I have a question for you. I'm not being a 'smart ass', it's a legitimate question seriously asked. Are any of you lawyers? Or are you aware of the legal processes, the loop-holes, the 'wiggle' room which can be employed to obstruct or lengthen the legal processes involved in this sort of thing? Have you ever had a 'taste' of it?
I'm not a lawyer, I don't have a great grasp on all the legal permutations, but I have had a 'taste' of it. That 'taste didn't involve if a radio was legal or not, it dealt with interference, which isn't the same thing at all. It does illustrate the problems if you think about it though.
It came down to me being put under a restraining order which basically said I couldn't transmit at all until the matter was resolved. This was NOT in a federal court, it was at a 'county' or state court level. Yes, I know that's not legal, they can't do that. Are you aware of the trouble and expense required to fight that sort of thing? Not being financially able to afford that I didn't transmit for a month until the court date. I'm also aware that there are organizations which say they will assist in this sort of thing. Tried that, it would have taken longer than the month I couldn't transmit, would have postponed the scheduled court date, and was still not free by any means. So guess who waited. The matter was resolved before going to court but had to do that anyway. When I tried to explain some of the federal regulations, and about the federal preemption with interference enforcement I was told by the jusge that it was a mute point and he wouldn't listen to me. (No, it wasn't CB related, but does show the legal 'establishment's attitudes.)
It is never as simple as it seems, it always takes an unreasonable amount of time, and most of the commonly available 'help' is usually no help at all. An individual seldom is able to do anything because of the cost. Larger companies can have 'tame' lawyers on call that do this sort of thing for a (very good) living. They can afford to utilize the 'holes' of legal terminology/wording to get away with almost anything they want. They can make the legal system 'work' for them.
There's a fairly simple way around all this, but I won't ever see it used in my life time, and I seriously doubt in yours. It's called common sense, or logic. It requires having a pair of 'brass' ones, to say, "This is how it's gonna be.". Doesn't matter if someone with a 'brass pair' sits on the bench or heads the department, they certainly won't be there long. I'm sure you can figure out why without me telling you, right?
Unfortunately, that's one of the 'bad' parts of this country's 'style'. Not good, but still better than anything else I've ever heard of, if that's any consolation.
So I can certainly understand why what's happening is happening the way it is. I don't agree with it, or like it. But all 'we' can do is make it 'work' for us as best we can.
That certainly felt good, I ought'a do that 'ranting' more often. Wouldn't change a thing, but it feels good, don't it?
- 'Doc
PS - That interference thingy in state court was the second 'step' in that little tale. First 'step' was in city court. Since I worked for the city, and since the complainer thought I had 'pull' because of that (yeah, right!), and since he dang near was cited for contempt when it was thrown out (federal preemption), it went to the second step. Whoop-ee!
I'm not a lawyer, I don't have a great grasp on all the legal permutations, but I have had a 'taste' of it. That 'taste didn't involve if a radio was legal or not, it dealt with interference, which isn't the same thing at all. It does illustrate the problems if you think about it though.
It came down to me being put under a restraining order which basically said I couldn't transmit at all until the matter was resolved. This was NOT in a federal court, it was at a 'county' or state court level. Yes, I know that's not legal, they can't do that. Are you aware of the trouble and expense required to fight that sort of thing? Not being financially able to afford that I didn't transmit for a month until the court date. I'm also aware that there are organizations which say they will assist in this sort of thing. Tried that, it would have taken longer than the month I couldn't transmit, would have postponed the scheduled court date, and was still not free by any means. So guess who waited. The matter was resolved before going to court but had to do that anyway. When I tried to explain some of the federal regulations, and about the federal preemption with interference enforcement I was told by the jusge that it was a mute point and he wouldn't listen to me. (No, it wasn't CB related, but does show the legal 'establishment's attitudes.)
It is never as simple as it seems, it always takes an unreasonable amount of time, and most of the commonly available 'help' is usually no help at all. An individual seldom is able to do anything because of the cost. Larger companies can have 'tame' lawyers on call that do this sort of thing for a (very good) living. They can afford to utilize the 'holes' of legal terminology/wording to get away with almost anything they want. They can make the legal system 'work' for them.
There's a fairly simple way around all this, but I won't ever see it used in my life time, and I seriously doubt in yours. It's called common sense, or logic. It requires having a pair of 'brass' ones, to say, "This is how it's gonna be.". Doesn't matter if someone with a 'brass pair' sits on the bench or heads the department, they certainly won't be there long. I'm sure you can figure out why without me telling you, right?
Unfortunately, that's one of the 'bad' parts of this country's 'style'. Not good, but still better than anything else I've ever heard of, if that's any consolation.
So I can certainly understand why what's happening is happening the way it is. I don't agree with it, or like it. But all 'we' can do is make it 'work' for us as best we can.
That certainly felt good, I ought'a do that 'ranting' more often. Wouldn't change a thing, but it feels good, don't it?
- 'Doc
PS - That interference thingy in state court was the second 'step' in that little tale. First 'step' was in city court. Since I worked for the city, and since the complainer thought I had 'pull' because of that (yeah, right!), and since he dang near was cited for contempt when it was thrown out (federal preemption), it went to the second step. Whoop-ee!