Judges and juries consist of all who read website posts on these matters.
This is real and valid, no matter how much anyone hopes to deflect their previous opinion(s), and/or to rest their case.
Rich's Testimony: "This is real and valid, no matter how much anyone hopes to deflect their previous opinion(s), and/or to rest their case."
Will the testafier explain what he means by "This"?
Will the testafier (sic) explain what he means by "This"?
"This" refers to the first paragraph in that Post #46 above, as most readers here would realize.
By the way, how do you spell "testafiers (sic)?"
So then, Rich testafied, or testified, as the case may be: "Judges and juries consist of all who read website posts on these matters."
To that we must inquire, by what authority does Citizen Rich claim, on behalf of society, who or whom it is that holds judgeships and juristic entitlements?
An empty courtroom equals a mistrial!
... To that we must inquire, by what authority does Citizen Rich claim, on behalf of society, who or whom it is that holds judgeships and juristic entitlements?
My earlier comments in this thread have not been limited to legally-empowered judges and juries acting on behalf of society while considering the systems of "Part 15" operators.
An empty courtroom equals a mistrial!
Your attempt to close many of your posts with a pithy statement is noted, even though it might lead some readers to an invalid belief -- which is unfortunate.
Response to Mr. Rich saying: "Your attempt to close many of your posts with a "pithy" statement is noted, even though it might lead some readers to an invalid belief -- which is unfortunate."
Court is adjourned.
Court is adjourned.
But (in your opinion), what was the verdict?
Ken Cartwright was framed.
In # 37 Mr. Rich erroneously stated:
Exactly. If I give the FCC the benefit of the doubt, a complaint was filed. I doubt the MR. FCC would have taken time out of his busy schedule to visit Ken based on a newspaper article not to mention the long drive. And if he did, them maybe his shedule was not so busy. Hence the FCC shutting down EB offices.
I doubt the MR. FCC would have taken time out of his busy schedule to visit Ken based on a newspaper article not to mention the long drive.
Maybe it doesn't take some kind of conspiracy theory or frameup to explain the FCC actions at KENC.
Early on, the KENC website had a picture of their ~40-ft tower next to their studio building as one of a series of pics that were posted for their "KENC Station Tour." Here is a link showing this:
https://www.hobbybroadcaster.net/profiles/cartwright-02.php
It might be that the FCC field agent saw a press release about KENC in the paper, visited their website, noticed that tower, wondered how that system might meet Part 15, and decided to inspect it.
Maybe the agent was just doing his job.
Maybe. Maybe not. This was the same agent that harrassed an owner of a Talking House and also harrased the land lord. Let's see, a 120 mile round trip to inspect a station in a town in a canyon. I bet KCKX knows the story. BTW, unless something has changed, FCC agents pay for thier own gas.
BTW, unless something has changed, FCC agents pay for thier own gas.
Therefore, the farther part 15 locates from a field office the better.
The FCC agents time would be much better spent tacking down violations of commercial broadcast stations whose flagrant violations would bring many more dollars into their coffers.
Stations that don't switch to night time power levels...
Stations that operate outside permissible audio bandwidth...
Stations that over deviate/over modulate...
Stations that don't maintain proper records..
Stations that don't maintain RF exposure guidelines...
Stations that bend their non-com status...
Stations that operate "frankenstations" on TV channel 6...
Stations that violate FCC obsenity rules...
The list goes on...
By comparison a Part 15 operation which is found to be many times over the "miniscule" field strength allowed caused by a vendor recommended installation is like comparing the seriousness of a drunk driver to a j-walker.
This is the lowest power FM NOUO I could find. 1381 uV @3m
https://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-301192A1.html
"The plaintiff put forth in this case was the operator of KENC."
In fact "the operator of KENC was the defendent (the accused).
Referring back to # 35 Mr. Rich posed a question:
"... his experiences with the FCC soured him on Part 15.
"Could it be more likely that such "souring" actually was the result of KENC following the non-compliant installation recommendations of others -- rather than the FCC actions relating to his installation following those recommendations?"
By the form of this question Mr. Rich seems to be implying a conclusion...
Will Mr. Rich please restate himself giving full facts in answer to his previous implications.