The CHP and the CPUC
On Friday, October 22, 2010 9:52 AM, I sent an email to the Executive Director, Paul Clanon, requesting a meeting.
At about 1:50 pm, November 2, 2010, two highway patrol officers showed up at my front door. They had driven from San Francisco, which is about a 1-hour trip each way. The Officer who did the talking was Aleksandr Yankovskiy. His business card is shown below.
"SSP" (Safety Services Program) officers act as the State Police, and as part of their duty, they protect State Employees. (http://www.chp.ca.gov/depts_divs_offs/ssd.html).
The Officer emphasized that I had done nothing wrong, but that Janice Grau, a CPUC judge, was concerned that I was going to harm her.
It should be noted that in June 2013, Congresswoman Jackie Speiers had recieved information that Executive Director, Paul Clanon, had been ordering Judges to break the law. See link: Congresswoman asks Feds to investigate CPUC
The CHP Officer told me that Judge Janice Grau claimed to have received anonymous phone calls and threatening letters, and that she thought I had something to do with it.
I had no idea about what he was talking about, and the Officer refused to show me the letters or provide me with any details of the threats or phone calls.
I told the Officers that I had nothing to do with this, and they could check phone records and find where the threats were coming from. They told me they had no reason to believe I had anything to do with the letters or phone calls.
I told the Officer that Janice Grau is a corrupt judge (which is noted in the police report). The Corrupt Judge and the Denial for Rehearing
I told the Officer I had no contact with her, since the Formal Complaint, except for some emails back in 2007, telling her that her refusal to follow the Rule of Law, led to more phone related problems. In October 2007, I received a letter from Angela K. Minkin, CPUC Chief administrative law judge, telling me not to contact Janice Grau, which I fully complied with.
The Officer told me he had read the emails and looked at the webpage,. He agreed the emails were non-threatenening, and that I had not done anything wrong or illegal. He told me they had done background checks on me, and there was no reason for them to believe I would threaten anyone. Furthermore, the Officer told me that if they thought I had made any threats, he would have "busted down the front door, and put [me] in handcuffs."
Because the Officer mentioned that he looked at the webpage,, I provided the Officer a photograph and asked him what the phone number looked like. He told me it was "not within the scope of the investigation." He knew exactly why I asked about the number, and it was obvious he had been ordered not to answer the question.
The Officer thanked me, shook my hand, and left.
Two days after the Officer showed up at my front door, I received the police repor via faxt, which provided details of the Judge's complaint against me. I am now grateful that the Officer's showed up.
The Police report provides four red flags that the Judge is corrupt, as well as evidence that Judge Grau is not capable of providing a fair hearing. According to an expert in human behavior, the Judge will probably say she was under a great deal of "stress" to explain her odd behavior. The Police report also provides evidence that CPUC Safety Director, Richard Clark and/or CPUC Executive Director, Paul Clanon, Richard Clark, had a hand in telling the Judge what to say to the State Police in order file a false police report.
The information provided in the police report explains why the CPUC hasn't fined PG&E for the death of a man in Rancho Cordova due to PG&E's negligence -- not enough people were killed to justify a fine. The San Bruno PG&E fire and the link to the fictional phone number.
The Commission's Decision to refuse to fine a Utility for violations to individuals, is willfully violating the Rule of Law, and allows Utilities to selectively harrass and harm individuals with impunity, and the Utilities know this.
The Judge's complaints against me are rediculous:
As I have stated on the webpage A Phone Number for the President if it can be proven that AT&T committed perjury by creating a fictional phone number with the last five digits of "85093,' the "unconfirmed information that Knell has threatened bodily harm on several AT&T employees," can be proven to be a fraud, because all of the documents claim the phone lines tested ok.
Furthermore, the fact that the AT&T legal department created the fictional phone number links the legal department with creating the "unconfirmed information that Knell has threatened bodily harm on several AT&T employees." See Pacific Bell Response to Data Request, October 1, 2001
More Background information.
On September 9, 2010, a PG&E pipeline in San Bruno failed, killing eight people, burning 20 people, and destroying dozens of houses. The San Bruno PG&E fire and the link to the fictional phone number.
The State Senate ordered a hearing. After watching Richard Clark, the Director of Safety and Consumer Protection, being questioned by the State Senate, I sent an email to Richard Clark on October 20, 2010, asking to schedule a meeting regarding problems with the CPUC that he may no be aware of. He did not respond.
I called Mr. Clark's Office and spoke to his assistant about evidence that Judge Grau is corrupt. Mr. Clark's assistant called me back on October 22, 2010, at 10:54 a.m., and told me I would have to contact Paul Clanon. The caller ID shown below confirms that fact.
On October 22, 2010, I emailed Paul Clanon, the director the CPUC, to have a meeting regarding the problems I had during the Formal Complaint.
I told the CHP Officers that I sent emails to Richard Clark and Paul Clanon.
The Highway Patrol Officer told me he had read the email I sent to Richard Clark and Paul Clanon. The Officer told me they were non-threatenening. Email that caused the State Police to show up at my front door.
The fact that Janice Grau contacted the CHP after I contacted Paul Clanon and Richard Clark is evidence that Richard Clark and/or Paul Clanon are abusing their powers to intimidate consumers. I have not had any contact with Janice Grau since October 2007, a period of over three years. The timing of this claim that I could be threatening her is the fourth time I have been accused of threatening to harm people after filing a complaint and/or asking for a meeting with the CPUC or AT&T.
RICHARD CLARK "TOUGH GUY"
A report by the State Senate Office Oversight Committee, Gaps Emerge in Telephone Consumer Protections, 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.
I spoke to the reporter, and she informed me that Richard Clark had a background in law enforcement, and he liked to act like a tough guy. Some of the words used in the police report, such as "threats of bodily harm," probably came from Richard Clark.
In the Answer to the Formal Complaint, AT&T claimed I repeatedly threatened to kill its employees. During the Formal Complaint, AT&T did not use the words "threats of bodily harm." Furthermore, after I photographed internal AT&T documents, AT&T never again stated I threatened to kill its employees.
If Janice Grau had contacted the police on her own free will, she would have told the Police that AT&T claimed that "Mr. Knell had repeatedly threatened to kill ..." She would not have used the words, "threats of bodily harm."
Further evidence that Richard Clark had coached Janice Grau into making a false police report are the statements that I asked the CPUC to order AT&T to pay me for business losses. This did not happen during the Formal Complaint which was filed in 2001, but it did happen in an informal complaint I filed in March 1997. In March 1997, I did not understand the jurisdiction of the CPUC, and I did ask that the CPUC order AT&T to pay for business losses, but when the law was explained to me, I never again asked the CPUC to order AT&T to pay me for business losses.
How is it possible that the police report states I asked the Judge to order AT&T to pay me for business losses? It isn't possible, unless Richard Clark had told her to say that in a false police report.
I believe that Richard Clark (and perhaps Paul Clanon) had coached the Judge into making a false police report in an attempt to intimidate me, and avoid a meeting with Paul Clanon.
The pattern of behavior is very clear. It shows that the CPUC is now behaving exactly like the utilities to conceal problems, and to intimidate consumers.
FOLLOW UP ON POLICE VISIT, AND MEETING REQUEST FOR COMMISSIONER FLORIO
On March 15, 2011, I filled out and faxed a "MEETING REQUEST FORM" asking Commissioner Mike Florio to contact the State Police, and ask them to investigate if AT&T committed perjury when AT&T stated the phone number had the last five digits of "85093, ( The Fictional Phone Number, and a blatant act of Perjury) and to investigate if AT&T committed perjury when AT&T stated the trouble code "98" was not an indication of trouble. (Trouble Code 9).
I called to confirm that his office received the MEETING REQUEST FORM. His office said they had received the fax. On March 23, I called to see if Commissioner Florio could schedule a meeting. His staff could not find the MEETING REQUST FORM. Typical.
From 1997 through April 2011, every MEETING REQUEST FORM I have sent to the CPUC has been ignored or lost.
last updated 03/14/2013