FCC Levies $18,000 Fine on Louisiana Amateur Radio Licensee

[ChrisSmolinski]

In an enforcement case prompted by complaints filed in 2017, the FCC has imposed an $18,000 forfeiture on Jerry W. Materne, KC5CSG, of Lake Charles, Louisiana, for intentional interference and failure to identify. The FCC had proposed the fine in a Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL) in the case in July 2018, and, based on Materne’s response to the NAL, the agency affirmed the fine in a March 12 Forfeiture Order (FO).

As the FCC recounted in the FO, an FCC agent “observed Materne causing intentional interference to a local repeater by generating digital noise into an analog radio.” The agent further reported that Materne failed to transmit his call sign, as required.

http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-levies-18-000-fine-on-louisiana-amateur-radio-licensee

[MDK2]

It's funny, I looked at this guy's QRZ page and he has a whole thing about how he's into VHF and above, that HF is "boring" and he's more impressed with working 100 miles VHF than DX on HF, along with "the rumors are true, I hate repeaters" (which sounds like he has an unhealthy obsession given the nature of his offense). But the funny thing? He's a general class ham. Why bother if you're so down on HF and lower frequencies?

[Matt_B]

In an enforcement case prompted by complaints filed in 2017, the FCC has imposed an $18,000 forfeiture on Jerry W. Materne, KC5CSG, of Lake Charles, Louisiana, for intentional interference and failure to identify. The FCC had proposed the fine in a Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL) in the case in July 2018, and, based on Materne’s response to the NAL, the agency affirmed the fine in a March 12 Forfeiture Order (FO).

As the FCC recounted in the FO, an FCC agent “observed Materne causing intentional interference to a local repeater by generating digital noise into an analog radio.” The agent further reported that Materne failed to transmit his call sign, as required.

http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-levies-18-000-fine-on-louisiana-amateur-radio-licensee

Hmmm.  I'm not a lawyer by any means....but I think the case against this guy is pretty weak.  The FCC is relying on circumstantial evidence.  What proof do they have that the radio possessed "was capable of operating on the frequency in question"? The only proof offered is the Commission's say so.  In a court of law, that wouldn't be enough on its own to get a conviction. 

I note that the two sides disagree as to what specific radio was being operated.  That being the case....SOMEBODY is lying here.  Is it the defendant, or the FCC agent? Assuming that the defendant has the right to appeal to the courts, I think he should do that. 

[Pigmeat]

As someone who has lived Lake Charles, it's a strange place. In May, the legal drunk driving age drops to who knows what,and drive-in Daquari and Tequila Sunrise wagons seem to pop on every corner. The cops pull over any Mexican with too nice of a vehicle. If you're carrying too much cash, you're going to jail. If your truck is too nice,tell it "Goodbye" because you're not going to see it again. The men try to stare you down, and the prettiest of the women have light colored mustaches and  matching unibrows, same as their Dad's and brothers. My wife hated the place. Me? I thought it great. World class fishing in those salt water swamps