<;lb[ank.htm Pbn = 1358. n&..

inti = use, lang = en-U S

8/27/09 10 :59 A M

From: Warren Havens ( To:

Date: Thursday, August 27, 2009 5:09:25 PM


Subject: Fw: Fyi- M eLM AMTS Sp ectrum: 3 Fee letters investigating M eLM, ManTEL, WPY, FN 0002303355 etc. (11 FNs total)

Officers of Spectrum Bridge c/o David Fitzgerald

Manager Business Development Spectrum Bridge http://www.spectrurnbridge.coml

I communicated with your company in the past regarding your sale of MCLM AMTS spectrum.

One such communication is in and reflected in my email on 11/10/08 is contained at the end of this email.

I asked your company to make up front disclosures my companies claims, backed by ellidence that any reviewer could see are substantial and compelling, in petitions pending before the FCC against MCLM and its spectrum you are attempting to sell. (I asked other things also that I will not address further at this tirne.) You refused to do that, and have not done that.

Public auctions, to be legal, must contain candid disclosure of material risks and costs. This company does not do that Your alleged auction of FCC spectrum is to begin with misleading, since the auctions results are subject to FCC license applications, challenges, and then grant or rejection (that is hidden from the main marketing at least), and your marketing to sell MCLM spectrum deliberately withholds materials risks, namely, the ~ry problems the attached 3 recent FCC letters address-- which is in our pending petitions, and which I explained to your company in my past communications.

I again ask you (but do not hal.e to continue to ask prior to appropriate legal action for injunctil.e, damage, and other relief) to discontinue misleading marketing, including failing to disclose all material risks and costs, including those indicated in the attached 3 FCC letters and the petitions of my companies these letters are based upon (virtually all of the evidence in these letters are from our pending petitions).

The below email and the 3 attached FCC letters deal with MCLM and its AMTS spectrum (and its affiliates, etc.). As l prsvously explained to your company, my companies for years hal.e had and still hal.e pending challenges to MCLM, its affiliates, and its AMTS spectrum for reasons in large part stated the attached recent FCC letters.

As I previously explained, we are challenging since we were the qualified (acting in accordance with qualifying FCC auction rules, when MCLM did not) high bidder for the AMTS licenses awarded to MCLM in auction 61, and since MCLM is maintaining before the FCC site-based incumbent stations (that block my llCs geographic AMTS spectrum in part) and that are invalid on a number of bases we showed the FCC.

The attached 3 letters from the FCC are mostly self explanatory. The letters are recent FCC action on the years of evidence we showed that MCLM, Donald DePriest and his wife, MariTEl, and others provided false information to the FCC to get and keep AMTS licenses (and other licenses).

Applying the evidence to the relevant FCC rules, disqualifies those licenses and licensees: our petitions give details. The FCC has not yet made that conclusion: it is, however, now undertaking the investigations indicated in the attached 3 letters, and the major risks are clear (as they have been for years, by any re";ew of our pending petitions and their compelling evidence),

In addition, if you have infonnation useful to the FCC for its investigation--Mich is based on FCC rules protecting the publicinterest basis of wreless licensing, and thus should be supported- then please provide it to the FCC and serve copies on the parties. (I represent my LLCs and Foundation, MO are al/ parties. The other parties are the entities addressed in the 3 letters.)

You indeed may have such evidence since you are in a contract iMth MCLM to seel. A contract and any confidentiality under it, cannot be used to hide violations of FCC rules and the Communications Act (and the US criminal code that the FCC cites in the attached 3 letters), iMthout constituting conspiracy and liability along iMth the primary violator.


Warren Havens President

Skybridge Spectrum Foundation

Page 1 of 7<;/b[ank.htm Pbn = 1358. n&.. inti = use, lang = en-U S

8/27/09 10 :59 A M

Telesaurus, Environmentel, Verde Systems, & other LLCs Berkeley Califomia


----- Forwarded Message ----

From: Warren Havens <>

To: jeff tobias <>; Scot Stone <>

Cc: d brown <>;; Jason Smith <>;; Warren Havens <warren.havenS©>; warrenhavenS©mac.eom

Sent: Saturday, August 22,2009 12:59:52 PM

Subject: proe. questions: 3 letters, 8.18, to MCLM, MariTEL, WPV, FN 0002303355 ete. (11 FNs total)


Mr. Scot Stone

Deputy Chief Mobility Division, wm, FCC:


Mobility Division, W1B, FCC:

My office yesterday received, in envelops addressed to me[*], copies of the three letters referenced above, signed by Mr. Stone and referencing Mr. Tobias to whom the addressed companies (MCLM, Man1EL, and Wireless Properties of Virgirria ['WPV'1) and related named persons (together, "Respondents") must respond (the ''3 Letters'} To keep these 3 Letters with this email col11l11lll1ication pertaining to the 3 Letters, I attach hereto scanned copies of the 3 Letters.

[*] (As the FCC knows, I was sent copies since I filed, on behalf of companies (LLCs and a nonprofit Foundation) 1 manage various pleadings challenging the licensing applications of Respondents referenced in the 3 Letters; and thus my companies are parties to those licensing proceedings (the 'Havens Parties''). In those pleadings 1 filed, infunnation is contained and questions raised that are among the infunnation descnbed in the 3 Letters.)

For the Havens Parties, I submit below questions and question-requests regarding the 3 Letters. I would appreciate and request response by email

As shown in this email header, 1 am serving here a copy of this email upon:

(i) Russell Fox, legal counsel to the parties who now allege to control MariTEL, along with Jason Smith of said Maritel

(ii) Dennis Brown, legal counsel to Donald and Sandra Depriest, MCLM, and WPV.

I will file a copy of this email under each file number referenced in the 3 Letters (the "FN s''). (I may refonmt tills to be more readable in PDF format fur this filing purpose, but will not change any content.)

Questions and Question- Requests

1. I did not see PDF (or other) copies of any ofthe 3 Letters under the FN s on ULS to which they pertain,

1. Question: Will the FCC do that, and if so when?

2. I did not see any instruction in the 3 Letters that the Respondents should copy me, for the Havens Parties, on their required responses (inc Wing all documentation provided in the responses, at least except for any documents or parts thereof that Respondents assert in a showing under FCC rule section 0.459 should be kept confidential for FCC staff review and not for release to any third party).

Page 2 of 7<;/b[ank.htm Pbn = 1358. n&.. inti = use, lang = en-U S

8/27/09 10 :59 A M

2. Question-Request: If the FCC intends that the Respondents serve copies of their responses on rre, fur the Havens Parties, will you please make that clear to Respondents and me? That will be more efficient than ifl submit FOrA requests.

3. The Havens Parties have substantial information supplenental and lor responsive to sorre of the facts and issues in question in the 3 Letters, that are not or not fuJJy yet in the records ofthe FN s, and are not specifically described or indicated in the 3 Letters.

a. The Havens Parties want to provide that infurmation to FCC staff handling the matters of the 3 Letters. The Havens Parties believe they have a right to present this infonnation under FCC rules and precedents, including since they believe it was wrongfully withheld by Respondents, since the Havens Parties did not earlier have this infunnation and could not reasonably have earlier obtained it, and fur reasons indicated in item 5 below. The Havens Parties thus believe they could supplement their pending pleadings in each of the FN proceedings.

b. Alternatively, we could submit this in several fiIings-- (depending on when we have the infonnation: some we have now, and other infurmation is being obtained via various sources)-- each filing having a caption referencing all of the FNs and the 3 Letters, where it is filed in ULS under each FN, and a copy provided to Mr. Tobias with regard to the proceeding(s) under the 3 Letters.

3. Question-Request: Will you please advise what procedure should be used?

4. The 3 Letters contain instructions that, among other things, describe the possibility that some of the responsive documents may be publicly withheld, upon a confidentiality request and showing under FCC rule section 0.459. The Havens Parties may challenge any such request and showing, if they find that the subject information is or may be of decisional importance to the public licensing proceedings, in restricted public proceedings, that are the sole subject ofthe three letters (the proceedings under the FNs).

We, the Havens Parties, will be consulting with expert legal counsel in this area since we expect, based on the history of these proceedings, this to be a contested issue, since withholding to date is a central fact addressed in the three letters (and in the Havens Parties' pleadings under the subject File Numbers), and since we will not be able to tell, fur sure, the nature of what is being withheld in response to the three letters.

4a. Question-Request. Does the FCC intend that Respondents serve upon Ire, /Dr the Havens Parties, (0 each request for confidentiality and supportive showing under Sec. 0.459?, and in addition (ii) each assertion ofpriviIeged documents or portions of documents not provided to the FCC in response to the 3 Letters? If so, could. you please make that clear to the address companies and myself?

4b. Question-Request. If the Havens Parties seek to challenge any such request /Dr confidentiality, can we do that in the "proceedings" based upon these 3 Letters?

Ifnot, or even ifso, we may submit a challenge under FOJA request(s) and law in which we would reference these 3- Letters' proceedings. However, being able to submit any such challenge in the 3 Letters proceedings may expedite resolution of the challenge, fur example, that may be less formal than in an FOIA proceeding and may facilitate agreement among Respondents and the challenging entities as to certain levels of public disclosure, or under "attorney eyes only" treatrreot, etc.

5. The 3 Letters are fact - finding exercises in. response, or primarily in response, to facts and questions raised in petitions to deny under 47 USC Sec. 309(d), and related now-pending administrative appeals, by the Havens Parties of Respondents' applications in the FNs. Under said Sec. 309(d), where a petitioner submits a petition to deny that has prima facie evidence that demonstrates:

Page 3 of 7<;/b[ank.htm Pbn = 1358. n&.. inti = use, lang = en-U S

8/27/09 10 :59 A M

"(d) .... a substantial and material question offuct [ ... ,lor if the Commission for any reason is unable to find that grant of the application would be consistent with subsection (a) of this section ... it shall proceed as provided in subsection (e) of this section.

"(e) Hearings; intervention; evidence; burden of proof ..... "

In this regard, (0 the 3 Letters appear to demonstrate that said Havens Parties' petitions to deny (incWing by the pleadings in the appeals stage) have met this requirement of Sec 309(d) [or that at least, ''the Commission ... is unable to find that grant of the application would be consistent with subjection (a)"], and (ii) the 3 Letters themselves appear to be commencement of a hearing described in., or with the sam: or similar purpose of; 47 USC Sec. 3 09( e),

5. Question: Is the above assessment in this item 5 correct? and if so, how will the FCC proceed with a hearing or hearing?

This is important to the Havens Entities since it is not clear what rights they have in relation to the proceedings under the 3 Letters (some of the questions above reflect this uncertainty), but it is clear that they have more and more formal rights to participate in a hearing under 47 USC Sec. 309(e), and also, under 309(e) the burden ofproofstandards are more clear.

Further, under 47 USC Sec. 3 09( e), other entities not yet parties may become parties upon making the required showing.

For example, among others possible, the US Coast Guard with regard to ManlEL matters (it is a party to some ManlEL proceeding(s) that could be effected by results of the 3 Letters proceedings), and existing and prospective spectrum assignees and lessees in proceedings under the FN s that may be effected by results of the 3 Letters.

6. The 3 Letters reference FCC rule section 1.17, but not section 1.52 or 1.24. Section 1.17, applied to the 3 Letters, does not make clear that it applies to legal counsel representing MCLM, ManlEL, and WPV (since it is only those entities that are discussed in the 3 Letters as having submitted conflicting and inadequate information, and the like). However, i!1l of the filings ofthose Respondents that are subject ofthe 3 Letters were filed by their legal counsel (and all apparently drafted by said counsel), often with no accompanying declarations or affidavits by an officer of the Respondent entity.

Given the descriptions in. the 3 Letters of the extensive history and (at best) the conflicting and inadequate infonration, from a period commencing (at least) in 2002, all submitted to the Corrnnission by Respondents' legal counsel, it appears warranted to supplement the 3 Letters to reference the applicability of Sec. 1.52 and 1.24 that effectively extends the requirements of Sec 1.17 to said legal counsel

This is especially so since (0 Dennis Brown is legal counsel to all ofMCLM, Donald and Sandra Depriest, and WPV, and thus has knowledge offucts relating to these entities intertwiined by ownership and contrcl under evidence noted in the 3 Letters, and (ii) Russell Fox was counsel to Man1EL both. before and after the alleged change of control (herein., each control-state considered an "entity"), and thus must have knowledge ofboth sides or entities in that history. Further, ifsaid entities were actually distinct, it is likely that different counsel would be involved in each to protect each entities' confidential attorney-client information, to reduce conflicts, etc, However, where there are secrets creating liabilities to protect between a mimber of comroonly-controlled entities over a large number of years and proceedings (and with large total legal fees involved), having the sam: counsel may serve to unlawfully protect those secrets: it fur harder to have independent counsel for such multiple entities cooperate to undertake such unlawful protection fur many reasons (conspiracy is itselfunlawful; it could greatly increase chances of discovery; less legal-fees economic incentive involved, and so forth).

6. Question" Request. Will the FCC apply Section 1.52 and 1.24 along with Sec 1.17 as just suggested?, and if so please advise Respondents and rnyselffor the Havens Parties.

Without this, it is possible for said legal counsel to advise upon, craft and submit, or even simply submit, responses to the 3 Letters on behalf of Respondents thatthey know to be in violation of Sec 1.17 and the standards set forth in the 3

Page 4 of 7<;lb[ank.htm Pbn = 1358. n&.. inti = use, lang = en-U S

8/27/09 10 :59 A M

the 3 Letters on behalf of Respondents that they know to be in violation of Sec 1.17 and the standards set furth in the 3 Letters with no liability, at least none fur which they were forewarned in the 3 Letters. It is bard to imagine that bas not already taken place over the history of the subject proceedings. Iftbis supplement is not provided, there is an appearance that FCC staff'believe said legal counsel have had no role in the past conflicting and inadequate (or worse) filings described in the 3 Letters (or iftbey did, that they have no liability for that), and an appearance that they may continue to assist in the sane sort of unlawful filings including responses to the 3 Letters.


[Signature on file. Electronically submitted.] Warren Havens

President of each

'Havens Party" defined above

From: James Stobaugh <> To:

Cc:;; Warren Havens <> Sent: Monday, November 10,200811:45:19 AM

Subject: Fw: W. Havens call today, follow up

Below sent again with typo corrections. -WH

--- On Mon, 11110/08, Warren Havens <walren.havenli&!bcglobal.neP wrote:

From: Warren Havens <> Subject: W. Havens call today, follow up


Cc:, Date: Monday, November 10, 2008, 11 :37 AM

David Fitzgerald

Manager Business Development Spectrum Bridge

Mr. Fitzgerald,

Please con finn receipt of this email.

This email is not subject to any confidentiality.

Thank you far taking my call of this morning and discussing with me.

1. The maio issue I raised was disclosure ofthe legal claims that my LLCs and Foundation have p ending in courts and before the FCC against Maritime Communications/ Land Mobile (M CLM), Thomas Kurian (Kurian), Paging Systems lnc.(PSI), and their associates who have, in our view, shared liability.

2. I called since I did not see on your website disclosure of these claims, nor in the many articles on your company in the trade press, including those listiog the PSI and Kurian sp ectrum, I understand from you that I am correct as to there being no disclosures in your website or those articles, and that your company is aware of my company's claims as they exist before the courts (you named the California case, and the New Jersey case) and before the FCC--our claims against MCLM and its A- and B-block AMTS licenses, and against Kurian and his A-block AMTS Mountain-region license. I also explained our contract claim to the Kurian license (most ofthat license was traded by contract to one of my LLCs, and we fully performed), and to the AMTS A-block licenses issued to MCLM in Auction 61.

3. Again, I understood from you that your company understands those claims, and you made clear to me that your company will proceed with your marketing ofthose licenses. However, you said that you company may consider my request for disclosures, which I make below.

Page 5 of 7

htt :1/u5, mg20 L rna n. Y a hoo.comjdcrblank. htm [?bn~ 1358, 27&., inti ~ us&., lang ~ en-U 5

8/27/09 10 :59 A M

4, I noted to you that if anyone shows me facts and law, contrary to what is now in the record upon which my companies base our claims, I will seriously look at them with counsel. Thus far, the facts and law clearly support our claims, and the defendants defense for the most part is to evade and twist the facts and law,

5, We have noted in a website our claims before the FCC: see the Blog entry at: As you know, the pleadings are on FCC ULS, Based upon new actions related to MCLM and others, there are pleadings filed fairly recently, and we believe there will be others filed based on other new irformation that MCLM should be already aware of, including since it is the primary source.

6, You noted to me that your comp any and legal counsel at Rini Coran have reviewed our claims, noted above, and have determined that the MCLM and Kurian AMTS licenses are valid and marketable. We strongly disagree based upon the facts and law in our pleadings. We oppose assignments of, profiting in, and laundering of invalid licenses, on public interest basis, and on our private rights basis,

7, I also note that your company was aware of our AMTS licenses (as you noted to me on the phone today), but it did not seek any arrangement with regard to brokering any our licenses' spectrum, (We hold a multiple of the spectrum held by MCLM and Kurian combined, on MHz Pop basis, shown in simple ULS searches 1 am sure you conducted.) We assume that is since your agreements regarding the MCLM and Kurian. licenses preclude, for consideration you received, dealing with my companies and their AMTS and other spectrum, since avoiding our spectrum would otherwise be contrary to your stakeholders' interests and your wwebsite'sstated open-exchange position, If'I am not correct, you can provide a representation to the contrary,

8, As I told you on the phone, I do not agree that the lack of disclosures noted above is good business practice, In addition, I am seeking legal advice as to whether, among other potential claims, your aadvertisingand brokering with no disclosures indicated above is (i) false advertising (e.g , in California, Cal. Bus, & Prof. Code § 11500), and interference with prospective economic advantage, and (ii) interference with our contract with Mr. Kurian contract (1 told you on the phone that the FCC does not determine a contract dispute, You noted that you were aware of our contract with Thomas Kurian, I told you we sued his former wife who attennpted to acquire for MCLM his AMTS license to which we have contract rights, I stated that others seeking tbe sp ectrum we have under contract also interfere, in my view, and I believe that extends to a broker selling it).

9, The essential message and character of your sp ectrum brokerage is that spectrum can be simply and quickly exchanged, and that you have crop loyed experts and due diligence in selecting and offering spectrum, That makes disclosures of all but frivolous legal claims against the spectrum you offer for profit called for along with your proffered expertise and selected spectrum, Our claims are not frivolous;

10, We believe you would act in the public interest, at minimum, to disclose our claims in descriptions you give in writing and orally of AMTS spectrum subject to our claims, I don't imply that, if you make such disclosure, my companies then would have waived or otherwise not have valid claims as to your brokering the subject licenses, but it would reduce our threshold concerns noted herein and mitigate damages,

Please let me know if your company will make such disclosures, and if so, refer me to the disclosures.

1 L In our legal proceedings, we intend to pursue appropriate discovery to find out the nature of relations that MCLM, Kurian, PSI, and other named defendants have with other persons and entities that may, under law, share liability, but in any case ap pear to have relevant information, Tbat includes your company for reasons indicated herein,

12, As I said on the phone, [ could have our legal counsel discuss with your counsel, if your company chooses to do that. We always attennpt to mitigate conflict. In any case, I am not above providing a basis of waiver of our potential claims, or any offer to compromise, etc, Your choices were deliberate, as you were forthright in admittirg, and my caU was to explain in that circumstance my position, and ask you to recons ider.

1 recently asked assistants to read your public materials, learn about your founders and investors, and determine if at some p oint we may want to participate in your exhange, However, as [note above, at this time you appear to have a contract bar and a conflict, and in any case have chosen to not deal with us,

We reserve the right to communicate the above and related matters with others associated with your company, ifthat seems needed to get our position across, I have concerns that, just as your comp any managers are not disclosing to the public essential information, that investors in your company may also not be informed of the claims I note above when making their investments or loans, If you represent to me that they are fully informed of our claims, then I may rely upon that.

Thank you again for discussing witb me,

Sincerely, Warren Havens

Warren Havens, President,

Intelligent Transport, Location & Wireless Group:

A TLIS Wireless LLC, Telesaurus LLCs, &

Page 6 of 7

htt :1/u5. mg 20 1. me il. yahoo .comld<;/b[ank. htm Pbn = 1358. n&.. inti = use, lang = en-U S

8/27/09 10 :59 A M

A TLIS Wireless LLC, Telesaurus LLCs, & Skybridge Spectrum Foundation

Berkeley, California, USA

510.841. 2220 - phone

510.740.3412 - fax

Page 7 of 7