CHD v FCC Lawsuit re: OTARD Rules

From the Feb 26, 2021 filing in UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Case No. USCA No. 21-1075 challenging FCC Order 21-10, “Updating the Commission’s Rule for Over-the-Air Reception Devices, WT Docket No. 19-71”, please read the following.

Key Excerpts:

Children’s Health Defense is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to ending children’s chronic health conditions by eliminating harmful toxic exposures. The pulsed, data-modulated, Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) from cellular infrastructure antennas and wireless devices , even at levels hundreds of thousands of times below the Federal Communications Commission’s RF-EMR exposure guidelines, is a hazardous toxin and a major contributory factor in the exponential increase in sickness in adults and children. CHD advocates on children’s behalves by seeking science-based safeguards and substantive and procedural protections for and on behalf of those who have already been injured by RF-EMR and those who will be harmed by RF-EMR in the future.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does not have the authority to allow a person to send noxious RF-EMR emissions from one property to another property that is occupied by a person that does not wish to be “served” with such toxic wireless radiation (aka RF-EMR). The FCC cannot preempt state common law or constitutional rights that protect those who seek to avoid harmful wireless radiation in their own homes.

Microwave Sickness (aka Electromagnetic Sensitivity) is a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act and a handicap under the Fair Housing Act. The FCC’s amended rules eliminate disabled individuals’ vested legal rights under the Constitution, federal law and many state equivalent laws that protect disabled and handicapped individuals from discrimination and ensure access to housing.

CHD participated below, as did several of its members, including but not limited to the named individual Petitioners. CHD’s filing at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was joined by 15,090 people, 1,988 of whom are also CHD members. 6,231 of those who joined CHD’s record filing declared that they object to the OTARD amendment because they and/or their children have already been harmed by wireless radiation and seek to avoid additional RF-EMR exposure.

All Petitioners have standing to bring and maintain this case. Each is aggrieved and harmed by the agency action and has standing to seek review in this Court. The agency action and inaction challenged herein directly threatens the Petitioners’ health, safety and personal and financial well-being and intrudes on their individual and property rights in several ways.

The adopted rules will go into effect on the 30th day after Federal Register publication, or on March 29, 2021. The Petitioners will soon file a request that the FCC issue an administrative stay of the effectiveness of the order and associated rules pending judicial review, as is allowed by 5 U.S.C. §705 and the Commission’s administrative rules. If the agency denies or fails to grant timely relief, Petitioners intend to file a request for judicial stay or accelerated disposition, or both, as allowed by §705 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 18 and Circuit Rule 18.

The Petitioners respectfully request that this Court hold unlawful, vacate, enjoin, and set aside the challenged order, find that the agency unlawfully or unreasonably withheld action and then remand the matter to the agency for further consideration and action. The Petitioners further request such additional relief, including, interlocutory relief, as may be appropriate, necessary or proper under the circumstances.