CPSD's Support for Rule 1 Allegations
In this OII, CPSD has the burden of proving that Respondents violated Rule 1 by a preponderance of the evidence. (See CTS, D.97-05-089, 72 CPUC2d 621, 642.) CPSD asserts that Respondents violated Rule 1 in filing their application and are unfit to operate in California, because they made false and/or misleading statements in responses to Questions 73 and 84 on the CPCN application. Rule 1 provides:
Any person who signs a pleading or brief, enters an appearance at a hearing, or transacts business with the Commission, by such act represents that he or she is authorized to do so and agrees to comply with the laws of this State; to maintain the respect due to the Commission, members of the Commission and its Administrative Law Judges; and never to mislead the Commission or its staff by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.
CPSD's investigation focused on proceedings in other states involving Bucci's prior company, ACI. CPSD's investigation determined that prior to the filing of Titan's application, the Texas Public Utilities Commission issued a notice of intent to assess an administrative penalty against ACI for slamming (June 23, 1998), the Michigan Public Service Commission filed a complaint against ACI (April 30, 1999), the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs-Office of Consumer Protection served a subpoena duces tecum ordering ACI to appear and produce documents (July 22, 1998), the Idaho Attorney General notified Bucci that it had commenced an investigation of ACI's business practices (March 30, 1999), and the Attorney General of Arizona filed a complaint in court alleging ACI committed consumer fraud (September 3, 1998).
CPSD alleges Bucci attempted to evade service of this Commission's process for ACI matters. CPSD investigator Richard Molzner spoke with respondent Bucci on July 13, 1999, and informed him that the Commission had issued a slamming investigation of ACI. Prior to the call, the Commission mailed a copy of the OII and investigative report to ACI but it had been returned as undeliverable and no forwarding order. Bucci told Molzner that ACI was no longer in business and he did not want to receive any papers. Molzner mailed the OII and report to Bucci at his home address, but they were returned unopened.
3 Question 7 of the application asks the applicant to answer "true" or "not true" to the following statement: No affiliate, officer, director, general partner, or person owning more than 10% of applicant, or anyone acting in such a capacity whether or not formally appointed, held one of these positions with an IEC that filed for bankruptcy or has been found either criminally or civilly liable by a court of appropriate jurisdiction for a violation of § 17000 et seq. of the California Business and Professions Code or for any actions which involved misrepresentations to consumers, and to the best of applicant's knowledge, is not currently under investigation for similar violations. 4 Question 8 of the application asks the applicant to answer "true" or "not true" to the following statement: To the best of applicant's knowledge, neither applicant, any affiliate, officer, director, partner, nor owner of more than 10% of applicant, or any person acting in such a capacity whether or not formally appointed, has been sanctioned by the Federal Communications Commission or any state regulatory agency for failure to comply with any regulatory statute, rule or order.
