20220308Comments.pdf

From: Cheap Advice <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 8,20221:30 PM
To:TaylorBrooks<[e-mail]>;JanNoriyuki<ian.noriyuki@puc >
Cc: Stephen Thomas <sthomas@ hawleWroxell.com>;tre. hend ricks@ce ntu rvli n k.com
Subject: Case #QWE -T-2L-L4 Keavy vs Qwest/CLink Reply to Respondents producti on of 2128/22
First, regrets, I am unable to work the regular order formaVstyle as my internet connection is
wobbly; stalls, cuts out, data is eliminated and recovery requires long wait times. The printer
facility and other instruments respond badly to the hiccups. CenturyLink has provided three (3)
modems since September and been on site twice.
Respondent contends in its'Background'assertions "...a long history of making unsupported
claims regarding his service..." Not true. Utilization of the *57 function IS history of the
CenturyLink (Clink) record of negligence.
More on Page I item 2: Respondent cites'...court decision...unclear...allegations...' The history
questioned is/was not about events of today, or/ including even the last two months...during
which 75+l- calls were reported by Clink to have been (past tense) '@'and not one of those
contracts is reported or suspected to have enjoyed that or any resolution. From my memory
Clink was asked specifically what a 'successful trace'consists of and I cannot determine IF that
question and objective was ever proportionally addressed. Neither does 'initiate deterrent action'
(part of the *57 direction) get identified as a satisfied objective.
The courtesy of a'return call in 24-48 hourC as indicated was routinely not fulfilled or
attempted by Clink. The former subject history was limited to specific details and events, atthat
time, and involved only from 4 to 6 targeted numbers...allegedly'traced' as part of the *57
initiation. 'Contract'is an important and useful classification for what IS going on but is not the
totality of overall negligence that the PUC is properly and dutifully looking into. I have asked
the AG, SOS, Bar staff and others, joint and severable, about additional needy matters deserving
a more thorough review. The events are inquiry related, not litigation intended and not offensive
to diligence and propriety.
Page2 item 3 talks about'Call Trace'the allegation is made'...for further action,'while the
company admits getting that done is uncommon, unrecognizfule, actually rare if happens at
all. The word'only'is used multiple times on page 3 to falsely claim'The results of a trace will
be fumished only to...law enforcement...' Not True. Clink has provided me with such
documented results in the past and'...without a subpoena or court order...' Clink has provided
AT&T/DirectTV with detailed'trace'results roughly 700* times...without subpoena or court
order. Clink ias those records of each trespass in part because I wrote/asked thern previously to
save and secure the information from loss. Clink has indiscriminately published ('without
subpoena or court order') virtually all that said, pivileged/restricted information to the TV
people so the latter could do with it as they will (?) ...while stating vociferously that I was not
eligible to have the same squandered data that was casually given to others. Clink added that my
NO ACCESS to the data was not about the law but about their'policy'directed at, to and against
me. They have complained to me (boasted) about rzy squandering/wasting of their time and
company resources.
These practices of discrimination and singled out persecution have been a constant source of
pain on top of the harassing calls that were being suborned and subsidizedby Clinks
indifference to good faith and fair dealing.
By the way...the PUC application called for a dollar estimate of my claim and I
conservatively calculated 400 independent *57 'traces (and other compliances) initiated,
according to stated requirements of Clink, had been accommodated to that date. That number is
closer to roughly 700 today and may equate to qualifr for federal (and other) provisions of $1000
per incident...having to do with acts of complicity and subomation.
Clink has called on the PUC to prevent me from partaking further in the Clink *57'service'
along with some other pleas. More on that, hopefully, at a later time...when/if we return to the
offer Mr Thomas recently made, to the Commission, in writing, on behalf of Mr Hendricks, that
our mufual focus would be on'informal'work together purposed, in his words, to communicate
with one another (for a change?) and to avoid'litigation.'
Another, Page2, stunning and even more egregpous persuasion tool: "It does not appear...that
Mr Keavy has ever contacted local law enforcement...' Not True. I contacted a specific Boise
City operative multiple times, a Boise City Captain briefly and his Lieutenant at length. On
occasion of the latters last phone call to me we talked on for 90 +l- minutes before the
Lieutenant asked me for detail about a particular harassing, extensively documented, dozens of
times as a *57 offender; who ignored cease and desist orders by certified mail, and continued
calling while Clink did nothing it had promised to do, multiple hundreds of times, having to do
with their promise to 'initiate deterrent action.' For the record I recently petitioned that
Lieutenant asking him to acknowledge our acrzal extensive history...so we can document wrong-
headed accusations made by two (2) Clink attomeys focused misleading the Commission while
tossing good faith and fair dealing credulity.
In'Argument'(Page 3 item 4) Respondent uses a new term, to my experience, to our
history/relationship...namely'catalog' and'service cataloq' are something new to me. They
compound a conclusion by falsely adding (Page 5 #8) 'And, CenturyLink advised Mr Keavy of
those terms.' Not True. Third party observers may askwhen will Clink begin to tell their
average customers about the'importance'of those terms (?) having signigicant (?) influence over
their own lives and living? Respondent adds there is'...only (one) violation'in play, to be
considered. They may be alone in thaVtheir wishful thinking.
'The Call Trace service'as it is alleged to be (Page 5 item 9) for an average, careful and
attentive person is not nearly as complicated and difficult to understand as the Respondent
contends. What the Respondent denies and seeks to avoid is what happens when one dials *57
and then eneaees in actual listening to eventual 'deterrent action' speculation that is not remotely
part of actual contract delivery that CenturyLink promises in spades.
Actual listening to hopeful adjudication/protection, clearly stated in the *57 delivery over and
again... turns out to be roundly Not True in actual practice. [t is also not ethically purposed in
actual practice. Charging a fee, solely to complete a contract that is intended to be disrespected
and operationally incomplete, as to its stated expectations, IS in play. The CenturyLink follow
through, absent of its initial promises, is altered deliberately and was put on me (and thousands
of others?) roughly seven hundred times...withott any contrition or move to make corrections
whatsoever. How can the neglieence be missed and so substantially be celebrated?
I cannot over emphasize the importance of this appeal to all observers...to LISTEN to the
'solutions'dialog used when one responds to the *57 invitation. LISTEN again to what happens
when one calls that 800# that is offered as part of the CenturyLink contract mechanism and their
explicit instruction through the CenturyLink initiative/promise to'initiate deterrent action.' Their
own contracfual language recordings, run over and over again, with enormous determination
while defeating the daylights out of honesty and credulity.
We should get reacquainte{ hopefully soon, with theterm'informal'that both Counselors
askd the PUC to abide with... and not risk 'wasting time' of the PUC. Hopefully.
Respectfirlly, inded,
Richard KeaW