James Lamb Re-releases 2015 episode of "The Authority" to rebut FTC's 2016 allegation of Government Impersonation and "Scam."
James Lamb
Executive Director, Small Business in Transportation Coalition (SBTC) @JimLambUSA
FTC Attorney: "You have a beautiful daughter..."
Lamb: "You mean the one you almost starved to death by freezing my assets?"
FTC Attorney: "Well, I hope she's still alive..."
CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION TO THE FTC: Withdraw Bogus Charges Against Lamb & Stop Harassing Small Businesses & American Families
By now, you have probably heard of the 2016 Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") action against James Lamb and his and his partner's carrier registration companies. If you have not, here is a good article to get you up to speed...
Essentially, Lamb argues that the charges of deceptive business practices and unlawful negative option marketing, which revolve around the assistance he provides to carriers with respect to their MCS-150 Biennial Report filings and his Unified Carrier Registration ("UCR") "SafeRenew" automatic renewal program (which ensures truckers and carriers don't forget to renew their UCRs and then get hit with a fine up to $1,100 on January 1st) are false and stem from just three consumer complaints filed directly with the FTC over a 4 1/2 year period, not even one per year. Three complaints out of more than 200,000 transactions conducted by Lamb during the same period.
To put the matter in perspective, the FTC receives 3.5 million consumer complaints every year, 350,000 of which, are considered "government impersonation" complaints according to the FTC's annual report. FTC argues that Lamb's companies fall within this category. Yet out of that 15.75 million complaints over that 54 month period, those mere 3 complaints were somehow deemed so more worthy than all those others by the FTC to justify launching an apparent year-long investigation and bringing civil charges against Lamb last September. Accordingly, the first thing Lamb's attorneys said to him when taking on his case was: "Who did you piss off?"
During that year, the FTC was able to stir up 15 more for their complaint to the court 5 from government officials and 10 from the Better Business Bureau's ("BBB") files allegedly against Lamb's businesses to 'widen the net.' They collected 18 affidavits in total to support their lawsuit. Lamb argues only 13 were actually consumers, and of them... only 9 were actually his clients. So, after a year of wasting taxpayer money, this all boils down to nine unhappy people, three who complained to FTC on their own, and another six that the FTC solicited to complain to them and who agreed to complain, out of Lamb's 210,000 clients. And not one has complained of having not received the UCR credential they paid Lamb for, yet the word "fraud" has been used liberally by trucking media based on the defamatory spin of the FTC press release and blog posts that appear to try to infer criminal conduct (no such criminal charges were filed; this matter is merely a civil case).
To make the case even more interesting, Lamb points to knowing of three other truck permit companies who have been impersonating his company and brand "DOT Authority" in violation of his registered service mark, to ride his coat tails... like the confusingly similar "DOT Authority LLC" that is still listed as a process agent filer on this government website. Lamb says he outsources his process agent filings to a partner process agent blanket company and that DOTAuthority.com, Inc. is not a process agent blanket company per se, so this couldn't possibly be his company. And he says he knows for a fact that the UCR staff at the Indiana Department of Revenue, which run the UCR program nationwide, know about the imposter DOT Authority companies as well because they told Lamb about one in Texas. Yet they conveniently withheld that information in their affidavit to FTC, apparently. Or, perhaps the FTC instructed them to leave it out.
After a Federal Judge ordered Lamb last September to contact his entire book of residual business to make sure that they all knew he was a third party and that they really wanted to be in his renewal program, a mere 5% dropped out. Many advised they had gone out of business since the previous year or had changed the scope of their operation from interstate to intrastate so that they no longer needed UCR credentials. And after the Judge prescribed an enhanced third party disclaimer at the behest of the FTC, new clients, mostly one-man motor carrier outfits, still continued to flock to Lamb in masses in the fourth quarter of 2016 to secure their UCR credentials because they choose to outsource their compliance to his companies in order to minimize their risk exposure and focus on what they do best: driving. So much for the FTC's portrayal of Lamb 'tricking' and 'victimizing' the motor carrier industry.
The same logic applies to carriers' MCS-150 biennial reporting obligations. But the FTC objects to Lamb charging carriers for assistance with meeting their reporting obligations on time (to avoid losing their USDOT number under the new Unified Registration System ("URS") rule), because they can do these reports without Lamb on their own for free. Why should you choose to hire a painter, when you can paint your house yourself? Welcome to the nanny state.
A number of lawyers following the case have suggested, once you remove the FTC's inflammatory shenanigans, this case really deals with whether Lamb's original standard disclaimer on his homepage which has appeared on the site for years --"DOTAuthority.com is a consulting firm. It is not the Department of Transportation."-- was "adequate" under a reasonable consumer standard. Judge for yourself if that simple language hits the nail on the head. Lamb thinks so.
Lamb argues that if you dig deep enough-- and put all the cards on the table, it becomes apparent that he is currently the subject of government retaliation by virtue of a conspiracy of Federal and State UCR transportation regulatory officials who are simply jealous of his success --or otherwise scorned-- and some lobbyists he took on who were quick to regurgitate the FTC's press release and have ganged up on him through or in response to the FTC action. It is worth noting, here, that Lamb started his career as a motor carrier regulator and was hired by the New York State Department of Transportation ("NYSDOT") nearly 25 years ago. He left state service after 7 years for the private sector and eventually started his own company, through which, he rose to success in business. Meanwhile, many of his former civil servant colleagues and counterparts remained where they were and continued to live year-after-year on a modest state employee salary as they watched Lamb soar.
After he left state service, Lamb assisted the Federal Bureau of Investigation in identifying and determining the location of an American Air Force officer convicted after Lamb's 2001 testimony of espionage, for which he was awarded the "Exceptional Service in the Public Interest" award by the FBI Director;
From the onset in September 2016, Lamb believed "the FTC was asked to make a case against me by someone" due to his ongoing watchdog and whistle blower activities, like in the case of Lamb (1) exposing Missouri's UCR overcharge scheme back in 2011; (2) confronting Maine for collecting duplicate UCR payments from carriers in 2012; (3) demanding in 2012 that Iowa DOT (with copies to all of the 41 participating states) stop their apparent practice of unlawfully detaining trucks and collecting second UCR payments from carriers on the basis they didn't have their UCR receipt in their truck; (4) lodging a 2013 antitrust complaint to the FTC and the Department of Justice which the FTC ignored; and (5) filing two lawsuits he brought under his original non-profit trade group Association of Independent Property Brokers & Agents ("AIPBA") --which has since been absorbed by his Small Business in Transportation Coalition ("SBTC") founded in 2014((Lamb's SBTC founded the Trucker Lives Matter trucker gun rights movement)-- against the U.S. Department of Transportation's ("DOT") Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ("FMCSA") as president of the trade group; lawsuits which from 2013-2015 challenged the Constitutionality of the $75,000 freight broker bond provision hidden deep within the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act ("MAP-21") and the legitimacy of FMCSA's rulemaking activities with respect to the implementation of that MAP-21 broker bond (click here and see page 38).
And just six months after Lamb's non-profit group's last lawsuit against FMCSA ended, Lamb's 15 year old for profit-business suddenly got hit with a lawsuit by the FTC ironically painting him out to be the bad guy. Coincidence? Lamb doesn't think so...
For instance, the FTC alleged in 2016 through a press release and blog that Lamb was a "government imposter" who "scam(med)" carriers in reference to the UCR program and passed his all inclusive fee, which included his third party fees, off as the actual state fees, yet this 2015 Internet TV episode from Lamb's show "The Authority" recently re-released by Lamb through social media depicts Lamb clearly holding himself out as an industry expert as he educates the industry on the UCR program, the actual state fee brackets promulgated by FMCSA through rulemaking, and clearly explaining motor carriers' choices in terms of filing UCR through their state, the Central UCR Board-managed depository run by the state of Indiana, or third-party permit companies like Lamb's DOTAuthority.com.
Lamb recalls processing carriers' requests under the previous state funding program called "Single State Registration" and fining carriers during his NYSDOT enforcement days for not being in compliance with the antiquated "Bingo card" system prior to that circa 1993. Contrary to the FTC's picture of Lamb being a fly-by-night scammer, he has been around the block a few times. In fact, he is admitted to practice as a non-attorney layman practitioner before the U.S. Surface Transportation Board ("STB") since 1999. His 'practice' revolves around publishing motor carrier tariffs for moving companies, which are regulated by both FMCSA and the STB.
In fact, in the interest of transparency, Lamb's website DOTAuthority.com has always disclosed the actual state fees on his UCR information page, in addition to the all-inclusive service fees he offered to file owner-operator and small motor carriers' UCRs and they accepted as a matter of contract law.
Lamb suggests his company name is a "double entendre" because it plays on the fact that he is the "authority" on the DOT (thus the show name) because he used to be a DOT regulator on the one hand (think the brand "Sports Authority"), and, on the other, his company name is a matter of what he does, namely... help truckers get their own operating authority from the DOT.
Then, in January 2017, the FTC let the cat out of the bag and disclosed to Lamb, albeit perhaps by "loose lips," that the FMCSA is the agency that asked them to target him. That information may ultimately sink their ship as it backs up Lamb's entire argument that the filing of the FTC case against him was indeed politically motivated and was an act of revenge more than a bona fide consumer protection investigation as the FTC purports.
Lamb even goes as far as to suggest that his recent fundraising activities for a Republican candidate for president during the last presidential election cycle, which started in April 2015, just 5 months before the Democrat-controlled FTC opened their "investigation" into Lamb's business activities, may have been the real, fear-driven basis for FMCSA to ask the FTC to investigate him...
"The last thing FMCSA --and some other folks in the industry who I have challenged-- would want back in 2015 is for me to become a possible candidate for Secretary of Transportation, and their boss... despite the fact that, in reality, I have no aspirations or interest in that position whatsoever and there would be many more qualified candidates to choose from. But, a 'hit piece' like this to make sure that didn't happen is not too far-fetched," Lamb asserts.
It would appear FMCSA neglected to mention to the FTC that Lamb operates one of hundreds of permitting companies that service the motor carrier industry, which are an industry in and of themselves within the industry.
Lamb also published this political post about a competing trade group's PAC donations to mostly Democrats in August of 2015, apparently just days before the FTC opened their investigation into his activities. Looks like that struck a nerve with the Democrats at the FMCSA and FTC.
And state UCR officials who were issued a "cease and desist" letter by Lamb's AIPBA back in 2010 for allegedly charging carriers and brokers illegal extra fees not duly promulgated by regulation also apparently stepped up to try and take him down. And just as Lamb was charged, they finally ceased imposing one of those fees on the industry after 10 years. But they failed and Lamb continues to operate his business and blow the whistle on government fraud, abuse and misconduct. That is, he is still in business even after the FTC tricked a Federal Judge into freezing his personal and business assets and taking over his business through a temporary receiver without a hearing so that he couldn't pay his lawyers or buy baby formula for his infant daughter. But Lamb's friend stepped in with a personal loan to enable him to retain counsel. And thanks to those lawyers, less than two weeks later... once the Judge learned the truth at a hearing during Lamb's testimony, testimony which FTC tried unsuccessfully to block, his accounts were unfrozen and his business was returned to him and the FTC was scolded for initially misrepresenting the facts and trying to jamb the court. Score one for the good guys.
Lamb also rattled FMCSA's cage when they ignored his AIPBA broker bond exemption application for nearly two years ... until the U.S. Small Business Administration stepped in on Lamb's behalf and nudged FMCSA to act on his application, which FMCSA ultimately denied on a technicality. Also worthy of note, the SBA has now contacted the FTC on Lamb's behalf with respect to their current lawsuit against him inquiring about the nature and extent of the drastic legal tactics they employed on his small businesses. FTC essentially "nuked" Lamb with a surprise attack instead of serving a civil investigative demand, as is usual in these matters, or simply calling him to discuss their purported "concerns." Lamb alleges the FMCSA's retaliation includes FMCSA staff not being too happy that Lamb had the SBA push them to respond on that exemption matter and that this is payback. Of course, the SBA doesn't appear to be too happy that FMCSA may have orchestrated the attack on Lamb, in part, because he asked SBA for their help. Oh, what a tangled web, they weave...
In any event, in terms of the merits of the case, Lamb looks forward to his legal team playing his "The Authority" UCR video for the Federal Judge in the FTC matter at the civil trial in October if the FTC does not withdraw the bogus charges before then. He argues his disclaimers were ever present and adequate in his solicitations, websites, and shopping cart order pages, and that if the consumer missed it in one place, there were still two other safeguards in place to ensure a reasonable consumer understood he was a third party. And that those few consumers who complained were either not reasonable consumers or simply experienced buyer's remorse.
And as far as the negative option marketing allegations go, here is the law in question:
15 USC § 8403. Negative option marketing on the Internet
It shall be unlawful for any person to charge or attempt to charge any consumer for any goods or services sold in a transaction effected on the Internet through a negative option feature (as defined in the Federal Trade Commission’s Telemarketing Sales Rule in part 310 of title 16, Code of Federal Regulations), unless the person—
(1) provides text that clearly and conspicuously discloses all material terms of the transaction before obtaining the consumer’s billing information;
(2) obtains a consumer’s express informed consent before charging the consumer’s credit card, debit card, bank account, or other financial account for products or services through such transaction; and
(3) provides simple mechanisms for a consumer to stop recurring charges from being placed on the consumer’s credit card, debit card, bank account, or other financial account.
Lamb says because he met all three conditions, nothing he did was unlawful as the FTC purports.
In the meantime, complaints have been filed by Lamb with the FTC and DOT Inspectors General, the FTC lawyers' applicable bar associations, members of Congress and Congressional oversight committees, and the mother of all inspectors general: the U.S. Office of Special Counsel asking for investigations into the FTC's draconian practices and alleged FTC attorneys' abuse and misconduct. Lamb says there is even talk that the Senate Judiciary Committee may soon hold hearings on the FTC. He has been talking with Judiciary staff about him possibly being called to testify about his experience with FTC as a targeted small business.
And, Lamb has even moved the Court for leave to COUNTERSUE the FTC for defamation and tortious interference related violations of the Federal Administrative Procedure Act.
Lamb believes the court will ultimately dismiss the FTC's case against him because he acts as the agent of common carriers with respect to biennial reports and UCR filings and the FTC has no jurisdiction over common carriers.
That is, if a common carrier is exempt, so too is that carrier's agent. And he has carriers stepping up ready to intervene if necessary. This was affirmed last August in the AT&T Mobility case. The FTC's response to that 9th Circuit loss? They tried to hurry the judge into freezing his accounts and wrest his business away from him without a hearing purporting to the Court that an 'emergency' existed when it didn't exist and railroad Lamb's case through the system. And they did this less than three weeks after the AT&T case before he could figure out he could bring this up in his defense as a motion to dismiss. But they were stopped by the judge after hearing. He is now waiting to see if the FTC withdraws the charges on their own...
In the meantime, if you are one of Lamb's clients and you would like to step up and help fight back against overzealous government intrusion and overreach by adding your name to the list of carriers willing to intervene, he asks that you please email legal (at) dotauthority.com.
Finally, Lamb is also considering pursuing charges against one FTC attorney who egregiously brought up his not-even-two-year-old daughter --who was never introduced into the proceeding by Lamb-- out of the blue at the end of a court-ordered mediation session in January 2017. Lamb cannot figure out how this attorney could possibly know what his daughter looks like unless she is stalking him on social media. He believes this was an apparent attempt to bully, intimidate and coerce him into agreeing to a proposed permanent injunction to prevent him from testifying in his own defense at trial. Lamb said this has caused him and his partner severe emotional distress and that he received the FTC's scary and threatening message that they are watching him and his family loud and clear. His partner grew up in communist Eastern Europe and she is terrified. Lamb believes the only way to deal with this is to ring the bell and warn the public of these underhanded moves. That callous exchange went like this...
FTC Attorney: "You have a beautiful daughter..."
Lamb: "You mean the one you almost starved to death by freezing my assets?"
FTC Attorney: "Well, I hope she's still alive..."
Lamb immediately got up and walked out of the meeting.
If that doesn't raise your eyebrows and make you sick, nothing will.
Disturbingly, that same attorney has been accused in a publicly posted YouTube video of "witness tampering" in a past FTC case by threatening to put a witness' six children in foster care if she did not lie for the FTC in an affidavit. Your tax dollars at work.
And the LabMD case should also make you wary of the FTC and prove there is a pattern of the FTC abusing and destroying or trying to destroy small businesses beyond Lamb's case worthy of a Congressional oversight inquiry.
So goes the story of a businessman fighting corruption and attacks on small business and the government's despicable response to his petitioning the government for redress of grievances and exercising his free speech on behalf of the industry. Alas, sometimes... corruption fights back and it attacks small business and American families. If this is American government in the 21st Century, then we need to demand it change.
Lamb promises there is more to come in the way of Federal legal action to challenge abuse and misconduct by these government officials who he says have acted unethically and inappropriately under color of law. Some of them are currently being scheduled to be deposed. A "Bivens" action is also being explored by his superlawyer Jim Bopp and staff, which would entail suing these government officials who violated Lamb's rights personally (since the agencies themselves enjoy "sovereign immunity") in order to effect final justice. And if you don't think Lamb will follow through on that, well, last month he filed a suit in Federal court against New York State for violating his commercial free speech. And some other corrupt industry leaders and players may have reason to be concerned on the legal front as well, So, stay tuned for more to come...