Return to "After the Formal Complaint" Main Page ||| Previous Document ||| Next Document

 Return to "A Phone Number for the President" Main Page


THE FICTIONAL PHONE NUMBER

I have asked the FBI, the governor's office, the CPUC, and Congresswoman Tauscher, Congressman McNerney, and Senator Barbara Boxer, if the phone number shown above has the last five digits of "25093," and not "85093" as the phone company attorney, Stephanie Krapf, claimed.

The high resolution photograph can be seen on this link: http://www.mikeandmabell.com/362_hi-res.html

So far, nobody in Government will "officially" answer the question, although unofficially, the FBI, the Governor's office, the office of Congresswoman Tauscher, and the Office of Senator Boxer, have all "verbally" agreed the number has the last five digits of "25093.

If the Government officials were to "officially" declare the number has the last five digits of "25093," the FBI would have a legal obligation to open an investigation into corporate fraud and corruption, which is absolutely within FBI jurisdiction.

The State Attorney General's Office refused to comment on the above photograph because the attorney general has a legal obligation to represent state workers and State agencies. See letter dated 05/22/08. This is why the FBI needs to look at this document.

The corruption begins with the Judge, Janice Grau. She stopped the Discovery process for several months so that I could not ask questions. Ms. Grau also decided that written Testimony would be handed in, again, so that I could not ask questions.

The one time I called AT&T Attorney Stephanie Elena Krapf during the Formal Complaint, she told me I was not permitted to ask questions. I have never met Ms. Krapf in person.

 

In Briefs, the phone company attorney defined the above document as a Log of Defective Cable Pairs, which the phone company maintains to prevent defective phone lines from being used. In the Supplimental Brief of the Formal Complaint, I pointed out that cable pair 1118 was on the log of defective cable pairs (shown above) and known to be defective since 1992 with a defect type of CBY (Cross with battery).

 

The document on the left is page two of the Log of Defective cable pair, 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.

An AT&T document I photographed in March 2009, links cable pair 1132 to my address, and it also shows that cable pair 1103 (which provided service to my business fax line), is also on the log of defective cable pairs.

 

By matching the photograph I took on 09/04/01 to the MLT document provided by Pacific Bell, I was able to prove that cable pair 1118 provided phone service to my phone number 462-5093.

This proved that Pacific Bell was knowingly using at least one defective cable pair to my premises since 1996, and it proved that the documents used to impose Rule 11 were based on fraud, because the documents claimed there was nothing wrong with my phone lines. Moreover, cable pairs 1103 and 1141, which provided service to my business lines, had a trouble Code 98, an indication of multiple problems. Another document I photographed, dated March 16, 2009, combined with AT&T's claim that there have never been any phone service problems on my business phone lines after 2003, provides evidence that cable pair 1103 (which provided service to my business fax line) was also on the log of defective cable pairs.

Combining the use of cable pair 1118 and the trouble code 98 on cable pairs 1103 and 1141 proves that Pacific Bell committed over 20 acts of fraud between 1996 and 2001, to claim that my phone lines tested ok, when all three pairs were known to be defective. It should also be noted an AT&T document, dated March 16, 2009, shows that cable pair 1132 is assigned to my address, as a spare cable.

The original Decision, which came out about 200 days after the Supplimental Brief was submitted, never mentioned the log of defective cable pairs, the MLT document, the use of cable pair 1118, or the trouble code 98.

I filed an Appeal.

The Decision to the Appeal was written by the same Judge, Janice Grau. To avoid the issue of the defective phone lines and the altered repair records, the Judge Grau stated:

"…Beyond the admittedly defective DAML unit, we need not determine the precise cause of Complainant's service quality problems…"

The DAML unit was never found to be defective, an indication Judge Grau is corrupt. Furthermore, the use of a DAML is an indication that Pacific Bell had run out of cable pairs. http://mikeandmabell.com/FBI/page_archive/DAML.html. It should also be noted that in the original Decision, the Judge's discussion about the DAML never mentioned that it was defective -- she stated:

Pacific made reasonable efforts to provide an acceptable level of service, including replacing copper pairs and serving terminals and removing the DAML.

In the Appeal, I stated the same thing regarding cable pair 1118 providing service to my phone number 462-5093.

In the Response to the Appeal, Pacific Bell Telephone Company, May 2, 2003 , Pacific Bell Attorney Stephanie Krapf (who has since changed her name to Stephanie Holland) denied the "RSA" phone number with the last five digits of "25093" was mine. On page 7, Ms Krapf made a long confusing statement in order to deny the phone number circled above is mine.She stated:

"…Complainant points to the portion of Attachment 27 of his testimony (which is replicated on top of page 1–8 of Complainant's August 23, 2002 Supplimental Brief and discussed further therein) containing the numbers "85093" and from this infers that the information on this line in Attachment 27 (1) pertains to his telephone number, 462-5093, and (2) relates to cable pair 1118. Complainant's conclusions are unreasonable -- they amount to nothing more than unsubstantiated inference on top of additional unsubstantiated inference. Nothing in Attachment 27 supports either of these inferences -- this document does not even mention cable pair "1118." The fact is that cable pair 1118 (and 1132, as well) was never used to provide complainant's service."

By editing out the Attorney's confusing word twisting, it is more easy to see the fraud she committed.

"… Complainant points to … the numbers "85093" and … from this infers … this line … pertains to his telephone number, 462-5093 … and … relates to cable pair 1118. …The fact is that cable pair 1118 … was never used to provide complainant's service."

I complained to the Commission about the Attorney committing perjury, but the Commission told me it would not consider that an Attorney, as an Officer of the Court, would commit perjury.

In my Application for a Rehearing, I pointed out that I was the only person on my street with "RSA" service and that the phone number assigned to cable pair 1118 must be mine (462-5093) because it was labeled "RSA." See: "RSA" Cable pair identification

In Pacific Bell's Response to M. Knell's Application for Rehearing, Pacific Bell twisted more words, and stated (page 7):

In his Application for Rehearing, Complainant claims that SBC California perjured itself in asserting the foregoing. He also claims that the Decision should be reversed because it did not address the fact … that Pacific was providing service through two defective cable pairs (1118 and 1132). Complainant is wrong. Complainant's insistence that SBC California "was providing service through two defective cable pairs" is not fact by any means; rather, it is Complainant's conjecture.

Complainant and SBC California each addressed the evidence and presented their arguments on this issue. As SBC California addressed in its Response to Complainant's Appeal of the Presiding Officer's Decision, nothing in the record establishes that SBC California ever provided service to Complainant's TN 925-462-5093 via cable pairs 1118 or 1132. Complainant obviously disagrees. Complainant's disagreement, however, does not mean that the Commission erred in rejecting Complainant's interpretation.

To simplify SBC's statement, I have edited out the extraneous words designed to confuse and mislead the Commission:

…nothing in the record establishes that SBC California ever provided service to Complainant's TN 925-462-5093 via cable pairs 1118 or 1132

The use of the defective pair is linked to frauds that date back to 1996. Fraud is not protected by the statute of limitations, which is the reason that Pacific Bell/SBC denied the cable pair 1118 provided service to 462-5093. This bears repeating, a phone company document, dated March 16, 2009, shows that cable pair 1132 is assigned to my address.

If Pacific Bell/SBC had not committed perjury by stating the phone number was not mine, Pacific Bell/SBC would have been subject to fines of $500 to $20,000 per day per Public Utilities (P.U.) Code 451 (Providing Reasonable Service):

  1. P.U. Code # 2107 provides that, "Any public utility which violates or fails to comply with any provision of the Constitution of this state or of this part, or which fails or neglects to comply with any part or provision of any order, decision, decree, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission, in a case in which a penalty has not otherwise been provided, is subject to a penalty of not less than five hundred dollars ($500), nor more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for each offense."

  2. P.U. Code # 2108 provides that, "Every violation of the provisions of this part or of any part of any order, decision, decree, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission, by any corporation or person is a separate and distinct offense, and in case of a continuing violation each day's continuance thereof shall be a separate and distinct offense."

The minimum fine for using the defective phone line from December 31, 1996, through November 1999 (when service was switched to AT&T Broadband) would have been over $500,000. The maximum fine could exceed $21 million, and the money would go to the California State General Fund.

Because the phone number proves that Pacific Bell wrongfully invoked Rule 11 upon me, as a cover-up for the use of defective phone lines, the minumum fine, when the Complaint was filed (July 2001), would have been about $800,000. However, because of the fact that Pacific Bell/SBC created a fictional phone number during the Formal Complaint, to conceal that Rule 11 was wrongfully imposed, Rule 11 is still wrongfully imposed upon me (and has been for over 12 years).

Rule 11 was imposed on April 3, 1997, as a result of my filing an informal complaint in March 1997. At the time, there was nothing I could do to prove it was wrongfully imposed. Based on Pacific Bell's claims that I repeatedly threatened to kill phone company employees, I could have gone to prison if I would have filed a Formal Complaint in 1997. The phone number in the photograph proves Rule 11 was wrongfully imposed, and that the documents claiming I threatened to kill phone company employees are fraudulant due to the fact that the documents also claimed my phone lines tested ok. The fact that Pacific Bell committed perjury to say the phone number was not mine proves that Pacific Bell (Now, AT&T) will do or say anything to conceal problems, including sending me to prison. As of this date, Rule 11 still applies to me. The maximum fine for wrongfully imposing Rule 11 could exceed $70 million, and the money would go to the California State General Fund. There are reasons to impose maximum fines, and when the legal department is involved in the violations, frauds, and the cover-up, this is the reason to impose the maximum fine.

Furthermore, because the evidence shows that my business phone lines were also defective from 1996 through August 31, 2001, a period of nearly five years (about 1,735 days), the minumum fines for using two additional defective phone lines to my business would amount to $1,735,000. The maximum fines would exceed $69 million. Again, the money would go to the California State General Fund.

Based on Pacific Bell/SBC's insistence that the phone number assigned to cable pair 1118 is not mine, what would happen if it could be proven that Pacific Bell (now the "New AT&T") repeatedly lied to the State of California about the "RSA" phone number assigned to cable pair 1118?
Each Denial that the phone number was mine would be considered a separate and distinct act of perjury. Perjury is a felony, and it is punishable by fines of up to $500,000 per act. During the Formal Complaint, there were two denials that the phone number was mine. That is $1 million that could go to the California State General Fund.

Violating Public Utility law is not necessarily a criminal act, but lying to the State of California in a Formal Complaint is a criminal act, and is a felony. Fraud (and perjury) is not protected by the statute of limitations.

Pacific Bell (now the New AT&T) controls the records of cable pairs that are in my neighborhood, but that doesn't mean it can't be proven that cable pair 1118 provided service to my RSA phone number. A phone company document I photographed, dated March 16, 2009 shows all of the address that could receive service through the cable. The FBI should be able to check the phone numbers to all of the house for the date of August 31, 2001 to determine if any houses had a phone number with the last five digits of "85093", as Pacific Bell/SBC claims. If no such number existed in August 2001, it means the phone number assigned to cable pair 1118 must be mine.

In addition, I believe the FBI can get billing records from AT&T for the "ported-out" and RSA services for the date of August 31, 2001. If AT&T has no billing records for a phone number with the last 5 digits of "85093", it would prove that Pacific Bell/SBC lied to the State.

I have shown the above document to many people, and they all came to the same conclusion -- the number must be mine, and the Attorney committed perjury.

If the RSA phone number can be proven to be mine, it will prove the need to establish a Telecommunications Consumer's Bill of Rights. http://mikeandmabell.com/FBI/History-consumer-rights.html

 

 

last edited 04/22/10

Questions and Comments to JTR Publishing. (JTR@JagsThatRun.com)

You are welcome to visit my business website, JTR Publishing, for V-8 engine swap manuals and parts

Web Site Designed and Created by One Source Graphics, Limited
http://www.GrafxSource.com
info@GrafxSource.com