Lancer wrote in :

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:10:00 -0000, BP
wrote:

itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote in :

Steveo wrote in
news:20041208065604.290 :

itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:
"Landshark" wrote in
news:mrttd.39840$6q2.28541 @newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

Ummm, George Busch WA3MOJ could stop using
a radio, give up his Ham license, stop doing a lot
of things, but he still has the same name. Unless he
wants to go through the hassle of changing it legally.

Yes If George Busch has the name george busch then his name is
george Busch, I am not george busch you souped up homo.

Is your dads call WA3MOJ? Why did you use that call in your sig?

I didnt use any call in my sig, you assclowns were quick to jump the
gun when those random letters and numbers were in advertly at the
bottom of my post. btw, it wasnt a sig file braniac.


"random letters and numbers" --- same old spin..yet again...
Heeyahahahahaha!!!


Isn't that how the F.C.C. assigns their callsigns.?

Kind of like a lotto drawing?


They (FCC) don't seem to be too picky, ..do they.. ??

Hell!..If Geo and dougay got callsigns, then they'd probably
issue callsigns to any sleazy reprobate, creep, that wanders
in from the streets and back alleys...

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message
...
It's all pretty clear cut Lanshark. You don't pay the NAL and challenge it
in district court, or pay it, then go the appeal court route. If you read
the whole quoted section that's what the court says, in legal speak, near
the end.

Anyway the original point made by several people was you can't challenge a
NAL in court. I think that myth has been dispelled. You raised another
issue, is it really worth the cost? You might have a point there. I guess
it
all depends on the about of the NAL. a couple of grand maybe not, but for
$10K yeah I think it would if one feels confident they have a strong case.

On a side point who were you replying to in regards to a post about a
radio
and refering to them using my name? I never mentioned anything about a
radio, just a comment about you getting a NAL for first hand experience. I
think you got me confused with somebody else.


--
Leland C. Scott


when a hearing is being held for some

reason other than the assessment of a

forfeiture (such as, to determine

whether a renewal application should

be granted) and a forfeiture is to be

considered as an alternative or in addition

to any other Commission action.

However, these procedures may be followed

whenever the Commission, in its

discretion, determines that they will

better serve the ends of justice.



Now take a look here

(1) Before imposing a forfeiture penalty

under the provisions of this paragraph,

the Commission will issue a notice

of opportunity for hearing. The

hearing will be a full evidentiary hearing

before an administrative law judge,

conducted under procedures set out in

subpart B of this part, including procedures

for appeal and review of initial

decisions. A final Commission order assessing

a forfeiture under the provisions

of this paragraph is subject to judicial

review under section 402(a) of the

Communications Act.

Notice it doesn't say a court, it says an "administrative law judge"

Before the commission.



(2) If, after a forfeiture penalty is imposed

and not appealed or after a court

enters final judgment in favor of the

Commission, the forfeiture is not paid,

the Commission will refer the matter

to the Department of Justice for collection.

In an action to recover the forfeiture,

the validity and appropriateness

of the order imposing the forfeiture

are not subject to review.

Notice the turn it over to the DOJ & Treasury dept, try

to tell them I'm going to appeal it to a court of law.



(3) Where the possible assessment of

a forfeiture is an issue in a hearing

case to determine which pending application

should be granted, and the applicant

facing a potential forfeiture is

dismissed pursuant to a settlement

agreement or otherwise, and the presiding

judge has not made a determination

on the forfeiture issue, the order

of dismissal shall be forwarded to the

attention of the full Commission.

Within the time provided by § 1.117, the

Commission may, on its own motion,

proceed with a determination of whether

a forfeiture against the dismissing

applicant is warranted. If the Commission

so proceeds, it will provide the applicant

with a reasonable opportunity

to respond to the forfeiture issue (see

paragraph (f)(3) of this section) and

make a determination under the procedures

outlined in paragraph (f) of this

section.

(h) Payment. The forfeiture should be

paid by check or money order drawn to

the order of the Federal Communications

Commission. The Commission

does not accept responsibility for cash

payments sent through the mails. The

check or money order should be mailed

to: Federal Communications Commission,

P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois

60673-7482.

(i) Remission and mitigation. In its discretion,

the Commission, or its designee,

may remit or reduce any forfeiture

imposed under this section.

After issuance of a forfeiture order,

any request that it do so shall be

submittedas a petition for reconsideration

pursuant to § 1.106.

(j) Effective date. Amendments to

paragraph (b) of this section implementing

Pub. L. No. 101-239 are effective

December 19, 1989.

[43 FR 49308, Oct. 23, 1978, as amended at 48

FR 15631, Apr. 12, 1983; 50 FR 40855, Oct. 7,

1985; 55 FR 25605, June 22, 1990; 56 FR 25638,

June 5, 1991; 57 FR 23161, June 2, 1992; 57 FR

47006, Oct. 14, 1992; 57 FR 48333, Oct. 23, 1992;

58 FR 6896, Feb. 3, 1993; 58 FR 27473, May 10,

1993; 62 FR 4918, Feb. 3, 1997; 62 FR 43475, Aug.

14, 1997; 63 FR 26992, May 15, 1998; 65 FR 60868,

Oct. 13, 2000]

§ 1.83 Applications for radio operator

licenses.

(a) Application filing procedures for

amateur radio operator licenses are set

forth in part 97 of this chapter.

(b) Application filing procedures for

commercial radio operator licenses are

set forth in part 13 of this chapter. Detailed

information about application

forms, filing procedures, and where to

file applications for commercial radio

operator licenses is contained in the

bulletin ''Commercial Radio Operator

Licenses and Permits.'' This bulletin is

available from the Commission's

Forms Distribution Center by calling

1-800-418-FORM (3676).

[47 FR 53378, Nov. 26, 1982, as amended at 58

FR 13021, Mar. 9, 1993; 63 FR 68920, Dec. 14,

1998]

§ 1.85 Suspension of operator licenses.

Whenever grounds exist for suspension

of an operator license, as provided

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message
...

"Landshark" wrote in message
om...

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message
...
It's all pretty clear cut Lanshark. You don't pay the NAL and challenge
it
in district court, or pay it, then go the appeal court route. If you
read
the whole quoted section that's what the court says, in legal speak,
near
the end.

Have you ever gotten a NAL?

NO.

Have you sent back the
paperwork to the FCC that goes with the NAL?
If the answer is no, then you don't know. If it's yes
then you know that you have to give them, Full name,
Social Security #, employment info, assets info etc etc.
As I have said in previous posts, I know two people
that got them, both were found guilty, though they filed
motions with the commission saying they weren't. They
then were told that if they didn't pay, their wages would
be garnished, liens on their houses. They were told by
the FCC & a lawyer (They both had different lawyers)
that was the only way or sue them in Federal court.

So they had crummy attorneys. Doesn't change the facts of the opinion
written by the appeals court in the AT&T case. If you go back and read
that
section again you'll see that the FCC was mistaken about how things work.
The FCC had issues with the points raised by the AT&T NAL yet the court
agreed with AT&T. It seems to me that your buddy's attorney likely brought
the "party line" from the FCC. It wouldn't be the first time that a lawyer
missed rulings in case law that would have materially helped their client.
Happens more often that you think.

Say what you want, but you can't just say "I don't
agree, I want a trial" They start collecting the fine right
away when the commission says you are guilty.

As you say "try", until they have to go to court. Then it's a new ball
game.


Anyway the original point made by several people was you can't
challenge
a
NAL in court. I think that myth has been dispelled. You raised another
issue, is it really worth the cost? You might have a point there. I
guess
it
all depends on the about of the NAL. a couple of grand maybe not, but
for
$10K yeah I think it would if one feels confident they have a strong
case.

Same point, spend $9,000.00 on a lawyer, for a $10,000.00
fine? One of the persons I know was fined $30,000.00
plus for his NAL, his lawyer told him to pay the fine or make
arrangements for payments, he would be spending close to that to sue the
government to reduce fines. You saw above what they did to him.

The expense of going to court is a wholly different issue. I'll agree with
you that it could be an expensive option. And at times it doesn't make
sense
to pursue the legal course of action.



On a side point who were you replying to in regards to a post about a
radio
and refering to them using my name? I never mentioned anything about a
radio, just a comment about you getting a NAL for first hand
experience.
I
think you got me confused with somebody else.

Not really, I may have read into this more than what you meant:
"All I can figure out is you want to believe this so you can justifiy FCC
regulation violations in your own mind, feel better about it, and excuse
others for being held accountable."

But the way accusations fly in here, I figured you were saying
I would feel better about operating a linear or export radio.

No. 8-)) My point was you could pay a lawyer to get the same information
here for a whole lot less.

By the way what did that guy do to get a $30K NAL anyway? Must have really
ticked somebody off big time. The normal forfeitures are around $7500 for
the kinds of illegal crap people do that gets mentioned here in the group.
--
Leland C. Scott

Well, he was running a home base set up, supposedly
10,000 watts. Down the street, maybe a couple of blocks was
the local PBS station. They told him that he was coming over
practically everything in the station, I'd believe it.
I wasn't there, but I saw the NAL and the judgment, so that's why I know
what they said.

Take a read here, it's not a case it the direct rules

http://tinyurl.com/6ec86

Landshark

--
Is it so frightening to have me at your shoulder?
Thunder and lightning couldn't be bolder.
I'll write on your tombstone, ``I thank you for dinner.''
This game that we animals play is a winner.

WA3MOJ-itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:
Really now I have an ebay account ... Laugher..can you post it so I can
see what I have bought and sold.

Do you still have your 32 pill, prozac?

itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:
You ended your post with it.

so what does that mean.

It's your dads call?

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 21:40:48 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:

Steveo wrote in news:20041208102852.677
:

itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:
Steveo wrote in
news:20041208065604.290
:

itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge

wrote:
"Landshark" wrote in
news:mrttd.39840$6q2.28541 @newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

Ummm, George Busch WA3MOJ could stop using
a radio, give up his Ham license, stop doing a lot
of things, but he still has the same name. Unless he
wants to go through the hassle of changing it legally.

Yes If George Busch has the name george busch then his name is
george
Busch, I am not george busch you souped up homo.

Is your dads call WA3MOJ? Why did you use that call in your sig?

I didnt use any call in my sig, you assclowns were quick to jump the
gun
when those random letters and numbers were in advertly at the bottom
of
my post.

More lies from WA3MOJ.


who is wa3moj





btw, it wasnt a sig file braniac.

You ended your post with it.




so what does that mean. I end my post with assclown does that mean it is
a Ham call sign??


Yep, same thing




assclown

^^^^^^^Ham radio call sign

itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:
Steveo wrote in news:20041209001556.279
:

itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:
You ended your post with it.

so what does that mean.

It's your dads call?

thought I was Prozac, make up your mind you clueless assclown.

What would that have to do with your dad being WA3MOJ, George Busch?

"Landshark" wrote in message
om...


Well, he was running a home base set up, supposedly
10,000 watts. Down the street, maybe a couple of blocks was
the local PBS station. They told him that he was coming over
practically everything in the station, I'd believe it.

Most consumers electronics now days isn't sheilded as well as it used to be.
Now almost everything comes in a plastic box. Metal cabinets are
disappearing more and more. That cheap spray on aluminium crap, I've seen
used on the inside of those plastic boxes, I don't think works nearly as
well as a good metal cabinet IMHO. Maybe Frank would like to comment on
this. I should think he would have some experience along this line.

I wasn't there, but I saw the NAL and the judgment, so that's why I
know
what they said.

But why $30K? That seems far above what you would expect. What did he do,
give the FCC a hard time?


Take a read here, it's not a case it the direct rules

http://tinyurl.com/6ec86

The quote below is from that section above.

-----------------------------------------------------------
(1) Before imposing a forfeiture penalty
under the provisions of this paragraph,
the Commission will issue a notice
of opportunity for hearing. The
hearing will be a full evidentiary hearing
before an administrative law judge,
conducted under procedures set out in
subpart B of this part, including procedures
for appeal and review of initial
decisions. A final Commission order assessing
a forfeiture under the provisions
of this paragraph is subject to judicial
review under section 402(a) of the
Communications Act.
(2) If, after a forfeiture penalty is imposed
and not appealed or after a court
enters final judgment in favor of the
Commission, the forfeiture is not paid,
the Commission will refer the matter
to the Department of Justice for collection.
In an action to recover the forfeiture,
the validity and appropriateness
of the order imposing the forfeiture
are not subject to review.
----------------------------------------------

While there are some conditions that the FCC says has to be fulfilled to
qualify, it's not the whole story. What you posted are the rules, sure, just
as the US Constitution are rules too. However as we know most court cases
cite "case law" where prior higher court decisions, which have interpreted
"the rules", are used to support the current legal argument. That's what
happened in the AT&T case. The AT&T case was a NAL for "phone slamming", and
the appeals court disagreed with the FCC's interpretation of it's own rules.
Unfortunately for the FCC the appeals court decision is what counts. A court
decision at this level can be cited in other court cases to the detriment of
the FCC.

--
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

Wireless Network
Mobile computing
on the go brought
to you by Micro$oft