• 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

Competing applicant files dismissal of application for another Licensee

C

ChiefEngineer

Hi. I haven't seen this before. In Wilmington Ohio a competing applicant submitted a dismissal letter for a competing applicant. This is a non commercial applicant.

I got a copy of the dismissal for the client from the FCC. It was identical to a dismissal letter the competing applicant had proposed. Problem was the letter and the deal had some odd problems so the proposal was not accepted by the client.

The proposal was that the client dismiss an application and then receive a CP the opponent had already been granted.

The dismissal letter the opponent provided indicated the dismissal was for "no consideration." The problem was the proposed CP that would be transferred after the dismissal. The client refused.

Staff wouldn't provide a lot of information, okay, any.

The dismissal had the address of the sender: www.raduga.net. The person who had been offering the deal was Bill Spry of 24/7 Broadcasting. Staff is reviewing this now. It was unsigned but was identical to the letter 24/7 provided to the client.

Staff did acknowledge the source of the dismissal, which was an opposing or competing applicant. Anyone else have a similar instance?
 
No big deal. You most not have heard of a "Sandra Soho". Once formerly - known as "Stanley" Soho, who was once a Medical Doctor, lost her/his medical license ( for selling drugs ) -- claimed to be a minister, former Viet Nam POW ( NOT ) and SOLE over a DOZEN FCC applications and several CP's. The former Doctor has over 14 different names. Sandra Woodruff, George Smith, George Wade, Sandra Faulk, Fraunk Kato, Verne White and the list goes on. The FCC was never able to "grab" her. Most of the FCC applications were dismissed or the CPs expired. However the former Doctor / Rev Soho is now doing 5 years in the Oregon State Pen and fined over $ 500,000 by the State of Oregon for fraud.
 
Time to call in the DC attorney.

As far as I can decipher from the information supplied, & FCC records, this was a non-com app. filed in the last window (2007). In this "chain" of applications there were 11 competing apps for various towns in SW Ohio. For those not familiar with the process, there are several "tie-breakers" used to sort out the successful app. when there are mutually exclusive competing applications. To make the complicated story short, only four applicants claimed a "fair distribution preference" and only one applicant proposed a first service. This was one of two apps at Wilmington, Ohio.

Hence the matter seems settled. So if ChiefEngineer's client was the other applicant at Wilmington, he's out. Now, the winning applicant could transfer the CP to the client, but there would be no need for the client to dismiss his app. since it has already been eliminated and dismissed under the point system. Nor would it appear to be wise to try to "swap" apps at this stage because it might tempt one of the other applicants to try to open up the whole process again. Better take the granted cp & do a minor mod. if possible.
 
MisterGort said:
The former Doctor has over 14 different names. Sandra Woodruff, George Smith, George Wade, Sandra Faulk, Fraunk Kato, Verne White and the list goes on.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that last name? Verne White may be a whole other person, who once claimed that he was going to resurrect the over-air KYA at 1260 AM in San Francisco (he ran a KYA-themed webcast).

There are some who believe he is a R-I regular...
 
Client was the winning applicant. Problem is that one of the non winning applicants filed the dismissal for the winning applicant.

The guy that called me was Bill Spry. Spry's website raduga.com was on the dismissal letter. This was the same letter sent to the client when the proposal was offered and rejected. Spry heads Spry media.

I have heard about a similar thing happening in Dayton Ohio. I can't find the whole story but it has to do with an LPFM that went on the air twice. Two groups placed an LPFM on and claimed they were the Licensee.

The problem is that the group is claiming the dismissal to deny the winning applicant.

I hear all the time that something like this is a federal crime with prison time. Staff at the FCC didn't initially note the dismissal filed in April of last year. It had all the names, file numbers, correct address, just no signature.

Isn't this identity theft?
 
Time to call in FCC counsel.

If your client is the winning applicant and has been granted the CP, if I were the winner, I would file a paper with the commission asking to dismiss the letter as untimely, without substance, and asking for sanctions against Spry.

I would also write a timely letter to Spry re: same issues and tell him he either withdraws the letter or faces not only sanctions for the improper and baseless letter, but also a civil lawsuit. If you wanted to be real nasty, a suggestion to enforcement staff that they examine Spry's operations woudld be a nasty move but get the point across.
 
Indeed, get a DC attorney involved. That gets you two things:

1. The attorney can walk over to the Commission and inform staff that, no, we don't want to dismiss, and, yes, the applicant intends to follow through on the CP.

2. FCC staff will know that unless a filing comes from the attorney, it is probably spurious.

Spry should be careful, believe he has a station over near Cincy some place.
 
The client has a DC attorney. Filing a report with the State Police and Homeland Security. I think teh term charachter issues is appropriate. Not sure why they did this. Wait, I am sure. they wanted to get staff to dismiss, and typically no note is sent to the applicant if they dismiss on their own. I think teh raduga.net address on the dismissal, and no signature, tipped them off.
 
I slightly misunderstood.

So Spry sent a letter impersonating your client asking for voluntary dismissal.

That takes stones.

If your client were me, I'd nail the guy to the wall and make sure you get a couple pounds of flesh at the same time.
 
Problem is, this is all a huge lie. The person claiming that Spry sent this agreement to the FCC is a lier or simply got bad information. Spry never sent anything to the FCC. He only created a document for his client. Spry was never an applicant for Wilmington. He was only a Technical consultant who completed and filed an application for Wilmington for his client. It will all come out in the end.

In addition, the applicant for Wilmington won his CP because he made false "first service" claims on his application and as a result, 2 Petitions to Deny were filed. He did not win his CP and he WON'T win his CP because of it's errors. But someone in Dayton will more than likely win the CP. Not sure who right now. The FCC is re-examining that group of MX apps.
 
A lie is something that is totally untrue. We have a paper trail on this. Someone has been up to something. That is clear.

The odd thing is that Spry indicated he authored the document. He told me this. He told me he would send it to me to give to the client. The other odd thing is that the day he called the Licensee to float the deal was the day the document was submitted to Staff. the client, and I, had only heard the offer on the day it was submitted.

Once we examined the offer several weeks later it was decided that telling Staff a lie to dismiss, the "no consideration" lie, was too much to chance. Didn't want to get close to it.

The client found out about this dismissal just a few weeks ago. It was submitted April 6, 2010, the day Spry suggested this was a possibility and asked me to give it to the client. Unfortunately what he sent was not able to be downloaded and it was weeks before the client or I could even read the documents.

The most odd thing is the actual dismissal submitted to Staff. The document at the FCC contained Bill Spry's email address at raduga.net. K I know Spry sells Raduga. He may allow people to use this address to send emails to the FCC? He would be able to determine who sent it but claims the winning applicant sent it, unsigned.

If the client sent it, it would have been weeks later, and signed. Over months Spry kept calling and asking for this to be signed. He indicated he had a great interest in this area. Itm is related to another application he has in Northern Kentucky.

I tried to call him when the FCC provided a copy of the dismissal. He would not return calls. I try to look for the best in people. Whoever submitted the dismissal would have a connection to Spry because it was submitted from the Raduga.net address. Who did he send this to that could have forwarded it from his website?

I look forward to hearing who sent it from his web address. When someone registers... a username and password are generated. Then the best part: Whoever sent it from the raduga website would have to have access to the document Spry told me he authored. This is easy to determine but the raduga website owner needs to let us know.

The misrepresentation issue is big here but also identity theft and all those prison years you get for filing a false claim with the Federal Government.
 
I purchased the raduga automation system from Spry back in 1999 and again in around 2004 and never had a problem with him.

I noted that the above posts seem to interchange the e mail adress he is supposed to have used ( Raduga.com and later Raduga.net ) I checked them both and immediently recognized the dot net address as his from ten years or so back but the dot com address appears to be entirely different. Are we talking the same person for both addresses here?
 
1. The documents were not signed so therefore there was NO agreement between anyone. Only documents drawn up. Now if there were forged signatures then there would be an issue but you still have to find out who actually sent it and if it was indeed sent to the FCC. I'll bet money that it was never sent and/or if it was, it was sent by someone associated with the BNPED-20071019AQH application.

2. Anyone can put a web address in the First name/Last name field. The FCC is not stupid. If these documents WERE really filed with the FCC then all the FCC has to do is look at the email header and track the IP address from where it came and look at the actual email address of who sent it. Spry did not talk to anyone about any this because it was not his application and he had no interest in it in the first place.

Sorry Marty. You know you never spoke with Spry. Your phone records will prove that and so will his. You only spoke with Lash who was the in-between. My guess is that someone used Spry's information to make it look the he sent it to cause trouble, again if it was even sent in the first place. You know you never called Spry and he never called you EVER at any point. Just wondering why, Marty, this concerns you so much. Did you file for the Wilmington application or did EARS?

3. You said "The misrepresentation issue is big here but also identity theft and all those prison years you get for filing a false claim with the Federal Government". What misrepresentation was there. Spry did not send it. Whoever sent it did not send signed copies. Therefore there is no fraud, there is no agreement, therefore no case and the FCC could care less. They have more Legitimately important things to worry about and so does the Department of homeland security and the state police. Give me a break.

If you had not filed a flawed application for client in the first place, these petitions to deny would never have been filed by Spry's client and by Calvary Chapel.

Spry's client knows they will not win their Dayton application and their Wilmington application. But they want it to go to the justified party and want the FCC to make that decision.
 
I spoke with Bill Spry. I had no reason to doubt when he claimed he was Bill Spry. He was seemingly knowledgeable about raduga and all the Spry stations. The emails I received were from a raduga address and I am pretty sure he signed them. Every call I got the guy claimed to be Bill Spry. The caller ID and Spry's number are the same.

I think Dayton has already been decided. This is the same type of confusion that has been presented in the Wilmington case. Was it the Licensee or someone claiming to be the Licensee? Staff stayed out of that. The transfer was approved and the Corporation with the station is operating it.

If Spry is claiming that he didn't have a part of this he needs to document who is operating using his name. In this case Staff indicated the raduga address was legit. 1) Representative claimed to be Spry 2) Document prepared by Spry as he claimed to be Spry 3) Document sent from Spry's raduga address. Too many points of light on this unless Spry can document who was allegedly claiming to be him. If he can. this too would make a good story.

Since the dismissal was submitted without a signature the person submitting can't get out of it as it was a deceptive submission. I have already gotten a few IM's about this. Whoever did this knows how Staff works and this isn't the first time this has happened.
 
RockNuts! said:
1. The documents were not signed so therefore there was NO agreement between anyone. Only documents drawn up. Now if there were forged signatures then there would be an issue but you still have to find out who actually sent it and if it was indeed sent to the FCC. I'll bet money that it was never sent and/or if it was, it was sent by someone associated with the BNPED-20071019AQH application.

2. Anyone can put a web address in the First name/Last name field. The FCC is not stupid. If these documents WERE really filed with the FCC then all the FCC has to do is look at the email header and track the IP address from where it came and look at the actual email address of who sent it. Spry did not talk to anyone about any this because it was not his application and he had no interest in it in the first place.

Sorry Marty. You know you never spoke with Spry. Your phone records will prove that and so will his. You only spoke with Lash who was the in-between. My guess is that someone used Spry's information to make it look the he sent it to cause trouble, again if it was even sent in the first place. You know you never called Spry and he never called you EVER at any point. Just wondering why, Marty, this concerns you so much. Did you file for the Wilmington application or did EARS?

3. You said "The misrepresentation issue is big here but also identity theft and all those prison years you get for filing a false claim with the Federal Government". What misrepresentation was there. Spry did not send it. Whoever sent it did not send signed copies. Therefore there is no fraud, there is no agreement, therefore no case and the FCC could care less. They have more Legitimately important things to worry about and so does the Department of homeland security and the state police. Give me a break.

If you had not filed a flawed application for client in the first place, these petitions to deny would never have been filed by Spry's client and by Calvary Chapel.

Spry's client knows they will not win their Dayton application and their Wilmington application. But they want it to go to the justified party and want the FCC to make that decision.
Click to expand...

Just looked up old posts..why speak in third person?
 
ChiefEngineer said:
I spoke with Bill Spry. I had no reason to doubt when he claimed he was Bill Spry. He was seemingly knowledgeable about raduga and all the Spry stations. The emails I received were from a raduga address and I am pretty sure he signed them. Every call I got the guy claimed to be Bill Spry. The caller ID and Spry's number are the same.

"More lies Marty. Will you ever stop? The FCC knows all about you and your history and so do many others."

If Spry is claiming that he didn't have a part of this he needs to document who is operating using his name. In this case Staff indicated the raduga address was legit. 1) Representative claimed to be Spry 2) Document prepared by Spry as he claimed to be Spry 3) Document sent from Spry's raduga address. Too many points of light on this unless Spry can document who was allegedly claiming to be him. If he can. this too would make a good story.

"Spry doesn't need to do anything. The person with the claim needs to have the proof and they certainly don't."

Since the dismissal was submitted without a signature the person submitting can't get out of it as it was a deceptive submission. I have already gotten a few IM's about this. Whoever did this knows how Staff works and this isn't the first time this has happened.

"So why did YOU submit it, or rather why did you fabricate that it was submitted? Whatever."
Click to expand...
 
Just looked up old posts..why speak in third person?

Isn't that the kettle calling the pot black. Why are you speaking in the third person and why are you airing this whole issue publicly? Why don't REALLY call Spry if you have an issue with this. Because you know the truth.

The guilty would flock to this board to gain support while the innocent will let the FCC find the truth, if they even care. Best of luck to you Marty, with your Wilmington efforts. I've got work to do.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom