California Ham - Amateur Radio Wiki

On February 12, the FCC issued a Hearing Designation Order (HDO) to William F. Crowell, W6WBJ (ex-N6AYJ), of Diamond Springs, California to determine if his application for renewal of his Amateur Radio license should be granted. The HDO stated: "The record before [the FCC] indicates that Crowell has apparently willfully and repeatedly engaged in and continues to engage in unlawful Commission-related activities, including, but not limited to, intentionally causing interference and/or interruption, transmitting music and one-way communications, and using indecent language on amateur frequencies. Based on the information before us, we believe that Crowell's apparent past and continuing course of misconduct raises a substantial and material question of fact as to whether he possesses the requisite character qualifications to be and remain a Commission licensee. Accordingly, we hereby designate his application for hearing." Crowell initially filed his renewal application February 28, 2007.

Crowell has been in the Commission's sights for years. On August 21, 2000, the FCC's Enforcement Bureau informed Crowell that, "monitoring information indicated that he had engaged in deliberate interference to radio communications in progress on the 75-meter band over the preceding several months in violation of Section 97.1 of the Commission's Rules." Per the FCC's instructions, Crowell responded to this letter, but the Commission found his response "irrelevant and frivolous," and issued a Warning Notice on November 28, 2000, cautioning Crowell that "imaginary, make-believe or fictitious conversation with communications in process constitutes interference and degrades the services for legitimate users."

The FCC received additional complaints regarding Crowell between 2003 and 2006, alleging, among other things, that Crowell "deliberately interfered with and/or interrupted ongoing radio communications." On May 15, 2006, the FCC directed Crowell to respond to the complaints. On June 10, 2006, Crowell submitted a lengthy response wherein he "disputed the Commission's constitutional authority to regulate the content of amateur radio communications and specifically denied that the complained-of communications violated any Commission rules." Based on its review of Crowell's response, the FCC concluded that the issue of whether Crowell's license renewal should be designated for hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.

The Commission continued to receive complaints alleging that Crowell was "intentionally causing interference and/or otherwise interrupting radio communications, transmitting music and one-way communications, and using indecent language on amateur radio frequencies." On April 3, 2007, the FCC informed Crowell that the issue of whether his renewal application should be granted had been "'referred to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau for review based upon continuing complaints of deliberate interference, including repeated interruptions of ongoing communications and other complaints regarding character qualifications,'" and that the complaints were being reviewed.

Pursuant to Section 309(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the FCC is required to "designate an application for evidentiary hearing if a substantial and material question of fact is presented regarding whether grant of the application would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. The character of an applicant is among those factors that the Commission considers in determining whether the applicant has the requisite qualifications to be a Commission licensee. Violations of the Communications Act and/or the Commission's Rules are predictive of licensee behavior and directly relevant to the Commission's regulatory activities."

The HDO informed Crowell that Section 333 of the Act and Section 97.101(d) of the Commission's Rules provide that "no person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of licensed stations. Section 97.113(a)(4) and (b) of the Commission's Rules specifically prohibits transmission of music, obscene or indecent words, and one-way communications on amateur frequencies. Section 97.113(a)(4) of the Commission's Rules and Section 1464 of the Criminal Code also prohibit transmission of obscene, indecent, or profane language."

Since 2000, Crowell has been warned by the FCC to refrain from intentionally interfering with and/or otherwise interrupting radio communications, transmitting one-way communications and music and using indecent language on the air. "Notwithstanding these warnings, the evidence before us indicates that Crowell has and continues to engage in such activities in flagrant and intentional disregard of the Act and the Commission's Rules. We find that Crowell's apparent past and continuing course of conduct raises questions as to whether he possesses the requisite character qualifications to remain a Commission licensee. Crowell's history of FCC-related transgressions and apparent contempt for the Commission's regulatory authority are patently inconsistent with his responsibilities as a licensee and belie any suggestion that he can be relied upon to comply with the Commission's rules and policies in the future. Consequently, we will commence a hearing proceeding before an administrative law judge to provide Crowell with an opportunity to demonstrate whether his above-captioned application should be granted," the HDO continued.

The issues to be put before an Administrative Law Judge concerning Crowell include:

To determine whether Crowell willfully and/or repeatedly violated Section 333 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 97.101(d) of the Commission's Rules, by intentionally interfering with and/or otherwise interrupting radio communications.

To determine whether Crowell willfully and/or repeatedly violated Section 97.113(b) of the Commission's Rules by transmitting one-way communications on amateur frequencies.

To determine whether Crowell willfully and/or repeatedly violated Section 97.113(a)(4) of the Commission's Rules by transmitting indecent language.

To determine whether Crowell willfully and/or repeatedly violated Section 97.113(a)(4) of the Commission's Rules by transmitting music.

To determine, in light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the foregoing issues, whether Crowell is qualified to be and remain a Commission licensee.

To determine, in light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the foregoing issues, whether the Amateur Radio license renewal application filed by Crowell should be granted.

Crowell has until March 3, 2008 (20 days from the mailing of the HDO) to respond to the HDO. "If he fails to file a written appearance within the twenty-day period, or has not filed prior to the expiration of the twenty-day period, a petition to dismiss without prejudice, or a petition to accept, for good cause shown, a written appearance beyond the expiration of the twenty-day period, the Presiding Administrative Law Judge SHALL DISMISS the captioned application with prejudice for failure to prosecute," the HDO states.

FCC Revokes Amateur License of California Ham †

(FCCはカリフォルニアのハムから免許を取り上げた)

The FCC issued an Order of Revocation to Robert D. Landis, N6FRV, on Tuesday, November 20. The Commission said that "[b]ased on the evidence of his convictions for child molestation, we conclude that Mr. Landis lacks the basic requisite character qualifications to be and remain a Commission licensee." Landis was convicted on two felony counts in 1991, fined $10,000 and sentenced to 11 years in prison. He received his call sign April 1, 1999; it was set to expire on November 1, 2006. According to the ARRL VEC, Landis filed for an address change and a renewal of his license on August 6, 2007, still within the two year grace period; the application was withdrawn on September 27.

Background

In August 2006, the FCC issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to determine whether Landis would be allowed to continue to hold his Advanced class license. The Order was in response to a complaint pointing out Landis's conviction for lewd behavior involving a minor. For several years now, the FCC has applied character standards once reserved for broadcast licensees to Amateur Radio licensing and renewal cases.

The FCC received a complaint against Landis on October 5, 2005, alleging he had been convicted of child molestation and was now living in a mental hospital; after Landis had served his sentence, he was confined to a mental hospital by the State of California "pursuant to a civil commitment," the Order of Revocation stated. Based on this information, the FCC began an investigation and confirmed that on October 28, 1991, the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, convicted Mr. Landis of two counts of a lewd act with a child under the age of fourteen years old. The Court sentenced Mr. Landis to a term of eleven years in state prison and fined him $10,000. On January 11, 2001, Mr. Landis reported a change of address from 313 E. Francis Street, Corona, California to 10333 El Camino Real, Atascadero, California. The latter address is the locale of the Atascadero State Hospital. At all times while Mr. Landis was an amateur licensee, the Commission has required that such licensees adhere to certain standards that are set forth in the Commission's character policy statement," the OSC said.

Section 312(a)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, provides that the FCC may revoke any license if "conditions com[e] to the attention of the Commission which would warrant it in refusing to grant a license or permit on the original application." The character of the applicant is among those factors that the FCC considers in its review of applications. In assessing character qualifications in broadcast licensing matters, the FCC considers, as relevant, "evidence of any conviction for misconduct constituting a felony." The Commission has found that "[b]ecause all felonies are serious crimes, any conviction provides an indication of an applicant's or licensee's propensity to obey the law" and to conform to provisions of both the Act and the agency's rules and policies. In addition, certain felonies involving egregious misconduct "might, of its own nature, constitute prima facie evidence that the applicant lacks the traits of reliability and/or truthfulness necessary to be a licensee." The Order of Revocation said that the sentencing court in California found Landis to be "a sexually violent predator who is a danger to others."

The FCC has consistently applied these broadcast character standards to applicants and licensees in the Amateur Radio Service. Thus, the FCC believes, felony convictions -- especially those involving sexual assault on children -- raise questions regarding an amateur licensee's qualifications.

Before revoking a license, the FCC must serve the licensee with an Order to Show Cause for the licensee to prove why the license should not be revoked; the Commission must also provide the licensee with an opportunity for hearing. "Consequently, we [the FCC] hereby designate the matter for hearing before a Commission administrative law judge to provide Mr. Landis with an opportunity to demonstrate why his license should not be revoked," the OSC said. Landis was given 30 days (from August 31, 2006) to respond to the OSC, filing a written appearance stating he will appear for the hearing on the date specified by the FCC and "present evidence on the issues specified herein."

If Landis failed to "timely file a written appearance within the thirty (30)-day period, or has not filed a petition to accept, for good cause shown, a written appearance beyond the expiration of the thirty (30)-day period, the right to a hearing shall be deemed to be waived. Where a hearing is waived, the presiding administrative law judge shall, at the earliest practicable date, issue an order terminating the hearing proceeding and certifying the case to the Commission." A copy of the OSC was sent via certified mail, return receipt requested, to Landis at the Atascadero State Hospital.

Revocation

The Presiding Judge in the case determined that Landis did receive the OSC, but had failed to file the written notice to appear. Landis, however, sent "separate letters to the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau and the Presiding Judge, stating that he could not appear for the hearing due to his confinement in a mental hospital, and that he would not retain an attorney." The Presiding Judge ruled these letters insufficient to constitute a written appearance, but recommended that they be considered "written statement[s]...denying or seeking to mitigate or justify the circumstances or conduct complained of in the [OSC]." Accordingly, the Presiding Judge concluded that Mr. Landis had waived his right to a hearing, terminated the hearing proceeding and certified the case to the Commission for disposition.

According to the Order of Revocation, Landis "fully acknowledges his felony child molestation convictions and confinement to a mental hospital, but asserts that his record as a war veteran and an amateur licensee demonstrate his good character. He further contends that his conviction is old." The FCC disagreed, calling Landis's felony convictions "heinous." The FCC continued, noting that even though Landis's conviction was in 1991, "[t]he 1986 Character Policy Statement provides a ten-year limitation on considerations of allegations of misconduct, it does not limit consideration of adjudicated misconduct that has already been litigated. Consistent with this precedent, the Commission previously has considered adjudicated misconduct in its cases as appropriate in evaluating a Licensee's character qualifications."

The Order of Revocation went on to state that the FCC believes that Landis's "correspondence does not deny or justify the misconduct complained of in the OSC. Rather, his continued confinement as a sexually violent predator demonstrates that neither his assertions regarding his character nor the passage of time have sufficiently rehabilitated him to mitigate his past misconduct. Thus, we find that Mr. Landis does not possess the character qualifications required by this Commission to be or remain a licensee...Accordingly, we conclude, as a matter of law, that Mr. Landis's above-captioned license should be revoked."

Unless Landis files a petition for reconsideration or application for review within 30 days of the release of the Order of Revocation (released November 20, 2007, making the petition due December 20, 2007), his revocation is effective December 30, 2007, 40 days after the release of the Order of Revocation.