PDA

View Full Version : Before the FCC Reaches Agreement and Fines CBer...


K4KWH
07-21-2005, 04:51 PM
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of ) ) File Number EB-03-OR-013 Kermit L. Dilworth, Jr. ) ) NAL/Acct. No. ) Owner of Citizens Band radio ) 200532620001 station Columbus, Mississippi 39705 FRN 0012329348 ORDER

Adopted: July 7, 2005 Released: July 11, 2005 By the Acting Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

1. The Enforcement Bureau (the ``Bureau'') has been investigating whether Kermit L. Dilworth, Jr. has violated Section 95.426(a) of the Commission's Rules,1 by refusing to make his Citizen's Band (``CB'') radio station available for inspection,2 pursuant to Section 303(n) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''. 2. The Bureau and Mr. Dilworth have negotiated the terms of the Consent Decree, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.

3. After reviewing the terms of the Consent Decree and evaluating the facts before us, we find that the public
interest would be served by approving the Consent Decree and terminating the investigation.

4. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,4 and the authority delegated by sections 0.111 and 0.311 of the Commission's Rules,5 the attached Consent Decree IS ADOPTED. 5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the forfeiture proceeding against Kermit L. Dilworth, Jr. IS TERMINATED.

6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Order shall be sent by regular first class mail and certified mail - return receipt requested, to Kermit L. Dilworth at his address of record. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kris Anne Monteith Acting Chief, Enforcement Bureau CONSENT DECREE

I. Introduction 1. This Consent Decree is entered into by the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission and Kermit L. Dilworth, Jr. II. Definitions

2. For the purposes of this Consent Decree, the following definitions shall apply: a) ``Mr. Dilworth'' refers to Kermit L. Dilworth, Jr.; b) ``Bureau'' means the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission; c) ``Parties'' means the Bureau and Mr. Dilworth; d) ``Commission'' or ``FCC'' means the Federal Communications Commission; e) ``Station'' means Mr. Dilworth's Citizens Band radio station located at his address of record in Columbus, Mississippi; f) ``Act'' means the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.; g) ``Rules'' means the Commission's regulations set forth in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations; h) ``Complaints'' mean third-party complaints received by, or in the possession of, the Bureau as of February 5, 2003 regarding Mr. Dilworth's operation of the Station; i) ``Investigation'' means the investigation of the Station and the allegations contained in the Complaints, which resulted in the issuance of a Notice of Apparent Liability, NAL Account Number 200532620001; j) ``Order'' means an order of the Enforcement Bureau adopting this Consent Decree; k) ``Final Order'' means the status of the Order after the period for administrative and judicial review has lapsed; l) ``Effective Date'' means the date on which the Bureau releases the Order; and m) ``New Orleans Field Office'' means the Bureau's office located at 2424 Edenborn Ave. Suite 460, Metairie, LA 70001. III. Background 3. The Bureau received the Complaints alleging that Mr. Dilworth's Station was causing widespread interference to neighbors' home electronic equipment. Typically, such widespread interference indicates the use of unauthorized equipment or excessive power. The Bureau thereafter commenced the Investigation to inspect the Station and determine whether Mr. Dilworth's operation of the station was in accordance with the Rules. Subsequent to our investigation, Bureau agents requested Mr. Dilworth's permission to inspect the Station. Mr. Dilworth refused to allow Bureau agents to inspect the Station, which resulted in the issuance of a Notice of Apparent Liability, NAL Account Number 200532620001.

4. Mr. Dilworth has committed to complete the remedial measures and other undertakings contemplated by this Consent Decree. IV. Agreement

5. Mr. Dilworth and the Bureau agree to be legally bound by the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree. The Bureau represents and warrants that its signatory is duly authorized to enter into this Consent Decree on its behalf. Mr. Dilworth agrees that the Bureau has jurisdiction over the matters contained in this Consent Decree.

6. The Parties agree that the provisions of this Consent Decree shall be subject to final approval by the Bureau by incorporation of such provisions by reference in an Order.

7. The Parties agree that this Consent Decree shall become effective on the Effective Date. Upon the Effective Date, the Order and this Consent Decree shall have the same force and effect as any other order of the Commission and any violation of the terms of this Consent Decree shall constitute a separate violation of a Commission order, entitling the Commission to exercise any rights and remedies attendant to the enforcement of a Commission order.

8. As part of the Order, the Bureau shall terminate the Investigation. From and after the Effective Date, the Bureau shall not, either on its own motion or in response to third-party objection, initiate any inquiries, investigations, forfeiture proceedings, hearings, or other sanctions or actions against Mr. Dilworth, based in whole or in part on (i) the Investigation or (ii) the Complaints. The Bureau agrees that, in the absence of material new evidence, it will not, on its own motion, initiate or recommend to the Commission, any new proceeding, formal or informal, regarding the matters discussed in paragraph 3, above, with regard to operation prior to the Effective Date. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall prevent the Bureau from instituting, or recommending to the Commission, new investigations or enforcement proceedings against Mr. Dilworth, in the event of any alleged future misconduct for violation of this Consent Decree or for violation of the Act or the Commission's Rules, consistent with the provisions of this Consent Decree.

9. Mr. Dilworth admits, solely for the purpose of this Consent Decree and for Commission civil enforcement purposes, and in express reliance on the provisions of paragraph 8 hereof, that his refusal to allow Bureau agents to inspect the Station was in violation of the Rules. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Consent Decree, it is expressly agreed and understood that if this Consent Decree is breached by the Bureau, or is invalidated or modified to Mr. Dilworth's prejudice by the Commission or by any court, then the provisions of the immediately-preceding sentence shall be of no force or effect whatever, and Mr. Dilworth shall not, by virtue of that sentence or any other provision of this Consent Decree, be deemed to have made any admission concerning any Rule violations.

10. The Parties agree and acknowledge that this Consent Decree shall constitute a final settlement between them concerning the Bureau's Investigation of the matters discussed in paragraph 3, above.

11. In consideration of the Bureau's termination of its Investigation into these matters, Mr. Dilworth agrees to, within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date: a. Dismantle and remove the antenna for the Station from his address of record in Columbus, Mississippi; b. Provide evidence that demonstrates that the antenna has been dismantled to the New Orleans Field Office of the Bureau. Such evidence may be a photograph, a copy of a work order, or a statement from local law enforcement; c. Remove the Station transmitter and any ancillary amplifiers used at the Station from his address of record in Columbus, Mississippi. He may ship the equipment to the New Orleans Field Office of the Bureau. Alternatively, he may provide evidence to the New Orleans Field Office of the Bureau that the Station transmitter and any ancillary amplifiers have been destroyed. Such evidence may be a photograph of the destroyed equipment or a statement from local law enforcement that the equipment was destroyed; and d. Cease operation of the Station from his address of record in Columbus, Mississippi and not operate a Citizens Band radio station from his home for five years from the Effective Date.

12. Mr. Dilworth will make a voluntary contribution to the United States Treasury in the amount of Five Hundred Dollars ($500), payable in installments in accordance with the schedule set forth on Table I, attached, which is incorporated herein and forms a part of this Consent Decree. Mr. Dilworth will make each installment of this contribution on a timely basis without further protest or recourse, by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The payment must include the Acct. No. and FRN referenced above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, Illinois 60673-7482. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to Bank One/LB 73482, 525 West Monroe, 8th Floor Mailroom, Chicago, Illinois 60661. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 071000013, receiving bank Bank One, and account number 1165259.

13. Mr. Dilworth agrees that he is required to comply with each individual condition of this Consent Decree. Each specific condition is a separate condition of the Consent Decree as approved. To the extent that Mr. Dilworth fails to satisfy any condition, in the absence of Commission alteration of the condition, he will be deemed noncompliant and may be subject to possible enforcement action, including, but not limited to, letters of admonishment, or forfeitures.

14. Mr. Dilworth waives any and all rights he may have to seek administrative or judicial reconsideration, review, appeal or stay, or to otherwise challenge or contest the validity of this Consent Decree and the Order, provided the Order adopts the Consent Decree without change, addition or modification.

15. Mr. Dilworth agrees to waive any claims he may otherwise have under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504 and 47 C.F.R. § 1.1501 et seq., relating to the matters discussed in this Consent Decree.

16. If any Party (or the United States on behalf of the FCC) brings a judicial action to enforce the terms of the Order, neither Mr. Dilworth nor the FCC shall contest the continuing validity of the Consent Decree or Order. Mr. Dilworth and the Commission further agree that they will waive any statutory right to a trial de novo with respect to any matter upon which the Order is based (provided in each case that the Order is limited to adopting the Consent Decree without change, addition, or modification), and that they will consent to a judgment incorporating the terms of this Consent Decree.

17. In the event that this Consent Decree is rendered invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, this Consent Decree shall become null and void and may not be used in any manner in any legal proceeding.

18. This Consent Decree may be signed in counterparts and/or by telecopy and, when so executed, the counterparts, taken together, will constitute a legally binding and enforceable instrument whether executed by telecopy or by original signatures. ENFORCEMENT BUREAU FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ___ 147 C.F.R. § 95.426(a). 2See Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200532620001 (Enf. Bur., New Orleans Office, January 10, 2005) (``NAL''). 3See 47 U.S.C. § 303(n). 447 U.S.C. § 154(i). 547 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311.

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

WA9SVD
07-21-2005, 10:19 PM
Considering what K1*** and some other Licensed HAMS get away with, I'm not surprised. CB operators (unfortunately) are not required to know "the rules,(§Part 95) " and the fellow may not have known about FCC authority to inspect any station, while WE as Hams are supposed to be acquainted with the rules (§Part 97) that apply to Amateur Radio.

As it is, the fellow is off the air, (for five years,) his antenna has to come down, and his equipment either shipped to the FCC or destroyed. He is also making a "voluntary contribution" to the U.S. Treasury. (How's THAT for an oxymoron?)

SO the FCC gets rid of another illegal CB operator. I just wish they'd do the same a few million times over.

K4KWH
07-22-2005, 12:18 AM
I also wish to see more of the truckers off 10 Meters. *WE* could help make a huge dent *IF* we would do it.
Most of what I am hearing via "that 'air skip" is on the West Coast. The I-85 corridor in NC seems to have quieted down since someone was aggressively going after the truckers around here. How's about some of you in the West and Mid-west doing a bit of observing and recording on 28.085 AM while you are traveling? Hmmmm? All it takes is a company name, a tractor number (not a trailer tag), and or a tag #. Most tractors have a company-assigned number that is easy to copy off the door or fender.:)

73

ky5u
10-15-2005, 01:27 AM
I wonder how much Mr. Dilwood cost the american taxpayer? Pay your fine, bust up your CB gear and come get a Ham license. We're giving them away now...

n8yx
10-15-2005, 01:42 AM
Quote[/b] (K4KWH @ July 21 2005,17:18)]How's about some of you in the West and Mid-west doing a bit of observing and recording on 28.085 AM while you are traveling?
I haven't heard any "truck traffic" on .085 in months. A bit of SWLing turns up their new hideout, though: Below 26.965...there are several frequencies in that region which see regular activity.

w4hwd
10-15-2005, 04:12 AM
For a bunch of hams you people on here are sooooo worried about them CBers! Why? Are you sure you're not a bunch of in-the-closet "good buddies" waiting to burst out?! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

WA2ZDY
10-15-2005, 10:35 AM
Well, I wouldn't care about Mr Dilworth (can you imagine going through life known as "Kermit Dilworth???!!!!!) except that once again, this pathetic slap on the wrist is a sign of the times. The whole thing is lame, and who's going to enforce it. He can't talk on CB for five years. So what?

This is a perfect example of why lawlessness has taken over the airwaves in many cases, why the freebanders think they can get away with their actions, and why so many of them have intruded on 10m. Where's the deterrent? There IS NONE. Based on this pathetic waste of taxpayers' money (that's yours and mine folks,) Baxter probably figures what can they do to him that would be worse?

No, CB isn't the issue here, lack of guts is. 20 years ago anarchy was starting to take over our streets. The states got tough with mandatory sentencing laws and the feds got tougher eliminating parole. Now folks are AFRAID to commit chaos upon their neighbours on the streets. The laws grew teeth and started using those teeth. Where are the teeth at FCC? In the glass on the nightstand?

W0UZR
10-15-2005, 11:57 AM
Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 21 2005,16:19)]Considering what K1*** and some other Licensed HAMS get away with, I'm not surprised. #CB operators (unfortunately) are not required to know "the rules,(§Part 95) " and the fellow may not have known about FCC authority to inspect any station, while WE as Hams are supposed to be acquainted with the rules (§Part 97) that apply to Amateur Radio.

# #As it is, the fellow is off the air, (for five years,) his antenna has to come down, and his equipment either shipped to the FCC or destroyed. #He is also making a "voluntary contribution" to the U.S. Treasury. #(How's THAT for an oxymoron?)

# #SO the FCC gets rid of another illegal CB operator. #I just wish they'd do the same a few million times over.
Wouldn't it be great if the good-'OL' FCC would be just as energetic and driven to go after the malicious interference on the HF frequencies.

Most of them have been there for years and years interfering with qso's

N7RJD
10-15-2005, 12:09 PM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Oct. 14 2005,12:27)]I wonder how much Mr. Dilwood cost the american taxpayer? Pay your fine, bust up your CB gear and come get a Ham license. We're giving them away now...
The next generation of incentive licensing.

Prove you are incapable of proper behavior on CB and we'll move you into Amateur Radio. No wonder they propose to do away with code. You can only expect these guys to learn so much at a time and trying to learn English and code at the same time would be a strain.

w4hwd
10-15-2005, 08:33 PM
Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Oct. 15 2005,05:35)]The states got tough with mandatory sentencing laws and the feds got tougher eliminating parole. #Now folks are AFRAID to commit chaos upon their neighbours on the streets. #The laws grew teeth and started using those teeth.
Not necessarily...ever heard of New Orleans?

The point is, there will always be a segment of the population in any venue that, no matter what you threaten them with, will *not* comply will the law or civil conventions - and that includes CBers *and* hams.

You are correct, though; the FCC enforcement actions are a JOKE! It's like the old Robin Williams stand-up routine from back in the day, where he's poking fun at unarmed English Bobbies: "Stop or I'll say stop again!".

ky5u
10-15-2005, 09:06 PM
Quote[/b] (w4hwd @ Oct. 15 2005,13:33)]Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Oct. 15 2005,05:35)]The states got tough with mandatory sentencing laws and the feds got tougher eliminating parole. Now folks are AFRAID to commit chaos upon their neighbours on the streets. The laws grew teeth and started using those teeth.
Not necessarily...ever heard of New Orleans?

The point is, there will always be a segment of the population in any venue that, no matter what you threaten them with, will *not* comply will the law or civil conventions - and that includes CBers *and* hams.

You are correct, though; the FCC enforcement actions are a JOKE! It's like the old Robin Williams stand-up routine from back in the day, where he's poking fun at unarmed English Bobbies: "Stop or I'll say stop again!".
Great idea! Lets empower the Army to ride through the streets looking for Amateur violators and take them off at gunpoint! On second thought, perhaps you should take this idea over to the Granola posting area (Ragchew). ROFL!

kb3mng
10-16-2005, 01:26 AM
Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ Oct. 15 2005,03:35)]Well, I wouldn't care about Mr Dilworth (can you imagine going through life known as "Kermit Dilworth???!!!!!) except that once again, this pathetic slap on the wrist is a sign of the times. The whole thing is lame, and who's going to enforce it. He can't talk on CB for five years. So what?
I gather you think it insufficient that he had to give up his equipment and pay $500. What would you consider more appropriate?

WA2ZDY
10-16-2005, 09:59 AM
HWD, your NO reference is a point taken, but those folks down there thought, apparently fairly correctly, that they would get away with their actions and that the deterrent of punishment was far far away in another galaxy. #When too large a percentage of the enforcers were up to the same no good, the deterrent is lost. #

You are also correct about the segment of society who will always be evil. #I worked with them for over 24 years. #But the greater deterrent keeps some of the fence sitters from completely falling over, so effective deterrents are a positive factor.

Charlie, you lost me with your post. #Help me out?

MNG, CB equipment is cheap and $500 isn't really earth shattering so my opinion is that too many folks could afford to say "so what" and go back to it again. #I'm a law abiding citizen retired after 24 years of enforcing the law. #But honestly? #If I REALLY wanted to keep doing something, the threat of a $500 fine wouldn't stop me. #

$11,000 per day, or even $10,000. #Except for the fabulously wealthy (read: Hollywood types) those are guaranteed showstopping amounts of money. #As someone posted in the K1MAN thread, how would one explain that to the wife, the kids, the bill collectors? #THAT'S a deterrent.