The Saga Continues, w6wbj

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.