"Mike and the FBI"

specific information to get the FBI to open an investigation on a corrupt cpuc judge named Janice Lynn Grau

The above noted phone number is a "smoking gun" that proves the phone company violated public utility laws each and every day since 1996. A corrupt Judge created fraudulant statements in her Decision to avoid the issue of the phone number. Furthermore, she stated that altered repair records were irrelevant (when Federal Laws require accurate records for PUC record gathering), and she refused to follow the rule of law for many other violations that required fines be paid to the State of California.

As a result of a lucky photograph of a document that could only be obtained through photography, I was able to link the phone number to a phone line that was known to be defective each and every day since 1996.

Any reasonable person can look at the above document and see the circled phone number has the last five digits of "25093." As noted on the above photograph, a "2" is flat on the bottom, and an "8" is round at the bottom. Furthermore, I was the only person on the above document with "RSA" (Resale) Service. The high resolution picture can be seen on this link: http://mikeandmabell.com/362_hi-res.html

To avoid paying millions of dollars in fines to the State of California, and to avoid paying for business losses caused by phone problems, fraud, and malicious behavior, the phone company Attorney, Stephanie Krapf, told the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) that the phone number has the last five digits of "85093."

After looking at the facts, I have determined that the Judge is corrupt and concealed the facts of the Complaint from the Commissioners. Many of the violations (the use of defective phone lines and altered repair records) are linked to Corporate frauds. The corrupt judge is so well protected by State law, that by law, the State of California cannot admit that the above phone number is mine.

I have contacted various government agencies to see who would be responsible for dealing with a corrupt CPUC judge: Hong Chang, at the Governor's San Francisco Office, told me he could not comment on the above phone number because it was "Complicated." The State Attorney General's Office refused to look at, or comment on the above photograph, telling me that the CPUC is a part of the State, and the law requires the Attorney General to protect the corrupt judge. The US Attorney Office (in Washington DC) told me to contact the Commission on Judicial Performance. The Commission on Judicial Performance (in San Francisco) told me that the Judges at the CPUC are not under their jurisidiction, and suggested the State Attorney General. I again contacted the State Attorney General's Office, and was told to contact the California Bureau of State Audits, which then told me to contact the State Attorney General's Office.

The government agency with Jurisdiction in Corruption and Corporate Frauds is the FBI. The FBI webpage on corruption makes it very clear that corruption is one of the FBI's top priorities. The following is on the FBI webpage Why Corruption Matters :

• Q: Does public corruption really have an impact on people's lives?
• A: Absolutely. Public corruption can take funding away from your child's school and even prevent your street from being re-paved. Police who take bribes endanger your neighborhood. And guess who ultimately foots the bill for these crimes? We all do...through higher taxes. The Government Accountability Office estimates that at least 10 percent of the funding for federal government programs is lost to public corruption and government fraud every year. We're talking tens of billions of dollars.

Likewise, the FBI webpage on Corporate Frauds makes it very clear that Corporate Frauds is also a very high priority, and this includes lying to a regulatory agency, and obstruction of justice.

The FBI webpage on Corporate Frauds states:

• "Corporate Fraud investigations involve the following activities:

• ( 1) Falsification of financial information, including:
  (a) False accounting entries [which includes altering repair records to conceal problems in the infrastructure]
  

• Obstruction of justice designed to conceal any of the above-noted types of criminal conduct, particularly when the obstruction impedes the inquiries of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), other regulatory agencies [such as the CPUC], and/or law enforcement agencies."

Based on the above statement on the FBI website, if the phone number shown above has the last five digits of "25093," and not "85093" as AT&T told the CPUC during a Formal Complaint, then this becomes an FBI matter involving Corporate Frauds, which includes falsifying documents to conceal problems in the infrastructue and obstruction of justice, by lying about documents obtained through photography.

I first contacted the FBI, via email on July 5, 2007, after speaking to phone repair expert, Don McCarty, about the trouble code "98" (http://mikeandmabell.com/FBI/History-WetCable.html). I received an email response from the FBI, that asked me to contact the San Francisco office ( read it).
Note: see below for links to a number of articles written by phone repair expert Don McCarty for "OSP How-To Network Solutions".

On July 6, 2007, by phone, I spoke to an FBI agent at the San Francisco office who told me his computer would not allow him to look at the webpage with the high resolution photograph. http://mikeandmabell.com/362_hi-res.html

I spent several months organizing this webpage with the facts obtained in July 2007, so the FBI would have an easy time understanding the frauds that are linked to the above photograph.

In October, I called the FBI, and the agent asked that I come to the San Francisco office. The nameless (due to "security" reasons) FBI agent I met at the San Francisco office on October 15, 2007 told me the FBI did not have the resources to investigate my complaint. He went on to tell me that the FBI did not have the money to buy paper for the photo-copy machine. When I asked the Agent what the above phone number looked like, he said, "I cannot make that determination." He then proceeded to tell me I was wasting the FBI's time. He also told me that if I were to repeatedly contact the FBI, he would charge me with harassment.

I contacted Congresswoman, Ellen Tauscher, by telephone on November 28, 2007. Her staff member looked at the above photograph, and quickly agreed that the phone number on the above document has the last five digits of "25093" and that the attorney committed perjury. He agreed this was an FBI matter, and he agreed to open a Congressional Inquiry, provided I fill out the appropriate form.

On January 7, 2008, I mailed the "help form" to my Congresswoman, asking the FBI to investigate the frauds and corruption linked to the above phone number. In a letter dated January 28, 2008, I was told that my complaint was sent to the FCC, and that I should have a response within 60 days.

In February 2008, I told the Congresswoman's assistant that I needed the FBI to investigate my Complaint. She told me she forwarded my Complaint to the FBI, and she said the FBI will contact me.

By April 2, 2008, I had not heard from the FBI, so I called the San Francisco office and spoke to another nameless duty agent, and asked him to look at the phone number on the top of this webpage. The duty agent told me he could not determine what the numbers were. I then drove down to the San Francisco FBI office, and asked to speak to the supervisor of the duty agent. Two nameless FBI agents came out to speak to me -- they refused to say if they thought the phone number shown above has the last five digits of "25093." The agents told me that I should not expect the FBI to investigate my Complaint.

On April 15, 2008, I received a letter from my Congresswoman, and the responses from the FCC and the FBI. The letter from the FBI ignored the evidence on this webpage, and advised me to contact the San Francisco office:

April 16, 2008. I called the FBI. First, I asked the (nameless) duty agent to look at the above letter so that he knew my Congresswoman was involved. Next, I asked the duty agent what the phone number at the top of this page looked like. The duty agent verbally told me that the above phone number has the last five digits of "25093." This was very encouraging, but at the same time, it was meaningless, unless the FBI was willing to state, in writing, that the phone number has the last five digits of "25093."

April 18, 2008. I mailed a letter to my congresswoman, begging that she ask the FBI to provide a declaration, in writing, as to whether the phone number has the last five digits of "25093" (as I claim), or "85093" (as the phone company attorney claims).

Tuesday, April 29, 2008. I spoke to a duty agent (agent Mandy). She asked me to explain why the phone number shown at the top of this page is within FBI jurisdiction -- I referred her to the FBI webpage on Corporate Frauds. The FBI agent asked me if the phone company lied about the phone number to prevent exposing other violations. Bingo!!! She said she needed some time to study this webpage, and said she would get back to me. On May 13, 2008, she called me to ask a few questions.

Friday, May 16, 2008. My Congresswoman mailed a letter to the FBI San Francisco office, asking if the phone number in the photograph is a "2" (as I claim) or an "8" (as AT&T claims), and to respond in writing, to me. My Congresswoman sent copies of the letter to the CPUC, the State Attorney General Jerry Brown, and Senator Don Perata.

The State Attorney General responded with the following letter, confirming it cannot investigate a corrupt judge or a corrupt commission -- State law forbids it. It should also be noted that I had already contacted the California Bureau of State Audits, which has done nothing.

The Attorney General had no legal obligation to respond to me. The tone of the letter was very polite -- unlike the letters I have received from the CPUC. My interpretation of the Attorney General letter is that it went as far as it could legally go, in saying this is an FBI matter, without actually saying this is an FBI matter. Cc'ing the letter to my Congresswoman reinforces my belief that the Attorney General wants my Congresswoman to continue to help me.

May 29, 2008. FBI Agent Mandy called me, and told me the photograph did not provide enough information to prove the phone number was mine. I told the FBI the phone number could be proven to be mine by looking at the letters "RSA." After our conversation, I added the webpage "RSA" (Resale) Service to identify the phone number as being mine based on the letters "RSA."

June 3, 2008. FBI Agent Mandy called and told me that my website was one-sided, and wanted to see the Briefs and Testimony. She agreed the number looked like a "2" but was concerned that I may have altered the photograph to make an "8" look like a "2." She asked for the MLT documents I received in Discovery.

June 4, 2008. I went to the FBI office in San Francisco. I asked to see Agent Mandy. She was not in, so I provided an FBI duty agent with Pacific Bell Testimony, Briefs, Response to the Appeal, the Response to the Application for Rehearing, as well as my Testimony, Briefs, Appeal, Application for Rehearing, and the MLT documents provided in Discovery. Sadly, according to agent Mandy, who called me on on July 8, 2008, the documents I provided on this date could not be found.

July 8, 2008. Agent Mandy called. She told me she did not receive the documents I provided to the FBI on June 4, 2007. She then asked questions that focused on the evidence that the cable pairs were defective and that Pacific Bell (now AT&T) lied about the condition of the cable pairs. She stated she would submit the evidence to her superiors to see if my complaint met the criteria necessary to open an investigation. I asked why the FBI couldn't just ask AT&T if the phone number was mine, and the FBI responded that it would have to open an investigation before it could ask such questions. She also stated that if AT&T continued to deny the above phone number was mine, that a jury would have to make the determination.

August 14, 2008. I called Agent Mandy, and asked what was happening with my complaint. I asked her if she received the documents that I provided to the FBI office on June 14, 2007. She told me she could not find them. She told me she forwarded my complaint to the corruption department. She told me that if I hadn't heard from the FBI, that they would not open an investigation, and that I should just "let it go."

August 15, 2008. My brother and I wrote to our Congresswoman, telling her that the SF FBI office refused to respond to her letter dated 05/16/08. Karen Tedford, my Congresswoman's case worker, was clearly frustrated by the situation. She asked me what I think needs to be done. I told her that because the SF Office won't answer the letter, she should send a letter to Kenneth W. Kaiser, the assistant director of the FBI, (who wrote the letter shown above, dated March 28, 2008), and ask that he answer the question of whether the number is a "2" or an "8".

last updated 08/22/08