Ten days after sending the following email to CPUC Executive Director Paul Clanon, and a copy to CPUC Safety Directory, Richard Clark, the State Police showed up at my front door. The Police Officer said he read the email below, and others, and the Officer stated "there was nothing wrong, illegal, or threatening in any of the emails."
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Knell
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 9:52 AM
Subject: CPUC Formal Complaint
I watched the Senate Hearings concerning the San Bruno explosion. It is terrible tradgedy, and like you said, the reason for the explosion has not been determined. The fact that it killed one of your own, brings a whole different perspective to this event.
I also read the Examiner, which took Mr. Clark's statement out of context.
CPUC Consumer Protection and Safety Director Richard Clark said that the agency doesn’t fine PG&E more frequently because it is trying to foster “a culture of safety.
It is very easy for people to give the wrong impression of CPUC officials, and make them look bad, as a result of mis-information. This has also happened to me.
I have previously met with Richard Clark, concerning the CAB's refusal to respond to informal complaints.
Mr. Clark was hostile towards me. The first words Mr. Clark said to me was,
"I don't like you. You are abusive to my employees."
Mr. Clark didn't know all of the facts, and he behaved unprofessionally, as do many people within the CPUC, who have formed overly friendly relationships with the companies they are suppose to regulate. In turn, the CPUC employees have become hostile towards consumers. It's normal human behavior, and you need to educate the CPUC employees to prevent this from happening.
See the following response concerning our meeting in 2001, it is a red flag that AT&T treats consumer complaints from the CPUC as a joke:
Now look at how AT&T responds to the FCC. It is far more professional. No personal attacks, and actual answers to questions.
In 2001, I filed a Formal Complaint through the CPUC. It was a joke.
AT&T actually created a fictional phone number to avoid paying fines for violating public utility laws.
Repair records were altered (during the Formal Complaint).
AT&T repeatedly refused to remove my home address from phone directories during the Formal Complaint.
Judge Janice Grau created fraudulant statements in her Decision to avoid the use of defective phone lines, and she repeatedly refused to follow the Rule of Law.
I want you to look at a website, describing the frauds at the CPUC, and I want you to answer a question about whether or not you think AT&T committed perjury when they claimed a phone number in a document I photographed was not my phone number.
I want you to look at a recent email string from Marco Valenti. It should be very clear that Mr Valenti is biased, and overly friendly with AT&T. Again, this is normal human behavior for someone who has worked with the utilities for a long period of time.
Eventually, somebody will acknowledge that AT&T committed perjury, and if it isn't from you (the agency that is suppose to regulate and fine utilities for violations), the people in San Bruno will find out, and link it to the CPUC..
I would like to meet with you and Mr. Clark so that you can fix some of the problems at the CPUC, as you become aware of them. The CPUC needs to establish a Telecommnications Consumer's bill of rights.
Please set up a meeting. I look forward to meeting with you. Hopefully, it will be productive.