No idea re BWJ”. From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> on behalf of John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com> Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 at 6:14 PM To: "arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org" <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:30420] Re: Tennessee Court of Appeals Case David Do you know who the identity of the “BWJ?” With regard to the TN case, as I understand it, the ruling being referenced had nothing to do specifically with amateur radio. It had to do with violation of a common judicial protective order. “The victim in the case asked for a temporary order of protection, which was granted. The order specified that Michael Mgrdichian was not to contact the victim. The pertinent command for this appeal stated that Respondent Mgrdichian would “not contact the petitioner either directly or indirectly, by phone, email, messages, mail, or any other type of communication or contact.” IMHO, I don’t find the fact that the “contact” appears to have been over ham radio relevant. “No contact: means “no contact.” 73, Dave K3ZJ _______________________________________ John Robert Stratton N5AUS Director West Gulf Division Office: 512-445-6262 Cell: 512-426-2028 P.O. Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232 _______________________________________ On 6/16/20 4:56 PM, David Norris via arrl-odv 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 _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv