Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

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
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.

*****************************************************************



                                   Before the

                       Federal Communications Commission

                             Washington, D.C. 20554

   In the Matter of )

   )

   Ronald Brasher ) EB Docket No. 00-156

   Licensee of Private Land Mobile Stations )

   WPLQ202, KCG967, WPLD495,WPKH771, )

   WPKI739, WPKI733, WPKI707, WIL990, )

   WPLQ475, WPLY658, WPKY903, WPKY901, )

   WPLZ533, WPKI762, and WPDU262 )

   Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas )

   )

   Patricia Brasher )

   Licensee of Private Land Mobile Stations )

   WPJI362, WPKY900, and WPLD570 )

   Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas )

   )

   David Brasher )

   Licensee of Private Land Mobile Stations )

   WPBU651 and WPJR757 )

   Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas )

   )

   D.L. Brasher )

   Licensee of Private Land Mobile Station WPJR750 )

   Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas )

   )

   O.C. Brasher )

   Licensee of Private Land Mobile Station WPJR761 )

   Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas )

   )

   Metroplex Two-Way Radio Service )

   Licensee of Private Land Mobile Stations )

   WPHS735, WPKP673, WPKM797, )

   WPLZ841 and WPJR754 )

   Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas )

   )

   DLB Enterprises, Inc. )

   Licensee of Private Land Mobile Stations )

   WPKM796, WPKL830, WPJY510, WPLU490, )

   WPBH830, WPKP667, WPLY713, WPMH354, )

   WPMH477, and WPKY978, )

   Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas )

   WNAH223 )

   Cleora, Oklahoma )

   )

   DLB Enterprises, Inc., )

   Applicant for Conventional Industrial/Business ) File Nos. AO17774,

   Private Land Mobile Licenses ) AO20241 and AO19157

   Dallas, Texas )

   )

   Applicant for Conventional Industrial/Business ) File No. AO18555.

   Private Land Mobile Licenses )

   Crowley, Texas )

   )

   Applicant for Trunked Industrial/Business ) File No. AO20755.

   Private Land Mobile Licenses )

   Crowley, Texas )

   )

   Applicant for Assignment of Private Land Mobile ) File No. D113240

   Stations from Ronald Brasher (WPKI707, )

   WPKI739, WPKI733 and WPLQ475), Norma )

   Sumpter (WPJR739), D.L. Brasher (WPJR750), )

   David Brasher (WPJR757), Jim Sumpter )

   (WPJR725), Jennifer Hill (WPJR740), )

   Metroplex Two-Way Radio Service (WPJR754), )

   O.C. Brasher (WPJR761), Melissa Sumpter )

   (WPJS437) Dallas, Texas )

   )

   Applicant for Assignment of Private Land Mobile ) File No. D113242

   Station )

   )

   Applicant for Modification of Private Land Mobile ) File No. D113241

   Stations WPKM796, and WPKL830, and )

   Assignment of Private Land Mobile )

   Stations WPKI733, WPLQ475, WPKI707 )

   and WPKI739 from Ronald Brasher )

   and Assignment of Private Land )

   Mobile Station WPKM797 from Metroplex )

   Dallas, Texas )

                                  APPEARANCES

   Robert H. Schwaninger, Jr., Benjamin J. Aron, and Garret R. Hargrave on
   behalf of DLB Enterprises, Inc., Ronald Brasher, and Patricia Brasher; and
   Maureen F. Del Duca, Judy Lancaster, and William H. Knowles-Kellett, on
   behalf of the Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission.

                                    DECISION

   Adopted:  September 1, 2004  Released:  September 7, 2004

   By the Commission:

                               TABLE OF CONTENTS

   Paragraph

   I. Background 2

   II. Initial Decision

   Findings of Fact - Factual Background 6

   Findings of Fact - Participation of the Nominal Applicants in

   Their Applications and Facilities 11

   Findings of Fact - Responses to Net Wave Petition and Commission

   Inquiries 25

   Conclusions of Law - Real Party-In-Interest, Unauthorized Transfer

   of Control, Abuse of Process 30

   Conclusions of Law - Misrepresentation and Lack of Candor 34

   Conclusions of Law - Ultimate Conclusion 37

   III. Discussion

   Real Party-In-Interest, Unauthorized Transfer of Control 38

   Abuse of Process 42

   Misrepresentation and Lack of Candor - O.C. Brasher filing 45

   Misrepresentation and Lack of Candor - Ruth I. Beardon filing 49

   Misrepresentation and Lack of Candor - the Sumpters filing 51

   Misrepresentation and Lack of Candor - Net Wave Opposition 62

   Misrepresentation and Lack of Candor - Responses to Letters of Inquiry 65

   Conclusion 75

   IV. Ordering Clauses 77

   1. In this decision, we affirm the Initial Decision of Administrative Law
   Judge Arthur I. Steinberg, which revoked, denied, or dismissed most of the
   above-captioned private land mobile radio licenses and applications of DLB
   Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Metroplex Two-Way Radio Service ("DLB" or
   "Metroplex") and its principals, Ronald Brasher, Patricia Brasher, and
   David L. Brasher (a.k.a. D.L. Brasher), and a related license of O.C.
   Brasher.

                                 I. BACKGROUND

   2. As explained below, this proceeding arose from allegations that
   Metroplex and its principals, Ronald and Patricia Brasher, abused the
   Commission's processes by applying for land mobile radio licenses in the
   names of surrogates. These allegations raised questions as to whether
   Metroplex and its principals were the real parties-in-interest in
   applications filed in the names of some of the Brashers' relatives,
   including two who were deceased, and as to whether their motive in
   pursuing this course of action was to evade limitations imposed by the
   Commission's rules on the number of applications that they could file in
   their own names. The allegations raised further questions as to whether
   Metroplex and its principals made misrepresentations to and lacked candor
   before the Commission. Metroplex and its principals allegedly falsely
   represented to the Commission that the nominal applicants were the real
   parties-in-interest in the applications and that the nominal applicants
   actually exercised control over the licenses that resulted from their
   applications. Moreover, Metroplex and its principals allegedly concealed
   their own unauthorized control of the licenses as well as the true
   circumstances under which the applications were filed. If these
   allegations proved true, they would represent serious misconduct of the
   type that might, pursuant to the Commission's character policy, disqualify
   Metroplex and the Brashers from holding radio licenses.

   3. On August 29, 2000, the Commission initiated this proceeding to
   determine whether the above-captioned license and applications should be
   revoked or denied. Ronald Brasher, 15 FCC Rcd 16326 (2000). The following
   issues were specified:

   (a) To determine whether any of the above-captioned licensees made
   misrepresentations to, and/or lacked candor before, the Commission in
   applications and/or responses to Commission inquiries;

   (b) To determine whether any of the above-captioned licensees were
   undisclosed real-parties-in-interest or willfully and/or repeatedly
   violated S 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, by
   engaging in unauthorized transfers of control involving their respective
   stations;

   (c) To determine whether any of the captioned parties abused the
   Comission's processes in connection with the filing of applications on
   behalf of O.C. Brasher, Ruth I. Bearden, Jim Sumpter, Norma Sumpter,
   Melissa Sumpter or Jennifer Hill;

   (d) To determine, in light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the
   foregoing issues, whether the above-captioned licensees are basically
   qualified to be and/or remain Commission licensees;

   (e) To determine, in light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the
   foregoing issues, whether any or all of the above-captioned licenses
   should be revoked;

   (f) To determine, in light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the
   foregoing issues, whether any or all of the above-captioned applications
   should be granted.

   4. Judge Steinberg ("ALJ") issued his Initial Decision on August 8, 2003,
   revoking most of the above-captioned private land mobile radio licenses
   and denying or dismissing the above-captioned applications. Ronald
   Brasher, 18 FCC Rcd 16707 (ALJ 2003) (ID). The ALJ found that Ronald
   Brasher, Patricia Brasher, and Metroplex abused the Commission's
   processes, since they were the real parties-in-interest in applications
   they filed in the names of O.C. Brasher, Ruth I. Bearden, Jim Sumpter,
   Norma Sumpter, Jennifer Hill, and Melissa Sumpter. The ALJ also found that
   Ronald, Patricia, and Metroplex violated 47 U.S.C. S 310(d) by assuming
   control of the licenses issued pursuant to those applications without
   Commission authorization. Moreover, the ALJ found that Ronald, Patricia,
   and Metroplex made misrepresentations to and lacked candor with the
   Commission in the applications, in a pleading, in responses to Commission
   inquiries, and at the hearing. Ronald, Patricia, and Metroplex filed
   exceptions on September 8, 2003 and the Enforcement Bureau filed a reply
   on October 2, 2003.

   5. We affirm the ALJ's Initial Decision in all material respects. We find
   that Ronald and Patricia Brasher and Metroplex abused the Commission's
   processes when they filed applications in the names of O.C. Brasher, the
   Sumpters, and Ruth Bearden, and that they exercised control over the
   resulting licenses without authorization. We further find that Ronald,
   Patricia, and Metroplex made misrepresentations and lacked candor in the
   applications and in responses to pleadings and inquiries. We conclude that
   this misconduct warrants revocation of the licenses and denial of the
   applications at issue. In the sections that follow, we set forth in
   greater detail the factual findings that underpin our and the ALJ's
   conclusions and our analysis of the arguments raised in the parties'
   exceptions.

                              II. INITIAL DECISION

   Findings of Fact -- Factual Background.

   6. Patricia and her husband Ronald formed Metroplex in 1982 to provide
   two-way radio service in the Dallas, Texas area. Patricia owns 60 percent
   of Metroplex's stock and Ronald owns the remaining 40 percent. Their son
   David and his wife Diane are officers of Metroplex. ID at 16711 PP 6-7,
   13. Jim Sumpter, Patricia's brother-in-law, was Metroplex's accountant. ID
   at 16711 P 9. Metroplex employs 15 or 16 people and had a gross revenue
   for the year 2000 of approximately $2-$2.4 million. ID at 16712 P 11.

   7. Filing of applications.  During the first part of 1995, two cement
   hauling or concrete companies approached Ronald about using Metroplex to
   provide service for 600 to 800 mobile units. To serve such potential
   customers Ronald knew that Metroplex needed new frequencies on the 480 to
   512 MHz band ("T-band").  ID at 16712-13 PP 13-14. Ronald was told by
   Scott Fennell of the Personal Communications Industry Association, Ltd.
   ("PCIA"), the frequency coordinator, that, pursuant to PCIA and FCC
   rulings, Metroplex, Ronald, and Patricia could apply for only one T-band
   license in each of their names. John Black of Spectrum License
   Consultants, Inc., confirmed what Fennell told Ronald. Black understood
   PCIA policy to parallel 47 C.F.R. S 90.313(c), which states, in pertinent
   part: "A licensee will be required to show that an assigned frequency pair
   is at full capacity before it may be assigned a second or additional
   frequency pair." ID at 16713 P 15.

   8. Ronald testified that Black told him that Metroplex could obtain
   multiple T-band channels, despite this limitation, by using different
   names on the applications and then combining the licenses into one system.
   ID at 16713 P 16; Tr. 586. Ronald further testified that he researched
   this matter and discovered four companies that had apparently structured
   their T-band systems in this manner. After Ronald and Black researched the
   available T-band frequencies, Ronald faxed a list of names and addresses
   to Black and asked him to prepare applications in those names. ID at 16713
   P 17. The list of names included: David L. Brasher, D.L. Brasher (the same
   person), O.C. Brasher (Ronald's deceased father), Ruth I. Bearden (the
   maiden name of Ronald's deceased mother), Carolyn Sue Lutz (Metroplex's
   then office manager and Patricia's sister), Jim Sumpter (Metroplex's then
   accountant and Patricia's brother-in-law), Norma Sumpter (Jim's wife and
   Patricia's sister), Melissa Sumpter (Jim and Norma's daughter), and
   Jennifer Hill (Jim and Norma's daughter). ID at 16713-14 PP 17, 19. Black
   prepared the applications and returned them to Ronald. After they were
   signed, they were submitted to PCIA. The PCIA control numbers indicated
   that they were all received on the 176^th day of 1996, i.e., June 24,
   1996. ID at 16713-14 P 18. The Commission granted all of the licenses on
   September 25, 1996, with the exception of Melissa's, which was granted on
   October 2, 1996. EB Exhs. 10, 19.

   9. Inquiries concerning the applications.  In November, 1997, a company
   called Net Wave Communications, Inc. ("Net Wave") filed a petition for an
   order to show cause why Metroplex's licenses should not be revoked. ID at
   16721-22 PP 51-52. Net Wave alleged that Metroplex had knowingly made
   false statements on the applications with respect to the real
   parties-in-interest in the applications and that Metroplex had concealed
   the family relationships between the applicants. Net Wave characterized
   the various nominal applicants as Metroplex's "foot soldiers" and not the
   true real parties-in-interest in their respective applications. Net Wave
   accused Metroplex of "paper licensing" and "hoarding frequencies" using
   the allegedly false applicants. Metroplex responded, on November 25, 1996,
   with an opposition denying those allegations. ID at 16722 P 53.

   10. The Commission subsequently initiated an inquiry into the
   applications. It sent out a letter of inquiry on November 9, 1998, to
   which Metroplex responded on December 7, 1998, and one on March 4, 1999 to
   which Metroplex and its principals responded on April 5, 1999. Metroplex
   filed a further response on August 3, 1999. The Commission sent a further
   letter of inquiry on September 9, 1999, to which Metroplex responded on
   October 13, 1999. Commencement of the instant proceeding followed. ID at
   16726 P 75, 16727 P 77, 16731 P 92, 16738 P 122.

   Findings of Fact - Participation of the Nominal Applicants in Their
   Applications and Facilities.

   11. O.C. Brasher.  The ALJ found that Ronald's father, O.C. Brasher, died
   on August 17, 1995, roughly one year before the filing of his application.
   ID at 16714 P 20. On June 17, 1996, Ronald signed O.C.'s application "O.C.
   Brasher." Ronald testified that he filed the 1996 application in O.C.'s
   name because it was O.C.'s desire when he was alive to have a station. ID
   at 16714 P 21. Ronald explained that O.C. had submitted an application for
   a station on June 29, 1995, but that PCIA mishandled the application,
   which was never filed with the Commission. Ronald and Patricia testified
   that they considered the 1996 application part of O.C.'s estate.

   12. The ALJ found that Ronald and Patricia, not O.C.'s estate, had paid
   for the construction and operation of O.C.'s station using equipment owned
   or leased by Metroplex. ID at 16714-15 P 22. On November 17, 1997, the
   Commission sent out a Form 800A, asking whether O.C.'s station had been
   constructed and whether it was operational. Ronald filled out the document
   and signed it "O.C. Brasher EST. R. D. Brasher." ID at 16715 P 23. Ronald
   explained that "EST." meant "estate." Later, in 1998, Ronald prepared and
   filed an application for the assignment of O.C.'s station from O.C. to
   Metroplex. The assignor's signature was "O.C. Brasher" with the
   handwritten date "1-26-98." ID at 16715 P 24.

   13. On March 29, 1999, Ronald signed the name "O.C. Brasher" to a document
   entitled "Radio Station Management and Marketing Agreement" ("Agreement").
   The Agreement called for Metroplex to manage the station, lease equipment
   to the stations, and collect the station's revenues with any profits to be
   paid to O.C. ID at 16715 P 25. The Agreement also contained language
   providing that the licensee (i.e., O.C.) retained ultimate supervision
   over the stations and that he would indemnify Metroplex under certain
   circumstances. ID at 16716 P 26. Ronald testified that he signed O.C.'s
   name to the Agreement pursuant to a "Durable Power of Attorney" that O.C.
   executed before his death. That document, however, indicated that O.C. had
   revoked the power of attorney the same day it was executed, January 16,
   1992. ID at 16717 at PP 27-28.

   14. The Sumpters.  The ALJ found that Ronald, Patricia and the Sumpters
   sharply disagreed as to the circumstances surrounding the preparation of
   the Sumpter applications. The applications contained the signatures: "Jim
   Sumpter," "Norma Sumpter," "Melissa Sumpter," and "Jennifer Hill."

   15. Ronald and Patricia testified that, in early 1996, Patricia asked
   Norma if she and Jim would be interested in obtaining radio licenses and
   explained to Norma that she and Ronald could not obtain any more licenses
   in their own names. Norma allegedly told Patricia that she and Jim would
   be interested and later, in response to a further inquiry, that Melissa
   and Jennifer were also interested. ID at 16718 P 33. Patricia testified
   that she, Ronald, Norma and/or Jim had eight to ten conversations over a
   period of four to six months on the subject of the Sumpters applying for
   licenses and that Patricia had also spoken to Jennifer. ID at 16718 PP
   34-36. Ronald and Patricia testified that, on June 10, 11, or 12, 1996,
   they took the applications that Black had prepared to Jim's office and
   delivered them to Norma and that, on June 17 or 18, they went to Jim's
   office and picked up the signed applications. ID at 16719 PP 37-39, 41. At
   that time, Patricia prepared checks for the application fees and Ronald
   transmitted the applications to PCIA for coordination.

   16. The Sumpters, by contrast, all denied that they had signed the
   applications filed in their names, that they knew that applications had
   been filed in their names, or that they had given permission for anyone to
   file in their names. ID at 16717-18 P 31. Gail Bolsover, a Forensic
   Document Analyst for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service testified that, in
   her opinion, the signatures that appeared on the Sumpter applications were
   not the genuine signatures of Jim, Norma, Melissa, and Jennifer and that
   Norma's, Melissa's and Jennifer's signatures all appeared to have been
   written by the same person. She was not able to identify the writer of the
   signatures. ID at 16715 P 24, 16718 P 32.

   17. Ronald, Patricia and the Sumpters also differed on the circumstances
   surrounding the execution of so-called "client copies" of the
   applications. Ronald testified that after he picked up the signed copies
   of the applications from Norma, he noticed that "client copies" of the
   applications, that had been included with the copies for submission to
   PCIA, had not been signed. Ronald said that he told Norma that he needed
   to have the client copies signed. ID at 16730 P 89-91. According to Ronald
   and Patricia, Norma, Melissa, and Jennifer visited Ronald and Patricia's
   home on Saturday June 22, 1996, for shopping, conversation, and social
   activities. Ronald and Patricia testified that Norma, Melissa, and
   Jennifer signed their client copies, and Ronald photocopied the signed
   documents. ID at 16731 PP 92-93. As Jim was not present, his client copy
   was not signed or photocopied.

   18. The Sumpters denied that they signed the client copies and suggested
   that the signatures were copied from other documents. ID at 16731-32 P 94.
   In particular, they testified that Norma could not have visited the
   Brashers and signed her copy that weekend, since she had accompanied Jim
   when he visited his ill, elderly aunt at her home 325 miles away. ID at
   16732 PP 95-96. The Sumpters produced credit card and telephone receipts
   and other items that assertedly documented the trip. The ALJ found that
   Bolsover, the document analyst, testified that signatures of Norma,
   Melissa, and Jennifer appeared genuine and that she could not tell whether
   the signatures were original to the documents, since she examined poor
   quality photocopies of the signatures. Bolsover did testify that the dates
   accompanying the signatures, "6-22-96," were machine copies of the same
   handwritten entry. ID at 16732-33 PP 97-99.

   19. The ALJ found that Patricia testified that Norma and Jennifer called
   to tell her that they had received their licenses, but that the Sumpters
   testified that they did not recall receiving their licenses and that they
   forwarded all FCC-related mail to Ronald. ID at 16720 PP 42-43. The ALJ
   further found that Ronald undertook the responsibility of constructing the
   stations using equipment owned or leased by Metroplex and that it was
   understood by everyone that Metroplex would bear all costs of operation.
   All of the revenue received from the stations was deposited in the
   Metroplex account and no payments were made to the Sumpters, who had no
   involvement in station management. ID at 16720-21 PP 44-48. The ALJ found
   that Metroplex did not break down revenues and expenses by station. ID at
   16721 PP 49-50.

   20. According to the ALJ, the Sumpters testified that they did not learn
   of their licenses until the filing of the Net Wave petition. ID at 16721 P
   51. Jim testified that Ronald assured him not to worry about the Net Wave
   petition and that he (Ronald) would take care of it. ID at 16722 P 54. Jim
   said that he was happy for Ronald to do this, although he (Jim) did not
   understand the draft opposition to Net Wave's petition. Jennifer testified
   that she called Patricia and Ronald and that Ronald had assured her that
   everything was under control and that she had done nothing wrong. ID at
   16723 P 58. On November 29, 1997, after the opposition to Net Wave's
   petition had been filed, each of the Sumpters sent Ronald and Patricia
   letters drafted by Jim indicating that they were unaware that they were
   licensees, that they had not signed any documents, and that they wanted
   their names removed from the licenses. ID at 16723 P 57.

   21. By this time, the Commission had sent out copies of FCC Form 800A,
   which requires the licensee to indicate whether its station was
   constructed and operational. Jim and Norma signed their Form 800As on
   December 16, 1997, but advised Jennifer and Melissa not to sign theirs.
   Jennifer and Melissa discarded their Form 800As. ID at 16723 P 59. Jim and
   Norma then, on December 20, 1997, addressed letters to Ronald and Patricia
   acknowledging that they signed the Form 800As and asking Ronald to
   transfer the licenses out of their names. ID at 16723 P 60. Ronald
   provided FCC Form 1046s (transfer applications) to the Sumpters, which
   each of the Sumpters signed on January 28, 1998. ID at 16723-24 P 61.
   Because Jennifer and Melissa did not return their Form 800As or respond to
   subsequent Commission correspondence, the Commission in April 1998,
   cancelled their licenses. ID at 16723 P 62. In July 1998, Ronald called
   Jim and told him that if Jennifer and Melissa did not file their Form
   800As, they would be "in big trouble." ID at 16724 P 63. Jim, at that
   point, retained legal counsel.

   22. Carolyn Sue Lutz.  In 1996, Carolyn served as Metroplex's office
   manager. The ALJ found that Ronald asked Carolyn to apply for a license
   and told her that she would not have to do anything with regard to the
   station. Carolyn testified that she signed the application as a favor to
   Ronald. ID at 16724 PP 64-66. The ALJ further found that Ronald undertook
   responsibility for constructing and operating the station using equipment
   owned or leased by Metroplex. Carolyn was not involved in the management
   of the station, paid none of the costs associated with the station, and
   received none of its proceeds. ID at 16724-25 P 67-69.

   23. The ALJ found that, in late 1998 or early 1999, Ronald asked Carolyn
   to sign a management agreement identical to that executed for O.C. but
   that Carolyn refused because she did not consider the station hers and did
   not want to be bound by the terms of the agreement. Carolyn made a
   counteroffer to Ronald and no agreement was ever signed. ID at 16725 P 70.
   After the Netwave petition was filed, Carolyn asked Ronald to remove her
   name from the license, because she "knew that [she] had done something
   illegal." On January 26, 1998, she signed an application to assign the
   station to Metroplex for which she received no compensation. ID at 16725 P
   71.

   24. Ruth I. Bearden. The ALJ found that Ronald's mother, Ruth, died April
   22, 1991. On June 18, 1996, Ronald signed Ruth's name to an application.
   ID at 16725-26 PP 73-74. At the hearing, Ronald testified that he filed
   the application in Ruth's name because Ruth's brother (Ronald's uncle), Ed
   Bearden, had requested him to. ID at 16735 P 105. Ronald testified that Ed
   wanted to use the license in his sand and gravel hauling business but that
   Ed could not apply in his own name because he was a convicted felon.
   Ronald further testified that after Ed told him the sand and gravel
   business no longer existed, Ronald, on July 30, 1996, contacted PCIA and
   told them to stop processing the application. Ronald stated that he did
   not receive the license that was ultimately granted. ID at 16735 PP
   106-07. In April 1998, after the Commission cancelled the Bearden license,
   Ronald wrote to Black, asking him to apply for the license on behalf of
   Metroplex. ID at 16735 P 108.

   Findings of Fact - Responses to Net Wave Petition and Commission
   Inquiries.

   25. The ALJ noted the presence in Metroplex's responses of representations
   that could be construed as inaccurate or misleading in light of the
   findings recited above.

   26. Net Wave Petition. Net Wave's petition sought an order to show cause
   why Metroplex's licenses should not be revoked for, among other things,
   "grossly misleading and deliberate misidentification of the real party in
   interest to applications for those [T-band] facilities. . . . ID at
   17621-22 P 52. The opposition, filed on behalf of the "Operators,"
   including O.C., the Sumpters, Carolyn, and Ruth, denied those allegations.
   The opposition stated specifically that: "Each of the Operators retains
   control of its own station(s)." ID at 16722-23 P 56. The opposition also
   stated: "Net Wave offered nothing in support of its suggestion that [each]
   of the Operators is not a separate real party in interest." ID at 1622-23
   P 56.

   27. Response to November 9, 1998 Letter of Inquiry. In its December 7,
   1998 response to the Commission's letter of inquiry, Metroplex addressed
   the licensees' role in supervising Ronald. The response represented that:

   Ron Brasher makes reports available of station operations, including
   customer loading, preventive maintenance performed, air time usage by
   month and day, customer additions and deletions, and revenues and expenses
   for each station. Most of the licensees do review these reports and give
   directions to Ron Brasher for improvement or for correction of problems.
   Ron Brasher is obligated to follow the directions of each licensee. . . .

   ID at 16727 P 76. Metroplex also indicated that: "Each applicant and
   licensee was responsible for reviewing and signing its own application in
   connection with the managed stations." ID at 16727 P 76.

   28. Response to March 4, 1999 Letter of Inquiry. Metroplex's April 5, 1999
   response to the letter of inquiry described the criteria Ronald used to
   select prospective applicants and licensees. These were stated to be:

   (i) the person must have been known to [Ronald]; (ii) the person must be
   able to fulfill the duties of a Commission licensee, (iii) the person must
   have been willing to fulfill the duties of a Commission licensee; (iv) the
   person must have been willing to participate in the funding of the
   construction of the facilities; (v) the person must have been willing to
   participate in the funding of the costs of operation; (vi) the person must
   have been willing to accept the risk of failure of any business arising
   out of operation of the facilities; and (vii) the person must have been
   willing to actively participate in the sale of service and equipment to be
   provided to customers of the subject station. Persons who did not evidence
   either the ability or the willingness to perform each of these tasks were
   not allowed to participate in any managed station agreement.

   ID at 16727-28 P 79. Additionally, Metroplex's response made
   representations about specific licensees. It described Ronald as the "Son
   of O.C. Brasher," without disclosing that O.C. was deceased. ID at 16727 P
   78. Concerning the Sumpters, Metroplex recited: "The Sumpters were
   informed of the duties that their participation would require and the
   potential benefits of ownership which might be obtained by the Sumpters if
   the facilities were successful. . . . " ID at 16728 P 80. As to Carolyn,
   Metroplex stated: ". . . Ms. Lutz would be entitled to all benefits of
   operation as a Commission licensee, including that portion of all profits
   . . . that would arise out of operation of the facilities." ID at 16728 P
   80. Metroplex's response further indicated that: "[With the exception of
   the Sumpters a]ll other licensees participating in management agreements
   with DLB have provided substantial direction and supervision regarding the
   operation of the subject facilities." ID at 16728 P 80.

   29. September 9, 1999 Letter of Inquiry.  The Commission's further letter
   of inquiry asked Metroplex and its principals to address the circumstances
   surrounding the applications filed on behalf of O.C. and Ruth, including
   whether these individuals were deceased. Ronald's response purported to
   describe his role in the preparation and filing of their license
   applications and transfer applications. With respect to O.C., Ronald's
   response stated:

   On September 25, 1996, the Commission issued a license . . . in the name
   of O.C. Brasher. By this time, O.C. Brasher had passed away, and his son,
   Ronald D. Brasher, was named the execut[o]r of the estate of O.C. Brasher.
   In his capacity as Executor of the Estate, Ronald Brasher attempted to
   preserve the license as an asset of the estate. Therefore Ronald Brasher
   prepared and submitted an application to assign the license out of the
   name of the deceased and into the name of one of the heirs to the O.C.
   Brasher estate.

   ID at 16734 P 102. The ALJ found that Ronald was not aware of any order of
   the probate court appointing him executor of O.C.'s estate. ID at 16734 P
   103. With respect to Ruth's application, Ronald's response stated that:

   The intent of [the Bearden] application was to create a license in the
   name of a corporation for which Ruth I. Bearden was formally the
   principal. Due to an error in the preparation of the application at issue
   and the similarities that exist between the names of Ronald Brasher's late
   mother and this entity, the license was applied for in the name of the
   individual instead of the corporate entity that was the intended recipient
   of the license. Immediately upon learning of the error in the name of the
   entity applying for the license, Ronald Brasher contacted the frequency
   coordinator in an attempt to cancel the application here at issue . . . .
   Subsequent to this request to halt the processing of this application, the
   license was issued. Ronald Brasher immediately contacted the Commission by
   telephone, requesting that the license . . . be cancelled.

   ID at 16734-35 P 104.

   Conclusions of Law - Real Party-In-Interest, Unauthorized Transfer of
   Control, Abuse of Process.

   30. The ALJ concluded that Ronald, Patricia, and Metroplex were the
   undisclosed real parties-in-interest to the applications at issue and that
   they exercised de facto control over the license without Commission
   authorization in violation of 47 U.S.C. S 310(d). He further concluded
   that filing an application in the name of a surrogate constitutes an abuse
   of process.

   ID at 16746-47 PP 153-55.

   31. The ALJ evaluated the issue of control using the criteria set forth in
   Intermountain Microwave, 24 RR 983, 984 (1963), and applied in Marc Sobel,
   17 FCC Rcd 1872, 1876-87 PP 11-58 (2002). These criteria are:

   (a) Does the licensee have unfettered use of all facilities and equipment?

   (b) Who controls daily operations?

   (c) Who determines and carries out policy decisions, including preparing
   and filing applications with the Commission?

   (d) Who is in charge of employment, supervision and dismissal of
   personnel?

   (e) Who is in charge of the payment of financing obligations, including
   expenses arising out of operating?

   (f) Who receives monies and profits from the operation of the facilities?

   ID at 16747 P 156.

   32. The ALJ concluded that, under these criteria, Ronald, Patricia, and
   Metroplex had de facto control over the stations licensed to O.C., the
   Sumpters, and Carolyn, who in turn exhibited no indicia of control. ID at
   16747-50 PP 157-67. He observed that the nominal licensees did not prepare
   or file their own applications, did not pay the application fees, did not
   prepare any forms or reports to the Commission, had no control over any
   aspect of daily station operations, had no role in making policy decisions
   regarding their stations, did not hire, fire, or supervise station
   employees, did not purchase the equipment used at their stations, did not
   pay construction costs or operating expenses, and did not receive any
   revenue generated by the stations. The ALJ further concluded that Ronald,
   Patricia, and Metroplex exercised all of the above functions, that they
   did not manage the stations on behalf of the licensees, and that they were
   operating the stations for no one but themselves.

   33. In view of these findings, the ALJ concluded that the Ronald,
   Patricia, and Metroplex were the undisclosed real parties-in-interest in
   the applications, since they controlled the filing of the applications and
   because the applications were filed solely for their own benefit.
   Additionally, the ALJ concluded that Ronald, Patricia, and Metroplex
   abused the Commission's processes, because they filed the applications in
   the names of others to evade limitations on ownership imposed by the
   Commission's rules and to acquire more stations than the Commission would
   allow. ID at 16750 P 167-68.

   Conclusions of Law -  Misrepresentation and Lack of Candor

   34. The ALJ concluded that Ronald and Metroplex made misrepresentations of
   fact to the Commission, and concealed material information from the
   Commission in numerous instances. The ALJ concluded that by signing O.C.'s
   and Ruth's names to applications, Ronald falsely represented that these
   two individuals had signed their own applications and were living persons.
   In the ALJ's view, Ronald compounded these acts by signing O.C.'s names to
   other documents, such as the Agreement. ID at 16736-38 PP 112-13, 116-17.
   Moreover, the ALJ concluded that Ronald concealed the fact of O. C's and
   Ruth's deaths in responding to the Net Wave petition and to the Commission
   letters of inquiry until after the Commission had independently learned of
   their deaths. ID at 16738-39 PP 119-24. The ALJ noted in particular, that
   in finally acknowledging O.C.'s death in his October 13, 1999 response,
   Ronald's language misleadingly suggested that O.C. had died after the
   filing of his application not before it. ID at 16740 P 128.

   35. The ALJ also concluded that Ronald and Metroplex made other
   misrepresentations in responding to Commission letters of inquiry. With
   respect to the filing of Ruth's application, the ALJ noted that the
   account that Ronald gave in responding to the Commission's September 9,
   1999 letter of inquiry was totally different from the account that he gave
   at the hearing, which involved Ruth's brother, Ed. ID at 16739-40 PP
   125-27. The ALJ further concluded that the description contained in
   responses to the Commission letters of inquiry as to how Ronald selected
   the applicants and as to the control and supervision that the licensees
   purportedly exercised were fabrications, since the record demonstrated
   that the licensees accepted none of the responsibility and exercised none
   of the control and supervision that the responses claimed. ID at 16740-42
   PP 129-38.

   36. Finally, the ALJ concluded the Ronald and Patricia lied in their
   accounts of their dealings with the Sumpters. The ALJ accepted the
   Sumpters' testimony that they did not give Ronald permission to file
   applications in their names and that they did not sign the client copies
   and rejected the contrary testimony of Ronald and Patricia. ID at 16742-45
   PP 139-48. In this regard, the ALJ made specific demeanor findings with
   respect to these witnesses. He found the testimony of the Sumpters
   "forthright, candid and entirely believable," especially during the course
   of arduous cross-examination. He found, by contrast, that the record
   concerning Ronald and Patricia demonstrated a "pervasive and consistent
   pattern of deceit." ID at 16748 P 148.

   Conclusions of Law - Ultimate Conclusion

   37. The ALJ concluded that Ronald, Patricia, and Metroplex violated the
   basic obligation of licensees to be truthful and that they committed
   disqualifying deceit. He further found that the findings under the real
   party-in-interest, unlawful transfer of control, and abuse of process
   issues indicated further disqualifying deception on the part of Ronald,
   Patricia, and Metroplex. Accordingly, he concluded that Ronald, Patricia,
   and Metroplex were not basically qualified to be Commission licensees and
   that their licenses should be revoked and their pending applications
   denied. ID at 16745-46 PP 149-52, 16750-51 P 169-70.

                                III. DISCUSSION

   Real Party-In-Interest, Unauthorized Transfer of Control

   38. Exceptions. Appellants do not dispute the ALJ's conclusion that,
   judged by the standards of Intermountain, Ronald, Patricia, and Metroplex
   exercised de facto control over the stations and were the real
   parties-in-interest. Instead, they argue that the Intermountain criteria
   are obsolete as applied to contemporary business arrangements, such as
   management contracts, and that the Intermountain criteria cannot be
   meaningfully applied to family relationships. As to the latter argument,
   appellants contend that the various family members, including the Sumpters
   contributed in various fashions to the success of the overall enterprise
   and benefited in various ways from the success of the stations. Thus, for
   example, Appellants find it unremarkable that Ron and Pat financed all of
   the stations, since they could afford to. Appellants state: "The Brashers
   have averred that during all times relevant de facto control of the
   subject licenses was held by the family and that such control never
   transferred, until such time as this matter involuntarily fractured the
   family unit." DLB Exceptions at 21 P 45.

   39. Analysis. Appellants' position is without merit. The record of this
   case provides no support for the idea that the "family" exercised control
   over the radio business or over any of the licenses. It indicates that
   Ronald and Patricia Brasher exercised control as the sole owners of
   Metroplex (Tr. 754). Ronald and Patricia testified that the major
   decisions at Metroplex were made through joint discussion among Ronald,
   Patricia, David, and Diane but that the final say was Patricia's. Tr.
   77-79, 770-71. As Patricia put it, she "calls the shots." Tr. 754. Jim
   Sumpter and Carolyn Lutz may have been employed by the business in more or
   less important capacities, as well as being family members, but there is
   no indication that they, or the other Sumpters, were ever regarded as
   owners capable of exercising control. The ALJ's analysis under the
   Intermountain criteria, which we adopt in all material respects, does no
   more than confirm that the nominal licensees did not exhibit any indicia
   of control. Appellants' accurately characterize what Carolyn and the
   Sumpters brought to the stations as "licensing assistance," since they
   secured the licenses for Metroplex and nothing more.

   40. Appellants' claims that the licensees exercised control in some
   respects are not supported by the record. Appellants state: "Jim Sumpter
   made all decisions regarding the finances of the business . . . . " DLB
   Exceptions at 21 P 45. But Appellants point to no record evidence to
   substantiate this claim. Rather, the record indicates no more than that
   Jim was a self-employed certified public accountant who served as
   Metroplex's accountant from 1982-97, providing them with bookkeeping
   services and advice, particularly tax advice. Tr. 1738-39. Additionally,
   Appellants cite Ronald's testimony that Norma, for no apparent reason,
   directed Ronald to take hers and Melissa's stations off the air. DLB
   Exceptions at 22 P 47; Tr. 560-61. Ronald's testimony, however, cannot be
   corroborated. Carolyn, who, according to Ronald, relayed Norma's request
   to him, did not recall any such incident. Tr. 1137. Norma testified that
   she did not even know that there was a license in her name. Tr. 2099.
   Melissa testified that she never asked that her station be taken off the
   air or directed Norma to do so. Tr. 1344. Moreover, O.C. Brasher and Ruth
   Bearden obviously exercised no control over the radio business or the
   stations, since they were deceased.

   41. We acknowledge that the Intermountain criteria might be viewed
   differently to take into account the emergence of new forms of spectrum
   use in the wireless services. That consideration, however, does not
   warrant a different result in this case. We note, for example, that in
   Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum Through Elimination of Barriers to the
   Development of Secondary Markets, 18 FCC Rcd 20604, 20630-42 PP 54-81
   (2003), we declined to apply the Intermountain criteria to spectrum
   leasing arrangements and held that, in the spectrum leasing context,
   section 310(d) did not require the licensee to exercise close working
   control over, determine the services on, and set policies affecting the
   stations operating on the licensed spectrum. We nevertheless required
   licensees to maintain de facto control over the use of the leased spectrum
   by exercising "reasonable operational oversight over the leased spectrum
   so as to ensure that the spectrum lessee complies with all applicable
   technical and service rules." 18 FCC Rcd at 20635 P 65. Assuming arguendo
   that such a standard might be applied here, we would still find that that
   the nominal licensees failed to maintain control consistent with section
   310(d) or were real parties-in-interest. As the findings recited above
   indicate, none of the purported licensees exercised any sort of
   operational oversight over their facilities or had an expectation of
   enforcing any degree of control over Metroplex. Moreover, the licensees
   here did not even have the degree of connection to and interest in their
   licensed facilities that is implied by the idea of spectrum leasing, since
   they received no rents from their facilities and had no other financial
   stake in them. The record of this case thus amply demonstrates that
   Ronald, Patricia, and Metroplex exercised de facto control over the
   stations and were the real parties-in-interest.

   Abuse of Process

   42. Exceptions. Appellants dispute that Ronald's actions should be
   considered an abuse of process. They argue that Ronald's actions did not
   pursue an illegitimate purpose or subvert the Commission's rules. They
   assert that Ronald was not attempting to "warehouse" underutilized
   frequencies, which section 90.313 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. S
   90.313, was intended to prevent. Rather, he was legitimately attempting to
   acquire frequencies to meet the demands of two large prospective
   customers. Appellants further assert that Ronald could have accomplished
   the same lawful goal in an "easier, more straightforward" manner, either
   by seeking a waiver of section 90.313 or by filing successive, rather than
   simultaneous, applications. According to Appellants, Ronald did not avail
   himself of these alternative means only because he was operating without
   benefit of counsel and relied on the "absurd" advice of Fennell and Black.
   DLB Exceptions at 11 P 25.

   43. Analysis. We disagree. Appellants admit that Ronald filed applications
   in multiple names because:

   . . . the Brashers became aware that the Commission's rules and
   regulation[s] at that time prevented DLB from acquiring more than one
   T-Band license at a time and that DLB could not apply for further licenses
   until such time as all channels on the first license(s) were constructed
   and fully loaded. . . . Ron Brasher admitted that he believed that such
   restriction existed and that his efforts were focused on a method to
   operate in view of this restriction. . . .

   Ronald Brasher Exceptions at 5 P 11. Whether or not Ronald believed that
   his ultimate goal in acquiring the stations was legitimate, by filing
   applications in multiple names, he prevented the Commission from knowing
   and examining the true parties to the applications. As we have held: "it
   is an abuse of process to specify a surrogate to apply for a station so as
   to deny the Commission and the public the opportunity to review and pass
   on the qualifications of that party." Arnold L. Chase, 5 FCC Rcd 1642,
   1643 P 9 (1990). See also Evansville Skywave, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 1699, 1702
   n. 7 (1992) ("Seeking to obtain a construction permit by misrepresenting
   or lacking candor about the applicant's ownership structure could . . .
   generally be characterized as abuse of process.") That Ronald could have
   pursued his goals by nonabusive means is irrelevant; he did not do so.

   44. We reject the suggestion that Ronald acted innocently based on poor
   advice. We find that an ordinary reasonable person could appreciate the
   essential dishonesty of applying for licenses in the names of surrogates
   who would clearly have no ownership or control of the licenses. Moreover,
   the record fails to corroborate that anyone gave Ronald misleading advice.
   In his testimony, Black, whom Ronald indicated advised him to file
   multiple applications, assumed no responsibility and expressed no support
   for Ronald's actions. Black acknowledged that he may have discussed the
   rule with Ronald, although he did not recall such a discussion. Tr. 1645,
   1691. However, his testimony indicates that he did not agree that filing
   in multiple names was a legitimate course of action. He stated that:

   . . . we all make an assumption that if Bill Jones signed an application,
   that it's really Bill Jones applying for a license, and that signature of
   Bill Jones is an authentic, valid signature. If we don't make that
   assumption, then we indeed do destroy the integrity of the whole process.

   Tr. 1707. Black stated that he did not advise people about the
   Commission's aggregation limits. Tr. 1709. He testified that he did not
   know whether another company, cited by Ronald, had filed applications in
   multiple names. Tr. 1711. He denied discussing with Ronald the
   requirements for managed stations or of filing multiple applications. Tr.
   1731-33.

   Misrepresentation and Lack of Candor - O.C. Brasher filing

   45. Exceptions. Appellants deny that the filings made in the name of O.C.
   reflect an intent to mislead the Commission into believing that O.C. was
   still alive. According to Appellants, Ronald had two reasons to believe
   that he was authorized to execute documents on behalf of O.C. First,
   Appellants refer to a "Durable Power of Attorney" executed by O.C. in
   1992. Second, Appellants assert that Ronald was acting as executor of
   O.C.'s estate. In this regard, Appellants further assert that Ronald
   considered the 1996 application as a replacement for the 1995 application
   that PCIA failed to submit to the Commission and that Ronald and Patricia
   considered the applications as assets in O.C.'s estate. Appellants
   maintain that Ronald's only error is that he did not understand the formal
   requirements for executing legal documents in the representative
   capacities mentioned above but that his actions were consistent both with
   the Commission's rules, which permit estates to hold licenses, and the
   Texas Probate Code, under which Ronald was qualified to be executor of
   O.C.'s estate.

   46. Analysis. We find that Appellants' justification for Ronald's actions
   is not credible and that Ronald intended to mislead the Commission into
   believing that O.C. was a living applicant. The O.C. Brasher application
   gives no indication that Ronald signed it in a representative capacity. It
   bears the signature "O.C. Brasher;" the entry in Box 40, which calls for
   the "Typed Name of the Person Signing" is "O.C. Brasher;" and the entry in
   Box 41 "Title" is marked "(Individual)." EB Exh. 3 at 4. This leaves the
   clear impression that O.C. himself signed the application as an
   individual. Moreover, the record indicates that, in providing Black with
   the names of the prospective applicants, Ronald did not inform Black that
   O.C. was deceased or that O.C.'s estate was intended to be the applicant.
   On the list of applicants that Ronald provided to Black, the pertinent
   entry is simply "O.C. Brasher" with an address and telephone number. EB
   Exh. 66. Black testified that he never discussed with Ronald that O.C. was
   dead or whether it was all right to submit an application in the name of a
   deceased person. Tr. 1671-72. See also Tr. 1650 (Black does not know O.C.
   Brasher).

   47. Contrary to Appellant's claims, Ronald had no colorable authority to
   act on behalf of O.C. or his estate either pursuant to a durable power of
   attorney or as an executor. O.C. executed a document entitled "Durable
   Power of Attorney for Financial Matters of Oscar Colquitt Brasher" on
   January 16, 1992. RB/PB Exh. 2. Under Texas law, however, a durable power
   of attorney terminates upon the death of the principal. Tex.Prob.Code Ann.
   S 486(a). Ronald testified that he did not know the effect of the
   grantor's death on a power of attorney. Tr. 332. Moreover, the document
   contains a "Revocation Provision," which reads: "I Oscar Colquitt Brasher,
   revoke all authority of my Agent as of 1:42 o'clock p.m on January 16,
   1992. Oscar Colquitt Brasher.  [Marked text is handwritten.] Ronald
   testified that he saw his father sign the revocation provision, but
   insisted that the power of attorney had not been revoked and that he
   (Ronald) could not understand or explain the revocation provision. Tr.
   606-08. Ronald therefore had no colorable basis to rely on any authority
   pursuant to this document. This and the uncertainty of his testimony
   indicates that Ronald's claimed reliance is no more than post hoc
   rationalization.

   48. Similarly, the record gives no indication that Ronald acted as the
   executor of O.C.'s estate. Under Texas law, to be appointed an executor a
   person must make application to the probate court and receive letters
   testamentary. Tex.Prob.Code Ann. SS 76, 178, 181, 189. Ronald testified
   that he had not (as of his testimony in February 2001) filed O.C's will
   with the probate court, been appointed executor by the probate court, or
   made any distribution of property. Tr. 333-34. The record also gives no
   indication that Ronald treated the station as an asset of O.C.'s estate.
   Ronald did not charge the estate with the cost of constructing or
   operating the station, did not, at the time, credit the estate with
   station profits, and did not, at the time, compensate the estate for
   assigning the station to Metroplex. Ronald's failure to take any formal
   steps to be appointed executor or to treat O.C.'s estate as an executor
   would make Ronald's purported reliance appear no more than post hoc
   rationalization.

   Misrepresentation and Lack of Candor - Ruth I. Bearden filing.

   49. Exceptions. Appellants admit that Ronald's actions in filing an
   application in Ruth's name were not "entirely honorable." Ronald Brasher
   Exceptions at 16 P 32. Appellants note Ronald's testimony that he filed
   the application to assist his uncle, Ed Bearden. Appellants admit that
   Ronald's actions "were not in accord with the dictates for Commission
   applicants" and "were likely outside the standards for a Commission
   licensee." Ronald Brasher Exceptions at 16 P 32, 17 P 33. Applicants
   claim, however, that Ronald was forthcoming and remorseful at the hearing,
   that he had not benefited personally from the application, and that he had
   taken steps to see that the application was not submitted to the
   Commission in the first place.

   50. Analysis. At the hearing, Ronald essentially admitted that he intended
   to abuse the Commission's processes by filing an application on behalf of
   an undisclosed real party-in-interest. He stated that he filed the
   application at the request of his uncle, Ed Bearden, so that Ed could use
   the licenses in his sand and gravel business. Tr. 196. Ronald further
   testified that he did not file in Ed's own name since Ed was a convicted
   felon and Ronald believed that Ed could not apply for a license. Tr.
   196-97. Ronald testified that he attempted to stop the processing of the
   application after he had submitted it to PCIA for coordination because Ed
   had told him that the sand and gravel business no longer existed. Tr.
   201-02. Ronald's testimony is thus entirely consistent with the pattern of
   misconduct discussed above, since it illustrates his willingness to
   deceive the Commission by filing an application in the name of a
   surrogate. The only difference is that, in this instance, he attempted to
   terminate the deception because it was no longer necessary.

   Misrepresentation and Lack of Candor - the Sumpters filing.

   51. Exceptions. In their exceptions, Appellants spend nearly 20 pages
   attacking the credibility of the Sumpters' testimony that they did not
   sign the applications filed in their names or approve of anyone else doing
   so, and that they did not sign the client copies of their applications.
   Patricia Brasher Exceptions at 2-21. Appellants accuse the ALJ of ignoring
   that the Sumpters had a motive to lie since they were fearful of being
   punished and wanted to shift the blame to Ronald and Patricia. In this
   regard, Appellants accuse the ALJ of ignoring that the Sumpters had met
   among themselves to prepare common testimony.

   52. Appellants assert that Jennifer, Norma, and Melissa admitted in
   letters to Ronald and Patricia that they knew that their names had been
   used. According to Appellants, although the Sumpters claimed that they
   were referring to earlier applications, which they admitted to signing in
   the late 1980s or early 1990s, Jennifer's testimony indicates that they
   were actually referring to the 1996 applications. Moreover, Appellants
   assert that they must have known about the licenses issued in their names,
   since they received mail about them from the Commission. Appellants note
   that Carolyn and Thomas Lewis, a brother of Patricia, Norma, and Carolyn,
   admitted that Ronald asked them to sign applications, and suggest that it
   would be consistent for Ronald to have asked the Sumpters as well. With
   respect to the client copies, Appellants ask why, if Ronald intended to
   forge the Sumpters' signatures, he would not have done all four
   signatures, instead of only Norma's, Jennifer's, and Melissa's. Appellants
   submit that the documentary evidence that the Sumpters submitted to
   establish that Jim and Norma were out of town when the client copies were
   signed, only establishes that Jim was absent from the Dallas area and not
   that Norma accompanied him on his trip. In any event, Appellants complain
   that they were unfairly surprised by the introduction of this evidence at
   the hearing.

   53. Additionally, Appellants contend that the testimony of handwriting
   expert, Bolsover, does not corroborate the Sumpters' testimony.
   Appellant's point out that while Bolsover testified that the signatures on
   the Sumpters' applications did not appear genuine and that one person
   probably signed Norma's, Jennifer's, and Melissa's applications, Bolsover
   could not identify who had executed the signatures. In any event,
   Appellants contend that even if the Sumpters did not sign their
   applications, there would be no misrepresentation if the person who did
   sign reasonably believed that the Sumpters consented to the signatures. In
   this regard, Appellants observe that Norma, Melissa, and Jennifer
   testified that they had signed applications earlier. As to the client
   copies, Appellants observe that Bolsover testified that the Sumpters'
   signatures appeared genuine and that Bolsover detected no indication that
   the signatures had been cut-and-pasted. Appellants accuse the ALJ of
   drawing unwarranted conclusions from Bolsover's testimony that the dates
   on Norma's and Jennifer's copies were probably photocopies of one
   handwritten original.

   54. Analysis. We affirm the ALJ's findings that the Sumpters testified
   truthfully that they did not sign or consent to the signing of their names
   on the applications and that Ronald and Patricia lied in asserting that
   they did. In many respects, this issue boils down to a determination of
   the relative credibility of Ronald and Patricia and the Sumpters. Under
   these circumstances, the ALJ's findings concerning the relative
   credibility of witnesses are generally entitled to great weight. See,
   e.g., TeleSTAR, Inc., 2 FCC Rcd 5, 13 P 23 (Rev. Bd. 1987), citing
   Penasquitos Village, Inc. v. NLRB, 565 F.2d 1074, 1078-80 (9^th Cir. 1977)
   (administrative law judges' factual determinations based on testimonial
   inferences are entitled to special deference). In the present case, the
   ALJ made specific demeanor findings. He held that:

   In awarding full credit to the testimony of the Sumpters, the presiding
   Judge has taken into consideration the nature of the cross-examination of
   these witnesses by trial counsel for Ronald, Patricia, and Metroplex.
   Counsel had a deep, booming voice, and the tone which he employed in
   questioning was extremely confrontational, adversarial, and intimidating.
   He could also be very sarcastic. Counsel put a great deal of pressure on
   each of the Sumpters, and a reading of the cold transcript of these
   proceedings does not begin to do justice to counsel's considerable skills.
   That being said, the Sumpters handled themselves exceedingly well in a
   highly charged and stressful situation, and their testimony was
   forthright, candid, and entirely believable.

   ID at 16745 P 148. While the ALJ did not make explicit demeanor findings
   about Ronald and Patricia, he found that: "In contrast, the record of this
   proceeding as a whole demonstrates a pervasive and consistent pattern of
   deceit on the part of Ronald and Patricia. Thus, even independent of the
   conflict in the testimony of the Brashers and Sumpters, there still exist
   more than ample grounds for concluding that Ronald and Patricia are simply
   not credible witnesses." ID at 16745 P 148. The ALJ is entitled to rely on
   this finding. The rule in the federal courts is:

   It is not true that a jury must exclude the testimony of somebody who has
   told a lie. You may think, if you want to, that a person who is false in
   one respect is false in all, or you may, on the contrary say a person is
   false in one respect but believable in others. It is just a question of
   your own common sense applied to the particular testimony that is offered.

   Dorothy O. Schulze and Deborah Brigham, A General Partnership, 8 FCC Rcd
   442, 444 (1993), quoting United States v. Interstate Engineering Corp.,
   288 F. Supp. 402, 415 (D. N.H. 1967). As discussed above, and as further
   discussed below, the record of this case amply demonstrates a pattern of
   deceit, which provides a sufficient basis to disbelieve Ronald and
   Patricia consistent with the Interstate Engineering test.

   55. We find that the factors noted by Appellants do not warrant
   overturning the ALJ's credibility findings. The record indicates that the
   Sumpters did, as Appellants assert, express fear that their involvement in
   the filing of the applications might lead to adverse consequences, such as
   the loss of Jim's CPA license or fines. Tr. 1057-58, 1100-02 (Jennifer),
   1366-67 (Melissa), 1891-92 (Jim), 2201-02 (Norma). We agree with
   Appellants that a witness' fear is relevant to a credibility determination
   because it tends to establish bias. See, e.g., United States v. Elkins, 70
   F.3d 81, 84 (10^th Cir. 1995); People v. Martinez, 7 Cal. Rptr.3d 49, 59
   (Cal. App. 2003) (evidence of gang membership admissible to show witness
   biased by fear of gang reprisal). In this case, the Sumpters' testimony is
   potentially biased by a desire to deny any knowing participation in the
   filing of the applications. As the above-cited references indicate,
   however, Appellant's counsel explored the Sumpters' fears in cross
   examining them. We think that the ALJ's finding that the Sumpters'
   testimony under cross examination was forthright and credible can fairly
   be understood to encompass the Sumpters' responses to questions regarding
   their fears. As an additional matter, we see no significance to the fact
   that the Sumpters conferred with each other regarding their testimony.
   Under the circumstances, one would expect family members such as the
   Sumpters to discuss their testimony with each other even if they were
   wholly truthful.

   56. We have examined the various circumstances that Appellants contend
   undermine the Sumpters' denial that they signed or authorized the
   applications in their name or signed the client copies. Although these
   factors do tend to raise questions about the Sumpters' account, they do
   not render the ALJ's credibility findings "patently unsupportable," which
   would give us reason to overturn them. See Contemporary Media, Inc. v.
   FCC, 214 F.3d 187, 197-98 (D.C. Cir. 2000). First, it seems odd, as
   Appellants contend, that Ronald would not have asked the Sumpters to sign
   applications when he did ask Carolyn. It is also noteworthy that Bolsover,
   the handwriting expert, could not identify Ronald as the author of the
   Sumpters' signatures, as she could with respect to the O.C. and Ruth
   signatures. These factors lend some support for Ronald's and Patricia's
   viewpoint.

   57. Other aspects of Bolsover's testimony, however, cast doubt on Ronald's
   account and support the Sumpters'. Ronald testified that he gave the four
   unsigned applications to Norma, who later returned the applications to
   Ronald with signatures. Tr. 414-20, 424-25, 427. See also Affidavit of
   Ronald D. Brasher, EB Exh. 22 at 6-7. The obvious inference is that one or
   more of the Sumpters signed the applications. Bolsover, however, testified
   that none of the Sumpter signatures appeared genuine. Tr. 2345. Moreover,
   while Bolsover could not identify who had written the signatures, she
   could not eliminate Ronald or Patricia as the author. Tr. 2345; EB Exh.75.
   Thus, although Bolsover was unable to confirm that Ronald or Patricia
   signed the Sumpter applications, she found that the Sumpters had not
   signed their own applications and could not rule out that Ronald or
   Patricia signed them.

   58. A second source of questions is the wording of letters sent by the
   Sumpters, dated November 29, 1997, after the Net Wave petition and
   opposition were filed. In these letters, all of the Sumpters denied
   knowledge that they were licensees. Jim wrote:

   I have only recently become aware that I am the legal owner of a radio
   channel in the Dallas area. I did not know that my name had been used. I
   have never signed any documents in this regard.

   EB Exh. 39. Norma's, Melissa's, and Jennifer's statements, however,
   differed from Jim's. They wrote:

   I have only recently become aware that I am the legal owner of a radio
   channel in the Dallas area. I knew that you had used my name but I
   understood that if a radio channel was awarded then you would immediately
   transfer it to your name. I have not signed any documents in this regard
   in several years.

   EB Exhs. 47, 53, 56. The question arises from the apparent admissions by
   Norma, Melissa, and Jennifer that they were aware that their names had
   been used on applications. Additionally, Jennifer and Melissa admit to
   signing documents at some point in time, although the record contains no
   evidence that any license was ever issued to them prior to 1996.

   59. At the hearing, Norma, Melissa, and Jennifer testified that they were
   referring to applications they previously signed in the late 1980s or
   early 1990s. They were cross examined with respect to this testimony, and
   the ALJ found their testimony credible. Norma had received earlier
   licenses. Jennifer specifically recalled that she signed the earlier
   application while she was still living at home and before she was married.
   Tr. 1073-74, 1119. Jennifer also recalled that, after seeing the Net Wave
   petition, she told Ronald that she did not recall signing anything in the
   name of Hill, but only in her maiden name of Sumpter. She testified that
   Ronald replied: "Once he had my name, he could use it again and again."
   Tr. 1059. Melissa specifically recalled that she was in high school when
   she signed the earlier application. Tr. 1315-16, 1320-21, 1346-47. While
   the absence from the record of licenses issued pursuant to the alleged
   applications fails to confirm this testimony it does not necessarily mean
   that they did not sign earlier applications. The ALJ credited the
   Sumpters' testimony regarding earlier applications, and we defer to his
   credibility finding. Similarly, we accept the ALJ's finding that the
   Sumpters were not made aware of the licenses by mailings, since the
   Sumpters referred FCC-related mailings to Ronald without reading them. See
   ID at 16720 P 43.

   60. The third area of concern relates to the client copies. The fact that
   Jim's copy was unsigned tends to support Appellants' contention that
   Norma, Jennifer, and Melissa had signed their copies when they visited the
   Brasher's house while Jim was out of town. Moreover, Bolsover's testimony
   indicates that the signatures on the client copies were genuine and that
   she could discern no sign of cutting and pasting. Tr. 2326-27, 2335, 2340;
   Judge's Exh. 3. Additionally, as Appellants observe, even if the Sumpters'
   documentation establishes that Jim was visiting his aunt in Junction,
   Texas on June 22, 1996, the date the client copies were allegedly signed,
   this does not establish that Norma accompanied him.

   61. Despite these circumstances, the record does not squarely contradict
   the Sumpters' testimony. Bolsover testified that, because of the poor
   quality of the photocopies she was examining, she could not positively
   rule out the possibility that the signatures had been cut and pasted from
   other documents. Tr. 2362-63. Moreover, Bolsover testified that the dates
   on Norma's and Jennifer's client copies were machine copies of the same
   handwritten entry. Tr. 2343-44, 2361-62; ALJ Exh. 3 at 2. Thus, Bolsover
   could not entirely rule out the possibility of forgery, and the presence
   of the machine copied dates raises a suspicion that tampering did occur.
   As to the trip to Junction to visit Jim's aunt, the Sumpters'
   documentation does not establish by itself that Norma was present on the
   trip. However, the ALJ credited Norma's testimony that she spontaneously
   recalled that she had been out of town and that she called Jennifer, who
   had returned to Dallas, to check the credit card receipts and other
   records to confirm Norma's recollection. Tr. 2033-36. The ALJ also
   credited Norma's testimony that she invariably accompanied her husband
   when he visited his aunt. Tr. 2048. We defer to the ALJ's credibility
   findings in this regard.

   Misrepresentation and Lack of Candor - Net Wave Opposition

   62. Exceptions. Appellants fault the ALJ's findings in two respects.
   First, Appellants fault the ALJ for finding that the Sumpters did not
   authorize the filing of the opposition to Netwave's petition on their
   behalf. Second, Appellants assert that the opposition's statement that
   "Each of the operators retains control of its own station(s)" was not a
   misrepresentation. Appellants maintain that Ronald was not familiar with
   the Intermountain criteria, and therefore did not know that the statement
   was false by that standard. Rather, Appellants maintain that Ronald used a
   common sense approach to control.

   63. Analysis. We find that the opposition was deceptive. Initially,
   however, we find no misrepresentation or lack of candor in the fact that
   the opposition represented that it spoke for the Sumpters. Although the
   opposition does not reflect the Sumpters' views, it appears that Jim
   acquiesced in its filing. Jim testified (Tr. 1851-57) that he read the
   opposition in draft, although not carefully, but did not understand it or
   believe that it reflected his thoughts. Nevertheless, Jim said he was
   "happy" to let Ronald take care of matters, that he voiced no objection to
   Ronald filing the opposition, and that he did not inform Ronald that he
   did not understand the opposition. Tr. 1854-56. Under these circumstances,
   we do not fault Ronald for believing that he had authority to file on
   behalf of the Sumpters.

   64. On the other hand, we find that the statement "Each of the operators
   retains control of its own station(s)" (EB Exh. 2 at 3) was false and
   misleading. As discussed above, the statement was entirely lacking in
   foundation, since the Sumpters, Carolyn, O.C., and Ruth exercised no
   control and had no real interest in their stations. Even granting Ronald
   some latitude to say that the operators somehow retained "ultimate
   control," that cannot reasonably said of O.C. and Ruth, who were both
   listed as "operators," although they were deceased and Ruth's station was
   never constructed. Similarly, the opposition's statements implying that
   O.C. and Ruth were real parties in interest were misleading for the same
   reason. The opposition gives no indication that O.C. and Ruth were dead or
   that the statements referred to their estates. A reader could not possibly
   have known that any such meaning was intended.

   Misrepresentation and Lack of Candor - Responses to Letters of Inquiry

   65. Exceptions. Appellants dispute that Ronald concealed the fact of
   O.C.'s death in the response to Commission's inquiries. They claim that
   Ronald disclosed this fact in two filings. First, they claim that even
   before the Commission made its inquiry, Ronald executed a Form 800A on
   behalf of O.C. and signed it "O.C. Brasher EST. R. D. Brasher." RB/PB Exh.
   3. Ronald testified that "EST." meant "estate." Tr. 655. Second, DLB's
   December 7, 1998 response to EB's November 9, Letter of Inquiry, contained
   a list of the licensees of stations managed by Ronald, including "O.C.
   Brasher/ Ronald D. Brasher." EB Exh. 17 at 3. In any event, Appellants
   assert that Ronald did not know that the Commission was unaware of O.C.'s
   death.

   66. More generally, Appellants contend that Ronald was fully forthcoming
   in answering Commission inquiries. In this regard, they observe that the
   response voluntarily admitted that the stations were being operated in a
   trunked manner in apparent violation of the Commission's rules and that
   they were being operated without written management agreements. DLB
   Exceptions at 7 P 17. Appellants further observe that they supplied nearly
   all of the hearing exhibits in this proceeding and that Ronald provided
   substantive answers to 96.3 percent of all of the questions asked him at
   the hearing.

   67. Analysis. We find that Ronald concealed the fact of O.C.'s death.
   Appellants' explanation that Ronald did not know that the Commission was
   unaware of O.C.'s death is disingenuous. The Commission had no way of
   knowing of O.C.'s death until someone informed it of the fact. Our
   examination of the record confirms the ALJ's conclusion that O.C.'s death
   was not clearly disclosed until Jim Sumpter referred to O.C. (and Ruth) as
   "(deceased)" in a declaration submitted April 9, 1999. EB Exh. 37 at 6.

   68. We find that Ronald's apparent reference to O.C.'s estate in the Form
   800A did not effectively notify the Commission of O.C.'s death or break
   the pattern of referring to O.C. as if he were alive. The reference was
   both obscure and isolated. A reader of the Form 800A who was not familiar
   with the Net Wave petition would not likely appreciate the purported
   significance of the reference. Ronald himself essentially admitted as much
   when he responded to the question: "Is that your testimony, that you
   intended this to be the official notice to the FCC that O.C. Brasher was
   deceased?" with the answer "No." Tr. 655. Moreover, Ronald made no other
   references to O.C.'s "estate" either before or after filing the Form 800A.
   As discussed above, the opposition to the Net Wave petition, filed only
   two weeks earlier, referred to O.C. as if he were alive. Approximately
   seven weeks later, on January 26, 1998, Ronald signed the assignment
   application transferring O.C.'s station to DLB, simply "O.C. Brasher"
   again making it appear that O.C. was alive. EB Exh. 20 at 10.

   69. Metroplex's responses to Commission letters of inquiry prior to the
   disclosure of O.C.'s death in Jim's April 9, 1999 declaration do not
   explicitly mention O.C.'s death. The December 7, 1998 response to the
   Commission's first letter of inquiry includes, as part of a list of
   licenses of managed stations, "O.C. Brasher/Ronald D. Brasher" without
   explaining the significance of the dual names. EB Exh. 17 at 3. The April
   5, 1999 response to the second Commission letter of inquiry provided a
   list of "Marital/Consanguine Relationships." EB Exh. 19 at 000002. Ronald
   is described as "Son of O.C. Brasher," without indicating that O.C. is
   deceased. Attached to the submission was a document entitled "Radio System
   Management and Marketing Agreement," dated March 29, 1999. EB Exh. 19 at
   000500-27. The document indicates that it was entered into by DLB and
   "Brasher O C." Ronald testified that he had signed the agreement "O.C.
   Brasher," but that the correct signature page had inadvertently been
   omitted from the copy submitted to the Commission. Tr. 355-56. The August
   3, 1999 response to the Sumpter declarations, which indicated that O.C.
   was deceased, does not mention O.C. EB Exh. 22.

   70. Not until the Commission specifically asked about O.C.'s death on
   September 9, 1999, did Ronald's October 13, 1999 response clearly mention
   it. It did so in a manner suggesting that O.C. died after the filing of
   his application, not before it. The response states:

   Ronald D. Brasher contracted with John Black . . . in order to prepare the
   application resulting in the license for station WPJR761. Attached hereto
   as Exhibit I. This application was prepared simultaneously with an
   application in the name of Ronald D. Brasher. . . . The two applications
   were placed in the same envelope and mailed to PCIA for frequency
   coordination on July 1, 1995.

   On September 25, 1996, the Commission issued a license . . . in the name
   of O.C. Brasher. By this time, O.C. Brasher had passed away, and his son,
   Ronald D. Brasher, was named the execut[o]r of the estate of O.C. Brasher.
   In his capacity as Executor of the Estate, Ronald Brasher attempted to
   preserve the license as an asset of the estate. Therefore Ronald Brasher
   prepared and submitted an application to assign the license out of the
   name of the deceased and into the name of one of the heirs to the O.C.
   Brasher estate.

   EB Exh. 21 at 24. The application referred to was signed, "O.C. Brasher,"
   and dated, June 29, 1995. EB Exh. 21 at 28. It is the application that
   PCIA misplaced, not the one, dated June 17, 1996, that resulted in the
   license grant. EB Exh. 3. Thus, O.C. had not passed away "by this time,"
   between the filing of the application and the grant, he had passed away
   nearly a year before the application resulting in the grant was filed.
   Moreover, as mentioned above, Ronald was never "named the execut[o]r for
   the estate of O.C. Brasher" consistent with the Texas Probate Code. The
   record also does not establish that DLB, the assignee of the station, was
   "one of the heirs to the O.C. Brasher estate." This response was hardly
   candid.

   71. An examination of the various responses to the Commission's letters of
   inquiry reveals numerous instances of false and misleading responses that
   add up to a greatly distorted account of the real party-in-interest issue.

   72. The December 7, 1998 response to the Commission's November 9, 1998
   letter of inquiry falsely represented the control and supervision
   supposedly exercised by the nominal licensees. The response states:

   Ron Brasher makes reports available of station operations, including
   customer loading, preventive maintenance performed, air time usage by
   month and day, customer additions and deletions, and revenues and expenses
   for each station. Most of the licensees do review these reports and give
   directions to Ron Brasher for improvement or for correction of problems.
   Ron Brasher is obligated to follow the directions of each licensee. . . .

   EB Exh. 17 at 4. As our findings under the transfer of control issue
   indicate, the licensees received no reports and gave no directions to
   Ronald. In particular, O.C., who was deceased, could hardly have done so.
   The response further states:

   Each applicant and licensee was responsible for reviewing and signing its
   own application in connection with the Managed Stations.

   EB Exh. 4 at 5. The deceased O.C. and Ruth obviously did not sign or
   review their applications and the Sumpters deny that they did so, an
   assertion which the ALJ and we credit. The Commission also asked whether
   DLB had received consideration "in exchange for obtaining consent for the
   assignment" of the licenses and, if not, asked for an explanation of "the
   circumstances under which [DLB] obtained consent of such licensee(s) for
   assignment of their licenses." EB Exh. 16 at 3. The response states:

   There is no written agreement relating to the assignment of licenses for
   the Managed Stations. DLB agreed to pay the Commission's application
   filing fees for each of the licensees of the Managed Stations. Subsequent
   to assignment of the licenses, DLB will continue to make available
   permanent free radio communications service to the licensees of the
   Managed Stations.

   EB Exh. 17 at 7. Based on this asserted "consideration," the response
   declined to discuss further the circumstances under which DLB obtained
   consent to the assignments. In fact, as the record shows, there was no
   consideration for the assignments. Lutz and the Sumpters requested that
   the stations be transferred out of their names. Ronald transferred O.C.'s
   station on his own initiative. The statement in the response is thus false
   and misleading.

   73. The April 5, 1999 response to the Commission's March 4, 1999 letter of
   inquiry contains additional false and misleading statements. The response
   purports to describe the process by which Ronald identified and selected
   the applicants. The response states:

   Mr. Brasher's actions were limited to those . . . who would agree to
   participate in the ownership, licensing and operation of the subject
   stations, including without limitation, performance of all duties
   attendant to holding an FCC license. Persons who were either unable or
   unwilling to perform such duties were not considered by Mr. Brasher. . . .

   . . . each prospective licensee must have been willing to agree to
   participate fully in the operation of the facilities, including without
   limitation, a willingness to accept risk of failure of any enterprise
   arising out of the operation of a business based on obtaining the
   requisite license and construction of the licensed facilities. Therefore,
   the criteria for the creation of an ongoing relationship to manage
   facilities was: (i) the person must have been known to Mr. Brasher; (ii)
   the person must be able to fulfill the duties of a Commission licensee;
   (iii) the person must have been willing to fulfill the duties of a
   Commission licensee; (iv) the person must have been willing to participate
   in the funding of the construction of the facilities; (v) the person must
   have been willing to participate in the funding of the costs of operation;
   (vi) the person must have been willing to accept the risk of failure of
   any business arising out of operation of the facilities; and (vii) the
   person must have been willing to actively participate in the sale of
   service and equipment to be provided to customers of the subject station.
   Person who did not evidence either the ability or the willingness to
   perform each of these tasks were not allowed to participate in any managed
   station agreement.

   EB Exh. 19 at 000003-000004. The record totally fails to support this
   assertion as the ALJ's findings, which we adopt, indicate. It shows that
   Ronald simply selected close relatives to be licensees and either did not
   consult them at all or merely asked them to sign applications as an
   accommodation so that he could avoid the restrictions of section 90.313.
   The record similarly contradicts the following statements: (1) "The
   Sumpters were informed of the duties that their participation would
   require and the potential benefits of ownership which might be obtained by
   the Sumpters if the facilities were successful. . . . "; (2) ". . . Ms.
   Lutz would be entitled to all benefits of operation as a Commission
   licensee, including that portion of all profits . . . that would arise out
   of operation of the facilities"; and (3) "[With the exception of the
   Sumpters] All other licensees participating in management agreements with
   DLB have provided substantial direction and supervision regarding the
   operation of the subject facilities."

   74. Finally, Ronald's October 31, 1999 response, in addition to its
   statement about O.C., contains the following statement about Ruth's
   application:

   Ronald D. Brasher contracted with John Black . . . in order to prepare the
   application resulting in the license for station WPJR762. This application
   was prepared simultaneously with an application in the name of Ronald D.
   Brasher. . . . The two applications were placed in the same envelope and
   mailed to PCIA for frequency coordination on July 1, 1995. The intent of
   [the Bearden] application was to create a license in the name of a
   corporation for which Ruth I. Bearden was formally the principal. Due to
   an error in the preparation of the application at issue and the
   similarities that exist between the names of Ronald Brasher's late mother
   and this entity, the license was applied for in the name of the individual
   instead of the corporate entity that was the intended recipient of the
   license. Immediately upon learning of the error in the name of the entity
   applying for the license, Ronald Brasher contacted the frequency
   coordinator in an attempt to cancel the application here at issue . . . .
   Subsequent to this request to halt the processing of this application, the
   license was issued. Ronald Brasher immediately contacted the Commission by
   telephone, requesting that the license . . . be cancelled.

   As our previous discussion indicates, Ruth's application was filed in 1996
   not in 1995. Moreover, the discussion in the response is totally
   inconsistent with Ronald's hearing testimony, which indicates that Ronald
   filed Ruth's application at the request of Ed Bearden and that he sought
   to cancel the application after Ed told him that it was no longer needed.
   The statement that Ronald attempted to cancel the license after it was
   issued is inconsistent with his hearing testimony that he was unaware that
   the license had issued.

   Conclusion

   75. Exceptions. Appellants assert that the record in this case does not
   warrant disqualification. They state:

   .. . . the record demonstrates fully that an unsophisticated person, Ron
   Brasher, believed that his actions were lawful and did nothing to conceal
   the methods he chose to obtain additional channels for DLB. Each of the
   applications clearly showed commonality. He executed the 800A for the O.C.
   Brasher Estate license by indicating that the license was to held by the
   estate. The Defendants responded fully and honestly to each of the WTB's
   inquiries, provided thousands of copies of documents pursuant to
   discovery, participated openly in the discovery process, and answered with
   great effort an enormous amount of questions at hearing, even where the
   answers were known to be unhelpful to their case.

   The Defendants do not contend that their actions were entirely appropriate
   or that the manner by which they chose to license facilities was in strict
   accord with the agency's rules and policies. Errors of an administrative
   nature, assumptions regarding acceptable licensing methods, failure to
   reduce to writing management agreements, etc. thread throughout the
   history of this matter.

   Exceptions of Ronald Brasher at 22 PP 45-46. Appellants indicate that
   Ronald and Patricia are willing to exit the radio business but ask that
   Metroplex not be "ruin[ed]," creating hardship for employees and
   customers. Exceptions of Ronald Brasher at 23 P 47.

   76. Analysis. The record in this case is totally at odds with Appellants'
   characterization. Ronald, Patricia, and Metroplex committed egregious
   misconduct, not "errors of an administrative nature." They were the
   undisclosed real parties-in-interest in applications that they instigated
   and filed in the names of relatives. They exercised control over the
   resulting licenses without Commission authorization in violation of 47
   U.S.C. S 310(d). These activities constituted an abuse of process inasmuch
   as they were intended to conceal from the Commission that Metroplex was
   applying for licenses in excess of the limitations of 47 C.F.R. S
   90.313(c). Moreover, these activities were accompanied by numerous
   instances of misrepresentation and lack of candor. The signatures on the
   O.C. Brasher and Ruth Bearden applications falsely represented that O.C.
   and Ruth had signed the applications and, by implication, that they were
   living persons. The signatures on the Sumpter applications falsely
   indicated that the Sumpters had signed them and had approved their filing.
   The opposition to the Net Wave petition and the responses to the
   Commission letters of inquiry falsely represented that the various
   applicants/licensees were the real parties-in-interest in the applications
   and that they exercised control and supervision over the stations. They
   further falsely represented that Ronald had chosen the applicants because
   they were ready and willing to exercise their responsibilities as
   licensees and that the licensees transferred the stations to Metroplex in
   return for consideration. The record indicates that Ronald and Patricia
   testified falsely at the hearing about their dealings with the Sumpters.
   Intentional misconduct of this nature and magnitude fully warrants
   disqualification. See, e.g., Marc Sobel, 17 FCC Rcd 1872 (2002).

                              IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

   77. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, That the Requests for Oral Argument, all
   filed September 22, 2003, by Ronald Brasher, Patricia Brasher, and DLB
   Enterprises, Inc. ARE DENIED.

   78. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the Exceptions of Ronald Brasher, the
   Exceptions of Patricia Brasher, and the Exceptions of DLB Enterprises,
   Inc., all filed September 8, 2003, ARE DENIED, and that the Initial
   Decision of Administrative Law Judge Arthur I. Steinberg, FCC 03D-02 (Aug.
   8, 2003), 18 FCC Rcd 16707 (ALJ 2003) IS AFFIRMED.

   79. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the licenses of Ronald Brasher for Private
   Land Mobile Stations WPLQ202, KCG967, WPLD495, WPKH771, WPKI739, WPKI733,
   WPKI707, WIL990, WPLQ475, WPLY658, WPKY903, WPKY901, WPLZ533, WPKI762, and
   WPDU262, Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas, ARE REVOKED.

   80. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the licenses of Patricia Brasher for
   Private Land Mobile Stations WPJI362, WPKY900, and WPLD570, Dallas/Fort
   Worth, Texas, ARE REVOKED.

   81. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the license of O.C Brasher for Private
   Land Mobile Station WPJR761, Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas, IS REVOKED.

   82. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the licenses of Metroplex Two-Way Radio
   Service for Private Land Mobile Stations WPHS735, WPKP673, WPKM797,
   WPLZ841, and WPJR754, Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas, ARE REVOKED.

   83. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the licenses of DLB Enterprises, Inc., for
   Private Land Mobile Stations WPKM796, WPKL830, WPJY510, WPLU490, WPBH830,
   WPKP667, WPLY713, WPMH354, WPMH477, and WPKY978, Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas,
   and WNAH223, Cleora, Oklahoma, ARE REVOKED.

   84. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the licensees listed above ARE AUTHORIZED
   to continue operation of their stations until 12:01 A.M. on the
   ninety-first day following the release date of this decision to enable the
   licensees to conclude the stations' affairs; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that if
   the licensees seek reconsideration or judicial review of our action
   revoking their licenses, they are authorized to operate the stations until
   final disposition of all administrative and/or judicial appeals.

   85. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the applications of DLB Enterprises, Inc.,
   for Conventional Industrial/Business Private Land Mobile Licenses, Dallas,
   Texas, File Nos.

   AO17774, AO20241, and AO19157, ARE DENIED.

   86. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the application of DLB Enterprises, Inc.,
   for Conventional Industrial/Business Private Land Mobile Licenses,
   Crowley, Texas, File No. AO18555, IS DENIED.

   87. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the application of DLB Enterprises, Inc.,
   for Trunked Industrial/Business Private Land Mobile Licenses, Crowley,
   Texas, File No. AO20755, IS DENIED.

   88. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the application of DLB Enterprises, Inc.,
   for Assignment of Private Land Mobile Stations from Ronald Brasher
   (WPKI707, WPKI739, WPKI733, and WPLQ475), D.L. Brasher (WPJR750), David
   Brasher (WPJR757), Metroplex Two-Way Radio Service (WPJR754), and O.C.
   Brasher (WPJR761), Dallas, Texas, File No.

   D113240, IS DENIED.

   89. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That, in light of the cancellation of the
   licenses of Norma Sumpter, Jim Sumpter, Jennifer Hill, and Melissa
   Sumpter, those portions of the application of DLB Enterprises, Inc.,
   pertaining to the Assignment of Private Land Mobile Stations from Norma
   Sumpter (WPJR739), Jim Sumpter (WPJR725), Jennifer Hill (WPJR740), and
   Melissa Sumpter (WPJS437), Dallas, Texas, File No. D113240, ARE DISMISSED
   as moot.

   90. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED,That the application of DLB Enterprises, Inc.,
   for Assignment of Private Land Mobile Station, File No. D113242, IS
   DENIED.

   91. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the application of DLB Enterprises, Inc.,
   for Modification of Private Land Mobile Stations WPKM796, and WPKL830, and
   Assignment of Private Land Mobile Stations WPKI733, WPLQ475, WPKI707, and
   WPKI739 from Ronald Brasher, and Assignment of Private Land Mobile Station
   WPKM797 from Metroplex, Dallas, Texas, File No. D113241, IS DENIED.

   92. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order shall be sent by
   certified mail, return receipt requested, to Ronald Brasher, Patricia
   Brasher, and DLB Enterprises, Inc., 224 Molina Drive, Sunnyvale, Texas
   75182, with a copy to Robert H. Schwaninger, Jr., Schwaninger &
   Associates, P.C., 1331 H Street, N.W., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20005.

   93. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That this proceeding IS TERMINATED.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Marlene H. Dortch

   Secretary

   Ronald Brasher, 18 FCC Rcd 16707, 16709 n.1 (ALJ 2003) (ID).

   Since several of the individuals in this proceeding share the same last
   names, we will follow the practice of the Initial Decision and refer to
   the parties by their first names. Thus, when we do not refer to the
   parties by their full names, we will refer to Ronald Brasher as "Ronald,"
   Patricia Brasher as "Patricia," David L. Brasher as "David," Diane Brasher
   as "Diane," O.C. Brasher as "O.C.," Jim Sumpter as "Jim," Norma Sumpter as
   "Norma," Jennifer Sumpter Hill as "Jennifer," and Melissa Sumpter
   Ellington as "Melissa." Jim, Norma, Jennifer, and Melissa may be referred
   to collectively as the "Sumpters." To be consistent, we will refer to
   Carolyn Lutz as "Carolyn" and Ruth I. Bearden as "Ruth." See ID at 16709
   n.1.

   The Associate General Counsel denied the parties' request to file combined
   exceptions of 75 pages, three times the limit prescribed by the rules.
   Ronald Brasher, FCC 03I-02 (OGC Sept. 22, 2003).

   The companies in question are still Metroplex customers. Tr. 97. Metroplex
   services a total of 1,000 to 1,200 mobile units on its T-band system. ID
   at 16712 P 13. It also services 1,000 to 1,400 mobiles on its 900 MHz
   system and an additional 70 or 80 mobiles on its 800 MHz system.

   Tr. 1239.

   Ronald, Patricia, and DLB filed separate exceptions. Since these pleadings
   present what are in effect a single consolidated set of arguments, we will
   refer to these parties simply as "Appellants" except where it is
   appropriate to cite to a specific pleading. Where we do not summarize the
   Enforcement Bureau's reply, this indicates that we agree with the Bureau's
   position in material respects and believe that a summary would be
   redundant.

   Appellants also observe that Ronald, who had no counsel, was unfamiliar
   with the Intermountain criteria. While this factor may bear on his intent,
   it has no relevance to the issue of whether control was actually
   transferred, which is an objective determination based on the conduct of
   the individuals involved.

   DLB Exceptions at 20 P 43.

   Appellants nevertheless recite that: "The family members chosen had
   knowledge of DLB's business and contributed in various fashions to the
   success of the overall enterprise. . . . O.C. Brasher lived with Ron and
   Pat and was also fully aware of the efforts of the business." DLB
   Exceptions 18-19 P 41.

   This means that "a license must maintain a reasonable degree of actual
   working knowledge about the lessee's activities and facilities that affect
   its ongoing compliance with the Commission's policies and rules." 18 FCC
   Rcd at 20636 P 66. Additionally, the licensee must be in a position to
   remedy any violations of the lease or the Commission's rules or suspend or
   terminate operation of the system. 18 FCC Rcd at 20636 P 67.

   In establishing rules for spectrum leasing, we did not deny the
   applicability of Intermountain in other contexts, such as the evaluation
   of management agreements. 18 FCC Rcd 20717 P 318. Instead, we sought
   comment on whether the revised standard should be applied in such
   contexts. Moreover, the spectrum leasing rules establish reporting and
   other requirements in place of the Intermountain criteria. We do not
   suggest that it would be permissible to depart from the degree of control
   presumed by the Intermountain criteria without complying with these
   safeguards.

   Dawn Daniels Ross of PCIA confirmed that, based on PCIA's interpretation
   of section 90.313, PCIA would coordinate only one frequency pair at a time
   unless the applicant showed that it had more than 90 mobile units (per
   channel) in operation. Ross further confirmed that an applicant with only
   potential new customers, as opposed to units in operation, would not be
   able to apply for multiple channels. Tr. 2259-62.

   Carolyn, for example, testified that she was scared after she saw the Net
   Wave petition because: "I knew I had done something illegal . . . and
   someone had obviously discovered the loophole and was coming after me for
   it." Tr. 1239. Jennifer testified that she showed the Net Wave petition to
   her supervisor at work who was an attorney and a CPA. She testified that
   his response to reading it was: "My God, what have you gotten yourself
   into?" Tr. 1057.

   Tr. 586.

   Black admitted that he knew that the applicants were members of the
   Brasher family and that the applications specified Metroplex's offices as
   a common control point, but he denied knowing that the stations would all
   be operated by Metroplex. Tr. 1706, 1708. In this regard, Black made the
   above-quoted statement in the context of saying that he relied on Ronald
   to provide him with eligible applicants. Black testified: "Now, if Ron
   Brasher tells me that these people, whoever they are, are eligible to hold
   a license, then I'm going to submit the application . . . . " Tr. 1707.

   The Commission's rules require that if an applicant is an individual, the
   application must bear the original, handwritten signature of the
   applicant. 47 C.F.R. S 1.913(a), (e) (1996) (current S 1.917(a),(d)).

   See also Garcia v. Caremark, Inc., 921 S.W.2d 417, 420-21 (Tex. App. 1996)
   ("De facto" administrator did not "qualify" as personal representative
   under the terms of the Probate Code).

   In responding to EB's request for admissions, Ronald admitted that neither
   O.C. nor his estate paid for the construction or operating costs of the
   station. He further stated that: "The estate is due compensation for the
   value of the license and the revenue owed the licensee's use to date,
   however, calculation and valuation of such compensation has been tolled
   until the controversy has been resolved to assure accuracy." EB Exhs. 24,
   25, items 33, 35, 36.

   Appellants cite 47 C.F.R. S 1.948(g) (formerly 1.924(c) (1996)), which
   provides: "In the event of the death . . . of a permittee or licensee. . .
   the Commission shall be promptly notified of such death. . . . Within 30
   days after the occurrence of such death . . . an application shall be
   filed for consent to involuntary assignment of such permit or license . .
   . to a person or entity legally qualified to succeed to the foregoing
   interests under the laws of the having jurisdiction over the estate
   involved." Appellants assert that, consistent with this section, Ronald
   was eligible to apply for a license on behalf of O.C.'s estate, and was
   not required to report O.C.'s death (which occurred prior to filing the
   application.) Ronald Brasher Exceptions at 12-13 P 26, 15-16 P 30; DLB
   Exceptions at 14-15 P 30. Ronald, however, did not qualify as an executor
   under Texas law and did not state in his application that he was filing as
   an executor or on behalf of O.C.'s estate. Appellants reliance on section
   1.948(g) is, therefore, unavailing.

   Ronald sent a fax to PCIA on July 30. 1996, asking PCIA to cancel Ruth's
   application. EB Exh. 14. Nevertheless, the Commission issued a license to
   Ruth on September 25, 1996. EB Exh. 10 at 1. Ronald testified that he
   never received notification of the license and did not recognize the March
   31, 1998 letter from the Commission (EB Exh. 10 at 2) canceling the
   license for failure to notify the Commission of construction. Tr. 181-82,
   209. Ruth's station was never constructed. Tr. 137-38. Subsequently, in
   early April, 1998, Ronald sent a copy of the license to Black marked: "To
   John Black From R Brasher Please apply for this freq at this location
   under DLB." Tr. 1666, 1669; EB Exh. 10 at 1. Black filed an application on
   DLB's behalf on April 19 or 20, 1998.

   The relevance of this argument is unclear, since Ronald and Patricia
   categorically deny that they signed the Sumpters' applications. In any
   event, we reject any suggestion that Ronald and Patricia would not be
   guilty of forging the Sumpters' signatures if they merely believed that
   the Sumpters "would have consented" to the preparation of applications in
   their name, as opposed to their actually consenting. Patricia Brasher
   Exceptions at 13 P 28. In Danville Television Partnership, 16 FCC Rcd
   9314, 9317-18 P 7 (Vid. Ser. Div. 2001), cited by Appellants, the party
   accused of forgery successfully argued that he had actual consent to sign
   a document with another person's name. This is in accord with general
   principles of law. An agent commits forgery by exceeding his or her
   authority in executing a document in another person's name. An agent is
   not guilty of forgery only if the agent has an honest belief in his or her
   authority to do so See United States v. Hill, 579 F.2d 480, 483 n.2 (8^th
   Cir. 1978). Appellants also observe that a party can subsequently ratify
   and be bound by a forged signature. See, e.g., Kadota Fig Ass'n of
   Producers v. Case-Swaye Co., 167 P.2d 523 (Cal. App. 1946). The Sumpters,
   however, deny that they ratified their signatures and the case law does
   not suggest that subsequent ratification nullifies the original forgery.

   In their exceptions, Appellants mischaracterize the ALJ's finding. They
   state: ". . . the Court [i.e., the ALJ] found, based on its `reading of
   the cold transcript' that it would `[award] full credit to the testimony
   of the Sumpters. . . .' " Patricia Brasher's Exceptions at 3 P 7. Clearly,
   the ALJ based his findings on his observation of the witnesses during
   cross examination, not on a reading of the cold transcript.

   Appellants complain that the ALJ erred in according unwarranted
   significance to an alleged inconsistency between evidence given by Ronald
   and by Patricia. ID at 16743 P 141. The ALJ noted that Patricia testified
   that she and Ronald had discussed Metroplex's needs with the Sumpters 8-10
   times over a period of 4-6 months before the June 11 meeting at which the
   applications were given to Norma. Tr. 809-13. In an affidavit, however,
   Ronald indicated that the purpose of the June 11 meeting was to offer the
   Sumpters an opportunity to become licensees and that Jim and Norma's
   applications were not signed at this "initial meeting" to give them a
   chance to decide whether they wanted to hold a Commission license. EB Exh
   22 at 6. Appellants complain that the apparent inconsistency reflects no
   more than ordinary variations in how people recall the same events and
   should not be viewed as indicating a misrepresentation. Although this is a
   relatively minor matter, we find that the ALJ did not err in taking this
   inconsistency into account as one factor in evaluating the credibility of
   the Brasher's account of their dealings with the Sumpters.

   Carolyn admitted that she signed her application as a favor to Ronald. Tr.
   1162-63, 1165, 1194. Ronald claimed that Carolyn approached Patricia after
   hearing that the Sumpters were interested in obtaining some licenses and
   asked Patricia to be included. According to Ronald, Patricia then asked
   Ronald to ask Carolyn. Tr. 541-42.

   Ronald, however, had previously insisted on a contrary version of events
   in letters to the Sumpters. After the Sumpters had written to him that
   they were unaware that they were licensees, Ronald responded with letters
   dated January 6, 1998. He told Jim and Norma: "You signed a request for
   license in July, 1996 at your office with [Jim Sumpter, Norma Sumpter],
   Pat Brasher and myself present." EB Exh. 37 at 27, 34 at 28. He told
   Melissa and Jennifer: "You signed a request for license in July 1996 at
   our house in the presence of [Jennifer Hill, Melissa Sumpter], Norma
   Sumpter, Pat Brasher and myself." EB Exh. 34 at 29,26, 19 at 00458.

   In his statement to the Commission dated August 3, 1999, Ronald stated
   that he had closely examined the signatures on the applications for the
   first time and noticed that the signatures on Norma's, Melissa's and
   Jennifer's applications appeared to have been written by the same person.
   He suggested that Norma's signature appeared consistent with her other
   known signatures. EB Exh. 22 at 2. Bolsover confirmed the Norma, Jennifer,
   and Melissa signatures were probably written by the same person. Tr. 2304;
   EB Exh. 75. As noted, however, she did not agree that Norma's signature
   was genuine.

   Bolsover did testify that she eliminated Ronald as the writer of Jim's
   signature. Tr. 2319.

   Jennifer added: "In fact I have never signed anything using my married
   name of Hill." EB Exh. 56.

   EB Exhs. 42 at 1, 43 at 1, 45 at 12.

   Appellants accuse the ALJ of ignoring inconsistencies in the Sumpters'
   testimony. For example, Jennifer initially testified that she recalled
   receiving the Form 800A in the mail and "threw it in the trash" because "I
   was angry. I felt like Ronald was blowing me off." Tr. 1061. She
   acknowledged, however, that Ronald had filled out a copy of her Form 800A
   (EB Exh. 55 at 9) and gave it to Jim for Jennifer to sign. Jennifer
   testified that she refused. Tr. 1061-62. Jim testified that he advised
   Jennifer not to sign. Tr. 1966, 1978. While Jennifer's recollection seems
   somewhat faulty in that she manifestly did not throw out the Form 800A,
   which was in front of her while she testified, she immediately corrected
   herself, and we do not fault the ALJ's belief that any inconsistency was
   not material.

   This evidence (EB Exh. 70) includes: (1) notations in Jim's appointment
   book indicating he would be out of his office on Friday afternoon June 21
   and all day Saturday June 22, (2) records of telephone calls to Jim's aunt
   on Friday morning (to tell her he was coming) and Sunday afternoon (to
   tell her he arrived home safely); and (3) credit card receipts showing
   that he ate at a restaurant in his hometown of Mesquite on Friday (before
   he left) and that he bought a tank of gas on Sunday in Junction (for the
   ride home). Tr. 1797-1806, 2033-47.

   That is, Bolsover examined the photocopies that Ronald allegedly made on
   June 22 after the Sumpters had signed the client copies. The client copies
   with the original signatures were not accounted for at the hearing.

   We find that Appellants were not materially prejudiced by the fact that
   they did not have any prehearing notice of this evidence.

   The opposition stated: "Net Wave presented nothing to support its
   suggestion that [] each of the Operators is not a separate real party in
   interest." EB Exh. 2 at 3.

   Although the opposition ridiculed Net Wave's claim that the applications
   "concealed" the various family relationships involved, it does conceal
   knowledge of a significant misunderstanding by Net Wave in this regard.
   Net Wave erroneously assumed that " D.L. Brasher" was David Brasher's
   wife, Diane. EB Exh. 1 at 3 P 3. The opposition does not disclose the fact
   that Net Wave was wrong and that D.L. Brasher and David L. Brasher are
   actually the same person.

   The opposition was filed November 25, 1997; the Form 800a was dated
   December 9, 1997. EB Exh. 2; RB/PB Exh. 3.

   The list also refers to a station licensed to "Patricia A. Brasher: Ronald
   D. Brasher." EB Exh. 17 at 3. Patricia was, of course, alive.

   Due to an alleged collating error, the submitted copy contained a
   signature page signed "David L. Brasher." EB Exh. 19 at 000524. The
   correct signature page is EB Exh. 5 at 11. Also allegedly as a result of
   the collating error, the copy submitted in April 1999 also substituted the
   page indicating that notice was to be sent to "O.C. Brasher." Again, the
   corresponding page of the David L. Brasher agreement was substituted.
   Compare EB Exh. 5 at 10 with EB Exh. 19 at 000523.

   The response to the letter of inquiry directed to O.C. was worded as
   follows: " . . we hereby inform the Commission that O.C. Brasher is
   deceased (death certificate enclosed). As a result, we respectfully inform
   the Commission that O.C. Brasher will be unable to respond to the
   Commission's inquiry. . . " EB Exh. 21 at 2. O.C. had died four years
   earlier.

   Tr. 1173.

   EB Exh. 19 at 00004.

   EB Exh. 19 at 00005.

   EB Exh. 19 at 00005.

   We wish to make clear, however, that even if we were to overturn the ALJ's
   findings crediting the testimony of the Sumpters, this would not
   significantly diminish the seriousness of the misconduct found on the
   record as a whole.

   We have determined that oral argument would not materially assist the
   resolution of this proceeding.

   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 04-210

   1

   1

   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 04-210