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



The phone companies have developed mechanisms to conceal recurring problems in the infrastructure, as well as recurring problems in databases. It's called fraud.

Sadly, the CPUC has also developed mechanisms to prevent consumers from protecting themselves when phone companies violate laws. It's called corruption. The fact that nobody at the CPUC will publicly acknowledge the above phone number is mine, proves that fact.

With the current laws, it is virtually impossible for consumers to protect themselves when these mechanisms are used. A Consumers Bill of Rights needs to be established to prevent these illegal mechanisms.


The mechanism to conceal problems in the infrastructure is quite simple. The technicians are not permitted to provide customers with written documentation of problems found on the phone lines. With this tactic, the customer can never prove a technician found trouble on the phone line. Normally, there should be a trouble ticket, and this will leave a paper-trail. Unfortunately, the phone companies have developed tactics to eliminate a paper-trail.

In cases of recurring problems, the phone companies can prevent problems from entering the database by flagging phone numbers as "sensitive customer." The "sensitive" customers are suppose to receive faster repairs by getting the trouble reported directly to a manager so the repair work can be expedited. Unfortunately, the "flagging" can also be used to prevent the creation of trouble tickets. Logically, the only reason customers are labeled "sensitive" is because of recurring problems.


Another tool that can be used by the phone company to conceal recurring problems is to place a Protected Service restriction on defective phone lines, so that technicians and operators cannot run MLT tests. There are practical reasons for this restriction, as it will prevent ringtrips, DSL interruption, and disruption of faxes. Unfortunately, it can also be used by management to prevent known problems from entering the database. Recently, a phone company employee (who wishes to remain anonymous), told me that years ago, when he attempted to test my phone line, it had a "protected service" restriction. The "protected" services can create extra work for technicians, as they will not be able to use the MLT test to determine the problem on the phone lines.


Another mechanism that allows phone companies to conceal recurring complaints is the toll-free customer service number, which does not show up on phone bills.

It is interesting to note that in the CPUC letter of April 27, 2001 AT&T refused to answer why it refused to provide me with a business mailing address, after it demanded that I communicate in writing, by fax or mail. In the CPUC letter of April 27, 2001 AT&T stated that the letter that ordered that I communicate in writing, was superceeded by new rules, that required me to call the toll-free customer service number. The order that I call the toll-free customer service number came from Rose Johnson, the Vice President of AT&T California, and during the Formal Complaint, AT&T continued with the "toll-free" rule to refuse to remove my home address from the AT&T directory website (See September 19, 2001). The order that I call the toll-free customer service number was illegal, because law requires AT&T to provide me with a business mailing address when I ask for it.

In my case, the phone company refused to allow calls to be recorded, making it impossible for me to prove I called the toll-free customer service number to report problems, ranging from defective phone lines, to listings problems, to violations to privacy.

The law requires that AT&T put corrections to my listings in writing. AT&T denied there were recurring listing problems when it Answered the Formal Complaint. After Pacific Bell documents showed AT&T "corrected" my listings 24 different times, AT&T admitted it refused to put corrections to my listings in writing, and then AT&T blamed me for the listing problems, claiming I provided incorrect information.

According to an operator I spoke to at the toll-free customer service number, there were notes on my account which ordered the operators to forward my complaints to the legal department. Logically, the reason that AT&T had no paper trail for the changes to my listings was due to the legal department's illegal behavior, which included perjury, when it Answered the Complaint, and stated the listings problem was long sinced resolved.


Another mechanism the phone companies can use to prevent consumers from taking legal action is to create fraudulent documentation that could be used to send consumers to prison for complaining about phone service problems. In my case, the phone company made false claims that I threatened to kill phone company employees, to avoid the issue that the phone lines were known to be defective. The phone number shown above, proves the documentation was fraudulent. The fact that the phone company attorney stated the above phone number was not mine, links the legal department to the fraudulent claims of death threats.


If even one honest Commissioner would have acknowledged the RSA phone number was mine, the phone company attorney would have gone to prison for committing perjury, and the phone company would have been required to pay millions of dollars in fines to the California State General Fund.

The fact that not one Commissioner will acknowledge the RSA phone number is mine, combined with the fact that there are no signatures on the Denial for Rehearing, and the fact that the Decision was not open to public comment is evidence that corrupt CPUC employees have developed a mechanism to keep information away from the honest Commissioners.

All of the Commissioners, including the Commissioner who was assigned to the case, have plausible deniability of not knowing the facts of the Complaint.


Because the Complaint was done in writing, with no cross examination, and no appearances of witnesses, even the witnesses have plausible deniability of providing Testimony. Logically, the witnesses could claim that the perjury in the Testimony was that of the Attorneys.

The only people involved in the Complaint who do not have plausible deniability is the CPUC Judge and the phone company Attorneys.


Most of the illegal mechanisms occurred through normal human behavior. Phone companies exploit laws that do not allow consumers to protect themselves. Furthermore, CPUC employees have formed a bond with the phone companies, and have become hostile towards consumers, making a bad situation even worse.

After it is proven that Pacific Bell/SBC:

  1. knowingly used defective phone lines to provide service to me from 1996-2001

  2. created fraudulent documentation to show my phone lines tested "ok" when they were known to be defective

  3. created fraudulent documents to impose Rule 11 in order to divert attention away from the defective phone lines, and to intimidate me from pursuing a Formal Complaint

  4. altered repair records to repeatedly conceal trouble found on the phone lines

  5. altered records during the Formal Complaint to conceal that defective phone lines were not properly recorded on the log of defective cable pairs

  6. created a fictional "RSA" phone number during a Formal Complaint to conceal that Pacific Bell was knowingly using defective phone lines since 1996

  7. altered documents to conceal the trouble code "98" (that was on my phone lines for years)

  8. lied to the Commission about the meaning of the trouble code "98" to conceal that my business phone lines were defective for five years
  9. got the Complaint dismissed (by committing perjury), and then, continued to cover-up recurring service problems in 2006 and 2007.

It should be very clear that the phone companies, and the phone company Attorneys cannot be trusted. Phone company Attorneys, and CPUC employees have completely destroyed the integrity of the legal process at the CPUC.

In an investigative report dated April 15, 2007, Former Commissioner, Geoffrey Brown stated that the "the Commission is a total tool for industry." Whatever can be done to eliminate CPUC intervention will improve phone service for consumers.

In my case, complaining to the Commission made a bad situation worse, when the phone company created fraudulent documentation that could have been used to wrongfully send me to prison.

In my case, complaining to the FBI appears to be the only solution to getting justice.

A better solution is to establish a Telecommunications Consumer's Bill of Rights.


The solution to stop these mechanisms, is to give all consumers the right to run there own MLT tests, and print the results as shown on this webpage

Any-and-all problems and repair work performed by technicians should be documented, and provided to the customer in writing.

Furthermore, all calls to the phone company's toll-free service number should be shown on the phone bill, and consumers should be allowed to record the calls.

last edited 06/11/08

Questions and Comments to JTR Publishing. (

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