******************************************************** 
                      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.

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



   October 14, 2010

   VIA EMAIL AT SALES@PHONEJAMMER.COM

   AND FACSIMILE AT 44700 596 8880

   Victor McCormack

   Phonejammer.com

   P.O. Box 60405

   London, E8 9BP, United Kingdom

   Re: File No. EB-09-SE-242; Provision of Incorrect Material Factual
   Information in a Commission Investigation

   Dear Mr. McCormack:

   This is an official CITATION, issued pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the
   Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), to
   Phonejammer.com ("Phonejammer") for providing incorrect, material factual
   information to the Spectrum Enforcement Division ("Division") of the
   Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") in violation of section 1.17(a)(2) of the
   Commission's rules ("Rules"). Specifically, in response to recent
   Commission inquiries, Phonejammer claimed that it does not market, and has
   not shipped or distributed, radio frequency devices designed to
   intentionally interfere with licensed cellular and Personal Communications
   Services ("PCS") ("phone jammers") to consumers in the United States.
   However, these statements are flatly contradicted by record evidence that,
   as recently as April and September of 2009, Phonejammer sold and shipped
   phone jammers to consumers in the United States. The Commission requires
   parties to take appropriate affirmative steps to determine the
   truthfulness of information it submits to the agency. As explained below
   and as provided in the Communications Act, future violations of the Rules
   in this regard may subject Phonejammer to monetary forfeitures.

   Background.

   On November 9, 2009, the Bureau's Dallas, Texas Field Office ("Dallas
   Field Office") received a complaint from a wireless service provider
   regarding interference to its authorized cellular and PCS frequencies in
   the 800 MHz and 1900 MHz bands. The complainant indicated that it had
   traced the interference to a business located in Carrollton, Texas. During
   the course of its investigation of the complaint, the Dallas Field Office
   determined that the interference had been caused by a 5 watt adjustable
   power phone jammer identified as Phonejammer model number PJ005 ("Model
   PJ005"), installed at a Carrollton business. An employee of the Carrollton
   business admitted to purchasing the Model PJ005 from Phonejammer on April
   21, 2009 using Phonejammer's website, "phonejammer.com." The employee
   subsequently relinquished the Model PJ005 phone jammer to the Dallas Field
   Office and also provided a copy of an April 21, 2009 invoice sent by
   e-mail from sales@phonejammer.com for the sale and shipment of Model
   PJ005. The Phonejammer invoice clearly shows a billing and shipping
   address in Carrollton, Texas.

   On February 4, 2010, the Division issued a letter of inquiry ("LOI")
   initiating an investigation into Phonejammer's marketing of phone jammers
   in the United States. In its March 3, 2010 response ("LOI Response"),
   Phonejammer, through counsel, acknowledged that www.phonejammer.com is its
   website, but denied marketing or shipping phone jammers to consumers in
   the United States. Specifically, Phonejammer claimed that it "does not
   market to the United States, and has not shipped or distributed units to
   the United States." Phonejammer also stated that it clearly discloses on
   its website that its phone jammers are not marketed in the United States,
   that use of its phone jammers is prohibited by law in the United States,
   and that its phone jammers are not authorized for use in the United
   States.

   In March 2010, during the course of investigating a complaint from the St.
   Lucie County, Florida Sheriff's Office ("SLCSO") regarding interference to
   cellular and PCS frequencies utilized by SLCSO detectives, the Bureau's
   Tampa, Florida Field Office ("Tampa Field Office") traced the interference
   to a phone jammer installed at a business located in Port St. Lucie,
   Florida. The phone jammer was identified as an eight watt adjustable power
   phone jammer, Phonejammer model number PJ006 ("Model PJ006"). The owner of
   the Port St. Lucie business admitted to purchasing the Model PJ006 from
   Phonejammer on September 24, 2009 using Phonejammer's website,
   www.phonejammer.com. The owner relinquished the Model PJ006 phone jammer
   to the Tampa Field Office and also provided a copy of his credit card
   statement showing a charge dated September 25, 2009, for the purchase and
   shipment of the device from Phonejammer.

   Applicable Law and Violations - Provision of Incorrect, Material
   Information.

   The Commission's rules require truthfulness and candor in all written or
   oral statements submitted to the agency and its staff. Section 1.17 of the
   Rules provides, in pertinent part, that in any investigation, no person
   shall:

   (1) In any written or oral statement of fact, intentionally provide
   material factual information that is incorrect or intentionally omit
   material information that is necessary to prevent any material factual
   statement that is made from being incorrect or misleading; and

   (2) In any written statement of fact, provide material factual information
   that is incorrect or omit material information that is necessary to
   prevent any material factual statement that is made from being incorrect
   or misleading without a reasonable basis for believing that any such
   material factual statement is correct and not misleading.

   Any person who has received a letter of inquiry from the Commission or its
   staff or is otherwise the subject of a Commission investigation must
   comply with section 1.17 of the Rules. In expanding the scope of section
   1.17 in 2003 to include written statements that are made without a
   reasonable basis for believing the statement is correct and not
   misleading, the Commission explained that this requirement was intended to
   more clearly articulate the obligations of persons dealing with the
   Commission, ensure that they exercise due diligence in preparing written
   submissions, and enhance the effectiveness of the Commission's enforcement
   efforts. Thus, even in the absence of an intent to deceive, a false
   statement provided without a reasonable basis for believing that the
   statement is correct and not misleading constitutes an actionable
   violation of section 1.17 of the Rules. As the Commission has stated:

   in preparing written statements in fact-based adjudications and
   investigations, regulatees are on heightened notice that they must have a
   reasonable basis to believe that what they say is correct and not
   misleading. In these circumstances, we consider it justified to require
   that parties use due diligence in providing information that is correct
   and not misleading to the Commission, including taking appropriate
   affirmative steps to determine the truthfulness of what is being
   submitted. A failure to exercise such reasonable diligence would mean that
   the party did not have a reasonable basis for believing in the
   truthfulness of the information.

   Notwithstanding Phonejammer's claim in its LOI Response that it "does not
   market phone jammers in the United States" and "has not shipped or
   distributed units to the United States," the record before us clearly
   demonstrates that on at least two occasions within the past year,
   Phonejammer has marketed (including selling and shipping) phone jammers to
   individuals in the United States. As noted above, an individual in
   Carrollton, Texas purchased a Model PJ005 phone jammer via Phonejammer's
   website on April 21, 2009, and an individual in Port St. Lucie, Florida
   purchased a Model PJ006 phone jammer via Phonejammer's website on
   September 24, 2009. Phonejammer billed both individuals, collected
   payment, and shipped both devices to addresses in the United States.

   Accordingly, Phonejammer had no reasonable basis for believing that the
   information it provided in its Response regarding its marketing of jamming
   devices in the United States was correct and not misleading. Based on the
   evidence in the record, we believe that, had Phonejammer exercised a
   minimum of diligence prior to the submission of its LOI Response, it
   presumably would not have submitted incorrect or misleading material
   factual information. We therefore find that Phonejammer violated section
   1.17(a)(2) of the Rules by providing material factual information that is
   incorrect without a reasonable basis for believing that the material
   factual information was correct.

   Future Compliance.

   If, after receipt of this Citation, Phonejammer violates the
   Communications Act or the Rules by engaging in conduct of the type
   described herein, the Commission may impose monetary forfeitures not to
   exceed $16,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing
   violation and up to $112,500 for any single act or failure to act.

   You may respond to this citation within thirty (30) days from the date of
   this letter either through (1) a personal interview at the Commission's
   Field Office nearest to your place of business, or (2) a written
   statement. Your response should specify the actions that Phonejammer has
   taken or will take in the future to ensure that it does not violate the
   Rules governing the provision of material, factual information to the
   Commission.

   Under the Privacy Act of 1974, we also hereby inform you that the
   Commission's staff will use all relevant material information before it,
   including information that you disclose in your interview or written
   statement, to determine what, if any, enforcement action is required to
   ensure your compliance with the Communications Act and the Rules. Please
   also note that section 1.17 of the Rules requires that you provide
   truthful and accurate statements to the Commission. In addition, the
   knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of
   any material fact, in reply to this Citation is punishable by fine or
   imprisonment.

   Contact Information.

   Please call Nissa Laughner at 202-418-1160 if you wish to schedule a
   personal interview. You should schedule any interview to take place within
   thirty (30) days of the date of this letter. You should send any written
   statement within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter to:

   Kathryn S. Berthot

   Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   Federal Communications Commission

   445-12th Street, S.W., Rm. 3-C366

   Washington, D.C. 20554

   Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

   Sincerely,

   Kathryn S. Berthot

   Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   Federal Communications Commission

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5).

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.17(a)(2).

   See Cosmetology Career Center, Warning of Unauthorized Operation and
   Interference to Licensed Radio Stations, Document Number W201032500004
   (Enf. Bur., Dallas Field Office, November 24, 2009).

   See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
   Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Victor
   McCormack, Phonejammer.com (February 4, 2010).

   See Letter from Harbottle & Lewis LLP, Counsel for Phonejammer.com, to
   Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement
   Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (March 3, 2010).

   Id. at 1.

   Id.

   Id. at 2.

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.17.

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.17(b)(4).

   See Amendment of Section 1.17 of the Commission's Rules Concerning
   Truthful Statements to the Commission, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 4016,
   4021 (2003), recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 5790,
   further recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 1250
   (2004).

   See id. at 4017 (stating that the revision to section 1.17 of the Rules is
   intended to "prohibit incorrect statements of omissions that are the
   results of negligence, as well as an intent to deceive").

   See id. at 4021.

   See, e.g., Syntax-Brillian Corporation, Forfeiture Order and Notice of
   Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 6323, 6342 (2008) (finding
   that a television manufacturer apparently provided incorrect material
   information concerning its importation and interstate shipment of
   non-DTV-compliant televisions without a reasonable basis for believing
   that the information was correct and not misleading, in violation of
   section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules); Citicasters License, L.P., Memorandum
   Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC
   Rcd 19324, 19338 (2007) (forfeiture paid) (finding that a licensee's false
   certification that it had not violated the Communication's Act or any
   Commission rules during the preceding license term, although not made with
   the intent to deceive the Commission, had no reasonable basis and
   therefore, apparently violated section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules).

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). These amounts are subject to further
   adjustment for inflation (see id. S:1.80(b)(5)), and the forfeiture amount
   applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory
   amount designated at the time of the violation.

   See 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3).

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.17 ("... no person subject to this rule shall; (1) In any
   written or oral statement of fact, intentionally provide material factual
   information that is incorrect or intentionally omit material information
   that is necessary to prevent any material factual statement that is made
   from being incorrect or misleading; and (2) In any written statement of
   fact, provide material factual information that is incorrect or omit
   material information that is necessary to prevent any material factual
   statement that is made from being incorrect or misleading without a
   reasonable basis for believing that any such material factual statement is
   correct and not misleading.").

   See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001.

   (... continued from previous page)

   (continued . . .)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1975

   1

                                       2

   Federal Communications Commission DA 10- 1975

                       FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                            WASHINGTON, D.C.  20554