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

www.APhoneNumberForThePresident.com


Heading — New Document 2, Under Construction

During the month of January 2002, Richard Smith contacted me by phone telling me that I needed to file an Ammendment to the Complaint to state the specific code violations, such as Code 451, 2891.1, 2107, 2108, etc. He also explained that fraud was not barred by the Statute of Limitations. See: Fraud and the Statute of Limitations

Richard Smith is now an Administrative Law Judge at the CPUC.

After the first Decision came out, Mr. Smith told me the Judge and the Commission did not follow the Rule of Law.

The email from Richard Smith, dated August 27, 2003, states that the Commission committed legal error for not fining AT&T for violating my rights to privacy. According to the Rule of Law, the minimum fine was $61,000 and the maximum fine was $2.4 million.

Message From: "Smith, Richard" <RS1@cpuc.ca.gov>,
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 3:07 PM, Subject: RE: appeal.
email from Richard Smith, August 27, 2003, re Appeal

Below is the content of the attachment to above email:
Re Application for Rehearing of Knell.doc content of attached file, re application for rehearing of Knell.doc

It should also be noted that the Judge refused to consider that publishing my home address for my business listings was a violation to my privacy. The Judge also ruled that the publishing of my personal information on AT&T's internet directory listings was not within CPUC jurisdiction. The Email from Mr. Smith does consider it to be a violation that was within CPUC jurisdiction.

Had the Judge ruled that AT&T's repeated publishing of my home address for my business listings was a violation to privacy (and which went on for years), or that publishing my personal information on the AT&T website was a violation to my privacy, the minimum fines would have been in the $ millions.

Furthermore, it should be noted that during the Formal Complaint, AT&T continued to publish my home address, sell my home address to credit card companies and marketing companies. ( See Mike Knell's Application for a Rehearing. September 2003). During the Complaint, AT&T also provided my home address to a collections agency (to demand payments for services I didn't even have). The Commission refused to punish AT&T for the ongoing violations, which included billing problems, listings problems, and privacy violations. Consequently, the billing problems (for services I didn't have), and privacy violations continued for another year after the Denial for Rehearing. Because the Commission is so corrupt, legal experts told me it was pointless to file another Complaint through the CPUC, and to find another legal avenue. This led me to contacting the FBI.

last edited 03/06/09

 

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