Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
FCC Sanctions Order Re Warren Havens - FCC backtracks and concedes only had a rule that by "implication justified" its action, which is no rule at all.

FCC Sanctions Order Re Warren Havens - FCC backtracks and concedes only had a rule that by "implication justified" its action, which is no rule at all.

Ratings: (0)|Views: 241|Likes:
FCC Sanctions Order Re Warren Havens - FCC backtracks and finds its Order was by a rule that did not apply, and concedes it tried to rule "by implication," the essence of misuse of public power.
This is an important lesson in abusive government concocting rules and power it does not have (here, not under the Communications Act, FCC rules, or the Administrative Procedures Act) the try to chill and stigmatize a person that persists in getting fair and equal treatment on important new wireless (including nonprofit support of smart transport and environment-protection systems) , and exercising First Amendment speech and petition rights, against a clear record of FCC malfeasance.
This matter will be before the DC Circuit Court, and possibly in a case in USDC, in the foreseeable future.
It is part of a clear FCC pattern, that appears to be caused by conditions by William Mayton, in The Illegitimacy of the Public Interest Standard at the FCC, 38 Emory L. J. 715 (1989).
FCC Sanctions Order Re Warren Havens - FCC backtracks and finds its Order was by a rule that did not apply, and concedes it tried to rule "by implication," the essence of misuse of public power.
This is an important lesson in abusive government concocting rules and power it does not have (here, not under the Communications Act, FCC rules, or the Administrative Procedures Act) the try to chill and stigmatize a person that persists in getting fair and equal treatment on important new wireless (including nonprofit support of smart transport and environment-protection systems) , and exercising First Amendment speech and petition rights, against a clear record of FCC malfeasance.
This matter will be before the DC Circuit Court, and possibly in a case in USDC, in the foreseeable future.
It is part of a clear FCC pattern, that appears to be caused by conditions by William Mayton, in The Illegitimacy of the Public Interest Standard at the FCC, 38 Emory L. J. 715 (1989).

More info:

Published by: Skybridge Spectrum Foundation on May 05, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/12/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
Re FCC " Order Affirming Sanction Against Warren C. Havens"
 This is published on SCRIBD in part to counteract the FCC's misleading publications of this Order andrelated matters.Contrary to FCC website's summary, the FCC did not on balance "affirm" its sanction order, but
backed off 
of it.Thereafter, the FCC Office of General Counsel came up with this, v
irtually conceding that the sactionorder was unlawful
, exactly as I argued (which was simple under applicable law): See FCC 12-113,which I attach last below, and before that, my comments to FCC OGC (which was not answered, as isususal):
See Warren C. Havens,
27 FCC Rcd 2756, 2759 ¶ 10 (2012) (Section 1.52 directlyauthorizes sanctions for filing frivolous pleadings against attorneys and at least byimplication justifies
 
sanctions against non-attorneys.)."Emphasis added. A federal agency cannot issue Orders, especially Sanction Orders, under a rule itthinks "
at least by implication" "justify
" the Order. That is assumption of power for arbitraray andcapricious purpose and action, contary to and one reason for creation of the federal AdministrativeProcedures Act. But got to give the FCC a prize for a hearty attempt at the age-old cardinal rule of  power- use it againt anyone that challenges and does not play ball, regardlness of whether that use islawful or not. That is history of power, no surpise at all. The only antidote is active citizens, also shownin history.That is to say, the FCC withdraw the basis for its so-called sanction-- but it keeps the sanction order in place for an unlawful stigma and chill.
That chills anyone
attempting simply to act lawfully before the FCC against FCC malfeasance. Themessage is: do not cross the FCC beyond what it likes, regardless of the law, or you will get an unlawful"sanction" applied to attempt to damage your ability act in your business circles, and further before theFCC.This matter will be before the US courts in due course. There are still pending FCC proceedings to prior to the court action.The underlying issue is FCC malfeasance and some big interests and money. It is shown in theunderlying proceedings and related proceedings, not hard to grasp with basic research. My pleadings inthese matters, going back years, lay these out.Below is further discussion and some of the more recent pleadings.
W. Havens
 
 
Order Affirming Sanction Against Warren C. Havens— Havens acceptance of the award, butappeals thereof (and nominations of alternative honorees).
THE FOLLOWING ARE AMONG THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY WARREN HAVENS ungratefullyAPPEALING THE FCC "SANCTION" ORDER awards to WARREN HAVENS.The FCC of course controls its publications, and it has featured by special publication the Havens“Sanctions Orders.”“Sanctions” is a highly useful government term that has opposite meanings, either authoritativeapproval and encouragement, or disapproval and penalty. In my case, where there is no penaltyimposed (see below), it must mean approval and encouragement. Since I am the first person toreceive this sanctions honor under §1.52 in this history of the FCC, it is a high honor indeed.In appreciation of the high honor, I publish this on SCRIBD so that persons searching and findingthis FCC Havens Sanctions may also find my ungrateful attempt to cast off the award.It would not be proper for me to keep this award to myself, given the far more worthy armies of communications law “professionals” that screw FCC law and the public interest for a sufficient fee,and a good selection of FCC staff and authorities that do likewise for unstated interests and CYOA.IN THE FCC SO‐CALLED "SANCTIONS" ORDERS OF WARREN HAVENS, THE FCC:(1) ATTEMPTED TO APPLY ITS RULE § 1.52, WHICH PERTAINS ONLY TOATTORNEYS, TO A PRO SE INDIVIDUAL, WARREN HAVENS (it later admitted in a related FOIA Orderthat this rule did not actually apply at all, but would not rescind the “sanctions” orders);(2) FOR NO CAUSE BUT ALLEGED REPETITION OF REQUESTS TO RECONSIDER THE SUBSTANCEOF LICENSE DENIALS DUE TO ADMITTED MISTAKES OF ITS PAST LAW FIRM, HOGAN & HARTSON,TO SUBMIT ONE REQUEST ON TIME,(3) WHERE THE RULE THAT DOES APPLY TO SUCH REPETITIOUS PLEADINGS, PART OF § 1.106,WAS NOT APPLIED (IT ALLOWS, SIMPLY DISMISSAL),(4) WHERE THE FCC APPLIED A RULE IT NEVER APPLIED TO ANY COMPETITOR IN THE SUBJECTRADIO SERVICE AT ANY TIME (AND HARSHLY APPLIED IT AGAINST HAVENS, WHERE THAT CAUSEDBLOCKAGE OF THE MARKET BY INCUMBENTS THAT FAILED TO EVEN DEMONSTRATE THAT THEYHAD VALID, CONSTRUCTED‐AND‐IN‐SERVICE LICENSES,
 
(5) AND WHERE THE SUBJECT RULE ON RECONSIDERATRIONS AND PRECEDENT THEREUNDERALLOW RECONSIDERATIONS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST EVEN IF THE REQUEST IS LATE, § 1.106(C)(2),WHICH WAS AMPLY SHOWN.A CAREFUL BUT EVEN SUMMARY READING OF THE SUBJECT FCC "SANCTIONS" ORDER COMPAREDTO THE FACTS IN THIS CASE, AND THE LAW THAT I, WARREN HAVENS, CITE IN THESE APPEALS, §80.475(a) (1999) SHOW THAT THE FCC IS CLEARLY WRONG, AND IS IMPOSING A SANCTION THATHAS NO SUBSTANCE BEHIND IT (see below), BUT IS A THREAT TO IMPOSE AN UNLAWFUL CHILL—aform of character stigmatization—TO private‐interest FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, FIFTHAMENDMENT DUE PROCESS AND PROPERTY (LICENSING IN THIS CASE) RIGHTS, AND MOREOVER,TO ATTEMPT TO QUASH FURTHER EXPOSING OF FCC ULTRA VIRES RULE CHANGES THAT POLLUTEALL FCC LICENSE AUCTIONS SINCE 2005— this is a threat to the core “public interest” standardthat lies behind the entire Communications Act and all of the licenses granted in these auctionsthat are the foundation of a large portion of public wireless in the nation.
The FCC officials engaged in such action lack both legal authority for these actions, and immunity  from prosecution for damages caused to Mr. Havens protected private rights and interests, and tothe public interests also involved, and I have stated that in my appeals.
This matter should eventually be presented to the DC Circuit Court and/ or to a US District Court.It was already presented to the DC Circuit Court since the FCC would not stipulate to theprocedural validity of my pending appeals of the subject FCC "sanction" orders, whereupon theFCC dismissed the appeal without prejudice to my refiling it upon FCC final orders on my appeals,which is what I asked the FCC to stipulate to, so we would not waste the court's time.Tolerable government has to be earned, and in history and now that is never by anything short of challenging, at personal risk, bad actions by persons who assume public office then overstep thepowers vested in them by the public. In the critical field of communications, those active beforethe FCC, Congress, the press, and others have to be especially vigilant. The FCC has far too muchpower vested in it, and the let go, by Congress. This leads to abuse of power and actions such asthis nonsense “Havens sanction” series of Orders that
impose no sanction at all 
‐‐(only a statementthat the next pleading must be non‐frivolous, but stated or not, that is the legal standard
anyway 
)—but does attempt to chill protected rights and by public character stigmatizationspeciously— as if Havens did something wrong
as if 
some substantive sanction was imposed.Governments don't care, individuals do.
 A Tramp Abroad,
Mark Twain.
Exhibits follow.

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->