Attachment 2019_03_29_16_42_51.

2019_03_29_16_42_51.

OTHER submitted by Reply to Response to Unauthorized Filings

Reply to Response to Unauthorized Filings

2018-10-17

This document pretains to 325-NEW-20180614-00001 for New Application on a Permit to Foreign Broadcast filing.

IBFS_325NEW2018061400001_1641120

-r Recejved0 ociy41 Bure4, I Offio. BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C 20554 mit GLR Southern California. tiC ) ‘I Application for Transfer ofControl from ) File No. 325-NEW-201 80614-00001 GUt Services. Inc. to ) H&H Group liSA. tiC ) Accepted I Piteci 0CT172018 For Delivery of Programming in ) Olteflflasjy Mexican Station XEWW-AM. ) Rosa3ia Baja California None. Mexico ) To: Secretary Ann.: Chief:, International Bureau REPLY TO RESPONSE TO UNAUTHORiZED FILINGS CHINESE SOUND OF ORIENTAL AND WEST HERITAGE By its Attorneys, James L Winston RUBIN, WINSTON, DIERCKS, HARRIS & COOKE, LLP 1201 Connecticut Avenue. N.W. Suite 200 Washington. D.C. 20036 October 17. 20)8


Pa D. New Matters in the Suoemeni and Reply Provide CODICXL Greater Accuracy to Which H&H Has Responded and thus Arc Permitted .22 V. Conclusion .24

SUMMARY CSO maintains that H&H is a front for Phoenix TV. which is a front for China which is on a campaign to undermine U.S. national interests and interfere with U.S. elections by broadcasting propaganda to Chinese Americans in Southern California. The grant of the Permit application would enable the foregoing. The Permit application process traditionally involves minor questions not invoking the national interests and threats to the electoral system, the latter issues that the Administration advises are present with respect to China and for which multiple agencies have responded by employing greater scrutin to financial and media transactions involving China. H&N asserts that the Commission need not be concerned by a grant of the Permit, because H&.[-l and Phoenix TV can be trusted to behave. H&H asserts: it provided all required information on the form 308; there are no factors requiring denia] of the Permit; national security risks are not present; neither it nor its programming partner, Phoenix TV, or any individual involved, is a front for China; no propaganda will be broadcast; registration as foreign agents is urn required; this is not a financial transaction requiring inter-agency review; the Commission may not consider program content; any interference caused by XEWW-AM is belated; and most of the arguments CSO advances to deny the Permit are belated. In reply, CSO maintains that the Permit application form 30$ provides that the data requested on the ibm is not exhaustive; national security issues presented are part of the public interest and must be considered; Phoenix TV controls staffm and programming. important functions reflecting that H&FI has delegated defacto control to Phoenix TV; that inter-locked staffing of H&H and Phoenix TV further indicates de facto control; both the programming agreement providing compensation to H&H and Phoenix TV’s pavmem of programming 1

Droducion costs constirmes a CFIUS covered financiai transaction: judiciai preccdem specificriflv authorizes denial of the Permit in lieu of content reguaiion: the Pemiir application triggered the rieht to file a peti ion to deny as to the interference caused h XEWW-AM as no hvc) Arizona AM co-channel stations: and Commission precedent allows the consideration of non-soecifled padmgs where necessary for a robust and accurate record.

BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASH[NGTO. D.C. 2(1554 Inre ) ) GLR Southern California. LLC ) I Application for Transfer of Control from ) file No. 325-NEW-20180614-00001 GLR Services, Inc. to ) H&H Group USA. LLC ) ) ) For Delivery of?rorarnrniiw to ) Mexican Station XEWW-AM. ) Rosarita, Baja California Norte, Mexico ) To: Secretary Attn.: Chief. International Bureau REPLY TO RESPONSE TO UNAUTHORIZED FILINGS I. Introduction Chinese Sound of Oriental and West Heritage (CSO”), licensee of KQEV-LP, Walnut, California. by its attomcys. hereby files this reply (Reply to Response”) to the pleading styled “Response to Unauthorized Pleadings” (Response”), filed on September 24. 2018. by GLR Southern California LLC (GLR), and its parent company H&H Group USA LLC (hereinafter collectively H&H). 11. Background In an Application flied on June 13, 2013. lI&H seeks approval under Section 325 of the Communications Act. 47 U.S.C. 325, for a Permit to deliver, via internet protocol. Mandarin Pursuant tO Section 1 .3 of the Commission’s Rules. CSO requests leave to flie this Reply to Response. As H&H provided substantia] new material in its Resoonse. CSO requests leave to respond to that new material.

l2nguae procrarnming from a studio in the Los Ante]es area to radio station XEWW-AM. Rosariti Baja Califbmia None. Mexico. which sianal can be received in all of Southern California and beyond. In its Petition to Deny. Fi]cd on August 8. 201 $ (“Petition”), and a Supplement to the Petition to Den, filed on September 4, 2018 (“Supplement”) and a Reply to the Opposition to the Petition to Deny (Rep]v”) filed on September 11. 20! 8. CSO demonstrated that the Peopl&s Reoublic of China (‘TRC or China”) is conducting a multi-prong. broad overseas campaign, usins media organizations to undermine American national interests. including efforts to interfere with American elections. in support of i position. CSO cited finngs and \varnings of and by multiple U.S. security and intelligence agencies, governmental monitoring agencies. research institutions, media advocates and human rights representatives. Supplement at 2. 4. 5. 6. CSO also demonstrated via a sworn declaration of the former senior rnanaer and News Director for Phoenix TV USA Ltd. (“Phoenix TV”) that Phoenix TV is a Cayrnan Islands- chartered and 1-Ion Kona based-entity, subject to the soverciunty of the .PRC. and that t-1&H has delegated near universal programming rights and financial sales management to Phoenix TV. two of three factors thai the Commission has held constitute dc/ado control. in violation of the Commission Rules. As to the third factor- financing CSO maintains that. as H&H has not - provided any documentation as to the source of Funding for the acquisition and operations of XEWW-ArvI. and given the deflicto control of the first two factors. the Commission is unable to decide as to the third Factor: and thus. the Commission cannot conclude that aarant of the Permit would serve the public interest. 7

III. H&H Response In response io the above. l-l&H asserLs that the Supplement and Reply are untimely and beyond the aruments and factors detailed in the Petition: and. as such. they are unauthorized and should not he considered. Response. at 4-6. On the merits of the CSO assertions. H&H’s general response is that CSC) advances self serving, anti-competitive, unsupported allegations; and the got’emment and CSO are making fear-mongeñng and racially-tinged assertions in their efforts to consider legitimate national security interest findings. Response, at 2. More specifically. H&l-I has four responses. 1-l&H says: a) it has demonstrated sufficient evidence for a grant of the Permit and CSO has not demonstrated any grounds for denial of the Permit: b) neither H&H nor GLR is or will he an agent for the PRC: c) the CSO interference claims as to KCEE(AM). Tucson, Arizona, and the new proposed AM station at Flagstaff. Arizona. are belated, and CSO lacks standing to complain: and d) the Supplement and Reply oiler new information and are untimely. Response. 3. 7, 17. As detailed below. the H&H Response ignores the record in this proceeding, and is assertions and arguments are evasive and disingenuous. Pivolaily, H&H ignores that the public interest standard for accepting non-rule specified pleadings and the substantIve factors for detailing the public interest arc broad and flexible, liberally permittina robust pleadings not specifically authorized and considering and allowing the consideration of a variable, adjusting and evolving ac/hoc public interest standard. 3

IV. Araument A. The Permit Application Requeci for Information Is Not Exhaustive and Nationcil Security factors Can Be Supplen7dnted 1. The Permit Application form Provides Notice That Additional Data May Be Required H&H argues that it has submitted all the information requested on the Permit form 302 and that is enough for a grant of the Permit, as it is not required to submit anything more. Restated, H&H submits that the Permit form data requests are exhaustive, and the Commission may not ask for additional data. Response, at 3. H&H ignores its own citation of Section 325 of the Communications Act, which requires that before the Commission may grant a Permit, the Commission must find a grant to be in the public interest. Nothing in Permit form 308. or the Commission Rules, precludes the Coftmission flom seeking additional data. Further and decisively, the Instructions to the Permit Application specifically provide notice that the Commission may require additional information. See Instructions for form 308, pars. 3-4, at p. 2. Indeed, absent additional data, the Commission could (and should) designate the Permit application for an evidentiary bearing to secure substantially greater information. See Instructions for Form 308, par. 3, at p. 2. 2. Petitioner has detailed ovei-whelminQ evidence to sunport denial of the PermiL or alternatively, the need for ah evidentiary hearing H&H maintains that CSO has not provided any grounds to deny the Permit. Response, at 3. H&H further asserts that the national security interests demonstrated by CSO are insufficient grounds andlor evidence to deny the Permit, given that such a standard would be new. Response, at 3-4. Note 9. The reply is that H&H ignores that the traditional broad public intereststandard is not fixed, but dynamic and variable depending upon the industry, the time period and the specific 4

a - ..Ss p — — :d:tzr :estn:e:. Ir a Z.em ‘ from C’::n’na Ton: - k it. it N “,:‘c . 9n D Ractçi’.c’. et 1.. 231t \VL )3I5CwLL. Marcr r. 2(114. a: 2. iii: Cnairrnan o:ei Congress’ express statwor command is thot licensc transfers must sadsf the public interest. convenience, and necescity. a standard Lbat is always informed by regulatory standards. hut ihich necessarily in olvcs. as our licensing decisions hae long noted. the use of a casc-by-casC approach...Applicants and interested parties should not forget that our public intcrc.ct mandate cncompasscs giving careful attention to the economic effects of. and incentives created by, a proposed transaction taken as a whole and its consistenc) with the Commission’s policies under the Act, includ!ng our policies in favor of competition, diversity. and localism. Tnt Chatn,an ‘wm on to say: [Wel reaffirm the iongresitond command that the legal standard for deciding the transfer of licenses under Sevtion 30 Ud) is the public interest convenience, and neccssitf and that of course. no single set of unvdtten. little understood fonnulations can replace the Commission’s responsibility to apply that standard with an understanding of the totality of the facts. That is no change of policy: it is the polk enacted by Congress and the statute that I have sworn to enforce.... As such. H&H’s reliance on the proposition that national security interests may not be used to require information beyond the Permit form or used to decide the merits of the H&l I Permit application is misplaced. Additionally. H&H maintains that. as a national security standard is not applicable, there is no basis to rescind the Special Temporary Authority (‘STA’) granted to H&H to commence delivery of the Phoenix TV programming to XEWW-AM for rebroadcasting in Southern California. Response. note 10. llowever. given the above, demonstrating that the application of the national security standard applies, as previously demonstrated. the Commission should rescind the 5Th. H&H maintains that CSO has not demonstrated any grounds to support a denial of the Permit Response. at 34. The argument is &singenuous and evaske. CSO has provided the wrntngs and findings of the National Security Agenc. the Office of the Na’iona Secunt S

y end Review de Rcp rcscntativc. the US.-Chinn Securit Advisor. oflice of the Special Tra these ers. Sup plem ent. at 4-5 . N& H would have the Commission ignore Commission and oth n defense and e Com mis sion can not Th ey rep resent vital factors as to the commo findings. Th onally within the public inlercst general welfare, matters constituti mittee of the ally , from his van tag e poi nt as a Member of the Armed Forces Com Addition na will use tes Sen ate, Sen ato r Ted Cru z has cautioned the Commission that Chi United Sta to ine Am eric an inte rest s mid inf lue nce American elections. See Letter propaganda to underm ket entry on Pai , date d Sep tem ber 11, 201 8. (As the letter does not show as a doc Chairman Ajit further support and iss ion ’s web site , it is atta che d her eto as an Exhibit) This provides the Comm e the Commission be considered here.) I&H would hav evidence that national security should Response. note tio n, sum mar ily dis mi ssi ng the Senator’s assertions as unfounded. ignore this cau 24. Oo vemmenfs core raison thetre 3. National Security is the Federal es defies e the Comm ission ignore national security issu The H&H position, seeking to hav to provide for the and history. A cor e rea son for the federal government’s existence is logic the the com mo n def ens e? the latt er of which includes protection against general welfare and ltiple means by of fore ign gov ern men ts mid the ir manipulated entities. lucre are mu uggession of ern me nt may ens ure suc h nati ona l security, including the monitoring which the federal gov statutes set ctic es of fore ign enti ties to ens ure the lack of infiltration. One of the intelligence pra blished the im ple me nt pro tect ion is the Nat ional Security Act of 1947 vhich esta forth to have Cou ncil mid the Cen tral Int elli gence Agency, agencies which recently National Security Constitu tion. 2Afticle I, Section 8. United States S

found thai the PRC is attempting to undermine American intcresls. including using media it controls to interfere with American elections. Supplement. at 6—7. 0. In rVeit’ )n’k Times v. United Slates. 403 U.S. 7 3 (1 971 ). the Supreme Court held that national security issues ai’e a basis for denial of’privilcges. even overriding First Amendment concerns. and the test for such denials in print media3 is a grave and irreparable danger.” However. in that case. the Govcrnment fai]cd to satisR’ the standard based on the record before thc Court. Whilc the case is generally considered a victory for an expansive reading of the first Amendment. its decision did not void the Espionage Act underlying the Government’s core need for national security tools to protect against foreign entities, hi. at 73 0—740 (Justices While and I3renan. concurring). As .such. the 1T&1-l assertion, implicit or otherwise, that national security interests are “insufficient” to deny a Permit ignores history and precedent. 4. ‘The Vice President Also Warns ‘That China Is lnterfcrinu in Upcoming Elections Il’the findings of those agencies and entities detailed above and in [he Supplement and Reply were not compelling enotigh. just thirteen days ago, on October 4. 201 8, the Vice President underscored and enhanced those fluicliiws. In “Remarks by Vice President Pence on the Administration’s Policy Toward China” (“Remarks”) before [he I ludson institute, the Vice President declared an inflection point’ in U.S.—China relations.” The Vice President, echoing oilier government flndings. declared that Clii na abUses its economic clout; bullies American companies into transferring to ii American technology: intimidates its neighbors: and persecutes religious and spiritual believers in its own country. In stark language, made particularly relevant here. the Here, as broadcasting and not print media is involved, the standard is lower. A more complete discussion is given below at sub-Section 5. a. ‘ The text of [he Remarks is available online at https:!/www.whitchouse.gov/tirielings— statements!retnarks—vice—prcsidcnt—pence—adrnin istrations—policv—toward—china/ 7

Vice President concludes that China is anenmting to interfere in the 201 8 mitherm election. addins that China uses its influence and powers by rewarding or coercing American businesses, movies studios. universities, think tanks. scholars. and journalists Poirnedlv. and especially applicable as to the Permit. the Vice President detailed: Beijing is employing a whole—of-government approach, using political, economic, and military tools. as ‘ie1/ as propaganda, to advance its influence and benefit its interests in the United States. And China is also directly appealing to the American voters. Last week. the Chinese government paid to have a multipage supplement inserted into the Des 1’Iomes Register the paper of record of the home state of our Ambassador to — China, and a pivotal state in 201 $ and 2020. The supplement. designed to look - like the news articles, cast our trade policies as reckless and hannfui to lowans. following the declared position of the Administration, on October 10. 2018. the Treasury Department announced that it had expanded the review of foTc)gn investment in American entities, particularly h China. The next da. the Energy Department announced heightened controls on energy technology transfers to the PRC.7 And. as noted by l-l&H, pre’iotsl the Justice Department announced it had ordered Xinhua News Agency and COIN. the international arm of state broadcaster CCIV to register as foreign agents. Response at 15, note 52i Remarks, sixth and fifty-fifth pai-agraphs. [Emphasis supplied.] 6 See https:/ihometreasury.gov/systetm’files/206/fR-201 8-22182_i 786904.pdf ‘ “DOE Announces Measures to Prevent China’s Illegal Diversion ofU.S. Civil Nuclear ‘Fechnologv for Military or Other Unauthorized Purposes.” at civil-n uci ear-teehnoioc H&H attempts to distinguish itself from these two publications, maintaining that unlike Phoenix TV. the PRC maintains de/?tre control over these entities. Response. at 13.l.. That difference is not of decisional significance. as the PRC maintains prohIbited defeio contTol over ?hoenix T\’ as CSO has demonstrated. 8

Reply, and as Given the evidence detailed in the Petition, the Supolemerit and the evidence exists of enhanced by the rernarhs of the Vice President. CSO submits that sufficient to influence Chinese national security implications. particularly as to efforts to use propaganda ter that the I-\mericans in Southern California during the upeornina elections and thereaf atively. CSO submits that Commission may deny the Permit as not in the public interesi. Altern ing an sufficient evidence exists that material and substantial questions of fact exist lustify would be in evidentiar hearing before the Commission can conclude that a grant of the Permit the public interest. B. H&H is a front Jr Phoenix TV which is Contra fled by the PRC and the Sovereign Commission Sho1tld Not Tncct Phoenix TI” to Deli: the Dictates of its Phoen ix TV nor the nor Ti-us! M&R (o Defi the Economic Compensation of Aggression of the PRC TV is CSO has demonstrated in its Petition. Supplement and Reply that Phoenix llinu shareho]der controlled by the PRC. CSO has demonstrated also that Vivian Huo the contro the minimalist right to of H&H has delegated all programming decisions to Phoenix T\’, save plished.9 CSO preempt programs. but without detailing how such preemption will be accom further has demonstrated how Phoenix TV comrols the hiring ofjoum alisis and sales financial Supplemental management at XEWW-AM ow’i’ed by H&f-l. Supplement. at Exhibit I. factors constitute de Declaration of XiaoweL par. 3. The Commission has concluded that these That makes /,cto control. Supplement. at 10. citing Aspen FM Inc.. 6 FCC Rcd 1602 (1991) L’ TV it has failed H&H a front for Phoenix TV. While H&I-I denies being controlled by Phoen l. to address the factors that the Commission has held constitute de/iwto contro Phoenix T\’ I. Economic Incentives of Comnensation and Profits Propel H&H and Compliance with the Directives of the PRC Supplement, at 11-14. 9

H&H aSserts thai fl will nOt to be a front for the PRC Response, at 74. H&H ienores illion how the world and economics works. As H&H acknowledacs. Phoenix TV is a multi-m dollar global empire. broadcasting multiple channels on mu]tiple contincrns. Based in I-long Koiw. it is sublect to aovernancc by its sovereign. the PRC. H&H would have the Commission believe that Phoenix TV. the cmlv entity in China that has the privilege of being a privately owned media company grossing hundreds of millions oi dollars — an absolute monopoly with sole access to the Chinese population, would risk the - wrath of the PRC. which could. if ii chose. close Phoenix TV and thereby destroy the influence and affluence provided. H&H also would have the Commission believe that H&H would defy and risk the wrath of Phoenix TV which provides H&H with compensation for the tight to the program XEWW-AM.)1 The 1-l&1-l argument is not credible. It defies logic Importantly, argument asks the Coirimission to ignore the findings and warnings of the National Security ent Advisor, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Special Trade Representative, the Vice Presid and other government agencies. The Commission should not be so misled. 2. The PRC Previously Has Embedded PRC Agents into Phoenix TV to Undcimine American Interests In 2007. Tai Wang Mak, then Director of Broadcasting and Engineering for Phoenix TV and his brother. Chi Mak. an engineer at Power Paragon, a defense contractor, were both for sentenced respectively to ten and twenty-thur years for conspiracy to commit espionage and ‘ See SupplemenL at 12; Response. Exhibit C. Memo of Counsel. second and third pages. - Financial data available online at huJ/ir.i fengcem/phoenix.zhunl?c=24279c&piroi fimdlocom See Response, Exhibit C. second page. 10

sovine to transfer American naval secrets to the PRC. The charues also inaluded action as unregistered agents of a foreign govemmer]L The both had been “sleeper spies for the PRC for decades.’3 This reflects that Phoenix TV has been — and can he — used by the PRC to advance the aggression of the PRC.’4 3. Jackie Panu Is a Principal of Phoenix TV and H&I-1. Paid or Unpaid In its Supplement, at 10. 14. and Exhibit 4, CSO documented how H&H employs Jackie Pang as an on-air journalist by providing a sworn declaration together with a photograph of Jackie Pang delivering on-air information. In its Response. l-l&H asserts that the CSO position is a demonstrably false claim” and that Phoenix IV does not employ Jackie Pang or ex-Phoetrix TV on-air hosts. But H&H does not provide an sttpporting documentation to support its position. H&H concedes that the “...Commission ma of course take action against an application based on legitimate and substantial issues of national security. but Petitioners allegations of improper influence--which tack detail and are unfbunded--do not provide any such basis here.” Response. at 7. That response is inconsistent with the Declaration of Chmig Pong provided by CSO — and the issue is critical in showing cle /icio control. Given the factual 12 See. Chi Mak, Tai Wang Mak, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case No. CR-00293-CJC. March 26. 2008: and April 21. 2008. Tai Wang Mak. U.S. District Court Central District of California. See also, “How the F.B.I. Cracked a Chinese Spy Ring,” The New Yorkcr. May 12 2014. Available out me at https:/fwww.newyorker.com/news!news-deskthow-the-f-b-i-c.rackcd-a chinese-spy-ring ‘ ‘ CSO hastens to add. and emphatically so. that it is not suggesting that either of the individual principals of H&H. or any other individual involved in the Permit application proceeding. are conducting espionage. The point is that Phoenix TV previously has been used as a front for the PRC. ‘ CSO Reply, Exhibit 1. ii

io dispute, a material and substantial question of fact requirina an evidentiary hearing is required resolve whether Jackie Pana is an aaent of the PRC. ate H&H maintains that its controlling piincipal is an American citizen pursuing a legitim not business opportunity, not a front for Phoenix TV or the PRC. Response, at 8. CSO does ss contest that Vivian Huo is an American citizen or that the venture involved is a busine its opportunity. CSO maintains that Phoenix TV is de facto controlled b the PRC. which uses lly, influence to undermine American interests, including the broadcasting of propagand& Critica Its H&H does not contest specifically that Phoenix TV exercises defacto control over H&N. response is only that its shareholders have deli-ire control. That is classic evasion. H&H ridicules CSO’s demonstrated evidence oî de facto control of l-{&H by Phoenix TV and the PRC’s control of Phoenix TV as no more than that Phoenix TV is listed on the Hong China. Kong Stock Exchange. has a global presence, and is headed by one of the richest men in Response, at 8. H&H evades the point. Matters as to the entity’s breath and the wealth of the ge CEO are contextuaL reflecting economic incentives. Listing on the Hong Kong stock exchan reflects sovereignty of the PRC and the need for oversight by the Committee on foreign Investment in the United States (“CfIUS”) and the need for registration as a foreIgn media agent, as was RT, previously known as Russia Today. H&H attempts to minimize the compelling significance of the contents of the Chung ix Pong Declaration, which demonstrates that the PRC exercises journalistic control over Phoen TV. by dismissing PRC directives to terminate Phoenix TV statfthat resist or defy PRC at directives. H&H characterizes those directives as “a single Incident” Response, Note 3 1, 9. There are two responses. first, one incident of firing a journalist for failure to manipulate news, one is one too many. as that one incident reflects a willingness to fire more journalists and that 12

incident becomes a strong deterrent to others who might have considered not complying with instructions to produce future misinformation and propaganda. The clohal reaction b’ journalists, political leaders and governments to the recent disappearance and possible death of lVas/7iI?gton Post Iourna]ist Jamal Khashoggi, who likely defied directives to manipulate his stories to satisfy government interests, illustrates the magnitude and significance of a single incident.’6 CSO submits that the iis only one incident”’ defense of H&H reflects a willinaness by H&H to accept manipulative misinformation so long as sonic unspecified number of incidents remain eontainah]e Second, the use o[ad hoc guidelines for reporting favorably on the PRC and unfavorably (or not at all) on specified news events is not isolated. The propaganda guidelines applied universally to the entire Phocnix TV stafE That only one employee defied the PRC directives demonstrates the force of the ?RC chilling effect on the other journalists. further. l-l&N represents that Phoenix TV does not broadcast propaganda as there are no complaints from its viewers or listeners. Response, at ll-]2. The absence of complaints, ifso, is likely attributable to the faët that the PRC punishes and suppresses dissent among its own people and overseas ethnic Chinese. the latter of whom may have friends, family and businesses in China.’ ‘ Saudis arc Said to have Lain in Wait lbr Jamal Khashoagi.” Washing/on Post, October 9, 201 8. at https:/Jwww.washingionpost.com/worldJsaudis—]ay—in-wait-for—j amal—k hashoggi-and— lefi-turkey-quickly-sources-say/20 I 8/1 0/09/0c283e2e-cbc5-l I e$-adOa 0e0 I cfoa3ccl storv.html ?utm ternw.h124593 3 c3 dd ‘ in order to avoid additional pleadings and responses. C$O will file, only if requested h the Commission, declarations under oath from multiple persons who reside in Los Angeles County stating that each of them listened to Phoenix U AM 690 (Phoenix TV) and found the programs to 4di, th contain propaganda. The specific programs were oroadcasi. as Johows: on October , gth I 0th and 11 The exact times oldie latter procrarns were not recorded on paper, but the . individual made and can provide audio recordings of the programs. ‘3

l-i&.H additionally provides the añdavi. of that the Assistant CEO declaring that Phoenix TV has never authorized Jackie Pane to work For H&H. Response. at 11. That is not credible. and it is evasive. Pivotallv. C5O submits that whether as an employee, or advisor, or volunteer. Jackie Pang is an on-camera journalist for Phoenix T\’, as demonstrated in the Supplemental Declaration of Xiaowei Xia. together with the attached photograph reflccting her on air appearance) Under the circumstances, the Commission cannot grant the Permit whhout resolving whether Phoenix TV exercises control over H&H. Given all the foregoing, the Commission cannot rely simply on trust. 4. Phoenix TV Shareholders 1-tave Direct and SubstantIal TIes to the PRC H&H parenthetically notes that two Phoenix TV shareholders owning a combined percentage ownership of 28% in Phoenix TV ‘. - are linked Indirectly” to the Chinese Government through owiership”’ Response, Exhibit C. H&ll is hiding something. Twenty—eight percent of a large public company traditionally is a vet substantial amount and in some instances allows for actual control. Yet. there is no detailing of what “indirect]” means, or the class of shares — whether common or preferred, or whether there is capacity of those shareholders to impact control of the entity. l-I&H declares that. because of the listing rules of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, Phoenix TV is not capable of being unduly influenced by any possible linkage to the Chinese Government or the Chinese Communist Party. Response. Note 26, at 8 first. that mere stock exchange rules could l)re’et1t Chinese Government influence, . seems highly unlikely. The power that the Chinese Government influences over media has been well documented in greril detail in the CSO’s previous pleadings. Second. C5O notes that de ‘ See. Supplement. Exhibit 4. ‘4

fnre shaichalders of Phoenix TV previousi have attempted to purchase KDAYtAM). Redondo Beach to gain access to the Southern California markeL hut failed. Supplement. at 1 5. Third. the Commission recognizes that a de/ure legal structure does not preclude de Joeta control. Application of Tribune Media COmpany and Sinclair Brt)adc’asting Co.. Hearing Designation Order. DA 18-1 00, MB Docket 17-] 79. released July 10, 2018, par. 29. The idea that 2$% ownership lacks any type of influence defies the rationale and conclusions underlying the Commission’s requirement that am’ party holding 1 0% interest or more. or that has an indirect capacity to exert control. he identified. 47 C.P.R. § 1.2112(a) (Rand (7). Indeed, the entire construct and dichotomy of dc/nrc and de facto control is predicated on the acknowledgement that acwal control may not be reflected in named shareholders. hi. 5. The Conmtissjonis Consideration of Content in a Section 325(c) Proceeding is Constitutionally Permitted and Expressly Judicially Authorized a. H&H does not have the absolute right to deliver offensive programming via American telecommunications infrastructure to XEWW-AM in Mexico H&14 maintains that the under the First Amendment. the Commission does not consider programming content in considering a Permit application. Response. at 12, note 40. H&H overstates applicable precedent. In New York Times, .vupra. the Supreme Court extended broad protection irom prior restraints upon publication by newspapers of national security secrets. However, the Court left in place the pennissihilin’ of prior restraint, despite the First Amendment, where the government could demonstrate an “immediate and grave danger”’ to national security h fbreign actors. However. New York Tfn?es applies to print news publications only. A lesser standard applies to government licensed broadcast stations. Red Lion Rroadca.cting Co. v. fC’C. 395 U. S. 367 (1969): FCC v. Foci/lea foundailon. 438 U. S. 726 (1978). Here. a broadcasting permit is at 15

issue and CSO is not seeking a prior restraint. As the Court of Appeals has specifically held as to Secoon 32(c) pemut applicanons. tre Commission mcui consider thai the programmzng tc ofl72sive and. if so, the Commission is not obligated to expand the audience for the offensive programming and may deny the Permit application. See, Supplement, at 20-22. b. A full Schedu]e of Programs Does Not Defeat the Capacity to Broadcast Propaganda H&H claims it has a full schedule of mosth’ music programs for broadcasting from a varien’ ofqualitv sources and there is no room left for propaganda.19 Response. at 12. The implication is that propaganda originates and accompanies only political commentary or discussion programming. The argument is disingenuous. Moreover, H&.H intends political commentary and discussion programs. Response, at 12-13. Thus, H&H could broadcast such propaganda. further, CSO submits that the choice olnationalistic music with or without lyrics can be propaganda. CSO cited Black’s Law Didionarv for the legal definition of propaganda. which supports the assertion that music can he propaganda. Supplement, at 12-13. That definition does not exclude music. H&H also asserts that because it will not broadcast programs from the China mainland. there will not be propaganda. Response, at 9. That is a non-sequitur, as the geographic origination is not part of the definition of propaganda. H&H also maintains that the PRC’s directives not to broadcast live the events of the fifth anniversary olihe restoration of Hong Kong to the PRC occurred in the PRC only. As Phoenix TV has global distribution. CSO submits That Phoenix TV also broadcast quality programrnina does nol defeat its broadcasting of propaganda prorammina. as quality programming ma weT] be the factor that induces viewers and listeners to digest propaganda. 16

that the directive mtn have been deiivered in China. hut the suppression of the news event was giohal Next. 1-1&H suueesLs that the i3!ack ‘s Law Dictionary is not authoritative and irrelevant. Response. at 12. \Vhile the dictionary is not a pi-iniarv source for legal authority. it is a .cecondaiy source: and. Black s Law Dictionary is the most widely used such source for legal concepts not defined in prirnan’ sources. NotaNv. the Supreme Court routinely relies upon dictionaries, including Black r Law Dictionary, in its opinions. See, e.g.. Bullock BankC’hanpaign, A A.. 569 U.S. 26?. 268 (2013): SiaJ7fird ljnR’crxiiy t Rocie Molecular Sluten?.c. inc.. 563 U.S. 776. 786-8? (2011). 6. H&I-I on Behalf of Phoenix TV and the ?RC Are Attempting to Influence Public Opinion And Thuslv Are Forcien Agents and•the Phoenix TV investment in H&H Is a CfIUS Covered Transact ion CSO has shown that Phoenix TV is an agent for China, just as RT is an agent for Russia. H&H counters that. because it is “.. freely expressing [or broadcasting] one’s own views, ]-I&H is not required to register pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act.” Response. at 13. However, the views broadcast by XEWW-AM are those oF Phoenix TV. which programs the station. and Phoenix TV is controlled by the PRC. as demonstrated in the Petition, the Supplement (including the Chung Pong Declaration) and the Reply. Further. CSO demonstrated in the Supplement. at 17, that the Department of Justice required T&R Production LLC to register as a foreign agent of Russia. because that entity was an American-based sttidio production company, which delivers programming via American telecommunications infrastructure from studios in New York and Washington to Russia for retransmission and broadcasting back into the U.S. by RT. In that case. the federal government concluded that these prograrnmin. production and delivery functions. as detailed by the 17

government security agencies and others. were intended to undermine American interests and influence American elections for the benefit of the Russian Government. These are the same functions and oblecth’es as those beIng performed by H&H and Phoenix TV in the U.S. and XEWW-AM in Mexico. Yet. H&l-I does not even address these factors. That avoidance is a clear indication that H&H knows that it cannot escape the same conclusion — it must register. H&H suggests that the relevant CFIU$ provisions are not yet effective, suggesting that the Commission may not consider those provisions.20 However, seven days ago, the Treasury Department, as Chair of CfIUS issued urgent and compel]ing” temporary regulations to implement provisions of fIRRMA amending certain CPfUS regulatIons, which became effective on October 11. 2018. and detailed as a Pilot Program additional CFIUS regulation changes, which will become effective on November 10. 2018. mooting the 1-l&I-1 argument.2’ With respect to the Pilot Program, the Treasury Department stated: This interim rule sets forth the scope of, and procedures for, a pilot program of the Committee on foreign Investment in the United States (CfIUS. or the Committee) under section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950. as amended by the foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (F IRRMA). Pursuant to section 1727(c) of fIRRMA, this pilot program implements the authorities provided in two sCctions of f.IRRMA that did not take effect upon the statute’s enactment. First, the pilot program expands the scope of transactions subject to review by CFIUS to include certain investments involving foreign persons and critical technologies. Second. the pilot program makes effective FIRRIvIA’s mandatory declarations provision for all transactions that fall within the specific scope of the pilot prograrn. 20 Response. at 1 7. 2 The Press Release announcing the new https://home.treasurv.gov!newsYpress regulations is at releases/sm506. The regulations. 31 CPR Part 801. are available online at httsJfhome.treasury.gov/svstem!files!206/fR-201 8-22182_i 786904.pdf. — Id. 18

The Pilot Pmnram regulations cover H&H as a U.S. business that produces, designs. rests. manufactures. fabricates, or develops a critical iechnologv that is utilized in connection with the U.S. business’s activity in specified industries, including radio and television broadcastinu. See Section 801.213 (incorporating Annex A. listing Radio and Television and Wireless Communications). 31 Cf R § 801.213. The Pilot Program also covers H&H as an investment company. Section 801.207 provides: The term pilot program covered investment means an investment, direct or indirect. by a foreign person in an unaffihiated pi]ol program U.S. business that could not result in control by a foreign person of a pilot program U.S. business and that affords the foreign person: (c) Any involvcmenL other than through voting of shares. in substantive decision-making of the pilot program U.S. business regarding the use. development, acquisition, or release of critical technology.23 The definitions and functions described in the Pilot Program are clearly applicable to and Phoenix TV. As I-l&1-1 describes itself as an investment company arranging for financial investments in U.S. businesses by mainland and 1-long Kong-based Chinese, and as PhoenIx TV as a foreign entity has made a direct investment in H&1-l and has indirect dcfacto control of H&l-I and as the PRC has indirect control oiPhoenix TV, N&H is within the ambit of the Pilot Program regulations. Under the regulations. H&H is required to file requisite declarations with CFIUS by November 10. 2018. See Section 801.401(c)(1).24 Ahsentproofof such a filing, the Commission should dismiss the Permit application. 31 CFR § $01 .207. 31 CFR § 801.4OitcPl). 19

7. The Proaram Atrecmeni and Required Investment by Phoenix TV for the Production ofProaramrnine in California for Transmission to Mexico and Retransmission via Broadcastine is a CFIUS Covered Transaction R&H maintains that the economic investment that Phoenix TV, is making to produce programming in California is not an investment by a lbreign entity into the U.S. and, therefore does not require authorization 1w CFIUS. Response. I 6-1 7. Because Phoenix TV is a Cayrnan Islands chartered-Hong Kong-based entity, and its investment is into a U.S. entity. H&H. controlled by U.S. citizens. the H&H argument is devoid of meriL H&H next argues that, even lilt is required to seek a review from CFJU$, the Commission ‘ivpicailv does not coordinate with CfIUS on transaction reviews and need not vait [to grant a Permit] even if CFIUS is undertaking a review. Response, at 16. [Emphasis supplied.] The expression “tvpicallv’ used by H&H is insixuctive. CSO submits that this is not the “typical” situation where the transaction may involve an electronic product from China or even create an antitrust monopolistic entity that could negatively impact consumer prices. This transaction creates grave and irreparable risks of distorting the U.S. electoral process in all of Southern California this year and in future elections. The H&l-l argument also ignores the reality that U.S-PRC relationships have reached an inflection pcnnt. as detailed by the government agencies and the Vice President. The core point of these recent warnings is that “typical” no longer applies. Coordinated governmental close review is now needed to protect the public interest. further, CFIUS reviews covered transactions.” which are defined as ‘any transaction by or wtn any roreign person that coula result in control of any p3lot program U.S. business by a 20

fereico person The Cmnmission has concluded that for purposes of the Communications Aci.. such control may be de /ure or U facto. Aspen HvLsupra. Other CFIUS regulations defoe foreiun persolF as “any entity over whicn control is exercised or exercisable by a foreign national, foreign governmenL or foreign entity.”26 And CfIUS regulations define a “foreign entity” as any entity organized under the laws oVa foreign state if either its principal place of business is outside the United States or its equity securities are primarily traded on one or more foreign exchanges.”2’ both factors which are presented with Phoenix TV. Under the program aareemenl with H&H. Phoenix TV has the authority to determine and direct the important core fimction of hiring programming and sales financial management, subject only to cid hoc preemptions. Pursuant to the express terms of the CfIUS enabling Act and CPIUS regulations. the H&H-Phoenix TV Program Agreement is a covered transaction. C CS() Located Within the XEJfll’—AM Coverage Area fficc Sta1?dil?g to Object to Am al?dAlI Parts oftiw Permit .4pplicatmn inclzeding Ob/ecrionabte Inierference f-1&H maintains that CSO lacks st.andina to object to the interference caused by XEWW AM to KCEE (AM), Tucson. Arizona. and the new AM facility on frequency 690 at Flagstaffi Arizona. Response, at ] 7-18. 1-l&H fails to support its assertions with citations to any authorities. CSO demonstrated in its Petition to Deny that it will he in direct competition with XEWW—AM and will suffer economic injury if the Application is granted. and that is enough to demonstrate standing.28 Raving demonstrated standing CSO is not limited in the issues it may i-aise with respect to the App]ication. 2531 CFRS80].2l0. 2 31 CFR § 800.2 16(b) 2731 CFR § 800212(a). 28 Petition at 1. citing Eniercom License. LLC, 31 fCC Red 12196. 12205 (2016). 21

Even if C$O lacked standing i.o raise the imerference issues. the Commission has long held that informal objections can he filed h any person as to any application. See 47 C.F.R. 73.3587 and that a Petition to Deny flied by an entity without standing will be treated as an informal objecUon.—’ Further. I i&H cites no authority for its proposition that objections based on interference are belated. To the contrary, the filing of the instant Permit application triggered the right to complain prior to a grant as to any portion of the Permit application. See 47 CLR. 1 .939. As such. the interference complaints are timely. D. 7vei’ Mailers in the Supplemel2r and Rep13’ Provide Context. Greater .4ccuracv if) 1J’7iich H&I-J Has Responded and thus Are Permitted l-{&N complains that CSO in its Supplement and Reply filed after the filing of the Petition raised new matters and these matters should not he considered by the Commission. Response, at4 -6. In support thereof, H&H cites Sections 1.41-1 .5130 of the Commission’s Rules. Section 1.45 of the Rules lists a Petition. Opposition and Reply which are expressly permitted pleadings. CSO submits that the listing is permissive, but not exhaustive. Additional pleadings may be filed if they are accompanied by a request for leave to file. h2 reApplication of Discussion Jtadio. Inc.. 19 FCC Rcd 7433 (2004). Therein, the Commission noted that Numerous improperly titled and unauthorized pleadings have been submitted...”. it!., par. 5. Even though no separate petitions for leave to file the unauthorized pleadtngs were made. the Commission considered at! the filed pleading. including a Supplement to a prior flung, and Eatcream License, LLC’ Apphea!ioi?s for Renewal of LICCJ?.c’e for Slot/on KDNDi’EA-J). 31 FCC Rcd 12196 atpar. 23 (2015). 30 \Vhi]e Section 1.45 of the Commission’s Rules is relevant the citation to the remaining sections is puzzlina. as they lack relevance, as they concern infonnal requests for actions; complaint applications; slays: separats requests pleadings: text size; and number of copies. 22

tuerearter treated the unauthorized pleadings as constructive permitted pleadinas. [Emphasis addedj Id. at par. 6. As to the Supplement, unlike the fact situation detailed above. concomitant[y with its filing, CSO requested leave for its filing. Supplement. at 1, note 1. CSO notes that despite all its protests, l-l&l-1 does not allege, let alone demonstrate, how it may have been prejudiced by the extra pleadings. As to the Reply. it is an expressly permitted filing under Section 1 .45. H&H objects that it contains new matters beyond those detailed in the H&H opposition and should not he considered by the Commission. These new matters of which H&H complains include the Declaration of Chung Pong, the former Phoenix TV news executive, which demonstrates that the PRC exercises control over Phoenix TV. Response, at 6. This is clearly a decisionally significant addition to the record and should be considered by the Comdiission whenever submitted. further. all of the other matters H&1-I designates as new and unacceptable (other than XEWW AM interference to the Arizona stations are in fact not new matters but are clarifications and enhancements of the matters detailed in the Petition — none are outside the ambit of the Petition. In any event, he Commission has employed a balancing olcompeting regulatory objectives of a robust and accurate record and compliance with procedural rules. The Conimission uses its discretion to accept and consider new matters raised in a rep]y pleading. In the Television Wisconsin case the Commission concluded: The licensee found that the reply contained new mailer which was not previously raised in either 3TMs petition or its own opposition. On January 27, 1971. WISC therefore moved to strike the new mailer contained in the reply. or. in the alternative, to consider the stations simultaneously filed response to that new matter. Upon review of BTM’s reply p]eading, we find that it does contain new allegations, not responsive to matters raised by the licensee in its opposition. While we recognize our obligation ‘to be informed as accurale]y as possible by reliable facts relating to the issues. The Citizens Committee i FCC.. 436 F.2d 263 (1970). we also recogiize the prohibition of our rules (4? C.f.R. 1.45(h)) limiting reply pleadings io ‘. matters raised in the opposition: As we have . . 23

staied in the past, we do not condone the use of any pleading for other than the designated purpose nor the submission of pleadings not contemplated by our rules (Scnps-Hm4’ard Bracidcasling Co., 26 FCC 2d $24 (1 970)). The sLrict application of this rule is justified particularly, as here, where the petitioner has supplied no reason for its delay in raising these new matters. However, since lU) additional delay wilt he caZLVed by our ClCCCJ)taflce of the fiitl reply, ai?c1 ii? View Qf the Jic that the licensee ha.c rc.spomtedto the new matters, we believe the public interest will best be served by a consideration of the new matters raised in WFM’s Reply and WJSCs response thereto. Accordingly, we will deny Television Wisconsin. Inc.’s motion to strike and accept iLs response to BTM’s reply pleading.” [Emphasis supplied.j Applying that precedent here. CSO submits that the new matters raised in the Reply not add any additional dela’ to the processing of the Permit application: and the new matter provides the Commission with a fii]I. robust and a more accurate record for consideration. Further given that a) national security issues are presented. b) [he new matter provides context for the matters detailed in the Petition. c) the new matter corroborates core assertions with specificity, and U) the new matters are of substantial importance. reflecting core public interest considerations. the Commission should consider the new matter. Pivotally. H&l-l has already responded in detail to all the matleis raised. As such, CSO urges the Commission to consider afl the fi]ed pleadings. V. Conclusion The United States has made a dramatic shift in it relations with China. jettisoning decades of policies with a more cautious approach which responds to Chinas aggression in undermining national security. including efforts to influence American elections. l-l&H acknowledges these efforts and it ackiowlcUgcs that the Permit application can he denied based upon findings arising out of these considerations. Phoenix TV with direct control from China. and wishing to expand its television empire into radio broadcasting, has tried to buy its way into ‘ Jo Re Application of TelevLvion Wiscon.cin Inc.. 58 FCC’ 2d 1232. par. 3 (1975) 24

Southern California radio hroadcastins with the aborted purchase of KDAY(AM). Nov. it is Irving again with H&H and XEWW-AM. albeit vith indirect control from China. CSO has demonstrated a history of embedded aaents for the PRC and a demonstrated history of nianipulatmu the broadcast of news with selective news reporting by Phoenix TV. which is indirectly controlled by China. Given all this the Commission should error on the side of protecting the national interest and deny the application: or. alternatively designate ii for a heating to address the material and significant questions presented. ResDectfully submitted. CHINESE SOUND Of ORIENTAL AND WEST HERITAGE —itr Attorneys, ,Aajes L. Winston /‘,J’UBIN. WINSTON. D1ERCKS, HARRIS ‘ & COOKE. LLP 1201 Connecticut Avenue. N.W. Suite 200 Washin2ton. D.C. 20036 (202) 861-0870 wi tistonrwd bc .com October 1 7. 201 8 25

r rj - The ior;orabie ..\jh Pai C ;iai:n :d.>r1i C: nimtm canons (cunmission 145 12i Street. S.\’. ‘. .. p r .J.t . kcc i iZiear (‘bain:tai Pai. it has eone to am aneittim that the F—Jerai Corn! L:ni:ation Cc;n;aissior: is currcntiv rcvkn1r2 anar3r!:c1:ton File Strtnar; 325—Ni;Vt—()! ——-ütJ; t’jLi\ eLi .;t:::c• 0. it crvrne I USA id_c :::t :c wV DSiCIc:r r;rc,fsfn.. ._ 7 recuests LI T;C17t11 for to deliver rrcit&ra:ns to htien broadcast sotions rt.rsuant to 47 LSL 325e). .&poroving:he noolicatior, vtouid permit H&H (irOu USA Lii’ to ns NEWW to —n ‘vi p— ( ‘o..ss \T a _t b “i — tncluciitg i11L1SC. en:erLai;isnent. xveather report heal .A traflic ref-on and iiaiaf (‘ltinae COfll!flUflW. fle\\S. He Commission has prev1ousjv exni: hied that Section 325j c ts “?nte):Oeu nrtntarR to :lJurcNs tnt problems: ohiectiomiHe proerammi :tC and har; I imerfere;ee H 1 reii swthns coneernee mat anorovine this anpitetitloit ;souid ein;e the zihiNn ol’ the Chinese Communist Parw ((‘PC ito broadens: obiecticmahle pobtical nra acanda jail; America am! t:- ifltCr!CCC in do:nesne American r.oi:tics. i rcspectluhv :eojlesi that the Con;mis:icr oem the I I&i Groan’s pentnna anpiteation. lit iDjtuLtJJSt_C% n he... ‘tC LIt -_Ci;t, L z.. 1 “Apphcam. .wiN he I CiO onTzed 1w H&H Group USA l.io?. a \cv. York limited liability . LO1ii r \ \eqlLi L S titl’..iO J”ic oai t;’ltis’i ‘lLc ‘% J &I’Gro ji I I .C.’’. there are ma:n troubiino facts thai are no: tnsiiioect ;r, fle amrlle;flilin. which deser e iunher re’ien 1\ceurdtne U’ as eurnonre website. “1 i&F I Capital usisis P P.C :u:np:mies with inding strategic investors from around the oh& and mvori:[si with Chinese companies interested in buying U.S. on tcC’r...Ll sir S ft ctm___ ‘ s f4_,’ o c on the website as ‘‘nutne orzw;j:ne who i ascencucied ir—oentL rcseoreh anJ ona sic o i’.:., :- —- ‘9..u 12’.. i..L i.. C cci ts% 1.. cOt 1;_ —.. I.. t.._i ‘.‘ ...“ . ..1._... .. i cL_...t owned ejiterprises. union other topics.’’ !&i I tat ‘S coroonite wehsjte also .tates Ihat Ms. i mu macni haii a aecade us the \e v n._sm cc’ cr n a n L s__ 4 U ICt. I Gs. Hun werh:d in Xeo Yori: as a c esot;n:tcnt far Iris:! :. is ned in the sJ:l: an La -usa r;ev.s:nzrc: u’ isa C (.‘:. reei ens.i is br se I .caistraiior -i j-: n s’s: -.n.. Tt-y 0 “L’iX?tt

hearu h n’ria 1 a s a; ‘— C-n - prcran:ine c a:ent — 10 Durbin st.. lrwindac. Cisa inc otv ted h Phoetix Satellite TV USA. Accordinu to the I! a.ching;o;i Erce BeuLvn. the I i&11 Coup recently hired .lacki Paag who has been a hoenix television renorwr for decades. According tft the itm;dt Times “a recruidnia adve;lisemcnt placed 1w Phoenix TV CS. branch on \VeChat. the nopular social media platform, seeks prtigram ctucers. anrs. hts[s. and ad sales manacers for AM 690. Phoenix C Radio.’” Phoenix Satellite 1±VISiOfl CS is a subsiliarv of Beiiina Phoenix TV. based in Honu Kona. The People’s ReouHic of China (PRCI exerts control over Chinese atedia artd the control axends to Phoenix: in 20Ci) tesilmOO\ to the L.S .hc onomic and Security Review Commission on China. Anne b c-Bradt. a Global ilou at the Wilson Center. “Phoenix is nominally privately owned: however its current main investor is the Stae—redaoernnse China Mobile.” In for examle. Phoenix broadcast the forced confessions of ftve Hone Lone booksellers lOT violarmna PRC censorship law. CC? state-run (‘bina Radio loteniatianal (CR1) pfts:uem Wane Genunian has described China’s U’c 0 ioal teda i t 1”r’e couut cs o’o’ - a oa tO o s.e V a—at ‘l as —ec the need for China to taruet forcian media to “comoete to ‘ead international nubile opiniorf ar1d “sat the acenda” on the global statc. As nar: of the “borrowed hoc:” strategy CR1 has previously partnered with foreitm radio stations such as Turkish FVi staricin Ytn Radvc which was uti!hed to present the CC? narrative in the afteni1ath of the 2003 Crün:ji riots. Accordinu to Wane. positive feedback front Turkish ilsieners demonstrated the benefits of “etiective b:ernation& hroadcastina taracted a: a soecific grouo. ‘Ihe Chinese Communist ?ari’ is neine an information warfare cantoaien to undermine American democracy. The decision before the Commission risks allowing the CPC to broadcast eovcrnment-appraved propacanda into Southern California. one of the most densely nopulated regions in America of Mandarin speakers. to boost that warfare campaign. The Commission should reject the ap,licrttinn. ulven the unresolved and undisclosed details surrounding the application. SyneereN Ted Cruz tnited States senator cc: GLR Southern Call ibrnia LLC H&H Grout) i.SA i.LC Chinesc Sound of Oriemai and West I (enlace

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Sheree Kellogg, do hereby certify that I sent via U.S. mail (except where indicated), on this 17th day of October, 2018, copies of the foregoing REPLY TO RESPONSE TO UNAUTHORIZED FILiNGS to the following: David Oxenford Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer, LLP 1800 M Street, NW Suite $OON Washington, DC 20036 Reid Avett Duane Morris, LLP 505 9th Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004-2 166 Paige K. Fronbarger Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer, LLP 1800 M Street, NW, Suite 800N Washington, DC 20036 Brandon Moss* International Bureau Federal Communications Commission l2 Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Brandon.Mossfcc.gov Janice Shields* International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 12 Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Janice.Shieldsfcc.gov *sent via email only Sheree Ke11ogg”


Document Created: 2019-04-29 01:21:48
Document Modified: 2019-04-29 01:21:48
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC