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


Heading

The San Bruno PG&E Fire, the Fictional Phone Number, and the Crooked Executive who worked at AT&T and PG&E

 

caption text

last updated 01/06/2011

rough draft

On September 9, 2010, a PG&E pipeline failed, causing catastrophic damage to the residents of San Bruno, that killed eignt people, burned dozens, and destroyed over 30 houses.

On November 2, 2010, due to a chain of events linked to the San Bruno disaster, the CPUC sent the State Police to my premises to question me, because a corrupt Judge fears that I am going to harm her. I have had no contact with the Judge since October 2007.

When the State Police showed up at my premises on November 2, 2010, I asked them what the phone number looked like -- The Officer immediately replied, "It is not within the scope of my investigation."

The State Police can do nothing about a corrupt judge-- all they can do is follow the chain of command and write a report. You have to read the Police report to see the mental state of the Judge. The California Highway Patrol, the Corrupt Judge, and the Police Report

 

As a small business owner, who first asked the CPUC for help in 1997, because AT&T was altering repair records to conceal recurring problems on my business phone lines, I can tell you that the California Public Utilities Commission does nothing, whatsoever, to discourage the Utility Companies from violating public utility laws.

As an example, the above circled phone number received service through a phone line that was known to be defective. It is my phone number 925-462-5093. AT&T told the CPUC it wasn't my phone number, and that it had the last five digits of 85093. The CPUC went along with the fraud, and blamed me for the misconduct of AT&T Officials.

The fact that the CPUC sent the State Police to my premises is evidence the CPUC is trying to intimidate people who have information and documentation about what really happens at the CPUC.

In an SFgate article, dated 12/26/2010, Loretta Lynch, a former commissioner who left the agency when her five-year term expired in 2004, stated,

"There is a culture of fear at the PUC that if you do your job, you will be sat on," she said, "because the job is to get along with the utilities, not to enforce against the utilities."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/12/26/MNNV1GL4FQ.DTL&ao=all

 

Historically, catastrophic failures, like the PG&E Pipeline failure, almost always have multiple failures. In this case, there was incorrect documentation which stated the pipe was seamless -- it was not seamless.

Because records were not correct, the pipe was not subjected to testing processes and replacement recommendations for welded pipe. The phone number at the top of this page is linked to intentionally altered records.

 

As a result of the failure to follow established guidelines and recommendations from the Federal Government, due to inaccurate records, the pipe failed. Many of the survivors will never fully recover, and will live a life of pain.

An article in the San Francisco Chronicle, dated October 24, 2010 (http://www.ibew1245.com/news-PGE/San_Bruno_Media_Reports.html) stated,

"Federal regulators warned pipeline companies more than 20 years ago to reconsider use of all pipelines older than 1970 — which include the transmission line that exploded last month in San Bruno — that were built with a lowerquality welding technique widely used in that era. By then, the flawed welds had already contributed to more than 100 failures of natural gas transmission pipelines, records show.

The government did not require that companies replace the old pipe, however, mandating only that operators inspect lines in populated areas for problems."

Because the pipe was not seamless, as PG&E records stated, I believe executives were altering documents to "extend" the life of the infrastructure. I suspect that in the 1990's, when deregulation began, and the Federal Government warned pipeline companies to replace welded pipes installed before 1970, that some PG&E executives decided to alter documents in order to claim the pipes were seamless.

Altering documents to conceal problems in the underground infrastruture appears to be a common practice at AT&T, and at least one AT&T executive who was cooking the books, went to work at PG&E.

Linda Standen was an executive at AT&T. In 1997, Ms. Standen was covering up problems in the AT&T underground infrastructure, by altering repair records. In March 1997, Ms. Standen sent me a letter stating that the phone service problems I experienced were caused by a defective service wire that runs from my house to the street. It was a fraud to conceal the lines in the street were defective . March 4, 1997 and March 5, 1997.

Linda Standen then went to work at PG&E.

If it can be proven that the phone number noted at the top of this page has the last five digits of "25093," it proves that Linda Standen was covering up problems in the infrastructure when she worked at the phone company, and wrongfully caused Rule 11 to be imposed upon me for asking questions about the altered repair records. It is possible Linda Standen was altering records in the PG&E infrastructure when she worked at PG&E. It is certainly worth investigating, as it could save lives.

 

 

At a Senate Hearing on October 19, 2010, Senator Dean Florez pointed out, it's not the first time a PG&E pipeline failed and killed a human being. In 2008, a PG&E pipe failed, killing an innocent man. PG&E was found to have been negligent, by using the wrong materials. No fines were paid.

When Senator Florez and other Senators asked why no fines have ever been levied upon PG&E, CPUC officials (Richard Clark and Paul Clanon)) would not provide a direct, or honest answer.

In a police report dated 11/02/2010, is the answer to the Senator's question. A CPUC judge, who filed a complaint against me stated:

  • "the PUC normally does not impose fines for individual issues, unless a claim of the same nature is filed by numerous individuals."

The California Highway Patrol, the Corrupt Judge, and the Police Report

 

Now it appears that CPUC officials are asking for special favors from the State Police to intimidate me from asking questions, or scheduling meetings with high-level Officials at the CPUC, which link the phone number with the PG&E pipeline failure, and the CPUC's inability to do its job.

I tried to meet with Richard Clark, the Director of Consumer Safety at the CPUC, who answered questions in front of the State Senate regarding the PG&E pipeline disaster. It appears that Mr. Clark is in cover-up mode. I emailed Mr. Clark on October 20, 2010, requesting a meeting.

I had previously went to Richard Clark's office in 2001 because he had ordered his staff not to respond to my informal complaints. The first time I met with Mr. Clark, he said, "I don't like you. You are abusive to my staff." A letter corroborates that Mr. Clark would not let me ask questions. After our meeting, he agreed to allow me to ask three questions. The responses from AT&T confirms that the Utility is too cozy with the CPUC, and allowing AT&T to blantently violate public utility laws. April 27, 2001

 

An article in SFGate, dated 10/24/2010, discusses the fines (or lack of fines) the CPUC imposed upon PG&E (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/article?f=/c/a/2010/10/23/BAT01G164F.DTL)

In the comments section is a statement by Larry McNeely, a former CPUC employee. Mr. McNeely is very critical of Mr. Clark and Mr. Clannon. Moreover, I had spoken with Mr. McNeely around 1999, and I have a letter from him to prove it. It is a small world, and I think Mr. McNeely will back up what I have to say about the CPUC.

larrymcneely

5:40 AM on October 24, 2010

As the former Chief prosecutor (retired) from the CPUC , this is a sad commentary about CPUC, CLARK/CLANNON using false stats to justify their incompetence, Richard Clark and Paul Clannon, both from the CPUC are using prosecution results from a prior enforcement team which had nothing to do with them. The PG&E tree trimming case caused the Rough and Ready fire had nothing to do with these guys. We,"Schulte" staff, sent an investigator to observe the criminal trial in Nevada County,when the guilty verdicts were filed against PG&E we filed an OII immediately. If they CLARK/CLANNON had been in control at the time nothing would have been none. Under Clark who Commissioner Loretta Lynch, who failed us during the electric deregulation crisis, hand appointed both Clark and Clannon, and then she was fired by Gray Davis as President of CPUC for this mess . If you look at current enforcement cases by Clark you will see a real mess, like the San Diego fire case. I think it is time for the true

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/23/BAT01G164F.DTL#ixzz18ow80Rwa

 

 

 

In the Formal Complaint, I provided proof to the CPUC that executives at the company now known as AT&T, repeatedly altered repair records to conceal problems in the infrastructure. The AT&T attorney could not explain why records were missing or altered, and told the CPUC to ignore the problems. The CPUC went along with AT&T's request, showing no concern about the Utility altering repair and maintenance documents to conceal a defective infrastructure. Altered Repair Records This pattern of behavior probably occurred at PG&E, which led to the pipeline failure that killed eight people.

 

As noted below, the CPUC is unconcerned that a utility is knowingly using defective phone lines to consumers, a clear violation to Public Utility Laws. See the documents below, which are used to maintain and repair the underground infrastructure, and are also useful for auditing the company. These documents were submitted to the CPUC during the Formal Complaint.

The document on the left is page two of the Log of Defective cable pair, the document on the right is the test results of the phone lines on the day that Pacific Bell Answered the Complaint. The fact that Pacific Bell was knowingly using cable pairs 1118 and 1132 proved that Pacific (now AT&T) was violating Public Utility Laws. The CPUC refused to comment on these documents. This includes Michael R. Peevy, the President of the CPUC. See: Log of Defective Cable Pairs.

 

 

Michael R. Peevy is the President of the CPUC. His name is on the Denial for Rehearing, but not his signature. Mr. Peevy is in charge of investigating what caused the San Bruno fire. Because he is unable to determine that the phone number at the top of this page has the last five digits of "25093," it is doubtful that Mr. Peevy will be able to provide an honest conclusion as to what caused the pipeline to fail. Michael R. Peevy and the Denial for Rehearing

 

If you were affected by the San Bruno fire, and you want an investigation as to what caused the PG&E pipeline to fail, I suggest you contact your politicians and/or ask that the FBI investigate the corruption at the CPUC, which would allow a phone company Attorney to create a fictional phone number, and get away with it.

I have tried to get the FBI to investigate the corruption at the CPUC since 2007, and can only wonder if an investigation would have prevented the PG&E pipe line from failing, and killing people. Mike and the FBI

Based on the CPUC asking the CHP to visit me on 11/02/2010, I don't think Officials at the CPUC want you to know what I know.

 

 

 

 

On 12/21/2010, I received a call from the FBI. The Special Agent told me he was asked to call me about some information. It was a pleasant conversation, unlike previous conversations with the FBI. Mike and the FBI

I ask that all people affected by the San Bruno fire, put pressure on their representatives to see that Justice is served, and to make sure this disaster doesn't happen again.

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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