Subject:
             Update in PA on MSA Challenge
        Date:
             Fri, 05 Nov 1999 23:15:28 -0500
       From:
             "Robert B. Sklaroff, MD" <rsklaroff@home.com>
 Organization:
             @Home Network
         To:
             Settlement Talk Discussion List <settlement-talk@smokescreen.org>
 
 

This memo will cover the legal situation on two fronts:  Settlement and
Appeal.

Today, I spoke for 20 minutes with Joe Ressler (717-783-1794) who has
functioned as the point-person for the AG (717-787-3391) with regard to
this issue.  He is not interested in discussing the concept of
scheduling a settlement conference.

He decried the "numerous" press conferences that I've held (one) and he
expressed the view that the Tobacco Industry is "not interested in
changing the MSA."

I noted the myriad occasions when the AG has issued (in various ways)
information to the press regarding his efforts to attain MSA approval in
PA, clearly far more than are available to a petitioner such as myself.

He seemed frustrated by my persistence, but he wouldn't address my key
concern:  the AG won't stipulate the public statements he has made.

I raised the issue of enforcing the MSA with regard to the Wawa case,
and he said I should prove it to him before the AG were to become
involved.  I asked that he join me in this effort, if for no other
reason than to gain discovery of the contract effected between Wawa and
Philip Morris; he said he didn't want to work with a "pro se" litigant.
I then suggested he could do it by himself, but he said he had other
priorities.

Such is "prosecutorial discretion," and such is the essential reason for
my work.

I then asked if the AG has committed to following the CDC "Best
Practices" guidelines with regard to expending the MSA-$$$, and he said
this is but one set of recommendations that he has passed on to the
Administration.  Furthermore, he expressed surprise that I would trust
"any" governmental entity, and I disabused him of such a prejudicial
stance; I merely noted that I individualize my  perception(s) based upon
the quality of the regulatory activity that has occurred.

Also, he said that the budget issued by the Coalition for a Tobacco Free
PA didn't jive with those he'd read from the CDC, and I advised that
midrange numbers had been chosen to provide greater specificity to the
recommendations being made.    Unfortunately, he couldn't commit to
endorsing even the lowest range of commitments that have been issued by
the CDC, referring to it as "just another governmental agency."
Certainly, the President of the Coalition will be advised to contact him
so that he can gain a greater understanding of how the Coalition's
figures had been generated.

I approached this conversation with an open mind, but I can't say that
his receptivity to meaningful discussion was comparable.  I noted that
this matter could become protracted, but he adopted a rather
intransigent posture.

The media are advised to follow-up on these points.

*

Regarding the Supreme Court appeal, I had a chat with the Prothonotary
today and the information he provided was at variance with legal input
I've received.

He advised me to refile as a petition for review because there is no
final order in this matter.  I told him there is a final order (signed
on 1/13/99 by Judge Herron, but on hold pending resolution of my
standing status); he said "I'm trying to help you."

Suggestions/Comments are invited, but I have formulated a multifaceted
plan that will accommodate all alternatives (courtesy of an attorney who
is experienced with dealing with the (c)overt input provided at the
level of the prothonotary).

Anyway, the new deadline is next Friday.