riley Fecalworth is a farce, a laughing stock, who works
for an agency (FCC) where the culture of the lie is the basis
of all business conducted by that agency.

the FCC & Hollingsworth are cowards, who will never
present themselves in a forum where they would be
required to tell the truth and deal only with factual
evidence.

FCC & ARRL = partners in the Culture of Corruption

J Michaels wrote:

riley Fecalworth is a farce, a laughing stock, who works
for an agency (FCC) where the culture of the lie is the basis
of all business conducted by that agency.

the FCC & Hollingsworth are cowards, who will never
present themselves in a forum where they would be
required to tell the truth and deal only with factual
evidence.

FCC & ARRL = partners in the Culture of Corruption


Oh, yeah, right, right, right.

Note that I didn't cross-post this all over God's little green acre.

Why not just get a life, and begin to understand that life for all of us
involves some rules of behavior, and, if you want to be a part of it,
those rules will apply to YOUR behavior too?

You can't accept that? Then, BUG OFF, dude. We don't need you kind in
the group. That's "life", little man.

Jeez...government schools, and parents "in absentio"..that's all it
takes to make one of these little cretins.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 19:49:09 -0500, CriticalMass wrote:



J Michaels wrote:

riley Fecalworth is a farce, a laughing stock, who works
for an agency (FCC) where the culture of the lie is the basis
of all business conducted by that agency.

the FCC & Hollingsworth are cowards, who will never
present themselves in a forum where they would be
required to tell the truth and deal only with factual
evidence.

FCC & ARRL = partners in the Culture of Corruption


Oh, yeah, right, right, right.

Note that I didn't cross-post this all over God's little green acre.

Why not just get a life, and begin to understand that life for all of us
involves some rules of behavior, and, if you want to be a part of it,
those rules will apply to YOUR behavior too?

while I think that K1MAN was uwise in provoking this fight he has
started it and needs to carry it through

You can't accept that? Then, BUG OFF, dude. We don't need you kind in
the group. That's "life", little man.

again the rule of law having been the start of this affair the
ruleneeds to upheld and wroked through

why do you seem to object to K1MAN using the rulesas written including
such things as the law (not just the FCC rules intended to enforce it)
and the constitution of the USA you want rid of K1MAN you may get your
wish but why the unseemly ruse to cut offthe law. If something you
valued was a stake you wouldfight to last resuorce? I suspect so

Jeez...government schools, and parents "in absentio"..that's all it
takes to make one of these little cretins.

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

"CriticalMass" wrote nothing important:

PLONK

I just wonder how you think Riley Hollingsworth will need to show up in
court for this case?

I suppose he may, but why would he need bother with the K1MAN case in
the first place?

As for "fact" and "Evidence" usable in court, I would beg to differ
with your opinion here. By all appearances and documentation that I've
seen, K1MAN is in deep trouble. Unless he has a lot of evidence to
offset the claims of the FO the trial will be a slam dunk for the FCC.
If Baxter has such evidence, he should have responded to the NAL with
this evidence and not tried to hide it or hold it for a trial. It is a
serious legal blunder to withhold evidence, unless you are claiming
your 5th amendment rights.

If Baxter is claiming 5th amendment rights, yet decides to caught up
the withheld information in a court as part of his defence, he's going
to regret using this tactic.

This guy needs a good lawyer or the FCC's most junior staff lawyer who
just passed the bar is going to run circles around him in court.

Oh, and the ARRL has nothing to do with Baxter's troubles... But you
knew that.

I just wonder how you think Riley Hollingsworth will need to show up in
court for this case?

I suppose he may, but why would he need bother with the K1MAN case in
the first place?

As for "fact" and "Evidence" usable in court, I would beg to differ
with your opinion here. By all appearances and documentation that I've
seen, K1MAN is in deep trouble. Unless he has a lot of evidence to
offset the claims of the FO the trial will be a slam dunk for the FCC.
If Baxter has such evidence, he should have responded to the NAL with
this evidence and not tried to hide it or hold it for a trial. It is a
serious legal blunder to withhold evidence, unless you are claiming
your 5th amendment rights.

If Baxter is claiming 5th amendment rights, yet decides to caught up
the withheld information in a court as part of his defence, he's going
to regret using this tactic.

This guy needs a good lawyer or the FCC's most junior staff lawyer who
just passed the bar is going to run circles around him in court.

Oh, and the ARRL has nothing to do with Baxter's troubles... But you
knew that.