*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).

If you have questions or comments regarding this site, please contact webmaster@emrpolicy.org
© EMR Policy Institute All Rights Reserved

Contact Us Mission Statement About Us Make a Donation