[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 23, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57450-57457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18230]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[MB Docket No. 23-267; DA 23-678; FR ID 165332]


Designating Applications To Renew Low Power Television Stations 
Licensed to Jennifer Juarez

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice; Hearing Designation Order/Order to Show Cause

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Media Bureau of the Federal 
Communications Commission commences a hearing proceeding to determine, 
among other things, if the named licensee, Jennifer Juarez, and Antonio 
Cesar Guel, former licensee through his ownership of Hispanic Christian 
Community Network, Inc. (HCCN): lacked candor and misrepresented 
material facts to the Commission; abused FCC processes by engaging in a 
sham assignment of stations that apparently allowed Guel's improper and 
continued control of them; possess the requisite character 
qualifications to be a Commission licensee and, as a result, whether 
the stations' renewal applications should be denied/dismissed and the 
stations cancelled or revoked, whether to impose forfeitures against 
the parties, and whether to issue an order directing Guel/HCCN to cease 
and desist from violating provisions of Commission rules and the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

DATES: Each party to the proceeding (except for the Chief, Enforcement 
Bureau), in person or by counsel, shall file with the Commission, by 
August 31, 2023, a written appearance stating the party will appear on 
the date fixed for hearing and present evidence on the issues specified 
herein.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana E. Leavitt, Video Division, Media 
Bureau at (202) 418-1317 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#83c7e2ede2adcfe6e2f5eaf7f7c3e5e0e0ade4ecf5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="efab8e818ec1a38a8e99869b9baf898c8cc1888099">[email protected]</span></a>. For additional 
information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) information 
collection requirements contained in this document, contact Cathy 
Williams at 202-418-2918, or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e8ab899c8091c6bf8184848189859ba88e8b8bc68f879e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6d2e0c190514433a040101040c001e2d0b0e0e430a021b">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Bureau's HDO in MB 
Docket No. 23-267, DA 23-678, adopted and released on August 10, 2023. 
The full text of this document is available for download at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-23-678A1.pdf. To request materials 
in accessible formats (braille, large print, computer diskettes, or 
audio recordings), please send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#14525757212420547277773a737b62"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="12545151272226527471713c757d64">[email protected]</span></a> or call the 
Consumer & Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (VOICE), (202) 
418-0432 (TTY).

Synopsis

    Hearing Designation Order to Determine, Inter Alia, Whether HCCN 
and/or Antonio Cesar Guel are Real Parties in Interest in Pending 
Applications to Renew Authorizations for Low-Power Television Stations 
Licensed to Jennifer Juarez; Whether the Parties Engaged in a Sham 
Transaction to Allow HCCN/Guel Continued Control of the Stations and 
Abused Commission Processes; Whether the Parties Engaged in 
Misrepresentation and/or Lack of Candor Before the Commission; Whether 
the Parties Possess the Requisite Character Qualifications to be 
Licensees; and Whether Forfeitures Should be Imposed and a Cease and 
Desist Order Should be Issued Against HCCN and/or Guel
    In this Order to Show Cause Why A Cease and Desist Order Should Not 
Be Issued, Order to Show Cause Why an Order of Revocation Should Not Be 
Issued, Hearing Designation Order, Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, 
and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (HDO), the Media Bureau 
(Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) 
asks the ALJ to determine the character qualifications of the three 
designated entities, Hispanic Christian Community Network, Inc., 
Antonio Cesar Guel, and Jennifer Juarez and whether they possess the 
requisite character qualifications to hold broadcast licenses, whether 
to cancel or revoke 7 low power TV (LPTV) stations, and whether to 
issue a cease and desist order against HCCN and Antonio Cesar Guel to 
stop violating the Act and our rules. The HDO is the result of an 
investigation that began in 2018 to explore the extent to which 
Hispanic Christian Community Network, Inc. (HCCN), Antonio Cesar Guel 
(Guel), and Jennifer Juarez (Juarez) may have violated provisions of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), and our rules 
pertaining to foreign ownership limits, unauthorized transfers of 
control/real-party-in-interest issues, and truthful statements made to 
the FCC. The HDO also provides notice of apparent liability against the 
entities for their respective violations and failures to disclose 
material information in their assignment application, and lack of 
candor and misrepresentation of material facts in responding to Bureau 
inquiries.

1. Background

    The Parties: Jennifer Juarez, aka ``Jenifer'' Juarez, is the named 
licensee of the Stations. Juarez states she had no broadcast experience 
when she agreed in 2010 to acquire the stations from HCCN, which was 
100% directly owned by Antonio Cesar Guel, her uncle. She avers that 
``Antonio Cesar Guel helps us with keeping the stations on air. He 
provides programming from some of the churches or pastors that he knows 
and is also our representative with some advertising agencies.'' Juarez 
further avers she has no personnel but that Guel ``provides a lot of 
the technical assistance and advice I need'' and she receives ``a great 
deal of help from my uncle in getting help with contacts in the 
industry, contracts, programming, building the stations, moving the 
stations, etc.'' Juarez also states that she relies on and receives a 
great deal of help from her cousin Maria and some help from her cousin 
Ana (Antonio Guel's daughters), ``as they also are in the broadcast 
business. As a result, I have not really had to put much time into the 
stations.'' Juarez further avers she receives ``a great deal of help 
from my attorney and outside engineer,'' neither of whom she names.
    Guel has been a broadcast licensee since 2005. He was the 100% 
owner of HCCN, which applied for and bought

[[Page 57451]]

and sold dozens of LPTV and LPFM construction permits and stations 
since 2005. In addition to purchasing stations, Guel has also served as 
a consultant to several other LPTV and LPFM licensees, particularly 
those involving Hispanic religious broadcasters. Guel and HCCN were 
defendants in at least two civil law suits involving the sale of 
broadcast construction permits and promising to build the stations but 
failing to do so. Those cases appear to have served as triggers for 
Guel's/HCCN's actions regarding the sale of the stations to Juarez.
    For example, in the earlier case, Unidad, Guel, HCCN, et al., were 
alleged to have defrauded a church regarding the sale of broadcast 
stations. See Unidad de Fe y Amor Corporation v. Iglesia Jesucristo Es 
Mi Refugio, Inc., Robert Gomez, HCCN, Inc., Antonio Cesar Guel, No. C 
08-4910 RS, 2009 WL 1813998 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2009) (Unidad). The 
parties in that case ultimately settled the suit in 2009 and required 
Guel/HCCN, et al., to make monthly payments. In February 2010, however, 
the plaintiffs grew concerned that Guel/HCCN and the other defendants 
might default on payments, so the plaintiffs petitioned the court to 
enforce the settlement. This lawsuit appears to have spurred Guel/HCCN 
to sell LPTV stations to Juarez, because the very next month, Guel and 
Juarez executed an agreement for her to buy 17 stations from Guel/HCCN. 
Although Juarez claims that Guel told her he was struggling financially 
due to the economy and ``offered to sell us some television channels 
[sic] and also offered us financing [sic] the channels through his 
company,'' it is unclear how Guel would have financed Juarez's purchase 
of the stations if he were struggling financially.
    The HCCN-Juarez Transaction: On March 12, 2010, Guel, as president 
of HCCN, and Juarez executed an asset purchase agreement (APA) whereby 
she agreed to pay HCCN $320,000 to purchase 16 of its LPTV stations 
(including the 7 at issue in the HDO) pursuant to a payment plan 
identified at Schedule 2.1. It was later discovered that Juarez 
apparently was a minor in March 2010. (Under Texas law, a minor is 
typically ineligible to enter into such a contract.)
    On March 15, 2010, HCCN filed with the Commission an application to 
assign 16 of its LPTV stations to ``Jenifer'' Juarez (which is not the 
legal spelling of her first name). Guel/HCCN and Juarez (Parties) 
attached the APA to the assignment application (Application) as an 
exhibit.
    The Application required each Party to certify to the FCC that 
``the statements in this application are true, complete, and correct to 
the best of my knowledge and belief, and are made in good faith. I 
acknowledge that all certifications and attached Exhibits are 
considered material representations.'' It also cautioned them that 
willful false statements are ``punishable by fine and/or imprisonment 
(U.S. Code, title 18, section 1001), and/or revocation of any station 
license or construction permit (U.S. Code, title 47, section 
312(a)(1)), and/or forfeiture (U.S. code, title 47, section 503).'' 
Guel's signature on the Application affirmatively represented that the 
Parties' agreements complied fully with FCC rules and policies; that 
the documents provided ``embody the complete and final understanding 
between'' the Parties; and that HCCN had provided copies of all 
agreements for the sale/transfer of the stations, except for Schedule 
2.1, which he represented contained ``private financial information, 
and was properly redacted pursuant to Commission policy established in 
LUJ, Inc.'' Juarez made a similar certification.
    The Parties further agreed to comply with any condition imposed on 
it by the FCC with respect to its consent to the transaction. Guel, as 
100% stockholder and president of HCCN, was apparently represented by 
attorney Dan Alpert. It does not appear that Juarez was represented by 
counsel in this transaction.
    The Commission consented to the assignment based on the Parties' 
certifications that the transaction complied with FCC rules and 
policies (Grant). This Grant informed the Parties, in relevant part, 
that consummation of their transaction ``shall be completed within 90 
days from the date'' of the Grant (i.e., no later than July 25, 2010) 
and that ``notice in letter form thereof shall promptly be furnished to 
the Commission by the seller or buyer showing the date the acts 
necessary to effect the transaction were completed.'' The Grant further 
informed the Parties that the FCC would consider the sale complete upon 
the filing of the notice, at which point Juarez could begin operating 
the stations as the licensee. As specified in the APA, the closing was 
scheduled to take place no later than June 25, 2010.
    In granting the assignment, however, the FCC was unaware of several 
material facts that the Parties had failed to disclose. For example, 
Juarez certified she had ``sufficient net liquid assets [] on hand or 
are available from committed sources to consummate the transaction and 
operate the station(s) for three months.'' It is unclear how an 
apparent teenager with no broadcast experience could finance that 
purchase, and the Parties did not disclose that Guel purportedly was 
financing Juarez's purchase of all the stations on a payment plan 
described in Schedule 2.1 of the APA, which they withheld by 
characterizing it as private financial information that could be 
excluded from the Application pursuant to FCC precedent. (To this day, 
Guel/HCCN and Juarez have not produced a copy of Schedule 2.1, and it 
is not clear if such a document ever existed or if the claim in the 
Application about Schedule 2.1 was false.) In fact, this type of seller 
financing of a broadcast transaction is not ``private financial 
information,'' but rather was required to be included in the 
Application because it was directly relevant to the issue of whether 
the transaction complies with the Rules, particularly the Rule 
prohibiting a seller from having a reversionary interest in a broadcast 
station. The Parties also did not disclose the terms of an unwritten 
side agreement, whereby payments for the Stations would be made after 
``consummating'' the sale, and Guel would hold the closing papers and 
not file the requisite consummation notice until some unspecified time 
after ``payments were made.''
    The Parties did not file the requisite notice (or the requisite 
ownership report) within 30 days of purportedly consummating the 
transaction. They instead waited four years, when HCCN's counsel, 
Alpert, filed the notice on November 10, 2014, certifying that HCCN and 
Juarez had closed the sale on July 25, 2010, the deadline indicated in 
the Grant. The same counsel obtained an FCC Registration Number (FRN), 
required to conduct business with the FCC, for Juarez on December 1, 
2014. In the spring of 2016, Juarez filed applications to renew the 
licenses of three of the captioned stations, two of which remain 
pending. In 2021, Juarez filed applications to renew the licenses of 
four of the captioned stations, and in 2022 she filed an application to 
renew the seventh station; these applications are likewise pending.
    HCCN Continued Filing Applications Post-Consummation. If the 
Parties had in fact closed the sale in July 2010, as required by their 
agreement and specified in the Grant, Juarez should have assumed 
control of the stations on July 25, 2010, and the Parties should have 
notified the Commission no later than August 24, 2010, via the 
requisite consummation notice. Yet actions taken by HCCN between July 
2010 and November 2014 suggest that HCCN, not Juarez, continued to 
control and operate

[[Page 57452]]

the stations. Specifically, HCCN continued to hold itself out to the 
public as the licensee of the stations by filing with the FCC scores of 
applications or reports between July 25, 2010 and November 10, 2014, to 
wit: two biennial ownership reports; one change-of-address notice; and 
over 30 applications affecting the stations purportedly assigned to 
Juarez in July 2010. For example:
    <bullet> On April 1, 2013, HCCN filed a renewal application for 
WESL-LP, one of the stations Juarez was presumably operating. That 
application was signed by ``Cesar A. Guel,'' president of HCCN, and 
certified that HCCN complied with statutory limits on foreign 
ownership.
    <bullet> On December 20, 2013, HCCN filed a biennial ownership 
report for 40 stations, including those purportedly sold to Juarez. 
This report certified that, as of October 1, 2013, Antonio Guel was no 
longer an officer or director of HCCN but retained 100% direct 
ownership of the voting and equity rights for HCCN's outstanding stock. 
Cesar certified that he was HCCN's sole officer and director and that 
Guel was a U.S. citizen. Cesar also certified that he and Guel were not 
related as parent/child. The Commission subsequently learned that Cesar 
Antonio Guel is the son of Antonio Cesar Guel.
    <bullet> On April 1, 2014, HCCN filed applications to renew the 
licenses of stations KZAB-LP and KJTN-LP. Cesar signed the 
applications, certifying that HCCN complied with statutory foreign 
ownership limits. HCCN, however, did not timely withdraw or amend these 
applications that remained pending after the purported May 19, 2014 
realization that Guel, as a non-U.S. citizen, could not hold a direct 
interest greater than 20% in a corporate FCC licensee such as HCCN.
    Most notably, in August 2014, HCCN filed applications to transfer 
all of the stations purportedly sold to Juarez in 2010 to another 
entity; HCCN described the sale as a ``corporate reorganization to 
another corporation'' for which no consideration was being paid. Guel/
HCCN planned to sell the stations to Hispanic Family Christian Network, 
Inc. (HFCN), a company that Guel founded in 2007. Guel at some later 
date apparently transferred ownership of HFCN to family members, 
including Juarez. Documents submitted to the FCC indicate that Maria C. 
Guel, HFCN's president, notified the Texas Secretary of State that 
Juarez had been named a director as of February 5, 2010, and would 
serve as HFCN's treasurer. Juarez's term as a member of HFCN's board of 
directors would run through May 5, 2013. Various documents filed with 
the FCC echo this, with HFCN reporting that Juarez held a one-third 
voting interest in HFCN in 2010 continuing through at least 2021.
    In June and September 2014, the FCC received petitions objecting to 
the renewal and assignment of the stations that HCCN had purportedly 
sold to Juarez in 2010. The petitions were filed by Michael Couzens, an 
attorney who represented pastors a 2014 civil case in which Guel and 
HCCN were eventually adjudged to have defrauded the plaintiff pastors 
based on Guel/HCCN's and other defendants' false promises to sell and 
construct LPTV stations in California. See Jose Gonzalez et al. v. 
Iglesia Jesucristo Es Mi Refugio, Inc., HCCN, and Antonio Cesar Guel, 
No. BC 501688, Los Angeles County Superior Court) (default judgment 
issued Feb. 26, 2016). As a result of that litigation, petitioner 
Couzens learned that Guel was not a natural born citizen of the United 
States, had not become a naturalized U.S. citizen and, therefore, was 
not, at that time, a U.S. citizen. The petitioner shared that 
information with the FCC and argued that, as a non-U.S. citizen and 
100% owner of HCCN, Guel had falsely certified compliance with 
statutory limits on foreign ownership in dozen of filings with the FCC 
and had no legal right to hold or assign the stations. After that 
disclosure to the FCC, Guel/HCCN filed the four-years' delinquent 
notice that the Parties had closed the sale of stations to Juarez on 
July 25, 2010. On the following day, November 11, 2014, HCCN filed for 
bankruptcy protection.
    The Investigation. As a result of allegations raised in the 
petitions, coupled with HCCN's conflicting filings and the fact that 
the Parties hadn't filed a timely consummation notice, the Media Bureau 
issued a pre-hearing designation letter (1.88 Letter) advising Juarez 
that the Bureau needed to evaluate potential statutory and/or FCC rule 
violations. Accordingly, the Bureau instructed Juarez to provide a 
written response, under penalty of perjury, to nine inquiries and 
explain, inter alia, the delay in filing the consummation notice and 
why HCCN had continued filing applications if Juarez had assumed 
control of the stations in July 2010. It instructed her to provide 
evidence that she controlled the policies governing the Stations' 
programming, personnel, and finances. It also instructed Juarez to 
provide documentary evidence supporting her responses and an affidavit, 
signed under penalty of perjury, stating that since July 25, 2010, she 
had been ``the licensee and in control of the day-to-day operations of 
the stations in a manner that is consistent with Commission rules and 
precedent; each station has operated pursuant to the parameters 
authorized in its license; and at no time has any station been silent 
for a consecutive twelve month period. To the extent such statements 
cannot be provided, please provide a detailed explanation.''
    The 1.88 Response. Juarez filed a timely response on April 23, 2018 
(Response). To describe the closing and explain the delinquent 
consummation notice, Juarez avers that ``the Closing papers were first 
prepared in May 2010 and were signed July [sic] 2010. The understanding 
I had with HCCN was that it would hold onto the papers and that the 
consummation notice would be filed as soon as payments were made for 
the stations.'' Juarez neither provides the date in July 2010 she 
claims to have signed the closing papers, nor explains why the closing 
certificates she provided were signed but undated and had retained the 
blank space to indicate when in May 2010 the Parties had signed the 
certificates. To explain why the Parties created this arrangement, 
Juarez referred the Bureau to a declaration from Guel that she included 
in her Response. Therein, Guel avers that HCCN's assets were ``under 
attack'' due to a lawsuit against him and HCCN, which purportedly led 
to HCCN's bankruptcy. He also averred that, as a result of the lawsuit, 
``it was realized for the first time'' in 2014 that he was unqualified 
to be an FCC licensee as he was not a U.S. citizen. Guel further avers 
that one of his last acts before filing for HCCN's bankruptcy was to 
complete the transactions to ensure that assignees such as Juarez 
became the ``officially recognized licensees at the FCC.'' Guel adds 
that he had entered ``verbal arrangements'' whereby the assignees such 
as Juarez ``could run the stations, but HCCN would remain officially 
the named licensee with the FCC until such time as the majority of the 
amounts owed was paid.''
    In the Response, Juarez and Guel both disclose that they had an 
oral agreement to delay filing the consummation notice until Juarez 
paid for the stations, but she could operate them in the interim. The 
Parties had not revealed this arrangement in the Application or APA, 
despite their respective certifications that the APA embodied the 
parties full agreement and complied with FCC rules and the Act. 
Additionally, neither Guel nor Juarez provided details explaining 
exactly how Guel ``financed'' her purchase of the stations, which the 
Parties also had failed to disclose in the APA. Juarez did not provide 
any evidence of payments or terms of such

[[Page 57453]]

financing. Further, Juarez does not provide any contemporaneous 
evidence to support her claim that she controlled the stations' 
personnel, finances, or programming since July 25, 2010, and the 
evidence she did provide of her purported control of the stations since 
November 2014 does not sufficiently support her claim.
    Juarez further averred she held no stations other than those she 
purportedly acquired from Guel/HCCN in 2010.

2. Applicable Statutes and Rules

    License Renewal Standard. Juarez's applications to renew the 
stations are currently pending before the Commission. Section 309(k) of 
the Act provides that the FCC is to grant a license renewal application 
if it finds, with respect to that station, during the previous license 
term (a) the station has served the public interest, convenience, and 
necessity, (b) there have been no serious violations by the licensee of 
the Act or the Rules, and (c) there have been no other violations of 
the Act or Rules which, taken together, would constitute a pattern of 
abuse. If the Commission is unable to make such a determination, it may 
deny the renewal application or grant it on such terms and conditions 
as are appropriate, including a short-term renewal. Prior to denying a 
renewal application, the Commission must provide notice and opportunity 
for a hearing conducted in accordance with section 309(e) of the Act 
and consider whether any mitigating factors justify the imposition of 
lesser sanctions. Allegations of misrepresentation are material 
considerations in a license renewal review.
    Character Qualifications. The character of an applicant is among 
those factors that the FCC considers in determining whether an 
applicant has the requisite qualifications to be a Commission licensee. 
Section 312(a)(2) of the Act provides that the FCC may revoke any 
license if ``conditions com[e] to the attention of the Commission which 
would warrant it in refusing to grant a license or permit on the 
original application.'' Because the character of the applicant is among 
those factors the FCC considers in its review of applications to 
determine whether the applicant has the requisite qualifications to 
operate the station for which authority is sought, a character defect 
that would warrant the Commission's refusal to grant a license in the 
original application would likewise support a Commission determination 
to revoke a license or permit.
    Misrepresentation and Lack of Candor. As court's have noted, 
``applicants before the FCC are held to a high standard of candor and 
forthrightness.'' The Commission licenses tens of thousands of radio 
and television stations in the public interest, and therefore relies 
heavily on the completeness and accuracy of the submissions made to it. 
Thus, ``applicants . . . have an affirmative duty to inform the 
Commission of the facts it needs in order to fulfill its statutory 
mandate.'' The FCC ``refuse[s] to tolerate deliberate 
misrepresentations'' and may also premise a finding of lack of candor 
on omissions, the core of which is ``a failure to be completely 
forthcoming in the provision of information which could illuminate a 
decisional matter.''
    Misrepresentation is a false statement of fact made with intent to 
deceive the Commission and is proscribed by our Rules. Section 
1.17(a)(1) of the Rules states that no person shall, in any written or 
oral statement of fact, intentionally provide material factual 
information that is incorrect or intentionally omit material 
information that is necessary to prevent any material factual statement 
that is made from being incorrect or misleading. Similarly, lack of 
candor (a concealment, evasion, or other failure to be fully 
informative, accompanied by an intent to deceive the Commission) is 
within the scope of the rule. A necessary element of both 
misrepresentation and lack of candor is intent to deceive. Fraudulent 
intent can be found from ``the fact of misrepresentation coupled with 
proof that the party making it had knowledge of its falsity.'' Intent 
can also be found from motive or a logical desire to deceive. False 
statements knowingly made to the Commission can be a basis for 
revocation of a license or construction permit.
    Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules further requires that no person may 
provide, in any written statement of fact, ``material factual 
information that is incorrect or omit material information that is 
necessary to prevent any material factual statement that is made from 
being incorrect or misleading without a reasonable basis for believing 
that any such material factual statement is correct and not 
misleading.'' Thus, even absent an intent to deceive, a false statement 
may constitute an actionable violation of Sec.  1.17 of the Rules if 
provided without a reasonable basis for believing that the material 
factual information it contains is correct and not misleading.
    When reviewing FCC-related misconduct in the licensing context, the 
Commission evaluates whether the licensee will likely be forthright in 
future dealings with the Commission and will operate its station 
consistent with the requirements of the Act, the Rules and FCC 
policies. Indeed, the FCC's Character Qualifications Policy Statement 
acknowledges that, in assessing character qualifications in 
broadcasting matters, the relevant character traits the Commission is 
concerned with ``are those of `truthfulness' and `reliability.' '' 
Thus, misrepresentation would also demonstrate a lack of candor under 
the FCC's character qualifications policy. Because the FCC relies 
heavily on the honesty and probity of its licensees in a regulatory 
system that is largely self-policing, courts have recognized that an 
applicant who deliberately makes misrepresentations or lacks candor may 
engage in disqualifying conduct. The FCC also has recognized that ``any 
violations of the Communications Act, Commission rules or Commission 
policies can be said to have a potential bearing on character 
qualifications.'' It therefore is appropriate to consider ``any 
violation of any provision of the Act, or of our Rules or policies, as 
possibly predictive of future conduct and, thus, as possibly raising 
concerns over the licensee's future truthfulness and reliability.'' 
Such violations also can be a basis for revocation of a license or 
construction permit.
    Unauthorized Transfer of Control. Section 310(d) of the Act states 
that no ``station license, or any rights thereunder, shall be 
transferred, assigned, or disposed of in any manner, voluntarily or 
involuntarily, directly or indirectly, or by transfer of control . . . 
to any person except upon application to the Commission and a 
Commission finding that the public interest, convenience, and necessity 
will be served thereby.'' Thus, under section 310(d) of the Act, the 
FCC prohibits de facto, as well as de jure, transfers of control of a 
station license, or any rights thereunder, without prior Commission 
consent.
    In determining whether an entity has de facto control of a 
broadcast applicant or licensee, we have traditionally looked beyond 
legal title and financial interests to determine who holds operational 
control of the station. The FCC, in particular, looks to whether the 
entity in question establishes the policies governing station 
programming, personnel, and finances, and has long held that a licensee 
may delegate day-to-day operations regarding those three areas without 
surrendering de facto control, so long as the licensee continues to set 
the policies governing

[[Page 57454]]

those operations. The FCC will consider other factors, such as whether 
someone other than the licensee holds themselves out to station staff 
and/or the public as one who controls station affairs.
    Act and Rule Violations by Non-licensees. With respect to HCCN and 
Guel (currently non-licensees), section 312(b) of the Act authorizes 
the FCC to order a person who ``has violated or failed to observe any 
of the provisions of this chapter,'' or ``has violated or failed to 
observe any rule or regulation of the Commission authorized by this 
chapter,'' to cease and desist from such activity. The process is laid 
out in section 312(c), which specifies that, prior to issuing such a 
cease and desist order, the Commission ``shall serve upon the licensee, 
permittee, or person involved an order to show cause why . . . a cease 
and desist order should not be issued. Any such order to show cause 
shall contain a statement of the matters with respect to which the 
Commission is inquiring and shall call upon said . . . person to appear 
before the Commission.'' Courts have specifically rejected the argument 
that the FCC lacks authority to sanction non-licensees for violating 
the Act and Commission rules after notice and an opportunity for 
hearing, stating that ``such a result would make little sense. If a 
person who should have a license but did not obtain one were to start 
doing what only a licensee can do, why should the Commission not be 
able to issue a cease and desist order against that person?'' Moreover, 
the Act expressly authorizes the FCC to issue a monetary sanction 
``against a person under this subsection after notice and an 
opportunity for a hearing before the Commission or an administrative 
law judge thereof'' where a non-licensee engages in activities for 
which a license, permit, certificate, or other authorization is 
required. Thus, although HCCN and Guel do not currently hold licenses, 
they nevertheless are subject to the Act by virtue of the fact that 
both satisfy the definition of a ``person'' and have apparently 
violated and/or failed to observe the requirements of section 301 of 
the Act. This is eminently sensible since, in the alternative, 
individuals could continue to violate FCC rules with impunity.
    Real Party in Interest and Abuse of Process. Because the FCC must 
determine whether a potential licensee meets statutory requirements to 
hold and operate broadcast stations, parties who intend to assign 
authorizations are required to disclose the ``real party in interest'' 
purchasing the stations at issue and must certify that they have 
disclosed all material information requested in the application. The 
Commission has noted that the phrase ``real party in interest'' usually 
applies to parties to pending applications, while ``de facto'' control 
is normally applied to persons controlling existing authorizations. The 
concern in either context is whether an applicant is, or will be, 
controlled in a manner that differs from the proposal before, or 
approved by, the Commission. Thus, a real party in interest is an 
undisclosed applicant that ``has an ownership interest or is or will be 
in a position to actually or potentially control the operation of the 
station.'' Given the concealment from the FCC of a party controlling an 
applicant, real parties in interest are deemed to exercise de facto 
control over a station in a manner that, ``by its very nature, is a 
basic qualifying issue in which the element of deception is necessarily 
subsumed.''
    Further, it is an abuse of Commission processes to attempt to 
achieve a result our licensing processes were not designed or intended 
to permit, or to attempt to subvert the underlying purpose of the 
licensing process. As the Commission has noted, ``both the potential 
for deception and the failure to submit material information can 
undermine the Commission's essential licensing functions.'' Thus, false 
certifications subvert our licensing process. Moreover, filing an 
application in the name of a surrogate is deceptive and denies the 
Commission and the public the opportunity to review the qualifications 
of the real party who will control and operate a station; it also 
constitutes an abuse of process. Classic abuse-of-process cases 
involving surrogate applicants include sisters who served as fronts for 
their brother to claim a preference once available to female-owned 
businesses, or deceased relatives whose names were used by licensees 
that had reached the limit on the number of authorizations that could 
be issued in their names.
    Foreign Ownership Limitations. Section 310(b) of the Act limits 
foreign holdings of broadcast licenses. The statute limits direct 
foreign ownership of broadcast licensees to 20%, while allowing for 
certain indirect holdings of such interests by foreign persons or 
entities. Specifically, the statute states in relevant part:
    No broadcast . . . station license shall be granted to or held by--
    (1) any alien or the representative of any alien;
    (2) any corporation organized under the laws of any foreign 
government;
    (3) any corporation of which more than one-fifth of the capital 
stock is owned of record or voted by aliens or their representatives or 
by a foreign government or representative thereof or by any corporation 
organized under the laws of a foreign country.

3. Discussion

    Guel avers he directly held 100% voting rights of HCCN until 2013. 
Guel was not a U.S. citizen during that time; he was--and apparently 
still is--a citizen of Mexico. There is nothing in the record to 
indicate that HCCN was owned by any other corporation. Thus, at the 
time of Guel's direct ownership of HCCN, the company was subject to 
section 310(b)(3) of the Act, which limits direct foreign ownership by 
non-U.S. citizens to no more than one-fifth of the capital stock. The 
FCC therefore could not have granted a broadcast license to HCCN 
consistent with the Act because of Guel's 100% direct stock ownership 
in HCCN. The record indicates that Guel, through HCCN, repeatedly 
falsely certified to the FCC his citizenship and/or HCCN's compliance 
with statutory limits on foreign ownership.
    Guel, currently a non-licensee, does not appear to hold any 
broadcast licenses. Nevertheless, the record indicates that HCCN and/or 
Guel exercised, and may continue to exercise, improper de facto and 
unauthorized control over the stations, in apparent violation of 
statutory requirements. There are substantial and material questions of 
fact as to the duration and extent of such control, and whether it 
continues to the present. We also find that there are substantial and 
material questions of fact as to whether HCCN and Guel should be 
considered one and the same entity for purposes of this proceeding.
    There also are substantial and material questions of fact as to 
whether the Parties lacked candor or misrepresented material facts in 
the assignment Application, when they each certified their agreement 
complied with FCC rules and embodied the Parties full agreement. There 
are substantial and material questions of fact as to whether the 
Parties consummated the sale of stations from HCCN to Juarez in 2010 or 
ever. There are substantial and material questions of fact as to when 
and whether Juarez assumed legal control of the stations.
    Finally, there are material and substantial questions as to whether 
the Parties lacked candor or misrepresented facts in statements made in 
the Response filed with the Bureau in 2018. For example, Guel averred 
he only discovered in 2014 that his 100% ownership of HCCN precluded 
him/HCCN from holding broadcast licenses,

[[Page 57455]]

and that he had relied on advice of counsel in certifying HCCN's 
compliance with foreign ownership limits. Guel nowhere claims ignorance 
as to his actual citizenship, however, and his declaration offers no 
excuse for false certifications that he was a U.S. citizen. Moreover, 
licensees are responsible for the actions of their agents and shifting 
blame for a licensee's statutory violations does not exculpate the 
licensee. Indeed, the record indicates that as early as 2005, Guel had 
filed applications with the Commission to acquire a station in Yuma, 
Arizona, wherein Guel falsely represented HCCN's compliance with 
section 310(b)(3) of the Act, at a time when he stated he was not 
represented by counsel. It thus appears that Guel lacked candor and/or 
misrepresented facts in his declaration. As for Juarez, she averred in 
her Response that she controlled the stations since July 2010. But she 
provided no contemporaneous documents to support that statement, and 
the historical record indicates that Guel/HCCN controlled the stations 
until at least August 2014. She also averred that ``[t]here are no 
other stations owned or controlled by me.'' Multiple documents, filed 
over many years, contradict this, as her cousin Maria Guel repeatedly 
certified in public FCC filings and other official documents that 
Juarez has held, since 2010, a 33% attributable interest in HFCN.
    Based on the totality of the record, there are substantial and 
material questions of fact as to: (1) whether Juarez abused Commission 
processes by filing a sham application to enable HCCN or Guel to 
continue operating and controlling the stations despite non-compliance 
with the foreign ownership limitations of section 310(b)(3), and by 
secretly agreeing to delay indefinitely filing the requisite 
consummation notice; (2) whether and when Juarez acquired control of 
and began operating the Stations consistent with the Act and/or the 
Rules and, based on that, whether Juarez engaged in an unauthorized 
transfer of control in violation of section 310 of the Act by either 
operating the stations without legitimate authority or by ceding 
control of the stations to HCCN; (3) whether Juarez lacked candor and/
or misrepresented facts to the Commission, including in the Assignment 
Application and in her 1.88 Letter Response; and (4) whether Juarez has 
the qualifications to be and remain a licensee. As a result, we issue 
this Order to Show Cause Why an Order of Revocation Should Not Be 
Issued, Hearing Designation Order, Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, 
and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture to determine whether 
(a) the licenses of the stations should be revoked; (b) whether the 
captioned applications for renewal of the licenses of the stations 
should be granted, dismissed or denied; and/or (c) whether a forfeiture 
order should be issued to Juarez.
    With respect to HCCN and its former 100% direct stockholder Guel, 
there are substantial and material questions of fact as to whether HCCN 
and Guel should be considered one and the same entity for purposes of 
this proceeding. There are also substantial and material questions of 
fact as to whether HCCN and/or Guel have exercised and continue to 
exercise de facto control over the stations. Accordingly, we issue an 
Order to Show Cause Why a Cease and Desist Order Should Not be Issued, 
Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, and Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture against HCCN and Guel to cease and desist from violating 
Commission Rules and the Act, including making willfully inaccurate, 
incomplete, evasive, false, or misleading statements before the 
Commission in violation of Sec.  1.17 of FCC rules and engaging in 
unauthorized control and operation of broadcast stations in violation 
of section 301, 308, and 310 of the Act and to determine and whether a 
forfeiture should be issued to HCCN and Guel. Moreover, we find that 
there are substantial and material questions of fact as to whether HCCN 
and/or Guel: (1) have misrepresented material information to the 
Commission and lacked candor; (2) have abused Commission processes 
first by filing an assignment application that lacked bona fides while 
maintaining de facto control of the stations, and then by impermissibly 
and intentionally bifurcating ownership of the stations for years by 
not timely filing the requisite consummation notice; and (3) are fit to 
be Commission licensees in light of these apparent violations, abuses, 
and lack of candor and/or misrepresentation of facts to the Commission. 
Accordingly, we issue an Order to Show Cause Why a Cease and Desist 
Order Should Not be Issued, Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, and 
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture against HCCN and Guel to 
cease and desist from operating, controlling, managing, or providing 
any assistance to any stations; from preparing and/or filing 
applications or other documents regarding HCCN with the Commission; 
and, to the extent HCCN or Guel is allowed to assist any other 
licensee/permittee/applicant in any way with the operation or 
construction of any station, or to provide any assistance or input in 
any way in preparing or filing any application with the Commission, 
from doing so without also providing a copy of any order issued in this 
proceeding that finds he lacks the character to be a Commission 
licensee in any and all filings with the Commission in every matter in 
which he participates in any way.

4. Ordering Clauses

    1. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 308, 
309(d), 309(e), 309(k), and 312(a)-(c) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 308, 
309(d), 309(e), 309(k), and 312(a)-(c), the above-captioned 
applications and licenses are designated for hearing before an FCC 
administrative law judge, at a time and location specified in a 
subsequent Order, upon the following issues:
    (a) To determine whether Jennifer Juarez abused Commission 
processes by misrepresentation, concealment, or otherwise.
    (b) To determine whether Jennifer Juarez abused Commission 
processes by entering into an undisclosed agreement to delay 
indefinitely the filing notice of the Parties' purported consummation.
    (c) To determine when and whether Jennifer Juarez is and/or has 
been exercising affirmative control of KHDE-LD, KJTN-LP, KZAB-LP, KZTE-
LD, KTEQ-LP, KRPO-LD, and WESL-LP.
    (d) To determine whether Antonio Cesar Guel and Hispanic Christian 
Community Network, Inc. is (and/or has been, during the most recent 
license term) a real-party-in-interest to the captioned applications 
for Stations KHDE-LD, KJTN-LP, KZAB-LP, KZTE-LD, KTEQ-LP, KRPO-LD, and 
WESL-LP.
    (e) To determine whether there has been a de facto transfer of 
control of KHDE-LD, KJTN-LP, KZAB-LP, KZTE-LD, KTEQ-LP, KRPO-LD, and 
WESL-LP to Antonio Cesar Guel or Hispanic Christian Community Network, 
Inc. in violation of section 310(d) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 310(d) and 
Sec. Sec.  73.1150(a), (b), and 73.3540 of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 73.1150(a), (b), and 73.3540.
    (f) To determine whether Jennifer Juarez engaged in 
misrepresentation and/or lack of candor in applications and 
communications with the Commission or otherwise violated Sec. Sec.  
1.17, 1.65, and 73.1015 of the Commission's rules involving KHDE-LD, 
KJTN-LP, KZAB-LP, KZTE-LD, KTEQ-LP, KRPO-LD, and WESL-LP.
    (g) To determine, in light of the evidence adduced regarding issues 
(a)-(f) and (i)-(j), whether the captioned license renewal applications 
should be granted with such terms and conditions

[[Page 57456]]

as are appropriate, including renewal for a term less than the maximum 
otherwise permitted, or denied due to failure to satisfy the 
requirements of section 309(k)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 309(k)(1), and 
the licenses cancelled.
    (h) To determine, in light of evidence adduced regarding the 
foregoing issues (a)-(f) and (i)-(j) whether Jennifer Juarez possesses 
the character qualifications to be or remain a Commission licensee and 
whether the licenses for KHDE-LD, KJTN-LP, KZAB-LP, KZTE-LD, KTEQ-LP, 
KRPO-LD, and WESL-LP should be revoked.
    (i) To determine whether Antonio Cesar Guel and Hispanic Christian 
Community Network, Inc. should, for purposes of this proceeding, be 
considered one and the same entity.
    (j) To determine whether Antonio Cesar Guel and/or Hispanic 
Christian Community Network, Inc. have exercised and continue to 
exercise de facto control over KHDE-LD, KJTN-LP, KZAB-LP, KZTE-LD, 
KTEQ-LP, KRPO-LD, and WESL-LP.
    (k) To determine whether Antonio Cesar Guel and/or Hispanic 
Christian Community Network, Inc. have misrepresented material 
information to the Commission and/or lacked candor.
    (l) To determine whether Antonio Cesar Guel and/or Hispanic 
Christian Community Network, Inc. have abused Commission processes 
first by filing an assignment application that lacked bona fides while 
maintaining de facto control of the KHDE-LD, KJTN-LP, KZAB-LP, KZTE-LD, 
KTEQ-LP, KRPO-LD, and WESL-L, and then by impermissibly and 
intentionally bifurcating ownership of KHDE-LD, KJTN-LP, KZAB-LP, KZTE-
LD, KTEQ-LP, KRPO-LD, and WESL-LP for years by not timely filing the 
requisite consummation notice.
    (m) To determine, in light of evidence adduced regarding issues 
(i), (k), and (l), whether Antonio Cesar Guel and/or Hispanic Christian 
Community Network, Inc. shall be ordered to cease and desist from 
violating Commission Rules and the Act, including making willfully 
inaccurate, incomplete, evasive, false, or misleading statements before 
the Commission in violation of Sec.  1.17 of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 1.17, and engaging in unauthorized control and operation of 
broadcast stations in violation of sections 301, 308, and 310 of the 
Act, 47 U.S.C. 301, 308, and 310.
    (n) To determine, in light of evidence adduced regarding issues 
(i), (k), and (l), whether Antonio Cesar Guel and/or Hispanic Christian 
Community Network, Inc. shall be ordered to cease and desist from 
operating, controlling, managing or providing any assistance to any 
stations;
    (o) To determine, in light of evidence adduced regarding issues 
(i), (k), and (l), whether Antonio Cesar Guel and/or Hispanic Christian 
Community Network, Inc. shall be ordered to cease and desist from 
preparing and/or filing applications or other documents regarding 
Hispanic Christian Community Network, Inc. with the Commission;
    (p) To determine, in light of evidence adduced regarding issues 
(i), (k), and (l), whether Antonio Cesar Guel and/or Hispanic Christian 
Community Network, Inc., to the extent Antonio Cesar Guel or and/or 
Hispanic Christian Community Network, Inc. is allowed to assist any 
other licensee/permittee/applicant in any way with the operation or 
construction of any station, or to provide any assistance or input in 
any way in preparing or filing any application with the Commission, 
shall be ordered to cease and desist from doing so without also 
providing a copy of any order issued in this proceeding that finds 
Hispanic Christian Community Network, Inc. or Antonio Cesar Guel lacks 
the character to be a Commission licensee in any and all filings with 
the Commission in every matter in which he participates in any way.
    (q) To determine, in light of evidence adduced regarding issues 
(i), (k), and (l), whether Antonio Cesar Guel and and/or Hispanic 
Christian Community Network, Inc. possesses the character 
qualifications to be Commission licensees.
    1. It is further ordered that, pursuant to sections 312(b) and (c) 
of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 312 (b) and (c), and Sec. Sec.  1.91 and 1.92 of 
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.91, 1.92, Antonio Cesar Guel and 
Hispanic Christian Community Network, Inc. are directed to show cause 
why they should not be ordered to cease and desist:
    (a) from violating Commission Rules and the Act, including making 
willfully inaccurate, incomplete, evasive, false, or misleading 
statements before the Commission in violation of Sec.  1.17 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.17, and engaging in unauthorized control 
and operation of broadcast stations in violation of sections 301, 308, 
and 310 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 301, 308, and 310;
    (b) from operating, controlling, managing or providing any 
assistance to any stations;
    (c) from preparing and/or filing applications or other documents 
regarding Hispanic Christian Community Network, Inc. with the 
Commission; and
    (d) to the extent Antonio Cesar Guel or Hispanic Christian 
Community Network, Inc. is allowed to assist any other licensee/
permittee/applicant in any way with the operation or construction of 
any station, or to provide any assistance or input in any way in 
preparing or filing any application with the Commission, from doing so 
without also providing a copy of any order issued in this proceeding 
that finds Antonio Cesar Guel or Hispanic Christian Community Network, 
Inc., lacks the character to be a Commission licensee in any and all 
filings with the Commission in every matter in which he participates in 
any way.
    2. It is further ordered that, pursuant to section 312(c) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 312(c), and 
Sec. Sec.  1.91(b) and (c) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.91(b) 
and (c), to avail themselves of the opportunity to be heard and to 
present evidence at a hearing in this proceeding, Antonio Cesar Guel 
and Hispanic Christian Community Network, Inc., in person or by an 
attorney, shall file with the Commission, within twenty (20) days of 
the mailing of this Order to Show Cause Why A Cease and Desist Order 
Should Not Be Issued, Order to Show Cause Why an Order of Revocation 
Should Not Be Issued, Hearing Designation Order, Notice of Opportunity 
for Hearing, and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, a written 
appearance stating that he will appear at the hearing and present 
evidence on the issues specified above at a hearing. If Antonio Cesar 
Guel or Hispanic Christian Community Network, Inc. waive their rights 
to a hearing pursuant to Sec.  1.92(a)(1) or (a)(3) of the Rules, 47 
CFR 1.92(a)(1) or (a)(3), they may submit a timely written statement 
denying or seeking to mitigate or justify the circumstances or conduct 
complained of in the order to show cause.
    3. It is further ordered that, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.91 and 1.92 
of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.91 and 1.92, that if Antonio Cesar 
Guel or Hispanic Christian Community Network, Inc. fails to file a 
written appearance within the time specified above, or has not filed 
prior to the expiration of that time a petition to accept, for good 
cause shown, such written appearance beyond expiration of said 20 days, 
the right to a hearing shall be deemed waived. Where a hearing is 
waived, the Administrative Law Judge shall issue an order terminating 
the hearing proceeding and certifying the case to the Commission.

[[Page 57457]]

    4. It is further ordered that, in addition to the resolution of the 
foregoing issues, it shall be determined, pursuant to section 503(b)(1) 
of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1), whether an order of forfeiture should 
be issued against Jennifer Juarez in an amount not to exceed the 
statutory limit for the willful and/or repeated violation of each rule 
section above, including Sec. Sec.  1.17, 1.65, 73.1015, 73.1150, and 
73.3540 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.17, 1.65, 73.1015, 73.1150, 
and 73.3540, and each statutory provision noted above, including 
sections 310(b) and (d) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 310(b) and (d), for which 
the statute of limitations in section 503(b)(6) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 
503(b)(6), has not lapsed.
    5. It is further ordered that, irrespective of the resolution of 
the foregoing issues, it shall be determined, pursuant to sections 
503(b)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(1), whether an order of 
forfeiture should be issued against Antonio Cesar Guel and/or Hispanic 
Christian Community Network, Inc. in an amount not to exceed the 
statutory limit for the willful and/or repeated violation of each rule 
section above, including Sec.  1.17 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 
1.17, and each statutory provision noted above, including sections 301 
and 308 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 301 and 308, for which the statute of 
limitations in section 503(b)(6) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(6), has 
not lapsed.
    6. It is further ordered that, pursuant to sections 309(d) and 
312(c) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 309(d), 312(c), and Sec. Sec.  1.91(c), 
and 1.221(c) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.91(c) and 1.221(c), to 
avail herself of the opportunity to be heard and to present evidence at 
a hearing in this proceeding, Jennifer Juarez, in person or by an 
attorney, shall file with the Commission, within twenty (20) days of 
the mailing of this Order to Show Cause Why A Cease and Desist Order 
Should Not Be Issued, Order to Show Cause Why an Order of Revocation 
Should Not Be Issued, Hearing Designation Order, Notice of Opportunity 
for Hearing, and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, a written 
appearance stating that she will appear at the hearing and present 
evidence on the issues specified above.
    7. It is further ordered that, pursuant to Sec.  1.221(c) of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.221(c), if Jennifer Juarez fails to file 
within the time specified above a written appearance, a petition to 
dismiss without prejudice, or a petition to accept for good cause shown 
an untimely written appearance, the captioned applications shall be 
dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
    8. It is further ordered, pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.91 and 1.92 of 
the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.91 and 1.92, that if Jennifer Juarez 
fails to file a written appearance within the time specified above, or 
has not filed prior to the expiration of that time a petition to 
dismiss without prejudice, or a petition to accept, for good cause 
shown, such written appearance beyond expiration of said 20 days, the 
right to a hearing shall be deemed waived. Where a hearing is waived, 
the Administrative Law Judge shall issue an order terminating the 
hearing proceeding and certifying the case to the Commission. If 
Jennifer Juarez waives her right to a hearing pursuant to Sec.  
1.92(a)(1) or (a)(3), 47 CFR 1.92(a)(1) or (a)(3), she may submit a 
timely written statement denying or seeking to mitigate or justify the 
circumstances or conduct complained of in the order to show cause.
    9. It is further ordered that the Chief, Enforcement Bureau, shall 
be made a party to this proceeding without the need to file a written 
appearance.
    10. It is further ordered that, in accordance with section 312(d) 
of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 312(d), and Sec.  1.91(d) of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 1.91(d), the burden of proceeding with the introduction 
of evidence and the burden of proof with respect to the issues (h), 
(i), and (k)-(q) of Paragraph 113, above, shall be upon the 
Commission's Enforcement Bureau.
    11. It is further ordered that, pursuant to section 309(e) of the 
Act, 47 U.S.C. 309(e), and Sec.  1.254 of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 1.254, the burden of proceeding with the introduction of evidence 
and the burden of proof shall be upon Jennifer Juarez as to issues (a)-
(g) and (j) at Paragraph 113 above.
    12. It is further ordered that, in accordance with section 312(d) 
of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 312(d), and Sec.  1.91(d) of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 1.91(d), the burden of proceeding with the introduction 
of evidence and the burden of proof shall be upon the Commission as to 
issues (a)-(d) at Paragraph 114 above.
    13. It is further ordered that a copy of each document filed in 
this proceeding subsequent to the date of adoption of this document 
shall be served on the counsel of record appearing on behalf of the 
Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Parties may inquire as to the identity of 
such counsel by calling the Investigations & Hearings Division of the 
Enforcement Bureau at (202) 418-1420. Such service copy shall be 
addressed to the named counsel of record, Investigations & Hearings 
Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 45 L 
Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
    14. It is further ordered that the parties to the captioned 
application shall, pursuant to section 311(a)(2) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 
311(a)(2), and Sec.  73.3594 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 73.3594, 
GIVE NOTICE of the hearing within the time and in the manner prescribed 
in such Rule, and shall advise the Commission of the satisfaction of 
such requirements as mandated by Sec.  73.3594 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 73.3594.
    15. It is further ordered that copies of this Order to Show Cause 
Why A Cease and Desist Order Should Not Be Issued, Order to Show Cause 
Why an Order of Revocation Should Not Be Issued, Hearing Designation 
Order, Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, and Notice of Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture shall be sent via Certified Mail, Return 
Receipt Requested, and by regular first-class mail to:
    Antonio Cesar Guel, 2605 Hyacinth Drive, Mesquite, TX 75181;
    Hispanic Christian Community Network, Inc., 8500 N Stemmons 
Freeway, Suite 5050, Dallas, TX 75247;
    Jennifer Juarez, 1138 N Tillery Avenue, Dallas, TX 75211; and
    Dan J. Alpert, Esq., The Law Office of Dan J. Alpert, 2120 N. 21st 
Road, Arlington, VA 22201.
    16. It is further ordered that the Secretary of the Commission 
shall cause to have this Order to Show Cause Why A Cease and Desist 
Order Should Not Be Issued, Order to Show Cause Why an Order of 
Revocation Should Not Be Issued, Hearing Designation Order, and Notice 
of Opportunity for Hearing, and Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture or a summary thereof published in the Federal Register.

Federal Communications Commission.
Thomas Horan
Chief of Staff, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2023-18230 Filed 8-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>