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.