HamFanz Grudge Report

Karen Jackson's 'Gift'

2009-04-14T17:18:00.000-07:00

Karen Jackson, owner of KNYE Radio, (The Big Voice of the Valley), recently sent me a 'gift'. It is now available for bidding on eBay!

Art Bell's Personal Possessions

HamFanz Archives!

2009-04-10T05:52:00.000-07:00

Just a reminder that ALL HamFanz audio & pics are still available! They are orginized and sold by year, starting with 2000=2004 (audio starts at 2004) for pics, then 2005, etc (for audio & pics).

Then there are: "HamFanz Special Editions 1 & 2!

For a total of 24G! All contain different materiels!

Make me an offer I can't refuse!
email: HamFanz@cox.net

Elite Hams

2009-04-05T19:38:00.000-07:00

As I'm sure most of you already know, artie w6obb, and Scott Barris k7mix, finally took my advice of several weeks ago, and dumped their website www.elitehams.com.

It was far past time, as the only Elites left were artie and Scott. Scott was left holding the bag, or the web site if you will. Typical Art Bell behavior: make lots of big promises; get someone else to do all the work; and then quit participating on a whim.

(Sigh, many tried to 'tell' Scotty.)

Trite but true, 'Good riddance to bad rubbish.' (In all kinds of ways!)

HamFanz Birthday!

2009-04-01T17:59:00.000-07:00

HamFanz is 5 years old today! (Notice it was started on April Fool's Day; how perfect is THAT!)

So, throw the confetti! Make a toast! Five years of the TRUTH about many a HAM! HamFanz=excellent reporting (thanks to excellent SOURCES, you know who you are!)

I just know the CONGRATS are gonna come rolling in...and it would be nice if you'd hit that PayPal button to show your appreciation!

Here's to 5 MORE years!

Either Or

2009-03-31T19:35:00.000-07:00

Listening to the Little Peeps last night, (And I that IS what I do, SWL.) I don't know which was more disruptive, Steve k6txh, being Steve, or most everyone else complaining about Steve being Steve!

I must say, as a listener, it makes for an interesting, and entertaining, evening. That is till it gets out of hand, when everyone gets too angry, and goes away, leaving me laughing...

So is it Either/Or???

The Easy Way to Fix a Problem!

2009-03-19T06:34:00.000-07:00

R.I.P.

Art Bell now an ex-pat

2009-03-14T16:48:00.000-07:00

According to several reliable sources, artie is now living in the Philippines, and has burned his bridges behind him. He says he is NEVER returning to the US. (The ‘exodus’ some have referred to on air.)

He sold his ‘compound’ to Tom in Arizona, who will probably be moving in this next week, and is recruiting help for the move.

artie GAVE his guesthouse to Karen (now the owner of KNYE), and the station controls which were moved there last week. All property rights were also given to Karen on the big sign for KNYE on highway 160, as with the land it sits on, it is worth a huge chunk of money for advertising rights, as no one can buy land anymore to put up signs for advertising.

He gave away one car (not to me!), and sold another to a ‘good friend’.

And to show what kind of man he is, he had all his cats put down. (Now WHAT vet would put down healthy animals? That person should be reported to the Nevada authorities.) It is said that his condominium in Manila does not allow pets… (hmmm, kinda like Ramona, huh?)

And to show what kind of man he is, he did not even say ‘good bye’ to friends he’s had for years. (Nor did he drop a hefty amount into my PayPal account to help with uncovered medical expenses!)

Good riddance! With any luck, the other NAMBPIGs will join him there.

Perhaps now, without artie’s constant threats of lawsuits, complaints to the FCC, and other strong arm tactics, SWL will be ‘fun’, again. With no more ‘late night’ EliteHams, maybe early evening will see more of w6wbj, wb6bnq, k4ze, k6txh, n7js, w7lw, and other interesting HAMS.

Airyn 'preggers' again?

2009-02-16T08:23:00.000-08:00

Did anyone besides me notice, in the most recent pic of Airn (in the red dress), holding Aisia, (www.hamcams.com) that it looks like an early 'preggers' dress and a 'baby bump'???

Art Bell, C2C, & Dr. Reed

2009-02-15T06:03:00.002-08:00

If you were a C2C listener during the Art Bell years, you may really enjoy this: http://bilalsworldorder.blogspot.com/2009/02/alien-story.html

It's the story (including audio and videos) of Dr. Reed and the Alien. A really well put together page.

Happy New Year!

2009-01-14T06:58:00.000-08:00

First, last week, someone named ‘bugin76’ posted this to the YouTube Steve Wingate video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qQuIcQnzkE&feature=related.

Today, Jan. 8, 2009Steven L Wingate was sentenced to 45 days in jail & 3 years probation for assault, assaulting an officer, & use of a tear gas weapon. Steve's sentence starts January 25th at 2:00 pm. I will be removing this YouTube posting in honor of Steve's extended vacation.

January 25th is NOT far off!

Then, a couple of days ago, this was found on the internet. The latest ‘round’ in the battle of the FCC and w6wbj (and it looks like Bill Crowell lost this one!)

Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington"D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
WILLIAM F. CROWELL
Application to Renew License for
Amateur Radio Service Station W6WBJ
)
)
WTDocketNo.08-20
FCC File No. 0002928684

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Issued: December 29, 2008 Released: December 31, 2008
I. Under consideration are Enforcement Bureau's Motion to Compel Responses to its
First Request for Production of Documents, filed on June 4, 2008, by the Enforcement Bureau
("Bureau"); and Applicant's Opposition to Enforcement Bureau's Motion to Compel Responses
to its First Request for Production of Documents, filed on June 17, 2008, by William F. Crowell
("Mr. Crowell").
2. General Objections. Mr. Crowell objects to each request for production of documents
because the Bureau has objected "in bad faith" to almost all of his First Set of Interrogatories
propounded to the Bureau. Through that conduct, Mr. Crowell argues, the Bureau "has violated
the priority of discovery" and has "wrongfully prevented [him] from formulating his claims and
defenses. E.g" Applicant's Response to Document Request I. These objections are overruled.
They have no legal basis and Mr. Crowell cites no authority supporting his position. There is no
requirement that the Bureau first answer his interrogatories before he responds to the Bureau's
request forproduction;of documents.
3. Mr. Crowell also objects to each request for production of documents on the basis that
the Bureau "lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence before it has made a
preliminary showing 'that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97 [of the
Commission's Rules]." E.g., Applicant's Response to Document Request 1. These objections
are overruled. They, too, have no legal basis and Mr. Crowell cites no authority supporting his
position. No such burden or condition precedent to conducting discovery exists.
4. Mr. Crowell further objects to several requests for production of documents because
the Commission "has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet." E.g.,
Applicant's Response to Document Request 6. These objections are overruled. The Hearing
Designation Order in ,this proceeding, 23 FCC Rcd 1865 (WTB 2008) (" HDO "), makes it clear
that Mr. Crowell's character is in question. HDO at 1866-67 (~~ 6, 9). Among the elements to be
considered under this factor are Mr, Crowell's "apparent contempt for the Commission's
regulatory authority," 'and whether he can be relied upon "to comply with the Commission's rules
and policies in the future." ld. at 1867 (~9). Mr. Crowell's use of the internet is clearly relevant
and material under these factors.
5. In connection with document requests relating to the internet, Mr. Crowell also objects
because a former Commission employee allegedly "repeatedly and specifically advised the
amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put
them on the internet instead." He further contends that the actions of Commission employees are
••".Ui&iii.idPiihiM. 4 11 41. ,i • i i 1, i; 'i I II j I.
.'
'not equivalent to the actions of the Commission, and that Commission employees do not speak
,-, ", for thll,9,mmission. E.g., Applicant's Response to Document Requests 6, 12. These objections
are overruled. Once again, they have no legal basis and Mr. Crowell cites no authority supporting
,'r ,. .!)is position.
~ ,) ~
6. Mr. Crowell objects to several requests for production of documents on the ground
that "the Gommission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise," and that
Commission review of the speech of radio amateurs (such as Mr. Crowell) Violates their First
Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances, E.g.,
Applicant's Response to Document Request 10. These objections are overruled. Mr. Crowell's
arguments are, at best, premature inasmuch as his application for renewal of license has not been
denied. Therefore, his contentions provide no legitimate basis on which to preclude the Bureau
from conducting discovery on the issues set forth in the HDO.
7. Document Requests 1-6. 8-14. 19.21. Mr. Crowell's objections are overruled for the
reasons stated in the General Objections section above. The documents requested "appear[ ]
reasonably calculated to lead·to the discovery of admissible evidence." Section 1.3I1(b) of the
Commission's Rules. .
8. Document'Request 1. Many of the documents produced by Mr. Crowell refer to
attachments. However, the attachments were not provided. Mr. Crowell is directed to produce
those attachments.
9. Document Requests 2-3, 9. The documents produced by Mr. Crowell are
unresponsive to the Bureau's requests.
10. Document Requests 7,15.17-18;20. Inasmuch as Mr. Crowell represented that no
such documents exist, no further responses to these requests will be required.
11, Document Request 8. In response to this request, Mr. Crowell described several
specific documents. However, the documents described were not" in fact,produced. Mr. Crowell
is directed to produce those documents.
12. Document Requests 16. 22. Mr. Crowell's objections are sustained. The
information requested I,leed not be disclosed until the Exhibit Exchange date.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Enforcement Bureau's Motion to Compel
Responses to its First Request for Production of Documents, filed by the Bureau on June 4, 2008,
IS GRANTED to the extent discussed above and IS DENIED in all other respects.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Crowell SHALL PRODUCE the documents
requested by the Burea~ on or before January 30, 2009, or within such other perio.d oftime as the
parties may mutually agree.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Arthur I. Steinberg
AdJninistrative Law Judge

Art Bell w6obb, visits San Diego

2008-11-01T07:42:00.000-07:00

It would seem that artie did not invite ANY of us ‘locals’ for a meet-up or lunch! This left many of us living in the San Diego area with ‘hurt feelings’. We expected more from artie…

I did suggest that those of us so slighted (and it is quite a list), meet in front of the San Diego Zoo sign, and have our picture taken…

Sanity Reigns with the dismissal of the FCC case against w6wbj!

2008-10-01T21:04:00.000-07:00

Reprinted From: http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?t=177686

Re: FCC WT Docket No. 08-20; FCC Case No. 0002928684
This came in my inbox today which I pass on here without comment:

From: William Crowell <retroguybilly@gmail.com>Date: Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:21 AMSubject: Would you please correct your very harmful mistakes?To: news@arrl.orgCc: editor@qrz.com, webmaster@eham.netRe: FCC WT Docket No. 08-20; FCC Case No. 0002928684Gentlepeople:The League has been extremely unfair to me by printing, as if it werethe truth, the Commission's pronouncements about my supposed Part 97violations and "bad character". I have repeatedly denied these allegations, but you have refused to print my denials. You have seriously and gratuitously hurt my reputation within the amateur community. Would you please have the common decency to print prominently, as a news report, the fact that (after the issues were fully briefed and itbecame clear that the Commission's case was based on a completemis-statement the amateur radio law) the Enforcement Bureau has agreed to cancel the hearing in my enforcement case. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

William F. Crowell, W6WBJ
1110 Pleasant Valley Rd.Diamond Springs, CA 95619(530) 295-0350
__________________Fred Lloyd, AA7BQ Publisher, QRZ.COMaa7bq@qrz.com

Ch...Ch...Ch...Changes

2008-08-06T21:11:00.000-07:00

A brief 'wrap up' if you will, of some recent changes:

- Few, if any pics have been changed on www.hamcams.com by Paul Bowman w7mag.

- Ditto www.elitehams.net add to that Jim Southwick's n7js, pic slot is empty, is that temp or permanent? (quick, everyone, go put the theme of 'A Summer Place' on your web site!). Give us a break - take the site DOWN. Are we having fun yet, scotty???

-http://www.radiowingnuts.com/ by Steve Wingate k6txh, has some EXCELLENT new pics up, most hysterically funny, I might add. (Hey, SteveO, hope your neighbor is not just going on a vacation!). And there's no fecal material anywhere in sight!

-The brand new http://www.hamminitup.net/ Little Peeps page, by Terry kb5b, which actually had some non x-rated potential, has more or less closed by posting this message:

***NEWS FLASH ***
Well, the web site lasted two weeks. I was able to withstand fat jokes, religious concerns, etc. etc. but when my "LOYALITY" was questioned because I had a link to Hamfanz website came up in an email. That is enough, as always I treated everyone with the same respect I would like to receive. I don't dislike someone because they don't like some other of my friends. For crying out loud people, grow up..... if we all didn't talk to people that the others dislike we would not be talking to anyone....
Therefore and henceforth, the website is discontinued as it is known now

Terry didn't even get a chance before they piled on him. Sad to say, but there are many of us who could have told him what to expect...

- The LittlePeeps Log http://members.cox.net/kn6z/littlepeoplelog.htm by Glen Thurman kn6z, now has a 'slot' labeled "k6uey Orv’s pre-need slot." Good luck on THAT...

- The Pahrump Receiver. Getting reports that all anyone ever gets is band noise. Did artie leave someone in 'control' or not, and who is it?

-And yes, artie is off to the PI AGAIN, leaving 'susie' behind with his laptop, to try to bait the HamFanz Chatters. And no, no one seems to be missing him on Ham Radio, except perhaps Jim Watkins ki6gu, and Scotty k7mix, and I sure haven't asked them personally...

-The scat on scotty k7mix, is that he is scrambling to keep his job and his house. (All at once now, say: 'ohhhhhhh poor scotty').

- The behind the scenes question (among many!) regarding Ben Gardner kd7bcw, and his new wife Cherry is just HOW much did his MOM have to fork out for her son's new 'toy'???

Just a bunch of 'little stuff' folks, not one of which is big enough for a full blown HamFanz Grudge Report, but as we all know, "inquiring minds," etc.

First Annual NAMBPIG Convention

2008-07-24T14:36:00.000-07:00

The First Annual NAMBPIG Convention occurred last week in Nevada. This first year’s attendees were Airyn & Art Bell w6obb, and Cherry & Ben Gardner kd7bcw. Apparently, Sharon & Carl Richardson kb5fjx, either were not invited or artie was not willing to foot the bill for more attendees. (Also on hand, still riding on artie’s coat tails was Scott Barris k7mix.)

There were two basic venues, Pahrump and Las Vegas.

In Pahrump, the events included:
-The ‘look what I have and you don’t’ with artie winning by miles.
-Another event was Ben getting on the LittlePeeps Network, using artie’s radio equipment, in which Ben was the winner, at least by LittlePeeps standards.
-Then there was the ‘gracious’ event, in which Ben had to perform various forms of ‘thank yous’, for his wife, for the trip to Pahrump (strange that artie never paid for Ben to visit before, and of course, Ben never had the funds for such a trip being on SSD and living with his mother), and artie had to graciously accept. Equal winners here.
-Perhaps in the Pahrump venue, there might have been the bedroom ‘swapping’ event (as artie has a rumored reputation for this).

In Las Vegas, the events included:
-The tourist event, seeing a show, and having dinner with Scotty.
-A side event was the children riding amusement rides with artie

Throughout all venues, the kids, Airyn & Cherry were able to visit extensively; surely comparing notes on the problems of being married to an old man, their new roles in life, and the demands now required of them (Adult Pampers, Diabetic Diets, Viagra, and sex, sex, sex!).

It will be interesting to see what ‘events’ next year’s convention will bring! (Which is almost as much fun as a ‘Lord of the Loop’ gathering.) Perhaps more NAMBPIG’s will be in attendance.

The Little Peeps and www.hamminitup.net

2008-07-21T20:04:00.000-07:00

It absolutely had to happen, The Little People Network. The surprise was that it did not happen sooner!

Glen Thurman’s web site, The Little People Log http://members.cox.net/kn6z/littlepeoplelog.htm, is just that, a log.
Though most probably enjoy the fruits of kn6z’s painstaking, night after night work, and keeping track of the Barneys etc, there is no interactivity.

The Little Peeps are ‘graced’ in that artie w6obb (the Lord of the Loop) smiles upon their group (even sometimes joins them), therefore their audio gets streamed though the Pahrump Receiver.

With the addition of http://www.hamminitup.net/ , they now have a place to post their own pics, comments, questions, and polls. (Go make a comment, or ask a question!)

(Perhaps a future place where they can stream audio if artie cuts them off?)

The Little People’s Network is well laid out, (obviously a template, but hey!), pleasing to the eye (other than terribly small text in the body of the page!), has a few well-known links (but not one to HamFanz!), and a potential to grow into a strong component for the Little Peeps AND their listeners. However, the page tends to 'hang' up IE7...THAT needs to be fixed!

Good for them!

Elites kissed & made up?

2008-07-08T18:17:00.000-07:00

On the night of July 7, 2008, the remaining Elites were on the air. Art Bell w6obb, Jim Watkins ki6gu, Scott Barris k7mix, and various other bit players including Jim Southwick m7js, and Bill Houlne wb6bnq (with one line), showed up.

Gu and artie tried very hard to pretend that they hadn’t been on air because propagation has been so bad (and basically it has been), but that didn’t stop the LittlePeeps nor the Short Attention Span Network!

In fact, the Elites have not been on air because there was still another big blow up. It would seem that artie and Scotty accused GU of telling SOMEONE, SOMETHING. So they were calling GU a rat, took all his pics off EliteHams site, etc. and left 3820 (where GU stayed put).

Now, we are right back to square one, where we were years ago, before the FIRST split. Does artie have the right to tell other hams who they can talk to, or what they can say, or when, or how? Many do not think so, thus the repeated ‘splits’.

By now, artie is down to (literally) a handful of ‘worshipers’. So this split left artie wandering the bands in search of a home (what-propagation was not bad those nights?). It is no surprise that artie did not find any takers. I said then, that the Elites would be forced to kiss and make up.

Scotty trailed along on arties travels. When you put all your eggs in one basket, as Scotty has done big time, you are likely to end up with nothing but broken eggs. Scotty only made a very brief appearance towards the end of the night. In recent days, he has claimed that he is working 12-hour days, 7 days a week, so that he does not have time to get on air, or to do the Phone Patch. This may or may not be true, but it sure sounds like a handy and socially acceptable way to ‘distance’ himself from the whole mess.

After many days, the Elites got back together on air. They may have ‘made up’ behind the scenes, but you could almost see the animosity dripping from the radio. The appearance of Jim Southwick (whom GU actually seemed to almost attack), helped fill the long empty silences between the Elites. One cannot help but wonder if he was contacted and invited to the party for just that reason.

That night, I do not think the Elite Hams site, chat, or phone patch was mentioned by any of them. Perhaps they should just take the site down (as has been rumored that Scotty wants to do). But, I am sure that artie will find another loop worshiping subject, to carry the load for him. It is just a matter of time…

(The full, unedited recordings of that night are currently available on the HamFanz Secret Page.)

Mrs. Ben Gardner (Cherry) kd7bcw, has arrived in the US

2008-06-20T20:59:00.000-07:00

To cook in Ben’s mom’s kitchen, and sleep in Ben’s bed.

So still another NAMBPIG union has been ‘consummated’ with her arrival. And still one more immigrate has breached our shores (legal or not), as if we needed more people here.

One cannot help but wonder how Ben’s mom REALLY likes sharing her house and kitchen with another woman. I guess the women in Ben’s disability funded life, just have to ‘grin and share it’. Or perhaps Ben’s mother will come to her senses and kick the freeloaders out.

BTW, will the new Mrs. Gardner be eligible for 'spouse' disability payments? Or 'daughter-in-law' SS benefits???

It would seem that all the NAMBPIGs have gone to great trouble to ‘spruce up’ for these foreign, paid for, brides; weight loss, smoking cessation, spiffing up the house, removal of facial hair, etc. One cannot help but wonder if they had done this earlier, if they might not have found American women that would have been interested. Of course, this would probably not include twenty something’s as these are STILL old men, but suitable REAL American women. Women, not foreign, just out of their teens females, blackmailed by their terrible poverty into a marriage in order to escape. A marriage in which they will have to ‘pretend’ love and desire, every second of every day, till the old man dies and they can inherit.

Do thoughts every cross your minds of how these young women must cringe emotionally each time one of these old goats calls her ‘honey’, or possessively (and their relationship IS one of ownership) runs their hand up a young thigh? It makes me nauseous…

These imported women are physically not locked into secret basement compounds, but they are just as imprisoned by old men who ‘say’ (and have perhpaps even talked themselves into believing) they love them, when what they really mean is they are proud to now own their own ‘sex object’. And their only options are go back to abject poverty, escape their ‘importers’, or pretend, even to themselves, that all is just fine…

Welcome to the ‘game’, Cherry. But then, you may already know how it’s played.

SOME of last night’s LittlePeeps festivities celebrating this abomination (with many of Ben’s Ham peers, socially lying with their ‘congrats’) recordings will be posted on the Secret Page soon, if you have not yet heard them and have the password.

Elites, Crashed and Burned

2008-06-19T21:41:00.000-07:00

(The above pic was posted by swl 'Michael' on the EliteHams.com last week.)

Well, that did not take long did it? The Elites have not been heard on-air (together), on their usual frequency, for a couple of weeks now.

Due to a schism between Jim Watkins ki6gu and Scott Barris k7mix (the new artie ‘go to’ boy), there are now only 2.5 remaining Elites: Art Bell w6obb, Scotty k7mix, and the half Elite, Ben Gardner kd7bcw (whose heart is really with the LittlePeeps – but jeeze, artie DID paid for his wife).

The schism between Jim and Scotty was predicted weeks before it happened by all the ‘behind the scenes’ folks. It was a given, no surprise; so much so, that one can’t help wondering if artie set it up that way?

But the crash of the Elites does present some dilemmas.

What about their web site? The Elites boast that 111 folks have signed up for their chat. What in the world do the chatters talk about if there are no Elites on air?

What about the ‘phone patch’, which their web site still promotes? Have you heard a phone patch lately? I sure have not! (In the ‘spirit’ of prior, smug on air challenges for me to call in, talk to the Elites, I formally invite the Elites to come here, using their REAL NAMES, and post their views of this event, and unlike what they undoubtedly planned for me, I won’t even ‘bait’ them! Other than to say, The HamFanz site and The HamFanz Grudge Report has certainly lasted longer than a few weeks!

I have to admit, I miss listening to them, ALL of them. I especially miss listening to them as they were a couple of years ago, when artie’s worshipers numbered in the dozens, and the band (3840 then) sizzled with hams and interesting conversations. Of course, that was pre Airyn Bell. (artie, has anyone mentioned that you cannot have it all?)

Other than leaving all the Elite ‘fans’ in the lurch ONCE AGAIN, there is a funny side to all of this. That funny side is hearing artie intrude on other on-air groups, usually with Scotty in tow, trying to find worshipers to convert. My guess would be that Jim ki6gu is ‘sitting’ on 3720, and artie and Scotty cannot go back there without doing a LOT of knee bending.

Artie is obviously looking for a place to take over and call home. Yes, artie is indeed looking for a home, in all kinds of ways!

Since artie, in recent months, is making enemies (Greg w6ezv, Jim ki6gu) of Elites faster than he can find replacements, perhaps he should just move to the PI’s and stay there. He has about run out of people here… (Note that I say ‘people’ and not friends, because artie does not know how to be a ‘friend’.)

Gracious LittlePeeps

2008-06-09T20:43:00.000-07:00

Last night, the Little Peeps were extremely gracious as artie w6obb, and Stan wg6k invaded their frequency; especially Glen kn6z. and Moody wq6i.

Stan wg6k moves around the bands often, to see whats going on, and seems comfortable everywhere. But artie w6obb? Abandon the Elites? I smell a 'rat'...

Here's a great clip of artie saying something I am sure he 'choked' on:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/9/22/1450734/2008.06.09_w6obb%20BackToGlen.mp3

As usual, the full unedited recordings are on the now HamFanz FREE Secret Page!

Radio Hall of Fame

2008-06-07T13:16:00.000-07:00

Have you voted??? Voting is open from 5.1.08 through 7.15.08.

There are several interesting categories. Art Bell w60bb, is one of four broadcasters in the pioneer division.

Now remember, this is not based on anyone's personal life, but on broadcasting achievements!

Follow this link to start the voting process: http://www.museum.tv/rhofsection.php

The Saga Continues, w6wbj

2008-06-06T09:20:00.000-07:00

The Saga Continues, w6wbj

For those that might not have yet read the latest chapter in the FCC vs William Crowell, here is the latest installment. (Yawn – but actually important stuff!) There was a link to this document on w6wbj’s site, but it’s not there now.

BTW, w6wbj was heard chatting up (taunting?) the Elites one night this last week…

Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of ) WT Docket No. 08-20
)
WILLIAM F. CROWELL ) FCC File No. 0002928684
)
Application to Renew License for )
Amateur Service Station W6WBJ )

To: Enforcement Bureau
Federal Communications Commission

APPLICANT’S ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO
ENFORCEMENT BUREAU’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
PROPOUNDED TO APPLICANT
[47 C.F.R., Part I, Subpart B, § 1.323(b)]

Pursuant to Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part I, Subpart B, §1.323(b), Applicant hereby responds and interposes the following objections to the Enforcement Bureau’s First Set of Interrogatories propounded to him, dated May 16, 2008:

1. Identify all radio licenses you currently hold and the date(s) of issuance.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory because the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.

2. Provide all email addresses you have used and all email accounts in your name and, for each, identify who, if anyone, other than yourself has or had access to or otherwise has or had the ability to draft and send email correspondence from each and any such accounts;

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that the Request is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the ground that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.

3. Provide all nicknames, handles, aliases, or other names you have used in emails, in amateur radio communications, or otherwise (i.e., "Retroguy," "Billy the Bill Collector," etc.).

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.

4. Provide all internet website addresses that you have used to post comments relating to amateur radio, other amateur radio operators, the Commission, and/or any Commission employee.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Among other reasons for being irrelevant, the Interrogatory improperly equates, and therefore confuses, the actions of Riley Hollingsworth with the actions of the Commission. They are not the same because Hollingsworth does not speak for the Commission, since the Commission itself promulgated Part 97 but Hollingsworth’s so-called “interpretations” thereof are entirely inconsistent with and contrary to Part 97’s plain meaning. Therefore, whether or not Applicant respects Riley Hollingsworth is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Applicant respects and follows the Commission’s Rules.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Part 97, §97.3(4) provides that the purpose of the amateur radio service is to exchange messages of a purely personal nature, and the Commission has not adduced any evidence to suggest that this is not exactly what Applicant was doing in all of his radio transmissions. Nowhere else in Part 97 does the Commission specify any impermissible subjects of amateur conversation, and every attempt to amend Part 97 so as to specify any such impermissible subjects of discussion has failed. Therefore radio amateurs have the same full range of free-speech rights on the air as any U.S. citizen has in private conversation, and any attempt by the Commission to deny Applicant’s renewal based upon a post facto review of Applicant’s speech violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.

5. Identify each person you expect to call as a witness at hearing and, as to each person identified:
a. state the specific matter of his/her anticipated testimony; and
b. summarize his/her anticipated testimony.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in refusing to answer Applicant's Interrogatories, Applicant has insufficient information to answer this Interrogatory. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.

6. Identify each person you expect to call as an expert witness at hearing and, as to each person so identified:
a. state the specific subject matter of his/her anticipated testimony;
b. state the precise facts as to which the expert is expected to testify;
c. state the opinions expected to be presented by the witness;
d. state the basis for each such opinion;
e. state whether the witness is being paid, in money, services, or otherwise, to testify on your behalf and, if so, state the date, amount and method of each payment for, or in anticipation of, such testimony;
f. state the nature of your relationship with the expert;
g. provide the curriculum vitae and/or a comprehensive summary of the educational and professional experience relied upon to qualify each such witness as an expert.
Applicant objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in refusing to answer Applicant's Interrogatories, Applicant has insufficient information to answer this Interrogatory. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Applicant responds as follows:
I intend to call and qualify myself as an expert witness in amateur radio service history, law and regulations.
a. Essentially that, by his misbegotten interpretations of Part 97 and his mistaken actions, Riley Hollingsworth has amply demonstrated that he has little or no knowledge of the plain and correct meaning of Part 97, and that most of the allegations that Hollingsworth has alleged against Applicant don’t constitute a Part 97 violation in the first instance. The bases for my expert opinion would be my excellent legal education, my many years of studying Part 97 and the reported amateur case decisions, and my years of observing Riley Hollingsworth deliberately misinterpret and distort the plain meaning of Part 97, and play favoritism in its enforcement, to achieve some kind of ulterior agenda. Obviously I am not going to pay myself anything. My qualifications include a Batchelor of Arts degree in Political Science from the University of California at Berkeley (1968), a Doctorate of Laws degree from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law (1972); admission to the California Bar on the first attempt at passing the bar exam; my unblemished professional record and my many years of legal study.
I further intend to call Robert D. Weller, a Professional Engineer with the Commission’s Office of Engineering and Technology, who is an expert in radio-frequency radiation exposure. His qualifications are obviously already known and acceptable to you. I believe he will testify that there exists not enough inherent energy in a radio wave in the amateur service high-frequency bands to have caused the temporary insanity which Riley Hollingsworth admitted he suffered when he told amateur operators that they may not use phonetics to identify their stations, and that therefore there must be some other cause for his admitted temporary insanity, if indeed it is temporary at all.

7. Explain why you applied for a call sign change on or about January 24, 2006.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.

8. Explain what, if anything, your vanity call sign, W6WBJ (in whole or in part) stands for or means.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.

9. State whether you have ever referred to yourself during a radio transmission or otherwise as the "World's Best Jammer" and/or otherwise stated that the letters WBJ in your vanity call sign stand for the "World's Best Jammer." If so:
a. provide the date and time of each such statement;
b. describe the method used to make and publish each such statement; and
c. identify each person to whom it was made;
d. If such statement was broadcast via a radio transmission, identify specifically and in detail:
i. the date and time of each and any such transmission;
ii. the frequency upon which each and any such transmission was broadcast;
iii. each person you have reason to believe heard each or any such transmission.
e. If such statement was contained in correspondence including, but not limited to, email, identify specifically and in detail:
i. the address you used to send each and any such message containing such statement;
ii. the addressee and recipient of each and any such message you sent including, but not limited to, the address of each such individual;
ii. text of each and any such message.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Part 97, §97.3(4) provides that the purpose of the amateur radio service is to exchange messages of a purely personal nature, and the Commission has not adduced any evidence to suggest that this is not exactly what Applicant was doing in all of his radio transmissions. Nowhere else in Part 97 does the Commission specify any impermissible subjects of amateur conversation, and every attempt to amend Part 97 so as to specify any such impermissible subjects of discussion has failed. Therefore radio amateurs have the same full range of free-speech rights on the air as any U.S. citizen has in private conversation, and any attempt by the Commission to deny Applicant’s renewal based upon a post facto review of Applicant’s speech violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.

10. State whether you have ever referred to yourself during a radio transmission or otherwise as the "World's Biggest Jammer" and/or otherwise stated that the letters WBJ in your vanity call sign stand for the "World's Biggest Jammer." If so:
a. provide the date and time of each such statement;
b. describe the method used to make and publish each such statement; and
c. identify each person to whom it was made;
d. If such statement was broadcast via a radio transmission, identify specifically and in detail:
i. the date and time of each and any such transmission;
ii. the frequency upon which each and any such transmission was broadcast;
iii. each person you have reason to believe heard each or any such transmission.
e. If such statement was contained in correspondence including, but not limited to, email, identify specifically and in detail:
i. the address you used to send each and any such message containing such statement;
ii. the addressee and recipient of each and any such message you sent including, but not limited to, the address of each such individual;
iii. text of each and any such message.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects on the ground that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Part 97, §97.3(4) provides that the purpose of the amateur radio service is to exchange messages of a purely personal nature, and the Commission has not adduced any evidence to suggest that this is not exactly what Applicant was doing in all of his radio transmissions. Nowhere else in Part 97 does the Commission specify any impermissible subjects of amateur conversation, and every attempt to amend Part 97 so as to specify any such impermissible subjects of discussion has failed. Therefore radio amateurs have the same full range of free-speech rights on the air as any U.S. citizen has in private conversation, and any attempt by the Commission to deny Applicant’s renewal based upon a post facto review of Applicant’s speech violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Applicant further objects hereto on the ground that this Interrogatory is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, absent a preliminary showing that the mere complaint constitutes a Part 97 violation.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.

11. State whether you have ever referred to yourself during a radio transmission or otherwise as the "Water Buffalo Jammer" and/or otherwise stated that the letters WBJ in your vanity call sign stand for "Water Buffalo Jammer." If so,
a. provide the date and time of each such statement;
b. describe the method used to make and publish each such statement; and
c. identify each person to whom it was made;
d. If such statement was broadcast via a radio transmission, identify specifically and in detail:
i. the date and time of each and any such transmission;
ii. the frequency upon which each and any such transmission was broadcast;
iii. each person you have reason to believe heard each or any such transmission.
e. If such statement was contained in correspondence including, but not limited to, email, identify specifically and in detail:
i. the address you used to send each and any such message containing such statement;
ii. the addressee and recipient of each and any such message you sent including, but not limited to, the address of each such individual;
iii. text of each and any such message.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Part 97, §97.3(4) provides that the purpose of the amateur radio service is to exchange messages of a purely personal nature, and the Commission has not adduced any evidence to suggest that this is not exactly what Applicant was doing in all of his radio transmissions. Nowhere else in Part 97 does the Commission specify any impermissible subjects of amateur conversation, and every attempt to amend Part 97 so as to specify any such impermissible subjects of discussion has failed. Therefore radio amateurs have the same full range of free-speech rights on the air as any U.S. citizen has in private conversation, and any attempt by the Commission to deny Applicant’s renewal based upon a post facto review of Applicant’s speech violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.

12. State whether you have ever referred to yourself during a radio transmission, in an email, or otherwise not previously disclosed herein, as a "jammer" or "Jammer." If so:

a. provide the date and time of each such statement;
b. describe the method used to make and publish each such statement; and
c. identify each person to whom it was made;
d. If such statement was broadcast via a radio transmission, identify
specifically and in detail:
i. the date and time of each and any such transmission;
ii. the frequency upon which each and any such transmission was broadcast;
iii. each person you have reason to believe heard each or any such transmission.
e. If such statement was contained in correspondence including, but not limited to, email, identify specifically and in detail:
i. the address you used to send each and any such message containing such statement;
ii. the addressee and recipient of each and any such message you sent including, but not limited to, the address of each such individual;
iii. text of each and any such message.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Part 97, §97.3(4) provides that the purpose of the amateur radio service is to exchange messages of a purely personal nature, and the Commission has not adduced any evidence to suggest that this is not exactly what Applicant was doing in all of his radio transmissions. Nowhere else in Part 97 does the Commission specify any impermissible subjects of amateur conversation, and every attempt to amend Part 97 so as to specify any such impermissible subjects of discussion has failed. Therefore radio amateurs have the same full range of free-speech rights on the air as any U.S. citizen has in private conversation, and any attempt by the Commission to deny Applicant’s renewal based upon a post facto review of Applicant’s speech violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.

13. State whether you have or have ever had an account on www.eHam.net. If so:
a. state whether you prepared, created, or authored a user profile for your account.
b. provide the dates the account was opened and, if applicable, closed.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant further objects hereto on the ground that this Interrogatory is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, absent a preliminary showing that the mere complaint constitutes a Part 97 violation.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.
14. State whether the user profile for the www.eHam.net account for W6WBJ states that with respect to ham radio, you are most proud of receiving two warning notices from that buttwad [sic] Riley Hollingsworth." If so, state whether you drafted, prepared, or otherwise consented to that response being posted in the user profile that is or was associated with your amateur radio call sign.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Part 97, §97.3(4) provides that the purpose of the amateur radio service is to exchange messages of a purely personal nature, and the Commission has not adduced any evidence to suggest that this is not exactly what Applicant was doing in all of his radio transmissions. Nowhere else in Part 97 does the Commission specify any impermissible subjects of amateur conversation, and every attempt to amend Part 97 so as to specify any such impermissible subjects of discussion has failed. Therefore radio amateurs have the same full range of free-speech rights on the air as any U.S. citizen has in private conversation, and any attempt by the Commission to deny Applicant’s renewal based upon a post facto review of Applicant’s speech violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.

15. State whether the email addresses bcrowell@excite.com and
retroguybilly@gmail.com are registered to you. If so, identify who, if anyone, other than yourself has access to or otherwise has the ability to draft and send email correspondence from either or both accounts.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant further objects hereto on the ground that this Interrogatory is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, absent a preliminary showing that the mere complaint constitutes a Part 97 violation.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.

16. State whether you maintain or have ever maintained a web page located at the internet 'address http://hamjamming.com or www.hamjamming.com (hereinafter, either or both are refened to as "hamjamming.com"). If so:
a. specify the date when you created such web page,
b. specify the dates when you maintained such web page and, if applicable,
c. specify the date when you ceased to operate such web page.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant further objects hereto on the ground that this Interrogatory is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, absent a preliminary showing that the mere complaint constitutes a Part 97 violation.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.

17. State whether the main page or first screen of the hamjamming.com web page contains the picture attached hereto as Exhibit 1. If so:
a. identify who created the picture;
b. identify who posted the picture on the hamjamming.com web page.
c. state whether the picture was distributed other than on the hamjamming.com web page. If so:
i. identify each person who distributed it;
ii. identify to whom it was distributed;
iii. specify the date and time of each such publication and/or distribution; and
iv. describe the method used to publish and/or distribute it.
d. If the picture was distributed via email, identify:
i. the email addressees) used to send each email message containing the picture;
ii. the addressee(s) and recipient(s) of each email sent and provide the email address for each such addressee and recipient;
iii. the text of each and any such email.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.

18. State whether you, or someone on your behalf or at your request or direction, created or assisted in the creation of each of the pictures or other documents attached hereto as Exhibits 2 through 13. If so, identify each of the Exhibits which you created or helped create and, for each such Exhibit:
a. state when the exhibit was created;
b. explain why you created the exhibit;
c. identify each person who cooperated or otherwise assisted with the creation of the exhibit;
d. identify each and any person or entity who published or otherwise distributed the exhibit;
e. identify to whom the exhibit was published or otherwise distributed;
f. state whether you or someone at your request or on your behalf posted the exhibit on any web page. If so:
i. identify each and any web page on which the exhibit was posted;
ii. for each web page identified, state the date and time when the exhibit was posted;
iii. for each web page identified, state whether the exhibit was removed and, if so, the date and time when it was removed.
g. State whether you, or someone on your behalf or at your request or direction, posted the exhibit on the hamjamming.com web page. If so:
i. state the date and time when the exhibit was posted;
ii. state whether the exhibit was removed and, if so, by whom and the date and time when of its removal.
h. identify each and any person known to you who posted this exhibit on a web page or removed it from a web page and, for each such person, identify the web page and state whether he/she posted it, removed it, or did both.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.

19. State whether you or someone on your behalf or otherwise at your request or direction prepared the Good Operator the Report attached hereto as Exhibit 14.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the ground that this Interrogatory is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, absent a preliminary showing that the mere complaint constitutes a Part 97 violation.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.

20. State whether you published Exhibit 14 or otherwise cause it to be published online or otherwise. If so:
a. identify the date, time, and location of such publication; and.
b. identify the reason for such publication.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.

21. State whether you distributed, published, or otherwise disclosed any letter you received from the Commission or anyone on its behalf on the hamjamming.com web page, any other web page, or in another forum. If so, for each such web page or forum used to publish the letter(s), identify:
a. the web page or forum internet address on which each letter was published or distributed;
b. the publisher of each letter;
each person who submitted each letter for publication or posting;
c. the title of the article or posting in which each letter appeared;
d. the date when each article or posting was published or posted;
e. explain why each letter was published or posted.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.

22. State whether you are the author of the article, "All Hams Need a Secret Jamming Location" that appeared on www.eHam.net on or about August 31, 2004. If so:
a. explain why you wrote the article;
b. identify each web page or forum to which you submitted the article;
c. specify each date the article was published by or posted on, each web page or forum identified in subsection (b), above.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.

23. Identify any and all articles about amateur radio that you have written which have been published. For each such article:
a. explain why you wrote the article;
b. identify each web page or forum to which you submitted the article;
c. provide each date the article was published by, or posted on, each web page or forum identified in subsection (b) above.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Part 97, §97.3(4) provides that the purpose of the amateur radio service is to exchange messages of a purely personal nature, and the Commission has not adduced any evidence to suggest that this is not exactly what Applicant was doing in all of his radio transmissions. Nowhere else in Part 97 does the Commission specify any impermissible subjects of amateur conversation, and every attempt to amend Part 97 so as to specify any such impermissible subjects of discussion has failed. Furthermore, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants Applicant the right of free speech off-the-air. Therefore radio amateurs have the same full range of free-speech rights on the air as any U.S. citizen has in private conversation, and any attempt by the Commission to deny Applicant’s renewal based upon a post facto review of Applicant’s speech, whether on or off the air, violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.

24. State whether you have ever had any communication with the Commission, its employees and/or staff regarding allegations that you engaged in deliberate interference to ongoing communications. If so, as to each such communication:
a. state the date of the communication;
b. state whether the communication was written or oral;
c. identify each party to or person who participated in the communication;
d. summarize the substance of the communication;
e. state the purpose of the communication and any response thereto; and
f. identify each witness to the communication.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Among other reasons for being irrelevant, the Interrogatory improperly equates, and therefore confuses, the actions of Riley Hollingsworth with the actions of the Commission. They are not the same because Hollingsworth does not speak for the Commission, since the Commission itself promulgated Part 97 but Hollingsworth’s so-called “interpretations” thereof are entirely inconsistent with and contrary to Part 97’s plain meaning. Therefore, whether or not Applicant respects Riley Hollingsworth is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Applicant respects and follows the Commission’s Rules.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Radio amateurs have the same right as any other U.S. citizen to complain to the federal government, or its agencies, when its employees perform their jobs incompetently, as Riley Hollingsworth has done herein. Therefore, any attempt by the Commission to deny Applicant’s renewal based upon his complaints about Riley Hollingsworth’s many mistakes violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in refusing to answer Applicant's Interrogatories, Applicant has insufficient information to answer this Interrogatory. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s emails to Riley Hollingsworth because Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s alleged entrance into existing QSOs because Riley Hollingsworth had previously advised Alan Strauss, WA4JTK, that he interpreted Sec. 97.101(b) as requiring amateurs to share the frequency in such circumstances, and Applicant relied upon Hollingsworth’s said interpretation.
Without waiving the foregoing objections, Applicant refers the Enforcement Bureau to, and hereby incorporates, the Exhibits attached to Applicant’s Response to the Bureau’s First Request for Production of Documents.

25. State whether you have ever had any communication with the Commission, its employees and/or staff regarding a license renewal and/or vanity call sign application filed by you or on your behalf. If so, as to each such communication:
a. state the date of the communication;
b. state whether the communication was written or oral;
c. identify each party to or person who participated in the communication;
d. summarize the substance of the communication;
e. state the purpose of the communication and any response thereto; and
f. identify each witness to the communication.
Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in refusing to answer Applicant's Interrogatories, Applicant has insufficient information to answer this Interrogatory. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Without waiving the foregoing objections, Applicant refers the Enforcement Bureau to, and hereby incorporates, the Exhibits attached to Applicant’s Response to the Bureau’s First Request for Production of Documents.

26. State whether you have ever had any communication with the Commission, its employees and/or staff, regarding complaints received by the Commission about your allegedly unauthorized, improper, and/or illegal actions. If so, as to each such communication:
a. state the date of the communication;
b. state whether the communication was written or oral;
c. identify each party to and person who participated in the communication;
d. summarize the substance of the communication;
e. state the purpose of the communication and any response thereto; and
f. identify each witness to the communication.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in refusing to answer Applicant's Interrogatories, Applicant has insufficient information to answer this Interrogatory. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Without waiving the foregoing objections, Applicant refers the Enforcement Bureau to, and hereby incorporates, the Exhibits attached to Applicant’s Response to the Bureau’s First Request for Production of Documents.

27. State whether, on the morning of April 05, 2008 at 10:02:00 a.m., you posted a comment on the website at http://hamfanz.blogspot.com/search/labellw6wbj. If so: state whether the comment referenced "A high-ranking FCC employee, who is a ham, [who] is sympathetic to my case and wishes to remain anonymous" and, if so, identify the FCC employee to whom you so referenced. State further whether the comment also referenced another, male "FCC staff person with whom I have been speaking" and, if so, identify that FCC staff member.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Applicant has a Constitutional right to contact FCC employees to discuss his case, and any attempt by the Commission to inquire into said communications denies Applicant’s rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Applicant further objects hereto on the ground that this Interrogatory is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, absent a preliminary showing that the mere complaint constitutes a Part 97 violation.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Without waiving the foregoing objections, when are the federal agencies going to stop lying about their mail problems? There is definitely something wrong when the federal government cannot, or will not, receive mail from its taxpaying citizens on the pretext of an infectious disease scare. It has become obvious that federal employees are using this pretext not to open their mail, in order to lighten their workloads, and the public is becoming aware that their mail is never opened. For the agencies to lie about it, by denying that they really have a mail problem, and that it is somehow the citizen’s fault that his mail is not being received, merely represents insult added to injury. Didn’t it ever occur to you that this is a symptom of a disintegrating governmental system? If this problem is not corrected soon, the public will interpret it as a virtual admission by the U.S. government that it lacks the inherent power, internal authority and structure to sustain itself in the long term.

28. Describe specifically and in detail all steps you have taken in an effort to eliminate interference in response to the Commission letter to you dated August 21, 2000.

Applicant objects hereto on the ground that this Interrogatory is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, absent a preliminary showing that the complaints in question constitute a Part 97 violation.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that, due to its bad faith and arbitrary and capricious regulatory conduct in failing to have a screening mechanism for complaints not rising to the level of a Part 97 violation, and absent a preliminary showing that the complaint rises to the level of a Part 97 violation, the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning mere complaints.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s alleged entrance into existing QSOs because Riley Hollingsworth had previously advised Alan Strauss, WA4JTK, that he interpreted Sec. 97.101(b) as requiring amateurs to share the frequency in such circumstances, and Applicant relied upon Hollingsworth’s said interpretation.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting discovery on this issue due to the bad-faith conduct of Riley Hollingsworth in throwing away, or otherwise failing to read, every communication from Applicant, and in conspiring with other radio amateurs to set Applicant up for an intentional interference violation.

29. State whether you ever volunteered to refrain from using the 3820 frequency. If so:
a. describe specifically and in detail the circumstances by which you agreed not to use that that frequency;
b. state when the agreement was made;
c. identify each person with whom you agreed not to use the frequency;
d. state whether the agreement was written and, if so:
i. state the title, if any, of the agreement;
ii. state when the written agreement was executed;
iii. identify each party to the written agreement;
e. provide the date when you last broadcast over the 3820 frequency;
f. state whether you continue to refrain from using the 3820 frequency.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it does not comply with Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1, Subpart A, §1.19, in that it cannot be determined what units of frequency measurement are being used therein.
Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the ground that this Interrogatory is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, absent a preliminary showing that the mere complaint constitutes a Part 97 violation.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that, due to its bad faith and arbitrary and capricious regulatory conduct in failing to have a screening mechanism for complaints not rising to the level of a Part 97 violation, and absent a preliminary showing that the complaint rises to the level of a Part 97 violation, the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning mere complaints.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s alleged entrance into existing QSOs because Riley Hollingsworth had previously advised Alan Strauss, WA4JTK, that he interpreted Sec. 97.101(b) as requiring amateurs to share the frequency in such circumstances, and Applicant relied upon Hollingsworth’s said interpretation.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting discovery on this issue due to the bad-faith conduct of Riley Hollingsworth in throwing away, or otherwise failing to read, every communication from Applicant, and in conspiring with other radio amateurs to set Applicant up for an intentional interference violation

30. State whether you were ever instructed to not use the 3820 frequency. If so:
a. describe specifically and in detail the circumstances by which you were instructed to refrain from using that frequency;
b. state when the instruction was given;
c. identify each person(s) who instructed you not to use the frequency;
d. state whether that instruction was written and, if so, for each written instruction:
ii. provide the date(s) the instruction was written and sent;
ii. provide the date the instruction was received; lll. identify each person who signed the instruction.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it does not comply with Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1, Subpart A, §1.19, in that it cannot be determined what units of frequency measurement are being used therein.
Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the ground that this Interrogatory is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, absent a preliminary showing that the mere complaint constitutes a Part 97 violation.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that, due to its bad faith and arbitrary and capricious regulatory conduct in failing to have a screening mechanism for complaints not rising to the level of a Part 97 violation, and absent a preliminary showing that the complaint rises to the level of a Part 97 violation, the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning mere complaints.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s alleged entrance into existing QSOs because Riley Hollingsworth had previously advised Alan Strauss, WA4JTK, that he interpreted Sec. 97.101(b) as requiring amateurs to share the frequency in such circumstances, and Applicant relied upon Hollingsworth’s said interpretation.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting discovery on this issue due to the bad-faith conduct of Riley Hollingsworth in throwing away, or otherwise failing to read, every communication from Applicant, and in conspiring with other radio amateurs to set Applicant up for an intentional interference violation

31. State whether you have ever referred to W. Riley Hollingsworth ("Hollingsworth") during an on-air transmission(s),on the hamjamming.com web page, in any internet blog, in correspondence, or otherwise as any or all of the following: "Princess," "Hollywood," "Mr. Hollywood," "Riley Hollywood," "Tsarina Hollywood," "Tsarina," and/or "Colonel Klink-Hollywood." If so, for each such name used:
a. state the name;
b. provide each date when such name was used;
c. describe the type of communication containing each such name (i. e., letter, blog, etc.);
d. describe the circumstances in which you used the name;
e. explain specifically and in detail your reason for doing so.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Among other reasons for being irrelevant, the Interrogatory improperly equates, and therefore confuses, the actions of Riley Hollingsworth with the actions of the Commission. They are not the same because Hollingsworth does not speak for the Commission, since the Commission itself promulgated Part 97 but Hollingsworth’s so-called “interpretations” thereof are entirely inconsistent with and contrary to Part 97’s plain meaning. Therefore, whether or not Applicant respects Riley Hollingsworth is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Applicant respects and follows the Commission’s Rules.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Applicant possesses the same full range of free-speech rights on the internet and elsewhere as any U.S. citizen has in private conversation, and any attempt by the Commission to deny Applicant’s renewal based upon a post facto review of Applicant’s speech violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting discovery on this issue due to the bad-faith conduct of Riley Hollingsworth in throwing away, or otherwise failing to read, every communication from Applicant, and in conspiring with other radio amateurs to set Applicant up for an intentional interference violation.

32. State whether in a blog posting on or about August 31, 2004, on www.eHam.net regarding "All Hams Need a Secret Jamming Location" you stated, "If we all set up SJL's [secret jamming locations], it would have the added advantage of actually giving Riley [Hollingsworth] something to do besides sending out his form letter warning notices, permit him to save a lot of money on Vaselene [sic], and give his right hand a well-deserved rest."

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Among other reasons for being irrelevant, the Interrogatory improperly equates, and therefore confuses, the actions of Riley Hollingsworth with the actions of the Commission. They are not the same because Hollingsworth does not speak for the Commission, since the Commission itself promulgated Part 97 but Hollingsworth’s so-called “interpretations” thereof are entirely inconsistent with and contrary to Part 97’s plain meaning. Therefore, whether or not Applicant respects Riley Hollingsworth is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Applicant respects and follows the Commission’s Rules.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Applicant possesses the same full range of free-speech rights on the internet and elsewhere as any U.S. citizen has in private conversation, and any attempt by the Commission to deny Applicant’s renewal based upon a post facto review of Applicant’s speech violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting discovery on this issue due to the bad-faith conduct of Riley Hollingsworth in throwing away, or otherwise failing to read, every communication from Applicant, and in conspiring with other radio amateurs to set Applicant up for an intentional interference violation.

33. State whether in response to a blog posting by "Goodbuddy" on August 31, 2004 (stating: "Yeah most of us have heard old Billy Boy's behavior on 3840. A fine example of how to harass and interfere with on going [sic] QSO's. The echo effects were nice Billy.") you responded by stating, "but how did you like Bilitzniklick the Martian... and The Creature from the Black Slacks Lagoon... I thought they were even better than the reverb! .... Man that Behringer DSP-2024 digital audio processor is a fantastic unit." If so" describe specifically and in detail what you are referring to by "Bilitzniklick the Martian" and "The Creature from the Black Slacks Lagoon."

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Applicant possesses the same full range of free-speech rights on the internet and elsewhere as any U.S. citizen has in private conversation, and any attempt by the Commission to deny Applicant’s renewal based upon a post facto review of Applicant’s speech violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting discovery on this issue due to the bad-faith conduct of Riley Hollingsworth in throwing away, or otherwise failing to read, every communication from Applicant, and in conspiring with other radio amateurs to set Applicant up for an intentional interference violation.

34. State whether in response to an internet website posting on www.eHam.net. you sent an email to rinehard@troyst.edu ("Rinehard") on August 31,2004 at 20: 18:56 (EDT). If so:

a. did you call Rinehard a "loser" or refer to his profession [professor of political science] as "bullshit artists," a "bunch of idiots" and/or other insulting terms in that email? If so, state each term used to describe Rinehard and his profession;
b. Explain specifically and in detail each reason for your email to Rinehard and the remarks made in it;
c. provide each email address used to send this email;
d. provide each email address copied on this email;
e. state whether you have ever corresponded or otherwise communicated with Rinehard. If so:
i. provide the date of each such communication;
ii. provide the method used for each such communication (i.e., email);
iii. provide the text of each such communication. If the text is not available, provide a detailed summary of the communication, including, but not limited to, each insulting word or phrase used therein;
iv. If the communication was via email, provide:
a. each email address used to send the email;
b. each email address used for Rinehard;
c. the email address of each person copied on your email to Rinehard
and an explanation regarding why you copied each individual on the email.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Applicant possesses the same full range of free-speech rights on the internet and elsewhere as any U.S. citizen has in private conversation, and any attempt by the Commission to deny Applicant’s renewal based upon a post facto review of Applicant’s speech violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting discovery on this issue due to the bad-faith conduct of Riley Hollingsworth in throwing away, or otherwise failing to read, every communication from Applicant, and in conspiring with other radio amateurs to set Applicant up for an intentional interference violation.

35. State whether in response to a blog posting by NlVLQ on www.eHam.net regarding "All Hams Need a Secret Jamming Location" you, on September 4, 2004, stated: "[I]t's hard not to appear [like a know-it-all] by comparison to Tsarina Hollywood because she knows so little." If so, identify "Tsarina Hollywood."
Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Applicant possesses the same full range of free-speech rights on the internet and elsewhere as any U.S. citizen has in private conversation, and any attempt by the Commission to deny Applicant’s renewal based upon a post facto review of Applicant’s speech violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting discovery on this issue due to the bad-faith conduct of Riley Hollingsworth in throwing away, or otherwise failing to read, every communication from Applicant, and in conspiring with other radio amateurs to set Applicant up for an intentional interference violation.

36. State whether in response to a blog internet website posting by KK6SM on www.eHam.net regarding "All Hams Need a Secret Jamming Location" you, on September 6, 2004, stated, "[J]amming is not wrong! My authority for saying so is none other than Riley Hollywood himself. .. , He has informed several stations, in writing, that it is OK to jam other stations whom they feel are violating Part 97." If so, explain specifically and in detail why you stated that "jamming is not wrong." Identify the writings you are referring to in your blog response.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Applicant possesses the same full range of free-speech rights on the internet and elsewhere as any U.S. citizen has in private conversation, and any attempt by the Commission to deny Applicant’s renewal based upon a post facto review of Applicant’s speech violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting discovery on this issue due to the bad-faith conduct of Riley Hollingsworth in throwing away, or otherwise failing to read, every communication from Applicant, and in conspiring with other radio amateurs to set Applicant up for an intentional interference violation.
Without waiving the foregoing objections, Applicant refers the Bureau to, and hereby incorporates, Exhibits “B” and “C” of his Responses to the Bureau’s First Request for Production of Documents addressed to him.

37. State whether in a blog posting on or about September 9,2004, on www.eHam.net regarding "Ford, you're right for once" you stated, "Yes, Ford, I do have an agenda and I freely admit to it. I want to get the Tsarina's ass canned." If so, identify "Tsarina."
Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Applicant possesses the same full range of free-speech rights on the internet and elsewhere as any U.S. citizen has in private conversation, and any attempt by the Commission to deny Applicant’s renewal based upon a post facto review of Applicant’s speech violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting discovery on this issue due to the bad-faith conduct of Riley Hollingsworth in throwing away, or otherwise failing to read, every communication from Applicant, and in conspiring with other radio amateurs to set Applicant up for an intentional interference violation.
Without waiving the foregoing objections: apparently democracy still works in this country. My political pressure, and that of many other amateur radio operators, forced Hollingsworth to retire prematurely.

38. State whether in a blog posting on or about April 16,2007, on www.eHam.net regarding "FCC Amateur Radio Enforcement Correspondence Posted" you stated, "I have made absolutely no changes in my operating habits or procedures as the result of the letters Mr. Hollingsworth has sent me, nor do I intend to make any such changes. Riley Hollingsworth is full of crap. I never listen to a thing he says. . .. 'F' you, Riley!"

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Among other reasons for being irrelevant, the Interrogatory improperly equates, and therefore confuses, the actions of Riley Hollingsworth with the actions of the Commission. They are not the same because Hollingsworth does not speak for the Commission, since the Commission itself promulgated Part 97 but Hollingsworth’s so-called “interpretations” thereof are entirely inconsistent with and contrary to Part 97’s plain meaning. Therefore, whether or not Applicant respects Riley Hollingsworth is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Applicant respects and follows the Commission’s Rules.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Radio amateurs have the same full range of free-speech rights, both on and off the air, as any U.S. citizen has in private conversation, and any attempt by the Commission to deny Applicant’s renewal based upon a post facto review of Applicant’s speech violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting discovery on this issue due to the bad-faith conduct of Riley Hollingsworth in throwing away, or otherwise failing to read, every communication from Applicant, and in conspiring with other radio amateurs to set Applicant up for an intentional interference violation

39. State whether you have ever used equipment to mask, alter, or otherwise distort your voice during any transmission on any amateur radio frequency. If so, for each such transmission:
a. describe specifically and in detail the nature and content of your transmission;
b. state the frequency on which your transmission was made;
c. state the date and time of your transmission;
d. state the duration of your transmission;
e. describe specifically the equipment used to mask, alter or distort your voice;
Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Part 97, §97.3(4) provides that the purpose of the amateur radio service is to exchange messages of a purely personal nature, and the Commission has not adduced any evidence to suggest that this is not exactly what Applicant was doing in all of his radio transmissions. Nowhere else in Part 97 does the Commission specify any impermissible subjects of amateur conversation, and every attempt to amend Part 97 so as to specify any such impermissible subjects of discussion has failed. Therefore radio amateurs have the same full range of free-speech rights on the air as any U.S. citizen has in private conversation, and any attempt by the Commission to deny Applicant’s renewal based upon a post facto review of Applicant’s speech violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that, due to its bad faith and arbitrary and capricious regulatory conduct in failing to have a screening mechanism for complaints nor rising to the level of a Part 97 violation, and absent a preliminary showing that the complaint rises to the level of a Part 97 violation, the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning mere complaints.

40. State whether you transmitted music on any amateur radio frequency on the evening of November 23, 2005 or on the morning of November 24, 2005. If so, for each such transmission:
a. state the date and time of the transmission;
b. state the frequency on which such transmission was made;
c. state the duration of the transmission;
d. describe specifically and in detail the nature and content of such transmission;
e. describe with specificity the equipment used for the transmission.

Applicant objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Applicant states that he has never played music on the ham radio, and that the Enforcement Bureau ought to stop listening to Riley Hollingsworth’s lies. And the complaint was filed by Art Bell, W6OBB, who has also publicly alleged “Y2K”, “Hale-Bopp Companion/Heaven’s Gate”, Remote-Viewing, Alien anal probes, etc. Why would you believe anything that demonstrated, proven liar would say?

41. State whether have ever transmitted music at any time on any amateur radio frequency. If so, for each such transmission:
a. state the date and time of the transmission;
b. state the frequency on which such transmission was made;
c. state the duration of the transmission;
d. describe with specificity the equipment used for the transmission;
e. describe specifically and in detail the nature and content of such transmission.
Applicant objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Without waiving any of the foregoing objections, Applicant states that he has never played music on the ham radio, and that the Enforcement Bureau ought to stop listening to Riley Hollingsworth’s lies.

42. State whether you have ever transmitted any recording other than music at any time on any amateur radio frequency. If so, for each such transmission:
a. state the date and time of the transmission;
b. state the frequency on which such transmission was made;
c. state the duration of the transmission;
d. describe with specificity the equipment used for the transmission;
e. describe specifically and in detail the nature and content of such
transmission.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory due to lack of foundation, irrelevance and immateriality, and that it assumes facts not in evidence, absent an allegation that the playing of recordings also constituted a one-way transmission. Part 97 does not prohibit the playing of recordings on the air as part of a two-way communication.
Applicant objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.

43. State whether you have ever transmitted over any amateur radio frequency profane or indecent language or otherwise cursed or swore at any time. If so, for each such occurrence:
a. state the date and time of the transmission;
b. state the frequency on which such transmission was made;
c. state the duration of the transmission;
d. describe with specificity the equipment used for the transmission;
e. describe specifically and in detail the nature and content of such transmission.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein, since Part 97, §97.113(a)(4) prohibits only “obscene or indecent” utterances. Profanity is a religious term, a prohibition against which would violate the separation of church and state guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Part 97, §97.3(4) provides that the purpose of the amateur radio service is to exchange messages of a purely personal nature, and the Commission has not adduced any evidence to suggest that this is not exactly what Applicant was doing in all of his radio transmissions. Nowhere else in Part 97 does the Commission specify any impermissible subjects of amateur conversation, and every attempt to amend Part 97 so as to specify any such impermissible subjects of discussion has failed. Therefore radio amateurs have the same full range of free-speech rights on the air as any U.S. citizen has in private conversation, and any attempt by the Commission to deny Applicant’s renewal based upon a post facto review of Applicant’s speech violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Commission has no authority to regulate obscenity or indecency in the amateur service because the licensee receives nothing of value in exchange for the license grant, and there is therefore no consideration supporting any waiver of the licensee’s free-speech rights.

44. State whether you have ever intentionally caused interference during any transmission at any time on any amateur radio frequency. If so, for each such transmission:
a. state the date and time of your transmission;
b. state the frequency on which your transmission was made;
c. state the duration of your transmission;
d. describe with specificity the equipment used for the transmission;
e. describe specifically and in detail the nature and content of such transmission.

Applicant objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Without waiving the foregoing objection, Applicant answers that he has never interfered with the transmissions of other amateur operators. This allegation comes from who, the proven-incompetent Riley Hollingsworth, and the proven liar, Art Bell? You’ve got to be kidding!

45. State whether you have ever intentionally interrupted an ongoing radio transmission at any time on any amateur radio frequency. If so, for each such transmission:
a. state the date and time of your transmission;
b. state the frequency on which such transmission was made;
c. state the duration of your transmission;
d. describe with specificity the equipment used for your transmission;
e. describe specifically and in detail the nature and content of such transmission.

Applicant objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Without waiving the foregoing objection, Applicant answers that he has never interrupted any ongoing radio communications of other amateur operators. This allegation comes from who, the proven-incompetent Riley Hollingsworth, and the proven liar, Art Bell? You’ve got to be kidding!

46. State whether you have ever transmitted a one-way communication at any time on any amateur radio frequency. If so, for each such transmission:
a. state the date and time of your transmission;
b. state the frequency on which your transmission was made;
c. state the duration of your transmission;
d. describe with specificity the equipment used for the transmission;
e. describe specifically and in detail the nature and content of such transmission.

Applicant objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Without waiving the foregoing objection, Applicant answers that he has never made any one-way transmissions on amateur radio frequencies.

47. State whether you have ever used the expression "fucktard," or any variation thereof, during any transmission at any time on any amateur radio frequency. If so, for each such transmission:
a. state the date and time of the transmission;
b. state the frequency on which such transmission was made;
c. state the duration of the transmission;
d. describe with specificity the equipment used for the transmission;
e. describe specifically and in detail the nature and content of such transmission.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Part 97, §97.3(4) provides that the purpose of the amateur radio service is to exchange messages of a purely personal nature, and the Commission has not adduced any evidence to suggest that this is not exactly what Applicant was doing in all of his radio transmissions. Nowhere else in Part 97 does the Commission specify any impermissible subjects of amateur conversation, and every attempt to amend Part 97 so as to specify any such impermissible subjects of discussion has failed. Therefore radio amateurs have the same full range of free-speech rights on the air as any U.S. citizen has in private conversation, and any attempt by the Commission to deny Applicant’s renewal based upon a post facto review of Applicant’s speech violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that, due to its bad faith and arbitrary and capricious regulatory conduct in failing to have a screening mechanism for complaints nor rising to the level of a Part 97 violation, and absent a preliminary showing that the complaint rises to the level of a Part 97 violation, the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning mere complaints.

48. State whether you have ever transmitted any previously recorded broadcast, commercial, and/or any copyrighted material during any transmission at any time on any amateur radio frequency. If so, for each such transmission:
a. state the date and time of the transmission;
b. state the frequency on which such transmission was made;
c. state the duration ofthe transmission;
d. describe with specificity the equipment used for the transmission;
e. describe specifically and in detail the nature and content of such transmission.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory due to lack of foundation, irrelevance and immateriality, and that it assumes facts not in evidence, absent an allegation that the playing of recordings also constituted a one-way transmission and a copyright violation. Part 97 does not prohibit the playing of recordings on the air as part of a two-way communication, and there is no violation of the copyright laws as long as only a “fair use’ is involved in doing so.
Applicant objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.

49. State whether you have ever been informed by one or more amateur radio operators that you were or are not welcome to join a QSO. If so, for each such occurrence:
a. state the date and time of the occurrence;
b. state the frequency of the transmissions;
c. identify the amateur radio operator(s) who were participating in the QSO at d. the time that you attempted to join it;
e. identify the amateur radio operator(s) who told you that you were not welcome to participate in the QSO;
f. state the reasons provided or otherwise known to you why the QSO participants did not want you to join the QSO;
g. state your response(s) and action(s) after the participants in the QSO told you that you were not welcome to join the QSO.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the ground that this Interrogatory is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, absent a preliminary showing that the mere complaint constitutes a Part 97 violation.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that, due to its bad faith and arbitrary and capricious regulatory conduct in failing to have a screening mechanism for complaints nor rising to the level of a Part 97 violation, and absent a preliminary showing that the complaint rises to the level of a Part 97 violation, the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning mere complaints.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s alleged entrance into existing QSOs because Riley Hollingsworth had previously advised Alan Strauss, WA4JTK, that he interpreted Sec. 97.101(b) as requiring amateurs to share the frequency in such circumstances, and Applicant relied upon Hollingsworth’s said interpretation.

50. State whether you are aware of any occurrence in which your participation or attempted participation in a QSO was ever the cause of other amateur radio operators moving to other amateur radio frequencies to QSO. If so, for each such occurrence:
a. state the date and time of the occurrence;
b. state the frequency of the transmission;
c. identify each amateur radio operator who was participating in the QSO at the time that you attempted to join it;
d. identify each amateur radio operator who left the frequency after you attempted to join the QSO;
e. identify each amateur radio operator who left the frequency to QSO on another frequency;
f. state the frequency to which each QSO participant moved;
g. describe in detail what action(s) you took in response to each QSO participant moving to another frequency to QSO.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the ground that this Interrogatory is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, absent a preliminary showing that the mere complaint constitutes a Part 97 violation.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that, due to its bad faith and arbitrary and capricious regulatory conduct in failing to have a screening mechanism for complaints nor rising to the level of a Part 97 violation, and absent a preliminary showing that the complaint rises to the level of a Part 97 violation, the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning mere complaints.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s alleged entrance into existing QSOs because Riley Hollingsworth had previously advised Alan Strauss, WA4JTK, that he interpreted Sec. 97.101(b) as requiring amateurs to share the frequency in such circumstances, and Applicant relied upon Hollingsworth’s said interpretation.

51. State whether you are aware of any occurrence in which you followed other amateur radio operators to another amateur radio frequency after being informed that you were not welcome in their QSO and/or after they moved to another amateur radio frequency. If so, for each such occurrence:
a. provide the date and time of such transmission(s);
b. state the frequency upon which the initial QSO was taking place;
c. state each frequency to which the QSO moved to;
d. state each frequency you moved to;
e. identify each participant in the QSO;
f. describe the reaction of each QSO participant to your initial attempt to
join the QSO on the original frequency;
g. describe the reaction of each QSO participant to your attempt to join the QSO on any or each subsequent frequency;
h. explain in detail your reason(s) for following the QSO participants to any or each subsequent frequency.
i. describe what action(s) you took after following the QSO participants to any or each subsequent frequency and provide the reason(s) for each action.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the ground that this Interrogatory is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, absent a preliminary showing that the mere complaint constitutes a Part 97 violation.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that, due to its bad faith and arbitrary and capricious regulatory conduct in failing to have a screening mechanism for complaints nor rising to the level of a Part 97 violation, and absent a preliminary showing that the complaint rises to the level of a Part 97 violation, the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning mere complaints.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s alleged entrance into existing QSOs because Riley Hollingsworth had previously advised Alan Strauss, WA4JTK, that he interpreted Sec. 97.101(b) as requiring amateurs to share the frequency in such circumstances, and Applicant relied upon Hollingsworth’s said interpretation.

52. State whether you made any amateur radio transmissions between the hours of 3:20 and 4:00 a.m. EDT, April 22, 2006 on the 3943 kHz frequency. If so, as to each transmission:
a. describe specifically and in detail the nature and duration of the transmission;
b. identify each participant to such transmission
c. describe the reaction, if any, of each participant to the transmission.
d. state whether the transmission interfered with ongoing amateur radio communications. If so, for each transmission made:
i. describe specifically and in detail the nature of each transmission that you interrupted;
ii. explain fully why you caused the transmission to interfere with ongoing amateur radio communications;
iii. identify each ham operator whose communications you interrupted.
iv. describe what steps, if any, that you took to cease causing the interference.

Applicant objects hereto on the ground that this Interrogatory is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, absent a preliminary showing that the mere complaint constitutes a Part 97 violation.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that, due to its bad faith and arbitrary and capricious regulatory conduct in failing to have a screening mechanism for complaints nor rising to the level of a Part 97 violation, and absent a preliminary showing that the complaint rises to the level of a Part 97 violation, the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning mere complaints.

53. If you did not interfere with ongoing communications during the time frame noted in Interrogatory No. 52, above, but did transmit communication on that frequency during that time frame, for each such transmission:
a. describe specifically and in detail the nature and duration of the transmission;
b. identify each participate to such transmission
c. describe the reaction of each other participant to your transmission.

Applicant objects hereto on the ground that this Interrogatory is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, absent a preliminary showing that the mere complaint constitutes a Part 97 violation.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that, due to its bad faith and arbitrary and capricious regulatory conduct in failing to have a screening mechanism for complaints nor rising to the level of a Part 97 violation, and absent a preliminary showing that the complaint rises to the level of a Part 97 violation, the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning mere complaints.

54. State whether you have ever registered or otherwise signed up any amateur radio operator, without his/her consent, to receive pornographic pictures, email, and/or other material. If so, for each such occurrence:
a. identify the amateur radio operator you so registered
b. provide the address ofthe amateur radio operator used during registration;
c. state how you acquired the address of the amateur radio operator;
d. provide the email address of each website to which you registered the amateur radio operator;
e. describe with specificity and detail each type of material that you requested be sent to the amateur radio operator from each website and/or other location;
f. describe specifically and in detail your reason for registering such amateur radio operator to receive pornographic material.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.

55. State whether you have ever been banned from any internet forum or website. If so, for each such forum or website:
a. identify the forum or website;
b. state the date when you were banned;
c. state the length of time you were banned;
d. explain in detail each reason that you were banned;
e. state whether you have been allowed to return to that forum or website;
i. if not, provide each reason you have not been allowed to return to that website.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.

56. State whether you have informed any amateur radio operator that he/she may be sued for publicly making unfavorable comments about an attorney who is licensed in California. If so, for each amateur radio operator told:
a. identify the amateur radio operator;
b. state the date and time of such communication;
c. describe in detail the circumstances surrounding such communication;
d. describe specifically and in detail the nature and content of such communication;
e. explain specifically and in detail each reason for so informing the amateur radio operator;
f. list each authority upon which you relied which is worded to specifically benefit attorneys;
g. list each legal authority supporting such statement.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Applicant has the same full range of free-speech rights, both on and off the air, as any U.S. citizen has in private conversation, and any attempt by the Commission to deny Applicant’s renewal based upon a post facto review of Applicant’s speech violates his First Amendment rights to free speech.
Applicant further objects hereto on the ground that this Interrogatory is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, absent a preliminary showing that the mere complaint constitutes a Part 97 violation.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.

57. State whether you sent emails on December 28, 2005 at 6:24 a.m. with the subject "KABA T-shirt" in which you stated: "Dear Friends: This is to officially announce the commencement of the 'Kick Ali Bell's Ass' (signal-strengthwise[sic]) RF signal strength contest." If so, for each such email describe specifically and in detail what you were referring to in this email and your reasons for sending the email.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Applicant has the same the same full range of free-speech rights, both on and off the air, as any U.S. citizen has in private conversation, and any attempt by the Commission to deny Applicant’s renewal based upon a post facto review of Applicant’s speech violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Applicant further objects hereto on the ground that this Interrogatory is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, absent a preliminary showing that the mere complaint constitutes a Part 97 violation.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that, due to its bad faith and arbitrary and capricious regulatory conduct in failing to have a screening mechanism for complaints nor rising to the level of a Part 97 violation, and absent a preliminary showing that the complaint rises to the level of a Part 97 violation, the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning mere complaints.

58. State whether you sent an email with the subject of "What a sniveler!" to w71 w@direcway.com on June 7, 2006 at 6:30 a.m. If so:
a. state the purpose for sending this email;
b. identify who you sent copies of the email to and explain rationale for so doing;
c. explain what you meant when you stated: "BTW, what CW frequency are you going to be on? My goon friends and I might want to join our QSO."

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Applicant has the same full range of free-speech rights, both on and off the air, as any U.S. citizen has in private conversation, and any attempt by the Commission to deny Applicant’s renewal based upon a post facto review of Applicant’s speech violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Applicant further objects hereto on the ground that this Interrogatory is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, absent a preliminary showing that the mere complaint constitutes a Part 97 violation.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that, due to its bad faith and arbitrary and capricious regulatory conduct in failing to have a screening mechanism for complaints nor rising to the level of a Part 97 violation, and absent a preliminary showing that the complaint rises to the level of a Part 97 violation, the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning mere complaints.

59. State whether you sent an email with the subject "You no-good fuckin son of a bitch!" in which you stated, "Listen, John, you no-good fucking son of a bitch, I today received recordings of you on 3765 last night, repeatedly accusing me of jamming the frequency. This is a warning: you either knock off making such false allegations against me, or I'm going to take a trip down to you QTH and kick your ass! Understand fucktard? I have no intention of continuing to tolerate your lies and false allegations" to W6WFE@cox.net on Sunday, August 6, 2006 at 1:25 p.m. If so:
a. state each reason why you sent this email;
b. identify who you sent copies of the email to and explain rationale for so doing;
c. state whether you have a copy of the recording to which you refer in the email.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Applicant has the same full range of free-speech rights, both on and off the air, as any U.S. citizen has in private conversation, and any attempt by the Commission to deny Applicant’s renewal based upon a post facto review of Applicant’s speech violates his First Amendment rights to free speech.
Applicant further objects hereto on the ground that this Interrogatory is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, absent a preliminary showing that the mere complaint constitutes a Part 97 violation.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that, due to its bad faith and arbitrary and capricious regulatory conduct in failing to have a screening mechanism for complaints nor rising to the level of a Part 97 violation, and absent a preliminary showing that the complaint rises to the level of a Part 97 violation, the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning mere complaints.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting discovery on this issue due to the bad-faith conduct of Riley Hollingsworth in throwing away, or otherwise failing to read, every communication from Applicant, and in conspiring with other radio amateurs to set Applicant up for an intentional interference violation.

60. State whether you have ever threatened any amateur radio operator during an amateur radio transmission, in an email, or in any other communication with violence. If so, for each such threat:
a. state the date and time of such communication;
b. state the type of communications (i.e., radio transmission, email, letter, phone call, etc.);
c. identify the target of the threat;
d. describe specifically and in detail the nature of the threat;
e. describe specifically and in detail your reason for making such threat;
f. state what action you took to follow through on such threat.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Applicant has the same full range of free-speech rights, both on and off the air, as any U.S. citizen has in private conversation, and any attempt by the Commission to deny Applicant’s renewal based upon a post facto review of Applicant’s speech violates his First Amendment rights to free speech.
Applicant further objects hereto on the ground that this Interrogatory is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, absent a preliminary showing that the mere complaint constitutes a Part 97 violation.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that, due to its bad faith and arbitrary and capricious regulatory conduct in failing to have a screening mechanism for complaints nor rising to the level of a Part 97 violation, and absent a preliminary showing that the complaint rises to the level of a Part 97 violation, the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning mere complaints.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting discovery on this issue due to the bad-faith conduct of Riley Hollingsworth in throwing away, or otherwise failing to read, every communication from Applicant, and in conspiring with other radio amateurs to set Applicant up for an intentional interference violation.

61. State whether you sent an email on Friday, August 18,2006 at 2:30 pm with the subject "What is going to happen to Orv if he doesn't turn the radio off' in which you stated, "When a fat, disgusting old diabetic like Orv gets himself all worked up emotionally from listening to the ham radio, the doctors have to start clipping him. First they clip the toes, then up to the ankles, and then up to the knees, etc. He really should stop listening to the ham radio, for his own good." If so, describe specifically and in detail to whom and what you were referring to in this email and your purpose in sending this email.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Applicant has the same full range of free-speech rights, both on and off the air, as any U.S. citizen has in private conversation, and any attempt by the Commission to deny Applicant’s renewal based upon a post facto review of Applicant’s speech violates his First Amendment rights to free speech.
Applicant further objects hereto on the ground that this Interrogatory is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, absent a preliminary showing that the mere complaint constitutes a Part 97 violation.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that, due to its bad faith and arbitrary and capricious regulatory conduct in failing to have a screening mechanism for complaints nor rising to the level of a Part 97 violation, and absent a preliminary showing that the complaint rises to the level of a Part 97 violation, the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning mere complaints.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting discovery on this issue due to the bad-faith conduct of Riley Hollingsworth in throwing away, or otherwise failing to read, every communication from Applicant, and in conspiring with other radio amateurs to set Applicant up for an intentional interference violation.

62. State whether you posted a message on the guestbook of Emily, the 13-year-old daughter of an amateur radio operator, on July 10, 2006 in which you made the following comments, among others: "And speaking of idiots, what's the deal with your father? .... It is terribly sad to see a man who's so deluded. Can you talk to him, and let him know what a loser he really is.... I feel sorry for you having an idiot like that for a father." If so:
a. identify the person whose guest book the message was posted in;
b. identify the father to whom you refer in the message;
c. describe specifically and in detail why you posted this message.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Applicant has the same full range of free-speech rights, both on and off the air, as any U.S. citizen has in private conversation, and any attempt by the Commission to deny Applicant’s renewal based upon a post facto review of Applicant’s speech violates his First Amendment rights to free speech.
Applicant further objects hereto on the ground that this Interrogatory is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, absent a preliminary showing that the mere complaint constitutes a Part 97 violation.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that, due to its bad faith and arbitrary and capricious regulatory conduct in failing to have a screening mechanism for complaints nor rising to the level of a Part 97 violation, and absent a preliminary showing that the complaint rises to the level of a Part 97 violation, the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning mere complaints.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting discovery on this issue due to the bad-faith conduct of Riley Hollingsworth in throwing away, or otherwise failing to read, every communication from Applicant, and in conspiring with other radio amateurs to set Applicant up for an intentional interference violation.

63. State whether, prior to posting the message referenced in Interrogatory No. 62, above, you had any communications with Emily, the recipient of that message. If so, for each prior communication:
a. state the date and time of the communication;
b. state the type of communication (i. e., email, phone call, etc.);
c. summarize the substance of the communication;
d. if the communication was by phone call, provide:
i. the phone number used to make the call, and
ii. the phone number called;
e. if the communication was by email, provide:
i. the email address used to send the communication;
ii. the email address to which it was sent, and
iii. the text of the email.
Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Applicant has the same full range of free-speech rights, both on and off the air, as any U.S. citizen has in private conversation, and any attempt by the Commission to deny Applicant’s renewal based upon a post facto review of Applicant’s speech violates his First Amendment rights to free speech.
Applicant further objects hereto on the ground that this Interrogatory is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, absent a preliminary showing that the mere complaint constitutes a Part 97 violation.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that, due to its bad faith and arbitrary and capricious regulatory conduct in failing to have a screening mechanism for complaints nor rising to the level of a Part 97 violation, and absent a preliminary showing that the complaint rises to the level of a Part 97 violation, the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning mere complaints.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting discovery on this issue due to the bad-faith conduct of Riley Hollingsworth in throwing away, or otherwise failing to read, every communication from Applicant, and in conspiring with other radio amateurs to set Applicant up for an intentional interference violation.

64. State whether, subsequent to posting the message referenced in Interrogatory No. 62, above, you have had any communications with Emily. If so, for each such subsequent communication:
a. state the date and time of the communication;
b. state the type of communication (i.e., email, phone call, etc.);
c. summarize the substance of the communication;
d. if the communication was by phone call, provide:
i. the phone number used to make the call, and
ii. the phone number called;
e. if the communication was by email, provide:
i. the email address used to send the communication;
ii. the email address to which it was sent, and
iii. the text of the email.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Commission has neither subject matter nor ancillary jurisdiction over the internet.
Applicant also objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that the Commission may not deny a license based upon an unconstitutional premise. Applicant has the same full range of free-speech rights, both on and off the air, as any U.S. citizen has in private conversation, and any attempt by the Commission to deny Applicant’s renewal based upon a post facto review of Applicant’s speech violates his First Amendment rights to free speech.
Applicant further objects hereto on the ground that this Interrogatory is irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, absent a preliminary showing that the mere complaint constitutes a Part 97 violation.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning Applicant’s internet activities because Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputation and questionable materials off the ham radio and put them on the internet instead.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that, due to its bad faith and arbitrary and capricious regulatory conduct in failing to have a screening mechanism for complaints nor rising to the level of a Part 97 violation, and absent a preliminary showing that the complaint rises to the level of a Part 97 violation, the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning mere complaints.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting discovery on this issue due to the bad-faith conduct of Riley Hollingsworth in throwing away, or otherwise failing to read, every communication from Applicant, and in conspiring with other radio amateurs to set Applicant up for an intentional interference violation.

65. Describe specifically and in detail all facts which support or which you contend support your claim that you are qualified to retain an amateur license and/or upon which that claim is based in whole or in part.
Applicant objects to this Interrogatory due to lack of foundation and because it assumes a fact not in evidence, since Part 97, §97.501, provides that in order to obtain or renew an amateur radio license, the applicant must only have applied to take, and passed, the pertinent radio examination. No other requirements are contained in the Rules as a precondition to obtaining a license, nor could it contain any such preconditions because they would be unconstitutionally discriminatory.
Applicant further objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that, due to its bad faith and arbitrary and capricious regulatory conduct in failing to have a screening mechanism for complaints nor rising to the level of a Part 97 violation, and absent a preliminary showing that the complaint rises to the level of a Part 97 violation, the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning mere complaints.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting discovery on this issue due to the bad-faith conduct of Riley Hollingsworth in throwing away, or otherwise failing to read, every communication from Applicant, and in conspiring with other radio amateurs to set Applicant up for an intentional interference violation

66. To the extent, if any, not otherwise provided in response to the preceding Interrogatories, identify each individual who has, or who you believe has, knowledge or information consistent with or contrary to the information set forth in the Hearing Designation Order ("HDO"). For each person identified, provide a summary of the information which you believe that person has regarding the matters set forth in the HDO.

Applicant objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that, due to its bad faith and arbitrary and capricious regulatory conduct in failing to have a screening mechanism for complaints nor rising to the level of a Part 97 violation, and absent a preliminary showing that the complaint rises to the level of a Part 97 violation, the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning mere complaints.

67. To the extent, if any, not otherwise provided in response to the preceding Interrogatories, identify each individual who has or who you believe has knowledge or information consistent with or contrary to your claims and/or defenses with respect to this matter, or any of them, and provide a summary of that information which such individual has or you believe such individual has with respect to your claims and/or defenses.

Applicant objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Applicant further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that, due to its bad faith and arbitrary and capricious regulatory conduct in failing to have a screening mechanism for complaints nor rising to the level of a Part 97 violation, and absent a preliminary showing that the complaint rises to the level of a Part 97 violation, the Enforcement Bureau has waived the right to, and is estopped from, conducting any discovery or presenting any evidence concerning mere complaints.

68. State whether you are a licensed attorney. If so, for each state in which you are licensed to practice law:
a. state the name of the state;
b. provide your Bar membership number, if any;
c. provide the date when you were initially admitted to practice law in the state;
d. state whether you currently practice law in the state. If so:
i. identify the firm, company or office where you practice law;
ii. identify the type of law you practice.
Applicant objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.

69. State whether you are presently employed. If so:
a. identify the name, address, and telephone number of your current employer,
b. state the length of time you have been employed there; and
c. state your supervisor's name.

Applicant objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau has violated the priority of discovery which was established by Applicant with his First Set of Interrogatories propounded to the Enforcement Bureau, to which the Bureau has objected in bad faith, has largely refused to answer, and as to which there is pending Applicant's Second Motion to compel the Bureau to answer same. Applicant has been wrongfully prevented from formulating his claims and defenses herein due to the Enforcement Bureau's said bad faith in discovery.
Applicant also objects hereto on the basis that the Enforcement Bureau lacks the authority to compel the production of evidence because it has not made a preliminary showing that it has actual intercepts evidencing a violation of Part 97.
Respectfully submitted,

William F. Crowell, Licensee/Applicant

I, William F. Crowell, the Licensee/Applicant herein, hereby affirm on this 29th day of May, 2008 that I have read the foregoing Answers and Objections to the Enforcement Bureau’s First Set of Interrogatories Propounded to Applicant, and that the same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

More NAMPIG Probs?

2008-06-02T17:40:00.000-07:00

It has been over a year now since Ben Gardner kd7bcw, traveled half the world to marry a YOUNG, (younger than his oldest daughter) poverty stricken, woman he had never met.

The ‘Honeymoon’ is over. They are not now ‘newlyweds’ any longer.

Yet she, Cherry Gardner, has not yet been able to access the United States. Unlike Art Bell w6obb, who was able to get his girl toy here in a few months (he probably greased many ‘needy’ palms), Ben is still waiting for his toy to arrive.

Carl Richardson kb5fjx, only had to wait a few months longer than artie did to get his woman imported. But this couple actually had a long online courtship, and probably did much of the 'footwork' along the way.

Recently, on the Little Peeps, Ben has been optimistic; hoping that all the necessary immigration paperwork for Cherry would be completed by May 21 (listen to the audio clip-available only for a few days). But, that does not seem to be the case, as she is not here.

Is there a problem? What happens if Ben ends up married to a PI woman, who, for whatever reason, cannot gain entry to the United States?

Will Ben move to the PI to live with his legal (leaving his mother, her house, & probably his SSI benefits here) wife? Will there be a ‘divorce’ (I do not think there IS such a thing in the Philippines!). Would the marriage automatically be annulled? Will Ben go back to the ‘Philippine woman catalog’ and select another item?

The thing about ‘toys’ is, they break, do not operate as expected, their colors fade, you tire of them, and eventually, they become so boring they are put in the back of the closet or given to someone else.

Ben may have a long wait to even start playing with his new toy…

http://www.hamfanz.com/Audio/Grudge/Clips.html

The Elites Phone Patch

2008-05-31T15:45:00.000-07:00

It would seem that the Elites have some difficulty in getting folks to call in to their Phone Patch during the middle of the night. The ‘correct’ folks, I should say, as they will only take calls from ‘unblocked’ numbers.

Art Bell w6obb is plaintively heard issuing the plea to make that call, kind of like some strange, unknown night bird, perhaps the blue-bellied bully. He and Scott Barris k7mix, note that the phone patch is open, “call 702.727.8176”.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/9/22/1450734/w6obb%20MakeCall.mp3

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/9/22/1450734/2008.05.31_w6obb%20MakeCall.mp3

Other than the usual Elites, last night, there where a lot of Hams on hand to talk to callers; Stan wg6k, Ben kd7bcw, and even Steve k6txh (who actually got a call, even though it was uhhh, questionable). But few real callers, and a lot of pranksters.

It would seem, that there are those out there who call the Elites Phone Patch, just to keep the phone jammed up so that no one else can get through. I cannot imagine why. Eventually, last night, they had to shut down the Phone Patch because of this little problem. (So why not just have 'open lines'? Wouldn't that solve the problem?)

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/9/22/1450734/2008.05.31_w6obb%20JammingPhone.mp3

The Elites seem to need such instant gratification (loop worship from afar) that if any time passes with no callers, they get frantic. To entice callers, they are now offering ‘prizes’ such as a random 'trip to Hawaii' offered by artie w6obb,

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/9/22/1450734/2008.05.31_w6obb%20HaiwianVac.mp3

And 'Thousands of Dollars (to caller #17)' offered by Jim ki6gu.
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/9/22/1450734/2008.05.31_ki6gu%20Thousands.mp3

Now the question is, is it legal to ‘offer prizes’ when there is no intention of awarding them? Is it legal to use the Ham Bands to run a contest for the public?

I personally have no idea and do not really care, though there are probably state and federal agencies that do. I just want legit (ahmmm!) callers to keep those Phone Patch calls coming in! It is all about fun, isn’t it?

ADDENDUM Art Bell w6obb, Threats, Blackmail, and Extortion

2008-05-29T00:51:00.000-07:00

FROM Elites.com 5.28.08

1) Honey, the Bitch never left! Whomever told you that, told you wrong; as many bigger, (literally & figuratively!), richer, more powerful, & more famous than artie) people would attest too. (And that's one of my fav songs, though I'd never be so tacky as to put music on a web site!) I've played with the big boys, and artie, you are not one!

2) The info I thought artie would be interested in (since he was moaning/groaning!) was the fact that I had decided, BEFORE THE FIRST OF 2008, to cut back on all things HamFanz, including closing the Secret Page, and altering the site to minimum. Things I've previously informed others of (and are, in fact, in process); this month on the Secret Page, and others months and weeks ago! (Those I confided in are free to come forward with the info, if they choose! But it really doesn't make any difference to me.) But artie didn't want to hear it; he's off in his conspiracy/power trip world! ...Such a FOOL.

3) The HamFanz Grudge Report will continue, as I have the time and interest for it.

4) I am through playing email tag w/artie...

5) And I still know what artie's NEXT book should be (artie have your literary attorney contact me).

............

Here for everyone's edification is the full series of emails, instituted by artie on 5.25.08 BTW, I have the full emails, including headers, in my files...

5.25.08 6.49P
Hey Evvy,
In case you care, which I doubt, I have NOT been the one hitting your site. I am sure you will not believe me which is fine but it is the truth. When I have screwed with your site in the past, I admit it, as in the Poll. As for your getting a password to Elitehams.com, it ain't gonna happen. You take delight in talking trash about me and I am not going to make it easy for you. You are banned from S-meter because you banned me, like you say, tit for tat.

Like most other people, you give me credit for far more than I deserve. I have had a password to your chat since the first hour you gave it out, I have not posted ONE THING. All I have
done is read. Again, I have not posted one damn thing since some time before you went to password control. You don't honestly think I am the only non Evvy fan do you? The way you treat others comes back to haunt you every time. Keep it up and so will I. I have no idea what you expect when you keep writing trash.

When the day comes that I see all the bullshit about me gone from your site, then we shall see, until then expect me to do everything I can to make your life as miserable as you seem to want to make mine, and I am just getting started. However, as I said I have not done anything since I voted for myself in the poll.

I will wait and see what you do and react in kind.
Art
---
5.25.08 9:14P
-----Original Message-----From: Art Bell [mailto:knye@knye.com]Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 6:49 PMTo: hamfanz@cox.netSubject: From Art

Hey Evvy,
In case you care, which I doubt, I have NOT been the one hitting your site. I am sure you will not believe me which is fine but it isthe truth. When I have screwed with your site in the past, I admit it,as in the Poll.

I do care, in that I like to have my ducks in a row, so to speak. And in fact, am glad u emailed me, as I think I may have some info re HamFanz that would interest u.

However, I would like for this to be BETWEEN just us. I will NOT mention to anyone, nor publish to the HamFanz Grudge Report, this 'contact, and I can only ask that u keep this email/info private (even from GU, etc).

So other than 'touching some bases', I will keep this to common knowledge items, until I get some commitment from you that this conversation will be kept PRIVATE.

As for your getting a password to Elitehams.com, it ain't gonnahappen. You take delight in talking trash about me and I am notgoing to make it easy for you. You are banned from S-meterbecause you banned me, like you say, tit for tat.

You know what, I don't need a password to Elite Hams, as folks email me whenever something interesting occurs. (NO PERVERTS, WINGNUTS, SLIP-SHOD LAWYERS OR OLD HAGS ALLOWED!) The banning me from smeter was unwarranted as I had banned you from NOTHING except the 'polls page' and I only did that because it caused such a lot of work! On top of which, not only did u 'kick' me from the Pahrump receiver (WHICH IS YOUR RIGHT!), but I can not access the smeter page, links, info, other nets, receivers, etc.
Because I choose NOT to publish a comment (an anon one at that) IMMEDIATELY, the moment u want it done (that's your ego at work!), IS NOT BEING BANNED. If you read the Grudge you will see numerous mentions that I will not publish comments that are NOT related to the article they are submitted too; I 'reject' several comments a week for various reasons. Your comment had not even been 'rejected', had only been awaiting review a COUPLE OF HOURS (Though I prob would have rejected it)! And believe it or not, I am NOT sitting in front of my computer, at all times, instantly available for HamFanz 'business'. You overreacted.
However, not having smeter is no big prob, just an inconvenience, though I do miss it... (PS, last night on 3830 was boring, (though I DO have the recordings-will prob delete 'em) other than the conversation about that older woman who was sailing 'alone'. I can't remember her name either. I thought of hunting through the Audio Archives for recordings regarding this, but since I couldn't even come up w/a date, decided not too.)

Like most other people, you give me credit for far more thanI deserve. I have had a password to your chat since the first houryou gave it out, I have not posted ONE THING. All I havedone is read. Again, I have not posted one damn thing sincesome time before you went to password control. You don't honestlythink I am the only non Evvy fan do you?

"color:#990000;">I was aware of the above also.. (it appears u 'underrate' me)

The way you treat others comes back to haunt you every time.Keep it up and so will I. I have no idea what you expect when youkeep writing trash.

Trash to u, I consider it my personal opinion, and or the reporting (always from several sources) of 'news & gossip'. And 'readers' eat it up... One mans ceiling, etc...

When the day comes that I see all the bullshit about me gone fromyour site, then we shall see, until then expect me to do everythingI can to make your life as miserable as you seem to want to make mine,and I am just getting started. However, as I said I have not done anythingsince I voted for myself in the poll.

Hate to disappoint u, but I am NOT trying to make your life miserable, that was NEVER my purpose; (in fact, for years, since your LV days, I was a big fan of yours! Your show rated right up there for me along with the SD 'Love Doctor', Sally Jess, live radio productions, etc. I am and always have been a 'radio listener'.) it's all about hits and donations, period. U of all people, should understand that... And to top it off, u are so much EASIER to write about than GU, Gregg, Rev. Jim, etc! In fact, I'm ALWAYS looking for topics OTHER than Art Bell!!! (though the hits go down...)

And my life is not only NOT miserable (other than health issues), but HamFanz has been a gradually increasing source of 'life betterment' for me in all sorts of unexpected ways! There are a LOT of HamFanz supporters out there (or 'evvy fans', if u will)...

I will wait and see what you do and react in kind. Art

Now, I am going to go back to watching MEN IN BLACK, again, cause I love it. Probably won't be back at the computer for a whole couple of hours!
And I STILL know what your next book should be!

email: HamFanz@cox.net
HamFanz web site: http://www.hamfanz.com/
HamFanz List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HamFanz/
HamFanz Blog: http://Hamfanz.blogspot.com/

5.25.08 9:57P
If you mean people who supply info to you I am well aware of them, like for example Bob Mc.....Greg and others I will not mention but am more aware of then you might think.If you really meant "NoCreeps", why do you pal up to the real Creeps, like WBJ,BNQ,TXH? I may be a "Public Person" however nobody likes to see their Family trashed. I can reach out and get more done and WILL.For a long time I just sat back and wondered why you would write such poison (Your opinion) about somebody. Now I am going to begin to react in a pro active way until it stops. Even a dumb cow will finally stop touching a fence that shocks. You should really figure out another target to write about anyway for reasons I will not go into here but will be very apparent soon. Otherwise thosehits you are so concerned about will vanish anyway. Finally, save me from your secrets, under the circumstances it is a mute point.

5.28.08 5.35P

Hi Evvy,
Again, I have not yet written one word in your chat. Yes, of course I have the latest P/W, I
will always have it (8HamFanz). I know you think that small circle of people are trustworthy,
oh well. Hint: Never trust anybody who says they are neutral. If it gives you joy to blame all this on me, be my guest, but the fact is I have not posted one damn thing to your site.....To be honest in about a Month. (Just read). Same goes for Wingnut's site, I have not posted there in the same time frame. The ONLY reason I even go to your site is to see the latest crap you have made up about me, the ONLY reason you are being banned is because of what you write about me. Your future is in your hands, take all the shit about me down and we can work something out. Keep it up and so will I. I have so much more to do!

I see you have now embraced Greg openly, hint: Big mistake.

Oh well, the beat goes on, your turn!
Art

Art Bell w6obb, Threats, Blackmail, and Extortion

2008-05-28T20:31:00.000-07:00

I had planned an entirely different HamFanz Grudge Report for today, but then I put it on ‘hold’ after receiving an email from artie that included this paragraph:

“The ONLY reason I even go to your site is to see the latest crap you have made up about me, the ONLY reason you are being banned is because of what you write about me. Your future is in your hands, take all the shit about me down and we can work something out. Keep it up and so will I. I have so much more to do!

Aren’t threats, ‘blackmail’, and extortion illegal? Immoral at the very least! (Wonder what artie's 'hardcore' Catholic wife and in-laws think about this type of behaviour?)

Just what does artie think we can ‘work out’? I wonder if he thinks I will put a ‘price’ on my thoughts and opinions?

He has “so much more to do!” Does that mean he is going to sic someone on me, as he did Steve Wingate k7txh, and now Greg Sousa w6ezv? Or, that he’s going to ‘buy’ me a young Philippine like he did Ben Gardner kd7bcw?

At the very least, I can inform the public (including all the artie fans and loop worshipers out there, and who knows, perhaps the FBI Internet Crimes Division is reading this), just what kind of person artie really is, that is if they did not already know…

BTW, I don’t make anything up!

Art Bell w6obb Guest Hosts on C2C

2008-05-24T12:37:00.000-07:00

Last night, Art Bell, w6obb, was the Guest Host on C2C AM; he filled in for George Noory.

I must admit that I have missed the last couple of times he has done this. I was looking forward to hearing that 'oh so familiar, in the night' voice.

Was I disappointed!

Is Major Ed Dames, who has seldom ever been ‘right’ with any of his predictions, the only Guest that will go on Broadcast Radio with Art?

And that dulcet, ‘in the night’ Art Bell voice that I listened to for years, am finely attuned too, is gone. Have age and stopping smoking taken their tolls on Art Bell’s famous voice?

Art Bell not only has ‘voice issues’; his timing is way off. He sounded arrogant, forced, stressed, and hurried. So, I would assume that Broadcast Radio is NOT like riding a bicycle; though with both, after a long period of not doing it, you are not going to be very proficient…

Give it up Art, and really retire, before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

It will be interesting to hear what other long-term listeners thought! Chime in, give us your opinions of last night's c2c show!

ADDENDUM: I wonder if Art Bell did last night's c2c show for free, pro bono? He seems to expect that I should work for free...

Elites Histronics and Lies

2008-05-22T19:31:00.000-07:00

Last night, The Elites, especially Art Bell w6obb, and Scott Barris k7mix, again went into unprovoked attack mode.

As usual, it was all lies and histrionics. (Audio Clips may be found for a short time at: http://www.hamfanz.com/AudioClips/Clips.html )

Of Particular interest was when artie stated that he didn't track the HamFanz Chat, as I've had to ban a jillion of his IP's in the last month as he has repeatedly tried to get into HamFanz Chat. And when he as been able to do so, he ALWAYS posted under a fake ID, vulgar, insulting, threatening messages! Many can attest to that. (I have also been told that he is doing the same at Steve's Chat www.RadioWingnuts.com )

If it's not him using his multiple home computers and IP's, then he'd better check with his wife...

Then too were the lies that I had been a chief opponent to the Elites having a passworded chat. That is far, far from the reality. All one has to do, is to click on the 'Elite' link on this page and read the articles.

What I objected too, was being REFUSED a password to the Elite Chat AFTER they had (and still do) say that all you have to do to get a password to their chat, is to request one! Which I did, and I was denied one.

Well, now it is REALLY 'tit for tat' (though that was NEVER the reason for setting up a passworded HamFanz Chat!); show me yours, boys, and I'll show you mine!

In the meantime, EVERYONE knows you, Art Bell, to be a liar!

Chats, Chats, Chats!

2008-05-21T22:45:00.000-07:00

Although I asked Steve Wingate, k6txh, NICELY, several times to remove HamFanz Chat from his Radio Winguts http://www.radiowingnuts.com/ page, it never got done.

Before anyone jumps to wrong assumptions, the ONLY reason I wanted my chat removed from his site, is because the TWO Cool Web Toys java scripts, kept getting 'confused'.

Today, being extremely tired of messing with it, I finally took action. I deleted the old Chat, moved the HamFanz Chat to a different page, passworded the page, then installed a new version of Cool Web Chat.

If this does not work, or is too problematic, I will just delete the chat, period. (There is STILL the HamFanz Yahoo Group, ya know!)

Most of the folks who have chatted on HamFanz chat are still welcome, but you do have to email me for a password now.

What can I tell ya? Stuff happens...

Greg Sousa w6ezv, Spreading his Wings

2008-05-20T14:42:00.000-07:00

In recent weeks, Greg w6ezv, has been heard on The Short Attention Span Network. But last night, he not only got on with The Little Peeps, but when questioned why he was there, he replied, and it sounded truthful to me.

There was then an absolutely GREAT discussion about Art Bell and the Elites by ag7g, wq6i, kn6z, w6ezv and others.

If you did not get to listen, you can find it at (for a couple of days only!): http://www.hamfanz.com/AudioClips/Clips.html

With Friends like Greg Sousa w6ezv

2008-05-12T17:52:00.000-07:00

You do not need enemies, police, prosecuting attorneys, courts, judges, psychiatrists, clergy or even one’s own conscience.

No indeedy, last night’s on air conversation between Jim Watkins ki6gu, and Greg filled us all in on the details of the ‘rumor’ that Jim had crashed his truck into an eating establishment and been arrested for DUI. (BTW, A rumor the Grudge Report DID NOT publish!)

But perhaps the truth is even worse than the rumor. Greg Sousa following Jim? Then Greg Sousa waiting for a couple of hours for Jim to get back in his car and drive away? Then Greg places a call to the police? Then Greg watching from a distance as the police pulled Jim over and put him through a sobriety test?

What could Jim have possibly done to Greg to elicit this vengeful action on Greg’s part, to ‘trigger’, this kind of sick pathology on Greg’s part? What kind of ‘mind set’ makes one a ‘vigilante’?

We have seen Greg in action before, and recently. Greg drove hundreds of miles to Steve Wingate’s k6txh town, followed him to court, interviewed his neighbors, video taped him, etc. Of course, at that time, Jim Watkins (and no doubt, many others) was cheering, egging Greg on in the background. The shoe is now on the other foot…

Perhaps everyone involved with Greg should be prepared to take out a restraining order, as his ‘pathology’ seems to be escalating.

GlobalTuners

2008-05-09T17:43:00.000-07:00

DxTuners now has a new name GLOBAL TUNERS, and is under new management.

Kelly Lindman has handed over the DxTuners system to Mr Ivo Smits in The
Netherlands some time ago. Ivo has developed it further under a new name, GlobalTuners, you can find it on http://www.globaltuners.com/.

Kelly's new project is called HamSphere. HamSphere is an artificial
shortwave radio based on the natural laws of radio propagation.
Talk with both ham operators and unlicensed users around the world with a
virtual transceiver. You can find the project on http://www.hamsphere.com/.

Membership is free on both HamSphere and GlobalTuners.

GlobalTuners provides access to remotely controlled radio receivers all over the world. You can listen to- and tune the receivers after you have created a (free!) account. You can also share your own receiver on GlobalTuners and benefit from some privileges. DXTuners users: you have to create a new account to use this website! This website had been started in cooperation with HamSphere.

Share your receiver on GlobalTuners Do you have spare receiver that you wish to share with others? It's very easy to get your receiver on-line. If you decide to share your receiver on GlobalTuners, you will get some special privileges as well. For more info on setting up your tuner on GlobalTuners: http://www.globaltuners.com/info/setup

Where's my Barney?

2008-05-07T21:57:00.000-07:00

I do not listen to the Little Peeps on 3.688 often enough to know how often a Barney is given. Though if you check out The Little People’s log at: http://members.cox.net/kn6z/littlepeoplelog.htm you will get all the ‘rules’ (and view the nifty grids).

Neither do I know how one gets to be in the ‘Barney Hall of Fame’.

Barney Hall of Fame: Ben KD7BCW, Eric W7ZCX, John W6FE, Cary KD7KAU, Mike VA7MJS, Mike KB1UM, Duane AG7G, Joe KO6M, Bruce W6RAT, Terry KB5B, Chuck KE3KR, Moody WQ6I, Bob AF6D, Mike AA8KB, Conrad N7EN, Randy KC7ZNA, Gary ZL3SV, Mark K6FEJ, Mark K6MJD, Larry W5HO, John K7PRS, Gregg AE6FN, RoboLon KE7BBX, Dave WA6DAC, Bruce N6THN, Gary W6FH, Kevin K7TST, Art W6OBB, Kevin AD8Q, Iain K6IAM, Bob K6MIT, and Tom W7PD.

I do not even know if there is a picture (or trophy?) of The Barney Award.

I do know that Glen Thurman kn6z, has taken an unfocused ‘loose’ bunch of ABANDONED Hams and turned them into a cohesive group. He consistently and graciously puts in a great deal of work keeping it all together for the Little Peeps.

Some call them boring, but the conversations are far ranging and carried on in a polite and socially acceptable manner. They cover such topics as astronomy, WARFA doings, and current events as well as the mundane.

But, the BURNING ISSUE here is, are there ever going to be ‘Honorary Barneys’?
(And what the hey is the plural of this use of Barney, anyways???) If so, where and how would one apply?

You can hear for yourself, this week’s listing of ‘Barneys’”
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/9/22/1450734/2008.05.07_Barny.mp3

The Elites

2008-04-26T18:12:00.000-07:00

When I came up with the name ‘Elites’, it was with tongue in cheek. In fact, I was thinking of the antonyms of ‘elite’…

FROM: http://www.answers.com/topic/elite?cat=technology
Antonyms: common, low-class, lower, lower-class, ordinary, poor, worst…

So, it tickled my soul that they took too the name!

Sure enough, in the time the Elites have been the Elites, they have certainly been common, low class, and the worst.

They have ‘raked me (and many others) over the coals’ on air, times after time, projecting their values upon me. The language and sentiments; such gentlemen!

Recently, Ben Gardner kd7bcw, sent me this email:

The above is humorous. (And I know Ben thought so also) I claim ‘sarcasm’ as a personal trait. It is part of being a survivor, and a writer. It is still one more trait I have cultured and encouraged in myself. I am not ashamed of it, nor embarrassed by it. I do not care who knows that I am sarcastic. I am NOT looking for ‘relief’ from this trait.

On the other hand, the 'core group' of Elites, (a very small group because many Hams will no longer have anything to do with them), composed of white, affluent, old males, should be ashamed and embarrassed with THEMSELVES. Comprised of drunks, egomaniacs, the lonely, fanatics and hangers-on of Art Bell and his money, and dirty (figuratively & literally) old men, they could use some self-examination.

From: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dirty+old+man

1.
dirty old man

An elderly man that dreams of screwing women between the ages of 15-35, or women who look like they're 15-35. Often stare at their young flesh. They often try to score with them. Usually have to settle with porn or elderly women, unless they are very rich ( check sugar daddy)

2.
dirty old man

A man over the age of 50 who really does screw young women of 25 and younger. Some young women have a secret sexual fixation on much older men and enjoy being 'used' by 'Daddy'. Others appreciate the insight and experience an older man can bring, and how he can groom them. Still others see it as an opportunity to acquire material positions they either could not or would not acquire from a younger man.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dirty+old+man
Noun
1.
dirty old man - a middle-aged man with lecherous inclinations
middle-aged man - a man who is roughly between 45 and 65 years old

They claim the common interest of Amateur Radio. I contend this group of uncouth, dirty old men, would have gravitated to each other in any situation, if for no other reason than to reach out and touch some of Art Bell’s w6obb’s money, and approval, to help fund their prurient interests. Among other things…

I used to respect these men, not so any more! (Many other people have reported the same reaction) In fact, I can find no redeeming actions either as individuals or as a group here.
They are quickly falling to their lowest denominator. I have nothing but disgust for the majority of the ‘Elites’.

Perhaps instead of giving up smoking, they should take up: meditation, church, good deeds, AA, a shrink, or prayers!

I feel sorry for the ‘slap of truth’ that any new SWL will be hit with as they come to grips with the immorality, selfishness, profanity (ki6gu), drunkenness, repressed rage, uneducated, ego-centric, and amazingly judgmental, Elites!

HamStreams Gone!

2008-04-21T22:05:00.000-07:00

Well that didn't last long! Perhaps the idea was good, but there were too few willing to participate in a non-political site (or was it?). Maybe the timing of HamStreams was off; perhaps it would have 'made it' three or five years ago...

My own hopes for HamStreams was that we would get more Hams streaming audio. That could still be in Jim Southwick n7js, future, or so a lot of us hope!

At any rate, n7js has his reasons, which he goes into in depth. There is much to cogitate on in his 'closing statement' below. Your own comments on this are, of course, welcome!

April 20, 2008 (A letter to myself):

I've given this a lot of thought and watched quite a bit of history with this group. I've had things shared with me - some that is public and some that may never be made public. This too has helped with this decision. No, no one pressured me into anything. I feel it is in my best interests to get back to basics - which was being part of a site created with a sole interest to explore various creative endeavors of the marriage between radio and computer or other creative related endeavors. That is, my original site JimandLeah.Com. It was devoid of personalities obviously (other than myself) and therefore politics, attacks, direct influences (good and bad), which allowed me to explore and express without the need to worry about pleasing or offending others based on the fickleness of their own loyalties (which seems to change with the wind or their last fart). If somehow, someone is deriving some sense of importance from associations or hierarchy as relating to ham radio (it's a hobby!) - then obviously they have something missing in the old internal department. If associations somehow motivate you to be a better human being or hell, write you a paycheck - I could see it. Otherwise, that stuff is far too adolescent for me on an ongoing basis except if maybe I have a dozen beers and feel like masturbating my ego and winding up the most aberrant parts of my unconscious. Mind you, I'm human and like to occasionally engage in that, but my psyche (and my body) can only sustain that 2 or 3 weeks out of the year. Far too little to play in a major role in a theater of the absurd if I desired it in the first place. The themes of either you are "with us or against us" rubs completely against my constitution. The themes of constant attack and/or obsession also runs counter. I realize by the recent site I created (hamstreams.com) - it became somewhat of another conduit for expressing the very bullshit of any other site based on personalities....worse in some ways. I combined what seems to now be a multi-forum of hate that probably helps feed more hate vicarously in private little conversations, chats, PM's, etc. What the hell was I thinking? What I was thinking was I could try to bridge a path between the various facets of personalities (hence my theme of Saints and Assholes). I thought maybe I could combine something into an area of provoking rants, disagreements, agreements, stated positions, defense of positions, expression of differences, commonalities, and hence introspection visually, auditorally, and verbally due to the openess and concept of the site. What I didn't realize was I was trying to do it with an invitation to a large percentage of people who think in black and white redneck realities. What an idealistic joke. I must have been out of my mind. I now realize they are all doomed (in a philosophical sense) unless you can somehow inject a large percentage that categorically reject that thinking AND have loose and non-need associations with each other. It works, because I run another one with 100 times the people here and I've ran it for years. As I see it, it ain't happening w/ this crowd. These sites (if they are interactive in any way and with the make up of personalities) - eventually degrade to the lowest common denominator of attacks or else they become a milk toast place of sycophants and alpha males looking for validation of shallowness and abnormalities. It's completely predictable. If I ever go for my Doctorate in Psychology, I swear to God I'm going to do my thesis on this. So here it is as I see it - I don't want to be placed in either of these categories with direct associations and hence the accompanying pressure of a group mentality. It's a pathetic road when you view it objectively and unfortunately I haven't always done that. I catch myself at times feeling the pull of useless importance. I don't want to be pigeon holed...therefore allowing me to talk to anyone and be part of no one. I realize this will cause some people not to want to talk to me who fit the descriptions above. Therefore I am deleting HamStreams.Com. It will simply forward to my original site in a few days. I have asked Greg W6EZV to remove my cam spot from his site. I have asked Scotty K7MIX to remove my spot and image on elitehams. Now what about Paul's site? Paul's ham cam site is actually a "static" site and basically low on interactivity. In addition, the base is now diverse enough to dilute the major parts of aberration (see above). At one time, I did request to be pulled based on a theme that was going on that I considered embarrassing on a whole, but I didn't want to hurt feelings and come right out and say it. I actually currently consider Paul's site quite good based on his evolving approach (and thankfully the evolving approach of pics) so it doesn't feel stifling to belong there. Hopefully he will avoid the pitfalls but it requires autonomy and being counter-intuitive. This isn't an attempt at burning bridges, but an attempt not to see them all burned eventually. So having said all of this, I realize many of you don't give a damn, and now I don't have to give a damn whether you do or not. Talk to you on the radio and if not.....wavin the bird at ya.

Jim

Status of my Password to the Elites New Chat!

2008-04-18T21:45:00.000-07:00

AN ADDENDUM:
The reply I got from the Elites on politely requesting a password!

I sent: "Password to the new Chat Please"

I got: From: K7MIX [mailto:k7mix@cox.net] Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 3:59 PMTo: hamfanz@cox.netSubject: Re: Password To the New Chat Room Please! After all the vile crap that you have written about the group, you can't be serious! ----- Original Message ----- From: HamFanz To: k7mix@cox.net Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 10:18 AM Subject: Password To the New Chat Room Please! email: HamFanz@cox.net HamFanz web site: http://www.hamfanz.com/ HamFanz List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HamFanz/ HamFanz Blog: http://Hamfanz.blogspot.com/

I Sent:
Yes, I am serious. I am requesting a password to the Elites (which I named, BTW) new chat site. Just as u were serious when u sent me the 'parodies' of Billy that u did...From: K7MIX [mailto:k7mix@cox.net] Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 3:59 PMTo: hamfanz@cox.netSubject: Re: Password To the New Chat Room Please!After all the vile crap that you have written about the group, you can't be serious! ----- Original Message ----- From: HamFanz To: k7mix@cox.net Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 10:18 AMSubject: Password To the New Chat Room Please!email: HamFanz@cox.netHamFanz web site: http://www.hamfanz.com/HamFanz List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HamFanz/HamFanz Blog: http://Hamfanz.blogspot.com/

I got:
You do in fact have a lot of nerve! The whole reason for the creation of this site is for decent people, including ART BELL to escape malignant sewage sites that you and others seem to thrive on. What is it with you, Billy and the wingnut anyway? You're all shit magnets who get off insulting and putting folks down, while you stay perched on your pedestals, thinking that you're something special in the world. Well you're not. You're all pathetic individuals who really need to get a life and find a new hobby other than insulting people day after day after day. The 3.830 group minds their own business and tries to have fun, avoiding trouble and confrontation, yet jammers, ugly blogs and poisonous chat rooms are always on the attack no matter what. Oh, and by the way, you can have a password just as soon as I give one to wingnut and Crowell. Have a nice day!

I AM having a nice day, as k7mix just showed the WORLD how decent he and the Elites really ARE, which was the entire point of me requesting a password. He even admits the site/chat was created to 'shield' artie from HORRIBLE folks like the rest of us! He isn't too bright is he???

And Lastly:
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

Thanks for posting my email. Why didn't you post it in its entirety? Completely typical of how you operate.

By the way, I'm living in the lap of luxury, 750K home, beautiful wife, and all the rest. I understand that you're all alone and living on welfare. Gee, I wonder who the bright one is here?

Gee, I wonder who the bright one is? Not that it's a question I brought up, but since k7mix did.....

BTW, k7mix is correct though, I inadvertantly left off the last paragraph of his email. Here it is:

PS. I don't have my nose up Art's ass. As a matter of fact, we happen to be friends, if you can possibly comprehend that scenario. Both Syndee and myself have spent time with Art and his wife, and find them both to be very happy with each other along with a beautiful baby. Why don't you direct your hateful opinions and nasty commentaries toward someone who is really deserving of such attention, such as the wingnut or Crowell. You might also consider buying a mirror, and take a real hard look at it. I don't think you're going to like what you see!

So there it is folks, did that enlighten you any? Really 'decent people' huh?

And I'm certainly glad, that in this last, unsolicited email (uhh, would that be spam?) that k7mix gave me permission to use email addressed to me, by me, as it is a 'right' I already had...

The Elites New Chat Room is Open!

2008-04-18T09:42:00.000-07:00

Turns out the Elites are using ParaChat, which I tried out over a year ago, and found to be 'vexing' at best...

According to the above pic, The Gatekeeper has 112 emails. He says, all are applying for a password. Now we don't know that to be the case, but if so, perhaps artie should be bemoaning his lowered fan base!

At any rate, I think EVERYONE should email the 'gatekeeper', requesting a password to the NEW Elites Chat (which will only hold 50 people-so you had better hurry!). I applied for mine!

The Elite Chat Gatekeeper: k7mix@cox.net

Then return here to post a comment here as to your results, yea or nay!

The Elites New Web Site

2008-04-15T23:25:00.000-07:00

Is it going to be functional this year? I mean, HOW many hams does it take to build a website? (Rather reminds you of those old ‘light bulb’ jokes, yes?).

The fact is, their website www.elitehams.com is up, (Bringing Fun Back to Ham Radio) if not yet ‘announced’ or open to the public yet.

Note that they have formally taken the name I gave them and they derisively ‘put down’ night after night after night!

Elite Hams, Produced by k7Mix and designed by synsyn creations, looks slick, but I don't see anything there that isn't on Steve Wingate's w6txh, site i.e. a lightening map, a photo album, links to the receivers, etc. But I guess that as long as it pleases artie...

What they do with this site, and how they maintain it, remains to be seen. With luck, SWL's will be in for a 'ride'.

Trish Ray k4ze Visits the Elites Bringing UFO’s!

2008-04-09T21:00:00.000-07:00

It was so good hearing Trish on with the Elites last night. As far as I know, it has been a long time.

Received well by all the Elite regulars, Trish stayed and chatted for a little over an hour. Since she lives in Tennessee, she must have stayed up very late, or gotten up really early. She is another night person though…

I thought she added greatly to the Elites’ configuration. Hope she comes back often!

Here is an audio clip from Trish k4ze last night, for 3 full recordings, visit the Secret Page!

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/9/22/1450734/2008.04.09_Elites-k4zeUFO.mp3

Chats, Chats, and more Chats

2008-04-05T15:24:00.000-07:00

You could easily spend an hour going though all the current chat sites, see many duplicate pics, read many cross-posted comments, and you would have probably wasted your time.

Newest on the roster is (within the past week), Jim Southwick’s n7js HAMSTREAMS http://www.hamstreams.com/ with 10 picture slots and a chat. Jim seemed sure that all ten slots would go ‘to the first takers’ quickly. But there are reports of folks being turned down for picture slots, and as of this writing, there are still two slots available. Lower on the page is HAMSTREAMS ‘one stop chat center’ containing the HamStreams chat, followed by duplicates of w6ezv Greg Sousa’s chat, then Steve Wingate’s k6txh chat. (Though Jim Southwick has protested mightily that HIS site ‘will not be ruled by ham politics’ – notice that HamFanz chat is not there, though I would not have given permission had I been asked. There are also ‘reports’ that Jim felt ‘pressured’ into doing this site. If that is not politics, what is?). I am hoping that this site will eventually stream a LOT of audio, something Jim is so very good at doing.

Almost in the same 24 hours, Greg Souse w6ezv, set up a site and a chat at http://webpages.charter.net/burbank_station/. Unfortunately, all HE did was COPY the defunct 3840aa or Sawyers LateNightHams page. After several days, he has not yet bothered (or figured out how?) to delete all the dead links. (did he get Sawyer’s permission for this ‘copy’?).

Which takes us to 3840aa which was turned into LateNightHams by Sawyer, we assume at Art Bells request, so his ‘phone patch’ callers would have a place to gather and converse. (Here’s what some of the Little Peeps think of the phone patch: http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/9/22/1450734/2008.04.02_LittlePeepsChatRooms.mp3) There was MUCH brouhaha over the sudden demise of LateNiteHams site. With Art Bell saying that it was Sawyer (who on 3.27.08 posted this statement on the closed site, “This is not fun for me anymore, So I'm done with latenighthams.com. 'Sawyer' ”. Art Bell sent me copies of the emails Sawyer sent to him regarding closing the site. Sawyer himself verified that he had sent the emails to Art Bell. Oddly enough though, neither Sawyer nor Greg Sousa replied when asked for further comments. While I do not doubt for a moment, that Sawyer chose to take down LateNiteHams (Sawyer is not known for his ‘staying power’); I also do not doubt that there is a ‘story’ behind this ‘story’, that we are not hearing. This does not even touch on some of the ‘comments’ posted on the LateNightHams chat before it closed by SOMEONE with the nic ‘Art’; comments such as: 1) Art Thu 16:35 ...This chat, like on air has turned to poison my guess is it's days are about up. Bye”, and 2) Art Thu 20:49 ...This chat and that site are going down because of people like Greg, Billy, Wingnut and yes Gene who could not help but put stuff up about Wingnut. Bye”

This brings us to the ‘NEW’ LateNiteHams web site and chat. I really do hope it comes off as planned! If they exclude the trouble makers (and you know who you are!), put artie’s ego on hold, get chat software that requires a valid email addie, set up some basic rules, and ‘monitor’ but don’t ‘censor’ it, I think it could be ‘fun’, especially for SWL’s (though they probably will not let moi in!). Isn’t fun what it’s supposed to be about???

The First Round Goes to Bill Crowell w6wbj!

2008-04-04T21:56:00.000-07:00

On April 2, 2008, an Administrative Law Judge ordered the Enforcement Bureau to answer or object to all of the interrogatories filed by w6wbj. To the extent that they object or fail to answer, he can file a further motion to compel answers.

From the documents I have seen, it seems that the initial confusion that was generated by w6wbj in this filing, was due the procedures of the FCC contradicting themselves, and various people’s interpretations of this dichotomy.

In jest, for a while, Bill Crowell w6wbj was signing his communications as ‘upholding free speech for all hams’. But, it is NOT a joke, anytime anyone upholds freedom, in any sector, on any level, we all benefit.

HamFanz is 4 Years Old!!!

2008-03-31T22:10:00.000-07:00

http://www.hamfanz.com/ is four years old today! And you said it would never last!

Actually, HamFanz has gone through several name changes during the years, but the 'mission' of the site, to bring Hams & SWL together is still its function. And the final nom de plume fits perfectly...

HamFanz REALLY began with the Yahoo Group, 3840 on April 20th 2003. The HamFanz Grudge Report made its debut as a blog on 8.6.05. But the .com site formally went up on 4.1.04, (April Fool's Day, of course!) so that is the 'date' formally celebrated!

Just for the fun of it, here is one of the first messages in 3840YahooGroups.com:

"Good Job Evvy, I just added a few things to it... This might be the place to go to if the "Main Site" in Utah has problems. I guess we can do a Conference Chat in here ???"

"W6ASA/Karen"

HamFanz was initially 'born' when Karen Larrimore w6asa (now w6zx), Patricia Ray (now k4ze), and I spent night after night in the MidnightHams Chat room. After being 'admonished' and 'kicked' several times, then banned, we started our own Yahoo Group, which at that time, had a chat also.

Now Trish has her ticket (and her music) and you don't hear her on air much anymore (she started as a SWL also). Karen has moved on to Charles, and is seldom on air (or at least on the frequencies Karen used to hang out on). And I am left doing HamFanz by myself.

And a BIG THANKS to all who have taken part, making the 'hobby' so MUCH more fun for all!!!

(A Special Thanks to Carl Richardson kb5fjx for desiging the HamFanz Logos!)

Oh My! What a ride it has been!

The Grinch w6obb, Strikes Again

2008-03-29T15:37:00.000-07:00

And I use the term ‘strike’ in all it’s connotations!

Does Art Bell w6obb, have any idea of how mean, nasty, cruel, callous, niggardly, and yes, even malicious he appears when he does this kind of thing? Does he care? I think not.

Of course, I am speaking of artie getting angry because those that VOLUNTEERED to do the LateNiteHams site, (for the Elites) the chat posters, the call in phone patch, the hams on air, the callers themselves, etc did not do EXACTLY as artie wanted, so he shut everything down, again.

What a dichotomy! He wants fans, he wants an audience, he wants worshipers, and he wants everyone else to do the work for him.

Then when it does not turn out exactly as he perceives it should be, he figuratively busts everyone’s chops, takes his toys, and goes home…

Does he give a whit of thought to all the people who may be trying to log into the Pahrump Receiver? Or the Chat Room? Or the folks (many of them his so called ‘fans’) that may be trying to call into the ‘phone patch’? And after he has spent so much time ‘promoting’ it? Of course not!

If he cared at all about his ‘fans’, he would not pull this kind of sh**. If he cared about his Ham buddies that have worked so hard to put together what he wants; he would not pull this kind of sh**. Over and over and over…

Speaking of his Ham Buddies (Lord of the Loop Worshipers all, or those that are left), when are THEY going to tell him to take a hike, turn blue? Hopefully, the very next time artie wants them to ‘do’ something for him.

I have always respected Art Bell’s ‘performance’ ability in all its various ‘conceptions’; but he is sure making an ass of himself in his elderly years on Amateur Radio.

The IDEA of streaming audio, web site, chat room, and a phone patch for listeners to ‘interact’ with those transmitting is a great idea. An idea I wish other groups of hams would pick up on. Just look at the sheer number of participants!

As I have said repeatedly in this blog - specifically in reference to dxtuner and n7js online tuner - once you have an ‘audience’ i.e. folks depending on your ‘services’, you MUST bear some responsibility on not only how it is run, but give grave consideration to those USING the service, (giving them decent notice and options, if possible) before shutting it down.

I do not think a ‘temper tantrum’ as artie routinely has, and acts on, qualifies.

However, these artie ‘tantrums’ do qualify him to be called the Grinch, mean, nasty, cruel, callous, niggardly, egomaniacal, extremely vindictive, malicious and yes, even worse.

Artie, if you want to ‘fix’ this, PAY an experienced webmaster, buy Chat software, & PAY someone else to run it. Write up job descriptions for these jobs, then hand it over and LEAVE IT ALONE. Find a Ham that is qualified, needs some extra money, get him/her the necessary equipment, train them, and pay them to do the phone patch!

Or, if you really want it done ‘right’, DO IT YOURSELF.

I am just sorry that the Elites are the only ‘full featured’ group on Amateur Radio, as I am sure another group could do it better, and with less grief!

The Little Peeps

2008-03-23T21:35:00.000-07:00

I am so glad that I listened to a couple of hours of sanity (often boring but usually sane) before the Elite's meltdown last Friday night. Actually I listen to The Peeps fairly often.

For the past few months, I've been calling the group of Hams that gather now on 3.688, 'The Little Peeps'. I have even been naming their recordings peeps1, peeps2, etc.

I've always disliked their name 'Little People' forced on them by another Ham in a derogatory manner. And for some reason, to me, it also seemed associated with real 'Little People', those of short statue. And therefore, NOT theirs to use...

I was always surprised that they 'took' it as their own, have suggested on several occasions that they choose a more appropriate name. They have not.

So, I have found the perfect name for them! 'The Little Peeps'.

Why you may ask? Well in past years 'peeps' has come to mean people, friends, close pals ( http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=peeps ).

But also because of the ORIGINAL PEEPS ( http://www.marshmallowpeeps.com/ ). The candy! The common, soft, sweet, pliable. many shaped, many colored, sugar coated, marshmallow concoction that almost everyone loves.

I have been planning for awhile now to announce this name change (a 'vanity' group name, if you will) during this very Easter Season. So despite Glen Thurman kn6z, being on vacation, and the antics of the Elites, (Which the HamFanz Grudge Report also named), here is the BIG announcement....The Little People are now 'The Little Peeps'. (Could there be a better, more descriptive name? I think not!)

Elites: Let the Bitch Slapping Begin!

2008-03-22T13:47:00.000-07:00

The Elites proclaimed attitude of 'live and let live', forgive but don't forget, warm fuzzy stuff didn't last long. In fact, it did not even last ONE month! And it turned out that the reason they were recently all off air for almost two weeks, was this big combination rift/row (as I alluded to in an earlier article).

Last night, Greg Sousa w6ezv, (apparently now a former Elite), dropped in on artie Bell w60bb, Jim Watkins ki6gu, Scott Barris k7mix, Ben Gardner kd7bcw, and other Bell hanger-on's, like a bomb.

It didn't take two minutes for the bitch slapping to begin.

Rage, vengeance, threats of bodily harm, justification, prior bad acts, hurt feelings, blame, snitching, denial, unfettered testosterone, ohhh, the PSYCHOdrama of it all!

For those of us awaiting this welterweight event, there was the sense of "I told you so” while listening to the disintegration of adult males into a bickering (but much more violent) bunch of biddies.

The Elites have been small in numbers since artie recently put them together, as many former ‘cult of the loop’ worshipers no longer wish to have anything to do with him. (I wonder why?).

Though recently, there has been an influx of ‘newbies’ (who know not of what they’re getting involved in), due in large part to artie’s on air solicitations that include the ‘bait’ of speaking with him via a phone patch, and a chat room.

Now the Elites are going to be one less, unless ki6gu and w6ezv are able to set aside their MAJOR differences, which they actually might do for artie’s sake, as artie has threatened (again) last night to leave Ham radio and/or move to the Philippines as “it just isn’t fun anymore.” Since ki6gu and w6ezv have burned their bridges on so many other frequencies and with so many other Hams, without artie, WHO would they talk too now?

Here is a 'taste' of last night’s happening. The full recordings are now up on the HamFanz Secret Page!

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/9/22/1450734/2008.03.22_Elites%20w6ezv%20WhatsGoingOn.mp3

The Elites are Back

2008-03-19T20:19:00.000-07:00

Last night, after almost two weeks of ‘group’ silence, the Elites, Ben Gardner kd7bcw, Art Bell w6obb, Scott Barris k7mix, Jim Watkins ki6gu, (sans Greg Sousa w6ezv) returned to the air.

After ‘leaking’ to the chat boards where they would be, sure enough, the Elites appeared on 3.807 after midnight.

Though both kd7bcw, and w6ezv have been heard, not together, on different frequencies in the last couple of weeks, and artie was on briefly with the Little Peeps a couple of nights ago, mainly, they have been quiet. This uncharacteristic ‘silence’, which spilled over to the Ham sites and chat rooms, promoted wild conjecture and supposition among Hams & SWL’s.

When in reality it was probably just another ‘split’, or a clash of egos. Rumor has it that there was a big blow up, with Sousa w6ezv being the instigator.

The Elites tried to pick up where they left off, rather unsuccessfully, their return boring and anticlimactic.

While they were off air, life went on; there was some terrific listening on The Short Attention Span Network, and even Glen Thurman’s kn6z, description of his upcoming vacation on the Little Peeps was more interesting than the secretive antics of the Elites!

By eliminating anyone interesting from their ranks, the Elites have reduced themselves to a little clique of predictable ‘worshipers of the loop’ (artie).

This audio clip is from the first on air minutes of 3.807 last night. The full audios will be uploaded to The HamFanz Secret Page.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/9/22/1450734/2008.03.19_3708%20GuOffAir.mp3

Just the Facts, Bill Crowell w6wbj and the FCC

2008-03-17T20:54:00.000-07:00

There has been nothing less than stupid conjecture on the ‘chat’ boards (especially the newest one, artie's www.LateNightHams.com !) regarding w6wbj and his latest communication with the FCC.

Yes, the Enforcement Bureau is trying to refuse to answer any of w6wbj’s interrogatories, but there IS a difference between the Enforcement Bureau and the Administrative Law Judge.

The Bureau's refusal is not provided for by the FCC Rules for ALJ hearings. Those Rules contain nothing permitting the Bureau to file such a blanket objection.

Instead, the Bureau is supposed to answer the interrogatories to which they do not object, and state their precise reasons for objecting to each interrogatory they feel is objectionable. They did neither.

W6wbj has now filed a motion with the ALJ to compel them to answer on the ground that, in effect, by filing their blanket refusal, they failed to object at all, and that therefore they have waived the right to object.

As of this date, there has been no ruling on w6wbj’s motion from the ALJ.

This 'situation' just keeps getting more and more interesting!

Some interesting links about this subject:
http://users.innercite.com/bcrowell/other_files/interrogs.doc
http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?p=1148223#post1148223

Art Bell w6obb, Caught Slamming HamFanz Site

2008-03-09T23:06:00.000-07:00

Sunday afternoon, March 9, 2008, artie slammed the HamFanz Poll page. He voted for himself as ‘most pompous’ a total of 96 times over a time period of 25 minutes.

(Talk about having too much time on your hands! Or perhaps Airyn Bell isn’t keeping him busy enough?)

At any rate, artie has been BANNED from the Polls Page of www.HamFanz.com! At least until I remember to unban him, or till he apologizes! (I’d bet being banned is something artie is NOT used too!)

What are the Burbank Boys up too now?

2008-02-17T20:31:00.000-08:00

What are the Burbank Boys up too now?

Does anyone REALLY think that Jim Watkins ki6gu has not been on air the last three nights because he has a cold? When even Gout or Sciatica have not kept him away in the past?

Or that Greg Sousa w6ezv has not been on air the last three nights because he is catching up on his sleep?

Of course, both of these were arties w6obb, explanation for the ‘missing’ hams.

So have the Burbank boys made the trek to Pahrump to minister to art, help put artie together again after his recent ‘meltdown’? Or are they up to something much more nefarious, at artie’s request?

Legal Woes for Bill Crowell w6wbj coming to a head?

2008-02-13T20:02:00.000-08:00

It would seem that the FCC has finally taken some action in regards to w6wbj. You can find the information here: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-361A1.doc

Wow! Terrible Trouble for w6wbj! He has 20 days to file a reply! I’m no ‘legal eagle’, but on first reading, to me it looks like this is the first step for the dismissal of the case against w6wbj by an Administrative Law Judge.

I would hope that w6wbj would SHARE his ‘filing’ with us! (We always get to see the FCC letters & actions, never the replies.)

The Art Bell w6obb, ‘Show’ is Back!

2008-02-12T15:06:00.000-08:00

From staying off air, to talking to a few close worshipers on closely guarded frequencies now and again, to spending an entire evening with the Little People and getting snubbed big time, (and yes, I do have the recordings, they will be posted on The Secret Page!) artie has gathered his remaining cult-of-the-loop members on 3.830.

I cannot even begin to imagine the time, cost, and energy that artie must have spent in the behind the scene work, but he HAS pulled it all together. This last weekend was good – after midnight listening! (Again, the recordings, at least of Friday night, will be temporarily uploaded to the Secret Page!)

‘Jamming’ has been at a minimum, so far. Steve Wingate k6txh, (or recordings of) were injected Sunday evening, but were sporadic. (Does artie buy ‘em off, threats, or what?).

The usual suspects are involved: Art Bell w6obb, Jim Watkins ki6gu, Ben Gardner kd7bcw, Scott Barris k7mix, and a ‘drop’ in cast of many Hams. Carl Richardson kb5fjx, artie’s brother in law in Arkansas, and someone we don’t hear from very often anymore, even checked in (though you could barely copy him) one night.

Art Bell claims to be retired, and in pursuit of his hobby; but this, even though on Amateur Radio, is a planned and formatted artie production. They are setting up a ‘phone patch’ through Skype. They are using a real time chat (more later!). Of interest, artie is doing NONE of this scut work, his minions are volunteering their time and energy (and funds?).

This group of hams has not adopted a formal name, but of course, they are still The Elites!

The Jim ki6gu, and Greg w6ezv, Show

2008-02-06T20:49:00.000-08:00

Is anyone surprised that still another ‘switch and split’ is well underway? I think not! Most of these hams apparently never learned the concepts or value of such ideas as: loyalty, live and let live, or mind your own business!

If the ‘splitting’ of groups continues at this pace, the ‘once’ group of hams that gathered on 3740 a few years back, are going to be split into 1) The Little People and 2)The Short Attention Span Network. Then there will be 3) a hundred other hams, each sitting on one frequency with no one to talk too, and futility hoping someone will drop by!

Some of the recent exchanges certainly left me laughing. In fact, during one such recent transmission, the refrain of Pick-a-Little-Talk-a-Little-Cheep-Cheep-Cheep popped right into my mind. It is from the movie, Music Man, 1962. (And a BIG thanks to the person that found the audio clip for me! You know who you are…)

Give a listen, doesn’t this sound just like Jim ki6gu and Greg w6ezv lately! (What a couple of crabby old harpies!)

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/9/22/1450734/2008.02.06_Talk-a-little%20refrain.mp3

BTW, There are HOURS of recordings of The Jim ki6gu, and Greg w6ezv, Show that I will be posting to the SECRET PAGE soon (well a few at a time!).

A ‘new’ cyber toy for Hams

2008-01-31T20:12:00.000-08:00

Hamsphere, a ‘simulated’ ionosphere is now available to Licensed Operators and serious ‘others’ (Not me; I am not THAT serious!)

Hamsphere is the newest ‘brainchild of Kelly Lindman, the original mind behind dxturners (formerly Java Tuners).

Go sign on, and let us all know how it works out! You can find it at: http://www.hamsphere.com/

The Lush & The Stalker – Follow Up

2008-01-26T16:48:00.000-08:00

Latest Poll Results from The Secret Page!
The biggest SOB is:
k6txh Steve(12)
33%
w6ezv Greg(24)
67%

36 total votes since 01/20/08

Since THE LUSH & THE STALKER was posted, I’ve heard from Gregory Sousa w6ezv, both by email and by phone.

He wants the article changed – completely. Gregory says, “Since calling me a ‘stalker’ is in effect accusing me of criminal conduct, I'd appreciate a modification of the terminology used on your site.” He suggests I “take a look at 646.9 Cal PC.”

I did, and you can also at: http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/646.9.html (scroll half way down the page).

It is my OPINION that Gregory Sousa’s actions towards Steve Wingate k6txh, was stalking behavior. This is verified by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking and The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Ed. http://www.bartleby.com/61/89/S0698900.html. By these definitions, Gregory was stalking Steve Wingate. This research validated my own opinion, which I am not only entitled to, but have the freedom to express.

Back to Gregory Sousa’s direct communications with me:
1) Can’t he read? The HamFanz Grudge Report states concisely at the top of this blog, that I do not enter into private communications about the articles posted here. (Anyone has the recourse to disagree by posting a comment.)
2) Can’t he read? The ‘legal’ boilerplate, or the disclaimer, at the end of the blog page plainly states my claim to my opinions.
3) Nothing I say in The HamFanz Grudge Report will change the facts of his behavior.

Mr. Sousa, in his phone call to me, indicated that if I didn’t change The HamFanz Grudge report, that legal (and possible other) repercussions would follow. It was at this point that I said I would not discuss this with him (for the umpteenth time), said good bye, and with him still talking, hung up the phone. (I know, it was rude, but he had interrupted my nap!)

Since Gregory Sousa (among others), likes citations, I’d like to point to a few that might clarify this ‘freedom of internet speech’ issue…

1) The FCC (yep, the very same agency that Hams love/hate so much!) in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act upholds MY right to my Opinion.
2) Even Art Bell w6obb, has had no success in this area as ALL the CadenHead Workbench articles and comments are still available. http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench/news/3042/art-bell-threatens-lawsuit-over-weblog
3) Again, from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Cadenhead In October 2006, Cadenhead was threatened with a lawsuit from radio talk show host Art Bell, claiming that various comments on his blog were libelous. Cadenhead offered to remove the offending posts but Bell insisted that the entire stories be removed. Cadenhead will use Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as his defense, stating that there was no requirement for him to censor or moderate comments. No formal lawsuit has yet been filed. [10]

I understand of making choices and decisions for which one is later sorry for (BTDT!). I’d suggest that Gregory Sousa examine his actions, and his conscience, contact Steve Wingate and sincerely apologize, promising to not conduct himself in that manner again.

I’d also suggest that Gregory Sousa get some counseling regarding his obvious to all but himself, obsession with Steve Wingate.

The Lush k6txh, and the Stalker w6ezv

2008-01-19T22:37:00.000-08:00

Steve Wingate k6txh, had his first day in court for whatever charges have been filed against him and no one seems to know for sure just what those charges encompass.

The day would have gone unnoticed, except for some Hams, who on air and off, tried to promote all kinds of rumors (some of them vicious). You know who you are!

Now I must admit, I do not think much of SteveO’s behavior when he is under the influence of whatever, which is most of the time. But to the best of my knowledge, Steve has never physically interfered in any Ham’s off air life. He seems to limit his abuse of others to those who share the bands with him. (The tiff with his neighbors? Who knows, we will probably never get the real story.)

Ahhh, but Gregory Sousa w6ezv, IS interfering in the off air life of Steve Wingate. By actually, physically showing up at the court house for Steve’s preliminary hearing, then following Steve to his house, then setting up video equipment, he IS stalking. This is way over the line.

We know for a fact that some Hams ‘bait’ Steve on air. An excellent example can be found in the recordings from 1.17/18.08, where Stan wg6k, deftly manipulates a gullible Steve on 3.740.

I will be posting all those recordings (including one recorded by ‘Sawyer) on the HamFanz Secret Page shortly. (By the way, the Secret Page is open to all through 1.31.08!)

Although I can’t in any way ‘approve’ Steve Wingate’s on air behavior, and I hope against hope that he will seek help for his substance abuse problems, Gregory Sousa’s stalking behavior is far beyond the pale.

Steve should follow through and get a restraining order against Gregory (and those neighbors!). And go to a meeting a day for the next 30 days!

Gregory should stop letting himself be led around (by the beard?) by those followers of the Cult of the Loop, as he will never gain the status he is seeking. They are just playing him for the fool, to be used and tossed aside. (Surely you don’t think Gregory financed that trip himself do you???)

Bill Crowell w6wbj, World’s Biggest Jammer?

2008-01-14T20:04:00.000-08:00

I think not! Not only has he not been heard from much lately (since his truce with artie w6obb), but the 'Filipino Monkey' has him beat, hands down!

Check out: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2240533,00.html

In comparison to the above, the antics of w6wbj, k6txh, and w6ezv are paltry indeed! Wonder if anyone will ever catch this guy? Apparently he has been at it for decades...

Artie’s w6obb Grief

2008-01-05T21:18:00.000-08:00

Today marks the second year since Ramona Bell passed.

Just yesterday I had a discussion with someone about the ‘degree’ of negligence artie might have been responsible for in the death of Ramona Bell.

Two years and the ‘doubts’ are still out there. It was even mentioned that no one had seen a copy of Ramona’s autopsy. (You know, there is no ‘statute of limitation on ‘murder’; I wonder if the same is also true of ‘negligent homicide’?)

Wonder if artie took Airyn & Asia to the gravesite today…

HamFanz 2008 Predictions

2007-12-31T18:05:00.000-08:00

Here is your chance! Enter your ‘predictions’ about HAMS & SWLS for all posterity!

HamFanz Grudge Report may not be Coast to Coast AM, nor Art Bell, but…

This was actually done for a couple of years on The HamFanz Yahoo Group. But folks did not like clicking through to a database. Besides, they could only enter a few words, which was a BIG turn off to our bloviates! So almost a year ago, I decided to do this every December 31 on The HamFanz Grudge Report!

Please post YOUR 2008 predictions concerning the HAMS & SWL! ONE AT A TIME PLEASE. (If posts come through with a BUNCH of ‘predictions’ all lumped together, I will reject them; though you can certainly post MORE than one prediction (unlike Coast to Coast AM).

artie w6obb, isn’t the only one with psychics in his pocket! So sit quietly for a few minutes, still your mind (but DO NOT leave your body!), have a beer or a toke, some dark chocolate, or all, and revelations about the HAMS & SWL you deal with in your ‘hobby’ will come to you!

Suggestions: (Try to keep each ‘prediction’ short and succinct!)

In the coming year:

w6xxx will ? in 2008
Short Attention Span network will ? in 2008
The FCC will ? in 2008
k7xxx arrest record will be revealed
Who will get a new rig/antenna?
Who will be the NEXT to marry an almost child?
Who will start Streaming (or put up a dxtuner)?
Where will Timmie’s ghost appear next?

Who will post the BEST parady on HamCams?

Which Little Person will win a 'Barny'

Who will join the 'NAMBPIG' club?

Well, you get the idea!

Let’s make this a GREAT HamFanz yearly EVENT! Have FUN, and HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!

Steve Wingate k6thx Unleashed

2007-12-19T23:08:00.000-08:00

If there is ANYONE who has not yet seen this video, do go check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qQuIcQnzkE, then come back here and give your comments!

I have watched it twice because I could not believe what I was seeing the first time. My email box was stuffed with the above url sent by various folks. Then there were the phone calls. Sigh...

This video just proves what many have known for about 5 years now; Steve Wingate is a loose cannon, he is apparently a substance abuser, has no respect for others, and is ‘socially impaired’ (he does not play well with other children).

The question is why would anyone be surprised by this, anyone that has been exposed to him for more than a week in any manner, that is?
I had one report that Steve was arrested for this little escapade, I do not know if it is true or not. If not, he should have been...

I find it so sad that an apparently (physically) healthy, educated, white affluent male can find nothing else to do with his life other than fight (literally!) with his neighbors. My guess is, he is not capable of much else.

I am supremely happy that Steve Wingate is NOT a neighbor of mine; he is not next-door, not down the street, not even in the same city!

Steve Wingate k6txh, Sometimes ya gotta like the guy!

2007-12-17T17:49:00.000-08:00

Today on RadioWingnuts http://www.radiowingnuts.com/ SteveO again took on Art Bell w6obb. He did this by posting links to OLD websites that questioned how Ramona Bell died, as well as artie’s ‘quick’ remarriage to Airyn Bell.

I would not want you to miss it! So, in case you have not yet read this entertaining, though old, stuff:

http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench/art-bell-email-exchange
http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench/news/3042/art-bell-threatens-lawsuit-over-weblog

Then lower down on RadioWingnuts http://www.radiowingnuts.com/, in the picture section, he posted a ‘picture’ of a text titled: 'Ramona Bell Murdered by Reverse Speech'...

This brings a couple of items to mind!

1) What did artie DO to Steve recently to bring on this ‘attack’? Or vice versa?
2) Or is SteveO just thinking, remembering things past?
3) Don’t you wonder what is going on in the ‘background’; the phone calls, email, messenger threats, etc?

I have ‘heard’ that artie is ‘livid’ about this stuff being posted on Radio Wingnuts. That may or may not be true. NOW it is also posted on The HamFanz Grudge Report (in case Radio Wingnuts should disappear). Artie can now have something else to be ‘livid’ about! But hey, if it is out there...

godlikeproductions

2007-12-11T08:48:00.000-08:00

This subject came up in 'comments' on the HamFanz article: Art Bell w6obb, One picture... In the interest of continuity these comments are 'copied' below:

______________

Anonymous said... Evvy, I appreciated the comments someone left in your name at the "GLP Noory Sucks" thread. I think Noory sucks, but Bell does also. Glad you're an old lady, as opposed to Bell and Irene (Sorry, I meant Airyn), who are both quite young. Even if someone is taking your posts to put there- I'm glad to see them.

evvy garrett said... Well, I'm curious, what IS "GLP Noory Sucks" thread???

Anonymous said... It's the website Godlike Productions.The thread is "George Noory Sucks". Someone has been giving your name, and posting the ham radio inside info. http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message13772/pg543 . Not a link, sorry. If you check out the postings before and after this, you will see your name multiple times. I don't want to bother you, just wanted you to know.

Edward Haskell, Esq. said... >>It's the website Godlike Productions.The thread is "George Noory Sucks". Someone has been giving your name, and posting the ham radio inside info. http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message13772/pg543 . Not a link, sorry. If you check out the postings before and after this, you will see your name multiple times. I don't want to bother you, just wanted you to know.

>>What a helpful post. There are 562responses in that thread. That "shore do" narrow things down a lot. Yuk-yuk.

______________

I was intrigued, so I did some checking...

To the best of my memory, I have never posted on http://www.godlikeproductions.com/. (I am busy enough with all the HamFanz endeavors!) Nor do I have such an inclination! (Just looks like another place where people who need a gazillion different ID's can mentally masterbate themselves.)

BUT, thanks to 'Frank' (and we all KNOW 'Frank' - prob another 'artie w6obb ID), HamFanz has even MORE readers!

Here are the exact QUOTES and their links, so you do not have to go 'searching' for them. The links DO give you the entire page, and you have to scroll down, but it is not difficult to find.

The "OFFICIAL" George Noory Sucks Thread! - Page 550 knows how many others, all of them are Evvy Garrett who is a bitter old lady who runs some ... Evvy Garrett who is a bitter old lady who runs some kind of ... The "OFFICIAL" George Noory Sucks Thread! - Page 546 Just thought EVERYBODY should know that we have busted the IP number and Anonymous Coward # 335770 is Evvy Garrett who is on a mission to write trash ...

I would MUCH prefer that you read and post here, but if you do post there (under whatever ID!) please mention HamFanz and www.hamfanz.com!

Art Bell w6obb, One picture...

2007-12-04T20:46:00.000-08:00

One picture may well be worth a thousand words.

Ahhh, but two pictures can tell the entire story...yes?

But just WHAT kind of story is this? It ain't 'Love Story', that's for sure!

Ramona Bell ___________________________________ Airyn Bell

Note: same man, same pose, same grin, same 'hold' on woman, same RV, same couch, same blinds, same, same, same. Just one woman (object) replacing another.

A different year but "It's all the same f...n' day, man!" --Janis Joplin

PS I should get paid LOTS O BUCKS for being out front and SAYING what everyone else is THINKING. Besides, now I might need to hire security!

Gentleman Jim ki6gu

2007-12-02T15:47:00.000-08:00

Still another nick for Jim Watkins! He is going though 'nicks' faster than many of us go though Halloween Candy, or beer depending on your 'bent'!

Truthfully, I have no clue as to where this one originated. But, he claims to be in a better mood, now that his legal issues are over and done with.

After hearing Gentleman Jim ki6gu, and the rest of the 'Elites' PLOW into Chris Knight k6pic the other night on 3720, I am sure about either the ‘better mood’ or the 'gentleman' descriptive! (The full-unedited recordings and clips of this event are on the HamFanz Secret Page.)

The legal issues that 'Gentleman Jim' was involved in, through no choice of his own, might be interesting, as they seem to involve Amateur Radio. Since few heard any of it the other night when he reportedly read from the court transcripts, we really do not know the full story. (Apparently, it was not recorded, due to 'timing', as the Pahrump Tuner does not transmit/record after a certain hour, or it was not tuned to whatever frequency they were on. Either that or artie w6obb, just had not bothered as he did a c2c show that night.)

At any rate, Gentleman Jim, is spoon-feeding us this info one scanned page at a time, which makes it more than a little difficult to track...

And, Chris k6pic, is probably off somewhere wondering what the hell he did wrong, (after all, the Elites are 'trying to avoid confrontation') other than trying to be friendly with the Elites, while he temporarily retreats into the safety of being a SWL!

dxtuner Returns!

2007-11-26T22:11:00.000-08:00

Terrific news! Though there is no info on the how or why of it, Kelly Lindman has apparently changed his mind (YES!), or found some way to continue dxtuners which folded in April 2007

You can find the RIP here at Shortwave Central Blog: http://mt-shortwave.blogspot.com/2007/04/dxtuners-rip.html

Or here in The HamFanz Grudge Report:
http://hamfanz.blogspot.com/2007/05/still-one-more-sign-hobby-is-dying.html

I have already 'signed' up (though they must still have the old records, as I was assigned my 'old' password).

FROM www.dxtuner.com

"We are now accepting new users. Just use the application above. Then wait for approval or email approveme@dxtuners.com. Sincerely
Kelly Lindman Founder"

"Share your receiver with DxTuners and become an admin on our network.
Have you a spare receiver that you wish to share with our ever growing network? You will meet lots of new friends, as well as contributing to our ever growing worldwide network. You will find it great fun and educational.
For more information on how to set up your own DXTuner Node, then just follow this link"

This GOOD NEWS courtesy of 'SAWYER'...

One NAMPIG Speaks Up!

2007-11-18T02:04:00.000-08:00

Since Ben Gardner kd7bcw, saw fit to share our private emails with Art Bell w6obb, at his private email address: art@2330.com, why I feel no compunction to not also share our recent communications with those of my choice, The HamFanz Grudge Report Readers!

It all started with a simple ‘invite’ to join me on Yahoo Chat (which many of you received). Big Ben was the only one to reply with an email, opening a discussion.

Do note the projection, the ‘rationalization’ process the NAMPIGS use, as well as the ‘defensiveness’. Ben’s unfounded and undocumented, accusations soon deteriorate into ‘threats’ of a legal (and other?) nature.

BTW, it was nice of Big Ben to put this all together, in one document, for me. It was also nice of him to supply Art Bells new email addie...

----- Original Message ----- From: evvy@cox.net To: kd7bcw@comcast.net Sent: Friday,
November 16, 2007 10:27 PM Subject: Join evvy garrett on Yahoo! Messenger!

evvy garrett wants to talk with you using Yahoo! Messenger:

Accept the Invitation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

To:
Evvy
From: Ben

Evvy, I am confused as why you would desire, or care, to talk to me, being a person you repeatedly proclaim has so many terrible traits. Perhaps you will enlighten me, as to any "hidden" agendas, or specific information you care to extract from me. I may respond as per a "need to know basis", or depending on the information, I
may reply accordingly. Regarding Yahoo IM: I am reserving my list primarily for
video conferencing to my so-called "mail order bride", and related family and
friends. Have a wonderful Thanksgivings Day, and Holiday. ~
Ben
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TO:
Ben
From: Evvy

>>>I may respond as per a "need to know basis", or depending on theinformation,
Exactly, Ben. Many find they are more comfortable in 'chat' than email(though I don't know why).
>>>I am confused as why you would desire, or care, to talk to me, being aperson you repeatedly proclaim has so many terrible traits.
Ben, I absolutely think that what you (& others) have done is wrong, wrong, wrong. Morally, ethically, in all kinds of ways. And I have said so, andwill continue to say so. And unlike some others, I will say it publically,and to your face (and remember, the Grudge often reports what everyone elseis saying, behind your back!).
AND this is ONE of the major reasons so many of the 'Little People' won'tvisit 3720, or so I have heard.
It literally 'turns my stomach' to think of you old coots with those young girls. And I believe it is just a legal form of pedophilia.
That being said, up front, does NOT mean, that I wish you ill in any way. I never have and never will (ditto the others). But I will continue tofollow these 'stories'. And I will continue to state my feelings on the subject.
In a way it AMAZES me that you thought you could do this, and that therewould be no 'flack' or 'backlash' from it. If you can't stand the 'heat',why did you even consider going in the kitchen? You sought out, created,went public, with your current situation, now you have to live with the consequences, (ALL of them), as we all do with the decisions and choices wemake in our lives...though most of us aren't nearly so public with them!
And yes, I do wish you a great thanksgiving!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To:
Evvy Garrett
From: Ben
Ms. socially confused Evvy,
You have told me privately about your daughter's desire not to communicate with you. Why? Do you suspect in part it may explain your bitterness toward other people's happiness? You do not seem to cultivate any romantic frienships. I suspect you are ashamed and attempt to hide your personal life, and your faults, by targeting others to distract yourself, and others, from your demons. You do have unethical publishing traits powered by tainted concepts. You are hypocritical, and
boorish about people you have not met, or know, and most likely will never know on a personal basis. You have your rights to say and write what you currently think is correct, or even knowing is false, however remember that so do the people you offend. There are also some legal matters which you may over step. Wise up, as
they say, "paybacks are..." . It is impolite for a male to publically censure a female, therefore I am sure that you are somewhat shielded from much negative rebuttal, abuse, or encountering what you unashamedly, if not proudly, web-publish about
people.
You obviously were not taught proper etiquette, or misunderstood childhood lessons, regarding correct social behavior, such as: "keep your unkind, and negative opinions, and comments to yourself". It is much wiser to spend your time and concerns upon your own life issues, considering you are not employed, or competing with any well-known "scandal magazine", publications, or tv info-tainment, news
organizations. I find some of your drivel postings to be comical non-sense at best, although, I seldom go to your site. It appears that you solicit income by propagating lies, inuendo, and your narrow-minded standards of morality. Not to mention the selling of freely copied public domained materials. Even more strange being you are not a ham operator.
Yes Evvy, I did infact, knowingly, planned and expected to endure whatever misguided flack, when I made my choice regarding marriage. I am very happy, and
have no need to justify for the sake of my faith, family, or self. I do not owe anyone any explaination. I spent much time in consideration in regards to a marriage proposal. I did have my Euro-Occidental concepts regarding the age differences. You say, there are those who may avoid me, or 3720 khz, as a result, of my actions. If so they only confirm their Asian cultural ignorance. I am aware there are childish people who make foul bigoted remarks, but ho-hum such is life. A responsible adult of social etiquette does not behave in the manner that you have centered your existence, and subject people. You should be responsible for your lack of ethnic
knowledge, and your crass conjecture. I do not care to join any gossip chat rooms", as they seem to produce nothing but bitterness. You have your trashy gossip website, please do not expand your empire, as the internet already has too many wacko domains!
I have found that if a person is generally kind, and treat people with what is often called "common respect"(courtesy), the same will be reflected.
finis "Burma Shave"~Ben (sic)

RadioWingnuts?

2007-11-17T23:01:00.000-08:00

Obviously, SteveO k6txh, was stoned when he chose a new name for 3840Hams.net.

I mean, why not WingnutRadio (which is available). Radio Wingnuts? Why the plural? (Ohhh, lordee, lordee, don't tell me there is more than ONE SteveO!)

And he has made no other changes to the site. Wouldn't you think he'd scatter a few wingnuts about here and there? Change the background? Something???

The pictures remain stale, seldom changed, and often posted by WingNut himself, to fill the slots of people he's kicked off the site.

I guess, there is a 'new' chat. There is a message asking you to download a Java application. I haven't bothered. The old chat is still present (though of course, I am still banned from it).

WingNut should have just closed the page. But then HOW would Bill Houlne wb6bnq 'suck up'?

B.B. Watkins ki6gu

2007-11-13T18:36:00.000-08:00

One wonders why Jim Watkins ki6gu, has given himself the on air 'nick' of BIG BURBANK BASTARD?

Could it have something to do with the very visible displeasure of Bill Crowell w6wbj, at Jim's recent recanting of his disgust and hatred of Art Bell w6obb?

If that is the case, then why be so 'heavy-handed', insulting, derisive, and surly with the other Hams on 3720 that have basically made the same self-serving decision, that is, to hang with artie?

Often, when we have made ‘bad’ decisions we then have to live with, we get so angry at ourselves that it spills over. Perhaps this is what has changed Jim’s personality so drastically in the past year.

Or maybe Jim ki6gu, was just ‘hiding’ his true self all along, and THIS (shudder), is the ‘real thing’. Just listen to 3720 for a few minutes during the wee hours of most mornings, it will not take long before Jim ‘goes off’ about something, anything, anyone!

Such sudden personality changes, in the form of irritability, can also be caused by ongoing stress, and worry. There can be physical causes too, including simple things like reactions to medications and electrolyte imbalances.

Whatever the cause, I enjoyed listening to the ‘old’ GU, so much more than the new BIG BURBANK BASTARD. What about you?

Little People Packing up and Moving

2007-11-08T21:49:00.000-08:00

I did hear it announced on air recently, but I also just checked out the LITTLE PEOPLE website http://members.cox.net/kn6z/littlepeoplelog.htm. And sure enough, just a couple of paragraphs under the EGO GRID (Fun! Dontcha just love it?) was the announcement: "In less than two weeks WE ARE MOVING to 3670 or thereabouts."

I don't know WHY they are moving, don't listen enough to really know, and Glenn Thurman, kn6z doesn't say on his log.

But wouldn't this be a great time to CHANGE THEIR NAME???

After all 'THE LITTLE PEOPLE' is a moniker that Jim Watkins ki6gu, coined and applied to that specific group of Hams. Yes, this would be a fortuitous time indeed, for that group to PICK their own name!

All in favor, raise your hand!

Please renew my amateur license, w6wbj, pleads

2007-11-06T19:09:00.000-08:00

A 'copy' of a communication sent by William F. Crowell w6wbj, to Riley Hollingsworth. (I have no idea if this was sent BEFORE Hollingsworth retired, after, or when Hollingsworh 'un-retired' from the FCC. However I thought it interesting and wondered if you might also...

Re: Enforcement Case No. 2006-176 Dear Mr. Hollingsworth: Since I have denied all of the complaints which you have alleged against me in the above-entitled amateur renewal case, and since the applicable statute of limitations [47 U.S.C. Sec. 503(b)(6)(b)] pertaining to the acts complained of has long since expired, kindly renew my vanity callsign W6WBJ at this time for its normal 10-year term. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. William F. Crowell

Hollingsworth’s Recent Announcement

2007-10-31T20:17:00.000-07:00

Riley Hollingsworth, Special Counsel for the FCC's Enforcement Bureau, has decided not to retire http://www.arrl.org/?artid=7813

And just why would this be of interest to readers of The HamFanz Grudge Report?

Because Hollingsworth said, "After spending the entire weekend thinking about the decision [to retire], it became more and more clear to me that it just isn't the right decision for me right now. There are several issues on the table that I want to continue to work through with the amateur community."

(Wow, he thought this through for an entire weekend? )

Could this be a reference to Bill Crowell w6wbj, and/or Steve Wingate k6txh who both have FCC issues pending?

Perhaps. But the REAL question is: What kind of ‘perk’ or how much did Art Bell w6obb PAY Hollingsworth to stay and deal with these ‘problems’???

Perfect timing also, as he announced this the day before Halloween, proving once again that many (not all!) Hams do not need a spooky costume, as they already have two faces!

Someone is listening to 3.720

2007-10-24T16:49:00.000-07:00

Because I received this GREAT audio clip of artie w6obb and Jim ki6gu discussing MONEY, the parody I did with Bill Crowell w6wbj. This was apparently recorded on 10.22.2007.

Seems artie listened and didn't like nor approve of my voice or lyrics. He calls it 'old lady rap'.

Well jeeze, for one thing, I AM an old lady (lady being the key word), and I admit it. Unlike artie, (who is NOT a gentleman), I don't dye my hair, need someone to cook, do my laundry for me, or an almost child to provide sex. In 61 years of life, I have learned to take care of myself, do my own dishes, laundry, and live without a mate, as have MANY others in their 60's!

Besides, there are many that think the 'pap' he puts out on air is 'OLD MAN RAP'. (And he IS an old man!)

Not only that, but since the penis/money driven marriage to the young PI girl, Airyn, there are many that think his drivel is: FOOLISH, OLD MAN RAP! His constant on air praise of the PI's and it's culture? So just MOVE there! Take your bought and paid for wife and baby and just go already (Then Aisia Bell can put up her own 'ads for an american man' when she is 20.)

And that is the attitude of artie's 'pals', IF they are loyal members of the Cult of the Loop or other NAMBPIG's (North American Men Buying PI Girls), or in some way needing his money. Otherwise, artie aficionados, pals, admirers, indeed, even fans are dropping to the wayside in droves.

It is obvious by now that artie, the NAMBPIG's (North American Men Buying PI Girls), and some 'artie pals' have definitely chosen the 'low road' in life. (Easy to distinguish, the 'right thing' is always the hard way to go, whereas the 'wrong thing' is always the easy and self-serving choice. )

My opinion of artie's opinion (or his sicko pals) of anything NOW: a laugh and a loud RASPBERRY!

And come on! This is supposed to be a HOBBY, it's supposed to be FUN, (have artie and his NAMBPIG's furthered that in any way lately?).

So where IS artie's (your) sense of humor???

I not only had FUN doing the parody MONEY, but enjoy listening to it, and hearing the comments. (Still laughing at all you 'naysayers', and those that just didn't 'get it'!)

Mutual Masturbation: Art Bell w6obb and Jim Watkins ki6gu

2007-10-22T20:14:00.000-07:00

I have been listening to 3.720 here and there. I must have really bad timing because when I have caught the show, it has been only art bell w6obb, and Jim Watson ki6gu.

They take turns complimenting each other, agreeing with each other, comparing audio, and (warm fuzzy here!), sharing the events of their day (awwww).

Didn’t they get enough ‘kiss & make up’ during Jim’s recent 2 day trip to visit artie at the Temple Of The Loop in Pahrump?

Where, oh where, are the Hams that artie said would follow him to 3.720? Could it be that many do not want to talk to a...a... (fill in word of your choice).

Perhaps artie should start an on air group of NAMBPIG (North American Men Buying PI Girls)? It could include such upright and moral men as, Ben Gardner kd7bcw, Carl Richardson kb5fjx, Martin Szymanski w7ru, , perhaps vr2hf, and of course, artie!

Move over Mrs. Miller!

2007-10-19T17:43:00.000-07:00

Yes, well, Mrs. Miller could sing, kinda sorta. For her bio please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs._Miller

Trish Ray k4ze, a 'SWL turned ham, 3840 used to be', composes and sings. She even sells her own CD's on her site, or at least she did at one time. I can't seem to find her page at the moment; she updates her sites so often even the search engines can't keep up with her!

Bill Crowell w6wbj, can't sing, but he does not let that stop him! He really belts 'em out when he's in the mood, or has something to say. (Wonder what he sounds like in the shower? ) Not only that, but he can play that piano! And work with music on many levels.

I, on the other hand, can not sing. I can not carry a tune in the proverbial hand basket! I may not have the 'broadcasting voice' that art bell w6obb, n7js, ki6gu, or wg6k, have -- but I have a great deal of experience with 'literary readings' and poetry.

It was something that was fated to happen someday, and today is that day! A melding of great talents if you will. So for your enjoyment, MONEY, by Bill Crowell & evvy garrett...

Art Bell w6obb, is Not Getting Enough Attention

2007-10-12T22:59:00.000-07:00

I guess artie has not been getting enough ‘space’ in The HamFanz Grudge Report lately, so last night he baited his Elite buddies on 3.720 by starting a conversation on air about the last Grudge Report, “A MAN’S WORD.” (It would seem that artie, among other things, is ‘reading comprehension challenged, as he claimed to not understand the article.)

Being the manipulator he is, he deftly led ki6gu and k6mix into saying what artie wouldn’t, but wanted to hear. Most of them followed his lead, like Lemmings off a cliff; wb6bnq stayed out of the fray, ki6gu really did try to sidestep, and k6thx in his usual ‘altered’ state was, well, was SteveO.

artie starting the conversation:

And it more or less ended like this:

As the evening progressed, they went on to discuss the 'new generals' and 3.840:

(There are further clips available on HamFanz/current clips, and the full recordings are available on the Secret Page, if you have the url and password, and the stomach to listen to them!)

Now some would think, that artie 'manipulated' me into responding. NOT! I decided to do this Grudge Report, and post the PUBLIC DOMAIN recordings:
1) in the hopes that the 'sheep' would realize how artie is using them, and how 'sickly needy' they are,
2) that someone will send copies to their mothers, they ought to be really proud of their sons.
3) that those who still don't know will understand that the ELITES, really do believe, deep down inside, that they are indeed, the ELITE!

So artie, you wanted the attention and another HamFanz Grudge Report; here it is!

A man’s word?

2007-10-09T23:39:00.000-07:00

EVERYONE has the option of changing his or her minds. So why is it anyone’s business who talks to whom, where?

The current degree of animosity about the latest, most recent re-grouping (that we all knew was going to happen; come on, we knew, didn’t we?), on 3.720 is at record high, and I just do not get it. Haven’t we been there and done that? (A jillion times?) Did we not know that there are those who would flock to artie w6obb, at his slightest indication?

The ONLY high crime and misdemeanor I see here is that this bunch of middle-aged (and older!) MALES (fools?), insist on ‘marking’ their territory – and at their age and experience, they should know better. They just end up pi**ing on themselves. Again! And as with stale urine from any animal, anywhere, it soon stinks!

Changing your mind is no big deal, not keeping your word, once given, is a completely different matter! And that is where the problem arises, many think that these Hams are not simply changing their minds, but have given their word, and are now not honoring, not standing behind, what was said.

So which is it; did they change their minds, or not honor their stated stance? Are they just silly old lonely, male fools, randomly marking their territory without thinking? Or are they men of no honor, who’s word you can not count on? On which side do you weigh in?

The HamFanz Archives

2007-10-04T22:49:00.000-07:00

In case you had not noticed, The HamFanz Archives are now complete up through 2006! Order yours before the prices go up! (Thanks k6fej!)

Calling Greg Sousa w6ezv

2007-09-22T11:49:00.001-07:00

(Pic from 4.9.04 HamFanz Archives)

Where oh where is ‘The Voice of Reason’? Once a nightly presence, perhaps even a high-up member of the ‘Cult of the Loop’ now he is almost never heard from.

No doubt he is busy with job and family (Hey, we miss the pics of the kidlet too!), but Greg, can’t you set aside ONE evening a week to get on that radio? 3.720, The Elites, are waiting for you! Or if you can no longer do the ‘after midnight’ gig, how about The Short Attention Span Network on 3.740, you would be welcome there. Or how about 3.840, lots of new Generals there now, you might find someone to ‘relate’ too. Greg, you are missed (even if you were seldom ‘reasonable’)!

Ben Gardner kd7bcw, Wishful Thinking, or Reality?

2007-09-20T22:09:00.001-07:00

Is the posting of this picture on www.hamcams.com reflecting how Ben feels about women in general? Or about his new bride, Cherry? Or about all the recent brides ‘purchased’ and imported by the Hams? My guess would be that it’s ‘all of the above’.

Is Ben happy that he now has a S.L.U.T. of his own to ride? (Thanks to artie’s w6obb, generosity.) Or he will soon, and wishes it were even sooner?

Either way, the posting of this pic reveals much about Ben Gardner kd7bcw. Not that many of us did not know it anyway...