Like a theologian, Glenn Baxter cites chapter and verse of the U.S.
Constitution. Trouble is, he hasn't the least idea how it works.
Despite his strident claims of being denied due process, nothing of the
kind has occurred. In fact, he's received more due process than any
ten hams: If we did a fraction of what he's done in the face of FCC
citations, we'd have gotten the boot long ago.

His nonsensical invocation of the Constitution has neither rhyme nor
reason. He would urge upon us an interpretation that does not take
into account the huge body of case law coming down from the federal
courts, which interpret the slim provisions of our great instrument.

A quick analogy spotlights the point: In 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment
was ratified giving all citizens of these United States due process and
equal protection of law. For African-Americans at the start of the
20th Century, however, equal protection meant separate but equal, only
to change midway with Brown vs. Board of Education to be truly equal.
This, of course, gave rise to affirmative action and busing. So, for
the real deal on our Constitution, we must look to the courts, a
direction to which Baxter appears blind.

From reading him, you'd think that we not only should dispense with the
FCC's interpretation of Part 97 but the Supreme Court's intrepretation
of agency power as well.

The FCC does indeed have the power of taking draconian measures to
enforce. And this includes withholding license renewal pending future
hearing while requiring the licensee to stay off the air in the
meantime. If an agency didn't have such power, it stands to reason
that we'd be subjected to anarchy of the airwaves, the very thing the
FCC is empowered to prevent.

Must the FCC take a ham off the air before his administrative hearing?
No. Case in point: Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ. Even after he was
convicted on three felony counts (2 of which were later reversed with
one remaining that should have been reversed, in this commentators
view), the FCC allowed him to operate. He was on the air all the way
up to the adverse decision in his administrative case -- at which time
the FCC granted him a grace period before he was removed. (He's since
gotten his license back.)

Riley Hollingsworth is uniquely suited for his enforcement role with
the Commission because he tempers enforcement with humanism. He sees
his job as one in which, by gaining the cooperation of the regulated,
he obtains volutary compliance. There are many hams, including this
writer, who have been regulated thusly by Riley and who stand with him.
A large slice of the discontented do not realize how much this one
regulator has accomplished without incurring the back breaking expense
of litigation.

His domain is one area of the U.S. government that works with efficient
precision, fixing an astonishing array problems with few resources.

Contrary to popular belief, the FCC, loath to judge First Amendment
subject-matter, doesn't object to information bulletins per se. In
reasonably formal language, the agency has equated Baxter's to ARRL
bulletins. There are, however, aspects of his operation that
Hollingsworth has questioned. In response, Baxter, expressly spoiling
for a fight, replaces the FCC's interpretation of Part 97 with his own,
owning a unique position in the panthion of justice of advocate,
regulator,agency, judge, court and jury.

Whatever arguable equities he brings to his cause, like replicating
ARRL's practice of starting on a published schedule, he cannot flout
FCC authority and expect to stay on the air until his administrative
hearing. And when that takes place, there is nothing that vitiates his
declaration that he will continue operating without FCC authority.

This declaration is utterly at cross purposes with staying on the air,
because no government agency can bend to express non-compliance to such
important action and hope to be an effective regulator. Not only that,
but how can an express law breaker incapable of regulation claim to be
rehabilitated later? (Perhaps a mental defense.) Likely he has sealed
his fate forever as not possessing the integrity to be a ham.

During KV4FZ's long odyssey, he conducted himself with respect toward
the Commission, and it reacted favorably by affording him lattitude.
Because K1MAN is conducting himself in opposition, he is and will be
treated accordingly.

There's an appropriate, hackneyed expression: You can win more friends
with honey than vinegar! Aging fast, Baxter's shelf life is short.

Bob Sherin, W4ASX

"Morris" wrote in message
oups.com...
Like a theologian, Glenn Baxter cites chapter and verse of the U.S.
Constitution. Trouble is, he hasn't the least idea how it works.
Despite his strident claims of being denied due process, nothing of the
kind has occurred. In fact, he's received more due process than any
ten hams: If we did a fraction of what he's done in the face of FCC
citations, we'd have gotten the boot long ago.

His nonsensical invocation of the Constitution has neither rhyme nor
reason. He would urge upon us an interpretation that does not take
into account the huge body of case law coming down from the federal
courts, which interpret the slim provisions of our great instrument.

A quick analogy spotlights the point: In 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment
was ratified giving all citizens of these United States due process and
equal protection of law. For African-Americans at the start of the
20th Century, however, equal protection meant separate but equal, only
to change midway with Brown vs. Board of Education to be truly equal.
This, of course, gave rise to affirmative action and busing. So, for
the real deal on our Constitution, we must look to the courts, a
direction to which Baxter appears blind.

From reading him, you'd think that we not only should dispense with the
FCC's interpretation of Part 97 but the Supreme Court's intrepretation
of agency power as well.

The FCC does indeed have the power of taking draconian measures to
enforce. And this includes withholding license renewal pending future
hearing while requiring the licensee to stay off the air in the
meantime. If an agency didn't have such power, it stands to reason
that we'd be subjected to anarchy of the airwaves, the very thing the
FCC is empowered to prevent.

Must the FCC take a ham off the air before his administrative hearing?
No. Case in point: Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ. Even after he was
convicted on three felony counts (2 of which were later reversed with
one remaining that should have been reversed, in this commentators
view), the FCC allowed him to operate. He was on the air all the way
up to the adverse decision in his administrative case -- at which time
the FCC granted him a grace period before he was removed. (He's since
gotten his license back.)

Riley Hollingsworth is uniquely suited for his enforcement role with
the Commission because he tempers enforcement with humanism. He sees
his job as one in which, by gaining the cooperation of the regulated,
he obtains volutary compliance. There are many hams, including this
writer, who have been regulated thusly by Riley and who stand with him.
A large slice of the discontented do not realize how much this one
regulator has accomplished without incurring the back breaking expense
of litigation.

His domain is one area of the U.S. government that works with efficient
precision, fixing an astonishing array problems with few resources.

Contrary to popular belief, the FCC, loath to judge First Amendment
subject-matter, doesn't object to information bulletins per se. In
reasonably formal language, the agency has equated Baxter's to ARRL
bulletins. There are, however, aspects of his operation that
Hollingsworth has questioned. In response, Baxter, expressly spoiling
for a fight, replaces the FCC's interpretation of Part 97 with his own,
owning a unique position in the panthion of justice of advocate,
regulator,agency, judge, court and jury.

Whatever arguable equities he brings to his cause, like replicating
ARRL's practice of starting on a published schedule, he cannot flout
FCC authority and expect to stay on the air until his administrative
hearing. And when that takes place, there is nothing that vitiates his
declaration that he will continue operating without FCC authority.

This declaration is utterly at cross purposes with staying on the air,
because no government agency can bend to express non-compliance to such
important action and hope to be an effective regulator. Not only that,
but how can an express law breaker incapable of regulation claim to be
rehabilitated later? (Perhaps a mental defense.) Likely he has sealed
his fate forever as not possessing the integrity to be a ham.

During KV4FZ's long odyssey, he conducted himself with respect toward
the Commission, and it reacted favorably by affording him lattitude.
Because K1MAN is conducting himself in opposition, he is and will be
treated accordingly.

There's an appropriate, hackneyed expression: You can win more friends
with honey than vinegar! Aging fast, Baxter's shelf life is short.

Bob Sherin, W4ASX


Very well put Bob, thank you for bringing this up. Especially now on the
day before his license expires.

One thing tho....how can you consider the FCC fair when they have REMOVED a
licensee from the data base, WITHOUT any NAL, Fines, etc. Just removed him
because of a E-MAIL ?????

Care to elaborate on the case of WB2OTK ??

Dan/W4NTI

Great Dan, good friend.

Let's take a look at the WB2OTK case. When it happened, the way the
factual situation was presented to me, I thought it was a winnable
cause: 1) Frustrated in the dark of night, Whiten writes a resignation
email, but doesn't send it, presumably mulling it, 2) He goes to bed,
3) Then his Wife, while using the computer, lets the email fly.

On its face, the issue could be said to be harmless error. Errata is
what lawyers call it, and they claim it in cases all the time.
Especially in this case, where the rules require resignation with more
formality, that email, if challenged, was insufficient to serve as a
real resignation.

However, Dan, remember the FCC has broad discretion that the courts
will not disturb. So as a regulator, Riley had the power to do what he
wanted, and Rich had the right to challenge it through due process. He
elected not to, and there the matter has stood.

I believe the chain of events occurred because Whiten was not well
regarded by the FCC. In fact, I believe the agency thought he was a
genuine threat. As in police matters, whenever there is one suspicion
that is not proven, subjects can lose out for other express reasons
that are more provable.

Bob Sherin, W4ASX

Morris wrote:
Great Dan, good friend.

Let's take a look at the WB2OTK case. When it happened, the way the
factual situation was presented to me, I thought it was a winnable
cause: 1) Frustrated in the dark of night, Whiten writes a resignation
email, but doesn't send it, presumably mulling it, 2) He goes to bed,
3) Then his Wife, while using the computer, lets the email fly.

On its face, the issue could be said to be harmless error. Errata is
what lawyers call it, and they claim it in cases all the time.
Especially in this case, where the rules require resignation with more
formality, that email, if challenged, was insufficient to serve as a
real resignation.

However, Dan, remember the FCC has broad discretion that the courts
will not disturb. So as a regulator, Riley had the power to do what he
wanted, and Rich had the right to challenge it through due process. He
elected not to, and there the matter has stood.

I believe the chain of events occurred because Whiten was not well
regarded by the FCC. In fact, I believe the agency thought he was a
genuine threat. As in police matters, whenever there is one suspicion
that is not proven, subjects can lose out for other express reasons
that are more provable.

not sure I see your point. let me try to ask a question almost
unreleted. you going on about something like Capone being charged was a
tax matter because it provable rather than murder, something like sems
to what is coming out of your post to me. Am I on the right track

Bob Sherin, W4ASX

Precisely, an Old friend.

Bob Sherin, W4ASX

"Morris" wrote in message
oups.com...
Great Dan, good friend.

Let's take a look at the WB2OTK case. When it happened, the way the
factual situation was presented to me, I thought it was a winnable
cause: 1) Frustrated in the dark of night, Whiten writes a resignation
email, but doesn't send it, presumably mulling it, 2) He goes to bed,
3) Then his Wife, while using the computer, lets the email fly.

On its face, the issue could be said to be harmless error. Errata is
what lawyers call it, and they claim it in cases all the time.
Especially in this case, where the rules require resignation with more
formality, that email, if challenged, was insufficient to serve as a
real resignation.

However, Dan, remember the FCC has broad discretion that the courts
will not disturb. So as a regulator, Riley had the power to do what he
wanted, and Rich had the right to challenge it through due process. He
elected not to, and there the matter has stood.

I believe the chain of events occurred because Whiten was not well
regarded by the FCC. In fact, I believe the agency thought he was a
genuine threat. As in police matters, whenever there is one suspicion
that is not proven, subjects can lose out for other express reasons
that are more provable.

Bob Sherin, W4ASX


BUT that still does not make it "right". Personally I think there was a
lot more going on than FCC or OTK would fess up to. Rich has refused to do
a thing about it. Proof enough for me.

Dan/W4NTI

"an Old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Morris wrote:
Great Dan, good friend.

Let's take a look at the WB2OTK case. When it happened, the way the
factual situation was presented to me, I thought it was a winnable
cause: 1) Frustrated in the dark of night, Whiten writes a resignation
email, but doesn't send it, presumably mulling it, 2) He goes to bed,
3) Then his Wife, while using the computer, lets the email fly.

On its face, the issue could be said to be harmless error. Errata is
what lawyers call it, and they claim it in cases all the time.
Especially in this case, where the rules require resignation with more
formality, that email, if challenged, was insufficient to serve as a
real resignation.

However, Dan, remember the FCC has broad discretion that the courts
will not disturb. So as a regulator, Riley had the power to do what he
wanted, and Rich had the right to challenge it through due process. He
elected not to, and there the matter has stood.

I believe the chain of events occurred because Whiten was not well
regarded by the FCC. In fact, I believe the agency thought he was a
genuine threat. As in police matters, whenever there is one suspicion
that is not proven, subjects can lose out for other express reasons
that are more provable.

not sure I see your point. let me try to ask a question almost
unreleted. you going on about something like Capone being charged was a
tax matter because it provable rather than murder, something like sems
to what is coming out of your post to me. Am I on the right track

Bob Sherin, W4ASX


You just can't keep your stupid idiotic comments out of anything can you?
You don't have a dog in this fight. Why can't you just shut the hell up for
once AOF?

Dan/W4NTI

"Morris" wrote in message
oups.com...
Precisely, an Old friend.

Bob Sherin, W4ASX


Why do you give this goof any credence at all? He hasn't got the change for
a nickel in common sense.

He knows NOTHING about the OTK situation. And I flat out REFUSE to allow
him to disrupt OUR attempt at a reasonable conversation about an important
issue in Amateur Radio.

This is what this dip**** does Bob. He loves it. I am sick of it.

Dan/W4NTI

Morris wrote:
Precisely, an Old friend.

(in re capone vs IRS)

thank you for making that clear

It does alas confirm the distrubing conviction I have held for years:
that the Govt is lazy

I can understand with Capone nobody could pin anything on him and he
was a BAD man, but for this to become SOP or at least an SOP for mere
matter of Ham Radio and other lessor matter (Sorry folk but no way I
think any **** up by a ham compares to Capone)is distrubing to me, and
that the Govt in this case the FCC is just refusing to do their JOB

Bob Sherin, W4ASX

Good friend Dan,

Because I believe there is good in everyone. Regardless of how people
choose to conduct themselves, with the issues when there is a bonafide
question, then I'll always respond with my answer. This is just the
way I live my life, Dan.