Telecom Law Firm is NOT RIGHT for Petaluma!

The Petaluma City Council and City Manager ARE NOT LISTENING! Our City Govt. is wasting more than $10,000 of taxpayer money on a Wireless industry “insider” law firm with a bad reputation. This may cause residents next to so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) to LOSE $200,000+ each in property value, due to excessive sWTF power output, loss of public safety and 24/7 surveillance!
Please Join Us and Sign This Petition. Then listen to the following 2021 Public Comments re: Petaluma’s Wireless Ordinance Revision

1/25 City Council

1/26 Planning Commission

2/01 City Council

For the TLDR Folks . . .

TLDR = Tool Long, Didn’t Read

1. Get TLF’s Tripp May Out of Petaluma, ASAP!

2. Invite the Best, Andrew Campanelli, Esq., In . . .

1. Andrew Campanlelli Introduction: My Life As an Anti-Cell Tower Attorney

2. How to control the Placement of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) of Any Size or Any “G”

The Telecommunications Act of 1996, What Local Governments Need to Know — in Plain English

The case against Telecom Law Firm (TLF): please read Sections A. through G., below.

A. Telecom Law Firm (TLF) is a “Trojan Horse” Telecom Consultant

TLF is a Telecom Consultant/Application Processor/Law Firm that Primarily Serves the Needs of Wireless Carriers, not the Needs of Local Governments and Their Residents

TLF Website Evidences Telecom Industry Bias and Conflicts of Interest

  1. TLF stated mission is Telecom Infrastructure Development, to promote adoption by facilitating transactions between their Telecom Corporation and Cell Tower Developer clients and cities.

    “…As a decades-long telecom engineer who later in life became a telecom lawyer… Dr.Jonathan L. Kramer founded the firm when he saw an opportunity to help bridge telecom law with telecom technology.”

  2. TLF clients include Cell Tower Developers and Telecom Corporations:

    We represent corporate and selected private landlords . . . nationwide who are landlords for wireless infrastructure, including cell towers, fiber optic networks, telecom switching centers, broadcast facilities, and much more.”

  3. TLF official Google listing evidences they are primarily pro-Cell Tower attorneys:

    “Telecom Law Firm: Cell Tower Attorneys And … Telecom Law Firm’s cell tower attorneys are experienced in cell tower lease agreements. Contact us today for help with cell site lease negotiations! ”

  4. TLF promotes its #1 service as “Transactions.”

  5. TLF website shows that TLF are a pro cell tower development law firm:

B. Video Evidence: The Oct 1, 2020 TLF Webinar Tells You All You Need to Know

  1. Right on Zoom/Youtube . . . TLF says it is aligned with Cell Tower Developer Interests and spins obvious Wireless industry propaganda to rebut the informed public’s substantial written evidence that proves that the 4G/5G Wireless densification grid unnecessary, harmful and hazardous.

  2. In the Webinar, TLF admits their main job is to “to get cell towers approved” by TLF’s Planning Department clients and says TLF’s value is “achieving swift approvals .”

  3. Kramer says all you need to know about the toxic agent/pollutant called pulsed, data-modulated, Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) — at 30:03-31:25.

    I consider ourselves part of the Wireless Industry . . . Don’t use the term, radiationit’s technically, absolutely, the most accurate word and it scares the ‘bejesus’ out of people . . . please stop using the R-word. The R-word is the F-word to us because it just makes our job in trying to get small cells approved much more difficult because that’s the trigger word . . . use any other word, emissions, transmissions, any missions you want, but don’t use the R-Word.”

    • Jonathon Kramer, “Tripp” May and the other charlatans at TLF can’t “spin” their way away from the truth of the matter, but they sure try . . . Kramer’s been doing it for over 30-years to line his pockets, and he is been aided and abetted in perpetrating these lies by the other profiteers: the revolving door of FCC Commissioners and Wireless Industry lawyers, lobbyists and consultants. Can you say Captured Agency? Your government is on on this 24/7 surveillace and weapons system being installed in residential neighborhoods. Think full control of formerly-free US residents . . . the Chinese are already selling their “social credit score” tracking software to US Cities . . .

    • Read from a Jan 27, 2019 New York Times article here:

    This bait-and-switch scheme is “dressed up” in military/national security terms to make it easier for the medicine to go down: the government will do whatever it takes in order to get the 24/7 surveillance, crowd-control, and the 4G and 5G directed energy weapons system that it wants, but does it have to be in your neighborhood? No, it doesn’t.

    This is mostly about extracting more money from well-healed customers, who are already adequately-served by Wired and Wireless endpoints. There are no provisions in recent FCC rules and proposed Federal legislation which force Telecom providers to improved Internet access to those living on the other side of the Digital Divide.

    “The Telecoms say that the extreme density 4G and 5G cell tower network is the first network built to serve the sensors, robots, autonomous vehicles and other devices that will continuously feed each other vast amounts of data, allowing factories, construction sites and even whole cities to be run more efficiently.

    “The questions you need to answer is: Do you want a 24/7 surveillance, crowd-control, 4G and 5G directed energy weapons system in your neighborhood? Do you really want autonomous vehicles, robots and sensors collecting and selling information about you and your family? Are we just heading to an autocratic mass-surveillance and “social credit/grading” system, similar to the one that is already being rolled out in China? View this video, and then back up and view from here.

    So what is being sold as “good for consumers” is actually better for intelligence services and cyber-attackers. The 5G system is 95% a physical network of fiber optic cables [built by State Telecommunications Public Utility companies with money collected from their customers], connected to switches and routers. But it is more reliant on layers of complex software that are far more adaptable, and constantly updating, in ways invisible to users — much as an iPhone automatically updates while charging overnight.”

  4. Earlier, Kramer admits his Wireless Industry bias — and his disregard of local values and residential character — at 9:35-10:07

    “We understand an important element here. Your job is to build as fast as possible, as cheaply as possible. That actually is your job. We understand that . . . Your duty is not to the community, your duty is to the shareholders of your company and the company you are contracting with, if not with the [Wireless] Carrier itself . . . doing it on the cheap is exactly what you are supposed to do . . .

  5. Kramer states the top objective is ASAP Wireless infrastructure build — at 1:08:16-1:08:36

    “This is a time-to-market issue. You want the site on air as quickly as you can, and if you are a builder, you want the site on air as cheaply as you can . . . It may be that you . . . go down to 30% margin to get the approval six months faster.”

  6. Kramer: Fast, fast, fast! (even if there are incomplete applications) at 38:50-39:03

    You want to get the project done as fast as we do, which, by the way is really what we want . . . We like to see projects pushed through and get deployed . . . We as project reviewers for jurisdictions have seen where . . . a Professional Engineer’s stamp has been copied off of one set of plans and put on another. It’s illegal . . . and . . . we’ve seen a PE who has stamped the plans with absolutlely no knowledge of the actual facts. That happens surprisingly often.

  7. Kramer admits to seeing fraudulent WTF applications, a common Wireless industry practice, that is echoed by much more experienced attorneys (see Campanelli, below); first view Kramer — at 1:21:07 to 1:22:10

    A PE stamp is a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction decision. More and more are requiring them . . . ther have been too many cases where RF Emissions [RF microwave radiation] has exceeded that which was provided, without a PE stamp . . where there has been an intentional falsification or the theft of a PE stamp — violations of law — I would expect we will see permantent revocations.”

  8. On the same topic of fraudulent Wireless applications, view Andrew Campanelli, the top Telecom attorney in the US (7,000 case litigated, winning 80%) — at 30:29 to 32:50

    “The next thing the town wants to do is give your board some guidance as to what type of evidence they should ask for so they can understand if they see a false document. The two most common types of fraud that I have seen perpetrated through false FCC compliance reports is claims of compliance with the wrong standard or the other trick they play called the distance game and here is what that is.

    . . . The first factor they have to consider is how close someone can get to the WTF. The closer someone gets to a WTF, the greater the level of microwave radiation to which they get exposed. To prepare a false FCC compliance report, which shows the level of microwave radiation will be a fraction of what it will actually be, all they have to do is start with a false distance factor. If your board does not know how to read these reports, they can miss this.

    The same goes for false propagation maps and false visual impact analysis. You have to give your board guidance on how to analyze what is given to them because, in my experience, 90% of the applications I have seen, the applicant has submitted false and misleading information — and that is not by mistake .

C. TLF Misguided City of Petaluma on Creamery Project

TLF’s signature is brainwashing City staff and Officials, getting all to cry, “Our hands are tied;” and
delivering a Telecom industry-friendly ordinance to facilitate future Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) transactions.

Any Wireless signal Strength Analysis that lacks a Professional Engineer’s License Stamp reveals that the engineer knows their work is inadequate and, therefore, does not want to stake their Engineer License (i.e., their livelihood) on the work and potentially face professional and legal consequences. This is exactly what TLF allowed with the Petaluma Creamery Drive Test: there was no PE Stamp on the Signal Stregnth Test, despite Petaluma residents challenging the faulty analysis and demanding that the report have a PE stamp, in order to be accepted into the public record for the deliberations.

The truth is only if a significant gap in outdoor wireless call service exists, would the City of Petaluma have to consider approving an application for a WTF of any size or any “G.” In addition, the City has the authority to demand that any WTF needed to close a proven significant gap in coverage be placed in a location that represents the least intrusive means — least intrusive to property values, aesthetics, “noise, negative health consequences and safety concerns”, per the 2005 US Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit Ruling in MetroPCS v San Francisco and the 2019 CA Supreme Court Ruling in T-Mobile v San Francisco. See Point A on p.4: In the Petaluma public record and here.

  1. In an Aug 13, 2020 TLF email to Brittany Bendix of the m-Group (Petaluma’s contact planning firm), Robert “Tripp” May iterated TLF’s “transaction” bias, misguiding Petaluma away from its full legal authority. Tripp May wrote:

    “…neither the Council, the residents nor the industry will be totally satisfied by whatever regulations the City proposes to adopt, a more flexible regulatory structure tends to make everyone feel better about not getting everything they hoped to achieve.”

  2. TLF and City Attorney Eric Danly also misguided the City of Petaluma and omitted key facts from the City staff’s Jan 26, 2021 Hearing in the City Staff Recommendation to the Historic and Cultural Preservation Comitte to approve the Petaluma Creamery project due to “no adverse aesthetic impact.”

    • The truth is that if this WTF were to be approved, the propposed height of the six-foot antennas could increased by 20 additional feet. — without City approval — and four or more additional ancillary equipment cabinets (with no cumulative limitation) could be added as long as equipment follows FCC Order 20-153: “Implementation of State and Local Governments’ Obligation to Approve Certain Wireless Facility Modification Requests Under Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012”

    • How could 26-feet high antennas atop a 60-ft structure and no cumulative limitation of equipment not be an adverse aesthetic impact?

  3. TLF and City Attorney Eric Danly ignored foundational errors in CTC Technology’s Drive Test Analysis and Report: CTC based its analysis on irrelevant service, used amateur level equipment without certificated of calibration, declined to add a Professional Engineer’s Stamp to the report, and did not analyze channel specific signal strength data that line up with the FCC licenses that Verizon leases from the Federal government for their personal wireless service.

D. TLF Misguided Many Other Cities

Malibu is just one of many cities, whose residents are extremely dissatisfied with TLF’s service to their Cities: others include, but are not limited to Thousand Oaks, Monterey, Hillsborourgh, Piedmont, South Lake Tahoe, Seaside.

Another top Telecom attorney W. Scott McCollough called out TLF’s misguidance in Malibu:

TLF’s work “. . . contains several overgeneralizations, uses misleading or vague language and provides unsubstantiated, conclusory – and ultimately incorrect – assertions . . . that the City’s ‘hands are tied’ and it has only limited ‘aesthetic’ options when it comes to protecting the values important to the City and its residents – is misleading, a disservice to the Council and to all of Malibu’s residents, and simply not true.”

Read McCollough’s detailed memo here and here.

E. The City of Petaluma Needs to Hire a Reputable Legal Expert to Help Write A Strong, Protective WTF Ordinance

The City’s hands are NOT tied! Local governments retain siginficant authority over approving the placement, construction and operations of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) in their jurisdiction. Videos featuring #1 US telecom attorney with track record of protecting municipalities’ rights, Andrew

Video Evidence for Andrew Campanelli, Esq.:

  1. View at 7:03 – 9:20 — Campanelli explains cities’ hands are not tied; cities can write Municipal code that provide guidance to the Planning Commissioners regarding “the local procedures they can apply to the City’s zoning code in ways that comply with the procedural requirements of the 1996 Telecommuniations Act (1996-TCA).

  2. View at 12:05 – 16:37 — Campanelli explains the big-picture business goals in the excessive and unnecessary WTF/Cell Tower 4G/5G densification game.

  3. View at 36:05 – 38:30 — Campanelli Explains to Woodstock, NY, Council members that ordinance rewrites requires thorough review of total Zoning code to ensure it’s legally bullet-proof as possible to merge seamlessly with existing Zoning code; Campanelli writes in guidance details for exactly what to require and how to make legally sound determinations on applications.

  4. View at 26:10 – 29:40 — Cities can require effective monitoring of pulsed, data-modulated, Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) levels from these the antennas

F. Campanelli Website Proves That His Firm Adv0cates for City’s Rights

  1. Campanelli does not suffer from the pro Telecom Industry bias , that Telecom Law Firm, Jonathon Kramer and Tripp May wear proudly on their chests (and websites).

  2. Mission: at

    “We offer experienced legal representation to property owners, civic associations, and municipalities who seek to oppose or regulate the installation of cell towers.”

    “Across the Country, wireless companies have been storming into local towns…. Spewing references to the Telecommunications Act of 1996….Don’t believe their hype. As an individual, a civic association, or a local government, you have rights.”

  3. Read at

    “Notwithstanding all of the posturing and puffery of their attorneys, when wireless companies file local applications seeking to install Cell Towers or Cell Antennas, local governments remain vested with both the power, and the obligation, to enact and enforce local zoning laws in such a manner as to protect their citizens . . .

G. There Is No Conflict of Interest in City Hiring Andrew Campanelli

Despite City Attorney’s false statements to the contrary . . . In a Feb 2, 2021 email, Andrew Campanelli confirmed that there is no legal conflict of interest in City of Petaluma hiring him to rewrite our Telecom ordinance.

>>>From Andrew Campanelli on Tue 2/2/2021 1:04 PM


I do not see any conflict of interest.


>>>To Andrew Campanelli Fri 1/29/2021 5:28 PM

Dear Andrew,

I hope you are well.

I recall you stating in our initial Zoom meeting that you are able to be hired by our city to rewrite our wireless ordinance.

It appears our City Attorney is throwing up excuses… including arguing it would be a conflict of interest.

Would you please confirm no conflict of interest exists if city wants to hire you Thank you very much in advance for providing clarification.