In The
Supreme Court of the United States
MARCH Term, 2000
 ______

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA BY D. MICHAEL FISHER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,
v.
PHILIP MORRIS  INCORPORATED, ET AL.,
Respondents

ROBERT B. SKLAROFF, M.D.
Petitioner
______

On petition for a writ of Certiorari
To the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
________________________________________________________________________

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
________________________________________________________________________

Robert B. Sklaroff, MD
Suite #130
50 East Township Line Road
Elkins Park, PA  19027-2253
(215) 663-8200
pro se
June 29, 2000

MOTION TO SANCTION REPONDENT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Robert B. Sklaroff, MD, Petitioner, hereby requests that the attorneys representing the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania be disciplined, and avers the following in support thereof [maintaining the capacity to file corroborative affidavits, if requested to do so]:

1. Dr. Sklaroff’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari is currently pending before the United States Supreme Court; the deadline for the Respondents (including the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania) to file Briefs in Opposition was June 19, 2000.

2. Philip Morris Incorporated filed its Brief on June 19, 2000 and a copy thereof was received by Dr. Sklaroff on June 21, 2000; Dr. Sklaroff did not receive a copy of any document submitted on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

3. Dr. Sklaroff, therefore, called Mr. Joel M. Ressler, Esquire to discern whether any such document had been filed; when Mr. Ressler informed Dr. Sklaroff that this had, indeed, occurred, Dr. Sklaroff requested he be provided a copy thereof.

4. Dr. Sklaroff received a copy of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Brief in Opposition on June 28, 2000; within 24 hours, Dr. Sklaroff filed his Reply Brief.

5. Dr. Sklaroff has noticed such glitches as an incorrect case number atop the Respondent Brief filed by Philip Morris Incorporated (“99-1857” rather than “99-1852”) and such as the absence of a date on the Cover Page of the Respondent Brief filed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, but such typographical oversights have not adversely affected his capacity to convey his arguments to the Court.

6. Dr. Sklaroff, however, avers that the Respondent Brief filed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania contains so many errors and is intended to convey such an overwhelming sense of aloofness, that it is no accident that he was not served with this document in a timely fashion; indeed, had he not contacted Mr. Ressler, it is unclear he would have received this document prior to the time when the Court ruled on the Petition.

7. It is presumed a Notice of Service was filed with the Clerk of the Court.

8. This act of filing a motion [Rule 22] is justified because the attorneys representing the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been admitted to the Bar [Rule 5] and, thus, have sworn to uphold the Constitution and to conduct themselves uprightly.

9. “Any document required by these Rules to be served may be served personally or by mail on each party to the proceeding at or before the time of filing.  If the document has been prepared as required by Rule 33.1, three copies shall be served on each other party separately represented in the proceeding. If the document has been prepared as required by Rule 33.2, service of a single copy on each other separately represented party suffices. If personal service is made, it shall consist of delivery at the office of the counsel of record, either to counsel or to an employee therein. If service is by mail, it shall consist of depositing the document with the United States Postal Service, with no less than first-class postage prepaid, addressed to counsel of record at the proper post office address. When a party is not represented by counsel, service shall be made on the party, personally or by mail.”  [Rule 29.3]

10. The only reason Dr. Sklaroff received this document prior to the initiation of the Court’s summer recess is that a copy thereof was specifically requested of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by Dr. Sklaroff; Frank E. Noyes, II, Esquire, wrote a cover-letter to Dr. Sklaroff that stated, in its entirety, the following {ATTACHMENT}:  “We understand from Joel Ressler of the Attorney General’s office that you have not received copies of the Commonwealth’s Brief filed with the United States Supreme Court, and are enclosing three copies for your review.”

11. Either the attorney(s) representing the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed a false “Proof of Service” or they failed to honor it procedurally [Rule 29.5].

12. Therefore, these attorney(s) should be disciplined [Rule 8].

Respectfully Submitted,