These documents have been classified by whether they were filed in court, whether they served to analyze a particular issue, whether they functioned as a press release, and whether they provided key reference material.  And limited hyperlinks to other sites are cited, but the focus is more "legalistic" than "scientific"; FEEDBACK IS HIGHLY DESIRABLE, for many of the concepts contained herein has been self-generated (lacking legal citations).

I wrote a commentary (published on 3/25/00 in the Philadelphia Inquirer) on the Supreme Court's  FDA decision that places it within the context of my three pending cases.  A commentary on how my litigation comports with other forces at-play that have been unleashed by the MSA was published in the Wilkes-Barre Times-Leader (5/19/2000) and the Allentown Morning Call (5/21/2000).

The Writ of Certiorari filed on 5/9/2000 with the United States Supreme Court and its Appendix summarize the current status of my challenge to the MSA's Approval.  Although it contains a few "typos"--margins of indented-quotes, for example--the content of what has been uploaded here is identical to that which was filed.  The Appendix can be separately accessed, from which key lengthy documents can be hyperlinked.  Certain "Administrative" documents (cover-letter, certificate of service, key formatting requirements) are segregated.  The text of the requirements established by the Supreme Court for having generated this document can also be accessed.  This document was initially filed on 3/20/2000, but it had to be re-fonted; thus, a 60-day "reprieve" required it to be reformatted.  As a result, key "out-takes" and a concomitantly-filed document were placed into a separately-filed Addendum.  These documents were docketed on 5/15/2000.

An Amicus Curiae Brief was written by the Honorable Jon David Fox, U.S. Congressman from Montgomery County, Pennsylvania (1994-1998) and was filed on 6/19/200.

A Reply Brief and a second Addendum/Amicus Brief were filed on 6/28/2000; another Addendum summarizing all pending MSA litigation is being prepared for submission, as well; because the attorneys representing the Pennsylvania Attorney General failed to send a copy of their filing to myself, the Petitioner, a motion to seek disciplinary action was also filed.  All briefs have also been sent both to the Pennsylvania Superior Court (at which Oral Argument was held on 6/25/2000) and to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

[The most-recently filed documents related to other cases are as follows.  The Commonwealth Court is addressing the effort to force the Attorney General to probe Philip Morris; it is contained in the Appendix.  The Superior Court is addressing the direct effort to probe Philip Morris; it is contained in the Addendum.]

Testimony regarding both this MSA issue and ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) was presented to Philadelphia City Council on 5/24/2000.

The Superior Court Brief was filed on 3/21/2000, this in the matter against Philip Morris, Inc.

Testimony with regard to how Tobacco Settlement Monies should be appropriated was presented to the House Appropriations Committee in 3/2000, and this generated an AP news article that summarizes my current posture.

An  Article depicting the current controversy surrounding anti-tobacco advertising (that quotes me, briefly) was published on 5/7/2000 on the front-page of the Sunday Business Section of the Inquirer.

Proposed  legislation regarding how to spend monies generated through the Master Settlement Agreement has been written.

The history of my involvement in the anti-tobacco movement depicts how I came to file this litigation; the key concept is that my efforts are predicated on the desire to ensure the tobacco industry does not attain immunity for future conduct.  Thus, it is anticipated that anti-tobacco experts in many fields will be invited to buttress this view, after I have attained "standing" to present it to the courts.  These points have been candidly inserted into the briefs filed in multiple courts.

As time goes on, key filings made in this matter will be uploaded to Globalink, the Tobacco Control site maintained in Geneva, Switzerland, by the International Union Against Cancer (UICC), space kindly provided by Mr. Ruben J. Israel.

*

I filed a Complaint in Commonwealth Court on December 20, 1999, the intent of which is to force the AG to scrutinize the behavior of Philip Morris.

The most recent articles regarding the placement of tobacco billboard advertising were published on 12/9/99 and 12/15/99; Sheetz (in Pittsburgh) has decided NOT to remove them.

The most recent chicanery attempted by Big Tobacco's lawyers was its letter to Judge Herron that attempted to manipulate him into denying my Reargument/Reconsideration Petition, the response to which was generated immediately and transmitted before he might have sustained this ploy; also appended was a copy of the (unanswered) letter sent a fortnight ago to the AG.  Unfortunately, this little piece of legerdemain worked, as was illustrated in the following letter.

Unfortunately, also, the PA Supreme Court denied the opportunity to review this matter, as per the 12/22/99 Inquirer.

I have generated a suggested mechanism by which the money generated by the tobacco settlement should be spent.

These ideas are embodied in a series of op-ed page pieces, one submitted on October 1999 and published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Allentown Morning Call, and one composed on December 1999 and submitted for broad publication.  Also, a second essay was published in the Allentown Morning Call in January 2000 and another is to be published in the Philadelphia Inquirer in January 2000.