by David Sheldon (REVISED 2/19/15)
In photo above California State Senator Jerry Hill, flanked by Assemblyman Kevin Mullen and San Bruno Mayor Jim Ruane call September 15th, 2014 for an investigation of communications between CPUC and PG&E.
A story reported first by Mercury News on January 29th, 2015 and again by Contra Costa Times on January 30th, reveals that search warrants were served by state police on the home of Michael Peevy, former Chairman of California Public Service Commission (CPUC), and on the home of Brian Cherry, former CEO of Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). These warrants were served in the wake of a steadily increasing drumbeat of news outlets calling for a criminal investigation of these two. For example, columnist Thomas Elias of the Santa Monica Mirror had urged in his January 25th column that a federal grand jury be convened. Other media have been calling for a state level investigation in the wake of mounting evidence of highly improper communications between the utility and its regulators from 65,000 emails released by PG&E in response to public pressure.
These emails came to public attention following a demand by CPUC staff last September that Peevy resign over a scandal involving administrative judge shopping.
The emails revealed a cozy relationship between Chairman Peevey of the CPUC and Brian Cherry CEO of one of the largest utilities that CPUC was supposed to be regulating. Some of the emails revealed that Cherry had enlisted Peevey’s help in ensuring that the right administrative judge would preside over a billion dollar rate case. Peevey in turn had made it clear to Cherry that substantial donations of funds were expected in return for such a favor.
“A search warrant in this type of case is a very serious step,” said Peter Henning, a law professor with Detroit-based Wayne University. “You have to convince a judge that there is probable cause that a crime was committed at the locations that were searched. It indicates a fear that evidence might disappear. The prosecutors are driving this.”
(The following paragraph has been revised based on new information to insure Sandi Mauer receives credit for the smart meter investigation of Peevey emails)
While smart meter issues have not been front and center in these investigations as yet, an examination of the 65,000 emails is ongoing with the work being conducted mostly by Sandi Maurer of the EMF Safety Network with support from Stop Smart Meters. Josh del Sol, producer of the film “Take Back Your Power” recently reported some of the interesting facts unearthed by Sandi’s investigation. She found clear evidence that Peevy and Cherry knew of the harm to health that could be caused by smart meters as far back as 2010, yet did their best to keep this information from the public. In the email below, for example, Peevy makes a suggestion to Cherry as to how PG&E could best minimize this problem by quietly letting some customers opt-out if they could produce a doctor’s letter.
There is also evidence in the email below, from Cherry, that there was an understanding the CPUC would delay any decision on smart meters until after all these new meters were installed:
There are so many parallels to the Michigan situation one scarcely knows where to begin. Too cozy a relationship between our PUC officials and the industry they are regulating? Putting industry interests above the interests of the utility customers? Judge shopping?
Those of us involved in the smart meter resistance have seen, time and again, that our own Public Service Commission clearly favors the interests of Michigan’s two largest utilities over the public interest they are supposed to be protecting.
Michigan has a system of administrative judges who are supposed to be independent of the agencies whose cases they hear. These judges are employed by a separate state agency known as Michigan Administrative Hearing System (MAHS). Yet we see, in case after case, that cases involving PSC business are steered to the same judges. In the decisions of these judges we find the same pro industry biases that we find in the Commission itself.
The Commission and its appointed judges have shown, in a series of cases, to be deaf to the cries of those who are being harmed by this pernicious smart meter technology, while practically genuflecting to the big utility companies. They have refused to hold any evidentiary hearings on health issues related to the new meters. They have refused to adopt a meaningful opt-out program that would actually protect electro-sensitive customers, preferring instead to institute a sham opt-out policy that plays right into the hands of the utilities they are supposed to be regulating. They have refused to institute real privacy protections for utility customers, preferring instead to allow the utilities to gather up private information and store it permanently in huge databases. While we may not have unearthed a financial quid pro quo as yet, all the other indicators of collusion are plain for all to see.
DOCUMENTING YOUR MEDICAL ISSUE WITH SMART METERS!
By Dominic and Lillian Cusumano:
PLEASE SHARE WIDELY
OUR VOICES ARE IMPORTANT…
We are continuing to show our Legislators that the medical conditions are still continuing to grow since they last heard from us at the MPSC House Oversight Committee Hearing on December 2, 2014.
For those that participated, thank you for being pro-active and getting your voices heard on the record, and for the documented health affects and public outcry related to safety caused by smart meters on the record.
The bottom line is we are working to help people recognize and verify that the illnesses that they are experiencing can be directly attributed to smart meters.
We are in need of additional medical letters from those individuals who have been adversely affected by the installation of the smart meter. (Please send your letter(s) to the address shown below)
Many individuals have contacted lawmakers and others, stating they have experienced new “conditions”/illnesses or the exasperation of existing medical problems when exposed to smart meters. As important as it is for people to contact their officials, it is equally important that those same people provide the evidence or documentation to support their assertions.
We are receiving a lot of calls and email from individuals who are feeling sick, and it is important to know that lawmakers will not take your concerns to heart if you self-diagnose.
Please see your doctor who can and will write a letter for you supporting your condition. See list below of doctors who are diagnosing smart meter caused illnesses.
We are not asking for the medical records of the people but we do need a letter from their doctors stating in the doctor’s professional opinion, their patient is experiencing a medical condition or the exasperation of an existing medical issue/illness that the doctor directly attributes to smart meters. It is equally important to have your own personal letter written, addressed to “Dear Legislator” (or Legislator in your district) … and explain what symptoms you are having due to the installation of the smart meters, in your own words. Send us your letter along with your “doctor’s letter”.
It is important to note that public utilities spend millions of our dollars advertising ” Know Your Own Power” and portray themselves as trying to help you any way they can, but don’t spend one dime on educating the public about the health concerns surrounding smart meters. Ask yourself why! It’s time for all of us to really “KNOW OUR OWN POWER… PUT THE POWER IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE and “the people” show the power in Lansing!
Please have your letters sent to:
Dominic & Lillian Cusumano 25801 Harper #4
St. Clair Shores, MI 48081
The letters collected remain private and are presented to lawmakers. We will be presenting all the medical letters to our Legislators who have recently been appointed to their Committees and to ensure the passage of a new House Bill and Senate Bill.
Again, see your own doctor or one of the doctors below to obtain a letter, if appropriate, relating your illness or symptoms to the presence of a smart meter on your home.
Thank you for your support!
Dominic & Lillian Cusumano Michigan Team
Medical Doctors – Smart Meter Diagnosis
GURSHARANJITN S. DHILLON MD 2710 S. ROCHESTER RD. SUITE #3 ROCHESTER, MI 48307 MALE 46, SPECIALIZES IN INTERNAL MEDICINE
JAMES L. ZIOBRON, DO ROMERO PREVENTIVE MEDICINE FAMILY MEDICINE & PREVENTATIVE MEDICINE 71441 VANDYKE RD. BRUCE TOWNSHIP, MI 48065
SHARON OLIVER, Neurology Integrative Medicine Institute 18714 Woodward Ave, Detroit, MI 48203
(between Golden Gate W and Robinwood St W)
DARREN SCHMIDT, DC Senior Clinician, CEO The Nutritional Healing Center of Ann Arbor
Here are some doctors who have been treating patients, for your convenience
Listed by city, sorted alphabetically.
Dhillon, Gursharanjitn, M.D. (Rochester)
Oliver, Sharon, Neurology (Detroit)
Schmidt, Darren, D.C. (Ann Arbor)
Ziobron, James., D.O. (Bruce Township)
Could this Smart ‘Meter’ Case Have Been Won?
by David Sheldon
Many of us have been planning for some time how to bring a really good smart electric “meter” lawsuit against DTE. This would be a case seeking injunctive relief against DTE’s illegal installations, and based on sound legal principles.
During the week of January 26th, we saw an example of what can happen when a poorly conceived and/or poorly executed lawsuit against a utility gets in court. This article is based on an actual review of the public court documents in the case of Andrea McNinch and Phillip R. Sullivan vs. DTE. It is with some reluctance we tell this story as we remain grateful for all McNinch did in arranging a free showing of the movie “Take Back Your Power” at the Royal Oak Main Theater on December 10th.
Nevertheless, not to report this story would leave an impression on many who are fighting smart “meters” that our cause was dealt a major setback. As reported by the Oakland Press and Channel 7 News, DTE shut off electric power to Royal Oak resident Andrea McNinch in December over a smart meter issue. She and her husband filed, representing themselves, a lawsuit against the utility in January in Oakland Circuit Court. Her husband was DTE’s customer of record. The suit sought an injunction to require DTE to restore her power. On January 28th the court, following a motion hearing, declined to grant an injunction to plaintiff but did not close the case. A counter claim by DTE is apparently still pending.
Why did this happen? Of course this electric power shut off was, in fact, an injustice to McNinch. The device DTE calls a “smart meter” or “advanced meter” is in fact an electronic device that in no way conforms to the definition of “meter” that is in the statute and in the MPSC regulations. While it has the ability to measure electric consumption for billing purposes it is so much more than that so that we will refer to it as the “smart device”. No law or MPSC regulation has established that a condition for receiving electrical service from DTE is that the customer must accept either a smart device with radio on or a smart device with radio turned off.
There is authority in the law and in the regulations for the installation of a “meter” only. When DTE installed the “smart device” on the McNinch home without customer consent they committed an illegal act. They are getting away with such illegal acts on a massive scale because public officials who know better are “looking the other way”. The refusal of the utility to remove what they had illegally installed led to the necessity for self help.
Confronted with this situation, the utility’s proper and legal response should have been to acknowledge their error and either accept the analog meter McNinch had installed or substitute one of their own. Instead they chose to bully the customer into submitting to the illegal smart device with threats and then an actual shutoff. McNinch requested an informal utility hearing, but neither she nor anyone representing her interests showed up for the hearing. She lost that round by default. Her power was shut off the same day she failed to appear for her hearing.
An informal appeal was next made to the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC). McNinch and her husband filed a lawsuit in Oakland Circuit Court seeking an injunction to require DTE to turn the power back on. A staff analyst with MPSC eventually sided with the utility, though there is no date on his decision. It is unclear therefore if his decision came before or after the lawsuit was filed. The only arguments put forward in the suit were that McNinch got headaches from the smart device and from the ‘opt-out’ device and that the utility was wrong to turn off power the same day the no show hearing took place. She argued that, since the written hearing decision did not come out until 4 days later, and there was a 7 day right to appeal, the power should have stayed on at least until the MPSC issued its staff report on the informal appeal.
What is amazing about this lawsuit is that no argument was made that the smart device installation had been illegal or that the device was never actually authorized by any law or MPSC regulation. Nor did McNinch present any explanation as to why DTE’s alternative meter was not an acceptable solution to any health complaints. Nor did she present any evidence from worldwide health experts who have condemned smart ‘meter’ technology. Nor were privacy or Fourth Amendment issues raised in the court filings. She presented no argument as to why she was justified in changing her own meter.
On top of all that DTE’s main argument for immediately disconnecting power without waiting for the hearing officer’s report was that McNinch had created an unsafe situation by changing her own meter. Incredibly no effort was made to rebut this argument.
To win in court you have to present legally admissible evidence AND a legal theory (argument) under which you are entitled to relief under those facts. It is not up to the judge to come up with a legal theory if you fail to state one. The burden is on the plaintiff to make a prima facie case before any real burden is on the defendant. McNinch and her husband did not make a prima facie case. There are risks, of course, in representing yourself without an attorney. There are also risks in being represented by an attorney (if you choose the wrong one).
Why do we analyze this case? When McNinch arranged the showing of the film “Take Back Your Power” she also bore the expense of bringing this film producer to Michigan to meet with us after the film showing. This led to a workshop wherein she and Mr. Del Sol convinced many people they had a winning legal strategy that could be implemented by sending DTE a series of letters. We expressed great skepticism about this approach in an article on this website in December. Our criticism of the legal tactics had to do with the concept of the “self-executing contract”, unsupported assertions and the use of biblical references rather than citations to prior court decisions. When it came time to sue the utility McNinch did not use any part of the “failsafe” legal strategy that she and the film producer had earlier promoted.
When Judge Nanci Grant issued her decision she denied McNinch’s motion for an injunction to restore her power. What the judge did NOT do, so far at any rate, is issue a declaration that changing one’s own meter is, per se, an illegal act as claimed in the Channel 7 news story. Instead she ruled that, in this case, McNinch had not presented facts or arguments sufficient to show that DTE should be compelled to restore her power after she substituted her own meter for theirs. The case is still open and a further ruling is possible.
If we labor all this now it is because we do not want others who might be thinking of a lawsuit against DTE to be in any way discouraged by the outcome in this case. We think that a well prosecuted case based on sound legal theory and verifiable facts has an excellent chance to win. We are just waiting now for just the right plaintiff to appear and we stand ready to provide whatever assistance we can!