Solution To The ‘Smart’ Meter Problem
THE INPOWER LIABILITY ACTION PROCESS
Q: What is the Liability Action (or Notice of Liability (NOL)) process?
“By protecting our individual rights, we are protecting all life.”
A: The NOL process is a mass action of people protecting their rights and enforcing liability for harm caused by “smart” meters. It is a powerful lawful remedy for individuals and groups to place liability regarding the various harms caused the smart meter agenda, onto those responsible or complicit with it. It is a comprehensive multi-round process, based upon sending a series of Notices — pre-written templates customized for each participant — which establish a framework for contractually-enforceable individual liability.
Over the past several years as “smart” meters have been rolled out throughout North America, we’ve seen other traditional legal approaches, complaints and appeals fail to achieve success thus far, as there appears to be an enormous level of systemic corruption and collusion involved, and those causing the harm are simply ignoring complaints. In contrast, the NOL process enables participants to access and reclaim their full unalienable rights, and uses the corporate system’s own rules against them to enforce corporate and individual liability.
In essence, utilities are changing the terms of their service contracts with each customer, without the disclosure of facts. They are also using “implied consent” to assume a customer agrees — even if the customer says they do not but uses an “incorrect” method of communication. What the NOL does is recognize that a utility’s desire to install a “smart” meter is a contractual offer, for which, in a written Notice, we conditionally accept if they can disprove our affidavit (a document we verify as true), point-by-point, in an affidavit of their own. If they cannot do so, our affidavit and terms stand, and each Respondent* is individually subject to the terms of our conditional acceptance. These terms include a fee schedule of a dollar amount of your choosing (as you have the power to create terms), per day that they would be in violation of your terms. These amounts are fully enforceable, and subsequent document templates and plans for enforcement are in place. Respondents are unable to disprove the statements made in the NOL or the facts used in the affidavit, because our facts are true and verifiable, whereas the propaganda they use is not.
TheNOLprocessimplementsContractLaw,CommonLaw,CommercialLaw(UniformCommercialCode)andLawMerchant. Itismulti-faceted, and operates in multiple jurisdictions. The NOL is based upon a higher level of understanding of how this system has been created & operates.
* – Respondents are utility execs and gov’t officials who are promoting (or not yet openly opposing) the “smart” meter agenda.
Note about “smart” meter harm: For admissions from industry that utilities use “smart” meters to capture and monetize unlawful in-home surveillance data from YOUR home, see: www.bit.ly/smartspying1 and www.bit.ly/smartspying2. “Smart” meters also cause risks to your health, fires, hacking, and overbilling. These are all likewise now proven. (See the documentary Take Back Your Power.)
Q: What are the results so far?
While the process will soon be openly available, there have been 3 “seed” groups in North America using this process to address the ‘smart’ meter issue. More than 250 individuals have participated at this early stage. The early results, though still somewhat speculative, appear to indicate a correlation between the liability being enforced and several Respondents resigning or not seeking re- election. However, many within industry or government will not admit to the NOL being a factor.
As an example, Corix Utilities CEO Brett Hodson received more than 100 Notices of Liability (“round 1”) and or Notices of Fault (“round 2”) from participants in BC. Five days later, his unplanned resignation was internally announced, and covered in Business In Vancouver.
Eight Seattle City Councilmembers received Notice of Default (“round 3”) from 20 participants in Seattle, contractually being bound to $2.6M per month of liability. In the weeks that followed, 3 of these 8 announced they were quitting politics. Two of these, according to insiders, were entirely unexpected. And one quit before her term was up. Later, the utility CEO also resigned.
In Michigan, 4 of the 8 Respondents who were at the MPSC no longer appeared to be at the company within several months of being on the receiving end of the liability action. A city attorney also resigned 1 month after receiving the process, stating that the utility DTE has a budget of $20M per year to ‘lobby’ state legislators. And, the MI Attorney General began calling for a free opt-out, after being on the receiving end of the process. (At first, he attempted to refuse the documents; so Claimants arranged to have him served in person.)
Are all of these results merely a staggeringly improbable “coincidence”? It is doubtful. One thing we know is that these indications are consistent with results of an individual application of the NOL process previous to “smart” meters, in which more than a dozen public officials stepped down from regional to federal levels.
In other cases, safe analog meters have been protected and not replaced with “smart” meters. The goal is that, by numbers of people engaging in this powerful process, the “smart” meter agenda will be discontinued. We are seeing confidence-boosting signs this will happen in conjunction with insider admissions that “smart” meters are both unlawful and harmful on multiple levels.
Note: when a Respondent leaves office, the liability remains attached to both their office and them as an individual.
Note: anyone can do the NOL process, no matter if they have an analog meter, a “smart” meter, or anything in between.
DOCUMENT TEMPLATES, VIDEOS, GUIDES: www.InPowerMovement.com