🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <35a3bd27.6387439@news.okc.oklahoma.net>,
E. Faubion <in@the.sig> wrote:
>jclemens@big.aa.net (Jonathan Clemens) wrote:

>>>Here's how it works:  We catch you, they charge you.   

>>Really? You actually have jurisdiction to detain people for violations
>>of FCC rules?

>Read it again.  We catch you, they charge you.  Detention isn't
>necessary and the original violation is a traffic charge.    

How? How do you determine that there's a violation of the FCC rules?
Have you been trained and/or certified to do so?

Moreover, how do you preserve evidence without detention? Who at the
FCC do you call to have them investigate an alleged infraction of
their rules?

I do see that you've modified your statement such that you're being
clear that you wouldn't be able to stop for a supposed FCC rules
violation without first having probable cause for a violation over
which you did have jurisdiction; I suspected such was the case.

>Some people need a roadmap everywhere they go.

Yeah, maybe I am clueless, and I do ask pesky questions and don't
just accept your word at face value. So you want to explain things
to me, or just write a trite and snippy little reply that really
doesn't answer my question?

Jonathan Clemens

PS, anyone else want to comment on the validity (or lack therof)
of Earl's claims?