MANY CELL TOWER WORKERS ARE DISRESPECTFUL, HAVING NO MANIGERIAL OVERSIGHT
Diary Note: September 18, 2016
Living Next to the Cell Phone Tower:
I have had to suffer heckling harassment and disrespectful treatment from several male cell tower workers of the cell phone tower I have been made to live adjacent to. These men on top of the tower also have privy into all windows of my home, and land. These harassment problems have occurred way too many occasions to count since 2010. There is no oversight by these cell tower companies of their employees, as these male workers are not properly monitored or managed on site. Most of these workers could care less about private property rights and the land owners living nearby.
The lack of privacy, and the enjoyment of my home and property are "lost" since the sitting of this tower. When you live next to, adjacent to a mono tower / cell phone tower, you are living next to an ongoing construction site, and are at the mercy of the workers / and the tower owner's will and or personal "ill will", in any case. The 1996 Telecommunications Act is filled with legal guidelines protecting the sitting of these towers. Out of all the cell tower workers I have had to confront or talk to, (often due to problems with the cell tower cable banging on the side of the tower and other noise nuisance), only "two" have been polite and cordial. Two out of around twenty men and counting!
I recall one such conversation with a male cell tower worker whom I politely asked to fix the banging cable on the tower (as it sounds like a bomb going off when the wind blows if not tied down correctly), he stated that he was not the owner of the tower, therefore, he could not fix the problems related to the tower. I was to contact the tower company directly to ask that the "problem" be solved. Passing the buck is a common problem in the cell tower lease business. The workers say call the tower owner company, who often passes the buck to the land lease owner.
Quite simply, the law is not on your side in the cell tower sitting business. Unless you file a lawsuit for nuisance and other right infringements per your specific case, they pay you no mind. So I did file a lawsuit, prose (which means I had to study law and do it myself), which was a very difficult process. Being a "whistle blower" of the technology business empire has caused me many problems. I have suffered much harassment to this day, but would do it all over again, despite "All I Now Know."
I will give you one example as a point of reference. The tower workers have in the past left trash and debris about the land, some of which ended up on my land which I have had to clean. This trash and debris problem is common, as I interviewed in 2016 another lease land owner of a tower sitting who said the tower workers were dropping things from the tower and did not clean up the mess. This tower was sat near buildings and the nuts and bolts that were dropped from the tower caused roof damage to their near by buildings. In my case, the tower company says the trash is on the land outside the tower leased area, therefore, the land lease owner is to keep up with such problems, and/or the companies contracted are responsible.
When, and if you ever (God forbid), have to go to court over a cell phone tower / mono tower nuisance problem (as I did), the legal process is very complicated. The buck is passed because there are many to point the blame at. Here is a list: The cell tower workers (some being contract help), their employers, the land lease owners, the cell tower owner (towers are often owned by cell tower lease companies - some examples include: SBA Communications, Mobiliie Investments, LLC, Global Tower, etc...). then there are the companies that lease space on those towers (At&T, T - Mobile, Sprint, Verizon, etc.... just to name a few).
CELL TOWER WORKERS YELLING DOWN TO ONE ANOTHER:
Another noise nuisance is the yelling involved when men are working on the cell phone tower. Just recently, on Monday, May 23, 2016, once again I was subjected to this "Noise Nuisance" as the man on top of the tower yells down to the men below, various questions and instructions. This has happened often!!! And was mentioned as fact within my past Georgia lawsuit. These problems have not ceased. It is amazing to me the lack of common technology that has not been utilized to off set these "yelling" problems of the workers on the tower. The construction "banging, harming on metal" etc...., is also an on-going noise nuisance.
And I repeat.... "A cell tower site is a construction site no matter what they may tell you". I remember reading the cell tower sitting request sent to the Georgia county in which I live. The applicant stated, the site or sitting of the tower would not be a nuisance to area land owners, and should be sat to increase wireless communications services as the needs of such public demands have increased. And I say, "THEY LIED"! The noise, nuisance, and problems have continued to this day~,
CELL PHONE TOWER, MONO TOWER, NOISE NUISANCE
By Jane Celltower
May 1, 2016
I have lived next to an industrial cell phone tower since 2010, in a Georgia USA, County. After having contested the building of the cell phone tower due to nuisance and legal due process and appeal rights, Northern District - 11 circuit court, as well as Georgia Appeals Court, I continue to suffer after conclusion of the case on the following issues:
HEALTH: (Legal Note: Health issues are not permitted to be cited or used in cell tower sitting court cases by law outlined within the 1996 Telecommunications Act. However, public perception of health harm is a legal complaint that can be used in law rebuttals/argument.)
Since the sitting of the cell phone tower adjacent to my back yard, I have experienced the ongoing health issues: Brain fog, as well as headaches more often. Such was not the case before the sitting of the tower. A lack of ability to fall asleep and remain asleep. Muscle soreness, pain, general lack of well being (fibromyalgia symptoms). Dryness (esp. of eyes), "all the time!"
Every couple of months the cell tower workers will work on the tower and fail to tie down the large cable hanging next to the tower. When a medium gust wind blows, or a heavy rain storm occurs (as is often in the month of April), the cable bangs against the towers base, and it sounds like a bomb is going off. So loud is this noise and nuisance that it will awake you from a deep sleep. As long as the wind blows, the cable will bang! This was a documented problem within the law suit, and still remains to this day. Last month, May 2016, and April 2016, this problem has become so profuse as to cause lack of sleep.
So it was on April 20- 21, 2016, when an additional problem with noise occurred. This time, it was the problem (as has been often in the past), that the tower was under-going testing. This noise continued on and off all through these two days, so as to amount to impossible normal living standards .... intrusion into basic peace, quiet and enjoyment of home and property was made void. This too has happened on and off since my contested law suit for cell tower nuisance problems was dismissed. These are the living conditions of living next to a cell phone tower....on a every day month to month basis. These problems do not end.
On Thursday, April 21, 2016, I asked a cell tower worker, Mr. M. Payne, why all the non stop noise? To which he replied, "Testing....we are doing routine testing, sorry for all the noise." So it is living next to a cell phone tower., that construction and noise nuisance is never ending. Sawing, hammering, banging, bomb sounds, testing wave sounds so intrusive, as to cause you to have to leave your home to get away from the noise at times. If you decide to "Fight the tower in your residential neighborhood" just beware, that noise nuisance is ongoing, however, intermittent. You at times, are often living next to a construction site, no matter what they may tell you.
While we, American citizens, are not permitted to contest a cell phone tower sitting based on "health and welfare risks", in accordance with the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which is my greatest concern! As I have personally experienced dryness of eyes, skin, tissue, since the tower went up. We are permitted to speak out about the public's perception of "health and welfare risks" resulting in lower property values, and of course the ongoing "noise nuisance" inherent in any commercial industry dwelling (and make no mistake, a cell phone tower in your back yard is a commercial site), as I can attest to having personal experience of these prevalent "noise and nuisance" problems. I write these words in a effort to speak the truth. This website being a personal service to others paid for out of my own pocket, and those who are privy to this issue.
You do not want to live next to a cell phone tower. This is my message. I have no choice, I have been made to live next to the 150 - 155 ft. cell tower. You do. Chose wisely... fight the mono tower/ cell phone tower going up in your backyard, or neighborhood. I pray God helps you accomplish your goals. You and your families health and welfare depend upon your choice.
ELECTRONIC PRISON - TORTURE, SUPPRESSED CENSORSHIP
September 18, 2016
There are many persons claiming electronic harassment, torture, via an extra-judicial program against those the powers that be claim are dissident trouble makers. One such voice is veterean journalist Vic Livingston, who claims our human rights have been violated in an electronic prison of cell tower / and electromagnetic grid networks which are designed to inflict torture, harassment, harm, by way of this controlled network.
While many will dismiss Livingston's claims, there are literally now thousands of persons who have labeled themselves as "Targeted Individuals" (TI's) who are touting this same "Alarming Warning." I for one am listening, and believe many of their claims cannot be simply dismissed, as direct energy weapons (DEW), are an acknowledged fact by United States Military, who use such weapons. Other countries have acknowledged much the same. Silent Weapons (DEW) for quiet wars, is an outreach and message of truth when such technology exists.
FUTURE WARS WILL INCLUDE MILITARY ADVANTAGE MADE POSSIBLE BY WAY OF ADVANCE TECHNOLOGIES
This page is currently under construction, last updated as of January 2016
THE JANE CELL TOWER DIARY
By Jane Celltower
Febuary 8, 2010, 12:18 AM: Date Of Jane Celltower's First Diary Entry.
NEUTRAL REPORTAGE: Jane Celltower define's "Neutral Reportage," not implying an offending statement is true, but simply reporting in her Diary, in a neutral manner that the potentially libelous statements were made even if they doubt the accuracy of the statement. As such Jane Celltower's reporting is unbiased in every method, statement, and is in the public interest. Please view the Jane Celltower Disclaimer, for additional information and website policy usage.
FAKE CELL PHONE TOWERS USED FOR SURVEILLANCE
NOTICE THE CELLPHONE TOWERS IN THE BACKGROUND DURING THIS YOUTUBE VIDEO
A STIGMATIZED PROPERTY CAN DECREASE THE RESALE VALUE
"Based on public perceptions, there are many people in the world who do not desire to live next to a cell phone tower/monotower. Whether it be due to unknown/known health problems and affects, safety issues, dangerous conditions / fall zone dangers, animal rights (bees, birds, being harmed), nature - green earth conservation, visual blight, crime blight, or yes, even "Targeted Individuals" (TI's), claiming EMF cell tower mind control (see page: "Celltower Mind Control- Bluebeam" via the www.janecelltower.com website).
The bottom line is: What the public 'thinks' does have an impact on your property values. I reference the New York Supreme Court Case: Stambovsky verses Ackley, people claimed a haunted house was a stigmatized property, which decreased the value. A cell phone tower sitting next to your property is also termed by many in real estate, as a stigmatized property, which can make for a very difficult resell, and/or lower property value." - Jane Celltower - May 4, 2015
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS? KNOW THE FACTS!
T-Mobile's desire for 95% indoor, residential coverage for their customer's is not an FCC requirement. Yet within some of their applications for cell tower sitings, they quote a cell tower is needed to provide 95% indoor T-Mobile cell phone coverage.
Jane Celltower's Legal Note: The FCC confirms need of coverage to only be "that a substantially better than mediocre level of service must be maintain" - 47 U.S.C. § 27.14 (a)
YOU MET JOE THE PLUMBER...NOW MEET JANE CELLTOWER...
Jane Celltower (an alias name which serves to represent the average John or Jane in the dark concerning cell tower sitings) has been an noted researcher and journalist on and off for over two decades. She has an online daily Internet reading audience of around 14,000 and climbing per day! This is her online diary, containing first hand account research regarding cell phone tower sitings within residential and school property areas. Ms. Celltower research savy, knowledge, and voice, inform all Americans of the right to legal protest of illegal, deceptive tower siting applications and zoning/building approvals. Jane Celltower states in confidence, "That is what 'Tea Party' lobbying efforts are all about!"
"We Need Local Commissioners And Government Authority To Represent Both Citizen And Community Interests. On the local, state, and national levels. Cractt Goals Are To Help Educate Both Community And Citizen Alike. Keeping Our Freedom Intact, With An Ever Present Eye And Hope, On Future Prosperity And Growth," - Jane Celltower
The Cractt website is a grass root lobbying effort started by less than a handful of people, who learned of a Georgia government zoning and building department's attempt to conceal the building of 150 foot "stealth" cell mono tower in a residential subdivision, from the general public, and nearby residential property home owners. No public meeting, no rezoning signs posted on said land in question, no county Internet information/posted, no press release, and no notice of any kind was given to the surrounding, unsuspecting public. Breach of local ordinance, Georgia Zoning Procedure Laws, Georgia and United States Constitutions (5th and 14th Amendments) did occur.
THE JANE CELLTOWER DIARY AND ONGOING NEWS RESEARCH STORY IS REAL, BAZAAR, AND LIVE IN ONLINE DETAIL AND ACCOUNT
"Learning through research of cell tower siting deception and fraud, I felt a sudden affinity with Erin Brochovich's story. A kinship I couldn't explain. She uncovered deception, fraud, and secrets too bazaar and daunting to ever fully understand. Yet sadly, they turned out to be true. When I first saw cell monopole towers made of industrial-commercial steel within residential and school property areas, the shock was over whemling. I could hardly believe what I was seeing, yet there before me were the facts, happening all across America. Mono tower was a word I never even knew existed, until that gloomy Sunday afternoon on January 31, 2010, when I first learned of cell tower sitings in residential areas, despite legal protests of area property owners.
"Shouting a victory for 21st Century greed, corporate power, local government take-over, fraud, and deception, the Mono towers and cell towers stood tall and strangely proud. Then I thought what the heck, if Erin Brochovich could do it, I can too. I took that small pebble of inspiration, placing it in the slingshot of my mental thought process, allowing God to control my aim, and hit my target. That was the day the inspiration for 'Cractt' was born.
"Cractt being both an acronym, and a word. Citizen's Rights Against Cell Tower Take-Over (Cractt)."
NIGHTMARE ON BURR STREET
Is this story really so strange?
According to the New York Times Article, "Neighbors on Cell Tower Plan: Not in Your Backyard, Either," by Alison Leigh Cowan, Easton, Conn., October 27, 2003, a celltower going up within a resident's backyards is a worrisome surprise, but it does happen. The Connecticut Siting Council in Harford can stop a tower, and recent news reported the Council has increased efforts to do so, as I reported on our News Page. However, a cell phone tower that is about 10 stories high is difficult to miss. In nearby Westport, where the state law was most recently tested and upheld, Verizon bought a vacant house at 2 Sunny Lane to sit a 130 foot tower. The town sued, and help poured in from the Connecticut Council of Municipalities and the state attorney general, to no avail. Lorcan O'Conner bought the house next door two months before Verizon won the court case. O'Conner is quoted as asking, "How do you throw up a cell phone tower in someone's backyard? This is a residential area."
In Easton, Jane DeCourt woke up to find Sprint PCS planning to put up a 150 foot tower across the street in Ronald and Karen Kowalski's backyard. To which the Kowalskis declined to comment about in the for Cowan's New York Time's article. DeCourt summed up the entire story well, using four words, "Nightmare on Burr Street."
THE CELL TOWER SITING APPLICATION NOTIFICATION PROCESS...IF YOUR LOCAL AREA ORDINANCE REQUIRES ONE.
LACK OF NOTIFICATION AND ACCESS ROAD COMPLAINTS:
PANAMA CITY NEWS HEARLD REPORTED ON 3-7-2011, BY WRITER FELICIA KITZMILLER, "CELL TOWER LAWSUIT HEADED TO COURT", WEST BAY:
Bay County's Planning and Zoning Division, Debra Warren-Cook and Dunwoody, Ga. based Highwood Towers LLC (a company specializing in construction of wireless sites), filled lawsuit March 1 seeking a declaratory judgement against Bay County, Fl.. The lawsuit asks a Judge to reverse the Planning and Zoning Division's decision to deny a permit for the nearly 200-foot tower after neighbors spoke out against the use of a private road to facilitate construction and maintenance of the project.
Crooked Creek Drive, a grated road privately owned and maintained by the property owners along the artery, is the only access to the landlocked property from County 388. After the development of the tower was approved in September, Stephen and Angel Shea, James and Linda Sowell and Scott Dean, of Crooked Creek Drive, appealed the permit, claiming any attempt to access the proposed site by construction crews would be trespassing. the Planning and Zoning commission then rescinded the permit.
Dan Shaw stated the need for adjustments in cell phone tower regulations "slid under the radar" until September when a permit was granted to Debra Warren-Cook and Highland Towers LLC, via Crooked Creek Drive access road near the new airport. One of the major problems with the Crooked Creek tower was that area residents were not notified. The new tower permitting process requires public hearing prior to siting approval.
BELOW IS A COPY OF THE "EXACT" DECEPTIVE, CERTIFIED LETTER SENT MANY GEORGIA PROPERTY OWNERS CONCERNING CELL TOWER SITINGS BY T-MOBILE:
From Company Letterhead - PM&A:
30 Mansell Court
Roswell, Ga. 30076
Tel: (407) 473-0638
Dear XXXXXX and XXXXXX HXXXXX
Due to the high demand and lack of appropriate wireless connectivity in your immediate area T-Mobile is expanding its network in your vicinity. This expansion will also provide other carriers the ability to piggyback off T-Mobiles facilities to increase their service level as well. To accomplish this goal T-Mobile is filing for zoning approval, with XXXXXX County, to build a wireless compound with a monopole to be located at: 11 Xxxxxx Xxxx, Xxxxxxxxx, Ga. 3XXXX. This compound willhave a XX foot buffer around it and set back to avoid being obtrusive. We thank you for your time and understanding in this matter.
Zoning Specialist - M and M Wireless Services
M and M Wireless Services
*Please review the Cractt website pages on notification letters and their comparisons for additional educational information.
JESSE McCOY, T-MOBILE, COUNTY GOVERNMENT, LEASED LAND LOT OWNERS, MAKE MONEY, WHILE INNOCENT, TAX PAYING HOMEOWNERS SITTING NEXT TO THE CELL PHONE TOWER SUFFER LOSS:
"The Georgia homeowners who did receive this obscure letter (note card), had no idea a cell phone mono tower was about to be built abutting, next to, their backyards. Legally, this letter did provide notice in accordance with the local code requirements, however, due to the lack of concrete information, the homeowners thought little about it. A few months latter, which was way past the 30 day legal deadline to contest the tower sitting, construction began. And so did the protest, even with a court case that went to the 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta, Ga, and appellate court. As one homeowner, (that would be me), never received the required notice.
Local Georgia County zoning board, Jessie McCoy, T-Mobile, knew "one" homeowner did not receive the required legal notice, which provided Constitutional due process and appeal rights per court case. Attempt to provide notice was done by Jessie McCoy, per U.S. mail, however, not achieved. Further attempts were not made to provide notice. A simple knock on my front door, or UPS personal delivery would have assured notice.
11 Circuit Northern District court (Georgia), found in this case, that even though I had not received the required notice, the attempt by way of U.S. mail to provide such notice, did suffice. The cell phone tower was built, and Cractt was formed as a free public service, providing educational insight into the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the cell towers zoning and sitting legal process, and the health and welfare of all humanity.
As an Independent Researcher, I have continued to learn more about technologies role in the 21st Century world in which we live. The more I learn, the more I pray to God concerning humanities and our World's future health and welfare." - Jane Celltower / January 26, 2015
EDWARD SNOWDEN QUOTE - "So many things we are told by the government simply aren't true." "What is right is not always the same as what is legal."
Copyright -2010-2016, Jane Celltower. All Rights Reserved.