The information below is if you still have your ANALOG meter in place. Information on how to get rid of your already-installed Smart Meter is not yet available, but will be posted at Citizens For Safe Technology as soon as it is.
Here is the latest information from Citizens For Safe Technology on dealing with BC Hydro and its Smart Meter program.
Your Guide to Understanding and completing your Non-Negotiable PRIVATE NOTICE PRIVATE OWNER’S “CLAIM OF RIGHT” for “Electrical Code Compliance.”
N.B. NOT TO BE COMPLETED UNTIL AFTER YOU HAVE RECEIVED PERSONAL NOTICE FROM BC HYDRO.
There are a few blanks to fill in and easy, short instructions for how to send your notice:
HOW TO FILL IN THE FORM:
This is the form that is easily filled out for sending REGISTERED MAIL to BC Hydro:
You can TYPE DIRECTLY into the _________ spots, by simply clicking on them. A rectangle will appear and you can type whatever is required.
EXPLANATION OF TERMS AND PROCEDURES:
Differences between the Private & Public
“CLAIM OF RIGHT” POSTER:
This is to post by your meter. It is NOT to take the place of the written forms; it is IN ADDITION to them. Doing the “Claim of Right Form” is REQUIRED for you to help prevent meter install.http://bcfreedom.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/poster-claim-of-right.pdf
N.B. You will not be able to just post the poster and have that be the end of it. You will be required to first take the quick easy steps in the INSTRUCTION GUIDE (noted above).
Note that other sites within this movement against meters will be carrying this documentation so people can be referred to them also. Solidarity is key in this issue from leadership to individual, just as it has been from the beginning.
Read all of these documents in their entirety, preferably more than once. Most importantly, get this tool to as many people as possible, as soon as possible. For people without computers, or “English as a second language” persons, or anyone confused by, or incapable of following, these directions, offer to help them to fill in and send the form.
“The contents are for educational purposes only. The author is not an attorney and cannot give legal advice. If you require legal advice, by all means find a competent attorney. Please accept these offerings as given. For some, these materials may offer assistance in finding viable solutions.”
Further, please read “R. v. Dell” below, an Alberta court case in 2005 which addresses PRIVATE RIGHTS! Here we have a COURT OF CANADA in AGREEMENT. This case identifies the PRIVATE, and explains its POWER within the PUBLIC. Specifically how, PUBLIC laws (Legal Statutes, Acts, Policy, Bylaws, Rules and Regulations) do not apply within the PRIVATE under the Rule of Law –– the common law.
The following are excerpts taken from the case. The actual case can be read at
R. v. Dell, 2005 ABCA 246 (CanLII)
“Section 52 sets out the fundamental principle of constitutional law that the Constitution is supreme…
The mere fact a private person or entity performs what may loosely be termed a “public function” or an activity “public” in nature will not suffice to bring it within the purview of government for the purposes of section 32 of the Charter…
For the charter to apply to a private entity, it must be found to be implementing a specific governmental policy or program…
An entity may also be government not because of the nature of the entity, but because of the nature of the activity…
The Charter does not apply to interactions between private citizens, except where the private citizen acts as an agent of the state or is performing a government function…
The undoubted corollary to be drawn from this principle is that no one can be convicted of an offence under an unconstitutional law…
Any accused, whether corporate or individual, may defend a criminal charge by arguing that the law under which the charge is brought is constitutionally invalid…
And both the purpose and the effects of legislation relevant in assessing a constitutionality and either an unconstitutional purpose or an unconstitutional effect can invalidate the legislation…
A court not only has the power but the duty to regard legislation found to be inconsistent with the charter to the extent of the inconsistency as of being no longer of force or effect.”