20240104Brief and motion to amend complaint.pdf

Sherry Cole Pro Se
350 S. 12th W. #14
Saint Anthony Idaho 83445
208-624-4020
[e-mail]
In the Idaho Public Utilities Commission
Sherry Cole
Petitioner, Appellant
Vs.
Pacific Corp, dba Rocky Mountain Power
Respondents
)
)
)
)
)
Brief
Case No. PAC-E-23-12
Brief and
Motion to Amend Complaint
There was no reason why This was not resolved, I had my case proven before submitting for
billing irregularities Idaho rule 61-301 and 14th Amendment violation of Rocky Mountain
power, and the decisions in a tribunal that only favored Rocky Mountain power which results in
regulatory taking is violation of both Idaho and Federal, but I will let the AG and Lawmakers
deal with a rogue agency(/daho code section 67-8002) (US code 42 US. Code § 1983)
which brings in both the 5th and 9th Amendments along with 42 US. Code § 1985.Wh
I also Object to any more hearings with the agency itself after the unfair treatment of a private
citizen with a valid claim ,your record is wrong and after dealing with this agency I cannot trust
RECEIVED
Thursday, January 4, 2024 3:22:42 PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
them to do things unbiased and neutral or legally within the Constitutional protections of private
citizens.
They had this opportunity before their final decision and chose not to do a hearing, Rocky
Mountain Powers Lawyer and the Company had the opportunity before the informal to settle this
and chose to walk away from those negotiation when actual Idaho Law proved them wrong in
their claim that 6 months was all the company could go back.
I am opposed to submitting to further jurisdiction with what the agency did to me whether it be
on purpose or inadvertently, that has supported continuance of violations of my Constitutional
protections by Rocky Mountain Power and doing a separate agency order to add themselves as
defendants
That the court accepted and ordered without my knowledge, begs to question as to why the
agency did this behind my back and without any service to me would be a violation of legal
law,it was done under a separate case number so I would not see it. then the order added into this
one. Mr. Duval was aware I was not suing the agency which is almost as inconceivable that they
would try to add themselves as defendants against the Appellants wishes when only dealing with
the facts against Rocky Mountain Power, and claim it was the Supreme Courts doing, rules I
haven't been able to locate that rule in IRCP or law, when it was an agency order that added them
2 months after the appeal was started against Rocky Mountain Power only, and has caused
delays in the legal process . I am astonished the court allowed this without any notice to the
appellant.
You can submit unsettled agency record marked as such immediately To the Supreme Court, but
agency record is not factual other than the decisions in the orders is what the Commission did,
not the actual facts ,but they are full of lies and or omissions trying to protect Rocky Mountain
Power, agency record are not factually supported by the evidence and still have no bearing on the
Constitutional issues appealed to the Supreme Court against Rocky Mountain Power.
. In the most expedient manner without duplicates, keep the comments, strike the exhibit of
sworn affidavit exhibits only leaving the Sworn affidavit in the agency record. Rocky Mountain
Power did overcharge me and the meters were crossed is fact so they have illegal possession of
my Property and did it without due process of the law.. Plaintiffs Exhibits (1)(2)(3) already on
file have been there since the informal.
Plaintiff wasn't aware that needed legal writing for what she was told was investigation into
complaint and billing mediation. Tried to get an attorney and failed when realized the legal
ramifications by Rocky Mountain Powers response to the commission, and can definitely see
why they don't want to deal with both a utility and the commission which leaves a regular citizen
defenseless to the abuses of power of the utility combined with the state agencies tribunal that
does not allow for Constitutional protections, only lawyers that will are the ones representing the
Utilities which is not legal justice.
To protect myself from what agency has shown capable of doing:
At no time will there be a dismissal with prejudice from The Commission to prevent me from
continuing my suspended appeal already started. if you chose to do this I will be there. but will
be doing further investigation into this legality of this according to the Constitution and Idaho
law, not the agencies rules and regulations as they have no bearing in the appeal on
Constitutional issues against Rocky Mountain Power and can be challenged under "Whoever,
under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any
State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than one year"42 U.S. Code § 1985 - Conspiracy to interfere with civil
rights"
Though I do not wish to go this route if you obligate me to I will. This is only delaying my
appeal that I started against Rocky Mountain Power as only defendant. I will need more time for
preparations because what this is doing is going to be more than just the exhibits and the judge
asking them a few questions because the evidence is in writing and predates their false claims , if
the state admin agency chooses to continue as defendants.
Rocky Mountain Power and IPUC were well aware plaintiff was willing to fight all the way
Scotus for justice, if need be Pro Se. against Rocky Mountain Power theft by overcharges to
appellant, if it hadn't been for the public comment about procedural, legal and Constitutional
issues they would have done the same as always dismiss with prejudice in the pattern easily
shown by closed cases, that blocked private citizen from getting into the court system with a
valid complaint against a utility the Commission oversees.
With what was done in my case by the agency. it appears to this private citizen the commission
should not be a state agency with regulatory powers as they allow violations of law and
Constitution in the face of the facts, but labeled a major lobby group instead and loose all
powers granted by the state and its inhabitants if they cannot do the job they were set up to do
neutrally and unbiased as mandated by Idaho law, that is the definition of corruption. Since
when can admin agency ignore law and rules be seen as not prejudicial such as ignoring I.R.E
103 rule 401,
Apologies if this isn't written perfectly as still learning but fighting for my Constitutional Judicial
Protections and now apparently civil rights too...
Amendments to complaint
The petitioner Sherry Cole is seeking to amend the complaint to include recovery of legal fees in
addition to the total amount of over charges by Rocky Mountain Power plus interest. It will
depend on how many courts it takes for this simple case to get settled to get the total.
That the proper one not found in IDAPA be entered into the complaint Idaho rule 61-301
and based on information from when it was originally filed, be corrected to the amount that was
given to both The Commission Secretary Jan and the attorney for Rocky Mountain Power Joseph
Dallas based on estimate from the 6 months credit they did provide then reversed, as they are
capable of getting the exact amount but didn't want to so it was fair and accurate for both parties
estimate of 10,870.00 based on the new evidence that was passed along to amend the complaint
but was not added
That the information obtained from research of a State of Idaho Law Maker Heather Scott on
Idaho Law, be added that was entered wrongly in the order backgrounds as it was not
commission staff but an elected lawmaker. It was given to the Commission secretary but never
entered except for falsely, and the Utilities lawyer, that that 6 months only applies to being
undercharged, there is no time restriction when the customer was over charged. As I the
petitioner was.
Sherry Cafe Pro Se
6. 0
January 4th, 20241-1/
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the 4th day of January, 2023, I served true and accurate copies of the foregoing
document on the following persons, either by deposit in the U.S. Mail, addressed as follows and with the
correct first-class postage affixed thereto, or be deposit in the designated courthouse mailbox, or by
hand-delivery, as indicated below:
Name: Michael Duval
Served by:
[ Hand-delivery
[ Deposit in the designated courthouse mailbox
[ By deposit in the U.S. Mail addressed as follows:
[ Electronic submission via Icourt portal file and serve
[x] Email
Name: Joseph Dallas
Served by:
[ Hand-delivery
[ Deposit in the designated courthouse mailbox
[I By deposit in the U.S. Mail addressed as follows:
[ Electronic submission via Icourt portal file and serve
[x] Email
Name: Jea,--‘)
Served by:
[I Hand-delivery
[ Deposit in the designated courthouse mailbox
[I By deposit in the U.S. Mail addressed as follows:
[I Electronic submission via lcourt portal file and serve
email
1.
e
cie te,,y
Sherry Cole Pro Se Appellant
-