Update January 27, 2021
Judge to FCC: ‘I am Inclined to Rule Against You’
During oral arguments Monday
in CHD’s landmark case against the FCC, Judges appeared skeptical of the
FCC's support for its own findings that cellphones and other connected
devices pose no risks to human health.
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) held a press conference Tuesday regarding oral arguments Monday in its landmark case against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. (Video is at the site-link is below The FCC are using research from 1996. Before a lot of wireless came into being- Be sure to check out the video)
Judges Karen Henderson, Patricia Millett and Robert Wilkins sat on
the D.C. Circuit panel. Judge Wilkins, a chemical engineer by training,
told the FCC, “I am inclined to rule against you.”
Judge Millet consistently pushed the FCC to answer why the FCC and/or
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration didn’t review the evidence on
non-cancer effects of wireless technology; why they addressed only cell
phones when there is evidence on effects from various other devices and
infrastructure; and why they didn’t address the cumulative effects from
the chronic exposure for numerous devices.
At the end of the hearing, the panel ordered the FCC to file
supplementary evidence detailing the existence and composition of the
two U.S. Food and Drug Administration working groups by the end of the
next business day.
CHD’s case challenges the FCC’s refusal to review its 25-year-old
obsolete wireless “health guidelines” and to adopt scientific,
biologically based radio frequency emissions rules that adequately
protect public health from wireless devices and infrastructure,
including 5G. The petitioners filed 11,000 pages of evidence at the hearing.
“This is a landmark case and it is of the utmost importance to Children’s Health Defense,” said the CHD’s Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
“The overwhelming experimental and human evidence which the FCC has
ignored leaves no doubt that wireless technology is a major contributory
factor to this epidemic. The FCC has shown that its chief interest is
protecting the telecom industry and maximizing its profits. Its position, as put forward in its brief, and as we saw today in court, is simply indefensible.”
Children’s Health Defense and the Environmental Health Trust filed separate cases against the FCC, but filed joint briefs.
While Environmental Health Trust has been represented by attorney Ed
Meyers, because of a court decision that only one attorney would be
allowed to present in the oral arguments, Scott McCollough, CHD’s attorney, argued for both organizations.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/judge-to-fcc-i-am-inclined-to-rule-against-you/
The court part.
Video: Radio Frequency Radiation and 5G Impacts on Health. Massive Scientific Evidence Ignored by FCC
Listen to oral arguments in the case in the video at the site.
Links to the Scientific Evidence, Court Cases, Personal Testimony Presented in the Case are all at the link below as well.
11,000 pages of
evidence is there. Do share with others.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/video-radio-frequency-radiation-and-5g-impacts-on-health-massive-scientific-evidence-ignored-by-fcc/5735651
For more information on 5G and Other wireless.
Environmental Health Trust EHTRUST.ORG
After the FCC last month found no evidence of harm caused by wireless
technology, CHD and other groups sued — and included 11,000 pages of
evidence refuting the FCC’s conclusion.
For decades, the public has been told there is no evidence that wireless technology is harmful. Claims of 5G harms have been dismissed as “conspiracy theory.”
A landmark case
against the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) contests these
statements and asserts that the harms are proven and that an epidemic of
sickness exists.
Recently, the leading environmental and health advocacy organizations
that filed the case submitted 11,000 pages of evidence in support of
their claims. (Links to the evidence are provided below).
The case is being heard by the U.S. Courts of Appeals of the DC Circuit. Oral arguments are scheduled for Jan. 25 at 9:30 a.m. EST. The public can listen to it on YouTube.
In December 2019, the FCC closed an inquiry it initiated in 2013 in which the commission asked the public to submit comments to the inquiry’s docket
as to whether or not the FCC should review its 1996 health guidelines
for Radio Frequency (RF) radiation emitted by wireless devices and
infrastructure.
About 2,000 comments — an exceptionally large number — were filed
with the FCC. These comments were filed by scientists and science
organizations, such as the BioInitiative and EMF Scientist, by doctors and medical organizations, by cities, such as Boston and Philadelphia, and by hundreds of individuals
including parents of children who were injured by this technology. The
comments referenced thousands of studies showing clear and profound
evidence of harm.
Nevertheless, the FCC order, published on Dec. 4, 2019, concluded
there is no evidence that wireless technology causes harm, and no need
to review the guidelines. The FCC decision didn’t provide an analysis of
the science, disregarded the evidence of sickness and didn’t defend its
decision with evidence.
Consequently, two lawsuits were filed against the FCC. One by the Environmental Health Trust (EHT) and Consumers for Safe Cell Phones, and one by the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and additional petitioners including Prof. David Carpenter
who is the co-editor of the BioInitiative Report, the most
comprehensive review of the science by 29 leading scientists and public
health experts.
CHD’s case was also joined by physicians
who see the sickness in their clinics and by parents of children who
have become sick with radiation sickness. One petitioner is a mother whose son died from a glioblastoma, the same brain tumor that killed Beau Biden, President Joe Biden’s son.
The petitioners of both the EHT and CHD cases filed joint briefs.
They argued that, considering the overwhelming evidence that was
submitted to the FCC’s docket, and since the FCC’s order lacked evidence
of reasoned decision-making, the FCC violated the Administrative Procedures Act and that the commission’s decision is capricious, arbitrary, abuse of discretion and not evidence-based.
The petitioners also argued that the FCC violated the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because the Agency failed to consider
the environmental impacts of its decision, and didn’t comply with the
1996 Telecommunications Act (TCA) because it failed to consider the
impact of its decision on public health and safety.
The Opening Brief was filed by petitioners on July 29, 2020. The FCC filed its brief on Sept. 22, 2020; and the petitioners filed their Reply Brief on Oct. 21, 2020.
The court has ordered that in the oral arguments scheduled for Jan.
25, only one attorney will present the case for all the petitioners. It
allocated 10 minutes for oral arguments for the petitioners as well as
for the FCC.
EHT and CHD have agreed to have CHD’s attorney, Scott McCullough,
former Assistant Texas Attorney General and a seasoned telecom and
administrative law attorney, present the petitioners’ joint argument.
The three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit that presides over the case includes the Honorable
Karen Henderson, Patricia Millett and Robert Wilkins.
EHT is represented by attorney Edward B. Myers, who intervened in the
successful case against the FCC with the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) and several Native American tribes when the court upheld
the relevance of NEPA in FCC proceedings.
The NRDC filed an amicus brief in the case. An amicus brief was also filed by the Building Biology Institute, and by an executive from the telecom industry, Joe Sandri. Sandri’s brief included a statement of Dr. Linda Birenbaum,
director of the National Institute of Environmental and Health Services
(NIEHS) from 2009-2019, stating that the evidence of carcinogenic
effects of wireless technology has been established.
The evidence referenced in the case shows profound harmful effects
and widespread sickness from wireless technology. The evidence (called
the “Joint Appendix”) was recently filed and includes 11,000 pages of
scientific and human evidence, yet, it is only the tip of the iceberg.
In this type of case only evidence that was submitted to the FCC’s
docket can be used. There s much evidence that wasn’t submitted.
The Joint Appendix contains 440 documents. The table of contents
alone is 54 pages. Because of the sheer volume of evidence, it had to be
divided into 27 volumes. The court requires seven sets of the Joint
Appendix, and therefore, 189 binders each containing approximately 500
pages were shipped to the court. The printing and shipping costs for the
Joint Appendix amounted to more than $15,000.
The Joint Appendix includes references to thousands of peer-reviewed
scientific studies showing DNA damage, reproductive harm, neurological
effects such as ADHD, and radiation sickness, which seems to be the most
widespread manifestation of wireless harms.
The evidence shows effects on the brain, including impaired blood
flow and damage to the blood-brain barrier, cognitive and memory
problems and effects on sleep, melatonin production and mitochondrial
damage. Causal mechanism of harm was also established. Oxidative Stress,
a mechanism of harm that can lead to cancer, non-cancer conditions and
DNA damage, was found in 203 out of 225 studies.
Unlike industry statements, both the majority of the studies and the
weight of the evidence leave no doubt that the harms are proven.
The Joint Appendix also includes reports of leading expert scientists
such as the BioInitiative Report; opinions of medical associations such
as the California Medical Association and the American Academy of
Pediatrics; appeals of leading expert scientists; U.S. government
agencies’ reports (U.S. Access Board, NIBS, the Department of Interior,
U.S. Navy, the Military, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
government studies including the recent National Toxicology Program
(NTP), a $30 million study
that found clear evidence of cancer and DNA damage; as well as
acknowledgement of harm by U.S. government agencies and scientists
contradicting the FCC position.
In December 2020, the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS) issued a report determining
that the most likely cause of the symptoms suffered by the U.S.
diplomats in Cuba and China is Radio-Frequency (wireless) weapons. The
NAS was appointed by the Department of State. The report references much
of the same evidence filed in the case against the FCC.
The NAS invited Prof. Beatrice Golomb, M.D., Ph.D., to present to the committee. Golomb’s 2018 paper
was the first to show that pulsed RF is the most likely explanation for
the diplomats’ symptoms. She pointed out the diplomats likely suffer
from the same condition experienced by growing segments of the
population from wireless technology known as radiation sickness/
microwave sickness/ electrosensitivity. Golomb’s paper was referenced in
the case.
Hundreds of testimonials of people who have become sick like the
diplomats and statements of doctors were filed to the FCC’s docket. The
petitioners argued that the FCC guidelines that deny sickness are being
used to deny accommodation for the injured, in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
Nevertheless, the FCC denied the evidence, the sickness and did not
address the accommodation issue. For those who have been injured this
case has profound consequences.
“Environmental Health Trust has worked for over a decade to protect the public from radiofrequency radiation, testified to Congress and published critical research
on why children are more vulnerable,” said Devra Davis Ph.D., MPH,
president and founder of Environmental Health Trust. “The FCC has
ignored our extensive submissions to the FCC
over the years which clearly document harm. As the legacies of lead,
asbestos, and tobacco teach us, this issue deserves the immediate
attention of our federal government in order to protect our children’s
healthy future.”
“This is a landmark case and it is of the utmost importance to the Children’s Health Defense
which works relentlessly to eliminate the epidemic of sickness in
children,” said the organization’s chairman, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “The
American public has been poorly served by the FCC. The FCC’s guidelines
are decades-old and are based on scientific assumptions that were proven
false. Its failure and disregard of public health is evident in the
growing and widespread conditions involving brain damage, learning
disabilities, and a host of complex neurological syndromes.”
Kennedy added: “The overwhelming experimental and human evidence
which the FCC has ignored leaves no doubt that wireless technology is a
major contributory factor to this epidemic. The FCC has shown that its
chief interest is protecting the telecom industry and maximizing its profits, and its position as put forward in its brief is simply indefensible.”
The oral arguments
are the final stage of this case. After the hearing, all that will be
left is to wait for the court’s decision, said Dafna Tachover, director
of CHD’s Stop 5G and Wireless Harms Project,
who has initiated and led the case for CHD. “We have invested
significant resources in this case and all of us worked very hard for
the past 13 months. We believe that we have a strong case. Now it is up
to the court. As William Wilberforce, who fought slavery said, ‘You may
choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you
didn’t know.’”
Link to Joint Appendix 27 volumes:
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
Volume 17; Volume 18; Volume 19; Volume 20
Volume 21; Volume 22; Volume 23; Volume 24
Volume 25; Volume 26; Volume 27
How to access the oral arguments online
The oral arguments are Jan. 25 9:30 a.m. EST, however according to
the schedule, 2 other cases are scheduled for the same time and they
will be heard ahead of our case. Hence, most likely, our oral arguments
will not start before 10:20 a.m. EST.
You can listen to the hearing here.
Source
If anyone want's insight into the Locksoens and how they came to be. All based on fraud of course. Add to that the trolls you find online cheering the lockdowns, wearing of masks etc is also covered. They of course were not the only ones sent out online to do that. Even the UN did that one. Among, lord only knows how many others were sent out, to cheer it all on.
Those cheer leaders were paid trolls, as I call them. They were sent out in droves, to make it look like people wanted the lockdowns, mask wearing, vaccines etc. That is one of the old tricks, they used for years, for many things even to cheer on wars among many other things.
Then thee are the none experts driving the agenda. Boy were they not experts. The more you read the more you shake your head. This covers a lot of territory. Very well written.
Some people got together did up a letter and sent it to different agencies asking them to investigate. If you hear of any investigations being done, do let me know. Just put the information in the comment section.
Posts
