and unappealable. For instance, how would one successfully argue that the station had a legal control operator in this case? There was obviously some automated or remote control of the station, yet it seems that at times nobody was actually monitoring what the station was transmitting. FCC knocks on the door during while the station is active on at least two occasions and nobody is home? Yet when questioned about how he was controlling his station he simply says that it was always legal? I can agree that he has the right to remain silent and not incriminate himself, but if that's what is going on here the FCC is obviously going to prove their point. If he really has a legal control point in his car or strapped to his belt, then it would be in his best interest to disclose this to the FCC when they ask or he's going to get fined for withholding the information. Either way it's an affirmed fine that you won't be able to wiggle out of in court. There are other issues too that will be very difficult for him in court. Why do you think the FCC waned to know *who* was the control operator of the station on specific days and times? Think about that and read the rules in part 97 about control operators, you will see what I mean. If he says "I don't know" then they got him on failing to keep control of his station properly, if he says "I was" they get him on the same thing. IF he has somebody else there then the BOTH get in trouble when the rules got broken. They got him in a corner, and unless he appeals in the next few days this dance is over because the fine will become final and his license renewal will be rejected by the Red Light Rule. So.. If he chooses to wait until the government files suit to collect the fine he's going to loose his license before he sees the process server drive up his driveway. After all, the FCC cannot refer the case to collection until it's final, and that's part of the process that includes the Red Light Rule I'm talking about. He has 30 days to appeal by law. They may give him some extra time to file the appeal, but if he doesn't do anything they will soon consider the fines final and turn the debt over to collections. This then means they have to reject his pending renewal as their debt collection process requires. If I had to guess, I'd say he's going to do nothing and wait for the FCC to make the next move. They eventually will consider the FO final and start debt collections and reject the renewal application. This is what he wants because it seems to me he lives for the conflict and looks forward to the day when he operates without a license. After all that will ratchet up the pressure on the FCC and give more visibility to his cause. Nothing much will change, except that we will then be hearing about how his license was illegally not renewed and that he really does have a license despite what the FCC says. This will continue until he either runs out of money to pay the electric bill because of the collection of the fines he will have racked up, or his equipment is confiscated by the FEDS at the request of the FCC. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
FCC, Forfeiture Orders and Pending Applications
wrote: The only part of the NAL that I've even heard an argument about in this forum is the broadcasting charge, and all the arguments used where dismissed by the FCC in the Forfeiture Order. The failure to answer their questions, causing interference, failure to ID, and lack of proper station control charges are by all accounts slam dunks for the FCC. There may be an appeal, but I'd bet it will be a *short* one. just because the FCC reject it does not mean the courts will That the appeal would be a short lived is my opinion, to be sure. (Wishful thinking perhaps? After all, due process does take time in our legal system.) well that you can admit your judgement is biased does speak well for you and that you seem to be able disagre without being disagreable is nice too However, the up holding of the fine, or at least some of the fine seems to me to be a no brain-er. Assuming he argued successfully that he's not been "broadcasting" the rest of the charges are going to be very hard to argue using the 1st and 5th amendments and if the FCC successfully argues any of the points in court a fine will be then "final" and unappealable. For instance, how would one successfully argue that the station had a legal control operator in this case? There was obviously some automated or remote control of the station, yet it seems that at times nobody was actually monitoring what the station was transmitting. FCC knocks on the door during while the station is active on at least two occasions and nobody is home? Yet when questioned about how he was controlling his station he simply says that it was always legal? I can agree that he has the right to remain silent and not incriminate himself, but if that's what is going on here the FCC is obviously going to prove their point. If he really has a legal control point in his car or strapped to his belt, then it would be in his best interest to disclose this to the FCC when they ask or he's going to get fined for withholding the information. let us assume that K1MAN station has some form of remote control (indeed my staion is sometimes on the air with me tranmiting through while I am in another a state, and even once another country, thank to the miracle of the Net. I am not familier with any requirement right off that requires him to top be able to prove it was in use at any given monet selcted by the FCC coming nocking at his shack door, the burden would IMO (abet not a prolawyer) would be on the FCC to prove the case. K1MAN might be obliged to prove the senario I decrabed was within his stations techical ablities after which reasonable doubt and the 5th should cover him In this event I would agree that K1MAN has been unwise Either way it's an affirmed fine that you won't be able to wiggle out of in court. There are other issues too that will be very difficult for him in court. Why do you think the FCC waned to know *who* was the control operator of the station on specific days and times? Think about that and read the rules in part 97 about control operators, you will see what I mean. If he says "I don't know" then they got him on failing to keep control of his station properly, if he says "I was" they get him on the same thing. IF he has somebody else there then the BOTH get in trouble when the rules got broken. They got him in a corner, and unless he appeals in the next few days this dance is over because the fine will become final and his license renewal will be rejected by the Red Light Rule. I am not sure the timing of the apeal is that critical (in many other cases filing with the court of Legal notice of apeal would by him time, at mimal cost) So.. If he chooses to wait until the government files suit to collect the fine he's going to loose his license before he sees the process server drive up his driveway. After all, the FCC cannot refer the case to collection until it's final, and that's part of the process that includes the Red Light Rule I'm talking about. He has 30 days to appeal by law. They may give him some extra time to file the appeal, but if he doesn't do anything they will soon consider the fines final and turn the debt over to collections. This then means they have to reject his pending renewal as their debt collection process requires. If I had to guess, I'd say he's going to do nothing and wait for the FCC to make the next move. They eventually will consider the FO final and start debt collections and reject the renewal application. This is what he wants because it seems to me he lives for the conflict and looks forward to the day when he operates without a license. After all that will ratchet up the pressure on the FCC and give more visibility to his cause. Nothing much will change, except that we will then be hearing about how his license was illegally not renewed and that he really does have a license despite what the FCC says. This will continue until he either runs out of money to pay the electric bill because of the collection of the fines he will have racked up, or his equipment is confiscated by the FEDS at the request of the FCC. it might play out that way I think it will be more complex than that (frankly I have never seen a notable legal proceeding proceed as smouthly as you suggest) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|