Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FCC FOIA Denial. MCLM-Depriests Investigation. Appeal To FCC Office General Counsel, With 10 Attachments
FCC FOIA Denial. MCLM-Depriests Investigation. Appeal To FCC Office General Counsel, With 10 Attachments
Tamir D. Damari
D 202.887 .1442
tdamari@nossaman.com
July 2,2010
counsel, hereby files this Application for Review of Freedom of lnformation Act Action.
Skybridge seeks review, pursuant to 47 CFR 550.461Ú) and .115, of a June 2, 2010
'1
lnformation Act Request (the "Request") dated April 19,2010 (FOIA Control No. 2010-
37e).
249387 1.DOC
nossaman.con'l
July 2, 2010
Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
J
QUESTION PRESENTED
3
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
o
ARGUMENT
o
INTRODUCTION
CONCLUSION 19
249387 1.DOC
July 2, 2010
Page 3
QUESTION PRESENTED
1. Did the wireless Bureau err on June 2, 2010 by maintaining that certain
MCLM and its principals failed to disclose all required ownership information in its
application to participate in FCC Auction No. 61 and in subsequent filings with the
By letter dated AUguSt 18,2009, the Wireless Bureau directed MCLM' its
principals sandra and Donald DePriest, and its affiliates MariTEL, lnc. ("MariTEL") and
provide certain information related to the MCLM lnvestigation (See letters collectively
attached as Exhibit l). This letter prohibited the lnvestigated Parties from withholding
2493A7 1.DOC
July 2,2010
Page 4
a
confidentiality of large set of documents' and casual requests'
including simply stamping pages "confidential," are unacceptable'
Pursuant to Section 0.459(c),2 the Bureau will not consider requests that
do not comply with the requirements of Section 0'459'
Id., atPageT.
(1) ldentification of the specific information for which confidential treatment is sought;
(2) ldentification of the commission proceeding in which the information was submitted
òr a description of the circumstances giving rise to the submission;
(3) Explanation of the degree to which the information is commercial or financial, or
contains a trade secret or is privileged;
(4) Explanation of the degree to which the information concerns a service that is subject
to competition;
(5) Explanation of how disclosure of the information could result in substantial
competitive harm;
(6)ldentificationofanymeasufestakenbythesubmittingpartytopreventunauthorized
disclosure;
of
(7) ldentification of whether the information is available to the public and the extent
àny previous disclosure of the information to third parties:
(8) Justification of the period during which the submitting party asserts that material
should not be availablê for public disclosure; and
may be
(9) Any other information that the party seeking- confidential treaiment believes
granted."
ùÉeful'in assessing whether its request for confidentiality should be
stamping
2 This regulation states, in relevant part: "(c) Casual requests (including simply
pugå.;"ãniiduntiat') wtrich do not cómply w¡t¡' tf'e requirements of paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this section will noi be considered."
249387,1.DOC
July 2,2010
Page 5
The lnvestigated Parties responded by letters dated September 28, 2009 and
september 30, 2009. (see response of sandra DePrieslMCLM, attached as Exhibit 2'
ln wPV's response, its counsel stated that "l am concurrently filing Attachment ll to
wPV's response under a request for confidential treatment of the document." (see
Exhib¡t 3). WPV did not provide any further explanation for this request'
the MCLM lnvestigation. (see letters collectively attached as Exhibit 5). This letter
once again prohibited the lnvestigated Parties from withholding information based upon
RequestforConfidentialTreatment,lf[therespondingpartyrequests]lhat
any information or documents responsive to this letter be treated in a
coñfidential manner, it shall submit, along with all responsive information
anddocuments,astatementinaccordancewithSection0.4S9ofthe
Commission'srules.4Tc.F.R.so.4sg.Requestsforconfidentia|
treatment must comply with the requirements of section 0.459, including
the standards of spècificity mandated by section 0.459(b). Accordingly,
,,blanket" requests for coñfidentiality of a large set of documents,. and
casual requèsts, including simply stamping pages "confidential"' are
unacceptable. Pursuant to section 0.459(c), the Bureâu will not consider
requesti that do not comply with the requirements of Section 0'459'
The lnvestigated Parties responded by letters dated March 29, 20l0 (See
Exhibit 8). once again, the lnvestigated Parties disregarded the Enforcement Bureau's
249387 1.DOC
July 2,2010
Page 6
claims of
admonition regarding withholding information based upon unsubstantiated
the
confidentiality. lnstead, they made generalized and conclusory claims regarding
Mr.Schonman'sletterrequestsdocumentationdemonstratingMariTEL,s
aggregate gross revenues and other financial information ' This
informationhasbeenprovidedinExhibitsl,2and4,respectively'ofthe
CONFIDENTIAL version of MariTEL's response' The information
containedintheseExhibitsiscommerciallysensitivecorporateand
financial information that customarily would be guarded from competitors
and would not be made routinely available for public inspection'
ld., at page 2.
249387 1.DOC
July 2,2o1O
Page 7
lntheRequest,skybridgesoughtthefollowingdocumentsrelatedtotheMCLM
lnvestigation:
(1) All records relating to the August 1 8, 2009 letters sent by the
ùvireless Bureau to MCLúI, Sandra DePriest, MariTEL, Donald DePriest
"section 308
and wpV ¡n connection *iÚ' tn" MCLM lnvestigation (the
Letters");
(2) All records relating to the February 26, 2010 letters sent by the
Ènforcement Bureau to thê lnvestigated Parties (the "EB Letters");
249387 1.DOC
July 2, 2010
Page I
See Exhibit9.
(1)AstoRequestNo.l,theWirelessBureaumaintainedthatithad
prevlousty prodúced all responsive documents in its possession in
i""ponr" to'st ybridge's prior FO|R request dated October 27, 2009 (FCC
FOIA Control No. ioos-o+s), except for a document for which the
Commissionhadtentativelygrantedconfidentiality;i.e.,Attachmentll^to
wpV's september 30, 200é response to the August 18, 2009 section 308
letter ("Attachment Il").
(2) As to Request No. 2' the Wireless Bureau maintained that "you
wére copleo on the. . EB letters to all three parties,.as well as the
,etpon.è" by those parties. No additional records beyond what you were
on ñave been filed or are in the commission's possession."
"oji"o
However, the Bureau further acknowledged that MCLM' WPV and MariTel
portions of their
had sought and obtained confidential treatment of certain
responses to the EB letters.
249387 1.DOC
July 2, 2010
Page 9
ARGUMENT
A. lntroduction
,,FOIA is often explained as a means for citizens to know what their government
isupto.,,NARAv.Favish,541U.S.157,171(2004).Thisphraseisnota..convenient
72.
Thewithholdingagencybearstheburdenofestablishingthatagivendocument
(D.D.c.2002).Mostrecently,thePresidentoftheUnitedStateshasissueda
may not be
memorandum to the heads of all agencies instructing them that information
fears"
withheld under FOIA simply because of the agency's "speculative or abstract
Government (fhe
regarding disclosure. FOIA Post (2009): Creating a New Era of open
,,FOIA Memorandum"), at page 1 The FOIA Memorandum also "strongly encourages
might apply
should not be withheld simply because an exemption "technically or legally"
Id., at page 4.
justify non-
The wireless Bureau has failed to meet its stringent burden to
with
disclosure, for the reasons set forth below. lts actions are therefore in conflict
policy. Furthermore,
statute, regulations, case precedent and established commission
2493A7 ,1.DOC
July 2,2010
Page 10
B. The W¡reless Bureau Has Not Established that lnformation Mav Be Properlv
\ i¡thheld As Confidential Business Information
As noted above, the wireless Bureau has withheld certain responsive information
as
based on a request by the lnvestigated Parties that this information be treated
Exemption 4 exempts from the disclosure requirements of FolA "trade secrets and
confidential."
with
Nonetheless, because courts "have viewed [Exemption 4] arguments
skepticism" (ln Defense of Animats v. NlH, 543 F' Supp 2d'70'79 (D D'C'
2008))' the
"the government
scope of Exemption 4 has been carefully circumscribed. Firstly,
in any
retains the burden of demonstrating that the specific information withheld
Thirdly,aparty..maywaiveitsclaimthatinformationisexemptfromdisclosureif
public domain
a FOIA plainiiff carries his burden of pointing to specific information in the
3 This statute states that "trade secrets and commercial or financial information
obtained from a person and privileged or confidential" are exempt
from disclosure under
FOIA.
249387 _1.DOC
July 2,2010
Page l1
Ethical
that appears to duplicate that [which is] being withheld." People for the
-26 (D D'C' 2005)'
Treatment of Anímals v. USDA,2005 U.S. Dist' LEXIS 10586
provide a so-
Fourthly, when an agency asserts Exemption 4, is must generally
calledVaughnlndex'whichdescribeseachwithhelddocument,andstatesa
justification for the exemption claimed. see vaughn v. Rosen, 449 F.3d 820 (D.c. cir.
1973)',JudicialWatchv.FDA,44gF.3d141,146(DDC2006)(stating'inthecontext
of Exemption 4, that "the Vaughn index . . .gives ' the challenging party a measure of
Treatment of
access without exposing the withheld information."); People for the Ethical
.11 (May 24' 2005)'
Animals v. ]JSDA,2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10586
Finally,andmostimportantly,aconclusoryorgeneralizedallegationthat
demonstratethattherequestedinformationiswithinthescopeofExemption4.See
*14 ("Conclusory and generalized allegations of
Government Accountab¡tity, at
decision
competitive harm, of course, are unacceptable and cannot support an agency's
invocation of
980 (D.D.C. 1980). The paradigmatic example of an improper conclusory
of alleged
Exemption 4 occurs when no facts or supporting detail is alleged in support
-23-25 ("the explanation lacks
competitive harm. Government Accountability Proiect, al
the withheld
any supporting detail demonstrating that a competitor could, in fact, use
249387 1.DOC
July 2,2010
Page 12
identify with
for application of this Exemption consists of tvvo sentences . . . NIH fails to
explains how
any level of specificity what it means by 'cost and rate' information, nor
Exemption 4
failure in this regard is problematic, as courts in this circuit routinely reject
arguments that are grounded in generalizations.") ; People for the Ethical Treatment
of
Animals, al*22.
Applyingtheforegoingstandardtothismatter,thelnvestigatedParties,
2493a7 1.DOC
July 2,2010
Page 13
response io
tautologies devoid of any underlying factual basis. For example, MariTEL',s
the EB Letter stated: "certain of the requests seek confidential information '
. '
of the
Accordingly, MariTel hereby requests confidentiality under section 0.459
bytheadjudicatingcourtsinGovernmentAccountabilityProjecfandlnDefenseof
Animals,supra.ltalsoplainlyviolates$0.45goftheCommission,sRules,which,as
notedabove,mandatesthatapartyclaimingExemption4protectionmustprovidea
the
This gossamer-thin justification for withholding information properly within
provide the
scope of FolA is only underscored by the wireless Bureau's failure to
requiredVaughnlndex,whichdeprivesSkybridgeofeventhemostbasicinformation
lnvestigatedPartiesseekconfidentialtreatment(e.g.,informationregardingtheir
249387_1.DOC
July 2, 2010
Page 14
seeks a
information that must be publically disclosed when a wireless license applicant
Designated Entity bidding credit. Having sought the bidding credit, the lnvestigated
parties have waived their right to now seek the confidentiality of this information'a
UnderFolA,skybridgehasarighttoobtainthisinformationasamemberofthe
general public. skybridge also has the right to obtain such information as an interested
party in the MCLM lnvestigation. The MCLM lnvestigation stems directly from the
aware, skybridge (along with companies that are affiliated with and have ongoing
wireless LLC and Environmentel LLC) (collectively, the "Petitioners") have filed a
pending,
petition to deny and several petitions for reconsideration, which remain
challenging the MCLM long-form submitted in Auction 61. lnformation responsive to the
petitions, including
Request is necessary for Petitioners to adequately prosecute these
premised upon the facts asserted in the Petitioners' challenges to MCLM in Auction 61'
Parties
lndeed, the Enforcement and wireless Bureaus' letters to ihe lnvestigated
chosen
specifically reference Auction 61 as the gravamen of the investigation. Having
purported
to participate in Auction 61, the lnvestigated Parties have waived any
249387 1.DOC
July 2,2010
Page 15
disclosures in that
conf¡dentiality rights regarding information relevant to their truihful
convert public
auction. Neither the wireless Bureau, nor the lnvesiigated Parties, can
private affairs under the
petitions to deny and reconsideration proceedings into de facfo
government,nottocurtailaparty'srightstoadequatelyprosecuteapublicchallengeto
a license award.
TheWirelessBureaualsoclaimsthatitmaywithholdinformationonthebasisof
information is
5 U.S.C. S552(bX5)5 (colloquially known as"Exemption 5"), since such
allegedlysubsumedwithintheattorneywork-productdockine.Thisargumentlikewise
fails.
ThescopeofsU'S.C.552(bX5)mustbeconstruedas..narrowlyasconsistent
withefficientgovernmentoperation.,,seeLevyv.USPS,S6TF'2d162,166(D.D.c.
2008).Thus,..conclusoryexplanations''astowhyadocumentisbeingwithheldunder
Environmental
exemption 5 is perse insufficient. Id., at167; center for International
(..lnkeepingwiththeFolA,sgoalofbroaddisclosure,theSectionss2(bxs)exemption
isconstruednarrowly.,,);Nickersonv.US,,1996U.S.Dist.LEXIS14489-5(N.D.lll.
249387 _1.DOC
July 2,2010
Page 16
-7-8(ND Ca'
October1,1996); Miscavigev'/RS, 1992US Dist LEXIS19493
December 10, 1992). With respect to Exemption 5, the FolA Memorandum states:
memorandum containing a
[A] requested record might be a draft, or a
ieäommenOation. Such records might be properly withheld under ..
Exemption 5, but that should not bé the end of the review' Rather' the
be
content of that particular draft and that particular memorandum should
reviewed and a determination made as to whether the agency reasonably
foresees that disclosing that particular document, given its age'-content'
and character, would hãrm an interest protected by Exemption 5 ln
making these determinations, agencies sho-uld keep in mind that mere
;,sfecùative or abstract fears" are not a sufficient basis for withholding.
lnstead,theagencymustreasonablyforeseethatdisclosurewouldcause
harm.Moreover,agenciesmustbem¡ndfutofthePresident'sdirectivethat
in the face of doubi, openness prevails ' ' records protected by Exemption
5 hold the greatest'piomise for increased discretionary release under the
Attorney Gieneral's'Guídelines. Such releases will be fully consistent with
the purpose of the FOIA to make available to the public records which
reflect ihe operations and activities of the government'
Also,anagencyclaimingExemptionSshouldordinarilyprovideaVaughnlndex
providing
,,a particularized explanation of how disclosure of the particular document
to "afford the
would damage the interest protected by the claimed exemption," in order
FolArequesterameaningfulopportunitytocontest...thesoundnessofthe
The wireless Bureau has failed to meet its burden with regard io Exemption
5
249387 1.DOC
July 2, 2010
Page 17
applicability of the
and therefore essentially meaningless. ln order to demonstrate the
developed
work product doctrine, a party must show that the material at ¡ssue has been
26(bX3).Documentspreparedintheordinarycourseofbusiness,orforanyothernon-
v. Bally's Park
litigation purpose, are not covered by the work product doctrine. Martin
place Hotel & Casino,g33 F.2d 1252,1260 (3'd Cir. 1993). Moreover, the work product
with
exception must be "strictly confined within the narrowest possible limits consistent
(3'd Cir.
the logic of its principle." tn re Grand Jury Proceedings, 604 F.2d 798, 802-03
1979). The wireless Bureau's work product doctrine claim, like its Exemption 4 claim,
assertion that all
is unsubstantiated by any facts. lt amounts 1o the prima facle suspect
developed
documentation exchanged by the wireless and Enforcement Bureaus were
failure to
by attorneys in anticipation of litigation. once again, the wireless Bureau's
fact
provide any substantiation for this claimed exemption is only underscored by the
thatithasfailedtoprovideaVaughnlndex,deprivingSkybridgeofanyinformation
has failed to
regarding the documents withheld. Furthermore, the wireless Bureau
is reasonably
even allege (let alone prove) that disclosure of the withheld information
of the FolA
likely to harm an interest protected by Exemption 5, in blatant disregard
Memorandum.
rcc'dn on certain Letters Transmitted Bv The
D. The Fact That skvbridqe was
lnvestiqated Parties ls Leqallv lmmaterial
Asdiscussedsupra,inresponsetoRequestNos.2and3,theWirelessBureau
Skybiridge had
maintained that production of information was unnecessary because
249387 1.DOC
July 2,2010
Page 18
beencopiedonthelnvestigatedParties,responsestotheWirelessBureauand
SkybridgeacknowledgesthatitwascopiedontheSection30sletters,theEB
(with certain documents
Letters and the lnvestigated Parties' responses to these letters
enclosed).Nonetheless,thisfactdoesnotremedytheharmcausedbytheWireless
any authority in
Bureau,s non-disclosure. lndeed, the wireless Bureau does not cite to
suppori of its iacit assertion that it can jettison its obligations under FolA
simply by
from
claiming that the requesting party has obtained some of the responsive information
another source.
self-
Furthermore, Skybridge was not copied on the information and documents
s552(bx4),and,forthereasonsdiscussedabove,skybridgeisentitledtothis
information. Additionally, neither the FCC, nor Skybridge, has any way of discerning
include all of
whether the documents enclosed with the lnvestigated Parties' responses
Bureau may have, and should not be forced to rely upon the Bureau's unfounded
Parties'
assurance that the documents enclosed with the cc'd copies of the lnvestigated
responses include all of the documents actually submitted io the wireless and
Enforcement Bureaus. This holds particularly true given the fact that the
instant
249387_',l.DOC
July 2,2010
Page 19
onevenbasicmattersisclearlySuspectinthiscase,andshouldnotbeacceptedasa
given.
CONCLUSION
Foreachoftheforegoingreasons,iheWirelessBureau'sdenialoftheRequest
shouldbereversed'andtheBureaushouldbecompelledtoproducetheinformation
basis of
responsive to the Request that has been previously withheld on the
Tamir Damari
NOSSAMAN LLP
1666 K Street NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 887-1442
249387_1.DOC
EXHIBIT 1
Auçf-ZZ-2009 05: 56 AM Te.l'esqurus 5IOA412276
MariTËL, Inc.
4635 Church Rd., Suite 100
CunÌ'"ing, GA 300284084
ATTN: Jason Smith
Re: FCCFilesNos.0002303355'0003463998,0003470447'0003470497'09034105n'
0003470576, 00034?05s3, 0003470593, 00034?0602, 0003470608, 00034706i3
is
The lVireless Telecommunications Bureau of tho Federal Communications Commission
invesdsatiÌE comoliarce bv MariTBL, Inc. a¡d its subsidiaries (MariTEL) with Sections I 1? and I'65 of
ti¡e Coirmisîion's nulesr rãhting to providing truthñll and accumte information to the Commission'
ip""iü.r¡lv, ¿"rcribed more ñrly-below, tie Com¡nission has received conllicti.ng bformation ftom
*
lri*iiei *a ¡a*itime Communícations/Land Mobite, LLC (lvfC/LM) regarding tlte involvement ofl4r.
bon¿¿ n ml¡.rt Oltr. De.hiest) vith MâriTBL priór t0 the corisuftûratiôü
tf a ¡eceflt Eûnsactíon' Mr.
DePriest has been deemed tq have a conUolling interest in MffLM as the husbnqd of Sandra DePdest
(li4s. DepriesL). MC/LM, in its prosecution of its application for new.AutoÍi ed Maritime
i"l""o**onitotions Sysiem çAMts) ticcnses fo¡ which it was tlie high bidder in FCC "4uction No' 6l
that Mr. DePriest did not
trflLVt Apptication)i nas rep"atediy represented in pleadings and_other filings contrary, howevËr, in Fansfer
Èontrol lvlai'itl- at any relevant peïiod, ivIariTEL itself reprcÆerted to the
of seeking Comnrrssion authority to
of oonttol oppli*tionsit filed in iune 2008 for the expræs purpose.
divest Mr. DãÈiest of conrol of MæiTEL 0vfariTEl TC AppLications)''
Alùough both MC,iLM a¡d Ma¡iTEL subsequently fiIed pleadings addressilg this discrepalcy'
as to whether or not Mr,
the existilrg reclord is insuffrcìent to pe¡mit us to ¡each a defrnitive determination
record provide us
Depriest hád exerc ised dc jure or difacfo control of M¿¡iTEL. Nor does
the current
(and litigated)
with a sufficíenr basis for deteÛnining why i¡accurale ínforrnation thåt bears on a rn$erial
is"L .iìft t tp""t to both applicationi apparently was submitted in either the MOLM Application or tlre
MariTBL TC Àpplications.
(MC/LM Application)'
2
FcC File No. 0002303355 (flled sept. 7, 2005, amended Aug. 21, 2006)
0003470583' 0003470593'
FCC Fite Nos. 0003463998, 00034?0447, 0003470497, 00034?0527, 00034?0576,
3
MariTBL, Inc.
Letter of Inquiry re Don€ld R. DePÌíest
on June i2, 2008, MariTEL fited the ten MzriTÊL Tc applications, one for MariTEL itself and
one for eaclr of ni¡e MariTEL subsidiades holding of,e maritime VIIF Pr¡blic Coast stâtion licènse aPiece.
The Ma¡iTEL TC Applicarions each included an identical, one-page exhibit descrilring the transaction,
which stated that
,tontot ot M.ireL .. .. will pass from Donald R. ÐePriest and MCT hvestoÏs, L.P. t0
r
In its FÇC Form 602 ownership rlisclosure filing thst ficcol)lpsnied the MC/LM Applicstion, YcyIM listcd thrc¿
disclosâb1e int¿rest hotdêrst Sandra M, Dehiest, Conmunicatious hvestments, Irc., and SII{IW Porurership, L.P.
S¿¿ FCC Filc No. 0002302467 (filcrl Sepr 6, 2005)' An exhibit to the FonD 602 clarified that:
5
4? c.F.R ç 1.2110(cX5X¡Ð(A). The spousal affiliatiorr rulo providcs that, for prpnses ofidcntifying disclo¡able
inter.est ¡otders irr demonstrating an appticant's aligibility for d¿signated êntity benefits, "[b]oth spouses are deemed
to own or contol or have the po-wer tõ control intercsß öwncd or conEolled by ôifhol Of Úôf¡l, ùnleli! ùey
åre
?
,See MC/LM Application, Disclosablc Intercst Holdors Amcndmont at I (file/ AUE 2l 2006)'
'
s
See Waren C. ÉIavens Perition for Rcconsidcratioo [of Muítimo Communicationslla¡d Mobile l,LC, Orde¿ 2l
FCC Rcd 8?94 (WIB PSCID 2006)1, flled Sept. 6' 2006.
e
See Ma¡itime Çommunications/Land Mobile LLC Opposition to Petition for Recousideration,
filed Sept 18' 2006'
stock in Maritel'
MC/LM explained that "lvlgf Inv€stors, L.l', 'rhich iiìonholled by Don DePdesL hold¡ common
I c, MCT invesrors, L.P. does not control Maritel, Inè.; funedcar To*eI, Inc. conbols Maritel, Inc.' Pursuant to a
,huæi,oide, ug.."ntunl This agreement provides American Tower,Inc. as the holders ofa majority of lhe common
stock equivalJnts with the power to etecia simple uajorily of the boÃrd of dfueclors of Ma¡itel, hc', subject to the
càïs"niof t"
Conmission, ifre4uired. Becauìe control ofMaritei, Inc. resides in the hands of American Tower,
Inc., Müitel, Ino, is not an atñliate of MC/I-M." Id' s¡ 10'
Aug-22-20O9 05:57 AM Telesourus 5LO84I2226
MariTEL, Inc.
Letter oflnquiry re Dorûld R. Dc.Prieçt
the sharetrolders of MariTBL as a group. Mr^ DePriest has coûtfoiled MâriTEL through a combittation of
direct invesü,nent tud his role as Geneål Patner of MCT Investors, L.P,"l0 (This representation is
substantially consisterìt with i.nforuìf,tiotr provided by MaúTEL in eulier FCC Form 602 ownership
disclosuro filings, except that the Fonn 6CÍZ fllings indicated, correctly as it now aPpcals' that Medcom
Developmeot óiporation, not Mr. DePríest, wai the general pa¡trer of MCT krvestors, L'P', ând Mr'
DePriest sontrolled Medcom Development Corpomtiou.rl)
MC/LM and MariTBL thus presented the Çommission with con-flicfiDg rePresÞntâtions_al_to -.
whether Mr. DePriest had conuolled M¡riTEL' Both MC/LM ¿rd MariTËL subsequently filed pleadittgs
discussing ùis cliscrepÂncy in theìr feprësentâtions, but this discussion is not adequate for the
Commission to ascert¿io whi"h tepret*tation is accù-rate ând which represeuution is not accurate' In
fact, botl¡ MC/LMr? a¡d Ma¡iTELl3 contirrued ro stand by their eårlier representations, and shed little
Iight on why they believe the other party is mistakeu.
rq
,See Exlúbit to MariTEL TC Applications (MariTBL TC Bùibit). Thc MåriTEL TÇ Exhib¡t turther explai ed'
"fir t¡^t *¡tt rhc tan¡for of control is the voluntory distibution of tho tajority of the æsets of MCT
74 corrstitueur iflvostôrs. This ttistribution will substsntially diluto thc ovnorship interest of
"""ntL,p. to its "ause
fûvostors,
MCT lûvo$tors, L.P, to approximately twû pcrccnt, and will decrease Mr. DePriest's ownefship intoro$l
io _
ãppt*.i*o"i' Z.Z% (i'nctuOing the reuraining stake of MCT iûvcsto¡s,-L'P', as Mr- DePdest shall rcou¡in Genêrâl
p-ainer of tlrat entity). Às resü1t of th" distributio* no single eotíty will contol MariTEL." Id.
"
rr cunent upuntit_the time the
In FcC Form 602 reporß thåt woro ffied on March 13, 2001, and apparenüy rcmaincd
MariTEL tansfer of couuol ws$ con$u*maþcl in 2008, MariTEL indicated that MCr Invtslors' L'P' held 58'3ø0 of
VlariTEUsissuedandoutsmndingvoringsrock(ând26.190ofallstock,votingandnon'votin_g),thatMedÇlm.
OuìuÇ*uni Cotpo*tion was thã solc g-onorsl pattner of Mç.I Investo$, L'P', flrd that Mr' пPr¡ost \4,ås Urs sole .
(filed Mar. 13' 200i). Tho
sfüfohùdo¡ of¡vlçdÇom Developmant ðorporaùon. ,S"", ag,, FCC File No. 0002080704
Mr.bePriest hcld an atklitionâl 8.9fl0 of the voting stock in lús own name'
MariTBL Form 602 also itrdicated that
n¡d rlnt Arflolican Tower Corpomtiofl held 1?.19¿ of MsriTEL's vqti[g stoÇk'
tz
on July 31, 2008, for examplq MC/LM filed a pleading in which itåsserted thatMffiTEL was simply incorrcct in
r"pp."núng it at it i ad been conùolted by M¡. ÐÁ'¡icsL, ¿ntl-said that MariTtsL's enor ilt dús rêgârd "apPears tö
.t*,iu¡ a¡ enor in MariTBLís irfonnstion ând from a diffe¡ence in methodology between
MuiTBL
h""" Êo*
;dDoItiësl"butofferedlittleexplanationastoúoÍâtûrëofthatsuggestedmetltodologicaldifferoncc.-See..
Rcgarding
Ma¡itimo communications&anal Mobile LLc, OPposition to supPlement to Petition for Reconsidetation
ñ"ii*t rhst MåfirBL fflay håvo coünted
, äãl"ry 31, 2008, at 3_4; see abo r¿ ar + n,r cpe
niesr betieves
,à*rì""-i",¡"g r*'.k tåwsrd controi, úù$ crêåtiflg a diffeience betweetr MflriTBL strd De Þriost a¡d botw¿en ús
iri*iTEi *¿ ñit.ltss Properties ofvirginia, fnc";¡' In the next sentence' moreovor' MCJJ-M indicaßd thatundpr
Jluded+o metbodologioal ãitrerence wo-uk¡ not sufhce o erplain why MariTEL concluded tbat it lnd been
Pdest control.
Mr. ÞePriesi's conhoi because "even if Do P¡icst hatl uscd ùa¡iTELìs methodology, De 1oÌld,not
which applicable to the instant matlel." Id. at 4. MC/LM also ugued'
Ma¡irEL under the c;or¡missiol's Rules arc
would lìnve pfevented
ínter aliø, thal if Mr, DePriest açtually contïolled Mg;TËL but uânted to çonceal that facL he
üc filing of the MariTEL TC AppËcátions, írC. ar 3 ; that Mr, DePriest neithcr "endoffiefs] nor suppot't[s]"
Inc'
ù"¡ffif,, j ovnustrip report, ¡d-. sr 4 tr.z; snd üat MCyLM stânds by its ea.rlier sttrtemetrt that Americ',' Towet,norMr'
.ãnuof * fr,løier- pri*àt to a shareholàer agresrnent, ¡d. ât 5. MCYI,lvf a'lso argued that¡reither MC/LM
bec¿use attdbudon
Oeeriest t"A any ,iOtive to deceile the Courñssion regarding Mr- ÐoPrieSt's ¡ole in MariTEL
MÇ/LM wotld ror have sffecred MC/tM's uligibility for the smail business bidding
of MariTEL's ¡evenues to
credit ¡fat it received in Auc[on No. 61. /d.
thatit had
13
Ma¡iTËL likewise filed a pleading on July 31, 2008, in which it rcaffimed irc ea¡lier rcPresertation
DePricsis of MariTEL's common stock, direcÙy
been contolied ty Mr. De.Priest tJ*ãugll N4r. ownorship 5Eyo__of
an¿r¡rorrgfr¡iro*oershipofMCTIniæots,L.P.,SeeOpposilionofMariTELInc,fiìedJuly31,2008'at2'
Auq-Z¿-ZOOg 05:58 At4 lelesourus 510A4I¿¿¿6
MariTËL, Inc.
Letter of hquiry rc Donsld R ÐeP¡iest
Based ol the existing record, \1re a¡e unable tó determine whetl¡er or not Mr, DePrièst èxercised
de jure or defacto oontrol of-MariTEl.la We have direcqy contrâatictofy ståteme.nts on the mâtter, Âudan
inabilty at this junctwe to determinË prccisely why thêre is a codlict on ilris poiut, why on¿ oJ the parties
evidently proviáed inaccuratÊ informâtïon on this material issue to the Comnission, and whether dre
submission of such inaccufâte information arises to tho level of misrepresentation or laok of c¿ndor under
the Commissiou's Character Qualificrtions Policy.rs We tlerefore direct MariTEL to provide addítional
information regarding this matter, as specified below.
As explainecl above, we have determincd that ådditionâl fuformation is reçired to assist the
Cornmi ssion in reÉolvhg the issues that have arisen regarding the role played by Mr. DePriest in
MadTEL. Ma¡iTEL is accordingly directed. pursuånt t0 Section 308(b) oI the Communications Act of
1934, ès amendcd (thc Act),r6 to respond ro the foliowi¡g fequests for information. and to Flovide
âvait;bte dôùlmenìation supporting its rcspônses. Unless otlelwise indicåted, the pedod of time covered
by these inçiries is ranuary t,200-2, to thå present (tJre relevant period).u
1. Describe tha extênt anal nature óf Mr. DePriest's ownershþ holdings fu MariTELrs
during the rolevani period. Describa tìe porcentage of the equity in MarifBL held by
Mr. dePriest, and the form in which that equity was held, ¿.8., $tock, prefeffed stock,
etc. Describe the pefce age ôf the voting equity in MariTBL held by Mr' DePriest
and the form in which that equity was held' IT M¡. DePriest's holdings in MariTEL
fluctuated rluring the relevant pe.riod, provide s dotailed explarratioú.
In a plerding in a separate proceedíng, MsfiTEL å¡gued that, conb y to -tlË flssenioÉs in s pctitíon tO deny,
Ia
MoriTEL TC Applications and
ltltrerå is no Jontrov*uy r"g*Oing otio owns and controls MariTEL,'; ond tlat tho
üåiifwt ¡cC nor* ð¡Zi¡t"rJnt "..*"tu afld complete o\¡'r'rship inforuratiol regardirg Mâ¡TEL and its_ _ _
,ree oppositioriof Ma¡TEL inc. [to Petition to Deny flled by AMTS Co¡rsortium LLÇ er 4¿' re FCc
"uutiãi*i"t'"
ËUe ¡tos. OOO¡siOgS¿, 0003516656, 0003534598, 0003534602, 0003534?63, 0003534766, 0003534767,
dro uuthfrlncss of.
õoOSjS+ZeS, Ooo¡SS5bB?1, fited Sept 5,2008, åtz. Ever ifthe lâtter statement legüding
contadictory replcsotltâtions ñâdo by
Ma¡iTEL'S sarlier filings ii ultimately show[ t0 bo lfuo, wo bsliëve that the
MCILM ând MâriTEL have inrleed generatad å contovørsy flûcê$sitâting further Commìssíol irquiry'
ls
Eee Policy Regarding chåfåctêr Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing, Arnendment of Rules of Broadçast
practice anó p¡oiedutJR"l"ring to W.iun Responses to Commission Inquìrios and the Making of
Misrepresentations to the Commission by Po¡mitteæ and Licenæ es, Report, O¿er dn¿ POIìèI Stør¿rnent,l0Z
n C.cl zo trzs, 1210-1r lH[ 60-61 (19 8Q, Memorundwn Qpinion and otde\ 1 Fcc Rcd 421 (1986); Policv
ielarding Character Quaütlcrtions in Bioaclcæt Licensing, Amendment ofÌfft I , ùe Rulæ of Practic¿ and
prJcøurä nehting to-Written Responses to Commission Inquiries and the Making of Mistepresenlâtions to the
Comurission by Apjücants, Permiriees, and Licensees, and the Rep¡¡¡ing 6f Infor'mation Regarding Character
(1990 Charøcter Policy Statemeùt),
euåliflcûtions;pô:¡ry Stdtement and Order,S FCC Rcd 3252 (1990)
ïtìenoronaun' optniLt anrl order,6FCCRcd 344s ( 1991), Me morand.wn opiníon anl ortl¿r,7 FCCkcd 65.64
tt r Co;.t*ision appties irs broadqìst character stårdardslo applicstrts åíd licenseaç in thc oúc¡ ¡adio
ffSgz).
services. See e.g.,t990ChàmcterPot¿ç!Ststement,5FCÇRcdat32539110(adoPting47C.F.R.$ltZ-foap-¡ty
pr"f¡'Ulii"" rÁ,rUï ân¿l mâtêriål omi$sions to ãpplicanS, licensees, and permittees in all radio
se ices). "¡õrepresotrtâtions
t6
+l u.s.c. $ so¡(b).
ú January l, 2002, is the beginning of the fust calendar yeor in which the rovêfluos of MCILM's disclosabie i¡Lterest
with the MC/LM
holde¡s were to be co6idered iD d¿texaining MgIÀ4's dos¡gnât¿d ontity eiigibility in conjunction
Application.
Ma¡iTEL, I¡c.
fßfter of Inquiry re Donsld R. DePdost
We heteby direct MariTEL, pursuant to Sections 308(b) ard 403 of the Act'¡e to Jespond in
wriring üd under ôath, separately antl fuIly, to each of the foregoing requests within 30 business days
from íhe dute of this lot¿är., tl,i¡. Smirlr may provide any additional information thât he believÊs is
relevant to this üûâttêr. Thè IDstuctions for responiling to this letter a¡e contained in the Attæhment
hereto. Nf¡. Smith's responso shall be dirccted to:
Il you have any qriestions rolating to this frfttter, pleÉ$ê contact Mr, Tobias at (20?) 418'1617 or
iefflqÞEq-@fcÊsqv.
Mr. Smith is atlvised that 1001 and section 1.17 of the co¡ômission's Ru]es, 47
18 u.s.c. $
to
c.F.R. ê 1.1?, prohibit misrepresentations and/or wìllful omissious of mateúal façts in response
Commission inquiries.
Sincerely,
&"fA-
Deputy Chief, Mobility Divísiôn
Wireless Telecommunications Burcau
te
4? u.s.c. $$ 308(b), 403.
æ
wo arc conremporsneously rnailing similar letters of inquiry under secdon 308(b) to MC/lì4 and to Mr' DePriest
Aug-ZZ-¿Oog 05r58 AM telesourus 510A41¿¿¿6
M$iTEL, Itrc.
LettÊr of I¡quiry re Doflsld R. Dekiest
Donald R. DePriest
206 North 8th Stre€t
Columbus, MS 39701
Waneu Havets
2649 Benvenue Ave.- Suites 2-6
Berkeley, CA 94704
Auq-22-2OO9 05:59 AM Te.Iesqurus 5108412226 7 /7
MsriTEL, Inc.
Letter of Itrquiry re Donald R. DePríest
ÄTTACHMEI.IT
Instruclions
or documents responsive
RequestlOr Confidendal Treatmen| lf MariTEL requests't¡at sny information
io inis Urrnr ¡e treatø i.ü a conlidertiåI nâúnèr, it sbâIl submit, âlorg with åIl tesponsive i¡fotmation and
with of tllê Ccmmission's Rilleô,47 C.F.R $ 0.459'
documents, a statement in accordance Secdon 0.459
Ilequests for coDfidètrtial teatñe¡t tuust coûply with t¡e fêquifeÊetts of Sectiol 0.459, ifcludfuìg thê
privilege, it
Claìms oJ Prìvilege. If MariTEL withholds aûy ínfo(mation or docüDents under claim of
shaÍ suumit, toeerhér wfth âny clâim of privilege, a schedr:Ie of thg items v\tithIeld th states,
"to
inãini¿ooUy'* such itlm: the nrimbereã inguiry to which each iiem rësPonds ând thE type,,title,
"ach aII
specinc suu¡ect maner ând dste of the item; the names, *ddresses, Positions' and arganizatio¡s of
a:uthors and"recipients of thc item; and the specific ground(s) for ctaiming that the item is privileged.
Format ofResponses- The response must be consistent with the forrûat of the questions askcd.
Methnd of producitzg Documents. Each requested documeûÌ, as define(i herein, shalt be submiited in
its
Ë* *li
if a portion of that docuñent is responsive to an inquiry made herein. This mea¡rs that
"otit.ty,
tfie dorument shall notie edited, cut, or exÊtfiged, ând shâll include a]l appendices, tables, or other. _
Identffication of Dorj¿rfl¿nt!. For each document or statement submitted in respanse to the inquiries - -
and_ identify thc person(s)
stated in flte coïer letter, iudicate, by number, to which iaquiry it is responsive
date on which lt wäs
from whose files the docuúeut wås fetrieved. If any document is not dsted, state flle
prêpâfed. If a¡y document does not idetìtify its author(s) or recipien(s), state, if lflown, the name(s)
of
it u'*¡o(t) oi*apient(s). The Licensêe mu$ identify with reasonable specificity all documents
provided in responsê to these i.úqtriries.
L/9
Auq-22-2O09 05:46 AM Telesourus 5LO84t22?'6
Mr. DePfiest hâs beeû deemed to have a contolling intefest in Maritime MC/LM æ the husband
of Sanclra DePriest (Ms. DePriest). As you know, MC/LM, i¡ its Prosecutiou of its application for
new
bidder in
Automared Ma¡itime Telecommunicatións system (AMTS) licenses for which it wæ the high
ÈCC Auction No. 61 (MglI.ì\{ Application)," hæ repeaædly reprcsented in pleadings and othor frlings
-úa¡iTEL to the
thst Mr, DePriesr did not control at any relevart period. MâriTBL itseu rePresented
ho*"u"r, in kmsfer of control appiications it filed in Juue 2008 fo¡ the express purpose of
"ànt*y,
seekinË êommission äuthoTity to divest Mi, ÞePriest of connol of MariTEL MatiTEL TC
Applications).3
Alrhough both MC/LM and MariTEL subsetlueEtly filed pleadings addressing this discrePânc_y:
or not Ml.
the existing recõrd is insufficiont to permit us to reach I defiÌlitive determì¡aûon as to whether
provide us
DePriest hãd rxercised de jure or dlfacfo cÖnhol of MûiTEL. Nor does the current record
matcrial (and litigated)
with a sufficicnt basis for âetermining why ineccurâte information that bears on a
issue with respect to both applicationi apparently was submitted in either t¡e M(YLM
Application or tbe
0003470593'
3
FCC FileNos. 0003 463998,0003410441,0003470497,0003470527, 0003470576.0003470583'
0003470602,0003470608, 00034?06I3 (collectivelv, MariTEL TC A'pplicatÍons)'
A¡:g-22-2OQ9 05r47 AM Telesourus 5IO84LZ??'6 2/9
MariTEL TC Applications. TVe find, moreover, that the rocoftl i¡ ttrese a¡d otler licensirg proceedings
also reflects potential inconsistencies and inaccu¡acies in the information provided by MC/T,M regarding
Mr. DePriesf s role in MC,/LM a¡d other entities,
Ms. Depriest has been identified by MqrLM ¡s ils controlti¡g priÉcipal.4 The Mobility Division
(Division), Wireless Telecommunications Bure¿u, deteûni¡ed thät, ùndex tlie spousal affiliation rule'' Mr'
DePriest wä5 requircd to be listed âs a dÍsclôsàble interest holder for the putpose of determining. . _
MC/LM'S eliCibility for bidding credits aE â design4ted entity, inespective of whâtèver actuäl role lvfi.
Depriest ptay;d in ívfc[Mj TTe MC/LM Application wæ ameuded on August 21, 2006, to include the
gross revenues of Mt. DePriesr in MC/LM's designatetl entity showing in keeping w¡th the Divisiod's
ãetermi¡ation. In the arnendment, MC/LM teprescnte d, inter alìa, thatw. DePriest 'iconnols American
Nonwovens Corporation (ANC)" ard that "ANC is the only revenue producing entity that Don owns or
coütrols.,'7 In response to a pteading filcd by Wanen Havens on September 6, 2006," MC/LM expressly
denied that Mr, DcPriest owned or cotrkôlled MariTÊL, and stated that wbile Mr. DePriest controlled
MCT l¡vesro¡s, L.P., which held stock in MadTEL, control of MæiTEL was instead vested in'Americau
Tower,Inc.9
on June MaliTEL fìled the ren MariTBL TC applications, one for Ma¡iTEL itself aud
12, 2008,
one fo¡ each of nine MariTEL subsidiæies holding one maritime Vi{F Public Coast st¿tion license apiece.
The MæiTEL TC Applioations eech included an i<leudcal, onê-page ðúibit dêsoribìng the fansactÌon,
which st¡ted that "côñtrol ot l¡a¡ngL ... will pass frorn Donald R. DePriest and MCT lnvestors, L.P. tÒ
d
S¿¿ FCC File No. 000230246?, ExhÍbit - Bxplanation ofOwncrship (frled Sept' 6, 2005)'
5
+z c.f.n $ 1.2110(cXjXüiXA). The spousal affiliarion rule Fovides that, for purposes of identi$iDg disclosÊblo_
intçrest holdërs iu dçmonstating an applicant'S oligibility for dèsignated entity bcneflts, "[b]odr spouses ue
deemcd
to own of contol or have the po-wcr m cOntfol intsfe-Sts Owlled or controlled by either of thefi, urùess drey 0re
Jee War¡en C. Havens Petitíon for Rcconsidoration [of Maritìme Cornntunications/Land Mobile LLC,
s Ordsr' 21
FCÇ Rcd 8?94 (!VTB PSCID 2006)1, flrled SeFt 6' 2006,
e
,S¿¿ Maritime Comnunications/Land Mobile LLC Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration, flled Sept. 18, 2006
çtrac/I-M opposltion). MC/LM oxplaincrt tlat
'MCT Iavestors, L.P., which is connolled by Don De.Priast, holds
ìont*on stoit in l,tititrl, Inc. Mc;I Investors, L.P. does noÈ control Msritel, Inc.;Amctican Tower, Inc. controls
as theholders of
¡4aritcl,Inc,, pursuant to a shareholder agreement' Tbis a$eement providcs AficricÁn Towc¡,Inc
oi i¡r.o*mon srock cquivale-nt6 with the pow;r to elect a simple majority of theåoqrll of diretto¡s of
".qþri,yinc., sub¡ect to the co¡sent of ú¡s Commissioì. ifrequired. Because conúol of Mæitc1, Inc. resides in tho
Maritel,
hands oîAnr¿¡icãn Tower, Inc', Maritel, Inc. is not an afEliate ofMC/LM " Id sl 10'
(In the samc pleading'
pleading, drat Mr. DePricst
MC/LIvt did acknowledge for the first time, in response to allegations in art opposition -
csntrollad, ínter alíø, ¡iireless Froperties ofvirginia, tnc., wtrlch it represcnted had no revenues since 1999, id' at 9i
period, i¿ at 8-9; snd
sovcfål oúcr entiti6$ which if reprùented had nJrevenues rluri[g the lelevant üllee-yeü -
ð¡r.ir*" Bro"¿.rsting Co., Btaìo Communications, Inc., and Colden Triangle Radio,Inc., whichjt represented tô
håvc åg8regâto gfoss rovenues ofno consequence t0 MÇ/]-M's designated eDtity 6t8tus, ¡d. ¿t l0-11.)
Auq-22-2009 O5:47 AM Telesourus 5fa84LZ2'26 3/9
rhe shareholders of M..riTEL as a group. MJ. DePriést häs controlled MffiTEL tlìfough a coülhâtion of
dir€ct invBstrnent and his role as Geueral Pa¡trer of MCT Investors, L.F."to (This representation is
substâltially consistent with informqtion tr rovided by MadTEL in ea¡lier FCC Form 602 ownership
disclosure frlings, except tllat the Foû.[ 602 filirgs indicated, conectly æ it no\4, åppears, that Madcom
Development Corporation, uot Mr. DePriest, was the geneÉl paÍ.ner of MCT fnvestors, L'P', and Mr'
DePriest connolled Medcom Development Corporâtiou.")
MC/LM and MåfiTEL thus presented the Comnissio 1Ã,ith ;¡-ftictilg representations as to
whether M¡. DeP¡iest had controlled MariTBL. Both MC/LM a¡d Ma¡iTEL subsequelìtly filed pteadings
discussing this cliscrepeürcy in thèir repreËentations, but tltis discussiol is lot âdequatÞ for the
Commission to ascertain wlúch representâtion is accurate ald which representafion is not sccurste. In
facr, both MC/LM|2 and Ma¡iTBLl3 con nued tô sta¡d by their e¡¡lier reptese[tations, and shed lítde
light on wl¡y they believe the ôther pârty is mistaken.
r0
Sse Exhibit to MariTEL TC Appticarìons (MariTEL TC Exhibit), TIre MuriTEL TC Exhibit
turthcr cxPlâired,
..The êvent of tlre majority of úe åssots of MCT
that will cause ttle uansfer of cônúol is thê roluntary distsibution
Invo$tors, L.F, to its ?4 coûstituerit inves¡ôrs. Ttris disr¡ibution will substaùtially dílute the owne-rslúp intarcst of
MCT Inv¿stors, LP. !o ãpproximâtely two percênt, ånd Will dccrease Mr. DePriest's ownership to
interest _
approximatoly à4.24% (inctuaing tUe remaining stake of McT Invcstors, LP., as Mr. DeP¡iest shall remni¡ Genersl
Pätnm of rlai ontity). As a rcsuÌt of the disrribution, no singlo ontrty will control MariTBL'" Id'
u Ifl FCC Foml 602 ropofts tltat vi,ere ñled on Merch 13, 2001, ánd appuently remained cunent up until the ü$e thc
MsriTEL Eânsf¿¡ ofcont¡ol was c¡nsum¡rated ir 2008, MuiTEL indicäted lhat MCT Investors, L.P. held 58.37o of
MÐfiTËUsissuedändoutstatrdiugvothgstock(8nd26.1%ofâ[stock,votingandlon-voting),thRtMedcem.
DePr¡est rÃ'gs the sol:
ÐeVelOpment COriroration was thã sole general páftnoJ Of MCT InvestOrS,_L.P., and th¿tt I!ft.
st¡arcno't¿or o¡ MË¿Com Developmeut õorporation. ,9ee, ¿.g., FCc fi1ë No. 0002080704 (fi1çd Ma¡. 13, 2001). The
MariTEL Forrn 602 also indicated that Mr. DeP¡iest held an additional 8.9% of the voting stock in his own name'
srid thât Aflcricåfl Towor Corporation held 17.17o ofMariTEl's voliDg stock
l2 Ou July 31, 200g, for cxample, MÇ/LM filecl a pleading irr which it glsfftcd that MariTFL was simply inconoct in
!o
represenúng tlrar it iurt bccn càtoned by Mr, DtPdest, aDd said dlat MadTEL's onot in úis rêgâ¡d 'hlPçars
ilán" riumti.U toto un ei:ror in Ma¡iTËLis information and from a difference in tnethodolog¡r botwcen MariTEL
ãna pe Priest"" Uut offererl littJe explanarion as to the nature of that suggEsted ûìetbodological diffcrcncc.
,gee
M¡riTE¿ and 5iir¿less propcrrios ofvirginia, Inc.'i. ln the next sente¡ce, moteovm, MCyL\4 indicåted th¿t the
ollurted-o netlodologiaal àiffarence woild not suffice to explain why MariTBL concludcd that it had been under
Mr. DePdest's contfol becauso "ovon if De Friesl had used MæiTBL's medrodology, Dc Priost would nolcontrol
MariTEL u|lder the Com.rnission's Rulæ which are applicable to the instml matrcr." Id. at 4, MC/lÀ4 also
argued,
ptovônted
ínter alia, rhú if\ft. DePriest acrually conuollecl MariTgL but warted to conc€8l thst fac! he
would lìåvc
irre tiing lvfr¡riral TC App)icarions, ;d at 3 ; tbat Mr, Depriest treithel "elrdo$els] Dor supportlsl"
ot the
i,iu¡rÉi'r o*n*rirlp reporr, d.; 4 n.zi âfld úat M(yLM stands by its earlie¡ statement that Americon Towe¡ Inc'
ltrtifg p"ituant tó a shareholder agrcemcnt, Ìd at 5. MCIT-M also argued that neithçI MC/LM uoI MI.
"å"tt"fr
OoÞ¡iest f,ad any moriye to deceire the Commission regarding Mr. DcItissf$ fôls in MadTEL because athibution
of Ma¡iTEL's rsverues to MC/LM rvould not h¿rye affe4æd MC/IÀf's eligibility for tho smail businoss bidding
cradit thåt il received iu Auction No.61. Id.
a pleading on July 31, 2008, in which itreaffirmed its ea¡üe¡ rcpresö tttion thatjt
13 l¡gd
MariTEL tikewíse filed
De?rlcsr rlrough Mr, DeÞriesfs owtrership of58% of MariTEL's coEunon stock, dirccdy
been controlled by lr4r.
anrlrfuougtrhisoïnershipofMCTInvestors,L.P.,SeeOppositionofMtuiTBLInc.,filedluly3l'2008,åt2.
Aug-22-2009 05:48 AM Telesourus 5108412226 4/9
Based on tie existing reco¡d, we are umble to determine r¡rhet¡er or not Mr. DePriest exerciséd
de jure or de faAo canfiol of MariTli.ra We have conhadictory statements on thê ñattêr, ônd dn
iuaUiUty at tiris;uucture to determiue precisely why therè is a conflict on this poiut, why onc of the pæties
evidenúy proviáed insccurate iüforrdãdon on tlis maierial issuc to the Coñmission, ard whether dre
submissioi of such i¡accurate information arise.s to thè level of misrepresentation or lack of candor under
the Commission's Character Qualificatiofls Polièy.ri We the¡efo¡e d¡rect MC/LM to provide additional
information regarding this fnaÍer, as specified below.
la
In a plca<ling in ptoc€€ding, Ms.riTËL årguçd that, coflfary tolh€ âsserdons in â petitiori tA dsny,
a sepatatË
,,[r]horä
is no ännoversy tegìrOing whi owns ând ctnEols MadTEL," and th , the MariTEL lt
Applications and
trirtit¡t ,. fCC fo-,
åozi¡turr-nt n*ur*re and complcto ownership Ínformation regarding MariTBL and its _ - -
*¡.i¿¡oi*," søø oppositiou of MariTEL, Ilc. lto PetiLion þ Deny filed by AMTS Consoltiullt LLC ¿t aL taFCC
Fite Nos. 0003516654 0003516656, 0003534598, 000353460?, 00m534?63, 0003534766, 0003534767'
0003534768, 000353508fl, Ëled sept 5, 2008, åt 2, Elên if the latter statenent legsIdiflg the tfuthtulness of_
MariTEL's earlier filings ii ultimately shown to bo l.rlre, we believe that tlle contadictory reprascnntions made by
MOLM an4 MariTEL iave indeed gà'erated â cenkoversy neoessifirting ñuther Cornmission ¡nquùy.
see Polícy Regarding characþr quñtilicatiorß in Broadcast Licensing, Amendment of Rules ofBroadcesr
15
practicc sn(i P¡oced$re Relating to Written ResponsÉs to Cofû¡nìssion Inquiiies ald the Maldng of
Misfofrfo.$ênt4tions to the Comiùssion by Permineos snd LicenS ëèi, Report, Qrder and Polic! Statenent, 102
F.c.c: 2d 1179, 1210-l i Sl 60-61 (t986), Memorandum 2piníon and' Qrder,l FcÇ Rcd 421 (1986); Policy
Regarding ChÊfâcter Quaiifications in groadcast Licensing, Alnorr(1lllont ofPart 1, the Rules of P¡actice
and
pro-cedurã, Relating to-'lvritton RêSponses to Commission Inquiries ald tho Making of Mi$representations to the
Çonmission by Ap-plicantS, Fermitiees, and Licensees, 8nd rlìc Roporting of Information Regalding ChalacÞr
quaUfrcadons, poþ Stutument a d Order,s FCC Rcd 3252 (1990) (1990 Çharauer Polic! Statem¿fi)'
ùemo,andum Qpiníon and order,1BÇcRcd 3448 (1991)' Memorandum opinion and order'1 ßcc Rcd 6564
(1ggz). Thê Co;mission applies its brondcûsr chå¡åctcr stândard.s to applicant' and licensees in the odtff radio
isrvic'os. See i,g., 19gO Ciaracter
pol¡ty Sta¡eflÊnt,1¡.CC Rcd at 3253 J[ 10 (adopting 4? C¡t.p. g 1.17.¡6
T.Ply
protribition agai;si rniuepresentations anà material omisSiOns to applicants, licensees, ard perminees in sll Tsdio
services).
,!ee FCC Fito No. 0002302467, Exbibit - Explauation of Ownorship (filed Sept. 6, 2005). We note tliat
rd Ùe_
lâûguago employed by MÇ/Llvf suggess that, unlike MCff-lvl and communicalions Investments, JIlc'' S/I{IW
p,rr-ht¿Ãhip, L.p., hud offcers and/or direotors in addition to l"{s. D¿P¡iest. wo also note that MC/LM'E
represcnÞìi; th;tMs. DePriest væ the only officer or <lirecor qf Communications Investments, Itìc conflicts with
aôute ofMississippi Secretary of St¿te 2005 Corporae An-ousl Raport for Çúmmur¡ications Invesfn'lents, Inc.,
appatently signcd by Mr. Depriæt (on ¡ebruary 16, 2005, less than sevon monl.hs befo¡e the filing of the
MC/LIvf
5/9
AuEf-22-2009 O5:49 AM Telesourus 5108412226
In amending tho MC/LM Applicatior ro includo Mr, DePriest as a discioÉâblÉ interest holder bæed on the
Division's ðetermination tlì;¡Mr, DePriest's ítrclüsior ¿s suoh is ma¡dated by the spousâl affiliâtion mle,
MCYLM reiterated thst 'Ðon hâs no ownership interest in an<I is teither an offrcer nor a director of
MCiLM,'r7
Qn September 22, 2006, however, Wirolqss PropeftiÉs of Virginia. Ir¡c' (WPÐ filed two
flt¡úIìcatíons tdåssim Broadbsnd Radio Service a¡d Edrrcational Broadband Service license's to Nextel.-
i;ä¡',ni;ü"i;iîilã-"fi.it-ryrt. o*tiest is tistÉd as the I00Zo owner of lVÞV in its FÇc Form 602,'e
aid signea the applicationi qn behslf of WPV, under the title "Officer," In tesponse to a petitiou_to_deny
ttr"se ãppfioutioni, WPV clåimed rhat Sa¡dra DePnest owned i00% of MCILM and conholled MC/LM,
Uut alsð sete¿ ttrai 'Don DePtiest is an officel ard dirêctor of MC/Ì-M. ,. ."'?o
Bæed on the conuadiótÖry statemÞnts on th9 rûatter if, the existing record" we aIÕ uuable to
determine whether o¡ not Mr. DePriost is ot was ân officer and/or director of MC/LM. There also
remahs contiauing uncertainty âs to whether Mr. DePriest is or was an offliëer ¿nd/or director of S/RIW
Parmership. L,P., är Communications Investments, Ilc.z¡ We ûotÞ, moreover, thât if Mr. DePriest wâs
indeed an officer or directÕr of MC/LM (or S/RIW Pârtnership, L.P. oI Cotnmulications lrvestftênts,
Inc.), it caìIs into question the represenntions by MQILM an¿t Mry that Mf ' DePriest did not exercise
conËol over MC/¿M. We beüeve it necessary to inquire further i¡to this matte¡. lve t}Blefore direct you
üô provide additional infonnation regarding this matter, as specífied below.
Reaue s ß þr Infpnn¿tiott
As explaiaed above, we have determined that additional informæíon is reqrrired to assist the
Cqmmission i; resolving the ìssues that have arisen reguding tlre roles played tV Ur' n9Uti91t!. - .
MariTEL, MC./LM, ¿¡d-other entities. MCILM is ac-cordingly directed, pursuaf¡t to section 308(b) of tìe
CommuüiÇatioDs Act of 1934 as arûended (the Act),'?? to respond to the following requests for
information, ø¡rl to provide availablé doculnontation suppofing its reçonses. unless otherwise
as. the
Application) as Presidenr, tisri¡lg lvff. ÐÊF est a5 also a dil€ctof of the company, md liÊting Mr- ÐePriest
.J'.porate Sá"r"t*y tut nãt a rtirlcctor. 5¿ø 11¡ancn C. Havens et ¿1., Petition to Dcny [the MüLM Application],
lled Nov. 14, 2005, at Exlúbit 1, Document4'
17
,See MCILM Applicatíon. Disclosable itrterest lIolde¡s Amendment at I (filed Aug' 2l ' ?006)'
:8
FCC File Nos. 00027 55676,0002695270.
re
Fiìe No. 0002792309 (filed Ocr.22,ZA0()). In this Form 602, WPV represents' infer all¿' that Mr.
See FCC
DeP¡iest hotds only a 12.137¿ irtcrest in MadTEL.
20
Søe Wireless properties of Virgini4 Inc,, opposition [to Petition to Deny, and in thc alter¡raLive, Section I '41
IntormJnequest tå Dismiss or ñcny, filed OiL tt, ZOO6, Uy Wutren C. Havensl, filcdOct. 23, 2006, ât 3 (emphasis
added).
2r
Unde¡ Section 1.2110(c)(2)(þ of the Commissiou's Rules,47 C.F R $ 1.2110(cX2XF), "[oifl:lcers ard directors
and di¡ectors of an
6f rhe applicant shall be considerçd to have a oonholling intÉtest in tho applicant [and] offrcers
ttt"t otr licensee or applicant shslÌ be coßidered [0 þavo a cOntrolling inFrest in the liçerlsE oI
,r,tiLy u
applicanl" "ont
æ
4? u.s.c. $ 3o8o).
6/9
Auç'-22-2009 05:49 AM Telesourus 510A4122?6
indicated, the periorl of tirne covcterJ by these irgr.tiries is January I, 2002, to the Ptesent (fle ¡ËlevaDt
pËriod)j
1. Identify ånd de'süibe all businass entities, of whatever foffi, that havo beeÉ
contolied by Mr. Depriesr during rhe relevant period. For pùfposes of_ftis qrestion,
Mr. Depriesi should be deemed tã have conuolled arry entity in which he held a
served as a
50'070 or more ownenhip intÊtest' or se ed as a difectü or officer' or
geneml psrtnet, or exercísed defarfa contol in any way at any time during the
relevant Period.
2. State whether all ofthe intelests held by Mr' DePriËst thât should have been
werê
disclosed i! the MC¿M Application, æ amended, FCÇ File No' 0002303355'
disclosedi¡theMC/IMappucation.IdentifyanyintefestsaÍdentitiesthatshÖuld
have beon disclosecl in ttre üclt M application as ataibutalle to Mr. DePfiest) but
wele not so disclosêd:4 State thÞ leason \r'hy g8ch such ontity was uot disclosed in
ùe MC/LM Applícation, For each such entity, except tlose entities that were -
requiredtobe.disclosedonlyunde.r4TC.FJ{.$1.21l2(bxtXii)andnootlte¡rulq
provide its alnual gross revãnues for each of the ùree calendâr years 2002' 2003' and
àoc¡'!
;""-" t, ,t*, t, ," rhe fi'st cslendar yesr in whith thc rsvsnuês of Mc/LM's disclosable interest
"-1"-"*t
hoklors wora to be considerãd in rútermÍning MC/IM's tlesignatcil onlity oligibility in tonjunclion with the MSLM
AppliostiotL
I Since Àruricsll Nolwovens COrpOraLiOn Was adrled to the application in the August
21,2006, s.ne-Idment it .
in relevaut pleadings filcd
neeJ not Ue tiste¿ il resporso to thii çostion. Bæed on MC/Lù'S own rcllesentatioDs
ii .h" løøfuf Application, wc wouldc Pcôt thË entities listed h rcsPanse to tlút 1"":l3l l:l""I!,t*
"upp"riof Inc.' Uo¡6e¡
¡ui¡ii:ium, Wi¡eless proper{ies ofVirglnia, 6c., Chârisntâ Broadca.sting Co., Bravo Conmunication6,
well ôther comPanies-
mu"J" ifu¿t", ¡rr., Midcom Develõpment Corporation, and MCT Invêstors' L.P,, âÉ a$ tl¡e
MC/LM
*irictitt u ¡ttC¡i¡¡ OppositÍon acknovledged wore undm Mr' DoPri¿,st'$ ôort{ol but had no revenues' S¿s
rüJG Co" Inc" Cellular and Broadcast
opprriti." ti s+ ("tË.wlerlging Mr. DeÞriæt's conEol of Telephone
Cãi,-uniootionr, ioo., peneloie õorporatiob, Scotl$td Ho$e, Inc., Wüeless Properties, Inc., ïVireless
Prop,erties -
nã.t-It"" ùli.f;.t Properties - Wcst, Inc,, Wireloss Properties - Upper MdwesÇ Inc'' and Tlansition Funding'.
-s"i Mqtù r¡",iã aho irlentifo any other entities tnat Ivtc¿_lvt¡ow believes should have beer repo!rcd in
il|.j. C.F.R. 47
úe [4C/LM Applicârion porsu.nt to cfutiónr t.gtg, t,ztro, oo¿ t.2112 of tle commission's Rules,
defining tho typos ôf¿ntitie$ ro bê disclosed
$$ 1.919, 1.2ú-0, 1.2112' .gee, in particular,4? C.FJ- $ 1'2110(c)(5),
enriry
i.2112OX1Xü), requiring desiguated
rtf,U*t . of pursons dccmcd ro Jontrol an apptican! and 4?_C.Fß. $
"i FCC license, in w¡ioh any contfolling i¡1t*ost of
applicanæ fo diiclose,.an' fCC""goiäÞd ;ntiby or applicant fo_r an
geater ïtotal of 10 pere,ent or more of ary clsss of stock, wåff8nt$,
tiå applicant owns u l0 percent or inte¡åst o¡
information.
7 /9
Auq-22-2009 05:50 AM Telesourus 5108412226
J. Desc¡ibe the exænt â¡d natuÊ of Mr' DePriæt's ownership holdings in MariTBL26
duriag the relevant period. Describe the percentaga of tlte equity in MariTEL held by
Mr. D-eÞriesç arrd tlic form in which that equity whs hèld, e'8.' stocþ preferred stock,
etc. Describe the percentäge of the votisg equity in MariTEL held by Mr. DePrìest'
and the form in which tlratiquity was held. If Mr. DePriest's holdings in MariTEL
fluctuated dudng the relevant period, provide a detailed explanation.
4. Ståte whether ånd when ìi4r. DePriest sver served as a dircotor, officcr, or employee
of M¿riTEL. If Mr. DePriest for¡¡erþ held one or more of such positions il
M¿¡iTEL, but no lolger does, state when the period ir whioh lre held the positiot(s)
e¡ded.
5. Stâte whelher 4r. DePriest ever held or exaciseÅ dc facø control of MariTEL by
any mea.ns during the ïelevant Pedod. If so, desor-rbe the nature Ôf fhat coubol, and
how it was obtaincd.
b. ff MCILM believes a¡other porson or entity (or other persons or entities) held either
d,e facto c:onb:ol ofMariTEl-or de7'urc control of MadTBL, or both,
dr:ring the
relwant period, ídenrify such percon(s) or entity(ies), arrd explain in detail both the
naturê ofthe conttol yóu belieie to have been oxerted by such third Party(içs) and the
foundation for your belief.
If you believe that Mr. DePriest did not contol MariTEL, explain, m the be6t of your
knäwledge and belief, why ald how MæiTEL could anive at the conclusíon úat Mr'
DePriest did coûtrol MùiTÊL.
8. Dcscribe the natue and extent of Mr, DePriest's ownership and role in Maritime
Communicatíons/LandMobileLLC,SÆJIVPartnershíp,L'P.,andCommunications
Invesüueuts, Inc.z? Indicate whether Mr' ¡*¡is51 \'vas authoriT'ed to e ter into
contacts on bellqlf of any or ali of these thrcË enumerated entities' what other
,'tith respect to any or all of the e¡umerated entities'
authority, if any, he possessed
artd whát dutiei' if any' he had in comection with a¡y or all of the enumerated
entities.
g.BxplainwlryMC/LMandwPVmadeconflictingrepresgntstionstegâfdiÎgwhËthex
Mr' DePriest was ¿¡ offrce¡ or director of MC/LM, and with ¡esPËct to the entity that
you believe made a falsc tepresenmdon in this regard, eitlter MCIT'M or WPV'
Lxplail, to the best of your lmowlerlge ancl belíef, why it made such false.
reiresentation, If youÏelieve tlrere is no conflict between the fE)fQsentatiotrs, and
thãt oeither MC/Lil nor WPV was inaccurate in its representations regarding
that
wlìether lvfr. Delrriest w¿.s an offrc¡t or director of MC/Llvf. explain the bæis for
belief.
we hereby direct McyLM, pursuant to sections 308(b) and 403 of the Act,28 to respond iì wfiting
30 busincss drys from the
aud under path, sJparately a¡d fully, to each of the foregoing requests \vithih
of its subsidisfies'
%
For purposos Of this and all following questions, "Il,f$iTEL" mp¡nS MariTEL Inc' and/or any
27 h the subject enlities as di¡cctor, Office¡ partner' Iimited
At minimurn, list any posirions helcl by Mr. DePriest
or emPlovee, and the percentage of equity and voting equity hslcl bv M¡ DePriest
in
ilbùry ;";;*y #btr,
èntity, indicate if Mt.
cacb oirh" sub¡c"r cntities, at any time áuring thã relevaui period. Far.câch sübject
also
DePriest exercísed d¿fdcf, control ôf the Þ ity at any tinro, and providÕ ån cxplsnûtiÔn'
B 4? u.s.c.
$$ 308(b),403.
B/9
Aug-22-20Q9 05:50 AM Telesourus 51084|2226
to
ilate of this letter.Ð Ms. Dehiest may provide any additional informÂtion t¡at she believes ¡s televa[t
this rE ter. The InsEuctions for respo;ding to thi$lettcf are contåiíed in the Attâcbmeút heÉto. Ms.
DePriæt s esponse shall be dírected to:
Ifyouhavoanyquestionsrelatiagtothisûlllftêr,pleasecontâctN4f.Tobiasflt(202)418.161?or
i ë.ff .tobiâs @fcë. gov.
Ms,ÐePriestisadviscdthatlsU'S'c.ç1001ârdsecdonl.lTofthecoffmission'sRules,47
in rosponse to
C.F.R. S 1,17, prohibit misrepresentations and/or willftrl omissions of material facts
Comnússion inquiries.
SincerelY'
n,tl
'
/+/Ð
¡Ú'"t¿ "'-
Scot Stone
Deputy chiaf, Mobilþ Division
Wireless Telecolûflunícations Bureau
MariTEL, I¡c.
4635 Church Rd, suite 100
Curnmiug, GA 300284084
ATTN: Jason Smith
Wanen llavens
2649 Benvenue Ave. ' Suites 2'6
BerkeleY, CA 94704
ATTACHMENT
I¡stnrclion¡
Reøuest for confrd.eflt¡alTfeutm¿nt. If MCIIM requests that äl}y inforÍlâtiod or docufûeûß fespoûsive to
ürËffiåîJJ"åi;ã i";";"fiJ";rjr1,ril*, itshal submit, atong with alt responsiv".4_.ry3d:iT9^
Rules' 47 C.F.R. $ 0.459,
ão"om.nt", u ,t*tu*unt in accordnnce with slcfion 0.459 of tl¡e CõmmissÍon's
treatment must cotoply with t¡e reqrrir_ emelts ôf Sectioû 0.459, hcluding the
n"q*r,r iå. ,'blanked' requests for
ild-àr;f "orn¿ential
*"lfi"þ mandated.by Sec'on O.iSg(t ). Accordingiy, to Section 0.459(c), we will not
.à"fi¿"",iuUty u tarþ set of documents are unacòeptable. Pursuênt
"f tÌtat ão not comply with the requirements of Section
oon.idut t"qoutt.
0'459'
CIaûwofFrivÍIege,lfMC/LMwithholdsarryinformatio[oldocumeDtsunderclaimorprivilege,'itshall æ
.oUJ| iäg*., î"ittr any ctaim oiprivilcse, á schedulc of the items uithlìeld that state,s, individually
subject
and the typqritle. specific
to ,"ãr, it"*, the nlmbered iriquilio wni"h """¡ it"m responds
"l"ii and dâtê of the item; rtre namås, áddresses, positious, anrl organiz*tions of all authofs &nd
marÞr
privileged'
r*"ipi"nt oi tft rct; ana ihe specific ground(s) iôr cl¡iming that tlre item is
asked'
Format of Respanses' The ÉsPÖnse rEust be cÖnsistëDt with the fonnat of the guestions
Method of Producîng Documents. Each requested document' as defined herei¡, shall be submitted in its
ä"ì"ãry, å*" ii";rí o portion of tti iotrr.inçiry made ú"
do"uiunt is r"sponsi"e.
and shall include all
l"t"T:-lT:
appendices,
Ï:3t
toÞles, or oürêr.
in" aoóu^rot ,¡uli not be edited, cut, or expunged, .
o.ttachments, and all ott e, ¿oco*"nts .efe,,"d io in the document or attâchments' All written maærials
be submitted'
o""**V ,o oo¿"art"ocl any document responsive to úrese inquifies Éust ålso
IdenfficationofDocwnenß'Foreachdocumentofstâtemetrtsubrúitte<linresporrsetotheinquiries,.
staled in the coyôr letter, inclicate,îy nrriuo, to *lri"r,l"quiry
it is responsive and identify the person(s)
from whose files rh" ¿..u..o, *uiio,iruä. Ir *y is not date¿, ståre úe date.o,' which it was
-iäv oo"umen¡
the name(s) of.
p'r"p*"¿, aå"o*"nt ao", *iiJ.-n-tity its autho(Ð or recipien(Ð, state, if lgrown,
"Ur"åorrt*frt specifcíty all documents provided in
mC¿vI nüsi'id"otify wirù re.sonible
"i-."ipienttsl.
response to these inquiries,
L/9
Aug-22-2OQ9 05:51 AM Telesourus 5LO84I2ZZ6
Donald R. DePriest
206 North Stlt Stteet
Columbus, MS 39701
Re:FCCFilesNos,0002303355,0003463998,000j470,147,0003470497'0003470527'
0003470576,0003470s83,0003470593,0003470602,0003470608,0003470613
TheWirelessTelecomnrunicationsBureauofthêFedera]cornrnunicationsCor¡missionis
(MariTEL) and Maritime
investigating compliance by MariTEL, Inc, and its subsidiaries
witl t.i? and t'65 ot tne Commission's Rulæ'
Commu¡ications/La"¿ fr,f"Uife, Liõ-tiúðnM sectioos
;iãg ," p,*täi"g *tfrn f *¿ inior*ution to tlt" Çommission' Specifically' as described'
"*tlt"
ãor" ñuv i.lo*, ,i" commissio¡ has receiverl corflicting information reguding
wìether you. wero in
.ont oJ oifr{urifgI-, priorto the of a ¡eceniüansaçtiou' The Commission alsq has
"onsummatiou
,.-""iutU'.""¡li.ti"ginfo.*ation t"g¿tdittg your involvement with MCILM and other entities'
Donald R. DePriest
lætær of rnquiry re MC/LM, MariTEi.
by MC/LM regarding
also reflects potendÃl inconsistencies and i¡accuracies in ùe infoÍdåtioû Pfovided
your role in MC/LM snd other efltitiès.
Ms'DePriesthasbeenidentifiedbyMC/LMâsitscoDfrollingpdncipal.4TlleMobilityDivi$ol
rffireless Telecommunicatio¡s BurËau' determined t¡Ût, urder the spousûl ¡ltftllattonÌulë; you
çDivision),
ì"1i" r"qtiit"a to u- Iisied ss a disclosable i¡tefåst hôlder for the pürposê of de!êrmi¡ing MC/LM's -
role you played in
etigi¡liry for Ui¿¿ing credits as a iesign"t a uotity, itt""p*tive ãf whatever actual
.¡¡" fr¡Cri,M l,ppticatio' wi, ,rn"na"á on Augustzl, 2006, to include yotr gross revenuæ in
frl-äi¡,,f]t
In the amendment,
nnCtf-Nf;, O"signut ri entity showing in keeping with thiDivis,ion's determin¿tion.
iriõll-Ll *"pt ti"*a, ;nteåfa, *ràiyou tood41 a-oi"* Nonw.ovens Corporatioua pleding filed by
(ANC)" and that
;ñCi, tfi" oofy ,rueoou p-ao"ing'"ntiry" that you own or contro'I,z In rËsponse to
co¡rtrolled MsriTEL' snd
W;; H;;""; ;r Septemïer 6, z0õ6,s IriCll-U åxprussty denied thåt you in MarirEL, cofltrol of MafiTEL
**
,iutr¿irr*t *Lii. yo, ôrot ouø rr.lcr ion.srors, 1,.p., wtrictr t ekl stock
*u. i*iau¿ nurta¿ irr 'American Tower, Inc.q
Ôüe for MâriTEL ißelf ând
On Ju¡e 12, 2008, Ma¡iTEL Fr]ed the ten MariTEL TC appligations'
putrlic Coast station license apiece
one for each of nin" fuæif¡I, soUsi¿iorià iiotaing one maritime"VfF
exhibit describing ùe nansaction,
The MariTBL TC Appìicatìons each included ¿¡r iãentic¿I, one-page
*rti"rr ri""ã ur^r
*"ånø or Mu¡nÈ-L... witt pass trorn oonalà R' DoPriest atìd MCT Investors, L'P to
rhe shärehôIders ôf MariTEr. æ a þop. Mr. úepriest has conbollod Ma¡irEL tfuough a combination of
2005)'
4
S¿s FCC File No' 000?30246?, Exhibit - Bxplmation of Ownership (flled Sept' 6'
that, for purposes of identifuing disclosable,
s
4Z C,F.R. $ 1.2110(cX5XiüXÐ. The spousal ofúliatioD lule Provides
berefts, "[b]oth spouses are deemed
interest hoklers in demousraung an ap!U'ca;i;s etigibiliry for disÍgnÂtedçntiËy
or have the power to'contol inteiests owlred or óontrolled
by either of them, udess dley are
to orÃ,Ã or contol
-aÇJ*p"ratior. judsdictioÄ in dË United states.''
;Ë;; tËcoguizea by * court of oomPetem
ó.'ee Maritime connunications/Land Mobüe ,ILC, ordenllF3CRcd 13735 (wTB MD 290(ùq!'.?4er-o: ,
,ru¡¿w_pe d¡ng. AlthoughMC/LMinitially failed
Reconsideration,Z1Fcc Rcd a?80 (s¡T3-ffi zooi¡, r""on o,,a
.;tff;;i eirher inapplicîble or
; ;i*bsable interçst holdel ond nrguld th* dre spousfù [fßliûrior rule was
;
uoã lñ. oePrl"st ecoromic lives"' the Division was
shoulal be waived in thi, t."our" yoo leá "sepalate
"or" üt* you' gtoo (nnd those of' ¿'g" entities deemed to be
*Oø fry tlr¡* a.gunent, ana d'eËrminJ '*enues ertitv
""p.t ."¿e¡ tÈe conmissionls nules) stouí¿ ¡eicluded in assessing MC/LM's
designated
v"'"J*rr¡i.*i'
eligbility. ¡d. at t373840 !ll[ 5-8'
(¡led Aug' 21' 2006)'
?
See MC/LM APplication, Disclosable Interest Holders Amendment at 1
Mobile LLC, O¡d¿r' 21
s
s,laner c, Hav¿ns pctiticn fo¡ Rc¡onsitloration lof Ma¡iLimc co¡nmuuications/La¡rd
,g¿¿
FCC Rcrl 8794 (WTB PSCID 2006)J, filcd Scpt' 6,2006'
SePt' 18' 2006
e
,See Mobile LLC Oppositíoll to Petidon fo¡ Reconsideration' filed
M¡ritimc Conrmunicntions/Land
DoPriest' holds
oll-ðlä¡-oìp"riti*1. rrtcn r.',r oprrin"ã tirtirutgt'l},u"rtotr, r,¡., which is çonholled bv Dor¡
Maritet' Inc'; Americân Tower' Inc controls
con*',on stock in Madtet, rnc, l'Icr iìves¡ors, L'P' does not control
Arnericafl Tower, inê. â$ thê holdefs of
MqJitel, Inc., pursuant to o ,norrnor¿o ogr".[*i This agreement provides
of dire¿rors of
il;.i;;ïLñi .to.r. .quiiotit"îüü¡r'," po*"l to a".t'a simple majo¡ity of thç loafd
il;;.r,"n Maritel' Inc' residcs in the
Maritel,Inc., subject to the consent oith;-om*isi*, ifttquittd'
Becau6e conbol of
(In pleading,
hands of Americfin To*rr, tr"., t'I*ita, tnrìs Jan ámuoie
ot tr¡c¡l-tut-" Id.at 10. the same _.
did acknowteage ror rtre trst rime, ini"rjour" to nttegotions in un opposition pleading, that you canEollcd'
MC/LN4 id at9; several
since 1999'
irr¡r.ãio. Wi.efes ofVirgini¿. in"', *'hi"h irttptu*nrcd harl no rcvenues
frop"erLies
relcvânt thrcc'yêaf p*iod, id' at 8-9; and Cltarisma
other entitics which it rrpres"nteo traå'noïvcnuos during ihe
Inc'' which it roprcscñted to havo
;;;;ü,1ü ó;., B;avJ co*tuni"itions, in"., tn¿ corã* rtiaoglo Râdio'
;;iì;ñäir-t il*ues of no consequence to McrLM's ausignarcd entitv status' td' at 10'11')
Telesourus 5tO84I2226 3/9
Aug-22-2OO9 05:52 AM
Donald R. DePriest
Letter of Inquiry rc MC/LM, Ma¡iTEL
direct hvestment atrd his tole âs Gsüelel Pffhef of MCT InvestÖß, L.P."r0 (This representation.is
,ulrt*tiutty .o*istenr with infon'ation provided by MariTEL in ea¡_ Iier FCC Form 602 ownership
air"to*ru f,lingr, t¡at tha Form 6ó2 filings indicåted,-cortëtly as it now ap'earsr-that Medcom
"*capt you
l-åuãop*.ttt öipora¡ìon actuålly was the general partoer of MCT Investors, L'P'' and that
coBtrofed Medcolu Development Corpor¿tíon.")
ss ta
MCyLM a¡d MariTEL thus ÞtEsented the Commission witlt conflicting represetrtalio¡s
pleadiftgs
wherher you had controuect Ma¡iTEi. Both MCll,M and MariTEL subsequentþ
fi¡tèd
but this discussion is not adequate for the
¿i*i*r-irg thi* dia*apa¡cy in their rePrèsentations,
is not accufåto'
Commissîon to ascertain which reprcsint$ion is åccurÂte tud which representatiot ,In
tleir representations, a¡d shed litde
iactlil[ üóiÀ{ìt -JV*
eL1t *ntínued to stand by earlier
light on why they believe the other Party is mistaken.
r0
.t¿¿ Exhibir to MariTBL TC Applicâtions (MariTEL TC Bxlùbit).
The MariTEL TC Exlúbit frrrther explahed'
,The event that will cause the hansfer J conhol is th, volunt¿uy dishibution of tbÞ msjority of the.assets of MC'T
dihte tl]e or nership interest of
Inìestors, Lp. to its ?4 constituent investors. This distribution witl substsntifl[y
interest to.
¡r,iCi ir"!rt"*, f.p. to approximately two percent, and will decrease Mr.DeP¡iest's ownçrshiP -
shsll remåin Gen*sl
iplir¡^ *lï u.z¿ø, (iiri,roaine rhc ËÀ"iiìn! suko of Mcr 1.v¿.stors,.L.P., ss I\4f. DcP¡icst
a res;-h of rhe distrib:uion, no singlc cntity will conrrol MÚiTBL."
ft/.
iãiù* ãi ¡í. *,¡ø. À
lr remdned cunent up until the dtne the
FCC Form 602 Ìeports that were flled on March 13, 2001, sld appuentlv
I[
Muif¡L tirat lr¿CT lnvcslors' L,P. held 58.3ø¿ of
Ma¡iTBL ransfc¡ of contr,ol wss consì;;ata; in eoOg, indícated
that Medcour
MarirEL's issue¿ atrd outstatrding voting srock (and 26.170 0f all stock, voting and mn-votiug),
b"u"top*"ui Cotporation was ürã sole gineral p'utnm of MCf, Invostors, L P" ffd thår you w9¡e tlte
¡919 ^- - -
õoiioraûon. See, e.6., FCC File No. 0002080?04 (filed Mar. 13' 2001)'. -,
Tlrc
lareiroïer of tUårCo- U"u"top."oi th't
\iæi.¡glForm OOZ afso indicat'd thâa tou'held ur addiúor;1 8.99ø of t¡e voting
stock i¡ you' owr na'e, aud
il;;î,h,;h.t if Mr.-úen¡Àt u"ruully .ontort"o t',luirel tut wanteû to conceâl thât fâct, ho would hâvc ftrôvented
rril, hä't gü,riJ r';r*iei iC apptications, id. at 3 | that Mr' DePric$t nciüor "ondoßols] no¡ suppotttsl'-
Inc'
iri-."ïär.ü"*ì-.ül"p irpùr, ¡¿. ut + .no tt'ut Itlc¡¡,M tt^nds by its ea¡lier suLo¡nont rhåt Americsn Tower,
".äl arsrad rhåt.rcirhcf MC/LM nor Mr.
;;|i6f, N,r;;iTËi pG;u'Jþ u d'ur.üolär, ugr.r*ent, ¿. ar s. MCiT,t4 âtso
bscauso atçibudon
it"äãért tu'*yï"W, to O"reive tto ComJission regarding Mr. ÐcP¡i¡st's ¡ole in Ma¡iTEL
uffåt eligibility for the small business bidding
of MariTEL,s revenues to MÇ/Ì.M ;;uld norttur," ¿ lÌCla1gls
credit that it received in ¡\r¡ctioq No. 61. Id'
Dôr¡sld R. DcPrië$t
Let{er of lûquiry re MCltM, MffiTBL
Asnotedabove,MC/LMdidnatinitisllyinclucleyouæadisclosableinterestlrolderinMC/LNÍ
for designated entiry eligib iry purposes, and MbILM has repeaEdly.statsd ìn filings relåtqto
thg --- .
ttti yo"iuuåot p-tayed any significant role in MC/LM' In the FCC Form 602 filed
i,{'Cf-Ir,I-Appii*,i"i
in conjunctión with thÊ MSLM ApFlication, MCILM stateil'
onehunrlredpercentoftlrememberslripinterestsinMa¡itimeCommunicatío¡s/La¡d
Mobüe, LLC ãre owned by S/RÍW Partloership, L'P. The general pârtuer ifl S/RIW -
Þr**ifr¡, l.e. is Comríunications hrvestmãnts, hc. One hundred percent ôf theshafes in
percent
Commuuications ]¡vestl]1ents, Lt¡c. âre ovvned by Ssndrs M' DePriest' One hundred
oi-n" puttn"ttt ip shares in S/RJW Pa¡tnership, L'?. are owned by Sandra M' DePriest' .
personnel of Maritime
san¿rå u' oep¡ist is the sole officer' directoi and kcy -¡nagement
communicâtions/Land Mobite, LLC. Sanclro M. DePriest is the sole lcey managÞment
f"*"*J or snrw parnership, L-p. sasdta M. Depriest is rhe sole offlrcer, director and
key manôgement personnel of Communicâtions Ir¡vËstments, Inc'16
r{ in a Petition to deny,
In a pleading in a separate Ploceeding, MariTEL argr¡cd thaq contÎary to lho âsscrtions
.,ttJU"rã i" no Joot o""iry ,"gà.Oing *iri o;, Ãd coirots Ma¡iTEL,'; ¡nd that tho MuiTBL '1 C Applìcations and
ú ofRules of Broâdcåst
Policy Rcgarding CbÐ.rsoter QuåIif¡cmions in Broodcast Licensing, Arnendment
,Sce
p*iu¿oro-Relating Comnision Inquiries and the Making of
nã.ti"u *á to ivritten Responses to
,
i"ä.Jpi"r*"rio* thc Comirission by perrinees ard Licenseur,\"p:!, Order
Fcc
urd Polìq Statemënt, .102
4u (1986): Folicv
Ë.ðilãììiãí, ¡ãro-11{1t60-61 (t9s6i, Memorandum opittìon and Òrder,1 Rcd
pûr1 1, the Rules ofPracdce and
irîräine ¿#r.r". qurûiicarions in eiórdcasr LicensinglAmerdme_trr_of to úc
_
Donald R. DçP¡iest
L€tter of Inquiry re MCÍ-M, MariTEL
on the
h amending the MC/LM Application to include you as a disclosable interest holder based
Division's ãerermhation thüyour inctusion as such is man¿late<t by the spousâl_aifliaúo1-rltlealtC.p,ttl
reiterâtêd t¡at 'ÐôE bas no ownership interest il and is neither ¿n ofËcçr nor a di¡ector of
MC/LM""'
arc unable. to
Based on the contrådictory ststements on úe mâfier in the o(isthg recofd, we
determine wheúrer or nÖt you ärË or were an officer and-/or director of MC/IM. There also
remains
condnuing ìrncertsrnty as io whetlrer you ffe or were s¡ì officcr and/or direotor of SIRIW Parbrership,
or
L.Þ., or Cã¡¡munications l¡vestmenti, Lnc,zl We note, moreover, that if yorr were indeed an.o{ßcer
ãù"* ãf ùc¿fvf (or S/RIIV Parnzul:ip, L.P. or Couununications f¡tvestments, Inc.), it calls into
qouì,ion ,t ,upr"reùtations by MCILM ana WPV th"t you Aid nat ex€rcise contfol over MC/LM.
We
" to hquire fì,1her iúto this úatter. iVe therefore direct you to
o...i*w provide additional
u-"Uà"* ir
information regarding this matter, as sP€cified below.
Requests fo r lnfontntion
*t,
As explained abovo, we have determincd that additionsl informätion is requircd g "t -th"
com*issiou io resoiv;ng the issues t¡at havê adsên fegåfding the roles played by you in MariTEL'
ùClfU, *¿ ottt t entiti;'. You are acconlilgly di{gie{ pursuaut to Section 308(b) of the
Comrnuni"ations e"t of 1934. as amended (úã Àct),z to resPond to the following requests,for .
iofo*^ùon, *¿ to pfovide avâilable ilocuÀentation supporûng your responses. Utrless othewise
'? See MCßM Applicatiofi, Disclgssblo Intorest Holdofs Ancndment at 1 (filed Aug ' ZL,Z006)'
rr
Fcc Filé NÞs. 00027s561 6, 0002.695270'
re
FCC Ffls No. 0002?92309 (filed Oat. 22, 2006). In this Forn 602, VIPV represenls,
,See
i fer 4lí¿, tbat you hold
added).
1.2110(cX2)(F), "fo]tEcers and dircctors
Uuder Secrion t.Zt tg(cXzXF) of th¿ Coñmissioû's Rules, 4? C.F.R. $
?¡
ofthe applicanr sball be cónridered to hau" a c.ntrolling intêrestjn thc âpplicánt [s-ûd] offioels a,.d dteçtols of an
consiãorotl to have a co tolling interest in the liÇënse or
ãrity uir"It . ftensee or applicant shall b¿
âpplicaùt." ""io"G
2 4z u.s.c. g :os1l¡.
6/9
Auçr-22-2009 05:54 AM Telesourus 5LO84t?226
Dounld R. DeP¡iest
Letter of Inquiry re MC/LM, MæiTEL
1. Identify aad clesc¡ibe ali business entitìes, of whatever form' that have beeü
you arc
contolþd by you durÍng Uro relevant Pcriod' For purposes aftl¡is question'
deemerl to have controilerl any entity ín which you held a 50'07s or more owneTshlp
general partrer' or exercised
i.uterest, or sewed as a directoï or officer, or served as a
delacø coutrol in any w&y at sny tûlr during the televant period'
disc'losed in the
2, State whetlre¡ all ofthe inte¡osts hold by you tÌat should have been
FCi Éil" No' 0002303355' were disclosed in the
MC/LM Application, as arnended,
ån'l entities that should have been
MCILM APPlicatian. Identify any inte¡ests
.disclosed in the MULM Applicâtion ås stributÂble to yoìI but wele noj s:
.
the
¿isciose¿.* To the extent yóu have personal knowledge of the fia$ef, indicate .
For- each
,easoo why each soch entity *as noidisclosed in the MC/LM Applicæion'
such entity, except those entities that wete fequired to be discloscd
only under 47
rule, grovide its annual gtoss rcvenues for each
c.F.R. 0 i.2i i2(i)(1)(ü) anrl no other
of tl," tlrru" vlís zo0z, zoos, an¿ 2oo+'6
"uluìá.
ã Si¡ce Amc¡ican Nonwovens Corporation wqs addËd to the ÂPPlication in the Augìst 21, 2006, amendment, it
in relevs¡t P'eaorßgs nleo -,
neid not be listed in response to úl cuestion, Basçd on MC/LM'' own r'Presentåtians
entities tist"d_ii ¡esnonsn to this quesúon o incfttdo, at
il;ù-o,i;iil; Mgti4 Ãp¿i"ution1 *"-"outa'expæt thep*"¿casting Lrc'' Goldcn
minimurn, lùvireless Propcrtius orvirå"i", i""-ìï¡fir*"
Co'' Brävo Communications'
,ilüüRrdi:ì";., Nläd"orn nuv.ifrÀ.Ti Córporation, and MCt Ñastors, L,P., ss w¿1l ås úc oth¿r contps¡lics
bur hâd ¡ô fGvonuês. sdc Mc/1,\4 oppositiofr
ili;f ,il MÇ;it óf position actoo*,*lcdgud *"i. undui you.Inc.,"onkolCcllsr ârtd Eroådcåst com¡nunications' Inc''
ii'd:g ir.k"ä;i"osi"iyiur conkol of tV¡ê Tdephono Çó,,
Bast, Inc', Wireless
Ë"i"f"ìãC"ipo"t¡1'nlécott"nd ttouse, to"., Wfôt"** ftopàrti._t, Inc., W_ireless Properties - ..
_.üy"u, I"á., Wir"t.", rrop"rti"r'- u¡per Midwest, Itrc., and Tra'sition Funding, Inc.). But you should
Þr"pài ¡",
cntitics rhat yåu cuncntly'bclicvc shoulrl have boen reponed in tlìe YC/LM
Aqlli:a-lo-1
,isäi¿"nrify óOror
"ny
porruunt to SuriÍon, 1.919, 1.2110, and 1.2112 of the Çommissior's Rules, 47 C,F,R' $$
l'919' 1'21i0' l'2r12'
be disclosed as affiliate$ af persoTrs
i,¿¿, in parr¡cur"r, ¿z c-F.R. g 1.2110(cxÐ, defining the types of eutitics to
ontity âpplicanb.to disclosa
deemito contol an applirant ana 4r êiR. 5 l'Zi lz(bxlXii), requiring designâtêd
;auy fCCLegutateO etrtity * *
oppti"*t fot ËCC Ucensi, in'wtticn any oortou¡¡g inlëreâ! of the apPlicant owns a
of any class of stock, wu¡ants, options or dçbt
l0 pø".nt orþrrcr ¡nti"st oi á tot¿ of t0 percent or rnore
securitìos,"
Donald R. DePriest
Lcttcr of inquiry re MC/LM, MariTEL
drrring the.
3, Describe the extÞnt and nanlfe of youf ownership holdings in MariTEIlG
you' and
relevant Period. Describe the perienage of the équitY in MariTE! held by
tlrc form in which that etluity ùas held, e'g', stock; prefened stoch etc'
Describe the
pêrce agö of tlle voting equity in MariTEL held by you, st¡d the formjn whlch thaÌ
ãquity was freta, If your holdilgs in MariTBL fluchìated during the relevaît perÖd'
Provide a detailed exPlaration.
4. State whether you ever served ¿s a ditector' officer, or employeeofMadTBl'
If you
lotrgèr do' stâtè
formerly lreld óne or mo¡e of such positions in Mâri'IBL' but nÕ
7. If you believe thât yoü did nÓt cÖDtrol MariTEL, explain' to the best of your .,
htwbdge and belief, why and how MariTEL could anive at the conclusioD thst you
did coútrol MäriTEL.
8. Describe the nature and cxtont of your ownership and role i¡ Maritims
communìcations/Land Möbite Lic, s/Rñv Partrership, L-P., and
communications
autlorized to entör into contracts on
Invesfrnents, Inc.z? State u'hÉther you were
behslfofånyoÏalloflhesethÎeeenumelatedentifÌes,whatÖtherauthotity,ifany'
yoo porr*r.J*itl, rospect to any or all of theenumerated onfitios, and wlì0t duties,
if
a-ny, you had il connecïon with any or all of the enumerated entities'
To the extent you have personal knowledge of the matter' explain why M{/LM
and
9. you a¡ offrce¡ or
WPV mach cónflicting ìepresentations regarding whether were
false
diïector of MC/LM, aoa witn tttpttr to the entity thåt you believe made a
representation in tlus regaid, either MC/LM or WPV, explain' to the best of yoÙr
.
IfJou bÞlievc there is
knowledgc antl belief, ühy it Ioade sueh fal€e repfesefltation.
_
2?
minimum, lisr ary posidons held by you in the subject entiries os director,
.Ar
ofÍcer' paltner, Iimited liability
voting equity held by you in each of tlte subject
.o*p"iy t""*úut, o. employeq and rtre'percentage ofequity snd
ù"i, ¿uriíg tÉc relevant päriod. Fãr euchsubjcct cntiry, also indicate if you exercised delacro
""Í,i*,'"i "ry
qont{ol of tbô entity at åny ti¡flc, 8nd providc an cxplarradon-
Donald IL DePriest
Letter of Inquiry re MC/LM, MsrilEL
TT¡ol¡sEuctionsfofrcspondi¡gtothislettelarecont¿inedintheAttachmerrthereto.Yourresponseslrall
b'¡ dirêcted to:
ùluçcrlt-ty t
/t//
-
"4,i-/Æ_
tvr4 t./1,/ --
Scot Stone
DeputY Chief, MobilitY Division
Wireless Telecom¡nuniçations Bureau
MæiTEL,I¡c.
4635 Church Rd, Suite 100
Cumming, GA 300284084
ATTN: Jasot Smith
'Warre¡
Haveus
2649 Beuvenue Ave.- Suitas 24
Berkeley, CA 94704
[,uq-¿¿-¿Ojg 05 : 55 At'l 'l elesqurus \IjA4LZ¿¿6
Douald R. DePriesr
Leuer of Inquiry ¡e Mffllvl, MaIITEL
A'fTAEHMENT
InsErctio¡s
or documents resPonsive to this
Requestfor Corfitlentíal Treatment' If you lequest that ûny i¡fomation
¿t
u confidçntiai mamäyou ittatt suUmii aloug with
all responsiye i1l91t9!on- a¡{-^
i"tti,, fru"r"ot
*itiSection 0.459 of the-Commis¡ion's Rul6Ê, 47 C'F R' $ 0'459'
documeuts, a ståtemênt in a".or¿r¡""
of Section 0'459' including iÌ¡ë
ReouestÈ fôr öonfidential reatruent musrcoÉply with rhe requûements
.äilä",¿r **¿ot"¿ tv st"tion ô'4s9þ)' Accordinslv' "bla¡ked'É$¡ests for
"itri"ãniitv set of documents are unaôépuble' Pursusnt to Section
0'459(c)' we will not
large
"""nJ*ti-liti "f
itqì'"tt" ",ttat ão not comply with ùe requireÉeûts of Sectior 0'459'
"ã"rià".
Cl.aims d PrivíIege. If you withhold 8ry information or
documenb under claim of privitege' you shall
,*",1,, ì1,e"t1r", ;"th ari' Aai- of øîí"æ, r t.l,",tul" oi ttt" items r ithheld that
states, individuallv as
i" .*rt ,"ãn it"* tht nimterea in'quiry io ïni"n **t item responds and the type' tide' speeific subject
of all authon and
mafiêr a¡d date ôf the item; ure namås, áddtesses, positious, and organizations
iteú is privileged'
i""ipì"r , ,ft" ir"m; and the specific ground(s) fàr clairnhg thât the
"f
of the questions a'sked'
Format of Responses' The response must be consistent with the format
DENMS C. BROWN
ATTORNEY ÁT LÀW
8124 CooKE CouRr, SUITE 201
M^NÀssAs, VtrrGINI/l 20109-7406
F^x 703/365-9456
PHoNE 703i365-9437
NoT AÐMITTED IN VIROINIA
D.C.BROWN@,{TI.NBr
Questionl.Identifyanddescribeailbusinessentities,ofwhateverfornr,ttrat
have beeì controlled by Mr. Depriest during the relcvaut period, For purposes of this
conrrolled any enrity in which he
lu".tioo, M¡. Dep¡iesi should be deemed þ have
tret¿ a Só.0% or more ownership ifteresf, or served as a director or
officer' or served
atly tilne during rlte
a general parmer, or exercised de¡ac¡o control in any way at
",
relevâút period.
3/25
Oct-23-ZOO9 11:13 Al'1 Ielesourus 5IOA4L¿¿¿6
MCiLM Ownershipr All of the membership illterests irr MC/LM were owned by S/RJW
Parmershþ, L.P. u¡til 2008, wlnI.2} of 1,000 paru-rership units were issued' No interests
have been issued to Mr. DePriest fr'on1 inception to date, A copy ofan Incumbency Certificate
execured ou August 25, 2005 reflecting the ownership fbr a bank loan is attâched as Exiìibit '
I
OffTcers and Directorsl At all tines siuce the formatiou of MC/LM' I have been
dre
sole officer and director of MC/LM. On several promissoLy notes¡ Ms, Belindâ Hì.rdson
signed the notes âs Trcasuler, but that was am honorary title. She has not beerr elected
Treasurer ín the
an officer of MC/LM, ancl she has been iûstructed by me not to sign as
future.
Mr. Depriest has occasionally been asked to serve as a nralaget'/ agenl to conduct
cerrâin âspects of the business of MCILM which witl be discussed heteafter in Question
g. Mr. John Reardon serves as the CEO. At uo tirne has Mr'. DePriest been an of{ice¡
or dhector of MC/LM-
are owned by
S/RJW Psrtnership, L,P. (S/RJ![) Ownership: All of the parnership shares
me, Sandra Depriest. The Resotution of ûre Board of Directors of MedCom
Development
ræígning General Part[er
coiporation, the former GeneÍal Palmer of s/RIW PârtneÌship, as
elestedPresidetrtofS/RM.I,SandraDePriest,Ðnthesolekeymanagetnent
Partnership of S/RJW filed with the
.s.","t",y of S/RJW. The Certiñcate of Limitcd
persormel
of State of Delawaro i5 attaclred at Exhibii 4, TIre Snte of Delaware
Amendment to the Certificate of Limited Panne¡ship is attached as Exhibit 5'
'lelesourus 5LÇA4f¿¿¿6 4/ ¿5
Oct-23-2O09 1t : L3 Al'1
of stock wele
coüEr¡nicâfions Investment6, Inc, (Çtt) ownershipl Ä'11 1000 shates
the stock cettificate issued
nansfeffe*p m. by Don Depriest ou Feb. 18 2005, aud a copy of
in mY name is attached as Exhibit 6'
officersauilDirectors:AsofFebruaryIS,2005,IwasSoleSlruelrolderaltd
of CII' Dou
was elecledl Director and serve a¡ the sole offrce¡ a¡rd director
his resignation is
O"Priest r"sign"a as of Feb. 18, 2005 as Ptesideut' A copy of
liowever' I note
attached âs ¡iniUit Z' In reviewing fte corporate rniuute book'
that due to an oversight, tTre change in the oftice of Presidelt fÌom Don
DePriest to *" ** ¡ç¡ ¡sflected in the Corporate Annual Report submitted to
copy of wltich is
ine Secretary of Sfate until re January 2008 Aunual Report, a
to bor'::ow bank
a$âched as Ë*ibit 8, On August 25, 2005, I was authorized
funds as the sole Officer, Dilector and Shareholder of CIl'
Answer2lTlrefirstaldsecondsentencesofQuestion2callforalegalconclusionwhichonlythe
or director of ceruiû entities which were not
commission can reach. Mr. DePriçst controlled or was ân Officer
disclosed to ùe Coûmission in MC/LM's application'
l) Penelore CorPoration
p) BD Parmers
q) CD Partners
time of the
The fo¡owing entities ìtrere ûot disclosed because úey were not âffiliated ôr did not exist at the
filirg of the application.
a) Critical R,F,, Inc - MC/LM did not acquire control uutil 2006'
itlaccurate
Except as notod, below, the following entities were not disclosed because of ovetsights or au
understa¡dhg tlat ttrey had had no revenues. Their ¡evenues were' as follows:
The foliowing revenues of Bravo Communicadons, Inc.; Charisma Communications, Inc'; and Oolden
Triangle Radio, Inc. wete ûot disclosed because the de minimis tevenues were overlooked:
The following revenues of Warpath Properties, loc. were not rePorted because Mr'. DePriest
cotrtuolled it for only the miror part of tlle relevalt period:
2002 - $76,500
2003 &, 2004 - Mr. DePriest sokl all of his interest iû the cômpâny in 2003 ard
I have no
information concerning revenues for 2003 or 2004 '
The following entity was not disclosed because Mr. DePriest Uelieved üìat lre did tlot control iu
MariTEL, Inc. - In its Opposition to Petition for Reconsideradon in FCC File No. 0002303355'
dated
Seprember lB, 2006, MCILM info¡metl rhe Comrnission of tire following revenues
for MaliTEL, inc.:
2002 - $715, 548
2003 - 91,022,423
2004 - $2,076,507
provided the
[r Mr.
response to DePriest's inquiry of Septembel 13, 2009, the President ancl CEO of MariTEL
following MariTEL revenues:
2002 - s308,7n
2003 - $i72,849
20a4 - fi1,267,99'l
Describe the extent ând ûâture of Mr. DePliest's ownershþ holdings in MaliTEL
3: during
euestion
DePriest, ard the folm in which
the relevant peÀd. Deseribe the perceutage of the equity in MariTEL held by Mr.
of voting equity ir MariTEL held by
tlut eqrriny was held, e.g., stock, prefenedìtock, etc. Describe the percentage
Ur. nepiiest, and the fã¡m in ihich ttrat equity was held, If Mr, DePriest's holdings iu MariTEL fluctuâted during
the relevant period, provide a detailed explanation.
so I
A¡swer I have ¡¡o fi¡st-ha¡d larowletlge of Mr. DePriest's ownershi'p and interests in MariTEL
3:
will defer to his answers to this question.
euestion Sute l¡lhether Mr. DePriesr ever served as a director, officer, or employee of MariTEL'
4:
period
If Mr. Depriest formerly held one or more of such positions in MariTEL, but no longer cloes, state when the
in which he held the positioû(s) ended.
euestion 5: wlether Mr. DePriest ever held or e)(cercised de lacto corLltol of MariTEL by any
State
relevant periocl. If so, describe the nature of tirat conhol a¡d how it was
obtained'
meâns duri¡g tli
as to the efltities
Answef 5. I do uot have the filsþhand loowledge upon w'hich to form an opinion
to Mr' Del'riest's ansrvers to this
involved in the coutol of MariTEL during the relevant period, so I will defcl
a/25
Oct-23-2009 11:15 AM Te.Iesourus 5tAA412?26
held either
6: If MC/LM believes that another person or etrtity (or other persons or entities) such
euestion
of MariTEL, or ÞoTh, during re t'olevaut period'
identifv
d.e facto coruolof Marirnr orJeizit .onttor
control you ìlelieve to have been exercised by
person(s) or entiry(ies), aoo ,*pr*in in a.tuil both ttre nature of the
iucb tbird party(ies) and the fou¡dation for your belief'
A¡swer6.Idonothavethefirst+aüdknov/ledgeuponwlrichtg|or1r1'orlnionastotheentitiês
involved in the control of MadTEï ä*iog tlu ."f**t period, so I
will defe. to Mr. DePriest's auswers to this
not fot'ce MaIi'lEL to take actious that he
qìrestion. I will state that he t"g;;.ù;;;;;cated to me that he coulcl auswe¡s to
believedwe¡e in 1ft,¡rrtint"r.*t*li't¡.;;p^"y. ¡a thc intcrest ofaccuracy, I will defe¡ to Mr' DePriest's
this question.
Answer 7: I do not know âúd will not speculâte how MafiTEL arrived at the conclusion that Mr'
DeFriest contolled MariTEL.
QuestionS:Describethenaureandextenlol.Mr,DePriest'sowrrerslripandroleinMaritime
and Co¡nmunications Investt ents' Inc' Indicate
Comnrunicarionslf-¿ Uotile, üò,-S¡RJW Punrership, L'P.'
ot behalf of âny of all of ürese tllree enumerated
wheùef Mr. DePriest was authorized to enter into coneâcts if
to any or all of the enumefâted entides' alld whal duties'
eûtities, and what duties,if any, he possessed with respect
*V, U. nu¿ in connection wifh any or all of fhe enumemted entities
Answer 8: Mr. DePriest's ownership a¡d role i¡
a, MC/LM. At no time did Mr' Delriest hsve an ownetship i tercst in MC/LM' Mr'
DePriestwasaut]lorizedasmyagenttoassistmeasneccssary,andasrequcslcdbymc,
in a"rr"topiog noun"ìã ãn bendf of MC/LM' He has suggested equipntent
"ontocts aud professional âssocíation
vendors. He has a""oÁpani"a the cEo to conveDtions
radio servi-".t. Mt;-D:,P-:::1i.1t *y
meetings of potential uåers or ploflloter$ of two-way
request, guaiaut"ed rotes o\{eil bv MC/LM púmalilv
i' *l9"iiti:llltl",|T1:lltlt^tv
fuld massive amouflt 0l lltlgarrotl
,påut^i ltttiblttion acknowledgenreu! anl q the
wbich we havÊ recefltly prevailed at the
origioot.a Uy Wu,'"o ÞIavens in Califoruia' in
perrding' and befbre.the I'CC'
Çoui of Appealsllu"i'"o¿ itt Nt* Jersey' whiclt is still
a salaly' At nÔ timc did Mr'
Don DePricst is noi u-o't*ploy" und cìoes not receive
DePriest exercise de fdclo conttol of MC/LM'
Telesqurus 9/25
Oct-23-2009 11:15 AM 5LO84122?'6
b.S/RJIVPartnership,L.P.AtnotirnehasMr..DePriestlradanowllershipiDtercstin
S/RIW, Mr. Deprieiihæ hatl no rote in the mânâgemeût 0IS/RJW'
At no time did Mr.
DePriest exercise delaclo conftol of S/RIW Partnership' L'P'
0,Communicntionslnvestments,lrc.(CIÐ:PriortoFebrrrary'lB,2005,Mr.DePriest\¡Ís
dealt with the
tire sole owner.and president of CII. The assets ofthe cotporation which
and none
pubiication of phone Boolc Enterprises, had been sold beforc Decembet, 1998,
1998 and 2002,
,"orained. ih.re is no fecofd of cofporåte activiry betveen December,
to sene as the
when S/RJW }aÚnerslìip was organiTÆd' I needed a cotlorate eutity
Cel1eral parher of S/RJW. Since this Corpolatiou was iu existeDce,
I asked Mr. DePriost
had any value..
to traoster att otttrc stock ofthe Corporation to me. The eutity no longer
stock to me, and resigrred
H* m¿ oÀ ur. for thc cntity and transferrcd all of thc common
as president. He has not owncd any interest in CII since February
18,2005, and âlthougll
the change in the offrcers was not i'eflected with the Mississippi Sectetary ol'StatÈ
until
aûd director of
fanuary,iOoa, Ulis was an oversight. i began serving as the _solê.officer
CIi Àoá neU",ary 1g, 2005. At no time after Febnrary t 8, 2005 has Mr. DePrjest
au¡o"ío control over Couuluriications Inv€stnrc ts, Inc. Mr. DePriest was
"*"iriiA
üJ;;;i;"C";porarc Books of the empty corpoïatc Stmcture of CII as Presideui and
Ðirec¡or until his resignation in February 0f2005, but he took
flo action and tliere was rto
oolloratÊ activity between December, l99B and February' 2005'
this is a temendous outlay ofresourcðs that coì¡ld be spent furthering the publio interost
rather tha:r litigating Tle sâüe issues aÖIoss the cou¡lt'y. Thosç aotions havç becu tho
geatest itetenãnt I õo¡til ever imaginÊ t0 furthering the publiç itrlffest aud encouraging
tle diversity of pæticipation in the marketing of telecoumunioatiÖns speotum'
Respeotfrrlly submitted,
q...ø"CI:hH
Sanùa M. DePriesf
1r/¿5
Oct-23-2009 11:1ô At{ 'lelesourus 5LOe47¿¿¿6
EXHIBITS
Oct-¿3-ZOO9 11:16 At'l lelesourus 5lOe4I¿2¿6 r¿/ ¿5
i. The following persons are the duly elected a¡d qrralified officen ofthe LLC and
they hold the offices and títle set forth opposife thçir names below'
NAMB OFFICE
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true, côrrect ând comPlete copy of tlio action
taken by the LLC, by unanimous written consent, signed by the sole member of tlie LLC (the
"Resolutions") which, among other thíngs, âpprove: (1) a $a,000,000,00 nou-revolviug credit
täcility from Plnnacle National Bank io the LLC; an<l (2) the oxeoution ofafl documents required
by pinnacle N¿tiofla'l Bâ¡k. to evidende, securc and document said credit facility, including
withour limitation, a promissory note, sêcurity agreements pledging all the assets of the LLC to
secure said credit faãility, a loan agreement, and all other documents required by Lender in
connection witli said oredit facility.
4, Attåched hereto as p¡$þl!S is a true, conect and complete copy ofthe A¡ticies
of Organizatioa of the LLC, which was in fuIl force and effect on the date tìat the Resolutions
were ãdopted by the mernbers of the LLC a¡d is in full force and effeôt on the datê horeof. They
have notbeen modified or amended except as set forth in Exhibit B'
IN V/ITNESS \#I{EREOF,, I have hereunto set my hand and delivered this Certificate
as of this å.S*fuayof August,200t.
.=ä-o^Ë\fò\
-_
@
The undersigned, being the dulv elected, qualified ând âcting PRESIDENT a.nd
CI{.FI
qualüed
MANAGER of the LLC, hereby certifies that Sandra M. DePriest is the duly elected,
above his name on
and acting Secretary ofthe ILC and that the signature âppearing i'xnediately
the foregoing Certificate is his genuine si$rature'
STATE OF MISSISSPPI
COUNTY OF LOWNÐES
notaty public in and for the state
Personally aPpeared before me, the undersigned
she sigûed
and county aforesaid, Sandra M' DePriest' who âcknowledged before me that
rsEÁL)
COPY
BOARD OF DIRBCTORS CORPORÀTE RESOLUTÍON
L'P'
)evelopment Corporation as General Pärtner of S/RJl,l PartnershiÞ'
effective as of this date-
CÒrporâcfon
Exhibit 3. Resalution of
Commudcaf ions Invesmeuts, I[c'
Sandra M, DePrlese
SoIe Shareholder and ÐÍrector
GOP\'
Oct-23-¿009 11: L/ At4 lelesûurus 5lOt34I¿¿¿6
t/ /¿5
vjs,,@u,"frnhu*n PAGE 1
Tlr.e
Jírst $tate Exhibit 4. Certificate of Limited
Parurership for SIRIW
J/",-:"L J*t¿ta'øh;^¿^'¿
Har.iet smith Windsor, Secrecary of st¿te
a2a129778 oATË,:01-30-03
L8/ ¿5
Oct-23-2O09 11:1/ At{ 'lelesourus 51084I¿¿¿6
Oî DELÀHàRE
EîATE
S8öRET¿RY oF srÀÍE
Drvrsro{ o¡ coRpoRÀfrÖ¡¡'s
FILEIJ 7Z:2Q Fll l1/2t/2Òoz
02a729778 - 3ó1994Ô
STATE OFDELA\Yá.RE
CERTIFICATE OF LTMITED PÄRTNERSItrF
RcviscdUniformLim¡tcdPå¡rnellhipAct'6Dct¿wgrcCodc'chaPrêrl7'dohcfcby
ëëd,ry ôs fötlÕwsi
-. çfJ.lt¡!bu:.
Hs 397of - ------
-
e - this Cc(tiftcatç ôf]-¡mitcd
fn W¡tn€sr \trberÊofi the undcrsigncd h¡s cxecutcd
,D
5/'R.IH F.ðrtngfsh¡ir' L-' r-õ-s
Ûf
Partncrship of ( .- --...-
,:
lctn
!{Ëdcôqì DeïeloËmenr çôrünrãt
[Þnafu,PrÉntr #t s
ur, Ê'-]]-Ê+L'tat,
Gonê¡r¡l ttE P
- :
r€61d¡"nt-¡-4À (¡-¿"-
/
r'{sÞc, hnÐIl-lj-g+:¡i-
ft!?e ûr gr¡int flaÛ161
L9/25
Oct-Z3-2009 11:17 AM Telesourus 5LO84L2?'26
þ
Ër(hibit 5. Amend¡rent tot¡e l
Ce¡tificate of Limited Parmership
for S/RIW
STATE OF DELÁWARE
AMENDMENTTO THE CERTIFICATE OF
LIMITED PARTNERSHfP
The undersigned, desiring to amend the certilicate of Limited Partnership pursuant to the
provisiofls of Section I ?-202 of the Revised Uniform Lîmited Partnership Act of the State of
iollows: The name and na¡ling address of each general parfuier is as foflowsl
coPv
20 / ?,5
Oct-23-2009 11:18 AM Telesourus 5|OA4LZ226
zl/25
Oct-23-2009 11:18 AM Telesourus 510A4I?'226
$tate of ltllississippi
Eecretäry of Státe
2008 Corporate Annual Report
--l lfthcrcare no EhBrgaE ma an "Xr berq
corPorätå lD: 553340 Exhibit g, 200g Amual Report for I delctnd ¡lIh ¡r tio hqfton qf thc Þ?gc,
CII filed with the Secretary ofSlate
Regrsterèd Ag€nt and e¡s of MS Ðorporale Nõhe ¿ Prlnclpsl Addrc$s:
SANDRA F- D EPRIEST õAMMUN¡qAf ËÄ1S IIWE$IMENI.S, INC.
206 STH Sl NORÎfi, PO Éo,( 10?0 ?06 fiH ETREET NOR TH
Þ.o- Bôx 1076
cotu!¡Bus, Ms 39701 COLUMBU6. i¡ts 3E?0¿
Federå d: 0¡077582ð
lëlËphonq: New offiseffl I Add¡csrês
Cunënl Pdoc¡pEl offiEcrE , AdúrEsssE ÞlrectoÍ É P.ÞrlCahB aANÞFA DEFR{EÛI
PrEBidrllf: DoNALD F DEPÊ|EST
2ó6 åTH EÌREET i{ORTH, P.O, BOX I 070
tr 20€ BrH srHËiT-fi oÈrE;To.EöTT'öÍ6-
ÇOLUMBU5, MS T97A¡
çoLUMBU€, Mgâ0t03
Vlcr Ptês: !
-V¡Eé Fresldcfil:
tr
--:
ú Êtër.tãry: tr
gecrehry:
?0q sTH sÎ
SANDFA F DEPRIESf
NORTH, P O BOX 1076
r_l -t I
I
ÇotuMEus, M5 39703
Tlc!surer ü
-ftê¡sur.¡:
--- ;l I
---
lDÈæb'ts ¡4 adûÍañ toth0$61^9le{ Eòovê &e lo ¡e tsled
I n"nu"rY
o¡ II
W,ri1rt,puge! __ _ ll
Slock shsrEE Àuthcr¡red, lEãuqd & outats rdlng: ' Stock shar66 Authórizcd, l6süsc Ú' outBtanding: I
I
I
ñ-nrcsco¿en¡a6ñäElsirLesi
nñÃrcs¡ãAãÑatü-tEor'B*inlo--
453S98 AllOtrot Misce sneo(¡s Star. R{Ú118"":4- I
_
:---:'
-l
This flpoñ h¡E Þêcî ex¡mlned by ñr snd tÞ lhe Þrrt ol my lmc¡rlcdqc srrt Dclièf, iB llþê' co ëcç comF¡Eté âBd
jlo
cuÍeÍt ¡¡ cflhl¡ ätld d¡y ol Janusry , 08
PifltcdN¡m¡
Sandrd F DeÞ¡lÊ.sl
Se.rolâly-
5iC¡lore
Íttc
gECRETARY OFSTATE
fi(1te cheçx for$25,00r Psyablc to
,o,,o-*.
H,.:im*;ruÍi,äijg.t"iF:nn*'.11"î'll"tl)î'"'î,"xii,if:i'iJ'!Hå'ffis4n.".*
Telesqurus 5|084122'26 23/25
Oct-23-2009 11:19 AM
Sand¡s M. DePriçst
Oct-23-2009 11:19 AM Telesourus 5108412226
C-ERTIFIC.ATE OF SERVICE
Iherebycertifythåtoûthisthirtiethdayofsöptember,2009,Iserveda-copyofthe
foregoing Response by placing a copy, first-class postage prepaid, in the united states
Mail,
on each of the following püsons:
Warren C. Havens
2649 Benvenue Avenue, #2-6
Berkeley, California 94704
$2.t7
tl00953-,?-t I
I
NJ
N
N:
o
DrÀfirs C. BRoçÑ
ATfOtrNEY ÀT LÀìY
8124 CooI(E CouRT' S0IrE20l
MÁ.YÁssÁs, vm Gh'IA 20109-7406
*;-*-
2-6
4
2649 Benvenue Avenue, Suiæs
BerkeleY, California 94704
€'
EXHIBIT 3
L/16
Oct-23-2009 11:24 AM Telesourus 5fOA4l22Z6
Dsnms C. BRowN
ATTORhEY AT LAW
8124 Coorc CouRT, SUITE201
MANÄssa6, vm.cINIA 20109-7406
FAJ( ?03/365-9456
PHoNE 701/365'9437
Nor ADMTmED IN VIRGTNI^
D.C.BROWN@ATI.NDr
Dennis C- Brov/n
Oct.-¿3-¿OO9 11¡25 Al'1 lelesourus 510A4|¿¿¿6
WirelessPropertiesofVirginia,I¡c.(WPV)andDonaltlR'DePriest(..I''or"Mr.
*" go¡lmissiou's irrquiry daæd August
DePriest") hereby respecñrlly fiIe their response ,o
i8, 2009.
.
Question I itfentify and describe all business
e ities , of whatever form' drat have
been coìtrolled by you during the releva periocl. For
purposes ofthis q'estiott, you are
deemed to bave c-on1,olled â''y entity in which you held a 50,0% ot more ownership interest,
0r served âs â dhector or officer, oi served as â gcncral
parmer, of exefcised de lüüo corifJol
in any way at any time during the relevant period'
A¡swerl:Duringthereleva-ntperiod,TVPVueitlterownednorcontrolledanyotler
an officer 0r directol of the
entity. Þufiûg the felevaPe.Iiod MI. DePriest controlled or was
following business entities:
c)WirelessProperties-East,inc.(WPEI),aforrrrerlrolderofMMDSlicelìses,
duriug tlte relevant period'
was inactive during the relevant period. I controiled WPEI
Oct-¿3-2OO9 11r25 Al4 'lelesourus 5|0A4I¿¿¿6
f¡Commuuicationslnvostnents,hrc.(CII)wÂsaûiúvesmlentvehicledrrritgtlre
relevant pedod. I wâs presideût and director of CII prior $ Februâ¡y
18' 2005' As showtt by
18' 2005'
Anachmånt I he¡eto, Iìesigned as president and director on February
h)SanPedroGauzeMill,Inc'(SPGMI),ownerofagauzetrrillsome30yeâIs
I co¡trolled SPGMI durirrg the relevant period'
ago, wâs inactive during the felevant period.
j)WJGTelephoneCo.,Inc.(WJG)wasformedasanacquisitionconrpanyfor
relevant period. I
an acquisition íhich failed-to occur. WJG was iuacüve during the
controllerl WJG durilg the relevant period'
vehicle'
k) Cellular antl Broadcast Colnmunications, lnc' (CPCI)' ân investnent
lelevânt periÖd '
\ryâs inâcÉve during the relevant periotl. I cotlTrolled CBCI during the
prupose of excavating a
m) Penelore Corporaflon (PC) was fonneri for the
sunken steamboat, I controlled PC rturing the relevaût
period'
the
n) Scotland House, Inc' served solely as a payroll mechanism during
period'
relevant period. I controlled Scotlald House, lnc' during the relevan!
to provide
o) Transition Funtljng, L,L'C' was a temporary entiry formed
financing for entities in which I wal involved' Trânsitiot Funding'
L L'C' was inactive
4/ 16
Oct-23-ZOO9 11:Z5 Al4 'lelesourus 51094I¿¿¿6
during the relevant period. I controlied Transitíon Funcling, L.L.C. durir:g tle relevatlt
period.
t)GoldenTriangleRadio,Inc.(GTR)wasaformerownefofradiobloâdcast
period.
stations during ttre relevant period. I controlled GTR during re felevant
u)MCTCorp.MCTCorp.wasâcellulalteleplrorreserviceploviderinRussia,
Uzbekistan, Tajikistal, anúAfghanistan during the relevant periÔd' I was a
director of MCT
Corp. during the relevalt Period.
x)Biovenures,Iûc.Bioveures,lnc'wasinvolvedintlaptnarkersandgene
atrd related DNA ard RNA products a¡d serviCeS during the relevalt
period. I was a
matkers
clireotor of BioVentures, Inc. during the relevant periorl'
Ground Zero Fæhions' Inc- (GZFÐ was formed for fhe purposs of
z)
pcriod,
prgducirig comáe¡ative leatÌ¡er jackets. I controlfed GZFI durirrg dte relevant
5/ 16
Oct-23-ZOO9 11 : Zb At'l 't'elesourus 5|OA4L¿¿¿6
aa) Grouud Zero Industries' Inc' (GZtr) was fon::ed for the purpose of
producing leather jackets. I controiled GZII during the releva't period.
"ommlmorative
bb) Gre€rrbriâr Construction Corp. (GCC) constructed ote residence' I
controlled GCC tlurilg tlte relevant period.
cc) En;iroworld Soluûons, L.L'C, (ES) was foÍmed to develop âfl oil âûd
warer separation unii. I conUoued ES during t.Ile relevartt period'
dd)MüiTEL,Inc.isanoperatolofmâritimefâdiocoñfflunicationssystens.I
wæ chairman of MùiTEL, Inc. durilg the relevant period'
ee) Worldæx, Iric. makes covered elastic yarn products a¡d na¡row elastic
fabrics. I wæ a director of Worldtex, Iûc' drrring the relevânt pedod'
ff)ExciteTechnologies,Inc.wasfolmedin200gtodevelopadvancedwâste
<lestrucdon tech¡ologies, I am a director of Excite Tecltuologies, Inc'
kk) Critical RF' I¡c' - i am chairman and CEO of Clitical RF' Inc'
ll)TheCommissior'bâsdetermi$edthatlhaveacontrolliuginterestinMC/LM
by virtûe of my marriage to Sandra M. DePriest'
Questionz:Statewhethelalloftheinterestsheldbyyouthatshouklhavebeen
rliscloseà in fte MC/LM Application, as âÍrended, FCC File No. 0002303355, were disclosed
'Identig
iri tlo ftlC¡f-ftf Applicatiou. any interests âüd effides that should have beerr disclosed
in the MC./LM apprcation as atributabte to Mr. DePriest, but wele mt so
disclosed. To the
uxteot th"t you huvì personal knowledge of the mâtter, intlicate the reason
why sucìr eûtity was
those that Ëntities that
not disclos;d in flre VC/Llt Appticatiðn. For each such entify,
except
and no otirer rule,
were requirea n be rlisclosed ori,y under 47 C.F.R. $i.2il2(bxlxíi)
calendar years 2002,2003, and 2004.
froviae its annual gross income fôr each of thc
ThefollowingelltitieðwerenotdisclosedbecausetheyhadnorevetrueEduringtlte
of MC/LM's right ro a
relevant teriorl a¿¿,-thus, could trot have affected the câIculation
bidding credit:
1) Penelore CorPoration
p) BD Parmers
q) CD Purners
Thefollowilgentitieswerenotdisclosedbecauset]æywererlotâffiliatedordidnot
exist at the riEe of úe filing of ùe applicaüon'
a) Critical R'F., Inc - MC/LM did not acquire coûfiol until 200Ó'
Excöptãsnoted,below,thefollowingentitieswerenotrliscloserlbecauseofoversiglrts
Their revenües were' as
or an inaccurate unilerstanding úrat they had had no revenues'
follows:
tUutÃt utît*fy available fo¡ use, or were de nrinimis and ove¡looked' past expenses)
2O0Z - 82,585,998 (received in compensatiou
for
2003 - $426'789 (overlooked)
2004 - No levenues
ð/ r6
Oct-23-¿009 11:2ô At'l lelesourus 5IOð4t¿¿¿6
ThefollowingrevenuesofwarpâtlrProperties'Inc.werenotlepoftedbecausel
controlled it for ôdy tire minor part of the releva¡t pe¡iod:
2002 _ 976,500
2003 & 2004 - I sold all of nry interest in the compary in 2003 and I
have no infonnation concernilg revenues for 2003 or 2004'
The following entity was not disclosed because I beliÊved that I did not
control it:
Mar.iTEL,inc..InitsoppositiontoPetitio¡forReconsiderationinFCCFile
No. 0002303355, dated september 18, 2006, MC/LM i¡formed the commission of the
following revenues for MariTEL, Inc.:
2002 - $715' s48
2oo3 - $t,022,423
2004 - $2,076,s07
MariTEL
In response to my inquiry of SePtembff 13, 2009, tho Plesiden! and CEO of
provideal me with the following MæiTEL revenues:
zMZ-$308,1n
2ffi3 -$172'849
2004 - st,26't ,99'1
I believe lhat other persons holding interests in MariTËL ltld options to âcquire
period, but I have not been able
between 800 t¡ousand and à milion sharu auring the relevant
interest itt
io verif tJrat undersanding. If consiclered as hâving been fully exercised, 'ry
MariTEL would be diluted thereby.
WhenWPVfileditsownershipReportiu2006,Idirectlyheldll,|SvoofMaIfIEL'
Answer 4: During the relevant period,I was a director ald non'executive ohâirma¡
(notanofficer)oftrlarir-Bltetw*.nz0o1âtld200s.Totliebestofrrryrecoliection'Iwas
between 198? and 1989'
iiesioent of úariTEL aûtt a diïector
Quesúon5:smEwhetheryoueverheldorexerciseddefac,ocotltl.olofMariTELby
contÌol arrd how it was
uoy..rì* during the relevant p.tioA. Ifso, clescribe the nature of that
obhined.
Answer 5: I did not exercise de fûdo co rol of MaliTEL during the relevant Peliod
ro/ 16
Oct-23-¿OO9 77tZ'/ Al4 lelesourus 5IOA4L¿¿¿6
Question6:IfyoubelievethataDotlterpefsonofentity(orotherpersonsorentitieÐ
atier rìe factocontol of MariTEL ot de iure control of MariTEL' or both'
during the
held,
na$re of
,-.f**t poioä, identify such person(s) or eutity(ies),_ and explai' ìn detail both the
for
tL to havå been àiercised by suctr third party(ics) and rhe fbundation
you'frelieve
your"*th
belief.
Answer6:ChiefExecutiveofficer,President'a¡rdboardmembctDanSmitlrrân]e
âssefl rny will on Dan
.ompanJ arra m"ae rhe operatrng and executive tlecisions. l-did not
but I was not actively
iiniåi,s ¿."isious. At ali releva"nt times, I was chairrnau of MafiTEL,
ieaving the presidency of
involved in MariTEL's governarce ot businæs activity' Since -
MariTELinlgSg,llravenotfeceivedaIIysalaryorlrerrefitsatrdllravellothadâlìyregular
preserce at the MariTEL ofÉces.
Fully diluted
Section i.2110(c)(2XüXA) of the CommissioÛ's RulÊs' 'arled
"
(cX2XiiXAXz) of this sectiott'
reouirement," provides tUat "except as set fofth in pffagraPh
sugh as.
;";ilñ.;d*ìs shau be catcutated on a fuly <]ituted basis; aII agreemenrs .
optiors anrl coûvertibte debentüres will generaliy be lI91F1.1:
if úe liglits
*rrt-.-ot*, *tort
Section
,lr"rroo¿å, have åbeady been tully exercised, " 47 C'F'R' $1'2110(cX2XiÐ(A)'
oue or more
iiïfot"iOXO provid"s that "every busiuess concern is considered toit.have coutrol llray be
o*i., iuo dirãôrrv or indirectty control of have rhe power ro conrrol as lhe power to
ãfñ;;.;".d,ive and it is immaþriâ1 whether it is exeÉised so long
1'2i10(c)(5)(A)
,o*tol .*lot," ¿Z C.¡.n' Ë1'21i0(cX5XA)' The example for Section the power to cont¡ol a
.*prri*, if, relevant part, trt"t "*inliátìon tiittt *hto the applicånt hâs or the coücern àt ùe
*rtIt the iame time, anotber person, or persoÑ' are in control
*iU àf ,n. p",V" or parries wirn tne powri to .ontroi. " Secüon
"lã** 1.21 10(c)(5)@) provides in
..iontrol c¿n arise througir . . . conracruâl^or orhef business relations, of
,.lru.ot prh m.t
.o*Ui*ton, of tlrese antl otirer factors,' 47 C'F'R' $t '2i tO(c)(sXB)'
is MariTEL's Third
Àtøchmert lI hercb, for wlúch confidentialiry is requested'
dated as of February 15, 2005. Please ret'er.to
AmendeJ and Restated stookholder .Agreement
Seäiions z.S6)A(c) at page 21 of Atticiunent
II' Explaiuing why MCT Invcßtors' L'P-" and
d;: ùt. pepriest' diá not control MariTEL, MC/LM sHæd tlut "American Tower' Inc'
contolsMadTBllpufsuâfl:roas¡aremneragreefûent.ThisagreementprovidesAmerican
equivalef s with the power [o elect a
Tower, Irrc' as holders ora ma¡ority 0f the coftflon stock
dre consent of dre
,i*pfr'* .i*ity of the boa¡d oi ¿itoto" of MæiTEL' Inc' ' subject torequires such an
äãä;r;iå", ii required'" Because 47 C'F'R' S1'2110(c)(2XiÐ(A) fully exerçised, American .
A¡swer7:IdonotknowandwilluotspecrilatehowMariTELarrivedattlreconclusiotr
factors
ttrat I contolled MariTEL. However, I believe that if MariTEL had takeir all televant
ioto u""o*,, M¿riTEL would not hâve reâched the colclusiou which it did'
role- in Maritime
Question Describe the nâh¡re âûd extent of your ownerslrip and
8:
Commr¡ications/Lantl Mobile, LLC, S/RIW Pâfinershþ ' L'P''
a¡d Communications
to enler into contrâct$ on behalf of any
Iouo..*t,, Irrc. State whether you wefe authofized
you possessed with lespect to
* .U oi t1".. t¡tae enumetated entities, and what dllties, if ary'
widr any
,"Vìt ¿i"f ,it" enumerâted entfties, âfld what dÛties, if any' you had in connection
or all of the enu[Ierâted eÚities.
Answe¡ B: I have never had an ownership interest in MC/LM' I have beeu autho¡ized
toeûterintocoûEactsonbehalfofMC/LM,Ihavesuggæteclequiplnentveûdors'and.have
accompaniedtheCEotoconventionsanclprofÞssionâlassociationmeetingsofpoteûtiâlusefs
of two-way radio service'
why
9: To tlrc extent that you have personal lcrowledge of the matter' expiain
Question
ân officeror
Mc/LlVl-and wpv rnade conflicting representatiols regarding whetÏer you were
you believe màde â false rePresent¿ltior
äir.rtoL or rr¿qr.ir¿, and with respãct io the entity that
io the-bestof your ktrowledge and- belief' why
-ri"n eitrrei tvtc/uu ot fupv, explain,
i""url, t"g*¿,
ü*iã" i"rtt representâtion. If vou believe that there is no co$lct uety1L$1..^
reprerentatioos,andtheneidrerMCILMûorW?Vwasi.naccuraleinitsrelrresentauotls
regardingwhetheryouwere-otfi.''ordtecþrofMC/LM,exÞiainùebâsisforillatbelief.
10
-' o¿L--z 3': z\N)v' I r : ¿ö At4: 'lë1èsö-u-rils J|Qö4I¿¿¿6
\VPV.,'DonDePriestisnotaldneverhasbeenanoflìceroradirecto¡ofMC,LM.Inlight
ofthefactthat,ifâccuÏâte,tbestatementwould¡¿ygþeenofnobeflefittoWPV,itwouldnot
false'
be reasonable ro conclude that the statelrent was intentionally
ùe MMDS service'-
In the 1990s, I led A¡reric¿¡' Telecasting, Inc' as we developerl
Sprint acquired that interest and the service is usttl
by Sptirtt customers todây for wireless data
on cellphones and PDAs.
1I
Telesourus t3/16
Oct-23-2009 11:28 AM 5LOA4LZ226
,lM-
ReÉìÞootfullY .\ubnr¡tted'
Donlltt R- DePriest
Oct-23-2009 11:28 AM Telesourus 510A4|2226
.'ffirrñ
L5/ 16
Oct-¿3-2OO9 1l :29 At'l 'lelesourus 510A47¿¿¿6
ATTACHMENT II
Oct-23-¿009 11:29 Al'1'lelesourus 510A4I¿¿¿6
:;
@)m**'
Seplember 28. 200q
000j47 Q527'
Re: FCr( File Nor' 0002303355, 000346'ìe98' 0001470441'
ôoo¡+zoszo. ooo:+ioie¡, ô0034705si' 0003470602' 0003470608' 00Û3470ól l
Dear Mr. 'lbbias:
Division' Wireless
This lesponcls to the letter sent by Scot Snne, DepLrty Chief'.Ìr4obility
lvlaliTEl' lnc' dated August lfì'
Telecot¡ntutications Bl.'r'.ou' to ¡ni o-n¿ Russell Fo*' "ounscl tt:
ioòs. yout. t.rt., firur rcqucsts [ôT in[ormâtiùrt Ptlrsuant to Scction 308(b) olthc
"ontained lhc rerrucsted i¡[6¡'nrriion (thu
Cor¡munications ¿\üt of lg]¡+. as anìend.'tl. ProvicleC br-'low is
*¡,ao, ur, irr it,r/,¿.î ([ÔùInotcs ilfc omitrod) ânrl thc answers f'ollüu thc requests)'
I. {)çr.r'i¿' thc cxle tttiJ ntthm o!-Ìv{"' Dcl r'- t ' o'r'nt shi¡t
)i' tiít'tgs ,itt .l'lû i'l'EL'!tt'¡ 'e
rirc '."!uì¡t'.it' Iruri'l i"L held hv ML D¿Pnt"
ìhu ,rloi'int ¡ori,ul. tteçÜ¡h¿ th, ¡erce)nge of
-e'g',
.rAii" ¡oi,it, 'çhich llt tquity rias held sto|i' prefoL ett sto':k' ¿lc De':críbc tht'
percantagettfrhevotingtt¡trlt'ntr'IuriTELìzeldb1'kh"bePti'tt'lntitheJorninvhicltlitur
'rlrì¡iy *ã, n"n. y nn:. nipr.test's ioklings in MariTEL flucruated thu.ing the reletuttt pÜiotl
providè a deldile expltrtttrlkuz.
Mr.DePfiestwas,andconlinuestobe,ashaLehol<letinMari.{.t:i,'lnc.atrd'thrnughMari.I.lÌ1..
period..specifred by thc FCC of
in.., oiii, i turioiurics (cottcctivcty, 'ii¡lailTEu) during the
had and continues to
;;;;*y i, tóitì; thc prcscnt. níring thc pcrioä in qtrestion' M¿rirEL it and continues to havç
have scveral scries ofstock. ln ad<litión n ðommon, voting
stock, had
voring inter ests (until such
;;;;i, ;Jü"iprefer¡ect stock that clid not generally conre¡,any of pt'eferred stock (in
;'t*; til;i".k *as conveúccl to cotnlnon itock) bther to'vt)tc fcrr
classes
members ofthe Board ol'
p-ïtf*l-ï, iàt"i O and U p,"tt"'a stock) penrrit'holderr
¿rnd on an ui-ion""ttud 6asis. The nr*r6er
ofshates ofcomrnun
ilì="mri pii",:ao
"o.versiàn (and on which voting lighrs
r*"f i"t"ï,i"f, Series B and fl preferred stock could bc convcrte^d
"No*, fo"*ontple' one sharc of.selies B or H prelen'ed fock
är"G"O has varìed ovet'tim"- were apprô."-imatêly 22
ìf it
louta Lu áonu".t"¿ (anrl can therel'ore voLe beforà ...onversit'n) ¿s
'fhe polcentage end charactel of Mr' DePriest'5 equity inteÌests lìuÚtuaßd during tlre relevani
effecr on Mr. Depriest's coltrol o[ Mari'l'E[. nor
;;;tå;;ìrdeil ihe fluctuarion lrad no material As MariTF)t'
ïhc compâny's obligation to rcport changes in the leveì ol-eqrrity ownership'
4635churchRd.Stlirel00Cul]nnhrg.CA30028.VoicerFrìx:888.989-jjj9.wlvw.m8l'ite.!!1.5-a'1çQ|-]]
2/7
Oct-23-2009 11:03 AM Telesourus 5L084I2?26
(@wu*ri'"r l
ñ;åäì-"g-úi.ì;;; t¡Ëìonsto, ot"oit'ol' thete were changes in MariTEL's owneßhiP' btrt none thnl
requiled leporting to the FCC.
3/ h i$ recently subrnirLed FCC Form 602, MariTÊL prtscnled infornation ¡eEalding all ofihe
ofclais' ås.directed bv the FCC's rules and forms'
irrur¿ uJ oui"ton¿iíg stock of MariTeL, regardless
H stock, .s cliscrtssed
cìîiärr-iä iig¡i"'.t*tioted with SeriËs B and
I-lowever, bcoau,e onthc voting and
ba$¡s' All
lt¿*iffL *fculated rhJs"rieti unO n ptãfttt"a ttotk ownctship on an æ'convertêd and
lâlt'j tha;; ¿pptoåtn Refercnce to Percenhges of all . ^ and
"-fr*", issueci
*åi.i."ìli irtit but trêâting the Series B
"rpo¡$s
oirtstanOi,rg stoct means the perceutaje ofall to**on and p'cfcrrcd stock'
"basis'
H prefêrred Stock on an as-convened References to perc€ntage ofvothlg stock means the
(@)*mT ri
by Mr' DcPriost on.ân
on dle one hand. the ¡:ercentage ofthe issued end outsta¡dhrg stock held
stock hcld by
ãnn,*l t æiu du.ing tire relevirrt period, and on the other, the percentage ofvoting
Mr. DePriest duririg the relevaniperiodÍ
2001
b;;rd
DePríesl -llEl¡it;
¡t¡ncricun I ?4.781% I 19.2419å
4635 Church Rd, Suite 100 Cumming, GA i0028 ' Voice/Fax: 888-989'3339 ' vrww'mariteluss'com
4/7
Oct-23-2009 11r04 AM Telesourus 5108412226
Ifi2006'
Other actions provide indicia of Mr. ÞePtiest's defcto control ol'the company'
Bank. Mr. DePriest was instrumentâl in
Irl*üfSL r*.,iru¿ o $i00.000 bridge loan fiom Pinnacle 't'hË
àrr;o,ì,rg rrr. co,npany in obrzrinin[ that bridge loa'. Tern.sheet pl epared in advance ofthc
in the event ofa loan
ioun ..ufi"n".¿ frir. óepLiest's wiiingness tõ provide a personal Su'råntee
*
àrioun Ño otut ,hareholder tool< thãse ki¡di of me¿usures designerl to prevcnt tho
company
?005 and September 2006 Mt'
irom becoming insolvent. Additionally. between Jåuuary
other
óuiii".iurqut=¿ nn addirional $1,23i,500 ofoonvertil¡le suborclinate notes liom
he
i"u..iorr. Àa ,m rame time Mr. Depriest reducecl ltis percentetge ofequiry ownership,
extend the rnaturity ofthe
incl.eâsed the levet ôlthe cÒurpäny's debt he lreld and iielped
company's obligalions to preventjeoPardizing the cornpary's solvency'
drat Mari'l'EL
Al no ti¡ne untilthe distribution of the MC:T sharcs rlid Mr. DePriÛst ever assert
of contrcl ot'
,¡oui¿ t*u. rut *itted an applicatiÓt to the FCC sqeking its conscnt tô the lransfer
MariTEL based tn a stock ownership' Orr separate occuions' Mr' DePriesl
"hangl'in control of
äifiowleageo t at the dis-nibution,bf the MCT shares.would cause a change irì ^
tô MCT investo* âddressinga number of
f,¡o¡i.¡gl. Ïn par.ticular, in a December 2005 lerler
business issues, Mr. DePriest statcd, "Äs cdnclusions and
reso¡utions Ùe reached on the above
would ooustiftrte
*ott"rr, ft¡Cf áoti.ipates a distribuiion of MâriTEL sh¿ires ' ' ' A disb'ibutiÓn
in an e-mail
* .f*"tr"l åf MariTEL for FCC licensing putposes ' ' ''' Simil¿ìrly'
once thë
"ftãtË" ;itL u ,,',e¡¡ber oftlre Board ofDirectorsin 2007, Mr. DePries[ stated that
the
fufëi áîrU.ifrution *us compl"te, túËiËwoukl bea tmnsfbr of contfol.5/ Atnotime
"n"i,on"g. before
distributioßoftlìeMCTstock<IkltVIl..DePficstassertthâtMâriTELshÔtrldseekFCCrrppr.oval
for a transfer ofcont¡ol.
retnained in ¿le
M¿riTEL's assessment was the same as Mr' DePriest's' Whilc Mr' DePriest
believed fhat
;;r"*;o;l .;;;ft;,
htu p""entâsó of voting eqllitv wæ under 50%' MariTEL
4635 Clrurch Rd, Suitc 100 Cumming, GA 30028 ' Voice/Fâx: 888-989'iii9 ' \^/ww lìlaritelusa'coln
5/7
Oct-23-2009 11:04 AM Telesourus 510A412226
;i::
K@**rr ó/
After that tinre' Mr'
his ribláctd cotìtrol lvould end onthe distributiou ofthe MC'l'shares-
conrpu¡'ed to Anrerical
DcPriest wotrld hold only 24'716% oftlte votinqshares of MatiT['L'. ,,.
tg.o*v]'
M,. DeP¡ìest wquld *o longer have.the a6ilitv
l;";;-c.ü;i"'r whi"h wou6 ttoi¿
his level ofvoting
t" Uf"* -.ii",i p,"posed by other.members ofthe Board of Directors through to
eouitirr. Thoså falt,u's rrromt>t"d MariTEL io subnrit an application to seek FCC appro'val
trar'rsf., de/acto from Mr. DePriest to sharehÓlders of MariTEL' nrore broadly'"
"outrol
held in Mâ TEl-
The logic olMariTËl.'s decisio ìs validated fulther try the perceltage interests
Del)riest's ownership of ì:oth issued
ü;;1,;;;ù,.tif*,rt shareholders during the per.iod thar Mr. of.both issued
*íi"i,trtrñ¿ì,ig r"d voting stock deoreäsed.' Þu'irig that period, the percentage
tlre same
;ä ffi;;åi;ü;à voti'f stock for MariTËl,'s othct shareholders renrained nearlv
ö;äììi";.,"1 ,ñreholdã.s,u.,. "r*tJJUyati. àirtriUution of the MCT shares).l/ The'efore.
io oth.r shareholders gained any control as Ìesult ofthe reduction in Mr. DePriest's percentâgc
iniicia of d¿lacro control Mr..Depliest exhibited, neirhê¡ M¿¡iTEL
ip i|] r¡ghtîrtl.,"
"i.*rìrrt
;;^ü.iäJ;;f,otders viewe<l the graáualreduction in lvlr. DePrìest's ownership
interest as
4. Iftotr believe th( lvlr' D(Prie clitl Ôonu'ol Mar¡TEL' c:spluin' to the best ofyour
lvtÇ/LM cot d att"itte cu tltc ¿t¡nclution that M' DePriest
dirl
in*¿uitgu'àri AiutnJ wlry ancl hor,r,
nonu of *i;"[
mta grãatc. rhan t0% of;¡rhff Ma;iTEL's issucd fltìd orßrflrìding stock or its votitlg
stock.
463i Church Rd, Suite 100 Ctlnming. OA 30028' Voice/Fnx: 888-989-3339 ' www'lnaliteluseconl
Telesourus 6/7
Oct-23-2009 11:05 AM 510A412226
(@lyt-ni 'r:ì
no kuowledge or
MariTEL believes that Mr- DePriest controlled Mari'lHl, until July 2008. lt ha.s
I rrust tlïat the lolegoing is responsive tÔ Mr' Stonê's requests lor information' We are aware
-w.rirrnt
thar sìnrilar letters tó Mr. DePrieSt and MC/[.M. Pleæe let usknowthe procedule by
*ni"n *e *uy oaaress matters. ifany, in their responses to you that \ e believe may require
clarifioation.
I declare undel penatty of perjury under the lews ofthe united stflies of Amsricfl that tho
foregoing is true and correct. Ëxecuted on September zß' 2009.
g^*"1
JagflSurith
Donald R. DePriesL
206 North Srli Srcel
Columbus, MS 39701
Wa¡ren Flave¡rs
2649 Benvenue Ave. - Suites 2-6
Berlceley, CA 94704
46i5 Church Rd, Suite 100 Curnrnil1g, GA 30028 ' Voice/Fax: 888-989-l.lJq ' www'maritelusa'colì
Oct-23-2009 11:05 AM Telesourus 5|08412Z?'6
vv
Ft
ßt
Ht
J
,t
t'*
J?-
'Þ c\-
4
ôr
ç, 1Ç
q
\J ¿l
A3 9ï r
e!,
5(\å sJ
ç"-$
ÈJ .-+
^^ j t
L-
t- 6-,'¿
..y, 5 w
>ç\3 tn ccl
.'3
F
Sö
C\)
ç5
(\
--7J r\^
È¿
€*t
P\Ð
jop'
çl I .=.
lJ,tJ<
,.l,-f 5
q-,,
ã'..Ô
EXHIBIT 5
FEDERÁL COMMUNICÄTIONS COMMISSION
Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division
445 S.W., Suite 4-C330
12th Street,
Washington, D.C. 20554
February 26,2010
Donald R. DePriest
Wireless Properties of Virginia' lnc.
1555 King Street - Suite 500
Alexandria, V A22314
is
The Enforcetnent Bureau of the Federal Communications Cornmission
investigatirigcompliancebyMaritimeCommunicaliorrs/LalldMobile,LLC(..Marítinre',)
wiur sãctioà 1.2110,I.21t2,1,17 and 1.65 0f rhe commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. $S
in FCC
L21IO, l.2l\2,1. 17 and 1.65, relating to ownership disclosure lequilements
to ths
auctions and appticarions, and providing truthful and accurate information
Commissjon. Specifically, the Commission is investigating whether Matitime
may have
participate in
failed to disclosã aü required ownership information in its application to
FCC Auction No. 6l and in subsequent filings with the Commission
I Wireless Tclecornmunications
Letter from Jct^fr.cy Tobias, Esq , Attorncy-Aclvisor, Mobility Division'
Donald i. Deprìest and Wirelcss Prope*ics of Virginia, Inc. dated August 18, 2009'
Bureau, tr¡
? l-ctter to Jefl'ìey Tobias, Esq., Atto¡ney Advisor' Mobility Division' Wi¡eless Telecornmunications
Bulea,-r, frourDcnnisC Brown' Esq.' counscl I'o¡ Wircless
Properties of'Vilginia'lnc dated SePtembcr30'
2009.
Donaid R. DePriest
February 26, 2010
Page 2 of 8
days
to provide the information and documents specified herein, within 30 calendar
to this letter and the
from the date of tllis letter. The InstructionJ for responding
hereto'
Definitions for certain terms used in this letter are contained in the attachment
Unless otherwise indicated, the period of time covered by these
inquiries January 1'
is
2002 to the present.
2. In the Donald DePriest LOI Response (at pages 4-7), you provided a list of
entities that you indicated Maritime did not disclose to the Commission'
3. In the Donald DePriest LOI Response (at page 11), you indicated that you
haveservedasChairmanofMCTCorp.Providethefollowinginformation:
5. Explain fully why Maritime did not disclose MCT Corp' in its application to
participate in.Luction No. 61 (FCC Form 175) and in subsequent filings with
the Commission, including Maritime's LOI Response'
7. In the Ma¡itime LOI Response (at page 7), Maritime indicated that' at Sandra
DePriest's ."qu".t, yoo gìrtanteed notes owed by Maritime' Explain fully
by
what authority (whéther verbal or written) you guarânteed notes on behalf of
Ma¡itime. Provide a narrative description as well as acopy of each note
glaranteed by you on behalf of Maritime'
8. In the Donald DePriest LOI Response (at page 10), you indicated that' among
other things, you were authorized to enter into conhacts on behalf of
Maritime. Provide the following information:
(a)Alldocumentsgrantingyouauthoritytoenterintocontractsonbehalf
of Ma¡itine.
To knowingly and willfully make any false statement or conceal any material fact
j Failure to respond
in reply to this inqiiiy is punishable by fine or imprisonment
upp.àj.iut"ty to tttis iettei ofinquiry may constitute a violation of the Communications
Act and our rules.
Wireless Properties of Virginia, Inc., shall also serve its response and supporting
Documentation upon vr'rt Havens (at the address listed below). Wireless Properties
"r,
of virginia, Inc. and warren Havens are reminded that this is a restricted proceeding
under the Commission's ex parte ruLes, so that neither pafiy may make a presentation
(i.e., a communication direcied to the merits or outcome of a proceeding) to decision-
àaking personnel which, if written, is not served on the other party or, if oral' is made
present'
withou-t ãdvance notice to the other party and without opportunity for them to be
Direct any questions regarding this investigation to Brian J. Carter, Esq' at 202-
4t8-t334.
Spe6ral Counsel
Investigations and Hearings Division
Enforcement Bureau
r r.l7
S¿¿ 18 U.S.C. $ l00l; se¿ also 47 C.F R s
4
See47 C.F.R. $$ 1.1200 - 1216.
Donald R. DePriest
Febmary 26, 2010
Page 5 of 8
Sandra M. DePriest
Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC
206 North 8ù Street
Columbus, MS 39701
Donald R. DePriest
206 North 8th Street
Colur¡bus, MS 39701
Warren Havens
2649 Benvenue Ave.- Suites 2-6
Berkeley, C^ 94704
Donald R. DePriest
February 26, 2010
Page 6 of 8
ATTACHMENT
Instructions
Continuing Nature of Inquiries. The specific inquiries made herein are continuing
in nature. You are required to produce in the future any and all documents and
information that are responsive to the inquides made herein but not initially produced at
the time, date and place specified herein, In this regard, you must supplement your
responses (a) ifyou learn that, in some material respect, the documents and information
ìnitially disclosed were incomplete or incorrect or (b) if additional responsive documents
or information are acquired by or become known to you after the initial productìon. The
requirement to update the record will continue for twelve (12) months from the date of
this lette¡ unless (a) you are directed or informed by the Enforcement Bureau in writing
that your obligation to update the record will continue for some shorter or longer period
of time or (b) the Enforcement Bureau or the Commission releases an item on the subject
of this investigation, including, but not limited to, a Notice of Apparent Liabìlity for
Forfeiture or an order disposing of the issues in the investigation, in which case the
obligation to update the record will continue until the release of such item.
Definitions
"Any" shall be construed to include the word "all," and the word "all" shall be
construed to include the word "any." Additiona.lly, the word "or" shall be construed to
include the word "and," and the word "and" shall be construed to include the word "or."
The word "each" shall be construed to include the word "every," and the word "every"
shall be construed to include the word "each."
"Document" shall mean the complete original (or in lieu thereof, exact copies of
the original) and any non-identical copy (whether different from the orìginal because of
notations on the copy or otherwise), regardless of origin or ìocation, of any taped,
recorded, transcdbed, written, typed, printed, filmed, punched, computer-stored, or
graphic matter of every type and descripcion, however and by whomever prepaled,
produced, disseminated, or- made.
Donald R. DePriest
February 26, 2010
Page 8 of 8
"Identify,' when used with reference to a person or persons, shall mean to state
his/her full legal name, job title (if any), current business address, and business phone
number. Ifbusiness adà¡ess and/or telephone number are not available, state the person's
home address and/or telephone number.
"Identify," when used with reference to a document, shali mean to state the date'
author, addressåe, type of document (¿.8., the types of document, as described above), a
brief description of the subject matter, its present or last known location, and its
custodian.
"Identify," when used with reference to an entity other than a person, shall mean
to state its ram;, cunent or last known business áddress, and current or last known
business telephone number.
"Donald DePriest LOI Response" shall mean the letter to Jeffrey Tobias' Esq '
Attorney-Advisor,
-c. Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, from
Dennis Brown, Esq., counsel for wireless Properties of virginia, Inc. dated september
3O,2OO}, responding io the lette¡ from Jeffrey Tobias, Esq', Attorney-Advisor, Mobility
Division, wireless Telecommunications Bureau, to Donald R. DePriest and wireless
Properties of Virginia, lnc. dated August 18' 2009, relating to the Commission's
invåstigation of Maritime's non-disclosure of ownership information in its application to
pa¡tici;ate in FCC Auction No. 61 and in subsequent f,lings with rhe commission.
"Ma¡itime LOI Response" shall mean the letter to Jeffrey Tobias, Esq', Attorney-
Advisor, Mobility Division, Wileless Telecommunications Bureau, from Dennis C'
Brown, Esq., counsel fo¡ Maritime Communicatlons/Land Mobile, LLC, dated
Septemberl0, 2009, r'esponding to the letter from Jeffrey Tobias, Esq', Attorney-
Adìisor, Mobility Division, Wiretess Telecommunications Bureau, to Dennis C' Brown'
Esq., counsel forÎaritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC, dated August 18' 2009'
relåting to the Commission's investigation of Maritime's non-disclosure of ownership
informãtion in its application to participate in FCC Auction No' 61 and in subsequenr
filings with the Commission.
FEDDRAL COMMUNICÄTIONS COMMISSION
gnto.""*"nt g*eau, Investigations and Hearings Division
445 llh Street, S'W', Suite 4-C330
Washington, D C 20554
Jason Smitb
MariTEL, Inc
4635 Church Road, Suite 100
Cumming, GA 30028-4084
Mobile'
AnDlications of Maritime Cornmunications/Land
liö i;, Ã;,"*"ted Maritime Telecommunications system
ñ;; and to Participate in FCC Auction
No 6I
File No.: EB'O9-IH-1751
l.Identifyatlofficers,directors,shareholders,partners'andbeneficialownersof
MariTEL since January 1, 2002 and provide the dates upon which such
individuals secured their respective positions with MariTEL'
but not
2. Provide a copy of all corporate documents of Ma¡iTEL' inciuding
the
Iimìted to, aly articles, bylaws, and minutes of a1l meetings held during
.calendar Years 2OO2lo 2006.
a December
3. In the MariTEL LOI Response (at page 4), MariTEL referenced
2005 letter written Uy DoìalO DePiiest to MCT lnvestors' L'P''
in which
of MariTEL sha¡es would
Donald DePriest indicated that a distribution
licensìng purposes'
constitute a change of control of Ma¡iTEL for FCC
Provide a coPY of this letter.
gross reve¡ues
4. Provide relevant documentation to demonstate the agglegate
2004' including but not
of Ma¡iTEL during the calendar y ears 2002,2003' and
limitedto,tvtarifEl'sFederaltaxreturnsforthecalendaryeats2002'2003'
and2004.
under
We direct you to support your responses with an affidavit or declaraúon
penalty of perjury, signed ä¿ ¿i"¿ by you acknowledging that
you have personal
in verifying the truth and
icnowt"age äf thó repiesentations proviáeá your
-response'
uc"u.a"/ of the infoìmation therein and that all of the I)ocuments and information
or knowledge have
."qu"r,ä ty this letter which are in your possession, custody' control
in addition to your general
beån produáed. If multiple parties côntribute to the response,
affrdávit or declaration noted above, provide separate affidavits or declarations of each
suchindividualthatidentifyclearlytowhichresponsestheaffiantordeclarantis
utte.ting. Al1 such declarations piovided should comply with section 1'16 of the
forrh therein.
com¡niision's rules, 47 C.F.R. $ 1.16, and be subsranrially in rhe form set
Jason Smith
MariTEL, Inc.
February 26, 2010
Page 3 o17
fact
To knowingly and willfullymake any faise statement or conceal any material
Failure to respond
io r"prvìã inl, inqíiry i, punirnuút" uy hnetr imprisonment'3
;;rõ.t"d;L ,Ëis íettei ot inçlry áuy constitt'te u violation of the Communications
Act and our rules'
Document¿tion l]pon
Ma¡itime shall also serve its response and supporting
wut¡en Havens are reminded
warren Havens (ut tt u¿or"r, ü,;Jb"bt) Maritime anì
" ex parte tules' so that neither
that this is a restricted proce"Ai"ä"ti"t t¡" C"mmission's
communication directed to the merits or
outcome
äñaj Àut" u p."."otution (i'e, a p"i'on*f which' if v/ritten' is not served on the
of a proceeding) to decision-màtinf party and without
ä;;õ;;:î o.ut, l, ,nu¿"-Jtño'ut udu*"" notice to the other
opportunity for them to be present'
or hand delivery' to
You should dìrect your response, if sent by messenger
445 12rh Street'
Marlene
'S
H. Dortch, Secretary, r"ã'"iui io*rnunióations Cómmission'
Brian J' C¿¡te¡'
*, n"ã* fW 4325, Washington, D'C' 20554' to the attention of4-c330' with a copy
*d Hearings nivisioá, Enforcement Bureau' Room
i;;;*g;; Division' Enforcement
;; õ;y"i;h;".-, Speciãl Counsel, Investigations and HearingsIf sent by commercial
Bureau, Room 4-csso, ne¿Jéo;municaãio"s
Commission'
Express MaiI and Priority Mail)' the
ã""*fgf,ì.Af t"ther than U.S. Postal Service 9300 East
."rpå"i" ttt"tlÀ te sent to the Federal Communications Comnrission'
sent by flrst-class' Express' or
ä#ñ ñ.t"", Capitol Heights, M aryland 207 43 J''-Ifca¡ter' lnvestigations and Hearings
itî"riy.ãr, th" ."rpon." ,ñoolå u" '"nt to B¡an Commission' 445 12th SÍeet'
Division, Enforcement Bur""t, Þ"ááta óot"t"nications
to Gary Schonman' Special
S.w., Room 4_C3SO, W*hrngion,'c. 20554, with a copy
Federal
ó"""*f f"""ttigations and Iiea¡ings ?ivision, EnforcementBureau'
Communications Com isslon, +¿S"t2tn St¡e"t,
S'W'' Room 4-C330'.W^hingtl ?^C
a copy of the response vra
ãOJsi. vou should also, to the extent practicable, transmit
gov'
,o gri^n.C*"t@fcc.gov and Gary'schonman @fcc
"Àuit
J' Carter' Esq at 202-
Direct any questions regarding this investigation to Brian
418-1334'
s inçÃv' 72
// /,/ ,
/ø--/.-,Y-
,/
GarY6chonman
SPecial Counsel
Investigations and Hearings Division
Enfo¡cement Bureau
3
S¿e 18 U.S.C. $ 1001; .te¿ also 47 C F R $ r.l7
4
See 4? C.F.R. $$ 1.1200 - i 216.
Iason Smith
MariTEL, Inc.
February 26, 2010
Page 4 of?
Donald R. DePriest
20ó North 8th St¡eet
Columbus, MS 39701
Warren Havens
2649 Benvenue Ave - Suites 2-6
BerkeleY, CA 94704
Jason Smith
Ma¡iTEL, Inc.
FebruarY 26, 2010
Page 5 of 7
ATTACTIMENT
Instructions
you requesi that any information or
for Confidentidl Treafinent' lf
Request
a conitdential manner' it shall submit'
documents responsive to this r"tt"t t" tt""t"¿ iti with
iio;|iiü Ji;"tponsive information and documents' a statement in accordance
g 0.459' Requests for confide¡tif
Secdon 0.459 of the Commissioîs *1".. +z C.F.R. of
treatment must comply witt tn"T"qult"*"nts
of Section 0'459' including the standârds
"blanket" requests for
öiltü;;;i"å úy s"ctio-n 0.¿s9þ) Accordinglv'
of u I.g" ,"t or àÀtutànit, und iequests' including simply
confidentiality "u'ual the
i"onlrãentia1," unu"t"p'ubl" Pursuant to Section 0'459(c)'
;;;o;; n*á, -" with the requirements of Section
Bureau will not consider requ"* ,¡u. ¿o no.
"omply
o.459.
or statement submitted in
Identification of Documents For each document
indicate' by number' to which inquiry it
response to the inquties *u,"Jin iit" "ou"r letter'
the- document was retrieved' If
is responsive and i¿"tt fV tit" p"t'átttl fro* 1¡9si.fiIes
If any document does
i.*-"", l. not dadd, ,tui" tt'" àÁ" on *hich it wastheprepared'name(s) of the author(s) or
"'ry
not identify its author(s) or recipient$)' state'
if known'
speciflrcity a11 documents provided in
ä;ì;(ti Y;t -uii¿"ntiivîitrt'reasonable
response to these inquiries'
whomever prepared'
graphic matter of every type and description, however and by
produced, disseminated, or made'
to state
"Identify," when used with reference to a person or persons' shall mean
address' and business phone
trisltrer fuit tegat name, job title (if any)' cunent business
available, state the person's
number. If business address anùo, á"pnon" oo-ter a¡e not
home address and/or telephone number'
to state the date'
"Identify," when used with reference to a document' shall mean
described above)' a
u,rtho., uid."rrå", type of document (¿'8 , the types of document'
as
and its
trl"ia"r"ription of'tire subject matter, iL preserlt or last known location'
custodian.
person' shall mean
"Identify," when used with reference to an entity ottler than a
known
to state its namá, currentor last known business address' and current or last
business telePhone number.
E-sq Attorney-
"Ma¡iTEL LOI Response" shali mean the letter to Jefftey Tobias' '
Bureau' from MariTEL' Inc'
Advisor, Mobilìty Division, Wireless Telecommunications
and Russell Fox, e.q., r"i io, MariTEL, lnc', dated Septemb er 28' 2009 ' responding
"out Division' Wireless
io tt t"n", frorn Jefüey Tobias, Esq', Attomey-Advisor' Mobility
" Russell Fox' Esq'' counsel for -
Telecommunications Bureau, to M;iTEL, Inc' and
investigation of
Ma¡iTEL, lnc., dated August 18,2009, relating to the Commission's participate in
rrl*l i-";, non-disclosuà of ã*n".tttip inro*ation in its application to
pCð eu"tioo No. 61 and in subsequent filings with the Commission'
LLC and any
"Maritime" shall mean Ma¡itime Communications/Land Mobile'
owned subsidiary'
pr"d"""rroi-in-interest, affiliate, palent company' wholly or partially
but not limited to'
ã,ft"t.fftli""¿ company o. busin"st' and all owners' including or agents'
plit"t. ã. pti""ipalì, and all members, directors, officers' employees'
behalf of the foregoing at
including cånsultãnts and any other persons working for or on
any time during the period covered by this letter'
Sandra M. DePriest
M¿uitinre Communications/l¿nd Mobile, LLC
206 Nofih 8th Street
Columbus, MS 39701
is
The Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission
LLC ("Maritime")
investigating compliance by Maritime Communications/Land Mobile'
Commission's Rules' 47 C F'R' $$
*it¡ sä,ioi', l.Lilo, 1.2112,1.17 and 1.65 of rhe
in FCC
1 .2ll}, I.2112,1.17 and 1 .65, relatirrg to ownership
disclosure requirements
jntblmation to the
auciions and applicaûons, and providing tluthful and accurate
may have
óo--irrion. Specificatly, the Commission is investigating whetl.rer Malitime ìn
failed to disclosà required ownership inforntation in its application to participate
a
FCC Auction No. 61 anì in subsequent filings witll the Cornmission'
WiÌelcss Teleconlmunications
I
Lerter lrom JefÍr'ey Toblas, Esq , Attorllcy Advisor, Mobiliry DivÌsion'
d Mobilc' LLC' daþd
Bur"au, ¡o Dennjs ó Brown, Esq , counsoí ftir Maritinrc Communications/La
August 18, 2009.
2 Letter to Jclhey Tobias, Esq-. Attorney-Advisor, Mobilìty Division' Wirelcss Telecot¡ì-rìÙnicaLioDs
Mobilc' I-LC' datcd
Bureau. 1'rom Dennis C. Brown, Esq , counscl for Maritine Com¡nunications/Land
Septcmber 30, 2009
Sandra M. DePriest
February 26, 2010
Page 2 of 9
a03 of the
We direct Ma¡itime, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4O' 3Q8(b) and - -^-
154(i)' 308G)' and 403'
Communications Act of 1934, as amended,4T U'S'C' $$ 154(Ð'
days
aJÃuiaà ,rt" inrormation and documents specified herein, within 30 calendar
to this letter and the
from the date of this letter. The Instructions for responding
the attachment hereto'
Definitions for ce¡tain terms used in this letter are contained in
these inquiries is January 1'
Unless otherwise indicated, the period of time covered by
2002 to the Presenl
5. In the Ma¡itime LOI Response (at page 2), Maritime indicated tìat John
-R"a,donservesasitsChiefExecutiveofficer.ourrecordsindicatethat
in
Maritime did not disclose John Rea¡don in its application to participate
Auction No. 61 (FCC Form 175) or in subsequent filings with the
as its
Commission. Explain fully why Maritime did not identify John Reardon
Chief Executive òffrcer in its application to participate in Auction
No' 61
(FCC form 175) and in subsequint filings with the Corrunission' including but
Àot ümited to, Maritime's application for Automated Maritime
Telecommunications System licenses (FCC Form 601)'
8. ln the Donald DePriest LOI Response (at page 10), he indicated that' among
other things, he was authorized to enter into contracts on behalf of Maritime'
Provide the following information:
9. In the Maritime LOI Response (at page 7), Maritime indicated that' among
other things, Donald DePiest was autlorized to serve as Sandra DePriest's
(whether
agent and; assist her as necessal y. Explain fully by-wh-at authority
vãrbal or written) Donald DePriest acted as an agent for Maritime and/or
Sand¡a DePriest. Provide all documents authorizing Donald DeP¡iest's
appoinünent as an agent for Maritime and/or Sandra DePdest'
10. ln the Maritime LOI Response (at page 7), Maritime indicated that' at Sandra
DePriest's request, Donaid DePdest guaranteed notes owed by Maritime'
Explain fulyty what authority (whether verbal or written) Donald DePriest
guäant""d notå. on behalf of Maritime. Provide a narrative description as
ivell as a copy of each note guæanteed by Donald DePriest on behalf of
Maritime.
11. In the Maritime LOI Response (at pages 3-6), Maritime provided a list of
entities that it did not disclose in its application to participate in Auction No'
61 (FCC Form 175) and in subsequent filings with the Commission'
2002,2003, and 2004, inctuding but not limited to, each entity's
Federal tax returns for the calendar years 2002,2003, ald 2004'
13. Our records indicate that Donald DePriest sewed as chai¡man of MCT Corp.
ourrecordsfurtherindicatethatMaritimedidnotdiscloseMCTCorp.inits
application to participate in Auction No. 6l (FCC Form 175) and in
subsequent filing. tith the Co*mission, including Maritime's LOI Response'
explaii fully why Maritime did not disclose MCT Corp' in its application to-
participate in Auction No. 61 (FCC Form 175) and in subsequent fiiings with
the Commission, including Maritime's LOI Response'
15. To the extent not otherwise provided in response to the preceding Inquiries,
plovide any additional information that you believe may be helpful to our
consideration and resolution of this matter.
Wedirectyoutosupportyourresponseswithanaflrdavitordeclarationunder
penalty of perjury, signed an¿ dut"¿ by you acknowledging that you have personal
iroo*têOg" àf iné t"p."r"ntrtions provided in your response, verifying the truth and
accura"y- of the information therein and that aII of the Documents and information
requestãd by this letter which are in your possession, custody, control or knowledge have
beån produóed. If multiple parties contribute to the respoûse, in addition to your general
affidavit or declaration noted above, provide separate affrdavits or declarations of each
such individual that identify clearty to which responses the affrant or decla¡ant is
attesting. All such decla¡arions provided should comply with section i.16 of the
Commiision,s rules,47 C.F.R. g 1.16, and be substantially in the form set forth therein.
To knowingly and willfully make any false statement or conceal any material fact
in reply to th-is inquiry is punishable by fine or imprisonment.' Failure to respond
appròpriately to this letter of inquiry may constitute a violation of the Communications
Act and our rules.
Ma¡itime shall also serve its response and supporting Documentation upon
Warren Havens (at the address listed below). Maritime and Warren Havens ar.e rerninded
that this is a res;icted proceeding under thé Commission's ex parte rules,a so that nej.ther
r l00l l?
,t¿e 18 U.S,C. $ ; s¿¿ ¿lso 47 C.F.R. $ l -
a
See 4'1 C.F.R. $$ 1.1200 - t216.
Sandra M. DePriest
February 26, 2010
Page 5 of 9
Special Counsel
Investigations and Hearings Division
Enforcement Bureau
Donald R. DePriest
206 North 8th Street
Columbus, MS 39701
Sandra M. DePriest
February 26, 2010
Page 6 of 9
Wanen Havens
2649 Benvenue Ave.- Suites 2-6
BerkeleY, CA 94704
Sandra M. DePriest
February 26, 20i0
Page7 of9
ATTACHMENT
Instructions
0.459.
oÌ documents under claim
Claims of Privilege. If you withhold any information
privilege' a schedule of the
of priviùge, you snAt suúmiq together with any-claim of
inquiry to
iæir, ritñn"í¿ *rat states, indiviãually as to eaôh such irem: the numbered
date of the item;
wlicn eactr item responds and the typå, titte, specific subject matter and
and recipients of the
the names, addresses, positions, anáirganizations of all authors
privileged'
ireI"-' ãna iftt .p"cific ground(s) for claiming that the item is
as defined herein'
Method oJ Producing Documents' Each requested document'
that document is responsive to
shail be submitted in its entirety, even if only a poriion of
be edited' cut' or
an inquiry marle herein. This means that the document shall not
.ftall include all appendices' tables, or other attachments' and all other
".p"ig"ã, ""¿
docum-ents referred to in the document or attachments' All
written materials necessa-ry to
also be submitted'
understand any document responsive to these inquiries must
in
Identffication of Documents. For each document or statement submitted
number' to which inquiry it
response to ttre inquiriås stated in the cover letter, indicate' by
document was retrieved lf
i. .ãtpÀt.i"" -a identify the person(s) from whose files the
àny ao"o-"nt i, not datåd, søìe the àate on which it was prepared
lf any document does
of the author(s) or
noí identify its author(s) or recipient(s), state, if known, the nameþ)
r*ipi".tlri iou -ortia"ntify with reasonable specifrcity all documents provided in
response to these inquiries.
responsive to
Retention of Original Documenrs' With respect only to documents
to those inquiries'
the specific inqui.i"s -ãde h".ein und any other documents^ relevant
for twelve (12) months from
you åre air""tå to retain the originals of-thosedocuments
Enforcement Bureau
th" dut" of thi, 1"tter unless (a) yiu are directed or informed by
the
time.or (b) the
in writing to retain such documånts for some shorter or longer period of
Enforcerient Bureau or the Commission releases an item on the subject
of this -.
itcluding, but not limited to, a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
investigation,
you must retain all
ã. * oî¿", dirpo.ing õf the issues in the investigation, in which case'
payment of any monetary
such documenis until the matter has been finally concluded by
conclusion of
p"nutty, .utirfu"tion of all conditions, expiration ofall possible appeals'
action brought by the Uniied States Depafment of Justice or execution and
ã"V
"å'fi*,f"" of a find ãettlement with the Commission or the
iÃpt"-"tttution Enforcement Bureau'
Def,initions
"Any"shallbeconstruedtoincludetheword"all,"andtheword"all"shailbe
construed to include the word "any." Additionally, the word "or" shall be construed to
the word "and," and the word "and" shall be construed to include the word
"or'"
include
Theword..each''shallbeconst¡uedtoincludetheword..every,,'andtheword.,every''
shall be constmed to include the word "each."
"Document"shallmeanthecompleteoriginaì(orinlieuthereof'exactcopiesof
because of
the original) and any non-identical copy (whether different from the original
notatio;s on the copy or otherwise), rãgardless of origin or location' of
any taped'
punched, computer-stored' or
¡ecorded, transcribåá, written, typed, printed' filmed,
prepared'
grâphic matter of every type anà description, however and by whomever
produced, disseminated, or made'
Sandra M. DePriest
February 26, 2010
Page 9 of 9
..DonaldDePriestLoIResponse''shallmeanthelettgrtoJefffeyTobias,Esq.'
Bureau' from
Attorney-Advisor, Mobility Divisiãn, Wireless Telecomm¡nications
of Vhginia' Inc'' dated
Dennis C. Brown, Esq', counsel for Wireless Properties
from Jeffrey Tobias' Esq'' Attorney-
l"fi"ãU".eO, 20b9, räponding to the letter to Dennis C' Brown'
Ái"i*t, tr'tobitity nivtion, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau'
grq., of Virginia, Inc" dated August 18' 2009' relating to
-on."f fo.-Vy'ireless Properties information
tt investigation of MaritimJ s non-disclosure of ownership
"torn-is.ion's 6l in subsequent filings with the
in it. uppti"ution to particþate in FCC Auction No' and
Commission.
mean to state
"Identify," when used with reference to a person or persons' shall
address' and business phone
his/her full legal name, job title (if any), cunent business
not available' state the person's
number. If business address uoùo, t"l"phon" number are
home address and./or telephone number'
the date'
"Identify," when used with reference to a document' shall mean to state
described above)' a
author, addressáe, type of document (e'8 , the types of
document' as
location' and its
uri"f ã"t*iption åf-tire subject mauei, iis present or last known
custodian.
shali mean
"Identify," when used with reference to an entity other than a person'
and current or last known
to state its nam;, culÏett or last known business address'
business telePhone number.
Esq'' Attorney-
"Ma¡itime LOI Response" shall mean the letter to Jeffrey Tobias'
fiom Dennis C'
Advisor, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau'
nÀ*n, btq., counsel for Maritime Communications/Land Mobile' LLC'Attorney- dated
Tobias' Esq''
õ"pt".u"t ä'0, 2009, responding to the letter from Jeffrey C' Brown'
ÿïi.*, trtoultity oivision, Wäeless Telecommunications Bu¡eau' to Dennis i8' 2009'
Èîq., -""t"f f".'Maritime Communications/Land Mobile' LLC'
dated August
of Ma¡ltime'¡ non-disciosure of ownership
r"täting to tt Commission's investigation
"in its application to participate in FCC Auction No 61 and in subsequent
informiion
filings with the Commission.
Tlrethirdparagraplratpage5ofMCLM'sResponseiueludesstrategicaltysensitive
release to the public' The Exhibits merit
commercial clata MCI-Vf *nicniòuf¿ not customarily
¡.***tft-VäJt"" sensitive matters' hcludírg specific
confidential treatrnent 't'*tgi*ity
woutd not customarily release thìs rype of
commercial and financial informaíion. MCLM
-""-lË"" *f*taAon to the public âÍd believes that exposure of the specifìc businessin
release could result
;t*g;ilts ; its fi¡anciai inió*ution is unwarrante<l' such
a disadvantaoe vis-a-vis other
r-Uîr":"6¿ competitive harm by placing MCJ M- ar
a-ud againsr th-e private mobile radio service
teleconrmutricatioo, ***i." práuiaürîpecifically
tttt typt of commercial and financial
indusny in general. In short, ,ftt Bittiuio "oottio not
guarded.from competitors"r and lherefore should
information "which would curiot*ify be
ressonably segfegable informatiou
be made routineiy available foffiJ,ioo.- fftut. is no-
which could be released witlout competitive halm
to MULM'
Fof âll the foregoing reasons, MCLM requests that the Exhibifs, in their entirety, be
withhelcl from public inspection under the Free<lom of Information Act püsuãnt to 5 U.S.C.
$s52(bx4),
MARITIME COMMIJNICATIONS/
LAND MOBILE, LLC
jz
/:-,t ,- - ,,!-
--{'¿ø/Ú/-Y
Dennis C. Brown' Counscl to MCLM
8124 Cooke Court, Suite 201
Manassas, Virginia 20 109-7406
703t365-9437
FN( 703/365-9456
PHoNÉ 703/3 65-0437
NoT AIMN-TED N VRCINIÂ
D.Ç.BROWN@ÁTT.NET
of Maritime
I represent the radio system interests of Sandra M' DeÈiest â¡d
before the Federal
Comrnunicätions/Lanct Mobile, LLC (collectively, Mrs' DePriest)
communications commission. on behalf of Mrs. DePriest, I am
filing herewith her -Respolse
in FiIe No' EB-O9-IH-
to tlrc Enforcôment Bureau's letter of inquiry dated Febfuary 26,2009
1751.
Pleâse direct any questioûs concernilg this fili4 to me' Thank you for your attention
to this matter,
March 29,2010
Maritime w¿s formed on February 15, 2005. Accordingly, Maritime had no offïcer,
director, shareholder, partner, or benefioial owner before that date. The Managing
Member of Maritime is SIRIW Partne¡ship, L.P ("S/UW")' The Certificatê of
parhership was originalþ filed with tho secretary of statc of Delawffe on November 2l,
2002, a oopy ofwhich is attached as Exhibit 2(i). Communications Invesbnents, úrc' was
substituted for Medcom Development Corporation, ('Medcom") as the Genetal Pa¡brer
of S/RIW, effective February 15,2005, which action was üled as a matter ofnotice as
paft of the loan t¡ansaction wth Pinnacle Bnnk, with tJte secretary of state of Delawa¡e
ãn ¡\ugust 24, 2005, a copy of whìch document æ fi1e stampcd by the Secretary of State
Inc. has
ofDelaware is altached as Exhibit Z(iÍ),r Corrmunications Investments,
of the
continued as the Genetal Pa¡tuier of S/ÈÑV to the present date' I own I 00%
the stock
Common Stock of Communicatio¡s investments, inc' and have ftom the time
I bave also remained the
*ä motf"""a to me by Don DePriest on Fobrutry 1 8, 2005 '
p*i¿.of S."r"rrry anå sole director of Comsrunications Invesùrlents, Inc, since
l¡¡^ ,
since Iy9U'-
Depriest iesigned as President and Director ofwhat wæ a shell corporation
offTcerça¡dDircctors:AtalltimessincetheformationofMoritime,Ihave
*yr"lfìo be the soie elected offioer and director of Maritime. As an LLC' I
believeil that ihe titles given to the employees were unofficial empþee
""oriAurËå titles',On
i*"*y o, ZOO6, f exec;ted Mirutos whish fie attached,.as hereto as Exhibit I (viü)i in
wbi"ni g;e titi"s whioh I termed in ihe mjtrutés to be employees" titles to John ..
nu*¿oo-" CN"f e*ecutive Officer, to Robert "Tim" Smilt¡ Vice-Prosiden! and to Belinda
üoO*oilrr.**"t.3 I did not considet any of these persors to be '(Coryorate Officeru"'
i* *_pr"v."r. I ¿i¿ not see ths cEo æ a corporato ofËcer,.just as tho cFo is not âlways
irr, .oriork t**er. There was no inrent to deosive as I disclosed openly in my
äJei"ri ioirrrponses ro the FCC thar John Reaxdon wæ rhe cEo. but he is
not a
påi¡¿ent, Vioe-pìesiilenq Seoretary or Tfeasuïer. I{e is not a sbâreholder and does not
pi.rl"lp"il rn B.t¿ -""tiogs o. uuthorization of loans or other major oompany dccisions'
'tfu
n-ttio* ** operatiois malager. Nor doos Tim Smith partioipate in Board
Meetings or decisiors, and he firnctio¡s as ths Chiefpngineer'
,.PresidenÇ' ¿¡d he has been
Jãbn Reardon was never authodzed to use the title
i*tooi"¿ nÀt to ¿o so in the futurc. I had no intent to dsssiys ths commission in these
of titles and I tust that the Commissiou wæ not deceived'
"noì*u "tpfoy"e
Maritimeshareholders,p¡rhersandbeneficialownerusinceJanuarylt2002:
l'{"'iç*e o* ro'-ed on Fehruary 15, 2005. SiRIW hæ at all times been the Managilg s/RJW
iri"Åuurìþv*iti"t". ¿ll of the msmbersltup interests in Maritime were owned by
2008' when 22 of 1,ö00 parmership rmits were issued to
an
;;r*;hú;tJ., .ntil
--*-ãñparty.
outside
oi,¡" p*u"ship of s/Iuw are owned by me. The General Partner of
shares
sn-lu r,.p. ¡s commuruiatio¡s Invostnents, I-nc. aud, since February 18,2005,Ilave
Ino' No htelests bave been
ão,""¿iõ0"2" .f tnu stock ofComrnu¡icatious Invoshneflts,
issued to lvfr. DeP¡iest Êom inoeption to date'
¡O'
",
ZOOs' Ai uå 6*s \'¿as Johfl
pefl¡dolr simultancousiy an
closing on Dccember him to
emolovee of Mobex an¿ lr¿"'iiimu'õn
i**ty ' f "*"",ut"d minutes authoÍizing
e
has done so sincc
of Maritime and he
ï#"å"äËä:Ëi;"uy * ,r"*"o.rJ,n;*",*ärÉr septenber 18' 2006' and amended
tlattime. Ä copy otlis "*pråfr'äiäT"ä*"'ia"tt¿
-øl
#Ëöäia æ çl' C"'¡¿"rltidl tredtment is requested
on May 28, 2008 i* uua"u"¿ and is paid a base
for salary and oItte, ,o^n""åíî"ry1"3À* lt;:l I :ly*"Ider
Maritime above a certain level' As
an employee' he
salary plus a commssroo oo of
'J"s äJüË oo"i t*pr"yees' is eligible to participate in the
rtceives ¿ salary, heuru'u"""ä*",
401 ft) Progam.
bøca¡ne an offrcer of Maritíme
and specify all títles
4.tpecily the date that John Reardon
antlpositiont held W hí*' P;;;;e-; "ipv
iÍat ¿o**ents authüizinThîs dppoínted
poritiÕns'
5. In the Maritime LOI Respotw (at page 2), Mmìtime indicateil ¡hat John Reardon
,"*il ir, cär¡ n**tiw oÍìàr,' oí, r"cords indìcale that Mdrìtime did not disclose
^
iini'near¿onn'nt
-rîiiiîu"n¡tngt applìcatiü to partìcìpate in Auction No'-61.(FCC Forn J!Ð ":':.
*itnn" co*^íition' hxplaìnfuIlvwttv Maritine dídnot ìdentifv John
in ¡tuction No' 6 I
Reailon
-irCC as its Chìef fxecznve ficet tn its appiicanon to paftícíPdte
for* 175) and ìn subseq,ånt ¡ttngl *itìt the Commissîon' including but notü¡stem
';r;;td;;," ú;ítr^t;t oj,moii* ¡å' einmated Maritime Telecommunications
Iìcenses (FCC Form 601)-
(a) AII docvments gdntE Donatd DeP ert duthorit! to e ter into contrdcts
on behalf of Maritime'
- 'ií huluþaw
Ðt4tþ a41 í*q*';; 'w¿o'*'f iua '-y P .øuas ot øãPunw
ut'ltt^
plouoQ"
puo uotrrtl prr¡to4t* uo * punuSlsap tQanr4 tsalr¿ao v
s1
ãu4luByi[ 1zr$ sappua asoql ($'11
Swluq pue acuetrs¡xâ q ãqeq s¿ pâqFcsãP
rþPaaqr a4! &u¡tnP lJ\ua 4tns.
ot uolJtlua.wncop lun^alat ap!^o'ta
qtoa lo senuarct ssoti alo*atÊln at al'll4suouap
aoltbnd'oJlu,audo7a'taq utocpa¡'¡ ''cu¡
'r'y"ll'i'lioi-,a
'(cu¡ '7g¿1to¡t¡ puo ''"u¡ .?q o^i)g'
''uoui"ioo*'fox ÐutsultlJ '':u!
'otpn¿ a¡huntt¡ uÐp9oÐ pû:-!!!.2 -'s1tortfltluttwuto) p*
'8002 '2002 sna'l
tyeuou) sanuarct zu1*q ,, p,qltiiii
ui*il¡ffi ¡a'l
npuapc aqt hu¡tnp uruur,l,u
påq';t;p iwpl'toy¡ to'|t s"ltnua êsoqt ol sv (q)
*
'1'Bu1'þ
'olâ¡Ðfl
pEB (¿) 6 {qlqxg q q¡:oJ lâs ê¡B sâ ¡êÀãl
pãqcqtÉ âre sûm]ãJ lÈe1 âIqBIJB,IE êr$
nätifte*y¡ r"ç s'an1¡ua osoq¡ (e)'i
ou ãq,req se asuoo'oU lof tlîã På'q.;'+
1
,{reprcog alerodroC âtl} uru I 'sreâ'( I rõ¡ uopoìaao q uoaq seq qcrq*r uru:8or¿ 8uuoln¡
0q} J0
Iooqôs-räurr' s¿uvEtH
âlï Jo sro]tâ4g ¡o pt"og ât{t ¡o u8ünsqc ãq} pue srâPünoJ
'¡dd¡Ss¡ss't¡^1
âuo uu I 'pâ]lnBss, ,ou pruopsánt oiãq i¡*otn"ø 'te"tou
s'uq ¡elcs¡Bqc ,,qN
,snqrnlo3 rI â¡ãq qtJnqC uo.Iss¡¡a á,t\Ircu ,(guroPro/À EJo rBcl^ se Stri^lâs '6661
pI¡B '6¿6I ãculs rug âql Jo ¡ãq*¡eut Pâsuá'll
n"o¡r îoìrrã'rão¡3 ln,ioåttag peulúpio uB
E ltrB I 'UOISSIm.tro3 ãIIl PÉãlslt¡¡ Jo â',r-Iâcâp
o] uo$uã]u! Áu uâsq Jâ^âu sEI{ {
8u¡lop 'a'o3
'zl tlq$lxg q lllroJ lâs ãrc ù002 puB g00z'2002 srBâÁ ¡upuo¡"
âqJ
p¡a¡o rnniåiåit.olt¡ å¡n¡nisa" nql êPrtsuo.oâP ol uolrluâünÔop 1üÈ^Ðlãr
The Commission's rules for chæacter and fitress to be a licensee are aimed at
eDsr¡xing that spectum will be used for the public good.s ahs s¡¡min¡1ion of character
is thus not an eicl in iuelf, but is iutended as a means to âr end¡ wrll the licensee u.se the
licenses in the publio interest.
Over the past four years since the auction closed, Maritime has surely done thal
and continues tÀ do ihat customers have included ihe New Jorsoy Tumpike Aüthority
safety crews that dsliver services to drivers along the NJ Tumpike end Garden Shte
Part<iray- lowboat ald barge operatots along over 3,000 miies ofinland waterways
have benefitted beoausó Mâritirn; is a licensee and operator' Other users include a
school distiot in \ilastringfon $tate, helping to get studonts to school safd and ontime
wíth bus radios. Customers include several energy companies in Texæ and Louisiana"
deliveriug natural Eas aud oil, and utilities iu Perusylvanþ Vi¡ehia ând elsewhere'
which are providing sewioe to rural commr¡nities.
Recently, the commission released its B¡oadbantl Plan for America. I¡r the Plan'
the Commissiãn calls for enteproueurs to deploy spectum creativeþ and for seoondary
23. The key hctor involved in the support of some commenters for a "conducf' as opposed to a
:thu,nct"i .an¿"td generally appeãis to be the desire for elimlnation of tle mora¡ly'tinged
and "character"
decision-making of tri pasu ¡towãver, establishing a d¡chotomyletwee¡ "conducfl
i, not n.*r"".y:to of lesi value-ladeñ decision-maklng. [FN25] The rcmrd developed
ü*"in ã..¿y ¡it¿iotes that neither sec11ons 308(b) and 319(â) nor the public interest sÞndard
"chiåvement
embodied in-the Çommunication$ Act mândates tiré type of'good vs bad/evit"
aeagnent of "moral"
delibe*tions. Focuslng on the chäract€r frai¡e
Àaracterwhich somedmes color€d past Commission
ì'to
opante the station " ai ABC suggests, seems-a proper move in the dlrection ofa
nai"t."ry
*ore r"låu"nt, i"us ualue-laden character inquiry,. . [FNZ6] The "better wat' to e,''åluât€ an
äppriont r foát." -t¡ethan ttre
son oi inquiries conducted ln the Past is generally identified
""riability" issue as a narrowing of Commfssion concern to encompâss only
tl'aormeìì"rr.¿¿rcssing
misconduct relevant to operatio ofbroâdcast stations. [FN27] Fcc 85-648'
In tlle Matter of Pollcy Regarding Character Quâlifiõâtions In Broadcast Licenslng
ResÞonses to
Amendment of Rules Of Bioadcast Pmctice And Procedure Relating to Wfitten
of Misrepresenhdons to the Cornmission by Permiftees ând
Cà**ìri¡oi l"q"ities and the Making
STATBMENT
ù""nr*r, Gen.'Docket No. 81-500, Docket No. 78'108, REPoRT, ORDERAND POLICY
l0
markêts to play m incrcasing role in Cetting
spectrut inJo.use' li4CLM wæ the iìnt
an¿ a¿visor' MCLM is aggressively
comnarv to retâin Sp"ctrum Brite aiïurLorcr
;öäiñpJ"t*Ji; tì;"-r"il, and energv industries'
"tilitv
(Maritirne' Havens' Paging
Of the four initial geographical area AMTS iicensees the most
is the entity aeployingspectrum to
Svstems, I¡c., and Tonr Kurian)Jüa¡itìme and
toauv,iotü-Ji*trv to end user.s like towboats
ta><i
Tiåî* in"ä"i"çr"*
leæes to tailroads' utilities' and energv
ääi,anie*"t, *ãìdt""tlv tú;sh ;les aná
companies'
11
its reasous for its
certain entitiss. When questioned about this, Maritimo has explained
beliefs.IfMaritime'sinterprctationofFCCrulestumsouttodifferfiomtheFCC'sview
;;;; tñ".. basis, then Maritime, in good faitþ has misinterpreted the complex
rules of attibution in an auction bidding environment'
*^e--m\
Siuaerely You¡s'
t2
LLC
Exhibit List for Maritime Communications/Laud Mobile'
Exhibitl.CorporateDocumentsofMaritimeCorrurrunications/Land
Mobile, LLC:
ExhÍbii 1(i): Certificate of Fonnation of Marìtime
15' 2005'
Communications/Land Mobile, LLC' dated Feb'
(ii)l Lirnited Linbility Company Ägreemeirt of
Maritime CorununicationsÃand Mobile' LLC
(iii): Operating Agreement of Meritime
15' 2005
Cormnunicaiions/La:nd Mobile' LLC dated Feb'
(iv): Singie-Membel Operating Anangement of
Maritirne Comlnunications/Land Mobile' LLC Limitçd -
Liabilþ Co*putty State ofDetaware' dated Feb' 15' 2005
thele would possibly be
lExecuted priår to determination
additioual members')
(v): Mernorandun of Agreement datecl February 3'
2005 between S/RIW Partuership' the Managing
Mernber of Maritirre and Donald R' DePliest'
(vi) ¡ tvtirluæs of Meeting of Maritime Communicatious/
Land Mobile, LLC, dated February 24'2005'
(vii¡: Àction on Written Conserf bV the 59þ Member
of Maritirne Conrmunications/T'and Mobile'
LLC dated
August 25, 2005'
(vii¡)¡ Minutes of Meeting of Maritime Comrnunications/
Land Mobile, LLC dated Jan' 6' 2006'
Communications/
Cxlt fvfin"t*t otMeeting of Marithrre
Land Mobile, LLC dated January 9'2006'
(*), ftlinutes ofMeeting of Maritime Communicationsi
Land Mobile, LLC, dated March l0' 2009'
Exhibit 9. (a) List and çopies of available tax returns for those entities
stated to have had no tevenues during the calendar years
2002,2003, and2004
(b) List and copies of available tax retunrs for those entities
stated as having revenues:
DËCLARAl'ION
I have persÔüal
I decla¡e undc¡ pena&y of Periury úât Úte forcgoing is fue-and cônect'
knodeAge oiÉ,e rcp¡Ë;ntafiorrs i-"id.¿ in -y toponse- I verifu tlre
tfi¡th fild acuraÊy of lhe
iofot tt i" rlat ¿t of Ure docum¡nr¡ a¡d informalion requested by the , -
"t¡îo "t
ørr**iÅ";t Itttt, oi "nd ioqoi.y *ni"n æe in my possession, cusody, çônllol or knowledge have
been t'roduced.
I hereby ceniff thâl otr rhis twenty-ninth day of Ma¡ch, 2010' I sewed a copy of the
foregoing Response on each of the following persons by placing a copy il the Uûited Stâtes
Mail, first-class postage PtePaid:
Donald R. DePriest*
Maritime Communicationsi Land Mobile, LLC
206 Nofth 8th Strcet
Columbus, Mississippi 39701
Warren C. IIavem
2649 Benveuue Aveûue, #2{
Berkeley, Califorûia 94704
* by hand
EXHIBIT 7
Michelle Ellison' chief
Enforcement BUfeAu
Federal Communicatio¡s Cor¡mission
445 12th Street, 5ÏV
Washingloú, DC 20554
to
Resuest for Confidentiâl Treatment' Pufsuant
iìJilo" o.+:s ofthe Commission's Rules' ofportions
Letter of Inquiry and
óãn¿¿ n. DePriest's Response to
Atl Exhibits to t¡at Response
in their entirety, be
For all tfie foregoing reasons, Dehiest requests Úrat the Exhibits,
pursuart to 5 U.S'C'
withleld from public iispeðtion uruler the Freedom of I¡forrnatiou Ast
$s52(bx4).
DONAI.D R. DEPRIEST
Do¡ald R. DePriest
8124 Cooke Court, $uite 201
Manassas, Virginia 20109-7406
703t365-9437
FAx 703/365-9456
PHoNE 703/365-9437
NOT ADMTTED N VIRGINIÀ
D.C.BROWN@Ãff.NEr
Plea$e direct any questions concerning this tiling to me' Thank you for your attentiou
to this mattor.
I: Itt the Donald DePriest LOI Response (at pages I'4)' loil Provi¡leA
o.!ß' of
Suestion
you conttolled or ín which you sened as an officer or diractor' As-þ
,. '
enl¿tieÍ thttt you indícãted
antl 2004 calendar
tää r*a¡^ thüt were in-exkiazce (even ir ina.ctive) dnring the 2002, 2003revulue: of each
vco¡s. orôride relevant docuntettatiàn rc dennnstra¡e the a17rc7ate Eross ,
'ru"n'rir¡ry ¿or¡ng ùe 2002, 2003 atzd 2004 calerulnr years' includittg but not Lmrúed îo' eøcn
"*rirt;;
ítdr;rl;* returns
for the calendar years 2002' 2003' and 2004'
g.SanPedroGauzeMills,I¡c'haclnorevônuesduringtherelevantperiod'isoutof
business, and fìled no tax return since the rnid-1990s'
j.Cellularan<IBroadcastComrnuncations,Inc.hatluoleveIluescluringtheperiodand
filed no tax returûs for the Period'
1'PeneloreCorporationhadnofËvenuesdÛringtheperiod.Taxreturflsfortheperiod
are provided at Exhibit I.
m. Scorland House, luc. hatl no tevenues during the period' Tax returns for the
periocl are provided at Exhibit 1.
n. Transition Funding, L.L.C. hâd ûo fevenües during the period and filed no tax
retüms foÍ the Period.
s. Col<len Triangle Radio, Inc. tax reurns ale provided ât Exhibit 1'
aa,GreenbriarConstructionCorp.hadtrolevenuesduringtheperiodaúdfilednotax
renrrns for the Period'
bb.Envi¡oworldsolutions,L'L'C'wasformedin2006buthadno¡evenuesandfiled
no tax Ìetums for the Period'
2001 and 2002 which
tax returts for the period' inclu<ling parts of
cc. MariTEL, lnc.
provided at Exhibit 1'
have ovJupping caiendar and fiscal years, are
ee.ExciteTec}rnologies,Inc.didnotexistduringtheperioda¡dhasnotfìledatax
return.
I am the husband of the owner of the general parmer of the partnership holding
the
time to tifie
- --
verbally
coutrolling interest i¡ Maritime. sa¡dra DePriest has authorized me from
in
ard in writirrg to sign documents. I am ûot an offÎcËr of Mæitime and I own no inærest
participate in day to day operations.
Maritime but-l havã helped when âsked to do so. I <10 not
title for use in signing documents is "Mamger"; rot meant to irnply that I
am
irly
ilrÉ
""tl*i""¿ tnember', of MaritimË. I have never ¡epreseûted mysolf as the mtn:ging
,,*-aging
succesful in the
member oiMãridme. I help as I can bec¿use I desire for Sanclra to be
efficient use of the
operâtion of Maritimô and appreciate the nation's treed fo nâke full and
scffce radio specrum.
Suestion 7. I,x the Ma Response (ût pdge n, Maritime indicaled ¿h&t, at San.dra
tinte LoI
-ÐePrÌest's what üuthority
rcquest, Jou Eu,rattteed iotes owerl by Mørithne' E*plain fully by
(whøher verial or written) yoa guarûnteed notes on behalf of Marítiw. Provfule a
narraüve
you on behalf of Maútinæ'
descrþtion as well as ã copy of each note guaranleetÌ by
8: ht the Donald DePriest LOI Response (at page I0), you indicated tha¡ a_tnong
Question
îther thittgs, you were authorized to enter into contrac¡s on behalf of Marìtime. Provîde tlrc
following ìtformøion:
(a)AlltlocunlentsSrantilTsyoua'uthor¡tjtocnterinrcco]\tractsonbehalfo!Marítime.
SarrdraanrllhavebeenÌnvolvedinmultiÞleradioserviceswhichareregulatedbythe
been ftlly awâre of the
Commissiot. Since our first Brôadcâst stadons in the 1970s, we have
commission,s requiremeff$ for complete cando¡ anrt trulhful lepreseûtations.
le ìnve always
Broadcast years of ttre 1970s in
been candid a¡d t¡utåful With the Commission' F¡om our
*tri"t oo, perforfiance brought many awards for excelleuce and local market leadership'
for Cellular
,frùf, oui successful involiement in the early days of comparative hearings -
with úe Commissiont.
licen#s to the present day, we have always done our best ro comply
Cellular, I was inshurnental in
ruiæ anO poti"i., to the úest of our understanding of them, In
interests that desired
ruindìnitig **petitive position for non-wireliie carriers against those
^ irr negotiating excharges of
to giv. dr";irrtioã teþhône companies a headstart. I succeeded
i*tEi.u, *'oog Cellulai carriers ,õ tir"t *. obtâiûed colrtrolling positions in I
1 southeâstern
major license holder ftom
narkets. In thi MMDS lVireless Cable hdusty my strategy saved a
programming and
tuotooptay aßd helped put the inrtustry on the path away from-television
part of Anerica's competitive
toward the broadband service which hãs become such a critical
position in the world.
Iafiftanklydisappointedthatûeaflyfiveyearshaselapsedsincelitigationbegarr
date, some 158 pleadings
following tTre grani of license to Maritime in Auciion No. 61, To
proceeding as the cornmission has
and omeî flinls have âccumulated in the Maritime license
pleadiug' Just as that
aif*ta u.iogie plotestor to iile tluplicative pleacling upon unauthorized
prù.rr- ¿rrË*d, fuality wirh respecr to Mâritime'i s'owing. that he gamed the Commission's
aucrion rules âûd violaFal blackletter anti-trust law by fiiing bids
in competition with himself'
desire finality to
Maritime aud the public which desires improved telecommuuications service
úiSmâttef'Thisdelayhascostusmillionsofdollarsandlosttimgwhichcanûotberecovered
at any price, If the Cåmmissioû finds that I erred in some way,
I am wifing to do what is
recessaly to rectify any such error.
vorur¿ LrÈtr I rìJt L
'l{62a32/-1669
D ECLARÂTI ON
. I declare
,krowledge under penârry ofperjury trrat rhc forcgoing
ofrhe repre.sentar;ous pmïid-ea i"
is tue and conecl I have personal
a copy of the
I hereby certify thal on this t\ryenty'ninth day of March' 2010' I served
in the United States
for.goùe R rpoote oi each of the follo;ing pcrsons by placing a copy
Mail, fust-class postage Prepaid:
Sandra M. DePriest*
Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC
206 North 8th Street
Columbus, MississþPi 39701
Warren C. Havens
2649 Benvenue Avenue, #2'6
Berkeley, California 94704
+ by ha¡d
EXHIBIT 8
' ' -i :ir-
I
FoRPIIELICIN$PECTIoN-CONFIDENTIALINFoII]VÍATIONÉXCLUDED
(e)rynHHffi
March 26,2010
By Eaud
Marlene H. Dortch
SecretarY
Federal Communications Commission
445 12ú stset, S,W.
Rooqt TW-4325
W¿shingloq DC 20554
; \twwmaritetusa'com
4635 church Rd, $trite 100 Cr¡rirming, GA 30028 ' Voicc/Fax: 888-989-3339
(eÐvmrxnþ
2, Províde d ôopy of all corporate doaments of MatiTEL, includiW but not IimY4':'ony
în¿ri,ïyw, *ãhiíiìiu, o¡ oil *uti"go held duríng the calendar yßdÌs 2002 to 2006.
Attaohed,asExhibit2,arearticles,bylaws,aldminutesofallmectingsheldduringthecalcndæ
documenl"" because such term caÉ be
i"ui, zo<iz to zoog. I'arn tot ptoviding wery 'torporate of MariTEL's business'
áo¡st o"d to rrr.un iquthe documcnts ãeooui.d ioìht no*al course
MariTEL which relate 10
tlowever" inoludeil in Exhibit 2 are any dooumcnts gonerated by
the letter
l"*rti"* l, S and 5 ofMr, Schonmanis letter or which rolate to the rnaÍers r¿ísêd by
ä,o* Ltnuí rofri*, Esq., Attomey'.r\dvisor, Mobility Divisio+ Mretess
Telecommunicatious
MariTEL, Inc'' dated Aucust
il."rr' ¡C'C t" M*iTEI. Inc. ¿ttã nussell Fox, counscl for
nonaublic
18? .
copies of this
t00ó: iltr r""t ùions åf sxhibir Z arc included with rhe public and
lette¡.
:fhe requested document is an exce4h from a letter from MCT Investors, L.P^, whÌch uPdatcs its
of the
in*itois ."gataing vadous mattcrs affesting the compüy' MariTEL only has a copy
excexot änd dôes not have a copy ofthe entiie tetter' À copy of tlis excerpt is attached as
contain the tequested letter'
ilht# t'i-g-tll th. puutic a"¿ rio"*oUlis versions of this responsc
. matÌer.
. ' www.madt¡lrrsa.coi4
4635 Chufch Rd, suire 100 cürïrníng, GA 30028 voiceiF¿x: 888-989-3339
¡ .. .. .. _..
''ì:j. , i ..' . .. SyS
-ir
FOR PI]BLIC INSPECTION. CONT'IDENTIAL TNF'ORMá'TION F,XCLUDED
(e)v,s:ä*F
I hwt rhat the forcgoing is responsive to Mr. Schonman's requests for informatio¡¡-
I deolare under penalty of pefury uuler the laws ofthe unítod stai¡s of America that
the
Manæsas, VA 20109-7406
Donald R. DêPdest
' 20ó North St6 Stcet
Columbus, MS 39701
'War¡en Havens
Benvenue Ave. - Suites 24
' 2649
Berkeley, CA 94704
4655 Church Rd, Suite 100 Curnrni g, GA 30028 ' Voice./l:át: 888-989-3339 'l1luÀ!In4&lgE4'cq!1
5#
P ø.osylvunia Avenuc, N,W'
By Haud ..
Marlene H. Dortch
$ecrc1ary
Fetleral Commwrications Cornmission
445 12b St€et, S.'W.
Room TW-43?5
Washingfor¡ DC 20554
Enclosed, on bohaJf of our olient MariTEL, Inc. (MariTEL"), is a responso to thr leltËr seDt by
Gary $c¡bnnan, Special Counsel ir the Investigations ald Fleaxings Ðivision of the Enfôrceñent
euréau, datect Fåbnrary 26, 2010 in the above-refbre4ced matteü, Mr. Soho¡man's letter dirsçtçd
MarifÉL to provide càrtdn doouments and i¡formation for the period Jauuary 1, 2002 to the
present, Ceia'r-n of the requests seok confide'tial idoffiation. Accordingly, MeriTEL hereby
iequests confidential fueAtmönt Under sestion 0.459 ofthe CoEmission's rules,¡¿ for cerlain
ooimcroially sensitive coïParate and fi¡anoial information contaÍned in ils response'
There are two versiOnS of Ma¡i'IEL's response enclosed'' eaoh with diffcrent attâcb.ments' MariTEL
has submitted a:r onginal confidential version of its respouso matketl CONtr'IDEI{TIAL
* NOT
FOR PIIBLIC INSÞECtlOl\t, *hioh contatus all of the information requested by Mr. Sohonmar's
lstt¡r. Ma¡iTEL also has submitted ¿n original and four copies of its response marked FOR
PUßLIC INSPDCTION - CONFIDENTÍAL INI'ORM" TION EXCLIIDDD wiú ttre
confidcntial infomration omitte¡l foÌ public inspection purposes. This latter version has been served
on o{rer parties to this proceeding'
Kindly ilàle-stamp the additiouäl ofeaclt versiou oftlE tosponse and this lettef afld return
c.opy
them ío tle Should you have questions or rcquire additioual informatio¡' pleâse coutact the
"ou¡iår,
undersigned-
Sincercly,
A.-
{'utt^r?\ t',
Russell H. Fox
MrMz, LEvq.r, Cortl.I, FERRrs,
GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
701 Pennsylvania Ave¡ue, N.W
Washinetor! DC 20004
(202) 434-7300
(202) 434-74AA Qþx)
rfox@mintz.com
Enclosures
By First Class Mail (with PIIBLIC version of MariTEL',s response 8nd attacbütents):
Donald R. DePriest
206North Ith Street
Columbus, MS 39701
Waren Havens
2649 Benvcnue .A've. - Suites 2-6
Berkeioy, CÀ 94704
FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION - CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION EXCLUDED
olrectors and of{ìcers of MARITEI- f NC. from Jänuary t, ?o01to Mãrch 20L0
3t¿9t2o',t0
ÄiadTELcr¡T¿blé laf ,LsouRCE Ooc-etrÊLlc VERSlOl{
FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION - CONFIDENTIAL ÍNFORMATION EXCLUDED
fiáÂnÉL-INc. C¡Éû.li4ll6 !2 3r,@
¡r¿gÞDl0
lrkf€L c¡Êl¡brÉ r¡:-soUâCE DOC.f,UBLTC V€ÊsloN
FOR PUBL1C INSPECTION - CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION EXCLUDED
tüRffEL ll\ic, (>pl¡rtEíhn 12,11:ll0€
Requestor: SkybridgeSpectrumFoundation("Skybridge")
ThepersonsattheFCCwhomaybehelpfulinlocatingtherequesteddocumentsare:.Scot
-wireless
i*å, n"po,y chief, Mobility Division, Telecommunications Bureau and Brian J.
Carter, Invìstigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau
$5'000(fivethousanddollars).Ifgettingtherequesteddocumentsisgoingtoexceedthis be
amount by which it will
maximum search fee, then Skybridgá askJ thatlt be informed of rhe
exceeded since Skybridge .rruy lvu:nt the FCC to proceed anyway
for whatever additional cost
copies of documents up to the
there may be, or Skybridge may modify its requesi as as to obtain
maximum amount sPecified here.
Waiver of Fees
SkybridgeiSanonprofit,tax-exemptscientific,educationalandcharitablefoundation
on FCC matters
which, as one óf its primary functions, researches and publishes information
resulting
(and other matters) in the public interest.* skybridge intends to publish information
fees charged should be
from the fulfillment of rhis FOIA request. Th;s, bt FoIA statute, the
waived or reduced.
* See e.g. www.tetra-us us website http://vvww'scribd-com/warren havens'
decisions by the
Skybridge strongly disagrees with past erroneous and discriminatory
intends to appeal any case
FCC denying s-kybridge-,i f"e *luiue. or reduction in FOIA requests,
action'
of furthel: de;ial, and in such cases, Skybridge may seek damages in court
Withheld Documents
(not at all' or in
Any of the requested records that exist but that are not provided in full
along with the
some redaåted form) a,'Withheld Materials") should be fully listed and
described,
reason under FOIA law that the Withheld Mâterials are not
provided'
SkybridgeisawarethatcertainoftheoutsìdePartieshaverequestedconfidential
treatment for cerîain of the records requested here'
Inthisregard'skybridgerequeststhatforanyrequestedrecordthattheFCCdetermines
contains information that it must ïitnnotA under an ãppücable
FOIA exemption, that said
portions of the record
information be narrowly and precisely redacted, leaving all other
unredacted, and that the FCC release the redacted copy
If FCC FOIA staff has any questions concerning this request' it should contact the
Skybridge representatives listed above as soon as possible'
June 2, 2010
'Warren Havens
Skybridge Spectrum Foundation
2649 Benvenue Avenne
Berkeley, CA 94704
1)AllrecordsrelâtingtotheAugust18,2009,letter-sthatWirelessTelecommunications
Communicationsi Land
Bureau, Mobility Division Deputy Chiei Scot Stone sent Ma¡itime
lnl"¡
-1"". rr_c (sandra Depriest) (iøcnt); MariTEL, Inc.; and wireless Properties of virginia,
tijå"J¿ò"priest) grgiÈe"tior, áôs Leners); and the Febraary Counsel Gary
", 26,2010, letrers that
Enfoìcement Bur"uu (SB), níestigations ana Hearings Division Special
Schonman sent to the same parties.l
a) August 18, 2009, Mobitity Division Section 308 Letters The Mobility
records beyond
Division responáed to a simila¡ request on Oct;ber 27 ,2009 '2 No additional
Aswe
*rrut*u, pråuia"d to you in response to that request are in the commission's possession.
i" .".porr.e io you. initial request, should you seek the document for which the
"*
commission has tentatively gËnted confirlentiality (i.e., Attachment
"áiáâ II to wPV',s September 30,
y-ou should proceed under Section
iOOõ, ,"rpon." to the Augusi 18, 2009, Section 308 letter),
0.459(dX1) of the Commission's rules' 47 C.F.R. $0'459(dX1)'
t C".-"t"t -."tt"*"""" -ith WPv includes Donald DePriest' and conespondence w¡th MCLM includes
^11 DePriest.
Sandra
2
See Octobe¡ 2'7, 2OOg, Lefter fiom Scot Stone, Deputy Chiet Mobility Division' Wi¡eless TelecommunLcations
g*""", a Warr"n Huu"ns, Stytri¿ge ìp""t u¡n Fo.,rrátion" (rOie Cò"t ot Number 2009-645) (copy attached,
without enclosure).
you were
February 26,2010, Enþrcement Bureau Letters' We note that
b)
parties, as well as the responses by those
copied on the Feb aÎy 26,20í0, EB letters to all three
in the
ionaírecords báyond what you were copied on have been filed o¡
are
p"it".. Ñ"
"¿¿i
òommission's possession.
Wenotethatallthreepaltiessoughtconfidentialityforsomeportionoftheirresponses:
ó
Letter from Russell H. Fox, Counsel' MariTEL, lnc, to Ma¡lene
H Dortch' Secretary' Federal Communicatíons
Con¡nission, el a/ (Mar- 29,2010)
3) Copies ofall cotespondence Wireless
between the sxffofthe
e-maits are protected by the
Telecommunícatio^ ord the nniiíriemettt Bttreaus. Any
suóh
hå been incotporated into Exemption 5 the Freedom of
*"tt-ptoduct which of
"1"-"v In the alteraative, and
lnformarion Act, 5 U.S.C. S SSZiUXil, -¿ äe rherefore not discloseable.T
¡n natuc' and likewise not
also undcr Exctltptiou 5, any such e-mails would be "pre-decisional''
subject to disclostlre.u
ancl any non-FCC
4) Copias of all conesponclence bettveen lhe Cotntníssion
goveflunenf al enliÔ,. No suchìecotds exist
Tire Comnlission is requit ecl to charge fees for processiug a FOIA request- loY"u:" '
itself'
of flre feã is n.rost likely eqÙaì to or greater than the lee
because the routi,.r"
"o.t "oll""ting
lvc shaltnot asscss lces in this case.e
lf you believe this to be a clenial of voLrr request, vou mîv fi1:.": Allìi:lt],:]l f:1,1*f*
of Ltt¡ tt1tc. o1.t¡ts.lettct )&?
ri'ith thc ltlCl's Ofñcc of Genetal Counsel rvìthin i0 calendal dr¡'s
.""tì"., O.iCf C'l and I.1I5 of the Cornmissìou's Lules,47 C F R"ReviewSS0'461Ú)' l ll5 The capLtotr
of Freedom of
o^t.n-rnn,U cnvclope of auy such application mìI! gottlìin
""ã
ln-fo.roution .n"î,t"tion," ancl súoultl fCC FOIA Conù'ol Number 2010-379'
'"i"ì'"n""
may be referred to Michael Cormelly (202-418-0132'
Qtrestions regarding the foregoing
tu-
michael.connelly @fcc.gov) of this Division'
SincerelY,
Scot Stone
Deputy Chief, MobilitY Division
Wìreless Telecommunications Bueau
Enclosure
Wan'en Havens
Skybrige Spectrum Foundation
2649 Benvenue Avenue
Berkelêy, C^ 94704
(Request)
This letter r.esponds to the Freedorn ofInfonlation Act (FOIA) request
by the Federal
inclucled ìn yottr e-toåi1 dut"d S"pt"rl-tb et 27 ,2009, whicir u'as receivcd
(ôornmissìon oI FCC) FOIA Conûol Staff on Septembor 28'
Corn-uni"otioo, Comn.rission
2009, ancl assigned FCC FOIA Control Number 2009-645'
I Request at I.
,See
¡ules' 4? C F R
3
wPv seek confidential treatment of the document un¿ler Sectio¡ 0 459 of the comúission's
$0.459.
a
Brown Letter at 2
of the Cornnission's rules' 47
confidentìality, you should proceed rnder Sectìon 0'459(d)(l)
c.F.R. S0.4se(dx1).
the instant Request' you were also
Iu your Request, you indicate that at the time you filed
sameletms' for aly records the
filing a second f Oi,L."qu"st tor. tt e same records, under the only those lecords
that
Commission tnay obtain ftom today ootit t'lou"*t"' 15'
2009'5 We note
date of theFOIA Ïequest (heTe'
within the Commission's possessio'n and cont¡ol as of the
6
iåpã*¡.t zs, 2009) shali be constdered
øÅ-
Scot Stone
Dêoutv Chief, MobilitY Division
Wireiãss Telecommunications Bureau
Enclosure
I ,9¿¿ Request at 2.
6
See 41 C.F.P'. $0 461(Ð(6).