• You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
  • Notice: You may not use this site to facilitate the unauthorized selling of copyrighted material including, but not limited to, in the public dxForums, dxGallery, dxChat and private messsages. If you get caught doing this, you will be permanently banned with no second chances. A notice will be placed on the site of why you were banned and any information collected by this site about you will be made known to the copyright holder.

Question about (export ) radios

Moleculo

Ham Radio Nerd
Apr 14, 2002
9,034
1,335
283
I'm not completely positive of the answer, but I read somewhere (might have been on a forum or newsgroup) that the FCC or FTC has gone after Ranger USA for importing on a few occasions with court action. However, I hear that Ranger's lawyers consistently win in court. Remember, the best lawyers never, ever work for the DA, State, or Feds. The government just doesn't pay well enough to attract the real talent. O.J. Simpson is living proof of that.


</p>
 

AudioShockwav

Extraterrestrial
Staff member
Apr 6, 2005
7,252
4,803
343
Sierras Near Yosemite National Park
(NOTE:

this is a long read with legal mumbo-jumbo, cliff notes at the end )



The Last time Jim Peng ( Not Ping, but Peng the President and majority stock holder of Ranger Taiwan) went to court, The charges against Defendant Ranger Taiwan were, dismissed with prejudice by the Court.



Not only that, but there Attorney requested attorney fees and costs in the amount of $404,737.01 to be paid by the court ( because Title 18 United States Code Section 3006A and the Hyde Amendment, provides )

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>

"

the court, in any criminal case (other than a case in which the defendant is represented by assigned counsel paid for by the public) pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, may award to a prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation expenses, where the court finds that the position of the United States was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith, .......... under section 2412 of title 28, United States Code ....

"

<hr></blockquote>

Next document



WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION





UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,



V.



RANGER ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,



Defendant.



Case No. 1:96-CR-211



Hon. Richard Alan Enslen



ORDER



In accordance with the Court's Opinion of this date;



IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Ranger Electronic Communications, Inc.'s Motion for Attorney Fees (Dkt. No. 364) is GRANTED.



IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant shall file a supplementary brief and affidavits within fourteen (l4) days indicating the amount of attorney fees requested, the hourly rate requested and the number of hours expended representing the Defendant in this litigation. Defendant's supplementary brief shall also explain whether and why an hourly rate in excess of the $125/hour EAJA rate is requested and shall attach any necessary documentation for the fees requested. Plaintiff may respond to the supplementary brief within fourteen (14) days of its filing.



DATED in Kalamazoo, MI: Aug. 24, 1998



/s/ RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN Chief Judge

______________________________________________________





Now the REAL kicker of the whole mess is this ORDER by the Judge concerning the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to the case to prosecute Ranger......



______________________________________________________



WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION





UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,



V.



RANGER ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,



Defendant.



Case No. 1:96-CR-211



Hon. Richard Alan Enslen



ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE



In accordance with the Court's Opinion of this date;



IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Assistant United States Attorney assigned this matter shall appear before this Court on Thursday, September 10, 1998 at 10:00 a.m. to show cause why the allegations made here should not be referred to the Office of Professional Responsibility of the United States Department of Justice for investigation. The Assistant United States Attorney is advised to obtain counsel for said hearing.



IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that either attorney Michael Olson or attorney Darnel Gravelyn shall be present at said hearing to present evidence concerning



The Judge said in his Conclusion during the hearing......

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>CONCLUSION



.......... An order to show cause shall also issue and shall require the Assistant United States Attorney to show cause why a formal investigation before the Office of Professional Responsibility of the Department of Justice should not be commenced.







DATED in Kalamazoo, MI: Aug. 24, 1998



/s/ RICHARD ALAN ENSLEN Chief Judge

<hr></blockquote>



This Because of the withholding of Brady materials by the Assistant United States Attorney , from The FCC that SHOULD have been released under the Freedom of information act, and the Assistant United States Attorney was aware these said documents , that were withheld, would have caused the case to be tossed out the window in the first place!!!





Cliff notes





The US took Jim Peng to court over the sales of "EXPORT RADIOS"



The US lost because the Assistant United States Attorney withheld evidence that would have shown that the FCC was so confused about it own rules that even there own employees could not sort it out



The US had to pay Jim Peng`s legal Bills from there action brought against Him



The Assistant United States Attorney got "reprimanded" by the Judge for breaking the law trying to win his case, that was flawed from the get-go.



Think they want to try again.....

I don`t think so........



73

Jeff
















<span style="color:eek:range;font-family:helvetica;font-size:large;">RadioActive</span>

20040427_0100_eit_171.gif






</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p067.ezboard.com/bworldwidecbradioclub.showUserPublicProfile?gid=audioshockwav>AudioShockwav</A> at: 3/21/05 5:01 pm
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shadetree Mechanic
8

8220 GRUMPY

Guest
Highlander821, are you talking about this case?





Calif. court reverses conviction of Taiwanese woman accused of murdering husband's mistress and baby



SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) - In a case that caused a sensation in Asia, an appeals court has overturned a woman's conviction in a love triangle murder case, saying her rights were violated when she was questioned for nine hours without a lawyer.



Li-Yun "Lisa" Peng, a 49-year-old Taiwanese, was found guilty in 1996 of murdering her millionaire husband's



Chinese mistress and the woman's baby. Media from China, Taiwan and elsewhere in Asia had reported every detail from the case's revelations of wealth, marital betrayal and revenge.



But the 4th District Court of Appeal ruled Thursday that Mrs. Peng was illegally coerced into incriminating herself. The justices were critical of her long interrogation without counsel and of detectives' use of Mrs. Peng's husband, electronics tycoon Tseng "Jim" Peng, to aid the questioning. Her lawyer had suggested the husband was the killer.



In 1993, the body of 25-year-old Ranbing "Jennifer" Ji was found stabbed 18 times. Her and Peng's 5-month-old son, Kevin, was suffocated with a T-shirt stuffed in his mouth. The bodies were found in a Mission Viejo apartment where Peng had installed the woman, who was from mainland China, as his mistress.



Peng, 56, agreed to help Orange County authorities by hunting through his wife's closet and her financial records for clues, the justices said. Then, after Mrs. Peng had been interrogated for many hours, authorities sent the husband in to question her in Chinese.



Mrs. Peng burst into tears and told him she had bitten the mistress in a confrontation hours before her death. Authorities matched her DNA to a bite mark on the victim's arm and used her statement, translated from Chinese, against her.



She was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without parole.



The judges said the husband should not have been allowed to question her and the evidence should not have been used.



"Even an innocent person would make some kind of statement potentially incriminating after nine hours of threats, intimidation and bullying by law enforcement officers in the bowels of a county jail, and then being confronted with the questions of the victim's paramour," Presiding Justice David Sills wrote.



Assistant Sheriff Tim Simon, who disputed the ruling, said he and prosecutors will review it before deciding whether to appeal or proceed toward retrial. For the time being, Mrs. Peng remains in prison.



The Pengs owned Ranger communications, a company that makes CB radios in several Asian countries. They had homes in Orange County and Taiwan, and Peng claimed a net worth of $200 million.




grumpysig2.gif


scpa3.gif
</p>
 

Moleculo

Ham Radio Nerd
Apr 14, 2002
9,034
1,335
283
Audio...that's the one I was thinking about, I just couldn't remember the details.



I know Jerry will disagree with me, but that case shows clearly why the FCC actions against CB shops and truck stops lately should raise an eyebrow to the average radio enthusiast. (Don't misconstrue that I'm condoning unlicensed operators using amateur or other licensed required frequencies). The withheld evidence apparently clearly showed that the FCC was confused about it's own regulations, which if presented in court would have been extremely damaging to the FCC's case against Ranger. Is the FCC STILL confused internally about it's own regulations? Who knows. But now, instead of going after Ranger (because they got their hand slapped by the Judge), the FCC goes after the smaller, easier target which is the small shops who don't have $400,000+ to spend on legal fees. I DO think the FCC has every right to try and enforce regulations....that's part of their function. However, they have no business enforcing regulations they don't understand.



Think I'm wrong? Apply this same mentality to the business world. As an employer, if you fire an employee for violation of policy, but the employee can clearly show that the employer inconsistently enforced the policy or has interpreted the policy differently for various other employees, the employee will win in a wrongful termination suit every single time. Unfortunately, our government doesn't run itself like a business. Other agencies in the government have the same problems. It's tax time....try doing some research on IRS problems enforcing the income tax codes. Makes the FCC issues look so simple....


</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p067.ezboard.com/bworldwidecbradioclub.showUserPublicProfile?gid=moleculocdx363>MoleculoCDX363</A> at: 3/22/05 1:58 pm
 

Moleculo

Ham Radio Nerd
Apr 14, 2002
9,034
1,335
283
Found an easy explanation on "dismissed with prejudice":



"“Dismissed with prejudice” is a legal term that simply means the case is dismissed (laymen sometimes call this “thrown out of court”) for good cause and the plaintiffs cannot file a new lawsuit within the same jurisdiction based on the same facts, or bring this same issue forward for another hearing, or in some cases (depending on the jurisdiction) cannot re-file the same complaint for a specified period of time."



Also, if you read the ruling posted above, the judge ordered a hearing to see if the Department of Justice should be investigated by the Office of Professional Responsibility.








</p>
 

AudioShockwav

Extraterrestrial
Staff member
Apr 6, 2005
7,252
4,803
343
Sierras Near Yosemite National Park
I have done some more digging into this set of doc`s.

Some of it is very interesting....

This IS a very long read, But if you are interested in this.......well you will read it

(sorry no cliff notes on this one LOL )



_________________________________________________________



On December 19, 1996, Ranger Taiwan was indicted by grand jury of this district for several crimes principally including the illegal importation of radio equipment into the United States of America in violation of 18 U.S.C. 8 545. On March 27, 1997, Ranger Taiwan was re-indicted by Superseding Indictment for said crimes. The Superseding Indictment charged that a company in Niles, Michigan, A-1 Telecom Inc., had imported illegal CB radios into the United States and that Ranger Taiwan, and other Defendants, participated in the importation and laundered funds as to the sale of the radios. In this case and in three closely-related cases, no less than 17 individuals and companies were indicted. The radios in question were "prohibited by law" under the importation statute, 18 U.S.C. 8 545, because of Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") regulations which require that CB radios be type accepted by the FCC. 47 C.F.R. 88 2.803 and 95.603. The radios in question were not type accepted by the FCC and would not have been type accepted by the FCC because they broadcast on frequencies other than those approved by the FCC for CB broadcast (between 26.965 and 27.405 megahertz). See 47 C.F.R. 88 95.625 and 95.655. In this regard, the radios were different from amateur radios. Under FCC regulations, amateur radios broadcast at frequencies different from the approved CB frequencies. 47 C.F.R. § 97.301. As such, the FCC does not required type-acceptance for amateur radios. 47 C.F.R. § 95.655(a). The FCC does, however, require operator licenses for amateur radio operators. 47 C.F.R. 88 97.5-97.9. This procedure differs from that for CB radios as to which no operator license is required. 47 C.F.R. 8 95.404.



Shortly before Trial of Ranger Taiwan and the other Defendants, on January 9, 1998, the Court determined after legal briefing that proof of the conspiracy and illegal importation charges against the Defendants required the United States of America to prove that the Defendants knew that the law prohibited the importation of the radios imported. The Court did so after determining that the imported product was an inherently useful, non-dangerous product whose prohibited importation constituted a malum prohibitum rather than malum in se offense. Thus, the Court permitted testimony of Defendants' experts to the effect that the pertinent regulations were not understood in the electronics industry as prohibiting the imported radios when marketed as amateur radios. Just after that decision, the Court determined Ranger Taiwan's request for early disclosure of Brady and Jencks Act (18 U.S.C.§ 3500) materials. Ranger Taiwan and other Defendants had moved the Court for early disclosure of these materials. (Dkt. No. 241.) The United States responded to the motion by promising disclosure of Brady and Jencks Act materials at least three days prior to trial. (Dkt. No. 275.) Based on this promise, no further relief was ordered. (Dkt. No. 285.)



Trial of the charges was commenced on January 13, 1998. The trial was hotly contested. The trial did not go as expected by the United States in that one of its chief witnesses, John Gouvian, the President of Ranger Communications Inc. ("Ranger U.S.A.") admitted during his testimony that he had knowingly lied to the United States about the contents of bank account records in order to obtain the United States' assistance in moving to quash a subpoena for the records. He did so to prevent the disclosure of the records to the Defendants on Trial and to prevent his cross-examination concerning the records. When disclosed during trial, the records showed that he held a joint account with a debtor of Ranger U.S.A. and was borrowing substantial sums of money from the debtor for his personal expenses, while crediting the debtor's account with Ranger U.S.A. It is hard to imagine more important information being withheld from a defendant before trial.



Following the disclosure of this information, after a jury had been empaneled, the United States offered and some Defendants accepted a plea agreement. Under the plea agreement, some of the Defendants agreed to plead guilty to certain charges and the charges against Ranger Taiwan and Jim Peng would be dismissed in their entirety upon the recommendation of the United States. The charges against Defendant Ranger Taiwan were, thus,dismissed with prejudice by this Court by Order of February 3, 1998 (Dkt. No. 305).



During the later sentencing of other Defendants, it was disclosed that the Ranger/A-1 Telecom indictments were nearly novel. As now indicated by the United States, prior to these related indictments, there have been only three federal prosecutions for importation of illegal CB radios--all stemming from two related cases in the Eastern District of New York. The three New York convictions resulted in probationary sentences and fines. (Dkt. No. 372 at 17.) The instant set of prosecutions has resulted in forfeitures of over one million dollars and many felony and misdemeanor convictions of defendants with no prior criminal records. It also resulted in financial hardship for the indicted companies and the loss of as many as 400 hundred jobs in the various Ranger companies. (Dkt. No. 364 at 11 .)



Early in these criminal proceedings, Michael Olson, attorney for Ranger Taiwan, made several Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests of the FCC relating to documents, correspondence and e-mail discussions relating to certain FCC regulations prohibiting the importation of certain kinds of 10-meter radios. By letter of August 8, 1997, the FCC answered the FOIA requests by refusing to produce some of the requested documents on the ground that production would interfere with an on-going criminal investigation and prosecution such that the documents were exempt from FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7). (Defendant's Exhibit A.) The FCC came to this conclusion based in part on the coordinated review of the documents by the Assistant United States Attorney responsible for the Ranger prosecutions. (Def.'s Ex: A at 3.) Michael Olson made other FOIA requests including one dated February 6, 1998. After the dismissal and resolution of the



charges against the other Defendants, the FCC wrote Olson by letter of March 30, 1998 to inform him that his February 6, 1998 request and prior requests could be answered and were fully answered by 617 pages of materials enclosed. (Def.'s Ex. B.)



Defendant has filed as exhibits a small percentage of the 617 pages of materials as evidence of withheld Brady materials. The materials filed include e-mail transmissions between FCC employees as to confusion about the 10-meter regulations and the need for public notices to clarify the regulations. Defendant asserts that these materials tend to prove its innocence in that it proves that there was legitimate confusion about the regulatory requirements such that it, like other members of the public, would not have realized that the radios imported were prohibited by law. The United States and the FCC engineers assert that these e-mails did not relate to the subject radios (which operated on the Citizens Band without FCC type-acceptance as required by 47 C.F.R. § 2.803 and 47 C.F.R. § 95.603), but to "modifiable" radios--i.e., those radios which do not operate on Citizens Band frequencies but can be modified to do so. While the FCC engineers may have so intended by their statements, their statements are also susceptible to the interpretation that they believed that the industry and the public required greater notice of illegality as to the "open radios" (radios operating on both amateur radio and CB frequencies) marketed by the Defendant, which radios were, according to Defendant, marketed as amateur radios. Indeed, were the statements not susceptible of this interpretation and were they unrelated to the prosecution, the FCC would have had no reason to withhold the documents as to the earlier FOIA request and then disclose them after dismissal!



Two of these documents are especially telling. In Defendant's Exhibit I, there is an e-mail .from Lawrence Brock (an FCC employee stationed in Dallas, Texas) to another FCC employee dated June 7, 1996. The document says in pertinent part:______________________

==================================================

___________________________________________

Let me interrupt at this point, Because this is critical

These are INTERNAL E-Mails from FCC Employees

that show confusion about the rules as they apply to these Radios



_______________________________________________________

==================================================

_______________________________________________________



As you know, the PUBLIC NOTICE went out on "Export" transceivers on May 13-many thanks to Gary.



I think now is the time to publicize it and issue warning letters to known or suspected violators. Gary has already disseminated copies of the notice at a ham convention. In the future, if we can convince AUSAs that there is no doubt that the importers/marketers knew the "export" transceivers were illegal, they may be willing to take on these cases knowing that they may have to argue this point to a jury.



I've prepared a sample warning letter that we may want to send importers and wholesalers ....



Before we mail any warnings, I'll provide ***** (the AUSA handing the A-1 case and its offshoots) with the proposed list and final draft, and determine if he has any objections or concerns relating to what he's doing. The last paragraph to the sample warning letter was added as a "just-in-case" to avoid any future conflict with anything which may be in the works.



I am also appending a sample CITATION, but I'm not recommending it. I believe the referenced sections in a formal citation indicates that it is being issued because it is required (under our Rules) prior to us issuing any administrative forfeitures,.. .which may be argued, implies that they may be ignorant of the violations and should have been informed of the illegalities prior to any criminal charges. I don't believe a citation is required under our Rules for violations relating to activities for which an FCC authorization (including an equipment authorization) is required.



When the warning letters are issued, I hope Gary will be able to address questions concerning the Public Notice (especially as it relates to the Ranger and RCI models).



(Def.'s Ex. I.) This document is susceptible to the interpretation that FCC engineers at the time of the message believed that it was arguable whether regulatory violators who had imported open radios had knowingly violated the law.



Another telling document is Defendant's Exhibit L--an e-mail written from FCC employee Gary Hendrickson to Julius Knapp (another FCC employee) and apparently referencing the "Motion to Dismiss" filed by Defendants in this case. The e-mail reads in part as follows:



In your note on the transmittal slip, you made the comment that to your knowledge "none of the major brands can be modified to operate outside amateur bands--certainly not with the ease provided on the Ranger units."



Unfortunately, this isn't quite the case. Virtually all models of the major brands of "real" amateur equipment CAN be modified for out-of-band operation. This applies both to MF/HF and to VHF/UHF amateur equipment from Icom, Kenwood, Yaesu, etc. Usually, the mods require opening up the unit and removing a resistor or diode-on some, a switch which is hidden on an obscure P.C. board has to be flipped. The mods may not be quite as easy to accomplish as on the Ranger units, but we're just talking about a matter of difficulty.



The mod information is readily available in the amateur versions of the "radio mod" books. The manufacturers will tell an amateur how to do it if he provides them with a copy of his license. Many of the ham radio store's service departments will do the mods (usually upon showing of a license).



There is an exemption in the Rules which permits the use of non-type accepted equipment in the Amateur Radio Service, and for MARS and CAP use. For some strange reason, this exemption is found within the CB Rules (See 95.655(a)), rather than in Part 2! (If we're going to provide a "loophole" for manufacturers, let's be sure to place it right where they can easily find it!) ....



(Def.'s Ex. L.) This document is susceptible to the interpretation that FCC engineers believed at the time of this message that the radios imported by Ranger were not legally distinguishable from modifiable radios, which radios, arguably, were not prohibited by law at the time of the criminal conduct at issue. It would have, thus, provided the Defendant an argument both that the radios imported were not "prohibited by law" and that the regulations in place did not provide adequate notice to importers that the radios were so prohibited.





......



These materials were not produced to the Defendant by the-United States of America prior to March 30, 1998. Presuming receipt of these documents by mail took three days, see Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 45(e), the Defendant received these documents on April 2, 1998. After taking some time to examine these documents, Defendant's attorney signed his Motion for Attorney Fees on June 4, 1998 and filed the same with the Court on June 11, 1998. Defendant's Motion for Attorney Fees requests attorney fees and costs in the amount of $404,737.01.



_______________________________________________________



There is still more to come, I just had to give you guys a break at this point



73

Jeff

<img src=http://www.wwdx.org/smilies/posticon36.gif ALT=":36">


<span style="color:eek:range;font-family:helvetica;font-size:large;">RadioActive</span>

20040427_0100_eit_171.gif






</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p067.ezboard.com/bworldwidecbradioclub.showUserPublicProfile?gid=audioshockwav>AudioShockwav</A> at: 3/22/05 4:56 pm
 

Moleculo

Ham Radio Nerd
Apr 14, 2002
9,034
1,335
283
FDTrucker, the problem with that reasoning is that there's a clause that says (paraphrased) that if you have it in your posession, it is presumed that you have used it. It is specifically talking about amplifiers, but it would be applied to export radios as well. Since a ham radio is not illegal, you can own it even if you don't have a ticket. But if you have have an export without a ticket, you're illegal because the radio is illegal. (If you have a ticket, you still can't use an export on 11m, btw)


</p>
 

Sonwatcher

Active Member
Apr 6, 2005
3,417
21
48
Colorado
I see 2 things here that are VERY interesting !



From The FCC-



<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The United States and the FCC engineers assert that these e-mails did not relate to the subject radios (which operated on the Citizens Band without FCC type-acceptance as required by 47 C.F.R. § 2.803 and 47 C.F.R. § 95.603), but to "modifiable" radios--i.e., those radios which do not operate on Citizens Band frequencies but can be modified to do so<hr></blockquote>



From the email-



"In your note on the transmittal slip, you made the comment that to your knowledge "none of the major brands can be modified to operate outside amateur bands--certainly not with the ease provided on the Ranger units."



Unfortunately, this isn't quite the case. Virtually all models of the major brands of "real" amateur equipment CAN be modified for out-of-band operation. This applies both to MF/HF and to VHF/UHF amateur equipment from Icom, Kenwood, Yaesu, etc. Usually, the mods require opening up the unit and removing a resistor or diode-on some, a switch which is hidden on an obscure P.C. board has to be flipped. The mods may not be quite as easy to accomplish as on the Ranger units, but we're just talking about a matter of difficulty.



The mod information is readily available in the amateur versions of the "radio mod" books. The manufacturers will tell an amateur how to do it if he provides them with a copy of his license. Many of the ham radio store's service departments will do the mods (usually upon showing of a license).



<span style="text-decoration:underline">There is an exemption in the Rules which permits the use of non-type accepted equipment in the Amateur Radio Service, and for MARS and CAP use. For some strange reason, this exemption is found within the CB Rules (See 95.655(a)), rather than in Part 2! (If we're going to provide a "loophole" for manufacturers, let's be sure to place it right where they can easily find it!) </span>"...



This email was dated June 7, 1996

In Dec. 1996 Ranger was charged.

In Feb. 1998 the charges were thrown out.



The law underlined above that the Email referrs to -95.655a was changed July 7, 1998



The FCC claims the emails weren't referring to the Ranger radios yet the email specifically referrs to them



I don't see the difference between a Ranger radio that out of the box operates on HF until modified and a Yaesu that does the same and can be equally modified. My Yaesu is easier to modify than the Ranger ! Mine comes with a factory made switch to open it up .



It's interesting if you look at that law in part c-



"No add-on device, whether internal or external, the function of

which is to extend the transmitting frequency capability of a CB

transmitter beyond its original capability, <span style="text-decoration:underline">shall be manufactured, sold </span>

or attached to any CB station transmitter."



Those Expander kits are as illegal as the Ranger. They aren't even allowed to be legally manufactured.




sonwatchersig.gif
</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p067.ezboard.com/bworldwidecbradioclub.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sonwatcher>Sonwatcher</A> at: 3/22/05 6:56 pm
 

AudioShockwav

Extraterrestrial
Staff member
Apr 6, 2005
7,252
4,803
343
Sierras Near Yosemite National Park
<blockquote>Quote:<hr>No add-on device, whether internal or external, the function of

which is to extend the transmitting frequency capability of a CB

transmitter beyond its original capability, shall be manufactured, sold

or attached to any CB station transmitter."<hr></blockquote>

You often find this somewere...........



Legal

Disclamer:



These kits will expand the frequency range of the CB far beyond the 40 channels allocated by the FCC. It is illegal to transmit on these frequencies in the U.S.A. for class (D) CB Units. These kits are sold for receive purposes only, and no responsibility for their illegal use will be assumed by the maker or distributor. Installation is the sole responsibility of the user, and warranty provided for the kit only.





<img src=http://www.wwdx.org/smilies/posticon46.gif ALT=":46">



73

Jeff


<span style="color:eek:range;font-family:helvetica;font-size:large;">RadioActive</span>

20040427_0100_eit_171.gif






</p>
 

Sonwatcher

Active Member
Apr 6, 2005
3,417
21
48
Colorado
<blockquote>Quote:<hr>No self-respecting ham would be caught dead with one of these.<hr></blockquote>



I have seen these for sale many times on Ham forums.Here are a few recent ones from Eham-For sale and Wanted by Hams-



2005-03-20

KG4OEZ Misc



Galaxy DX99V and a Galaxy DX55V



I have a real nice Galaxy DX99V and a Galaxy DX55V. Both been lightly used and work 100% Getting out of the hobby. Asking $235 for the 99 and $140 for the 55. I can send pictures if interested. Thanks





2005-03-19

KC2IGY HF Radios



Galaxy DX88HL + D-104 Silver Eagle



Galaxy DX88HL 10 meter radio with Astatic D-104 Silver Eagle mic. The radio is in good condition. Everything works as it should. The frequency counter counts up from 0MHz to the selected frequency when first turned on. I have no idea why it does this, but it has no effect on the operation of the radio. After a minute, it displays the correct frequency. The D-104 is in very good condition. The head is in perfect condition. The amplified stand has been refinished in a metallic dark turquoise color, and looks good. I'm the second owner of these, and I've talked around the world on them. Pics available upon request. Radio comes with mobile bracket, copy of manual, and power cable. $225 shipped.





Item sold!



2005-03-12

KE6OUD HF Radios



WTB: Rci Ranger 2950-2970



Looking to buy a Rci 2950 or 2970 10 meter mobile. DX model ok. Fellow Ham did some backhoe work for me & won't take payment but wanted one of these radios to trade him. I do PayPal! Please send price including shipping to 96003. Pics would be nice... Thanks & 73, Charlie





2005-02-27

N2KNC HF Radios



wtb :ranger 2950



looking for this 10 meter radio email me with your price nospamN2KNC@yahoo.com remove the nospam





2005-01-06

NEW2HAMRADIO Misc



RCI 2950 and LINEAR



I am selling an RCI 2950 with a D104-M6B mic. It is in great condition. Also a Palomar Elite 225 linear. Amp was never used and in perfect condition. $300 or best offer takes everything.





2004-12-06

N4ZYV Wanted



RCI-2950



Looking to put 10 meters in the car. Would like an RCI-2950. I don't have lotsa money to spend, need one cheap.





2004-11-25

KB9RZS HF Radios



Icom IC-PCR100



For sale or trade An Icom IC-PCR100 in perfect condition. Comes with data cable, antenna, ac adapter, software. Looking for RCI-2950, VHF/UHF radio, OR???? Let me know what you have!!





2004-11-24

KB9RZS Mics & Headsets



Astatic Golden Eagle(in original box)



For sale or trade Astatic Golden Eagle in great condition. I have owned this microphone for many years. Only used once on radio, then removed battery and stored away, only to take out to "show off" to close friends. Looking to trade for HR-2510 or RCI-2950...OR????



<img src=http://www.wwdx.org/smilies/posticon13.gif ALT=":p13">


sonwatchersig.gif
</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p067.ezboard.com/bworldwidecbradioclub.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sonwatcher>Sonwatcher</A> at: 3/23/05 1:12 pm
 

Moleculo

Ham Radio Nerd
Apr 14, 2002
9,034
1,335
283
The 2510/Licolns have everything you mentioned above. They're great little inexpensive radios. There was a time when a lot of dads bought their kid those radios when they finally achieved the general upgrade because it was inexpensive, yet a grat radio that got them on HF. And they're still illegal to sell in the U.S.


</p>
 

AudioShockwav

Extraterrestrial
Staff member
Apr 6, 2005
7,252
4,803
343
Sierras Near Yosemite National Park
It has gone OK so far, and I find it from an information stand point, to be interesting. Yes it is apparent that at the time FCC was not organized enough to present it side of the case, nor was the Assistant United States Attorney doing much better( wonder how much he made a year?)

And to further add to there woes.

If I understand this correctly, the text I am about to quote, was a critical point for Ranger in the case.





<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Court did so after determining that the imported product was an inherently useful, non-dangerous product whose prohibited importation constituted a malum prohibitum rather than malum in se offense.<hr></blockquote>



You can find the rest in one of the posts above, to get a feel for the context, but from a legal stand-point this court determination defined the way the " Legal System" would "Perceive" Ranger from there on.

It also tells that the violation is wrong only because a statute makes it so, and these are typically regulatory in nature and often "'result in no direct or immediate injury to person or property but merely create the danger or probability of it which the law seeks to minimize. "



I feel this is important, because if they had determined it was " malum in se offense" It then is considered "naturally evil as judged by the sense of a civilized community, " that would mean that it was considered an act that is illegal from the nature of the act, that it was inherently evil without any fact of its being noticed,

These types of crimes are for example, larceny, rape. murder.

This type of crime is looked at with a much different viewpoint from the justice community than crimes that are determined to be malum prohibitum.



. Anyone?



73

Jeff






<span style="color:eek:range;font-family:helvetica;font-size:large;">RadioActive</span>

20040427_0100_eit_171.gif






</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p067.ezboard.com/bworldwidecbradioclub.showUserPublicProfile?gid=audioshockwav>AudioShockwav</A> at: 3/24/05 1:14 pm
 

Sonwatcher

Active Member
Apr 6, 2005
3,417
21
48
Colorado
<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Sonwatcher, notice I said "no self respecting ham"<hr></blockquote>



I tend to disagree in part. I have read these arguments on Eham and have found them interesting. Some Hams have shared that when they started with their Ham ticket they did not have the finances to buy an expensive Ham rig. I for one would not pay or be able to fork over the money for some radios that I have seen are used by hams in this forum. But if there were a 10 meter Galaxy or some other 10/12 meter radio that was in my price range and it would get me on the air to be able to enjoy my privileges I would do so. I don't have to pay big bucks to enjoy the hobby. The only downfall would be the belittling I may get from the Hams that CAN buy the expensive radios and look upon me as someone with "no self respect". It use to be that the character of the operator was what dignified the respect of the person. Not what his financial or personal preferences of equipment were. That contributes to a class system which tends to make some people feel worthless in the eyes of the financial elite.To be able to use an insignificant radio to some to be able to accomplish the same thing a guy with a large pocket book can do with his Icom or Kenwood to me gives a certain form of self satisfaction.Sure it isn't one of the major Ham radios and I may wish to be able to have them as others do but that does not make me or anyone a person of low worth. It may not be your preference but I wouldn't degrade someone for whatever reason chooses to go that route.That is not the spirit of Ham radio or being an Elmer. That to me shows someone's true "self respect".


sonwatchersig.gif
</p>
 

yama junk owna

Active Member
Apr 5, 2005
196
1
26
This may not be the best section for this question but it has somewhat to do with enforcement. My question is since most if not all of these radio's are made overseas how are they so easily shipped into this country ? seems like the customs dept. is not doing its job or the fcc isn't one because if it not type certified is it not supossed to be turned back at the docks? Now I understand why drugs are smuggled into the country but I don't see that radios have that kind of profit margin, not trying to be a smart butt here I was just wondering?


</p>
 

dxChat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • @ kopcicle:
    Anyway , all my hopes and hope you all are well
  • @ ExitThirteen:
    woid.
  • @ kopcicle:
    gnorph ?
  • @ WillyB123:
    Zorfnolp
  • @ WillyB123:
    glimzawoocyzk