The document that caused Rule 11 to be imposed upon me stated that "supervisor escorts" were sent with technicians because Pacific Bell considered me to be a "safety issue."

Since Rule 11 was imposed upon me, Pacific Bell/SBC technicians have been to my premises at least ten times without supervisor escorts. Documents I have obtained from technicians (and a supervisor), have no indications, whatsoever, that I am considered a "safety issue." There are, however, indications that supervisors are concealing recurring problems, and ordering technicians to lie about recurring problems.

Since 1996, I only know of three occasions that supervisor escorts were sent with a technician, and the last time a supervisor escort was sent, he was nowhere near my premises when the technician showed up.

In my case, the use of "Supervisor escorts" is a mechanism to illegally conceal recurring problems found on my phone lines.

The document that caused Rule 11 to be imposed upon me claims that a supervisor was at my premises on Feb. 13, 1997, and that no problems were found on my phone lines. The documents I photographed on Sept. 4, 2001, proved that at least one of my phone lines (cable pair 1118) was known to be defective since 1996, and there is evidence that my two business phone lines were also defective on Feb. 13, 1997 with a trouble code of "98.". According to Pacific Bell, "the supervisor escort" found no problems.

On March 7, 1998 a "supervisor escort" was at my premises, and an outside contractor (hired by AT&T) noted the behavior of the supervisor as "very unprofessional." On this date, there is overwhelming evidence that three out of four of my phone lines were defective: cable pair 1118 was on the log of defective cable pairs, and MLT tests around that time period showed both of my business phone lines had a trouble code "98," an indication of multiple troubles. According to Pacific Bell, the "supervisor escort" found no problems.

In July, 2007, Pacific Bell (now the New AT&T), contacted me as a result of a magazine editor (Don McCarty) contacting AT&T about recurring problems on my business phone lines. On July 5, and July 6, a manager named Grant Trail repeatedly told me there was nothing wrong with my phone lines, but he refused to provide any test results.

On July 9, 2007, a technician showed up at my premises alone. He stated he was there because of my complaint about static on my phone line. I told the technician I did not report static — I reported I was not receiving faxes. I asked the technician if the MLT test showed any problems, and the technician told me it did not. The technician asked for access to my backyard to test my phone lines, and he refused to provide me with any paperwork. The technician acted strangely, and this caused me to get in my car take a look around the neighborhood.

I found a "supervisor escort" a few blocks away at the B-box on 4490 Mohr Ave. I obtained the above document from him. The "supervisor escort" told me he was there to repair the NDT (No Dial Tone) complaint on my phone line. I told the supervisor I did not report an NDT problem, and demanded to see the work-order. Surprisingly, the supervisor allowed me to look at it, at which point, I took it into my car, photographed it, and returned it.

The document proved that AT&T had already determined that there was static on my business fax line, and this proved that the technician lied to me when he told me there were no problems on my phone lines.

The only logical explanation for the "supervisor escort" was to conceal the recurring problems on my business phone lines. The fact that the technician lied to me to gain access to my backyard is further evidence that supervisors are ordering technicians to cover-up problems.