20230510Correspondence.pdf

From: Fred Quinto <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 6:02 PM
To: Michael Duval <[e-mail]>
Cc: Jan Noriyuki <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Quinto Case VZN-T-23-01
CAUTION: This email originated outside the State of Idaho network. Verify links and attachments
BEFORE you click or open, even if you recognize and/or trust the sender. Contact your agency
service desk with any concerns.

Mr. Duval,

Thank you for your quick reply.

I notice that the first part of your letter contradicts the last part. You stated that all written communication
must contain a request for posting, yet the Ziply response should have been posted but “inadvertently”
was not.

Since you are new to this matter a brief summary is needed. My informal complaint was dismissed by
McCuen and my Formal Complaint was directed to the Attorney General as well as the PUC. The
Attorney General issued a summons to Ziply Fiber on March 28th to be forwarded by the PUC for a
response not more than 21 days. The PUC sent it to Ziply by certified mail on April 11th, 12 days later,
and received a response at 1:39PM on April 20th, but was not posted as you said it should have been.

A letter I sent to the PUC on April 21st would imply that I was unaware of Ziply’s April 20th response.
Furthermore, a telephone call I made to Johann on May 2nd confirms that I was still unaware of Ziply’s
response. Interestingly, right after my phone call with Johann the response was then posted to the case
file. A disinterested person would now assume the Ziply letter was posted on April 20th, the day it was
received and was supposed to be posted. However, if need be, with today’s technology I can prove it
was not posted on April 20.

As I see these events it is quite apparent to me that McCune has been trying to sabotage this process by
deliberately holding Ziply’s response so that the case will be quickly dismissed, which would add
credibility to his decision to dismiss the informal complaint.

At this point this entire matter has been simplified and reduced to Ziply’s response. I am of the opinion
that the response document itself may be construed as a “Genuine Issue of Material Fact”, which is of
course, disputable. It consists of five separate provable and intentional lies.

1) The line is not permanently installed.
2) Access to my house was never requested or needed because the lines on the outside of my house.
3) There is no proof that my house is unsafe.
4) The condition of my house is not relevant under any circumstances.
5) The personal attack on me that I am “Confused”.

Dementia has no bearing on the complaint. What would I be confused about? What Ziply is trying to do is
neutralize what their technician did to me March 8, 2022. This comment should confirm to the Attorney
General how these people have tormented me for 4 years now. In effect, my “Dementia” is the only
reason service has not been properly restored.

This letter and the letters I sent on April 2nd and May 5th are to be immediately posted.

Fred Quinto