Media Bureau releases Order to Show Cause & Hearing Designation Order to Cesar Guel and others for various violations

Today, the Media Bureau has issued a 64-page document including an Order to Show Cause Why A Cease and Desist Order Should Not Be Issued, an Order to Show Cause Why an Order of Revocation Order Should Not Be Issued, a Hearing Designation Order, a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing and a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture against Hispanic Christian Community Network, Inc. (HCCN), Antonio Cesar Guel (Guel) and Jennifer Juarez (Juarez).  Juarez is Antonio Cesar Guel's niece.

The proceeding revolves around activities that took place in regards to the renewal applications for seven Low Power TV (LPTV) stations that were owned by HCCN. 

The LPTV stations involved are:

• KHDE-LD, Denver, Colorado
• KJTN-LP, Abilene, Texas
• KZAB-LP, Abilene, Texas
• KZTE-LD, Fulton, Arkansas
• KTEQ-LP, Fulton, Arkansas
• WESL-LP, Jamestown, Kentucky
• KRPO-LD, Quartzsite, Arizona

REC also reminds the public that if they read this document, they may see references to stations that have an -LP suffix for the call sign.  Prior to the conversion from analog to digital television, LPTV stations also used -LP as the suffix for their call signs.

During the 2013 Second Generation LPFM Filing Window, Guel was involved in the preparation of over 245 LPFM applications filed in that window.  He was also involved in applications filed in the 2000/2001 First Generation LPFM Filing Window Series as well as other noncommercial and commercial filing windows in the past.    REC notes that none of the LPFM applications for which Guel's name had appeared as a technical contact are not in contention for this hearing. 

While we will not get into detail regarding the investigatory matters in this document, we will summarize what the Media Bureau has ordered.

The Bureau has designated for hearing before an FCC Administrative Law Judge to determine:

• If Juarez abused FCC processes by misrepresentation, concealment or otherwise;
• To determine if Juarez abused FCC processes by entering into an disclosed agreement to delay indefinitely the filing of consummation notices; to determine whether Juarez is and/or has been exercising control of seven LPTV licenses;
• To determine if Guel and HCCN is a real party-in-interest to applications for the same seven LPTV stations;
• To determine whether there was a de facto transfer of control of the 7 LPTV stations to Guel or HCCN; to determine whether Juarez engaged in misrepresentation and/or lack of candor in applications and communications with the FCC involving the 7 LPTV stations.
• To determine, whether the renewal applications for the 7 LPTV should be renewed with such terms and conditions that are appropriate, including short term renewals.
• Whether Juarez possesses the character qualifications to be or remain a FCC licensee and whether the 7 LPTV station licenses should be revoked.
• To determine whether Guel and HCCN should, for this proceeding, be considered one and the same entity;
• To determine whether Guel and/or HCCN have exercised or continue to exercise de facto control over the 7 LPTV station licenses;
• To determine whether Guel and/or HCCN have misrepresented material ifnromation to the FCC and/or lacked candor;
• To determine whether Guel and/or HCCN have abused FCC processes by first filing an assignment application that lacked bona fides while maintaining de facto control of the 7 LPTV licenses, and then by impermissibly and intentionally bifurcating ownership of the 7 LPTV licenses for years by not timely filing the requisite consummation notice;
• To determine whether Guel and/or HCCN shall be ordered to cease and desist from violating FCC Rules and the Communications Act, including making willfully inaccurate, incomplete, evasive, false, or misleading statements before the FCC and engaging in unauthorized control and operation of broadcast stations;
• To determine whether Guel and/or HCCN shall be ordered to cease and desist from operating, controlling, managing or providing any assistance to any stations;
• To determine whether Guel and/or HCCN shall be ordered to cease and desist from preparing and/or filing applications or other documents regarding HCCN with the FCC;
• To determine whether Guel and/or HCCN shall be allowed to assist any other licensee, permittee or applicant in any way with the operation or construction of any station, or to provide any assistance or input in any way in preparing or filing any application, shall be ordered to cease and desist from doing so without also providing a copy of any order issued in this proceeding that finds HCCN or Guel lacks the character to be a FCC licensee in any and all filings with the FCC in every matter in which he participates in any way; and
• Whether Guel and/or HCCN possess the character qualifications to be FCC licensees.

The Media Bureau further issued to Guel and HCCN an Order to Show Cause Why They Should Not Be Ordered to Cease and Desist:

• From violating FCC Rules and the Communications Act, including making willfully inaccurate, incomplete, evasive, false or misleading statements before the FCC and engaging in unauthorized control and operation of broadcast stations;
• From operating, controlling, managing or providing any assistance to any stations;
• From preparing and/or filing applications or other documents regarding HCCN with the FCC; and
• To the extent Guel or HCCN is allowed to assist any other licensee, permittee or applicant in any way with the operation or construction of any station, or to provide any assistance or input in any way in preparing or filing any application with the FCC, from doing so without also providing a copy of any order issued in this proceeding that finds Guel or HCCN, lacks the character to be a FCC licensee and in any and all filings with the Commission in every matter which he participates in any way.

The Bureau also stated that regardless of the resolution of the foregoing issues, it shall be determined whether an Order of Forfeiture shall be issued against Guel and/or HCCN as well as against Juarez in amounts not to exceed the statutory limit for the willful and/or repeated violations of the FCC Rules and the Communications Act.  The Media Bureau did not announce any amounts of proposed forfeitures since it has not yet been determined if such forfeitures should be proposed.  The Media Bureau is limited in delegated authority, by statute to imposing forfeitures of no more than $20,000 (per violation).  If a higher amount of forfeiture is proposed, it will come from the full Commission.

The parties have 20 days to respond.