K1MAN Fined $21K for Willful Interference

Well that definitely sounds like a slam dunk to me. That should take care of K1man. Now we have to prevent others from doing this in the future.

 

IMO...

The petition is substantially stronger than in previous draft(s) I have read.

Furthermore it makes a compelling case for the use of 'radio for injury'.


I am also a little puzzled by the last statement, allowing for the alternative of VHF/UHF-only operation: what is the case for this? It seems to me that the punch line is missing--it is left implicit that such an option may stop 'radio injury'. I don't know.

I thought the case was strong enough without suggesting an alternative, but that's just me.

I also would have preferred exhibits with full texts rather than summaries and some supporting materials in the body.

I was also a little put-off by the allusion to the '1000 hams demanding he be removed from qrz.com'. That's not something that supports 'injury by radio'.

This is nit-picking. Overall, the petition made a lot more sense than I envisioned ,

73,
Chip N1IR

 

I thought the petition was done very professionally as well. Great Job!!!!

 

Apparently, as of 31 July, K1MAN acknowledges that the FCC has 'set aside' his application for renewal.

However, he also asserts that he will operate K1MAN "indefinitely".

It is possible that this case may set a precedent on quiet hours and equipment seizure. I don't see how an unlicensed person, if that occurs, can claim the right to 'indefinite' operation.

In any case, the issue is before the Commission, and it is clear they have a focused interest in bringing it to closure, one way or another.

BTW, I am trying to remember when I ran across Glenn.  His older pictures looked familiar. He might have gone to Norwood ARC meetings in the late 60's.  I definitely saw him in 1976 at some ham fest in NH.

Gee, I AM getting old...

73,
Chip N1IR

 

Glenn is correct as long as he files timely appeals. If he fails to do so, his license to operate will terminate. Remember, Herb, KV4FZ was able to stay on the air during the appeal process.

 

Ok, so he has said he will continue to operate. So, once he does, then this goes to the next level, right? Or, will he flaunt the law for a while once again?

 

It's all in good hands now, IMO. Just be patient.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

So what exactly does "setting aside" an application for renewal do?

 

I want to point out one of mp3's that link through the FAQ Brian mentioned. It has, IMO, a bizarre example of fraud-- where Walter Cronkite is protrayed as an assistant of K1MAN and grabs him a diet coke, for the privilege of ID'ing K1MAN. It would be virtually impossible to conclude, based upon this broadcast, that Mr. Cronkite was NOT present--it is only through the legitimate (written) comments of Mr. Cronkite that one is able to discern the misrepresentation. Mr. Baxter's bogus misuse of Mr. Cronkite in this context is inappropriate and unacceptable--again, my opinion.

It has nothing to do with ham radio. It is an affront to Mr. Cronkite's reputation, and is, IMO, inherently dishonest as an act.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

My disinterested opinion. Use as you like.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

Oh man...get me a diet coke. Hadn't heard that one before, I don't think.

I'm just imagining these being played in court and the looks on everyones faces when they are.

 

K1MAN issued another one of his mass emails yesterday. Did you know, "the international amateur radio network, IARN, is the world Leader in amateur radio emergency communications?"

Guess Baxter's never heard of the ARRL...

There's a more accurate source of information here if anyone's interested.

73, K3VR

 

He's crossed the line numerous times: doing foreign policy, defaming
Riley Hollingsworth, going commercial. But he has a case. (See FCC Letter of November 2, 1989 below.)


When Ervin Duggan was FCC Chief Commissioner in the 80s, Baxter
received two NALs similar to the present. Dutifully, he spent a great
deal of time on his response, serving same on the FCC by regular mail.
When the mail was "lost," Baxter resorted to Federal Express with no
better result.


So, here was an agency, pre-Hollingsworth, that had issed two NALs and
had purposely sandbagged K1MAN's answer -- with good reason.


In his answer, Baxter cited two documents of probative value. One was
a letter to Kenneth Black of Ulmerton, UK, responding to his complaint,
that gave K1MAN's operation a clean bill of health, equating it to W1AW
bulletins. It was signed by Robert McNamara, Chief of the FCC,
then-Private Radio Bureau.


The other was a declaratory order on the subject of the length of
Information Bulletins with a footnote that referred to W1AW published
schedules. The essence of the order was, information bulletins cannot
be proscribed by time limits since they are so varied. Rightly or
wrongly, Baxter has drawn his authority to come on when he does from
that Order's footnote.


Small wonder the FCC disregarded K1MAN's answer, which essentially held
that the issue of the NALs had already been settled in his favor. In
legal argot, res judicata.


Though most hams, including myself, want to march Baxter right out of
this service, justice dictates something else. The FCC, it seems to
this commentator, has the burden of first addressing its previous NALs
of the 80s which were never resolved.


An agency of government simply cannot throw a flurry of similar charges
at a citizen, selectively unresponsive to those that can be defended,
while arbitrarily limiting its attention to subsequent charges.
Certainly, to the extent the previous NALs are similar, the legal
principle of collaterol estoppel comes into play in Baxter's behalf.


I don't like what Baxter does any more than you. Indeed, I think he
lost his way years ago. But if we're to have justice for all in these
United States, then we must afford K1MAN justice. Let's not throw out
the baby with the bath water.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

LETTER TO G4WNE FROM FCC SPECIAL SERVICES
DIVISION CHIEF Robert H. Mc Namara - 2 November 1989:


Dear Mr. Black:


This responds to your letter to Chairman Alfred C. Sikes


concerning Mr. Glenn A. Baxter, licensee of amateur radio


station K1MAN. You state that station K1MAN interferes with


your communications by transmitting recorded one-way


communications.


We are familiar with the nature of the transmissions by K1MAN
and find that they fall in the same category as the information
bulletins transmitted by amateur station W1AW, which is
licensed to the American Radio Relay League's Headquarters
Operators' Club. Amateur service information bulletins are
authorized by Section 97.111(b)(6) of the Commissions's rules,
47 C.F.R. Paragraph 97.111(b)(6).


I trust this is responsive to your inquiry.


Sincerely,


(signed)


Robert H. Mc Namara
Chief, Special Services Division
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554

 

Like a theologian, Glenn Baxter cites chapter and verse of the U.S. Constitution. Trouble is, he hasn't the least idea how it works. Despite his strident claims of being denied due process, nothing of the kind has occurred. In fact, he's received more due process than any ten hams: If we did a fraction of what he's done in the face of FCC citations, we'd have gotten the boot long ago.

His nonsensical invocation of the Constitution has neither rhyme nor reason. He would urge upon us an interpretation that does not take into account the huge body of case law coming down from the federal courts, which interpret the slim provisions of our great instrument.

A quick analogy spotlights the point: In 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified giving all citizens of these United States due process and equal protection of law. For African-Americans at the start of the 20th Century, however, equal protection meant separate but equal, only to change midway with Brown vs. Board of Education to be truly equal. This, of course, gave rise to affirmative action and busing. So, for the real deal on our Constitution, we must look to the courts, a direction to which Baxter appears blind.

From reading him, you'd think that we not only should dispense with the FCC's interpretation of Part 97 but the Supreme Court's intrepretation of agency power as well.

The FCC does indeed have the power of taking draconian measures to enforce. And this includes withholding license renewal pending future hearing while requiring the licensee to stay off the air in the meantime. If an agency didn't have such power, it stands to reason that we'd be subjected to anarchy of the airwaves, the very thing the FCC is empowered to prevent.

Must the FCC take a ham off the air before his administrative hearing? No. Case in point: Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ. Even after he was convicted on three felony counts (2 of which were later reversed with one remaining that should have been reversed, in this commentators view), the FCC allowed him to operate. He was on the air all the way up to the adverse decision in his administrative case -- at which time the FCC granted him a grace period before he was removed. (He's since gotten his license back.)

Riley Hollingsworth is uniquely suited for his enforcement role with the Commission because he tempers enforcement with humanism. He sees his job as one in which, by gaining the cooperation of the regulated, he obtains volutary compliance. There are many hams, including this writer, who have been regulated thusly by Riley and who stand with him. A large slice of the discontented do not realize how much this one regulator has accomplished without incurring the back breaking expense of litigation.

His domain is one area of the U.S. government that works with efficient precision, fixing an astonishing array
problems with few resources.

Contrary to popular belief, the FCC, loath to judge First Amendment subject-matter, doesn't object to information bulletins per se. In reasonably formal language, the agency has equated Baxter's bulletins to ARRL bulletins. There are, however, aspects of Baxter's operation that Hollingsworth has questioned. In response, Baxter, expressly spoiling for a fight, replaces the FCC's interpretation of Part 97 with his own, owning a unique position in the panthion of justice of advocate, regulator,agency, judge, court and jury.

Whatever arguable equities he brings to his cause, like replicating ARRL's practice of starting on a published schedule, he cannot flout FCC authority and expect to stay on the air until his administrative hearing. And when that takes place, there is nothing that vitiates his declaration that he will continue operating without FCC authority.

This declaration is utterly at cross purposes with staying on the air, because no government agency can bend to express non-compliance and hope to be an effective regulator. Not only that, but how can an express law breaker incapable of regulation claim to be rehabilitated later? (Perhaps a mental defense.) Likely he has sealed his fate forever as not possessing the integrity to be a ham.

During KV4FZ's long odyssey, he conducted himself with respect toward the Commission, and it reacted favorably by affording him lattitude. Because K1MAN is conducting himself in opposition, he is and will be treated accordingly.

There's an appropriate, hackneyed expression: You can win more friends with honey than vinegar! Aging fast, Baxter shelf life short.

Bob Sherin, W4ASX