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                                                        
                                                )   EB-04-IH-0661            
     Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc.                                           
                                                )   FRN: 0004305215          
     WQAM License Limited Partnership                                        
                                                )   Facility ID No. 64002    
     Application for Renewal of License of                                   
     Station WQAM(AM), Miami, Florida           )   File No. BR-20031001BXU  
                                                                             
                                                )                            
                                                                             
                                                )                            



                          Memorandum Opinion and Order

   Adopted: October 21, 2008  Released:   October 23, 2008

   By the Commission:

   I. INTRODUCTIOn

    1. The Commission has before it an Application for Review filed by John
       B. Thompson ("Mr. Thompson"). Mr. Thompson requests review of the
       Enforcement Bureau's ("Bureau") Memorandum Opinion and Order  ("Bureau
       Order") in the above-captioned case, which denied a complaint of Mr.
       Thompson's against Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc. ("Beasley"), licensee
       of several radio broadcast stations. The complaint alleged that
       Beasley had engaged in improper conduct by retaliating against Mr.
       Thompson for filing indecency complaints with the Commission against
       some of Beasley's radio stations. For the reasons set forth below, we
       deny the Application for Review.

   II. BACKGROUND

    2. Beasley is the ultimate parent of WQAM License Limited Partnership,
       licensee of Station WQAM(AM), Miami, Florida, and WRXK License Limited
       Partnership, licensee of WRXK-FM, Bonita Springs, Florida
       (collectively, "the Beasley Stations"). Mr. Thompson has filed
       complaints against the Beasley Stations alleging violations of the
       federal restrictions regarding the broadcast of indecent and profane
       material. Mr. Thompson also filed a complaint alleging that Beasley
       and its counsel had engaged in threats, abuse and intimidation against
       him in retaliation for filing the indecency complaints. The Bureau
       issued a letter of inquiry to Mr. Thompson directing him to produce
       all documents providing the basis for, or supporting, his allegations
       that Beasley had engaged in improper conduct. Mr. Thompson filed a
       response to the Bureau's letter of inquiry and later filed numerous
       addenda and supplements to his response, as well as additional e-mails
       concerning his complaint and other matters. Mr. Thompson alleged,
       among other things, that: (1) on air-personalities at Station WQAM(AM)
       made threats against him and his client at Beasley's direction; (2)
       that material at issue in the Commission's Notice of Apparent
       Liability issued against Beasley for airing indecent material on
       Station WQAM(AM) ("WQAM NAL") contains threats and corroborates his
       claims that Beasley has engaged in impermissible conduct to retaliate
       against him for filing indecency complaints; (3) Beasley's agent and
       attorney, Norman Kent, has filed lawsuits and a contempt of court
       proceeding against him at Beasley's direction in order to harass,
       target and intimidate him; and (4) Beasley and its counsel have
       improperly filed complaints against him with the Florida Bar.

    3. Beasley denied Mr. Thompson's allegations that it had engaged in
       improper conduct in response to his indecency complaint filings.
       Beasley asserted that it had not contested or interfered with Mr.
       Thompson's right to file complaints with the Commission and that Mr.
       Thompson had not submitted any evidence to substantiate or corroborate
       his claims. Beasley also argued that Mr. Thompson's own conduct
       demonstrates that he has abused the Commission's processes and should
       be sanctioned. Specifically, Beasley pointed to  what it characterized
       as the repetitious and irrelevant filings of Mr. Thompson. Beasley
       also argued that Mr. Thompson made significant misrepresentations in
       those filings, including unsubstantiated, false allegations that
       Beasley and its counsel have engaged in a range of criminal
       misconduct. Beasley further contended that Mr. Thompson has been
       sanctioned for similar misconduct in an Alabama state court proceeding
       and that the Florida Bar has initiated disciplinary proceedings
       against him in a multiple count complaint that includes allegations of
       misconduct brought not only by Beasley and its counsel but also by
       other attorneys and the judge in the Alabama state court proceeding.

    4. As reflected in the Bureau Order, the Enforcement Bureau addressed
       each of Mr. Thompson's allegations in accordance with Commission
       precedent. That precedent requires a complainant to submit
       corroborating evidence to demonstrate that a licensee engaged in
       threats of reprisals or other unnecessary and abusive conduct
       reasonably calculated to dissuade the complainant from continued
       involvement in a proceeding. The Bureau found that, during the
       pendency of its investigation of Mr. Thompson's complaint, while he
       informed the Commission that he expected to submit documentation to
       support his allegations and requested that action on his complaint be
       withheld until he did so, no documentation was ultimately submitted.
       The Bureau ruled that, as a consequence of Mr. Thompson's failure to
       submit documentation to support his allegations, he failed to meet his
       evidentiary burden to substantiate his claims that Beasley and its
       counsel had acted improperly; thus, there was no basis on which to
       conclude that Beasley had improperly threatened, abused or harassed
       Mr. Thompson in retaliation for his complaints against the Beasley
       Stations.

    5. More specifically, the Bureau found that although the WQAM NAL  found
       that certain material aired over Beasley's station apparently violated
       the restrictions on the airing of indecent material, because Mr.
       Thompson's filings acknowledged that threats contained within the
       apparently indecent material were made against someone else, and not
       him or his family, this indecency determination did not corroborate
       Mr. Thompson's harassment and intimidation complaint. The Bureau also
       found that Mr. Thompson had failed to substantiate his allegations
       that the same on-air host involved in the programming at issue in the
       WQAM NAL had made other threats against him. The Bureau noted that the
       excerpts of the alleged threats did not name Mr. Thompson and that no
       corroborating evidence had been submitted to demonstrate that these
       threats were actually broadcast or directed at him in retaliation for
       filing indecency complaints. Finally, the Bureau concluded that Mr.
       Thompson's allegations that other Beasley on-air personalities had
       improperly threatened him were similarly unsubstantiated by
       documentation or other corroborating evidence.

    6. The Bureau also found that there was no evidence to substantiate or
       corroborate Mr. Thompson's allegations that Beasley and its counsel
       had impermissibly filed retaliatory lawsuits and bar complaints
       against him as a consequence of his filing indecency complaints with
       the Commission. The Bureau Order noted that the record included
       legitimate reasons, other than impermissible retaliation, for
       Beasley's actions. Furthermore, the Bureau cited evidence in the
       record in which Beasley and its counsel specifically state that the
       litigation and bar complaints are separate and distinct from Mr.
       Thompson's complaints concerning Station WQAM(AM)'s programming and
       statements which acknowledge his right to file complaints with the
       Commission.

    7. The Bureau further found no evidence to support Mr. Thompson's
       allegations that at Beasley's direction, Beasley's counsel had filed
       civil lawsuits against him in 2004 and 2006 in order to harass and
       intimidate him. The Bureau cited Mr. Kent's statements that these
       lawsuits were filed in his individual capacity as a consequence of Mr.
       Thompson's untruthful and defamatory characterizations of him.
       Furthermore, the Bureau pointed to Mr. Thompson's repeated requests
       that the Commission withhold a decision on his complaint in
       anticipation that he would make filings to substantiate his claims
       concerning Beasley's involvement in Mr. Kent's 2004 lawsuit.

    8. The Bureau found no basis on which to attribute any impermissible
       conduct to Beasley based on Mr. Kent's statements to the effect that
       Beasley was not aware of his 2004 civil suit against Thompson until
       after it was filed. Mr. Kent had, in fact, sent an e-mail to Beasley's
       in-house counsel prior to filing suit, to alert Beasley that the
       contemplated lawsuit could affect Mr. Kent's ability to represent
       Beasley. The Bureau noted, however, that Mr. Kent's statements
       concerning Beasley's prior knowledge of the 2004 lawsuit were made to
       Mr. Thompson and his counsel, not to the Commission and, in any event,
       Mr. Kent does not represent Beasley in this complaint proceeding. The
       Bureau therefore concluded that there was no basis on which to find
       that Beasley had made misrepresentations to or otherwise engaged in
       improper conduct before the FCC.

    9. Moreover, the Bureau rejected Mr. Thompson's allegations that Mr. Kent
       improperly sought court-ordered enforcement of a 1989 settlement
       agreement between Mr. Thompson and a Beasley on-air personality.
       Beasley was not a party to the settlement agreement, which predated
       the on-air personality's employment at Station WQAM(AM) and involved a
       radio station owned by an entity unrelated to Beasley. The Bureau
       found that there was no evidence of Beasley's involvement in the
       lawsuit to enforce the agreement or that Beasley or its counsel
       engaged in any improper harassment or intimidation based upon the
       action to enforce the settlement agreement. The Bureau Order also
       deferred consideration of Beasley's abuse of process complaint against
       Mr. Thompson.

   III. application for review  

   10. In his Application for Review, Mr. Thompson argues that the Bureau
       erred, as a matter of law and fact, in three principal respects.
       First, Mr. Thompson cites language in the WQAM NAL finding that an
       on-air host's comments were apparently indecent because they dwelled
       on the coerced and brutal nature of the sexual activities that the
       host suggested should be performed on a listener and his family and
       argues that this alone demonstrates that Beasley engaged in
       impermissible retaliatory conduct against him.  The Bureau's contrary
       conclusion, Mr. Thompson contends, was therefore error. Second, Mr.
       Thompson claims that there are other instances in which Beasley on-air
       personalities have improperly threatened or harassed other listeners,
       apparently implying that this corroborates his contention that Beasley
       has threatened and harassed him. Third, Mr. Thompson argues that
       review is appropriate because "Beasley, after the [Bureau's] improper
       ruling in this matter, allowed one of its on-air `talents' to violate
       a written agreement not to mention me on its air!" Mr. Thompson
       apparently refers to the 1989 settlement agreement and claims that the
       violation constitutes further impermissible harassment. Mr. Thompson
       also "demand[s] a full hearing on this matter before the Commission."

   11. Mr. Thompson, in several subsequent e-mails, supplements his
       Application for Review. Specifically, on August 2, 2007, Mr. Thompson
       alleged that Mr. Kent admitted in answers to interrogatories in a
       civil lawsuit that he was retained by Beasley to pursue a bar
       complaint and to represent them in other matters, and stated that his
       bar complaint remains under consideration when in fact it "has been
       dismissed with prejudice as baseless." Mr. Thompson also alleges that
       Mr. Kent told him that Beasley did not know about his 2004 lawsuit
       until after it was filed, when in fact Mr. Kent had sent Beasley's
       general counsel an e-mail concerning the upcoming filing.

   12. In addition, in e-mails filed on December 12 and 13, 2007, Mr.
       Thompson made additional allegations that apparently relate to the
       1989 settlement agreement, alleging again that the Beasley on-air
       personality, with the assistance of Mr. Kent and with Beasley's
       cooperation, was improperly seeking to have him held in contempt of
       court for violating the agreement. Also in the December 13, 2007
       supplement to his Application for Review, Mr. Thompson mentioned in
       passing other alleged threats made against him by Station WQAM(AM)
       on-air personalities, which the Bureau found were unsubstantiated and
       did not support his complaint against Beasley. Beasley did not file an
       opposition to Mr. Thompson's Application for Review or to his
       subsequent e-mail supplements.

   IV. DISCUSSION

   13. We deny Mr. Thompson's Application for Review and affirm the Bureau's
       order. To obtain relief through an application for review of an action
       taken pursuant to delegated authority, the aggrieved party must meet
       at least one of the criteria set forth in Section 1.115(b)(2) of the
       Commission's Rules. Specifically, the application for review must
       "specify with particularity, from among the following, the factor(s)
       which warrant Commission consideration of the questions presented":
       (i) the action taken pursuant to delegated authority conflicts with a
       relevant "statute, regulation, case precedent, or established
       Commission policy," (ii) the action taken "involves a question of law
       or policy which has not previously been resolved by the Commission,"
       (iii) the action taken "involves application of a precedent or policy
       which should be overturned or revised," (iv) the action taken makes
       "an erroneous finding as to an important or material question of
       fact," and/or (v) the action taken contains "prejudicial procedural
       error."  Because the application before us fails to meet any of the
       criteria set forth under Section 1.115(b)(2), it is denied.

   14. We find no legal or factual error in the Bureau's conclusion that Mr.
       Thompson failed to meet his evidentiary burden to corroborate his
       claims that Beasley impermissibly threatened him for the purpose of
       retaliating against him. Commission precedent makes it impermissible
       for a licensee to intimidate or harass a complainant with threats of
       reprisals or to engage in some other unnecessary or abusive conduct
       reasonably calculated to dissuade him from continued involvement in a
       complaint proceeding. It is the complainant's burden to present
       evidence to substantiate and document a claim of harassment and
       intimidation. Mr. Thompson has failed to present any evidence to
       substantiate his claims that Beasley engaged in improper conduct
       against him in retaliation for the filing of indecency complaints. We
       address his specific contentions in turn.

   15. First, we reject Mr. Thompson's assertion that the Bureau was required
       to find that Beasley had engaged in impermissible retaliation against
       him because there were threats in the broadcast material that was the
       subject of one of the complaints at issue in the WQAM NAL. There were
       two complaints in the WQAM NAL, and although Mr. Thompson filed one of
       those complaints, he does not contest the Bureau's finding that
       comments in the material at issue in the WQAM NAL were not directed at
       him. Under these circumstances, we find no error in the Bureau's
       ruling that the broadcast material at issue in the WQAM NAL does not
       support a conclusion that Beasley acted improperly in order to harass
       or intimidate Mr. Thompson, and that Mr. Thompson failed to
       substantiate his allegations that Beasley or its employees threatened
       him because he filed indecency complaints.

   16. Second, Mr. Thompson's argument that there are unrelated instances in
       which on-air personalities at other Beasley stations allegedly have
       improperly threatened or harassed other listeners, even if true, does
       not substantiate his claim here. Mr. Thompson does not claim that the
       threats involved in these other alleged incidents were directed at him
       or that they were made in retaliation for his filing of indecency
       complaints against Beasley's stations.

   17. Third, we agree with the Bureau's determination that the allegations
       concerning enforcement of the 1989 settlement agreement involving an
       entity unrelated to Beasley have no bearing on his complaint against
       Beasley and conclude that they do not provide a reason to find error
       in the Bureau Order. Mr. Thompson's contention that Mr. Kent has
       sought new sanctions against him in connection with the enforcement of
       this 1989 settlement agreement, and that this is further evidence that
       Beasley is engaging in improper conduct in order to harass and
       intimidate him, is similarly unpersuasive. The Bureau Order pointed
       out that Beasley was not a party to the 1989 settlement agreement,
       which pertained to matters related to the employee's earlier on-air
       job hosting a program at a station licensed not to Beasley but to
       another broadcaster. Mr. Thompson did not specifically contest this
       aspect of the Bureau's decision, and we find his new allegations
       concerning this 1989 agreement similarly irrelevant. They are,
       moreover, entirely unsubstantiated.

   18. We also find no basis for reversing the Bureau's decision based on
       those matters raised by Mr. Thompson in supplements to his Application
       for Review. We concur in the Bureau's conclusion that Mr. Kent's
       actions do not support a finding that Beasley threatened, abused or
       intimidated Mr. Thompson. The Bureau Order specifically acknowledged
       the attorney-client relationship between Mr. Kent and Beasley, but
       found that there was no evidence to support a conclusion that Mr. Kent
       had filed lawsuits against Mr. Thompson at Beasley's direction or that
       Beasley had improperly brought bar complaints against Mr. Thompson in
       order to harass or intimidate him or to deter him from participating
       in Commission complaint proceedings. We agree with the Bureau's
       conclusion that Mr. Thompson did not present any evidence to
       substantiate or corroborate these allegations, and his allegations
       concerning Mr. Kent's interrogatory answers, even if true, do not
       provide a basis to find error in the Bureau Order. In this regard, we
       also note that the Bureau Order referenced Mr. Kent's statements
       voluntarily offering to dismiss a bar complaint that he had filed
       against Mr. Thompson, and found that Mr. Thompson had not provided any
       documentation to support a finding that the dismissal constituted a
       dismissal on the merits. Moreover, Mr. Thompson points to Mr. Kent's
       e-mail to Beasley prior to the filing of his 2004 lawsuit, but does
       not dispute or otherwise assign error to the Bureau's finding that
       even if the allegations about Beasley's prior knowledge of the lawsuit
       are true, the record as a whole is insufficient to support a finding
       that Mr. Kent brought his 2004 lawsuit at Beasley's urging and in
       order to retaliate against him.

   19. Mr. Thompson's passing reference to other alleged threats against him
       made by Beasley on-air personalities, allegedly with Beasley's
       guidance and support, is also unavailing. Mr. Thompson does not
       specifically contest the Bureau's finding that there is no credible
       evidence to substantiate his allegations that such threats, which do
       not mention him by name, were actually broadcast or that these
       comments were made in response to his filing of indecency complaints.
       Nor does he provide any new evidence to substantiate his claims.
       Accordingly, there is no basis for reversing the Bureau's order.

   20. Finally, Mr. Thompson argues that he has a right to a full evidentiary
       hearing before the Commission concerning his complaint. Mr. Thompson
       cites no statutory provision or Commission rule in support of his
       demand, and we find none to compel the hearing that he seeks. We note
       that  Section 312 of the Act, which describes administrative
       sanctions, is inapposite. That section provides the Commission with
       the discretion to commence a hearing proceeding against a broadcast
       licensee for various forms of misconduct, none of which are present
       here. Furthermore, Section 312 does not specifically create rights in
       third party complainants. Thus, even if Mr. Thompson had substantiated
       his harassment and intimidation complaint against Beasley, which he
       did not, we would not be required to initiate a hearing proceeding. As
       set forth in exhaustive detail in the Bureau Order, which we uphold
       here, Mr. Thompson did not provide the required documentation to
       corroborate the allegations in his complaint against Beasley. The
       record here supports denial of Mr. Thompson's complaint, and there is
       no basis on which to find that a hearing is warranted under the
       circumstances present here.

   21. For the foregoing reasons, we find that there is no basis to disturb
       the Bureau's denial of Mr. Thompson's complaint and accordingly deny
       his Application for Review.

   V. ORDERING CLAUSES

   22. IT IS ORDERED that  the Application for Review filed by John B.
       Thompson in the above-captioned matter IS DENIED.

   23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent that Mr. Thompson has raised
       allegations of improper retaliatory conduct and abuse in informal
       objections filed with the Commission against the renewal of the
       license of Station WQAM (AM), Miami, Florida, FCC File No.
       BR-20031001BXU, and dated November 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 2003, August
       20, 2004, and December 12, 2007, these informal objections and all
       other similarly based objections ARE HEREBY DENIED.

   24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order
       SHALL BE SENT by Certified Mail to John B. Thompson, and to Beasley
       Broadcast Group, Inc., 3033 Riviera Drive, Naples, Florida, 34103,
       with a courtesy copy by regular mail to its counsel, Steven A. Lerman,
       Esquire, Dennis P. Corbett, Esquire, and Philip G. Bonomo, Esquire,
       Leventhal Senter & Lerman PLLC, 2000 K Street, N.W., Suite 600,
       Washington, D.C. 20006-1809.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Marlene H. Dortch

   Secretary

   See E-mail dated June 11, 2007, from Jack Thompson to FCC Chairman Kevin
   J. Martin, Re: Formal Demand for Federal Communications Commission Review
   of Erroneous Findings and Order, attaching letter requesting review
   ("Application for Review"). Mr. Thompson cites both Sections 1.106 and
   Section 1.115 of the Commission's rules, but states that his filing is an
   application for review. See 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.106 (petitions for
   reconsideration), 1.115 (applications for review of action taken pursuant
   to delegated authority). Mr. Thompson was entitled to file a petition for
   reconsideration or an application for review of the Bureau Order, but not
   both. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.104(b). Consequently, we will treat Mr.
   Thompson's filing as an application for review. We also note that, on
   December 13, 2007, Mr. Thompson filed an e-mail supplementing his informal
   objections to the WQAM(AM) license renewal, and attached a letter dated
   December 12, 2007. See E-mail from Jack Thompson to Kevin J. Martin,
   Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, transmitted December 13,
   2007, 1:53 p.m. This filing, as well as various other informal objections
   filed against WQAM(AM)'s license renewal, raises the same allegations of
   improper retaliatory conduct and abuse that we address here. In light of
   the disposition of those issues here, Mr. Thompson's objection to
   WQAM(AM)'s license renewal application, filed by letter dated December 12,
   2007, and all other similarly based objections to the station's license
   renewal, are hereby denied.

   The Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC
   Rcd 10075 (Enf. Bur. 2007) ("Bureau Order").

   See 18 U.S.C. S: 1464; 47 C.F.R. S: 73.3999. Mr. Thompson's indecency
   complaints will not be addressed here, but will be considered separately.

   See Bureau Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 10075 P:P: 1-2 & nn.1, 3 (citing Letter
   from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Michael K. Powell, Chairman,
   Federal Communications Commission, dated November 27, 2004 ("Complaint")).

   See Bureau Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 10075 P: 3 & n.5 (citing Letter from
   William D. Freedman, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division,
   Enforcement Bureau, to John B. Thompson, Esquire, dated December 15, 2004
   ("Thompson LOI")).

   See  Bureau Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 10075-10076 P: 3 & n.6 (citing Letter
   from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to William D. Freedman, Deputy
   Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
   Communications Commission, dated January 5, 2005 (Revised Subsequent
   Version) ("Thompson LOI Response")). See also Bureau Order, 22 FCC Rcd at
   10076 P: 3 & nn.7-9 (concerning Mr. Thompson's subsequent filings).

   See WQAM License Limited Partnership, Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 22997 (2004) ("WQAM NAL") (response pending).

   See Bureau Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 10076 P: 4.

   See id. at 10077 P: 5 & nn.11-15 (citing Beasley's initial reply to Mr.
   Thompson's LOI response, Letter from Steven A. Lerman, Esquire, Dennis P.
   Corbett, Esquire and David S. Keir, Esquire, Counsel for The Beasley
   Broadcast Group, Inc. to Melanie A. Godschall, Investigations and Hearings
   Division, Enforcement Bureau, dated January 28, 2005) ("Reply To Thompson
   Complaint"), as well as Beasley's additional supplements filed on March
   11, 2005 ("Supplemental Reply to Thompson Complaint"); December 16, 2005
   ("Second Supplemental Reply to Thompson Complaint"); April 14, 2006
   ("Third Supplemental Reply to Thompson Complaint"); and February 12, 2007
   ("Further Reply"). 

   See id.

   See Bureau Order, 22 FCC Rcd  at 10077  P: 5 & nn.16-17; see also Reply To
   Thompson Complaint;  Supplemental Reply to Thompson Complaint;  and Second
   Supplemental Reply to Thompson Complaint.

   See id.  

   See  Second Supplemental Reply to Thompson Complaint, at Attachment 1
   (attaching the Orders of Judge James Moore, Circuit Judge, 24th Judicial
   Circuit, Fayette County Alabama, denying Mr. Thompson's motion to withdraw
   as counsel in a civil lawsuit against Sony, Take-Two Interactive Software,
   Inc. and other defendants; revoking Mr. Thompson's admission pro hac vice;
   and denying Mr. Thompson's motion to vacate the Order revoking his pro hac
   vice admission). See Strickland v. Sony Corporation, Order, Case No. CV
   05-19 (Nov. 17, 2005); motion to vacate denied, Order (Nov. 21, 2005).  

   See Further Reply, at Attachment 3 (The Florida Bar v. John Bruce
   Thompson, Case No. SC07-80, filed January 18, 2007 ("Florida Bar
   Complaint")). As set forth in the Bureau Order, in accordance with the
   Florida Bar's disciplinary procedures, a grievance committee has found
   probable cause to believe that Mr. Thompson may have violated certain of
   the Florida rules regulating attorney conduct and that discipline appears
   to be warranted, and the Florida Bar has filed a complaint with the
   Supreme Court of Florida. See Bureau Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 10086 P: 22,
   n.72. The Florida Bar Complaint, as originally filed, included two counts
   relating to complaints concerning Mr. Thompson's conduct toward Beasley
   and its counsel. See Florida Bar Complaint at 25-35, Counts IV and V. As
   discussed herein, Mr. Kent's complaints underlying Count IV apparently
   have been dismissed, but the Bureau found no evidence to substantiate Mr.
   Thompson's repeated assertion that this dismissal was based upon a finding
   that the complaints were without merit. See paragraph 18 of this Order,
   infra; Bureau Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 10086-10087 P: 24. Mr. Kent submitted
   to the Commission a copy of his voluntary authorization to the Florida Bar
   to delete matters related to complaints that he had filed on his own
   behalf. See Bureau Order, FCC Rcd at 10086-10087 P: 24  & n.78.

   See Bureau Order, 22 FCC Rcd  at 10077-10078 P: 6.

   See 18 U.S.C. S: 1464; 47 C.F.R. S: 73.3999.

   See Bureau Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 10079-10080 P:P: 8-9. The NAL at issue
   addressed, in part, a complaint by another listener, and not Mr. Thompson,
   alleging that Station WQAM(AM)'s on-air host, Scott Farrell, received an
   angry phone call from a listener and then threatened to have the caller
   incarcerated, after which the caller would be raped and sodomized, and Mr.
   Ferrall would perform sexual acts on his wife and also engage in violence
   against his family. See id at P: 8, n.27; see also  WQAM NAL, 19 FCC Rcd
   at 23001 P: 9. We are informed that Mr. Ferrall no longer works at Station
   WQAM(AM).

   See Bureau Order, 22 FCC Rcd  at 10081 P: 13 & nn.39-42. In addition, the
   Bureau rejected allegations that Beasley's response to the WQAM NAL
   misrepresented that Mr. Thompson was the sole complainant and improperly
   attacked his credibility. See id. at 10080-10081 P:P: 10-12. In this
   regard, the Bureau noted that Beasley had been provided redacted copies of
   the two complaints at issue in the WQAM NAL and that Mr. Thompson himself
   had made public statements apparently taking credit for filing both
   complaints. See id. at 10080, nn.35, 37. Under these circumstances, the
   Bureau concluded there was nothing impermissible in Beasley's response,
   which acknowledged its uncertainty as to whether Mr. Thompson had filed
   both complaints and for convenience, referred to a "Complainant"
   throughout. Mr. Thompson does not challenge the Bureau's findings
   concerning Beasley's response to the WQAM NAL.

   See id. at 10087 P:P: 25-26 & nn.81-84.

   Specifically, Mr. Thompson had repeatedly characterized Beasley as a
   criminal enterprise and its principals as criminals in press releases,
   contacts with state and federal officials, and to entities with which
   Beasley does business. See id. at 10078-10079 P: 7 & nn.22-25. In this
   regard, the Bureau stated that it was unaware of any information
   demonstrating that Beasley or its principals have been convicted of any
   felony or other crime cognizable under the Commission's Character Policy
   and that Mr. Thompson had submitted no evidence or documentation of such
   criminal convictions. Id.

   See id. at 10081-10082 P: 14 & nn.43-47; 10084 & n.60; 10084-85 P: 20.

   See id. at 10081 P: 14, 10083-10084 P:P: 17-18. The Bureau pointed out
   that the record did not include a copy of the complaint in the 2006
   lawsuit. See id. at 10083 P: 17.

   See id. at 10082 P: 14 & n.46; 10084 P: 18 & n.60. Specifically, Mr. Kent
   alleged that Mr. Thompson made statements that he was a "license-suspended
   drug and porn lawyer" and "a drug lawyer who has been suspended from the
   practice of law," when in fact he was a member of the Florida Bar in good
   standing, and that he falsely accused Mr. Kent of other criminal
   misconduct, including extortion and tax evasion. Mr. Thompson apparently
   entered into an agreement settling this litigation that did not include
   admissions of liability.

   See id. at 10084 P: 18 & nn.58-59.

   See id. at 10083 P: 15 & nn.48-50. The Bureau also found that Mr. Thompson
   apparently learned of the e-mail, which was ineffectively redacted,
   because it had been placed in Station WQAM(AM)'s public inspection file by
   mistake. The Bureau ruled that this redacted e-mail was a privileged
   communication not required to be placed in the public file. See id. at
   10083 P: 15. See also 47 C.F.R. S: 73.3526(e)(10). Mr. Thompson does not
   challenge or otherwise seek review of this aspect of the Bureau Order.

   See Bureau Order, 22 FCC Rcd  at 10083 P: 15.

   See id. at 10083 P: 16.

   See id. at 10089-10090 P:P: 29-30. The Bureau pointed out that Mr.
   Thompson's own statements acknowledged that the 1989 agreement concerns
   another broadcaster. See id. at 10089 P: 29 & n.23

   See id. at 10089-10090 P:P: 29-31.

   See id. at 10077 P: 2 & n.17.

   See WQAM NAL, 19 FCC Rcd at 23002-23003 P: 11.

   See Application for Review at 1-2.

   See id. at 2.

   See id.

   See id.

   See id.

   See E-mail from Jack Thompson to Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, Federal
   Communications Commission, dated August 2, 2007 re: URGENT Re: Formal
   Demand for Federal Communications Commission Review of Ms. Monteith's
   Erroneous Findings and Order Re WQAM-AM (Supplement to Application for
   Review). The Commission's procedural rules provide for the filing of an
   application for review and supplements within 30 days of the date that the
   Commission issues its public notice of a Bureau decision taken pursuant to
   delegated authority. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.115(d). Furthermore, the
   Commission's rules also prohibit Mr. Thompson from raising matters of law
   or fact which the delegated authority has not been afforded an opportunity
   to consider. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.115(c). Mr. Thompson's supplement is
   subject to dismissal because he has failed to comply with the provisions
   of Sections 1.115(c) and (d). We find it in the public interest to waive,
   on our own motion, the provisions of Section 1.115 (c) and (d) in this
   case in order to consider matters raised in Mr. Thompson's August 2, 2007
   filing, which relate to matters previously considered by the Bureau. See,
   e.g., Brookfield Development, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC
   Rcd 14385, 14388 & n.34 (2004) (To the extent that an application for
   review relies on a question of law or fact which the Bureau has not been
   given the opportunity to consider, it is subject to dismissal. Here,
   however, the Commission finds that the public interest is served by
   addressing the merits of the argument not presented to the delegated
   authority in the interest of completeness, because the argument relates to
   the same facts considered by the delegated authority.).

   See Supplement to Application for Review.

   See Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Kevin J. Martin,
   Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, transmitted via E-mail on
   December 12, 2007, which requests that the Commission "open a new file as
   to the continuing harassment of me by Beasley in order to protect its
   shock radio format." On December 13, 2007, however, Mr. Thompson filed two
   additional e-mails concerning these allegations, in one of which he also
   references his pending application for review. See E-mails from Jack
   Thompson to Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission,
   transmitted December 13, 2007, 5:41 a.m. and 6:03 a.m. Under these
   circumstances, we will not consider these allegations to constitute a new
   complaint. Moreover, because these allegations relate to matters initially
   raised before the Bureau and in his application for review, we find that
   it is in the public interest to waive Section 1.115(c) and (d) in order to
   consider these allegations. See note 38, supra. We also note that Mr.
   Thompson made these supplemental filings electronically, even though the
   Commission's interim electronic filing procedures, which were applicable
   to applications for review and certain other pleadings, had been
   rescinded. See Implementation of Interim Electronic Filing Procedures for
   Certain Commission Filings, Order, 22 FCC Rcd 11381 (2007); FCC Rescinds
   Its Interim Procedures For Electronic Filing Effective September 25, 2007,
   News Release (June 29, 2007). We therefore also waive the provisions of
   Section 1.115(f) of the Commission's rules, which requires that these
   pleadings be submitted to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission
   at the locations set forth in Section 0.401 of the Commission's rules. See
   47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.401, 1.115(f).

   See E-mail from Jack Thompson to Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, Federal
   Communications Commission, transmitted December 13, 2007, 5:41 a.m.

   See 47 C.F. R. S: 1.115(b)(2).

   See id.

   See Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc., Notice of Apparent
   Liability, 19 FCC Rcd 1768, 1777 P: 15 (2004) (forfeiture paid) (finding
   that a complainant failed to substantiate or otherwise provide evidence to
   corroborate his allegations that the licensee sanctioned in the NAL also
   engaged in impermissible retaliation as a result of the complaint and
   denying the complainant's harassment and intimidation complaint).

   See Bureau Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 10079-80 P:P: 8-9.

   See id. at 10089 P: 30.

   See id. at 10086-10087 P: 24 & n.78.

   See id. at 10083 P: 16. We also note that the Florida Supreme Court has
   issued an Order permanently disbarring Mr. Thompson based on the
   disciplinary proceeding initiated by the Florida Bar Complaint. See note
   14, supra. Specifically, following a trial and disciplinary hearing, the
   presiding referee issued a report recommending, inter alia, Thompson's
   permanent disbarment, with no leave to reapply for admission. See Report
   of Referee, Case Nos. SC07-80 and SC07-354 (Jul. 9, 2008). The referee's
   report includes findings of Mr. Thompson's guilt with respect to bar
   complaints brought by Beasley's counsel, Tew Cardenas LLP. See id. at
   134-144. The Florida Supreme Court's Order approves the referee's report
   and permanently disbars Mr. Thompson, effective 30 days from the date of
   its Order. See The Florida Bar v. John Bruce Thompson, Order, Case Nos. SC
   07-80 and SC 07-354 (Sept. 25, 2008).

   See Application for Review at 2. See Bureau Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 10081 P:
   13 (There was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the on-air
   host who aired the comments at issue in the WQAM NAL also made other
   impermissible threats, including the threat of a beating, against Mr.
   Thompson during a broadcast on October 2, 2003 where Mr. Thompson did not
   pursue contemporaneous complaints about the threats, the excerpts of the
   alleged threats that he provided did not mention him by name, and no
   corroborating evidence substantiated that the threats were actually
   broadcast or directed at him.); 22 FCC Rcd at 10087-10088 P: 26 (excerpts
   submitted by Mr. Thompson with respect to other alleged threats by a
   different Beasley on-air host do not mention him by name and there is no
   corroborating evidence that such threats were actually broadcast; even
   assuming, arguendo, that Mr. Thompson provided accurate information as to
   the substance of the statements, there is no evidence to support a finding
   that they were in retaliation for Mr. Thompson's indecency complaints).

   See Application for Review at 2 ("I demand a full hearing on this matter
   before the Commission. . . . to tell the Commission directly about threats
   . . . [and to hear Commission personnel] respond to my testimony.").

   Pursuant to Section 1.80(e) of the Commission's Rules, the Commission may
   institute forfeiture proceedings either via a written notice of apparent
   liability or via a full evidentiary hearing before an administrative law
   judge. See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(e) and (g). Typically, however, hearings
   occur "only when a hearing is being held for some reason other than the
   assessment of a forfeiture." Id. at S: 1.80(g). Such circumstances are not
   present here, and the Enforcement Bureau properly exercised its discretion
   to resolve Mr. Thompson's complaint via written notice and pleadings, in
   which Mr. Thompson has participated fully.

   See 47 U.S.C. S: 312(a). See, e.g., Humboldt Bay Video Co., Memorandum
   Opinion and Order, 56 FCC 2d 68, 71 P: 6 (1975) (citations omitted). The
   Commission generally will refuse to issue an order to show cause based
   upon a third-party petition unless that party's allegations establish a
   prima facie violation of a Commission rule or order. See Humboldt Bay
   Video Co., 56 FCC 2d at 71 n.9. Moreover, even if the Commission finds a
   violation based upon the petition of a third party, it has broad
   discretion to refuse to conduct a hearing. See id.

   See 47 U.S.C. S: 312(a). See, e.g., Humboldt Bay Video Co., 56 FCC 2d 71
   n.9; see also C&W Communications, Inc., Order on Review, 20 FCC Rcd 5586,
   5589 P: 7 (2005) (Commission has complete discretion, even when there is
   evidence of violations, to determine not to issue an order to show cause
   under Section 312 and can refuse to do so based upon the petition of a
   third party even if it determines a violation of the Act or rules exists).

   See id. Similarly, the Commission is not compelled to conduct a hearing
   pursuant to Section 309 of the Act, which permits the Commission to
   designate for hearing before an administrative law judge the renewal of a
   station license. See 47 U.S.C. S: 309(k); see also South Seas
   Broadcasting, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 6474 (Med.
   Bur. 2008) (granting short-term renewal as remedy, not a live
   hearing, where Media Bureau found licensee engaged in a pattern of abuse
   by failing to operate in the public interest and ignoring staff
   inquiries). In the instant case, we note that, even if Mr. Thompson had
   shown that WQAM(AM)'s application did not meet the requirements of Section
   309(k)(1),  we would not be compelled to designate Station WQAM(AM)'s
   pending license renewal application for an evidentiary hearing. In any
   event, Mr. Thompson has failed to substantiate any violation of the Act or
   the Commission's rules, and no evidentiary hearing before the Commission
   or an administrative law judge is warranted.

   (Continued from previous page)

   (continued....)

                  Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-251

   2

                  Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-251