Through this webpage, I am asking the FBI, the Governor's Office, and the California Bureau of State Audits to find out why there are no signatures on the Denial for Rehearing, dated November 13, 2003.
As shown above, the "Order Denying Rehearing" that was mailed to me was not signed by any of the Commissioners (the document was compressed to fit on the page).
Richard Smith, a legal expert at the CPUC who told me about Legal error, if the Commissioners did not actually sign the document, it should have an "official" rubber stamp of the signatures.
The above document provides evidence the CPUC Judge, Janice Grau, created a fictional Formal Complaint, that completely hid the evidence from the Commissioners. Logically, this is the only way Stephanie Krapf could have expected to get away with creating a fictional "RSA" phone number with the last five digits of "85093."
Notice the names Carl Wood, Geoffrey Brown on the above document
Carl Wood and Geoffrey Brown are no longer Commissioners, but they recently spoke to an investigative reporter about problems at the Commission (see next page) that corroborate the Judge could have concealed the facts of my Complaint.
Investigative reporter, Thomas Peele (Contra Costa Times, April 15, 2007), found that the CPUC hasn't collected $33 million in fines it had issued against phone companies. The money would have gone to the California State General Fund. In the same article, was the statement:
[Carl] Wood and… Geoffrey Brown said the lack of debt collection shows a serious breakdown of the Commission's responsibility to the public…
Commissioners generally "assume that someone else is taking care of these things"… Brown agreed.
The Commissioners have to rely upon their staff (including Judges) when voting on most Decisions. The Commissioners are not going to look through hundreds of pages of documents when voting on a case because a Judge is suppose to do that job, and condense the facts in the Decision. However, a Commissioner is assigned to a Complaint -- presumably to insure a fair hearing, with a system of checks and balances.
In my case, the Commissioner who was suppose to oversee the Complaint, Geoffrey Brown, never bothered to show up at the prehearing conferences, or show up at the Court room when Testimony was served.
After examining the evidence, and reading the above article, I believe that Judge Grau concealed the facts of the Complaint in her Decision (and in the Decision for the Appeal), intercepted the Application for Rehearing, wrote the Denial For Rehearing, and somehow, snuck it through the Commission, without the knowledge of any of the Commissioners. Logically, that would be the only way that Pacific Bell could claim the RSA phone number was not mine.
My case was one of only a few that were not open to public comment. On the day that my case was suppose to have been voted on, there were over 80 other cases. It would have been easy for my case to be overlooked. Janice Grau would know how to conceal the information from the Commissioners -- she has worked at the CPUC longer than any of the Commissioners.
THE JUDGE'S DECISION, AND CONCEALMENT OF FACTS
I believe CPUC Judge, Janice Grau, intentionally concealed evidence in her Decision. The following nine examples are red flags that the Judge is corrupt:
- The Judge's Decision made no statements about the use of defective phone lines on Woodthrush Ct.
Log of Defective cable pairs is on the left, the document on the right is the test results of the phone lines on the day that Pacific Bell Answered the Complaint. The fact that Pacific Bell was knowingly using cable pairs 1118 and 1132 proved that Pacific was violating Public Utility Laws.
- The Judge's Decision ignored that repair records were repeatedly altered to conceal recurring problems.
The Corrupt Judge and Altered Repair Records
- The Judge's statement in the Decision about the "admittedly defective DAML" was never in the record, and there is no documentation, whatsoever, that anybody considered it to be defective at any time. Janice Grau is the only person who has ever stated the DAML was defective. Furthermore, the DAML was removed in November 1996, and had no relevance to the phone service problems that occurred after November 1996.
The Corrupt Judge and the "admittedly defective DAML"
- The Judge's Decision made no statements about the fact that A&T claimed to have no records of why my listings changed at least 24 different times in the Pacific Bell database, when the law requires that AT&T put changes to my listings in writing.
- The Judge's Decision did not discuss the fact that AT&T repeatedly violated public utility laws which required AT&T to put changes (or corrections) to my listings in writing.
- The Judge's Decision did not discuss the fact that AT&T continued to have problems with my listings during the Formal Complaint.
- The Judge's Decision did not discuss the fact that AT&T continued to sell my home address to marketing companies during the Formal Complaint, and AT&T refused to remove my home address from such lists. See: Application for a Rehearing. September 2003
- The Judge acknowledged that AT&T repeatedly violated my rights to privacy, but refused to fine AT&T, as required by the Rule of Law. It is my belief that any fine imposed by the Judge would have received attention from the Commissioners. The evidence shows the Judge violated the Rule of Law (that required fines), to keep her Decision under the radar. See:
Evidence of legal error, and corruption
- The Denial for Rehearing did not have signatures (as required by law).
Anybody at the Commission could have printed and mailed the Denial For Rehearing, but if Ms. Grau intentionally concealed the above evidence, it would give her the greatest motive of anybody at the Commission. She had the means, the motive, and the opportunity.
It should be noted that when I handed in written Testimony, it went to Janice Grau. She had complete control of the Testimony, as did the phone companies. Nobody else at the Commission can be linked to having access to the Testimony.
I don't believe any of the Commissioners named on the Denial For Rehearing will publicly admit to any knowledge of the essential facts in the Complaint for the following reasons:
- No Commissioner would publicly admit the "RSA" phone number shown above was not my phone number, when the documentation I provided in the Application for Rehearing showed I was the only person on my street who had "RSA" phone service. See:
"RSA" Cable pair identification .
- No Commissioner would publicly admit the "RSA" phone number shown above had the last five digits of "85093" as Pacific Bell had claimed. In the Application for Rehearing I showed that a "2" on the above photograph is flat on the bottom, and an "8" is round on the bottom -- the phone number in the photograph has the last five digits of "25093." No Commissioner could ignore that fact.
Mike Knell's Application for a Rehearing. September 2003
- No Commissioner would publicly admit the trouble code "98" was not an indication of troubles found on my phone lines on August 31, 2001, when a Pacific Bell document I submitted in the Application for a Rehearing. September 2003 , defined the trouble code "98" as a "cable failure" on my phone line in 1998.
- No Commissioner would publicly admit it ignored the Pacific Bell documents dated May 21, 2002, and July 16, 2003, which proved the trouble code "98" was an indication of trouble on both of my business phone lines on August 31, 2001, the day Pacific Bell Answered the Complaint. In Testimony, Pacific Bell denied that there were problems on my phone lines on August 31, 2001. The document dated May 21, 2002 was so damaging to Pacific Bell, that even the AT&T Attorney admitted to asking me how I obtained the document.
- No Commissioner would publicly admit it was "reasonable" for a phone company to repeatedly alter repair records to conceal troubles that were repeatedly found on my phone lines, especially when the phone company testified that repair records are required for proper maintenance.
The Corrupt Judge and Altered Repair Records
- No Commissioner would publicly admit it was "reasonable" that a business phone line could not be used for faxes or to run credit card transactions, especially when a contractor hired by AT&T Resale, found my business phone line could not be used for credit card transactions. The Judge ruled it was OK for my business phone line to not be able to transmit faxes or run credit card transactions.
- No Commissioners would publicly admit it was "reasonable" for a phone company to knowingly use defective phone lines on my street (which the phone company did not deny), when the law requires the phone company to use non-defective phone lines.
- No Commissioner would publicly admit it was "reasonable" for a phone company to repeatedly refuse to remove my home address from directories, mailing lists, and bills when I repeatedly demanded that a PO box be used to protect the privacy of my home address.
- No Commissioner would admit it was "reasonable" for a phone company to admit to having documentation for only one listing problem, when records (obtained from another phone company) showed AT&T changed my listings twenty-four different times.
- No Commissioner would publicly admit it was "reasonable" for a phone company to refuse to provide corrections to my listings in writing, as required by law, so that I can be sure they are correct before they go into directories and databases.
- No Commissioner would publicly admit it was "reasonable" for a phone company "complaint manager" to demand to communicate by mail, and then refuse to provide a business mailing address.
- No Commissioner would publicly admit it was reasonable for a phone company to repeatedly (and illegally), restrict my phone service on over 10 occasions, after I asked questions about why my listings kept changing.
- No Commissioner would publicly admit it was "reasonable" for a phone company to restrict my phone service shortly after I filed a Formal Complaint, deny a restriction had taken place, and then claim it didn't know what caused the restriction, when billing records proved a restriction had taken place.
- No Commissioner would publicly admit it was "reasonable" for a phone company Attorney to threaten to terminate my phone services for asking the Attorney to remove my home address from directory listings during the Complaint.
September 19, 2001
Through this webpage, I am asking the FBI to contact each of the Commissioners named on the Denial for Rehearing, and to ask them to publicly answer if they agree with me about each of the 14 facts mentioned above. If they agree with me, it proves that something terribly wrong happened with my Application for Rehearing.
I have repeatedly asked the Commission why there are no signatures on the Denial For Rehearing. The Commission has ignored me.
If the FBI determines the Commissioners did not write the Denial for Rehearing, and had no knowledge of the facts of the Complaint, it provides further proof that a telecommunications Consumer's Bill of Rights needs to be established to allow consumers to protect themselves from corrupt Commission employees, such as Janice Grau.
last edited 10/13/10