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

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: FCC Administrative Law Judge Terminates Long-Standing Amateur License Renewal  (Read 6504 times)
WA2ISE
Member

Posts: 1254




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: July 15, 2018, 01:37:49 PM »

I imagine it took that administrative judge about 2 seconds to find the "deny" button with his mouse on his computer, after reading the matter.   Wink
Logged
K9MHZ
Member

Posts: 1725




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: July 15, 2018, 04:40:09 PM »

Indeed.  Would love to have seen it live.
Logged
K5TED
Member

Posts: 224




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: July 15, 2018, 08:14:46 PM »

I’m sure AB5S has the inside scoop on this one as well.

I, for one, am waiting with baited breath.  Wink

FYI, the ARRL has, temporarily I suspect, pulled the article. It may have something to do with the fact that the final paragraph as it was originally written contained a blatant misstatement to the effect that WBJ's license is kaput:

Quote
Crowell’s license expired in 2007, but he was allowed to continue to operate while his renewal application was pending. With his license renewal proceeding terminated, he may no longer operate legally.


As I write this, it remains Active and, I'm almost positive, will remain active pending a decision on a final Administrative appeal he may be able to make to the full Commission.

I say may be able to make because they may not grant him a final appeal because, as of this moment, there are no legitimate matters-of-fact that could form the basis for an appeal, because so many of his previous filings have been deemed to have been made in bad faith and [and this may be the most important] he failed to take advantage of an Administrative remedy before him when he refused to appear before the ALJ.

But they were 100% wrong in stating that he may no longer operate legally as of the date of the article.

I'm surprised that they made such an egregious error.





"baited" breath???  Have you been consuming anchovies and hope to attract cats? Think you meant to spell "bated".... 

Anyway, Get a callsign..



Logged
PITSWL
Member

Posts: 189




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: July 16, 2018, 07:07:06 AM »

While I'm not sure about this, as it's been a while and my memory might miss a detail, but Glenn Baxter (SK) ex-K1MAN went to US District Court following his Forfeiture Order.  It wasn't in DC, it was near him in Maine.  And, K3VR didn't have to travel to DC either for his "day in court."

Baxter brought his own legal action in US District Court, completely outside of the FCC's Administrative process. The Crow matter was also brought in US District Court in his jurisdiction in line with statute in situations where the Commission is owed a debt; that too was outside the Administrative process.

Quote from: W6EM
So, it would seem to me that the FCC has skipped at least one step in W6WBJ's case.

They haven't skipped a step, they've merely denied him what they have no obligation to grant him in the first place.

That he imagines himself entitled to a field hearing doesn't mean they're under any obligation to grant him one, and they offered a fine basis for their position in Judge Sippel's decision of 7/9/2018.

Quote from: W6EM
To be consistent, WBJ should be allowed to go to his closest US District Court geographically, to be heard...

He is allowed to do just that. It simply won't be within the Administrative process.

Quote from: W6EM
I don't believe that non-payment or dismissal of his renewal could take place without his "day in court," so to speak, on a consistent basis with the other two people.

The Baxter and Crow matters are not equivalent to Crowell's situation.

As for his, "day in court", he rejected the opportunity to have it because he didn't like the venue. Within the Administrative process, that constitutes a failure to prosecute.

He has no option to disregard the Administrative process simply because he disagrees with it.

He can try to argue [again] that he simply doesn't agree with the process or that there is, "bias" against him in a pleading for an appeal to the full Commission. Given how many of his pleadings have been rejected for lack of legal basis or have been determined to be brought in bad faith, I suspect he has an uphill battle.

Quote from: W6EM
To claim they have a right to dismiss the renewal due his inability to travel to DC to physically appear before an ALJ seems like new ground.  Why shouldn't the ALJ do the opposite?  (Travel to Sacramento CA to continue his proceedings)

He has to prove his alleged inability to travel to DC. He's consistently failed to do that; his pleadings on the matter constitute little more than, "I don't want to go to DC, I don't think I should have to, so I'm not".

Quote from: W6EM
Or, in this day of "Go-to-Meeting" via Web video, why couldn't something like that have been arranged?  Perhaps Chairman Pai has a point......

YOU have a point. Don't confuse yours with Pai's.

On your point, it's the ARRL that should be arguing for things like this, as well as other changes to the Administrative process as well as other problems with how the Commission governs [or, more accurately, fails to govern] the amateur radio service - that, as opposed to trying to fight with homeowners' associations.

Quote from: AB5S
.........

Yes, I misspelled a word. It happens.

That said, I think you're confusing the smell of my breath with the BS you regurgitated in the other thread. You know, the anonymously mass-emailed nonsense that contained no facts whatsoever.

Quote from: K5TED
........

Have anything to say that comes within a light-year of being on topic?
Logged

"Section 97.101(d) prohibits ALL amateur licensees from causing harmful interference, and does not provide ANY exception for interference caused to other amateurs whom the interferer believes have violated a Commission rule." - DA 16-877 at 17
W2NAP
Member

Posts: 290




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: July 16, 2018, 08:42:03 AM »

i am just here for the popcorn
Logged

I AM THE VOICE OF THE VOICELESS!
PITSWL
Member

Posts: 189




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: July 16, 2018, 09:21:46 AM »

i am just here for the popcorn

You're sure you don't want to make a thing over a minor misspelling or, perhaps, misuse of a comma or something?

 Wink
« Last Edit: July 16, 2018, 09:29:45 AM by PITSWL » Logged

"Section 97.101(d) prohibits ALL amateur licensees from causing harmful interference, and does not provide ANY exception for interference caused to other amateurs whom the interferer believes have violated a Commission rule." - DA 16-877 at 17
K9MHZ
Member

Posts: 1725




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: July 16, 2018, 10:07:26 AM »

You're sure you don't want to make a thing over a minor misspelling or, perhaps, misuse of a comma or something?
 Wink

That's done when people want to get under your skin because you're annoying them.  Not excusing it, but I might suggest rethinking parsing peoples' posts and replying to each sentence.  As for not using a callsign, yes eHam allows it, but it does annoy the majority of people who man-up with their posting activity. 

Hopefully not picking a fight, but maybe one of those "just sayin" deals from a friend.
Logged
WZ7U
Member

Posts: 1073




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: July 16, 2018, 10:28:55 AM »

I am not entertained. Entertain me.
Logged
W4AMP
Member

Posts: 156




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: July 16, 2018, 03:48:24 PM »

i am just here for the popcorn

Popcorn is tight.
Logged
K9MHZ
Member

Posts: 1725




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: July 17, 2018, 08:11:24 AM »

https://tenor.com/view/giraffe-eating-popcorn-gif-7328433
Logged
W0BKR
Member

Posts: 1977




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: July 20, 2018, 07:11:34 AM »

So my take away from the W6 enforcement as presented by ARRL bulletin (or whatever), nothing has really changed (at the moment, still operating on a 10 year expired license)....

So, what came out of the "enforcement" action?  Appears to me, nothing.
It's no wonder folks that read read all this stuff come away with "huh...what just happened?".... Huh Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: July 20, 2018, 07:14:14 AM by W0XX » Logged
G3RZP
Member

Posts: 1043




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: July 20, 2018, 08:26:57 AM »

There doesn't appear to be much enforcement anywhere in the world. Except maybe China and Russia - and I'm not sure about them.
Logged
W0BKR
Member

Posts: 1977




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: July 22, 2018, 11:36:05 AM »

Yep, and wouldn't want to try my luck in either country...LOL
Logged
ONAIR
Member

Posts: 3699




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: July 22, 2018, 01:04:50 PM »

There doesn't appear to be much enforcement anywhere in the world. Except maybe China and Russia - and I'm not sure about them.
  Don't forget North Korea!!   Roll Eyes
Logged
G3RZP
Member

Posts: 1043




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: July 23, 2018, 04:40:54 AM »

But who operates the radio in North Korea other than the military and security services? Maybe their operators only get one chance to do it wrong......
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!