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

Editor’s Note: 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.

Michigan Stop Smart Meters has never before endorsed a candidate for public office nor advocated in these pages for issues outside of meter choice and related issues of electromagnetic radiation. We are making an exception now because Senator Colbeck is the only politician in Lansing who is currently championing the issue of health effects caused by emfs. He made speeches in the Senate on behalf of this issue and the privacy issue with smart meters as well as the 5G issue and made our issues one one of the central planks of his race for Governor.
———————————————————————————————-

Why We Should Support Colbeck for Governor
Whether We Are Democrats or Republicans!

by Dafna Tachover

Michigan State Senator, Patrick Colbeck, is running to be the Governor of MI and an important part of his agenda is the wireless issue. On August 7, 2018 the Primaries will take place and in order to move forward, he needs to win. He does have a chance.  For this, we hope for your help. From my extensive experience working on this issue – getting Colbeck elected to be a Governor is the biggest chance we have for change and there is no close second.  

Senator Colbeck’s Speech About Wireless Harms & Against 5G
In March 2018, MI State Senator – Senator Patrick Colbeck gave a passionate speech objecting the 5G legislation and speaking loud and clear about wireless harms and about Microwave Sickness/ES (the email I sent in March about his speech is following). He actually spoke louder on both than many leading activists….

I learned that the reason Senator’s Colbeck’s has become aware of the wireless issue is his wife, Dr. Angie Colbeck. Angie Colbeck is a pediatric doctor and she developed Microwave Sickness.

My Trip to MI to Help Colbeck’s Efforts
When I watched his speech I was in tears. I felt compelled to go to MI and thank him in person for being the first politician to stand up for the truth. I was even more excited when I learned that he decided to run for Governor and wanted to do what I can to help. So I went to MI.

This is why I went to MI and spent a lot of time there. I wanted to support Senator’s Colbeck and Angie’s efforts. Over a period of a month I gave over 20 lectures hoping to awaken communities, make them understand the importance of the wireless issue and by that encouraging them to vote for Senator Colbeck.

Colbeck is Our Best (and only real)  Opportunity for Change
After working on the wireless issue in the US on many levels of the government and understanding that the courts are not a viable option for a timely change, I believe that getting Colbeck elected is probably the biggest chance we have for change. We need change desperately.

We Should Support Him Whether We Are Republicans /Democrats
To me, there is no issue more important than the wireless issue. I do not tell people what my political opinions are or what my opinion on any other issue (and it is not because of lack of opinions :-)). I made this decision because I didn’t want people to try and dismiss what I say about wireless because of my opinions on other issues.

Nevertheless, I decided to support Colbeck. I support him because of the wireless issue and I do NOT state my opinion on any other issue on his agenda. I explain that my support for him is based only on his commitment to the wireless issue.

Of course if I thought he is an unworthy person – I would not have supported him. However, I met him and his wonderful wife Angie and spoke to them extensively and I’m sincerely impressed with them on the human level. 

I acknowledge that the other issues that separate Republicans & Democrats may be important. I do not underestimate the importance of other issues. But, I strongly believe that the wireless issue is a crisis far and beyond any other issue. We have an epidemic of sickness and we cannot continue on this insane path of uncontrolled wireless expansion while the sickness, the sick and our voice is being ignored and kept out of the discussion.

For example – health insurance is a very important issue, but even if there will be a nationalized health care system – when you are ES you cannot take advantage of it – you cannot go to a hospital with such high levels of radiation. When I got sick I had the best insurance possible but I couldn’t use it so it didn’t matter whether or not I have insurance. 

I wish the other candidates would have endorsed this issue. But none of them made any statement about it. At the moment, as far as I know, Senator Colbeck is the only candidate who is committed to this issue and so he has my support. I hope our community will support him.

Senator Collbeck is committed to this issue
We all know that usually politicians do not keep their promises. Senator Colbeck is not going to change his position as his wife Angie, who is a pediatric doctor is suffering from Microwave Sickness herself and committed to this issue.

Further, whether or not you support his position on other issues, I think it cannot be denied that he is that rare type of politician – one who actually stand up for what he believes even when his position is unpopular as he has proven with the wireless issue and many other issues.

Colbeck Speech from May 2018 – Senator Calbeck made other important speeches on this issue. On May 29th, he joined our efforts to stop the 5G Bill in the House Energy Committee and spoke to the committee again (his speech starts at around 1:03:40). His speech followed by my presentation together with Prof. Paul Heroux and Dr. James Ziobran.

Colbeck Speech in support of Analog Choice – Before that he made a speech to the House Energy Committee in support of Analog Choice Bill and about the dangers of the “Smart” Grid.

Senattor Colbeck Does NOT Take Money From Industry
Senator Colbeck is not taking money from industry. As a state Senator he is unpopular in Senate because he is constantly fighting against the “business as usual” politics.

Senator Colbeck’s Book About Fighting the System
In July Senator Colbeck published a book about his experience as a politician: Wrestling Gators: An Outsider’s Guide to Draining the Swamp : “Find out what happens when fed-up citizens turn an engineer loose on the political swamp.”  

How to Help Get Colbeck Elected
We hope you will help the effort to get Colbeck elected. Here is how you can help:

  1. Please PLEASE Please Make a DONATION– Since Senator Colbeck does not take donations fromcorporations, clearly he needs help with funds. Since his opponents do take money from corporations, he is at a disadvantage. He prepared media ads but need funds to be able to broadcast them. This is the most urgent help. PRESS HERE TO MAKE A DONATION.
  2. Volunteer – If you are in Michigan and interested to volunteer to help his campaign, please contact Lemon James at lemon@lemonjames.com
  3. Organize a Lecture on Wireless Harms in Your Community in MI– If you are in MI or have friends and family in MI – please consider organizing a lecture on wireless harms –  it will help us spread the word about the importance of the wireless issue and indirectly help support Senator Colbeck. I am going to be in MI until July 31 for that purpose. In addition, Michigan for Safe Technology has other local people who are able and willing to give lecture in this time period and after. To organize a lecture, please contact Jeanine Deal at michigansafetechnology@gmail.com
  4. Organize a Screening of Generation Zapped – if you think your community will be more interested in a movie and / or you already organized a lecture – you can organize a screening of Generation Zapped. To organize a screening, please contact  Jeanine Deal at michigansafetechnology@gmail.com

This is really our best chance at creating change on the wireless issue – and there is not a close second. Let’s do our best to get Colbeck elected. First we need to get him to win the primaries on August 7th. Let’s do our best to help. He earned it.   

Thank you.

Dafna

 

 

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

September 20th, 2017 – In a newsletter to his constituents in Michigan’s 7th Senate District, Senator Colbeck reports that he is receiving huge numbers of complaints about unreasonable shutoffs of electric service because of smart meter disputes. Many of these shutoffs are happening even when there has been no locking of meters or attempts to block installers.

Colbeck beautifully sums up the whole issue with this “The MPSC says citizens have a choice. But choosing between having electricity or not having electricity, as hundreds of people in the 7th District and across the state are finding out, is no real choice at all. It is coercion.”

Read his whole opinion in his newsletter HERE.

Please also check out our home page here.

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

May 19th, 2017 – Smart Circuit Breakers: The Next Frontier of the Grid Edge?

(Editor’s Note: In the linked article, from GreenTech Media, we may be seeing the next phase of the ever increasing intrusiveness of new technology)

Most of the circuit breakers out there are fairly simple, electro-mechanical devices that sit idle the vast majority of the time. But the latest versions are coming with features like wireless connectivity and computing power that are meant to turn them into something more like a smart meter or a smartphone. 

Eaton and EPRI test smart circuit breakers
as virtual meters, load controllers

That’s the idea behind the field trial of Eaton’s energy management circuit breaker (EMCB). Last year, the electrical equipment giant started deploying its smart circuit breakers at about 500 homes with 12 U.S. utilities, including Duke Energy, Southern Company, CenterPoint, ComEd and Pepco. Over the next year, it will be working with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) to see if they’re capable of collecting and sharing data accurately, receiving and sending controls to other smart equipment like thermostats or water heaters, and even shifting homes on and off of grid power during emergencies.  More