Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2279
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
The Beasley Broadcast Group, Inc.
)
)
)
)
)
EB-04-IH-0661
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  June 1, 2007 Released:  June 1, 2007
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
I. 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 Beasleys subsidiaries.1  
II. 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 Beasleys broadcast licenses and withhold action on all Beasleys pending 
applications, petitions and requests.4  
  
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 Complainants 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.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2279
2
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 Commissions 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) Beasleys agent and attorney, Norman 
Kent, has filed lawsuits and a contempt of court proceeding against him at the direction of 
  
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 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 Response to Beasley 
Attorney Norm Kents 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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2279
3
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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2279
4
5. Beasley filed a reply to the Complainants 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 Complainants filings.15
Beasley denies the Complainants allegations and further alleges that that the Complainant has 
not provided any proof to support them.  Indeed, Beasley maintains that the Complainants own 
submission demonstrates that Beasley has taken reasonable and transparent actions to protect 
itself against the Complainants 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 Complainants 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 
Commissions 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
III. DISCUSSION
6. The Complainants 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 
  
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 Beasleys 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).
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2279
5
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 Complainants 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 Complainants 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 releases22 and contacted state and 
federal officials and other entities with which Beasley does business23 characterizing Beasley as a 
criminal enterprise24 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 
  
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 firms] 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 
(continued.)
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2279
6
demonstrating that Beasley or its principals have been convicted of any felony or other crime 
cognizable under the Commissions 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 Beasleys counsel, and do not involve Beasley or 
matters within the Commissions 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 childrenhot 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 
(Continued from previous page)    
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 callers wifes 
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 callers 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.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2279
7
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 Commissions Notice of Apparent Liability
(NAL), issued to WQAM for its apparent violation of 18 U.S.C. 1464 and Section 73.3999 of 
the Commissions rules for broadcasting indecent material over Station WQAM(AM) on 
September 9 and 10, 200332 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 Beasleys 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 
  
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 Commissions 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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2279
8
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 Complainants 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 Commissions policy to accept indecency complaints based upon the 
complainants 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 Complainants conduct in other proceedings demonstrates that he is not credible.  Contrary to 
the Complainants assertions, Beasleys arguments are not impermissible and do not constitute 
abusive conduct calculated to intimidate him.  Moreover, the Complainants assertion that 
Beasleys 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 
Howd 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 
Im 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 
  
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 fing 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.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2279
9
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 Beasleys Counsel Has Filed Retaliatory Lawsuits Against 
the Complainant.  The Complainant alleges that Beasleys 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 Complainants 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 Complainants allegations, made in the 
Complainants 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. Kents 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 
Complainants 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. Kents lawsuit was 
filed at the direction of Beasley in order to harass and intimidate him.46 Among other things, the 
complaint in Mr. Kents 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 
  
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 Complainants 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 17th 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 Beasleys in-house counsel attended a meeting in which settlement of this lawsuit was discussed 
does not support the Complainants assertion that Beasley acted improperly or directed the prosecution of this civil 
suit.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2279
10
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 Beasleys in-house counsel prior to the 
lawsuits filing that apprised Beasley of Mr. Kents decision to file a defamation suit against the 
Complainant.  However, Mr. Kents 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 Complainants argument that it was improperly removed from the public file.52  
Although Section 73.3526(e)(10) of the Commissions rules requires retention of documents 
having a substantial bearing on a Commission investigation or complaint, this rule provision is 
  
47 See Norman Elliot Kent v. John Bruce Thompson, Case No. 04-18643, Circuit Court of the 17th 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:  Beasleys 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 Beasleys 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 attorneys 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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2279
11
not applicable to the e-mail correspondence between Beasley and Mr. Kent.  As discussed above, 
the record does not substantiate the Complainants allegations that Mr. Kents lawsuit was filed 
at the direction of Beasley in order to threaten or intimidate him. Under these circumstances, the 
e-mail communication about Mr. Kents 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. Kents 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. Kents 
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 illegally54 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 
Complainants 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 Complainants 
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 Complainants 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 Complainants 
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 Kents 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 
  
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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2279
12
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. Kents 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 Complainants 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 Complainants rights to file complaints with the Commission.63 Rather, the bar complaint 
states that it was submitted as a result of the Complainants 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 
  
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 Beasleys 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. Kents 
bong.); Letter from John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law, to Chairman Michael K. Powell, dated February 28, 2005 
(requesting that investigation of Beasleys 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 Beasleys 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.   
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2279
13
enterprise, which are alleged violations of the Florida Bars Rules of Professional Conduct.64 In 
addition, this bar complaint alleges that the Complainants 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 
counsels comments to the Florida Bar concerning the Complainants 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 Kents Bar complaints are going 
to be dismissed and that the bars outside investigator has found no basis for the Tew Cardenas 
  
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.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2279
14
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 Beasleys part to harass and intimidate him. 
23. Beasley, however, has submitted the Florida Bars 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 Complainants statements that Beasley has engaged in criminal 
conduct and has links to the porn industry.75  Consequently, contrary to the Complainants 
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 Complainants 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 Complainants 
January 22, 2007 filing, one of the bar complaints was voluntarily dismissed.  The Complainant 
  
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 Bars 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 Complainants 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.   
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2279
15
states that on February 20, 2007, he received a letter from the Florida Bar indicating that a 
voluntary dismissal with prejudice of Mr. Kents 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 Complainants 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 
  
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. Kents 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. Kents complaint was impermissibly filed in retaliation for his indecency complaints against 
Beasley and offers to provide the letter concerning the voluntary dismissal upon the Commissions request.  As set 
forth above, it is not up to the Commission to substantiate the complainants 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.    
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2279
16
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 Complainants statements disavowing the 
2003 Agreement because it never received judicial approval.88 In any event, it is impossible to 
determine from the Complainants 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 Complainants appearance on 60 Minutes and may have included 
the comment [a] nemesis of my lawyer (referring to Mr. Kent) was on national television last 
  
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/Infinitys 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.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2279
17
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 Beasleys failure to prevent 
Rogers from violating the December 2003 Agreement was calculated to generate even more 
harassment of him.91 The Complainants 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 Beasleys 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  
  
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. Kents] 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 Beasleys 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 Beasleys 
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.
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2279
18
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 Complainants 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. Rogerss action to enforce the 1989 settlement agreement before it was filed and there is no 
evidence that Beasley had any involvement in Rogerss 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 Commissions 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 Complainants 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 Beasleys Station WQAM(AM), 
and Beasley would appear to have a legitimate interest in litigation that involves Mr. Rogers.  
The participation of Beasleys counsel in this matter, standing alone, does not amount to credible 
evidence substantiating the Complainants 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 
  
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.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2279
19
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 clients 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 Beasleys WQAM-AM.104
33. We find that the Complainants allegations and the submission of his clients 
declaration are insufficient to demonstrate any improper conduct on the part of Beasley or its 
counsel with respect to matters within the Commissions regulatory jurisdiction.  The 
Complainants 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 Complainants 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 Complainants allegations are therefore without merit.    
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
35. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated in Section 
0.311 of the Commissions 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.  
  
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.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-2279
20
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Kris Anne Monteith
Chief, Enforcement Bureau