the problem of the 2 or more faces of the FCC

while the FCC and the GOVT have trouble always keeping it udcks in a row that is part and parcel
VE7KFM.com is enagaging in blackmail and promotions of materail threats that involve immoral libel/slander on the of the owner/author of VE7KFM.com I have reason to believe (I have read a forward of a claim by LS that has spoken to the owner of the site) according the FCC is awre of the ownership of the site . she is aware therefore that a commission licenensee is threatening to comit crimes and act of immoral slander against another commission licnesee based on the act against other licensees of the fcc and hams beyond the USA itself


from an email I receieved

To:
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 8:22 AM
Subject: RE: ve7kfm.com is enagging Blackmail in your "honor"
Good morning Mark. What folks do with their web sites is their own business. The FCC does not regulate internet content. Likewise, what you post on your own blog is your own business. My job is rather simple: to deal with enforcement of the communications act -- not to participate in private feuds.
As I will not comment on my communications with you to other folks, I also cannot comment on communications with other licensees to you -- that would not be proper. (Unless both are parties to a complaint, but I did not get the impression that your email was a complaint relating to a specific licensee -- is my assumption incorrect?)
In any event, it is Saturday -- which means I should be off taking care of my family rather than responding to emails. Have an enjoyable weekend.
Laura
Laura L. Smith, Esq. | 1270 Fairfield Road, Gettysburg, PA 17325 | 717-338-2577 (phone) | 717-338-2574 (fax)

as opposed to the represetnives of the FCC vs w6wbj form his motion


a. They have repeatedly stated in their filings on behalf of the Enforce­ment Bureau herein that it is the Commission’s policy to “police the internet” to find conduct by licensees thereon that demonstrates their so-called “bad character”; i.e., internet activity showing that such licensees have a proclivity to disobey the Rules of the Commission. Said statements were and are false, as follows: