**Before the**

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | EB-04-IH-0661                |
|                                  | * |                              |
| The Beasley Broadcast Group,     | ) |                              |
| Inc.                             | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

Memorandum OPinion and Order

**Adopted: June 1, 2007 Released: June 1, 2007**

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

# INTRODUCTION

1.  In this *Memorandum Opinion and Order* we deny a formal complaint
    against The Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc. ("Beasley") filed by
    John B. Thompson ("the Complainant") alleging improper conduct
    against him based upon his filing of complaints against radio
    broadcast stations licensed to Beasley's subsidiaries.[^1]

# 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 Station WRXK-FM, Bonita Springs,
    Florida (collectively, "the Beasley Stations"). The Complainant
    filed a number of complaints against the Beasley Stations alleging
    violations of the federal restrictions regarding the broadcast of
    indecent and profane material.[^2] The Complainant also filed a
    formal complaint alleging that Beasley and its counsel have engaged
    in threats, abuse and intimidation against him in retaliation for
    filing these complaints and that he had proof to substantiate these
    allegations.[^3] The Complainant did not request a specific sanction
    in his complaint, but subsequently requested that the Commission
    initiate revocation proceedings against all of Beasley's broadcast
    licenses and withhold action on all Beasley's pending "applications,
    petitions and requests."[^4]

3.  Based upon the complaint, we issued a letter of inquiry to the
    Complainant directing that he produce all documents that provide the
    basis for or otherwise support his allegations of improper threats,
    intimidation and harassment.[^5] The Complainant filed a response to
    our letter of inquiry on January 5, 2005.[^6] In addition, the
    Complainant thereafter filed, via e-mail, numerous addenda to his
    response as well as numerous additional e-mails concerning his
    complaint.[^7] On January 22, 2007, the Complainant submitted a
    statement, accompanied by a declaration under penalty of perjury,
    summarizing the ongoing harassment, intimidation and targeting that
    he has alleged is a result of his complaints against Beasley.[^8]
    The Complainant supplemented the January 22, 2007 filing on February
    1, 2007.[^9] Although the Complainant claims to have mailed to the
    Commission original signed declarations in support of the January 22
    and February 1, 2007 filings, we have not received these signed
    declarations.[^10]

4.  The Complainant contends that Beasley has violated 18 U.S.C. § 1464
    and Section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules by broadcasting
    indecent material over Station WQAM(AM) and is attempting to shield
    its illegal activity by impermissibly targeting him instead of
    addressing his indecency complaints on the merits. Specifically, the
    Complainant alleges that: (1) on-air personalities at Station
    WQAM(AM) and others have made threats against him and against one of
    his clients; (2) Beasley has engaged in improper conduct in a
    Commission proceeding in which a *Notice of Apparent Liability* was
    issued against Beasley for airing indecent material on Station
    WQAM(AM); (3) Beasley's agent and attorney, Norman Kent, has filed
    lawsuits and a contempt of court proceeding against him at the
    direction of Beasley in order to harass, target and intimidate him;
    and (4) Beasley and its counsel have improperly filed complaints
    against him with the Florida Bar.

5.  Beasley filed a reply to the Complainant's initial response on
    January 28, 2005,[^11] and supplemented this reply on March 11,
    2005,[^12] December 16, 2005,[^13] and April 14, 2006.[^14] In
    addition, on February 12, 2007, Beasley filed a further reply to the
    Complainant's filings.[^15] Beasley denies the Complainant's
    allegations and further alleges that that the Complainant has not
    provided any proof to support them. Indeed, Beasley maintains that
    the Complainant's own submission demonstrates that Beasley has taken
    reasonable and transparent actions to protect itself against the
    Complainant's allegedly inappropriate and abusive conduct without
    contesting or interfering with his right to file any complaint with
    the Commission. In this regard, Beasley also asserts that the
    Complainant's conduct includes repetitive defamatory communications,
    interference with its business relationships and other inappropriate
    and abusive tactics.[^16] Beasley maintains that, as a consequence
    of these actions, it is the Complainant who has abused the
    Commission's processes and that it is he who should be sanctioned
    for such misconduct.[^17] Beasley also asserts that the Complainant
    has made material misrepresentations that the Florida Bar has
    dismissed complaints filed against him by Beasley and its counsel
    and submits a complaint, filed by the Florida Bar against the
    Complainant, to demonstrate that these complaints have not been
    dismissed and that the bar is pursuing disciplinary action against
    the Complainant.[^18]

# DISCUSSION

6.  **The Complainant's Harassment and Intimidation Complaint.** In
    order to find that a licensee impermissibly intimidated or harassed
    a complainant, there must be evidence of threats of reprisals or
    some other unnecessary and abusive conduct reasonably calculated to
    dissuade a complainant from continued involvement in a
    proceeding.[^19] Under Commission precedent, a complainant has the
    burden of presenting evidence to corroborate a claim of harassment
    and intimidation.[^20] At various times during the pendency of this
    investigation, the Complainant has informed the Commission that he
    expects to submit documentation from civil suits he has filed or
    will file and that this documentation will support his allegations.
    One such instance was on July 26, 2006, when the Complainant
    asserted that he was about to engage in discovery in connection with
    a civil lawsuit that would prove his allegations, and asked that the
    Commission withhold action and keep its investigation open pending
    his submission of that documentation.[^21] No such documentation was
    ultimately filed, although the Complainant did make additional
    submissions to the Commission. As discussed in more detail herein,
    we find that in light of the Complainant's failure to substantiate
    his allegations, there is no basis on which to conclude that Beasley
    has engaged in improper threats, harassment or abuse of the
    Complainant.

7.  In addition, the Complainant's allegations concerning the lawsuits
    and bar complaints filed against him cannot be viewed in isolation
    from his own conduct toward Beasley and its counsel. The Complainant
    has regularly issued press releases[^22] and contacted state and
    federal officials and other entities with which Beasley does
    business[^23] characterizing Beasley as a "criminal enterprise"[^24]
    under various criminal statutes, including the Racketeer Influenced
    Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and characterizing Beasley and
    its principals as "criminals."[^25] We are unaware of, and the
    Complainant has not submitted any information demonstrating that
    Beasley or its principals have been convicted of any felony or other
    crime cognizable under the Commission's Character Policy.[^26]
    Moreover, as discussed below, there is no evidence that Beasley has
    acted improperly with regard to any of the lawsuits cited by the
    Complainant. These lawsuits were filed by Beasley's counsel, and do
    not involve Beasley or matters within the Commission's regulatory
    jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, there are legitimate
    reasons other than impermissible retaliation for the lawsuits and
    bar complaints referenced by the Complainant.

8.  **Allegations Concerning Threats During Broadcasts of the "Scott
    Ferrall Show" and Improper Conduct Associated with the WQAM NAL
    Proceeding.** In September 2003, the Commission received complaints
    alleging that indecent material was aired on Station WQAM(AM) during
    the "Scott Ferrall Show." One of the complaints, which was filed by
    another listener, and not by the Complainant, concerned a September
    9, 2003 broadcast in which the on-air host, Mr. Ferrall, received an
    angry phone call from an unidentified listener and then threatened
    to have the caller incarcerated, after which the caller would be
    raped and sodomized, and Mr. Ferrall would perform other sexual acts
    on his wife and also engage in violence against his family.[^27] The
    Complainant filed a different complaint about the September 10,
    2003, broadcast of the "Scott Ferrall Show," and claimed that, among
    other things, the broadcast included the following material:
    "\[m\]olested in the ass as children...hot candles in the ass."[^28]
    This indecency complaint does not mention any threats by Mr.
    Ferrall, and the Complainant did not file a contemporaneous
    complaint about the threats in the September 9, 2003 broadcast or
    about any other threat against him by Mr. Ferrall. In various
    communications sent to the Commission, however, the Complainant has
    since suggested that the threats in the September 9, 2003 broadcast
    were made against him and his family.[^29] The Complainant, however,
    does not so claim in his response and supplement to his response to
    the letter of inquiry in this proceeding.[^30] The record also
    includes other statements by the Complainant acknowledging that the
    threats on September 9, 2003 were directed against someone else, and
    not him or his family.[^31]

9.  The Complainant points to the Commission's *Notice of Apparent
    Liability* ("*NAL*"), issued to WQAM for its apparent violation of
    18 U.S.C. 1464 and Section 73.3999 of the Commission's rules for
    broadcasting indecent material over Station WQAM(AM) on September 9
    and 10, 2003[^32] and argues that the *NAL* corroborates his claims
    of improper threats made at the direction of Beasley and its
    counsel. We disagree. As discussed above, the Complainant
    acknowledges that the threats were made against someone else, and
    not him or his family.

10. The Complainant also alleges that Beasley and its Washington, D.C.
    counsel have targeted him for harm in retaliation for his complaints
    to the Commission through improper conduct in the WQAM *NAL*
    proceeding.[^33] Specifically, the Complainant alleges that Beasley
    lied in its response to the *NAL* by asserting that the Complainant
    alone was responsible for the indecency complaints about the
    material aired on September 9 and 10, 2003 and then "launch\[ed\] an
    outrageous *ad hominem* false assault upon me and my
    reputation."[^34]

11. Our letter of inquiry to WQAM concerning the September 9 and 10
    broadcasts of the "Scott Ferrall Show" enclosed redacted copies of
    the complaints to omit identifying information concerning the
    complainants. Thus, it was not clear to Beasley at the time that
    both complaints had not originated with him.[^35] Beasley's response
    to the *NAL* notes this uncertainty, and for convenience, references
    a "Complainant" throughout.[^36] The Commission, by contrast, had
    copies of the original, unredacted complaints and knew the identity
    of each of the complainants in the *NAL* proceeding. Thus, Beasley
    had no motive to make misrepresentations to persuade the Commission
    that the Complainant alone was responsible for the September 9 and
    10, 2003 complaints about the "Scott Ferrall Show."[^37] For all of
    these reasons, we find no basis on which to conclude that Beasley
    made misrepresentations to the Commission.

12. In addition, we find no basis on which to conclude that Beasley and
    its counsel acted impermissibly by raising the issue of the
    Complainant's credibility in the *NAL* proceeding. The *NAL* found
    that Beasley had broadcast indecent programming on September 10,
    2003 based upon an excerpt from that broadcast submitted by the
    Complainant. The Complainant provided the excerpt based upon
    material that he claims was aired during the broadcast. This was
    consistent with the Commission's policy to accept indecency
    complaints based upon the complainant's submission of a significant
    excerpt of the broadcast. No recording or transcript of the
    broadcast was submitted with the complaint, and Beasley did not have
    a recording of the broadcast. Under these circumstances, Beasley
    presented arguments in response to the *NAL* that the Complainant's
    conduct in other proceedings demonstrates that he is not credible.
    Contrary to the Complainant's assertions, Beasley's arguments are
    not impermissible and do not constitute abusive conduct calculated
    to intimidate him. Moreover, the Complainant's assertion that
    Beasley's *NAL* response contains only attacks against him and no
    other substantive arguments is incorrect.[^38]

13. The Complainant also states that Mr. Ferrall threatened to have him
    beaten during a broadcast on Station WQAM(AM) on October 2,
    2003.[^39] The Complainant did not file a contemporaneous complaint
    about this threat. After we sent our letter of inquiry to the
    Complainant in this proceeding, however, he alleged for the first
    time that during the October 2, 2003 broadcast on WQAM(AM), Mr.
    Ferrall made additional threats that were directed at him. First,
    the Complainant alleges that Mr. Ferrall used the phrase "homo
    nation" and then said "How'd you like that one, Jack?"[^40] This
    comment, however, does not constitute a threat, and even if it did,
    the Complainant presents no evidence to demonstrate that the
    substance of this comment was directed to him or that it relates to
    indecency complaints that he filed with the Commission. The
    Complainant claims that during this same broadcast, Mr. Ferrall also
    said "I'm stuffing my package down your throat," "if that guy came
    to my gig at Gate G we could have one of my listeners kill
    him."[^41] The excerpts provided by the Complainant, however, do not
    mention him by name and the Complainant does not submit any
    corroborating evidence that these threats were actually broadcast or
    directed at him. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to support a
    finding either that Mr. Ferrall made these threats or that they were
    directed toward Complainant in retaliation for filing indecency
    complaints.[^42]

14. **Allegations that Beasley's Counsel Has Filed Retaliatory Lawsuits
    Against the Complainant.** The Complainant alleges that Beasley's
    local counsel, Norman Kent, has filed civil lawsuits against him at
    the direction of Beasley as a consequence of his indecency
    complaints. Specifically, the Complainant states that Mr. Kent sent
    him a letter, dated August 24, 2004, threatening to initiate
    complaints to the Florida Bar and lawsuits as a consequence of the
    Complainant's complaints to the Commission about broadcasts of the
    "Howard Stern Show."[^43] The record includes a copy of the letter
    that the Complainant received from Mr. Kent, on behalf of Beasley,
    which also concerns the Complainant's allegations, made in the
    Complainant's written communications to the Department of Justice
    and others, that Beasley and its General Counsel are engaged in
    criminal activity and are facilitating a criminal enterprise based
    upon the broadcast of the "Howard Stern Show" over Station
    WQAM(AM).[^44] Although Mr. Kent's letter states that such
    untruthful allegations of criminal conduct may result in a libel or
    slander suit, it also specifically states that this matter is
    separate and distinct from any complaints about Station WQAM(AM)'s
    programming and that Beasley respects the Complainant's right to
    file such complaints.[^45] The Complainant has submitted the
    complaint and amended complaint in the lawsuit that Mr. Kent, in his
    individual capacity, subsequently filed in November 2004, but these
    documents do not substantiate his claim that Mr. Kent's lawsuit was
    filed at the direction of Beasley in order to harass and intimidate
    him.[^46] Among other things, the complaint in Mr. Kent's lawsuit
    alleges that in widely disseminated written communications, the
    Complainant characterized him as a "license-suspended drug and porn
    lawyer;" a "drug lawyer who has been suspended from the practice of
    law," when in fact, Mr. Kent was apparently at the time a member of
    the Florida Bar in good standing; and accused Mr. Kent of other
    criminal misconduct, including extortion and tax evasion.[^47]

15. The Complainant also alleges that Beasley and Kent made material
    misrepresentations by stating that Beasley did not know about the
    November 2004 lawsuit until after it was filed and that Beasley
    impermissibly removed information concerning its prior knowledge of
    this lawsuit from the public inspection file for Station
    WQAM(AM).[^48] The Complainant alleges that he found in Station
    WQAM(AM)'s public file ineffectively redacted e-mail correspondence
    sent between Mr. Kent and Beasley's in-house counsel prior to the
    lawsuit's filing that apprised Beasley of Mr. Kent's decision to
    file a defamation suit against the Complainant. However, Mr. Kent's
    representations concerning whether or not Beasley knew of this
    lawsuit were made to the Complainant and his counsel and not to the
    Commission.[^49] Moreover, Mr. Kent claims that this was only an
    "informal e-mail" advising Beasley that he was contemplating the
    litigation, in order to inform Beasley that if he initiated the
    suit, it could generate a conflict that might affect his ability to
    represent Beasley.[^50] This e-mail was a redacted, privileged
    communication not required to be placed in WQAM(AM)'s public
    inspection file but apparently was placed there by mistake.[^51]
    Under these circumstances, there is no merit to the Complainant's
    argument that it was improperly removed from the public file.[^52]
    Although Section 73.3526(e)(10) of the Commission's rules requires
    retention of documents having a substantial bearing on a Commission
    investigation or complaint, this rule provision is not applicable to
    the e-mail correspondence between Beasley and Mr. Kent. As discussed
    above, the record does not substantiate the Complainant's
    allegations that Mr. Kent's lawsuit was filed at the direction of
    Beasley in order to threaten or intimidate him. Under these
    circumstances, the e-mail communication about Mr. Kent's lawsuit,
    filed on his own behalf, is not a document having a substantial
    bearing on the complaint or the investigation at issue here.[^53]

16. Thus, even if it is true that Beasley was aware of Mr. Kent's
    intention to sue the Complainant in November 2004, prior to the
    filing of the lawsuit, the record as a whole does not support a
    finding that Beasley acted improperly with regard to matters raised
    in Mr. Kent's August 24, 2004 correspondence or with regard to the
    November 2004 lawsuit that Mr. Kent filed against the Complainant.
    Therefore, there is insufficient evidence that this lawsuit was
    conducted by or on behalf of Beasley to dissuade Complainant to
    continue involvement in the complaint proceedings.

17. The Complainant also alleges that Mr. Kent has filed another
    lawsuit, and "is suing me, in his Beasley-related lawsuit for
    suggesting he consumes drugs illegally"[^54] and that this lawsuit
    seeks money damages against him for letters that he sent to the
    Florida Bar to defend himself against bar complaints filed by
    Beasley.[^55] This lawsuit was apparently filed sometime between
    February and May, 2006, and although the Complainant claims that the
    complaint in this lawsuit links it to Beasley, there is no evidence
    in the record to substantiate this claim or the Complainant's
    assertion that it is "a proxy harassment device for Beasley."[^56]
    In this regard, the fact that the complaint in this 2006 lawsuit may
    include one or more of the Complainant's communications to the
    Commission, without more, is insufficient to demonstrate improper or
    abusive conduct against the Complainant.[^57]

18. In fact, there is no evidence that Beasley has pursued any
    defamation action or other lawsuit against the Complainant. In
    addition, the record does not include documentation to substantiate
    the Complainant's allegations that the lawsuits, filed by Mr. Kent
    in his individual capacity, were brought on behalf of, or at the
    direction of, Beasley. Indeed, the Complainant's response to our
    letter of inquiry specifically requested that the Commission
    withhold a decision on his allegations at least until discovery had
    been concluded in Kent's first lawsuit, in "anticipation of
    \[evidence\] finding that "Beasley was in on the intimidation up to
    its eyeballs."[^58] The Complainant made additional filings with
    similar requests that action be withheld in anticipation that he
    would make filings to substantiate his claims.[^59] The Complainant
    has never submitted any evidence sufficient to substantiate his
    claims. On the other hand, the record contains Mr. Kent's statements
    that these civil suits were filed in his individual capacity and not
    on behalf of or at the direction of Beasley.[^60]

19. **Allegations that Beasley and its Counsel Have Improperly Filed
    Complaints Against The Complainant with the Florida Bar.** The
    Complainant alleges that Mr. Kent and attorneys at the law firm Tew
    Cardenas, LLP ("Tew Cardenas"), who also represent Beasley, have
    filed complaints against him with the Florida Bar on behalf of
    Beasley as part of a pattern of harassment and intimidation.[^61]
    The Complainant, however, has failed to provide the requisite
    evidence or documentation to support these allegations.

20. The Complainant alleges that Mr. Kent filed bar complaints on behalf
    of Beasley in an effort to persuade him to drop his complaints to
    the Commission.[^62] The Complainant submitted a copy of one of the
    bar complaints with his response to our letter of inquiry. This bar
    complaint specifically states that it is not related to the
    Complainant's pending indecency complaints, and acknowledges that
    the Complainant has the right to protest WQAM(AM)'s programming by
    communicating with the Commission about Station WQAM(AM)'s
    programming and states that Beasley is not in any way asking,
    seeking or attempting to inhibit the Complainant's rights to file
    complaints with the Commission.[^63] Rather, the bar complaint
    states that it was submitted as a result of the Complainant's
    dissemination of allegedly false and misleading information and
    misrepresentations that Beasley is involved in criminal activity,
    including extortion and racketeering, and that its General Counsel
    is facilitating a criminal enterprise, which are alleged violations
    of the Florida Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct.[^64] In
    addition, this bar complaint alleges that the Complainant's direct
    contact with Beasley officers and directors was improper and
    violated the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct with respect to
    communication with individuals represented by counsel.[^65] The
    Complainant also alleges that Mr. Kent has filed other retaliatory
    complaints against him with the Florida Bar, but has not submitted
    sufficient details concerning these complaints or evidence to
    corroborate his allegation that these complaints were filed as a
    consequence of the pending indecency complaints that he has filed
    against Beasley.[^66]

21. In addition, the Complainant alleges that attorneys at Tew Cardenas
    have filed complaints with the Florida Bar, including a complaint
    that he improperly disclosed the contents of the redacted document
    that he found in the WQAM(AM) public file and a complaint that he
    has falsely stated that Beasley is connected to the porn
    industry.[^67] In support of his assertion that these bar complaints
    were improperly brought against him, the Complainant submits an
    affidavit executed by a Beasley principal affirming that there is
    true, correct and complete information in bar complaints filed by
    Mr. Kent and Tew Cardenas. [^68] In addition, the Complainant has
    submitted a letter sent to the Florida Bar by Tew Cardenas stating
    that the affidavit relates to bar complaints filed on behalf of
    Beasley.[^69] The Complainant argues that this documentation is
    sufficient to demonstrate that the bar complaints were filed on
    behalf of Beasley and constitute impermissible harassment. The
    Complainant further asserts that Beasley and its counsel committed
    perjury by submitting affidavits to the Florida Bar that the
    Complainant had lied by suggesting that there is a link between
    Beasley and the porn industry.[^70] The fact that bar complaints
    were filed on behalf of Beasley is not sufficient to demonstrate any
    impermissible conduct by Beasley or its counsel. Moreover, there is
    no evidence to suggest that Beasley or its counsel's comments to the
    Florida Bar concerning the Complainant's characterization of Beasley
    constituted perjury. The record as a whole does not demonstrate that
    Beasley has filed bar complaints improperly in order to harass and
    intimidate the Complainant and thus dissuade him from filing
    indecency complaints with the Commission.

22. The Complainant asserts in a filing submitted on January 22, 2007,
    that he has received "written assurance from The Florida Bar that
    ALL of Kent's Bar complaints are going to be dismissed" and that the
    bar's outside investigator has found no basis for the Tew Cardenas
    bar complaints, which have been dismissed.[^71] The Complainant also
    argues that the dismissal of the bar complaint concerning his
    statements that Beasley is linked to the porn industry is probative
    of an improper motive on Beasley's part to harass and intimidate
    him.

23. Beasley, however, has submitted the Florida Bar's Complaint that was
    filed against the Complainant in the Florida Supreme Court on
    January 18, 2007.[^72] Beasley further argues that on the same day
    that Complainant made representations to the Commission concerning
    the dismissal of the bar complaints filed by Beasley and its
    counsel, he also filed suit against the Florida Bar and would not
    have done so if the bar complaints had been dismissed.[^73] Under
    these circumstances, Beasley argues that the Complainant made
    deliberate misrepresentations to the Commission concerning the
    status of the Florida disciplinary proceedings against him.[^74]

24. The Florida Bar Complaint as filed on January 18, 2007, included
    counts relating to bar complaints in which the Complainant alleges
    that Beasley and its counsel have committed perjury and which relate
    to the Complainant's statements that Beasley has engaged in criminal
    conduct and has links to the porn industry.[^75] Consequently,
    contrary to the Complainant's representations otherwise, it appears
    that the Complainant initially misstated that the complaints filed
    by Beasley and its counsel had been dismissed, and in fact, the
    Complainant's subsequent filings appear to acknowledge that these
    complaints had not been dismissed at the time he represented that
    they had been.[^76] Nevertheless, it appears that subsequent to the
    Complainant's January 22, 2007 filing, one of the bar complaints was
    voluntarily dismissed. The Complainant states that on February 20,
    2007, he received a letter from the Florida Bar indicating that a
    "voluntary dismissal with prejudice" of Mr. Kent's complaint had
    been filed in the disciplinary proceeding against him.[^77] In
    addition, Mr. Kent has provided the Commission with a copy of a
    letter that he sent to the Florida Bar on February 12, 2007,
    authorizing the Bar to delete from the Florida Bar Complaint matters
    related to complaints that he had filed on his own behalf.[^78] The
    Complainant has not submitted documentation concerning the dismissal
    of this complaint to support his assertion that this dismissal
    constitutes a finding by the Florida Bar that this bar complaint was
    without merit.[^79] In any event, the Florida Bar Complaint includes
    an additional count related to the bar complaints filed by Tew
    Cardenas on behalf of Beasley and there is no indication that these
    have been dismissed.[^80] Moreover, the record as a whole does not
    support a finding that the bar complaints filed by Beasley or its
    counsel constitute unnecessary or abusive conduct calculated to
    dissuade the Complainant from pursuing indecency complaints against
    Station WQAM(AM). Finally, although we are concerned that the
    Complainant may have made inaccurate statements concerning the
    status of the bar complaints in his January 22, 2007 filing, we find
    that there is insufficient evidence in the record, in light of the
    timing of the filing of the Florida Bar Complaint, on January 18,
    2007, to find that the Complainant deliberately misled the
    Commission.

25. **The Complainant's Other Allegations Concerning Threats, Including
    Threats of Physical Violence.** The Complainant also alleges that in
    addition to the threats against him by Scott Ferrall discussed
    above, threats against him have been made by other Station WQAM(AM)
    on-air program hosts and others against both him and one of his
    clients and that Beasley is responsible for, orchestrated and
    encouraged such threats. There is no credible evidence to
    corroborate these allegations.

26. Excerpts submitted by the Complainant with respect to other alleged
    threats made by Station WQAM(AM) on-air host Hank Goldberg do not
    mention him by name and the Complainant has not submitted
    corroborating evidence that they were actually broadcast.[^81]
    Moreover, even assuming that these excerpts provide an accurate
    account of statements actually made by Mr. Goldberg, there is no
    evidence that these comments were uttered because the Complainant
    had filed indecency complaints against the station.[^82] The
    Complainant himself states that the remarks were made after he
    reported Mr. Goldberg to the Internal Revenue Service for alleged
    tax evasion.[^83] These alleged remarks, even if they were
    broadcast, appear to have been "off the cuff" comments more
    appropriately characterized as a display of bad temper rather than a
    calculated effort to harass or intimidate.[^84]

27. The Complainant also claims that "Joey Boots," a "regular on the
    "Howard Stern Show" left a message on his answering machine
    expressing the wish that his "entire family die of cancer."[^85]
    There is no documentation in the record to substantiate that this
    threat was made, and utterly no support for a finding that the
    alleged threat was made at the behest of Beasley or its counsel.
    Indeed, the Complainant does not specifically claim that Beasley or
    its counsel were responsible for this threat,

28. The Complainant further alleges that on March 11, 2005, Station
    WQAM(AM) on-air host Neil Rogers violated a "December 2003
    Agreement" between Rogers and the Complainant that Rogers would not
    "refer to him on the air, given his long history of targeting me for
    harm on his show."[^86] Beasley is not a party to the 2003
    Agreement, and although the Complainant submitted a copy of that
    agreement, he did not submit any evidence that it had been approved
    by a court.[^87] The record also contains the Complainant's
    statements disavowing the 2003 Agreement because it never received
    judicial approval.[^88] In any event, it is impossible to determine
    from the Complainant's submissions the exact nature of Mr. Rogers'
    on-air comments because the record does not include an excerpt or
    summary of the broadcast, and thus whether they were threats of
    reprisal or other unnecessary and abusive conduct.[^89] The comments
    appear to have been made after the Complainant's appearance on "*60
    Minutes*" and may have included the comment "\[a\] nemesis of my
    lawyer (referring to Mr. Kent) was on national television last
    night" without mentioning the Complainant by name.[^90] The
    Complainant contends that he and his attorney warned Beasley and its
    counsel, in writing, that Rogers "was building to a meltdown on the
    air in which he was apparently going to go after me," and that
    Beasley's failure to prevent Rogers from violating the December 2003
    Agreement was calculated to generate even more harassment of
    him.[^91] The Complainant's own submissions, however, suggest that
    Beasley may have deleted any on-air references that Rogers made
    about him.[^92] In any event, the record does not support a finding
    that the comments were related to indecency complaints. Thus, there
    is insufficient evidence in the record on which to conclude that
    Rogers' comments were threats or that Beasley acted improperly.

29. The Complainant nevertheless alleges that Mr. Kent has brought an
    action against him in a Florida court, seeking to have him jailed on
    contempt charges for violating the agreement between him and Mr.
    Rogers.[^93] The record indicates that Mr. Rogers sought to enforce
    a 1989 settlement agreement among himself, the Complainant and other
    parties unrelated to Beasley.[^94] The Complainant concedes that the
    1989 settlement agreement has nothing to do with Beasley or Station
    WQAM(AM), but nevertheless argues that the contempt action
    constitutes harassment and intimidation because "Beasley's
    designated hitter \[is\] trying to have me thrown in jail for
    violating an agreement which I did not violate and which excludes
    \[a contempt\] remedy even if I did!"[^95]

30. The 1989 settlement agreement apparently resolved civil lawsuits
    between the Complainant and Mr. Rogers and between the Complainant
    and another individual that arose during a time when Mr. Rogers was
    the on-air host for another station, and not WQAM(AM). Beasley was
    not a party to the 1989 agreement, and it is specific to another
    Commission licensee and its radio stations.[^96] The Complainant
    apparently received consideration for agreeing to settle the matter,
    and the settlement included, among other things, the Complainant's
    agreement not to file complaints, including indecency complaints,
    against the licensee that was a party to the 1989 settlement
    agreement.[^97] Thus, although the Complainant suggests that the
    purpose of the 1989 settlement agreement is to stop him from filing
    indecency complaints with the Commission regarding Neil Rogers, the
    1989 settlement agreement does not involve Beasley or its stations
    and does not appear to prohibit the Complainant from filing
    indecency or other complaints against Beasley or any of its
    stations. It is not clear from the record whether Beasley knew about
    Mr. Rogers's action to enforce the 1989 settlement agreement before
    it was filed and there is no evidence that Beasley had any
    involvement in Rogers's suit to enforce it.[^98]

31. We note that the Complainant states that he has filed an action in
    federal court for a declaratory judgment that the 1989 settlement
    agreement is void and contrary to public policy. The Complainant
    apparently voluntarily entered into the 1989 settlement agreement
    and received consideration for doing so, but now apparently seeks to
    have the agreement set aside because it would prevent him from
    petitioning the government for redress of his grievances.[^99]
    Although we generally would have concerns about a private
    contractual agreement which includes terms prohibiting the filing of
    complaints about matters within the Commission's regulatory
    jurisdiction, we need not reach this issue here because Beasley was
    not a party to the 1989 settlement agreement and is not bound by it.
    Moreover, we decline to find that Tew Cardenas' participation in the
    Complainant's federal declaratory judgment action by entering an
    appearance or attending hearings in that matter demonstrates any
    improper action to intimidate or harass the Complainant.[^100] Mr.
    Rogers is now an on-air personality for Beasley's Station WQAM(AM),
    and Beasley would appear to have a legitimate interest in litigation
    that involves Mr. Rogers. The participation of Beasley's counsel in
    this matter, standing alone, does not amount to credible evidence
    substantiating the Complainant's allegations of misconduct. Based
    upon the record as a whole, there is insufficient evidence to
    support a finding that Beasley or its counsel engaged in
    intimidation or abuse based on Mr. Rogers' on-air comments or the
    action to enforce the 1989 settlement agreement.

32. The Complainant also alleges that Beasley and its counsel are now
    harassing one of his clients, who is a former employee of Tew
    Cardenas. Specifically, the Complainant states that this former
    employee was wrongfully fired and that an attorney at Tew Cardenas
    has harassed her as a result of her decision to engage the
    Complainant as counsel in her wrongful termination action, citing
    his involvement in the Beasley matters.[^101] In addition, the
    Complainant has submitted his client's statement, including a
    declaration under penalty of perjury, that "Tew Cardenas is
    harassing \[her\] to retaliate against \[the Complainant\] to
    directly serve the interest of Beasley Broadcast Group as it deals
    with its FCC-related problems."[^102] The client further states that
    she has learned that Tew Cardenas claims that the Complainant is
    representing her to pursue a vendetta against the firm and disavows
    this claim.[^103] In addition, the client states that "Tew Cardenas
    and Beasley are together pursuing their own vendetta against \[the
    Complainant\] because of his efforts to stop the illegal airing of
    indecent material on Beasley's WQAM-AM."[^104]

33. We find that the Complainant's allegations and the submission of his
    client's declaration are insufficient to demonstrate any improper
    conduct on the part of Beasley or its counsel with respect to
    matters within the Commission's regulatory jurisdiction. The
    Complainant's client appears to be pursuing a wrongful termination
    action against Tew Cardenas and this matter is completely unrelated
    to Beasley or indecency complaints filed against it. The client does
    not provide any basis for her assertion that Tew Cardenas is
    threatening her in an effort to dissuade the Complainant's continued
    participation in these complaint proceedings.

34. **Conclusion.** As set forth above, we find that the Complainant has
    failed to present evidence sufficient to demonstrate that Beasley
    has engaged in intimidation or abuse. The Complainant's allegations
    are therefore without merit.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

35. **ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED,** pursuant to authority delegated in
    Section 0.311 of the Commission's rules,[^105] that the Formal
    Complaint against The Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc. filed by John B.
    Thompson, EB-04-IH-0661, **IS HEREBY DENIED.**

36. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,** that a copy of this *Memorandum Opinion
    and Order* shall be sent by Certified Mail to John B. Thompson,
    Esquire and to The Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc., 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, and to Norman Elliot Kent, Esquire, Law Offices of
    Kent and Cormican, P.A., 800 East Broward Boulevard, Fort
    Lauderdale, Florida 33301.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Kris Anne Monteith

    Chief, Enforcement Bureau

#   {#section .unnumbered}

[^1]: *See* Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Michael K.
    Powell, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, dated November
    27, 2004 ("*Complaint*").

[^2]: *See* 18 U.S.C. § 1464, 47 C.F.R. § 73.3999**.** We have not
    addressed the Complainant's indecency complaints here, but will
    consider them separately.

[^3]: *Complaint* at 6-7.

[^4]: *See* Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Michael K.
    Powell, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, dated December
    14, 2004.

[^5]: *See* Letter from William D. Freedman, Deputy Chief,
    Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, to John B.
    Thompson, Esquire, dated December 15, 2004 ("*Thompson LOI*").

[^6]: *See* 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 Response*").

[^7]: The Addenda filed are: Letters from John B. Thompson, Attorney at
    Law, to William D. Freedman, Deputy Chief, Investigations and
    Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, dated January 6, 7, 10, 11,
    12, 13, 20 and 30, 2005. Letters from John B. Thompson, Attorney at
    Law to Michael K. Powell, Chairman, Federal Communications
    Commission, dated January 10, February 7, 8, and 19, 2005; Letters
    from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Commissioners Kathleen Q.
    Abernathy, Michael J. Copps, Kevin J. Martin and Jonathan S.
    Adelstein, dated March 11, 15, 18, 23, and 30, 2005; Letters from
    John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Chairman Kevin J. Martin,
    dated April 27, July 13, and 20, 2005. There were two Addenda
    pleadings filed January 10, 2005, one at 4:13 p.m. and one at 6:48
    p.m.

[^8]: *See* Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Chairman
    Kevin J. Martin, Federal Communications Commission, dated January
    22, 2007 ("*Thompson Supplement to LOI Response*").

[^9]: *See* Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Kevin J.
    Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, dated February
    1, 2007 (Re: Addendum to **[*Sworn*]{.underline}** Statement As to
    Ongoing, Illegal Harassment of Jack Thompson by Beasley and Its
    Lawyers).

[^10]: Nor have we received a signed declaration under penalty of
    perjury that the Complainant references in a letter filed with the
    Commission on February 5, 2007. Letter from John B. Thompson,
    Attorney at Law, to Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, Federal
    Communications Commission, dated February 5, 2007 (Re:
    ***[Sworn]{.underline}*** Response to Beasley Attorney Norm Kent's
    February 2, 2007 Letter to the Commission Regarding the Ongoing,
    Illegal Harassment of Jack Thompson and Its Lawyers). This letter
    was submitted via E-mail and does not indicate that the original was
    being submitted via U.S. mail.

[^11]: *See* 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*").

[^12]: *See* 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 March 11, 2005
    ("*Supplemental Reply to Thompson Complaint* ").

[^13]: *See* 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 December 16, 2005
    ("*Second Supplemental Reply to Thompson Complaint* ").

[^14]: *See* 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 April 14, 2006 ("*Third
    Supplemental Reply to Thompson Complaint* ").

[^15]: *See* Letter from Steven A. Lerman, Esquire, Dennis P. Corbett,
    Esquire, and David S. Keir, Esquire, Counsel for The Beasley
    Broadcast Group, Inc., to Melanie Godschall, Investigations and
    Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, dated February 12, 2007
    ("*Further Reply*").

[^16]: *See Supplemental Reply to Thompson Complaint.*

[^17]: We defer action on Beasley's abuse of process complaint.

[^18]: *See Further Reply* at 4-6 and Attachment 3.

[^19]: *See Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc.,* Notice of
    Apparent Liability, 19 FCC Rcd 1768, 1777, ¶15 (2004) (forfeiture
    paid).

[^20]: *Id.*

[^21]: *See* Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Kevin J.
    Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, dated July 26,
    2006.

[^22]: *See, e.g.*, "Immediate News Release 4/6/05 - Howard Stern to
    Face Criminal Prosecution?" ("Miami attorney Jack Thompson, who
    knocked Howard Stern off all Clear Channel radio stations in
    February 2004 and also secured \$500,000 in FCC fines against the
    Stern show, has been calling upon the FCC for a year to refer all
    findings of indecency to the Justice Department for criminal
    prosecution. It appears that Howard Stern himself now knows that
    that is a possibility. Thompson intends to bring a writ of mandamus
    action to compel such criminal referrals to Justice if they are not
    forthcoming. One set of potential criminal defendants would be
    corporate officials at Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc. of Naples,
    Florida, for its continued airing of *Stern* despite FCC decency
    fines in 2000 and numerous pending investigations.")*;* "Immediate
    News Release 6/03/05 -- GOP Bush Insider Caught in Web of Porn and
    Perjury (referring to "GOP donor Beasley Broadcast Group" and its
    counsel Tew Cardenas).

[^23]: *See* Letter from John B. Thompson, Esquire, to Al Lawn, Legal
    Counsel, Talk America, dated September 21, 2004 Re: Criminal
    Activity by Beasley Broadcasting ("Beasley Broadcasting is indeed
    engaged in certain criminal activity. They are violating 18 U.S.C.
    1464"), copied via E-mail to William D. Freedman, Deputy Chief,
    Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, December
    14, 2004.

[^24]: *See, e.g.,* E-mail from Jack Thompson, Esquire to Kevin Martin,
    Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, dated May 5, 2005,
    subject "This is how you stop a criminal enterprise at a radio
    station." Letter from John B. Thompson, Esquire, to The Honorable
    Jeb Bush, Governor, State of Florida, dated May 4, 2005
    (characterizing Beasley as a "criminal enterprise that has
    distributed pornography to children in multiple counties in
    Florida), copied via E-mail to Kevin Martin, Chairman, Federal
    Communications Commission, May 4, 2005.

[^25]: *See, e.g.,* Letter from John B. Thompson, Esquire, to The
    Honorable Jeb Bush, dated March 24, 2005 ("There is plenty of
    evidence to prove the distribution of pornography by \[Beasley\] to
    children and \[its law firm's\] facilitation of that criminal
    activity"), copied via E-mail to Michael Copps, Commissioner,
    Federal Communications Commission, March 24, 2005; Letter from John
    B. Thompson, Esquire, to The Honorable Jeb Bush, dated March 31,
    2005 ("Attached hereto is my letter of March 24, 2005 asking that
    you direct the Statewide Prosecutor to investigate the multi-county
    criminal activity of Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc. of Naples,
    Florida. This criminal activity includes the distribution of
    indecent material to minors and extortion of those opposed to it.");
    Letter from John B. Thompson, Esquire, to The Honorable Don Hunter,
    Collier County Sheriff, re: Criminal Activity in Collier County by
    Naples, Florida Corporation Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc. and its
    Corporate Officers and Directors, copied via E-mail to Commissioners
    Kevin Martin, Michael Copps, Kathleen Abernathy and Jonathan
    Adelstein, September 8, 2005 ("\[I\]t is my legal opinion that
    Beasley has been engaged and is still engaged, in violation of state
    criminal laws, specifically but not exhaustively in racketeering,
    extortion, assault, distributing sexual material to minors,
    obstruction of justice and perjury."). *See also,* nn. 23 and 24,
    *supra.*

[^26]: *Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast
    Licensing,* Report, Order and Policy Statement, 102 FCC 2d 1179,
    1196-98 ¶ 37 (1986), *recon. denied,* 1 FCC Rcd 421 (1986), *appeal
    dismissed sub nom. National Association for Better Broadcasting v.
    FCC,* No. 86-1179 (D.C. Cir. Jun. 11, 1987) ("*Character Policy
    Statement*"). *See also Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in
    Broadcast Licensing, Amendment of Part 1, the Rules of Practice and
    Procedure, Relating to Written Responses to Commission Inquiries and
    the Making of Misrepresentation to the Commission by Applicants,
    Permittees, and Licensees, and the Reporting of Information
    Regarding Character Qualifications*, Policy Statement and Order, 5
    FCC Rcd 3252, ¶ 5 (1990), *recon. on other grounds,* 6 FCC Rcd 3448
    (1991), *modified on other grounds,* 7 FCC Rcd 6564 (1992) ("*1990
    Modifications of Character Policy Statement").*

[^27]: The complaint includes allegations that Mr. Ferrall stated that
    he would "stuff his package into the caller's wife's mouth," that he
    would "do her daily," and get his girlfriend to do her. In addition,
    the complaint stated that Mr. Ferrall said he would assault the
    caller's wife and kill his children. *See* Complaint filed against
    Station WQAM(AM), September 9, 2003. As the Complainant
    acknowledges, he did not file this complaint.

[^28]: Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Maureen Del
    Luca, Chief, Investigations & Hearings Division, Federal
    Communications Commission, dated September 15, 2003.

[^29]: *See* Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to The
    Honorable Marcos D. Jimenez, United States Attorney, Southern
    District of Florida, dated November 25, 2004, at 2, and copied on
    the Commission.

[^30]: *See Thompson Response* at 3-4; *Thompson Supplement to LOI
    Response* at 4.

[^31]: *See, e.g.,* Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to
    Mr. Bruce Taylor, Senior Counsel, Criminal Division, United States
    Department of Justice, dated May 11, 2005 at 2, copied via E-mail to
    Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, May
    11, 2005; Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to The
    Chief Justice and Justices of the Supreme Court of Florida, The
    President, Florida Bar, All Governors of the Florida Bar, dated June
    2, 2005 at 2, copied via E-mail to Kevin J. Martin, Chairman,
    Federal Communications Commission, June 2, 2005; Letter from John B.
    Thompson, Attorney at Law to George Beasley and Caroline Beasley,
    Beasley Broadcast Group, dated August 10, 2006, copied via E-mail to
    Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, August
    10, 2006.

[^32]: *See WQAM License Limited Partnership,* Notice of Apparent
    Liability for Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 22997, 23001 ¶9 (2004)
    (response pending).

[^33]: *See Thompson Supplement to LOI Response* at 5-6.

[^34]: *See id.* at 6.

[^35]: *See* Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Michael
    K. Powell, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, dated
    November 24, 2004 ("I appreciate more than you may know the
    Commission's proposed fines, reported yesterday against Beasley
    Broadcasting for the airing of indecent material on its WQAM-AM. As
    you know, I was the complainant."); *Complaint* at 3 ("Of all the
    citizen complaints filed with the FCC, only mine resulted last week
    in a Forfeiture Order.").

[^36]: *See* Response to Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
    filed by Steven A. Lerman, Esquire, Dennis P. Corbett, Esquire, and
    David S. Keir, Esquire, counsel for Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc.,
    dated January 10, 2005 ("*NAL Response*") at 2, n.3.

[^37]: In fact, even after Beasley had filed its response to the WQAM
    *NAL,* the Complainant continued to assert that he filed both
    complaints at issue in the WQAM *NAL.* E-mail to Michael Powell,
    Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, dated January 14, 2005
    at 6:50 a.m., attaching a letter to The Honorable Conrad Burns,
    Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications, Senate Commerce Committee,
    dated January 14, 2005, at 2 ("I was the FCC complainant in those
    two actions as well.").

[^38]: *See Thompson Supplement to LOI Response* at 6, 16-17. *See NAL
    Response* at 15-69.

[^39]: *See Thompson Response* at 3-4.

[^40]: *Id.* at 3, referencing an October 2, 2003 broadcast.

[^41]: *Id.* at 3-4. Other comments that the Complainant alleges were
    made by Mr. Ferrall during this broadcast, namely, "I told him that
    his wife was a f---ing whore," calling him a "tea-totaling fag," and
    a "house whore" do not constitute threats. Again, these excerpts do
    not suggest that Mr. Ferrall mentioned the Complainant by name.

[^42]: *See Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc.,* 19 FCC Rcd at
    1777 ¶ 15. The Complainant also alleges that "there is more that
    Beasley did to me because of the Ferrall episode, such as the on-air
    statement by his board operator that they sent me pornography to my
    e-mail address which in fact I got instantly and as another layer of
    harassment." *See Thompson Supplement to LOI Response* at 6. There
    is no documentation in the record to support this allegation, and
    even if there were there is nothing to suggest that Beasley was
    aware of or directed that this e-mail be sent or that it was in
    response to the Complainant's indecency filings.

[^43]: *See Thompson Response* at 4, Exhibit B; *Thompson Supplement to
    LOI Response* at 8.

[^44]: *See Thompson Response,* Exhibit B.

[^45]: *See id*.

[^46]: *See Norman Elliot Kent v. John Bruce Thompson,* Case No.
    04-18643, Circuit Court of the 17^th^ Judicial Circuit, Broward
    County, Florida. *See Thompson Response,* Exhibits G and H, which
    contain incomplete copies of the complaint and amended complaint
    filed by Mr. Kent. The Complainant apparently has entered into an
    agreement with Mr. Kent settling this matter without admitting
    liability. *See, e.g., Thompson Supplement to LOI Response*, at 9;
    Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Kevin J. Martin,
    Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, dated February 5, 2007
    at 2; Letter from Norman Elliot Kent, Esquire, to Melanie Godschall,
    Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission, dated June 14, 2006. The fact that
    Beasley's in-house counsel attended a meeting in which settlement of
    this lawsuit was discussed does not support the Complainant's
    assertion that Beasley acted improperly or directed the prosecution
    of this civil suit.

[^47]: *See Norman Elliot Kent v. John Bruce Thompson,* Case No.
    04-18643, Circuit Court of the 17^th^ Judicial Circuit, Broward
    County, Florida.

[^48]: *See Thompson Supplement to LOI Response* at 10-11. *See also,*
    Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to William D.
    Freedman, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division,
    Enforcement Bureau, dated January 20, 2005 (Intimidation
    Investigation: Beasley's Lawyer Caught in a Lie about a Material
    Fact). E-mail from Jack Thompson to Michael Powell, Chairman,
    Federal Communications Commission, dated February 7, 2005, 1:31
    p.m., Subject: More Evidence of Beasley's Ongoing Use of Mr. Kent to
    Intimidate a Citizen Complainant ("Mr. Kent then filed a \$20
    million lawsuit against me and wrote to me and my lawyer that
    'Beasley did not even know about the lawsuit until after it was
    filed.'"); Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Kevin
    J. Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, dated
    September 20, 2006 (alleging that Beasley improperly removed and
    destroyed material required to be in WQAM(AM)'s public file), Letter
    from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Kevin J. Martin,
    Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, dated February 5, 2007
    at 2.

[^49]: *See, e.g.,* Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to
    the Federal Communications Commission, the Florida Bar, The
    Securities and Exchange Commission, and others, including print and
    media outlets, including all major broadcast networks, dated January
    25, 2006 (indicating that Mr. Kent sent an e-mail to the Complainant
    and his counsel stating that Beasley did not know about his lawsuit
    until after it was filed). In addition, Mr. Kent does not represent
    Beasley in this complaint proceeding. Even if he did, we also note
    that an attorney's misconduct will not result in a finding of
    licensee misconduct where there is no evidence to demonstrate that
    the licensee authorized its counsel to engage in the misconduct or
    otherwise approved the misconduct. *See, e.g. Vodaphone AirTouch
    PLC,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 6439, 6446 n. 47
    (2005).

[^50]: *See* Letter from Norman Elliot Kent to Melanie Godschall,
    Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated
    February 1, 2005.

[^51]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.3526.

[^52]: *See Thompson Supplement to LOI Response* at 10-11; *See, e.g.,*
    Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Kevin J. Martin,
    Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, dated September 20,
    2006. The Complainant also alleges that removal of the privileged
    e-mail correspondence from the public file violates federal criminal
    obstruction of justice statutes. *Thompson Supplement to LOI
    Response* at 11.

[^53]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.3526(e)(10). *See, e.g.,* Letter from John
    B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, Federal
    Communications Commission, dated September 20, 2006.

[^54]: *Thompson Supplement to LOI Response* at 9. The record does not
    include the complaint in the 2006 lawsuit, although the Complainant
    suggests that the Commission should request a copy of the complaint
    from Mr. Kent. *See* Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law,
    to Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission,
    dated February 5, 2007 at 3.

[^55]: *See* Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Kevin J.
    Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, dated February
    5, 2007 at 3.

[^56]: *Thompson Supplement to LOI Response* at 10. *See also, id* at
    13-14.

[^57]: *See id.* at 14. *See also* Letter from John B. Thompson,
    Attorney at Law, to Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, Federal
    Communications Commission, dated February 5, 2007 at 3.

[^58]: *See Thompson Response* at 2, 9.

[^59]: *See* E-mail from Jack Thompson to Michael Powell, Chairman,
    Federal Communications Commission, dated February 7, 2005, 1:31
    p.m., Subject: More Evidence of Beasley's Ongoing Use of Mr. Kent to
    Intimidate a Citizen Complainant ("Please do not close this
    investigation of the ongoing orchestration of intimidation until we
    depose the various Beasley officers and directors. We intend to get
    to the bottom of this and to the bottom of Mr. Kent's bong.");
    Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Chairman Michael
    K. Powell, dated February 28, 2005 (requesting that investigation of
    Beasley's intimidation be kept open until such time as depositions
    of Beasley officers and directors are taken). *See also,* Letter
    from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Lawrence A. Kellogg,
    Stuart I. Grossman, and Al Cardenas, Tew Cardenas, dated February 3,
    2005 (indicating that the officers and directors of Beasley had been
    served with subpoenas for depositions in *Kent v. Thompson* and
    stating if there are motions to quash the subpoenas he will sue
    Beasley and that either way, he will file additional information
    with the Commission, "which cannot plausibly conclude its
    investigation of Beasley's on-air and off-air threats against
    \[him\] \[...\] until \[he\] find\[s\] out what the board knew and
    when it knew it. If we find in *Kent v. Thompson* that the board was
    in on all this extortionate fun with both feet, then that is very
    bad news indeed for Beasley at the FCC.") copied via E-mail to
    Michael K. Powell, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission,
    February 3, 2005.

[^60]: *See* Letter from Norman Elliot Kent to Melanie Godschall,
    Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated
    February 1, 2005; Letter from Norman Elliot Kent to Melanie
    Godschall, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
    dated June 14, 2006; Letter from Norman Elliot Kent to Melanie
    Godschall, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau,
    Federal Communications Commission, dated July 6, 2006.

[^61]: *See Thompson Response* at 5-6; *Thompson Supplement to LOI
    Response* at 8, 11-13.

[^62]: *See Thompson Response* at 5; *Thompson Supplement to LOI
    Response* at 8.

[^63]: *See Thompson Response,* Exhibit C*.*

[^64]: *See id.* The bar complaint cites the following Florida Rules of
    Professional Conduct: 4-4.1 (Truthfulness In Statements to Others),
    and 4-8.4 (Misconduct).

[^65]: *See id.* The bar complaint cites the following Florida Rule of
    Professional Conduct: 4-4.2 (Communication With Person Represented
    by Counsel).

[^66]: *See Thompson Supplement to LOI response* at 8.

[^67]: *See Thompson Supplement to LOI Response* at 11-12.

[^68]: *See* Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Kevin J.
    Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, dated July 13,
    2005 (attaching the affidavit of Caroline Beasley, Vice President
    and Chief Financial Officer of Beasley Broadcast Group) filed with
    the Florida Bar on July 12, 2005.

[^69]: *See* Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Kevin J.
    Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, dated July 20,
    2005.

[^70]: *See Thompson Supplement to LOI Response* at 13. *See also,*
    Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Kevin J. Martin,
    Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, dated December 15, 2006
    at 2.

[^71]: *Thompson Supplement to LOI Response* at 8, 12-13. The
    Complainant however, also states with respect to the Tew Cardenas
    complaints that \[a\]ll that remains of them is the assertion that I
    overreacted to the filing of the Tew Cardenas/Beasley Bar complaints
    themselves by asserting that they were baseless." *Id.* at 13.

[^72]: *See Further Reply* at Attachment 3, The Florida Bar v. John
    Bruce Thompson, Case No. SC07-80, filed January 18, 2007. ("Florida
    Bar Complaint"). *See also* Letter from Norman Elliot Kent, Esquire,
    to Melanie Godschall, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
    Commission, dated February 2, 2007, attaching the Florida Bar
    Complaint. In accordance with the Florida Bar's disciplinary
    procedures, a grievance committee has found probable cause to
    believe that certain violations of the Florida rules regulating
    attorney conduct have occurred and that discipline appears to be
    warranted, and the Florida Bar has filed a complaint with the
    Supreme Court of Florida. *See*
    <http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBConsumer.nsf>, last visited on
    February 5, 2007. The Complaint, as originally filed, included two
    counts relating to complaints concerning the Complainant's conduct
    toward Beasley and its counsel. Florida Bar Complaint at 25-35,
    Counts IV and V.

[^73]: *See Further Reply* at 4-5 and Attachment 2, *Jack Thompson v.
    The Florida Bar and The Alabama State Bar*, Case No.
    48-2007-CA-000728-0 (Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit,
    Orange County, Florida) filed January 22, 2007.

[^74]: *See id.* at 5.

[^75]: *See* Florida Bar Complaint at 27, Count V, referencing Florida
    Bar File No. 2005-71,125 (11F), in which the Complainant alleges
    perjury on the part of Beasley and its counsel. *See* n.72 *supra.*

[^76]: In addition, the Complainant has filed a mandamus action against
    the Florida Bar, *inter alia,* for failing to dismiss the bar
    complaints. The mandamus action is separate from the lawsuit that
    the Complainant filed against the Florida Bar and referenced by
    Beasley. *See* Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to the
    Chief Justice and Justices of the Supreme Court of Florida, dated
    February 5, 2007, copied via E-mail to Kevin J. Martin, Chairman,
    Federal Communication Commission, at 4:51 p.m.; E-mail from Jack
    Thompson to Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications
    Commission, dated February 6, 2007, Subject: "Filing with the
    Florida Supreme Court" attaching in the body "ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FOR
    GRANTING PETITION FOR MANDAMUS."

[^77]: *See* Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Kevin J.
    Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, dated February
    20, 2007 at 2.

[^78]: *See* Letter from Norman Elliot Kent, Esquire, to Melanie
    Godschall, Federal Communications Commission, dated March 1, 2007,
    and attaching Mr. Kent's letter, dated February 12, 2007, to Kenneth
    Marvin Director of Lawyer Regulation, The Florida Bar.

[^79]: *See* Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Kevin J.
    Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, dated February
    20, 2007 at 2. The Complainant states that this dismissal is proof
    that Florida Bar has made a finding that Mr. Kent's complaint was
    impermissibly filed in retaliation for his indecency complaints
    against Beasley and offers to provide the letter concerning the
    voluntary dismissal upon the Commission's request. As set forth
    above, it is not up to the Commission to substantiate the
    complainant's allegations.

[^80]: *See* Florida Bar Complaint at 27-35, Count V.

[^81]: The Complainant claims that on May 10, 2005, Hank Goldberg, a
    WQAM(AM) on-air host, stated that "IRS finks sometimes mess with the
    wrong person, and when they do, they wind up with no knee caps." The
    Complainant also claims that subsequent to these remarks, a regular
    caller to the show stated that "problems such as the one posed by me
    are dealt with properly 'in the hood'." Letter from John B.
    Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, Federal
    Communications Commission, dated May 10, 2005.

[^82]: *See Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc.,* 19 FCC Rcd at
    1777 ¶ 15.

[^83]: *See, e.g.,* Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to
    Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, dated
    May 10, 2005.

[^84]: *See Eagle Radio, Inc.,* 13 FCC Rcd 13869, 13871 ¶ 6 (Mass Med.
    Bur. 1998) (subsequent history omitted).

[^85]: *See* Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Steve
    Lerman, Leventhal, Senter and Lerman, PLLC dated November 29, 2005,
    copied via E-mail to Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, Federal
    Communications Commission, November 29, 2005. (The subject line of
    the E-mail is "Letter to Viacom/Infinity's Attorney Steve Lerman"
    and the letter asks for information as to the whereabouts of "Joey
    Boots.").

[^86]: *Thompson Supplement to LOI Response* at 14. Earlier
    correspondence from the Complainant to the Commission stated that
    this broadcast occurred on March 14, 2005. Letter from John B.
    Thompson to Commissioners Kathleen Q. Abernathy, Michael J. Copps,
    Kevin J. Martin, and Jonathan S. Adelstein, dated March 23, 2005 at
    2-4.

[^87]: *See* Letter from John B. Thompson to Commissioners Kathleen Q.
    Abernathy, Michael J. Copps, Kevin J. Martin, and Jonathan S.
    Adelstein, dated March 23, 2005, Attachment.

[^88]: Mr. Kent has submitted a letter he received from the Complainant
    in which the Complainant states that the 2003 Agreement is
    unenforceable and has not been approved by a court. *See* Letter
    from Norman Elliot Kent, Esquire to William Freedman, Deputy Chief,
    Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau, dated
    March 25, 2005, Attachment at Exhibits H1 and H2.

[^89]: *See Thompson Supplement to LOI Response* at 14. *See, e.g.,*
    Letter from John B. Thompson to Commissioners Kathleen Q. Abernathy,
    Michael J. Copps, Kevin J. Martin, and Jonathan S. Adelstein, dated
    March 23, 2005 at 2-4.

[^90]: *See id;* Letter from Norman Elliot Kent to William Freedman,
    Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement
    Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated March 25, 2005 at
    3.

[^91]: *Thompson Supplement to LOI Response* at 14.

[^92]: *See* Letter from John B. Thompson to Commissioners Kathleen Q.
    Abernathy, Michael J. Copps, Kevin J. Martin, and Jonathan S.
    Adelstein, dated March 23, 2005 at 2-4.

[^93]: *See Thompson Supplement to LOI Response* at 14, which alleges
    that the contempt action is based upon "a 1989 Agreement with his
    \[Mr. Kent's\] client in which I promise not to try to harm Rogers
    in any fashion with efforts against Cox Communications." Elsewhere
    in the record the Complainant claims that Mr. Rogers' contempt
    action relates to the December 2003 Agreement. *See, e.g.,* Letter
    from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law to Commissioners Kathleen Q.
    Abernathy, Michael J. Copps, Kevin J. Martin, Jonathan S. Adelstein,
    dated March 15, 2005 ("Beasley employee, Neil Rogers, has now asked
    a Florida court of law to have me held in contempt as a consequence
    of **his** \[Mr. Rogers'\] repeated violations of a December 12,
    2003 Agreement not to mention me on the air\[...\] I informed you of
    this additional harassment yesterday."). *See also,* Letter from
    John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law to Commissioners Kathleen Q.
    Abernathy, Michael J. Copps, Kevin J. Martin, Jonathan S. Adelstein,
    dated March 14, 2005 ("In light of the fact that Beasley's mid-day
    host has augmented, remarkably, the harassment today of me on
    WQAM-AM, I hereby renew my earlier written request late last year
    that the FCC revoke Beasley's WQAM license as soon as possible.").

[^94]: *See* Letter from Norman Elliot Kent, Esquire to John B.
    Thompson, dated March 16, 2005 and copied on the Commission. *See*
    Letter from Norman Elliot Kent, Esquire to William Freedman, Deputy
    Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau,
    dated March 25, 2005 attaching a Motion For a Rule to Show Cause Why
    Defendant John Thompson Should not be Held in Contempt of Court for
    Violation of a Judicial Order. The record does not include
    additional information concerning the outcome of this Motion,
    although the Complainant suggests that the matter may have been
    settled and then re-opened. *See* Letter from John B. Thompson,
    Attorney at Law, to Arlene Kalish Sankel, Chief Branch Discipline
    Counsel, The Florida Bar, dated May 24, 2005, copied via E-mail to
    Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, May
    24, 2005.

[^95]: *See Thompson Supplement to LOI Response* at 14.

[^96]: *See* Letter from Norman Elliot Kent, Esquire to William
    Freedman, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division,
    Enforcement Bureau, dated March 25, 2005 attaching a copy of the
    1989 settlement agreement.

[^97]: *See id.*

[^98]: *See* Letter from Norman Elliot Kent, Esquire to William
    Freedman, Deputy Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division,
    Enforcement Bureau, dated March 25, 2005 at 3, stating that Rogers
    has filed a motion to enforce the 1989 agreement without the
    "assistance, authorization, permission, solicitation or request of
    anyone from Beasley Broadcasting, who is in no way a party to that
    15 year litigation."

[^99]: *See Thompson Supplement to LOI Response* at 14-15.

[^100]: *See id.* at 15.

[^101]: *See* Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Kevin J.
    Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, dated February
    1, 2007 (Re: Addendum to ***Sworn*** Statement As to the On-going,
    Illegal Harassment of Jack Thompson by Beasley and Its Lawyers). The
    Complainant includes a declaration under penalty of perjury but has
    submitted this letter via E-mail and did not indicate that he has
    filed a signed declaration via U.S. mail.

[^102]: E-mail from Jack Thompson to Kevin Martin, Chairman, Federal
    Communications Commission, dated February 1, 2006 at 11:46 a.m.,
    attaching Letter from Jo Edda Rosskamp to Kevin J. Martin, Chairman,
    Federal Communications Commission, dated February 1, 2007. The
    Commission received this letter via E-mail, and has not received the
    signed declaration via U.S. mail.

[^103]: *See id.*

[^104]: *Id.*

[^105]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 0.311.