Embedded Files
FDA
On May 24, 2023, Americans for Responsible Technology and other petitioners filed a formal Citizens Petition with the FDA, demanding that the agency obey the law and undertake the clear requirements which Congress established for protecting Americans from all kinds of radiation, including radiofrequency (RF) radiation from the large and growing list of wireless devices.On May 24, 2023, Americans for Responsible Technology and other petitioners filed a formal Citizens Petition with the FDA, demanding that the agency obey the law and undertake the clear requirements which Congress established for protecting Americans from all kinds of radiation, including radiofrequency (RF) radiation from the large and growing list of wireless devices.
https://www.americansforresponsibletech.org/_files/ugd/2cea04_e1e8715fdb41466caaf767e16c16522f.pdf
The "rules" require a partition before suing.
Also, see below ART petitions HHS
After 20 years of delay, suit against Telecoms over Brain Tumors is getting closer to Trial
Evidentiary hearings are underway in a Washington, D.C., courtroom this week, to decide if a massive lawsuit against the cellphone industry will be allowed to go to trial.
Judge rejects six of the partitioners expert witnesses ☹️.
Multiple families are suing most of the major wireless companies and their trade association, asking for hundreds of millions in damages, claiming cellphone use causes brain tumors.
Lawsuit Goes to Court Alleging Cell Phones Cause Brain Tumors
Judge Hears Evidence in Lawsuit Alleging Cellphones Caused Plaintiffs’ Brain Cancer
Victory in Flower Hill, NY Jul 29, 2022
ExteNet Sys. v. Vill. of Flower Hill, No. 19-CV-5588-FB-VMS, (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 29, 2022)
In a landmark legal decision, Judge Frederic Block, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, found that the Village of Flower Hill, NY, was justified in denying the application of ExteNet (acting as an agent for Verizon Wireless) to place 18 small cell antennas in the Village.
Analysis of ExteNet Sys. v. Village of Flower Hill by Attorney Robert Berg, Legal Advisor for the Environmental Health Trust.
Opinion: https://casetext.com/case/extenet-sys-v-vill-of-flower-hill
Verizon's contractor has filed an appeal.
Verizon sues Pittsfield, Ma Board of Health on May 10, 2022
The Pittsfield Board of Health asked Verizon to relocate a cell tower that has affected local residents. Verizon refused. Board of Health is preparing to issue a health notice requiring Verizon turn off the wireless antenna. This is a new angle to get a cell tower removed.
By this Order, this Board finds the Verizon Wireless 877 South Street wireless facility to be in violation, and this Board requires Verizon Wireless and the property owner to bring their facility and the premises into compliance with Massachusetts’ and Pittsfield’s generally applicable health and safety codes, just as FCC precedent and the permit expressly allow.
Emergency health order
Verizon sues Pittsfield. Town Council refused to provide money to hire outside lawyers. Board of health had to back down. Citizens sue town officials.
Massachusetts Association of Health Boards (MAHB) on Monday [Feb 13, 2023] ]submitted an amicus (Friend of the Court) brief to the Berkshire Superior Court in support of the families forced out of their homes.
ART petitions HHS to declare celular radiation is an Imminent Hazard
Americans for Responsible Technology (ART) has petitioned Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for Imminent Hazard Rulemaking because of wireless radiation. Before suing HHS, ART must petition HHS. Hopefully, HHS will see the need to update their unsupported claims. If not, ART is preparing to sue.
Americans for Responsible Technology's petition
Angela Sherick- Bright, Petitioner vs. The County of Los Angeles, Respondent February 7, 2022
Some issues:
-- process. No notice, no hearing, etc.
-- no historic review
-- no NEPA review
-- where or not they can be built on private property without permission. The use of the right-of-way may depend how developer granted the right-of-way. May have have only granted underground usage. Who own the property.
Over-the-Air Reception Devices rule (OTARD)
On 2/26/2021, the Children’s Health Defense (CHD), filed a NEW case against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), challenging the amendment of the “Over-the-Air Reception Devices” rule ("OTARD").
Court rejected on Feb 11, 2022 :-(
The preemption of our rights by this rule is unprecedented, as well as unlawful. Under OTARD, homeowners will be allowed, for the first time, to use their fixed wireless antennas to provide wireless data/voice services, including 5G, to users on neighboring properties. People who are adversely affected by the rule and will not want to be “served” and exposed to the involuntary radiation, will not have any right to prevent or even object to these antennas’ installation.
A coalition of 68 wellness organizations is lending support to a lawsuit in the D.C. Circuit challenging a Federal Communications Commission rule meant to facilitate the installation of wireless internet equipment in residential areas.
OTARD does not require permit or notice; it preempts state and municipal zoning laws and homeowners’ associations and deed restrictions. It even preempts federal and state disability laws. For those of us who are already sick from wireless, this rule will have especially devastating effects and takes away the little rights we were left with. It will force people to leave their homes with nowhere to go and with no legal recourse.
WT Docket No. 19-71, Released: January 7, 2021
Documents Filed with the Court –- Briefs –– Both CHD opening/reply briefs are also attached.
Petition for ReviewOpening Brief (Petitioner’s Main Brief)
Main Brief Addendum Record Reference T1 – provides analysis of the issues raised by comments that were filed to the docket.Main Brief Addendum Record Reference T2 – contains quotes of 246 people about their sickness and/or the sickness of their children or other family members from wireless exposure.
Main Brief Addendum Record Reference T3 – contains the references for the brief footnotes.
Amicus Brief in Support of Petitioners (CHD)
FCC Brief
PACER Reply Brief + Addendum
Motion to Stay (Motion for an Emergency Injunction)
CHD’s Motion To Stay FCC’s Response to CHD’s Motion To Stay
Court’s Decision – Motion Denied
Links to the 27 Joint Appendix binders (the Evidence)
Volume 1; Volume 2; Volume 3; Volume 4
Volume 5; Volume 6; Volume 7; Volume 8
Volume 9; Volume 10; Volume 11; Volume 12
Volume 13; Volume 14; Volume 15; Volume 16
City of Boston, Massachusetts, et al v. FCC, et al
Boston, Los Angles and others sue to review June FCC 5G Order restricting the review of tower modifications
Boston and Los Angeles, including Gaithersburg, Montgomery County, Rockville and and seventeen others are asking the D.C. Circuit to review a June Federal Communications Commission order limiting local governments' authority to delay equipment upgrades in the agency's effort to expedite the deployment of 5G networks. The commission's ruling also narrowed the required regulation for certain aspects of wireless infrastructure modifications — like height increases, equipment cabinet additions and impact on concealment elements, as well as aesthetic conditions.
The ruling, in addition, said applicants that sought to make wireless infrastructure modifications did not need to submit environmental assessments outlining potential impacts to historic properties if they entered into an agreement to mitigate the effects on historic properties.
The ruling came after CTIA, a wireless trade group, pushed the FCC late last year to make clarifications to its rules to stop cities that were, in CTIA's view, misinterpreting the rules and putting brakes on 5G infrastructure buildouts.
The case is City of Boston, Massachusetts, et al. v. FCC, et al., case number 20-1301, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Has since been consolidated with Seattle, WA filed DC Cir. on 8/7, No. 20-1300 and the League of California Cities filed 9th Cir. on 6/22, No. 20-71765. Resulting case number No. 20-1300 [20-1301].
City of Boston, Massachusetts, et al v. FCC, et al
NOTICE [1861625] of cases transferred to 9th Circuit. 20-1300 - 9th Circuit case number is 20-72734; 20-1301 - 9th Circuit Case Number is 20-72749 [Service Date: 09/16/2020 ] [20-1300, 20-1301] [Entered: 09/16/2020 09:23 AM]
https://www.law360.com/articles/1300366/boston-la-ask-dc-circ-to-review-fcc-5g-order
FCC gets sued over stale health guidelines
On Friday, August 13th, [2021], the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in the historic case EHT et al. v. the FCC that the December 2019 decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to retain its 1996 safety limits for human exposure to wireless radiation was “arbitrary and capricious.”
The Court held that the FCC failed to respond to “record evidence that exposure to RF radiation at levels below the Commission’s current limits may cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer.” Further, the agency demonstrated “a complete failure to respond to comments concerning environmental harm caused by RF radiation.”
In 2019, the FCC issued FCC-19-126 “FCC Maintains Current RF Exposure Safety Standards.” Both the Environmental Health Trust (EHT) and Children's Health Defense (CHD) have filed suits against the FCC for relying on 24 year old health standards without a meaningful review. The suits have been combined by the court into one suit in US District Court.
For a copy the brief and four amicus briefs see:
https://ehtrust.org/eht-takes-the-fcc-to-court/
For the complete history, timeline and documents, see
https://mocoSafeG.org/eht-v-fcc
Children's Health Defense v. FCC
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) is leading a historic legal action against the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) for its refusal to review their 25 year old guidelines, and to promulgate scientific, human evidence-based radio frequency emissions (“RF”) rules that adequately protect public health from wireless technology radiation."
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z11EuV1f2sAHJUSTalcsCXjBLIDeXu9Q/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kJdgojt_49-5xCpknqHYu_jZaXQUzTmB/view
Environmental Health Trust
Environmental Health Trust has filed a lawsuit alleging the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) failed to update cellular phone and wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation limits and cellular phone testing methods in over two decades. These failures, the plaintiffs contend, ignore “peer-reviewed scientific studies showing that radiation from cell phones and cell phone towers and transmitters is associated with severe health effects in humans, including cancer, DNA damage, damage to the reproductive organs, and brain damage (including memory problems).”historic legal action against the FCC for their non protective, inadequate and outdated wireless regulations. We filed in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on January 31, 2020.
https://ehtrust.org/eht-takes-the-fcc-to-court/?utm_source=text&utm_medium=patreon&utm_campaign=fcc
https://ehtrust.org/ehtlegalaction-againstfcconhealtheffectsofcellphones/
"Neutral Hosts" need to follow same cell tower rules as all other cell tower builders
"Neutral host" ExteNet tried to claim they didn't need to show significant gap in service among others because they were renting out the tower. Court ruled they did. The ruling only applies to the state of Massachusetts (I assume.)
"In an important win for those who are concerned about 5G and small cell wireless proliferation, on August 26, 2020 the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed a lawsuit by “neutral host” provider ExteNet Systems, Inc. against the City of Cambridge, MA" by Scott McCollough, McCollough Law Firm, PC.
Full Scott McCollough, Esq., letter commenting on the City of Cambridge, Ma win.
Irregulators win
A first reading of the results, you will see the case was thrown out. You need to go beyond this. It's import to fill in the blanks. What was thrown out was FCC accounting rules that allowed the wireless industry to misallocate money from the wired industry to the wireless industry.
The telecoms want to get out from control of the state utility commissions. What you pay for a land line is under control of the state utility commissions. What you pay for your cell phone is "whatever the market will bear". Therefor, the telecoms want to migrate to all wireless networks.
What the irregulators showed was the telecoms where "stealing" money from landline funds to pay for wireless. It was hidden behind accounting rules propagated by the FCC. In particular, the FCC was saying the state utility commissions had to follow the FCC accounting rules [ which favored wireless ]. The court concluded that the FCC didn't have the authority to set the accounting rules. Since the FCC could not set these accounting rules, there could not be a case against something the FCC has no authority over in the first place. Thus, state utility commissions can set their own accounting rules.
Quick overview of the scam:
It is hoped the states will correct the accounting rules and collect money from the telecoms for "stolen" funds.
http://irregulators.org/irregulators-big-win-we-freed-the-states-from-the-fcc/
alternative explaination
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eNNyl7PNan8_WDPwuQm63_xusB9tYbk1/view?usp=sharing
Montgomery County sues FCC by itself
Lack of a health review before promulgating new cell tower rules
Case declared moot
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/08/12/18-72689.pdf
Montgomery County in a closed meeting reportedly declines to appeal decision even though one of judges suggested the county appeal.
Oral argument 00:27:13 and 11:18:35
https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000017033
Petition
https://zero5g.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Montgomery_County-v-FCC-Brief_1-2019.pdf
City of Portland, Oregon, et al. which includes Montgomery County sues FCC
Won some adjustment in aesthetic requirements. While FCC won most other claims.
Portland, et. al. appealed to the US Supreme Court. On June 28, 2021 Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal.
City of Portland Oregon, et. al. are appealing to the Supreme Court.
National League of Cities write-up
Text of Portland's appeal
The amount of money the county can charge per cell tower in the utility right-of-way.
Oral argument 00:00:00 and 01:08:58
https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000017033
W. Scott McCollough comments on the 9th Circuit court put ruling to the Malibu, Ca City Council:
The Ninth Circuit’s August 12, 2020 decision vacated the FCC’s “aesthetic” limits and imposed some useful limiting interpretations on other parts of the rules it sustained. One important aspect is that the Ninth Circuit refused to be cowed by the FCC’s criticism of the Court’s “significant gap”/“least intrusive” test and the FCC’s effort to substitute a lower bar through the “material inhibition” standard.” Compare Small Cell Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 9101-9110, with City of Portland, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 25553 at *19-22, 34-43. The “significant gap”/“least intrusive” test remains alive and well in the Ninth Circuit.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-1354.html
Andrew Campanelli put forth to mocoSafeG.org in a video conference on March 30, 2021 that The 9th court punted on the changes to on effective prohibition and that the FCC couldn't change the definition of effective prohibition since the court has already defined it.
And so, a case came to a district court in New York in the 2nd Circuit, and a federal judge basically knocked down the FCC and said, listen, we applaud the FCC. We understand that it's not happy that Congress hasn't amended the Telecommunications Act to keep up with technology, but. Is my favorite words, “it's not up to the FCC to put words in the Telecommunications Act that are unfair.” And so, the federal court ruled against the FCC and said you can't just reinterpret it. In that case, I can give you the citation. That was clear Wireless LLC versus Building Department of the Village of Lynbrook. The citation is 2012, Westlaw 826749. And the and the federal court actually said under such a circumstance, it is not up to the FCC to construe the TCA. to say something it does not say, nor up to the court to fight broadband communication encompassed by the law.
FCC's order on which this case is based.
September 26, 2018
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-133A1.pdf
FCC revised rules for pole antennas August 2, 2018
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-111A1.pdf
Please see a lawyer before acting on any information you may find on this web site.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse