*On-site
documents and links to other Web sites will open in a new
browser window. SImply close the new window when done to remain
on this page. Fair
Use Statement
August
31, 2007
- A.C.
29086 In the Appellate Court of the State of Connecticut
- Carl Bornemann, M.D., EMR Policy Institute, Inc., Appellants
v. Connecticut Siting Council, Nextel Communications, Inc.,
Appellees.
This case
involves actions by a major telecommunications company (Nextel
now Sprint-Nextel) to construct a wireless cell transmission
facility and antenna on the Bornemann property in the Town
of Canaan without the property owner’s knowledge or
permission, and without any hearing as to (1) the company’s
claim of legal right to do so, or (2) misstatements as to
the absence of adverse impact of the facility on the environment.
August
20, 2007 - Decision of The Supreme Court of the State
of Alaska No.
6139 - July 6, 2007 AT&T Alascom and Ward North America,
Inc., v. John Orchitt; and The State of Alaska, Department
of Labor and Workforce Development, Division of Workers' Compensation.
Alaska Supreme Court Upholds Award for RF Radiation Injury
Below Thermal Exposure Level.
October
3, 2006
- Statements of The EMR Policy Institute submitted to the
Connecticut Siting Council in the Beebe Hill Cell Tower proceeding.
September
12, 2006 United
States Supreme Court Docket 06-176 In Re Maria Gonzalez Petition
for Writ of Mandamus. This Petition was filed on July
26, 2006. It requests that the Supreme Court direct the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Court to order the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) before any licensee is allowed to commence
operations at the frequencies auctioned in the August 2006
Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) auction.
Brief
of Healthy Schools Network, Inc. as Amicus Curiae in Support
of Petitioner. HSN is dedicated to assuring every child and
school employee an environmentally safe and healthy school
through research, information, advocacy and coalition building.
HSN’s web site is www.healthyschools.org.
August
17, 2006 - Sworn testimony
of physicians, research scientists, engineers and attorneys
in two recent Colorado court cases explain how federal policy
in the United States is not protecting people from adverse
health effects of electromagnetic radiation in the radiofrequency
range (RF). The Federal Communications Commission’s
(FCC) Policy on Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic
Fields does not protect against long-term, low-intensity exposure.
May
25, 2006 - In 2005, the Connecticut Siting Council
(CSC) granted permission to Nextel Communications to erect
a high-power 851 Megahertz cell phone transmission mast on
top of a power line stanchion on Beebe Hill, above Falls Village
in Litchfield County, Connecticut, on the banks of the Housatonic
River and next to the state’s largest inland wetland
home of multiple endangered species, and a major flyway for
migratory birds.
Documents
pertaining to Petition No. 763 of Dr. Carl Bornemann before
the Connecticut Siting Council for a Declaratory Ruling invalidating
the January 24, 2005 order approving Nextel Communications
Petition 701 to install 6 antennas on an existing power line
pylon on Beebe Hill, Canaan, Connecticut.
Federal
Civil Action No.
3:06-cv-01416-RNC Carl Bornemann, M.D., Plaintiff v. Colin
C. Tait, Chairman, et al. as members of the Connecticut Siting
Council; and Nextel Communications, Inc. Complaint for Declaratory
Relief filed on September 11, 2006, in the United States District
Court, Connecticut District, Hartford, CT. This action seeks,
among its five requests, a declaration by the court that the
Telecommunication Act of 1996 does not preempt the Connecticut
Siting Council’s consideration of the environmental
effects of radiofrequency emissions on birds, plants, amphibians,
fish and wildlife.
April
27, 2006 - CV
06 1966 – Maria Gonzalez –v-- Kevin J. Martin,
Michael J. Copps, Jonathan S. Adelstein, and Deborah Taylor
Tate, as Commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission
Complete
brief and exhibits filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern New York District are found here.
June
13, 2005 -The Supreme Court has denied the Petition
for Certiorari 04-1515 EMR Network vs. Federal Communications
Commission and United States of America.
Documentation
is found on page 5 of the listing of all Supreme Court orders
for June 13, 2005.
Despite
the Supreme Court's denial for hearing in this case, two important
amicus briefs were filed in support of the Petition:
Amicus
Curiae Brief of the State of Connecticut filed by Attorney
General Richard Blumenthal.
Amicus
Curiae Brief of the International Association of Fire Fighters,
AFL-CIO, CLC.
May
10, 2005 - Petition
for Writ of Certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United
States - EMR Network vs. Federal Communications Commission
and United States of America
January
13, 2005 - Petition
filed for rehearing of case No. 03-1336 by the full panel
of judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Pursuant
to FRAP Rule 35, petitioner requests en banc rehearing on
the twin grounds that (1) en banc consideration is necessary
to maintain uniformity of the Court’s decisions because
the panel’s decision disregards and conflicts with a
principal holding in this Court’s decision in Michigan
Consolidated Gas Co. v. Federal Power Commission; and (2)
this proceeding involves a public health question of exceptional
importance affecting present and future generations of Americans
– and potentially people around the globe – because
of the ongoing rapid expansion of high frequency wireless
transmissions authorized by pending actions and existing regulations
of the FCC.
Washington
D.C., December 7, 2004
- In an opinion filed by Senior Circuit Judge Stephen F. Williams,
No. 03-1336 EMR
Network v. Federal Communications Commission and United States
of America,(pdf) the Court
upheld the FCC's decision not to initiate an inquiry on the
need to revise its regulations to address non-thermal effects
of radiofrequency (RF) radiation from the facilities and products
subject to FCC regulation as EMR Network had requested in
its September 2001 Petition for Inquiry.
At the request of the EMR Network, The EMR Policy Institute
provided legal and research support for this appeal.
The EMR Policy Institute is considering a Petition for Certiorari
to the Supreme Court as the next step in this challenge to
current US RF radiation safety policy.
03-1336
Brief (pdf) forEMR Network v.
Federal Communications Commission and United States of America.
The brief was filed on February 4, 2004, in the U.S. Court
of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit. The brief
was authored by Whitney North Seymour, Jr.
Brief
for Respondents (pdf) - FCC response
to EMR Network arguments.
03-1336
EMR Reply Brief (pdf) to FCC's response.
FCC
Motion to Strike (pdf) points in
EMR Reply Brief.
EMR
Response to FCC Motion to Strike.(pdf)
February
11, 2004 Background
on Citizens Brief Filed Against the FCC in D.C. Circuit Court
of Appeals (pdf)
Appeal
to DC Circuit
October
30, 2003 - Statement
of Issues to be Raised (pdf) for
Case No. 03-1336 Notice of Appeal filed on October 3, 2003,
by The EMR Policy Institute in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit, appealing the Federal Communications Commission’s
(FCC) Order 03-191. This order, adopted on July 28, 2003 and
released on August 14, 2003, affirmed FCC’s dismissal
of The EMR Network’s Petition for Inquiry In the Matter
of the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation
filed on September 25, 2001. The EMR Policy Institute takes
on this appeal in the name of and on the behalf of The EMR
Network.
August
14, 2003 FCC
Order 03-191 (pdf) affirms the earlier
staff-level denial of The EMR Petition for Inquiry of September
25, 2001. See also this Statement
of FCC Commissioner Copps. (pdf)
For more
background on the Notice of Appeal, see NOI
Background Page. (html)
October
22, 2003 – The Federal Court of Appeals for
the 4th Circuit upheld the ruling of federal district Judge
Catherine Blake to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Lennart
Hardell in the Christopher Newman brain cancer suit. See the
4th
Circuit decision (pdf) and Judge
Catherine Blake’s ruling, Newman
v. Motorola Inc.,(pdf) 218 F. Supp.
2d 769 (D. Md. 2002).
|
