|
K1MAN wins again!
Phil Kane said...
"For those without legal training, this ruling indicates the FCC will have to throw out the Baxter FO and collect new evidence if it cares to pursue and agenda of enforcement in the K1MAN case. Unfortunately for the FCC, this ruling from the DC apellate court couldn't come at a worse time. They'll need to vacate notice of Baxter's FO and renew his license unless there's a compelling reason not to. Since the Commission hung its hat on the FO, I think they'll have to renew. I still think they'll be watching him closely from now on. He'll need to mind his p's and q's or he'll be in dutch again in no time." K1MAN is a great man, and great men do not knuckle down. Great men always win in the end. I told you so! |
K1MAN wins again!
LARDASS Lloyd whined: Phil Kane said... "For those without legal training, this ruling indicates the FCC will have to throw out the Baxter FO and collect new evidence if it cares to pursue and agenda of enforcement in the K1MAN case. Unfortunately for the FCC, this ruling from the DC apellate court couldn't come at a worse time. They'll need to vacate notice of Baxter's FO and renew his license unless there's a compelling reason not to. Since the Commission hung its hat on the FO, I think they'll have to renew. I still think they'll be watching him closely from now on. He'll need to mind his p's and q's or he'll be in dutch again in no time." K1MAN is a great man, and great men do not knuckle down. Great men always win in the end. I told you so! Poor Lardass, all he can do is cut and paste other's opinions. You are too stupid and mindless to think for yourself, huh, fatass? |
K1MAN wins again!
interesting
|
K1MAN wins again!
raped by an old freind wrote:
interesting Interesting how you never have anything relevant to say, stupid. K1MAN may try, but he won't succeed against the FCC. They have the resources of the U.S. Government at their disposal. |
K1MAN wins again!
Lloyd,
The Red Light Rule being history does not effect the FO, it only could possibly effect how his license is not renewed. If it's not appealed, the FO will become final and Baxter will owe $21K to the FCC. Once the debt collection practices of the FCC get fixed, Baxter will be one of the first to get the new rules used on him. All they have to do is deny his renewal application on "enforcement grounds" and it's over. This just takes away an "easy" out for the FCC with Baxter's renewal. They will get dragged into court over this, but it won't amount to much. Even a first year law student could see the legal problems that Baxter will face in such a hearing will be hard to over come. All they have to do is point to the NAL and FO and say, "The commission does not believe this applicant has shown the proper respect to the commissions rules so his application for renewal should be denied." Prove one of the more serious rule violations and voila it's over and K1MAN becomes a highly prized vanity call sign available in about 2 years.. Of course Baxter will come in and "help" his case by all the misplaced legal theory and personal dislike he has for the FCC's legal team. Could be fun to watch him get his clock cleaned in court. |
K1MAN wins again!
|
K1MAN wins again!
an old freid to some a nightmare to steve wrote: wrote: Lloyd, The Red Light Rule being history does not effect the FO, it only could possibly effect how his license is not renewed. If it's not appealed, the FO will become final and Baxter will owe $21K to the FCC. Once the debt collection practices of the FCC get fixed, Baxter will be one of the first to get the new rules used on him. All they have to do is deny his renewal application on "enforcement grounds" and it's over. This just takes away an "easy" out for the FCC with Baxter's renewal. They will get dragged into court over this, but it won't amount to much. Even a first year law student could see the legal problems that Baxter will face in such a hearing will be hard to over come. I am not sure they CAN choose that route at this point having already cited the now discredited red light rule Like you would know. All they have to do is point to the NAL and FO and say, "The commission does not believe this applicant has shown the proper respect to the commissions rules so his application for renewal should be denied." Prove one of the more serious rule violations and voila it's over and K1MAN becomes a highly prized vanity call sign available in about 2 years.. given the failure to cite there are still things like double jepardy etc, it might be possible for the FCC to do so now but I don't think so I think We've yet to see any evidence of it. Of course Baxter will come in and "help" his case by all the misplaced legal theory and personal dislike he has for the FCC's legal team. Could be fun to watch him get his clock cleaned in court. LOL! |
K1MAN wins again!
I see nothing in the ruling or the NAL/FO that will invalidate the
fine. The court ordered that the FCC review and fix their debt collection practices, specifically the invocation of the Red Light Rule was found to be unconstitutional. There is no mention of the Forfeiture process being a problem. This only deals with the recently adopted (in 2004) debt collection rules as evidenced by the fact that the FO that got this into court has not been struck down. However, if it had been, and the FCC choose to discontinue the FO proceedings in K1MAN's case, then the rejection of his renewal application gets easier not harder. K1MAN has a valid argument that enforcement actions that are not "final" cannot be used as justification for dismissal of his renewal application. However, what constitutes a final unappealable FO is as follows: 1. A FO that has not been appealed in the 30 days allowed, 2. A FO that has been appealed, and the appeal has been rejected by the court, 3. A FO that has been paid (and thus not argued or appealed) #1 is fast approaching (Less than 3 days) unless K1MAN files the appeal. K1MAN and his supporters would have you believe that the FO cannot be used as evidence to deny his license renewal unless he pays it or it's collection has been argued in court. I believe that they are mistaken. Once the FO becomes final, it IS valid evidence that can be used in a renewal application decision, regardless of if he has paid all or part of the fine or not. Now, to comment on some theories hinted at by "an old friend" and others... There is no double jeopardy here. K1MAN's proper forum to argue the FO is the NAL response and appeal process. This is the same as "traffic court" for a speeding ticket. If you are found guilty in traffic court you will be assessed a fine (and court costs in some cases). You can appeal the court decision and attempt to have it argued again but if you fail the fine stands. You can, of course, just plead guilty and pay the fine up front (not appealing but simply paying the FO.) Prior to the order of the court or you pleading guilty, there will be no points assessed on your driving record; This is the same as the FCC not being able to use *pending* enforcement issues to deny your license renewal. However once the fine becomes final, by court decision, by admission of guilt by payment of the fine, points will be on your record. So once the FO is final, K1MAN's licence is history. If you fail to pay said fine (after it becomes final), debt collection procedures will be started, which is a different process. This is not double jeopardy because the debt collection case won't be about the original violations that lead to the fine, but about the collection of the debt. If you get arrested for not paying your traffic tickets, the issue will be that you didn't pay, not that the tickets are somehow invalid. Of course you are free to try and argue that the fine is too large, unjustified, without basis etc at the debt collection trial and attempt to get it dismissed, but the burden of proof will have switched to you. You are going to have to prove that the fine is invalid because the assumption will be that it IS valid. (If you had argued it in traffic court, the burden of proof is on the other side because the fine is assumed invalid there until proof is supplied.) What has been stuck down is the automatic rejection of all license applications by those who owe the FCC money for what ever reason they owe it, not the ability of the FCC to fine folks who break the rules. |
K1MAN wins again!
The red light rules were thrown out due to fact that they violated due
process. K1MAN fine and FO will be thrown out because 1. most of the fine was based on the fining system in the broadcast service (see the NAL) and therefore may of been to high of a fine in regards to the amateur service. 2. Baxter's right to an Administrative hearing under the Administrative Procedure Act was denied and therefore his rights to due process under the APA was violated. 3. the "trial de novo" that the FCC is referring to is a trial in the district court. The FCC can take Baxter to the District court to collect the fine, in the district court Baxter can raise any challenges to any FCC rule or regulation, nor can baxter raise any constitutional challenges, the trial de novo is a debt collection trial. Todd N9OGL |
K1MAN wins again!
ass****ed by an old freind wrote: wrote: an old freid to some a nightmare to steve wrote: wrote: Lloyd, I am not sure they CAN choose that route at this point having already cited the now discredited red light rule Like you would know. yes i do know You don't know, Markie. You are an illiterate fool. |
K1MAN wins again!
**** off, Toad with your cut and pastes.
|
K1MAN wins again!
N9OGL wrote: The red light rules were thrown out due to fact that they violated due process. K1MAN fine and FO will be thrown out because 1. most of the fine was based on the fining system in the broadcast service (see the NAL) and therefore may of been to high of a fine in regards to the amateur service. 2. Baxter's right to an Administrative hearing under the Administrative Procedure Act was denied and therefore his rights to due process under the APA was violated. 3. the "trial de novo" that the FCC is referring to is a trial in the district court. The FCC can take Baxter to the District court to collect the fine, in the district court Baxter can raise any challenges to any FCC rule or regulation, nor can baxter raise any constitutional challenges, the trial de novo is a debt collection trial. indeed while the FOhas life I think the renewnal dogde is dead for now indeed a good point about the size of the fine it is pprepoustres that anything any ham can do would rise to a higher than the fines they want to asses for JJ at superbowl Todd N9OGL |
K1MAN wins again!
You are correct that the "trial" being discussed in the FO is the debt
collection trial. However, Baxter can bring up any issues he desires in an effort to argue that he doesn't owe the fine. He will, however, be at a marked disadvantage because the burden of proof will be on him at that point. Also, what the FCC denied him was a hearing before the FCC commissioners which was unlikely to happen and was a misplaced request in this case. He needs to appeal the FO to the proper courts to get this heard. Right now Baxter is ignoring his due process rights to appeal the FO and have it heard in court. He *must* appeal the FO within 30 days or it becomes final. If he doesn't fight this in an appeal it will become final and he will end up with the burden of proof. At the appeal the burden of proof is on the FCC if he waits for the debt collection trial he has willfully given up his rights. Baxter has made a series of serious missteps here and is slowly giving up his rights to due process. His supporters insist that he's being unfairly treated when he's not. Our legal system has it's process and sometimes they don't make a lot of sense to the general public who get most of their "legal" training from the TV shows they watch. You got to follow the rules carefully. Just because you don't understand the rules does not mean the game is unfair. I would *strongly* suggest that Baxter obtain the services of a lawyer who does understand the rules. If Baxter thinks he's going to pull a Matlock move in court and get himself off, he's as nuts as some folks claim. A lawyer would advise him on the best way to preserve his rights. |
K1MAN wins again!
N9OGL wrote:
The red light rules were thrown out due to fact that they violated due process. K1MAN fine and FO will be thrown out because Ok Tod, one at at time.. :) 1. most of the fine was based on the fining system in the broadcast service (see the NAL) and therefore may of been to high of a fine in regards to the amateur service. Hmmm.. Seems that the $21K was reasonable considering the number and nature of the rules violations. If you assume the violations are true, what do you think the dollar amount should be? 2. Baxter's right to an Administrative hearing under the Administrative Procedure Act was denied and therefore his rights to due process under the APA was violated. No, he requested a hearing before the FCC commissioners which was improper at that point. Right now the proper place for due process here is the Appeal process, which is supposed to be filed with the appropriate court within 30 days of the Forfeiture Order. (Which has not happened, to my knowledge.) It is not the FCC's fault if Baxter doesn't know how to do the right thing to protect is rights. 3. the "trial de novo" that the FCC is referring to is a trial in the district court. The FCC can take Baxter to the District court to collect the fine, in the district court Baxter can raise any challenges to any FCC rule or regulation, nor can baxter raise any constitutional challenges, the trial de novo is a debt collection trial. You are indeed correct, except he can try to raise issues with the fine and these issues would be admissible had he chosen to supply the necessary information requested by the NAL, or if he managed to get the appeal timely filed. The problem with your contention that this is not fair is that you are ignoring the fact that Baxter has failed to protect his own rights. The rules are fair and published so everybody can know what they need to do. It's not the fault of the FCC if Baxter fails to protect his own rights even if he is ignorant of what the rules mean. If he doesn't want to hire a lawyer to advise him, fine, but if he then complains that the process doesn't match what he thinks is fair, too bad. I'll bet that if he contacts the FCC right now and agrees to hand in his license, swear off ham radio for life and agree to not use his Part 97 equipment for anything but receiving, they might be willing to forget the fines... |
K1MAN wins again!
|
K1MAN wins again!
The net effect of the "set aside" is that his renewal has not been
decided. As K1MAN and others have pointed out he retains his right to operate on his old license until it is decided. So... I don't think that the "set aside" is the same as a rejection. They are currently just thinking about what they intend to do. (Well, really they are thinking about how they intend to do it.) Actually, I think they are waiting for the FO to become final so they can use it to justify pulling his ticket. Once the FO becomes final, then they can use that as justification for the denial of the renewal. Assuming Baxter hasn't filed the appeal then I expect this to happen within the next few days. |
K1MAN wins again!
|
K1MAN wins again!
Unless Baxter has an appeal in the mail right now, the FO is final. He
had 30 days to appeal, now it's a debt collection case. I suppose they may give him a few extra days to avail himself of his rights, but I don't think it will be a long wait. So I suspect that the license will be yanked shortly and *then* the fun will begin.. :) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:59 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com