Is The Pennsylvania Smart Meter Administrative Law Court A “Joey” Court?

By Catherine J. Frompovich

For quite some time, I have been opposing and protesting the retrofit of an AMI Smart Meter on to my home’s electric service for various reasons, specifically regarding health and medical issues. As a result, I filed a formal complaint with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PA PUC) and worked my way through their ‘legal’ process known as an Administrative Law Court representing myself Pro se. As such, I had a two-day hearing in November 2016, and subsequently had to file two legal Briefs with the Court.

My Respondent’s Brief to the Brief filed by PECO Energy Company, an Exelon-owned electric utility, was filed with the Court February 10, 2017. I also wrote the article “AMI Smart Meters ILLEGALLY Forced On Pennsylvania Consumers; Act 129 States ‘Not Mandatory’” wherein I published only the Argument section of that Brief, which can be read here.

May 24, 2017 that Court handed down its “Initial Decision” to which I filed an Exceptions Protest June 7, 2017 and now publish it here, as I believe not only Pennsylvanians should know what goes on with Administrative Law Courts dealing with AMI Smart Meters, but all utility consumers globally should consider, as this is a global agenda leading toward total surveillance and ultimate control methods of humans as espoused by the United Nations Agenda 21, updated with Agenda 2030. Consider this particular overview of Agenda 2030.

Widget not in any sidebars

My Exceptions Protest filing clearly indicates how, in my opinion, Administrative Law Courts perform. They certainly are ‘captive courts’ responsible to and only represent, the interests of the agencies that own them and certainly not in the interests of consumers to whom they render only legal lip service, in my opinion. In my opinion, Justice truly is blindfolded, and kept that way, when it comes to Administrative Law Courts, especially in Pennsylvania regarding the Public Utility Commission whose Mission Statement explains,

The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission balances the needs of consumers and utilities; ensures safe and reliable utility service at reasonable rates; protects the public interest; educates consumers to make independent and informed utility choices; furthers economic development; and fosters new technologies and competitive markets in an environmentally sound manner. http://www.puc.state.pa.us/about_puc.aspx

With regard to “protects the public interest,” nothing can be further from reality, in my opinion, based upon the PA PUC’s absolute and total disregard for scientific facts and published peer review scientific studies and literature it and its court refuse to accept or even wants to consider, in my experience with the PA PUC. Instead, both entities rely upon pseudoscientific ‘consensus science’ blather espoused by vested-interest microwave industry professional associations which refuse to accept what their own industry’s funded research found and documents: 32 percent of scientific studies indicate EMFs/RFs/ELFs non-thermal radiation waves can and do produce adverse effects. The premiere microwave (by which AMI Smart Meters function) trade association ICNIRP refuses to accept those scientific facts—some going back to the 1930s—but states categorically there are no such ‘things’ as non-thermal waves or adverse events!

Independent scientific and academic research find and report state-of-the-art science on EMFs/RFs/ELFs and their non-thermal waves adverse health effects. Some disciplines in the sciences—specifically microwave technology, which is dominated by the military—ostensibly act like ostriches with heads in the sands of science. Shouldn’t that leave them rightfully vulnerable to getting their asses whooped?

People have to know, plus understand, what’s going on; even wake up to the reality of the wool being pulled over and blinding their eyes regarding ‘smart technologies’; real news versus fake news; and real science versus vested-interest science, aka “consensus science.”

Consensus Science

According to Wikipedia, “Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study.” Note “collective,” which should be read as “collusion,” which portends criminal activity most times, while there apparently is indication of pre-determined scientific facts, but strictly the judgment and opinion of vested-interests in a particular field of research science. That occurs in many industries, specifically occurring extremely ‘hard core’ in the microwave industry, which encompasses military interests, cell phones/towers/mast cells, AMI Smart Meters and ‘smart’ appliances that collect and send voice, data, etc. and also provide surveillance.

Consensus science is even more rabidly practiced in the pharmaceutical industry especially regarding vaccines not being capable of causing adverse health effects in infants, toddlers and children, when two demonstrable specifics prove differently and that illegal scientific collusion apparently occurs as to scientific ‘truisms’:

1. The U.S. CDC’s own epidemiologists (Verstraeten (1999-2000) and William Thompson (2004) confirmed the MMR vaccine actually caused Autism.
2. The almost $3.3+ Billion paid out by the U.S. Vaccine Court for vaccine damages and attorneys’ fees since 1989 https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vicpmonthlyreport02032016.pdf%20Pg.%205, Pg. 9.

False Exculpatory Statements

Based upon the facts presented above in just two specified industries, i.e., pharmacology/vaccinology and the microwave sciences (including HAARP with its one billion watts ionospheric heater using microwave energy projected into the high atmosphere, cell phones, AMI Smart Meters, and all ‘smart’ tech) with all the vested-interest BS spouted during testimonies and hearings, one has to wonder if the charge of “consciousness of guilt from false exculpatory statements” should be pressed against those witnesses, utilities and other “experts” who knowingly introduce and swear to false statements about the sciences.

An exculpatory statement is one that introduces false reasonable doubt(s), which should be considered and applied by all courts to all legal cases Defendants, I offer. Or, is not applying that ‘legal tactic’ the legal wiggle room the courts rely upon to accept false and misleading statements by defendants in Administrative Law court cases to ‘prove’ defendants’ case(s) and to which their paid ‘expert’ witnesses attest under penalty of perjury? In my case, I am the “Plaintiff” and PECO is the “Defendant.”

It seems incomprehensible to me the LAW—and the courts, in particular—would be as careless as to allow such obfuscation(s) to occur when there IS documented scientific proof to counter experts false and misleading testimonies. One of the dictates in science offers if there is just one quantifiable counter study, then that study has to be accepted as negating the supposed ‘established’ and/or empirical scientific facts or hypotheses. The principles of and reasons for science are that science is always searching, learning and evolving. However, that’s not the case when it comes to microwaves and AMI Smart Meters, since both obviously are exempt as part of a more sinister agenda, which needs to be exposed for the apparent collusion that occurs and for what the end results surveillance is heading toward, I contend.

Here’s my

EXCEPTIONS PROTEST OF INITIAL DECISION

Catherine J. Frompovich, an almost 79-year-old breast cancer survivor, respectfully files a protest rather than an appeal, which would be pointless especially since the PA PUC’s Administrative Law Court is nothing short of an apparent legal appendage of the PA Public Utility Commission. Said PA PUC apparently is not interested in protecting the public from unsafe utility innovations and/or consensus microwave industry associations pseudoscience spouted as ‘gospel truth’ by vested microwave industry trade associations and further parroted by utility company expert witnesses, who are regarded as the only source of scientific information.

One environmentally risky example of PECO’s unsafe utility innovations is recommending and encouraging the use of CFL (compact fluorescent lamp) light bulbs which, according to ¶1 on page 22 of the Initial Decision “…florescent lights have particularly strong harmonics…” which emit “dirty electricity” into homes and wherever CFLs are used. Plus, CFLs contain mercury, which creates a hazmat situation when CFLs are broken, plus they normally are problematic to dispose of.

Frompovich presented hundreds, if not thousands, of document citations and/or actual documents at various times during the course of these protracted proceedings regarding adverse health effects from non-thermal radiation waves emitted by microwave technologies, which operate utility company AMI Smart Meters, only to be totally disregarded and probably procedurally discarded, despite 32 percent of microwave-industry-funded research studies indicating adverse effects occur. That fact alone should negate the PA PUC’s, PECO’s and its expert witnesses’, and this Court’s close-minded opinions and acceptance of non-existence of non-thermal radiation wave adverse effects upon humans, animals and vegetation. Non-thermal waves “non-existence” is promoted by one of the microwave industry’s key professional associations, ICNIRP, which has been cited for conflicts of interest and other questionable citations as reported in Frompovich’s January 20, 2017 Brief cf. Brief 40-45 (102-115).

Frompovich’s attempted introductions during the November 2-3, 2016 hearing of published peer review studies regarding cancer and EMF/RF/ELF, specifically breast cancers, were rejected and not permitted to be entered into the hearing record; something this Court was remiss in by sustaining PECO’s objections time after time.

Administrative Law Courts often are referred to as “captive” and “kangaroo courts” with their status being questioned.

“In her ruling, Judge [Leigh Martin] May attacked an important element of the system of independent agencies first set up during the administration of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, under which Congress delegates its authority to administer complex regulations to federal agencies overseen by supposedly independent boards. Those agencies also can use administrative law judges, operating outside the rules requiring life tenure and other protections under Article III of the Constitution, to decide civil complaints.”[1]-[2]

“This new decision calling the Administrative Law Courts what they really are is reminiscent of the notorious extrajudicial proceedings of the Star Chamber operated by King James I. The court of Chancery set up outside of the King’s Bench, so there were no trials by jury. It had the same purpose, to circumvent the law. This is where our Fifth Amendment privilege came into being. That came about following the trial of John Lilburne (1615-1657) for handing out a pamphlet the government did not like.”[3]

“Not discussed in the coverage of this story is that the Administrative Law Courts are a fiefdom, to put it mildly. They have long been corrupt and traditionally rule in favor of their agencies, making it very costly for anyone to even try to defend themselves. If someone were to attempt this feat, first they have to wear the costs of an Administration proceeding and appeal to an Article III court judge, then they must appeal to the Court of Appeals, and finally plea to the Supreme Court. The cost of such adventures is well into the millions, and good luck on actually getting justice.”[4]

Furthermore,

“One major difference between ALJs and traditional judges is that ALJs serve as both the judge and trier of fact. This is known as a bench trial. In civil court, the parties sometimes have the option of choosing to forgo a jury and have the judge weigh the factual evidence that the parties provide. During an administrative hearing, however, the ALJ will always weigh the evidence and make factual determinations.”[5]

The book Is Administrative Law Unlawful? “reveals administrative law to be not a benign, natural outgrowth of contemporary government but a pernicious—and profoundly unlawful—return to dangerous pre-constitutional absolutism.”[6] The author is Philip Hamburger, the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School.

Some critics of administrative law contend it, undoubtedly, is stacked in favor of government.

Frompovich alleges ALJ Darlene D. Heep not only did not weigh the evidence in Frompovich’s case, Judge Heep actively prevented evidence, which was germane to Frompovich’s case, e.g., cancer studies and EMFs/RFs/ELFs, from being introduced during the hearing, at the behest and objections from PECO’s attorneys; said objections were sustained for most of the exhibits Frompovich tried to introduce into the record. Frompovich, therefore, feels and also alleges she did not receive a fair and judicious hearing. Frompovich further contends she was discriminated against insofar as Judge Heep’s Initial Decision Discussion totally ignores the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act, which grants Frompovich special health considerations, which this Court apparently deliberately ignores, but Judge Heep should know better, since she’s a known expert in ADA law.

Frompovich alleges Judge Heep probably did not write much of the Initial Decision, as it seemingly has PECO attorney XXX’s ‘fingerprint’ writing style and mistakes contained within.

One specific example of that is found on page 18:

“Ms. Frompovich contends that installation of a Smart Meter at her home would counter, and negatively affect, her healing and health. She also asserts that she is protected by, and the PECO is subject to, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.S. § 12132, et seq. because she had cancer.”

Throughout all of Frompovich’s filings and testimony she specifically cited the

Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act[7]

• 1630.2 (G) Disability;
• 1630.2 (J) Substantially Limits;
• 1630.2 (I) Major Life Activities;
• 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) Significant or Severe Restriction Not Required Nonetheless, Not Every Impairment Is Substantially Limiting;
• 1630.2(j)(1)(iii) Substantial Limitation Should Not Be Primary Object of Attention; Extensive Analysis Not Needed. (cf. Brief pp.14-16)

PECO Attorney XXX in both his Brief and Respondent Brief totally neglects addressing the ADA Amendments Act, which also would impact PECO, but prefers only to cite the original ADA rather than the updated health considerations and benefits Congress passed as law in the Amendments Act[8].

It is Frompovich’s contention AL Judge Heep could not have omitted the importance and very essence of the ADA Amendments Act affecting cancer patients because AL Judge Heep is considered an expert in the Americans with Disabilities Act, which also includes the later add-on Amendments Act. AL Judge Heep apparently presided over a 2015 hearing regarding the Rhode Island Disability Law Center in Providence, Rhode Island.

Another example, which could indicate Attorney XXX’s sloppy legal writing or his contribution thereto, is XXX’s apparent proclivity for misstatement of facts, as Frompovich pointed out numerous times in her Response Brief dated February 10, 2017. In the current Initial Decision, Frompovich’s book is cited on page 6 as “The Cancer Answer,” which she did not write; several other authors wrote books with such titles. For the record, Frompovich wrote “A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management.”

Frompovich wishes to state categorically the Initial Decision is replete with misstatements and downright falsehoods! Some examples are Clause 53, page 10; Clause 60, page 11, which can be clarified by PECO’s expert witness Glenn Pritchard as to the facts when Mr. Pritchard answered AL Judge Christopher Pell’s questioning about smart meters cf. Transcript Pg. 169 (1-5) when Mr. Pritchard said, “It could be once every five minutes to once every hour or maybe once a day depending on what the device – whether it would be a smart thermostat, a dishwasher as you mentioned or maybe an in-home display devise.”

Quoting from Frompovich’s Respondent Brief Clause 24, Page 17, here are the facts:

“Judge Pell then remarked, ‘I understand you to say that, if it doesn’t connect with anything, it pulses every 30 seconds?’ PECO employee and expert Pritchard states, ‘It continues to seek that, yes.’ Whereas, His Honor Judge Pell then asks, ‘Indefinitely or will it decide, okay, I’m not finding anything, stop? Can that be adjusted?’ Mr. Pritchard replied, ‘No.’ Judge Pell queries further, ‘No. Does it have to be that way?’ Mr. Pritchard replied, ‘We have no options with that.’ Cf. Transcript Pg. 169 (1-17)”

Frompovich alleges AL Judge Heep could not have made such an obvious mistake in writing Clause 60 unless she is in PECO’s back pocket, which Frompovich seriously doubts AL Judge Heep is. Clause 60 is wordsmithed to protect PECO’s Focus AMI Smart Meter’s almost constant search-for-appliance-or-device microwave GHz transmissions as Mr. Pritchard’s remarks quoted above prove, and is a blatant misrepresentation in the Initial Decision. How can the PA PUC and this Court accept apparent LIES as facts, truths and science in the Initial Decision? Can you please answer that, Judge Heep, as you signed the document?

During the November hearing, PECO constantly referred to their smart meter as a FlexNet AMI Smart Meter. It’s now a Focus meter?

Clauses 61 and 62 are at variance with what utilities are doing regarding collection and selling of data as described by the 2 minute video explaining the algorithm “Onzo”[9] used in Smart Meter data mining.

On page 21 of the Initial Decision, ¶2 discusses PECO’s AMI meters wherein “He [Mr. Pritchard] stated that while some other utilities employ a mesh system, which transfers data from meter to meter until it reaches a data collector, resulting in many transmissions, in the PECO system, messages are transmitted directly to the collector and do not have to transmit from one meter to the next in a relay, resulting in fewer transmissions.”

Frompovich points out again, as she did in her Respondent’s Brief “Exhibit No. 4—Glenn Pritchard, PE, IEEE Presentation, PECO delivers a Reliable and Resilient Smart Grid PowerPoint Frame 8: PECO’s Multi-Tiered Smart Grid Network,” and now includes a photocopy of that Multi-Tiered Smart Grid NETWORK. What is that four-tier network all about?

Another factual anomaly appears on page 23 where “Dr. Christopher Davis, PhD, testified that, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, ‘AMI meters are incapable of causing any biological effects, certainly no adverse biological effects in anybody.’ (Tr. 216)”
Dr. Davis’ “wiggle-room” statement is patently incorrect and factually challenged by two videos showing the effects of individuals hooked up to EKGs that register the PQRST waves of the human heart when an AMI Smart Meter is activated during a test monitored by a medical doctor. Both tests and their results can be read and seen in two of my recent Activist Post articles:

Can—And Do—Utility Smart Meters Affect The Human Heart

http://www.activistpost.com/2017/06/can-utility-smart-meters-affect-human-heart.html

AMI Smart Meters Interfere With Human Heart Rhythms, EGK Proves

http://www.activistpost.com/2017/05/ami-smart-meters-interfere-human-heart-rhythms-ekg-proves.html

Illustrating, plus further compounding Dr. Christopher Davis, PhD, and Dr. Mark A. Israel, MD, both PECO EMF experts of sorts testifying in the Frompovich matter, unquestionable apparent lack of current scientific information regarding microwave EMFs, Frompovich introduces Exhibit 1, the August 2015 Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy article “Microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs) produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects including depression,” Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University, Martin L. Pall published indicating:

“1. Such EMFs act via activation of VGCCs [voltage-gated calcium channels], acting through the VGCC voltage sensor which is predicted to be exquisitely sensitive to these EMFs (Pall, 2015). VGCCs occur in high densities throughout the nervous system and have essential roles throughout the nervous system in releasing neurotransmitters and neuroendocrine hormones.

“2. Elevated EGCC activity, produced by an allete of the CACNAIC gene which encodes the channel of the main L-type VGCC in the brain, produces various neuropsychiatric effects (Table 1). This predicts, that low intensity non-thermal microwave frequency EMFs which also produce elevated L-type and other VGCC activity, therefore produce widespread neuropsychiatric effects.”

“3. Studies reviewed in the Tolgskaya and Gordon, 1973 publication (Table 2) have shown that the cells of the mammalian nervous system show high sensitivity to various non-thermal microwave and lower frequency EMFs, being, apparently more sensitive than any other organ in the body of the rodents. These studies predict that the human nervous system is likely to be similarly sensitive to these EMFs, predicting, therefore, widespread neuropsychiatric effects in humans.”

Based upon the above science, it is conceivable the PA PUC and all utility companies mandating retrofitting AMI Smart Meters emitting non-thermal radiation waves are opening themselves to class action lawsuits, which should be instituted as soon as possible, especially since there are increasingly escalating erratic behavioral and mental health issues within the USA.

According to the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health,

• Mental and behavioral disorders, which account for 13.6 percent of total U.S. DALYs [disability-adjusted life years]; and,
• Neurological disorders, which account for 5.1 percent of total U.S. DALYs[10]

What EHS-, mental-, and behavioral-related issues are AMI Smart Meters contributing to the above statistics since people in Pennsylvania are mandated to live with non-thermal radiation waves and adverse effects 24/7/365? The PA PUC certainly should be ashamed of its cavalier attitudes and administrative regulations in not protecting the health and wellbeing of Pennsylvania citizens, especially growing children who are impacted more seriously by EMFs/RFs/ELFs.

Source: Google Charts

Ignorance, therefore, is not a PA PUC defense, since numerous Pennsylvanians have protested and brought attention to their health problems known as electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) from EMFs/RFs/ELFs, which AMI Smart Meters emit, and the PA PUC deliberately ignores.

Additionally, the Bioinitiative Report (which Frompovich introduced as Exhibit 2 on PECO Cross-examination) has documented thousands of adverse health studies from non-thermal radiation waves from EMFs/RFs/ELFs, which ICNIRP and industry-consensus-science deny as possible or even “exist.” Certainly, if industry-funded research found 32 percent of studies confirm such effects, how in the name of sanity and science-based medicine can they be disregarded as non-existent? Is there some sort of collusion to deceive or achieve a special agenda? The very fact almost one-third (32%) found non-thermal effects proves they do exist! PECO, the PA PUC and even this Court seem to be acting in some sort of complicity for, or to effectuate, a specific purpose which, apparently, is not in the best health interests, safety and wellbeing of Pennsylvania utility customers, Claimant Frompovich included.

There are many more issues in the Initial Decision Frompovich could discuss and provide scientific evidence pro and con, but what’s the use, since there apparently is a set agenda in Pennsylvania regarding AMI Smart Meters and the illegal problems they apparently are creating for consumers, their health and otherwise, e.g., meter fires, exorbitant Time of Use rates, surveillance, and customer-data-mining by utilities to sell for marketing purposes[11].

Frompovich respectfully leaves all responsible parties involved in the AMI Smart Meter legal, health and political debacle in Pennsylvania with these words of wisdom:

Isaiah 10
Woe to those who enact unjust statutes and who write oppressive decrees
Depriving the needy of judgment and robbing my people’s poor of their rights…

Source: The International Student Bible for Catholics, Thomas Nelson Publishers

Proverbs 1:7
To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord. Stupid people
have no respect for wisdom and refuse to learn.

Source: Good News Bible, American Bible Society

Notes:

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2015/06/09/did-a-judge-just-kick-off-the-great-unraveling-of-the-administrative-state-with-sec-ruling/#4572610e50ac accessed 6-5-17
[2] https://www.scribd.com/document/268154852/Hill-v-SEC-ALJ-Order accessed 6-5-17
[3] https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/history/americas-economic-history/judge-rules-administrative-court-system-illegal-after-81-years/ accessed 6-5-17
[4] Ibid.
[5] https://www.justia.com/administrative-law/administrative-law-judges/ accessed 6-6-17
[6] http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/I/bo17436684.html accessed 6-6-17
[7] Pub.L. 110-325 ADAAA
[8] Ibid
[9] https://youtu.be/uluKjzqHDz0?t=8 accessed 6-5-17
[10] https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/disability/us-leading-categories-of-diseases-disorders.shtml accessed 6-6-17
[11] https://youtu.be/uluKjzqHDz0?t=8 accessed 6-5-17

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.

Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.

Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.

Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)