Ham banned from DMR network, sues in state court to regain access

[Kb2Jpd]

My initial reaction when I saw this thread was to move it to the Digital Voice for Amateur Radio forum. I'm going to leave it here, however, since the decision will impact every amateur radio repeater owner operating under FCC rules whether it's DMR, D-Star, Fusion, analog, or otherwise. I think the decision may also impact networks of repeaters such as AllStar, Echolink, and IRLP. Since I have an ownership interest in several repeaters, I am very interested in the outcome of this case.

I do ask that you keep the conversation civil and on topic. If you are going to reference FCC rules, please quote the rule in question (as has been done in earlier posts in this thread). If someone makes a post that you disagree with, attack the ideas, not the poster.

This case was filed almost a year ago. Has the court ruled on this case?

I'd look in the local legal data base for subsequent filings.

Prior law written. Part 97 is one of the cleanest legal documentation. It will get thrown out. Just needs a clear objective mind in the bench.

Hopefully they will tell the suer to pay for court costs. Freedom ain't free.

 

[bill4long]

He is now suing for both "libel and defamation of character" based on public postings by PRN, as well as disclosure of information that was privileged.

I see nothing in that amendment about "privileged" information.

 

[TheSpaceMann]

http://forums.radioreference.com/am...es-state-court-regain-access.html#post2573338

There is a link there to a PDF document* from Ken's attorney, as well as a copy of an amendment to the original suit. He is now suing for both "libel and defamation of character" based on public postings by PRN, as well as disclosure of information that was privileged.

I hate to say this, but the defendants have managed to foul their own nest enough that even if the original tort actions are dismissed, the new actionable items added may well not be. It's not possible to "un-ring a bell" after all.

* http://www.legal-nc.com/BryantPRNNotice.pdf

Good point. They may have just banned the wrong guy this time. There are people who very vengeful who also have resources, and don't mind spending a lot of money to get "even" with anyone who they believe has slighted them.

 

[bill4long]

Re-reading the original Complaint, the Plaintiff's entire case rests on one assertion: that he was a "member" of the NC PRN. NC PRN website explicitly states that there is no "club" and there are no "members." However, if the Plaintiff was allowed to connect a repeater that he owns to the C Bridge, perhaps he could persuade the jury that he was de facto a "member" of a "group" of repeater owners that are allowed to connect to their repeaters to the NC PRN system. Attaching a repeater to the C Bridge system requires a different level of effort and access and could be construed reasonably by the appellate court (and that's what counts, ultimately) as de facto "membership." Nowhere in the Complaint is mentioned of whether or not he was allowed to connect a repeater he owns to the system. Merely obtaining an ID from the DMR-MARC and talking on repeaters on NC-PRN or any other system is not enough justification for de facto "membership" contra the explicit statement on NC PRN's website, IMO. Any shmuck can do that in 5 minutes. And by using the system you implicitly agree to the terms on the website, which states you can be banned for any reason.

Thankfully appellate courts are quite good at seeing through bad arguments and throwing out bogus verdicts. But it takes money.

As for this affecting repeaters in general as to the ability of operators to determine who may use them, not a chance.

Disclaimer: this is opinion only and does not constitute legal advice

 

[bill4long]

Good point. They may have just banned the wrong guy this time. There are people who very vengeful who also have resources, and don't mind spending a lot of money to get "even" with anyone who they believe has slighted them.

For every "wrong guy" there are many more "right guys" who will do what it takes to get justice. Mark my words.

 

[N4GIX]

I see nothing in that amendment about "privileged" information.

Revealing in public the contents of a confidential settlement discussion is bad form.

 

[bill4long]

Revealing in public the contents of a confidential settlement discussion is bad form.

That's their side of the story. Anyway, I would certainly agree that discussing particulars beyond the general issues of the case should not be done.

 

[1234567890]

However, if the Plaintiff was allowed to connect a repeater that he owns to the C Bridge, perhaps he could persuade the jury that he was de facto a "member" of a "group" of repeater owners that are allowed to connect to their repeaters to the NC PRN system.

It is believed that Ken Bryant K1DMR did not have any repeaters on the air under his control until after the 2015 action was filed. Certainly nowhere in his complaint does Bryant allege he had a repeater on the air that was connected to NCPRN, only that he was "banned from the network"

If he had a repeater on the air it stands to reason this whole situation would have been moot because he could have connected to the outside world with his own equipment, instead of him needing to take advantage of the equipment others had purchased and maintained

 

[paulears]

In the UK, commercial activity of ham radio is banned, and on the repeater front - I suspect that here, you can ban whoever you wish, as long as you did not do it for racial, gender, age type reasons - the usual modern ones. Here, you can ban people for being stupid, or just unpleasant!

 

[RayAir]

I don't really know this guy but I almost bought an XPR 7550 from him but held off on the purchase due to just purchasing a couple Hytera's.

I sent him an email politely explaining I will be holding off on the purchase and thanked him for his time.

He then sent me some flaky email response, so I crossed him off my list and bought an XPR 7550 from someone else.

 

[TheSpaceMann]

For every "wrong guy" there are many more "right guys" who will do what it takes to get justice. Mark my words.

Good luck in trying to get "justice"! I've seen the worst offenders get rewarded, and people who didn't deserve it get screwed.

 

[KC4RAF]

Bryant's attorney in his pdf that Bill (post 20) posted,

states that the lawsuit is against ONLY two defendants, yet the lawsuit itself states that 'defendant 1', 'defendant 2', and "JOHN DOES" as defendants. (I didn't want to print their names, you can see them in the pdf that Bill posted.
So the lawyer is writing incorrect information.

 

[Kb2Jpd]

states that the lawsuit is against ONLY two defendants, yet the lawsuit itself states that 'defendant 1', 'defendant 2', and "JOHN DOES" as defendants. (I didn't want to print their names, you can see them in the pdf that Bill posted.

So the lawyer is writing incorrect information.

That is boilerplate that some paralegal used and probably didn't cut out so they could pad the document. Some get paid by the word and the length.

 

[Voyager]

He then sent me some flaky email response, so I crossed him off my list and bought an XPR 7550 from someone else.

You just opened yourself up to the next suit for defamation. :wink:

As for the state deciding that it has jurisdiction over the Federal Government, guess who will win that battle. There is Federal Preemption which says that the lower government laws, when in conflict with the laws of a higher government, defer to the laws of the higher government. There is another legal term for that as well, but I can't recall it offhand. A state cannot make something legal that the Federal Government has laws prohibiting, and cannot make something illegal that the Federal Government has made legal. The FCC (along with the NTIA for their respective segments of the spectrum) has sole jurisdiction over matters relating to radio communications. In the case of Amateur Radio, that would be under the FCC, and the FCC gives the right of control over Amateur stations to the licensee who owns the station.

But, it appears that now the plaintiff is realizing this and is trying to make this about the C-Bridge which may not be under FCC control even though it is connected to the radio equipment and ultimately transmits over the radio.

As I've said elsewhere, there is only one certain outcome: Attorneys will get rich. Beyond that, this is a loss for ham radio either way.

 

[TheSpaceMann]

You just opened yourself up to the next suit for defamation. :wink:

As for the state deciding that it has jurisdiction over the Federal Government, guess who will win that battle. There is Federal Preemption which says that the lower government laws, when in conflict with the laws of a higher government, defer to the laws of the higher government. There is another legal term for that as well, but I can't recall it offhand. A state cannot make something legal that the Federal Government has laws prohibiting, and cannot make something illegal that the Federal Government has made legal. The FCC (along with the NTIA for their respective segments of the spectrum) has sole jurisdiction over matters relating to radio communications. In the case of Amateur Radio, that would be under the FCC, and the FCC gives the right of control over Amateur stations to the licensee who owns the station.

But, it appears that now the plaintiff is realizing this and is trying to make this about the C-Bridge which may not be under FCC control even though it is connected to the radio equipment and ultimately transmits over the radio.

As I've said elsewhere, there is only one certain outcome: Attorneys will get rich. Beyond that, this is a loss for ham radio either way.

it will be a real loss if repeater owners can no longer restrict clowns from using their repeaters!

 

[Citywide173]

There is another legal term for that as well, but I can't recall it offhand.

Federal Preemption

 

[bill4long]

it will be a real loss if repeater owners can no longer restrict clowns from using their repeaters!

That will never ever happen

 

[gewecke]

Occasionally we get a moron locking up a local repeater for extended periods, causing the Tot to reset repeatedly. We solved the problem by simply shutting the repeater off remotely for a couple days, then he goes away. . 73, n9zas

 

[Voyager]

That's the one I mentioned, Ed (see quote below yours). There is another legal term for the same thing, too. That term (I found it now) is "Supremacy Clause" and it is part of the Constitution. So unless NC is declaring cessation from the USA, they are bound by it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

Federal Preemption

There is Federal Preemption which says that the lower government laws, when in conflict with the laws of a higher government, defer to the laws of the higher government. There is another legal term for that as well, but I can't recall it offhand.

 

[N8OHU]

It is believed that Ken Bryant K1DMR did not have any repeaters on the air under his control until after the 2015 action was filed. Certainly nowhere in his complaint does Bryant allege he had a repeater on the air that was connected to NCPRN, only that he was "banned from the network"

If he had a repeater on the air it stands to reason this whole situation would have been moot because he could have connected to the outside world with his own equipment, instead of him needing to take advantage of the equipment others had purchased and maintained

Not unless he had a repeater in every locality in North Carolina where the NCPRN has one, or had access to one owned by another group in that state in those same areas. Did they have the right to ban him? I agree that the rules say they do, but I wonder why they didn't extend the courtesy of asking for his side of the story, which is what I would do in a similar case.