The AM Forum

The time has come to pay the piper:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-663A1.pdf

Or

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-663A1.txt

Maybe someone can cut a deal with Riley for the KW1.

PRAISE THE LORD AND PASS THE AMMO!

Wonder if he'll pay it.  I have heard of several cases where the person doesn't pay up, and the Feds have never gone after them to  collect.  I seem to  recall that Baxter ignored a previous FCC forfeiture and nothing happened.  Maybe the size of the fine, $21K will make a difference this time.

The only thing I might have any problem with is this:

Is this saying that you can't give a url over the air if the website is commercial in nature and/or you might profit from the transaction?  The ARRL gives its website in the ARRL bulletins, and many of us give out url's to other hams in QSO to websites engaging in commercial activity.  It would seem appropriate to me, for example, if one did engage in a radio-related business such as The AM Press/Exchange or Electric Radio, and another amateur in QSO made an inquiry about it, to say "I can't give you the business details over the air, but if you are interested, here is the address to my website..." and that should be OK.

I think it is in a class with public intoxication and seat belts. If you draw the attention to yourself you get the horn. If not, no blood no foul . . . yes, it is selective enforcement, properly applied IMO.

-ap

Unfortunately a look at footnote 19 would indicate this could drag on - and on.

(19)" We note that these procedures do not deprive Baxter of his right to due process because any forfeiture issued in accordance with these procedures is ultimately subject to a trial de novo in federal district court pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act should Baxter not pay prior to such time. See 47 U.S.C. § 504(a)."

But since he acts as his own "attorney" (ha) that practically insures that a Federal Court situation will finish him off for sure. But how long will it take!?

You know, that was one thing I asked Riley about when I got a chance to talk to him at The Slab Bacon's house on Saturday. He said, "...there will be a report coming out very soon with regards to K1MAN..." Somehow I couldn't help but notice him trying to stifle a smirk as he was addressing me. Now if he can clean up the rest of the slopp-bucket-heads on 75 :D

Hooray for Riley!

I read it kinda fast but I didn't notice any references to his license renewal.  Is it possible that he might get his license renewed if he pays the fine?... (I hope not!!!!)

Also, is this new fine in ADDITION to the previous one? (which I'm sure he hasn't paid)

Don, the Commission's case against K1MAN isn't based solely on the above, one way or the other; what's happening is Mr. Baxter is getting the book thrown at him.

Try playing those games and give the same sort of hard time to a  New York or Chicago cop or judge and see what happens. The feds ain't no different.

..

If he played that game with a NYC cop he'd be ripe for a routine headbust.

I believe the license renewal is a separate activity. This is the only fine; the difference now is, "it's time to pay".

However, K1MAN had said many months ago that he will take advantage of the following:
 
 "We  note  that  these  procedures  do  not  deprive  Baxter  of  his  right  to  due  process  because  any  forfeiture  issued  in  accordance  with  these  procedures  is  ultimately  subject  to  a  trial  de  novo  in  federal  district  court  pursuant  to  Section 504(  a)  of  the  Act  should  Baxter  not  pay  prior  to  such  time."

It's always nice to start off a day with good news.  ;D

Yes Martha, there is a Santa "Claws", hi hi! They're not only in the process of throwing the book at him, they're lobbing the bookcase as well. I bet you Riley did have to try hard to hold back that smile! Ah yes, spring comes early to Maine.  ;D

The Commission has, in the past, tired of Glenn's antics with playing his own attorney, at one point (1993?) telling him they would refuse to discuss an issue further except thru his attorney.

I haven't heard him on 75 for some time.   Is it just the timing of my listening or has he stopped broadcasing altogether?  Regards,  Ed

Glenn aint gonna take this laying down.....
From his bulletin service....





K1MAN BULLETIN - B060329A -

FCC ISSUES A "FORFEITURE ORDER" AGAINST K1MAN

The "Order" is attached below. What Now?

1. The FCC has declined to provide a requested hearing, and the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution requires a hearing and due
process of law before they can collect a dime much less the "ORDERED"
"fine" of $21,000. Even a traffic ticket gets a hearing, right?

2. Therefore, the next step for the FCC, by statute, is to now sue
K1MAN for the claimed $21,000 in Federal District Court in Bangor,
Maine where K1MAN would demand a trial by jury (trial de novo),
subpoena witnesses (Hollingsworth, Boston Office Engineers, hams,
etc.), file motions, etc. The FCC can't even bring such a suit, of
course, because the minimum claim in Federal District Court is
$50,000.

3. By statute, unresolved forfeiture matters such as above cannot be
used in any other FCC proceeding such as K1MAN's pending renewal
application.

4. By statute, K1MAN can and will continue to operate until the
renewal application is finally decided including all appeals to the
D.C. Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Bottom line is that the FCC is blowing phony legal smoke leading to
Hollingsworth's 2006 Dayton "Special Achievement Award" which is not
too bad for a guy who was sick on the day they taught law at law
school. Wake Forest Law School should refund all of his hard earned
money! Good luck in the contest!

73 and GL de K1MAN

Glenn A. Baxter, P.E.


Before the


Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

It takes a modicum of intelligence to earn a PE.  It's sad he hasn't applied that in figuring out the difference between a civil and a criminal matter.

hmmmmmm....

In some cases of forfieture, e.g. drugs and DWI, it's the house or vehicle that's guilty...that's why they can seize them without any process at all.  Could his transmitter and/or house be declared guilty and seized?

 :)

...

He's hasn't been broadcasting on 75 for a long while now.  I think he stopped sometime last fall and he's been off 75 all winter so far.

That never made sense to me. How in the world can an inamimate object be guilty of anything ?? Kinda like saying a gun is guilty of killing someone not the person who shot it.  Lawmakers are a bizzare breed. I'll never figure them out.

The confiscation of personal property is more like taking the gun away from someone who uses it illegally than the (less prevalent all the time) view that the personal property 'causes' the illegality. It also ups the ante in terms of punishment. In this case it makes sense to me to remove the instruments used in the comission of crimes.

-ap

There's plenty of instances where I also feel the Constitution is being ignored for the sake of 'the better good"...

You got your random DUI checkpoints, where people are stopped in a dragnet and made to incriminate themselves.. If one refuses to incriminate himself by taking a breathalyzer test or speaking to the cop, then you are presumed guilty. .A violation of searches without cause, AND a violation of the 5th Amendment.
Yet the courts have ruled same constitutional.

You got the government seizure of private property, not for legitimate government projects like roads but for the direct benefit of Wal-Marts, etc.
The courts have ruled it constitutional.

Then there's the ongoing federal wiretap controversy re: potential terrorists.

And there's the Federal and State seizures of personal property, homes, vehicles, bank accounts, etc., because someone is charged (not even convicted) with a felony like drug possession.
The courts have ruled it constitutional.

The debate over firearms ownership has gone on for years, and sometimes the courts rule one way, sometimes they rule the other. Either you have the absolute right to bear arms without caveat or you don't. Even some arms are considered llegal and some are not. Which is it?

There are no absolutes in the legal world and the reality is that it's not all black and white.

Pragmatically, Mr. Baxter's about to go down in flames, he should be smart enough to realize that. All he has to do is see the writing on the wall.

Even if he's legally correct, the Constitution is often interpreted only as convenient, and the public doesn't care. That's just the way it is because we have let it be that way. Too late to change now.

And the public really doesn't care about any ham operator named Baxter from Maine.  What a waste of a life. He could have put all that energy into something perceived as positive.

Hi (soon to be) Neighbor:

"There's plenty of instances where I also feel the Constitution is being ignored for the sake of 'the better good"..."

Yes, indeed. Lots of folks want it to be a "living document" . . . it isn't, but the interpretation of it sure is.

"You got your random DUI checkpoints, where people are stopped in a dragnet and made to incriminate themselves.. If one refuses to incriminate himself by taking a breathalyzer test or speaking to the cop, then you are presumed guilty. .A violation of searches without cause, AND a violation of the 5th Amendment.
Yet the courts have ruled same constitutional."

The courts have ruled that the constitution doesn't cover DUI checkpoints. That's different from legalizing the behavior because the constitution says its legal. The part that says if a situation is not specifically covered by the constitution it is the jurisdiction of the local government(s), applies. If you refuse to take the DUI tests you lose your privilege of driving. That privilege is not addressed in the constitution. Rather it is a regulated function of the local government.

"You got the government seizure of private property, not for legitimate government projects like roads but for the direct benefit of Wal-Marts, etc.
The courts have ruled it constitutional."

I agree here . . . classic confiscation of personal property . . . and the local government saying Wal-Mart is the greater good.

"Then there's the ongoing federal wiretap controversy re: potential terrorists. "

It doesn't have to be wireline. It can be radio, fiber, or twisted pair. In this context we are at war and the enemy uses our communications media to plan their attacks on us. The congress, multiple presidents, and current laws allow this to be done and have done it. It ain't new and it is being done in defense of the country. 'don't see any constitutional base for stopping it now.

"And there's the Federal and State seizures of personal property, homes, vehicles, bank accounts, etc., because someone is charged (not even convicted) with a felony like drug possession.
The courts have ruled it constitutional."

I agree here too, except it was ruled not covered by the constitution. The local jurisdiction thing again. I admit there have been activist, contrary to the separation of powers, legislation from the bench . . but I don't believe this is an example of it.

"The debate over firearms ownership has gone on for years, and sometimes the courts rule one way, sometimes they rule the other. Either you have the absolute right to bear arms without caveat or you don't. Even some arms are considered llegal and some are not. Which is it?

There are no absolutes in the legal world and the reality is that it's not all black and white."

I included these two sections because one answers the other. If someone uses a gun to commit a crime hiding behind the constitutional permission to bear arms is pretty lame. In such cases you take their tools of lawbreaking away and prosecute. That person has elected to be a felon which negates many constitutional privileges.

"Pragmatically, Mr. Baxter's about to go down in flames, he should be smart enough to realize that. All he has to do is see the writing on the wall.

"Even if he's legally correct, the Constitution is often interpreted only as convenient, and the public doesn't care. That's just the way it is because we have let it be that way. Too late to change now."

How is Baxters breach of his contract to follow the regulations of the service which licenses him a constitutional issue? I expect the courts to find there's nothing "constitutional" in this case.

"And the public really doesn't care about any ham operator named Baxter from Maine.  What a waste of a life. He could have put all that energy into something perceived as positive."

On this we totally agree.

It was Mr. Baxter making the claim, not me.

"The FCC has declined to provide a requested hearing, and the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution requires a hearing and due
process of law.." (snip)


That's really what set me off on the rant, Art!

Yes, there is the distinction between enumerated rights and priviliges which often gets muddied. I personally don't agree with the court's interpretation that random DUI checkpoints are lawful. I can't imagine the writers of the Bill of Rights would agree that local constables should have the legal authority to randomly stop riders on a publc road and demand proof of sobriety, papers, IDs or anything else, if nothing in a person's conduct was out of the ordinary and there was no evidence of breaking the law. That's part of the King's agents conduct that greatly offended the early Americans. As it offends me.
But that's a matter of my own personal opinion.

Let me tell you a true story. I went to traffic court in Chicago a long time ago. After a long wait to have his case heard, someone complained to the judge about the slowness of the proceedings. The judge replied, "If you werent guilty to begin with, you wouldn't have to be here." That has always left a profound impression on me.
What it is, it is.

I guess the law works in strange ways. And often in ways that don;t always make  a whole lot of sense to me. But  I can see the point. I guess on a case  by  case basis there are some cases where the law works in a way that is beneficial and other  times it goes against the grain of constitutional rights.

But regarding Mr Baxter... whether  the law is right or worng, good or bad... Baxter could have avoided all this by merely being sensible.

I think Glenda's KW1 would go quite nicely in the basement of a law abiding member of the AM Community. When it's on the air people could QSL, even if only for a signal report!

He claims he changed out the plate iron to "throttle it back to legal limit" if I may quote what Glenda stated in between rantings about Riley Hollingsworth, his own "AARA", and the multitude of other illegal broadcast rantings, not counting interfering with countless Amateur stations trying to use the frequency; and making threats to people on the air, etc etc.

Regards and hope to hear the KW1 from Bagdad Lakes in a new location someday.

Regards,
          Joe N3IBX

"I personally don't agree with the court's interpretation that random DUI checkpoints are lawful."

Neither do I. But I interpret that interpretation differently.
 
If you live in an area where several crashes and a death or two . . .have been attributed to DUI . .  would you institute processes to diminish the behavior? In most "protectionist" situations liberty and freedom is sacrificed in the name of security. When that security is considered less valuable (ref: the value of services rendered diminishes after the service is rendered or the service has been in effect for some time), or the liberty escalated (perhaps to support a different agenda) in value, the reasoning fails for the protectionist processes.

We had/have a similar situation . . . complaints/accusations that we weren't prepared enough to prevent 9/11 yet endeavoring to remove the tools to be prepared. Yep. . . let's demand that someone swim across the pond . . . but insist they wear handcuffs . . . and then complain when someone on the other side of the pond attacks . . . As a notable Vulcan said . . . "illogical". This is most frustrating when the party is standing behind the swimmer (out of the line of fire) and has no other plan.

DUI checkpoints and reactions to other behaviors (eg. Baxter) aren't covered by the constitution. Saying so doesn't mean the constitution permits it. There's lots of things not specifically described in the constitution that are quite illegal. That doesn't make them legal. Referring, obtusely, to a right in the constitution as permission to execute such illegality is not valid IMO.

Yes John . . . absolute power corrupts absolutely and small power corrupts small people . . . executive, legislative, and judicial authority can be, and sometimes is, abused. Do we enforce DUI when the Governors ball is breaking up as we do the 2AM checkpoints .  . I would say not. It doesn't do as much for an officer to arrest the leutenant governor as it would me leaving the dew drop inn . . .  'course, I don't have a better plan. I don't want some drunk running into me and if there are fewer on the road there are less for me to hit . . . Z,Y,X, W . .  Q . . . .

-ap

  But others have taken up where he has left off >:(

Now Ed........u dont mean the knuckle draggers on 3892......and dont forget the leftovers from the pasta net that have "discovered" AM........ :-X

The most insightful statement yet on Baxter.

I used to go to school with an idiot like Baxter, He just wants attention. Attention of ANY kind, good or bad, it doesnt matter as long as he is the center of attention. He would egg us on to beat the szht out of him, and we would take turns doing it. Someone dfferent would punch the szht out of him daily.

He would claim to have done something that he didnt just to get thumped. He wanted the attention any way that he could get it and it didnt matter. He had a big mouth, but was like punching on a wet dishrag. We all actually got tired of pounding on him and started ignoring him.

When we started ignoring him and he was not getting the attention (or ass kicking) anymore he just faded away. I think Baxter is much like him, he will keep kicking and screaming all the way down just to get the attention he needs. Once he has become old news and no one shows any interest he will go away. For right now he is wearing the NAL like some kind of a badge of courage.

Once all of the hoopala fades away and the reality of s $21k fine sets in, he will prolly have a rude awakening of reality. In any way you look at it 21k is gonna hurt!

As far as him defending himself whats the old saying: "he who defends himself has a fool for a client". Let hin do it, he'll only dig hinself deeper!
                                                                                   The Slab Bacon
       

Frank,
Glenda is a skid row bum. 21 k 21 Mil either way he can't come up with it.
pretty soon he will claim to have weapons of mass distruction....his mouth.

Sorta ayup. But there are others too. >:(

Hi Guys and Gals:

This is interesting reading dated today 03/30/2006

I think he has been at the Nip too long.....

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/K1MAN14275/myhomepage/business.html

Dan
w1DAN

If he were so superior in his legal knowledge he would know that by signing his license he agreed to follow the rules of Part 97. This also includes recognizing the authority of the Commission to enforce these rules. And they are just that ..... Rules !!! Rules governing a privilege not a right.

His Constitutional rantings are just that.

That's what it's all about...... "me me me me!!!!.... look at me!!"

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/K1MAN14275/myhomepage/business.html


Maybee Rilley will be on W6OBBs' antichrist line some night<<   klc

No , he only faded from YOUR world.  Since that day, he's been getting his attention from other nutjobs like himself crying about how y'all whopped on his ass.  And being in a group of like-minded losers, he's surrounded by others who all do the same thing.  They don't thrive on sympathy, they wallow in each other's misery. 

As for the KW1, the last one I saw sold for $14k.  That means k1boy only needs about 7 more if his KW1 isn't too far from reasonable.  Of course, who knows. . .

As for drunk driving checkpoints, they get away with them by saying driving is a privilege and not a right.  Sadly in our society too many of "us" (I use that term to mean "members of the same civilisation" not necessarily any particular one of US) have brought checkpoints upon ourselves by our irresponsible actions, at great cost to the innocent.  It's a shame such things have become more or less necessary in too many places.  Bottom line is the American roads are the most dangerous places in the world already.  On Friday and Saturday nights in some places it's nearly suicidal to venture forth upon them.

No , he only faded from YOUR world. Since that day, he's been getting his attention from other nutjobs like himself crying about how y'all whopped on his ass. And being in a group of like-minded losers, he's surrounded by others who all do the same thing. They don't thrive on sympathy, they wallow in each other's misery.


As for drunk driving checkpoints, they get away with them by saying driving is a privilege and not a right. Sadly in our society too many of "us" (I use that term to mean "members of the same civilisation" not necessarily any particular one of US) have brought checkpoints upon ourselves by our irresponsible actions, at great cost to the innocent. It's a shame such things have become more or less necessary in too many places. Bottom line is the American roads are the most dangerous places in the world already. On Friday and Saturday nights in some places it's nearly suicidal to venture forth upon them.


H e may have faded from our world 30 some years ago, But I/we dont have to deal with him anymore!!! Last I heard he became a merchant marine. Hmmmm..........
I wonder if his shipmates threw him overboard? He used to live in my neighborhood, and I havent seen hyde nor hair of him for over 30 years!

As far as drunk driving checkpoints go I'd like to see one on every corner! It has gotten so bad here in baltimore that it is not safe to be out on the road on friday and saturday nights. It got so bad a few years ago that 3 weekends in a row I had to do some kind of extreme drastic maneuver to keep from getting hit by a freakin drunk!
It aint safe around here after the bars close! If it aint cars flying out of control it is bullets flying out of control.  It has gotten to the point that My wife and I make it a point to be home early on friday and saturday nights.
                                                                           The Slab Bacon

"It got so bad a few years ago that 3 weekends in a row I had to do some kind of extreme drastic maneuver to keep from getting hit by a freakin drunk! "

Yea, I know it's really bad, and that's why I'm also happy for DWI checkpoints.

This problem got out of hand a couple decades ago.  The realy pity is...DWI checkpoints can only do so much.  Yea, if a drunk comes upon one, he'll be taken off the road..but what about the other ones?

But...so far as I know, there is NOBODY who thinks it important to look deeper and maybe find something that might help more effectively.  Obviously changes in the 70's and 80's made this kind of behaviour a much bigger problem than it had ever been.  But we can only come up with a band-aid (DWI checkpoints)  Until we bite the bullet and acknowledge and do something about how sick things are today, we'll be dealing with this.

Ah, but this belongs on the enquirer...I'll shut up here, for now.


Paul

Hi All:

Checked his website today...www.k1man.com.

It is gone.

It is still here though. Nothing new.

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/K1MAN14275/myhomepage/business.html

Dan
W1DAN