JANE CELLTOWER TELLS ALL ABOUT CELL PHONE COMPANY TAKE-OVER & THE USE OF DECEPTION
The telecoms seem to have eminent domain since the 1996 telecom act has provided cover for locating wherever and whenever they please. Communities are fighting back. This fight will undoubtedly get ugly as more and more people fall ill from their genotoxic and carcinogenic effects. Only bodies in the streets will have the necessary cause and effect to start taking out this technology by whatever means necessary.
JANE CELLTOWER TELLS ALL ABOUT CELL PHONE COMPANY TAKE-OVER & THE USE OF DECECPTION
JANE CELLTOWER - PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER OF CRACTT - CITIZEN'S RIGHTS AGAINST CELL TOWER TAKE-OVER
"When I saw the monotower standing next to my backyard residential property line, I could hardly believe my eyes! I began putting the pieces together and solving the puzzle of fraud, deception, and crime against tax-paying Amercian citizens." - Jane Celltower - Founder and President of Cractt.
Jane Celltower - President And Founder Of Cractt - Citizen's Rights Aganist Cell Tower Take-Over
"How could they build a 155 foot (or taller) industrial cell phone tower, and bulldoze a new unlit, unsafe, dark and dreay wooded access road within residential property? Because they hid their secret agenda. They hid the "stealth monotower" from public eyes, by hiding it in the woods. Now down a long, dark, gravel "blair witch" road that runs right into my backyard property line, sits the opportunity for serious crime. Now I can't sleep well at night, knowing both my safety and protection is in jeopardy." - Jane Celltower / February 8, 2010.
"The fraudualent and deceptive actions of big industry cell phone giants ripping off the American people was a rude awakening. City, county, and local government officials laxidazical enforcement of building and ULCD zoning codes, left me at a loss for words. Because of new laws, cell phone companies are taking advantage of good, law abiding, tax paying citizens. You can read my real time events and reports, interviews, and findings, as I put the pieces together. I am determined to solve the paradoxical puzzle, and answer the question,"How could they get away with building a 155 foot (or taller), monotower cell tower within residential property and me not know it? No notice. No posted rezoning signs. No advertised public meeting. And this is legal? May the truth set you free!" - Jane Celltower / February 8, 2010.
WHERE, WHAT, AND WHY LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S FAIL TO MEET SUFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS WHICH STATE THAT "NO APPLICATION SHALL BE ACCEPTED BEFORE IT IS SUFFICENT IN MEETING CODE AND GUIDELINES," LEAVES THEM WIDE-OPEN TO CITIZEN LAW SUITS!
The PlanWireless and Kreines & Kreines, Inc. (58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920) give sound legal advice as to "Why the Local Government Benefits from Citizen Disputes." PlanWireless confirms, " The local government will learn - sometimes the hard way - that there are three lessons to be learned from citizen opposition to towers:
1. Plan for cell sites rather than react to them.
2. Tower ordinances that encourage towers don't work.
3. Listen to your citizens, local governments.
"We Need Local Commissioners And Government Authority To Represent Both Citizen And Community Interests. Cractt Goals Are To Help Educate Both Community And Citizen Alike. Keeping Our Freedom Intact, With An Ever Present Eye On Prosperity And Future Growth," - Jane Celltower
Jane Celltower has been an noted researcher and journalist on and off for over two decades. She has an online daily Internet reading audience of around 10,000 and climbing per day! This is her online dairy, containing first hand account and experience, of her dramatic discovery of a T-Mobile cell phone tower being built abutting up to her backyard property line. The one signature T-Mobile failed to get in the notification process, "before" they built their new cell phone tower, was Jane Celltower's. Little did this Georgia County realize, Ms. Celltower could use her research savy, knowledge, and voice, to tell her story, and inform all Americans of the right to legal protest. Jane Celltower states in confidence, "That is what Tea Party lobbying efforts are all about!"
The Cractt website is a grassroot lobbying effort started by less than a handful of people, who learned of Henry County, Georgia government zoning and building department's attempt to conceal the building of 155 foot "stealth" cell monotower 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 for public response, no press release, and no notice of any kind was given to the surrounding, unsuspecting public. Within this Georgia County, local government officials (Cheri Matthews) said they didn't have to inform the general public. Only the land owners whose property would be affected were required by county code guideline, to receive notification.
In Jane Celltower's case, she was 1 of 6 people (property owners), who according to city code Sec. 3-7-228.6, were to be notified. Yet, she never received notification of the proposed 155 foot cell phone monotower to be literally built adjacient to her backyard property line. The cell phone monotower is so close to Jane Celltowers Jane Celltowers property, if it falls due to strong winds, tornadoes, and the like, the monotower would fall onto her property, endangering all near by. This "fall zone" problem also hinders her homes resale values, as HUD FHA usually will not issue loans on such liability properties.
Denied of notification, she was unable to appeal or obtain a "legal stay" against the building of the proposed T-Mobile cell phone tower. Now evidence proves, Henry County, Georgia allowed all "6" approved T-Mobile cell phone tower's to sit on or near residential property zones and subivisions. Not one tower was built on County government property, or within the county's commercial districts. Dispite the grandfather codes guidelines stating:
GRANDFATHER CODES UNDER WHICH THE LAST "6" T-MOBILE TOWERS WERE GRANTED PERMIT BY HENRY COUNTY, GEORGIA
WCF'S Are Defined As: Wireleass Communications Facility
Sec. 3-7-228.1 Purpose and Goals.
The Purpose of this article is establish general guidelines for the siting of WCF's.
The Goals of this articles are to:
* Provide a range of locations for WCF's in a variety of zones;
* Within each zone, provide clear performance standards addressing the siting of WCF's.
* Encourage the location of WCF's in non-residential areas and minimize the total number of towers throughout the community;
* Encourage the location of WCF's on existing structures, including utility poles, signs, water towers, buildings, and other WCF's where feasible;
* Encourage collocation and site sharing of new and existing WCF's;
* Encourage users of towers and antennas to configure them in a way that harmonizes the visual impact of the towers and antennas with the existing natural and/or built environment;
* Facilitate teh use of public property and structures for WCF's;
(Ord. No. 98-13, 2, 4-21-98)
Henry County Georgia's New Code Guidelines Now State:
* 7.05.01- Henry County, Georgia ULCD codes (as of November 2009)
* A-Promote the health, safety and general welfare of the public by regulating the siting of and establishing development standards for WCF's and related equipment;
* B- Encourage the location of WCF's in non-residential areas;
* C- Encourage the location of WCF's on exsisting structures, including utility poles, signs, water towers, buildings, and other WCF's where feasible;
* D-Encourage collocation and site sharing of new and existing WCF's;
* E-Facilitate the use of public property and structures for WCF's;
* F-Locate telecommunications support structures and antennas in areas where adverse impacts on the community are minimized; and
* G-Encourage design and construction of support structures and antennas to harmonize the visual impact ot the support structures and antennas with the existing natural and/or built environment.
HENRY COUNTY, GEORGIA WEBSITE POSTS (AS OF FEBRUARY 15, 2010) CONCERNING CELL TOWERS AND THEIR PLACEMENT - www.co.henry.ga.us/NewsArticle.aspx?AID=339
"We believe the revised ordinance will help us to find a balance between ensuring uninterrupted service for the thousands of cellular customers in Henry County and a pleasing aesthetic for our community by encouraging greater collaboration between service providers, and creative options for co-locations," explained Ray Gibson, Henry County Planning & Zoning Director.
To help minimize the visual impact of these towers, and ensure the safety of citizens, the setbacks for all freestanding WCFs have been dramatically increased. They are now equal to a tower's height, or the height plus 10 percent in residential areas. The landscape buffer requirements are also more stringent, with the minimum buffer increasing from 10 to 15 feet, complete with screening trees that must be a minimum of 10 feet in height versus 6 feet previously. In addition, no tower shall be placed less than one-quarter mile from another tower in residential zoning districts."
NOTIFICATION LETTER BY CELL PHONE COMPANY SITE ACQUISITION SPECIALIST WAS DECEPTIVE
The vice of a T-Mobile cell phone company land- site acquisition specialist's notification letter, was also deceptive . As the people (land owners) who were notified, were deceived due to the ambiguous nature, and lack of detail of the notification letter's tone and content. Which Ms. Celltower contends, "Is a noted case of deliberate fraud."
Jane Celltower is an alas, which serve's to "represent" the average American John or Jane Doe, who is left in the dark concerning the true danger and health hazards of cell phone use, and cell phone tower sitting problems. As well as the conspiriacy to deceive Georgia tax-paying citizen's of their right to appeal and contest the building of a proposed cell tower. Which inturn deprives American citizen's who find themselves in midst of such cell tower take-over, of their 5th amendment right to free speech, and their 7th amendment right to a civil trial.
The Cractt goal is to keep all of America informed of such controversial technology issues, as they relate to the well being and constitutional rights of the American public. While assuring cell phone companies proposing to build cell towers, and the local goverment's building and zoning process, is honest, forthright, and above board, making every effort to educate and inform American citizens of their constitutional right to appeal.
THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT DEFINED:
"The Seventh Amendment (Amendment V11) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil trials. Unlike most of the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court has no incorporated the amendment's requirements to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." - Wikipedia.
ABOUT JANE CELLTOWER
Jane Celltower is a research journalist, who has been a social justice activist for over two decades. Her allas name and indentity remain hidden while her on-going research concerning a mega giant cell phone company (T-Mobile), and her local Henry County, Georgia, government building and zoning division rages on. This is not the first time her county has made national years, as an eminent domain case (see ruling below), also raised ebrows. The owners won their case, making Fox News on Sean Hannity's show segment. Celltower's personal case includes both fraud and deception, as the cell phone company land lease acquisition representative's mandatory notification letter to area property owners, was ambiguous in nature. Vague in tone and contect, the letter is posted on the Jane Celltower Diary page. As is often the case, a real and primary contention involves local government building and zoning officials who did little or nothing to serve and protect tax paying citizens lives,and their property building and zoning rights. Allowing cell towers to be built on or near, residential property, should be a crime when safety and protection issues are at stake. Jane Celltower has taken "cause and affect" in hand, using her freedom of speech as an American citizen to help herald her cause.
The fraudualent actions of big industry cell phone giants, and many city, county, and local government officials, who often have a laxidazical enforcement of building and ULCD zoning codes, leaves one to question section 704, of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Because of new laws, cell phone companies are taking advantage of good, law abiding, tax paying citizens. You can read Ms. Celltower's real time events and reports, interviews, and findings, as she puts the pieces together, in order to solve the paradoxical puzzle and answer the question,"How could they get away with building a 155 foot (or taller), monotower cell tower within or next to residential property subdivisions?"
Jane's emotional triade and research concerning cell tower take-over of private residential property zoning, can be read on her diary web page or by clicking the hyperlink: The Jane Celltower's Diary . Resolving the drama and chaos of her legal battle has become a philanthropic outreach. Ms. Celltower explains, "We at 'Cractt' hope to provide all American citizens a base network by which they can protect their right to safety, privacy, and the unfair, unconstitutional take-over of documented residental property zoning and building rights." As her efforts and community service are dedicated to reaching beyond her limited geographical county in the beautiful state of Georgia, in hopes of serving all of Americans who dream a dream, and hope for a brighter future.
WHO IS JANE CELLTOWER?
First and formost, Ms. Jane Celltower is a Christian, coming from a fourth generation of Christian heritage and service to God. With grandparents who were missionaries, Ms. Celltower grew up in an environment of concern and community service, helping those in need. Her father is from the rural south, and is a former Lay Pastor and Navy war veteran. Having served as a crewmen on task force flagship USS Mt. McKinley. He participated in landing at the Korean East Coast port of Wonsan. At age 80, he soley manages, stocks, supplies, and administers food, at the Christian charity food bank, he established and fosters. Jane Celltower's mother was born and raised in the great state of New York, served as a public education school teacher, having been nominated as a state "Teacher of the Year."
For over two decades Ms. Celltower has served the American public, dedicated to making things right. Active in many political and social justice campaigns, she has personally raised funding and food for children in America, as well as Calcutta India.. A former foster parent and Parent's Anonymous counselor, her philanthropic efforts had her named an "Outstanding Young Women Of America", described as an asset to her community and nation by its board and chairman. Naturally service orienated, as the Founder and President of Cractt her outreach is Global in scope, Educational in perspective, Political in cause, with the protection and safety of American citizens and their constitutional right to safety, protection, privacy, and property rights.
HENRY COUNTY GEORIGA EMINENT DOMAIN CASE RULING:
CITY OF STOCKBRIDGE v. MEEKS.
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA, SECOND DIVISION
2007 Ga. App. LEXIS 54
January 31, 2007, Decided
NOTICE: [*1] THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BY THE COURT.
DISPOSITION: Judgment affirmed.
JUDGES: MILLER, Judge. Johnson, P. J., and Ellington, J., concur.
OPINION BY: MILLER
OPINION: MILLER, Judge.
The City of Stockbridge (the "City") filed a condemnation petition to acquire property on North Henry Boulevard in Stockbridge (the "Property"), owned by Mark and Regina Meeks. The Meeks operated a family business on the Property, Stockbridge Florist and Gifts, Inc. Following a hearing, the court-appointed special master condemned the Property and awarded the Meeks $ 325,000 for the condemnation and $ 96,500 for furniture, fixtures, expenses, and relocation expenses. Upon review, the trial court dismissed the City's condemnation petition for its failure to set forth facts showing the right to condemn pursuant to OCGA § 22-2-102.2 (1) and (5).
The City appeals, contending that the trial court erred in dismissing the condemnation petition because (i) any failure by the City to show that the taking was for a specific use was neither raised before nor ruled upon by the special master; (ii) the trial court dismissed the condemnation petition without first finding that it had [*2] been filed in bad faith; and (iii) it was the Meeks' burden to come forward with evidence showing that the condemnation was for other than a public purpose and that the petition was filed in bad faith. We discern no error and affirm.
In 2004, the Meeks reached a tentative agreement with the City whereby they would sell the Property to the City in exchange for finished retail space in a new "town center" development, a projected mixture of private uses to be located on and around the Property. Subsequently, the City chose not to proceed upon a negotiated property exchange and instead elected to condemn the Property and surrounding land under Georgia's Urban Renewal Law, OCGA § 36-61-1 et seq., by a series of resolutions declaring it to be a slum area. One week before it filed its condemnation petition, the City adopted a conclusory resolution declaring a need to build "public facilities" on the Property. At the hearing before the special master, however, the City did not more specifically state the public purpose of the condemnation. Following the hearing, the special master denied the Meeks' motion to dismiss upon the claim that the City failed to plead [*3] that the proposed condemnation was for a public purpose and entered an award for the City. The trial court thereafter reversed, and its dismissal of the City's condemnation petition followed.
1. The City claims that the trial court erred in dismissing the condemnation petition if its dismissal was based upon a failure to plead the "specific use" for the proposed taking, rather than a failure to plead a public purpose for the taking. The City argues that the Meeks failed to preserve the specific use issue for review below. Finding that the City misconstrues the basis upon which the trial court dismissed the condemnation petition, we find no error in the dismissal of the condemnation petition.
The record shows that the Meeks answered the City's petition denying its right to condemn, stating that "[t]he [p]etition does not aver and the City cannot prove facts entitling the City to take the Property"; that "the Property is not needed for any public purpose"; and that the City's taking was for a private use. Prior to the hearing before the special master, the Meeks moved to dismiss the condemnation petition for lack of evidence that the taking was for a valid public purpose. [*4] The Meeks' exceptions and objections to the special master's award were to the same effect. Further, in dismissing the petition, the trial court found, as did the special master, that the City failed to plead "'if in fact the use to which the property is to be put is a public use'" and therefore "fail[ed] to satisfy OCGA § 22-2-102.2  (1) and (5)[,]" which require that a condemnation petition "set forth [t]he facts showing the right to condemn" and the "necessity to condemn the private property . . . describing the public use for which the condemnor seeks the property[,]" respectively.
(1) Given that the trial court plainly dismissed the condemnation petition upon the City's failure to properly plead a valid public purpose pursuant to OCGA § 22-2-102.2 (1) and (5), and that the Meeks properly raised the issue of such failure to the special master, the dismissal of the condemnation petition was not error for any failure to preserve the issue of specific use for review.
2. Alternatively, the City argues that the right to condemn for a valid public purpose is presumed absent a finding of its bad faith. Under Georgia [*5] law, however, this presumption applies only to a finding that a condemnation is "necessary" under OCGA § 22-2-102.1. Mosteller Mill, Ltd. v. Ga. Power Co., 271 Ga. App. 287, 291-292 (3) (609 SE2d 211) (2005) (absent bad faith, condemnor is exclusive judge of necessity in the condemnation of condemned property for public purposes). The City points to City of Atlanta v. Petkas, 253 Ga. 447, 448 (321 SE2d 725) (1984), as apparent authority to the contrary. The holding in Petkas, however, is based on City of Atlanta v. Heirs of Champion, 244 Ga. 620, 621-622 (261 SE2d 343) (1979), a case which held that the condemning body is the exclusive judge of whether the condemnation is necessary. Id.; West, supra, 176 Ga. App. at 807 (1). Petkas and Champion do not override the pleading requirements of OCGA § 22-2-102.2.
(2) The requirement that condemnors plead both "[t]he facts showing the right to condemn" and "the necessity to condemn the private property and describing the public use for which the condemnor seeks the property[,]" OCGA § 22-2-102.2 (1) [*6] and (5), respectively, is neither presumed nor conditioned upon a preliminary finding of bad faith in the trial court. Rather, such requirement is for a showing of the right to exercise the power of eminent domain, i.e. that the taking is for a valid public purpose. n1 Id.; West, supra, 176 Ga. App. at 806 (1). Given the foregoing, this claim of error is likewise without merit.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n1 "Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public purposes without just and adequate compensation being first paid." (Emphasis supplied.) Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. 1, Sec. 3, Par. 1 (a).
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3. Finally, given the duty to plead under OCGA § 22-2-102.2, the City's claim to the contrary notwithstanding, it is clear that the burden to show a taking for a public purpose lies with the condemnor, not the condemnee, here therefore, with the City, not the Meeks. Given that the City's condemnation petition failed to plead a proposed taking in compliance with OCGA § 22-2-102.2 (1) [*7] and (5), the trial court did not err in dismissing the City's condemnation petition.
Judgment affirmed. Johnson, P. J., and Ellington, J., concur.
Copyright, 2010. Jane Celltower. All Rights Reserved.
|HOME| |WELCOME | |DISCLAIMER| |PRIVACY AND COPYRIGHT POLICY| |ABOUT CRACTT| |CRACTT OBJECTIVES| |ABOUT JANE CELLTOWER| |JANE CELLTOWER'S DIARY| |CELLTOWER - SALVATION| |ACCESS ROADS=DANGER (SLIDE SHOW)| |MURDER ON CELLTOWER ACCESS ROAD| |CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ON CELL TOWER SITES| |FACT SHEETS HOLD F&Q ANSWERS| |CELLTOWER'S & COPPER THEFT| |CELLTOWER COLLAPSE & FIRE | |TOWER REP & LOCAL GOV'T (SLIDE SHOW)| |SERVICES| |NEWS| |CELL TOWER SEARCH LINKS| |T-MOBILE - GET THE CELL OUT OF HERE| |CELLTOWER CANCER INCREASE| |PROPERTY VALUES-FHA HUD GUIDE 4150.2-2| |FCC SECTION 47-OPPOSITION TO CELLTOWER| |MIGRATING BIRDS & CELL TOWER DEATH| |EMF INTERFERENCE - TOYOTA CAR ACCIDENTS| |RF INTERFERENCE WITH POLICE & FIRE RESCUE| |CELL TOWER LIGHTNING STRIKES| |TAILIBAN-INSURGENTS & CELLTOWERS| |HENRY COUNTY, GEORIGA CELLTOWERS| |GEORGIA MODEL 4 CELL TOWERS| |DECEPTIVE T-MOBILE NOTIFICATION LETTER| |ULDC - UNITED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE | |FIGHT THE PROPOSED CELLTOWER| |CELLTOWER CALL INTERFERENCE PROBLEMS| |FAQ - CELL TOWER HEALTH HAZARDS| |FAQ - CELL TOWER LAWSUITS| |YOUR RIGHTS AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN| |LOBBYING YOUR CONGRESSMEN| |CELL TOWER PHOTOS| |LINKS AND RESOURCE| |GLOBAL EDUCATIONAL HELP-RESOURCE LINKS| |CRACTT MEDIA PRESS RELEASE| |FEDERAL CIVIL LAWSUIT PRESS RELEASE| |BIOINITIATIVE PRESS RELEASE| |CELL-OUT'S TOWER LEASE PRESS RELEASE| |CONTACT US - TELLUS YOUR STORY|
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion