US KICKED OFF UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
daughert
here's a article I ran across about the US getting kick off the human
rights commission. After reading it I emailed the commission suggesting
that maybe they should investigate the US's violation on human rights.
Todd Daugherty
Langley Park Telecommunication
Thursday May 3 10:09 PM ET
U.S. Voted Out of U.N. Rights Group
By EDITH LEDERER, Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The United States, a vocal critic of human
rights records of China and Cuba, lost its seat Thursday on the top
U.N. rights body for the first time since the commission was
established
in 1947.
The U.S. ouster comes the same day Sudan and several other nations
with poor track records on human rights were elected to the panel.
Diplomats gave various reasons for the U.S. loss, including the current
absence of a U.S. ambassador at the world organization and relatiation
for frequent American criticism of rights abuses in other countries.
In voting for spots on the 53-member U.N. Humans Rights
Commission, the United States was edged out by three European
countries - a loss that means the United States will not be able to
vote
for at least a year on commission resolutions.
``It was an election, understandably, where we're very disappointed,''
said acting U.S. ambassador James Cunningham. ``This won't at all, of
course, affect our commitment to human rights issues in and outside of
the United Nations (news - web sites). We'll continue to pursue them.''
Eleanor Roosevelt, the late U.S. first lady and human rights advocate,
was the commission's first chairperson, and the United States has
traditionally played a very active role in its debates. In recent
years, it
has been in the forefront of efforts to condemn human rights abuses in
Cuba, China and other countries.
The commission, which usually meets in Geneva, makes
recommendations on the protection and promotion of human rights -
either on its own initiative or at the request of the General Assembly
or
the Security Council.
It is part of the U.N. Economic and Social Council, which chooses the
commission's new members to three-year terms. Roughly a third are
elected each year.
Candidates are nominated by regional groups, and the Western Europe
and Others Group proposed four candidates for three seats: the United
States, France, Austria and Sweden.
In the balloting at U.N. headquarters in New York, France got 52
votes, Austria 41 votes, Sweden 32 votes and the United States 29
votes.
Though the United States will not be able to vote on commission
resolutions, it can still initiate and co-sponsor resolutions and lobby
other governments to vote a particular way.
U.N. Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson expressed hope
that the United States ``will return speedily as a member of the
commission,'' saying it has made ``a historic contribution,'' spokesman
Jose Luis Diaz said in a statement released in Geneva.
But Cuba's Foreign Ministry called the vote proof of ``the arrogance
and coercive methods'' it claimed that Washington regularly employs in
international organizations. Cuba said it hoped the United States would
``take note of the pertinent conclusions of this lesson,'' said a
statement
carried by Cuba's Prensa Latina news service.
Speculation among diplomats on reasons for the U.S. ouster ranged
from poor lobbying and the absence of an ambassador to the makeup
of the commission and U.S. condemnation of rights abuses around the
world.
Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., a member of the U.S. delegation to last
month's commission meeting in Geneva, said the underlying problem is
that ``gross violators of human rights'' - including China - seek
membership on the commission ``to avoid scrutiny.''
Sudan, Uganda, Sierra Leone and Togo - all countries with poor
human rights records - were elected onto the commission Thursday,
Human Rights Watch noted. They join Syria, Algeria, Libya, Saudi
Arabia and Vietnam, also frequently accused of rights abuses, elected
to the commission last year.
``This is a rogues' gallery of human rights abusers,'' said Joanna
Weschler, the U.N. representative for Human Rights Watch. ``A
country's human rights record should be the single most important
factor in whether or not it joins the commission. An abusive country
cannot honestly pass judgment on other abusive countries.''
Election to seats on U.N. bodies also involves intense lobbying.
The United States has been at a diplomatic disadvantage since the
January departure of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, a Clinton
appointee. President Bush (news - web sites) nominated veteran
diplomat John Negroponte as U.N. ambassador in March, but his
nomination has not yet been sent to the Senate.
Rep. Nita Lowey (news - bio - voting record), D-N.Y., co-chair of the
Bipartisan Congressional U.N. Working Group, called the vote ``an
embarrassment for our country'' and blamed Bush for dragging his feet
in getting key foreign policy officials confirmed.
``The U.S. commitment to human rights has fallen victim to the
administration's laissez-faire attitude toward diplomacy and foreign
policy,'' she said.
Weschler said the vote ``should come as a wake-up call'' to
Washington. She noted a growing resentment toward the United States
by both Western and developing countries over U.S. opposition to the
treaty to abolish landmines, the Bush administration's refusal to
ratify the
treaty creating an International Criminal Court and its opposition to
making AIDS (news - web sites) drugs freely available.
Cunningham refused to say whether he thought the U.S. ouster was the
result of growing anger against the United States for taking too many
unilateral positions on issues such as a national missile defense
shield
and pulling out of the 1997 Kyoto treaty to curb global warning.
``I don't want to speculate on what might have been the motives
underlying the outcome of the election,'' he said.
The United States is not the first country from its group to lose a
seat:
France lost its spot in 1977 and Britain was voted off in 1977 and
1991.
Other countries elected to the commission in contested votes were
Bahrain, South Korea and
Pakistan from the Asia Group, and Croatia and Armenia from the Eastern
Europe Group. The Latin
America Group selected Chile and Mexico without a vote, and the African
Group chose Sierra
Leone, Sudan, Togo and Uganda, also without a vote.
Sid Schweiger
US's violation on human rights.<
...which would consist of...what? the FCC denying you a license?
Thanks. I needed a good laugh.
daughert
1. the FCC abuses their power.
2. the FCC is supposes to uses Less restrictive means, which has been up
held by the supreme court. but in R&O FCC 01-100 they didn't.
3. the FCC has been know for using extreme force when busting "Pirates"
far more then whats required. Busting someone in the middle of the night
with m-16 pointing to their heads while they sleep is questionable.
4. Convicting someone of a crime with the right to due-process and
justifying that well it the law don't hold water.
5. The FCC tries all diffrent means to block any question of their
constitutional and human rights violations in the federal courts knowing
if it got out that they would be in trouble.
6. the cost of taking the FCC to court is to fight the FCC is too high
for the average person to challange in the fedral courts so due process
that way is highly unlikely. plus no lawyer wil mess with the FCC or
their sleeping buddies the NAB. (that's why pirates wait for the FCC to
take them to court so that the government flips part of the bill.)
Todd
Sid Schweiger
You keep saying this, but have yet to prove it.
>2. the FCC is supposes to uses Less restrictive means, which has been up held
by the supreme court. but in R&O FCC 01-100 they didn't.<
You still can't read English, either.
>3. the FCC has been know for using extreme force when busting "Pirates" far
more then whats required. Busting someone in the middle of the night with m-16
pointing to their heads while they sleep is questionable.<
Examples, please.
>4. Convicting someone of a crime with the right to due-process and justifying
that well it the law don't hold water.<
English, please.
>5. The FCC tries all diffrent means to block any question of their
constitutional and human rights violations in the federal courts knowing if it
got out that they would be in trouble.<
Examples, please.
>6. the cost of taking the FCC to court is to fight the FCC is too high for the
average person to challange in the fedral courts so due process that way is
highly unlikely. plus no lawyer wil mess with the FCC or their sleeping buddies
the NAB. (that's why pirates wait for the FCC to take them to court so that the
government flips part of the bill.)<
That's probably why there's an association of attorneys that do business with
the FCC...a whole subspecialty of law, in fact. And, of course, there you go
with the "lack of due process" argument again. Still not proven.
David Kaye
" 1. the FCC abuses their power.
I'd prefer the FCC "abusing" their power to the alternative, which is what
exists now: the big corporations such as Clear Channel, Viacom, and ABC
buying up everything, cutting staff, and bland-izing radio. When the FCC
exercised more power (before being curtailed by the Congress), there was
true diversity in radio. No more.
--
(C) 2001 The term "acid test" does not refer to LSD. Early gold
David Kaye assayers used acid to test ore for gold content
Brenda Ann
would have to find the site again, but there is a news report wherein it was
reported that the FCC and various enforcement agencies busted down the door
of his home and held him and his family at gunpoint while they ransacked his
home. This is an abuse of power.
Also.. I think the point Dave is trying to make here is.. that licenses are
being denied without due process protections being followed. If someone has
not been found guilty in a court of law of operating an unlicensed station,
then Congress should not be able to force the issue of denial of a license.
This is a Constitutional issue.
"Sid Schweiger" <sids...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20010504182842...@ng-mq1.aol.com...
Steve Sundberg
wrote:
>
>1. the FCC abuses their power.
> [blah blah blah]
Todd, the sooner you understand that owning a radio station is not a
right, the sooner you can begin to join the human race.
-.,-*'`^`'*-,.__.,-*'`^`'*-,.__.,-*'`^`'*-,.__.,-*'`^`'*-,._
East & Southeast Asia Recipes - http://www.straitscafe.com
Small Business Web Site Design - http://www.noodleman.com
-.,-*'`^`'*-,.__.,-*'`^`'*-,.__.,-*'`^`'*-,.__.,-*'`^`'*-,._
Rich Wood
wrote:
>3. the FCC has been know for using extreme force when busting "Pirates"
>far more then whats required. Busting someone in the middle of the night
>with m-16 pointing to their heads while they sleep is questionable.
FCC employees carry guns?
Rich
Drew A. Durigan
writes:
>3. the FCC has been know for using extreme force when busting "Pirates"
>far more then whats required. Busting someone in the middle of the night
>with m-16 pointing to their heads while they sleep is questionable.
Here in Orlando, we have just the opposite problem. A certain pirate has been
operating for nearly 2 years now. High power, commercial-grade operation,
running commercial advertising, broadcasting profane & indecent programming,
and interfering with at least 2 licensed broadcasters. Yet, nothing is done to
silence this station.
Acorss town, we have another pirate which apparently received a $10K NAL from
the FCC. This was several months ago...yet, the operator openly thumbs his
nose at the FCC and continues to operate.
"Enforcement?" Where????
-Drew in Sunny Central Florida-
Sid Schweiger
I sure have. L.D. Brewer, who was busted and fined several times for operating
without a license and engaging in the sale of non-legal RF equipment, and who
continued such activities despite repeated warnings and sanctions, was busted
again in a raid on his home. He now faces the loss of all his current FCC
licenses (amateur radio and GMRS, IIRC). If you willfully thumb your nose at
the government, no matter what agency it is, you're going to get busted.
However, to say that this is representative of how the FCC deals with violators
of law or regulations is a lie, pure and simple.
>held him and his family at gunpoint while they ransacked his home.<
They did no such thing. The FCC and the office of the US Attorney executed a
duly issued warrant, and removed all radio equipment from his home, pursuant to
that warrant. He showed repeatedly by his behavior that he is not interested
in obeying the law, and he left federal authorities no choice.
>licenses are being denied without due process protections being followed.<
CAUTION: CIVICS LESSON FOLLOWS:
Due process protections apply to *rights.* Rights cannot be denied without due
process. For the 6,493rd time...PAY CLOSE ATTENTION NOW...there is NO right to
own and/or operate a radio station. The Supreme Court decided this 58 years
ago on purely Constitutional grounds.
As for Mr. Brewer, you should read:
daughert
>
> >1. the FCC abuses their power.<
>
> You keep saying this, but have yet to prove it.
>
> >2. the FCC is supposes to uses Less restrictive means, which has been up held
> by the supreme court. but in R&O FCC 01-100 they didn't.<
>
> You still can't read English, either.
>
should use a restrictive mean. Past Supreme Court cases dealing with FCC
law and regulations has found that radio broadcasting involves free
speech (First Amendment) question. When First Amendment, free speech are
impacted by governmental regulation. The government must establish that
the contested regulation are the least restictive means available to
futher compelling state intrest. The Supreme court also supports the
argument that the FCC must regulate to attempt to achieve a "balanced
presentation of information" In United States Vs. Evergreen Media Corp
of Chicago 832 F. Supp. 1183 (N.D. ILL) The FCC brought a forfeiture
against Evergreen Media Group of Chicago for violating 18 USC 1464 a
criminal statute imposed a fine, or imprisionment for uttering, obscene,
indecent, or profane language by means of radio. Evergreen Media argued
that 18 USC 1464
was unconstitutional both in it vagueness and for overbreadth, and that
18 USC 1464 was uncostitutional as applied, on the ground that the FCC
interpretation of the statute was not the least restrictive means of
accomplishing the goals of the statute.
>
>3. the FCC has been know for using extreme force when busting
"Pirates" far
> more then whats required. Busting someone in the middle of the night with m-16
> pointing to their heads while they sleep is questionable.<
>
> Examples, please.
As Brenda stated Brewer is one and I also know a few more pirates that
also have been treated the same way. The fact that the FCC can "bust"
pirate does not give them the right to use gestopo style tactics for a
piss ant civil crime like broadcasting without a license; which is a
civil crime not a criminal crime
>
> >4. Convicting someone of a crime with the right to due-process and justifying
> that well it the law don't hold water.<
>
> English, please.
>
The Administration Act title 5 United States Code states that if a
person is accused of a crime by a federal agency. Then the federal
agency must gather all facts and finding and brought before a
administrative judge. If that person does not like what that judge
passes as a vertict then that person can file a appeal to the US court
of appeal. The FCC must "gather all facts and findings" Just the
information on the application doesn't constitute as a complete "gather
of all facts a findings" The Administration Proccedure Act is the due
process a person has which the FCC has violated. because the only proof
that we violated Section 301 is by the application. we were never given
a warning letter, a notice of a forfeiture, a rem forfeiture nor were we
allowed to defend ourselves in any proceedings.
> >5. The FCC tries all diffrent means to block any question of their
> constitutional and human rights violations in the federal courts knowing if it
> got out that they would be in trouble.<
>
> Examples, please.
The FCC has been known to go to court in a civil suit against a pirate
operator and when a pirate opreator tries to defend himself and his
property the FCC uses it slimeball tactics like telling that he can
argue any constitutional question; which violates the Equal Protection
Clause of the consititution. or they will claim that the court has no
juridiction. the FCC will uses all tactics to alvoid all questions
conserning the legallity of their rules and regulations.
>
> >6. the cost of taking the FCC to court is to fight the FCC is too high for the
> average person to challange in the fedral courts so due process that way is
> highly unlikely. plus no lawyer wil mess with the FCC or their sleeping buddies
> the NAB. (that's why pirates wait for the FCC to take them to court so that the
> government flips part of the bill.)<
>
> That's probably why there's an association of attorneys that do business with
> the FCC...a whole subspecialty of law, in fact. And, of course, there you go
> with the "lack of due process" argument again. Still not proven.
Todd
daughert
(1969) in which the supreme court ruled both times that no one has the
right to broadcast without a license. NBC had to do with chain
regulation while RED LION BROADCASTING had to do with the
constitutionality of the fairness doctrine. both was used in the Dunifer
Case in which the judge again stated "YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO BROADCAST
WITHOUT A LICENSE." The problem is that doesn't give the FCC the right
to "BAN" or "BLOCK" someone from applying. Congress should of instead of
listening to the NAB and being onesided looked at some laws and court
cases. Congress was in the right to change the law but they should of
took the time and look at all sides instead of rushing in to pass it.
Now what you got is possible a unconsitutional law which violates due
process and freedom of speech.
Todd
george.cost...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
>On Fri, 04 May 2001 17:21:06 -0500, daughert <daug...@chipsnet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>1. the FCC abuses their power.
>
>> [blah blah blah]
>
>Todd, the sooner you understand that owning a radio station is not a
>right, the sooner you can begin to join the human race.
Also, he should accept the fact that saying "the hell with it" and
going on the air without a license for a few months can have negative
consequences down the road. His problems are an example of that.
George
Sid Schweiger
mean.<
They didn't have to. The FCC doesn't exist without Congress. It was an act of
Congress that created the FCC. Congress funds the FCC. If Congress passes
such a law, the FCC *must * obey.
>Past Supreme Court cases dealing with FCC law and regulations has found that
radio broadcasting involves free speech (First Amendment) question.<
Examples, please.
>The FCC brought a forfeiture against Evergreen Media Group of Chicago for
violating 18 USC 1464 a criminal statute imposed a fine, or imprisionment for
uttering, obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio. Evergreen
Media argued that 18 USC 1464 was unconstitutional both in it vagueness and for
overbreadth, and that 18 USC 1464 was uncostitutional as applied, on the ground
that the FCC interpretation of the statute was not the least restrictive means
of accomplishing the goals of the statute.<
Evergreen lost that case.
>As Brenda stated Brewer is one and I also know a few more pirates that also
have been treated the same way.<
Brewer brought that one on himself for his failure to obey the law, despite
repeated warnings and sanctions. As for the "few more pirates," let's have the
names, please.
>The fact that the FCC can "bust" pirate does not give them the right to use
gestopo style tactics for a piss ant civil crime like broadcasting without a
license; which is a civil crime not a criminal crime<
Wrong again. Violations of the United States Code are considered criminal
violations.
>if a person is accused of a crime by a federal agency....<
The FCC is not accusing anyone of a crime by asking a question on a license
application.
>The Administration Proccedure Act is the due process a person has which the
FCC has violated.<
You still fail to understand that the FCC does not, by its licensing
procedures, violate anyone's due process, because ownership of a radio station
is not a right.
>The FCC has been known to go to court in a civil suit against a pirate
operator and when a pirate opreator tries to defend himself and his property
the FCC uses it slimeball tactics...<
That's not an example. Cite specific examples.
Sid Schweiger
from applying.<
You were not "banned" nor "blocked" ffrom applying. You sent in your
application, just like all the other applicants. Your application was
processed, just like all the other applications. It was dismissed, just like
dozens of other applications, for giving the wrong answer to a question.
Nowhere was your "right" to apply for a license violated.
>Now what you got is possible a unconsitutional law which violates due process
and freedom of speech.<
What is it going to take to get it through your thick skull? YOU HAVE NO RIGHT
TO A RADIO STATION LICENSE.
>NBC had to do with chain regulation while RED LION BROADCASTING had to do with
the constitutionality of the fairness doctrine.<
...and BOTH cases upheld Section 301 of the Communications Act.
daughert
>
> >The problem is that doesn't give the FCC the right to "BAN" or "BLOCK" someone
> from applying.<
>
> You were not "banned" nor "blocked" ffrom applying. You sent in your
> application, just like all the other applicants. Your application was
> processed, just like all the other applications. It was dismissed, just like
> dozens of other applications, for giving the wrong answer to a question.
> Nowhere was your "right" to apply for a license violated.
>
eliligble for a licenses if they violates section 301 regardless if a
specified finding was found on the person or not.
> >Now what you got is possible a unconsitutional law which violates due process
> and freedom of speech.<
>
> What is it going to take to get it through your thick skull? YOU HAVE NO RIGHT
> TO A RADIO STATION LICENSE.
>
A GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD YOUR RIGHT but, when a agency uses slezzy
tactics to screw people out of a license then it is a illegal. Red lion
and NBC upheld the constitutional of the licnesing structure but again
that does give the FCC the right the promise something that they can
keep. The due process I'm refering to is the fact that the FCC is
convicting people for a crime and uses the form as a bases for their
conviction but, has not or will not hear the cases case by case. Plus
ALL FACTS AND FINDINGS have not been gathered as perscribed under the
administrational proceedure act. So those people, like myself has not
been able to defend ourselfs against this alleged conviction.
daughert
>
> >Congress no where stated in 632(a)(1)(b) that the FCC should use a restrictive
> mean.<
>
> They didn't have to. The FCC doesn't exist without Congress. It was an act of
> Congress that created the FCC. Congress funds the FCC. If Congress passes
> such a law, the FCC *must * obey.
>
RESTRICTIVE MEAN" The FCC could of granted thoses without a specified
finding and dismiss the ones that did. that would of still comform to
the will and congress and been a less restrictive mean.
> >Past Supreme Court cases dealing with FCC law and regulations has found that
> radio broadcasting involves free speech (First Amendment) question.<
>
> Examples, please.
>
> >The FCC brought a forfeiture against Evergreen Media Group of Chicago for
> violating 18 USC 1464 a criminal statute imposed a fine, or imprisionment for
> uttering, obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio. Evergreen
> Media argued that 18 USC 1464 was unconstitutional both in it vagueness and for
> overbreadth, and that 18 USC 1464 was uncostitutional as applied, on the ground
> that the FCC interpretation of the statute was not the least restrictive means
> of accomplishing the goals of the statute.<
>
> Evergreen lost that case.
>
> >As Brenda stated Brewer is one and I also know a few more pirates that also
> have been treated the same way.<
>
> Brewer brought that one on himself for his failure to obey the law, despite
> repeated warnings and sanctions. As for the "few more pirates," let's have the
> names, please.
>
> >The fact that the FCC can "bust" pirate does not give them the right to use
> gestopo style tactics for a piss ant civil crime like broadcasting without a
> license; which is a civil crime not a criminal crime<
>
> Wrong again. Violations of the United States Code are considered criminal
> violations.
>
NOT ACCRODING TO THE FEDERAL COURTS IS A CIVIL CASE.
> >if a person is accused of a crime by a federal agency....<
>
> The FCC is not accusing anyone of a crime by asking a question on a license
> application.
>
BUT IS USING IT TO BAR PEOPLE FROM APPLYING
> >The Administration Proccedure Act is the due process a person has which the
> FCC has violated.<
>
> You still fail to understand that the FCC does not, by its licensing
> procedures, violate anyone's due process, because ownership of a radio station
> is not a right.
>
You don't understand that the FCC has a proccedure when accusing someone
or convicting someone of a crime which they basically ignoring
Sid Schweiger
You said you were banned from applying. That is not true. You were banned
from a grant of a license
>when a agency uses slezzy tactics to screw people out of a license then it is
a illegal.<
Please delineate these "slezzy" tactics.
>that does give the FCC the right the promise something that they can keep.<
The FCC makes no promises. The fact that the FCC takes your application is no
guarantee that you'll get a license.
> The due process I'm refering to is the fact that the FCC is convicting people
for a crime and uses the form as a bases for their conviction but, has not or
will not hear the cases case by case.<
The FCC is not putting you or anyone else on trial. The FCC is not a court of
law.
daughert
>
> >Legally we are "banned"<
>
> You said you were banned from applying. That is not true. You were banned
> from a grant of a license
>
chances are if we do apply again the FCC will flat out dismiss are
application using this first application as a reason.
"Accordingly, an applicant will be ineligible to hold an LPFM license
if it has engaged in unlicensed operation regardless of whether the
Commission has made a specific finding that the party has engaged in
such conduct." (FCC R&O 01-100)
> >when a agency uses slezzy tactics to screw people out of a license then it is
> a illegal.<
>
> Please delineate these "slezzy" tactics.
>
Well lets see I was screwed out of a license seven times now because of
the FCC. The reasons I went on the air in the first place was because
the FCC keep returning my applications and waivers without consideration
all SIX TIMES. So I felt like I feel now that it's nothing but a waste
of time to apply.
> >that does give the FCC the right the promise something that they can keep.<
>
> The FCC makes no promises. The fact that the FCC takes your application is no
> guarantee that you'll get a license.
The FCC promised Amnesty to those who stopped broadcasting without a
license without the FCC telling them to do so. Or stopped when told by
the FCC. this promise of amnesty wasn't somethhing the FCC couldn't keep
congress proved it.
>
> > The due process I'm refering to is the fact that the FCC is convicting people
> for a crime and uses the form as a bases for their conviction but, has not or
> will not hear the cases case by case.<
>
> The FCC is not putting you or anyone else on trial. The FCC is not a court of
> law.
To find someone in violation of section 301 the fcc must go about doing
it through a proceeding in which gathering information about the
violation. we never got the chance to tell are side nor, I believe the
FCC wanted to hear it becase I would question the rules and regulations
dealing with the application procceeding and the constitutional of them.
The FCC as it does in court tries to avoid those questions being brought
up. everyone is innocent until proven guilty this new ruling states
basically "alright, although we have no proof that you violated section
301 execpt this form well then your guilty and you are here by barred
from applying ever again."
Todd
Sid Schweiger
>"Accordingly, an applicant will be ineligible to hold an LPFM license if it
has engaged in unlicensed operation regardless of whether the Commission has
made a specific finding that the party has engaged in such conduct."<
You say you can't apply. The FCC says you can't hold a license. Two different
things. Is English your first language, or are you being intentionally obtuse?
>Well lets see I was screwed out of a license seven times now because of the
FCC. The reasons I went on the air in the first place was because the FCC keep
returning my applications and waivers without consideration all SIX TIMES.<
Non-responsive. Nothing you've said proves the FCC is being, as you tried to
put it, sleazy.
>So I felt like I feel now that it's nothing but a waste of time to apply.<
Finally, we can agree on something.
>this promise of amnesty wasn't somethhing the FCC couldn't keep congress
proved it.<
I see the civics lessons aren't sinking in.
>To find someone in violation of section 301 the fcc must go about doing it
through a proceeding in which gathering information about the violation.<
Once again, with feeling: The FCC cannot find you guilty of anything. The FCC
is not a court of law.
>we never got the chance to tell are side<
What side would you tell? The reasons why you broke the law? Yeah, that will
impress them.
>The FCC as it does in court tries to avoid those questions being brought up.<
Cite examples, please.
Sid Schweiger
MEAN"<
Case citation, please.
>NOT ACCRODING TO THE FEDERAL COURTS IS A CIVIL CASE.<
Case citation, please.
>BUT IS USING IT TO BAR PEOPLE FROM APPLYING<
Wrong. It bars grant of a license, not an application.
>You don't understand that the FCC has a proccedure when accusing someone or
convicting someone of a crime which they basically ignoring<
No, it's YOU who doesn't understand. The FCC cannot convict someone of a
crime. The FCC is not a court of law.
daughert
>
> >No legally we are banned from ever applying again which is illegal.<
>
> >"Accordingly, an applicant will be ineligible to hold an LPFM license if it
> has engaged in unlicensed operation regardless of whether the Commission has
> made a specific finding that the party has engaged in such conduct."<
>
> You say you can't apply. The FCC says you can't hold a license. Two different
> things. Is English your first language, or are you being intentionally obtuse?
>
because of this last application.
> >Well lets see I was screwed out of a license seven times now because of the
> FCC. The reasons I went on the air in the first place was because the FCC keep
> returning my applications and waivers without consideration all SIX TIMES.<
>
> Non-responsive. Nothing you've said proves the FCC is being, as you tried to
> put it, sleazy.
>
> >So I felt like I feel now that it's nothing but a waste of time to apply.<
>
> Finally, we can agree on something.
>
> >this promise of amnesty wasn't somethhing the FCC couldn't keep congress
> proved it.<
>
> I see the civics lessons aren't sinking in.
>
> >To find someone in violation of section 301 the fcc must go about doing it
> through a proceeding in which gathering information about the violation.<
>
> Once again, with feeling: The FCC cannot find you guilty of anything. The FCC
> is not a court of law.
>
Oh yeah what do you call a NOTICE OF A FORFIETURE?? A REM FORFEITURE??
thoses in a sence is a conviction in a loose term thoses are
administratived through ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES IN THE FCC If you
think they erred in their dission then you can file in the court of
appeal.
> >we never got the chance to tell are side<
>
YEAH, THE FACT THAT THE FCC MONITORS THESE NEWSGROUPS AND DON'T LIKE
WHAT I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THEIR HANDLING OF CASES AND LACK OF SPECTRUM
MANAGMENT. That's why in my humble opinion they fucked me that six times
out of a television license...and that's why after the last time I sent
a LPTV application in and got it back I said the HELL with it and went
on the air. The FCC is to consider all applications and waivers they
didn't instead; like they do with people who applied for Low power radio
prior the LPFM rules would sent them back. That's also why they fucked
me out of this license because they don't want me to bring up the fact
that they [the FCC] go to court claiming they must consider all
applications and waivers and it is nothing more then a fucking lie and
they know it.
> What side would you tell? The reasons why you broke the law? Yeah, that will
> impress them.
>
> >The FCC as it does in court tries to avoid those questions being brought up.<
>
> Cite examples, please.
there really is too many court cases to cite however in dunifer vs. the
fcc the fcc told the court that mr dunifer couldn't raise constitutional
question because mr dunifer never applied for a license or a waiver of
the rules (DUNIFER VS. FCC 1998). in Any and All radio Trnasmitters the
FCC fought tooth and nail with the pirates who claimed the district
court has juridiction while the FCC claimed it was the Appeals court.
There are other cases like that.
Todd
Sid Schweiger
of this last application.<
So, we now see the real reason you keep arguing. You keep filing defective
applications, the FCC keeps denying them, and you don't like it, so you
announce in a forum which, as you admit, the FCC monitors, your intention to
break the law.
Do yourself a favor. Learn the meaning of the terms "non-responsive,"
"irrelevant" and "denied." You will be seeing them in print a lot.
>in dunifer vs. the fcc the fcc told the court that mr dunifer couldn't raise
constitutional question because mr dunifer never applied for a license or a
waiver of the rules<
One little thing you might have missed: Dunifer lost his case. The court
agreed with the FCC's position.
>in Any and All radio Trnasmitters the FCC fought tooth and nail with the
pirates who claimed the district court has juridiction while the FCC claimed it
was the Appeals court.<
As I recall, the FCC won that one too.
daughert
>
> >You can apply but there's a fat chance in hell you will ever get it. because
> of this last application.<
>
> So, we now see the real reason you keep arguing. You keep filing defective
> applications, the FCC keeps denying them, and you don't like it, so you
> announce in a forum which, as you admit, the FCC monitors, your intention to
> break the law.
>
> Do yourself a favor. Learn the meaning of the terms "non-responsive,"
> "irrelevant" and "denied." You will be seeing them in print a lot.
>
well were I came from I was told to tell the truth....then again tell
the truth you also get screwed.
> >in dunifer vs. the fcc the fcc told the court that mr dunifer couldn't raise
> constitutional question because mr dunifer never applied for a license or a
> waiver of the rules<
>
> One little thing you might have missed: Dunifer lost his case. The court
> agreed with the FCC's position.
>
The only reason they agreed with the FCC position was because Dunifer
never applied for a license or a waiver. therefore, they argeed with the
FCC.
> >in Any and All radio Trnasmitters the FCC fought tooth and nail with the
> pirates who claimed the district court has juridiction while the FCC claimed it
> was the Appeals court.<
>
> As I recall, the FCC won that one too.
last I heard the they had petition the Supreme Court to hear the
case....i believe the Supreme Court didn't wan't to hear it. I haven't
been keeping up with it.
David Eduardo
"daughert" <daug...@chipsnet.com> wrote in message
news:3AF595...@chipsnet.com...
> Sid Schweiger wrote:
> > > > As I recall, the FCC won that one too.
> last I heard the they had petition the Supreme Court to hear the
> case....i believe the Supreme Court didn't wan't to hear it.
In other words, they upheld the decision of the lower court. Same thing. FCC
won.
daughert
>
> >You can apply but there's a fat chance in hell you will ever get it. because
> of this last application.<
>
> So, we now see the real reason you keep arguing. You keep filing defective
> applications, the FCC keeps denying them, and you don't like it, so you
> announce in a forum which, as you admit, the FCC monitors, your intention to
> break the law.
The so-called defective applications in reality weren't really
defective...the FCC was saying there were. For example one application
was returned because the Tower according to the FCC had to be registered
with the FAA. well under part 17.7 (47CFR17.7) states that towers under
200ft don't need to be registered. Nor, are near a airport. the local
airport is five to six miles away. The FCC erred on that. Secondly, the
FCC said we had to pay a license FEE however according to the
application for Low Power Television Governemental, Educational, and
non-profit orginizations are exempted from paying the licensing fee.
Next there was the fact according to the FCC stated we had to have a
"Type Excepted" transmitter although we had a waiver, the FCC wouldn't
even consider or application or waiver although they go to Federal
Court claiming they do such a thing. Secondly LPTV applicants has 18
months o build their station by that time we would of had a FCC type
execpted transmitter and we stated that on are waiver. So you see I
don't care about the FCC anymore to me there all a lie pieces of shit
and Congress out to clean it out and eliminate thoses people who has
been in there two long starting with the MASS MEDIA BUREAU those people
have been in there too dam long and are abusing their power and not
serving the public intrest!
Todd
Sid Schweiger
FCC had to be registered with the FAA. well under part 17.7 (47CFR17.7) states
that towers under 200ft don't need to be registered.<
Next time try reading the WHOLE application. There IS an opportunity to tell
the FCC that your intended tower is exempt from registration.
>Secondly, the FCC said we had to pay a license FEE however according to the
application for Low Power Television Governemental, Educational, and non-profit
orginizations are exempted from paying the licensing fee.<
You must prove you fit one of those categories. You apparently failed to do
so.
>Next there was the fact according to the FCC stated we had to have a "Type
Excepted" transmitter although we had a waiver, the FCC wouldn't even consider
or application or waiver although they go to Federal Court claiming they do
such a thing.<
Just saying "I have a waiver" doesn't cut it. You have to attach a copy of
your waiver to the application. You cannot refer to it by number or any other
reference. Each application must be whole.
>LPTV applicants has 18 months o build their station by that time we would of
had a FCC type execpted transmitter and we stated that on are waiver.<
So, you pulled the "waiver" out of thin air. You don't get that privilege. If
you don't have a waiver from the FCC, you don't have a waiver.
>So you see I don't care about the FCC anymore to me there all a lie pieces of
shit...<
Yadda yadda yadda. It really does get tiring after a while.
daughert
>
> >For example one application was returned because the Tower according to the
> FCC had to be registered with the FAA. well under part 17.7 (47CFR17.7) states
> that towers under 200ft don't need to be registered.<
>
> Next time try reading the WHOLE application. There IS an opportunity to tell
> the FCC that your intended tower is exempt from registration.
>
they can't read..
> >Secondly, the FCC said we had to pay a license FEE however according to the
> application for Low Power Television Governemental, Educational, and non-profit
> orginizations are exempted from paying the licensing fee.<
>
> You must prove you fit one of those categories. You apparently failed to do
> so.
>
No where on the applicaation does it state that you have to prove your
status. this of course was a few years ago and since that time the law
and the application has changed.
> >Next there was the fact according to the FCC stated we had to have a "Type
> Excepted" transmitter although we had a waiver, the FCC wouldn't even consider
> or application or waiver although they go to Federal Court claiming they do
> such a thing.<
>
I DID and it was in the packet with the application and it was stamped
by the FCC RECIEVED.
> Just saying "I have a waiver" doesn't cut it. You have to attach a copy of
> your waiver to the application. You cannot refer to it by number or any other
> reference. Each application must be whole.
>
> >LPTV applicants has 18 months o build their station by that time we would of
> had a FCC type execpted transmitter and we stated that on are waiver.<
>
> So, you pulled the "waiver" out of thin air. You don't get that privilege. If
> you don't have a waiver from the FCC, you don't have a waiver.
>
NO the point was we did have a waiver in the application and since the
FCC allows up to 18 months to build a station by that time we would had
TYPE EXECPTED TRANSMITTER which we stated in the waiver. what we were
asking in the waiver was for a temporary waiver until we was able to get
a type execpted transmitter.
lindajoe@rochester.rr.com Joe / Linda Fleming
reply with several thoughts.
First: The FCC is part of the government. Sometimes there are laws or
procedures we don't agree with. Sometimes they don't even follow their own
procedures. Of course that does not make it right. Complaining here does
not accomplish changing it. Compare this to many other examples of what the
government does: driver's licenses, auto registration, the proposed oil
drilling in Alaska. We like to think we are in a country where we have
absolute freedom, but is it so ABSOLUTE? Do they always do things we like?
Secondly, if they get an average of 5 to 10 applicants for each of several
hundred authorizations, stage one of the screening process is going to
quickly get rid of anyone that "screams" to them "why?" That means any
"little" thing they don't like might be cause for denial.
Third: It is NOT a right to operate a radio or TV station. It is a First
Amendment right to free speech, which has many forms. You could get an
Internet station going. You have already made reference to a Pirate
station. There is also newspaper, magazines, mailings, RE-APPLYING for
broadcast, etc. And by the way, you would not be the first to reapply with
others in your group made to look like a more major role-thus making the
"same" application look like a "new" one from a different interest party or
group.
Fourth: And I know this is going to strike a few nerves, but there is
another thread about grammar and spelling. Most of the replies from
Daughert contain exactly what that thread was talking about: misuse of
words, misspellings, poor grammar, and so on. Simply stated, for good or
for bad, we are judged by the words we use and how we use them. If the
application was written with the same quality level as these posts have
been; AGAIN, go back to my reply #2. Of course it is not fair, but it is
life. And adding the insults, name calling and everything does not help the
case at all.
Lastly, it has already been stated "> > Yadda yadda yadda. It really does
get tiring after a while." So true ! Why don't you reapply? Why not go
through the procedures to contest an application denial? Instead of sitting
here complaining and calling the FCC every name in the book, why not find a
constructive way to make them reconsider? Or a constructive way to get your
message out in a different form?
Joe Fleming
daughert <daug...@chipsnet.com> wrote in message
news:3AF60C...@chipsnet.com...
Sid Schweiger
application denial?<
Because some people prefer the open wound and the closed mind over closure and
acceptance. I'm sure you've known one or two chronic complainers in your life,
and here we have a perfect example of another one.
daughert
>
> I've been silently watching this war for over a week. Now I'm going to
> reply with several thoughts.
>
> First: The FCC is part of the government. Sometimes there are laws or
> procedures we don't agree with. Sometimes they don't even follow their own
> procedures. Of course that does not make it right. Complaining here does
> not accomplish changing it. Compare this to many other examples of what the
> government does: driver's licenses, auto registration, the proposed oil
> drilling in Alaska. We like to think we are in a country where we have
> absolute freedom, but is it so ABSOLUTE? Do they always do things we like?
>
> Secondly, if they get an average of 5 to 10 applicants for each of several
> hundred authorizations, stage one of the screening process is going to
> quickly get rid of anyone that "screams" to them "why?" That means any
> "little" thing they don't like might be cause for denial.
>
> Third: It is NOT a right to operate a radio or TV station. It is a First
> Amendment right to free speech, which has many forms. You could get an
> Internet station going. You have already made reference to a Pirate
> station. There is also newspaper, magazines, mailings, RE-APPLYING for
> broadcast, etc. And by the way, you would not be the first to reapply with
> others in your group made to look like a more major role-thus making the
> "same" application look like a "new" one from a different interest party or
> group.
>
address these things, Internet Radio: Internet radio has it's
possiblity as a service yet as much as i played with it I know it needs
some work done on it. Internet radio require a good speed modem and a
program which would work, and doesn't cut in and out like i've seen.
Intern