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

Based on the YouTube presentation by
Josh del Sol
and Cal Washington
by Warren Woodward
October 14th, 2017

Please be aware that what I have to say is nothing personal against Josh del Sol or anyone else featured in the youtube. I have no personal grudges or axes to grind. But I do have a working BS detector.

Josh is a good filmmaker. Take Back Your Power was a great, fact-based tool for awakening people. But this one — and I will back this up with specifics — is propaganda. I would love for the theory it espouses to work, but I don’t think it will or has.

I am going to go through the YouTube InPower presentation now in the order that various things were presented.

The video gets off to a bad start when Cal Washington makes the point that one of the basic InPower premises is that, by switching to smart meters (SMs), the utility has changed the contract they have with you. That’s both right and wrong. Technically he is right because what they have installed is not a meter. It’s a transceiver and computer. I have made that point repeatedly here in AZ for years. I have proved it with an exploded conceptual rendering of a SM from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory that shows metering to be 1/5 of what a SM is. I have proved it by providing documentation that the IRS classifies smart meters as computers. I have proved it by providing the Congressional testimony of utility exec. Bennett Gaines saying SMs are computers. But guess what? In the “real” world, to the utility and PUC type people, it’s a meter. They won’t budge off that. If you accept service from the utility, you accept their equipment. Period.

Cal says that Kevin Lynch resigned on the day he got a Notice of Liability. This is supposed to be huge because Kevin holds the most senior non-political office in the gov. of Canada, Clerk of the Privy Council. Now this is something we will see throughout the YouTube: A news article is put on screen (11:17) and most of it is greyed out, with what Josh wants to emphasize lightened up and highlighted. But if you read the grey it says that “there has been much speculation in the civil service that he wanted out.” From my perspective, that’s a lot different than Cal’s exclamation at the end of the sequence that “He ran!” And again, this is something we will see a lot of in the YouTube: Drawing a false cause and effect relationship between Notices sent and people resigning or not seeking re-election. What we should be looking at is if policy changes, not if someone resigns or does not seek re-election.

Carol Taylor — Another person who resigned, supposedly because she received a Notice. But if you read the greyed out part the reason given is “So she can focus on her new job of chairing a federal economic advisory panel.” She has not been knocked out of the game. People like her make those kind of career moves all the time.

Cal talked about a judge he had running out of the courtroom. The bailiff (or sheriff or whoever was running the court) then says “All rise. I guess we’re having a break.” The problem is, Cal just leaves it at that. What happened after the break is not divulged. Outcome of the case not divulged. Maybe the Judge had a bathroom emergency. Who knows? One upshot was that Cal got arrested a year later, that he made sound as though it was some kind of revenge (and may well have been) for driving without insurance, and he spent 60 days in jail. Cal then talked about what happened after he got out and went to court again. Long story short, we are titillated with a $300M demand he put on the judge but the outcome of that is not divulged. It is left open ended. We don’t know what happened. And I don’t know about you, but I have better things to do than spend 60 days in jail. I’ve been there a couple times overnight. That was enough.

Kevin Falcon, is given as another example of someone who stepped down. What really happened in the greyed out bit is that he announced he was not going to seek re-election. As part of that announcement he did “step down” from some posts he held. But he did not quit altogether. The last line you can see on the screen is that his reason for not seeking re-election is “he and his wife are expecting.” Since the next line is not seen, I can only assume they are expecting a baby. What else would they be expecting together? A new car? Cancer? A Notice of Demand? I don’t think so. People resign all the time for family changes.

Next, examples of results of specific “seed groups” utilizing the Notice theory are presented.

Kelowna, BC action — The SM installer company CEO resigned on the day he got a Notice of Default, and Chair of the BC Utilities Commission who also got the same notices resigned. That sounds impressive but did SM policy change? No. Did the installation company fold up shop and stop installing SMs? No.

Seattle — same thing. People did not seek reelection and a couple of people resigned but did policy change? No. And BTW, people resign and don’t seek reelection all the time. Since I have been on the ACC’s case here in AZ (6 years), the ACC Executive Director resigned. 2 Utilities Division Directors have resigned. The so-called “Ethics Officer” resigned. Other various people there have resigned. Was that because they got Notice letters? No. Was that because I was such a relentless PITA? No. They resigned for a number of different reasons. A couple of them went to work for APS. Oh, and the Exec. Director of the AZ Dept. of Health Services, the guy who was in charge when the fraudulent SM health study they did came out, also resigned. Was that because I savaged his stupid SM study? No. Was it because he got a Notice? No. He moved on to a university teaching gig in Tucson. People do get sick of Phoenix. People do make career changes.

MI — AG Bill Shuette calls for free right of SM refusal after being sent the Notices. Total nonsense. Schuette has been hip to the SM scam since at least 2012! At the bottom of this email I reproduced the statement he issued in 2012.

About 4 people at the MI PUC are no longer listed at the website. Big deal! See my point above about the ACC resignations here. Happens all the time.

If you read the greyed out part, you can see that the Warren city attorney statement was taken out of context. Josh made it sound like he resigned and in so doing blew the whistle on DTE’s campaign donations. Campaign donations are a matter of public record. I look up APS’s all the time. It’s not major whistleblower stuff. The point the Warren city attorney was making (again, in grey) is that, for people who want to change SM policy there are steps that must be taken, and that some venues are appropriate and others aren’t. In his opinion for example, the Council can’t do it. Also, DTE is the beneficiary of a certain law which he cited and then, saying that the law could be changed, he mentions that would be hard because of DTE’s campaign donations. That’s not whistle blowing. It’s a statement of political reality. In short, the city attorney was being frank.

13 people have saved their analogs. That’s great, but for how long will that last? Were they given any guarantees? If they wrote Notices, where are the responses? Also, there’s a lot of people in MI who held on to their analog meters — until they didn’t. In other words, they were defiant and that worked for quite a while but eventually DTE came around to either cut them off or install a SM. If the 13 Josh mentioned still have their analogs a year or 2 from now, then I might be convinced.

NY — The speaker says he sent a $300M liability letter to not have a “smart” water meter and got a letter back saying “We’re sorry; you don’t have to have one.” But would he have gotten that letter anyway had he written something less shrill? The details of how to refuse a SM in his location are not provided. Were the meters mandatory? We don’t know.

Maui — This is another false cause and effect. The electric company switched from wanting to blanket the islands with “smart” meters to an “opt in” proposal. That was actually the result of the PUC rejecting the company’s huge proposed budget. The company had to make cuts. Blanket “smart” meter installation was one of them, but it remains a long term company goal. Also, that decision was made well before any Notice letters were sent out.

Lastly we get the voice of a “utility insider” who says that his utility has a “war room” dedicated to keeping track of SM resistance. Big deal. Of course they do! Josh is flattering himself if he thinks that’s the result of Notice letters being sent out. I am sure just about all the utilities have war rooms or at least have someone whose job it is to keep track of resistance. I know for a fact for example that APS has pictures of my meter cage. Does anyone think these companies just sit on their thumbs in the face of a threat like SM resistance of any kind? PG&E had VP “Ralph” infiltrate some anti-SM chat group years ago. In response to her request not to have a transmitting gas meter, someone I know actually got an email from UNS gas here telling her she’d been “brainwashed by Warren Woodward.” So of course these companies are keeping track of us, Notices or no Notices.

****************************

Comments are welcome as always. Please also visit our home page:
michiganstopsmartmeters.com

Footnote: Opt-Out Provisions From MI A.G. Bill Schuette in 2012:

Given the questionable benefit of smart meter program to customers, as well as the extensive public concern about the effect and potential intrusiveness of smart meter infrastructure acknowledged in the Commission’s January 12, 2012 Order in this matter, the Commission appropriately directed Michigan’s electrical utilities deploying or proposing to deploy smart meters to provide information about their plans for allowing customers to opt out of having a smart meter, and how they intend to recover the cost of such an opt-out program.

The Attorney General respectfully submits that utility customers should be given a meaningful choice of whether to have smart meters installed and operated on their property. An “opt-out” program that requires those customers who opt out to pay an unwarranted economic penalty for doing so does not afford customers such a meaningful choice.

The information provided by Detroit Edison, and Consumers [Consumers Energy Company] in response to the Commission’s Order does not sufficiently establish that they intend to offer customers a fair choice of whether to accept smart meters on their property. Detroit Edison’s response on this subject is based upon the assertion that “Edison’s AMI [Advanced Meter Infrastructure] program is beneficial for all customers.” (Document No. 0148, p. 7). Proceeding from the unsubstantiated assertion, Detroit Edison apparently proposes to impose what it broadly describes as “all incremental costs” solely upon customers who choose not to accept installation of smart meters. (Document 0148, pp. 8-9). Consumers’ submission similarly states that while it proposes to provide customers with the option to retain their existing meter equipment, it apparently intends to subject customers making such a choice to additional charges, including charges for “maintaining ready testing and billing traditional meters”. (Document No. 0146, pp.16-17). While neither Detroit Edison nor Consumers provide details regarding their opt-out proposals and associated charges, both of their comments suggest that they intend to effectively penalize customers who choose to opt-out of smart meters. Presumably, under the utilities proposals, customers who opt-out of smart meters would be required to pay rates covering both the costs of the smart meter program, and expansively defined incremental costs “of retaining traditional meters. These proposals raise substantial questions as to whether their respective customers would, in fact, be afforded a fair and meaningful choice to “opt-out”.

Another argument which may be important for the Commission to consider is whether a financial incentive to homeowners who allow smart meters to be installed in their home might be an alternative approach to a rate increase if a homeowner refuses to permit a smart meter to be installed.

Respectively submitted, Bill Schuette
Attorney General

[From: ATTORNEY GENERAL’S COMMENTS PURSUANT TO THE MPSC ORDER DATED JANUARY 12, 2012 – http://efile.mpsc.state.mi.us/efile/docs/17000/0408.pdf]

Link

Analysis of the Michigan Court of Appeals Decision
May 24th, 2017

by David Sheldon*

(This case illustrates the difficulties of fighting a utility in court over smart meters, particularly when there is
perceived to be judicial bias in our courts in favor of
large corporations. It is presented at this time in view
of the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear this case and to underscore the necessity for our present efforts to secure legislation to protect utility customers.)

NATURE OF THE APPEAL: The defendant’s in this case, Ralph and Donna Stenman, having experienced some health symptoms from installation of a DTE smart meter, and concerned about further damage to their health and loss of privacy, strenuously objected to the installation of the smart meter, asking for return of their analog meter. When DTE ignored their pleas, the couple went ahead and replaced the smart meter with an analog meter they had purchased. DTE brought suit against them, asking the Oakland County Circuit Court for a “summary judgment” against the couple. A court can legally make a summary judgment when there are ‘no material issues of fact’ that might require a trial to resolve.

The Stenmans interviewed several attorneys and were unable to find one willing to take on DTE. Accordingly they represented themselves in the original proceeding. They requested a jury trial. Circuit Judge Rudy Nichols granted the summary judgment, so that the Stenmans were denied any kind of trial or opportunity to develop their defense. An appeal was taken to the Michigan Court of Appeals, File No 321203, over the fact they had been denied a trial. The Stenmans again filed their own appellate brief. A reply brief and oral argument were presented for them by attorney Robert Igrasin. The appeals court, judges Patrick M. Meter, Mark J. Cavanagh and Kurtis T. Wilder, issued an opinion and order in favor of DTE on July 14th, 2015 and awarded DTE its costs and decided to publish their decision, which is now in all the law libraries as a precedent for similar cases in the future.

(1) STENMAN ARGUMENT ON METER DEFINITION – DISMISSED:

The Opinion of the Court: “In the trial court and on appeal, defendants assert that a “meter” installed by a regulated public utility may only perform the functions that it is authorized by law to perform, arguing that the smart meter installed by plaintiff violated the “lawful definition of meter’ ” because it was capable of performing functions other than measuring electricity use. However, based on the plain language of the definition of “meter” in R 460.3102(g), there is no indication that electricity-measuring devices that have radio transmitters or other additional capabilities do not constitute “meters.” … The mere fact that the definition does not expressly state that a meter with a radio transmitter still constitutes a meter does not indicate that a meter with such a feature is not included under the definition. … Accordingly, we conclude that reasonable minds could not differ in finding that the smart meter installed by plaintiff qualified as a “meter.”7

Comment: The Court is saying, in effect, that the definition of ‘meter’ that is in the statute does not preclude the forced installation of any device by a monopoly utility so long as that device is called a ‘meter’ and actually does, among other things, measure electricity consumed. There is, therefore, potentially no limit on what could be forcibly installed on a private home.

(2) STENMAN ARGUMENT THAT SMART METERS WERE NEVER AUTHORIZED AS A CONDITION FOR RECEIVING ELECTRICAL SERVICE – DISMISSED:

The Opinion of the Court: “First, there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the smart meter installed by plaintiff was lawful under the definition of “meter” applicable to the relevant administrative rules and tariff. Plaintiff is a public utility that is regulated by the MPSC. With regard to the regulation of public utilities, MCL 460.6(1) provides:

“The [MPSC] is vested with complete power and jurisdiction to regulate all public utilities in the state except a municipally owned utility, the owner of a renewable resource power production facility as provided in [MCL460.6d], and except as otherwise restricted by law. The [MPSC] is vested with the power and jurisdiction to regulate all rates, fares, fees, charges, services, rules, conditions of service, and all other matters pertaining to the formation, operation, or direction of public utilities. The [MPSC] is further granted the power and jurisdiction to hear and pass upon all matters pertaining to, necessary, or incident to the regulation of public utilities, including electric light and power companies, whether private, corporate, or cooperative . . . . [Emphasis added.]”

Comment: The court is arguing, in effect, that smart meters are legal as a mandatory condition for receiving electrical service because the MPSC made them so. But the panel in this case is conveniently ignoring a ruling of a different panel of the same appeals court, on February 19th, 2015, only five months earlier. In the earlier (unpublished) case, File No. 316728, consolidated appellants Kurtz, Edwards and Cusumano had argued that MPSC had erred in authorizing a type of smart meter “opt-out meter” that did not address public concerns about privacy and health. Appellants in that case had argued the MPSC had erred in authorizing this opt-out meter without allowing any evidence to be admitted concerning privacy and health issues. This was the court’s answer to that:

PSC has only the authority granted to it by statute. The PSC has broad authority to regulate rates for public utilities, but that authority does not include the power to make management decisions for utilities. … Apellants correctly point out that the PSC has no statutory authority to enable DTE to require all customers to accept an AMI meter, even if some customers choose to opt-out of the AMI program. However, no such statute exists because the decision regarding what type of equipment to deploy can only be described as a management prerogative.”

It seems to this writer that the Michigan Court of Appeals cannot have it both ways. If the earlier panel was correct that the MPSC had no jurisdiction over meter type and hence no obligation to allow evidence on privacy or health issues before approving DTE’s “opt-out” program, then the Stenman court cannot also be correct in ruling that DTE’s meter had been established as a lawful condition for receiving electrical service. Yet the Stenman court made no reference to the earlier decision, even though one of its judges had also been on the earlier panel. When one panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals overrules an earlier panel on an issue, there is a procedure for resolving the disagreement – a procedure not followed in this case.

(3) STENMAN OBJECTIONS BASED ON PRIVACY & HEALTH – DISMISSED:

Opinion of the Court: “Second, the trial court properly concluded that defendants failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether their privacy and health-related concerns constituted valid affirmative defenses that excused or justified their actions related to the smart meter … In the trial court, defendants failed to provide any authority (emphasis added) in support of their claim that their privacy and health-related concerns constituted valid affirmative defenses to their violations of the relevant statutes, regulations, and tariff. … “

Comment: The Court is saying, in effect, that it is not enough for a home owner to present evidence that a utility’s actions are in fact endangering privacy or health, but that these defendants, who were without an attorney in the original court, must also cite prior court precedents where it had previously been established that privacy or health concerns could be a valid reason for opposing a utility installation. This despite the fact that the utility (plaintiff) had not cited any court precedent that privacy and health concerns were NOT a valid basis for objecting to an installation. Nor did this court cite any precedent to establish that privacy or health concerns were irrelevant to a utility installation. Where there is no precedent for a legal principle a case is generally termed a “case of first impression” and does call for analysis, but none was done by this court.

“Furthermore, even if we assume, arguendo, that defendants’ privacy or health-related concerns constitute valid defenses to their failure to comply with the relevant rules and tariff provisions, defendants failed to establish the factual bases of those defenses. “ The party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of presenting evidence to support it.” …

“In support of their privacy defense, defendants proffered a report prepared by the National Institute of Standards and Technology entitled Guidelines for Smart Grid Cyber Security: Vol. 2, Privacy and the Smart Grid (NISTIR 7628) (August 2010). Even assuming that this report constituted admissible evidence, see MCR 2.116(G)(6), this document does not demonstrate that the smart meter installed on defendants’ property posed an actual risk to defendants’ privacy; the report generally discussed the possibility of privacy risks related to smart meters and provided recommendations for entities participating in a smart grid. …

“In support of their health-related defense, defendants provided the affidavit of Dr. Hillman, discussing the health of a three–year -old child not involved in the instant case. The affidavit does not establish that the smart meter installed at defendants’ home operated in a similar fashion, emitted the same level of “electricity [that] permeat[ed] the house,” or caused similar health effects , and thus fails to be competent evidence that the smart meter installed on defendants’ property posed a risk to defendants’ health. Again, considering the evidence that was before the trial court, we conclude that reasonable minds could not differ in holding that defendants failed to provide a factual basis for their privacy and health -related defenses and, as a result, failed to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact exists with regard to the viability of those defenses.

Comment: The court is saying that it is never enough to show proof that a thing has harmed others or is generally acknowledged by experts to cause a risk of harm wherever installed. The court is saying that the Stenmans must wait until their health has actually been damaged or their private information has actually been sold to third parties before they can legally object to an installation (of a device never authorized by any statute and never mandated as a condition of service by our own MPSC)

(4) STENMAN OBJECTIONS BASED ON FOURTH AMENDMENT – DISMISSED:

Opinion of the Court: “Finally, defendants argue that plaintiff’s installation of a smart meter on their home constituted a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We disagree. … The United States and Michigan Constitutions guarantee every person’s right to be free from unreasonable searches. US Const, Am IV; Const 1963, art 1, § 11. However, in order for Fourth Amendment protections to apply, the government must perform a search. “[T]he Fourth Amendment proscribes only government action and is not applicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, conducted by a private person not acting as an agent of the government or with the participation or knowledge of any government official.” … defendants have failed to establish that plaintiff’s installation of smart meters constitutes governmental action for Fourth Amendment purposes. Even if the state and federal governments have advocated or incentivized, as a matter of public policy, the use of smart meters, there is no indication that the government controls the operations of plaintiff, an investor-owned electric utility, or that plaintiff acts as an agent of the state or federal governments. Accordingly, we reject defendants’ claim that plaintiff’s installation of a smart meter violated their Fourth Amendment rights.”

Comment: There were ample citations in the Stenman case to situations where the government aided and abetted a private actor to commit an action later held to be a Fourth Amendment violation. In this case the federal government provided 50% of the initial funding for DTE smart meters and the MPSC mandated Michigan utilities to participate in a “Smart Meter Collaborative” to plan for the implementation of smart meters in Michigan. This court simply did not want to go there.

SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS: Application was made for the Stenmans by attorney Don Keskey to the Michigan Supreme Court to hear an appeal, and that application denied on March 8, 2016. Application was made, also by Don Keskey, to the U.S. Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari and denied by that court on May 4, 2017.

The legal brief filed by the Stenmans can be found HERE.

 The decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals on this case can be found HERE.

 The conflicting decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals on the earlier, Kurtz, Edwards and Cusumano consolidated appeals can be found HERE.

 CONCLUSION: In view of this case, other utility customers wishing to fight their utility in court over a smart meter installation will have a hard road to travel. That doesn’t mean it is impossible, but any future case will need to distinguish itself from this case by rigorous presentation of evidence with the first filing or first response or by the time of a first motion hearing. A case in which actual harm, and not only hypothetical harm, can be shown conclusively, would have a distinct advantage. All that happened in this case also illustrates the importance of securing a legislative solution, as many of us are attempting to do now with Michigan House Bill 4220, sponsored by Representative Gary Glenn with 17 cosponsors.

 Text of the Glenn bill as originally introduced can be found HERE. A subsequent admendment was approved in committee that excluded water utilities from the bill.

 ************************************

* David Sheldon is not an attorney but has represented himself successfully in both federal and state courts.

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.

Link

David_O_Carpenter_from_the_University_at_AlbanyGives very strong and credible testimony on the health problems caused by “smart” meters in DTE’s current rate case.

July 6th, 2015

We were and are convinced that having the testimony of a highly credible and seasoned professional could help us strike a blow against “smart” meters in this rate case. More importantly the testimony will help us to make our case before the legislature and for our upcoming battles with DTE in the regular courts.

DTE brought the current rate case to the Michigan Public Service Commission. In this case, U-17767, DTE is seeking across the board rate increases for most of its services but also requesting the Commission to approve continued customer funding of “smart meters.”

Dr. Carpenter is known in professional circles all over the world. He is known for his view that smart meters represent a real threat to the health of utility customers. Dr. Carpenter was the leader of a group of 45 doctors and scientists who signed the “Toronto Statement” warning of the dangers of smart meters in 2012. He was one of the authors of the Bio-initiative Report and about 350 articles that have been published in peer reviewed journals. He is currently the Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment, State University of New York at Albany.

The doctor generously contributed his time for this case, asking only to be reimbursed for his out-of-pocket expenses for travel from New York. Even so, Michigan Stop Smart Meters is out about $1000 for the trip expenses so that we need to appeal to you, our fellow smart meter activists. You all now have a better shot at keeping a smart meter off your own homes because of the facts this doctor got on the record this week!

In accordance with the Commission’s normal procedures, all witnesses submit their direct testimony in written form many weeks prior to a hearing. They are required to be present at the hearing so that opposing parties may cross-examine them on that testimony. Dr. Carpenter’s cross-examination gave him an opportunity to make his written testimony come alive and to establish his credibility with the judge as a seasoned and highly credible professional.

Our thanks go to all of you activists, who made the trip from Detroit to Lansing to show support for our issue and for the doctor’s testimony. About half the people in the room were activists known to us. The other half were MPSC staff people, including all of the ones directly involved in the planning of smart grid.

Our thanks also go to smart meter activist Richard Meltzer, who conducted the primary cross-examination of the doctor, lasting more than two hours. This was necessary because we had advance indications that the attorneys for DTE and MPSC staff were going to waive cross. We think they made that choice in hopes of denying the doctor an opportunity to establish his bona fides. As it turned out DTE did not cross and staff’s cross was limited to about 3 questions. But their strategy ultimately failed because of Richard’s outstanding questions.

Richard was allowed only to ask questions designed to clarify the original testimony, not to expand on it. There were many objections from the attorneys for DTE and MPSC staff. Despite all the objections we wound up getting more than enough of the critical facts developed on the record. DTE and staff did not put any evidence into the record that would establish that smart meters do not cause harm.

In the end what we got on the record was that smart meters will adversely impact about 5% of the population almost immediately following installation, and are likely to cause cancers or neurological illnesses in the long run for a much larger share of the public. We got on record that the first cause of harm is the pulse modulation of the microwave radio carrier. This makes smart meters very different than am or fm radio broadcasting. We also got on record the fact these meters, even with radio off, put dirty electricity on the wiring of homes and businesses. This is critical because it shows that the so called “opt-out” meter DTE is offering is no true opt-out at all!

Michigan Stop Smart Meters asks you to consider if you are not better off because we finally got some real testimony on the record. This event set us back about $1000. Some have already made generous contributions. If you can send in a contribution of $100, $50, $25 or whatever you can afford, we will be made whole for the expense of this event. Any excess of contributions that come in will put us in a position to undertake other projects to advance the goals we all share of protecting our health and our privacy and forcing DTE to stop the bullying.

Please mail contributions to:

Michigan Stop Smart Meters
215 West Troy #4004
Ferndale, MI 48220

 

Link

Dr. David O. Carpenter to Testify Against “Smart Meters”
in Utility Rate Case
before
Michigan Public Service Commission.

David_O_Carpenter_from_the_University_at_AlbanyDr. Carpenter’s position is that the current smart meter technology
poses health risks both because of the microwave radiation and
because of the low frequency “dirty electricity” these meters put
on the wiring of homes and businesses.

Cross Examination of Dr. Carpenter
Michigan Public Service Commission
7109 West Saginaw Highway
Lansing, MI

Monday July 6th, 9 AM

Dr. Carpenter is currently Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment, State University of New York at Albany. He has published some 350 papers in peer reviewed journals.

We would like to see as many as possible attend the above
hearing before the administrative judge to show support for
Dr. Carpenter and for the testimony he is providing that will
be so helpful to our cause.

Directions from Detroit area: Follow I-96 from Detroit to Lansing and continue up the west side of Lansing, then exit to Saginaw Highway
and proceed
about 3 blocks east.

If you care about putting the brakes on this harmful technology, consider making a donation of $100, $50, $25 or whatever you
can afford to cover Dr. Carpenter’s travel expenses.

The doctor is, apart from reimbursement of out of pocket expenses, receiving no payment for his testimony. It is costing about $1,000
for air fare and rental car to bring him to this hearing.
This money
has been advanced by
Michigan Stop Smart Meters. Any money
raised
in excess of these travel expenses will go toward our ongoing
legal efforts and toward cost of
travel to put on smart meter
lectures
all over the state.

Please send contributions by check or money order to:

Michigan Stop Smart Meters
215 West Troy #4004
Ferndale, MI 48220

 

 

Link

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.

LawDuring 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!