Riley, The FCC’s “red light” payment system already is used automatically for unpaid forfeitures, isn’t it? My experience is that their software picks up unpaid amounts, including forfeitures once past any appeal deadlines. And as you say, that system blocks ALL licensing activity, regardless of service. Dave From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> on behalf of RILEY HOLLINGSWORTH <rilepatholling@comcast.net> Date: Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 9:12 AM To: "Bob Famiglio, K3RF" <RBFamiglio@Verizon.net>, David Norris <k5uz@icloud.com> Cc: "arrl-odv@arrl.org" <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:30433] Re: Tennessee Court of Appeals Case An additional solution would work in some cases too, if attention is paid to the licensing database. For example, if someone is within a year or two (or 4, at the FCC's current speed) it would be effective to make sure the FCC has the licensee "red lighted" in the application processing section. We can insist on that. That means no renewal license or any other license can be granted unless all outstanding forfeitures are paid within 45 days of the application. And once dismissed, the application cannot be accepted for filing unless the forfeiture is paid first--so there can be no further problem with the "pending application" concept.. With a ten year license cycle, this is not as effective as it could be with a 5 year cycle; but nevertheless with some of these actions taking years in the FCC rather than the months they should justifiably take, it can be an effective tool in getting someone out of the Amateur service even though their forfeiture wasn't paid. On June 17, 2020 at 10:55 AM "Bob Famiglio, K3RF" <RBFamiglio@Verizon.net> wrote: The solution is simple really. The Commission typically does not effectively collect the fines they issue as the Justice department, their collection arm, doesn’t have time to do such things as I understand. Coming up with either a rule or legislation which allows the Commission to assign fine claims to vetted and eligible law firms to collect on a contingent fee would be an interesting experiment. Suing and submitting the remainder to the commission or US treasury is a solution in waiting. Even offenders without assets have to respond to civil lawsuits and asset search subpoena eventually or face what usually escalates to nasty sanctions -even jail until compliance. Reputable collection firms unleased onto FCC-issued fine debtors can make life very miserable even for those supposedly judgement proof. Everyone has something to lose. The $18,000 fine issued to Jerry Materene would get the attention of some aggressive firms. Let him file for bankruptcy – that is not the easy way out some think it is and would start a precedent and warning to other scofflaws. Perhaps I am missing something here. But I predict such outlaws are going to be more common going forward. Few fear the feds anymore, yet. But when the collection firm starts making life miserable, well . . . Bob Famiglio, K3RF Vice Director - ARRL Atlantic Division 610-359-7300 [cid:image001.png@01D64557.236A03F0] www.QRZ.com/db/K3RF From: arrl-odv On Behalf Of David Norris via arrl-odv Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 7:43 AM To: RILEY HOLLINGSWORTH <rilepatholling@comcast.net> Cc: arrl-odv@arrl.org Subject: [arrl-odv:30423] Re: Tennessee Court of Appeals Case Yes. The criminal court gave him a slap on the wrist for making a terroristic threat to law enforcement (a Sgt. in the local Sheriff’s office) which was outrageous. He just continued on. The DA down there has issues. Also, the civil courts won’t touch him. The locals tried to sue him early on and they couldn’t get to square one. 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division Sent from my iPhone On Jun 16, 2020, at 7:07 PM, RILEY HOLLINGSWORTH <rilepatholling@comcast.net<mailto:rilepatholling@comcast.net>> wrote: Is that Jerry Materene ? On June 16, 2020 at 5:56 PM David Norris <k5uz@icloud.com<mailto:k5uz@icloud.com>> wrote: It’s a shame we can’t get the court down in Louisiana to do similar with the Blue Waffle Jammer... That would certainly give the guys in Lake Charles some further relief. 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division Sent from my iPhone On Jun 15, 2020, at 4:23 PM, Mickey Baker <fishflorida@gmail.com<mailto:fishflorida@gmail.com>> wrote: Interesting state court ruling. Smart judge. Defendant sounds a bit whacked out... Menefee is interesting for harassment complaints we've seen lately in Florida. Mickey Baker, N4MB Palm Beach Gardens, FL “The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead." Robert K. Greenleaf On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 5:00 PM Roderick, Rick, K5UR via arrl-odv < arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>> wrote: From Riley. See his comments below. Noteworthy case from Tennessee Court of Appeals concerning criminal contempt and harassment over amateur radio. 73, Rick - K5UR -----Original Message----- From: RILEY HOLLINGSWORTH < rilepatholling@comcast.net<mailto:rilepatholling@comcast.net>> To: Rick Roderick < K5UR@arrl.org<mailto:K5UR@arrl.org>> Sent: Mon, Jun 15, 2020 3:34 pm Subject: Per e mail--the Tennessee Ct of Appeals case Here's an excerpt, and the decision is attached. This stems from the 7200/3860 case and while not binding of course in other states, it is a guide and gives actions in other states more ammunition--especially when it comes to repeater deliberate interference. Again, the enforcement and prosecution of a valid ex parte order does not conflict with the federal statutes regulating radio activity. As the Florida appellate court aptly noted under similar circumstances, “In prosecuting [Respondent] the [trial court] was not seeking to regulate the air waves, rather it was seeking to punish him for his criminal conduct.” Menefee, 980 So.2d at 571. Respondent argues that the FCC’s prohibition against “communications intended to facilitate a criminal act; . . . [or] obscene or indecent words or language” restricts any state court from having jurisdiction to prosecute such actions. See 47 C.F.R. § 97.113(a)(4). We disagree with this conclusory assumption. Respondent was not found in criminal contempt for using “obscene or indecent words” on amateur radio. Rather, he was found in contempt for simply communicating with Petitioner, irrespective of the language he used. On this issue, we rely on analysis in Menefee, 980 So.2d at 573–74. In Menefee, the Florida District Court of Appeals stated, “there is nothing contained within the [Federal Communications] Act or its implementing regulations that suggests that states may not take action to charge a[n] [amateur] radio operator criminally for conduct that would constitute a crime.” Id. at 573. For these reasons, we find that the trial court’s ex parte order is not preempted by - 9 - federal law. Therefore, the trial court had jurisdiction to find Respondent in criminal contempt of court when Respondent violated the ex parte order by contacting Petitioner on amateur radio. _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
