There were nine amici curiae (Latin plural for “friends of the court”) in the Port Angeles case who filed a 30-page brief. I served as their attorney. It’s primary aim was to force the Court to look at the science on the subject of fluoridation. The links:
IAOMT Brief Appendix A, Interests of the Nine Amici Curiae
IAOMT Amicus Brief, Appendix B, Bruce Spittle, M.D., Fluoride Fatigue
IAOMT Amicus Brief, Appendix C, McQuillan on Initiatives
IAOMT Amicus Brief, Appendix D
IAOMT Amicus Brief, Appendix E, Stan Hazen Deposition
The City of Port Angeles and the Dental Foundation filed their Motion to Strike the IAOMT Amicus Brief.
The IAOMT Amici filed their Response of IAOMT Amici to Port Angeles’ Motion to Strike IAOMT Brief. The Supreme Court accepted both the brief and the defense of the brief.
Other fluoridation supporters filed their Fluoride Supporters’ Answer to IAOMT Amicus Brief. Attached to it was an article by Howard F. Pollick, Water Fluoridation and the Environment, Current Perspectives in the US. These documents were riddled with legal and scientific errors.
The IAOMT Amici cannot reply to the Fluoride Supporters’ Answer without permission from the Court. So the IAOMT Amici are asking to be allowed to reply to that answer.
Click here to read the letter of the IAOMT Amici to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court send me a letter saying that no further amicus briefs were being accepted. I was disappointed because I relished the opportunity to point out some of the absurd arguments in the Dentists’ brief. But I was also relieved. I did not have to spend another 20 hours writing another brief. – James