Directed To Consumer Affairs Branch Communication and PUBLIC Information Division

This Division accused me of doing an A for V Process more specifically the person accusing me of doing this her name is Brittany Schiska in Executive Response. Her response is based off of a consumer complaint concerning an account that was made to California Public Utility's Commission concerning the account and this company. Multiple times you danced around the main issues in the complaint to which had nothing to do with the complaint and your Customer Care team CANNOT answer because they do not have the knowledge to answer the questions for the actual basis of my complaints and on multiple occasions REFUSE to allow me to speak with your so called Supervisors. I AM an INVESTOR in this company and you refuse to leave a number in your response documentation to which I could call and have a DIRECT Conversation with you or anyone within your department. Concerning the so called Service Agreement that I am very aware of are you aware of your company's Prospectus and S.E.C. That's Security Exchange Commission Filings? There is not one piece of verbiage in either of those documentations that explicitly state that I do not have a right to direct Payment! That is what has been sent and accepted by T-Mobile an Elect Letter directing Payment NOT A for V as Brittany Schiska in Executive Response slanderously mentioned. Now I would suggest not saying that CPUC didn't forward the documentation that I provided to them which had absolutely nothing to do with A for V. I would expect that a supervisor from a more informed department would happily get in touch instead of sending a letter speaking upon complaint issues that were not actually in the complaint but, to speak about the subjects in the complaint and to fix the on going issues on the account.