NCPRN lawsuit settled.

[bill4long]

My understanding is that he was banned for "pecuniary reasons", meaning that those that run the NCPRN felt his status as a dealer of radio equipment was reason enough (he was not one of their preferred DMR vendors, by the way ). They didn't have proof, by their own admission, that he was actually violating the FCC rules, nor have I seen anything on their site to indicate that they have made it clear that they don't want people selling radio equipment on the system. Take that however you want.

Again, there are two legal issues here, repeater usage, and network usage. Entirely different issues with entirely different jurisdictions. Apparently, the DMR network owners didn't like the fact that he was selling equipment over their network so they kicked him off the entire DMR network. He didn't like that and claimed that under state law he was a "member" of a "club" and had a right to "due process" before being kicked off the network. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of limiting usage of a repeater, which is strictly a federal (FCC) matter. The state has absolutely no jurisdiction over that question.

Apparently, they settled without going to trial, and the terms of the settlement are confidential. However, all other rulings and opinions that the judge made pre-trial and pre-settlement are public information and I am going to obtained it to see what, if anything, the judge had to say regarding this business about being "members" of a "club" with a right to "due process" even though the defendant's website clearly disavowed any such notion with respect to their DMR system.

Individual repeater owners in that DMR system are entirely free to ban him, and anyone else they want, from using their repeaters. (This is easy to do, technically, all they have to do is block his DMR IDs on their repeaters.) They just can't keep him from putting his repeater on their network, apparently.

I suspect the defendant caved in and made a deal because of lack of funds and could not afford a trial.

 

[crc60]

Legal doesn't mean free from liability

Individual repeater owners in that DMR system are entirely free to ban him, and anyone else they want, from using their repeaters.

Something you need to understand here. Just because you have the federal legal authority to ban someone on your repeater does NOT immunize you from liability if it was done for illegal or injurious purposes... even if incidental or accidental. To think otherwise is simply foolish.

To all repeater operators thinking the FCC shields them, consider the following scenarios:

- Ban repeater user for causing interference? No problem so long as you amass "and archive" sufficient evidence.
- Ban repeater user for being black (or female, or Hispanic, etc.)? You will be sued out of existence and rightfully so.
- Ban repeater user for "unsubstantiated" poor conduct causing defamation per se? You might be sued and rightfully so.

The point is the FCC doesn't give one carte blanche to violate other rights a citizen may have. Think I'm wrong? Well you have right to be dead right... bless your heart.

Chuck

 

[1234567890]

My understanding is that he was banned for "pecuniary reasons", meaning that those that run the NCPRN felt his status as a dealer of radio equipment was reason enough (he was not one of their preferred DMR vendors, by the way ). They didn't have proof, by their own admission, that he was actually violating the FCC rules, nor have I seen anything on their site to indicate that they have made it clear that they don't want people selling radio equipment on the system. Take that however you want.

Why are you winking your eyes? Your understanding on this should be very clear as it was explained to you in depth (and with citations to Part 97) on the Yahoo DMR group.

At you least you now acknowledge that repeater owners do in fact have the right to control their repeaters and that you (or anyone other ham) has no entitlement to use equipment that does not belong to you (except in the case of an emergency involving dangers to persons or property etc)

 

[bill4long]

Something you need to understand here. Just because you have the federal legal authority to ban someone on your repeater does NOT immunize you from liability if it was done for illegal or injurious purposes... even if incidental or accidental. To think otherwise is simply foolish.

To all repeater operators thinking the FCC shields them, consider the following scenarios:

- Ban repeater user for causing interference? No problem so long as you amass "and archive" sufficient evidence.
- Ban repeater user for being black (or female, or Hispanic, etc.)? You will be sued out of existence and rightfully so.
- Ban repeater user for "unsubstantiated" poor conduct causing defamation per se? You might be sued and rightfully so.

The point is the FCC doesn't give one carte blanche to violate other rights a citizen may have. Think I'm wrong? Well you have right to be dead right... bless your heart.

Chuck

The FCC has consistently upheld "your repeater, your rules." Period. Nobody's rights extend to using my repeater, except for emergencies. (97.403) I can exclude anyone I want from using my repeater for any reason or no reason at all. And since they have no right to use my repeater, denying their use forms no legal basis for violation of any other right.

Can you cite any cases where someone has been successfully sued over a repeater ban?

the FCC doesn't give one carte blanche to violate other rights a citizen may have.

Just as nobody has the right to enter my home, and I may discriminate on an arbitrary basis without violating anyone's civil rights, likewise I have control over who uses my repeater. Denying the access of either is not a violation of anyone's civil rights because they have no legal or civil basis to demand access in the first place. Denying access does not magically grant a right where there was no right to begin with.

Ban repeater user for causing interference? No problem so long as you amass "and archive" sufficient evidence.[/quote[

I don't have to amass any evidence at all. If I don't want someone to use my repeater I can ban them and give no reason. If, in connection with the banning, I make public accusations, I would probably want to amass evidence that proves the accusation. But there's no reason to accuse in the first place. Simply issue the ban and give no reason.

- Ban repeater user for being black (or female, or Hispanic, etc.)? You will be sued out of existence and rightfully so.

There is no civil right to access my repeater based on an assumption of equal rights due to race, religion or anything else, any more than there is a civil right to access my home due to some alleged civil right. I can ban you from my repeater or ban you from my home for any reason or no reason at all.

- Ban repeater user for "unsubstantiated" poor conduct causing defamation per se? You might be sued and rightfully so.

The issue in this case would be a public accusation of poor conduct against the operator, and any harm that could be demonstrated to have obtained from a unsubstantiated accusation. The actionable issue would not be the act of banning of the user from the repeater, it would be from demonstrable harm resulting from an unfounded accusation. This is why it is a good policy for repeater operators, when banning operators, to not give any reason that cannot be substantiated with evidence, or simply provide no reason for the ban. Repeater operators are under no obligation to provide any reason whatsoever when they ban someone.

 

[kayn1n32008]

Can you cite any cases that someone has been successfully sued over a repeater ban?

Kenneth Bryant vs NCPRN

While it did not go to trial, the case was settled in favor of Mr. Bryant. He got his access back.

 

[bill4long]

Kenneth Bryant vs NCPRN

While it did not go to trial, the case was settled in favor of Mr. Bryant. He got his access back.

Unless the defendant agreed in the settlement act to give Bryant some new privilege to use defendants's repeaters, Bryant does not have the right to use defendant's repeaters. Moreover, Bryant has absolutely no right to use anyone else's repeater on the network that was not a party to the settlement. They are entirely free to ban him and block access.

I would like to see the settlement. Do you have a copy? If you don't then you have no idea what's in it and what the defendant agreed to, and what rights he may have forfeited. Bottom line, Bryant did not have any right to access repeaters. Apparently under the state statute he may have had a claim regarding the rights to access the network because of an implied "membership" in a "club." FCC has no jurisdiction over the network, only repeaters, that is, only over RF generating transmitters. State law has no authority over RF transmitters. If defendant did not grant new rights under the settlement to access his repeaters, then defendant still has every right to deny Bryant access to the repeaters.

Moreover, given various statement by the defendant, I suspect defendant caved in because of lack of funds to fight Bryant, who apparently has deeper pockets.

Do you have a copy of the settlement?

At any rate, I am more interested in civil cases over repeater bans that actually went to trial. That the defendant settled in this case doesn't actually address any of the issues except that plaintiff has deeper pockets. That's all that can be inferred without actually having the settlement to peruse.

 

[N4KVE]

Bottom line, Bryant did not have any right to access repeaters

But he does now. The case was about denying someone access to the internet. Not "my repeater, my rules".

 

[bill4long]

But he does now. The case was about denying someone access to the internet. Not "my repeater, my rules".

I know what the case was about. I have a copy of the Complaint PDF right here.

At any rate, I suspect defendant gave up rights and granted Bryant access to his repeaters as part of the settlement.

That doesn't mean Bryant had rights to the repeaters in the first place.

If defendant did not give up rights regarding use of the repeaters, then Bryant still has no right to use defendant's repeaters regardless of any of issue that was agreed upon.

I want to see the settlement. Do you have a copy? Does anyone reading this?

 

[TheSpaceMann]

This sets a bad precedent. Now we may see loads of these "characters" who get banned from repeaters filing lawsuits! Once again it's a manifestation of the modern "everyone is the victim of an oppressor" mentality.

 

[bill4long]

This sets a bad precedent. Now we may see loads of these "characters" who get banned from repeaters filing lawsuits! Once again it's a manifestation of the modern "everyone is the victim of an oppressor" mentality.

Doubtful. This plaintiff didn't just get banned from using a repeater. He got banned from a networked VOIP DMR system that uses the Internet. One of the issues in Bryant's Complaint against the NCPRN was that he was a "member" of a "club" and that he was denied "due process" when they banned him from the NCPRN network, which was argued, de facto, is a "club" (even though their website explicitly states that they are not.) This raises issues far and above simply getting banned from a repeater. The state courts have jurisdiction over the matter of "memberships" in "clubs", etc. But the state does not have jurisdiction over the simple banning or blocking from a repeater by the owner. Only the FCC has jurisdiction in that matter.

The FCC has long held repeater operators have godlike control over who uses their repeaters, and can ban anyone for any reason or no reason at all. As Laura Smith famously said, "your repeater, your rules." And the FCC has consistently stood with the repeater owners.

I would like to get a copy of the Bryant vs NCPRN settlement if anyone has a copy.

I am in the process of obtaining the court transcripts, since they are public, and they will probably reveal the nature of the arguments employed and the direction the case was headed before they settled.

This NCPRN case is not an example of what I asked for earlier with regards to a case where someone got sued for being banned from a repeater, for two reasons. Firstly, the Complaint was a lot broader than simply a repeater ban; and secondly, the case was settled without a trial. Since this was settled outside of a trial, nothing in the settlement agreement sets any precedents. Which means it has no value with regard to the adjudication of any other case.The settlement could be nothing more than, "I will drop the suit (and keep you from spending tons of money for your defense), if you just cave in and give me X, Y, Z." In other words, it could simply be a matter of bullying by someone with deep pockets against someone with shallow pockets. That Bryant has regained access to the NCPRN network indicates absolutely nothing with regards to the legal issues raised by the Complaint.

 

[MSS-Dave]

The lawsuit is over. The court issued a gag order, & both parties were told not to discuss the outcome, but the NCPRN was required to post that Ken Bryant's access to the system has been restored.
Important Update on Lawsuit | PRN

Seems to me only Bryant, his free family attotney, the defendants and GARY would be able to fully factualize the settlement based on this statement made to start the thread. Gag order?
RIGHT.........

IMHO, he can access the network all he wants. Individual repeater owners can block his ID and access to their respective repeater transmitter all day long. Hook up your machine and talk around the world on the Internet there K1DMR. You just won't come out of a HAM Radio transmitter anywhere around here.THAT IS regulated by the FCC in the USA.

It's a shame it cost the NCPRN guys a butt load of money to settle a case that was brought out of sheer spite.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[bill4long]

Gag order?

I am dubious about this gag order claim. Judges usually do that for cases where lack of secrecy can negatively effect adjudication, that is, harm the prospects of a fair trial, or do material harm to persons. I don't see how that's remotely possible in this (rather lame) civil case.

I will have the court transcripts soon, and we'll see if a gag order was issued, and if so, on what basis.

 

[DaveNF2G]

Kenneth Bryant vs NCPRN

While it did not go to trial, the case was settled in favor of Mr. Bryant. He got his access back.

Incorrect. That case was over network access, which was ordered restored. It had no bearing on access to ham repeaters.