Lutz
Community Radio
c/o 1715 E. Fowler Ave., #117
Tampa, Florida
U.S.A.
January 27, 1997
Via Certified Mail:
P-389-013-192
Federal Communications
Commission
Compliance and Information Bureau
Mr. Ralph Barlow, Engineer in Charge
2203 N. Lois Ave., Suite 1215
Tampa, Florida 33607
Dear Mr. Barlow,
This second letter to you does not bear a personal
salutation. I admit that your choice of force over good faith dialogue to resolve conflict
indicates that I misjudged you. I now understand that temporary security and comfort mean
more to you than lasting friendships or brotherhood.
There has been discussion of further aggression
toward me by government actors, more retaliation for exercising my God-given right of
Political and Religious Free Speech on the otherwise vacant frequency of 96.7 Mhz. Such
further attack would seem premature, considering your in-house lawyer has yet to oppose
about a half-dozen Defenses raised in our Answer of July 2, 1996, which was a response to
your first attack and plunder.
We recognize that you and your partners believe
there is no mandate for the FCC to provide for the needs of our community, as they relate
to obtaining licensing for Lutz Community Radio. It is manifestly apparent that you feel
that it is more expedient to use the awesome power of government to simply crush the small
community radio station, rather than take responsibility for its genuine needs. Therein
lies certain criminality.
Before initiating a Counterclaim against you, in
your own private person, for knowingly exceeding the limit of your authority, I must
insure that you have been sufficiently informed of the true limit of that authority. As an
agent of the U.S. government, you must take an Oath or Affirmation, wherein you agree to
uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution for the United States of America. That is the
primary requisite upon which rests your ability to maintain your precious comfort and
security. Unfortunately, the likelihood that you've actually studied the Constitution for
more than a few minutes is extremely remote. When you permit a lawyer to determine the
extent of your authority, you should bear in mind that he has studied the Constitution
only a minute or two more than you have. Law school students are not permitted to study
the Constitution itself That is not part of the plan. They merely study what certain
"illuminated" men have said regarding the Constitution. This is a recipe for
disaster, especially when you then proceed to damage loyal Americans who do know
the U.S. Constitution.
YOUR LIMITED AUTHORITY UNDER THE
COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934
Congressional powers are limited to 18
subjects discussed in Article I, Section VIII. Jurisdiction of the Federal Communications
Commission is taken in Article I, Section VIII, Clause 3, which is often referred to as
the "Commerce Clause". Clause 3 provides thusly, "To regulate Commerce with
foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;".
Investigation reveals the original intent of Clause 3 is to enable federal resolution of
discords in commerce between parties necessarily located in different States. Commercial
discord within one State is to be resolved by State government. Lutz Community Radio is a
low power, non-profit, educational radio station. It has no need of the benefit of federal
intervention to resolve any commercial discord, argument, or conflict with another party
outside florida state. You have no Authority to force the Commerce Clause upon us.
Nonetheless, Lutz Community Radio would accept a license from the FCC, simply to keep
peace. But, no license is available from the FCC, only damaging reprisals as punishment
for an inability to acquire that which isn't offered. An explanation from you is in order
here, not me!
YOUR FAILURE TO PERFORM AS
MANDATED BY UNITED STATES CODE
Lutz Community Radio qualifies in every way for
the unavailable Class D, educational license. Unfortunately, today's FCC personnel
no longer recognize their true purpose is to provide "...new uses for radio, provide
for experimental uses of frequencies, and generally encourage the larger and more
effective use of radio in the public interest.", as mandated in 47 U.S.C. Sec 303(G).
They also ignore 47 U.S.C. Sec. 157(a) which provides that, "It shall be the policy
of the United States to encourage the provision of new technologies and services to the
public." Further, the FCC's failure to recognize the benefits of low power operation
also demonstrates a disregard for 47 U.S.C. Sec. 324, which requires that, "In all
circumstances, except in case of radio communications or signals relating to vessels in
distress, all radio stations, including those owned and operated by the United States,
shall use the minimum amount of power necessary to carry out the communication
desired." In National Broadcasting Co. v U.S.., 319 U.S. 190 (1943) the
Supreme Court held that, "(the) avowed aim of the Communications Act of 1934 was to
secure the maximum benefits of radio to all the people of the United States," and
that "[t]he criterion governing the exercise of the Commission's licensing power is
the public interest, convenience, or necessity." How can Lutz Community Radio be
expected to accede to the valid concerns of the FCC when present-day FCC personnel no
longer recognize those valid concerns as cited in the U.S. Code?
Surely, you must have wondered why your legal
team's proceedings are pursuant to Admiralty law? To compel my performance in Admiralty,
it must be shown that I am party to an international maritime Contract and that I
am not fulfilling my obligation under that contract. Where is that alleged contract? There
is no contract, only false presumptions and colorable law.
And of great importance, there has been absolutely
no danger to life or property posed by the feeble signals emanating from our homemade
antenna. The transmitter uses a 10 watt maximum rated transistor. It will function on a
lantern battery. There can be no valid pretext for federal intervention into the affairs
of Lutz Community Radio! This is fair warning to all that senseless and un-Lawful
aggression will not be ignored in the future.
I've been told that FCC chairman Reed Hundt has
declared "a procompetitive, deregulator national policy framework" to be the
central organizing principle of the FCC in the future. Is this just another empty promise
from the federal Nanny?
Sincerely,
CC:
Mr. Charlie Reese, Editor
Lutz Community News
P.O. Box 307
Lutz, Florida
Mr. William H.H. Hoedt, Columnist
"Beautiful Downtown Lutz"
C/O Pennysaver Weekly News
8608 N. Suwanee Ave.
Tampa, Florida
Mr. Charley Reese, Columnist
Orlando Sentinel
633 N. Orange Ave.
Orlando, Florida
Mr. Paul Griffin, President
Association of Micro Power Broadcasters
1635 Francisco St. #D
Berkeley, California 94703 |
