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!

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?

interesting

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.

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.

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

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 they have to grant the renewal now then fight the NAL and
decide to try and cancell K1MAN, But truley I recomend a lawyer to
Baxter esp RIGHT NOW a screww up here could be very costly

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.

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!

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 they have a problem having deenied his renewal for one
thing and then trying to path it up at this late date esp the way they
didlialied around with both NAL and FO

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.

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