CRIMINALIZES.com
|
|
Sharon Kovely Stankey
|
|
JohnStankey.com is a Felony Criminal, ElderAbuseAct.com, ATTWhistleblower.com, ATTElderAbuse.com, LevelBlueWhistleblower.com, WillJamVenturesWhistleblower.com, John Stankey AT&T CEO Elder Abuse, John Stankey AT&T CEO RICO Act Violations, John Stankey ATT Criminal Conspiracy, Robert McCullen CEO Level Blue, Trustwave & Will Jam Ventures Elder Abuse, Criminal Conspiracy, RICO Act Violations along with a plethora of “Cyber Threat” involvement.
AT&T is a bonafide Criminal Enterprise, Which is Led by a Felon CEO John Stankey, Guilty of Violating the RICO Act and He Should Be Arrested, Charged and Prosecuted For His Crimes!
The express purpose of this website is to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the above listed names perpetrated several felonies against this website owner with impunity and should be investigated and eventually prosecuted for their crimes and incarcerated in prison along with being sued for their civil torts.
It is believed that the aforementioned conspired amongst themselves and others to commit numerous felony crimes, including “Grand Theft” (causing financial harm over $950 which constitutes a felony) by knowingly and with malice of forethought, to further their quest to destroy the individual and his legally owned property to enhance their reputation and financial fortunes at the detriment of others and therefore when proven guilty in a court of law to be sentenced to the maximum penalty prescribed by the law and to compensate the victim for their dastardly and illegal behavior.
This website will be a repository of information relating to the criminal behavior committed by them in a furtherance of felony activity showcasing every despicable act committed by them over a span of many years and they need to be held accountable for their crimes which could lead to a conviction and lengthy term of imprisonment and also since some of their crimes are both civil and criminal, legal action should be initiated in an appropriate court of jurisdiction to ensure that the accused be held liable for their illegal actions and pay compensatory and significant punitive damages should be assessed against them to the betterment of those they harmed.
John Stankey blatantly harmed vulnerable seniors, which by his actions could lead a reasonable person to believe that the next step might be also harming another segment of society, that of being vulnerable children, ergo Child Abuse. It’s not a far stretch to conceive that if he abuses one class of individuals that he might go further by abusing others as well which would truly be despicable.
Further investigations could prove that possibility exists because a person with no integrity and who is considered sociopathic, would stoop to anything that harms another group of people and until the investigation is complete we won’t know for certain as everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
There has been speculation that John Stankey was involved with underage girls in the past, it has not been proven yet, however it requires a thorough investigation to determine beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly how true this is and until such time as it has been established one way or the other whether he was abusing young girls and for how often and how long this may have occurred this website will be delving into any factual details that could confirm the allegations. This man’s reputation is at stake and no one wants to accuse him without the evidence to prove the truth.
When someone has committed so many infractions, both civil and criminal, during their lifetime there are always consequences for their prior crimes and the likelihood of impropriety against others one can only imagine what else they have done to harm unsuspecting innocent people.
John Stankey has criminally cheated his ATT customers out of several hundred $ Million Dollars which is confirmed by the current $177,000,000 judgement issued against his company, which could not have happened without his direct involvement, which could be considered “Fraud”, “Mail Fraud”, “Wire Fraud” “Embezzlement”, “Conversion”, “Criminal Conspiracy” and a host of others still to be determined, of which only two need to be proven to establish a “RICO Act” felony.
It’s now a proven fact that John Stankey, by ATT having a judgement of the substantial amount of $177 Million Dollars establishes his disdain for his own customers meaning there is most likely no crime he wouldn’t commit therefore he should be punished for his dastardly actions
Even his wife, along with his son Justin and his daughter Erika can’t trust him, because of his blatant criminal behavior and when he is prosecuted for his felonies and sentenced to a lengthy prison term they will most likely abandon him very quickly, as he is definitely not a person to be trusted.
Is this perverted AT&T CEO John Stankey fondling the ass of actress Reese Witherspoon?
This is just one example of how he treats younger women, which shows just how despicable and disgustingly perverted he is!
This is just one example of how he treats younger women, which shows just how despicable and disgustingly perverted he is!
The individuals referenced herein are being investigated for possible violations of the RICO Act and considering that ONLY two “PREDICATE” offenses need to be committed during a 10 year period which realizing their propensity to violate the law with impunity should be relatively easy to prove and this website will leave no stone unturned to establish the true facts and have them prosecuted and convicted for their crimes under the RICO Act statute.
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act or RICO was passed in 1970 as a means by which the Federal government could combat organized crime. The act today is covered in 18 USC §§ 1961–1968 and provides the legal means by which prosecutors can identify and convict those who operate illegal businesses. Thus, “A RICO” is used when speaking of someone facing serious criminal charges related to organized crime and racketeering.
To be charged under RICO at least two “PREDICATE” offenses must have been committed through the enterprise during any 10 year period of time.
Generally, those convicted of Federal Racketeering / RICO Act crimes are sentenced to a maximum 20 years and $25,000 fines per count. So for a Federal RICO case at least two offenses in a ten-year period must be charged and in many cases, far more specific charges are brought.
Anyone facing Federal RICO Act charges will be facing other charges as well, so that a loss of the case generally means spending the rest of one’s days in prison.
In addition, losing a RICO case can cost much more on the backside. Plaintiffs can use the outcome of the criminal trial to form the basis of a civil lawsuit. If such a case is lost, the cost is triple any damages claimed. For instance, if the case involved embezzlement of say, $100,000 then losing a civil RICO lawsuit will cost $300,000. RICO was originally aimed at the Mafia, over the past 37 years, prosecutors have used it to attack many forms of organized crime: street gangs, gang cartels, corrupt police departments, publicly traded corporations and even corrupt politicians.
Federal Racketeering or RICO offenses present a pattern of criminal behavior spanning years and multiple persons. A RICO conspiracy charge (18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(d)) requires proving an agreement to violate RICO, even if the defendant only agreed to facilitate the enterprise’s criminal activity, not commit the predicate acts themselves.
Given this scenario it seems logical that another person
within the hierarchy of ATT would partake in the criminal activity, possibly the Senior Vice President Pascal Desroches or the Chief Financial Officer Thaddeus Arroyo, Chief Operating Officer Jeff McElfresh or other high ranking executives such as Kellyn Smith Kenny, Ed Gillespie and Lori Lee among others who also could be prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated which will be determined during the investigation, other names will be added soon.
There are 35 specific crimes included in the RICO Act.
Listed below are some of those 35 crimes constituting a RICO Act and only 2 during a 10 year period need to be proven to establish guilt which shouldn’t be difficult considering the various lawsuits that have been brought:
CEO John Stankey and several other ATT executives could be facing a tremendous lengthy incarcerations for their crimes and this will all be brought about by having committed Elder Financial Abuse and more.
AT&T has faced accusations and findings of misleading or failing to fully comply with congressional requests, particularly concerning government surveillance notifications for senators and providing data to special counsel Jack Smith's investigation, leading to congressional inquiries and questions about compliance with contracts and law
While not always "lying," reports indicate failures to notify senators about surveillance requests and providing incomplete or disputed information about turning over records, raising concerns about transparency and potential legal violations.
Key Incidents & Allegations:
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act or RICO was passed in 1970 as a means by which the Federal government could combat organized crime. The act today is covered in 18 USC §§ 1961–1968 and provides the legal means by which prosecutors can identify and convict those who operate illegal businesses. Thus, “A RICO” is used when speaking of someone facing serious criminal charges related to organized crime and racketeering.
To be charged under RICO at least two “PREDICATE” offenses must have been committed through the enterprise during any 10 year period of time.
Generally, those convicted of Federal Racketeering / RICO Act crimes are sentenced to a maximum 20 years and $25,000 fines per count. So for a Federal RICO case at least two offenses in a ten-year period must be charged and in many cases, far more specific charges are brought.
Anyone facing Federal RICO Act charges will be facing other charges as well, so that a loss of the case generally means spending the rest of one’s days in prison.
In addition, losing a RICO case can cost much more on the backside. Plaintiffs can use the outcome of the criminal trial to form the basis of a civil lawsuit. If such a case is lost, the cost is triple any damages claimed. For instance, if the case involved embezzlement of say, $100,000 then losing a civil RICO lawsuit will cost $300,000. RICO was originally aimed at the Mafia, over the past 37 years, prosecutors have used it to attack many forms of organized crime: street gangs, gang cartels, corrupt police departments, publicly traded corporations and even corrupt politicians.
Federal Racketeering or RICO offenses present a pattern of criminal behavior spanning years and multiple persons. A RICO conspiracy charge (18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(d)) requires proving an agreement to violate RICO, even if the defendant only agreed to facilitate the enterprise’s criminal activity, not commit the predicate acts themselves.
Given this scenario it seems logical that another person
within the hierarchy of ATT would partake in the criminal activity, possibly the Senior Vice President Pascal Desroches or the Chief Financial Officer Thaddeus Arroyo, Chief Operating Officer Jeff McElfresh or other high ranking executives such as Kellyn Smith Kenny, Ed Gillespie and Lori Lee among others who also could be prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated which will be determined during the investigation, other names will be added soon.
There are 35 specific crimes included in the RICO Act.
Listed below are some of those 35 crimes constituting a RICO Act and only 2 during a 10 year period need to be proven to establish guilt which shouldn’t be difficult considering the various lawsuits that have been brought:
- Gambling
- *Criminal Conspiracy
- Murder
- Kidnapping
- Extortion
- Arson
- *Robbery
- *Bribery
- Dealing in obscene matter
- Dealing or trafficking a controlled substance or chemical
- Counterfeiting
- *Theft
- *Embezzlement
- *Fraud
- *Mail Fraud
- *Wire Fraud
- *Obstruction of Justice
- Slavery
- *Money laundering
- Commission of murder-for-hire
- Embezzlement of union funds
- Bankruptcy fraud or *Securities Fraud
- Criminal copyright infringement
- Human smuggling
- Acts of terrorism
CEO John Stankey and several other ATT executives could be facing a tremendous lengthy incarcerations for their crimes and this will all be brought about by having committed Elder Financial Abuse and more.
AT&T has faced accusations and findings of misleading or failing to fully comply with congressional requests, particularly concerning government surveillance notifications for senators and providing data to special counsel Jack Smith's investigation, leading to congressional inquiries and questions about compliance with contracts and law
While not always "lying," reports indicate failures to notify senators about surveillance requests and providing incomplete or disputed information about turning over records, raising concerns about transparency and potential legal violations.
Key Incidents & Allegations:
- Failure to Notify Senators of Surveillance: In May 2025, Senator Ron Wyden revealed AT&T (along with Verizon and T-Mobile) failed to implement systems to notify senators about government surveillance on their Senate-issued devices, despite contractual obligations, potentially leaving the Senate vulnerable.
- Cooperation with Jack Smith Investigation: In late 2025, investigations revealed AT&T initially pushed back on or claimed non-compliance with Special Counsel Jack Smith's subpoenas for congressional records, even as Verizon complied, with AT&T later confirming they provided records for some lawmakers like Kevin McCarthy.
- Past Allegations of Misinformation: In 2011, critics accused AT&T of spreading misinformation to Congress to gain approval for a merger, with lobbyists allegedly misleading lawmakers, according to Common Dreams.
- Bribery Conviction: In 2022, AT&T Illinois paid $23 million to resolve a criminal investigation for bribing state legislators to pass favorable laws, which involved influencing legislation through misconduct, noted Citizens Utility Board and Compliance Week.
Congress must summon AT&T CEO John Stankey over catastrophic data leak
July 12, 2024 1:51 pm
July 12, 2024 1:51 pm
AT&T CEO John Stankey should have resigned over the catastrophic data leak that AT&T announced on Friday. Seeing, however, as Stankey is evidently more concerned with keeping his $26 million-a-year job than taking responsibility for his firm’s catastrophic failure, Congress should urgently summon him for questioning.
To understand why this leak is so serious, consider two points from this CNN summation. First, that AT&T had 110 million cellphone plan subscribers at the end of 2022. Second, that “AT&T said the compromised data includes the telephone numbers of ‘nearly all’ of its cellular customers and the customers of wireless providers that used its network between May 1, 2022 and October 31, 2022.
The logs additionally contain a “record of every number AT&T customers called or texted—including calls to other
To understand why this leak is so serious, consider two points from this CNN summation. First, that AT&T had 110 million cellphone plan subscribers at the end of 2022. Second, that “AT&T said the compromised data includes the telephone numbers of ‘nearly all’ of its cellular customers and the customers of wireless providers that used its network between May 1, 2022 and October 31, 2022.
The logs additionally contain a “record of every number AT&T customers called or texted—including calls to other
Federal Judge Allows Whistleblower Case Against AT&T To Go to Trial
Following a decision by a federal judge in Wisconsin to send a whistleblower case from 2008 to trial, an AT&T (NYSE: T) subsidiary may need to repay millions it received in federal subsidies for providing internet services to schools and libraries, according to Statescoop.
The case, United States ex rel. Heath v. Wisconsin Bell, Inc., was originally filed by whistleblower Todd Heath in 2008. He claimed the carrier was overcharging schools and libraries for broadband services, more than allowed by the FCC’s E-Rate program that provides access to telecom services to eligible schools and libraries, especially those in rural and economically disadvantaged areas, notes Statescoop.
Judge Lynn Adelman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin last Thursday denied AT&T’s motion for summary judgment, allowing the case to proceed to trial in January. The case centers over a dispute about whether money dispersed through E-Rate counts as federal funds under the False Claims Act. The Act only allows for the recoup of funds distributed by federal entities to private companies.
Whistleblowers can use the law to sue companies if they are defrauding the government through false claims about the dollar value of a contract or subsidy.
To answer this question, the courts had to determine if the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) — the private, nonprofit established by the FCC’s Universal Service Fund to oversee and manage the fund’s revenue and distribution — was considered a quasi-federal entity. Earlier rulings found the Claims Act didn’t apply to E-Rate reimbursement requests because USAC is a corporation.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court took the case last year, ruling 9-0 to protect the USF. The court determined the FCC did not exceed its authority when it established the fund in 1996 to subsidize “universal” service, according to Statescoop. It also said the USAC is considered a federal entity, and therefore any loss to the fund via E-Rate constitutes a loss to the federal government, and is therefore eligible for recuperation under the False Claims Act.
With the latest judge’s denial of AT&T’s motion for summary judgement, the company may have to repay all E-Rate funds received under the False Claims Act for servicing schools and libraries from the years 2002 through 2015. This amount could total into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
AT&T did not respond to a request for comment.
The case, United States ex rel. Heath v. Wisconsin Bell, Inc., was originally filed by whistleblower Todd Heath in 2008. He claimed the carrier was overcharging schools and libraries for broadband services, more than allowed by the FCC’s E-Rate program that provides access to telecom services to eligible schools and libraries, especially those in rural and economically disadvantaged areas, notes Statescoop.
Judge Lynn Adelman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin last Thursday denied AT&T’s motion for summary judgment, allowing the case to proceed to trial in January. The case centers over a dispute about whether money dispersed through E-Rate counts as federal funds under the False Claims Act. The Act only allows for the recoup of funds distributed by federal entities to private companies.
Whistleblowers can use the law to sue companies if they are defrauding the government through false claims about the dollar value of a contract or subsidy.
To answer this question, the courts had to determine if the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) — the private, nonprofit established by the FCC’s Universal Service Fund to oversee and manage the fund’s revenue and distribution — was considered a quasi-federal entity. Earlier rulings found the Claims Act didn’t apply to E-Rate reimbursement requests because USAC is a corporation.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court took the case last year, ruling 9-0 to protect the USF. The court determined the FCC did not exceed its authority when it established the fund in 1996 to subsidize “universal” service, according to Statescoop. It also said the USAC is considered a federal entity, and therefore any loss to the fund via E-Rate constitutes a loss to the federal government, and is therefore eligible for recuperation under the False Claims Act.
With the latest judge’s denial of AT&T’s motion for summary judgement, the company may have to repay all E-Rate funds received under the False Claims Act for servicing schools and libraries from the years 2002 through 2015. This amount could total into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
AT&T did not respond to a request for comment.
A Whistleblower Alleged That the Nation's Largest Wireless Carriers were Overcharging California's Educational Institutions, Local Governments and State Agencies for Wireless Service.
SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 24, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Verizon Wireless and AT&T Mobility, the nation's largest wireless providers, have agreed to pay a combined $116 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit claiming they overcharged California government customers for wireless services. The settlement in the long-running case, brought by the whistleblower in 2012 and approved today by a California court, is the second-largest California False Claims Act settlement in the state's history outside of the healthcare industry. The whistleblower and thirty government entities that joined the lawsuit are represented by Constantine Cannon LLP, the country's largest whistleblower law firm, and Susman Godfrey LLP, the nation's preeminent litigation boutique.
Verizon will pay $68 million and AT&T $48 million to settle claims that, for more than a decade, the carriers knowingly ignored two cost-saving requirements included in multibillion-dollar contracts offering wireless services to state and local government users in Californiaand other states.
"The conduct alleged by the whistleblower was shocking: that our country's largest wireless carriers made promises to California government agencies to get their business but failed to provide the same cost-saving service many Fortune 500 companies receive," said Wayne T. Lamprey of Constantine Cannon, who filed the lawsuit and was lead counsel. "It may be a rounding error to Verizon and AT&T, but this is real money to California's schools, local governments and state agencies who spent years scraping through their budget to pay what we now know were over-inflated bills."
“We were ready to prove at trial that Verizon and AT&T never delivered on promises they made in order to access our clients’ billion-dollar market,” said Bill Carmody, partner at Susman Godfrey in New York and co-lead trial counsel. “This was a monumental outcome and serves as further evidence that California’s False Claims Act is one of the strongest such laws in the country.”
The contracts, which are among the largest public-sector telecommunications contracts in the country, mandated that government entities be charged at the "lowest cost available" and that the carrier identify "optimized" rate plans that best suited actual usage patterns that drive cost. The carriers' failure to live up to their contractual promises cheated California government entities out of hundreds of millions in savings, the lawsuit alleged.
The largest users among the nearly 300 state and local entities recovering money for the excessive payments are the State of California, the California State University system, the University of California system, Los Angeles County, and Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, and Riverside city and county governments.
The whistleblower entity, OnTheGo Wireless, LLC, was formed by Jeffrey Smith, an early pioneer in wireless optimization at the company he founded in 1997, eOnTheGo, Inc.
Smith's company created software applications that compared rate plans offered by carriers, and eOnTheGo has provided rate plan analysis and telecommunications expense management to both wireless carriers and large corporate and government purchasers. Through his work, Smith concluded the carriers failed to provide contractually required cost-saving opportunities to their government customers. OnTheGo sued the carriers under the California False Claims Act, a law that allows whistleblowers to bring suit on behalf of California state and local government entities and share in any government recovery.
OnTheGo Wireless, LLC sued the carriers under the California False Claims Act that allows whistleblower to sue on behalf of California government entities. More than three dozen California government entities joined the lawsuit. The whistleblower and the government plaintiffs were jointly represented by Wayne T. Lamprey, Anne Hayes Hartman, Ari Yampolsky, Sarah "Poppy" Alexander, Chris McLamb, Hallie Noecker, and Ronny Valdes of Constantine Cannon, and Bill Carmody, Amanda Bonn, Arun Subramanian, Steven Shepard, Rachel Black, Jordan Connors, Meng Xi, Rohit Nath, Nicholas Spear, Jesse-Justin Cuevas, and Ari Ruben of Susman Godfrey.
Smith said: "I'm immensely gratified to have helped California taxpayers, and that the government will have these funds at this difficult time. This has been a long and difficult road; the carriers fought hard. But with the help of my lawyers, and the government agencies that jumped in, we brought home a terrific victory for California."
OnTheGo will receive approximately 40% of the settlement as a whistleblower reward under the California False Claims Act.
Because wireless carriers typically offer dozens of rate-plan options at any given time and frequently change these plans' features and costs, the lawsuit alleged that contracts placed the burden on the carriers to identify and bill using optimized plans for each government subscriber in order to spend taxpayer dollars most efficiently. This process, known as rate plan optimization, considers each phone line's historical usage to determine the best rate plan available for that line. Rate plan optimization is well known in the wireless industry, and often used by large purchasers.
As each line's usage varies month-to-month, and plan features and costs change, the cost-effectiveness of a rate plan fluctuates. Because of this, the government contracts required, according to plaintiffs, that the carriers deliver quarterly reports identifying the "optimized" rate plans to the government entities.
Sprint and T-Mobile previously reached settlements in the California case for $9.6 million combined. In total, the four major telecom providers will pay $125.8 million to settle allegations under the California False Claims Act.
Whistleblower attorney Anne Hayes Hartman, a partner at Constantine Cannon in San Francisco, said: "We all relate to the frustration of paying for wireless services that don't seem to fit our needs. This case alleged that to seal a multibillion-dollar deal, the carriers promised to help public agencies find the most efficient rate plans and save taxpayer dollars. But when the time came to deliver on those promises, the carriers instead chose to pad their bottom lines."
Amanda Bonn, Susman Godfrey's lead California trial counsel on this matter and a partner in Los Angeles added: "This is a phenomenal result.
We are especially grateful to the thirty California government entities—which ranged in size from the largest county in California to a small local fire district—who joined us in this fight. We are proud to represent them."
The case, presided over by the Honorable Judy Holzer Hersher, is State of California et al. ex rel. OntheGo Wireless, LLC v. Cellco Partnership et al., Case No. 34-2012-00127517 (Sacramento County Superior Court).
Constantine Cannon has the world's largest international whistleblower practice, with offices in New York, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and London. The firm's team of dedicated whistleblower lawyers represent whistleblowers under federal and state False Claims Acts as well as the whistleblower programs of the IRS, SEC, CFTC, DOT, and others.
Constantine Cannon's experience spans across multiple practice areas that include antitrust and complex commercial litigation,
whistleblower representation, government relations, securities, and e-discovery. The firm's antitrust practice is among the largest and most well recognized in the nation.
SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 24, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Verizon Wireless and AT&T Mobility, the nation's largest wireless providers, have agreed to pay a combined $116 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit claiming they overcharged California government customers for wireless services. The settlement in the long-running case, brought by the whistleblower in 2012 and approved today by a California court, is the second-largest California False Claims Act settlement in the state's history outside of the healthcare industry. The whistleblower and thirty government entities that joined the lawsuit are represented by Constantine Cannon LLP, the country's largest whistleblower law firm, and Susman Godfrey LLP, the nation's preeminent litigation boutique.
Verizon will pay $68 million and AT&T $48 million to settle claims that, for more than a decade, the carriers knowingly ignored two cost-saving requirements included in multibillion-dollar contracts offering wireless services to state and local government users in Californiaand other states.
"The conduct alleged by the whistleblower was shocking: that our country's largest wireless carriers made promises to California government agencies to get their business but failed to provide the same cost-saving service many Fortune 500 companies receive," said Wayne T. Lamprey of Constantine Cannon, who filed the lawsuit and was lead counsel. "It may be a rounding error to Verizon and AT&T, but this is real money to California's schools, local governments and state agencies who spent years scraping through their budget to pay what we now know were over-inflated bills."
“We were ready to prove at trial that Verizon and AT&T never delivered on promises they made in order to access our clients’ billion-dollar market,” said Bill Carmody, partner at Susman Godfrey in New York and co-lead trial counsel. “This was a monumental outcome and serves as further evidence that California’s False Claims Act is one of the strongest such laws in the country.”
The contracts, which are among the largest public-sector telecommunications contracts in the country, mandated that government entities be charged at the "lowest cost available" and that the carrier identify "optimized" rate plans that best suited actual usage patterns that drive cost. The carriers' failure to live up to their contractual promises cheated California government entities out of hundreds of millions in savings, the lawsuit alleged.
The largest users among the nearly 300 state and local entities recovering money for the excessive payments are the State of California, the California State University system, the University of California system, Los Angeles County, and Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, and Riverside city and county governments.
The whistleblower entity, OnTheGo Wireless, LLC, was formed by Jeffrey Smith, an early pioneer in wireless optimization at the company he founded in 1997, eOnTheGo, Inc.
Smith's company created software applications that compared rate plans offered by carriers, and eOnTheGo has provided rate plan analysis and telecommunications expense management to both wireless carriers and large corporate and government purchasers. Through his work, Smith concluded the carriers failed to provide contractually required cost-saving opportunities to their government customers. OnTheGo sued the carriers under the California False Claims Act, a law that allows whistleblowers to bring suit on behalf of California state and local government entities and share in any government recovery.
OnTheGo Wireless, LLC sued the carriers under the California False Claims Act that allows whistleblower to sue on behalf of California government entities. More than three dozen California government entities joined the lawsuit. The whistleblower and the government plaintiffs were jointly represented by Wayne T. Lamprey, Anne Hayes Hartman, Ari Yampolsky, Sarah "Poppy" Alexander, Chris McLamb, Hallie Noecker, and Ronny Valdes of Constantine Cannon, and Bill Carmody, Amanda Bonn, Arun Subramanian, Steven Shepard, Rachel Black, Jordan Connors, Meng Xi, Rohit Nath, Nicholas Spear, Jesse-Justin Cuevas, and Ari Ruben of Susman Godfrey.
Smith said: "I'm immensely gratified to have helped California taxpayers, and that the government will have these funds at this difficult time. This has been a long and difficult road; the carriers fought hard. But with the help of my lawyers, and the government agencies that jumped in, we brought home a terrific victory for California."
OnTheGo will receive approximately 40% of the settlement as a whistleblower reward under the California False Claims Act.
Because wireless carriers typically offer dozens of rate-plan options at any given time and frequently change these plans' features and costs, the lawsuit alleged that contracts placed the burden on the carriers to identify and bill using optimized plans for each government subscriber in order to spend taxpayer dollars most efficiently. This process, known as rate plan optimization, considers each phone line's historical usage to determine the best rate plan available for that line. Rate plan optimization is well known in the wireless industry, and often used by large purchasers.
As each line's usage varies month-to-month, and plan features and costs change, the cost-effectiveness of a rate plan fluctuates. Because of this, the government contracts required, according to plaintiffs, that the carriers deliver quarterly reports identifying the "optimized" rate plans to the government entities.
Sprint and T-Mobile previously reached settlements in the California case for $9.6 million combined. In total, the four major telecom providers will pay $125.8 million to settle allegations under the California False Claims Act.
Whistleblower attorney Anne Hayes Hartman, a partner at Constantine Cannon in San Francisco, said: "We all relate to the frustration of paying for wireless services that don't seem to fit our needs. This case alleged that to seal a multibillion-dollar deal, the carriers promised to help public agencies find the most efficient rate plans and save taxpayer dollars. But when the time came to deliver on those promises, the carriers instead chose to pad their bottom lines."
Amanda Bonn, Susman Godfrey's lead California trial counsel on this matter and a partner in Los Angeles added: "This is a phenomenal result.
We are especially grateful to the thirty California government entities—which ranged in size from the largest county in California to a small local fire district—who joined us in this fight. We are proud to represent them."
The case, presided over by the Honorable Judy Holzer Hersher, is State of California et al. ex rel. OntheGo Wireless, LLC v. Cellco Partnership et al., Case No. 34-2012-00127517 (Sacramento County Superior Court).
Constantine Cannon has the world's largest international whistleblower practice, with offices in New York, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and London. The firm's team of dedicated whistleblower lawyers represent whistleblowers under federal and state False Claims Acts as well as the whistleblower programs of the IRS, SEC, CFTC, DOT, and others.
Constantine Cannon's experience spans across multiple practice areas that include antitrust and complex commercial litigation,
whistleblower representation, government relations, securities, and e-discovery. The firm's antitrust practice is among the largest and most well recognized in the nation.
Senator Kennedy says wireless giants are running a ‘Goat Rodeo of Greed’ at contractors’ expense; investigations by DOJ and FCC urged
In Featured News by Wireless Estimator April 1, 2025
WASHINGTON — At a tense hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship yesterday, CEOs of the nation’s top wireless carriers faced sharp criticism over alleged collusion and the use of fixed matrix pricing—practices that lawmakers say are driving contractors, suppliers, and key players in the telecom supply chain into financial ruin, with many forced to shut down entirely.
In a heated exchange, Chairman Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) lashed into AT&T CEO John Stankey, accusing the nation’s top mobile carriers of knowingly operating as an oligopoly—a potential violation of antitrust laws under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice.
“They don’t just act like an oligopoly,” Kennedy said. “They know they are one. Y’all have carved up the market like a Sunday ham, fixed prices behind the curtain, and called it strategy. But let me tell you—if it walks like collusion and bills like collusion, it ain’t free enterprise. It’s a cartel of carrier CEOs in Versace suits.”
Overwhelming evidence is presented at hearing
Kennedy said that the committee had gathered substantial evidence showing that carriers have been sharing contractor pricing matrices, setting rates based not on site-specific work assessments but on the “going rate”—effectively eliminating competitive bid processes.
“They’ve swapped cigars and backrooms for Zoom calls — but it’s still the same price fixing game,” Kennedy said.“
“And it’s driving it’s contractors out of business. The Department of Justice and the FCC ought to take a real close look at how y’all are doing business—because from where I’m sitting, it sure doesn’t smell like capitalism.”
”Mr. Stankey, our committee has reviewed a whole heap of documents that my aide has put in front of you—emails, internal pricing sheets, contractor statements—and I’ll be blunt; it looks like all the major carriers, including AT&T, have been sharing matrix pricing with each other like casserole recipes at a church potluck,” asserted Kennedy
“This isn’t healthy competition—this is a closed-loop system where you all price off each other instead of allowing contractors to walk the job and figure out what the work requires.
You’re not allowing bidding. You’re benchmarking. And the benchmark is always stuck in the basement,” said Kennedy.
Stankey, nervously holding a file of MSAs, replied, “Senator, I would respectfully say that a complex interplay of market dynamics, resource allocation models, and vendor alignment strategies shape pricing across the industry. I’m unaware of any coordinated or untenable matrix pricing behavior beyond standard market referencing. I believe…”.
However, before he could continue, Kennedy cut him off, visibly trying to control his frustration, stating, “Mr. Stankey, that was a beautiful bowl of word salad—you even threw in some croutons with ‘vendor alignment strategies.’ But let me translate what I just heard. Y’all provide the same take-it-or-leave-it pricing because that’s what the other guy’s doing. That’s not competition—that’s synchronized swimming in a swamp of collusion. And meanwhile, the little guy—the contractor—is getting squeezed like a lemon at a crawfish boil.”
Senator Hirono believes contractors should be thankful for carrier largesse
In Featured News by Wireless Estimator April 1, 2025
WASHINGTON — At a tense hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship yesterday, CEOs of the nation’s top wireless carriers faced sharp criticism over alleged collusion and the use of fixed matrix pricing—practices that lawmakers say are driving contractors, suppliers, and key players in the telecom supply chain into financial ruin, with many forced to shut down entirely.
In a heated exchange, Chairman Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) lashed into AT&T CEO John Stankey, accusing the nation’s top mobile carriers of knowingly operating as an oligopoly—a potential violation of antitrust laws under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice.
“They don’t just act like an oligopoly,” Kennedy said. “They know they are one. Y’all have carved up the market like a Sunday ham, fixed prices behind the curtain, and called it strategy. But let me tell you—if it walks like collusion and bills like collusion, it ain’t free enterprise. It’s a cartel of carrier CEOs in Versace suits.”
Overwhelming evidence is presented at hearing
Kennedy said that the committee had gathered substantial evidence showing that carriers have been sharing contractor pricing matrices, setting rates based not on site-specific work assessments but on the “going rate”—effectively eliminating competitive bid processes.
“They’ve swapped cigars and backrooms for Zoom calls — but it’s still the same price fixing game,” Kennedy said.“
“And it’s driving it’s contractors out of business. The Department of Justice and the FCC ought to take a real close look at how y’all are doing business—because from where I’m sitting, it sure doesn’t smell like capitalism.”
”Mr. Stankey, our committee has reviewed a whole heap of documents that my aide has put in front of you—emails, internal pricing sheets, contractor statements—and I’ll be blunt; it looks like all the major carriers, including AT&T, have been sharing matrix pricing with each other like casserole recipes at a church potluck,” asserted Kennedy
“This isn’t healthy competition—this is a closed-loop system where you all price off each other instead of allowing contractors to walk the job and figure out what the work requires.
You’re not allowing bidding. You’re benchmarking. And the benchmark is always stuck in the basement,” said Kennedy.
Stankey, nervously holding a file of MSAs, replied, “Senator, I would respectfully say that a complex interplay of market dynamics, resource allocation models, and vendor alignment strategies shape pricing across the industry. I’m unaware of any coordinated or untenable matrix pricing behavior beyond standard market referencing. I believe…”.
However, before he could continue, Kennedy cut him off, visibly trying to control his frustration, stating, “Mr. Stankey, that was a beautiful bowl of word salad—you even threw in some croutons with ‘vendor alignment strategies.’ But let me translate what I just heard. Y’all provide the same take-it-or-leave-it pricing because that’s what the other guy’s doing. That’s not competition—that’s synchronized swimming in a swamp of collusion. And meanwhile, the little guy—the contractor—is getting squeezed like a lemon at a crawfish boil.”
Senator Hirono believes contractors should be thankful for carrier largesse
