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


FRAUD AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

Erin Brockovich, Take It From Me. Life's a Struggle But You Can Win, page 90:

"And in the end, we won. We were able to turn it to a case for fraud, which successfully eliminated the statute of limitations."

The phone number shown above is my phone number, 462-5093, and is linked to frauds that began in 1996.

There are so many criminal acts of fraud linked to the above phone number, that the phone number itself became a criminal act of fraud when the phone company attorney committed perjury, and stated the phone number was not mine, and had the last five digits of "85093."

The significance of this phone number is not easily recognized, without understanding that fraud is not protected by the statute of limitations.

The Judge stated: http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/Comment_decision/24455-04.htm#TopOfPage

  • Service quality issues are obvious, and Complainant reported problems with his service to Defendants. Increased knowledge of why service quality problems existed, in and of itself, is insufficient to toll the statute of limitations. Instead, Complainant must discover a negligent cause of service quality problems that violated our rules and regulations.

If the FBI proves that the phone number noted above is my phone number (and was a negligent cause of service quality problems), it tolls the Statute of Limitations.

In 1996, Pacific was knowingly using defective phone lines to provide service to my premise, and committed frauds to conceal the problem.

The phone number proves that Pacific Bell had run out of non-defective phone lines, and could not fix my business phone lines without expensive repairs. From 1996 through August 31, 2001, I ran my business through defective phone lines, while Pacific Bell repeatedly committed fraud by denying that trouble was found on my business phone lines (as well as my residential phone line).

In March, 1997, I complained to the California Public Utilities Commission about the service problems. Pacific Bell responded in April 1997, by invoking Rule 11 upon me, stating I had threatened its employees with bodily harm. It was another fraud designed to conceal the use of defective phone lines. An attorney told there was nothing I could do to defend myself, and warned me that if I proceeded with the complaint, I could go to prison. Furthermore, the attorney told me there was nothing I could do to prove the phone company was using defective phone lines.

After Pacific Bell invoked Rule 11, I switched my phone service to AT&T. In 1997, AT&T did not have its own facilities, AT&T resold Pacific Bell phone service. The "RSA" phone number in the above photograph indicates the phone service was a Resale account. I was the only person on the above document with "RSA" service. Logically, the phone number is mine.

In a Formal Complaint that dragged on for over two years, and cost the State of California hundreds of thousands of dollars, the California Public Utilities refused to acknowledge the phone number is mine. Furthermore, the Judge created fraudulent statements in her Decision to avoid the issue of the above phone number, and then, dismissed the Complaint, claiming the Statute of Limitations barred the Complaint. If the Judge believed the Complaint was barred by the Statute of Limitations, the Judge would not have created the "admittedly Defective Daml." The Corrupt Judge and the "admittedly defective DAML"

When I filed the Formal Complaint in July, 2001, I did not have sufficient evidence to prove that Pacific Bell was using defective phone lines -- legal experts told me so.

In response to the Formal Complaint, on August 31, 2001, AT&T claimed I threatened to kill its employees. A few days later, on September 4, 2001, I photographed the above document, which proved the documents claiming I threatened to kill employees were based on fraud, because every document also claimed there was nothing wrong with my phone lines.

Fraud is not protected by the statute of limitations. If it is ever proven that the "RSA" phone number is my phone number, 925-462-5093, then it would eliminate the statute of limitations for the frauds that began in 1996.

Also, if it is ever proven that the trouble code 98 is an indication of trouble, then it also eliminates the statute of limitations, as it would prove that Pacific Bell committed over 20 acts of fraud between 1996 and 2001, to claim my phone lines tested ok, when they were known to be defective.

After the FBI (or some other agency, or news reporter) determines the above "RSA" phone number is mine, it will provide a reason to establish a Consumers' Bill of Rights which allows consumers the rights to test phone lines over the internet with the same MLT process that federal law provides to resellers of phone service, so that consumers will not have to put up with phone service through defective phone lines, and all of the other frauds that go along with it.

last edited 05/10/08

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