[BC] LMAs - How Far Can They Go?

[Keith Hammond]

Phil Alexander wrote:

> BEWARE that the state court cannot use the LMA to hold
> the LMA holder liable for damages in the event the FCC
> does the obvious. State laws vary and the FCC may not
> want to get involved in a local "commercial" dispute.


  I can verify (for certain) that state courts can (and will) completely
and entirely IGNORE anything to do with the FCC! It was a state court
(Texas) that CONVICTED me of "stealing funds payable to the local radio
station" when my INDIVIDUAL NAME (and not a corporate entity) appears as
the licensee.

  Of course, the DA who sought the indictment is now in a federal prison
cell as the courthouse based drug dealings in which he participated
proved true but, let's just say that he did still get his revenge
against the station owner who broke the story of his
meth-sales-through-the-courthouse.

  My mind was completely numb when I sat in that courtroom and watched a
state prosecutor (his assistant who was also - based on her own signed
affidavits - aware of and took no action to stop his drug dealing and
use) tell a jury that the certified copy of my broadcast license "is not
a document that is recognized by the Texas courts and, as such, is to be
disregarded as a forgery".

  I was foolish enough to believe that an FCC license had to be
recognized by ANY court (as well as the first amendment which covered
reporting the facts as in reporting on the DA's drug stealing and
dealing).

  (As reference material:
http://amarillo.com/stories/011205/new_1015524.shtml)

  Shortly after airing the first story that even hinted at his
"indiscretions", I was indicted and, ever since that date, according to
the local state courts, it doesn't matter whose name is on the license,
if the DA says it's stolen, it's stolen!

 
Keith Hammond
KBKH-FM
Shamrock, Texas
1-866-726-3209