In 2000 I received a Warning Notice from Riley Hollingsworth that I
believed to be legally deficient under Part 97 as not stating an actual
Rules violation, so I responded to it and told Mr. Hollingsworth I was
going to ignore his Warning Notice, and that he should designate my
case for a hearing before an ALJ if he wished to pursue it. He never
did.
Then in January of this year I applied for a vanity callsign, but my
application was "red-flagged" and "offllined for Enforcement Bureau
review". This got me wondering how long the Commission can sit on an
application while neither granting it nor designating it for a hearing.
So I spoke to several Commission staff members, former staff members
who now work in private industry and communications lawyers in
Washington, D.C. They have many contacts within the Commission and are
quite familiar with Hollingsworth's tactics and strategies. They said
unanimously that Hollingsworth is NEVER going to designate an amateur
case for a hearing before an ALJ. They didn't want to go into the
precise reasons why not, so I won't speculate as to what the reasons
might be. But they all seemed quite adamant about it. They all seemed
to be saying, "I can't tell you how I know this, but trust me, it is
true."
If this is true, which I believe it is from all the evidence available
to me, it means that Hollingsworth has reduced himself to the role of
pure bluffer, and everybody is becoming aware of it. Therefore, all
you have to do to defeat a Warning Notice, an N.A.L. or a notice of
revocation is to reply to it, denying the allegations and asking for a
hearing, and you will hear nothing further from Riley. And if he tries
to deny renewal of your license, all you need to do is reply to the
Notice of Non-Renewal, asking for a hearing, and you will be permitted
to continue operating until an ALJ finally decides your case. Which
will be forever, because Riley is not going to designate the case for a
hearing in the first place.
It seems to me that Riley needs to be more honest and candid with his
fellow hams. If he doesn't intend to ever take any cases to hearing,
he should simply admit it, and admit that his power is reduced,
essentially, to "jawboning". At least that way he would retain a
modicum of credibility. As things are now, he is losing all his
credibility and pretty soon nobody is going to take him seriously at
all.

There are a number of people in the FCC that are like that. For example
the Media Bureau will automatic dismiss a waiver request because if
they deny it you can challenge the denial and the FCC dosen't want
anyone challenge their rules or reasoning. I know this all to true.

Todd N9OGL

wrote:
In 2000 I received a Warning Notice from Riley Hollingsworth that I
believed to be legally deficient under Part 97 as not stating an actual
Rules violation, so I responded to it and told Mr. Hollingsworth I was
going to ignore his Warning Notice, and that he should designate my
case for a hearing before an ALJ if he wished to pursue it. He never
did.
you have 2 choices fight or accept you are dealing with one of the
standard tools in any 'crats kit the stall

On 27 Mar 2006 10:53:43 -0800, wrote:

"you have 2 choices fight or accept you are dealing with one of the
standard tools in any 'crats kit the stall"

First of all, you really should learn to write and punctuate.
why
You have
4 run-on sentences without any period or capiltals.
so?
Such an inability
to write correctly makes it very difficult for someone with any
intelligence to take what you say seriously.

In other words, if you
fail to recognize how poorly you write, one assumes you must be a real
intellectual lightweight.

Second, you failed to take my point. Maybe you have a reading problem,
too? My point is (and you would have understood it it you had read my
post carefully) there is NO REASON to fight.
yes there is you made that clear in another thread the FCC has
something you want that is yuour reason to fight

you fail to understand how the game work
Riley can't do anything
without taking a case to a hearing, and if he is not going to take any
cases to hearing he simply can't do anything.

and don't get you want without dealing with the FCC or Riley or the
courts somehow

look at the world as it is, you will bumo yuour head less often

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"you have 2 choices fight or accept you are dealing with one of the
standard tools in any 'crats kit the stall"

First of all, you really should learn to write and punctuate. You have
4 run-on sentences without any period or capiltals. Such an inability
to write correctly makes it very difficult for someone with any
intelligence to take what you say seriously. In other words, if you
fail to recognize how poorly you write, one assumes you must be a real
intellectual lightweight.

Second, you failed to take my point. Maybe you have a reading problem,
too? My point is (and you would have understood it it you had read my
post carefully) there is NO REASON to fight. Riley can't do anything
without taking a case to a hearing, and if he is not going to take any
cases to hearing he simply can't do anything.

It has been no secret for several years now that
Hollingsworth is nothing more or nothing less than
a massive pile of BULL****. Meaning he is the master
of the bluff and a proficient liar. He has never and never
will take any enforcement action which requires him or the
commission to face off in a legal setting. That was one of
the absolute requirements laid upon him when he assumed
his present position.

SWS wrote: "He has never and never will take any enforcement action
which requires him or the commission to face off in a legal setting.
That was one of the absolute requirements laid upon him when he assumed
his present position."

Can you explain to me why this was required of him? It doesn't make
any sense to me to tie his hands like that. The explanation that was
offered to me was that the FCC's budget will not allow it, and that
they just don't want to spend any money on ham radio. When the
Commission goes to a hearing before the ALJ, their budget is charged
for the ALJ's proportionate salary and, since the Commission appears by
the U.S. Attorney, there is an inter-agency budget transfer from the
FCC to the U.S. Attorney's office to cover the proportionate salary of
the Assistant U.S. Attorney who represents the Commission. Also, I've
been told that the Assistant U.S. Attorneys are very ambitious and only
want to handle high-profile, important cases in order to get promoted,
and that any Assistant U.S. Attorney who was forced to handle a lowly
ham radio ALJ hearing would become the laughing stock of the office.
Does this sound correct to you?

wrote:
SWS wrote: "He has never and never will take any enforcement action
which requires him or the commission to face off in a legal setting.
That was one of the absolute requirements laid upon him when he assumed
his present position."

Can you explain to me why this was required of him? It doesn't make
any sense to me to tie his hands like that.

wrong they hired and gave the rope to take what action he could as long
as he avoided courtfights before they was NO effort at enforment