As 2019 winds down, legal proceedings are pushing back on the 5G launch, its methods of deployment, and numerous related Telecommunication issues surrounding wireless communication and its infrastructure, and legal rulings and ongoing legal proceedings are definitely winding up.
The year 2019 began its trip around the sun hailed by the FCC as the year that the 5G launch in America would proceed in a big way, establishing the USA as the leader of the global economy in fact. However throughout this year of launch progress has been beset with legal action in the USA so strong that it threatens to change the course of the FCC. Similar legal action around the world tells the same story.
Dozens of lawsuits were filed in 2019 against the FCC, Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T and Sprint, and this two hour radio talk show goes into almost 200 USA lawsuits against 5G in one way or another.
2019 Worldwide Legal Push Back on 5G
All the while throughout this past year numerous other legal events worldwide, legal precedents, and citizen action legal actions occurred around the planet, all pointing to the self-evident statement published in the Global Research headline: Telecomm companies are losing the Battle to Impose 5G against the will of the people worldwide.
USA Supreme Court Rules in Several Key Cases
In April, a court decision in California Supreme Court, recognized, what Josh Del Sol (EMF Advocate and Director of Take Back Your Power) calls ” the shift of power toward local governments, and away from the 5G corporate oligarchy operating through the FCC”.
Much of the discussion in the Court’s opinion focused on California Public Utilities Code 7901 and 7901.1, the broad definition of the word “incommode” in that section, and the Constitutionally-granted policing powers and “powers of control” of municipalities.
Excerpts from the California Supreme Court opinion:
Contrary to plaintiffs’ [T-Mobile] argument, the incommode clause need not be read so narrowly. As the Court of Appeal noted, the word “incommode” means “to give inconvenience or distress to : disturb.” Travel is not the sole use of public roads; other uses may be incommoded beyond the obstruction of travel.CA Supreme Court
Supreme Court Calls for Mandatory Cellphone Warnings
On December 11, 2019 the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a telecommunications industry challenge to Berkeley, California’s requirement that cell-phone retailers warn customers about the possible radiation dangers of holding the phones close to their bodies. This precedent setting ruling warning label was first passed in California 2016 but has been challenged in court by the Telecomm companies in the intervening years basically on the issue of “free speech”, i.e. objectionable wording.
Cellphones in USA must now carry a warning to consumers about the biological dangers of wireless radio-frequency emissions. Legal Update
But the BIG legal decision for the USA is soon to come, and may affect the outcome of 5G in an even bigger (read more ‘scandalous’) and more far reaching way.
The USA Telecomm’s Gov’mt Subsidy Scandal Lawsuit
The IRREGULARATORS VS FCC lawsuit will be heard in the D.C. Circuit Court on January 17, 2020, challenging the Telecoms for collecting subsidies to pay for fiber optics to homes, and giving us 5G instead.
One of One of the key aspects of the case involves evidence of an estimated $1 Trillion scandal — yes, that is “T” for Trillion and not a typo. For more in-depth (and we mean fathoms more depth) info you are invited to download this 580 page eBook, the Book of Broken Promises by Bruce Krusnick, a career Telecomm analyst, detailing the “bait and switch” crimes committed.
Krusnick’s estimate of how much money USA tax payers paid for the biologically safe fiber optic electronic highway that they did not get comes from his meticulous analysis of disclosure documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulatory agencies.
“It’s funny because 5G has woken people up. Scott ( i.e. Scott McCollough is a career telecom legal expert, and former Assistant Texas Attorney General and Contract Consumer Advocate) and I have been doing this a very long time. Sometimes we’d have conversations with one person showing up, saying, ‘Well that’s an exciting idea!’ And now, you’ve got all these people going, ‘I don’t want that outside my house!’Bruce Krusnick
The December 2019 FCC decision not to update the safety guidelines for wireless radiation has resulted in a lawsuit being brought against them by the Children’s Health Defense vs. Federal Communication Commission in a 5G Lawsuit filed March 2020.
The Children’s Health Defense Chairman, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., will lead the legal team with seasoned telecommunications and administrative law attorney Scott McCollough. At issue is the FCC Order, which affirms that the 25 -year-old FCC safety guidelines, written in 1996, are reinstated with no significant update. The Children’s Health Defense contends that the guidelines, which protect against thermal damage from wireless radiation, do nothing to address the issue of non-thermal biological damage.
The need for more biologically based guidelines is a growing concern today due to the rapid expansion of new wireless technologies that have been introduced since the initial guidelines where put into effect in 1996. Particularly since the the FCC’s outdated guidelines have enabled the proliferation of new, high-frequency 5G radiation without any knowledge of its potential biological damage to humans, or life on earth.