I am just going to leave this here. Admins, please feel free to delete it if you don't think it is appropriate.
http://ncprn.net/?p=379
|
This is the first 40 posts from the thread without the spiffy formatting. If you wish to see the entire thread, you must go to: Communications.Support - The Forum for Radio Professionals, create an account and log in. Then go to this thread at: Lawsuit- Kenneth L Bryant, K1DMR v NCPRN, et al |
Printable View
I am just going to leave this here. Admins, please feel free to delete it if you don't think it is appropriate.
http://ncprn.net/?p=379
I just have some questions, I'm hoping some of you may be able to answer. I truly don't understand, or I wouldn't be asking.
From Ken Bryant's bio page, he lists the following attributes about himself: (credentials)
- Anti-Money Laundering / Combating the Financing of Terrorism
- Independent Review
- Risk Assessment
- Compliance Program Development
- Enhanced Due Diligence
- Project Implementation
- Training
- Remediation
- Product Development
- Consulting
"Compliance is not an option"
Aren't these just confusing/complicated buzz-words for everyday life skills?
By no means am I attempting to discredit Mr. Bryant or the recognition he's received from U.S. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld (last paragraph of bio), I'm just wondering if perhaps, well maybe, sort of, possibly, in a roundabout-kind-of-way if some of what's in the bio is a little, shall we say, overstated?
Also, according to Ken's QRZ profile, AES-256 is illegal in most applications.
Might want to grab a clue, while they're still free, Ken.Quote:
Originally Posted by K1DMR
I have not had anything to do with the NCPRN network but I know Danny K4ITL and Danny has only wanted the best for the hobby over
the years. I have no idea of who this Kenneth guy is but it concerns me to see Danny wrapped up in this as his character is beyond reproach.
Since this whole deal is being based here in Central NC let me see what I can find out what the local scuttlebutt about this whole shindig is.
Marshall KE4ZNR
Ken Bryant sounds like another guy with a deep view into the industry.
I missed this the first time but I don't know if being recognized by Rummy is something you wanna brag about Ken.....Oy vey.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mars
Marshall KE4ZNR
Hmm. This is an interesting case to say the least... Going to be a huge debate on the whole "Private Repeater" rules. Whether or not it's "Private" doesn't it fall under the FCC rules of an amateur station that is supposed to be accessible by everyone who is licensed? That has always confused me, because MARS, you like to promote AES for your repeaters, but you also make the Algorithm available, to an extent, and you are also in Canada and I am not really sure how you are governed. I just can't see this going well for either side...
Where is it written that I have a right to access any amateur repeater that has been licensed by the FCC just because I happen to hold an operator's license issued by the FCC?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I thought that was one of the rules. I must be mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 6
The way Mr. Bryant has worded his "legal opinion" on AES-256, seems to imply he feels it's unlawful to use pretty much anywhere -- ham bands or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by slapshot0017
I also want to know why that dick didn't go and buy his own DMR repeater and connect it to DMR-MARC so he could continue to access his "friends" (*cough cough customers cough cough*). What an entitled piece of excrement he is!
He has 2 dmr repeaters here in Atlanta on the dmr marc systemQuote:
Originally Posted by Mars
I believe that the last sentence of 97.205(e) would apply: "Limiting the use of a repeater to only certain user stations is permissible."Quote:
Originally Posted by slapshot0017
And no notice must be given? Looks open and shut from here on out then. Thank you for the cite. I don't know where I was getting that mixed up from. Now it seems the guy is looking for a payday if he does have those repeaters in Atlanta, why not just put your own up? Why drag the rest of the system in if he has a beef with the "The PRN team" as it states in the documentation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 6
I am not aware of any notice requirement. And, look at this way... I let you borrow my car. Then I say "no" the next time that you ask. You really think that you are entitled to notice and due process? No.Quote:
Originally Posted by slapshot0017
BTW, if you look at his "credentials", under "Education" he lists the following:
"U.S. Federal Communications Commission, Technician Class License Holder (police communications and technology specialist)" (bold added).
Huh, what?
To whom would the notice be given? What if my intention is to limit the use of the repeater to only myself? Who would I be obligated to notify?Quote:
Originally Posted by slapshot0017
The answer is exactly nobody.
Are you thinking that stations previously granted access to the repeater should be notified that their access is no longer permitted? How could anyone reasonably be expected to know the callsign of every operator who had previously accessed the repeater?
The answer is they can't.
Defending a lawsuit is not cheap. Hopefully this gets dismissed before the defendants are out a lot of money. I don't see any good coming out of this.
I will try to give clarification on what we feel when we say private. Each and every repeater that is connected to one of the PRN bridges is privately owned, and if you ask to connect, you do so knowing that you retain full ownership over your repeater. PRN (we eventually dropped the NC when repeaters connected outside of North Carolina) is not an official organization, we have no bylaws, there is no way to join or be a member. We will not try to claim your repeater as our own.
We did file a motion to dismiss, but it was denied by the judge because she agreed with Ken's lawyer's argument; the FCC has no jurisdiction over Amateur Radio. They argued that the FCC has relinquished control over the Amateur Radio service (in the U.S., obviously) and given it to the State because the FCC will not overturn Homeowner's Associations' rules in regards to Amateur Radio operators. Of course, his lawyer failed to mention the only reason this is the case is because the FCC has said "you moved there, you signed the written contract, deal with it", and not because they are giving up authority.
So we will see. While I realize a lot of the people reading this are not in the U.S., so this will not affect them, it is just scary to ponder what would happen if we were to walk away from this and shut the network down and let him win, what will this do to personal property rights? For example, since he is using case law regarding an association (with real dues and real legitimate members) to sue individuals, who is to say someone will not use this case to sue you for no longer letting them use your car because they parked it someplace, got it impounded, and you had to pay to get it out? As a curious side bit, the judge told Ken's lawyer that the case he quoted got overturned on appeal and would actually hurt his case, and he just stood there and said "uh, uh, uh" a few times. This is when he went with the CC&R tactic.
Anyway, the purpose of this thread was to seek help. We are already in over $5000 in lawyer fees, and expect it to go to $15,000 to $20,000 before it is all over. Hams (repeater users with their Chinese radios) are notoriously cheap, we all know that, but I want to get this out to all of the repeater owners because this case affects them if they live in the US. Some may help, some may spread the word, some may sit back and watch the fireworks. Either way, hopefully some good will come if it by reaching a larger audience.
-- Scott
KF4DBW
Lol I see that as being different but I do agree.
Oh boy... I'm sorry, but once you start sounding off credentials like that you lose a little credibility. Unless he is talking about a GROL, but isn't that just mandated for marine or aviation? I have really let my knowledge of radio rules and regs lapse learning all the construction codes in school....
Fixed that for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 6
I have dealt with Ken for years, bought several radios from him, sold him a couple. I was pretty shocked when I saw this. Shocked because I would not believe this would originate from him, but the facts are per the filing, it did.
There are two sides to every story, and apparently both parties will have the day in court. But I can't help but say the idea that one would sue because they were essentially kicked out of what they acknowledge is a PRIVATE system of which they did not financially support nor are in any written agreement with, is very disturbing.
The complaint with riddled with contradictions. One point states that the FCC doesn't have jurisdiction over amateur radio, yet a few paragraphs down the plaintiff states they refrained or exited conversations which he acknowledged might be a violation of the very rules they claimed exemption from.
At the end of the day, the fact that this is even going this far does not bode well for any involved. It will costs the defendants to defend themselves. It will also certainly stain Mr. Bryant's business in the amateur community. I know he reads these forums, Ken, have you ever heard of the Streisand Effect?
I co-founded an NPO that is amateur radio related. We operate an analog repeater. We have had to in two cases ban users who did not follow our house rules. I cannot fathom why someone doesn't get that repeaters are private property. This case can be very bad if it's allowed to proceed further. Dangerous precedent can be set.
It is very unfortunate that your judge does not understand the basic tenets of federal jurisdiction. There is no doubt that the FCC has jurisdiction over Amateur Radio, and that the FCC's jurisdiction is exclusive (i.e., not concurrent with the jurisdiction of a State). The fact that the FCC decided that it did not have jurisdiction over HOA CC&Rs (which it doesn't), does not mean that the FCC has waived its jurisdiction over Amateur Radio. Maybe your NC judge will decide that we don't need licenses, can run 50KW transmitters, and can jam amateur repeaters with impunity. Come on... where did your judge to go law school?Quote:
Originally Posted by sswcmw
In his lawsuit, it appears he is trying to bifurcate the FCC regulated repeater and the linking network which he argues in not FCC regulated. Making his case about the network. I agree, what are his real damages if he did not profit from his activities on the system?
The legal system is seriously flawed when you have judges that are this stupid.
Everyone in NC is too worried about where everyone else is taking a dump to pay attention to their jobs, evidently. Perhaps the defendant should ask for a continuance until they get the shitters sorted out down there.Quote:
Originally Posted by RFI-EMI-GUY
Yet, all over the country we have squatters breaking in and moving illegally into private homes and the legitimate owners cannot expel them using the police. They are forced to use an eviction process meant to protect homeowners and renters from unscrupulous banks and landlords. It is coming to a point where yes, maybe if you loan your car, you need the borrower to sign some sort of document protecting you from future harassment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 6
Why didn't the defendant file/remove the matter to Federal Court. Seems this involves a federal question.
This is wrong on so many levels...
I'm wondering if Mr. Bryant is still a member here on the forum (be careful, banning him could get you sued :-). I hope he shows up at Hamvention. We could post his flea market space and stop by for all of his "loss leader" deals. If he loses money dealing with hams, perhaps the judge in the case will consider making him lose money to the PRN Network.
Besides, what is preventing this dealer from putting up his own "demonstrator" repeater and connecting it to the network?
Sending money to the PRN legal defense fund.
"As an update, in regards to having asked the ARRL for help, they have offered advice to one of the attorneys working the case"
At $49/year/member, I think the ARRL should do more than give advice. If this case has the wide-reaching implications that it appears to, then the "National Association for Amateur Radio" should be paying the legal fees.
It would seem a change of venue to federal court would be a good defense strategy. Clearly the plaintiff is cherry picking.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiredwrx
The almighty league is a bag of hot air.Quote:
Originally Posted by XSTAR
They are quick to tout themselves as "THE" National Resource for Amateur Radio, but when it goes bad, they don't have anyone's back but their own and will toss you to the wolves.
This case brings home why anyone who considers operating any type of organization needs to be on paper and as insulated as possible. It amazes me how many individuals expose themselves by holding themselves out as something and then it goes bad. Now all these guys from NCPRN have to defend themselves individually in this baseless suit which can cost thousands. ARES for example, is not a national organization, yet plenty of groups of individuals think they have the "safety in numbers" of the ARRL. Well, go break something in the local EMA or hospital and find out for yourself who is going to write the check.
This brings home how dangerous it is to do stuff on one's own. Ken Bryant just showed us all how venerable every repeater owner is.
Who has your back? Certainly not "the League", their saying "no thanks man...don't need you phucking up my life too"
I hope people consider Ken Bryant's actions before considering doing any type of business with him. I would certainly not support any person/company which is out to **** non-profit hams over.
End your lawsuit immediately, Ken. Do the right thing. Anything less is unacceptable. People may even reconsider their positions' if you show some humility.
Hamvention booth FE2415.
I bought from Ken last year and was probably going to purchase a new handheld from him this year but I think my business will be going elsewhere now.
To answer a previous question. Yes, this case in reality should have been moved before a federal court. PART 97 governs the granting of the license, and privileges within the subject of this litigation. Furthermore, Part 97 also provides for a trustee to prohibit a license from utilizing said system. I hope the defendants request a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or in the alternative, file a demurrer.
I honestly can't begin to fathom the rationale behind this suit other than greed, and I bet the plaintiff hoped that the action could stay beneath the radar of his client base. Just based on his activity online and at Dayton, it appears that his sales to hams represent a non-trivial portion of his business. I don't believe for a second that he loses money on ham sales. I know of too many people who paid above-market rates when they bought from him, particularly for used gear. With this in mind, why would any sane person want to alienate a chunk of his customer base on a speculative legal action where he stands to a) not make very much money and b) have to split a sizable component with his attorney(s)? Especially when it is such a clear case of improper jurisdiction and likely to be overturned even if he wins.
Ken's prices were about what you'd pay on eBay with shipping, if not a bit more... at least on what I bought from him two years ago at hamvention: an SL7550. I never really had buyer's remorse... I hadn't found a whole lot better to buy toying around in the flea market and I got out of it something I could use and get to play around with it a little before committing to a purchase. He seemed like a pretty decent guy, and perhaps there is more to the case than meets the eye. Attorneys won't put all their ammo out on the table before trial/ prelim hearings. Out of court settlement?
They did, and lost the motion. What they should do is to file a declaratory judgment action in federal court based on a federal question, include the state court claims, and remove the state court action to federal court.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG-BOY
If I read correctly he is claiming against his for-profit...loss of sales conducted over the amateur repeaters, which is commercial use to begin with. I think an audit of his business may be in order as well...
Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk
All he wants is access to the system again, & he will drop the suit. His beef is they cut off his access to the system w/o a warning, or any communication at all. NC PRN has the power to make this all go away. Simply restore his ID # to the system, & the lawsuit will be dropped. But NC PRN chooses to make the lawyers rich by not restoring his ID #.
Sure, a few locals on the system would ask Ken if he had a radio in stock, & how much, & to follow the rules he said "I can't discuss business here, so call me at 888-8888". How is that conducting business?
I have done business with both Jeff, & Ken, & both are very pleasant to deal with. Sometimes one has a radio the other does not have. Ken seems to specialize in radios that while technically are used, look brand new, & were used once to demo them. In my experience, they are much cheaper than radios that you would see on an auction site. His radios also come with the remaining factory warranty. He also takes radios in on trade to offset a radio being purchased. Can't do that on E-bay.
I have personally known Ken since 1993, & unless he seriously bumped his head, or is eating expired medicine like someone who is trying to sell his radio business in Florida, this is not Ken.
There are 3 sides to every story. So far NC PRN is pleading their side on social media, but Ken will not play that game. No matter whose side you take, it shouldn't have come to this. GARY
The net/net here is that PRN acted completely within their rights by banning a user from their private infrastructure. This has been upheld a number of times by the FCC related to closed repeater systems. Of course his team knows this which is why they are seeking to have this case heard outside of federal court to avoid the application of that precedent.
I think it would be a great idea if other C-Bridge admins and repeater owners would ban 3137049 and 3237050 from their systems. It seems it would be a prudent move to prevent any potential future liability from having him interact with users on their systems.
I don't see where he had any contractual arrangement with PRN. For there to be a contract there needs to be a "meeting of the minds" and a consideration. The PRN is just a bunch of loosely organized repeater owners who agreed to link a network. There was no contract, no annual fee or dues to operate on the network. I think the defense could easily find case law where a customer was turned away from a free service. Just recently some idiot tried to sue a restaurant for some free soup.
Ken seems to think he is "entitled" to access the system. It is a privilege to access any repeater system. He needs to learn this in a hurry.
