TenTec
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TenTec] Electric safety

To: "Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment" <tentec@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Electric safety
From: "Ron Castro" <ronc@sonic.net>
Reply-to: Ron Castro <ronc@sonic.net>, Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:15:57 -0800
List-post: <tentec@contesting.com">mailto:tentec@contesting.com>
I think this is what you're looking for:

http://www.antennazoning.com/attachments/61_Afflerbach_v_McManus_PA_CCR.pdf

I grew up right next to Fairless Hills in Levittown and knew Dave Heller 
since we were members of the same radio club, the Penn Wireless Assn!

            Ron  N6IE
       www.N6IE.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
To: "'Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment'" <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: [TenTec] Electric safety


> 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
> 

_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>