Steveo wrote:
JJ wrote:

Steveo wrote:

Another ham radio operator busted:

March 3, 2004


Mr. Mark A. Glover
10632 Artcraft Avenue
Garden Grove, CA 92640


Amateur Radio License KE6TTL: Warning Notice


Dear Mr. Glover:


In reference to your letter dated February 26, 2004, concerning the
Catalina Amateur Repeater Association, enclosed is the letter sent to
you requesting that you not use the repeater.


Our letter of February 2, 2004, explained the right of the repeater
association to make such a request. If there are any further questions,
please feel free to contact us.


If you have an objection to the decision of the repeater owner, you are
free to pursue legal action locally. No Commission hearing procedures
are provided in such matters.


Enclosu 1


CC: FCC Western Regional Director
Catalina Island Repeater Association

Just how is this ham busted? Did he receive a NAL, get a fine, go to
jail? No, the FCC just stated the problem is of repeater usage is
between this amateur radio operator and the repeater owner.


Some of you ham boys call an nal an automatic multi-thousand
dollar fine, when you try your bull**** scare tactics in
rec.radio.cb.

Do you know the outcome of his nal, JJ?

He did not get a NAL twit, he just got a letter from the FCC and it
plainly stated that the problem was between the ham and the repeater
owner. Here is the last sentence of the letter, get some six year old to
explain it to you. "No Commission hearing procedures
are provided in such matters."

JJ wrote:
Steveo wrote:
JJ wrote:

Steveo wrote:

Another ham radio operator busted:

March 3, 2004


Mr. Mark A. Glover
10632 Artcraft Avenue
Garden Grove, CA 92640


Amateur Radio License KE6TTL: Warning Notice


Dear Mr. Glover:


In reference to your letter dated February 26, 2004, concerning the
Catalina Amateur Repeater Association, enclosed is the letter sent to
you requesting that you not use the repeater.


Our letter of February 2, 2004, explained the right of the repeater
association to make such a request. If there are any further
questions, please feel free to contact us.


If you have an objection to the decision of the repeater owner, you
are free to pursue legal action locally. No Commission hearing
procedures are provided in such matters.


Enclosu 1


CC: FCC Western Regional Director
Catalina Island Repeater Association

Just how is this ham busted? Did he receive a NAL, get a fine, go to
jail? No, the FCC just stated the problem is of repeater usage is
between this amateur radio operator and the repeater owner.


Some of you ham boys call an nal an automatic multi-thousand
dollar fine, when you try your bull**** scare tactics in
rec.radio.cb.

Do you know the outcome of his nal, JJ?

He did not get a NAL twit, he just got a letter from the FCC and it
plainly stated that the problem was between the ham and the repeater
owner. Here is the last sentence of the letter, get some six year old to
explain it to you. "No Commission hearing procedures
are provided in such matters."

Heh, so unless you're busted and fined you haven't broken
any rules. You running two meters now, dip****?

Well? They got what they deserved, right? Do the crime,
pay the fine, etc. It suits me....................


Jerry
"Steveo" wrote in message
...
Steveo wrote:
Another ham radio operator busted:

March 3, 2004

Mr. Mark A. Glover
10632 Artcraft Avenue
Garden Grove, CA 92640

Amateur Radio License KE6TTL: Warning Notice

Dear Mr. Glover:

In reference to your letter dated February 26, 2004, concerning the
Catalina Amateur Repeater Association, enclosed is the letter sent to
you
requesting that you not use the repeater.

Our letter of February 2, 2004, explained the right of the repeater
association to make such a request. If there are any further questions,
please feel free to contact us.

If you have an objection to the decision of the repeater owner, you are
free to pursue legal action locally. No Commission hearing procedures
are
provided in such matters.

Enclosu 1

CC: FCC Western Regional Director
Catalina Island Repeater Association

Here's a few more Jerry..it's a friggin' scroll of abuse reports.


ALBUQUERQUE, NM: The FCC sent a Warning Notice March 14, 2000, to Amateur
Extra licensee Dean M. Brown, AC5IU, advising him that information from
the
FCC's High Frequency Direction Finding Center in Columbia, Maryland,
indicates that the licensee "deliberately interfered with the radio
operations of other licensed amateurs on the 20-meter amateur band on
March, 2, 2000." The FCC also cited information that the licensee "failed
to identify and used a disguised voice." FCC Special Counsel for Amateur
Radio Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth warned Brown that operation of the
type described "will not be tolerated," and he requested the licensee
contact him to discuss the matter.

BERKELEY HEIGHTS, NJ: The FCC sent a Warning Notice March 14, 2000, to
Advanced licensee Ronald Marshott, N2NGY, to advise him that information
before the Commission indicates the licensee has been "deliberately
interfering with the radio operations of other licensed amateurs on the
75-meter band." The FCC also said it has information that the licensee
"failed to identify, identified by call signs not your own, and have made
threats to other licensees." FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio
Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth warned Marshott that operation of the type
described "will not be tolerated" and could result in a fine and
revocation
proceedings. Hollingsworth requested the licensee contact him to discuss
the matter.

CRANE, MO [UPDATE]: The FCC wrote former Amateur Radio licensee Lonnie H.
Allen on March 15, 2000, setting aside the March 8 grant of a Technician
license, KC0HJP. On February 23, the FCC canceled Allen's General license,
N0TBO, after he failed to appear for retesting by January 31, as requested
December 6, 1999. FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement Riley
Hollingsworth said it was setting aside Allen's most recent Amateur Radio
grant "due to allegations that raise questions about your qualifications
to
hold an Amateur Radio license." The FCC said that Allen took a Technician
examination March 4 under the supervision of a W5YI-VEC volunteer examiner
team. For now, that application will revert to pending status.
Hollingsworth said the FCC would write Allen within two weeks "requesting
a
response to complaints about the operation of N0TBO." Hollingsworth warned
Allen that, in the meantime, he has no authority to operate radio
transmitting equipment.

SALISBURY, NC: The FCC wrote Technician licensee Thomas F. Reynolds Sr,
N4TFR, on March 14, citing information before the Commission that the
licensee has been using ham gear on the Citizens Band and other
frequencies
and has been selling "transmitting equipment not meeting the Commission's
certification standards" over the air on those frequencies. The FCC said
its information indicates the licensee has been using FM and LSB on 27.320
and 27.375 MHz and transmitting at power limits above those authorized for
the Citizens Band. The FCC said operating uncertificated equipment at
excessive power levels constitutes unlicensed radio operation and
jeopardizes Reynolds' ham ticket. "Such operation will subject you to
criminal prosecution and in rem seizure of transmitting equipment," the
FCC
warned. The FCC gave Reynolds 20 days to respond to the allegations and
said the information he submits will be used to determine what action, if
any, to take in the matter. In late February, the FCC wrote nearly
identical letters to three other amateur licensees in Salisbury.

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...




ALBUQUERQUE, NM: The FCC sent a Warning Notice March 14, 2000, to Amateur
Extra licensee Dean M. Brown, AC5IU, advising him that information from
the
FCC's High Frequency Direction Finding Center in Columbia, Maryland,
indicates that the licensee "deliberately interfered with the radio
operations of other licensed amateurs on the 20-meter amateur band on
March, 2, 2000."

BERKELEY HEIGHTS, NJ: The FCC sent a Warning Notice March 14, 2000, to
Advanced licensee Ronald Marshott, N2NGY,


My word! And these guys were a pre-restructuring Extra and an Advanced,
both of
whom passed a high speed code test.....


And your point? They were doing wrong, they got caught.

J



+++++++++++++++++==============+++++++++++++++++== =========
"I'm having roast rabbit for Easter Dinner" :-)

"Steveo" wrote in message
...
Steveo wrote:
Steveo wrote:
Another ham radio operator busted:

March 3, 2004

Mr. Mark A. Glover
10632 Artcraft Avenue
Garden Grove, CA 92640

Amateur Radio License KE6TTL: Warning Notice

Dear Mr. Glover:

In reference to your letter dated February 26, 2004, concerning the
Catalina Amateur Repeater Association, enclosed is the letter sent to
you requesting that you not use the repeater.

Our letter of February 2, 2004, explained the right of the repeater
association to make such a request. If there are any further
questions,
please feel free to contact us.

If you have an objection to the decision of the repeater owner, you
are
free to pursue legal action locally. No Commission hearing procedures
are provided in such matters.

Enclosu 1

CC: FCC Western Regional Director
Catalina Island Repeater Association

Here's a few more Jerry..it's a friggin' scroll of abuse reports.

ALBUQUERQUE, NM: The FCC sent a Warning Notice March 14, 2000, to
Amateur
Extra licensee Dean M. Brown, AC5IU, advising him that information from
the FCC's High Frequency Direction Finding Center in Columbia, Maryland,
indicates that the licensee "deliberately interfered with the radio
operations of other licensed amateurs on the 20-meter amateur band on
March, 2, 2000." The FCC also cited information that the licensee
"failed
to identify and used a disguised voice." FCC Special Counsel for Amateur
Radio Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth warned Brown that operation of the
type described "will not be tolerated," and he requested the licensee
contact him to discuss the matter.

BERKELEY HEIGHTS, NJ: The FCC sent a Warning Notice March 14, 2000, to
Advanced licensee Ronald Marshott, N2NGY, to advise him that information
before the Commission indicates the licensee has been "deliberately
interfering with the radio operations of other licensed amateurs on the
75-meter band." The FCC also said it has information that the licensee
"failed to identify, identified by call signs not your own, and have
made
threats to other licensees." FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio
Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth warned Marshott that operation of the
type described "will not be tolerated" and could result in a fine and
revocation proceedings. Hollingsworth requested the licensee contact him
to discuss the matter.

CRANE, MO [UPDATE]: The FCC wrote former Amateur Radio licensee Lonnie
H.
Allen on March 15, 2000, setting aside the March 8 grant of a Technician
license, KC0HJP. On February 23, the FCC canceled Allen's General
license, N0TBO, after he failed to appear for retesting by January 31,
as
requested December 6, 1999. FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio
Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth said it was setting aside Allen's most
recent Amateur Radio grant "due to allegations that raise questions
about
your qualifications to hold an Amateur Radio license." The FCC said that
Allen took a Technician examination March 4 under the supervision of a
W5YI-VEC volunteer examiner team. For now, that application will revert
to pending status. Hollingsworth said the FCC would write Allen within
two weeks "requesting a response to complaints about the operation of
N0TBO." Hollingsworth warned Allen that, in the meantime, he has no
authority to operate radio transmitting equipment.

SALISBURY, NC: The FCC wrote Technician licensee Thomas F. Reynolds Sr,
N4TFR, on March 14, citing information before the Commission that the
licensee has been using ham gear on the Citizens Band and other
frequencies and has been selling "transmitting equipment not meeting the
Commission's certification standards" over the air on those frequencies.
The FCC said its information indicates the licensee has been using FM
and
LSB on 27.320 and 27.375 MHz and transmitting at power limits above
those
authorized for the Citizens Band. The FCC said operating uncertificated
equipment at excessive power levels constitutes unlicensed radio
operation and jeopardizes Reynolds' ham ticket. "Such operation will
subject you to criminal prosecution and in rem seizure of transmitting
equipment," the FCC warned. The FCC gave Reynolds 20 days to respond to
the allegations and said the information he submits will be used to
determine what action, if any, to take in the matter. In late February,
the FCC wrote nearly identical letters to three other amateur licensees
in Salisbury.

Hey Jerry, have you seen this too?

http://exax.net/fcc.htm

They'll get theirs soon.


J

"Steveo" wrote in message
...
So you enjoy reading -all- the enforcement archives here? Jerry Ox has
taken it upon himself to post -all- the CB enforcement to rec.radio.cb.

The best part is, it's totally on topic for rec.radio.amateur.policy,
when you tight ass hams get ran.

Hi gang!

Jerry has a legitimate concern, but I think he misses a point. I honestly
believe (and I may take flak) that most folks are reasonably law abiding.
Whether hams or cbers, it isn't unlike the traffic situation here. Most
folks are reasonably law abiding. By reasonably, I mean most folks stop or
slow down to 1 or 2 mph for a stop sign. If it is a rolling stop and no one
is coming, is it really wrong to continue? Then there are the flaming
idiots like the guy who nearly hit me yesterday. There were problems with a
couple of intersections at a bridge connecting the expressway a few years
back. People would go into the intersection on yellow even though there was
no place to go (cars backed at the second intersection). Consequently,
gridlock occured. They fixed that about three years ago with left turn
signals, allowing the traffic to clear from the bridge. Now (like the idiot
yesterday), some folks stop, see the light also red at the sidestreet, and
then gun it and go through the intersection (never mind the fact that the
other traffic has a green left turn arrow on). This stupid mentality goes
on in our society regardless of a license (amateur or driver) and I would
not paint all drivers as stupid or inconsiderate just because of that one
licensed driver. Neither would I paint all cbers or amateurs the same way
because of the actions of a few.

I suspect I'll be pushing up daisies, however, long before the flames die
out around here LOL.

Hope you all have a great day!

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.647 / Virus Database: 414 - Release Date: 3/29/04

And your point? They were doing wrong, they got caught.



They shoulda known better, if they could do high speed code..... ;-)

Steveo wrote:
JJ wrote:

Steveo wrote:

JJ wrote:


Steveo wrote:


Another ham radio operator busted:

March 3, 2004


Mr. Mark A. Glover
10632 Artcraft Avenue
Garden Grove, CA 92640


Amateur Radio License KE6TTL: Warning Notice


Dear Mr. Glover:


In reference to your letter dated February 26, 2004, concerning the
Catalina Amateur Repeater Association, enclosed is the letter sent to
you requesting that you not use the repeater.


Our letter of February 2, 2004, explained the right of the repeater
association to make such a request. If there are any further
questions, please feel free to contact us.


If you have an objection to the decision of the repeater owner, you
are free to pursue legal action locally. No Commission hearing
procedures are provided in such matters.


Enclosu 1


CC: FCC Western Regional Director
Catalina Island Repeater Association

Just how is this ham busted? Did he receive a NAL, get a fine, go to
jail? No, the FCC just stated the problem is of repeater usage is
between this amateur radio operator and the repeater owner.


Some of you ham boys call an nal an automatic multi-thousand
dollar fine, when you try your bull**** scare tactics in
rec.radio.cb.

Do you know the outcome of his nal, JJ?

He did not get a NAL twit, he just got a letter from the FCC and it
plainly stated that the problem was between the ham and the repeater
owner. Here is the last sentence of the letter, get some six year old to
explain it to you. "No Commission hearing procedures
are provided in such matters."


Heh, so unless you're busted and fined you haven't broken
any rules. You running two meters now, dip****?

Maybe if I type r e a l s l o w you might be able to understand. The
ham in question did not break any FCC rules, he had a problem with the
repeater owner who requested he not use the repeater anymore. The FCC in
their letter to the ham plainly states the problem is between the ham
and the repeater owner, there were no FCC rules broken. Again, the ham
was not "busted" because he broke no FCC rules.
Is that too hard for you to understand dipwad? It must be, evidently I
am expecting too much of you as a cber to understand such a simple thing.

"JJ" wrote in message
...
Steveo wrote:
JJ wrote:

Steveo wrote:

JJ wrote:


Steveo wrote:


Another ham radio operator busted:

March 3, 2004


Mr. Mark A. Glover
10632 Artcraft Avenue
Garden Grove, CA 92640


Amateur Radio License KE6TTL: Warning Notice


Dear Mr. Glover:


In reference to your letter dated February 26, 2004, concerning the
Catalina Amateur Repeater Association, enclosed is the letter sent to
you requesting that you not use the repeater.


Our letter of February 2, 2004, explained the right of the repeater
association to make such a request. If there are any further
questions, please feel free to contact us.


If you have an objection to the decision of the repeater owner, you
are free to pursue legal action locally. No Commission hearing
procedures are provided in such matters.


Enclosu 1


CC: FCC Western Regional Director
Catalina Island Repeater Association

Just how is this ham busted? Did he receive a NAL, get a fine, go to
jail? No, the FCC just stated the problem is of repeater usage is
between this amateur radio operator and the repeater owner.


Some of you ham boys call an nal an automatic multi-thousand
dollar fine, when you try your bull**** scare tactics in
rec.radio.cb.

Do you know the outcome of his nal, JJ?

He did not get a NAL twit, he just got a letter from the FCC and it
plainly stated that the problem was between the ham and the repeater
owner. Here is the last sentence of the letter, get some six year old to
explain it to you. "No Commission hearing procedures
are provided in such matters."


Heh, so unless you're busted and fined you haven't broken
any rules. You running two meters now, dip****?

Maybe if I type r e a l s l o w you might be able to understand. The
ham in question did not break any FCC rules, he had a problem with the
repeater owner who requested he not use the repeater anymore. The FCC in
their letter to the ham plainly states the problem is between the ham
and the repeater owner, there were no FCC rules broken. Again, the ham
was not "busted" because he broke no FCC rules.
Is that too hard for you to understand dipwad? It must be, evidently I
am expecting too much of you as a cber to understand such a simple thing.


He broke the rule of "no malicious interference". However the FCC at this
particular moment simply chose to issue a warning rather than "bust him".
The enforcing agency always has the choice of how far to go in "busting"
someone. The FCC also made it quite clear that the repeater owner has every
right to bar him from the repeater and further that if he continues he will
be subject to enforcement actions.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

JJ wrote:
evidently I
am expecting too much of you as a cber to understand such a simple thing.

You're not a ham. What's your call?