FCC Seeks Comments on Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) Exposure Guidelines


  • Ajit Pai shared with his colleagues on Aug 9, 2019 a proposal that would continue to maintain the Commission’s existing radio-frequency (RF) exposure limits.

  • The Commission seeks comment on establishing rules formalizing its existing methods of determining compliance with the RF exposure standard for high-frequency devices.

An excellent response to this press release was posted by Joel Moskowitz, PhD.

Link to Part I: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations–Key Testimony Submitted to the FCC

[The FCC’s] assertions do not reflect the state of the scientific literature regarding RF health effects, nor do they adequately reflect the public comment received by the FCC over the past six years regarding RF exposure limits for Proceeding Number 13-84.

The FCC has no health expertise and relies upon Federal health agencies, especially the FDA, for advice about RF exposure limits. However, these agencies have lacked the requisite expertise to provide this guidance as their RF health experts retired or took industry jobs. In the past decade, these agencies have failed to monitor the vast and growing body of peer-reviewed research that documents adverse health effects from low-intensity exposure to radio-frequency radiation. Rather, the Federal government has increasingly relied upon advice from engineers and scientists with conflicts of interest and industry lobbyists.

26 States Now Ban or Restrict Community Broadband

by Karl Bode | Apr 18 2019 } Original Motherboard article here.

Many of the laws restricting local voters’ rights were directly written by a Telecom sector terrified of real broadband competition.


A new report has found that 26 states now either restrict or outright prohibit towns and cities from building their own broadband networks. Quite often the laws are directly written by the telecom sector, and in some instances ban towns and cities from building their own broadband networks—even if the local ISP refuses to provide service.

The full report by BroadbandNow, a consumer-focused company that tracks US broadband availability, indicates the total number of state restrictions on community broadband has jumped from 20 such restrictions since the group’s last report in 2018.

Continue reading “26 States Now Ban or Restrict Community Broadband”

FCC Cost Misallocation Raises Bills, Undermines Competition, and Widens the Digital Divide

By Mark Cooper, Apr 17, 2019 | Original Press Release here.

Appeals Court Must Stop Billions of Dollars of Illegal Costs Dumped on Local Telephone Customers

Washington, D.C. – Mark Cooper, Director of Research for the Consumer Federation of America, joined a law suit challenging the decision of the Federal Communication Commission1 to extend the allocation of costs between federal and state jurisdictions that was adopted in 2000 for another six years.

Statement of Dr. Mark Cooper
Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America

The consumer pocketbook impact of the misallocation of costs is huge, totaling $150-$250 billion ($200-$300 per household per year) over the next six years.

By misallocating costs and recovering them from the wrong people – not the cost causers – the allocation that the FCC seeks to freeze for six years, wreaks havoc on consumer pocketbooks with hundreds of billions of dollars of misallocation and over-recovery of costs. In addition, this misguided position:

  • Raises local rates, by claiming that local service is unprofitable, which imposes a huge burden on low- and middle-income consumer pocketbooks;
  • Facilitates the cross-subsidization of vertically integrated services, which allows the local telephone giants to undermine potential entrants and competitors, diminishing the benefits of competition that all consumer can enjoy; and,
  • Hides excess profits in the transfer of wealth from consumers to communications giants.

The most effective first step in dealing with these problems is to cut them off at the source. Without the misallocation and over-recovery of costs, the goals of the Communications Act –

  1. Universal service
  2. Just and reasonable rates,
  3. Increased competition

. . . will be much easier.

Convincing the court that the FCC allocation is illegal will force a more realistic, 21st century separation of costs between the intrastate and interstate jurisdictions. Costs that are shifted into the interstate jurisdiction cannot be recovered in the intrastate jurisdictions, which will trigger a huge scrum between incumbents, competitors and consumers over the resources that are “made available” by the correction of the allocation error in both the federal and state jurisdictions. Predicting how that will come out is difficult, but one thing is certain, it will be more favorable to consumers and competitors than the current frozen rip-off.

The true rate of profitability of local services will be revealed as follows:

  • States with continuing regulation of local rates will be forced to lower them to ensure that they are just and reasonable.

  • States that have shifted to some form of price cap will have to adjust the caps in recognition of the dramatic reduction in costs.

  • States that have deregulated will be under immense pressure to lower rates so that consumers enjoy at least part of the benefit of correcting the misallocation error.

At the federal level, the FCC will be confronted with the problem that the companies will want to raise rates to cover the costs that have been illegally charged to the intrastate jurisdiction. In the proceeding that follows the reallocation of costs, the FCC will be forced to comply with the 1996 Act with the following results:

  • The FCC will be unable to “justify” rates with astronomical levels of profit.

  • It will have to be attentive to prevent cross-subsidization of more competitive services that is undermined by the abuse of market power by vertically integrated network owners.

  • It will have to acknowledge the negative impact that abusive pricing has had on universal service.

For several reasons, this is a key moment to act:

  1. The FCC had begun to move in the right direction, which the Trump Administration’s FCC has reversed.

  2. A range of ongoing proceedings that would make it much more difficult to deal with these issues are pending and the cost allocation question could stop them in their tracks.

  3. We are about to incur another round of network upgrades to densified 4G and 5G, which will rival, or exceed the total of the past misallocations and make the abuse impossible to correct.

The individuals bringing the case, the IRREGULATORS, with whom I have been working for several years, represent a variety of viewpoints and have filed comments in this and other related proceedings at the FCC, as has the Consumer Federation of America. As this case moves forward, CFA will participate to the fullest extent possible under the Communications and Administrative Procedures Act.

  1. Petition the court for review of the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC”) “agency action” as reflected in the Report and Order and Waiver, In the Matter of Jurisdictional Separations and Referral to the Federal-State Joint Board, FCC 18-182, CC Docket No. 80-286, __ FCC Rcd __ (rel. Dec. 17, 2018), published at 84 FR 4351 (Feb, 15, 2019), and effective March 1, 2019 (see 84 FR 6997 (Mar. 1, 2019), filed April 15, 2019. 

Why Broadband Competition at Faster Speeds is Virtually Nonexistent

By Karl Bode, Apr 13 2019 | Original Motherboard article here.

Phone companies won’t upgrade DSL lines, and cable companies won’t expand their service maps.


New FCC data indicates that competition in the broadband market is virtually nonexistent at faster speeds. Most people are intimately familiar with their lack of alternatives to unpopular incumbent ISPs like Comcast. The inability to vote with your wallet is a major reason U.S. broadband customers pay some of the highest prices in the developed world, and these companies sport some of the worst customer satisfaction ratings of any industry in America.

And while the scattered deployment of Google Fiber and other gigabit connections tend to grab headlines that make us feel good about progress on this front, the reality is that in a large number of American markets the problem is actually getting worse.

Continue reading “Why Broadband Competition at Faster Speeds is Virtually Nonexistent”

Ajit Pai Proposes $20 Billion for Up to Gigabit-Speed Rural Broadband

$20 billion over 10 years to connect up to 4 million rural homes and businesses.

By Jon Brodkin Apr 12, 2019 | Original Ars Technica article here


Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai is proposing a $20.4 billion rural broadband fund that could connect up to four million homes and small businesses over the next ten years.

The new program will be part of the Universal Service Fund (USF), and it will be similar to an existing USF program that began during the Obama administration. In 2015, the USF’s Connect America Fund (CAF) awarded $9 billion for rural broadband deployment—$1.5 billion annually for six years—in order to connect 3.6 million homes and businesses.

Carriers that accepted the CAF money are required to finish the broadband deployments by the end of 2020. Pai’s proposed Rural Digital Opportunity Fund will be the follow-on program, an FCC spokesperson told Ars. The fund would "inject $20.4 billion into high-speed broadband networks in rural America over the next decade," the FCC said.

At $2 billion a year over ten years, the fund will provide more money each year over a longer period of time than the CAF program it would replace. It will also fund higher-speed services. The CAF funding only required carriers, including AT&T and CenturyLink, to deploy broadband with speeds of at least 10Mbps downstream and 1Mbps upstream.

Continue reading “Ajit Pai Proposes $20 Billion for Up to Gigabit-Speed Rural Broadband”

5G is About to Get a Big Boost from Trump and the FCC

By Brian Fung, April 12, 2019 | Original Washington Post article here.


A cellular phone tower. The Trump administration will soon auction more bandwidth to allow 5G wireless service (Jeff Roberson/AP)

The Trump administration and government regulators are expected to unveil a major push Friday afternoon at the White House to accelerate the rollout of the high-speed, next-generation mobile data technology known as 5G.

Under the plan, the Federal Communications Commission will release a wide swath of high-frequency airwaves for cellular use in what will be the largest trove of U.S. wireless spectrum ever to be auctioned off. As much as 3.4 gigahertz of so-called “millimeter-wave” spectrum could be sold to wireless carriers such as AT&T and Verizon in the sale, which will begin Dec. 10, according to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai.

Continue reading “5G is About to Get a Big Boost from Trump and the FCC”

FCC Consumer Advisory Panel Includes ALEC, a Big Foe of Municipal Broadband

Pai brings ALEC to FCC despite AT&T and Verizon quitting the controversial group.

By Jon Brodkin, April 12, 2019 } Original Ars Technica article here.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai speaking at a press conference on October 1, 2018, in Washington, DC.

A committee that advises the Federal Communications Commission on consumer-related matters now includes a representative of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which lobbies against municipal broadband, net neutrality, and other consumer protection measures.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced his Consumer Advisory Committee’s new makeup on Wednesday. One new member is Jonathon Hauenschild, director of ALEC’s Task Force on Communications and Technology. He and other Consumer Advisory Committee will serve two-year terms. ALEC writes model state laws and urges state legislatures to adopt them, and it has helped convince about 20 states to pass laws that make it difficult or impossible for cities and towns to offer broadband service.

Hauenschild, who wrote on Twitter that he’s "looking forward to helping advise the FCC on consumer matters," has told the FCC in filings that it should stop regulating net neutrality and preempt state and local broadband laws. He’s argued that California’s net neutrality law is "disastrous." On the topic of municipal broadband, he argued that states should ensure that municipalities have "tried all other options before launching a municipal network including public-private partnerships."

ALEC has long received financial support from the telecom industry. But Verizon left ALEC in September 2018 after ALEC hosted a speech by right-wing activist David Horowitz, in which Horowitz argued against the legalization of abortion and gay marriage, compared the left wing’s support of "redistribution of income" to slavery, and said that "at the K-12 level, school curricula have been turned over to racist organizations like Black Lives Matter, and terrorist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood."

Verizon explained to The Intercept that it "has no tolerance for racist, white supremacist, or sexist comment[s] or ideals." AT&T subsequently ended its membership in ALEC, also citing the Horowitz speech.

Sprint and T-Mobile had quit ALEC in 2012 and 2015, respectively, "leav[ing] Comcast, Charter Communications, CenturyLink, and Cox Communications as the last major telecom companies sticking with the corporate bill mill," PR Watch reported in November 2018.

ALEC itself admitted that it made a mistake by hosting Horowitz, removed video of the Horowitz speech from its site, and said that it "does not condone hate speech of any kind."

Civil rights advocacy group Color of Change‘s president, Rashad Robinson, blasted Pai for bringing ALEC onto the committee:

— Rashad Robinson (@rashadrobinson) April 12, 2019

The @FCC’s Ajit Pai has shown yet again that he has no interest in protecting consumers, only corporations. The appointment of Jonathon Hauenschild, a member of @ALEC_states leadership, and Katie McAuliffe, from @taxreformer, to the Consumer Advisory Council is a disgrace. pic.twitter.com/hTHs2rn4Hh

Consumer Advocates and Industry Lobbyists on Committee

The FCC’s 27-member Consumer Advisory Committee "provides advice and recommendations to the Commission on a wide array of consumer matters specified by the Commission," the FCC said. The committee held five meetings during its previous two-year term in 2017 and 2018, and the group issued several recommendations related to fighting robocalls.

The group’s membership for 2019 and 2020 does include some consumer advocates, such as representatives of

  • National Consumers League
  • Consumer Reports
  • Consumer Federation of America
  • National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates (NASUCA).

But the committee is also heavy on industry lobbyists, including the four most prominent lobby groups representing home and mobile broadband providers.

  • AT&T is on the committee, representing itself
  • NCTA and ACA—which both dropped the word "cable" from their names in order to improve their reputations — are representing the cable industry.
  • USTelecom and CTIA are represent the Telecom and Wireless industry

The FCC said the committee "consists of a diverse mix of organizations representing consumers, the communications industry, government regulators, trade associations, academia, and other stakeholders including four individuals serving as Special Government Employees."

Member Claims Net Neutrality Bill Would Raise Taxes

One returning member is Katie McAuliffe, federal affairs manager at Americans for Tax Reform. Last month, McAuliffe wrote an op-ed for The Daily Caller titled "Your Internet bill is going up 20 percent if Democrats get their way." McAuliffe’s argument was that the Democratic proposal to reinstate net neutrality rules will let state and local governments impose new fees and taxes on broadband.

McAuliffe failed to mention that the Democrats’ bill would reinstate the same regulatory regime used by the FCC between 2015 and 2018, and that the FCC’s regulatory oversight during that period didn’t lead to the outcome that she now describes as a certainty if the Democrats’ bill passes.

McAuliffe claimed the bill is an end-run around a 2016 law that permanently banned state and local taxation of Internet access. But the Democrats’ net neutrality bill does nothing to override that law.

McAuliffe’s claim of a 20 percent tax on broadband seems to refer to Universal Service fees, which are currently applied only to telephone service and help pay for broadband subsidies for poor people and for deployment of broadband networks in rural areas. Regulating broadband as a common-carrier service, like the FCC did between 2015 and 2018, could theoretically open the door to imposing such fees on broadband. But in Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike have opposed the idea.

During debate on the House floor, Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Penn.) said the Democrats’ bill "permanently prohibits the FCC from applying provisions on rate-setting, unbundling of ISP networks, or levying additional taxes or fees on broadband access."

Pai has faced criticism for the membership of a different group, the FCC’s Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC). San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo quit the group in January 2018 out of frustration that its recommendations favor the interests of private industry over municipalities.

In December 2018, the same FCC group proposed a new tax on Netflix, Google, Facebook, and many other businesses that require Internet access to operate. With committee member AT&T leading the way, the FCC advisory panel recommended giving this new tax money to ISPs.

IRREGULATORS vs. FCC: Exposing One of the Largest Accounting Scandals in American History

Adappted from an article by Bruce Kushnick, Apr 8, 2019 | Original Medium article here.

The IRREGULATORS are appealing a recent FCC decision that tries to fix one of the largest accounting scandals in American history. It is directly tied to AT&T, Verizon and CenturyLink’s State Public Telecom Utliity companies.

Click to Read the Details and learn how to help out.

Nineteen years ago, the FCC, (with the help of AT&T, Verizon and Centurylink) ‘froze’ the cost accounting rules that are used to divide up the expenses of the different subsidiary companies owned by the Telecom Holding Cos. — subsidiaries that share the use of the State Public Telecom Utillity Co. (SPTU) Wireline telecommunications infrastructure (the copper and Fiber Optic wirelines in each state).

In December 2018, the FCC extended this freeze for six more years, through 2025. Unbelievably, for almost two decades the FCC never audited the books. But what is most surprising is — this has been completely under the radar of mainstream media and under the noses of our elected representatives in Washington, DC.

AT&T, Verizon et al. figured out that they could use these FCC accounting rules, (which few know even exist), to force the SPTUs in each state to pay the majority of many expenses for the private Wireless subsidiaries. This trick allowed the Telecom Holding Cos. to artificially make the entire Wireline telecommunications networks in America appear to be unprofitable. These rules also enabled the other Holding Co. subsidiaries that share the use of these Wireline networks to get a free ride.

Most people don’t know that there are still SPTUs, like Verizon-NY, Verizon-MA or AT&T-CA. In addition, few know that these SPTUs are more than just the copper wires: in fact, the SPTUs in each state own and maintain nearly all of the wires within each state — copper and fiber optic. This scheme diverted billions of dollars of construction budgets in each state to pay for

  • FiOS internet and video, Verizon’s fiber-to-the-home service (FTTH)
  • U-Verse internet and video, AT&T’s fiber-and-then-copper-to-the-home DSL service,
  • Private Wireless subsidiaries (Verizon Wireless, AT&T Mobility and others) use of the Wireline infrastructure — the special access copper and fiber, also known or business data services — for data “back haul”.

Continue reading “IRREGULATORS vs. FCC: Exposing One of the Largest Accounting Scandals in American History”

5G May Never Live up to the Hype

By Karl Bode, Apr 8 2019 | Original Motherboard article here

5G will provide faster speeds to urban users, but cost and widespread availability could remain stumbling blocks for many years to come.


To hear wireless carriers tell it, fifth-generation (5G) wireless is going to change the world. Verizon, for example, insists the technology is

Others have claimed 5G will do everything from

But so far, 5G is falling well short of the hype, thanks to mobile carriers that are not only overstating what 5G can do, but where it’s actually available. AT&T, for example, has been widely criticized for trying to trick customers into thinking its existing 4G network is actually 5G — simply by changing phone network icons. Verizon’s early home 5G service (which affixes a 5G antenna to a home’s roof) has been maligned for being barely available in “launched” markets like Sacramento.

The same problem popped up again last week, when Verizon proclaimed the company was the “first in the world” to launch truly mobile 5G service in both Chicago and Minneapolis. But when outlets like CNET and The Verge took a closer look, both found a product that wasn’t ready for prime time.

While Verizon’s new networks delivered speeds upwards of 500 Mbps, actually finding a 5G signal in either city was difficult to impossible. And in addition to paying Verizon $10 extra just to connect to 5G, the launch came with several other caveats. The most notable is the fact that Verizon only currently supports just one phone: the Motorola Moto Z3. Even then, users need to shell out $200 for a mod for the phone to help extend battery life.

Why? 5G is a well known battery hog, and the mod was necessary to counter the immense power drain of the four millimeter wave antenna arrays used to nab a 5G signal.

Many experts warn that even when fully developed and more widely deployed, 5G may never quite live up to its early marketing hype. The press’s disappointment in these launches highlights a technology that’s not fully cooked, something that’s not surprising for the bleeding edge.

Wireless carriers have routinely pitched 5G as a compelling, lower-cost alternative to the fiber networks they’ve long failed to fully deliver. To hear giants like AT&T and Verizon tell it, 5G will easily push broadband to underserved rural markets, ultimately curing the digital divide at a fraction of the cost of full fiber deployment.

But Wall Street analysts like Craig Moffett have been casting doubt on those claims. After crunching the data from these early market launches, Moffett is skeptical that carriers will be able to deploy 5G affordably and at scale across the lion’s share of the United States as promised.

Moffett told Motherboard in an email:

“It’s not the first time we’ve seen the phone companies over-promise and under-deliver. 5G will happen over years, or maybe even decades, so judging it in its first few weeks isn’t reasonable. But there are reasons to be skeptical about whether 5G will ever live up to the crazy hype that has been created around it.”

Aside from unresolved phone battery issues, Moffett told Motherboard that 5G requires “incredibly wide” blocks of spectrum ideally up to 800 MHz wide. The only place blocks of that size reside is in the upper reaches of millimeter wave spectrum. But that spectrum comes with its own issues — namely difficulties with long range signal penetration of building walls, something journalists quickly discovered when testing Verizon’s Chicago 5G launch.

As a result, the technology will be useful for many urban environments, but only via the use of numerous “small cells,” frequently placed on city light poles or building roofs. In more rural and suburban markets carriers will rely on “sub-6” (below 6 GHz) spectrum for cost reasons, providing connectivity that’s going to be a far cry from the speeds promised by carrier marketing.

Moffett said:

“Yes, it will be better than 4G eventually, and it will be great for supporting huge numbers of low bandwidth IoT connections. But broad-based availability of the kinds of insane speeds people have gotten so excited reading about won’t be available for many, many years, if ever.”

Groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation have long warned that 5G should not be seen as a panacea for the nation’s broadband connectivity issues, and that the hype surrounding the technology obscures the industry’s failure to deploy more resilient fiber connections to vast swaths of America — despite billions in taxpayer subsidies and tax breaks.

Ernesto Falcon told Motherboard via email.

“Absolutely no way is wireless service ever going to be competitive with high-speed wireline services. The fact is that the fastest speeds the industry is boasting about for the future of wireless has already been surpassed by fiber to the home years ago.”

With the nation’s phone companies refusing to upgrade (or even repair) aging DSL lines, cable giants like Comcast and Spectrum are securing a bigger monopoly than ever over broadband. That monopoly means less competition, which in turn means higher prices, terrible customer service, and little incentive to deploy better service to rural markets.

5G isn’t likely to fix that problem for many reasons, not least of which being the geographical monopolies carriers enjoy over business broadband connections and cellular tower backhaul, keeping prices high. The bizarre restrictions wireless carriers are likely to impose on these wireless lines in the post net neutrality era aren’t likely to help matters.

“All available evidence suggests that relying on 5G to solve rural broadband challenges or creating real competition is misplaced,” said Christopher Mitchell of the Institute for Local Self Reliance. “It will help around the edges for a minority of households in both cases but will not substantially solve either problem for most.”

Meanwhile, many consumers are perfectly happy with current 4G speeds, which range anywhere from 15 to 50 Mbps. Many surveys indicate users are far more interested in lower prices — something that’s not part of the industry’s plan for 5G, and could easily get worse in the face of apathetic regulators and looming wireless industry consolidation.

If carriers aren’t careful, overhyping an undercooked product could sour the public on the genuine benefits that 5G could deliver — assuming you’re in range.

Brain Cancer Survivor Story

The Thousand Oaks’ and Simi Valley’s Wireless Council’s consultant can see beauty in this? Words fail me when I try to explain the mind of a human who could see beauty in a cell tower, and not in the landscape… Take a look at this latest tweet . . . unbelievable:

Read Jonathon Kramer’s recent tweet.

From: elitster@simivalley.org
To: kebrahim01@aol.com
Sent: 4/7/2019 8:28:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
Subject: RE: Celll Towers in our Neighborhoods

Dear Kio,

I was very sorry to read your email and hear of your struggles with brain cancer. I commend you for being a fighter and pressing forward with your life and contribution to our community.

Thank you for taking the time to share your concern about 5G cell tower installations.

The federal government and specifically the Federal Communications Commission has established guidelines or rules that mandate the access and installation of cell towers. Because of this, the city council took proactive steps to draft an ordinance that restricts cell tower installation on aesthetic grounds and limits their installation in residential areas. Aesthetic considerations is the one area wherein the FCC allows restrictions and local control. We have done this so we can protect our citizens as best we can while lawsuits and lobbying takes place at the Federal level. Because this is federally mandated, I encourage you to share your concerns with our US Senator and Representative.

I certainly am concerned for the health and welfare of our citizens and will be watching this issue closely.


Elaine Litster
City of Simi Valley
Council Member

On 4/6/19, Kio Ebrahimzadeh wrote:

From: kebrahim01@aol.com kebrahim01@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2019 3:31 PM
To: Mayor Mashburn; Mayor Pro Tem Cavanaugh; Council Member Judge; Council Member Luevanos; Council Member Litster
Subject: Celll Towers in our Neighborhoods

Dear Honorable Mayor Mashburn and Honorable Simi Valley City Council Members,

I am contacting you in regards to allowing Cell Towers to be installed on our light poles in residential neighborhoods. I became aware of this on 4/5/19, and I want to share my personal experiences with you on this subject, because this is a serious health risk for your residents. I am not able to attend the City Council meeting on this subject, as I have a critical routine of rest, diet, and exercise that I have to follow each day to have a normal day for me. Therefore I am contacting you about this via email.

My name is Kio Ebrahimzadeh. I am a Retired Simi Valley Police Officer. I have been living in Simi Valley since 2003. The reason I was retired was because of stage 3 brain cancer which was determined to be a work related injury for Police Officers and Fire Fighters because of our exposure to EMFs and RFs from our radio equipment while we were on duty.

The incidences are currently low, but the risks exist. My brain tumor was on my right temporal lobe directly below where our antennas were mounted on top of our patrol cars. Therefore the location of my brain tumor directly correlates to where I sat in the patrol car as the driver.

My brain cancer was discovered on Jan. 4, 2001 when I had a grand mall seizure while on duty. At that time I was an Oxnard Police Officer. I had created a wonderful life for myself, and had worked hard to get there after completing a 4 year college degree. I was in a career that I loved, Police work wasn’t work for me. I earned 3 commendations from the Ventura County District Attorney’s office during my career that got cut short. I also earned two 10851 VC Awards from the State/CHP for recovering stolen vehicles at Oxnard PD. I still hold those records at Oxnard PD.

Continue reading “Brain Cancer Survivor Story”