Action on Smoking and Health A National Legal-Action Antismoking Organization Entirely Supported by Tax-Deductible Contributions    Info About ASH  | ash.org |  To Join ASH

Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) has filed a brief amicus curiae (friend of the court) asking the courts in the ten (10) most populous states in which state tobacco suits are pending to delay the signing of the deal by their attorney general, to establish a period for careful study and review of no less than thirty (30) days, and to then hold an open hearing to permit their airing of the views of various organizations with experience and expertise in the area to express their views, including reservations if any.

YOU CAN AND SHOULD HELP IN ONE OF THE FOLLOWING WAYS -
BUT YOU SHOULD FILE YOUR DOCUMENTS ON OR BEFORE FRIDAY IF POSSIBLE:

1. If you are a national organization, file a simple letter with the courts in each of the states saying that you support ASH's request for a study period and a public hearing before the Court approves the attorney general deal. This can be in the form of a simple letter or other 1-3 page documents. Please note that doing so does not mean that you necessarily agree with everything which ASH said in the brief; it simply means that you support the end result of a delay and a hearing.

2. If you are a state organization, file a simple letter with the courts in each of the states saying that you support ASH's request for a study period and a public hearing before the Court approves the attorney general deal. This can be in the form of a simple letter or other 1-3 page documents. Please note that doing so does not mean that you necessarily agree with everything which ASH said in the brief; it simply means that you support the end result of a delay and a hearing.

3. If you wish, and especially if you have access to legal assistance, you may wish to file your own legal brief and/or other request or motion seeking the same or similar relief. In such a case please feel free to copy as little or as much as you might wish from ASH's document, and to use it with or without attribution (as you wish).

4. Please circulate this information, including a copy of the brief and a list of the judges and court cases, as widely as you can to as many organizations as you can. EVERY INDIVIDUAL LETTER OR OTHER FILING IS LIKELY TO HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE JUDGE.

5. In addition to the above, please fax AND call your attorney general and governor (and the incoming attorney general and/or governor if appropriate). Tell them why you have serious concerns about signing on to the deal by Friday, and why a period of study is necessary, regardless of what actions a court may take.  The ASH website has an up-to-date list of the attorneys general and their fax numbers.

6. Please let ASH know when you take each of these actions so that we can help to coordinate legal and law-related activities. In addition, national organizations are strongly urged to send copies of any statements or other communications regarding the deal to ASH for posting on our web page -- which is widely consulted by the media as well as other activists.

7. Check the ASH website -- http://ash.org -- frequently for updates, statements and actions by other organizations, and other important information

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. ASH'S BRIEF, MINUS ALL BUT ONE OF THE VERY EXTENSIVE FOOTNOTES, IS ATTACHED, FOLLOWED BY THE LIST OF JUDGES.

FOR A COPY OF A DIFFERENT RELATED LEGAL PETITION FILED IN PENNSYLVANIA,  click here

COMBINED

MOTION OF LAW PROFESSOR JOHN F. BANZHAF III
CHIEF COUNSEL OF ACTION ON SMOKING AND HEALTH (ASH),
A NATIONAL TAX-EXEMPT LEGAL-ACTION ANTISMOKING ORGANIZATION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE

RESPECTFULLY SUGGESTING THE NEED FOR CAREFUL STUDY
OF THE PROPOSED NATIONAL TOBACCO SETTLEMENT, AND
FOR A HEARINGS AT WHICH AN ADEQUATE RECORD CAN BE BUILT
 BEFORE FINALLY APPROVING IT AND DISMISSING THE CAUSE OF ACTION

AND

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE
URGING THE COURT TO SUA SPONTE ORDER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
NOT TO AGREE TO THE PROPOSED NATIONAL TOBACCO SETTLEMENT,
AND TO PROVIDE FOR A 30-DAY COMMENT PERIOD
AND THE BUILDING OF A RECORD THROUGH A HEARING
BEFORE APPROVING THE SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING THE ACTION

John F. Banzhaf III, Esq.
Prof. of Law, George Washington University Law School, and
Executive Director and Chief Counsel
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
2013 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: (202) 659-4310;

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ATTACHED BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE  

A. Movant's extensive background, experience, and successes in a wide
        variety of public interest matters, as well as the problems of
        smoking, amply qualifies him to address the issues involved in this
        proposed settlement

B. Movant's extensive background, experience, and successes with regard
        to the specific problems of smoking provides him with the requisite
        expertise and experience to provide an alternative view regarding the
        proposed settlement

C. Because ASH, since its inception more than 30 years ago has served as
        the legal-action arm of the antismoking community, and Movant and
        his organization have worked with most of the other major
        antismoking, public health, medical, and other public interest
        organizations and their leaders in many legal and law-related
        projects, he is capable of initially representing -- or at least bringing
        to the Court's attention -- the views of these organizations since the
        5-day period for the approval of the proposed settlement does not
        permit them to prepare a formal appearance

D. Because Movant, unlike the others now before this Court, has no
        financial, political, or other personal interest in the outcome of the
        litigation, or this Court's decision regarding the approval of the
        settlement, he is in a unique position to provide views which are
        impartial and unbiased

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF PROF. JOHN F. BANZHAF III,
GENERAL COUNSEL OF ACTION ON SMOKING AND HEALTH (ASH)

PROCEDURAL CONCERNS

SUBSTANTIVE CONCERNS

CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS


      For the following reasons, Movant respectfully suggests that he has
the requisite background, experience, and expertise in the issues of smoking to
provide the Court with views it may not otherwise receive from other parties
before it regarding the proposed national tobacco settlement, and to bring to the
court the growing (and now close to unanimous) consensus of the public health
community regarding these matters.  Movant:

        A. has devoted his professional life to teaching as well as practicing public
interest law;

        B. has for over 30 years been successful in winning many of the legal
victories in the war on smoking;

        C. has a very close relationship with most of the other antismoking, public
health, medical, and other public interest organizations and their leaders;

        D. unlike all of the others now before this Court, has no financial, political, 
or other personal interest in the outcome of this proceeding.

      Movant respectfully suggests that the Court should -- in the exercise
of its supervisory authority over the current action and any proposed settlement
thereof -- not permit the proposed national tobacco settlement to become final
(and dismiss the instant proceeding) without permitting a reasonable time for this
most complex proposal with the most profound public interest implications to be
studied and evaluated by those with the requisite knowledge, experience, and
background before it is accepted.

      Moreover, Movant respectfully suggests that, prior to accepting this
proposed settlement and dismissing the action, the Court should conduct a
hearing to provide a proper record and to permit alternative views to be aired and
tested by the established techniques of testimony and cross examination -- or,
at the very least, sufficient oral argument to illuminate all of the relevant issues.

      For the reasons very briefly (and hurriedly) set forth hereinafter,
Movant respectfully suggests that the Court sua sponte order the Attorney
General not to agree at this time to the proposed national tobacco settlement;
that the Court provide for a reasonable period of no less than thirty days for
examination and study of this massive and complex document; and that at the
conclusion of that time hold a hearing appropriate for the Court to determine that
the Attorney General has not abused his discretion in tentatively agreeing to this
proposal, and that it is in fact in the public interest -- and the interest of the state
and of its citizens -- as its proponents proclaim.  Finally, Movant respectfully
suggests that it would be nothing short of unconscionable for the Court to ignore
the growing requests by antismoking, health, medical, and other public interest
organizations and accept this unprecedented agreement without a reasonable
opportunity for them to study it, and for them to assist the Court to build a
record sufficient to exercise its authority to review such settlements.[FN]

[FN] Standing, in the strict legal sense of the word, is not required for the filing
of an amicus brief and/or for suggesting to the Court that it take action already
within its power and discretion regarding a proceeding already before it.
     However, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) is a national tax-exempt
scientific and educational organization with many members in all states, and
under the generally-accepted concept of associational standing may represent
those members.
     Although the press of time prevented Movant from taking these steps prior
to the filing of this document, he is prepared, if the Court requests, to: (1)
formally join his organization and individual member/taxpayers residing in the
state; (2) file a formal motion to proceed pro hac vice and/or obtain local
counsel; (3) arrange for other organizations within the state to formally join. 


MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ATTACHED BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE


      For the following reasons, Movant respectfully suggests that he is
qualified to assist the Court by offering an opinion regarding the proposed
national tobacco settlement, and to present to the Court the views of other major
health and medical organizations, which will clearly be different from and
contrary to all of the views of the parties now before the Court.
A. Movant's extensive background, experience, and successes in a wide variety
of public interest matters, as well as the problems of smoking, amply qualifies
him to address the issues involved in this proposed settlement

      Movant has devoted his professional life to teaching and very
successfully engaging in the practice of public interest law.  This includes many
different areas which are very briefly summarized for the Court below.
B. Movant's extensive background, experience, and successes with regard to the
specific problems of smoking provides him with the requisite expertise and
experience to provide an alternative view regarding the proposed settlement

      Movant has been most active and is best known for his more than
30 years of successes in fighting against the problems of smoking and
protecting the rights of nonsmokers.  Major accomplishments in areas -- other
than those related to protecting the rights of nonsmokers -- include requiring
broadcasters to provide free time for antismoking messages; driving cigarette
commercials off radio and television; extending this prohibition to so-called "little
cigars"; providing the legal basis for the FDA's decision to assert jurisdiction
over cigarettes, assisting in tobacco litigation, etc.

      In addition, Movant and his organization, Action on Smoking and
Health (ASH), a national non-profit tax-exempt scientific and educational
organization, have played a major role in most of the important battles to protect
the rights of nonsmokers.  Indeed, ASH is widely credited with beginning what
is now called the "nonsmokers' rights movement" by successfully petitioning the
former Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) to first require separate smoking and
nonsmoking sections on airplanes, then to require the enlargement of no-
smoking sections to accommodate all nonsmoking passengers, prohibiting the
smoking of pipes or cigars, and then finally helping to persuade Congress to
prohibit smoking on virtually all domestic flights.  Movant's role in protecting the
rights of nonsmokers is extensive:C. Because ASH, since its inception more than
30 years ago has served as thelegal-action arm of the antismoking community,
and Movant and his organization have worked with most of the other major
antismoking, public health, medical, and other public interest organizations and
their leaders in many legal and law-related projects, he is capable of initially
representing -- or at least bringing to the Court's attention -- the views of these
organizations since the 5-day period for the approval of the proposed settlement
does not permit them to prepare a formal appearance.

      In its role of the legal-action arm of the antismoking community,
Action on Smoking and Health and Movant have worked closely with most of the
other major antismoking, public health, medical, and other public interest
organizations which have worked tirelessly to fight the problems of smoking, and
have developed an experience and expertise which the attorneys general and
their staffs cannot hope to have acquired in the very short period of time that
they have tried to address these issues.  Most recently Movant was honored to
serve on the National Committee on Tobacco Policy and Public Health (the so-
called "Koop-Kessler Committee") with approximately two dozen other national
leaders asked to review and evaluation the original (1997) proposal of the
attorneys general for a national settlement.

      Since the terms of this new massive and complex proposed
settlement were not announced until Monday afternoon, and many of these
antismoking and other organizations are scrambling to obtain copies, to meet
with their lawyers and other advisors to evaluate it, to attempt (apparently often
unsuccessfully) to meet with the attorneys general and the governors, and to
take other appropriate actions before a Friday noon deadline for acceptance,
there has not been sufficient time for them to make a unified filing with the many
courts to which this proposed deal has been presented.

      Thus, while Movant does not formally represent any of these
organizations, he respectfully suggests that he can and does initially present
their concerns to the Court.  To help assure the Court with regard to this matter,
the attached brief has as attachments statements issued directly by their
organizations as well as quotations of the views and concerns from major media
outlets.  Movant respectfully suggests that this should be sufficient to convince
the Court that the delay sought is reasonable under the expressly pressing time
circumstances.  If the Court agrees that a hearing regarding the settlement is
appropriate for the Court to effectively carry out its role and to build an
appropriate record, those organizations and others will of course have an
opportunity to present their views directly to the Court.
D. Because Movant, unlike the others now before this Court, has no financial,
political, or other personal interest in the outcome of the litigation, or this Court's
decision regarding the approval of the settlement, he is in a unique position to
provide views which are impartial and unbiased

      Neither Movant nor ASH has received, plans to receive, or has had
any conversations regarding the possible receipt of money or anything else of
value as a result of their participation in this proceeding and/or from the
settlement itself.  Nor does it appear that Movant and/or his organization would
be in any position to receive any money under the settlement, or in the event that
the case is resolved through a trial instead of a settlement.

      In short, Movant seeks the Court's leave to file a brief amicus curiae
in the original sense of this Latin term: someone who is knowledgeable, likely to
present arguments or insights not otherwise readily available to the Court, and
impartial.  That brief amicus curiae makes up the remainder of this document.

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF PROF. JOHN F. BANZHAF III,
GENERAL COUNSEL OF ACTION ON SMOKING AND HEALTH (ASH)                

In summary the Court is about to be asked to approve what is part
of the largest civil settlement in the history of litigation, and one which will have
the most profound consequences and effects (for better or worse) upon the
public health which can be imagined.  However, for the reasons very briefly
outlined below, there appear to be very serious procedural problems involving
the method by which the proposed settlement is to be adopted, and many
substantive problems with the deal itself.

      It appears the parties are going to ask the Court to approve a lengthy
and complex settlement in an area of profound importance without providing a
reasonable opportunity for organizations which have demonstrated their concern,
commitment, experience, and expertise to study and evaluate it -- a procedure
directly contrary to the one which was used regarding the original attorney
general settlement proposed in 1997.  This by itself raises the most serious
questions as to the fairness and appropriateness of such a rush to judgment. 
This is particularly so since there seems to be no reason why this deal, which
was over five months in the making, must be approved in a matter of days when,
as this Court is well aware, far less complex settlements in cases involving much
small numbers of interests ordinarily are evaluated over a far longer period
before they are approved.

      In addition to the many procedural and fairness issues which will be
outlined very briefly below, a preliminary examination of the complex document
suggests that it provides two different types of totally unprecedented legal
immunity to the tobacco industry; that it fails to contain the terms which virtually
all public health professions -- and even the attorneys general themselves in
1997 -- insist are absolutely essential to substantially reduce teen smoking; and
that many of the so-called concessions by the tobacco industry are either
ineffective and/or simply illusory -- smoke and mirrors.

PROCEDURAL CONCERNS

        -- 1. Unlike the original 1997 negotiations at which one (and eventually
more) representatives from established public health organizations were
permitted to participate and provide valuable insight and information, it appears
that no such participation was permitted here.

        -- 2. Upon information and belief the full text of proposed agreement --
including all exhibits -- was not available to the public until the afternoon of
Monday, November 16.  It has been announced that the attorneys general in the
various states are being asked to agree to the proposal by noon on Friday,
November 20.  Thus the public and its many public health organizations are
being given no more than four working days to examine a document of
unimagined complexity and yet with profound public health implications.  It is
further complicated by the fact that, while the major public organizations have
access to legal counsel to help them interpret its provisions, many of the people
with expertise in this area are not themselves lawyers, thus slowing down an
already lengthy process of analysis, study, review, and evaluation.

        -- 3. This is especially serious since careful study of the text of the 1997
attorney general deal revealed many serious problems -- some of which, due to
their lack of experience with issues regarding tobacco, apparently were not even
recognized by the state negotiators.

        -- 4. To provide unbiased and expert evaluation to Congress, the National
Committee on Tobacco Policy and Public Health was established.  It was
composed of leaders from more than two dozen widely respected organizations
long concerned with the problems of smoking.  It held open hearings on national
tobacco policy and, within approximately 30 days, produced a detailed report
which highlighted the weaknesses of the 1997 deal.  It is obvious that neither that
organization nor any other comparable body will be able to review this new deal
in the four days which have been provided.

        -- 5.  Since the attorneys general sought the support of the President for
its 1997 deal, the proposal was also carefully reviewed by a White House task
force composed of approximately 50 different experts from a wide variety of
different government agencies.  As part of its processes, this task force met with
dozens of organizations as well as scientists, physicians, and other leaders in
the war on smoking before making its recommendations to the President.  No
such level of additional scrutiny is contemplated here, even though the deal
seems to be every bit as complex, and could well be the most effective vehicle
for attacking American's number one preventable health problem.

        -- 6. Since the 1997 deal had to be enacted into law to be effective, various
aspects of it were the subject of numerous hearings before several different
Congressional committees which heard from perhaps 100 different witnesses. 
Subsequently major review was undertaken by key senators and their staffs, as
well as staff members from various committees.  The result -- the so-called
McCain bill -- greatly strengthened many of the provisions of the original 1997
deal.

        -- 7. This bill was then itself subject to lengthy public debate on the floor
of Senate where the views and analysis of even more organizations -- as well as
additional governmental bodies -- were reviewed and analyzed before the Senate
began consideration of the measure itself.

        -- 8. Here, in sharp contrast, the negotiations were conducted entirely in
secret with no participation by any member of the public health community. 
Rather than permitting a thorough analysis of the new proposal by a wide variety
of organizations, governmental agencies, and experts through a series of open
public hearings before any final commitments are made, each attorney general
has been given only a few days to agree to (or not agree to) the negotiated
proposal.

        -- 9. Although attorneys general are charged by law with representing the
legal interests of the state, virtually all have admitted in public statements that
the major purpose of the suit was to protect the health of the public (especially
the state's children), and not just to obtain financial redress.  Indeed, if financial
recovery were the only purpose of the suit, the attorneys general acted
improperly in seeking to extract any public health concessions which might
diminish their ability to obtain the strictly highest financial return.  Since a
primary purpose of the suit is to protect the health of the public, it would seem
only reasonable that those who have far more experience and expertise than the
attorneys general in that area should have a reasonable opportunity to at least
be heard before this unique opportunity to protect the public health passes, and
the Court is forced to make a decision to approve it based largely on the one-
sided representations of the attorney general.

        -- 10. It is also appropriate to note that most of the public health and other
similar organizations which are seeking a right to be heard are also charged by
their charters with protecting the public health.  Moreover, both the federal
government and the state governments support and help to pay for the operation
of these organization through the substantial tax deductions which are given to
people who make contributions.  For these reasons also it would seem to be only
fair that the expertise and experience which the public has paid to help these
organizations acquire be utilized to assure that this is the best possible and most
effective settlement under the circumstances.

        -- 11.  In this regard it must be noted that the issues of why children begin
to smoke, how they can best be helped to remain smoke free, the most effective
method for helping them quit, etc. are very difficult and complex issues. For
example, whether or not the deal's ban on "Joe Camel" is really effective since
the "Marlboro Man," the Virginia Slim's woman, and other equally potent images
will remain; the extent to which a ban on cigarette billboards is more important
than a ban on cigarette vending machines, etc., are issues which the attorneys
general and even the Court -- regardless of their respective legal abilities -- may
not be qualified to address without the assistance of those who have devoted
their lives to the issue.  Thus the need for a reasonable procedure to permit that
input in absolutely imperative.

SUBSTANTIVE CONCERNS

      For the reasons outlined above, neither Movant nor his colleagues
in the antismoking movement have had anywhere near a sufficient time to study
and evaluate the proposed national settlement.  Nevertheless, based upon a very
preliminary analysis, there do appear to be many substantive issues which raise
very grave concerns.  A few are outlined below:

        -- A.  A centerpiece of the original 1997 deal, of the Report of the National
Committee on Tobacco Policy and Public Health, and of the McCain bill was the
establishment of fixed goals for the reduction of teen smoking which the deal
was primarily designed to bring about, and penalties substantial enough that the
cigarette manufactures would have the incentive to meet them.  This deal
contains no such "look back" provisions.


      If the parties have any real basis for believing that the deal will
produce any significant reductions in teen smoking -- which many attorneys
general have often stated is a major goal of this litigation -- it is strange to see
why they have been omitted from this new document.  Without them there may
be little reason to believe that the limited restrictions on cigarette advertising and
promotion will have any significant impact on teen smoking.

      As my colleague, law professor Richard Daynard of the Tobacco
Product Liability Project, has pointed out:

        The proponents of the June 20, 1997 deal admitted that their
        marketing restrictions (which were much more far-reaching than
        those in the present deal) were probably not airtight; they argued,
        however, that the look-back provisions would give the industry an
        incentive not to search for loopholes.  Nonetheless, the look-back
        provisions in the June 20 deal were criticized by most experts as too
        lenient to do the job. This deal avoids that problem by omitting this
        potentially very effective device altogether!

        -- B. Under the proposed deal, the financial obligations seem to be
imposed solely upon individual tobacco subsidiaries, and not upon the much
larger and better financed parent corporations to which the tobacco profits have
been funneled for many years.  This would permit the companies to "spin off"
their tobacco subsidiary -- as the press has repeatedly reported some wish to do
-- and thereby possibly insulate themselves from some liability; i.e., beyond any
attempt to pierce the corporate veil.  Perhaps more serious is that such an
eventuality might make the financial recovery provisions of the deal illusory.  If
any significant number of the pending or proposed class-action, third-party,
and/or individual law suits are successful against the subsidiary, it might declare
bankruptcy, thereby eliminating or at least substantially reducing any further
recovery for the state.

        -- C. Similarly it appears that the agreement provides totally unprecedented
immunity to the tobacco industry for law suits brought by individual cities,
counties, or towns, or even other entities like hospital districts of the kind which
have already been brought in a few instances.  Whether or not this is fair,
appropriate, and desirable from a public health point of view, and whether or not
this decision should be made unilaterally by the attorney general without action
by the legislature and/or input from the affected municipalities, is certainly a
matter for debate.  Indeed, the Court may recall that the issue of immunity was
a major factor which led to the defeat of the 1997 attorney general deal.

        -- D. Moreover, the text seems to prohibit actions brought even by private
entities if they are suing on behalf of all taxpayers; by private citizens bringing
qui tam actions (of the type which forced Spiro T. Agnew to repay money he took
in bribes); or by any person "seeking relief on behalf of or generally applicable
to the general public," a term which could apply to class actions, or those
seeking injunctive relief.

        -- E. The proposed deal contains no agreement regarding the regulation of
tobacco products by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  Yet the public
health community unanimously agrees that this is probably one of the most
important components -- after the lookback provisions -- in helping to curb the
current epidemic of teen smoking.  While some attorneys general have argued
that this is a federal matter which can only be resolved through legislation, there
seems to be no legal reason why, as a condition of settlement, the states could
not have insisted that the defendants voluntarily dismiss their suit challenging
the FDA's jurisdiction over cigarettes, and agree not to contest it.  Whether or
not this was or was not attempted, and the extent to which its omission fatally
weakens this deal, are issues the Court should at the very least explore.

        -- F.  In two nearly simultaneous reports, both the National Academy of
Sciences and the National Committee on Tobacco Policy and Public Health
concluded that one of the most important and effective ways of reducing the
growing epidemic of smoking by young people was an increase in price which
was both substantial and sudden enough to affect consumer perceptions and
buying habits.  Both recommended a $2/pack increase.  Published estimates of
the price increase likely to result from this new deal are only about 35 cents per
pack.  Even then there is no guarantee that the increase would be immediate, and
it could well be phased in more slowly so as to avoid the desired psychological
impact. 

        -- G. Although the deal does contain a number of limits on the advertising
and promotion of tobacco products, experts in the field know that these may
offer little real hope of significantly reducing smoking.  Experience in other
countries which have gone much further and even prohibited all cigarette
advertising show that the tobacco industry is nevertheless able to circumvent
even these far-stricter measures and still effectively promote smoking. 
Unfortunately this information may not be well known to many of the attorneys
general, including those who participated in the negotiation of this deal.

        -- H. Moreover, many of the so-called concessions may be illusory.  For
example, while the deal prohibits companies from providing gifts to minors who
purchase requisite numbers of cigarettes, it permits anyone requesting the gifts
through the mail to prove his age simply by sending a photocopy of a driver's
license -- hardly a serious impediment to any teen who can easily provide a copy
of an older friend's license.

        -- I. In other cases, the concessions made by the tobacco industry also
appear to be illusory. For example, although the deal purports to ban the use
of cartoon characters in tobacco advertising and even mentions "Joe Camel"
by name, the RJR tobacco company has previously committed itself to getting
rid of this cartoon character.  Likewise, the prohibitions on targeting youth, and
on product placement in movies, were part of the earlier tobacco settlement with
Minnesota.



        -- J.  As many organizations have already pointed out, there are no
restrictions on cigarette vending machines, self-service displays, Internet sales,
or in-store advertising, all of which are key factors in helping to prevent children
from becoming addicted to nicotine.  This is in stark contrast to both the 1997
deal and the temporarily-suspended FDA regulations.

        -- K. The lack of time created by the self-imposed Friday deadline from
approval of this deal has made it impossible for Movant to compose a complete
list of the many apparent substantive problems with the proposed deal, and/or
an organized listing of the concerns voiced by many other national antismoking,
public health, medical, and other public interest organizations.  These include,
but are certainly not limited to, the American Association of Public Health
Physicians, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, American
Cancer Society, Americans For Nonsmokers' Rights, Next Generation Tobacco
Control Alliance, the 300+ member "Save Lives Not Tobacco" Coalition, Tobacco
Product Liability Group, and other groups.

      Therefore Movant respectfully attaches to this brief copies of
statements by a number of these organizations and individuals, as well as press
reports of their comments, to demonstrate to the Court the virtually unanimous
opposition to an acceptance of this deal without an adequate opportunity for
study by these and many other organizations.

CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF

      Movant respectfully suggests that the Court should -- in the exercise
of its supervisory authority over the current action and any proposed settlement
thereof -- not permit the proposed national tobacco settlement to become final
(and dismiss the instant proceeding) without permitting a reasonable time for this
most complex proposal with the most profound public interest implications to be
studied and evaluated by those with the requisite knowledge, experience, and
background before it is accepted.

      Moreover, Movant respectfully suggests that, prior to accepting this
proposed settlement and dismissing the action, the Court should conduct a
hearing to provide a proper record and to permit alternative views to be aired and
tested by the established techniques of testimony and cross examination -- or,
at the very least, sufficient oral argument to illuminate all of the relevant issues.

      For the reasons very briefly (and hurriedly) set forth hereinafter,
Movant respectfully suggests that the Court sua sponte order the Attorney
General not to agree at this time to the proposed national tobacco settlement;
that the Court provide for a reasonable period of no less than thirty days for
examination and study of this massive and complex document; and that at the
conclusion of that time hold a hearing appropriate for the Court to determine that
the Attorney General has not abused his discretion in tentatively agreeing to this
proposal, and that it is in fact in the public interest -- and the interest of the
State and of its citizens -- as the proponents proclaim.

      Finally, Movant respectfully suggests that it would be nothing short
of unconscionable for the Court to ignore the growing requests by antismoking,
national health, medical, and other public interest organizations and accept this
unprecedented agreement without a reasonable opportunity for them to study it,
and for them to assist the Court to build a record sufficient for the Court to
exercise its authority to review such settlements.

Respectfully submitted,John F. Banzhaf III, Esq.
Prof. of Law, George Washington University Law School, and
Executive Director and Chief Counsel
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
2013 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: (202) 659-4310; Fax: (202) 833-3921
D.C. Bar Number: 946681

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

      I. John F. Banzhaf III, do hereby certify that I have today sent a copy
of this entire document, including attachments, to the Attorney General by
overnight delivery.  Since Movant does not have and has been unable to obtain
a service list of all of the parties, he respectfully requests that the Attorney
General make copies available as appropriate to the other parties.

      In the alternative, the Court may wish to direct the Clerk to effect
such service, or to cause a complete service list to be sent via E-mail, fax, or
other appropriate means to Movant who will then cause service to be made via
First Class mail on all parties.

      Movant respectfully apologizes to the Court for this inconvenience,
but the press of time forced upon him by the attorneys general self-imposed time
deadline makes conventional service impossible under the circumstances.

Signed,
John F. Banzhaf III, Esq.
Prof. of Law, George Washington University Law School, and
Executive Director and Chief Counsel
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
2013 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: (202) 659-4310

**********

Judges in Tobacco Cases in Most Populous States

Listing shows name, address, and fax numbem of judge, followed by
the title of the case and its docket number.

Letters should be addressed as follows and then FAXED to the judge:

Judge NAME
ADDRESS
CITY, STATE ZIP

RE: FULL CASE NAME, DOCKET NUMBER

**********

Judge Jack L. Lintner 
Superior Court of New Jersey Middlesex County
JFK Square (Zip: 08901)
P.O. Box 964
New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0964
FAX 732,981-3272
The State of New Jersey, By Peter Verniero v. R.J Reynolds Tobacco
Company The American Tobacco Company....
Docket No: C254-96


Judge Stephen Crane
Supreme Court of the State of New York 
Civil Branch 
60 Centre Street
New York City, NY 10007-1474
FAX 212,374-4726
The State of New York and Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney General 
v. Philip Morris Incorporated; Brown and Williamson Tobacco
Corporation .....
Case No: 400361/97

Judge Nodine Miller
Court of Common Pleas Franklin County
Hall Of Justice 
369 S. High Street
Columbus, OH 43215
FAX 614,462-3660
State of Ohio, ex rel. Betty D. Montgomery Attorney General v.
Philip Morris, Incorporated 
Case No: 97CVH05 5114

Judge Lawrence Glazer
Circuit Court for the 30th Judaical Circuit
333 S. Capitol Ave., Suite C
Lansing, MI 48933
FAX 517,483-6507
State of Michigan Circuit Court of the 30th Judicial Circuit Ingham
County Kelley ex rel. Michigan Plaintiff v. Philip Morris
Incorporate, et al., 
Case No. 96-84281-CZ


Judge Gerald Zore
Marion Superior Court
City-County Building, Room W122
200 E. Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3381
FAX 317,327-3903
State of Indiana ex rel. Jeffrey A. Modisett, Attorney General of
Indiana v. Philip Morris, Incorporated; .....
Case No. 49D____-9702-CT_________


Judge John Lewis *
Superior Court of the State of California 
Count of Sacramento
720 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
FAX 916,874-6867
People of the State of California ex rel. Daniel E. Lungren,
Attorney General of the State of California v. Philip Morris,
Inc.,; R.J. Reynolds .....
Case No. 97AS03031

* Stan Glantz says that the proper judge is Roger Prager
of teh San Diego Superior Court


Judge Dan Moeser
State of Wisconsin
Circuit Court Dane County
210 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Room GR10
Madison, WI 53709
FAX 608,266-9286
State of Wisconsin Circuit Court Dane County 
v. Philip Morris Incorporated .....
Case No.97CV328 


Judge J. Sosman
Superior Court Middlesex
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
40 Thorndike Street
East Cambridge, MA 02141
FAX 617,494-1768
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Philip Morris, Inc., .....
Case No. 95-7378-J


Judge Jimmy Edwards
Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri 
10 N. Tucker Blvd. 
St. Louis, MO 63101-2097
FAX 314,622-4537
State of Missouri, ex rel Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon Attorney General 
v. American tobacco Company, Inc.;....
Case No. 972-1465


Judge Richard Neville
Circuit Court of Cook County
50 Washington Street
Chicago, IL 60602
FAX 312,603-2979
People of the State of Illinois v. Philip Morris, Inc.; ......
Case NO: 96-L13146