to Mike and Ma Bell Pages; Back to Pacific Bell Page; Back to Mike and the FBI Pages
Go to CPUC Pages, See pages regarding Formal Complaint filed with the CPUC.
Acknowledge It's Mine, and Save the country Billions
Rough draft ,
Dear Mr. President,
The purpose of this website is to get someone in the United States Government to determine whether the last five digits of the phone number noted in the above photograph has the last five digits of "25093" as I claim, or "85093" as an AT&T Attorney claimed, in a Formal Complaint filed through the CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission).
A document, called the "log of defective cable pairs" proves the phone number, noted above, received service through a phone line that was known to be defective. Nobody has disputed that fact.
If you determine that the phone number in the above photograph has the last five digits of "25093," it will prove that there is nothing that consumers can do to protect themselves when a Utility, like AT&T or Comcast or Verizon, decides that they don't want to fix their infrastructure.
When an Attorney lies in a legal process, such as the CPUC's Formal Complaint, it is considered a "Fraud Upon the Court."
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has set forth five elements of fraud upon the court which consist of conduct:
"1. On the part of an officer of the court;
2. That is directed to the `judicial machinery' itself;
3. That is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth;
4. That is a positive averment or is concealment when one is under a duty to disclose;
5. That deceives the court." Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338, 348 (6th Cir.1993).
When a Fraud Upon the Court is like tax fraud and murder, there is no statute of limitations. At this time, the minimum fine for the violations to Public Uility laws would exceed $15 million. The maximum fines could exceed $500 million. The money would go to the California General Fund.
Another important point about "Fraud Upon the Court" is how it affects the attorney-client privilege. AT&T can lose it's attorney-client privilege due to the "crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege."
The most important reason for the Government to determine if the phone number has the last five digits of "25093" is to establish the need for a Telecommunications Consumer's Bill of Rights. Telecommunications Consumer's Bill of Rights.
Congresswoman Tauscher's staff determined that AT&T lied about the phone number, and had written to the FBI on on May 16, 2008, asking the FBI to determine if AT&T lied. Congresswoman Tauscher, letter May 16, 2008
After the FBI refused to respond to Congresswoman Tauscher's letter, her staff in Washington DC told me it would be up to the Executive Branch of Government to answer the question about the phone number, hence the website, www.APhoneNumberForThePresident.com
If the phone number has the last five digits of "25093" as I claim, it means my phone number, 462-5093, received service through a defective phone line from the very first day it was installed, and this is linked to other frauds to conceal that three out of four of the phone lines to my premises were defective for years, and this included both of my business phone lines.
If the phone number has the last five digits of "25093," it means AT&T Attorneys committed numerous Frauds Upon the Court to avoid paying fines to the State of California (which could have exceeded $100 million dollars), and it allowed AT&T to avoid repairing its infrastructure, and it allowed AT&T to avoid paying for business losses.
In legal terms, the phone number is an absolute. It is either absolutely my phone number (462-5093) or it absolutely isn't.
In a Formal Complaint that dragged on for over two years, the CPUC (Judges and Commissioners) made no mention of the documents I photographed, or the fact that AT&T was knowingly using defective phone lines in my neighborhod, in any of its Decisions (which includes the original Decision, the Decision to the Appeal, and the Decision for the Application for Rehearing).
Another "absolute," is that absolutely no one at the CPUC is allowed to answer the question of whether or not AT&T lied to the CPUC. If you don't believe me, keep reading...
In a letter dated August 22, 2011, Carol Brown, the Chief of Staff to CPUC President Michael Peevey, told me that Peevey wanted me to work with CPUC Executive Director, Paul Clanon. Carol Brown Email August 22, 2011.
The email from Carol Brown appears to be a "sweet note" written to waste my time, with the hope that I "will throw a fit." An email proves Carol Brown told PG&E to do this on April 25, 2013, to help PG&E avoid answering questions to the City of San Bruno. Carol Brown infamous "Sweet Note" email
I first spoke to Executive Director, Paul Clanon on August 22, 2011. After over eight months of stonewalling me, on April 27, 2012, Mr. Clanon told me that nobody at the CPUC (under the leadership of CPUC President, Michael Peevey), has the authority to determine whether or not AT&T lied in the Formal Complaint Process.
For other excerpts and the full conversations, which include the MP3 recordings, see this link: Clanon Conversations August 2011, April 2012
The recordings are legal. In November 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals about recording government employees.
CPUC Code 1759
In 2016, an FBI Agent also told me that I should get an attorney. What the FBI Agent did not understand, is that the CPUC has so much power, that I cannot sue AT&T in court, because AT&T can say the CPUC Ruled in their favor, and per CPUC code 1759, no other courts can overrule the Decision.
CPUC Code 1759 states:
No court of this state, except the Supreme Court and the court of appeal, to the extent specified in this article, shall have jurisdiction to review, reverse, correct, or annul any order or decision of the commission or to suspend or delay the execution or operation thereof, or to enjoin, restrain, or interfere with the commission in the performance of its official duties, as provided by law.
The Court of Appeals will not accept new evidence, and furthermore, it has a history of dismissing suits.
I can’t go to the California Supreme Court, unless I first go through the Court of Appeals.
A well-known attorney, by the name of Mike Aguirre, is in a similar situation as myself. Mr. Aguirre has been unsuccessful at getting the Court of Appeals to overrule the CPUC in a rate-setting case involving the San Onofre nuclear power plant.
Documents obtained in a search warrant of former CPUC President, Michael Peevey, prove Mr. Peevey had a secret meeting with the Utility, outlining how the Commission would Rule in the case against San Onofre.
See the link by “Public Watchdogs” which shows a circular flowchart that explains:
“…the legal Catch-22 that allows the CPUC to violate your rights and the California Constitution with impunity.”
Unless I can get the FBI to state that AT&T used defective phone lines, and lied in the CPUC Formal Complaint process, I can never prevail in a civil suit.
CORRUPT PEEVEY PRACTICES:
Initially, the Judge had scheduled three-days of cross examination. In March or April of 2002, the Judge called me, and told me there would be no cross-examination, and that the Formal Complaint would be done in writing. When I asked her why, she told me it was not her decision -- indicating that the Judge had been ordered to behave corruptly by high-level CPUC officials.
If there had been cross-examination, it would have been very easy to ask AT&T questions about the documents I had photographed.
Michael Peevey arrived at the CPUC in March 2002. It appears he was involved in making sure that there would be no cross-examination. An editorial by Former CPUC President, Lorreta Lynch, dated December 19, 2014, describes some of the corrupt practices of Michael Peevey. She wrote:
"Under Peevey, the commission ignored the law, the press and the public in order to do the utilities’ bidding. PUC decisions became divorced from facts or science and were unfettered by public oversight. Fueled by illegitimate backroom deals, parties were pressured into settlements instead of examining utility records, cross-examining witnesses under oath, and participating in full evidentiary hearings that develop facts to support the PUC’s decisions."
9/11, 2001, A SIGNIFICANT EVENT WHICH HELPED PEEVEY'S CORRUPT PRACTICES
Someone asked me the simple question, "How could Peevey behave so corruptly for so many years, without being investigated?"
A significant fact that allowed Peevey to violate laws were the events of 9/11, 2001. Peevey arrived at the CPUC in March 2002.
Prior to 9/11, the FBI had a significant amount of resources for white collar crime/corruption. After 9/11, the FBI diverted its resources towards fighting terriorism.
In 2007, when I first asked the FBI to investigate the CPUC, the FBI Agent told me it had limited resources, due to it's fight against terrorism.
BEFORE THE SAN BRUNO FIRE
In unofficial conversations, CPUC employees, the FBI, my Congressman's staff, and the Senator's staff have all agreed the number appears to have the last five digits of "25093," and they all agreed that it appears that AT&T lied. Unfortunately, nobody will "Officially" agree to investigate if AT&T lied.
In 2009, an FBI Agent told me, "Attorney's Lie, Judges are corrupt. Let it go." The FBI agent probably didn't realize that the AT&T Attorney Answered the Formal Complaint,"Under Penalty of Perjury."
It is very rare for an Attorney to make a statement "Under Penalty of Perjury." But in the Answer to the Formal Complaint, the AT&T Attorney Answered the Complaint, "Under Penalty of Perjury."
Eight dead bodies, a fictional phone number, and a sham charity
The CPUC's refusal to answer the question of whether or not the phone number has the last five digits of "25093" or "85093, can now be linked to the corrupt behavior at the CPUC that surfaced after a gas pipe line failed, and killed eight people.
On September 9, 2010, an underground PG&E pipeline failed, causing a huge fire that killed 8 people, injured and burned dozens more, and destroyed 38 houses.
In 2013, the City of San Bruno sued the CPUC in Superior Court to get emails. The emails proved that during the years of 2010 through 2014, top CPUC Officials (Michael Peevey, Carol Brown, Michel Florio, Paul Clanon) helped PG&E avoid fines, get favorable judges, and raise rates after the fire.
In a blog dated August 8, 2012, a person who goes by the name "Yolo Rabbi" stumbled across a $2 million money trail which showed evidence that the CPUC conspired with Utilities to avoid paying fines to the California State General Fund. Instead of paying fines, the CPUC arranged for the Utilities to funnel money to a sham charity, CaliforniaALL. See: http://lesliebrodie.blog.co.uk/2012/08/08/
According to another blog, another $30 million of money was funneled to CCPF (California Consumer Protection Foundation). See:
The $32 million dollar money trail can be linked to ex-CPUC Commissioner Geoffrey Brown.
Geoffrey Brown was the Commissioner assigned to the Formal Complaint I filed in 2001. Geoffrey Brown is the boyfriend of the infamous "sweet note" Carol Brown. Geoffrey Brown is the cousin to Govenor Jerry Brown, and Geoffrey Brown is good friends with Michael Peevey.
Carol Brown is the Chief of Staff to CPUC President Michael Peevey. Carol Brown, Geoffrey Brown, Michael Peevey (and his wife, State Senator Carol Liu ) would go on expensive "business trips" paid for by the Utilities they regulate.
According to "NBC Investigates," Public records show that since 2003, Peevey has accepted more than $230,000 worth of free trips and traveled out of his office more than 200 days.
Loretta Lynch, a former president of the CPUC, talked about the "business trips" stating, the California Foundation on the Environment and the Economy (CFEE) contacted her to ask where she wanted to travel. Commissioner Lynch refused to go on such trips. The Utility Reform Network (TURN) decried CFEE trips as "lobbying junkets."
Emails obtained by the Law Firm of Aguirre & Severson, LLP, show that Peevey was also going to expensive dinner meetings with Utility employees he was suppose to regulate.
An Email, dated May 31, 2010, from PG&E's Brian Cherry, confirms that Peevey was corruptly asking for money, in exchange for favors. The email mentions that AT&T confirmed it would contribute $100,000 to a CPUC Fundraising dinner. Cherry wrote:
"Mike [Peevey] has put together a Committee headed by Pete Arth, Steve Larson and Bill Bagley who are forming a 501.3c committee (under Mike's oversight). He expects PG&E, Sempra, Edison and AT&T to contribute $100,000 each to the celebration committee (Edison and AT&T have already confirmed they will contribute) ."
I now believe Geoffrey Brown, Michael Peevey, Carol Brown, and others, had corrupted the Formal Complaint, in order to funnel money to sham charities and other entities, while enriching themselves with expensive travel and meals.
Evidence that Commissioner Geoffrey Brown was involved in the money laundering scheme is his Decision to refuse to impose fines upon the Utility for violations to Public Utility Law. An Email I received from Richard Smith (currently a CPUC Administrative Law Judge), states that the CPUC violated the Rule of Law by refusing to impose fines upon AT&T.
See: http://mikeandmabell.com/FBI/History-More_Info-2.html The Corrupt Judge and legal error
Refusing to follow the Rule of Law, is considered a Fraud Upon the Court. Logically, there was a reason to refuse to follow the Rule of Law. In my earliest conversations with the FBI (2007), the FBI told me it needed a money trail to prove corruption. I had no such knowledge of any money trail prior to 2012.
The blogs on the Leslie Brodie Report provide evidence of a money trail, the motive to refuse to follow the Rule of Law, and the motive to fabricate fraudulant statements in the CPUC's Decisions to my Formal Complaint. See: Mike and the FBI
An issue with "National Security."
An internal phone company document I photographed dated March 16, 2009 can be used to prove that no such phone number, with the last five digits of "85093," existed in my neighborhood. The document can also be used to prove that AT&T lied to the CPUC about the number of non-defective cable-pairs serving my neighborhood.
In 2010, an Official in the AT&T Presidents Office (Gary Coppers 415-542-9063) learned that I had the document dated March 16, 2009. Mr. Coppers began yelling at me, saying it was proprietary information, and that he was going to have to report me to "National Security."
When I told Mr. Coppers I obtained the document legally, he asked, "What do you want to settle?" I hung up.
I have yet to hear from "National Security," but in November 2011, an FBI agent admitted the FBI has a data base which can be used with the March 16, 2009 document, to determine if AT&T lied about the number with the last five digits of "85093."
The biggest mistake of my life -- complaining about altered records
In March of 1997, I made the biggest mistake of my life. I filed an informal complaint through the California Public Utilities Commission, complaining about telecom executives altering records to conceal recurring problems in the underground infrastructure which affected my business phone lines. March 28, 1997
Threats of Bodily Harm
As a result of filing the informal complaint in March of 1997, the telecom responded by accusing me of threatening its employees with bodily harm, and imposing Rule 11 upon me. April 3, 1997. An Attorney who looked at the letter told me it was a standard form letter written with the intent to intimidate me.
According to a conversation with CPUC employee, Marco Valenti, a lot of consumers were receiving similar letters from the Pacific Bell legal department, after filing informal complaints with the CPUC.
In 1997, Mr. Valenti did nothing to investigate this behavior.
I received a letter from Mr. Valenti in August, 2009. He was still behaving about the same as he was back in 1997. Email from CPUC CAB
Proof of Fraud
The above circled phone number, if proven to have the last five digits of "25093", provides legal proof that the telecom's claims that I threatened employees with bodily harm, lacks any credibility.
CPUC Formal Complaint -- Threats to kill, non-existent supporting documents, and non -existent jargon.
In July 2001, I filed a Formal Complaint through the CPUC, complaining about recurring phone service problems. August 1 , 2001
In response to the Formal Complaint, the Telecom claimed the underground infrastructure was in good condition. The Telecom also claimed I repeatedly threatened to kill it's employees. August 31, 2001.
There are no police reports or other documents to support such claims, as required by company policy.
Recently, a source told me that jargon used in a document claiming I had threated to kill people, did not exist during the time period that AT&T claimed the letter was written.
Internal phone company documents, proof of fraud
Four days after the Telecom Answered the Complaint, and claimed there was nothing wrong with the underground infrastructure, four telecom repair trucks showed up. Four trucks and photographs of the first two acts of perjury
I photographed some of the internal documents the repair technicians were using. At the time, I didn't know the significance of the documents, but years later, I found out they proved that 3 out of 4 of my phone lines had been defective for years. http://www.mikeandmabell.com/359_hi-res.html
At the first Pre-hearing conference, I showed the internal documents to the telecom attorney (Michael Sasser) who claimed I threatened to kill its employees. The telecom attorney broke out in a cold sweat -- at that moment, I knew the documents were very important.
Afterwards, the Mr. Sasser resigned from the case, and the telecom never again stated I threatened to kill its employees, or that I threatened bodily harm upon its employees.
Altered documents and false definitions -- Obstruction of Justice
I could not find out the meaning of the documents because an Attorney (Michelle Galbraith) altered documents and definitions to conceal the true meanings of the trouble code 98. This was another Fraud Upon the Court.
In addition, Ms. Galbraith claimed they could not find a document I photographed, which was later defined as a "log of defective cable pairs." She later resigned from the Complaint.
Definition of Document in Briefs
In Briefs, the telecom attorney (Stephanie Elena Krapf) described one of the documents I photographed as a Log of Defective Cable Pairs.
This "log of defective cable pairs" proved that my residential phone number, 462-5093, was defective since the first day it was connected to my premises -- indicating that the underground infrastructure was defective, and that costly repairs were required. To avoid paying fines to the State of California, the Telecom Attorney (Stephanie Elena Krapf) told the CPUC the phone number was not mine, and it had the last five digits of "85093 (See photo at top of page). "85093" A fictional phone number and a blatent act of perjury.
Other documents I photographed confirmed that my two business phone lines were defective (with a trouble code 98) on the day that the telecom Answered the Complaint.
Documents AT&T provided in Discovery confirmed that the phone lines had been defective for years, with the same trouble code. Unfortunatly, AT&T had erased the number "98" from one of the documents, and reworded the definition of the trouble code "98." To avoid paying fines to the State of California, in Briefs, the Telecom Attorney, Stephanie Krapf, told the CPUC the trouble code "98" was not an indication of trouble on the phone lines. Trouble Code 98
(Note: an Email between a friend and an expert in Trouble Codes indicates the expert has the answer to the question, but is prohibited from responding because, "The LoopCare documentation is a licensed product and is only disclosed to customers who have purchased the LoopCare system or has an active maintenance agreement with Tollgrade. " Email with MLT Expert I forwarded the unredacted email to the FBI. I also forwarded the email to the CPUC Executive Director, Paul Clanon, asking him to investigate if AT&T lied.
Defective phone lines, altered and missing records.
Using information from the documents I obtained through photography, I was able to prove and that records were altered and/or missing, and that the phone company was knowingly using defective phone lines.
The telecom acknowledged that records were altered and/or missing.
The Telecom did not dispute that defective phone lines were being used in my neighborhood, which proves that when Michael Sasser Answered the Complaint had committed a Fraud Upon the Court.
On page 3 of the Answer to the Complaint, Michael Sasser stated:
Pacific further avers that the underground facilities providing service in the area of Complainant's residence are neither worn out nor in need of replacement.
Note that in the Definition for Fraud Upon The Court, the word, "averment" is used.
CPUC rules that Altered and missing records is acceptable
The telecom told the CPUC to ignore the altered and missing records.
The Commission (including CPUC President Michael Peevey) ruled that it was OK for the records to be missing and altered. Altered Repair Records
The Commission made no comment about the documents I photographed, or the fact that the phone company was knowingly using defective phone lines in my neighborhood.
Most of the Commissioners, including CPUC President, Michael Peevey, have the perfect alibi. The Corrupt Judge and the Denial for Rehearing (I have since come to the conclusion that the Judge was not the "mastermind" behind the corruption).
Commissioner Geoffrey Brown and the Sham Charity.
Commissioner Geoffrey Brown, who was assigned to my Formal Complaint, does not appear to have a good alibi. Commissioner Brown is a cousin to the current Govenor of California, Jerry Brown.
According to the "Leslie Brody Report," Geoffrey Brown is being investigated for criminal acts linked to a sham charity organization which accepted money from the Utilities he had regulated, and this includes AT&T. CPUC Commissioner involved in sham charity
Besides being linked to the sham charity, CaliforniALL, Geoffrey Brown was involved in a Fundraiser for the CPUC 100 year anniversary dinner, which took most of its donations from the Utilities it regulates. This is a clear example of Conflict of Interest. cpuc-fundraiser.
According to a Search Warrant, dated 01/23/15, the warrant was looking for information about the CPUC 100 year anniversary dinner:
"Any records, correspondence, or documentation between CHERRY, PEEVEY, redacted, and others, tending to show ex parte communications, judge shopping, bribery, Obstruction of Justice or due administration of laws, favors or preferential treatment related to HECA, the CPUC 100 year anniversary dinner, the 2014 GRC, rate incentives and other matters coming before PUC stored on the following items from December 2009 until current and not limited to: ..."
The Corrupt Judge and the Defective DAML
To avoid the issue of the use of defective phone lines, and the altered and missing repair records, the Judge created the defective DAML, blaming all service problems on a piece of telecom equipment that had been removed from my premises in November 1996.
The DAML was never found to be defective, and this shows clear evidence of ex parte communication, and conspiracy to commit fraud.
The Corrupt Judge and the "admittedly defective DAML"
More threats of Bodily Harm. More evidence of corruption.
On October 22, 2010, after the PG&E explosion, I contacted CPUC Safety Director, Richard Clark, and Executive Director, Paul Clanon, requesting a meeting to discuss problems at the CPUC that they may not be aware of.
On November 2, 2010, the State Police showed up at my front door. The Officers told me that the Judge was worried I was going to harm her. I had no contact with the Judge in over six years, except for two emails three years earlier (October 2007, letting her know that her refusal to follow the Rule of Law led to more phone problems.
The only contact I had with the CPUC since the PG&E pipeline explosion was with Richard Clark's Office and Paul Clanon's office.
The officers told me they read the emails I sent to Clark and Clanon, and that there was nothing illegal or threatening. This provides evidence that Clark and Clanon are trying to intimidate people who have evidence of fraud committed by the CPUC. The California Highway Patrol, the Corrupt Judge, and the Police Report
I had a couple of meetings with Richard Clark back in March of 2001. Richard Clark is hostile towards consumers and very unprofessional. The letter from our meeting proves that Richard Clark decided to look the other way when answers to my questions proved the telecom was violating laws. April 27, 2001
A report by the State Senate Office Oversight Committee, dated July 16, 2010, provides evidence that the CPUC's CAB Division, which is headed by Richard Clark, has a history of refusing to respond to thousands of informal complaints filed by consumers.
More evidence of altered records.
On December 14, 2010, the NTSB reported that the pipeline was not seamless, as PG&E records claimed. This information is to show the timeline of events.
On December 18, 2010, I emailed the NTSB, alerting them that I had proof that a former PG&E executive had a history of altering records in the underground infrastructure when she worked at the telecom.
FBI calls me -- this time it's a pleasant conversation.
On December 21, 2010, the FBI called me, asking about corruption at the CPUC. The FBI agent was vague about who asked him to call me, but based on the words used by the FBI, I suspect it was the State Police.
I first contacted the FBI on July 5, 2007, after I learned the meaning of the Trouble Code "98." For years, I had been trying to get the FBI to open an investigation into the corruption at the CPUC. The FBI, which has limited resources, told me they would not open an investigation, as it did not meet the necessary criteria. Mike and the FBI
The letter below confirms that the Assistant Director to the FBI was aware of my complaints about corruption at the CPUC back in March of 2008.
My Fears of an incomplete investigation
There is now overwhelming evidence the CPUC conspired with the utilities to conceal violations to laws, and problems in the underground infrastructure.
Based on my experiences, and the experiences of others, I believe the telecoms cause more financial damage to our country by violating laws than the PG&E pipeline explosion. The reporter, who wrote Gaps Emerge , also believes that the phone problems are more costly to the State than the damage caused by PG&E's defective pipelines. Most of these Telecom losses could be prevented with a Telecommunications Consumer's Bill of Rights.
So far, nobody in Government has been willing to meet with me, in person, so that I can provide evidence of fraud and corruption that is not shown on my website. I believe that elected Officials don't want to risk losing large campaign donations from AT&T. My previous Congressman received his largest campaign donations from AT&T.
In a Public CPUC hearing on January 13, 2011, Assemblyman Jerry Hill told the CPUC that he doesn't trust the Commission due to its "Complacency."
CPUC President Michael Peevey, responded by attacking Assemblyman Jerry Hill, stating that he was "contemptible" for his criticisms of the CPUC.
After the NTSB report came out, Commission President, Michael Peevey admitted the CPUC has been "Complacent."
• Pacific Bell Respoonse to Data Request, February 4, 2002, Michelle Galbraith
• Pacific Bell Respoonse to Data Request, February 7, 2002, Michelle Galbraith
• The CHP
• State Senate Oversight Committee: