YOUR LEADER K1MAN/AARA/IARN WILL NOT PAY $21,000 FCC FINE - DEMANDS JURY TRIAL
netma...@yahoo.com
1. The FCC has declined to provide a requested hearing, and the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution requires a hearing and due
process of law before they can collect a dime much less the "ORDERED"
"fine" of $21,000. Even a traffic ticket gets a hearing, right?
2. Therefore, the next step for the FCC, by statute, is to now sue
K1MAN for the claimed $21,000 in Federal District Court in Bangor,
Maine where K1MAN would demand a trial by jury (trial de novo),
subpoena witnesses (Hollingsworth, Boston Office Engineers, hams,
etc.), file motions, etc. The FCC can't even bring such a suit, of
course, because the minimum claim in Federal District Court is
$50,000.
3. By statute, unresolved forfeiture matters such as above cannot be
used in any other FCC proceeding such as K1MAN's pending renewal
application.
4. By statute, K1MAN can and will continue to operate until the
renewal application is finally decided including all appeals to the
D.C. Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Bottom line is that the FCC is blowing phony legal smoke leading to
Hollingsworth's 2006 Dayton "Special Achievement Award" which is not
too bad for a guy who was sick on the day they taught law at law
school. Wake Forest Law School should refund all of his hard earned
money! Good luck in the contest!
73 and GL de K1MAN
Glenn A. Baxter, P.E.
BEGONE
<netma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145124055.0...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
an_old_friend
is in eror about the 50k limit apling to the FCC the govt is often
exempt fropm the rules they impose on others
lloyd...@yahoo.com
an old freind
Eagle Net Watch
"an old freind" <kb9rq...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145149278.2...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> as expected K1man will use his ffull legal means although I belive he
> is in eror about the 50k limit apling to the FCC the govt is often
> exempt fropm the rules they impose on others
>
The k1man legal team had already taken that under
advisement. However, the commission has made an
irrevocable error. Stay tuned.
an old freind
indeed I shall I happen to think K1MAN was unwise to provoke this fight
having done so I do hope he follows through
whinysli...@yahoo.com
assfucked by an old freind wrote:
> Eagle Net Watch wrote:
> > "an old freind" <kb9rq...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1145149278.2...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > as expected K1man will use his ffull legal means although I belive he
> > > is in eror about the 50k limit apling to the FCC the govt is often
> > > exempt fropm the rules they impose on others
> > >
> >
> >
> > The k1man legal team had already taken that under
> > advisement. However, the commission has made an
> > irrevocable error. Stay tuned.
>
> indeed I shall I happen to think
Since when, Markie? You've yet to have a sober, coherent thought in
your entire life.
an old friend
whinysli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> assfucked by an old freind wrote:
> > Eagle Net Watch wrote:
> > > "an old freind" <kb9rq...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1145149278.2...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > > as expected K1man will use his ffull legal means although I belive he
> > > > is in eror about the 50k limit apling to the FCC the govt is often
> > > > exempt fropm the rules they impose on others
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The k1man legal team had already taken that under
> > > advisement. However, the commission has made an
> > > irrevocable error. Stay tuned.
> >
>
> Since when, Markie?
get help
marky_morgan_i...@yahoo.com
assraped by an old friend, but Markie asked for it wrote:
> whinysli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > assfucked by an old freind wrote:
> > > Eagle Net Watch wrote:
> > > > "an old freind" <kb9rq...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1145149278.2...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > as expected K1man will use his ffull legal means although I belive he
> > > > > is in eror about the 50k limit apling to the FCC the govt is often
> > > > > exempt fropm the rules they impose on others
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The k1man legal team had already taken that under
> > > > advisement. However, the commission has made an
> > > > irrevocable error. Stay tuned.
> > >
> > > indeed I shall I happen to think
>
> get
I noticed you snipped out those words addressing your chronic
alcoholism, pussy.
bob_...@yahoo.com
eventually loose his license.
> 2. Therefore, the next step for the FCC, by statute, is to now sue
> K1MAN for the claimed $21,000 in Federal District Court in Bangor,
> Maine where K1MAN would demand a trial by jury (trial de novo),
> subpoena witnesses (Hollingsworth, Boston Office Engineers, hams,
> etc.), file motions, etc. The FCC can't even bring such a suit, of
> course, because the minimum claim in Federal District Court is
> $50,000.
But they do have the legal right to collect this money or a lot of
folks who have gone before would have tried this approach. It won't
work. Others have paid fines to the FCC for less blatant violations of
the rules. Best get a good lawyer and start collecting the money from
the change jar, bank accounts, car ash tray etc. Somebody is going to
have to come up with $21k. As noted by others, this 50K limit does not
apply to this case, but have fun using this defence in court. I can
hear it now, "Objection over-ruled! Sit down Mr Baxter!"
A jury trial would be fun to watch, but there would be no doubt about
the outcome if Baxter chooses to continue to represent himself. I'm
sure a jury of his peers would understand the part 97 rules and how
they where broken.
> 3. By statute, unresolved forfeiture matters such as above cannot be
> used in any other FCC proceeding such as K1MAN's pending renewal
> application.
>From my perspective this does not apply in this case any more. The FO
pretty much resolves this issue so the FCC *can* use this enforcement
issue to deny the pending renewal application, paid or not. However,
that need not be the reason used to deny the renewal. I'm sure they
have other things they can use to justify a denial if they wanted to.
All they need to do is dust off some different violations for which
they have collected evidence and voila, application denied. The don't
even need a rules violation, just a determination that he would be
unfit. Now that's a tough argument.. :)
> 4. By statute, K1MAN can and will continue to operate until the
> renewal application is finally decided including all appeals to the
> D.C. Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court.
I would not try to operate after the application is denied. Once K1MAN
gets the "you no longer have authority to operate" letter from the FCC,
he'd best stop. Of course the FCC is well within their rights to keep
the application in pending status as long as they choose. The denial
may come out today, or may take years. I think it will be sooner
rather than later, but I give it a few months yet before they deny the
renewal. I'm sure they plan to be totally sure he's not going to pay
the fine before they deny the application so any time after the end of
the month.
Unless Baxter wants to just loose $21k to help fund the FCC, I would
suggest that he contact them through a competent lawyer and seek some
sort of settlement terms. Perhaps a life time ban from Part 97
operations, liquidation of all his part 97 capable equipment, promise
to not seek a future license while the FCC forgoes the collection of
the fines. But hey, it may be to late for even that. I'd bet the FCC
has him dead to rights on this fine, he will loose his renewal bid, pay
the fine and then who knows what he will do? I'm guessing here, but
I'll bet the FCC would agree to him going willingly into part 15
operations and forget the fine under the right conditions.
Based upon is rhetoric it seems that he will be dragged kicking and
screaming from his shack and off to jail, while his equipment is
confiscated. One can only hope that this is rhetoric and that at some
point he will "come to his senses" and give up.
bob_...@yahoo.com
eventually loose his license.
> 2. Therefore, the next step for the FCC, by statute, is to now sue
> K1MAN for the claimed $21,000 in Federal District Court in Bangor,
> Maine where K1MAN would demand a trial by jury (trial de novo),
> subpoena witnesses (Hollingsworth, Boston Office Engineers, hams,
> etc.), file motions, etc. The FCC can't even bring such a suit, of
> course, because the minimum claim in Federal District Court is
> $50,000.
But they do have the legal right to collect this money or a lot of
folks who have gone before would have tried this approach. It won't
work. Others have paid fines to the FCC for less blatant violations of
the rules. Best get a good lawyer and start collecting the money from
the change jar, bank accounts, car ash tray etc. Somebody is going to
have to come up with $21k. As noted by others, this 50K limit does not
apply to this case, but have fun using this defence in court. I can
hear it now, "Objection over-ruled! Sit down Mr Baxter!"
A jury trial would be fun to watch, but there would be no doubt about
the outcome if Baxter chooses to continue to represent himself. I'm
sure a jury of his peers would understand the part 97 rules and how
they where broken.
> 3. By statute, unresolved forfeiture matters such as above cannot be
> used in any other FCC proceeding such as K1MAN's pending renewal
> application.
>From my perspective this does not apply in this case any more. The FO
pretty much resolves this issue so the FCC *can* use this enforcement
issue to deny the pending renewal application, paid or not. However,
that need not be the reason used to deny the renewal. I'm sure they
have other things they can use to justify a denial if they wanted to.
All they need to do is dust off some different violations for which
they have collected evidence and voila, application denied. The don't
even need a rules violation, just a determination that he would be
unfit. Now that's a tough argument.. :)
> 4. By statute, K1MAN can and will continue to operate until the
> renewal application is finally decided including all appeals to the
> D.C. Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court.
I would not try to operate after the application is denied. Once K1MAN
bob_...@yahoo.com
eventually loose his license.
> 2. Therefore, the next step for the FCC, by statute, is to now sue
> K1MAN for the claimed $21,000 in Federal District Court in Bangor,
> Maine where K1MAN would demand a trial by jury (trial de novo),
> subpoena witnesses (Hollingsworth, Boston Office Engineers, hams,
> etc.), file motions, etc. The FCC can't even bring such a suit, of
> course, because the minimum claim in Federal District Court is
> $50,000.
But they do have the legal right to collect this money or a lot of
folks who have gone before would have tried this approach. It won't
work. Others have paid fines to the FCC for less blatant violations of
the rules. Best get a good lawyer and start collecting the money from
the change jar, bank accounts, car ash tray etc. Somebody is going to
have to come up with $21k. As noted by others, this 50K limit does not
apply to this case, but have fun using this defence in court. I can
hear it now, "Objection over-ruled! Sit down Mr Baxter!"
A jury trial would be fun to watch, but there would be no doubt about
the outcome if Baxter chooses to continue to represent himself. I'm
sure a jury of his peers would understand the part 97 rules and how
they where broken.
> 3. By statute, unresolved forfeiture matters such as above cannot be
> used in any other FCC proceeding such as K1MAN's pending renewal
> application.
>From my perspective this does not apply in this case any more. The FO
pretty much resolves this issue so the FCC *can* use this enforcement
issue to deny the pending renewal application, paid or not. However,
that need not be the reason used to deny the renewal. I'm sure they
have other things they can use to justify a denial if they wanted to.
All they need to do is dust off some different violations for which
they have collected evidence and voila, application denied. The don't
even need a rules violation, just a determination that he would be
unfit. Now that's a tough argument.. :)
> 4. By statute, K1MAN can and will continue to operate until the
> renewal application is finally decided including all appeals to the
> D.C. Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court.
I would not try to operate after the application is denied. Once K1MAN
Eagle Net Watch
<bob_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145288633....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> He will pay the fine or cut ///////SNIP///////
TOTAL BULLSHIT!
<PLONK>
Eagle Net Watch
<bob_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145288634....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> He will pay the fine or cut /////SNIP//////
TOTAL BULLSHIT!
<PLONK>
Eagle Net Watch
<bob_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145288670....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> He will pay the fine or cut
TOTAL BULLSHIT!
<PLONK>
bob_shallow
bob_deep = KC4UAI
bob_...@yahoo.com
bob_...@yahoo.com
Care to have a thinking debate or are you going to continue to post
flames?
Seems to me that a Forfeiture Order is sort of final from the FCC's
perspective. Pay up or face the DOJ in court when they attempt to
collect the fine.
An you don't think that the FCC will simply renew his license do you?
Fruit
<bob_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145312796.7...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> And how would you justify //////FLUSHED/////
must suck being you, since all you do is whine & cry
about k1man
Fruit
<bob_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145312457.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Been using google again? (Smile)
>
been crying & whining about k1man again?
an Old friend
bob_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> And how would you justify that position?
>
> Care to have a thinking debate or are you going to continue to post
> flames?
>
> Seems to me that a Forfeiture Order is sort of final from the FCC's
> perspective. Pay up or face the DOJ in court when they attempt to
> collect the fine.
>
> An you don't think that the FCC will simply renew his license do you?
collect the money without spending 10 times as much
OTOH the FCC may brazen this out
bob_shallow
bob_shallow
East Bound & down
on the upper side of 27660. The hams are the only fruits
whoever get themselves worked up over nothing.
10-4 back door
Pot Licker Base
us CBers.
Pot Licker Base