K1MAN
 

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.

[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.

[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??

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

N9OGL wrote:

Quotes of FCC R&R's snipped.

and the question I have for the FCC is where does this and how does it
apply to section 326 of the communication act.

Then why don't you direct your question TO the FCC, rather than
spinning your wheels in here?

Scared of the answer you'll get?

after all isn't it up to
the station to deiced what is of intrest to amateur radio??

I think the FAA is responsible for getting deiced.

But you again continue to insist that just because YOU think it's
pertinent, the FCC might not have other ideas.

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.

Only you would think it's a "sick joke".

The FCC doesn't issue "sick jokes".

And I look forward with glee to the day we see YOUR name on one of
these...Better hurry up and get that college degree, Todd! You'll be
needing the extra income!

Steve, K4YZ

Then why don't you direct your question TO the FCC, rather than
spinning your wheels in here?

The problem is that many amateur radio operators don't realize that
there are rules that are outside Part 97 that effects amateur radio.
Section 326 is one of them.

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.

But you again continue to insist that just because YOU think it's
pertinent, the FCC might not have other ideas.

The FCC just cannot change the rules without a public notice, no matter
if you like it or not it has always been up to the control operator to
decied what is transmitted over his station, no some moron recieving
station. if you think that then you are thinking of broadcast stations.

And I look forward with glee to the day we see YOUR name on one of
these...Better hurry up and get that college degree, Todd! You'll be
needing the extra income!

doubtful, my station is legal, I don't interfere, I don't have any
pencuniary Interest, and my programming deals with amateur radio issues
(radio, electronic, rules and regulations, and computers).

"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.

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

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

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.


[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.


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.

Dan/W4NTI

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


doubtful, my station is legal, I don't interfere, I don't have any
pencuniary Interest, and my programming deals with amateur radio issues
(radio, electronic, rules and regulations, and computers).


Toad is the worlds first "stealth ham radio broadcaster"

Dan/W4NTI

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

K4YZ wrote:
N9OGL wrote:

Quotes of FCC R&R's snipped.

and the question I have for the FCC is where does this and how does it
apply to section 326 of the communication act.

Then why don't you direct your question TO the FCC, rather than
spinning your wheels in here?

I think I can answer that one, becuase he choose to. At least it has
something to do with ham radio unlike your efforts to make make
something of my religion

Scared of the answer you'll get?

after all isn't it up to
the station to deiced what is of intrest to amateur radio??

I think the FAA is responsible for getting deiced.

Then you are truley losing it, The FAA is never concerned with the
icing status of a Ham station nor any issue in Ham radio etc prehaps
towers and rstation near airports

But you again continue to insist that just because YOU think it's
pertinent, the FCC might not have other ideas.

He is not insiting that at all Stevie Blunder Indeed he is insiting the
opposite

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.

Only you would think it's a "sick joke".

The FCC doesn't issue "sick jokes".

And I look forward with glee to the day we see YOUR name on one of
these...Better hurry up and get that college degree, Todd! You'll be
needing the extra income!

Sadist, and self hating at that

Steve, K4YZ

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.

an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
N9OGL wrote:

Quotes of FCC R&R's snipped.

and the question I have for the FCC is where does this and how does it
apply to section 326 of the communication act.

Then why don't you direct your question TO the FCC, rather than
spinning your wheels in here?

I think I can answer that one, becuase he choose to.

Then his effort was wasted.

At least it has
something to do with ham radio...(SNIP)

No...it has to do with broadcasting. Todd is broadcasting.

unlike your efforts to make make something of my religion

No...it's up to YOU to "make something" of your "religion, Mark...

Personally, there's nothing there to make of, in my opinion.

Scared of the answer you'll get?

after all isn't it up to
the station to deiced what is of intrest to amateur radio??

I think the FAA is responsible for getting deiced.

Then you are truley losing it, The FAA is never concerned with the
icing status of a Ham station nor any issue in Ham radio etc prehaps
towers and rstation near airports

I'm not "losing" anything.

YOU are losing your situational awareness...unable to tell the
difference between sincere commentary and jerking Toiddie's string for
his illiteracy.

But you again continue to insist that just because YOU think it's
pertinent, the FCC might not have other ideas.

He is not insiting that at all Stevie Blunder Indeed he is insiting the
opposite

Funny...you call ME "Blunder", yet you "blunder" your way through
a sentence without making any sense.

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.

Only you would think it's a "sick joke".

The FCC doesn't issue "sick jokes".

And I look forward with glee to the day we see YOUR name on one of
these...Better hurry up and get that college degree, Todd! You'll be
needing the extra income!

Sadist, and self hating at that

"Sadist"...?!?! "Self hating"...?!?!?

BBBWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
! ! ! ! ! !

Steve, K4YZ

K4YZ wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
N9OGL wrote:

Quotes of FCC R&R's snipped.

and the question I have for the FCC is where does this and how does it
apply to section 326 of the communication act.

Then why don't you direct your question TO the FCC, rather than
spinning your wheels in here?

I think I can answer that one, becuase he choose to.

Then his effort was wasted.

Prehaps it was prehaps it wasn't, but that is HIS choice

At least it has
something to do with ham radio...(SNIP)

No...it has to do with broadcasting. Todd is broadcasting.
It Does concern Ham radio unlike a lot of your trash



unlike your efforts to make make something of my religion

No...it's up to YOU to "make something" of your "religion, Mark...

Really losing man losing it bad

Personally, there's nothing there to make of, in my opinion.

Then why did YOU start a thread trying to make an issue of it?

Scared of the answer you'll get?

after all isn't it up to
the station to deiced what is of intrest to amateur radio??

I think the FAA is responsible for getting deiced.

Then you are truley losing it, The FAA is never concerned with the
icing status of a Ham station nor any issue in Ham radio etc prehaps
towers and rstation near airports

I'm not "losing" anything.

Prehaps you are right you may never have had in the place

YOU are losing your situational awareness...unable to tell the
difference between sincere commentary and jerking Toiddie's string for
his illiteracy.

BTW you need to look up Illieterate etc, since you don't use the word
correct. For example I am n NOT illeterate, I am Dysgrapgic


But you again continue to insist that just because YOU think it's
pertinent, the FCC might not have other ideas.

He is not insiting that at all Stevie Blunder Indeed he is insiting the
opposite

Funny...you call ME "Blunder", yet you "blunder" your way through
a sentence without making any sense.

If the pair of sentences does not make sense to you then you are
illerate

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.

Only you would think it's a "sick joke".

The FCC doesn't issue "sick jokes".

And I look forward with glee to the day we see YOUR name on one of
these...Better hurry up and get that college degree, Todd! You'll be
needing the extra income!

Sadist, and self hating at that

"Sadist"...?!?! "Self hating"...?!?!?

Indeed you are since you are Sadistic, but can't admit it

BBBWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
! ! ! ! ! !

Steve, K4YZ