**Before the**

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

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

Memorandum Opinion and Order

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

By the Commission:

# INTRODUCTIOn

1.  The Commission has before it an Application for Review filed by
    John B. Thompson ("Mr. Thompson").[^1] Mr. Thompson requests review
    of the Enforcement Bureau's ("Bureau") *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order* ("*Bureau Order*") in the above-captioned case, which denied
    a complaint of Mr. Thompson's against Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc.
    ("Beasley"), licensee of several radio broadcast stations. The
    complaint alleged that Beasley had engaged in improper conduct by
    retaliating against Mr. Thompson for filing indecency complaints
    with the Commission against some of Beasley's radio stations.[^2]
    For the reasons set forth below, we deny the Application for Review.

# BACKGROUND

2.  Beasley is the ultimate parent of WQAM License Limited Partnership,
    licensee of Station WQAM(AM), Miami, Florida, and WRXK License
    Limited Partnership, licensee of WRXK-FM, Bonita Springs, Florida
    (collectively, "the Beasley Stations"). Mr. Thompson has filed
    complaints against the Beasley Stations alleging violations of the
    federal restrictions regarding the broadcast of indecent and profane
    material.[^3] Mr. Thompson also filed a complaint alleging that
    Beasley and its counsel had engaged in threats, abuse and
    intimidation against him in retaliation for filing the indecency
    complaints.[^4] The Bureau issued a letter of inquiry to Mr.
    Thompson directing him to produce all documents providing the basis
    for, or supporting, his allegations that Beasley had engaged in
    improper conduct.[^5] Mr. Thompson filed a response to the Bureau's
    letter of inquiry and later filed numerous addenda and supplements
    to his response, as well as additional e-mails concerning his
    complaint and other matters.[^6] Mr. Thompson alleged, among other
    things, that: (1) on air-personalities at Station WQAM(AM) made
    threats against him and his client at Beasley's direction; (2) that
    material at issue in the Commission's *Notice of Apparent Liability*
    issued against Beasley for airing indecent material on Station
    WQAM(AM) ("*WQAM* *NAL*")[^7] contains threats and corroborates his
    claims that Beasley has engaged in impermissible conduct to
    retaliate against him for filing indecency complaints; (3) Beasley's
    agent and attorney, Norman Kent, has filed lawsuits and a contempt
    of court proceeding against him at Beasley's direction in order to
    harass, target and intimidate him; and (4) Beasley and its counsel
    have improperly filed complaints against him with the Florida
    Bar.[^8]

3.  Beasley denied Mr. Thompson's allegations that it had engaged in
    improper conduct in response to his indecency complaint filings.[^9]
    Beasley asserted that it had not contested or interfered with Mr.
    Thompson's right to file complaints with the Commission and that Mr.
    Thompson had not submitted any evidence to substantiate or
    corroborate his claims.[^10] Beasley also argued that Mr. Thompson's
    own conduct demonstrates that he has abused the Commission's
    processes and should be sanctioned.[^11] Specifically, Beasley
    pointed to what it characterized as the repetitious and irrelevant
    filings of Mr. Thompson. Beasley also argued that Mr. Thompson made
    significant misrepresentations in those filings, including
    unsubstantiated, false allegations that Beasley and its counsel have
    engaged in a range of criminal misconduct.[^12] Beasley further
    contended that Mr. Thompson has been sanctioned for similar
    misconduct in an Alabama state court proceeding[^13] and that the
    Florida Bar has initiated disciplinary proceedings against him in a
    multiple count complaint that includes allegations of misconduct
    brought not only by Beasley and its counsel but also by other
    attorneys and the judge in the Alabama state court proceeding.[^14]

4.  As reflected in the *Bureau Order*, the Enforcement Bureau addressed
    each of Mr. Thompson's allegations in accordance with Commission
    precedent. That precedent requires a complainant to submit
    corroborating evidence to demonstrate that a licensee engaged in
    threats of reprisals or other unnecessary and abusive conduct
    reasonably calculated to dissuade the complainant from continued
    involvement in a proceeding. The Bureau found that, during the
    pendency of its investigation of Mr. Thompson's complaint, while he
    informed the Commission that he expected to submit documentation to
    support his allegations and requested that action on his complaint
    be withheld until he did so, no documentation was ultimately
    submitted.[^15] The Bureau ruled that, as a consequence of Mr.
    Thompson's failure to submit documentation to support his
    allegations, he failed to meet his evidentiary burden to
    substantiate his claims that Beasley and its counsel had acted
    improperly; thus, there was no basis on which to conclude that
    Beasley had improperly threatened, abused or harassed Mr. Thompson
    in retaliation for his complaints against the Beasley Stations.

5.  More specifically, the Bureau found that although the *WQAM NAL*
    found that certain material aired over Beasley's station apparently
    violated the restrictions on the airing of indecent material,[^16]
    because Mr. Thompson's filings acknowledged that threats contained
    within the apparently indecent material were made against someone
    else, and not him or his family, this indecency determination did
    not corroborate Mr. Thompson's harassment and intimidation
    complaint.[^17] The Bureau also found that Mr. Thompson had failed
    to substantiate his allegations that the same on-air host involved
    in the programming at issue in the *WQAM* *NAL* had made other
    threats against him. The Bureau noted that the excerpts of the
    alleged threats did not name Mr. Thompson and that no corroborating
    evidence had been submitted to demonstrate that these threats were
    actually broadcast or directed at him in retaliation for filing
    indecency complaints.[^18] Finally, the Bureau concluded that Mr.
    Thompson's allegations that other Beasley on-air personalities had
    improperly threatened him were similarly unsubstantiated by
    documentation or other corroborating evidence.[^19]

6.  The Bureau also found that there was no evidence to substantiate or
    corroborate Mr. Thompson's allegations that Beasley and its counsel
    had impermissibly filed retaliatory lawsuits and bar complaints
    against him as a consequence of his filing indecency complaints with
    the Commission. The *Bureau Order* noted that the record included
    legitimate reasons, other than impermissible retaliation, for
    Beasley's actions.[^20] Furthermore, the Bureau cited evidence in
    the record in which Beasley and its counsel specifically state that
    the litigation and bar complaints are separate and distinct from Mr.
    Thompson's complaints concerning Station WQAM(AM)'s programming and
    statements which acknowledge his right to file complaints with the
    Commission.[^21]

7.  The Bureau further found no evidence to support Mr. Thompson's
    allegations that at Beasley's direction, Beasley's counsel had filed
    civil lawsuits against him in 2004 and 2006 in order to harass and
    intimidate him.[^22] The Bureau cited Mr. Kent's statements that
    these lawsuits were filed in his individual capacity as a
    consequence of Mr. Thompson's untruthful and defamatory
    characterizations of him.[^23] Furthermore, the Bureau pointed to
    Mr. Thompson's repeated requests that the Commission withhold a
    decision on his complaint in anticipation that he would make filings
    to substantiate his claims concerning Beasley's involvement in Mr.
    Kent's 2004 lawsuit.[^24]

8.  The Bureau found no basis on which to attribute any impermissible
    conduct to Beasley based on Mr. Kent's statements to the effect that
    Beasley was not aware of his 2004 civil suit against Thompson until
    after it was filed. Mr. Kent had, in fact, sent an e-mail to
    Beasley's in-house counsel prior to filing suit, to alert Beasley
    that the contemplated lawsuit could affect Mr. Kent's ability to
    represent Beasley.[^25] The Bureau noted, however, that Mr. Kent's
    statements concerning Beasley's prior knowledge of the 2004 lawsuit
    were made to Mr. Thompson and his counsel, not to the Commission
    and, in any event, Mr. Kent does not represent Beasley in this
    complaint proceeding.[^26] The Bureau therefore concluded that there
    was no basis on which to find that Beasley had made
    misrepresentations to or otherwise engaged in improper conduct
    before the FCC.[^27]

9.  Moreover, the Bureau rejected Mr. Thompson's allegations that Mr.
    Kent improperly sought court-ordered enforcement of a 1989
    settlement agreement between Mr. Thompson and a Beasley on-air
    personality. Beasley was not a party to the settlement agreement,
    which predated the on-air personality's employment at Station
    WQAM(AM) and involved a radio station owned by an entity unrelated
    to Beasley.[^28] The Bureau found that there was no evidence of
    Beasley's involvement in the lawsuit to enforce the agreement or
    that Beasley or its counsel engaged in any improper harassment or
    intimidation based upon the action to enforce the settlement
    agreement.[^29] The *Bureau Order* also deferred consideration of
    Beasley's abuse of process complaint against Mr. Thompson.[^30]

# application for review 

10. In his Application for Review, Mr. Thompson argues that the Bureau
    erred, as a matter of law and fact, in three principal respects.
    First, Mr. Thompson cites language in the *WQAM NAL* finding that an
    on-air host's comments were apparently indecent because they dwelled
    on the coerced and brutal nature of the sexual activities that the
    host suggested should be performed on a listener and his family[^31]
    and argues that this alone demonstrates that Beasley engaged in
    impermissible retaliatory conduct against him. [^32] The Bureau's
    contrary conclusion, Mr. Thompson contends, was therefore error.
    Second, Mr. Thompson claims that there are other instances in which
    Beasley on-air personalities have improperly threatened or harassed
    other listeners, apparently implying that this corroborates his
    contention that Beasley has threatened and harassed him.[^33] Third,
    Mr. Thompson argues that review is appropriate because "Beasley,
    after the \[Bureau's\] improper ruling in this matter, allowed one
    of its on-air 'talents' to violate a written agreement not to
    mention me on its air!"[^34] Mr. Thompson apparently refers to the
    1989 settlement agreement and claims that the violation constitutes
    further impermissible harassment.[^35] Mr. Thompson also
    "demand\[s\] a full hearing on this matter before the
    Commission."[^36]

11. Mr. Thompson, in several subsequent e-mails, supplements his
    Application for Review. Specifically, on August 2, 2007, Mr.
    Thompson alleged that Mr. Kent admitted in answers to
    interrogatories in a civil lawsuit that he was retained by Beasley
    to pursue a bar complaint and to represent them in other matters,
    and stated that his bar complaint remains under consideration when
    in fact it "has been dismissed with prejudice as baseless."[^37] Mr.
    Thompson also alleges that Mr. Kent told him that Beasley did not
    know about his 2004 lawsuit until after it was filed, when in fact
    Mr. Kent had sent Beasley's general counsel an e-mail concerning the
    upcoming filing.[^38]

12. In addition, in e-mails filed on December 12 and 13, 2007, Mr.
    Thompson made additional allegations that apparently relate to the
    1989 settlement agreement, alleging again that the Beasley on-air
    personality, with the assistance of Mr. Kent and with Beasley's
    cooperation, was improperly seeking to have him held in contempt of
    court for violating the agreement.[^39] Also in the December 13,
    2007 supplement to his Application for Review, Mr. Thompson
    mentioned in passing other alleged threats made against him by
    Station WQAM(AM) on-air personalities, which the Bureau found were
    unsubstantiated and did not support his complaint against
    Beasley.[^40] Beasley did not file an opposition to Mr. Thompson's
    Application for Review or to his subsequent e-mail supplements.

# DISCUSSION

13. We deny Mr. Thompson's Application for Review and affirm the
    Bureau's order. To obtain relief through an application for review
    of an action taken pursuant to delegated authority, the aggrieved
    party must meet at least one of the criteria set forth in Section
    1.115(b)(2) of the Commission's Rules.[^41] Specifically, the
    application for review must "specify with particularity, from among
    the following, the factor(s) which warrant Commission consideration
    of the questions presented": (i) the action taken pursuant to
    delegated authority conflicts with a relevant "statute, regulation,
    case precedent, or established Commission policy," (ii) the action
    taken "involves a question of law or policy which has not previously
    been resolved by the Commission," (iii) the action taken "involves
    application of a precedent or policy which should be overturned or
    revised," (iv) the action taken makes "an erroneous finding as to an
    important or material question of fact," and/or (v) the action taken
    contains "prejudicial procedural error." [^42] Because the
    application before us fails to meet any of the criteria set forth
    under Section 1.115(b)(2), it is denied.

14. We find no legal or factual error in the Bureau's conclusion that
    Mr. Thompson failed to meet his evidentiary burden to corroborate
    his claims that Beasley impermissibly threatened him for the purpose
    of retaliating against him. Commission precedent makes it
    impermissible for a licensee to intimidate or harass a complainant
    with threats of reprisals or to engage in some other unnecessary or
    abusive conduct reasonably calculated to dissuade him from continued
    involvement in a complaint proceeding. It is the complainant's
    burden to present evidence to substantiate and document a claim of
    harassment and intimidation.[^43] Mr. Thompson has failed to present
    any evidence to substantiate his claims that Beasley engaged in
    improper conduct against him in retaliation for the filing of
    indecency complaints. We address his specific contentions in turn.

15. First, we reject Mr. Thompson's assertion that the Bureau was
    required to find that Beasley had engaged in impermissible
    retaliation against him because there were threats in the broadcast
    material that was the subject of one of the complaints at issue in
    the *WQAM NAL.* There were two complaints in the *WQAM NAL,* and
    although Mr. Thompson filed one of those complaints, he does not
    contest the Bureau's finding that comments in the material at issue
    in the *WQAM NAL* were not directed at him.[^44] Under these
    circumstances, we find no error in the Bureau's ruling that the
    broadcast material at issue in the *WQAM NAL* does not support a
    conclusion that Beasley acted improperly in order to harass or
    intimidate Mr. Thompson, and that Mr. Thompson failed to
    substantiate his allegations that Beasley or its employees
    threatened him because he filed indecency complaints.

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

17. Third, we agree with the Bureau's determination that the allegations
    concerning enforcement of the 1989 settlement agreement involving an
    entity unrelated to Beasley have no bearing on his complaint against
    Beasley and conclude that they do not provide a reason to find error
    in the *Bureau Order*. Mr. Thompson's contention that Mr. Kent has
    sought new sanctions against him in connection with the enforcement
    of this 1989 settlement agreement, and that this is further evidence
    that Beasley is engaging in improper conduct in order to harass and
    intimidate him, is similarly unpersuasive. The *Bureau Order*
    pointed out that Beasley was not a party to the 1989 settlement
    agreement, which pertained to matters related to the employee's
    earlier on-air job hosting a program at a station licensed not to
    Beasley but to another broadcaster.[^45] Mr. Thompson did not
    specifically contest this aspect of the Bureau's decision, and we
    find his new allegations concerning this 1989 agreement similarly
    irrelevant. They are, moreover, entirely unsubstantiated.

18. We also find no basis for reversing the Bureau's decision based on
    those matters raised by Mr. Thompson in supplements to his
    Application for Review. We concur in the Bureau's conclusion that
    Mr. Kent's actions do not support a finding that Beasley threatened,
    abused or intimidated Mr. Thompson. The *Bureau Order* specifically
    acknowledged the attorney-client relationship between Mr. Kent and
    Beasley, but found that there was no evidence to support a
    conclusion that Mr. Kent had filed lawsuits against Mr. Thompson at
    Beasley's direction or that Beasley had improperly brought bar
    complaints against Mr. Thompson in order to harass or intimidate him
    or to deter him from participating in Commission complaint
    proceedings. We agree with the Bureau's conclusion that Mr. Thompson
    did not present any evidence to substantiate or corroborate these
    allegations, and his allegations concerning Mr. Kent's interrogatory
    answers, even if true, do not provide a basis to find error in the
    *Bureau Order*. In this regard, we also note that the *Bureau Order*
    referenced Mr. Kent's statements voluntarily offering to dismiss a
    bar complaint that he had filed against Mr. Thompson, and found that
    Mr. Thompson had not provided any documentation to support a finding
    that the dismissal constituted a dismissal on the merits.[^46]
    Moreover, Mr. Thompson points to Mr. Kent's e-mail to Beasley prior
    to the filing of his 2004 lawsuit, but does not dispute or otherwise
    assign error to the Bureau's finding that even if the allegations
    about Beasley's prior knowledge of the lawsuit are true, the record
    as a whole is insufficient to support a finding that Mr. Kent
    brought his 2004 lawsuit at Beasley's urging and in order to
    retaliate against him.[^47]

19. Mr. Thompson's passing reference to other alleged threats against
    him made by Beasley on-air personalities, allegedly with Beasley's
    guidance and support, is also unavailing. Mr. Thompson does not
    specifically contest the Bureau's finding that there is no credible
    evidence to substantiate his allegations that such threats, which do
    not mention him by name, were actually broadcast or that these
    comments were made in response to his filing of indecency
    complaints.[^48] Nor does he provide any new evidence to
    substantiate his claims. Accordingly, there is no basis for
    reversing the Bureau's order.

20. Finally, Mr. Thompson argues that he has a right to a full
    evidentiary hearing before the Commission concerning his
    complaint.[^49] Mr. Thompson cites no statutory provision or
    Commission rule in support of his demand, and we find none to compel
    the hearing that he seeks.[^50] We note that Section 312 of the Act,
    which describes administrative sanctions, is inapposite. That
    section provides the Commission with the discretion to commence a
    hearing proceeding against a broadcast licensee for various forms of
    misconduct, none of which are present here.[^51] Furthermore,
    Section 312 does not specifically create rights in third party
    complainants.[^52] Thus, even if Mr. Thompson had substantiated his
    harassment and intimidation complaint against Beasley, which he did
    not, we would not be required to initiate a hearing proceeding.[^53]
    As set forth in exhaustive detail in the *Bureau Order*, which we
    uphold here, Mr. Thompson did not provide the required documentation
    to corroborate the allegations in his complaint against Beasley. The
    record here supports denial of Mr. Thompson's complaint, and there
    is no basis on which to find that a hearing is warranted under the
    circumstances present here.

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

# ORDERING CLAUSES

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

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

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

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Marlene H. Dortch

    Secretary

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

[^2]: *The Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc.,* Memorandum Opinion and Order,
    22 FCC Rcd 10075 (Enf. Bur. 2007) ("*Bureau Order*").

[^3]: *See* 18 U.S.C. § 1464; 47 C.F.R. § 73.3999. Mr. Thompson's
    indecency complaints will not be addressed here, but will be
    considered separately.

[^4]: *See Bureau Order,* 22 FCC Rcd at 10075 ¶¶ 1-2 & nn.1, 3 (citing
    Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Michael K. Powell,
    Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, dated November 27, 2004
    ("*Complaint*")).

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

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

[^7]: *See WQAM License Limited Partnership,* Notice of Apparent
    Liability for Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 22997 (2004) ("*WQAM NAL*")
    (response pending).

[^8]: *See Bureau Order,* 22 FCC Rcd at 10076 ¶ 4.

[^9]: *See id.* at 10077 ¶ 5 & nn.11-15 (citing Beasley's initial reply
    to Mr. Thompson's LOI response, Letter from Steven A. Lerman,
    Esquire, Dennis P. Corbett, Esquire and David S. Keir, Esquire,
    Counsel for The Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc. to Melanie A.
    Godschall, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau,
    dated January 28, 2005) (*"Reply To Thompson Complaint")*, as well
    as Beasley's additional supplements filed on March 11, 2005
    ("*Supplemental Reply to Thompson Complaint*"*)*; December 16, 2005
    ("*Second Supplemental Reply to Thompson Complaint*"); April 14,
    2006 ("*Third Supplemental Reply to Thompson Complaint*"); and
    February 12, 2007 ("*Further Reply*").

[^10]: *See id.*

[^11]: *See Bureau Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 10077 ¶ 5 & nn.16-17; *see
    also* *Reply To Thompson Complaint; Supplemental Reply to Thompson
    Complaint;* and *Second Supplemental Reply to Thompson Complaint.*

[^12]: *See id.*

[^13]: *See Second Supplemental Reply to Thompson Complaint,* at
    Attachment 1 (attaching the Orders of Judge James Moore, Circuit
    Judge, 24^th^ Judicial Circuit, Fayette County Alabama, denying Mr.
    Thompson's motion to withdraw as counsel in a civil lawsuit against
    Sony, Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. and other defendants;
    revoking Mr. Thompson's admission *pro hac vice*; and denying Mr.
    Thompson's motion to vacate the Order revoking his *pro hac vice*
    admission). *See Strickland v. Sony Corporation,* Order, Case No. CV
    05-19 (Nov. 17, 2005); *motion to vacate denied,* Order (Nov. 21,
    2005).

[^14]: *See Further Reply,* at Attachment 3 (*The Florida Bar v. John
    Bruce Thompson*, Case No. SC07-80, filed January 18, 2007 ("Florida
    Bar Complaint")). As set forth in the *Bureau Order,* in accordance
    with the Florida Bar's disciplinary procedures, a grievance
    committee has found probable cause to believe that Mr. Thompson may
    have violated certain of the Florida rules regulating attorney
    conduct and that discipline appears to be warranted, and the Florida
    Bar has filed a complaint with the Supreme Court of Florida. *See
    Bureau Order,* 22 FCC Rcd at 10086 ¶ 22, n.72. The Florida Bar
    Complaint, as originally filed, included two counts relating to
    complaints concerning Mr. Thompson's conduct toward Beasley and its
    counsel. *See* Florida Bar Complaint at 25-35, Counts IV and V. As
    discussed herein, Mr. Kent's complaints underlying Count IV
    apparently have been dismissed, but the Bureau found no evidence to
    substantiate Mr. Thompson's repeated assertion that this dismissal
    was based upon a finding that the complaints were without merit.
    *See* paragraph 18 of this Order, *infra*; *Bureau Order*, 22 FCC
    Rcd at 10086-10087 ¶ 24. Mr. Kent submitted to the Commission a copy
    of his voluntary authorization to the Florida Bar to delete matters
    related to complaints that he had filed on his own behalf. *See
    Bureau Order,* FCC Rcd at 10086-10087 ¶ 24 & n.78.

[^15]: *See Bureau Order,* 22 FCC Rcd at 10077-10078 ¶ 6.

[^16]: *See* 18 U.S.C. § 1464; 47 C.F.R. § 73.3999.

[^17]: *See Bureau Order,* 22 FCC Rcd at 10079-10080 ¶¶ 8-9. The *NAL*
    at issue addressed, in part, a complaint by another listener, and
    not Mr. Thompson, alleging that Station WQAM(AM)'s on-air host,
    Scott Farrell, received an angry phone call from a listener and then
    threatened to have the caller incarcerated, after which the caller
    would be raped and sodomized, and Mr. Ferrall would perform sexual
    acts on his wife and also engage in violence against his family.
    *See id* at ¶ 8, n.27; *see also WQAM NAL,* 19 FCC Rcd at 23001 ¶ 9.
    We are informed that Mr. Ferrall no longer works at Station
    WQAM(AM).

[^18]: *See Bureau Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 10081 ¶ 13 & nn.39-42. In
    addition, the Bureau rejected allegations that Beasley's response to
    the *WQAM NAL* misrepresented that Mr. Thompson was the sole
    complainant and improperly attacked his credibility. *See id.* at
    10080-10081 ¶¶ 10-12. In this regard, the Bureau noted that Beasley
    had been provided redacted copies of the two complaints at issue in
    the *WQAM NAL* and that Mr. Thompson himself had made public
    statements apparently taking credit for filing both complaints. *See
    id.* at 10080, nn.35, 37. Under these circumstances, the Bureau
    concluded there was nothing impermissible in Beasley's response,
    which acknowledged its uncertainty as to whether Mr. Thompson had
    filed both complaints and for convenience, referred to a
    "Complainant" throughout. Mr. Thompson does not challenge the
    Bureau's findings concerning Beasley's response to the *WQAM NAL.*

[^19]: *See* *id.* at 10087 ¶¶ 25-26 & nn.81-84.

[^20]: Specifically, Mr. Thompson had repeatedly characterized Beasley
    as a criminal enterprise and its principals as criminals in press
    releases, contacts with state and federal officials, and to entities
    with which Beasley does business. *See id.* at 10078-10079 ¶ 7 &
    nn.22-25. In this regard, the Bureau stated that it was unaware of
    any information demonstrating that Beasley or its principals have
    been convicted of any felony or other crime cognizable under the
    Commission's Character Policy and that Mr. Thompson had submitted no
    evidence or documentation of such criminal convictions. *Id.*

[^21]: *See id.* at 10081-10082 ¶ 14 & nn.43-47; 10084 & n.60; 10084-85
    ¶ 20.

[^22]: *See id.* at 10081 ¶ 14, 10083-10084 ¶¶ 17-18. The Bureau pointed
    out that the record did not include a copy of the complaint in the
    2006 lawsuit. *See id.* at 10083 ¶ 17.

[^23]: *See id.* at 10082 ¶ 14 & n.46; 10084 ¶ 18 & n.60. Specifically,
    Mr. Kent alleged that Mr. Thompson made statements that he was a
    "license-suspended drug and porn lawyer" and "a drug lawyer who has
    been suspended from the practice of law," when in fact he was a
    member of the Florida Bar in good standing, and that he falsely
    accused Mr. Kent of other criminal misconduct, including extortion
    and tax evasion. Mr. Thompson apparently entered into an agreement
    settling this litigation that did not include admissions of
    liability.

[^24]: *See id.* at 10084 ¶ 18 & nn.58-59.

[^25]: *See id.* at 10083 ¶ 15 & nn.48-50. The Bureau also found that
    Mr. Thompson apparently learned of the e-mail, which was
    ineffectively redacted, because it had been placed in Station
    WQAM(AM)'s public inspection file by mistake. The Bureau ruled that
    this redacted e-mail was a privileged communication not required to
    be placed in the public file. *See id.* at 10083 ¶ 15. *See also* 47
    C.F.R. § 73.3526(e)(10). Mr. Thompson does not challenge or
    otherwise seek review of this aspect of the *Bureau Order*.

[^26]: *See Bureau Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 10083 ¶ 15.

[^27]: *See id.* at 10083 ¶ 16.

[^28]: *See id.* at 10089-10090 ¶¶ 29-30. The Bureau pointed out that
    Mr. Thompson's own statements acknowledged that the 1989 agreement
    concerns another broadcaster. *See id.* at 10089 ¶ 29 & n.23

[^29]: *See id.* at 10089-10090 ¶¶ 29-31.

[^30]: *See id*. at 10077 ¶ 2 & n.17.

[^31]: *See WQAM NAL,* 19 FCC Rcd at 23002-23003 ¶ 11.

[^32]: *See Application for Review* at 1-2.

[^33]: *See id.* at 2.

[^34]: *See id.*

[^35]: *See* *id.*

[^36]: *See* *id.*

[^37]: *See* E-mail from Jack Thompson to Kevin J. Martin, Chairman,
    Federal Communications Commission, dated August 2, 2007 re: URGENT
    Re: Formal Demand for Federal Communications Commission Review of
    Ms. Monteith's Erroneous Findings and Order Re WQAM-AM (*Supplement
    to Application for Review*). The Commission's procedural rules
    provide for the filing of an application for review and supplements
    within 30 days of the date that the Commission issues its public
    notice of a Bureau decision taken pursuant to delegated authority.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(d). Furthermore, the Commission's rules also
    prohibit Mr. Thompson from raising matters of law or fact which the
    delegated authority has not been afforded an opportunity to
    consider. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.115(c). Mr. Thompson's supplement is
    subject to dismissal because he has failed to comply with the
    provisions of Sections 1.115(c) and (d). We find it in the public
    interest to waive, on our own motion, the provisions of Section
    1.115 (c) and (d) in this case in order to consider matters raised
    in Mr. Thompson's August 2, 2007 filing, which relate to matters
    previously considered by the Bureau. *See, e.g., Brookfield
    Development, Inc.,* Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 14385,
    14388 & n.34 (2004) (To the extent that an application for review
    relies on a question of law or fact which the Bureau has not been
    given the opportunity to consider, it is subject to dismissal. Here,
    however, the Commission finds that the public interest is served by
    addressing the merits of the argument not presented to the delegated
    authority in the interest of completeness, because the argument
    relates to the same facts considered by the delegated authority.).

[^38]: *See Supplement to Application for Review.*

[^39]: *See* Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Kevin J.
    Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, transmitted via
    E-mail on December 12, 2007, which requests that the Commission
    "open a new file as to the continuing harassment of me by Beasley in
    order to protect its shock radio format." On December 13, 2007,
    however, Mr. Thompson filed two additional e-mails concerning these
    allegations, in one of which he also references his pending
    application for review. *See* E-mails from Jack Thompson to Kevin J.
    Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, transmitted
    December 13, 2007, 5:41 a.m. and 6:03 a.m. Under these
    circumstances, we will not consider these allegations to constitute
    a new complaint. Moreover, because these allegations relate to
    matters initially raised before the Bureau and in his application
    for review, we find that it is in the public interest to waive
    Section 1.115(c) and (d) in order to consider these allegations.
    *See* note 38, *supra.* We also note that Mr. Thompson made these
    supplemental filings electronically, even though the Commission's
    interim electronic filing procedures, which were applicable to
    applications for review and certain other pleadings, had been
    rescinded. *See Implementation of Interim Electronic Filing
    Procedures for Certain Commission Filings,* Order, 22 FCC Rcd 11381
    (2007); FCC Rescinds Its Interim Procedures For Electronic Filing
    Effective September 25, 2007, News Release (June 29, 2007). We
    therefore also waive the provisions of Section 1.115(f) of the
    Commission's rules, which requires that these pleadings be submitted
    to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission at the locations
    set forth in Section 0.401 of the Commission's rules. *See* 47
    C.F.R. §§ 0.401, 1.115(f).

[^40]: *See* E-mail from Jack Thompson to Kevin J. Martin, Chairman,
    Federal Communications Commission, transmitted December 13, 2007,
    5:41 a.m.

[^41]: *See* 47 C.F. R. § 1.115(b)(2).

[^42]: *See* *id.*

[^43]: *See Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses, Inc.,* Notice of
    Apparent Liability, 19 FCC Rcd 1768, 1777 ¶ 15 (2004) (forfeiture
    paid) (finding that a complainant failed to substantiate or
    otherwise provide evidence to corroborate his allegations that the
    licensee sanctioned in the *NAL* also engaged in impermissible
    retaliation as a result of the complaint and denying the
    complainant's harassment and intimidation complaint).

[^44]: *See Bureau Order,* 22 FCC Rcd at 10079-80 ¶¶ 8-9.

[^45]: *See id.* at 10089 ¶ 30.

[^46]: *See id.* at 10086-10087 ¶ 24 & n.78.

[^47]: *See id.* at 10083 ¶ 16. We also note that the Florida Supreme
    Court has issued an Order permanently disbarring Mr. Thompson based
    on the disciplinary proceeding initiated by the Florida Bar
    Complaint. *See* note 14, *supra*. Specifically, following a trial
    and disciplinary hearing, the presiding referee issued a report
    recommending, *inter alia,* Thompson's permanent disbarment, with no
    leave to reapply for admission. *See Report of Referee,* Case Nos.
    SC07-80 and SC07-354 (Jul. 9, 2008). The referee's report includes
    findings of Mr. Thompson's guilt with respect to bar complaints
    brought by Beasley's counsel, Tew Cardenas LLP. *See id.* at
    134-144. The Florida Supreme Court's Order approves the referee's
    report and permanently disbars Mr. Thompson, effective 30 days from
    the date of its Order. *See The Florida Bar v. John Bruce Thompson,*
    Order, Case Nos. SC 07-80 and SC 07-354 (Sept. 25, 2008).

[^48]: *See* Application for Review at 2. *See Bureau Order,* 22 FCC Rcd
    at 10081 ¶ 13 (There was insufficient evidence to support a finding
    that the on-air host who aired the comments at issue in the *WQAM
    NAL* also made other impermissible threats, including the threat of
    a beating, against Mr. Thompson during a broadcast on October 2,
    2003 where Mr. Thompson did not pursue contemporaneous complaints
    about the threats, the excerpts of the alleged threats that he
    provided did not mention him by name, and no corroborating evidence
    substantiated that the threats were actually broadcast or directed
    at him.); 22 FCC Rcd at 10087-10088 ¶ 26 (excerpts submitted by Mr.
    Thompson with respect to other alleged threats by a different
    Beasley on-air host do not mention him by name and there is no
    corroborating evidence that such threats were actually broadcast;
    even assuming, *arguendo*, that Mr. Thompson provided accurate
    information as to the substance of the statements, there is no
    evidence to support a finding that they were in retaliation for Mr.
    Thompson's indecency complaints).

[^49]: *See* Application for Review at 2 ("I demand a full hearing on
    this matter before the Commission. . . . to tell the Commission
    directly about threats . . . \[and to hear Commission personnel\]
    respond to my testimony.").

[^50]: Pursuant to Section 1.80(e) of the Commission's Rules, the
    Commission may institute forfeiture proceedings either via a written
    notice of apparent liability or via a full evidentiary hearing
    before an administrative law judge. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(e) and
    (g). Typically, however, hearings occur "only when a hearing is
    being held for some reason other than the assessment of a
    forfeiture." *Id*. at § 1.80(g). Such circumstances are not present
    here, and the Enforcement Bureau properly exercised its discretion
    to resolve Mr. Thompson's complaint via written notice and
    pleadings, in which Mr. Thompson has participated fully.

[^51]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 312(a). *See, e.g., Humboldt Bay Video Co.,*
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 56 FCC 2d 68, 71 ¶ 6 (1975) (citations
    omitted). The Commission generally will refuse to issue an order to
    show cause based upon a third-party petition unless that party's
    allegations establish a *prima facie* violation of a Commission rule
    or order. *See Humboldt Bay Video Co.,* 56 FCC 2d at 71 n.9.
    Moreover, even if the Commission finds a violation based upon the
    petition of a third party, it has broad discretion to refuse to
    conduct a hearing. *See id*.

[^52]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 312(a). *See, e.g., Humboldt Bay Video Co.,* 56
    FCC 2d 71 n.9*; see also C&W Communications, Inc.,* Order on Review,
    20 FCC Rcd 5586, 5589 ¶ 7 (2005) (Commission has complete
    discretion, even when there is evidence of violations, to determine
    not to issue an order to show cause under Section 312 and can refuse
    to do so based upon the petition of a third party even if it
    determines a violation of the Act or rules exists).

[^53]: *See id*. Similarly, the Commission is not compelled to conduct a
    hearing pursuant to Section 309 of the Act, which permits the
    Commission to designate for hearing before an administrative law
    judge the renewal of a station license. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(k);
    *see also* *South Seas Broadcasting, Inc.*, Memorandum Opinion and
    Order, 23 FCC Rcd 6474 (Med. Bur. 2008) (granting short-term renewal
    as remedy, not a live hearing, where Media Bureau found licensee
    engaged in a pattern of abuse by failing to operate in the public
    interest and ignoring staff inquiries). In the instant case, we note
    that, even if Mr. Thompson had shown that WQAM(AM)'s application did
    not meet the requirements of Section 309(k)(1), we would not be
    compelled to designate Station WQAM(AM)'s pending license renewal
    application for an evidentiary hearing. In any event, Mr. Thompson
    has failed to substantiate any violation of the Act or the
    Commission's rules, and no evidentiary hearing before the Commission
    or an administrative law judge is warranted.