c/o 7055 Mountain Rd.
Oxford, North Carolina
October 15 1999

Attorney General
Mike Easley
2 East Morgan St.
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina

Dear Mr. Easley;

Pursuant to your oversight authority derived from North Carolina General Stat. 62-79; I would like you to investigate violations of the General Statutes of North Carolina and violations of Due Process committed by the North Carolina Public Utilities Commission, hereinafter PUC, in the handling of my case # P-89 Sub 69.

N.C.G.S. 62-3 (24) clearly establishes my Complaint as a "Rate" case and N.C.G.S. 62-81 states quite clearly that this matter SHALL be set for hearing. The PUC has DISMISSED my case after initially setting it for hearing, ONLY AFTER I had requested Discovery which would have uncovered evidence that I believe would have implicated the PUC itself in gross error in their approval of certain "general carrier charges" which should never have been authorized! Since this is definitely a "rate" case, the burden of proof is on the Respondents under G.S. 62-75. The Commission shielded the Respondents by denying my due process discovery and flat out eliminating any due process hearing.

My complaint produces evidence supporting this fact and that the PUC itself was/is culpable in the illegal rate charging being perpetrated against the telephone users in North Carolina. Since a FINDING by any deliberative body that my allegations are TRUE; it would inevitably result in affecting the telephone bills of every household with a phone in North Carolina. I respectfully suggest that your office pursue an active participation in this matter pursuant to your duty as outlined in NCGS 62-79. The entire case was sent to your office by the PUC. They nor I have heard anything from your office in response thereto. Please advise if your office will investigate this controversy?

Just as a point of information :

My complaint was filed in December of 1998 and the PUC which assumed jurisdiction then subsequently claimed it had no such jurisdiction. It did in fact have jurisdiction when by its own action; it later unilaterally included AT&T into the complaint and sent the matter to the Respondents to answer. This is evidenced in PUC's own Memorandum Dated December 2, 1998, of which you have a copy.

The Respondents never responded in substance but only with general denials. Even 'these' denial were in want of proper procedure. Throughout the whole process the Respondents provided no evidence of law or authority to support their stance. However, I have provided all matter of authority including supporting documentation from the federal Government's own General Accounting Office (GAO) to support my position.

Why is it that "everyone" - the Commission, its general counsel, the public service staff; its counsel, and possibly; even your office want to bury their heads in the ground to obvious violations of Law.

The PUC expedited a Hearing and scheduled it for August 9, 1999. I immediately filed for discovery. My Discovery request "triggered" the PUC into canceling the scheduled hearing and denying my Discovery request. Then it totally dismissed my action on September 2, 1999, citing no facts, law or other reasons from the record as required, in violation of N.C.G.S. 62-79. I appealed this dismissal directly to the Commission as is required, before filing a Notice of Appeal, which was filed September 17, 1999.

I opened the Appeal to the Commissions order with the following statement to wit;

  Failure to provide the above prevents Complainant from narrowing the issues on appeal. Therefore, Complainant hereby demands the Public Utilities Commission show good cause, sue sponte for is reasons for failing to comply with State Law. Issues of "fact and law" have been presented by Complainant. No issues of "fact and law" has been entered by Respondents. Since "AND" in 62-79 is a conjunction, BOTH #1 and #2 must apply and G.S. 62-73 cannot, alone, apply in a final decision. There has been no valid final decision under the required seal that must issue from this commission."

  Mr. Easley, the PUC issued an Order dated September 21, 1999 that they would respond by October 1, 1999 to this appeal. To this date PUC has failed to respond to their own Order. At this point in time it appears that the PUC itself is my adversary and may be in complicity with the Respondents.

     Another man, Paul Burge, who petitioned for Intervenor status having discovered the same or similar improper charges as I, was summarily denied Intervention without a hearing and contrary to the Commissions own Rule at R1-19(e). It was stated to Mr. Burge that, "he did not have an interest" in the Complaint even though he is contesting much of the very same charges and procedure as I am. I believe the Commission is doing everything possible to "bury" this matter so as to minimize any possible public exposure to obvious bureaucratic ineptness. I understand also; that Mr. Burge has appealed the Commission alleged dismissal; but to date he too has been denied any explanation, as to WHY his request for Intervention is being denied!

     Mr. Easely, the General Stat. of North Carolina cited below, specifically states you are to represent the consuming public and users in matters of general public interest. Can there be "any" doubt that this matter cries out as potentially affecting the phone bills of every telephone user in the State of North Carolina? The question is: will the Attorney General's office come to the aid of the consumer public; even when such Intervention might possibly expose impropriety and possibly even corruption at the Agency level? Does PUBLIC POLICY mean (1) protecting the people of North Carolina first? or (2) preventing the exposure of misfeasance or possibly even malfeasance in public office? This issue may very well be settled; once and for all; as this matter proceeds!

These are the reasons for this letter concerning the PUC.

#1 I have received no final determination as required by the G.S 62-79. of N.C. from the PUC with which to file the appeal although I have filed a Notice of Appeal;

#2 they have violated their oaths of office under G.S. 62.11 when not following statutory law in this matter;

#3 they violated administrative due process in denying any hearing; into this matter per G.S. 62-81;

#4 they violated due process of discovery after having scheduled a hearing and later canceling same;

#5 they have shirked their duties to the consumers and users of general telephone services by not investigating the allegations of complainant or establishing whether the disputed charges were properly authorized by law before dismissing this instant matter. Prima facie law has been rebutted with evidence that it does not exist;

#6 they have failed to demand that the Respondents "reply to THEIR burden as required by GS-75, according to the evidence on the record.

Now the question remains why has not your office pursuant to GS 62-79 intervened and stood in place of the consuming public?

I await your immediate answer.

Sincerely

Albert Coombs

Cert. Mail # Z 086-370-935

[The only response to the above was: "We don't have the manpower to look into this matter".]