FCC Proposes to Fine Ohio Radio Amateur for Malicious Interference, Failure to Identify

Careful! Don't let the smart meter and cell tower whackos read that!

 

Anyone who WILLFULLY interferes with others should also have his equipment confiscated and license permanently revoked.

 

Because they knew he bought Cracker Jacks.

 

As I read the story, the NAL was issued without a warning letter. If sending a warning letter is required and wasn't done, that may mess up the case for the FCC.

NAL's are funny things. Notice of Apparent Liability. As I read the NAL

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0820/DA-15-932A1.pdf

No person was witnessed doing anything illegal. All the FCC witnessed was signals coming from a particular point. No one was allowed to plead guilty or innocent. I see no 'day in court', only a fine and the ability to request to have the fine reduced or cancelled. Does that constitute 'due process'?

I have followed a couple cases over the years where the above was brought up and the FCC was brought to task and it seems only an Administrative Law Judge has the right to actually force penalty on people charged with FCC violations.

I won't name names, but the clue is their FCC ULS pages. They list both 'expired' and 'active' if they were clever enough to stay ahead of the game. If 'cancelled' is seen, then the case was brought to court in front of an Administrative Law Judge. For some reason, getting in front of an ALJ takes many years.

What I don't understand is why the FCC has such a convoluted and misleading method of pursuing miscreants. Why not charge the person, let them have their day in court, and let the judge decide the fate of the accused? Instead, the FCC makes it look like they have the last and final say. Those that pay are being mislead, those that really know the law take advantage of the convolution and can drag a simple case out for years, and still operate even after their license expires and the FCC refuses to renew.

 

Even a total whack job wouldn't just sit there and do his thing in front of an FCC representative- if actually seeing him operate was a requirement for citing him, no one would EVER be brought to task.

The signal was traced to his QTH; as the licensee and control operator of the only station at that location he is responsible for its operation, even if he had a nutso brother who was actually doing the nasty stuff. At this point it's a civil matter; all that's required is a preponderance of evidence. As for his equipment, you can bet your boots it's in a warehouse somewhere.

A call sign is also listed in the ULS as 'cancelled' if the holder asks for and receives a vanity call, so that's no reliable indicator.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/503

Process: License holders may be issued an NAL without prior warning or interview. The NAL specifically states their right to provide response as to why a fine should not be imposed.

Non-license holders must be afforded the opportunity to meet with and be interviewed by an FCC representative (if they request) about the case prior to an NAL being issued.

Comment: I presume the regulation is written this way since license holder are presumed to be knowledgeable of pertinent FCC regs, and non-license are not presumed to be knowledgeable and thus deserve an additional opportunity for discussions and resolution.

 

I am willing to bet that this individual has been a jammer from the start ..

 

Oh well....at least they are doing something on the bands....perhaps Oakmont will be next?

 

There are several near by, he was on the team trying to locate him and there was equipment for tracking set up at his house for a while. He was feeding a lot of bad information which protected him.

 

Good point.

 

Good info, thanks.

I just personally think that the way the go about things with NAL's is not working well and they (the FCC) would be better off following a more standard procedure. And, so would we.

 

The FCC will have a log of DF readings, and recordings, which show the transmissions come from an identified source. It isn't guess work, once they zero in.

The perp can have all the due process he wants. He can request a hearing and dispute the NAL. There is an administrative process that affords due process. It is not as if they merely seized the funds from his bank account.

There is also a process for collecting, once administrative procedures have been completed, or waived.

 

Huh?

They ARE following a standard procedure set forth in US Code. It's been in use for decades and upheld by Administrative Law Judges in inumerable cases.

 

I WAS ONE OF THEM HE TRIED TO JAM

 

The fine is calculated and administered before a plea is heard or even asked for. That doesn't sound standard to me. And I don't mean standard in the sense of legal case standards, I mean standard as in common. Shouldn't the order be 1) Person charged with crime. 2) Person pleas to crime 3) If person pleads not guilty a case is heard before a judge or a jury. 4) If found guilty, a sentence is imposed. This is where the fine part should be.

For some reason the FCC has decided to put the fine before all the rest of the proceedings. If they think that makes the cases more expedient, I have to disagree.