[BC] On Analysis of Case law

[Rich Wood]

------ At 07:26 AM 2/18/2009, tpt at literock93r.com wrote: -------

>But Rich Wood makes the common--lay--mistake of throwing in extraneous
>issues while missing the "holding" or basic law formulated by the
>Court in this case:

My mail-order law degree is in the mail. My point was that there are 
extraneous issues that often cause the FCC to take a particular 
action. Don't piss off the FCC. Read "The $100 million Lunch" about 
the fight for Boston's WHDH-TV license. I spent 10 years at WOR, New 
York. It was formerly owned by RKO General. In both cases, 
communications attorneys I've talked to all agree that both company's 
arrogance toward the FCC caused far more severe punishment than would 
have been meted out if they had responded in a more "Yes, Massa" way.

There can be little more extraneous in the RKO General case than 
punishing the Broadcasting division for the activities of General 
Tire in bribing foreign officials. Bribes were a cost of doing 
business in those countries and did not happen in this country.

You can't convince me that the "extraneous" huffing and puffing of 
Hargis didn't do him a great disservice. I watched that case very 
closely and recall a less than respectful approach both in public and 
with the FCC.

No disrespect intended but I don't see any official-looking letters 
following your name. To lock in your credibility can you give us an 
idea where you got your law degree? We have a couple of attorneys on 
the list and they clearly identify themselves as such. This isn't a 
challenge. It's a request. I'm perfectly willing to accept that 
you're an attorney when given a hint of your background.

Rich