Subject:
Remember the Wawa Billboards? They're BAAACK! [part IV]
Date:
Tue, 30 Nov 1999 14:57:51 -0800
From:
"Robert B. Sklaroff, MD" <rsklaroff@home.com>
Organization:
@Home Network
To:
Multiple recipients of list INTL-TOBACCO <intl-tobacco@essential.org>,
Settlement Talk Discussion List <settlement-talk@smokescreen.org>
References:
1 , 2 , 3
The national implications of what is occurring in PA are now emerging.
Thus, today's anemic response of the PA Health Secretary - requesting
the Food Merchants Association to request that its members voluntarily
refrain from financing tobacco billboard ads - contrasts with both
the
complaint-letter generated by Mr. Barg (to the FTC) and my ongoing
litigation (attempting to force Philip Morris to comply with the Master
Settlement Agreement). The following is a data-based summary
of what is
transpiring on multiple fronts.
--ALSO, THERE MAY - SOON - BE *HOT* NEWS ON THE PHYSICIAN UNIONIZATION
FRONT!--
First, reproduced are e-mails documenting the pervasiveness of this
problem. Second, reproduced are key excerpts from today's legal
filings
which, I believe, may complete this "cross-ruffing" process in both
the
PA Supreme Court and the Philly Court of Common Pleas. [The formatted
versions aren't appended, here, nor are the documents that were appended
to the cover-pages; at the request of the Prothonotary, I alerted Philip
Morris that I am asking the customary 30-day delay - associated with
this type of motion - be waived because of the pendancy of the
Reargument/Reconsideration motion.]
Finally, excerpted is the original article by Bill Bergstrom (AP) which
documents that - SIX MONTHS AGO - it was recognized that this was a
national phenomenon. Yet, no one ACTED; perhaps, now, the AGs
will
consider doing more than jawboning.
***
Subject: Tobacco billboards in other states
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 16:23:26 -0500
From: "Bill Godshall" <bill@smokescreen.org>
To: "Bob Sklaroff" <rsklaroff@home.com>
Per your inquiry, following are several e-mails I received claiming
that
cigarette advertisements have continued to appear on billboards in
other
states besides Pennsylvania.
-----Original Message-----
From: pminicucci@tobaccofreealliance.org
<pminicucci@tobaccofreealliance.org>
To: Bill@smokescreen.org <Bill@smokescreen.org>
Date: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 5:05 PM
Subject: Wawa ads
We are having a similar problem here in California. You already know
about the Federal district appeals striking down the Washington law.
I
saw a billboard that had a Marlboro logo (that part of the sign was
within the 14 square foot size, but the rest of the sign was an add
for
Cheaper! Cigarettes at a discount. So, the billboard did contain
a logo
but the logo was itself small enough to be legal. This billboard
only
lasted a short time. Meantime, we have seen the similar retail
chain
stores ads on discounted name brand cigarettes with no logos.
>Paul Minicucci at tobaccofreealliance.org.
- - - - - - - - - -
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Goold <sgoold@unm.edu>
To: gov@gov.state.nm.us <gov@gov.state.nm.us>
Date: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 11:56 AM
Subject: Ads hawk PM's Marlboro - - again
Hello Friends-
Earlier today, Bill Godshall forwarded an account of the Wawa chain
of
convenience stores continued "violation" of the MSA. I have
photographed a similar incident here in Albuquerque. Due to the lack
of
interest displayed by our attorney general's office on the last round
of
violations, I held this story until I found greater momentum.
The complete story and photos can be found at:
>http://tobaccofreedom.globalink.org/issues/ads/circlek.html<
This latest news come to us as Philip Morris and other tobacco companies
attest to their convictions to "turn over a new leaf" when it comes
to
marketing to youth. [pun intended]
We say, "yeah, right!"
Scott Goold, Ph.D.*
University of New Mexico
505.293.2504
Web page @ < www.unm.edu/~sgoold >
- - - - - - - - -
-----Original Message-----
From: Janet Martin <jmarti@state.wy.us>
To: bill@smokescreen.org <bill@smokescreen.org>
Date: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: Billboards hawk PM's Marlboro - - again
Of course, once more, this is one place where federal authority is
needed. Right here at home we have tobacco ads on radio (cheap
cigarettes, Cop/Skoll at the local bar); Marlboro ads with cartoons
Marlboro, $2.10); Huge Marlboro banners; the billboards from retailers;
and the inundation of
displays next to the candy display.
*
[This was received today and, thus, wasn't included in my filing; it
still presents data that an intrepid reporter may choose to pursue.]
-----Original Message-----
From: Tobaccokills2000@aol.com <Tobaccokills2000@aol.com>
To: elindblom@tobaccofreekids.org <elindblom@tobaccofreekids.org>
Date: Monday, November 29, 1999 9:55 PM
Subject: re: Marlboro Billboard still up...
I traveled through nine states since September and only twice within
a 5
mile area have I noticed two Marlboro cigarette billboards up from
the
eye of the interstate.
Please let me know if you would like an email picture of one of these
two billboards.
The picture was taken Sunday, November 28.
With Com-Passion, From Kentucky
#1 in Teen & Adult Smokers
>Mike Sawyer
>Founder of SMOKING KILLS Baseball League of Kentucky
>PO Box 133
>Wilmore, KY 40390
>1-877-SMKILLS (toll free)
>1-606-229-5958 cell
>tobaccokills2000@aol.com
*
November 30, 1999
Office of the Prothonotary (215-560-6370)
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Room 468
City Hall
Philadelphia, PA 19107
re: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Philip Morris,
Inc. et
al.
[No. 162 E.D. Misc. Docket 1999]
Dear Sirs:
This letter constitutes an original & eight copies (plus proof of
service) of my Reply to the 11/24/99 letters of Mr. J. Kurt Straub,
Esquire (representing the Liggett Group, Inc.) and Ms. Aline Fairweather
(representing other Tobacco Industry defendants-appellees). I
have not
opposed expedited Supreme Court review but, of course, I anticipate
an
outcome opposite to what they desire. Regarding the "jurisdictional
matter" concern, know that I complied with the Prothonotary's express
wishes (conveyed both orally and in-writing) but would have no problem
if the Court were to request a submission of these concerns in any
other
format that it feels would expedite matters; I also did submit the
appeal through the "appellate" [Commonwealth] Court, as per the dictates
of the PRAP.
Whatever perceived deficiencies Mr. Straub attempted to identify were
rectified in the subsequently-filed Brief. It did address the
governing
standards of PRCP 2327 and it did articulate the reason(s) why the
trial
court's decision (after applying those standards) constituted an abuse
of discretion. In my haste to file this document before any summary
action might occur, I omitted the [appended] documentation submitted
to
the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas regarding the renewed Wawa
billboard advertising campaign.
Although the attorney for the Attorney General received a copy of my
filing (which states inter alia that I am functioning as a private
AG
because of the AG's inaction), the AG has publicly asserted that he
has
not yet received a formal complaint with regard to this "manufacturer
sponsored promotion" of Philip Morris. May this letter serve
that
purpose, too, inasmuch as the subject billboards remain erect as of
today. As noted previously, Philip Morris has conducted an advertising
campaign that flouts the MSA and the law, and it behooves SOMEONE to
stop it from doing so. Indeed, pursuant to the suggestion of
Judge
Herron, I may need to sue the AG in Commonwealth Court to force him
to
act. [It may be recalled I sent the AG a formal complaint-letter
prior
to suing Philip Morris.]
As a further clarification of my intent, it is true that my "issue"
indeed is the denial of my intervenor petition in the trial court.
But
it is also true that I adopted the perspective of Commonwealth Court
Judge Kelley with regard to the need for an evidentiary hearing,
regardless of whether I were granted standing to pursue the matter
independently.
In this regard, the AG's Memorandum incorrectly stated "Moreover, the
two erroneous grounds for the dissent, i.e., that the trial court should
have applied a class action approval standard, and that the MSA required
approval as a minor's compromise, were not raised by any putative
intervenor in the trial court. . . ." When refuting the AG's
prior
quotation error, I had cited the entire exchange [on page 38 of the
1/12/99 hearing]; here, I will cite the entire presentation of Ms.
Alice
Ballard, inasmuch as she repeatedly referred to limitations on "public
interest" litigation that would be imposed by the MSA.
Also, Mr. Stephen Sheller twice cited "class actions" [on page 70 of
the
1/8/99 hearing] and public interest groups and parens patriae [on page
75 of the 1/12/99 hearing]. Later, Ms. Ballard articulated a
hypothetical litigation scenario involving placement of
"individually-wrapped chocolate-flavored cigarettes in boxes of Captain
Crunch cereal," litigation that clearly would have been filed on behalf
of minors (were it permissible).
Finally, proof that the AG's assertion was absolutely, totally incorrect
can be drawn from the Petitions to Intervene; they specifically cite
Class Action Allegations; Pa.R.C.P. 1702. The accompanying brief
cites
cases clearly related to the assertion of the rights of minors
("Joe
Camel") and to class action (McNamara v. Philip Morris). They
cannot be
ignored.
Please recognize that I have attempted to resist the temptation to
correct scientific errors, but the bald-faced mendacity in the AG's
youth-related comments ["there is no Medicaid expenditure applicable
for
tobacco-related diseases to 'minors' "] cannot escape critique.
Medicaid should, indeed, be provided sufficient funds to finance
tobacco-cessation efforts that might be sought by already-addicted
teenagers, some of whom may already have developed asthmatic and
pulmonary-diffusion complications of cigarette smoking.
And, it is hereby disputed that "the injunctive relief obtained in the
settlement went beyond that which a court could impose under
Pennsylvania law," for the attempts of the Tobacco Industry to exploit
possible loopholes in the MSA has already become apparent.
Documentation of billboard advertising occurring in other
states-ostensibly placed by retailers and distributors, but actually
integral to "manufacturer sponsored promotions"- is appended,
illustrating the gravity of this concern dating back to April, per
the
AG. The tobacco Industry's counsel-Mr. Straub, Ms. McLaughlin
and Ms.
Fairweather-remain eerily silent while their clients consistently
affront the citizenry nationally.
Although the Liggett Group did not cite the "mootness" issue, its letter
supports summary dismissal of my Petition for Review. It has
been
thoroughly refuted in my Reply Brief, as excerpted herein. If
nothing
else, the media attention directed at the Wawa billboards illustrates
the great public importance afforded to strict compliance with the
MSA.
Thus, the ongoing pattern of conduct evinced by the Tobacco Industry
illustrates why the court erred when it failed to provide me "standing"
to help enforce the MSA in the first place.
Sincerely,
[RBS]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D., hereby certify that on this, the 30th day
of November, 1999,
I caused a true and correct copy of this
Petition to be sent today, by First Class Mail,
to Counsel at the
addresses listed below:
Mary A. McLaughlin, Esquire
Dechert, Price & Rhoads
4000 Bell Atlantic Tower
1717 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793
Reeder R. Fox, Esquire
Duane, Morris & Heckscher
4200 One Liberty Place
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7396
*
Robert B. Sklaroff, MD
Suite 130
50 East Township Line Road
Elkins Park, PA 19027-2253
(215) 663-8200
____________________________________
ROBERT B. SKLAROFF, MD
pro se
v.
PHILIP MORRIS, INC.,
c/o Mary A. McLaughlin, Esquire
Dechert Price & Rhoads
4000 Bell Atlantic Tower
1717 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY
MAY TERM, 1999
No. 2101
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
Robert B. Sklaroff, MD, files this Motion to Supplement the Record with
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas due to the recent filing of a series
of documents with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Plaintiff
feels
duty-bound to ensure both courts handling these MSA-related matters
have
the opportunity to review all the legal dialogue. Thus, the Plaintiff
submitted to the Supreme Court both the Opinion of Judge Herron and
the
Reargument/Reconsideration Motion it triggered; similarly, the Plaintiff
now submits to the Common Pleas Court both the Mootness/Dismissal Motion
of the Commonwealth [plus endorsements filed by the
Defendants/Appellees] and the responses it generated. Because
the Wawa
Billboard Case isn't moot, because it has national implications, and
because no Attorney General (in Pennsylvania or elsewhere) has acted
to
rectify matters, Dr. Sklaroff feels he merits standing to pursue this
case in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania.
Robert B. Sklaroff, MD
Suite 130
50 East Township Line Road
Elkins Park, PA 19027-2253
(215) 663-8200
____________________________________
ROBERT B. SKLAROFF, MD
pro se
v.
PHILIP MORRIS, INC.,
c/o Mary A. McLaughlin, Esquire
Dechert Price & Rhoads
4000 Bell Atlantic Tower
1717 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY
MAY TERM, 1999
No. 2101
ORDER
AND NOW, this --__ day of ____, 1999, upon consideration of the Motion
of Petitioner Robert B. Sklaroff, MD and responses thereto, it is hereby
ORDERED and DECREED that the record may be supplemented by documents
submitted to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
BY THE COURT:
__________________
J.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D., hereby certify that on this, the 30th day
of November, 1999,
I caused a true and correct copy of this
motion to be sent today, by First Class Mail,
to Counsel at the
addresses listed below:
Mary A. McLaughlin, Esquire
Dechert, Price & Rhoads
4000 Bell Atlantic Tower
1717 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793
*
Store Puts Cigarette Ads on Own Sign
AP
Date: May 6, 1999
By Bill Bergstrom AP Business Writer
Thursday, May 6, 1999; 5:50 p.m. EDT
PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Tobacco companies agreed to quit putting the
Marlboro man and other cigarette advertising on billboards last month
as
part of a settlement with the states, but that isn't stopping a
convenience store chain from promoting Marlboros on its own highway
signs.
A bright red pack of Marlboros being sold for ``$2.19 for limited time
only'' is prominently featured on Wawa Food Markets billboards on I-76
and other major expressways.
As a retailer, the five-state chain said it is not affected by the
tobacco settlement between the cigarette makers and the states.
But a leading anti-smoking advocate said the billboards run counter
to
the spirit of the agreement that called on tobacco companies to stop
targeting youths with advertising images like the Marlboro man and
Joe
Camel.
``It's not only any cigarette, but the brand of cigarette that is by
far
used the most by teen-agers. And it is advertising low prices, which
would be particularly attractive to kids, who have the least disposable
income,'' said Jeff Barg of Wayne, a medical newsletter publisher who
heads the anti-smoking group Tobacco Free Education and Action Coalition
for Health.
State Attorney General Mike Fisher is eying the Wawa billboards and
considering what limitations the tobacco settlement imposes on
retailers, spokesman Sean Connolly said.
``This is an issue that attorneys general in other states are dealing
with, also. In Pennsylvania, Wawa is the only retailer we know of.
We've
had reports of others in other states,'' Connolly said.
...