[Jane Jones]
c/o #### Any Street
A City,
CA [RFD #####]
29
February 2020
[Supervisor-SCE]
c/o P.
O. Box ###
A Town,
CA [RFD 91771]
Good
Day,
I am
writing to let you know that I have paid my utilities bill dated 01/08/20 (that
said I had until April) with $69.48. I
have paid $61.61 of the bill dated 2/13/20.
I have not paid the $75, $10, and $10 related to “Opting Out” charges. If you listen to the call I made to your
office on Friday, November 22, 2019, at roughly 4:30 PM, you will hear that I
was informed there would be no charge involved with the removal of the SMART
meter that was being stored on the wall of my home. You cannot charge me for the removal of the
meter for that reason alone. As I said
on that day and several other days to your employees, I never Opted In, so how
can I Opt Out? This is another reason you cannot charge me.
I
did not “Opt In” to allowing you to store a military-grade weapon on my
wall. (No Californians have. Unlike if we choose to have tankers parked in
our backyards, the SMART meter was chosen for us without informed consent and
without having passed satisfactory testing from an impartial source.) I did not “Opt In” to having this
radio-frequency radiation device that in May of 2011 the WHO classified as a
Class 2B potential cancer-causing carcinogen on my wall. And as a reminder to you, Edison (nor any electrical
company) paid $75 to any owner in California to allow the companies to remove
the analogue meters and so should not receive $75 to put them back. Further, no utilities companies should ask
any of us to pay $10/month. To ask people who do not want to be abused by RF emissions to pay for the luxury is inappropriate. Title 18 U. S. C.
247 discusses damage to religious property and obstruction to persons in the
free exercise of religious beliefs, specifically, section 2 mentions that
no-one may intentionally obstruct by force or threat of force any person in any
enjoyment of that person’s free exercise of religious beliefs.” Me meditating is me practicing my religious
belief in my home. They may not enact a
“threat of force” and to me, that SMART meter is a threat of force. Further, Secret Military Armament Residential Technology meters are a display of force that give me reason to fear and expect immediate bodily
harm. Therefore, this request is akin to
extortion. Edison is no better than a
thug requesting a business owner to pay “protection” money: We will not harm
you with continuous pulsing energy…we will not force 928,000,000 Hertz into the
60 Hertz grid if you pay to have it removed.
Extortion is illegal.
On
November 23rd and 25th, I informed both Edison employees in
person that on the day I become aware that the Landist+Gyr has been fitted with
a transmitter or any SMART technology, I will see that as Edison entering into
a contract with me and I will charge &200,000/month for storing a military
weapon on the wall of my home going back to November 25, 2019. The first gentleman, a supervisor, tried to
place a non-analogue, half-SMART meter on my home! How many of your customers believe they have
analogue and are paying for it, believing they have an analogue meter when in
fact they have this partial SMART device?
I am arguing against the decision to replace analogue
meters with SMART meters, because military weapons should not be placed on
people’s walls without them even knowing what the radiation spewing, pulsing
gizmos are! SMART meters are a display
of force that give me reason to fear and expect immediate bodily harm. Assault is illegal in California. Black’s
Law Dictionary (5th Ed.) defines assault as, “Any willful
attempt or threat to inflict injury upon the person of another, when coupled
with an apparent present ability to do so, and any intentional display of force
such as would give the victim reason to fear or expect immediate bodily
harm.” Edison could have protected those
within their jurisdiction against the SMART meter decision of the California
Public Utilities Commission when you saw a wrong being done. Black’s
Law continues. “An assault may be
committed without actually touching, or striking, or doing bodily harm, to the
person of another.” The pulsing is
harmful to our cells, even without you specifically standing there yourself. If SMART meters are so safe, why has the
supervisor who visited my home had his removed?
I am aggrieved by your decision to allow SMART meters on
homes over asking people to choose to “Opt In” to having them (and only after
informed consent has been given), because of known assaults such as cell
damage, and by your blatant disregard to human health all as if living men do
not matter!
I believe any decision-maker who places the California
Public Utilities Commission’s authority over living men is making a grave
mistake that all of humanity will pay for.
But after having said all of this, I remind you that I asked if the
removal was free of charge and I was assured that it was so. The young man’s words represented your
company entering into a contract with me.
Thank-you,
[Jane Jones]
Account #
