This is a placeholder for some heading text.
Clark, Darlene Mae (State Bar link)
Darlene Mae Clark, an AT&T Senior Attorney, had previously worked at the California Public Utilities Commission.
Ms. Clark committed many acts of perjury during the Formal Complaint, and can be linked to violating public utility laws to conceal ongoing problems with listings, as well as making sure that "AT&T Resale" published my home address, against my specific demands to keep my home address private.
In my Application for a Rehearing, I pointed out how Darlene Clark committed perjury when she denied that there were ongoing listing problems when she Answered the Complaint. According to Darlene Clark, there was only a single listing problem, and it was "long since resolved." After Pacific Bell documentation showed that AT&T changed my listings 24 times, AT&T admitted that AT&T was well aware of the recurring listing problems when it Answered the Complaint. AT&T also admitted it refused to put corrections to my listings in writing (as required by law), and then committed another act of perjury, by claiming I provided incorrect information.
During the Formal Complaint, my Business listing became unlisted for no apparent reason -- AT&T did not deny that there were ongoing problems. At this point, Darlene Clark finally asked what I wanted to settle.
An Attorney I hired, told me not to ask for any more money than I could prove was lost, and to double the amount for the loss of future business. After going over a graph of my business growth prior to the phone problems (1989-1995), and extrapolating as to what the numbers would be if the growth rate had continued, I calculated my business losses at $1.5 million, and I doubled the amount for loss of future business, for a total of $3 million. I told AT&T I would settle for $3 million. In addition, I told Darlene Clark that if she worked with me, AT&T Resale could nail Pacific Bell for Sabotage of Resale Service, and AT&T could profit. Without ever looking at my business statements, or asking for the information I had that corrroborated that Pacific Bell sabotaged AT&T Resale Service, Darlene Clark told me that $3 million was rediculous. I do have a recording of a Pacific Bell supervisor at my premises refusing to test my phone lines because I was a resale customer, as well as an AT&T witness, however, unless it can be proven that my phone lines were defective when Pacific Belll refused to test the lines, it does not prove negligence or fraud, or violations to antitrust laws. Proving the phone number is mine, proves negligence. March 7, 1998
To keep my home address private, I have a PO Box for mailing purposes. All of my published listings (residential and business) are suppose to list the PO Box for an address. AT&T has published and sold my home address for 12 consecutive years, against my explicit demands to keep my home address private. On two occassions, when I asked AT&T to remove my home address from Directory listings, the AT&T legal department threatened to terminate my services, and did nothing to remove my home address from Directory listings (January 24, 2001, September 19, 2001). On another occassion (December 2000), when I asked AT&T to remove my home address from Directory listings, Alexis Laguillo, the secretary in the AT&T legal department acknowledged she aware of the problem, told me to be patient, and laughed as she hung up the phone. During the Formal Complaint, I found out that Alexis Laguillo was Darlene Clark's secretary -- corroborating the Darlene Clark was fully aware of the listing problems when she Answered the Complaint, and that AT&T was purposefully refusing to remove my home address from Directory listings for their own amusement.
The legal department created an illegal mechanism to insure that I had no paper trail of recurring listing problems. According to an AT&T resale operator at the toll-free customer service number, a note on my account referred all my requests (to fix listing problems or billing problems) to the legal department. The legal department then covered up the problems by refusing to comply with legally required protocol of putting corrections to my listings in writing. To deny accountability, the legal department demanded that I call only the toll-free customer service number or that my service would be terminated. The orders to conceal the problems came from Rosalie Johnson, the Vice-President of AT&T (See: January 24, 2001). In the Formal Complaint, AT&T resale admitted it refused to put corrections to my listings in writing, and then, in another act of perjury, AT&T claimed I provided AT&T with incorrect listing information.
During the Formal Complaint, which began in July 2001 and ended in November 2003, AT&T published or sold my home address for 340 days, and continued to threaten to terminate my services for asking that my home address be removed from Directory listings.
During the Formal Complaint, I asked AT&T over 10 times to remove my home address from the AT&T Directory website, mailing lists, and bills. AT&T refused to fix the problems. The CPUC refused to do anything about this problem. To prove that Darlene Clark would not tolerate letters going to her address, I delivered business correspondence to her home address (a settlement offer, and a separate note demanding that AT&T keep my home address private). She resigned from the case, and sent a certified letter to me, stating it was wrong to send letters to her home address, and that she should only have to warn me once. During this same time, AT&T was sending letters to my home address and selling my home address to marketing companies -- these documents are shown in my Application for a Rehearing.
As a result of sending a letter to the home address of AT&T Attorney Darlene Mae Clark, AT&T resale permanently terminated my services -- and AT&T continued to sell and publish my home address, and bill me for services I didn't have, a problem that continued for over a year after AT&T Resale terminated all of my services. The Commission was well aware of this problem as I showed the proof in my Application for a Rehearing-- the Commission ignored the fact that AT&T was still violating my rights to privacy, and then criticized me for delivering business correspondence to Darlene Clark's home address.
In another act of perjury, Darlene Clark blamed me for AT&T's chronic billing problems (40 billing problems in 48 months prior to filing the Formal Complaint, more billing problems during the Formal Complaint, and still more billing problems after the Formal Complaint). After AT&T terminated my services, AT&T continued to bill me for services I didn't have (these documents are in my Application for a Rehearing), and then AT&T had bill collectors send letters to my home address to collect payment for services That I didn't have. After complaining to the CPUC about this problem (which was occurring during the Formal Complaint), AT&T stated the billing problem was resolved, and that I owed no money.
39 days later, another billing problem occurred for services I didn't have, and it continued for another year, although AT&T corrected it three different times. At the end of the year, I received another collections letter. The pattern of behavior shows that because AT&T committed frauds to blame the billing problems on me, AT&T never resolved the billing problems, and this is also linked to the listings problems and violations to my privacy. After the Formal Complaint, AT&T continued to use my home address, instead of a PO box, and AT&T continues to sell my home address to marketing companies -- this has gone on for 13 consecutive years (1997-2009).
Another illegal act by AT&T was to illegally restrict my phone service after I complained about listing problems. Prior to filing the Formal Complaint, AT&T did this on about 10 occassions, and operators acknowledged that restrictions had been placed on my lines, but that no reason was given. February 22, 1999
Shortly after I filed the Formal Complaint, AT&T, again, illegally restricted service. In this case, the restriction prevented me from forwarding my business phone line to my brother's house, as he often worked from his home. AT&T claimed my brother's phone was out of service, and it had nothing to do with my business phone line not be able to forward calls, however, I was able to call my brother's home phone from my residential phone, and billing records from my home phone proved this. Billing records are prima-facia evidence that a phone call took place. When I provided the phone bill that proved my brother's phone worked (when AT&T claimed it didn't), AT&T told the Commission to ignore the bill, and then, in yet another act of perjury, Darlene Clark told the Commission AT&T could not determine what caused the restriction. Federal Law requires AT&T to have accurate records of anything that is done to restrict or repair service (See:LMOS Disposition and Cause Codes). What is very disturbing about this illegal service restriction is that this is evidence that AT&T was violating my privacy by looking at my billing records to determine how to restrict my call forwarding just to harass me, and bolster AT&T's claims that my complaints about service problems were imaginary.
last edited 08/012/09