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 No. EB-03-MD-011  
                                                                             
     APCC Services, Inc., Data Net Systems, LLC,    )                        
     Davel Communications, Inc., Jaroth, Inc.                                
     d/b/a Pacific Telemanagement Services, and     ) REDACTS Information    
     Intera Communications Corp.,                   Designated               
                                                                             
     Complainants,                                  ) as Confidential Under  
                                                    47 C.F.R. S 1.731        
     v.                                                                      
                                                    )                        
                                                                             
                                                    )                        
                                                                             
                                                    )                        
                                                                             
                                                    )                        
                                                                             
                                                    )                        

                                                    )                        
     NetworkIP, LLC, and Network Enhanced                                    
     Telecom, LLP,                                  )                        
                                                                             
     Defendants.                                    )                        
                                                                             
                                                    )                        


                                     ORDER

   Adopted: May 21, 2007 Released: May 21, 2007

   By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau:

    1. In this Order, we deny a motion filed by defendants NetworkIP, LLC and
       Network Enhanced Services, LLP (collectively, "Network") to stay
       pending appeal the effect of the Commission's Damages Order in this
       proceeding. For the following reasons, we conclude that Network has
       failed to meet its burden of demonstrating entitlement to such interim
       equitable relief.

    2. Procedural background: Pursuant to sections 201(b) and 208 of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and Rule 1.722,
       the Damages Order granted the supplemental complaint filed against
       Network by the above-named Complainants (collectively, "APCC"), and
       directed Network to pay APCC approximately $2.8 million in payphone
       compensation, plus prejudgment interest, within 90 days of the Damages
       Order's release on February 23, 2007. On April 12, 2007, Network
       petitioned for review of the Damages Order in the United States Court
       of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ("D.C. Circuit"). On
       April 20, 2007, Network filed the instant Motion seeking a stay of the
       Damages Order pending appeal. On May 2, 2007, APCC opposed the Motion.
       As explained below, we agree with APCC that Network has failed to show
       that (i) Network will suffer imminent irreparable harm in the absence
       of a stay, or (ii) its appeal is likely to succeed on the merits.

    3. Standard for granting a stay pending appeal: The parties correctly
       agree that our consideration of Network's Motion for stay of the
       Damages Order pending appeal may follow the traditional four-pronged
       test set forth in Petroleum Jobbers. Specifically, to prevail on its
       Motion, Network must demonstrate that: (1) it will imminently suffer
       irreparable harm in the absence of a stay; (2) its appeal will likely
       succeed on the merits; (3) a stay will not cause substantial harm to
       APCC; and (4) the public interest would be served (or would not be
       disserved) by grant of a stay.

    4. Imminent irreparable harm: Network argues that [ * * * REDACTED * * *
       ], and that this fully satisfies the "irreparable harm" prong of the
       Petroleum Jobbers test. In response, APCC asserts, inter alia, that
       Network's allegedly irreparable harm must be "imminent;" and such
       imminence is absent here because, in APCC's view, APCC can collect on
       the Damages Order's monetary award only by filing suit in state or
       federal court and obtaining a court judgment under section 407 of the
       Act. Thus, according to APCC, it will not be able to force Network to
       pay any of the Damages Order's monetary award for many months, if not
       years, i.e., only after a full court proceeding under section 407 of
       the Act.

    5. We agree with APCC that, under a proper application of the Petroleum
       Jobbers test, Network must show that the allegedly irreparable harm
       would be imminent in the absence of a stay. We also conclude that,
       given APCC's view that it cannot collect on the Damages Order's
       monetary award unless and until it has obtained a court judgment under
       section 407 of the Act, Network's allegedly irreparable harm is too
       remote and speculative to satisfy the Petroleum Jobbers test.

    6. Likelihood of prevailing on the merits: Network  argues that the
       Commission Liability Order and the Damages Order contain numerous
       fatal flaws, and thus Network is likely to prevail on the merits of
       its court appeals. Most, if not all, of these arguments have already
       been fully addressed and decided in the Commission's Orders, and,
       after further careful consideration, we conclude that the Motion does
       not raise any basis - new or repeated - for believing that Network has
       a substantial likelihood of obtaining reversal or vacatur of any of
       the Commission's decisions in those Orders. Thus, Network fails to
       satisfy this prong of the 4-part Petroleum Jobbers test, as well.

    7. One new Network argument merits mention, however.  Network asserts
       that the Commission's focus on who was the "last" facilities-based
       carrier was unlawful because the Commission had never previously
       announced a "last-switch" rule for liability.  But neither Network nor
       APCC had presented that argument to either the Bureau or the
       Commission; rather, the parties stipulated that the question presented
       in this case was which carrier was the last "facilities-based" carrier
       in the call chain.  APCC argued that Network was the last
       "facilities-based" carrier; Network argued that its
       debit-card-provider customers were the last "facilities-based"
       carriers.  Both parties agreed that either Network or its
       debit-card-provider customers were liable, and neither party ever
       suggested that some other entity either "upstream" or "downstream" in
       the call chain might be liable.  The Commission's decision that
       Network was the last facilities-based carrier in the call chain turned
       only on the meaning of "facilities-based," and the Commission's
       assessment of that issue had nothing to do with its assessment of who
       was "last."  Thus, Network cannot justify a stay on the basis of this
       argument, which has little likelihood of success on appeal.

    8. Given Network's failure to satisfy the "irreparable harm" and
       "likelihood of success" prongs of the 4-part Petroleum Jobbers test,
       we need not reach the "harm to APCC" and "public interest" prongs.
       Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, we conclude that Network
       has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating its entitlement to the
       equitable relief of a stay.

    9. Pledge of Security Interests: Network offers to post security
       "sufficient to protect APCC," and notes that "it is well within the
       FCC's discretion to grant a stay solely on the posting of security
       aimed at maintaining the status quo, even if less than the full amount
       of the judgment." It is true that, on a few occasions, the Commission
       has, upon the defendant's pledge to secure the judgment, granted a
       stay pending appeal, without applying the Petroleum Jobbers test. In
       those cases, however, the defendant pledged security (or placed funds
       in escrow) in the full amount of the judgment. Here, by contrast,
       Network pledges security [ * * * REDACTED * * * ]. Consequently, those
       cases do not support Network's Motion for a stay here.

   10. Network contends that we should accept its pledge of security of less
       than the full judgment amount, because federal courts may do so when
       the defendant convincingly demonstrates that it [ * * * REDACTED * * *
       ]. Assuming, arguendo, that the Commission would find federal court
       decisions useful in this regard, those decisions do not support
       Network's position here. The cited court decisions rest on the premise
       that, absent a stay pending appeal, the plaintiff could execute on the
       judgment [ * * * REDACTED * * * ] "at once." Here, by contrast, APCC
       repeatedly asserts that it cannot execute on the Damages Order's
       monetary award "at once," but rather can execute only after filing and
       successfully prosecuting a collection action in a court under section
       407 of the Act, a process that could take many months, if not longer.
       Therefore, as stated above, allowing Network to obtain a stay by
       pledging security of less than the full judgment amount is not
       necessary to prevent any imminent [ * * * REDACTED * * * ]. In turn,
       the record does not demonstrate that federal case law supports
       Network's request for a stay absent a pledge of security for the full
       judgment amount.

   11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), and 208
       of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. SS 154(i),
       154(j), 208, sections 1.720-1.736 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.
       S1.720-1.736, and the authority delegated in sections 0.111 and 0.311
       of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, that Network's
       Motion to Stay the Damages Order IS DENIED, and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
       that Network's Motion for Leave to File a Reply IS DENIED.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Alexander P. Starr

   Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   APCC Services, Inc. v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Services, LLP,
   Motion to Stay Damages Order, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (filed April 20, 2007)
   ("Motion").

   APCC Services, Inc. v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Services, LLP,
   Memorandum Opinion and Order, File No. EB-03-MD-011, 2007 WL 580778, FCC
   07-14 (rel. Feb. 23, 2007) ("Damages Order").

   47 U.S.C. SS 201(b), 208.

   47 C.F.R. S1.722.

   The parties agree that, adding in the specified prejudgment interest, the
   total amount of the damages award is currently over $4 million. See, e.g.,
   Motion at 2,19; APCC Services, Inc. v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced
   Services, LLP, Opposition to Motion to Stay Damages Order, File No.
   EB-03-MD-011 (filed May 2, 2007) ("Opposition to Stay") at 7, 9, 52.

   See, e.g., Damages Order at 30, P 68.  In June 2003, APCC filed a formal
   complaint for payphone compensation against Network under Section 208 of
   the Act. APCC Services, Inc. v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced
   Services, LLP, Formal Complaint, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (filed June 3,
   2003) ("Liability Complaint", which stemmed from two previous informal
   complaints). APCC chose to "bifurcate" the proceeding into liability and
   damages phases pursuant to Rule 1.722. See, e.g., Liability Complaint at
   1-2; APCC Services, Inc. v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Services,
   LLP, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 2073, 2074 n.6 (Enf. Bur.
   2005) ("Bureau Liability Order"). In February 2005, the Enforcement Bureau
   released its Bureau Liability Order finding Network liable to APCC for
   payphone compensation, which Order the Commission affirmed on review in
   September 2006. APCC Services, Inc. v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced
   Services, LLP, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Order on Review, 21 FCC
   Rcd 10488 (2006) ("Commission Liability Order"). The following month,
   Network petitioned for review of the Commission Liability Order  in the
   D.C. Circuit. NetworkIP, LLC v. FCC, Petition for Review, Case No. 06-1364
   (D.C. Cir. filed Oct. 30, 2006) ("Liability Appeal"). Meanwhile, shortly
   after the Bureau Liability Order, APCC filed a supplemental damages
   complaint pursuant to section 208 of the Act and Rule 1.722. APCC
   Services, Inc. v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Services, LLP,
   Supplemental Complaint, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (filed Apr. 4, 2005)
   ("Damages Complaint").  Consequently, Network sought and obtained from the
   D.C. Circuit an abeyance of Network's Liability Appeal pending Commission
   resolution of APCC's Damages Complaint. Liability Appeal, Per Curiam Order
   (D.C. Cir.  Dec. 21, 2006).

   NetworkIP, LLC v. FCC, Petition for Review, Case No. 07-1092 (filed Apr.
   12, 2007) ("Damages Appeal"). On April 23, 2007, APCC sought to intervene,
   NetworkIP, LLC v. FCC, Motion to Intervene, Case No. 07-1092 (filed Apr.
   23, 2007), moved to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, NetworkIP, LLC v.
   FCC, Intervenor's Motion to Dismiss, Case No. 07-1092 (filed Apr. 23,
   2007) (attached as Ex. 1 to Opposition to Stay), and moved for expedited
   briefing and argument, NetworkIP, LLC v. FCC, Motion for Expedited
   Briefing and Argument, Case No. 07-1092 (filed Apr. 23, 2007). On May 7,
   2007, the Commission filed, inter alia, an Opposition to APCC's Motion to
   Dismiss. NetworkIP, LLC v. FCC, Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, Case No.
   07-1092 (filed May 7, 2007).

   On May 14, 2007, Network filed with the D.C. Circuit a Motion to Stay
   Damages Order. Damages Appeal, Motion to Stay (D.C. Cir., filed May 14,
   2007 under seal). This Motion to Stay appears to have no additional,
   relevant information compared to the Motion filed with the Commission on
   April 20, 2007.

   Opposition to Stay. On May 14, 2007, Network filed a Motion for Leave to
   File a Reply, and Reply. APCC Services, Inc. v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network
   Enhanced Services, LLP, Motion for Leave to File a Reply; Reply, File No.
   EB-03-MD-011 (filed May 11, 2007). Because the [ * * * REDACTED * * * ]
   information Network seeks to provide in its Reply is not germane to the
   bases of our determination here, see n.16, infra, and Network has made no
   showing of extraordinary circumstances to justify the filing of a reply
   not contemplated by the rules, we deny that motion. See generally 47
   C.F.R. S 1.45(d). We therefore need not address APCC's filings regarding
   Network's request: APCC Services, Inc. v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network
   Enhanced Services, LLP, Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Leave to File
   a Reply, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (filed May 16, 2007); APCC Services, Inc.
   v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced Services, LLP, Conditional
   Motion for Leave to File Opposition to Defendant's Reply (filed May 16,
   2007); APCC Services, Inc. v. NetworkIP, LLC and Network Enhanced
   Services, LLP, Opposition to Defendant's Reply, File No. EB-03-MD-011
   (filed May 16, 2007).

   Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Assoc'n v. Federal Power Comm'n, 259 F.2d 921
   (D.C. Cir. 1958) ("Petroleum Jobbers"). See, e.g., Motion at 16-17;
   Opposition to Stay at 10-11.  APCC also argues that, even if Network were
   to satisfy the 4-part test, we should still deny Network the equitable
   relief of a stay, because Network's recent [ * * * REDACTED * * * ]
   renders Network's hands unclean. See, e.g., Opposition to Stay at 1-10.
   Given our denial of Network's Motion on other grounds, we need not and do
   not reach this argument.

   Petroleum Jobbers, 259 F.2d at 925. See, e.g., Washington Metropolitan
   Area Transit Commission v. Holiday Tours, 559 F.2d 841, 843 (D.C. Cir.
   1977) ("WMTC v. Holiday"); In the Matter of 4.9 GHz Band Transferred from
   Federal Government Use, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 15270, 15272 at P 5 (2004);
   [1]In re Application of Liberty Productions, Order, 16 FCC Rcd 18966,
   18969 at P 14 (2001) (subsequent history omitted); General Communication,
   Inc. v. Alaska Communications Systems, Order, 16 FCC Rcd 8169, 8169 at P 3
   (2001) ("GCI v. ACS") (subsequent history omitted); Expanded
   Interconnection with Local Telephone Company Facilities, Order, 8 FCC Rcd
   123, 124 at P 6 (1992) (subsequent history omitted); In the Matter of
   Regulation of Prepaid Calling Card Services, Order, DA 07-1504, 2007 WL
   952102, 952103 at P 7 (Wireline Comp. Bur., March 29, 2007).

   See, e.g., Motion at 18-20.

   See, e.g.,  Opposition to Stay at 11-13. Section 407 of the Act provides,
   in pertinent part: "If a carrier does not comply with an order [of the
   Commission] for the payment of money within the time limit in such order,
   the complainant . . . may file in the district court . . . or in any State
   court . . . a petition setting forth briefly the causes for which he
   claims damages, and the order of the Commission. . . ." 47 U.S.C. S 407.

   Opposition to Stay at 3, 5, 11-13, 43-44, 49 n.86. APCC has made the same
   argument to the D.C. Circuit. Opposition to Stay at Ex. 1.

   See, e.g., In the Matter of Implementation of Section 309(j) of the
   Communications Act, Order, 1999 WL 446589, 446592 at P 10 (FCC 1999) ("To
   justify a stay, the alleged harm must be great, imminent, and certain to
   occur") (subsequent history omitted); Cellularvision of New York, L.P. v.
   Sportschannel Associates, Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13192, 13192 at P 4 (1995)
   (subsequent history omitted);  [2]In the Matter of Implementation of the
   Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,
   Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 6723, 6741 at P 88 (1994)
   (subsequent history omitted); Federal-State Joint Board on Universal
   Service, Order, 20 FCC Rcd 5167, 5168-69 at P 4 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2005)
   ("In order to demonstrate irreparable harm, the harm must be certain and
   immediate.") (subsequent history omitted); Improving Public Safety
   Communications in the 800 MHz Band, Order, 21 FCC Rcd 678, 682 at P 12
   (Pub. Safety and Crit. Info. Div. 2006) ("party seeking a stay must show
   that `the injury complained of [is] of such imminence that there is a
   `clear and present' need for equitable relief to prevent irreparable
   harm") (citing [3]Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir.
   1985) and cases cited therein) (subsequent history omitted). See also
   Direx Israel v. Breakthrough Medical Corp., 952 F.2d 802, 812 (4^th Cir.
   1992) (citing Tucker Anthony Realty Corp. v. Schlesinger, 888 F.2d 969,
   975 (2^nd Cir. 1989) ("'irreparable harm' must be `neither remote nor
   speculative, but actual and imminent'"); ECRI v. McGraw-Hill Inc., 809
   F.2d 223, 226 (3^rd Cir. 1987) ("plaintiff has the burden of proving a
   clear showing of immediate irreparable injury"); Wisconsin Gas Co. v.
   FERC, 756 F.2d at 674 (internal citations omitted) ("[T]he injury must be
   both certain and great; it must be actual and not theoretical . . . [and]
   the party seeking injunctive relief must show that `[t]he injury
   complained of [is] of such imminence that there is a `clear and present'
   need for equitable relief to prevent irreparable harm"') (emphasis in
   original).

   Given this conclusion, we need not and do not determine whether Network
   has shown that, if the Damages Order's monetary award were imminently
   enforced, Network would [ * * * REDACTED * * * ]. We also note that
   Network has not argued that (i) a failure to pay the Damages Order's
   monetary award prior to the conclusion of a court proceeding under section
   407 could or would result in Commission sanctions, or (ii) the possibility
   or imposition of such sanctions would constitute irreparable harm. Thus,
   this Order does not address those issues.

   Motion at 20-45. For example, Network argues that the Commission
   misinterpreted its own payphone compensation rules and orders, id. at
   21-28, failed to indicate clearly which carrier in a call path was
   obligated to compensate payphone service providers, id. at 22-26, did not
   provide fair notice of how it would apply its rules, id. at 29-38,
   improperly granted APCC a waiver of the statute of limitations, id. at
   39-42, and applied the wrong prejudgment interest rate, id. at 42-46.

   We understand that Network does not necessarily have to show a likelihood
   of success greater than 50%. See, e.g., WMTC v. Holiday, 559 F.2d at 844.
   Network's showing still falls short, especially given the absence of
   irreparable harm. See, e.g., id.

   See, e.g., Motion at 23-26, 31-33, 36-38.  We note that, because Network
   did not make this argument in its Application for Review of the Bureau
   Liability Order, see Network Application for Review, File No. EB-03-MD-011
   (filed March 1, 2005) ("AFR") at 10-18, in its Reply to APCC's Opposition
   to that AFR, see Reply to Opposition to Application for Review, File No.
   EB-03-MD-011 (filed March 25, 2005) at 1 ("The question in this case is
   whether NET or its carrier customers are legally responsible for payphone
   compensation . . . . It is the customer, not NET, that is responsible for
   compensating payphone owners."), or in a petition for reconsideration of
   the Commission Liability Order, it will be barred from doing so in the
   D.C. Circuit.  47 U.S.C. S 405(a). See, e.g., Bartholdi Cable Co. v. FCC,
   114 F.3d 274 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

   See, e.g., Revised Joint Statement, File No. EB-03-MD-011 (filed Oct. 22,
   2003).  For just one example, the parties stipulated that "this case
   hinges on whether the Defendants or their Customers ... are liable for
   payphone compensation as a matter of law under ... applicable precedent."
   Id. at 2.

   See, e.g., WMTC v. Holiday, 559 F.2d at 844; Petroleum Jobbers, 259 F.2d
   at 924 (despite demonstrating likelihood it would prevail on the merits,
   "petitioner's inadequate showing on the remaining previously enumerated
   considerations prevents us from granting the stay it has requested."). See
   also, In the Matter of Dynamic Cablevision of Florida, Order, 10 FCC Rcd
   7738, 7745 at P 16 (Cable Serv. Bur. 1995) ("Because Dynamic has not
   satisfied each prong of the four part test for the granting of stays, we
   deny its request for stay.").

   Motion at 47.

   Id. at 3. See Motion at 47-49.

   Motion at 3, 47-49. See, e.g., GCI v. ACS, supra; Virgin Islands Telephone
   Corp. Tariff FCC No. 1, Order, 7 FCC Rcd 4235, 4236-37 at PP 13-14 (1992);
   Time Warner Entertainment Co., Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5815, 1815-16 at PP 1-5
   (Cable Serv. Bur. 1994); Heritage Cablevision Associates of Dallas, LP v.
   Texas Utilities Elec. Co., Order, 8 FCC Rcd 373, 374 at P 14 (Comm. Carr.
   Bur. 1993).

   See, e.g., Motion at 47-49; Opposition to Stay at 8, 45 n.83, 50-52.

   Motion at 47-50, citing Miami International Realty Co. v. Paynter, 807
   F.2d 871 (10^th Cir. 1986); Olympia Equipment Leasing Co. v. Western Union
   Telegraph Co., 786 F.2d 794 (7^th Cir. 1986); Poplar Grove Planting and
   Refining Co., Inc. v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., 600 F.2d 1189 (5^th Cir.
   1979).

   See, e.g., Olympia Equipment, 786 F.2d at 800 (Easterbrook, J.,
   concurring). See also Alexander v. Chesapeake, Potomac, and Tidewater
   Brooks, Inc., 190 F.R.D. 190, 193-194 (E.D. Va. 1999).

   See, e.g., Opposition at 3, 5, 11-13, 43-44, 49 n.86. Ex. 1. In its
   Opposition to Motion to Dismiss in the D.C. Circuit, the Commission argues
   that section 407 of the Act does not affect Network's appellate rights
   under 47 U.S.C. S 402(a) and 28 U.S.C. S 2342(1).

   In light of this determination, and as stated previously, see n.16,
   supra, we take no position regarding the current [ * * * REDACTED * * * ].

   (...continued from previous page)

                                                              (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2079

                                       2

                  Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2079

References

   Visible links
   1. http://web2.westlaw.com/result/result.aspx?sskey=CLID_SSSA55513105&effdate=1%2f1%2f0001+12%3a00%3a00+AM&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT56513105&vr=2.0&rlti=1&ss=CNT&fn=_top&eq=Welcome%2fCommunications&n=1&blinkedcitelist=False&rltdb=CLID_DB55513105&db=FCOM-FCC&cnt=DOC&sv=Split&rp=%2fWelcome%2fCommunications%2fdefault.wl&scxt=WL&rs=WLW7.04&cfid=1&docsample=False&srch=TRUE&origin=Search&mt=Communications&service=Search&query=%22IRREPARABLE+HARM%22+%2fP+IMMINENT&method=TNC
   2. http://web2.westlaw.com/result/result.aspx?sskey=CLID_SSSA55513105&effdate=1%2f1%2f0001+12%3a00%3a00+AM&rlt=CLID_QRYRLT56513105&vr=2.0&rlti=1&ss=CNT&fn=_top&eq=Welcome%2fCommunications&n=4&blinkedcitelist=False&rltdb=CLID_DB55513105&db=FCOM-FCC&cnt=DOC&sv=Split&rp=%2fWelcome%2fCommunications%2fdefault.wl&scxt=WL&rs=WLW7.04&cfid=1&docsample=False&srch=TRUE&origin=Search&mt=Communications&service=Search&query=%22IRREPARABLE+HARM%22+%2fP+IMMINENT&method=TNC
   3. http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW7.04&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1985116583&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&findtype=Y&referenceposition=674&db=350&vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&mt=Communications