by | April 4, 2012 · 12:31 am
↓ Jump to Comments

Smart Meter Defense


from multiple sources, recommend tailoring related documents for you and your particular area, ‘agents’ etc.
From: Forbidden Knowledge TV
Date: Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 7:30 AM
Subject: Public Health Physician Warns of Smart Meter Dangers Stresses Need for Analog Option

Dear scott,

Do you like paying to be irradiated?

Video: http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/page/5512.html

– Alexandra

P.S. Please share Forbidden Knowledge TV e-mails
and videos with your friends and colleagues.

That’s how we grow. Thanks.

Alexandra Bruce
Forbidden Knowledge TV
Daily Videos from the Edges of Science
http://www.ForbiddenKnowledgeTV.com
====================================
This message was sent by: Bruce Content, LLC, 7920 Norton Ave. Suite # 4, West Hollywood, CA 90046

 

From: Jim
Subject: FW: REPLACING A SMART METER WITH A SAFE ANALOG METER

Dec. 4, 2011

This video demonstrates a way to protect your home from EMF pollution and unlawful surveillance.

“Smart Meters” have been misrepresented as safe and lawful. They have not been shown to be either, and they are known to be otherwise.

Smart Meters emit dangerous pulsed EMF radiation (a class 2b carcinogen) into private property, and they are instruments of surveillance as defined by Federal Wiretapping Law because Smart Meters monitor personal activities by electronic means inside private homes and businesses.

Power companies, local governments and regulators have badly failed to investigate and confirm the legality and safety of Smart Meters, preferring instead to take the advice and directions of “experts” and “stakeholders” who stand to make billions on this destructive and invasive technology.

Never before has such a poorly conceived and dubious program been undertaken against, ultimately, every person on the planet who receives distributed electrical service.

The dangers to the public are so obvious that to be a proponent of Smart Meters is to be suspect of intentional wrongdoing or severe ignorance.

There will soon be massive backlash against not just Smart Meters but the wider attitude by wealthy elites that they may invade, control and exploit people’s private lives as they wish.

People are awakening to these frauds at an accelerating pace. This video is just one tiny part of that general public awakening.

Today, it may seem radical to refuse or reject a Smart Meter on your home. Soon, most of us will have difficulty understanding how a program as unwise and offensive the Smart Meter program could have been contemplated in the first place.

Never support or vote for any electoral candidate who does not openly oppose Smart Meters.

You may have a Smart Meter on your house, and you may have thought it was harmless. The more you learn about these devices the more you will change your mind.

The good news: It is not your fault that you have been deceived. It is never too late to get rid of your Smart Meter.

Pastor Butch

www.PastorButch.com

PDF – 20120329-Smart Meter – PastorButch

Rense: More Deadly Smart Meter- Wake Up!

An upcoming community-based film about the
“No Smart Meter” revolution is gathering steam
in British Columbia, the US and around the world.

Stop Smart Meters: Trailer for Independent Film

If you love someone send this to them.

‘SMART METERS’ – THE NEW SILENT KILLER PARTS 1 and 2

Devvy Kidd

“The electromagnetic field is the perfect secret agent: you cannot see it, you cannot smell it, you cannot hear it, and its effects are slow but relentless.” -By Volter Hertenstein, MP Bavarian Parliament
I ask NWVs to post this column on a Friday because it does require many hours of reading to fully understand the issue. By necessity, this new column is two parts as I’m trying, as I did in my first column, to put as much credible information all together in one place to make it easier for everyone fighting this new silent killer. We’re all pressed for time. Thank you to everyone who sent in reference material in our efforts to share the truth and what we can do to stop this madness.
There is a major war being waged in this country, although you’d never know it by the silence from the old, disgraced media (ABC, CBS, NBC) and all the cable “news” networks. This new assault on our bodies and privacy is over another relatively new piece of technology that allegedly will save energy; it will also cost tens of thousands of jobs for meter readers. When I say millions of Americans are up in arms over this, I am not exaggerating.
If you are unfamiliar with this issue, please read my first column first on this to get a full understanding of how dangerous those ‘smart meters’ are and why you don’t want one on your home or business. It contains not only my battle against having one installed on my house (update in Part II), but the very best expert opinions from individuals who have studied wireless RF (radio frequency) for decades:
Since that column was published, my email box has been overflowing with questions, which I will address as best I can in this column. Hundreds of emails describe how people’s health has suffered serious deleterious effects after the meters were installed – before the individual even knew about possible dangers to their health. When I say utility companies are forcing this installation of those meters, I am not exaggerating. I know of one instance here in Texas where a utility company installation man forced his way onto the person’s property and physically pushed the lady of the house mulitple times (in other words, he assaulted her) in his attempt to install the meter after she told him she did not want the meter installed and to get off her property. I have spoken with her on the phone, but due to legal reasons, cannot be more specific right now.
“The nationwide roll-out of transmitting radio frequency utility meters, known as smart meters, has intensified since the federal push and funding for them came through the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Wisconsin utilities got $21.5 million of the $3.4 billion awarded for smart grid projects, including meter installation. But people who are sensitive to the effects of microwave radiation and electrical fields cannot tolerate the new source of emissions. And some Wisconsin utility companies have been bullying their paying customers who have resisted the installation of smart meters, or requested their removal for health reasons.
“In fact, the chronic bursts or pulsing of smart meters have not been proven to be biologically safe for anyone. Current federal standards are grossly out of date, not taking into account the growing levels of microwave radiation exposure people now get 24/7 from various sources. Furthermore, FDA/FCC standards are based solely on the heating effect of microwave radiation on a large, grown man, ignoring numerous studies that point to other effects, including irregular heartbeats, melatonin depletion, which affects sleep, and abnormal mast cell proliferation, which affects the immune system and inflammation levels.”
Here are just two examples from California:
“Despite Public Outcry, Sheriff Refuses to Enforce County Law Banning Wireless Network – Santa Cruz, CA- “This morning at approximately 7:45am, Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Deputies responded to a “smart” meter protest at the Wellington Energy yard at 38th and Portola in the unincorporated Opal Cliffs area of Santa Cruz County where PG&E contractors Wellington Energy are based. Wellington has been installing wireless “smart” meters throughout the county, violating ordinances in Capitola, Watsonville, and the County[1] that prohibit installations due to urgent concerns about health impacts from the meters’ wireless pulses, which have been measured at 100 times the strength of a cell phone[2], as well as privacy violations, ongoing accuracy issues and a series of fires and explosions caused by the new meters.
“Thousands of people have submitted written health complaints to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and in May the World Health Organization made an earth shattering declaration- that non-ionizing radiation from cell phones, cell towers, wifi, and “smart” meters, has been linked with a number of cancers. “Smart” meter radiation is now categorized as a class 2b carcinogen in the same cancer causing category as lead, DDT, and engine exhaust.[3] Nevertheless, PG&E continues to maintain that their meters are safe.”
Two More Arrested at Santa Cruz County Smart Meter Protest – PG&E Covering Logo on Trucks to Sneak into Backyards as Illegal Installations Begin
Santa Cruz County, Calif.- “Two people were arrested Friday afternoon by Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Dept. for peacefully blocking smart meter installation trucks as they attempted to drive out of a yard in the Pleasure Point neighborhood of Santa Cruz County. PG&E has stated that they do not intend to respect laws in Santa Cruz County, Capitola, and Watsonville that prohibit wireless meter installation- laws that were passed to protect the public from identified health and safety risks from the new meters. The two protesters who are affiliated with StopSmartMeters! were charged with misdemeanor obstruction, and released with court date in August.”
Why are utility companies pushing so hard to install one of those dangerous meters on every house, apartment, retail and commercial building in this country? Because of something called the $2 trillion dollar ‘Smart grid’ and BIG money. Advocates for the ‘smart meters’ (especially those who stand to make billions of dollars destroying your body) claim they save energy. One State Attorney General doesn’t see it that way:

Jepsen Urges State Regulators to Reject CL & Ps Plan to Replace Electric Meters
February 8, 2011

“To evaluate the technical capabilities and reliability of the advanced metering system, state regulators previously approved a limited study of 10,000 meters. Between June 1 and Aug. 31, 2009, CL&P tested the meters on 1,251 residential and 1,186 small commercial and industrial customers, who volunteered and were paid for their participation in the study. The company reported its results to the DPUC on Feb. 25, 2010. “The pilot results showed no beneficial impact on total energy usage,” Jepsen said.”
In addition to to the serious health risks from ‘smart meters’, the other major issue people have is privacy.
“The demand portion includes how to control energy inside the consumer space: smart meters on buildings, smart thermostats and smart appliances, to name a few.” How to control your energy use in your own home. “In the initial stages of smart-grid development, companies, governments and consumers have focused on changing attitudes on the demand side, Geschickter says.” Conditioning by those who will control how much power is “allowed” into your home, apartment, business. ‘Smart meters’ are nothing but surveillance without a warrant.
“This is federal coercion on a grand scale. President Obama is pushing to expose most U.S. citizens to constant radiofrequency/lectromagnetic radiation (RF/EMR) everywhere. Wireless broadband sends RF/EMR throughout an area rather than directly through a shielded wire or cable to the electronic device being used. Constantly exposing everyone inside and outside of their homes and workplaces in over 98% of the U.S. to unprecedented levels and frequencies of RF/EMR with wireless signals is a dangerous, unsanctioned, mass experiment done without consent that must not occur. This initiative risks our finances, our health, privacy, cyber security, the ability of people with medical device implants to function and more.
“If this radiation were a drug, increasing the dose and type would not be allowed without thorough evaluation of safety because like drugs, it can cause changes in the biology of the body. This radiation promotes degenerative diseases and premature aging even at levels of RF/EMR below FCC limits. Numerous other risks to human health from radiofrequency/microwave (RF/MW) radiation exposure, particularly to children and persons with disabilities, at levels below the current FCC limits are summarized in the review articles published in the March 2009 issue of Pathophysiology that are based on The BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF) (The BioInitiative Report).
“Many people who have developed a hypersensitivity to this form of radiation and struggle to shield themselves from increasing levels of this energy throughout the United States wonder where they can go to escape from the widespread wireless radiation of this proposal.
Smart meters send and receive wireless RF/MW signals throughout homes and businesses. These smart meter RF/MW levels are far higher than those already reported to cause health risks. Compliance is not safety, since the existing FCC safety limits are under challenge, and have already been called ‘insufficient to protect public health’ by some federal agencies.
“Medical Device Malfunction Risk from Electromagnetic Interference. Wireless broadband RF/MW radiation can cause medical devices to malfunction. Medical implants such as those to control the shaking of Parkinson’s disease are turned off by the electromagnetic interference(EMI) caused by the signal. Spurious RF signals are already reported in published studies to interfere with critical care equipment, ventilators, pain pumps, wireless insulin pumps and other medical devices.”
Dirty Electricity – “Dirty Electricity tells the story of Dr. Samuel Milham, the scientist who first alerted the world about the frightening link between occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic pollution, and human disease. Milham takes readers through his early years and education, following the twisting path that led to his discovery that most of the twentieth century diseases of civilization, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and suicide, are caused by electromagnetic field exposure.” Very important.

Consumers Are Getting Sick From Wireless Smart Meters

Last year, one state says no to ‘Smart Grid’ — for now

Hawaii regulators scuttle plan for expanded rollout of smart grid technology

HONOLULU (AP) — “Hawaii regulators have rejected plans for a broad expansion of smart grid electric technology that would have been paid for by residents and businesses. Hawaiian Electric Co., the state’s primary utility, had envisioned a $115 million smart grid project reaching 451,000 locations on Oahu, Maui and the Big Island. But the utility’s proposal fell apart when the Hawaii Public Utilities Commission on Monday denied a request for expanded testing of the technology on Oahu. The “smart grid” concept relies on installing new electric meters that can wirelessly communicate with the utility, allowing it to better distribute power and handle additional renewable energy.”
“The Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) on Monday issued an order denying Baltimore Gas & Electric Co.’s (BGE’s) application to deploy smart meters to all its customers because ratepayers would be saddled with financial and technological risks. The move “deeply disappointed, frustrated, and frankly surprised” the utility, because the smart grid project had received a $200 million federal stimulus grant from the Department of Energy last October—the largest amount awarded to a utility.”
Some progress has been made regarding protecting your privacy (you have to read my first column to get the facts on the mining of data from your home and selling it).

Same threats I have received from Reliant Energy & ONCOR

Propaganda piece:
“In Texas, lawmakers actually did something good related to the smart meter debacle– they included in the law that the data about your electricity usage belongs to you, the customer.”
Can the data still be harvested from third parties tapping into the wireless transmission? I am told yes and it is happening.
After the cow is out of the barn:
“Many young companies have sprung up based on being able to access consumers’ Smart Meter data and package it in some meaningful form.”
“Public utility companies are really hot right now for smart grids — electrical grids that use Internet technology and special meters to make energy delivery more efficient. However, they’re getting static from both lawmakers and security researchers who say they’re dragging their feet in making sure their systems are secure.
“Despite reports earlier this year about spies penetrating the computers that help control America’s electrical grid, utility companies appear to be slow in clamping down on security, and that perception has led to a tongue-lashing from a House of Representatives committee.
“U.S. Rep. Yvette Clarke (D, N.Y.) as accused the utilities of exploiting a loophole that allows them to avoid complying with Federal cybersecurity requirements. Also, a security researcher’s revelations of flaws in the smart meters utilities are installing throughout the country added fuel to the fire.”
That report was back in August 2009 and California has just now gotten around to issuing guidelines regarding data mining? Lovely.
As I mentioned in my first column, several individuals got together, pooled their money and hired an energy attorney to represent them at a hearing in front of the Maine PUC (Public Utility Commission). They won; here is the press release:
Of course, the “customer” out there in Maine has to pay a price for opting out to protect their health: “Choosing a digital smart meter with the wireless transmitter turned off will carry an initial charge of $20, plus a monthly charge of $10.50. Keeping an existing mechanical meter will cost $40 upfront, plus $12 a month. The cost of relocating an existing meter is highly variable, but typically expensive.” Shame on those commissioners for sticking to the people of their state instead of forcing the utility company to replace the meter with an old analog meter at no cost to the consumer.
PART TWO: Can you opt out of having a ‘smart meter’ in your state? What if I already have one installed? Should I file a lawsuit? Is there a state or federal law requiring a ‘smart meter’ be installed on your home or business? Update on my case. For part two click below.
 
**********************

‘SMART METERS’ – THE NEW SILENT KILLER
PART 2 of 2

By: Devvy

September 2, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

At the end of Part I , I posed these questions:
Can you opt out of having a ‘smart meter’ in your state?

What if I already have one installed? Should I file a lawsuit?
Is there a state or federal law requiring a ‘smart meter’ be installed on your home or business?

This mess is a complicated issue with states around the country doing one thing while another is doing nothing.
Regarding lawsuits: One thing I have learned over the past two decades from brilliant constitutional attorneys who have become dear friends – never, ever go into court poorly prepared because the end result is bad case law on the books.
We when feel threatened or harmed, the first inclination is to file a lawsuit. But, due to millions of laws on the books at both the federal and state level, one becomes frustrated and driven to insanity by tracing one statute to the next from one bureaucracy to another. Here in Texas, a lawsuit over the ‘smart meter’ failed because of jurisdiction. On Aug. 13, 2010, Texas Civil District Court judge Lorraine Raggio dismissed a class action lawsuit against ONCOR. That case was about new smart meters overcharging customers by ONCOR. Judge Raggio ruled that the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) was the entity that had to be approached for looking into and ruling on the accuracy of the meters.
There was another unsuccessful lawsuit filed earlier this year, Cynthia Johnson v ONCOR, which had a lot of good arguments, but, again, wrong jurisdiction. There is a central theme regarding the ‘smart meter’ onslaught which appears in the filings in the Johnson case. The first I read about it was in the letter from ONCOR to me:
 
In ONCOR’s response to Ms. Johnson, they, of course, make the claim there are no health risks involved, but also bring forward the pesky little jurisdictional issue – page 18. ONCOR falls under the jurisdiction of the Texas PUC. On page 20, the discussion begins regarding something known as PURA. As you can see on page one of the letter to me from ONCOR, they talk about PURPA. All of this revolves around whether or not there is a federal or state law which requires anyone to have the specific ‘smart meter’. Now, I spent a considerable amount of time researching this, including the law cited by ONCOR in their letter to me, H.B. 2129, which uses the word “encourages” not mandatory.
I also was sent this very valuable piece of comprehensive research on this important question:
How about here in Texas? In ONCOR’s letter, they site the previously mentioned bill, H.B. 2129
Please note this part of that law:
SECTION 6. Chapter 31, Utilities Code, is amended by adding Section 31.005 to read as follows:
Sec. 31.005. CUSTOMER-OPTION PROGRAMS. (a) This section applies to:

(1) a municipally owned electric utility;
(2) an electric cooperative;
(3) an electric utility;
(4) a power marketer;
(5) a retail electric provider; and
(6) a transmission and distribution utility.

And:
(5) a program that encourages the deployment of advanced electricity meters;
Encourages does not mean mandatory.
On August 29, 2011, my state representative, Jim Landtroop, forwarded me email from Gabriel Cardenas, Legislative Assistant, Governmental Relations Division, Public Utility Commission of Texas, who opened his email with this statement:
As you may know, in 2005, the federal government passed legislation that required states to consider the adoption of advanced metering infrastructure (Energy Policy Act of 2005). That same year, the Texas Legislature adopted law that encouraged the deployment of new advanced metering technology.
The Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) then established standards for the features and deployment of the smart meters (PUC Substantive Rules 25.130.
Consider and encouraged does not mean mandatory.
Going to the URL provided by Mr. Cardenas, here, one sees this on page one for 25.130:
(d) Deployment and use of advanced meters.
(1) Deployment and use of AMS by an electric utility is voluntary unless otherwise ordered by the commission.
So far, I cannot find any such order by the Texas PUC.
There is one other source I need to cite and wish to thank Debra Medina (who ran for Governor here last year against Rick Perry; I voted for her) for bringing it to my attention: Texas Utilities Code – Section 39.107.
Metering And Billing Services
Debra was told by JP Urban at the PUC that Sec. 39.107 of the Utilities Code provides the authority for installation of the meters and in fact, “he said, was the directive to install the meters.” Debra disagrees with his statement and after reading it, so do I.
Now, let’s go back to page two of ONCOR’s letter to me (image above). They provide fine print stating they have the right to enter a retail customer’s premises to do this that and the other. I am not a retail premise nor is my personal residence.
So, where do we stand legally? Citizens in dozens of states are fighting with their utility companies. They are sending letters telling the utility company to stay off their property. They are putting locks on their old analog meters so a utility company’s installer can’t removetheir old meter. They are spending money to purchase kits ($299.00) in an effort to keep the ‘smart meter’ from functioning the way it is supposed to when installed. However, in my opinion, the utility companies are going to find out and come after the homeowner for tampering with their equipment and then the homeowner will have even more legal problems.
First thing you must do is research the rules and laws set by your state’s PUC (Public Utility Commission).
The aforementioned lawsuits were thrown out because the plaintiffs did not take their case to the PUC first. I can’t tell anyone what to do, but based on those couple of court decisions already on the books, I would not recommend filing a lawsuit until you exhaust your right to petition your state PUC and see what they rule. You can retain legal counsel and ask others in your state to become petitioners (see below). There are a lot of lawyer jokes out there, but when you’re dealing with state bureaucracies where billions of dollars (and political cloud is purchased by lobbyists), you absolutely need qualified legal counsel to represent you.
Many folks are printing out some of the expert opinions listed at the bottom of my first column and presenting them at city council meetings to let folks know how dangerous those meters are. However, as has been the case over and over in California with almost two dozencounties banning the meters, I’m afraid it’s largely symbolic as it all goes back to the PUC. Out there, PG & E continues to install those meters regardless of what city councils have voted because they know the California PUC has jurisdiction. It’s good to attend a city council meeting and hand out a nice flyer with facts, but the real fight has to be with your state PUC first while you petition your state representative.
I recommend you write a snail mail letter to your state representative (regardless if they’re out of session or not) if you have or are experiencing new health issues that did not exist before the ‘smart meter’ was attached to your home. List your new health problems. Tell your state representative that your legislature must step up now and pass a simple law that says no citizen, owner of an apartment building or retail or commercial building can be forced to have one of those ‘smart meters’ forcibly installed. You can print out (or simply dump all onto a CD) the expert opinions provided at the bottom of my first column and include it with your letter. Putting it onto a CD is more cost effective and your state rep can just pop it into his/her computer. Politely remind your state rep next year is an election year and do they want one of those dangerous things on their home?
You can notify your utility carrier that you refuse to have them install the meter, but, they can and will shut off your power.
As I said in my first column, the only reason there isn’t a ‘smart meter’ now attached to my home is I have locks on my six foot fences and ONCOR can’t get into the back yard unless I unlock the gates. At this point in time, they have lied about access to our home, but that will be addressed at our hearing. Here in Texas, the PUC has a law on the books that utility companies cannot shut off the power to a home that has a disabled person residing there. That is the only thing that has kept ONCOR from flipping the switch and turning off my power because my husband has a long list of serious health problems. ONCOR was notified of this prior to their July 20, 2011, letter via certified mail.
Of course, that didn’t stop ONCOR in their letter; image two at the bottom of the page where they threaten to ‘suspend’ delivery of power to my home knowing full well they would be in violation of PUC law. My case can be the second landmark case in the country. Texas is a huge state compared to Maine as far as getting a favorable decision for the rest of the country. PUC’s watch what other ones are doing throughout the country.
If you read my first column, you know I have retained legal counsel to present our arguments to the Texas PUC. My husband and I are petitioners. Hiring legal counsel costs a great deal of money and like many, John and I live on a fixed income. A few people have comeforward who are able to contribute financially to my case and are now petitioners. They have sent their checks in various amounts. We are pooling those funds so the financial burden gets shared, just as the folks did in Maine. Tommy Cryer is our attorney representing us as petitioners. He will be filing for a hearing in front of the Texas PUC. I am still gathering some documentation for him and checking a few more things with the Texas PUC, so this isn’t going to happen tomorrow. We only have one shot at this so we need to be fully prepared.
If you would like to become a petitioner in my case as a few others have done, please contact me by email: devvyk@earthlink.net and I will give you the specifics as well as what we can expect as far as the financial burden. In the end, John and I will be responsible if not enough funds are available at the end of the case. But, the more petitioners we have who can contribute financially to the legal defense fund, well, the easier it will be for all of us. I have been doing all the research so far regarding health issues and the information provided above regarding laws here in Texas to cut down on billable hours, but Tommy will have to do the legal part.
To date, the utility companies here in Texas (and elsewhere) are simply picking people off one by one. The more numbers we have as petitioners in front of the PUC, the more clout we will have and not just financially.
If you decide to join my case here in Texas and become a petitioner, you will not have to appear at the hearing as Tommy will be representing all of us. No hearing date is set yet, but all petitioners in my case will be kept up to date as we carefully proceed.
If you live in the State of Texas, this case is very important and can have a tremendous impact in other states. We will have two issues before the PUC:
1. Can any utility company in Texas force you to allow them to install a ‘smart meter’ on your home against your wishes even though there is no federal or state law requiring installation?
With the amount of expert opinions warning ‘smart meters’ are a “ticking time bomb against human beings,” I believe we can win this argument because as far as I can find from all my research, there is no mandatory requirement for the specific ‘smart meter’. This is all about massive amounts of money for the utility companies and that ‘smart grid’.
2. Your utility company installed a ‘smart meter’ on your property without your knowledge and without informing you of the very real risks involved. Can the Texas PUC legally force the utility company to remove the ‘smart meter’ and reinstall the analog meters (which I have on my house? Can the PUC force the cost of such replacement onto the utility company or will the people in Texas get reamed like they did in Maine as discussed above?
If you are unable, and I do understand, to become a petitioner in my case, perhaps you can make a donation that’s comfortable for your situation. As long time readers of my columns and old newsletter dating back to the mid-1990s know, I am always up front in projects I undertake and for the rare occasion when I ask for donations, every penny goes only for that project. If you would like to make a donation, which will be greatly appreciated, please send your check or MO to:
Tommy Cryer Attorney at Law

7330 Fern Ave., Suite 1102
Shreveport, LA 71105

In the memo section, please write: smart meter defense fund

Another resource: http://freedomtaker.com

California Recall … Beginning of the End for Smart Meters?

Thursday, November 03, 2011 – by Staff Report

PG&E BEGINS REMOVING ‘SMART’ METERS DUE TO HEALTH EFFECTS … Widening Call for Immediate Return of Analogs; Disconnection of “Mesh” Wireless Network. SANTA CRUZ, CA—Just as PG&E enters the final phase of its deployment of wireless “smart” meters in California, the largest of the state’s Investor Owned Utilities (IOU’s) has reversed course, quietly beginning to replace the ‘smart’ meters of those reporting health impacts with the old trusty analog version. Consumer rights and health groups immediately seized on the news, demanding that millions of Californians unhappy with their new wireless meters get their analogs returned immediately at no cost. ‘Smart’ meters are new wireless utility meters being installed as part of the “smart” grid initiative, spearheaded by technology firms and backed by the Obama administration and the Department of Energy. Promises ranging from lower utility bills to enhanced renewable generation capacity have failed to materialize, with widespread reports of higher bills, privacy violations, fires and explosions, and commonly reported health impacts such as headaches, nausea, tinnitus, and heart problems associated with powerful wireless transmissions. – Press release from StopSmartMeters.org

Dominant Social Theme: Smart meters are very helpful for a green planet. So what’s the fuss?

Free-Market Analysis: When we first wrote about these evil “Smart Meters” well over a year ago, they weren’t receiving much attention. But we saw them as part of a broader plan of the Anglosphere power elite to continue their quest for control over every part of people’s lives. We figured the deployment of Smart Meters would go forward for several years without much resistance but we were wrong.

The Smart Meter craze has been positioned as a subdominant social theme by the elites: There are too many people, not enough power and we need to control every aspect of our energy existence and use. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. You can see some of our articles here: “Smart Grid: Edge of the Authoritarian Wedge” and “Technocracy“.

The world is swimming in energy – and oil, as a matter of fact. We’ve reported on the statement of one of the Forbes brothers of magazine fame that the US has enough oil domestically for centuries of use, but that discoveries and exploitation have been artificially reduced by “environmental” regulations and federal land ownership. The US fedgov owns about one-third of America’s lower 48, mostly in the Midwest.

But far sooner than we figured, it seems the Smart Meter backlash has arrived. Turns out that people don’t like the considerable hikes in their bills once Smart Meters are installed. Nor do they enjoy the health ramifications that are apparently involved, either. Thus we were both surprised and gratified to receive this press release from StopSmartMeters.org, detailing considerable pushback to the deployment of Smart Meters in California. Here’s more from the release:

Widely disparate political groups- from members of the Green Party to the Tea Party and Occupy protesters have attacked the program, and dozens of grassroots organizations have sprouted up over the past several months to fight what they call an undemocratic, unconstitutional and dangerous assault on people in their own homes and neighborhoods.

Dozens of people have been detained or arrested for peaceful civil disobedience and even simply speaking out against deployments. In California, more than 47 cities and counties have demanded a halt to installation, and a dozen local governments have passed laws prohibiting the controversial technology. The ‘smart’ meter issue has further angered a public already seething at the utilities over repeated gas explosions, safety breaches at nuclear reactors, and an increasingly extortionate rate structure.

Word of California’s ‘smart’ meter nightmare has spread across the country and around the world, prompting some utilities to place smart meter plans on hold, and recently Nevada’s PUC to call for investigations into the health effects and other smart meter problems. Now in a dramatic turnaround that could signal the beginning of a widespread recall of wireless ‘smart’ meters, on October 28th PG&E re-installed a classic spinning disc analog meter on the home of Santa Cruz, CA resident Caitlin Phillips, who had been suffering headaches and other symptoms from her ‘smart’ meter.

The move comes in response to verbal directives from the California Public Utilities Commission President Michael Peevey, who recently told members of the public that the utility “will provide for you to go back to the analog meter if that’s your choice.” The CPUC has been slow to respond to thousands of ordinary citizens reporting health effects from the new meters.

When a Wellington Energy installer (contracted with PG&E) came to install a smart meter at her home, Caitlin asked the installer to get off her property and not install, because of what a neighbor had told her about possible health damage and privacy violations. “When I returned home later, I discovered a smart meter on my house. That night I awoke to severe anxiety, headache, and buzzing in my teeth, and realized the new smart meter was on the other side of the wall from my bed.”

Caitlin reported her experience to PG&E and the CPUC, who both declined to rectify the situation. When the symptoms persisted, Caitlin sought the assistance of the Scotts Valley based group Stop Smart Meters! who provided an analog meter and referred her to a professional who could help her remove her ‘smart’ meter. As soon as the analog was installed, Caitlin’s symptoms disappeared.

Frustrated and outraged about her treatment by the utility and the PUC, Caitlin travelled to San Francisco to speak at a commission meeting on Oct. 20th. About a week later, PG&E crews were at her house replacing her temporary analog meter with a brand new official PG&E analog meter. This is believed to be the first time PG&E have willingly replaced an analog meter on the home of someone suffering from health effects.

An “opt-out” proceeding overseen by an Administrative Law Judge is underway at the CA Public Utilities Commission, yet those suffering (in some cases severe) health impacts have been stuck in limbo as utilities refuse to remove the harmful meters upon request- until now.

“There are hundreds of thousands- if not millions- of people suffering in their homes from forced ‘smart’ meter radiation,” said Joshua Hart, Director of the grassroots organization Stop Smart Meters! “The utilities and PUC’s must respond promptly to all requests that analogs be returned. The alternative is that people will increasingly turn to independent professionals to remove unwanted ‘smart’ meters from their homes, a reasonable action we assert is within our legal rights. Protecting your family’s health is not tampering.”

PG&E and other utilities have also been responding to health complaints by replacing wireless ‘smart’ meters with digital meters that are “wireless-ready.” These digital meters have been associated with health problems from “dirty electricity” frequencies that pass into a home via the electrical wiring.

These “trojan horse” meters have been roundly rejected by those who report continuing health impacts after installation. Susan Brinchman, Director of San Diego based Center for Electrosmog Prevention. said “At this point, the burden of responsibility is on the utilities to demonstrate that any new meter they want to install on our homes is safe. Communities have the right to retain analog meters at no extra charge.

Smart Meters are an outgrowth of M. King Hubbert and the so-called Technocracy movement that was prominent in the mid-20th century. Hubbert is, of course, also the inventor of the concept of “Peak Oil” – the idea that oil production will at some point peak and then gradually begin to subside.

Is it any coincidence that Hubbert, a believer in the Platonic idea of the rule by a few wise men over the many, also invented the ridiculous notion of Peak Oil? It is evident and obvious to anyone who bothers to give even a few minutes of study to the issue that the Anglosphere power elite has been plotting this gambit for nearly a century now.

Peak Oil was supposed to be the problem. Smart Meters were supposed to be the solution. The idea was to figure out exactly what people were doing as regards their energy habits and then tax them and regulate them.

The idea that a handful of men can force billions to do their bidding is a fairly ridiculous notion in our view. As theirdominant social themes have proven less effective in the 21st century, the elites have turned to violence and war. Yet violence is not only an ineffective way of moving society in a certain direction, it is an unpredictable one.

The Internet Reformation is a wonderful thing. Ten or fifteen years ago, a movement to dump Smart Meters would likely never have seen the light of day. There would have been no way to disseminate the information even if one could have concluded that Smart Meters were not what the authorities were claiming they were.

Conclusion: That a backlash against Smart Meters could have come so soon is further proof of our observation regarding the new communication technology: It is a process, not an episode.

Everyone,

Here is ammunition for those of you who do not wish to be exposed to another device / tool for irradiating you and your loved ones with yet another “microwave” source, which has been proven to cause health challenges.

Hal

Begin forwarded message:

To: Linda Huffman <huffman.linda@epa.gov>

Cc: MPUC <maine.puc@maine.gov>, Chairman Julius Genachowski <Julius.Genachowski@fcc.gov>, “Commissioner Michael J. Copps” <Michael.Copps@fcc.gov>, Commissioner Robert McDowell <Robert.McDowell@fcc.gov>, Commissioner Mignon Clyburn <Mignon.Clyburn@fcc.gov>

Subject: Concerns about Smart meters and questions that need to be answered by MPUC, EPA, FCC and CMP and Maine Governor Paul LePage’s office!!

August 17, 2011

Dear Ms. Huffman, 

My name is Ted.  My wife is Linda.  We live at … .  I spoke with you today at about 11:20 am.  I raised concerns to you that I feel the EPA should, if they have not already done, to investigate ‘SMART METERS’ that are being either forced on men and women (Home Owners) or if you chose not to have these for HEALTH REASONS, you are going to be charged to have a one-time fee of $20.00 or $40.00 for either of the options and then a monthly charge of either $10.50 or $12.00.   I ask that you please forward this to EPA administrator concerning SMART METERS. 

The SMART METERS aren’t safe at all and the damage to your health is significant over time.  The web site link provided below is devoted specifically to the issues surrounding the SMART METERS and the implications of men, women and children being exposed to EMR’s and other kinds of frequencies emitted by these SMART METERS.  On the web site, they list the following to contact about the SMART METERS and I called this number to speak to EPA administer (Environmental Justice) Lisa Jackson Ph. (202) 564-4700.  I did so on Friday and was told to contact the EPA Enforcement Office but by the time we got the information to call, the office was closed.  I did leave a voice mail on Friday but never got a call back.  The number I was provided with was 202-564-2440.  When I called that number today 8/17 you answered the phone.   I thank you for your time and I appreciate it that you will or will have someone look into this matter.  I think once someone does, with looking at all of the information and documentation located on the Web Site, that the EPA will take action to stop these SMART METERS from being installed until a thorough evaluation is done as to the Safety of SMART METERS.  A UTILITY COMMISSION on any STATE should not be dictating for the UTILITY, in this case for CMP on MAINE.  They don’t do research on SMART METERS so for them to rule in favor of having them SAFE and to be installed isn’t being responsible at all.  In fact, this is just criminal.  Just to have an option to opt-out isn’t sufficient.  One should be able to do so without being forced to pay a One-time fee and then a monthly fee, in order to protect one’s health and that of your family.

Here is the link to the web site (http://www.w4ar.com/Smart-Meters.html) I spoke to you about on the phone today.  If the EPA has not done any investigation into SMART METERS, I ask, please do so now, before people start dying or incur other health related illnesses that can occur due to SMART METER usage.  Certainly folks can read their own existing meters they have without anyone having to come out, thus there is no reason that a change has to occur.  Certainly, NO ONE should have to pay for a meter, simply because the UTILITY COMPANY have come up with a new product, which only saves them (CMP) money and does nothing to protect the consumer from Health damage from EMR’s and other things associated with SMART METERS.  The 6:45 long UTube Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRejDxBE6OE&feature=player_embedded) shows how much is being emitted near one of the SMART METERS but also when you go to a house which is 2 houses away and inside a room, the emitting that occurs is just like when in the driveway of the house who has a SMART METER installed.  More astounding is what was discussed in this VIDEO when they went to different parts of the house and did a reading.  When they went to the basement, which should be safe, the READING came through there.  Then the SMART METERS records every single thing that uses Electricity and reports it back to CMP or any company who uses these, which is an INVASION of your RIGHT TO PRIVACY.  If the EPA isn’t going to protect the consumer, then who is???  Here is the brief explanation concerning this VIDEO:

  1. A ‘smart meter’ was recently placed on this house. It replaced a safe electricity meter that was perfectly servicable and did not need to be changed. The meter is located on the outside wall of a bedroom. The microwave radiation from the meter, penetrates through the brick wall and engulfs the bedroom in very strong, very dangerous microwave radiation. Other areas of the house are also affected, to a lessor extent and the resident reports ill health effects since the meter was installed.
    The radio frequency meter shows how strong the radiation is and the sound illustrates how ofter the meter is transmitting.
    These Smart meters have been badly named, there is nothing smart about an electricity meter that harms people, animals and the environment.
    Festival Hydro, who installed these meters throughout Stratford, now face huge liability issues from citizens who are made ill from the radiation.

I will be contacting the Attorney General’s office here on Maine concerning this matter.  I will also see if there is an e-mail address there that I can send this e-mail too.  CMP has stated they were sending out some report to my wife and me from the MAINE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (MPUC) but as of today, I have not received this report.  Whatever report is issued, should be sent to every Electric consumer in the STATE OF MAINE.  One should not have to ask for this report it should have been sent out to every household on the STATE OF MAINE.  I have today contacted MPUC and was given the address to send information, to Karen Geraghty, who I was told would take the information I send to the Commission members directly.  Here is the contact information below.  I will be including the e-mail address below in my e-mail to the EPA and if I can find the e-mail address for the MAINE ATTORNEY GENERAL, I will also include them. There is no E-MAIL address for the ATTORNEY GENERAL of MAINE.  Also, see here is the information for the US ATTORNEY GENERAL (http://www.justice.gov/usao/). This link has a listing for every STATE for the USAO (http://www.justice..gov/usao/about/offices.html).  I also encourage others to contact that office as well.  Maybe, just maybe if enough people contact these offices and register your concerns, things might change or there will be an impact to protect our ‘health’ and they will have additional hearings.  The other thing would be to contact the members of CONGRESS who are on committees that have direct oversight of the FCC and EPA. 

I have submitted on 8/17/2011 this entire e-mail to the following link to Governor Paul LePage, Governor of the STATE OF MAINE (http://www.maine.gov/governor/lepage/citizen_services/ideas-suggestions.shtml), since there was no e-mail address that I could include with this e-mail in the TO: section above. 

Go to this link (http://www.maine.gov/mpuc/about/how_commission_works.shtml).  Here is the MISSION statement:  Mission: The Maine Public Utilities Commission regulates electric, gas, telephone and water utilities to ensure that Maine citizens have access to safe and reliable utility services at rates that are just and reasonable for all ratepayers.  The key words are 1) SAFE and 1) RELIABLE.  In the letter I mention that I will be sending under separate e-mail, there are case law and 15 questions that the Commissioner will need to answer and as I mentioned in ’10 days’.  Further, there is no mention anywhere on this page about responsibility to the FCC or that the FCC has any control over the MPUC,  which HISTORY of MPUC — The Maine Legislature created the Commission in 1913; it began operation on December 1, 1914 so why was I told that a ruling from the FCC concerning if SMART METERS are safe or not has any bearing on the MPUC?  The MPUC is governed by the STATE and the Governor, not the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT or any ‘ABC’ FEDERAL Agency. 

Here is the link to go to (http://www.maine.gov/mpuc/online/index.shtml) to get a listing of place to look at.  Once there, click on VIRTUAL CASE FILE below and then follow the instructions I have further listed.  Also when at the MPUC web site, go to the MISSION STATEMENT of the Commission and in nearly every STATE two things are stated:

Online Filing, Docketed Cases, Forms & RFPs

 08/16/2011  2010345  Response  —  RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR FINDING OF CONTEMT  1  —  —  DOCKETED CASE  CENTRAL MAINE POWER  MILLS  DEBRA  —
08/15/2011  2010345  Order  Reconsideration  ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION  1  ELISA BOXER-COOK, ET AL  REQUEST FOR COMMISSION INVESTIGATION IN PURSUING THE SMART METER INITIATIVE  DOCKETED CASE  COMMISSION  GERAGHTY  KAREN  —

and you will find a list of all cases the MPUC has worked on.  One of them is concerning SMART METERS

Pass this out FAR AND WIDE!!!

Ted

1.   Contact MPUC

Physical Address: 101 Second St., Hallowell, ME 04347

Postal Address: 18 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333-0018

Main Telephone No: (207) 287-3831

Consumer Assistance Hotline: 1 (800) 452-4699
Email: maine.puc@maine.gov

Here is the contact information for the FCC and of course I have included everyone of the commissioners in this e-mail.  I encourage others to contact them directly and register your concerns about SMART METERS.  The ONUS is now on the FCC and the EPA to provide documented proof of their safety and benefit to consumers, opposed to benefits only for the UTILITY company.

http://www.fcc.gov/contact-us

How to Contact the FCC

To Search Staff Phone Numbers and Email Addresses

·  FCC Phone Directory  (http://www.fcc.gov/people.html)

To Contact the Commissioners via E-mail

Chairman Julius Genachowski: Julius.Genachowski@fcc.gov

Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Michael.Copps@fcc.gov

Commissioner Robert McDowell: Robert.McDowell@fcc.gov

Commissioner Mignon Clyburn: Mignon.Clyburn@fcc.gov

To Provide Non Docketed Comments or Seek Information via E-mail or On-line

Freedom of Information Act requests: FOIA@fcc.gov

Comments on FCC Internet services: webmaster@fcc.gov

Elections & political candidate matters: campaignlaw@fcc.gov

Broadcast Information: Broadcast Information Specialists

To Obtain Information via Telephone

1-888-225-5322 (1-888-CALL FCC) Voice: toll-free

Broadcast Information Specialists

United States Postal Service First-Class Mail, Express Mail & Priority Mail

Federal Communications Commission

445 12th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20554

Here is a link to a letter to send out about REFUSAL of the SMART METERS (http://www.w4ar.com/Smart_Meter_refusal_Letter.pdf) and the actual letter below (Template).  Use if you think this applies to you.  Again, this is educational information.

Send Certified U.S. Postal Mail #….

FROM:

Energy Customer’s Name

Street Address

City State Zip

TO: [Agent name]

Energy Provider

Street Address

City State Zip

Date of letter

NOTICE OF NO CONSENT TO TRESPASS AND SURVEILLANCE, NOTICE OF LIABILITY

Dear (Energy Provider) and all agents, officers, employees, contractors and interested parties,

If you intend to install a “Smart Meter” or any activity monitoring device at the above address, you and all other parties are hereby denied consent for installation and use of all such device on the above property and installation and use of any activity monitoring device is hereby refused and prohibited. Informed consent is legally required for installation of any surveillance device and any device that will collect and transmit private and personal data to undisclosed and unauthorized parties for undisclosed and unauthorized purposes. Authorization for sharing of personal and private information may only be given by the originator and subject of that information. That authorization is hereby denied and refused with regard to the above property and all its occupants. “Smart Meters” violate the law and cause endangerment to residents by the following factors:

1. They individually identify electrical devices inside the home and record when they are operated causing invasion of privacy.

2. They monitor household activity and occupancy in violation of rights and domestic security.

3. They transmit wireless signals which may be intercepted by unauthorized and unknown parties. Those signals can be used to monitor behavior and occupancy and they can be used by criminals to aid criminal activity against the occupants.

4. Data about occupant’s daily habits and activities are collected, recorded and stored in permanent databases which are accessed by parties not authorized or invited to know and share that private data.

5. Those with access to the smart meter databases can review a permanent history of household activities complete with calendar and time-of day metrics to gain a highly invasive and detailed view of the lives of the occupants.

6. Those databases may be shared with, or fall into the hands of criminals, blackmailers, law enforcement, private hackers of wireless transmissions, power company employees, and other unidentified parties who may act against the interests of the occupants under metered surveillance.

7. “Smart Meters” are, by definition, surveillance devices which violate Federal and State wiretapping laws by recording and storing databases of private and personal activities and behaviors without the consent or knowledge of those people who are monitored. 

8. It is possible for example, with analysis of certain “Smart Meter” data, for unauthorized and distant parties to determine medical conditions, sexual activities, physical locations of persons within the home, vacancy patterns and personal information and habits of the occupants.

9. Your company has not adequately disclosed the particular recording and transmission capabilities of the smart meter, or the extent of the data that will be recorded, stored and shared, or the purposes to which the data will and will not be put.

I forbid, refuse and deny consent of any installation and use of any monitoring, eavesdropping, and surveillance devices on my property, my place of residence and my place of occupancy. That applies to and includes “Smart Meters” and activity monitoring devices of any and all kinds. 

Any attempt to install any such device directed at me, other inhabitants, guests, my property or residence will constitute trespass, stalking, wiretapping and unlawful surveillance, all prohibited and punishable by law through criminal and civil complaints. All persons, government agencies and private organizations responsible for installing or operating monitoring devices directed at or recording my activities, which I have not specifically authorized in writing, will be fully liable for any violations, ntrusions, harm or negative consequences caused or made possible by those devices whether those negative consequences are justified by “law” or not.

This is legal notice. After this delivery the liabilities listed above may not be denied or avoided by parties named and implied in this notice.

Notice to principal is notice to agent and notice to agent is notice to principal. All rights reserved.

Signature

Name of energy user and/or customer

I have a separate TEMPLATE of a letter you can modify and send to your STATE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION to address that issue of ‘Safe and Reliable’ energy and equipment (SMART METERS) and once you have completed this letter, you then send it to the Commissioner of your STATE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Certified Mail, Return Receipt.  The letter sets up an Administrative Review that must be answered in 10 days or there is a Default that occurs.  I will send this Template under a separate e-mail.  

Here are 16 questions which need to be answered by MPUC (Maine Public Utility Commission), Thomas L. Welch Commissioner, and EPA and FCC

INQUIRIES

1.  Is the respondent (EPA, FCC and the MPUC) to these questions acting in his/her official capacity or private capacity?

If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “Official”.

2.  Does MPUC regulate providers of all kinds of utility services, including electric and natural gas companies, local and long distance telephone companies, and water?

If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “yes”.

3.  Does MPUC enforce MPUC rules and “state laws” regarding utility services and safety as stated on the Maine Public Utility Commission of Maine’s web site?

If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “yes”.

4.  CMP (Central Maine Power) is a provider of electric utility service in Maine. Does the efficacy and safety of the meters that Central Maine Power has installed or will be installing on homes and/or businesses in Maine, as an integral part of providing electric service, fall under your regulatory duties and fiduciary obligations to the public?  (Central Maine Power, 83 Edison Drive, Augusta, Maine 04336 (Headquarters Office)).
If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “yes”.

5.  Central Maine Power (CMP) historically has provided the analog meters that customers were obligated to use to receive electric service and installed these meters per CMP’s specifications. In the past no serious questions of meter safety came to your attention. Is this why CMP never demanded these analog meters be replaced?

If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “yes”.

6.  Are you aware that Smart Meters – like cell phones, and cell phone towers – emit Electro-Magnetic Radiation and will contribute to an electro-magnetic field that is already being generated from cell phone towers and wifi in many Maine localities?

If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “yes”.

7.  In May 2011 the WHO classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as a Group 2B or possibly carcinogenic to humans.  http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

This means that a portion (if not all) of the population will have a much increased potentially harmful environmental exposure to electromagnetic fields after Smart Meters are installed. Can you insure that this increased exposure to electromagnetic radiation from Smart Meters won’t pose a significant health risk to a portion of the population?

If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “no”.

8.  To your knowledge are there any long term studies [greater than 10 years] that have been conducted on the health impacts of Smart Meters on the human population?

If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “no”.

9.  In January, 2011 The SAGE Reports Environmental Consultants released their assessment of Smart Meters:  http://sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf/?page_id=154

“This Report is prepared in support of open discussion on radiofrequency microwave radiation levels (RF radiation levels) that are produced by wireless electric meters (i.e., smart meters) in California. There has been virtually no information made available to the public, nor to decision-makers on RF radiation levels. Significant unanswered questions still exist about what levels of radiofrequency microwave radiation will be produced by these meters.

This question has very important consequences for public health and welfare, because the public may be subjected to exposures at levels that either violate federal safety limits, or face chronic exposure levels that have already been associated with adverse health impacts, or both.”

Do you agree that this independent report is likely to contain less ‘bias’ and be more objective than the information currently being disseminated by the corporate interests who wish to sell their Smart Meters?

If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “yes”.

10. Central Maine Power Company is a Corporation. The fiduciary obligation of the Corporation is to increase profits. Smart Meters installations will allow CMP and other power companies to reduce the number of meter readers they need to employ, thus increase their profits. Do you agree that the Corporation’s obligation to increase their profits can be in conflict with public safety?

a) If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “yes”.

11. Do you agree that MPUC Commissioners have been entrusted by the Governor of Maine and the State Legislature to insure that doesn’t occur?

b) If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “yes”.

12. In March, 2002 Norbert Hankin, of the U.S. EPA’s Radiation Protection Division, stated the following regarding FCC guidelines and radiofrequency radiation:  http://www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/docs/noi_epa_response.pdf

The FCC’s current exposure guidelines, as well as those of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection are thermally based and do not apply to chronic, non-thermal exposure [such as those from Smart Meters] situations. 

Federal health and safety agencies have not yet developed policies concerning possible risk from long-term, non-thermal exposures.

13.  Do you agree that it is not in the public’s best interest to use dated and irrelevant guidelines to measure the safety of Smart Meter’s?

If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “yes”.

14.  Do you agree that all bureaucratic “rules” must be tested against the Constitutional rights (including Maine’s Bill of Rights) of the sovereign individuals of the state of Maine?

If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “yes”.

15.  Do you agree the “rules” of an unelected bureaucracy cannot be used to cause harm or injury to the sovereign individuals of the state of Maine?

If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “yes”.

16.  Are you aware that if you breach your fiduciary duty to the public trust [emphasis added] there is no immunity and that all parties are personally liable?

If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “yes”.

NOTICE TO RESPOND

The Respondent (MPUC),

Postal Address:

18 State House Station

Augusta, ME 04333-0018

as identified in the above captioned action, must respond to each claim and inquiry listed within 10 days.

In the event the Respondent, Thomas L. Welch, MPUC Commissioner, Maine Public Utility Commission or any employee, officer, agent, agency, subsidiary or co-respondent, fails to provide responses to the citied claims and inquiries, it shall be deemed an automatic stipulation to the answers contained herein. Failure to respond and provide answers other than those provided herein will be deemed your stipulation and agreement thereto by TACIT PROCURATION and your stipulation and agreement that the answers herein given are not reviewable in any future proceedings whether administrative of judicial.

VERIFICATION

As the Undersigned, I Theodore …, a living breathing man, hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the united states of America, without the “UNITED STATES” (Federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of my current information, knowledge, and belief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).

Theodore …

Care of …

Smart Meter Complaints

Word – Notice Of No Consent

Leave a comment

Filed under Agenda 21, Document, life, Resources, rights, self-defense, United States Inc, Video, World Order

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s