Ham Gets 30 Days in the Slammer for On Air Harassment

In the second case of its kind, the first in Florida, the Tennessee Court of Appeals in Knoxville, has affirmed a 30 day jail term based on violation of a court order which directed a Tennessee ham (Michael J. Mgrdichian, N2FUV) to refrain from contacting another ham. The trial court, and now the appeals court, have declared that Michael J. Mgrdichian violated the court's directive on 3 occasions, resulting in 3 separate jail sentences for 10 days each.

The victim in the case asked for a temporary order of protection, which was granted. The order specified that Michael Mgrdichian was not to contact the victim. The pertinent command for this appeal stated that Respondent Mgrdichian would “not contact the petitioner either directly or indirectly, by phone, email, messages, mail, or any other type of communication or contact.”

After violating the order by contacting the victim on three occasions via ham radio, and being found guilty of criminal contempt of court, Mgrdichian argued in his appeal that the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to FCC preemption of radio matters, and that he did not know that he was facing three jail terms and three fines, by violating the court order on three occasions.

In a June 4th hearing, the victim returned to court to complain that the perpetrator was continuing the behaviors previously complained about, and Michael J. Mgrdichian was found guilty and fined for two additional counts of civil contempt of court, adding to the three original counts of criminal contempt.

The victim has also complained that Michael J. Mgrdichian lied to to the court in official documents, and asked the court to issue subpoenas regarding a number of emails, specifically to unmask the IP addresses of the senders, to match the IP addresses to Mr. Mgrdichian's IP address for future proceedings, either civil or criminal, or both. The victim was instructed by the court on how to obtain the subpoenas sought.

On June 11, 2020, the state appeals court in TN found that Mgrdichian had received adequate notice in court documents, and that the trial court's jail sentences and fines were appropriate. The appeals court affirmed the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings as deemed necessary. The court decisively found that FCC rules do not preclude a state court from preventing an amateur from stalking and harassing another amateur in the same state, and that in those cases, local courts have jurisdiction.

In short, at least in TN and FL, the FCC rules do not prevent a local court from issuing an order of protection containing a penalty of jail time for violation, when one amateur is alleged to be harassing and stalking another amateur, within the same state. Moreover, TN and FL have now both affirmed the court's authority to jail perpetrators who violate said court orders, even when contact is via amateur radio.

In reaching their decision, the Florida court relied heavily on the brief filed by the victim, and on their own analysis, which contained a previous Florida case, where the respondent also argued that the FCC preempted the local court's authority.


https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/faucon_v._mgridichian_e2019-01343.pdf

https://law.justia.com/cases/florida/fifth-district-court-of-appeal/2008/5d07-2590-op.html

 

we can still look at fcc records...

 

You can run , but you can not hide. LOL

 

His license has been canceled so that is good. Now if they would just cancel the convected and current registered sex offender who's victims were preteen girls that they are aware of I would consider the FCC to be doing their job.

 

An interesting approach and perhaps more victims of harassment or interference via radio should consider that there may be violations of local or state laws beyond those of the FCC. The course of justice can sometimes follow a circuitous route.

 

When the going gets tough, the tough need to chill...

Seems that these days some of our 'volume' is set on 11.... with no 'off'' :-(

Whatever happened to 'spin the knob'?

There is plenty on the 'net, documenting various FCC infractions.

Just an opinion that may not apply-- we (all should) keep the scotch away from the microphone. And there are plenty of positive OTA conversations happening, that none of us need to seek out negative ones.

The call N2FUV was cancelled in 2016.

73
Chip W1YW

 

This is just a routine contempt of court charge for repeated violation of a local no-contact order. The FCC removal of his license is meaningless; he flagrant was violating the no-contact order, do you think he cares whether he has a valid amateur license?

This really has nothing to do with amateur radio; the order prohibits contact via electronic media and the contact occurred within the court's jurisdiction. Contact could just as well been email or cell phone. His defense that he "did not know" he was facing jail time (for continued violations) is ridiculous, he should have hired an attorney. Obviously some mental health issues occurring.

 

I just looked up the N2FUV call sign and it is still on QRZ.

 

Here is the FCC data base entry showing 2016 cancellation for N2FUV:

https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=657960

 

LOL, apparently the deleted user "LIKES" this post.

 

Looks like that call is still on QRZ lookup ??

 

still active , updated >>> https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=3858459

 

STILL UP AT THIS TIME, SO NO QRZ DID NOT SHUT HIM DOWN!!!!!

HAVING A AMATEUR RADIO LICENSE IS THE LEAST OF HIS CONCERNS, HE WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME THING IF HE WAS USING 2 TIN CANS AND A STRING.

AND TO SAY HE HAS MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES, HOW IS THAT EVEN RELEVANT TO THIS MATTER.

STRICTLY SPEAKING HE IS LUCKY HE DIDNT GET WORSE THAN WHAT HE GOT.....

AND TO EVEN THINK THAT ANY OR ALL AMATEUR RADIOS OPERATORS HAVE MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES, OH IM SO SURE THERE ARE SOME OPS OUT THERE THAT HAVE MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES, SOME MORE THAN OTHERS!!!!

 

More factual background:


Mr. Mgrdichian's N2FUV call was canceled when he reverted to his old call, WA2VMX. He then returned to his N2FUV call, as a vanity call. Next there was an attempt by Mr. Mgrdichian to obtain the callsign N1FMM. He stated that he was a close relation of the former holder, Richard Brezina, of Massachusetts. The FCC asked him to provide documentary evidence that there was an actual existing relationship with Mr. Brezina, and that he was in fact related. Mr. Mgrdichian failed to provide that evidence, and so the license was set-aside on the FCCs own motion. Currently he is once again, N2FUV.

http://ae7q.com/query/data/FrnHistory.php?FRN=0006700629

https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/ApplicationSearch/applAdmin.jsp?applID=11441007#attachments

CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Michael J. Mgrdichian
3023 Panorama Point Way
Kodak, TN 37764
Re: FCC File Number 0008600055

Dear Mr. Mgrdichian:

In accordance with Section 1.113(a) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.113(a), the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau is hereby setting aside its action of April 30th, 2019, that
granted file number 0008600055, under call sign N1FMM.

On April 5th, the Commission received your application, file number 0008591979, filed under
call sign N2FUV requesting the vanity call sign of N1FMM, which stated that you were a close
relative of the former holder. On April 1, application number 0008591979 was returned with a
request for additional information to substantiate your assertion of close relative of former holder
preference.

On April 12th, the Commission received your application file number 0008600055, filed under
call sign N2FUV requesting the vanity call sign of N1FMM as a preference list. This application
was subsequently granted.

On May 22, the Commission’s Enforcement Bureau requested that your application be set aside
for enforcement review. Accordingly, the grant of file number 0008600055 is hereby set aside.
Pending action by the Enforcement Bureau you may continue to operate using call sign N2FUV
with General Class operating privileges.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may contact Katie Knox by email at
Katie.Knox@fcc.gov or by phone at (717) 338-2652.
Sincerely,
Mike Regiec
Associate Chief, Mobility Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Mgrdichianm.krk

In addition to the 3 criminal contempt convictions mentioned in the OP, there are two civil contempt convictions in the same case, and two formal FCC warnings, regarding alleged FCC rules violations.

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-344279A1.pdf

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-344273A1.pdf