June 27, 2021
On Wednesday, June 23, 2021, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed the opening brief in its case against OTARD with the FCC. Rule Change. Submitting it is the main short for CHD in the case.
A Question and Answer session about the brief is scheduled for Wednesday, June 30, at 11:30 am/2:30 pm EDT. Register now.
Among the arguments raised by CHD in brief:
- The amendment to the rule makes wireless carriers used but unregulated, and therefore the revised rule is contrary to the licensing and grant / user regime used by Congress.
- The FCC violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by failing to address concerns raised by many municipalities, their telecommunications consultants, HOA -related associations and residents, and to provide significant and sufficient reasons. of the policy to justify the violation of the rule chosen.
- The focus case of CHD is the impact of change control on children and adult sufferers. Radiation Disease, or to whom conditions worsen due to wireless radiation. CHD argues that the The FCC has failed to address “irrevocable evidence that the alteration would directly cause catastrophic harm for those who were rarely or specifically injured in it” and their exposure to such radiation could be considered “torture. “
- The change in the rule violates the due process rights of the injured. CHD’s brief account that the FCC rule amendment “lends color to the law” to violations of procedure and essential rights provided by other federal, state, or local laws, including the ADA / FHA and state equivalents.
- The FCC’s choice of deficit -fixing laws is inconsistent with the policy behind these laws.
- the The Communications Act that gives the FCC administrative authority “does not give the FCC the right to sentence innocent people to death without any due process,” and the FCC’s preference for neglect is an “administrative absolutism that does not. is rooted in law -making traditions. ”
- the The FCC failed to explain why America’s main traditions should be removed from the name of everywhere and increasingly deployed broadband service.
- The FCC’s abolition of the rights of victims of this radiation and their treatment as a “barrier” for the FCC’s submission is intentional, known, calculated and intentional.
- The amendment violates constitutional rights including personal rights and freedoms ensured by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments and other rights recognized by the Supreme Court as basic, and therefore also protected. This includes the rights to “life,” “property” and “liberty,” along with “bodily integrity” and privacy -related rights.
- The OTARD regime brought with it many difficult policy, legal and practical difficulties that were irrelevant to the FCC: “The Commission got a gold star for the invention. But it failed in part that” thought it through “.”
Real Life Example of OTARD Deployment
CHD submission is accompanied by a real-life example of the effects of rule change. The affidavit of Dr. David Hoffman was charged with brief CHD. The affidavit provided photographs of an extensive base station antenna structure placed behind his parent’s neighbor’s house. This antenna is allowed to change the OTARD rule. Her parents suffered from various health issues as a result, and her daughter, who suffers from Radiation Sickness, can no longer visit them. She develops symptoms every time she visits her grandfather. Hoffman, in exchange for allowing the installation of antennas, which include four high-power transmitting antennas that transmit a 3-5 mile radius, the neighbor received free internet service. Due to OTARD’s renewed rule, Drs. Hoffman and his parents were about to shine it apart from asking their neighbor to end his deal with the company, which he did. The neighbor refused. The Hoffman family cannot sue the neighbor or the company for nuisance or for any other health -related injury. Nor can they file a lawsuit for housing in need. The rule change was abolished all their rights.
Affidavits Filed In The Appearance
To support the brief we have submitted 11 affidavits as follows:
The Administrative Procedure Act requires Petitioners to prove that they have a “standpoint,” meaning that they have the right to take action. Requires (1) compliance with “Hobbs Law” which means that the Tag petitioner filed a comment in the FCC resolemaking docket (2) compliance with “Article III,” indicating that the petitioners were offended by the rule. All four Individual petitioners filed an affidavit.
CHD must prove that it has an “organizational stand.” It must show that it (1) complies with the Hobbs Act or that the members it represents (2) suffers harm from the rule (3) has the capacity for representation – that it represents its members who otherwise would have stood up to pursue the case on their own. For that purpose, three of our members filed an affidavit. Dafna Tachover, CHD Director of the 5G and Wireless Harms Project filed the affidavit for CHD.
Expert Affidavits: Our submission also included three expert affidavits to support our claims regarding the effects of wireless radiation on people suffering from Radiation Sickness (electro-sensitive) and on whose conditions may be aggravated by exposure:
Professor Riina Bray BASC, MSC, MD, FCFP, MHSC, Medical Director, Environmental Health Clinic, the first hospital clinic in the world to treat radiation sickness
Professor Beatrice Golomb MD PhD, University of California San Diego School of Medicine. Golomb’s 2018 paper shown that the The “mystery disease” plaguing U.S. diplomats likely to cause pulsed radio-frequency.
Toril Jelter MD, a California pediatrician who treated 100 patients, including children, suffering from Radiation Sickness and neurodevelopmental conditions affected by wireless radiation.
At the conclusion of his affidavit for CHD, Tachover wrote, “By amending this rule, the FCC is hurting the most vulnerable and taking away their right to exist, even in their home. also the FCC rule is severe, and morally and legally ineffective. ”He concluded by quoting Gandhi:“ The true measure of any society is to be seen in how it treats the most vulnerable members. . “
Additional Documents submitted with brief:
Reference to the Record of Addendum T1 – provides analysis of issues generated by comments filed in the docket.
Reference Record of Addendum T2 – there are quotes from 246 people about their illness and / or illness of their children or other family members from wireless exposure.
Reference to the Record of Addendum T3 – contains references for brief footnotes.
We filed a motion requesting that there be oral arguments in the case. The FCC brief is set for Aug. 23, 2021, and CHD must respond to the FCC brief by Sept. 14, 2021. A panel with three judges will be appointed to the case after the end of the hearing period.