V. Discussion of Issues

The following is a discussion of the individual issues raised in this proceeding. We will address issues pertaining to Worldwide first.

Worldwide-Agreement with WTS

In Worldwide's comments on the proposed decision in A.99-04-042, signed by Joseph Mancuso, it said that its "sole operations" in California were as an agent of WTS. CPSD says that this statement was false. CPSD alleges that an "Assignment Agreement" between Worldwide and WTS assigned all rights and responsibilities to Worldwide. CPSD Exhibit 38. CPSD also says that, under the later amended agreement, Worldwide still collected and kept all the revenue, minus $5,000/month it paid to WTS. Worldwide was still solely responsible for all billing, accounting, payment of regulatory fees, reporting, and the like, maintained control over all the customer information, and functioned as an agent for customers. Christopher Mancuso said that at the time the agreement was made with WTS, WTS's business was almost entirely wound up, and it had sold off its customer base several years before. Christopher Mancuso also said that he never performed any services for WTS, and there was never a marketing agreement between WorldTech and WTS.

Worldwide entered into an agency and an assignment agreement with WTS, in July 1998, whereby it used WTS's tariffs and operating authority for a fee. The agreements provided that Worldwide was responsible for virtually all operations, and the customers and customer information were Worldwide's property. Worldwide was described as an authorized agent for its customers. WTS was allowed to inspect Worldwide's books quarterly, and approve tariff changes. WTS had no obligation to collect any charge, or respond to any customer complaint.

The Commission has not previously addressed comprehensively what constitutes a valid agency agreement with an authorized carrier. However, we would expect that such an agreement would be structured to at least ensure that the carrier had sufficient control over the agent to ensure the agent's compliance with statutory and Commission requirements. In addition, we would expect the customers to be customers of the utility, not the agent. The agreement does not do this. In addition, the agreement with WTS refers to Worldwide as an agent for end users, not for WTS. Therefore, Worldwide's initial agreement with WTS did not make Worldwide "solely" an agent of WTS, and in fact Worldwide was in all material aspects the principal in the transaction.

The amended agreement of April 1999, described Worldwide as an agent for sale of WTS's services. Worldwide remained responsible for all aspects of operations. In addition, the amended agreement described Worldwide as an agent for end users. Although the amended agreement described "end users" as "end users of WTS," all customer information belonged to Worldwide. Any access WTS may have had to customers or customer information was strictly for performance of the agreement. WTS was allowed to inspect Worldwide's books quarterly, and approve tariff changes.

The amended agreement does not give WTS sufficient control over Worldwide to ensure compliance with statutory and Commission requirements. It describes Worldwide as an agent for both WTS and customers, which appears to create a conflict of interest. In addition, since WTS did not own the customer information, the customers effectively belonged to Worldwide. Therefore, Worldwide's amended agreement with WTS also did not make Worldwide "solely" an agent of WTS, and in fact Worldwide was in all material aspects the principal in the transaction. Thus Worldwide's statement that its "sole operations in California were as an agent of WTS" is false.

Worldwide-False Statement

On February 26, 1999, counsel for Worldwide wrote to the Commission's General Counsel concerning a subpoena duces tecum that had been served on the Commission in connection with litigation between NTC, Worldwide, Christopher Mancuso and other parties.¹⁰ Worldwide's counsel stated that the purpose of the letter was to notify the General Counsel that his office represented two of the parties to the litigation, Worldwide and WTS, and that both of these parties have been dismissed from the litigation.

CPSD alleges that this was a false statement. An amended complaint in the litigation was filed on the same day as the letter. In addition, James Mancuso, as a "person most knowledgeable" designee of Worldwide, was deposed in that litigation almost two months after the letter was sent. Exhibit CPSD-16.

Clear World argues that counsel for Worldwide was referring to an order by the Orange County Superior Court granting a demurrer, with leave to amend, on several causes of action asserted against Worldwide. It also says that while CPSD may be technically correct, the use of the term "dismissed" was inadvertent and not willful misconduct.

The grant of a demurrer with leave to amend is not the same as a dismissal, and the further step of a judgment dismissing the action or the party is always necessary.¹¹ While this may have been an inadvertent error, it is still a false statement. The error should have been caught by its counsel, its owner Joseph Mancuso, or its general counsel James Mancuso.

Worldwide-Concealment of True Address

In its Statement of Domestic Stock Corporation filed with the California Secretary of State, Worldwide listed its street address as 2781 MacArther Boulevard, Suite B-603, Santa Ana, California 92704. This address is for a Mail Boxes Etc. mailbox, even though the form for the statement specifically says not to use a post office box. In an application for registration as an interexchange service reseller, an applicant is required to provide its street address. However, in A.99-04-042, Worldwide listed its street address as the same mailbox.

Clear World says that Worldwide used the mailbox because it was sharing office space with WTS, and needed a separate address for reasons of corporate confidentiality.

While Clear World offers an explanation of Worldwide's actions, the fact remains that Worldwide misled both the Secretary of State and the Commission as to its true street address. This does not reflect favorably on Worldwide's owner Joseph Mancuso, and its general counsel James Mancuso.

Worldwide-Concealment of the Role of Christopher Mancuso

Worldwide's A.99-04-042 stated that no one acting in the capacity of "officer, director, or general partner ... whether or not formally appointed," had ever been convicted of any "actions which involved misrepresentations to consumers." CPSD argues that it is misleading because Christopher Mancuso was the company founder and incorporator. In addition, the application did not include Worldwide's articles of incorporation that were signed by Christopher Mancuso as incorporator. CPSD further says that Christopher Mancuso made all of the major corporate decisions for Worldwide.

Clear World says that the incorporator has nothing to do with the future operation of the corporation. The incorporator appoints the initial directors, after which his role ceases. Clear World also argues that Christopher Mancuso signed the articles of incorporation because Joseph Mancuso was not available.

While the Commission's registration process for interexchange carriers did not require the filing of articles of incorporation, Clear World had in fact included its articles of incorporation whereas Worldwide omitted the articles of incorporation showing Christopher as "incorporator."

Since the incorporator had the authority to appoint the initial directors, the incorporator certainly had authority equivalent to an officer or director until the appointment was made. Thus, the affirmation made by Worldwide in its Application 99-04-042 -- that "no affiliate, officer, director, general partner, or person owning more than10% of applicant, or anyone acting in such a capacity whether or not formally appointed ... has been found either criminally or civilly liable by a court of appropriate jurisdiction ... for any actions which involved misrepresentations to consumers" - was false. Christopher Mancuso had been convicted of mail fraud involving misrepresentations to purchasers of the "Culture Farms" milk cultures described above.

Regardless of Christopher Mancuso's actual role, Worldwide's failure to include the articles of incorporation with its application concealed Christopher Mancuso's involvement with the company. Since both Joseph and James Mancuso knew that the Commission would not view any participation by Christopher Mancuso favorably, it is reasonable to conclude that this may not have been an oversight. This does not reflect favorably on the fitness of Joseph and James Mancuso.

Worldwide-Failure to Comply with D.02-06-045

D.02-06-045 allowed Worldwide to withdraw its application for registration as a long-distance reseller, but ordered Worldwide to preserve all corporate documents and appoint a custodian of records. CPSD points out that Joseph Mancuso, who was so ill that he could not understand or answer questions and could not be deposed in these proceedings, is the custodian of records. In addition, James Mancuso, Worldwide's General Counsel and only employee other than Joseph Mancuso, said that he does not know where Worldwide's records are. Christopher Mancuso, who founded Worldwide, evaded service in this matter. CPSD says that it served a subpoena duces tecum on Worldwide requesting all documents describing or memorializing any relationships between Clear World, WTS, and/or Worldwide. Worldwide produced only 13 pages, and the key "Assignment Agreement" between Worldwide and WTS was not included. This "Assignment Agreement" (CPSD Exhibit 38) was obtained by CPSD through third parties; therefore, CPSD believes that D.02-06-045 has had no effect. The Assignment Agreement again demonstrates that Worldwide was a principal and not an agent, as it assigns from WTS to Worldwide "all rights and responsibilities to carry the Interexchange telecommunications traffic currently on [WTS'] system ... to WTC [Worldwide] effective July 10^th 1998."

Since Joseph Mancuso was so ill that he could not understand or answer questions and could not be deposed in this proceeding, it is reasonable to expect that someone else should have been made custodian of records. In addition, Worldwide did not include the "Assignment Agreement" in the few records it produced in response to CPSD's request. The record does not demonstrate that James Mancuso, as Worldwide's general counsel, attempted to have someone else made the custodian of records, or otherwise make the records available. Therefore, Worldwide's records are effectively unavailable to the Commission, in violation of D.02-06-045. At the very least, this does not reflect favorably on the fitness of Joseph and James Mancuso.

Clear World-Slamming

Slamming is the unauthorized switching of a subscriber's long distance service provider in violation of Pub. Util. Code § 2889.5. CPSD alleges that Clear World has slammed numerous customers. In addition, CPSD alleges that Clear World did not adequately train its sales representatives, because it had almost no materials regarding slamming in its training materials.

A primary interexchange carrier (PIC) dispute occurs when a subscriber alleges to the local exchange carrier that his or her long distance service was switched to another carrier without authorization.¹² As evidence of slamming, CPSD states that Clear World had over 48,176 reported PIC disputes in 1998-2000, 21,830 in 2001, and 1080 in January 2002. CPSD says that even if the numbers were reduced by half because of counting intraLATA and interLATA disputes for the same customer as two PIC disputes, or by throwing out intraLATA disputes because of potential conflicts of interest by the reporting carriers, there would still be over 35,500 PIC disputes in that period.¹³ In addition, CPSD mailed letters to 1,804 customers who had PIC disputes. One hundred fifteen responded. CPSD also contacted eight customers who complained to the Commission' Consumer Affairs Branch. In all, 76 customers were interviewed by CPSD. Of these, 54 said that they were slammed, 19 said they authorized the switch but didn't receive the promised rates, 60 said they did not receive a written notice of the switch, and three said that they did not complain about Clear World. Four customers provided testimony.

Suzanne Sobenes testified that in approximately June 2001, her long distance service was switched to Clear World without her permission. The switch had been authorized by her adult son, without her permission, in the belief that it would result in lower rates. She contacted Clear World but was unable to resolve the issue. After she complained to the Commission in July 2001, Clear World stopped its service, and provided her with a refund. Sobenes said that Clear World's rates were higher that her authorized carrier, and that she never received written notice of the switch.

Andy Xu testified that on October 10, 2001 his long distance service was switched to Clear World without his permission. He said that on October 10, 2001, his wife received a call from Clear World.¹⁴ The sales representative spoke to her in Mandarin because she does not speak English. He offered her 200 free minutes even if she did not want to switch carriers. She accepted the free minutes only. The representative told her that a third party representative would verify her acceptance of the gift, and requested that she respond to the verifier by saying yes when the sales representative did. The verifier spoke English. The verifier asked questions in English. The sales representative would say yes, and Ms. Xu would copy him by saying yes.¹⁵ On October 19, 2001, Xu had Pacific transfer his service back to his authorized carrier. On October 27, 2001, Clear World again switched his service without his authorization. On December 13, 2001, Xu complained to the Commission. Xu said that Clear World's rates were higher than his authorized carrier, and he never received written notice from Clear World of the switch. Xu eventually received a refund from Clear World.

Jose Duran testified that in October 2001 he found that his long distance service had been switched without his permission. He called Clear World and said he did not authorize the switch. He was informed that he had been receiving service from them for six months. The representative promised a refund of the difference between Clear World's rates and those of his previous carrier. On February 19, 2002, he called Clear World asking the status of his refund. He received the refund in March 2002. When CPSD played the tape recording of the third party verification tape, he said that he did not recognize the voice or the name of the person on the tape. Duran said that he never received a written notification of the switch.

Maria Flores testified that in August 2001, her long distance service was switched without her permission. She discovered the change on her October 2001 bill. On August 23, 2001, she received a call from a sales representative for Clear World. He offered her a new long distance discount plan by Pacific. Believing the offer to be by Pacific, she accepted. On September 7, 2001, she received a third party verification call. The verifier said the service was to be provided by Clear World rather than Pacific. Flores then told the verifier that she was not interested. The verifier told her that Clear World's service would be stopped and Clear World would have to pay the fee for the carrier change. Clear World subsequently billed Flores for a monthly charge. In October 2001, Flores called Pacific to have Clear World removed from her account, which they did. Flores said that she never received a written notification of the switch.

Clear World says that CPSD's allegation ofmany thousands of PIC disputes should be of no concern. It says that it has added more than 550,000 customers since its inception in 1998 and its PIC dispute rate is comparable to an industry average of 2.94-7.35%. In addition, Clear World says that CPSD's PIC dispute numbers came from WorldCom. Clear World claims that the PIC dispute numbers provided by WorldCom for Pacific's territory are much larger than those reported by Pacific. Clear World also says that WorldCom showed Clear World PIC disputes prior to when Clear World was created or began offering service. Clear World, therefore, argues that WorldCom's numbers are suspect. Clear World further argues that Pacific and Verizon's numbers are suspect, at least as far as local toll service is concerned, because they compete with Clear World for customers. Clear World argues that the fact that the Commission has received only 23 written complaints in the last two years, during which time it added 279,384 customers, indicates that it is doing a good job. Clear World argues that the tape recordings of the independent verifications contradict Sobenas, Xu, Duran, and Flores's testimony regarding slamming. Regarding training, Clear World says that, in addition to written materials, its sales representatives receive two days of training, and receive other training on the job. In addition, sales calls are electronically monitored by supervisors.

The exact number of PIC disputes is uncertain. Nonetheless, since there appears to have been a lot of PIC disputes, slamming may have occurred. Since Clear World provides service in a number of states, its statistics appear to be comparing, at least in part, California PIC disputes and California written complaints with the number of customers for the total company. Even if Clear World's statistics and claim that its PIC dispute rate is comparable to the average for the industry are accurate, having an average number of PIC disputes does not mean that slamming did not occur.

Verification of a customer's choice to switch to Clear World is done by an independent entity chosen by Clear World. The verification is done by an automated system where an electronic voice asks a series of questions. To determine whether the person agreeing to the switch is authorized to make decisions regarding telephone service, the following question is asked:

"Clear World is a long distance company that bills you through your local phone Company, but is not associated with them in any way. To confirm that you are over the age of 18, and you are the person authorized to make decisions regarding your telephone service, please state your birthday."

A careful reading of the question indicates that by stating his or her birthday, the person is claimed to be saying he or she is authorized to make decisions regarding telephone service. However, the question is asked orally, rather than in writing. The record does not indicate Clear World's motivation in allowing this language to be used, rather than simply asking for the person's birthday, and then separately asking whether the person is authorized to make the switch. However, it could easily be misunderstood to be asking only for the person's birthday. Clear World is responsible for insuring proper verification. By allowing this wording to be used, it is reasonable to conclude that it switched some customers without valid authorization. Such occurrences likely contributed to the number of PIC disputes. The fact that Clear World allowed such potentially misleading language to be used is not to the credit of Joseph, James, or Michael Mancuso. We will require Clear World to modify the verification language as discussed above.

The verification tape for Xu does not show that Mrs. Xu was coached during the verification. However, Clear World has provided no evidence to show that its sales representative did not misrepresent what was offered, and take advantage of Mrs. Xu's inability to speak English. Xu had nothing to gain by misrepresenting what his wife had told him had occurred, or his own experiences. We find his testimony credible and persuasive and, therefore, conclude that he was slammed.

Duran testified that he did not recognize the voice or the name given on the verification tape. He had no reason to misrepresent what happened. We find his testimony credible and persuasive and, therefore, conclude that he was slammed.

Clear World said that Flores was contacted by its sales representative on October 10, 2001, and that the verification tape shows that she confirmed the switch. However, Flores provided a copy of a bill she received from HBS Billing Services, dated October 28, 2002, that indicates a monthly service fee from Clear World on October 1, 2001. That bill appears to indicate that Clear World billed Flores for services before the transfer was alleged to have been authorized. Flores had no reason to misrepresent what happened. We find her testimony credible and persuasive, and therefore conclude that she was misled, and then slammed.

All four customers said that they did not receive written notice of the switch. Clear World offered information on its postage expenses that it said demonstrated that it mailed notices to all of its customers. However, it provided no records that demonstrate that these particular customers received notices.

Clear World provides its sales representatives with written materials and training. The fact that Clear World had few written training materials regarding slamming does not demonstrate that its sales representatives were inadequately trained regarding slamming.

Clear World-Altered Document

In this proceeding, CPSD sought discovery of correspondence between Clear World and WorldCom from both of those entities. CPSD received a copy from WorldCom of a November 30, 2001 letter from WorldCom to Clear World. The letter was to a "Mr. Michael Mancuso - President" and "Mr. Christopher Mancuso - Founder" of Clear World Communications Corporation. The second version, produced by Clear World, was the same letter but with the reference to Christopher Mancuso as founder missing.

Clear World explains that when it received the letter, the letter erroneously listed Christopher Mancuso as founder. It sought to correct the error by sending WorldCom a fax with the reference to Christopher Mancuso deleted. This version was put in the files. When Clear World produced the letter for CPSD, it merely copied the one in its files. Clear World says that it was not attempting to hide Christopher Mancuso's involvement.

The original letter made reference to Christopher Mancuso as founder. There is no apparent reason why the altered version should be in the files for Clear World's internal use. Therefore, the only logical reason to include the altered version in its files rather than the original is so that the reference to Christopher Mancuso would not be seen by someone outside the company. The only entity outside the company who would likely care about the reference is the Commission. The letter was apparently altered in the past, rather than specifically for this proceeding. However, it was altered to conceal the reference to Christopher Mancuso as founder. Whether Christopher Mancuso was the founder of Clear World is not relevant. Therefore, we find that Clear World submitted an altered document to the Commission.

Clear World-Aiding Unlicensed Sale of
Telephone Services by Worldwide

CPSD alleges that Clear World aided and abetted the unlicensed sale of telephone service by Worldwide. Specifically, CPSD alleges that, in the period following the February 4, 1999 cease and desist letter from CSD, Clear World continued to sell wholesale minutes and back-office support to Worldwide.

Clear World says that the question of whether Worldwide was operating without authority was a disputed issue of law that was never decided by the Commission. In addition, it says it never sold wholesale minutes to Worldwide.

In the hearings, James Mancuso could not identify whether it was Worldwide or WTC that paid Clear World for wholesale minutes. However, Christopher Mancuso said, in his 1998 deposition, that he negotiated an agreement between Worldwide and Clear World, whereby Clear World was the exclusive provider of wholesale minutes and back-office support to Worldwide. Therefore, it appears that Clear World did sell wholesale minutes to Worldwide. However, the question is whether it should have stopped doing so until the issue of authority was decided.

After receipt of CSD's letter, Worldwide attempted to satisfy the Commission's requirements by revising its agreement with WTS, and filing for registration as an interexchange carrier. If Clear World had stopped providing services to Worldwide, Worldwide's customers would have had their service interrupted. This would not have been a desirable outcome. In addition, the Commission did not take any action against Worldwide. Therefore, we believe that these were reasonable first steps by Worldwide in resolving the situation. In addition, it was reasonable for Clear World to continue providing service to Worldwide so that customer service would not be interrupted while the situation was being resolved.

Use of the agreement with WTS allowed Worldwide to escape the scrutiny by the Commission, and discovery of Christopher Mancuso's involvement, that would have occurred if it had applied for a CPCN in the first place. Given the Mancuso's involvement in the provision of service by Worldwide, it is not to their credit that Worldwide did not seek operating authority from the start.

Clear World-Sale of Telephone
Service Without a CPCN

CPSD says that the WorldCom PIC dispute reports, entered into evidence in this proceeding, show that 226 PIC disputes were lodged against Clear World/DLD Account No. 182806 in January 1998, and there were similar numbers of PIC disputes for subsequent months. However, Clear World did not receive authority to operate in California until August 1998. CPSD, therefore, says that Clear World operated without a CPCN during that period. Clear World says that account 182806 had earlier been assigned to Amerivision/DLD, and that WorldCom's report was flawed.

We have previously determined that the exact number of PIC disputes is uncertain. Therefore, we cannot conclude solely on the basis of these PIC dispute reports that Clear World provided service without a CPCN.

CPSD also alleges that the asset purchase agreement by which Clear World acquired all of the assets of AEC/DLD included customers and customer lists. Christopher Mancuso said that the Clear World acquisition of DLD had been in the works for 18 months prior to the acquisition. He also said that, prior to the acquisition, AEC/DLD had purchased long-distance services from Amerivision that were then resold to AEC/DLD's customers. In addition, Christopher Mancuso said that he provided carrier negotiations, product development, strategic marketing analysis to AEC/DLD beginning in 1993. However, AEC/DLD never obtained a CPCN from the Commission, and Clear World only obtained its license in August 1998. Therefore, CPSD says it appears that Clear World, AEC/DLD and, therefore, Michael Mancuso and Joseph Mancuso were operating as unlicensed resellers at least as of January 1998, and probably as early as 1993.

Clear World says that AEC/DLD operated as an agent of another carrier. However, the record does not contain such an agreement, nor does it indicate that CPSD made a request for a copy of the agreement that was denied. Therefore, we cannot determine whether AEC/DLD provided telecommunications services without a CPCN.

Clear World-Adequacy of Financial Records

D.98-08-056, which granted Clear World a CPCN to resell interexchange services, required it to keep its books and records in accordance with the Uniform System of Accounts (USOA). CPSD asserts that Clear World violated this requirement because it did not maintain adequate financial records. In particular, CPSD says that Clear World made payments to Christopher Mancuso's ITC, totaling over $5.275 million from August 3, 1999 through April 19, 2002, without a written contract or invoices for the payments. Clear World does not agree that it violated the USOA. However, James Mancuso testified that there was no written contract pursuant to which these payments were made, nor was he aware of any invoices for the payments. Our requirement that Clear World keep its books and records in accordance with the USOA presupposes that adequate records are actually kept. Clear World cannot avoid the requirement by not keeping records of such transactions. Therefore, we find that, since Clear World did not keep adequate records of these transactions, it did not keep its books and records in accordance with the USOA in violation of D.98-08-056. We also note that these transactions involve Christopher Mancuso. The lack of such records tends to conceal details of the services provided by Christopher Mancuso.

Clear World-Failure to Produce Documents

CPSD says that Clear World repeatedly failed to produce requested documents, and that CPSD was forced to file three separate motions to compel to obtain documents that should have been readily provided. For example, Clear World produced no documents in response to CPSD's repeated requests for evidence of whether Worldwide or WTS paid Clear World for the services sold by Worldwide.

Clear World says that it did not refuse any reasonable request of the Commission to inspect its records. It argues that since CPSD is acting as an advocate in this proceeding, it is not acting at the direction of the Commission. Therefore, it has only the discovery rights of any other party.

Clear World is mistaken. The fact that CPSD participated in this proceeding in no way diminishes its ability as Commission staff to inspect a utility's books and records. At the May 23, 2002 prehearing conference, the assigned administrative law judge (ALJ) made it clear that he would place no restrictions on CPSD's discovery rights.

Clear World has also sought to deny discovery on the basis of privacy, and because CPSD had not demonstrated that it had good cause for requesting the information. There is no privacy exception applicable to a regulated utility's books and records. In addition, CPSD is not required to prove to Clear World that it has good cause before such books and records are produced. Therefore, we find that Clear World has not fully cooperated with CPSD in its investigation.

Christopher Mancuso

Christopher Mancuso was convicted of mail fraud, and was prohibited from serving as an officer or director of NTC by D.98-02-029. By his own admission he intended to deceive the Commission concerning his attempt to buy NTC. He also had significant involvement with Slatkin, another convicted felon.

The 2001 First Interim Report of the trustee of Slatkin's bankruptcy estate alleged that Christopher Mancuso facilitated the deception of investors by creating a telephone connection to Slatkin's Santa Barbara office that rang when investors called a Swiss number. The Trustee's Report also states that in the Securities and Exchange Commission's investigation of Slatkin, Slatkin testified that he had hundreds of millions of dollars in accounts in Switzerland. In February 2000, Christopher Mancuso set up Slatkin's Swiss telephone number, which would ring in Slatkin's Santa Barbara garage rather than Switzerland. Slatkin subsequently pled guilty to multiple counts of felony federal securities fraud, and is now incarcerated. The record does not demonstrate that Christopher Mancuso knew of Slatkin's Ponzi scheme at the time he set up the Swiss number. Clear World says that the number was never actually used. Whether the number was used is irrelevant. Christopher Mancuso set up a telephone number designed to deceive whoever called it.

As discussed above, Christopher Mancuso has demonstrated that he is not fit to be involved in any way with any regulated utility.

At the beginning of the hearings in this proceeding, the ALJ noted the allegations made by CPSD regarding Christopher Mancuso, and said that Clear World should address them, preferably by providing Christopher Mancuso as a witness. Clear World did not produce Christopher Mancuso during the hearings. In addition, he avoided a subpoena by CPSD.¹⁶ Therefore, both Clear World and Christopher Mancuso had ample opportunity to address allegations regarding him, and any statements attributed to him, including those given in his 1998 deposition.

In this proceeding, we have chosen to use his statements in his 1998 deposition. We do this because they were made before either this application or Worldwide's application were filed. In addition, the statements were against his or his family's interests in this proceeding. Therefore, we have no reason to believe they were untruthful.

We also note that even though he avoided CPSD's subpoena, Christopher Mancuso appeared at the Commission's offices in San Francisco for an ex parte meeting with the Assigned Commissioner's advisor, on May 8, 2002, regarding this application. The notice of the ex parte contact was not filed until August 19, 2002.