K1MAN Has a Case ...
 

He's crossed the line numerous times: doing foreign policy, defaming
Riley Hollingsworth, going commercial. But he has a case

When Ervin Duggan was FCC Chief Commissioner in the 80s, Baxter
received two NALs similar to the present. Dutifully, he spent a great
deal of time on his response, serving same on the FCC by regular mail.
When the mail was "lost," Baxter resorted to Federal Express with no
better result.

So, here was an agency, pre-Hollingsworth, that had issed two NALs and
had purposely sandbagged K1MAN's answer -- with good reason.

In his answer, Baxter cited two documents of probative value. One was
a letter to Kenneth Black of Ulmerton, UK, responding to his complaint,
that gave K1MAN's operation a clean bill of health, equating it to W1AW
bulletins. It was signed by Robert McNamara, Chief of the FCC,
then-Private Radio Bureau.

The other was a declaratory order on the subject of the length of
Information Bulletins with a footnote that referred to W1AW published
schedules. The essence of the order was, information bulletins cannot
be proscribed by time limits since they are so varied. Rightly or
wrongly, Baxter has drawn his authority to come on when he does from
that Order's footnote.

Small wonder the FCC disregarded K1MAN's answer, which essentially held
that the issue of the NALs had already been settled in his favor. In
legal argot, res judicata.

Though most hams, including myself, want to march Baxter right out of
this service, justice dictates something else. The FCC, it seems to
this commentator, has the burden of first addressing its previous NALs
of the 80s which were never resolved.

An agency of government simply cannot throw a flurry of similar charges
at a citizen, selectively unresponsive to those that can be defended,
while arbitrarily limiting its attention to subsequent charges.
Certainly, to the extent the previous NALs are similar, the legal
principle of collaterol estoppel comes into play in Baxter's behalf.

I don't like what Baxter does any more than you. Indeed, I think he
lost his way years ago. But if we're to have justice for all in these
United States, then we must afford K1MAN justice. Let's not throw out
the baby with the bath water.

Bob Sherin, W4ASX

Indeed I think (not having hread him directly) that the K1MAN case
shows what happened when the Govt in this case plays fast and loose, as
is my experence thewhole govt does these days sincreasingly ,
regardless of the party in power.

It seems likely that K1MAN has slowly based on the history
driffted/felt pushed down these paths by a Govt that rather than make
clear diffinition relies on a "wink and nodd", rather doing it job and
writting regulation that can used in all cases it can forsee and then
addressing what comes up later

Like the case of "Ham Aid" a worthy idea, but an idea at varance with
the letter of the rules ( I also disagree on wether the rules should
read as they do) but rather than confront the issue head on, we rely on
spin.

We could say you know this may be against the rules but this disater
can't wait, we will follow the Presients lead in cutting though the red
for now and deall with writing better rules later.

Instead we ignore these rules and what then is to stop tanother fella
like K1MAN form finding a donor (or creating a donor) and paying Hams
pointing to Ham Aid as precident

Due process does not mean short circuting the law when ever it suits
you
Morris wrote:
He's crossed the line numerous times: doing foreign policy, defaming
Riley Hollingsworth, going commercial. But he has a case

When Ervin Duggan was FCC Chief Commissioner in the 80s, Baxter
received two NALs similar to the present. Dutifully, he spent a great
deal of time on his response, serving same on the FCC by regular mail.
When the mail was "lost," Baxter resorted to Federal Express with no
better result.
cut ing for breity

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...
Indeed I think (not having hread him directly) that

This right here explains your problem. You form opinions based on knowledge
you admit you don't have. Amazing indeed.

Dan/W4NTI

Morris:

Without a doubt, and with only a quick overview of the K1MAN vs. ARRL
issue, it is apparent that either ARRL must mend its ways or K1MAN be
allowed to continue in some form.

Once a great man, which I USED TO RESPECT, asked me, and point blank, "Who
says the world has to be fair." Of course, I knew the correct answer, "I
DO!"

John

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 05:30:45 -0700, Morris wrote:

He's crossed the line numerous times: doing foreign policy, defaming
Riley Hollingsworth, going commercial. But he has a case

When Ervin Duggan was FCC Chief Commissioner in the 80s, Baxter
received two NALs similar to the present. Dutifully, he spent a great
deal of time on his response, serving same on the FCC by regular mail.
When the mail was "lost," Baxter resorted to Federal Express with no
better result.

So, here was an agency, pre-Hollingsworth, that had issed two NALs and
had purposely sandbagged K1MAN's answer -- with good reason.

In his answer, Baxter cited two documents of probative value. One was
a letter to Kenneth Black of Ulmerton, UK, responding to his complaint,
that gave K1MAN's operation a clean bill of health, equating it to W1AW
bulletins. It was signed by Robert McNamara, Chief of the FCC,
then-Private Radio Bureau.

The other was a declaratory order on the subject of the length of
Information Bulletins with a footnote that referred to W1AW published
schedules. The essence of the order was, information bulletins cannot
be proscribed by time limits since they are so varied. Rightly or
wrongly, Baxter has drawn his authority to come on when he does from
that Order's footnote.

Small wonder the FCC disregarded K1MAN's answer, which essentially held
that the issue of the NALs had already been settled in his favor. In
legal argot, res judicata.

Though most hams, including myself, want to march Baxter right out of
this service, justice dictates something else. The FCC, it seems to
this commentator, has the burden of first addressing its previous NALs
of the 80s which were never resolved.

An agency of government simply cannot throw a flurry of similar charges
at a citizen, selectively unresponsive to those that can be defended,
while arbitrarily limiting its attention to subsequent charges.
Certainly, to the extent the previous NALs are similar, the legal
principle of collaterol estoppel comes into play in Baxter's behalf.

I don't like what Baxter does any more than you. Indeed, I think he
lost his way years ago. But if we're to have justice for all in these
United States, then we must afford K1MAN justice. Let's not throw out
the baby with the bath water.

Bob Sherin, W4ASX

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...
Indeed I think (not having hread him directly) that

This right here explains your problem. You form opinions based on knowledge
you admit you don't have. Amazing indeed.

not at all. It gives me a certain amount of objectivity, and the abilty
to form a judgements based on the facts involved without being
prejudged by hearing what I suppose could a very offensive fellows and
allowing my judgement to swayed by emotion

Dan/W4NTI

John Smith wrote:
Morris:

Without a doubt, and with only a quick overview of the K1MAN vs. ARRL
issue, it is apparent that either ARRL must mend its ways or K1MAN be
allowed to continue in some form.

Once a great man, which I USED TO RESPECT, asked me, and point blank, "Who
says the world has to be fair." Of course, I knew the correct answer, "I
DO!"

John

ah you are less of a cynci than I. These I follow the word in B5 spoken
by the rnager Marcus, "I take great comfort in the fact they universe
is unfiar, otherwise I'd have to believe when something bad happened to
us that we deserve it"

John Smith wrote:
Morris:

Without a doubt, and with only a quick overview of the K1MAN vs. ARRL
issue, it is apparent that either ARRL must mend its ways or K1MAN be
allowed to continue in some form.

Once a great man, which I USED TO RESPECT, asked me, and point blank, "Who
says the world has to be fair." Of course, I knew the correct answer, "I
DO!"

John

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 05:30:45 -0700, Morris wrote:


He's crossed the line numerous times: doing foreign policy, defaming
Riley Hollingsworth, going commercial. But he has a case

When Ervin Duggan was FCC Chief Commissioner in the 80s, Baxter
received two NALs similar to the present. Dutifully, he spent a great
deal of time on his response, serving same on the FCC by regular mail.
When the mail was "lost," Baxter resorted to Federal Express with no
better result.

So, here was an agency, pre-Hollingsworth, that had issed two NALs and
had purposely sandbagged K1MAN's answer -- with good reason.

In his answer, Baxter cited two documents of probative value. One was
a letter to Kenneth Black of Ulmerton, UK, responding to his complaint,
that gave K1MAN's operation a clean bill of health, equating it to W1AW
bulletins. It was signed by Robert McNamara, Chief of the FCC,
then-Private Radio Bureau.

The other was a declaratory order on the subject of the length of
Information Bulletins with a footnote that referred to W1AW published
schedules. The essence of the order was, information bulletins cannot
be proscribed by time limits since they are so varied. Rightly or
wrongly, Baxter has drawn his authority to come on when he does from
that Order's footnote.

Small wonder the FCC disregarded K1MAN's answer, which essentially held
that the issue of the NALs had already been settled in his favor. In
legal argot, res judicata.

Though most hams, including myself, want to march Baxter right out of
this service, justice dictates something else. The FCC, it seems to
this commentator, has the burden of first addressing its previous NALs
of the 80s which were never resolved.

An agency of government simply cannot throw a flurry of similar charges
at a citizen, selectively unresponsive to those that can be defended,
while arbitrarily limiting its attention to subsequent charges.
Certainly, to the extent the previous NALs are similar, the legal
principle of collaterol estoppel comes into play in Baxter's behalf.

I don't like what Baxter does any more than you. Indeed, I think he
lost his way years ago. But if we're to have justice for all in these
United States, then we must afford K1MAN justice. Let's not throw out
the baby with the bath water.

Bob Sherin, W4ASX


In my opinion the problem has been greatly exacerbated by the FCC timidity.
I think they were afraid to make a ruling based on content not being
information bulletins and waited for other grounds (as well as numerous
complaints). Having heard K1MAN I would say that the only portions of
his broadcasts that meet any reasonable definition of information
bulletins were rebroadcasts of ARRL bulletins or the RAIN report. The
rest bore no resemblance to the intent of the rules (my opninion
obviously, but I think it reasonably represents the content).
While I sometimes think Dan is more rude than he should be, he is dead
on here. If you heard MAN even once you would never equate what he did
with what W1AW does.
John

John wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Morris:
cut


In my opinion the problem has been greatly exacerbated by the FCC timidity.

Sadly I say you dead on here without hearing any of K1MAN's stuff

I think they were afraid to make a ruling based on content not being
information bulletins and waited for other grounds (as well as numerous
complaints). cutting brevieity
While I sometimes think Dan is more rude than he should be, he is dead
on here. If you heard MAN even once you would never equate what he did
with what W1AW does.

It was me that dan was flaming for not having heard K1MAN

but you might usrprises I happen to believe all views have the right to
be heard even if say K1MAN's "information" was a set of talking points
for the American NAZI party with some window dressing conecting to the
ARS in the absense of rules I would likely grudgingly support him,
since I am conviced leting the govt engage in any kind of censorship is
far more dangerous than anything K1MAN can possiblity manage
John

LETTER TO G4WNE FROM FCC SPECIAL SERVICES
DIVISION CHIEF Robert H. Mc Namara - 2 November 1989:







Dear Mr. Black:





This responds to your letter to Chairman Alfred C. Sikes


concerning Mr. Glenn A. Baxter, licensee of amateur radio


station K1MAN. You state that station K1MAN interferes with


your communications by transmitting recorded one-way


communications.





We are familiar with the nature of the transmissions by K1MAN
and find that they fall in the same category as the information
bulletins transmitted by amateur station W1AW, which is
licensed to the American Radio Relay League's Headquarters
Operators' Club. Amateur service information bulletins are
authorized by Section 97.111(b)(6) of the Commissions's rules,
47 C.F.R. Paragraph 97.111(b)(6).


I trust this is responsive to your inquiry.


Sincerely,

(signed)

Robert H. Mc Namara
Chief, Special Services Division
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554

anyone sating that there has been any real change in the content of
K1MAN since th edtae given here 2 NOV 89
N9OGL wrote:
LETTER TO G4WNE FROM FCC SPECIAL SERVICES
DIVISION CHIEF Robert H. Mc Namara - 2 November 1989:







Dear Mr. Black:





This responds to your letter to Chairman Alfred C. Sikes


concerning Mr. Glenn A. Baxter, licensee of amateur radio


station K1MAN. You state that station K1MAN interferes with


your communications by transmitting recorded one-way


communications.





We are familiar with the nature of the transmissions by K1MAN
and find that they fall in the same category as the information
bulletins transmitted by amateur station W1AW, which is
licensed to the American Radio Relay League's Headquarters
Operators' Club. Amateur service information bulletins are
authorized by Section 97.111(b)(6) of the Commissions's rules,
47 C.F.R. Paragraph 97.111(b)(6).


I trust this is responsive to your inquiry.


Sincerely,

(signed)

Robert H. Mc Namara
Chief, Special Services Division
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554