FCC AFFIRMS FINE FOR FORMER CALIFORNIA AMATEUR

[AA7BQ]

In an October 5 Forfeiture Order, the FCC has affirmed a $10,000 fine it
proposed earlier this year to levy on Jack Gerritsen, ex-KG6IRO, of Bell,
California. The FCC asserts that Gerritsen doesn't have an Amateur Radio
license but continues to operate. The FCC's Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau (WTB) promptly rescinded its 2001 Amateur Radio license grant to
Gerritsen after learning of his California court conviction a year earlier
for interfering with police communications. The fine is the next step in a
case that eventually could lead to criminal prosecution.

Responding to a July FCC Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL), Gerritsen
maintained that he still has a ham ticket. He asserted that the NAL failed
to show that his interference conviction is under appeal, that the
set-aside of his amateur license was unfounded and is only a claim made by
Commission personnel; that he holds a valid license and that any possible
suspension of his license is pending a hearing, making the NAL moot until
a suspension actually occurs.

Not so, said the FCC, citing chapter and verse to back up its Forfeiture
Order. Section 1.113(a) of its rules gives the WTB 30 days from
publication to modify or set aside an action, such as a license grant, on
its own motion. As a result, the FCC said, Gerritsen's amateur application
has reverted to pending status, and no license exists.

Gerritsen also argued that he preserved his license by seeking a hearing
under §1.85 of the FCC's rules and, further, that he'd been told by FCC
personnel that he would get a hearing. Wrong again, the FCC concluded. The
Commission pointed out that §1.85 spells out when the FCC may suspend an
operator license, but since Gerritsen has no license, just a pending
application, there is no license to suspend, and §1.85 doesn't apply. A
Hearing Designation Order for Gerritsen is said to be working its way
through the FCC bureaucracy.

Reports from Los Angeles area hams indicate that Gerritsen continues to
use KG6IRO, although the call sign appears in the FCC's Universal
Licensing System as "terminated." Recent letters have implored the ARRL to
somehow intervene in the situation.

"Imagine BPL--a million times worse," one radio amateur recently wrote the
League. For some time now, repeater owners have been shutting down their
machines rather than let an unlicensed user transmit through them.

The FCC said in its Forfeiture Order that agents who tracked transmissions
to Gerritsen's house and interviewed him said he admitted to transmitting
on various Amateur radio frequencies as well as on various business radio
frequencies.

In a handwritten letter Gerritsen wrote while in jail last March on a
federal trespassing conviction to the president of one repeater
association, he suggested that repeater owners should tolerate his
commentaries "a few times a day."

Material from The ARRL Letter may be republished or reproduced in whole or
in part in any form without additional permission. Credit must be given to
The ARRL Letter and The American Radio Relay League.

[KD4LEI]

Oh the day is coming when this miscreant will not only pay monitarily, but will pay with some hard time. He's not going to stop until he's behind bars anyway.

Jack you just can't seem to see that you are going to lose BIG TIME pal!

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[n7spy]

I'm getting the feeling, from seeing this guy's photo, that he's 100% certifiably out of his mind... and that he really really REALLY doesn't understand what an annoyance he is.. let alone something as uncomplicated as the FCC Regulations.

Jail? No, sending to the nuthouse... without his gear.

Oh oh oh... or here's another solution... go to his place and jam HIS transmissions.. what is he going to do, complain that someone's jamming HIM??

By all means let him complain... in fact, give him the names/numbers of every media outlet in Bell, California.. I'm sure that one of them is going to research this nutjob and expose him for the fraud he is.

[KG6JTB]

He is annoying. Plays his pre-recorded, 30 second political messages on repeaters anywhere near Bell.

I was wondering why the Catalina repeater is often down.

Dave
KG6JTB

[N0MLR]

Well lets not get to worked up about the Fine imposed. It is a far differant matter to actually collect the money. If the guy has no assets or money the FCC will never see a dime of it. He has went to Jail for his actions so that must not be a deterant to him. The Man has a Mental defect and does need help. That fact is eveident when you read the actual charges against him on the ARRL web site. He was repeatedly caught in his own drive way.

73

Greg Dunn / N0MLR

[kb7uxe]

Why doesn't somebody "trade" him some CB gear for his ham equipment. at least he'll be in "good company" where this type of
actions are tolerated and accepted as the norm.
At least the fcc doesn't seem to mind it there.
Dan. kb7uxe.

[n9kpn]

Does anyone have a link to the full story?

[KB2KAB]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif It seems to me that the F.C.C. is going to use some legal action, and soon. What I mean is, that one day a knock on the door will come, and he is going to led out in hand cuffs. When push comes to shove, this is when it will stop. Maybe someone will want his equipment?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[N0MLR]

Quote[/b] (n9kpn @ Oct. 23 2004,08:30)]Does anyone have a link to the full story?
Here is the Info from the ARRL web site.

http://www.arrl.org/news/enforcement_logs/2004/1016.html


73

Greg Dunn / N0MLR

[ab6mh]

It really does not matter what Jack thinks ... he has no license. Argue as he might ... there isn't going to be any debate as to what "is" is, on that subject!

Jack gets into a lot of repeaters out here and irritates a lot of people with his garbage tapes and diatribes. There are several problems when he does come up on repeaters. There are those hams that like to try jamming him, which just adds to the confusion, and ... of course, really does not serve any purpose. There are hams that will get on the repeater and argue with Jack, talk to him, knowing full-well he isn't licensed, so they should not be talking to him knowing that he isn't licensed. Then we have some repeaters that will allow Jack to continue transmitting his garbage anywhere from minutes, to hours. Hmmm, seems to me that the solution is to just turn the repeater off so that he does not have a platform to spew his garbage on. Of course ... then you hear the arguments ... " If I/we turn the repeater off ... no one can use it." ... or ... " If I/we turn it off ... he wins, that's what he wants us to do." Well, you can't use the repeater anyway as long as he is tying it up with his tapes and other garbage. As for "winning," who cares? He at least does not have a platform to sit there and send out his garbage on/over.

I am a control operator on a repeater and will not hesitate to turn it off if he should show up on it. I know (and know of) several other owners/control operators that are shutting them down, or are ready to shut them down, if he appears on them. We really don't care whether he thinks he's won anything ... we don't have to listen to his diatribe. (In some cases ... there have been changes made on the repeaters so that we can still talk, but Jack can no longer get into the repeater.)

As long as Jack is allowed to run wild out on the airwaves, this will be a problem. As long as Jack has people that will get on the air and argue with him, this will be a problem. And, as long as there are repeaters that let him run wild with his garbage for hours on end, this will be a problem.

AB6MH

[w7xf]

I have heard a lot of his on-air sewage on several SoCal repeaters...yah he would fit right in on 27.185AM... kinda sounds like Richard Burton re-incarnated!!! Maybe its time for the FCC to go in and seize all of his transmitter equipment, AND post his photo at ALL radio retailers/swapfests stating not to sell him equipment.

That might help..at least temporarily.

73 de K7KWH in my 18-wheeled hamshack http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[k2lck]

Well, it is kinda late now, but the ONLY way to deal with a joker like this who just likes the attention it to completely ignore him. #He shows up jamming ,everyone QUIETLY just leaves. #In a case like this, when you leave the freq you must say sumpin like, "The wife just came home" so that there is no way he knows or suspects that he is the reason... It should go without saying that one never insults or refers to him in any way. #If properly done, the joker wonders whether he is actually getting out and sends his transmitter in for repair... #Unfortunately some guys yield to the temptation to "take a shot" at him and he hangs around.. #Another way is to pick one repeater and attack him on that one only and of coarse that is where he will stay while everyone completely ignores him on other machines... # It should not be too difficult to be smarter than someone who is mentally missing a few cards.. And when he starts doing his thing, turning the machine off gives him a win. Turn the repeater off, BUT, keep it active via a casual conversation on a control/link. Again, you gotta be smart...Ed

[kb6ssn]

I suppose I’m the only one who sees this as proof that the FCC is an over bloated bureaucracy flatulating in the wind. Yes, the person in question does indeed appear to be a jerk. But no more so than the FCC itself. I see no provision in the US Constitution for the FCC to exist at all! But why should any of us take responsibility for our own actions when we have a Nanny like the FCC to take care of jerks that we should be taking care of ourselves!

[K0ZZE]

stick it to him!!!!!!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[n7spy]

Quote[/b] (kb6ssn @ Oct. 24 2004,09:44)]I see no provision in the US Constitution for the FCC to exist at all!
The same way that there is no provision in the U.S. Constitution for most U.S. Government Regulatory Agencies to exist at all... because the Constitution says that that's Congress' job (Article I, Section 8, United States Constitution http://www.archives.gov/nationa.....html). (http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html).)

As part of that job, Congress enacted the Communications Act of 1934... which is the actual reason why (for better or for worse) we have a Federal Communications Commision.

[k2lck]

Bashing the FCC is fun ( I guess) but they are only the padlock on the door of the shed, which keeps most of us honest. Putting him in jail at 30-50 k/yr isn't worth the cost, when ignoring him woulda worked.. How about giving the guy the attention he wants behind a woodshed???

[w6em]

Reading all of this reminds me of the remark Riley Hollingsworth made while speaking here in the Tampa Bay Area at the WCF section ARRL meeting a couple of years ago: #CA is his biggest enforcement problem.... lol

Well, since I'm no longer there, its probably improved.

Anyway, it seems to me, the FCC hasn't really been as effective in addressing the problem as it should have been. #They clearly have the authority to confiscate his equipment. #So, each time he gets on the air, pay him a visit. #Break down the door, if necessary. #Take his car away to the impound yard to make sure no HTs are hidden under the seats.

Make his life difficult, each and every time he interferes or transmits on any frequency. #Trying to get $10,000 out of him will be like trying to get blood out of a turnip. #He probably is on welfare, due to his conviction anyway and can get off the hook from paying much of anything.

At least with frequent confiscation, it'll cost him to buy equipment to replace what's carted away. #And, I'm sure HRO and AES-Las Vegas won't sell him anything. #So, what's the big deal, anyway?

Sending him to jail will cost big bucks. #Making his life miserable with legal break-ins each and every time the jerk transmits on any frequency is really what he needs.... #And, not being able to lock his front door in Bell just might be the encouragement he needs.

Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL.

[W9WHE]

"Recent letters have implored the ARRL to somehow intervene in the situation"

Now that's funny!
The ARRL has NO PLACE interfering with any quasi-judicial administrative process before the FCC. The ARRL should stick to what it does best..... namely... re-cycling old ARRL publications to look like new ones and raising the price!

W9WHE

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Oct. 25 2004,13:48)]"Recent letters have implored the ARRL to somehow intervene in the situation"

Now that's funny!
The ARRL has NO PLACE interfering with any quasi-judicial administrative process before the FCC. The ARRL should stick to what it does best..... namely... re-cycling old ARRL publications to look like new ones and raising the price!

W9WHE
Maybe the League can expell him from membership for 'conduct unbecoming.' lol

Since you sound a tad 'anti-League' here, I'll acquaint you with something called "Friend of the Court", aka Amicus Curiae. (I may have misspelled the Latin, so please forgive me, since I'm not an attorney, and this isn't legal advice)

I think just about any interested party can write a friend of the court letter to the court in any open proceeding and can express their two cents worth, pro or con. I don't know about agencies acting outside of an actual case being filed such as has been the case here, but ARRL could write to the court this ends up being tried in. So, I guess that's some sort of intervention.

Lee
W6EM

[W9WHE]

W6EM writes:

"Since you sound a tad 'anti-League' here, I'll acquaint you with something called "Friend of the Court", aka Amicus Curiae"

Well, I am an attorney and I am familliar with Amicus briefs, Thank-you. My point was not that ARRL "can't" get involved, but rather that it "should not" get involved in quasi-criminal, administrative matters matters before the FCC.

ARRL has enough problems with about 80% of hams that REFUSE to join (or have cancelled their memberships like me) because of idiotic ARRL stances, lobbying failures (Antenna bill, 220 Mhz, & BPL to name a few) and secrecy. ARRL's recent proposal to dumb down ham radio has caused more membership cancellations. Therefore, I will say it again, ARRL should stick to what it does best, recycling old publications and raising the price to fund retirement accounts.

W9WHE

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Oct. 26 2004,06:56)]W6EM writes:

"Since you sound a tad 'anti-League' here, I'll acquaint you with something called "Friend of the Court", aka Amicus Curiae"

Well, I am an attorney and I am familliar with Amicus briefs, Thank-you. My point was not that ARRL "can't" get involved, but rather that it "should not" get involved in quasi-criminal, administrative matters matters before the FCC.

ARRL has enough problems with about 80% of hams that REFUSE to join (or have cancelled their memberships like me) because of idiotic ARRL stances, lobbying failures (Antenna bill, 220 Mhz, & BPL to name a few) and secrecy. ARRL's recent proposal to dumb down ham radio has caused more membership cancellations. Therefore, I will say it again, ARRL should stick to what it does best, recycling old publications and raising the price to fund retirement accounts.

W9WHE
Well, a tad off topic, but here we go.

Now lets see, you probably belong to the ABA, and I'll bet you don't agree with everything that they do and say.
So, why do you continue to pay their dues?

Do you think that your opinion is singular, and that no one else shares it with respect to some of the things that the League does? #Is there another organization that the majority of time supports our existence, and fights for it? #Maybe you'd like to try your hand as a second W2NSD/Wayne Green? #Go ahead. #Start your own magazine. #Try to organize a following and getting the monies needed to support your efforts. #Tough task.

I don't agree with all that they do. #And, you can ask Jim Hainey himself if he and I have exhanged terse words. #Yes, over an issue I felt that was not being sufficiently addressed. #But, do I still belong? #Yes, because there is no other organization that can do what they do, most of which is for our best interests.

Let's do a comparison. #No ARRL vs ARRL. #Would AR even exist today if it weren't for the ARRL? #Would we have the priviledges we have, including protection from some rather insidious state and municpal laws and regulations that have attempted to shut us down?

Last, but not least. #I haven't seen your name on any formal pleadings before the Commission with respect to AR. #Why not? #Is Pro Bono work for the good of AR beyond what you are willing to undertake? #After you have, THEN you can stand up and criticize the League for not covering what you thought important enough to speak up yourself.

Very 73,

Lee
W6EM

[W9WHE]

W6EM needs to get his facts straight before embarrassing himself. He writes:

"Now lets see, you probably belong to the ABA, and I'll bet you don't agree with everything that they do and say.
So, why do you continue to pay their dues?"

WRONG AGAIN!
I disagree with the ABA on too many issues to be a member. Like the ARRL, I#think the ABA hurts the cause more than they help. I am NOT an ABA member and have even declined a free membership.

---

"....Would we.... [have]....protection from some rather insidious state and municpal laws and regulations that have attempted to shut us down?"

You are ILL-INFORMED.
We have protection from state land municipal laws thanks to the supremicy clause of the U.S. Constitution, not ARRL. Under the doctrine of pre-emption (a constitutional principal) comprehensive federal laws displace ALL state and municipal regulation. In other words, when congress deligated power to regulate under the Communications Act of 1934, it Pre-empted ALL state laws to the contrary. Thanks to CONGRESS and the U.S. constitution's supremicy clause, no state can regulate an area once the feds have displaced state regulation. If you think the ARRL is to thank, then you must believe ARRL propaganda!


__

"Last, but not least, I haven't seen your name on any formal pleadings before the Commission with respect to AR. Why not? #Is Pro Bono work for the good of AR beyond what you are willing to undertake? #After you have, THEN you can stand up and criticize the League for not covering what you thought important enough to speak up yourself"

WRONG AGAIN, YOU SANCTIMONIOUS .....

I formally petitioned FCC to revise 47 U.S.C. 97 (part 97) so as to regulate "broadcasting" in the Amateur service in a fashion to curtail K1MAN's activities. If you were informed, #you would know that. So I have done Pro Bono work for Amateur radio's benifit. Know the facts before you make insulting insinuations.

---

LET'S REVIEW. WE HAVE ESTABLISHED:

1) YOU are WRONG on the facts;
2) YOU are WRONG on the legal principals;
3) I HAVE DONE PRO BONO work to further AR; and
4) I HAVE STANDING to criticize ARRL.


SO.....WHY NOT KEEP YOUR #SANCTIMONIOUS, ILL-INFORMED, #UNFOUNDED, #PERSONAL ATTACKS TO YOURSELF! #


W9WHE
Proud to have CANCELLED my ARRL membership!

[K4JF]

Quote[/b] (n7spy @ Oct. 24 2004,12:57)]Quote[/b] (kb6ssn @ Oct. 24 2004,09:44)]I see no provision in the US Constitution for the FCC to exist at all!
The same way that there is no provision in the U.S. Constitution for most U.S. Government Regulatory Agencies to exist at all... because the Constitution says that that's Congress' job (Article I, Section 8, United States Constitution http://www.archives.gov/nationa.....html). (http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html).)

As part of that job, Congress enacted the Communications Act of 1934... which is the actual reason why (for better or for worse) we have a Federal Communications Commision.
Actually, the FCC falls under the "regulate interstate commerce" clause of the Constitution. Congress decided (rightfully) that radio does not respect state borders and is therefore interstate by nature.

Congress does NOT have the power to regulate anything they want. Only those things the states gave them power to regulate. Some of the Federal agencies are, actually, illegal.

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Oct. 27 2004,11:09)]"....Would we.... [have]....protection from some rather insidious state and municpal laws and regulations that have attempted to shut us down?"

You are ILL-INFORMED.
We have protection from state land municipal laws thanks to the supremicy clause of the U.S. Constitution, not ARRL. Under the doctrine of pre-emption (a constitutional principal) comprehensive federal laws displace ALL state and municipal regulation. In other words, when congress deligated power to regulate under the Communications Act of 1934, it Pre-empted ALL state laws to the contrary. Thanks to CONGRESS and the U.S. constitution's supremicy clause, no state can regulate an area once the feds have displaced state regulation. If you think the ARRL is to thank, then you must believe ARRL propaganda!


__

"Last, but not least, I haven't seen your name on any formal pleadings before the Commission with respect to AR. Why not? #Is Pro Bono work for the good of AR beyond what you are willing to undertake? #After you have, THEN you can stand up and criticize the League for not covering what you thought important enough to speak up yourself"

WRONG AGAIN, YOU SANCTIMONIOUS .....

I formally petitioned FCC to revise 47 U.S.C. 97 (part 97) so as to regulate "broadcasting" in the Amateur service in a fashion to curtail K1MAN's activities. If you were informed, #you would know that. So I have done Pro Bono work for Amateur radio's benifit. Know the facts before you make insulting insinuations.

---


SO.....WHY NOT KEEP YOUR #SANCTIMONIOUS, ILL-INFORMED, #UNFOUNDED, #PERSONAL ATTACKS TO YOURSELF! #


W9WHE
Proud to have CANCELLED my ARRL membership!
Well, first off, the 'probably' got me off the hook (with respect to that assumption that most all attorneys belong to the ABA, including you). #Well, then, you probably just belong to your state's bar, since I think you are obliged to in order to practice. :-)

Secondly, had I known your name, instead of just your call sign, and searched the database, I would have found your one and only petition (if its recent history in the Commission's database). #Well, sorry about that.
I've written several petitions and a boatload of comments, so that makes us even, I guess. #And, as I said, I'm not an attorney.

Personal attack of you? No I don't think my last posting was. #Just to bring up a few questions and hypotheticals which were meant to stimulate debate, not invoke a tirade.

You have my sympathies, based on the tenor of your response. #You must be a terror, if you litigate. #But, I suppose we're a bit off topic here. #And, you've posted on other threads and your focus has always been anti ARRL. #That's your priviledge, but seems counterproductive to the topics.

And, last but not least, thanks for your explanation of pre-emption. #Although, I must say that in many cases it takes substantial funds to retain one or more members of your fraternity to enforce those rights and pre-emptions. #Nice, in principle, but by no means automatic. #I'm in fact sitting right next door to two cities that have structural height limits #of a mere 32 feet that violate both Florida State statutes and PRB-1. But, guess what? #They're still on the books in spite of letters to their town counsels pointing out their conflicts. #And, organizations like the ARRL cannot afford to represent large numbers of individual amateurs, when challenged individually. #

I'm through with this, as its off the original topic and not worth my time. #I hope that the next QSO that you have, you share your extreme anti-ARRL posture with the ham on the other end that doesn't know you. #I'll bet it'll be a short contact.

73,

Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL.

[k2lck]

Wow! reading all the replys I can see why he is "one of us".........."Frankly Scarlett"

[W9WHE]

W6EM writes:

"Personal attack of you? No I don't think my last posting was" #

Really?
Just what was that insinuation about me being too high and mighty (or was it too greedy) to do Pro Bono work for the benifit of ham radio? #I'd call that a personal attack. Backhanded and thinly veiled, but nevertheless, a personal attack.

_

"And, last but not least, thanks for your explanation of pre-emption"

Consider it "Pro Bono" work for the benifit of the ham community.

_

"I hope that the next QSO that you have, you share your extreme anti-ARRL posture with the ham on the other end that doesn't know you. #I'll bet it'll be a short contact"

Wow! #May I point out that only 20% of the U.S. hams are #ARRL members? #That means 80% DO NOT support ARRL. If you think my views are somehow in the minority, THINK AGAIN. 80% of hams think that ARRL isn't even worth about $3 dollars a month. THREE DOLLARS! #Now why do you suppose that is? # By a 5 to 1 margin, YOUR FELLOW HAMS think the ARRL isn't worth supporting. And somehow I'm an extremist? #Ask yourself.....who is the extremist? Me, for being in an 80% MAJORITY or you.....in the 20% MINORITY? # Hummm........

____

AND FINALLY:

"I'm through with this, as its off the original topic and not worth my time".

Ouch. This one hurts.
By your own admission, you have learned something about the legal doctrine of Federal Pre-Emption and learned it for FREE. Then you say "its not worth my time". Now you know why the thousands of ham-lawyers shun so-called "Pro Bono" work. A lawyer can put significant amounts of valuable time into something and then people say to him "its not worth" their time. That is something I need to remember the next time a ham raises a legal issue that I am familliar with. #

BUT I NEED TO THANK YOU.
YOU have taught ME a valuable lesson, which I will try to remember. The next time a ham raises a legal issue, I will remember your very words...."its not worth my time".


W9WHE

[w7fsq]

W6EM and W9WHE, ok you 2 need your own forum, so why not start one and keep this one on track. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[kb3jjd]

As a HAM that has tolerated this gentleman, I can say that I am very excited to see that his days are numbered. I remember during the OLD and Grand Prix fires last years we were under a State of Emergency assiting the various agencies that battled the fires, And this person willing was interfering on bands that we used for Emergency Traffic "I hope that the FCC puts him away for a LONG time!" http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif KB3JJD

[ke4zhn]

Never mind the fine...lock him up and put him away! After he does his time, the only transmitter that should be in his possesion is the house arrest band tracker on his ankle!

[VE6WSO]

Boy! Isthis guy for real? I thought we were past the days of fanaticism! Hmmm, guess not, I do believe a personal party might be in order, take up a collection and send him to Iraq! He might just fit in with all those terrorists, he already sounds like one to me, just my 2cts. worth, tnx and 73s, good luck Bell Ca. sounds like you need it,too bad we can't go back to the old days, Get A Rope! N6WSO

[KC8UZT]

Quote[/b] (W9WHE @ Oct. 27 2004,11:09)]W6EM needs to get his facts straight before embarrassing himself. He writes:

"Now lets see, you probably belong to the ABA, and I'll bet you don't agree with everything that they do and say.
So, why do you continue to pay their dues?"

WRONG AGAIN!
I disagree with the ABA on too many issues to be a member. Like the ARRL, I#think the ABA hurts the cause more than they help. I am NOT an ABA member and have even declined a free membership.

---

"....Would we.... [have]....protection from some rather insidious state and municpal laws and regulations that have attempted to shut us down?"

You are ILL-INFORMED.
We have protection from state land municipal laws thanks to the supremicy clause of the U.S. Constitution, not ARRL. Under the doctrine of pre-emption (a constitutional principal) comprehensive federal laws displace ALL state and municipal regulation. In other words, when congress deligated power to regulate under the Communications Act of 1934, it Pre-empted ALL state laws to the contrary. Thanks to CONGRESS and the U.S. constitution's supremicy clause, no state can regulate an area once the feds have displaced state regulation. If you think the ARRL is to thank, then you must believe ARRL propaganda!


__

"Last, but not least, I haven't seen your name on any formal pleadings before the Commission with respect to AR. Why not? #Is Pro Bono work for the good of AR beyond what you are willing to undertake? #After you have, THEN you can stand up and criticize the League for not covering what you thought important enough to speak up yourself"

WRONG AGAIN, YOU SANCTIMONIOUS .....

I formally petitioned FCC to revise 47 U.S.C. 97 (part 97) so as to regulate "broadcasting" in the Amateur service in a fashion to curtail K1MAN's activities. If you were informed, #you would know that. So I have done Pro Bono work for Amateur radio's benifit. Know the facts before you make insulting insinuations.

---

LET'S REVIEW. WE HAVE ESTABLISHED:

1) YOU are WRONG on the facts;
2) YOU are WRONG on the legal principals;
3) I HAVE DONE PRO BONO work to further AR; and
4) I HAVE STANDING to criticize ARRL.


SO.....WHY NOT KEEP YOUR #SANCTIMONIOUS, ILL-INFORMED, #UNFOUNDED, #PERSONAL ATTACKS TO YOURSELF! #


W9WHE
Proud to have CANCELLED my ARRL membership!
I remind both of you this forum is not for bashing please refrain from doing so! Thanks!

73's

Dave