Happy New Year!

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

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

January 25th is NOT far off!

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

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

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