5G: The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996

This is all an act, just as it says.  There is no way silly words on paper may decide that it’s acceptable to abuse you.

“SEC. 704. FACILITIES SITING; RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSION STANDARDS.

    (a) National Wireless Telecommunications Siting Policy.--Section

332(c) (47 U.S.C. 332(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following

new paragraph:

            ``(7) Preservation of local zoning authority.--

                    ``(A) General authority.--Except as provided in this

                paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the

                authority of a State or local government or

                instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the

                placement, construction, and modification of personal

                wireless service facilities.”

First of all, it is possible that State when capitalized means one state of the states of the union that are not under District of Columbia rule.  One would expect state to be lower cased in this sentence.  This local government here where I am is California legislation, which falls under the District of Columbia rule.  Also, what do the ‘ ‘ In front of the 7 and B mean?‪  Are they simply quotes?  Why then?

“``(B) Limitations.--

                          ``(i) The regulation of the placement,

                      construction, and modification of personal

                      wireless service facilities by any State or local

                      government or instrumentality thereof—"

Again, State and local government may be addressing the two realities here in all 50 states.

“``(ii) A State or local government or 

                      instrumentality thereof shall act on any request 

                      for authorization to place, construct, or modify 

                      personal wireless service facilities within a 

                      reasonable period of time after the request is 

                      duly filed with such government or 

                      instrumentality, taking into account the nature 

                      and scope of such request.” (Bold type is mine.)

This may prove my point about states of the union being mentioned with a capital S in states.  

No-one would file anything with them.  

They are the liberated aspect of each state.  You would never file with them about anything.

“``(iii) <>  Any decision by a 

                      State or local government or instrumentality 

                      thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or 

                      modify personal wireless service facilities shall 

                      be in writing and supported by substantial 

                      evidence contained in a written record.”

Yet, in the next paragraph, they are mentioned again.

``(iv) No State or local government or 

                      instrumentality thereof may regulate the 

                      placement, construction, and modification of 

                      personal wireless service facilities on the basis 

                      of the environmental effects of radio frequency 

                      emissions to the extent that such facilities 

                      comply with the Commission's regulations 

                      concerning such emissions.

States of the union are not obligated to follow criminal legislation from the District of Columbia.

“``(v) Any person adversely affected by any

                      final action or failure to act by a State or local

                      government or any instrumentality thereof that is

                      inconsistent with this subparagraph may, within 30

                      days after such action or failure to act, commence

                      an action in any court of competent

                      jurisdiction. <>”

The Judicial District may be different than the courts of the District of Columbia.  I need to learn what “<> means.”  A competent court may be the court of fiction, which truly is not competent.  This is speaking to the wronged cell phone company or such, not to an average human.

“Any person adversely affected by an act or failure 

                      to act by a State or local government or any 

                      instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with 

                      clause (iv) may petition the Commission for 

                      relief.”

Among other definitions that you may expect is, “A warrant or authority or letters patent, 

issuing from the government, or one of its departments” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., p. 141).  

Letters is defined as “A commission, patent, or written instrument” (Black’s Law, p. 469).   

Keep in mind, no words were defined in this document, except what I will soon quote.  

Basically, is business being admitted here; the idea of not allowing people to stop cell towers 

and 5G antennas from being built?  A cell company victim can waa waa cry to the patent itself for help?

“``(C) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph--

                          ``(i) the term `personal wireless services' 

                      means commercial mobile services, unlicensed 

                      wireless services, and common carrier wireless 

                      exchange access services;

                          ``(ii) the term `personal wireless service 

                      facilities' means facilities for the provision of 

                      personal wireless services; and

                          ``(iii) the term `unlicensed wireless service' 

                      means the offering of telecommunications services 

                      using duly authorized devices which do not require 

                      individual licenses, but does not mean the 

                      provision of direct-to-home satellite services (as 

                      defined in section 303(v)).''.”

Interesting, so the 5G satellite fence around Earth cannot be used?  If those quote-looking things 

are quotes, then why?  And why is that last one done like this .”.  ?  

I don’t know much, but I know all things such as colons, spaces, and dots have meanings.

“(b) <>  Radio Frequency Emissions.--Within 180 days 

after the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall complete action in 

ET Docket 93-62 to prescribe and make effective rules regarding the 

environmental effects of radio frequency emissions.”

I wonder what rules they made.  Only try to kill 45% of the bees.  Only try to kill 66% of humans.

“(c) <>  Availability of 

Property.--Within 180 days of the enactment of this Act, the President 

or his designee shall prescribe procedures by which Federal departments 

and agencies may make available on a fair, reasonable, and 

nondiscriminatory basis, property, rights-of-way, and easements under 

their control for the placement of new telecommunications services that 

are dependent, in whole or in part, upon the utilization of Federal 

spectrum rights for the transmission or reception of such services.”

It’s interesting to me that they worry about being fair and reasonable and that they 

don’t discriminate against those who may want the tower on their property, because money is involved.  But they don’t care about their health or yours.

The text against humanity is available at this link.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/senate-bill/652/text

Stop 5G Letters Written in Olde English Font

Here's what I sent today with a 2 cent stamp...written in Olde English. See, Congressman Ted Lieu's letter (probably meant to tell me all the great things he's done) to me  had the Washington address in Olde English saying Congress of the United States. I think that means that that part is the realish part of the US. (Sorry, but there is a fiction and you most likely accept it as true.)

I just wanted to be seen as a liberated person, not under federal jurisdiction, and thought I'd have more success with that if I used the real PO rather than the USPS which was invented in 1970, so I sent Lieu's letter with a 2 cent stamp using the General PO, not USPS.

Anything in brackets takes it off the page, so in a sense, I am saying this is who I am, but I am not a name. A name will bring me into their federal jurisdiction, so I want it off the page. Confusing, perhaps, but I wanted you to see the letter I sent today.

I am changing my address in case this gets shared. It's fine with me if people use it as a model and say their own thing.

[First Last names ©]
c/o #### 208th Street,
Any City, CA, [RFD 9####]

September 14, 2019

Ted W. Lieu
c/o #### Any  Ave., Suite 101
Los Angeles, CA [RFD 9####]

Dear Ted. W. Lieu,

Thank-you so much for your kind offer in your letter which I received on the 12th. You said, “If you need help resolving an issue with the federal government, let us know.” Please stop 4G/5G assaults.

Since, when it is against the wishes of any private person, it is inappropriate for cell towers and 5G antennas to be installed on grounds occupied by living men who are not under federal jurisdiction, I am invoking my right to request that officials stop hiding behind Section 704 of the FCC’s Telecommunication Act of ’96. It is against Universal Law to have us assaulted with military grade weapons instead of using alternate means and taking most towers at least back to 3G.

Please stop the construction of 4G/5G towers/antennas immediately, allow the proof of harm along with original intention to be revealed, and take down the current 4G/5G towers/antennas now. As a private person, I am invoking that the area, the places I visit in Southern California, my home, be free of the harmful 4G towers and harmful military weapon known as 5G.

The federal government has no jurisdiction over private persons; therefore, is liable within their own courts and system for assaulting those not in their jurisdiction.

Thank-you.

Bright Day Thoughts,

[First Last name©]

This was also written in Olde English because I am invoking the laws of 1775 and will send this through the General Post Office of 1775 with a 2 cent stamp. I have changed some key words. (It has the same address info written in the same style as Lieu's letter.)

Dear Governor Newsom,

Please stop 4G/5G assaults. Since—when it is against the wishes of any private person—it is inappropriate for cell towers and 5G antennas to be installed on grounds occupied by living men who are not under federal jurisdiction, I am invoking my right to request that officials stop hiding behind Section 704 of the FCC’s Telecommunication Act of ’96. It is against United States Judicial District standing to have us assaulted with federal military weapons instead of using alternate means and taking most towers at least back to 3G.

Please stop the construction of 4G/5G towers/antennas immediately, allow the proof of harm along with original intention to be revealed, and take down the current 4G/5G towers/antennas now. As a State citizen, I am invoking that the area, the places I visit in Southern California, my home, be free of the harmful 4G towers and harmful military weapon known as 5G.

The federal government has no jurisdiction over private persons; therefore, is liable within their own courts and system for assaulting those not in their jurisdiction. Thank-you.

Bright Day Thoughts,

[First Last name ©]

What do you think?
Olde English is difficult to read, but...Well, it's a new angle anyway.

Invoking Precautionary Principle to Stop Construction of Cell Towers & 5G Antennas

You never know what key words will get attention.  The truth is, we do not know if there is an easy way to have control for our health over legislated harm.  So it is important to say words to eventually find the ones that work.  

The system sees the average human as "dead," a pawn, steerage.  Although I did sign my first and last name, which may be placing me in the steerage category, I used "living man" of the territory, because I was trying to get their attention that I am alive, a creditor, even if really, according to their standards I am a debtor.

August 13, 2019

Governor Gavin Newsom

1303 10^th Street, Suite 1173

Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Governor Newsom,

As a living man in the territory known as California, I invoke the Precautionary Principle and respectfully request that all 5G antenna and 3G/4G/5G cell tower construction cease immediately—including, but not limited to, those hidden and within buildings.  It is in your power to prevent harm by stopping the construction of something that may cause environmental damage—especially if irreversible—before all the scientific proof is in.  I respectfully request proof that the order to cease construction has been given within two weeks.  The impact on humanity and the environment from emissions of these antennas and towers is uncertain, so the principle I am invoking demands caution and monitoring before harm is done.

Whether you adhere to the Rio Declaration from the 1992 United Nations Conference on environment and development (June 3-14) which states, “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by states according to their capabilities.  Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost effective measures to prevent environmental degradation,” or to the 1998 Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle (January 23-25), which states, “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.  The process of applying the precautionary principle must be opened, informed, and democratic, and must include potentially affected parties.  It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.  In this context, the proponent of an activity rather than the public should bear the burden of proof,” both trump Section 704 of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition says that state means (p. 731), “A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries…The section of territory occupied by one of the United States.”  Proponent is defined as (p. 637), “One who proposes or argues in favor of something; one who makes a proposal.” I do not need thousands of signatures against the building of 5G antennas and cell towers, because both of these Precautionary Principles were put into place legally already.  The burden of proof that they are safe falls on the proponent, not me or my neighbors.  I am invoking what already stands.  It does not give you permission to use Section 704 as an excuse to possibly harm us or our environment.  It does order you to err on the side of caution; to be safe over sorry. 

You have a duty to anticipate and prevent harm—the harm a military-grade weapon such as 5G can do is not too hard to anticipate, by the way.  We have a right to know details about the use of these antennas and cell towers.  Alternatives are available.  Scientists within the communications field could be sought.

I have also informed the following that I have invoked the Precautionary Principle as a living man of the territory known as California: Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Mayor Garcetti, Councilman Joe Buscaino, Raoul Mendoza (Chief Management Analyst of the Department of City Planning), and my local paper and TV station.  Thank-you.

Bright Day Thoughts,

Paget 

Slightly different:

 August 13, 2019

Mayor Eric Garcetti

200 N. Spring Street,

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Dear Mayor Garcetti:

As a living man in the territory known as California, I invoke the Precautionary Principle and respectfully request that all 5G antenna and 3G/4G/5G cell tower construction cease immediately—including, but not limited to, those hidden and within buildings.  It is in your power to prevent harm by stopping the construction of something that may cause environmental damage—especially if irreversible—before all the scientific proof is in.  I respectfully request proof that the order to cease construction has been given within two weeks, because the mayor “should ensure the city is kept clean and orderly, with opportunities for citizens to experience a good quality of life and enjoy good health.”  The impact on humanity and the environment from emissions of these antennas and towers is uncertain, so the principle I am invoking demands caution and monitoring before harm is done.

Whether you adhere to the Rio Declaration from the 1992 United Nations Conference on environment and development (June 3-14) which states, “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by states according to their capabilities.  Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost effective measures to prevent environmental degradation,” or to the 1998 Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle (January 23-25), which states, “Where an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.  The process of applying the precautionary principle must be opened, informed, and democratic, and must include potentially affected parties.  It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.  In this context, the proponent of an activity rather than the public should bear the burden of proof,” both trump Section 704 of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition says that state means (p. 731), “A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries…The section of territory occupied by one of the United States.”  Proponent is defined as (p. 637), “One who proposes or argues in favor of something; one who makes a proposal.” I do not need thousands of signatures against the building of 5G antennas and cell towers, because both of these Precautionary Principles were put into place legally already.  The burden of proof that they are safe falls on the proponent, not me or my neighbors.  I am invoking what already stands.  It does not give you permission to use Section 704 as an excuse to possibly harm us or our environment.  It does order you to err on the side of caution; to be safe over sorry. 

Politicians have a duty to anticipate and prevent harm—the harm a military-grade weapon such as 5G can do is not too hard to anticipate, by the way.  We have a right to know details about the use of these antennas and cell towers.  Alternatives are available.  Scientists within the communications field could be sought.

I have also informed the following that I have invoked the Precautionary Principle as a living man of the territory known as California: Governor Gavin Newsom, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Councilman Joe Buscaino, Raoul Mendoza (Chief Management Analyst of the Department of City Planning), and my local paper and TV station.  Thank-you.

Bright Day Thoughts,

Paget 

 Slightly different:

August 13, 2019

Councilman Joe Buscaino

15th District, City of Los Angeles

200 N. Spring St Los Angeles, CA 90012

Councilman Buscaino:

As a living man in the territory known as LA City in California, I invoke the Precautionary Principle and respectfully request that all 5G antenna and 3G/4G/5G cell tower construction cease immediately—including, but not limited to, those hidden and within buildings.  If it is in your power to prevent harm by stopping the construction of something that may cause environmental damage—especially if irreversible—before all the scientific proof is in, then please do so.  I have requested Governor Newsom, Congresswoman Waters, and Mayor Garcetti for proof that the order to cease construction has been given within two weeks.  The impact on humanity and the environment from emissions of these antennas and towers is uncertain, so the principle I am invoking demands caution and monitoring before harm is done, and I am asking you to join me.

Whether you adhere to the Rio Declaration from the 1992 United Nations Conference on environment and development (June 3-14) which states, “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by states according to their capabilities.  Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost effective measures to prevent environmental degradation,” or to the 1998 Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle (January 23-25), which states, “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.  The process of applying the precautionary principle must be opened, informed, and democratic, and must include potentially affected parties.  It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.  In this context, the proponent of an activity rather than the public should bear the burden of proof,” both trump Section 704 of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition says that state means (p. 731), “A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries…The section of territory occupied by one of the United States.”  Proponent is defined as (p. 637), “One who proposes or argues in favor of something; one who makes a proposal.” I do not need thousands of signatures against the building of 5G antennas and cell towers, because both of these Precautionary Principles were put into place legally already.  The burden of proof that they are safe falls on the proponent, not me or my neighbors.  I am invoking what already stands.  No permission has been given to use Section 704 as an excuse to possibly harm us or our environment.  It does order politicians to err on the side of caution; to be safe over sorry. 

Politicians have a duty to anticipate and prevent harm—the harm a military-grade weapon such as 5G can do is not too hard to anticipate, by the way.  We have a right to know details about the use of these antennas and cell towers.  Alternatives are available.  Scientists within the communications field could be sought.

I have also informed the following that I have invoked the Precautionary Principle as a living man of the territory known as California: Governor Gavin Newsom, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Mayor Eric Garcetti, Raoul Mendoza (Chief Management Analyst of the Department of City Planning), and my local paper and TV station.  Thank-you.

Bright Day Thoughts,

Paget 

 Slightly different:

 August 13, 2019

The Daily Breeze

400 Continental Blvd, Suite 600
El Segundo, CA 90245

Hello the Daily Breeze:

I wanted to keep you in the loop.  I have been stopping a cell tower from being built (so far) on a street in the South Bay Area through saying that it will be an assault on my neighbors and me.  Since officials keep hiding behind the psychopathic legislation of Section 704, I am attempting a new approach.  Here is the letter I sent to the people listed in the final paragraph.

As a living man in the territory known as California, I invoke the Precautionary Principle and respectfully request that all 5G antenna and 3G/4G/5G cell tower construction cease immediately—including, but not limited to, those hidden and within buildings.  It is in your power to prevent harm by stopping the construction of something that may cause environmental damage—especially if irreversible—before all the scientific proof is in.  I request proof that the order to cease construction has been given within two weeks.  The impact on humanity and the environment from emissions of these antennas and towers is uncertain, so the principle I am invoking demands caution and monitoring before harm is done.

Whether you adhere to the Rio Declaration from the 1992 United Nations Conference on environment and development (June 3-14) which states, “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by states according to their capabilities.  Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost effective measures to prevent environmental degradation,” or to the 1998 Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle (January 23-25), which states, “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.  The process of applying the precautionary principle must be opened, informed, and democratic, and must include potentially affected parties.  It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.  In this context, the proponent of an activity rather than the public should bear the burden of proof,” both trump Section 704 of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition says that state means (p. 731), “A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries…The section of territory occupied by one of the United States.”  Proponent is defined as (p. 637), “One who proposes or argues in favor of something; one who makes a proposal.” I do not need thousands of signatures against the building of 5G antennas and cell towers, because both of these Precautionary Principles were put into place legally already.  The burden of proof that they are safe falls on the proponent, not me or my neighbors.  I am invoking what already stands.  It does not give you permission to use Section 704 as an excuse to possibly harm us or our environment.  It does order you to err on the side of caution; to be safe over sorry. 

You have a duty to anticipate and prevent harm—the harm a military-grade weapon such as 5G can do is not too hard to anticipate, by the way.  We have a right to know details about the use of these antennas and cell towers.  Alternatives are available.  Scientists within the communications field could be sought.

I have also informed the following that I have invoked the Precautionary Principle as a living man of the territory known as California: Governor Gavin Newsom, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Mayor Eric Garcetti, Councilman Joe Buscaino, Raoul Mendoza (Chief Management Analyst of the Department of City Planning), and my local newspaper and local TV station.  Thank-you.

Bright Day Thoughts,

Paget 

Making Cell Towers Unnecessary

The US federal government strong arms officials in all states with their 1996 Telecommunications Act, Section 704.  (Good reading if you need proof that governments do not put people first.)

Individuals are the only support that communities can expect to keep them safe.  (You would think it would be the health and safety groups of various states, but it is not so.)

Here are some tips that if we all did, would tell cell phone companies that we don't need their towers.

1) Get rid of your cell phone.  If this seems too big a sacrifice, then take the baby step of getting a regular cell phone and wean yourself off the SMART phone slowly.  If that seems too big a step, leave your phone at home as often as you can.  If that seems too big of a step, then start by turning your phone off for lengthy periods of time, especially if it is with you in the car.  If your phone is on, it makes it easier for you to be tracked and also irradiates you more as the phone reaches out to the closest cell tower constantly as you are moving.

2) Ditch Wi-Fi in your home.  Use a cable for your computer and most systems can go Wi-Fi briefly for a cell phone.  Honestly, if you have Wi-Fi in your home, some sinister official can crank it up so to speak and control your mind or turn you to dust.  If that seems far-fetched to you, then simply investigate the stress constant Wi-Fi causes the human body and ditch it for that reason.

3) Get a landline.  This is safer to use compared to a cell phone and we don't need their towers to use them.  My rotary phone is quite a conversational piece and the line only costs me $10/month, including free interstate and international calls to most countries.

4) Use cash.  Your cell phone is to be used to keep track of you and to give or subtract credits as an official sees fit.  If we use cash, instead of especially banking on our phones, we are foiling their plans of control for us.

5) If you still use a cell phone, use your computer to watch your YouTube or television shows.  Divorce yourself from the phone as much as possible.  Use your computer to help you with music.  I still listen to cassette tapes, records, and CD's, but there have to be other choices for you than your phone.

6) Get rid of the SMART meter.  5G will work with this contraption.  We do not need a military grade weapon as a gas meter.  See the group Inpower for tips how to go about this.
Secret
Militarized
Armament
Residential
Technology may give you a false sense of security, but these SMART appliances are ultimately spy and kill technology.
Many of us raised children without baby monitors and SMART diapers. Many of us have looked out for our neighbors.  We knew if someone suspect or suspicious was around.  SMART is making people anti-social and lazy.  We need to be smart ourselves and honor community.