wrote:
an old friend wrote:
wrote:

I have howver have read manuals of femderal procedures of the US courts
and come to defferent consluions Indeed I read the same twice in some
of these manuals and I come to defferent conclusionat times

I suppose it's possible that I'm not reading everything I need to, but
I've been trying to follow the foot notes in the NAL and FO. (Not to
mention the FCC's web site links to their rules.)

with respect there is no way you could reading enouugh Me either for
the

liek I don't know and doubt a pro in feild would know but I would
adivise him to file a notice of appeal even if he is not ready to fille
the appeal I truly belive that even hand written note saying" I intend
to apeal" would put his foot in the door on the time line so to speak
the other point from your other letter two peices follow

We agree there, an appeal *now* will at least delay the whole process
here, no matter how valid it turns out to be. I suppose what you
suggest would at least force the FCC down the appeal path because they
would then have to get an independent judgement on the appeal, no
matter how lame it ends up being. That would surely delay the order
getting to the "final" state.

if not force them down the apeal path force to consider how much this a
worth to them and few others things. I hear rumours that FCC is NOT of
one mind on persuing K1MAn


No, I don't think he had a valid control operator a lot of the time.
Nobody was responsible for monitoring the station during operation and
that violates part 97 rules.
in the end I am not sure what you are supecting is in fact wrong He may
well not have been exercising his duties as control, but that is not or
at least legaly should not be the issue, the issue should is does the
FCC have proof that K1MAN was not exercising his responiblity at the
dates and time they claim. in theory we are still inocent till proven
gulty and still allowed Miranda rights to remain silent


Well, the imposition of a fine for a rules violation has an appeal
process. If he fails to defend himself successfully in the appeal
(either by trying and not being able to prevail, or by not trying at
all) the FCC is effectively writing him a traffic ticket with a $21k
fine.

The FCC has two witnesses that he was not at the station on two
separate days when they say he engaged in "broadcasting", willful
interference and not properly doing station ID every 10 min. They
where physically at his station knocking on the door,.seeking to
lawfully inspect the station and nobody was home. What can he say?
They got two witnesses who where there when he wasn't. One can only
assume that they had a receiver monitoring the transmissions and a tape
recorder too, but it doesn't matter.

assuming K1MAN has the abilty to be the control operator at his station
when not present, then the FFC witnesses are of little value unless
they can attest from observing K1Man peronaly that he was not
excercising ti

Indeed with my station I can estlish control and trnasmit from any
location with internet access. I supect K1MAN may have have a simliar
setup according even proving that he was not at home at tansmission
time or even that he was out of the USA does not proof K1MAN was not
excerising his control function prooerly


There is a difference between the court activity that would "appeal"
this order and the court activity that would be used to collect the
fine. They would likely be in different courts at different times.

which complicates the whole mess

Not really from my perspective. Baxter may claim that his rights are
being violated and try to argue that the FCC is not following a valid
process, but they are. He simply does not understand where his rights
have been protected and how he needs to respond to get the full benefit
of his rights. He needs a good lawyer. (But we've agreed on that
before I think.)
not sure we have agreed on that point persee before but it is certainly
true enough


In reality the process of what is going on here is very simple. There
are just two separate processes that are concurrently running. Baxter
would want to combine the two and point to the illogical process of it
all, but it's just a result of his own misunderstanding of the law.

verifiable evidence to show what the Officer is saying is not true.

He has no hard evidence so Baxter will end up the same way.

and that may be the case but that isn't how it is SUPOSED to work. not
in the USA

Tthe FCC should have to prove its case and do so without trying to use
K1MAN refuasual to assist them as evedence that prevert Mirranda. In a
real court at some level I beleive that would be result NAL and FO
dismissed for lack of evedence therefore the licesne is ordered granted
by order of the court

On it's face what you say seems to be reasonable, but the type of
argument you are describing is the NAL response from Baxter (now
history) and the possible appeal of the FO. Now I'm no fan of lawyers,
but they do have their purpose. Baxter needs to stop trying this one
man show and get a lawyer because he is letting his "due process
rights" slip though his fingers. Ignorance of the right process is not
a valid argument. You got to work the process by the rules or you
loose, that's not unfair.

The proper forum to argue the rules violation was his response to the
NAL and now the appeal of the FO. This is where the "due process" that
protects his rights comes into play. I note that his request for a
hearing in front of the FCC, which was denied as being improper, is not
his "right" in this case. However, a hearing in front of a judge *IS*
his right, but he must ask for this hearing in the time allowed. He
can protect his rights, but he has to protect them in the right forum.
(You wouldn't go to congress to argue a speeding ticket would you? )

not likely but if if the right sorts of police miscondcut were in play
I might

It may not work that way but I belive based on what I have about the
case and when it coem down to it I have never heard K1man personaly nor
met him to my knowledge) so I have based my perceptions on the claims
of his detractors and it does not add up for to some for the Gov to act
against him on

I've not ever met him or talked to him personally to my knowledge
either. I have mostly read the FCC's documentation and K1MAN's own web
site. I've seen a few other sites that are obviously personal attacks,
but some of them do have interesting facts and audio clips purported to
be off the air recordings.

All in all, I don't think the FCC is picking on him or railroading him
on this. He may think that they are upset about being sued or about
his obvious disrespect for their legal staff but it's just not that
way. I seriously doubt they find him anything but amusing down at the
FCC. At best he's a refreshing change of pace from issuing all the
"your tower lights are not working" fines. That's not to say they are
just playing with him, by no means. They are just doing their process
to the letter knowing that eventually all the bluster won't amount to
much.
Honestly I thinkk the FFC also has a fair amount of "bluster " tot it
stand (opinion you note) and so this process has moved along very in
very jerky fashion and I honestly doubt, no I am certain we have not
heard the last from K1MAN, and will not for some time to come (the last
we hear may be his aresst at some point down the line but I still think
we have years of this to come not weeks or days

Hmmm.. About the automated station vrs remote controlled station.

The configuration you describe for your station seems legal to me.
There obviously is no rule that says that you have to be able to
actually touch the transmitter or anything. My understanding is that
you simply must be monitoring and controlling the station in real time
unless the station qualifies for automatic control. I don't believe
that a bulletin transmission on HF under part 97 does not qualify for
being automatically controlled.

Specifically the FCC sites an example of this when on December 19, 2004
the station automation apparently failed, and when finally went off the
air did not properly ID. The apparent conclusions drawn is that Baxter
did not have the proper control of his station at this time. It's
possible that he *was* exercising proper control but had a technical
problem or equipment malfunction, but in order to show that he would
have to explain the details of his station and show how he maintains
proper control. He has declined to provide details.

From his own descriptions of the "control method", it seems that he can
stop the station's operation from any phone. I don't think that being
able to turn it off qualifies as proper control. The FCC asked for
details about the method he uses to control his station, attempted to
inspect this station but have been unable to establish that his method
of "control" meets the requirements of Part 97.

My theory is that what he has, (or had) in the way of automation is the
equivalent of a timer that would start his station up to transmit his
"bulletin" at the published time. Baxter simply loads the audio
programming into some play back device (I assume it is a computer with
a sound card, given the descriptions of certain failure modes), set's
the timer to transmit at the specified time and heads to town in his
car. I would assume he carries a receiver so he can "monitor" his
station and turn it off should he detect a malfunction. However, this
type of control is really "automatic" control, which is not allowed on
HF phone.

I dare say your remote station control is a whole lot less "automatic"
and very interactive and qualifies as acceptable, though it is a bit
risky. Should your station misbehave while under this remote control,
or start transmission while you are not actively monitoring it you risk
having to answer the FCC's questions. However, if you show that you
where having a technical malfunction in the interactive remote control
of your station, the FCC would be very likely to drop the matter if you
are open about your control method and what went wrong. (Assuming the
design of your station is attempting to do the right thing according to
the rules in part 97.)

The problem here is that even broadcasters on the AM and FM bands
cannot legally do what I think Baxter did. They are required to have a
"Control operator" too and they are specifically not allowed to be
"automatically controlled". Their programming may be pre-recorded and
automated, but they have to have somebody who is monitoring the
equipment's operation and can exercise control over it (say shut it off
in case of a malfunction). A guy with a portable FM receiver and a
cell phone does not qualify as a control operator in this case. Baxter
has apparently worked in a radio station, he should know this.