32 North Street Portland Maine 04101 June 15, 2006 ELECTRONICALLY FILED ON 06-15-06 THIS IS A VIRTUAL DUPLICATE OF THE ORIGINAL HARD

COPY SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS ELECTRONIC FILING INSTRUCTIONS Mr. Andrew Hagler, Presiding Officer Maine PUC Docket No. 2006-274 Maine Public Utilities Commission 242 State Street, 18 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333-0018 RE: MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Request for Commission Investigation into Whether Verizon is Cooperating in Maine With the National Security Agency’s Warrantless Domestic Wiretapping Program Docket No. 2006-274

Dear Mr. Hagler: I write, as Lead Complainant in this case, to ask you to deny Verizon's request, submitted yesterday, for “an equal opportunity” to respond to comments on its response to the complaint that were filed by the Public Advocate, the MCLU, Complainant Christopher Branson, Esq., and myself.1 Your procedural order granting my request for time to file comments did not mention that Verizon could request to comment on our comments. If, however, you decide to grant Verizon's request to rebut the comments, the Complainants, and no doubt the OPA and the MCLU, will surely request “an equal opportunity” to respond to Verizon's rebuttal. Verizon's strategy in making this request is transparent: First, because its response to the complaint was not the slam dunk it hoped it would be, Verizon, using comments on our comments as a mechanism to repair the infirmities in its response to the complaint, wants to file “Response II,” another bite of the apple so to speak; second, Verizon wants to rebut the comments so as to drag things out and keep this case in its no-man's-land, non-adjudicatory status, and thus delay as long as possible any consideration by the Commission on deciding
1 What Verizon means by “an equal opportunity” is a mystery: § 1302 requires the utility complained against to file a response to the complaint; it does not mention anything about the utility having an equal opportunity to do anything.

affirmatively that the complaint has merit and to open an adjudicatory investigation.2 Section 1302 states in part: “The commission may allow for all parties to attempt to resolve the complaint to their mutual satisfaction. If a mutually satisfactory resolution does not appear to be forthcoming, the hearing shall be held on the complaint pursuant to section 1304.” Just so the Commission understands the status of the complaint regarding that provision of § 1302: (1) Verizon’s response neither eliminated the cause of the complaint nor contained any attempt to resolve it; (2) Verizon has not communicated, with any Complainant, any interest whatsoever in resolving the complaint; therefore (3) the Commission should understand that “a mutually satisfactory resolution,” from neither Verizon nor the Complainants, will most definitely not be forthcoming. The Complainants filed the complaint on May 8, thirty-eight days ago; the Commission determined the complaint to be in compliance with § 1302 and issued a Notice of Complaint to Verizon on May 9; Verizon filed a response to the complaint on May 19; and comments on the response have were filed June 12. Now is not time for Verizon to be allowed to file comments on the comments; it is time for the Commission to act. On behalf of the Complainants I respectfully ask the Commission to review those filings and then do one of two things: Decide whether the complaint has merit, or open an Inquiry to obtain whatever additional information it needs to make that decision. If the Commission decides the complaint has merit, it should open an adjudicatory investigation and order Verizon to provide the kind of objective evidence that, as the comments noted, its response to the complaint completely lacked. Thank you for your consideration of these matters. A copy of this letter has been sent by electronic mail to Verizon, the OPA, and the MCLU. Sincerely yours, James D. Cowie Lead Complainant Cc: Dennis Keschl, Administrative Director William C. Black, Esq., Office of the Public Advocate Zachary Heiden, Esq., Maine Civil Liberties Union
2 The case seems to be in a kind of no man’s land because neither Complainants nor the OPA or the MCLU are allowed to serve data requests on Verizon, and yet, as of today, but for the Notice of Complaint and two procedural orders, the virtual case file has no other evidence – no letters to Verizon from the commission, no requests for information from the staff - that the Commission has undertaken an Inquiry to determine if the complaint has merit. In two other states, Washington and Vermont, its commissioners wrote letters to Verizon [data requests, in effect], have held hearings, and have opened investigations, all in less than two weeks after receiving complaints from their states’ ACLU affiliates.

Christopher B. Branson, Esq. Complainant