Sex offender ham loses license

Titus’s behavior that led to his adult felony conviction as “shockingly evil.”43 Especially in
light of the known risks of amateur radios in the hands of sex offenders,44 such misconduct is prima facie
disqualifying,45 and has resulted in the loss of licenses in past cases.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db1106/FCC-14-177A1.pdf

I guess it would suck to be him, wouldn't it.

wont affect him a bit. see 147.435.

Getting back to the original post, I'm unclear what the point of this legal action is. If he was convicted of felony sex acts with a minor, he should either be executed or spend the rest of his life in jail, which means he isn't going to have access to a radio any time soon. Also, the ham bands aren't a particularly good place to pick up minors for sexual purposes. It would seem that the effort of the legal system would be better spent introducing this guy to the electric chair, not taking the meaningless and irrelevant step of revoking his license.

I'm looking into the rules. I seem to remember that if you were convicted of a felony your license would be revoked but I can not find this so I may be remembering wrong.

IMO the effort of the legal system would be better spent introducing him to Old Sparky.

Reading the FCC's argument, they disagreed with the findings of the ALJ. The ALJ made solid arguments as to why the licensee should NOT have his license set aside.

The ALJ concluded:

1)-he paid for his adult crime in full, and has not re-offended as an adult
2)-his juvenile offenses should not be held against him as an adult, which typically they are not except in extreme cases
3)-he has plenty of character witnesses including a police officer, teacher and psychologist who all attest he is has paid his debt, showed remorse, and has been a law abiding member of the community since.

Taking into account his age at conviction (18) of his adult offense, and that he has not been subsequently convicted, I see no reason why he should not be allowed to have a ham license. Keep in mind, none of his offenses involved use of radio or communications facilities in his crime.

The FCC clearly has it in for him, the cite a 2002-2004 incidents which resulted in contact with law enforcement, NEITHER OF WHICH RESULTED IN CONVICTIONS OR COURT ACTIONS, as some kind of testament to his poor character.

I don't know the guy, but from what the facts show, he had some problems as a youth. He was convicted, served his time, has re-entered society and has not been convicted of anything since his initial adult charge over 20 years ago. More important to me is he did not use ham radio to contact his victim, nor has he ever been accused of misuse of his privileges.

It seems to me the FCC is once again contradicting itself. Their own ALJ determined he was fit and provided solid logical reasons why. They overruled their own ALJ and pulled his license for no other reason than they simply don't like him and are trying to paint a picture of him being some "evil doer" using ham radio as a tool to aid in his non-existent (as far as we know) sexual offenses.

Keep in mind too, that the term "sex offender" is very broad and many people who aren't the "creepy perv in the bubble window van" can wind up being labeled a sex offender. In Georgia for example, a misdemeanor offense of public urination can get you on the registry. Ridiculous. What is the value of disenfranchising people?

This is also a dangerous precedent. The FCC has basically said "we don't like you, we can pull your ticket, even if you haven't violated a single part 97 rule. Even if you go before an ALJ and they decide in your favor, if we want you gone, you're gone"

Sounds more like the totalitarian corporate state we now live in, doesn't it?

Thing is, when this 'morals' passage was pointed out years ago, the FCC flat-out stated that they would not go looking for felons. Someone needs to complain to get this ball rolling. I've only heard of this portion of the Rules invoked twice: this incident and when a guy in IN tried to renew and it came out the he was a thief in a previous life.

It's almost certain that someone with pretty fair knowledge of the history and a distinct dislike for the licensee rang the bell on him.

Tom KA9QPN

KA9QPN said:

It's almost certain that someone with pretty fair knowledge of the history and a distinct dislike for the licensee rang the bell on him.
Tom KA9QPN

Click to expand...

And therein lies the problem.

The ham in question (as far as the FCC is concerned) has never been before the EB for violating any part 97 rules, has not misused his privileges, and has not been convicted of anything since this initial offense and has been free and clear of court supervision.

So the FCC can basically overrule an ALJ because they don't like the one standing before them.

Using their straw argument, ANYONE with ANY conviction, even a traffic offense or civil judgement or poor credit history, could fit their loose mold of "being unworthy" and having their license set aside.

It's the FCC equivalent of "contempt of cop". They don't like you, you're screwed. Has nothing to do with right or wrong, or a history of violating their rules.

Welcome to the feudal system that is our government.