Richard Smith

Richard Smith is now a CPUC Administrative Law Judge.

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 proof 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.

Finally, 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

last edited 05/24/09