Todd L Lesser

2023-07-09T17:25:24Z

Admin2: Added Categories

App Rpt Mailing List

2023-07-09T17:24:16Z

Admin2: Protected "App Rpt Mailing List" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)) [cascading]

[[Category:AllStarLink, Inc.]]

Recently [[AllStarLink, Inc.|ASL, Inc]]. has been taking the opinion they are the legitimate owners of the App_rpt list. There are two issues with this legal fiction,

* First They never hosted it, even on any ASL VM. It's always been on one of the servers run by me as a service to the community.
* Second, I even asked Jim and Steve if they would want a list rather than a forum. Steve enthustically said yes.

When we got control of the allstarlink.org domain, I decided to alias it to lists.allstarlink.org. This is still on lists.keekles.org, where it has been.

This is still in their DNS pointing to 199.47.174.152, which is lists.keekles.org

Tue Dec 24 22:21:11 EST 2019
; <<>> DiG 9.11.3-1ubuntu1.11-Ubuntu <<>> lists.allstarlink.org @8.8.8.8
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 40627
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1

;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 512
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;lists.allstarlink.org. IN A

;; ANSWER SECTION:
lists.allstarlink.org. 59 IN A 199.47.174.152

;; Query time: 109 msec
;; SERVER: 8.8.8.8#53(8.8.8.8)
;; WHEN: Tue Dec 24 22:19:29 EST 2019
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 66

= Emails between Jim/Steve and I =

[[File:01 - Mailing List.png|thumb|600px|center | First email]]

[[File:02 - Mailing List.png|thumb|600px|center|Second email]]

[[File:03 - Mailing List.png|thumb|600px|center|Third email]]

[[File:04 - Mailing List.png|thumb|600px|center|Final Email]]

AllStarLink, Inc.

2023-07-09T17:23:52Z

Admin2: Protected "AllStarLink, Inc." ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)) [cascading]

[[Category:AllStarLink, Inc.]]

This is mostly a response I received from [https://www.allstarlink.org AllStarLink] regarding my public records request.

Note that ASL, Inc is unwilling to provide proof of any assignment of copyright from the estate of Jim Dixon, WB6NIL.

'''UPDATE''': AllStarlink, Inc. actually filed the [[media:ASL assignment agreement.pdf|agreement]] with the [https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/ApplicationSearch/applAdmin.jsp?applID=11845728# FCC ULS] while applying for Jim's callsign. This is between [http://mailto:sheri.orloff@gmail.com Sheri Orloff] and ASL. Supposedly they paid thousands to an attorney to draw this up. This is either a lie or stupid as 99.9% of this agreement is the same from [https://www.doingthingsmedia.com/agreement this website]. Either way, it's a bad use of money.

Note, I've OCR'd this document here.

[http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=ALLSTARLINK%20N170000007290&aggregateId=domnp-n17000000729-fe1f3319-a564-4c83-8124-76ea812262a5&searchTerm=allstar%20link&listNameOrder=ALLSTARLINK%20N170000007290 Here is a link] to their Florida Department of State filings.

= Request for disclosure =

This is my formal request [[2019-11-12 Request for documents from AllStarLink]]. The PDF is there too.

= Todd's Response =

[[2019-11-15 AllStarLink Response to Request]]

= Donations to ASL, Inc. from Bryan Fields =

I've compiled a list of all donations of money/materials/etc I've given to ASL inc.

[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Q5p8-73Cpg8IoX4q9be09KPcdpPC8r1uZjIkZjAI-sM/edit?usp=sharing The google sheet is here]

'''As of March 2020 the total is $8,344.93 '''

= Files =

[[media:Allstar1023-EZform.pdf|AllStarLink IRS Form 1023 EZ filing.pdf]]

[[Media:FinalLetter 83-1127051 ALLSTARLINKINC 11212018 01.tiff|AllStarLink IRS Determination letter of tax-exempt status]]

[[File:2018 Allstarlink e-Postcard Filing Confirmation.pdf|thumb|2018 Allstarlink e-Postcard Filing Confirmation]]

[[media:ASL assignment agreement.pdf]] -- ASL assignment agreement from Sheri Orloff

= [[:Category:ASL-Minutes|Board Minutes]] =
The category has all the ASL board meeting minutes.

Note I've post [[AllStarLink Meeting Minutes Summary|processed these]] and found the bank accounts don't add up, and poor board member attendance by a majority of the board.

Most queer is there was a transfer between April 21 and April 28, 2019 from the Paypal to checking of $1000 making the bank balance $1,524.96. The next reported balance of the bank account on May 19, 2019 is $463.71, and PayPal is unchanged.

'''This means $1,061.25 went somewhere that was never voted upon by the board.'''

= Mailing List =

[[App Rpt Mailing List|This has it's own page]].

You can read through the history at the link above.

If you want to subscribe, here's the [http://lists.keekles.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/app_rpt-users link]

= Tampa Hypervisor =

ASL, Inc. maintains they own the server in Tampa. This is wrong and the provenance [[AllStarLink Tampa Server|is well documented here]]

AllStarLink Tampa Server

2023-07-09T17:23:36Z

Admin2: Protected "AllStarLink Tampa Server" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)) [cascading]

[[Category:AllStarLink, Inc.]]
[[Category:Infrastructure]]

= Background on the [[AllStarLink_Infrastructure#Tampa_Hypervisor|Tampa Hypervisor]] purchase =

In late 2017 [[AllStarLink, Inc.|AllStarLink]] needed a proper server. The stats server was failing, and I had offered a donation of space/power/bandwidth at my Tampa colo. The decision was made to buy a 1 RU HP DL360 Generation 7 server used for ~$900 shipped.

At the time ASL, Inc. was unable to buy it as they were not 501(c)3. I arranged for our local club here FSG, Inc. to buy it and donate the hypervisor space to ASL, Inc. Donations were made to FSG, inc. by several individuals totaling the purchase price and FSG purchased it. This was installed and operational late December 2017.

This was in essance two donations:
* FSG owned the server and donated the resources of it to ASL, Inc.
* Power, bandwidth, and space was a personal donation of myself. Note bandwidth was 15 mbit+/s

In 2019 I made the decision to stop donating resources to ASL, Inc. This was the space, bandwidth and power to the VM's running on the FSG owned hypervisor, and additional VMs (NMS, powerdns, rsync, logging, VPN) on my other, non FSG owned, servers.

AllStarLink, Inc. threw a fit about having the FSG owned server returned to them. They are under the impression that they own it, and ignore the history and agreements. The amount of time they wasted over a $325 server was appalling.

In January I spoke with our FSG team and suggested I can purchase the server from FSG. Our board agreed with this being a fair price so I made the payment to FSG and I now owned the server outright. I decided to donate this server to ASL; let the babbles have their bottle, no?

On Jan 28, 2020 I emailed ASL informing them of this and eventually shipped it (at my expense!) to them.

== 1st Email to admin list ==

[[File:2017-12-14 email to admin list about server.png|thumb|center|700px|2017-12-14 email to admin list about server]]

=== approval by board members ===

[[File:2017-12-15 response from kevin board member about server.png|thumb|center|700px|Board Member Approval from Kevin]]
[[File:2017-12-18 response from steve board member.png|thumb|center|700px|2017-12-18 Board Member Approval from Steve]]

== Final email to board regarding server ownership ==

[[File:2017-12-23 ASL server purchace email from Bfields.png|thumb|center|700px|2017-12-23 Final server purchase email from Bryan showing FSG ownership.]]

= Current Status =

As of the end of 2019, this server is worth about $325 [https://www.ebay.com/itm/113968099241 on the market] due to depreciation. This is a slightly better CPU than the ASL server, but lacking the other 4 146gb 15k disks, which are 5-8 dollars each.

[[File:2019-12-25 ebay ASL server.png|thumb|center|900px|Market value of similar config server as of 2019-12-25]]

== CPU info for the current HV ==
processor : 23
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 44
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU L5640 @ 2.27GHz

This shows the CPU in the current server is a 2.27 GHZ, slightly slower than [https://www.ebay.com/itm/113968099241 what's in the eBay listing].

= Server Donation to ASL On Jan 28, 2020 =

Subject: Tampa Hypervisor
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 00:00:49 -0500

FSG, Inc. has sold the old Tampa Hypervisor to me for a payment of $325. I'm
going to ship it to ASL and donate it to ASL Inc. Please let me know where
you want it shipped.

If I don't hear back by Thursday, I'll be shipping it to the ASL address on
file with the state:
AllStarLink, Inc.
9807 SW PUEBLO TERRACE
PALM CITY, FL 34990

Thank you,
--
Bryan Fields
== Passwords ==
To: helpdesk@allstarlink.org
Subject: Tampa Hypervisor login
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 00:02:38 -0500

The ILO is configured to DHCP for an IP.
User = asl
Pass = password

I've set the server root passwd to 'password'.

The first Ethernet interface is enp3s0f0 and has not been changed. The
management system is running on port 8001 using https. This will need to be
changed.

The VM's are under /var/lib/libvirt/images and are shut down.

Thank you,
--
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net

= Further attacks from the board =
After I informed the ASL board of my decision to donate the server, [[Todd Lesser]] still continued to attack me via email. Had they wanted the server so bad, one would assume he'd respond with the address to send it and at least STFU until it was received. Nope.

== Email from Todd to Bryan 2020-01-28 ==

Todd sent this as quoted printable and basically unreadable as plain text, so it's an image.

[[File:Email from Todd Lesser to Bryan Fields 2020-01-29-0427.png|thumb|center|700px|Email from Todd Lesser to Bryan Fields]]

== My reply to Todd ==

Note that Todd doesn't know how to send email, so I didn't rewrap his lines here.

To: Todd Lesser <todd@lesser.com>, helpdesk@allstarlink.org
From: Bryan Fields <Bryan@bryanfields.net>
Subject: Re: 8d minutes
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 23:53:07 -0500

On 1/28/20 11:27 PM, Todd Lesser wrote:

> Concerning the minutes:
> What specifically are you saying in item 8d that is incorrect? I wasnâ€™t around at the time so I have to obtain all this information from third parties. I am simply trying to be as accurate as possible. The minutes even directs people to your wiki page so people could read it themselves and reach their own conclusions.

ASL made no donation to FSG. Individuals made a donation to FSG, knowing full
well the server was to be 100% owned by FSG. It was not for the exclusive use
of ASL, you know it, I know it, the donors knew it.

> I attempted to be through in my investigation and that is why I contacted the Secretary of the the Florida Simulcast Group (FSG) to see how FSG minutes reflected the donation.

No, you attempted to trash my generosity at every single opportunity. This is
a further continuation of that.

> On your wiki you have posted a couple of emails. Would you prefer for me to just quote the emails instead of listing your wiki?
>
> "On 12/14/2017, Bryan Fields sent an email to allstarlink-admin@list.allstarlink.org.
>
> â€œI propose we have the donations to the Tampa Bay Hamwan (Florida Simulcast Group), FSG will buy the box and donate it to ASL, Inc. FSG is 501(c) 3 so any donations will be tax deductible, whereas ASL, Inc., isnâ€™tâ€
>
> On 12/23/2017, Bryan Fields sent a followup email, â€œOK, I got this worked out, I had to convene the FSG board. Weâ€™re approved, and FSG will provide the server to ASL and hosting. FSG will technically own it as itâ€™s in our rack, but ASL can do whatever they want with it.

You're welcome to do what you want with it, but I'm sure as fuck not going to
keep paying to host it. Given the first opportunity I've had to go to my colo
site, I pulled it.

> FSG has not donated the server back to ASL and apparently, they and/or Bryan Fields is no longer
>
> allowing ASL to do whatever it wants with it.

How can you be given something back, when you never owned it in the first
place? ASL doesn't own it, and never did.

> Attached is a copy of one of the PayPal payments.
>
> Finally, here are some web pages that describe a restricted gift to a non-profit. There is actually a body of law that covers this.
>
> https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/the-gift-adviser/2014/11/18/restricted-gifts-101.html
> https://www.barneswendling.com/non-profit-donations-managing-donor-restricted-gifts/
>
> https://conservationtools.org/guides/144-restricted-gifts
> "A restricted gift of cash, land, easement or other property may only be used for a particular purpose rather than an organizationâ€™s general purposes.â€
>
> https://www.thebalancesmb.com/restricted-unrestricted-nonprofit-funds-2502167
>
> "Donors to a nonprofit organization may designate or "restrict" the use of their donations to a particular purpose or project. An example is a gift to a special scholarship fund at a university.
> "Unrestricted" funds are donations the nonprofit may use for any purpose. Unrestricted funds usually go toward the operating expenses of the organization or to a particular project that the nonprofit picks.â€

Nothing was a restricted gift, it was cash to a paypal account with no
restrictions on it. You are failing to grasp the core concepts here. Go
back, read everything I've said, but pay attention this time.

> Obviously, when you send the machine back, the minutes for the next meeting will reflect this.

I've asked you all nicely to back off, and yet you have doubled down on this.
I was happy to just fuck off and go, but ASL seems hell bent on some kind of
vendetta of stupidity against me.

You had one thing you needed to do here, and it was "here's a shipping address
and we've amended the minutes, thank you." Yet rather than do this, get what
you want and fuck off, you want to "be right" and bring up all this shit again.

--
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net

== Finally Todd sent me a shipping address ==

From: Todd L <sdtoddl@gmail.com>
Subject: Server
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 22:10:48 -0800
To: Bryan Fields <bryan@bryanfields.net>

Please send the server to:

Andrew Lauppe
6440 Fulton St E Ste. 204
Ada, MI 49301

= Proof of Delivery =

I shipped the server out on Feb 7, 2020 as I was traveling the week prior. I also needed to find a proper server shipping box. I packed it using several foam in place bags, and shipped it ground after resetting the passwords on it.

FedEx Tracking number 777676698728

[[media:ASL server deliver proof pdf.pdf|ASL server delivery proof.pdf]]

[[File:ASL server deliver proof Image.png|thumb|center|700px|ASL server deliver proof Image]]

= Further updates =

As of April 7th 2020, the server still sits unused with [mailto:andy@lauppe.org Andy Lauppe, NB8P].

AllStarLink Meeting Minutes Summary

2023-07-09T17:23:00Z

Admin2: Protected "AllStarLink Meeting Minutes Summary" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)) [cascading]

[[Category:ASL-Minutes]][[Category:AllStarLink, Inc.]]

= The below is the ASL balances and the attendance rate of the board members =

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Date
! PayPal
! US Bank
! Expenditures
! Pete
! Tim
! Dave
! Todd
! Kevin
! Mike
|-
| 1/20/19 || $3,333.72 || || NA || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 0
|-
| 2/10/19 || $3,475.17 || || Kevin paid 148.60 to quadranet $40 in donations total Where is the delta from last month? || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 1
|-
| 2/17/19 || || || No mention of money this meeting || 1 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 1 || 1
|-
| 2/24/19 || $3,494.20 || $524.96 || Where did the money come from? This is 4,019.16, 543.99 more than last || 1 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 1
|-
| 3/10/19 || $3,360.81 || $524.96 || Paid 148.60 to Quadranet 501c3 is approved PayPal balance doesn't add up || 1 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 1
|-
| 3/19/19 || $3,384.78 || $524.96 || Where is the money coming from? Tech soup in process, but need IRS letter || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 1
|-
| 3/24/19 || || || No updates || 1 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1
|-
| 3/31/19 || $3,422.71 || $524.96 || Bruce Marks is making a new recurring donation || 1 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 1
|-
| 4/7/19 || $3,275.27 || $524.96 || Kevin paid quadranet (money?) || 1 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 0
|-
| 4/21/19 || $3,279.82 || $524.96 || Kevin Paid April quadranet || 1 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 0
|-
| 4/28/19 || $2,304.04 || $1,524.96 || Todd moved 1000 from the PayPal to the bank Where is the other monies coming from? || 1 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
| 5/12/19 || $2,184.42 || || 148.60 was paid to quadranet David finally wrote thanks to all the donors || 1 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 1
|-
| 5/19/19 || $2,184.43 || $463.71 || Where did the over 1000 go from in the US bank account? || 1 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
| 6/24/19 || $2,195.40 || $463.71 || Money is missing from the bank account || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 0
|-
| 7/14/19 || $2,148.10 || $463.71 || No idea where the money went, some mention of finally getting a budget together || 0 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1
|-
| 7/28/19 || || || || 1 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 1 || 0
|-
| 8/4/19 || $2,238.65 || $463.71 || Where did the money in PayPal come from? Where did it go? || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1
|-
| 8/11/19 || $2,118.88 || $463.71 || Where did PayPal money go? || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 0
|-
| 8/18/19 || $2,131.92 || $463.71 || Again, no explanation of PayPal balance || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 0
|-
| 8/25/19 || $2,132.92 || $463.71 || NFO servers money to be paid out of checking (18/mo) || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1
|-
| 9/1/19 || $2,801.96 || $441.71 || || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1
|-
| 9/22/19 || $2,801.96 || $419.73 || 18 out of checking to NFO servers || 0 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1
|-
| 10/20/19 || $2,774.68 || $378.00 || No mention where the money went other than 18 for the NFO server || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1
|-
| || || || || || || || || ||
|-
| || || || || 91.3% || 100.0% || 87.0% || 60.9% || 69.6% || 60.9%
|}

2019-11-15 AllStarLink Response to Request

2023-07-09T17:22:43Z

Admin2: Protected "2019-11-15 AllStarLink Response to Request" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)) [cascading]

[[Category:AllStarLink, Inc.]]

Below is Todd Lesser's response. Note 5 below.

----

I am in receipt of your document request as of today. I never received your September 20th email or saw it on slack.

I want to address each of your requests. .

1. IRS Form 990 for the last year tax years.

As you are aware, I just got on the board in the last year. You were a board member right before I became a board member so you would know better than I would what was previously filed with the IRS over the last three years.
I am not aware of any requirement to file a Form 990. If you are aware of any filings please let me know and I will see if I can locate it or request a copy from the IRS.

2. IRS Form 1023 including all attachments.

I previously explained to you on slack that we didn’t file a Form 1023.

3. The IRS determination letter for our 501(c) status was previously provided to you. Nevertheless, I am attaching it again.

4. Any records requiring disclosure under 26 USC 6104 (d)1(A)

What specific document are you looking for? You never sent me the prior year documents when I wasn’t on the board.

5. Any contract(s) assignment (s) between AllStarlink, Inc.

'''I can find no requirement that you are entitled to this information. If you could please provide it, we will comply.'''

2019-11-12 Request for documents from AllStarLink

2023-07-09T17:22:28Z

Admin2: Protected "2019-11-12 Request for documents from AllStarLink" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)) [cascading]

[[Media:2019-09-20 Letter to AllStarLink, Inc.pdf|PDF Verison]]

Bryan Fields

501 80th Ave

St Pete Beach, FL 33706

727-409-1194

bryan@bryanfields.net

AllStarLink, Inc.

9807 SW Pueblo Terrace

Palm City, FL 34990

November 12, 2019

RE: Request for documents

Previously via email and in the AllStarLink Slack I have previously requested the following documents from AllStarLink, Inc. in accordance with 26 USC § 6104.

* IRS returns (Form 990 and schedules) for the last three (3) tax years.
* IRS form 1023 including all attachments
* IRS determination letter for 501(c)3 status
* Any records requiring disclosure under 26 USC § 6104(d)1(A)
* Financial statements for the last 3 years and interim statements for FY2019 disclosing income and expenditures in accordance with FS617
* Any contract(s) or assignment(s) between AllStarLink, Inc. and the estate of HR Jim Dixon designating AllStarLink, Inc. as the legal owner of assets held by Mr. Dixon’s estate.

As of September 20, 2019, this request has not been fulfilled in the 30-day allowance under 26 USC § 6104(d)1(B). I trust this was an oversite on the part of AllStarLink, and look forward to AllStarLink’s compliance in this matter.

Please provide copies to the address above or state in writing the reason for AllStarLink’s continued non-compliance with this request.

Thank you,

Bryan Fields

Via USPS: 7016-0340-0001-0614-6485

Cc: Registered Agents Inc., 7901 4th Street North, Suite 300, St. Petersburg, FL 33702

[[Category:AllStarLink, Inc.]]

Category:ASL-Minutes

2023-07-09T17:22:07Z

Admin2: Protected "Category:ASL-Minutes" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)) [cascading]

These are the minutes provided by Todd Lesser per my request, converted to wiki-text from the original M$ word document format.

[[Category:AllStarLink, Inc.]]

Todd Lesser Social Media

2023-07-09T17:21:49Z

Admin2: Changed protection level for "Todd Lesser Social Media" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)) [cascading]

[[Category: Todd Lesser]]
The following are known Social Media accounts or links related to Todd Lesser:

<div style="float:right">__TOC__</div>

= Social Media =
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center; width: 85%"
|+ Todd Lesser Social Media Accounts/Links
! Network
! Link
|-
| Facebook
| https://www.facebook.com/todd.lesser<ref name="Facebook>https://www.facebook.com/todd.lesser</ref>
|-
| Twitter
| https://twitter.com/sdtoddl/with_replies<ref name="Twitter">https://twitter.com/sdtoddl</ref>
|-
| Reddit
| https://www.reddit.com/user/Educational-Sky/<ref name="Reddit">https://www.reddit.com/user/Educational-Sky/</ref>
|-
| ASL Discourse
| https://community.allstarlink.org/u/Todd-km6rpt/<ref name="Discourse">https://community.allstarlink.org/u/Todd-km6rpt/</ref>
|-
| Github
| https://github.com/km6rpt<ref name="gtihub">https://github.com/km6rpt</ref>
|-
|}

== Twitter ==

The following is Todd Lesser's complete Twitter<ref name="Twitter" /> history as of the date of this wiki edit.

Note: Todd has since made the content of his Twitter account private.

<div style="text-align: left; width: 25%">[[File:Todd Twitter Protected.png|thumb|Todd's Twitter account showing his Tweets are now protected]]</div>

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 85%"
|+ Todd Lesser @sdtoddl History
! style="text-align: left; width: 5%" | File
! style="width: 350px;" | Comments
|-
| [[:Media:Todd Lesser Twitter History - 2021-03-06.pdf|@sdtoddl on Twitter]]
| PDF of all tweets
|-
| [[File:Selection 085.png|thumb|Screenshot of tweet]]
| @ChrisJZullo You need to recheck your facts about the metal institutions and homeless problems caused by Reagan. It was Congress, the courts and the Psychiatrists.
|-
| [[File:Selection 087.png|thumb|Screenshot of tweet]]
| @ChrisJZullo You need to recheck your facts about the metal institutions and homeless problems caused by Reagan. It was Congress, the courts and the Psychiatrists.
|-
| [[File:Selection 088.png|thumb|Screenshot of tweet]]
| @elonmusk Thank you for letting me be part of the Starlink beta. This is going to be a game changer for rural parts of the world. @CALFIRECZU Fire fighters are great. Public Information officer for Cal Fire - not so much. I can't believe you don't have an evacuation/fire map on your web page. Didn't you ever practice for this?
|-
| [[File:Selection 089.png|thumb|Screenshot of tweet]]
| @kirksorensen I just watched a video of you on Youtube from 2011. Keep your passion. It is never easy to be the innovator. If if was, everyone would do it. @elonmusk I am a Ham Radio operator and in Point Roberts Washington - Right near Canada. Please let me be one of your Starlink beta testers.
|-
| [[File:Selection 090.png|thumb|Screenshot of tweet]]
| @wa8dzp Are you still working with OpenBTS? I was interested in setting up a cellular network in a rural area. When I spoke to them years ago, there wasn't a clear direction. The powers that be didn't understand the necessity of having data, text and phone calls. @AlaskaAir Shame on you for your lack of proper training and procedures to deal with peanut allergies. Pass out the Epi Pens. #epipen @BrentButt #nochicekforoliver Missed you at the park. I hope Oliver is feeling better. Take care. See you next year. @KristinPaget Let's chat some time. I worked with Jim Dixon (Zapata Telephony/Asterisk/Allstarlink Ham) Node 2024 or PM me.
|-
| [[File:Selection 091.png|thumb|Screenshot of tweet]]
| @KristinPaget Let's chat some time. I worked with Jim Dixon (Zapata Telephony/Asterisk/Allstarlink Ham) Node 2024 or PM me. @BrentButt Levi is officially 2 today. Levi is looking forward to the dog part. Tell everyone I say hello. See you this summer. @DeanKamen You should make the plans to Slingshot public domain like we did with zapatatelephony.org and asterisk.org---@johnLegere In order for TMobile to help me one I tweet you, they need need me to grant them access to my complete twitter account. WTF @TMobile and @JohnLegereLook at tickets. Would make a great case study on how now to run a tech department. I want to help you be better.
|-
| [[File:Selection 092.png|thumb|Screenshot of tweet]]
| @TMobile and @JohnLegere Look at tickets. Would make a great case study on how now to run a tech department. I want to help you be better. @JohnLegere Tmobile customer service is great. Tmobile technical department sucks. Look at tickets 15243615, 15399838, 15461206, 15465046 @realDonaldTrump Shame on news media for keep using term Muslim Majority. Over 50 of such countries Maybe start calling US Christian Majority Shame on news media for keep using term Muslim Majority. Over 50 of such countries Maybe start calling US Christian Majority @BrentButt I am not sure if this warrants my 3rd Tweet but I went to Chris next to B. B. Bakery. I hope all is well. @Meyeradvocate I want to help you stop Robocalls. I left you a voicemail message.
|-
| [[File:Selection 093.png|thumb|Screenshot of tweet]]
| @Meyeradvocate I want to help you stop Robocalls. I left you a voicemail message. Thank you La Jolla for giving me the honor or representative you on Traffic and Transportation issues with the City as Chair for the last 6yr @AnnaKendrick47 Rented Happy Christmas after seeing you on Letterman. Loved your acting. The plot/writers not so much. I want my $1.20 back.
|-
| [[File:Tweets-1.png|thumb|Screenshot of tweet]]
| Shame on news media for keep using term Muslim Majority. Over 50 of such countries Maybe start calling US Christian Majority Thank you La Jolla for giving me the honor or representative you on Traffic and Transportation issues with the City as Chair for the last 6yr
|-
|}

Return to [[Todd Lesser]]

= References =
<references/>

Todd Lesser Property

2023-07-09T17:21:37Z

Admin2: Changed protection level for "Todd Lesser Property" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)) [cascading]

[[Category: Todd Lesser]]
=Known property=
The following is a listing of other known properties that Todd owns (or owned)

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 85%"
|+ List of properties
! Property
! Link
! Information
| Status
|-
| 342 Maryanne Dr, Stateline, NV 89449
| https://www.tahoesouthvacationrentals.com/index.php/342
| http://assessor-search.douglasnv.us:1401/cgi-bin/asw101?Parcel=131918413003&aori=a
| Indenture. Taken by Douglas County Treasurer for failure to pay taxes
|}

Return to [[Todd Lesser]]

=References=
<references/>

Todd Lesser

2023-07-09T17:20:22Z

Admin2: Changed protection level for "Todd Lesser" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)) [cascading]

[[Category:Todd Lesser]]
[[Category:AllStarLink, Inc.]]
<div style="float:right">__TOC__</div>

[[File:Todd Lesser argues over flipping a coin.jpg|right|400px|thumb|Todd Lesser argues over flipping a coin<ref name="LAJollaLight />]]
* Updated 12 July, 2022 - Includes information on a default judgement in [[#West Virginia | West Virginia]]
* Updated 11 June, 2023 - Includes information on [[#March 2023 Update |ex parte communications to Administrative Judge Kline in AT&T California v. Vaya Telecom case]]
* Updated 17 June, 2023 - Includes additional court case information for the [[#United States Supreme Court | United States Supreme Court]], [[#New York | United States District Court Northern District of New York]], [[#Federal Case Records | United States District Court for the District of Oregon]], and the [[#New York | Supreme Court of New York, New York County]]
= Preamble =
This information listed here is sourced exclusively from public records at the City, State, and Federal levels. All the information contained herein is factual based upon the information obtained via these public records sources. This information is provided '''''as is''''' from the source documents that are linked in this article.

= Background =
The majority of recent [[AllStarLink,_Inc.|AllStarLink, Inc.]] ("ASL")<ref>[[AllStarLink,_Inc.|AllStarLink, Inc.]]</ref> issues can be traced back to a time when '''Todd Lesser (KM6RPT)'''<ref>https://www.qrz.com/db/KM6RPT</ref> ("Todd") became a member of the Board of Directors. This was right after '''Tim Sawyer (WD6AWP)'''<ref>https://www.qrz.com/db/WD6AWP</ref> ("Tim") left, and '''Bryan Fields (W9CR)'''<ref>https://www.qrz.com/db/W9CR</ref> ("I"/"me") wanted to leave. However, I could not resign as that would leave two people as members of the Board of Directors and caused ASL to be in violation of Florida Statute (FS) 617<ref>http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0600-0699/0617/0617.html</ref>. Todd then joined and I left shortly afterwards. After he assumed the board position, I was surprised at his lack of candor as he immediately began to hold information secret. Shocking as well was the return of Tim Sawyer as a board member. After Tim's resignation due to an unrelated issue which left the board with three members including myself, no argument could be made to have him return.

My view of this is it was orchestrated to remove me from the board and give Todd a means to exploit ASL. Keep in mind we (ASL) hadn't really known Todd prior to this. I was impressed he finally went out and got his tech license after '''Jim Dixon (WB6NIL)(SK)''' ("Jim") passed, but other than him owning a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC)<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_local_exchange_carrier</ref> ("North County Communications Corporation" or "NCC")<ref>https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/CBS/SearchResults?filing=&SearchType=CORP&SearchCriteria=NORTH+COUNTY+COMMUNICATIONS+CORPORATION&SearchSubType=Keyword</ref> no one really knew much about him. As a CLEC owner I thought he'd have a working knowledge of Asterisk and general telecom, but I had to show him how to SSH and configure the WB6NIL repeater ([https://stats.allstarlink.org/stats/2024 Node 2024])<ref>[https://stats.allstarlink.org/stats/2024 Node 2024]</ref> at his office to change it to his callsign.

After Todd became a member of the board, the board itself became very insular and refused to communicate with the ASL Admin Committee <ref>https://wiki.allstarlink.org/index.php?title=Admin_Committee&oldid=4748</ref>. This not only significantly impacted operations but also development and the morale the Admin Committee members in general. Later, '''Pete Elke (WI6H)'''<ref>https://www.qrz.com/db/WI6H</ref> ("Pete") and '''David Shaw (WB6WTM)'''<ref>https://www.qrz.com/db/WB6WTM</ref> ("David") joined the ASL Board of Directors. This resulted in the ASL Board of Directors becoming even more insular and secretive and I believe this was due, in no small part, to Todd's influence and leadership.

When we as a board negotiated to get assignment of the assets from Jim's estate, Todd had a serious concern regarding the other non-app_rpt/asterisk assets on Jim such as the MIPL software and its associated marks. Due to ASL not having any Bylaws other than the Admin Charter, any asset that ASL was in possession of or came into the possession of could be sold or transferred to anyone, as there were no protections against it nor was any asset held in trust or protected from normal sale or transfer. This means that any assets or intellectual property ("IP") transferred to ASL could be disposed in any means by a simple majority vote of the board.

For example:
Any ASL asset could be sold off to a third party far below market value, or transferred. A member of the ASL Board of Directors could have a significant interest or business relationship with this entity, and after the sale/transfer they promptly resign. This third party and former ASL board member would now own the asset/IP that was transferred to it and could sell it for a profit, re-license it (even back to ASL itself), or do other means of monetization. This is basically what happened with the Public Internet Registry ("PIR") which was owned by the Internet Society<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Society#Sale_of_the_Public_Interest_Registry</ref>.

Such actions would be a major conflict of interest and was the reason Jim transferred control of AllStarLink to '''Steve Zingman (N4IRS)'''<ref>https://www.qrz.com/db/N4IRS</ref> ("Steve") who was part of the initial incorporation of AllStarLink, Inc. in an effort to preserve the AllStarLink Network, assets, and ensure its continued operation.

I was always wondering why Todd was "''chomping at the bit''" when it came to ASL assets, and this finally started to make sense in late 2020:

Research showed that in September 2020, Todd Lesser had several lawsuits against him with '''judgements in excess of 2.5 Million Dollars ($2,500,000.00) as well as having property seized in San Diego for conspiring to distribute narcotics'''. Unfortunately, any initial research done on Todd was hampered by the poor access to public records in California vs. what Florida has under the Sunshine Act<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_information_legislation_(Florida)</ref>. There was also some limited information in the Federal Courts under [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACER_(law) PACER].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACER_(law)</ref>

What was clear is that he had filed bankruptcy at least twice in the last 5 years and been involved in litigation against two major telecom carriers in the Federal courts.

= Case Summary =

It's clear in these cases that NCC engaged in a practice know as "[https://www.fcc.gov/general/traffic-pumping access stimulation]" (a.k.a. traffic pumping)<ref>https://www.fcc.gov/general/traffic-pumping</ref>. In short NCC is a phone company, and as a phone company it is permitted to bill other phone companies for calls to the CLEC's (its) customers. Typically these rates are in the .01 or .02 cents per minute which is the same for all carriers, and known as a "tariff". This tariff can be much higher in certain areas of the US, as is the case typically were phone service is provided by non-Regional Bell Operating Company (RBOC)<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Company</ref> Incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC)<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incumbent_local_exchange_carrier</ref> phone companies, and can be .02-.04 cents per minute. A CLECs operating in these higher tariff areas by service customers make more money. These areas tend to be rural and not populated, thus being more expensive for the CLEC to provide services in.

CLECs operating in these areas and billing the ILECs in excess of a million minutes per month was not unheard of. As can be imagined, this can net a sizeable profit for the CLECs.

Typically, these calls are only permitted to be charged for customer to customer calls, any automated calls or chat lines (typically sexual in nature) are not subjected to these fees. Additionally, they tend to only be a small part of the inbound calls as most legitimate chat lines use an 800 or 900 number and require a customer to pay via credit card for the call. These chat line operators are also separate businesses from the CLEC.

If the sex chat operator can find a less than honorable CLEC, they can enter into a business agreement where calls to the chat line from a local number are "free" to the caller that "exists" in one of these higher tariff areas. The CLEC in turn uses this "access stimulation" to for several million minutes a month to calls in this high tariff area and then bill the RBOC ILEC instead of the customer at this higher rate. The result is the CLEC collecting several million dollars of "profit" per month from the chat line operator providing the "access stimulation" needed.

In all cases below Todd is the owner of NCC and the sex chat line operator HFT, Inc. ("HFT")<ref>[[media:2015-01-23 Joint Statement to FCC regarding discovery Sprint v NCC fcc-60001016009.pdf|Joint Statement to FCC regarding discovery Sprint, Page 4]]</ref>. In the filings we can find HFT never paid NCC for access as a typical customer of a CLEC would. Instead HTF existed only to stimulate calls for NCC in these high tariff areas, who in turn billed the ILEC and pocketed the money collected. This is an arrangement which viewed though the best of intentions would be considered fraudulent.

In the Mid 2000's most carriers began auditing to find this sort of operation via call detail records ("CDR")<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_detail_record</ref> auditing. The use of the Signalling System No 7 ("SS7)<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_System_No._7</ref> interconnect protocol along with modern auditing software sold by the major telecom vendors helped in the cracking down on this fraudulent behavior by CLECs. The use of the SS7 protocol in the US was mandated by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") via a rule the passed in 2011 <ref>https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-11-161A1.pdf</ref>.

Under the laws in the mid 2000's most carriers had to sue or petition the FCC for redress. In some cases they refused to pay the fraudulent bills by the CLEC's and the CLEC would sue the big carrier. This is indeed what NCC did, suing Verizon, Metro PCS, T-Mobile, Sprint and Vaya Telecom for failure to pay their interconnection charges. In all cases these resulted in judgements against NCC and Todd Lesser personally.

= Federal Records =
In PACER We found Todd/NCC sued or counter-sued by Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile and other carriers for billing irregularities related to access stimulation.

== FCC ==
Before the FCC, Sprint, and [[media:2015-01-23 Joint Statement to FCC regarding discovery Sprint v NCC fcc-60001016009.pdf|T-Mobile 2015-01-23 Joint Statement to FCC regarding discovery Sprint v NCC]]<ref>[[media:2015-01-23 Joint Statement to FCC regarding discovery Sprint v NCC fcc-60001016009.pdf|T-Mobile 2015-01-23 Joint Statement to FCC regarding discovery Sprint v NCC]]</ref>

Note: FCC/Court rulings list NCC as NCC in some instances.

'''STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS:'''
<blockquote>
<ol>
<li value="13">All revenues of NCC and HFT are for the benefit of Mr. Lesser.</li>
<li value="17">NCC’s traffic from Sprint is “100 percent chat line traffic.”</li>
<li value="25">In a lawsuit against Vaya Telecom pending in state court in California, Todd Lesser was personally sanctioned '''$92,966.45''' for discovery violations, including violations of court orders to produce financial records involving transactions between NCC and HFT. The discovery referee found he was willfully untruthful under oath during his deposition. </li>
<li value="61">Mr. Lesser testified in the Sprint matter that he created the invoices on a monthly basis in custom software that he wrote himself </li>
<li value="66">After NCC produced the invoices, Verizon obtained an order directing NCC to produce all computer drives it used to create, modify, or manipulate those invoices so that a court-appointed expert could test whether the HFT invoices were, as in Farmers II, backdated. The neutral forensic expert appointed by the District Court examined the two drives Mr. Lesser produced – an Apple iBook G-4 laptop hard drive (“Mac Computer”) and a removable USB flash drive (“Thumb Drive”).64 (Compl. ¶ 102; but see Answer ¶ 115)</li>
<li value="70">Todd Admits to deleting the bash history and log of commands during discovery.</li>
<li value="71">The District Court sanctioned NCC for evidence destruction</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>

== Federal Case Records ==

</center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 100%"
! Media
! Information/Description
|-
| [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxVdxjf_L9Q 14-15115 North County Communications Co v. Qwest Corporation]
| NCC's of summary judgements against them from the Arizona Corporations Commission<ref>[https://www.azcc.gov/ Arizona Corporations Commission]</ref> and the Oregon PUC<ref>[https://www.oregon.gov/puc/Pages/default.aspx Oregon PUC]</ref>
In both these cases, the local regulatory bodies were called by Todd/NCC as NCC was contesting not being paid for calls to NCC "customers". These Customers of NCC are almost 100% sex chat lines. [https://docket.images.azcc.gov/0000182790.pdf In this decision by the ACC]<ref>https://docket.images.azcc.gov/0000182790.pdf</ref> was a summary judgement in favor of Qwest. This is what is being appealed here.

There's some funny things to read in this case, such as NCC insisting to use MF signaling<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-frequency_signaling MF signaling</ref> rather than SS7<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_System_No._7</ref>, and complaining about the cost for a MX2800 M13 mux. These are the sorts of complaints which seem frivolous to anyone in telecommunications

Searching for "North County Communications Corporation" on the [https://edocket.azcc.gov/search/docket-search ACC search page]<ref>[https://edocket.azcc.gov/search/docket-search ACC search page]</ref> will produce many documents showing NCC to be on the losing end of the argument.

On March 5th, 2014 the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, as part of the legal proceedings regarding NCC's use of MF Signaling, and the Interconnection Agreement with Qwest, issued an Opinion and Order on case 3:13-CV-00375-BR<ref>[[media:US District Court - District of Oregon Case 3-13-cv-00375-BR Opinion and Order.pdf|US District Court - District of Oregon Case 3-13-cv-00375-BR-Opinion and Order - North County Communications Corporation of Oregon vs Qwest Corporation, Susan Akerman, John Savage, Stephen Bloom, all in their capacity as Commissioners of the Public Utility Commission of Oregon]]</ref> in which NCC's motion for Summary Judgement against Qwest Corporation and The Oregon Public Utilities Commission was denied and NCC's claim was dismissed with prejudice. The judge instead ruled in favor of both Qwest and the Oregon PUC.

'''Case background:''' In 1997, NCC and Qwest entered into an Interconnection Agreement (ICA), which defined how both parties would connect to each other and conduct business. The ICA was submitted to and approved by multiple State Public Utilities Commissions as the binding document for NCC and Qwest to conduct business in each PUC's jurisdiction. NCC and Qwest amended the 1997 ICA several times between September 1997 and April 2011. In July 2008 NCC received a request for negotiation from Qwest regarding a new ICA pursuant to the 47 U.S.C. § 252(a)<ref>[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/252 47 U.S. Code § 252 - Procedures for negotiation, arbitration, and approval of agreements]</ref> - Part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Qwest sought a new ICA because the 1997 ICA was outdated due to "''technological changes in Qwest's processes and products and NCC's use of multifrequency (MF) (analog) signaling was archaic''". Even though Qwest was willing to accommodate MF signaling for traffic terminating to NCC, Qwest requested the new ICA to include a provision that NCC must use a newer technology called SS7 (digital) signaling if it wished to begin terminating traffic with or through Qwest. NCC contended that Qwest's proposed ICA would force NCC to get rid of its existing network in favor of an "''unnecessary technological update and an untested agreement''". NCC also asserted Qwest was not legally permitted to dictate NCC's technology choices and did not have a valid justification for changing the terms of the then-existing 1997 ICA. One item of particular interest in this is that this case went to arbitration, the Arbitrator's decisions were accepted by the various PUCs as binding regarding the new ICA, and NCC challenged this in court in each of the respective PUCs jurisdictions (in this case Arizona and Oregon) and lost both challenges. NCC contended that Qwest was not allowed to initiate the renegotiation of the ICA under 47 U.S.C. § 252(a)(1), as Qwest was an ILEC, stating that the law only allowed CLECs to initiate the negotiations for ICAs with ILECs.
<blockquote>
Section 252 (a)(1) provides: Upon receiving a request for interconnection, services, or network elements pursuant to section 251 [47 U.S.C. § 251], an incumbent local exchange carrier may
negotiate and enter into a binding agreement with the requesting telecommunications carrier or carriers without regard to the standards set forth in subsections (b) and (c) of section 251 [47 USC
§ 251(b), (c)].
</blockquote>

The court's opinion of NCC's challenge:
<blockquote>
''Arizona''. The district court in ''NCC Arizona'' noted: “[N]o court has directly considered whether the language of sections 252(a)(1) and (b)(1) applies to requests to negotiate made by ILECs to CLECs.” ''Id.'', at *2. Accordingly, the ''NCC Arizona'' court analyzed the language of the Act to ascertain Congress’s intent to determine whether to adopt NCC’s interpretation of the statute. After doing so, the court found: “Any interpretation of sections 252(a)(1) and (b)(1) must be consistent with these two basic objectives of the Act: encouraging competition through the good faith negotiation of ICAs by ILECs and CLECs, and placing state commission in the central role of mediating, arbitrating, and approving ICAs.” ''Id.'', at *5. Accordingly, the court concluded “North County's strict reading of sections 252(a)(1) and (b)(1) would be inconsistent with these objectives,” and “the most reasonable construction is that [S]ection 252 applies to any negotiation of an ICA between an ILEC and CLEC, regardless of which party initiates the discussions. Such a reading avoids an interpretation that defeats major purposes of the Act and that places ILECs in the untenable position of having to terminate existing ICAs rather than requesting to renegotiate them. It also preserves for state commissions the critical mediation, arbitration, and approval roles intended by Congress.” ''Id''., at *5-6.
</blockquote>

The court ruled that it agreed with the district court in ''NCC Arizona'' that § 252(a)(1) does not prohibit an ILEC from requesting interconnection with a CLEC (meaning that Qwest was allowed to initiate the renegotiation of the 1997 ICA with NCC). The Court concludes, therefore, that Qwest was permitted to request arbitration and the Commission had the authority to arbitrate the parties’ 2011 ICA. Accordingly, the Court declines NCC's motion to declare the 2011 ICA ''void ab initio'' (void from the beginning).
|-
| [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uycO9mx9VTo 15-56678 North County Communications v. Sprint Communications Co.]
| NCC's appeal following a week long trial against Sprint Communications. This is worth watching, as NCC has been found to be overcharging sprint for calls to it's sex chat line customers.

At [https://youtu.be/uycO9mx9VTo?t=1416 about 24 minutes into this]<ref>https://youtu.be/uycO9mx9VTo?t=1416</ref> the Judge questions the attorney of Sprint who explains to the court "there weren't any proper charges (from NCC to Sprint)" and "Because if NCC didn't exist HFT wouldn't exist, and we wouldn't have this traffic pumping and access stimulation, calls to adult chat lines, they just wouldn't have existed" "this business practice is built on a relationship between telephone company (CLEC/NCC) and chat line company (HFT) in which they have to be business partners for this to work. Cuz telephone company bills the long distance company (SPRINT), and they split the profits to fund the venture, and the problem is where you're doing business together you're not a common carrier's customer!"<ref>https://youtu.be/uycO9mx9VTo?t=1465</ref>
|-
| [[file:2014-12-17 FCC Sprint v NCC Exhibts to discovery from ncc FCC - 60001010080.pdf|thumb|left|page=11|300px|FCC Sprint vs NCC Exhibits]]
| HFT chat line ad showing local number
|-
|}
</center>

<center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 85%"
|+ Federal Case Record Documents
! Document
! Information/Description
|-
| [[media:2013-01-28_NCC_vs_VZW_and_Sprint_ORDER_GRANTING_IN_PART_AND_DENYING_IN_PART_MOTION_TO_DISMISS_THIRD_AMENDED_COUNTERCLAIM_(Counts_II%2C_III%2C_IV%2C_%26_VI)_AND_DENYING_MOTION_FOR_LEAVE_TO_AMEND_THE_COMPLAINT_WITHOUT_PREJUDICE_08-CV-1518-CAB_%26_0.pdf|NCC_vs_VZW_and_Sprint_ORDER]]
|
|-
| [[media:2014-12-17 FCC Sprint v NCC Exhibts to discovery from ncc FCC - 60001010080.pdf|FCC Sprint v NCC Exhibts to discovery from ncc]]
|
|-
| [[media:2015-01-23 Joint Statement to FCC regarding discovery Sprint v NCC fcc-60001016009.pdf|Joint Statement to FCC regarding discovery Sprint v NCC]]
|
|-
| [[media:2015-04-02 NCC Filing to FCC for Sprint Case 60001042236.pdf|NCC Filing to FCC for Sprint Case]]
|
|-
| [[media:2007-09-07 Letter to the FCC comminioner regarding NCC 6519722812.pdf]]
|
|-
| [[media:2009-03-30 FCC opinion and order NCC v. MetroPCS DA-09-719A1.pdf]]
|
|-
| [[media:2009-04-09 NCC v VZ counter claim 08 CV 1518 BEN.pdf]]
|
|-
| [[media:2009-11-19 FCC Review on order NCC v MetroPCS FCC-09-100A1_Rcd-1.pdf]]
|
|-
| [[media:2010-09-03 NCC vs VZW motion for protective order 08-CV-1518 BEN.pdf]]
|
|-
| [[media:2010-12-06 VZW to FCC re 07-135 about NCC 7020922335.pdf]]
|
|-
| [[media:2013-01-28_NCC_vs_VZW_and_Sprint_ORDER_GRANTING_IN_PART_AND_DENYING_IN_PART_MOTION_TO_DISMISS_THIRD_AMENDED_COUNTERCLAIM_(Counts_II,_III,_IV,_%26_VI)_AND_DENYING_MOTION_FOR_LEAVE_TO_AMEND_THE_COMPLAINT_WITHOUT_PREJUDICE_08-CV-1518-CAB_%26_0.pdf|NCC vs VZW and Sprint dismissive order ]]
|
|-
| [[media:2020-10-27 NCC v VZW Diss with Prejudice 08-cv-01518-CAB.pdf]]
|
|-
| [[media:DA-16-1081A1.pdf| FCC Order in the matter of NCC v. Cricket Communications, Inc.,]]
|
|-
|}
</center>
<blockquote>
NCC files a complaint with the FCC seeking to make Cricket allow it's customers to call 900 numbers which Cricket doesn't allow for any of it's customers. '''NCC's complaint is DISMISSED.'''
</blockquote>
=== United States Supreme Court ===
<center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 85%"
! Document
! Information/Description
|-
| [[media:Search - Supreme Court of the United States - Docket 10-257.pdf|Supreme Court of the United States - No 10-257 - North County Communications Corp vs California Catalog and Technology dba CTT Telecomms, Petition for Write of Certiorari. Petition was DENIED.]]<ref>https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/10-257.htm</ref>
| Petition regarding Case No 08-55048 from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. '''''Writs of Certiorari'''''<ref>https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/writ_of_certiorari</ref>: Parties who are not satisfied with the decision of a lower court must petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case.<ref>https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1</ref>
|-
|}
</center>

= Bankruptcy Court =

Todd has filed bankruptcy a couple times that can be found in PACER. What is interesting is these were filed pro-se<ref>https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/pro_se</ref>, for oneself, on one's own behalf. In both cases the case was dismissed for failure to properly file all the required documents.

Upon review of the records from San Diego County, it was found both these filings aligned with foreclosure proceedings on his residence or business. This is a well known tactic, as a bankruptcy filing will pause all foreclosure actions giving time to the debtor, and encouraging the holder of the loan to settle. In both cases Todd was able to re-mortgage or finance his residence, and then have the court dismiss the case. In the second time in 2019 he entered into a trust agreement with his father loaning him over 1,000,000 dollars.

<center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 85%"
|+ Bankruptcy filings
! Case Number
! Filing Date
! Status
! Discharge Date
! Chapter
! Disposition
! Court
|-
| 1903194
| 05/31/2019
| Voluntary
| 06/18/2019
| 13
| Dismissed
| California Southern - San Diego
|-
| [[media:2018-06-18 Lesser Bankruptcy 18-03554-CL13 1-2.pdf|1803554]]
| 06/13/2018
| Voluntary
| 06/28/2018
| 13
| Dismissed
| California Southern - San Diego
|}
</center>

<center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 100%"
|+ Other information
! Date
! Item
! Comment
|-
| Feb 22, 2018
| Todd Lesser's residence has a [[media:2018-0068778.pdf|foreclosure notice]] on it for failure to pay $32,944.76.
| Note that Todd still [[media:2018-0160972.pdf|owes Yvonne Smith the $400,000.00]] on the property as well.
|-
| March 23, 2018
| Todd Lesser's residence has the debt paid off to the same bank for $575,000.00. [[media:2018-06-18 Lesser Bankruptcy 18-03554-CL13 1-2.pdf|Then he files bankruptcy]] and Wells Fargo bank requests [[media:2019-06-07 Lesser Bankrupacy 2019 Wells Fargo Filing 036118742102.pdf|a special hearing]].
| This of course stays any foreclosure action on his home or collection actions against him by other creditors.
|-
|}
</center>

= Judgements and Liens =

The following judgements and liens were found.

<center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 85%"
|+ Judgements and Liens
! Filing Date
! TMS ID
! Jurisdiction
! Debtors - Name
! Debtors - Address
|-
| 12/01/2016
| CA00167559272014
| CA
| Todd Leonard Lesser
| 4008 Taylor St, San Diego, CA 92110
|-
| 03/24/2015
| CA00157456254594
| CA
| Todd Lesser
| 2717 Hidden Valley Rd, La Jolla, CA 92037
|}
</center>

= Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Filings =
The following are the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC")<ref>https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/what-is-a-ucc-filing</ref> filings that were found.

<blockquote>
There are several types of UCCs. The most basic and well known is the UCC-1. Essentially, a UCC-1 can be described as a financing statement. In fact, it is sometimes called a UCC financing statement. A creditor files a UCC-1 to provide notice to interested parties that he or she has a security interest in a debtor’s personal property. This personal property is being used as collateral in some type of secured transaction, usually a loan or a lease.
</blockquote>

'''''UCC filings are better known as liens made against someone's property due to a debt that was incurred.'''''

<center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 85%"
|+ UCC Filings<ref name="CA UCC Filing Search>https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/ucc</ref>
! Filing Date
! Filing Number
! Filing Type
! State
! TMS ID
! Debtors - Name
! Debtors - Address
! Secured Party Info
|-
| 12/01/2016
| 167559272014
| Judgement Lien
| CA
| CA167559272014
| Todd Leonard Lesser
| 4008 Taylor St, San Diego, CA 92110
| WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - EL MONTE, CA
|-
| 03/24/2015
| 157456254594
| Judgement Lien
| CA
| CA00157456254594
| Todd Lesser
| 2717 Hidden Valley Rd, La Jolla, CA 92037
| VAYA TELECOM, INC. - EL DORADO HILLS, CA
|-
| 05/26/2009
| 097197693213
| Financing Statement
| CA
| CA097197693213
| Todd Leonard Lesser
| 4008 Taylor St, San Diego, CA 92110
| WESBANCO BANK, INC. - CHARLESTON, WV
|-
| 11/19/2004
| 200400595668
| <None Specified>
| WV
| DNB20040059566820041119
| Todd Lesser
| 2717 Hidden Valley Rd, La Jolla, CA 92037
| <Not available>
|-
| 11/19/2004
| 200400595670
| <None Specified>
| WV
| DNB20040059567020041119
| Todd Lesser
| 2717 Hidden Valley Rd, La Jolla, CA 92037
| <Not available>
|-
| 08/02/2004
| 0421760552
| Financing Statement
| CA
| CA0421760552
| Todd Leonard Lesser
| 2717 Hidden Valley Rd, La Jolla, CA 92037
| <Not available>
|-
|}
</center>

= San Diego County =
Our search in San Diego produced the following.

Of the most interesting was his judgements from NCC vs. Vaya Telecom. This case was essentially the same as the federal actions on access stimulation and took years to bring to trial/appeal/final judgement. Now the final judgments are done and the court has held NCC, HFT and Todd personally and jointly liable

* 2019-03-22 - [[media:2019-0103084.pdf|'''$92,966.45''' sanction on Todd Lesser personally for shenanigans during discovery]].
<blockquote>
The Discovery Referee held that NCC, Todd Lesser, HFT Inc and Jartel, Inc. failed to comply with the courts discovery orders. This wasting of court and attorney time was assigned to Todd personally.<ref>[[media:2020-0778570.pdf| Exhibit B, page 11-24]]</ref>
</blockquote>
* 2020-06-06 - [[media:2020-0004461.pdf|'''$597,474.38''' judgment against Todd Lesser and his companies.]]
* 2020-12-02 - [[media:2020-0771029.pdf|'''$1,357,154.27''' judgment against Todd Lesser and his companies.]]

Other outstanding debts Todd has:

* 2017-04 44025 [[media:2017-0444025.pdf|'''$136,727.96''' - Bank of America judgement]]
* 2017-04 41050 [[media:2017-0441050.pdf|'''$6,088.86''' - Discover Card Bank]]

== Narcotics Forfeiture ==
Todd has been sanctioned twice by the City of San Diego for operating an unlicensed narcotics distribution site on his property. This is the same property address he has listed on his FCC Amateur Radio License <ref>https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=4013923</ref>.

4008 Taylor St LLC <ref>https://casetext.com/case/city-of-san-diego-v-4008-taylor-st-llc</ref><ref>https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/nr171101a1.pdf</ref>
[[media:2018-0126301.pdf|2018-0126301.pdf - this is the second time around]]

[[media:2017-0214411.pdf|2017-0214411.pdf]] - Narcotics forfeiture action against Todd Lesser by city of San Diego
<blockquote>
In this case, Todd Lesser was held personally responsible for '''$200,000.00''' dollars for willfully defying a temporary injunction by the court. This was the second such business he allowed to operate at this location involved in illegal narcotics distribution.
</blockquote>

[[File:2017-11-01 City of San Diego Press Release nr171101a1.pdf|thumb|center|300px|$200,000 Pot Shop Judgment Affirmed by Appeal court]]

Criminal case M234214-06 and M219385-05 are showing with the courts relating to this.

== Property Foreclosures ==
Multiple times in the past 5 years Todd's residence at 2717 Hidden Valley Rd. La Jolla, CA 92037 has gone into for failure to pay the mortgage as agreed.

Todd has previously used his residence in such a fashion with a private note from a Yvonne Smith in April 2018 of $400,000.00 Dollars. 2018-0160972.pdf

In December 2019 [[media:2019-0585335.pdf|Todd has borrowed '''$1,043,440.00''' on this property from his father]]. This coincided with Todd's bankruptcy and Lis Pendens (suit pending)<ref>https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lis_pendens</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis_pendens</ref> from his mortgage holder. It remains to be seen if he is paying his father as agreed under this trust<ref>[[media:2019-0585335.pdf|Trust of father]]</ref>

== Filing False Lis Pendens ==
In 2006 Todd made an offer to purchase a property from John Raymond, Managing Member of Surfstone, LLC. This offer expired and Todd preceded as if it was signed and agreed too. Todd then filed a [[media:2006-0064799.pdf|lis pendens]] on the property and the property owner sued to have it revoked by the court.

[[media:2006-0378821.pdf|The court held this was not a proper lis pendens]] and sanctioned Todd and dismissed the action by him.

== Other San Diego Records ==

<center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center; width: 95%"
|+ Other San Diego Records
! style="width: 170px;" | Document
! style="text-align: left; width: 250px" | Description
! style="width: 170px;" | Document
! style="text-align: left; width: 250px" | Description
|-
| [[file:2004-0709866.pdf|120px|-]]
| Assignment of Rents to La Jolla Bank
| [[file:2005-0853093.pdf|120px|-]]
| Reconveyance of a Deed from Todd Lesser
|-
| [[file:2006-0064799.pdf|120px|-]]
| Todd Lesser Lis Pendency upon a property he does not have legal right to
| [[file:2006-0356362.pdf|120px|-]]
| Quit Claim Deed from Todd and James Gottlieb to 3940 Gresham Street LLC
|-
| [[file:2006-0356363.pdf|120px|-]]
| Another Quit Claim Deed from Todd and James Gottlieb to 3940 Gresham Street LLC
| [[file:2006-0356364.pdf|120px|-]]
| Quit Claim Deed from Todd and James Gottlieb to 2405 Juan Street LLC
|-
| [[file:2006-0378821.pdf|120px|-]]
| Order to Exponge Lis Pendens that was filed by Todd Lesser against a property he didn't have a legal right to
| [[file:2007-0573442.pdf|120px|-]]
| COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 237655
|-
| [[file:2007-0652240.pdf|120px|-]]
| La Jolla Bank FINANCING STATEMENT TERMINATION
| [[file:2007-0662459.pdf|120px|-]]
| La Jolla Bank Reconveyance
|-
| [[file:2008-0422095.pdf|120px|-]]
| Agreement between San Diego and Todd Lesser
| [[file:2008-0422096.pdf|120px|-]]
| Agreement between San Diego and Todd Lesser
|-
| [[file:2010-0078651.pdf|120px|-]]
| Reconveyance of 2405 Juan St. San Diego 92110
| [[file:2016-0320410.pdf|120px|-]]
| Notice of Default to Todd Lesser from PNC Bank
|-
| [[file:2016-0400040.pdf|120px|-]]
| Notice of Rescission of Default
| [[file:2017-0214411.pdf|120px|-]]
| Asset Forfeiture notice under the Narcotic Asset Forfeiture Law
|-
| [[file:2017-0441050.pdf|120px|-]]
| Discover Bank Judgement against Todd Lesser
| [[file:2017-0444025.pdf|120px|-]]
| Judgement against Todd Lesser by Bank Of America - '''$136,727.96'''
|-
| [[file:2018-0068778.pdf|120px|-]]
| Notice of Default on 2717 Hidden Valley Road
| [[file:2018-0126301.pdf|120px|-]]
| Judgement against Todd Lesser by the City of San Diego - '''200,000.00 For narcotics law violations'''
|-
| [[file:2018-0133780.pdf|120px|-]]
| Notice of recording
| [[file:2018-0136266.pdf|120px|-]]
| Notice of recording of default
|-
| [[file:2018-0136267.pdf|120px|-]]
| Notice of recording of default
| [[file:2018-0160972.pdf|120px|-]]
| Deed of trust (private mortgage) between Yvonne Smith and Todd Lesser]
|-
| [[file:2018-0280164.pdf|120px|-]]
| Reconveyance of other property
| [[file:2018-0298600.pdf|120px|-]]
| Judgement of San Diego against Todd Lesser and 4008 Taylor Street, LLC - $12,500.00
|-
| [[file:2018-0309183.pdf|120px|-]]
| Assignment of deed of trust of 3940 Gresham Street, San Diego, CA 92109
| [[file:2018-0437984.pdf|120px|-]]
| Notice of default to Todd Lesser on 2717 Hidden Valley Road
|-
| [[file:2018-0487311.pdf|120px|-]]
| Notice of default and election to sell 2717 Hidden Valley Road
| [[file:2019-0054895.pdf|120px|-]]
| Reconveyance of 3940 GRESHAM STREET #132, SAN DIEGO, CA 92109
|-
| [[file:2019-0073485.pdf|120px|-]]
| Reconveyance from DSL Service Corporation
| [[file:2019-0096079.pdf|120px|-]]
| Recession of default and election to sell
|-
| [[file:2019-0103084.pdf|120px|-]]
| Judgment of 92,966.45 against Todd Lesser
| [[file:2019-0132536.pdf|120px|-]]
| License agreement of Todd and Nanette Lesser for access to 2767 Hidden Valley Road
|-
| [[file:2019-0585335.pdf|120px|-]]
| Trust where Todd Lesser is loaned $1,043,440 by his father
| [[file:2020-0004461.pdf|120px|-]]
| Judgment of Vaya telecom, Inc against Todd Lesser
|-
| [[file:2020-0771029.pdf|120px|-]]
| Judgment of Vaya telecom, Inc against Todd Lesser
| [[file:2020-0778570.pdf|120px|-]]
| Second Judgment of Vaya telecom, Inc against Todd Lesser. This document goes into great detail in exhibit B finding Todd Lesser misused and abused the discovery process. Pages 13-24 cover this.
|-
|}
</center>

= West Virginia =
Our search in West Virginia produced the following.

* 2020-03-30 - A Motion/Application/Petition for a Default Judgement in the Southern District Court of West Virginia, Charleston Division was made. WesBanco Bank, Inc. filed on November 20, 2019 an instant action for monetary judgement on the outstanding deficiency balance owed on a loan made by WesBanco to Todd Lesser. "On February 18, 2020, the Defendant was properly served in La Jolla, California by substitute service at his primary residence by a private investigator hired by WesBanco, Mr. Gregory Long."<ref>[[media:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 8 - Motion-Application-Petition for Entry of Default.pdf|Case 2-19-cv-00821 - Document #8]]</ref>

* 2020-03-31 - An order on Motion/Application/Petition for Entry of Default Judgement was issued.<ref>[[media:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 9 - Order on Motion-Application-Petition for Entry of Default.pdf|Case 2-19-cv-00821 - Document #9]]</ref>

* 2020-04-15 - A Motion/Application/Petition for Default Judgement was filed by WesBanco. It is noted that "On multiple occasions, prior to service, the Defendant evaded WesBanco’s attempts at effectuating service of process on him." The Investigator's Affidavit of Service is included as supporting documentation and details the attempts at effectuating service and Todd Lesser's evasion. (See Investigator's Report below for details).<ref name="Document13">[[media:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 13 - Motion-Application-Petition for Default Judgement.pdf|Case 2-19-cv-00821 - Document #13]]</ref>

* 2020-05-22 - An order on the Motion/Application/Petition for Default Judgement was issued.<ref>[[media:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 15 - Order on Motion-Applcation-Petition for Default Judgement.pdf|Case 2-19-cv-00821 - Document #15]]</ref>
<blockquote>
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff WesBanco Bank Inc.’s Motion for Default Judgment (Document 13)<ref name="Document13" /> and the attached exhibits, filed on April 15, 2020. The motion and affidavits set forth the amount due and state that the Defendant is not an infant or incompetent.

The Plaintiff served the Defendant, Todd Lesser, by leaving the summons with Andrea Lesser at their residence on February 18, 2020. The investigator used to effectuate service indicates that Mr. Lesser evaded multiple prior attempts at service. No responsive pleading was filed, and the Clerk entered default on March 31, 2020, at the Court’s direction. Both the Court’s order directing entry of default (Document 10) and the Entry of Default by Clerk (Document 11) were sent to the Defendant by certified mail. The Court’s order was returned as undeliverable. A return receipt card for the Clerk’s entry of default indicates that it was left with an individual on April 10, 2020. To date, the Defendant has not filed a response to the lawsuit or the entry of default.

The Plaintiff, WesBanco, alleges that Mr. Lesser applied for and received a loan to finance an office building in Charleston, West Virginia. The loan was secured by the office building. The Plaintiff alleges that it foreclosed, and the payoff balance was $328,954.20 at the time of the foreclosure sale. There was a deficiency balance of $128,756.55 after the property sold for $242,000, less sale expenses of $28,823.51.

In its motion for default judgment, after accounting for interest, WesBanco seeks $136,983.69 for the deficiency balance of the loan, plus legal fees and costs of $5,755.00 and interest accruing at a daily rate of $11.90 from March 31, 2020. The terms of the promissory note, details of the sale, and amount of attorney’s costs and fees are confirmed by the attached exhibits and affidavits.

After careful consideration, the Court finds that the amount of damages, as computed, is a sum certain pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff Wesbanco Bank Inc.’s Motion for Default Judgment (Document 13) be GRANTED and that default judgment be entered against the Defendant, Todd Lesser, in the amount of $142,738.69, plus interest of $11.90 per day accruing from March 31, 2020.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to counsel of record and to any unrepresented party.
</blockquote>

<center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center; width: 95%"
|+ Case 2:19-cv-00821 - US District Court, Charleston, West Virginia
! style="width: 170px;" | Document
! style="text-align: left; width: 250px" | Description
! style="width: 170px;" | Document
! style="text-align: left; width: 250px" | Description
|-
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 1 - Complaint.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 1 - Complaint
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 2 - Proposed Summons Submitted.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 2 - Proposed Summons
|-
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 3 - Electronic Summons Issued.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 3 - Electronic Summons Issued
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 4 - Judge Berger Administrative Order for Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 4 - Judge Berger Administrative Order for Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn
|-
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 5 - Order.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 5 - Order
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 6 - Response to Order.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 6 - Response to Order
|-
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 7 - Summons Executed by Personal Service.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 7 - Summons Executed by Personal Service
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 8 - Motion-Application-Petition for Entry of Default.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 8 - Motion-Application-Petition for Entry of Default
|-
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 9 - Order on Motion-Application-Petition for Entry of Default.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 9 - Order on Motion-Application-Petition for Entry of Default
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 10 and 11 - Transmitted Certified Copy.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 10 and 11 - Transmitted Certified Copy
|-
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 12 - Return Receipt Card.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 12 - Return Receipt Card
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 13 - Motion-Application-Petition for Default Judgement.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 13 - Motion-Application-Petition for Default Judgement
|-
| NOT AVAILABLE
| 14 - NOT AVAILABLE
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 15 - Order on Motion-Applcation-Petition for Default Judgement.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 15 - Order on Motion-Applcation-Petition for Default Judgement
|-
| NOT AVAILABLE
| 16 - NOT AVAILABLE
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 17 - Order.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 17 - Order
|}
</center>

== Investigator's Report ==
The following notable items were taken from the investigator's Affadavit of Service when attempting to locate and personally serve Todd Lesser on behalf of WesBanco Bank, Inc. <ref>[https://wiki.w9cr.net/index.php?title=File:Case_2-19-cv-00821_-_13_-_Motion-Application-Petition_for_Default_Judgement.pdf&page=22 Affadavit of Service]</ref>

* I attempted to locate and serve the Defendant at the office space owned by him located at 4008 Taylor Street #201, San Diego, CA 92110. However, the office space was all locked up with no tenants.

* After investigating the various properties owned by the Defendant, I determined that the best opportunity for a successful service of process was at the Defendant's home residence located at 2717 Hidden Valley Road, La Jolla, California 92037-4028 (the "Residence").

* I visited the Residence on multiple occasions and attempted to service by knocking on the front door. Although I could hear noise coming from the Residence, nobody ever came to answer my knocking other than the Defendant's dog.

* On Sunday, January 13, 2020, I was parked at the end of the Defendant's driveway and observed who I believed to be the Defendant's spouse taking the trash out. She is a white female with long blond hair, in her mid-thirties, an a height and weight of approximately five feet six and one hundred thirty-five pounds. I exited my vehicle and attempted to serve her. However, as soon as she noticed me, she quickly made her way back up the driveway to the Residence. By the time I reached the top of the Defendant's driveway she was already back inside the Residence and nobody answered my subsequent knocking on the front door.

* On Sunday, February 9, 2020, I conducted a stakeout in hopes that I would effectuate service on the Defendant or his spouse while they took the trash out. My stakeout was unsuccessful as I saw neither the Defendant nor his spouse.

* I returned to the Residence the following morning, Monday, February 10, 2020. At approximately 7:55 a.m., a grey BMW departed from the Defendant's driveway. I followed the BMW in my vehicle, the BMW sped away and deliberately took a detour to disallow me to meet it in a crowded intersection where I could jump out of my vehicle and place the service paper's on the BMW's windshield.

* Following this unsuccessful attempt, I ran the BMW's license plate and confirmed that the vehicle was registered to the Defendant' spouse, Andrea Lesser.

* On Tuesday, February 18, 2020, I arrived at the Residence for another stakeout. At approximately 6:30 a.m. I parked my vehicle a safe distance away from the Residence to avoid detection. I exited my vehicle and walked to the end of the Defendant's driveway and sat on a chair and waited for any sign of the Defendant or his spouse.

* At approximately 8:01 a.m., the Defendant's spouse drove down the driveway in her vehicle. I verbally informed her that she'd been served as soon as she drove by. A photograph of the Defendant's spouse's vehicle driving past me at 8:01 a.m. on February 18, 2022 is attached as Exhibit A.

* I then proceeded up the Defendant's driveway and left a copy of the Complaint and Summons at the Residence's front door. A photograph of the service papers as I left from on the Residence's front door is attached as Exhibit B.

* Prior to successfully serving the Complaint upon the Defendant's spouse, the Defendant and/or spouse evaded my attempts at service on multiple occasions.

= New York =
Our search in New York produced the following.

In 2002, NCC filed suit against Verizon New York (VNY), Verizon Services Corporation (Verizon), and what is listed as DOES 1 through 100. The suit was originally brought by NCC in New York State court. Verizon filed a notice to remove the action to federal district court, and NCC moved to remand it back to state court. The following are excepts from United States District Court, Northern District New York Case 1:02-cv-01065-DNH-RFT, MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER<ref>[[media:Case 1-02-cv-01065-DNH-RFT - Doc 24 - Order.pdf|North County Communications v Verizon New York Inc; Verizon Services Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100]]</ref> regarding the case and both parties actions.

NCC alleged in their complaint:
* On March 14, 2001, NCC as a CLEC, notified Verizon of its intent to interconnect with Verizon networks in New York State. VNY is an ILEC. NCC claims that in the six months following, Verizon "deliberately dragged [its] feet and put up obstacles and roadblocks to keep [North County] out of the local telecommunications market in New York, all for the purpose of maintaining [VNY's] grip on the local telephone market, depriving consumers maximum choice with their telecommunications dollars and damaging [North County] in the process"
* NCC claimed that the Verizon account manager assigned "stonewall[ed] the interconnection process by making unreasonable, onerous and unnecessary demands upon [North County]".
** Among the demands made was the alleged interconnection prerequisite that a "dedicated" facility be built. NCC contends that VNY, as in ILEC, controls facilities throughout the New York telecommunications market, stating that he funding necessary to build these facilities was provided in part by VNY's ratepayers and those of it predecessors, New York Telephone and Bell Atlantic.
* NCC was unable to procure funding for the construction of new facilities, and instead requested interconnection at two separate Verizon facilities in New York. NCC claimed that Verizon refused the request, despite the technical capabilities to grant it, and despite allowing other affiliates or parties to share the facilities. Instead Verizon restated the requirements to build new facilities and refused to hold further meetings with NCC until the construction of the new facilities was complete.
* NCC stated that Verizon acted in a way to continue maintaining "monopolistic power over the New York City telecommunications market" including:
** repeatedly lost orders and signature pages
** ignored [North County's] request to opt into an exiting interconnections [sic] agreement between [VNY] and another CLEC; as was North County's right
** insisted on installing equipment on unnecessary additional racks at the location where [North County] was subleasing space, despite the absence of any technical reason to impose such a requirement, and needlessly raising the cost of doing business for [North County]
** refused to allow [North County] to order interconnection trunks, thus preventing [North County] from being able to order prefixes
** refused to build trunks in as timely a fashion as with other service offerings, and as if [North County] were a retail customer
** demanded that [North County] provide the defendants with information which [North County] was unable to provide because the information resided in the defendants' sole possession, and then delayed the interconnection process further when [North County] was unable to provide the information demanded
** demanded that information which [North County] had already submitted to be resubmitted in a different format
** failed to treat [North County] as well as if [it] were a [VNY] retail customer or an affiliate of the defendants; and
** refused to use a shared mux for wholesale services, despite the technical feasibility of doing so

Additionally, NCC claimed that Verizon engaged in anti-competitive and monopolistic activities in violation of the Donnelly Act, N.Y. Gen Bus L § 340<ref>[https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2022/gbs/article-22 Donnelly Act, N.Y. Gen Bus L § 340]</ref>. And NCC claimed that Verizon had a duty, under Article 5, Section 91 of the New York Public Service Law, "''to provide and furnish instrumentalities and facilities that were adequate, just and reasonable, and to refrain from making unreasonable or unjust charges for services rendered.''" NCC also claimed that Verizon was making charges and demands that were greater than those made of other similar corporations, and that "Verizon subjected North County unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage".

The District Court ruled that Verizon's motion to move the case from state to federal court was unwarranted under existing case law, and that "''North County's Complaint is Well-Pleaded''" with regards to keeping the case in state jurisdiction. The District Court ruled:
<blockquote>
The plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint alleges only state law claims. Such claims are neither artfully pleaded or completely preempted by federal law. The interconnection agreement itself, if in fact it does control, does not mandate that federal claims be asserted in federal court. No subject matter jurisdiction exists. This case must be remanded to the Supreme Court of New York. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff North County Communications Corporation's motion to remanded is GRANTED; and 2. The case is remanded back to the Supreme Court of New York, County of Albany."
</blockquote>

The Supreme Court of New York, County of Albany reviewed the case and granted the defendant's motion that it be moved from Albany County to New York County (Manhattan).

The Supreme Court of New York, New York County reviewed the case (401925-03)<ref>[[media:401925-03-001 PDF.pdf|North County Communications Corporation -against- Verizon New York Inc, Verizon Services Corporation, and DOES 1 THROUGH 100. - Index No 401925/03. P.C.No 18455]]</ref>, the court examined the claims from both sides, and ruled that:
* NCC's allegations under the Donnelly Act and Public service Law, both State claims, are independent of any interconnection agreement, and that NCC's complaint is regarding Verizon's conduct.
* NCC's claim under the Donnelly Act: "''the complaint does not allege concerted action in support of a conspiracy, or a reciprocal relationship between two or more entities. Rather, NCC's allegations are directed towards Verizon's alleged unilateral actions and delay tactics. The failure to identify a coconspirator cannot be remedied 'by asserting, in conclusory fashion, the existence of a generalized conspiracy arising our of defendants' various contracts and arrangements or by referring to uniliateral business action taken by them' and NCC's failure 'to allege that the defendant engaged in concerted activity requires dismissal'''". The court also stated that "''sister subsidiary corporations which are wholly owned by the same parent corporation are legally incapable of conspiring with each other''". It was also noted that NCC's failure to state the names of the "''numerous Doe defendants''" led to the dismissal of the Donnelly Act claim for lack of sufficient evidence.
* NCC's Public Service Law claim, mainly that "''sections 91 and 93 of the Public Service law should be interpreted broadly''" was dismissed.

<blockquote>
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is granted and the complaint is dismissed, without prejudice as indicated, with costs and disbursements to defendant as taxed by the Clerk of the Court; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to enter judgement accordingly.
</blockquote>

= Local Politics=
Todd seems to desire involvement in the politics of his city in any form. He's served and resigned from a couple minor city boards with limited powers. In several cases he's protested the election or findings of the board when such actions have gone against his positions or interests.

== La Jolla ==

=== La Jolla Traffic and Transportation Board ===
[[File:LaJollaT&T.jpg|thumb|right|Todd Lesser rambling on at the podium in front of a mostly empty meeting venue]]

La Jolla Community Planning Association<ref>https://lajollacpa.org/about/committees-boards/</ref>
<blockquote>
<center>La Jolla Traffic & Transportation Board (T&T)</center>
T&T considers all proposals affecting La Jolla’s streets (striping, stop signs, traffic calming) and parking (curb colors, time limits, valet). Also hears special events that require traffic control or affect on-street parking. Recommendations are forwarded to the LJCPA for ratification and then sent to the City of San Diego for implementation. The Board is comprised of two appointed members each from the LJCPA, the La Jolla Town Council, the La Jolla Shores Association, La Jolla Village Merchants Association, and the Bird Rock Community Council. Meetings are always open to the public and are held on the 3rd Wednesday of every month, at 4:00 p.m. at the La Jolla Recreation Center, 615 Prospect Street.
</blockquote>

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 100%"
! Title
! Link
! Description
|-
| La Jolla Town Council Inaugural La Jolla State of Address
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnmO2oYJYaM
| Todd Lesser, President of the La Jolla Traffic and Transportation Board
|}

=== La Jolla Shores Association ===
La Jolla Shores Association ("LJSA")<ref>https://lajollashoresassociation.org/</ref>

<blockquote>
One of the most popular destinations in Southern California, La Jolla Shores has an effective and active citizen based forum for matters concerning the community and area of La Jolla Shores. For almost 60 years, the La Jolla Shores Association (LJSA) has been guiding, advising and leading the discussions with the San Diego City Council, Parks and Recreation, UCSD and other governmental agencies concerning quality of life issues year round.
</blockquote>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 100%"
! Title
! Link
! Description
|-
| Tempera Flare over officer election At La Jolla Shores Association
| http://www.sdnews.com/view/full_story/22368481/article-Tempers-flare-over-officer-election-at-LJSA<ref name="SDNEWS-LJSA"> http://www.sdnews.com/view/full_story/22368481/article-Tempers-flare-over-officer-election-at-LJSA</ref>
| La Jolla Shores Association (LJSA) held a special meeting ahead of its regular monthly meeting May 13, to answer questions about how its March election was conducted
|-
| San Diego, La Jolla Shores Association Address Election Challenge
| https://www.lajollalight.com/sdljl-shores-association-address-election-challenge-2015-2015may21-story.html<ref name="LAJollaLight>https://www.lajollalight.com/sdljl-shores-association-address-election-challenge-2015-2015may21-story.html</ref>
| Todd argues over flipping a coin. His attorney makes a case that a strict following of Roberts Rules of Order is Required.
|-
|}

= Final Thoughts =
Our research only covered one county in California. It's not unreasonable to assume other counties may have other such actions in their court systems, especially in places Todd Lesser has conducted his businesses.

From the above it would appear Todd Lesser's choice of professions have been based mostly on less than ethical choices and that has been catching up with him. Having worked with him in the past I know he loves to talk until he is able to get his way. It takes a strong person to stand up and say "No" to him.

As we have added up over $2,500,000 (2.5 million) dollars in debts he is personally liable for, and his pattern of being less than truthful under oath one must question what was wrong with the prior AllStarLink Board of Directors in letting him direct most of the corporation. AllStarLink now is in a position of operating in debt and one can envision Todd Lesser wanting to run it in the manner he's run his other businesses.

== July 2022 Update ==
Since the original search and publication of this information regarding Todd Lesser, more information of his financial difficulties have come to light. Todd Lesser was awarded a default judgement in West Virginia, and information regarding this has been added to this page. This wiki will continue to be updated as more information on Todd Lesser and his businesses come to light.

== March 2023 Update ==
On 28 March 2023, as part of the ongoing litigation between Pacific Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T California and Vaya Telecom, Inc., a motion was made by Vaya Telecom as follows <ref>[[media:504802306.pdf|C.17-09-023 - VAYA TELECOM, INC. (U 7122 C) MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE KLINE FOR CAUSE]]</ref>:
<blockquote>
Pursuant to Rule 9.4 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, Vaya Telecom, Inc. (“Vaya”) (U-7122-C) hereby moves the Commission for disqualification of Administrative Law Judge Kline for cause in the above captioned proceeding. This Motion is necessitated due to repeated ex parte communications directed to Judge Kline from a non-party on the sole substantive issue in the proceeding. Namely, Mr. Todd Lesser has repeatedly contacted Judge Kline on an ex parte basis making baseless accusations against Vaya, and specifically alleging that Vaya operates in an integrated fashion with a sister entity, O1 Communications, Inc. (“O1”) generally, and specifically to evade legal obligations.

The sole issue being litigated in the pending Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) is whether Vaya and O1 operate in an integrated fashion sufficient to warrant requiring O1 to pay an award Vaya has been directed to pay the plaintiff, Pacific Bell Telephone Company d/b/a/ AT&T California. Hearings were completed in December 2021 and briefing in the OSC proceeding was completed in January 2022. The parties are therefore awaiting the issuance of the Presiding Officer’s Decision (“POD”).

While the improper ex parte communications are the fault of Mr. Lesser, Judge Kline has nonetheless been exposed to multiple defamatory and unsubstantiated assertions regarding the exact issues in the OSC proceeding. Judge Kline cannot un-hear what Mr. Lesser has said, and that damage cannot be undone. Especially at this critical time as Judge Kline is drafting the POD, there is a very real chance that Judge Kline may have been influenced by Mr. Lesser’s extra-record and false claims despite her best efforts to disregard them. Indeed, Judge Kline responded to one of Mr. Lesser’s ex parte emails by stating that he would need to file a motion for party status if he wants to provide information in this proceeding. Thus Mr. Lesser’s communications have created a real and concrete concern that Judge Kline is taking into account Mr. Lesser’s wild accusations and may be unable to render a decision based only on record evidence. Vaya reluctantly has concluded that it must move for reassignment of the remainder of this proceeding to another judge to ensure a fair and unbiased decision.
</blockquote>

* 2023-03-08: Todd Lesser emails Assistant Chief Administrative Law Judge Zita Kline of the California Public Utilities Commission. As part of the items sent to Judge Kline, Todd Lesser included a previous email chain showing that on 26 August 2022, he attempted to offer a $50k settlement to Vaya Telecom instead of paying the (then) $1.8 million that was owed. Vaya Telecom declined this settlement offer.

From: Todd Lesser fm <todd@nccom.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 11:59 AM
To: Kline, Zita
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Vaya - North County Communications
Attachments: North County ICA (2-1-2007).pdf
Follow up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.

FYI. I thought you would find this interesting that Vaya claims that they have no money but after the judgement against
them and after the date of them shutting down the corporation. They fraudulently conveyed their one asset ‐ their
judgment against NCC. That judgment was based upon NCC not able to prove our claim because o1/Vaya caused the
records to be invalid by unlawfully routing all the calls over their local interconnection truck. The sweet heart deal they
had with AT&T hurt every carrier in California that subtended the AT&T tandems. AT&T didn’t care because they were
being compensated. They even didn’t care that Vaya was allowing their customers to spoof ANI’s and send unlawful
telemarketing calls.
They continue to tell contradictory statements to the State court versus the CPUC. Even their attorney mislead you
when she said the confidentially agreement was filed with the State court. That is a complete fabrication. Confidential
discovery agreements are not filed with the court. She admitted to she it but wouldn’t give it to me so I could give them
to AT&T. It would be against public policy for me not to provide you with these documents. Vaya doesn’t want NCC
nor your honor to see the full picture.
Vaya filed an unsigned contract between Vaya and o1 communications. Vaya had two customers. o1 Communications
and another company. Once NCC obtained a writ of attachment, Vaya moved that customer to be an o1 customer.
AT&T nor the CPUC were aware of these key facts. They also testified that Vaya and o1 had completely separate
networks. I suspect that was a complete fabrication but I haven’t see the AT&T discovery documents.
Vaya claimed that they knew the jurisdiction of the calls they sent up but I suspect they told the CPUC and AT&T that
they didn’t know them and that is why there was that settlement agreement.

With all due respect, I believe the CPUC should investigate the Robocalls and can can see the evidence below of
conveying assets after claiming the judgment was worth nothing.
If you would like for me to send you transcripts of depositions, discovery answers, and trial transcripts, I can.

NCC was the victim here. Vaya and o1 created a scheme to sell below market rate long distance traffic.
NCC sued o1 communications. We settled it and have a traffic exchange agreement. Then the principals of o1
communications created Vaya to unlawfully get around the agreement. They violate every agreement they sign.
Unfortunately because of the confidential settlement agreement Vaya had with AT&T, no other CLEC or ILEC in
California knows this. They either under billed Vaya believing the calls were local or like NCC, was unable to accurately
go after Vaya because of the AT&T records were unbillable because they didn’t accurately determine the jurisdiction of
the calls.
See attached.

----

From: Dawn Coulson <dcoulson@eppscoulson.com>
Subject: RE: Vaya ‐ North County Communications
Date: August 26, 2022 at 19:06:41 PDT
To: Todd Lesser fm <todd@nccom.com>

Todd – as I suspected, without some basis for such a low number, our client is not inclined to accept a
$50k offer. Would you like to discuss a more reasonable payment for the outstanding judgment, which
appears to be about $1.8m now?

Dawn M. Coulson
EPPS & COULSON, LLP | ATTORNEYS AT LAW
t 213.929.2390 | f 213.929.2394 | direct dial 213.929.2393
dcoulson@eppscoulson.com | www.eppscoulson.com

----

From: Dawn Coulson
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2022 3:28 PM
To: 'Todd Lesser fm' <todd@nccom.com>
Subject: RE: Vaya ‐ North County Communications

Hi Todd:

I’ll check with our client. I know that she’ll inquire of the reason you believe she should accept such a
low amount as compared to the judgment. What shall I say?
Feel free to call my direct dial if you want to discuss it.

Dawn M. Coulson
EPPS & COULSON, LLP | ATTORNEYS AT LAW
t 213.929.2390 | f 213.929.2394 | direct dial 213.929.2393
dcoulson@eppscoulson.com | www.eppscoulson.com

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Todd Lesser fm <todd@nccom.com>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2022 11:40 AM
To: Dawn Coulson <dcoulson@eppscoulson.com>
Subject: Vaya ‐ North County Communications

WARNING: THIS EMAIL IS FROM OUTSIDE OF OUR NETWORK!
Verify the sender before opening any attachments or clicking on any links.

This is an offer of $50,000 to settle the claim. Are you will to accept this?

= Other pages =
The following pages may also be of interest to readers

== Known businesses ==
* [[Todd_Lesser_Businesses|Listing of Todd's known businesses]]
== Known property ==
* [[Todd_Lesser_Property|Known property Todd owns]]
== Other assets ==
* [[Todd_Lesser_Other_Assets|Other known assets Todd owns]]
== Social Media ==
* [[Todd_Lesser_Social_Media|Todd's Social Media Accounts]]

== Email accounts ==
The following are known email accounts of Todd Lesser

<center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 55%"
|+ Todd Lesser's Known Email Accounts
! Email address
! Comments
|-
| todd@nccom.com
| Main email address with North County Communications Corp
|-
| sdtoddl@gmail.com
| Similar to Twitter account username
|-
| todd@lesser.com
|
|-
| km6rpt@allstarlink.net
| ASL email
|-
|}
</center>

=References=
<references />

Todd Lesser

2023-07-09T17:20:11Z

Admin2: Changed protection level for "Todd Lesser" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))

[[Category:Todd Lesser]]
[[Category:AllStarLink, Inc.]]
<div style="float:right">__TOC__</div>

[[File:Todd Lesser argues over flipping a coin.jpg|right|400px|thumb|Todd Lesser argues over flipping a coin<ref name="LAJollaLight />]]
* Updated 12 July, 2022 - Includes information on a default judgement in [[#West Virginia | West Virginia]]
* Updated 11 June, 2023 - Includes information on [[#March 2023 Update |ex parte communications to Administrative Judge Kline in AT&T California v. Vaya Telecom case]]
* Updated 17 June, 2023 - Includes additional court case information for the [[#United States Supreme Court | United States Supreme Court]], [[#New York | United States District Court Northern District of New York]], [[#Federal Case Records | United States District Court for the District of Oregon]], and the [[#New York | Supreme Court of New York, New York County]]
= Preamble =
This information listed here is sourced exclusively from public records at the City, State, and Federal levels. All the information contained herein is factual based upon the information obtained via these public records sources. This information is provided '''''as is''''' from the source documents that are linked in this article.

= Background =
The majority of recent [[AllStarLink,_Inc.|AllStarLink, Inc.]] ("ASL")<ref>[[AllStarLink,_Inc.|AllStarLink, Inc.]]</ref> issues can be traced back to a time when '''Todd Lesser (KM6RPT)'''<ref>https://www.qrz.com/db/KM6RPT</ref> ("Todd") became a member of the Board of Directors. This was right after '''Tim Sawyer (WD6AWP)'''<ref>https://www.qrz.com/db/WD6AWP</ref> ("Tim") left, and '''Bryan Fields (W9CR)'''<ref>https://www.qrz.com/db/W9CR</ref> ("I"/"me") wanted to leave. However, I could not resign as that would leave two people as members of the Board of Directors and caused ASL to be in violation of Florida Statute (FS) 617<ref>http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0600-0699/0617/0617.html</ref>. Todd then joined and I left shortly afterwards. After he assumed the board position, I was surprised at his lack of candor as he immediately began to hold information secret. Shocking as well was the return of Tim Sawyer as a board member. After Tim's resignation due to an unrelated issue which left the board with three members including myself, no argument could be made to have him return.

My view of this is it was orchestrated to remove me from the board and give Todd a means to exploit ASL. Keep in mind we (ASL) hadn't really known Todd prior to this. I was impressed he finally went out and got his tech license after '''Jim Dixon (WB6NIL)(SK)''' ("Jim") passed, but other than him owning a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC)<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_local_exchange_carrier</ref> ("North County Communications Corporation" or "NCC")<ref>https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/CBS/SearchResults?filing=&SearchType=CORP&SearchCriteria=NORTH+COUNTY+COMMUNICATIONS+CORPORATION&SearchSubType=Keyword</ref> no one really knew much about him. As a CLEC owner I thought he'd have a working knowledge of Asterisk and general telecom, but I had to show him how to SSH and configure the WB6NIL repeater ([https://stats.allstarlink.org/stats/2024 Node 2024])<ref>[https://stats.allstarlink.org/stats/2024 Node 2024]</ref> at his office to change it to his callsign.

After Todd became a member of the board, the board itself became very insular and refused to communicate with the ASL Admin Committee <ref>https://wiki.allstarlink.org/index.php?title=Admin_Committee&oldid=4748</ref>. This not only significantly impacted operations but also development and the morale the Admin Committee members in general. Later, '''Pete Elke (WI6H)'''<ref>https://www.qrz.com/db/WI6H</ref> ("Pete") and '''David Shaw (WB6WTM)'''<ref>https://www.qrz.com/db/WB6WTM</ref> ("David") joined the ASL Board of Directors. This resulted in the ASL Board of Directors becoming even more insular and secretive and I believe this was due, in no small part, to Todd's influence and leadership.

When we as a board negotiated to get assignment of the assets from Jim's estate, Todd had a serious concern regarding the other non-app_rpt/asterisk assets on Jim such as the MIPL software and its associated marks. Due to ASL not having any Bylaws other than the Admin Charter, any asset that ASL was in possession of or came into the possession of could be sold or transferred to anyone, as there were no protections against it nor was any asset held in trust or protected from normal sale or transfer. This means that any assets or intellectual property ("IP") transferred to ASL could be disposed in any means by a simple majority vote of the board.

For example:
Any ASL asset could be sold off to a third party far below market value, or transferred. A member of the ASL Board of Directors could have a significant interest or business relationship with this entity, and after the sale/transfer they promptly resign. This third party and former ASL board member would now own the asset/IP that was transferred to it and could sell it for a profit, re-license it (even back to ASL itself), or do other means of monetization. This is basically what happened with the Public Internet Registry ("PIR") which was owned by the Internet Society<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Society#Sale_of_the_Public_Interest_Registry</ref>.

Such actions would be a major conflict of interest and was the reason Jim transferred control of AllStarLink to '''Steve Zingman (N4IRS)'''<ref>https://www.qrz.com/db/N4IRS</ref> ("Steve") who was part of the initial incorporation of AllStarLink, Inc. in an effort to preserve the AllStarLink Network, assets, and ensure its continued operation.

I was always wondering why Todd was "''chomping at the bit''" when it came to ASL assets, and this finally started to make sense in late 2020:

Research showed that in September 2020, Todd Lesser had several lawsuits against him with '''judgements in excess of 2.5 Million Dollars ($2,500,000.00) as well as having property seized in San Diego for conspiring to distribute narcotics'''. Unfortunately, any initial research done on Todd was hampered by the poor access to public records in California vs. what Florida has under the Sunshine Act<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_information_legislation_(Florida)</ref>. There was also some limited information in the Federal Courts under [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACER_(law) PACER].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACER_(law)</ref>

What was clear is that he had filed bankruptcy at least twice in the last 5 years and been involved in litigation against two major telecom carriers in the Federal courts.

= Case Summary =

It's clear in these cases that NCC engaged in a practice know as "[https://www.fcc.gov/general/traffic-pumping access stimulation]" (a.k.a. traffic pumping)<ref>https://www.fcc.gov/general/traffic-pumping</ref>. In short NCC is a phone company, and as a phone company it is permitted to bill other phone companies for calls to the CLEC's (its) customers. Typically these rates are in the .01 or .02 cents per minute which is the same for all carriers, and known as a "tariff". This tariff can be much higher in certain areas of the US, as is the case typically were phone service is provided by non-Regional Bell Operating Company (RBOC)<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Company</ref> Incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC)<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incumbent_local_exchange_carrier</ref> phone companies, and can be .02-.04 cents per minute. A CLECs operating in these higher tariff areas by service customers make more money. These areas tend to be rural and not populated, thus being more expensive for the CLEC to provide services in.

CLECs operating in these areas and billing the ILECs in excess of a million minutes per month was not unheard of. As can be imagined, this can net a sizeable profit for the CLECs.

Typically, these calls are only permitted to be charged for customer to customer calls, any automated calls or chat lines (typically sexual in nature) are not subjected to these fees. Additionally, they tend to only be a small part of the inbound calls as most legitimate chat lines use an 800 or 900 number and require a customer to pay via credit card for the call. These chat line operators are also separate businesses from the CLEC.

If the sex chat operator can find a less than honorable CLEC, they can enter into a business agreement where calls to the chat line from a local number are "free" to the caller that "exists" in one of these higher tariff areas. The CLEC in turn uses this "access stimulation" to for several million minutes a month to calls in this high tariff area and then bill the RBOC ILEC instead of the customer at this higher rate. The result is the CLEC collecting several million dollars of "profit" per month from the chat line operator providing the "access stimulation" needed.

In all cases below Todd is the owner of NCC and the sex chat line operator HFT, Inc. ("HFT")<ref>[[media:2015-01-23 Joint Statement to FCC regarding discovery Sprint v NCC fcc-60001016009.pdf|Joint Statement to FCC regarding discovery Sprint, Page 4]]</ref>. In the filings we can find HFT never paid NCC for access as a typical customer of a CLEC would. Instead HTF existed only to stimulate calls for NCC in these high tariff areas, who in turn billed the ILEC and pocketed the money collected. This is an arrangement which viewed though the best of intentions would be considered fraudulent.

In the Mid 2000's most carriers began auditing to find this sort of operation via call detail records ("CDR")<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_detail_record</ref> auditing. The use of the Signalling System No 7 ("SS7)<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_System_No._7</ref> interconnect protocol along with modern auditing software sold by the major telecom vendors helped in the cracking down on this fraudulent behavior by CLECs. The use of the SS7 protocol in the US was mandated by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") via a rule the passed in 2011 <ref>https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-11-161A1.pdf</ref>.

Under the laws in the mid 2000's most carriers had to sue or petition the FCC for redress. In some cases they refused to pay the fraudulent bills by the CLEC's and the CLEC would sue the big carrier. This is indeed what NCC did, suing Verizon, Metro PCS, T-Mobile, Sprint and Vaya Telecom for failure to pay their interconnection charges. In all cases these resulted in judgements against NCC and Todd Lesser personally.

= Federal Records =
In PACER We found Todd/NCC sued or counter-sued by Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile and other carriers for billing irregularities related to access stimulation.

== FCC ==
Before the FCC, Sprint, and [[media:2015-01-23 Joint Statement to FCC regarding discovery Sprint v NCC fcc-60001016009.pdf|T-Mobile 2015-01-23 Joint Statement to FCC regarding discovery Sprint v NCC]]<ref>[[media:2015-01-23 Joint Statement to FCC regarding discovery Sprint v NCC fcc-60001016009.pdf|T-Mobile 2015-01-23 Joint Statement to FCC regarding discovery Sprint v NCC]]</ref>

Note: FCC/Court rulings list NCC as NCC in some instances.

'''STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS:'''
<blockquote>
<ol>
<li value="13">All revenues of NCC and HFT are for the benefit of Mr. Lesser.</li>
<li value="17">NCC’s traffic from Sprint is “100 percent chat line traffic.”</li>
<li value="25">In a lawsuit against Vaya Telecom pending in state court in California, Todd Lesser was personally sanctioned '''$92,966.45''' for discovery violations, including violations of court orders to produce financial records involving transactions between NCC and HFT. The discovery referee found he was willfully untruthful under oath during his deposition. </li>
<li value="61">Mr. Lesser testified in the Sprint matter that he created the invoices on a monthly basis in custom software that he wrote himself </li>
<li value="66">After NCC produced the invoices, Verizon obtained an order directing NCC to produce all computer drives it used to create, modify, or manipulate those invoices so that a court-appointed expert could test whether the HFT invoices were, as in Farmers II, backdated. The neutral forensic expert appointed by the District Court examined the two drives Mr. Lesser produced – an Apple iBook G-4 laptop hard drive (“Mac Computer”) and a removable USB flash drive (“Thumb Drive”).64 (Compl. ¶ 102; but see Answer ¶ 115)</li>
<li value="70">Todd Admits to deleting the bash history and log of commands during discovery.</li>
<li value="71">The District Court sanctioned NCC for evidence destruction</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>

== Federal Case Records ==

</center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 100%"
! Media
! Information/Description
|-
| [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxVdxjf_L9Q 14-15115 North County Communications Co v. Qwest Corporation]
| NCC's of summary judgements against them from the Arizona Corporations Commission<ref>[https://www.azcc.gov/ Arizona Corporations Commission]</ref> and the Oregon PUC<ref>[https://www.oregon.gov/puc/Pages/default.aspx Oregon PUC]</ref>
In both these cases, the local regulatory bodies were called by Todd/NCC as NCC was contesting not being paid for calls to NCC "customers". These Customers of NCC are almost 100% sex chat lines. [https://docket.images.azcc.gov/0000182790.pdf In this decision by the ACC]<ref>https://docket.images.azcc.gov/0000182790.pdf</ref> was a summary judgement in favor of Qwest. This is what is being appealed here.

There's some funny things to read in this case, such as NCC insisting to use MF signaling<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-frequency_signaling MF signaling</ref> rather than SS7<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_System_No._7</ref>, and complaining about the cost for a MX2800 M13 mux. These are the sorts of complaints which seem frivolous to anyone in telecommunications

Searching for "North County Communications Corporation" on the [https://edocket.azcc.gov/search/docket-search ACC search page]<ref>[https://edocket.azcc.gov/search/docket-search ACC search page]</ref> will produce many documents showing NCC to be on the losing end of the argument.

On March 5th, 2014 the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, as part of the legal proceedings regarding NCC's use of MF Signaling, and the Interconnection Agreement with Qwest, issued an Opinion and Order on case 3:13-CV-00375-BR<ref>[[media:US District Court - District of Oregon Case 3-13-cv-00375-BR Opinion and Order.pdf|US District Court - District of Oregon Case 3-13-cv-00375-BR-Opinion and Order - North County Communications Corporation of Oregon vs Qwest Corporation, Susan Akerman, John Savage, Stephen Bloom, all in their capacity as Commissioners of the Public Utility Commission of Oregon]]</ref> in which NCC's motion for Summary Judgement against Qwest Corporation and The Oregon Public Utilities Commission was denied and NCC's claim was dismissed with prejudice. The judge instead ruled in favor of both Qwest and the Oregon PUC.

'''Case background:''' In 1997, NCC and Qwest entered into an Interconnection Agreement (ICA), which defined how both parties would connect to each other and conduct business. The ICA was submitted to and approved by multiple State Public Utilities Commissions as the binding document for NCC and Qwest to conduct business in each PUC's jurisdiction. NCC and Qwest amended the 1997 ICA several times between September 1997 and April 2011. In July 2008 NCC received a request for negotiation from Qwest regarding a new ICA pursuant to the 47 U.S.C. § 252(a)<ref>[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/252 47 U.S. Code § 252 - Procedures for negotiation, arbitration, and approval of agreements]</ref> - Part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Qwest sought a new ICA because the 1997 ICA was outdated due to "''technological changes in Qwest's processes and products and NCC's use of multifrequency (MF) (analog) signaling was archaic''". Even though Qwest was willing to accommodate MF signaling for traffic terminating to NCC, Qwest requested the new ICA to include a provision that NCC must use a newer technology called SS7 (digital) signaling if it wished to begin terminating traffic with or through Qwest. NCC contended that Qwest's proposed ICA would force NCC to get rid of its existing network in favor of an "''unnecessary technological update and an untested agreement''". NCC also asserted Qwest was not legally permitted to dictate NCC's technology choices and did not have a valid justification for changing the terms of the then-existing 1997 ICA. One item of particular interest in this is that this case went to arbitration, the Arbitrator's decisions were accepted by the various PUCs as binding regarding the new ICA, and NCC challenged this in court in each of the respective PUCs jurisdictions (in this case Arizona and Oregon) and lost both challenges. NCC contended that Qwest was not allowed to initiate the renegotiation of the ICA under 47 U.S.C. § 252(a)(1), as Qwest was an ILEC, stating that the law only allowed CLECs to initiate the negotiations for ICAs with ILECs.
<blockquote>
Section 252 (a)(1) provides: Upon receiving a request for interconnection, services, or network elements pursuant to section 251 [47 U.S.C. § 251], an incumbent local exchange carrier may
negotiate and enter into a binding agreement with the requesting telecommunications carrier or carriers without regard to the standards set forth in subsections (b) and (c) of section 251 [47 USC
§ 251(b), (c)].
</blockquote>

The court's opinion of NCC's challenge:
<blockquote>
''Arizona''. The district court in ''NCC Arizona'' noted: “[N]o court has directly considered whether the language of sections 252(a)(1) and (b)(1) applies to requests to negotiate made by ILECs to CLECs.” ''Id.'', at *2. Accordingly, the ''NCC Arizona'' court analyzed the language of the Act to ascertain Congress’s intent to determine whether to adopt NCC’s interpretation of the statute. After doing so, the court found: “Any interpretation of sections 252(a)(1) and (b)(1) must be consistent with these two basic objectives of the Act: encouraging competition through the good faith negotiation of ICAs by ILECs and CLECs, and placing state commission in the central role of mediating, arbitrating, and approving ICAs.” ''Id.'', at *5. Accordingly, the court concluded “North County's strict reading of sections 252(a)(1) and (b)(1) would be inconsistent with these objectives,” and “the most reasonable construction is that [S]ection 252 applies to any negotiation of an ICA between an ILEC and CLEC, regardless of which party initiates the discussions. Such a reading avoids an interpretation that defeats major purposes of the Act and that places ILECs in the untenable position of having to terminate existing ICAs rather than requesting to renegotiate them. It also preserves for state commissions the critical mediation, arbitration, and approval roles intended by Congress.” ''Id''., at *5-6.
</blockquote>

The court ruled that it agreed with the district court in ''NCC Arizona'' that § 252(a)(1) does not prohibit an ILEC from requesting interconnection with a CLEC (meaning that Qwest was allowed to initiate the renegotiation of the 1997 ICA with NCC). The Court concludes, therefore, that Qwest was permitted to request arbitration and the Commission had the authority to arbitrate the parties’ 2011 ICA. Accordingly, the Court declines NCC's motion to declare the 2011 ICA ''void ab initio'' (void from the beginning).
|-
| [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uycO9mx9VTo 15-56678 North County Communications v. Sprint Communications Co.]
| NCC's appeal following a week long trial against Sprint Communications. This is worth watching, as NCC has been found to be overcharging sprint for calls to it's sex chat line customers.

At [https://youtu.be/uycO9mx9VTo?t=1416 about 24 minutes into this]<ref>https://youtu.be/uycO9mx9VTo?t=1416</ref> the Judge questions the attorney of Sprint who explains to the court "there weren't any proper charges (from NCC to Sprint)" and "Because if NCC didn't exist HFT wouldn't exist, and we wouldn't have this traffic pumping and access stimulation, calls to adult chat lines, they just wouldn't have existed" "this business practice is built on a relationship between telephone company (CLEC/NCC) and chat line company (HFT) in which they have to be business partners for this to work. Cuz telephone company bills the long distance company (SPRINT), and they split the profits to fund the venture, and the problem is where you're doing business together you're not a common carrier's customer!"<ref>https://youtu.be/uycO9mx9VTo?t=1465</ref>
|-
| [[file:2014-12-17 FCC Sprint v NCC Exhibts to discovery from ncc FCC - 60001010080.pdf|thumb|left|page=11|300px|FCC Sprint vs NCC Exhibits]]
| HFT chat line ad showing local number
|-
|}
</center>

<center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 85%"
|+ Federal Case Record Documents
! Document
! Information/Description
|-
| [[media:2013-01-28_NCC_vs_VZW_and_Sprint_ORDER_GRANTING_IN_PART_AND_DENYING_IN_PART_MOTION_TO_DISMISS_THIRD_AMENDED_COUNTERCLAIM_(Counts_II%2C_III%2C_IV%2C_%26_VI)_AND_DENYING_MOTION_FOR_LEAVE_TO_AMEND_THE_COMPLAINT_WITHOUT_PREJUDICE_08-CV-1518-CAB_%26_0.pdf|NCC_vs_VZW_and_Sprint_ORDER]]
|
|-
| [[media:2014-12-17 FCC Sprint v NCC Exhibts to discovery from ncc FCC - 60001010080.pdf|FCC Sprint v NCC Exhibts to discovery from ncc]]
|
|-
| [[media:2015-01-23 Joint Statement to FCC regarding discovery Sprint v NCC fcc-60001016009.pdf|Joint Statement to FCC regarding discovery Sprint v NCC]]
|
|-
| [[media:2015-04-02 NCC Filing to FCC for Sprint Case 60001042236.pdf|NCC Filing to FCC for Sprint Case]]
|
|-
| [[media:2007-09-07 Letter to the FCC comminioner regarding NCC 6519722812.pdf]]
|
|-
| [[media:2009-03-30 FCC opinion and order NCC v. MetroPCS DA-09-719A1.pdf]]
|
|-
| [[media:2009-04-09 NCC v VZ counter claim 08 CV 1518 BEN.pdf]]
|
|-
| [[media:2009-11-19 FCC Review on order NCC v MetroPCS FCC-09-100A1_Rcd-1.pdf]]
|
|-
| [[media:2010-09-03 NCC vs VZW motion for protective order 08-CV-1518 BEN.pdf]]
|
|-
| [[media:2010-12-06 VZW to FCC re 07-135 about NCC 7020922335.pdf]]
|
|-
| [[media:2013-01-28_NCC_vs_VZW_and_Sprint_ORDER_GRANTING_IN_PART_AND_DENYING_IN_PART_MOTION_TO_DISMISS_THIRD_AMENDED_COUNTERCLAIM_(Counts_II,_III,_IV,_%26_VI)_AND_DENYING_MOTION_FOR_LEAVE_TO_AMEND_THE_COMPLAINT_WITHOUT_PREJUDICE_08-CV-1518-CAB_%26_0.pdf|NCC vs VZW and Sprint dismissive order ]]
|
|-
| [[media:2020-10-27 NCC v VZW Diss with Prejudice 08-cv-01518-CAB.pdf]]
|
|-
| [[media:DA-16-1081A1.pdf| FCC Order in the matter of NCC v. Cricket Communications, Inc.,]]
|
|-
|}
</center>
<blockquote>
NCC files a complaint with the FCC seeking to make Cricket allow it's customers to call 900 numbers which Cricket doesn't allow for any of it's customers. '''NCC's complaint is DISMISSED.'''
</blockquote>
=== United States Supreme Court ===
<center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 85%"
! Document
! Information/Description
|-
| [[media:Search - Supreme Court of the United States - Docket 10-257.pdf|Supreme Court of the United States - No 10-257 - North County Communications Corp vs California Catalog and Technology dba CTT Telecomms, Petition for Write of Certiorari. Petition was DENIED.]]<ref>https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/10-257.htm</ref>
| Petition regarding Case No 08-55048 from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. '''''Writs of Certiorari'''''<ref>https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/writ_of_certiorari</ref>: Parties who are not satisfied with the decision of a lower court must petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case.<ref>https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1</ref>
|-
|}
</center>

= Bankruptcy Court =

Todd has filed bankruptcy a couple times that can be found in PACER. What is interesting is these were filed pro-se<ref>https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/pro_se</ref>, for oneself, on one's own behalf. In both cases the case was dismissed for failure to properly file all the required documents.

Upon review of the records from San Diego County, it was found both these filings aligned with foreclosure proceedings on his residence or business. This is a well known tactic, as a bankruptcy filing will pause all foreclosure actions giving time to the debtor, and encouraging the holder of the loan to settle. In both cases Todd was able to re-mortgage or finance his residence, and then have the court dismiss the case. In the second time in 2019 he entered into a trust agreement with his father loaning him over 1,000,000 dollars.

<center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 85%"
|+ Bankruptcy filings
! Case Number
! Filing Date
! Status
! Discharge Date
! Chapter
! Disposition
! Court
|-
| 1903194
| 05/31/2019
| Voluntary
| 06/18/2019
| 13
| Dismissed
| California Southern - San Diego
|-
| [[media:2018-06-18 Lesser Bankruptcy 18-03554-CL13 1-2.pdf|1803554]]
| 06/13/2018
| Voluntary
| 06/28/2018
| 13
| Dismissed
| California Southern - San Diego
|}
</center>

<center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 100%"
|+ Other information
! Date
! Item
! Comment
|-
| Feb 22, 2018
| Todd Lesser's residence has a [[media:2018-0068778.pdf|foreclosure notice]] on it for failure to pay $32,944.76.
| Note that Todd still [[media:2018-0160972.pdf|owes Yvonne Smith the $400,000.00]] on the property as well.
|-
| March 23, 2018
| Todd Lesser's residence has the debt paid off to the same bank for $575,000.00. [[media:2018-06-18 Lesser Bankruptcy 18-03554-CL13 1-2.pdf|Then he files bankruptcy]] and Wells Fargo bank requests [[media:2019-06-07 Lesser Bankrupacy 2019 Wells Fargo Filing 036118742102.pdf|a special hearing]].
| This of course stays any foreclosure action on his home or collection actions against him by other creditors.
|-
|}
</center>

= Judgements and Liens =

The following judgements and liens were found.

<center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 85%"
|+ Judgements and Liens
! Filing Date
! TMS ID
! Jurisdiction
! Debtors - Name
! Debtors - Address
|-
| 12/01/2016
| CA00167559272014
| CA
| Todd Leonard Lesser
| 4008 Taylor St, San Diego, CA 92110
|-
| 03/24/2015
| CA00157456254594
| CA
| Todd Lesser
| 2717 Hidden Valley Rd, La Jolla, CA 92037
|}
</center>

= Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Filings =
The following are the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC")<ref>https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/what-is-a-ucc-filing</ref> filings that were found.

<blockquote>
There are several types of UCCs. The most basic and well known is the UCC-1. Essentially, a UCC-1 can be described as a financing statement. In fact, it is sometimes called a UCC financing statement. A creditor files a UCC-1 to provide notice to interested parties that he or she has a security interest in a debtor’s personal property. This personal property is being used as collateral in some type of secured transaction, usually a loan or a lease.
</blockquote>

'''''UCC filings are better known as liens made against someone's property due to a debt that was incurred.'''''

<center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 85%"
|+ UCC Filings<ref name="CA UCC Filing Search>https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/ucc</ref>
! Filing Date
! Filing Number
! Filing Type
! State
! TMS ID
! Debtors - Name
! Debtors - Address
! Secured Party Info
|-
| 12/01/2016
| 167559272014
| Judgement Lien
| CA
| CA167559272014
| Todd Leonard Lesser
| 4008 Taylor St, San Diego, CA 92110
| WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - EL MONTE, CA
|-
| 03/24/2015
| 157456254594
| Judgement Lien
| CA
| CA00157456254594
| Todd Lesser
| 2717 Hidden Valley Rd, La Jolla, CA 92037
| VAYA TELECOM, INC. - EL DORADO HILLS, CA
|-
| 05/26/2009
| 097197693213
| Financing Statement
| CA
| CA097197693213
| Todd Leonard Lesser
| 4008 Taylor St, San Diego, CA 92110
| WESBANCO BANK, INC. - CHARLESTON, WV
|-
| 11/19/2004
| 200400595668
| <None Specified>
| WV
| DNB20040059566820041119
| Todd Lesser
| 2717 Hidden Valley Rd, La Jolla, CA 92037
| <Not available>
|-
| 11/19/2004
| 200400595670
| <None Specified>
| WV
| DNB20040059567020041119
| Todd Lesser
| 2717 Hidden Valley Rd, La Jolla, CA 92037
| <Not available>
|-
| 08/02/2004
| 0421760552
| Financing Statement
| CA
| CA0421760552
| Todd Leonard Lesser
| 2717 Hidden Valley Rd, La Jolla, CA 92037
| <Not available>
|-
|}
</center>

= San Diego County =
Our search in San Diego produced the following.

Of the most interesting was his judgements from NCC vs. Vaya Telecom. This case was essentially the same as the federal actions on access stimulation and took years to bring to trial/appeal/final judgement. Now the final judgments are done and the court has held NCC, HFT and Todd personally and jointly liable

* 2019-03-22 - [[media:2019-0103084.pdf|'''$92,966.45''' sanction on Todd Lesser personally for shenanigans during discovery]].
<blockquote>
The Discovery Referee held that NCC, Todd Lesser, HFT Inc and Jartel, Inc. failed to comply with the courts discovery orders. This wasting of court and attorney time was assigned to Todd personally.<ref>[[media:2020-0778570.pdf| Exhibit B, page 11-24]]</ref>
</blockquote>
* 2020-06-06 - [[media:2020-0004461.pdf|'''$597,474.38''' judgment against Todd Lesser and his companies.]]
* 2020-12-02 - [[media:2020-0771029.pdf|'''$1,357,154.27''' judgment against Todd Lesser and his companies.]]

Other outstanding debts Todd has:

* 2017-04 44025 [[media:2017-0444025.pdf|'''$136,727.96''' - Bank of America judgement]]
* 2017-04 41050 [[media:2017-0441050.pdf|'''$6,088.86''' - Discover Card Bank]]

== Narcotics Forfeiture ==
Todd has been sanctioned twice by the City of San Diego for operating an unlicensed narcotics distribution site on his property. This is the same property address he has listed on his FCC Amateur Radio License <ref>https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=4013923</ref>.

4008 Taylor St LLC <ref>https://casetext.com/case/city-of-san-diego-v-4008-taylor-st-llc</ref><ref>https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/nr171101a1.pdf</ref>
[[media:2018-0126301.pdf|2018-0126301.pdf - this is the second time around]]

[[media:2017-0214411.pdf|2017-0214411.pdf]] - Narcotics forfeiture action against Todd Lesser by city of San Diego
<blockquote>
In this case, Todd Lesser was held personally responsible for '''$200,000.00''' dollars for willfully defying a temporary injunction by the court. This was the second such business he allowed to operate at this location involved in illegal narcotics distribution.
</blockquote>

[[File:2017-11-01 City of San Diego Press Release nr171101a1.pdf|thumb|center|300px|$200,000 Pot Shop Judgment Affirmed by Appeal court]]

Criminal case M234214-06 and M219385-05 are showing with the courts relating to this.

== Property Foreclosures ==
Multiple times in the past 5 years Todd's residence at 2717 Hidden Valley Rd. La Jolla, CA 92037 has gone into for failure to pay the mortgage as agreed.

Todd has previously used his residence in such a fashion with a private note from a Yvonne Smith in April 2018 of $400,000.00 Dollars. 2018-0160972.pdf

In December 2019 [[media:2019-0585335.pdf|Todd has borrowed '''$1,043,440.00''' on this property from his father]]. This coincided with Todd's bankruptcy and Lis Pendens (suit pending)<ref>https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lis_pendens</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis_pendens</ref> from his mortgage holder. It remains to be seen if he is paying his father as agreed under this trust<ref>[[media:2019-0585335.pdf|Trust of father]]</ref>

== Filing False Lis Pendens ==
In 2006 Todd made an offer to purchase a property from John Raymond, Managing Member of Surfstone, LLC. This offer expired and Todd preceded as if it was signed and agreed too. Todd then filed a [[media:2006-0064799.pdf|lis pendens]] on the property and the property owner sued to have it revoked by the court.

[[media:2006-0378821.pdf|The court held this was not a proper lis pendens]] and sanctioned Todd and dismissed the action by him.

== Other San Diego Records ==

<center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center; width: 95%"
|+ Other San Diego Records
! style="width: 170px;" | Document
! style="text-align: left; width: 250px" | Description
! style="width: 170px;" | Document
! style="text-align: left; width: 250px" | Description
|-
| [[file:2004-0709866.pdf|120px|-]]
| Assignment of Rents to La Jolla Bank
| [[file:2005-0853093.pdf|120px|-]]
| Reconveyance of a Deed from Todd Lesser
|-
| [[file:2006-0064799.pdf|120px|-]]
| Todd Lesser Lis Pendency upon a property he does not have legal right to
| [[file:2006-0356362.pdf|120px|-]]
| Quit Claim Deed from Todd and James Gottlieb to 3940 Gresham Street LLC
|-
| [[file:2006-0356363.pdf|120px|-]]
| Another Quit Claim Deed from Todd and James Gottlieb to 3940 Gresham Street LLC
| [[file:2006-0356364.pdf|120px|-]]
| Quit Claim Deed from Todd and James Gottlieb to 2405 Juan Street LLC
|-
| [[file:2006-0378821.pdf|120px|-]]
| Order to Exponge Lis Pendens that was filed by Todd Lesser against a property he didn't have a legal right to
| [[file:2007-0573442.pdf|120px|-]]
| COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 237655
|-
| [[file:2007-0652240.pdf|120px|-]]
| La Jolla Bank FINANCING STATEMENT TERMINATION
| [[file:2007-0662459.pdf|120px|-]]
| La Jolla Bank Reconveyance
|-
| [[file:2008-0422095.pdf|120px|-]]
| Agreement between San Diego and Todd Lesser
| [[file:2008-0422096.pdf|120px|-]]
| Agreement between San Diego and Todd Lesser
|-
| [[file:2010-0078651.pdf|120px|-]]
| Reconveyance of 2405 Juan St. San Diego 92110
| [[file:2016-0320410.pdf|120px|-]]
| Notice of Default to Todd Lesser from PNC Bank
|-
| [[file:2016-0400040.pdf|120px|-]]
| Notice of Rescission of Default
| [[file:2017-0214411.pdf|120px|-]]
| Asset Forfeiture notice under the Narcotic Asset Forfeiture Law
|-
| [[file:2017-0441050.pdf|120px|-]]
| Discover Bank Judgement against Todd Lesser
| [[file:2017-0444025.pdf|120px|-]]
| Judgement against Todd Lesser by Bank Of America - '''$136,727.96'''
|-
| [[file:2018-0068778.pdf|120px|-]]
| Notice of Default on 2717 Hidden Valley Road
| [[file:2018-0126301.pdf|120px|-]]
| Judgement against Todd Lesser by the City of San Diego - '''200,000.00 For narcotics law violations'''
|-
| [[file:2018-0133780.pdf|120px|-]]
| Notice of recording
| [[file:2018-0136266.pdf|120px|-]]
| Notice of recording of default
|-
| [[file:2018-0136267.pdf|120px|-]]
| Notice of recording of default
| [[file:2018-0160972.pdf|120px|-]]
| Deed of trust (private mortgage) between Yvonne Smith and Todd Lesser]
|-
| [[file:2018-0280164.pdf|120px|-]]
| Reconveyance of other property
| [[file:2018-0298600.pdf|120px|-]]
| Judgement of San Diego against Todd Lesser and 4008 Taylor Street, LLC - $12,500.00
|-
| [[file:2018-0309183.pdf|120px|-]]
| Assignment of deed of trust of 3940 Gresham Street, San Diego, CA 92109
| [[file:2018-0437984.pdf|120px|-]]
| Notice of default to Todd Lesser on 2717 Hidden Valley Road
|-
| [[file:2018-0487311.pdf|120px|-]]
| Notice of default and election to sell 2717 Hidden Valley Road
| [[file:2019-0054895.pdf|120px|-]]
| Reconveyance of 3940 GRESHAM STREET #132, SAN DIEGO, CA 92109
|-
| [[file:2019-0073485.pdf|120px|-]]
| Reconveyance from DSL Service Corporation
| [[file:2019-0096079.pdf|120px|-]]
| Recession of default and election to sell
|-
| [[file:2019-0103084.pdf|120px|-]]
| Judgment of 92,966.45 against Todd Lesser
| [[file:2019-0132536.pdf|120px|-]]
| License agreement of Todd and Nanette Lesser for access to 2767 Hidden Valley Road
|-
| [[file:2019-0585335.pdf|120px|-]]
| Trust where Todd Lesser is loaned $1,043,440 by his father
| [[file:2020-0004461.pdf|120px|-]]
| Judgment of Vaya telecom, Inc against Todd Lesser
|-
| [[file:2020-0771029.pdf|120px|-]]
| Judgment of Vaya telecom, Inc against Todd Lesser
| [[file:2020-0778570.pdf|120px|-]]
| Second Judgment of Vaya telecom, Inc against Todd Lesser. This document goes into great detail in exhibit B finding Todd Lesser misused and abused the discovery process. Pages 13-24 cover this.
|-
|}
</center>

= West Virginia =
Our search in West Virginia produced the following.

* 2020-03-30 - A Motion/Application/Petition for a Default Judgement in the Southern District Court of West Virginia, Charleston Division was made. WesBanco Bank, Inc. filed on November 20, 2019 an instant action for monetary judgement on the outstanding deficiency balance owed on a loan made by WesBanco to Todd Lesser. "On February 18, 2020, the Defendant was properly served in La Jolla, California by substitute service at his primary residence by a private investigator hired by WesBanco, Mr. Gregory Long."<ref>[[media:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 8 - Motion-Application-Petition for Entry of Default.pdf|Case 2-19-cv-00821 - Document #8]]</ref>

* 2020-03-31 - An order on Motion/Application/Petition for Entry of Default Judgement was issued.<ref>[[media:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 9 - Order on Motion-Application-Petition for Entry of Default.pdf|Case 2-19-cv-00821 - Document #9]]</ref>

* 2020-04-15 - A Motion/Application/Petition for Default Judgement was filed by WesBanco. It is noted that "On multiple occasions, prior to service, the Defendant evaded WesBanco’s attempts at effectuating service of process on him." The Investigator's Affidavit of Service is included as supporting documentation and details the attempts at effectuating service and Todd Lesser's evasion. (See Investigator's Report below for details).<ref name="Document13">[[media:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 13 - Motion-Application-Petition for Default Judgement.pdf|Case 2-19-cv-00821 - Document #13]]</ref>

* 2020-05-22 - An order on the Motion/Application/Petition for Default Judgement was issued.<ref>[[media:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 15 - Order on Motion-Applcation-Petition for Default Judgement.pdf|Case 2-19-cv-00821 - Document #15]]</ref>
<blockquote>
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff WesBanco Bank Inc.’s Motion for Default Judgment (Document 13)<ref name="Document13" /> and the attached exhibits, filed on April 15, 2020. The motion and affidavits set forth the amount due and state that the Defendant is not an infant or incompetent.

The Plaintiff served the Defendant, Todd Lesser, by leaving the summons with Andrea Lesser at their residence on February 18, 2020. The investigator used to effectuate service indicates that Mr. Lesser evaded multiple prior attempts at service. No responsive pleading was filed, and the Clerk entered default on March 31, 2020, at the Court’s direction. Both the Court’s order directing entry of default (Document 10) and the Entry of Default by Clerk (Document 11) were sent to the Defendant by certified mail. The Court’s order was returned as undeliverable. A return receipt card for the Clerk’s entry of default indicates that it was left with an individual on April 10, 2020. To date, the Defendant has not filed a response to the lawsuit or the entry of default.

The Plaintiff, WesBanco, alleges that Mr. Lesser applied for and received a loan to finance an office building in Charleston, West Virginia. The loan was secured by the office building. The Plaintiff alleges that it foreclosed, and the payoff balance was $328,954.20 at the time of the foreclosure sale. There was a deficiency balance of $128,756.55 after the property sold for $242,000, less sale expenses of $28,823.51.

In its motion for default judgment, after accounting for interest, WesBanco seeks $136,983.69 for the deficiency balance of the loan, plus legal fees and costs of $5,755.00 and interest accruing at a daily rate of $11.90 from March 31, 2020. The terms of the promissory note, details of the sale, and amount of attorney’s costs and fees are confirmed by the attached exhibits and affidavits.

After careful consideration, the Court finds that the amount of damages, as computed, is a sum certain pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff Wesbanco Bank Inc.’s Motion for Default Judgment (Document 13) be GRANTED and that default judgment be entered against the Defendant, Todd Lesser, in the amount of $142,738.69, plus interest of $11.90 per day accruing from March 31, 2020.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to counsel of record and to any unrepresented party.
</blockquote>

<center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center; width: 95%"
|+ Case 2:19-cv-00821 - US District Court, Charleston, West Virginia
! style="width: 170px;" | Document
! style="text-align: left; width: 250px" | Description
! style="width: 170px;" | Document
! style="text-align: left; width: 250px" | Description
|-
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 1 - Complaint.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 1 - Complaint
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 2 - Proposed Summons Submitted.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 2 - Proposed Summons
|-
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 3 - Electronic Summons Issued.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 3 - Electronic Summons Issued
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 4 - Judge Berger Administrative Order for Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 4 - Judge Berger Administrative Order for Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn
|-
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 5 - Order.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 5 - Order
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 6 - Response to Order.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 6 - Response to Order
|-
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 7 - Summons Executed by Personal Service.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 7 - Summons Executed by Personal Service
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 8 - Motion-Application-Petition for Entry of Default.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 8 - Motion-Application-Petition for Entry of Default
|-
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 9 - Order on Motion-Application-Petition for Entry of Default.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 9 - Order on Motion-Application-Petition for Entry of Default
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 10 and 11 - Transmitted Certified Copy.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 10 and 11 - Transmitted Certified Copy
|-
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 12 - Return Receipt Card.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 12 - Return Receipt Card
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 13 - Motion-Application-Petition for Default Judgement.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 13 - Motion-Application-Petition for Default Judgement
|-
| NOT AVAILABLE
| 14 - NOT AVAILABLE
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 15 - Order on Motion-Applcation-Petition for Default Judgement.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 15 - Order on Motion-Applcation-Petition for Default Judgement
|-
| NOT AVAILABLE
| 16 - NOT AVAILABLE
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 17 - Order.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 17 - Order
|}
</center>

== Investigator's Report ==
The following notable items were taken from the investigator's Affadavit of Service when attempting to locate and personally serve Todd Lesser on behalf of WesBanco Bank, Inc. <ref>[https://wiki.w9cr.net/index.php?title=File:Case_2-19-cv-00821_-_13_-_Motion-Application-Petition_for_Default_Judgement.pdf&page=22 Affadavit of Service]</ref>

* I attempted to locate and serve the Defendant at the office space owned by him located at 4008 Taylor Street #201, San Diego, CA 92110. However, the office space was all locked up with no tenants.

* After investigating the various properties owned by the Defendant, I determined that the best opportunity for a successful service of process was at the Defendant's home residence located at 2717 Hidden Valley Road, La Jolla, California 92037-4028 (the "Residence").

* I visited the Residence on multiple occasions and attempted to service by knocking on the front door. Although I could hear noise coming from the Residence, nobody ever came to answer my knocking other than the Defendant's dog.

* On Sunday, January 13, 2020, I was parked at the end of the Defendant's driveway and observed who I believed to be the Defendant's spouse taking the trash out. She is a white female with long blond hair, in her mid-thirties, an a height and weight of approximately five feet six and one hundred thirty-five pounds. I exited my vehicle and attempted to serve her. However, as soon as she noticed me, she quickly made her way back up the driveway to the Residence. By the time I reached the top of the Defendant's driveway she was already back inside the Residence and nobody answered my subsequent knocking on the front door.

* On Sunday, February 9, 2020, I conducted a stakeout in hopes that I would effectuate service on the Defendant or his spouse while they took the trash out. My stakeout was unsuccessful as I saw neither the Defendant nor his spouse.

* I returned to the Residence the following morning, Monday, February 10, 2020. At approximately 7:55 a.m., a grey BMW departed from the Defendant's driveway. I followed the BMW in my vehicle, the BMW sped away and deliberately took a detour to disallow me to meet it in a crowded intersection where I could jump out of my vehicle and place the service paper's on the BMW's windshield.

* Following this unsuccessful attempt, I ran the BMW's license plate and confirmed that the vehicle was registered to the Defendant' spouse, Andrea Lesser.

* On Tuesday, February 18, 2020, I arrived at the Residence for another stakeout. At approximately 6:30 a.m. I parked my vehicle a safe distance away from the Residence to avoid detection. I exited my vehicle and walked to the end of the Defendant's driveway and sat on a chair and waited for any sign of the Defendant or his spouse.

* At approximately 8:01 a.m., the Defendant's spouse drove down the driveway in her vehicle. I verbally informed her that she'd been served as soon as she drove by. A photograph of the Defendant's spouse's vehicle driving past me at 8:01 a.m. on February 18, 2022 is attached as Exhibit A.

* I then proceeded up the Defendant's driveway and left a copy of the Complaint and Summons at the Residence's front door. A photograph of the service papers as I left from on the Residence's front door is attached as Exhibit B.

* Prior to successfully serving the Complaint upon the Defendant's spouse, the Defendant and/or spouse evaded my attempts at service on multiple occasions.

= New York =
Our search in New York produced the following.

In 2002, NCC filed suit against Verizon New York (VNY), Verizon Services Corporation (Verizon), and what is listed as DOES 1 through 100. The suit was originally brought by NCC in New York State court. Verizon filed a notice to remove the action to federal district court, and NCC moved to remand it back to state court. The following are excepts from United States District Court, Northern District New York Case 1:02-cv-01065-DNH-RFT, MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER<ref>[[media:Case 1-02-cv-01065-DNH-RFT - Doc 24 - Order.pdf|North County Communications v Verizon New York Inc; Verizon Services Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100]]</ref> regarding the case and both parties actions.

NCC alleged in their complaint:
* On March 14, 2001, NCC as a CLEC, notified Verizon of its intent to interconnect with Verizon networks in New York State. VNY is an ILEC. NCC claims that in the six months following, Verizon "deliberately dragged [its] feet and put up obstacles and roadblocks to keep [North County] out of the local telecommunications market in New York, all for the purpose of maintaining [VNY's] grip on the local telephone market, depriving consumers maximum choice with their telecommunications dollars and damaging [North County] in the process"
* NCC claimed that the Verizon account manager assigned "stonewall[ed] the interconnection process by making unreasonable, onerous and unnecessary demands upon [North County]".
** Among the demands made was the alleged interconnection prerequisite that a "dedicated" facility be built. NCC contends that VNY, as in ILEC, controls facilities throughout the New York telecommunications market, stating that he funding necessary to build these facilities was provided in part by VNY's ratepayers and those of it predecessors, New York Telephone and Bell Atlantic.
* NCC was unable to procure funding for the construction of new facilities, and instead requested interconnection at two separate Verizon facilities in New York. NCC claimed that Verizon refused the request, despite the technical capabilities to grant it, and despite allowing other affiliates or parties to share the facilities. Instead Verizon restated the requirements to build new facilities and refused to hold further meetings with NCC until the construction of the new facilities was complete.
* NCC stated that Verizon acted in a way to continue maintaining "monopolistic power over the New York City telecommunications market" including:
** repeatedly lost orders and signature pages
** ignored [North County's] request to opt into an exiting interconnections [sic] agreement between [VNY] and another CLEC; as was North County's right
** insisted on installing equipment on unnecessary additional racks at the location where [North County] was subleasing space, despite the absence of any technical reason to impose such a requirement, and needlessly raising the cost of doing business for [North County]
** refused to allow [North County] to order interconnection trunks, thus preventing [North County] from being able to order prefixes
** refused to build trunks in as timely a fashion as with other service offerings, and as if [North County] were a retail customer
** demanded that [North County] provide the defendants with information which [North County] was unable to provide because the information resided in the defendants' sole possession, and then delayed the interconnection process further when [North County] was unable to provide the information demanded
** demanded that information which [North County] had already submitted to be resubmitted in a different format
** failed to treat [North County] as well as if [it] were a [VNY] retail customer or an affiliate of the defendants; and
** refused to use a shared mux for wholesale services, despite the technical feasibility of doing so

Additionally, NCC claimed that Verizon engaged in anti-competitive and monopolistic activities in violation of the Donnelly Act, N.Y. Gen Bus L § 340<ref>[https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2022/gbs/article-22 Donnelly Act, N.Y. Gen Bus L § 340]</ref>. And NCC claimed that Verizon had a duty, under Article 5, Section 91 of the New York Public Service Law, "''to provide and furnish instrumentalities and facilities that were adequate, just and reasonable, and to refrain from making unreasonable or unjust charges for services rendered.''" NCC also claimed that Verizon was making charges and demands that were greater than those made of other similar corporations, and that "Verizon subjected North County unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage".

The District Court ruled that Verizon's motion to move the case from state to federal court was unwarranted under existing case law, and that "''North County's Complaint is Well-Pleaded''" with regards to keeping the case in state jurisdiction. The District Court ruled:
<blockquote>
The plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint alleges only state law claims. Such claims are neither artfully pleaded or completely preempted by federal law. The interconnection agreement itself, if in fact it does control, does not mandate that federal claims be asserted in federal court. No subject matter jurisdiction exists. This case must be remanded to the Supreme Court of New York. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff North County Communications Corporation's motion to remanded is GRANTED; and 2. The case is remanded back to the Supreme Court of New York, County of Albany."
</blockquote>

The Supreme Court of New York, County of Albany reviewed the case and granted the defendant's motion that it be moved from Albany County to New York County (Manhattan).

The Supreme Court of New York, New York County reviewed the case (401925-03)<ref>[[media:401925-03-001 PDF.pdf|North County Communications Corporation -against- Verizon New York Inc, Verizon Services Corporation, and DOES 1 THROUGH 100. - Index No 401925/03. P.C.No 18455]]</ref>, the court examined the claims from both sides, and ruled that:
* NCC's allegations under the Donnelly Act and Public service Law, both State claims, are independent of any interconnection agreement, and that NCC's complaint is regarding Verizon's conduct.
* NCC's claim under the Donnelly Act: "''the complaint does not allege concerted action in support of a conspiracy, or a reciprocal relationship between two or more entities. Rather, NCC's allegations are directed towards Verizon's alleged unilateral actions and delay tactics. The failure to identify a coconspirator cannot be remedied 'by asserting, in conclusory fashion, the existence of a generalized conspiracy arising our of defendants' various contracts and arrangements or by referring to uniliateral business action taken by them' and NCC's failure 'to allege that the defendant engaged in concerted activity requires dismissal'''". The court also stated that "''sister subsidiary corporations which are wholly owned by the same parent corporation are legally incapable of conspiring with each other''". It was also noted that NCC's failure to state the names of the "''numerous Doe defendants''" led to the dismissal of the Donnelly Act claim for lack of sufficient evidence.
* NCC's Public Service Law claim, mainly that "''sections 91 and 93 of the Public Service law should be interpreted broadly''" was dismissed.

<blockquote>
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is granted and the complaint is dismissed, without prejudice as indicated, with costs and disbursements to defendant as taxed by the Clerk of the Court; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to enter judgement accordingly.
</blockquote>

= Local Politics=
Todd seems to desire involvement in the politics of his city in any form. He's served and resigned from a couple minor city boards with limited powers. In several cases he's protested the election or findings of the board when such actions have gone against his positions or interests.

== La Jolla ==

=== La Jolla Traffic and Transportation Board ===
[[File:LaJollaT&T.jpg|thumb|right|Todd Lesser rambling on at the podium in front of a mostly empty meeting venue]]

La Jolla Community Planning Association<ref>https://lajollacpa.org/about/committees-boards/</ref>
<blockquote>
<center>La Jolla Traffic & Transportation Board (T&T)</center>
T&T considers all proposals affecting La Jolla’s streets (striping, stop signs, traffic calming) and parking (curb colors, time limits, valet). Also hears special events that require traffic control or affect on-street parking. Recommendations are forwarded to the LJCPA for ratification and then sent to the City of San Diego for implementation. The Board is comprised of two appointed members each from the LJCPA, the La Jolla Town Council, the La Jolla Shores Association, La Jolla Village Merchants Association, and the Bird Rock Community Council. Meetings are always open to the public and are held on the 3rd Wednesday of every month, at 4:00 p.m. at the La Jolla Recreation Center, 615 Prospect Street.
</blockquote>

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 100%"
! Title
! Link
! Description
|-
| La Jolla Town Council Inaugural La Jolla State of Address
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnmO2oYJYaM
| Todd Lesser, President of the La Jolla Traffic and Transportation Board
|}

=== La Jolla Shores Association ===
La Jolla Shores Association ("LJSA")<ref>https://lajollashoresassociation.org/</ref>

<blockquote>
One of the most popular destinations in Southern California, La Jolla Shores has an effective and active citizen based forum for matters concerning the community and area of La Jolla Shores. For almost 60 years, the La Jolla Shores Association (LJSA) has been guiding, advising and leading the discussions with the San Diego City Council, Parks and Recreation, UCSD and other governmental agencies concerning quality of life issues year round.
</blockquote>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 100%"
! Title
! Link
! Description
|-
| Tempera Flare over officer election At La Jolla Shores Association
| http://www.sdnews.com/view/full_story/22368481/article-Tempers-flare-over-officer-election-at-LJSA<ref name="SDNEWS-LJSA"> http://www.sdnews.com/view/full_story/22368481/article-Tempers-flare-over-officer-election-at-LJSA</ref>
| La Jolla Shores Association (LJSA) held a special meeting ahead of its regular monthly meeting May 13, to answer questions about how its March election was conducted
|-
| San Diego, La Jolla Shores Association Address Election Challenge
| https://www.lajollalight.com/sdljl-shores-association-address-election-challenge-2015-2015may21-story.html<ref name="LAJollaLight>https://www.lajollalight.com/sdljl-shores-association-address-election-challenge-2015-2015may21-story.html</ref>
| Todd argues over flipping a coin. His attorney makes a case that a strict following of Roberts Rules of Order is Required.
|-
|}

= Final Thoughts =
Our research only covered one county in California. It's not unreasonable to assume other counties may have other such actions in their court systems, especially in places Todd Lesser has conducted his businesses.

From the above it would appear Todd Lesser's choice of professions have been based mostly on less than ethical choices and that has been catching up with him. Having worked with him in the past I know he loves to talk until he is able to get his way. It takes a strong person to stand up and say "No" to him.

As we have added up over $2,500,000 (2.5 million) dollars in debts he is personally liable for, and his pattern of being less than truthful under oath one must question what was wrong with the prior AllStarLink Board of Directors in letting him direct most of the corporation. AllStarLink now is in a position of operating in debt and one can envision Todd Lesser wanting to run it in the manner he's run his other businesses.

== July 2022 Update ==
Since the original search and publication of this information regarding Todd Lesser, more information of his financial difficulties have come to light. Todd Lesser was awarded a default judgement in West Virginia, and information regarding this has been added to this page. This wiki will continue to be updated as more information on Todd Lesser and his businesses come to light.

== March 2023 Update ==
On 28 March 2023, as part of the ongoing litigation between Pacific Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T California and Vaya Telecom, Inc., a motion was made by Vaya Telecom as follows <ref>[[media:504802306.pdf|C.17-09-023 - VAYA TELECOM, INC. (U 7122 C) MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE KLINE FOR CAUSE]]</ref>:
<blockquote>
Pursuant to Rule 9.4 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, Vaya Telecom, Inc. (“Vaya”) (U-7122-C) hereby moves the Commission for disqualification of Administrative Law Judge Kline for cause in the above captioned proceeding. This Motion is necessitated due to repeated ex parte communications directed to Judge Kline from a non-party on the sole substantive issue in the proceeding. Namely, Mr. Todd Lesser has repeatedly contacted Judge Kline on an ex parte basis making baseless accusations against Vaya, and specifically alleging that Vaya operates in an integrated fashion with a sister entity, O1 Communications, Inc. (“O1”) generally, and specifically to evade legal obligations.

The sole issue being litigated in the pending Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) is whether Vaya and O1 operate in an integrated fashion sufficient to warrant requiring O1 to pay an award Vaya has been directed to pay the plaintiff, Pacific Bell Telephone Company d/b/a/ AT&T California. Hearings were completed in December 2021 and briefing in the OSC proceeding was completed in January 2022. The parties are therefore awaiting the issuance of the Presiding Officer’s Decision (“POD”).

While the improper ex parte communications are the fault of Mr. Lesser, Judge Kline has nonetheless been exposed to multiple defamatory and unsubstantiated assertions regarding the exact issues in the OSC proceeding. Judge Kline cannot un-hear what Mr. Lesser has said, and that damage cannot be undone. Especially at this critical time as Judge Kline is drafting the POD, there is a very real chance that Judge Kline may have been influenced by Mr. Lesser’s extra-record and false claims despite her best efforts to disregard them. Indeed, Judge Kline responded to one of Mr. Lesser’s ex parte emails by stating that he would need to file a motion for party status if he wants to provide information in this proceeding. Thus Mr. Lesser’s communications have created a real and concrete concern that Judge Kline is taking into account Mr. Lesser’s wild accusations and may be unable to render a decision based only on record evidence. Vaya reluctantly has concluded that it must move for reassignment of the remainder of this proceeding to another judge to ensure a fair and unbiased decision.
</blockquote>

* 2023-03-08: Todd Lesser emails Assistant Chief Administrative Law Judge Zita Kline of the California Public Utilities Commission. As part of the items sent to Judge Kline, Todd Lesser included a previous email chain showing that on 26 August 2022, he attempted to offer a $50k settlement to Vaya Telecom instead of paying the (then) $1.8 million that was owed. Vaya Telecom declined this settlement offer.

From: Todd Lesser fm <todd@nccom.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 11:59 AM
To: Kline, Zita
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Vaya - North County Communications
Attachments: North County ICA (2-1-2007).pdf
Follow up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.

FYI. I thought you would find this interesting that Vaya claims that they have no money but after the judgement against
them and after the date of them shutting down the corporation. They fraudulently conveyed their one asset ‐ their
judgment against NCC. That judgment was based upon NCC not able to prove our claim because o1/Vaya caused the
records to be invalid by unlawfully routing all the calls over their local interconnection truck. The sweet heart deal they
had with AT&T hurt every carrier in California that subtended the AT&T tandems. AT&T didn’t care because they were
being compensated. They even didn’t care that Vaya was allowing their customers to spoof ANI’s and send unlawful
telemarketing calls.
They continue to tell contradictory statements to the State court versus the CPUC. Even their attorney mislead you
when she said the confidentially agreement was filed with the State court. That is a complete fabrication. Confidential
discovery agreements are not filed with the court. She admitted to she it but wouldn’t give it to me so I could give them
to AT&T. It would be against public policy for me not to provide you with these documents. Vaya doesn’t want NCC
nor your honor to see the full picture.
Vaya filed an unsigned contract between Vaya and o1 communications. Vaya had two customers. o1 Communications
and another company. Once NCC obtained a writ of attachment, Vaya moved that customer to be an o1 customer.
AT&T nor the CPUC were aware of these key facts. They also testified that Vaya and o1 had completely separate
networks. I suspect that was a complete fabrication but I haven’t see the AT&T discovery documents.
Vaya claimed that they knew the jurisdiction of the calls they sent up but I suspect they told the CPUC and AT&T that
they didn’t know them and that is why there was that settlement agreement.

With all due respect, I believe the CPUC should investigate the Robocalls and can can see the evidence below of
conveying assets after claiming the judgment was worth nothing.
If you would like for me to send you transcripts of depositions, discovery answers, and trial transcripts, I can.

NCC was the victim here. Vaya and o1 created a scheme to sell below market rate long distance traffic.
NCC sued o1 communications. We settled it and have a traffic exchange agreement. Then the principals of o1
communications created Vaya to unlawfully get around the agreement. They violate every agreement they sign.
Unfortunately because of the confidential settlement agreement Vaya had with AT&T, no other CLEC or ILEC in
California knows this. They either under billed Vaya believing the calls were local or like NCC, was unable to accurately
go after Vaya because of the AT&T records were unbillable because they didn’t accurately determine the jurisdiction of
the calls.
See attached.

----

From: Dawn Coulson <dcoulson@eppscoulson.com>
Subject: RE: Vaya ‐ North County Communications
Date: August 26, 2022 at 19:06:41 PDT
To: Todd Lesser fm <todd@nccom.com>

Todd – as I suspected, without some basis for such a low number, our client is not inclined to accept a
$50k offer. Would you like to discuss a more reasonable payment for the outstanding judgment, which
appears to be about $1.8m now?

Dawn M. Coulson
EPPS & COULSON, LLP | ATTORNEYS AT LAW
t 213.929.2390 | f 213.929.2394 | direct dial 213.929.2393
dcoulson@eppscoulson.com | www.eppscoulson.com

----

From: Dawn Coulson
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2022 3:28 PM
To: 'Todd Lesser fm' <todd@nccom.com>
Subject: RE: Vaya ‐ North County Communications

Hi Todd:

I’ll check with our client. I know that she’ll inquire of the reason you believe she should accept such a
low amount as compared to the judgment. What shall I say?
Feel free to call my direct dial if you want to discuss it.

Dawn M. Coulson
EPPS & COULSON, LLP | ATTORNEYS AT LAW
t 213.929.2390 | f 213.929.2394 | direct dial 213.929.2393
dcoulson@eppscoulson.com | www.eppscoulson.com

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Todd Lesser fm <todd@nccom.com>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2022 11:40 AM
To: Dawn Coulson <dcoulson@eppscoulson.com>
Subject: Vaya ‐ North County Communications

WARNING: THIS EMAIL IS FROM OUTSIDE OF OUR NETWORK!
Verify the sender before opening any attachments or clicking on any links.

This is an offer of $50,000 to settle the claim. Are you will to accept this?

= Other pages =
The following pages may also be of interest to readers

== Known businesses ==
* [[Todd_Lesser_Businesses|Listing of Todd's known businesses]]
== Known property ==
* [[Todd_Lesser_Property|Known property Todd owns]]
== Other assets ==
* [[Todd_Lesser_Other_Assets|Other known assets Todd owns]]
== Social Media ==
* [[Todd_Lesser_Social_Media|Todd's Social Media Accounts]]

== Email accounts ==
The following are known email accounts of Todd Lesser

<center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 55%"
|+ Todd Lesser's Known Email Accounts
! Email address
! Comments
|-
| todd@nccom.com
| Main email address with North County Communications Corp
|-
| sdtoddl@gmail.com
| Similar to Twitter account username
|-
| todd@lesser.com
|
|-
| km6rpt@allstarlink.net
| ASL email
|-
|}
</center>

=References=
<references />

Todd Lesser Social Media

2023-07-09T17:19:32Z

Admin2: Protected "Todd Lesser Social Media" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))

2023-06-18T06:31:28Z

Admin2: /* New York */

[[Category:Todd Lesser]]
[[Category:AllStarLink, Inc.]]
<div style="float:right">__TOC__</div>

[[File:Todd Lesser argues over flipping a coin.jpg|right|400px|thumb|Todd Lesser argues over flipping a coin<ref name="LAJollaLight />]]
* Updated 12 July, 2022 - Includes information on a default judgement in [[#West Virginia | West Virginia]]
* Updated 11 June, 2023 - Includes information on [[#March 2023 Update |ex parte communications to Administrative Judge Kline in AT&T California v. Vaya Telecom case]]
* Updated 17 June, 2023 - Includes additional court case information
= Preamble =
This information listed here is sourced exclusively from public records at the City, State, and Federal levels. All the information contained herein is factual based upon the information obtained via these public records sources. This information is provided '''''as is''''' from the source documents that are linked in this article.

= Background =
The majority of recent [[AllStarLink,_Inc.|AllStarLink, Inc.]] ("ASL")<ref>[[AllStarLink,_Inc.|AllStarLink, Inc.]]</ref> issues can be traced back to a time when '''Todd Lesser (KM6RPT)'''<ref>https://www.qrz.com/db/KM6RPT</ref> ("Todd") became a member of the Board of Directors. This was right after '''Tim Sawyer (WD6AWP)'''<ref>https://www.qrz.com/db/WD6AWP</ref> ("Tim") left, and '''Bryan Fields (W9CR)'''<ref>https://www.qrz.com/db/W9CR</ref> ("I"/"me") wanted to leave. However, I could not resign as that would leave two people as members of the Board of Directors and caused ASL to be in violation of Florida Statute (FS) 617<ref>http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0600-0699/0617/0617.html</ref>. Todd then joined and I left shortly afterwards. After he assumed the board position, I was surprised at his lack of candor as he immediately began to hold information secret. Shocking as well was the return of Tim Sawyer as a board member. After Tim's resignation due to an unrelated issue which left the board with three members including myself, no argument could be made to have him return.

My view of this is it was orchestrated to remove me from the board and give Todd a means to exploit ASL. Keep in mind we (ASL) hadn't really known Todd prior to this. I was impressed he finally went out and got his tech license after '''Jim Dixon (WB6NIL)(SK)''' ("Jim") passed, but other than him owning a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC)<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_local_exchange_carrier</ref> ("North County Communications Corporation" or "NCC")<ref>https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/CBS/SearchResults?filing=&SearchType=CORP&SearchCriteria=NORTH+COUNTY+COMMUNICATIONS+CORPORATION&SearchSubType=Keyword</ref> no one really knew much about him. As a CLEC owner I thought he'd have a working knowledge of Asterisk and general telecom, but I had to show him how to SSH and configure the WB6NIL repeater ([https://stats.allstarlink.org/stats/2024 Node 2024])<ref>[https://stats.allstarlink.org/stats/2024 Node 2024]</ref> at his office to change it to his callsign.

After Todd became a member of the board, the board itself became very insular and refused to communicate with the ASL Admin Committee <ref>https://wiki.allstarlink.org/index.php?title=Admin_Committee&oldid=4748</ref>. This not only significantly impacted operations but also development and the morale the Admin Committee members in general. Later, '''Pete Elke (WI6H)'''<ref>https://www.qrz.com/db/WI6H</ref> ("Pete") and '''David Shaw (WB6WTM)'''<ref>https://www.qrz.com/db/WB6WTM</ref> ("David") joined the ASL Board of Directors. This resulted in the ASL Board of Directors becoming even more insular and secretive and I believe this was due, in no small part, to Todd's influence and leadership.

When we as a board negotiated to get assignment of the assets from Jim's estate, Todd had a serious concern regarding the other non-app_rpt/asterisk assets on Jim such as the MIPL software and its associated marks. Due to ASL not having any Bylaws other than the Admin Charter, any asset that ASL was in possession of or came into the possession of could be sold or transferred to anyone, as there were no protections against it nor was any asset held in trust or protected from normal sale or transfer. This means that any assets or intellectual property ("IP") transferred to ASL could be disposed in any means by a simple majority vote of the board.

For example:
Any ASL asset could be sold off to a third party far below market value, or transferred. A member of the ASL Board of Directors could have a significant interest or business relationship with this entity, and after the sale/transfer they promptly resign. This third party and former ASL board member would now own the asset/IP that was transferred to it and could sell it for a profit, re-license it (even back to ASL itself), or do other means of monetization. This is basically what happened with the Public Internet Registry ("PIR") which was owned by the Internet Society<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Society#Sale_of_the_Public_Interest_Registry</ref>.

Such actions would be a major conflict of interest and was the reason Jim transferred control of AllStarLink to '''Steve Zingman (N4IRS)'''<ref>https://www.qrz.com/db/N4IRS</ref> ("Steve") who was part of the initial incorporation of AllStarLink, Inc. in an effort to preserve the AllStarLink Network, assets, and ensure its continued operation.

I was always wondering why Todd was "''chomping at the bit''" when it came to ASL assets, and this finally started to make sense in late 2020:

Research showed that in September 2020, Todd Lesser had several lawsuits against him with '''judgements in excess of 2.5 Million Dollars ($2,500,000.00) as well as having property seized in San Diego for conspiring to distribute narcotics'''. Unfortunately, any initial research done on Todd was hampered by the poor access to public records in California vs. what Florida has under the Sunshine Act<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_information_legislation_(Florida)</ref>. There was also some limited information in the Federal Courts under [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACER_(law) PACER].<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACER_(law)</ref>

What was clear is that he had filed bankruptcy at least twice in the last 5 years and been involved in litigation against two major telecom carriers in the Federal courts.

= Case Summary =

It's clear in these cases that NCC engaged in a practice know as "[https://www.fcc.gov/general/traffic-pumping access stimulation]" (a.k.a. traffic pumping)<ref>https://www.fcc.gov/general/traffic-pumping</ref>. In short NCC is a phone company, and as a phone company it is permitted to bill other phone companies for calls to the CLEC's (its) customers. Typically these rates are in the .01 or .02 cents per minute which is the same for all carriers, and known as a "tariff". This tariff can be much higher in certain areas of the US, as is the case typically were phone service is provided by non-Regional Bell Operating Company (RBOC)<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Company</ref> Incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC)<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incumbent_local_exchange_carrier</ref> phone companies, and can be .02-.04 cents per minute. A CLECs operating in these higher tariff areas by service customers make more money. These areas tend to be rural and not populated, thus being more expensive for the CLEC to provide services in.

CLECs operating in these areas and billing the ILECs in excess of a million minutes per month was not unheard of. As can be imagined, this can net a sizeable profit for the CLECs.

Typically, these calls are only permitted to be charged for customer to customer calls, any automated calls or chat lines (typically sexual in nature) are not subjected to these fees. Additionally, they tend to only be a small part of the inbound calls as most legitimate chat lines use an 800 or 900 number and require a customer to pay via credit card for the call. These chat line operators are also separate businesses from the CLEC.

If the sex chat operator can find a less than honorable CLEC, they can enter into a business agreement where calls to the chat line from a local number are "free" to the caller that "exists" in one of these higher tariff areas. The CLEC in turn uses this "access stimulation" to for several million minutes a month to calls in this high tariff area and then bill the RBOC ILEC instead of the customer at this higher rate. The result is the CLEC collecting several million dollars of "profit" per month from the chat line operator providing the "access stimulation" needed.

In all cases below Todd is the owner of NCC and the sex chat line operator HFT, Inc. ("HFT")<ref>[[media:2015-01-23 Joint Statement to FCC regarding discovery Sprint v NCC fcc-60001016009.pdf|Joint Statement to FCC regarding discovery Sprint, Page 4]]</ref>. In the filings we can find HFT never paid NCC for access as a typical customer of a CLEC would. Instead HTF existed only to stimulate calls for NCC in these high tariff areas, who in turn billed the ILEC and pocketed the money collected. This is an arrangement which viewed though the best of intentions would be considered fraudulent.

In the Mid 2000's most carriers began auditing to find this sort of operation via call detail records ("CDR")<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_detail_record</ref> auditing. The use of the Signalling System No 7 ("SS7)<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_System_No._7</ref> interconnect protocol along with modern auditing software sold by the major telecom vendors helped in the cracking down on this fraudulent behavior by CLECs. The use of the SS7 protocol in the US was mandated by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") via a rule the passed in 2011 <ref>https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-11-161A1.pdf</ref>.

Under the laws in the mid 2000's most carriers had to sue or petition the FCC for redress. In some cases they refused to pay the fraudulent bills by the CLEC's and the CLEC would sue the big carrier. This is indeed what NCC did, suing Verizon, Metro PCS, T-Mobile, Sprint and Vaya Telecom for failure to pay their interconnection charges. In all cases these resulted in judgements against NCC and Todd Lesser personally.

= Federal Records =
In PACER We found Todd/NCC sued or counter-sued by Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile and other carriers for billing irregularities related to access stimulation.

== FCC ==
Before the FCC, Sprint, and [[media:2015-01-23 Joint Statement to FCC regarding discovery Sprint v NCC fcc-60001016009.pdf|T-Mobile 2015-01-23 Joint Statement to FCC regarding discovery Sprint v NCC]]<ref>[[media:2015-01-23 Joint Statement to FCC regarding discovery Sprint v NCC fcc-60001016009.pdf|T-Mobile 2015-01-23 Joint Statement to FCC regarding discovery Sprint v NCC]]</ref>

Note: FCC/Court rulings list NCC as NCC in some instances.

'''STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS:'''
<blockquote>
<ol>
<li value="13">All revenues of NCC and HFT are for the benefit of Mr. Lesser.</li>
<li value="17">NCC’s traffic from Sprint is “100 percent chat line traffic.”</li>
<li value="25">In a lawsuit against Vaya Telecom pending in state court in California, Todd Lesser was personally sanctioned '''$92,966.45''' for discovery violations, including violations of court orders to produce financial records involving transactions between NCC and HFT. The discovery referee found he was willfully untruthful under oath during his deposition. </li>
<li value="61">Mr. Lesser testified in the Sprint matter that he created the invoices on a monthly basis in custom software that he wrote himself </li>
<li value="66">After NCC produced the invoices, Verizon obtained an order directing NCC to produce all computer drives it used to create, modify, or manipulate those invoices so that a court-appointed expert could test whether the HFT invoices were, as in Farmers II, backdated. The neutral forensic expert appointed by the District Court examined the two drives Mr. Lesser produced – an Apple iBook G-4 laptop hard drive (“Mac Computer”) and a removable USB flash drive (“Thumb Drive”).64 (Compl. ¶ 102; but see Answer ¶ 115)</li>
<li value="70">Todd Admits to deleting the bash history and log of commands during discovery.</li>
<li value="71">The District Court sanctioned NCC for evidence destruction</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>

== Federal Case Records ==

</center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 100%"
! Media
! Information/Description
|-
| [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxVdxjf_L9Q 14-15115 North County Communications Co v. Qwest Corporation]
| NCC's of summary judgements against them from the Arizona Corporations Commission<ref>[https://www.azcc.gov/ Arizona Corporations Commission]</ref> and the Oregon PUC<ref>[https://www.oregon.gov/puc/Pages/default.aspx Oregon PUC]</ref>
In both these cases, the local regulatory bodies were called by Todd/NCC as NCC was contesting not being paid for calls to NCC "customers". These Customers of NCC are almost 100% sex chat lines. [https://docket.images.azcc.gov/0000182790.pdf In this decision by the ACC]<ref>https://docket.images.azcc.gov/0000182790.pdf</ref> was a summary judgement in favor of Qwest. This is what is being appealed here.

There's some funny things to read in this case, such as NCC insisting to use MF signaling<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-frequency_signaling MF signaling</ref> rather than SS7<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_System_No._7</ref>, and complaining about the cost for a MX2800 M13 mux. These are the sorts of complaints which seem frivolous to anyone in telecommunications

Searching for "North County Communications Corporation" on the [https://edocket.azcc.gov/search/docket-search ACC search page]<ref>[https://edocket.azcc.gov/search/docket-search ACC search page]</ref> will produce many documents showing NCC to be on the losing end of the argument.

On March 5th, 2014 the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, as part of the legal proceedings regarding NCC's use of MF Signaling, and the Interconnection Agreement with Qwest, issued an Opinion and Order on case 3:13-CV-00375-BR<ref>[[media:US District Court - District of Oregon Case 3-13-cv-00375-BR Opinion and Order.pdf|US District Court - District of Oregon Case 3-13-cv-00375-BR-Opinion and Order - North County Communications Corporation of Oregon vs Qwest Corporation, Susan Akerman, John Savage, Stephen Bloom, all in their capacity as Commissioners of the Public Utility Commission of Oregon]]</ref> in which NCC's motion for Summary Judgement against Qwest Corporation and The Oregon Public Utilities Commission was denied and NCC's claim was dismissed with prejudice. The judge instead ruled in favor of both Qwest and the Oregon PUC.

'''Case background:''' In 1997, NCC and Qwest entered into an Interconnection Agreement (ICA), which defined how both parties would connect to each other and conduct business. The ICA was submitted to and approved by multiple State Public Utilities Commissions as the binding document for NCC and Qwest to conduct business in each PUC's jurisdiction. NCC and Qwest amended the 1997 ICA several times between September 1997 and April 2011. In July 2008 NCC received a request for negotiation from Qwest regarding a new ICA pursuant to the 47 U.S.C. § 252(a)<ref>[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/252 47 U.S. Code § 252 - Procedures for negotiation, arbitration, and approval of agreements]</ref> - Part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Qwest sought a new ICA because the 1997 ICA was outdated due to "''technological changes in Qwest's processes and products and NCC's use of multifrequency (MF) (analog) signaling was archaic''". Even though Qwest was willing to accommodate MF signaling for traffic terminating to NCC, Qwest requested the new ICA to include a provision that NCC must use a newer technology called SS7 (digital) signaling if it wished to begin terminating traffic with or through Qwest. NCC contended that Qwest's proposed ICA would force NCC to get rid of its existing network in favor of an "''unnecessary technological update and an untested agreement''". NCC also asserted Qwest was not legally permitted to dictate NCC's technology choices and did not have a valid justification for changing the terms of the then-existing 1997 ICA. One item of particular interest in this is that this case went to arbitration, the Arbitrator's decisions were accepted by the various PUCs as binding regarding the new ICA, and NCC challenged this in court in each of the respective PUCs jurisdictions (in this case Arizona and Oregon) and lost both challenges. NCC contended that Qwest was not allowed to initiate the renegotiation of the ICA under 47 U.S.C. § 252(a)(1), as Qwest was an ILEC, stating that the law only allowed CLECs to initiate the negotiations for ICAs with ILECs.
<blockquote>
Section 252 (a)(1) provides: Upon receiving a request for interconnection, services, or network elements pursuant to section 251 [47 U.S.C. § 251], an incumbent local exchange carrier may
negotiate and enter into a binding agreement with the requesting telecommunications carrier or carriers without regard to the standards set forth in subsections (b) and (c) of section 251 [47 USC
§ 251(b), (c)].
</blockquote>

The court's opinion of NCC's challenge:
<blockquote>
''Arizona''. The district court in ''NCC Arizona'' noted: “[N]o court has directly considered whether the language of sections 252(a)(1) and (b)(1) applies to requests to negotiate made by ILECs to CLECs.” ''Id.'', at *2. Accordingly, the ''NCC Arizona'' court analyzed the language of the Act to ascertain Congress’s intent to determine whether to adopt NCC’s interpretation of the statute. After doing so, the court found: “Any interpretation of sections 252(a)(1) and (b)(1) must be consistent with these two basic objectives of the Act: encouraging competition through the good faith negotiation of ICAs by ILECs and CLECs, and placing state commission in the central role of mediating, arbitrating, and approving ICAs.” ''Id.'', at *5. Accordingly, the court concluded “North County's strict reading of sections 252(a)(1) and (b)(1) would be inconsistent with these objectives,” and “the most reasonable construction is that [S]ection 252 applies to any negotiation of an ICA between an ILEC and CLEC, regardless of which party initiates the discussions. Such a reading avoids an interpretation that defeats major purposes of the Act and that places ILECs in the untenable position of having to terminate existing ICAs rather than requesting to renegotiate them. It also preserves for state commissions the critical mediation, arbitration, and approval roles intended by Congress.” ''Id''., at *5-6.
</blockquote>

The court ruled that it agreed with the district court in ''NCC Arizona'' that § 252(a)(1) does not prohibit an ILEC from requesting interconnection with a CLEC (meaning that Qwest was allowed to initiate the renegotiation of the 1997 ICA with NCC). The Court concludes, therefore, that Qwest was permitted to request arbitration and the Commission had the authority to arbitrate the parties’ 2011 ICA. Accordingly, the Court declines NCC's motion to declare the 2011 ICA ''void ab initio'' (void from the beginning).
|-
| [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uycO9mx9VTo 15-56678 North County Communications v. Sprint Communications Co.]
| NCC's appeal following a week long trial against Sprint Communications. This is worth watching, as NCC has been found to be overcharging sprint for calls to it's sex chat line customers.

At [https://youtu.be/uycO9mx9VTo?t=1416 about 24 minutes into this]<ref>https://youtu.be/uycO9mx9VTo?t=1416</ref> the Judge questions the attorney of Sprint who explains to the court "there weren't any proper charges (from NCC to Sprint)" and "Because if NCC didn't exist HFT wouldn't exist, and we wouldn't have this traffic pumping and access stimulation, calls to adult chat lines, they just wouldn't have existed" "this business practice is built on a relationship between telephone company (CLEC/NCC) and chat line company (HFT) in which they have to be business partners for this to work. Cuz telephone company bills the long distance company (SPRINT), and they split the profits to fund the venture, and the problem is where you're doing business together you're not a common carrier's customer!"<ref>https://youtu.be/uycO9mx9VTo?t=1465</ref>
|-
| [[file:2014-12-17 FCC Sprint v NCC Exhibts to discovery from ncc FCC - 60001010080.pdf|thumb|left|page=11|300px|FCC Sprint vs NCC Exhibits]]
| HFT chat line ad showing local number
|-
|}
</center>

<center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 85%"
|+ Federal Case Record Documents
! Document
! Information/Description
|-
| [[media:2013-01-28_NCC_vs_VZW_and_Sprint_ORDER_GRANTING_IN_PART_AND_DENYING_IN_PART_MOTION_TO_DISMISS_THIRD_AMENDED_COUNTERCLAIM_(Counts_II%2C_III%2C_IV%2C_%26_VI)_AND_DENYING_MOTION_FOR_LEAVE_TO_AMEND_THE_COMPLAINT_WITHOUT_PREJUDICE_08-CV-1518-CAB_%26_0.pdf|NCC_vs_VZW_and_Sprint_ORDER]]
|
|-
| [[media:2014-12-17 FCC Sprint v NCC Exhibts to discovery from ncc FCC - 60001010080.pdf|FCC Sprint v NCC Exhibts to discovery from ncc]]
|
|-
| [[media:2015-01-23 Joint Statement to FCC regarding discovery Sprint v NCC fcc-60001016009.pdf|Joint Statement to FCC regarding discovery Sprint v NCC]]
|
|-
| [[media:2015-04-02 NCC Filing to FCC for Sprint Case 60001042236.pdf|NCC Filing to FCC for Sprint Case]]
|
|-
| [[media:2007-09-07 Letter to the FCC comminioner regarding NCC 6519722812.pdf]]
|
|-
| [[media:2009-03-30 FCC opinion and order NCC v. MetroPCS DA-09-719A1.pdf]]
|
|-
| [[media:2009-04-09 NCC v VZ counter claim 08 CV 1518 BEN.pdf]]
|
|-
| [[media:2009-11-19 FCC Review on order NCC v MetroPCS FCC-09-100A1_Rcd-1.pdf]]
|
|-
| [[media:2010-09-03 NCC vs VZW motion for protective order 08-CV-1518 BEN.pdf]]
|
|-
| [[media:2010-12-06 VZW to FCC re 07-135 about NCC 7020922335.pdf]]
|
|-
| [[media:2013-01-28_NCC_vs_VZW_and_Sprint_ORDER_GRANTING_IN_PART_AND_DENYING_IN_PART_MOTION_TO_DISMISS_THIRD_AMENDED_COUNTERCLAIM_(Counts_II,_III,_IV,_%26_VI)_AND_DENYING_MOTION_FOR_LEAVE_TO_AMEND_THE_COMPLAINT_WITHOUT_PREJUDICE_08-CV-1518-CAB_%26_0.pdf|NCC vs VZW and Sprint dismissive order ]]
|
|-
| [[media:2020-10-27 NCC v VZW Diss with Prejudice 08-cv-01518-CAB.pdf]]
|
|-
| [[media:DA-16-1081A1.pdf| FCC Order in the matter of NCC v. Cricket Communications, Inc.,]]
|
|-
|}
</center>
<blockquote>
NCC files a complaint with the FCC seeking to make Cricket allow it's customers to call 900 numbers which Cricket doesn't allow for any of it's customers. '''NCC's complaint is DISMISSED.'''
</blockquote>
=== United States Supreme Court ===
<center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 85%"
! Document
! Information/Description
|-
| [[media:Search - Supreme Court of the United States - Docket 10-257.pdf|Supreme Court of the United States - No 10-257 - North County Communications Corp vs California Catalog and Technology dba CTT Telecomms, petition for write of certiorari from June 22, 2010 to August 20, 2010, submitted to Justice Kennedy. Petition was DENIED.]]<ref>https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/10-257.htm</ref>
| Petition regarding Case No 08-55048 from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. '''''Writs of Certiorari'''''<ref>https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/writ_of_certiorari</ref>: Parties who are not satisfied with the decision of a lower court must petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case.<ref>https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1</ref>
|-
|}
</center>

= Bankruptcy Court =

Todd has filed bankruptcy a couple times that can be found in PACER. What is interesting is these were filed pro-se<ref>https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/pro_se</ref>, for oneself, on one's own behalf. In both cases the case was dismissed for failure to properly file all the required documents.

Upon review of the records from San Diego County, it was found both these filings aligned with foreclosure proceedings on his residence or business. This is a well known tactic, as a bankruptcy filing will pause all foreclosure actions giving time to the debtor, and encouraging the holder of the loan to settle. In both cases Todd was able to re-mortgage or finance his residence, and then have the court dismiss the case. In the second time in 2019 he entered into a trust agreement with his father loaning him over 1,000,000 dollars.

<center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 85%"
|+ Bankruptcy filings
! Case Number
! Filing Date
! Status
! Discharge Date
! Chapter
! Disposition
! Court
|-
| 1903194
| 05/31/2019
| Voluntary
| 06/18/2019
| 13
| Dismissed
| California Southern - San Diego
|-
| [[media:2018-06-18 Lesser Bankruptcy 18-03554-CL13 1-2.pdf|1803554]]
| 06/13/2018
| Voluntary
| 06/28/2018
| 13
| Dismissed
| California Southern - San Diego
|}
</center>

<center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 100%"
|+ Other information
! Date
! Item
! Comment
|-
| Feb 22, 2018
| Todd Lesser's residence has a [[media:2018-0068778.pdf|foreclosure notice]] on it for failure to pay $32,944.76.
| Note that Todd still [[media:2018-0160972.pdf|owes Yvonne Smith the $400,000.00]] on the property as well.
|-
| March 23, 2018
| Todd Lesser's residence has the debt paid off to the same bank for $575,000.00. [[media:2018-06-18 Lesser Bankruptcy 18-03554-CL13 1-2.pdf|Then he files bankruptcy]] and Wells Fargo bank requests [[media:2019-06-07 Lesser Bankrupacy 2019 Wells Fargo Filing 036118742102.pdf|a special hearing]].
| This of course stays any foreclosure action on his home or collection actions against him by other creditors.
|-
|}
</center>

= Judgements and Liens =

The following judgements and liens were found.

<center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 85%"
|+ Judgements and Liens
! Filing Date
! TMS ID
! Jurisdiction
! Debtors - Name
! Debtors - Address
|-
| 12/01/2016
| CA00167559272014
| CA
| Todd Leonard Lesser
| 4008 Taylor St, San Diego, CA 92110
|-
| 03/24/2015
| CA00157456254594
| CA
| Todd Lesser
| 2717 Hidden Valley Rd, La Jolla, CA 92037
|}
</center>

= Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Filings =
The following are the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC")<ref>https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/what-is-a-ucc-filing</ref> filings that were found.

<blockquote>
There are several types of UCCs. The most basic and well known is the UCC-1. Essentially, a UCC-1 can be described as a financing statement. In fact, it is sometimes called a UCC financing statement. A creditor files a UCC-1 to provide notice to interested parties that he or she has a security interest in a debtor’s personal property. This personal property is being used as collateral in some type of secured transaction, usually a loan or a lease.
</blockquote>

'''''UCC filings are better known as liens made against someone's property due to a debt that was incurred.'''''

<center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 85%"
|+ UCC Filings<ref name="CA UCC Filing Search>https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/ucc</ref>
! Filing Date
! Filing Number
! Filing Type
! State
! TMS ID
! Debtors - Name
! Debtors - Address
! Secured Party Info
|-
| 12/01/2016
| 167559272014
| Judgement Lien
| CA
| CA167559272014
| Todd Leonard Lesser
| 4008 Taylor St, San Diego, CA 92110
| WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - EL MONTE, CA
|-
| 03/24/2015
| 157456254594
| Judgement Lien
| CA
| CA00157456254594
| Todd Lesser
| 2717 Hidden Valley Rd, La Jolla, CA 92037
| VAYA TELECOM, INC. - EL DORADO HILLS, CA
|-
| 05/26/2009
| 097197693213
| Financing Statement
| CA
| CA097197693213
| Todd Leonard Lesser
| 4008 Taylor St, San Diego, CA 92110
| WESBANCO BANK, INC. - CHARLESTON, WV
|-
| 11/19/2004
| 200400595668
| <None Specified>
| WV
| DNB20040059566820041119
| Todd Lesser
| 2717 Hidden Valley Rd, La Jolla, CA 92037
| <Not available>
|-
| 11/19/2004
| 200400595670
| <None Specified>
| WV
| DNB20040059567020041119
| Todd Lesser
| 2717 Hidden Valley Rd, La Jolla, CA 92037
| <Not available>
|-
| 08/02/2004
| 0421760552
| Financing Statement
| CA
| CA0421760552
| Todd Leonard Lesser
| 2717 Hidden Valley Rd, La Jolla, CA 92037
| <Not available>
|-
|}
</center>

= San Diego County =
Our search in San Diego produced the following.

Of the most interesting was his judgements from NCC vs. Vaya Telecom. This case was essentially the same as the federal actions on access stimulation and took years to bring to trial/appeal/final judgement. Now the final judgments are done and the court has held NCC, HFT and Todd personally and jointly liable

* 2019-03-22 - [[media:2019-0103084.pdf|'''$92,966.45''' sanction on Todd Lesser personally for shenanigans during discovery]].
<blockquote>
The Discovery Referee held that NCC, Todd Lesser, HFT Inc and Jartel, Inc. failed to comply with the courts discovery orders. This wasting of court and attorney time was assigned to Todd personally.<ref>[[media:2020-0778570.pdf| Exhibit B, page 11-24]]</ref>
</blockquote>
* 2020-06-06 - [[media:2020-0004461.pdf|'''$597,474.38''' judgment against Todd Lesser and his companies.]]
* 2020-12-02 - [[media:2020-0771029.pdf|'''$1,357,154.27''' judgment against Todd Lesser and his companies.]]

Other outstanding debts Todd has:

* 2017-04 44025 [[media:2017-0444025.pdf|'''$136,727.96''' - Bank of America judgement]]
* 2017-04 41050 [[media:2017-0441050.pdf|'''$6,088.86''' - Discover Card Bank]]

== Narcotics Forfeiture ==
Todd has been sanctioned twice by the City of San Diego for operating an unlicensed narcotics distribution site on his property. This is the same property address he has listed on his FCC Amateur Radio License <ref>https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=4013923</ref>.

4008 Taylor St LLC <ref>https://casetext.com/case/city-of-san-diego-v-4008-taylor-st-llc</ref><ref>https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/nr171101a1.pdf</ref>
[[media:2018-0126301.pdf|2018-0126301.pdf - this is the second time around]]

[[media:2017-0214411.pdf|2017-0214411.pdf]] - Narcotics forfeiture action against Todd Lesser by city of San Diego
<blockquote>
In this case, Todd Lesser was held personally responsible for '''$200,000.00''' dollars for willfully defying a temporary injunction by the court. This was the second such business he allowed to operate at this location involved in illegal narcotics distribution.
</blockquote>

[[File:2017-11-01 City of San Diego Press Release nr171101a1.pdf|thumb|center|300px|$200,000 Pot Shop Judgment Affirmed by Appeal court]]

Criminal case M234214-06 and M219385-05 are showing with the courts relating to this.

== Property Foreclosures ==
Multiple times in the past 5 years Todd's residence at 2717 Hidden Valley Rd. La Jolla, CA 92037 has gone into for failure to pay the mortgage as agreed.

Todd has previously used his residence in such a fashion with a private note from a Yvonne Smith in April 2018 of $400,000.00 Dollars. 2018-0160972.pdf

In December 2019 [[media:2019-0585335.pdf|Todd has borrowed '''$1,043,440.00''' on this property from his father]]. This coincided with Todd's bankruptcy and Lis Pendens (suit pending)<ref>https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lis_pendens</ref><ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis_pendens</ref> from his mortgage holder. It remains to be seen if he is paying his father as agreed under this trust<ref>[[media:2019-0585335.pdf|Trust of father]]</ref>

== Filing False Lis Pendens ==
In 2006 Todd made an offer to purchase a property from John Raymond, Managing Member of Surfstone, LLC. This offer expired and Todd preceded as if it was signed and agreed too. Todd then filed a [[media:2006-0064799.pdf|lis pendens]] on the property and the property owner sued to have it revoked by the court.

[[media:2006-0378821.pdf|The court held this was not a proper lis pendens]] and sanctioned Todd and dismissed the action by him.

== Other San Diego Records ==

<center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center; width: 95%"
|+ Other San Diego Records
! style="width: 170px;" | Document
! style="text-align: left; width: 250px" | Description
! style="width: 170px;" | Document
! style="text-align: left; width: 250px" | Description
|-
| [[file:2004-0709866.pdf|120px|-]]
| Assignment of Rents to La Jolla Bank
| [[file:2005-0853093.pdf|120px|-]]
| Reconveyance of a Deed from Todd Lesser
|-
| [[file:2006-0064799.pdf|120px|-]]
| Todd Lesser Lis Pendency upon a property he does not have legal right to
| [[file:2006-0356362.pdf|120px|-]]
| Quit Claim Deed from Todd and James Gottlieb to 3940 Gresham Street LLC
|-
| [[file:2006-0356363.pdf|120px|-]]
| Another Quit Claim Deed from Todd and James Gottlieb to 3940 Gresham Street LLC
| [[file:2006-0356364.pdf|120px|-]]
| Quit Claim Deed from Todd and James Gottlieb to 2405 Juan Street LLC
|-
| [[file:2006-0378821.pdf|120px|-]]
| Order to Exponge Lis Pendens that was filed by Todd Lesser against a property he didn't have a legal right to
| [[file:2007-0573442.pdf|120px|-]]
| COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 237655
|-
| [[file:2007-0652240.pdf|120px|-]]
| La Jolla Bank FINANCING STATEMENT TERMINATION
| [[file:2007-0662459.pdf|120px|-]]
| La Jolla Bank Reconveyance
|-
| [[file:2008-0422095.pdf|120px|-]]
| Agreement between San Diego and Todd Lesser
| [[file:2008-0422096.pdf|120px|-]]
| Agreement between San Diego and Todd Lesser
|-
| [[file:2010-0078651.pdf|120px|-]]
| Reconveyance of 2405 Juan St. San Diego 92110
| [[file:2016-0320410.pdf|120px|-]]
| Notice of Default to Todd Lesser from PNC Bank
|-
| [[file:2016-0400040.pdf|120px|-]]
| Notice of Rescission of Default
| [[file:2017-0214411.pdf|120px|-]]
| Asset Forfeiture notice under the Narcotic Asset Forfeiture Law
|-
| [[file:2017-0441050.pdf|120px|-]]
| Discover Bank Judgement against Todd Lesser
| [[file:2017-0444025.pdf|120px|-]]
| Judgement against Todd Lesser by Bank Of America - '''$136,727.96'''
|-
| [[file:2018-0068778.pdf|120px|-]]
| Notice of Default on 2717 Hidden Valley Road
| [[file:2018-0126301.pdf|120px|-]]
| Judgement against Todd Lesser by the City of San Diego - '''200,000.00 For narcotics law violations'''
|-
| [[file:2018-0133780.pdf|120px|-]]
| Notice of recording
| [[file:2018-0136266.pdf|120px|-]]
| Notice of recording of default
|-
| [[file:2018-0136267.pdf|120px|-]]
| Notice of recording of default
| [[file:2018-0160972.pdf|120px|-]]
| Deed of trust (private mortgage) between Yvonne Smith and Todd Lesser]
|-
| [[file:2018-0280164.pdf|120px|-]]
| Reconveyance of other property
| [[file:2018-0298600.pdf|120px|-]]
| Judgement of San Diego against Todd Lesser and 4008 Taylor Street, LLC - $12,500.00
|-
| [[file:2018-0309183.pdf|120px|-]]
| Assignment of deed of trust of 3940 Gresham Street, San Diego, CA 92109
| [[file:2018-0437984.pdf|120px|-]]
| Notice of default to Todd Lesser on 2717 Hidden Valley Road
|-
| [[file:2018-0487311.pdf|120px|-]]
| Notice of default and election to sell 2717 Hidden Valley Road
| [[file:2019-0054895.pdf|120px|-]]
| Reconveyance of 3940 GRESHAM STREET #132, SAN DIEGO, CA 92109
|-
| [[file:2019-0073485.pdf|120px|-]]
| Reconveyance from DSL Service Corporation
| [[file:2019-0096079.pdf|120px|-]]
| Recession of default and election to sell
|-
| [[file:2019-0103084.pdf|120px|-]]
| Judgment of 92,966.45 against Todd Lesser
| [[file:2019-0132536.pdf|120px|-]]
| License agreement of Todd and Nanette Lesser for access to 2767 Hidden Valley Road
|-
| [[file:2019-0585335.pdf|120px|-]]
| Trust where Todd Lesser is loaned $1,043,440 by his father
| [[file:2020-0004461.pdf|120px|-]]
| Judgment of Vaya telecom, Inc against Todd Lesser
|-
| [[file:2020-0771029.pdf|120px|-]]
| Judgment of Vaya telecom, Inc against Todd Lesser
| [[file:2020-0778570.pdf|120px|-]]
| Second Judgment of Vaya telecom, Inc against Todd Lesser. This document goes into great detail in exhibit B finding Todd Lesser misused and abused the discovery process. Pages 13-24 cover this.
|-
|}
</center>

= West Virginia =
Our search in West Virginia produced the following.

* 2020-03-30 - A Motion/Application/Petition for a Default Judgement in the Southern District Court of West Virginia, Charleston Division was made. WesBanco Bank, Inc. filed on November 20, 2019 an instant action for monetary judgement on the outstanding deficiency balance owed on a loan made by WesBanco to Todd Lesser. "On February 18, 2020, the Defendant was properly served in La Jolla, California by substitute service at his primary residence by a private investigator hired by WesBanco, Mr. Gregory Long."<ref>[[media:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 8 - Motion-Application-Petition for Entry of Default.pdf|Case 2-19-cv-00821 - Document #8]]</ref>

* 2020-03-31 - An order on Motion/Application/Petition for Entry of Default Judgement was issued.<ref>[[media:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 9 - Order on Motion-Application-Petition for Entry of Default.pdf|Case 2-19-cv-00821 - Document #9]]</ref>

* 2020-04-15 - A Motion/Application/Petition for Default Judgement was filed by WesBanco. It is noted that "On multiple occasions, prior to service, the Defendant evaded WesBanco’s attempts at effectuating service of process on him." The Investigator's Affidavit of Service is included as supporting documentation and details the attempts at effectuating service and Todd Lesser's evasion. (See Investigator's Report below for details).<ref name="Document13">[[media:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 13 - Motion-Application-Petition for Default Judgement.pdf|Case 2-19-cv-00821 - Document #13]]</ref>

* 2020-05-22 - An order on the Motion/Application/Petition for Default Judgement was issued.<ref>[[media:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 15 - Order on Motion-Applcation-Petition for Default Judgement.pdf|Case 2-19-cv-00821 - Document #15]]</ref>
<blockquote>
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff WesBanco Bank Inc.’s Motion for Default Judgment (Document 13)<ref name="Document13" /> and the attached exhibits, filed on April 15, 2020. The motion and affidavits set forth the amount due and state that the Defendant is not an infant or incompetent.

The Plaintiff served the Defendant, Todd Lesser, by leaving the summons with Andrea Lesser at their residence on February 18, 2020. The investigator used to effectuate service indicates that Mr. Lesser evaded multiple prior attempts at service. No responsive pleading was filed, and the Clerk entered default on March 31, 2020, at the Court’s direction. Both the Court’s order directing entry of default (Document 10) and the Entry of Default by Clerk (Document 11) were sent to the Defendant by certified mail. The Court’s order was returned as undeliverable. A return receipt card for the Clerk’s entry of default indicates that it was left with an individual on April 10, 2020. To date, the Defendant has not filed a response to the lawsuit or the entry of default.

The Plaintiff, WesBanco, alleges that Mr. Lesser applied for and received a loan to finance an office building in Charleston, West Virginia. The loan was secured by the office building. The Plaintiff alleges that it foreclosed, and the payoff balance was $328,954.20 at the time of the foreclosure sale. There was a deficiency balance of $128,756.55 after the property sold for $242,000, less sale expenses of $28,823.51.

In its motion for default judgment, after accounting for interest, WesBanco seeks $136,983.69 for the deficiency balance of the loan, plus legal fees and costs of $5,755.00 and interest accruing at a daily rate of $11.90 from March 31, 2020. The terms of the promissory note, details of the sale, and amount of attorney’s costs and fees are confirmed by the attached exhibits and affidavits.

After careful consideration, the Court finds that the amount of damages, as computed, is a sum certain pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff Wesbanco Bank Inc.’s Motion for Default Judgment (Document 13) be GRANTED and that default judgment be entered against the Defendant, Todd Lesser, in the amount of $142,738.69, plus interest of $11.90 per day accruing from March 31, 2020.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to counsel of record and to any unrepresented party.
</blockquote>

<center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center; width: 95%"
|+ Case 2:19-cv-00821 - US District Court, Charleston, West Virginia
! style="width: 170px;" | Document
! style="text-align: left; width: 250px" | Description
! style="width: 170px;" | Document
! style="text-align: left; width: 250px" | Description
|-
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 1 - Complaint.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 1 - Complaint
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 2 - Proposed Summons Submitted.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 2 - Proposed Summons
|-
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 3 - Electronic Summons Issued.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 3 - Electronic Summons Issued
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 4 - Judge Berger Administrative Order for Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 4 - Judge Berger Administrative Order for Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn
|-
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 5 - Order.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 5 - Order
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 6 - Response to Order.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 6 - Response to Order
|-
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 7 - Summons Executed by Personal Service.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 7 - Summons Executed by Personal Service
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 8 - Motion-Application-Petition for Entry of Default.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 8 - Motion-Application-Petition for Entry of Default
|-
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 9 - Order on Motion-Application-Petition for Entry of Default.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 9 - Order on Motion-Application-Petition for Entry of Default
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 10 and 11 - Transmitted Certified Copy.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 10 and 11 - Transmitted Certified Copy
|-
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 12 - Return Receipt Card.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 12 - Return Receipt Card
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 13 - Motion-Application-Petition for Default Judgement.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 13 - Motion-Application-Petition for Default Judgement
|-
| NOT AVAILABLE
| 14 - NOT AVAILABLE
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 15 - Order on Motion-Applcation-Petition for Default Judgement.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 15 - Order on Motion-Applcation-Petition for Default Judgement
|-
| NOT AVAILABLE
| 16 - NOT AVAILABLE
| [[File:Case 2-19-cv-00821 - 17 - Order.pdf|120px|Todd Lesser Default Judgement, US District Court, Charleston, West VirginiaCase 2:19-cv-00821]]
| 17 - Order
|}
</center>

== Investigator's Report ==
The following notable items were taken from the investigator's Affadavit of Service when attempting to locate and personally serve Todd Lesser on behalf of WesBanco Bank, Inc. <ref>[https://wiki.w9cr.net/index.php?title=File:Case_2-19-cv-00821_-_13_-_Motion-Application-Petition_for_Default_Judgement.pdf&page=22 Affadavit of Service]</ref>

* I attempted to locate and serve the Defendant at the office space owned by him located at 4008 Taylor Street #201, San Diego, CA 92110. However, the office space was all locked up with no tenants.

* After investigating the various properties owned by the Defendant, I determined that the best opportunity for a successful service of process was at the Defendant's home residence located at 2717 Hidden Valley Road, La Jolla, California 92037-4028 (the "Residence").

* I visited the Residence on multiple occasions and attempted to service by knocking on the front door. Although I could hear noise coming from the Residence, nobody ever came to answer my knocking other than the Defendant's dog.

* On Sunday, January 13, 2020, I was parked at the end of the Defendant's driveway and observed who I believed to be the Defendant's spouse taking the trash out. She is a white female with long blond hair, in her mid-thirties, an a height and weight of approximately five feet six and one hundred thirty-five pounds. I exited my vehicle and attempted to serve her. However, as soon as she noticed me, she quickly made her way back up the driveway to the Residence. By the time I reached the top of the Defendant's driveway she was already back inside the Residence and nobody answered my subsequent knocking on the front door.

* On Sunday, February 9, 2020, I conducted a stakeout in hopes that I would effectuate service on the Defendant or his spouse while they took the trash out. My stakeout was unsuccessful as I saw neither the Defendant nor his spouse.

* I returned to the Residence the following morning, Monday, February 10, 2020. At approximately 7:55 a.m., a grey BMW departed from the Defendant's driveway. I followed the BMW in my vehicle, the BMW sped away and deliberately took a detour to disallow me to meet it in a crowded intersection where I could jump out of my vehicle and place the service paper's on the BMW's windshield.

* Following this unsuccessful attempt, I ran the BMW's license plate and confirmed that the vehicle was registered to the Defendant' spouse, Andrea Lesser.

* On Tuesday, February 18, 2020, I arrived at the Residence for another stakeout. At approximately 6:30 a.m. I parked my vehicle a safe distance away from the Residence to avoid detection. I exited my vehicle and walked to the end of the Defendant's driveway and sat on a chair and waited for any sign of the Defendant or his spouse.

* At approximately 8:01 a.m., the Defendant's spouse drove down the driveway in her vehicle. I verbally informed her that she'd been served as soon as she drove by. A photograph of the Defendant's spouse's vehicle driving past me at 8:01 a.m. on February 18, 2022 is attached as Exhibit A.

* I then proceeded up the Defendant's driveway and left a copy of the Complaint and Summons at the Residence's front door. A photograph of the service papers as I left from on the Residence's front door is attached as Exhibit B.

* Prior to successfully serving the Complaint upon the Defendant's spouse, the Defendant and/or spouse evaded my attempts at service on multiple occasions.

= New York =
In 2002, NCC filed suit against Verizon New York (VNY), Verizon Services Corporation (Verizon), and what is listed as DOES 1 through 100. The suit was originally brought by NCC in New York State court. Verizon filed a notice to remove the action to federal district court, and NCC moved to remand it back to state court. The following are excepts from United States District Court, Northern District New York Case 1:02-cv-01065-DNH-RFT, MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER<ref>[[media:Case 1-02-cv-01065-DNH-RFT - Doc 24 - Order.pdf|North County Communications v Verizon New York Inc; Verizon Services Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100]]</ref> regarding the case and both parties actions.

NCC alleged in their complaint:
* On March 14, 2001, NCC as a CLEC, notified Verizon of its intent to interconnect with Verizon networks in New York State. VNY is an ILEC. NCC claims that in the six months following, Verizon "deliberately dragged [its] feet and put up obstacles and roadblocks to keep [North County] out of the local telecommunications market in New York, all for the purpose of maintaining [VNY's] grip on the local telephone market, depriving consumers maximum choice with their telecommunications dollars and damaging [North County] in the process"
* NCC claimed that the Verizon account manager assigned "stonewall[ed] the interconnection process by making unreasonable, onerous and unnecessary demands upon [North County]".
** Among the demands made was the alleged interconnection prerequisite that a "dedicated" facility be built. NCC contends that VNY, as in ILEC, controls facilities throughout the New York telecommunications market, stating that he funding necessary to build these facilities was provided in part by VNY's ratepayers and those of it predecessors, New York Telephone and Bell Atlantic.
* NCC was unable to procure funding for the construction of new facilities, and instead requested interconnection at two separate Verizon facilities in New York. NCC claimed that Verizon refused the request, despite the technical capabilities to grant it, and despite allowing other affiliates or parties to share the facilities. Instead Verizon restated the requirements to build new facilities and refused to hold further meetings with NCC until the construction of the new facilities was complete.
* NCC stated that Verizon acted in a way to continue maintaining "monopolistic power over the New York City telecommunications market" including:
** repeatedly lost orders and signature pages
** ignored [North County's] request to opt into an exiting interconnections [sic] agreement between [VNY] and another CLEC; as was North County's right
** insisted on installing equipment on unnecessary additional racks at the location where [North County] was subleasing space, despite the absence of any technical reason to impose such a requirement, and needlessly raising the cost of doing business for [North County]
** refused to allow [North County] to order interconnection trunks, thus preventing [North County] from being able to order prefixes
** refused to build trunks in as timely a fashion as with other service offerings, and as if [North County] were a retail customer
** demanded that [North County] provide the defendants with information which [North County] was unable to provide because the information resided in the defendants' sole possession, and then delayed the interconnection process further when [North County] was unable to provide the information demanded
** demanded that information which [North County] had already submitted to be resubmitted in a different format
** failed to treat [North County] as well as if [it] were a [VNY] retail customer or an affiliate of the defendants; and
** refused to use a shared mux for wholesale services, despite the technical feasibility of doing so

Additionally, NCC claimed that Verizon engaged in anti-competitive and monopolistic activities in violation of the Donnelly Act, N.Y. Gen Bus L § 340. And NCC claimed that Verizon had a duty, under Article 5, Section 91 of the New York Public Service Law, "''to provide and furnish instrumentalities and facilities that were adequate, just and reasonable, and to refrain from making unreasonable or unjust charges for services rendered.''" NCC also claimed that Verizon was making charges and demands that were greater than those made of other similar corporations, and that "Verizon subjected North County unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage".

The District Court ruled that Verizon's motion to move the case from state to federal court was unwarranted under existing case law, and that "North County's Complaint is Well-Pleaded" with regards to keeping the case in state jurisdiction. The District Court ruled:
<blockquote>
The plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint alleges only state law claims. Such claims are neither artfully pleaded or completely preempted by federal law. The interconnection agreement itself, if in fact it does control, does not mandate that federal claims be asserted in federal court. No subject matter jurisdiction exists. This case must be remanded to the Supreme Court of New York. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff North County Communications Corporation's motion to remanded is GRANTED; and 2. The case is remanded back to the Supreme Court of New York, County of Albany."
</blockquote>

The Supreme Court of New York, County of Albany reviewed the case and granted the defendant's motion that it be moved from Albany County to New York County (Manhattan).

The Supreme Court of New York, New York County reviewed the case (401925-03)<ref>[[media:401925-03-001 PDF.pdf|North County Communications Corporation -against- Verizon New York Inc, Verizon Services Corporation, and DOES 1 THROUGH 100. - Index No 401925/03. P.C.No 18455]]</ref>, the court examined the claims from both sides, and ruled that:
* NCC's allegations under the Donnelly Act and Public service Law, both State claims, are independent of any interconnection agreement, and that NCC's complaint is regarding Verizon's conduct.
* NCC's claim under the Donnelly Act: "''the complaint does not allege concerted action in support of a conspiracy, or a reciprocal relationship between two or more entities. Rather, NCC's allegations are directed towards Verizon's alleged unilateral actions and delay tactics. The failure to identify a coconspirator cannot be remedied 'by asserting, in conclusory fashion, the existence of a generalized conspiracy arising our of defendants' various contracts and arrangements or by referring to uniliateral business action taken by them' and NCC's failure 'to allege that the defendant engaged in concerted activity requires dismissal'''". The court also stated that "''sister subsidiary corporations which are wholly owned by the same parent corporation are legally incapable of conspiring with each other''". It was also noted that NCC's failure to state the names of the "''numerous Doe defendants''" led to the dismissal of the Donnelly Act claim for lack of sufficient evidence.
* NCC's Public Service Law claim, mainly that "''sections 91 and 93 of the Public Service law should be interpreted broadly''" was dismissed.

<blockquote>
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to dismiss is granted and the complaint is dismissed, without prejudice as indicated, with costs and disbursements to defendant as taxed by the Clerk of the Court; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to enter judgement accordingly.
</blockquote>

= Local Politics=
Todd seems to desire involvement in the politics of his city in any form. He's served and resigned from a couple minor city boards with limited powers. In several cases he's protested the election or findings of the board when such actions have gone against his positions or interests.

== La Jolla ==

=== La Jolla Traffic and Transportation Board ===
[[File:LaJollaT&T.jpg|thumb|right|Todd Lesser rambling on at the podium in front of a mostly empty meeting venue]]

La Jolla Community Planning Association<ref>https://lajollacpa.org/about/committees-boards/</ref>
<blockquote>
<center>La Jolla Traffic & Transportation Board (T&T)</center>
T&T considers all proposals affecting La Jolla’s streets (striping, stop signs, traffic calming) and parking (curb colors, time limits, valet). Also hears special events that require traffic control or affect on-street parking. Recommendations are forwarded to the LJCPA for ratification and then sent to the City of San Diego for implementation. The Board is comprised of two appointed members each from the LJCPA, the La Jolla Town Council, the La Jolla Shores Association, La Jolla Village Merchants Association, and the Bird Rock Community Council. Meetings are always open to the public and are held on the 3rd Wednesday of every month, at 4:00 p.m. at the La Jolla Recreation Center, 615 Prospect Street.
</blockquote>

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 100%"
! Title
! Link
! Description
|-
| La Jolla Town Council Inaugural La Jolla State of Address
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnmO2oYJYaM
| Todd Lesser, President of the La Jolla Traffic and Transportation Board
|}

=== La Jolla Shores Association ===
La Jolla Shores Association ("LJSA")<ref>https://lajollashoresassociation.org/</ref>

<blockquote>
One of the most popular destinations in Southern California, La Jolla Shores has an effective and active citizen based forum for matters concerning the community and area of La Jolla Shores. For almost 60 years, the La Jolla Shores Association (LJSA) has been guiding, advising and leading the discussions with the San Diego City Council, Parks and Recreation, UCSD and other governmental agencies concerning quality of life issues year round.
</blockquote>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 100%"
! Title
! Link
! Description
|-
| Tempera Flare over officer election At La Jolla Shores Association
| http://www.sdnews.com/view/full_story/22368481/article-Tempers-flare-over-officer-election-at-LJSA<ref name="SDNEWS-LJSA"> http://www.sdnews.com/view/full_story/22368481/article-Tempers-flare-over-officer-election-at-LJSA</ref>
| La Jolla Shores Association (LJSA) held a special meeting ahead of its regular monthly meeting May 13, to answer questions about how its March election was conducted
|-
| San Diego, La Jolla Shores Association Address Election Challenge
| https://www.lajollalight.com/sdljl-shores-association-address-election-challenge-2015-2015may21-story.html<ref name="LAJollaLight>https://www.lajollalight.com/sdljl-shores-association-address-election-challenge-2015-2015may21-story.html</ref>
| Todd argues over flipping a coin. His attorney makes a case that a strict following of Roberts Rules of Order is Required.
|-
|}

= Final Thoughts =
Our research only covered one county in California. It's not unreasonable to assume other counties may have other such actions in their court systems, especially in places Todd Lesser has conducted his businesses.

From the above it would appear Todd Lesser's choice of professions have been based mostly on less than ethical choices and that has been catching up with him. Having worked with him in the past I know he loves to talk until he is able to get his way. It takes a strong person to stand up and say "No" to him.

As we have added up over $2,500,000 (2.5 million) dollars in debts he is personally liable for, and his pattern of being less than truthful under oath one must question what was wrong with the prior AllStarLink Board of Directors in letting him direct most of the corporation. AllStarLink now is in a position of operating in debt and one can envision Todd Lesser wanting to run it in the manner he's run his other businesses.

== July 2022 Update ==
Since the original search and publication of this information regarding Todd Lesser, more information of his financial difficulties have come to light. Todd Lesser was awarded a default judgement in West Virginia, and information regarding this has been added to this page. This wiki will continue to be updated as more information on Todd Lesser and his businesses come to light.

== March 2023 Update ==
On 28 March 2023, as part of the ongoing litigation between Pacific Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T California and Vaya Telecom, Inc., a motion was made by Vaya Telecom as follows <ref>[[media:504802306.pdf|C.17-09-023 - VAYA TELECOM, INC. (U 7122 C) MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE KLINE FOR CAUSE]]</ref>:
<blockquote>
Pursuant to Rule 9.4 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, Vaya Telecom, Inc. (“Vaya”) (U-7122-C) hereby moves the Commission for disqualification of Administrative Law Judge Kline for cause in the above captioned proceeding. This Motion is necessitated due to repeated ex parte communications directed to Judge Kline from a non-party on the sole substantive issue in the proceeding. Namely, Mr. Todd Lesser has repeatedly contacted Judge Kline on an ex parte basis making baseless accusations against Vaya, and specifically alleging that Vaya operates in an integrated fashion with a sister entity, O1 Communications, Inc. (“O1”) generally, and specifically to evade legal obligations.

The sole issue being litigated in the pending Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) is whether Vaya and O1 operate in an integrated fashion sufficient to warrant requiring O1 to pay an award Vaya has been directed to pay the plaintiff, Pacific Bell Telephone Company d/b/a/ AT&T California. Hearings were completed in December 2021 and briefing in the OSC proceeding was completed in January 2022. The parties are therefore awaiting the issuance of the Presiding Officer’s Decision (“POD”).

While the improper ex parte communications are the fault of Mr. Lesser, Judge Kline has nonetheless been exposed to multiple defamatory and unsubstantiated assertions regarding the exact issues in the OSC proceeding. Judge Kline cannot un-hear what Mr. Lesser has said, and that damage cannot be undone. Especially at this critical time as Judge Kline is drafting the POD, there is a very real chance that Judge Kline may have been influenced by Mr. Lesser’s extra-record and false claims despite her best efforts to disregard them. Indeed, Judge Kline responded to one of Mr. Lesser’s ex parte emails by stating that he would need to file a motion for party status if he wants to provide information in this proceeding. Thus Mr. Lesser’s communications have created a real and concrete concern that Judge Kline is taking into account Mr. Lesser’s wild accusations and may be unable to render a decision based only on record evidence. Vaya reluctantly has concluded that it must move for reassignment of the remainder of this proceeding to another judge to ensure a fair and unbiased decision.
</blockquote>

* 2023-03-08: Todd Lesser emails Assistant Chief Administrative Law Judge Zita Kline of the California Public Utilities Commission. As part of the items sent to Judge Kline, Todd Lesser included a previous email chain showing that on 26 August 2022, he attempted to offer a $50k settlement to Vaya Telecom instead of paying the (then) $1.8 million that was owed. Vaya Telecom declined this settlement offer.

From: Todd Lesser fm <todd@nccom.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 11:59 AM
To: Kline, Zita
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Vaya - North County Communications
Attachments: North County ICA (2-1-2007).pdf
Follow up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.

FYI. I thought you would find this interesting that Vaya claims that they have no money but after the judgement against
them and after the date of them shutting down the corporation. They fraudulently conveyed their one asset ‐ their
judgment against NCC. That judgment was based upon NCC not able to prove our claim because o1/Vaya caused the
records to be invalid by unlawfully routing all the calls over their local interconnection truck. The sweet heart deal they
had with AT&T hurt every carrier in California that subtended the AT&T tandems. AT&T didn’t care because they were
being compensated. They even didn’t care that Vaya was allowing their customers to spoof ANI’s and send unlawful
telemarketing calls.
They continue to tell contradictory statements to the State court versus the CPUC. Even their attorney mislead you
when she said the confidentially agreement was filed with the State court. That is a complete fabrication. Confidential
discovery agreements are not filed with the court. She admitted to she it but wouldn’t give it to me so I could give them
to AT&T. It would be against public policy for me not to provide you with these documents. Vaya doesn’t want NCC
nor your honor to see the full picture.
Vaya filed an unsigned contract between Vaya and o1 communications. Vaya had two customers. o1 Communications
and another company. Once NCC obtained a writ of attachment, Vaya moved that customer to be an o1 customer.
AT&T nor the CPUC were aware of these key facts. They also testified that Vaya and o1 had completely separate
networks. I suspect that was a complete fabrication but I haven’t see the AT&T discovery documents.
Vaya claimed that they knew the jurisdiction of the calls they sent up but I suspect they told the CPUC and AT&T that
they didn’t know them and that is why there was that settlement agreement.

With all due respect, I believe the CPUC should investigate the Robocalls and can can see the evidence below of
conveying assets after claiming the judgment was worth nothing.
If you would like for me to send you transcripts of depositions, discovery answers, and trial transcripts, I can.

NCC was the victim here. Vaya and o1 created a scheme to sell below market rate long distance traffic.
NCC sued o1 communications. We settled it and have a traffic exchange agreement. Then the principals of o1
communications created Vaya to unlawfully get around the agreement. They violate every agreement they sign.
Unfortunately because of the confidential settlement agreement Vaya had with AT&T, no other CLEC or ILEC in
California knows this. They either under billed Vaya believing the calls were local or like NCC, was unable to accurately
go after Vaya because of the AT&T records were unbillable because they didn’t accurately determine the jurisdiction of
the calls.
See attached.

----

From: Dawn Coulson <dcoulson@eppscoulson.com>
Subject: RE: Vaya ‐ North County Communications
Date: August 26, 2022 at 19:06:41 PDT
To: Todd Lesser fm <todd@nccom.com>

Todd – as I suspected, without some basis for such a low number, our client is not inclined to accept a
$50k offer. Would you like to discuss a more reasonable payment for the outstanding judgment, which
appears to be about $1.8m now?

Dawn M. Coulson
EPPS & COULSON, LLP | ATTORNEYS AT LAW
t 213.929.2390 | f 213.929.2394 | direct dial 213.929.2393
dcoulson@eppscoulson.com | www.eppscoulson.com

----

From: Dawn Coulson
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2022 3:28 PM
To: 'Todd Lesser fm' <todd@nccom.com>
Subject: RE: Vaya ‐ North County Communications

Hi Todd:

I’ll check with our client. I know that she’ll inquire of the reason you believe she should accept such a
low amount as compared to the judgment. What shall I say?
Feel free to call my direct dial if you want to discuss it.

Dawn M. Coulson
EPPS & COULSON, LLP | ATTORNEYS AT LAW
t 213.929.2390 | f 213.929.2394 | direct dial 213.929.2393
dcoulson@eppscoulson.com | www.eppscoulson.com

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Todd Lesser fm <todd@nccom.com>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2022 11:40 AM
To: Dawn Coulson <dcoulson@eppscoulson.com>
Subject: Vaya ‐ North County Communications

WARNING: THIS EMAIL IS FROM OUTSIDE OF OUR NETWORK!
Verify the sender before opening any attachments or clicking on any links.

This is an offer of $50,000 to settle the claim. Are you will to accept this?

= Other pages =
The following pages may also be of interest to readers

== Known businesses ==
* [[Todd_Lesser_Businesses|Listing of Todd's known businesses]]
== Known property ==
* [[Todd_Lesser_Property|Known property Todd owns]]
== Other assets ==
* [[Todd_Lesser_Other_Assets|Other known assets Todd owns]]
== Social Media ==
* [[Todd_Lesser_Social_Media|Todd's Social Media Accounts]]

== Email accounts ==
The following are known email accounts of Todd Lesser

<center>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; width: 55%"
|+ Todd Lesser's Known Email Accounts
! Email address
! Comments
|-
| todd@nccom.com
| Main email address with North County Communications Corp
|-
| sdtoddl@gmail.com
| Similar to Twitter account username
|-
| todd@lesser.com
|
|-
| km6rpt@allstarlink.net
| ASL email
|-
|}
</center>

=References=
<references />