On July & August 2014, following the Government's response to the Conditional Injunction which was issued in April, I & the other attorney, Michael Bach, submitted motions for a Permanent & Intermediary Injunction.
The Court ruled that it cannot issue a Permanent injunction without a hearing, which it scheduled for February 2015, and now we are waiting for a ruling on the motion for the Intermediary injunction – an injunction that will ban the use of Wi-Fi in schools immediately and until a final decision in the case is made.
Update Sept 5th - The Court ruled that the Claimants (us) can respond to the Government's response from 26/8 regarding the motion for the intermediary injunction by 15/9. I already submitted mine on 28/8, now we'll wait for the other attorney to submit his
Update Sept 15th - Attorney Dafna Tachover and Attorney Michael Bach, both submitted today, 15/9/14, their responses to the government's response to the Claimants' motions for an Intermediary Injunction.
CROSS YOUR FINGERS. A decision of the Court in the Motion for the Intermediary Injunction is due any day now.
- EHS is a real condition caused by radiation and that children in Israel and worldwide are becoming sick.
- The thermal safety standard (in Israel it is 1/10 of the thermal but is based on the thermal assumption), may not be correct. However, by admitting that EHS is real he admitted non-thermal effects are proven.
- He explained that since Wi-Fi is causing 2 billion changes a second to the cells, it harms the ability of the immune system to handle other stressors.
- He said that likely this radiation will later be classified as a 1A carcinogen.
- He explained that in a class with 40 RF emitting devices the radiation may be very high.
- His position is that WI-Fi should be banned in schools.MORE DETAILS AND EXPLANATIONS ARE FOLLOWING:BackgroundOn 26th of August 2012, together with National Parents Leadership, the Non-Profit for Sane Cellular Use I filed in the Israeli Supreme Court in its role as the High Court, a petition for an injunction prohibiting Wi-Fi in all Israeli schools to protect the health of the children. Later, 4 Plaintiffs (claimants) were added to the case – a family of 4 – Ran & Efrat Grennberg and their 2 children.The government respondents are the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Environmental Protection.Conditional Injunction Issued - On April 23, 2014, after 20 months of litigation, a conditional injunction ( a bit similar to an order to show cause in the U.S.).The attorney that represented us was Michael Bach. However, as a result of strategic differences, for example on the issue of EHS which the other attorney did not want to pursue while I claimed that it is the strongest reason for a ban, I separated from him, and since February of 2013, I’m representing myself.Judgesq/ustices - The 2 most senior judges in the court are sitting on this case – The President of the Court and the Deputy President are 2q3 Justices on the case.The Type of Case We SubmittedThe Supreme Court is also the High Court of Justice and it’s main role as such, is hearing cases regarding the legality of decisions of State authorities. In such cases the court can grant relief through orders such as an injunction against the authorities, order to compel the authorities to act or to stop acting in a certain manner.These are not ‘normal’ cases, as most of the work is done by briefs and affidavits and the hearings are mainly to clarify for the Court issues it may have questions about.An action for injunction is the type of action we brought, an action against the Ministry of Education, Health and the Environmental protection which in Israel it is the Ministry responsible to set up the safety standards regarding electromagnetic fields including wireless radiation.Such an action for an injunction against the government is a 2 stage process. In the first stage we submit a petition for a “Conditional Injunction”. Which is what we got in April 2014. Then the second stage is where the Court decides whether the conditional injunction becomes a permanent injunction.Essentially after the conditional injunction, the Court gives the gov last chance to convince the Court why the permanent injunction would not become permanent.This power the court has is a dangerous power as it interferes with the principle of separation of powers and as the Court does not want to manage the country it’s using this power very carefully. Therefore, it’s not easy to get the conditional injunction and most cases are dismissed when submitted and others are dismissed along the long way.The burden of proof is high. It’s not enough to show that there was a bad judgment on the part of the authorities, in order to get the conditional injunction we had to prove extreme unreasonableness on the part of the authorities. Court issues a conditional injunction only if the court is considerably convinced by the plaintiff’s arguments.It took us 20 months and many briefs and appendices including evidence of widespread sickness from the radiation amongst children, to get the conditional injunction.EHSAmongst all the other issues, I argued on the following main issues:(1) That the government is acting in violation of its own alleged policy that the schools should prefer wired internet and in effect it installs and encourages the installation of wi-fi.(2) We claimed that the harms of wireless technology are proven and that the thermal safety standard is anachronistic.(3)EHS is proven and an epidemic.EHS has become a central part of the case when I proved to the Court widespread Gov.A major breakthrough on the issue of EHS was when on July 18th, 2013, after an extensive brief I submitted as to the issue of the safety standard and EHS, the Court decision requested information from the Gov regarding EHS. It asked to receive information as to how many children are sick, what the gov did to check and it required that the information would be submitted in an affidavit.We worked tirelessly and kept the pressure on by finding more children who became EHS and proving to the Court that the government lies and while it alleges that it is promoting wired networks its actions are proving the opposite.While the EHS was not a central argument in the lawsuit itself, it has became a central part.MORE INFO ABOUT THE ARGUMENTS CAN BE FOUND IN THE OTHER UPDATES.