Re-printed here with Mr. Jerry Day’s permission. (Mr. Day acknowledges there may be some typos, but they are preserved here to reflect the original correspondence, form and notice.)
Notice Feb. 5-2012
Sent: 2/5/2012 3:36:40 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time
Subj: LEGAL NOTICE TO BURBANK CITY COUNCIL ON DIGITAL ELECTRIC METERS – WARNING – DEFAULT CLAUSE HEREIN
Dear Mayor Talamantes and Burbank City Councilmembers,
My understanding is that, in matters of public interest, the Burbank City Council has administrative authority over (and therefore responsibility for) Burbank Water and Power (the CPUC has said that is they case, and the CPUC claims to have no jurisdiction over BWP).
Please advise: Do you or do you not, as Mayor and/or Councilmember, have authority to control and prevent the use of unlawful electric meters? Please respond.
If not, who does?
Presuming you do oversee BWP, below are individual accounts of the dangers and damages caused by digital meters. You and BWP have also been noticed that the meters violate laws protecting public health, safety and privacy. You may no longer feign ignorance that these meters should be banned permanently. You are therefore personally liable as complicit in all violations of law and personally responsible for all injuries, damages, illnesses, costs and violations of rights caused to any individual by any digital electric meter installed by BWP unless you officially opposed the installations and use all your authority and power to cause them to be removed immediately.
This is legal notice. You have 21 days to respond with with a sworn statement of truth, fact and law or be in complete agreement with all terms and conditions herein. A general denial is not sufficient to answer this inquiry. A positive statement must be made under penalty of perjury that digital electric meters do not violate laws on privacy and public safety, heath, security and interest or you must indicate in verifiable terms thaty you are taking immediate action to stop and reverse the installation of digital meters, and will accomplish the full resotration of safe analog electro-mechanical meters to all of Burbank within 6 months of this date.
Notice to principal is notice to agent and notice to agent is notice to principal
NOTE: It is my impression that Councilmember Gordon has shown concern for this issue and is attempting to administer solutions to the improper installation of digital meters. As a result, Dr. Gordon may not be subject to liabilities described above as he is not denying and whitewashing the issue as the rest of the Council seem to be doing.
Follow-Up Notice Feb. 14, 2012
Sent: 2/14/2012 5:25:53 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
Subj: Re: Email to and from Mr. Jerry Day and Burbank Senior Assistant City Attorney Richard J. Morillo
NOTICE OF ERRORS AND VIOLATIONS
Your letter (below) is based on pretense, denial and failure of investigation, and is in serious error, as well as possible criminal and civil liability. My responses to your points are below in bold.
On 2/14/2012 4:10 PM, Alenkin, Alen wrote:
Mr. Day – Our office has been asked to respond to your email message to the Burbank City Council of February 5, 2012. Please note the following:
1. We know of no legal authority for the deadlines and demands in your message, or anything to support your claim that it constitutes “legal notice.” We read your message as an expression of your opinion that smart meters are dangerous and have framed this response accordingly.
What you call “opinion” was one of several notices. I previously submitted and demanded lawful utility conduct under authority as property owner and citizen of Burbank. Please remove any references to “opinion”, they are misleading. Under authority as a Constitutionally protected individual and as a property owner I once again deny you, BWP and the City of Burbank any privilege, access, easement or “right” to emit electromagnetic radiation on my property and/or to conduct monitoring and/or surveillance of activities on my property by the use of any utility meter that causes those violations.
2. We have reviewed the accounts attached to your message of alleged incidents associated with smart meters, which consist of excerpts from news articles and blog postings taken from the website of a northern California group opposed to smart meter deployment. We noted that several of the incidents were attributed to improper installation, while for others the cause was not indicated or made clear. Yet, even taken as a whole, it is not apparent how those accounts are relevant to the deployment of smart meters in Burbank. Without knowing, as to a particular incident, what kind of meter was involved, how it was configured, or how it was installed, you cannot conclude that all smart meters are inherently dangerous. One would not conclude, for example, that all cars are dangerous because certain model-year Toyotas had a problem with sudden acceleration, but that is the kind of logic you have applied here.
I referred to violations common to ALL digital meters, not SOME digital meters. Those violations are the emission of cancer-causing electromagnetic radiation and invasion of privacy by unauthorized surveillance of private activities on private property without consent of the occupants. Please revise and correct your records on those points.
3. If you believe that safe operation of the City’s electric utility is not uppermost in the minds of the City Council and Burbank Water and Power management, you are mistaken. Unlike some other utilities, BWP did not use subcontractors to install its smart meters, but instead used its own crews specially trained for the task. The meters themselves meet all relevant regulatory and industry standards. BWP operates one of the most reliable electric utilities in the nation, which would hardly be possible if it were indifferent to the safety of equipment it uses to serve its customers.
Your points are not relevant:
The operation of the utility may be safe. Digital meters are not (see below), and the exposures to customers are not.
The status of the installation crew (sub-contractor or in-house) is irrelevant to the type of equipment they are installing or the violations they are committing. The City and BWP are liable in either case.
“Regulatory and industry standards” have failed to protect utility customers from unlawful and unsafe radiation and surveillance (see below). BWP may not avoid liability or responsibility by referring to flawed and unlawful “regulation and industry standards”. Additionally, BWP is not under the jurisdiction of the CPUC or bound to compliance to general “industry standards”. There is no authority above the City and BWP that is requiring or authorizing unlawful conduct (see below).
Your claim of “reliable energy production” bears no relevance to the violations of digital meters and the use of the word “impossible” is completely unsupported. A harmful service may be reliably produced. I agree that BWP operates reliably. It happens BWP also operates unlawfully when it installs digital meters (see below).
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Digital Electric Meters emit high-energy density pulsed electromagnetic radiation known to cause cancer, birth defects and a host of negative health effects and symptoms, different in every individual due to a large gamut of variables.
Digital Electric Meters have “switching mode power supplies” which degrade current sine waves and cause electromagnetic radiation pollution within metered structures. That pollution is known to cause cancer, birth defects and a host of negative health effects and symptoms, different in every individual due to a large gamut of variables.
The purpose of “Smart Meters” is, in the language of BWP, to record “how and when” customers use electricity. That is unlawful surveillance according to Federal Code Title 18 “Wiretapping”.
I strongly suggest you correct your positions immediately and inform me that BWP will cease and desist the violations outlined above and the City of Burbank will be applying its authority and influence to make that happen. You and the City of Burbank have been served lawful notice of the violations. Digital meters do violate the law. Violations are therefore now intentional and criminal. Any failure to face and address the realities of the digital meters will result in major liabilities to you, the City of Burbank, the Councilmembers, BWP, and the BWP Board and Officers.
The remedy required is for BWP to remove all “Smart Meters” and digital meters and reinstall safe analog meters that have no capability or upgradable capability to emit electromagnetic radiation and have no capability or upgradable capability to record and transmit data of private activities on private property unless with full and written informed consent of the occupants.
This is recorded, witnessed and served legal notice. Notice to principal is notice to agent and notice to agent is notice to principal.
Richard J. Morillo
Senior Assistant City Attorney
City of Burbank
Burbank Water & Power
164 West Magnolia Blvd.
Burbank, CA 91503
March 28, 2012
NOTICE OF CIRCUMSTANCES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS
This is in reference and response to your letter to me dated March 26, 2012 (see copy attached)
Your references to Burbank City Council’s actions and BWP’s actions to force and impose unlawful, unsafe and harmful electric meters on the residents of Burbank are entirely irrelevant to my circumstances. I have served legal notice to Mr. Ron Davis, BWP General Manager and all Burbank City Councilmembers that digital electric meters violate the law, threaten the health and safety of Burbank residents and visitors, and violate the Burbank City Councilmember oaths to protect the interests of Burbank residents and violate BWP’s and Mr. Davis’ legal and moral obligation to not assault public health, safety and rights in the conduct of providing utility service.
My notice gave all parties opportunity to respond within 30 days with a sworn statement (affidavit) by a responsible and liable party with first-hand knowledge assuring that meters installed on my property are not unlawful surveillance devices (not capable of monitoring private activities) and not emitting electromagnetic radiation or causing, by switching mode power supplies and disruption of current, electromagnetic radiation to be leaked or transmitted on or within my property. Electromagnetic radiation is known to cause cancer, neurological injuries and illnesses, and birth defects not mention a variety of other major and minor health and safety hazards. As you must know, it is not possible to deny that without perjury and I do not expect a qualified response to my legal notice.
Under those circumstances, affirmed and confirmed by my issuance of that legal notice of no consent for such violation and assault, BWP has no authority, standing, easement, privilege or right to install, operate or maintain any digital metering device on my property, and BWP has no authority, standing, easement, privilege or right to penalize me or charge me for my refusal to allow those violations of my health, safety and rights in that or any other way. Any such presumed entitlement has been and is again hereby denied and revoked. Your letter failed entirely to address the legal, moral and public safety issues raised here and in my Legal Notice.
The only type of electric meter that may be lawfully installed on my property, in accordance with prior implied easement, is one which emits no electromagnetic radiation and causes no such emission, shows continuous power usage without recording “events” or “usage patterns”, is read only once per month and is not “upgradable” to functions not permitted by law and/or not knowingly consented by myself as the property owner.
In apparent understanding of these circumstances, BWP has not repeated it’s initial attempt to install a digital meter. Since all costs of providing, operating and reading the meter were paid by prior standard billing rates there is no reason or justification for any additional charges at any time whether they are called “opt out” charges or anything else.
All of the terms, conditions and circumstances stated in this letter are consistent with, and supportive of, my legal notice which currently stands unrebutted. This is further notice which must also be rebutted point by point with fact and law or agreement will be presumed. Failure to rebut all points herein with fact law and oath within 21 days will represent agreement with and acquiescence to all terms, conditions, declarations, statements, claims, representations and circumstances contained herein.
Notice to principle is notice to agent, and notice to agent is notice to principle.