8/14/2019 Verizon Wiretapping - Regarding Ten-Person Complaint

1/2

ELECTRONICALLY FILED ON JANUARY 9 2007

Karen GeraghtyAdministrative Director

Public Utilities Commission

18 State House Station

Augusta, ME 04333-0018

RE: MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

Request for Commission Investigation Into Whether Verizon

is Cooperating in Maine With the National Security AgencysWarrantless Domestic Wiretapping Program, DocketNo. 2006-274

THIS IS A VIRTUAL DUPLICATE OF THE ORIGINAL HARDCOPY

SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH

ITS ELECTRONIC FILING INSTRUCTIONS

Dear Ms. Geraghty:

The Public Advocate recommends that the Commission issue a Procedural Order in thiscase to address the nearing statutory deadline and other process requirements set out in 35-A

M.R.S.A. 1302. As the Commission knows, that statute requires that it provide a prompthearing after the complaint and a final decision within 9 months of the date of the complaint, inthe case of all meritorious ten-person complaints that are not informally resolved.

Although the Commission has not officially opened an adjudicatory proceeding toprocess this case, the language of 1302 requires the Commission to promptly set a date for a

public hearing if it does not dismiss the complaint for lack of merit. Although there is no

specific time deadline for the dismissal of a ten-person complaint, the overall 9 month deadline

plainly requires a final decision within 9 months from the date that the complaint was filed.Given that only one month remains, and given that a public hearing is also required by the

statute, it appears that the Commission should indicate how it will process this case and comply

with 1302.

The Commission has already acknowledged its obligations in this case under 1302 -- in

its August 9, 2006 Order in this docket, the Commission stated:

We must open an investigation into the allegations that Verizons activities violate its

customers privacy rights unless we find that Verizon has taken adequate steps to remove

8/14/2019 Verizon Wiretapping - Regarding Ten-Person Complaint

2/2

the cause of the complaint or that the complaint is without merit. 35-A M.R.S.A.

1302(2).

Verizon has taken no such steps since then that could reasonably cause the Commission to

dismiss the complaint.

In this docket, it is apparent that the complaint has merit because it raises serious

questions about whether a regulated utility has unlawfully intruded upon the privacy rights of its

customers, in violation of state and federal laws. The issue presented in this case has generatedsubstantial interest in the public and the media, both in Maine and in many other states. Since

the time of the filing of the complaint, no evidence has been presented that would tend to satisfy

or mitigate the cause of the complaint. Presumably, if the Commission believed that the

complaint lacked merit, it would have made that determination soon after its filing, rather thanissuing an Order to Verizon to clarify the facts. To date, Verizon has failed to comply with the

Commissions Order, despite the fact that no court has issued any stay affecting the

Commissions authority to enforce its Order or otherwise process this case under 13021.

Under Maine law, the Commissions discretion to dismiss a 1302 complaint is very

limited. The Law Court has stated that a 1302 complaint is without merit only when there isno statutory basis for the complaint in that the Commission has no authority to grant the relief

requested or that the rates, tolls, practices and services are not in any respect unreasonable,

insufficient or unjustly discriminatory.Agro v. Public Utilities Commission, 611 A.2d 566, 569

(Me. 1992). The complaint filed by Mr. Cowie cannot be deemed to be in that category. In fact,as the Commission knows., it has been directly charged by the Legislature to enforce telephone

privacy -- the essence of the Cowie complaint in 35-A M.R.S.A. 7101-A, which declares that

Telephone subscribers have a right to privacy and the protection this right to privacy is ofparamount concern to the State.

The ten-person complaint by Douglas Cowie and other customers was filed on May 8,2006 which means that a final decision must be rendered by February 7, 2007. Since the case

has not been substantially processed and no hearing has been held, the Public Advocate

recommends that the Commission issue a Procedural Order at this time.

Respectfully submitted,

Wayne R. Jortner

Senior Counsel

WRJ/dt

cc: Service List

1 The Public Advocate is aware that any action by the Commission may ultimately lead to an attempt to obtain an

injunction or a restraining order by the U.S. Department of Justice. However, based on the arguments made by the

Maine Attorney General in its filings in the federal action, it would appear that the DOJ should not be successful in

proving the elements required for the issuance of a restraining order or an injunction.

2