ffi NossAMAN'_,,ATTORNEYS AT LAW

1666 K Skeet, NW

Suìte 500

Washington, DC 20006

T 202.887 .1400

F 202.466.3215

Tamir D. Damari

D 202.887 .1442tdamari@nossaman.com

Refer To F¡le #: 29086'1-0003

July 2,2010

Federal Communications CommissionOffice of General Counsel44s 12'h street swWashington, DC 20554

Re: FOIA Control No.2010-379

skybridge spectrum Foundation ("skybridge"), by and through its undersigned

counsel, hereby files this Application for Review of Freedom of lnformation Act Action.

Skybridge seeks review, pursuant to 47 CFR 550.461Ú) and '1 .115, of a June 2, 2010

determination by scot stone, Deputy chief, Mobility Division, wireless

Telecommunications Bureau (the "wireless Bureau") denying skybridge's Freedom of

lnformation Act Request (the "Request") dated April 19,2010 (FOIA Control No. 2010-

37e).

249387 1.DOCnossaman.con'l

July 2, 2010Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTION PRESENTED

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

FOIA REQUEST AT ISSUE

ARGUMENT

INTRODUCTION

THE WIRELESS BUREAU HAS NOT ESTABLISHEDTHAT INFORMATION MAY BE PROPERLY WITHHELDAS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

THE WIRELESS BUREAU HAS NOT ESTABLISHEDTHAT DOCUMENTS MAY BE PROPERLYWITHHELD AS ATTORNEYWORK PRODUCT

THE FACT THAT SKYBRIDGE WAS -CC'D' ON CERTAIN

LETTERS TRANSMITTED BY THE INVESTIGATEDPARTIES IS LEGALLY IMMATERIAL

CONCLUSION

J

3

7

o

o

10

15

17

19

249387 1.DOC

July 2, 2010Page 3

QUESTION PRESENTED

1. Did the wireless Bureau err on June 2, 2010 by maintaining that certain

information responsive to the Request was exempt from disclosure by FolA?

RELEVANT UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Enforcement and wireless Bureaus of the commission are investigating

compliance by Maritime communications/Land Mobile, LLC ('MCLM) with 47 cFR

ss1.2110, 1.2112, 1.17 and 1.65. Specifically, these Bureaus are investigating whether

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

Commission. (the "MCLM lnvestigation").

By letter dated AUguSt 18,2009, the Wireless Bureau directed MCLM' its

principals sandra and Donald DePriest, and its affiliates MariTEL, lnc. ("MariTEL") and

wireless Properties of Virginia, Inc. ("wPV") (collectively, the "lnvestigated Parties") to

provide certain information related to the MCLM lnvestigation (See letters collectively

attached as Exhibit l). This letter prohibited the lnvestigated Parties from withholding

information based upon generalized or unsubstantiated claims of confidentiality:

Request for confidentíal Treatment. lf [you] request that any information

or documents responsive to this letter be treated in a confidential manner,

[you]shallsubmit,alongwithallresponsiveinformationanddocuments,aõtatement in accordance with Section 0.459 of ihe Commission's rules.

47 C.F.R. S0.459. Requests for confidential treatment must comply with

the requirements of section 0.459, including the standards of specificity

mandated by Section 0 459(b) 1 Accordingly' "blanket" requests for

I This regulation states, in relevant part

2493A7 1.DOC

July 2,2010Page 4

confidentiality of a 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.

..(b) Except as provided in S0.a59(aX3), each s.uch request shall-contain a.statement of

tÀË reasons foi withhotding-tne màtêìials from inspection (see $0.457) and of the facts

upon which those records are based, including:

(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)ldentificationofanymeasufestakenbythesubmittingpartytopreventunauthorizeddisclosure;

(7) ldentification of whether the information is available to the public and the extent of

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

(9) Any other information that the party seeking- confidential treaiment believes may be

ùÉeful'in assessing whether its request for confidentiality should be granted."

2 This regulation states, in relevant part: "(c) Casual requests (including simply stamping

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 2,2010Page 5

The lnvestigated Parties responded by letters dated September 28, 2009 and

september 30, 2009. (see response of sandra DePrieslMCLM, attached as Exhibit 2'

response of wPV, attached as Exhibit 3, response of MariTEL, attached as Exhibit 4)

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'

on February 26,2010, the Enforcement Bureau sent a follow-up letier of inquiry

to the lnvestigated Parties, seeking additional information and documentation relating to

the MCLM lnvestigation. (see letters collectively attached as Exhibit 5). This letter

once again prohibited the lnvestigated Parties from withholding information based upon

generalized or unsubstantiated claims of confidentiality:

RequestforConfidentialTreatment,lf[therespondingpartyrequests]lhatany information or documents responsive to this letter be treated in acoñfidential manner, it shall submit, along with all responsive information

anddocuments,astatementinaccordancewithSection0.4S9oftheCommission'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'

See Exhibit 5, at Page 8.

The lnvestigated Parties responded by letters dated March 29, 20l0 (See

response of sandra DePriesvMCLM attached hereto as Exhibit 6, response of Donald

DePriesuwPV attached hereto as Exhibit 7, response of MariTEL, attached hereto as

Exhibit 8). once again, the lnvestigated Parties disregarded the Enforcement Bureau's

249387 1.DOC

July 2,2010Page 6

admonition regarding withholding information based upon unsubstantiated claims of

confidentiality. lnstead, they made generalized and conclusory claims regarding the

purported confidentiality of information responsive to the Enforcement Bureau's request'

For example, MariTEL's response stated:

Certain of the requests seek confidential information ' ' Accordingly'

MariTelherebyrequestsconfidentialtreatmentundersection0.4S9oftheCommission'srules,forcertaincommerciallysensitivecorporateandfinancial information contained in its response. . . MariTEL requests that

theredactedconfidentialinformationbepermanentlywithheldfrompublicinspection under section 0.459 of the Commission's rules

See ExhibitS, at Page 1.

With particular respeci to MariTEL's aggregate gross revenues and other

financial information, MariIEL responded:

Mr.Schonman'sletterrequestsdocumentationdemonstratingMariTEL,saggregate gross revenues and other financial information ' This

informationhasbeenprovidedinExhibitsl,2and4,respectively'oftheCONFIDENTIAL version of MariTEL's response' The information

containedintheseExhibitsiscommerciallysensitivecorporateandfinancial information that customarily would be guarded from competitors

and would not be made routinely available for public inspection'

ld., at page 2.

Similarly, Donald DePriestÄNPV stated:

DePriest requests confidential treatment of the Exhibits in their entirety ' . .

The Exhibits merit confidential treatment because they address

strategically sensitive matters, including specific commercial and financial

¡ntortät¡on. DePriest would not cusiomarily release this type of sensitive

information to the public and believes that exposure of the specific

business arrangements or its financial information is unwarranted Such

release could résult in substaniial competitive harm by placing DePriest at

a disadvantage vis-à-vis other telecommunications servlce providers

ùËãit¡L"rv añd against the private mobile radio service industry in general

249387 1.DOC

July 2,2o1OPage 7

. . . There is no reasonably segreable information which could be released

without competitive harm to DePriest.

See ExhibitT, at Page 1.

MCLM/Sandra DePriest likewise responded by stating:

The Exhibits merit confidential treatment because they address

strategicallysensitivematters,includingspecificcommercialandfinancialinformãtion. MCLM would not customarily release ihis type of sensitive

information to the public and believes thai exposure of the .specificbusinessu,,"ng"*"nt.oritsfinancialinformationisunwarranted.Suchrelease could result in substantial competitive harm by placing MCLM at a

disadvantagevis-à-visothertelecommunicationsserviceprovidersspecificallyãnd against the private mobile radio service industry in general

. . . There ls no reasonably segreable information which could be released

without comPetitive harm io MCLM.

See Exhibit6, at Page 1.

THE FOIA REQUEST AT ISSUE

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

and wpV ¡n connection *iÚ' tn" MCLM lnvestigation (the "section 308

Letters");

(2) All records relating to the February 26, 2010 letters sent by the

Ènforcement Bureau to thê lnvestigated Parties (the "EB Letters");

(3) Copies of all correspondence between the Commission and the

iecipients of the section 30g and EB Letters, regarding the subject

matters of these letters;

(4) Copies of all correspondence between the staffs of the Wireless

andEnforcementBureausrelatingiothesubjectmattersoftheSection308 Letters and the EB Letters; and

249387 1.DOC

July 2, 2010Page I

(5) Copies of all correspondence between ihe Commission and any

àón_commission governmental entity relating to the subject matters of the

Section 308 Letters and the EB Letters.

See Exhibit9.

On June 2,2O1O,the Wireless Bureau responded to the Request as follows:

(1)AstoRequestNo.l,theWirelessBureaumaintainedthatithadprevlousty 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^towpV'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

"oji"o on ñave been filed or are in the commission's possession."

However, the Bureau further acknowledged that MCLM' WPV and MariTel

had sought and obtained confidential treatment of certain portions of their

responses to the EB letters.

(3) As to Request No. 3, the Wireless Bureau maintained that "you

wáre copied on ihe three Section 308 Letters and Responses; the three

[EB] Letiers and responses; and any e-mail1 Commission staff may have

had with the affected parties. Beyond that, the Commission has no other

records."

(4) As to Request No.4, the Wireless Bureau maintained that all

iesponsive documents "are protected by - the attorney work-product

¡oobtrinel which has been incoiporated into Exemption 5 of the Freedom

äf lnformation Act' 5 U.S.C. S552(b)(5), and are therefore . not

discloseable. ln the alternative, and also under Exemption 5, any such e-

mailswouldbe.pre-decisional,innature,andlikewisenotsubjecttodisclosure."

See Exhibit 10.

249387 1.DOC

July 2, 2010Page 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

formalism," but rather "it defines a structural necessity in a real democracy " ld''a|171-

72.

Thewithholdingagencybearstheburdenofestablishingthatagivendocument

is exempt from the disclosure requirements of FolA. center for Internat¡onal

Environmental Law v- oftice of the IJS Trade Representative, 237 F. Supp. 2d 17 '21

(D.D.c.2002).Mostrecently,thePresidentoftheUnitedStateshasissueda

memorandum to the heads of all agencies instructing them that information may not be

withheld under FOIA simply because of the agency's "speculative or abstract fears"

regarding disclosure. FOIA Post (2009): Creating a New Era of open Government (fhe

,,FOIA Memorandum"), at page 1 The FOIA Memorandum also "strongly encourages

agencies to make discretionary disclosures of ¡nformation." /d.' at page 2. lnformation

should not be withheld simply because an exemption "technically or legally" might apply

Id., at page 4.

The wireless Bureau has failed to meet its stringent burden to justify non-

disclosure, for the reasons set forth below. lts actions are therefore in conflict with

statute, regulations, case precedent and established commission policy. Furthermore,

these actions have caused prejudicial procedural error to Skybridge'

2493A7 ,1.DOC

July 2,2010Page 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

based on a request by the lnvestigated Parties that this information be treated as

confidentiat under 5 u.s.c. s552(b)(4) (colloquially known as FOlA "Exemption 4.).3

Exemption 4 exempts from the disclosure requirements of FolA "trade secrets and

commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or

confidential."

Nonetheless, because courts "have viewed [Exemption 4] arguments with

skepticism" (ln Defense of Animats v. NlH, 543 F' Supp 2d'70'79 (D D'C' 2008))' the

scope of Exemption 4 has been carefully circumscribed. Firstly, "the government

retains the burden of demonstrating that the specific information withheld in any

particular instance qualifies as confidential commercial information." Government

Accountability Proiectv. HHS,2010 U.S. Dist LEX|S 21415 "29 (D D'C 2010)'

secondly, information will be considered confidential only if disclosure would be

likely either to (1) impair the government's ability to obtain necessary information in the

future; or (2) cause substantial harm to the competitive position of the person from

whom information was obtained. see Government Accountability Proiect, at.13'

Thirdly,aparty..maywaiveitsclaimthatinformationisexemptfromdisclosureif

a FOIA plainiiff carries his burden of pointing to specific information in the public domain

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 2,2010Page l1

that appears to duplicate that [which is] being withheld." People for the Ethical

Treatment of Anímals v. USDA,2005 U.S. Dist' LEXIS 10586 -26 (D D'C' 2005)'

Fourthly, when an agency asserts Exemption 4, is must generally provide a so-

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

access without exposing the withheld information."); People for the Ethical Treatment of

Animals v. ]JSDA,2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10586 .11 (May 24' 2005)'

Finally,andmostimportantly,aconclusoryorgeneralizedallegationthat

responsive financial information is "privileged" or "confidential," is perse insufficient to

demonstratethattherequestedinformationiswithinthescopeofExemption4.See

Government Accountab¡tity, at *14 ("Conclusory and generalized allegations of

competitive harm, of course, are unacceptable and cannot support an agency's decision

to withhold requested documents."); Green v. Dept' of Commerce' 489 F Supp' 977'

980 (D.D.C. 1980). The paradigmatic example of an improper conclusory invocation of

Exemption 4 occurs when no facts or supporting detail is alleged in support of alleged

competitive harm. Government Accountability Proiect, al -23-25 ("the explanation lacks

any supporting detail demonstrating that a competitor could, in fact, use the withheld

material . . The conclusory nature of Defendants' explanation on this point is fatal ' ")

;In Defense of Animats v. NIH, 543 F. Supp. 2d'70,79 (D'D'C. 2008) (..NlH's argument

249387 1.DOC

July 2,2010Page 12

for application of this Exemption consists of tvvo sentences . . . NIH fails to identify with

any level of specificity what it means by 'cost and rate' information, nor explains how

such information could be used by competitors to cause substantial harm to cRL' NIH's

failure in this regard is problematic, as courts in this circuit routinely reject Exemption 4

arguments that are grounded in generalizations.") ; People for the Ethical Treatment of

Animals, al*22.

Section 0.45g of the Commission's rules likewise obligates parties requesting

confidential treatment of financial records to provide:

a statement of the reasons for withholding the materials from inspection

and of the facts upon which those records are based, including '(1)ldentification of the specific information for which confidential treatment is

sought . . . (3) Explanation of the degree to which the information is

com-mercial'or financial, or contains à trade secret or is privileged . , . (4)

Explanation of the degree to which the inform_ation concerns a service that

is òubject to competition . . .(5) Explanation of how disclosure of the

information could. result in substantial competitive harm ' (6)

ldentification of any measures taken by the submitting party to prevent .

unauihorized disclosure. . . (7) ldentification of whether the information is

available to the public and the extent of any previous disclosure of the

informationtothirdparties...(8)Justificationoftheperiodduring'which.the submitting party asserts that material should not be available for public

disclosure; añcj (S) nny other information that the party seeking ..

confidential treatment -believes

may be useful in assessing whether its

request for confidentiality should be granted'

Applyingtheforegoingstandardtothismatter,thelnvestigatedParties,

talismanic invocation of Exemption 4, which has been rubber stamped by the wireless

Bureau, fails as a matier of law. The lnvestigated Parties have provided no

particularized ground for treating any of their information as confidential under

Exemption 4. Their arguments in support of confidentiality are nothing more than

2493a7 1.DOC

July 2,2010Page 13

tautologies devoid of any underlying factual basis. For example, MariTEL',s response io

the EB Letter stated: "certain of the requests seek confidential information . ' '

Accordingly, MariTel hereby requests confidentiality under section 0.459 of the

commission's rules, for ceriain commercially sensitive corporate and financial

information contained in its response," and that "the information contained in these

Exhibits [provided by MariTEL to the FCC] is commercially sensitive corporate and

financial information that customarily would be guarded from competitors and would not

be made routinely available for public inspection." This self-serving regurgitation of

S552(bX4) comprises an argument even more flimsy than the one summarily rejected

bytheadjudicatingcourtsinGovernmentAccountabilityProjecfandlnDefenseof

Animals,supra.ltalsoplainlyviolates$0.45goftheCommission,sRules,which,as

notedabove,mandatesthatapartyclaimingExemption4protectionmustprovidea

detailed explanation of the basis for this claimed exemption'

This gossamer-thin justification for withholding information properly within the

scope of FolA is only underscored by the wireless Bureau's failure to provide the

requiredVaughnlndex,whichdeprivesSkybridgeofeventhemostbasicinformation

regarding the documents withheld.

Finally, as noted above' a party may ..waive its claim that information is exempt

from disclosure if a FolA plaintiff carries his burden of pointing to specific information in

the public domain that appears to duplicate that [which is] being withheld." People for

the Ethical Treatment of Animals, at"26. Much of the information for which the

lnvestigatedPartiesseekconfidentialtreatment(e.g.,informationregardingtheir

249387_1.DOC

July 2, 2010Page 14

attfibutable gross revenues, as disclosed in tax returns and other documents) is

information that must be publically disclosed when a wireless license applicant seeks a

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

lnvestigated Parties' misstatements in Auction 61. Furthermore, as the commission is

aware, skybridge (along with companies that are affiliated with and have ongoing

business relationships with skybridge, including lntelligent Transportation & Monitoring

wireless LLC and Environmentel LLC) (collectively, the "Petitioners") have filed a

petition to deny and several petitions for reconsideration, which remain pending,

challenging the MCLM long-form submitted in Auction 61. lnformation responsive to the

Request is necessary for Petitioners to adequately prosecute these petitions, including

via a formal hearing pursuant to 47 C.F.R. S309(d). The MCLM lnvestigation is

premised upon the facts asserted in the Petitioners' challenges to MCLM in Auction 61'

lndeed, the Enforcement and wireless Bureaus' letters to ihe lnvestigated Parties

specifically reference Auction 61 as the gravamen of the investigation. Having chosen

to participate in Auction 61, the lnvestigated Parties have waived any purported

4 MCLM sought and obtained a bidding credit in Auction 6'1 . This process required

disclosure of ihe gross revenues ot tr¡Ct-tr¡, its affiliates, its controlling interests and

officers, and their;ff¡liates (including Donald and Sandra DePriest, MariTEL and WPV)'

See 47 C.F.R. Part 1, Subpart Q, including 51.2110'

249387 1.DOC

July 2,2010Page 15

conf¡dentiality rights regarding information relevant to their truihful disclosures in that

auction. Neither the wireless Bureau, nor the lnvesiigated Parties, can convert public

petitions to deny and reconsideration proceedings into de facfo private affairs under the

guise of FOIA exemptions. As discussed supra' the purpose of FOIA is to open up

government,nottocurtailaparty'srightstoadequatelyprosecuteapublicchallengeto

a license award.

C. The Wireless Bureau Has Not Establish9d that

Doct¡menG Mav Be Properlv Withheld As Attornev Work Product

TheWirelessBureaualsoclaimsthatitmaywithholdinformationonthebasisof

5 U.S.C. S552(bX5)5 (colloquially known as"Exemption 5"), since such information is

allegedlysubsumedwithintheattorneywork-productdockine.Thisargumentlikewise

fails.

ThescopeofsU'S.C.552(bX5)mustbeconstruedas..narrowlyasconsistent

withefficientgovernmentoperation.,,seeLevyv.USPS,S6TF'2d162,166(D.D.c.

2008).Thus,..conclusoryexplanations''astowhyadocumentisbeingwithheldunder

exemption 5 is perse insufficient. Id., at167; center for International Environmental

Law v. office of the IJS Trade Representative, 237 F. Supp. 2d 17 ,23 (D'D'C' 2002)

(..lnkeepingwiththeFolA,sgoalofbroaddisclosure,theSectionss2(bxs)exemption

isconstruednarrowly.,,);Nickersonv.US,,1996U.S.Dist.LEXIS14489-5(N.D.lll.

5 This sub-section permits an agency

memorandums or letters which would

agency in litigation with the agency."

249387 _1.DOC

to withhold "inter-agency or intra-agencynot be available by law to a party other than an

July 2,2010Page 16

October1,1996); Miscavigev'/RS, 1992US Dist LEXIS19493 -7-8(ND Ca'

December 10, 1992). With respect to Exemption 5, the FolA Memorandum states:

[A] requested record might be a draft, or a memorandum containing a

ieäommenOation. Such records might be properly withheld under ..

Exemption 5, but that should not bé the end of the review' Rather' the

content of that particular draft and that particular memorandum should be

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,theagencymustreasonablyforeseethatdisclosurewouldcauseharm.Moreover,agenciesmustbem¡ndfutofthePresident'sdirectivethatin 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'

/d., at Pages 5, 7 (emPhasis added).

Also,anagencyclaimingExemptionSshouldordinarilyprovideaVaughnlndex

providing ,,a particularized explanation of how disclosure of the particular document

would damage the interest protected by the claimed exemption," in order to "afford the

FolArequesterameaningfulopportunitytocontest...thesoundnessofthe

withholding." Miscavige, at "10. This index must include a "relatively detailed

justification." Center for lnternational Environmental Law' at"22'

The wireless Bureau has failed to meet its burden with regard io Exemption 5

The wireless Bureau',s contention that the withheld documents "are protected by the

attorney work-product [doctrine] which has been incorporated into Exemption 5 of the

Freedom of lnformation Aci . . . and are iherefore not discloseable" is utter conclusory

249387 1.DOC

July 2, 2010Page 17

and therefore essentially meaningless. ln order to demonstrate the applicability of the

work product doctrine, a party must show that the material at ¡ssue has been developed

in anticipation of litigation or for trial by an attorney, or on his behalf' see, F.R.C'P'

26(bX3).Documentspreparedintheordinarycourseofbusiness,orforanyothernon-

litigation purpose, are not covered by the work product doctrine. Martin v. Bally's Park

place Hotel & Casino,g33 F.2d 1252,1260 (3'd Cir. 1993). Moreover, the work product

exception must be "strictly confined within the narrowest possible limits consistent with

the logic of its principle." tn re Grand Jury Proceedings, 604 F.2d 798, 802-03 (3'd Cir.

1979). The wireless Bureau's work product doctrine claim, like its Exemption 4 claim,

is unsubstantiated by any facts. lt amounts 1o the prima facle suspect assertion that all

documentation exchanged by the wireless and Enforcement Bureaus were developed

by attorneys in anticipation of litigation. once again, the wireless Bureau's failure to

provide any substantiation for this claimed exemption is only underscored by the fact

thatithasfailedtoprovideaVaughnlndex,deprivingSkybridgeofanyinformation

regarding the documents withheld. Furthermore, the wireless Bureau has failed to

even allege (let alone prove) that disclosure of the withheld information is reasonably

likely to harm an interest protected by Exemption 5, in blatant disregard of the FolA

Memorandum.

D. The Fact That skvbridqe was rcc'dn on certain Letters Transmitted Bv The

lnvestiqated Parties ls Leqallv lmmaterial

Asdiscussedsupra,inresponsetoRequestNos.2and3,theWirelessBureau

maintained that production of information was unnecessary because Skybiridge had

249387 1.DOC

July 2,2010Page 18

beencopiedonthelnvestigatedParties,responsestotheWirelessBureauand

Enforcement Bureau's letters. This argument is beside the point'

SkybridgeacknowledgesthatitwascopiedontheSection30sletters,theEB

Letters and the lnvestigated Parties' responses to these letters (with certain documents

enclosed).Nonetheless,thisfactdoesnotremedytheharmcausedbytheWireless

Bureau,s non-disclosure. lndeed, the wireless Bureau does not cite to any authority in

suppori of its iacit assertion that it can jettison its obligations under FolA simply by

claiming that the requesting party has obtained some of the responsive information from

another source.

Furthermore, Skybridge was not copied on the information and documents self-

servingly designated by the lnvestigated Parties as "confidential" under 5 U S C'

s552(bx4),and,forthereasonsdiscussedabove,skybridgeisentitledtothis

information. Additionally, neither the FCC, nor Skybridge, has any way of discerning

whether the documents enclosed with the lnvestigated Parties' responses include all of

the documents actually submitted to the wireless and Enforcement Bureaus'

skybridge is entitled to whatever responsive documentsi information the wireless

Bureau may have, and should not be forced to rely upon the Bureau's unfounded

assurance that the documents enclosed with the cc'd copies of the lnvestigated Parties'

responses include all of the documents actually submitted io the wireless and

Enforcement Bureaus. This holds particularly true given the fact that the instant

investigation arises out of the lnvestigated Parties' affirmative misstatements and

material non-disclosu res. As such, the lnvestigated Parties' propensity for truthfulness

249387_',l.DOC

July 2,2010Page 19

onevenbasicmattersisclearlySuspectinthiscase,andshouldnotbeacceptedasa

given.

CONCLUSION

Foreachoftheforegoingreasons,iheWirelessBureau'sdenialoftheRequest

shouldbereversed'andtheBureaushouldbecompelledtoproducetheinformation

responsive to the Request that has been previously withheld on the basis of

erroneously-claimed FOIA exemptions.

Tamir DamariNOSSAMAN LLP1666 K Street NW, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20006(202) 887-1442

Counsel for SkYbridge SPectrumFoundation

cc. Dennis C. Brown, Esq.Russell Fox, Esq.Donald R. DePriest

249387_1.DOC

EXHIBIT 1

Auçf-ZZ-2009 05: 56 AM Te.l'esqurus 5IOA412276

Federal Communications Comnission'TVashington, D.C' 20554

August 18, 2009

VIA qRTIFTED MAIL - RËTURN RECIFT REOT]ESIED

MariTËL, Inc.4635 Church Rd., Suite 100

CunÌ'"ing, GA 300284084ATTN: Jason Smith

Russell H. Fox, Esq.

Mintz, Levin, Cohen, Fenis, Glovsþ and Popeo, P.C.

70 I Pennsylvania Ave., N'W. - Suite 900

Wæhi-ugton, DC 20004

Re: FCCFilesNos.0002303355'0003463998,0003470447'0003470497'09034105n'0003470576, 00034?05s3, 0003470593, 00034?0602, 0003470608, 00034706i3

Deâr Mr. Süith ând lW. Fox:

The lVireless Telecommunications Bureau of tho Federal Communications Commission is

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

trflLVt Apptication)i nas rep"atediy represented in pleadings and_other filings that Mr. DePriest did not

Èontrol lvlai'itl- at any relevant peïiod, ivIariTEL itself reprcÆerted to the contrary, howevËr, in Fansfer

of oonttol oppli*tionsit filed in iune 2008 for the expræs purpose. of seeking Comnrrssion authority to

divest Mr. DãÈiest of conrol of MæiTEL 0vfariTEl TC AppLications)''

Alùough both MC,iLM a¡d Ma¡iTEL subsequently fiIed pleadings addressilg this discrepalcy'

the existilrg reclord is insuffrcìent to pe¡mit us to ¡each a defrnitive determination as to whether or not Mr,

Depriest hád exerc ised dc jure or di facfo control of M¿¡iTEL. Nor does the current record provide us

with a sufficíenr basis for deteÛnining why i¡accurale ínforrnation thåt bears on a rn$erial (and litigated)

is"L .iìft t tp""t to both applicationi apparently was submitted in either the MOLM Application or tlre

MariTBL TC Àpplications.

'47 c.F.R. $$ 1.17, 1,65.

2 FcC File No. 0002303355 (flled sept. 7, 2005, amended Aug. 21, 2006) (MC/LM Application)'

3 FCC Fite Nos. 0003463998, 00034?0447, 0003470497, 00034?0527, 00034?0576, 0003470583' 0003470593'

0003470602, 0003470608, 0003470613 (collectivsly, Ma¡iTEL TC Applications)'

Al¡g-22-2OO9 05:56 AM Telesourus 5LO84I7'?,26 2/7

MariTBL, Inc.Letter of Inquiry re Don€ld R. DePÌíest

Ms. De.Priesr ha6 been identified by MC/LM a$ ib conüolling pdncipal.4 Thc Mobüity Division(Division), Wireless Telecom¡uunications Bureau, detorminecl that, under the spousal flffiüation rule.) Mr.

DePriest was tequired to be listed 8s a tìisclosable inte¡est holder for the puçose of determining

MOLM's cligbility for biddidg ëredits âs a dËsignatËd entity, irrespective of whatever åctuai role Mr.

DePriest played in MCyLMJ The M{JLM Applicâtion v,¡as amended orr August 21, 2006, to include the

grass rËv;nues of Mr. DePfiest in MC,/LM's desiguated entity showing, in keeping with the Division's

ãetermi¡ation. h t¡e amendment, MÜI-lvf represented, inrcÌ drt¿, thst Mr. DçPriest "controls Ameficâ¡

Nonwovons Corporâtion (ANC)" aud that "ANC is the odly revenue producing entity that Don owns o-r

co¡nols.,'7 Lr reipouse to a pleading frled by \Vaneu Havens on $eptember 6, 2006,0 MÇ/LM expressly

denied that Mr. DiPriest ownerl ar controlled MariTEL, and stated t}ì.1t whilê Mr. DeFtiest coûtrollêd

MCT Investors, L.P., which held stock h MariTEL, contol of Ma¡iTEL wæ instead vested in American

Tower, I¡c.e

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:

one hundred percelt of the membership inta¡ests in Maritimø comrnunications/Land Mobile,

LLC are ownËd by SÆJW Paruership, L.P- Thc goneral partno¡ ir¡ S/R¡W Fart¡erthip' L P' is

Çonmunications investuçnls, Inc. Onc hundrcd pcrcont oftho sha¡es in CommunicEÉons

Investmeûts, Inc. are owned by ssndrs M. DeP¡icst Onc hundrtd porcant of tho partnorship

sbares in slRJW partnershþ, L.p. nre owned ì:y sandra M. DePricsr. Ssndfa M. DoPfiest is

the sole of6cer, d¡çctot -ã k"y **"g"rnunt perso'ael Of Maritims C.fiflunicåtions/Lând

Mobile, LLC' Sandra M. DePdest is tlìe sole key $ânagement personnel of S/RIW

Partnership, L.P. Saldra M. DePriest is tlæ sole officer, director atrd key rnsnûgemÕnt

personneì of Çommunications Investmetrts' Inc.

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

subject to a legal scpæation rãcognized ¡y I aourt ofcompcto¡ttjurisdiction in tho Unit¿d StÊtos."

6 See Maritime Comrnunications/Land Mobile,LLC, Otder,ZtRCC Rcd 13?35 (WTB '1v1D2006), aff'd, Oràcr on

Reconsideratíon,ZZFCC Rcd 4780 (WTB MD2007¡, recon. and reviÅw pên¿ing. Although MCYIM initisly fâiled

to list Mr, DePriesl Ãs a disclosable intere8t holder, and argued tltat dle sPousal Ðfflliation rule was either

fuapplicable ot should be waiyed ìn this cæe because Mr. DePriest ond his wife led "separau economic lives,"_thc

Diiision wns unpersuaded by either argumont, ånd de¡ermincd that úc gross fêvc¡rucs of Mr- DoPriost âfid âffiliated

entíties shoutd bà i*cluded in esscssing MC/LI4's des¡gnâtcd cntity eligibility, ld. at 13738-40 llll 5-8.

? ,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¿ 2lFCC 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'

MC/LM explained that "lvlgf Inv€stors, L.l', 'rhich iiìonholled by Don DePdesL hold¡ common stock in Maritel'

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 ofdirect 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 """nt

t¡^t *¡tt "ause

rhc tan¡for of control is the voluntory distibution of tho tajority of the æsets of MCT

fûvostors, L,p. to its 74 corrstitueur iflvostôrs. This ttistribution will substsntially diluto thc ovnorship interest of

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 In FcC Form 602 reporß thåt woro ffied on March 13, 2001, and apparenüy rcmaincd cunent upuntit_the time the

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

.

sfüfohùdo¡ of¡vlçdÇom Developmant ðorporaùon. ,S"", ag,, FCC File No. 0002080704 (filed Mar. 13' 200i). Tho

MariTBL Form 602 also itrdicated that Mr.bePriest hcld an atklitionâl 8.9fl0 of the voting stock in lús own name'

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

h""" .t*,iu¡ Êo* a¡ enor in MariTBLís irfonnstion ând from a diffe¡ence in methodology between MuiTBL

;dDoItiësl"butofferedlittleexplanationastoúoÍâtûrëofthatsuggestedmetltodologicaldifferoncc.-See..Ma¡itimo communications&anal Mobile LLc, OPposition to supPlement to Petition for Reconsidetation Rcgarding

ñ"ii*t , äãl"ry 31, 2008, at 3_4; see abo r¿ ar + n,r cpe niesr betieves rhst MåfirBL fflay håvo coünted

,à*rì""-i",¡"g r*'.k tåwsrd controi, úù$ crêåtiflg a diffeience betweetr MflriTBL strd De Þriost a¡d botw¿en

iri*iTEi *¿ ñit.ltss Properties ofvirginia, fnc";¡' In the next sentence' moreovor' MCJJ-M indicaßd that ús

Jluded+o metbodologioal ãitrerence wo-uk¡ not sufhce o erplain why MariTEL concluded tbat it lnd been undpr

Mr. ÞePriesi's conhoi because "even if Do P¡icst hatl uscd ùa¡iTELìs methodology, De Pdest 1oÌld,not control.

Ma¡irEL under the c;or¡missiol's Rules which arc applicable to the instant matlel." Id. at 4. MC/LM also ugued'

ínter aliø, thal if Mr, DePriest açtually contïolled Mg;TËL but uânted to çonceal that facL he would lìnve pfevented

üc filing of the MariTEL TC AppËcátions, írC. ar 3 ; that Mr, DePriest neithcr "endoffiefs] nor suppot't[s]"

ù"¡ffif,, j ovnustrip report, ¡d-. sr 4 tr.z; snd üat MCyLM stânds by its ea.rlier sttrtemetrt that Americ',' Towet, Inc'

.ãnuof * fr,løier- pri*àt to a shareholàer agresrnent, ¡d. ât 5. MCYI,lvf a'lso argued that¡reither MC/LM norMr'

Oeeriest t"A any ,iOtive to deceile the Courñssion regarding Mr- ÐoPrieSt's ¡ole in MariTEL bec¿use attdbudon

of MariTEL's ¡evenues to MÇ/LM wotld ror have sffecred MC/tM's uligibility for the smail business bidding

credit ¡fat it received in Auc[on No. 61. /d.

13 Ma¡iTËL likewise filed a pleading on July 31, 2008, in which it rcaffimed irc ea¡lier rcPresertation thatit had

been contolied ty Mr. De.Priest tJ*ãugll N4r. DePricsis ownorship of 5Eyo__of MariTEL's common stock, direcÙy

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.

R ea uests for Info r nntiotz

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 Flovideâvait;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.

Ia In a plerding in a separate proceedíng, MsfiTEL å¡gued that, conb y to -tlË

flssenioÉs in s pctitíon tO deny,

ltltrerå is no Jontrov*uy r"g*Oing otio owns and controls MariTEL,'; ond tlat tho MoriTEL TC Applications and

üåiifwt ¡cC nor* ð¡Zi¡t"rJnt "..*"tu

afld complete o\¡'r'rship inforuratiol regardirg Mâ¡TEL and its_ _ _

"uutiãi*i"t'" ,ree oppositioriof Ma¡TEL inc. [to Petition to Deny flled by AMTS Co¡rsortium LLÇ er 4¿' re FCc

ËUe ¡tos. OOO¡siOgS¿, 0003516656, 0003534598, 0003534602, 0003534?63, 0003534766, 0003534767,

õoOSjS+ZeS, Ooo¡SS5bB?1, fited Sept 5,2008, åtz. Ever ifthe lâtter statement legüding dro uuthfrlncss of.

Ma¡iTEL'S sarlier filings ii ultimately show[ t0 bo lfuo, wo bsliëve that the contadictory replcsotltâtions ñâdo by

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 ofMisrepresentations 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

euåliflcûtions;pô:¡ry Stdtement and Order,S FCC Rcd 3252 (1990) (1990 Charøcter Policy Statemeùt),

ïtìenoronaun' optniLt anrl order,6FCCRcd 344s ( 1991), Me morand.wn opiníon anl ortl¿r,7 FCCkcd 65.64

ffSgz). tt r Co;.t*ision appties irs broadqìst character stårdardslo applicstrts åíd licenseaç in thc oúc¡ ¡adio

services. See e.g.,t990ChàmcterPot¿ç!Ststement,5FCÇRcdat32539110(adoPting47C.F.R.$ltZ-foap-¡typr"f¡'Ulii"" rÁ,rUï

"¡õrepresotrtâtions ân¿l mâtêriål omi$sions to ãpplicanS, licensees, and permittees in all radio

se ices).

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

holde¡s were to be co6idered iD d¿texaining MgIÀ4's dos¡gnât¿d ontity eiigibility in conjunction with the MC/LM

Application.

lE For purposcs ofthis and all folloving questions, ,MariTEU' mea¡s Meri'IEL, Jnc, and/or any ofits subsidiaries.

AuGf-¿2.-2009 05:58 At4 Ielesourus 5LOA4L¿¿:¿6

Ma¡iTEL, I¡c.fßfter of Inquiry re Donsld R. DePdost

2. State wheùer Mr. DeP¡iest ever served ås a dirêctor' offrcer' ol emÞloyee ofMariTEL. If Mr, DePriest formerly held one or more of such positions in MariTEL,

but no longer does, stlte when the periotl in which he held dre positiott(s) ended'

3. StÃtË whethor Mr. DeP¡iest eve¡ held or Ëxercised del¿cta contoi of MariTÊL by

any üeans during thË relevsnt pedod. If so, describe the naturê of that conlrol, and

ho',Y it was obtained,

4, If you betieve tJrat Mr. DeP¡iest did control MariTEL, èxplain, to the best of your,knowledge anrl belief, why and how MC/fÀ4 coüld ririve st the conclusion ùat Mr'DePriÊst did not coûEÒl MariTEL.

We heteby direct MariTEL, pursuant to Sections 308(b) ard 403 of the Act'¡e to Jespond inwriring 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:

Jefftey Tobiæ, Esq.

MobilitY DivisionWireloss Telecommunication Bureau

445 t2ù SheeE S.Tv.

lYaslrington, D.C. 20554

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 18 u.s.c. $ 1001 and section 1.17 of the co¡ômission's Ru]es, 47

c.F.R. ê 1.1?, prohibit misrepresentations and/or wìllful omissious of mateúal façts in response to

Commission inquiries.

Sincerely,

&"fA-Deputy Chief, Mobility DivísiônWireless 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

cc: Maritifie Corûüüications/La¡d Mobile, LlÆ206 North 8th Sheet

Columbus, MS 39701ATTN: Saûdra M. DêPriest

Dennis C. Brown, Esq.

8124 CookË CoüÇ Suito 201

Mâüarsåß, VA 2'0109-7406

Donald R. DePriest206 North 8th Stre€tColumbus, MS 39701

Wireless hoperdes of Virginiq Inc,

1555 King StrÊet - Suite 500Alexadria, VÄ 22314ATTN: Don8ld R. DçPriest

Waneu Havets2649 Benvenue Ave.- Suites 2-6

Berkeley, CA 94704

7 /7Auq-22-2OO9 05:59 AM Te.Iesqurus 5108412226

MsriTEL, Inc.

Letter of Itrquiry re Donald R. DePríest

Instruclions

ÄTTACHMEI.IT

Request lOr Confidendal Treatmen| lf MariTEL requests't¡at sny information or documents responsive

io inis Urrnr ¡e treatø i.ü a conlidertiåI nâúnèr, it sbâIl submit, âlorg with åIl tesponsive i¡fotmation and

documents, a statement in accordance with Secdon 0.459 of tllê Ccmmission's Rilleô,47 C.F.R $ 0.459'

Ilequests for coDfidètrtial teatñe¡t tuust coûply with t¡e fêquifeÊetts of Sectiol 0.459, ifcludfuìg thê

staridards of specificity mandated by Section 0459(b). Accordingly, "blankef' requests for

confidentiality of a large set of docúments äfe ùûac4eptâble. Fûrsuânt to Se4tion 0.459(c)' we wül not

consider requests that ão not comPly with fhe requirements of Section 0459'

Claìms oJ Prìvilege. If MariTEL withholds aûy ínfo(mation or docüDents under claim of privilege, itshaÍ suumit, toeerhér wfth âny clâim of privilege, a schedr:Ie of thg items v\tithIeld th states,

inãini¿ooUy'* "to

"ach such itlm: the nrimbereã inguiry to which each iiem rësPonds ând thE type,,title,

specinc suu¡ect maner ând dste of the item; the names, *ddresses, Positions' and arganizatio¡s of aII

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

"otit.ty, Ë* if *li a portion of that docuñent is responsive to an inquiry made herein. This mea¡rs that

tfie dorument shall notie edited, cut, or exÊtfiged, ând shâll include a]l appendices, tables, or other. _

Jtachments, and all othe¡ doc.uments refened to in tle document or attachments. All ì dfieû materiâls

o""u*-y to on¿""tand any docufûèût rcspotsive tÔ these inquides must also be submitted'

Identffication of Dorj¿rfl¿nt!. For each document or statement submitted in respanse to the inquiries - -

stated in flte coïer letter, iudicate, by number, to which iaquiry it is responsive and_ identify thc person(s)

from whose files the docuúeut wås fetrieved. If any document is not dsted, state flle date on which lt wäs

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.

Auq-22-2O09 05:46 AM Telesourus 5LO84t22?'6

Federal Communications CommissionWashington, D.C.20554

August 18, 2009

VIA gERflFIEÞ MAII, - RETURN RECIPT REOTIF"STED

Ma¡ìtime Communicationsllard Mobile' LLC206 North 8th SEeÊt

Columbus, MS 39701

ATTN; Sandra M. DePriest

Dennis C. Brown, Esq.

8124 Cooke Court, Suite 201

Manassas VA 20109-7406

Re: FCC Files Nos. 0002303355,0003 463gg8,l[tr/347044'l, 0003470497, 00ö3470527,

0003470576, 0003470583, 0003470s93, 0003470602. 00034?0608' 0003470613

Dear Ms. DePriest and Mr. Erown:

T]p \ìViroless Tolçcommunicatious Bu¡eau of the Ferleral cofifluûicâtíons commission is

inve,srigâüng cômpliance by Maritime Communications/l,and Mobile, LLC OfCiLM) with Sectiotls i'17

an¿ t.6î5 otîile Cômmission's Ruiest relatisg ro p¡oviding firtthftf ând âccûâte information to fieCåm¡¡s.ion. Specifically, æ described more fuþ below. the Commission has received conflicting

inforrnation from MariTEL, hrc, and its subsidiaríes (lvfariTBl) and MC/LM regardirg the involvement

oi tør. Oon¿a n. nepriest (Mr. Delrriest) with MarilEL prior to the consummation of a recent

trunsaction. The Commission alsq has r;eived conflícting information regatding the involvement ofMr'

DêPdest with MC/LM and othe¡ entities'

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

Automared Ma¡itime Telecommunicatións system (AMTS) licenses for which it wæ the high bidder in

ÈCC Auction No. 61 (MglI.ì\{ Application)," hæ repeaædly reprcsented in pleadings and othor frlings

thst Mr, DePriesr did not control -úa¡iTEL

at any relevart period. MâriTBL itseu rePresented to the

"ànt*y, ho*"u"r, in kmsfer of control appiications it filed in Juue 2008 fo¡ the express purpose of

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:

the existing recõrd is insufficiont to permit us to reach I defiÌlitive determì¡aûon as to whether or not Ml.

DePriest hãd rxercised de jure or dlfacfo cÖnhol of MûiTEL. Nor does the current record provide us

with a sufficicnt basis for âetermining why ineccurâte information that bears on a matcrial (and litigated)

issue with respect to both applicationi apparently was submitted in either t¡e M(YLM Application or tbe

' 47 C.F.R 0å 1.17, 1.65.

2 FCC pite No. 0002303355 (frlod ScFt 7, 2005, amonrlcd .{ug. 21' ?006) (l\4ClLM Applicadon)'

3 FCC FileNos. 0003 463998,0003410441,0003470497,0003470527, 0003470576.0003470583' 0003470593'

0003470602,0003470608, 00034?06I3 (collectivelv, MariTEL TC A'pplicatÍons)'

L/9

A¡:g-22-2OQ9 05r47 AM Telesourus 5IO84LZ??'6 2/9

Ma¡itirLe Commurúcations/La¡d Mobilc, LLCLeüer of Inquiry re Donald R. ÞcPricst

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,

Cofficting ReprcscfltatiÒns Re7ardin7 Control of MariTEL

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 12, 2008, MaliTEL fìled the ren MariTBL TC applications, one for Ma¡iTEL itself aud

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

subject to a legal seporatioù recognizcd by  cou$ of competentiurisdiction in the united ststes."

ú Se¿ Maritime Communicadons/Land MobiluLLÇ, Order,llFÇC Rcd 13?35 (W1B MD 2006), af'd, O èton

nicits¡¿eration,nncc Rcd 4zB0 (wTE MD zû7\, recott and review pending. Although Mc¡Àf irlitially failcd

ta list Mr. DePriest tts a disclosable intercst iroklor, and argued that the spousal afûliation rule was either

infficaute or stoutc be waived iu rlús a¡se beoausc lvf¡. ÐcF¡ic¡t and his wife led "separate no¡gmic liyesi-$e -

Diiiiion wæ unpersuaded by either argument, md dercrmincd drat úo grc$s rÊvônues of Mr. ÐePriest and afüliated

onririss should b; irÇtuded in assessir! MCIM's designatcd cntity cligibil¡ty. ld. ât 13?38.401111 5-8,

7 See MCTLM Application, Disclosable Intçrcst Holders Amendment at i (filed Aug' 21

' 2006)'

s Jee War¡en C. Havens Petitíon for Rcconsidoration [of Maritìme Cornntunications/Land Mobile LLC, 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

¡4aritcl,Inc,, pursuant to a shareholder agreement' Tbis a$eement providcs AficricÁn Towc¡,Inc as theholders of

".qþri,y oi i¡r.o*mon srock cquivale-nt6 with the pow;r to elect a simple majority of theåoqrll of diretto¡s of

Maritel, inc., sub¡ect to the co¡sent of ú¡s Commissioì. ifrequired. Because conúol of Mæitc1, Inc. resides in tho

hands oîAnr¿¡icãn Tower, Inc', Maritel, Inc. is not an afEliate ofMC/LM " Id sl 10' (In the samc pleading'

MC/LIvt did acknowledge for the first time, in response to allegations in art opposition pleading, drat Mr. DePricst -

csntrollad, ínter alíø, ¡iireless Froperties ofvirginia, tnc., wtrlch it represcnted had no revenues since 1999, id' at 9i

sovcfål oúcr entiti6$ which if reprùented had nJrevenues rluri[g the lelevant üllee-yeü period, i¿ at 8-9; snd -

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

Msritims Communications/I¡nd Mobile, LLCLeÌter of Inqúry rB DÖnald R. DePriest

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 that will cause ttle uansfer of cônúol is thê roluntary distsibution of tlre majority of úe åssots of MCT

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 interest to _

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.ÐeVelOpment COriroration was thã sole general páftnoJ Of MCT InvestOrS,_L.P., and th¿tt I!ft. DePr¡est rÃ'gs the sol:

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

represenúng tlrar it iurt bccn càtoned by Mr, DtPdest, aDd said dlat MadTEL's onot in úis rêgâ¡d 'hlPçars !o

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

t luritim" Corrunonications/Lard À4-obilc LLC, Opposition to supplenent to Petidon for Reconsidcradon Rogarding

Ñew Facts, flled July 31, 2008, at 3-4i s¿c also rdãt + n'l ("De ?riÞst believes dlåt MsriTBL fiåy hâvc courlÉd

,oln" non-uoting .to"k toìvåfd control, thus creating a difference between MsÌiTBL snd Do Priest ànd botween

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,

ínter alia, rhú if\ft. DePriest acrually conuollecl MariTgL but warted to conc€8l thst fac! he would lìåvc ptovônted

irre tiing ot the lvfr¡riral TC App)icarions, ;d at 3 ; tbat Mr, Depriest treithel "elrdo$els] Dor supportlsl"

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'

"å"tt"fr ltrtifg p"ituant tó a shareholder agrcemcnt, Ìd at 5. MCIT-M also argued that neithçI MC/LM uoI MI.

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.

13 MariTEL tikewíse filed a pleading on July 31, 2008, in which itreaffirmed its ea¡üe¡ rcpresö tttion thatjt l¡gd

been controlled by lr4r. De?rlcsr rlrough Mr, DeÞriesfs owtrership of58% of MariTEL's coEunon stock, dirccdy

anrlrfuougtrhisoïnershipofMCTInvestors,L.P.,SeeOppositionofMtuiTBLInc.,filedluly3l'2008,åt2.

4/9Aug-22-2009 05:48 AM Telesourus 5108412226

Maririae Cosmunicåtions/Land Mobile, LLCLetter of hquiry rc Dooald R, De.Friest

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.

Coffictíng Representatìow Regaruling Mr' DePriest's RoIe ìn MClill

As norcd above, MCf-M dìd not initially include Mf. Dehisst ûs a disclosable i¡terest holder in

MCILM for designated entity eligibility purposes, anti MC/LM has repeatedþ statelj1 llinSs.related to

tlre MC/LM Apf,lication ihâ; Ivfr. DePriest has not playsd ãny significânt fole itr MC/LM. In the FCC

Fonn 602Iiled i¡ conjunction witlt tho MC/LM Application, MOLM stated'

Oue hundred percent of tho tnembership i¡terests in Ma¡itime Ço¡¡munications/Land

Mobíle, I,LC a¡e owned by S/RJW Partnership, L.P' The general partrer in S/ßJW

Partnershþ, L.P. is Çommunications Investments, Inc. One hundred petceût of the shûfes in

Communiõadons l¡vestr'etrts, Iuc. are a*ned by Sandra M. Del¡riest. One hundred percent

of the p¿rtnÉrship shares in S/RIW Pârtnership, L.P. re owned by Sandra M' DePrìest' .

Sandta M. Depriest is the sole offrcer, director ancl key management pe.rsonnel of Ma¡itime

Coomunicatious/Land Mobile, LLC. Sa¡dra M. DeFriest is the solË key ma¡¡agoment

personnÉl of s/RIw Psfttrership, L,P. Sandra M. DePriest is the sole officef, directol and

k"y management peßomèl of ðommunications Investments, I¡c.16

la In a plca<ling in a sepatatË ptoc€€ding, Ms.riTËL årguçd that, coflfary tolh€ âsserdons in â petitiori tA dsny,,,[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.

15 see Polícy Regarding characþr quñtilicatiorß in Broadcast Licensing, Amendment of Rules ofBroadcesrpracticc sn(i P¡oced$re Relating to Written ResponsÉs to Cofû¡nìssion Inquiiies ald the Maldng ofMisfofrfo.$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.Plyprotribition agai;si rniuepresentations anà material omisSiOns to applicants, licensees, ard perminees in sll Tsdio

services).

rd ,!ee FCC Fito No. 0002302467, Exbibit - Explauation of Ownorship (filed Sept. 6, 2005). We note tliat Ùe_

lâûguago employed by MÇ/Llvf suggess that, unlike MCff-lvl and communicalions Investments, JIlc'' S/I{IWp,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

a ôute 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

5/9AuEf-22-2009 O5:49 AM Telesourus 5108412226

Ms¡itime Communications/Land Mobilo, I,LCLcner of Inquiry re Donald R. DePriest

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

Application) as Presidenr, tisri¡lg lvff. ÐÊF est a5 also a dil€ctof of the company, md liÊting Mr- ÐePriest as. the

.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 See FCC Fiìe No. 0002792309 (filed Ocr.22,ZA0()). In this Form 602, WPV represents' infer all¿' that Mr.

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

6f rhe applicant shall be considerçd to have a oonholling intÉtest in tho applicant [and] offrcers and di¡ectors of an

,r,tiLy ttt"t "ont

otr u licensee or applicant shslÌ be coßidered [0 þavo a cOntrolling inFrest in the liçerlsE oI

applicanl"

æ 4? u.s.c. $ 3o8o).

6/9Auç'-22-2009 05:49 AM Telesourus 510A4122?6

Mâritime Conrmunications/Land Mobilc, LLCLettcr oflnquiry re Donúld R. DePriest

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

50'070 or more ownenhip intÊtest' or se ed as a difectü or officer' or served as a

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

disclosed i! the MC¿M Application, æ amended, FCÇ File No' 0002303355' werê

disclosedi¡theMC/IMappucation.IdentifyanyintefestsaÍdentitiesthatshÖuldhave 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¡rulqprovide its alnual gross revãnues for each of the ùree calendâr years 2002' 2003' and

àoc¡'!

;""-" t, ,t*, t, ," "-1"-"*t

rhe fi'st cslendar yesr in whith thc rsvsnuês of Mc/LM's disclosable interest

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 .

neeJ not Ue tiste¿ il resporso to thii çostion. Bæed on MC/Lù'S own rcllesentatioDs in relevaut pleadings filcd

ii "upp"riof

.h" løøfuf Application, wc wouldc Pcôt thË entities listed h rcsPanse to tlút 1"":l3l l:l""I!,t*¡ui¡ii:ium, Wi¡eless proper{ies ofVirglnia, 6c., Chârisntâ Broadca.sting Co., Bravo Conmunication6, Inc.' Uo¡6e¡

mu"J" ifu¿t", ¡rr., Midcom Develõpment Corporation, and MCT Invêstors' L.P,, âÉ well a$ tl¡e ôther comPanies-

*irictitt u ¡ttC¡i¡¡ OppositÍon acknovledged wore undm Mr' DoPri¿,st'$ ôort{ol but had no revenues' S¿s MC/LM

opprriti." ti s+ ("tË.wlerlging Mr. DeÞriæt's conEol of rüJG Telephone Co" Inc" Cellular and Broadcast

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'.

il|.j. -s"i Mqtù r¡",iã aho irlentifo any other entities tnat Ivtc¿_lvt¡ow believes should have beer repo!rcd in

úe [4C/LM Applicârion porsu.nt to cfutiónr t.gtg, t,ztro, oo¿ t.2112 of tle commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.

$$ 1.919, 1.2ú-0, 1.2112' .gee, in particular,4? C.FJ- $ 1'2110(c)(5), defining tho typos ôf¿ntitie$ ro bê disclosed

"i rtf,U*t . of pursons dccmcd ro Jontrol an apptican! and 4?_C.Fß. $ i.2112OX1Xü), requiring desiguated enriry

applicanæ fo diiclose,.an' fCC""goiäÞd ;ntiby or applicant fo_r an FCC license, in w¡ioh any contfolling i¡1t*ost of

tiå applicant owns u l0 percent or geater inte¡åst o¡ ïtotal of 10 pere,ent or more of ary clsss of stock, wåff8nt$,

options or debt securitiet."

ã We tote that drc Commission's Rules do not proviclc an oxcopLion to r-hs d¿signaæd entity ownership disclosure

,eqoi*rnouts fo, othefivise disclosÈblÞ entities that have no gross levetrues. se¿ 47 C-F.R. $ 1.2112(b)(1)(iv)' wo

ooi", *or"ou"r, r¡ot ul¡rough rhe MC/LM Opposition proviåe¿ rovonuo_d¿ta for most of th¿ entities that MC/LM

o"rittrãê".lit O"rignnted entity showing ani first aoi<nowtc¿gccl as af-frliates of MT. DePri.st in tho MC/LM

òpp"riti*, i, ¿ia "oiprovicle

,"ven* dìå for Medcom DevelJpmont Corp' or MCT InvesÙors' L P See MC/Ï-M

õõiãritã"'"i s-ir. rricn¡¿ uot ""too*lerlged

ttrat, rlthough ii.dirl not rlisclosc Mr. DcPricst's conrol of Medcom

pãirlop*"nr corp. ,nd MCT Invesion, L.rï *," vc/Iv Applicadon, Mr. Ðo?ricsr 'tonûols MCl lnvsstor$,

i.P.orir.sultoftoingowncrofirsicìcralpa,ncr,MctlcombovclopmentCorporatio":'*:YffiYOq!:t]ti""io Sunolemental pFR ,ìotc 13, suprã at 4. We accordingly expect that the revenue data for Medcorn Developmenf

ö"*åfi;il i;êi i^ì*ioir, i.n.-*nf tê amons the i;form;tion provided in response to thís request for

information.

7 /9Auq-22-2009 05:50 AM Telesourus 5108412226

Maritiûe Co¡Drtrulricatious,tl-and Mobilq LLCLeter of Inquiry re Donald R. DePriest

5.

J.

4.

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.

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 ilM¿¡iTEL, but no lolger does, state when the period ir whioh lre held the positiot(s)

e¡ded.

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.

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.

b.

8. Dcscribe the natue and extent of Mr, DePriest's ownership and role in Maritime

Communicatíons/LandMobileLLC,SÆJIVPartnershíp,L'P.,andCommunicationsInvesüueuts, 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

authority, if any, he possessed ,'tith respect to any or all of the e¡umerated entities'

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

wlìether lvfr. Delrriest w¿.s an offrc¡t or director of MC/Llvf. explain the bæis for that

belief.

we hereby direct McyLM, pursuant to sections 308(b) and 403 of the Act,28 to respond iì wfiting

aud under path, sJparately a¡d fully, to each of the foregoing requests \vithih 30 busincss drys from the

% For purposos Of this and all following questions, "Il,f$iTEL" mp¡nS MariTEL Inc' and/or any of its subsidisfies'

27 At minimurn, list any posirions helcl by Mr. DePriest h the subject enlities as di¡cctor, Office¡ partner' Iimited

ilbùry ;";;*y #btr, or emPlovee, and the percentage of equity and voting equity hslcl bv M¡ DePriest in

cacb oirh" sub¡c"r cntities, at any time áuring thã relevaui period. Far.câch sübject èntity, also indicate if Mt.

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/9Aug-22-20Q9 05:50 AM Telesourus 51084|2226

Mårifiñc Cöfi¡îunications/Land Mobilc, LLCLener of Inquiry ro Donald R. DtPriest

ilate of this letter.Ð Ms. Dehiest may provide any additional informÂtion t¡at she believes ¡s televa[t to

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:

Jeffrey Tôbiâs, Esq.

MobilitY DivisìonWirëless Telecommunicetion Bureau

445 12ù Street, S.W.Washirgton, D.C. 20554

Ifyouhavoanyquestionsrelatiagtothisûlllftêr,pleasecontâctN4f.Tobiasflt(202)418.161?ori ë.ff .tobiâs @fcë. gov.

Ms,ÐePriestisadviscdthatlsU'S'c.ç1001ârdsecdonl.lTofthecoffmission'sRules,47C.F.R. S 1,17, prohibit misrepresentations and/or willftrl omissions of material facts in rosponse to

Comnússion inquiries.

SincerelY'n,tl/+/СÚ'"t¿ "'-' Scot Stone

Deputy chiaf, Mobilþ DivisionWireless Telecolûflunícations Bureau

çc: Ðonald R, DöPriest206 North 8th SteetCoiurobus, MS 39701

Wireless Propertiæ of Virginia' Inc.

1555 King Street - Suito 500

Alexand¡ia. VA 22314

ATTN: Donald R. DeÞíest

MariTEL, I¡c.4635 Church Rd, suite 100

Curnmiug, GA 300284084ATTN: Jason Smith

Russell H' Fox, Esq.

Mintz, Levin, Côhen, Fenis, Glovsky aad Popeo, P'C'

?01 Peunsylvania Ave., NIV - Suite 900

Washing¡on, DC 20004

Wanen llavens2649 Benvenue Ave. ' Suites 2'6BerkeleY, CA 94704

2e We ale contemporaneously mailing similar letters of inquiry under Section 308(b) to MaiTEL atrd tÒ MI.

DoPriaBL

9/9Auq-22-2OQ9 05:50 AM Telesourus 5LO84|Z2?'6

Mariti:ne Comrnu¡icationVl¡¡d Mobile, LLCLetter of Ittquiry re Donald R. DePriest

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^

ão"om.nt", u ,t*tu*unt in accordnnce with slcfion 0.459 of tl¡e CõmmissÍon's Rules' 47 C.F.R. $ 0.459,

n"q*r,r iå. "orn¿ential

treatment must cotoply with t¡e reqrrir_ emelts ôf Sectioû 0.459, hcluding the

ild-àr;f *"lfi"þ mandated.by Sec'on O.iSg(t ). Accordingiy, ,'blanked' requests for

.à"fi¿"",iuUty "f

u tarþ set of documents are unacòeptable. Pursuênt to Section 0.459(c), we will not

oon.idut t"qoutt. tÌtat ão not comply with the requirements of Section 0'459'

CIaûwofFrivÍIege,lfMC/LMwithholdsarryinformatio[oldocumeDtsunderclaimorprivilege,'itshall.oUJ| iäg*., î"ittr any ctaim oiprivilcse, á schedulc of the items uithlìeld that state,s, individually æ

to "l"ii ,"ãr, it"*, the nlmbered iriquilio wni"h

"""¡ it"m responds and the typqritle. specific subject

marÞr and dâtê of the item; rtre namås, áddresses, positious, anrl organiz*tions of all authofs &nd

r*"ipi"nt oi tft rct; ana ihe specific ground(s) iôr cl¡iming that tlre item is privileged'

Format of Respanses' The ÉsPÖnse rEust be cÖnsistëDt with the fonnat of the guestions asked'

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 do"uiunt is r"sponsi"e. iotrr.inçiry made l"t"T:-lT: Ï:3t ú"in" aoóu^rot ,¡uli not be edited, cut, or expunged, and shall include all appendices, toÞles, or oürêr.

.

o.ttachments, and all ott e, ¿oco*"nts .efe,,"d io in the document or attâchments' All written maærials

o""**V ,o oo¿"art"ocl any document responsive to úrese inquifies Éust ålso be submitted'

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 oo"umen¡ is not date¿, ståre úe date.o,' which it was

p'r"p*"¿, -iäv

aå"o*"nt ao", *iiJ.-n-tity its autho(Ð or recipien(Ð, state, if lgrown, the name(s) of.

"Ur"åorrt*frt "i-."ipienttsl.

mC¿vI nüsi'id"otify wirù re.sonible specifcíty all documents provided in

response to these inquiries,

L/9Aug-22-2OQ9 05:51 AM Telesourus 5LO84I2ZZ6

Federal Cor¡munications Cotl:lissionWashilgton, D.C.20554

August 18, 2009

lTA CERTIFIED MAIL - ßETTJRN RECIPT REOI]ESTE.D

Donald R. DePriest206 North Stlt StteetColumbus, MS 39701

Wirelcss Pto¡nrties of Virghia, Inc.

1555 King Steet - Suite 500

Alexanùi+ VA 22314ATTN: Donald R. DePriest

Re:FCCFilesNos,0002303355,0003463998,000j470,147,0003470497'0003470527'0003470576,0003470s83,0003470593,0003470602,0003470608,0003470613

Dea¡ Nfr. DePrìest:

TheWirelessTelecomnrunicationsBureauofthêFedera]cornrnunicationsCor¡missionisinvestigating compliance by MariTEL, Inc, and its subsidiaries (MariTEL) and Maritime

Commu¡ications/La"¿ fr,f"Uife, Liõ-tiúðnM witl sectioos t.i? and t'65 ot tne Commission's Rulæ'

;iãg ," p,*täi"g *tfrn f *¿ "*tlt" inior*ution to tlt" Çommission' Specifically' as described'

ãor" ñuv i.lo*, ,i" commissio¡ has receiverl corflicting information reguding wìether you. wero in

.ont oJ oifr{urifgI-, priorto the "onsummatiou

of a ¡eceniüansaçtiou' The Commission alsq has

,.-""iutU'.""¡li.ti"ginfo.*ation t"g¿tdittg your involvement with MCILM and other entities'

You have been deemed to have a contolling interest in MC/LM as the husbând of Sândra

oerrriest çtvtì oerriesQ. MCtr-M, I itsprosecutíoã of its application for new Automated M¡ntime

Telecommunicatrou, Svrt"* C¿¡tifsiiic'enses for whictr it wL the¡ieh bidder in FCC Auctiou No. 61 ,

MðËrüö;rffiõ, ñ;pe;;iry ;.p*seûred in pteadinss and other firnss rhar you did n^ot coDtrol

ìiAuinÈL uïiny ,"levant penoã. Vl*íitiL i*"U *preìented io the con*ary, however, in tansfer of

"åîiåi^ppU.^iiòr, ir fited in June 2òôt ior tfrq exft'ep eyrpose of seektuìg Commission sutlroritv to

divest yoïof conhol of MariTËL (MariTEL TC Applications)"

Altlrougtr both MCTLM a¡d Ma¡iTEL subsequently frled pleadings addressìng this discrepancy'

the exisiing recãrd is insuffioient to permit us to reach adefinitive determination âs to whether or not y.u

lrad exerciserl de.¡a ," o, a, ¡orto JoÏioi oi rr¡anrgl-. Nor does the cur¡ent record provide us with a

sufficient bâsis fof aeternining wtry inaccurate irformation tlut bea¡s on a material (and litigâtÈd) issuÈ

*itïiop..t to Uottt appti"atio-ns apporcnily was submitttd in eìther tle MOLM Applicaüon or the'.

ùäiel rc nppri.ati"n.. w" Èiä, *oiáver, that rle.ecor¿ i¡ rhese an¿ other Iìcensing proceedings

' 4? c.F.R. $$ 1.17, 1.65.

2 Fcc File No. 0002303355 (filed Sept T' ?005, amenrlerl Aug' zI, 2006) (McyLM Application)'

3 FCC File Nos' 0003463998' 0003470447 , ooo347o4g7 ' 00034.t052?, 00034?05?6, 00034?0583, 00034?0593'

0ôß4?óäó; ú0tt0608, 0ó03470ó13 (collectivelv, MarirÊL Tc Applications)'

2/9A¡¿g-22-2QQ9 05:52 AM Telesourus 5|08412'226

Donald R. DePriestlætær of rnquiry re MC/LM, MariTEi.

also reflects potendÃl inconsistencies and i¡accuracies in ùe infoÍdåtioû Pfovided by MC/LM regarding

your role in MC/LM snd other efltitiès.

ÇonÍl.iclîd¡ Rep resentatîöfls Re 84rdín g C onü'ol ol MaiTEL

Ms'DePriesthasbeenidentifiedbyMC/LMâsitscoDfrollingpdncipal.4TlleMobilityDivi$olçDivision),

rffireless Telecommunicatio¡s BurËau' determined t¡Ût, urder the spousûl ¡ltftllattonÌulë; you

ì"1i" r"qtiit"a to u- Iisied ss a disclosable i¡tefåst hôlder for the pürposê of de!êrmi¡ing MC/LM's -

etigi¡liry for Ui¿¿ing credits as a iesign"t a uotity, itt""p*tive ãf whatever actual role you played in

frl-äi¡,,f]t .¡¡" fr¡Cri,M l,ppticatio' wi, ,rn"na"á on Augustzl, 2006, to include yotr gross revenuæ in

nnCtf-Nf;, O"signut ri entity showing in keeping with thiDivis,ion's determin¿tion. In the amendment,

iriõll-Ll *"pt ti"*a, ;nteåfa, *ràiyou tood41 a-oi"* Nonw.ovens Corporatiou (ANC)" and that

;ñCi, tfi" oofy ,rueoou p-ao"ing'"ntiry" that you own or contro'I,z In rËsponse to a pleding filed by

W;; H;;""; ;r Septemïer 6, z0õ6,s IriCll-U åxprussty denied thåt you co¡rtrolled MsriTEL' snd **,iutr¿irr*t *Lii. yo, ôrot ouø rr.lcr ion.srors, 1,.p., wtrictr t ekl stock in MarirEL, cofltrol of MafiTEL

*u. i*iau¿ nurta¿ irr 'American Tower, Inc.q

On Ju¡e 12, 2008, Ma¡iTEL Fr]ed the ten MariTEL TC appligations' Ôüe for MâriTEL ißelf ând

one for each of nin" fuæif¡I, soUsi¿iorià iiotaing one maritime"VfF putrlic Coast station license apiece

The MariTBL TC Appìicatìons each included ¿¡r iãentic¿I, one-page exhibit describing ùe nansaction,

*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

4 S¿s FCC File No' 000?30246?, Exhibit - Bxplmation of Ownership (flled Sept' 6' 2005)'

s 4Z C,F.R. $ 1.2110(cX5XiüXÐ. The spousal ofúliatioD lule Provides that, for purposes of identifuing disclosable,

interest hoklers in demousraung an ap!U'ca;i;s etigibiliry for disÍgnÂtedçntiËy berefts, "[b]oth spouses are deemed

to orÃ,Ã or contol or have the power to'contol inteiests owlred or óontrolled by either of them, udess dley are

;Ë;; -aÇJ*p"ratior.

tËcoguizea by * court of oomPetem judsdictioÄ in dË United states.''

ó.'ee Maritime connunications/Land Mobüe ,ILC, ordenllF3CRcd 13735 (wTB MD 290(ùq!'.?4er-o: ,

Reconsideration,Z1Fcc Rcd a?80 (s¡T3-ffi zooi¡, r""on o,,a ,ru¡¿w_pe d¡ng. AlthoughMC/LMinitially failed.;tff;;i ; ; ;i*bsable interçst holdel ond nrguld th* dre spousfù [fßliûrior rule was eirher inapplicîble or

shoulal be waived in thi, "or"

t."our" yoo uoã lñ. oePrl"st leá "sepalate ecoromic lives"' the Division was

""p.t *Oø fry tlr¡* a.gunent, ana d'eËrminJ üt* you' gtoo

'*enues (nnd those of' ¿'g" entities deemed to be

v"'"J*rr¡i.*i' ."¿e¡ tÈe conmissionls nules) stouí¿ ¡eicluded in assessing MC/LM's designated ertitv

eligbility. ¡d. at t373840 !ll[ 5-8'

? See MC/LM APplication, Disclosable Interest Holders Amendment at 1 (¡led Aug' 21' 2006)'

s ,g¿¿ s,laner c, Hav¿ns pctiticn fo¡ Rc¡onsitloration lof Ma¡iLimc co¡nmuuications/La¡rd Mobile LLC, O¡d¿r' 21

FCC Rcrl 8794 (WTB PSCID 2006)J, filcd Scpt' 6,2006'

e ,See M¡ritimc Conrmunicntions/Land Mobile LLC Oppositíoll to Petidon fo¡ Reconsideration' filed SePt' 18' 2006

oll-ðlä¡-oìp"riti*1. rrtcn r.',r oprrin"ã tirtirutgt'l},u"rtotr, r,¡., which is çonholled bv Dor¡ DoPriest' holds

con*',on stock in Madtet, rnc, l'Icr iìves¡ors, L'P' does not control Maritet' Inc'; Americân Tower' Inc controls

MqJitel, Inc., pursuant to o ,norrnor¿o ogr".[*i This agreement provides Arnericafl Tower, inê. â$ thê holdefs of

il;.i;;ïLñi il;;.r,"n .to.r. .quiiotit"îüü¡r'," po*"l to a".t'a simple majo¡ity of thç loafd of dire¿rors of

Maritel,Inc., subject to the consent oith;-om*isi*, ifttquittd' Becau6e conbol of Maritel' Inc' residcs in the

hands of Americfin To*rr, tr"., t'I*ita, tnrìs Jan ámuoie ot tr¡c¡l-tut-" Id.at 10. (In the same pleading, _.

MC/LN4 did acknowteage ror rtre trst rime, ini"rjour" to nttegotions in un opposition pleading, that you canEollcd'

irr¡r.ãio. Wi.efes frop"erLies ofVirgini¿. in"', *'hi"h irttptu*nrcd harl no rcvenues since 1999' id at9; several

other entitics which it rrpres"nteo traå'noïvcnuos during ihe relcvânt thrcc'yêaf p*iod, id' at 8-9; and Cltarisma

;;;;ü,1ü ó;., B;avJ co*tuni"itions, in"., tn¿ corã* rtiaoglo Râdio' Inc'' which it roprcscñted to havo

;;iì;ñäir-t il*ues of no consequence to McrLM's ausignarcd entitv status' td' at 10'11')

3/9Aug-22-2OO9 05:52 AM Telesourus 5tO84I2226

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, "*capt

t¡at tha Form 6ó2 filings indicåted,-cortëtly as it now ap'earsr-that Medcom

l-åuãop*.ttt öipora¡ìon actuålly was the general partoer of MCT Investors, L'P'' and that you

coBtrofed Medcolu Development Corpor¿tíon.")

MCyLM a¡d MariTEL thus ÞtEsented the Commission witlt conflicting represetrtalio¡s ss ta

wherher you had controuect Ma¡iTEi. Both MCll,M and MariTEL subsequentþ fi¡tèd pleadiftgs

¿i*i*r-irg thi* dia*apa¡cy in their rePrèsentations, but this discussion is not adequate for the

Commissîon to ascertain which reprcsint$ion is åccurÂte tud which representatiot is not accufåto' ,Iniactlil[ üóiÀ{ìt -JV* eL1t *ntínued to stand by tleir earlier representations, a¡d shed litde

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

Inìestors, Lp. to its ?4 constituent investors. This distribution witl substsntifl[y dihte tl]e or nership interest of

¡r,iCi ir"!rt"*, f.p. to approximately two percent, and will decrease Mr.DeP¡iest's ownçrshiP interest to. -

iplir¡^ *lï u.z¿ø, (iiri,roaine rhc ËÀ"iiìn! suko of Mcr 1.v¿.stors,.L.P., ss I\4f. DcP¡icst shsll remåin Gen*sl

iãiù* ãi ¡í. *,¡ø. À a res;-h of rhe distrib:uion, no singlc cntity will conrrol MÚiTBL." ft/.

lr I[ FCC Form 602 Ìeports that were flled on March 13, 2001, sld appuentlv remdned cunent up until the dtne the

Ma¡iTBL ransfc¡ of contr,ol wss consì;;ata; in eoOg, Muif¡L indícated tirat lr¿CT lnvcslors' L,P. held 58.3ø¿ of

MarirEL's issue¿ atrd outstatrding voting srock (and 26.170 0f all stock, voting and mn-votiug), that Medcour

b"u"top*"ui Cotporation was ürã sole gineral p'utnm of MCf, Invostors, L P" ffd thår you w9¡e tlte ¡919 ^- - - -,

lareiroïer of tUårCo- U"u"top."oi õoiioraûon. See, e.6., FCC File No. 0002080?04 (filed Mar. 13' 2001)'. Tlrc

\iæi.¡gl Form OOZ afso indicat'd thâa tou'held ur addiúor;1 8.99ø of t¡e voting stock i¡ you' owr na'e, aud th't

American Tower Coryoration held 1?'l7o of MariTBL's voting stock'

t2 On July 3 t . 2008, for oxarnple, MUJ,M frled a plcading in which it åsseded thât MüiTEL was simply ilconcct in

""tÀ"riru itrui iiira| ueen conr¡olletl ¡y Mr. pei'riesç ând soid thât MariTËL's ¿fior in üis rogård "åppeårs to

;ä;äil;1,älo*; .uo, i. ù",iriit i"roirnarion ând fram â differencs in nothortolo$r bcrwc¿nt Ms.firgl

äråï"i,;"ç;u"iJfe"redlitloaxplanationâ6tothênåtureôfthâtsugge$terlñol¡odologicaldifforelce'-See..'i¿.fA* Co***iraAonyfan¿ lioUiã U,C, Opposition to Supplomentro Potition for Rcconsideration Rcgarding

New Façts, fitçd Juty 31, ZOOB, at S.i: seø àkoü.'aú ".t

(neii¡iest bçlieves that MariTEL may havo counLerl

;;;;;;-;;-e;s,,*k ówu.d conrot, ti,o, oearing a difference berween Ma¡irEL and Ds Prie¡r and b¿rv.,eon

ü;Til;"d r;ir"i"s nop.ttius orvitginii Inc.i), In the n¿xt sellsnc-ei ¡norcovcr' MC/[M indicatcd tbat thc

¡tuJ.¿_,o *u$o¿ologi.U åftforun." woü¿ noi suffrco to cxplai" i,uhy MåfiTEL côncludcd that it had be€n ünder

n¡ì. n"ni.st s .*f.o'f , b¿cause ,,svsn if De Riest had used Må{iTEUs irêtÏodology, Do Priost r'\|ôuld not conbol

.

Ma¡iTEL under the Cor*irrion'. n rlÀ-wUicfr ar" appti"aUte to Ure i¡stÂrt m{fler," Id. at 4. MC/LM slso argucd'

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'-

iri-."ïär.ü"*ì-.ül"p irpùr, ¡¿. ut + ".äl

.no tt'ut Itlc¡¡,M tt^nds by its ea¡lier suLo¡nont rhåt Americsn Tower, Inc'

;;|i6f, N,r;;iTËi pG;u'Jþ u d'ur.üolär, ugr.r*ent, ¿. ar s. MCiT,t4 âtso arsrad rhåt.rcirhcf MC/LM nor Mr.

it"äãért tu'*yï"W, to O"reive tto ComJission regarding Mr. ÐcP¡i¡st's ¡ole in Ma¡iTEL bscauso atçibudon

of MariTEL,s revenues to MÇ/Ì.M ;;uld norttur," uffåt ¿ lÌCla1gls eligibility for the small business bidding

credit that it received in ¡\r¡ctioq No. 61. Id'

tJ MariTEL likervisø filcrl a plcading on iuly 31, 2008, in whictr it reÊfrtumed iE eslliel representation thatjt had

¡uän .änrroffu¿ Uy ¡,tt. Depiiest rbrãugh Nd. DáPriesis ow'erslúp of 5870 oiMariTEl's coÍ.Elon stoçk, directly

-.1,¡*"etlri, ã"*"orship of Mc.f Iniætors, L.p. ,see opposidon of MsrirBLlnc., flled July 31, 2008, at 2.

4/9Aus-22-2QQ9 05r53 AM Telesourus 5LO84LZ?'?6

Dôr¡sld R. DcPrië$tLet{er of lûquiry re MCltM, MffiTBL

Based on the eústilg fecofd, we âfe uEable to deterÉine whethèr or not you exetcised de jure ot

drl*r";;;E"i;f M.iffiLlt We have contadictory statements on the mâtter. ând an inflbilíty at this

juritore to ¿"temine precisely why therc is a co¡flici on this -poírt, .why

one of tlt.P*i:: :liu:t]l[- ^"irovided inaccu¡ate i"tor.at¡" on tnis material issue to thë Cor¡mission, a¡d whether tbe submission of

iu"h ina."*at" information Âr¡$es to the level oT misrepresentation or lack of candor under the

Commíssion,s Cha¡acef quaüflcations Policy,rs We ùereforc direct you to provide ådditional

information regardiag tlis matter, as speoified below.

Cordli.cting Representaliorc Regarding Your Role ín MCII)í

Asnotedabove,MC/LMdidnatinitisllyinclucleyouæadisclosableinterestlrolderinMC/LNÍfor designated entiry eligib iry purposes, and MbILM has repeaEdly.statsd ìn filings relåtqto thg --- .

i,{'Cf-Ir,I-Appii*,i"i ttti yo"iuuåot p-tayed any significant role in MC/LM' In the FCC Form 602 filed

in conjunctión with thÊ MSLM ApFlication, MCILM stateil'

onehunrlredpercentoftlrememberslripinterestsinMa¡itimeCommunicatío¡s/La¡dMobüe, 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

Commuuications ]¡vestl]1ents, Lt¡c. âre ovvned by Ssndrs M' DePriest' One hundred percent

oi-n" puttn"ttt ip shares in S/RJW Pa¡tnership, L'?. are owned by Sandra M' DePriest' .

san¿rå u' oep¡ist is the sole officer' directoi and kcy -¡nagement personnel of Maritime

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 pleading in a separate Ploceeding, MariTEL argr¡cd thaq contÎary to lho âsscrtions in a Petition to deny,

.,ttJU"rã i" no Joot o""iry ,"gà.Oing *iri o;, Ãd coirots Ma¡iTEL,'; ¡nd that tho MuiTBL '1 C Applìcations and

úäfei;r iCC-Ë"*r åo2\res.lnt "..urat

and complûto oì¡,nôrshþ infomaúon rogarding MüiTBL and its---;bttãt"tt.." i"; oppositioriof MariTEL, Inc' lto Petition to Dgry- frled q 'AMTS

co¡sortium lrc ¿t al' te FCC

lilr Ñor. ooossree5a 0003516656, 000353459ã, 0003534602' 0003s34?63' 0003534766' 000353476?'

ôôigjã+iãá, Oooàiã5'087!;filed SêpL 5,2008, afz. Ever if rle latet statement regarding tIË üut¡ûllness of-

i,i"ritrr', .ltifi"r niings is ulLimatoly shown to bc tue, we believo ürat the conu¡díotory representations made by

üèÄM an¿ MarirEL lavc inrlccd gÉnffarcd a conrroversy necessirsring fr]rd¡er couunission inquiry.

ú ,Sce Policy Rcgarding CbÐ.rsoter QuåIif¡cmions in Broodcast Licensing, Arnendment ofRules of Broâdcåst

nã.ti"u *á p*iu¿oro-Relating to ivritten Responses to Comnision Inquiries and the Making of

i"ä.Jpi"r*"rio* , thc Comirission by perrinees ard Licenseur,\"p:!, Order urd Polìq Statemënt, .102

Ë.ðilãììiãí, ¡ãro-11{1t60-61 (t9s6i, Memorandum opittìon and Òrder,1 Fcc Rcd 4u (1986): Folicv

irîräine ¿#r.r". qurûiicarions in eiórdcasr LicensinglAmerdme_trr_of pûr1 1, the Rules ofPracdce and _

Þìäc¿urä nel"ring ,o-Wdnen Responses ro Commission-inquiries and the Making of MisrêPrescfltstions to úc

èoi*i"i"" Uy epllicants, perminees, and Licensees, and the Rcportilg_of Inforuration Rcgâ{dirig Charåcr*

õ*iin*'¡"*, ¡"iày Sratánent ard, Order,S FCC Rcd 3252 (1990) (1990 Charucter Policy Støtên¿nt), . . . - .

i,Ëi"l^i"*' Op¡^øn and Order,íiCcticd 3448 (1991), Memorøndam Opinion.and Ordc\1 ,lc?.,k:d-::,94iiSSz). Th" Co;-issioD applies its

'broadcast character stafldaldJ to aPPlicanß ånd liccnse¿s tn the oüer raoro

$s(viccs. S¿c, e.g,, Igg0 charucter iàiícy state*ent,sr1ÇRcd at 325311 i0 (âdopLing 47 C¡l R' $ 1'17.to aPply

piàniuitio" ,Ë"in'riCIsï€FesentÃtion;;nä material omissions to âppticânB, ticonsccs, Ând permiftees in all radio

services).

16 s¿¿ FCC Fìle No. 0002302467, Exhibir - Explanation of ownership (filed sept. 6, 2005). Wê note tll8t üro.

lr"er.g. "*pì.y"1

by MC/LM suggess t¡"t, ,rtik" tnlc¡LM *ntl comnunications Investments, Inc., S/RI"W

i;"rit t'rfrio, î-.n., #officers anüìí di¡cctois in addition to Ms. DePriest. we also note that Mglljvr's

reoresentation that Ms. pep¡ust wæ ttro oily offrccr or director ofCoÍununicâüons Investments' Inc' conflicts wjth

; õiä;ùffi;úiuc.err¡y ot srste zooi corpóråre A-nnuat Reporr for coümudcations Investmsnts, Inç',

il;;,i;;ú;;Jü; you (on Écbru$v t6' 2005, Íess than seven molths before the ûIing of the MOLM

AuI-ZZ-ZQQ9 05:53 AM Te.Lesourus 510A412?26 5/9

Donald R. DçP¡iestL€tter of Inquiry re MCÍ-M, MariTEL

h amending the MC/LM Application to include you as a disclosable interest holder based on the

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""'

On Septeruber 22, 2006, however, Wireless Propertias of Virgidq Inc' (WPÐ filed twÒ -

aunlications to assisn Broadbsnd Radio Service snd Etlucationgl Broadb8nd Service licenses toNertel

Sþcrnrm Âcquisirñn Co¡p.rs You are listed as the 1009o o\arner of WPV in its FCC Form 602"" 8ùd

;Ë;til;pËlit"6ons onieba'lf of WPV, under the title "Offrcer'" In 9-sg91s9

to 1 P"tilio.: Tj":L "

ttrise apptcãfions, WpV claimed that Sandr¿ DePtiest owned 10070 of MC/LM and coutrolled MC/LM'

but alså stated thai "Don DePriest is a¡ offrcer änd direotor of MC/LM ' ' ' ''20

Based on the contrådictory ststements on úe mâfier in the o(isthg recofd, we arc unable. to

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,

L.Þ., or Cã¡¡munications l¡vestmenti, Lnc,zl We note, moreover, that if yorr were indeed an.o{ßcer or

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

u-"Uà"* ir o...i*w to hquire fì,1her iúto this úatter. iVe therefore direct you to provide additional

information regarding this matter, as sP€cified below.

Requests fo r lnfontntion

As explained abovo, we have determincd that additionsl informätion is requircd g *t, "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

Application) as Presideal listing you as also a director of thë cÓmPany, andjisting Sandrâ Dolricst ss tll oorporatc.'Sãr'*t.ry

uít""t "

¿iir"tor, S"ãwu.t* C. Havens cf sl., Potition to bcny [the MCILM Application], filed Nov 14'

2005, ât Erhibit. l, Docuücnt 4.

'? See MCßM Applicatiofi, Disclgssblo Intorest Holdofs Ancndment at 1 (filed Aug ' ZL,Z006)'

rr Fcc Filé NÞs. 00027s561 6, 0002.695270'

re ,See FCC Ffls No. 0002?92309 (filed Oat. 22, 2006). In this Forn 602, VIPV represenls, i fer 4lí¿, tbat you hold

only â 12.13% intercst iÉ MsriTEL.

20 See Wireloss properties ofVirgini4 Inc., Opposition [to Petition to Deny, and in the altetuativo, Sêction 1'41

fnformat Rcquesr tô Di.*i*, o, õ.oy, nirá O'"i. t t, ZOtiO, Uy W*t"n C. Havensl, lled Oct. ?3' 2006' at 3 (ornpbæis

added).

?¡ Uuder Secrion t.Zt tg(cXzXF) of th¿ Coñmissioû's Rules, 4? C.F.R. $ 1.2110(cX2)(F), "fo]tEcers and dircctors

ofthe applicanr sball be cónridered to hau" a c.ntrolling intêrestjn thc âpplicánt [s-ûd] offioels a,.d dteçtols of an

ãrity uir"It ""io"G

. ftensee or applicant shall b¿ consiãorotl to have a co tolling interest in the liÇënse or

âpplicaùt."

2 4z u.s.c. g :os1l¡.

6/9Auçr-22-2009 05:54 AM Telesourus 5LO84t?226

Dounld R. DeP¡iest

Letter of Inquiry re MC/LM, MæiTEL

indicated, tltê period of time covereil by these iuquiries is lanuary lt 2002, to the Prèseltt (tlre relev rt

period).23

1. Identify aad clesc¡ibe ali business entitìes, of whatever form' that have beeü

contolþd by you durÍng Uro relevant Pcriod' For purposes aftl¡is question' you arc

deemerl to have controilerl any entity ín which you held a 50'07s or more owneTshlp

i.uterest, or sewed as a directoï or officer, or served as a general partrer' or exercised

delacø coutrol in any w&y at sny tûlr during the televant period'

2, State whetlre¡ all ofthe inte¡osts hold by you tÌat should have been disc'losed in the

MC/LM Application, as arnended, FCi Éil" No' 0002303355' were disclosed in the

MCILM APPlicatian. Identify any inte¡ests ån'l entities that should have been

.disclosed in the MULM Applicâtion ås stributÂble to yoìI but wele noj s: .

¿isciose¿.* To the extent yóu have personal knowledge of the fia$ef, indicate the .

,easoo why each soch entity *as noidisclosed in the MC/LM Applicæion' For- each

such entity, except those entities that wete fequired to be discloscd only under 47

c.F.R. 0 i.2i i2(i)(1)(ü) anrl no other rule, grovide its annual gtoss rcvenues for each

of tl," tlrru" "uluìá. vlís zo0z, zoos, an¿ 2oo+'6

B Jaruary t, 2002, is the beginning of the first calendâr year in whith the revenues of MOLM's disÇlosablo intercst

holders were to be considued in oetermining McttÀ,['s designatea entiry eligibility itr conjullction with thÉ Mc¡-M

Applicatiou.

ã Si¡ce Amc¡ican Nonwovens Corporation wqs addËd to the ÂPPlication in the Augìst 21, 2006, amendment, it -,

neid not be listed in response to úl cuestion, Basçd on MC/LM'' own r'Presentåtians in relevs¡t P'eaorßgs nleo

il;ù-o,i;iil; Mgti4 Ãp¿i"ution1 *"-"outa'expæt the entities tist"d_ii ¡esnonsn to this quesúon o incfttdo, at

minimurn, lùvireless Propcrtius orvirå"i", i""-ìï¡fir*" p*"¿casting Co'' Brävo Communications' Lrc'' Goldcn

,ilüüRrdi:ì";., Nläd"orn nuv.ifrÀ.Ti Córporation, and MCt Ñastors, L,P., ss w¿1l ås úc oth¿r contps¡lics

ili;f ,il MÇ;it óf position actoo*,*lcdgud *"i. undui you. "onkol

bur hâd ¡ô fGvonuês. sdc Mc/1,\4 oppositiofr

ii'd:g ir.k"ä;i"osi"iyiur conkol of tV¡ê Tdephono Çó,, Inc., Ccllsr ârtd Eroådcåst com¡nunications' Inc''

Ë"i"f"ìãC"ipo"t¡1'nlécott"nd ttouse, to"., Wfôt"** ftopàrti._t, Inc., W_ireless Properties - Bast, Inc', Wireless . .

Þr"pài ¡", _.üy"u, I"á., Wir"t.", rrop"rti"r'- u¡per Midwest, Itrc., and Tra'sition Funding, Inc.). But you should

,isäi¿"nrify "ny

óOror cntitics rhat yåu cuncntly'bclicvc shoulrl have boen reponed in tlìe YC/LM Aqlli:a-lo-1

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'

i,¿¿, in parr¡cur"r, ¿z c-F.R. g 1.2110(cxÐ, defining the types of eutitics to be disclosed as affiliate$ af persoTrs

deemito contol an applirant ana 4r êiR. 5 l'Zi lz(bxlXii), requiring designâtêd ontity âpplicanb.to disclosa

;auy fCCLegutateO etrtity * oppti"*t fot * ËCC Ucensi, in'wtticn any oortou¡¡g inlëreâ! of the apPlicant owns a

l0 pø".nt orþrrcr ¡nti"st oi á tot¿ of t0 percent or rnore of any class of stock, wu¡ants, options or dçbt

securitìos,"

4 Ws ¡¡ote lhät the Comrussìon's Rulos do not provide an excepúon to thÞ desig¡rated entity ownership dìsclosu-re

requirements for otlerwÍse disclosable entities that have no $oss rêvenuss' see a7c'FR'$ 1'2112(b)(1)(iv) we

norc, morcovcr, thai sltfrougfr tfre Vrô¡¡Ufi,ppo.ition ptouiãø t*enue data foÌ most of the entities thât M(yLM

omitted frorn íts designated e'tity snãwin! alã 6'st aJtnowteOgea_as Your affi'liates in tho MC/I¡'4 OÞposition' iL

ãia nìf pìoniou ."*nîut oato ¡or t rràco*iet"ropm*t cotp' ãt Mgf Investo$' L'P See MC/LM opposition at

8_11. MC/LM hns n"lroo*"1øe"o tbäi, oìihough ii dio not aiìclose your conEol of Mcdcôm Development corp. -and

MCT Investors, L.p in r¡r frtcm¡ Àipfil"tiío, you 't*rof û Uct_lnYestors, L'P. âs å rcsult of being owner of its

lo*"J p*n"r, u.oco* uuu"ropnl"irï cotp*lú*'1 see Mb&.M opposition to suPPlemêntÈl PFR-'not¿ )3'

¡unra. al4. Wo accordingly expe"t Ooi t¡"i"uunu* ¿ota for Medcom-Development Corporation and Mffffiffi,;.Ë. ;il båätioíc ,tit ittf*ro,ion provirled in response to this request for information.

Aug-ZZ-¿OO9 05:54 Al'1 I'elesdurus 5IOe4l¿¿26

Donald R. DePriestLcttcr of inquiry re MC/LM, MariTEL

3, Describe the extÞnt and nanlfe of youf ownership holdings in MariTEIlG drrring the.

relevant Period. Describe the perienage of the équitY in MariTE! held by you' and

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

formerly lreld óne or mo¡e of such positions in Mâri'IBL' but nÕ lotrgèr do' stâtè

when ùe period ir which you held the position(s) ended'

5. State whether vou ever hel<l or exercis uJ de facto cottttol of MariTEL by any means

during the relJvant period, If so, describe the Dâ$re ôf thâr conrrol, and how it wâs

obt¿ined'

6.Ifyoubelieveanotlterpersonorentity(orotherpenonsoreûtities)beldeitherde¡ocla conrol of MariTif- or de jzre ionnol of MariTEL' or both' durirg the relevant

ieriod, identify such person(s) or entiiy(ies), and expiai¡ in detail bolh the nature of

ilre contol yoú beüeve to have been eierted by such third party(ies) and the

foundation for Your belief.

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

Invesfrnents, Inc.z? State u'hÉther you were autlorized to entör into contracts on

behslfofånyoÏalloflhesethÎeeenumelatedentifÌes,whatÖtherauthotity,ifany'yoo porr*r.J*itl, rospect to any or all of theenumerated onfitios, and wlì0t duties, ifa-ny, you had il connecïon with any or all of the enumerated entities'

9. To the extent you have personal knowledge of the matter' explain why M{/LM and

WPV mach cónflicting ìepresentations regarding whether you were a¡ offrce¡ or

diïector of MC/LM, aoa witn tttpttr to the entity thåt you believe made a false

representation in tlus regaid, either MC/LM or WPV, explain' to the best of yoÙr .

knowledgc antl belief, ühy it Ioade sueh fal€e repfesefltation. _ IfJou bÞlievc there is

no cbnfliit between the representations. and that neidrer MC/IM uorIiVPV was

inæoulÂte in ii.s repr'"sentations regatding whethçf you were an officet or director of

MC/LM, explail the bæis for that belief'

rMo hereby direct you, pursuant to Sections 308(b) and 403 of thc Act,a to rcspond in writing and

r¡nder oatÍ. sepa¡atelv uod zutv. io eo"h of the foregoing ieçests wÍthin 30 busincss days from thé dâtc

"f il.1.¡ilr.F v""îuy provide rny additional i¡iormation that you believe is relevânt to this matter'

" * ,-p"$r "f aLt*ud rt f"ll"-tng questions, 'MariTBU' meilns MaIiTEL, Inc. and/or any of its subsidía¡ies'

2? .Ar minimum, lisr ary posidons held by you in the subject entiries os director, ofÍcer' paltner, Iimited liability

.o*p"iy t""*úut, o. employeq and rtre'percentage ofequity snd voting equity held by you in each of tlte subject

""Í,i*,'"i "ry ù"i, ¿uriíg tÉc relevant päriod. Fãr euchsubjcct cntiry, also indicate if you exercised delacro

qont{ol of tbô entity at åny ti¡flc, 8nd providc an cxplarradon-

" +r u.s.c, $$ :os(¡), ¿os.

2e We are ccntemporaneously mailing simila¡ leuers of inquiry undorSection 308(b) to MârilEL and to MC/LM'

8/9Aug-22-2009 05:55 AM Telesourus 5108412226

Donald IL DePriestLetter of Inquiry re MC/LM, MsrilEL

TT¡ol¡sEuctionsfofrcspondi¡gtothislettelarecont¿inedintheAttachmerrthereto.Yourresponseslrallb'¡ dirêcted to:

Jeffrey Tobias, Esq.Mobüity DivisíÖ'Wireless Teleco¡¡muuication Bureau

445 12t' süÉet, s.w.Wæhin$on, D.C. 20554

If you have any questions relating to this úatter, pieåso cottact Mr' Tobias at (202) 4i8'16i7 or

ieff.tobiasGrfcc.sov'

You are advised tbat 18 U.S.C. $ 1001 anrl section I'i7 qf the cor¡mission's Rules,47 C'FR'

ç l.rz, piorriuit mùrepresentations and/or wiIfuI omissio¡s of ftåtedal facts iû fespoüse to comfüssiôn

fuquiries.

ùluçcrlt-ty t

/t//"4,i-/Æ_tvr4 t./1,/ --- Scot Stone

DeputY Chief, MobilitY DivisionWireless Telecom¡nuniçations Bureau

cc: Mrritime Comururications/Land Mobilq LLC206 North 8th SteetColumbus, MS 39701

ATTN: Sa¡d¡¿ M. DeP¡iest

Deonis C. Brown, Esq.

8124 Cooke Court, suíte 201

Ma¡assæ. VA 20109-7406

MæiTEL,I¡c.4635 Church Rd, Suite 100

Cumming, GA 300284084ATTN: Jasot Smith

Russoll I{. Fox, Esq.

Mintz, Levin, Cohen, Feuis, Giovsky end PoPeo' P'C'

701 Pennsylvaaia Ave.. Il'iV - S\rite 900

Washington, DC 20004

'Warre¡ Haveus2649 Beuvenue Ave.- Suitas 24Berkeley, CA 94704

[,uq-¿¿-¿Ojg 05 : 55 At'l 'l elesqurus \IjA4LZ¿¿6

Douald R. DePriesr

Leuer of Inquiry ¡e Mffllvl, MaIITEL

InsErctio¡s

A'fTAEHMENT

Request for Corfitlentíal Treatment' If you lequest that ûny i¡fomation or documents resPonsive to this

i"tti,, fru"r"ot ¿t u confidçntiai mamäyou ittatt suUmii aloug with all responsiye i1l91t9!on- a¡{-^

documeuts, a ståtemênt in a".or¿r¡"" *iti Section 0.459 of the-Commis¡ion's Rul6Ê, 47 C'F R' $ 0'459'

ReouestÈ fôr öonfidential reatruent musrcoÉply with rhe requûements of Section 0'459' including iÌ¡ë

.äilä",¿r "itri"ãniitv

**¿ot"¿ tv st"tion ô'4s9þ)' Accordinslv' "bla¡ked'É$¡ests for

"""nJ*ti-liti "f " large set of documents are unaôépuble' Pursusnt to Section 0'459(c)' we will not

"ã"rià". itqì'"tt" ,ttat ão not comply with ùe requireÉeûts of Sectior 0'459'

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

mafiêr a¡d date ôf the item; ure namås, áddtesses, positious, and organizations of all authon and

i""ipì"r , "f

,ft" ir"m; and the specific ground(s) fàr clairnhg thât the iteú is privileged'

Format of Responses' The response must be consistent with the format of the questions a'sked'

Method of Producíng Documents. Eåch fequestEd docuüent, as defined horeir, shall be $úmitted in it5

ä;t"ty,-;";; if "tly

u pottion of trtut ã*umont is ru'pontiv" toan inquiry made herein' This me¿r¡s that

iniäoåÁ"ni ,¡¡r notte e¿ite¿, c,rì, or expuged, anï shall include all appendices, tables, or other. .

âttachme[ts, ârd all othor docu¡nents ¡efeff"a io in ttrg document or àttachments' All wriften mÂþúals

"ll-".r"ry i ir_¿*"and a.ny docrrment respoûsive to these iûquiries ruust also b6 subrritted.

Idatification af DocLunenß. Fot ffichdocument or statement submitted in resPonse to the inquiries , ,ri",J ir t¡" "** f"tter, indicate, Ç number, to which inquiry it is respoÞsive and identify the person(s)

fÍoñ whose files the ¿ocumerrt was ttii*td. ff tty do"o*entis-not dated' statê the dâte o which it was

pl"pal"å. lr ""y

¿""o*"ot ao", oãii¿intiry irs a,_rrio4s¡ or recipient(Ð, state, ifknown, the name(s) of

ãi"'uo,rror(Ð oir."ipient(Ð, You musriJ"ntity *ittt '"^onableipecificity

all documenrs provìded in

response to thesa inquiries.

EXHIBIT 2

l/ ¿5Oct-z3-ZOO9 11:1Z All lelesourus 5IOA4L¿¿à6

DENMS C. BROWNATTORNEY ÁT LÀW

8124 CooKE CouRr, SUITE 201

M^NÀssAs, VtrrGINI/l 20109-7406

PHoNE 703i365-9437D.C.BROWN@,{TI.NBr

September 30, 2009

Jeffrey Tobias, Esq.

Mobility DivisionWireless Telecornmunications Bureau

445 12'r'Steet, SWWashiugton, DC 20554

F^x 703/365-9456

NoT AÐMITTED IN VIROINIA

Re: FCC File Nos, 0002303355,0003463998' 0003470447'

o}o347 0491, 0N3410527, 0003470576' 0003470583'

0003470s93, 0003470602, 0003470608' 0003470613

Dear Mr. Tobias:

I represenr rhe fâdio system iüterests ôf Mâritime conrm[nicatious/Land Mol¡ile, LLc

(lvlc/Lt,Ð tefore r1e Federal Coumruuications Commission. On behalf of MC/LM, I am

iubmiui¡Ê herewith the response of Sandra DePriest, the ultimate owucr of MC/LM, to the

Commisslon's letter of inquiry to MC/LM daæd August 18, 2009' Concurtently' Ms'

OaFi.*'r respoEse is U"iog fii"d electronically in each ofthe above-trfereuced proceedings'

Please direct any furttter communication coticerning this mâfier to my atte ion'

Thank you for your atteûtion to this mafter'

Very truly yout's,

z/25Oct-23-2009 11:13 AM TeLesourus 5108412226

The Reverend Sandra DePriest510 Seventh Street North

Columbus, MississiPPi

SePtember 30, 2009

Mr. Jeffrey Tobias, Esq.

Mol¡ility DivisionlVirelcss Telecomruunication Bureau

445 12tr'Street, S.W.

Wæhíngton, D.C.205s4

Re: FCC File Nos, 00023033s5, 0003463998, 00034700441,0003470527 '0003470576, 0003470583, 000 3470s93,0003470602, 0003470608' 000347Ö613

Dear Mr. Tobias,

This ietter is in response to your lette:: ofAugust I B, 2009 requesting additional

information conccrning the iaterests and involvement of Mr' Donald R' DePLiest with

Ma¡iTEL and Maritimã Communications/Land MoSile, LLC (MCiLM). A.s you are

o*t, ftft p.¡¡est is my husband, and Dennis C' Btown represents both of us in our

f.CC ãctivities. Wrile I ¡ave beeu referred to by tffan'en Havens æ an FCC Attofiey, I

have not been involved in the active practice of lew since 1996, other than the pro botro

reoresentation ofseveral chatitabie orgauizations in the frliug oftheir tax exenrpt

;ñtüffi O,h* than my involvenient with MC/LM since 2005, aud tlte operation of a

õiictaw eed a Brcaldast, firc. in Natchez, Mississippi since 2{06' I have l¡eeu

a'ssãciated with th" ministry since 1g96, and I arn an ordaiued Episcopal Príest sewi'g a

chrllch pârt{ime.

Questionl.Identifyanddescribeailbusinessentities,ofwhateverfornr,ttrathave beeì controlled by Mr. Depriest during the relcvaut period, For purposes of this

lu".tioo, M¡. Dep¡iesi should be deemed þ have conrrolled any enrity in which he

tret¿ a Só.0% or more ownership ifteresf, or served as a director or officer' or served

", a general parmer, or exercised de¡ac¡o control in any way at atly tilne during rlte

relevâút period.

Oct-23-ZOO9 11:13 Al'1 Ielesourus 5IOA4L¿¿¿6 3/25

Arswer 1. Except as to the etrtilies with wlìich I am involved, I defer to Mr'

DePriest's response to the lefter of the same dâte directed to hil]l'

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

an officer of MC/LM, ancl she has been iûstructed by me not to sign as Treasurer ín the

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 Questiong. Mr. John Reardon serves as the CEO. At uo tirne has Mr'. DePriest been an of{ice¡

or dhector of MC/LM-

S/RJW Psrtnership, L,P. (S/RJ![) Ownership: All of the parnership shares are owned by

me, Sandra Depriest. The Resotution of ûre Board of Directors of MedCom Development

coiporation, the former GeneÍal Palmer of s/RIW PârtneÌship, ræígning as General Part[er

is agached as Exhibit 2, atong witir ùe Resolution of Coffinunications l¡vestments, Inc' (CII)

succeeding Metlcou Devetopmeü colpolâlion as ceneral PâfiûeI âs Exhibit 3. MedCon

Developlrienr Cofpofalion is coûtrolleal by Doû DePriest. It hâs no sales or gross receipts,

Accrueã manageme4 fees were pâid to Medconr Developnrent Corpolation in 2002 and 2003

by MCT Investors, L.P., but noue after tbat'

officers antl Directors: Tlre general partner in S/RJW is Comrnunications

IûvesÍnents, ka' as ofFeb' 18, 2009. on that szune day, I, Sandra DePÍiesL was

elestedPresidetrtofS/RM.I,SandraDePriest,Ðnthesolekeymanagetnentpersormel of S/RJW. The Certiñcate of Limitcd Partnership of S/RJW filed with the.s.","t",y

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'

4/ ¿5Oct-23-2O09 1t : L3 Al'1 'lelesourus 5LÇA4f¿¿¿6

a) Wireless ProPerties, Inc.

b) Wireless Properties of Virginia' Ilc'

coüEr¡nicâfions Investment6, Inc, (Çtt) ownershipl Ä'11 1000 shates of stock wele

nansfeffe*p m. by Don Depriest ou Feb. 18 2005, aud a copy of the stock cettificate issued

in mY name is attached as Exhibit 6'

officersauilDirectors:AsofFebruaryIS,2005,IwasSoleSlruelrolderaltdwas elecledl Director and serve a¡ the sole offrce¡ a¡rd director of CII' Dou

O"Priest r"sign"a as of Feb. 18, 2005 as Ptesideut' A copy of his resignation is

attached âs ¡iniUit Z' In reviewing fte corporate rniuute book' liowever' I note

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

ine Secretary of Sfate until re January 2008 Aunual Report, a copy of wltich is

a$âched as Ë*ibit 8, On August 25, 2005, I was authorized to bor'::ow bank

funds as the sole Officer, Dilector and Shareholder of CIl'

I have tro first-hând lfiowleclge of Mr, Depriest's owncrship and intcrest, so-i will -d.efer

to and adopt Mr'

Dep¡iest,s fesponses to euætion i oîtrtu Commission's i'qui'y to Wireless Pr:operties of Virginia' I'c' (WPV) witlt

i*rpårt a a"ttii.r in wniùr he held a 50.0% o, ¡oot" o*o"rrltÞ interest, or served âs a dirõct6r or office¡' or served

*-ã g"*ruf pâl1rro, or exercised rlepclo cotrTrÖl il any way at ¿my tinÉ duri-ng the relevânt period'

Question 2: State whetlrer all of t]re interests held by Mr. DePriest that. should,hâve been disclosed in

the MC/LM Àpplication, as ,meud"d, FCC File No. 0002303355, were disclosed in the MC/LM Application'

ñ;;tôr any inierests a¡d entities tÏæ strorld have been disclosed in the MC/LM Application as attibutâble to Mr'

ÐePriest, but Were not so Oisclose¿. Statt the reason wiry such entity was not disciosed in the MC/LM Applicatiou'

¡roi.*ft'*"h enrtity, except those that entities fhat were iequired to be disciosed only under 47 C'F'R'

$i.21l2(b)OxiÐ and no ourer r]Ic,-pto"i¿" io annual grosi income for each of 1¡e calendar years 2002' 2003' and

2004.

Answer2lTlrefirstaldsecondsentencesofQuestion2callforalegalconclusionwhichonlythecommission can reach. Mr. DePriçst controlled or was ân Officer or director of ceruiû entities which were not

disclosed to ùe Coûmission in MC/LM's application'

TLe following entities were ûot disclosed by MC/LM because they had no revenues during dtc relcvant

period and, tlus, corltd not hâve âffected ttre calculation of MC/LM'' right rc a bidding credii:

The following e ides wefe úot disclosed because they had no reveuues during the releval]t peliod and' thus'

could not have affecred the calculation of MC/LM's riglit to a bidding credit:

Oct-23-2009 11r14 AM Telesourus 5108412?'?6

c) Wireless Properties - East, Inc'

d) Wireless ProPerties - Wesr, Inc.

e) Wireless Properties - Upper Midwest, Inc'

f¡ Conrmunications l[vestments, Inc'

g) Columbus Yarn Mills ConPanY

h) San Pedro Gauze Mill, hc.

i) WJG Teþhone Co', hc'

j) Cellular ancl Broadcast Communications, lnc'

k) Tupelo Broadcasting Corporation

l) Penelore CorPoration

m) $cotland House, Inc.

n) Transition Funding, L.L.C.

o) MCT lûvestors, L.P.

p) BD Parmers

q) CD Partners

r) Ground Zero Fashions, Inc.

s) Ground Zero lndustries, Inc.

t) Greenbriar Consuuction CorP'

u) Enviroworld Solutions, L.L.C'

v) Maritime Commuuications/La¡d Mobile, LLC

Oct-23-2O09 11:14 AM Te.Lesourus 5LO84I2ZZ6

The fo¡owing entities ìtrere ûot disclosed because úey were not âffiliated ôr did not exist at the time of the

filirg of the application.

a) Critical R,F,, Inc - MC/LM did not acquire control uutil 2006'

b) Excite Teclrnologies, krc. did not exist until 2009.

Except as notod, below, the following entities were not disclosed because of ovetsights or au itlaccurate

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:

a) Bravo Communications, Inc' -2002 - $119,0002003 - No revenues

2004 - No revenues

b) Charisma Coñfûuûications, lnc. -2002 - $54,8002003 - No revenues2004 - No rovenues

c) Goldetr Triangle Radio, Inc, -2002 - $107,4n2003 - No revetrues

2004 - No revenues

The foltowing revenues of Medcom Deveiopment Corporation were not reported because they eithe¡ were

received in compensätion for cxpenses incurred in prior years td, thus, not actuâlly available for use, or we¡e de

ûIiniftis Ít d overlooked,2002 - 52,585,998 (receivcd iu compensation for past expenses)

2003 - fi426'789 (overlooked)

2004 - No revenues

Oct-23.-2OO9 11:14 At4 lelesourus 5|0A412¿¿6 t/¿5

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 - $76,5002003 &, 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 - 91,022,4232004 - $2,076,507

[r response to Mr. DePriest's inquiry of Septembel 13, 2009, the President ancl CEO of MariTEL provided the

following MariTEL revenues:2002 - s308,7n2003 - $i72,84920a4 - fi1,267,99'l

euestion 3: Describe the extent ând ûâture of Mr. DePliest's ownershþ holdings in MaliTEL during

the relevant peÀd. Deseribe the perceutage of the equity in MariTEL held by Mr. DePriest, ard the folm in which

tlut eqrriny was held, e.g., stock, prefenedìtock, etc. Describe the percentage of voting equity ir MariTEL held by

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.

A¡swer 3: I have ¡¡o fi¡st-ha¡d larowletlge of Mr. DePriest's ownershi'p and interests in MariTEL so I

will defer to his answers to this question.

euestion 4: Sute l¡lhether Mr. DePriesr ever served as a director, officer, or employee of MariTEL'

If Mr. Depriest formerly held one or more of such positions in MariTEL, but no longer cloes, state when the period

in which he held the positioû(s) ended.

A¡swer 4. I have no ñrst-liand luowledge of Mr. DePriest's role as an officer, direotot', or enrployee of

MariTEL, so I will defer to his answers to this questioû, I hâve flo first-hand knowledge of l]te conttol of MadTEL

ãi.rin! thå..t"uunt period so I will defer to Mr. DePriest's âr$wers to this questioû.

euestion 5: State wlether Mr. DePriest ever held or e)(cercised de lacto corLltol of MariTEL by any

meâns duri¡g tli relevant periocl. If so, describe the nature of tirat conhol a¡d how it was obtained'

Answef 5. I do uot have the filsþhand loowledge upon w'hich to form an opinion as to the efltities

involved in the coutol of MariTEL during the relevant period, so I will defcl to Mr' Del'riest's ansrvers to this

a/25Oct-23-2009 11:15 AM Te.Iesourus 5tAA412?26

questíon, I will state that he fegulârly communicated to mc that he could not fofce Mal'iTEL to take actioru tllat he

believe<l were in the best interesËîf'tlæ "o*p*V' In the intercst of accuracy' I will <lefer to Mr' DePriest's ârswers t0

this question.

euestion 6: If MC/LM believes that another person or etrtity (or other persons or entities) held either

d.e facto coruolof Marirnr orJeizit .onttor of MariTEL, or ÞoTh, during re t'olevaut period' identifv such

person(s) or entiry(ies), aoo ,*pr*in in a.tuil both ttre nature of the control you ìlelieve to have been exercised by

iucb tbird party(ies) and the fou¡dation for your belief'

A¡swer6.Idonothavethefirst+aüdknov/ledgeuponwlrichtg|or1r1'orlnionastotheentitiêsinvolved in the control of MadTEï ä*iog tlu ."f**t period, so I will defe. to Mr. DePriest's auswers to this

qìrestion. I will state that he t"g;;.ù;;;;;cated to me that he coulcl not fot'ce MaIi'lEL to take actious that he

believedwe¡e in 1ft,¡rrtint"r.*t*li't¡.;;p^"y. ¡a thc intcrest ofaccuracy, I will defe¡ to Mr' DePriest's auswe¡s to

this question.

Question 7: If you believe that Mf . DePriest dicl not conuol MariTEL, explain, to the lrest of yout'

knowledge âtrd belief, why and how MadTEL could atrive âl the conclusion thar you did control MatiTEL'

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'sowrrerslripandroleinMaritimeComnrunicarionslf-¿ Uotile, üò,-S¡RJW Punrership, L'P.' and Co¡nmunications Investt ents' Inc' Indicate

wheùef Mr. DePriest was authorized to enter into coneâcts ot behalf of âny of all of ürese tllree enumerated

eûtities, and what duties,if any, he possessed with respect to any or all of the enumefâted entides' alld whal duties' if

*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

"ontocts ãn bendf of MC/LM' He has suggested equipntent

vendors. He has a""oÁpani"a the cEo to conveDtions aud professional âssocíation

meetings of potential uåers or ploflloter$ of two-way radio servi-".t. Mt;-D:,P-:::1i.1t *yrequest, guaiaut"ed rotes o\{eil bv MC/LM púmalilv i' *l9"iiti:llltl",|T1:lltlt^tv,påut^i ltttiblttion acknowledgenreu! anl q fuld the massive amouflt 0l lltlgarrotl

origioot.a Uy Wu,'"o ÞIavens in Califoruia' in wbich we havÊ recefltly prevailed at the

Çoui of Appealsllu"i'"o¿ itt Nt* Jersey' whiclt is still perrding' and befbre.the I'CC'

Don DePricst is noi u-o't*ploy" und cìoes not receive a salaly' At nÔ timc did Mr'

DePriest exercise de fdclo conttol of MC/LM'

9/25Oct-23-2009 11:15 AM Telesqurus 5LO84122?'6

b.S/RJIVPartnership,L.P.AtnotirnehasMr..DePriestlradanowllershipiDtercstinS/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\¡Ístire sole owner.and president of CII. The assets ofthe cotporation which dealt with the

pubiication of phone Boolc Enterprises, had been sold beforc Decembet, 1998, and none

,"orained. ih.re is no fecofd of cofporåte activiry betveen December, 1998 and 2002,

when S/RJW }aÚnerslìip was organiTÆd' I needed a cotlorate eutity to sene as the

Cel1eral parher of S/RJW. Since this Corpolatiou was iu existeDce, I asked Mr. DePriost

to traoster att otttrc stock ofthe Corporation to me. The eutity no longer had any value..

H* m¿ oÀ ur. for thc cntity and transferrcd all of thc common stock to me, and resigrred

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

fanuary,iOoa, Ulis was an oversight. i began serving as the _solê.officer

aûd director of

CIi Àoá neU",ary 1g, 2005. At no time after Febnrary t 8, 2005 has Mr. DePrjest

"*"iriiA au¡o"ío control over Couuluriications Inv€stnrc ts, Inc. Mr. DePriest was

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'

euestion 9: Explain why MCiLM and WPV marle conflicting representâtions regarding whedrer Mr.

Depriest was au officer or dùecþr ãf MC/LM, and with respect !o tbe entiry rttat you believe made a false

,-pr.s*trtion in this regard, timt UCli.Vt of .WPV'

explain, to the best 0I youf knowledge and belief' why it

màde such false representation. Ifyou believe tlat there ìs no conflict between the represennüons' and the neither

MC/LM nor WPV *u, iour.oråt'io its 'epresentations

regafding whether MI' DePriest was an officer or director of

MC/LM, explain the basis for that belief'

.{nswer 9: Maritime cornmunications/Land Mobile, LLC has ûever âsserted thât Mr. DePriest wâs an

oflicer of MC/LM' MC/LM must defer to WPV for an answer fo dris qnestiou'

to/¿5Oct-¿3.-ZOO9 11:15 Al{ lelêsourus 5|0A4I¿¿¿6

on behalf of MC/LM" S/RJW Parmership and communications Investnents, Iac.'

I respeotfirlly submif the above ansr'¡ers aatl ask your indulgence whete we have made an

inadîe¡tent etror or misstatements or have neglected to cofieot a docuúetrt' I humbly

request that you resolve these fiâltêrs wtfl Wanen Havens quioldy and with fuali$' as

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:hHSanùa M. DePriesf

1r/¿5Oct-23-2009 11:1ô At{ 'lelesourus 5LOe47¿¿¿6

EXHIBITS

Oct-¿3-ZOO9 11:16 At'l lelesourus 5lOe4I¿2¿6

NAMB

SANDRAM. DEPRIEST

Sandra M. DePriest

2, The LLC is memlier-manâged.

r¿/ ¿5

Exhibit f. inoumbency Certificate

ForMC&M.

INCUMBENCY CERTIFICATE FQR MARITIME COMMUNICd.TIONS/LÄNDMOBILE. LLC

I, Sandra M. DePriest, Secretâry of Maritime Communicâtions/Lnnd Mobtle' LLC

0he ..LLC'), â Delawârê limiled liability ôompâÍy (the "LLC"), do hereby certify as follows, as

ofthe date set forth below:

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'

OFFICE

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF M.ANAGER

Secretary

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 inconnection 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'

5. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true, correct and complete copy of the

Operating Agreement of the LLC, which was in full brce ând effect on the date that the

Råsolutions were adopted by the membe¡s ofthe LLC and is in full foroe and effect on the date

hereof. It has not been modified or amended oxcept as set forth i-n Exhibit C'

6. Attached as Exhibit D is a certificate of Existence issued by the secretary ofState for the State of Delawarg showing that the LLC is in good standing under the laws of that

State.

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\

@

Error! [Inknowb docr¡úÉlt !roÞtrty nâme.Ërrorl Unk¡orrn dgcumcdt J¡r'opcrty ¡lÂlllc'

L3/25Oct-¿3-zOO9 11:16 A1L 'lelesourus 5fOA4l¿¿¿6

The undersigned, being the dulv elected, qualified ând âcting PRESIDENT a.nd CI{.FI

MANAGER of the LLC, hereby certifies that Sandra M. DePriest is the duly elected, qualüed

and acting Secretary ofthe ILC and that the signature âppearing i'xnediately above his name on

the foregoing Certificate is his genuine si$rature'

IN WITMSS WHEREOF, thë

.*ffuay of August,2005,

rrndersigned has executed this Certificate ¿s of the

Érrorl Uoknow4 docrlncnr DroÞcrty n¡mc.Er¡rrir! tldkíown docutn¡rnl n!ofl'rly lr¡lllc'

t4/25Oct-23-2009 11:16 AM TeÌesourus 51OA4t2226

STATE OF MISSISSPPI

COUNTY OF LOWNÐES

Personally aPpeared before me, the undersigned notaty public in and for the state

and county aforesaid, Sandra M' DePriest' who âcknowledged before me that she sigûed

and delivered the âbove ând

on the day and for the purposes therein suted, for and on behalf of and as tlre act and deed

of Maritime Commuflicadpns/Laûd Mobile, LLC' and thât she was duly âuthorized to ãct'

Given under my hard and officiâl seal on this the Z5'l4day of August' 2005"

rsEÁL)

l'{y commission exPtres:

Oct-23-2009 11:17 AM Telesqurus 5L0A4I?'226

COPY

BOARD OF DIRBCTORS CORPORÀTE RESOLUTÍON

BE IT RESoLYE]), that or¡ this 18th dav of FebrrÂry' 2005

MedCon Developurent Corporatlon is vÍfhdrâffing fron S/RJI'I Partnership'

L.P. ae General Partûer for business rêâaons' S/RJl'l Partnership' L'P'

h¿s no liabillLies' Connunications Tnvestnênts' Iflc" a Mtssissfftpi

CorporaUiorr, solely owned by Sandra M' DePriesr' has succeeded MedCom

)evelopment Corporation as General Pärtner of S/RJl,l PartnershiÞ' L'P'

effective as of this date-

L5/25

Exhibit 2. Resolution of MedCom

Development CorPoraf ion

CÒrporâcfon

Sôle Dlr e c eor

Oct-23-2009 11:1/ Al4 'telesourus 5lOA4f¿¿¿6

BOARD OF DTRECTORS CORPORATE RESOLUTION

BE IT RESOLVED, that on this 18th day of February' 2005'

CÒmnuníëatlons Ir¡vestûìents' Inc.. t'il1 become General Partner of

S/RJll ParcûeróhiÞ, L.P' Con¡municâtiÔns InvesEnenbs ' Iuc" a Mississippi

CorporaLion, solely owned bv the urde-rsi8ned, S.andra M' 1{:i.11-t' ntt

succeeded Me<ICom Development CorDoraf:ion as GenêraI Partner of S/RJI'I

Partneréhl.É, L.P. effective as Ôf this date'

COMMUNIC¡,TIONS INVESTMENTS' INC.

Sandra M, DePrleseSoIe Shareholder and ÐÍrector

16/¿5

Exhibit 3. Resalution ofCommudcaf ions Invesmeuts, I[c'

GOP\'

Oct-23-¿009 11: L/ At4 lelesûurus 5lOt34I¿¿¿6

vjs,,@u,"frnhu*nTlr.e Jírst $tate

T, EARRIET SMTTH WINDSOR, SECREÍARY OF STAÍE OF TEE SÍA|IE OF

ÐEI,ÀVI.AAE, DO EEREBY CERIIFY THE ATTÀCEED TS A TRUE .èND CORRECÍ

CO9Y O!'IEE CEF-TI¡'ICATÍ O!' I,IMITED PÀ¡{TNERSEIP OF ''S / R-TTÍ

PÃ-FJNERSEIÞ, L^P,". T'IIED IN BEIS OFFICE ON gHE ÍWENIY-Í'IRSÍ DÀY

OF NOVEMBER¡ Z'.D. 2002¡ LT L2:20 O'CI,ÛCK P'M'

3619940 8100

a2a129778

J/",-:"L J*t¿ta'øh;^¿^'¿Har.iet smith Windsor, Secrecary of st¿te

AUSEENEICATIAN: 2233129

t/ /¿5

PAGE 1

Exhibit 4. Certificate of LimitedParurership for SIRIW

oATË,:01-30-03

Oct-23-2O09 11:1/ At{ 'lelesourus 51084I¿¿¿6 L8/ ¿5

EîATE Oî DELÀHàRES8öRET¿RY oF srÀÍE

Drvrsro{ o¡ coRpoRÀfrÖ¡¡'sFILEIJ 7Z:2Q Fll l1/2t/2Òoz

02a729778 - 3ó1994Ô

STATE OFDELA\Yá.RECERTIFICATE OF LTMITED PÄRTNERSItrF

. Thé Ur¡dÊrs¡gr¡Ë4 doSiti¡lg to form ¿ lifnrttld PattnershiP ftt¡Gurr¡lt to tj¡e Delawsrc

RcviscdUniformLim¡tcdPå¡rnellhipAct'6Dct¿wgrcCodc'chaPrêrl7'dohcfcby

ëëd,ry ôs fötlÕwsi

r t'l¡¡t: Thc narnë ofthc limitçd ps¡fncrship is q / RgLFrÊ tne É4 Þ¿Þ1¿L¿-

. S€coßd: Thê addreGê oFilr registcrcd oflìce in thc Stât¿ of DÊlevJårc is l209 -orÊnqe gtreet

-inthc

cityof irhin9Fou-

The flame ôfthc RËSistorcd .{gênt at snch addrëss is ÎLê corPUSètiÕn Tryst

r Third: Thc ¡rame ¡nd mailing address ofcach gcôöEâl PartrlÈt is ôs followsi

Hcd.c*om DevelÉgoeq#.'.-206 sth streëe NÓrtt¡ - - ,

-

!{Ëdcôqì DeïeloËmenr çôrünrãt lctn

P. O. Box IO? 6

-. çfJ.lt¡!bu:. Hs 397of - ------ -

e fn W¡tn€sr \trberÊofi the undcrsigncd h¡s cxecutcd this Cc(tiftcatç ôf]-¡mitcd,D

Partncrship of 5/'R.IH F.ðrtngfsh¡ir' L-' r-õ-s Ûf( .- --...- ,:

ur, [Þnafu, Ê'-]]-Ê+L'tat, #t s - :Gonê¡r¡l PrÉntr ttE P r€61d¡"nt-¡-4À (¡-¿"- /

r'{sÞc, hnÐIl-lj-g+:¡i-ft!?e ûr gr¡int flaÛ161

Oct-Z3-2009 11:17 AM Telesourus 5LO84L2?'26

STATE OF DELÁWAREAMENDMENTTO 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

Delaware, does hereby certily as followsl

FIRST: 'fhe name of the Limited Partnership ís Sfi[W Parfnership, L.P.

SECOND: Articte Third of the Ceriificate of Limited Pattnership shall be amended as

iollows: The name and na¡ling address of each general parfuier is as foflowsl

Communications Inves{ments, Inc'

P. O. Box 1076Columbus, MS 3S703

lN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned executed this Amendment to the Cerlificate of

Limited Partnership on this the ltä day ot February, 2005'

Communications lnvestrnents, Inc.,

Its Oeneral Partne¡

L9/25

þËr(hibit 5. Amend¡rent to t¡e lCe¡tificate of Limited Parmershipfor S/RIW

coPv

20 / ?,5Oct-23-2009 11:18 AM Telesourus 5|OA4LZ226

Oct-23-2009 11:18 AM Telesourus 510A4I?'226 zl/25

Exhibit 7. Resignation ofDonÐePriest as PrcBident and Directof

of Comm¡¡rications Invesbrents'

Inc.Februrry 18, 2005

Communications twe$tøEnts, Ino.

206 8û sftetNoilhColunbus, MS 39701

Attentio¡: Sandra DePriost Secretåry

I hereby resþ as President a¡d Dirøtor of Coffnunicatio¡s Lnvestments' Inc'

Oct.-¿3-2009 11¡19 At'Ì'lelesourus 510A4|¿¿26sEP-es-?øøg 19:16 FromlSCnNNER 66a3e?5993 tor3??1669

--l lfthcrcare no EhBrgaE ma an "Xr berq

I delctnd ¡lIh ¡r tio hqfton qf thc Þ?gc,

Ðorporale Nõhe ¿ Prlnclpsl Addrc$s:

õAMMUN¡qAf ËÄ1S IIWE$IMENI.S, INC.

?06 fiH ETREET NOR THÞ.o- Bôx 1076

COLUMBU6. i¡ts 3E?0¿

¿¿/¿5Pase: P¿5

$tate of ltllississippiEecretäry of Státe2008 Corporate Annual Report

corPorätå lD: 553340 Exhibit g, 200g Amual Report forCII filed with the Secretary ofSlate

Regrsterèd Ag€nt and e¡s of MSSANDRA F- D EPRIEST

206 STH Sl NORÎfi, P O Éo,( 10?0

cotu!¡Bus, Ms 39701

" CqrpoÌate PrinciFal Addrçt5

Federå d: 0¡077582ð

lëlËphonq:Cunënl Pdoc¡pEl offiEcrE , AdúrEsssE

PrEBidrllf: DoNALD F DEPÊ|EST

2ó6 åTH EÌREET i{ORTH, P.O, BOX I 070

çoLUMBU€, Mgâ0t03

Vlcr Ptês:

gecrehry: SANDFA F DEPRIESf

?0q sTH sÎ NORTH, P O BOX 1076

ÇotuMEus, M5 39703

Tlc!surer

Slock shsrEE Àuthcr¡red, lEãuqd & outats rdlng:

Oláåi SeieE Avthddrêd lssucd

conrnon_--.-.-----------_ l!gl-- 1000

New offiseffl I Add¡csrêsÉ P.ÞrlCahB aANÞFA DEFR{EÛI

20€ BrH srHËiT-fi oÈrE;To.EöTT'öÍ6-ÇOLUMBU5, MS T97A¡

-V¡Eé Fresldcfil:

ÞlrectoÍ

tr

tr--:ú Êtër.tãry: tr I-t

I

-ftê¡sur.¡: --- ---

;l I

lDÈæb'ts ¡4 adûÍañ toth0$61^9le{ Eòovê &e lo ¡e tsled o¡ I I

W,ri1rt,puge! I n"nu"rY __ _ ll

' Stock shar66 Authórizcd, l6süsc Ú' outBtanding: I

C¡ssa s€tlEs A(¡thÞr¡rld lrBr¡cd I_tI

I

nñÃrcs¡ãAãÑatü-tEor'B*inlo--I

-l

_ :---:'

ñ-nrcsco¿en¡a6ñäElsirLesi453S98 AllOtrot Misce sneo(¡s Star. R{Ú118"":4-

Sandrd F DeÞ¡lÊ.sl5iC¡lore

!

r_l

ü

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

cuÍeÍt ¡¡ cflhl¡ ätld d¡y ol Janusry , jlo 08

PifltcdN¡m¡Se.rolâly-Íttc

fi(1te cheçx for$25,00r Psyablc to gECRETARY OFSTATE

H,.:im*;ruÍi,äijg.t"iF:nn*'.11"î'll"tl)î'"'î,"xii,if:i'iJ'!Hå'ffis4n.".* ,o,,o-*.

23/25Oct-23-2009 11:19 AM Telesqurus 5|084122'26

I dcolerc undm pcnelty of psrjury thÊt tht forËgoinE iB tsuë ånd ooEcol BÍÓout4d oñ

Sand¡s M. DePriçst

Oct-23-2009 11:19 AM Telesourus 5108412226

C-ERTIFIC.ATE OF SERVICE

Iherebycertifythåtoûthisthirtiethdayofsöptember,2009,Iserveda-copyoftheforegoing Response by placing a copy, first-class postage prepaid, in the united states Mail,

on each of the following püsons:

Russell I{. Fox, Esq.

Mintz, lævin, Cohn, Feffis,

Glovsþ and PoPeo, P.C'

701 PennsYlvania Avenue, N.W.suite 900liVashington, D.c. 20004-2608

Warren C. Havens

2649 Benvenue Avenue, #2-6

Berkeley, California 94704

/s/ Dennis Ç. Brown

Æilililil1illiltil

First ClailEm-ssElo tsrlc

IJ.S. POSTÁGEPÊI N

cEr'lTFÉvit LE. vê24t21

sEP 30.'¡sÊtÐn¡¡f

$2.t7tl00953-,?-t I

Mail

DrÀfirs C. BRoçÑATfOtrNEY ÀT LÀìY

8124 CooI(E CouRT' S0IrE20lMÁ.YÁssÁs, vm Gh'IA 20109-7406

*;-*-2649 Benvenue Avenue, Suiæs 2-6

BerkeleY, California 94704

4ËNJNN:oI

4€'

EXHIBIT 3

L/16Oct-23-2009 11:24 AM Telesourus 5fOA4l22Z6

Dsnms C. BRowNATTORhEY AT LAW

8124 Coorc CouRT, SUITE201

MANÄssa6, vm.cINIA 20109-7406

PHoNE 701/365'9437

D.C.BROWN@ATI.NDr

Septunber 30, 2009

Jeflrey Tobias, Esq.

Mobility DivisionWireless Telecommunications Bureau

445 12ù Süeet, SWWastrington, DC 20554

Re: FCC File Nos' 0002303355' 0003463998' 0003470447'

0003470497' 000347 0sz7' 0003470576' 0003470583'

0003470593, 0003470602, 0003470608' 0003470613

Dear Mr. Tobias:

I repÌeseff the údio sysæm interests of lVìreless Properdes 0f Virginia' Inc' (WPVJ

before the Èederal Communications coÉdis$ioû. on behalf of w?v, I am submiuing wPV's

."qp""* t"rI" Commission's letter of irquùy to \ryPV dàted Augusl lB' 2009' Concurrently'

WfV, ,.rpo*. is being frte<i electronicaiiy in each of rhe above-referenced proceedings.

irp.tut"ìv, f t-.oncuriently filing Attâchment II lo WPV's response under a ¡eque$ for

confidenti¿l Eeâttrent of tIe docurûeúl.

Pleæe direct any further communicadon conceming this mâtter þ my attention

Thank you for your attention fo fhis matter'

Very truly yours,

FAJ( ?03/365-9456

Nor ADMTmED IN VIRGTNI^

Dennis C- Brov/n

Oct.-¿3-¿OO9 11¡25 Al'1 lelesourus 510A4|¿¿¿6

WIRELESS PROPERTIES OF VIRGINIA' INC'P.O. Box 1076

Columbus, MississiPPi 39703-1076

Jeffrey Tobias, Esq.

Mobüity DivisionWireless Telecommunications Bureau

445 12ú Street, SW

Washinglor, DC 20554

Re: FCC File Nos. 0002303355, 0003463998' 0003470447'

0o$c7 a497, 0003470527, 000347057 6' 0003470583'

0003470593, 0003470602, 0003470608' 0003470613

Dear Mr. Tobias:

WirelessPropertiesofVirginia,I¡c.(WPV)andDonaltlR'DePriest(..I''or"Mr.DePriest") hereby respecñrlly fiIe their response ,o *" go¡lmissiou's irrquiry daæd August

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,TVPVueitlterownednorcontrolledanyotlerentity. Þufiûg the felevaPe.Iiod MI. DePriest controlled or was an officer 0r directol of the

following business entities:

a) Wiretess Properties, Inc. flilPD hel<I, some ter years ago' liccnses-fbr

Ëxperimentat radio stations. f iontrolled the inactive WPI during t¡e relevant period,

b) Wireless Properties of vilginiâ' Inc' (rilPv) held the licenses for

Eclucation¡l Broadband Servicå srations WQtPgzB arul WQGI{2TT and Broadband Radio

ServicestationsTVMY290anclWMYZlgdurilgtherelevantperiod.Icontrolled\UPVduringthe relevant period.

c)WirelessProperties-East,inc.(WPEI),aforrrrerlrolderofMMDSlicelìses,was inactive during the relevant period. I controiled WPEI duriug tlte relevant period'

Oct-¿3-2OO9 11r25 Al4 'lelesourus 5|0A4I¿¿¿6

d) Witetess Properties - West, [ic' OPfúÐ, a fomer hokler of MMDS

licenses, wæ inictive during the reievant period. i contolled WP\ryI du¡i¡g the relev'¿nt

period.

e) Wfeless Properties - Upper Midwes! lnc' (WPUPI), a former holde¡ of

MMDS licenses, was i¡active during the reievaut period. I conrolled WPUPI during tlte

relevant Pedod.

f¡Commuuicationslnvostnents,hrc.(CII)wÂsaûiúvesmlentvehicledrrritgtlrerelevant pedod. I wâs presideût and director of CII prior $ Februâ¡y 18' 2005' As showtt by

Anachmånt I he¡eto, Iìesigned as president and director on February 18' 2005'

g) Columbus Yarn Mills Company (CYMC), ownet of a yarn mill some 30

years ago, waslnactive during the relevant pedod' I controlled CYMC duritlg tlte relevant

period.

h)SanPedroGauzeMill,Inc'(SPGMI),ownerofagauzetrrillsome30yeâIsago, wâs inactive during the felevant period. I co¡trolled SPGMI durirrg the relevant period'

i) Ämerican Nouwovens Corporation wâs â Producer of nouwoven f'aÞrics

during tie relevaat period' I confolled Atnerican Nonwovens, Inc' during the relevant

period.

j)WJGTelephoneCo.,Inc.(WJG)wasformedasanacquisitionconrpanyfor

an acquisition íhich failed-to occur. WJG was iuacüve during the relevant period. I

controllerl WJG durilg the relevant period'

k) Cellular antl Broadcast Colnmunications, lnc' (CPCI)' ân investnent vehicle'

\ryâs inâcÉve during the relevant periotl. I cotlTrolled CBCI during the lelevânt periÖd '

1) Tupelo Broadcasting Corporation (TBC)' a former holder of radio broadcast

licenses, was inactive during ttre relJvarrt perio¿. I co''ffolled TBC duri'g the relevant period'

m) Penelore Corporaflon (PC) was fonneri for the prupose of excavating a

sunken steamboat, I controlled PC rturing the relevaût period'

n) Scotland House, Inc' served solely as a payroll mechanism during the

relevant period. I controlled Scotlald House, lnc' during the relevan! period'

o) Transition Funtljng, L,L'C' was a temporary entiry formed to provide

financing for entities in which I wal involved' Trânsitiot Funding' L L'C' was inactive

4/ 16Oct-23-ZOO9 11:Z5 Al4 'lelesourus 51094I¿¿¿6

during the relevant period. I controlied Transitíon Funcling, L.L.C. durir:g tle relevatlt

period.

p) Medcorn Devclopment Corporation (MDC): MDC, an illvestment vehicle'

was the generi pa¡bre¡ i¡ MCT Investors, L.P. dufiilg the relevânt period. I was general

partner in MDC during the relevalt period.

q) MCT Investors, L.F' (MCTI): MCT Invætors' L'P' was an investment

vehicle durirg tire relevant period. As general parmer in MDC, I controiled MCTI dutirtg tlte

relevânt period .

r) BIâvo Cofûmunications, Inc. (Bravo) was a former twne¡ ofradio lrroadcast

stations during the relevânt period. I contolled Bravo during the felevant Period.

s) Chârisflâ Broâdcasthg Company (Charisma) \ryâs a formel owner of tadio

broadcast stâtiöns rìuring the relevant period. I couüolled charisma during the relevant

period.

t)GoldenTriangleRadio,Inc.(GTR)wasaformerownefofradiobloâdcaststations during ttre relevant period. I controlled GTR during re felevant period.

u)MCTCorp.MCTCorp.wasâcellulalteleplrorreserviceploviderinRussia,Uzbekistan, Tajikistal, anúAfghanistan during the relevant periÔd' I was a director of MCT

Corp. during the relevalt Period.

v) BD Piltrrers. BD P¿¡t¡rers is a¡ invesrnent velricle holding limited

parmership inteiests in MCTI during the relevant pcriod. I wâs the general partner in BD

Partaers during the relevalt period.

w) CD Parners. CD Parnrers is an investr¡ent velricle holding limited

partnerslrip inter'gsts in MCTI during the relevant period. I was tirc general parurer ìn CD

Parnrers during the relevant period.

x)Biovenures,Iûc.Bioveures,lnc'wasinvolvedintlaptnarkersandgenematkers atrd related DNA ard RNA products a¡d serviCeS during the relevalt period. I was a

clireotor of BioVentures, Inc. during the relevant periorl'

y) Warpath Properties, Iuc. ownecl la¡d zoned for residences l owned

Warpath Properties, lnc. during the relevant period'

z) Ground Zero Fæhions' Inc- (GZFÐ was formed for fhe purposs of

prgducirig comáe¡ative leatÌ¡er jackets. I controlfed GZFI durirrg dte relevant pcriod,

5/ 16Oct-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 "ommlmorative

leather jackets. I controiled GZII during the releva't period.

bb) Gre€rrbriâr Construction Corp. (GCC) constructed ote residence' Icontrolled 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.Iwæ 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'

gg) Tennessee Valley Àuthorþ (TV'{) - Appointed by tbe Presidenr of ìe

United Stâtes to a three-year term a;d confirmed in May 2006, I wæ a director of the TVA

during the relevant Period.

kk) Critical RF' I¡c' - i am chairman and CEO of Clitical RF' Inc'

ll)TheCommissior'bâsdetermi$edthatlhaveacontrolliuginterestinMC/LMby virtûe of my marriage to Sandra M. DePriest'

Questionz:Statewhethelalloftheinterestsheldbyyouthatshouklhavebeenrliscloseà in fte MC/LM Application, as âÍrended, FCC File No. 0002303355, were disclosed

iri tlo ftlC¡f-ftf Applicatiou. 'Identig

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

not disclos;d in flre VC/Llt Appticatiðn. For each such entify, except those that Ëntities that

were requirea n be rlisclosed ori,y under 47 C.F.R. $i.2il2(bxlxíi) and no otirer rule,

froviae its annual gross income fôr each of thc calendar years 2002,2003, and 2004.

Answer 2: The first and second sentences of Question 2 call for a legal couclusion

wliich only the Conl}ission ca¡ reach. Mr. DePriest controlled or was an of{icer Of director

of certain entities which were not disclosed to the commission in MC/LM's applicarion.

6/ 16Uct-23-2009 11 : Zô Al"1 I'elesourus 5LOð4I¿¿¿6

ThefollowingelltitieðwerenotdisclosedbecausetheyhadnorevetrueEduringtlterelevant teriorl a¿¿,-thus, could trot have affected the câIculation of MC/LM's right ro a

bidding credit:

a) Wireless Properties, Inc.

b) Wireiess Properties of Virginia, inc.

c) .Wireless

Properties - Bâst, lûc.

d) Wireless ProPerties - West, Inc.

e) Wireless Properties - Upper Midwest, Inc'

f) Cornrnuuications Investments, Inc.

g) Columbus Yarn Mills ComPauY

h) Sal Pedro Gauze Mill' Inc'

i) WIG Tslephone Co,, Inc'

j) Cellular and Broadcæt Conrmuuicatioru, Inc'

k) Tupelo Broadcasting Corporation

1) Penelore CorPoration

m) Scotl¿nd House, Ïnc,

u) Transition Funding, L.L.C.

o) MCT Investors, L'P.

p) BD Parmers

q) CD Purners

r) Ground Zero Fæhiors, Inc.

s) Ground Zero Industries, Inc'

t) Gree[bdar Coustruction CorP.

Oct-23-2009 11:2ó AM Telesourus 5tO8412226

u) Ënviroworld Solutions, L'L'C'

v) Maritime Conrmunications/Land Mobile' LLC

Thefollowilgentitieswerenotdisclosedbecauset]æywererlotâffiliatedordidnotexist at the riEe of úe filing of ùe applicaüon'

a) Critical R'F., Inc - MC/LM did not acquire coûfiol until 200Ó'

b) Excite Tecbnologies, Iûc' di<l not exist until 2009'

Excöptãsnoted,below,thefollowingentitieswerenotrliscloserlbecauseofoversiglrtsor an inaccurate unilerstanding úrat they had had no revenues' Their revenües were' as

follows:

The following levenues ofBravo Communications' Inc'; Charisma Broadcastrng

Comprny; and Goldãn Triangle Radio, Inc' were uot disclosed because dre de miuimis

tevetrues wef e oveflookedl

a) Bravo Communications, Inc' '2002 - $1l9'0oo2003 - No röverues

2004 ' No revenues

b) Charisma Broadcasting Company -

2002 - $54'8002003 ' No revenues

?004 - No ¡evenues

c) Golden Triangle Radio, I¡c' -

2002 'fiio'l,4n2003 - No revenues

2004 - No rËveuues

The following revenues of Metlcour Development Corporation were "ol

tjf:::tl-,te.aus. tlt.y eitirer õere received in compensation for expeflses incurrerl in prtor yeâfs âno'

tUutÃt utît*fy available fo¡ use, or were de nrinimis and ove¡looked'

2O0Z - 82,585,998 (received in compensatiou for past expenses)

2003 - $426'789 (overlooked)

2004 - No levenues

ð/ r6Oct-23-¿009 11:2ô At'l lelesourus 5IOð4t¿¿¿6

ThefollowingrevenuesofwarpâtlrProperties'Inc.werenotlepoftedbecauselcontrolled it for ôdy tire minor part of the releva¡t pe¡iod:

2002 _ 976,5002003 & 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¡forReconsiderationinFCCFileNo. 0002303355, dated september 18, 2006, MC/LM i¡formed the commission of the

following revenues for MariTEL, Inc.:2002 - $715' s48

2oo3 - $t,022,4232004 - $2,076,s07

In response to my inquiry of SePtembff 13, 2009, tho Plesiden! and CEO of MariTEL

provideal me with the following MæiTEL revenues:

zMZ-$308,1n2ffi3 -$172'8492004 - st,26't ,99'1

I believe lhat other persons holding interests in MariTËL ltld options to âcquire

between 800 t¡ousand and à milion sharu auring the relevant period, but I have not been able

io verif tJrat undersanding. If consiclered as hâving been fully exercised, 'ry

interest itt

MariTEL would be diluted thereby.

Question 3: Describe the extenl âIld úaturc of yotr ownership holdings iu MariTEL

during tlìe relevant period' Desoribe the percenuge of the equity in MUiTEL lteld by you'

and de fomr iri which urat equþ was heid, e.g', stock, prefened stock' etc' Describe the

;;*r"g. of voti'g çquiry in lria¡iT'L held by you, aûd ùe foffi iû wlrich that equity was

ilelA, If-Mr. Oerriäsri nãtOings in MariTEL fluctüâted duritrg the relevant period, provide a

deuiled explanation.

Oct-23-¿009 11:2'l At4 Ielesourus 5LOA4L¿¿¿6

Answe¡ 3: During the relevant period, directly and inclirectiy' based Ûû all issued and

outsnnding stock, I held stock in the following percentages iu MariTEL:

2001 - 68,183%

2002 - 51.8081o

2003 - 41'334%2004 - 4s.f60%200s -39.922%2006 -31.912%2007 -35.943%2008 -23.692%2009 -23.186%

During tlte relevant perioil, directly and indirectly, based only on voting stock' I lleld

stock in the following percentages in MariTEL:

2001" -73,162%?;002 - 54.914fo2003 - 50.800%2A04 - 48.64L%

2005 - 43,163%2006 - 49'149/o2007 -39,14rT02008 -25'5437o?009 -25.016%

WhenWPVfileditsownershipReportiu2006,Idirectlyheldll,|SvoofMaIfIEL'

Question 4: SÍate whethel you ever se ed as a dircctor' officer' or employee of

MæiTEi. If yoü forfûerly held one o¡ more of such positíons iu MariTEL, but no longer do,

state when ùiperiod in which you held ùe position(s) eilded'

Answer 4: During the relevant period, I was a director ald non'executive ohâirma¡

(notanofficer)oftrlarir-Bltetw*.nz0o1âtld200s.Totliebestofrrryrecoliection'Iwas

iiesioent of úariTEL aûtt a diïector between 198? and 1989'

Quesúon5:smEwhetheryoueverheldorexerciseddefac,ocotltl.olofMariTELbyuoy..rì* during the relevant p.tioA. Ifso, clescribe the nature of that contÌol arrd how it was

obhined.

Answer 5: I did not exercise de fûdo co rol of MaliTEL during the relevant Peliod

ro/ 16Oct-23-¿OO9 77tZ'/ Al4 lelesourus 5IOA4L¿¿¿6

Question6:IfyoubelievethataDotlterpefsonofentity(orotherpersonsorentitieÐheld, atier rìe factocontol of MariTEL ot de iure control of MariTEL' or both' during the

,-.f**t poioä, identify such person(s) or eutity(ies),_ and explai' ìn detail both the na$re of

tL "*th you'frelieve to havå been àiercised by suctr third party(ics) and rhe fbundation for

your belief.

Answer6:ChiefExecutiveofficer,President'a¡rdboardmembctDanSmitlrrân]e.ompanJ arra m"ae rhe operatrng and executive tlecisions. l-did not âssefl rny will on Dan

iiniåi,s ¿."isious. At ali releva"nt times, I was chairrnau of MafiTEL, but I was not actively

involved in MariTEL's governarce ot businæs activity' Since ieaving the presidency of -

MariTELinlgSg,llravenotfeceivedaIIysalaryorlrerrefitsatrdllravellothadâlìyregularpreserce at the MariTEL ofÉces.

Section i.2110(c)(2XüXA) of the CommissioÛ's RulÊs' 'arled " Fully diluted

reouirement," provides tUat "except as set fofth in pffagraPh (cX2XiiXAXz) of this sectiott'

;";ilñ.;d*ìs shau be catcutated on a fuly <]ituted basis; aII agreemenrs sugh as. .

*rrt-.-ot*, *tort optiors anrl coûvertibte debentüres will generaliy be lI91F1.1: if úe liglits

,lr"rroo¿å, have åbeady been tully exercised, " 47 C'F'R' $1'2110(cX2XiÐ(A)' Section

iiïfot"iOXO provid"s that "every busiuess concern is considered to have oue or more

o*i., iuo dirãôrrv or indirectty control of have rhe power ro conrrol it. coutrol llray be

ãfñ;;.;".d,ive and it is immaþriâ1 whether it is exeÉised so long as lhe power to

,o*tol .*lot," ¿Z C.¡.n' Ë1'21i0(cX5XA)' The example for Section 1'2i10(c)(5)(A)

.*prri*, if, relevant part, trt"t "*inliátìon tiittt *hto the applicånt hâs the power to cont¡ol a

"lã** *rtIt " the iame time, anotber person, or persoÑ' are in control or the coücern àt ùe

*iU àf ,n. p",V or parries wirn tne powri to .ontroi. " Secüon 1.21 10(c)(5)@) provides in

,.lru.ot prh m.t ..iontrol c¿n arise througir . . . conracruâl^or orhef business relations, of

.o*Ui*ton, of tlrese antl otirer factors,' 47 C'F'R' $t '2i tO(c)(sXB)'

Àtøchmert lI hercb, for wlúch confidentialiry is requested' is MariTEL's Third

AmendeJ and Restated stookholder .Agreement dated as of February 15, 2005. Please ret'er.to

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.ThisagreementprovidesAmericanTower, Irrc' as holders ora ma¡ority 0f the coftflon stock equivalef s with the power [o elect a

,i*pfr'* .i*ity of the boa¡d oi ¿itoto" of MæiTEL' Inc' ' subject to dre consent of dre

äãä;r;iå", ii required'" Because 47 C'F'R' S1'2110(c)(2XiÐ(A) requires such an .

*-gr.. r* ,; þ trËated as if tne rights thereunrier have alreacly been fully exerçised, American

fo*rr, fo.. had to be treated as h;ving the power to appoint a majority of the board of

direclors, anr1, tlius, rrao to o" cotui¿u"re¿ to te i', ut ttrà t"ust, de facto, if not delare,. conttol

of MariTEL' Wireless Properties, ürc' has had no reason to disagree with the :?tetl:","tti.¿ ty it¡Cll-L¡ r¡at l't-ci trvestors, L'P', and thus' that I did Dot con ol MariTEL'

TL/T6Oct-23-2009 11:27 AM Telesourus 5lO8412'226

Questiou 7: If you believe tlat you did Bot coufol MariTEL' explain) to the best of-. .

you, koà*ledg" anU teUef, why and how MariTEL could arrive at the couclusion thâl you did

conuol Mari'fEL.

A¡swer7:IdonotknowandwilluotspecrilatehowMariTELarrivedattlreconclusiotrttrat I contolled MariTEL. However, I believe that if MariTEL had takeir all televant factors

ioto u""o*,, M¿riTEL would not hâve reâched the colclusiou which it did'

Question 8: Describe the nâh¡re âûd extent of your ownerslrip and role- in Maritime

Commr¡ications/Lantl Mobile, LLC, S/RIW Pâfinershþ ' L'P'' a¡d Communications

Iouo..*t,, Irrc. State whether you wefe authofized to enler into contrâct$ on behalf of any

* .U oi t1".. t¡tae enumetated entities, and what dllties, if ary' you possessed with lespect to

,"Vìt ¿i"f ,it" enumerâted entfties, âfld what dÛties, if any' you had in connection widr any

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.haveaccompaniedtheCEotoconventionsanclprofÞssionâlassociationmeetingsofpoteûtiâlusefsof two-way radio service'

At no time have I had an ownership interest in S/FJW Pafinelship' L'P' I have not

beenanofficerolâdifectorandhavehadnoroleinthemanagementofs/f{IwPartnership'L.P.

Priorto February 18,2005,I was tl¡e sole owner and Prcsident of Communications

I-nvesfuionts, Inc. I have not ow¡id any interest in Communications Investments' Inc and I have

h"à oo1b.fr;"ffi.., o, u dir.rio. ood lraue had no roie in its manageurenr since FebÌ uary 18,

200s.

Question 9: To tlrc extent that you have personal lcrowledge of the matter' expiain why

Mc/LlVl-and wpv rnade conflicting representatiols regarding whetÏer you were ân officeror

äir.rtoL or rr¿qr.ir¿, and with respãct io the entity that you believe màde â false rePresent¿ltior

i""url, t"g*¿, eitrrei tvtc/uu ot fupv, explain, io the-bestof your ktrowledge and- belief' why

ü*iã" -ri"n

i"rtt representâtion. If vou believe that there is no co$lct uety1L$1..^

reprerentatioos,andtheneidrerMCILMûorW?Vwasi.naccuraleinitsrelrresentauotlsregardingwhetheryouwere-otfi.''ordtecþrofMC/LM,exÞiainùebâsisforillatbelief.

Answer 9: At page 3 of an Opposition in FCC File Nos' 0002755676 and

o0oz6g52.l0.dated o;tober 23,2006;'wpv inacculârely stated üat "Don DePrÌest is an

ãü..iunAu¿ir.ctorofMC/Livl,,'Theinaccurâresratemeurwassimplytheresultofânoversight.Accufately,itshouldhavestatedtlrat,.DonDePriestisanofficeraldadirectorof

10

-' o¿L--z 3': z\N)v' I r : ¿ö At4: 'lë1èsö-u-rils J|Qö4I¿¿¿6

\VPV.,'DonDePriestisnotaldneverhasbeenanoflìceroradirecto¡ofMC,LM.Inlightofthefactthat,ifâccuÏâte,tbestatementwould¡¿ygþeenofnobeflefittoWPV,itwouldnotbe reasonable ro conclude that the statelrent was intentionally false'

The Commission's Iener offeted tlre opportunþ for me to provide any additioilâl

ûâteriâl rhât üay be felevant iû this flatfef. À ¡rief biographical Íote would appear to be

relevant to the Coünissíon's i¡quiry.

As can be seeû from the infomation providecl herein' I have been involved in the

founding and <levelopment of numerous business enterprises which have given employúen[ t0

tUoum"ãt or pt"ous and contributetl to the generâl welfare' For 30 years' I hâve been

,ìlrsrlir, ,hi, a*elopmeru of new teleco¡munications services, including bfoadcÍrsting,

cellular, and MMDS sysÞms' Suif¿ittg compaÏlies üat have actually provided new servjce to ^

iu. p"tii'q i ntut contiiuute¿ to t¡e åcinomi" auv*toprnenr of.ùe united stâtes' I was head of

the fi{st cellular company to be'actuirø by t'tcçaw ôellular Cornrnunicatious Compa'ies,

i;;, ;;å;;;il""ciais used in McCaw's IPo helped to set into motion the comparv now

lcnow¡ as AT&T Wileless, Inc.

In the 1990s, I led A¡reric¿¡' Telecasting, Inc' as we developerl ùe MMDS service'-

Sprint acquired that interest and the service is usttl by Sptirtt customers todây for wireless data

on cellphones and PDAs.

More recently, as chairma¡ of MCT Corp" I coltributed to MCT Corp''s bringing.

new cellular servi"" to ,o-" oithì less well developed nations of the former soviet repubiics

i¡ ;"*rl Asia and to Russia, itself, r¡ereby contriburing ro the inrernatio]lal ¡elations of the

UdtedstatesofAmerica.no'n*''¡.AfghanisnnicellphoneoperatorwhichwasformedbyMCT Corp. ao¿ two otner compan'ies, was'given ûre awarrJ.ar the GSM World Corrgress in

pãri* fãrtir. *otkl's best mark;ing .t*poign, It also obtained the first Asian Developtneff

Ba¡k loan fo¡ Afghanístån since the Soviet Union invaded te country'

By Presiilential appohtment and confirmation by the Senate' I served lhe public as a

member of the Tennessee Valley norf,otiry, rhe nauon\ largest public power ¡o.rnPanY';Litlt

an ircsrimable vatue or criricJLàust y intiort*"tor". For the TvA, I was chairman of thc

Governâ¡ce coûrfrlittee, as well âs cbairman of üre community Relations and Energy

Èfd;.y Comurittee, which i¡cluded economíc clevelopment of the TVA region'

Ihavebeench¿irma¡oftheColumbus,MississiPpiPublicUti]itiesCommission,adishibutorofTVApower.Iamapastse¡vicememberofüÉRotafyC}ub,andhavebeen-t**iàrni pr"ria"ff ;f the Regioûâl^Boy Scout CouncíI. and I hotd the Silver Beaver award from

ild;;¡;;r" of America. i **, *..-uo of rhe inirial/firsr setecEd class or Leadership

fr,rìrrirírppi^a tave beeo insnumental in Employment of the Hândicapped for many years arìd

received the Golden Heart award in the 1970ifor this' Il 1974' I wæ recognized æ

Businessman of the Year by the Smali Business Adminisffation for Mississippi' the Souüreast

1I

t3/16Oct-23-2009 11:28 AM Telesourus 5LOA4LZ226

Unitcd S1ßtcs and was nationul runner-up. For two yean, I served as prcsidenl oflhe Columbus

llisrcrical ¡-oundatiotr *d w^, "

foiältii åäu"i ä¿ "

*e¡nt¡cr of ihe board of directo¡s of ùe

st+tc oflvtississipp¡ uistoric rr"seriáii'åiðot'oi*'¡orr' I have served as a member ofthe

Mi,uissippi Govemor's vcnture üilii;tîT;;;;å"d æ a *"*uo "f the Statc of Mississippi

Ludit Ovc'rsight Corn*iu* fo. gti,i"" i"-S-t'æ Go"t**tnt I sewed multiple rorms on lbe

Atl¡nrs ReBional p"n"t to. t¡e setciìt-n'oi mirc li"tt" ftllows' I have beeu r trustee oft!¡e

Nal i 0nâl SYmFhoDY OlchestÌa'

I anr rhc fathe¡ offou¡ child¡en and residc with nry witb' Sanclr4 in hisroric Columbus'

Mississippi.

ReÉìÞootfullY .\ubnr¡tted'

Donlltt R- DePriest

,lM-

Oct-23-2009 11:28 AM Telesourus 510A4|2226

Februuy 18, 2005

Communi cations ü¡vestments, lnc.

206 8ü SteetNorthColumbus, MS 39701

Attention: Sandra DcP¡iest, Secretary

I hereby resign as Pfôs¡dÊnt end Directot o¡Çgmmsnications Investmonts, Inc'

effective immediatelY.

.'ffirrñ

L5/ 16Oct-¿3-2OO9 1l :29 At'l 'lelesourus 510A47¿¿¿6

ATTACHMENT II

Oct-23-¿009 11:29 Al'1'lelesourus 510A4I¿¿¿6

I ilêclârë uftlêr FeBalty of Perjury thât the for€goiûg is fuê ând cqrrect' E (Êcuted ofl

-5É-ÈrÉr\ße4 .l9, Zoaq --

EXHIBIT 4

Oct-23-2009 11:02 AM Telesourus 5L084I2226

@)m**' :;

Seplember 28. 200q

By Hûrd (iù the office of the FCC Secr'etary) ¡¡d F'Mail

Mr. Jeffrey Tobias

Mobility DivisionWiroless Telecommttnicaiions Buleau

445 12ù Strect, SWWashington. DC 20554

Re: FCr( File Nor' 0002303355, 000346'ìe98' 0001470441' 000j47 Q527'

ôoo¡+zoszo. ooo:+ioie¡, ô0034705si' 0003470602' 0003470608' 00Û3470ól l

Dear Mr. 'lbbias:

This lesponcls to the letter sent by Scot Snne, DepLrty Chief'.Ìr4obility Division' Wireless

Telecot¡ntutications Bl.'r'.ou' to ¡ni o-n¿ Russell Fo*' "ounscl

tt: lvlaliTEl' lnc' dated August lfì'

ioòs. yout. t.rt., "ontained

firur rcqucsts [ôT in[ormâtiùrt Ptlrsuant to Scction 308(b) olthc

Cor¡munications ¿\üt of lg]¡+. as anìend.'tl. ProvicleC br-'low is lhc rerrucsted i¡[6¡'nrriion (thu

*¡,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

ìhu ,rloi'int ¡ori,ul. tteçÜ¡h¿ th, ¡erce)nge of rirc '."!uì¡t'.it' Iruri'l i"L held hv ML D¿Pnt"

.rAii" ¡oi,it, 'çhich llt tquity rias held -e'g',

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..in.., oiii, i turioiurics (cottcctivcty, 'ii¡lailTEu) during the period..specifred by thc FCC of

;;;;*y i, tóitì; thc prcscnt. níring thc pcrioä in qtrestion' M¿rirEL had and continues to

have scveral scries ofstock. ln ad<litión n ðommon, voting stock, it had and continues to havç

;;;;i, ;Jü"iprefer¡ect stock that clid not generally conre¡,any voring inter ests (until such

;'t*; til;i".k *as conveúccl to cotnlnon itock) bther classes of pt'eferred stock (in

p-ïtf*l-ï, iàt"i O and U p,"tt"'a stock) penrrit'holderr to'vt)tc fcrr members ofthe Board ol'

ilì="mri pii",:ao "o.versiàn

¿rnd on an ui-ion""ttud 6asis. The nr*r6er ofshates ofcomrnun

r*"f i"t"ï,i"f, Series B and fl preferred stock could bc convcrte^d (and on which voting lighrs

är"G"O has varìed ovet'tim"- "No*, fo"*ontple' one sharc of.selies B or H prelen'ed fock

louta Lu áonu".t"¿ (anrl can therel'ore voLe beforà ...onversit'n) ¿s ìf it were apprô."-imatêly 22

shates of conuron stock-

'fhe polcentage end charactel of Mr' DePriest'5 equity inteÌests lìuÚtuaßd during tlre relevani

;;;tå;;ìrdeil ihe fluctuarion lrad no material effecr on Mr. Depriest's coltrol o[ Mari'l'E[. nor

ïhc compâny's obligation to rcport changes in the leveì ol-eqrrity ownership' As MariTF)t'

4635churchRd.Stlirel00Cul]nnhrg.CA30028.VoicerFrìx:888.989-jjj9.wlvw.m8l'ite.!!1.5-a'1çQ|-]]

2/7Oct-23-2009 11:03 AM Telesourus 5L084I2?26

(@wu*ri'"r l

reported in 2001. Mr. DePl'iest (both dirçctly and inclìrectly.through. his interess in MCT

iri.riài., li CùCIT'.) aud MedCorn Deveíoprnent tìorp.jheld both common and prcfcned

stook. At that time, MariTDL r,.pott ltnut ttir. DePriesi held approximately 67% of thc slock-

;;i,iì-iil'..t-ìiäir "Ëil-""]'ùilñ

Nta'iiËL's zooe applic*ion for transfer of control' Mr'

o"î,*iî,".ì_""ge of equity inte.est in Mari.l.EL gradually tlec.eæed t'or the several reaso's

"ot.J Uifo*; Ito*"u-.r. ttt.r"

"i,ung"sãid not n"""ssiintt a change iu control requiting F('C

approval.?

First, additional shaÌes ofstock rvere issued to various shaÌeholders as payments in kind ("PtK")'

b..."a, r"rrriiel- iold an additional series ofstock. Scries H pref'ened stock to ncw and

"*iriir! i,*.rt"". Both of'these occunences tçsulte4 in routinc fluctuations in Mr. DePriest's

pËärt-oge int.re.t in all classes olMariTEL stock. lmmcdiatcly prior to tho dístfiburion olthc

i;c1''slì;es thqt resuh"d iu th" trarisier of oontrol for which MariTEL,sought FCC approval' Mr'

DePriest held approximately l5%;i;li isiueJ and ouetan¿ing stock'3/ The chflrts bclow show'

" As the Comtnissìon is aware. its o"vncrshiP riPolts rcquirc information on all issued and

ootranaìngstock. Ho*"uur. tìu purpàs", ofatter*ining "onirol'the-Comruission

genetally considers

theentities'rhatt,otovotlngstock..Såe.eg..47C'F'R'$l'qtq(cxzltii)te)("ConrollinginlüÈstrncarìst"-jãi,,y

""üiá;q"rty owïersrrlp. ani'g;ñtì^t pt'Lnutstt¡ lntcresi' or arrv,means ofactual wolking

"oìuoiti."ru¿lts n.!ati,'. contiolt wí the oieration offlle licensee- ' '") lu 2001' MuriTEL presented

inf*Ànìion ,"goäin! ownersrrip or votint auá nol-voting stock -

Eiglrt ycors aftc¡ tic fact' thc

äî'np^Ñ- i"-.""øì àî "oii.n.i,t '"¡oìü.lii

t'uutu¿ (as iidid ¡n 200s ard it does in this letter) nn:r ol lbr

preferred stock as con"",r"O to, purpo,*, ofcalculatiig each tlísgìosable interest holdef's percentågÈ ol

¡ssued û|rd outst8nd¡ng stoct- ltÓwcvci thc ¡csult - w]lh rcspÊct to Mr. DcPrìest's conhsl - would hov¡

madc ¡ro diffcrcncc. In zoo r. rvrr. ucpiLst held significantly grmtcl thfln 50o/o oftlÌe company's tbtal

stock, whether the preferted stock was Îrcäted ås convcrlcd of nÔt'

?/'[hcCom¡nission'slettcrsuggestÊthatMadTEL'sownelsh¡prentainedtlìesatneflom200luntil

its reÞofied change in control in 20d8: Lttt"r ûom Stot Stone' Depury Chief' Mobility Division' Wirclcss

r"ùËro,nuniontîons eur"au, I.CC, tÔ JL;i Smirh, Mâri't'ÈL, tÍrc. anrl R¡sscll H- Fox, Mintz, l'evin.

å:"ni, F"ri¡r, cro"rLy and Popeo, Pi. at 3 n.l I (Aue' 18, 2009) ("FCC.Letter") (notiug fhat dre FCC-

Fo¡.m 602 filed on March 13, 2001 ,;;O*iliy;;;"*i".d cur renr ùp ulìtil the lime the MûriTEL transfer of

cortlol wâs corsl.ìùunated in 200S):Ï tiJ nóU rathff, thc'c wcrc ceruin routine changes in MariTEL's

ãí"".r¡ip ,tt""i"" that occurred rluling that tiine' However' the,FCÇ's rules geuerally do not oblignte-

licensees to ìçport chmrges in ownet shif that do tlot constilüte a changc in conrol' 47 C F R' !i L919{ b)'

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

irrur¿ uJ oui"ton¿iíg stock of MariTeL, regardless ofclais' ås.directed bv the FCC's rules and forms'

I-lowever, bcoau,e onthc voting and cìîiärr-iä iig¡i"'.t*tioted with SeriËs B and H stock, .s cliscrtssed

"-fr*", lt¿*iffL *fculated rhJs"rieti unO n ptãfttt"a ttotk ownctship on an æ'convertêd ba$¡s' All

*åi.i."ìli irtit "rpo¡$s

lâlt'j tha;; ¿pptoåtn Refercnce to Percenhges of all issueci and . ^oirtstanOi,rg stoct means the perceutaje ofall to**on and p'cfcrrcd stock' but trêâting the Series B and

H prefêrred Stock on an as-convened "basis'

References to perc€ntage ofvothlg stock means the

o.L"oiog" of"o,ruoon stock. plus rlìe-fer.ì"" s ;¿ H p*rd"ed stock'¡s-convcrted (buL omitting thc othcr

lu¡os ofîruf.oucf ttock). Asixplainect more fully beiow, while.MariTEL continues to believe its

reportiug approach i, uppropriot. unJ"itto "i*utått*""i'

th" distinction bctwccn all ofthc issued and

.,irt^iàÏ"Å !t."t -¿ rri or,rÌ" ¡tu"ã.nl autstênding stoÇk trcated as converted is i¡nuratcr ial l'or

4635 church Rd, suile 100 cunming' GA 30028'Voice/Fax:888Ð89-3319 'ryJlarrt9!'Es'çqnl

3/7Oct-23-2009 11:03 AM Telesourus 5LO84|ZZZ6

(@)*mT rion dle one hand. the ¡:ercentage ofthe issued end outsta¡dhrg stock held by Mr' DcPriost on.ân

ãnn,*l t æiu du.ing tire relevirrt period, and on the other, the percentage ofvoting stock hcld by

Mr. DePriest duririg the relevaniperiodÍ

MariTEL Ownership Intorcsts Based oD All IssuÊd anti Outstlnding Stock

MirriTEL Ownership Interests Bnsed on Voting Stock Only

Z. State whèther Mt . I)t:l'rit'st t,var s¿rved as u dircctor. offìter, or employee of Mat.'iTIi!'

ii Ar'. nuPrirrt ¡orrterly held onc of ntolz oJrs¿rch ?lor;!íons in I'Íaril'ËL' hut rc longer doas'

.'*ai Yhm rhe perío¿l in ,vhich hc htkl the PÒsit¡on(s) endetl'

Mr. DePriæt was the Chaírman of ùe Board of Mari'lEt' at the lteginuing of the relevant.period ..

"itil ,lpiäzooa *hen he resignerf from the Boa¡d. At no tinre wa.s Depriest ever sn ernployee of

Mari'fEl or an officer of MariTEL'

J. .S¡atç wherher ltlt'. Deìriest ever heklot øxercisetl de fuclo cÒnl|'ol Ôl MariTEL by dryt

,**t àring tn* netenant period lf so, descrÍbe the ndlut'c qf lllat contrcI' and how it v'as

ohtaìtrcd-

It is lvfariTEL's judgeme¡rt thÂt Mr. DePl iest exercisecl dalctcto control over MariTEL dtrring the

"ì.i"J ¡"J.rn äooT and July 200g. As noted above, until l.tpril 2008, Mf. DePriesr wás Ùe

Ëil;;;;i;|le Båo,o oròii".tors of MariTEL, \4,ith authoriry- ro, among orher rhings, set rhe

purposcs ofdctermining control; Mr' DePriest continued to lìave dellôto contlol duringdre relevrDt

neliocl re!.aldless oflìow tlË peÌcelllâges Ôfstock owncrship wcrc Prcsentcd ll wâ$ thê ch¡¡nge in control

ffir.iüä;j;t;il,Íä" ãiir'" rt¡c'ftn"res that promptecl the strbnttssiou ofthe apPlication for FCc

approval.o, Tlle percenlâge ofstock hÈld reflects dâtâ âs Of Decenrbcr i I of cach year, The charLs cornbine

rhc intcrcsg in Ma TÉL thut Mr. D"Pri"rt lìetd individuslly and through Ënlitigs he corrtolled' The

cirÂrt; inclÌrde Arnerican Tower whicli ís the only cntiry that atso had greater than l0%o interest in

MflriTEL all througìlout t'he relevant peliod'

4635 Church Rd, Suite 100 Cumming, GA i0028 ' Voice/Fax: 888-989'3339 ' vrww'mariteluss'com

2001

b;;rd -llEl¡it;DePríesl¡t¡ncricun I ?4.781% I 19.2419å

4/7Oct-23-2009 11r04 AM Telesourus 5108412226

agcndâ lor meetings and exercise ol'gÊnizotional cont¡ol ovol-thc Boâfd Ôf Di¡ectots and the

äñy.' Mor"ori".. "u.n

*hen Mrl DePricst no longer held a majority of the voting stock ofV*hgL, n" held rnore voting stock than any other sñareholder. During tlrat_thne, he also ltad

iir. rigltt to "ppoi,rt

as lnany B;ard of Directór positions as any -other

shareholdet' Because'

befo'I tne Mç'l disirìbutioï, lvir. DePriest hel<l approximatoly 38% ofùè voting equity in.

fr¡..nÈi, ¡. """f¿

ha-ve f'eve'ted any sh*reholder action fls wcll as Board olDirector ¿'.tion to

whiclì hè wâs opposËd.

Other actions provide indicia of Mr. ÞePtiest's defcto control ol'the company' Ifi2006'

Irl*üfSL r*.,iru¿ o $i00.000 bridge loan fiom Pinnacle Bank. Mr. DePriest was instrumentâl in

àrr;o,ì,rg rrr. co,npany in obrzrinin[ that bridge loa'. 't'hË Tern.sheet pl epared in advance ofthc

ioun ..ufi"n".¿ frir. óepLiest's wiiingness tõ provide a personal Su'råntee in the event ofa loan

àrioun Ño otut ,hareholder tool< thãse ki¡di of me¿usures * designerl to prevcnt tho company

irom becoming insolvent. Additionally. between Jåuuary ?005 and September 2006 Mt'

óuiii".iurqut=¿ nn addirional $1,23i,500 ofoonvertil¡le suborclinate notes liom other

i"u..iorr. Àa ,m rame time Mr. Depriest reducecl ltis percentetge ofequiry ownership, he

incl.eâsed the levet ôlthe cÒurpäny's debt he lreld and iielped extend the rnaturity ofthe

company's obligalions to preventjeoPardizing the cornpary's solvency'

Al no ti¡ne untilthe distribution of the MC:T sharcs rlid Mr. DePriÛst ever assert drat Mari'l'EL

,¡oui¿ t*u. rut *itted an applicatiÓt to the FCC sqeking its conscnt tô the lransfer of contrcl ot'

MariTEL based tn a "hangl'in

stock ownership' Orr separate occuions' Mr' DePriesl

äifiowleageo t at the dis-nibution,bf the MCT shares.would cause a change irì control of ^

f,¡o¡i.¡gl. Ïn par.ticular, in a December 2005 lerler tô MCT investo* âddressinga number of

business issues, Mr. DePriest statcd, "Äs cdnclusions and reso¡utions Ùe reached on the above

*ott"rr, ft¡Cf áoti.ipates a distribuiion of MâriTEL sh¿ires ' ' ' A disb'ibutiÓn would ooustiftrte

* "ftãtË"

.f*"tr"l åf MariTEL for FCC licensing putposes ' ' ''' Simil¿ìrly' in an e-mail

"n"i,on"g. ;itL u ,,',e¡¡ber oftlre Board ofDirectorsin 2007, Mr. DePries[ stated that once thë

fufëi áîrU.ifrution *us compl"te, túËiËwoukl bea tmnsfbr of contfol.5/ Atnotime before the

distributioßoftlìeMCTstock<IkltVIl..DePficstassertthâtMâriTELshÔtrldseekFCCrrppr.ovalfor a transfer ofcont¡ol.

M¿riTEL's assessment was the same as Mr' DePriest's' Whilc Mr' DePriest retnained in ¿le

;;r" *;o;l .;;;ft;, htu p""entâsó of voting eqllitv wæ under 50%' MariTEL believed fhat

" Mr, DePriest's e-tnnil to the A¡rericafi Towel tcprescntâtivc to thc Boârd o[Þirectors suggcstcd

rhflt Mr. DcPricsr bcl¡cvcd thât control would be hãflsferred to ¡\merican Tower' Mr' DePriest's

uesunrutiollsweLeiucorrectlrecar¡seaftelthedistrib[tio[oftlteMCTsltntes,AmericanTowerdidnotfiäiilril;y;iirr. "ì,ìig

,i"*, orMa¡iTEL and American Tower did nor exercise defàcro control

;;;;,h;o;p*"i. MoreoverfMnriTEl's shnrehokìers' Agrccmcnt spccilically contemplate the

;;;";;;;;;ã"" oran -AiC negularory Event " whe. À'rerican Tower would be deer edtocoñrol

fulariTEL. No shaLeholder, includìnã Mr. ócPricst, has suggcsted that citlrèr Èn ATC ReEulalory Evenl

hæ occurred or that it was necessatito seek FCC approval t'ot such an ATC Regulâtory Eveut'

4635 Clrurch Rd, Suitc 100 Cumming, GA 30028 ' Voice/Fâx: 888-989'iii9 ' \^/ww lìlaritelusa'coln

5/7Oct-23-2009 11:04 AM Telesourus 510A412226

K@**rr ;i::

his ribláctd cotìtrol lvould end onthe distributiou ofthe MC'l'shares- ó/ After that tinre' Mr'

DcPriest wotrld hold only 24'716% oftlte votinqshares of MatiT['L'. conrpu¡'ed to Anrerical ,,.

l;";;-c.ü;i"'r whi"h wou6 ttoi¿ tg.o*v]' M,. DeP¡ìest wquld *o longer have.the a6ilitv

t" Uf"* -.ii",i p,"posed by other.members ofthe Board of Directors through his level ofvoting

eouitirr. Thoså falt,u's rrromt>t"d MariTEL io subnrit an application to seek FCC appro'val to

trar'rsf., de/acto "outrol

from Mr. DePriest to sharehÓlders of MariTEL' nrore broadly'"

The logic olMariTËl.'s decisio ìs validated fulther try the perceltage interests held in Mâ TEl-

ü;;1,;;;ù,.tif*,rt shareholders during the per.iod thar Mr. Del)riest's ownership of ì:oth issued

*íi"i,trtrñ¿ì,ig r"d voting stock deoreäsed.' Þu'irig that period, the percentage of.both issued

;ä ffi;;åi;ü;à voti'f stock for MariTËl,'s othct shareholders renrained nearlv tlre same

ö;äììi";.,"1 ,ñreholdã.s,u.,. "r*tJJUy ti. àirtriUution of the MCT shares).l/ The'efore.

io oth.r shareholders gained any control as a Ìesult ofthe reduction in Mr. DePriest's percentâgc

"i.*rìrrt ip i|] r¡ghtîrtl.," iniicia of d¿lacro control Mr..Depliest exhibited, neirhê¡ M¿¡iTEL

;;^ü.iäJ;;f,otders viewe<l the graáualreduction in lvlr. DePrìest's ownership interest as

rreanirrgftll until the distribution of the MCT shares'

4. Iftotr believe th( lvlr' D(Prie clitl Ôonu'ol Mar¡TEL' c:spluin' to the best ofyour

in*¿uitgu'àri AiutnJ wlry ancl hor,r, lvtÇ/LM cot d att"itte cu tltc ¿t¡nclution that M' DePriest dirl

n ot co nu'o I þ[ aril']i I'

"' Despite Mr. DePriË$'s res¡gllntioir from the Board ofDhçcturs in Aplil 2008' he continued.(and

"on¡nu* to

',t it àt) to ltave the auihority to aPPoi[t aJ nräny Boardmembers âs any other shareholder'

f"f"t.""àr, f,¿t. Orpríest rsrnained NfaiiiÉLt t'aig"st sha'eh;lder until the distlibutior oftbe MCT stock'

Âcco¡dingly, the transfel ofcontrol w¿s not comPlete until that distributfun'

7/ The foregoitìg percentflges flÍe not ¡eflected in the chad that acconrPanies l'ïli:l .ll^::ü1',tI"¡c.centapcs in th¿rÎ chs-ri are calculated as oflthe eud ofench cÂlendal yc¿lr: the Percentsges teterenceo

lbove arã calcul¿ted at thc closc ofthê distribütion ofthc MCT $hârcs'

o, The FÇC has routinely recogniz_ed thatconfiol may transfer lrom one individual orentity to a

compzury's shareltolders, norc getterally. see eg', TrausferofContlol ol.Conventional

ii¿u'."iáf¿eu"in.rt pool sdvicã Statioìs WPJLi20, WPJP7$2' ürd WPJPTB3 and 900 Mllz Local

Nar¡owband Service Station WPJR3I I fiom Peabody Eneryy' Inc to the Shareholders of Peabody

Èiàiey, ii." ÚLs nile No. 0003202401 (filerl oct. 25' 200?) i Donßsric Attthor¡zaliott Gnnted:

iäìír,¡ilr¡øa ¡"r the n'ansfer of co,ìm! o¡'T,ttn? L-'orpo.ruted 'fi'ont^the conttnon"t'ealth of

'íírt*,ttn ø Sn^'ånolden oJTetsn'u Corpotøtion L¡nned,Piblic Notice' 22 FCC Rcd28'1 (200'1):

-

ä,1¡los"_wirronr¡, Broadiastiug Corp., Memolandum opinion md order ênd Notice of Apparent'J*uiäy,

e fCC R.¿ i607 ( t99ii. MiriîEL recognízes ttrat Mr.. DePriest mny have been reduciug his

"onirotiv", irlar¡rgl iururidiately preceding the ãistribution ofthe MCT shares However' the

à'rstriUution ofth, itlCT shares ha<l úcen fore-cæt for scvcral ycars and Ma¡iTEL' like Mt' DcPricsl'

bclicved thst úe disrriburion ofrhe MCT shares wns dre evetit most logically associated vvith the trânsfer

ofcontrol.e' The percentage ofstoql( no longer treld by Mr' DePriest rvas acqrrired by nrany other entilies'

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

6/7Oct-23-2009 11:05 AM Telesourus 510A412226

(@lyt-ni 'r:ìMariTEL believes that Mr- DePriest controlled Mari'lHl, until July 2008. lt ha.s no kuowledge or

þeliefregading how a contrary conclusiotl could be reached.

I rrust tlïat the lolegoing is responsive tÔ Mr' Stonê's requests lor information' We are aware

thar sìnrilar letters -w.rirrnt

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^*"1JagflSurith

cc: Scot Stone (via ts-Mail)

By First Class Mail:

Marilíme Communications/Land Mobile, t.LC206 North 8ú Street

Columbus, MS 39701

Attn.: Sandra M. DePriëst

Dennis C. Erown, Esq.

8124 Cooke Court, Suite 201

Manassas, VA 20109-7406

Donald R. DePriesL

206 North Srli SrcelColumbus, MS 39701

Wireless Properties of Virginia1555 King Street - Suite 500

Àlexandria, V A22314Attn.: Donald R. DePliest

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?'6vv

FtßtHt

Jt'*,tJ?-'Þ c\-4

ôr qç, 1Ç\J ¿l e!,3 9ï rA 5(\å

^^ sJ

ç"-$ jÈJ .-+ tL- 6-,'¿t- ..y, 5 w.'3 3 tn ccl>ç\F

SöC\)ç5(\--7J r\^

È¿€*tP\Ðjop'çl I .=.

lJ,tJ<,.l,-f 5

ã'..Ô q-,,

EXHIBIT 5

FEDERÁL COMMUNICÄTIONS COMMISSION

Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division

445 12th Street, S.W., Suite 4-C330

Washington, D.C. 20554

February 26,2010

VIA CERTTFIED MAIL -- RETUNN RECEIPT REOUESTED

Donald R. DePriestWireless Properties of Virginia' lnc.1555 King Street - Suite 500

Alexandria, V A22314

Re: Applications of Maritme Communications/Land Moblle'

LLC for Automated Maritime Telecommunications System

Licenses and to Participate in FCC Auction No 6lFiIe No': EB-09'IH-1751

Dea¡ Mr. DePdest:

The Enforcetnent Bureau of the Federal Communications Cornmission is

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

L21IO, l.2l\2,1. 17 and 1.65, relating to ownership disclosure lequilements in FCC

auctions and appticarions, and providing truthful and accurate information to ths

Commissjon. Specifically, the Commission is investigating whether Matitime may have

failed to disclosã aü required ownership information in its application to participate in

FCC Auction No. 6l and in subsequent filings with the Commission

By letter, dated August 18, 2009, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

directed you to provide infórmation relaied to the above-referenced investigation.r You

r"spondJd on Sàpternbcr 30,2OOg.2 The instant, follow-up letter of inquiry seeks

adciitional infonnation ancl docunentation with regard to the curreut investigation-

We direct you, pursuant to Sections 4(i),4(j), 308(b) and 403 of the

Communicarions Àct of 1934, as ar'rended,47 U.S.C. SS 154(Ð, 154C), 308(b), and 403,

I Letter from Jct^fr.cy Tobias, Esq , Attorncy-Aclvisor, Mobility Division' Wireless Tclecornmunications

Bureau, tr¡ Donald i. Deprìest and Wirelcss Prope*ics of Virginia, Inc. dated August 18, 2009'

? 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. DePriestFebruary 26, 2010Page 2 of 8

to provide the information and documents specified herein, within 30 calendar days

from the date of tllis letter. The InstructionJ for responding to this letter and the

Definitions for certain terms used in this letter are contained in the attachment hereto'

Unless otherwise indicated, the period of time covered by these inquiries is January 1'

2002 to the present.

Inquiries: Documents and Information to be Provided

1. In the Donald DePriest LOI Response (at pages 1-4), you provided a list of- entities that you indicated you côntrolled õr in which you served as an officer

or director. Ás to those entities that were in existence (even if inactive) during

the 2002, 2003 and 2004 calendar years, provide relevant documentation to

demonstrate the aggregate gross revenues of each such entity during the 2002'

2003 and2004 cuiendat yeats, including but not limited to' each entity's

Federal tax returns for the calendar years 2002,2003, and 2004'

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'

(a) As to those entities that you described as being in existence during the

calendal year. s 2002,2003, and 2004, but which you described as

having no revenues, provide relevant documentation to demonshate

the aggregate gross rwenues of each such entity during the 2002'

2OOZ- inA Z}Oq calendar years, including but not limited to' each

entity's Federal tax returns for the calendar yeas 2002' 2003' and

2004.

(b) As to those entities that you described as being in existence during the

caiendar year s 2002,2003, and 20O4' and which you desc¡ibed as

having revenues (namely Bravo Communications, Inc ' Charisma

ComÃunications, lnc', Golden Triangle Radio, Inc ' Medcom

Development Corporation, Warpath Properties, lnc ' and MariTEL'

Inc.), piovide relevant documentation to demonstrate the aggregate

groi, i"u"nu". of each such entity during the 2002,2O03 and2004

ãalendar years, including but not limited to, each entity's Federal tax

returns for the calendar years 2002,2003, and 2004'

3. In the Donald DePriest LOI Response (at page 11), you indicated that you

haveservedasChairmanofMCTCorp.Providethefollowinginformation:

(a) The date that you became Chairman of MCT Corp'(b) The length of time that you have served as Chairman

Donald R. DePriestFebruary 26, 2010Page 3 of 8

4. Provide relevant documentation to demonstrate thg ag$egate gross revenues

of MCT Corp' útirng lhe 2002,2003 and 2004 calendar years' including but

not limited tõ, MCT Corp.'s Fedetai tax retums for the calendar years 2002,

2003, and 2004.

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'

6. Describe futly your relationship to Ma¡itirne'

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 ofMaritime. Provide the following information:

(a)Alldocumentsgrantingyouauthoritytoenterintocontractsonbehalfof Ma¡itine.

(b) A nanative description of each contract that you entered into on

behalf of Maritime.

9. To the extent not otherwise provided in response to the preceding lnquiries'

provide any additional information that you believe may be helpful to our

consideration and resolution of this matter..

We direct you to support your responses with an affidavit or decla¡ation under

penatty of perjury, signed -d ¿ut"d by you acknowledging that you have personal

ino*l"dg" ìf1há representations provided in your response, verifying the truth and

accuracf of the infoìmation therein and that all of the Documents and information

requestód by this letter which are in your possession, custody, control or knowledge have

beån produóed. if multiple parties contribute to the response, in addition to your general

affi¿avit o¡ decla¡ation noted aboue, provide separate affidavits or decla¡ations of each

such individual that identify clearly to which responses the affiant oÌ decla¡ant is

attesting. All such decla¡ations provided should comply with section 1.16 of the

Commiision's rules, 47 C.F.R. g 1. 16, and be substantially in the form set forth therein

Donald R. DePriestFebruary 26, 2010Page 4 of 8

To knowingly and willfully make any false statement or conceal any material fact

in reply to this inqiiiy is punishable by fine or imprisonment j

Failure to respond

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 "r,

Havens (at the address listed below). Wireless Properties

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

withou-t ãdvance notice to the other party and without opportunity for them to be present'

You should direct your response, if sent by messenger or hand delivery' to

Marlene H. Dortch, Secretâry, Fedleral Communications Commission, 445 12' Street'

S.W., Room TW-A325, Waahington, D.C. 20554, to the attention of Brian J Carter'

Investigations and Hearings Division' Enforcement Bureau, Room 4-C330, with a copy

to Garf schonman, Speciãt counsel, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement

Bureau, Room 4-C33ò, Federal Communications Commission' If sent by commercial

ovemightmaii(otherthanU.S.PostalserviceExpressMailandPriorityMail),theresponie should be sent to the Federal Communications Commission, 9300 East

Hainpton Drive, Capitol Heights, M atyland 207 43. If sent by first-class, Express' or

Priorìty mail, the reiponse should be sent to Brian J. Carter, InvestigatioT-u19."H^"-inC'

Divisíón, Enforcemenr Bureau, Federal Comrnunications Commission, 445 12"' Street,

S.W., Room 4-C330, Washington , D.C.20554, with a copy to Gary Schonman' Special

Counsel, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau' Federal

Communicationi Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 4-C330, Washington' D'C'

20554. You should a1so, to the extent practicable, transmit a copy of the response via

email to Brian.Carter@fcc.gov and Gary.Schonman@fcc.gov'

Direct any4t8-t334.

questions regarding this investigation to Brian J. Carter, Esq' at 202-

Spe6ral CounselInvestigations and Hearings DivisionEnforcement Bureau

r S¿¿ 18 U.S.C. $ l00l; se¿ also 47 C.F R

4 See47 C.F.R. $$ 1.1200 - 1216.

s r.l7

Donald R. DePriestFebmary 26, 2010Page 5 of 8

cc: Dennis C. Brown, Esq.8124 Cooke Court, Suite 201Manassas, VA 20109-7406Counsel for Wi¡eless Properties of Virginia, Inc.

Sandra M. DePriestMaritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC206 North 8ù StreetColumbus, MS 39701

Donald R. DePriest206 North 8th StreetColur¡bus, MS 39701

Russell Fox, Esq.Mintz, Levin, Cohen, Fenis, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW - Suite 900Washington, DC 20004Counsel for Ma¡iTEL, I¡c.

Warren Havens2649 Benvenue Ave.- Suites 2-6Berkeley, C^ 94704

Donald R. DePriestFebruary 26, 2010Page 6 of 8

ATTACHMENT

Instructions

Requestfor Confidentinl Treatment. If you request that any infomation ordocuments responsive to this letter be treated in a confidential manne¡, it shall submit,along with all responsive information and documents, a statement in accordance withSection 0.459 of the Commission's ru1es. 47 C.F.R. $ 0.459. Requests for confidentialtreatment must comply with the requirements of Section 0.459, including the standards ofspecificity mandated by Section 0.459(b). Accordingly, "blanket" requests forconfidentiality of a large set of documents, and casual requests, including simplystarnping pages "confidential," are unacceptable. Pursuant to Section 0.459(c), theBureau will not consider requests that do not comply with the requirements of Section0.459.

Claims of Privilege. If you withhold any information or documents under claimof privilege, you shall submit, together with any claim of privilege, a schedule of theitems withheld that states, individually as to each such item: the numbered inquiry towhich each item responds and the type, tìtle, specific subject matter and date of the item;the names, addresses, positions, and organizations of all autho¡s ând recipients of theitem; and the specific ground(s) for claiming that the item is privileged.

Method of Producing Documents. Each requested document, as defined herein,shall be submitted in its entirety, even if only a portion of that document is responsive to

an inquiry made he¡ein. This means that the document shall notbe edited, cut, orexpunged, and shall include all appendices, tables, or other attachments, and all otherdocuments referred to in the document or attachments. All written materials necessa-ry toundelstand any document responsive to these inquiries must also be submitted.

Identification of Docunxents. For each document or statement submitted inresponse to the inquiries stated in the cover letter, indicate, by number, to which inquiry itis responsive and identify the person(s) from whose fiIes the document was retrieved. Ifany document is not dated, state the date on which it was prepared. If any document does

not identify its author(s) or recipient(s), state, if kno\rn, the name(s) of che author(s) orrecipient(s). You must identify with reasonable specificity all documents provided inresponse to these inquiries.

Docutnents No Longer AvaiLttble. If a document responsive to any inquiry made

herein existed but is no longer available, or if you ale unable for any reason to produce adocument responsive to any inquiry, identify each such document by author, recipient,date, title, and specific subject matter, and explain fully why lhe document ìs no longeravailable or why you are other-w.ise unable to produce it.

Donald R. DePriestFebruary 26, 2010Page 7 of 8

Retention of Original Documents. With respect only to documents responsive tothe specific inquiries made herein and any other documents relevant to those inquiries,you are directed to retain the originals of those documents for twelve (12) months fromthe date ofthis letter unless (a) you are directed or informed by the Enforcement Bureauin writing to retain such documents for some shorter or longer period of time or (b) theEnforcement Bureau or the Commission releases an item on the subject of thisinvestigation, including, but not limited to, a Notice of Apparent Liability fo¡ Forfeitureor an order disposing of the issues in the investigation, in which case, you must retain allsuch documents until the matter has been finally concluded by payment of any monetarypenalty, satisfaction of all conditions, expiration of alÌ possible appeals, conclusion ofany collection action brought by the United States Departrnent ofJustice or execution and

implementation of a final settlement with the Commission or the Enforcement Bureau.

Continuing Nature of Inquiries. The specific inquiries made herein are continuingin nature. You are required to produce in the future any and all documents andinformation that are responsive to the inquides made herein but not initially produced atthe time, date and place specified herein, In this regard, you must supplement yourresponses (a) ifyou learn that, in some material respect, the documents and informationìnitially disclosed were incomplete or incorrect or (b) if additional responsive documentsor information are acquired by or become known to you after the initial productìon. Therequirement to update the record will continue for twelve (12) months from the date ofthis lette¡ unless (a) you are directed or informed by the Enforcement Bureau in writingthat your obligation to update the record will continue for some shorter or longer periodof time or (b) the Enforcement Bureau or the Commission releases an item on the subjectof this investigation, including, but not limited to, a Notice of Apparent Liabìlity forForfeiture or an order disposing of the issues in the investigation, in which case theobligation to update the record will continue until the release of such item.

Definitions

For purposes of this letter, the following definitions apply:

"Any" shall be construed to include the word "all," and the word "all" shall beconstrued to include the word "any." Additiona.lly, the word "or" shall be construed toinclude 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 ofthe original) and any non-identical copy (whether different from the orìginal because ofnotations on the copy or otherwise), regardless of origin or ìocation, of any taped,recorded, transcdbed, written, typed, printed, filmed, punched, computer-stored, orgraphic matter of every type and descripcion, however and by whomever prepaled,produced, disseminated, or- made.

Donald R. DePriestFebruary 26, 2010Page 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, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, from

Dennis -c.

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.

"Maritime" shall mean Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC and any

predecessor-in-interest, affil.iate, parent company' wholly or partially owned subsidìary'

ãther affiliated company or business, and all owners, including but not limited to,

partners or principals, and all members, directors, officers' employees, or agents,

including cònsultants and any other persons working for or on behalf of the foregoing at

any time during the period covered by this letter.

"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

February 26, 2010

Jason SmitbMariTEL, Inc4635 Church Road, Suite 100

Cumming, GA 30028-4084

AnDlications of Maritime Cornmunications/Land Mobile'

liö i;, Ã;,"*"ted Maritime Telecommunications system

ñ;; and to Participate in FCC Auction No 6I

File No.: EB'O9-IH-1751

Dea¡ Mr. Slnith:

The Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communicatio-ns Comtnission is

investigating compliance by ftatiìi'""t"--"nications/I-¿nd Mobile' LLC ("Maritime")

with Sections l.2Ilo, l.Lllz,l;i? -d 1'¿5 of the Commission's Rules' 47 C F'R $S

1.2lLO,l.2II2,1 17 and 1 65, rJutint to o*,'"ttttip.disclosure requìrements in FCC

;;";;.;¡ "pplications,

*a p'ouiaing ttthful and.accwate information to the

Commission. Specificatly, ti'" ôot-¡t"tito is investigating whether Ma¡itirne may have

failed to disclose uu ."qoi,"a oJ'ì"itttif inro'mution i" its ãppücation to particrpate in

fCð a""rion No. 61 and in subsequ"ni filingt with the Commission

By letter, dated August 18, 2009' the Wireless Telecommunica[ions Bureau

¿lr".t"JilüirÉr-, rn" ('u*irel') to provide information related to the above-

:ffi;:;:iî;ï#;"ii"*'^vr-äel',",ri"ia"¿ "" september 28, 200e.2 rhe instant, .

follow-up letter of inquiry .""f't ^¿¿ititl¡ informarión and documentatìon with regald to

the current investigation.

-ly'e direct MariTEL, pursuant to Sections 4(i)' 4C)' 308(b) and 403 ofthe ' '^^Communicatj.ons e"t of tS:+, u'äLn¿"¿' +f U S C $r\ i54(Ð' 154(')' 308(b)' and 403'

I Letter trom Jeffrey Tobias, Esq., Attoflrey-Advisor, Mohility Divisron wireless Telecotnmuntcatto¡s

Bureau. ro MarirEL,ln"- on¿ r{u.r"iiîà-]Érq , ""u"."r

tor MarirEL. Inc. dalod August l8' 2009'

: L,:tter Lo Jeffrc¡ Tobi¡s. Esq , Altorney-AJvisor' Mobility Divisiorr' Wirclc's l clcco tn¡¡ unicat ion s

Burcau, fror¡ MariTEL, lnc and tt*t"ìíÉ"i' Ëtq ' "l-seifor MrriTEL' Inc ' clated Septernber 28' 2009'

Jason SmithMariTEL, Inc.February 26,2010Page 2 of1

to provide the information and documents specified herein, within 30 calentlar days

irJÀ tn" ¿ut" of this letter' The Instruction; for responding to this letter and the

Definitions for certain terms used in this letter are contained in the attachment hereto'

Únless otherwise indicated, the period of time covered by these inquiries is JanuarY I'2002 to the Present.

Inquiries: Documents and lnformation to be Provided

l.Identifyatlofficers,directors,shareholders,partners'andbeneficialownersofMariTEL since January 1, 2002 and provide the dates upon which such

individuals secured their respective positions with MariTEL'

2. Provide a copy of all corporate documents of Ma¡iTEL' inciuding but not

Iimìted to, aly articles, bylaws, and minutes of a1l meetings held during the

.calendar Years 2OO2lo 2006.

3. In the MariTEL LOI Response (at page 4), MariTEL referenced a December

2005 letter written Uy DoìalO DePiiest to MCT lnvestors' L'P'' in which

Donald DePriest indicated that a distribution of MariTEL sha¡es would

constitute a change of control of Ma¡iTEL for FCC licensìng purposes'

Provide a coPY of this letter.

4. Provide relevant documentation to demonstate the agglegate gross reve¡ues

of Ma¡iTEL during the calendar y ears 2002,2003' and 2004' including but not

limitedto,tvtarifEl'sFederaltaxreturnsforthecalendaryeats2002'2003'and2004.

5. To the extent not otherwise provided in response to the preceding lnquüies'

provide any additional information that you believe may be helpful to our

consideration and lesolution of this matter'

We direct you to support your responses with an affidavit or declaraúon under

penalty of perjury, signed ä¿ ¿i"¿ by you acknowledging that you have personal

icnowt"age äf thó repiesentations proviáeá in your -response'

verifying the truth and

uc"u.a"/ of the infoìmation therein and that all of the I)ocuments and information

."qu"r,ä ty this letter which are in your possession, custody' control or knowledge have

beån produáed. If multiple parties côntribute to the response, in addition to your general

affrdávit or declaration noted above, provide separate affidavits or declarations of each

suchindividualthatidentifyclearlytowhichresponsestheaffiantordeclarantisutte.ting. Al1 such declarations piovided should comply with section 1'16 of the

com¡niision's rules, 47 C.F.R. $ 1.16, and be subsranrially in rhe form set forrh therein.

Jason SmithMariTEL, Inc.February 26, 2010Page 3 o17

To knowingly and willfully make any faise statement or conceal any material fact

io r"prvìã inl, inqíiry i, punirnuút" uy hnetr imprisonment'3 Failure to respond

;;rõ.t"d;L ,Ëis íettei ot inçlry áuy constitt'te u violation of the Communications

Act and our rules'

Ma¡itime shall also serve its response and supporting Document¿tion l]pon

warren Havens (ut tt "

u¿or"r, ü,;Jb"bt) Maritime anì wut¡en Havens are reminded

that this is a restricted proce"Ai"ä"ti"t t¡" C"mmission's ex parte tules' so that neither

äñaj Àut" u p."."otution (i'e, a communication directed to the merits or outcome

of a proceeding) to decision-màtinf p"i'on*f which' if v/ritten' is not served on the

ä;;õ;;:î o.ut, l, ,nu¿"-Jtño'ut udu*"" notice to the other party and without

opportunity for them to be present'

You should dìrect your response, if sent by messenger or hand delivery' to

Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, r"ã'"iui io*rnunióations Cómmission' 445 12rh Street''S *, n"ã* fW 4325, Washington, D'C' 20554' to the attention of Brian J' C¿¡te¡'

i;;;*g;; *d Hearings nivisioá, Enforcement Bureau' Room 4-c330' with a copy

;; õ;y"i;h;".-, Speciãl Counsel, Investigations and Hearings Division' Enforcement

Bureau, Room 4-csso, ne¿Jéo;municaãio"s Commission' If sent by commercial

ã""*fgf,ì.Af t"ther than U.S. Postal Service Express MaiI and Priority Mail)' the

."rpå"i" ttt"tlÀ te sent to the Federal Communications Comnrission' 9300 East

ä#ñ ñ.t"", Capitol Heights, M aryland 207 43 '-If sent by flrst-class' Express' or

itî"riy.ãr, th" ."rpon." ,ñoolå u" '"nt

to B¡an J' ca¡ter' lnvestigations and Hearings

Division, Enforcement Bur""t, Þ"ááta óot"t"nications Commission' 445 12th SÍeet'

S.w., Room 4_C3SO, W*hrngion,'c. 20554, with a copy to Gary Schonman' Special

ó"""*f f"""ttigations and Iiea¡ings ?ivision, EnforcementBureau' Federal

Communications Com isslon, +¿S"t2tn St¡e"t, S'W'' Room 4-C330'.W^hingtl ?^C

ãOJsi. vou should also, to the extent practicable, transmit a copy of the response vra

"Àuit ,o gri^n.C*"t@fcc.gov and Gary'schonman @fcc gov'

Direct any questions regarding this investigation to Brian J' Carter' Esq at 202-

418-1334' s inçÃv' 72// /,/ ,/ø--/.-,Y-,/GarY6chonmanSPecial CounselInvestigations and Hearings DivisionEnfo¡cement Bureau

3 S¿e 18 U.S.C. $ 1001; .te¿ also 47 C F R

4 See 4? C.F.R. $$ 1.1200 - i 216.

$ r.l7

Iason SmithMariTEL, Inc.February 26, 2010Page 4 of?

cc: Russell Fox, Esq.Minø, Levin, Côhen, Fenis, Glovsky and Popeo' P C

701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW - Suite 900

Washington, DC 20004

Ma¡itime Communications/Land Mobile' LLC

206 North 8tb Street

Columbus, MS 39701

ATTN: Sandra M. DePriest

Dennis C. Brown, Esq

8 I 24 Cooke Court, Suite 20 1

Manassas, VA 20109-7406

Donald R. DePriest20ó North 8th St¡eet

Columbus, MS 39701

Wireless Properties of Virginia' Inc'

1555 King Street - Suite 500

Alexandtia, Y A 22314

ATTN: Donald R. DePriest

Warren Havens2649 Benvenue Ave - Suites 2-6

BerkeleY, CA 94704

Jason SmithMa¡iTEL, Inc.FebruarY 26, 2010Page 5 of 7

ATTACTIMENT

Instructions

Request for Confidentidl Treafinent' lf you requesi that any information or

documents responsive to this r"tt"t t" tt""t"¿ iti a conitdential manner' it shall submit'

iio;|iiü Ji;"tponsive information and documents' a statement in accordance with

Secdon 0.459 of the Commissioîs *1".. +z C.F.R. g 0.459' Requests for confide¡tif

treatment must comply witt tn"T"qult"*"nts of Section 0'459' including the standârds of

öiltü;;;i"å úy s"ctio-n 0.¿s9þ) Accordinglv' "blanket" requests for

confidentiality of u I.g" ,"t or àÀtutànit, und "u'ual

iequests' including simply

;;;o;; n*á, i"onlrãentia1," -" unu"t"p'ubl" Pursuant to Section 0'459(c)' the

Bureau will not consider requ"* ,¡u. ¿o no. "omply

with the requirements of Section

o.459.

Claims of Prívileg¿' If you withhold any information or documents under claim

of pri"if"ö, y"" stralt suîm;q JÇrler with any ctaim of privilege' a schedule of the

items withheld that states, ,no'uìãulty as to eaãh such iæm: the numbered inquiry to

which each item rerponO. -a iit"ìÇå' titLe' specific subject matter and date of the item;

the names, addresses, po.itioo', uoã LtianøatLns or u áu.thors and recipients of the

;;' ñih";p;ific lround(s) for claiming that the item is privileged'

Method of Producing Documents' Each requested document' as defined herein'

shall be submittea in its entireiy, wen if only a portion of that document is responsive to

î"-*qùl -"¿" iterein. This á"-t t¡"t tné ¿oãument shall not be edited' cut' or

expunged, and shall incruO" arïãpp"nJices' tables' or other attachments' and all other

äü"ri"r"i"r""ed to in the dociment or auachments. All wriuen materials necessary to

understand any document responsive to these inquiries must also be submitted'

Identification of Documents For each document or statement submitted in

response to the inquties *u,"Jin iit" "ou"r

letter' indicate' by number' to which inquiry it

is responsive and i¿"tt fV tit" p"t'átttl fro* 1¡9si.fiIes the- document was retrieved' If

"'ry i.*-"", l. not dadd, ,tui" tt'" àÁ" on *hich it was prepared' If any document does

not identify its author(s) or recipient$)' state' if known' the name(s) of the author(s) or

ä;ì;(ti Y;t -uii¿"ntiivîitrt'reasonable speciflrcity a11 documents provided in

response to these inquiries'

Documents No I'onger AvaiLable lf a document responsive to any inquiry made

hereinexistedbutisnotongeravailable,orifyouareunableforanyreasontoproducea;;:;;;;a t;tp"".lu" to u,,v inqul'f, identify each such document by author' recipient'

date, title, and specihc subje"i i"*i"t, and explain fully why the document is no longer

ãuuìiuul"'ot *rty you are otherwise unable to produce it'

Jason SmithMariTEL, lnc.February 26, 2010

Page 6 of 7

Retention oÍ OriUinal Documents' With respect only to documents responsive to

tfr" .p""ifr" inquiri", *ã¿" ft"."ln und any other doãuments^relevant to those inquiries'

vou a¡e directed to retain the oÃ!ìnals ofrhose documents for twelve (12) months from

il" ñ;?ñË* "ii"t, t"lvi" are di¡ected or informed by the Enforcement Bureau

in writing to retain such documånts for some shorter or longer period of time or (b) the

gnfor""ri"nt Su.eau or the Commission releases an item on the subject of this - .

investigation, including, but noì ütit"¿ to, a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture

or an order disposing of tfre issuesìn tfre nvestigation' inwhich case' you must retain all

such doiuments until the matter has been finally concluded.by payment of anj monetary

penalty, satisfaction or al conáìiions, expiration of il possible appeals' conclusion of

anv collection action brought uy tire Ûniied States Department of Justice or execution and

til;";ä;;iä'rt"uií"t,ron"nt with the commission or the Enforcement Bureau'

Continuing Nature of Inquiries' The specific inquiries made herein are continuing

in nature. You are required to pioduce in the iuture any and all documents and

information that are ."rpor,ri',,"'to irr" inquiries made hàrein but not initially produced at

,iì"'ii*iãã" ""¿

place specified herein' In ttris regard' you must supplement your

t"rp"*"<;l if yo'u learrrthat' in to-" -"'"'iul t"tp?:! q"..d9**ents and information

iriãrffy ai."L*Ja *"r" in"o-pl"t" or incorect or fo) if addiúonal responsive documents

or information ar" ucquir"a uy'åiU"come known to you after the initial production The

requirement to up¿ate the recárd wili contioue tor twelve (l') months ftom the date of

this letter unless (a) you are ¿ir"ct"i ot infor-ed by the Enforcement Bureau in writing

üïîàr, Jìlei";á L "pa",rit".""ord

will continue for some shorrer or longer period

of time or (b) the Enforcement lureau or the Commission releases an item on the subject

ãi rfri, io"àrúg*ion, including, but not limited to' a Notice of Apparent.r jability.for

Forfeiture or an oraer aisposiii of the issues in the investigation' in which case the

ãùiigution to "paate

the rãcorÑill continue until the release of such item

Definitions

For purposes ofthis letter, the following defrnítions apply:

..Any',shallbeconstruedtoincludetheword..atl','andtheword..all''shallbe

construed to include the word "any " Additionally' the word "or" shall be construed to

includetheword..and,''andtheword..and''shallbeconstruedtoincludetheword..or'''The word "each" snati ¡e coist¡ued 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) unA uny non-ia"nti"ui copy i*tt"trt"idifferent from the original because of

notations on the copy or otherwise), rågardless of origin or.location' of any taped'

.e"o.¿"¿, transcribèå, written' typed, piinted' frlmed' punched' computer-stored' or

Jason SmithMa¡iTEL, Inc.February 26, 2010Page 7 of 1

graphic matter of every type and description, however and by whomever prepared'

produced, disseminated, or made'

"Identify," when used with reference to a person or persons' shall mean to state

trisltrer fuit tegat name, job title (if any)' cunent business address' and business phone

number. If business address anùo, á"pnon" oo-ter a¡e not available, state the person's

home address and/or telephone number'

"Identify," when used with reference to a document' shall mean to state the date'

u,rtho., uid."rrå", type of document (¿'8 , the types of document' as described above)' a

trl"ia"r"ription of'tire subject matter, iL preserlt or last known location' and its

custodian.

"Identify," when used with reference to an entity ottler than a person' shall mean

to state its namá, current or last known business address' and current or last known

business telePhone number.

"Ma¡iTEL LOI Response" shali mean the letter to Jefftey Tobias' E-sq ' Attorney-

Advisor, Mobilìty Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau' from MariTEL' Inc'

and Russell Fox, e.q., "out

r"i io, MariTEL, lnc', dated Septemb er 28' 2009 ' responding

io tt "

t"n", frorn Jefüey Tobias, Esq', Attomey-Advisor' Mobility Division' Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau, to M;iTEL, Inc' and Russell Fox' Esq'' counsel for -

Ma¡iTEL, lnc., dated August 18,2009, relating to the Commission's investigation of

rrl*l i-";, non-disclosuà of ã*n".tttip inro*ation in its application to participate in

pCð eu"tioo No. 61 and in subsequent filings with the Commission'

"Maritime" shall mean Ma¡itime Communications/Land Mobile' LLC and any

pr"d"""rroi-in-interest, affiliate, palent company' wholly or partially owned subsidiary'

ã,ft"t.fftli""¿ company o. busin"st' and all owners' including but not limited to'

plit"t. ã. pti""ipalì, and all members, directors, officers' employees' or agents'

including cånsultãnts and any other persons working for or on behalf of the foregoing at

any time during the period covered by this letter'

'Ma¡iTEL" shall mean MariTEL, Inc' and any predecessor-in-interest' affiliate'

parent company, wholly or partially owned subsidiary' other affiliated company or

ãurin"rr, uÅ¿ ¿t o*n"ri, in;luding bur not limited to, partners or principals, and all .

members, directors, officers, empioyees, or agents' including consultants and ariy other.

p"itåt, *".ti.g for or on behali of-the foregáing at any time during the period covered

by this letter.

FEDERAL CoMMUNICATIoNS CoMMIssroN

Enforcement Bureau, lnvestigations and Hearings Division

445 l2th Street, S.W., Suite 4-C330

Washington, D.C' 20554

February 26, 2010

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL -- RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED

Sandra M. DePriestM¿uitinre Communications/l¿nd Mobile, LLC206 Nofih 8th Street

Columbus, MS 39701

Re Annlicadons of Maritime Comnrunications/Land Mobi lc'

LLb fo, Automoted Maritime Telecommunicat ions Sysfem

Licenses and to Palicipate in FCC Auction No' 61

File No.: EB-09-III-1751

Dear Ms. DePriest:

The Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission is

investigating compliance by Maritime Communications/Land Mobile' LLC ("Maritime")

*it¡ sä,ioi', l.Lilo, 1.2112,1.17 and 1.65 of rhe Commission's Rules' 47 C F'R' $$

1 .2ll}, I.2112,1.17 and 1 .65, relatirrg to ownership disclosure requirements in FCC

auciions and applicaûons, and providing tluthful and accurate jntblmation to the

óo--irrion. Specificatly, the Commission is investigating whetl.rer Malitime may have

failed to disclosà a required ownership inforntation in its application to participate ìn

FCC Auction No. 61 anì in subsequent filings witll the Cornmission'

By letter, dated August 18, 2009, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

directed Maritime to provide infoimation r-elated to the above-referenced investigation l

Malitime responded ôn Septernber 30, 2009 2 The instant, follow-up letter of inqìiry

seeks additional information and documentation with regard to [he current investigation'

I Lerter lrom JefÍr'ey Toblas, Esq , Attorllcy Advisor, Mobiliry DivÌsion' WiÌelcss Teleconlmunications

Bur"au, ¡o Dennjs ó Brown, Esq , counsoí ftir Maritinrc Communications/La d Mobilc' LLC' daþd

August 18, 2009.

2 Letter to Jclhey Tobias, Esq-. Attorney-Advisor, Mobilìty Division' Wirelcss Telecot¡ì-rìÙnicaLioDs

Bureau. 1'rom Dennis C. Brown, Esq , counscl for Maritine Com¡nunications/Land Mobilc' I-LC' datcd

Septcmber 30, 2009

Sandra M. DePriestFebruary 26, 2010Page 2 of 9

We direct Ma¡itime, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4O' 3Q8(b) and a03 of the - - ^ -Communications Act of 1934, as amended,4T U'S'C' $$ 154(Ð' 154(i)' 308G)' and 403'

aJÃuiaà ,rt" inrormation and documents specified herein, within 30 calendar days

from the date of this letter. The Instructions for responding to this letter and the

Definitions for ce¡tain terms used in this letter are contained in the attachment hereto'

Unless otherwise indicated, the period of time covered by these inquiries is January 1'

2002 to the Presenl

Inqui¡ies: Documents and lnformation to be Provided

1. Identify all officers, directors, shareholders, partners' and beneficial owners of

Ma¡itime since January 1, 2002 and provide the dates upon which such

individuals secured their respective positions with Maritime'

2. Provide a copy of all corporate documents of Maritime' including but not-

ii-it"d ,o, uny u.ti"t"t, t¡uws, operating agreements' and minutes of all

meetings held during the relevant period'

3. Identify John Reardon and describe fully his relationship to Maritime'

4. Specify the date that John Reardon became an officer of Maritime and specify

ali titlás and positions held by him Provide a copy of all documents

authorizing his appointed positions'

5. In the Ma¡itime LOI Response (at page 2), Maritime indicated tìat John-R"a,donservesasitsChiefExecutiveofficer.ourrecordsindicatethat

Maritime did not disclose John Rea¡don in its application to participate in

Auction No. 61 (FCC Form 175) or in subsequent filings with the

Commission. Explain fully why Maritime did not identify John Reardon as its

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)'

6. Identify all entities, if any, athibutable to John Realdon as an officer of

Maritime during the calendar years 2OO2' 2OO3 anó 2004' Provide relevant

documentation to demonstrate the aggregate gross revenues of each such

entity, including but not limited to' each entity's Federal tax returns for the

calendar years 2002,2003' and 2004.

7. Identify Donald DePriest and describe fully his relationship to Maritime'

Sandra M. DePriestFebruary 26, 2010Page 3 of 9

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:

(a) All documents granting Donald DePriest authority to enter into

contracts on behalf of Maritime.

(b) A nanative description of each contlact that Donald DePriest entered

into on behalf of Maritime.

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

agent and; assist her as necessal y. Explain fully by-wh-at authority (whether

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'

(a) As to those entities that Maritime described as being in existence

during the calendar years 2002,2003, and 2004, but which Ma¡itime

described as having no revenues, provide relevant documentation to

demonstrate the aggregate gross revenues of each such entity during

the calendar yeas 2O02,2003, and 2004, including but not limited to'

each entity's Federal tax returns for the calendar y eats 2002' 2003 '

a¡d2004.

(b) As to those entities that Maritime described as being in existence

during the calendar years 2002,2003, and 2004, and which Maritime

described as having revenues (namely Bravo Communications, lnc 'Charisma Communications, Inc., Golden Triangle Radio, lnc ,

Medcom Development Corporation, Warpath Properties, Inc ' and

M¿riTEL, Inc.), provide releva¡t documentation to demonsfate the

ag1regate gross revenues of eacl.t such entity during the calendar years

Sandra M. DePriestFebruary 26,2010Page 4 of 9

r ,t¿e 18 U.S,C. $ l00l ; s¿¿ ¿lso 47 C.F.R. $ l - l?

a See 4'1 C.F.R. $$ 1.1200 - t216.

2002,2003, and 2004, inctuding but not limited to, each entity's

Federal tax returns for the calendar years 2002,2003, ald 2004'

12. Identify MCT CorP.

13. Our records indicate that Donald DePriest sewed as chai¡man of MCT Corp.

ourrecordsfurtherindicatethatMaritimedidnotdiscloseMCTCorp.initsapplication to participate in Auction No. 6l (FCC Form 175) and insubsequent 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'

14. Provide relevant documentation to demonstrate the agglegate gross revenues

of MCT Corp. during the calendar years 2002, 2003, and 2O04' including but

not limited tõ, its Federal tax returns for the calendar years 2O02,2003, and

2004.

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.

Wedirectyoutosupportyourresponseswithanaflrdavitordeclarationunderpenalty 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

Sandra M. DePriestFebruary 26, 2010Page 5 of 9

party may make a presentation (i.e.' a communication di¡ected to tlte merits or outcome

ãiu'proã""¿ingl tå decision_màking personnel which, if wrinen, is not served on the

;h;;*y or,'i o.ul, is made witñout advance notice to the other party and without

opportunity for them to be present.

You should direct your response, if sent by messenger or hand delivery' to

Marlene H. Dortch, Secreiary, Fedìral Communications Commission' 445 12"' Street'

i w, noo- fw-A325, Wa;hington, D.C. 20554, to the attention of Brian J Carter'

inr"rìGái¡"t u"d Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau' Room 4-C330' with a copy

io C-íS"ftonrnun, Speciãì Counsel, lnvestigations and Hearings Division' Enforcement

gu..;;, noo* +-ci¡õ, pederal communicaiions commission. If sent by commercial

ãu"rrrijnt -uit (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail)' the

."rpo"i" tft""là Ue sent to the Federal Communications Commission' 9300 East

rrãilpion n.iln., Capitot Heights, Maryland 20743' If sent by first-class' Express' or

p.io¡tv.¡f, the reiponse shoulâ be sent to Brian J Ca¡ter' InvestiSations-and*Hear-in€s

Divisián, Enforc".t "nt

Bor"urr, Federal Communications Commission' 445 I2'' sheet'

S.W., Room 4-C330, Washingion 'D C 20554, with a copy to Gary Schonman' Special

Counsel, Investigations and Èearings Division, Enforcement Bureau' Federal

CommunicationJ Commission, 44i12'h Street, S W', Room 4-C330' Washiûgton' D'C'

20554. You should also, to the extent practicable, transmit a copy of the response via

email to Brian.Carter@fcc.gov and Gary'Schonman@fcc'gov'

202418-1334.Direct any questions regarding this investigation to Brian J' Carter' Esq' at

Special CounselInvestigations and Hearings DivisionEnforcement Bureau

Dennis C. Brown, Esq.

8124 Cooke Court, Suite 201

Manassas, VA 20109-7406

Counsel for Ma¡itime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC

Donald R. DePriest206 North 8th StreetColumbus, MS 39701

Sandra M. DePriestFebruary 26, 2010Page 6 of 9

Wireless Properties of Virginia, Inc'

1555 King Street - Suite 500

Alexandria, VA 22314

ATTN: Donald R. DePriest

Russell Fox, Esq.

Mintz, Levin, Cohen, Fenis, Glovsky and Popeo, P'C

701 Pennsylvania Ave., l'{W - Suite 900

washington, DC 20004

Counsel for Ma¡iTEL, Inc.

Wanen Havens2649 Benvenue Ave.- Suites 2-6

BerkeleY, CA 94704

Sandra M. DePriestFebruary 26, 20i0Page7 of9

ATTACHMENT

Instructions

Request for Confidential Treatment' Il yo'r request that any informatign 9r .

ao"u**t, ,"rpänsive ó this letter be teated in a confidential manner' it shall submit'

"1""1*i tt

"ff Lrponsive information and documents' a statement in accorda¡ce with

Secti"on O.+S9 of ihe Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. g 0.459. Requests for confidential ^

,."u*"n, *u* "omply

with the requirements of Section 0'459.' including the standards of

rp"riLrtv -*¿ateå úy Section 0.¿59@) Accordingly, "blanket" requests for

"ãüiã"níi¡irv or a larle set of documents, and casual requests' including simply

,,r-pttry p"gåt "confiãential," are unacceptable' Pursuant to Sectíon 0 459(c)' the

Bureau will not consider requests that do not comply with the requirements of Section

0.459.

Claims of Privilege. If you withhold any information oÌ documents under claim

of priviùge, you snAt suúmiq together with any-claim of privilege' a schedule of the

iæir, ritñn"í¿ *rat states, indiviãually as to eaôh such irem: the numbered inquiry to

wlicn eactr item responds and the typå, titte, specific subject matter and date of the item;

the names, addresses, positions, anáirganizations of all authors and recipients of the

ireI"-' ãna iftt .p"cific ground(s) for claiming that the item is privileged'

Method oJ Producing Documents' Each requested document' as defined herein'

shail be submitted in its entirety, even if only a poriion of that document is responsive to

an inquiry marle herein. This means that the document shall not be edited' cut' or

".p"ig"ã, ""¿ .ftall include all appendices' tables, or other attachments' and all other

docum-ents referred to in the document or attachments' All written materials necessa-ry to

understand any document responsive to these inquiries must also be submitted'

Identffication of Documents. For each document or statement submitted in

response to ttre inquiriås stated in the cover letter, indicate' by number' to which inquiry it

i. .ãtpÀt.i"" -a identify the person(s) from whose files the document was retrieved lfàny ao"o-"nt i, not datåd, søìe the àate on which it was prepared lf any document does

noí identify its author(s) or recipient(s), state, if known, the nameþ) of the author(s) or

r*ipi".tlri iou -ortia"ntify with reasonable specifrcity all documents provided in

response to these inquiries.

Documents No Longer Available. If a document responsive to any inquiry made

herein existed but is no longer available, or if you are unable for any [eason to produce a

ãã"u*"nr.".ponsive to any inquiry, identify each such document by author' recipient'

ã"r", ii,r", anå specifrc ,ubj""t àuti"., and explain fully why the document is no longer

available or why you are otherwise unable to produce it'

Sand¡a M. DePriestFebruary 26, 2010Page 8 of 9

Retention of Original Documenrs' With respect only to documents responsive to

the specific inqui.i"s -ãde h".ein und any other documents^ relevant to those inquiries'

you åre air""tå to retain the originals of-thosedocuments for twelve (12) months from

th" dut" of thi, 1"tter unless (a) yiu are directed or informed by the Enforcement Bureau

in writing to retain such documånts for some shorter or longer period of time.or (b) the

Enforcerient Bureau or the Commission releases an item on the subject of this - .

investigation, itcluding, but not limited to, a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,

ã. * oî¿", dirpo.ing õf the issues in the investigation, in which case' you must retain all

such documenis until the matter has been finally concluded by payment of any monetary

p"nutty, .utirfu"tion of all conditions, expiration ofall possible appeals' conclusion of

ã"V "å'fi*,f""

action brought by the Uniied States Depafment of Justice or execution and

iÃpt"-"tttution of a find ãettlement with the Commission or the Enforcement Bureau'

Contínuing Nature of Inquiries. The specifrc inquiries made herein are continuing

in nature. You arã required to pi'oduce in the future any and all documents and

informationthatarcresponsivetotheinquiriesmadehereinbutnotinitiallyproducedatthe time, date and place specified herein. In this regard, you must supplement your

responses (a) if you learn that, in some material respect, the documents and information

initìany aiìciosóa were incomplete or inconect o¡ (b) if addirionat responsive documents

or infoimation a¡e acquired by or become known to you after the initial production' The

requirement to update the record will continue for twelve (12) months from the date of

tt i" t"tt", unt"r. (a) you are directed or informed by the Enforcement Bureau in writing

iirat your obligation io update the record will continue for sor'ne shorter or longer period

of tiåe or (b) the Enforcãment Bureau or the Commission releases an item on the subject

of tnis invesíigation, including, but not limited to, a Notice of Apparent Liability.for

Forfeiture or a'n order disposiÁg of the issues in the investigation, in which case the

obligation to update the record will continue until the reiease of such item'

Def,initions

For purposes of this letter, the following definitions apply:

"Any"shallbeconstruedtoincludetheword"all,"andtheword"all"shailbeconstrued to include the word "any." Additionally, the word "or" shall be construed to

include the word "and," and the word "and" shall be construed to include the word "or'"

Theword..each''shallbeconst¡uedtoincludetheword..every,,'andtheword.,every''shall be constmed to include the word "each."

"Document"shallmeanthecompleteoriginaì(orinlieuthereof'exactcopiesofthe original) and any non-identical copy (whether different from the original because of

notatio;s on the copy or otherwise), rãgardless of origin or location' of any taped'

¡ecorded, transcribåá, written, typed, printed' filmed, punched, computer-stored' or

grâphic matter of every type anà description, however and by whomever prepared'

produced, disseminated, or made'

Sandra M. DePriestFebruary 26, 2010Page 9 of 9

..DonaldDePriestLoIResponse''shallmeanthelettgrtoJefffeyTobias,Esq.'

Attorney-Advisor, Mobility Divisiãn, Wireless Telecomm¡nications Bureau' from

Dennis C. Brown, Esq', counsel for Wireless Properties of Vhginia' Inc'' dated

l"fi"ãU".eO, 20b9, räponding to the letter from Jeffrey Tobias' Esq'' Attorney-

Ái"i*t, tr'tobitity nivtion, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau' to Dennis C' Brown'

grq., -on."f fo.-Vy'ireless Properties of Virginia, Inc" dated August 18' 2009' relating to

tt "torn-is.ion's

investigation of MaritimJ s non-disclosure of ownership information

in it. uppti"ution to particþate in FCC Auction No' 6l and in subsequent filings with the

Commission.

"Identify," when used with reference to a person or persons' shall mean to state

his/her full legal name, job title (if any), cunent business address' and business phone

number. If business address uoùo, t"l"phon" number are not available' state the person's

home address and./or telephone number'

"Identify," when used with reference to a document' shall mean to state the date'

author, addressáe, type of document (e'8 , the types of document' as described above)' a

uri"f ã"t*iption åf-tire subject mauei, iis present or last known location' and its

custodian.

"Identify," when used with reference to an entity other than a person' shali mean

to state its nam;, culÏett or last known business address' and current or last known

business telePhone number.

"Ma¡itime LOI Response" shall mean the letter to Jeffrey Tobias' Esq'' Attorney-

Advisor, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau' fiom Dennis C'

nÀ*n, btq., counsel for Maritime Communications/Land Mobile' LLC' dated

õ"pt".u"t ä'0, 2009, responding to the letter from Jeffrey Tobias' Esq'' Attorney-

ÿïi.*, trtoultity oivision, Wäeless Telecommunications Bu¡eau' to Dennis C' Brown'

Èîq., -""t"f f".'Maritime Communications/Land Mobile' LLC' dated August i8' 2009'

r"täting to tt "

Commission's investigation of Ma¡ltime'¡ non-disciosure of ownership

informiion in its application to participate in FCC Auction No 61 and in subsequent

filings with the Commission.

"Maritime" shall mean Ma¡itime Communications/t-and Mobile' LLC and any

predecessor-in-interest, affiliate, palent company, wholly or partially owned subsidiary'

ãther affiliated company or busin-ess, and all owners, including but not limited to'

futtn".s o, p.in"iputr, una all members, directors, officers' employees' or agents'

inctuding "ån.rltãnm

and any other persons working for or on behalf of the foregoing at

any time during the period covered by this letter'

EXHIBIT 6

Michelle Ellison, ClfefË forcerüent Bureau

Federal Communications Commissiou

445 12th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20554

Re: Request for Confidential Treatme¡rt' Pursuâot to

Section O'45S of the Comrnission's Rules' of portions

Sa¡dra DePriest's Response to Lener of Inquiry and

AIt Exhibits to that Response

ResPonse to Letter of Inquiry

File No' EB-09'IH-i751

Dear Chief Ëllison:

Sandra M. DePriest and Maritime Communications/Lard Mobile' LLC (collectively'

MCLM) resPectfully request confrdeÑial treatment' pursuãnt to 47 C'F'R' Ê0'459 of the

ö;""tilri"ir Rutes forthe third paragraph at page 5 of MCLM's ResPonse to the .

Enforcement Bureau's le$er oti.ig.ti"*y Zol ZbrO, which begins "Mr' DePriest is.^

Chairman...'"MCLMofro"q*tttconf,dentialtreaunentforExhibitslthrough13'tîî"äùî.u ,_up*t-¡" rvrcur¡], R.rponr. to the Enforcemeûr Bufeau's l6ner dated February

26,20L0. MCLM requests confidentiai t¡eatneût of the Exhibits in their entirety'

Tlrethirdparagraplratpage5ofMCLM'sResponseiueludesstrategicaltysensitivecommercial clata MCI-Vf *nicniòuf¿ not customarily release to the public' The Exhibits merit

confidential treatrnent ¡.*** tft-VäJt"" 't'*tgi*ity sensitive matters' hcludírg specific

commercial and financial informaíion. MCLM woutd not customarily release thìs rype of

-""-lË"" *f*taAon to the public âÍd believes that exposure of the specifìc business

;t*g;ilts ; its fi¡anciai inió*ution is unwarrante<l' such release could result in

r-Uîr":"6¿ competitive harm by placing MCJ M- ar a disadvantaoe vis-a-vis other

teleconrmutricatioo, ***i." práuiaürîpecifically a-ud againsr th-e private mobile radio service

indusny in general. In short, ,ftt Bittiuio "oottio

tttt typt of commercial and financial

information "which would curiot*ify be guarded.from competitors"r and lherefore should not

be made routineiy available foffiJ,ioo.- fftut. is no- ressonably segfegable informatiou

which could be released witlout competitive halm to MULM'

I See, 47 C.F.R $0457(d)(2), which provides that "if it shown in the requcst that the materiâls

cont¿in trade secrets o¡ commer;íiínn-"i*i ot ttcttnical clata.which would customarily be guarded

t"* ""*p"it"", tire materials wili not be made routinely available for inspeotion' ' ' .''

MCLM has continuoûsly affordeal the infbrmation contained in tlte Exxibits highly

confïdential tfeatment ând hâs, until now, restricted distribution to pasonnel wíthin MCLM ¡¡d

to legal counsel for MCLM, These precautions emphæize MCLM's intent that the contents of

the Exhibits not be released to third paniæ.

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),

Ttrank you for your âttention to this matter.

MARITIME COMMIJNICATIONS/LAND MOBILE, LLC

jz

/:-,t ,- - ,,!---{'¿ø/Ú/-Y

Dennis C. Brown' Counscl to MCLM8124 Cooke Court, Suite 201

Manassas, Virginia 20 109-7406

703t365-9437

Dated; Ma¡ch 29, 2010

DENTüs C. BnowlrATTORNEY ¡TT L.{W

8124 CooKE CoURT, SurE 201

MANASSAS, VIRGTMA 20LM-7 4n6

PHoNÉ 703/3 65-0437

D.Ç.BROWN@ÁTT.NET

FN( 703/365-9456NoT AIMN-TED N VRCINIÂ

March 29, 2009

Mar lene H, Ðortch, SecretarY

Federal Communications Commission

445 12tl St¡eet. SW

Washirgtor, DC20554

Attention: Chief, Enforcement Bureau

Re: ResPonse to Letter of [rquirYFile No, EB-091H-1751

Dear Secretâty DoÍch:

I represent the radio system interests of Sandra M' DeÈiest â¡d of Maritime

Comrnunicätions/Lanct Mobile, LLC (collectively, Mrs' DePriest) before the Federal -

communications commission. on behalf of Mrs. DePriest, I am filing herewith her Respolse

to tlrc Enforcôment Bureau's letter of inquiry dated Febfuary 26,2009 in FiIe No' EB-O9-IH-

1751.

Pleâse direct any questioûs concernilg this fili4 to me' Thank you for your attention

to this matter,

Very truly yours,

The Reverend Sandra DePriest510 Seventh Street North

Columbus, Mississippi662-328-2017; 652-574-1972 (cell); g{gpgc)¡glcsu

March 29,2010

Msdene H. Dortob. SecretarY

Federal Communications Commissìon445 12ú Steet, S.W.Room TIV-4325Washingon, D.C.20554

Attention: Briar J, Cartet, lnvestigations and Hearing Division,Enforoement Bureau, Room 4-C330

Re: Âpplications of Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLCfor Automated Mæitime Teleconmunications System Licenses

and to Partioipate in FCC Äuction No. 6lFilcNo.: Eþ09-IE-f751

þs¡ ffi. Carter,

This letter is in response to your follow-up letter of iuquiry seeking additional

i¡fonnation a¡rd documontatiOn r¡r'tth tegard to Maritime Communicatio¡s/l,and Mobile,

LLC ('Marítime') in support of your iavestigation of its compliance with Sections

1.2110,1,2112,1.17 and 1.65 of the Commission's Rúes, 47 C'F. R. Seo. 1'2110'

1.2112,1,17 and.l.65 in its application to participate in FCC Auotion No' 6l and insubsequeut filings with the Commission.

t. Identify all officers, directors, shøreholders, parnørs, and benaficial owners ofMaritime since January I , 2002 and provide the dates upon which such individwlssecured theìr respective positíow wìth Maritime.

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 ofparhership 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

ofDelaware is altached as Exhibit Z(iÍ),r Corrmunications Investments, Inc. has

continued as the Genetal Pa¡tuier of S/ÈÑV to the present date' I own I 00% of the

Common Stock of Communicatio¡s investments, inc' and have ftom the time the stock

*ä motf"""a to me by Don DePriest on Fobrutry 1 8, 2005 ' I bave also remained the

p*i¿.of S."r"rrry anå sole director of Comsrunications Invesùrlents, Inc, since l¡¡^ ,Depriest iesigned as President and Director ofwhat wæ a shell corporation since Iy9U'-

offTcerça¡dDircctors:AtalltimessincetheformationofMoritime,Ihave

""oriAurËå *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 titles',On

i*"*y o, ZOO6, f exec;ted Mirutos whish fie attached hereto as Exhibit I (viü)i in

wbi"ni g;e titi"s whioh I termed in ihe mjtrutés to be ,.as 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'

Jãbn Reardon was never authodzed to use the title ,.PresidenÇ' ¿¡d he has been

i*tooi"¿ nÀt to ¿o so in the futurc. I had no intent to dsssiys ths commission in these

"noì*u of

"tpfoy"e titles and I tust that the Commissiou wæ not deceived'

Maritimeshareholders,p¡rhersandbeneficialownerusinceJanuarylt2002:l'{"'iç*e o* ro'-ed on Fehruary 15, 2005. SiRIW hæ at all times been the Managilg

iri"Åuurìþv*iti"t". ¿ll of the msmbersltup interests in Maritime were owned by s/RJW

;;r*;hú;tJ., .ntil 2008' when 22 of 1,ö00 parmership rmits were issued to an

outside party.--*-ãñ oi,¡" p*u"ship shares of s/Iuw are owned by me. The General Partner of

sn-lu r,.p. ¡s commuruiatio¡s Invostnents, I-nc. aud, since February 18,2005,Ilave

ão,""¿iõ0"2" .f tnu stock ofComrnu¡icatious Invoshneflts, Ino' No htelests bave been

issued to lvfr. DeP¡iest Êom inoeption to date'

t A ÇorÞo¡ate version oftbat docuñc¡t, identicål in text, wss signed by me on February lE' 2005 aIld vas

nir¿-"ì'ut tnr C"rp"*" Ecords at ú;ii^e. The differcnce in these two docume nts is simply rhat the

àîî¡rääîi nrä *tlttn" n.to*tt" s."ttu.v of statç u'as kçpt vrith dre Legal file,T lho .o$9e o-f the.

âttorney, and onc wås a Co.potare copy t*ecuíed bV me' I had l9t scen the orighal filêd with the Secrelåry

of Staté and thc sttomey did not have ¡ coPy o[my origlnal rn nls.rue'

; ¡" àiscfose¡ i" ûre LOl, a" nn oversieht 'wc

negiecteá to show tbe cbange in Prcsident with the

Mississþpi Sccretary of Stste utrtil200E.3 Correcfiou: It has co*u to ¡1y uttlntion in tlç dehiled rÊviÊw ofthe mirrutes ofthe meetings of Msritime

that I ,'eed to co'ect a srrrement maJe in my €a ier LoI fesponses. In reviewing the minut€s, I3ee that

Ëü;I"d,il*J indce¿ aut¡o¡ize,l io sign as Treaswr in üre Januarv 6, 200ó minut'es,oJMålt-l{r'Þ .

authorizing ber to si$ *s 'f'reæur"t, pxñUit"t(viii) her¿to' as wcll as in the miuutes of Ma¡itime ofMarch

iO, zOOS ñ th. optoiog of+bank accounl Exhibit 1(x) hereto'

F¡om time to time over thê lâst five years' warratrts to pluchase units of the 1 '000

units of Maritime f,ou" U.'" er*ttî, *otiot*í¡"n ¡*ue t*pit"d' A' litt of tho warrants is

attached as Exhib itl ' We request conJìitenttal treatment of this information'

John Reædon's mo¿in"¿ åmpf'ívÀ*t agreemeut dated Mey 28' 2008'^and

^ftr.ü ; il*¡ibit e Oi, proni¿L-ioiinlr' Reaidon to ¡eceive a 1 0% share of the

Company in lieu of ot¡., ,o*p"Ëoüoi tp"t tt*i""ti* of his-employment other than

i"r .l*ã. g" tt"l he could be considered a beneficial owner of the Company'

2. Provide a copy of all corporare doctments of Matitimø' -íncludin1

but not limìted lo'

any drticles, bylaws, operating;8'";;;;i;'-;"á ^ìnutes ofall meetìngs held during the

relernnt period.

The Co¡porate organization Documents' Minutes and operating agreoments are

pr."iOåä * Èittitit 1 (i--x), Exhibit 2 (i-vi) and Éxhibit 3'

j. Identìfy John Reardon and desrribefuIty hß relationship to Mafitima

As set forth in the aftached Declaration of Dave þ1ùq91e' attached as Exhibit 4'

from 2000 to 200s, rohn nea¡dlìîäFi*iJt* '"a 999-of Mobex Communications'

Inc. and its subsidiary vr"¡.* Ñ"t*Jt Sã*i"tt' rrc C'tt'tobe-t'')' a company whose

assets we¡e acquire¿ ty ¡,r"tun" ät ij*"ttu"iio' zoòs j A ti*t otthe a"sets of Mobex

acouitcd by Maritime i, '"t roäl i"ï-tãs*i Putciase egreeruunt ettered into in May'

20rj5. aod is âttaon"¿ æ S*hiUit S.}f,; ii"ï*. **¡et-""t to Maritime was approved by

;;JËbË il N;#;', æos' l'"iJt*" ä"*a tn"ii""y¡3n on Deoember 30' 2005'

John Reardon was r.,ir.¿ ",

nn äpÏoy.* ;l;r"tir I , 2006, a few days after the Mobex

closing on Dccember ¡O' ZOOs' Ai uå 6*s \'¿as Johfl pefl¡dolr simultancousiy an

emolovee of Mobex an¿ lr¿"'iiimu'õn i**ty e ' f

"*"",ut"d minutes authoÍizing him to

ï#"å"äËä:Ëi;"uy * ,r"*"o.rJ,n;*",*ärÉr of Maritime and he has done so sincc

tlattime. Ä copy otlis "*pråfr'äiäT"ä*"'ia"tt¿ septenber 18' 2006' and amended

on May 28, 2008 i* uua"u"¿ #Ëöäia -øl

æ çl' C"'¡¿"rltidl tredtment is requested

for salary and oItte, ,o^n""åíî" ry1"3À* lt;:l I :ly*"Ider and is paid a base

salary plus a commssroo oo 'J"s

of Maritime above a certain level' As an employee' he

rtceives ¿ salary, heuru'u"""ä*", äJüË oo"i t*pr"yees' is eligible to participate in the

401 ft) Progam.

4. tpecily the date that John Reardon bøca¡ne an offrcer of Maritíme and specify all títles

antlpositiont held W hí*' P;;;;e-; "ipv iÍat ¿o**ents authüizinThîs dppoínted

poritiÕns'

While I have not considered Job¡ Re¿rdon to be a corporate officer of Maritime'

but an emplovee itth" t"'"*ïi;ä;;tJvrãue't¡ uut oslled a "CEo"'he becams the

desimated CEo ot :*u"v ã'äoiã'bîitturt r<"ttO t a oopy of tho minutes of a meeting

";:ä'i;ih;"r;;i'î"î¿i'¡s*it*s tittes for per'sons.who have ioíned MCLM as

employees upon co'"'*'onffiiui'naíe of atl of thu assets of Moher Netwotk

Servìces, Inc- rn"" "^pøyä'' ii i"tig'*'í¿ ^

iuthorizer) signers on behalf of

t

""- ""*-t ttf-"-* -* to tlte FCC dated January 29' 2007 seüing fo¡th these same facts'

MCLM." A, copy of his employment conü:âct dated September 18, 2006' and amended on

;;;;;, idg3-,'it ;'"i"."¿ L É*i'iilit e(al and(b)' we'røquest confidential neatmenr of

thesë doëuments,

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 applìcatiü to partìcìpate in Auction No'-61.(FCC Forn J!Ð ":':.-rîiiiîu"n¡tngt *itnn" co*^íition' hxplaìnfuIlvwttv Maritine dídnot ìdentifv John

Reailon as its Chìef fxecznve ficet tn its appiicanon to paftícíPdte in ¡tuction No' 6 I-irCC

for* 175) and ìn subseq,ånt ¡ttngl *itìt the Commissîon' including but not

';r;;td;;," ú;ítr^t;t oj,moii* ¡å' einmated Maritime Telecommunications ü¡stem

Iìcenses (FCC Form 601)-

John Reardon has never been an officer of Ms¡itime' Ma¡itime did not include Joht

n"ur¿on æ CSO for cach ofthe following requested circumst¡nces for the reasons set

forth:a. Regarding perticipation in Auction 61 (FCÇ Form l?5)' John Reardo'n^was af

aU tim;;;îbye¿*ù r,¡o¡ò* ¿*Ue 2005' The date of the Auction was Àugus! 2005' -

the Asset Pu¡ohase Rgr"*."ot ** iot approved by ihe FCC until Novembcr' 2005' and

the Asset Purohæe Agrcement was not ciosed r¡ntil December 30' 2005' and John

nì*àït ** ""t

tmpìoyed bv the Compalylntil January' 2006' Therefore it was not

necessary to include John Reardon in this filing'b. Maritime's Àpp["tt¡il rot ¿tUtS iicenses {f'CC-Form 601)' Maritime's -

au"tiorriqo-åi ri"*uïppli*tjoo'icc Fite No' 00023033,55 wæ filed on september 7'

2005, John Rcardoo *æ n"v"' uo áfficer of Maritime' and did not even be come a¡r

employee of Maritime until January' 2006'

6. Identífy all entitìes, ìf any, dttributable ro John Reardon as, an oftcer of Maritíme

;;fi*'íí"-;;irrd; i"*tlon, 2003, and 2004' Províde re.lepont documentation to

demonstrøte the aggtega" c,,il iü;"i'i of each -such

cntitv' including but not límited

î1,' ,orn indty't irl¿"rat tæ ìeirns ¡or theïdlendør vears 2002' 2003' and 2004'

Thsre was no entity attibutable to John Reardon because he was uot empþed by

Ir¿*itirru *úi ¡-t-y' iooO' Ñ"üi"t Marit'rme nor John Reârdon has tho suthonty to

disolose Mobex corpo*t* tt* ttt*¿" ¡no Joln Rea¡don left Mobex' it is a matter of

FCC Reoord that Dutu ft*¿-ãi" tutt"a À the Chief Admrmstrative Offioer of Mobex'

il;tìip*rq,, Ldt pr"¿-ot" tøu nlings to the FCC' including for ihe Universal

ö'#;ffift, *¿ irm cor;ssion íeeds this informarion it woulil need to be

obtained through him'""* ft¿øti-ã ¿i¿ uot t¡ke ove¡ the cotporate struttue of Mobex' No tax retums were

¡1"¿ ti t',rLiti-u for ptob"r Vtu¡itime fi1ed no document wilh any state governmr'nJ ot

lä""1i'.iî-"î"* u""ï*ã vúï,. ** ""rtl,er

a subsidiary nor a sister enrirv of Maritime'

and had no autloritY to do so'

Mr. Rea¡don does not exercise conhol ove¡ Maritime because he is not a

sha¡eholder and do", oo, **.ä- omoiul offi""t, ttoolholder or Board Member' nor is

il*utlt"i".Jto *rt" major corporate or fi¡ancial decisions of Maritime'

7. Identify Donald Ðelriest and desÜihe fuIIy hìs relationshìp to Matitime'

Donald Dehiest is my husbân'l of over 26 ycars' His ownership md role in.

lutarit¡rn"ã"* ,trt"¿ i" p¡or f,Oi gnswer 8a' ând as rciterated aud supplemented hete'

il;^ilttt-stil;ot*iur"up iott*tt i¡r Maritìme' Norhas he sewed æ an officer or

¿ir""r. oivr*iti-". rn sxhibiti(vil, datêit February 24, 2005, I designated him to sewe

* "ir*gr¿rigr* on bunaE of ùa¡itime, ¡s was stated in 8c of the prior LoI a¡swer,

ftlr. p"p¡Ë"t ** the prior owner of a shell corporatioo named Commuuications

ionurun"oe, h". tl" .oip"¿ æ nesident andbirector and,tansfened the stock of

Cî.*ì*i.ãtioo* Ioverd€ots, I"o. to me on Febnrary 18, 2005-. (Soe Letter of

ñ;;iF ld;¡t"tald R DePriest as Presideut and Director of commuuications

ililitu ;*, d.;attached as Exhiuit 2(iv))' Effective February. 18' 2005'

C""r-.rf."itf"* Investment., Ia"- is antl ilas been the General Parbrer of SIRIW

Parhcrship, which is the Managing Mcmber of Maritime'

Mr. DoPriest is an authorized manager and authorized siguer of documents on my

b"h"lff; Mt idrne, He is not à on+iæ ñanager' nor does -he

work in tho office or

ää;i;;tct'l*ìi." to pra¡it¡-u, tuttlat rãle is handledtv John Rea¡don' He has

il;-ü-t'to fi*. *ri"t"¿ ¡o tfu otiotiotion of financing and conhacts oD behãlf of

Ma¡itime, æ eaum.*æ¿ nur.oiu, tTint t"tt of o* ubility to tuton'tt'"t any and all

conhacts {hat he mignt nouu ,ipä, anä they are set forth-hereafter in Question 8(b)' He

has atso guaranteed loa¡s made to Mantime'

8. In the Donald DePríest LoI Resnorue (at Pase 10)'r\:i:ff#;H: ;Xi;ir":lithings, he wa authorhed to efil

followÍng inþrmation:

(a) AII docvments gdntE Donatd DeP ert duthorit! to e ter into contrdcts

on behalf of Maritime'

(a) Documeüls grånting Donald DePriest authoríty to euter into contacts on behalf of

Maritime, wor:ld inolude:

i. The above mentioned Exlibit l(vi)' Corporate.min-utes dated February 24'

2005 in which I äppol"t*ã noouì¿ Íjupriest and Ron Fancher as Managers

of Maritime'

2. The Limitett Liability Company Agreement' dated February 15' 2005' and

attached as Exhibit i 1ü¡, whicn states in paragraph 6:

'ÉI lrqrqr(g ú qIoJ lãs sl ãu+FBI/ilJ9 JIBqeq uo olul

p êluâ lsâl¡däd plËÛoo lÉq¡ lcB4u;þìäi*oirá"t"p a"r¡¡umu y (q)

',u!lr¿tl\ lo Ãryãq uo

o ! patàtuã $au¿ëo p\Ðuod 1D4l tto't1uot qtna fo uopducsap egnanu y( q)

.,',{ueduoc

6¡¡rqr¡¡ peltult PaurroJ :q o-l âql Jo ¡â5!s9

ilâqo ¡o r:--qy:1-[ Ëutãeuu¡'r1 e se

rdi i.ä iea"*;, e se rÉ¡e Á1uo iem pue ,Árædmoc ,$¡llqü-Il ?ãllu¡Ii päEroJ

âq 01 oq¡ u! Í+roqrnE .roq1o ;o a¡erod:òc ou êlBq 1¡rrr ã{ lnq 'uoBcËsuÉ¡} ãrI¡

î ""gä"i cir àt¡qonl pusr6trog'öI'n*.lroc âEITF*IAI Jo uoJtEII¡roJ stfi

",ï J#-ö.q u,tiå'i'n*p oep o1, e qa"sn"¿ *lTT.:-g.1ry*4'"+to"*"" "ìì iiir liqr.q*g t* ptqtqp ;ii¡¡¿'ç rnn'rq"¡ uo lsãIrile(I-'u pptot

p* rs"lrdrq;tptug *n 1"q pæn*its¿¡r luauoet8v Jo ÚnpusrowâI I v '9

'uospnH ?pülâg pw ãlrl

ç¡rr îuo¡e lunocct eq¡ uo sa¡ro1euËrs poreú¡sep- aarqr¡o euo s¡ "'raËuue¡rt¡

'lsâl¡däo '¿ p1noo6,, p* tooo"* þq t io -a"¡o"do

oq¡ -*Foqne

'(x) 1

rqffiäi.ñ"ir"'eîói'or qc¡ey\i uo ourlluey\l¡o lu4eo¡41 t'¡o sa¡ntr¡yq'ç

,; JTI a¡t lo ltDILaq uo uoltcD pa4ro4fin ÍuP alw ínu Jþqwolì'l

pgtiìí"ìi íq' Ì;"í *t'ilni auony .¡¡77 âqt fo ssaulsnq -â.41

tl'ÌtptÌor ol

*ouri ,iàir¿ iup ¡prsatuu n' atlo! ot tl!'totfin¿ a¡øtl þqs puÐ 'J77 Ð41

ahnuou¡nqs'nq*oyy1a,¡'|iu'¡jffiouvw"'olawaen¿:qde'Éendã"r"r"ih å,¡ ui ffi int

"á"nã-*t t"tguäpl âql sq'luoo 1I {^ÐI ilqFt*s

"äp"q**äq Ë Tooz 'çt '{tn*qn¿ uo paooãxo oslu sB'$

"'ärsÀ\Biãolo

"rnrs r*aur'o3 ¡rlnqenielmn c11 'âIrqonl Pue'fËulFe4ununüoJ

';;-Ïörö;;å;ãåili;'ù"rjio¡ãqrns¡'ri-o¡Bu¡g,,er'rsuedxeeromv'þ

,,'lundwot

aqt lo !¡nqaq uo uoltco pazl'toqvo lun zloyrou øy-ua1l.-\n¡1u¡ ø4t lq

pn grå,rllni'rio,tuy 'ssaulsnq s¡fuodwo7 øqt øBouow llaqs ra.qwaw Plllul' ,rl ¿,,

'þrryls sl ll ,,1ueruoãuuelr,i,, 'Pe¡lpue qduBered eq q 'GD t ilqTqxs

- -'ri üq* p* 'ç00u'çI ,ttooiq'Jp"¡"p 1ot*tä€v ãqrerãdo etlt q '[

*'ssàulsnq PnPuoc o1 1s1a'-ínw

rttndwo3 aqt qxltlt ut uo¡cl4sln¡ n u1 ssøu¡snq op o¡ Íf1¡nnÞ ol f,undwoS

aut 'tol l-rossatau 6üiå''¡i a'o*ùow" topuo svaupuauu [un puø)'

,rro$,tÏr'l tí'q; l;ilï'"¡io"u't, rt'n*øtt)tsat ro/pu, suawpuawo tw puo)"-'

niá*ra ui¡1 ¡o ufilnutollo fin$luac ary a¡r! puy tãl.W'atnl'xÐ o1'tÐY

Ðt4tþ huluþaw a41 ut'ltt^ í*q*';; 'w¿o'*'f iua

'-y P

.øuas ot øãPunw

- 'ií puo uotrrtl prr¡to4t* uo * punuSlsap tQanr4 s1 tsalr¿ao v plouoQ"

Swluq pue acuetrs¡xâ q ãqeq s¿ pâqFcsãP ãu4luByi[ 1zr$ sappua asoql ($'11

rþPaaqr a4! &u¡tnP lJ\ua 4tns.

qtoa lo senuarct ssoti alo*atÊln at al'll4suouap ot uolJtlua.wncop lun^alat ap!^o'ta

'(cu¡ '7g¿1to¡t¡ puo ''"u¡ 'r'y"ll'i'lioi-,a aoltbnd'oJlu,audo7a'taq utocpa¡'¡ ''cu¡

'otpn¿ a¡huntt¡ uÐp9oÐ .?q ''uoui"ioo*'fox ÐutsultlJ '':u! -'s1tortfltluttwuto)

o^i)g'

tyeuou) sanuarct zu1*q ,, p,qltiiii ui*il¡ffi ¡a'l pû:-!!!.2 p* '8002 '2002 sna'l

npuapc aqt hu¡tnp uruur,l,u '1'Bu1'þ

* påq';t;p iwpl'toy¡ to'|t s"ltnua êsoqt ol sv (q)

'olâ¡Ðfl

pãqcqtÉ âre sûm]ãJ lÈe1 âIqBIJB,IE êr$ pEB (¿) 6 {qlqxg q q¡:oJ lâs ê¡B sâ ¡êÀãl

ou ãq,req se asuoo'oU lof tlîã På'q.;'+ nätifte*y¡ r"ç s'an1¡ua osoq¡ (e)'i 1

'þ002 puÐ 't002 '2002 s.ûâK npua1n a4¡ to!-su'wat m! Tnnpa¿ s'tlgua 4cna

tot patlwlt tou flq 3u1pn7cu1 't'o'Oz puo 'çgç7 '1g¡t smo'( tnpua1nc atll Sulmp ¡filua 4cns'

rhbã fo sanua^nt sro,e qoti"'Éao all"it'i*o*up ol uolto$awn?op lwttaq't ?Pl,.ora

'""'iíäíi*",î'aî,*;i,;;";;;"';;iinii!$ns'eolîpTD'800¿'200r-::11:,tppualv à4! fuu!,mp a?uã!s!*

"f äatq'* pi'qlt"iøp u4¡ln|n¡ tot salulue esotlt ol sv P)

'uolssluttt)oJ Ðtlt t#rø s3u1$ ganbasgns ut

püþ G ¿ I uto¿ XX¿) I g 'oN uolznl u! andlcltnd ot uolln4Èdn sï 't!

àsollslp lou plP l!

pqr sanuua lo tsl1, poplno'o 'i11¿nw

'þ-t sagna tfl asuodsay ¡67 øulrlta4{ aw tq 'l I

'(g t - t )g s+rqF a se palãqEl puÉ pãqÕÌ$E ârs sã]oÛ 1cl

p:1To¡ las s¡ salou peeluurtnB

as¡¡o uogducsap "npeuoo

Ç '9'-1$¡$ topiâ"b :1 ï:lsoe.€qì

14 qroJ tes s" âqiI¡BI^[

J.;åilI ÑiJ.H üanotql ní" ài"^oäo"s-t' r"ç p"tlâs l'ql â^ãlãq I'râ^âiYroH

'âE4u€l l ,q pãÀ\o sqooä"r*t"oB ol 'çlgoqlnB IBqrã^ /çuI puq $ãlrdâCl 'rhl

'awy1m¡t¿ lo fintlaq uo $a!'t¿ÐQ pqttog tq paaya.lltl8-

ø1ou qcoa lo rØoc o * ''u 'o'ìopd¡i'í'p

;*:::: : .'p¡ttot¿ 'øw171ny¿

'þ l1n'¡aq

uo søtou paatuolnrs ttnti¿iø pwoa fuaitty* py11þwàat ) &ry\fln Pqú^-!!

ø,t"irîra.; :;;i,,row ,tq pli^i íoiou påiunt1,a- rytqagltþ'too

'Fanbal s, tsÐtttÐQ

Drpuo¡ tìr '¡þqt Parbítlpu! u*g¡ti¡n¡ (¿ a$oiI w) anodsa¿ ¡67 ÐruPUnn aLF uI '0¡'

'ua,t¡B ueaq seq aq uols¿Foqlflu

sô$lÍrr ãq¡ uF{ll,\t IIEJ pltroÀr eEop sutt flig-"qg^"q âr¡q'fra'ro leq¡ ere¡¡eq

¡ '9-1 (u)g uonsonu ol råÀh'" "'n

uiquù pt to n* to'I roipue€rtr$I¡Bl^l *J 1T:1:

rre sB âÀrãs ot rsâF¿og 'r¡41 twzuoq¡ne nuåumcop eq¡-1e¡g ÛottsânÒ ol s¡oÄ\sue â^oqe";ct

"t r{";#; ,i i"aì" iù *i #* o¡ lsâFifâc PlÉuog ro¡

'(liroipna uarut ar¿

'¡sø!J¿AQ

DtpuDS rÙ/puÞ Ðwll1n¡t¡ to! 7ua3n un sv ¡uawwloddn qts,ay¿aÜ plþuoT gu1z1toqlnt

stuÐunxop D aploor¿ 1ru1'¿''g o'punl lotvuo ãnt!l!t!!-tol ua&n aø *ø PaþD lra!¿aÛ

pl,uoe @att!,¿.*,to ToqrinÏrwi4"iayàqvo toqnlg 't¡¡ntu1nldr¿ 't'tossatw w '1a4-

ts¡sso ot pun ¡uøhn ,,1rugr¿rq otw;S rp "oi ol P'"t*qtnl sþ tsàu¿au plauot 'sUu!41

,ratlto B ôurD lall palntlwt 'io1¡tn¡'¡

'(¿ o&nd w) asuoclsay ¡67 awltuow aw ul '6

rsvenues aÊ set forür in Exhibit 9(b) hercto'

12. Iilentify MCT CorP.

I havo no first hand howledge of MCT Coqp. My husbeud, Dorald DePriest' was

iouoV.ä io'its fonoadon in 2000,-âid served on íts Board and æ Non-Executive

Chairman ofthe Boa¡d. I nave nàt s"en any ofthe corporate records' a¡d I have no

oersonal loowledge of the corporat" ttto"t*t' I m*t defer to Adc Holsinser's

üïffiöffiitr, iì), atråiä ;hõ;läf*,i* oi p*¿¿ ¡ePriest ûttached as Exrribit

I 1 , as to all pe*inent d"tCI, * tä-iü ü"ooo" u"¿ ownuship' I know that it was sold to

Teiiasonera in approximatery 2ó"0îi io i* toot" Ot exaät percentage of ovmership of

MCT CorP' held bY Donald DePriest'

13. Our records indicate thdt Donald De1riest semed as Chainnan of MCT Corp' Our

)í"irit'n*ä* ¡|"¿tratu tn"t u;ilii aí¿ nôt disclose Mcr cotp' ìn its awlîcdtion to

iäí'i,íär"ií niîi"; N"i l dc:c ¡T m t z ss and tn subæquent fitìngs with the

Commission, ìncluding Maritim;; i1i Ã;tp;^"' Explainfullv wttv Màtitime díd no|

disclose MCT Corp. i, itr opptioioiii'i'Ãliip't' in ¡ui79nai,o 61 (FCC Forn I7s)

and ìn subsequentfrt¡nys wirn ile'Colrrmxsion'' Íncluding Matitíme's LOI Response'

Maritìme did not disclose MCT Corp' in its applicatiou to participate in Auction

No. 61 (FCC Form f ZÐ an¿ in-its Jrit*ltit"t nlineï*itr tho FCC for tle foliowtng

re8sol¡s:^'îo"Uon no. g1 and in subsequcnú filings with the Co"rmissionr

M¿ritime relíed ot ""*tå t" p*parË au<l file thc application and it did not

receive anv i¡stuction* t"g*ffiti"iiå¿i"g ""tlit "tlcuiations or any i¡fomration

ï:ffi Ë'd;il;;"JJb'-Ë;;ãI*nitiàìoi'-*tl: ::Th"io:ry"tiT'-Yi,9:^"Ëoäizí åo oot uxplicitly ,"feionce nfe 1.2110(c )(s)(iiixA) or contain *¡ry wâm'ogs or

i¡stuctions about ,pot.,r "tniutäãl

¡" tt rufci uità-otlut entities with whioh Donald

;;PffiïJ;;;iurìo^nip' vl'iti*" was unaware of its need to supplv revenue

*o*u*1T; ,ot Response. Maritime deferred in its response to Donald DePriest in his

,urpo*ä äñoii"i J*tìit""t i"ro*ation than I did' I thought the responses wete û

sinele collective rerp"**, *à'L-i"'oi tl"v *tãnr-¿ *¿er.aiingie cover letter ftom our

atio-mev Dennis B**o. Ltu*¿-ioîi'*ä f ';'¡*ttpt * to the entities with which l am

involved, I defer to Nft' ÐtPti;tt'; ;;oit* io 'lu

ftn*t oftlie same date directçd to

him,', By this respo*", I inttnã"Jto iiørpo'utt by t"f"rcnce his lesponse into úy

¡esponse, and I thoognt ¡¡s '"spî*J

*-t"fti *"f"ai 1a¡scription of MCT' I apologize

ttrat this was not mor" "t.rrry-íäiJ

aoJi cetøily aid not intend to iElrore the request'

S* oä;ä;il of Donaid'R' DePriest attached as Exhibit 1 1'

14. Provîde relevant documentation to dømonsttete the (rgglegate Eross revønues of MCT

Corp. durinl the ,,t,nao' v"ä''ititii'iõ6i' ana zool' nchdng b"t not limìrcd rÔ' its

äírräî;;"r;;,*'s for rhi catendar vears 2t02' 2003 and 2004'

',lPmruruor rno rn ..'PrenrY

âcllsnf pus l¡Iopâârt -lIIBârq E ä^EH -1,,

)I'ly{ áql-pâPæ^Àt sB^[ I 18002 q 'sæa'{ g ¡

râ^o roJ pânulluo, *q l¡ pon 'rnq*\op qi¡!éÀõ¡1"g x¡Ïs-âlqjg gsllqü¡sâ ?adlsq ¡ 'cu1

"ä;*lñ;;il;qtrty äi'os rrdn*tå3 s"qsr¡ ry *e'no1âtllJo s¡ãpu110J âqlJo ãuo plm

,{reprcog alerodroC âtl} uru I 'sreâ'( I rõ¡ uopoìaao q uoaq seq qcrq*r uru:8or¿ 8uuoln¡

Iooqôs-räurr' s¿uvEtH âlï Jo sro]tâ4g ¡o pt"og ât{t ¡o u8ünsqc ãq} pue srâPünoJ 0q} J0

âuo uu I 'pâ]lnBss, ,ou pruopsánt oiãq i¡*otn"ø 'te"tou s'uq ¡elcs¡Bqc ,,qN '¡dd¡Ss¡ss't¡^1

,snqrnlo3 rI â¡ãq qtJnqC uo.Iss¡¡a á,t\Ircu ,(guroPro/À EJo rBcl^ se Stri^lâs '6661

n"o¡r îoìrrã'rão¡3 ln,ioåttag peulúpio uB pI¡B '6¿6I ãculs rug âql Jo ¡ãq*¡eut Pâsuá'll

E ltrB I 'UOISSIm.tro3 ãIIl PÉãlslt¡¡ Jo â',r-Iâcâp o] uo$uã]u! Áu uâsq Jâ^âu sEI{ {

'lqep FuoplppB Fluelsqns

pêrrncul â tq 'llnsãr B se'pue ãuIItFB¡tr1¡o suolFrado-pus-ti-t:11]-":*-"1:-tt"T"i

1n¡¡inro1" o1 e1qeufl ûââq ã^Bq e¡[ '8ÛpæmJ ]Bq]ftrlt4ø]qo.ul âltr ¡ullstssu rrt InJqlaq

uããq seq lsãlrdefl 'l¡r¡ 'rerr"¡ ^n¡1joìlels

eqt ur esec Êurpuedcq u1 pue lmoc ãu¡âJdns

Blr¡roJllpJ âql âroJ"q ¡t"i"rä o¡,r"p'o ul PrT c)c êql eJoJâq r¡loq suãÀeH rlârrslfi

*o,¡ .iol#iuî¡o ì,"ai a,T,u aql aupnp suous:edo r¡rerucu¡ ot sputg IBU'PPPE pêpâêu

ä^Br{ ð¡A 'qcns sE â râs ûlq,nojì"aitoiou 1ì"' e"'r uer¡¡ lue8e puu i:t-T:.1T,-,:T'::ollninii¿áq ppuo6 ro¡ erur:doiddeul oq ol cJc ârD /q Pâr'u.ãp sÌ llJI 'p"^I"^iT:tÏ

rlcuâJo sâlor äql pogr:u¡c pue sãu¡¡g:eiu¡SJo 'ftel-s¡res lno pue sprocêI pu? s{ooq mo dn

'prüslq¡il *oir it1$ 'ç¡e3 pooB ul st'u 1! '}ãäfo¡d slql ìoo¡râpm âllIlrreN uâtlll\

'sPl?puBls âsoql poPâãcxâ pttl tl âliãqãq los PIp puÌ '0¿'I¿l

ãJc [r urârqnrspr"p**å"¡J.qp*'torizl *tp:f -]jJ ÊI "t*T:d"::.:T:::

lfeurs e JoJ sp¡Bput4, .ut. pn*'.loã selil Ygs l'glJallãq uâìBtslÛ or rÐPÛn õull'râoo

seÀ\ âulllurl^tr ' l9 uorlcny o1 lopil sått'*inq ¡¡t*s 'to¡ sprupue¡s az¡s psure"ro3 339

"q¡ r"^ åt¡ uì áá*q" * ,n^ .t"þ,{puanddy 'ropuÉi lle,T}lr'r suor¡u1n8e¡ puu sap¡

cc¡ip qr,v, ,qciuoc oi au$Fel I Jo uoguâlq âql uããq seg pue sl 1l 'Fãurll IIB lv

' n¡ow s¡t¡l to uogt4o s a.t

pup uot4raplsuoc no o7 Tnid¡aq aq tow adanatt no! tlt -r¡1

uopnutotul puo11lppø t(ttn

upí-¿ ;iitrtürt Bqpæari ir¡ioi atuodsat u¡ pap¡toñ asldl'àL!,o lou lualxa aLfl o,L'ç'

'zl tlq$lxg q lllroJ lâs ãrc ù002 puB g00z'2002 srBâÁ ¡upuo¡" 8u¡lop 'a'o3

p¡a¡o rnniåiåit.olt¡ å¡n¡nisa" nql êPrtsuo.oâP ol uolrluâünÔop 1üÈ^Ðlãr âqJ

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 thaland 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.

Havens' paperwork blockade has hindercd additional use ofthe spechum.

Metoli¡k wants to use our specfoum for Positive Train contuol. That applicâtion ws.s

filed on Mæch 11, 2010. For the past 12 months, Big Rivers Eleotio Cooperative has

sought FCC authority to serve hundreds of thousa¡ds of oustomers with our spechum in

feJtucky. fhe list goes ou and on of customers who ar." waiting for the FCC to finally

rosolve riis litigatioi against Maritime brought by Havens, a.ud to âlso norv resolve This

inquiry involviis Ma¡itime. Character questions arc ai'ed.at promoting the delivcry ofsefocä to customers iu the public interesq Maritime is mee¡ng the public interest, and

would fi¡¡ther sorvo the public interest ifthis cloud on Ítc licenses and now its chexaator'

wotld be fimlly removed by the Conrmission.

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

s As the Commission has statcd,

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

decision-making of tri pasu ¡towãver, establishing a d¡chotomyletwee¡ "conducfl and "character"

i, not n.*r"".y:to "chiåvement

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

embodied in-the Çommunication$ Act mândates tiré type of'good vs bad/evit" aeagnent of "moral"

Àaracterwhich somedmes color€d past Commission delibe*tions. Focuslng on the chäract€r frai¡e

nai"t."ry ì'to opante the station " ai ABC suggests, seems-a proper move in the dlrection ofa

*ore r"låu"nt, i"us ualue-laden character inquiry,. . [FNZ6] The "better wat' to e,''åluât€ an

äppriont r foát." ""riability"

than ttre son oi inquiries conducted ln the Past is generally identified

tl'aormeìì"rr.¿¿rcssing -t¡e

issue as a narrowing of Commfssion concern to encompâss only

misconduct relevant to operatio ofbroâdcast stations. [FN27] ' Fcc 85-648

In tlle Matter of Pollcy Regarding Character Quâlifiõâtions In Broadcast Licenslng

Amendment of Rules Of Bioadcast Pmctice And Procedure Relating to Wfitten ResÞonses to

Cà**ìri¡oi l"q"ities and the Making of Misrepresenhdons to the Cornmission by Permiftees ând

ù""nr*r, Gen.'Docket No. 81-500, Docket No. 78'108, REPoRT, ORDERAND POLICY STATBMENT

Adopted: December 10, 1985; Released; Jânuary 14 1986'

l0

markêts to play m incrcasing role in Cetting spectrut inJo.use' li4CLM wæ the iìnt

comnarv to retâin Sp"ctrum Brite aiïurLorcr an¿ a¿visor' MCLM is aggressively

;öäiñpJ"t*Ji; tì;"-r"il, "tilitv

and energv industries'

Of the four initial geographical area AMTS iicensees (Maritirne' Havens' Paging

Svstems, I¡c., and Tonr Kurian)Jüa¡itìme is the entity aeployingspectrum to the most

Tiåî* in"ä"i"çr"* toauv,iotü-Ji*trv to end user.s like towboats and ta><i

ääi,anie*"t, *ãìdt""tlv tú;sh ;les aná leæes to tailroads' utilities' and energv

companies'

The FCC has st¿ted that when it comes to character atrd fitness to be ¿ licensee'

the b€st prodictor of n tu.e teha;äiit p*ip*itt"t-. te' Herq ttre FCC has the benefit

of seeins how Ma¡itime h* dtpi;;Jåe siecnrm since acquiring the auction license

äiä i,t"ä.uî'isJ0oe -l'í¿"ä+

mtiöc also has a long track record on which to

boso the experienr" oruotn *yï'i't*ã *¿ *" rttt uuciaitest for chæacter is how will

the licensee deploy trr* ,p."*'{"äa *iU ii te iu the public intuest? We' the DePríests'

have deploye<l sp..tn - io t¡" plt"rii #t,e,ii"t tht ftt iou¡ decades'6 First' as

broadcasters of radio t o"¿"*t1äiio'Jio iUu Soutt"*t"* IJniled States fur the 1970's'

Then, in the 1980's, as nascent "äiJ* i"¿*ty licensees'.1¡ the 1990's' we cngaged in

MMDS license rc-pttp"tittg, *iî"fptlt*utJ *hut it toa"y t¡u backbone of the Sprint

digitsldalâfletworlcInfhe2000's,webecameengagedi'"ma¡itimecommunicafionsi;iöff;iv;;; *rn r"rJu'å *¿Mæirel' inã continued our involvement in

MlvÐS licensing'

At Eo time in the pâst forty years have we' the DoPriests' been fourid to be lackbg

in character to be a licensee. ,i;1íhtäîk;;;d r;;;*Hcbthe commission can a¡d

iffiË;ü. ; il;;t the DePriests, will opemte going forward'

The FCC ownership affiliatiou rules in 4? CFR-1'2110 are not black a¡d white'

The rule's exampt"u tiru.reþäs poi"t o-ut i¡stances wherc f, person ffiay own less tÍan a

*4ffit| ;iJr""Ë u* ,cu ut at*åJin contol' or not in contol' bæed on circumstances

to be detennined on ^ "rrr-b;;;;;

br{ts. f"tying upou the ¿dvice of cou¡sel, Maritime

interptetcd theso sou.ieot¡ve nõä"udilut"" t*r"*i Åt* ttnuit" it to disclose owtrership of

É ?6. The Commtssion frrrther divided the dlsçlssion into consideration ofthe treaûnent to be

affordcd applisetions *uo'"necj;;;gjiiãnìees as arrerentiated from tlrc handling of ñllngs from

new applicanb, we so*g.ttto *lJå'itoi*i'''inftiiense*s' "Ú'" n"ul predictor of tuturt sÊrvice Is d1e

aÞÞlicant s pãst [bro"¿*,tl "*"iTü;"-itï;ittã*rtetrrer rn rot*¡ns our iudgments as to hÔw

suih a¡rplrcants migtrt pt'ro'* ii ti" üLì" oìîùt"nting concems should be tÍmtted to broadcast

misconducr such æ misr"p."..rlîänïiìãrt or.ãi¿or"to n" commissioí, deceÞËon or defråuding

of the broadøst pubti", "u"'"

orläcà't lå;iltties through ft-audulent or ãnticompetitlve

commercial pr¿ctices, tn¿ uior"tii'ni"Jr'frt 'äå^*"1*otit ¡tt orthe commission's rules and

¡oticies. Seç, FCC 85-ooe, r" *"îäïttîiP;icy {ei"roing ct'"r¿ctet QualificätioÚs ln Erôädcast

Licensing Arnendment of nor"s oi fiåiã"tt-ptátt¡tä o*¿ riocedure Relating to Written ResponsÊs to

commisston tnquiri.t "n¿

tfte MåËtngîùit"pt*"nationt-to-thecommission by Permittces and

Licensees, Ger Docket No' 81'så0,ä;il";:t+lú' neponr' oBptn ¿uD poLlcY STATEMENT

ffi ;i#il;;-Ñä,ìsss; n"r'ä""a' lanuäry 14' 1e86'

11

certain entitiss. When questioned about this, Maritimo has explained its reasous for its

beliefs.IfMaritime'sinterprctationofFCCrulestumsouttodifferfiomtheFCC'sview;;;; tñ".. basis, then Maritime, in good faitþ has misinterpreted the complex

rules of attibution in an auction bidding environment'

The Commission felt this way about the spousal athibuticn rule' and Matitime

,.p"i¿ p*t oltü" Uij"t"¿it, as the Cämmìssion reqlestcd' Maritime reitetates its

commituent to fully cooperate to assist the Commission in *ryq8 "^dtt"ryqTt"t¡ir io"t*t-."t.t, *¿ ,n* *-.ffi*m our willinguess to meet with the Commission and

other interested partios at any time to help resolve thæs rnattffs'

Siuaerely You¡s'*^e--m\The Rev' Sandra M' DePÌiest+

t2

Exhibit List for Maritime Communications/Laud Mobile' LLC

Exhibitl.CorporateDocumentsofMaritimeCorrurrunications/LandMobile, LLC:ExhÍbii 1(i): Certificate of Fonnation of Marìtime

Communications/Land Mobile, LLC' dated Feb' 15' 2005'

(ii)l Lirnited Linbility Company Ägreemeirt of

Maritime CorununicationsÃand Mobile' LLC

(iii): Operating Agreement of Meritime

Cormnunicaiions/La:nd Mobile' LLC dated Feb' 15' 2005

(iv): Singie-Membel Operating Anangement of

Maritirne Comlnunications/Land Mobile' LLC Limitçd -

Liabilþ Co*putty State ofDetaware' dated Feb' 15' 2005

lExecuted priår to determination thele would possibly be

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'

Cxlt fvfin"t*t otMeeting of Marithrre Communications/

Land Mobile, LLC dated January 9'2006'(*), ftlinutes ofMeeting of Maritime Communicationsi

Land Mobile, LLC, dated March l0' 2009'

Exhibit 2. (i) November 21, 2002 State of Del-a1are Certificate of Linited

Èartnership of SiRJW Partnership' L'P'

(ii) Febniáry 15,2OOS State of Delawarç Arnendinent to the

Certificate of Pármership qf S/RJW Partnership' L'P' filed

August 25, 2005.

(iiifFebluary 18, 2005 State of Dela¡'vare Arnendment to the

certificate oîLi*it d prrtnership of s/Riw in corporate f,rles.

(Sarne as Exhibit 5 of LOI Responso)

iin¡ Frb.,^ty 18' 2005 Letter from Donald R' DePriesf to

Corununications Investments, Inc., resigning as Prcsident and

Director of Cotnmunications lrlestments, Inc'(v) February 18, 2005 Resolution of the Boa¡d of Directors ofòommunications Investrnents, Inq' acknowleclging that the

Corporation has succeeded Medcorn DeveloPment Çorporation

as General Partrçr of S/RIW Partnership, L'P'(vi) August25,2005 Minutes of Meeting of Communications

ùwestments, Inc' authorizing loan agreement with Pinnacle

National Banlc.

Exhibit 3. Corporate docttments retrieved from Gary Geeslin March l6'2010.

Exhibit 4. Declar.ation of Dave Preclmore as to the Ernployment dates ofJohn Reardon with Mobex Comrnunications, Inc', and Mobex

Network Services, LLC,Asset Purchase z\.gr-eerrient between Mobex and Maritime

Comrnunicatìonsiland Mobile, LLC, dated December 30' 2005

(a) Employment Agreemenf between John Reardon and

Maritime a¡rd Critical RF, Inc. dated September 18, 2006'

(b) Arnended Ernploynent Agreement between John Reardon

and Mariti¡ne and Critical RF, Inc. dated May 28' 2008'

List of WarrantsList and Copies of Maritime Notes Guaranteed by Donald R'

DePriest.

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:

E)trIIBIT 10. Declaration of Aric Holsinger

EXIIIBIT 11. Declaration of Donald R. DePriest

EXHIBIT 12. Revenues of MCT CorP.

EXIIIBIT 13. A Namative Description of each contract entered into on

behalf of Maritime,

ExhibÍt 5.

Exhibit 6.

Exhihit 7,

Exhibit I

ÈIt(¡tE uBl.nest I {jttz-3z /-1 b69 -1

DËCLARAl'ION

I decla¡e undc¡ pena&y of Periury úât Úte forcgoing is fue-and cônect' I have persÔüal

knodeAge oiÉ,e rcp¡Ë;ntafiorrs i-"id.¿ in -y toponse- I verifu tlre tfi¡th fild acuraÊy of lhe

iofot "t¡îo

tt "t

i" "nd

rlat ¿t of Ure docum¡nr¡ a¡d informalion requested by the - ,ørr**iÅ";t Itttt, oi ioqoi.y *ni"n æe in my possession, cusody, çônllol or knowledge have

been t'roduced.

Exçoured on Ma¡ch ,ìq, , zOro.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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, LLC206 Nofth 8th Strcet

Columbus, Mississippi 39701

Russell Fox, Esq.

Mintz, Levit, Ferris, Glovsþ and Popeo, P.C.

701 Pennsylvania Avenue, Nr , Suite 9O0

Wæhington, DC 20004

Warren C. IIavem2649 Benveuue Aveûue, #2{Berkeley, Califorûia 94704

* by hand

EXHIBIT 7

Michelle Ellison' chiefEnforcement BUfeAu

Federal Communicatio¡s Cor¡mission

445 12th Street, 5ÏV

Washingloú, DC 20554

Resuest for Confidentiâl Treatment' Pufsuant to

iìJilo" o.+:s ofthe Commission's Rules' ofportions

óãn¿¿ n. DePriest's Response to Letter of Inquiry and

Atl Exhibits to t¡at Response

ResDonse to Letter of Inquiry

File No. EB-09-I[I-I751

Dear Chief Ellison:

Donald R, DePriest and Wireless Properties of YTg^hl*: Inc' (collectively' DePriest)

'

respecttully request confidentid;äd;;'ï;ù * a7-c I:R $0'459 of the Commission's

ilffiarËxñËilr t¡to"gtt s,'i;thdi"g aii subp"tt' to DePriest's Response to the

Énforcement Bureau's letter tr*éä-ii¡*1*; z6' loto' ptp'itst requests confidential treafo'ent

of the Exhibits in their errtirerY'

The Exhibits ûerit cotrfidetlial üeatEeût becaüse they. address strâtegically seusitive

matters, inoludi¡g spe"ir," "oÍtlií"ìä a¡d financiat information' DePrÌest would not

customarily releasr,n" t p* "itit-iti"t

ittr"t*;doú',lo tho public and believes that exposure of

rhe specific busine* .rr*g"ln"oir'ãrî t"*.i.1 informatiôn is unwarranted' such release

coulå resuu iD suustaoti¿ "omËitiäi;îË"d"c DePriest at a disadvantage vis-a-vis otlet

telecommunicarioo. ...ui., pràiioi; il;ifi-..,"üy ;"*gaimt the private mobile radio service

industry in general. In slrort' t#;Ålú* ;t"í" the tlpe of comme¡cial a¡d fira¡cial

information *which would cutät"*ly U* go*ded Aomiomp-etitors"t a¡d therefore should not

bemaderoutinelyavailablefor'inspection'-The¡eisnoreasonablysegregableinformafionñffi coulñÑeased wifhout competitive haffi to DePriest'

I See, 47 C.F.R, $0457(dX2), which provides that "if it shown in the request that the materials

confain trade secr",, o. to*t""íìi, hn*oiui o' ""ft"ical

data.which would customariþ be guarded

from competitors, tt e mut"'iut' wiii flot be made routiuely available for inspection' ' ' '"

DePriest has coûtinuously afforded the information coumined il the Éxhibits highty

confidential trearnent and has, until now, reshicted distribution to the pfesident of Maritime

communications/Lanrl Mobile, LLC, to whom DePriest is maüied, Ù1d þ legal cou sel for

peiri.st. These precautions emphæize Depriest's intent thãt the coffeüts of the Exhibits not be

released to thhd Parties.

For all tfie foregoing reasons, Dehiest requests Úrat the Exhibits, in their entirety, be

withleld from public iispeðtion uruler the Freedom of I¡forrnatiou Ast pursuart to 5 U.S'C'

$s52(bx4).

Thank you for youl attendon to this matter'

DONAI.D R. DEPRIEST

Do¡ald R. DePriest

8124 Cooke Court, $uite 201

Manassas, Virginia 20109-7406

703t365-9437

Dated: March 29, 2010

DENNIS C. BNOWNATTORNEY ÀT LÂW

8124 cooKE CouRT, StlIrE 201

MANAssAs, VIRGIMA 20LA9-7406

PHoNE 703/365-9437D.C.BROWN@Ãff.NEr

FAx 703/365-9456NOT ADMTTED N VIRGINIÀ

March 29, 2009

Ma ene H. Dortoh, Secretary

Federal Communications Commission

M512th Street, SW

Wâshington, DC 20554

Attention: Chief, Enforccrnent Bureau

Re: ResPonse to Lstter of InqufuY

File No' EB49-[I'I-1751

Deâr SecretaÌY Dortch:

I represent the radio system interests of Domld R' DePriest and of Wireless Properties

"r virgi*àl rnc- icollectivety, røi. ñrp.i.o before rhe Federat communic¿tions commission.

On befialf of Mariti*., I am filing herewith M¡' DePriest's Response to tle Euforcement

il;;;; letter of inquiry tlatetl Fãbruarv 26,?Ã09 in File No' EB-09-IFI-1751'

Plea$e direct any questions concerning this tiling to me' Thank you for your attentiou

to this mattor.

Very truly yours,

Donald R. DePriest206 North 8th Street

Columbus, MississiPPi 39701

Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary

Fecleral Communications Commission

445 Twelfrh Sueet, SW

Room TW-4325Washington, DC 20554

A.ttetrdon; Brian J. Carter, Investigations and Heuings Division'

Enfolcement Bureau, Room 4-C330

Dea¡ Mr. Carter:

Wireless Properties of Virginia, Inc' flMPV) and ^Do¡ald

R' DePriest ("I" or "Mr'

DePriest") hereby respecttully file"flreir resPoItse to t¡e Commission's inquiry dated February

26,2010.

Suestion I: Itt the Donald DePriest LOI Response (at pages I'4)' loil Provi¡leA o.!ß' of ' ,.

enl¿tieÍ thttt you indícãted you conttolled or ín which you sened as an officer or diractor' As-þ

tää r*a¡^ thüt were in-exkiazce (even ir ina.ctive) dnring the 2002, 2003 antl 2004 calendar

vco¡s. orôride relevant docuntettatiàn rc dennnstra¡e the a17rc7ate Eross revulue: of each ,

'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'

a, Wireless Propertíes, Inc. had no revenues during the period and filed no tax return

since 1998.

b, Wireless Propefties of Virginia, Inc' had no tevenues during the period' Tax

returN for the period are provided at Exhibit 1'

c. Wi¡eless Properties ' East, lnc' had no revenues ciuring the period and filed no tax

return since 1998,

d, Wireless Properties - Upper Midwest, Inc' had no revenues during the period and

filed o tax refltrn since 1998'

e. Communications Invesfirents, Inc' had no revenues cluring the period Tax feturns

for the period are provided at Exhibit 1 '

f. Columbus Yarn Mills Company has been out of busiress for over 35 years a-ud hled

û.o lâx rehün since some time in tlle 1970s.

g.SanPedroGauzeMills,I¡c'haclnorevônuesduringtherelevantperiod'isoutofbusiness, and fìled no tax return since the rnid-1990s'

h. America¡ Nonwovens corporatiou had the following feve ues during the period:

2002 - $13'521,0002003 - $8,015,5592004 - $7,978,652Àverage: $9,838,403

Tax returns for the period are provided at Exhibf 1'

i. WJG Telephone Co. had no revenues duting the periocl anrl filed no tax returns fot

the period.

j.Cellularan<IBroadcastComrnuncations,Inc.hatluoleveIluescluringtheperiodandfiled no tax returûs for the Period'

k. Tupeio Broadcasting Corporation had tro reveûues during the period aüd filed no tax

leturns for the Petiod.

1'PeneloreCorporationhadnofËvenuesdÛringtheperiod.Taxreturflsfortheperiodare 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.

o. Medcom DeveioplnenÍ Corporatiotr tÐ( re rns are provided at Exhibit 1'

p. MCT Investors, L,p. tax returffi ate provided at Exhibit 1'

q. Bravo Comrlunications, Inc. tax retutns are provided at Exhibit 1'

r, Charisma Commuuicarions, Inc' tar returûs are ProYided at Exhibit 1'

s. Col<len Triangle Radio, Inc. tax reurns ale provided ât Exhibit 1'

t. MCT Corp': Please see tny respolse to Question 4' beiow'

u. BD Partnership tax retur s are provided at Exhibit 1'

v. CD F¿¡tners tax retutns are provided at Exhibit I

w. Bioventures, Inc. tax leh¡rns ate not availabie t0 üe because I hotd only miûority

sha¡es. lncome statcmonts prepffed in accord with accoutrtitrg pdnciples generally accepted in

fte Uûiæd States are provided at Exhibit l.

x. Warpath Properties, Inc, tâx roturns' the only year which is releva¡t !o me' are

provided at Exhibit l.

y. Ground ZeIo Fashions, I¡c' had no revenues during the period and filed no tax

returns for tle Period'

z. Ground Zero Indusbies, Inc' harl no revenues during the period and fited no tax

returns for the Period,

aa,GreenbriarConstructionCorp.hadtrolevenuesduringtheperiodaúdfilednotaxrenrrns for the Period'

bb.Envi¡oworldsolutions,L'L'C'wasformedin2006buthadno¡evenuesandfiledno tax Ìetums for the Period'

cc. MariTEL, lnc. tax returts for the period' inclu<ling parts of 2001 and 2002 which

have ovJupping caiendar and fiscal years, are provided at Exhibit 1'

dd. Worldtcx, Inc. tax returns ate nol available to me' I owned no sha¡es in Worldtex;

it is out of business and I have no fuflher information about the company '

ee.ExciteTec}rnologies,Inc.didnotexistduringtheperioda¡dhasnotfìledataxreturn.

ff. Tennessee Valley Authority is a wholþ owned coqporate agency and ìnstruflentality

of the UniterÌ states, Tne rvÀî ooiruu¡..t to tia"ral income taxes or to taxâtioí states or

iUri. *uUJiuiriont. The page ftom the Tvn web site provi<led at Exhibit I shows TVA

operafing for the period' nole of which was available to me

gg. Critical RF, Inc. did not exist during the pcriod a¡d filecl no tax returns for the

period.

Question 2: Ín the Donakl DePriest LOI Res¡orße þt ptges 47)' you provided a list of

Tntiies tnat you indtcated Maritime did' nat disclose ta the Commíssion'

(a) As to those entities that you (lesc bed s behzg-.ùz existence during the cølendat

ií*ii zooz, zoos, an¿ looi, but whictl you descìibc¿I as havütg no reverzues' províde

relevattt tlocunrcntation to demonstrrare ilw aggregare Sross .revenues. or edch such,enlity

tturing the 2002, 2003 antt 2004 caleular years' Ìncltldinq bui nat linzÚe(t to' eacn

entityl s Federal tot returns Íor the calendar years 2002' 2003' an¿|2004'

Please refer to my responsos at Questiou 1' above' and to Ëxhibit 1'

(b) As to thnse etttities that yÒu described as being in existetzce tluring' Ihe ca'Iendnr

ïior:i zooz, 2M3, and 2ffi, aia inicn you dttcribetl as having t'evenues (nanrcly ..

Bravo Comnt¡tnict¿t¡our,'in,',-cno'ü;ma'Conununicaiotls' Ittc" Goklen'l'iongle Radio'

Inc., Medcom De*øp^inl ci'ii'ntÍon' warPath Properties' htc'' and MariTEL'

Inc.), provide rrtrrn rt ¿o"u*i'iotion ti demonstrate tlxe a#Sregate lt'oy teyeyuel'of

r*;' ;_rh intity during tlze 2002, 2003 antt 2004 calentlør,¡ears, ìncluding þat nþt

timítedto, ,orn "urry's

feielmi'wl'tunitp'tne calendiryears 2002' 2003' and

2004.

Please refer to my resPoßes ât Questiofl 1' above' and to Exhibit 1'

Questíott 3: ln the Donalit Deïriest LOI Response (dt.pag.e I l), you inl'ìcated that yM hew

í"r*¿ ot Clzairman oÍ MCT Corp, Provide th'e following ínformation:

(a) The date that you becanÊ Chairman o!MCT Corp'

I became chairma¡ of MCT Corp' during February 2000' I have been

unable to locate thô day within February 2000 that I became chairman'

(b) The tenSth ol tíme thût yÔu have served' as Cluzirnznn'

I served as chairman fiorn February 2000 until July 2007' I have been

unable to locate the dây within July 2007 on which I ceased being chainnan'

Question 4: Provide relevant docunzentation 10 demonsttate the al?reTate gross revenues of

MCT cotp. ituritts the 2002' ;õü' *;;;i',i ;'lendar vears' íncludi'[ bø not litníted to' MCI'"iù;;;;rr"r^

ieturns þr the calendar vears 2002' 2003' and 2004'

For the aggregate gross rcvenues of MCT Corp" please soe Exhibit 2' I do not have

copies of MCT Corp,'s tax returns' MCT Corp' andits tax returns are owned by Souem

I{olclings, B,V. and were mout¿-io nutop" in â007' Please see the declaration of Aric

Holsinger provided ât Exhibit 3.

Question 5: hplain fully why Maritîme did not rlisctose MCT Cotp' in its applicatizn 10

pafticipate itt Auctiott no. Al eCC io"t 175) and itt subsequent fiIings with the Connission'

inctuiting Mantíme's LOI Response'

Having no experience with the peculiar rules which govern FCC auctions but having

su¡staniiut e*f,"ri"o"" in business mafiärs, I had no reason ro believe that rny role as non-

executive cbairman of MCT Corp. or any of the other e¡tities in which I had âû ûrtefest

affecterl Sandra DePriest's positiãn witn ìne Commission. In an ordinary business situation,

ownefship and control âfe;arrowly defined by one's percentage of o'ûship of votiug shares'

and the busi¡ess activities of spouses do not impinge on otro atrother' Sandra DePriest;

Cornmuûic¿tions Investments, Ilc'; S/I{JW Partnership an<l Maritime had uo olvnership or

oÌIeÌ affiliation with MCT corp. Had I fully undeßtood the auction mles I wouid have taken

the positior flrat my minority ownership in tvtcT corp. and the fact that I was non'executive

chairman of MCT-Corp, (my port u, "hairman

catried no ëxecutive duties) should not affect

Ma¡itime's eligibitiry tor a tidaiog cfedit. I do not lsrow why MCT Corp. was tot disclosed

in Maritime's LOI ResPotne.

Question 6, Describe fully lo r relatiotßhip to Maritime'

I am the husband of the owner of the general parmer of the partnership holding the - --coutrolling interest i¡ Maritime. sa¡dra DePriest has authorized me from time to tifie verbally

ard in writirrg to sign documents. I am ûot an offÎcËr of Mæitime and I own no inærest in

Maritime but-l havã helped when âsked to do so. I <10 not participate in day to day operations.

irly ""tl*i""¿ title for use in signing documents is "Mamger"; rot meant to irnply that I am

ilrÉ ,,*-aging tnember', of MaritimË. I have never ¡epreseûted mysolf as the mtn:ging

member oiMãridme. I help as I can bec¿use I desire for Sanclra to be succesful in the

operâtion of Maritimô and appreciate the nation's treed fo nâke full and efficient use of the

scffce radio specrum.

Suestion 7. I,x the Ma tinte LoI Response (ût pdge n, Maritime indicaled ¿h&t, at San.dra

-ÐePrÌest's rcquest, Jou Eu,rattteed iotes owerl by Mørithne' E*plain fully by what üuthority

(whøher verial or written) yoa guarûnteed notes on behalf of Marítiw. Provfule a narraüve

descrþtion as well as ã copy of each note guaranleetÌ by you on behalf of Maútinæ'

I had Sandra DePriest'$ verüa1 authority to gualantee notes owed by Maritime' I also

had writtën âuthority in my role as a manager of Ma¡itime' But since the burden of

gù¿,ùrteeing the noies feliou me, rarher than on Ma¡itime, I do not believe fhat I requiled any

ãuthority of Ma¡itime to guâtanæe such notes. I have inclutled a narrative description of each

nore wh-ich I guararteed for the benefit of Maritime æ well as a copy of each notõ at Exhibit 4

hereto,

Question 8: ht the Donald DePriest LOI Response (at page I0), you indicated tha¡ a_tnong

îther thittgs, you were authorized to enter into contrac¡s on behalf of Marìtime. Provîde tlrc

following ìtformøion:

(a)AlltlocunlentsSrantilTsyoua'uthor¡tjtocnterinrcco]\tractsonbehalfo!Marítime.

See Exhibit 5 hereto.

(b)Anarratived¿scriptionofeachcontraLtthatyouentereditztoonbehalfofMaritinte.

See Exh¡bit 6 hereto.

Suestìott 9: To the erte nat otheru,)ße provitleil in rcsp?nsl t! the preceding Inquiries'

f,rovide any adtl.ítíonøI infomnrion that you believe ntay be httppt to our consideratìon and

rcsoluti.on oÍ this matter'

SarrdraanrllhavebeenÌnvolvedinmultiÞleradioserviceswhichareregulatedbytheCommissiot. Since our first Brôadcâst stadons in the 1970s, we have been ftlly awâre of the

commission,s requiremeff$ for complete cando¡ anrt trulhful lepreseûtations. le ìnve always

been candid a¡d t¡utåful With the Commission' F¡om our Broadcast years of ttre 1970s in

*tri"t oo, perforfiance brought many awards for excelleuce and local market leadership'

,frùf, oui successful involiement in the early days of comparative hearings for Cellular -

licen#s to the present day, we have always done our best ro comply with úe Commissiont.

ruiæ anO poti"i., to the úest of our understanding of them, In Cellular, I was inshurnental in

ruindìnitig ^

**petitive position for non-wireliie carriers against those interests that desired

to giv. dr";irrtioã teþhône companies a headstart. I succeeded irr negotiating excharges of

i*tEi.u, *'oog Cellulai carriers ,õ tir"t *. obtâiûed colrtrolling positions in I 1 southeâstern

narkets. In thi MMDS lVireless Cable hdusty my strategy saved a major license holder ftom

tuotooptay aßd helped put the inrtustry on the path away from-television programming and

toward the broadband service which hãs become such a critical part of Anerica's competitive

position in the world.

Iafiftanklydisappointedthatûeaflyfiveyearshaselapsedsincelitigationbegarrfollowing tTre grani of license to Maritime in Auciion No. 61, To date, some 158 pleadings

and omeî flinls have âccumulated in the Maritime license proceeding as the cornmission has

aif*ta u.iogie plotestor to iile tluplicative pleacling upon unauthorized pleadiug' Just as that

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'

Maritime aud the public which desires improved telecommuuications service desire finality to

úiSmâttef'Thisdelayhascostusmillionsofdollarsandlosttimgwhichcanûotberecoveredat 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 O N

, . I declare under penârry ofperjury trrat rhc forcgoing is tue and conecl I have personalkrowledge ofrhe repre.sentar;ous pmïid-ea i" -y ,.;p;;;;: i;.,i$, tÌ,. ü'rà ;d ;;rd;ï'the ì¡forua¡ion thercin and thet olt oJrh" ¿**í"iËäJi"f"räiin ,"quesæa Uy úcco¡nmission's leuer of inauirv which are ia nry p.**ì.+-"*r"L conuol o, knowredge havebcen goduced.

Executed on Marc n 29 -zolo.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify thal on this t\ryenty'ninth day of March' 2010' I served a copy of the

for.goùe R rpoote oi each of the follo;ing pcrsons by placing a copy in the United States

Mail, fust-class postage Prepaid:

Sandra M. DePriest*

Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC

206 North 8th Street

Columbus, MississþPi 39701

Russell Fox, Esq.

Mintz, Levin, Férris, Glovsþ and Popeo, P'C'

?01 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 900

lùashington, DC 20004

Warren C. Havens

2649 Benvenue Avenue, #2'6Berkeley, California 94704

+ by ha¡d

EXHIBIT 8

' ' -i :ir-

IFoRPIIELICIN$PECTIoN-CONFIDENTIALINFoII]VÍATIONÉXCLUDED

(e)rynHHffiMarch 26,2010

By Eaud

Marlene H. Dortch

SecretarYFederal Communications Commission

445 12ú stset, S,W.

Rooqt TW-4325W¿shingloq DC 20554

Attn.: Briân J, Csrterhvestigations ard Hearings Division

Enforcemeqt BuÌeau

Room 4-C330

Re: Applications of Maritime Communícationsiland Mobilc' LLC for Automated

MaritiroeTsleço,,oou,licationsSystemLicensesandtoParticipateinFCCAuctíon No. 61

File No': EB-09-trI-1751

Dear Ms. Dortch.

'[his responds 10 t]re letter sent to úe by Gary Schonman' Speciøl Couscl in the investigatíons

aa<l Hea¡inss Divísion ofth" sof;;;;t du¡eau' date¿l February 26' 2010' Mr' Schonma¡'s

î"î";îËr,ä-r#TBt l*. crnr"riiËiiìo pÑde certain documenrs a¡d information for the

uedocl January 1, 2002 to tnc presolnr-fio1ui¿fi Uao* u"¿ attaohed is the requested information

i'l#ääts #ilìi"¿* *¿'rr,"äwers foilowth" teq.rusts)-_ certaín of the requests seek

confidential i¡fornutio.r. n""oriii'gly, lni*ifÉf' Itu" toÛtitÉd two ve¡sions of tlris letter with

ärËå"i "n-tlr**t-.

mt o*lon iíiil* iett"r m-ked coNF IDEI*ITIAI - NoT FoR

I'UEüð iÑËpä¿TIOt { .onø; âI of the infqrm¿ion reqoested by lvlr. schonman's letter'

rh""#; ;ithl; i"tto .*t"¿ io-n iurirc rxspncrloN - cot.{FIDENrrAr'

I¡IFORMATI0N pxclrmEnìiits cooa¿.ori¿ inior. tio¡ Êom the exhibits, is available

iåt tîr;ul ¡iJt*i*; u"¿ l* tt"*"t"ãliottto puttitt to this proceeding' we have

.-^-""rah, ÊA,ìûhr c"rfi¿emiA tre¿tmmt oi tile versioo of tt¡s leüer' along with all attâchjüents'

#;üiõi{ñËni;i¿r - Nor F'oR PITBLIc INsPE crloN'

l. Identfu all oficers, ditactors, sharehoklers' partners,and.benef cíal owners 3f-WíTEL,n* ¡t*iri I , zOiz o,a proviae ii'e dotes upon ihích such individuals secured their

rërp¿.ctfue posítíonÍ with Mar¡TEL

This infotmation is iqclutled at Exhibit 1 to this lettçr^ Diffe¡ent vcrsions ofExhibit i a¡e

i.rctuaed with th. publio and non-public copies of this letter'

4635 church Rd, $trite 100 Cr¡rirming, GA 30028 ' Voicc/Fax: 888-989-3339 ; \twwmaritetusa'com

...:...'. . r.: .r ' , ;'.,. :S..uf ..

F'OR PIJBLIC INSFËCTION - CONFIDENTIÄL INFORI\{ATION EXCLUDED

(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,aldminutesofallmectingsheldduringthecalcndæi"ui, zo<iz to zoog. I'arn tot ptoviding wery 'torporate documenl"" because such term caÉ be

áo¡st o"d to rrr.un iquthe documcnts ãeooui.d ioìht no*al course of MariTEL's business'

tlowever" inoludeil in Exhibit 2 are any dooumcnts gonerated by MariTEL which relate 10

l"*rti"* l, S and 5 ofMr, Schonmanis letter or which rolate to the rnaÍers r¿ísêd by the letter

ä,o* Ltnuí rofri*, Esq., Attomey'.r\dvisor, Mobility Divisio+ Mretess Telecommunicatious

il."rr' ¡C'C t" M*iTEI. Inc. ¿ttã nussell Fox, counscl for MariTEL, Inc'' dated Aucust 18? .

t00ó: iltr r""t ùions åf sxhibir Z arc included with rhe public and nonaublic copies of this

lette¡.

3, In tlrc MdtiTEL LOI Røsponse (at page 4), lufariTEL referenced e December 20t5 lettet

*r¡tø" i:, no*t¿ iupr¡est to ilgt mestoís, LP., ¡nwhîch Dowld DePriest indìcaled that a

rtísltíbxtion of MariT'EL shqret would eonstirute a change of control of MariTEL þr FCC

licensing purposes. Provide a copy ofthis letter'

:fhe requested document is an exce4h from a letter from MCT Investors, L.P^, whÌch uPdatcs its

in*itois ."gataing vadous mattcrs affesting the compüy' MariTEL only has a copy of the

excexot änd dôes not have a copy ofthe entiie tetter' À copy of tlis excerpt is attached as

ilht# t'i-g-tll th. puutic a"¿ rio"*oUlis versions of this responsc contain the tequested letter'

4. providø relevant doc mentdtiûn þ demokshûM the d4?rcg*te gross revenues ofUor¡f l,d*Wøecalendaryears2002,2003,and2004,includingbutnotlimitedto'¡riirllfnt ¡ f"a7ø tax rctutns for the colendar yeais 2002, 2003' and 2004'

The te4uested information is contai¡ed at Exhibit 4 to fhis letler. Differef,t versions ofExhibir 4

arè included wirh ttte ¡iublic and uonaublic copies of this letter'

5, To the extent not ôtherwise provided in response to the preceding Inquiríes' provìde any-oaanioiãiin¡or*"tiò#

you belie,iê'may ba heffi to our consíderatíon and rcîolutíon of this

. matÌer.

No additional information is providcd.

4635 Chufch Rd, suire 100 cürïrníng, GA 30028 . voiceiF¿x: 888-989-3339 ' www.madt¡lrrsa.coi4

:j. ¡ .. .. .. .. _.. SyS''ì , i ' . .. -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

foregoing is fiue and conecl Exccuted oü Match 26, 2010.

ço: Gary Sohonman

Special CounselInvestigations and Hearings DivisionEnforcement Bu¡eaugqqrn 4_C330

Fede¡al Communicaûons Commission. 445 12rh Steet, S.W.

, Washington' DC 20554

,.' ;, -.. (By händ, via the offrce ofthe Secretary)

' ByFirst Class Mail:

' ,' Manfime CommunicationslT,a¡rd Mobile, LLCI 206 Nôrth 8ú Steët

Colunrbuq MS 39701

Attn.: Sandm M. DePriest

Ðennis C. Brow4 Esq'8 I 24 Cooke Court, Suitc 20 IManæsas, VA 20109-7406

Donald R. DêPdest' 20ó North St6 Stcet

Columbus, MS 39701

\{ireless ProPerties çf Virginia1555 lüng Street - Suite 500

Atex¿¡driq VA 22314Attn.; Dons]d R. ÐePriest

'War¡en Havens2649 Benvenue Ave. - Suites 24' Berkeley, CA 94704

4655 Church Rd, Suite 100 Curnrni g, GA 30028 ' Voice./l:át: 888-989-3339 'l1luÀ!In4&lgE4'cq!1

5#

MINTZ l¡vltrtRussell lI. Fox | 2024341183 | rfox@mì-u.com

March 29, 2010

By Haud ..

Marlene H. Dortch$ecrc1aryFetleral Commwrications Cornmission

445 12b St€et, S.'W.

Room TW-43?5Washingfor¡ DC 20554

Att¡r.: Briau J. Carter

Iuvestigations and Headngs DivisionIinfo¡cemcnt Bureau

Room 4-C330

P ø.osylvunia Avenuc, N,W'Washiogtoa, D.C. 20004

202.43+:13002Ù243#74fÆ føxl¡¡1t,w.ûinu.com

CoNFTDEN'IïAL TRnATMENT RqoUEsTÐ

Re: Applications of Ma¡trme Communioations/land Mobile, LLC for Automated

M-a¡itime'Islcoommunicetions Systen Liceüses a¡d to Pa¡ticipate in FCC

Austiou No. 61

File No.: EB-09-IH-1751

De¿r¡ Ms, Ðo¡tohl

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

'/ 47 c.F.R. g o.as9.

Minø, Lcvin, Cohn, Fettis, Glo.'sþ and Popeo, P.C,

BorloN lw^s¡rrNçToN I NBlcYoRK I sr^MFqßD I Los ^NGÊLËS

lPÁl-o,¡!!To lS^NDlEGo lLoNDoN

Mirtz, Levin, cohq Feüis, Glo\¡Eky â¡d Popeo, P.C.

MaIch 29, 2010

I'*æ 2

confidcntial infomration omitte¡l foÌ public inspection purposes. This latter version has been served

on o{rer parties to this proceeding'

lvfr. SchOnlran's içttçr requests dooumentåtiotr doEonstating MadTÊL's aggegaÈ gfÔSsrêVenues

anrl other finanoisl information, inoluding but mt lihitcd to, certain of M¿¡iTEL's Federal tax

rEh¡¡ns, t his infonnation has beon provided in Exlibils 1, 2 and 4, respectively, oflìeCONFIÐENTL\L version of MarlTEL's rtsponse. The infotmalion contained in these Exhibits is

cOmmercially sensitive corporafe and finanoial i¡formation that oustomarily would be guarded from

"ompetitors and would not be made routinely available fot public inspeotior'

MariTEL requests t¡at the redacted co¡fidential irformation be permanentþ witirheld from publio

ûrspeotion under seotiou 0.459 ofthe commissiotfs nrlss. Itr t¡e event thât this rcquest fol

oonfidontiality is denicrl, MariTEL respectñrlly requests notification aqd immèdiate return of ils

co¡Ídentiat i¡formatioot the eXtent iuctrr informatiou may be roturned under seotion 0'459 of tle

Commission's rules. z

Kindly ilàle-stamp the additiouäl c.opy ofeaclt versiou oftlE tosponse and this lettef afld return

them ío tle "ou¡iår,

Should you have questions or rcquire additioual informatio¡' pleâse coutact the

undersigned-

Sincercly,

A.-{'utt^r?\ t',

Russell H. FoxMrMz, LEvq.r, Cortl.I, FERRrs,

GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.

701 Pennsylvania Ave¡ue, N.WWashinetor! DC 20004(202) 434-7300(202) 434-74AA Qþx)rfox@mintz.com

Counsel for MañTEL, Inc.

Enclosures

' 4? c.F.R g 0,459(e).

Iúiutz, Lereir, Cohfl, Fcnit' Glovslv end Popeor F.C.

March 29, 2010

c0: (witt¡ CONFIDENTIAL version of MariTEL's tesponse atd attachnrents)

Gary Scho¡n¡nSpeoial Counsel

Investigations and Hearings ÞivisionEnforcement BuleauRoom 4-C330Federal Communications Co¡runission

445 12ù Steôt, S.w.Wa¡hingto+ DC 20554(By Ìrand, via tlre offioe of the Sec,rotary)

By First Class Mail (with PIIBLIC version of MariTEL',s response 8nd attacbütents):

Mæitíme Çoruruu¡ications/l,snd Mobile LLC2û6 North 8ü StectColumbus, MS 39701

Ath.: Sanùa M. DePriest

Demis C, Brown, Esq.8124 Cookc Cou¡t, Suite 201

Maræsas, VA 20109-7406

Donald R. DePriest206North Ith Street

Columbus, MS 39701

Wireless Roperties of Virginia1555 King Street -- Suite 500

Alexa¡clria, VA 22314Attn.: Donald R- DePdé$t

Waren Havens2649 Benvcnue .A've. - Suites 2-6Berkeioy, CÀ 94704

Name

Mitchell Hâuserrñnâìd R. DePr¡est

Rlchârd F. Senev. MCi-

FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION - CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION EXCLUDEDolrectors and of{ìcers of MARITEI- f NC. from Jänuary t, ?o01to Mãrch 20L0

Peter schiff- NorÈhwoad

Directors of MARITEL, lNc

foseoh L. Winn, ATcnôrrd WFiçl ÄT{

PÞfÞr Pe+rillo. Wãtre

iãn Pembertoflloe Forbes

Beø¡n

PrÌdr td r01

Dan Smith

PrÌor to '01PrÌor to '01

qfrve D.rdEe- ATC

Prlôr fô 'O1

James D. Ta¡clet, ATC

Prior to '01Prior to '01

lân uarv-02

End

Mlcha€l Mccormack, ATc

october-04

Ed Disanto. ATc

lüne41

Present

lason Smith

Êhrrrâru.fl2

Mãr.hJ]7ll

NãmêÞrês¡dênt & CEO

Prêçent

O.t.lhêr-tl4

M¡tchell Haus€r

Present

Dãh Srnith

lãçon Smith

03 ro4

Márch.o8March-08

offìcer.ç of MARITEL. lNC.

January-o9

Richard carvalho

Mârch-09

BiltCadoEanlâ(ññ Srñifh

Prêsent

Besln

Prêsent

ahlê+ ñnêrâiihc Offll:Þr

Prlorto'O1

Present

Eêhrr rânt¡?

Ri.hãr.l Nrìrrlstrôm

1âfl râñt.ng

End

MAV.UU

Àáar¡h-O4

Dècember.o8

Mav-07lânùãñ¡-Og

Present

ËÊbl"rÞñ/-O7

Mãrch'O3

December-08Mev-07

30 2002

FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION - CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION EXCLUDED

ARIIËI,lNc. C€p'd6@Eon 1¿31 û1

3t¿9t2o',t0ÄiadTELcr¡T¿blé laf ,LsouRCE Ooc-etrÊLlc VERSlOl{

FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION - CONFIDENTIAL ÍNFORMATION EXCLUDED

fiáÂnÉL-INc. C¡Éû.li4ll6 !2 3r,@

H¿tr'TÉ! c0 oT¿btå r4.LSotrÀcÉ ôoc-PlrEUC VÉ.Rs!oÑ

FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION - CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION EXCLUDED

I'iAÉÍTEl- l[C, C¿¡þE¡úoÞ f2¡1,0S

þimL cê¡r!blo !r¡¿-soiJRcÊoot.?uBLlc l¡ÊRsloN

FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION - CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION EXCLUDED

MÀE¡lEL, lÑC' cEdB¿¡Uoñ 12.1t.04

[r¡61!L CeTâ!r4 !4¿SOt¡RC€ !OCIFUÈllcl'¡ERSIOH

FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION . CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION EXCLUDED

r¡¡RtlEL $¡Ê c.!r¡ÊrÆo¡ t23t¡¡¡5

¡r¿gÞDl0lrkf€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€

$ùr=LcdÞf dÉ16 ú,2-SOLFCS 0OC-F[E¿lCVEtßloN

FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION - CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATÍON EXCLUDED

M¡ÂllEL, lÀ+åcEtllô¡ùlhà 12¡121Þ?

FOR PUBLIC TNSPEGTION - CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION EXCLUDED

t/¡Fná. llrG $tl¡l¡tf¡û ¿4r.03

¡¡eìtr- c¡prog. {r-solrrxÉ 0oêJUÞllc vERsþÑ

FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION - CONFIDENTIAL ¡NFORMATION EXCLUDEÞ

l¡ÀFffEL l,\¡c c¡çlÞ:zlþr l¡lll.0E

|!!ÍÉl cãÞtub1â 94,LEÐUFCe DCC-FUELIE V¡RElOt{

FOR PUBL]C INSPECTION - CONFIDENTIAL ]NFORMATION EXCLUDED

¡rÀåíEl tlc, c.Fhdãtts 12¡1¡€

Itb'tEL Cær¿ìô ú.¿souFcÊ 0ôc.¡LßLlc vêÂ510N

FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION - CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION EXCLUDED

¡rúÈreL, ll¡c. 6çlhÈ.ñn lr3rlÉ

ltãflEL ê¡l¿ÈÊ v,ll-souRcEoocjU¡L¡c!-.FstþL

FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION - CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION EXCLUDED

i{Àff¡El- lxE. c!,ùlÞ¡úan izli 0s

i¡Én'lEr c6Êi¡ìL w¡,-solJßcE DOC-FIJSlllc V_.FslO'l

FOR PUBLTC INSPECTION . CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION EXCLUDED

FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION - CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATTON EXCLUDED

r¡,l¡IÊL lllc. c.rrã!¿llkÉ 33rr0

FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION . CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION EXCLUDED

r¡¡ftl¡EL lÈC,4.ÈhlE¡d.n¡J1.10

tìt¡tf EL cdô'Lhh.i,q,2-60uqcE ooc-PUELlc vEFsloil

EXHIBIT 9

FOIA Request to the FCC, via

FOIA@FCC.GOV

Requestor: SkybridgeSpectrumFoundation("Skybridge")

Address:

Phone:Fax:Email:

Date:

2'd Office at: 2649 Benvenue Ave., Berkeley' CA94704

510 -84I -2220 or 5 10-848-7 1 97

51,0-740-3412

istobaugh @ telesaurus.com and

warren.havens @ sbc global.net

April 19,2010

Description of Records Requested

1. Full and complete copies of all documents and information that the FCC received'

in written and electronic form, including all attached or appended materiaìs (delivered to

Requestor in their original forms)-

from eøch of the following:" 1t

j Uaritime Communications/Land Mobile' LLC ('MCLM')'(2) Wireless Properties of Virginia, Inc',(3) MariTel, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("Maritel")'(4) Donald DePriest ("DePriest"),(5) Sandra DePriest ("Mrs' DePriest")

(these five together, the "Five Parties"),

or from øny of the Five Parties' employees, legøl counsel' predecessors or succ^essors in

i7*rnrt, poí"nî, ana subs¡¿íaiä, "*ptoy"",'

o'7tner representatives or (tgents of any kind

(together, the "Eivq Pqlligq-l\ggnrlq"),

@ any person that is employed at or represents the FCC that directly or indirectly responds to any

of the following six letters:

Three Enforcement Bureau Letters of Investigation re: File No EB-09-IH-1751

ã*a n"U.ou.y 26, 2O1O and addressed to MCLM' Sandra DePriest' Donald

n"pni"r,, Maiitel, and Wireless Properties of Virginia' Inc (the "3 Enforcement

Letters")

Three Leuers dated 8/18/09 from Scot Stone, Deputy chief, Mobility Division,

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to Maritime Communications/Land Mobile

LLC and Dennis Brown, MariTel, Inc and Russell Fox, and Donald DePriest and

W;l*t Properties of Virginia, Inc re: File Nos 0002303355' 0003463998' et al'

(the "3 Section 308 Letters")

Said 3 Enforcement Letters together with said 3 Section 308 l-etters are hetein

called the "6 Letters."

2. Full and complete copies of all conespondence and other documents' and

information transmitted, in either direåtion' between' on the one side' any employee or agent of

the FCC, and on the other side. any of the Five Parties and/ or the Five Parties' Agents= that

"ontain info uti,on thæ pertains to the 6 Letters' stated purposes and topics.

3. Full and complete copies of all correspondence and other documents' and

information transmitted, in either ãirection, between, on the one side' any employee'

representative or agent of the FCC Vr'ireless Telecommunications Bureau' and on the other side'

uny "*ptoy"",

repåsentative or agent of the Enforcement Bureâu -- that contain information that

pertains to the 6 Letters' stated purposes and topics'

4. Same as in the preceding paragraph, but between any person at the FCC and any

employee, representative or agent of an-y òutside (non-FCC) govemmental agency of any kind'

ThepersonsattheFCCwhomaybehelpfulinlocatingtherequesteddocumentsare:.Scoti*å, n"po,y chief, Mobility Division,

-wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Brian J.

Carter, Invìstigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau

Maximum Search Fee

$5'000(fivethousanddollars).Ifgettingtherequesteddocumentsisgoingtoexceedthismaximum search fee, then Skybridgá askJ thatlt be informed of rhe amount by which it will be

exceeded since Skybridge .rruy lvu:nt the FCC to proceed anyway for whatever additional cost

there may be, or Skybridge may modify its requesi as as to obtain copies of documents up to the

maximum amount sPecified here.

Waiver of Fees

SkybridgeiSanonprofit,tax-exemptscientific,educationalandcharitablefoundationwhich, as one óf its primary functions, researches and publishes information on FCC matters

(and other matters) in the public interest.* skybridge intends to publish information resulting

from the fulfillment of rhis FOIA request. Th;s, bt FoIA statute, the fees charged should be

waived or reduced.* See e.g. www.tetra-us us website http://vvww'scribd-com/warren havens'

However, the fulfillment of this request should not be detayed in considering this fee

waiver or reduction matter, and to insure nó d"luy, Skybridge agrees to pay the- fees as if it did

not submit this, if consideration causes any delay, subjàct to its pursuit of this after the materìals

are released.

Skybridge strongly disagrees with past erroneous and discriminatory decisions by the

FCC denying s-kybridge-,i f"e *luiue. or reduction in FOIA requests, intends to appeal any case

of furthel: de;ial, and in such cases, Skybridge may seek damages in court action'

Request for Accelerated Processinq

Skybridge requests that the FCC accelerate its processing and response to. this request

since it needs th" ."qu"rt"d records in order to submit a more complete and fulI petition to deny

and comments in the \ryT Docket No. 10-83, and because Skybridge, alor]g with its affiliates' are

entitled to [his information including since they have a pending challenge to tne,!t!t-\t n11m

601, File No. 0002303355, from Auðtion No. 6t. Tire cu¡ent hling deadline in WT Docket No'

io_á: i, ap.it 2g,2010. Skybridge, along with its afhliates, inrends ro file a requesr to exrend

the current pleading and comment filing dãadline in which it will reference this FOIA request as

fun or ,1" iusi, ro", grant of an extensi-on; however, skybridge does not know if that extension

i"lo""t titt be g.anðd. For the above and other reaqsons' obtaining the requested records as

soån as possible]including before the currenr filing deaãline in wT Docket No. 10-83, is critical.

Withheld Documents

Any of the requested records that exist but that are not provided in full (not at all' or in

some redaåted form) a,'Withheld Materials") should be fully listed and described, along with the

reason under FOIA law that the Withheld Mâterials are not provided'

SkybridgeisawarethatcertainoftheoutsìdePartieshaverequestedconfidentialtreatment for cerîain of the records requested here'

Inthisregard'skybridgerequeststhatforanyrequestedrecordthattheFCCdeterminescontains information that it must ïitnnotA under an ãppücable FOIA exemption, that said

information be narrowly and precisely redacted, leaving all other portions of the record

unredacted, and that the FCC release the redacted copy

Additional Information or Comments

If FCC FOIA staff has any questions concerning this request' it should contact the

Skybridge representatives listed above as soon as possible'

Thanks for Your assistance.

EXHIBIT 1O

Federal Communications CommissionWashington, D.C. 20554

June 2, 2010

By USPS and e-mail: wanen.havens@sbcglobal'netj stobaugh@telesaurus.com

'Warren HavensSkybridge Spectrum Foundation2649 Benvenue Avenne

Berkeley, CA 94704

Re: FCC FOIA Control No. 2010-379

Dear Mr. Havens:

This letter responds to the Freedom of I¡formation Act (FOIA) request (Request)

included in your e-toåil dut"d Aptil i9' 2010, which was received by the Federal

communìcátions commission ('commission or FCC) FOIA ControL Staff on April 20, 2010, and

assigned FCC FOIA Control Number 2010-379'

In the Request, you seek four discrete sets of records:

1)AllrecordsrelâtingtotheAugust18,2009,letter-sthatWirelessTelecommunicationsBureau, Mobility Division Deputy Chiei Scot Stone sent Ma¡itime Communicationsi Land

lnl"¡ ",

rr_c (sandra Depriest) (iøcnt); MariTEL, Inc.; and wireless Properties of virginia,-1"".

tijå"J¿ò"priest) grgiÈe"tior, áôs Leners); and the Febraary 26,2010, letrers that

Enfoìcement Bur"uu (SB), níestigations ana Hearings Division Special Counsel Gary

Schonman sent to the same parties.l

a) August 18, 2009, Mobitity Division Section 308 Letters The Mobility

Division responáed to a simila¡ request on Oct;ber 27 ,2009 '2 No additional records beyond

*rrut*u, pråuia"d to you in response to that request are in the commission's possession. Aswe

"áiáâ i" "* .".porr.e io you. initial request, should you seek the document for which the

commission has tentatively gËnted confirlentiality (i.e., Attachment II to wPV',s September 30,

iOOõ, ,"rpon." to the Augusi 18, 2009, Section 308 letter), y-ou should proceed under Section

0.459(dX1) of the Commission's rules' 47 C.F.R. $0'459(dX1)'

t

^11 C".-"t"t -."tt"*"""" -ith WPv includes Donald DePriest' and conespondence w¡th MCLM includes

Sandra DePriest.

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).

b) February 26,2010, Enþrcement Bureau Letters' We note that you were

copied on the Feb aÎy 26,20í0, EB letters to all three parties, as well as the responses by those

p"it".. Ñ" "¿¿i

ionaírecords báyond what you were copied on have been filed o¡ are in the

òommission's possession.

Wenotethatallthreepaltiessoughtconfidentialityforsomeportionoftheirresponses:

i. Under Sections 0 457(d)(2) and 0'459 of the Commission's rules'

47 C'F R $$0 457(dX2), 0'459' MCLM seeks confidential

tteatment oith" thitd p*"gt'aph of its March 29' 2010' response'

on the grouuds that it ;olìt;in; sensitive cornmercial and financial

ilrlormation.'

ii. Under Sections 0 a57(d)(2) and 0'459 ofthe Comrnission's rules'

47 C.F.R' $$0'457(dX2), 0'459' WPV seeks conltdential treatment

of Exhibiti i through 5, ir, their errtirety' to its Mârch 29' 2010'

response, on tlie gróunds that it contains sensitive cormnercial and

financial information u

iii. Under Section 0 459 of the Commission's rules' 47 C'F'R' $0'459'

MariTELseeksconfidentialtreatmentofcertainofitsresponses;you were copied bn MariTEL's letter indicating the information

for which MaritEL sought such treatment'5 as well as its request

fÀr confr¿entiat treatmeñt of tbat information'6

should you seek the information for which the three parties have sougþt confldential tre-atment

under Sáction 0.459 ofthe Commission,s rules, you ihould proceed under Section 0.a59(dX1) of

the Commission's rules, 47 C-F.R. $0.459(dxl)'

2) Copies of all correspondence between the Commßsion and the subjects of the

iect¡on 3fi8 onã EB l"ttn r. We note that you were copied on the th¡ee Section308

Letters and responses; the three Enforcemànt Bureau Letters and responses; and any e-

mails Commisiion staff may have had with the affected parties Beyond that' the

Commission has no othe¡ records.

t Letter f¡o- Demis C. Brown, Courisel to Maritime Communications/Land

Chief, Erforcement Bureau (Mar. 29' 2010)'

a Lette¡ from De¡nis C. Blown, Counsel to Wir€less Prcperties of Virginia' Inc ' to Michelle Ellison' Chiet

Enfo¡cement Bu¡eau (Mar' 29, 20 I 0)

5 Lette¡ ftom Russell H. Fox, Counsel, MariTEL, Inc, to Marlene H Dortch' Sec¡etary' Fede¡al Commuûicatiols

Commission, er al. (Mar.26,2010)'

ó Letter from Russell H. Fox, Counsel' MariTEL, lnc, to Ma¡lene H Dortch' Secretary' Federal Communicatíons

Con¡nission, el a/ (Mar- 29,2010)

Mobile. LLC, to Michelle Ellison,

3) Copies ofall cotespondence between the sxffofthe Wireless

Telecommunícatio^ ord the nniiíriemettt Bttreaus. Any suóh e-maits are protected by the

"1"-"v *"tt-ptoduct which hå been incotporated into Exemption 5 of the Freedom of

lnformarion Act, 5 U.S.C. S SSZiUXil, -¿ äe rherefore not discloseable.T In the alteraative, and

also undcr Exctltptiou 5, any such e-mails would be "pre-decisional'' ¡n natuc' and likewise not

subject to disclostlre.u

4) Copias of all conesponclence bettveen lhe Cotntníssion ancl any non-FCC

goveflunenf al enliÔ,. No suchìecotds exist

Tire Comnlission is requit ecl to charge fees for processiug a FOIA request- loY"u:" 'because the routi,.r"

"o.t of

"oll""ting flre feã is n.rost likely eqÙaì to or greater than the lee itself'

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*ri'ith thc ltlCl's Ofñcc of Genetal Counsel rvìthin i0 calendal dr¡'s of Ltt¡ tt1tc. o1.t¡ts.lettct )&?

.""tì"., O.iCf C'l and I.1I5 of the Cornmissìou's Lules,47 C F R SS0'461Ú)' l ll5 The capLtotr

""ã o^t.n-rnn,U cnvclope of auy such application mìI! gottlìin "Review of Freedom of

ln-fo.roution .n"î,t"tion," ancl súoultl '"i"ì'"n""

fCC FOIA Conù'ol Number 2010-379'

Qtrestions regarding the foregoing may be referred to Michael Cormelly (202-418-0132'

michael.connelly @fcc.gov) of this Division'

SincerelY,tu-Scot StoneDeputy Chief, MobilitY DivisionWìreless Telecommunications Bueau

Enclosure

7 The Comntission personDel that have wo¡ked on tüs natter ale attorueys

' 5 u.s.c. $552(bX5).

, Se¿ 47 C F R. {0.471(l). we nore rlÌar there was no ¡esearch fee incurrecl itr respondirg to this FolA, aud the

duplicating cost lo¡ p¡ovidlng " "opy

åilu* "iiginal

FOIA request regarding the Section 303 letters ¿nd ¡esponses

Octobe¡ 27, 2009

By USPS and e-mail: lvarren.havens@sbcglobal net

Wan'en HavensSkybrige Spectrum Foundation

2649 Benvenue AvenueBerkelêy, C^ 94704

Re: FCC FOIA Control No 2009-645

Dear Mr. Havens:

This letter r.esponds to the Freedorn ofInfonlation Act (FOIA) request (Request)

inclucled ìn yottr e-toåi1 dut"d S"pt"rl-tb et 27 ,2009, whicir u'as receivcd by the Federal

Corn-uni"otioo, Comn.rission (ôornmissìon oI FCC) FOIA Conûol Staff on Septembor 28'

2009, ancl assigned FCC FOIA Control Number 2009-645'

In the Request, you seek all records relating to August 18, 2009, letters that Mobility__-

Divtsion Deputy bhiei-scot Stone sent Mar.itime communications/Land Mobile, LLC; Ma¡iTEL,

1"".; ""ã

Wii"fárt Prôperties of Virgida (Section 308 Letters)' In response t" lb: -11:"T'^*"

are ánclosìng copies olthe three Section 308 Letters; documents received tn response to me

Section 308 Letters; and an e-mail chain involving the Section 308 Letters'

ln the Request, you ask for a description.of any document that is being withheld' along

with the reason the document is being witbield.l In ràsponse, we note that Wireless Properties

å¡îirgU" tWpV) sought confidentiä treatrnent of Attãchment II to the response it filed on--

é"pt",fuo ì0, zoóg; thã document, which wpv seeks to protect in its entirety, is the MariTEL,

irrð., rm¿ Amendeá a¡d Restated Stockholders Agreement ¿ w?v believes the document

åi¡t "ln¡¿*ti¿ treatment because it addresses sensitive matters' including commercial and

-ä"ä;it"f#;tt' âr,i-ttut ."qt

"tt"a that the document be exempt from F.IA pnrsuant to 5.

ü.îõ. T;;;"ôÏ;t;-it v", .""r. ,ri" oocument for which rhe commission has tentativelv sranted

Federal Communications Commission'Washington, D.C. 20554

I ,See Request at I .

2 Letter fiom Dennis C. Brown, counsel to wireless Properties ofvirgiûia, lnc-- to Ruth MitkmaJt, chief, Wireless

fã1""0-ãt¡.".* gur.au (hana-d"Liveied S"pt ¡0, Z'OOÐ (Sto*"ietter) We note that W?V indicated i¡ its

,"rp*.îi"t"il.üf " "" tt e coimissioo's UoiveÅal Licensing Service site) that it woùld be filing â request for

coDfi dentiality of such documett.

3 wPv seek confidential treatment of the document un¿ler Sectio¡ 0 459 of the comúission's ¡ules' 4? C F R

$0.459.

a Brown Letter at 2

confidentìality, you should proceed rnder Sectìon 0'459(d)(l) of the Cornnission's rules' 47

c.F.R. S0.4se(dx1).

Iu your Request, you indicate that at the time you filed the instant Request' you were also

filing a second f Oi,L."qu"st tor. tt e same records, under the sameletms' for aly records the

Commission tnay obtain ftom today ootit t'lou"*t"' 15' 2009'5 We note that only those lecords

within the Commission's possessio'n and cont¡ol as of the date of theFOIA Ïequest (heTe'

iåpã*¡.t zs, 2009) shali be constdered 6

Thc Comrnissiou is required to cìrarge fees for processing a FOiA request Hol'ev9r' ...

because the routine cost ofcottectingit " i"ã ¡ .t o.t tit ety equai to or greater tlìaD Î.he fee itself,

*" ,t,rotl "nt

assess fees in this case T

lf you believe this to be a denial of your Ïequest' yor: may file an Appiication for Revicrv

wÍth the FCC,s Offce ofGeneral Co..or"l ívitttin:b calándar clays of the clate ofthis letter' Se¿

sections 0.461(j) and 1.1 15 of tn" ðãttt-ittion's rules, 47 C F R $$0461Û)' I Ll5 The captiot1

äiiìtt"t-i"-é "nu"lop"

of uny stt"h application nrust contain."Revierv of Freedom of

¡ri"ÃãC* n"î,tction," and should reiåence FCC FOIA Control Numbet 2009-645

Questions regarding the foregoing may be referred to Miohael Connelly (202-418-0132'

michael.colnelly@fcc.gov) of this Division'

SincerclY,

Enclosure

øÅ-Scot StoneDêoutv Chief, MobilitY DivisionWireiãss Telecommunications Bureau

I ,9¿¿ Request at 2.

6 See 41 C.F.P'. $0 461(Ð(6).

1 See 4't C.F -P- ÈA.4'11(Ð. We note that there was no ¡escarch fee iocu¡¡ed in resoonding to ûis FOIA' as the

responsrve document. *"." in ,lt" pott"tt'iãî"i*tp""¿G c"t-ission personieì' and the duplicating costs are de

ñlmtmis-