more - Hauptseite

Handeln auch Sie !

  1. Court kicks back phone radiation cases
  2. Ericsson and Nokia loose a High Court case in USA
  3. USA, Weg für fünf Sammelklagen von Mobilfunkgegnern frei
  4. Mass actions now?
  5. USA, Produkthaftung, Fahrlässigkeit und Betrug
  6. US- Comments - copy



Oberster Gerichtshof der USA weist Mobiltelefonprozess nicht ab

8.11.2005

Der oberste Gerichtshof weigerte sich, eine Sammelklage abzuweisen, die Mobiltelefonhersteller beschuldigt, sie würden Kunden nicht vor gefährlicher Strahlung schützen. Die Mobiltelefonindustrie wandte ein, dass die Klagen abgewiesen werden sollten, weil die Geräte den gesetzlichen Vorschriften entsprechen.

Die Gerichte lehnten diesen Einwand kommentarlos ab. In verschiedenen Staaten wurden Klagen eingereicht, die fordern, dass die Hersteller die Mobiltelefone sicherer machen. Die Ankläger wollen Hinweise für die Anwender und Freisprechanlagen, weil diese das Risiko von Hirntumoren verringern sollen.

Die Verbraucher behaupten, die Industrie verletze verschiedene Gesetze, zum Beispiel im Hinblick auf Verbraucherschutz, Produkthaftung, Fahrlässigkeit und Betrug.



US-Bundesgericht ermöglicht Mobilfunk-Sammelklagen

1. November 2005

Das oberste Gericht der USA will einen Appell von Mobilfunkanbietern nicht anhören und macht so den Weg für fünf Sammelklagen von Mobilfunkgegnern frei.

Mobilfunkgegner haben in verschiedenen US-Staaten fünf Sammelklagen wegen zu hoher Strahlenbelastung eingereicht, wie Reuters mitteilt. Die betroffenen Anbieter haben gegen die Klagen zunächst mit Erfolg appelliert; nun hat der US Supreme Court aber entschieden, die Anbieter nicht anzuhören. Die Klagen der Gegner sind damit nun doch zugelassen.


In der Argumentation der Anbieter, darunter Nokia und Cingular Wireless, ging es vor allem darum, daß Mobilfunk-Zulassungen in den USA landesweit durch die FCC (Federal Communications Commission) erteilt werden und somit nicht auch noch einzelstaatlichen Regelungen unterworfen sein sollten: die Anbieter haben Bammel vor einer "Balkanisierung der Netzwerkstandards", wie es in der Appellationsschrift heisst - sie fürchten, dass FCC-genehmigte Geräte künftig nicht mehr automatisch in allen US-Staaten benutzt werden können und das Geschäft damit komplizierter wird. (ub)

Quelle: http://infoweek.ch/



Ericsson and Nokia loose a High Court case in USA

1 Nov 2005

From: Gotemf@aol.com

Ericsson and Nokia loose a High Court case in USA

Class action ahead?

The Mobile telephone manufactures did not succeed with their Stop-proposal at the American High Court. The Mobile phone manufacturers wanted to put a stop for consumers being able to take out court summons. Against them related to health risk from radiation from mobile phones, according to Bloomberg news.

The manufacturers behind the proposal were, between others, Nokia, Motorola and Ericsson. The High Court decision opens up for a class action against the mobile phone manufacturers, to go ahead. A group of consumers in Louisiana demands that every mobile phone user be given a headset to lower the radiation.

Analysts tells Bloomberg news that the decision can open up for mass actions, by people who have contracted cancer, running into multimillions against the mobile phone manufacturers.


http://dagensps.se/

Translated from Swedish by Agnes

http://mast-victims.org/



Mass actions now?

Supreme Court rejects cell phone radiation appeal

October 31, 2005

Class action lawsuits against cell phone makers over radiation emissions will be able to go forward, after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal by the companies.

The high court rejected hearing an appeal by companies like Nokia and Cingular Wireless challenging a decision by a U.S. appeals court that reinstated the lawsuits that argued manufacturers knew about and hid the risks of radiation emissions wireless phones posed to users.

Wireless phones are radios that emit frequency radiation, and in the United States the Federal Communications Commission must approve any device that sends out such radiation.

Exposure to high levels of radiation can cause adverse health effects, but it is less clear the impact on a wireless phone user who is exposed to low levels of radiation when a phone is held to an ear directly.

Health advocates have expressed concerns about radiation causing problems ranging from headaches to tumors. But the wireless industry has pointed to U.S. government statements that scientific evidence so far has not shown any health problems associated with wireless phone use.

Five class action lawsuits were filed in state courts seeking damages, including money for wireless users to buy a headset or reimburse those who had already had purchased one.

A U.S. district court judge dismissed the five lawsuits on the grounds that state regulation of wireless phone emissions was pre-empted by the FCC, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit overturned that decision and reinstated the cases.

The wireless industry is worried about being required to adhere to numerous different emissions requirements imposed by states, something the service providers and manufacturers argue would wreak havoc on the industry and consumers.

"This court's intervention is necessary to prevent the balkanisation of network standards...which will, if uncorrected, undermine the ability of consumers to use an FCC-approved wireless telephone in every state of the union," they said in their appeal to the high court.

Other companies that joined in the appeal include Motorola and Qualcomm. Cingular Wireless is a joint venture of BellSouth and SBC Communications

As a result of the high court's action, one lawsuit will go forward in federal court while the four other lawsuits will go forward in state court.

org. exstory link
Ericsson and Nokia loose a High Court case in USA
USA, Weg für fünf Sammelklagen von Mobilfunkgegnern frei
Mass actions now?
exUS- Comments -this article is no longer available.
US- Comments - copy



Court kicks back phone radiation cases

March 18, 2005

Five lawsuits alleging Nokia failed to warn that cell phones emit "unsafe" radiation were kicked back to state courts, following a federal appeals court decision this week.

The U.S. Appeals Court for the Fourth District returned the cases to state courts because they lacked federal issues. The ruling did not reach a conclusion on the merits of the cases or whether cell phones are a health hazard.

The five lawsuits allege that mobile phones emit unsafe levels of radio frequency radiation and that Nokia has put the public at risk by marketing the devices without headsets.

Although the cases were filed in state courts in Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, New York and Pennsylvania, they were consolidated and filed with a federal district court in Maryland. That court dismissed all five cases on the grounds that their state law claims were preempted by the Federal Communications Act.

The plaintiffs appealed the district court's decision and asked that their respective cases be returned to the state courts, where they will now be heard.

org. exstory link

Ericsson and Nokia loose a High Court case in USA
USA, Weg für fünf Sammelklagen von Mobilfunkgegnern frei
Mass actions now?- original Article
exUS- Comments -this article is no longer available.
US- Comments - copy




Supreme Court rejects cell phone radiation appeal

Reuters, by Staff
from LucianneForum.htm - no longer available

Posted By: Photoonist - 10/31/2005 7:26:21 PM    Post Reply

Class action lawsuits against cell phone makers over radiation emissions will be able to go forward, after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal by the companies. The high court rejected hearing an appeal by companies like Nokia and Cingular Wireless challenging a decision by a U.S. appeals court that reinstated the lawsuits that argued manufacturers knew about and hid the risks of radiation emissions wireless


Comments:

You can really see that fears of problems from using cell phones have slowed down their usage, even among lawyers. [end sarcasm] Oridinary people will receive a pittance from any class action lawsuits and the bottom-feeding. blood sucking, scum slurping, dung wallowing tort lawyers will get bigger homes and cars.
Reply 1 - Posted by: avikingman, 10/31/2005 7:35:13 PM


Strong letter to follow.


Ditto.
Reply 2 - Posted by: Blackeagle, 10/31/2005 8:22:13 PM


Exposure to cellphone radiation may leave the user temporarily dazed and confused.

One point, the farther one is from a cell tower, the more radiation the phone is designed to transmit so as to maintain a good connection.

To help make your brain safe, one could use one of those headsets you see some folks at airports using - the folks that look like they're wandering around talking to themselves. Of course on the streets of NYC that sort of behavior would be considered normal.
Reply 3 - Posted by: kanphil, 10/31/2005 8:23:03 PM


This another breast implant scam by trial lawyers. All the scientific evidence indicates that there is no harm from cell phone radiation.
Reply 4 - Posted by: sepcodale, 10/31/2005 9:20:37 PM


tell it to the people that have brain tumors next to their ears.
Reply 5 - Posted by: citizen1, 10/31/2005 9:22:58 PM


We use speaker phones.
Reply 6 - Posted by: usmcsarge, 10/31/2005 9:57:12 PM


Another example of why our courts must be reined in. The rad enviros have a large hat from which they neverendingly pull more "crises". As soon as one is shown to be without merit, up pops another.

An extremely small sample: alar; microwave transmissions; ozone holes; imminent ice age; poisonous potatos (from GM); the return of cyclical famines; oil gone by 1995; etc/ad nauseum; need I go on?

The enviros will kill us before the environment will!

Old marine Sarge
Reply 7 - Posted by: Zarin, 10/31/2005 9:59:42 PM


I thought that had all been debunked. See junkscience.com!
Reply 8 - Posted by: Douglas DC, 10/31/2005 10:04:21 PM


#7 correct- this is a Laywer employment act...
Reply 9 - Posted by: heyboom, 10/31/2005 10:16:57 PM


Poster described these guys perfectly! There isn't anything they won't go after. And until people start realizing who is actually making the bank in these suits, they'll keep going after anything they can.
Reply 10 - Posted by: doubting thomas, 10/31/2005 10:24:04 PM


Cellphones, best thing after peanut butter, asperins,and automobiles! Turn yours off before going to Movies, Church, Court, School Board Meetings and etc., please.
Reply 11 - Posted by: micktexan, 10/31/2005 10:27:09 PM


Do I smell Tobacco?...again?
I'm really surprised these multinational corporations haven't put hit jobs on these tort lawyers...
Reply 12 - Posted by: CuteSocks, 10/31/2005 11:50:13 PM


Kinda gives 'can you hear me now?' a whole new meaning.
Reply 13 - Posted by: Boomhauer, 11/1/2005 9:24:15 AM


Tinfoil hat...

Talkback: Supreme Court rejects cell phone radiation appeal

from http://news.com.com/


Lawyers are cripling the US

Reader post by: Eric Brandel 

Posted on: Oktober 31, 2005, 12:54 PM PST

Story: Supreme Court rejects cell phone radiation appeal

A close relative of mine was involved with the roll out of one of the first commercial cell networks. They in fact did _extensive_ studies to determine whether or not there would be any adverse affects to humans and found no reason to conclude that there would be.

These studies were based on the very high output devices (compared to today) of the late 70's and early 80's.

Another example of sleezeball lawyers trying to get rich. One can only wonder when something will truly be done to limit the adverse affects that out of control lawyers are having on the US. 2% of the US's GDP now goes to pay for lawyers and lawsuits.
and...

Reader post by: Below Meigh 

Posted on: Oktober 31, 2005, 1:16 PM PST

Story: Supreme Court rejects cell phone radiation appeal

Ha. I have to laugh at that.
Let's first start with research of the 70's and 80's.
And then. The number of cellphones available to the consumer and towers in the 70's and 80's versus today. Much longer battery life now. Much longer talk times.
And then the effects of long-term exposure over time. (oh, being out in the sun isn't bad as long as you wear sunscreen (still SPF rating questionable) or close...yet look at the increase of melanoma over last 5 years.
Granted, some test mice, ergo humans, are not as susceptible to radiation as perceived. But longterm use, combined with other factors (distance user is to/from tower, other emmision-devices, daily use...) can actually be defined as harmful.

The farther the cellphone is from a tower, the more power it uses to send.

Rushing technology out for profit is how it all ends.
It's not just the lawyers....

Reader post by: Earl Benser 

Posted on: Oktober 31, 2005, 1:19 PM PST

Story: Supreme Court rejects cell phone radiation appeal

... The lawyers couldn't get a suit off the ground if they didn't
have a surplus of clients who are budding paranoids. With just a
small bit of incompetent research and this cell phone FUD was
underway.

But people are people, and stupid things are done all the time.
Just look at the number of people who think that magnets on
their wrist, in their shoes, or taped to their water line are going
to make any difference at all in their lives.

Ol' P.T. Barnum sure was right.
Democratic Fundraiser 2006

Reader post by: Gerhard Schroeder 

Posted on: November 1, 2005, 9:52 AM PST

Story: Supreme Court rejects cell phone radiation appeal

Hehehe... suckers... open your wallets for the DNC.

You don't want to pay? OK, then the lawyers will win court mandated "tarrifs" on your cell, on your cheeseburger, on your gun, on your video games, whatever is making money at the time.

Bring out the victims! Its time for a puppet show...

Where did this come from????

Reader post by: Earl Benser 

Posted on: November 1, 2005, 11:19 AM PST

Story: Supreme Court rejects cell phone radiation appeal

nt
Documents of the case in Supreme Court

Reader post by: Matti Wirmaneva 

Posted on: November 4, 2005, 4:00 AM PST

Story: Supreme Court rejects cell phone radiation appeal

Can anybody give a piece of advise. How to get the court documents of this case?

This is wery interesting court case and this will definitively have influence in the application of the safety criterias of the microwaves.




Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Clerk
Main Office


Internet Web Site:
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov

PACER link:
https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/

The PACER Service Center values your privacy. If you visit our site to read or download information, we collect and store only the following information:

  The name of the domain from which you access the Internet.
  The date and time you access our site. PACER staff will not give, sell or transfer any personal information to third parties, except in the following cases:

  To secure payment of delinquent fees, identifying information may be transmitted to a collection agency.
  If compelled by law.
  If you direct us to do so.
  In other legally limited circumstances (for example, to protect your account from fraud)
exmore

Increase in Electronic Access Fee

The Judicial Conference of the United States has increased the fee for electronic access to court data via the Internet from $.07 per page to $.08 per page, effective January 1, 2005. The maximum charge per document is $2.40, and no fee is owed until an account holder accrues charges of more than $10 in a calendar year.

Electronic Availability of Case Information

Court’s docket, notices, orders, and opinions are available in electronic form, via WebPACER, on the Court’s internet site at www.ca4.uscourts.gov. Although documents filed by the parties are not posted on the Court’s internet site, briefs are copied and posted at web sites maintained by other organizations soon after filing with the Court. Therefore, parties should not include in their public filings information that is too private or sensitive to appear on the internet.

Specifically, it is the policy of the U.S. Judicial Conference that parties not include, or partially redact where inclusion is necessary, the following personal data identifiers from documents being prepared for initial filing, particularly where those identifiers may be made available in electronic form:

- Social Security Numbers. If an individual’s social security number must be included, only the last four digits of that number should be used.

- Names of Minor Children. If the involvement of a minor child must be mentioned, only the initials of that child should be used.

- Dates of Birth. If an individual’s date of birth must be included, only the year should be used.

- Financial Account Numbers. If financial account numbers are relevant, only the last four digits of these numbers should be used.

- Home Addresses in Criminal Cases. If a home address must be included, only the city and state should be listed.


from http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/RuleAmend.htm





Talkback: Court kicks back phone radiation cases

from http://news.com.com/


This is a clear proof....

Reader post by: Earl Benser 

Posted on: März 18, 2005, 8:50 AM PST

Story: Court kicks back phone radiation cases

... that there are for more lawyers than anyone needs. Stupid BS
suits like this one, totaly without technical merit, and
damn little legal merit are an absolute waste of court time. The
plaintiffs should be billed for expenses to date and tossed out.
The lawyers should be disbarred for, if nothing else, a lack of
intelligence.
Do you work for Nokia?

Reader post by: Slayer Slayer 

Posted on: März 18, 2005, 9:44 AM PST

Story: Court kicks back phone radiation cases

Just wondering what your basing your comments on sir? The effects of cellular phone RF after a long term have not been dismissed as of yet. Plenty of studies have been done on the emmissions of cellular phones and every one of them says the same, prolonged exposure may be hazardous in close proximity to the head. Nokia cell phones were some of the first on the scene, and I don't remember one warning from nokia when I bought my phone from them.

Just my opinion but your claims bad mouthing lawyers and their clients for excersising their rights to file lawsuits is without merit, not the suits. This is America, those are the laws. If you don't like it... well you have other options.
We need...

Reader post by: Earl Benser 

Posted on: März 18, 2005, 11:53 AM PST

Story: Court kicks back phone radiation cases

... better laws and fewer lawyers.

And alll the serious cell phone research has yet to find a single
case of adverse effects of cell phone usage. Radiation based,
that is.

....

Reader post by: Matt Schroeder 

Posted on: März 20, 2005, 9:29 PM PST

Story: Court kicks back phone radiation cases

You my friend are retarded




neu hinzu suchen

Gästebuch

Neu hinzu | Termine |

umtsno.de