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

Rule 11, a Scary Number

Rule 11, a Scary Number

The Pacific Bell document shown above, which imposed Rule 11 upon me, was mailed about a week after the Commission told me it would investigate my complaint regarding service problems, missed appointments, and altered repair records.

At the time Rule 11 was imposed upon me, there was nothing I could do to prove it was wrongfully imposed, or that Pacific Bell missed repair appointments, was knowingly using defective phone lines, lying about the condition of the phone lines, and altering repair records to conceal the recurring cable failures.

According to legal experts, if I would have filed a Formal Complaint (in 1997), Pacific Bell could have filed criminal charges against me, claiming I threatened its employees with bodily harm. There was a very real possibility that I could have gone to prison. Legal experts advised me to not take any legal action against the phone company. I was warned that Pacific Bell could get its employees to say whatever was necessary to send me to prison, and there was nothing I could do to defend myself.

The RSA phone number shown above proves that every document that could have been used to impose Rule 11 was a fraud because every document claimed all my phone lines tested ok and/or that Pacific Bell cables were never found to be defective.

Fraud is not protected by the statute of limitations. If the wrongful imposition of Rule 11 was protected by the statute of limitations, Pacific Bell would not have committed perjury, and stated the phone number shown above, was not my phone number, and that it had the last five digits of "85093."

The fact that Pacific Bell stated the above phone number is not my phone number proves that the phone company will say and do anything in the Court of Law. This proves that if I had filed a Formal Complaint in 1997, after Rule 11 was imposed upon me, there was a very real possibility that I could have gone to prison, as a result of phone company employees who had committed criminal acts of fraud to conceal problems in the infrastructure of a publicly traded company.

Because of the fact that the phone company can wrongfully send people to prison for complaining about phone service, the laws need to be changed to allow consumers to protect themselves from phone companies that will violate laws, and commit perjury to conceal the violations.

An even scarier fact.

The scariest fact of all, is that the phone company could get government employees, such as a CPUC Judge, to conspire with the frauds that could have sent me to prison. The Judge created the "admittedly defective DAML" to avoid the issue of the defective phone lines. See: The Corrupt Judge and the "admittedly defective DAML"

A law that would have allowed me to test the phone lines providing service to my premises would have prevented Rule 11 from being imposed upon me.

A Federal law already exists, that allows Resellers of phone service to test phone lines.

It would be a simple matter to take the above law, and turn it into a California State law that would allow consumers to test their phone lines. Because phone companies already allow resellers to test phone lines through a standardized interface (such as the internet), the phone companies can easily allow all of its consumers to test their own phone lines over the internet. This will allow consumers to keep accurate records of trouble found, and prevent phone company employees from altering repair records, or committing frauds to claim the phone lines are "OK" when they are known to be defective. It would also prevent phone companies from wrongfully invoking Rule 11 to intimidate consumers who receive service through defective phone lines.


This document proves that a few days after the Pacific Bell legal department imposed Rule 11 upon me, Pacific Bell filed a permit to repair the cable in the sidewalk area in front of my premises. I obtained this permit from the City of Pleasanton.

This pattern of making repairs after the legal department responded to a Complaint, also occurred after Pacific Bell Answered the Formal Complaint on August 31, 2001, claiming I threatened to kill phone company employees.See: Four trucks and photographs of the first two acts of perjury

last edited 05/02/08

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