Was going to wait until Monday for this but… blood needed.
So here’s the thing.
There are rules.
Those who are exceptionally gifted at playing within them– even at the edges– make great lawyers. Those who break them, make great inmates.
Lending Tree sent a remarkably stupid email tonight. One that seemingly admitted guilt to breaking federal law.
Or maybe its just lying.
But let’s back up.
At issue here is the INCREDIBLE stay issued by the FCC today of the TCPA one-to-one rule.
The stay came on the heels of R.E.A.C.H. filing its emergency petition looking to enforce President Trump’s order staying all rulings of any executive agency that had not yet gone into effect as of the date of the order.
Now, the FCC has never been found to be an executive agency and we all know that. Indeed, if you watched any of my recent webinars you’ll note I carefully identified that fact but also noted the FCC has inherent authority to stay its own orders in the interest of justice.
And if you think the Commission’s new Trump appointed Chairman isn’t paying attention to Trump’s executive orders you are a complete buffoon.
So R.E.A.C.H. put the ball in play. It filed an emergency petition with the Commission leveraging the executive order, knowing full well the Commission would not deem itself an executive agency but providing a perfectly beautiful vehicle for movement.
Predictably NCLC responded giving us the chess move for a substantive reply.
Last night–with the Czar and Queenie in route to DC– REACH filed a reply noting inherent authority of the commission under section 705 of the APA to stay its own rulings.
Simultaneously contacts are ongoing. Just hours before the stay is put into effect Carr’s office advises us “…we are aware of the petition and the effective date of the 1-1 consent rule. We are working on addressing the issues raised in the proceeding by REACH...” (Ex parte filing to come on Monday)
And what do you know- just in the nick of time– the Commission indeed issues its order staying the one-to-one rule citing–guess what–Section 705 of the APA. The precise vehicle REACH gave it.
Check mate.
Everything played to absolute perfection.
Last minute stay granted. Beautiful. Chef’s kiss. Mastery.
True, the Commission noted the action was taken sua sponte and not pursuant to the REACH petition but that’s obvious. Granting the petition directly would have required an admission that the Commission was an executive agency–which it was never going to do. That was never the plan. All the petition did was give the Commission an ABOVE BOARD basis to move on a stay of the one-to-one ruling.
That “ABOVE BOARD” note is important. But we’ll get to that.
Yet later that same evening Lending Tree had the audacity to suggest REACH and Troutman Amin, LLP had nothing to do with the stay and that SOMEHOW it and IMC had done it all.
What???????????????????
My f*cking goodness.
In the wake of the ruling I could have– and probably should have–taken more or less complete credit for the stay.
But in a very unCzarlike manner I gave credit to all– including IMC and OLA. I praised IMC on TCPAWorld–especially after the Eleventh Circuit surprisingly struck down the entire thing ahead of the deadline– nobody saw that coming (anyone who says they did is lying.)
But then, Lending Tree comes out and INSANELY takes credit for the FCC staying the one-to-one ruling.
See that language “Lending Tree… worked on a Plan B that resulted in the FCC’s stay…”
Holy God.
Complete and total lie.
It has to be.
LT and IMC had nothing to do with the stay– and if they did they violated federal law.
How do I know?
Simple. There were no ex parte or other filings made on the FCC docket requesting any form of stay except by REACH.
Indeed, no ex parte from IMC or Lending Tree in January, 2025 at all.
No documented communications with ANYONE at the FCC on the docket this entire year so far. And the stay ruling does not mention any petition other than REACH’s.
So if LT or IMC had anything to do with the stay– and, of course, they did not– they would have had to report that on the docket. And they didn’t.
Failing to report an ex parte communication is a REALLY big deal. If the NCLC found out about that… my goodness. Plus the lawyers involved would risk ethics complaints–perhaps even disbarment.
But of course that WOULDN’T HAPPEN.
What happened was the FCC was moved by Trump’s executive order, REACH’s petition, and common sense. Troutman Amin and REACH got it done.
Period.
So what the hell is Lending Tree talking about?
Just trying to claim victory for somebody else’s hard work it seems.
It is utterly disgusting.
And that’s the nicest thing I have to say about it.
But, then again, maybe I am wrong.
So tell me, Lending Tree– what was the “Plan B”?
What exactly did you do?
Was there some kind of side deal you’re suggesting took place?
Some sort of secret deal you struck?
Tell us ALL ABOUT IT!
Or admit you’re just lying.
Has to be one or the other… right?
And for heaven’s sake– why in the world would you take a shot at the Czar and REACH after all of this? What are you even trying to accomplish???? Good lord.
More on Monday.
But that’s enough for now.
Love you all.