So...did he and the FCC come to terms on his station operation? What was
the official resolution? or is he still a problem in the FCC's eyes?

Just after the status/facts - not interested in opinions.

Two outstanding problems he has to fix:

Firing up his transmissions on frequencies other hams are
using at the time, and something about pecunary interest
when he tells people on ham radio frequencies to visit his
web site where he sells stuff.

"Mr Ham Radio" wrote in message
...
K1MAN DAILY TRANSMITTING (BULLETIN) SCHEDULE:

Thanks for the *broadcast* schedule you -schmuck- !

Now we know EXACTLY WHERE to fire up
the trusty SB-220 with my computer soundcard
music and noise generators. (you think you'd heard
non-stop jamming like what used to come from
some well known historic jammers from NC, PA
and FL? You ain't heard nothing yet.....and it ain't
illegal to jam the crap out of a illegal broadcast either
so you 'RF ham cops' out there can go **** up a rope
on a sunday morning in the hog barn...)

"Victor Herbert II" wrote in message
roups.com...

"Mr Ham Radio" wrote in message
...
K1MAN DAILY TRANSMITTING (BULLETIN) SCHEDULE:

Thanks for the *broadcast* schedule you -schmuck- !

Now we know EXACTLY WHERE to fire up
the trusty SB-220

That's all you've got?

I use a SB-220 for a driver you schmuck!

ROTFLMAO......

with my computer soundcard
music and noise generators. (you think you'd heard
non-stop jamming like what used to come from
some well known historic jammers from NC, PA
and FL? You ain't heard nothing yet.....and it ain't
illegal to jam the crap out of a illegal broadcast either
so you 'RF ham cops' out there can go **** up a rope
on a sunday morning in the hog barn...)

Lloyd wrote:

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...

Mr Ham Radio wrote:

K1MAN DAILY TRANSMITTING (BULLETIN) SCHEDULE:

IARN AMATEUR RADIO TALK PROGRAM


See www.K1MAN.com for further details.

He should just post his programming at his web site, and
not clutter up the ham bands. Or set up a forum BBS
web site.




That would not accomplish MAN's purposes.


Of attempting to interfer on the ham bands

CERTIFIED MAIL 7099 3400 0015 4631 9236
To: W. Riley Hollingsworth, Esq.
FCC
Gettysburg, Pa. 17325-7245

From: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E., K1MAN
Registered Professional Engineer
Date 14 October 2004
Subject: Your letter to K1MAN dated 15 September 2004
and received 28 September 2004
Thank you for your letter and your interest in K1MAN. The legal
opinions in your letter referenced above are not correct and the
various allegations are false. 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).

Regarding your request, I hereby certify that:
1. No corrective actions are necessary at K1MAN.
2. No changes are needed with regard to station control which is in
full compliance with all FCC rules.

Good listening! GL and 73 de K1MAN
(signed)
Glenn A. Baxter, P.E., K1MAN




Victor Herbert II wrote:

"Mr Ham Radio" wrote in message
...

K1MAN DAILY TRANSMITTING (BULLETIN) SCHEDULE:


Thanks for the *broadcast* schedule you -schmuck- !

Now we know EXACTLY WHERE to fire up
the trusty SB-220 with my computer soundcard
music and noise generators. (you think you'd heard
non-stop jamming like what used to come from
some well known historic jammers from NC, PA
and FL? You ain't heard nothing yet.....and it ain't
illegal to jam the crap out of a illegal broadcast either
so you 'RF ham cops' out there can go **** up a rope
on a sunday morning in the hog barn...)

Are you the Victor Herbert from Phoenix AZ ?

Victor Herbert II wrote:

"Mr Ham Radio" wrote in message
...

K1MAN DAILY TRANSMITTING (BULLETIN) SCHEDULE:


Thanks for the *broadcast* schedule you -schmuck- !

Now we know EXACTLY WHERE to fire up
the trusty SB-220 with my computer soundcard
music and noise generators. (you think you'd heard
non-stop jamming like what used to come from
some well known historic jammers from NC, PA
and FL? You ain't heard nothing yet.....and it ain't
illegal to jam the crap out of a illegal broadcast either
so you 'RF ham cops' out there can go **** up a rope
on a sunday morning in the hog barn...)

"Barry OGrady" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 09:37:17 -0400, "Lloyd"
wrote:

"Barry OGrady" wrote in message
.. .

How does he get away with all the illegal activities he boasts about on
his website?


-Barry


According to authoritative legal sources, ALL of MAN's
activities are quite legal. For some odd reason, probably
envy, many American hams are in denial and think MAN
is doing something illegal, which he is not. If ARRL is
legal, MAN is legal. Simple!

Is broadcasting on AR legal there. It isn't here.


-Barry
========

Ask the ARRL? They do it daily!





Web page: http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.

"Barry OGrady" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 09:37:17 -0400, "Lloyd"
wrote:

"Barry OGrady" wrote in message
.. .

How does he get away with all the illegal activities he boasts about on
his website?


-Barry


According to authoritative legal sources, ALL of MAN's
activities are quite legal. For some odd reason, probably
envy, many American hams are in denial and think MAN
is doing something illegal, which he is not. If ARRL is
legal, MAN is legal. Simple!

Is broadcasting on AR legal there. It isn't here.

Lloyd


-Barry

Broadcasting isn't legal here either. The exceptions are beacons, code
practice and news bulletins of interest to amateurs only not general
interest news. ARRL meets the strictest interpretation of the FCC rules.
K1MAN doesn't meet even the loosest of interpretations of the rules. For
example, I heard him interviewing someone over the air. Other days, I've
heard general news not ham news. While I normally don't care to listen to
his drivel, I tune in once in a while simply to confirm to myself just what
he is doing rather than rely on the statements of others.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message ...
"Barry OGrady" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 09:37:17 -0400, "Lloyd"
wrote:

"Barry OGrady" wrote in message
.. .

How does he get away with all the illegal activities he boasts about on
his website?


-Barry


According to authoritative legal sources, ALL of MAN's
activities are quite legal. For some odd reason, probably
envy, many American hams are in denial and think MAN
is doing something illegal, which he is not. If ARRL is
legal, MAN is legal. Simple!

Is broadcasting on AR legal there. It isn't here.

Lloyd


-Barry

Broadcasting isn't legal here either.

It is. See your exceptions list below, and the extra special
exception called "W1AW.".

The exceptions are beacons, code
practice and news bulletins of interest to amateurs only not general
interest news.

And Space Shuttle retransmissions.

ARRL meets the strictest interpretation of the FCC rules.

I wonder who wrote that rule? Must have been a non-amateur
bureaucrat. Hi, hi!

I think that rule was written so that the ARRL has a monopoly on such
activities, but that's just my opinion.

Some say:
According to authoritative legal sources, ALL of MAN's
activities are quite legal.
Broadcasting isn't legal here either.
It is. See your exceptions list below, and the extra special
exception called "W1AW.".

The exceptions are beacons, code
practice and news bulletins of interest to amateurs only not general
interest news.
And Space Shuttle retransmissions.
ARRL meets the strictest interpretation of the FCC rules.
I wonder who wrote that rule?

I don't recall if it is in part 97 or an interpretation, but there is
official word from the FCC that transmissions *specifficaly aimed at
amateurs* is diffeernt from that aimed at *anyone* which *is* considered
broadcastaing. So if it is to anyone, it is broadcasting. If it is to an
individual or specific group of people, then it's not. I'm just explaining.
I wrestled with this as well and it is certainly arguable...as is anything
here... So, what about religious transmissions? If they hope to convert,
then it's broadcasting. If they are only targeting religious people, then
it's not, I guess. 73,
--
Steve N, K,9;d, c. i My email has no u's.