To date in Australia there is much confusion regarding the status of 5G installations across the nation and where people now stand with regard to reported 5G success stories. A reader is concerned about the Sunshine Coast case of David Evans, EMF sensitive person versus NBN and the recent developments of the case. While there has been a lot of noise regarding impending class action cases to wipe 5G off the map in Australia, the lack of details and the recent magistrates court outcome poses more questions for the concerned public.
On the face of it, the efforts of the Tasmanian Barrister appear gallant and heroic and in the spirit of protecting the general public from trespass and harm, and this should be applauded. However, many people are reporting that they are not receiving replies from Michael Kirby Chambers re issues of 5G which adds to peoples concerns regarding the integrity of the single barrister fighting the just cause.
This story may clarify the issues as the appeal of the case is imminent, and if there is no appeal than really we all must question the news report as well as the people involved in this particular 5G case.
Questions arise from this case, indeed several questions..
1/ Why is there no statement or interview at least with Barrister Broomhall who specializes internationally in this field of law relating to EMF harm?
2/ How can NBN counsel state there never was a case when Barrister Broomhall has already had successes to stop installations based on the same argument? Courts act on precedent cases so were there not precedent cases presented before the trial or at least during to counter the claim of NBN?
3/ Is Andrew O’brien, lead counsel for NBN correct in his statement that due process was not followed under the planning Act? And if so, why would a barrister present a case if this action was not taken?
4/ It would seem unprecedented for such costs to be awarded against a plaintiff who’s case was not heard, and questionable if a plaintiffs house could be claimed under the circumstances.
5/ Without details and without answers there is a reasonable argument that this is indeed a fake news story and may account for why it’s not covered by ABC or any other mainstream news agency.
6/ On the Go Fund Me page, why is there again no supporting statements from Broomhall and why is the beneficiary the wife of the plaintiff, Lisa Evans?
7/ With a world class barrister on the case, why would David Evans assume the loss of his house prior to an appeal, which is the obvious outcome?
Readers are always advised to follow the money when it comes to fake news…NEWS CORP owns Sunshine Coast Daily, it aint a cute independent newspaper like we once had.
In 2008, the circulation of the Sunshine Coast Daily was 21,604 Monday to Friday and 34,716 on Saturday. In 2015, those figures are down to 12,200 Monday to Friday and just under 18,000 on Saturday.
There are also a number of community publications attached to the newspaper, the Caloundra Weekly, Maroochy Weekly, Nambour Weekly, and Buderim Chronicle. The Sunshine Coast Daily is also responsible for producing the Caboolture News, Noosa News, and Bribie Weekly.
And you guessed it already, News Corp, is a big promoter of 5G technologies and therefore the motive for honest journalism seems to have vanished!
Well readers, place a note in your diary for February 24th and lets all hope that the news is of an appeal, based on common law rights under trespass and the precedent successful actions of the esteemed Tasmanian Barrister Ray Broomhall.
Mr Broomhall has just two counts of reporting by the national broadcaster, the ABC, the most recent dealing with his wig fetish, great coverage but surely 5G coverage is more pivotal? Why would not such a passionate activist say to the ABC, forget the wig story, the battle against 5G is far more important?
The only other coverage is an unsolved Tasmanian mystery legal who dunnit case:
If one cares to search on google ‘Ray Broomhall Barrister’ under ‘News’ there is just one record in relation to EMF 5G and in this case there was no 5G planned?
Telstra regional general manager Mike Marom said, after reviewing feedback on the Lilli Pilli site, it had been determined this was the best location for the facility.
“The proposed installation of the small cell utilises 4G infrastructure, not 5G,” he said. “There is no 5G infrastructure currently being installed in the Lilli Pilli area”.
All other reports are cited on social media and the common theme regarding all of them is lack of facts or case summaries, creating an illusion that action is happening, however when one searches for facts they are not present.
What would be useful is a comprehensive summary of the successful cases to date and an explanation of why this particular case failed. This would be highly useful and encouraging to people who may otherwise live in fear of losing the roof over their head if they stand up for their basic rights, a ludicrous proposition and one that must be seriously questioned.
Image sourced from:
An update to the story:
What we have learned from the gofundme site is that indeed an appeal was lodged Friday 21st of February 2020 ( ten days ago)
I am VERY confused, the appeal was lodged on Friday, and yet there has been no update on the matter. This would seem to be BIG news and I had to ring the registrar of the court to find this out? WHY…has there been no update for the people supporting the appeal…where is the statement from Ray Broomhall on the nature of the appeal and comments re the dismissal of the hearing? I am advised the case for hearing again may be 3-4 months and with adjournments and so forth may be over 12 twelve months? As a supporter of this case I would appreciate facts, all of the facts, who is assisting Broomhall, whats the basis of the appeal, what benefit does this case offer given that it may be 2021 before the case is heard….what other Broomhall cases are in action, why has there been no class action to date spoken of? I have been banned from all the Stop 5G facebook sites for asking these questions but surely they are relevant questions right? I wrote to gofundme re these concerns-no reply?
Given the last update to donors was February 17, and it’s now March 2nd, and given this is BIG news, why no media reporting and why no update from the campaign organisor?
At this point until an update is forthcoming we can only suggest donors remain cautious of this legal case until a valid update is provided.
RM now suggests fraud in relation to this matter:
There appears to be nothing genuine about this case at all.
Here is the last update ( with ED comments)
There is of course much more going on as we wait. We are choosing to focus upon feeling the relief of living in our home – hoping that we will able to live our lives there, with enduring wellness, health and safety.
I will admit this in an experience I did not envisage when I purchased the property. I believed that we would be amongst nature, isolated away from certain pollutions and certainly free of feeling we would ever have to quite literally fight for and defend our basic rights to live free from harm.
I most certainly did not anticipate writing to friends, acquaintances and strangers sharing with them, the details of this sort of experience, with the idea, they might feel comfortable in somehow supporting a legal process.
Yet, this is something which I really do feel is essential to ensure my Self, my family and my community will actually be able to live in peace, knowing we are safe and living in a healthy environment.
It is understood there is much going on around the world right now, all of which beckons for our attention.
Your decision to read this update, together with your contributions in supporting this journey up until now, have been essential and are so sincerely appreciated.
Any contribution you may feel inspired to offer does, of course, provide the very resources which enable progress.
Whilst it does feel an unusual circumstance to ask for support of this nature – it also feels absolutely clear we are all in this together and thereby realise it has become necessary to stand up and say no.
The process of the ‘deployment’ of this infrastructure such as the installation very near my home, appear to be happening in so many other places near and far – inflicted upon our communities and environment without notice and without our informed consent.
This does not at all seem reasonable. Communities have a right to be part of a consultation process in all of this, yet, it feels as though this deployment is quite literally being forced upon us. Very strange indeed.
In any case, if you feel you are unable to donate yet would like to assist, please, pass the link onto as many as you are able.
You may find it of interest to know there are now, more legal processes relating to this subject, we have become aware of, since our last update.
Each approach to the legal process appears a little different – given the various circumstances. Certainly, worth looking into. There is a lot to this subject it would seem, which is now being revealed.
Examples you may choose to take a closer look at:
13/01/20: COURT OF APPEAL OF TURIN: Decision (Also: several more decisions of similar nature)
The Court of Appeal of Turin confirms the link between a head tumour and mobile phone use:
“The Court of Appeal of Turin confirms in a full judgment published on 13/01/20 (904/2019 of 3.12.2019 , Romeo v. INAIL) the decision of the Tribunal of Ivrea of 2017. Judge Fadda considers that the worker’s acoustic neuroma (benign tumour of the head) was indeed caused by the use of the mobile phone.”
“Indeed, the Tribunal recognizes that telephone industry-funded scientists, or members of the ICNIRP, are less reliable than independent scientists:”
31/01/20: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TRUST (EHT) v FCC (US Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit)
Washington, DC – A group of scientists, consumer health non-profits, and citizens filed a historic legal action against the FCC for itsrefusal to update its 24-year-old cell phone and wireless radiofrequency (RF) radiation guidelines. EHT’s legal petition contends the FCC’s December action is;
“arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion” and “not in accordance with the law as the FCC has violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to adequately review the hundreds of relevant scientific submissions finding harmful effects from wireless technologies”.
“petitioners contend that the FCC has unlawfully disregarded a large body of evidence in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, among others.”
“This evidence includes numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies showing that radiation from cell phones and cell phone towers and transmitters is associated with severe health effects in humans, including cancer, DNA damage, damage to the reproductive organs, and brain damage (including memory problems) …”
The appeal was filed by the Law Office of Edward B. Myers on behalf of Environmental Health Trust, Consumers for Safe Cell Phones, and several individuals. Myers was part of the recent winning litigation with the FCC (along with the Natural Resources Defense Council and 19 tribal groups) which overturned FCC regulations that would have exempted 5G and small cell facilities from environmental review and compliance under the National Environmental Policy Act.
More information will be available shortly.
Until then – thank-you again, for your support and generosity.
David Evans and family.