In a brief (and I do mean brief) review of various laws that have been
talked about lately in this group, I happened upon a debt collection
policy of the FCC. It is interesting reading if you have any debts
with the FCC. http://www.fcc.gov/debt_collection/#overview

And I quote from the page referenced above: "The rules provide that if
you fail to pay debts owed to the FCC, the debts will be referred to
the Department of Treasury for collection. Your failure to pay will be
reported to credit reporting agencies, and you will be unable to obtain
any licenses or other benefits from the FCC."

Remember the phrase "you will be unable to obtain any licenses or other
benefits from the FCC."

But does a forfeiture order constitute a debt to the FCC? Under the
right conditions, it sure does.

I quote the law from 47 U.S.C:

Section 503(b)

"If any person fails to pay an assessment of a forfeiture penalty
determined under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, after it has
become a final and unappealable order or after the appropriate court
has entered final judgment in favor of the Commission, the Commission
shall refer the matter to the Attorney General of the United States,
who shall recover the amount assessed in any appropriate district court
of the United States. In such action, the validity and appropriateness
of the final order imposing the forfeiture penalty shall not be subject
to review."

Section 402(C)

"Such appeal shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court
within thirty days from the date upon which public notice is given of
the decision or order complained of."

It seems clear that the process here is that when a Forfeiture Order is
issued you have 30 days to file an appeal or the order of the FCC
becomes final ("final and unappealable order" as section 503 puts it).
So if there is no appeal the Order becomes final by default 30 days
after it is issued. Appeals must be presented in the proper form with
enough detail to provide a good basis for the appeal, and they must be
filed with the proper court. A judge then would review the appeal and
could either agree to hear the appeal or simply deny the appeal at this
point. The appeal process could take just a few days (if the filed
appeal has no merrit) or years if it goes to trial. But remember that
an appeal MUST be filed within 30 days to stop the Forfeiture Order
from becoming final.

The most interesting thing that I found is how the FCC treats those who
owe them money. IF one has a "final" order it is basically a debt owed
to the FCC. This will impact any future or pending applications which
are filed by anybody with such a final Forfeiture Order because of the
"Red Light Rule" that deals with the FCC's debt collection processes
and policy.

If you owe money to the them, FCC *HAS* to deny any license application
including applications for renewal. They actually have no choice in
the matter. The FCC's "Red Light Rule" prevents them from granting any
applications for persons or organizations that are in debt to the FCC
unless arrangements to pay the debt are made. This rule was adopted in
2004.

(And I quote from the policy):

"Under the rules adopted here, the Commission will not approve any
applications or other authorizations until we determine that all
delinquent debt to the Commission by entities using the same taxpayer
identifying number (TIN) is paid or satisfactory arrangements are made
for payment." So, if you have an unappealed Forfeiture Order that is 30
days old, it becomes "final" and the amount of the order is considered
a debt owed to the FCC. If you further refuse to pay said Forfeiture
after it's final any pending renewal application, or file one, it must
be rejected by the FCC.

So.. If you are issued a Forfeiture Order on the 28th of March, you
have until the 27th of April to file the appeal. After that point any
pending renewal applications that you have filed are going to be denied
by virtue of the "Red Light Rule". Assuming the FCC grants a grace
period of say 30 more days for the appeal and takes an additional 30
days to process the administrative paper work, your licence renewal
application will be denied some time in June.

Best of luck in the appeal, but your license is not going to be renewed
no matter what you do...

wrote:
In a brief (and I do mean brief) review of various laws that have been
talked about lately in this group, I happened upon a debt collection
policy of the FCC. It is interesting reading if you have any debts
with the FCC. http://www.fcc.gov/debt_collection/#overview
cuting for brevity
Best of luck in the appeal, but your license is not going to be renewed
no matter what you do...

if he appelas the whole basical goes on hold till the apeal is resolved
if he is succesfull and I think he might and that legal he should be
(which are idfferent issues) he will have a license renawed or the
deial of the appeal over turned which ever i=needs to be the case by
that point

By my count, he has 7 days left to appeal or this Forfeiture Order will
be final invoking the Red Light Rule which will cause the rejection of
the renewal application and the loss of his operating privileges.

The only part of the NAL that I've even heard an argument about in this
forum is the broadcasting charge, and all the arguments used where
dismissed by the FCC in the Forfeiture Order. The failure to answer
their questions, causing interference, failure to ID, and lack of
proper station control charges are by all accounts slam dunks for the
FCC. There may be an appeal, but I'd bet it will be a *short* one.

I think the FCC is intentionally waiting for the Forfeiture Order to
become final so they can reject the renewal application. It then
becomes a no questions asked decision that is *clearly* the FCC
following their procedures to the letter. It will side step a whole
bunch of issues that K1MAN would love to try and use to muddy the water
in court. What do they have to loose here? Nothing but time and a
whole lot of trouble.

Think of it from their perspective. We wait until the fines become
final then flush the renewal application due to the Red Light Rule if
he refuses to pay. If he starts to talk about paying up you either ask
for the $21k up front or you get an agreement from him that his renewal
gets flushed (along with a other conditions) when he tries to get on
the "easy checks" payment plan. In the unlikely event he comes up with
the $21k to pay the fine the issue is closed, so you use the issue to
reject the still pending application for renewal. Anyway you slice
this the license is history. Why get wrapped up in a brawl about the
renewal? Just be patient and do it the easy way.

The only thing K1MAN can do now is delay things, and even that may not
be for very long.

I think the FCC is playing from the position of strength and we are but
a few moves away from "Check and Mate" no matter what this guy does.
There just remains some question about the number of moves before the
game over the license is over, but it's going to be over with the FCC
on top.

Then the real fun will begin... I guess they won't be able to fine him
for not providing his call every 10 min.. He won't have one.

On 20 Apr 2006 12:50:39 -0700, wrote:

By my count, he has 7 days left to appeal or this Forfeiture Order will
be final invoking the Red Light Rule which will cause the rejection of
the renewal application and the loss of his operating privileges.

The only part of the NAL that I've even heard an argument about in this
forum is the broadcasting charge, and all the arguments used where
dismissed by the FCC in the Forfeiture Order. The failure to answer
their questions, causing interference, failure to ID, and lack of
proper station control charges are by all accounts slam dunks for the
FCC. There may be an appeal, but I'd bet it will be a *short* one.
just because the FCC reject it does not mean the courts will

I think the FCC is intentionally waiting for the Forfeiture Order to
become final so they can reject the renewal application. It then
becomes a no questions asked decision that is *clearly* the FCC
following their procedures to the letter. It will side step a whole
bunch of issues that K1MAN would love to try and use to muddy the water
in court. What do they have to loose here? Nothing but time and a
whole lot of trouble.

indeed I agre with you there

Think of it from their perspective. We wait until the fines become
final then flush the renewal application due to the Red Light Rule if
he refuses to pay. If he starts to talk about paying up you either ask
for the $21k up front or you get an agreement from him that his renewal
gets flushed (along with a other conditions) when he tries to get on
the "easy checks" payment plan. In the unlikely event he comes up with
the $21k to pay the fine the issue is closed, so you use the issue to
reject the still pending application for renewal. Anyway you slice
this the license is history. Why get wrapped up in a brawl about the
renewal? Just be patient and do it the easy way.

I don't know why so many hams have done so but I think it will playing
out for qiuite some time

The only thing K1MAN can do now is delay things, and even that may not
be for very long.

I think the FCC is playing from the position of strength and we are but
a few moves away from "Check and Mate" no matter what this guy does.
There just remains some question about the number of moves before the
game over the license is over, but it's going to be over with the FCC
on top.

Then the real fun will begin... I guess they won't be able to fine him
for not providing his call every 10 min.. He won't have one.

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

The only part of the NAL that I've even heard an argument about in this
forum is the broadcasting charge, and all the arguments used where
dismissed by the FCC in the Forfeiture Order. The failure to answer
their questions, causing interference, failure to ID, and lack of
proper station control charges are by all accounts slam dunks for the
FCC. There may be an appeal, but I'd bet it will be a *short* one.

just because the FCC reject it does not mean the courts will

That the appeal would be a short lived is my opinion, to be sure.
(Wishful thinking perhaps? After all, due process does take time in our
legal system.)

However, the up holding of the fine, or at least some of the fine seems
to me to be a no brain-er. Assuming he argued successfully that he's
not been "broadcasting" the rest of the charges are going to be very
hard to argue using the 1st and 5th amendments and if the FCC
successfully argues any of the points in court a fine will be then
"final" and unappealable.

For instance, how would one successfully argue that the station had a
legal control operator in this case? There was obviously some
automated or remote control of the station, yet it seems that at times
nobody was actually monitoring what the station was transmitting. FCC
knocks on the door during while the station is active on at least two
occasions and nobody is home? Yet when questioned about how he was
controlling his station he simply says that it was always legal? I can
agree that he has the right to remain silent and not incriminate
himself, but if that's what is going on here the FCC is obviously going
to prove their point. If he really has a legal control point in his car
or strapped to his belt, then it would be in his best interest to
disclose this to the FCC when they ask or he's going to get fined for
withholding the information. Either way it's an affirmed fine that you
won't be able to wiggle out of in court.

There are other issues too that will be very difficult for him in
court. Why do you think the FCC waned to know *who* was the control
operator of the station on specific days and times? Think about that
and read the rules in part 97 about control operators, you will see
what I mean. If he says "I don't know" then they got him on failing to
keep control of his station properly, if he says "I was" they get him
on the same thing. IF he has somebody else there then the BOTH get in
trouble when the rules got broken.

They got him in a corner, and unless he appeals in the next few days
this dance is over because the fine will become final and his license
renewal will be rejected by the Red Light Rule.

So.. If he chooses to wait until the government files suit to collect
the fine he's going to loose his license before he sees the process
server drive up his driveway. After all, the FCC cannot refer the case
to collection until it's final, and that's part of the process that
includes the Red Light Rule I'm talking about.

He has 30 days to appeal by law. They may give him some extra time to
file the appeal, but if he doesn't do anything they will soon consider
the fines final and turn the debt over to collections. This then means
they have to reject his pending renewal as their debt collection
process requires.

If I had to guess, I'd say he's going to do nothing and wait for the
FCC to make the next move. They eventually will consider the FO final
and start debt collections and reject the renewal application. This is
what he wants because it seems to me he lives for the conflict and
looks forward to the day when he operates without a license. After all
that will ratchet up the pressure on the FCC and give more visibility
to his cause. Nothing much will change, except that we will then be
hearing about how his license was illegally not renewed and that he
really does have a license despite what the FCC says.

This will continue until he either runs out of money to pay the
electric bill because of the collection of the fines he will have
racked up, or his equipment is confiscated by the FEDS at the request
of the FCC.

The only part of the NAL that I've even heard an argument about in this
forum is the broadcasting charge, and all the arguments used where
dismissed by the FCC in the Forfeiture Order. The failure to answer
their questions, causing interference, failure to ID, and lack of
proper station control charges are by all accounts slam dunks for the
FCC. There may be an appeal, but I'd bet it will be a *short* one.

just because the FCC reject it does not mean the courts will

That the appeal would be a short lived is my opinion, to be sure.
(Wishful thinking perhaps? After all, due process does take time in our
legal system.)

However, the up holding of the fine, or at least some of the fine seems
to me to be a no brain-er. Assuming he argued successfully that he's
not been "broadcasting" the rest of the charges are going to be very
hard to argue using the 1st and 5th amendments and if the FCC
successfully argues any of the points in court a fine will be then
"final" and unappealable.

For instance, how would one successfully argue that the station had a
legal control operator in this case? There was obviously some
automated or remote control of the station, yet it seems that at times
nobody was actually monitoring what the station was transmitting. FCC
knocks on the door during while the station is active on at least two
occasions and nobody is home? Yet when questioned about how he was
controlling his station he simply says that it was always legal? I can
agree that he has the right to remain silent and not incriminate
himself, but if that's what is going on here the FCC is obviously going
to prove their point. If he really has a legal control point in his car
or strapped to his belt, then it would be in his best interest to
disclose this to the FCC when they ask or he's going to get fined for
withholding the information. Either way it's an affirmed fine that you
won't be able to wiggle out of in court.

There are other issues too that will be very difficult for him in
court. Why do you think the FCC waned to know *who* was the control
operator of the station on specific days and times? Think about that
and read the rules in part 97 about control operators, you will see
what I mean. If he says "I don't know" then they got him on failing to
keep control of his station properly, if he says "I was" they get him
on the same thing. IF he has somebody else there then the BOTH get in
trouble when the rules got broken.

They got him in a corner, and unless he appeals in the next few days
this dance is over because the fine will become final and his license
renewal will be rejected by the Red Light Rule.

So.. If he chooses to wait until the government files suit to collect
the fine he's going to loose his license before he sees the process
server drive up his driveway. After all, the FCC cannot refer the case
to collection until it's final, and that's part of the process that
includes the Red Light Rule I'm talking about.

He has 30 days to appeal by law. They may give him some extra time to
file the appeal, but if he doesn't do anything they will soon consider
the fines final and turn the debt over to collections. This then means
they have to reject his pending renewal as their debt collection
process requires.

If I had to guess, I'd say he's going to do nothing and wait for the
FCC to make the next move. They eventually will consider the FO final
and start debt collections and reject the renewal application. This is
what he wants because it seems to me he lives for the conflict and
looks forward to the day when he operates without a license. After all
that will ratchet up the pressure on the FCC and give more visibility
to his cause. Nothing much will change, except that we will then be
hearing about how his license was illegally not renewed and that he
really does have a license despite what the FCC says.

This will continue until he either runs out of money to pay the
electric bill because of the collection of the fines he will have
racked up, or his equipment is confiscated by the FEDS at the request
of the FCC.

wrote:
The only part of the NAL that I've even heard an argument about in this
forum is the broadcasting charge, and all the arguments used where
dismissed by the FCC in the Forfeiture Order. The failure to answer
their questions, causing interference, failure to ID, and lack of
proper station control charges are by all accounts slam dunks for the
FCC. There may be an appeal, but I'd bet it will be a *short* one.

just because the FCC reject it does not mean the courts will

That the appeal would be a short lived is my opinion, to be sure.
(Wishful thinking perhaps? After all, due process does take time in our
legal system.)

well that you can admit your judgement is biased does speak well for
you

and that you seem to be able disagre without being disagreable is nice
too

However, the up holding of the fine, or at least some of the fine seems
to me to be a no brain-er. Assuming he argued successfully that he's
not been "broadcasting" the rest of the charges are going to be very
hard to argue using the 1st and 5th amendments and if the FCC
successfully argues any of the points in court a fine will be then
"final" and unappealable.

For instance, how would one successfully argue that the station had a
legal control operator in this case? There was obviously some
automated or remote control of the station, yet it seems that at times
nobody was actually monitoring what the station was transmitting. FCC
knocks on the door during while the station is active on at least two
occasions and nobody is home? Yet when questioned about how he was
controlling his station he simply says that it was always legal? I can
agree that he has the right to remain silent and not incriminate
himself, but if that's what is going on here the FCC is obviously going
to prove their point. If he really has a legal control point in his car
or strapped to his belt, then it would be in his best interest to
disclose this to the FCC when they ask or he's going to get fined for
withholding the information.

let us assume that K1MAN station has some form of remote control
(indeed my staion is sometimes on the air with me tranmiting through
while I am in another a state, and even once another country, thank to
the miracle of the Net. I am not familier with any requirement right
off that requires him to top be able to prove it was in use at any
given monet selcted by the FCC coming nocking at his shack door, the
burden would IMO (abet not a prolawyer) would be on the FCC to prove
the case. K1MAN might be obliged to prove the senario I decrabed was
within his stations techical ablities after which reasonable doubt and
the 5th should cover him

In this event I would agree that K1MAN has been unwise

Either way it's an affirmed fine that you
won't be able to wiggle out of in court.

There are other issues too that will be very difficult for him in
court. Why do you think the FCC waned to know *who* was the control
operator of the station on specific days and times? Think about that
and read the rules in part 97 about control operators, you will see
what I mean. If he says "I don't know" then they got him on failing to
keep control of his station properly, if he says "I was" they get him
on the same thing. IF he has somebody else there then the BOTH get in
trouble when the rules got broken.

They got him in a corner, and unless he appeals in the next few days
this dance is over because the fine will become final and his license
renewal will be rejected by the Red Light Rule.

I am not sure the timing of the apeal is that critical (in many other
cases filing with the court of Legal notice of apeal would by him time,
at mimal cost)


So.. If he chooses to wait until the government files suit to collect
the fine he's going to loose his license before he sees the process
server drive up his driveway. After all, the FCC cannot refer the case
to collection until it's final, and that's part of the process that
includes the Red Light Rule I'm talking about.

He has 30 days to appeal by law. They may give him some extra time to
file the appeal, but if he doesn't do anything they will soon consider
the fines final and turn the debt over to collections. This then means
they have to reject his pending renewal as their debt collection
process requires.

If I had to guess, I'd say he's going to do nothing and wait for the
FCC to make the next move. They eventually will consider the FO final
and start debt collections and reject the renewal application. This is
what he wants because it seems to me he lives for the conflict and
looks forward to the day when he operates without a license. After all
that will ratchet up the pressure on the FCC and give more visibility
to his cause. Nothing much will change, except that we will then be
hearing about how his license was illegally not renewed and that he
really does have a license despite what the FCC says.

This will continue until he either runs out of money to pay the
electric bill because of the collection of the fines he will have
racked up, or his equipment is confiscated by the FEDS at the request
of the FCC.
it might play out that way I think it will be more complex than that
(frankly I have never seen a notable legal proceeding proceed as
smouthly as you suggest)

Oh and one more thing, just so I'm sure it's clear what I'm saying.

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.

IF Baxter wants to argue the fine points of Part 97 interpretation and
save his license, he'd better do it as an appeal of the Forfeiture
Order that is started in the 30 day window. If he waits for the debt
collection process to get his arguments before a court it will be too
late for him to keep his license and the lack of appeal to the
Forfeiture Order will be seen as a positive for the FCC. ("Hey, he
didn't object to the order and appeal when he could. Why should we
allow him to debate it now? This is the wrong forum for this debate.")

At the debt collection trial the FCC (Actually the DOJ at this point)
may manage to side step all of the rule violation debates by simply
saying that Baxter has already refused to avail himself of the proper
appeal process so his arguments are not valid in the debt collection
phase. I suppose that in an effort to be totally fair the judge over
the debt collection case will allow a limited debate of the facts
related to the Forfeiture Order but I doubt it will be allowed to go on
very long and I'm sure the judge will be keeping the arguments under
control.

Ever been to traffic court? Let's say you get a ticket for running a
red light and you and the officer stand before the judge. The Officer
says you did it, you say you didn't. Who is the judge going to
believe? It won't be you. the Judge will patiently listen to all you
have to say that is even remotely relevant, and render a judgment
against you. That is of course if you don't come up with some hard
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.

wrote:
Oh and one more thing, just so I'm sure it's clear what I'm saying.
with 2 post I grab a few out othe first and respond here ok (well ok or
not here goes)
You know, I wasn't either until I started reading about this "Red Light
Rule" and portions of 47 U.S.C. that it refernced. I also started
looking at the NAL to FO process that is outlined there too. When I
found sections 402 and 503 that I quoted in a previous post in this
thread the reasons for the 30 days to pay an a lot of what the FCC was
saying in the NAL and FO started to make more sense. They are indeed
following the legal process to the letter

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

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
On the control operator thing. I don't claim to fully understand this
issue of automatic control. Quite frankly I don't have any equipment
capable of such operation so it is not an issue I've had to deal with.
However, if you have a station that comes up and starts transmitting
automaticlly at a specific time of day say based upon a timer device
you purchased at Radio Shack, and said station started transmitting a
pre-recorded audio message on a ham frequency would that be legal?
and
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



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
At the debt collection trial the FCC (Actually the DOJ at this point)
may manage to side step all of the rule violation debates by simply
saying that Baxter has already refused to avail himself of the proper
appeal process so his arguments are not valid in the debt collection
phase. I suppose that in an effort to be totally fair the judge over
the debt collection case will allow a limited debate of the facts
related to the Forfeiture Order but I doubt it will be allowed to go on
very long and I'm sure the judge will be keeping the arguments under
control.

Ever been to traffic court?
yes but this ain't traffic court
Let's say you get a ticket for running a
red light and you and the officer stand before the judge. The Officer
says you did it, you say you didn't. Who is the judge going to
believe? It won't be you. the Judge will patiently listen to all you
have to say that is even remotely relevant, and render a judgment
against you. That is of course if you don't come up with some hard
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

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

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.)

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.


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.


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.)

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? )

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.