UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL W. MASON
Plaintiff and Appellant
Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health
Michael Friedman, Acting Director of FDA
Defendants and Appellees
ON APPEAL FROM
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DIST. OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIV.
HON. JEREMY FOGEL PRESIDING
U.S.D.C. No. C-97-20686 JF
PETITION FOR HEARING EN BANC
Paul W. Mason, In Pro Per
P O BOX 1417
Patterson, CA 95363
Telephone: (408) 897-3023
Fax: (408) 897-3028
"Taking Mason's allegations as true....there is an annual avoidable loss of human life in numbers which, over time, would exceed the loss of life incurred in the HOLOCAUST."
"The court does not doubt the seriousness of the issues raised by (Mason). Nor does the court question (Mason's) motives in pursuing this cause. (Mason) acts from a genuine concern that many people are dying before their time, from a preventable cause."
Hon. Jeremy Fogel
Partial Summary Judgement
May 11, 1999
The proceeding involves questions of exceptional importance:
1. Whether the lower court violated the Constitution by unreasonably abdicating its mandate and duty to be a "check and balance" on another branch of government in a case involving willful acquiescence in millions of deaths to coverup a previous FDA blunder, when the the court dismissed and advised Mason to seek "political" recourse instead of "judicial" recourse.
2. Whether the lower court unreasonably and un-Constitutionally issued an advisory opinion that no genocide had occurred, without any analysis of the elements of genocide, and without trying the case.
3. Whether the lower court unreasonably invented and applied its own unique, limited definition of "genocide" that is not supported by (a) U.S. genocide law 18 USC 1091. (b) the history of genocides in the 20th Century. (c) U.N. Genocide Convention of 1951. (d) UN Statute of Rome of 1998 concerning the elements of genocide.
4.Whether the lower court unreasonably applied Heckler v.Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831-32 (1985) to a case in which the FDA's motives are challenged, as opposed to how well the FDA is equipped. Heckler: "The agency is far better equipped than the courts to deal with the many variables involved in the proper ordering of its priorities."
5.Whether the lower court deprived Mason of his Constitutional right to a jury trial by unreasonably granting summary judgement - which should be reserved for resolving questions of law - after FDA denied and disputed causing over 3,000,000 deaths - a question of fact.
6. Whether the impartiality of the lower court was lacking because (a) the lower court judge was proposed, endorsed, and appointed by members of the same party that proposed, endorsed, and enacted the defendant agency. (b) the apparent premise of the lower court's dismissal was that defense counsel's willful coverup and perpetuation of millions of deaths, after receiving numerous constructive notices from the highest scientific authorities, was only an innocent oversight, a faux pas, a peccadillo, and not an "improper purpose" under FRCP Rule 11(b)(1),(3). (c) the lower court abdicated its Constitutional duty to be a "check and balance" on another branch of government to end willful acquiescence in millions of deaths, and instead advised Mason to seek "political" recourse instead of "judicial" recourse.
Paul Mason, Appellant in pro per date
This page was first uploaded to The Magnesium Web Site on August 21, 1999