Positions of Parties
Complainant's contentions are difficult to discern, but it is clear the Complainant is attacking the Commission's resolution of her earlier case, C.99-03-016. In C.00-07-012, Complainant appears to contend that the Commission improperly released to Pacific monies that Complainant deposited with the Commission in C.99-03-016. Pacific contends that Complainant fails to understand the procedure for releasing funds on deposit with the Commission
In C.00-07-015, Complainant appears to contend that no money is owed to Pacific because Pacific sent bills to a wrong address. Complainant also characterizes Pacific's requests for payment as extortionist, harassment and fraud. Complainant also accuses Pacific's employees of altering records and lying. Further, Complainant has accused Commission employees of being evasive and liars as well as abetting Pacific in committing criminal acts.
Pacific contends that it (1) investigated and corrected Complainant's billing address upon Complainant's request, and (2) provided Complainant with duplicate bills and time to review those bills and make payment arrangements. Pacific also contends that C.00-07-015 is unintelligible.
On October 18, 2000, the ALJ issued a ruling finding preliminarily that in light of the warnings in Decision (D.) 00-03-022,2 Complainant and her representative had violated Rule 1. In response to the ALJ's ruling, Complainant attacks the character of the ALJ3 and does not address the issues raised in the October ruling.
2 In D.00-03-022, which rejected Complainant's application for rehearing in C.99-03-016, the Commission warned Complainant against filing groundless, malicious complaints without any substantiating facts. See also footnote 4 below and accompanying text. 3 Complainant contends in her response that the ALJ "has violated CPUC rules," "bashes and threatens, seeks to intimidate and silence complainant, and rewards dishonesty, numerous criminal acts...," and that the ALJ has abetted extortion.
