[CW] FCC's response to fraudulent CW license

[David J. Ring, Jr.]

Rich,

You're so right!  I am embarrased to say that I've today received today 
emails from people I know to be honest men - and ALL of their collective 
complaints against the FCC have gone to the trash bin.

The FCC ignores ARRL and others who are legitimate "persons" who represent 
thousands of USA citizens.

Since around 1982, the "Licensed FCC" operators have been a "thorn in the 
side" of President Reagan - who crazily enough earned the money to be an 
"extra $$ class" person by radio, and VP George Bush who as owner of Zapata 
Ships sided with EXXON in eliminating "baggage" such as the CW operator.

Evidence?  Elimination and illegality of CW on any US Department of Defense 
frequency.

What's that? -

Illegality.

If you send CW - you can be prosecuted.

Wake up hams!

73

DR


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rich Dailey, N8UX." <redailey at alltel.net>
To: <cw at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: [CW] FCC's response to fraudulent CW license


Sadly, I believe you're right.  Even more sad,  I believe there will be
lives lost at sea due to such things,  and more CNN and MSNBC
"breaking stories".

OT: On a much smaller scale,  we have two good sized lakes here in
southern KY,  Dale Hollow and Lake Cumberland.  I'm continually
amazed at the increasing ignorance of basic rules of the road,  not
to mention disregard of channel marker and idle speed bouys,  or
VHF radio use.  Add alcohol into the equation,  and it's a continuous
recipe for disaster.  And it appears to me that the water patrol, bless 
them,
have no teeth (here at least) for proper enforcement. I dread to think of 
the
consequences of lax enforcement to "real" ships at sea.  If it becomes
anything like what VHF has turned into with pleasure boating,  heaven
help us all.

David Writes:

>I've received reports today that the FCC and USCG both intercepted false
>distress signals sent by a school teaching the new Distress and Signaling
>system.  The USCG sent a heliocopter to investigate each occurance.
>
>Both FCC and USCG could have taken action, but they didn't.
>
>Daily on ships, now that the FCC no longer does ship inspections, equipment
>isn't in working condition, or is switched off.  The USCG is planning on
>having "vessel owners" determine what equipment should be use and have the
>owners "self-inspect" their stations.
>
>Years ago, I predicted that within 20 years after the Radio Officer left 
>the
>ships (which was after AM/FM/TV stations "didn't need" FCC licensed
>operators by about 15 years) that there would be "no more ham radio".
>
>The time clock points to now:  6 years.  But I think by 10 years there will
>be no more technical examination for a ham license, and I can see a point
>where there are no licenses, only permits, then I can see governments
>closing it down as there is no need for "trained operators".
>
>73
>
>David N1EA
>
>_______________________________________________
Over a year ago, I posted to this reflector about a fraudulent license
issued by the FCC.

Since then - the FCC has done nothing.  See below!

73

David N1EA

--------------------------

Mr. Simmons,

You have had the material and documents from Mr. Hollingsworth for over a
year concerning the fraudulent license of Mr. Wooley and the acknowledged
cooperation in obtaining this FCC license by others.

Many FCC licensees continue to consider it important that FCC continue to
maintain their previous high standards - your lack of acknowlegement, and
your admission that "the material" was lost, does not bode well for the FCC.

It has been well over a week and you have not even acknowledged this email.
I am going to meet with my Congressman about obtaining a "Writ of Mandamus"
to have the FCC do it's job.  If this matter should be brought to someone
else's attention at the FCC, please let me (us) know.

Please - at least - do the decent thing.  Correspond, communicate!

If the FCC wishes NOT do investigate the obvious fraud, just say so.

A response is much more honest than a lack of response, at least in areas
outside of Washington, DC.

I completely understand that "integrity" in Washington, DC depends on money,
funding.

A simple - "we do not have the finances to do anything about this" - would
be sufficient.

However, a simple letter to Mr. Woolley asking him to voluntarily turn in
his T1 license and advising him that you will not prosecute him for his
criminal acts doesn't cost very much either.

Best Wishes - and hoping to hear from you soon.

David Ring

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David J. Ring, Jr." <n1ea at arrl.net>
To: <Tracy.Simmons at fcc.gov>
Cc: <Rebecca.Williams at fcc.gov>; "Riley Hollingsworth"
<Riley.Hollingsworth at fcc.gov>; "Richard Monjure" <rmonjure at atlantic.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 1:44 AM
Subject: Other Probable Fraudulent Licenses


Dear Mr. Simmons,

Further to my last email.

While I was looking at some of the licenses issued, I found a few
irregularities.  I have found more than this, but my observation to Mr.
Hollingsworth is:  "Who is doing oversight of the COLEMs and review to see
that only qualified applicants receive FCC licenses."  I followed up my
telephone conversation with him with an email to illustrate.  Mr.
Hollingsworth was very gracious and helpful and forwarded the file to you
per instructions of his superiors as the WTB has jurdistriction over
Commercial Licenses.  What is upsetting about the Whoolley matter is that he
bragged about what he did in a published newsletter. I find it upsetting
that the FCC has "lost" the paper work in this matter.

Here is one that seems most unusual.  (See email below).

In 11/94 she obtained a Marine Permit, in 02/97 she obtained a GROL (and it
appears a second GROL was issued her at a later date), then in 1997 she
obtains a T1 license - no T2 or T3 licenses appear in the data base.  I am
assuming that this is the same person because the name is quite unusual -
the Commisson, of course, has additional non-published information which can
identify the applicant.

The problem I see is that licenses like this embolden COLEMs and individuals
to violate the FCC licensening programs.  These problems harken back to the
blatent (and unchallanged) activities of the Elkins Institute in the 1980s
when they (according to those who went to school there) the answers to the
official FCC examinations.

Why should people be awarded a license while others - myself included - had
to earn it?

To find "suspect" licenses, just search for new T2 licenses (and T1
licenses) issued after 1999.  The T1 (new) licenses and the T2 and T1
licenses with "six months service endorsements" are all suspect.

It is "nice" to have such, but only the qualified should obtain FCC licenses
and endorsements.

By not being fair to all, you are being unjust to all.

Best Wishes and Kindest Regards,

David J. Ring, Jr.
P. O. Box 9
Green Harbor, MA 02041
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David J. Ring, Jr." <n1ea at arrl.net>
To: "Riley Hollingsworth" <Riley.Hollingsworth at fcc.gov>
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2004 1:37 AM
Subject: Re: T1 License - NO Experience Required


> OK, I found the information about this person.  It definately looks like
> this person never had a T2 license or a T3 license and without it it seems
> unlikely that time could be granted.  It just looks like this person's
first  license was T1GB032901.
>
> I got this information from the Archives of the ULS - it isn't as good as
> the regular ULS but it does show earlier action on the license.
>
> What is bothersome is that that the Commission is unable to contain abuses
> and maintain uniform standards.
>
> If licenses are issued that are not in keeping with the Commission's
> required conditions, they should not be issued.
>
> However, I believe the Commission never looks at the forms that the COLEM
> examiners pass in.  The paperwork is never questioned.
>
> This results in a lessening of standards.  Who checks to see if the same
> applicant never receives the same examination as required by Part 13 of
the FCC rules and regulations?
>
> Here is the other information that I found - this still looks like
something  is most wrong.  It doesn't look like a name change because of the
MP license
> in 1994, but by 1997 this person has a T1 license.
>
> I don't know if FCC grants reciprocity for ITU licenses such as GROL and
> T1/2/3 licenses.  Other countries will issue a local GROL or Telegraph
> license if you can produce a USA license.
>
> This could be explained by the person being employed by a foreign country
> with a foreign license.
>
> But it still looks like no one is watching the store.
>
> MPGB001470     11/17/94     LONG, VIVIENNE L     CM
> PGGB018945     02/21/97     LONG, VIVIENNE L     CM
> PGGB032836     04/28/97     LONG, VIVIENNE L     CM
> T1GB032901     04/30/97     LONG, VIVIENNE L      CM
> T1GB032901     08/06/04     LONG, VIVIENNE L     CM     0011262151
> T1GB032901     08/09/04     LONG, VIVIENNE L     CM     0011262151
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> David Ring
>
>
>
>



-- 

_______________________________________________