Return to "After the Formal Complaint" Main Page ||| Previous Document ||| Next Document
The Defective Judge and the "admittedly defective DAML"
Corruption is a top priority at the FBI. See The FBI webpage on corruption.
The FBI website Why Corruption Matters states:
The scary fact is that when I have called the FBI to report the corrupt Judge, the FBI refused to take me seriously. With a new President in Office, I believe that in the near future, the corrupt Judge will have to answer to the FBI.
The Judge, Janice Lynn Grau, who presided over the Formal Complaint is a corrupt Judge. O'NEILL, Edward W, a private Attorney who used to work at the CPUC as a lawyer and a Judge, described Janice Grau as being "Quirky, lazy, and her Decisions are not based on the evidence." Mr. O'Neill went on to tell me that the CPUC is "hostile towards consumers."
Several years later, when I contacted Mr. O'Neill, he went on to say that most Judges at the Commission can be described as, ".. not making their Decisions on the evidence."
In the Judge's Decision for the Appeal (not the original Decision), the Judge created an "admittedly defective DAML." The DAML was never found to be defective -- evidence that the Judge is corrupt. Other evidence the Judge is corrupt can be found on this webpage: No Signatures by any Commissioners, and plausible deniability
Through this webpage, I am asking the FBI to contact the Judge, Janice Grau, and ask her how she determined the DAML was "admittedly defective." Janice Grau's office is only 1/4 mile away from the FBI building, so it would only take a few minutes for the FBI to walk to the CPUC and ask Janice Grau this question.
I am also asking the FBI to contact the phone company to find out if the phone company (now the New AT&T) ever determined that the DAML was found to be defective.
During the Formal Complaint, the Judge called me several times, and asked me to change my Formal Complaint to an Expedited Complaint. An Expedited Complaint does not use a court reporter, there is no Discovery, and there is virtually nothing in the record -- in other words, I would give up my right for Discovery and to cross-examine witnesses. At the first prehearing conference, the Judge Ruled that Discovery would be stopped for several months. Later on, the Judge ruled that the Formal Complaint would be in writing, and that there would be no cross-examination (when I asked her why she was doing this, she told me it was not her decision). Furthermore, the Judge Ruled that almost everthing that was said at the prehearing conferences was off the record -- the court reporter, reported very little. It was as if the Judge changed the Formal Complaint to an Expedited Complaint, and then let it drag on for over two years.
During the Formal Complaint, for procedural advice, I asked the Judge if she understood the information in the documents I photographed. The photographs had been provided to the Commission in my Ammendment to the Complaint. Janice Grau told me she could ask experts within the CPUC -- therefore, at the time, it seemed unnecessary for me to know the meaning of the trouble codes because the Judge would have that information. Now that I know the meaning of the Trouble Code 98, I know the Judge Grau is corrupt.
In Testimony and Briefs, I showed that Pacific Bell willfully violated laws by using defective phone lines to provide service to me. I proved that cable pair 1118 was on the log of defective cable pairs, and that it provided service to my phone number 925-462-5093. I showed that both of my business phone lines had a trouble code of "98" (an indication of a "cable failure") on the day that Pacific Bell Answered the Complaint (August 31, 2001), and I was able to prove the trouble code "98" was cleared on one of the phone lines on Sept. 6, 2001, as a result of repair work performed from Sept 4 through Sept 6 (and which the phone company denied) See: Four trucks and photographs of the first two acts of perjury. I also proved the altered repair records was linked to the ongoing service problems, because Pacific Bell stated that cable maintenance is dependent on repair records.
The use of defective cable pairs, the Altered Repair Records , and the Trouble Code "98" were the precise causes of the service quality problems that went on from 1996-2001. The Judge, however, completely ignored the evidence in her Decisions, and made her Decision based on something that was never in the Record.
It should also be noted that in the original Decision, the Judge's discussion about the DAML never mentioned that it was defective -- she stated:
On page 8 and 9 of the Judge's Decision for the Appeal, the Judge wrote:
The DAML unit (explained below) was never, at any time, determined to be defective. Moreover, the DAML was removed in November 1996 — so the DAML could not be responsible for the service quality problems that occurred after November 1996.
I have reviewed the Pacific Bell/SBC Testimony, and Pacific Bell/SBC Briefs, and there is nothing in the record that states the "DAML unit" was ever found to be defective, or "admittedly defective". In addition, I have reviewed correspondence I have had with Pacific Bell since 1996. The only person who has ever stated the DAML was defective was the Judge.
When Pacific Bell offered me $500 in October 1996, there was no indication the DAML was defective. See: http://mikeandmabell.com/PB_Claim_Release.html
When Pacific Bell offered me $2000 in November 1996, there was no indication the DAML was found to be defective. See: http://mikeandmabell.com/PBLetter_11-22-96.html
In March 1997, four months after the DAML was removed, Pacific Bell blamed the service problems of 1996 on "intermittently defective" service wires buried below my driveway — it was a fraud committed by Pacific Bell to avoid admitting the phone lines in the street were the cause of service problems in 1996, but it proves that Pacific Bell never, at any time, claimed (or implied) the DAML was defective. See: http://mikeandmabell.com/PBLetter_3-4-97.html
By removing the Judge's untrue statements about the DAML, and removing the word "precise", it is very easy to see what she accomplished:
The evidence shows the Judge purposefully, and wrongfully, stated the DAML was defective, to avoid the issue of defective phone lines (cable pair 1118 providing service to my residential phone number 925-462-5093), altered repair records, and the trouble code "98" that was on both of my business phone lines on the day that Pacific Bell Answered the Complaint.
Logically, if Judge Grau cannot cite the information from the Record - it means she conspired with the phone companies to get the Complaint dismissed by making fraudulent statements in her Decision, and it also provides evidence of exparte communication.
If the FBI finds the Judge, Janice Grau, cannot answer the question about the DAML using information in the Record, it means the State of California needs to establish a "Telecommunications Bill of Rights" which will allow consumers to test the phone lines providing service to their premises so that consumers can protect themselves from corrupt Judges.
More Violations to Public Utility Law
Janice Grau's Decision stated:
AT&T resale employees told me that they could not order Pacific Bell to repair my phone lines. AT&T resale suggested I move. This is an absolute violation to public utility law. Service should not vary due to locations. There is no physical difference between cable pairs providing business service or residencial service. Furthermore, AT&T and Pacific Bell charged me for commercial phone service. Only a corrupt judge would ignore this fact.
If the phone company is aware of problems with the infrastructure, the law requires the phone company to fix the problems.
If it were legal for the phone company to tell a consumer to move (because the phone company did not want to repair defective phone lines), how would the consumer know that he/she is moving to an area that has better phone service? The fact is, providing better service in different neighborhoods is discrimination. If it was legal to tell consumers to move because the phone company doesn't want to repair defective phone lines, the phone company would have the power to change the value of neighborhoods (and individual homes).
MORE EVIDENCE OF CORRUPTION
The Judge Ruled that AT&T repeatedly violated my rights to privacy, but she refused to fine AT&T. A legal expert, Richard Smith (who is now an Administrative Law Judge at the CPUC), sent me an email explaining very precisely how she violated the Rule of law, See: Legal error, and evidence of corruption
Heyser v. AT&T, another failure to follow the Rule of Law
The Heyser v. AT&T case was filed by Mr. Heyser because AT&T changed charges to many AT&T customers (including members of his family), when, according to Mr. Heyser, no Tariffs allowed such changes.
Mr. Heyser used to work at Pacific Bell, and when he worked at Pacific Bell, he represented Pacific Bell in informal complaints -- he knew the law.
I watched the Hearing, and there was no specific Tarriff that allowed such changes. In fact, the Judge Ruled that AT&T did not comply with Tariffs until after Mr. Heyser filed a Formal Complaint (at great cost to the State of California). Ms. Grau wrote:
The fact is, AT&T violated law by not complying with AT&T tariffs. The law required AT&T to be fined for violating law. The Judge refused to fine AT&T.
I had several conversations with Mr. Heyser. According to Mr. Heyser, AT&T got to keep the money it wrongfully charged other customers.
STORY OF THE DAML
The "DAML" provides evidence that in 1995, Pacific Bell had run out of non-defective phone lines on Woodthrush Ct.
A "DAML" (Digital Added Main Line) is an electronic device used to provide phone service to two phone lines through one cable pair — it is similar to DSL (Digital Subscriber Line), and it requires good phone lines. A DAML is expensive, and is only used when the phone company runs out of spare cable pairs. Some people call the DAML a "splitter" because it electronically splits a single cable pair to run two phone lines.
(Click the following link to read a definition of DAML with reference to Pacific Bell's use of them. This definition of the DAML indicates that Pacific Bell "found no facilities in their area.")
Before I moved to Woodthrush Ct, I lived on Stoneridge Drive. At Stoneridge Drive, there were only two cable pairs providing service to my premises. In order to have a third phone line installed, I had to add a third cable pair to my premises, at my expense, which I did.
Before I moved to Woodthrush Ct in April 1995, I contacted Pacific Bell to see about adding more cable pairs from the house to the street, because only two cable pairs ran from the house to the street. Pacific Bell told me I did not need to add more cable pairs from the house to the street. Instead, Pacific Bell used a DAML.
In 1996, my business phone lines had five separate "cable failures." Because both of my business phone lines were on the DAML — both of my business phone lines were not functional when the cable pair failed. Cable splicing technicians repaired the phone lines five times in 1996. The "cable splicers" told me they "flipped" cable pairs four different times, and on the fifth time, the defect was at a junction box.
Each time the cable splicers "flipped" a cable pair, it should have been noted in the LMOS. — according to Pacific Bell, there is no record of the cable failures.
According to the repair technicians who had repeatedly repaired the phone lines to my premises in 1996, the poor condition of the cable buried in the street could not provide proper service for the DAML. According to the technicians, the best solution was to replace the cables in the street, but Pacific Bell management refused to do this because it would have been very expensive due to the "direct buried" construction. "Direct buried" means there was no conduit, and the street needed to be dug up or horizontally bored — this is expensive work which requires permits, outside contractors, and cable splicers. The cost to repair the cable could have cost tens of thousands of dollars — perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The cable splicing technicians who had been to my premises told me that phone lines don't need to be perfect for "non-DAML" service, so in October 1996, I agreed that removing the DAML seemed to be the best solution. In November 1996, Pacific Bell removed the DAML, added more cable pairs from the street to my premises, and offered me $2000 due to the service problems which affected my business.
When the phone problems continued in Feb. 1997, operators told me they could not perform an MLT test. I contacted Rick Resnick about the problems, and he sent a supervisor to my premises, but he did nothing more than check for dial tone (which is not an adequate test). The supervisor stated he did not know why the operators could not perform an MLT test. (recent evidence indicates that management had put "Protected Services" on my phone lines and sent Supervisor Escorts to conceal problems).
In March 1997, when I complained to upper management about the continuing phone service problems, Pacific Bell claimed the service problems I experienced in 1996 were caused by an "intermittently defective" 2-pair buried drop, that ran from the street to my premises. Pacific Bell documents indicate that Pacific Bell management thought the two-pair buried phone lines running from the street to my premises had been removed, and could never be tested. The fact is, the two-pair buried drop was under a cement driveway, it was never removed, and was still available for testing.
In early 1998, after switching to AT&T, my phone lines lost phone service 5 times from February 1998 to March 1998. Each time, AT&T operators told me it was due to a "cable failure." This caused AT&T to investigate why I was losing service so frequently. A contractor hired by AT&T tested the abandoned 2-pair buried cable under my cement driveway on March 7, 1998 , and determined it was "OK," corroborating that Pacific Bell was concealing the true cause of the service problems (which was the defective phone lines in the street). If I would have filed a Formal Complaint at that time, Pacific Bell could claimed the two pair buried drop was "intermittently defective," and the testing by AT&T did not prove anything.
The fact is, the DAML was never found to be defective. Pacific Bell/SBC never stated or implied the DAML was defective. I have never stated or implied the DAML was defective. Only the Judge stated the DAML was "admittedly defective." An insider at the Commission told me that when Janice Grau worked at the Rate Payers Advocates Group, her attention to details was phenomenal, and that she would never make such a mistake.
The evidence shows that when Pacific Bell removed the DAML, there were no more non-defective cable pairs available. In 1996, Pacific Bell provided service to my phone number (925-462-5093) through cable pair 1118, which was on the log of defective cable pairs.
Additional proof that my business phone lines were defective from 1996-2001 is that after Pacific Bell cleared the troubles on my business phone lines in September 2001, my business had steady growth rate, and record sales from 2002 through 2005, proof of the harm caused by defective phone lines when my business had inconsistent growth, as well as years of declining sales when the trouble code "98" was on my business phone lines. The growth rate after September 2001 was consistent with the growth rate before I moved to Woodthrush Ct in April 1995. Using a simple graph, and extrapolating for the next ten years, the losses to my business are in the millions of dollars.
last edited 03/13/09
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