© 1994 - 2009
Against the Grain

c/o 7055 Mountain Rd.
Oxford, North Carolina

Sprint President
Dwight W. Allen
14111 Capital Blvd.
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587

NOTICE OF DEFAULT                            Cert. Mail Controversy No. Z 086 370 884
              AND
TACIT PROCURATION
           to cure

Brief Synopsis with
Administrative Determination
via
Tacit Procuration

This Notice and Tacit Procuration is addressed specifically to the President of Sprint Phone Corporation, Dwight W. Allen.

A two page letter was sent to The CEO of AT&T Phone Company in care of and also to Dwight W. Allen, dated July 28, 1998, under Certified Mail Z 086 370 875, RRR. This letter contained seventeen paragraphs of which, ten paragraphs were questions disputing the various charges on the phone bill and requesting the documentation of proof that I was obligated to these charges within twenty days.

A carbon copy was sent to Sprint billing in Tenn. with my corrected bill of my own that paid in full the account for the month of July. It was so marked on the money order and the calculation sheet. The Money Order was cashed as reflected in the August billing from Sprint. Acceptance by Sprint extinguished the complete bill.

The letter had questions for Mr. Allen and the CEO of AT&T to answer as the Officers in command representing the Sprint Corporation and AT&T. Mr. Allen did not produce any of the documents demanded within the seventeen paragraphs when he replied in his letter dated Aug. 11, 1998. The CEO of AT&T did not respond.

A second notice was sent to Mr. Allen, dated Aug. 20, 1998 with a carbon copy to Dana Andel, AT&T, after not being able to obtain the name or address of the CEO of AT&T, under certified mail Z 086 370 880 RRR. This notice informed both parties of various laws that did not pertain to me so that the disputed charges could be exempted from the phone bills. The letter also informed Mr. Allen that he had yet to produce any of the documents requested in the previous letter.

On August 28, 1998, I had obtained the address of the AT&T CEO, but not his name. A corrected bill for August 22, 1998 was sent to both parties which was self explanatory. Included in the corrected bill was my invoice for the time spent in research in the matter. Again, both the Money Order and the Calculation/invoice sheet had marked Paid in full on the account. The money Order was cashed as reflected in the September billing by Sprint. Therefore, under offer and acceptance the entire bill was paid.

By letter dated September 9, 1998, Mr. Allen informed me that when my phone bill reaches an amount of $45.00 in past due account for my failure to pay the disputed charges, it would result in suspended phone service.

On September 18, 1998, I sent a third Notice to Mr. Allen, which contained five Exhibits of all the statutes, code of federal regulations, Table of Authorities concerning the disputed charges that should never have been charged to me. This was also carbon copy to AT&T CEO in Basking Ridge, New Jersey. This was certified mail # Z 086 370 882 RRR.

On September 18, 1998, a Mr. Jeff Vanholtz from AT&T called me on the phone. We had a discussion in which he stated that I had to send AT&T a letter every month and they would remove all the excise taxes. Mr. Vanholtz explained all the other charges in dispute were the responsibility of Sprint. Mr. Vanholtz then explained the disputed charges and how four private corporations did the controlling of the disputed charges along with the FCC. The Congress had not authorized legislation for these charges. The charges were to be passed along for the phone companies doing business with each other, to the customer.

On September 23, 1998, under certified Mail # Z 086 370 883, RRR, a Constructive Notice was sent to Mr. Allen with carbon copies going to CEO of AT&T, Sprint billing Department in Tenn., Muriel Offerman, Secretary of Revenue of North Carolina and the AT&T Federal Excise Tax Group. This notice contained excerpts from the phone conversation of Sept 18, 1998 between me and Mr. Vanholtz of AT&T. Also included in this Constructive Notice was evidence of proof from the General Counsel of the General Accounting Office, Robert P. Murphy, before the House Judiciary Committee, that all the disputed charges I had refused to pay were non-constitutional in nature and no legislative authority was ever approved and passed for these charges. In this Constructive Notice I informed Mr. Allen of Fraud and crimes under Title 18 U.S.C. that I had to report to him and the carbon copied people. I had given Mr. Allen, in good faith, another ten days to respond with a meaningful response to all my demands which he had not answered.

On October 7, 1998, a corrected bill and Invoice was sent to Sprint Billing along with payment, by Money Order marked Paid in full. This was copied to Dwight W. Allen of Sprint and C. Michael Armstrong, CEO of AT&T, whose name I had obtained on Sept 30, 1998.

This Tacit Procuration is directed to Mr Dwight W. Allen. Mr. Allen failed to execute his fiduciary duties by responding to the questions presented in a timely manner in good faith. The inaction of Mr. Allen constitutes a legal default and is fatal error.

"Default a failure to discharge a duty, to one's own disadvantage; anything wrongful--some omission to do that which ought to have been done by one of the parties." 90 N.Y.S. 589, 590.

"The term is most often used to describe the occurrence of an event which cuts short the rights or remedies of one of the parties to an agreement or a legal dispute." Barrons's Law Dictionary, third edition.

Your silence, Mr. Allen, to one in your high position, as to the questions and documents requested, shows bad faith and unclean hands. It is tacit admission that the Legal facts I presented could not be disputed, thereby confirming that none of the disputed charges were ever to be applied to me, Albert Coombs.

Tacit admission is that I am correct in that no consent document can be produced with which to compel, through threat of discontinued phone service, to pay for charges that are illegal and of no authority and that I am not one within the purview of the statutes in question. However, the following quotes are to be recognized by Mr. Allen and all others involved in this dispute.

"Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when and inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading." United States v. Tweel 550 F.2d 297, 299-300 (1947)

The definition of FRAUD given in 37 AM JUR 2nd, 144, 146 is: 144: "Unquestionably, the concealment of material facts that one, under the circumstance, is bound to disclose may constitute fraud. Indeed, one of the fundamental tenets of the Anglo-Saxon law of fraud is that fraud may be committed by a suppression of the truth, (suppressio veri) as well as by the suggestion of falsehood. , (suggestio falsi)."

146: "The principle in the law of fraud as it relates to nondisclosure, that a charge of fraud is maintainable where a party knows material facts, is under the duty, under the circumstances, to speak and disclose his information, but remains silent."

A total silence as to the questions asked of Mr. Allen in this cause is proof in the above synopsis. And to resolve the silence this Tacit Admission, by Proxy, is to determine that all the answers herein are true, correct and complete and can never be disputed by Mr. Allen, Mr. Armstrong or any other party involved operating under the same ordinances and statutes above, under the doctrine of estoppel by silence.

Thus, by reason of the foregoing, this proxy determination is made to solidify the implied consent, which by your silence, you, Mr. Dwight W. Allen, President of Sprint agree. The Certified Mail Number of this Tacit Admission will be used for reference and controversy management.

The following questions are answered on your behalf, thus resolving your silence since you did not disagree before and remained silent when you had a legal duty to speak and did not as to the questions and documents that were to be produced to support Sprint's position. The old adage "the buck stops here" applies. You, Mr Allen, are the only person that can object to this in your position as Chief Executive Officer of the Sprint corporate body since you failed to answer the questions posed and agreed by tacit admission, my premises starting with the July 28, 1998 instrument through and including the September 23, 1998 Constructive Notice. You cannot delegate anyone to answer for you as they have no personal knowledge of the material addressed specifically to you. Because of your capacity as Sprint President, the answers, if objected to must be elaborated with proof. No objection means your answers to my questions are correct.

I suggest if your objections will not fit on this document then attach your objections and explanations and microfilm a copy for yourself and you must send the original back to me. There are Fifteen pages to this document and Seventy three Questions that you have answered by proxy.

Question #1. Did you receive a seventeen paragraph letter from Albert Coombs dated July 28, 1998?

Ans. Yes

Question #2. Did you respond by providing any of the requested documents?

Ans. No.

Question #3. Do you or Sprint have possession of any documents showing Albert Coombs is a corporation subject to an Excise tax?

Ans. No.

Question #4. Do you or Sprint have possession of any document under The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act that authorizes you to be a debt collector for the 911 charges?

Ans. No

Question #5. Do you or Sprint have documentation s