********************************************************
                         NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.
*****************************************************************
Before the
               Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
FAMILY BROADCASTING, INC.
Order to Show Cause Why the Licenses for
Stations WSTX(AM) and WSTX-FM,
Christiansted, U.S. Virgin Islands,
Should Not Be Revoked
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
EB Docket No. 01-39
                        SUMMARY DECISION
                               OF
           ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE RICHARD L. SIPPEL
     Issued: August 3, 2001             Released: August 7, 2001
                     PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.      This hearing was commenced by Order to Show Cause and Notice of Opportunity
for Hearing ("OSC") adopted by the Commission on February 8, 2001, and published at 16
F.C.C. Rcd 4330  (2001).  On March 15, 2001, Family filed a Petition for Reconsideration asking
that the OSC be set aside and that Family be afforded a reasonable opportunity to correct
deficiencies specified in the OSC.  In Order FCC 01-188, released June 15, 2001, the Commission
rejected Family's request and dismissed the petition.
               Cross Motions for Summary Decision
2.      This is a ruling on Cross Motions for Summary Decision filed on July 10, 2001, by
Family Broadcasting, Inc. ("Family") and the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau").  Order FCC
01M-14, released May 30, 2001. Opposition briefs were filed on July 30, 2001.  Order FCC 01M-
22, released July 18, 2001.  The issues concern revocation and forfeiture.
                             Issues
3.      The issues set in the OSC are the following:
          A.  To determine whether Family Broadcasting, Inc. misrepresented facts
     to and/or lacked candor with the Commission in its statements regarding the
     relocation of WSTX-FM's transmitter from its authorized site in violation of
     Section 73.1015 of the Rules;
          B.  To determine whether Family Broadcasting, Inc. willfully or repeatedly
     violated 1.89 and/or 73.1015 of the Rules by failing to respond to official
     Commission correspondence and inquiries;
          C.  To determine whether Family Broadcasting, Inc. willfully or repeatedly
     violated 73.1350(a), 73.1560(a), 73.1560(b) and/or 73.1690(b)(2) of the Rules
     by operating WSTX(AM) and WSTX-FM at variance from the terms of their
     authorizations;
          D.  To determine whether Family Broadcasting, Inc. willfully or repeatedly
     violated 73.49 of the Rules by failing to enclose WSTX(AM)'s antenna within an
     effective locked fence;
          E.  To determine whether Family Broadcasting, Inc. willfully or repeatedly
     violated 11.35 of the Rules by failing to install and maintain operational EAS
     [Emergency Alert System] equipment for WSTX(AM) and WSTX-FM;
          F.  To determine whether Family Broadcasting, Inc. willfully or repeatedly
     violated 73.3526 of the Rules by failing to maintain public inspection files for
     WSTX(AM) and WSTX-FM;
          G.  To determine, in light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the
     foregoing issues, whether Family Broadcasting, Inc. is basically qualified to be or
     remain a Commission licensee; and
          H.  To determine, in light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the
     foregoing issues, whether the licenses for WSTX(AM) and/or WSTX-FM should
     be revoked.
4.      Family does not contest the merits of the charges underlying these issues.  In fact,
Family has cooperated fully in responding to an extensive set of requests for admissions [47
C.F.R. 1.246] which are sufficient to establish violations of Commission rules without the need
for an evidentiary hearing.
                   Revocation and Forfeiture
5.      The Bureau requests that Family's licenses be revoked.  Family argues that there are
equities in its favor which reject revocation as an appropriate remedy.
6.      The OSC also requires a finding as to whether aside from revocation, a forfeiture
order in an amount not to exceed $275, 000 should issue against Family for willful and/or
repeated violations of various sections of the Commission's rules (47 C.F.R. 1.89, 11.35,
73.49, 73.1015, 73.1350(a), 73.1650(a), 73.1690(b)(2), and/or 73.3526).
                        FINDINGS OF FACT
7.      The record evidence consisting of Admissions and Family's Declarations of
March 12, 2001 (Barbara James-Petersen) and of March 14, 2001 (Gerald Luz A. James)
establish that in 1990, Gerald Luz A. James ("Luz James") and his wife Asta K. James ("Asta
James") purchased stations WSTX(AM) and WSTX-FM and that from 1990 to 1998, Mr. Luz
James personally carried out all of the stations' regulatory compliance with the Commission.
8.      In July 1998, Barbara James-Petersen ("James-Peterson"), daughter of Luz and Asta
James, became the full-time general manager of the stations.  Currently, Ms. James-Peterson
continues to be the general manager, and since March 14, 2001, she has served nominally as
Family's president.
9.      Four on-site inspections were conducted by agents from the Commission's
San Juan, Puerto Rico Office on August 19, 1997, December 4, 1997, September 8, 1998, and on
April 13, 2000.  At each inspection, violations of the Commission's rules were detected and
reported to Family, many of which were repeats.
10.     The specific findings of fact below are based upon responses of Family to the
Bureau's Request for Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents that were served on
March 23, 2001.  Family's Answers to Requests for Admissions were timely served on April 3,
2001, and are found to be true and accurate.
                            Issue A
11.     Family misrepresented facts concerning Family's reported relocation of its
transmitter and antenna site as a result of a hurricane when the facts show that electrical power
was lost and Family was evicted from its site for Luz James' failure to pay rent.
                                
12.     Family has admitted the following:
          a.  Family represented on May 28, 1998, that Hurricane Marilyn caused the
relocation of WSTX-FM's transmitter from its licensed site to the site of WXTX(AM)'s tower,
and such claim was false.
          b.  Family represented on May 28, 1998, that Hurricane Marilyn caused the
relocation of WSTX-FM's transmitter from its licensed site to the site of WXTX(AM)'s tower,
and Mr. Luz James knew that such representation was false.
          c.  Family's representation on May 15, 2000, that damage from Hurricane Lenny
on November 18, 1999, to WSTX-FM's transmitter, studio-to-transmitter link and tower, caused
Family to relocate WSTX-FM's transmitter and antenna was false.
          d.  Mr. Luz James knew that Family's representation of May 15, 2000, regarding
the relocation of WSTX-FM's transmitter and antenna was false.
          e.  Family did not relocate WSTX-FM's transmitter from its authorized site to the
Fort Louise Augusta site as a result of damage caused to WSTX-FM's tower, studio-to-
transmitter link and transmitter during Hurricane Lenny on November 18, 1999.
          f.  Family has operated WSTX-FM's transmitter from the Fort Louise Augusta site
since at least January 18, 1997.
          g.  On or around October 15, 1994, the owner of WSTX-FM's authorized
transmitter site cut the electrical power to WSTX-FM's transmitter and other equipment at that
site due to Family's failure to make required rental payments for the site.
          h.  On or around October 15, 1994, pursuant to court order, the owner of WSTX-
FM's authorized transmitter site seized WSTX-FM's transmitter and other equipment at that site
pending Family's payment of overdue rent for the site.
          i.  On or around October 15, 1994, Family was evicted from the authorized
transmitter site for WSTX-FM for failure to make required rental payments for the site.
          j.  Family has not operated WSTX-FM's transmitter from its authorized site since
at least October 15, 1994.

                            Issue B
13.     Family failed to respond to Commission Notices of Violations ("NOV") issued in
1997, and again in 2000.
14.     Family has admitted the following:
          a.  Receipt of a letter dated August 25, 1997, from the Commission's San Juan,
Puerto Rico Office, concerning the August 19, 1997, inspection of WSTX(AM) and WSTX-FM.
          b.  Family did not respond to the August 25, 1997, letter.
          c.  Family received a December 8, 1997, NOV issued to Family by the
Commission's San Juan, Puerto Rico Office, concerning the December 4, 1997, inspection of
WSTX(AM).
          d.  Family did not respond to the December 8, 1997, NOV for WSTX(AM).
          e.  Family received a December 8, 1997, NOV issued to Family by the
Commission's San Juan, Puerto Rico Office, concerning the December 4, 1997, inspection of
WSTX-FM.
          f.  Family did not respond to the December 8, 1997, NOV for WSTX-FM.
          g.  Family received a May 1, 2000, NOV issued to Family by the Commission's
San Juan, Puerto Rico Office, concerning the April 13, 2000, inspection of WSTX(AM).
          h.  Family did not respond to the May 1, 2000, NOV concerning WSTX(AM).
          i.  Family received a May 1, 2000, NOV issued to Family by the Commission's San
Juan, Puerto Rico Office, concerning violations observed during the April 13, 2000, inspection of
WSTX-FM.
          j.  Family did not respond to the May 1, 2000, NOV concerning WSTX-FM.

          k.  Family received a July 19, 2000, letter to Family from Commission staff
directing Family to respond to questions regarding the relocation of WSTX-FM's transmitter
from its authorized transmitter site.
          l.  Family did not respond to the July 19, 2000, letter.
          m.  A true and accurate copy of the July 19, 2000, letter was transmitted directly
to Ms. James-Peterson by facsimile.
          n.  The Admissions Requests and Admissions Answers establish that Family,
through its agents, Luz James and Barbara James-Petersen, received, but failed to respond, to the
aforesaid NOVs as well as to the aforesaid official Commission requests for written statements of
fact.
                            Issue C
15.       Family willfully or repeatedly violated 73.1350(a), 73.1560(a), 73.1560(b) and/or
73.1690(b)(2) of the Commission's rules by operating WSTX(AM) and WSTX-FM at variance
from the terms of their authorizations.
16.     Family has admitted the following:
          a.  The Commission granted a Special Temporary Authority ("STA") to Family for
WSTX(AM) from June 17, 1993, through July 31, 1993.
          b.  Upon expiration of its STA for WSTX(AM), Family did not resume operation
of WSTX(AM) in accordance with its license.
          c.  Upon expiration of its STA for WSTX-FM, Family did not resume operation of
WSTX-FM in accordance with its license.

          d.  Family, in a January 7, 1994, letter, did not advise the Commission that
WSTX(AM) was not being operated in accordance with its license.
          e.  Family, in a January 7, 1994, letter, did not advise the Commission that WSTX-
FM was not being operated in accordance with its license.
          f.  Family, in an October 20, 1994, letter, did not advise the Commission that
WSTX(AM) was not being operated in accordance with its license.
          g.  Family's representation in its October 20, 1994, letter, "Now that our AM
portion is up to snuff  " was false.
          h.  Luz James knew that the claim "Now that our AM portion is up to snuff  "
was false.
          i.  On August 19, 1997, an agent from the Commission's San Juan, Puerto Rico
Office conducted an on-site inspection of WSTX(AM) and WSTX(FM).
          j.  At the time of the August 19, 1997, inspection, Family did not have an STA to
operate WSTX-FM at variance from the terms of its license.
          k.  At the time of the August 19, 1997, inspection, Family did not have an STA to
operate WSTX(AM) at variance from the terms of its authorization.
          l.  At the time of the December 4, 1997, inspection, Family did not have an STA to
operate WSTX-FM at variance from the terms of its authorization.
          m.  At the time of the December 4, 1997, inspection, Family did not have an STA
to operate WSTX(AM) at variance from the terms of its authorization.
          n.  At the time of the September 8, 1998, inspection, Family did not have an STA
to operate WSTX-FM at variance from the terms of its license.
          o.  At the time of the September 8, 1998, inspection, Family did not have an STA
to operate WSTX(AM) at variance from the terms of its authorization.
          p.  At the time of the April 13, 2000, inspection, Family did not have an STA to
operate WSTX-FM at variance from the terms of its authorization.
          q.  At the time of the April 13, 2000, inspection, Family did not have an STA to
operate WSTX(AM) at variance from the terms of its authorization.
          r.  From July 19, 1996, until June 12, 2000, Family did not have an STA to operate
WSTX(AM) at variance from the terms of its license.

          s.  From June 18, 1997, until June 12, 2000, Family did not have an STA to
operate WSTX-FM at variance from the terms of its license.
          t.  From December 13, 2000, to [March 23, 2001], Family [did not have] an STA
to operate WSTX(AM) with facilities other than those appearing on its license.
          u.  From December 13, 2000, to [March 23, 2001], Family [did not have] an STA
to operate WSTX-FM with facilities other than those appearing on its license.
          v.  Family has not operated WSTX-FM's transmitter from its authorized site since
at least October 15, 1994.
                            Issue D
17.     Family willfully or repeatedly failed to enclose WSTX(AM)'s antenna within an
effective locked fence.
18.     Family has admitted the following:
          a.  At the time of the August 19, 1997, inspection, WSTX(AM) was transmitting
with approximately 2800 watts output power.
          b.  At the time of the August 19, 1997, inspection, WSTX(AM) was transmitting
using an antenna tower with a height of approximately 110 feet above ground level.
          c.  At the time of the August 19, 1997, inspection, there was no fence enclosing
WSTX(AM)'s antenna tower.
          d.  At the time of the December 4, 1997, inspection, WSTX(AM) was transmitting
with approximately 2800 watts output power.
          e.  At the time of the December 4, 1997, inspection, WSTX(AM) was transmitting
using an antenna tower with a height of approximately 110 feet above ground level.
          f.  At the time of the December 4, 1997, inspection, a chain link fence enclosing
WSTX(AM)'s antenna tower was under construction but was not yet completed.
          g.  Family, in a May 28, 1998 letter, sought to assure the Commission that a fence
completely enclosed the AM radiator thereby preventing public access thereto.
          h  To the extent that Family represented to the Commission that a fence completely
enclosed the AM radiator, thereby preventing public access thereto, such suggestion was false.
          i.  To the extent that Family represented to the Commission that a fence completely
enclosed the AM radiator, thereby preventing public access thereto, Mr. Luz James knew such
suggestion was false.
          j.  Ms. James-Petersen accompanied the Commission's agent during the September
8, 1998, inspection.
          k.  At the time of the September 8, 1998, inspection, WSTX(AM) was
transmitting with approximately 2250 watts output power.
          l.  At the time of the September 8, 1998, inspection, WSTX(AM) was transmitting
using an antenna tower with a height of approximately 110 feet above ground level.
          m.  At the time of the September 8, 1998, inspection, there was a chain link fence
surrounding WSTX(AM)'s antenna tower, but the fence had an opening which permitted access
to the antenna tower.
          n.  Ms. James-Petersen accompanied the Commission's agent during the
April 13, 2000, inspection.
          o.  At the time of the April 13, 2000, inspection, WSTX(AM) was transmitting
with approximately 325 watts output power.
          p.  At the time of the April 13, 2000, inspection, WSTX(AM) was using a long-
wire antenna.
          q.  At the time of the April 13, 2000, inspection, there was a chain link fence
surrounding WSTX(AM)'s long-wire antenna, but the fence had an opening which permitted
access to the antenna.
                            Issue E
19.     Family willfully or repeatedly violated 11.35 of the Commission's rules by failing to
install and maintain operational Emergency Alert System ("EAS") equipment for WSTX(AM) and
WSTX-FM.
20.     Family has admitted to the following:
          a.  At the time of the August 19, 1997, inspection, Family did not have any EAS
equipment installed at the stations' main studio.
          b.  Family received a letter dated August 25, 1997, to Family from the
Commission's San Juan, Puerto Rico Office, concerning the August 19, 1997, inspection of
WSTX(AM) and WSTX-FM.
          c.  Family did not respond to the August 25, 1997 letter.
          d.  At the time of the December 4, 1997, inspection, Family did not have any EAS
equipment installed at the stations' main studio.
          e.  Family received a Notice of Violation ("NOV") dated December 8, 1997,
issued to Family by the Commission's San Juan, Puerto Rico Office, concerning the December 4,
1997, inspection of WSTX(AM).
          f.  Family received the December 8, 1997, NOV for WSTX(AM).
          g.  Family did not respond to the December 8, 1997, NOV for WSTX(AM).
          h.  Family received a Notice of Violation ("NOV") dated December 8, 1997,
issued to Family by the Commission's San Juan, Puerto Rico Office, concerning the December 4,
1997, inspection of WSTX-FM.
          i.  Family received the December 8, 1997, NOV for WSTX-FM.
          j.  Family did not respond to the December 8, 1997, NOV for WSTX-FM.
          k.  Ms. James-Petersen accompanied the Commission's agent during the
September 8, 1998, inspection.
          l.  At the time of the September 8, 1998, inspection, EAS equipment was installed
at the stations' main studio but the equipment was not operational.
          m.  Ms. James-Petersen accompanied the Commission's agent during the
April 13, 2000, inspection.
          n.  At the time of the April 13, 2000, inspection, EAS equipment was installed at
the stations' main studio but the equipment was not operational.

                            Issue F
21.     Family willfully and repeatedly failed to maintain public inspection files.
22.     Family has admitted to the following:
          a.  At the time of the August 19, 1997, inspection, Family did not have a public
inspection file for either station.
          b.  On April 13, 2000, an agent from the Commission's San Juan, Puerto Rico
Office conducted an on-site inspection of WSTX(AM) and WSTX-FM.
          c.  Ms. James-Petersen accompanied the Commission's agent during the April 13,
2000, inspection.
          d.  At the time of the April 13, 2000, inspection, Family did not have a public
inspection file for either station at the stations' main studio.
                         Issues G and H
23.     These issues raise only the conclusory questions of whether, in light of the evidence
adduced relative to the preceding issues, Family is basically qualified to remain a Commission
licensee and whether Family's licenses for WSTX(AM) and WSTX-FM should be revoked.
                 Factual Findings in Mitigation
24.     Since Family acquired the stations in 1990, Mr. Luz James has operated them as the
controlling shareholder.  He served as Family's president and as Family's principal he is legally
responsible for all regulatory compliance.
25.     From 1997 to 2000, after four on-site inspections, Luz James either failed to respond
to or answered untruthfully multiple requests for information.  As indicated by the above findings,
the violations found constituted serious deviations from the terms of the licenses including failures
to install, operate and maintain EAS equipment, failures to maintain public inspection files, and a
failure to erect and maintain a fence suitable to protect the public from harmful radiation
emissions.
26.     However, there were circumstances attendant to those violations that must be
considered.  In September 1990, the stations were seriously damaged by Hurricane Hugo and the
tower for WSTX(AM) was blown over.  The same tower damage was repeated by Hurricane
Marilyn.  In November 1999, Hurricane Lenny overturned the AM tower for a third time.  To
avoid a fourth recurrence, Family sought to reduce the tower height.  It is officially noted that
Family has filed an application to reduce the height of the AM tower from 305 ft. to 180 ft.
27.     In 1998, in an effort to correct an eroding situation, Barbara James-Petersen became
the station manager.  She repaired a gap in a security fence as soon as she learned of its threat to
the public safety.  She timely saw to providing a new power supply to the EAS printer which is
now operable.  She had the public inspection file reconstructed so that it is now complete.  And
according to her Declaration, she has taken steps to restore the FM station to its authorized
power by construction of a new transmitting facility.
28.     Since assuming the position of station general manager and being designated
Family's president, Barbara James-Petersen has utilized communications counsel to conduct a
compliance audit with a view towards bringing the stations into full compliance.  Luz James has
resigned as president and has given his stock to his children.  Ms. James-Petersen filed
applications for Commission authority to reduce the height of the AM tower (File No. BPH-
20010622AAF) and to remove the FM station to a site on Recovery Hill (File No. BPH-
20010316AAD).  By an informal promise, Asta James should make available the funds needed for
station improvements.
29.     Family represents that it donates broadcasting time to FEMA (30 minutes during five
days of each week) to communicate relief efforts to the portions of St. Croix in need of relief.
Also, one hour per week is donated to the local Department of Public Safety.  And as a further
service to the community, Family now has a policy of allowing credit for advertising to local
merchants who have been impacted by hurricane storm damage.
                       CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
30.     The Commission's rules provide that in considering summary decision:
     The party filing the motion may not rest upon mere allegations or denials but must
     show, by affidavit or by other materials subject to consideration by the presiding
     officer, that there is no genuine issue of material fact for determination at the
     hearing.
47 C.F.R. 1.251(a)(1).  As the moving parties on cross motions, the Bureau and Family each has
the burden of establishing that a favorable summary decision would be appropriate based on the
pleadings and the papers submitted.  Summary Decision Procedures, 34 F.C.C. 2d 485, 487-88
(1972).  Considerable weight will be given to the admissions of Family.  Family has filed
Declarations of Barbara James-Petersen and Luz James which also are given consideration but
which receive less weight than the admissions.

31.     The ultimate factual issue has been admitted that Family has repeatedly violated the
Commission's rules with respect to the operation of its AM and FM stations on St. Croix.  Thus,
with respect to the Bureau's Motion, there is no genuine issue of material fact that is left  to
resolve by hearing.  Similarly, in view of the universal admissions by Family of the Bureau's
detailed factual allegations, there is no genuine issue of material fact for Family to prove.  The
only remaining questions concern law, policy, and the equities as to whether this record requires
license revocation and/or forfeiture.
32.     The evidence overwhelmingly supports findings and conclusions of serious
violations.  First, there is an established pattern of a lack of candor.  In two separate responses to
the Commission, Family falsely stated that its move to an unauthorized location occurred because
a hurricane had damaged its authorized facilities, thus warranting the move.  However, Family
knew that its move from its authorized site did not result from hurricane damage but followed
eviction for unpaid rent.  Thus, Family's statements blaming Hurricane Lenny or Hurricane
Marilyn were false and were known by Luz James to be false.  Accordingly, the evidence shows
that Family intentionally and repeatedly misrepresented material facts.
See David Ortiz Radio Corp. v. F.C.C., 941 F.2d 1253, 1260 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Fox River
Broadcasting, Inc., 93 F.C.C. 2d 127, 129 (1983).
33.     There also is a demonstrated disregard for the public safety.  From August 19, 1997,
up to and including April 13, 2000, Family did not have a fence that completely enclosed the
WSTX(AM) tower.  In some instances, there was no fence whatsoever.  In other instances, a
fence existed, but it had an opening that permitted access to the antenna.  Family violated 73.49
of the Commission's rules and exposed the public to danger by allowing unimpeded access to the
WSTX(AM) antenna.  Also, Family did not have EAS capability in violation of 11.35.  These
violations occurred despite the Commission's agent having informed Family on multiple occasions
of its shortcomings.  See KYOO Communications, Forfeiture Order, DA 01-1103, released May
1, 2001 (Enforcement Bureau); Arnold Broadcasting Company, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 16 F.C.C.
Rcd 267 (Enforcement Bureau), review granted in part, denied in part, FCC
01-197, released July 5, 2001.  Family repeatedly failed to respond to NOVs in violation of
1.89(b) of the Commission rules which requires written answers within ten days.  See Donald W.
Kaminski, Jr., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA 01-1192, released May 14, 2001
(Enforcement Bureau); American Radio Brokers, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 15 F.C.C. Rcd 19712
(Enforcement Bureau 2000), recon. denied, DA 01-811, released April 3, 2001 (Enforcement
Bureau).
34.     The legal conclusions drawn from this record demonstrate that Family is not qualified
to remain a Commission licensee and that its licenses should be revoked.  Truthfulness and
reliability, the prerequisites for operating a broadcast station in the public interest, are lacking.
See Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, 102 F.C.C. 2d 1179
(1986).  It cannot be ignored that Family has repeatedly deceived the Commission, ignored
Commission correspondence, operated its stations at variance with the terms of their licenses, and
failed to comply with rules established to promote public safety.  The Bureau has made its case
that Family cannot be trusted to be truthful with the Commission or to operate its stations in
accordance with the Communications Act and Commission rules or with a genuine concern for
public safety.  Under these circumstances, revocation of Family's license should be the remedy.
See Chameleon Radio Corporation, 13 F.C.C. Rcd 13549 (1998), recon. denied, 15 F.C.C. Rcd
24173 (2000), appeal pending, No. 00-1546 (D.C. Cir. December 28, 2000); Center for Study
and Application of Black Economic Development, 10 F.C.C. Rcd 2836 (Rev. Bd. 1995), recon.
denied, 10 F.C.C. Rcd 6069 (Rev. Bd. 1995), review denied, 11 F.C.C. Rcd 1144 (1996);
Catoctin Broadcasting Corp. of New York, 2 F.C.C .Rcd 2126 (Rev. Bd. 1987), aff'd in part,
4 F.C.C .Rcd 2553, recon. denied, 4 F.C.C. Rcd 6312 (1989); Mid-Ohio Communications, Inc.,
104 F.C.C .2d 572 (Rev. Bd. 1986), review denied, 5 F.C.C .Rcd 940, recon. dismissed in part,
denied in part, 5 F.C.C. Rcd 4596 (1990).
         Family's Arguments in Opposition to Revocation
35.     Family contends that notwithstanding its damaging admissions that justify revocation,
all future problems can be rectified by removing control from Luz James and transferring
corporate control to other members of the Luz James family.  To give assurance that Family will
comply in the future, Family is offering to remove Luz James by assignment of ownership to
members of his immediate family.  The Commission generally does not allow the target of a
revocation proceeding to sell or assign broadcast stations to a third party before the proceeding is
favorably resolved.  However, there are three exceptions to that policy, each of which, Family
argues, should apply here.
36.     The first exception is the Minority Distress Sale policy which permits a licensee
whose license has been designated for revocation hearing to assign the license prior to the
commencement of the hearing to a minority controlled entity.  Martin W. Hoffman, 15 F.C.C. Rcd
22086 (2000).  Here, there would be an analogous transfer of control from the wrongdoing Luz
James to Luz James' children.  The Presiding Judge is aware that Barbara James-Peterson and her
siblings are minorities, i.e., African-Americans.  However, there was no assignment completed
before the commencement of this proceeding and the Presiding Judge has no authority over a
transfer application which is within the authority delegated to the Mass Media Bureau to decide.
37.     The second exception is the Second Thursday doctrine.  Second Thursday Corp., 22
F.C.C. 2d 515 (1970); 25 F.C.C. 2d 112 (1970).  That policy permits a sale in the context of a
bankruptcy where the wrongdoing party does not benefit from the sale.  Here, the proposed
transfer of stock to the children of Luz James is represented to be an outright gift.  Therefore,
there is no evident monetary benefit to the wrongdoer and the proposed transfer is, to that extent,
consistent with the Second Thursday doctrine.  But there is no trustee to assure that station
income is not used to repay debts incurred by Luz James or for other personal expenses.

38.     In a third exception, Family cites an unusual case in which the Commission permitted
a wrongdoer to transfer stock to third persons other than his parents, wife and children.  In
sorting out the Thomas Root imbroglio, the Review Board conditionally upheld a decision by an
administrative law judge renewing the license of an FM broadcast station where Root, a former
principal, had been sentenced to a lengthy prison term for serious broadcast-related felonies.
Petroleum v. Nasby Corporation, 10 F.C.C. Rcd 6029 (Rev. Bd. 1995).  The renewal was granted
upon condition that the disqualified wrongdoer, who was not involved in station operations,
would transfer to unrelated persons his stock, the stock of his children, and the stock beneficially
owned by other family members.  The Review Board specifically decided not to permit stock
retention by members of the Root family and would grant renewal only upon complete divestiture
of Root stock to unrelated third parties.  Id. at 6033.  And the Commission would accept that
result, only after the case was remanded to the judge for further findings on Root's surrender of
control.  Petroleum v. Nasby Corporation, 11 F.C.C. Rcd 3494 (1996).  Nashby does not appear
to favor Family's solution for an interfamily transfer.
           Family's Arguments Considered and Rejected
39.     Family concedes that except for mitigating circumstances which focus on a
contemplated transfer of control, the multiple violations found in this case "would clearly require
revocation of the licenses" that are in issue.  Family argues that the Commission will consider its
pending assignment application and decide whether the assignment should be permitted under one
of the exceptions to a transfer while this proceeding is pending, citing LaRose v. F.C.C., 494 F.2d
1145 (D.C. Cir. 1974).  That case involved a trustee in bankruptcy assigning a license under a
supervised bankruptcy sale to pay off legitimate creditors.  The license was challenged in a
renewal proceeding wherein serious violations of the Commission's rules were alleged.  The court
found that under the Second Thursday doctrine, the Commission would need to rule on the
qualifications of the assignee and that denial of a license renewal would not moot the assignment
issue. Id.  But in this case, that determination would be made outside of this adjudicated hearing
by the Mass Media Bureau as the Commission's designee.  And in any event, in this case there is
no adjudicated bankrupt, no trustee, no receiver and no rights of creditors to be protected.
Therefore, the LaRose decision is not applicable here.
40.     The common thread running through the Bureau's opposition to all three theories
(Minority Distress Sale, Second Thursday, Nasby holding) is the lack of sufficient evidence in this
record to conclude that the assignees, who are the children of Mr. Luz James, will be independent
of their parents' control or influence.  Other circumstances noted by the Bureau in questioning
control are the failure or inability of Ms. James-Petersen to meet routine discovery requests, her
lack of personal knowledge about Family's current net worth, its financial history, mortgage debt,
or outstanding loans from stockholders.  (Deposition of James-Petersen at Tr. 68-70.)  She is
unable to show on this record that as station manager, president and stockholder of a restructured
Family, she will be independent of Luz and Asta James.
41.     The factors raising doubts with respect to independence of the contemplated
assignees also create genuine issues of material fact that remove Family as a candidate for a
favorable summary decision on revocation.  Cf. Nasby Corporation, supra which required a
remand to determine whether Mr. Root might be able to influence the licensee's affairs
notwithstanding an assignment to non-family assignees.  A particularly significant issue of fact
here is with respect to the independence that Ms. James-Petersen would be able to exercise as a
chief operating officer in view of the continuing dependence of the stations on financial support
from Asta James.  It is significant that Asta James has given no more than a parole assurance to
provide funds to improve and operate the station.  There is no way of determining without further
discovery and a hearing whether that loose financial arrangement might lead to residual control by
the parents.  See Nasby, supra 11 F.C.C. Rcd at 3495-96.
42.     Finally, substantial evidence shows that under Luz James' control, which included a
period of time when Ms. James-Petersen was station manager, there were willful violations that
justify the remedy of revocation.  Her past performance does not instill a confidence that she can
bring the stations into full compliance in the future.  Family has failed in its proof to show by
reliable evidence that the proposed familial assignees would guarantee future compliance.  Luz
James, and all others associated with the operations of the Family stations, including Barbara
James-Petersen and Asta James, knew from the designated renewal proceeding in 1997, and the
subsequent Notices of Violations incident to on-site-inspections, that there was a probability of
revocation if corrective action was not taken, and particularly if Family was less than candid in its
dealings with the Commission.  Family ignored the warnings and chose to violate the law.  Why
should the future be any different?  There are presented no reasonable probabilities of future
compliance that can alter the historical merits of this case.
                      Overall Conclusions
43.     This record provides the highest quality of proof.  It is complete with respect to each
issue.  It establishes that the stations were operated by Luz James in disregard of the core
responsibility of maintaining uninterrupted broadcasting.  There was also a demonstrated lack of
care for protecting the public from harmful emissions or for providing an emergency alert system.
The highest licensee duty is constant candor with the Commission.  In violation of that duty, Luz
James was purposefully and repeatedly providing the Commission with false and misleading
reports and information on significant subjects such as transmitter location and hurricane damage
in an effort to cover up an unauthorized site.  Luz James even used the hurricane tragedies of a
battered St. Croix to hide a site eviction for nonpayment of rent.  Granted, those hurricanes that
were beyond the control of any broadcaster would likely cause some temporary disruption.  But
even allowing for such acts of God, Family's violations were persistent and intentional and the
absence of candor was pervasive.
44.     As a result, significant portions of the Commission's enforcement budget were spent
on two Family proceedings which were assigned to administrative law judges.  In 1996, the Mass
Media Bureau designated Family's license for a renewal proceeding based on its discontinued
broadcasting.  Former Presiding Judge Edward Luton honored the pledge of Family to continue
operations in compliance with Commission rules and granted Family a favorable summary
decision.  Family Broadcasting, Inc., 12 F.C.C. Rcd 18700 (Adm. L. J. 1997).

However, in doing so, he noted with dissatisfaction the prolonged period of station silence that
was never sanctioned.  Instead, in open defiance of the Commission, Family had never applied for
an authorization to go off the air.
45.     In this second enforcement proceeding, Family has shown that it never gained true
appreciation for its broadcast licenses and again defied the Commission with self-help measures,
failures to respond to inquiries, and lying about site locations.  The mitigating circumstances
noted and explicated above cannot overcome Family's demonstrated abandonment of the public
interest.
46.     Finally, for purposes of this Summary Decision, the repeated wrongdoings and
intentional untruths of Luz James cannot be confidently corrected in the future by a dubious
assignment of control to children who will need to rely on the continuing financial generosity and
wherewithal of the wife of Luz James.
47.     It is concluded that there are not mitigating circumstances that are sufficient to offset
the purposeful violations attributable to Luz James and Family as found by this record.
                   Forfeiture Not Appropriate
48.     The Bureau argues that although the violations decided against Family merit license
revocation, the impact of the violations were not sufficiently catastrophic in their consequences or
potential consequences to warrant a forfeiture.  The Presiding Judge concurs in not assessing a
forfeiture in this case.  See Oil Shale Broadcasting Co. (KWSR), 68 F.C.C. 2d 517, 528   29
(1978) (unlawful conduct held not worthy of forfeiture).  Cf. Abacus Broadcasting Corp., 8
F.C.C. Rcd 5110, 5113 (Review Bd. 1993) (deceit softened somewhat where primary motive was
to gain a tactical advantage).  These cases are not directly on point but are relevant to discretion
and are relied on by the Presiding Judge as support for exercising his discretion in not assessing a
forfeiture here.  See Standards for Assessing Forfeitures, 7 F.C.C. Rcd 5339, 5340 (1992) (broad
discretion in choosing remedies and sanctions).
49.     The willful violations of Family could support a forfeiture. Compare  David R. Price,
7 F.C.C. Rcd 6550 (1992), recon. denied, 8 F.C.C. Rcd 2960 (1993) (revocation and forfeiture of
$8,000 where violations included failure to keep tower lighted that was near an airport).
However, in view of the finality of revocation which effectively removes Luz James and Family
from Commission licensing, and in view of the age and adverse health of Luz James and the
mitigating circumstances of hurricane tragedies on St. Croix, and in view of the fact that the
violations apparently did not result in monetary profit for this unsuccessful, small business, as a
matter of discretion, a forfeiture shall not be assessed against Family Broadcasting, Inc. in this
Summary Decision.

                            Rulings
     Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Enforcement Bureau's Motion for Summary
Decision IS GRANTED.
     IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Decision filed by Family
Broadcasting, Inc. IS DENIED.
     IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in view of the revocation of the licenses of Family
Broadcasting, Inc. and the unique circumstances of this case, imposition of a forfeiture would not
be appropriate and a forfeiture will not be assessed.
     IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the licenses for Stations WSTX(AM) and WSTX(FM),
Christiansted, U.S. Virgin Islands ARE HEREBY REVOKED.
                    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                              Richard L. Sippel
                              Administrative Law Judge