ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE CECIL PARKER: Good morning. We'll now commence an initial hearing concerning the matter captioned application of Sun Ling Conner t/a S. L. Conner Trucking," docketed at A‑00 110 360. I will spread upon the record a very brief history of these proceedings.

On July 7, 1992, an application was filed by Sun Ling Conner, trading as S. L. Conner Trking ‑‑‑ Trucking is spelled T-r-k-i-n‑g -- for, one, a common carrier certificate of public convenience and, secondly, a contract carrier permit so as to enable the applicant to transport by motor vehicle, and I quote, food items, dry goods, steel, in and across Pennsylvania with truck, spelled t‑r‑k period, and trailer, spelled t-r-l, period. End of quote

The Commission set as the last date for filing protests September 8, 1992. An advertisement for the filing of the application and of the last date of the filing of protests was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on August 15, 1992.

Those rights, advertised in the Pennsylvania Bulletin as being those sought by the applicant read as follows: "application for approval of the beginning of the exercise of the right and privilege of operating motor, vehicles as a common carrier for transportation of property, namely, food items, dry good, and steel from points in the counties of Lancaster, Luzerne, Dauphin, Lehigh, and Wyoming to points in the counties of Lancaster, Luzerne, Dauphin, Lehigh, and Wyoming and vice versa." End of quote.

Now, thereafter, protests were filed by the following eight protestants: By

Packages, Inc. on August 21, 1992; by John Hubbell on August 28,1992; and by the following six protestants on September 8, 1992, SOP Inc.; Paul L Slater and Mark J. Slater trading and doing business as Slater and Sons; Big Sky Freight; DelPa Line Taxi, Inc.; Certified Carrier Services, Inc. I have before me the appearance sheet which indicates that here on behalf of the protestant, SOP, Inc. is its attorney, Bradley Potter. Good morning, Mr. Potter.

MR. POTTER: Good morning, Your Honor.

THE COURT: The appearance sheet indicates that here on behalf of the

protestants, Paul Slater and Mark Slater trading and doing business as Slater and Sons is their Attorney, Stephen Boyer. Good morning.

MR. BOYER: Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: My appearance sheet indicated that here on behalf of the

following four protestants ‑‑

MR. SMITH: Your Honor, there were eight.

THE COURT: I have 1, 2, 3, 4. I may have made a mistake. I know what I did wrong. Thank you for correcting me. Here on behalf of the four protestants which I mentioned; namely, Big Sky Freight, DelPa Line, Inc., Inc., and Certified Carrier Services, Inc., is their Attorney, John Smith. Good morning, Mr. Smith.

MR. SMITH: Good morning.

THE COURT: Mr. Smith was kind enough to bring to my attention the fact

that I made a mistake. Four other protests were filed. That is to say that protests were filed by four other protestants on September 8, 1992, that I didn't mention and he is here on their behalf. These four protestants are Harper, RoadKing Unlimited, Inc; Jones Trucking, Inc.; Transco Lines, Inc., and TravelWell, Inc. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

The record will reflect the absence of the applicant or anyone on his behalf, and the record will also reflect the absence of anyone on behalf of Johns, Inc.

MR. SMITH: I entered an appearance for them.

THE COURT: You are here for Johns also. So I made another, mistake.

Johns is represented, but no one appears to be here on behalf of Hubbell, Inc.

MR. SMITH. Yes. I entered an appearance for them.

THE COURT: I see it now. I stand corrected. So all the protestants are present this morning. Thank you. Now, two individuals have just entered the hearing room. Good morning, ma'am. Good morning, sir. What is your name please.

MR. CONNER: Bob Conner and Sun Ling.

THE COURT: Very good. You, ma'am, Sun Ling Conner, are the applicant in this case?

MRS. CONNER: Yes.

THE COURT: Please come forward. You can sit at that table. If you wish, you may hang up your coats. We are off the record for a moment.

(At this time there was a short break in the proceedings.)

THE COURT: We'll return to the record. As I indicated before we went off

the record a few moments ago, the applicant, Sun Ling Conner, is now present here in hearing room. Good morning, Mrs. Conner.

MRS. CONNER: Good morning.

THE COURT: I have to ask you a couple of questions. Just relax please.

Everyone here is going to be friendly. We are going to be formal, but not unfriendly. Just relax. Don't be nervous. First of all, I have to ask you a couple of questions. When you filed your application, Mrs. Conner, you checked off two blocks. You said you want to be a common carrier and a

contract carrier; but when your application was advertised in the periodical called the Pennsylvania Bulletin, you said that you just wanted to be a common carrier.

Now, is that what you want, ma'am, to be a common carrier? Would you like me to tell you the difference between the two?

MRS. CONNER: Could you tell me the difference.

THE COURT: A contract carrier is only given permission to transport goods

of a specified shipper, a specified customer, nobody else; whereas, a common carrier can accept freight from anybody. Do you understand the difference now?

MRS. CONNER: Yes.

THE COURT: Which do you want? Do you want to be a common carrier so that you can accept freight from anybody or a contract carrier limiting yourself to certain shippers?

MSS. CONNER: Common.

THE COURT: So you do want to be a common carrier, and that was what was advertised in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.

MR. SMITH: Your Honor, I assumed that the applicant was a male. I

didn't realize.

THE COURT: It is a young lady.

MR. SMITH: I wrote a letter to a Mister. I apologize.

THE COURT: Sun Ling is not a common name like Bob or Harry. Maybe it is a common name in some places, but not in Pennsylvania.

Now, the second question I have, ma'am, is this one. When you filed your application, you wrote on your application that you wanted to transport the following: food items, dry goods, steel in and across Pennsylvania with truck and trailer. That's what you said.

Now, when it was advertised in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. The advertisement of the notice of the filing of your application said that you wanted to transport food items, dry goods, and steel from points in the counties of Lancaster, Luzerne, Dauphin, Lehigh, and Wyoming to points in the counties of Lancaster, Luzerne, Dauphin, Lehigh, and Wyoming, and vice versa. End of quote.

Is what was published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin what you want, or do you want to transport goods all over the state? Which is it? I have to know which.

MR. CONNER: Let me speak for a minute.

THE COURT: Now wait. Are you her husband?

MR. CONNER: Right.

THE COURT: She has a problem speaking?

MR. CONNER: Some of it, yes.

THE COURT: Why does she have a problem? Is it because of her unfamiliarity with the language?

MR. CONNER: A little bit of that, and the trucking industry.

THE COURT: The thing of it is she should have a lawyer. You are not a

lawyer. You are her husband.

MR. CONNER: Right.

THE COURT: Why don't you talk to her and let her answer my question.

MR. CONNER: Okay.

THE COURT: I just want to know what you want. Do you want to transport all over the State, or do you want to transport just in the counties that I mentioned and which was advertised? I have to know that.

MRS. CONNER: (No verbal response.)

THE COURT: You want to be relegated to the counties that were specified

in the advertisement?

MRS. CONNER: Yes.

THE COURT: Yes?

MRS. CONNER: Yes.

THE COURT: You see what happened is not your fault, Mrs. Conner. It

is not the first time it's happened or even the first time it happened this month; but someone in the Department of Transportation thinks that an application can be amended by picking up the phone and asking somebody what they want and then publishing something different than what was filed. I've told that department once, I've told them a thousand times, that's not

the way to amend an application, but they are not willing to change their methods; so I have to do it here, and sometimes it runs into problems. In your particular case, since what was advertised is less than what was

sought in the application, it doesn't present a great problem. So would you like to amend your application so that you only want to be a common carrier to transport the property of others, to wit, food items, dry goods, and steel from points in the counties of Lancaster, Luzerne, Dauphin, Lehigh, and Wyoming to points in the Counties of Lancaster, Luzerne, Dauphin, Lehigh, and Wyoming and vice versa?

Do you want to amend the application that way?

MRS. CONNER: (Nods head)

THE COURT: You want the application to be amended?

MRS. CONNER: Yes.

THE COURT: Any objections?

MR. POTTER: No objection,

THE COURT: Being no objections, the application is amended. We passed that hurdle. Now, before we commence the portion of this hearing wherein we will receive evidence, are there any preliminary motions?

MR. Potter: Yes, your Honor. Your Honor, if I may, I have a motion

pursuant to Section 5.371 of our Code and the Rules of Practice. I move for sanctions against the applicant for failure to comply with normal and routine and acceptable discovery requests. My client, SOP, Inc., in this protest filed and forwarded to the applicant: specifically, a request for discovery under Section 333 of the Public Utility Code asking for identification of witnesses and subject matter of testimony.

However,, that request was not complied with to date by the applicant. I think today is a little late; and I refer your Honor and the Commission and the record to the case of Regency Limited, Docket No. A 17 935.

It was a case before Judge Braffin, and then handled subsequently by Judge Foster out of the Philadelphia office. However, in the decision written by Judge Foster on April 9, 1987, reaffirmed the decision adhering of Judge Braffin.

That decision, Your Honor, basically states recitation of discovery requests pursuant to Section 333 of the Public Utility Code by the various protestants, applicant not complying with those requests, and protestants at the hearing moving for sanctions and formal action by the Presiding Officer pursuant to 52 Pennsylvania Code Sections 5 31, 5 32. Judge Braffin did move for sanctions.

THE COURT: He didn't move for them. He granted them

MRS. POTTER: He granted the motion. He granted the sanctions. Judge

Foster in a later order clarified the actions of Judge Braffin, and reaffirmed the granting of that motion and the granting of those sanctions. I do have a copy of that.

THE COURT Maybe I'll look at it later.

MR. SMITH: I have a motion also when the proper time is here.

THE COURT: Let's take care of Mr. Potter's motion. As far as your motion

for sanctions for failure to answer your interrogatories, I assume it was written interrogatories.

MR. POTTER: It was just a simple request of identification of witnesses, subject matter, testimony, be it shipper, operating witnesses.

THE COURT: First of all, what sanctions do you want imposed?

MR. POTTER: The sanctions that the protestant moves for is sanction of dismissing the application as had been done in this case and cases previous to this.

THE COURT: That's the sanction you want. All right. I'm not saying you

should have or were required to, but your request for the identification of witnesses and addresses, that wasn't filed of record, right?

Mr. POTTER: It was included in the protest.

THE COURT: So it was part of the protest?

MR. POTTER: Part of the protest, a separately numbered paragraph, and it is part of the commission's record.

THE COURT: Your motion for sanctions for failure to obey the Commission's regulations pertaining to discovery in 5 31 and 5 32 are denied. If someone doesn't answer an interrogatory, you have to file, prior to the day of the hearing, a motion for sanctions or a motion to compel or something. You didn't do that; so that is denied. Nonetheless, there is Section 333 of the Public Utility Code that we have to deal with. Right now, I am examining the protest of SOP on whose behalf this motion was made. I don't see that there is a paragraph in there asking for --

MR. POTTER: If I could turn your Honor's attention to Page 3 of the protest, the last separate paragraph.

THE COURT: .I see it now. It is an unnumbered paragraph. I didn't read the unnumbered paragraphs. Thank you. That says that pursuant to Section 333 of the Public Utility Code, protestant requests a list of witnesses expected to testify in the above‑titled proceeding, together with the subject matter of their anticipated testimony. Let me explain to you the motion that's been made, Mrs. Conner.

MR. SMITH: Do you want to hear mine too?

THE COURT : Go ahead. That's good idea. I'll explain to you what motions

are made; but at any time during the course of this proceeding if you don't understand something, you raise your hand, and we'll let you know. We don't want you to be in the dark. We have heard a motion to dismiss your application because of your refusal to obey Section 333 of the Public

Utility Code which says that, in every proceeding before the Commission within a reasonable time prior to the hearing, each party shall make available to the other parties the names of the witnesses he expects to call and the subject matter of their expected testimony.

You didn't do that, Mr. Potter says. I don't know if you did it or not.

We'll listen to your response in a moment. That's what he says, and therefore, he says he wants me to dismiss your application.

Now, before I dispose of that, I want to hear from you but first Mr. Smith also wants to make a motion. I'll listen to him next. Do you understand what we are doing?

MRS. CONNER: Yes.

Goofy

Lower Keys Finger Drill

How to Take a Test

The Four Basic Writers

How to Grade a Test

Harry S Truman and why you don't put a period after the middle initial.

John F. Kennedy and why he is not a jelly doughnut.

A harangue by Buzz Gadflie on those junky plastic paper trays.

Speed Building Joseph Kinaim

Words of Wisdom

The Rhythm Method Barb DeWitt