Saturday, August 15, 2015

Smart” Meter Court Case Update Information & Perspective

Smart” Meter Court Case Update Information ; Perspective 

by Warren Woodward Sedona, Arizona ~ August 15, 2015


Last May I appealed “smart” meter Decision # 75047 made by the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC). The Decision was illegal in many ways. Plus the commissioners lied repeatedly throughout the Decision.

I detailed all the lies and lawlessness in my appeal to the ACC, but the commissioners denied my appeal by not responding to it within the 20 days specified in law. (My appeal is here: . Don't be put off by its 108 pages. The appeal is really only 17 pages long; the rest is supporting material).

I then brought the ACC’s serial lawbreaking to the attention of the Arizona Attorney General’s Office but, typically, it was not interested in enforcing the law, so my only recourse was to file an appeal in Maricopa Superior Court which I did last June 25th. (The case # is LC2015-000274.)

On July 14, Judge Crane McClennen issued an Order in the case for me to explain to him why his court had jurisdiction. This was startling for several reasons but first some background on Judge McClennen.

Judge McClennen's Background

Doing a brief internet search on Judge McClennen, I found that he started his legal career in 1972 and has been a judge in Maricopa Superior Court since 1997. In 2008 he had the distinction of being the only judge in Arizona to not meet the Judicial Performance Standards of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review. 

According to their website, , “Established in 1992 by a constitutional amendment passed by voters, the Commission's membership includes eighteen members of the public, six attorneys and six judges.” This nonpartisan outfit rates judges and, in the publicity pamphlet that voters receive before an election, provides the results of their ratings to help voters make informed votes on whether to retain judges. It is very seldom that a judge does not meet the Judicial Performance Standards.

In 2013, Judge McClennen was publicly reprimanded by the State of Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct due to a complaint brought by Mark Faull, the Chief Deputy Maricopa County Attorney. 

According to their website, , “The Commission on Judicial Conduct acts on complaints alleging one or more judges have engaged in judicial misconduct in a particular case or circumstance.” 

Comprised of six judges, 2 lawyers and three members of the public, the Commission wrote this in its public reprimand of Judge McClennen:

           “The complainant alleged a superior court judge exhibited unprofessional demeanor, ridiculed trial prosecutors, and made political comments from the bench.

            The Arizona Constitution forbids judicial conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice and brings the judicial office into disrepute. See Article 6.1, Section 4. Rule 1.2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.” Rule 2.2 requires judges to “perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.” Rule 2.8(B) requires judges to be “patient, dignified, and courteous” to lawyers.

            After reviewing the complaint, the judge's response, and the relevant recordings and transcripts, the commission found that, on two separate occasions, Judge McClennen made inappropriate sarcastic statements from the bench that violated the Arizona Constitution and the rules set forth above.”

According to a CBS 5 AZ news report on the above 2013 public reprimand, Judge McClennen was also reprimanded twice previously:

"He was accusing me of not answering his questions. He impugned my integrity," said defense attorney Eleanor Miller. She filed a complaint against McClennen last year, and the commission publicly reprimanded him after looking into it.

In 2002, McClennen was also privately reprimanded for similar conduct.

Back To My Case

Getting back to my case, as I said, it was startling that Judge McClennen wanted me to explain why his court had jurisdiction. The law that Judge McClennen wanted me to explain is so clear and straightforward that his request made no sense to me – unless maybe he was trying to get rid of me.

I had appealed the ACC's decision to Superior Court under A.R.S. 40-254 which states in part that:

“… any party in interest, or the attorney general on behalf of the state, being dissatisfied with an order or decision of the commission, may within thirty days after a rehearing is denied or granted, and not afterwards, commence an action in the superior court in the county in which the commission has its office, against the commission as defendant, to vacate, set aside, affirm in part, reverse in part or remand with instructions to the commission such order or decision ….”

I had appealed within the thirty day period but Judge McClennen, after quoting the part of the law I just did above, wrote that:

It appears Woodward is challenging an order of the Arizona Corporation Commission issued on April 30, 2015. As noted above, a party has the right to bring an action “within thirty days after a rehearing is denied or granted, and not afterwards.” Thirty days from the date of the Corporation Commission’s order would have been May 30, 2015. It thus appears Woodward’s pleading filed June 25, 2015 is untimely, which would mean this Court would not have jurisdiction. 

Incredibly, Judge McClennen made the mistake of starting the thirty day countdown from the date of the ACC's decision, not from when my appeal to the ACC was denied.

Or was it a mistake?

It is not customary for a judge to attempt to dismiss a case in this way. Usually the other side in the case would do that. So it seemed to me that Judge McClennen was doing the work of my adversaries. Adding that to his history of reprimands, I wanted a different judge.

The particular court I am in, Lower Court Appeals, runs by the Rules of Civil Procedure. There's a rule that gives a person the right to a one time change of judge just for the asking. In other words, you don't need a reason. So I filed a Notice of Change of Judge on July 27th. But I was denied because Maricopa Superior Court also operates under “Local Rules,” and there was a Local Rule that overrode the right to a change of judge that I thought I had. 

However, that Local Rule (plus a state statute) did give me the right to a change of judge if I showed cause. Grounds for cause had to be “That the party filing the affidavit has cause to believe and does believe that on account of the bias, prejudice, or interest of the judge he cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial.”

That was exactly what I 'had cause to believe and did believe.' So I filed an affidavit to that affect on July 30th.

In the affidavit, I stated that in attempting to dismiss my case as “untimely,” Judge McClennen was doing the work of the defendants and therefore showing his bias. I also mentioned that his misconstruing the thirty day time period appeared intentional since he is an experienced judge who should know better.

The next day Judge Randall Warner, the Civil Court Presiding Judge to whom I presented my affidavit, ruled against me. According to him, “Bias and prejudice under A.R.S. § 12-409(B)(5) means a “hostile feeling or spirit of ill-will” or an “undue friendship or favoritism” towards a litigant.” He claimed I didn't show that. I was pretty sure I had shown a “hostile feeling or spirit of ill-will,” even though I hadn't used those exact words in my affidavit.

Judge Warner also stated, “Judicial bias or prejudice ordinarily has to come from an extrajudicial source and not what the judge has done in the case.” Of course the key word there is “ordinarily,” and its inclusion means there must also be cases like mine that are not ordinary, but are in fact based on “what the judge has done in the case.”

At this point the Rules of Civil Procedure became unclear to me, and I was unsure exactly what my options were. I also wasn't sure I wanted to spend more time pursuing this particular injustice even if I could figure out the rules, so I accepted Judge Warner's ruling. Sometimes even I give up.

Meanwhile, Judge McClennen had given me until August 7th to tutor him on A.R.S. 40-254, the thirty day time limit law. So on August 5th I supplied him (free of charge) with a detailed explanation of how that law works. 

Evidently realizing that his court did in fact have jurisdiction in my case, on August 10thJudge McClennen issued an order giving the ACC until August 31st to respond to my Notice of Appeal. He also gave me until September 11th to respond to whatever the ACC filed if I so desired.


So that's where the case stands at this time.

By the way, none of what I've written above has transpired inside a courtroom. It's all done by filing papers. Because I want to be sure the documents I file get filed on the day I want them filed, I drive them down to Phoenix. I also need copies stamped by the Clerk of Court to deliver to the defendants whose offices are just a few blocks away from the Superior Court, so I drop those off while I am there.

Every time I go to Superior Court I get a real laugh out of the sculpture that's in front of the building and right next to the main entrance. Have a look at the photo at this link:

The sculpture depicts a family who've been stripped of everything – even their clothes – by the legal system, and they are fleeing the courthouse. Too perfect!

Thursday, August 13, 2015

Cellphone use may be harmful for people with dental braces

Cellphone use may be harmful for people with dental braces

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety, Aug 13, 2015

A new peer-reviewed study found that cell phone use significantly increased nickel concentration in the saliva of 50 adult patients who wore dental braces (i.e., fixed orthodontic appliances) as compared to when they did not use their cell phones for a week. Moreover, patients who spoke more on their cell phone had a greater increase in salivary nickel concentration. 

The “adverse effect of radiation on the release of nickel was more prominent in women” because they spoke more on their cell phones. The females averaged 53 minutes during the week they used their cell phones whereas the males averaged 23 minutes.

Nickel is a known toxic and carcinogenic metal. It is also a common cause of metal-induced contact allergic dermatitis. Nickel-containing alloys are often used in orthodontics for metallic brackets, arch wires, and bands.

Previous research either found no increase in salivary nickel concentration after a fixed orthodontic appliance was inserted or a significant increase that tapered off within three weeks after insertion.  The patients in the current study had orthodontic appliances for 2-4 months before they participated to control for this potential confounding effect of time.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires all cell phone models be tested for their Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), a measure of the maximum amount of microwave radiation absorbed by the head and the body. SAR is measured in a laboratory using an artificial model of a large adult male with different fluids to simulate human tissue. The SAR testing procedure, adopted in 1996, was criticized by the Government Accountability Office in 2012 because it does not simulate today’s typical user or the way cell phones are typically used. The artificial head does not contain any metal (e.g., dental fillings, dental braces, metallic earrings or eyeglass frames) which could increase the radiation absorption beyond that measured in the laboratory. The artificial body test makes the unrealistic assumption that  consumers will carry their cell phones in manufacturer-approved holders that keeps the phones a minimum distance away from their bodies. 

Today many children are cell phone users.  The young child’s brain absorbs twice the radiation as the adult’s brain. The SAR testing procedure does not take this into account.  

Although the current study was conducted on young adults who had fixed orthodontic appliances, the results should have relevance for children who are more likely to be fitted for dental braces than adults.

The abstract for this study and excerpts from the paper are available on my Electromagnetic Radiation Safety web site


Federal court hearing on Berkeley's cell phone "right to know ordinance

Next Thursday, August 20th, the U.S. District Court in San Francisco will hold a hearing on the CTIA's motion for a preliminary injunction to block implementation of the City of Berkeley's cell phone "right to know" ordinance. 

Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig will represent the City. The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has filed a brief in support of the City's law. For more information about this landmark law and the industry's lawsuit against the City of Berkeley see my regular updates.

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

News Releases:
Twitter:                 @berkeleyprc

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Where Our Phones Sleep 手机如何影响睡眠:睡觉时手机放在哪(双语)


2015年08月11日11:24  新浪教育 微博    收藏本文     
  (来源:沪江英语)Most people who own iPhones use them as their alarm clock — making it all too easy to check email one last time before falling asleep and hard to ever feel unplugged from work and social networks。
  Several years ago my boss passed out from exhaustion after staying up late to catch up on work. She banged her head on the way down and ended up with five stitches — and became what she calls a "sleep evangelist." Now she leaves her phone charging in another room when she goes to bed and encourages friends to do the same。
  "I sent all my friends the same Christmas gift — a Pottery Barn alarm clock — so they could stop using the excuse that they needed their very tempting iPhone by their bed to wake them up in the morning," she said。
  她这样说道:“我给我所有的朋友都送了同样的圣诞节礼物:一个Pottery Barn牌的闹钟,这样他们就不能再把手机当闹钟作为上床玩手机的借口啦。”
  If your phone wakes you up in the morning, it may also be keeping you up at night. A 2008 study funded by major mobile phone makers themselves showed that people exposed to mobile radiation took longer to fall asleep and spent less time in deep sleep。
  "The study indicates that during laboratory exposure to 884 MHz wireless signals components of sleep believed to be important for recovery from daily wear and tear are adversely affected," the study concluded。
  And that's just a physical symptom of sleeping near the phone — "sham" exposure to a phone without radiation failed to produce the same effect. The itch to check in at all hours of the night or wake up to the sound of a text message disrupts our sleep, too。
  A quarter of young people feel like they must be available by phone around the clock, according to a Swedish study that linked heavy cell phone use to sleeping problems, stress and depression. Unreturned messages carry more guilt when the technology to address them lies at our fingertips. Some teens even return text messages while they are asleep。
  Most of us choose not to set limits on our nighttime availability. Nearly three-quarters of people from the age of 18 to 44 sleep with their phones within reach, according to a 2012 Time/Qualcomm poll. That number falls off slightly in middle age, but only in people 65 and older is leaving the phone in another room as common as sleeping right next it。
文章关键词: 手机睡眠双语闹钟

Monday, August 10, 2015

STUK in Finland: How trustworthy is information on smart phones and… nuclear power plants…

STUK in Finland: How trustworthy is information on smart phones and… nuclear power plants…

Finland’s STUK is hiding important radiation exposure information from the general public, the Government and the Parliament. What else is being hidden by the arbitrary decisions of STUK staff? How comprehensive and trustworthy is the information we, the general public, are provided by STUK?

Question from Karl Riley to scientists and other EMF experts on uility EMF trespass

Question from Karl Riley to scientists and other EMF experts on uility EMF trespass

From: Karl Riley <>
Object: uility EMF trespass
Date: Aug 10  2015 13:07:21 UTC−4

Hi Andre,

I would like to put a question out for info that might carry weight with a US electrical utility.
A home owner in a Southern city measures up to 12 mG in the house, which is 85' from a primary distribution line. It is clearly net current (weakens directly with distance) and has been clearly traced from the power line and not caused by internal sources in the house.

The net current is caused by the multi-grounding of the neutral conductor, as well as connections to the secondary neutrals, and their grounds, including water pipes, etc, which provide parallel paths for the neutral current to return to the sub station, and hence unbalance the phase conductors so that their magnetic fields spread out vastly. It may also be due to use of a loop (ring) design for the distribution line, in which case the phase conductors remain open (not connected) at a switching point ("NO" point) but the neutral may be left permanently closed, thus causing neutral current to split and some to go back to the transformer by the other part of the loop.

All this is allowed by US code (NESC). So the home owner needs to be able to reference the most persuasive studies or international standards that he can find in order to bring pressure on the utility to spend some money to reduce the bleeding off of neutral to other pathways. He knows about the WHO IARC study that relates 4 mG to doubling of childhood leukemia.

So the question I am putting out to your knowledgable correspondents (and Louis Slesin if you are listening) is twofold: what studies are most worth quoting, and secondly have there been successful court cases based on something like EMF trespass on private property?

Karl Riley

NEW MEXICO - My Turn: ‘We do not need an outside predator to tell us what we need’ - The Taos News, 26th July 2015

NEW MEXICO - My Turn: ‘We do not need an outside predator to tell us what we need’ - The Taos News, 26th July 2015

Inline image 3

On May 13, the Taos County Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously voted to deny a variance to a Colorado firm trying to erect a 60-foot cell tower in a field adjacent to local Pilar residents. They declared that the company did not meet two out of the three criteria critical to warrant approval.

The hearing went well into the night due to the large turnout of Pilar residents opposed to the tower.

The Acequia Association was adamant in its opposition to the tower and noted that the tower would encroach of the acequias and that they were never consulted, contrary to the statements of the Comnet Wireless Co.

The people who make their homes and some, their livelihoods in the small, scenic village of Pilar expressed their fears regarding health and safety. They quoted from Environmental Protection Agency reports warning vs. the effects of radiation that would be emitted from the tower and noted that one of the reasons this Colorado wanted to construct on private land was so they could bypass environmental assessments.

One woman testified as to the increased risk of Cancer documented in online reports. Many of the locals are farmers and expressed concern over the effects on their crops, as well as the water. So many folks come to Pilar to enjoy the river and its views. Thousands of rafters ogle the spectacular scenery they pass while screaming their “yahoos” from fleets of rafts. Even some of the rafting companies agree that a tower would be an unwanted eyesore... 

Why modern life is making dementia in your 40s more likely

By "background radiation" the authors are seemingly referring to "background electromagnetic radiation" which has increased exponentially in the past three decades.

Paul Doyon
EMF Refugee

Why modern life is making dementia in your 40s more likely

From background radiation to chemicals in the food chain, environmental changes are contributing to a rapid global rise in neurological disease
Friday 7 August 2015 07.47 EDT
An MRI scan of a human brain: dementia sufferers are becoming younger.
 An MRI scan of a human brain: dementia sufferers are becoming younger. Photograph: Alamy
My interest in neurological disease was triggered by a second friend dying of motor neurone disease (MND), which in purely statistical terms was exceptional. It is suggested there is an incidence of about one in 50,000 who are affected by MND and most die. No one knows 50,000 people, so was it a statistical fluke?
This raised the question of whether there were increases not only in MND, but in neurological disorders as a whole, including the dementias. Using World Health Organisation mortality data, which – while not perfect – is the best information available as it is collated in a standard and uniform way, myself and colleagues at the faculty of health and social sciences at Bournemouth University set out to investigate this.
Our first study, focusing on the changing pattern of neurological deaths from 1979 up to 1997, found that dementias were starting 10 years earlier – affecting more people in their 40s and 50s – and that there was a noticeable increase in neurological deaths in people up to the age of 74. In a follow-up study, taking us to 2010 and across 21 western countries, these increases were confirmed.
The results were controversial. As one newspaper headline reported: “Modern living leads to brain disease”, which in a somewhat simplistic way reflected what our research uncovered about the impact of the changing environment in which we live on our neurological health.
This latest neurological study, published in the USA, found that there are more people with neurological disease than ever before. Deaths of men over 75 have nearly trebled in 20 years and deaths of women have increased more than five-fold. For the first time since records began, more US women over 75 are dying of brain disease than cancer.
In the other 20 western countries, most have doubled their neurological deaths and seven countries trebled their neurological toll. It might be argued that, as people live longer, they develop diseases that they previously did not live long enough to develop. While there is some truth in this, the speed and size of the increases in just 20 years points to mainly environmental influences.
What might these environmental features be? In the past 20 years, we have quadrupled our road and air transport, with the inevitable increases in air pollution exposing us to a range of noxious substances; our background radiation has increased with the use of technological devices; there are organophosphates in our food chain. We need to recognise the interactive relationship between these minor irritants that collectively affect human health. We are beginning to acknowledge the human impact on the natural world, but forget that we are part of the natural world, too. The evidence for this lies in a number of clinical studies from across the developed world, showing associations with a range of petrochemical radiation, heavy metals and so on.
However, all these statistics hide the fact that the numbers are about human lives. Not just the patient, but also their families trying to cope with early onset dementia in a loved one, or watching a neuro-degenerative disease destroy a life before their eyes. Perhaps the most stark evidence of changes in the UK is the need for a new charity – Young Dementia UK – whose clients are in their 40s and 50s, while the Parkinson’s Disease Society now has a young PDS section. The speed of all these changes is making extra demands on both medical and social care, and the way we are set up to deal with this, which was barely adequate 20 years ago, is being completely overwhelmed.
What does this mean to the patient and their family? A partner will say: “I am living with a stranger, he has not known me for 10 years and the man I married died years ago, only this stranger remains.” What can be done? A possible answer lies in what governments did regarding road deaths. In 1970, there were 7,500 fatalities in the UK; by 2010, they were down to 2,220 because the governments recognised the problem and acted. We need to recognise that these results are not a statistical artefact, but a warning.

Sunday, August 09, 2015

Phone-obsessed parents are causing a mental health epidemic in children, researchers suggest

Phone-obsessed parents are causing a mental health epidemic in children, researchers suggest

Friday, August 07, 2015 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer
Tags: Cell phoneschildrenmental health
(NaturalNews) Scientists are increasingly sounding the alarm over an easily overlooked effect of becoming addicted to mobile devices: Parents are neglecting the emotional needs of their children, possibly damaging their mental health as a result.

"Children of all ages use the same adjectives to describe how they feel when they are competing with screens for their parent's attention," said Catherine Steiner Adair of Harvard University, and author of The Big Disconnect: Protecting Childhood and Family Relationships in the Digital Age. "Angry, sad, frustrating, and lonely were the words used over and over."

Steiner Adair is just one of many researchers now zeroing in to ask the question: What actually happens to children whose parents are always plugged in to their devices?

Parents harsher, children act out more

An informal preschool playground survey by ConsumerWatch yielded results in line with recent psychology research.

"How do you feel when your mommy and daddy are on the phone?" the children were asked.

"Sad," said one 4-year-old.

"Kinda sad," her friend agreed.

And with good reason: According to a recent international study by Internet security company AVG/Location Labs, one-third of children believe that their parents spend as much time (or more) with their devices than with them. Thirty-two percent said they feel unimportant when their parents are distracted from interacting with them by a phone, and 54 percent said that their parents check mobile devices too often.

Steiner Adair's research had similar findings.

"I feel like I'm just boring," said one child that she interviewed. "I'm boring my dad because he will take any text, any call, any time, even on the ski lift."

It's not just in the nebulous, hard-to-define realm of self-image that children suffer. Studies have shown that parents respond more harshly to their children while looking at screens than they do when not distracted.

Another study, conducted by researchers from Boston Medical Center, had complementary findings. The researchers observed 55 groups of parents and children at various fast-food restaurants, and observed that 40 of the parents immediately pulled out mobile devices upon arrival, then paid attention to those devices for nearly the whole meal. Unsurprisingly, the children of those parents acted out more, in an effort to get attention.

Create phone-free times of day

Parents distracted by their phones also place their children's physical health at risk.

"We've seen about a 22 percent spike in preventable accidents with young children and caretakers using their digital devices," Steiner Adair said.

Certain situations are simply too dangerous for cell phone use, she said, such as when children are climbing a jungle gym or a toddler or infant is in a bath.

"Your reaction time and attention is not the same when you're texting or talking on a cell phone," she said.

Parents who are addicted to their own devices also make it more likely their children will have the same problem, psychologists warn. And studies have shown that children who spend too much time in front of screens are more likely to have social, emotional and intellectual problems.

Psychologists emphasize that being more present for your children does not have to mean giving up your devices entirely. Steiner-Adar urges parents to set aside certain "critical times of the day" as device-free. She specifically suggests when taking kids to or from school, bed or bath time, and the first hour after parents get home.

"They should walk in the door unplugged and use the first hour they're home as time to reconnect with the family," she said. "Kids hate the phrase 'just checking' that parents frequently use to justify a very rude, infuriating behavior."


Learn more:

Victory in 16-month Standoff as PSREC Drops Fees and Restores Electric Service

Victory in 16-month Standoff as PSREC Drops Fees and Restores Electric Service

Posted on July 6, 2015 by onthelevelblog

IMG_1024At the appeal court hearing on June 29th, after it was revealed that Superior Court Judge Ira Kaufman has a no-cost self-read analog meter at his home, and after PSREC’s legal arguments defending their “opt out” program fell apart, the utility’s General Manager Bob Marshall agreed to reconnect our electricity, drop all past fees and provide self-read analog service at no charge.
Electricity was restored at our home on Thursday afternoon, and the analog meter remains in place. 
Thank you to our attorney Michael Jackson, and everyone who has supported us and kept us going through our 16-month stand. It has not always been easy.  However, when push comes to shove, it is clear that utility company bullying just does not stand up in court.
In the end, PSREC did not want medical experts testifying about the health hazards of their smart meters.  Their desire to “have their cake and eat it too” significantly undermined their case.  For example, they claimed their AMR meters were not “smart meters” but then insisted that the recent CPUC smart meter decision justified their ability to charge residents fees for avoiding them.  They proclaimed their independence–as a cooperative–from CPUC regulations, but then leaned heavily on the CPUC’s December opt out decision–limited to the four main investor owned utilities in California, to justify the legality of those fees.
The takeaway? For customers of municipal or cooperative electric utilities not regulated by a state utility commission, small claims and superior courts are able and often willing to take an independent look at the legality of utility policies, unencumbered by state regulatory decisions. Don’t just go along with a forced smart meter or unjust fees- take them to court!
Here are the legal briefs submitted for the appeals phase of our case, available for download:
Hart v. PSREC is officially still an open case pending the signing of a written agreement this week. We reserve the right to a superior court trial if PSREC fails to carry out any of the agreed actions.