Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Skybridge Spectrum Foundation Challenge of FCC Denial of FOIA Matters, Sept 2010

    Uploaded by

    Skybridge Spectrum Foundation
    133 views53 pages
    Application for Review (administrative appeal) by Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, a nonprofit private foundation, to the FCC (full Commission) challenging its violation of basic FOIA law by full denial of fee-waiver rights the Foundation has and requested the FCC to respect, in a half dozen FOIA requests. The FCC also refused to follows its FOIA rules to allow inspection of the documents while the fee waiver request was pending, and created and applied policies that are not supported by the FOIA or FCC rules implementing FOIA as to using fee waiver request processing to delay acting on the substance of the pending requests. Skybridge has various challenges against the FCC in court and before the agency, and seeks various FCC documents under FOIA for these purposes, to demonstrate publicly (by publication of documents obtained, as on Scribd) various FCC violations of its own rules and other applicable law, and more generally, to publicly shed light on the workings of this agency which are often biased, political, secretive, and not in the "pubic interest, convenience, and necessity" (as Congress, in the Communications Act, often states as its standard for FCC action): that standard rests on following its on law, and experience demonstrates that is not a serious principal at the FCC. These Skybridge challenges appear to be a motivation behind these FCC violation of FOIA law. Skybridge recently sued the FCC in US District Court on unlawful FOIA denials, and may add to that case over a half dozen other FCC FOIA denials, including those subject of this document (Skybridge expects the FCC to deny this Application for Review since most all of the arguments herein have been presented and ignored or sidestepped by the FCC a number of times for years).

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Application for Review (administrative appeal) by Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, a nonprofit private foundation, to the FCC (full Commission) challenging its violation of basic FOIA law by full denial of fee-waiver rights the Foundation has and requested the FCC to respect, in a half dozen FOIA requests. The FCC also refused to follows its FOIA rules to allow inspection of the documents while the fee waiver request was pending, and created and applied policies that are not supported by the FOIA or FCC rules implementing FOIA as to using fee waiver request processing to delay acting on the substance of the pending requests. Skybridge has various challenges against the FCC in court and before the agency, and seeks various FCC documents under FOIA for these purposes, to demonstrate publicly (by publication of documents obtained, as on Scribd) various FCC violations of its own rules and other applicable law, and more generally, to publicly shed light on the workings of this agency which are often biased, political, secretive, and not in the "pubic interest, convenience, and necessity" (as Congress, in the Communications Act, often states as its standard for FCC action): that standard rests on following its on law, and experience demonstrates that is not a serious principal at the FCC. These Skybridge challenges appear to be a motivation behind these FCC violation of FOIA law. Skybridge recently sued the FCC in US District Court on unlawful FOIA denials, and may add to that case over a half dozen other FCC FOIA denials, including those subject of this document (Skybridge expects the FCC to deny this Application for Review since most all of the arguments herein have been presented and ignored or sidestepped by the FCC a number of times for years).

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    133 views53 pages

    Skybridge Spectrum Foundation Challenge of FCC Denial of FOIA Matters, Sept 2010

    Uploaded by

    Skybridge Spectrum Foundation
    Application for Review (administrative appeal) by Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, a nonprofit private foundation, to the FCC (full Commission) challenging its violation of basic FOIA law by full denial of fee-waiver rights the Foundation has and requested the FCC to respect, in a half dozen FOIA requests. The FCC also refused to follows its FOIA rules to allow inspection of the documents while the fee waiver request was pending, and created and applied policies that are not supported by the FOIA or FCC rules implementing FOIA as to using fee waiver request processing to delay acting on the substance of the pending requests. Skybridge has various challenges against the FCC in court and before the agency, and seeks various FCC documents under FOIA for these purposes, to demonstrate publicly (by publication of documents obtained, as on Scribd) various FCC violations of its own rules and other applicable law, and more generally, to publicly shed light on the workings of this agency which are often biased, political, secretive, and not in the "pubic interest, convenience, and necessity" (as Congress, in the Communications Act, often states as its standard for FCC action): that standard rests on following its on law, and experience demonstrates that is not a serious principal at the FCC. These Skybridge challenges appear to be a motivation behind these FCC violation of FOIA law. Skybridge recently sued the FCC in US District Court on unlawful FOIA denials, and may add to that case over a half dozen other FCC FOIA denials, including those subject of this document (Skybridge expects the FCC to deny this Application for Review since most all of the arguments herein have been presented and ignored or sidestepped by the FCC a number of times for years).

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 53

    ATTORNEYS AT LAW

    ro NossAMAN,,, 1666 K Street, NW


    Suite 500
    Washington, DC
    t 2o2.al7j4oo
    20006 I
    I
    F 202.466.3215

    Tam¡r D. Damari
    D 202.887 .1442
    tdamari@nossaman.com

    Refer To File #: 290861-0003

    September 27,2010
    HECEIVED. FCC
    VIA COURIER

    Federal Communications Commission stP 2 7 2010


    Office of General Counsel FEderat Cúmnufl rf,il¡0n6
    Commi6Blon
    445 12th Street SW Euroau / 0fli¿e
    Washington, DC 20554

    Re: FOIA Control Nos. 2010-495, 497. 506, 507 508 and 538

    APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT ACTION

    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 550.461(i) and 1.115, of: (i) an August 19,

    2010 determination by Ann Bushmiller, Deputy Associate General Counsel,

    Administrative Law Division (the "Division"), denying Skybridge's search fee waiver

    requests in connection with FOIA Control Nos. 2010-495, 497, 506,507 and 508; and

    (ii) an August 26, 2010 determination by Ms. Bushmiller denying Skybridge's search fee

    waiver request in connection with FOIA Control No. 2010-538.1

    I The above-referenced FOIA requests will be collectively referred to below as the


    "FOIA Requests". The above-referenced fee denials will be collectively referred to
    below as the "Determinations."

    165501 l.DOC
    September 27, 2010
    Page 2

    The basis for each such denial was that skybridge is purportedly a "commercial

    requester." Nevertheless, as demonstrated below, even assuming arguendo thaÍ

    Skybridge is indeed a commercial requester, the Division's undisputed failure to timely

    permit inspection of responsive documents pending the resolution of the parties' dispute

    with respect to Skybridge's fee waiver entitlement, results in a forfeiture of the

    Commission's rights to charge search fees in connection with these requests.

    Moreover, as a substantive matter, the Division's denials of Skybridge's search fee

    waiver requests were improper and contrary to relevant FOIA law. Accordingly,

    skybridge requests that the Determinations be vacated, and that documents responsive

    to the FOIA Requests be immediately released at no charge io Skybridge.

    165501 LDOC
    September 27, 20'10
    Page 3

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    QUESTIONS PRESENTED 4

    THE FOIA REQUESTS AT ISSUE 4

    ARGUMENT 7

    The Division's Fee Waiver Denial Was lmproper 7


    Because the Division Did Not Comply With 47 CFR S0.470(d)

    Skybridge ls Entitled to a Search Fee Waiver Under 5 U.S.C.


    S552(aXaXA)(iiXll), On Account Of lts Status As A Bona Fide
    Nonprofit Entity

    CONCLUSION 17
    September 27, 20'10
    Page 4

    QUESTIONS PRESENTED
    1. Did the Division err on August 19, 2010 and on August 26,2010 by denying

    Skybridge's search fee waiver requests?

    THE FOIA REQUESTS AT ISSUE

    A. FOIA 2010-495

    This FolA request sought three categories of records relating to the Auction

    Division,s July 15,2010 announcement delaying Auction No:87. (See Exhibit 1). ln

    denying skybridge's fee waiver request, the Division determined: (i) "skybridge's fee

    waiver request does not explain how release of the records sought will contribute to

    public understanding of the operations or activities of the government;" (¡i) "skybridge

    fails to give any indication why information concerning the delay in Auction 87 has

    significant public interest;" and (iii) "skybridge has not demonstrated that its request is

    primarily in the public, rather than its own, interest."2

    B. FOIA 2010-496

    This FolA request sought records related to prior FOIA requests by skybridge

    from 2006 until the present.3 ln response to Skybridge's fee waiver request, the

    Administrative Law Division determined: (i) "skybridge fails to show that its request is

    not primarily intended to serve the commercial interests of affiliated entities;" and (ii)

    2 seeAugust 19,2O1O letterfrom Ann Bushmillerto skybridge spectrum, attached


    hereto as Exhibit 2, at. Page 2.

    3 See Exhib¡t 3.

    165501 1.DOC
    September 27, 2010
    Page 5

    ,,skybridge has not shown why informaiion concerning its FolA requests would be of

    public interest."4

    c. FolA 2010-506

    This request sought: (i) copies of all filings made by Tetra Associaiion in ET

    Docket No. 09-234 marked "confidential" (or which are otherwise being ireated as not

    publically available by the commission); and (2) records of all meetings with

    Commission employees concerning ET Docket No. 09234.5 ln response to Skybridge's

    fee waiver request, the Division determined that: (i) "skybridge fails to show that its

    request is not primarily intended to serve the commercial interests of affiliated entities;"

    and (ii),,il1t is not apparent how confidential information about private companies would

    significantly contribute to public understanding of the operations or activities of the

    government as required by the statute."6

    n rrìr^ tat,lñ-1117

    This request sought information concerning Sandra and Donald Depriest.T ln

    response to Skybridge's fee waiver request, the Administrative Law Division determined

    that: (i) "despite its non-profit status, skybridge fails to show that the request is not

    4 See Exh¡b¡t 2, at page 3

    5 See Exhibit 4.

    6 SeeExhibit2,atpage3

    7 See Exhibit 5.

    '165501 LDOC
    September 27,2010
    Page 6

    intended to serve the commercial interests of affiliated entities;" and (ii) "Skybridge has

    not shown why information concerning the Depriests' activities would be of public

    interest."B

    E. FOIA 2010-508

    This request sought: (i) records describing the relationship between the

    commission (or its stafQ and the Telecommunications Development Fund ("TDF") or

    spectrum Bridge; (ii) rules pertaining to the positions that commission employees may

    hold in outside organizations, including TDF; and (iii) records of approvals or rule

    waivers permitting present or former Commission personnel to hold positions with

    TDF.9 ln response to Skybridge's fee waiver request, the Administrative Law Division

    stated "we find that, despite its nonprofit status, Skybridge fails to show that its request

    is not primarily intended to serve the commercial interests of affiliated entities. We also

    find that Skybridge has not shown why information concerning its FOIA requests would

    be of public interest."10

    F. FOIA 2010-538

    This Request sought documents evidencing professional, business or personal

    relationships between current or former FCC employees and Donald Depriest, Sandra

    8 See Exhlbit 2, at page 4.

    s See Exhibit 6.

    10 See Exh¡b¡t 2, at page 4.

    '165501 1.DOC
    September 27, 2010
    Page 7

    Depriest, John Reardon, Robert Cooper and/or Susan Cooper.l1 ln response to

    skybridge,s fee waiver request, the Administrative Law Division, in its August 26,2010

    Determination, stated: (i) "skybridge's fee waiver request does not explain how release

    of the records sought will contribute to public understanding of the operations or


    activities of the government;" and (ii) "skybridge has not demonstrated that its request is

    primarily in the public, rather than its own, interest "l2

    ARGUMENT
    A. The Division's Fee waiver Denial was lmproper Because The Division
    Did Not Comply With 47 C.F'R. S0'470(d)

    At the outset, the Division failed to comply with its own FOIA procedures. As

    described, the principal ground articulated by the Division for denying skybridge's fee

    waiver requests was its suspicion that the underlying FOIA requests were intended for

    commercial benefit. However, under these circumstances, 47 C.F.R. S0.470(d) requires

    ihat the Division afíord the requester a further opportunity to ji.rstify its íee waiver
    request:

    (d) lf the Commission reasonably believes that a commercial interest


    ex¡sts, based on the information provided pursuant to paragraph (c) of this
    section, the requester shall be so notified and given an additional ten
    business days to provide further information to justify receiving a reduced
    fee.

    (emphasis added).

    ¡t See Exhibit 7.

    tz See Exhibit L

    f 65501_1.DOC
    September 27,2010
    PageI

    ln this case, it is beyond dispute that skybridge was not granted an opportunity to
    ,,provide further information to justify receiving a reduced fee." on this basis alone, the

    fee waiver denial is improper and should be vacated.

    Moreover, S0.470(d) further provides that "During this time period [i e , the

    additional ten-day periodl, the materials will be available for inspection to the extent that

    the time period exceeds the time period for responding to FolA requests, as

    appropriate." This provision clearly places the onus upon the commission, in a//

    circumstances, to timely meet its FOIA obligations. Moreover, this provision must be

    read in conjunction with 47 CFR S0.a70(aX1)(¡i), which states:

    Commercial use requesiers shall not be assessed search fees if the


    Commission fails to comply wiih the time limits under $ 0.461(g)(1)' if no
    unusual or exceptional circumstances (S 0.461(gX1Xi) through (iii)) apply
    to the processing of the request.

    (emphasis added).

    These provisions, when read in conjunction, make clear that where (as here)

    there is a dispute between a requesting party and the Commission as to whether the

    requester is a "commercial" requester, the Commission cannot exploit this dispute to fail

    to comply with FolA-mandated response periods. simply put, under $0.470(axlxii), if

    the commission fails to timely comply with its response obligations (in the case of

    disputes under $0.470(d), by failing to permit inspection), any subsequent attempt to

    assess search fees is void ab initio. ln this case, responsive documents have not been

    made available for inspection. To the contrary, the Division indicated that "the period for

    165501_1.DOC
    September27,2010
    Page I

    responding to skybridge's FolA requests has been tolled pending the resolution of the

    fee waiver issues and will continue to be tolled pending clarification of other fee issues."

    The Division did not cite to any authority whatsoever which permits such a "tolling," nor

    does any such authority exist. ln shod, even assuming arguendo that the Division had

    a ground to contend that Skybridge was a commercial requester, its subsequent failure

    to permit inspection in a timely fashion effectuated a waiver of any such right 13 On this

    additional basis, the Division's decision was procedurally tainted at the outset.

    B. Skybridge ls Entitled to a Search Fee Waiver Under 5 U.S.C.


    S552(aXaXAX¡iXll), On Account Of lts Status As A Bona Fide Nonprofit
    Entity

    ln each of the FOIA Requests, Skybridge represented that it was seeking a fee

    waiver on the grounds that (i) it is a non-profit, tax-exempt (under 26 U.S.C.

    S501(cX3)), scientific, educational and charitable foundation that researches and


    publishes information on communications-related matters in the public interest; (ii) it has

    been explicitly recognized by the U.S. lnternal Revenue Service as a bona fide tax-

    exempt organization under $501(c)(3) by virtue of an IRS Exemption Letter; (iii) it is

    registered to do business in the State of Delaware as a non-profit organization; (iv) it

    maintains a web-page at www.scribd.com/warren havens on which it publishes a wide

    13 The impropriety of this unjustified "tolling" (and attendant delay) is underscored by


    Skybridge's indication in the FOIA Requests that in the event of a dispute between
    Skybridge and the Commission as to Skybridge's entitlement to a fee waiver, Skybridge
    would agree to pay the full amount of the fees, subject to a reservation of rights. See,
    e.g., Exhibit 4 ("However, if the FCC decides to use this fee waiver or reduction request
    in any way to delay the response to this FOIA request, then, under protest, Skybridge
    will pay the amount due (if reasonable) and seek a decision reversal and refund . . . ")

    165501 1.DOC
    September 27, 2010
    Page 10

    var¡ety of information relating to FCC issues; and (v) this web-page has received over

    14,000 "reads" s¡nce late 20Og.14 Tellingly, the Division did not dispute anv of these

    contentions in its August 19 and August 26 Determinations. Accordingly, these

    contentions are presumably conceded by the Division. As demonstrated below,

    skybridge's undisputed status as a federally and state recognized non-profit entity, rn

    and of ¡tself , entitles it to fee waiver in this case, at least as to FOIA search fees.

    As noted, the Division denied Skybridge's fee waiver requests based upon its

    conclusion that the documents sought by skybridge would not benefit the "public

    interest." skybridge disputes the Division's decision on this issue. Nevertheless,

    resolution of this debate is unnecessary, because the "public interest" is only an issue

    with respect to FOIA fee waivers if Skybridge's fee waiver requests are presumed to

    have stemmed solely from 5 U.S.C. $552(aX4XAXiii). A cursory glance at the

    Determination (at page 1 and footnote 3) reveals that the Division did in fact assume

    that Skybridge's fee waiver requests arose entirely out of $552(aX4XAXiii).15 The
    Division was erroneous.

    1a See, e.g., Exhibit 5, at pages 2-3.

    15 5 U.S.C. S552(aXaXAXiii) states that "Documents shall be furnished without any


    charge or at a charge reduced . . . if disclosure of the information is in the publlc interest
    because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or
    activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the
    requester.")

    165501-l.Doc
    September 27, 2010
    Page 11

    ln fact, there is an entirely independent ground under which skybridge, as a bona

    fide 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, may obtain a FolA fee waiver. specifically, 5

    U.S.C. 5552(a)(4XAX|¡Xll) provides that:

    IF]ees shall be limited to reasonable standard charges for document duplication


    when records are not sought for commercial use and the request is made by an
    educational or noncommercial scientific institution, whose purpose is scholarly or
    scientific research: or a representative of the news media.

    (emphasis added).
    (public
    Unlike $552(a)(4XAXiii), $552(a)(a)(A)(ii)(ll) does not contain a interest,,

    requirement, rendering moot the issue of whether the documents subsumed within the

    FOIA Requests will benefit the "public interest." see Eagle v. u.s. Dept. of commerce,

    2003 u.s. Disi LEXIS 25444 .6-10 (N.D. Ca. April 28, 2003) (noting the distinction

    between s552(aXaXAXiii) and $552(aX¿XAX|iXll)); Electronic Pr¡vacy lnformation

    Center v. Dept. of Defense,241 F. Supp. 2d 5, 6 (D.D.C 2003) (same)' Under

    s552(aX4XAXii)(li), the oniy material issues are: (i) whether the FolA
    request has been

    made by an "educational or noncommercial scientific institution, whose purpose is

    scholarly or scientific research; or a representative of the news media;" (ii) whether the

    records are not sought for a commercial use.

    There is no legitimate dispute that skybridge is an educational institution. As

    noted above, it is a federally-recognized $501(c)(3) non-profit organization.l6

    16 Under IRS rules, "The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(cX3) are charitable,
    religious, educational, scientific, Iiterary, testing for public safety, fostering national or
    inte-rnational amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals .
    . ." See http://www.irs.qov/charities/charitable/article/O,,id='175418.00 htm1'

    165501_',1.DOC
    September 27, 2010
    Page 12

    skybridge is also incorporated in Delaware as a non-profit corporation. lts very purpose

    is to obtain, publish and disseminate information on FCC matters (including matters

    relating to the FCC's internal mechanisms and its regulation of licensees)' Moreover, its

    educational purposes are evidenced by its maintenance of a web-page at

    www.scribd.com/warren havens on which it publishes a wide variety of information

    reÍating to FCC issues. As discussed, this web-page (much of the content of which
    is

    comprised of information obtained by skybridge via FolA and other public domain

    channels) has received over 14,000 "reads" since late 2009.17 ln short, Skybridge has

    no commercial activities whatsoever.

    ln fact, in fesponse to prior FolA requests by skybridge, other federal agencies

    (including the Department of Energy and others) have granted fee waivers to skybridge'

    correcfly recognizing that it is a bona fide educational and charitable foundation. lt

    belabors the obvious to note that an entity cannot be a bona fide educational and

    charitable foundation for FolA purposes only as to certain agencies, but not others. To

    the contrary, FOIA's strictures apply equallv to all federal agencies. ln view of all of the

    17The scope of the intended dissemination by Skybridge easily exceeds that which is
    required under $552(a)(4XAXiiXll). "Requestors' statements of intent to disseminate
    requested information through newsletters, popular news outlets, and presentations to
    public interest groups, goveinment agencies, and the general public are sufficient to
    änti¡e an orgañization to a fee waivei." W. Watersheds Proiect v- Brown,318 Srpp. I
    2d.1036,1041 (D. ld.2004). Moreover, "information need not actually reach a broad
    cross-section of the public in order to benefit the public at large . . . . The relevant
    inquiry . . . is whether the requestor will disseminate the disclosed records to a
    reåsonably broad audience of persons interested in the subject." Id., citing Carney v. US
    Dep't of Justice, 19 F.3d 807, 814-15 (2d. Cir. 1994).

    165501_1.DOC
    September 27, 2010
    Page 13

    prong of
    foregoing, there can be no legitimate dispute that skybridge meets the first

    S552(aX4XAXii)(l l)'s iwo-part test.

    The only remaining issue is whether the records requesied have been sought for

    a ,,commercial use." while there is a paucity of case law specifically discussing the

    meaning of this phrase (as used in s552(aX4XAXliXll)), the commission, in addressing


    waiver
    this issue, should be mindful of the fact that congress intended for the FolA fee

    standard be liberally construed. see Eudey v. ctA,47B F. Supp. 1175 (D.D.C. 1979);

    EttlÌngerv.FBt,596F.Supp.867(D.Mass.1984);W.WatershedsProject,3lSF.
    supp. 2d. at 1039 ("The fee waiver provision of the Freedom of lnformation Act (FOIA)

    is to be liberally construed in favor of waivers for noncommercial requesters. lt should

    not be interpreted to allow federal agencies to set up roadblocks to prevent

    noncommercial entities from receiving a fee waiver.") Similarly, once a FOIA requester

    makes a prima facie showing that it is entitled to a fee waiver, the burden shifts to the

    agency to show why a waiver would be improper. Ettlinger, supra; see also, Friends
    of

    the Coast Fork v. uS DOt, 1 10 F.3d 53 (gth cir. 1997).

    The Division's Determination ignored this liberal standard, by in essence

    requiring skybridge to do the impossible - namely, to "prove a negative." see, e.9.,

    Exhibit 2, at page 4. ("we find that, despite its nonprofit status, skybrldge fails
    to show

    that its request is not primarily intended to serve the commercial interests of affiliated

    entities."). The rationale for this artificial burden devised from whole cloth by the
    states
    Division was made evident on page 2 of the Determination, where the Division
    ,,Skybridge,s FOIA request relates to matters in which a commercial entity affiliated with

    165501 ',l.DOC
    September 27, 2010
    Page 14

    skybridge has a substantial interest, and it therefore appears that the FolA request may
    public " (emphasis
    be directed to assisting this entity rather than primarily informing the

    added). ln support of this "affiliate interest" proposition, the Division (at footnote 12 of

    its Determination) cited to McCIain v. u.S. DOJ, 13 F.3d 220,221 (7th Cir. 1993).

    However, McCtain is inapposite, as it involved a request for a $552(a)(4)(A)(iii) waiver

    of copying costs, not a S552(aXaXA)(ii)(ll) waiver of search fees' ld" at 221

    (,,Duplication is all the FBI wants McClain to pay for. No matter who asks, a waiver of
    public
    duplication fees depends on proof that disclosure would 'contribute significantly to

    understanding of the operations or activities of the government."'). The agency decision

    cited by the Division in footnote '12 of its Determination, In re Robbins, call

    communications Group, Inc.,21 FCC Rcd 6685 (2006), likewise involved a request for

    a S552(aXaXA)(iii) waiver of copying cosfs, not a $552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(ll) waiver request'


    /d., at 6686.

    ln this case, by contrast, skybridge did not ask for a waiver of copying costs. ln

    fact, it agreed to pay costs up to a maximum of $250 in connection with each of the

    FOIA requests.l S Thus, the principal authorities relied upon by the Division are entirely

    inapposite.

    when distilled to its essence, the Division's Determination is reducible to the

    premise that because warren c. Havens, the Manager of skybridge, also manages for-

    profit FCC licensees that may potentially benefit from the information contained within

    18 See Exhrblfs 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

    165501 1.DOC
    September 27,2010
    Page 15

    documents responsive to the FolA Requests, this fact, in and of itself, means
    that

    any
    skybridge's request is "commercial" in intent. However, the Division failed to cite to

    decision, from any coud or agency in the country, in support of this proposition

    Moreover, this proposition is nonsensical on its face. As a statutory S501(cX3)

    organization, skybridge's very status evidences the "non-commercial" nature of its

    activities. The activities of other, for-profit, entities managed by Mr. Havens are, and
    under
    legally must be, distinct from those of skybridge, among other reasons because
    private
    IRS rules "The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of
    to the
    interests, and no part of a section 501(cX3) organization's net earnings may inure

    benefit of any privaie shareholder or indívidual".19 Thus, the Division's reasoning

    towards skybridge, when stripped of its inapposite citations, is nothing more than a

    cynical attempt to second guess the determinations of both the IRS and the state of

    Delaware as to skybridge's non-profit status. However, skybridge's separate status


    is

    not a fiction - it is a legal fact that the Division cannot ignore at its convenience.

    SkybridgedoesnotdisputethatifandwhendocumentsresponsivetotheFolA

    Requests are actually obtained by skybridge and publically disseminated on

    rs http://www.irs.qov/charities/charitable/article/Q,.id=96099,00.htmI see a/:o _^


    ,
    nt@'"ro,,iq=,?arnt,oo.n,., ("4 section 501(cX3)

    as-the creator or the creatois family, shareholders of the organization, other designated
    '¿tedforthebenefitofprivateinterests,such
    individuals, or persons controlled directly or indirectly by such
    private interests. No part
    of tfre net of a section 501(cX3) organization may inure to the benefit of any
    "urnìng, or individual. A piivate shareholder or individual is a person having
    private shareholãer
    ")
    ä personat and private interest in the activities of the organization

    '165501 1.DOC
    September 27, 2010
    Page 16

    skybridge's web-page, the information contained therein may be used beneficially by

    other for-profit FCC licensees. Of course, these entities include for-profit FCC licensees

    managed by Mr. Havens. However, the mere possibility of such information-sharing

    does not justify the disregard of a non-profit organization's separate corporate

    existence. Nor does it justify the assumption that a non-profit organization's FOIA
    request is a commercial request.

    lndeed, the IRS code expressly permits such information-sharing between

    foundations and private individuals. For example, at 26 U.S.C. S4941(dx2xD), it states:


    ,'the furnishing of goods, services, or facilities by a private foundation to a disqualified

    person2o shall not be an act of self-dealing if such furnishing is made on a basis no

    more favorable than that on which such goods, services, or facilities are made available

    to the general publ/c." (emphasis added). The benefit associated with documents which

    are publically released under FolA, is, by definition, a public benefit. ln other words,

    once a document is publically released by the FCC it becomes part of the public

    domain. lt follows, a foñiori, that there is no private right or interest associated wiih
    such a document for Skybridge to pass on to other Havens-managed entities in the first

    instance. Thus, the terms under which such a document is provided by skybridge to

    other Havens-managed entities ¡s "no more favorable than that on which such goods,

    services, or facilÌties are made ava¡lable to the general public."

    20A,,disqualified person" is defined at 26 u.s.c. s4946(aXlXA) as "a substantial


    contributor to the foundation."

    't65501 1.DOC
    September 27, 2010
    Page 17

    Moreover, with respect to any documents obtained in response to the FOIA

    Requests, Skybridge has certified its intent and means to furnish responsive information

    "on a basis no more favorable than that on which such [information is] made available to

    the general public" (specifically, by publishing such information on its publically-

    accessible Scribd website), and the Division has not disputed this intent or capability to

    publish.

    ln shor1, the Division disregards black-letter foundation law when it suggests that

    Skybridge's potential delivery of information obtained under FOIA to commonly-

    managed affiliates can be deemed to be an act bestowing a private benefit to these

    affiliates. Skybridge respectfully submits that it is improper for the Division to second-

    guess the expertise of the IRS (not to mention other federal agencies) as to its

    determination that Skybridge is a bona ftde non-profit entity. Nor should it be permitted

    to speculate, without any supporting evidence, that the intent, purpose or result of the

    FOIA Requests will be a private benefit for Havens-managed affiliates.

    CONCLUSION

    For each of the foregoing reasons, Skybridge respectfully requests that the

    August 19, 201 0 and August 26, 201 0 Determinations by the Division be vacated.

    for Nossaman LLP

    TDDl/

    165501_1.DOC
    EXHIBIT 1
    FOIA Reque st to the FCC, vía
    FOIA@FCC.GOV

    Requestor: SkybridgespectrumFoundation ("Skybridge")

    Address: 2nd Office at: 2649 Benvenue Ave., Berkeley, CA94104

    Phone: 510-841 -2220 or 510-848-1 7 91


    Fax: 510-7 40-3412
    Email: jstobaugh telesarìrtls-com and
    @
    warren.havens @ sbcglobal.net

    Date: July 15, 2010

    Description of Records Requested

    RecordsrelatingtotheFCCAuctionsDivisionannouncemgntinAuctionSTissued
    time
    (within the Auction eleãtronic bidding system used by bidders) at or about 4:31 PM Eastem
    àn July 15,2010 right after auction- ráund 13g which announced a delay in the auction (the
    ;¡"ru/1. R".o.d, i"qo".t"d include records in elecrronic and hard-copy form and any other
    form.

    Records requested are:


    (1)AìÌrecordsthatdescribetheprovisionallywinningbids(.'PWBs'')attheendoflound
    fult identity of the bidder or
    137 thai were subjecr to higher bids in aucrion 138; including the
    bidders that held those PWBs at the end of round 137
    (2)AllrecordsthatdescribeorrelatetoFCCstaffinternal(withintheFCC)
    consideruiion of and decision to implement to the Delay including
    handwritten notes, and emails
    and other electronic docu ments.
    person other
    (3) All records that descrlbe any FCC staff communications to or from any
    an'Écc employee relating ro thå Delay, other than (i) the announcement of the Delay
    than
    tÔ "auctionS7 @fccgov
    described above, and (ii) the email submitted by warren Havens
    time on July 15 2010'
    conceming the Delay sent at about 6:33 pm Eastern '

    Maximum Search and CoPYing Fees

    $250 (two hundred and fifty dollars)'

    getting the requested documents is going to exceed this maximum search


    fee' then
    If
    styuriagåsts ihar it b; informed of the amount by which it will be exceeded since
    Skybridge
    cost there may be, or Skybridge
    *uy *uã, the FCC to proceed anywây for whatever additional specified
    the maximum amount
    may modify its request as as to obiain'copies of documents up to
    here.

    Waiver of Fees
    iS true and colrect:
    The undersigned ceftified under penalty of perjury that the following
    and charitable foundation which, as
    Skybridge is a nonf.ofit, tax-exempt scientific, educational
    (and other
    one of its primary functions, researches and publishes information on FCC matters
    matters) in the public interest.+ skybridge intends to publish information resulting from lhe
    fulfillment of this FoIA request. In addition, and apatt from said publication activity, skybridge
    is, according to its Delaware certificate of incorporalion and its IRS tax-exemption determination
    leiter (see ihese documents submitted with the Skybridge Form i75 in this Auction 87), and
    accordì.rg to its actual activities, a nonprofit tax-exempt coryoration and a private operating
    foundatiãn engaged in educational activities for the public benefit. It is thus entitled to fee
    waiver or at least fee reduction for FOIA requests.
    t See e.g. the www.tetra-us.us webSite, and the http://www.scribd.com/waren h¿rvens
    website. These are both undertaken by and for skybridge spectrum Foundation as the plincipal
    entity involved in the described pubic interest educational (and scientific and charitable)
    activities.

    The FCC in past FOIA responses to skybridge seeing fee waivers or reduclion has
    indicated that it is not aware of hôw Internet websites effectively publish information to the
    public.Thatisaspuriousresponse.ThefactiSthattheabovelistedwebsitesandpagesare
    ãp"rur"d by and foi Skybridge and state in the information and documents published on these
    cites th" nonprofit public interest reasons for these online publications, including those
    perraining aireitty anå indirectly to FCC issues. The sites have had tens of thousands of visitors'
    à.,d havJ g"nerated a lot of interest, and some of that is reflected in FCC proceedings on
    TETRA, Iri'CLM, Auction 61, major court cases involving the FCC, and other major FCCJaw
    and FCC-polity issues. The information sought in this request will be published on one of
    the
    skybridge sites to inform the public of the workings of govemment on a major issue of public
    intárest I Federal Agencies, in this case the FCC, treatment of FOIA matters, which the records
    in fhe Request shois is specious and prejudicial. Skybridge intends to publish the _relevant
    documents responsive to thls request and allow the public access to them, along with other'
    past
    FCC FOIA request responses. In adtlition, skybridge will use the information it obtains ftom
    this FOIA request in its other (non-publishing) private opelating foundation educational
    activities. The FCC has no shown, in past denials of Skybridge's FolA-request fee waivers o¡
    reductions, any basis to challenge the content or nature of these programs

    Thus, fees should be waived or reduced.

    However,iftheFCCusesthisfeewaivero¡reductionrequesttodelayinanywaythe
    response to this FoIA reqùest, then Skybridge will pay the amount due (if reasonable) under
    p.oìest and seek to obtain å refund. In addirion, Skybridge has never been late on any vaLidFCC
    payment
    þOf,q. (o'. other) payment obligation. Thus, the FCC cannot Ìawfully require advance
    if
    from Siybridge in relation rt this FOIA request. However, again, the FCC requires that,
    Skybridge will pay that (if reasonable) under protest and undertake an appropriate appeal

    Thanks for your assistance.

    ls/
    Warren Havens
    for
    'Warren
    Havens and
    Jimmy Stobaugh
    EXHIBIT 2
    Federal Communications Commission
    Washington, D,C. 20554

    August 19, 2010

    Skyblidgc Spectlu m Foutrdrlion


    c/o Warren Havens
    2649 Benvenue Avenue
    Suites 2-6
    Berkeley, CA94704

    Re: FOIA Control Nos 20l0-495' 2010-497'


    2010-50ó, 2010-507, and 2010-508
    Requests for Fee lVaivers

    Dear Mr. Havens:

    This resporcls to Skybridge Spectrum Foundation's (Skybridge) requests fbr a waive¡ of fees fot'
    processingthefwcabove-re-ferenãedÞreedomoflnformationAct(FOIA)requests.rBe¡anseoftheit'
    sinrilar-ity, we consider all five requests together'2

    The FOIA provicles tbat a waiver oI FOIA fees will be gr anted ouly "if disclosule of the
    ilformarion is in th; pùblic interest because it is likely to contribute significiÌotly to public understanclìng
    of the operations or activi¡ies of the goverlìment arrd is lot prirrarily in the comrnercìal inlerest of the
    requesrer.',r Thus, to qtralify for a fee waiver, the requestel mùst derrìollstlate specilìcally how disclosure
    ofìhe materials soughi will contribute to the public's unclerstzmding of the operations or âctivities of the
    gover:ument.a The siatutory standaud requires a showing both that lhe information requested wOuld
    lgnihcantly add to publicunderstandilg iìnd tb¿rt the informatior will actually bc disseminated to tlre
    pJrbti", ìn aàdition tó a showing that the FOIA reqùest prim ily serves a public, not conrmercìal,
    purpose.t We now consíder each request in tunì undel thìs standatd'

    FOIA 2010-495

    This FOIA reqüest seeks tlrree categories of "[r]ecords relatìng to the FCC Auctions Divisìon
    ìnouncement in Auction 87 issued . . . on Jùly 15,2010 riglrt after auction round 138 which announced
    a

    delay in the auction. . . ."u Skyb.idg"'s reqtìest conteû(Ìs thât the fees charged for processbg its request

    We note that you filed a FOIA request desigDated FOIA Control No.20l0-497 that did not irìclude â requost foÌ
    I a

    fce waiver.
    jn
    We nore that we have previously denied sirnilzLr requests try Skybridge for fee waive¡s conneclion with sìx
    2

    eartier FolA ¡equesrs: FOIA Conrrol No s.2007 -382,200'l -403, 2009-089, 2009 136, 2010-3?9, and 2010-418
    The Commission affi¡med our denial with respect to FOIA Corìtrol Nos. 2007-382,200'l -40,2009-089' and 2009-
    ',I0-
    136. See Wcut.en Hav¿¡¡ 24 FCC Rcd 12308 (2009); llarren Haven.¡, FCC 135 (Aug. 3, 2010) The denial ol'
    2010-418 is the subject of a pending applicatio¡ for review
    S u.S.C. $ ssz(a)(+)(A)(\üj; see also 4'7 C.F.R. $ 0.470(e) (cliteria for granting a fee waivgl)'
    3
    a
    See McCleLLan EcoLogical Seepage Sínrafiorv. Ctu.Lucci,835 F.2d 1282, 1285
    (9tb Cir. 198'l) (MESS)
    (requiring an explanation with ';reasonable specificity how disclosure will contribute to Pubiic understanding"),
    ìitiig Uãiouot frrosutl Ert¡tloyees U nion v. Griffut, 81]F.2d 644, 641 (D.C. Cì¡. I987) (bur dcn is on the requester
    to ìdãnrify ancl dernonstrate with "rcasonable specificity" the Public interesl to be served)'
    5
    Se¿ 47 C.F.R. ç 0.4?0(eX2) (factors relevânt to statu[ory starrdard).
    6
    Se¿ e-mail from Skybridge Spechu' Foundation to FOIA@fcc.gov (July Ì5, 2010)
    (495 Request) at l.
    M[. Wârlen Havens
    August 19,2010

    sho¡lcl be waived.? In sùppolt, Skybridge asserls that rt is â non-profit, tax-exempt scientiflc, educatjonal,
    jnterest on its websites
    and cha¡-ìtable foundation that pr:blishes infornration on FCC m¿tters in the public
    Skybr.idge complains that, i¡ past decisions clenying Skybridge's requests for fee waivels, the Commission
    has failecl ro appreciare rh¿r Skybridge's websites effectively publìsh infornratiolì lo the public. Skybridge
    srates that j ts wèbsites haue at¡ acted tens of thousancls of visitors and generated much interes[, some of ir
    reflected in FCC pr.oceecì.ings ancl court cases-s Skybrjdge states that jt âlso inteDds to use the ìnfornalion
    iu other, non-publishing educational activitìes. Skybr-idge's fee waiver requesr does not explain how
    ¡elease of the recorcls sought will contrìbute to public nnderstanding of the operalions or âctivities of the
    goverrment.e Skybridge fails to give any indication why info¡malion concelnirg the delay irr Auction 87
    hrs significant public inlerest.r0 Skybridge gives no reason to beljeve that this action has any r'ìroÌe
    signif,rcance to the public than any procedural action in any proceeding would typically Ìiave'

    A second reasoÌÌ to deny the request is lhat Skybddge has not demonstrated that its request is
    pr:irnarìly in the pubhc, rather than its own, ìoterest. SkybLidge's FOIA.T€quest relates lo n]atlers in which
    o conrrná."ial e,riity affiliâted with SkybricÌge has a substantial interest,rr and it therefore apPears that the
    FOIA request may be clìrected to orr;rting íri, entity rather than prirnarily infonning the public.t2 iÙ
    a¡alyzing an eallier lequest by Skybriclge for a fee waiver', the Comnrission conclLrded that, desPite its
    nonpr.ofit status, Skybridge failed to demonstrate tbat ìls request did rot serve a cornmercirl purpose.'
    The Commission's reasoning cortrols our analysis of Skybridge's presenL request. Wenote that, as an
    adclilioral factor, to qrìalify for a þ'OlA lèe waiver', â requester nrust aìso explain how it inlends to mâke
    tl.re informalion requãsrccl available to rhe public.ra Skybridge seeks to meet this slandard by irdicaliDg
    that it will post the informatiou rcquested olì its websites.'' "Simply maìntainirìg a websile ìs rrot
    disseminating information to a broìcl audìence of intelestecJ individuals,"¡6 as requirecì by the statutory fee

    1
    See id. 1-2
    I See id. ^L
    atz.
    9
    I¡ Wqrren Hayens, supt a, naLe 10, the Comûrissio¡ explainecl thaL Skybridgg's status as a not-profit organization
    did not exempt it frorn ihe statutor:y obligârion 10 derÌroüstratc specifically how disclosure of the requested
    informatio¡ would contlibute spccifically to public uDdcrstanding of the operalioDs or activities of the SovemtneDl..
    'o Skybridge stares,
    "The intbrn'ìation sought will be published ... to inforn the public of the workirìgs of the
    -
    govein."nt on a n.ra¡or issue of publjc iDterest - Federal Ageucjosl'], in this case tbe FCC['s], troatment of FOIA
    i¡aLtcr.s, whìch the ricotds ìn the Requesr shows is specious and prejudicial." See 495 Request at 2. This rationale
    does not mention Aucrion 8? aud seems to ì:efer to arì calliel FOIA request (2010 418), wbich sought inlbnrrÂtion
    about thehandljngol'a FOIA requcst. S¿¿ s-marl ftom Skybridge SPect¡um Foundation to FOIA@fcc gov (May
    10,2010) (FOIA No. 2010,418) aL 1-2. Ir rherefore appears inapposite to the current reqùest, whìch does notseek
    iìrfo¡rnalioD about the haùdling of a FOIA request,
    Inreìligenr T¡ ansporr & Monirori¡g Wireless (File No. 0004174612), an ettity afftliated wiù Skybridgo's Princjpal
    lr
    Warren ilavens, isìn applicant in Auctioû 8?. lnforrnatio¡r concerniùg this application rnay be accessed through the
    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's auctions portal,
    https://aùctionlìli ng. f¿c.Q.ov/form1?5/sea¡ch I 75lirrdex.hun.
    t2
    iee M cClain v. Ù.5. Dep't of J ustice, 13 F,3d 220,221 (7rh Ci¡. 1993) (a former inrnate's reqÙest for inforn.ulion
    concerning federal invostigation and prosecùtion of hin served to facilitale a challenge to his coìlviction and
    ¡herefbre did nol. qualify as confributing signifìcantly to the public understanding 01'gove¡nmen! opelations). S¿e
    also Robert J. Robbins, calt connwnications Group, Itrc.,2l FCC Rcd 6685, 6687 n.20 (2006) Gejecting fee
    waiver for reporter for nonconme¡cial radjo station where FOIA concerned alleged inre¡felence with that statjon's
    slgnal).
    tJ
    See Warren Hdve,¡.ç, 24 FCC Rcd 12308, 12315- l6 (2009)
    See MESS,835 F.2d at 128? (requcstcr who failed to give detaiÌs aboul intention to convey infolrìlation
    ta

    ro (he public is not eligible for a fee waiv er)', LatsorL t. CIA, 843F.2d 1481, 1483 (D.C- Cir. 1988) (absence of
    specific inforrnatiou regarding ability to dissemillate requested inlormâtion is grounds for denying a fee waivcr).
    ì5
    See Request lt 2.
    t6
    See B¡'ow¡, v. USPTO, 445 F. Supp.2d 347, 1360 (M.D. F\a.2006), aff'd,226 Fed 'A'ppx 866 (11th Cir'
    2007\.
    Mr. Warren Havens
    Aì-rgusl 19,2010

    waiver standald. In view of our' findings above, we do not leach the questiol'ì of whethel Skybr icÌge's
    websites represent meanìngful vehicles for clisseminâtirg tlÌe rÈquested irformaliorr to the general publìc.

    FOIA 2010-496

    This Ì.eqùest seeks records relarecl to FolA requests by skybridge lrom 2006 to the presert,
    including iniljaiFolA requests, clarifications thclcof, appeals, communications lo or fiom skybridge,
    communications belween FCC staff concerning these FOIA lequests, and payments made by Skybridge
    related to these FOIA requests.rT

    In large pâÌ.t, Skybriclge advances the same argnnenls we have aheady discussed in connectiorl
    with þ-OIA 2010-49-5. In palticÙlar, Skybridge relies primârily on its status as a non-ptofit foundatìon.
    As cliscussed above, we find that, despile ils noüprofìt status, Skybridge fails to show tbal its reqÙest is
    rot pl.ilnaïily intended to seÌve tl'ìe corÌìmeïcial inteÌests of affiìiated entities. We also lind-drat Skybridge
    has nor shown wlìy information concer-ning its FOIA reqùests would be ofpublic inletest.rs

    FOIA 2010-s06

    This request seeks (l) copies ofall filings rlade by an organizalion called TETIìA
    AssociatioD (TETRA) or its J.egal counsel in ET Docket No 09-234 that are marked
    "conficìential" or are not being treated as publicly availalile by the Commission and (2) re
    recorcls of all meetings witb ðornmission'employees concetring ET Docket No 09234

    In large pat, Skybridge advances the satre arguments that we hâve already discussed in
    connecrion wiih ÞOIA 2010-495. In particular', Skybridge relies primarily on its status as a non-ptofit
    lòuìdation. As cliscossed above, we fincl that, despite its nonprofit statÌrs, Skybr idge f:Ìils to show that its
    request ìs not primarily inteÌìded.to serve the con.ìmelcial interests ofrlfiliated entities." With ì-espect to
    the public ìntelest in the disclosure of the clocrurìents requested, Skybridge contends thât the disclostìre of
    conjjclertial fìlings is itself in the public interest because "any such FCC public docket shouÌd not l¡e
    subject to secret, private influence via presentatious to FCC staff in person iud in writing. Ih:j]:; by
    pr ocessing and grant of thìs request, the FCC recoli] will be imploved urd the FCC law upheÌd."''
    òornmìssion pr.oceclures, however, take into account the need to n.nke Comtnission proceedings
    transpuent ancì fair. Both the Commission's rules22 ancl the FOIAz3 recognize the propliety of tleating
    maleiial as co¡rfidential under appropdate circùn'lstances. There is nothing irlherently noteworthy or
    contrary to the public interest in TETRA seeking confìdentiâl treatment for solne malerial in its filings
    Aclditionally, it:is not apparent how conhctential infom'ìation about priYate companies would signitìcantly
    coltribute tô public understanding of the operations or âctivities of the government as reqrìired by ll]e
    staftrte. Furthãr, the Commission's ex pa¡te rules provide for the public disclosrn e of Presentations lo

    rr
    5¿e email lìom skybridge Specrrurn Foürdation to FolA@fcc.gov (Jul. 15,2010)
    (496 Request) at l Wo rotc
    úar Skybridge did nor seek a lèe waiver lor its FOIA Control No. 2010-497, whjch aÌso seeks FOIA records.
    I8
    See note 10, supra.
    ¡e
    e-mail from Skybridge Spectrum Foundation to FOIA@fcc.gov (Jul 24, 2010) (506 Request) at l -2.
    S¿e
    20
    In ET Docket No. d9-234, Sfybridge and alIiliated entities oÞpose ¿r petition by TETRA seekjng a waiver of
    certa.ir technical rules, whioh ¡eflects a substantial private interesL See Inìtic¿l OPPositiott to
    TETRA Assoc¡ctîioù Waiver Request, filed by Skybridge et al. (Jarr' 15' 2010)
    at
    See id. at4.Th\s request also contains the seemingly inapposite reference 1(') the Commìssjon's heatìnent
    of FOIA requests noted aL sø¡rm nole 9. Seeid at3
    ??
    S¿¿ 47 C.þ.R. g 0.459 (Requests that matedals or inforrnatio¡ submilled to tl'ìe CoLrl¡ission be
    wìthheld lioDr
    Þublic inspcction).
    lr S¿e 5 U.S.C. A 552tbX4) (exemtrtirìg confiJeltial ru,rords).
    Mr. Wa¡ren Havens
    Augr"rst 19,2010

    comn.iission sLalf in proceedings such as ET Docket No. 09-234.'?a Skyblidge has plesenþd no evidence
    that this FOIA request woì.tld procJuce signìficaDt rDforn.ì¿rtion rot iequired to be disclosed on the public
    recolcl under the ex pafte rules.?5

    loIÄ. 2010-s07

    This request seeks a wide variety of informâtion conceming an individual named


    Sandra Depriest née Founret (Depriest), who Skybridge aìleges was a Colnmission etrpìoyee ìn the 1980s
    or 1990s.26 Skybridge's request also seeks records relating to ary relationships or communjcatioDs
    between Depr.i;st or her huiband, Donalcl Depriest ancl the Commissìon.27 Skybridge indicates that
    Donald Depriest is a Commissio[ regulatee. As before, we lind that despite its non-plofìt status,
    Skybridge fails to show that the request is Ì]ot intended to serve the commercial interests of affililialecl
    entilies.26 We also find that Skybricìge has not strown why information conceming the Depriests'
    activjties woukl be ofpubìic interest. To the extent that SkybÌidge is suggesting that the records ¡equesled
    will show sonre inproprje¿y lelated to Dep[iest's en]ployment or contacls betweel'ì the Couunission and
    the Depriests, Skybriclge fumistres no evidence to srìpPolt such conjecture. Without such eviclence we
    cannot attribu[e y particrìlar signihcance to the records that Skybridge seeks regarding Depriest and her
    husbaud.2e

    FOIA 2010-508

    This request seeks (1) records that describe the relationslrip belween the Commission or its stâlf
    and two entilies, the Telecommuu ications Developmetrt Fund (TDF) and Spectmm Bridge, ¿ì conpany
    funded by TDF, (2) rules that pertain to the positioDs lhat Commissior'ì employees may hold in outside
    or.ganizations, including TDF, and (3.¡ records oT ap¡rovals or rule waivers permitting present or fornrcr
    Commìssion persotìnel ro hold posirions with TDF.'o As before, we ñnd that despite its non-prolìl stltttts.
    Skybridge fails to show that the request is not intended to serve the commercial interests of aftrliated
    entities. We also find that Skybridge has not expÌained why lhe records it seeks would likely contain
    any i¡fornaiiol about TDF ¿urcl Spectnrrn Blidge tìrat would conribute significantly to the pùblic's
    understanding ofthe operatious or activities ol the gover¡ìment.r' As discussed ¿tbove, !o the exterr that
    Skybridge suggests that the informâtion ìt requests would disclose ìmpropriety involving TDF or
    Spectr.um Bridge, it furnishes ¡ro information to suppotl tlris conjeclure. Without sr.rch evidence, we
    cannot attribute aÌìy particular significance to tbe records requested concernìrrg TDF and Spectnlm

    2a
    S¿¿47 C.F.R. $ L 1206(b).
    2t
    Skybridge contends (506 Request at 1) ttrat t¡e sunnary of aù ex pêrte meeting fiìed by TETRA on May 20,201
    0 and placed in rhe public record by TETRA did not aclequately summa¡ize the contents of the meetiDg. The Oll'ice
    of General Counsel has lound, however', that tlle summary is accurate. See letter frorn Joel I(auI'nan, Associate
    General Counsel to WaIIen Flavens and HeÙr'y Goldberg (Aug. 6, 2010)
    ,S¿e e-mail liom Skybridge Spectrum Foundation to FOIA@fcc gov (Jul 26' 2010) (507 Request) at l.
    16
    2?
    Cor¡nìssiol records iDdicate that entities aftìliated with Skyblidgc have been involved in litigation with
    a conrpany ¿rffiliâled w¡lh tbe Deprìests, wl]ich reflects a substantial prjvate interest See Maûtine
    Connunicatío¡ts/Land Mobile, LLC. 22FCC Rcd 47 80 (V/TB 2007)
    See VoteHenp, Irc. u. DrtLg Enforcenrent Adn¡in.,237 F. Strpp 2d 55, 6l (D.D.C. 2002) (requester's
    18

    allegations that DEA had ulterior ìnotive for issuing intcrpletive rule aDd that public should be made awale oI it was
    "nothìng more than rank spoculation"). This request also corÌtains the seemingly inapposite Iefererlce lo the
    Comnission's t¡eatment of FOIA requests noted in note 10, sapra. See 50? Request at 3
    ]e.9e¿
    e¡rail from Skybrìdge Spectrum Foundation to FOLA.@fcc.8ov (Jut 26,2010) (508 Request) at l.
    See email f¡on Skybridge Spectrunt Foundation to FOIA@fcc.gov (Jul- 26, 2010) (-508 Requ{rst) al I
    30

    " It appears thar entities affiliatcd with Skybritlge bave had prìvate dealings with Spcctrum B¡jdge, which reflect a
    substantial privatg interest. S¿¿ e-mailfrom Wanen HavcDs toDavid Fitzgerald, Manager Busitress Devclopmenl,
    Spectrunr Bridge (4ug. 21, 2009), availaòle cr hltp://wvw.sc¡ibd com/cloc/2259?59 I
    Mr. Wan en Havens
    Augrsl 19,2010
    Ilr'ìclge.r2 The rurles legar:dìllg the per-ntissibility of govelnment en]ployees holdrng otltside positions ale
    already a rnatter of pnblic record, aud there is thus no significaDl public ìnterest in their disclosure
    prll çuarìt to this FOIA reqoc;t.

    Because Skybriclge has uot estâblished (hat it neels the standards tbr â fee waiver with respect lo
    any of its requests, the requests are denìed.

    Tlte Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, the ColÌsumer and Govetnmeutal Affairs Buleau, [he
    Office of the lvlanagirg Director, aud the Ge¡eral Counsel's Office, the buLeaus ¿ind ofñces assigred to
    processing Skyb¡idge's requests, will be--in touch concerning fees foÌ processing the reqüest if Skybridge
    ãecides to proceed without fee waivers,33 Pursuar'ìt to the Conmission's rules, the periocì for responding to
    Skybridge's FOIA requests has been toìled pending the resolu-tion of the fee waiver issues and will
    sa
    coitinue to be tolled pencling clarification of other fþe issues

    Skybridge file an application for review of the denìal of each oI these five FOIA fee waiver
    n.ray
    requests by sending it to lhe Com[rission's Office of General Counsel, 445 12th Street, S-W.,
    Wãshington, DC 20554, within 30 days of the dare of t¡is ìefter, in accordance with 47 C.F.R. SS 0.461 (j)
    and 0,470(g).

    '4-ì.-r'6'
    /,*n^' I L'-r
    Ann E. Bushnrillet'
    Deputy Associate General Counsel
    Administrative Law Division

    FOIA Officer
    WTB FOIA Offrcer
    CGB FOIA Officer
    OMD FOIA Oftrcer
    OGC FOIA Ofñcer

    The only information that Skyb¡idge presents along these lincs is a link to a 2003 news arlicle which ¡aises
    32

    questio¡s aboul certirin aspects of TDF's structure ald ÌnaDagement. S¿e 508 Request at 1
    (http://proj ecLs.publicinregrity.or2:/teleconú eport.aspx?aid=3 I ). We do not consider the article probalive of the
    public irìte¡est sevetr years later. TLris requesr Also contains thc seemingly inapposito lefelence to lhe
    Commìssioû's heâtment of FOIA requcsts noled in nole 9, J¡,p,n See 508 Rcquest at 2-
    r3
    S¿e 47 C.F.R. $ 0.470(aX1) (fees for commercial lequesters).
    34
    See 4? C.F.R. ç 0,a61(eX2XiXB).
    EXHIBIT 3
    FOIA Request 1o the FCC, via
    IIOIA@ þ-CC,GOV

    Requestor: Skybridge Spectrum Foundation ("Skybridge")

    Address: 2"d Office at: 2649 Benvenue Ave., Berkeley' CA94104

    Phone: 510 -841 -2220 or 510-848-1'7 97


    Fax: 510-7 40-3412
    Email: istohâuplì @ telesarLrus.cotn and
    warren.havens @ sbc global.net

    Date: July 15, 2010

    Description of Records Requested

    Records of all written documents (whether originally in an electronic or a hard copy


    fonn), from the start of year 2006 to the cur:rent date, as follows: All FOIA "Requests" (defined
    uelol) to the FCC submitted by Skybridge, all FCC "Responses" (defined below) and "Related
    DocuÁents" (defined below) related to the Requests, and all "Pavments" (defined below) related
    to the Requests.

    The "Requests" and "Related Documents" are:


    Requests:
    (1) All FOIA initial requests including any clarifìcations thereof'
    (2) All appeals ofFCC decisions on these requests And,
    Related Documents:
    i:) Att ottrer communications (i) from any paty (including but not limired to
    Skybridge)toorfromtheFCC,and(ii)amongFCCstaffpersons'relatedto
    such requests

    The "Responses" are:


    All FCC responses of any kind to the Requests (all
    final responses on Requests'
    andallotherresponsesincludingbutnotljmitedtoìntelimresponsesthatStates
    thattheFCCwillbetakingadditionall0daysorsomeothertimetoprovidea
    substantive response) -- but reqLLester seeks q¡b signed letters and documents
    from the FCC to Skybrìdge, t9! documents that were enclosed with any such
    sígnedcommunicationslhaîarecopiesoÍ(]ocunxentssoughÍunderthesubject
    FOIA requests'

    The "Pavments" are:


    AlÌ payments made by Skybridge to the FCC at any time to pay sums due' or
    aileged by the FCC to be due, in relation to the Requests'

    Maximum Search and CoPving Fees

    $200 (two hundred dollars)


    Ifgettingtherequesteddocumentsisgoingtoexceedthismaximumsearchfee,then
    Skybridge asks ihat ir be informed of the amount by which it will be exceeded since Skybridge
    *uy *uãt rhe FCC to proceed anyway for whatever additional cost there may be, or Skybridge
    specified
    may modify its request as as to obtain copies of documents up to the maximum amount
    here.

    Waiver of Fees

    The undersigned certified under penalty of perjury that the following is true and cor¡ect:
    skybridge is a nonprofit, tax-exempt scientific, educatio¡41 and charitable foundation which,
    as
    (and
    onå of iîs primary functions, ,eseaiches and publishes information on FCC matters
    other
    matters) i;the public inrerest.* Skyb'idge intends to publish information resulting from the
    fulfillment of this FOIA request. In addition, and apart from said publication activity, skybridge
    is, according to its Delaware certificate of incorporation and its IRS tax-exemption determination
    lerter (see ihese documents submitted with the Skybridge Form 175 in this Auction 87), and
    accordìng to its actual activities, a nonprofit tax-exempt corporation and a private operating
    foundatiðn engaged in educational activities for the public benefit lt is thus entitled to
    fee
    waiver or at least fee reduction for FOIA requests.
    * See e.g. the www.tetra-us.ùs website, and the htttr://www.scribd.com/warren havens
    website. These are both undertaken by and for Skybridge spectlum Foundation as the principal
    entity involved in the described prbi. int"..tt educational (and scientific and charitable)
    activities.

    TheFCCinpastFolAfesponsestoskyblidgeseeingfeewaiversorreductionhas
    indicated that it is not aware of how Inlernet websites effectively publish informarion to
    the
    public. That is a spurious response. The fact is that the above listed web sites and pages are

    ãp"rut"d by and foi Skybridge and state in the information and documents pubìished on these
    cites the nonprofit poili" ìnt"r"rt reasons for these online publications, including those
    pertaining directly an indirectly to FCC issues. The sites have had tens of thousands of visitors,
    ànd have" generated a lot of interest, and some of that is reflected in FCC proceedings on
    TETRA, N.[CLM, Aucrion 61, major court cases involving the FCC, and other major FCC-law
    and FCó-polity issues. The information sought in this request will be published on one
    of the
    government on a major issue of public
    Skybridge sites to inform the public of the workings of
    ìntárest'- Federal Agencies, in this case the FCC, tleatment of FOIA mattels, which the records
    in the Request shows is specious and prejudicial. Skybridge intends to publish the.Ielevant
    documents responsive to thls request and allow the public access to them, along with other'
    past
    FCC FOIA request responses. In addition, Skybridge will use the information it obtains from
    this FOIA ,equest in its other (non-publishing) private operating foundation educational
    activities. The FCC has no shown, in past denials of Skybridge's FOlA-request fee waivels or
    reductions, any basis to chaìlenge the content or nature of these programs'

    Thus, fees should be waived or reduced.

    However,ifrheFCCusesthisfeewaiverorreductionlequesttodelayinanywaythe
    response to rhis FOIA fequest, then Skybridge will pay the amount due
    (if reasonable) under
    p.oì"rt und seek to obtain ã refund. In addition, Skybridge has never been late on any valícl FCC
    i.On (ot other) payment obligation. Thus, the FCC cannot lawfully require advance payment
    from Skybridge in relation t;this FOIA request. However, again, if the FCC requires that,
    Skybridee wili pay that (if reasonable) under protest and undertake an appropriate appeal
    Thanks for your assistance.

    Warren Havens
    President
    Skybridge Spectrum Foundation
    E,XHIBIT 4
    FOIA ReqLtesî to the FCC, via
    FOIA@ FCC.GOV

    Requestor: Skybridge Spectrum Foundalion ("Skybridge" or "Requesler")

    Address: 2nd Offlce at: 2649 Benvenue Ave, Berkeley, CA94104

    Phone: 510-841 -2220 or 5 10-848-1'7 97


    Fax: 5r0-7 40-3412
    Email: istobau sh @ lelesaul-us.cotn and
    warren.haveLrs @ sbc global.net

    T)âte: July 24,2010

    Special Note

    To expedite the resolution of release of the below requested documents' the Requester is
    filing a copy òfthis in docket 09-234 and also directly providing a copy to the CEO and
    Chairman of the TETRA Association, considering:
    (i)theAssociation,ssubmissionofallegedconfidentíallnforunationtotheFCC
    lhts public
    and its allegation that the FCC has allowed it certain special, private confidentiality in
    docket, and
    (ii)theAssociation'suseofexpartein-personmeetingpresentationstotheFCC
    without filing the required reports of said presentations before the FCC including in this docket:
    for exampìelhe Association;s May ZO,2Ol0 report filed on EFCS in this docket lists subjects
    of
    in this public proceeding, but the report fails
    the meeting that are ât heart of the disputed matters
    FCC
    to disclosñhat the Association presented at that meeting on those subjects. That violates
    ex parte rules and makes a mockåry of the public process involved. For this reason, as copy of
    the instant FoIe request (vrith the above Special Note) is being provided to Joel Kauffman, . _

    presentation, with a
    Associate General Counsel of the FCC, as a report of impermissible ex parte
    request for sanctions.

    Descri plrq¡t--qf-Bççptdq-Bç$E$qd

    11]CopiesofalldocumentsintheexactfolmssubmìttedtotheFCCindocket
    09-234 submitted by (1) rhe TETRA Association directly or (2) the law firm of Goldberg,
    Godles, Wiener & Wright, or (3) any other pa.rty, that --
    (a) are marked "confidential" or any such marking, and
    reasons' qlg !q!
    iUj tnat, ¿ue to said markings or due to FCC's own-action or for any other
    @
    Said requested records include but are not limited to any filings in that docket on
    ECFS filed or entered õn o6/0'712010 or 0610812010, whether or not marked as confidential
    on

    ECFS.

    ThisisapgþþdocketandproceedingonabroadFCCwaiverrequestsubmi|ted,
    allegedly, to benefit the ÚS þublic-all in the US that may want to buy TETRA from
    anv
    TpiRA'equipment p.ouid".. (Indeed, there was no equipment p¡ovider who submitted the
    _

    many potential
    reqüest. Als;, any grant of the request is a waiver with broad implications to
    private-party reqùests for waiving the like rules') All pleadings are submilted based on
    salr-re or
    àaOr"..ing,t . public-interest. I{\s contrary to FCC law and practice to accept confidential
    filings in such a public docket on such public interest matters'

    Forthoseandothel'reasons'itwouldalsobeagainstanytheFolAstatutgs,case
    from
    law, and FCC rules to withhold any such spÙriouslylabeled confidential information
    release under a proper FOIA request, as we submit here

    In addirion, if any material was publicly filed on EFCS-¡fì3dJ9!!94!y q no!-- it


    cannot retroactively be"given cónfidential status" as the TETRA Association
    representative
    the FCC have a right to
    aÌlege on puge 2 ofim filing dated June 15, 20l0 The Association no¡
    release or use in
    tomiuUticty" aisclosed infoimation into private info¡mation_barred from FOtA
    this iublic áocket. The Association can seek damage remedies against the law firm that
    ãi."ior"¿ any actual confidential information it had no authority to discloser, in any such
    as case
    censure of what
    of negìigence among private pa fües. Bul it cannol use the US government as a
    it s repre s entative public ized.

    Copies of all records, whether in handwritten or [yped format' o¡ elect¡onic


    or
    l2l .

    t'ar¿copy,thatinFCCpossessionorcontlollelatedto4lmeetingswithanyFCCemployee(s)at
    dm; in which any person made or may have made any "Þrçsentation" (as that term is defined
    any-pCC
    in "ex pu.t"" toi"i¡ in the above said proceeding, docket 09-234, including:
    (a) all records that show the names and poiitions of al1 person at such meetings in person or by
    telephone or other means of attendance,
    (b) all records of said "presentations" by said persons,
    FCC responses,
    icj all records of the matters of material substance that were presented, any aÌl
    questions, and comments to said presentations,
    (ã) any FCC invitations or suggeìtions to make any such presentations, including by email,
    (e) all FCC staff intemal communications on the above matters

    Thisrequest'[2]'includesbutisnotlimitedtothereportsofexpartemeeting
    presentâtions filed on ECFS in said docket

    I Simply asserting that something is confidential does not make it so actually or


    legally For
    it i, virtuãlly impossible to keep confidential rhe names of entities that use TETRA
    "*u*pi",
    sinceìn most all natións túat is public knowledge: (i) the spectrum is licensed and
    the protocol
    can be determined by lawful spåctrum receive surveys compared with
    spectrum-authority lists of
    p"rfn*"a protocols ánd equipment, and (ii) the end users are either public agencies or critical.
    its PRM systems and
    infrastructure companies which cannot keep confidential information on
    *pfil"r.. What the TETRA Association may be trying to keep "confidential" is not actually
    customers are
    conïdential information, but the fact that among the lists of some of its members'
    equipment
    none in the IJS at all, and none that stand ready to buy TETRA, and no TETRA
    TETRA in
    *idu i*Illir it *"*b"r, thut h* .ign"d any commitment of any sort to supply
    misleading purpose in
    ;" US-K*ptrg th^t .".ftáentiaì would serve the TETRA Association's position to Skybridge
    the noted puúlic docket to not expose this fundamental defect in its
    Foundation that opposås The Association's waiver request as lacking foundation and
    Spectrum
    deliberately misleading.
    2
    MaximLrm Search ar.rd Copyilg-EqË

    Skybridge will pay up to $350 (thlee hundred and fifty dollars)' and if getting. the
    then Skybúdge asks that it be
    requested âo.uÃ"nt, is going to exceed this maximum search fee'
    may want the FCC to
    informed of the amouniby which rt will be exceeded since Skybridge
    proceed anyway fot whatever additional cost there may be, or Skybridge
    may modify its request
    specified here
    so as to obiuin óopies of documents up to the maximum amount

    The below request for fee waiver or reduction does not conflicr with
    the pleceding
    request (If the waiver
    payment commitment, nor is any basis to delay the fulfillment of this
    an appeal and a payment
    reques is denied after fees are assessed or paid, Skybridge may submit
    refund.)

    Waivet or lìccluctiotì of Fees


    is true and correct:
    The undersigned certified under penalty of perjury that the following
    charitable foundation which' as
    Skybridge is a nonprofit, tax-exempt scientific, ?g,u:"ti:"1Ì and (and
    publishes infomation on FCC lnatters other
    or1á of iîs primary functions, researches and
    matters) in the public interest.* Skybridge intends to publish
    information resulting from the
    publication activity, Skybridge
    fulfillment of this FOIA requesr. n áO¿it¡n, and apaft from said
    tax-exemplion determination
    is, according to its Delaware certificate of incorporátion and its IRS
    letter (see these documents submitted with th; skybridge Form 175 in
    this Auction 87), and
    and a private
    accordìng to its actual activities' a nonprofit tax-exempt coryoration -operating
    foundatiãn engaged in educational acrivities for the public benefit. It is thus entitled to fee
    waiver or at least fee reduction for FOIA requests'

    + See e.g. the ww\ /.tetra-tts.uS website, and the l.rltp://www sclibd com/wa{ren havens
    as the principal
    website. ThÃe ur" both und" k"n by and for Skybridge specrrum Foundation
    (and scientific and charitable)
    entity involved in the described poii" int".".t educational
    activities.

    TheFCCinpastFolAresponsestoskyblidgeseekingfeewaiversorreductionhas
    publish information to the
    indicated that it is not aware of hów Internet websites effectively
    and pages are
    public. That is a spurious response. The fact is that the above listed web sites
    documents published on lhese
    ãp"i"r"¿ by and foi SkybridgË and srate in the- informarion and
    including
    tt" ionprofrt puili" ínt"."rt reasons for these online publications, those
    "it",
    pãr"i"i"g oire"tty unå indirectly to FCC issues. The_sites have had tens of thousands of visitors,
    ãnJ tuu"" generæed a lot of interest, and some of that is reflected
    in FCC proceedings on
    FCC' and other major FCCJaw
    iÈfne, NiCLM, Auctio.t 61, major court cases involving the on one of the
    and FCC_polity issues. The information sought in this requesr
    will be published
    on a major issue of public
    StVUrùg" ti,". to inform the public of the workings of government
    matters, which the records
    inrá."r, i Federal Agencies, in this case the FCC, lreatment of FOIA
    i., tt" R"qu".t shoõs is specious and prejudicial. Skybridge intends to
    publish
    .the .relevant
    with other' past
    ão.u."n,, t"rponsive to thls request aná allow the public.access to them' along it obtains from
    FCC FOIA request responses. in addition, Skybridge will
    use the information
    thisFolArequestinitsother(non-publishing)pfivateoperâtingfoundationeducational
    waivers or
    fee
    actjvities. The FCC has no shown, ìn pàst denials of Skybridge's FOlA-request
    programs-
    reductions, any basis to challenge the content or nature of these
    .WhetlrerofnotSkybridgebenefitsfromthefequestedinformationiSnotabasistodeny
    the fee waive¡ or reduction request. under state and IRS law, all assets of Skyblidge
    including
    and charitable nonprofit
    documents it obtains must be used for its educational, scientific
    purposes. The FCC's past assertions that use of FOIA requested documents for Skybridge's
    'int",'.'ul pu.por". rendeìs a fee waiver invaìid is thus in error: it is a indirect challenge to
    Rather' it
    Skybfidge's status under State and IRS law, with no basis shown for that challenge
    Skybridge (and any
    mereìy ãontinues the unlawful prejudice the FCC often has demonstrated to
    entity managed by the undersigned).
    publ ic
    The narure of rhis filing itself is clearly in the public interest since any such FCC
    via presentations to FCC staff in person
    docket should not be subject to secret, private influence
    andinwriting.Thatis,byprocessingandgrantofthisrequest,theFCcreco¡dwillbeimproved
    un¿ eCC law"upheld. Thls'will be vìa the iequester, Skybridge,
    placing the documents obtained
    in this docket, òf o, FCC staff could do that on own-and should already have done so,
    "oorr" meetings that do not with-hold
    and it should have required proper repoÍs of ex parte in-person
    violates FCC
    obviously presented ,úbrtun." Uehin¿ìtre simple listing of subjects discussed: that
    ex parte meeting disclosure standards.

    Thus, uncter FOIA law, fees should be waìved or reduced'

    However, if the FCC decides to use this fee waiver or reduction request to delay
    in any
    way the response to this FOIA request, then, under protest, Skybridge will pay the amount due
    never
    (if ieasonable) and seek a decision reversal and refund ln addition, Skybridge has been
    but
    lur" on uny validFCC FOIA (or other) payment obligation (nor has any Skybridge affiliate'
    payments by any "affiliate"
    there is nó FCC FOtA rule allowing attrìbution of non-requester late
    to a requester). Thus, the FCC cãnnot lawfully require advance payment from Skybridge in
    relarion ro this FOIA request. However, again, if the FCC requires that, Skybridge will pay that
    (if reasonable) under protest and undertake an appropriate appeal'

    Thanks for your assistance.

    lsl
    Warren Havens
    for
    Skybrid ge Spectrum Foundation,
    Warren Havens, and
    Jimmy Stobaugh
    EXHIBIT 5
    FOIA ReErest to the FCC, viu
    TIO]A@ IICC.GOV

    Requestor: SkybridgeSpectrumFoundation ("Skybridge")


    Address: 2"d Office at: 2649 Benvenue Ave, Berkeley, CA94704

    Phone 5IO-841 -2220 or 510-848-1 7 91


    Fax: 510-140,3412
    Email istobaugh @ telesattltls.corn and
    warren.havens @ sbcqlob¿rÌ -rlet

    Date: Monday July 26,2010

    Description of Records Requested

    (1)CopiesofallrecordsthatlisttheemployeepositionofMs.SandraFournet(also
    "Subiect
    known us Sanìra Depriest after her marriage to Donald Depriest) (herein, also called

    thãEto'th" date said employment was terminated, such as FCC public and FCC-internal
    person), and any.olher
    directories of staff positions (witir the title page and the page listing this
    document that demìnstrates this employment term and the positions, if
    such othe| records are
    needed to make this clear.

    p-eriod. or
    Skybridge believes the Subject Employee was employed at the FCC some
    periods in the-1980's decade and/or 1990',s decade, and probably not before or aftel
    that'
    However, that is a guess.

    (2)CopiesofallrecordsthatcontaindecisionsthesubjectEmployeetookpartin(i)aS
    the decision
    the persàn signìng-purt" if it was a written decision, or (ii) as a person attending a meeting
    inclualng un""* meeting (in a matter subject to FCC ex parte rules) that involved. any
    ;fi"r"rtãt"r,, by a party seeking any FCC action (here;."presentarion" means an oral or written
    make¡s of any
    presentation ,""ting to lnfluencË any FCC decision maker or potential decision
    action sought froni the FCC)-inciuding any that involved Donald Depriesr, or charisma
    l
    Communications Corporation á¡ Cha¡isma-Communications Corp

    (3)Copiesofallreco¡dsthatindicatetheleasonsthatthesubjectEmployeewashired
    and terminated as a FCC emPloYee.

    Copies of all records of communications to the FCC by any person not an


    FCC
    (4)
    Employee'
    employàeand not the Subject Employee that refer to or discuss the Subject

    Copies of any records that show any disciplinary actions taken by the
    (5) FCC against
    or any
    the Subject EÅpìoyee, and any investigations by the FCC of the Subject Employee'
    by the FCC ro ãny extemal public agency conceming the subject Employee-to
    "o*-.rni.ution.

    I This company is described here: Ittto://wwrv.cclisnatch.cor¡,/business/articte


    asn?aid=I3I9
    thedegreeanySuchactionsandinvestigationspertained|oviolationsofanyFCCoro|herlawot
    policy.

    (6)CopiesofanyrecordsthatShowanyrelationshipbetweenSandraFoumeto¡Sandl.a
    Depriest (the same petson, as noted above), or Donald Depriest (the
    "Two Persons") and any
    presenr day ("Subject
    p"Åon rrri \"u. un Ëcc employee during the time period of lggg and rhe
    iCC Employe"s,,), where said relationship rook place outside of any matter before the FCC, such
    as *he.e a Subject FCC Employee ptovided legal or lobbying services
    to either of the Two
    persons or companies they in part- or in full managed or controlled (the "Two Persons'
    Companies," fuither deftnict beiow).2 For example, if any FCC staff
    attorney in the FCC
    ¡,u"tl-o*uuitlon provided at any time any legal advice to either of such Two Persons or such
    Two Persons' Companies under an attorney-client relation or unpaid friendly relarion

    Copies of all documents that show any communications with the FCC by
    (7) any third-
    party peìson (oìher then the Two persons, and FCC employees) ("Third Persons," further
    defined
    persons' companies, whether such communication was a
    L"lor) r¡urrÈluted to any of the Two
    pr"sentation that may have served to influence a decision on a matter of interest to any Two
    Þersons' Company, ãr whether such communication appears to be of another
    sort' such as a
    and any records of
    simple status or timing inquiry. That includes any hard-copy letters' emails'
    pn"'"" placed to iny Éci in the FCC Auctions l)ivision and the Wireless Bureau'
    ".Ur "nlployee

    Furlherdescriplionollhe,,subieclEmployee',,Asindicatedabove,theunmarriedname
    and since then
    of ,h" sub¡""t E-ploy"e wus sandra Fournet. She married Donald R. Depfiest
    employed at the FCC prior to
    has been named Sàndra Depriest. Skybridge believes that she was
    Foumet. Skybridge believes that
    h", -u.riug" to Donald Depriest und *ur1h"n called sandra
    her position at the
    ,he *as utlhat time a praciicing attomey at law Skybridge does not know
    FCC but believes it was invoÑed in wireless matters, and that some of
    her wo¡k involved
    applicationsoractionsbeforetheFCCbyoronbehalfofDonaldDepriestfo¡FCClicensed
    businesses he owned or controlled, possibly including a company
    called Charisma
    Communications Corporation, or Charisma Communications Corp

    of the "Two P¿rsons Co¡npairí¿s " In addi¡ion to the above


    Further description
    d"r.riptinlE[1el-- T*o lel*o* co.punies" is limited to companies that had any active
    the present day
    FCC license or proceeding before the FCC from the year 1980 to
    this term
    Further descriptio n or the"Thírd Persons." In addition to the above description,
    ..Third Persons', includes any member of the United States Congress of their offices, any
    member of the any US Presdident's White House office staff, and
    any person represenÍng or
    employedbyanypublicagencyofaStatewithintheUnitedStates.Theseincludebutalenot
    hmlteá to Sónutór-Lamar Alexander, and Senator Trent Lott and their offices.

    Maximum Search and CoPYing Fees

    t The FCC has records of such partial o¡ full cont¡ol via disclosu¡es as
    to officers, directors, and pelsons
    only information
    with dejure or de facto control,;tc. we do not seek here FCC legal determinations,
    alreaOy exrsting in its records submitted by oußide parties and in
    FCC determinations
    2
    Skybridgewillpayupto$250(twohundredandfiftydollars),andifgettingthe
    requesred ão.uÃ"nr. ;s going io exceed this maximum search fee, then Skybridge asks that it be
    inftrmed of the amouni by whrch it will be exceeded since Skybridge may want the FCC to
    proceed anyway for whatever additional cost there may be, or Skybridge may modify its request
    so as to obtain copies of documents up to the maximum amount specified here'

    Thebeìowrequestforfeewaiverorreductiondoesnotconflictwiththepreceding
    payment commitment, nor is any basis to delay the fulfillment of this request (If the waiver
    t"qu"rt i, denied after fees are assessed or paid, Skybridge may submit an appeal and a payment
    refu nd.)

    Waiver or Reduction of Fees

    The undersigned certified under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct:
    Skybridge is a nonprofit, tax-exempt scientific, educationa.l and charitabie foundation which,
    as
    information on FCC matters (and other
    oná of iis primary functions, reseaiches and publishes
    matters) in the public inrerest.* Skybridge intends to publish information resulting from the
    fulfillment of rhis FOIA request. In addition, and apart from said publication activity, Skybridge
    is, according to its Delaware certificate of incorporation and its IRS tax-exemption determination
    letter (see these documents submitted with the skybridge Form 175 in this Auction 87), and
    acco.dìng to its actual activities, a nonprofit tax-exempt corporation and a private -operating
    foundatiðn engaged in educational activities for the public benefit. It is thus entitled to fee
    waiver or at least fee reduction for FOIA requests.
    + See e.g. the www.tetra-us.uS website, and the httÞ://www.scribd.com/waÌren hrvens
    website. ThÃe are both undertaken by and for Skybridge Spectrum Foundation as the principal
    entity involved in the described puti" int"."tt educational (and scientific and charitable)
    activities.

    The FCC in pasr FOIA responses to skyblidge seeing fee waivers or reduction has
    indicated that it is not aware of how Internet websites effectively publish information to
    the
    fact is that the above listed web sites and pages are
    public. That is a spurious response. The
    tperat"d by and foi Skybridge and state in the information and documents published on these

    cit"s the nonprofit prtli" l.tt"."tt reasons for these online publications, including those
    pertaining direitly anå indirectly to FCC issues. The sites have had tens of thousands of visitors,
    ànd navJ generæed a lot of interest, and some of that is reflected in FCC proceedings on
    TETRA, tri'CLM, Auction 61, major court cases involving the FCC, and other major FCC-law
    one of the
    and FCC-polity issues. The information sought in this request will be published on
    Skybriclge sitei to info¡m the public of the workings of govemment on a major ìssue
    of public
    intárest I Federal Agencies, in this case the FCC, treatment of FOIA matters, which the
    records
    in the Request shows is specious and prejudicial. Skybridge intends to publish the relevant
    documents responsive to this request and allow the public access to them, along with
    other, past
    FCC FOIA request responses. In addition, Skybridge will use the information it obLains from
    this FOIA request in its other (non-publishing) private operating foundation educational
    activiries. The FCC has no shown, in past denials of Skybridge's FolA-request fee waivers or
    reductions, any basis to challenge the content or nature of these programs'

    whether of not Skybridge benefits from the requested information is not a basis to deny
    the fee waiver or reduction request. under state and IRS law, all assets of skybridge
    including
    nonprofit
    documents ìt obtains must be used for its educational, scientific and charitable
    purposes'TheFCC,spastassertionsthatuseofFolArequesteddocumentsforSkybr.idge's
    int"ìnul purpor", rendeìs a fee waiver invalid is thus in error: it is a indirect challenge to
    Rather, it
    skybt.idge,s status under State and IRS law, with no basis shown for that challenge.
    demonstrated ro Skybridge (and any
    merely ãontinues the unlawful prejudice the FCC often has
    entity managed by the undersigned).

    Thus, under FOIA law, fees shoutd be waived or reducecl

    However, if the FCC uses this fee waiver or reduction request to delay in any way the
    response to this FOIA request, then Skybridge will pay the amount due
    (if reasonable) under
    p.oi"r, und seek to obtain å refund. In addition, Skybridge has never been Ìate on any vali¿FCC
    itOf,A. (o. orher) payment obligation (nor has any Skybridge affiliate, but there is no FCC FOIA
    rule allowing uttribution of non-requester late payments by any "affiliate" to a requester) Thus,
    the FCC cinnot lawfulty require ãdvance payment from Skybridge in 'elation to this FOIA
    request. Howeve.r, again, ir úe FCC requires that, skybridge will pay that (if reasonable)
    under
    protest and undefiake an appropriate appeal.

    Thanks for your assistance.

    ls/
    Warren Havens
    for
    Warren Havens and
    Jimmy Stobaugh
    EXHIBIT 6
    FOIA Request to the FCC, via
    FOIA@ FCC.GOV

    Requestor Skybrid ge Spectrum Foundation ("Skybrid ge")

    Address: 2"d Offica a¡: 2649 Benvenue Ave., Berkeley, CA94704

    Phone: 510-84\ -2220 or 510-848-17 9'1


    Fax: 510-'140-3412
    Email: jstobaugh @ telesaurus.com and
    wanen.havens @ sbcglob¿tl.ttet

    Date; Monday Juìy 26,2010

    l)escriotion of Records Req uested

    Her.ein, "records" means full |ecords in their complete original form (hard copy or electfonic)
    wilhout any redactions.

    (l)Copies of all records that describe or indicate the legal, financial, informal or other
    relation between, on îhe one hand, the FCC and any position at the FCC, or any FCC staff
    member, and on the other hand, the Telecom Development Fund ("TDF',), from the inception of
    the TDF to this day. TDF is described at these links:
    http ://www.tdfund.com/ and
    httÞ ://proj ects. publicintegrity. orslteleconr,/reÞ-843!p4-:þd=f,1

    (2) Copies of all records that records that describe or indicate the legal, financial,
    informal or other relation between, on the one hand, the FCC and any position at the FCC, oI any
    FCC staff member, and on the other hand, the entity funded by TDF called spectrum Blidge,
    from the year 2005 to this day. Spectrum Bridge is described at these links:
    httn://www.tLìfun{çq¡1þ94þþlgl¡!!.¡¡ and
    http://spectrumbridge.com/Home.aspx

    (3)
    Copies of all records that desc¡ibe the FCC rules, regulations, and practices that
    pertain to when and to \/hat degree its active employees may take positions outside the FCC as
    employees, ofhcers, directors, consultants and agents, including at the TFD.

    Copies of all records that describe any approvals, or mle waivers, given by any
    (4)
    employee or employees of the FCC (including by the commission or any Commission Deìegated
    Auihoiity) to any orher employee of the FCC to play any role at or for the TDF while also an
    employee at the FCC or at any time after leaving employment at the FCC

    Maximum Search and Copying Fees

    Skybridge pay up to $250 (two hundred and fifty dollars), and if getting the
    will
    requested documents is going to exceed this maximum search fee, then Skybridge asks that it be
    infàrmed of the amount by which it will be exceeded since Skybridge may want the FCC to
    proceed anyway for whatever additional cost there may be, or Skybridge may modily its request
    so as to obiain copies of documents up to the maximum amount specified here

    Thebelowrequestforfeewaive¡orreductiondoesnotconflictwiththepreceding
    payment cot¡mitment, nor is any basis to delay the fulfillment of this request. (If rhe waiver
    i"qr.rt i, denied after fees are assessed or paid, Skybridge may submit an appeal and a payment
    refund.)

    Waiver or Reduction of Fees

    The undersigned certified under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct:
    Skybridge is a nonprofit, tax-exempt scientific, educational and charitable foundation which, as
    (and other
    oná of iis primary functions, researches and publishes information on FCC matters
    matters) in the public interest.* Skybridge intends to publish information resulting from the
    fulfillment of this FOIA request. In addition, and apart from said publication activity, skyblidge
    is, according to its Delaware certificate of incolporation and its IRS tax-exemption determination
    letter (see ihese documents submitted with the Skybridge Form 175 in this Auction 87), and
    uccordì.rg to its actual activities, a nonprofit tax-exempt corporation and a private operating
    foundatiðn engaged in educational activities for the public benefit. It is thus entitled to fee
    waiver or at least fee reduction for FOIA requests.
    * See e.g. the www.tetra-us.us website, and the httlr://www.scl ibd.com/wa: ren havens
    website. These are both undertaken by and for Skybridge spectrum Foundation as the pfincipal
    entity involved in the desc¡ibed pubic interest educational (and scìentific and charitable)
    activities.

    The FCC in past FOIA responses to Skybridge seeing fee waivers or reduclion has
    indicated that it is not aware of how Internet websites effectively publish information to
    the
    public'Thatisaspuriousresponse.ThefactiSthattheaboveÌistedwebsitesandpagesare
    op".ot.d by and foi Skybridge and state in the information and documents published on these
    .ites the nonprofit putlic interest reasons for these online publications, including those
    pertaining aire.tty anå indirectly ro FCC issues. The sites have had tens of thousands of visitors,
    and navJ generated a lot of ìnterest, and some of that is reflected in FCC proceedings on
    TETRA, X.[CLM, Auction 61, major couÍ cases involving the FCC, and other major FCC-law
    and FCC-polity issues. The information sought in this request will be published on one
    of the
    major issue of public
    Skybridge sites to inform the public of the workings of govemment on a
    intårest I Federal Agencies, inthis case rhe FCC, treatment of FoIA matters, which the
    records
    in rhe Requesr shows is specious and prejudicial. Skybridge intends to publish the,relevant
    documents responsive to this request and allow the public access to them, along with other'
    past
    FCC FOIA request responses. In addition, Skybridge will use the information it obtains from
    this FOIA request in its other (non-publishing) pfivâte operating foundation educational
    activities. The FCC has no shown, in past denials of Skybridge's FO[A-request fee waivers or
    reductions, any basis to challenge the content or nature of these programs'

    WhetherofnotSkybridgebenefitsfromthelequestedinformationisnotabasistodeny
    the fee waiver or reduction request. under State and IRS law, all assets of Skybridge including
    documents it obtains must used for its educational, scientific and charitable nonprofit
    b;
    pulposes.TheFCC'spastassertionsthatuseofFolArequesteddocumentsforSkybridge's
    intemal purposes renders a fee waiver invalid is thus in error: it is a indirect challenge to
    Rather, it
    Skybridge,s status under state and IRS law, wirh no basis shown for that challenge.
    (and any
    máely ãontinues the unlawful prejudice the FCC often has demonslrated to Skybridge
    entity managed by the undersigned).

    Skybridge intends to publish information obtained by this FOIA request on Scrib


    at the
    links mainiaineã by its president Warren Havens for Skrbridge's educational nonprofit
    purposes-including on matters relating to the workings of the FCC under law or contrary to
    iu*. Th" home link is here: http://www.scribd co The "profile"
    "o.."nt upon at pages at this home link are for
    setting and the actual documents posteá and commented
    Skybrìdge Spectrum Foundation, as specifically described. As of the date of this FOIA requesr'
    sciiu,eio.ts atthe homeìink, after logging tn,,,\4,61g Reads,'since late 2009. In addition,
    Skybridgewillusetherequestedrecordsforitsothernonprofiteducational'charitableand
    scientific programs.
    recolds
    Skybridge as no commercial business of any kind, and will not use the requested
    for any commercial PurPose

    Thus, under FOIA law, fees should be waived or reduced'

    However, if the FCC uses this fee waiver or reduction request to delay in any way
    the

    response to this FOIA request, then skybridge will pay the amount due (if reasonabìe) under
    proiest and seek to obtain å refund. n aã¿ition, Skybridge has never been late on any validFCC
    i.On (o. other) payment obligation (nor has any Skybridge affiliate, but there is no FCC FOIA Thus'
    rul" allowing uttribution of no-n-requester late payments by any "affiliate" to a requester)
    the FCC ca:nnot lawfully require àdvance payment from Skybridge in relation to this. FOIA
    .equ"st. However, uguin, if ti.t" FCC requirós that, Skybridge will pay that (if reasonable) under
    protest and undertake an appropriate appeal'

    Thanks for your assistance.

    Waren Havens
    for
    Warren Havens and
    Jimmy Stobaugh
    EXHIBIT 7
    FOIA Request to the FCC, via
    IIO]A@IICC.GOV

    Requestor: SkybridgeSpectrumFoundation("Skybridge")

    Address: Operations Office: 2509 Stuart St., Berkeley, CA 94705

    Response: Do Not use certtfied, siSnature-requl red USPS ruaiL

    Phone: -2220 or 5 I 0 -8 48 -7 1 91
    5 70 -8 4 1

    Fax: 510-7 40-3412


    Emaìl: istobaugh@ telesaurus.com and
    warren.havens @ sbcglobal,net

    Date: Monday August 11 ,2Ol0

    Description of Records Requested:

    Herein, "records" means full records in their complete original form (hard copy or eìectronic)
    without any redactions, as follows:

    Copiesofall¡ecordsthatdescribeorindicateprofessionalrelation(includingaslegal
    counsel, aãvisor or representative), or business or personal relation:
    between, on the one hand any FCC employee who held any position in or
    authority over the FCC Auctions Division from the years 2000 to the current time'
    and on the other hand:
    (a) Donald Depriest, Sandra Depriest, and/or John Reardon' who
    according to FCC records are current controllers, owners, or authorized employees
    in a company
    called M-aritime Communications/ Land Mobile LLC, which holds FCC licenses in the AMTS
    radio service, and/ or
    (b) Robert Cooper or Susan Cooper, who according to FCC records' are
    Inc
    current controllers, owners or authorized employees of a company caÌled Paging Systems '
    which holds FCC licenses in the AMTS radio service--
    and where any said relation existed at any Doint in time'

    Asoneexample,certainFCCrecordsshowthatWilliamW'Huberincefiainpastyears
    represented, as legal iounsel, Donald Depriest before the FCç'
    Requester believes other records
    reco¡ds wìth
    described above also exist with regard tò relations with said Donald Depriest, and
    also with the
    regard to Sandra Depriest (who wãs for a period of time, a FCC employee) and
    other parties named above.

    Maximum Search and Copying Fees:

    Skybridgewillpayupto$250(twohundredandfiftydollars),andifgettingthe
    ,"qu"rt"d i.""orã, is going to exceed this maximum search fee, then Skybridge asks that it
    be
    informed of the amount ùy which it will be exceeded since Skybridge may want the FCC lo
    proceed anyway for whatever additional cost there may be, or Skybridge may modify its request
    so as to obtain ðopies of documents up to the maximum amount specified here'
    Thebelowrequestforfeewaiverorreductiondoesnotconflictwirhthepreceding
    paymer]t commitment, nor is any basis to delay the fulfillment of this request
    (If the waiver
    i"qr"rt i, denied afier fees are assessed or paid, Skybridge may submit an appeal and a payment
    refund.)

    Waiver or Reduction of Fees:

    The undersigned certifies under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct:

    Skybridgeisanonprofit,tax-exemptscientific,educationalandcha¡itablefoundation
    FCC matters
    which, as one õf its p.imary functions, researches and publishes information on
    (and other matrers) in the iublic interest.* Skybridge intends to publish information
    resulting
    publication actìvity,
    ì.om the fulfillment of this FOIA request. In addition, and apart from said
    Skybridge is, according to its Delaware certificate of incorporation and-its IRS tax-exemption
    175 in this
    deie¡miiation letter (see these documents submitted with the Skybridge Form
    and a
    Auction 87), and according to its actual activities, a nonprofit tax-exempt corporation
    private opeiating foundation engaged in educational activities for the public benefit
    lt is thus
    àndtled to fee waiver or at least fee reduction for FOIA requests'
    * See e.g. the w\¡/w.tetra-us.tls website, and the http://www scribd com/rvaren havens
    the principaÌ
    website. ThÃe are both undert-aken by and for Skybridge Spectrum Foundation as
    enrity involved in the described puiic interest educational (and scientific
    and charirable)
    activities.

    TheFCCinpastFolAresponsestoskyblidgeseekingfeewaiversorreductionhas
    indicated that it is not aware of h;w Internet websites effectiveìy
    publish information to the
    public. That is a spurious response The fact is that the above listed web sites and pages are
    published on [hese
    Lpe.uted by and foi SkybriclgÉ and srate in the information and documents
    cit", th" ionprofit puilic ìnterest reasons for these online publications, incìuding those
    peltainingdirectlyandindirectlytoFCCissues.The.siteshavehadtensofthousandsofvisirors,
    un¿ h*"" generated a lot of interest, and some of that is reflected
    in FCC proceedings on
    FCClaw
    TETRA, \.ïCLM, Auction 61, major court cases involving the FCC' and other major
    andFCC-polityissues'Theinfomationsoughtinthisrequestwillbepublishedononeof-the
    Skybridgesitestoinformthepublicoftheworkingsofgovemmentonamajorissueofpublic
    the records
    intár".t 1 Federal Agencies, ii this case the FCC, treatment of FOIA mattels, which
    publish
    in the Request shows is specious and prejudicial Skybridge intends to che.relevant
    along with other' past
    documents responsive to this request anà allow the public access to them'
    FCC FOIA request responses. in addition, skybridge will use the information
    ir obtains from
    thisFolArequestinitsother(non-publishing)privateoperatingfoundationeducationâl
    waivers or
    activities. ThoFCC has no shown, in pàst denials of Skyblidge's FOlA-request fee
    programs
    reductions, any basis to challenge the content or nature of these

    WhetherofnotSkybridgebenefitsfromtherequestedinformationiSnotabasistodeny
    the fee waiver or reduction reqriest. Under State and IRS law, all assets
    of Skybridge including
    documents it obtains must b; used for its educational, scientific and charitable nonprofit
    purposes.TheFCC'spastassertionsthatuseofFolArequesteddocumentsforskybridge's
    intemal purposes renders a fee waiver invalid is thus in error: it is a indirect challenge
    to
    Rather, it
    Skybridge's status under State and IRS law, with no basis shown for that challenge.
    merely continues the unlawful prejudice the FCC ofren has demonslrated to
    Skybridge (and any
    entity managed by the undersigned)

    Skybridge intends to publish information obtarned by this FolA request or.ì


    scrìb at the
    links mainiaineã by its Pr.esident Warren Havens for Skrbridge's educational nonpr:ofit
    purposes-including on matters relating to the workings of ¡he FCC unde¡ law or contrary to
    iu*. rn" current home link is here: http://wwrv.scribd.com/warren havens . The "profrle"
    home link are 1b¡
    setting and the actual documents poGà and commented upon at pages at this
    Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, as specifically described. As of the date of this FOIA request'
    ,,14,67g Reads" since lare 2009. In addirion,
    s"iiu."io.t, at the home link, after logging in,
    Skybridle will use the requested records for its other nonprofit educational, charitable and
    scjentific programs.

    Skybridgehasnocommercialbusinessofanykind,andwillnotusetherequestedrecords
    for any commercial PurPose

    Thus, under FOIA law, fees should be waived or reduced'

    However, if the FCC uses this fee waiver or reduction fequest to delay in any way the
    responsetothisFolArequest,thenskybridgewillpaytheamountdue(ifreasonable)under
    p."'r"rl""J seek to obtain à refund. tn aá¿ition, Skybridge has never been late on any valid FCC
    i on (o, other) payment obligation (nor has any Skybridge affiliate, but thele is no FCC FOIA
    requester). Thus,
    rule allowing uittiUution of noÁ-requester late payments by any "af1ìliate" to a
    the FCC clnnot lawfully require;dvânce payment from Skybridge in relation
    to rhis FOIA
    (if
    request. However, a;ar;, if tile FCC requires that, Skybridge will pay that reasonable) under
    protest and undertake an appfopriate appeal

    Thanks for your assistance.

    tst
    Wanen Havens
    for
    Warren Havens, President
    Jimmy Stobaugh, Authorized Representative
    EXHIBIT B
    Federal Communications Commissron
    Washington, D.C.20554

    August 26, 2010

    Skybridge Spectrum Foundation


    c/o Warren Havens
    2509 Stuarl Street
    Berkeley, C^94105

    Re: FOIÀ Control No. 2010-538


    Request for Fee Waiver

    Dear Mr. Havens:

    This responds to Skybridge Spectnun Foundation's (Skybridge) request for a


    waiver offees fär processing the above-referenced Freedom of l¡formation Act
    (FOIA)
    request.l For the reasons that fo11ow, we deny the fee waiver request'

    TheFolAprovidesthatawaiveÌorreductionofFolAfeeswillbegrantedonly
    ,,ifdisclosure ofthè information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute
    significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities ofthe govemment and
    is"not primárilyìn the commercial interest of the requester."' Thus, to
    qualiff for a fee
    *uiu"i, th" ,"queste¡ must demonstrate specifically how disclosure ofthe materials
    sousht will to the public's understanding ofthe operations or activities ofthe
    "ontribot.
    goui*ment.r The statutory ìtandard requires a showing both that the information
    iequested would significantiy add to public understanding and that the
    ìnlomation will
    u"torlly b" di.r"-inated to the public, in addition to a show"ing thât the FoIA request
    primarily serves a public, not commercial, purpose'-

    fo-r fee waive¡s in cormection with


    We note that we have previously denied similar requests by Sþbridge
    t
    _382,200'I-4O3,ZOO9-089, 2009-136, 2010-379, 2010-418,
    t t eu.iier role, requests; FOIÄ Nos. 200'7
    20i0_506, 2010-507, and iO10-508. The Commission has ffi¡med our denial with
    iôù--ìõi,ãiO-¿Sä, (2009);
    ,".*"i and 2009-136' see llarren Havens' 24FCCRcd 12308
    'il"lirìir"o'zooz-¡sz,2007-403,2009-089, at 1s coftÍ\, Reg. (P&F) 12
    lir"iri ri""¿o¡á", rcc 10_ 135 (Auc. 3, 2010) , feported for review'
    iâiiol. ï¡i ¿".¡ "f 20 10-418 is rhe subj ect o f a pending application

    u.S.c. ç sszla¡a)(L)(\ä); see atso 47 cFR $0 470(e) (criteria for granting afee' aiver)
    's
    3SeeMcClellanEcologicalSeepageSituationvCarlucci,S35F2dlzS2'1285(9thCir'1987)(MESÐ
    i¡eãsonable specìficity how disclosÙr€ willcontibut€ to public
    1r-"quoing *
    "*ptuoutiãn
    with
    GrifJin'.8|lF 2d 644' 647 (D C Cir' 1987)
    *i*i"i¿i"g"i, National Treasury Elnpbve"' UnÌo.'.''
    ,'¡easonable specificfty''the public interest to
    "¡t,re to identify aná dcmonst¡ate with
    ö;;;;;"d; äu;Jr
    be sewed).

    4 C.F.R. $ 0.470(e)(2) (factors relevant to statutory staÊdard)'


    See 4'1
    War¡en Havens
    Page 2

    Skybridge's FolA request5 seeks fecords that describe a professional, business, or


    personal rélatioiship between any FCC auctions division employee and named principals
    àf Maritirn" Co-tnunications /Land Mobile, LLC (MCiLM)Õ and Paging Systems, ¡rc'
    €SD7

    Skvbridee'srequestcontendSthatthefeeschargedforprocessingitsfequest
    should be íaivä or reäuced.8 In support, Skybridge asserts that it is a non-profit,
    tax-
    exempt scientific, educational, and charitable foundation that publishes information
    on
    FCCmattersinthepublicìnterestonitswebsites.Skybridgecomplainsthat,inpast
    decisions denying Skybridge,s reqLLests for fee waivers, the commission has failed
    to
    appreciate that Skybridge's websiies effectively publish information to the public'
    i'kþridge states ttrat its=websites have attracted tens of thousands of visitots and
    generated much int"r"rt, .o*" otüreflected in FCC proceedings and court cases'e
    õkybridge states that it also intends to use the information in other, non-publishing
    educational activities.

    Skybridge'sfeewaiverrequestdoesnotexplainhowreleaseoftherecordssought r0
    will contribute to public unaersianding of the operåtions or activities of the government
    between FCÇ
    SkybriAge itas noi shown why infon4atiort conceming any relltrolship .

    principals of tr¡c/Ltvt aod psl *ould be of public interest. To the extent


    ffiroyå, and
    inai Súyuriage is suggesting that the records requestecl will show some
    impropriety
    related to connections between FCC employees and the principals of
    MC/LM and PSI'
    ir.vt¡¿g" n nlirrres no evidence to sùpport such conjecture. without such evidence we
    seeks regarding
    can¡ot aîtribute any particular significance to the recor'ls that Skybddge
    ihe con¡ections between FCC and MC/LM and PSI principals''l
    "ãploy""t
    that
    A second reason to deny the request is that Skybridge has not demonstrated
    interest' It that
    its r"quest is pimarily in the public, rather than its own,
    appears

    itytåàg" *ä ."lateá commárcial ántities are engaged in litigation with MC/LM


    and

    5
    ftom Skybridge Spectrurn Foundation to FOIAIÐfcc sov
    (Aug 17'2010) (Request) at l'
    See e-maiì

    6
    These a¡e Donald DePriest, Sand¡a DePriest, and Joh¡ Reardon'

    These a¡e Robe¡t Cooper and Susan Cooper'


    ?

    8
    ,See Request at 2-3.

    e
    See id. a12.
    stahr,s as a.non-proflt organization did not
    The Commission has previously explained that Skybridge's
    ro
    how disclosure ofthe requested
    exemot it fiom the stat,tory obligatiolìo àt-oo't"i" sp""ift"ally
    _;;;å ätb;;;Ë;tfr*ny," public undirstanding of the operations or activities of the
    '"å#ü"'
    ã"ì"rl-*, See lfiaten Havàns, tuprønote 1 at 12316 f 16'

    Su'pp 2d 55' 61 (D D C 2002) (requester's


    tt Vote*emp, Inc. v. Drug Enforcement Adnin ' 23':' '
    F
    See
    interpretivé rule and that public should be made awa¡e
    alleeations that DEA t a¿ utt"¡o¡ -oüve for issuing
    ofiiwas "nothing more tlan rark speculation")'
    War¡en Havens
    Page 3

    PSI, which reflects a substantial private interest.12 lt therefore appears that the FOIA
    request may be directed to pursuing Skybridge's p¡ivate interests rather than primarily
    informing the public. "
    ln analyzing an earlier request by Skybúdge for a fee waiver, the
    Commission concluded that, despite its non-profit status, Skybridge failed to demonstrate
    that its request did not serve a commercial purpose.lo The Co--ission's reasoning
    controls our analysis of Skybridge's present request.

    We note that, as an additional factor, to qualify for a FOIA fee waiver, a requester
    must also explain how it intends to make the information requested available to the
    public.r5 Skybridge seeks to meet this standard by indicating that it witl post the
    information iequeited on its websites.r6 "simply maintaining a website is not
    disseminating information to a broad audience ofinterested individuals,"t? as required by
    the statutory fee waiver sta¡dard. I¡ view of ou¡ findings above, we do not reach the
    question of whether Skybridge's websites represent meamngful vehicles for
    disseminating the requested information to the general pubìic

    Because Skybridge has not established that ìt meets the standards for a fee waiver,
    its request is denied.

    The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, the bureau assigned to processing


    Skybridge's request, will be in touch conceming fees for processing the request if
    Skybridge decides to proceed without a fee waiver.'o Pursuant to the Commission's
    rules, the period for responding to Skybridge's FOIA request is tolled pending^the
    resolution of the fee wiiver issue anúthe ct-arification oiany other fee issues.re

    t2
    See Sþbridge Specù1tm Foundation v. Mobex Ne¡,vork Services, LLC,No 2:2008cv03094 (D N J' Jun'
    20, 2008). MC/LM and PSI a¡e listed as defendants in this case.

    tt
    McCla¡n v. U-5. Dep't ol Justice, 13 F.3d' 220,221 (7th Cir' 1993) (a former inmate's ¡equest for
    See
    information conceming federal investigation and prosecution of him served to facilitate a challenge to his
    conviction and thercfore did not qualify as conùibuting signihcantly to the public understanding of
    goverfinent operatiors\. see also Roberl J. Robb¡ s, call communications Group, Inc,2i FCC Rcd 6685,
    óøn 11 S , pooø) (rej ecting fee waiver for reporter for nonco¡nme¡cial radio station whe¡e F6IA
    concemed ".ZO
    alleged interfe¡ence with that station's sigoal)'

    ta
    See lyarren Havens, suPra [.ote 1 at 12315-16 tl'lf l5-16.

    t5 give details about intention to convey information


    See MESS, BSS F.Zd at 1287 (requester who failed to
    to the public is not €ligible for a fei waivet); Larson v. cLA,843 F.2d 1481;1483 (D.C. Cir. 1988)
    (abseuce

    ofspeåific informatioi regarding ability to disseminate requested information is grounds for denyhg a fee

    waiver).

    16
    See Request at 2-3.

    t1
    see Brown v. usPTo, 445 F. Supp.2d 134?, 1360 (M.D. Fla, 200 6), øffd,226Fed. Appx. 866 (11th Cir,
    2007).

    indicates that it rflill pay


    See 4? C.F.R. g 0.4?0(a)(1) (fees for commercial requesters). Sþbridge
    rs

    'teasonable" feci under protest and seek to obtain a refuIld' See Request at 3'

    re
    See 47 C.F.R. $ 0.a6t(exzxÐ@).
    Warren Havens
    Page 4

    Skybridge may file an application for review of this denial of its FOIA fee waiver
    request by sending it to the Commission's Ofhce of General Counsel, 445 12th Street,
    S.W., Washington, DC 20554, within 30 days of the date of this leiter, in accordance with
    47 C.F.R. $$ 0.461û) and 0.470(9).

    SincerelY,

    -///
    Ál-^- ¿ 6./k'*./Ld-
    A¡n Bushmiller
    Deputy Associate General Counsel
    Administrative Law Division
    Office of General Counsel

    cc: FOIA Officer


    WTB FOIA Offrcer

    You might also like