20220412Motion for Reconsideration.pdf

From:Cheap Advice
To:Taylor Brooks; Jan Noriyuki
Subject:Motion For Reconsideration of "closed" Case #QWE-T-21-14 on 4/12/2022
Date:Tuesday, April 12, 2022 4:23:46 PM
Motion For Reconsideration of 'closed' Case #QWE-T-21-14 on 4/12/2022
Attention Please ALSO of each of the Commissioners of the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission (PUC).
Reference most recent email (4/7/22) from Deputy Brooks related to his first paragraphaccount "...to file any reply comments." Information presented by me was often NOT in 'reply
to comments' but rather intended overall to be additional information having to do withcontacts between myself (and others) and the Respondents who shed light on the deceptions
they were working. My interest (and what should (?) have been of interest to the Commissionand its handlers) was to inform PUC decision makers of information that illustrated and
showed proof that Respondent actors were not being honest, candid or accurate in the toomany claims it freely made.
The Respondent, as was pointed out repeatedly, in communication between Clink and me(forwarded TO the PUU) deliberately stated things over and again that were not true. The net
result should be interpreted by representatives of the Idaho Attorney General's Office asobstruction of justice and other related crimes...targeting to PUC, approximately five (5) AG
Deputies and others. While some of what CLink has done, failed to do, said and implied may not be entirely in
line with Deputy Brooks understanding of those Codes that are of professional interest tohim...the larger wrongdoing by CenturyLink is significant, material and deserves a more
appropriate attending. Important information useful to each decision-making Commissioner was kept from them
(?) or altered (?) that should have been presented to OTHER home office AG Deputies whodeal in many matters of law in addition to what interests the PUC contingent. The PUCshould have asked AG Wasden's office to get involved in those extracurricular crimes thatwaste the time of the AG Deputies assigned to the PUC and the PUC staff as well...with focus
on intentional obstruction. Misleading (repeatedly in writing) claims and deceptions put to thePUC should have been taken more seriously. There IS still time and reversing the case closure
(so to modify its findings and status more appropriately) would be corageous and a morefitting stance for the PUC and Idaho to assume.
Please copy me (all that you can) with whatever moves the AG may bring againstRespondents and until the AG has had time to do a deserved case reevaluation that should
have begun months ago. The PUC process and formula appears to be antiquated. It published data for the public and
I, to learn from, and then quietly removed that data without notice and refused to respond tomy questions about that easy/awkward PUC proclivity. I wanted, intended and expected my
communications to be fully before the Commissioners before they made a final decision tocancel my complaint.
Important matters were put to the PUC before their final decision yet it is evident (?) thatthe Commissioners did not see (?) that which may well have interested them and had influence
on their decisions. The PUC Secretary and the lead AG Deputy (and others) do not commentor justify why and how missing information IS 'constructive'...for whom and exactly what.
Deputy Brooks affords me the opportunity (in his 4/7/22 advisory) that I may duplicateinformation already given to the PUC (on 2/15 and 3/4) IN this... my Motion for
Reconsideration...IF I want the information to be read ('timely'?) by the general public...asopposed to not letting the public know what IS going on. Keeping that information from the
public and the Commissioners WAS desirable (?) because a 'misaligned' Code wants thingsdone its way? regardless of good and common sense? I would like to learn if/how often do the
AG Deputys join the Commissioners to approach the Legislature about doing a better job withlanguage and intent. I copied the Legislators of my District in my last correspondence to the
PUC Secretary so that they would know there IS some unnecessary/duplication of recordsbeing advocated because the Code requires it!? That cannot be a good reason for unnecessary
waste. Sometimes when people see a building on fire, they need to speak up...and not vacillatebecause their job description does not include firefighting.
Please recommend the Commissioners reopen the case, include all of our jointcorrespondence to/from the Commission, its staff and the half dozen +/- AG staff members
assigned to the PUC who participated in this case under the rubric column 'ComplainantComments and related data.'
The PUC and AG deputies who read the history of my/this complaint will recall that I haveinternet, data recover/access and printing handicaps...and have had to resort to hard copy data
to be hand carried to OUC offices and sent USPS by certified mail...so to be sure importantinformation got where it was needed in order to be attended. IF the PUC will put data I
provided to where it can be accessed and utilized timely...I will be grateful, again. Also,having information where it should have been and can be made use of with the least amount of
disorganization...will be helpful in the event of need for a tort claim. The joint effort of Counsel in Oregon and Idaho who may have 'mistakenly' taken 'evidence'
(actually grandiose, nonsense and deliberate bungling) by Clink for the previous to bathe inand broadcast with enthusiasm... IS a mixture of shame and contempt that deserves a focus on
their obstruction. The 'trace' ruse is an item the AG/PUC allowed to be squandered while CenturyLink is a
vulgar institution... proud of abuse and justified by wrong doing. The Respondent company inneed of a more just reconning.
I respectfully call for a reversal of the case closure, by the PUC, and ask that a morepunitive posture be taken against Century Link by appropriate members of AG Wasden's
office and others. The PUC activity and responsibility needs to be better addressed...and thePUC IS now, finally, after nearly five years of full and part time negligence, needs to call a
spade a spade for reasons inside and accountable to its significant authority. There is very much wrong with how big business, big money and big political influence has
brough ridicule on Idaho state government...while the latter moves to distance itself (?) fromhonesty, integrity and bonafide efficiency...leaving myself and a thousand neighbors to despair
and suffer (in my case) on a literal daily basis... due to bad actors who are continually andsubstantially supported and defended by Century Link.
The PUC's people have been tacitly ridiculed by CenturyLink operatives. That should notstand in its entirety, either...regardless of the 'but out' challenge CLink boldly tossed at the
AG's deputies. The PUC, its staff and the AG's deputies have yet a good deal to work with...for bringing
justice to a noisy, proud and wayward operator. Sincerely, Richard Keavy