Link

SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2018 – TWO CAUSES THAT MERIT YOUR MOST URGENT SUPPORT!  Readers of this blog are aware of the harms that can be caused, both by smart meters and by the coming onslaught of 5G cell towers. We have meter choice legislation, Michigan House Bill 4220 before the House Energy Committee and must get the facts out to a much greater population if we are to finally get this passed in this legislative session. The most effective way to get the word out is with our 1 minute radio ad that is already playing on many Michigan radio stations. But funds are needed to continue this very effective program.  Click HERE to donate!

Meanwhile telecom companies are trying to get two bills passed, Senate Bill 637 and Senate Bill 894, which would fast track a massive installation of new 5th Generation cell towers and strip local governments and property owners of any say over the location of these towers. These bills have already passed the Michigan Senate and are to be heard before the House Energy Committee on October 4th. Many of us are working very hard to bring in experts who will back us up on the harm these new towers will cause. But money is needed to fly these experts in. Without funds we won’t be able to match the experts the telecom industry will produce.  Click HERE to donate!

Link

Let’s Talk About…

Wireless Radiation

& Health Effects

  • What are the health concerns associated with cell phones, cell towers, WiFi, “smart”/wireless transmitting public utility meters, and the new 5G Grid?
  • Why are children & those with autoimmune issues more vulnerable?
  • What can we do to minimize our exposure for the maximum benefit?

Join us for a conversation with Dafna Tachover, at one of these three locations and times, about the health implications of the new 5G technology and Smart Grid. Dafna will discuss the increasing levels of WiFi radiation in our biosphere, and its adverse impact on the health and well-being of humans, plants & animals.

Friday, April 20, 7pm 
Dexter District Library
3255 Alpine St
Dexter, MI

Saturday April 21, 3pm
Roscommon Library
106 Lake S
Roscommon, MI

Sunday April 22, 4pm
Better Health Store
305 N. Clippert St
Lansing, MI

Dafna Tachover is an attorney in both New York and Israel with an MBA and founder and Managing Director of  “We Are The Evidence,” an advocacy organization for protecting the rights of people who have been injured by wireless technology radiation. She has a technical background in wireless computer networks and infrastructures from her service in the Israeli Defense Forces as a Telecommunication Officer and commander of the Israeli Defense Force’s Operations Center and Headquarters.            In 2009, Dafna developed Electromagnetic-Sensitivity, a condition caused by exposure to wireless radiation. Since then, she has dedicated herself to educating the public and public officials regarding the adverse health effects of wireless technology and the widespread sickness that exists from this technology and radiation. Working on this issue at Federal and State levels, Dafna has taken part in numerous public speaking engagements, and litigated on this issue. She has been consulted in various related lawsuits, initiated and led a Supreme Court case in Israel to ban use of Wi-Fi in schools and install wired internet networks instead—a case that led to the strictest limitations in the world on Wi-Fi in schools—and represented 94 international organizations   in an amicus brief in a US case. Dafna has been one of the leading advocates on this topic globally, featured and interviewed by TIME, CNN, New York Magazine and other media worldwide and in documentaries about the topic, including in the newly released award-winning film, “Generation Zapped.”         

For more information, email MichiganSafeTechnology@gmail.com

 

Link

DECEMBER 16TH – CALIFORNIA ISSUES CAUTION ON CELL PHONE USE – by Olga Naidenko Ph.D.

This week, California officially issued groundbreaking guidelines advising cell phone users to keep phones away from their bodies and limit use when reception is weak. State officials caution that studies link radiation from long-term cell phone use to an increased risk of brain cancer, lower sperm counts and other health problems, and note that children’s developing brains could be at greater risk.

The state Department of Public Health was forced to release the guidelines in March after a lawsuit by University of California, Berkeley, researcher Dr. Joel Moskowitz. At the time, the department said the guidelines were only a draft, but they now are the state’s official position. The DPH guidelines closely align with EWG’s Guide to Safer Cell Phone Use, published in 2016.  MORE

PLEASE SEE OUR HOME PAGE HERE AND CONSIDER MAKING A DONATION TO MICHIGAN STOP SMART METERS TO HELP US GET THE WORD OUT SO MORE PEOPLE WILL CONTACT THEIR STATE LEGISLATOR AND URGE PASSAGE OF HOUSE BILL 4220 THAT WILL GIVE PEOPLE A MEANINGFUL WAY TO OPT-OUT WITHOUT PAYING EXTORTIONATE FEES!!!

 

Link

October 5th, 2017 – Warren Woodward Wins Smart Meter Battle at Arizona Court of AppealsUnanimous decision by COA opens the way for public disclosure of corruption by the Arizona utility commission (ACC) and the Arizona Dept of Public Health. The two state agencies had conspired together to publish a false report alleging no health problems with smart meters. Mr. Woodward used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain documents showing such conspiracy. Heavily redacted documents were provided to him by the two agencies. He took both agencies to court to force disclosure of the redacted material. A trial court judge gave him the unredacted documents but placed a gag order on his public disclosure of same. The Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the gag order was improper and that Woodward is now free to publicly disclose the unredacted documents. The case was remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the appeals court decision.

This case shows what can be accomplished by a determined and disciplined individual who persists and persists. The value to our smart meter resistance movement is that the Arizona public will now learn that no honest health study was ever done and that an attempt to fake such a study was made instead. This will undermine public confidence in the whole smart meter program.

Click here for account in the Arizona Capitol Times.

Click here for the Appeals Court opinion and decision.

 

Link

Written by a northern Michigan resident to the
National Institute on Disability, Independent
Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR)

December 6th, 2016 – It’s been one year and now going into a second Northern Michigan winter that my disabled friend and her husband’s power has been cut off, not for late or non payment, but simply for refusing a digital utility meter installed on their home.  Four doctors have stated that her serious medical decline was the result of the digital electronic meter on their home.  She has documented tests before and after the digital meter was installed to prove it!  She was an EMT for 16 years and helped countless numbers of people.  Now, SHE needs help.

I travel 25 miles twice a week to bring her frozen containers of ice for her cooler so she can keep medication and food cold.  This is not the America I grew up in.  At times, she is in so much distress over her situation, she has even considered ending her life!  Even the United Nations states that no citizen should have to endure needless suffering.  We have contacted our state Representatives, Americans with Disabilities, Health and Human services and other agencies.  No one can seem to help her get her power restored with a doctor prescribed analog mechanical utility meter.  She pays her bills on time and has never had a dispute with the utility over non payment.  I feel she is being discriminated against.  People who have their power shut off and pay their overdue bill get their power turned back on.  Just because she refused a digital meter, her power remains off.  The power company refuses to even look at the letters from her doctors.

This is creating a financial burden on her and her husband.  They have had to take out a loan to purchase a generator, a wall furnace, and marine batteries which her husband charges to provide some light and power to run her medical devices within the house.  We are asking Health and Human Services to advocate in her behalf to get the Michigan Regulatory Commission to issue a waiver for medical shut offs, order power restored via an analog mechanical meter for ALL those currently without power, and to discontinue any further shut offs till this is sorted out.  One of our Senators added an amendment to a current energy bill to address this situation, but it was stripped out.  Dr. David Carpenter, a Harvard trained expert in environmental science gave sworn testimony to the Michigan Public Service Commission, stating that the highly spiked electromagnetic radiation from digital meters is a proven cause of serious illnesses.  Please help the citizens of this country who are suffering because of digital electronic utility meters.  Thank you.

John Kurczewski
5323 S Straits Hwy.  Apt 20
Indian River, Michigan, 49749

 

Please check out our homepage for other new smart meter stories.

 

 

Link

UPDATE ON MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS

by Vigilant Dave
July 26th, 2015

Justice iconsThis past week we saw first an unfortunate decision in the Sheldon smart meter appeal. That was the case in which the Court had found in April of 2012 that a Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) decision on smart meters did not have any substantial factual support. The Court had ordered the MPSC to do the case over and this time to consider all aspects of smart meters, including the “risks and burdens” on customers and the ”experience in other states.” But the Commission chose to defy the court’s order and consider only the effect of smart meters on utility rates. The Commission also chose to exclude the very interveners who could have presented evidence on the issues the appeals court wanted considered.

David Sheldon brought an appeal as one of the excluded interveners, essentially arguing that the Commission was in contempt of court. A panel of three judges heard the case, which was not the panel that had earlier ordered the Commission to consider all the aspects. This panel actually found no problem with the Commission’s conduct! They failed, in their written opinion and order, to state any logical basis for finding that the Commission had carried out the earlier order and should not be found in contempt.

That decision may be read here.

A second decision this week was on a Motion for Reconsideration filed by the MPSC on the Consumers Energy case. This was the case, known as Rison et al, filed by a group of 16 Consumers customers from the Muskegon area. The Commission had been ordered back in May to redo a contested case involving their decision to approve funding and an opt-out plan for Consumers Energy customers. The scope of the remand was  limited to rate issues, with no indication that the Commission need consider health or privacy concerns. And no requirement that the Commission need allow the Consumers customers who brought this case to participate in the remand hearings.

The MPSC wanted the Court to reverse that decision on grounds they had already thoroughly examined smart meter issues and there was no need for further inquiry. In this matter the majority of the justices simply denied the motion, so that the earlier order remained in effect and the majority made it clear that the scope of the case would remain limited as earlier ordered.

But this time something happened that was not business as usual. Judge O’Connell, who had participated in that earlier decision, filed a dissenting opinion in which he actually expressed his view that the scope of the earlier order should be expanded to specifically include health and privacy issues. He stated that due process requires that customers who have smart meter concerns have a forum in which to present evidence to back up their concerns. He also questioned the justice of charging opt-out fees, questioned the objectivity of the MPSC, questioned the propriety of the Attorney General representing both sides in a contested case and opined that it was time for the Michigan Supreme Court to get involved. It must be stressed this was a dissenting opinion and in no way was it the order of the court. But at least it gives us some reason for hope that we are beginning to change minds.

 That colorful dissenting opinion can be read here.

Link

Analysis by David Sheldon
(July 19th, 2015)

On July 15th, 2015, a decision was handed down by the Michigan Court of Appeals that, if not appealed, will severely constrain the rights of all Michigan utility customers. This article is written, in part, as a response to an inaccurate and misleading article published a few days ago on another smart meter website. Sadly that article unfairly characterized the efforts of a couple to defend themselves against utility bullying and implied that, if only they had hired a good lawyer, the outcome would have been different.

We know there are thousands of you, in southeastern Michigan alone, who have resisted the forced installation of a “smart” electric meter. Many of you have locked your meter enclosures or otherwise limited access by utility installers bent on replacing your traditional meters.

Thousands of others who have the new smart meters are now suffering serious health effects that limit them in the use and enjoyment of their homes. The universal experience has been that, once a smart meter is installed, the utility will not remove it for any reason. At least 20 families that we know of have found it necessary to resort to self help in order to rid themselves of an intrusive and life limiting device.

Such was the case for Ralph and Donna Stenman of Farmington Hills. In early 2012, after pleading with DTE to remove a smart meter that was making Donna ill, the couple finally resorted to removing the offending device themselves and replacing it with an industry standard calibrated analog meter. The smart meter itself was in no way tampered with. It was simply removed from the meter housing (owned by the homeowner) and safely returned to DTE.

The utility objected that the meter the couple installed was not an approved device. The couple responded that DTE was welcome to replace it at any time with an analog meter of their own specifications. The utility responded with threats and repeated attempts to re-install the smart meter. The Stenmans believed they had no choice but to notify the utility that any access to their meter would have to be by appointment only and under supervised conditions. The result was that DTE sued the Stenmans seeking, among other things, an injunction that would command the couple to allow DTE installers to enter upon their property for the purpose of re-installing the smart meter.

The lawsuit was heard by Oakland Circuit Judge Rudy Nichols in the fall of 2012. The couple wound up representing themselves after approaching a number of attorneys who refused to take the case, stating either that it was hopeless to go up against a utility or that DTE would bankrupt them if they took the case. A preliminary hearing was scheduled with DTE asking for a summary judgment.

In preparation for that hearing much research was done on the law to determine what sort of evidence the couple would need. Michigan Stop Smart Meters provided assistance. The couple filed a formal response to the suit, explaining why the smart meter had to be removed, and providing an affidavit from a doctor that an identical smart meter installed on another home had caused severe illness. Also presented was a government document explaining how these meters would invade privacy and that they should be installed only with consent of the homeowner. The couple fully expected that this preliminary evidence would be enough that the judge would schedule a trial. Instead, in December of 2012, the judge granted DTE a summary judgment with no opportunity for the couple to present any further evidence.

Judge Nichols stated in his decision that the Stenmans had not met their burden to present evidence showing that, if a trial were held, they had a reasonable chance to prevail. Yet another Oakland Circuit Judge had heard an identical lawsuit by DTE against another couple a month earlier, been presented with the identical evidence, and found that evidence sufficient to warrant scheduling a trial. Judge Nichols also ignored the fact that DTE had not presented any evidence that their smart device had ever been authorized by either the legislature or the Michigan Public Service Commission. The law is clear that a summary judgment is only legal when there are no material facts in controversy. The law is also clear that any ambiguity in the factual situation must be resolved in favor of the non moving party – in this case the Stenmans. Judge Nichols decision was clearly contrary to law.

An appeal was filed. The Stenmans filed their appeal brief without benefit of an attorney. The wheels of justice turn slowly. It took from December of 2012 until June of 2015 for oral argument to be scheduled. The Stenmans finally found an attorney to represent them at the oral argument. Some of you had the opportunity to hear that.

On July 15th a decision was finally issued that upheld Judge Nichols’ decision in all respects and provided no relief to the Stenmans. In reaching this conclusion the Court of Appeals found that:

  1. That even though the burden of proving the necessary elements of a complaint always (by law) falls on the plaintiff, that burden can be cast, when convenient, upon the defendant.
  2. That, although DTE had never presented any evidence, or even an assertion, that their smart meters were lawful, these meters were nonetheless lawful.
  3. That, even though the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) had no jurisdiction to tell a privately owned utility what kind of meters to use(*), the MPSC nevertheless had the authority to authorize the new smart meters, and the utility could rely on that authority to force installation of the new meters.
  4. That, even though a private utility is required to have its rules and conditions of service approved by the MPSC, and no such approval had actually been given for the utility to make smart meters a condition of service, that the utility could, nonetheless, mandate smart meters.
  5. That, even though the MPSC has consistently refused to hold any evidentiary hearings on the possible health dangers of smart meters, they were entitled to conclude, as a matter of law, that health effects of smart meters are negligible.
  6. That, even though the “opt-out” plan offered by DTE allows nobody to avoid having a smart meter and was not even an available plan when the Stenmans resorted to self help, this plan is cited as one of the reasons Judge Nichols was justified in his ruling.
  7. That even though there is no practical alternative to DTE service for most people in southeastern Michigan, nonetheless being a DTE customer is “voluntary”.
  8. That even though evidence was provided the court that an identical smart meter had made a child severely ill, this did not constitute evidence that it might endanger the lives of an elderly couple.
  9. That even though the issue of the “opt-out” plan being an opt-out in name only was fully discussed in the Stenmans’ original pleadings before Judge Nichols, the Court of Appeals finds that this issue was not raised in the trial court.
  10. That, although the Stenmans provided an official publication of the U.S. government in which the National Institute for Standards and Technology concluded that smart meters will violate the privacy of homeowners wherever they are installed, the Court of Appeals finds that such concerns with privacy are merely “conjectural and hypothetical”, and that there has been no showing of “actual or imminent harm”. Therefore the Stenmans “have no standing” to raise the Fourth Amendment issue.

Whether one reaches this point fully represented by an attorney or reaches it through one’s own efforts makes little difference in the end.

What we see in this Appeals Court decision is not respect for or observance of law. What we see is a politically motivated decision based on the idea that nothing should get in the way of the smart grid agenda. Or that nothing should get in the way of powerful interest groups.

This is not to say that our legal system is hopeless or that we shouldn’t try to defend our rights through lawful means. Not every panel of the Court of Appeals will be as unreasonable as this one, and not every trial judge will be as unreasonable as Judge Nichols.

———————————————————————————————

* Another panel of this same Court of Appeals so ruled in March, 2015 in the case of Cusumano v. MPSC.