Legal Defense Presented at Kobres Micro-broadcasting Trial

When armed agents raided our otherwise peaceful home the first time on March 7, 1996, I thought it might be possible for me to file a standard Claim for the radio equipment and receive a fair, impartial court hearing.  I found that it was impossible to obtain any justice in Federal court. -LK

While litigating in propria persona (in my proper person), I experienced shocking treatment by Federal Judge Steven D. Merryday.  My properly filed and correctly styled response to the equipment seizure was not given any serious consideration by Merryday.  There was no a genuine opportunity to recover my equipment, only the illusion of one.

Federal officials had to create an illusion that my position was incorrect because they intended to use their power to destroy me.  After all, I stood for state's rights and individual sovereignty.  Such traditional views must be silenced, and an example made of those who possess the nerve to promote them.   This serves to intimidate all citizens who might take the responsibilty to challenge runaway government seriously.

The plan was to eventually have me indicted by a federal grand jury.  In time, U.S. attorneys rounded up a collection of typical citizens who knew very little about basic constitutional principles.  They "indicted" me for transmitting harmless, invisible radio waves, as if doing that was somehow evil.  The viscious vendetta against me, utilizing the limitless power of government, had begun.

Since I was getting nowhere litigating in my proper person, I decided that I should obtain professional legal advice   It was suggested that I contact constitutional attorney Lowell H. "Larry" Becraft, Jr..

I learned that Larry Becraft had been comparing notes with legal researcher, David Moore, concerning the FCC and the IRS.  Dave Moore had been studying the FCC law: Title 47 of the United States Code.  Larry had collected a vast amount of information concerning the IRS law: Title 26.  The pair concluded that the two administrative agencies had a number of similarities, including failures to assent to their own administrative law.

At my pretended trial, I had no reason to deny that I had transmitted radio waves to my neighbors.  Instead, three motions were made which describe separate and distinct violations of law by the FCC.  Links to the text of those motions can be found at the bottom of this page.

Administrative Procedure Act violation

The first motion contained a description of the FCC's violation of administrative law.  There have been no implementing regulations published in the Federal Register for the statute that I was charged with violating.  Radio station licenses are implemented by the application form itself.  The form has never been published in the Federal Register.  That is a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.  No one is to be held responsible for knowing information which has never been published in the Federal Register.  The Register is like a bulletin board for the Nation.

Paperwork Reduction Act violation

The license application forms also do not have an Office of Management and Budget (O.M.B.) Control Number, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Section 3512 of the 1980 Act provides as follows:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to maintain or provide information to any agency if the information collection request involved was made after December 31, 1981, and does not display a current control number assigned by the Director, or fails to state that such request is not subject to this chapter."

Constitution violation

Constitutionally literate individuals agree that the federal government has no claim of jurisdiction over intrastate matters.  Because of the location of my radio station, and its very low-power, along with the characteristics of the FM band frequency, it is not reasonable to contend that my radio transmissions might be effective across the Florida state line or in a foreign jurisdiction.

At trial, we motioned for dismissal based on the three violations of law previously outlined.  One after the other, Judge Adams denied each motion without stating any plausable explanation for doing so.

It was impossible for me to speak the whole truth at my trial.  I was forbidden to inform the jury of my motive for placing the radio station on the air.  The jury was forbidden from taking into consideration the limit of the FCC's jurisdiction, which is described in 47 U.S.C., Section 151, 152 The jury was forbidden from considering the whole truth and the whole law!   My "trial" was simply a show for the media to distribute.  When it comes to freedom-related, constitutional issues, most reporters are simple-minded pawns of the government.  And the government is a pawn of the corporate elite.  The following motions were preserved for appeal.