Most notably, Mr. Fling points out facts indicating that the "Application
for Consent to Transfer", which is REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW to be filed
PRIOR TO A TRANSFER OF CONTROL, was filed more than a month AFTER the
TRANSFER OF CONTROL WITH THE STATE OF TEXAS in 1999. Mr. Fling also
indicates that Steven Emmert - the Judge who signed the original
indictment of Hammond that was later amended by the district attorney to
indicate otherwise and to read differently - was listed as PRESIDENT of
the corporation claiming ownership of the radio station. Mr. Fling also
provides testimony indicating that he had worked in communications
law "prior to 1979" and has been "out of that field since that time" when
the field has changed COMPLETELY since 1996! Can you believe
that a jury bought this testimony and the very DA who prosecuted
the case was too inept to catch the contradictions? Or, did not want
to catch the contradictions...
Color Coding in this document:
Red: Refers to the previously filed (and federally REJECTED) efforts at
transferring control of the radio station three years prior to Hammond's
Blue: Refers to Mr. Fling's DISqualifications of himself as an expert
witness with respects to communications law.
Green: Refers to Judge Steven Emmert's being listed as "President, Steven
R. Emmert" in documents relating to the radio station prior to his signing
of the original indictment of Hammond which SHOULD be considered "conflict
of interest" and would (in the real world) require the dismissal of the
indictment Instead, the district attorney was allowed to "re-write" the
indictment and to "re-write" the charges (to become an "indictment by
district attorney" and NOT an "indictment by grand jury).
Format: fling.pdf (300 k).
Last updated: February 22, 2006.