LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL SKOLNIK

DANIEL SKOLNIK, ESQ.

432 FORE STREET, SUITE 3C50 8
PORTLAND, MAINE 04101
(207) 831-7343
MAINE BAR #9558

January 29, 2007

Ms. Karen Geraghty, Administrative Director

Maine Public Utilities Commission
242 State Street, State House Station 18
Augusta, ME 04333-0018

RE: MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

Request for Commission Investigation Into Whether Verizon is
Cooperating in Maine With the National Security Agency’s Warrantless
Domestic Wiretapping Program; Docket No. 2006-274

Dear Ms. Geraghty:

The Lead Complainant and the Public Advocate have asked that the Commission
take action on this Complaint prior to the expiration of the nine-month deadline
(February 7, 2007) as prescribed by Section 1302. At the Conference of Counsel on
January 19, 2007, the Presiding Officer invited additional written comments. I write to
provide additional support for the Lead Complainant’s request that the Commission act
prior to the statutory deadline.

Rather than allowing this process to unfold, the United States Department of
Justice has sought to obstruct it. The Public Utilities Commission’s request that Verizon
confirm the truth of its prior statement regarding involvement with information gathering
by the National Security Agency was benign. Yet the DOJ asserts extremely attenuated
threats to national security in an effort to stop the people of Maine and other states from
inquiring into the lawfulness of government activities. The PUC is in a position to stand
upon the laws of the United States and of Maine to demand either substantiation of such
claims, or a serious effort to address the Complainants’ concerns.

If the PUC chooses not to take action on this Complaint within the nine-month
deadline, the effect may be detrimental to the principle that civil liberties must be
balanced against national security. By extension, it may undermine the fundamental
democratic tenet that no one is above the law, including the President of the United
States. The current president has claimed for himself the power to ignore the provisions
of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act due to what he deems overriding national
security concerns. Should the Maine PUC fail to exercise its authority to challenge
actions taken under this claimed authority, the legal grounds for challenging executive
excesses in the future may shrink: the DOJ will be able to point to this instance and argue
that no court ruled against its actions.

Such a precedent must be avoided. I urge the PUC to rise to its charge and to its
power to give voice to the people of Maine through legal process.

Thank you,

Daniel Skolnik, Esq.