Federal Communications Commission DA 17-740
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
In the Matter of
Gary Braver
)
)
)
)
)
File No.:  EB-TCD-15-00020134
NAL/Acct. No.:  201632170007
FRN:  0025786179
ORDER
Adopted:  August 4, 2017 Released:  August 4, 2017
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture 
(NAL) and proposed a penalty of $25,000 against Mr. Gary Braver for apparently causing the display of 
misleading or inaccurate caller ID information with the intent to cause harm.
1
  Based on a review of Mr. 
Braver’s response to the NAL and new facts provided, we hereby rescind the NAL, as it relates to the 
determinations regarding Mr. Braver, and cancel the proposed forfeiture imposed upon Mr. Braver.  
II. BACKGROUND
2. On August 2, 2016, the Bureau issued an NAL proposing, in part, a $25,000 forfeiture 
against Mr. Braver for his apparent violation of the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, as codified in Section 
227(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 64.1604 of the Commission’s rules.
2
  
The NAL found that Mr. Braver, along with a personal acquaintance, Mr. Steven Blumenstock, apparently 
caused the display of misleading or inaccurate caller ID information with the intent to cause harm.  
Specifically, the NAL found that, over the course of four months, Mr. Blumenstock and Mr. Braver 
apparently made 31 spoofed telephone calls to Mr. Braver’s ex-wife as part of a campaign of harassment 
and stalking of Mr. Braver’s ex-wife.  The NAL cited evidence showing that Mr. Blumenstock apparently 
used a caller ID spoofing application on his phone to make apparently unlawful spoofed calls to harass 
Mr. Braver’s ex-wife.
3
  The NAL also cited evidence showing that, on at least two occasions, Mr. Braver 
apparently called a landline phone number belonging to Mr. Blumenstock at the same time that Mr. 
Blumenstock was making harassing phone calls to the victim.
4
  Based on this and other evidence, the NAL
concluded that Mr. Braver was apparently a participant in the campaign of harassing telephone calls.  
3. Mr. Braver filed a response to the NAL (NAL Response) on September 26, 2016,
5
in 
which he denied both knowledge of, and participation in, the apparently unlawful calls.
6
  Mr. 
                                                     
1
Steven Blumenstock and Gary Braver, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 31 FCC Rcd 8648 (2016) 
(NAL).
2
Id. at 8653-8654, 8655, paras. 17, 22.
3
Id. at 8652-8653, para. 14.
4
Id. at 8652-8653, paras. 13, 16.
5
Although Mr. Braver’s response was initially due September 1, 2016, we exercise our discretion to consider his 
response as filed and address the merits of his response herein.
6
On September 26, 2016, the Bureau received a sworn, notarized deposition statement under penalty of perjury, 
dated September 22, 2016, styled as a “Reply to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture” for the 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-740
2
Blumenstock, in his separate response to the NAL, admitted that he participated in the violations described 
in the NAL.
7
  On January 13, 2017, the Bureau issued a Forfeiture Order imposing a penalty of $25,000 
against Mr. Blumenstock.
8
III. DISCUSSION  
4. In his NAL Response, Mr. Braver denies any knowledge of, or participation in, the 
making of the apparently unlawful spoofed telephone calls identified in the NAL.
9
  In addition, Mr. Braver 
provides a sworn affidavit from Mr. Blumenstock stating that Mr. Braver had no part in making the 
telephones calls at issue and Mr. Braver did not have knowledge of the telephone calls being made.
10
  
With respect to calls that Mr. Braver made to the landline telephone number of Mr. Blumenstock, Mr. 
Braver explained that those calls were not calls to Mr. Blumenstock, but rather were calls to Mr. 
Blumenstock’s ex-wife, Lynn Gottlieb Blumenstock, with whom Mr. Braver has a personal relationship.
11
  
Mr. Braver alleges in the NAL Response that the landline phone number that he dialed was originally 
registered in Mr. Blumenstock’s name, but that Mr. and Ms. Blumenstock separated in 2010 and Ms. 
Blumenstock retained exclusive use of the landline phone after the separation.
12
  The additional facts 
provided by Mr. Braver in his NAL Response, coupled with the sworn statements and admissions of Mr. 
Blumenstock,
13
indicate that Mr. Braver did not participate in the campaign of harassing phone calls to 
Ms. Braver. Thus, Mr. Braver cannot be held liable for the violations alleged in the NAL.  
IV. CONCLUSION
5. Based on the record before us, we conclude that the evidence is insufficient to find that 
Mr. Braver violated the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, as codified in Section 227(e) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and relevant Commission rules.  We hereby rescind the NAL
as it relates to Mr. Braver and cancel the forfeiture imposed upon Mr. Braver.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
6. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 504(b) and 47 CFR §
1.80(f)(4), the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture issued to Mr. Braver is hereby RESCINDED
as it relates to Mr. Braver, and the proposed $25,000 forfeiture imposed upon Mr. Braver is 
CANCELLED.
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk and a sworn, notarized deposition document, dated 
August 16, 2016, signed by Mr. Steven Blumenstock.  The Bureau treats these documents as Mr. Braver’s Response 
to the NAL in EB-TCD-15-00020134.
7
Affidavit of Steven Blumenstock, Aug. 16, 2016 (on file in File No. EB-TCD-15-00020134) (Blumenstock 
Affidavit).
8
Steven Blumenstock, Forfeiture Order, DA 17-57 (EB Jan. 13, 2017).
9
Gary Braver, Reply to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (Sept. 26, 2016) (on file in File No. 
EB-TCD-15-00020134).
10
Id. at 6.
11
Id. at 3-4 (explaining that Mr. Braver and Lynn Gottlieb Blumenstock, Steven Blumenstock’s ex-wife, are 
involved in a personal relationship and his calls to that telephone number were associated with that relationship).  
12
Id. at 4.
13
See Blumenstock Affidavit.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-740
3
7. It is further ordered that copies of this Order shall be sent by first class and certified mail, 
return receipt requested, to Mr. Braver at his address of record.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Rosemary C. Harold
Chief
Enforcement Bureau