Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"N9OGL" wrote in message
oups.com...
K1MAN PT2
FROM http://n9oglvice.blogspot.com

[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.]

OH, and the ARRL W1AW don't?? I don't see amateurs bitch and cry about
W1AW, nor, do I see the FCC sending warning letters to them. Hey,
interfernce is interfernce, and it doesn't matter who's causing it the
rules should apply to all.



The difference is Baxter does it in a intentional manner. He has said on
his 24/7 broadcasts that he does not bother to listen on his intended
frequency of operation. Because we all should "know" he is coming on there.


but neither does W1AW, I've heard amateurs complaining about W1AW
transmitting ontop of them. It really shouldn't matter if they
transmitting 24/7 or for 15 min, interfernce is interfernce on any
level.

The W1AW information bulletins are well published, as per FCC rules,
Baxter has a few paragraphs on an obscure web page.


First off Information bulletins do not have to be published, only if
they are on a certain amount of time which is 48 hr a week for the
purpose of compesation. As for baxter's website I will admit that a
five year old could do a better job making a website, then what he did.

W1AW is a real organization. K1MAN is a one man pony show.

A information bulletin is NOT limited to clubs, anyone can run an
Information Bulletin

etc.

[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.]


Oh, the ARRL doesn't do that??? the rule states that pecuniary interest
applies to direct and indirect. K1MAN is doing direct, while the ARRL
doesn't indirect.


No the ARRL does NOT SOLICITE on its bulletins. K1MAN does. End of
subject.

No but the rules state a station can't make money direct or indirect.
K1MAN does do it DIRECT, while the ARRL is doing it INDIRECT. but the
rules does state a station can't make money direct or indirect.


[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.]

and the question I have for the FCC is where does this and how does it
apply to section 326 of the communication act. after all isn't it up to
the station to deiced what is of intrest to amateur radio??


Ohhhhhh.....Baxter is the one that determines what I want to hear? That is
really funny Toad.

Under the FCC rules it states it is up to station transmitting the
bulletin, the FCC even states that on their website. If you don't want
to hear him then that's what a VFO is for.


finally I would like to tell all my fans that this sick joke of a NAL
does not effect my station or the N9OGL SHOW

TODD N9OGL
THE N9OGL SHOW
14.321.00 MHz


sick joke? I don't consider a 21000 NAL a sick joke. If you do.....you
have a mental problem.

It is a sick Joke in the sense that one of the Issues in the NAL was
overturned once already by the Commission in DC back in 2004. (it dealt
with the content of his station)as for the other stuff I don't think
really think it's sick but it does raise some questions. You have to
remeber this was a district office that sent the NAL, and it's not a
FINAL ORDER, there is a Looooooong process before the final ruling is
set, including a hearing before an Administrative Law Jugde (ALJ) and
if he don't like that ruling he can go to the US Court of Appeal and
then just maybe, if they want to hear it the Supreme Court When the FCC
goes around controling the content of the station that is transmitting
it then it is a violation of Section 326 of the Comunication Act of
1934 as Amended.

Todd N9OGL

Dan/W4NTI

N9OGL wrote:
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"N9OGL" wrote in message
oups.com...
K1MAN PT2
FROM http://n9oglvice.blogspot.com

[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.]

OH, and the ARRL W1AW don't?? I don't see amateurs bitch and cry about
W1AW, nor, do I see the FCC sending warning letters to them. Hey,
interfernce is interfernce, and it doesn't matter who's causing it the
rules should apply to all.



The difference is Baxter does it in a intentional manner. He has said on
his 24/7 broadcasts that he does not bother to listen on his intended
frequency of operation. Because we all should "know" he is coming on there.


but neither does W1AW, I've heard amateurs complaining about W1AW
transmitting ontop of them. It really shouldn't matter if they
transmitting 24/7 or for 15 min, interfernce is interfernce on any
level.

The W1AW information bulletins are well published, as per FCC rules,
Baxter has a few paragraphs on an obscure web page.


First off Information bulletins do not have to be published, only if
they are on a certain amount of time which is 48 hr a week for the
purpose of compesation. As for baxter's website I will admit that a
five year old could do a better job making a website, then what he did.

W1AW is a real organization. K1MAN is a one man pony show.

A information bulletin is NOT limited to clubs, anyone can run an
Information Bulletin

etc.

[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.]


Oh, the ARRL doesn't do that??? the rule states that pecuniary interest
applies to direct and indirect. K1MAN is doing direct, while the ARRL
doesn't indirect.


No the ARRL does NOT SOLICITE on its bulletins. K1MAN does. End of
subject.

No but the rules state a station can't make money direct or indirect.
K1MAN does do it DIRECT, while the ARRL is doing it INDIRECT. but the
rules does state a station can't make money direct or indirect.


[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.]

and the question I have for the FCC is where does this and how does it
apply to section 326 of the communication act. after all isn't it up to
the station to deiced what is of intrest to amateur radio??


Ohhhhhh.....Baxter is the one that determines what I want to hear? That is
really funny Toad.

Under the FCC rules it states it is up to station transmitting the
bulletin, the FCC even states that on their website. If you don't want
to hear him then that's what a VFO is for.


finally I would like to tell all my fans that this sick joke of a NAL
does not effect my station or the N9OGL SHOW

TODD N9OGL
THE N9OGL SHOW
14.321.00 MHz


sick joke? I don't consider a 21000 NAL a sick joke. If you do.....you
have a mental problem.

It is a sick Joke in the sense that one of the Issues in the NAL was
overturned once already by the Commission in DC back in 2004. (it dealt
with the content of his station)as for the other stuff I don't think
really think it's sick but it does raise some questions. You have to
remeber this was a district office that sent the NAL, and it's not a
FINAL ORDER, there is a Looooooong process before the final ruling is
set, including a hearing before an Administrative Law Jugde (ALJ) and
if he don't like that ruling he can go to the US Court of Appeal and
then just maybe, if they want to hear it the Supreme Court When the FCC
goes around controling the content of the station that is transmitting
it then it is a violation of Section 326 of the Comunication Act of
1934 as Amended.

Todd N9OGL

Dan/W4NTI

Glenn A. Baxter, P.E., K1MAM, (or as his parter and buddy Chris
Murdoch, WA1HOD, calld him - K1MAN-kind) has a long long history with
the FCC. For those of you just joining the debate, here is some
information that might help explain why so many hams are eager to sign
the Petition to Deny License Renewal to K1MAN at www.no2k1man.com

K1MAN, by his own actions, has made himself a very public figure. As a
public figure, he's been widely discussed by his fellow hams here, on
QRZ, and elsewhere on the internet, on amateur radio, in court rooms,
discussed by his employers, his neighbors, discussed by the FCC, at
CBS, and by the Department of Justice.

In reviewing the history of K1MAN and his qualifications to remain a
Commission licensee, we can go back many years, to May of 1986, when he
sued the advertising manager of QST and another employee of ARRL for
conspiring to damage his business reputation.

QST had received a complaint that showed that Baxter's Collins Repair
and Alignment Service had significantly overcharged a customer beyond
an amount they had previously agreed upon.

The advertising manager at the time wrote Baxter on QST letterhead,
saying, "When your service charges escalate from $75 to $225 and then
to $275 we become very much concerned about the manner in which you are
treating our members. You will recall that I discussed with you ... the
highly suspect illegal spending of deposits which members were sending
to you... unless you can convince me that your operation exists in the
best interests of our members, we shall be unable to carry further
advertising from you."

This exchange and the subsequent lawsuit by Baxter (dismissed) may help
to explain why Baxter has attacked the ARRL and its staff with such
zeal over the years. He says he wants to make IARN an "Alternative to
ARRL" but, discerning readers may recognize another agenda.

Some old timers may recall Baxter's lawsuit against the FCC to maintain
the old AM power output of 1,000 watts. That lawsuit was dismissed
because Baxter failed to exhaust administrative remedies through the
FCC before bringing suit. As the old adage goes, it appears there
really is a drawback to acting as your own attorney.

You may also recall Baxter's 10 million dollar lawsuit against the FCC?
He claimed he was defamed by the alleged suggestion by Riley
Hollingsworth that he was shut down by the FCC. Baxter reported at the
time that he had merely taken a break to teach high school. This case
was also dismissed because Baxter failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies before bringing suit. Baxter has threatened to sue Riley
personally, as well as other hams, including this writer. A threat that
has yet to materialize.

On January 23, 2003, Walter Cronkite's attorney wrote to Baxter asking
him to stop using Walter's voice ID over K1MAN's bulletin. "Mr.
Cronkite previously requested that you refrain from any further use of
the audiotape, or from any suggestion that he endorses your station,
Association, or other operations." He (Ronald S. Konecky) went on to
call Baxter's actions "a violation of Mr. Cronkite's rights, totally
improper, and a cause of serious damage to his name and reputation."

Baxter's actions, have not endeared him to CBS, The Maine Department of
Justice, Walter Cronkite, the FCC, or the countless hams who have
complained about Baxter's relentless interference to their ongoing
communications.

When Baxter began to send out his self-styled notices of Felony
Affidavit Complaints to those he perceived as interfering with his
bulletin service, it really hit the fan.

On January 5th, 1995, Jay McCloskey, the U.S. Attorney at the Maine
Department of Justice wrote to Baxter, telling him, "It is against the
law to write and mail this type of threatening communication,
especially when it has no basis in fact. If you continue sending this
type of letter, you may be subject to Federal criminal charges for
misrepresentation and for using the mails to make threats. You may also
jeopardize your amateur radio license; the FCC can use evidence of this
type of conduct to demonstrate that you no longer meet the character
requirements for a license."

Baxter responded to this letter on January 9, 1995 by writing to the
Assistant US Attorney, stating, "Your blatant and malicious abuse of
the power vested in you by the citizens of the United States is
despicable, unethical, criminal and unprofessional." Baxter went on to
demand a retraction, which, of course, he never received.

Baxter has hardly endeared himself politically to the members of the
Maine Department of Justice, but the lack of political goodwill doesn't
stop there. On January 23, 1995, FCC Counsel John Greenspan wrote to
Baxter regarding an insulting letter he wrote to the Assistant US
Attorney, "Your reply suggests to me that you may very well lack the
character qualifications to be an FCC licensee. You certainly lack the
maturity, but that is, unfortunately, not grounds for revocation. If it
is ultimately determined that you have made improper threats, that
determination could result in a hearing to examine your fitness to
remain an FCC license and/or criminal prosecution."

John Greenspan went on to add, "Although you have not used lawyers in
the past, I suggest that you consult with an attorney knowledgeable in
FCC procedures about your alleged conduct. To provide some incentive
for you to do this, let me say that if you wish to speak with me for
any reason, it must be through an attorney. I will not accept any calls
or letters from you personally."

Not exactly a love letter is it?

Over the past 5 years Baxter has been contacted by the FCC on numerous
occasions and his station has been inspected by the FCC. Baxter says he
has received FOUR (4) NAL's to date. The FCC has writtent to him about
allegations of broadcasting, deliberate interference, failure to
identify, poor signal quality, erratic starting and stopping times,
recording conversations without permission, and the list goes on...

Even Baxter's neighbors are not immune from his tendency toward trying
to use the courts to settle what some might consider silly disputes
that would be better handled by a personal phone call. More often than
not, Baxter has lost in the courts due to procedural defects in his
lawsuits. He is not, contrary to a popular myth, fabulously wealthy, or
a lawyer.

According to staff at the IRS, his IARN charity did not even make
enough money to require that he file taxes last year. An underfunded
organization like IARN that engages in irresponsible activities like
calling for jump teams to visit disaster areas who don't even request
assistance, does not seem to me, to be an alternative to the ARRL,
except perhaps in the mind of Mr. Baxter.

On May 4, 1983, Baxter sued a neighbor of his, Camp Runoia, a camp for
little girls, because they stacked cordwood on the side of the road.
The case was dismissed. The camp had removed the wood prior to the case
being heard.

Baxter's other neighbors have apparently also had reason for concern
regarding his allegedly threatening behavior. According to reports
gleaned from court records in December of 2003, Baxter was dismissed
from his job (fired) as station engineer for FM 95.3 in Augusta, Maine.
When he applied for unemployment compensation, the attorney for the
station advised his clients not to attend the unemployment hearing.

"Because Mr. Baxter has demonstrated offensive behavior similar to that
which prompted his termination, I have advised the Bouchards not to
attend Monday's hearing. I indicated to you in our conversation that
the Bouchards' fear for their safety as a result of Mr. Baxter's
threatening behavior. Mr. Bouchard terminated Mr. Baxter from
employment when Mr. Baxter repeatedly acted in a threatening manner to
his supervisor and to other employess at the job site.Mr. Baxter
demonstrated his inability to act responsibly and to exert self-contol
at the last hearing."

The attorney (Robert J. Stolt of Lipman, Katz & McKee) goes on to say,
"Payments of benefits to Mr. Baxter is a lesser evil than someone being
harmed by him."

Baxter sued regarding these comments, but the court held that the
comments made by the attorney were completely privileged in nature and
were therefore protected by law.

Ironically, Baxter's objections have ensured that they will reside in
the annals of the Maine courts in perpetuity, for anyone with the
desire to read them.

For all of these reasons, and the reasons in the present NAL, I will
sign the petition to deny license renewal to K1MAN. I don't believe
K1MAN is capable of engaging in good Amatuer practice, as we are all
compelled by law to do.

Although I hold no malice toward Mr. Baxter personally, and I believe
him when he says he suffers from mental illness, I believe that Mr.
Baxter has already amply proven that he does not deserve to remain a
Commision licensee.

K1MAN has pending enforcement issues. K1MAN has already been warned by
the FCC that he may be referred to the ALJ due to ongoing enforcement
issues.

K1MAN's renewal anniversary is on October 17th of this year. Here is an
excerpt from an FCC letter to K1MAN dated January 29, 2002.

"The rules of the Amateur Service are straightforward and easy to
understand. To the extent that you do not comply with Commission rules
regarding the Amateur Radio Service, then to that extent enforcement
action will be taken against your licenses. That enforcement action may
include revocation of your station license, suspension of your operator
license, a modification proceeding to restrict your operating
privileges, or monetary forfeiture.

It is also important for you to understand that if these matters are
not resolved, your operator/primary station licenses will not be
routinely renewed; but instead will be designated for hearing before an
Administrative Law Judge. In such a proceeding, you would have the
burden of proof to show that your licenses should be renewed."

It's time for Baxter and all of his associates to stand before a Judge.

"N9OGL" wrote in message
oups.com...


Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"N9OGL" wrote in message
oups.com...
K1MAN PT2
FROM http://n9oglvice.blogspot.com

[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.]

OH, and the ARRL W1AW don't?? I don't see amateurs bitch and cry about
W1AW, nor, do I see the FCC sending warning letters to them. Hey,
interfernce is interfernce, and it doesn't matter who's causing it the
rules should apply to all.



The difference is Baxter does it in a intentional manner. He has said on
his 24/7 broadcasts that he does not bother to listen on his intended
frequency of operation. Because we all should "know" he is coming on
there.


but neither does W1AW, I've heard amateurs complaining about W1AW
transmitting ontop of them. It really shouldn't matter if they
transmitting 24/7 or for 15 min, interfernce is interfernce on any
level.


Then file a complaint. You know why folks don't file against W1AW? Because
the provide a service. Not a bully pulpit like your soon to be shot down
hero.

The W1AW information bulletins are well published, as per FCC rules,
Baxter has a few paragraphs on an obscure web page.


First off Information bulletins do not have to be published, only if
they are on a certain amount of time which is 48 hr a week for the
purpose of compesation. As for baxter's website I will admit that a
five year old could do a better job making a website, then what he did.


Then why does Blapster make such a big deal about his "published schedule"
and uses that as his PRIMARY reason to claim he is being interfered with ?
Sorry, can't have it both ways. Face it...Blapster is a sham. He should
be standing in a circus tent hawking hair growth cream.

W1AW is a real organization. K1MAN is a one man pony show.

A information bulletin is NOT limited to clubs, anyone can run an
Information Bulletin

etc.


That is correct. Maybe one day Baxter will actually transmit a
"information bulletin". What you think?

[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.]


Oh, the ARRL doesn't do that??? the rule states that pecuniary interest
applies to direct and indirect. K1MAN is doing direct, while the ARRL
doesn't indirect.


No the ARRL does NOT SOLICITE on its bulletins. K1MAN does. End of
subject.

No but the rules state a station can't make money direct or indirect.
K1MAN does do it DIRECT, while the ARRL is doing it INDIRECT. but the
rules does state a station can't make money direct or indirect.


Reference and show me how the ARRL is soliciting on the air.

Get ready to suck it up Toad.


[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.]

and the question I have for the FCC is where does this and how does it
apply to section 326 of the communication act. after all isn't it up to
the station to deiced what is of intrest to amateur radio??


Ohhhhhh.....Baxter is the one that determines what I want to hear? That
is
really funny Toad.

Under the FCC rules it states it is up to station transmitting the
bulletin, the FCC even states that on their website. If you don't want
to hear him then that's what a VFO is for.


Not when that SOB sits down on top of me and those I am in QSO with. All
that idiot would have had to do was use this little phrase "Is this freq in
use". And follow that up with "I am intending to use 14.275 to send my
bulletin, would you guys mind standing by for it". You know what Toad?
To a man we would all agreed to move. But oh no....not the mighty MAN. He
comes on and DEMANDS we clear HIS frequency. And yes I am ONE OF THOSE
that sent in the multitude of reports, and proud of it.

Why isn't he on 14.275 any longer ?????? I'll tell you why....he got his
arse whipped like a mangy dog thats why.



finally I would like to tell all my fans that this sick joke of a NAL
does not effect my station or the N9OGL SHOW

TODD N9OGL
THE N9OGL SHOW
14.321.00 MHz


sick joke? I don't consider a 21000 NAL a sick joke. If you do.....you
have a mental problem.

It is a sick Joke in the sense that one of the Issues in the NAL was
overturned once already by the Commission in DC back in 2004. (it dealt
with the content of his station)as for the other stuff I don't think
really think it's sick but it does raise some questions. You have to
remeber this was a district office that sent the NAL, and it's not a
FINAL ORDER, there is a Looooooong process before the final ruling is
set, including a hearing before an Administrative Law Jugde (ALJ) and
if he don't like that ruling he can go to the US Court of Appeal and
then just maybe, if they want to hear it the Supreme Court When the FCC
goes around controling the content of the station that is transmitting
it then it is a violation of Section 326 of the Comunication Act of
1934 as Amended.

Todd N9OGL

Dan/W4NTI


It was from the district office the wanabee boy broadcaster stated. Where
do you think the order to do so came from nitwit? Right....FCC
headquarters.

Wake up me boy. When the FCC comes down on you like this.....you are
history. This isn't anything new, its been in the works since the mid 80s.
It just took a bunch of dedicated hams that were willing to stand and fight
to get the ball rolling. And your talking to one of them right now.

I suggest you forget your little broadcasting career, or get ready for a
history repeat. Understand? And no Toad...its not a threat....its a
promise. Ham radio is sick of you children trying to mess up our play pen.

Dan/W4NTI

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"N9OGL" wrote in message
oups.com...


Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"N9OGL" wrote in message
oups.com...
K1MAN PT2
FROM http://n9oglvice.blogspot.com

[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.]

OH, and the ARRL W1AW don't?? I don't see amateurs bitch and cry about
W1AW, nor, do I see the FCC sending warning letters to them. Hey,
interfernce is interfernce, and it doesn't matter who's causing it the
rules should apply to all.



The difference is Baxter does it in a intentional manner. He has said on
his 24/7 broadcasts that he does not bother to listen on his intended
frequency of operation. Because we all should "know" he is coming on
there.


but neither does W1AW, I've heard amateurs complaining about W1AW
transmitting ontop of them. It really shouldn't matter if they
transmitting 24/7 or for 15 min, interfernce is interfernce on any
level.


Then file a complaint. You know why folks don't file against W1AW? Because
the provide a service. Not a bully pulpit like your soon to be shot down
hero.


It don't matter if they [W1AW] is providing a service, interfernce is
interfernce.


The W1AW information bulletins are well published, as per FCC rules,
Baxter has a few paragraphs on an obscure web page.


First off Information bulletins do not have to be published, only if
they are on a certain amount of time which is 48 hr a week for the
purpose of compesation. As for baxter's website I will admit that a
five year old could do a better job making a website, then what he did.


Then why does Blapster make such a big deal about his "published schedule"
and uses that as his PRIMARY reason to claim he is being interfered with ?
Sorry, can't have it both ways. Face it...Blapster is a sham. He should
be standing in a circus tent hawking hair growth cream.


the FCC has even told K1MAN that his published schedule didn't mean
squat, and that his published schedule was no excuse for interfernce.


W1AW is a real organization. K1MAN is a one man pony show.

A information bulletin is NOT limited to clubs, anyone can run an
Information Bulletin

etc.


That is correct. Maybe one day Baxter will actually transmit a
"information bulletin". What you think?

the main problem that I see is that amateur believe an information
bulletin cannot be opinionated, yet there is no rule on it. Many
amateur believe that those who run information bulletins should only
run "newscast" however, if the FCC wanted it to be only newscast then
they would specify that it should be only a newscast, the FCC has the
ability and power to specify what an information bulletin is. The FCC
has the power to limit what an information bulletin is, provided that
it is the least restrictive mean necessary to promote govenment
intrest, the problem is they don't.

[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.]


Oh, the ARRL doesn't do that??? the rule states that pecuniary interest
applies to direct and indirect. K1MAN is doing direct, while the ARRL
doesn't indirect.


No the ARRL does NOT SOLICITE on its bulletins. K1MAN does. End of
subject.


They don't, the word is DIRECT AND INDIRECT. K1MAN does in his bulletin
[DIRECT] while the ARRL has a website that has stuff forsale and offer
a credit card [INDIRECT] and although they don't promote their website
in their news bulletins they still run a site that offers goods
[INDIRECT]

No but the rules state a station can't make money direct or indirect.
K1MAN does do it DIRECT, while the ARRL is doing it INDIRECT. but the
rules does state a station can't make money direct or indirect.


Reference and show me how the ARRL is soliciting on the air.

They don't but the do own a site that offers goods which is [indirect]

Get ready to suck it up Toad.


[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.]

and the question I have for the FCC is where does this and how does it
apply to section 326 of the communication act. after all isn't it up to
the station to deiced what is of intrest to amateur radio??


Ohhhhhh.....Baxter is the one that determines what I want to hear? That
is
really funny Toad.

Under the FCC rules it states it is up to station transmitting the
bulletin, the FCC even states that on their website. If you don't want
to hear him then that's what a VFO is for.


Not when that SOB sits down on top of me and those I am in QSO with. All
that idiot would have had to do was use this little phrase "Is this freq in
use". And follow that up with "I am intending to use 14.275 to send my
bulletin, would you guys mind standing by for it". You know what Toad?
To a man we would all agreed to move. But oh no....not the mighty MAN. He
comes on and DEMANDS we clear HIS frequency. And yes I am ONE OF THOSE
that sent in the multitude of reports, and proud of it.

True, I pick a frequency that is not in use and ask if the frequency is
in uses, and if I don't hear anyone I start my bulletin.

Why isn't he on 14.275 any longer ?????? I'll tell you why....he got his
arse whipped like a mangy dog thats why.



finally I would like to tell all my fans that this sick joke of a NAL
does not effect my station or the N9OGL SHOW

TODD N9OGL
THE N9OGL SHOW
14.321.00 MHz


sick joke? I don't consider a 21000 NAL a sick joke. If you do.....you
have a mental problem.

It is a sick Joke in the sense that one of the Issues in the NAL was
overturned once already by the Commission in DC back in 2004. (it dealt
with the content of his station)as for the other stuff I don't think
really think it's sick but it does raise some questions. You have to
remeber this was a district office that sent the NAL, and it's not a
FINAL ORDER, there is a Looooooong process before the final ruling is
set, including a hearing before an Administrative Law Jugde (ALJ) and
if he don't like that ruling he can go to the US Court of Appeal and
then just maybe, if they want to hear it the Supreme Court When the FCC
goes around controling the content of the station that is transmitting
it then it is a violation of Section 326 of the Comunication Act of
1934 as Amended.

Todd N9OGL

Dan/W4NTI


It was from the district office the wanabee boy broadcaster stated. Where
do you think the order to do so came from nitwit? Right....FCC
headquarters.

No, according to the NAL at the bottom it was from the district office
in boston, I read the NAL from the FCC's site. I really suggest on how
the FCC is set up before commenting on something like this. (see below)

from http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2...-259301A1.html


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


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



Wake up me boy. When the FCC comes down on you like this.....you are
history. This isn't anything new, its been in the works since the mid 80s.
It just took a bunch of dedicated hams that were willing to stand and fight
to get the ball rolling. And your talking to one of them right now.

I suggest you forget your little broadcasting career, or get ready for a
history repeat. Understand? And no Toad...its not a threat....its a
promise. Ham radio is sick of you children trying to mess up our play pen.

No thanks DAN, My problem is since your little BITCHWHORES at the FCC
don't want to consider my application or waiver, for a broadcast
license, my opinion is you and themn can go **** yourself.





Todd N9OGL
Dan/W4NTI

N9OGL wrote:
Dan/W4NTI wrote:

Then file a complaint. You know why folks don't file against W1AW? Because
the provide a service. Not a bully pulpit like your soon to be shot down
hero.

It don't matter if they [W1AW] is providing a service, interfernce is
interfernce.

So take Dan's suggestion and file a complaint. Of course you'd
ahve to actually be talking to someone on the frequency W1AW operates
on, and I can't see you carrying on a coherent QSO with another human
being for that long.

That is correct. Maybe one day Baxter will actually transmit a
"information bulletin". What you think?

the main problem that I see is that amateur believe an information
bulletin cannot be opinionated, yet there is no rule on it.

"Opinionated" is editorializing...NOT reporting.

An "information bulletin" passes INFORMATION that is pertinent to
the operation of the radio station...Not subjective opinion.

Many
amateur believe that those who run information bulletins should only
run "newscast" however, if the FCC wanted it to be only newscast then
they would specify that it should be only a newscast, the FCC has the
ability and power to specify what an information bulletin is.

Then how come you're ranting and raving in support of GB? The
FCC's doing EXACTLY what you suggest, Todd...

The FCC
has the power to limit what an information bulletin is, provided that
it is the least restrictive mean necessary to promote govenment
intrest, the problem is they don't.

Huh?

No the ARRL does NOT SOLICITE on its bulletins. K1MAN does. End of
subject.


They don't, the word is DIRECT AND INDIRECT. K1MAN does in his bulletin
[DIRECT] while the ARRL has a website that has stuff forsale and offer
a credit card [INDIRECT] and although they don't promote their website
in their news bulletins they still run a site that offers goods
[INDIRECT]

There's no "direct" or "indirect" to it. Glennie overtly solicits
sales on his broadcasts.

Now he's busted.

No but the rules state a station can't make money direct or indirect.
K1MAN does do it DIRECT, while the ARRL is doing it INDIRECT. but the
rules does state a station can't make money direct or indirect.


Reference and show me how the ARRL is soliciting on the air.

They don't but the do own a site that offers goods which is [indirect]

That's like saying that since you're using Yahoo, and you can
search for sexually explicit content on Yahoo, YOU are running a porno
site, Todd.

Not when that SOB sits down on top of me and those I am in QSO with. All
that idiot would have had to do was use this little phrase "Is this freq in
use". And follow that up with "I am intending to use 14.275 to send my
bulletin, would you guys mind standing by for it". You know what Toad?
To a man we would all agreed to move. But oh no....not the mighty MAN. He
comes on and DEMANDS we clear HIS frequency. And yes I am ONE OF THOSE
that sent in the multitude of reports, and proud of it.

True, I pick a frequency that is not in use and ask if the frequency is
in uses, and if I don't hear anyone I start my bulletin.

You're not sending a bulletin. It's a show.

So says you.

It was from the district office the wanabee boy broadcaster stated. Where
do you think the order to do so came from nitwit? Right....FCC
headquarters.

No, according to the NAL at the bottom it was from the district office
in boston, I read the NAL from the FCC's site. I really suggest on how
the FCC is set up before commenting on something like this. (see below)

from http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2...-259301A1.html


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


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

But do you think for a minute, Todd, that Mr Loria would issue a
document demanding that a citizen part with $21K without consulting
with Washington first?

And please note that the TOP line says "FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION"...Not "The Boston Branch of the FCC"...

Wake up me boy. When the FCC comes down on you like this.....you are
history. This isn't anything new, its been in the works since the mid 80s.
It just took a bunch of dedicated hams that were willing to stand and fight
to get the ball rolling. And your talking to one of them right now.

I suggest you forget your little broadcasting career, or get ready for a
history repeat. Understand? And no Toad...its not a threat....its a
promise. Ham radio is sick of you children trying to mess up our play pen.

No thanks DAN, My problem is since your little ########### at the FCC
don't want to consider my application or waiver, for a broadcast
license, my opinion is you and themn can go #### yourself.

You wouldn't need a "waiver" if you'd just do it right the first
time.

Quit your whining and hire a REPUTABLE communications attorney to
help you. You're obviously grossly overwhelmed when it comes to
administrative matters. Let him do it for you.

The application will be a lot more impressive without the crayons
and "Beefaroni" stains above the signature of non-existant
corporations.

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
N9OGL wrote:
Dan/W4NTI wrote:

Then file a complaint. You know why folks don't file against W1AW? Because
the provide a service. Not a bully pulpit like your soon to be shot down
hero.

It don't matter if they [W1AW] is providing a service, interfernce is
interfernce.

So take Dan's suggestion and file a complaint. Of course you'd
ahve to actually be talking to someone on the frequency W1AW operates

Amussing you seem to be losing your ability to spel old boy

on, and I can't see you carrying on a coherent QSO with another human
being for that long.

That is correct. Maybe one day Baxter will actually transmit a
"information bulletin". What you think?

the main problem that I see is that amateur believe an information
bulletin cannot be opinionated, yet there is no rule on it.

"Opinionated" is editorializing...NOT reporting.

BULL**** all reporting has an opinion component, only a fool woudl
claim otherwise. Forgive me I forgot who I was talking about Stevie


An "information bulletin" passes INFORMATION that is pertinent to
the operation of the radio station...Not subjective opinion.

Nothing can be totaly objective everything is subjective


Many
amateur believe that those who run information bulletins should only
run "newscast" however, if the FCC wanted it to be only newscast then
they would specify that it should be only a newscast, the FCC has the
ability and power to specify what an information bulletin is.

Then how come you're ranting and raving in support of GB? The
FCC's doing EXACTLY what you suggest, Todd...

Are they? what they are doing is anything but clear, aside from the
fact that the whole thing results from a LONG history of interaction
between the ARRL The FCC and Baxter. It is also clear the we here in
RRAP lack a number of facts


The FCC
has the power to limit what an information bulletin is, provided that
it is the least restrictive mean necessary to promote govenment
intrest, the problem is they don't.

Huh?

No they have left various rules a vague state. It s a common state of
affairs in ALL govt regulation. It is done as I have heard, is tollow
the 'crats to act as they please (or if you prefer free to act as they
think best, it amounts to the same thing)

No the ARRL does NOT SOLICITE on its bulletins. K1MAN does. End of
subject.


They don't, the word is DIRECT AND INDIRECT. K1MAN does in his bulletin
[DIRECT] while the ARRL has a website that has stuff forsale and offer
a credit card [INDIRECT] and although they don't promote their website
in their news bulletins they still run a site that offers goods
[INDIRECT]

There's no "direct" or "indirect" to it. Glennie overtly solicits
sales on his broadcasts.

Now he's busted.

No but the rules state a station can't make money direct or indirect.
K1MAN does do it DIRECT, while the ARRL is doing it INDIRECT. but the
rules does state a station can't make money direct or indirect.


Reference and show me how the ARRL is soliciting on the air.

They don't but the do own a site that offers goods which is [indirect]

That's like saying that since you're using Yahoo, and you can
search for sexually explicit content on Yahoo, YOU are running a porno
site, Todd.

Not realy but no point in explaing to you you have made up your mind


Not when that SOB sits down on top of me and those I am in QSO with. All
that idiot would have had to do was use this little phrase "Is this freq in
use". And follow that up with "I am intending to use 14.275 to send my
bulletin, would you guys mind standing by for it". You know what Toad?
To a man we would all agreed to move. But oh no....not the mighty MAN. He
comes on and DEMANDS we clear HIS frequency. And yes I am ONE OF THOSE
that sent in the multitude of reports, and proud of it.

True, I pick a frequency that is not in use and ask if the frequency is
in uses, and if I don't hear anyone I start my bulletin.

You're not sending a bulletin. It's a show.

But what is the content, in veiw of the FCC rules

So says you.

It was from the district office the wanabee boy broadcaster stated. Where
do you think the order to do so came from nitwit? Right....FCC
headquarters.

No, according to the NAL at the bottom it was from the district office
in boston, I read the NAL from the FCC's site. I really suggest on how
the FCC is set up before commenting on something like this. (see below)

from http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2...-259301A1.html


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


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

But do you think for a minute, Todd, that Mr Loria would issue a
document demanding that a citizen part with $21K without consulting
with Washington first?

And please note that the TOP line says "FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION"...Not "The Boston Branch of the FCC"...

Wake up me boy. When the FCC comes down on you like this.....you are
history. This isn't anything new, its been in the works since the mid 80s.
It just took a bunch of dedicated hams that were willing to stand and fight
to get the ball rolling. And your talking to one of them right now.

I suggest you forget your little broadcasting career, or get ready for a
history repeat. Understand? And no Toad...its not a threat....its a
promise. Ham radio is sick of you children trying to mess up our play pen.

No thanks DAN, My problem is since your little ########### at the FCC
don't want to consider my application or waiver, for a broadcast
license, my opinion is you and themn can go #### yourself.

You wouldn't need a "waiver" if you'd just do it right the first
time.

Quit your whining and hire a REPUTABLE communications attorney to
help you. You're obviously grossly overwhelmed when it comes to
administrative matters. Let him do it for you.

Oh yes one must always worship at the Holy Bar of Law

Amazing now and here you encourage laziness?


The application will be a lot more impressive without the crayons
and "Beefaroni" stains above the signature of non-existant
corporations.

More gratoitous vitriol


Steve, K4YZ

"K4YZ" wrote in message

The application will be a lot more impressive without the crayons
and "Beefaroni" stains above the signature of non-existant
corporations.

Steve, K4YZ


ROFLMAO Thats a good one Steve.

Dan/W4NTI

So take Dan's suggestion and file a complaint. Of course you'd
ahve to actually be talking to someone on the frequency W1AW operates
on, and I can't see you carrying on a coherent QSO with another human
being for that long.

A lot better then I can type.

"Opinionated" is editorializing...NOT reporting.
An "information bulletin" passes INFORMATION that is pertinent to
the operation of the radio station...Not subjective opinion.

Stebie, if the FCC wanted Information bulletins to be just a newscast
then they have the power to put it in the rules, but it's not in the
rules. The FCC has the power to specify what is allowed and what isn't,
they've always had that power.

Then how come you're ranting and raving in support of GB? The
FCC's doing EXACTLY what you suggest, Todd...

Not really, Information bulletins has always been a grey area, and
perhaps K1MAN can help eliminate some of these "grey areas"

Huh?

The FCC has the power to clairfy a rule provided it is the least
restricted mean necessary to substantiate govenment interest the
problem is that when it comes to content control the FCC tends to tread
lightly, because they are limited/prohibited to control the content of
any station (see Below)

Sec. 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.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title III, Sec. 326, 48 Stat. 1091; June 25,
1948, ch. 645, Sec. 21, 62 Stat. 862.)


Amendments

1948--Act June 25, 1948, repealed last sentence relating to use of
indecent language. See section 1464 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal
Procedure.


Effective Date of 1948 Amendment

Amendment by act June 25, 1948, effective as of Sept. 1, 1948, see
section 20 of that act.


So Stebie the FCC better watch were they step.

There's no "direct" or "indirect" to it. Glennie overtly solicits
sales on his broadcasts.

Now he's busted.

Yeah there is, I'm not going to comment on it except to read my reply
to W4NTI in this thread, I'm not going to rewrite it all here.

But do you think for a minute, Todd, that Mr Loria would issue a
document demanding that a citizen part with $21K without consulting
with Washington first?
And please note that the TOP line says "FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION"...Not "The Boston Branch of the FCC"...

The FCC District office of the enforcement does have that power, I
think my point was there is a LOOOOONG pocess to go and a NAL i s not a
final ORDER. Final Orders can be appealed to the US Court of Appeal.


You wouldn't need a "waiver" if you'd just do it right the first
time.
Which show steve you nothing of the application and waivering process.
Anyone may file a waiver of the rules if good cause is shown at
anytime, and yes this also applies to amateur radio.

Quit your whining and hire a REPUTABLE communications attorney to
help you. You're obviously grossly overwhelmed when it comes to
administrative matters. Let him do it for you.

Steve. despite what you and your asshole buddy Phil think on here, an
broadcast application is very easy to fill out the problem is according
to the FCC I didn't file during a filing window, unfortunately Waiver
don't have filing windows as stated above they can be filed at anytime.
A person (like ME) can also waiver the filing window.

The application will be a lot more impressive without the crayons
and "Beefaroni" stains above the signature of non-existant
corporations.

It's club ASSHOLE!!

Todd N9OGL

N9OGL wrote:
So take Dan's suggestion and file a complaint. Of course you'd
have to actually be talking to someone on the frequency W1AW operates
on, and I can't see you carrying on a coherent QSO with another human
being for that long.

A lot better then I can type.

I doubt it. Seriously. About the time you got 30 seconds into
your liquid oxygen cooled storage capacitor idea, the other guy would
be spinning the dial......

"Opinionated" is editorializing...NOT reporting.
An "information bulletin" passes INFORMATION that is pertinent to
the operation of the radio station...Not subjective opinion.

Stebie, if the FCC wanted Information bulletins to be just a newscast
then they have the power to put it in the rules, but it's not in the
rules. The FCC has the power to specify what is allowed and what isn't,
they've always had that power.

Notice that the current NAL action is against K1MAN and not the
ARRL.

Guess you're having a hard time connecting the dots, aren't
you..?!?

Then how come you're ranting and raving in support of GB? The
FCC's doing EXACTLY what you suggest, Todd...

Not really, Information bulletins has always been a grey area, and
perhaps K1MAN can help eliminate some of these "grey areas"

No grey areas.

Huh?

The FCC has the power to clairfy a rule provided it is the least
restricted mean necessary to substantiate govenment interest the
problem is that when it comes to content control the FCC tends to tread
lightly, because they are limited/prohibited to control the content of
any station (see Below)

Sec. 326. Censorship...(SNIP TO...)

So Stebie the FCC better watch were they step.

You and Baxter are the one's who need galoshes, Todd.

There's no "direct" or "indirect" to it. Glennie overtly solicits
sales on his broadcasts.

Now he's busted.

Yeah there is, I'm not going to comment on it except to read my reply
to W4NTI in this thread, I'm not going to rewrite it all here.

But do you think for a minute, Todd, that Mr Loria would issue a
document demanding that a citizen part with $21K without consulting
with Washington first?
And please note that the TOP line says "FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION"...Not "The Boston Branch of the FCC"...

The FCC District office of the enforcement does have that power, I
think my point was there is a LOOOOONG pocess to go and a NAL i s not a
final ORDER. Final Orders can be appealed to the US Court of Appeal.

So can that NAL.

But Baxter's pushed all the wrong buttons for too long.

Here's my take...He's going to file for his renewal. The FCC says
"sorry, you've got a pending NAL...".

After the first hearing, Baxter's going to realize that the FCC
isn't joking and that they have far greater resources to persue this in
court.

He'll make a deal with the FCC that if they renew his license,
he'll take a five year suspension...Either that or he'll take a limited
suspension in which he's forbidden to operate on HF or to make one-way
transmissions of any nature.

You wouldn't need a "waiver" if you'd just do it right the first
time.

Which show steve you nothing of the application and waivering process.
Anyone may file a waiver of the rules if good cause is shown at
anytime, and yes this also applies to amateur radio.

Sure it does.

But the FCC said you don't meet licensing criteria.

I am sure mumsie and popsies have given you everything you want
when you want it, Todd, but the real world isn't about to tolerate a
spoiled brat easily.

I doubt that we're getting all the story here, but I am willing to
bet that the bottom line is that YOU failed to meet licensing criteria,
hence no license.

Maybe it's your frequent use of fake last names or that you
represent yourself to be the "CEO" of a non-existant corporation. Or
maybe you just said "FO" one time too many to the wrong person and they
put a little black star next to your name!

Who knows. Who cares. All I can say is that having seen what
kind of person you really are in THIS forum, the people of Taylorville
have been well served by the FCC in it's refusal to license you in any
broadcast service.

Quit your whining and hire a REPUTABLE communications attorney to
help you. You're obviously grossly overwhelmed when it comes to
administrative matters. Let him do it for you.

Steve. despite what you and your ###hole buddy Phil think on here, an
broadcast application is very easy to fill out the problem is according
to the FCC I didn't file during a filing window, unfortunately Waiver
don't have filing windows as stated above they can be filed at anytime.
A person (like ME) can also waiver the filing window.

I know what the application is like, Todd. I took a look when I
read all this crap from you in the first place.

And despite how hard you try to convince everyone what a brilliant
communications lawyer YOU are, that lawyer you're NOT paying COULD push
all the right legal buttons and get you what you want.

Thank God (or the deity of your choice) that you're too stubborn.

The application will be a lot more impressive without the crayons
and "Beefaroni" stains above the signature of non-existant
corporations.

It's club ###HOLE!!

And you're member number 001.

Steve, K4YZ

Stebie said:
Sure it does.
But the FCC said you don't meet licensing criteria.
I am sure mumsie and popsies have given you everything you want
when you want it, Todd, but the real world isn't about to tolerate a
spoiled brat easily.
I doubt that we're getting all the story here, but I am willing to
bet that the bottom line is that YOU failed to meet licensing criteria,
hence no license.

Maybe it's your frequent use of fake last names or that you
represent yourself to be the "CEO" of a non-existant corporation. Or
maybe you just said "FO" one time too many to the wrong person and they
put a little black star next to your name!

Who knows. Who cares. All I can say is that having seen what
kind of person you really are in THIS forum, the people of Taylorville
have been well served by the FCC in it's refusal to license you in any
broadcast service.

No dickhead, that was it according to the FCC I didn't file during the
filing window proven that the FCC are a bunch of liars, like yourself.
but hey that's ok, I've got the amateur bands and I'll use them.

Todd N9OGL