The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) needs to be fined for it recent
campaign to weasel money out of amateur radio operators. It does seem
funny that K1MAN gets fined a total of $21,000, while the ARRL which is
basically doing he same crap don't get fined at all. Lets look at some
REAL FACTS:


1. K1MAN runs an Information bulletin
2. W1AW runs an information bulletin

3. K1MAN has interfered with ongoing communications
4. W1AW has interfered with ongoing communications

5. K1MAN has used his station for Pecuniary interest by giving his
website address www.k1man.com
6. W1AW has used it station for pecuniary interest by giving out their
website address www.arrl.org

7. K1MAN was fined $21,000 dollars for the stuff listed above.
8. W1AW has NEVER been fined for the stuff listed above.

9. The FCC isn't in K1MAN pocket
10 The FCC is in the ARRL pocket

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

§97.3 Definitions.

(a) The definitions of terms used in Part 97 a

(10) Broadcasting. Transmissions intended for reception by the general
public, either direct or relayed.

(25) Information bulletin. A message directed only to amateur operators
consisting solely of subject matter of direct interest to the amateur
service.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

97.111 Authorized transmissions.

(b) In addition to one-way transmissions specifically authorized
elsewhere in this Part, an amateur station may transmit the following
types of one-way communications:

(6) Transmissions necessary to disseminate information bulletins;

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

§97.113 Prohibited transmissions.

(a) No amateur station shall transmit:

(2) Communications for hire or for material compensation, direct or
indirect, paid or promised, except as otherwise provided in these
rules;

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

K1MAN APRIL 14, 2004 LETTER


April 14, 2004


Mr. Glenn A. Baxter
RR 1 Box 776
Belgrade Lakes, ME 04918


Amateur Radio license K1MAN


Dear Mr. Baxter:


This letter explains in what ways your Amateur station has come into
compliance with Commission rules since our letter to you of January
29, 2002; and notifies you of two areas of operation that, if not
corrected, will lead to enforcement action against your license and/or
designation of your renewal application for a hearing.


By letter dated January 29, 2002, the Commission notified you that
your understanding of various Amateur Radio Service rules was
incorrect. We outlined your apparent misconceptions regarding station
control, publishing a transmitting schedule and how that related to
interference, threats made to licensee complainants, including threats
made with so-called "felony complaint affidavits", broadcasting and
broadcasting of tape recordings and telephone conversations.


The January 29 letter detailed complaints received by the Commission,
and explained that your method of station control, i.e., "a timer from
Radio Shack", did not achieve compliance with the Commission's Rules
when you were not present at the control point for your station and,
therefore, did not satisfy the Commission's Rules regarding automatic
control of a station. We explained to you that to comply with the
Commission's Rules you must be at the transmitter, or at the
transmitter control point, every moment your station is transmitting
when your station is locally or remotely controlled; and that if the
station is controlled by telecommand from the control point using a
radio link, the frequencies used for telecommand must comply with the
Section 97.201 requirements for an auxiliary station (may transmit
only on the 1.25 m and shorter wavelength bands, except 219-220,
222-222.150, 431-433 and 435-438 MHz segments).


By letter dated March 4, 2003, the Commission's Boston Office notified
you that Commission monitoring and numerous complaints filed with the
Commission indicated that the problems outlined in January 2002 had
not been corrected. The letter stated that your Amateur station was
apparently being used for broadcasting various programs having nothing
to do with Amateur Radio; and that transmissions from your station
were being used for deliberate interference and for communications in
which you apparently had a pecuniary interest. The Boston Office
letter stated that transmissions started and ended erratically, were
sometimes repetitive and abruptly ended with no identification as
required by Commission rules, and that such operation indicated that
the transmissions were not under proper control of a licensed
operator. The letter noted also that you continually broadcast notices
of so-called "felony complaint affidavits " that you claimed to have
filed with the United States Justice Department against other Amateur
Radio licensees whom you perceived to have interfered with your
broadcasts, or refused to relinquish their operating frequency to you.


The Boston Office's letter stated that transmissions from your Amateur
station included references to a degree program and directed listeners
to your website that advertised an "American Radio School Technician
Degree in Electronics" for "$299.95". On that web site you solicited
donations for radio equipment, advertised a credit card, and solicited
donations and advertised for "IARN" and "AARA". The letter from the
Boston office pointed out that such use of your station was in
apparent violation of Section 97.113(a)(3) of the Commission's rules,
which prohibits "Communications for hire or for material compensation,
direct or indirect...." and "Communications in which the station
licensee or control operator has a pecuniary interest..."


The letter from the Boston Office requested that you provide
substantial additional information about the operation of your
station, including submission of a log detailing the information on a
weekly basis until further notice. In January 2004, the Boston office
notified you that you could discontinue the log submissions, and
referred the case to this office.


We have reviewed the information you submitted, as well as numerous
complaints filed against your station. Additionally we have reviewed
tape recordings made by Commission personnel of your transmissions at
various times during 2003 and 2004 subsequent to the Boston Office
letter of March 3, 2003.


It is the finding of this office that you are, with some exceptions,
generally in compliance with the Commission's rules in the Amateur
Service related to broadcasting and information bulletins, and we
explain as follows. Broadcasting is prohibited in the Amateur Radio
Service, with some exceptions. Section 97.3(a)(10) defines
broadcasting as "transmissions intended for reception by the general
public, either direct or relayed." One-way transmissions are limited
in the Amateur service, but an exception is allowed in Section
97.111(b)(6) for "Transmissions necessary to disseminate information
bulletins."


Information bulletins are defined by Section 97.3(a)(26) as messages
"directed only to Amateur operators consisting solely of subject
matter of direct interest to the Amateur service." There are no
specific time limits placed upon information bulletins by Commission
rules. A review of your programs at random times since March 3, 2003
indicates that your transmissions were directed to Amateur Radio
operators, not to the general public, and that the individual
bulletins were related to the Amateur Radio Service. The only notable
exception was the offering of a reward for information leading to the
identity of parties making threatening telephone calls to you.


The station control problems outlined to you in warnings from the
Commission appear, with minor exceptions, to have been corrected.
During the monitoring period your station abruptly ended transmission
with no identification in one instance, and started transmissions in
mid-sentence in another instance.


There are, however, two areas in the operation of your Amateur station
that must be corrected in order to avoid enforcement action and/or a
designation of your renewal application for hearing to determine if
you are qualified to remain a licensee. These a 1) deliberate
interference resulting from your commencing operation on top of
ongoing communications, in violation of Section 97.101(a) and (d); and
2) use of your Amateur station for pecuniary interests, in violation
of Sections 97.113(a)(2)and (3).


Regarding deliberate interference, we receive continuing complaints,
and our monitoring verifies, that your transmissions start up on top
of existing communications of individual licensees as well as nets
such as the Salvation Army Team Emergency Radio Network. Such
operation constitutes deliberate interference. Stations engaging in
ongoing communications are not obligated to stop transmitting when
K1MAN wants to start transmitting on a frequency, and complainants are
so advised by the Commission. You appear to believe that the
publication of a transmission schedule gives you the right to begin
transmitting on a certain frequency at a certain time, even if the
frequency is occupied. It does not.


All frequencies in the Amateur Radio Service are shared--no frequency
is assigned for the exclusive use of any station, and your Amateur
station has no greater rights to a frequency at any particular time
than any other Amateur station. Section 97.101(d) of the rules
prohibits an Amateur station from willfully or maliciously interfering
with any radio communication or signal. Moreover, publishing a
schedule is merely one of the several conditions necessary for the
control operator of a club station to accept compensation for
transmitting information bulletins, pursuant to Section 97.113(d) of
the Commission's rules. Your station K1MAN, however, is not a club
station.


Regarding use of an Amateur station for pecuniary interest, we note
that your Amateur Radio program transmissions regularly advertise your
web page at www.K1man.com, and on those pages you advertise items for
sale by the American Amateur Radio Association (AARA), including T
shirts, hats and a "Technician Degree Diploma". You advertise the
sales commissions and "overrides" that your State Directors and
Section Managers can receive, and detail ways in which your Section
Managers can earn money by recruiting members, selling hats, name
badges or T shirts.


Section 97.113(a)(2) prohibits communications for hire or for material
compensation, direct or indirect, paid or promised. Section
97.113(a)(3) prohibits communications in which the station licensee or
control operator has a pecuniary interest.


We remind you that any attempts to threaten or intimidate Amateur
radio licensees operating on the Amateur bands will reflect adversely
upon your qualifications to remain a Commission licensee, and would be
the subject of a license revocation or renewal hearing. By letter
dated December 11, 2001, you were warned against the sending of your
so-called "felony complaint affidavits" to various Amateur Radio
licenses that you perceive to either cause interference to your
station or which do not relinquish to you the frequency on which they
are operating.


Complainants were advised by the Commission to forward any such
"affidavits" they received to the Commission, and that they could
otherwise be ignored. The United States Attorney for your jurisdiction
also warned you that the mailing of such "affidavits" is contrary to
law. Apparently you have discontinued those threats. We also remind
you that, in regard to the taping and broadcasting of telephone calls,
you must comply with applicable state laws.


In conclusion, failure to correct the deliberate interference caused
by K1MAN, and the continued use of K1MAN for pecuniary interests, will
lead to enforcement action against your license. Either would be
sufficient to designate your renewal application for an evidentiary
hearing to determine if you are qualified to remain a Commission
licensee.


An adverse finding in regard to threats to complainant licensees, or
violation of state law regarding recording and broadcasting telephone
conversations, would lead to enforcement action against your license
and would be sufficient to designate your renewal application for an
evidentiary hearing to determine if you are qualified to remain a
Commission licensee. You would have the burden of proof in such a
proceeding.


You should be aware that in 1990, the Commission revised its character
qualifications policy, expanding the types of non-FCC-related
misconduct that it would consider as bearing on licensee or applicant
character qualifications (Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in
Broadcast Licensing, Policy Statement and Order, 5 FCC RCD 3252 (1990)
(Character Policy Statement), recon. granted in part, denied in part,
6 FCC Rcd 3448 (1991), further recon. granted, 7 FCC Rcd 6564 (1992).
The Commission concluded that "a propensity to comply with the law
generally is relevant to the Commission's public interest analysis,
and that an applicant's or licensee's willingness to violate other
laws, and, in particular, to commit felonies, also bears on our
confidence that an applicant or licensee will conform to FCC rules and
policies. The 1990 Character Policy Statement applies to Amateur Radio
licensees just as it does to all other FCC licensees ( See, e.g.,
Herbert L. Schoenbohm, Decision, 13 FCC Rcd 15028 (1998), recon.
denied, 13 FCC Rcd 23774 (1998), aff'd in part, dismissed in part sub
nom. Schoenbohm v. FCC, 204 F.3d 243 (2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct.
405 (2000); Leslie D. Brewer, Order to Show Cause, Notice of Order of
Suspension, Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, and Notice of Apparent
Liability for a Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 5671, licenses revoked, 16 FCC
Rcd 12878 (2001).


Accordingly, we will continue to review the operation of K1MAN in
light of the issues outlined above.


CC: FCC Northeastern Regional Director
FCC Boston Office District Director
Honorable Paula D. Silsby, United States Attorney, US Department of
Justice, District of Maine
Timothy D. Wing, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U. S. Department of Justice,
District of Maine

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: Issuance by the FCC of a Warning Notice indicates that the FCC
has what it believes to be reliable evidence of possible rules
infractions and not necessarily that the recipient has violated FCC
rules. The FCC has the authority, pursuant to ﾧ97.519(d)(2) of the
rules to readminister any examination element previously administered
by a volunteer examiner. These enforcement letters are representative
of recent Advisory Notices, Warning Notices, Notices of Violation and
other FCC communications to licensees and others involving possible
serious rules violations. Unless otherwise indicated, all letters were
signed by FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement Riley
Hollingsworth. This listing is not a comprehensive record of FCC
Amateur enforcement actions. Follow-up correspondence will be
published as provided. Address all inquiries regarding this
correspondence to FCC Special Counsel Riley Hollingsworth,
rholling([at]fcc.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

$21,000 FINE FROM THE ENFORCEMENT BUREAU , NORTHEAST REGION, BOSTON

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554



In the Matter of
File No. EB-04-BS-111
Glenn A. Baxter NAL/Acct. No. 200532260001
RR 1 Box 776 FRN 0013164975
Belgrade Lakes, ME 04918

Licensee of Amateur Radio
Station K1MAN


NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

Released: June 7, 2005

By the District Director, Boston Office, Northeastern Region,
Enforcement Bureau:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
(``NAL''), pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''), we find Glenn A. Baxter,
licensee of Amateur Radio Station K1MAN, apparently liable for a
monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty-one thousand dollars
($21,000). We conclude that Mr. Baxter apparently willfully and
repeatedly interfered with ongoing communications of other
stations in violation of Section 97.101(d) of the Commission's
Rules (the ``Rules'')2. We further conclude that Mr. Baxter
apparently willfully and repeatedly transmitted communications in
which he had a pecuniary interest in violation of Section
97.113(a)(3) of the Rules. We find that Mr. Baxter apparently
willfully and repeatedly failed to file requested information
pursuant to an Enforcement Bureau (``Bureau'') directive. We
further find that Mr. Baxter apparently willfully engaged in
broadcasting in violation of 97.113(b) of the Rules3 and
apparently willfully failed to exercise control of his station in
violation of Section 97.105(a) of the Rules.4

II. BACKGROUND

2. Mr. Baxter has a license to operate an amateur radio
station, call sign K1MAN. Mr. Baxter also is executive
director of the American Amateur Radio Association
(``AARA''), which has a website at www.K1MAN.com. Mr.
Baxter uses his amateur station to advertise his website,
which offers items for sale, including an annual newsletter
published by ``Glenn Baxter, K1MAN'' for forty-five (45)
dollars per year. The website also provides a schedule of
K1MAN radio transmissions.

3. In response to numerous complaints of deliberate
interference caused by transmissions from Mr. Baxter's
Amateur station K1MAN to ongoing radio communications of
other stations, including stations participating in the
Salvation Army Team Emergency Radio Net, the Bureau issued a
Warning Notice to Mr. Baxter on September 15, 2004. The
Bureau requested information from Mr. Baxter with regard to
the method of station control and what action, if any, was
being taken in response to the complaints of interference.5
The Warning Notice also reminded Mr. Baxter that the Bureau
previously warned him in a letter dated April 14, 2004 that
enforcement action would be taken if he failed to correct
the deliberate interference being caused by his station.6
The April 14, 2004 letter also cautioned Mr. Baxter that if
he continued to use the station for pecuniary interest by
advertising his website he could be subject to further
enforcement action.

4. By letter dated October 14, 2004, Mr. Baxter responded
to the September 15, 2004 Warning Notice stating ``[n]o
corrective actions are necessary at K1MAN'' and ``[n]o
changes are needed with regard to station control which is
in full compliance with all FCC rules.'' Mr. Baxter's
letter further stated that ``K1MAN is in full compliance
with all FCC rules, state laws, and federal laws. I
encourage you to take `enforcement actions' and look forward
to seeing you in court (s).''7 Mr. Baxter's response did
not provide the required information requested regarding
station control.

5. The Bureau issued a second Warning Notice to Mr. Baxter
on October 29, 2004.8 The Warning Notice explained that Mr.
Baxter's response to the September 15, 2004, Warning Notice
was insufficient and explained Mr. Baxter's obligations as a
licensee to furnish the information requested by the Bureau.
The Bureau provided Mr. Baxter an additional twenty days to
provide the specific information requested. The Warning
Notice also indicated that the Bureau had received two
additional complaints of deliberate interference caused by
Mr. Baxter's station. The Bureau requested information from
Mr. Baxter regarding the identity of the control operator
and method of station control for station K1MAN on the dates
and times specified in the recently-received interference
complaints.

6. Mr. Baxter responded by letter dated November 2, 2004,
stating that ``[m]y letter to you dated 14 October 2004 in
response to your letter to me dated 15 September 2004
provided all the information required by FCC rules and by
federal law.''9 Mr. Baxter did not provide any information
regarding the identity of the control operator or the method
of station control.

7. On November 25, 2004, Commission personnel monitored
Mr. Baxter's Amateur station on 14.275 MHz between 9:21 a.m.
and 2:12 p.m. EST. During that time, Mr. Baxter's station
transmitted numerous on-the-air references to his web page
at www.K1MAN.com. On November 27, 2004, Mr. Baxter's
Amateur station K1MAN began transmitting on top of ongoing
communications at 5:54 p.m. EST on 3.890 MHz, disrupting the
communications by the other licensees.

8. On November 30, 2004, agents from the FCC's Boston
Office conducted an inspection of Mr. Baxter's Amateur
station K1MAN. The method of station control appeared to be
a telephone line connected to an interface board, which was
connected to the transmitter. Mr. Baxter claimed that he
monitored the station from a mobile receiver when not at the
transmitter and that he could control the transmitter
through a land-line or cellular phone. During the
inspection, Mr. Baxter demonstrated that he could control
the transmitter.

9. On December 1, 2004, on the frequencies 3.975 MHz and
14.275 MHz, Mr. Baxter's station K1MAN transmitted a pre-
recorded program lasting nearly seventy minutes, which
consisted of an interview by Mr. Baxter with Mr. Jeff Owens.
During the broadcast, Mr. Baxter explained that Baxter
Associates was a firm that engaged in ``management
consulting, executive search and executive career
management.'' The program consisted of a lengthy broadcast
of the telephone interview with Mr. Owens. Mr. Baxter
explained the fees involved, how Mr. Owens could invest in
franchises of Baxter Associates, and how Mr. Baxter planned
to market the franchises of Baxter Associates. Nothing in
the program related to Amateur radio and no station call
sign was given until the conclusion of the seventy-minute
program.

10. On December 8, 2004, FCC agents found that Baxter's
station K1MAN commenced transmitting at 7:10 p.m. EST on top
of existing radio communications on 3.890 MHz. On December
19, 2004, from 5:44 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. EST, on frequency
3.975 MHz, Mr. Baxter's Amateur station K1MAN broadcast
transmissions of an apparently defective pre-recorded audio
tape, which resulted in the repeated transmission of a nine-
word phrase, and segments thereof, without any intervention
of a control operator and without the identification of the
station's call sign. Mr. Baxter's Amateur station went off
the air abruptly at 6:30 p.m. EST in mid-sentence.

11. On March 30, 2005, monitoring personnel observed
station K1MAN advertising the www.K1MAN.com web site at
approximately 7:19, 7:28, 7:33 and 8:05 P.M. EST on 3.890
MHz. On March 31, 2005, at 7:28 P.M. EST, monitoring
personnel observed transmissions from station K1MAN begin on
top of existing communications on 3.890 MHz.

III. DISCUSSION

12. Section 503(b) of the Act provides that any person who
willfully or repeatedly fails to comply substantially with
the terms and conditions of any license, or willfully or
repeatedly fails to comply with any of the provisions of the
Act or of any rule, regulation or order issued by the
Commission there under, shall be liable for a forfeiture
penalty. The term "willful" as used in Section 503(b) of
the Act has been interpreted to mean simply that the acts or
omissions are committed knowingly.10 The term ``repeated''
means the commission or omission of such act more than once
or for more than one day.11

13. Section 97.101(d) of the Rules states that ``[n]o
amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere
with or cause interference to any radio communication or
signal.''12 On November 27, 2004, December 8, 2004, and
March 31, 2005, Baxter's Amateur station K1MAN commenced
transmitting on top of existing communications on 3.890 MHz
in apparent willful and repeated violation of 97.101(d) of
the Commission's rules.

14. Section 97.113(a)(3) of the Rules prohibits an Amateur
station from transmitting any communications in which the
station licensee or control operator has a pecuniary
interest. On November 25, 2004 and March 30, 2005, Mr.
Baxter's station repeatedly transmitted references to his
website, which offers various products for sale, including a
monthly newsletter published by Glenn Baxter and offered for
sale for forty-five dollars per year. In addition, on
December 1, 2004, Station K1MAN transmitted a seventy-minute
interview with a person who was considering whether to
retain Baxter Associates, an employment-search firm owned by
Mr. Baxter. During the transmission, Mr. Baxter discussed
fees, investments, and franchising opportunities. We find
that Mr. Baxter apparently willfully and repeatedly violated
Section 97.113(a)(3) of the Rules on each of these occasions
by transmitting communications regarding matters in which he
has a pecuniary interest.

15. Section 308(b) of the Act provides that the Commission
``during the term of any (such) licenses, may require from
...a licensee further written statements of fact to enable
it to determine whether such original application should be
granted or denied or such license revoked . . . .''13
Although Mr. Baxter replied in part to the Bureau's demand
for information in the Warning Notices dated September 15,
2004 and October 29, 2004, Mr. Baxter failed to provide
information regarding how the station is controlled and the
identity of the control operator. Mr. Baxter's statements
that ``[n]o corrective actions are necessary'' and ``[n]o
changes are needed with regard to station control'' are
insufficient. We therefore conclude that Glenn A. Baxter
apparently willfully and repeatedly failed to comply with a
Bureau directive to file information regarding control of
Station K1MAN.

16. Section 97.113(b) of the Rules prohibits, with limited
exceptions not applicable here, an Amateur station from
engaging in any form of broadcasting or transmitting one-way
transmissions. Section 97.3(a)(10) of the Rules defines
broadcasting as ``transmissions intended for reception by
the general public.'' 14 We find that the pre-recorded
seventy-minute interview with a person interested in
retaining Baxter Associates, during which there was no
station identification, constitutes a ``broadcast'' and an
impermissible one-way transmission. Therefore, Mr. Baxter
apparently willfully violated Section 97.113(b) of the
Rules.

17. Section 97.105(a) of the Rules provides that the
control operator must ensure the proper operation of the
station.15 On December 19, 2004, station K1MAN repeated the
same pre-recorded phrase, and segments thereof, for 45
minutes on 3.975 MHz after which the transmissions ended
abruptly in mid-sentence without the station identification
required by Section 97.119(a) of the Rules.16 The
continuous transmissions of the same pre-recorded phrase and
segments thereof, and the abrupt ending of those
transmissions in mid-sentence without identification,
suggests that Mr. Baxter did not exercise control of his
station. We conclude that Mr. Baxter apparently willfully
violated Section 97.105(a) of the Rules.

18. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy
Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to
Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines ("Forfeiture Policy
Statement"), and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base
forfeiture amount is $7,000 for willful or malicious
interference, $3,000 for failure to file required
information, and $3,000 for violation of transmitter
control. 17 There are no base forfeiture amounts for
violations of the rules prohibiting broadcasting or
pecuniary interest in Part 97 of the Commission's rules. We
conclude, however, that violations of the Part 97 rules
prohibiting broadcasting and the transmission of any
communication in which the operator has a pecuniary interest
are similar to violations of the Commission's requirements
pertaining to broadcasting of lotteries and contests, which
carry a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for each such
violation.18 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount,
we must also take into account the statutory factors set
forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, which include the
nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the
violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of
culpability, and history of prior offenses, ability to pay,
and other such matters as justice may require.19 Applying
the Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 1.80, and the
statutory factors, a $21,000 forfeiture is warranted.

IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

19. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section
503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,20 and
Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,21 Glenn A. Baxter,
is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
in the amount of twenty-one thousand dollars ($21,000) for
willfully and repeatedly failing to furnish information
requested by the Bureau, willful and repeated violation of
Section 97.101(d) of the Rules, willful violation of Section
97.105(a) of the Rules, willful and repeated violation of
Section 97.113(a)(3) of the Rules, and willful violation of
Section 97.113(b) of the Rules.

20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of
the Commission's Rules, within thirty (30) days of the
release of this NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY, Mr. Baxter
SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or
SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or
cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

21. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or
similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
Communications Commission. The payment must include the
NAL/Acct. No. and FRN No. referenced above. Payment
by check or money order may be mailed to Federal
Communications Commission, P.O. Box 358340, Pittsburgh, PA
15251-8340. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to Mellon
Bank /LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 1540670, Pittsburgh,
PA 15251. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA
Number 043000261, receiving bank Mellon Bank, and account
number 911-6106.

22. The response, if any, must be mailed to Federal
Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Northeast
Region, Boston Office, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA
02169-7448 within thirty (30) days from the release date of
this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and must
include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.

23. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling
a forfeiture in response to a claim of inability to pay
unless the petitioner submits: (1) federal tax returns for
the most recent three-year period; (2) financial statements
prepared according to generally accepted accounting
practices ("GAAP"); or (3) some other reliable and objective
documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's
current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay
must specifically identify the basis for the claim by
reference to the financial documentation submitted.

24. Requests for payment of the full amount of this Notice
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture under an installment
plan should be sent to: Chief, Revenue and Receivables
Operations Group, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20554.22

25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this NAL shall be
sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and
regular mail, to Glenn A. Baxter, at his address of record.


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION



Dennis V. Loria
District Director
Boston Office
Northeastern Region
Enforcement Bureau



147 U.S.C. §503(b).
247 C.F.R.§ 97.101(d).
347 C.F.R. §§ 97.113(a)(3), §97.113(b).
447 C.F.R. §97.105(a).
5Letter from W. Riley Hollingsworth, Special Counsel, Enforcement
Bureau, September 15, 2004.
6The April 14, 2004 letter was a follow-up to letters dated
January 29, 2002 and March 4, 2003. In the January 29, 2002
letter, the Bureau detailed numerous complaints that were
received alleging rule violations by Mr. Baxter's station. The
letter advised Mr. Baxter about the Commission's rules regarding
interference, station control, broadcasting, and pecuniary
interest. The March 4, 2003 letter advised Mr. Baxter that the
Bureau continued to receive complaints about his station's
operation, indicating that he had not corrected the problems
outlined in the January 29, 2002 letter.
7Letter from Glenn A. Baxter, October 14, 2004.
8Letter from W. Riley Hollingsworth, Special Counsel, Enforcement
Bureau, October 29, 2004.
9Letter from Glenn A. Baxter, November 2, 2004.
10Section 312(f)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1), which
applies to violations for which forfeitures are assessed under
Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that "[t]he term 'willful',
when used with reference to the commission or omission of any
act, means the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of
such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision of
this Act or any rule or regulation of the Commission authorized
by this Act...." See Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC
Rcd 4387 (1991).
11Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(2), which also
applies to violations for which forfeitures are assessed under
Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that "[t]he term 'repeated',
when used with reference to the commission or omission of any
act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once
or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than
one day.''
12Section 97.101(b) provides that each station licensee must
cooperate in selecting transmitting channels and in making the
most effective use of the amateur service frequencies. The rule
further provides that no frequency will be assigned for the
exclusive use of any station. See 47 C.F.R. § 97.101(b).
Because amateur radio station licensees share frequencies, the
prohibition against willful or malicious interference is
essential to the viability of amateur radio.
1347 U.S.C. § 308(b).
1447 C.F.R. §97.3(a)(10).
1547 C.F.R. § 97.105. Section 97.7 of the Rules requires each
Amateur station to have a control operator when transmitting. 47
C.F.R. § 97.7. Pursuant to Sections 97.103(a) and 97.103(b), the
station licensee is responsible for the proper operation of the
station in accordance with the FCC rules, and the FCC will
presume that the station licensee is also the control operator,
unless documentation to the contrary is in the station records.
Mr. Baxter is the licensee of Station K1MAN and there is no
evidence in the Commission's records that Mr. Baxter has
designated another control operator.
1647 C.F.R. §97.119.
1712 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999);
47 C.F.R. §1.80.
18Id.
1947 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).
2047 U.S.C. § 503(b).
2147 C.F.R. § 1.80.
2247 C.F.R. § 1.1914.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

47 USC 326

Section 326. Censorship

Nothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to give
the Commission the power of censorship over the radio
communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no
regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the
Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by
means of radio communication.


TODD N9OGL
FREE SPEECH ADVACATE!!!!!!!

N9OGL wrote:
The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) needs to be fined for it recent
campaign to weasel money out of amateur radio operators. It does seem
funny that K1MAN gets fined a total of $21,000, while the ARRL which is
basically doing he same crap don't get fined at all. Lets look at some
REAL FACTS:


1. K1MAN runs an Information bulletin
2. W1AW runs an information bulletin

3. K1MAN has interfered with ongoing communications
4. W1AW has interfered with ongoing communications

5. K1MAN has used his station for Pecuniary interest by giving his
website address www.k1man.com
6. W1AW has used it station for pecuniary interest by giving out their
website address www.arrl.org

7. K1MAN was fined $21,000 dollars for the stuff listed above.
8. W1AW has NEVER been fined for the stuff listed above.

9. The FCC isn't in K1MAN pocket
10 The FCC is in the ARRL pocket

no whatneeds to hapenn (and something less likely to happen than the
ARRL geting fined) is for the FCC to bite the bullet and write rules
accross the brard that are clear and that they intend to enforce (and
have to power to enforce)

True, the rules are very vague and need to be narrowly-taliored for
goverment interest at the same time not infringe on the amateur radio
operators right to free speech. my whole thing in regards to K1MAN is
simply that if the the rule applies to one it should apply to all.

Todd N9OGL
FREE SPEECH ADVACATE

On 10 Feb 2006 17:25:43 -0800, "N9OGL" wrote:

True, the rules are very vague and need to be narrowly-taliored for
goverment interest at the same time not infringe on the amateur radio
operators right to free speech. my whole thing in regards to K1MAN is
simply that if the the rule applies to one it should apply to all.

agreed One rule shoudl govern and one rule does govern Mob rule the
difference between theARRl and K1MAN seem largely one of popularity
the arrl is more popular (prehaps with just cause) than K1Man

Todd N9OGL
FREE SPEECH ADVACATE

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Far as I'm concerned the ARRL and K1MAN can go "F" off with each other.
Both of em are full of hot air and mutually destructive to the future
of Ham Radio.

"Hamfest Tuba Player" wrote in message
oups.com...
Far as I'm concerned the ARRL and K1MAN can go "F" off with each other.
Both of em are full of hot air and mutually destructive to the future
of Ham Radio.


Oh? The ARRL is easily ignored and placed on the back shelf. Their recent
mass mailings looking for new members tells a tale, but we can toss those
mailings aside. Put em' in the recycle bin.
Not so Glenn Baxter, who continues with his "in your face" confrontations on
20 meters.

Wait...now that I ponder this? Yes! Why not ignore both and use the VFO that
comes with most radios these days? What a concept!!
You know how it is with the television stations, don't you? See or hear
something you don't like? Easy and simple solution...turn the damned thing
off! And for you technically challenged types? Unplug the power cord!

Dittos for Baxter...shut the son-of-a-bitch off! How a complicated is
that???
And the ARRL? Same for them...shut their broadcasts off, too.
Baxter thrives on controversy, so why engage him in same? Why?

If the ARRL and Baxter run out of listeners...if nobody responds? Ignores
them? The end result is a fairly simple conclusion.

Now, wasn't that ever so simple? And painless? Don't you incontinent old
geezers wish you'd have come up with this simple solution long ago?
You guys could have dropped your systolic at least ten points and saved a
few bucks on your Relys, too.
But then, that would be much too much to expect, wouldn't it?

N9OGL wrote:
The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) needs to be fined for it recent
campaign to weasel money out of amateur radio operators. It does seem
funny that K1MAN gets fined a total of $21,000, while the ARRL which is
basically doing he same crap don't get fined at all. Lets look at some
REAL FACTS:


1. K1MAN runs an Information bulletin
2. W1AW runs an information bulletin

3. K1MAN has interfered with ongoing communications
4. W1AW has interfered with ongoing communications

5. K1MAN has used his station for Pecuniary interest by giving his
website address www.k1man.com
6. W1AW has used it station for pecuniary interest by giving out their
website address www.arrl.org

7. K1MAN was fined $21,000 dollars for the stuff listed above.
8. W1AW has NEVER been fined for the stuff listed above.

I wonder if Jim knows if W1AW has ever received an NAL?

Dit Dah wrote:
"Hamfest Tuba Player" wrote in message
cut
If the ARRL and Baxter run out of listeners...if nobody responds? Ignores
them? The end result is a fairly simple conclusion.

Now, wasn't that ever so simple? And painless? Don't you incontinent old
geezers wish you'd have come up with this simple solution long ago?
You guys could have dropped your systolic at least ten points and saved a
few bucks on your Relys, too.
But then, that would be much too much to expect, wouldn't it?

you do miss the point for many of the "geezers" the point is that no
one else may say or do anything they don't approve of that is seen in
the posting Dave Heil and Steve Robeson on here (and formaly Dan as
well) some from Jim only viewpoints that are approved may be heard

On 11 Feb 2006 11:58:25 -0800, wrote:


N9OGL wrote:
The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) needs to be fined for it recent
campaign to weasel money out of amateur radio operators. It does seem
funny that K1MAN gets fined a total of $21,000, while the ARRL which is
basically doing he same crap don't get fined at all. Lets look at some
REAL FACTS:


1. K1MAN runs an Information bulletin
2. W1AW runs an information bulletin

3. K1MAN has interfered with ongoing communications
4. W1AW has interfered with ongoing communications

5. K1MAN has used his station for Pecuniary interest by giving his
website address www.k1man.com
6. W1AW has used it station for pecuniary interest by giving out their
website address www.arrl.org

7. K1MAN was fined $21,000 dollars for the stuff listed above.
8. W1AW has NEVER been fined for the stuff listed above.

I wonder if Jim knows if W1AW has ever received an NAL?

I don't know but I suspect that W1AW hasn't eve gotten one the
political strengh of the ARRL at the FCC has likely gotten any matter
that could have headed that way taken care of long before anything
got to that stage

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"Dit Dah" Hunter@lowpower wrote in message
...

"Hamfest Tuba Player" wrote in message
oups.com...
Far as I'm concerned the ARRL and K1MAN can go "F" off with each other.
Both of em are full of hot air and mutually destructive to the future
of Ham Radio.


Oh? The ARRL is easily ignored and placed on the back shelf. Their recent
mass mailings looking for new members tells a tale, but we can toss those
mailings aside. Put em' in the recycle bin.
Not so Glenn Baxter, who continues with his "in your face" confrontations
on
20 meters.

Wait...now that I ponder this? Yes! Why not ignore both and use the VFO
that
comes with most radios these days? What a concept!!
You know how it is with the television stations, don't you? See or hear
something you don't like? Easy and simple solution...turn the damned thing
off! And for you technically challenged types? Unplug the power cord!

Dittos for Baxter...shut the son-of-a-bitch off! How a complicated is
that???
And the ARRL? Same for them...shut their broadcasts off, too.
Baxter thrives on controversy, so why engage him in same? Why?

If the ARRL and Baxter run out of listeners...if nobody responds? Ignores
them? The end result is a fairly simple conclusion.

Now, wasn't that ever so simple? And painless? Don't you incontinent old
geezers wish you'd have come up with this simple solution long ago?
You guys could have dropped your systolic at least ten points and saved a
few bucks on your Relys, too.
But then, that would be much too much to expect, wouldn't it?




True enough; it is too bad that many in this newsgroup don't heed your note
when some of the *very* long threads of accusations, threats, innuendos,
etc. break out ...

At least the thread started with something at least remotely related to
amateur radio ....


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA