Cable pair 1118 has quite a history of being defective, and it was easy to determine it was defective. Even the phone company Attorney determined it was defective, although she told the State of California that cable pair 1118 was never used to provide service to me.

If the FBI determines that cable pair 1118 provided service to my phone number, 462-5093, then it will mean that from 1992 through 2007, cable pair 1118 has been found to be defective on the following nine dates, listed in chronological order:

1. The photograph above proves it was defective on June 3, 1992, with a defect type of "CBY"
   
   
2. Page 2 of this chapter shows it was found to be defective on 12/31/96, the day it was connected to my premises for my phone number 462-5093, and that the technician told me it was defective
   
   
3. Page 3 of this chapter shows it was found to be defective on September 17, 1997. There is no record it was repaired
   
   
4. Page 4 of this chapter shows Pacific Bell Testimony. On 01/31/98, AT&T reported the line was noisy. There is no documentation that any action was taken.
   
   
5. Page 4 of this chapter shows Pacific Bell Testimony. On 02/11/98, AT&T told me there was a cable failure for 462-5093. Pacific Bell stated, "No trouble Found."
   
   
6. Page 5 of this chapter shows that a Pacific Bell trouble ticket for the date of 02/18/98 identified a cable failure for 462-5093. Pacific Bell Testimony shows no record of this cable failure.
   
   
7. Page 4 of this chapter shows Pacific Bell Testimony. On 03/02/98, Pacific Bell Testimony shows it was identified with a cable failure. While Pacific Bell Testimony claims the cable pair was "cleared by construction," the photograph shown above, contradicts that the cable pair was repaired.
   
   
8. The photograph shown above proves that testing by cable splicing technicians using TDR equipment showed it continued to have the same defect type on September 4, 2001, as it did on June 3, 1992, as noted by the hand written note, "cross w/bat"
   
   
9. On May 19, 2006, my business phone line 846-3642 was found to be defective. The technician switched my business phone line to cable pair 1118, which he stated, was designated for my premises. On October 5, 2006, cable pair 1118 was found to be defective. The technician stated it was due to water on the line. See the chapter, The Return of Cable Pair 1118.

DECEMBER 31, 1996

On December 31, 1996, the Pacific Bell technician who connected a fourth phone line (462-5093) to my premises for a computer modem could not find a good cable pair. Pacific Bell documents indicate she used cable pair 1118. She told me, "This is the best cable pair I can find... I hope it is not being used for a modem." The technician determined it was defective using a tool known as the "sidekick."

The fax shown above, signed by AT&T on 08/21/97, confirms that I had complained about the poor phone service for my phone number 462-5093, and corroborates that on December 31, 1996, the technician stated the cable pair was defective.

The log of defective cable pairs also confirms that on the date of 12/31/1996 the technician who installed service to my phone number 462-5093, told me the cable pair was defective. Proof that the technician found another cable pair assigned to my premises to be defective is cable pair 1131, which had a defect type of "OPN " on the date of 12/31/1996, and the address is in front of my premises.

The handwritten note showing that cable pair 1131 tested "OK" does not mean the cable pair would test "OK" at 4755 Woodthrush Ct, because the testing I photographed took place outside Woodthrush Court.

(above: Document from AT&T, compressed to fit this page)

SEPTEMBER 17, 1997

Less than four weeks later after I asked AT&T to test my phone lines, AT&T stated the crosstalk on my phone line was due to a "cable failure."

The document shown above was faxed to me in the evening, when "normal" phone company employees were not present.

The procedure that determined the line was defective was an MLT test (Mechanized Loop Test) — an automated test process that is normally used by every repair operator and repair technician.
Pacific Bell Testimony has no record of the cable failure for the date of September 1997, even though there is a ticket number assigned to the report. There is no documentation that the cable pair was ever repaired. The LMOS (Line Mainenance Operating System) should have a record of this trouble ticket, but if there is no record, then that is a federal violation.

Pacific Bell Testimony, exhibit 2, page 4

The document shown above was presented by Pacific Bell Testimony, exhibit 2, page 4.
On 01/31/98, Pacific Bell Testimony shows that my phone # 462-5093 was reported noisy. Testimony shows it was referred to a supervisor (who's name was redacted), and that there was no documentation of action to repair the line. I suspect the supervisor is the same supervisor who refused to test my phone lines on March 7, 1998.

On 02/11/98, Pacific Bell Testimony shows I reported no dial tone. While AT&T stated there was a "cable failure" (as a result of an MLT test performed by a Pacific Bell operator), Pacific Bell Testimony stated "No Trouble Found."

On 3/2/98, according to Pacific Bell Testimony, my phone number 462-5093 had another cable failure. It was "referred to [redacted] and cleared by construction." There is no evidence the cable pair was "repaired" or replaced.

Note that there is no record of the cable failures for the date of September 17, 1997 (previous page), or for the date of 02/18/98 (see next page).

Feb. 18, 1998

This document shows that there was a cable failure for my phone number 462-5093. An MLT test determined the cable pair was defective.

Pacific Bell Testimony shows no record of this cable failure. Furthermore, there is no record that the cable pair was ever repaired. This is corroborated by the testing that took place on Sept. 4, 2001, when cable splicing technicians found cable pair 1118 to be defective using TDR equipment.

EIGHT TIMES DEFECTIVE, ZERO REPAIRS

In summary, cable pair 1118 was found to be defective by operators with MLT testing, the installer who used a "sidekick," and cable splicing technicians who used TDR equipment. Furthermore, the phone company Attorney determined that cable pair 1118 was defective, because it was on the log of defective cable pairs. This proved that anybody, with any standard phone testing equipment, or access to the log of maintenance documents, could easily determine that cable pair 1118 was defective.

The only people who denied cable pair 1118 was defective were the supervisor who was at my premises on Feb. 13, 1997, and March 7, 1998, and the regional manager who offered me $2000 in 1996 and 1997. These are the people responsible for creating documents that caused Rule 11 to be imposed upon me.

The phone company Attorney did not deny that cable pair 1118 was defective, she committed perjury and denied that cable pair 1118 provided service to me. As a result of committing perjury to avoid expensive repair work, on May 19, 2006, AT&T used cable pair 1118 to provide service to my business fax line (846-3642). See "The Return of Cable Pair 1118."

last edited 01/07/08