Opinion ID: 185581
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Candor

Text: 31 Finally, High Plains argues that Mercury was not candid with the Commission during the investigation into its bidding tactics, and that its lack of candor disqualifies Mercury from holding a Commission license. The Commission found that Mercury never attempted to mislead the Commission about its having used bids to convey messages; Mercury's defense had always been that the rule against collusion did not prohibit its reflexive bidding. 32 The gravamen of High Plains' factual claim is that a representative of Mercury falsely declared in a submission to the Commission that Mercury had not utilized trailing numbers to send secret signals to anyone as alleged by High Plains, and that Mercury had used reflexive bidding only to bluff or confuse other bidders as to Mercury's overall auction strategy. In a later deposition this same person admitted he used reflexive bidding to threaten High Plains that I was fixing to come blister their butt in Amarillo. Mercury, 15 F.C.C.R. 9654 at p 17 n.57. The Commission did not consider the apparent contradiction, but neither did the appellant first present it to the Commission. The matter is therefore beyond our ken. See 47 U.S.C. 405(a)(2) (requiring a litigant first to present an argument to the Commission on reconsideration if it relies on questions of fact or law upon which the Commission ... has been afforded no opportunity to pass). 33 High Plains also adduces some lesser inconsistencies in Mercury's submissions to the Commission as evidence of Mercury's disdain for the truth. Again, however, High Plains attempts to persuade the court that the Commission was wrong, not that it was unreasonable. There being no claims to the contrary, we must conclude that the decision of the Commission is reasonable and is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(C).