ALJ/POD-GEW/jva
Decision PRESIDING OFFICER'S DECISION OF ALJ WALKER
(Mailed (3/16/2005)
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Investigation on the Commission's Own Motion Into the Fitness of the Officers, Directors, Owners and Affiliates of Clear World Communications Corporation, U-6039, Including Individual Officers, Directors and Shareholders James, Michael, and Joseph Mancuso, and Into the Conduct of Other Utilities, Entities, or Individuals (including Christopher Mancuso) Who or That May Have Facilitated the Mancusos' Apparent Unlicensed Sale of Telecommunications Services. |
Investigation 04-06-008 (Filed June 9, 2004) |
Brian J. McCormack and Stephen Z. Vegh, Callahan & Blaine,
for Clear World Communications Corporation; James, Michael
and Joseph Mancuso, respondents.
Susan E. Brown and Mirissa McMurray, Attorneys at Law,
for Latino Issues Forum.
Nicola T. Hanna and Erin Schneider, Attorneys at Law,
for MCI, Inc.
Chris Witteman, Attorney at Law, for Consumer Protection
and Safety Division.
OPINION RESOLVING INVESTIGATION
Table of Contents
Title Page
OPINION RESOLVING INVESTIGATION 22
3 A Brief History of the Mancusos' California Entities 44
4.1 Does the evidence show that DLD, the Mancuso Respondents and
Christopher Mancuso sold long distance service without Commission
authority in violation of Pub. Util. Code §§ 1001 and 1013? 77
4.2 Does the evidence show that Clear World, the Mancuso Respondents
and Christopher Mancuso misrepresented and concealed DLD's sales
and related facts in violation of Pub. Util. Code § 2114 and Rule 1
of the Rules of Practice and Procedure? 1111
4.3 Does the evidence show that Clear World, the Mancuso Respondents
and Christopher Mancuso engaged in slamming or fraudulent
marketing in violation of Pub. Util. Code §§ 451, 2889.5 and 2890? 1212
4.3.2 Former Employee Testimony 1515
4.3.4 Latino Issues Forum Expert 1818
4.4 Does the evidence show that Clear World and the Mancuso
Respondents concealed the role of Christopher Mancuso in Clear World
and related entities in violation of Pub. Util. Code § 2114 and Rule 1
of the Rules of Practice and Procedure? 3030
4.5 Does the evidence show that Clear World purchased the customer
list of DLD without Commission approval in violation of Pub. Util.
Code § 854? 3232
Table of Contents
Title Page
4.6 Does the evidence show that Clear World and DLD underpaid
required surcharges and fees in violation of Pub. Util. Code §§ 405,
739.3, 879, 879.5 and 2881? 3434
4.7 Does the evidence show that Clear World failed to comply with
D.03-02-006, Ordering Paragraph 3, regarding an audit? 3535
4.8 Does the evidence show that Clear World failed to properly retain
and produce corporate and business records, and otherwise cooperate
with Commission staff, in violation of Pub. Util. Code §§ 311,
314, 581-82 and 701? 3838
4.9 Does the evidence show that CPSD collected and compiled evidence in
violation of the rights of Clear World and the Mancuso Respondents? 3939
OPINION RESOLVING INVESTIGATION
1 Summary
Following a lengthy investigation, we conclude that two predecessor companies of Clear World Communications Corporation (Clear World) operated as unauthorized resellers of long distance service in California between the years 1997 and 1999 and were not "agents" of other licensed resellers, and we conclude that the assets of one of these companies were transferred to Clear World without authorization. Based on penalties assessed in similar cases in the past, we impose a fine of $100,000. As to Clear World itself, we conclude that while incidents of fraudulent sales of long distance service by some of its telemarketers may have occurred, the evidence is insufficient to show systemic violations by Clear World or its principals. However, because the record demonstrates inconsistencies in regulatory compliance by this company, we impose additional reporting requirements on Clear World to ensure its continued compliance with requirements of the Public Utilities Code.
