Verizon Wiretapping - A Hagler Letter Comments On Procedural Order

James D. Cowie 32 North Street Portland Maine 04101 ELECTRONICALLY FILED ON 06-27-06 THIS IS A VIRTUAL DUPLICATE OF THE ORIGINAL HARD COPY SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS ELECTRONIC FILING INSTRUCTIONS June 27, 2006 Mr. Andrew Hagler, Presiding Officer Docket No. 2006-274 Maine PUC 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: Your Procedural Order of June 23 mentioned that the OPA, the MCLU, and I each filed comments on Verizon's response to the complaint and that the OPA and I each objected to Verizon's request to respond to the comments. Christopher Branson, Esq., one of the original 22 complainants, also filed comments on Verizon's response, and also filed a letter objecting to its request, but you mentioned neither filing in the Procedural Order.1 Unless this was an oversight it suggests that comments offered by a complainant, who is not the lead complainant, may lack standing with the Commission. In any event, as the recommendations the Procedural Order seeks are due June 30, I ask you to please answer this question as promptly as you are able: If a complainant wants to submit relevant comments to the Commission, may she or he do so; or must she or he first request your permission; or must the lead complainant submit such comments to the Commission on the complainant's behalf? Chapter 110 of the Commission’s rules defines “lead complainant” to be "the agent for all the other complainants." When time allows, please provide an explanation of what the Commission expects the lead complainant to do as “the agent” for other complainants, and what an individual complainant may and may not do [1] in a non-adjudicatory complaint case, and [2] as a party in an adjudicatory complaint case. 1 The MCLU also objected to Verizon’s request, on June 21, which the Procedural Order did not mention.

Thank you for your consideration of these matters. Yours truly, James D. Cowie Lead Complainant Cc: Donald Boecke, Esq., Verizon Christopher B. Branson, Esq. Complainant William C. Black, Esq., OPA Zachery Heiden, Esq. MCLU