Ron, the case was Danhurst vs Pete McManus K3DSF. Danhurst, a part of US
Steel, was the developer of Fairless Hills, a community of plywood homes,
not too bad, though, to house Fairless Works employees. Adjacent to and
built at the same time as Levittown PA. Comments were many and varied, did
include when laundry could be dried, no outside antennas, no flags or
flagpoles, ad infinitum. Pete bought a Fairless house and put up a rather
low tower and triband. This was shortly after Danhurst's lawyer had taken
on the Fairless Hills postmaster for hanging a USA flag on a short post in
front of her post office. Postmaster politely told Danhurst lawyer to
perform a rather impossible sexual act and ignored the rest. Pete got an
exceptional local lawyer of top repute. Went to Commion Pleas Court in
Doylestown; judge was Satterthwait, an exceptionally competent and
knowledgable gentleman who had a well-known habit in the courtroom: 1. He
was the boss, come what may; 2. If anyone interrupted him or failed to
follow his instructions to the letter it precipated a very high dB screaming
admonishment that would often last 5 minutes. Lawyer, plaintiff, defendent,
witness, lawyer, made no difference. Almost everyone there got at least a
few second yelling at. Pete, his lawyer (a very mild man) and others caught
it. I luckily escaped.
Judge S came prepared. One topic he properly said ahead of time was RFI,
potential. TVI and the like belong to FCC and were out of place in his
courtroom. The judge especially came prepared. He was well informed on
plusses and minuses (if any) of amateur radio.
Sam put me on the stand with the understanding I would testify as long as I
wanted on community value of A/R and the need of a decent antenna to do
anything useful. I went on for about an hour, in passing making allusion to
TVI and making mention I could not discuss per instructions even though the
plaintiff had in his complaint mentioned how Pete made rabbit ears and junk
TV's nearly useless. Much of my testimony was dictating questions for
Danhurst's lawyer to ask me on cross-examination, and did it work.
I got the hand signal that I'd talked enough, and cross examination started.
It was just perfect. All the questions I'd dictated came up in order - -
until I was asked a pointed question about TVI. I expected an explosion,
but not quite nuclear-strength. Satterthait went at max dB at the lawyer -
you were warned about mentioning that topic - close to ten minutes non stop.
Poor lawyer just stood there with mouth hanging open, yellow pad in hand,
looking like the loser of the finals of a cat fight. The best was yet to
come. Finally the judge wound down, turns to me, and said in the most
pleasant tone possible, "pardon me, Mr Heller, for interrupting your most
interesting testimony."
Lawyer had only this to say: "no more questions". I saw him occasionally
around town. He wouldn't ever speak to me or give me anything but a dirty
look,.
The final judgment, which was and probably still is in the ARRL legal-advice
package, was to the effect that A/R is a valuable community resource;
antennae are practical necessities, and unreasonable resrictions are againt
the public interest. In other words, Pete's beam stayed until he moved to
Maine (I belive it was),.
Apparently a county judge can't set nationwide precedence. Too damn bad.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
To: "'Discussion of Ten-Tec Equipment'" <tentec@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 8:01 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
|