# Brief for the Respondent in Opposition — Rakes v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385601_0960%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Brief for the Respondent in Opposition - **Published:** January 1, 1963 - **Citation:** 373 U.S. 939 ## Text INDEX Fc ces pg Ne RSENS AIOE ERLE TE TE 1 Jurisdiction... ence eearieon oN IO 1 Questions presented ..°...0...... 2... eC Ree TSCA 2 ' Statute and regulations involved’. 8 Rc ERS ae eT ee 3 5 6 A. Petitioners Blumenthal ssh ae B. Petitioner Paschal... mere ce C. The decision of the court of appeals............... pS eh WD Ten nD eee aay ane 7 RTE RC ae NRT PU RO Pe A TRC oes 15 Rp... nerictnincianppecennenenpnl distinc commis girls 16 oo Cases: Adle? Vv. Beara of Education, S42 U.S.-485............. 10 American Communications Association V. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 .. 7 i ne 15 - Beilan v. Board of Education, 357 US _ 399 . 238 Borrow, Morton, 27 F.C.C. 783. __... : pete nd 7,9,13 ‘Borrow v. Federal Communications Commission, 285 F.2d 666, certiorari denied, 364 U.S. 892. 6,9, 15 Cohen v./Hurley, 366 U.S. 117. ..6.... 0 fs 14 Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 367 U.S. 1..:....:.----... NK NCE Sys 1 SEO ATES 8,11 Cronan V. Federal Communications Commission, . 285 F.2d 288, certiorari denied, 366 U.S. 904 . 6 Didriksen v. Federal Communications Commis. sidw, 254 F.2d 354... omy 9 Dispatch, Inc., 13 Pike and Fischer, RR. “237. ae -\ 8 Garner V. Los Angeles Board, ogg S. 716... ov \ ae Kaufman v. Hurwitz, 176 F.2d 210... oe 14 Kimm Vv. Rosenberg, 363 U.S. 405.0000... Ad Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 353. US. eo tf Cases—Continued - Page Lafferty, Travis,- 23 FCC. Tete To Lerner V. Casey, 357 U.S. 468..-_..... ., 10 Nelson v. County of Los Angeles, 362 U. S. L 14 ch, Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83.._... RED note . Speiser v. Randgll, 357 U.S. 513_.....--.-...,------ 15 Constitution, statute and rules: 6 8 First Amendment ........ Pen ‘eles PER a eres . 8, u I EE 8, 12,13 Communications Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 1064, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.: aa hee Se ee erent: sce - Q- Sec. See ELI AEM Saf See icamadeas 8, 11,13 Federal- Communications Commission Rules, 47 CFR: Bee. 1.7 AR) -....---2n00-B——-voannene anensnacongnneneneceneatonnee 9,16 Bi. | RR AN Roy ee ee reer ton 16 ES OL ETRE | ee 0; ee SP SLID SP ees wae ‘5 = ES Raa enes. Mumcurnriarce teen REE.) | ; " Miscellaneous : e S.Rep. No. $338, 85th Cones 2d Sess... idegint 12 <> ° ‘ ° - [ & sige a the Siyireme Cont uf the WMuited States Oc TOBE R TERM, 1962 e No. 1026 = z STANLEY BLUMENTHAL» ET AL., PETITIONERS ee > oS . é FEDERAL COMMUNIC ATIONS ComMISSION AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * c > ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT o BRIEF FOR THE* RESPONDENTS IN OPPOSITION \ OPINION BELOW -* The opinion of the court of Appeals (Pet. 17-24) has not yet been reported, JURISDICTION ’ The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on March 28, 1963 (Ppt. 24). The petition for a writ of certiorari was filed'on April 15; 1963. The af (1) , wt a” é v¥.9 g ; } aw : “ . ° jurisdiction gf this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254 and 47°U.S.C. 402(j). | © m é QUESTIONS PRESENTED v _—- The Federal Communications Commission, jrelim-| inary to. passing upon petitioners’ applications fox radio operator licenses, asked them whether they were or had ever been members of the Communist Party. An affirmative answer to the question, in whole or in part, would not itself have disqualified the applicant from receiving a license; he .would still have been entitled to a hearing (with the right to confrontation and cross-cxamination} to detey mine | whether, on the basis of all the facts, grant of the license would be in the public interest. The peti- tioners stated that they were not then members of the Communist Party, but declined to answerwheth- er.they had ever been members—two of them basing their refusal to ‘answer on the Fifth Amendment. The Commission dismissed the applications without > considering the merits because of pétitioners’ failure ’ to answer the questions completely. .-The following questions are presented: = * : 1. Whether. the Commission, to aid it in determin- ing whether the grant of an. application for a “cae operator’ - license would serve the public interest, “may require the applicant to furnish information about his past membership in the Communist Party. 2. Whether petitioners’ rights under the First and’ Fif Amendments, were violated by dismissal of their license applications for failure to furnish such information. ai | re od \< a ” STATUTESAND REGULATIONS INVOLVED ) : i ° ee : Pertinent provisions of the Communications’. Act of 1934 (48 Stat. 1064, ‘as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, et seq.) are set forth in the petition (Pet. 3-4). The relevant portions of the Commission’s Rules and Regulations are set forth in the Appendix, infra, pp. 16-17. ; =e / STATEMENT A. Petitioners Blumenthal and Jones. 7 . Petitioners Blumenthal and Jones filéd with the Federal Communications Commission, in February wand March, 1962, applications for first-class radio , telephone and second-class reglio telegraph operator licenses (J.A. 12a-15a).' ,Their applications were accompanied by a questionnaire * containing the fol- * . 1“. A.” refers to the joint appendix in the court of ap- peals. ?On December 1, 1961,. the Commissien “had dismissed Jones’ and Blumenthal’s applications for renewal of opera- tor’s licenses after a hearing on the propriety of their re- fusal to answer questions relating to their me amber ship in- the Communist Party or groups advocating the Vielent over- throw of the United States. Both petitioners relied on grounds of constitutional privilege and Jack of Commission authority in refusing to answer. The Commission held that the lack of this information precluded it from determining whether the grant of the applications Would be in the public interest, and dismissed ‘the applications without any determi- mation on the merits. Stanley Blumenthal, cteal. 31 F.C. 1003, 1006, Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals for ‘the District of Columbia Circuit. Blumenthal vy. Federal Com- munications Commission, Case =16800 (CLA. D.C.). Thrtt case was dismissed on March 15, 1962, after oo had _ Fa 4 lowing questions: (J.A. 4a-5a): 1. Are you now or have you ever been a mem- ys of the. Communist Party? . Are you now or have you ever been a mem- es ‘of any organization which advocates . or teaches the overthrow of theeGovernment of the United States, or of any. political subdivision thereof, by for ce or violen nee? Blumenthal answered the first question as divs (J.A. 4a): I am not a member of the Communist Party and was not at the time I applied for a renewal of my second-class radiotelegraph operator’s license in 1958. As to the period prior to that date, I decline to answer in accordance with the privi- leges granted to me under tRe Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. > Petitioner Jones answered the first question (J.A. a e : I am not a ini of the Commiinist Party and was not at the time I was first requested’ to execute gi questionnaire by the Commission. Both petitioners answ ered the second question in the negative (J. A. 4a-5a). In addition, each appended a statement challenging the authority of the Com- mission to ask the questions (ibid.) abandoned their renewal applications and had filed new Ap- plications with an attached questionnaire which anticipated thé Commission's request for this information. é x ae questiors as follows (J.A. 6a): 5 The eeiaies wrote both petitioners, requesting that they completely answer the questionnaire, .and pointing out that the applications would be subject to dismiss®l pursuant to Section 1.71(d) of the Com- - mission’s Rules, 47 CER 1.71(d), if they failed to | respond (J.A. 12a-15a).’ Petitioners’ declined to complete their answers and requested a hearing (J.A. 18a). The Commission denied the request on the ground that both petitioners had been afforded a full hearing on the legality of their refusals to answer the same questions in connection swith their earlier applications for renewal of their ‘operators’ permits (see note 2, supra) (J.A. 18a-19a). The Commis- sion granted the petitioners additional time to re- spond (J.A. T9a), and, upon .their failure to do so, dismissed their applications (J.A. Ta-9a). : ? B. Petitioner Paschal F . Paschal applied for renewal of his pdvinced ama® teur station and opérator licensé (J.A. 16a). The Commission asked Pascha! to supply atiditional in-| formation and requested that he rspond to the same questions asked of Blumenthal and, Jones (ibid.). Sse Paschal. challenged the statutory authority of “the Commission to ask the questions and answered both I am not a member of the Communist Party. In view of the manner in which existing legisia- * Section 1.71(d) provi#®s in pertinent part that failure to respond to a request for additional information will be cause for dismissal of an application. The dismissal is without ' prejudice where thé application has not been designated for hearing. . 2 6 tion has been utilized and the attitude of various governmental agencies in prostcuting and perse- cuting by defacto fiat, I must utilize-my_ rig} under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to refuse to give comfert or ai¢ to any inquisi- ‘torial activity regarding any past or present .political actWity. The C ommission again asked Paschal to answer the: questions. It set forth its authority to require such _ information, and explained that membership in the Communist Party would not necessarily disqualify him, but was one of many pertinent facts and circum- rem which it would take into account (J.A. 20a~ 22a). Paschal did not reply and the Commission dismissed his application (J.A. 10a-lla). C. The Decision of the Court of Appeals _The court of appeals (Judges Fahy and Wright, Chief Judge Bazelon concurring) affirmed (Pet. 17- 23). The court held that its earlier decisions in Borrow v. Federal Communications Commission, 285 F. 2d 666, certiorari denied, 364 U.S, 892, and Cro- nan vv. Federal Communications Commission, 285 F. 2d. 288, certiorari denied, 366 U.S. 904, established that the Commission had authority to seek the infor- mation, and that dismissal: of the applications for failure to supply it did not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights. ‘The court ruled that although petitioners were justified in relying on the Fifth Amendment in ‘refusing to answer the question, the Commission was justified in dismissing the applica- tions: hecause of petitioners’ failure toe furnish rele- vant information. It stated (Pet. 22): Cue Sd : . 7 ‘The agency cannot be reqired to act without the information. To hold otherwise would carry the privilege beyond its purpose. While its in- vocation may not be considered ground for dis- qualification, for the privilege is available to the innocent as well as to the non-innocent, the lack of relevant infermation which follows in the wake of its asscrtion leaves a gap in data which the applicant can supply. The etfect: is the same whether the refusal to supply it. is based on the Fifth Amendment or on an tn- founded claim under the Fourteenth Amend- ment. [footnote omittcN} — . er \ \ \ ARGUMENT The petition presents only the narrow issue wheth- er the Eederal Communications Commission may re quire-an applicant for a radio Operator’s license to furnish information concerning his past membership -in the Communist Party. Under, the Commission's regulations and practice the fact{ that an applicant had been a Party member would rot itself disqualify him from receiving 2 license, buf would be merely one factor which the Commission would consider in determining whether he is qualified and. whether grant of the application would be in the publie—in- terest. Travis Letierty, 23 F.C.C. 761, 765-766, If any petitioner had answered the question affirma- tively, he would have had the right to a full hearing, with confrontation and cross-examination, to develop: all pertinent facts to,show that a grant of a license to him would/ serve the public interest. Lafferty, supra, 23 F.C. at 770: Yorten Borrow, 27 F.C. ~_ 8. 783, 789, 790.: But since petitioners did not supply the information, there is no occasion to consider the weight which the Commission gnay give to past mem- bership in the Communist Party in passing upon applications for radio operators’ licenses. Petition- ers must establish that the Commission had no au- thérity to obtain the information in question for purposes of determining the underlying public in- terest question. We submit \that the court of ap- peals correctly held that the Commission’ was justi- fied in dismissing the applications because of peti- tioners’ refusal to answer the question, and that such dismissals did not violate their* rights under the First or Fifth Amendments.’ 1. The Communications Act plainly authorizes the Commission to require applicants for radio operators’ licenses to furnish information about Communist Party membership. Section 303(1) authorizes the Commission to “prescribe the qualifications of sta- ticn operators” and to issue licenses to such ‘‘qualified” ‘In hearings of this nature, in order that the applicant will be “completely and thoroughly linformed as to the evi- dentiary showing” wherch he will be required to meet, the Commission places on its counsel the burden of going for- ward with the evidence against the applicant, and requires the applicant “to refute specifically only those matters on which probative evidence was already introduced” by Com- mission counsel. Dispatch, Ine., 13 Pike & Fischer, R.R. 237, 244. Since petitioner Sones did not rely ‘on the Fifth Amend- ment in retusing to answer the questions, he cannot now rely on that Amendment as a justification for his refusal to answer. Communist Party Vv. Subversive Activities Control Board, 267 U.S. 1, #07. e Hf) applicants ‘as public convenience, interest or neces- sity requires.” The Commission has provided by reg- ulation that an applicant must be found “qualified in respect to citizenship, charaeter, and physical con- dition” (Section 1.71(a), Rules of the. Federal Com- munications Commission, 47 CFR 1.71(a)). When read in the light of the congressional purposes in the Communications Act of furthering the “national defense” and “promoting safety of life and property” (47 U.S.C. 151), these provisions fully support the Commission’s position that Communist Party mem- bership (both past and present) iof a radio operator is a relevant factor to consider in determining wheth- er grant of a particular application would serve the public interest. | Commission-licensed radio operators occupy a stra- tegic position in relation to the vital channels of radio communication and have opportunity to take action seriously detrimental to the public welfare. See Did- riksen vy. Federal Communications Commission, 254 F. 2d 354, 356 (C.A. D.C.); Morton Borrow, 27 F.C.C. 783, 787-788. As the court below. ex- plained in the Borrow case, which upheld the Com- mission’s authority to réquire information as to past or present membership in the Communist Party or in an organization advocating or ‘teaching the overthrow of the government by force or violence (285 F. 2d 666, 668-669) : Radio. beams are the operational essence of quick modern communication and of the con- trol of modern weapons. Not only the power to 10 use these electronic devices but the,,power to inteyfere with waves being used by others should, it might properly seem to the Commission, be lodged in those whose loyalty to the United States is made to appear. The court there also stated (id., p. 679): Membership in the Party vel non is a proper in-‘ troductory query in this area; the answer may dispose of the subject, of it may necessitate ex-. planation which, in turn, may or may not be acceptable. Because of the crucial role which radio operators thus occupy in sensitive areas involving national de- fense, the present case is well within the principles applied in Beilan vy. Board of Education, 357 U.S. 399, 405; Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 485, 493; and Garner v. Los Angeles Board, 341 U.S. 716, 720, which upheld the relevancy of Communist Party membership in determining the. “competency” or “fitness” of a teacher (Beilan and Adler) or the “reliability” of a subway operator.’ Lerner v. Casey, 357 U.S. 468, 473-475. Past Party membeyship is also a pertinent factor for the Commission to consider in determining wheth- er an applicant is qualified and whether grant of his application would serve the public interest. Its sig- nificance, of course, depends upon all the facts of a particular case—when the applicant joined the Party, in what circumstances, how long'he remained a mem- ber, why and when he quit, how familiar he was with and how committed he was to the Party’s prin- ~ : Bs ciples, and his present attitude toward the Party and its objectives. Past conduct with respect to Party membership “provides the illuminating .con- text within which the implications of present conduct may be known” (Communist Party v. Subversive Ac- tivities Control Board, 367 U.S. 1, 69). If, for ex- ample, a particular applicant had quit the Party just before filing his application, that fact would ‘certainly be relevant for the Commission to consider in passing upon the application. ; Once it is recognized that information about past /Party membership is pertinent to. the Commission’s decision on licensing applications, it necessarily fol- lows that the Commission may require an applicant > to submit such information and, if he fails to do so, may dismiss the applieation without determining its” merits. In a particular case the Commission, upon obtaining all the facts, may conclude that despite past membership the grant of a_ license would be in the public interest. But the Commission, before it makes such a determination, is certainly entitled to obtain all information which bears upon the question. Petitioners err in contending (Pet. 9-11) that the Commission and the Congress have recognized that the Commission cannot consider Communist Party membership in radio operator licensing proceedings. Indeed, the Commission took the contrary position before Congress in 1958, and Congress apparently acquiesced in that view. Section 303(1) was amend- ed in 1958 to authorize the Commission to waive the statutory. requirement, that station operatgts must be citizens, for non-citizens holding United States or 12 foreign aircraft. pilot certificates. The House had proposed to require the Commission to find “that se- curity considerations have been satisfied” before waiv-. ing the citizenship requirements. The Commission opposed this provision as unnecessary, on the ground ‘that The Commission has previously interpreted pub- lic interest as encompassing authority to examine the character qualifications of persons seeking radio operators licenses and, where information « is brought to our attention which might show & that the issuance -of _license would jeopard- ize the security of the United States, as au- thorizing this agency to refuse to issue such li- cense. * * * The present statute requiring a license be issued only upon a finding that its issuance is in the public interest is sufficient to permit this Commission to deny license applica- tions in those. cases where security questions are involved, without requiring it to undertake the responsibility of making af with respect to the security qualifications of each applicant which comes before it. [S. Rep. No. 2338, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 5.] The Senate Committee, rejected the proposal, stating that its action did not relieve the Commission of its responsibility to “weigh the character qualifications” of applicants for radio operator licenses (id., p. 3).° ' + 2, The fact that the refusal of: two of the peti- tioners to furnish the relevant information was rested on a Fifth Amendment claim of privilege does not» invalidate the Commission’s dismissal of their appli- cations for failure to supply the information. For . rmative findings ~ ‘\43 . . . A once it is established that the information scught is relevant to the Commission's exercise of its statutory duties under Section 303(1) and within the Commis- sion’s authority to obtain, it is immateria! whether. the refusal to supply it was based ‘on a Fifth Amend- ment claim or some other ground. \As the court of appeals pointed out (Pet. 22), whatever the reason on which such refusal is based, it results in a “lack of relevant information * * * which the Commis- sion is authorized to seek.”. The Commission wais ‘therefore justified in dismissing the application abr failure to supply necessary .information, In the present case, Unlike Konigeberg v. Slat Bar of California, 353 eS. 252, on which petitioners ” rely (Pet. 14), no ma “yi was drawn from the Fifth Amendment claim, and the Commission did not decide 'the merits of petitioners’ applications. See Mortgn Borrow, 27° F.C.C. 785, 789, 790. It dismissed the applications solely because petitioners had failed to supply information which it needed in, ‘The Commission there made clear that the “failure te reply is not utilized as * * * the basis of an adverse finding, but is of significance insofar as it prevents the Commission from making an affirmative finding that a grant of the ap- plication weuld be in the public interest as required by the act.” Morton Borrow, 27 F.C.C. 783, 7&7, 7x9, T90. It fur- ther explained (id., at 789) that where the Commission has doubts as to an applicant’s qualifications, “it would be re- miss in its duty if it failed to conduct such investigatory proceeding as its facilities permit before affirmatively con- cluding, as required by the act, that a grant of the applica- tion woufd be in the public interest” and that a “failure to respond to the Commission's interrogation deprives the Com- mission of facts on which to base the necessary”. statutory conclusion. = & a of privilege., The Court 14 order tg determine whether their grant would be in the public interest “et. Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. .83, where the Cotxt upheld the action of the President in denying an Army commission to a doc- tor, otherwise qualified, because he refused to an- swer questions about his membership in the Com- munist Party and other opganizations uffder a claim Rated (p. 91) that. the President “hefore certifying his/confidence in an offi- - cer and appointing him to a commissioned rank, has the\r ‘ight to learn. whatever ffcts the President thinks ‘may affect his fitness.” See also Kimin y. Rosenberg, ~. 363 U.S. 405: ef. Nelson v. County of Los Angeles, 362 U.S. 1; Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U.S. 117. While it. is of course-true, as petitioners point out (Pet. 13), that their claim of the privilege subjected them to a disabilitye not suffered by applicants who answer the question, this is no ground for denying the Commission the right to obtain information which it requires in the performance of its licensing function. There are many situatians in which a valid invocation of«the privilege may subject the person claiming it to a subsequent? disadvantage; this fact, however, ‘does not preclide asking the question against which the pr iVilege is invoked, See,.c.g., the Orloff and Kinm eases, supra; see also Kaufman vy. Hurwits, 176 F. 2d 210 (C.A. 4) (discharge in bankruptey denied to person who, under claim of privilege, re-) fused 6 answer. questions material to the statutory grounds for discharge).. 3.. Petitioners also contend (Pet. 2, 12) that the dismissal of their applications vielated their First : Me : a es LJ ‘ . we a af Vv Amendment rights. This peint was fully considered and rejected in: Borrow (234 F. 20 at 670), and the arguments made in our brief in opposition there are equally applicable here. See our brief in opposition in*Borrow, No. 403, 1960 Term, pp. 19-20; secre also, American Cagnimunications Association Vv. Douds, 339 °° U.S. 382, 391, 112; Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 527; Beilan vy. Board of Education, 357 U.S. 399, 405. CONCLUSION The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied. Respectfully submitted. . “ARCHIBALD COX, Solicitor General, = LEE LOEVINGER, . ratte Assistant Attorney General. LIONEL KESTENBAUM, q . MICHAEL |. MILLER, * Attorneys. MAX D. PAGLIN, General Counsel, DANIEL R. ONLBAUM, oar 9 Associate General Counsel, Rvutu V. REEL, Attorney, “ Federal Communications Commission. & May 1963. © >| 16 ¢ APPENDIX Gt oe 2 Se : — $1.71 Procedure with respect to commercial radio operator license applications, (a) Upon acceptance for filing of en application for a new commeycial operator license, an examinatign is conducted, where required,- by the field office with which the application is filed in accomance with, Part 13 of this chapter. If applicant passes the examination and is found qualified in respect to citizenship, character, and physiczl condition, the license willbe issued. Where doubts as to @itizenship, character, or physical. condition arise, the application is referred to the Commission's Inspection and Examination Divi- sion, Field Engineering and Monitcring Bureau, Washington, D.C., for consideration.” If it ap- pears that further information is required to determine the applicant's qualifications or that a grant of the application will not’serve the pub- lic interest, the applicant will be notified in writ- in® and given an opportunity to furnish such written showings as the Commission may@request - and as the applicant may desire to submit. If, from the information furnished, it pes not ap- pear that the applicant is qualified or chat the publle interest would be served by a grant of the application, the applicant will be gdvised thereof in writing and given the opportunity to request, within the period of time to be specified in such writing, that the application be #t)for hearing.. In case of failure timely to or such hearing, the application will be deaiG. (b) Where an examination is not required, _the application will be handled with respect to ‘ “pf | | a2 ° 17 other -matters in accordance with the procedure in paragraph (a) of this section. ° ' (e) Applications for renewal of license after acceptance for filing are handled in accordance ‘with the procedure contained in paragraph (a) of this section, except that no examination is required unless the circumstances as set forth in $13.28 of this chapter_exist. in which case’ a renewal examination will be required. (d) Failure to prosecute an application, or failure to respond to official correspondence’ or request for additional information, will be cause for dismissal. Such dismissal will be without, prejudice where an application has not yet been designated for hearing; such dismissal may be made with,prejudict after an application has ~ been designajed for hearing. * ” - ” $ 1.506 Dismissal of applications. (a) Any: ¥ application may, upon written request signed by the applicant or his attorney, be dismissed with- out prejudice as a matter of right prior to the designation of such application for hearing. (b)- Failure to prosecuté an application, or failure to respond to official correspondence or request for additional information, will be cause for dismissal. Such dismissal will’ be without prejudice where an application has not yet been designated for a hearing; such dismissal may be with prejudice after an application has been ‘designated for a hearing. ‘(c) Requests to dismiss an application with- out prejudice after it has been designated for hearing will be considered only upon written petition properly served upon all patties of ree- we 18 | ord and will be granted only for good cause shown. Such petition must be accompanied by the affidavit of a person with knowledge of the facts as to whether or not consideration has been promised to or received by.jpetitioner, di- rectly or indirectly, in connection with the filing of such petition for dismissal of the application. —~ --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385601_0960%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.