!}')CKET FILE COpy ORIGINAL '~ William F. Crowell R April 27, 2010 Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 - 12th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Re: Application of William F. Crowell to renew Amateur Service license W6WBJ WT Docket No. 08-20; FCC file no. 0002928684 Dear Secretary Dortch: I am the applicant-licensee in the above-entitled case. Enclosed you will please find the original and three (3) copies ofmy Supplemental Answers and Objections to the First Set oflnterrogatories Propounded to me by the En­ forcement Bureau herein, which are being flled pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, Subpart B, §1.323(a) . Please file and docket this document. Thank you for your cooperation. Yours very truly, ~~ WILLIAM F. CROWELL via USPS Overnight Mail, Delivery Guaranteed WFC:wfc enc!. cc: P. Michele Ellison, Chief, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554 Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, ATTN: Judy Lancaster, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 4-C330 Washington, D.C. 20554 1110 Pleasant Valley Road, Diamond Springs, California 95619 (530) 295-0350; email: [email protected] No. CII OopiM rao'd 0t J l.i5t ABCOE R Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) WT Docket No. 08-20 ) WILLIAM F. CROWELL ) FCC File No. 0002928684 ) Application to Renew License for ) Amateur Service Station W6WBJ ) To: Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission APPLICANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO ENFORCEMENT BUREAU'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO HIM [47 C.F.R., Part I, SUbpart B, § 1.323(b)] Pursuant to Title 47 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations, Part I, Subpart B, §1.323(b), the December 30, 2008 Memorandum Opinion and Order of former AU Steinberg (FCC 08M-59) and the Order ofAU Sippel herein dated April 8, 2010 (FCC 1OM-O 1). Applicant hereby responds and interposes the following ob­ jections to the Enforcement Bureau's First Set ofInterrogatories propounded to him, dated May 16,2008: -1- 1. Identify all radio licenses you currently hold and the date(s) of issuance. The only radio license that I hold is an Advanced class license, issued by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission for its Amateur Radio Service, which was issued on March 12, 1997. 2. Provide all email addresses you have used and all email accounts in your name and, for each, identify who, ifanyone, other than yourself has or had access to or otherwise has or had the ability to draft and send email correspondence from each and any such accounts. Applicant objects that this interrogatory is irrelevant, immaterial and is not calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence because Applicant has never done anything illegal on the internet. Subject to said objection, Applicant answers as follows: From approximately 2000 through 2008, my primary email address was "[email protected]". From approximately 2008 through the pres­ ent time and continuing, my primary email address has been "retroguybilly­ @gmail.com". I have also had email accounts at yahoo.com, called n6ayj@­ yahoo.com, and at innercite.com, called [email protected], which I seldom used. I no longer have the innercite.com email account. I believe I stopped main­ taining that account in about 2007, but I'm not certain. I still have the yahoo.com email account. For all ofthese email addresses, I was the only person who could use the account, and I never sent any illegal messages from any of said accounts. 3. Provide all nicknames, handles, aliases, or other names you have used in emails, in amateur radio communications, or otherwise (i.e., "Retroguy," "Billy the Bill Collector," etc.). -2- Applicant objects that this interrogatory is irrelevant, immaterial and is not calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence because Applicant has never sent anyone any illegal emails or other communications, and Applicant has the right under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to call himselfany­ thing he wants to on the ham radio. Subject to said objection, Applicant answers as follows: I have been known on the air as "Billy", "Billy the Bill Collector", "'AYJ" and "'WBJ". "Retroguybilly" is just part ofmy present email address, and "bcrow­ ell" was just part ofmy former email address, but I never used those names on the aIr. Some ofthe amateurs who tried to run me offfrom the roundtable QSO on 3830 kc. (which dispute largely gave rise to the within case, I believe) often called me "Billy bumblank" in order to make me go away. It was understood that this was an accusation that I was homosexual or was engaging in anal sex. The word "blank" was supposed to represent the word "fuck", but they were afraid to say that on the air, so they made a big joke out ofhow "blank" stood for "fuck", and every­ body was supposed to know that they really meant "Billy bumfuck". That is the kind ofperson who filed your worthless complaints. This kind ofthing started happening after Riley Hollingsworth caused and encouraged it by issuing his self-serving press releases (warning notices) falsely calling me a jammer, and emailing hams from his home email account (so his su­ periors at the Bureau wouldn't know what he was doing, and because he wanted to hide what he was doing because he knew it was wrong), telling them how to fraud­ ulently set me up for a jamming violation: that they should all refuse to talk to me so they could claim that any transmissions I might make were one-way transmis­ sions in violation ofPart 97, §97.113(b). But when I failed to do that, he then sug­ gested that they should talk at the same time I gave my callsign so they could claim I was jamming by identifying my station, even though such station identification is -3- required by Part 97, §97.119(a)! Also, on the chatboard on the radiowingnuts.com website, I have always called myself "All A-I OperaTiON", but someone else copied that name and post­ ed a lot ofmaterial on that chatboard under said copied name, some ofwhich I dis­ agree with or do not approve of, so I can't necessarily take responsibility for all such posts under that name on said chatboard. 4. Provide all internet website addresses that you have used to post com- ments relating to amateur radio, other amateur radio operators, the Commission, and/or any Commission employee. Applicant objects that this interrogatory is irrelevant, immaterial and is not calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence because Applicant has never done anything illegal on the internet and under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution it is none ofthe Commission's business if, in order to improve the administration ofthe Commission and ofthe Bureau, Applicant posts critical comments about them or their employees on the internet. By improperly shielding it from valid criticism, ruling otherwise would encourage even more mediocrity and mendacity at the Commission than already exists. Subject to said objection, I have posted such comments on the following websites, to my recollection: http://www.nbci.com/usersIN6AYJ.com.livehamcams.com; radiowingnuts.com; eham.net; qrz.com; hamcams.com; and http://www.users.innercite.com/bcrowell/hamjamming.com I was also fairly active for awhile on a message board site whose URL is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/radiojammers/, where my ham radio buddies and I used to joke around about the jamming problem on ham radio and make fun of -4- jammers, bootleggers and the Bureau's incompetence in catching them, especially after Riley Hollingsworth became SCARE and the jammers called his bluff be­ cause he made it clear he was too lazy to locate the real jammers, so in order to make himself look good, he victimized good operators who identified with their callsigns by sending them phony, de minimus, imaginary and legally and factually incorrect warning notices. There is nothing illegal about posting to such a message board in reply to such behavior by Hollingsworth, and you have no right to retal­ iate against me just because I joke around about the jamming problem and point out the Bureau's and Hollingsworth's ineptitude and bad-faith, failed enforcement ofthe amateur rules. Indeed, you aren't entitled to second-guess anything I say on the internet unless it was illegal and has already resulted in a criminal conviction. Under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, amateur licensees are entitled to discuss, make jokes about, ridicule, satirize and parody how the Bureau hasn't done anything about the jamming problem because all the Bureau ever does is issue its phony press releases (warning notices), by which they falsely claim to be dealing with the jamming problem, and the jammers have gotten wise to this and now feel they can jam with impunity. I haven't posted anything to said Yahoo.com message board in quite some time. My user name for Yahoo.com accounts is "N6AYJ". Of course you realize that Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputatious, argumentative and ques­ tionable materials offthe air and keep them on the internet instead. I tried to coop­ erate with Mr. Hollingsorth by doing so, but he came after me anyway. What an ingrate! I don't think he knows what he wants! He seems very confused to me. When he first took his job as "SCARE" he claimed that he, "SuperRiley", was going to solve the ham radio jamming problem singlehandedly, but just a few years later, in a speech at the Dayton Hamvention in 2008, he said that hams com- -5- plain to the Bureau too much; that the U.S.