Return to "A Phone Number for the President" Main Page ||| Previous Document ||| Next Document


Richard Smith. CPUC legal expert. and witness of cpuc corruption

 

Richard Smith

Richard Smith is now a CPUC Administrative Law Judge, and he can provide the FBI with information about the corruption at the CPUC.

Richard Smith contacted me after the first pre-hearing conference. At that time, he was the Deputy Director at the Ratepayers Advocates Group -- a branch of the CPUC. He told me that someone at the CPUC told him to call me, and file an Ammendment to my Complaint and to cite the laws that the phone companies had violated.

Mr. Smith also told me that my Complaint was not barred by the Statute of Limitation (See: Fraud and the Statute of Limitations). He told me, verbally, what I needed to say in my Ammendment to the Complaint regarding the Statute of Limitations. The evidence that Mr. Smith told me these things can be seen in the Ammendment to C.01-07-034.

He told me I was lucky to get Janice Grau for a Judge, because she was relatively new at being a Judge. He explained, that after time, most CPUC Judges go along with whatever the phone companies want. It is important to understand that studies in human behavior prove that Mr. Smith's observations appear correct (See "Asche experiment" regarding "group think" human-nature).

During my initial conversations with Richard Smith, I learned that he had worked at the CPUC, then left the CPUC to work at Pacific Bell, and then came back to work at the CPUC. Based on some comments that Mr. Smith made during our conversations, I made a joke about how I believed Mr. Smith took a Government job for the retirement benefits, and that he did not want to make waves as he waited to retire. He responded, "You seem to be very observant, Mr. Knell."

After the original Decision came out, Mr. Smith told me the Judge committed legal error. He told me, verbally, what to say in my Appeal. He congradulated me on doing better than 99% of the people who file Complaints on the basis that Pacific Bell was ordered to refund $6 (which Pacific Bell never did).

In my Appeal (which went to the same Judge), I wrote that the Judge committed legal error. When the Judge ignored this fact in her "Decision to the Appeal," Richard Smith sent me an email stating exactly what I should write in my Application for a Rehearing, and how the law required AT&T to pay fines between $61,000 and $2,400,000 to the California State General Fund. Mr. Smith told me that with that statement, AT&T would normally be willing to settle for at least $61,000 to avoid paying the fines and further litigation. The email is the smoking gun that proves people at the CPUC are aware of the violations to law, and are afraid to speak out publicly about the corruption.

Had the Judge actually made her Decision based on the facts of the case, and followed the Rule of Law, the fines could have exceeded $100 million. Needless to say, the Commission refused to fine AT&T or Pacific Bell for any of the violations, and instead, blamed me for the misconduct of the phone company.

After the Denial for Rehearing, Mr. Smith told me that as a consolation, I had cost AT&T (resale) and Pacific Bell at least $100,000 each in legal fees. The problem with our legal system is that people in the legal system believe that wasting other peoples money is considered a "win."

It should be noted that the Formal Complaint cost California tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars in administrative costs -- which is another reason to have a Telecommunications Consumer's Bill of Rights, which could prevent consumers from having to file a Formal Complaint to see the test results of their phone lines.

It should be noted that Richard Smith told me the Denial for Rehearing should have signatures. See: The Corrupt Judge and the Denial for Rehearing

 

More About Richard Smith, Judge Janice Grau, and Corrupt coercion by their superiors.

I believe that Richard Smith, who is now a CPUC Judge, had initially contacted me at the request of Judge Janice Grau, after the first pre-hearing conference. The Phone company attorneys were visibly upset at how bad things were going. My friend who assisted me during the Formal Complaint told me that it appeared that Janice Grau liked me.

In the beginning of the Formal Complaint, Janice Grau was extremely nice to me, and not so nice to the phone company Attornies. I believe she did the following, to help me get a fair hearing:

  1. Janice Grau used to work in the Rate Payers Advocate Group with Richard Smith. I believe Janice Grau had asked Richard Smith to contact me, and help me with legal advice after the first pre-hearing conference. Nobody else at the CPUC could know about what happened at the first pre-hearing conference, except for the court reporter, and it is unlikely she would contact Richard Smith.
  2. Richard Smith had told me to file an Ammendment to my Complaint. When I contacted Judge Grau, to ask about filing an Ammendment, she seemed to be aware that I was going to call her, and she told me that she would discuss it at the second pre-hearing conference.
  3. Janice Grau asked me to watch other Formal Complaints, to better understand the procedures. She invited me to watch a Formal Complaint she was presiding over which took place in Sacramento.
  4. Janice Grau accepted my Ammendment to the Formal Complaint.
  5. Janice Grau had set up dates and times for cross examination.

 

EVIDENCE OF COERCION BY JUDGE GRAU'S SUPERIORS

At some point after the second pre-hearing conference, Janice Grau began acting differently. There is evidence that her superiors had coerced her into making things go better for the phone companies.

  1. Janice Grau had scheduled the time and date for cross-examination. Later, Janice Grau told me there would be no cross-examination, and that the Testimony would be in writing. When I asked her why there would be no cross-examination, she told me it was not her Decision
  2. During the Formal Complaint, Janice Grau did nothing, whatsoever, to encourage AT&T to remove my home address from Directory Listings.
  3. Janice Grau refused to follow the Rule of Law. As an Attorney who is registered with the State Bar, it is inexcusable to refuse to follow the Rule of Law.
  4. There is evidence that Janice Grau was forced to to file a false police report in an attempt to intimidate me from meeting with her superiors. From what I have been told, one of her superiors, Richard Clark, had a background in law enforcement, and liked to act like a tough guy. Police Report

 

 

ASK CPUC JUDGE RICHARD SMITH WHO ASKED HIM TO CALL ME

If Janice Grau was coerced into behaving corruptly, it would be a simple matter to prove this by asking Richard Smith who had asked him to call me. If Grau did ask Richard Smith to contact me (which would be against the law), it is possible that her superiors had found out and blackmailed her into behaving corruptly.

The Police Report provides evidence that her superiors had asked her to file a false police report.

 

ASK CPUC JUDGE RICHARD SMITH ABOUT CPUC EMPLOYEE WHO WAS REPRIMANDED BECAUSE OF "FLOYD" ARTICLE

Between the years 2000 and 2003, I spoke to Linette Young, who works at the CPUC.

Linette Young had discovered that Pacific Bell (Now AT&T), had lied to the CPUC about the number of complaints it received. An article in SF gate described her as the "Erin Brokovich" of the CPUC. I cannot find the article online, but I know it exists.

Linette Yong Testified against Rick Resnick (who had offered me $2000 in 1996 and 1997) -- she told me he is "dangerous." At the end of her Testimony, dated July 19, 2002, she stated:

"It is my conclusion that [AT&T] has provided misleading and inaccurate service quality data and reports to the CPUC and FCC. The Commission must not tolerate this behavior from any utility it regulates. Only an exhaustive and independent audit of [AT&T's] service quality reporting can determine if [AT&T's] inaccurate reporting is deliberate."

(The document I photographed on March 16, 2009 can be used by the CPUC to prove that AT&T deliberately reported inaccurate information to the CPUC. March 16, 2009 )

Later, Linette Young had spoken to reporters about how AT&T was outsourcing its customer service. She told me that she was severly reprimanded by her superiors at the CPUC for speaking to reporters. Linette Young "Floyd"

When I spoke to Richard Smith about Linette Young and the "Floyd" article, he said something like, "She had gotten pretty beat-up by her superiors after that article came out." Mr. Smith laughed as he told me about it-- not because it was funny that she was reprimanded, but because it was funny because the CPUC is so blatently corrupt, that it won't let anybody say anything bad about the Utilities.

One more point about Linette Young: She had worked with Janice Grau, and she told me Janice Grau was extremely intelligent, and could find "every detail" in investigations, and something to the effect that she did not make mistakes. This provides evidence that Judge Grau would not have found the DAML to be defective. The Corrupt Judge and the "admittedly defective DAML"

 

last edited 11/07/11

 

 

 

 

 

 

go back to the top

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