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

Morris wrote:
He's crossed the line numerous times: doing foreign policy, defaming
Riley Hollingsworth, going commercial. But he has a case.

SNIPPED


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.

SNIPPED

Bob Sherin, W4ASX

Based on the cited NALs and logic the conclusion can be reasonably drawn
that we have 600,000 licensees who have a 'right' to follow K1MANs
example. Restated: CHAOS and Anarchy abound.

I don't believe that is the intent of the amateur radio 'PRIVILEGE'.

Has a case? Of Hemoroids maybe?

Otherwise the feds are gonna fry him nowdays!
"Morris" wrote in message
oups.com...
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 article .com,
says...
He's crossed the line numerous times: doing foreign policy, defaming
Riley Hollingsworth, going commercial. But he has a case.
....

Bob, do you know where to find the details of the charges being made
against Baxter in this case?

My memory isn't nearly as good as I wish it was, but if I remember
correctly from the ARRL Audio News and Newsline bulletins on the
subject, he's not being charged for the scheduling and duration of his
bulletins, but on the content of the bulletins and the interference
they're causing with ongoing communications. There were also some
problems with so-called "Felony Complaint Affidavits" that he was
issuing to anyone that disagreed with him or didn't get out of his way
when he wanted to start transmitting his bulletins.

If I'm wrong on this, someone please let me know.

--

-- //Steve//

Steve Silverwood, KB6OJS
Fountain Valley, CA
Email: