Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | File Numbers EB-06-IH-1772   |
|                                  | * | and                          |
| **Rejoynetwork, LLC**            | ) |                              |
|                                  | * | > EB-06-IH-1748              |
| Licensee of Station WAAW(FM)     | * |                              |
|                                  |   | NAL Account No. 200932080012 |
| Williston, South Carolina        | * |                              |
|                                  | * | Facility ID No. 4094         |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * | FRN No. 0008498685           |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

## NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

**Adopted: October 16, 2008 Released: October 16, 2008**

By the Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau:

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1.  In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), issued
    pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended (the "Act"),[^1] and Section 1.80 of the Commission's
    Rules,[^2] we find that Rejoynetwork, LLC ("Rejoynetwork" or the
    "Licensee"), licensee of Station WAAW(FM), Williston, South Carolina
    (the "Station") apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section
    73.1206 of the Commission's Rules by broadcasting multiple telephone
    conversations without giving prior notice to the individuals being
    called of the Licensee's intention to do so.[^3] Based on a review
    of the facts and circumstances, we find the Licensee apparently
    liable for a forfeiture in the amount of \$4,000. We also admonish
    Rejoynetwork for the late filings in this matter.

### II. BACKGROUND

2.  The Commission received multiple complaints alleging that on March
    23, 2006, between approximately 10:45 a.m. and 11:15 a.m., a Station
    radio personality, Ryan B., called Raquel Oliver, Willis M. (Buster)
    Boshears, Jr., and Cedric Jerome Johnson and broadcast each
    conversation on-air over the Station without first informing the
    individuals being called that the conversations would be so
    broadcast (the "Complaints").[^4] Recordings of the alleged
    broadcasts were supplied by two of the complainants.

3.  The Enforcement Bureau (the "Bureau") issued a letter of inquiry
    ("LOI") to the then-licensee of the Station, Frank Neely, on June
    12, 2006.[^5] The LOI was re-sent to Frank Neely on November 2, 2006
    via certified mail, return receipt requested and also faxed to Frank
    Neely on November 2 and 3, 2006. Frank Neely filed a response to the
    LOI on December 8, 2006 ("LOI Response"), four days after it was due
    and apparently without permission for the late filing.[^6] In its
    LOI Response, Frank Neely provides a declaration under penalty of
    perjury from Ryan B.[^7] In his declaration, Ryan B. admits
    interviewing Messrs. Boshears and Johnson on-air on or about March
    23, 2006, but denies interviewing Ms. Oliver.[^8] Ryan B. also
    declares that Messrs. Boshears and Johnson were informed, prior to
    their being recorded for broadcast and prior to their being placed
    on the air, that it was his intention to interview them on the air.
    Ryan B. further declares that each agreed to the on-air interviews
    prior to broadcast.[^9] Ryan B. claims the Station no longer has a
    recording of the broadcasts at issue.[^10] Ryan B. also asserts that
    Messrs. Boshears and Johnson are public officials and "subject to
    fair comment."[^11]

4.  The Bureau's Investigations and Hearings Division received
    recordings of the broadcasts in question in late 2006 from Messrs.
    Johnson and Crawford. The recordings are apparently identical.[^12]
    In the recording, Ryan B. initially takes a phone call from an owner
    of a cab company. During the call, the owner discusses how his
    company is unable to pick up customers at the airport because of the
    airport's exclusive cab contract. After the call, Ryan B. says he is
    going to try to get airport authorities on the phone. Ryan B. calls
    Mr. Boshears. When an unidentified woman answers the phone, Ryan B.
    asks for Mr. Boshears, explaining that he is calling to ask for
    information regarding the airport noting that his previous messages
    had not been returned. Ryan B. is temporarily put on hold and then
    put through to Mr. Boshears. When Mr. Boshears answers, he says
    "hello" and then Ryan B. identifies himself as from the Station and
    states that he previously left a message and faxed a freedom of
    information request. At no time does Ryan B. inform the woman
    answering the phone or Mr. Boshears that the call is being recorded
    or broadcast on-air. Ryan B. continues by questioning Mr. Boshears
    about a cab contract at the airport and Mr. Boshears responds. After
    ending the call with Mr. Boshears, Ryan B. calls Mr. Johnson. A
    woman answers the call. Ryan B. asks for Mr. Johnson, is placed on
    hold, and is put through to Mr. Johnson. When Mr. Johnson answers,
    he states his name, then Ryan B. identifies himself as from the
    Station. Ryan B. does not tell the woman answering the call or Mr.
    Johnson that the call is being recorded or broadcast. Ryan B.
    mentions his prior call to Mr. Boshears to Mr. Johnson and complains
    about the cab contract at the airport. Approximately one minute into
    the call, Mr. Johnson asks if he is on the air. Ryan B. responds
    affirmatively. In response, Mr. Johnson asks, "Don't you think it
    would have been fair of you to let me know that you were putting me
    on the air?" Ryan B. informs Mr. Johnson that he calls everybody on
    the air and apologizes to him.

5.  On May 15, 2007, the Bureau issued a follow-up LOI to the Licensee
    which included a copy of the recording it received.[^13] Frank
    Neely's response to the follow-up LOI was due June 4, 2007. The
    Licensee did not respond by the deadline. Instead, two days after
    the deadline had passed on June 6, 2007, the Licensee requested an
    extension of time for filing a response.[^14] Despite its
    untimeliness, the Bureau granted that request without prejudice to
    enforcement, in the interest of considering a full record.[^15]
    Frank Neely filed a response to the follow-up LOI on June 29, 2007
    ("Follow-up Response").[^16] The Follow-up Response included an
    affidavit from Ryan B. who, after listening to the recording, stands
    by the Licensee's initial LOI Response stating "those answers are to
    the best of my recollection and belief true and correct."[^17]
    Ryan B. admits, however, that the prior responses appear to be
    inconsistent with the recording, but contends that the audio clips
    were edited and do not accurately reflect the broadcast because the
    recording does not contain statements that he clearly recalls being
    made during the broadcast.[^18] Ryan B. alleges that the recording
    was prepared by a radio personality at another station whose
    "demonstrated animosity towards \[the Station and Ryan B.\] gives
    him motive for creating a doctored CD that would place \[the
    Station\] in a bad light."[^19] He further alleges that this radio
    personality "has at his disposal the means and capabilities of
    making \[a\] doctored CD."[^20] Frank Neely argues that the
    recording cannot properly be considered as evidence of what was
    actually broadcast over the Station.[^21]

6.  On November 27, 2007, the Bureau provided copies of the Licensee's
    LOI Response and Follow-up Response to the complainants.[^22] In
    reply, Mr. Boshears declares under penalty of perjury that he was
    not informed that he was being interviewed for later broadcast nor
    was he informed that the conversation taking place was broadcast
    live.[^23] Also under penalty of perjury, Mr. Johnson responds to
    the Licensee's submissions by stating that he was not notified that
    he was being put on the air.[^24] Specifically, Mr. Johnson states
    that Ryan B., while disclosing his station affiliation, never
    mentioned that he was live on the air.[^25] Mr. Johnson states that
    while talking to Ryan B., staff members told him he was on the
    radio. At that time, Mr. Johnson asked Ryan B. if he was on the air,
    and said "Don't you think it would have been fair to let me know
    that . . . ."[^26] According to Mr. Johnson, Ryan B. then apologized
    for not notifying him that he was on the air.[^27] Mr. Crawford
    responded to the Licensee's submissions by verifying, under oath,
    that the recordings he submitted are "true and accurate duplicate
    files of the broadcast."[^28] Ms. Riddle who allegedly listened to
    the broadcast at issue responded to the Licensee's submissions
    stating that Mr. Boshears was unaware of his being live on the air
    and that until Mr. Johnson asked Ryan B. if the call was being
    taped, Ryan B. did not inform Mr. Johnson of the live broadcast of
    the call.[^29]

**III. DISCUSSION**

7.  Under Section 503(b)(1) of the Act, any person who is determined by
    the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with
    any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by
    the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture
    penalty.[^30] Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines "willful" as "the
    conscious and deliberate commission or omission of \[any\] act,
    irrespective of any intent to violate" the law.[^31] The legislative
    history to Section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that this
    definition applies to both Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act,[^32]
    and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b)
    context.[^33] The Commission may also assess a forfeiture for
    violations that are repeated, and not willful.[^34] "Repeated" means
    that the act was committed or omitted more than once or lasts more
    than one day.[^35] In order to impose a forfeiture penalty, the
    Commission must issue a notice of apparent liability, the notice
    must be received, and the person against whom the notice has been
    issued must have an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such
    penalty should be imposed.[^36] The Commission will issue a
    forfeiture if it finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
    person has willfully or repeatedly violated the Act or a Commission
    rule.[^37] As described in greater detail below, we conclude that
    Rejoynetwork is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of
    \$4,000 for its apparent willful and repeated failure to inform the
    called parties that their telephone conversations would be broadcast
    or would be recorded for later broadcast before so broadcasting or
    recording them.

8.  Section 73.1206 of the Commission's Rules requires that unless the
    party is aware, or may be presumed to be aware from the
    circumstances of the conversation, that the conversation is being or
    likely will be broadcast, *before* broadcasting or recording a
    telephone conversation for later broadcast, a licensee must inform
    any party to the call of its intention to record and/or broadcast
    the conversation. [^38] The Commission will presume such awareness
    only where "the other party to the call is associated with the
    station (such as an employee or part-time reporter), or where the
    other party originates the call and it is obvious that it is in
    connection with a program in which the station customarily
    broadcasts telephone conversations."[^39]

9.  Section 73.1206 reflects the Commission's longstanding policy that
    prior notification is essential to protect individuals' legitimate
    expectation of privacy and to preserve their dignity by avoiding
    nonconsensual broadcasts of their conversations.[^40] The Commission
    specifically favors an individual's privacy interest when balancing
    it against a broadcaster's interest in enhancing program appeal with
    increased spontaneity and entertainment value using telephone
    conversations. The Commission has found that such purported
    enhancement is not sufficiently critical to justify intruding on
    individual privacy.[^41] The Commission has held that the prior
    notification requirement ensures the protection of an individual's
    "right to answer the telephone without having \[his or her\] voice
    or statements transmitted to the public by a broadcast station" live
    or by recording for delayed airing.[^42] Consistent with this
    reasoning, the Commission has defined "conversations" broadly "to
    include any word or words spoken during the telephone call," and has
    specifically rejected the argument that "utterances made by the
    parties called in answering the phone" are not subject to the rule's
    prior notification requirement.[^43] Thus, aside from the
    narrowly-tailored exceptions noted above, neither of which is
    applicable here, before any portion of a telephone conversation is
    recorded for later broadcast or before any portion of a telephone
    conversation is initiated for simultaneous broadcast, the licensee
    must inform the other party to the call that the conversation will
    be recorded for broadcast purposes or will be broadcast live.

10. Based on the record, we find the Licensee apparently violated
    Section 73.1206 of the Commission's Rules by broadcasting telephone
    conversations between Ryan B. and Messrs. Boshears and Johnson,
    respectively, without giving either prior notice of its intention to
    do so.[^44] We recognize that there are conflicting statements in
    the record, but note that the Commission has broad discretion as to
    how much weight to accord disputed facts.[^45] As described above,
    both Messrs. Boshears and Johnson submitted sworn statements that
    they were not given prior notice that their respective calls were
    being recorded or broadcast live. Indeed, the complainants' sworn
    submissions including, but not limited to, recordings of the calls,
    corroborate the complainants' version of the facts. Specifically,
    the recording substantiates Mr. Boshears' and Mr. Johnson's, as well
    as the other complainants', version of events. In the recording,
    there is no indication that Ryan B. gave the recipients of the calls
    notice of the intended broadcast use of the particular conversations
    before broadcasting them, as the Licensee contends. The Station
    apparently broadcast the entirety of each call beginning with
    Ryan B. placing the calls. At no time during the conversation as
    recorded does Mr. Boshears indicate his awareness of the call's
    recording or live broadcast. Mr. Johnson, on the other hand, becomes
    suspicious and, approximately one minute into the call, pointedly
    asks if the call is being broadcast. When he learns that he is on
    the air, Mr. Johnson asks Ryan B. "Don't you think it would have
    been fair of you to let me know that you were putting me on the
    air?"[^46] In response, Ryan B. seems to admit that the required
    advance notice was not provided and apologizes to Mr. Johnson.
    Tellingly, Ryan B. explains to Mr. Johnson: "I call everybody on
    air. . . . I don't normally talk to politicians or people in office
    that hold public office that work for the taxpayers; I don't
    normally talk to them on the side. . . . I don't talk to folk who
    hold public office off the airway. . . . "[^47] The lack of notice
    to Messrs. Boshears and Johnson apparently violates Section 73.1206
    of the Commission's Rules.[^48]

11. We are not persuaded by the Licensee's contention that the recording
    is edited. First, we note that the Licensee failed to provide any
    evidence to substantiate its contention. Further, one of the
    complainants states under oath that the recordings he submitted to
    the Commission are "true and accurate duplicate files of the
    broadcast."[^49] In addition, the recording is fully corroborated by
    Messrs. Boshears' and Johnson's sworn statements, each parties to
    the respective calls, as well as the third party complainants.
    Moreover, the recordings submitted to the Commission from two of the
    complainants are apparently identical. Finally, in the recording
    itself Mr. Johnson states that he had not been informed the call was
    being broadcast and Ryan B. admits that fact. In light of the
    foregoing, we believe the recordings support our findings.

12. The Licensee also apparently asserts that as a result of their
    status as public officials, Messrs. Boshears and Johnson waived
    their right to privacy.[^50] We reject this argument. Assuming that
    Messrs. Boshears and Johnson are "public officials" (which status
    the Commission is not deciding herein), such status does not
    establish a legal basis for a licensee to disregard the notice
    requirement of Section 73.1206.[^51] The Licensee also claims,
    without any legal or factual explanation or support, that Messrs.
    Boshears and Johnson are subject to "fair comment."[^52] We find
    that this unsubstantiated claim does not bear on our decision under
    Section 73.1206.

13. Based upon the evidence before us, we find that the Licensee
    apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1206 of the
    Commission's rules. The Commission's forfeiture guidelines establish
    a base forfeiture amount of \$4,000 for the unauthorized broadcast
    of a telephone conversation.[^53] In addition, the Commission's
    rules provide that base forfeitures may be adjusted based upon
    consideration of the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of
    the Act[^54] and Section 1.80(a)(4) of the Commission's rules. The
    factors which may be considered include "the nature, circumstances,
    extent, and gravity of the violation . . . and the degree of
    culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such
    other matters as justice may require."[^55] While there are two
    separate apparent violations here, they were related to the same
    sequence of events and occurred on the same day in close proximity
    to each other (apparently one call immediately followed the
    other).[^56] Having considered the record in this case and the
    statutory factors identified above, we find that Rejoynetwork is
    apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of \$4,000 for the
    two apparent violations in this case.

14. Additionally, we admonish Rejoynetwork for the late filings in
    response to our LOI and to our Follow-up LOI. As described above,
    Frank Neely's (now Rejoynetwork) response to the initial LOI was
    submitted several days late. Likewise, Frank Neely's response to the
    Follow-up LOI was filed pursuant to an extension requested two days
    after the response deadline passed. Misconduct of this type exhibits
    a disregard for the Commission's authority and hinders our
    investigative processes. We warn the Licensee that similar conduct
    in the future may result in sanctions.[^57]

**IV. ORDERING CLAUSES**

15. **ACCORDINGLY**, **IT IS ORDERED**, pursuant to Section 503(b) of
    the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,[^58] and Sections 0.111,
    0.311, 0.314 and 1.80 of the Commission\'s rules,[^59] that
    Rejoynetwork, LLC is hereby **NOTIFIED** of its **APPARENT LIABILITY
    FOR A FORFEITURE** in the amount of \$4,000 for violating Section
    73.1206 of the Commission's rules.[^60]

16. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED**, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the
    Commission\'s rules, that within thirty (30) days of the release
    date of this NAL, Rejoynetwork, LLC, **SHALL PAY** the full amount
    of the proposed forfeiture or **SHALL FILE** a written statement
    seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

17. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar
    instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
    Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN
    Number referenced above. Payment by check or money order may be
    mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St.
    Louis, MO 63197-9000. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to U.S.
    Bank -- Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention
    Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. Payment by wire transfer may be made to
    ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account
    number 27000001. For payment by credit card, an FCC Form 159
    (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.  When completing the FCC Form
    159, enter the NAL/Account number in block number 23A (call
    sign/other ID), and enter the letters "FORF" in block number 24A
    (payment type code). Requests for full payment under an installment
    plan should be sent to:  Chief Financial Officer \-- Financial
    Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C. 
    20554.   Please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at
    1-877-480-3201 or Email: ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions
    regarding payment procedures. Rejoynetwork, LLC will also send
    electronic notification on the date said payment is made to
    Hillary.DeNigro@fcc.gov and Ben.Bartolome@fcc.gov.

18. The response, if any, shall be mailed to Hillary S. DeNigro, Chief,
    Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Room 4-C330,
    Washington D.C. 20554, and **MUST INCLUDE** the NAL/Account Number
    referenced above. If any response is filed, Rejoynetwork, LLC shall
    also, to the extent practicable, transmit a copy of the response via
    email to Hillary.DeNigro@fcc.gov and Ben.Bartolome@fcc.gov.

19. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture
    in response to a claim of inability to pay unless the respondent
    submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year
    period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally
    accepted accounting practices ("GAAP"); or (3) some other reliable
    and objective documentation that accurately reflects the
    respondent's current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay
    must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to
    the financial documentation submitted.

20. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED** that the Complaints filed **ARE GRANTED**
    to the extent indicated herein, and the complaint proceeding to the
    extent indicated herein **IS HEREBY TERMINATED**.[^61]

21. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED** that a copy of this NAL shall be sent, by
    Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested, to Rejoynetwork, LLC at its
    address of record and to its counsel, David Tillotson, Esquire, Law
    Office of David Tillotson, 4606 Charleston Terrace, N.W.,
    Washington, D.C. 20007-1911.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Hillary S. DeNigro

Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division

Enforcement Bureau

[^1]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).

[^2]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.

[^3]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.1206. Station WAAW(FM) was licensed to Frank
    Neely at the time of the apparent violations. The licensee of the
    Station was later assigned *pro forma* from Mr. Neely to
    Rejoynetwork. *See* FCC File No. BAL-20080314ABZ, granted March 20,
    2008 and consummated April 4, 2008. According to that application,
    Mr. Neely is the sole manager and sole member of Rejoynetwork.

[^4]: *See* Complaint of Iain Crawford, submitted to the FCC on March
    27, 2006 (IC Number 06-WB11627850) (alleging that Ryan B. called the
    city administrator and airport director on-air over the Station on
    March 23, 2006, and did not inform either that they were on-air);
    Complaint of Willis M. Boshears, Jr., dated March 27, 2006
    (including statements from Ms. Oliver and other persons allegedly
    with first-hand knowledge of Mr. Boshears' telephone conversation
    with Ryan B.); Complaint of Tonya Riddle, submitted to the FCC on
    March 27, 2006 (IC Number 06-WB11628201) (alleging that Ryan B.
    failed to inform Mr. Boshears that the telephone conversation was
    being aired live); Complaint of Cedric Jerome Johnson, dated April
    20, 2006 (alleging Ryan B. failed to properly notify him and Mr.
    Boshears that his telephone conversations with each of them were
    broadcast live); E-mails from Iain Crawford to FCCINFO, dated
    October 6, 2006.

[^5]: *See* Letter from Tom Hutton, Assistant Chief, Investigations and
    Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
    Commission, to Frank Neely, dated June 12, 2006.

[^6]: *See* Letter from Frank Neely, to Mary Turner, Investigations and
    Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
    Commission, dated December 8, 2006 (including Declaration of Brian
    L. Doyle, whose air name is Ryan B.) ("*LOI Response*").

[^7]: *See id.*

[^8]: *See id.* at Declaration of Brian L. Doyle.

[^9]: *See id.*

[^10]: *See id.*

[^11]: *Id.*

[^12]: Because the separately produced recordings are apparently
    identical in content, they will be referred to hereafter as one
    recording (the "Recording").

[^13]: *See* Letter from Benigno E. Bartolome, Deputy Chief,
    Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission, to David Tillotson, Esq., Counsel for
    Frank Neely, dated May 15, 2007.

[^14]: *See* Letter from David Tillotson to Mary Turner, via email on
    June 6, 2007

[^15]: *See* E-mail from Jennifer Lewis to David Tillotson, dated June
    11, 2007 (granting request for extension of time until July 1,
    2007).

[^16]: *See* Letter from David Tillotson, to Mary Turner, Investigations
    and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
    Commission, dated June 29, 2007 (including Declaration of Brian L.
    Doyle, whose air name is Ryan B.) ("*Follow-up Response*").

[^17]: *Id.* at Declaration of Brian L. Doyle.

[^18]: According to Ryan B., these statements include, "without
    limitation," the following: (a) Ryan B.'s statement that he was
    returning to the air from a commercial break; (b) Ryan B.'s
    statement that he would be interviewing Mr. Boshears, which on-air
    statement is what prompted the taxi driver to call in and complain
    about the taxi contract; (c) Ryan B.'s statement on the air that he
    had contacted airport authorities while off the air on commercial
    break and that he was waiting for them to return his calls; (d) Ryan
    B.'s statement on the air that an airport authority official had
    returned his call while he was speaking with another caller; and (e)
    the statement by the secretary who answered the phone at Mr.
    Johnson's office that she had been listening to the show. *See id.*

[^19]: *Id.*

[^20]: *Id.*

[^21]: *See Follow-up Response.*

[^22]: *See* Letter from Rebecca Hirselj, Assistant Chief,
    Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission, to Cedric Jerome Johnson, Willis M.
    Boshears, Jr., Tonya Riddle, and Iain Crawford, dated November 27,
    2007. By letter dated January 3, 2008, the Bureau followed-up with
    Ms. Riddle to confirm whether she intended to file a reply. *See*
    Letter from Rebecca Hirselj, Assistant Chief, Investigations and
    Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
    Commission, to Tonya Riddle, dated January 3, 2008.

[^23]: *See* Letter from Willis M. Boshears, Jr., to Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, dated December 11,
    2007.

[^24]: Affadavit of Cedric Jerome Johnson, to Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, dated December 26,
    2007.

[^25]: *See id.*

[^26]: *Id.*

[^27]: *See id.*

[^28]: Affidavit of Iain Crawford, dated December 20, 2007, as submitted
    to Rebecca Hirselj, Assistant Chief, Investigations and Hearings
    Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission
    ("*Crawford Affidavit*").

[^29]: *See* Letter from Tonya Riddle to Rebecca Hirselj, Assistant
    Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau,
    Federal Communications Commission, dated January 10, 2008.

[^30]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(1).

[^31]: 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1).

[^32]: *See* H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97^th^ Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982).

[^33]: *See, e.g., Southern California Broadcasting Co.*, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991).

[^34]: *See, e.g.,* *Callais Cablevision, Inc., Grand Isle, Louisiana*,
    Notice of Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd
    1359, 1362 ¶ 10 (2001) ("*Callais Cablevision*") (issuing a Notice
    of Apparent Liability for, *inter alia*, a cable television
    operator's repeated signal leakage).

[^35]: *See* *Southern California Broadcasting Co.,* 6 FCC Rcd at 4388 ¶
    5; *Callais Cablevision, Inc.,* 16 FCC Rcd at 1362 ¶ 9.

[^36]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f).

[^37]: *See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc*., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC
    Rcd 7589, 7591 ¶ 4 (2002) (forfeiture paid).

[^38]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.1206.

[^39]: *Id*.

[^40]: *See Amendment of Section 1206: Broadcast of Telephone
    Conversations*, Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 5461, 5463-64 (1988)
    ("*1988 Order re the Broadcast of Telephone Conversations*"); *see
    also Station-Initiated Telephone Calls Which Fail to Comply With
    Section 73.1206 of the Rules*, Public Notice, 35 FCC 2d 940, 941
    (1972); *Amendment of Part 73 of the Commission\'s Rules and
    Regulations with Respect to the Broadcast of Telephone
    Conversations*, Report and Order, 23 FCC 2d 1, 2 (1970); *WXDJ
    Licensing, Inc.*, Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd 22445 (Enf. Bur.
    2004) (assessing a forfeiture for failure to inform the called party
    that their telephone conversation would be broadcast or recorded for
    later broadcast before so broadcasting or recording them; forfeiture
    paid).

[^41]: *See 1988 Order re the Broadcast of Telephone Conversations*, 3
    FCC Rcd at 5464.

[^42]: *Id.* at 5463.

[^43]: *Heftel Broadcasting-Contemporary, Inc.,* 52 FCC 2d 1005, 1006
    (1975) (holding that "conversation" was defined to include any word
    or words spoken during the telephone call and imposing \$2,000
    forfeiture for failure to provide notice prior to recording a
    conversation).

[^44]: Based on the record, we do not find the Licensee apparently
    violated 73.1206 of the Commission's Rules with respect to Ryan B.'s
    alleged telephone conversation with Ms. Oliver on March 23, 2006. As
    described above, through a sworn statement, Ryan B. denies having
    spoken with Ms. Oliver that day and indicates she was never
    interviewed by the Station. In their respective replies to the
    Licensee's LOI Response and Follow-up Response, none of the
    complainants specifically refute that contention. We do note,
    however, that based on a review of the recordings supplied by the
    complainants, it appears that before broadcasting telephone
    conversations between Ryan B. and a female answering the telephone
    before Mr. Boshears' call and between Ryan B. and a female answering
    the telephone before Mr. Johnson's call, both that day, the Licensee
    may have failed to inform those females of its intention to
    broadcast the conversations. However, without more evidentiary
    support indicating required notice was not provided to those
    individuals prior to the calls, we do not find apparent violations
    of 73.1206 of the Commission's Rules with respect to those
    conversations.

[^45]: *See Quatron Communications, Inc*., Memorandum Opinion and Order,
    15 FCC Rcd 4749, 4754 ¶ 15 (2000) (citing *Gencom, Inc., v. FCC*,
    832 F.2d 171, 181 (D.C. Cir. 1987)) ("While we recognize that there
    is conflicting evidence in the record, we nonetheless note that the
    Commission has broad discretion as to how much weight to accord
    disputed facts based on the existing record.").

[^46]: Recording.

[^47]: *Id.*

[^48]: Even if Ryan B.'s statements identifying himself and the Station
    could be viewed as constituting implicit notice, such notice is
    inadequate. As indicated above, under Section 73.1206, a party's
    awareness of a station's intent to broadcast a telephone
    conversation is presumed only if the party is associated with the
    station or the party originates the call. It appears that Messrs.
    Boshears and Johnson had no connection to the Station and did not
    originate the calls. In any event, any notice Ryan B. may have given
    on-air was given too late since it occurred after Messrs. Boshears
    and Johnson began speaking and after Ryan B. had started
    broadcasting the conversation. Section 73.1206 of the Commission's
    Rules clearly requires that such notice be provided "\[b\]efore
    recording a telephone conversation for broadcast, or broadcasting
    such a conversation simultaneously with its occurrence . . . ."

[^49]: *Crawford Affidavit*.

[^50]: *See LOI Response* at Declaration of Brian L. Doyle.

[^51]: *See* *El Mundo Broadcasting Corporation*, Notice of Apparent
    Liability for Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 20377, 20379 (Enf. Bur. 2000)
    (Bureau refused to recognize an exception to Section 73.1206 notice
    requirements where the conversation recorded and subsequently
    broadcast involved a well known on-air personality and a government
    official).

[^52]: *LOI Response* at Declaration of Brian L. Doyle.

[^53]: *See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment
    of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture
    Guidelines, Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17115 (1997),
    *recons. denied,* 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("*Forfeiture Policy
    Statement*"); 47 C.F.R. §1.80.

[^54]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).

[^55]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(4).

[^56]: *See Nassau Broadcasting Partners, Inc.,* Notice of Apparent
    Liability for Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 1367, 1369 (Enf. Bur. 1999)
    (proposing \$4,000 base forfeiture for two 73.1206 violations that
    were related to the same sequence of events and occurred on the same
    day within a two hour period) (paid).

[^57]: *See Globcom, Inc.,* Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
    and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 19893, 19898 n. 36 (2003) (noting delayed
    response to an LOI is considered dilatory behavior which may result
    in future sanctions) (subsequent history omitted). *See also
    BigZoo.Com Corporation,* Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
    and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24437 (Enf. Bur. 2004), *forfeiture ordered*,
    20 FCC Rcd 3954 (Enf. Bur. 2005) (ordering \$20,000 forfeiture for
    failure to respond to an LOI).

[^58]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).

[^59]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 0.314, 1.80, 73.1206.

[^60]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 0.311, 0.314, 1.80,
    73.1206.

[^61]: Consistent with Section 503(b) of the Act and with Commission
    practice, for the purposes of the forfeiture proceeding initiated by
    this *NAL,* Rejoynetwork, LLC shall be the only party to this
    proceeding.