Return to "After the Formal Complaint" Main Page ||| Previous Document ||| Next Document
Four trucks and photographs of the first two acts of perjury
THE REPAIR TRUCKS, SEPTEMBER 4, 2001
On 08/31/01, Pacific Bell/SBC Attorney, Michael Sasser, Answered the Complaint, under penalty of perjury, denying there were problems with the phone lines on my street.
On page 3 of the Answer to the Complaint, Michael Sasser stated:
Logically, Mr. Sasser could not make these claims, unless Mr. Sasser had the test results to my premises, as well as the log of defective phone lines, to insure that Pacific Bell was not using defective phone lines to my premises.
Notice that Mr. Sasser used the word "avers." The word "aver" is used by legal experts in defining the legal term "Fraud Upon the Court." When Mr. Sasser made the statement shown above, he committed a Fraud Upon the Court.
On Sept. 4, 2001, four repair trucks were testing and repairing my phone lines, using documents dated 08/31/01, which was the same date that Attorney Michael Sasser Answered the Complaint.
Three of the trucks are visible in the above photograph at the south-west corner of Woodthrush and Mohr Ave.
The fourth Pacific Bell repair truck was parked on the south-east corner of Woodthrush Ct and Mohr Ave.
I questioned the technicians about the work they were doing. The technicians said they were sent to repair the phone lines. The technicians were friendly and they even asked if I was the person who called about the "service problems." I mentioned I filed a Formal Complaint, and some of the technicians laughed.
I managed to photograph some of the documents the technicians were using, which were dated August 31, 2001 (http://www.mikeandmabell.com/359_hi-res.html). It was obvious that troubles were found on my phone lines on the same day that Pacific Bell/SBC Answered the Complaint — otherwise, Pacific Bell would not have sent four repair trucks to perform the work.
According to Pacific Bell's Testimony (PB 06/05/-2-2-07), the technicians were sent to rebuild a serving terminal, no troubles were found on my phone lines, and no repair work was performed. It does not take four cable splicing technicians to rebuild a serving terminal — it takes one technician. If the cable is not cut down to fresh cable, the operation takes less than an hour. From what I observed, the technicians did not rebuild a terminal, as they did not cut down to fresh cable. Furthermore, the terminal is a "green hornet," which is considered obsolete. If the terminal had been rebuilt, it would have been replaced with a modern terminal.
On Sept. 6, 2001, two days after I photographed the trucks, I noticed one of the cable splicing technicians performing repair work. The technician told me he was still performing repair work from Sept. 4, 2001. I mentioned this in my Amendment, dated Jan. 29, 2002. A Pacific Bell document obtained on May 21, 2002, confirms that at least one of my phone lines was repaired on Sept. 6, 2001.
The above document, dated May 21, 2002, was so significant in proving that Pacific Bell found troubles on my phone lines on the day that Mr. Sasser Answered the Complaint, and that repair work was performed on my phone lines on Sept. 6, 2001, that the AT&T Attorney Darlene Clark, asked how I got it. In Briefs the AT&T attorney admitted she asked how I got it, but she denied she understood what it meant.
The Commission ignored the obvious fact that repair workers were sent to my street to perform repair work, and that Pacific Bell committed perjury when discussing the work that was performed from August 31, 2001 through Sept. 4, 2001.
last edited 10/06/15
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