Respondents' Reply to Rule 1 Allegations

Respondents contend their actions were reasonable in completing the application and that they are fit to operate. Respondents further contend that the application form is ambiguous and that Respondents did not intentionally answer any questions incorrectly. They also assert that CPSD has not shown any of Respondents' actions were intentional.

Respondents note that ACI had not filed for bankruptcy or been found criminally or civilly liable by any court for any action. Respondents further state that Bucci and ACI had not been sanctioned by anyone when Titan's application was filed and that the Texas and Michigan commissions and the states of New Jersey and Idaho had not personally served Bucci with any papers. Bucci does not recall a conversation with Molzner concerning the Commission's investigation into whether ACI switched subscribers' long distance service provider without the subscribers' authorization.

Respondents contend that the fact that Martha Coleman, a regulatory consultant, signed the application on July 9, 1999, increases CPSD's burden to prove that Bucci intentionally caused Questions 7 and 8 to be marked "true" when he knew the answers to be `not true,' a burden CPSD has failed to meet.⁵ Respondents further contend that CPSD produced no evidence that Titan has had any consumer complaints or administrative actions since Titan was authorized to operate in California.