Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



                            Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554

                                 )
In the Matter of                 )
                                 )        File Number EB-04-LA-292
Jack Gerritsen                   )
                                 )      NAL/Acct. No. 200532900006
Bell, California                 )                  FRN 0005240072
                                 )



                        FORFEITURE ORDER

Adopted: November 30, 2005                              Released: 
December 2, 2005 

By the Regional Director, Western Region, Enforcement Bureau:

I.  INTRODUCTION

     1.        In this Forfeiture Order (``Order''), we issue a 
monetary forfeiture in the amount of twenty-one thousand dollars 
($21,000) to Jack Gerritsen (``Gerritsen''), for willful 
violation of Sections 321(b) and 333 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended ("Act").1  On January 21, 2005, the Enforcement 
Bureau's Los Angeles Office issued a Notice of Apparent Liability 
for Forfeiture (``NAL'') in the amount of $21,000 to Gerritsen 
after determining that Gerritsen willfully and maliciously 
interfered with the radio communications of a Coast Guard 
Auxiliary Officer while the Auxiliary Officer attempted to use 
the amateur frequencies to contact a sailing vessel in distress.  
In this Order, we consider Gerritsen's arguments concerning his 
authority to operate, his allegation that there was no emergency, 
his denial that he caused the interference, and his inability to 
pay.

II. BACKGROUND

     2.        On November 14, 2001, the Commission's Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau (``WTB'') set aside, on its own motion, 
amateur radio station license KG6IRO, which was granted to 
Gerritsen on November 7, 2001.2  Gerritsen was warned that ``you 
have no authority to operate radio transmitting equipment, and 
such operation would be a violation of Section 301 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 301, 
subjecting you to monetary penalties and imprisonment.''3  On 
January 30, 2002, WTB notified Gerritsen that his amateur 
application had been dismissed.4  Therefore, Gerritsen did not 
hold a valid amateur license and had no authority to operate.

     3.   On July 16, 2004, Gerritsen was again warned by agents 
from the Commission's Los Angeles Office that he did not have 
authority to transmit on any amateur band and that he should 
vacate all amateur frequencies.  On October 29, 2004, at 11:25 
a.m., the Commission's Los Angeles Office received a telephone 
call from a complainant stating that she had not been able to 
contact her husband on the sailing vessel (``S/V'') Elke-Marie 
traveling from California to Guadalupe Island, Mexico.  According 
to the complainant, the S/V Elke-Marie had been traveling with a 
companion vessel, the S/V Drummoral, and both had encountered a 
storm on the evening of October 25, 2004.  The storm had damaged 
the S/V Elke-Marie, rendering the ship's VHF marine radio 
inoperable.  The amateur radio was the only operational 
transmitter aboard the vessel as the S/V Elke-Marie turned around 
and sailed back towards Catalina Island.  The complainant stated 
that when she contacted Coast Guard Los Angeles Group to report 
she had not heard from her husband in two days, the U.S. Coast 
Guard Operations Center contacted a U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary 
Officer and requested that he attempt to contact the 
complainant's husband via amateur radio, to determine his need 
for assistance.  Information received from the Coast Guard 
Auxiliary Officer (``Auxiliary Officer'') indicated that, 
beginning at about 10:00 a.m. on October 29, 2004, the Auxiliary 
Officer came up on the Catalina Island Amateur Repeater 
Association (``CARA'') repeater on Catalina Island, California, 
transmitting on 147.090/147.690 MHz, and requested that all 
stations stand by while he attempted to contact the S/V Elke-
Marie on behalf of the Coast Guard.5  Shortly thereafter, 
according to the Auxiliary Officer and the complainant, Gerritsen 
began speaking and transmitting a prerecorded message using the 
CARA repeater.  Throughout the transmissions, Gerritsen 
repeatedly announced his cancelled amateur call sign of 
``KG6IRO.'' The Auxiliary Officer announced that the channel was 
being used for emergency traffic.  According to the Auxiliary 
Officer, each time he attempted to contact the S/V Elke-Marie, 
Gerritsen played a recording or questioned the validity of the 
emergency.  When asked by the Auxiliary Officer to stand down, 
Gerritsen stated that he did not believe there was a real 
emergency and continued to transmit his messages.  The Auxiliary 
Officer stated to Gerritsen there was a real emergency only to be 
rebuffed by Gerritsen who accused the Auxiliary Officer of 
declaring a sham emergency in an attempt to ``jam'' his messages.  
Gerritsen continued transmitting for approximately 40 minutes, 
repeatedly playing a taped recording and ultimately ending his 
transmission by stating ``If you jam me, I'll jam you.''

     4.   On October 29, 2004 at approximately 11:35 a.m., Los 
Angeles Office agents approached Gerritsen's residence at 6217 ½ 
Palm Avenue, Bell, California.  The agents located the source of 
a signal on 147.690 MHz, the input frequency to the CARA 
repeater, to Gerritsen's residence.  After several failed 
attempts to have Gerritsen answer the door, one of the agents 
called Gerritsen's residential telephone using his cellular 
telephone.  The call was answered by someone in the residence who 
would not speak.  The Los Angeles agent then requested a face to 
face interview with Gerritsen. Shortly thereafter the phone line 
went dead.  Subsequent attempts to reach Gerritsen over the phone 
resulted in busy signals.

     5.   On October 29, 2004, at approximately 4:38 p.m., Los 
Angeles agents returned to Gerritsen's residence.  Using mobile 
direction finding techniques, the agents located the source of a 
signal on 147.8117 MHz, which identified as ``KG6IRO,'' using a 
different amateur repeater, to Gerritsen's residence at 6217 ½ 
Palm Avenue, Bell, California.  As the agents approached the 
front door to Gerritsen's residence they heard a male voice 
coming from inside the residence which synchronized with the 
voice heard on the agents' handheld scanner tuned to 147.810 MHz.  
The voice was familiar to the agents as Gerritsen's voice.  No 
one answered the door.  The agents called out loudly to Gerritsen 
through the door and requested information concerning Gerritsen's 
involvement in a Coast Guard rescue earlier that day.  The agents 
also requested an inspection and an interview.  There was no 
response to the requests.  

     6.   On November 3, 2004, the Commission's Los Angeles 
Office received information from the President of CARA, who 
reported that he had monitored and recorded the communications 
between Gerritsen and the Coast Guard Auxiliary Officer on 
October 29, 2004.  The recording reveals that for approximately 
40 minutes, Gerritsen is speaking and playing a recorded message 
while the Auxiliary Officer and the complainant urge him to cease 
transmissions and vacate the frequency because of the emergency. 

     7.   On January 21, 2005, the Commission's Los Angeles 
Office issued a NAL in the amount of $21,000 to Gerritsen.6  In 
the NAL, the Los Angeles Office found that Gerritsen apparently 
willfully and maliciously caused interference to the radio 
communications of the Coast Guard Auxiliary Officer, who was 
attempting to communicate with a ship in distress.  Gerritsen 
filed a response to the NAL on February 16, 2005 (``Response'').  
In his Response, Gerritsen ``denies those activities alleged 
against [him] that if true would be illegal.'' Gerritsen argues 
that his amateur license has not been suspended, terminated, 
revoked, modified or set aside; that no emergency existed; that 
he did not transmit for approximately 40 minutes;7 that he did 
not jam or interfere with any emergency communication; and that 
he does not have sufficient income to pay the forfeiture amount 
proposed in the NAL.8 

III.  DISCUSSION

     8.        The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was 
assessed in accordance with Section 503(b) of the Act,9 Section 
1.80 of the Rules,10 and The Commission's Forfeiture Policy 
Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to 
Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines.11  In examining 
Gerritsen's Response, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the 
Commission take into account the nature, circumstances, extent 
and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, 
the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability 
to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.12

     9.        Section 333 of the Act states that no person shall 
willfully or maliciously interfere with, or cause interference 
to, any radio communications of any station licensed or 
authorized by or under this Act or operated by the United States 
Government.  The legislative history for Section 333 identifies 
willful and malicious interference as ``intentional jamming, 
deliberate transmission on top of the transmissions of authorized 
users already using specific frequencies in order to obstruct 
their communications, repeated interruptions, and the use and 
transmission of whistles, tapes, records, or other types of 
noisemaking devices to interfere with the communications or radio 
signals of other stations.''13  One hallmark of willful and 
malicious interference in the Amateur Radio Service is the 
refusal by an operator to allow any other operator to talk.14     

     10.  Section 321(b) of the Act states that ``[a]ll radio 
stations, including Government stations and stations on board 
foreign vessels when within the territorial waters of the United 
States, shall give absolute priority to radio communications or 
signals relating to ships in distress; shall cease all sending on 
frequencies which will interfere with hearing a radio 
communication or signal of distress, and, except when  engaged in 
answering or aiding the ship in distress, shall refrain from 
sending any radio communications or signals until there is 
assurance that no interference will be caused with the radio 
communications or signals relating thereto, and shall assist the 
vessel in distress, so far as possible, by complying with its 
instructions.''15  

     11.  We first address Gerritsen's argument that his amateur 
license was not set aside.  As explained above, Gerritsen's 
amateur radio license KG6IRO was set aside by the Commission on 
November 14, 2001.  His amateur license application was then 
dismissed on January 30, 2002.  Gerritsen does not hold a valid 
amateur license.  Gerritsen has been warned in writing by 
Commission staff and in person, by Los Angeles agents, that he 
has no authorization to use the amateur radio frequencies.16  
Therefore, this argument has no merit.

     12.  Next, we consider Gerritsen's argument that no 
emergency existed.  Gerritsen puts forth various allegations that 
there was no emergency; that there was no rescue; that the 
complainant could not have known that the S/V Elke-Marie's VHF 
Marine radio was inoperable unless she had been in contact with 
the ship; that the S/V Elke-Marie was not actually in distress;17 
that the S/V Elke-Marie and the Coast Guard Auxiliary Officer did 
not have to use a particular radio frequency; that there was no 
need for assistance; that he could have given the same assistance 
the Auxiliary Officer gave; and that there are specific radio 
frequencies for emergencies to be used by amateurs and the Coast 
Guard.  We find all of these arguments to be irrelevant.  The 
requirement put forth by Congress in Section 321 is not 
subjective, nor is it open to debate.  Section 321 clearly 
requires all radio stations to give absolute priority to radio 
communications or signals relating to ships in distress and to 
cease all sending on frequencies which will interfere with 
hearing a radio communication or signal in distress, except when 
engaged in answering or aiding the ship in distress.18  
Additionally, radio stations shall refrain from sending any radio 
communications or signals until there is assurance that no 
interference will be caused with the radio communications or 
signals relating to the ship on distress.19 

     13.  While there is no requirement in Section 321 that the 
Coast Guard make the determination that a ship is in distress, we 
find that a Coast Guard Auxiliary Officer is uniquely qualified 
to make such a determination.  On October 29, 2004, such a 
determination was made and the Auxiliary Officer attempted to 
clear 147.090/147.690 MHz to aid a ship in distress near Catalina 
Island.  Upon receiving the complaint on October 29, 2004, Los 
Angeles agents immediately located the source of a signal on 
147.690 MHz, the input frequency of the CARA repeater, to 
Gerritsen's residence.  A review of the recording of the incident 
made by the President of the CARA shows Gerritsen transmitting on 
the repeater for approximately 40 minutes, refusing to give 
priority to communications relating to the ship in distress.20  
The recording also shows that Gerritsen made no attempt to aid or 
to communicate assistance to the ship in distress, the Auxiliary 
Officer, or the complainant.

     14.  Gerritsen denies that he interfered with any emergency 
communication or refused to allow any other operator to talk 
during the emergency described above.  However, other than his 
denial, Gerritsen supplies no evidence to refute the 
allegations.21  Gerritsen admits transmitting on the CARA 
repeater on October 29, 2004. 22  He also admits hearing 
transmissions from the Auxiliary Officer.23  The Los Angeles 
Office's evidence, including the recording from the CARA 
president, shows that Gerritsen failed to clear the channel and 
continued to transmit.  The evidence also shows that Gerritsen 
repeatedly interrupted the transmissions of the Auxiliary 
Officer, as the Officer tried to clear the channel and make 
contact with the ship in distress.  Given the context of the 
communications, these interruptions constituted willful and 
malicious interference under Section 333.   

     15.  Finally, we address Gerritsen's claim that he is unable 
to pay the proposed forfeiture. Specifically, Gerritsen states 
that he did not file any tax returns for the most recent three 
year period because his income was insufficient to require a tax 
return.  We note that in the NAL, the Los Angeles Office 
instructed Gerritsen, if he sought cancellation or reduction of 
the forfeiture, to supply:

     (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year 
     period; (2) financial statements prepared according to 
     generally accepted accounting practices ("GAAP"); or (3) 
     some other reliable and objective documentation that 
     accurately reflects the petitioner's current financial 
     status.  Any claim of inability to pay must specifically 
     identify the basis for the claim by reference to the 
     financial documentation submitted.24

Gerritsen submitted no documentation that reflects his current 
financial status.  Therefore, he has provided us with no basis to 
support cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture based on his 
inability to pay.25  

     16.       We have examined Gerritsen's Response to the NAL 
pursuant to the statutory factors above, and in conjunction with 
the Forfeiture Policy Statement.  As a result of our review, we 
conclude that Gerritsen willfully violated Sections 321(b) and 
333 of the Act.  Considering the entire record and the factors 
listed above, we find that neither reduction or cancellation of 
the proposed $21,000 forfeiture is warranted

IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     17.       ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to 
Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 
(``Act''), and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the 
Commission's Rules, Jack Gerritsen IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY 
FORFEITURE in the amount of $21,000 for willfully violating 
Sections 321(b) and 333 of the Act.26

     18.       Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the 
manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days 
of the release of this Order.  If the forfeiture is not paid 
within the period specified, the case may be referred to the 
Department of Justice for collection pursuant to Section 504(a) 
of the Act.27  Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or 
similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal 
Communications Commission.  The payment must include the 
NAL/Acct. No. and FRN No. referenced above.  Payment by check or 
money order may be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, 
P.O. Box 358340, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-8340.  Payment by overnight 
mail may be sent to Mellon Bank /LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 
1540670, Pittsburgh, PA 15251.   Payment by wire transfer may be 
made to ABA Number 043000261, receiving bank Mellon Bank, and 
account number 911- 6106.  Requests for full payment under an 
installment plan should be sent to: Associate Managing Director - 
Financial Operations, Room 1A625, 445 12th Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20554.28

     19.       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order 
shall be sent by First Class Mail and Certified Mail Return 
Receipt Requested to Jack Gerritsen at his address of record. 



                              FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION





                              Rebecca L. Dorch
                              Regional Director, Western Region
                              Enforcement Bureau






_________________________

147 U.S.C. §§ 321(b), 333.

2The action was taken pursuant to Section 1.113(a) of the Rules 
which states that ``within 30 days after public notice has been 
given of any action taken pursuant to delegated authority, the 
person, panel, or board taking the action may modify or set it 
aside on its own motion.''  47 C.F.R. § 1.113(a). 

3See November 21, 2001, letter from W. Riley Hollingsworth, 
Special Counsel, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications 
Commission, to Mr. Jack Gerritsen (``Enforcement Bureau 
Letter'').  

4See Notice Of Dismissal, dated January 30, 2002 (``Dismissal 
Notice''). 

5During the emergency communications, the Auxiliary Officer 
identified himself as ``W1HIJ'' and ``U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary 
Upland Radio One.''  The complainant identified herself as 
``N6LNX.''  According to Commission records, both are authorized 
amateur licensees.

6Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 
200532900006 (Enf. Bur., Western Region, Los Angeles Office, 
released January 21, 2005).  Based on the criteria in Section 
503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, and the upward adjustment criteria in 
the Forfeiture Policy Statement, the Los Angeles Office found 
that an upward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount of $7,000 
was warranted.  The Los Angeles Office determined that 
Gerritsen's apparent willful and malicious interference with the 
radio communications of the Coast Guard Auxiliary Officer, who 
was attempting to communicate with a ship in distress, was 
egregious.  Specifically, the Los Angeles Office determined that 
Gerritsen knowingly operated, without a license, radio 
transmission equipment and, on October 29, 2004, his unauthorized 
operations interfered with emergency communications related to 
aiding a ship in distress as Gerritsen continued to transmit on a 
frequency that had been cleared for emergency communications, 
despite repeated warnings and requests to vacate the frequency.

7Gerritsen also denies that his phone line went dead when he was 
called by the Los Angeles agent because when he is unable to 
answer the phone, an answering machine does so.  We note that, as 
detailed above, someone in the house did pick up the phone when 
the agent called initially on October 29, 2004.  It was only 
after that person refused to respond to the agent's request for 
an interview with Gerritsen that the phone line went dead.  

8Gerritsen also incorporates, by reference, his responses to 
other NAL's issued against him.  To the extent those responses 
are relevant, we consider them in this Order.

947 U.S.C. § 503(b).

1047 C.F.R. § 1.80.

1112 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).

1247 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).

13H.R. Rep. No. 101-316, at 13 (1989). 

14U.S. v. Richard, (1998 WL 830654 (E.D. La.)).  See also John B. 
Genovese, 10 FCC Rcd 7594 (CIB 1995).  

1547 U.S.C.  § 321(b).

16See Enforcement Bureau Letter, Dismissal Notice, supra. 

17Gerritsen also states that the only communications that he 
heard were the Auxiliary Officer's announcement ``which was not 
interfered with or interrupted,'' according to Gerritsen, and a 
report of a precise longitudinal and latitudinal location. 

18See, e.g., Establishment of Policies and Services Rules for the 
Mobile Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band,  14 FCC Rcd 4843, 
4885 (1999).

1947 U.S.C.  § 321(b).  

20Gerritsen demands that a copy of this recording be made 
available to him.  We note that such requests are governed by the 
Commission's procedures concerning Freedom of Information Act 
(``FOIA'') requests.  These procedures are found in Sections 
0.441 - 0.470 of the Rules.  47 C.F.R. §§ 0.441 - 0.470.  

21In response to a Notice of Apparent Liability, the ``respondent 
will be afforded a reasonable period of time (usually 30 days 
from the date of the notice) to show, in writing, why a 
forfeiture penalty should not be imposed or should be reduced, or 
to pay the forfeiture. Any showing as to why the forfeiture 
should not be imposed or should be reduced shall include a 
detailed factual statement and such documentation and affidavits 
as may be pertinent.''  Section 1.80(f)(3) of the Rules.  47 
C.F.R. § 1.80(f)(3). 

22Gerritsen admits that he was on the CARA repeater prior to 
11:00 a.m. on October 29, 2004, although he states that it was 
for less than 10 minutes. 

23See n. 17, supra.  

24NAL at ¶ 17.  

25See Webnet Communications, Inc., 18 FCC Rcd 6870, 6878 ¶ 16 
(2003).

2647 U.S.C. §§ 321, 333, 503(b), 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 
1.80(f)(4).

2747 U.S.C. § 504(a).

28See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.