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

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.

David A. Norris, K5UZ

Director, Delta Division

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 16, 2020, at 7:07 PM, RILEY HOLLINGSWORTH <rilepatholling@comcast.net> wrote:

Is that Jerry Materene ?
On June 16, 2020 at 5:56 PM David Norris <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> 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> 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>
To: Rick Roderick < 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
https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list
arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org
https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv