FCC Web Documents citing 1.351

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 07 01

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-466A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-466A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-466A1.txt
  • the words quoted in the text above). Wheeling/Park Ridge Opposition at 3. Glenview Opposition at 4-5. Reply to Response to Petition for Special Relief [for Glenview] at 2. Petition, Exhs. 1, 3-6. Petition at 9; Declaration of Peter H. Feinberg, Comcast's Associate General Counsel. Glenview Opposition at 5-6. Wheeling/Park Ridge Opposition at 6-8. Glenview Opposition at 9-11. 47 C.F.R. § 1.351 (with certain exceptions, ``the rules of evidence governing civil proceedings in matters not involving trial by jury in the courts of the United States shall govern formal hearings. Such rules may be relaxed if the ends of justice will be better served by so doing.''). See also Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection & Competition Act of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-709A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-709A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-709A1.txt
  • its application). We acknowledge that Johnson's declaration concerning her discussions with Diamond's Sarah Berry constitute hearsay statements recounting representations made to Johnson by those principals. The Commission has stated that while the Federal Rules of Evidence generally govern Commission hearings, these rules may be ``relaxed if the ends of justice will be better serviced by so doing.'' 47 C.F.R. § 1.351. To that end, the Commission has stated that hearsay evidence may be admissible in administrative proceedings if there are some indicia of reliability. See, e.g., Echostar Communications Corp. v. FCC, 292 F.3d 749, 753 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Wine Country Radio, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 2333, 2334 (1996). We believe that in the instant proceeding, Russo's email corroborates
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-424A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-424A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-424A1.txt
  • (in which complainant alleges that upon reviewing his telephone bill, he found, to his ``amazement,'' that AT&T was no longer his company's long distance carrier). See id. Petition at 16-17. See, e.g., Long Distance Services, Inc., Order of Forfeiture, 13 FCC Rcd 4444 (1998). See, e.g., Amer-I-Net Services Corp., Order of Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 3118 (2000). 47 C.F.R. § 1.351; see also WWOR-TV, Inc. et al., 5 FCC Rcd 4113 (Rev. Bd. 1990). See Paul Kelley, 5 FCC Rcd 1955, 1957 n.13 (1990). Petition at 19-21. Id. at 21 (citing Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087(1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (Forfeiture Policy
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-255A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-255A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-255A1.txt
  • Rcd at 15048. See Saines Declaration (Aug. 14, 1998). Presumably, All American uses this term to refer to the Commission. Moreover, even if the rule cited by All American applies here, the Commission has stated that the Federal Rules of Evidence may be ``relaxed if the ends of justice will be better served by so doing.'' See 47 C.F.R. § 1.351. See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D). See Saines Declaration (Aug. 14, 1998). See All American NAL, 13 FCC Rcd at 15048-49. Response at 42. Response at 14. Response at 10. Id. at 11. All American claims that Ms. Joyce did not ``definitively assert'' that her signature is a forfeiture, instead stating that, ``[t]o the best of [her] recollection,'' she did not
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10D-01A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10D-01A1.txt
  • recordcontainsnoopinionofalicensedorqualifiedpsychologist,psychiatrist,orotherqualified experttoprovethecontrary,orevidencethatrefutesDr.Allmon'sconclusions,andnonewas offeredbytheBureau.J2Thus,underthepreponderanceoftheevidence,henowpresents absolutelynoprovenrisktocommitorattemptsexualmisconductinvolvingaminor. EnforcementBureau'sFailureofProof 29.Nonetheless,theBureauarguesthatMr.Tituspresentsadanger.TheBureauargues thatconclusionbasedonanon-probative,defectivetestthatwasrelieduponbyDetective ShillingtoassignMr.TitustosexoffenderLevel3andpubliclypronouncehimahighrisktore- offend.SubstantialquestionshavebeenraisedastoreliabilityoftheWASOSTinpredictingan 31 See FED.R.EVID.403. 32 TheBureaudidattempttobringinarebuttalexperttotestifyafterthehearingwasconcluded.TheBureau's requestwasdeniedforbeingtardy.SeeMemorandumOpinionandOrder,FCC08M-51(reI.Dec.5,2008) (decisiondenyingBureau'spost-hearingMotiontoPermitTestingbyRebuttalWitnesses). 11 FederalCommunicationsCommission FCClOD-Ol offender'srisktocommitapedophilicsexcrime.DetectiveShillingtestifiedthatheusesthe WASOSTonly"[b]ecausestatelawrequiresmeto."(Tr.801.)Infact,thetestisuseless becauseitdoesnottestforriskofre-offendingwhere,ashere,theoffenderhasbeenalaw- abidingmemberofhiscommunityformanyyears. 30.Uponreleasefromprisonin1995,acommitteechairedbyDetectiveShilling assignedMr.TitusaLevel2sexoffenderstatusshowinga"moderaterisk"tore-offend.(EB Exh.2at5.)In2004,afteradecadeofbeingcrime-freeinthesamecommunity,Detective ShillingarbitrarilyincreasedMr.Titus'riskassessmenttoLevel3,showinga"highrisk"tore- offend.(Tr.864.)DetectiveShillinglateraffirmedhisLevel3rankingathearing.(EBExh.14; Tr.800-01,814.)ButhegavenocredittoMr.Titusforbeingalongtimelaw-abidingmember ofthecommunity,despitehisacknowledgementthat"timeinthecommunitywithoutre-offense isanimportantaspectintermsofassessingtheriskforre-offense."(Tr.821.)Detective Shillingfailedtotakeintoaccountthis"importantfactor"inarbitrarilyraisinghisrisktoaLevel 3sexoffender.33 31.MovingbeyondhisunjustifiedLevel3reclassification,evidenceinthisrecordalso doesnotsupportaconclusionthatMr.TituslikelywouldusehisAmateurRadiotosolicit minorsforsex.(EBExhs.6,9-10.)Some,none,orfewminorHAMoperatorsmaybeinclose proximitytohisradiorepeaterfacility.(EBExh.6.)Thereis,however,noevidenceand thereforenoriskthatMr.TituswouldusehisHAMradiotosolicitminors.Thisconclusionis basedonexpertopinionevidenceofhisrehabilitation,apresentabsenceofsexualinterestin childrenandadolescents,andarecordofnon-recidivismforthepast18years. 32.Moreover,Mr.TitushasheldanAmateurRadiolicensefor20years,andthereisno credibleorreliableevidenceevensuggestingthatheeverhasusedoreverwoulddaretouse HAMradiocommunicationasameanstocontactminorsforillicitpurposes.And,itisofficially noticedthattheInternetisthechosentoolofpedophilesforreadilyreachingminorsand children.34Bycontrast,anAmateurRadiosolicitationwouldbehighlyriskyinviewofaculture amongHAMoperatorsofself-monitoringtrafficoverAmateurRadiofrequencies.Theriskto Mr.TitusofbeingmonitoredforanymisuseofAmateurRadioismanytimesgreaterthanthe Internet,particularlysincehehasregisteredasasexoffenderandcanbereadilyidentifiedand apprehendedifnecessary. CandorAssessment 33.Finally,theBureauassertsthatMr.Tituslackedcandorbecausehetestifiedthathe hadaninabilitytorecalldetailsofhissexualcrimesortreatment.(EBProposedFindingsof FactandConclusionofLaw at11-12.)Inordertoestablishalackofcandor,theBureauhasthe burdentoestablishbyapreponderanceofreliableevidencethatMr.Titusmisspokeandthatin 33 DetectiveShillingshouldhavetakenintoaccountMr.Titus'longhistoryasalawabidingcitizenbyexercising hisoptiontodepartfromthenumericalWASOSTscore.(EBExh.14at4.)DetectiveShilling,however,madeno suchdeparturedespitehistestimonythatsuchhistoryisan"importantaspect"ofriskassessment.(Tr.821.) 34 47C.F.R.§1.351(applyingFederalRulesofEvidencetoCommissionhearings);FED.R.EVID.201(a)-(b) (providingforjudicialnoticeofadjudicativefacts). 12 FederalCommunicationsCommission FCC lOD-Ol doingso,heintendedtodeceivethePresidingJudge.35Inthiscase,theBureaureliessolelyon speculativeinferencebasedonMr.Titus'inabilitytorecallderelictanddistastefulevents perpetratedmanyyearsago.Thereisnoreliableevidenceintherecordtosupportafindingthat Mr.Tituswasnottruthfulinhisinabilitytorecallthosedetailsofsuchlongpast,distasteful events.Mr.Titus'assertedmemorylossofdetailsthatmayhaveoccurredbefore199536isnot byitselfabasisforfindingalackofcandorinhistestimony. ORDER Fortheforegoingconsiderationsoftheevidenceandlegalauthoritiesshowingthatthe EnforcementBureaufailedtocarryitsburdenofproof,ITISHEREBYORDEREDthatthe AmateurRadioOperatorLicenseofAmateurRadioStationKB7ILDheldbyMr.DavidL.Titus SHALLNOTBEREVOKED. ITISFURTHERORDEREDthatthisLicenseRevocationProceedingEBDocketNo. 07-13,ISDISMISSEDonthemeritsandwithprejudice.37 FEDERALCOMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSION RichardL.Sippel ChiefAdministrativeLawJudge 35 SwanCreekCommc'ns,Inc.v.FCC,39F.3d1217(D.C.Cir.1994)(citingWeybumBroad.Ltd.P'shipv.FCC, 984F.2d1220,1232(D.C.Cir.1993)(intenttodeceive[is]anessentialelementofamisrepresentationorlackof candorshowing)). 36 TherepeaterlicensewasnotputinissuebytheBureauintheOSc.Therefore,therepeaterlicenseisnot revoked. 37 ThisInitialDecisionshallbecomeeffectiveandthisproceedingshallbeterminated50daysafteritsreleaseif exceptionsarenotfiledwithin30daysthereafter,unlesstheCommissionelectstoreviewthecaseonitsown motion.47C.F.R.§1.276(b). 13
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01255.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01255.html
  • Rcd at 15048. See Saines Declaration (Aug. 14, 1998). Presumably, All American uses this term to refer to the Commission. Moreover, even if the rule cited by All American applies here, the Commission has stated that the Federal Rules of Evidence may be ``relaxed if the ends of justice will be better served by so doing.'' See 47 C.F.R. § 1.351. See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D). See Saines Declaration (Aug. 14, 1998). See All American NAL, 13 FCC Rcd at 15048-49. Response at 42. Response at 14. Response at 10. Id. at 11. All American claims that Ms. Joyce did not ``definitively assert'' that her signature is a forfeiture, instead stating that, ``[t]o the best of [her] recollection,'' she did not
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00424.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00424.txt
  • (in which complainant alleges that upon reviewing his telephone bill, he found, to his ``amazement,'' that AT&T was no longer his company's long distance carrier). See id. Petition at 16-17. See, e.g., Long Distance Services, Inc., Order of Forfeiture, 13 FCC Rcd 4444 (1998). See, e.g., Amer-I-Net Services Corp., Order of Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 3118 (2000). 47 C.F.R. § 1.351; see also WWOR-TV, Inc. et al., 5 FCC Rcd 4113 (Rev. Bd. 1990). See Paul Kelley, 5 FCC Rcd 1955, 1957 n.13 (1990). Petition at 19-21. Id. at 21 (citing Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087(1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (Forfeiture Policy
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01255.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01255.html
  • Rcd at 15048. See Saines Declaration (Aug. 14, 1998). Presumably, All American uses this term to refer to the Commission. Moreover, even if the rule cited by All American applies here, the Commission has stated that the Federal Rules of Evidence may be ``relaxed if the ends of justice will be better served by so doing.'' See 47 C.F.R. § 1.351. See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D). See Saines Declaration (Aug. 14, 1998). See All American NAL, 13 FCC Rcd at 15048-49. Response at 42. Response at 14. Response at 10. Id. at 11. All American claims that Ms. Joyce did not ``definitively assert'' that her signature is a forfeiture, instead stating that, ``[t]o the best of [her] recollection,'' she did not
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00424.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00424.html http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/fcc00424.txt
  • (in which complainant alleges that upon reviewing his telephone bill, he found, to his ``amazement,'' that AT&T was no longer his company's long distance carrier). See id. Petition at 16-17. See, e.g., Long Distance Services, Inc., Order of Forfeiture, 13 FCC Rcd 4444 (1998). See, e.g., Amer-I-Net Services Corp., Order of Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 3118 (2000). 47 C.F.R. § 1.351; see also WWOR-TV, Inc. et al., 5 FCC Rcd 4113 (Rev. Bd. 1990). See Paul Kelley, 5 FCC Rcd 1955, 1957 n.13 (1990). Petition at 19-21. Id. at 21 (citing Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087(1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (Forfeiture Policy
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-709A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-11-709A1.pdf
  • its application). We acknowledge that Johnson's declaration concerning her discussions with Diamond's Sarah Berry constitute hearsay statements recounting representations made to Johnson by those principals. The Commission has stated that while the Federal Rules of Evidence generally govern Commission hearings, these rules may be ``relaxed if the ends of justice will be better serviced by so doing.'' 47 C.F.R. § 1.351. To that end, the Commission has stated that hearsay evidence may be admissible in administrative proceedings if there are some indicia of reliability. See, e.g., Echostar Communications Corp. v. FCC, 292 F.3d 749, 753 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Wine Country Radio, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 2333, 2334 (1996). We believe that in the instant proceeding, Russo's email corroborates