1. In celebration of the launch of the new redesigned site, we just gave away a FREE antenna! Click Here to See Who Won!

FCC to N6AYJ: Your numbers up!!!

Discussion in 'FCC Activity' started by cyclops1970, Oct 6, 2006.

  1. cyclops1970

    cyclops1970 Gay Nazi Liberation Party

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    From the ARRL:


    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
    Enforcement Bureau
    Spectrum Enforcement Division
    1270 Fairfield Road
    Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325-7245

    September 20, 2006

    William F. Crowell
    1110 Pleasant Valley Road
    Diamond Springs, CA 95619

    RE: Amateur Radio Advanced Class W6WBJ; Renewal Application

    Case # 2006-176

    Dear Mr. Crowell:

    By letter dated May 15, 2006, we notified you that the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau granted in part your application for vanity call sign W6WBJ but, due to numerous complaints filed against the operation of your station N6AYJ alleging deliberate interference, did not renew your license beyond the existing expiration date of March 12, 2007. Our letter further stated that the matter was referred to the Enforcement Bureau for review and that the issues raised in the complaints forwarded to you must be resolved in order for your license to be renewed.

    We have reviewed your response. The issue of renewal of your license has been referred for designation of a hearing to be held before an Administrative Law Judge in Washington, DC. As an applicant, you will have the burden of proof in showing that you are qualified to retain an Amateur license. Under separate cover you will be sent further information about the hearing.



    cc: FCC Western Regional Director

    Here's some background:

    http://www.eham.net/articles/9010

    http://www.ki6ky.com/ayj.htm

    http://www.blankheads.com/
     
    #1
  2. N8YX

    N8YX Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    23
    After checking the eHam link, I've come to the conclusion that the individual in question has got to be one of the biggest horse's arses on the planet...writing a tongue-in-cheek article about jamming is one thing, but actually engaging in such then daring Hollingsworth to do something about it is sheer stupidity at its utmost.

    From one of the links:

    You're about to get your chance, smart guy. Please be prepared to explain the following to the aforementioned ALJ:

    The guy is nothing more than a Jammin' Jack Gerritsen clone. :x
     
    #2
  3. C W Morse

    C W Morse Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,023
    Likes Received:
    2
    Like Riley said, "You can't regulate 'STOOPID"! :p We've heard this same kind of posturing and blustering before, now haven't we!! :D :D

    73
     
    #3
  4. N8YX

    N8YX Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    23
    You wouldn't be thinking of K1MAN, would you? Or one of his 'co-hosts', an ex-WB2 who voluntarily turned in his license rather than paying a $10.5k fine (which was levied against him for the same infractions)?
     
    #4
  5. todt061458

    todt061458 W9WDX Amateur Radio Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2006
    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    2
    CW is more than likely than not talking about all the free banders and bootleggers on his ten meters.
     
    #5
  6. C W Morse

    C W Morse Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,023
    Likes Received:
    2
    NAWWWWW!! :D ;) We DO get these blustering blowhards from time to time that think they are just BIG and BAD they can whup a polar bear. They usually find out different................................!!!! :D

    73
     
    #6
  7. cphilip

    cphilip Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did any of you actualy read Bills response to Riley?

    I know it is hard reading. In fact its hardly readable in places. But if you take the time, ignore most of the totaly unnesicary personal attacks and name calling. What it digests down to is this:

    He says he did not do anything he is accused of. He tells them to provide such tapes. As far as I can tell they do not provide the evidence and have not. And its a flawed part of the processs to not provide the evidence that initiated the action to the accused. It is not due process in ANY sort of enforcement action to do it the way they are doing. He argues that people are using the complaint process to try and settle old grudges and to actualy control certain frequencies for their own use. By trying to get the people they don't like in trouble. He believes they are indeed missusing the process because the process itself is flawed. That people can just make stuff up and get people in trouble. He actualy makes some very good and valid points.

    However he ruins it all by lack of brievity and rambling irrational babblings. I would have expect a bit more of a legal mind. He hurts his own argument with by stepping on his own dick.

    But I would NOT conclude, from just that exchange, that he is guilty of any jamming or interferance... nor does he seem of the mind set to do it. He may indeed be a victim. And the process of relying on "complaints" to target enforcement is horridly flawed and just BEGS for missuse.

    He makes that point and makes it clearly. If you can find it. And if you still have any sympathy for his position by the time you extract it. However he does himself a terrible injustice and completely blows it all by spending far too much time disguising it into a personal attack.
     
    #7
  8. 229

    229 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    i read the entire thing...

    i read the entire thing. now, granted, it doesn't read like a legal brief. that being said, it seems to me that it's another case of, "don't throw stones if you live in a glass house." i doubt the individual involved is *completely* innocent--usually if someone has enough of a beef that he's going to jam your transmissions or try to get one in some sort of trouble, he probably pi$$ed in someone's corn flakes at some point.

    however, it *totally* doesn't give the other guy the right to try to push some sort of bull$#!+ enforcement action through the FCC for the guy trying to check into a round-table QSO.

    this is *exactly* the sort of doo-doo that drives people away from the service, i would imagine. i don't like listening to it on CB--and i'm *definitely* not going to listen to it in the ARS when i get my license...not after all that investment of time, energy, and money in gear. i don't like jerry springer, and i'm sure as heck not going to deal with it on the radio. my time is *expensive*--and i'm not going to let know-nothings pi$$ it away.

    if the service *was* self-policing, it would police-up bozos *exactly* like that.
     
    #8
  9. cphilip

    cphilip Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Its hard to take the guys side at all. Even if he turns out to be right. He sort of makes his own enemy's (if not that is himself)

    The one thing I disagree with is the idea that self policing is the answer. For one thing it depend on WHO is the police, then what is the fair due process of defense, and then who is the judge. In this case it seems an accusation is tatamount to guilty and the judge and jury are the same. It appears to me that your guilty unless you prove yourself innocent within a narrow time frame and without the benefit of seeing the evidence and without a trial. And the process involves you getting one chance to write one letter. Then if they chose they can make you dance before a court at their convenience and at their place. And then, even then, no authority is replaced to a dissinterested party like a judge or jury.

    Someone wrongly accused is pretty much screwed the way this thing is being operated. And everyone is encouraged to complain. And as far as I can tell the complaintant receives "almost" immunity and immediate 100 % credibility with no litmus test of the validity of the evidence he collects (or even manufactures). That's dangerous. At least in legal cases you can charge someone for submitting false evidence and you can challenge evidence in a proceeding. Here you don't.
     
    #9

Share This Page