eHam.net - Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net


QSL Managers
     

Ham Links
     



[Articles Home]  [Add Article]  

FCC to ex-KC5WHN: Pay the $4,000 Fine !

from ARRL on November 11, 2000
Website: http://www.arrl.org
View comments about this article!

FCC Reaffirms Reduced Fine for Former Amateur

NEWINGTON, CT, Nov 10, 2000--The FCC has denied a Petition for Reconsideration filed by a former Houston, Texas, amateur and has affirmed a $4000 fine. Leonard D. Martin, formerly KC5WHN, had asked the FCC to reconsider its reduced fine for operating without a license and for refusing FCC requests to inspect his radio installation.

This past summer, the Commission substantially reduced the $17,000 fine it had proposed to levy against Martin. On July 12, the FCC issued a Forfeiture Order telling Martin to pay $4000 for repeated unlicensed operation on 11 meters and for failing to allow equipment inspections on several occasions.

The FCC's Houston Office sent its initial Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture to Martin last March 3 for "repeatedly and willfully" violating Section 301 of the Communications Act. In responding to the NAL, the FCC said, Martin did not deny the violations but requested cancellation of the fine arguing that he was unable to pay it. The FCC said Martin submitted copies of his tax returns for 1996, 1997 and 1998 as proof. He also told the FCC that he would dismantle and sell all of his radio transmitting gear and antenna and forfeit proceeds to the FCC or to charity and would permit FCC personnel to inspect his residence to insure all equipment has been removed.

The FCC said that "in view of his past history" it could not rely on Martin's promises to reform, but that it could reduce the initial $17,000 forfeiture to $4000, given Martin's "limited ability to pay the full amount."

The FCC maintained that the $4000 fine is justified in light serious nature of the willful and repeated violations, some of which followed FCC warnings and Martin's promises to comply. Martin subsequently appealed the reduced forfeiture.

The FCC received its initial complaints against Martin in May 1998, alleging that a station identifying as KC5WHN was operating on frequencies not authorized by Martin's Technician class license. FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth sent Martin a Warning Notice in November 1998. The FCC says Martin "generally denied the unauthorized operation."

On subsequent occasions, an FCC agent using mobile automatic direction finding equipment observed voice transmissions on 27.545 and 27.535 MHz--channels allocated to the US government and the Industrial Radio Service respectively--and on 27.370, a CB "guard channel." The FCC says the station failed to identify but responded to the name "Leonard."

The FCC determined that the source of the transmissions was an antenna at Martin's residence, but Martin reportedly refused to let the agent look at his radio equipment. The agent advised Martin that operation on the 27 MHz frequencies was illegal because he had no FCC license to operate on those frequencies, and that his refusal to allow an inspection was also a violation.

After the FCC's Houston Office issued Martin an Official Notice of Violation in April 1999, Martin promised that "no further action by the Commission" would be necessary to ensure his compliance with the FCC rules. In July of last year, Martin turned in his Amateur Radio license for cancellation.

In October 1999, the FCC again tracked transmissions on 27.535 MHz and 27.455 MHz to Martin's residence. Once again, Martin reportedly refused to let FCC personnel inspect his transmitting gear.

The FCC acted on Martin's reconsideration petition on November 7. The FCC Order reaffirming the $4000 fine gives Martin 30 days to pay.

 

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
 
FCC to ex-KC5WHN: Pay the $4,000 Fine !  
by VE1EO on November 11, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
I see nothing amiss in the FCC's action here...I think we need more of this kind of enforcement of the radio regulations...I applaud the FCC's restraint also, they gave the subject every chance anyone could expect to 'mend his ways'. If we had more of this kund of 'tough love' then we'd have less of the 'gangster rule' mentality that we're seeing more of every day. I've been licensed since 1962 and there's certainly a large difference in attitude and reduction in respect for the rules from that time till now.
 
FCC to ex-KC5WHN: Pay the $4,000 Fine !  
by KG8DP on November 12, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Way to Go!!!! (FCC) If one cannot play by the rules, they need to get out & leave. If they dont, those who violate these rules should not cry like a baby when caught. Further, they should act like an adult, stand up and receive their punishment. We all live by the same rules. Abide by them. This "reconsideration" of any penalty is a crock. This is no different than reducing a criminal offense when the offender has not spent the first minute locked up. Any of these ill foul reputes never give any consideration to getting caught. Just like a child, the aftermath behavior is one to expect. All leading to that of no accountability for ones actions.

73's
 
RE: FCC to ex-KC5WHN: Pay the $4,000 Fine !  
by BERT on November 12, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Bravo on this. I think it was the right call by the FCC to first reduce the fine(trying to meet the guy half-way) and stand firm at $4,000.00.

73 de Bert
SSB411D
 
String him up!  
Anonymous post on November 13, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Fine(s), IMO, should at least cover the costs of ferreting the guy out. The taxpayers of the US have surely paid far more than $4K to nail this guy. He should consider himself lucky.
 
FCC to ex-KC5WHN: Pay the $4,000 Fine !  
by AA0AAA on November 14, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
May I quote?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seisures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, suppoerted by oath or affirmation, and particularly discribing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Constitution of The United States

Was there a warrant to search? As a licensee you surrender your right to require a warrant, but this person was not licensed. There was no proof of wrong doing offered to any court. Then, by what authority does the FCC propose to confiscate any assets of a U.S. citizen?

Do not let your agreement with the specifics of this one case blind you to the more dangerous usurpation of a fundamental American right.
 
RE: FCC to ex-KC5WHN: Pay the $4,000 Fine !  
by BERT on November 15, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
I guess I stand corrected, AA0AAA. I absolutely agree with you. I'd have to say based on the information, I would have liked to see a "court of law" impose and subsequently reduce the fine...AFTER KC5WHN refused to allow a "warrant" search and had been proven guilty in a "court of law."

I'm almost embarrassed as my dad(ret. police officer w/25 yrs. on-the-job.) asked me if "this perp" had been served a warrant and was literally horrified when I explained that the FCC has legislative, executive, and judiciary power...all without even one elected post. He had been taught that no agency should circumvent "checks and balances" and added that although he agrees with the outcome, it should have been arrived at via the method he fought in WWII for. Thanks for posting and waking me up!

73 de Bert
SSB411D
ssb411d@cs.com
 
Make this snake pay or put him in jail!  
by NT4I on November 19, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
Guys like this continue to make the hobby unpleasant. Make him pay, sieze his assets or put him in jail and let him work it off.
Keep up the GREAT work.
 
RE: Make this snake pay or put him in jail!  
by BERT on November 21, 2000 Mail this to a friend!
I think we're all agreed as to what end this "case" SHOULD have logically concluded. There just seems to be a difference of opinions as to how much of our(US citizens) principles we're willing to compromise to arrive at that conclusion. That said, repeated willful interference and unlicensed operation is definitely a no-no. 73 and happy holidays to you all.

Bert
 
RE: Make this snake pay or put him in jail!  
Anonymous post on January 30, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
Bert I see your a U.S. citizen. As we all are through fraud and deceit. For those of you who not aware of it. A U.S. citizen is one who was born in the District of Columbia or the American Territories. For those of you born in these united States of America. united is not a typo. You can also write it as United States'.
You were born a Sovereign Citizen. Notice anything abt this Citizen verus' the other one. Lots of difference in a Court of Law.
I'm glad someone pointed out the bit abt a warrant. But are any of you aware that no Federal Officer has any Legal jurisdiction except on Federally owned Property. You local sheriff can run them out of town if he so desires. Enough on that except for one thing. Are you aware that the F.C.C. has no legal reason or right to ask for your SSN on the 610 form. This info was published in our local newspaper except it wasn't abt the FCC, but more in regards to the SSN.
No I'm not a Lawyer but I have read enough on this subject to know something abt it. Its like trying to blame the gun for Killing someone instead of the person who did the shooting. Sure these people need to be punished but to what EXTREME.
 
RE: Make this snake pay or put him in jail!  
Anonymous post on January 30, 2001 Mail this to a friend!
Bert I'm sorry I got you and AA0AAA mixed up. But it looks like he knows something Abt U.S.citizens himself.
All of you need to start learning something abt your Constitutional Rights. I repeat RIGHTS not a privilege's granted by the government. Again a world of difference.
 
FCC to ex-KC5WHN: Pay the $4,000 Fine !  
by AB8RU on May 29, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
Well Freebanding is Illeagle to begin with, here let me say this what if your mom was in an ambulance to the hospital and someone took over the EMS channels ? do you think that they have a right to interfere with their services while someones life is on the line and needed authourization to administer a shot or not, maybe an alleggic reaction to that shot is like deadly poison ? oh yeah repeater kerchunking and jamming the digital computer freqs. big ole 500 watt or so signal hmm anything right or wrong here ?

remember you said the FCC did not have a right entering his house blah blah ok so freddie jammer is in his right to mess with that person's life, or worse yet. are you getting my point of view yet !

how about letting kid brother play with a loaded pistol and no gun saftey locks, remember right to play with anything and a lock is violating his enjoment of playing with a loaded gun and trigger.

Disagree yet ?

the FCC should enforce the policy Gun Locks to protect children and keep jammers off other frequencies.
 
RE: FCC to ex-KC5WHN: Pay the $4,000 Fine !  
by K1CJS on December 18, 2004 Mail this to a friend!
I think most of you should reread the rules and regs of the amateur service, particularly the parts you sign when you submit your license application after you pass your tests.

The FCC and its agents have the right to request an inspection of your station and its equipment, not the right to enter over your objection. You agree to grant them that right when you signed the application form. There is also something called 'probable cause' that gives any law enforcement official reason to request a court ordered search warrant. In such cases, you are presented with the warrant, and if you refuse permission you are arrested and the search takes place anyway.

Our country is free, but only to a point. Granted, the evidence must be substantial, but that freedom is a right only to the extent the law enforcement officials allow it to be. And if those officials use their positions wrongfully to harass someone, that person has avenues to pursue to right the wrong done to him.

In this case, it seems that the person accused has committed the acts he is accused of and is now saying 'please let me off the hook'. If he isn't guilty, he should fight this. But, from the reports, it seems he is guilty and is now asking for mercy. If so, he should just pay the fine and be done with the affair.
 
FCC to ex-KC5WHN: Pay the $4,000 Fine !  
by N0AH on May 4, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
can you say "STUPID"
 
FCC to ex-KC5WHN: Pay the $4,000 Fine !  
by KB2VXA on May 5, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Hi all,

Well, the Newington Knuckleheads do it again.

"On July 12, the FCC issued a Forfeiture Order telling Martin to pay $4000 for repeated unlicensed operation on 11 meters and for failing to allow equipment inspections on several occasions."

OK, failing to allow inspections makes ense, but since when do you need a license for 11M?

"On subsequent occasions, an FCC agent using mobile automatic direction finding equipment observed voice transmissions on 27.545 and 27.535 MHz--channels allocated to the US government and the Industrial Radio Service respectively--and on 27.370, a CB "guard channel."

Again part makes sense, that's what those frequencies are assigned to. The bit that doesn't is that 27.370 is not a channel, guard or anything else. 365 is channel 36 and 375 is 37 and considering AM bandwidth the channels actually "touch" each other being 10kHz wide. No arguments please, this isn't Amateur bandwidth we're about here.

"The agent advised Martin that operation on the 27 MHz frequencies was illegal because he had no FCC license to operate on those frequencies, and that his refusal to allow an inspection was also a violation."

Now they change wavelength to frequency so finally it makes sense!

"In July of last year, Martin turned in his Amateur Radio license for cancellation."

Seeing he was screwed he beat them to the punch.

"The FCC Order reaffirming the $4000 fine gives Martin 30 days to pay."

That's right freebanders, if you wanna play ya gotta pay! That's some rather expensive CB station he's got there, I got away with a $50 Rat Shack Special and never removed the screws holding the case together. I never saw the need for more than 23 channels and now they have 40.

One final comment regarding the article, who writes these things? (;->)
 
FCC to ex-KC5WHN: Pay the $4,000 Fine !  
by KC7PAX on June 19, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
He knew what he was doing...
Make him eat dirt!!!!!!!

KC7PAX
 
RE: FCC to ex-KC5WHN: Pay the $4,000 Fine !  
by N5JYZ on June 22, 2005 Mail this to a friend!
Funny how we cry foul when the FCC wants to see your equipment and we state the Consitutions protection of search and seizure at all costs but when it comes to this Presidental administrations erosion of this same Consitution under the ever so vague "Homeland Security" we have no problem with it. President Bush'e dad while he was president constantly invoked this "New World Order" dialoug. I invite anyone to research this term "New World Order" and it's origin and you will quickly find the FCC's ability to look at your equipment in your home under administrative law far less dangerous than the capabilities of Homeland Security usefulness to big brother to erode your Consitutional protection..

If you are a licensed ham radio operator and the FCC wants to look at you equipment what your problem it's all part of the "privilige"
Bob
 
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Other News Articles
Student Sends MIT Letter to Space:
Amateur Radio Club Talks to Hams Worldwide on Centennial:
New Communication Exhibit Helps Kids Get the Message:
Transmission of Images - No Internet, Satellite, Cable, or Cells Needed!
Deltona Youth Loves to Ham It Up on the Radio: