[My Organization] (re)affirms its support for the current legal effort that is intended to modify the Master Settlement Agreement between the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Tobacco Industry. We have read the key filings in this matter, and we conclude:

1. Intervenors should be granted standing to pursue these matters of substantial Public Health concern with regard to the approval of the MSA.
2. The Court must address key issues in the MSA.
3. The Court must strike “II (pp)” or add a stipulation based on statements issued by the Attorney General-both publicly and in the official record-denying his capacity to block all future anti-tobacco litigation filed by persons or entities acting in any capacity (e.g., parens patriae, sovereign, quasi-sovereign, private attorney general, qui tam, taxpayer).
4. The Court must strike “XII (b)” or add a stipulation based on statements issued by Attorney General-both publicly and in the official record-clarifying the scope of and procedure for application of the Offset Provision.

In essence, we feel Pennsylvanians deserve what citizens in the first four settling states obtained from their settlements with the tobacco industry; they obtained twice the funding (calculated per-capita) and didn’t get saddled with any of the above-cited legal constraints.

The importance of not giving the tobacco industry any special legal powers is a vital issue that must be adjudicated in a fashion that Judge James R. Kelley clearly has outlined:

A trial court may not place its judicial imprimatur on a proposed settlement and consent decrees, and order the entry of judgment thereon, where the record utterly fails to demonstrate that it is a just and fair resolution to the matter. This is particularly so where the proposed settlement and consent decrees are of such a broad expanse, so absolutely preclude future claims and liability, and may never be altered or amended in any manner by the court. To my mind, the entry of judgment based on such a speculative and conjectural predicate affecting such significant rights must surely constitute an error of law.

[My Organization] looks forward to assisting you in elucidating the problems in the MSA should a Hearing be mandated by the appellate courts. Our capacity to litigate key issues affecting the public health must not be sold by the Attorney General for a bag of coins.