Is Court's Ruling a Big Deal?

Judge Rudy Nichols, Oakland County Circuit Court

The court’s ruling does not preclude any person in Michigan from presenting evidence in their own case regarding health or privacy issues.

The lesson is: You must be very careful and detailed in what you submit to the court.

There is a short and a longer version of this story. The short version comes first. Skip down to the series of @@@@@ if you want to read the longer version.

Donna and Ralph Stenman took the smart meter off their home in the spring of 2012, when DTE had first begun installing smart meters in Michigan. They removed it because of its severe impact on Donna’s health and concerns about its potential effects on Ralph’s heart. This being some of the very first resistance DTE encountered to its smart meter program, DTE filed suit against them in circuit court, as well as one other couple, thinking that they would quickly and easily suppress the fight against smart meters by filing these two cases. How wrong they were, thanks to all of you! Since those two cases were filed, DTE has not filed suit against anyone.

The Stenmans represented themselves. They are not lawyers, and they did their best before the court. When DTE brought this action against them, the Stenmans had to show that they had a good chance of proving that DTE's case had no merit if the case went to trial. To do this, they had to present evidence. The circuit judge felt the evidence submitted was insufficient, and ruled for DTE. The Stenmans appealed to the court of appeals. The court has just issued a ruling against them.

The appeals court said: “In support of their health-related defense, defendants [the Stenmans] provided the affidavit of Dr. Hillman, discussing the health of a three-year-old child not involved in the instant case. The affidavit does not establish that the smart meter installed at defendants’ home operated in a similar fashion [to the one on the child’s home], emitted the same level of ‘electricity [that] permeat[ed] the house,’ or caused similar health effects, and thus fails to be competent evidence that the smart meter installed on defendants’ property posed a risk to defendants’ health.” In other words, the court is saying that you have to prove what is going on in your case, not somewhere else with someone else. The court’s ruling does not preclude any other person in Michigan from presenting evidence in their own case regarding health or privacy issues. What anyone who does bring such a case must do is be sure to show at the preliminary hearing that their health has actually been damaged or that their privacy has actually been invaded.

The court of appeals could only review the evidence that was submitted to the circuit court. This is where having good legal representation comes in. A good lawyer knows the kind of evidence that must be presented to make a good case, and knows how much must be presented at a preliminary hearing. We have been told that you must basically present your full-fledged case at a preliminary hearing in order to go to trial. If the judge rules against you, when you appeal, you will have evidence to show that the judge ruled wrongly.

The court’s opinion stated that a smart meter is a meter under the rules that govern DTE. This comes as no surprise to us at the Smart Meter Education Network. It has been clear to us from the start that the smart meter falls within the definition of meter, and we have never based our advice or actions on whether a smart meter fits the definition of a meter. Obviously, this in no way changes our contention that the meter damages health and invades privacy.

The court stated that the Stenmans’ right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated, mainly because, once again, evidence was not presented that backed up their claim. They simply filed a report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which stated that smart meters could potentially invade privacy. They did not submit any evidence to show that their privacy had been invaded. In any case like this, you have to show that you have been harmed, not just that there is the potential for harm.

You can read the court’s full opinion on the court of appeals website.

We stand in full support of the Stenmans. You can, too. Talking to your state legislators and informing everyone you know is critical to getting legislation passed that will put an end to DTE’s Gestapo-like tactics. It is up to you. The Stenmans have put forth a huge amount of effort. Please take one hour of your week to make an appointment with your legislators, write your legislators and the newspapers, or pass out one of our awesome flyers! 

Grassroots efforts require many blades of grass! Make sure we are all free by being one of those blades! 

 “The expert in battle moves the enemy, and is not moved by him.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War—
Be a mover! And do not let the enemy—DTE—move you!

 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Long version of the Stenmans' story and
the court of appeals ruling

Donna and Ralph Stenman took the smart meter off their home in the spring of 2012, when DTE had first begun installing smart meters in Michigan. They removed it because of its severe impact on Donna’s health and concerns about its potential effects on Ralph’s heart. This being some of the very first resistance DTE encountered to its smart meter program, DTE filed suit against them in circuit court, as well as one other couple, thinking that they would quickly and easily suppress the fight against smart meters by filing these two cases. How wrong they were, thanks to all of you! Since those two cases were filed, DTE has not filed suit against anyone.

The Stenmans represented themselves. They are not lawyers, and they did their best before the court. When DTE brought this civil action against them, they had to show that they had a good chance of showing that DTE's case had no merit. They told the court that their health and privacy were being harmed by the smart meter on their home by making a few assertions, submitting a letter from their doctor, and presenting the NIST report on privacy and a case study of a single individual from a professor.

Judge Rudy Nichols, the judge in the Stenman case, is well known in legal circles to always rule for the corporation against the individual, so we can’t have expected much him. It came as no surprise that he  issued a summary judgment against the Stenmans.  This meant that the Stenmans were denied a trial, where they could more fully develop their case, and the judge simply ruled in favor of DTE. (Nearly identical evidence was presented to a different circuit judge in the other couple’s case, and that judge found the evidence sufficient to make a preliminary ruling against DTE. This does not mean the judge will ultimately rule in favor of this couple, but it does mean that  the judge felt that there was a chance they could prove their claim and so deserved a chance.)

In April of 2014, the Stenmans appealed Judge Nichols’s ruling to the Michigan Court of Appeals. That court has just issued a ruling stating that the Judge Nichols ruled fairly in deciding that the Stenmans did not meet their initial burden at a preliminary hearing. The question of whether a defendant has met the initial burden is a matter of the judge’s discretion, within certain limits, and so different judges may reach different conclusions. As we just noted, in the face of the same evidence, one judge ruled that DTE could have a summary judgment (Stenmans), while another judge ruled that  the defendants deserve a trial.

In April of 2014, the Stenmans appealed Judge Nichols’s ruling to the Michigan Court of Appeals. That court has just issued a ruling stating that the Judge Nichols ruled fairly in deciding that the Stenmans did not meet their initial burden at a preliminary hearing. The question of whether a defendant has met the initial burden is a matter of the judge’s discretion, within certain limits, and so different judges may reach different conclusions. As we just noted, in the face of the same evidence, one judge ruled that DTE could have a summary judgment (Stenmans), while another judge ruled that  the defendants deserve a trial.

The court of appeals could only review the evidence that was submitted at the trial. This is where having good legal representation comes in. A good lawyer knows the kind of evidence that must be presented to make a good case, and knows how much must be presented at a preliminary hearing. We have been told that you must basically present your full-fledged case at a preliminary hearing in order to go to trial. If the judge rules against you, when you appeal, you will have evidence to show that the judge ruled wrongly.

The Stenmans had offered an affidavit from Dr. Donald Hillman that a smart meter had severely harmed the health of a three-year-old child over a period of many months. That evidence was offered in the belief that it would create at least reasonable suspicion that an identical meter installed on the couple’s home could produce similar health damage if it remained on the home long enough, and that the judge would therefore grant a trial. The circuit judge felt the evidence submitted was insufficient, and the appeals court upheld his decision, stating, “The affidavit does not establish that the smart meter installed at defendants’ home operated in a similar fashion, emitted the same level of ‘electricity [that] permeat[ed] the house,’ or caused similar health effects, and thus fails to be competent evidence that the smart meter installed on defendants’ property posed a risk to defendants’ health.” In other words, they court is saying that you have to prove what is going on in your case, not somewhere else with someone else. The court’s ruling does not preclude any other person in Michigan from presenting evidence in their own case regarding health or privacy issues. What anyone who does bring such a case must do is be sure to show at the preliminary hearing that their health has actually been damaged or that their privacy has actually been invaded.

The court’s opinion stated that a smart meter is a meter under the rules that govern DTE. This comes as no surprise to us at the Smart Meter Education Network. It has been clear to us from the start that the smart meter falls within the definition of meter, and we have never based our advice or actions on whether a smart meter fits the definition of a meter. Obviously, this in no way changes our contention that the meter damages health and invades privacy.

The court stated that the Stenmans’ right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated, mainly because, once again, evidence was not presented to back up their claim. They simply filed a report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which stated that smart meters could potentially invade privacy. They did not submit any evidence to show that their privacy had been invaded.

You can read the court’s full opinion on the court of appeals website.

We stand in full support of the Stenmans. You can, too. Talking to your state legislators and informing everyone you know is critical to getting legislation passed that will put an end to DTE’s Gestapo-like tactics. It is up to you. The Stenmans have put forth a huge amount of effort. Please take one hour of your week to make an appointment with your legislators, write your legislators and the newspapers, or pass out one of our awesome flyers! 

Grassroots efforts require many blades of grass! Make sure we are all free by being one of those blades!

 “The expert in battle moves the enemy, and is not moved by him.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War—
Be a mover! And do not let the enemy—DTE—move you!

Learn more at the SmartMeterEducationNetwork