Right, Tom, thanks. Bill Lake at WilmerHale said the same thing I did; we can't wait to see what FCC will say in response (their brief is due July 2).

The missing references to the Joint Appendix were necessary because the Joint Appendix is not yet prepared, and won't be until FCC and the intervenors decide what items THEY want in the appendix. So, everyone files their initial briefs, and then once the joint appendix is prepared and filed, the briefs are all refiled. This one is called the "initial brief" and the ones with J.A. citations is called the "final brief" for each party. It is normal procedure. Almost invariably, the parties agree to a "deferred appendix" which is simpler if filed later, but it necessitates the second brief filing with the J.A. citations.

At 09:33 PM 5/17/2007, w3kd@aol.com wrote:
>Greetings. Pardon the informality of the means of sending this to ODV, but it 
was the fastest method of doing so. 

I really enjoyed reading through the brief - I like the style of writing and 
explanations.   How could a court disagree?
Never realized that "hide the peanut" would make a good phrase to use in a 
federal court brief...

        -- Tom

PS: I assume the missing references to the Joint Appendix will be handled in a 
follow up version?


=====
e-mail: k1ki@arrl.org   ARRL New England Division Director  http://www.arrl.org/
Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444