Out of idle curiosity, I forwarded Dave's comment about the case "right
close to home" to my lawyer, Mike K3AIR, to see why there'd be a problem
with a precedent. Mike had the following to say:
"If it's the case I'm thinking of, it is a Common Pleas court decision from
one of the eastern PA counties. It essentially said that the CC&Rs could
not be used to prohibit amateur antennas because of the public service hams
do (the ham involved was a MARS operator who ran lots of phone patches from
overseas military personnel).
The problem is that Common Pleas cases have no precedential value outside
the county they're decided in and can't be relied on (even though I have
gotten away with it on some other issues by arguing that even though they
are not precedent, they are persuasive)."
And don't worry, I am compensating Mike for his time. It looks like
tomorrow evening will be a good time to light the grill up... while he's
also helping me work some DX on the Corsair during the contest this weekend!
73, ron w3wn
-----Original Message-----
From: tentec-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com]
On Behalf Of DAVID HELLER
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 11:31 AM
To: Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Electric safety
I really enjoyed that part. Of course my fee was a bit higher for days
spent in court (very enjoyable!) and I like to dictate the questions to the
opposing lawyer for his cross - and most would fall for it. The best
invariably was a cross question not quite related to the case at hand which
was so easy to answer: "Sorry, that's out of my expertise and I'm not
qualified to answer." And the judge breaking in telling him to stop wasting
time and keep it relevant. What's nicer than having his honor on your side!
The best I ever had was actually right close to home on an amateur radio
antenna/zoning case (no charge of course) with K3DSF vs U.S.Steel. Two of
us were :Pete's expert witnesses, myself and K3BNS, now W3BE, who
subsequently became FCC's head of personal (Amateur and CB) in DC, and
until recently QCWA president. Story is fairly long - maybe another time
here. But the case - l963 +/- is well known to ARRL, and I don't know why
it hasn't set a precedent for the covenant restriction crap. But I'm no
lawyer, so what do I know. Dave, K3TX
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carter" <k8vt@ameritech.net>
To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 7:17 AM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Electric safety
> DAVID HELLER wrote:
>
>> The real fun came from the cases where some lawyer thought he could
>> show me up on cross-examination. Not once did the lawyer win.
>
> Been there, done that!
>
> I was the forensic expert for a large telcom and spent my share of time
> in court...and no, not once did the opposing lawyer win. They all mostly
> seem to have forgotten the lawyer's Golden Rule of never asking a
> question to which they don't know the answer. :-)
>
> Carter K8VT
>
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|