Click here for Microsoft Word Version
******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Word or WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version (above).

*****************************************************************



                           Before the
                FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                     Washington, D.C.  20554


In the Matter of                )
                                )       File No.  ENF 98-09
All American Telephone, Inc.    )
                                )       NAL/Acct. No. 816EF0008
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture       )


                       ORDER OF FORFEITURE

     Adopted:  September 5, 2001                  Released:  
September 10, 2001

By the Commission:

                        I.   INTRODUCTION

          In this  Order,  we  assess a  forfeiture  of  $920,000 
against All American Telephone,  Inc. (All American) for  willful 
or repeated  violations of  the Communications  Act of  1934,  as 
amended (the Act), and  our rules and orders.   We find that  All 
American willfully or repeatedly violated section 258 of the Act1 
and the Commission's related rules2  and orders3 by changing  the 
preferred  interexchange   carriers  (PICs)   designated  by   12 
consumers  without  their  authorization,  a  practice   commonly 
referred to  as ``slamming.''   We find  All American's  slamming 
violations  particularly  egregious  because  All  American,   in 
requesting  local  exchange  carriers  (LECs)  to  make  the  PIC 
changes, relied on Letters of Authorization (LOAs) that contained 
forgeries of the signatures of consumers.

                         II.  BACKGROUND

          The facts and circumstances leading to the issuance  of 
our July 6, 1998  Notice of Apparent  Liability (NAL)4 are  fully 
recited in the NAL and need not be reiterated at length.  Between 
September 1997 and March  1998, the Commission received  numerous 
written consumer complaints  alleging slamming  by All  American.  
The  Commission  investigated  13  of  these  complaints.    Each 
complainant contended that All American had converted his or  her 
designated PIC without authorization through the apparent use  of 
falsified or forged LOAs.  All of the complainants provided sworn 
statements and evidence in support of their complaints.

          Following an  investigation  of the  above  complaints, 
which included an opportunity for All American to respond to  the 
allegations raised by complainants, the Commission issued the All 
American NAL. The Commission found that All American's failure to 
obtain the  complainants'  authorization before  submitting  PIC-
change requests apparently  violated section 258  of the Act  and 
the  Commission's  rules  and   orders  against  slamming.5    In 
addition, the  Commission determined  that the  complainants  had 
provided compelling evidence that All American apparently  relied 
on falsified  or  forged  LOAs in  effecting  these  unauthorized 
conversions.   Indeed,   the   Commission  noted   that   several 
complainants had  provided  evidence that  ``information  on  the 
purported LOA is  incorrect, or, as  in the case  of a  purported 
signature  by   Ms.   Kitay's  deceased   husband,   is   clearly 
fabricated.''6

          In view of the facts and circumstances surrounding  All 
American's apparent  slamming  violations, the  Commission  found 
that All American was apparently liable for a proposed forfeiture 
of $80,000 for each of the 13 unauthorized conversions, resulting 
in a total forfeiture amount of $1,040,000.7   In proposing  this 
forfeiture, the Commission stated that, despite the  Commission's 
earlier warnings  to  interexchange  carriers about  the  use  of 
forged LOAs, All American had apparently willfully or  repeatedly 
engaged in a clear pattern of fraudulent conduct to intentionally 
slam consumers.8  The  Commission  noted  that  this  pattern  of 
conduct distinguished the case  from prior NALs involving  forged 
LOAs, and therefore justified  the $80,000 forfeiture amount  for 
each of the unauthorized conversions.9
 
                         III. DISCUSSION

          While All American does not deny that it submitted PIC-
change orders to the  complainants' local exchange carriers,  the 
company contends that we  should rescind the proposed  forfeiture 
with regard to all 13  slamming complaints in the record  because 
the Commission  failed  to  establish  the  ``element  of  intent 
necessary to sustain a forgery finding.''10  All American further 
asserts that the  Commission should not  consider the Saines  and 
Varughese  complaints  in  its  forfeiture  calculation   because 
neither complaint specifically alleged  that All American  forged 
the signatures at issue.11 Further, All American contends that it 
has expert testimony proving that the signature on the Joyce  LOA 
was not, in  fact, forged.12  Finally,  All American argues  that 
even if it is found liable, the proposed forfeiture is  excessive 
in light of: 1) Commission precedent; 2) All American's  asserted 
history of compliance; and 3) All American's alleged inability to 
pay the fine.  We take these arguments in turn.

A.   Imposition of a Forfeiture

          All American contends that the it cannot be held liable 
for any  of  the  13  alleged  slamming  violations  because  the 
Commission failed to present evidence that All American  intended 
to defraud  consumers through  the use  of apparently  forged  or 
falsified LOAs.13  We  disagree.  First, section  258 of the  Act 
imposes liability  on a  carrier  responsible for  submitting  an 
unauthorized  charge,  regardless  of  intent.14   Further,   the 
Commission has  stated on  numerous  occasions that  a  carrier's 
alleged  lack  of  knowledge  concerning  forged  LOAs  does  not 
exonerate the carrier.15  Even if All American's marketing agents 
forged the LOAs at issue, without the company's actual knowledge, 
section 217  of the  Act  provides that  a  carrier such  as  All 
American is nevertheless liable for its agents' actions.16  

          As the Commission stated in earlier forfeiture  orders, 
it has long been established that the word ``willfully,'' as used 
in section 503(b) of  the Act, does  not require a  demonstration 
that the carrier knew that  it was acting unlawfully.17   Rather, 
section 503(b) requires only a  finding that the carrier knew  it 
was doing  the  acts in  question  and  that the  acts  were  not 
accidental.18  We  find  here  that  All  American  knew  it  was 
submitting the changes, and reject  All American's claim that  it 
is not  liable  for  the  violations  because  it  lacked  actual 
knowledge that the  LOAs were  forged or that  its actions  would 
defraud consumers.19  Furthermore, we  note that  section  503(b) 
authorizes the Commission  to assess forfeitures  for willful  or 
repeated violations of the Act.20  The record supports a  finding 
that All American's violations were repeated, as well as willful, 
within the meaning of the Act.21 

          Moreover, All American's argument  must fail under  the 
express terms of  section 258 and  our implementing rules,  which 
prohibit the submission of unauthorized PIC changes. For purposes 
of determining All American's liability for slamming  violations, 
we need not determine whether All American, its marketing agents, 
or some other  party forged  or signed  the LOAs  at issue  here.  
Rather, we  need only  find  (1) that  the complainants  did  not 
authorize the PIC changes by signing  the LOAs, and (2) that  All 
American  submitted  these  unauthorized   PIC  changes  to   the 
complainants' LECs.22  As noted in the NAL, All American concedes 
that it used the LOAs in  question in submitting PIC changes  for 
the complainants.23  Further, the complainants contend that  they 
did not authorize the LOAs relied upon by All American, and  many 
have  noted  that  the  LOAs  at  issue  bear  erroneous   dates, 
misspelled or incorrect names, and other indicia of falsification 
or  forgery.24   With  the  exception  of  the  three  complaints 
discussed below,  All  American  has  submitted  no  evidence  to 
counter the complainants' assertions  that they were slammed,  or 
that the LOAs were forged  or falsified.  Therefore, we  conclude 
that, except  to  the extent  discussed  below, All  American  is 
liable for each of the proposed slamming violations discussed  in 
the NAL.

B.   Contested LOAs 

1.   Saines Complaint

          All American asks the Commission to exclude the  Saines 
complaint from its forfeiture calculation.25 All American  claims 
that the record lacks adequate  evidence that the Saines LOA  was 
forged. Noting  that the  Commission  determined that  its  ``own 
review of  signatures .  . .  demonstrates that  there is  little 
similarity between  the  purported  signatures on  LOAs  and  the 
exemplars provided by the  complainants,''26 All American  argues 
that the Federal Rules of  Evidence preclude the Commission  from 
rendering an opinion concerning  the authenticity of Ms.  Saines' 
signature.27  All American asserts  that under the Federal  Rules 
of  Evidence,   non-expert  testimony   as  to   handwriting   is 
permissible only when ``based  upon familiarity not acquired  for 
purposes of the litigation.''28

          All American's contentions do not persuade us to  alter 
our  determination  that  All  American  slammed  Ms.  Saines  in 
violation of  the  Act  and  our rules  and  orders.  The  record 
demonstrates that Ms.  Saines never  authorized a  PIC change  in 
accordance with our rules and orders.29  As we found in the  NAL, 
the Saines  LOA  bears  an  incorrect zip  code,  as  well  as  a 
signature that does  not resemble  Ms. Saines'  signature on  her 
complaint.30  The record also includes a sworn statement from Ms. 
Saines alleging that  ``[t]he signature  on the [LOA]  form is  a 
forgery.  I  did not  sign the  form.  My  age and  the zip  code 
written on the form are also incorrect.''31  Second, All American 
concedes that it  used the LOA  in question in  submitting a  PIC 
change for Ms. Saines.   In light of  the foregoing, we  conclude 
that the  record supports  a  finding that  All American  used  a 
forged LOA  to  effect a  switch  of Ms.  Saines'  long  distance 
service provider, in violation of section 258 of the Act.

          We reject All American's  claim that the Federal  Rules 
of Evidence  bar  us  from  finding  a  discrepancy  between  the 
purported signatures on the Saines LOA and the exemplar  provided 
by Ms. Saines.   As an  initial matter,  the rules  cited by  All 
American are inapposite:  there is no  issue here concerning  the 
``testimony'' of a ``non-expert''32 about the authenticity of Ms. 
Saines' handwriting.33   To  the  extent  that  All  American  is 
arguing that the Commission reached an improper legal  conclusion 
concerning the signatures  at issue, we  disagree. It was  within 
the Commission's discretion  under section 503(b)  of the Act  to 
observe the difference in  the signatures submitted as  belonging 
to Ms. Saines.34  Moreover, we note that the Commission made  its 
determination in  the  absence of  any  evidence to  counter  Ms. 
Saines' sworn  declaration35  that the  signature  on the  LOA  a 
forgery, and that her  age and zip code  written on the form  are 
incorrect.36  

2.   Varughese Complaint

          In  its  Response,  All  American  concedes  that   Mr. 
Varughese did not sign  the LOA, and that  the LOA instead  bears 
the  signature  of   an  individual   named  ``Sara   Thomas.''37  
Nevertheless, All American argues that the Commission should have 
obtained an  allegation  of  forgery from  Mr.  Varughese  or  an 
authenticated signature of  Sara Thomas in  order to  demonstrate 
that the LOA at issue was in fact forged.38

          We  find  that   the  record  contains   uncontradicted 
evidence that All American switched Mr. Varughese's long distance 
service provider  without  his  authorization,  in  violation  of 
section 258 of the  Act and the  Commission's slamming rules  and 
orders.  However, we  agree that  it is unclear  from the  record 
whether All American  used a  forged or falsified  LOA to  effect 
this  unauthorized  switch.  Accordingly,  we  will  reduce   the 
forfeiture  amount  of  the  Varughese  slamming  violation  from 
$80,000 to $40,000, the  standard forfeiture amount for  slamming 
violations.

3.   Joyce Complaint

          All American argues that the Commission should  exclude 
the Joyce  Complaint  from  its  calculation  of  All  American's 
forfeiture.39 All American contends that Ms. Joyce's  declaration 
does not support  the proposed  penalty, 40  despite Ms.  Joyce's 
contention that she did not sign the LOA, and that the LOA  bears 
numerous mistakes,  including an  incorrect age.41  All  American 
also presents evidence from two handwriting experts who concluded 
that the signature on the Joyce LOA was genuine by comparing  the 
signature on the LOA with  Ms. Joyce's complaint and  declaration 
to the Commission.42  While this evidence is not conclusive,  for 
purposes of this proceeding we will not include this complaint in 
our forfeiture calculation in  light of the conflicting  evidence 
in  the  record.   Accordingly,  we  reduce  the  amount  of  the 
forfeiture by $80,000.
     
C.   Appropriateness of Assessed Forfeiture Amount

          All American argues that even if it is found liable for 
a  forfeiture,  the  Commission's  proposed  penalty  should   be 
substantially reduced. All American contends that the  Commission 
impermissibly  based  the  proposed  forfeiture  amount  on   the 
Commission's  Forfeiture  Policy  Statement43  when  only   three 
complaints stem  from facts  that occurred  after the  Forfeiture 
Policy Statement was released.44   All American asserts that  the 
Policy Statement recommends a standard $40,000 forfeiture  amount 
for slamming  violations.   Moreover, All  American  argues,  the 
proposed $80,000 fine for forgery violations is  disproportionate 
compared  to  forfeitures   the  Commission   imposed  on   other 
carriers45 who  had  engaged  in  egregious  slamming  conduct.46  
Finally, All American contends that its history of compliance and 
its  inability  to  pay  warrant  a  reduction  of  the  proposed 
penalty.47 

          We reject All American's contentions, and conclude that 
the proposed  penalty  is  appropriate  and  fully  supported  by 
applicable precedent.  The Commission based its forfeiture on  13 
independent slamming complaints against  All American, and  rests 
on a  calculation  of $80,000  for  each instance  in  which  All 
American engaged in  slamming by relying  on forged or  falsified 
LOAs.  As discussed below, this determination is consistent with: 
1) our  discretion  under  section  503(b) of  the  Act;  2)  the 
Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement; and 3) other Commission 
enforcement actions aimed at egregious slamming conduct involving 
forged or falsified LOAs.48 

          Contrary to  All American's  assertion, the  Forfeiture 
Policy  Statement  does  not  circumscribe  our  well-established 
section 503(b) authority to  assess an $80,000 forfeiture  amount 
for forgery complaints.  At the time of the violations at  issue, 
section 503(b) of the Act  authorized the Commission to assess  a 
forfeiture of up to $110,000 for each violation of the Act or  of 
any rule, regulation, or order issued under the Act.49  When  the 
Commission issued the Forfeiture Policy Statement in 1997, it was 
merely to provide guidelines  for assessing monetary  forfeitures 
under section 503(b) of the  Act.50  Under these guidelines,  the 
Commission established base forfeiture  amounts for a wide  range 
of violations, including a $40,000 standard forfeiture amount for 
slamming.  Significantly, however, we retained the discretion  to 
depart from these guidelines and issue forfeitures on a  case-by-
case basis, under our  general forfeiture authority contained  in 
section 503(b)  of  the  Act.  Moreover,  the  Forfeiture  Policy 
Statement specifically provides that  the base forfeiture  amount 
can be increased  by ``upward adjustment  criteria'' such as  the 
egregiousness of the  misconduct at  issue.51 Accordingly,  while 
All American is correct in asserting that many of the  complaints 
at issue  in  the NAL  stem  from facts  originating  before  the 
effective date of the Forfeiture Policy Statement, All American's 
argument is  of no  legal significance.   The guidelines  in  the 
Forfeiture Policy Statement are just  that: an aid to  exercising 
discretionary authority that the  Commission has possessed  since 
section 503(b) was adopted in 1934.

          Nor do we find merit  in All American's claim that  the 
proposed  $80,000   forfeiture   amount  is   inconsistent   with 
forfeitures we have imposed on other carriers who have engaged in 
slamming through the use of forged or falsified LOAs.  First, All 
American's reference to the CCN Revocation Order52 is inapposite.  
That  case  involved  revocation   of  the  Fletcher   Companies' 
operating authority  in addition  to the  imposition of  monetary 
penalties, which is not the  situation here.  We likewise  reject 
All American's comparisons  to other cases  adopted prior to  the 
All American proceeding.  The Commission has discretion to decide 
in a particular case  that violations should  result in a  higher 
level of forfeiture than in the  past.  In the All American  NAL, 
we noted  our  prior warnings  to  carriers that  we  would  take 
``swift and decisive enforcement action, including the imposition 
of substantial monetary fines, against any carrier found to  have 
engaged in  slamming, particularly  the  practice of  relying  on 
forged LOAs.''53  When, despite those prior warnings, we received 
numerous  slamming   complaints   against   All   American   that 
demonstrated a clear pattern of conduct to slam consumers through 
the use  of  forged and  falsified  LOAs (including  a  purported 
signature from a  complainant's deceased  husband), we  exercised 
our discretion to impose forfeitures of $80,000 for each instance 
in which All American had used  forged or falsified LOAs to  slam 
the complainants.54  Since the release  of the All American  NAL, 
we  have  imposed  similar   forfeitures  in  other   proceedings 
involving  egregious   slamming   violations.55     Indeed,   the 
Commission's subsequent policies and procedures have consistently 
reflected a forfeiture amount of  $80,000 per forged LOA  because 
we continue  to  find  forgeries  to  be  particularly  egregious 
slamming violations.56

C.   Assessment Factors for Forfeiture Amount

1.   History of Compliance

          All American  further argues  that a  reduction in  the 
proposed forfeiture  is warranted  because it  has a  history  of 
compliance before  the Commission.57   Even though  All  American 
appears not to have been the subject of other official action  by 
the Commission,  the  complaints for  which  the NAL  was  issued 
reflect an egregious  pattern of slamming  conduct. When we  view 
this pattern of violations over such a short time period, we  are 
convinced that it would be inappropriate to reduce the forfeiture 
based on All American's asserted ``history of compliance.''

2.   Ability to Pay

          All American last argues  that payment of the  proposed 
forfeiture would  ``severely  impact All  American's  ability  to 
provide service'' and could cause All American to discontinue its 
operations.58  All American submits that the proposed  forfeiture 
represents approximately 6  percent of its  1997 gross  revenues, 
and that it suffered a net operating loss for 1997.  Finally, All 
American notes that due  to the problems leading  up to the  NAL, 
All American has been under  new management since June 25,  1998.  
According to All American, new  management has made some  changes 
that have resulted in a  cash flow shortage that would  ``further 
impact All  American's ability  to  pay the  full amount  of  the 
forfeiture.''59

          We decline  to  reduce  the  forfeiture  based  on  All 
American's  arguments.  We   have  consistently   held  that   an 
appropriate indicator of a carrier's ability to pay a  forfeiture 
is its gross revenues.60  While All American states in a footnote 
that its  1997 gross  revenues were  $18,032,982,61 All  American 
fails to provide  any supporting documentation  or affidavits  to 
support its claim.  We therefore determine that All American  has 
not met its burden of proof on this issue.62 Nor has All American 
provided any  documentation to  support  its assertion  that  the 
proposed forfeiture should be reduced in light of its $2,000  net 
operating loss for  1997.63  The  record must  contain more  than 
such unsupported  statements  in  order  for  the  Commission  to 
evaluate the effect of financial  indicators such as a  carrier's 
gross revenues or net losses.  

                      IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

          Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section  503(b) 
of the Act,  47 U.S.C.  503(b), and Section  1.80(f)(4) of  the 
Commission's rules,  47 C.F.R.   1.80(f)(4),  that All  American 
Telephone Company,  Inc.  SHALL  FORFEIT  to  the  United  States 
Government the  sum  of  nine  hundred  twenty  thousand  dollars 
($920,000) for violating Section 258 of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  258, 
as well as the Commission's rules and orders governing  preferred 
interexchange carrier conversions.  Payment shall be made in  the 
manner provided for  in section  1.80 of  the Commission's  rules 
within 30  days  from  the  release  of  this  order.64   If  the 
forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case will 
be referred to the Department of Justice for collection  pursuant 
to section 504(a) of the Act.

          IT IS  FURTHER ORDERED  that a  copy of  this Order  of 
Forfeiture shall be sent by  certified United States mail to  Mr. 
Ronald C.  Darnell, All  American Telephone,  Inc., 9001  Airport 
Freeway, Suite 570, Fort Worth, Texas, 76180.



                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION


                         Magalie Roman Salas
                         Secretary
_________________________

1    Section   258   states   in   pertinent   part   that   ``no 
telecommunications carrier  shall submit  .  . .  a change  in  a 
subscriber's  selection  of  a  provider  of  telephone  exchange 
service or telephone toll service except in accordance with  such 
verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe.''   47 
U.S.C.  258.
2    47 C.F.R.  64.1100, 64.1150.  Sections 64.1100 and 64.1150 
are now codified  at section 64.1120  of the Commission's  rules.  
65 FR  47678,  47690  (2000).  Because  All  American's  apparent 
violations occurred  prior to  November 28,  2000, the  effective 
date of the revised rules, sections 64.1100 and 64.1150 were  the 
applicable Commission rules  in effect during  the relevant  time 
period.
3    Implementation of the  Subscriber Carrier Selection  Changes 
Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Policies and 
Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance 
Carriers, First Order on Reconsideration, FCC 00-135 (rel. May 3, 
2000); Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes 
Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Policies and 
Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance 
Carriers, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of  Proposed 
Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 1508 (1998) (Section 258 Order), stayed in 
nonrelevant part, MCI WorldCom v. FCC, No. 99-1125 (D.C. Cir. May 
18, 1999) (Stay Order); Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 
Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 10674 
(1997); Policies  and Rules  Concerning Unauthorized  Changes  of 
Consumers' Long Distance  Carriers, 10 FCC  Rcd 9560 (1995)  (LOA 
Order), stayed  in part,  11 FCC  Rcd 856  (1995) (In-Bound  Stay 
Order); Policies  and  Rules concerning  Changing  Long  Distance 
Carriers, 7  FCC  Rcd  1038 (1992)  (PIC  Change  Order),  recon. 
denied, 8  FCC  Rcd  3215 (1993);  Investigation  of  Access  and 
Divestiture-Related Tariffs, 101 FCC  Rcd 911 (1985)  (Allocation 
Order), recon.  denied, 102  FCC2d 503  (1985); Investigation  of 
Access  and   Divestiture-Related  Tariffs,   101  FCC   2d   935 
(Com.Car.Bur. 1985) (Waiver Order), recon. denied, 102 FCC 2d 503 
(1985). 

4    See All American Telephone Company, Inc., Notice of Apparent 
Liability for Forfeiture, 13 FCC  Rcd 15040 (1998) (All  American 
NAL).
5    Id. at 15040.
6    Id. at 15048.
7    The Commission has authority  pursuant to section 503(b)  of 
the Act,  47  U.S.C. 503(b),  to  assess a  forfeiture  penalty 
against a common  carrier if the  Commission determines that  the 
carrier has ``willfully or repeatedly'' failed to comply with the 
provisions of  the Act  or with  any rule,  regulation, or  order 
issued by the Commission.  For a violation to be willful, it need 
not be intentional.  Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6  FCC 
Rcd 4387  (1991);  see  also  Implementation  of  the  Subscriber 
Carrier Selection  Changes Provisions  of the  Telecommunications 
Act of 1996; Policies  and Rules Concerning Unauthorized  Changes 
of Consumers'  Long  Distance  Carriers, CC  Docket  No.  94-129, 
Second Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 1508, 1539 (1998).
8    All American NAL, 13 FCC Rcd at 15050.
9    Id. 
10   Response at 16-17.  All  American also erroneously  contends 
that the NAL did not cite All American for apparent violations of 
the Commission's  rules against  slamming, but  only for  relying 
``on LOAs apparently containing forgeries . . . .''  Id. at  5-6.  
To the  contrary,  the  NAL  found  apparent  violations  of  the 
Commission's slamming rules and orders, as well as the Act.   See 
All American NAL, 13 FCC Rcd at 15040.  
11   Response at 13-16.
12   Id. at 10-13.
13   Id. at 16-17.
14   47 U.S.C.   258 (stating,  in pertinent  part, that  ``[n]o 
telecommunications carrier  shall submit  .  . .  a change  in  a 
subscriber's  selection  of  a  provider  of  telephone  exchange 
service or telephone toll service except in accordance with  such 
verification procedures  as the  Commission shall  prescribe.''); 
see also  Implementation  of  the  Subscriber  Carrier  Selection 
Changes  Provisions  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of   1996, 
Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of  Consumers' 
Long Distance Carriers, 14 FCC Rcd 1508, 1539 (1998).
15   See, e.g.,  Qwest  Communications  Int'l,  Inc.,  Notice  of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 14 FCC Rcd 182 (1999).
16   See 47 U.S.C.  217.
17   See,  e.g.,  Amer-I-Net   Services  Corporation,  Order   of 
Forfeiture,  15  FCC   Rcd  3118   (2000)  (Amer-I-Net   Services 
Corporation Forfeiture Order).
18   Id.
19   Nor do  we  find merit  in  All American's  suggestion  that 
forged LOAs should somehow be  more acceptable to the  Commission 
because  we  previously  acknowledged   that  forgeries  are   an 
industry-wide problem. Response  at 7-8.  If  anything, the  fact 
that falsified  and forged  LOAs are  a widespread  -- and  well-
publicized -- problem  makes them even  more egregious when  they 
occur.
20   47 U.S.C.  503(b) (emphasis added).
21   See supra note 7.
22   The Commission's  rules and  orders require  that a  carrier 
wishing to  effectuate  an  authorized  change  in  a  consumer's 
designated preferred  carrier  submit  the  change  order  to  an 
executing carrier,  who  is then  obligated  to make  the  change 
absent some indication that the  request is not legitimate.   See 
47 C.F.R.   64.1100,  64.1150.  Section  64.1150 specifies  the 
various methods that carriers can use to verify consumer requests 
to change a preferred carrier.  For example, a carrier may  elect 
to use a  letter of agency  (LOA) as the  basis for submitting  a 
carrier change order.  Pursuant to section 64.1150, the LOA  must 
be signed ``by the subscriber to the telephone line(s) requesting 
the preferred carrier change.''  See  47 C.F.R.  64.1150.
23   See All American NAL, 13 FCC Rcd at 15042.
24   Id. at 15048.
25   Response at 13-16.
26   All American NAL, 13 FCC Rcd at 15048.
27   Response at 15. 
28   Id. (citing Fed. R.Evid. 901(b)(2), (3)).
29   Id.
30   All American NAL, 13 FCC Rcd at 15048.
31   See Saines Declaration (Aug. 14, 1998).
32   Presumably, All American uses this term to refer to the 
Commission.
33   Moreover, even if the rule cited by All American applies 
here, the Commission has stated that the Federal Rules of 
Evidence may be ``relaxed if the ends of justice will be better 
served by so doing.''  See 47 C.F.R.  1.351.
34   See 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).  
35   See Saines Declaration (Aug. 14, 1998).
36   See All American NAL, 13 FCC Rcd at 15048-49.
37   Response at 42.
38   Response at 14.
39   Response at 10.
40   Id. at  11.  All  American  claims that  Ms. Joyce  did  not 
``definitively assert''  that  her  signature  is  a  forfeiture, 
instead stating that,  ``[t]o the best  of [her]  recollection,'' 
she did not sign LOA.  Id.
41   See Joyce Declaration at 1-2.  
42   Id. at 10-13.  

43   See  The  Commission's   Forfeiture  Policy  Statement   and 
Amendment of  Section  1.80  of  the  Rules  to  Incorporate  the 
Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), 
recon.  denied,  CC  Docket  No.   95-6  (rel.  Dec.  28,   1999) 
(Forfeiture Policy Statement).   The Forfeiture Policy  Statement 
was effective on October 14, 1997.
44   Response at 27.
45   Id. at 19-26 (citing, for example, the CCN Revocation Order, 
13 FCC Rcd 13599 (1998), in which the Commission, in addition  to 
revoking the  Fletcher  Companies' operating  authority,  imposed 
forfeitures of $15,000 per slamming complaint plus an  additional 
$5,000 for each instance where Fletcher failed to respond to  the 
Commission's notices of informal complaint).  
46   Response  at   23   (citing  LCI   International   Worldwide 
Telecommunications, Notice of Apparent Liability for  Forfeiture, 
10 FCC Rcd 11451 (Com.Car.Bur. 1995)).
47   Response at 34-36.
48   Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099.
49   See 47 C.F.R.  1.80.  The Commission subsequently amended 
its rules to increase the maximum penalties to account for 
inflation.  The revised penalties apply to violations that 
occurred after November 13, 2000.  In the Matter of Amendment of 
Section 1.80(b) of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of 
Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, FCC-347 (rel. 
Sept. 19, 2000).
50   See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17090.
51   Id.
52   CCN Revocation Order, 13 FCC Rcd 13599, 13608 n.50 (1998).
53   All American NAL, 13 FCC Rcd at 15050.
54   Id. at 15051.
55   See, e.g.,  BDP NAL,  14 FCC  Rcd at  348 (finding  apparent 
liability for  a  forfeiture  of $80,000  for  each  unauthorized 
conversion  of  30   complainants  through  deceptive   marketing 
practices, for  a  total forfeiture  of  $2,400,000);  Amer-I-Net 
Services Corp., Notice of  Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,  15 
FCC Rcd 3118 (2000)(finding  apparent liability for a  forfeiture 
of of $80,000 for, inter alia, each of 16 forgery complaints, for 
a total  of  $1,360,000);  Brittan  Communications  International 
Corp., Notice of  Apparent Liability for  Forfeiture, 15 FCC  Rcd 
4852 (2000)  (finding  apparent  liability  for,  inter  alia,  a 
forfeiture of $80,000 for  each of 12  forgery complaints, for  a 
total forfeiture of $1,120,000); American Telephone and Telegraph 
Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 00-
446 (rel. Dec. 21, 2000) (finding, inter alia, apparent liability 
for $80,000 forfeiture  for each of  2 violations resulting  from 
AT&T's reliance on forged LOAs); Vista Group Int'l, Inc.,  Notice 
of Apparent Liability  for Forfeiture,  14 FCC  Rcd 13814  (1999) 
(finding apparent  liability for  $80,000 forfeiture  for,  inter 
alia, each  of  seven complaints  involving  deceptive  marketing 
practices, for a total of $1,000,000); Coleman Enterprises,  Inc. 
d/b/a Local Long Distance, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, 14 FCC  Rcd 13786  (1999)(finding apparent  liability 
for $80,000  forfeiture for  each unauthorized  conversion of  14 
complainants through deceptive marketing  practices, for a  total 
forfeiure of $1,120,000);  Qwest Communications NAL,  14 FCC  Rcd 
182 (1999) (finding apparent  liability for, inter alia,  $80,000 
forfeiture for each of 22  forgery complaints, contributing to  a 
total forfeiture of $2,080,000).
56   See supra note 55.  
57   Response  at  34-35.   The  Commission's  Forfeiture  Policy 
Statement provides that a history of overall compliance is one of 
the  factors  the  Commission  may  take  into  account  in   its 
consideration of downward adjustment of a forfeiture.  Forfeiture 
Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17116.  Ironically, All  American 
previously argued that  the Forfeiture Policy  Statement did  not 
apply to the instant proceeding.  See Response at 27.
58   Response at 35-36.
59   Id. at 36.
60   See,  e.g.,  Target  Telecom  Forfeiture  Order,  Order   of 
Forfeiture, 13 FCC Rcd 4456, 4464 (Com.Car.Bur. 1998).
61   Response at 36 n.107.  
62   See,  e.g.,   Long  Distance   Services,  Inc.,   Order   of 
Forfeiture, 13  FCC  Rcd  4444,  4452  (Com.Car.Bur.  1998)  (LDS 
Forfeiture Order).
63   Response at 36.
64   The forfeiture amount should be paid by check or money order 
drawn to the order of the Federal Communications Commission.  
Reference should be made on the All American Telephone Company, 
Inc.'s check or money order to ``NAL/Acct. No. 816EF0008.''  Such 
remittance must be mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section, 
Finance Branch, Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 
73482, Chicago, Illinois  60673-7482.