The red light rules were thrown out due to fact that they violated due
process. K1MAN fine and FO will be thrown out because 1. most of the
fine was based on the fining system in the broadcast service (see the
NAL) and therefore may of been to high of a fine in regards to the
amateur service. 2. Baxter's right to an Administrative hearing under
the Administrative Procedure Act was denied and therefore his rights to
due process under the APA was violated. 3. the "trial de novo" that the
FCC is referring to is a trial in the district court. The FCC can take
Baxter to the District court to collect the fine, in the district court
Baxter can raise any challenges to any FCC rule or regulation, nor can
baxter raise any constitutional challenges, the trial de novo is a debt
collection trial.

Todd N9OGL

**** off, Toad with your cut and pastes.

N9OGL wrote:
The red light rules were thrown out due to fact that they violated due
process. K1MAN fine and FO will be thrown out because 1. most of the
fine was based on the fining system in the broadcast service (see the
NAL) and therefore may of been to high of a fine in regards to the
amateur service. 2. Baxter's right to an Administrative hearing under
the Administrative Procedure Act was denied and therefore his rights to
due process under the APA was violated. 3. the "trial de novo" that the
FCC is referring to is a trial in the district court. The FCC can take
Baxter to the District court to collect the fine, in the district court
Baxter can raise any challenges to any FCC rule or regulation, nor can
baxter raise any constitutional challenges, the trial de novo is a debt
collection trial.

indeed while the FOhas life I think the renewnal dogde is dead for now

indeed a good point about the size of the fine it is pprepoustres that
anything any ham can do would rise to a higher than the fines they want
to asses for JJ at superbowl

Todd N9OGL

You are correct that the "trial" being discussed in the FO is the debt
collection trial. However, Baxter can bring up any issues he desires
in an effort to argue that he doesn't owe the fine. He will, however,
be at a marked disadvantage because the burden of proof will be on him
at that point. Also, what the FCC denied him was a hearing before the
FCC commissioners which was unlikely to happen and was a misplaced
request in this case. He needs to appeal the FO to the proper courts
to get this heard.

Right now Baxter is ignoring his due process rights to appeal the FO
and have it heard in court. He *must* appeal the FO within 30 days or
it becomes final. If he doesn't fight this in an appeal it will become
final and he will end up with the burden of proof. At the appeal the
burden of proof is on the FCC if he waits for the debt collection trial
he has willfully given up his rights.

Baxter has made a series of serious missteps here and is slowly giving
up his rights to due process. His supporters insist that he's being
unfairly treated when he's not. Our legal system has it's process and
sometimes they don't make a lot of sense to the general public who get
most of their "legal" training from the TV shows they watch. You got
to follow the rules carefully.

Just because you don't understand the rules does not mean the game is
unfair. I would *strongly* suggest that Baxter obtain the services of
a lawyer who does understand the rules. If Baxter thinks he's going to
pull a Matlock move in court and get himself off, he's as nuts as some
folks claim. A lawyer would advise him on the best way to preserve his
rights.

N9OGL wrote:
The red light rules were thrown out due to fact that they violated due
process. K1MAN fine and FO will be thrown out because

Ok Tod, one at at time..

1. most of the
fine was based on the fining system in the broadcast service (see the
NAL) and therefore may of been to high of a fine in regards to the
amateur service.

Hmmm.. Seems that the $21K was reasonable considering the number and
nature of the rules violations. If you assume the violations are true,
what do you think the dollar amount should be?

2. Baxter's right to an Administrative hearing under
the Administrative Procedure Act was denied and therefore his rights to
due process under the APA was violated.

No, he requested a hearing before the FCC commissioners which was
improper at that point. Right now the proper place for due process here
is the Appeal process, which is supposed to be filed with the
appropriate court within 30 days of the Forfeiture Order. (Which has not
happened, to my knowledge.) It is not the FCC's fault if Baxter doesn't
know how to do the right thing to protect is rights.

3. the "trial de novo" that the
FCC is referring to is a trial in the district court. The FCC can take
Baxter to the District court to collect the fine, in the district court
Baxter can raise any challenges to any FCC rule or regulation, nor can
baxter raise any constitutional challenges, the trial de novo is a debt
collection trial.

You are indeed correct, except he can try to raise issues with the fine
and these issues would be admissible had he chosen to supply the
necessary information requested by the NAL, or if he managed to get the
appeal timely filed. The problem with your contention that this is not
fair is that you are ignoring the fact that Baxter has failed to protect
his own rights.

The rules are fair and published so everybody can know what they need to
do. It's not the fault of the FCC if Baxter fails to protect his own
rights even if he is ignorant of what the rules mean. If he doesn't want
to hire a lawyer to advise him, fine, but if he then complains that the
process doesn't match what he thinks is fair, too bad.

I'll bet that if he contacts the FCC right now and agrees to hand in his
license, swear off ham radio for life and agree to not use his Part 97
equipment for anything but receiving, they might be willing to forget
the fines...

wrote:
I see nothing in the ruling or the NAL/FO that will invalidate the
fine.
I never said there was
The court ordered that the FCC review and fix their debt
collection practices, specifically the invocation of the Red Light Rule
was found to be unconstitutional. There is no mention of the
Forfeiture process being a problem. This only deals with the recently
adopted (in 2004) debt collection rules as evidenced by the fact that
the FO that got this into court has not been struck down.

However, if it had been, and the FCC choose to discontinue the FO
proceedings in K1MAN's case, then the rejection of his renewal
application gets easier not harder.

K1MAN has a valid argument that enforcement actions that are not
"final" cannot be used as justification for dismissal of his renewal
application. However, what constitutes a final unappealable FO is as
follows:

which means since the final did not exist when they set aside his
license he outgh to get a his renewal

they may be able to come back later and revoke that license that is
another matter

What has been stuck down is the automatic rejection of all license
applications by those who owe the FCC money for what ever reason they
owe it, not the ability of the FCC to fine folks who break the rules.

I enevr said it did you keep insisting that what happens to K1man is
one block of matters

it isn't I would would the court has all butrdered a vitory fro now in
the renewal issue the FO is another matter

The net effect of the "set aside" is that his renewal has not been
decided. As K1MAN and others have pointed out he retains his right to
operate on his old license until it is decided.

So... I don't think that the "set aside" is the same as a rejection.
They are currently just thinking about what they intend to do. (Well,
really they are thinking about how they intend to do it.) Actually, I
think they are waiting for the FO to become final so they can use it to
justify pulling his ticket.

Once the FO becomes final, then they can use that as justification for
the denial of the renewal. Assuming Baxter hasn't filed the appeal
then I expect this to happen within the next few days.