Thank you for all the incredible support, it has helped me
immensely. Could you please tell your readers that I thank
them, and I that I have been trawling through their emails.
I have read every one to date. I have to stop replying for a
while as I need to focus my work on Jodie's case tonight and
also
tomorrow. Jodie's Court appearance is
tomorrow (
Friday)
and after it I will make time and reply to each and every one
of you.
Please don't stop sending emails, I need them to keep coming,
keep sending any info, any critique. and feedback as it has
really helped strengthen Jodie's argument and opened my eyes
to EHS and it related syndromes.
I am currently working on getting pledges sorted and printed
and Jodie will be coming in the morning to help me, keep the
pledges coming. We will give you, the Court and the media
a grand total of the pledge support and let every one
know what a group of like minded and compassionate people can
do in rallying together in times of crisis and need.
By the way some readers have requested paying or depositing
money in an account, please note that neither I nor Jodie have
a trust account and we therefore cannot accept any money at
all. There is no need to send any money, just pledges is what
is required.
Thank you so much for everything, I am absolutely amazed at
the amount of wonderful letters of support for Jodie, I can
tell you all that before Peter and others became involved her
batteries were becoming flat, but since everyone has banded
together to help join her in this monumental fight she is now
all charged up (excuse the pun) and no longer alone and
isolated with her EHS.
On a final note, please feel free to bombard the media with
your support for Jodie, tell the world that she is appearing
in the Supreme Court of Tasmania
tomorrow at
2:15pm, please
spread the word, the internet is such a powerful tool.
Lets show the world that EHS does exist.
Kindest regards,
Ray
rjbroomhall@hotmail.com
Raymond
J Broomhall ABN: 19 811 830 629
Barrister at Law
Mob:
0447 725 254
Dear
Help is needed from your contacts and readers, please see
below.
It is about time authorities realize that Electromagnetic
Hypersensitivity Syndrome (NHS) is a real and legally
recognised ailment. There is a case called McDonald v
Comcare where EHS was finally recognised by the Courts as
an ailment in Australia. The McDonald case is authority
that a person does not have to prove that Electromagnetic
Radiation (EMR) actually harms them, they only have to prove
that they have a reasonable belief that EMR will harm.
To establish that Jodie has formed a reasonable
belief and that her belief is not fanciful, she
needs something factual and provide evidence that formed her
reasonable belief that EMR will harm her.
This is what formed her reasonable belief.
Jodie was diagnosed by three independent
doctors and having EHS, one of them was the same doctor who
gave evidence in the McDonald case. The Dr's also stated
that if the tower is turned on it will cause serious health
problems to Jodie and will also cause her home to become
uninhabitable to her.
Further two electromagnetic experts conducted a
joint survey in regards to Jodie's symptoms and exposure to
EMR from a separate tower that was operational and emitting
EMR in another area, it was noted in the report that she
suffered detrimental health symptoms at the exposure to the
EMR from that tower and concluded that the proposed NBN
tower neighbouring her land if turned on would be a probable
hazard to her health.
The law says that a person has the right to the use and
enjoyment of their land without any interference from
neighbours. NBN Co has designed and constructed a device
with the clear intent to pollute its neighbours with EMR.
Section 3 of the Environmental Management and Pollution
Control Act states that EMR is a pollutant and that the
emission of a pollutant onto neighbouring land is a nuisance
if it interferes with the use and enjoyment of land. The
Local Government Act states at 201 that the General Manager
of the Council (Huon Valley Council) may abate a nuisance
if "there is immediate danger to any person or property".
Jodie made a complaint to the council only a
few week ago requesting the Council issue an abatement
notice against NBN Co. The Council refused to issue an
abatement notice.
We will argue that the Council has a duty to protect Jodie
from pollution (EMR) that interferes with her enjoyment of
her land. Even though in this case the Council decided not
to abate, they did so at their own peril, because the duty
still exits, and Jodie may possibly include the Council in a
suit for negligence if the tower is turned on if she is
forced to leave her home and is injured by the EMR.
Not only does the Council have a duty to protect Jodie, but
now because it is in legislation, the Court also has a duty
to protect her. That is why I am seeking an injunction to
permanently restrain NBN from turning on the tower or
pulling the EMR trigger.
Clearly Jodie is in immediate danger, if I may use an
analogy to explain: Imagine a neighbour is building a
large machine gun, bolted securely to the ground, aimed
directly at your home, it is in full view of you, you see it
every day, then one day you see the neighbour load the gun
with unlimited bullets and you are told by your neighbour
that he/she intends to fire that gun at you and your
house continuously, day in and day out, bombarding you for
eternity with a hail of bullets, you become extremely
anxious and fearful that the neighbour is actually going to
pull the trigger. This is the analogy I am going to use in
the Court in regards to what NBN Co have done in
constructing the tower and their intention to emit EMR every
day onto Jodie's land on a permanent basis.
The tort of nuisance is a powerful legal tool to use in
Court. NBN Co have a duty to use their own property as not
to injure their neighbour. That's the law. All Jodie has to
do is prove that physical damage will occur to her land
(contaminated with EMR to render uninhabitable), or injury
to health such as headaches (EHS and Dr's report) etc which
prevents her from enjoying the use of her land.
NBN Co are using the ARPANSA safety standard as the main
reason why they feel they can turn the tower on. NBN Co and
Malcolm Turnbull (Minister for Communications and head of
NBN Co) have said that the tower's EMR emissions will
comply with the APANSA standard. The ARPANSA standard states
that EMR emissions are safe to the "general public" between
3kHz to 300GHz, and admits in its own standard that 'some
people have abnormal sensitivities' to EMR. Jodie is a
person that comes under that exception.
Jodie is being discriminated for her "abnormal
sensitivity", she has been on a disabled pension since 1997
due to this health condition. The legislation that
allows the ARPANSA safety guideline to be used actually
has attached to it a "declaration" that "this legislation
does not interfere with Australia's Human Rights
obligations".
We will argue that the legislation goes against
its misleading declaration as it does interfere with her
human rights and that it discriminates against her because
of her disability.
We will use that argument amongst many other to
seek a permanent injunction to stop NBN co from pulling the
trigger. We have filed a writ, and statement of claim. The
writ enable us to sue and the court action will amount to a
huge trial with a large amount of evidence, with witnesses
and experts to be examined and cross examined, submissions
made to the Court etc. The defence (NBN Co) and Jodie (the
plaintiff) need time to prepare for trial, and then attend
and argue at trial heard, until finally the Court publishes
it decision. This matter could take months or years to
conclude.
Whilst we are in the process for preparing for
trial and I have applied for an interim (temporary)
injunction, this interim injunction will stop NBN Co from
pulling the trigger on a temporary basis until such time as
the original trail is heard and determined by the Court,
this interim injunction could be in place for months or
years until either a permanent injunction is awarded or
until Jodie loses the fight, the interim (temporary)
injunction is lifted and NBN Co are allowed turn on the
tower.
To grant an interim injunction the Court will
insist that Jodie provides an undertaking that if she loses
the trial that she will pay NBN Co's legal costs
and economic loses ( ie lost revenue, contactors wages,
internet carriers contractual loses etc) to cover the term
of the interim injunction. The Court has indicated that it
believes that Jodie does not have the assets or means to
cover NBN Co's potential loses even if she gave an
undertaking undertaking as NBN Co could potentially lose
millions of dollars whist the injunction is in place.
To put it bluntly, Jodie has no option but to
place her home up as a security and all that she owns, and
even that will not be enough to satisfy NBN Co.
I will argue that NBN Co will need to
provide real evidence of their potential loss which in the
circumstance will be extremely hard for them to quantify
loss in such a short time before we appear on Friday to have
the interim injunction application heard.
Further NBN Co were fully aware of her health
condition before they constructed the tower and even before
they were granted planning approval by council. Yet they
continued to build the tower and may I say completely at
their own peril.
The beauty of a nuisance claim is that we are
going to the court of equity, the Supreme Court has this
function and can override legislation if it believes that
legislation is inequitable and/or unconscionable.
Telecommunication regulators such as ACMA in legislation do
not have to give a financial undertaking if they place an
injunction against the public or private individuals.
It would be unconscionable and unequitable to
allow regulators to waive having to give an undertaking, but
making Jodie do so. It would be inequitable that Jodie's
finances compared to that of the Federal Government via NBN
Co's unlimited resources.
It would be unconscionable to allow a person
let alone a corporation to harm and injure a person merely
because the victim does not have the means to pay an
undertaking to stop them from harming her health.
Jodie also has been diagnosed with Chemical
sensitivity, and she reacts badly to formaldehyde, which is
found in most paints, glues, carpets, chipboard and
laminates, laminex etc. She lived in the bush in a tent for
5 years away from society in a bid to protect her from
chemicals and EMR. She finally purchased a 10 acre
secluded block of land that was virtually free from EMR and
she constructed a formaldehyde free home with her bare hands
whilst on a disabled pension. She even grows her own
chemical free food on the land. If the tower is turned on
she will be forced to live back in the bush somewhere where
their is no EMR emissions. She cant move into a normal house
because of her chemical sensitivity and she will become
homeless.
To force Jodie out of her home because she
doesn't have the means to pay an undertaking if required
would be an unconscionable act. The Court of equity
hopefully will step in and override the legislative
requirement of giving an undertaking as being completely
unconscionable and grant that a monetary undertaking should
be waived in Jodie's case.
That is what we are up against, we have a few
hurdles, it will be a monumental battle, I am representing
Jodie on a pro bono (no fee) basis, but I feel that in the
interests of justice that Jodie gets relief on behalf of all
EHS sufferers, it is the least I can do.
You and I can help by spreading the word,
alerting everyone of Jodie's predicament, maybe some kind
soul can pledge to the court to help add to the undertaking,
such as an unwanted block of land or some asset of value,
even just one dollar would help, write a letter addressed
to me for the attention of the Supreme Court of Tasmania and
in that letter note what items of value they undertake to
give to NBN Co should Jodie fail in her bid.
These letters, and I hope many will flood in
before Friday, will be invaluable as it may help in
persuading the Court to waive the undertaking.
I hope this clarifies what Jodie is trying to
do. If she wins this case, then it will set a precendent
for all EHS suffers to be protected from NBN towers, smart
meters and the like.
Finally a solution is at hand for all, lets
grab this opportunity, and fight for Jodie and for justice.
Kind regards,
Raymond
J Broomhall ABN: 19 811 830 629
Barrister at Law
Mob:
0447 725 254
Michael Kirby Chambers
