Was Joking, and He Did Not Wish to Antagonize Them. It Happened So

was joking, and he did not wish to antagonize them. It happened so long ago that I have forgotten the specific dates and frequencies, although I am sure it all hap pened on the 75-meter band. The Bureau has no right to tell me I can't joke around like this on the ham radio because you can't regulate our speech in the first in stance. I'm just not going to tolerate your attempts to second-guess all my jokes because it creates a self-censorship regime and has a chilling effect on the free speech ofradio amateurs.

II. State whether you have ever referred to yourself during a radio trans mission or otherwise as the "Water Buffalo Jammer" and/or otherwise stated that the letters WBJ in your vanity call sign stand for "Water Buffalo Jammer." If so, a. provide the date and time ofeach such statement; b. describe the method used to make and publish each such statement; and c. identify each person to whom it was made; d. If such statement was broadcast via a radio transmission, identify specifically and in detail:

I. the date and time ofeach and any such transmission;

11. the frequency upon which each and any such transmission was broadcast;

Ill. each person you have reason to believe heard each or any such transmission. e. Ifsuch statement was contained in correspondence including, but not limited to, email, identify specifically and in detail:

1. the address you used to send each and any such message containing such statement;

11. the addressee and recipient ofeach and any such message you sent

-26- including, but not limited to, the address of each such individual;

Ill. text of each and any such message.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence here in because, under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, he is entitled to call himself whatever he wants to on the ham radio. Subject to said objection, Applicant admits that after he received his present callsign he has jokingly and satirically referred to himselfa few times on the air as the "Water Buffalo Jammer", but that is irrelevant for enforcement purposes herein because "Water Buffalo" refers to Orville Dalton, K6UEY, who, in Applicant's opinion, looks very much like a water buffalo, but who had gone offthe air long before I received my present callsign. The fact that Mr. Dalton had already been offthe air for a long time before I ever called myself"Water Buffalo Jammer" proves that I was just joking around about it. I couldn't have "jammed" him ifI'd wanted to because he had already gone offthe air. Also, in said conversations I was joking around about the rumor that Mr. Dalton went offthe air because ofme. lfthat is true, it is just because he can dish his lies out anonymously to the Bureau but he can't handle the truth; i.e, when his lies are exposed. For example, he vehe mently denied to me on the air several times that he had filed complaints against me with Riley Hollingsworth, and then heatedly and repeatedly called me a liar on the air when I said I knew quite well that he had filed some. And then I got copies ofhis complaints in response to my F.O.LA. request. Let's summarize: Dalton had repeatedly called me a liar on the air when it was instead he who was lying, and he was too chickcn to take responsibility for the complaints he filed by admitting he tiled them because he is a disgusting old mis anthrope, curmudgeon and sniveler who can dish it out anonymously to the Bureau

-27- but can't take it, and he thought Riley Hollingsworth would never tell me that he'd complained about me. I think that is why Mr. Dalton went offthe air (i.e. he was too ashamed at being caught out as a liar by me) rather than anything that I did to him. Again, all this happened so long ago that I have forgotten the exact dates and frequencies (all were on the 75-meter amateur band). I called myselfthe "Water Buffalo Jammer" a few times on the air, but the shtick just didn't go over, so I stopped calling myselfthat. I don't remember ever calling myselfthat in emails or correspondence, although it's possible I did and have forgotten about it. The Bur eau has no right to tell me I can't joke around like this on the ham radio because you can't regulate our speech in the first instance. Where do you get offfollowing me around and second-guessing the jokes that I make on the air while making the U.S. taxpayer foot the bill? Ifyou want to become a comedy critic, start a blog or get a newspaper or website to hire you, but don't do it at taxpayer expense! I just don't think the fact that I'm a poor comedian has anything to do with whether or not I violated the amateur Rules, or my moral fitness to possess an amateur radio license.

12. State whether you have ever referred to yourself during a radio trans mission, in an email, or otherwise not previously disclosed herein, as a "jammer" or "Jammer." Ifso: a. provide the date and time ofeach such statement; b. describe the method used to make and publish each such statement; and c. identify each person to whom it was made; d. If such statement was broadcast via a radio transmission, identify specifically and in detail:

I. the date and time ofeach and any such transmission;

-28- 11. the frequency upon which each and any such transmission was broadcast;

111. each person you have reason to believe heard each or any such transmission. e. Ifsuch statement was contained in correspondence including, but not limited to, email, identify specifically and in detail:

I. the address you used to send each and any such message containing such statement;

11. the addressee and recipient ofeach and any such message you sent including, but not limited to, the address ofeach such individual;

111. text ofeach and any such message.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence here in. I have the First Amendment right to call myself anything I want on the air, as long as it is legal to do so, and there is nothing illegal about calling yourselfa jam mer, especially when you were joking about and ridiculing, parodying and satir izing the Commission as I was doing. The Bureau has no right to tell me I can't joke around like this on the ham radio because you can't regulate our speech in the first instance. I refuse to permit the Bureau to second-guess every joke I make on the ham radio because then you would have the right to second-guess everything I say. This interrogatory essentially says that it is perfectly acceptable for Riley Hol lingsworth to falsely call me a jammer, but it is not acceptable for me to use the word "jammer" in defending myself because if! use that word, the Bureau will bootstrap itselfinto a character rule argument. In other words, you just want to defame me and then shut me up. That is not right, and I won't stand for it! Applicant further objects that the interrogatory is vague; i.e., what is meant

-29- by the term "jammer"? It should really only refer to malicious and intentional interference under §97.1 0I(d), but both I, my ham radio friends, many other amateurs and even the Bureau often use the term "jammer" as a generic or "catch-all" phrase which includes on-the-air activities and operating practices which we consider undesira ble but don't really rise to the level of an actual Part 97 violation. Any supposed references to myselfas a "jammer" probably involved the issue ofwhether or not I was actually guilty ofa §97.1 0 I(d) violation in the first place (after Hollingsworth started publicly calling me ajammer), in which discussions I argued that I was not guilty ofjamming; or were part ofa discussion in which it is questionable that the term "jammer" should have been used at all, since we merely considered the activ ities in question undesirable but we all understood that they did not constitute an actual §97.l0I(d) violation. I think we may have been talking about the latter kind of"jamming"; i.e., it wasn't a real Part 97 violation in the first place. I've talked about the jamming problem on the ham radio so much that it would be impossible for me to give you the exact dates and times. I believe it was all on the 75-meter band, though. We discuss almost daily the fact that the Com mission needs to utilize direction-finding equipment and obtain intercepts ofthe interfering stations ifthey really want to deal with the ham radio jamming prob lem, rather than merely sending self-serving press releases which wrongfully and publicly accuse good amateurs ofjamming just because they sign their callsigns because it is so much easier than locating the real jammers. Usually there is unan imity ofopinion about the fact that until the Bureau does start direction-finding and obtaining intercepts, it should stop trying to bluffthe amateur community with its phony, self-serving warning notices, and how unfair it is for the Commission to accuse amateurs publicly ofjamming before giving them their day in court. We further discuss how we all know the Commission starts issuing its press releases

-30- (warning notices) after it gets a telephone call or a letter from a Congressman or a Senator because some ham complained that he didn't like what he heard on the radio, and how the Bureau in turn prejudices the future prosecution of its enforce ment cases by issuing multiple press releases as a knee-jerk reaction thereto, because that's the Bureau's agency culture, and they have been doing it for at least 40 years. We also discuss how the publication of such phony warning notices in multiple venues, and especially since the creation ofthe internet, creates a mob psychology within the amateur community in which many amateurs will unfairly and illegally try to run the one thus falsely charged offthe air before he receives his day in court. We further discuss how the Bureau then tries to profit from its own wrong by then claiming that the station can't "get along" with his fellow ama teurs. We discuss how the Commission thinks it would be too much work and too expensive to actually catch the ham radio jammers, so they will probably never catch them. We discuss how all the Bureau cares about is issuing press releases (warning notices) to make itselflook good, but we tend to agree that nevertheless we need to stick together because we can't let the Bureau abuse, purely as a scape goat, the good operators who identifY their stations. We are entitled to discuss these subjects under the First Amendment without having the Commission retaliate by refusing to renew our licenses. The only reason we had to discuss these issues in the first place is due to the Bureau's poor former management. I can't remember the dates, times or frequencies because it happens almost every day, almost always on 75 meters, but sometimes on 40 meters at 7255 kc.

13. State whether you have or have ever had an account on www.eHam.net. Ifso: a. state whether you prepared, created, or authored a user profile for your account.

-31- b. provide the dates the account was opened and, if applicable, closed.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence here in. Under the First Amendment, Applicant is entitled to say on eham.net anything he wants to say about the Commission and the Bureau, as long as it is not illegal, and nothing Applicant said was illegal. Subject to said objection, Applicant answers that he did at one time have an account with eham.net under the user name N6AYJ, and later under the user name W6WBJ, under which accounts Applicant posted quite a few messages that ridi culed, satirized, parodied and were highly-critical ofthe Commission and ofthe Bureau, but the information I posted was true and it was certainly not illegal to post it; indeed, Applicant has a First Amendment right to do so, so it therefore pro vides no basis for a character rule inquiry. Moreover, the intention ofsaid profile was to improve the administration ofthe Commission and the Bureau by embar rassing Hollingsworth to the point that he would be forced to either stop deliberate ly misinterpreting Part 97 or resign from his position. I believe I probably did pre pare a user profile for my eham.net account, but I can't remember what it said. I don't have the eham.net account anymore so I can't check myoid user profile. I think I was improperly kicked offthe eham.net site in 2009 because Mr. Hollingsworth and Scot Stone had both publicly, but falsely, declared me to be a Jammer.

14. State whether the user profile for the www.eHam.net account for W6WBJ states that with respect to ham radio, you are most proud ofreceiving two warning notices from that buttwad [sic] Riley Hollingsworth." Ifso, state whether you drafted, prepared, or otherwise consented to that response being posted in the

-32- user profile that is or was associated with your amateur radio call sign.

Applicant obj ects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence here in. There is nothing illegal about such a posting on my user profile. Subject to said objection, Applicant admits that he did write the quoted ma terials, which are true. Indeed, I am proud that I stood up to Riley Hollingsworth when he sent me his illegal, wrongheaded warning notices, and would do so again. I am not required to tolerate his misinterpretations ofthe amateur Rules, and I have no intention oftolerating them because I am trying to improve the administration ofthe Commission and the Bureau. I still think he is a buttwad; I'm glad he retired, and I hope I was the reason he did so. IfRiley Hollingsworth is entitled to wrong fully call me a jammer and a dickhead, then I'm more than entitled to call him a buttwad. Only a public official who was a buttwad would block communications from one ofhis licensees while claiming that §97.1 says anything substantive. Hollings worth started this namecalling with his emails in which he called me a dickhead, and now he is trying to punish me for simply responding to the namecalling that he started. Not only do I have the legal right ofreply, but being ajammer is illegal but being a buttwad is not, so Hollingsworth displayed far worse character in this namecalling exchange than I did. He called me two names, jammer and dickhead, one ofwhich falsely accuses me ofillegal conduct, but I only called him one name and accused him ofnothing illegal. I am going to fight deliberate and unfair mis interpretations ofPart 97 such as Hollingsworth's forever, before the full Commis sion and the courts ifnecessary, in order to improve the administration ofthe Com mission and ofthe Bureau because I respect the Commission and its regulatory authority so much that I don't want to see its regulations corrupted and misinter-

-33- preted by lazy petty bureaucrats like Hollingsworth, who just wanted to make his job easier while basking in undeserved accolades and traveling around on phony, contrived junkets and living large on the taxpayer's dime. I want the Bureau to be run by someone who doesn't grant papal indulgences for jamming. I want the Com mission to succeed at its mission, not have the publie lose confidence in it, because I don't want the Commission to fail, and return to the old days before radio trans missions were regulated. I am hopeful that the Commission's present admin istration will reverse the incorrect and corrupt policies ofthe former Enforcement Bureau management.

15. State whether the email addresses [email protected] and retroguy [email protected] are registered to you. If so, identify who, ifanyone, other than yourself has access to or otherwise has the ability to draft and send email corres pondence from either or both accounts.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence here in because I've done nothing illegal on the internet. Subject to said objection, yes, both email accounts were or are mine; nobody else would have originated any messages thereon; and I never sent any illegal mes sages on either of said accounts, or on any account, at any time.

16. State whether you maintain or have ever maintained a web page located at the internet address http://hamjamming.com or www.hamjamming.com (herein after, either or both are referred to as "hamjamming.com"). If so: a. specify the date when you created such web page, b. specify the dates when you maintained such web page and, ifapplicable,

-34- c. specify the date when you ceased to operate such web page.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence here in because there is nothing illegal about maintaining such a website; indeed, Appli cant has a First Amendment right to do so. Subject to said objection, yes, indeed, that URL is mine. I am sure you real ize that my said site is just a joke where I and like-minded amateurs ridicule, satir ize and parody both the jammers and the Commission and exchange classic jam ming recordings for off-the-air consumption. There is nothing even remotely ille gal about that, and to the extent that it appears disrespectful to the Commission and the Bureau, that is only because the Bureau did not want to solve the jamming problem in good faith, but instead wanted only to issue press releases to give the false appearance that it was really solving the problem. Ifthe Bureau had done its job correctly, there wouldn't be any jammers so neither would there be any jam ming recordings. Don't blame me for the fact that you aren't doing your job! I am entitled to comment about this on hamjamming.com or any other website that I might choose, and you can't stifle my criticisms by refusing to renew my license. I still have the site's HTML code; I have registered the URL; and I may res urrect the site and upload some more funny jamming recordings to it one ofthese days, but the site hasn't been working in recent months. I can't really remember when I started the hamjamming.com website, but I think it was around 2004. It's one ofmy very favorite activities, and I intend to revive the site sometime soon and upload a great number ofjamming recordings that have become available since the last time the site was online. I also plan to have a special Riley Hollings worth page on the site where hams can obtain audio downloads ofall the dumb and legally-incorrect statements Hollingsworth has made. Somebody has to preserve

-35- this wonderful ham radio heritage! Besides, I'm just doing exactly what Hollings worth told us to do: keep such materials otlthe air and on the internet instead.

17. State whether the main page or first screen ofthe hamjamming.com web page contains the picture attached hereto as Exhibit I. If so: a. identitY who created the picture; b. identitY who posted the picture on the hamjamming.com web page. c. state whether the picture was distributed other than on the hamjamming.com web page. If so: i. identitY each person who distributed it; ii. identify to whom it was distributed;

111. specitY the date and time ofeach such publication and/or distribution; and

IV. describe the method used to publish and/or distribute it. d. Ifthe picture was distributed via email, identitY: the email addressees) used to send each email message containing the

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence here in because there is nothing illegal about posting such a picture on the internet. Subject to said objection, I created the picture and I posted it on the hamjam ming.com web page. I can't remember if it was distributed anywhere else or not; it might have been. Not only is there nothing wrong with posting or distributing this

-36- picture, but under the First Amendment I am entitled to do so, and it just represents an attempt to improve the administration ofthe Commission and ofthe Bureau by satirizing, ridiculing and parodying them until they become so embarrassed by their illegal actions that they are forced to stop misinterpreting the Rules. I can't remember the date I posted it; maybe 3 or 4 years ago. I uploaded the picture to my said website in order to distribute it. I can't really remember if I sent it to anybody by email or not because it was too long ago and I don't have those email files any more. I posted this picture as part ofa sincere attempt to improve the administra tion ofthe Commission and the Bureau by parodying, ridiculing and satirizing it because I have so much respect for the Commission's regulatory authority, and be lieve that such authority would be enhanced ifthe Commission's regulations were properly interpreted rather than deliberately misapplied by bureaucrats like Hol lingsworth, who just want to make their jobs easier rather than doing their jobs properly, and are willing to misinterpret Part 97 in order to do so. The term "Secret Jamming Location" was not used in said picture in order to express disrespect for the Commission's regulatory authority in any way, but in stead to satirize, parody and ridicule the complaints that were filed against me, some ofwhich claimed that the Bureau's inability to obtain violative intercepts at my station location was not determinative because I supposedly had a "secret jam ming location" elsewhere, which was totally untrue. I have a right to make fun of that false claim on the internet without endangering the renewal ofmy license, and in order to improve the administration ofthe agency by making it obtain the neces sary intercepts in amateur interference cases, as it is required to do by law, and to quit telling the public otherwise.

18. State whether you, or someone on your behalf or at your request or dir ection, created or assisted in the creation ofeach ofthe pictures or other documents

-37- attached hereto as Exhibits 2 through 13. If so, identifY each ofthe Exhibits which you created or helped create and, for each such Exhibit: a. state when the exhibit was created; b. explain why you created the exhibit; c. identifY each person who cooperated or otherwise assisted with the creation ofthe exhibit; d. identifY each and any person or entity who published or otherwise distributed the exhibit; e. identifY to whom the exhibit was published or otherwise distributed; f. state whether you or someone at your request or on your behalf posted the exhibit on any web page. If so:

1, identifY each and any web page on which the exhibit was posted;

II, for each web page identified, state the date and time when the exhibit was posted;

111, for each web page identified, state whether the exhibit was removed and, ifso, the date and time when it was removed. g. State whether you, or someone on your behalf or at your request or direction, posted the exhibit on the hamjamming.com web page. If so:

1, state the date and time when the exhibit was posted;

11, state whether the exhibit was removed and, ifso, by whom and the date and time when of its removal. h. identifY each and any person known to you who posted this exhibit on a web page or removed it from a web page and, for each such person, identifY the web page and state whether he/she posted it, removed it, or did both.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence

-38- herein because it is perfectly legal to create such pictures and place them on the internet. Subject to said objection, I state that I created all these pictures. I can't re member when I created them because I didn't keep track ofthe dates, but it was sometime within the past several years. I believe that I was the only person who ever uploaded them to the internet. I'm not sure, but these pictures may have ap peared on livehamcams.com, hamjamming.com, and/or radiowingnuts.com. I can't remember the dates I posted them or the dates I removed them, and I have no rec ords that would so indicate. I created these pictures due to my sincere respect for the Commission's regulatory authority; viz.: to try to embarrass Riley Hollings worth for his incompetence and mistakes, and to ridicule the fact that he publicly called me a jammer but couldn't obtain any intercepts from my station proving it. My purpose in doing so was to force Hollingsworth to to either stop deliberately misinterpreting the Rules or be fired. I am entitled to defend myself in this fashion herein, and to try thereby to improve my government. I am proud ofthe fact that perhaps I was part ofthe reason Hollingsworth retired so abruptly and inexplicab ly. I believe it is my duty as an American citizen to try to improve my government in this way. In Exhibit 2, by parodying and satirizing them, I was commenting on the fact that the Bureau wouldn't do anything about the jamming problem, and I was trying to goad them into going out and getting some actual intercepts ofthe interference because the jamming problem got much worse while Hollingsworth was SCARE because the jammers called his bluff. I was making fun ofthe very fact that they had illegally, wrongfully and publicly called me a jammer. I was poking fun at the fact that the jammers figured out that Hollingsworth would go after good amateurs like me for no reason, because we identifY our stations, and because it made him look good, and that Hollingsworth was lazy and felt it was too much trouble to find

-39- the real jamming stations, so the jammers could operate with impunity and Hol lingsworth and those who believed him would always instead blame the jamming on me and other good amateurs like me. I am entitled to make fun ofthat. By way ofridiculing him, in Exhibits 3, 5 and 6 I suggested (figuratively speaking only, of course) that Hollingsworth's job performance as SCARE resem bled nothing so much as an exercise in onanism. I did so in order to make him stop misinterpreting the rules and to improve my federal government. In Exhibits 4, 12 and 13 I was satirizing the fact that Hollingsworth couldn't obtain intercepts ofme jamming but he accused me ofjamming anyway. I was fa cetiously suggesting that he was afraid to come on my property because he might trespass on that owned by the "redneck slopeheads" next door, who might rape him anally like in the movie "Deliverance". Ofcourse, it would be really terrible ifthat happened to Mr. Hollingsworth, but there is nothing wrong with justjoking about it on the internet. I was just trying to point out that there really was no good reason why Hollingsworth had no intercepts ofme jamming except for the fact that I am not a jammer in the first place. You don't have the right to judge the social value of my picture even though you might not like the idea of Hollingsworth being anally raped. After all, I was doing this to improve the government! In Exhibit 7 I was showing what a "fucktard" (i.e., idiot) Art Bell was for concocting his phony complaints and recordings against me, and for marrying a filipina child bride so soon after letting his wife die. I have a right to comment on those issues. Not only do I have the normal right ofreply to Bell's false charges, but he has been legally adjudged to be a public figure. That expands the legally permissible bounds ofmy commentary concerning Mr. Bell. It's not illegal to make such commentary, nor does it constitute a violation ofPart 97, nor does it have anything to do with whether or not I have contempt for the Commission's regula tory authority. I was privileged to make fun ofArt Bell in this way, not only

-40- because he is a completely ridiculous public figure, but in response to his filing false complaints and recordings against me with the Bureau. The Commission made it necessary to put the picture on the internet in order to ridicule the fact that the Bureau believed Bell's phony evidence. Don't try to blame me for what you did. In Exhibit 8 I was merely parodying Orville Dalton's deluded beliefthat he had a superior knowledge ofPart 97, and that he presumed to complain about me to the Bureau at the same time that he ignored §97.101(b) by refusing to share 3830 kc., and therefore what a hypocrite he is, how uninformed and stupid he is, and how unjustifiably stubborn and wrong-headed he is. In Exhibit 9 I was parodying what an idiot Moody Law, WQ61 is because he's another Art Bell sycophant; he always accuses me ofjamming just because Hollingsworth falsely claimed I did and because Bell told him to, and tried repeat edly to run me offof3840 kc. Therefore, I'm making fun ofthe fact that his audio always sounds distorted, like a pimp talking on the CB band, and that he is too dumb to learn how to re-size his pictures, use the ChillCam picture uploading software, or remove the words "moon crash" from any ofhis pictures. In other words, he is really, really dumb, and once he calls me a jammer, I'm entitled to point out precisely how dumb he is. After all, in the free marketplace ofideas, other amateurs are entitled to consider how dumb Mr. Law is in deciding how much credibility to give to his repeated claims that I am a jammer. I would never have mentioned how dumb he is had he not, in the first place, called me ajammer repeatedly and tried to run me offof3840 kc. by talking over me; told other sta tions they should not talk to me or they would be banned socially by other ama teurs; pretended he could not hear me and that I was not in the QSO [violating §97.l13(a)(4) as a false and deceptive signal; it creates interference because it is merely Mr. Law's excuse for jamming me out], and then turned around and claimed I was interfering even though a moment before he'd claimed he couldn't

-41- hear me. Not only is he stupid, a liar and a sycophant ofArt Bell's, he is really technically incompetent, and I was making fun ofthat, too. I am privileged and entitled to do so under the right ofreply because he likes to wrongfully accuse me ofjamming when Art Bell puts him up to it. I have a right to so reply, and I am probably going to continue to do so as long as Mr. Law continues to falsely accuse me ofbeing a jammer, to jam me on the air, to talk over me, to pretend he can't copy me in violation of§97. I 13(a)(4). You are not entitled to judge the social val ue ofmy conduct, especially since you caused the problem in the first place by wrongfully calling me a jammer. What do you think this is, a police state? In Exhibit 101 was making fun ofthe fact that Glenn Thurman, KN6Z, can't seem to keep his girlfriend sexually satisfied, and I offered to help him do so. I mean, it's obvious: the guy talks on the ham radio all night when he could be cud dling with his attractive girlfriend. What's up with that? Is he avoiding her because she thinks he's a lousy lay, and might tum him down, or what? Ifso, then maybe I could be ofassistance in the situation, so it was a completely valid inquiry. And what business is it ofyours if! make ajoke about it at Thurman's expense? He is the only one who would have standing to complain about it, and I know he never complained. In Exhibit II I was making fun ofwhat an idiot Ben Gardner, KD7BCW, another one ofArt Bell's sycophants, is, and how he's too damned fat to get a date. He gives a whole new meaning to the term "fat"! (His woman problems were solved, however, when Bell purchased a filipina bride for him as a reward for his loyalty.) This is none ofyour business, and I won't have you judging the social value ofmy non-FCC-related speech. Go get your own comedy material! Again, I was just exercising my right ofreply since Mr. Gardner has often accused me of being a jammer and tried to run me offof3840 kc. Don't blame me for what you started! The Bureau is estopped from claiming this is not non-FCC-related con-

-42- duct because Hollingsworth told the amateur community to keep the disputatious and argumentative issues on the internet and offthe air.

19. State whether you or someone on your behalfor otherwise at your request or direction prepared the Good Operator the Report attached hereto as Exhibit 14.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence herein. Subject to said objection, Applicant states that he has no knowledge what soever about said "Good Operator Report", who prepared it or why, except the in formation which appears on its face, and I thereon allege that probably W5BRM prepared it because I am such a good operator. I don't know W5BRM at all. I've never met him and don't remember speaking to him on the air, although it is pos sible I did speak to him on the air and forgot, because I speak to a lot ofstations. I never saw this "Good Operator Report" until I received your interrogatories. I fail to understand why you would find it so surprising that I received a Good Operator Report. Many hams believe I am a good operator, and tell me so on the air. Many also say they are surprised that I am such a good operator after all the false and ter rible things that Riley Hollingsworth, Scot Stone and the Bureau have said about me publicly, under color of law and at taxpayer expense. The only ones who be lieve I'm a bad operator are those who don't listen for themselves and believe all the lies that Hollingsworth tells.

20. State whether you published Exhibit 14 or otherwise cause it to be pub lished online or otherwise. If so: a. identify the date, time, and location ofsuch publication; and.

-43- b. identity the reason for such publication.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence herein. Subject to said objection, no, I don't believe I ever published it or caused it to be published online. I never saw this "Good Operator Report" until I received your interrogatories.

21. State whether you distributed, published, or otherwise disclosed any letter you received from the Commission or anyone on its behalfon the hamjam ming.com web page, any other web page, or in another forum. If so, for each such web page or forum used to publish the letter(s), identity: a. the web page or forum internet address on which each letter was published or distributed; b. the publisher of each letter; each person who submitted each letter for publication or posting; c. the title ofthe article or posting in which each letter appeared; d. the date when each article or posting was published or posted; e. explain why each letter was published or posted.

Applicant obj ects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence here in. Subject to such objection, yes, I've posted a lot ofFCC amateur enforcement and warning notices, administrative decisions, AU decisions and court decisions and my warning notices on lots ofinternet websites; primarily the websites previ ously specified, although I may have posted such materials on other websites that I've forgotten about. I was the one who published such material; I was the person

-44- who submitted it for publication; and there is nothing wrong about publishing it because it is in the public record and/or in the public domain. I can't remember the article or posting in which each such document appeared, nor the dates thereof. I published all such materials in order to point out how badly the Enforcement Bur eau was being run under its former administration, and the way they were deliber ately misinterpreting Part 97 because they were lazy and wanted to make their jobs easier. I did so out ofa genuine respect for the Commission's regulatory powers, and a desire to protect such powers, because ifthe Bureau is incompetently and illegally run, nobody will respect the Commission's authority.

22. State whether you are the author ofthe article, "All Hams Need a Secret Jamming Location" that appeared on www.eHam.net on or about August 31,2004. Ifso: a. explain why you wrote the article; b. identifY each web page or forum to which you submitted the article; specifY each date the article was published by or posted on, each web page or forum identified in subsection (b), above.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence here in. Applicant has a right under the First Amendment to write and post such an arti cle. Subject to said objection, I wrote and posted it on eham.net in order to ridicule, satirize and parody Riley Hollingsworth and to force him to resign from his posi tion. The point ofthe article was that Hollingsworth was doing nothing to catch the real jammers; that the jamming problem had been getting worse rather than better since Hollingsworth became SCARE; and that apparently jamming was on the in crease because the jammers were calling his bluff. I did so out ofa genuine respect

-45- for the Commission; to avoid seeing its regulatory powers corrupted and to in crease the respect that citizens have for the agency. I think that eham.net was the only website where I posted the article. I can't remember the date, and don't have any records that would tell me the date I posted it. You don't have the right to second-guess or judge the social value ofmy speech by denying my license in retaliation for criticizing the Commission.

23. IdentifY any and all articles about amateur radio that you have written which have been published. For each such article: a. explain why you wrote the article; b. identify each web page or forum to which you submitted the article; c. provide each date the article was published by, or posted on, each web page or forum identified in subsection (b) above.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence here in. I can't remember all the ham radio articles I've authored, or where I've posted them all, because I've written so many and didn't keep track ofthem.

24. State whether you have ever had any communication with the Commis sion, its employees and/or staff regarding allegations that you engaged in delib erate interference to ongoing communications. Ifso, as to each such communica tion: a. state the date ofthe communication; b. state whether the communication was written or oral; c. identify each party to or person who participated in the communication; d. summarize the substance ofthe communication;

-46- e. state the purpose ofthe communication and any response thereto; and f. identify each witness to the communication.

I had a conversation with Bob Weller, in which we agreed that it was incor rect for Hollingsworth to proceed against me without any actual intercepts oftrans missions from my station that violated Part 97. I told Mr. Weller that the reason Hollingsworth couldn't get any intercepts ofme is because I don't jam, and that I greatly resented Hollingsworth accusing me ofjamming when he was totally un able to prove it. (I can't remember what Mr. Weller said in response to those state ments ofmine.) We did agree that Riley Hollingsworth is wrong in claiming that mere complaints constitute admissible evidence against an amateur licensee for re newal purposes. Mr. Weller told me that he and other long-time, knowledgeable FCC personnel all understand that actual intercepts are required to prove inten tional interference an amateur case under the Boston decision, and he seemed rather incredulous that Hollingsworth would attempt to claim otherwise because it made the Commission look bad because Hollingsworth was thereby ignoring es tablished FCC case law, and he wished that Hollingsworth would not do so. I told Mr. Weller that I didn't think Hollingsworth was even aware ofsuch amateur radio case decisions and Weller agreed. He said in his opinion the better informed mem bers ofthe Commission's staffdid not consider Hollingsworth to be "the sharpest tool in the shed", intellectually speaking. I can't remember the date ofthe conver sation. It was oral. The only participants were myself and Mr. Weller. I don't think there were any witnesses to the telephone conversation. I can't recall any other such conversations with Commission employees about deliberate interference.

25. State whether you have ever had any communication with the Commis sion, its employees and/or staffregarding a license renewal and/or vanity call sign

-47- application filed by you or on your behalf. If so, as to each such communication: a. state the date ofthe communication; b. state whether the communication was written or oral; c. identify each party to or person who participated in the communication; d. summarize the substance ofthe communication; e. state the purpose ofthe communication and any response thereto; and f. identify each witness to the communication.

Applicant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial and not calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence here in. Subject to said objection, Bob Weller told me in another telephone conversation about the Commission's irradiation procedure for incoming mail. When I told him I couldn't seem to get my papers filed on time with the Commission by mail, he said he thought the irradiation procedure might be the reason. His understanding was that it was delaying and preventing the filing ofmail with the Commission. He suggested that I might want to look into it myself because he didn't know too much about it, except that he had heard complaints that papers had not been filed with the Commission Secretary at all due to the irradiation procedure; that he believed the complaints based on personal experience; and that the entire Commission staff knew it was due to the irradiation procedure. I got the feeling from what Mr. Wel ler said that maybe the Commission was trying to cover up the problem, but Mr. Weller didn't really say that. He did say that I needed to check the irradiation pro cedure out for myself to see ifthat was the reason my papers had not been filed on time. I understood this to mean that I should not necessarily believe what the Com mission told me about the procedure, although Mr. Weller did not really say this or otherwise criticize the Commission. I then checked the Commission's irradiation procedure out on my own, and

-48- determined that it was indeed the reason why the Commission had not filed some ofmy papers herein on a timely basis; that it had caused some ofmy motions to be denied; and that it was not due to any lack ofdiligence on my part. Mr. Weller and I were the only ones who participated in the telephone conversation; I don't think anyone else witnessed it; and I can't remember the date thereot I can't remember any other such communications with Commission employees. In an email conversation with Mr. Weller, he told me I should definitely re quest my entire file with the Bureau under the F.O.LA. He didn't say why, but I believed he meant to tell me that Riley Hollingsworth was trying to bootstrap a case against me, and that I could learn a lot about Hollingsworth's allegations by obtaining my file under the F.O.LA. I can't remember the date ofthis email conver sation, and I didn't save it.

26. State whether you have ever had any communication with the Commis sion, its employees and/or staff, regarding complaints received by the Commission about your allegedly unauthorized, improper, and/or illegal actions. If so, as to each such communication: a. state the date ofthe communication; b. state whether the communication was written or oral; c. identify each party to and person who participated in the communication; d. summarize the substance ofthe communication; e. state the purpose ofthe communication and any response thereto; and f. identify each witness to the communication.

-49- Interrogatory No. 25 herein. In previous conversations with Bob Weller, we dis cussed how ifthe Bureau isn't going to direction-find and catch the real jammers, it should at least refrain from claiming that it is, and that when the Bureau claims they are cracking down on jamming but does nothing but go after good, licensed amateurs merely because they identifY themselves, it creates disrespect for the Commission, and for the Bureau's enforcement powers, and it emboldens the jam mers because they learn that the Bureau is just bluffing, so they know they can jam with impunity. I can't remember the date ofthis conversation. It took place when Bob and his two children came to my home in Shingle Springs, California in about 1998, or maybe 1999 or 2000, to cut a Christmas tree. Insofar as Messers Cross and Caton are concerned, I called them up because I really like them both because I have found them to be very kind, patient and helpful in their dealings with the public. I simply informed one or both ofthem, essentially, that I am really a good person and a good amateur operator; would they please not believe all the lies that Riley Hollingsworth was telling them about me being a jammer because I was going to prove otherwise; that I was going to try to get rid ofRiley Hollingsworth because he is so stupid and incompetent; that I was pretty sure I could do it; that I was only doing it for the good ofthe agency; and that I was sure that the Commission would be a much better place to work after Hollingsworth was gone. Neither Mr. Caton nor Mr. Cross had anything to say in response thereto. I can't remember the dates ofthose conversations. I also had a telephone conversation with either Mr. Caton or Mr. Cross (1 can't remember which, and I forget the date), in which I tried to ask him all about the Commission's irradiation procedure for its incoming mail, and whether it was delaying filings with the Commission. Whichever man I was talking to very polite ly and repeatedly told me that I would instead have to check with the Department ofHomeland Security concerning the matter, and didn't give me any more informa-

-50- tion about the subject. I understood him to be saying that the matter was out ofhis hands, or that he had no authority over the matter.

27. State whether, on the morning ofApril OS, 2008 at 10:02:00 a.m., you posted a comment on the website at http://hamfanz.blogspot.comlsearch/labellw6wbj. If so: state whether the com ment referenced"A high-ranking FCC employee, who is a ham, [who] is sympa thetic to my case and wishes to remain anonymous" and, if so, identify the FCC employee to whom you so referenced. State further whether the comment also referenced another, male "FCC staffperson with whom I have been speaking" and, if so, identify that FCC staffmember.

28. Describe specifically and in detail all steps you have taken in an effort to eliminate interference in response to the Commission letter to you dated August 21,2000.

I have taken no such steps; none were necessary since I was not engaging in any intentional interference in the first instance. I haven't changed anything about my operating practices as the result ofanything Riley Hollingsworth has ever told me because he is simply wrong about the law and the facts, and is guilty of an abuse ofdiscretion. I did, however, and purely out ofrespect for the Commission's regulatory powers, give good-faith consideration to everything he told me, but

-51-