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. Chris -----Original Message----- From: frenaye@pcnet.com To: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org Sent: Fri, 18 May 2007 10:16 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:15572] Re: Fwd: ARRL Initial Brief FILED 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 ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.