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