KG6IRO: Did the FCC Do Him Wrong??

[w6em]

Not that I agree with the alleged activities of ex?? KG6IRO, but the FCC may have goofed procedurally.

According to the Commission's Practice and Procedure guidelines, a suspension must be held in abeyance if the suspension is properly protested procedurally, until the conclusion of a hearing. #Here is the citation:

TITLE 47--TELECOMMUNICATION CHAPTER I--FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

Table of Contents Subpart A--General Rules of Practice and Procedure

Sec. 1.85 Suspension of operator licenses.

Whenever grounds exist for suspension of an operator license, as provided in Sec. 303(m) of the Communications Act, [[Page 121]] the Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, with respect to amateur and commercial radio operator licenses, may issue an order suspending the operator license. No order of suspension of any operator's license shall take effect until 15 days' notice in writing of the cause for the proposed suspension has been given to the operator licensee, who may make written application to the Commission at any time within the said 15 days for a hearing upon such order. The notice to the operator licensee shall not be effective until actually received by him, and from that time he shall have 15 days in which to mail the said application. In the event that physical conditions prevent mailing of the application before the expiration of the 15-day period, the application shall then be mailed as soon as possible thereafter, accompanied by a satisfactory explanation of the delay. Upon receipt by the Commission of such application for hearing, said order of suspension shall be designated for hearing by the Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and said suspension shall be held in abeyance until the conclusion of the hearing. Upon the conclusion of said hearing, the Commission may affirm, modify, or revoke said order of suspension. If the license is ordered suspended, the operator shall send his operator license to the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, in Washington, DC, on or before the effective date of the order, or, if the effective date has passed at the time notice is received, the license shall be sent to the Commission forthwith.

Now, if its just modified to Pending Status, with the clear purpose of an actual suspension, it appears they can modify a license in accordance with this section (and not have to wait for a hearing):

Sec. 97.27 FCC modification of station license grant.

(a) The FCC may modify a station license grant, either for a limited time or for the duration of the term thereof, if it determines:

(1) That such action will promote the public interest, convenience, and necessity; or

(2) That such action will promote fuller compliance with the provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, or of any treaty ratified by the United States.

(b) When the FCC makes such a determination, it will issue an order of modification. The order will not become final until the licensee is notified in writing of the proposed action and the grounds and reasons therefor. The licensee will be given reasonable opportunity of no less than 30 days to protest the modification; except that, where safety of life or property is involved, a shorter period of notice may be provided. Any protest by a licensee of an FCC order of modification will be handled in accordance with the provisions of 47 U.S.C. 316.

So, which is it? #A suspension, properly appealled, which must await a hearing before it is effective; or a just a "modification."? #It would seem to me that a modification would continue to permit some priveledges under a license grant.

A modification to CW-only, on 50kHz worth of HF spectrum would make a lot more sense, IMO.


Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL.

(After I submitted this, I forgot to mention that the FCC actually used its Part 1.113 provision to 'set aside' its decision on his renewal, thereby avoiding invoking the suspension or modification provisions. Frankly, they suspended his license without due process.)

[AD6FR]

As a resident of Southern California, all I can say is that whatever it takes to get Jack Gerritson off the air will be greatly appreciated. Gerritson is a constant nuisance on all L.A. area repeaters, he broadcasts propaganda tapes, uses profanity and jams legitimate ham radio operations. I have no sympathy for him and will be glad to see the hammer come down hard whenever the Fed's get around to it.

[k4kyv]

Quote[/b] (AD6FR @ Dec. 17 2004,17:25)]As a resident of Southern California, all I can say is that whatever it takes to get Jack Gerritson off the air will be greatly appreciated. Gerritson is a constant nuisance on all L.A. area repeaters, he broadcasts propaganda tapes, uses profanity and jams legitimate ham radio operations. I have no sympathy for him and will be glad to see the hammer come down hard whenever the Fed's get around to it.
Reminds me of a certain station in Maine that operates on 75 and 20m.

[N7YA]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Dec. 16 2004,15:32)]Frankly, they suspended his license without due process.)
....and yet, K1MAN can still operate...he must have something on 'ol Mikey Powell. Im just happy to filter off even one lid. now if we can get rid of IT9RYH and that VE3 buddy of his, life on HF would improve.
Its a shame that a human being can reduce themselves to a mass of vile insecurity. we all have dealt with people like this at work and whatnot. its just a shame that a species like humans can achieve so much...and also wallow in self deprication and anger.
Reminds me of a rig without a groundwire...all that power that can be used for positive things, being coursed back through the system causing eventual long term damage.

This is why i actually TALK to my kids...and i listen too. these guys seem like a result to the contrary.
Hey, doesnt matter now...good on the FCC for actually doing something about a lid. im all for it...though due process would be nice, sounds like they just wanted to get rid of him. still trying to figure out how the K1 still has his call.

73...de N7YA

[kc7dji]

I wouldn't care if they took his license and his birthday away. If people of that nature would EVER interfere with any communication knowing it was illegal and against all FCC rules then why should the FCC follow any given set of rules to allow these people to opreate. I've never experienced these folks and don't plan too. Put that silly sucker on an intertube in the middle of the Pacific with a HT.

KC7DJI

[n2vww]

In a word...NO.


73

gary

[kc8ufv]

I have an even better idea for modification of his license, that would keep him from interfering - no more than 1 watt ERP, and no transmissions within a 25 mile radius of a coordinated Ham repeater in the band operating.

I would say any repeater, however it would be dificult for any person or orginization to determine where ALL ham repeaters are, while coordinated repeaters are easily located.

[KD7DFV]

IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO FIND OUT JUST HOW MUCH, EXACTLY, DO YOU ALL KNOW ABOUT ALL THE FCC HAS AGAINST HIM AS A CASE. IT SEEMS TO ME THE "DUE PROCESS" PART HAS TO DO A LOT WITH PEOPLE WHO AREN'T BREAKING LAWS AND DIRECT ORDERS TO "CEASE AND DESIST". MAYBE ALL THAT CAN BE BORNE AGAINST HIM ISN'T COMMON KNOWLEDGE.
KD7DFV
PHX/PEORIA/SUN CITY

[KD7WHQ]

KD7DFV, knock the caps lock off.
I think the FCC was completely in their purvue to pull his ticket.

As far a modifictaions, 1mw on ch 11 CB band.
Have at it ;)

[W6EZV]

If you check the record, you’ll notice that the commission never suspended Gerritsen’s license, since he never held one. #FCC rules provide that the commission may set aside a license application within 30 days of any public notice regarding “any action taken pursuant to delegated authority”, which includes the granting of an amateur radio license.
#The commission granted Garritsen an amateur radio license on November 7, 2001, apparently not knowing that he had been convicted of interfering with police communications on June 6, 2000. Upon learning of that criminal conviction, the commission set aside Garritsen’s license on November 14, 2001, and returned his license application to “pending” status. The consequence of that action is that in the eyes of the law, Garritsen never had an amateur radio license.
#W6EM, who started this thread, asked whether Garritsen’s license was suspended, or modified. The answer is neither. Legally, Garritsen was never granted a license, therefore, he is not entitled to a hearing, and he has no authority to operate on any amateur frequency.
#For further reading, see http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3183A1.html especially paragraphs 12 and 13.

[kb2vxa]

Lodare,

It has been said that Garretsen never had a license, true. It only goes to show that having or not having a license is not of substance or issue, revoking one does not stop illegal transmissions, period. Does the term "pirate radio" come to mind?

As for K1MAN, too much has been said already but the most important part, he is a VERY wealthy man with a high degree of intellegence to go with it. As such he has the resources to keep the FCC or anyone else tangled up in litigation indefinately. As stated above, revocation won't keep him off the air but maybe a stealth bombing run would.
(;->)

As for the "QRM" from stations outside the us, New Yorkers have a phrase that fits. FAGITABOUTIT! When you consider all the legal red tape and governments that don't give a hoot you're watching Mission Impossible.

Good luck Mr. Phelps, this message will self destruct in 5 seconds.

73 de Warren KB2VXA

[ab6mh]

ex-KG6IRO has been a problem out here for quite some time now. Unless/until the FCC gets off their butts and actually do something to him, instead of send him pieces of paper and threatening him with fines, he will continue with his crap on the air. There are now others that are starting to show up on repeaters that are beginning to do the same thing Gerritsen has been doing, basically because they see that nothing is happening to Gerritsen.

There does not appear to be any "teeth in the system" any longer. Merely tracking him down and "warning" him not to get on the air, sending him paper "warning" him he will be fined, well, that does not appear to be working. One has to wonder when the FCC is going to get off their butts and do something before this gets completely out of hand and there is a handful of ilk out there jamming repeaters.

People are tired of excuses ... results are what people want to see.

AB6MH

[w6em]

What the Commission's staff states with respect to their application of Part 1.113 has little to do with this.

Quite frankly, a commission grant of a license is, in effect, property. #(One can get, I suppose, a clearer picture if you look at the results of spectrum auctions and other licenses and the millions the Commission receives for same.)

The Constitution guarantees the right to due process, whereby government cannot take property without same. #This meager 'concept' has been even applied, successfully, by the Supreme Court, to government employment. #Yes, a job with federal, state or local government is personal property, and requires due process for its termination.

Also, there is no basis in the Communications Act (the law, in this case) for regulation Part 1.113, to be applied to circumvent the clearly written mandates for license suspension which were spelled out by Congress in the Communications Act itself. #To have taken his license by a bureacratic mistake-release clause, was a clever trick, which could be tried on just about anything, until and if the victim seeks redress in a court of law.

No, I am not at all defending the alleged actions of Gerritsen. #Nor am I suggesting that the FCC or the US Attorney not vigorously prosecute and take all actions necessary to deal with the problem.

All I was attempting to say was that, IMO, an improper action was taken by the FCC, which, offered Gerritsen no due process, which we all have a right to. #His license was supposedly stripped from him, and with a promise of a 'hearing' made in 2001, which, folks, by the way, it shouldn't take 3 plus years to arrange......

So, when the FCC decides to bypass due process for any of you, out of convenience, time or cost savings, or #bureaucratic boon-doggling, think about where your rights went: #Down the toilet.

I'm not an attorney, and this is just my observation.

73,

Lee
W6EM

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (kb2vxa @ Dec. 18 2004,03:03)]As such he has the resources to keep the FCC or anyone else tangled up in litigation indefinately. As stated above, revocation won't keep him off the air but maybe a stealth bombing run would.
(;->)
Warren:

Not quite so. #Browse the United States Code, Title 18, Crimes. #www.gpoaccess.gov #Select "Browse the US Code."

According to what I've read, the government has the right to enter private property and to seize equipment and property used in the commission of certain crimes, including some involving telecommunications. #Of course, provided that a federal court agrees and permits it.

73,

Lee
W6EM

[N7MK]

Gerritsen's license was not suspended. It was set aside due to his conviction for interferring with Public Safety communications. His "due process" was the legal proceedings against him for that offense.

See also- http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/04/1217/%5C


Mark

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (N7MK @ Dec. 18 2004,08:38)]Gerritsen's license was not suspended. #It was set aside due to his conviction for interferring with Public Safety communications. #His "due process" was the legal proceedings against him for that offense.

See also- #http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/04/1217/%5C


Mark
Yes, his license renewal was set aside via a regulation that was written to provide a means for the Commission to conveniently fix its own mistakes, omissions and oversights. #Not to be a means to circumvent the intent of Congress in the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

So, as a simple analogy, if you get a ticket for speeding, you go to court and you lose and pay the fine. #The next time you get pulled over you just go straight to jail without seeing the judge? Or, better yet, they take away your drivers license as a separate act not part of court proceedings after you'e been convicted of speeding without a separate hearing?

Nope.

Don't think about what the FCC's staff #or the ARRL has said supposedly justifying the action, think about it in a larger perspective. #What the FCC says and does (including Notices of Apparent Liability) are based on their opinion(s), right or wrong, and do NOT afford due process, unless a hearing occurs before an ALJ or in federal court on the specific matter wherein the accused party has an opportunity to defend him/herself. #Its long past the time that the FCC should have asked the appropriate US Attorneys to have taken definitive action in this and several other matters involving alleged malicious interference.

Gerritsen's still waiting for his 'hearing' he was promised in 2001. #Maybe that's part of what continues to motivate his behavior.

[N7MK]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Dec. 18 2004,09:13)]Maybe that's part of what continues to motivate his behavior.

NOTHING can justify ANY of Gerritsen's mentioned behavior. What he gets, he has coming to him. There is no doubt in what he has done, and continues to do, being just wrong. At least to most. If he (or you) thinks there is a case against the way he has been treated, he should get an attorney and fight it. My bet says, he would lose. There is more to this story than what he is being defended by here.

Did the FCC do Gerritsen wrong? I don't think so.. but let the courts decide that, if he thinks he has a case. Gerritsen, however, has done all amateurs in the SW US wrong.


Mark

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (N7MK @ Dec. 18 2004,11:20)]Quote[/b] (w6em @ Dec. 18 2004,09:13)]Maybe that's part of what continues to motivate his behavior.

NOTHING can justify ANY of Gerritsen's mentioned behavior. #What he gets, he has coming to him. #There is no doubt in what he has done, and continues to do, being just wrong. #At least to most. #If he (or you) thinks there is a case against the way he has been treated, he should get an attorney and fight it. #My bet says, he would lose. #There is more to this story than what he is being defended by here.

Did the FCC do Gerritsen wrong? #I don't think so.. but let the courts decide that, if he thinks he has a case. #Gerritsen, however, has done all amateurs in the SW US wrong.


Mark
The post was not meant to be a defense of Gerritsen or what he's allegedly done.

However, the FCC could use a little encouragement to clean up its act, so to speak. #More than what the ARRL's Chris Imlay has said thus far. #There's no excuse for shoddy law enforcement. #And, IMO, that's what we've been seeing. #At least in this example and at least one more. #Also, I don't mean this as a criticism of Mr. Hollingsworth. #So far as I can tell, he's done us all proud in what has been made public of his work.

So, to the rest of the FCC's Enforcement Bureau, get off your duffs and get with it. #If I had the time and the #resources, a Writ of Mandamus would be an interesting approach to use to have a federal court order the FCC and appropriate US Attorneys to enforce applicable federal law.

Three years to schedule a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge? #Give me a break........

73,

Lee
W6EM

[KG4ZQZ]

Quote[/b] (kb2vxa @ Dec. 18 2004,06:03)]As for K1MAN, too much has been said already but the most important part, he is a VERY wealthy man with a high degree of intellegence to go with it. As such he has the resources to keep the FCC or anyone else tangled up in litigation indefinately.
- i don't think he's *that* wealthy (i believe the FCC has deeper, albeit taxpayer-financed pockets)...

- his current behavior and actions also indicate that he's not *that* intelligent - besides wasting one's life and money on a paranoid, obsessive pursuit, do ya think he's gonna get a standing ovation if he has the cajones to show up at Dayton or any organized ham event?

:-)

[w6dce]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Dec. 18 2004,06:33)]What the Commission's staff states with respect to their application of Part 1.113 has little to do with this.

Quite frankly, a commission grant of a license is, in effect, property. #(One can get, I suppose, a clearer picture if you look at the results of spectrum auctions and other licenses and the millions the Commission receives for same.)

The Constitution guarantees the right to due process, whereby government cannot take property without same. #This meager 'concept' has been even applied, successfully, by the Supreme Court, to government employment. #Yes, a job with federal, state or local government is personal property, and requires due process for its termination.

Also, there is no basis in the Communications Act (the law, in this case) for regulation Part 1.113, to be applied to circumvent the clearly written mandates for license suspension which were spelled out by Congress in the Communications Act itself. #To have taken his license by a bureacratic mistake-release clause, was a clever trick, which could be tried on just about anything, until and if the victim seeks redress in a court of law.

No, I am not at all defending the alleged actions of Gerritsen. #Nor am I suggesting that the FCC or the US Attorney not vigorously prosecute and take all actions necessary to deal with the problem.

All I was attempting to say was that, IMO, an improper action was taken by the FCC, which, offered Gerritsen no due process, which we all have a right to. #His license was supposedly stripped from him, and with a promise of a 'hearing' made in 2001, which, folks, by the way, it shouldn't take 3 plus years to arrange......

So, when the FCC decides to bypass due process for any of you, out of convenience, time or cost savings, or #bureaucratic boon-doggling, think about where your rights went: #Down the toilet.

I'm not an attorney, and this is just my observation.

73,

Lee
W6EM
Sorry, but an amateur radio callsign is not property. #It is a grant by the federal government allowing operation on a certain set of frequencies. #It is not a right, but rather a priveledge, and as such is subject to removal under certain guidleines.

In Gerritsen's case, he held a valid amateur call of KG6IRO for less than 30 days. #Under the current ruleset, the FCC may set aside any license within the first 30 days with no appeal by the license holder. #This rule allows the FCC to fix any problems they encounter like licenses which never should have been granted in the first place, etc.. #While there is plenty of protection for licensed amateur operators who have held a license for more than 30 days, those that fall under 30 days really have no options other than to disregard the law and start accumulating fines as Gerritsen has done.

Now then let's talk about his latest antic, jamming an emergency Coast Guard net. #That little prank is going to cost him more than some fines. #Word has it, the US Patriot Act is being invoked and Gerritsen is looking at jail time in the range of 8-10 years.

[W6EZV]

[Author’s note: I am somewhat surprised to see this thread go into three pages without descending into a code vs. no-code debate.]

W6EM,
#Your theories on property rights are interesting, and we could spend a lot of time arguing about the nature of private property, however, it would be irrelevant to Garritsen’s situation.
# If we (only for the sake of this discussion) agree that an amateur radio license is “property”, then one should regard the thirty-day period following the publication of a license grant as an escrow period, during which the grantor (in this case the FCC) may set aside the license grant for good cause.
# #However, I reject your argument that a license is property. I also reject your “simple analogy” as irrelevant. In your analogy, the actor holds a license…in Garritsen’s case, he does not.
# #Please note that the rules allow the commission to set aside any decision, within thirty days of the publication of that decision. This is a built-in public comment period, which rightfully enables the commission to act upon information that comes to light after the decision is published. Without such a safeguard in place, the commission would be obligated to thoroughly investigate every license applicant, which is far less practical than the current arrangement.
# #Finally, let me say that your creative legal “reasoning” puts you at risk of being too closely associated with the faulty logic Garritsen uses to justify his criminal behavior. The reason he’s not had a hearing is because he’s not entitled to a hearing, and your concern that the rights of all amateurs are thereby eroded is simply misguided.

***EDITOR'S NOTE***

"[Author’s note: I am somewhat surprised to see this thread go into three pages without descending into a code vs. no-code debate.]"

You took care of that, didn't you?

[w6em]

So, you think that FCC licenses are like your precious CA driver's license: #A priveledge and not property?

Then, one needs to differentiate between FCC licenses. #Some are property and some are not? #Amateur station licenses are not and commercial licenses are? #Hmmm. #Interesting to ponder. #And, by the way, I was referring to licenses, not callsigns.

If Gerritsen was promised a hearing, (even the ARRL cites it in Chris Imlay's latest correspondence to the commission on the League's behalf), then he should have received one long before now. #Or, is it the FCC's priveledge to make statements and forget, conveniently?After all, its only been three years or so.

Why hasn't the commission used what is available under law, not just self-serving, published regulations? #Titles 47 and 18 of the United States Code have some strong provisions, which should have been utilized long before now. #I think you know the difference.

To keep demanding sums from an individual who probably can't pay anyway, is simply a cop-out for very poor law enforcement. #And they sure have worked to resolve the problem, haven't they?

Government doesn't need an "escrow" clause. #It can act at any time it wants. #That's patently clear within the Communications Act and elsewhere. #Using what was meant to be an "errors and omissions correction" clause to effect a suspension was and is egregious. #

As to the latest allegations and supposed invocation of the Patriot Act, well, that sounds like someone's pipe dream. #And that piece of legislative garbage and its infringement of Constitutionally guaranteed rights ought to be flushed. #Its only a matter of time before it expires and/or will be flushed by the courts anyway. #

Check out 18USC1362 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC1362). #It appears to address intentional interference to government telecommunications fairly comprehensively. #And, its been around for quite a while

[WT4M]

Quote[/b] (kb2vxa @ Dec. 18 2004,13:03)]As for K1MAN, too much has been said already but the most important part, he is a VERY wealthy man with a high degree of intellegence to go with it.
-73 de Warren KB2VXA
If he is such an intelligent and wealthy fellow, then why does he have a web site that looks like it was constructed by someone with a weeklong crash course in hypertext? #Certainly, I have tried my hand at more than a few (web sites), and daresay I could do better!
Certainly if I were wealthy and intelligent enough to put together a national radio organization to compete with the ARRL, I would pay for (wealthy) or develop myself (intelligent) a site worthy of such an endeavor!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

V/r,

[kb2wye]

He got what he deserves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (W6EZV @ Dec. 18 2004,02:34)]#The commission granted Garritsen an amateur radio license on November 7, 2001, apparently not knowing that he had been convicted of interfering with police communications on June 6, 2000. Upon learning of that criminal conviction, the commission set aside Garritsen’s license on November 14, 2001, and returned his license application to “pending” status. The consequence of that action is that in the eyes of the law, Garritsen never had an amateur radio license.
#W6EM, who started this thread, asked whether Garritsen’s license was suspended, or modified. The answer is neither. Legally, Garritsen was never granted a license, therefore, he is not entitled to a hearing, and he has no authority to operate on any amateur frequency.
#For further reading, see http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/DA-04-3183A1.html especially paragraphs 12 and 13.
Gerritsen had a license. KG6IRO. #That's a fact. #And, it was renewed. #The procedural trick used by the commission, regulation Part 1.113, does say that any action taken by delegated authority (commission staff and bureaus) may be 'set aside' within 30 days, on the commission's "own motion."

Yet, the LAW, the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, contains no such language. #Added by the FCC without direction from Congress. #Quite simply, a mistake release clause. Not something rightfully promulgated with the intent to be used to deny a person or entity rightful due process.

The Communications Act contains almost the exact language as do the commission's derivative regulations with respect to suspension of licenses. #Included are provisions which require a hearing and as quoted, a requirement to hold off any suspension until the conclusion of a hearing. #Congress was very clear in its intent.

In an apparent admission of its error (in not affording Gerritsen due process), the commission ostensibly agreed to a hearing for Gerritsen back in 2001. #The ARRL's counsel, Chris Imlay, again restated it in his recent letter to the head of the Enforcement Bureau. #And, received a response from a commission official that the hearing is "working its way through the agency."

So, why no hearing, despite his being promised one some three years ago?

Again, I'm not defending Gerritsen's alleged activities.

[WT4M]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Dec. 19 2004,18:45)]Gerritsen had a license. KG6IRO. #That's a fact. #And, it was renewed. #The procedural trick used by the commission, regulation Part 1.113, does say that any action taken by delegated authority (commission staff and bureaus) may be 'set aside' within 30 days, on the commission's "own motion."

Yet, the LAW, the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, contains no such language. #Added by the FCC without direction from Congress. #Quite simply, a mistake release clause. Not something rightfully promulgated with the intent to be used to deny a person or entity rightful due process.
Bureaucracies create many rules in order to carry out the law. Some have been long standing and have not been challenged.
If Mr. Garretsen feels that the rules that the FCC has laid down to execute their responsibilities are not lawful he has every right to challenge them in court, as well as do you or I. I don't think he will do himself any good by disobeying the lawful (until challenged and overturned) application of rules that have been established by the federal governments communications arm.
My personal opinion is that he is a cancer that needs surgical removal for the good of the patient (the Amateur community). You can toss K1MAN and the other ilk that give us all a bad name in that same category. Whatever maneuvering the FCC must do to get them out of our collective company will be (for me) a welcomed incision! No anesthesia required! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

V/r,

[n6kzb]

Lets see... I am still looking for "his right to free speech", in the constituiton, nope don't see it. Since an amateur license is granted, and by law must adhere to rules, he is exactly what he wants to be, a clown.

Boy image 10 minutes of his crap being played to a congressional commitee looking into why we have such valuable spectrum.

I even see "posts" coming to his aid, direct or by implication.

I understand he runs to Mexico, across from San Diego from time to time to jam in freedom. Poor fellow, wait till he gets a taste of justice in a third world country, if they catch him on the air!

This clown needs to be in jail, period. He has no license, he has no right to transmit on amateur frequencies.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[we6l]

W6EM-Get a life and stop being a bleeding heart. If you are so concerned about EX:KG6IRO and his defense why not contribute to his defense fund and stop writing dribble!You appear to have some degree of intelligence however in this case it seems as if you have not demonstrated it. Why not let due process take it's course and let the chips fall where they may? I fail to see your point? Are you a advocate of the judicial system and it's functions? It seems you are trying to make a statement, but then I fail to what it is! To make this short drop the issue please!
73
Bob K6PQ

[K1MH]

Since when does the FCC need any stinking rules?

Mike

[ke4pjw]

Quote[/b] (w6em @ Dec. 17 2004,16:40)]So, you think that FCC licenses are like your precious CA driver's license: #A priveledge and not property?

Then, one needs to differentiate between FCC licenses. #Some are property and some are not? #Amateur station licenses are not and commercial licenses are? #Hmmm. #Interesting to ponder. #And, by the way, I was referring to licenses, not callsigns.
As I understand it, a license allows you to do something that is explicitly forbidden by law. Examples would be, licensing that allows you to copy a expressive work of art. By default, you cannot legally make copy any expressive work (with a few exceptions). The copyright holder can license you the ability to make copies. Same with transmitting in certain parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. You cannot legally transmit without a license granted to you by the Federal Government. Same with driving on California roads. #You cannot legally drive without a license granted to you by the State of California.

As far as I know, just because a license is transferable does not make it property.

[NN3W]

Quote[/b] ]What the Commission's staff states with respect to their application of Part 1.113 has little to do with this.

Quite frankly, a commission grant of a license is, in effect, property. #(One can get, I suppose, a clearer picture if you look at the results of spectrum auctions and other licenses and the millions the Commission receives for same.)

You could not be more incorrect. #The grant of a license is simply that, a license. #It is not the conveyance of an unemcumbered right. #You are accorded certain privileges in exchange for your consent to abide by the terms of the grant. #The grant may be revoked if such terms are violated in the eyes of the grantor. #A property right is irrevocable and transferrable. #A license is not. #You cannot will a license; you cannot sell a license; you cannot give a license. #The FCC recently addressed a parallel issue where the FCC refused to recognize testate docmentents where a person attempted to "will" his callsign to a radio club under the guise of the vanity license program. #The FCC refused to recognize such an action as the willing of a callsign connotes property rights - something the FCC does not believe to be the case.

GMRS licenses and spectrum grants are similarly revokable.

Quote[/b] ]The Constitution guarantees the right to due process, whereby government cannot take property without same. #This meager 'concept' has been even applied, successfully, by the Supreme Court, to government employment. #Yes, a job with federal, state or local government is personal property, and requires due process for its termination.

What has this to do with the granting of a license? #Congress granted federal agencies the latitude to set up regulations and guidelines for licensing and other operations. #As long as there is no overt due process violation, the courts are loathe to overturn the decision of an administrative agency.

Quote[/b] ]Also, there is no basis in the Communications Act (the law, in this case) for regulation Part 1.113, to be applied to circumvent the clearly written mandates for license suspension which were spelled out by Congress in the Communications Act itself. #To have taken his license by a bureacratic mistake-release clause, was a clever trick, which could be tried on just about anything, until and if the victim seeks redress in a court of law.

You're all worked up about this bureaucratic "trick" clause that FCC possesses - essentially an escape clause. #Sorry, but that's how the law works.

And, Gerritsen cannot do a goddamned thing until the FCC has issued final ajudication of the matter. #It is called the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, and until Gerritsen exhausts all administrative remedies (through 1) a hearing, then 2) an appeal before the full Commission), he cannot set step one into a federal court and argue that the erroneous granting of his license was not erroneous.

Quote[/b] ]All I was attempting to say was that, IMO, an improper action was taken by the FCC, which, offered Gerritsen no due process, which we all have a right to. #His license was supposedly stripped from him, and with a promise of a 'hearing' made in 2001, which, folks, by the way, it shouldn't take 3 plus years to arrange......

Since he never had, or should never have had a license, the due process has not been violated. #As to the three-year delay in a hearing, wasn't that partially delayed by his incarceration???

Given that you've already conceded that an escape clause exists for the FCC, where is the due process violation>?

[NN3W]

Quote[/b] ]Yes, his license renewal was set aside via a regulation that was written to provide a means for the Commission to conveniently fix its own mistakes, omissions and oversights. #Not to be a means to circumvent the intent of Congress in the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

What was the Congressional intent? #Please cite me the textual language from the House report.

Quote[/b] ]
So, as a simple analogy, if you get a ticket for speeding, you go to court and you lose and pay the fine. #The next time you get pulled over you just go straight to jail without seeing the judge? Or, better yet, they take away your drivers license as a separate act not part of court proceedings after you'e been convicted of speeding without a separate hearing?

Ummm. #Becuase speeding violations are violations of state penal or auto code (or federal law if on federal property). #The actions associated with the revocation of a license are listed out in each state penal code's language and operating clauses.

Violations of the FCC rules are administrative violations and the Commission may deal with those violations in any way that comport with its authority.

BTW, if you refuse a field BAC test in many states, your license is immediately suspended for 6 months - no judges need weigh in on the issue.

Quote[/b] ]Don't think about what the FCC's staff #or the ARRL has said supposedly justifying the action, think about it in a larger perspective. #What the FCC says and does (including Notices of Apparent Liability) are based on their opinion(s), right or wrong, and do NOT afford due process, unless a hearing occurs before an ALJ or in federal court on the specific matter wherein the accused party has an opportunity to defend him/herself. #Its long past the time that the FCC should have asked the appropriate US Attorneys to have taken definitive action in this and several other matters involving alleged malicious interference.

As to FCC violations, there will be no court case until the FCC ajudicates the matter fully. #See my previous post on the matter. #With respect to interference of the Coast Guard, I think the Patriot Act is going to come into play here and Gerritsen has much larger things to worry about than Riley Hollingsworth.

[WA7VTD]

"Quite frankly, a commission grant of a license is, in effect, property." #- W6EM

As already pointed out, this is not correct. Legally, a "license" is a revocable permission. Now, the initiation in the 80's of "spectrum auctions" may end up eventually having the unintended consequence of providing the "purchasers" with due process claims or claims for just compensation under the Fifth Amendment, if future regulatory actions abridge the "purchasers'" use of the "auctioned" spectrum. That, of course, is not material to the issue at #hand.

Simply because a privilege is accorded an individual via a license, as opposed to a property conveyance, does not vitiate Due Process requirements, however. For example, the United States Supreme Court has held that a state may not punish the operation of a motor vehicle with a suspended license, when the state has not afforded the licensee notice of the suspension and an opportunity to be heard as to the validity of the suspension prior to imposing the punitive sanction for driving while suspended.

Additionally, whether or not the Fifth or 14th Amendment Due Process Clauses themselves alone would otherwise require that certain procedural hurdles be negotiated prior to a license suspension, once the Congress or a federal agency duly delegated proper authority establishes such procedure, that procedure must be followed in order for there not to be a Due Process violation. The issue in a Due Process claim is: "What, if any, process was due?" In the case of FCC actions affecting its licensees, the answer to that question is found in the Communications Act, related legislation, and the Code of Federal Regulations. If the FCC does not adhere to the procedures legislated or promulgated pursuant to those codified legal authorities when it acts adversely to a licensee or other person unto whom FCC has granted a particular privilege, then a Due Process violation has occurred.

Thus, those arguing that an FCC grant of license creates a property interest protected by the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause are half-right, half-wrong: it is not the license itself, but rather the codified procedures regarding issuance, suspension, revocation, modification or setting aside of the license, which create and constitute the property interest (and in which the putative licensee may be held to have a 5th Amendment liberty interest, as well).

Because the authority of the Congress to preemptively legislate in the arena of radio telecommunications (even in the case of emissions which cannot carry beyond state lines) has been consistently upheld under the US Constitution's Commerce Clause, and the delegation of broad authority by the Congress to the FCC to manage radio spectrum has likewise been consistently upheld under the Commerce Clause and the Congress' declaration in the Communications ct of 1934 that the radio spectrum is a national resource belonging to the public, for its "interest, convenience and necessity," an action by FCC adhering to its regulations, to set aside its erroneous granting of a license issued prior to FCC learning of material information which would have caused it to deny a license application had it been aware of that material information at the time of license issuance, will be defeat a Due Process challenge and be judicially upheld.

If, however, FCC acted in such a manner a period of many years following its original grant of a license, a putative licensee would be in a much stronger position because (1) FCC's regulations regarding setting aside a license grant require action within 30 days of public notice, which would constitute the "process due;" (2) FCC action pursuant to such an unreasonable delay would be challengeable as improper, on an equitable estoppel/waiver/detrimental reliance theory. Such a claim would not, however, have any success if the putative licensee had affirmatively made any misrepresentations to FCC at the time of license application, or withheld material information requested on a license application, of a nature critical to FCC's decision to issue a license (because the putative licensee would not have the "clean hands" required for invocation of equitable remedies). # #

In the situation under debate here, it appears that FCC acted with reasonable and required promptness to set aside its grant of an amateur service license to an individual whom FCC was unaware had a criminal conviction which would have properly served as the basis for having denied the license application in the first instance. On the other hand, it is obvious that FCC does not routinely conduct background checks on amateur service license applicants, and without question there are many licensed amateurs with criminal convictions in their backgrounds which could have served as the basis for denial of a license application. That fact may or may not serve as a colorable basis for an individual in the subject person's position to challenge FCC's setting aside a license issued to that person. (In the 70's, the old Form 610 specifically inquired as to any felony convictions of the applicant and any convicitions involving use of radio apparatus in the commission of the offense). It is extremely rare, however, for such a claim to succeed.

Although no improper FCC actions are apparent in this instance, some of the comments of others in this forum lead me to caution them that it is not a productive approach to tolerate regulatory illegalities on the part of a government agency, even when the agency's actions against an individual are universally applauded. The end result of that approach is that the agency gains the imprimatur to act arbitrarily and capriciously in the case of citizens against whom application of a negative regulatory sanction is unjustified. When proceeding against those who have apparently abused the privilege of having been granted an amateur license and violated the applicable regulations, it is therefore extremely important that such individuals are administratively and/or criminally penalized in full accordance with the legal procedures established for such actions.

Insisting upon the equal and proper application of such procedures and penalties does not make one a "bleeding heart." In fact, such a position is as easily characterized as being "conservative" as it is "liberal" in nature. Any time penalties are imposed without the application of that process which is due, the ultimate result is usually the setting aside of such penalties in the courts, freeing the miscreant to resume the unlawful activity anew.

From the little information I have regarding the individual under discussion (which is only what I have read in several press releases and various message board postings), it appears that FCC did not exceed its authority in this instance, and that the action taken was thoroughly justified. This opinion, however, is just that, and it is possible that some of us "armchair quarterbacks" so eager to comment on the situation may have an inadaquate factual base from which to render an informed opinion.

The opinion I have expressed is solely my own, and does not represent the views of any other individual or organization.

-- Kevin Hunt WA7VTD
Attorney at Law
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

[KD7WHQ]

VTD, very, very well put.
It appears you are quite conversant with the Constitution, and that makes me one happy guy.

Now if only more were..

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

[kc9bvs]

I wonder if anyone has taken the time to consider the mental state of this individual (k1man)?
I have read all here, read press releases, listen to “Protect Our Spectrum”, read all of k1man.com and the connecting links.
It seems to me that k1man is suffering from a severe bi-polar disorder with schizoid tendencies, of which one feature seems to be a major swing toward ‘illusions of grandeur’.
The need to communicate within common boundaries as set forth by the FCC or whatever governing agency is a social ‘given’. In other words, standard behavior required and accepted to obtain and maintain an amateur radio license is a commonly known and acceptable behavior.
Yet operating a “talk show” and taking “live call in’s” is specifically forbidden by Federal Law. This then becomes or has become, negative-social or sociopath type behavior. Note that I did not say anti-social, k1man would like to be social but alas cannot. This would be evidenced by the need to get pictures; himself inserted with well known, properly credentialed amateur radio operators at public events.
This is some thing John Gacey did with Rosalyn Carter as a Rotarian.
K1man published a picture on one of his web sites with himself and some type of large cat or mountain lion; this is done to denote power, masculinity and control.
Another common feature of this type of mental illness is to refer to oneself in the third person or publish documents in the same fashion. A mental health investigator need only read the “breaking news” section of his web presence to understand his particular type of pathology.
Earlier, within these posts, it was stated that k1man has a great deal of money and can keep the Federal Courts tied up for years. This may be true, it explains much.
K1man feels as if he is the persecuted subject of government attacks and those of the administrators of QRZ.com. This, in turn, gives him rise to strike out as if he were a subjugated victim.
Alas, there is the key to his pathology.
Aside from his wealth, he is a social victim who absorbs ridicule as if it were fuel. As he feels he is continuously harassed, so he will continue to harass.
Though he feels the members here and the FCC his enemy, he claims he would fight for their right to disagree with his social pathology. He has no concept of the fact that there are others that are adversely affected by his actions, nor does he care to discover this because his need to pass himself off as a victim is paramount.
In one of his writings he states that if any radio amateurs that have violated him were to come forward and testify in his favor he would give them a sort of ‘amnesty’ from what he calls prosecution.
This gives him a ‘judge, jury and executioner’ component that not only indicates a negative social profile but also a dangerous propensity to file frivolous law suits and threaten innocent radio amateurs. According to records he has behaved criminally in the past.
I have been examining jurists since 1991 and I can tell you that k1man seems to be beyond unstable. He more than likely suffered as a child at the hands of an adult and is now punishing a type of projection of those he feels responsible for the inadequacies within his own life.
I certify that my analysis is only based on what I have read, listen too and observed of k1man and I can also say that I would recommend a removal of a personality such as this from a jury for cause.
Having said this I can also say that it will get worse before it gets better. I am sure that k1man will not stop until he is incarcerated. Until then and only then will he be controlled.
I must say I would rather have him causing trouble on amateur radio than standing in a shopping mall with a weapon of some sort.
He feels that society needs to hear him and his one-way monologue. Perhaps this may be the way to trap the beast.
While I understand that k1man may be provoked by my entry, I must make this plea to him to seek professional help. There is medication that will diminish this type of behavior.
Ultimately he will be taken and arrested by some Federal, State or Municipal Authority at some point, this type of behavior not only exists on amateur radio but throughout his entire life experience.

[w6em]

Quote[/b] (WA7VTD @ Dec. 19 2004,21:56)]Any time penalties are imposed without the application of that process which is due, the ultimate result is usually the setting aside of such penalties in the courts, freeing the miscreant to resume the unlawful activity anew.



-- Kevin Hunt WA7VTD
Attorney at Law
ARRL Volunteer Counsel
Kevin: #Thank you. #Immensely. #My greatest fear (and the basis for my post in the first place) was as you correctly surmised.

Thanks to all others who commented as well. #Whether they tried to shoot the messenger or not.....

Lee
W6EM
Bradenton, FL.

[kc0rns]

There's an awful lot of contradictory information on this guy floating around in the threads.
1. If he had no license, where did the call sign come from?
2. The statement was made that he was never granted an amateur license, but as stated above, "The commission granted Garritsen an amateur radio license on November 7, 2001, apparently not knowing that he had been convicted of interfering with police communications on June 6, 2000."
3. Statement also made that "Upon learning of that criminal conviction, the commission set aside Garritsen’s license on November 14, 2001, and returned his license application to “pending” status."

Question in my mind is did he or did he not have a valid license for a period of one week? At what point does holding a valid amateur radio operator license start, upon the fcc entering it into the database and assigning a call sign, or is it when you get the printed document?

This whole thing has me a bit confused, and I'm sure that there are others that are equally confused.

I do want to make it clear that I don't believe in what Gerritsen is trying to accomplish by any means. Anyone that deliberately interferes with the communications of others should not be given the right to operate, or should have their current rights to operate, taken away, and unfortunately, he falls into that category.

Amateur Radio is a fantastic hobby!!! Let's keep it that way!!!

73...de KC0RNS

[KB1GYQ]

K3VR: on reading Baxter's page I wonder if that poor counselor had just watched "silence of the lambs" the day before he came in.. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[KG4ZQZ]

Quote[/b] (K3VR @ Dec. 20 2004,15:47)]One last point: I don't think an "in-depth study" will ever be written, because I don't believe Glenn Baxter is that important. I could be wrong, but I think Glenn Baxter will soon be a tiny footnote in the long history of our fascinating Amateur Radio service.
- have to agree here... sad in a way - as an outside observer with a bit of empathy, it's painful to watch/listen to someone self-destruct...

[N7AAO]

Quote[/b] (kc0rns @ Dec. 20 2004,08:53)]There's an awful lot of contradictory information on this guy floating around in the threads.
1. # If he had no license, where did the call sign come from?
2. # The statement was made that he was never granted an amateur license, but as stated above, "The commission granted Garritsen an amateur radio license on November 7, 2001, apparently not knowing that he had been convicted of interfering with police communications on June 6, 2000."
3. # Statement also made that "Upon learning of that criminal conviction, the commission set aside Garritsen’s license on November 14, 2001, and returned his license application to “pending” status."

Question in my mind is did he or did he not have a valid license for a period of one week? At what point does holding a valid amateur radio operator license start, upon the fcc entering it into the database and assigning a call sign, or is it when you get the printed document?

This whole thing has me a bit confused, and I'm sure that there are others that are equally confused.

I do want to make it clear that I don't believe in what Gerritsen is trying to accomplish by any means. Anyone that deliberately interferes with the communications of others should not be given the right to operate, or should have their current rights to operate, taken away, and unfortunately, he falls into that category.

Amateur Radio is a fantastic hobby!!! Let's keep it that way!!!

73...de KC0RNS
You're arguing semantics.

Gerritsen's license was, technically, valid, for the period between grant and set-aside.

However, from a legal standpoint (if I understand this correctly, I am not a lawyer), call sign notwithstanding, he was never truly a licensee, because the license was set aside.

It's sort of like getting an anullment instead of a divorce. Does an anullment mean you were never married? Legally, yes, that's exactly what it means. But the fact remains that you had to have been married in order for the marriage to have been anulled... or there would have been nothing to anull!

Same thing with Gerritsen's license. He had to have had one in order for it to be set aside (can't set aside that which does not exist), but, from a legal standpoint, it is as if the license never existed.

Hope that clears it up a bit.

[NN3W]

It appears that Mr. Gerritsen got a visit this past week:

http://www.435forums.com/blahdocs/uploads/the%20clippa.jpg

[K7JBQ]

Quote[/b] (NN3W @ Dec. 26 2004,18:54)]It appears that Mr. Gerritsen got a visit this past week:

http://www.435forums.com/blahdocs/uploads/the%20clippa.jpg
The idiots cut the wrong coax. He's still there.

73,
Bill

[N5RO]

If you think the FCC is not enforcing the law properly - consider the BPL non-enforcement fiasco. There's a case where money and political influence can cause the FCC to ignore a FELONY. They've never even issued a cease-and-desist order as required by law in those cases where Part 15 interference was proven for month after month and appropriate complaints were filed by individual hams and by the ARRL.

As far as Gerrittson (or whatever his name is) is concerned, whatever they can do to get such a person off the air is fine with me, no matter what the technicalities of the law are. If he wants to protest violation of his 4th Amendment rights in court, he of course can do that, but my limited legal training seems to indicate he might not get far with that argument.

Jim N5RO

[kg6saj]

Quote[/b] (WA7VTD @ Dec. 19 2004,20:56)]... Legally, a "license" is a revocable permission. ...
This has always been my understanding as to Amateur Radio licenses.
That is, that the FCC can revoke any of our licenses at any time, for any (good) reason.

You can bicker back and forth about the legal points all you like, but having had to directly put up with Jack Gerritsen's ... well ... radio practices for several months now, I'll repeat what I've stated on these forums before.

I still say that his ongoing in-your-face intentional interference merits immediate, conclusive action.

Something way more permanent than some vandal cutting his coax. Like say, decisive legal action by which his continued operation of radio transmitters would land him directly in jail.
Do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars.
No get out of jail free card, either.

You can base the entire decision just on what Gerritsen's done recently and what he continues to do, without having to consider any past actions by either Jack Gerritsen or the FCC.

End of rant.
73 -Tim