William F. Crowell, W6WBJ, (Advanced Class, age 61) of Diamond Springs, California, filed an application to renew his Amateur Radio license on February 28, 2007. On March 2, 2007, the FCC's Enforcement Bureau "offlined" Crowell's renewal and designated the application for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). (“Offlining” is where the FCC flags an Amateur Radio license record so that no action can take place without the Commission’s approval.) An ALJ is a representative of a government agency vested with power to administer oaths, examine witnesses, take testimony, and conduct hearings.
Crowell's call sign was formerly N6AYJ and carried a license expiration date of March 12, 2007. In early 2006, Crowell applied for and was granted vanity call sign W6WBJ to replace N6AYJ.
Crowell's problems with the Commission go back more than eight years. According to the FCC, in 2000, Crowell was monitored deliberately jamming amateur radio communications in progress on the 75-meter band which had been going on for several months. Crowell denies that it was him who was doing the jamming.
W. Riley Hollingsworth, the FCC's Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement said Crowell’s response to the allegations were "irrelevant and frivolous." And Crowell was issued a Warning Notice cautioning him that "imaginary, make-believe or fictitious conversation with communications in process constitutes interference...."
The complaints did not stop. The FCC continued to receive intentional interference complaints alleging that Crowell was interrupting radio communications, transmitting music and one-way communications, and using indecent language on the ham bands.
On May 15, 2006, the Enforcement Bureau directed Crowell to again respond to the complaints. He again denied that he had violated any FCC rules and disputed the Commission's constitutional authority to regulate the content of amateur radio communications.
Based on its review of Crowell's response, the Enforcement Bureau concluded that the issue of whether Crowell's license should be renewed for a full term should be designated for hearing before an ALJ (Administrative Law Judge.) On April 3, 2007, the FCC informed Crowell that the issue of whether his renewal application should be granted had been "referred to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau for review based upon continuing complaints of deliberate interference, including repeated interruptions of ongoing communications and other complaints regarding character qualifications...."
The FCC added "We find that Crowell's apparent past and continuing course of conduct raises questions as to whether he possesses the requisite character qualifications to remain a Commission licensee." On February 12, 2008, the FCC began a hearing proceeding before an administrative law judge to provide Crowell with an opportunity to demonstrate whether his Amateur Radio license renewal should be granted. Crowell was given until March 3, 2008, to respond to the HDO (Hearing Designation Order.)
On February 15, 2008, the America Radio Relay League ran a detailed story in its weekly ARRLetter about Crowell entitled "California Ham to Face Administrative Law Judge". It was reprinted by QRZ.com. Two days later, Crowell responded to QRZ.com with the following: "I welcome both the challenge my case presents, as well as the opportunity to protect the free-speech rights of all amateurs.
"The only thing the Commission has done so far is try to bluff me, and setting my case for a hearing is just a continuation of that bluffing attempt. They have no credible or admissible evidence. I believe I may be able to have their case dismissed on a motion for summary adjudication, in which case a hearing would never take place.
"I believe it would be a mistake to think that this case will be resolved in the near future. Whichever party is dissatisfied with the ALJ's decision (as one side or the other is likely to be) can appeal to the FCC Review Board; the party dissatisfied with the Review Board's decision can appeal to the full Commission; and the party dissatisfied with the full Commission's decision can appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco (note that, at this point, the venue of the case changes from Washington, D.C. to California, and FCC personnel have to come to California to prosecute the case.)
"It would seem that process would take at least several years, and the courts have recently been notably in conflict with the FCC over free-speech issues (see the "Fox v. FCC" case), but the Commission is in total denial about it because they're pandering to the Commissioners rather than following the law. This is a recipe for disaster, as far as the Commission is concerned. But if they want to shoot themselves in the foot, and demonstrate their own unreasonableness, that is fine with me.
"I am entitled to stay on the air with my full operating privileges until the final court ruling, and I intend to do just that.
"Even assuming for the sake of argument that I were to lose my case before both the Commission and the courts, I intend to turn around and apply for a new license the next day. Would the Commission want to go through the entire process again?"
Apparently Crowell wants to appear at the hearing. Hearings are held in Washington, DC, before an administrative law judge, and he will have the burden of proof to show that he is still qualified to be an Amateur Radio licensee.
On February 26, 2008, he served a document on the FCC he called the "First Set Of Interrogatories To Enforcement Bureau" - a very lengthy list of 132 questions ("Interrogatories") he wants the FCC to answer prior to the hearing.
On October 1, 2008, Crowell dispatched a letter to the amateur news media asking that a news article be published advising that the FCC has now canceled the hearing. But there is some question as to whether the Hearing has been “canceled” or will be “continued” at later date. The Order (issued August 27, 2008) strangey mentions both cancellation and continuance.
Crowell - who is an attorney - maintains that normally when a court continues a case it sets a new hearing date. No new date has been set and he believes that neither he nor the FCC would want to set the case for hearing again until the “discovery” phase is completed. “Discovery” is where you get to ask questions and make the other side give you their documents and recordings.
Another somewhat similar Amateur Radio license renewal case that has been ongoing for years involves K1MAN, Glenn A. Baxter of Belgrade Lakes, Maine. His license expired on October 17, 2005. And he continues to operate on the Amateur Radio airwaves with an expired license until the FCC acts on his enforcement case ...which he says he welcomes. Baxter, K1MAN, denies any apparent liability for forfeiture or any other violations of FCC rules, ...or state or federal law. His unpaid fines now total some $21,000.
Crowell's call sign was formerly N6AYJ and carried a license expiration date of March 12, 2007. In early 2006, Crowell applied for and was granted vanity call sign W6WBJ to replace N6AYJ.
Crowell's problems with the Commission go back more than eight years. According to the FCC, in 2000, Crowell was monitored deliberately jamming amateur radio communications in progress on the 75-meter band which had been going on for several months. Crowell denies that it was him who was doing the jamming.
W. Riley Hollingsworth, the FCC's Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement said Crowell’s response to the allegations were "irrelevant and frivolous." And Crowell was issued a Warning Notice cautioning him that "imaginary, make-believe or fictitious conversation with communications in process constitutes interference...."
The complaints did not stop. The FCC continued to receive intentional interference complaints alleging that Crowell was interrupting radio communications, transmitting music and one-way communications, and using indecent language on the ham bands.
On May 15, 2006, the Enforcement Bureau directed Crowell to again respond to the complaints. He again denied that he had violated any FCC rules and disputed the Commission's constitutional authority to regulate the content of amateur radio communications.
Based on its review of Crowell's response, the Enforcement Bureau concluded that the issue of whether Crowell's license should be renewed for a full term should be designated for hearing before an ALJ (Administrative Law Judge.) On April 3, 2007, the FCC informed Crowell that the issue of whether his renewal application should be granted had been "referred to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau for review based upon continuing complaints of deliberate interference, including repeated interruptions of ongoing communications and other complaints regarding character qualifications...."
The FCC added "We find that Crowell's apparent past and continuing course of conduct raises questions as to whether he possesses the requisite character qualifications to remain a Commission licensee." On February 12, 2008, the FCC began a hearing proceeding before an administrative law judge to provide Crowell with an opportunity to demonstrate whether his Amateur Radio license renewal should be granted. Crowell was given until March 3, 2008, to respond to the HDO (Hearing Designation Order.)
On February 15, 2008, the America Radio Relay League ran a detailed story in its weekly ARRLetter about Crowell entitled "California Ham to Face Administrative Law Judge". It was reprinted by QRZ.com. Two days later, Crowell responded to QRZ.com with the following: "I welcome both the challenge my case presents, as well as the opportunity to protect the free-speech rights of all amateurs.
"The only thing the Commission has done so far is try to bluff me, and setting my case for a hearing is just a continuation of that bluffing attempt. They have no credible or admissible evidence. I believe I may be able to have their case dismissed on a motion for summary adjudication, in which case a hearing would never take place.
"I believe it would be a mistake to think that this case will be resolved in the near future. Whichever party is dissatisfied with the ALJ's decision (as one side or the other is likely to be) can appeal to the FCC Review Board; the party dissatisfied with the Review Board's decision can appeal to the full Commission; and the party dissatisfied with the full Commission's decision can appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco (note that, at this point, the venue of the case changes from Washington, D.C. to California, and FCC personnel have to come to California to prosecute the case.)
"It would seem that process would take at least several years, and the courts have recently been notably in conflict with the FCC over free-speech issues (see the "Fox v. FCC" case), but the Commission is in total denial about it because they're pandering to the Commissioners rather than following the law. This is a recipe for disaster, as far as the Commission is concerned. But if they want to shoot themselves in the foot, and demonstrate their own unreasonableness, that is fine with me.
"I am entitled to stay on the air with my full operating privileges until the final court ruling, and I intend to do just that.
"Even assuming for the sake of argument that I were to lose my case before both the Commission and the courts, I intend to turn around and apply for a new license the next day. Would the Commission want to go through the entire process again?"
Apparently Crowell wants to appear at the hearing. Hearings are held in Washington, DC, before an administrative law judge, and he will have the burden of proof to show that he is still qualified to be an Amateur Radio licensee.
On February 26, 2008, he served a document on the FCC he called the "First Set Of Interrogatories To Enforcement Bureau" - a very lengthy list of 132 questions ("Interrogatories") he wants the FCC to answer prior to the hearing.
On October 1, 2008, Crowell dispatched a letter to the amateur news media asking that a news article be published advising that the FCC has now canceled the hearing. But there is some question as to whether the Hearing has been “canceled” or will be “continued” at later date. The Order (issued August 27, 2008) strangey mentions both cancellation and continuance.
Crowell - who is an attorney - maintains that normally when a court continues a case it sets a new hearing date. No new date has been set and he believes that neither he nor the FCC would want to set the case for hearing again until the “discovery” phase is completed. “Discovery” is where you get to ask questions and make the other side give you their documents and recordings.
Another somewhat similar Amateur Radio license renewal case that has been ongoing for years involves K1MAN, Glenn A. Baxter of Belgrade Lakes, Maine. His license expired on October 17, 2005. And he continues to operate on the Amateur Radio airwaves with an expired license until the FCC acts on his enforcement case ...which he says he welcomes. Baxter, K1MAN, denies any apparent liability for forfeiture or any other violations of FCC rules, ...or state or federal law. His unpaid fines now total some $21,000.
No comments:
Post a Comment