• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Roy Henderson Surrenders KVDO/KJIB Licenses

9

93QClassic.com

Guest
In 2013, a nonprofit ministry I run was preparing to file for a LPFM radio license for 92.5 during the October window. We made a decision to not seek a radio license after Roy Henderson, through his attorney, agreed to allow us -- at our own expense -- to rebuild and operate KVDO under its analog license until 2015, when all analog broadcasting must end. The low power channel -- resurrected as a classic hits music video channel using this slogan, "It's like radio, but with pictures..." -- could be seen on analog channel 25 in the Westbury, Brauswood, Bellaire, and Reliant Stadium areas of Houston.

Roy Henderson later tried to back out of the deal, claiming there never was a deal — that is, until I produced recordings of telephone conversations with his lawyer. That lawyer, based in Washington, at first claimed the recordings were made without consent and were illegal, but backed down when he found out Texas law allows a party to record his own phone conversations. Roy then asserted that his now "former lawyer" didn’t have his permission to make the deal. I refused to turn the station off, so he refused to renew the license. That got me rolling to Washington, DC, where I personally filed the renewal paperwork myself. See http://kvdo.net/documents/10302697_879091282106334_8413157608723117048_n.jpg

Now, in a move that seemingly defies logic, through a new attorney, on June 2, 2014 Roy Henderson just surrendered the licenses to the FCC. See http://kvdo.net/documents/KVDO-KJIBSurrenderLetter.pdf

“Seemingly” is the key word here. There’s actually a bit of logic to the actions of a man that at least one FCC official refers to as “one of the most non-compliant broadcasters in the industry.” It has long been known that Roy committed perjury back in 2011 when he managed to get the license reinstated. http://houstondtv.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/now-a-real-zombie-station-kvdo-back-from-the-dead/ Now, more information is coming out from credible sources about how Roy Henderson never really owned KVDO or KJIB. He was merely a front man, his name used to circumvent U.S. laws against foreign ownership of our broadcast stations. After Hurricane Rita destroyed the station’s tower, Roy apparently convinced his foreign investors that the stations were dead. In 2013, his attorney approved our resurrecting the stations — whether with or without Roy’s approval is in questions. The fact is, we put KVDO back on and Roy started panicking. If KVDO stayed on or, much worse, if it became eligible for the TV frequencies buyback auctions in a year or two, Roy was going to owe his silent foreign partners a lot of explaining and not to mention money.

While KVDO is now dark and with Roy’s surrender the licenses are presumably dead, I can assure you all the the fat lady has not yet sung. This drama is far from over and, in the meantime, our 24/7 streamcast will continue on www.kvdo.net
 
Phone calls won't mean a thing....unless you and Henderson signed off on a LMA and it was submitted to the FCC to be on file, you have/had NO legal right to put anything on the channel in question. The LAWYER did not have the authority to do anything other than come on with a legal document that would be filed with the FCC and placed in the public file...also you could NOT move the station from its licensed location, no matter what (and if that was to be done, Henderson would have had to file for a change in licensed location...not you)

You obviously do not know the rules...Since you don't, I suggest you get a good FCC lawyer...and while he is telling you the same thing I just did, he will charge you around 300 - 500/hr or more.... The Fat Lady has sung and left the building. Sorry but that's the law...
 
Continuous Wave, I understand where you are coming from. Understand there's a whole lot more to this story than the limited bit of dirty laundry being aired on this board and elsewhere. The only reason I'm putting this stuff up is for a limited measure of personal safety. Everyone knows Roy Henderson's character and ethics. If something bad happens or I come up missing, the authorities will have a good place to start their investigation.

As for moving the station, I have a copy of the STA document with the new station coordinates -- a document Mr. Henderson's former attorney promised to filed, but apparently never did. In a nonpublic area of the FCC's CDBS system, the STA application shows up as validated -- not filed, pending, or granted.

I have already retained counsel and known the scoop. The Fat Lady has sung as far as the license for KVDO and KJIB are concerned; they were gone the instant Roy Henderson surrendered them. What's not over is the legal battle, which will be resolved in a couple of years when the lawyers make a quiet settlement or a jury trial renders a public verdict.

You see, Roy Henderson doesn't think the law applies to him. And officials consider him the most noncompliant broadcaster in the industry. Right now, the FCC is looking into some false statements he made concerning the operations of KROY which, for a short while, he had directionally focused toward another station's protected service area, trying to pressure that station to sell to him. Roy Henderson doesn't run any of the stations he owns, but you won't find a single LMA agreement. In the case of KVDO/KJIB, to circumvent media ownership rules he put his name on stations that were financed, operates, and all but owned in name by foreign citizens. You won't find an LMA there, either. I could go on and on... The bottom line here is that Roy Henderson seldom puts any of his agreements or wheelings and dealings into written contracts. Its not how he does business. That's why, to protect myself, I recorded every conversation concerning our deal.

However, Texas law recognizes oral agreements as valid enforceable contracts, and Roy Henderson's actions have breached our agreement. Mr. Henderson's arguments that his former lawyer wasn't authorized to make the deal is simply a way to try to divert responsibility. Under Texas law, the attorney client relationship is construed based on the principles of agency. There is a strong presumption that an attorney has the authority to bind the client. When an attorney reasonably believes he has authority, he in fact had authority. In practice, the presumption that an attorney has authority to act for a client (in settlement negotiations and elsewhere) is so strong that it will seldom be rebutted. If Mr. Henderson's lawyer did something that Mr. Henderson didn't authorize (which Mr. Henderson is now claiming, but in reality is not the case), it doesn't invalidate the contract. It simply gives Mr. Henderson a legal malpractice claim against his lawyer.
 
You ran an illegal TV signal on a channel YOU were not licensed on nor had any authority to do so...Federal law preempts Texas law in the matter of RF...you were lucky the FCC did not show up at your door and bust you with the TV signal....You can claim all you want in Texas court but they have NO authority over RF...that is a Federal matter and Henderson, though he does have a reputation, filed the proper paperwork (unless you can prove otherwise and that is hard to do!) and thats all the FCC cares about..EVEN IF you did have a signed LMA, you violated FCC law by running a TV station not at its licensed location and power.....DUH!!!! Do you need a shovel upside the head to see how hypocritical you are being?

You filing a renewal was a stupid thing to do...you had NO authority to do so....Some idiots tried to do that with 1150 Port Neches a number of years ago (Sylvester and the other one I cant recall at this time)...they tried to claim the license was theirs to renew though they were trying to buy the station and it fell through...the FCC DENIED their claim immediately.....the FEDERAL paper trail is what counts...As long as the FCC sees the paperwork correct and noone has anything to prove otherwise, they will go with the paperwork...You are fighting a losing battle.....hope you have a lot of money to pay a lawyer....BTW the "licensee" of the stations was NOT in Texas...thus not subject to Texas law anyway...also if the lawyer was not in Texas, he is not bound by any Texas law...Any conversation you had with him is subject to Federal law....not Texas law..yes in Texas, you can record the telephone conversation....but only with someone else in Texas...once you call outside the state, federal law which requires BOTH parties agree apply...I've dealt with the PUC and FCC for decades on telephone and broadcast issues...you are fighting a lost battle here.

Spend your time & money on your own application and station....but whining about it here does nothing good for you...you won't win anything from Henderson...

Thats my final $.02.........
 
.but only with someone else in Texas...once you call outside the state, federal law which requires BOTH parties agree apply..

Sorry Continuous Wave you are incorrect. I record lots of calls and post them on YouTube, mainly from rogue telemarketers and government officials.

If you call a toll free number it is subject to federal jurisdiction which is ONE PARTY CONSENT.

If you call a toll number in California, Washington, or Florida, it is ALL PARTY CONSENT.

If what you said was true the feds would have shipped me off a long time ago.

If a business is located in Washington state, I always call the toll free number which gives me ONE PARTY CONSENT.

No state's PUC regulates Toll free numbers, the Feds do (FCC), and Federal law is ONE PARTY CONSENT.

Here is some guidance.

http://oig.ssa.gov/sites/default/files/audit/full/html/a1396.html#AUTHORITY TO MONITOR TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS
prev | next
§ 64.501 Recording of telephone conversations with telephone companies.
No telephone common carrier, subject in whole or in part to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, may use any recording device in connection with any interstate or foreign telephone conversation between any member of the public, on the one hand, and any officer, agent or other person acting for or employed by any such telephone common carrier, on the other hand, except under the following conditions:
(a) Where such use shall be preceded by verbal or written consent of all parties to the telephone conversation, or
(b) Where such use shall be preceded by verbal notification which is recorded at the beginning, and as part of the call, by the recording party, or
(c) Where such use shall be accompanied by an automatic tone warning device, which will automatically produce a distinct signal that is repeated at regular intervals during the course of the telephone conversation when the recording device is in use. Provided That:
(1) The characteristics of the warning tone shall be the same as those specified in the Orders of this Commission adopted by it in “Use of Recording Devices in Connection With Telephone Service,” Docket 6787, 11 FCC 1033 (1947); 12 FCC 1005 (November 26, 1947); 12 FCC 1008 (May 20, 1948).
(d) That the characteristics of the warning tone shall be the same as those specified in the Orders of this Commission adopted by it in “Use of Recording Devices in Connection With Telephone Service,” Docket 6787; 11 F.C.C. 1033 (1947); 12 F.C.C. 1005 (November 26, 1947); 12 F.C.C. 1008 (May 20, 1948);
(e) That no recording device shall be used unless it can be physically connected to and disconnected from the telephone line or switched on and off.
(Secs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 315, 317; 48 Stat., as amended, 1064, 1065, 1066, 1068, 1081, 1082, 1083, 1084, 1085, 1089; 47 U.S.C. 152, 153, 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 315, 317)
[32 FR 11275, Aug. 3, 1967, as amended at 46 FR 29480, June 2, 1981; 52 FR 3654, Feb. 5, 1987]

APPLIES TO TELEPHONE COMPANIES. 93QClassic is not a telephone company.


Federal Statute: Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 ("ECPA"), 18 U.S.C.§§ 2510-2522.
There are two exceptions to the prohibition against call monitoring:

Consent of at least one party to the call
Ordinary course of business exception

The ordinary course of business exception applies where the call recording concerns the legitimate operation of and during "ordinary course of business".
 
Last edited:
Willdav713, interesting comments about recording phone conversations. He's another point to consider. Mr. Henderson's lawyer claimed it was illegal for me to record our conversations because he is physically located in Pennsylvania, which is a 2-party consent state. However, he doesn't have a Pennsylvania phone number. For whatever reason (business, most likely), he has chosen to have a 202 area code number assigned to his cell phone. Area code 202 is for Washington, DC, which is a one part consent state. My calls were to and from his 202 area cold number. The fact that a cell tower may have routed the call elsewhere is beyond my knowledge or control.

Continuous Wave, thank's for your two cents. Understand, I'm not whining. Bitching, maybe. LOL :) There's a lot more to this story than I'm putting out in public. I posted this to let the few people who've been encouraging my efforts know what happened, and to make a public record of the situation. As I said, Mr. Henderson's integrity and ethics are highly suspect. I have been warned about him. Enough said.

I did not run an illegal TV signal. There's a provision in FCC policy that provides a station may immediately resume operations from an alternate location when the original site becomes unavailable due to a disaster or situation beyond the control of the station. Here, a hurricane took down the tower of license in Clear Lake. Last year, following FCC policy, the Commission was notified that operations had resumed on a temporary basis from the new location, and the STA paperwork with the new coordinates was sent to the FCC. It appears in a nonpublic section of the CDBS database, and to this day remains pending -- neither granted nor denied by the FCC. Moreover, back then I had a conversation with the local FCC enforcement agent about it. As long as the STA paperwork was submitted and hadn't been denied, and nobody was complaining about interference, all was good.

It almost sounds like you want to be Mr. Henderson's lawyer. If I was suing to reinstate the license it would have to be in federal court. Otherwise, Texas courts have jurisdiction over breach of contract claims as long as one of the parties is in Texas, or an act or omission occurred in Texas. Roy Henderson has a Texas ID and owns a home, as well as numerous radio stations, here in the Lone Star State.

Finally, in reply to your comment about spend my time and money on my own application and station, be aware that before I became involved with Mr. Henderson and his lawyer I was doing just that. The nonprofit I run was fully qualified for an LPFM and there was an application in the CDBS system ready and waiting to be filed last year when the FCC opened their October 2013 filing window After we got permission to put KVDO back on, and spent a lot of money to do it, we made a decision to not file for an LPFM. Now that Roy Henderson has screwed us, is there any way for us to go back and get the window reopened to file the LPFM? No, we're double screwed. Especially in view of the fact that after the last window, every channel that could possibly be used for LPFM in Houston is now taken.
 
Willdav713, interesting comments about recording phone conversations. He's another point to consider. Mr. Henderson's lawyer claimed it was illegal for me to record our conversations because he is physically located in Pennsylvania, which is a 2-party consent state. However, he doesn't have a Pennsylvania phone number. For whatever reason (business, most likely), he has chosen to have a 202 area code number assigned to his cell phone. Area code 202 is for Washington, DC, which is a one part consent state. My calls were to and from his 202 area cold number. The fact that a cell tower may have routed the call elsewhere is beyond my knowledge or control.

Continuous Wave, thank's for your two cents. Understand, I'm not whining. Bitching, maybe. LOL :) There's a lot more to this story than I'm putting out in public. I posted this to let the few people who've been encouraging my efforts know what happened, and to make a public record of the situation. As I said, Mr. Henderson's integrity and ethics are highly suspect. I have been warned about him. Enough said.

I did not run an illegal TV signal. There's a provision in FCC policy that provides a station may immediately resume operations from an alternate location when the original site becomes unavailable due to a disaster or situation beyond the control of the station. Here, a hurricane took down the tower of license in Clear Lake. Last year, following FCC policy, the Commission was notified that operations had resumed on a temporary basis from the new location, and the STA paperwork with the new coordinates was sent to the FCC. It appears in a nonpublic section of the CDBS database, and to this day remains pending -- neither granted nor denied by the FCC. Moreover, back then I had a conversation with the local FCC enforcement agent about it. As long as the STA paperwork was submitted and hadn't been denied, and nobody was complaining about interference, all was good.

It almost sounds like you want to be Mr. Henderson's lawyer. If I was suing to reinstate the license it would have to be in federal court. Otherwise, Texas courts have jurisdiction over breach of contract claims as long as one of the parties is in Texas, or an act or omission occurred in Texas. Roy Henderson has a Texas ID and owns a home, as well as numerous radio stations, here in the Lone Star State.

Finally, in reply to your comment about spend my time and money on my own application and station, be aware that before I became involved with Mr. Henderson and his lawyer I was doing just that. The nonprofit I run was fully qualified for an LPFM and there was an application in the CDBS system ready and waiting to be filed last year when the FCC opened their October 2013 filing window After we got permission to put KVDO back on, and spent a lot of money to do it, we made a decision to not file for an LPFM. Now that Roy Henderson has screwed us, is there any way for us to go back and get the window reopened to file the LPFM? No, we're double screwed. Especially in view of the fact that after the last window, every channel that could possibly be used for LPFM in Houston is now taken.


I am not a lawyer nor do I care about Henderson...However, I did review the documents you have posted on your own web site...but I do know how the Commission operates in the broadcast world...been in it for 40+ years...and successfully stopped a station from being sold (because the buyers were acting just like you...trying to control it without FCC permission first!) with prejudice; they can never reapply to buy it again...oops! SO yeah I know this subject quite well....

1) YOU cannot change the site of the transmitter site because YOU were/are not the legal licensee of the stations. Only counsel of the licensee or the licensee itself may notify the FCC...You did not do that nor was there a legal LMA in place..even with that, the licensee or their agent remains the legal contact, NOT the LMAer....you really need to learn FCC laws and broadcast Rules & Regs

2) You tried to claim a new mailing address for Far Eastern Telecasters...yet, the FET on file with the FCC was NOT you but FET with a mailing address in Michigan (where it is probably a LLC or other corp; that is done all the time)..YOU filed paperwork claiming YOU were the GM of the licensee...that was a false statement. Knowing the FCC field agents in Houston as I do, I am surprised that if any of them knew about your operation, that they did not issue a NAL/NOV!

3) transfer of control of a broadcast station MUST be signed off by the FCC before such transfer can happen..YOU tried to circumvent that according to your own documents...therefore ANY documents YOU filed with the FCC acting as an agent for the licensee were false and you committed perjury under Federal Law...

I know about emergency antennas, etc. and how the rules apply to them...but that applies to the LICENSEE...YOU WERE/ARE not that nor were you ever....I have seen the paperwork you have posted that is probably your claim of the FCC being notified of operation..it had YOUR signature and mailing address...YOUR tower and antenna was NOT damaged, KVDO's was...You ARE not/never were legally the licensee or agent for the licensee thus......do I have to keep repeating this? You can try to justify it all you want to but you BLATANTLY tried to take over a broadcast station without FCC approval.

NOONE can try to take over a dark station by filing papers claiming to the the legal licensee or that they are the new agent...the FORMER agent OR the licensee must file paperwork noting that..but YOU tried to circumvent Part 73 and 74 rules and then keep claiming you had the right to do it..

NO YOU DID NOT...PERIOD! (if it seems I am being rude, I am not sorry...I am not being RUDE...YOU were for trying to take over a station without prior FCC ok...I get upset when people dont follow the RULES...AND btw, I have had arguments with Roy Henderson over his KTWL FM which tried to claim it would cover The Woodlands from its current tower site..HA! I dont know what he was smoking or drinking but several of us on Radio-Info.com tried to tell him NO it wont...he kept claiming yes it would...well, we see how far that worked out.....it didnt cover!)

Lets see, how serious did the FCC take you? Well, you filed a false change of mailing address....but where did the FCC send the notice to FET about the renewal?? To the address on file..in Michigan..so they ignored your filings because they were false....again, I am surprised the Houston office did not cite you. I need to talk to them....lol

FCC paperwork must be filed in the proper order...the paperwork to LMA the station was never issued and signed off on...thus any action YOU did was not legal in the FCC's eyes...

Your statement on the antenna situation "It appears in a nonpublic section of the CDBS database"....really?? Know why?? because you had no legal authority to file that : http://kvdo.net/documents/EngineeringSTA.pdf

You use the word "WE" liberally throughout the paperwork YOU filed to the FCC trying to act as the agent for FET...You LIED to the FCC in all instances...

Also, to file to reinstate the license? You would not be filing in ANY court...only the FCC has that power.....They have been told by the LICENSEE on file that the licenses are being turned in for deletion...thus they will be deleted unless Henderson applies for reconsideration but I seriously doubt the FCC would do that now...the renewal date has come and gone and the licenses surrendered....they are gone and you have/never had any claim to them whatsoever..

As to breach of contract....good luck....you have no legal standing from what I can see...the phone call was done to a lawyer and you were NOT his client..thus not in the normal matter of business...HE knows FCC law probably better than anyone on this site....you can try to whine and complain and try to file lawsuits...say goodbye to your money even more..
I would say good luck but you are on the losing side...

Learn to follow the RULES that EVERYONE has to play by....you tried to "steal" a TV station...didn't work...and could not/would not work.....the paperwork you have posted on your site shows how you tried to claim things that were not true...

As much as you may not like it, Henderson's lawyers filed the paperwork with the FCC that the FCC likes to see..you tried to file false paperwork...and the FCC ignored it....as noted in the renewal notice to FET's address..otherwise, they would have sent it to your mailing address...but they didn't...and there's a good reason why...

You want to run a TV station? lease a channel on an existing station....Dowen who operates KQVT-LD is always looking for someone to lease subchannels....

Here's their contact info:
C. DOWEN JOHNSON
Title: C. Dowen Johnson
Date: 03/15/2010
Application Certifier

JAMES L. OYSTER
Law Offices Of James L. Oyster
Phone: 540-937-4800
E-Mail: [email protected]
Contact Representative

C. DOWEN JOHNSON
104 Woodmont
Montgomery, TX 77356
Phone: 936-443-4451
E-Mail: [email protected]
Applicant

You have posted your complaining on your web site, here and Radio-Insight..and probably other places...that makes you lose credibility....of course all the documents you filed on your site does not help your complaining either..

I'm through with this subject...
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom