LETTER Re APPLICATION FOR AMICUS CURIE IN THE CASE OF SIRHAN SIRHAN FOR THE Inter-American Commission On Human Rights AUGUST 8, 2017

STAN J.
CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS BRIEF
Stan J. Caterbone
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Freedom From Covert Harassment &

Surveillance,
Registered in Pennsylvania
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
www.amgglobalentetainmentgroup.com
stancaterbone@gmail.com
717-327-1566
AUGUST 8, 2017
THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

1889 F STREET N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
email cidhoea@oas.org
(202)370-9000
(202)458-3650 Fax
re: William F. Pepper, Ed.D., J.D., SIRHAN SIRHAN PETITION

APPLICATION FOR AMICUS CURIE IN THE CASE OF SIRHAN SIRHAN FOR THE
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights AUGUST 5, 2017
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
After reading the GLOBAL RESEARCH article titled Sirhan Sirhan: A Reel Bad
Arab? The Alleged Killer of Robert F. Kennedy I have written the enclosed AMICUS
BRIEF in support of William F. Pepper's PETITION. I have authored similar AMICUS
BRIEFS in similar cases, most notably the following:
1. THE ACLU v. The National Security Agency, NSA Case No. 2006-cv-2095 in
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2. CASE NO. 215-CV-286-JLQ CIA TORTURE CASE v. CIA DOCTORS IN US
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
I have also, as Pro Se MOVANT for the Nationally Acclaimed case of LISA
MICHELLE LAMBERT, as MOVANT in the U.S. District Court Case No. 14-02559 for
the United States Eastern District of Pennsylvania taken that case to the U.S.
Supreme Court in Case No. 16-2288. The case was denied in the January 6, 2017
CONFERENCE of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices.
In the matter of the the Esteban Santiago, Ft. Lauderdale Shooter case, in which
Estaban Santiago had made claims of being a victim of U. S. Sponsored Mind Control
to the FBI in the months prior to the shooting, I have proved Eric Cohen, the United
States Public Defender assigned to the case an extensive library of over 3 gigabytes
of research and my own testimonial evidence.
Please correspond in writing as to your handling of my AMICUS BRIEF, or if you

desire the BRIEF in another format. My resume is attached.
Thank You in advance for your considerations.
If you have any questions, please call at (717) 327-1566.
INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Page No. 1 of 29 Tuesday August 8, 2017
STAN J. CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS BRIEF
Respectfully,
_______________________
Stan J. Caterbone, Pro Se Litigant
ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
Freedom From Covert Harassment & Surveillance,
Registered in Pennsylvania
1250 Fremont Street
Lancaster, PA 17603
www.amgglobalentetainmentgroup.com
stancaterbone@gmail.com
717-327-1566
Notice and Disclaimer: Stan J. Caterbone and the Advanced Media Group have been slandered, defamed, and
publicly discredited since 1987 due to going public (Whistle Blower) with allegations of misconduct and fraud
within International Signal & Control, Plc. of Lancaster, Pa. (ISC pleaded guilty to selling arms to Iraq via
South Africa and a $1 Billion Fraud in 1992). Unfortunately we are forced to defend our reputation and the
truth without the aid of law enforcement and the media, which would normally prosecute and expose public
corruption. We utilize our communications to thwart further libelous and malicious attacks on our person, our
property, and our business. We continue our fight for justice through the Courts, and some communications
are a means of protecting our rights to continue our pursuit of justice. Advanced Media Group is also a
member of the media. Reply if you wish to be removed from our Contact List. How long can Lancaster County
and Lancaster City hide me and Continue to Cover-Up my Whistle Blowing of the ISC Scandel (And the Torture
from U.S. Sponsored Mind Control)?
ACTIVE COURT CASESACTIVE COURT CASES

J.C. No. 03-16-90005 Office of the Circuit Executive, United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals -
COMPLAINT OF JUDICIALMISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY re 15-3400 and 16-1149; 03-16-900046 re
ALL FEDERAL LITIGATION TO DATE
U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 16-6822 PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI re Case No. 16-1149
MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert
U.S.C.A. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 16-3284; Case No. 16-1149 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle
Lambert;15-3400 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert;; 16-1001; 07-4474
U.S. District Court Eastern District of PA Case No. 17-01233 Chapter 11 Appeal for 17-10615; Case No.
17-0867 Preliminary Injunction from Middle District; Case No. 16-4014 CATERBONE v. United States,
et.al.; Case No. 16-cv-49; 15-03984; 14-02559 MOVANT for Lisa Michelle Lambert; 05-2288; 06-4650,
08-02982;
U.S. District Court Middle District of PA Case No. 16- 2513 INJUNCTION; Case No. 16-cv-1751
PETITION FOR HABEUS CORPUS
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board Case No. 2016-462 Complaint against
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Judge Leonard Brown III
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Case No. 353 MT 2016; 354 MT 2016; 108 MM 2016 Amicus for Kathleen
Kane
Superior Court of Pennsylvania 3575 EDA 2016 Amicus for Kathleen Kane; Summary Appeal Case No.
CP-36-SA-0000219-2016, AMICUS for Kathleen Kane Case No. 1164 EDA 2016; Case No. 1561 MDA
2015; 1519 MDA 2015; 16-1219 Preliminary Injunction Case of 2016
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas Case No. 16-05815 Injunction; Case No. 16-08472
INJUNCTION re Pain Meds; Case No. 15-10167 Film Commission; Case No. 08-13373; 15-10167; 06-
03349, CI-06-03401
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for The Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case No. 17-10615; Case No. 16-10157

Sirhan Sirhan: A Reel Bad Arab? The Alleged Killer of Robert F. Ken... http://www.globalresearch.ca/sirhan-sirhan-a-reel-bad-arab-the-alleged-ki...
About Contact Membership Store Donate USA Canada Latin America Africa Middle East Europe Russia Asia Oceania
Notre site en Franais: mondialisation.ca

Italiano Deutsch Portugus srpski
Search Authors... Globalizacion | Asia-Pacific Research
Search... GR Newsletter, Enter Email GO
US Nato War Economy Civil Rights Environment Poverty Media Justice 9/11 War Crimes Militarization History Science
Latest News & Top Stories
Hiroshima: A Military Base according to

President Harry Truman
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Our Government Has

Never Apologized
Sirhan Sirhan: A Reel Bad Arab? The Alleged Killer of
US War Crimes against North Korea: Sinchon
Robert F. Kennedy
Massacre by U.S. Military Exposed
By J. Michael Springmann Region: USA

Is the Expanding U.S. Military Presence in Syria Theme: Law and Justice, Media Disinformation, Police State &
Legal? Global Research, July 23, 2017 Civil Rights
On the Beach 2017. The War was Over Was

it Started by an Accident or Mistake. There was
no Victor
On July 20, 2017, William F. Pepper, Ed.D., J.D., spoke at the National
EU to Become Global Balancer If It Gains Press Club about his previous days filing of a 200-page petition
Geopolitical Independence From the US regarding Sirhan Sirhan. Sirhan, jailed since 1968, is , late New York
U.S. senator and Democratic presidential candidate. Organized by
Most Popular All Articles
Andrew Kreig, J.D., editor of the Justice Integrity Project, the well-
attended conference enabled Dr. Pepper to discuss his long-sought
evidentiary hearing.
As Sirhans lawyer for many years, Pepper conceded that the legal remedies for his client in the United
States have been exhaustedat both the State and federal levels. California, where Kennedy had been
murdered in a Los Angeles hotel kitchen, did not assure a fair trial. Essentially, ineffective assistance of
counsel got the accused wrongly convicted. Grant Cooper, his attorney, under threat of a sealed
felony indictment, did almost nothing to defend Sirhan. He failed to investigate the matter, obtain the
autopsy report, or examine ballistics tests. He spent most of the court proceedings arguing that Sirhan
was guilty and, that because of diminished capacity, should not be given the death penalty.
Sirhan also got no relief in the federal system, neither with with the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, nor with the extremely liberal and contrarian U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th
Circuit, nor with the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to review the case.
Now, Pepper is staking Sirhans chances on the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(IACHR), an Organization of American States (OAS) body. His goal is either a new trial or an
evidentiary hearing. The filing alleges that the California and U.S. justice systems violated Sirhans
right to a fair trial, as required under the OAS Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. By treaty,
the IACHR may review U.S. cases and those from 34 other nations when domestic remedies have
been exhausted.
Pepper, who had been a friend of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, is known for his
winning defense of Kings supposed murderer, James Earle Ray, during a 1993 mock trial on HBO. In
a celebrated wrongful death proceeding in 1999, Pepper obtained a symbolic award based on 10 years
of dogged pursuit of relevant evidence and witnesses. He is doing the same now with Sirhan.
Noting that the U.S. media is controlled, by high level businessmen, bankers, and other influential
figures who move in and out of government, such as John J. McCloy one-time U.S. High
Commissioner for Germany and member of the Warren Commission, Sirhans lawyer said that the
conclusive evidence reported as news was, in realty, extremely weak. There was never a hearing on
the facts, he commented. Such an investigation would have shown that Sirhan, the claimed criminal,
was nowhere near Kennedy when the shooting started. Thomas Noguchi, Los Angeles chief medical
examiner at the time, swore that Kennedy was struck by three shots fired within inches of his body,
from behind. Sirhan got off two shots at Kennedy from a six-foot distance, in front. Sirhan was
immediately tackled and pinned down while still pulling the trigger on his handgun. However, Sirhan
fired only eight shots total yet a carefully-examined sound recording heard thirteen rounds. Moreover,
the shots came from different directions.
Yet, the Los Angeles Police Department, Pepper revealed, failed to preserve the physical evidence
from the crime scene, such as ceiling tiles, doors, and door frames with bullets buried in them. The
1 of 3 8/5/17, 2:15 PM
Sirhan Sirhan: A Reel Bad Arab? The Alleged Killer of Robert F. Ken... http://www.globalresearch.ca/sirhan-sirhan-a-reel-bad-arab-the-alleged-ki...
cops excuse? There was no space in which to store them. Pepper went on to say that the Los Angeles
Global Research Publishers
police had long-standing and very close ties to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
The suspicion is, Pepper remarked, that Sirhan appeared to fit the parameters of the infamous CIA
drug and consciousness-altering program, MK-ULTRA. (Its former director, Sid Gottlieb, destroyed
most of the operations records in 1973.) Dr. Daniel Brown, Harvard Medical School, spent nearly 70
hours examining Sirhan through hypnosis and questioning, concluding that the Palestinian Christian
had undergone a variety of procedures coupled with drugs to make him controllable. Notably, Pepper
said, this could have occurred while Sirhan had mysteriously disappeared for two weeks before the
assassination. Seen as a patsy, he was prepped as a distraction while the real murderer fired the
close-up shots killing Kennedy, Pepper continued. Sirhan had apparently had a handler, a woman in a
polka dot dress, the attorney remarked. She disappeared after she pinched the scapegoat on the neck,
apparently triggering Sirhans belief that he was really shooting at a paper, man-shaped target from a
firing range.
COMMENT. Despite Andrew Kreigs extensive and most vigorous efforts, only a few members of the
Click Here To Order Online press turned up at the conference: an intern from the Washington Times, a representative from Al-
Mayadeen TV, Beirut, along with a knowledgeable White House correspondent for an alternative news
site. This appeared to validate Dr. Peppers view of the heavily-managed American media. And it
bodes ill for what seems to be the attorneys goal in filing with the OASto generate enough adverse
publicity to force the United States to re-examine the questionable trial of Sirhan Sirhan. Indeed, a
casual search of the Internet turns up a number of references about conspiracies revolving around
the problematically convicted man.
Perhaps everyone involved in this matter should take a look at Dr. Jack Shaheens writings on Arabs,
notably Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies A People.
This article was originally published by Haus Frau Leaks.
Featured image from the author
The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright J. Michael Springmann, Global Research, 2017
Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page
Become a Member of Global Research
Join us on Facebook
Articles by:
Partner Websites J. Michael Springmann
Project Censored
Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be
Stop NATO responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Center of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post
original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright
Strategic Culture Foundation must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:
publications@globalresearch.ca
The Corbett Report www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We
are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political,
Washington's Blog economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for
research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission
from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: publications@globalresearch.ca

2 of 3 8/5/17, 2:15 PM
Justice Integrity Report - About Us http://www.justice-integrity.org/about-jip2
Tweet Share
StumbleUpon
The project's research on questionable cases with a focus mainly, but not exclusively, on U.S. domestic federal investigations. Sample
areas include warrantless surveillance, intimidation of families and witnesses, suppression of evidence, appearance of judicial bias, and
irregular financial incentives. Also, the Project has examined oversight by higher courts, Congress, and the news media that permit
abuses that, in the aggregate, threaten the foundations of democracy.

1 of 5 8/5/17, 2:15 PM
"All decent, fair-minded American citizens -- liberal Democrats or conservative Republicans -- need to let their voices
be heard in denouncing, castigating, and rejecting such deplorable, dangerous tactics."
Robert Ames Alden retired from the Washington Post in 2000 after more than 48 years as an editor, making him at the time of his
retirement the longest-serving editor in the papers history. As night news editor in 1963, he put together the Post's first extra edition since
Pearl Harbor to cover the assassination of President Kennedy. As world news editor in 1974, he was the principal architect for the Posts
coverage of the resignation of President Nixon.
Culminating a seven-year effort in 1975, he co-founded and later led the National Press Foundation to improve journalism education. In the
late 1960s and early 1970s, he was the leading male advocate for the admission of women into the National Press Club, where he served
as president in 1976.
The first native Washingtonian to lead the Press Club, he began his career as a sportswriter for the Cleveland Press in 1947. He helped innovate the use of more
statistics in baseball coverage and was an award-winning writer.
He was a visionary community leader in planning a green, central park, library, outdoor stage, community center and theater for McLean, VA, whose Alden
Theater carries his name. He holds bachelor and masters degrees from the George Washington University, where he won the university's top history award as a
student for 17 years in the 1950s and 1960s. In 2005, university officials bestowing a distinguished alumnus award described Alden as a living legend in
Washington journalism.
James Ronald Fisher is an honors graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, retired Navy Captain, Founder and Executive Director of

2 of 5 8/5/17, 2:15 PM
WeThePeopleNow.org, an engineer, businessman, church and community leader, and civil rights advocate.
Fishers 30 years of military service includes 15 nuclear submarine patrols during the Cold and Vietnam Wars. Also, he managed the
overhaul and repair of nuclear submarines and inspections of almost every major naval command as the Assistant Naval Inspector General
for Logistics on the staff of the Secretary of the Navy/Chief of Naval Operations. His Navy work also included collateral duties as a prosecutor, defense counsel
and summary court martial officer. His Navy awards include the Legion of Merit.
As a civilian, he worked at two engineering services firms. He founded and led the Defense Fire Protection Association to improve the safety and survivability of
U.S. military forces. Also, he founded and led the Veterans Sales and Services Corporation (VetSS), which specialized in hiring disabled veterans.
His web site has, among other things, plans to end US wars and occupation, put more Americans to work and reform financial systems. In politics, he was
chairman of the Northern Virginia Presidential primary campaign for his classmate John McCain in 2000, and held the same post in 2008 for Dennis Kucinich. He
was first in his class in Submarine, Nuclear Power and Basic Engineering Duty Officer Schools and is the author of numerous research papers.
John Edward Hurley is Chairman of the McClendon Group, which is named for the legendary White House correspondent Sarah McClendon
and meets in the McClendon Room at the National Press Club. His career in the journalism and non-profit world has included his work with
the major media as a White House correspondent, as a commentator on News Talk America, and as a member of the Public Information
Committee of the National Academy of Sciences.
In addition to his work with the major media, he is the Commander of the National Press Club American Legion Post; developed the public
relations program that brought together the various breed registries that comprise the American Horse Council; was a long-time sponsor of
the Rappahannock Hunt; and is a patron of the Thornton Hill Hounds.
He also is President and Chairman of the Confederate Memorial Association's museum and library, the historian for the John Barry Division of the Hibernians,
and a co-founder of the Capitol HillCivil War Roundtable. Throughout his career, he has had a special interest in the integrity of the court system and has hosted
many news events on the subject, which have included coverage by C-SPAN from the National Press Club.

3 of 5 8/5/17, 2:15 PM
Andrew Kreig is Justice Integrity Project editor and co-founder. Andrew Kreig has two decades experience as an attorney and non-profit
executive in Washington, DC. An author and longtime investigative reporter, his primary focus since 2008 has been exploring allegations of
official corruption and other misconduct in federal agencies. Also, he has been a consultant and volunteer leader in advising several non-
profit groups fostering cutting-edge applications within the communications industries. In 2008, he became an affiliated research fellow with
the Information Economy Project at George Mason University School of Law and from 2009 through 2012 he was a
senior fellow with the Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism at Brandeis University.
As president and CEO of the Wireless Communications Association International (WCA) from 1996 until 2008, Kreig led its worldwide
advocacy that helped create the broadband wireless industry. He has lectured about communications on five continent, and co-keynoted
the annual Futures Summit of the National Association of Broadcasters. Previously, he was WCA vice president and general counsel, an
associate attorney at Latham & Watkins, law clerk to a federal judge, author of the book Spiked about the newspaper business, and a
longtime reporter for the Hartford Courant.

4 of 5 8/5/17, 2:15 PM
DOCUMENT DIVIDER

2001
Sarah F. Corbally
` Donald C. Bross
A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR FILING AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS

IN STATE APPELLATE COURTS
Introduction
Amicus briefs have been a part of the United States legal system since the
nineteenth century.1 Numerous organizations, including government officials, private
attorneys, corporations, and nonprofits, file thousands of amicus briefs in all fields of
litigation each year. The articles of incorporation of the National Association of Counsel
for Children (NACC) include the filing of amicus briefs as one of its three purposes.2
Throughout the history of the organization, the NACC has filed amicus briefs in complex
litigation involving children, including filing a brief in the 1999 United States Supreme
Court case, Troxel v. Granville3, which dealt with grandparent/third party visitation
rights.
As amicus practice has grown, the role of the majority of these briefs has evolved
from theoretical neutrality to overt party advocacy. Recently, this shift has been the
target of judicial scrutiny in courts across the country. Justice Posners remarks in the
1997 case, Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission4, have sparked an ongoing
debate regarding the appropriate role of an amicus curiae. In this case, Justice Posner
rejected the brief of an amicus curiae stating, After 16 years of reading amicus curiae
briefs the vast majority of which have not assisted the judges, I have decided that it
would be good to scrutinize these motions in a more careful, fish-eyed, fashion. The vast
majority of amicus briefs are filed by allies of litigants and duplicate the arguments made
in the litigants briefs, in effect, merely extending the length of the litigants brief. Such
amicus briefs should not be allowed. They are an abuse."5
In the area of childrens law, there has been less judicial scrutiny. Yet, this does
not mean that amicus curiae should disregard the ruling of Posner or the views of his
supporters when writing an amicus brief in complex litigation involving the rights of
children. In fact, there appears to be an opportunity for amicus practice for children to set
a new precedent by remaining free from the criticism that plagues other interest groups.
This short summary is provided to help any party asked to participate in the
submission of an amicus brief in childrens litigation. It summarizes and highlights the
recommendations and cautions that have been made in case decisions, law review
articles, and social science journals over the past decade. The assertions made are based
only on the available written sources and not independent research. In an area of practice
that does not enjoy unlimited financial support, it is critical to make the limited number
of amicus briefs filed on behalf of children of a consistently high quality.
First, we list the appropriate roles of amicus curiae. This can help reduce the
chances that amici will file briefs when filing would not be helpful, or even might be
counter-productive. Second, we visit what commentators view as the most effective
strategy to follow once the decision to file an amicus brief has been reached. Third, we
list the specific techniques viewed by commentators as likely to achieve the best results
1
when writing amicus briefs. Fourth, the common pitfalls that plague amicus curiae are
outlined to help those in the field of childrens rights litigation avoid making mistakes
criticized in the past. Finally, we summarize the rules of amicus practice from all 50
states. A chart found as an Appendix provides particular information for each State.
However, it is important to note that these rules are the topic of debate and may have
been recently revised, so checking the rules provided is necessary.
Appropriate Roles of Amicus Curiae

Recent literature has identified numerous roles in which amicus curiae may be of
assistance to the court. Depending on the specific litigation, an amicus brief may focus
solely on one, or a combination of several, of the following identified roles.
First, it may be appropriate to use an amicus curiae brief to amplify or
supplement the main legal and factual arguments presented in a partys brief. The brief
can provide clarity for the court, in a manner similar to that of expert testimony, when the
issue is convoluted. It may also present relevant extra-record facts and data that help the
court make a more fully informed decision. In this type of brief, it is permissible, and
sometimes desirable, to present the facts and circumstances differently than the party.
However, filing this type of brief is only appropriate when page limitations prevent the
party from fully addressing the complex issues in their own brief. As discussed in the
Common Pitfalls to Avoid section, a brief that simply echoes a partys arguments is not
useful to the court.
Second, an amicus brief may focus on an alternative legal argument to the
argument provided in either partys main brief. This is particularly important if a party
is not putting its best legal foot forward.6 It is also good to use this format when the
parties have failed to address controlling or relevant precedent. In addition, this style of
brief is appropriate to argue points deemed too far reaching for emphasis by a party
intent on winning a particular case.7
Third, it is appropriate to use an amicus curiae brief can be used to apprise the
court of broad-based legal, social, and economic implications of a decision or point out
its unintended consequences for a group not before the court.8 This is an important role,
because it provides a voice to those persons who are not parties but who may be affected
by the decision.9 In many cases, it is useful for the court to understand how their
decision will affect children on a state or nationwide level. Typically, this type of brief
provides extra-record data, usually in the form of special science data, to support its
position.10
Fourth, an amicus brief may provide information that allows the court to base its
decision in the particular case on a larger, more comprehensive, and more accurate legal
framework. One way to do this is to use the amicus brief to inform the court of other
cases pending that will be influenced by the outcome and inform the court of variations
among the cases that may require refinement of the legal analysis.11 This style brief may
also urge the court to limit its rulings and provide a legal analysis illustrating why a
decision will be bad precedent for other similarly situated cases. Second, this style of
brief may provide a collection of historical and factual references that merit judicial
notice. If applicable, it is also appropriate for this type of brief to explain to the court
how the particular statute at issue fits within a larger statutory framework. The purpose
2
of this style of brief is to educate and inform the court of the larger legal landscape to
which the issue before it is a belongs.
Lastly, it is appropriate to use amicus curiae briefs to describe the intricacies of
the specialized field of child welfare to the court. Often, the author or authors of an
amicus brief may be more familiar with the issue being litigated than either of the parties.
It is important for the court to have access to this expertise. There are also cases in which
the amicus curiae may be in a better position than either of the parties to advocate for
their own unique point of view. For example, for the National Association of Counsel for
Children, this might well be all children in a particular category or class that have
interests that must be respected.
One implication for potential amici is to state, at the beginning, which of these
agendas describes the brief being filed. The brief should then adhere to the stated
agenda in concise form. For further elaboration, see subsequent section on Specific
Writing Techniques.
Effective Preparation Strategies

Once the decision to participate as an amici has been made, based on the
fulfillment of at least one of the above criteria, there are several important steps to take
before beginning to write the brief. The following guidelines apply specifically to cases
in which the amicus brief is being submitted as the result of a request made by counsel to
a party.
First, it is important to discuss with counsel if there will be other amici
participating on their behalf. If so, recent literature suggests working together to submit
fewer high quality briefs that do not repeat one another.12 Regarding the ethical
questions this suggestion may raise, one commentator states, At the Supreme Court
level, sophisticated parties and counsel often convene meetings of potential amici in an
attempt to form coalitions and to influence the nature of the presentations that will be
made. Potential amici, in turn, often contact counsel for the party they support,
recognizing that such party coordination can be beneficial. But there is little reason to
see this common practice as a form of abuse.13
Second, it is critical to clarify with counsel which type of brief they are asking
you to submit. Part of this process involves deciding which type is most likely to help the
party succeed. It also involves becoming informed of the partys main arguments. This
will allow the amicus curiae to assess whether the main argument is being presented in
the most persuasive manner possible. This step will be most productive if the focus
remains on communication, cooperation, and coordination.14 As a result of this process,
the amici should emerge with a clear picture of the role their brief will take and can now
begin to write.
Specific Writing Techniques

The most important advice to follow when writing an amicus brief is to make it
short, well written, and effective. A brief that is poorly written and rambles on does not
assist the court or help advance briefs position. In addition, recent literature encourages
writers of these briefs to make efforts to be dramatic, witty, attention getting, and
provocative in an effort to capture the courts attention.15 However, this type of advice
requires caution. According to commentators, no matter how exciting and innovative the
3
writing, the most important factor is still the relevance of the briefs content and its
trustworthiness.
The most effective method of persuading the court that the brief submitted fulfills
the above criteria is to rely on a combination of caselaw, reputable studies, academic
research, and news reports. It also increases the credibility of the amicus curiae if a
complete list of authors and financial supporters is provided in the first footnote of the
brief. In the Supreme Court of the United States and some state Supreme Courts this
footnote is required by the rules, but it is good practice for all amicus briefs to include
this information.
Lastly, many states require a statement of interest be included in an amicus brief.
A complete statement of interest includes five things. First, identify the amicus. Second,
if an organization is sponsoring the brief, include a description of when it was founded
and for what purpose. Also, include a brief description of the members of the
organization and its activities. If the organization has filed briefs in the past this should
be mentioned if it strengthens the statement of interest. Third, identify the interest of the
amicus in this particular litigation. Fourth, describe for the court the unique perspective
or information the amicus can provide. Fifth, explain to the court the impact of its
decision beyond the parties in the litigation that makes the amicuss participation
desirable.16
Common Pitfalls To Be Avoided

As amicus curiae practice has become more closely scrutinized, a few techniques
and practices have been the target of the most criticism. If informed, one can easily avoid
these mistakes.
First, no matter how many times a party asks you to submit a me-too brief that
simply repeats their argument and comments on the weight of the evidence, refuse.
Cases continue to appear in which motions to file amicus briefs are denied, because they
do not aid the court by supplying arguments that differ from those presented by a party.17
In 1990, the United States Supreme Court added a provision to its amicus brief rule that
states, An amicus brief which brings relevant matter to the attention of the court that has
not already been brought to its attention by the parties is of considerable help to the court.
An amicus brief which doe s not serve this purpose simply burdens the staff and facilities
of the court and its filing is not favored.18 Several states have formally included this
provision in their rules, and there is no literature that suggests that any states do not
support this position.
A second important trap to avoid is that of misrepresenting social science data to
support the briefs position. Common examples of this practice include: not following
research norms, over-generalizing limited data, selectively distorting findings, making
normative statements that appear to be empirical, and citing questionable research
produced specifically for litigation.19 In addition, ignoring social science data that goes
against the briefs position is also discouraged. These common practices reflect a shift
from an amicis role of neutrality and objectivity to misguided advocacy. This practice,
fueled by the desire to win, only leads to reduced credibility for the organization
submitting the brief and the author or authors.
A third important area in which mistakes can be costly involves failure to read
and follow state guidelines for writing and filing amicus briefs. Table 1: Amicus Rules
4
By State, found as an Appendix, supplies each states particular rules for filing and
content. However, checking the rules of the jurisdiction in which the brief is to be filed is
highly recommended, as these rules have been the subject of recent reform in many
states.
Summary of Rules of Amicus Practice

Since every State adopts its own rules regarding amicus practice, this summary
only highlights the key elements that exist in the rules of most States. The following
summarizes the key elements included in Table 1.
Many states require the Courts permission to file amicus briefs. However, some
states waive this requirement for government participants or amicus that obtain consent
from all parties before filing. In addition, many states allow the Court to request amicus
briefs. States also vary on whether the amicus must lodge the brief with the motion, if a
motion is required. If the brief does not need to be lodged with the motion, the time for
filing varies greatly between States. Many States also lay out the required contents of the
motion. If your state lists the required elements of a motion, failure to include these
provides a simple basis for denial.
States vary on whether they allow amici to participate in oral arguments. Some
States forbid it, while others allow oral arguments on a motion, while others allow the
amicus to share the time of the party whose position the brief supports. If your State has
any other unique or additional elements to their rules, a column titled other includes
this information.
Conclusion
Amicus curiae have enjoyed a long history of support in our legal system. There
is no reason to jeopardize their unique resources and opportunity for representation of
important legal and social interests. This is specifically important because changing
societal and cultural views related to children can be needed to help reach humane and
just decisions in complex litigation involving the rights of children. In an increasingly
burdened legal system, the importance of providing the most effective, concise, and
ethical amicus brief possible is critical to children whose lives are being litigated.
5
TABLE 1: AMICUS RULES BY STATE
State: Rule(s)#: Permission: Must Time for Motion must Oral Other
If no foot- Lv =motion brief be filing: contain: Arguments imp info
note, then a Ct = ct requests filed with # = # of In = applicant ID & permitted in rules?
Rule of Wr = written days interests on a Yes =
motion?
Appellate consent by all O = other Re = reasons why motion? see FN
NS = not
Procedure parties (see FN) necessary or O = other
specified
O = other (see S = same as desirable (see FN)
FN) party O = other (see FN) NS = not
S = State agency supported20 NS = not specified specified
does not need Ct = ct Ex = only
permission to orders for extra -
file ordinary
reasons
AL 29 Lv or Ct No S In & Re Yes
AK 212 Lv or Ct or Wr No S In & Re Ex
AZ 16 & Lv or Wr or O Yes 4022 In & Re & O23 Yes Yes24

31.2521 &S
AR 4&5&6 O25 NS S26 Re No Yes27
CA 14 O28 Yes 3029 In & O30 NS Yes31
CO 29 Lv or Ct No S In & Re Ex
CT 67-7 O32 Yes 2033 Id & O34 Yes Yes35
DE 2836 Lv or Ct NS Ct In and Re Ex
FL 9.370 Ct or Wr NS S O37 NS
GA 23 & 2538 O39 Does Not NS Does Not Apply NS Yes40

Apply
HI 28 O41 NS Ct NS NS Yes42
ID 8 O43 NS Ct O44 O45 Yes46
IL 34547 Lv or Ct NS S Re No Yes48
IN 8.3 Lv or Ct NS S In & Re Ex
IA 18 Lv or Ct or Wr No S In & Re Ex
KS 6.0649 O50 NS 3051 NS No Yes52
KY 76.1253 O54 Yes 1555 O56 NS Yes57
LA 7 & 2-1258 O59 O60 O61 O62 O63 O64
ME 75A & Lv or Wr or NS O67 In & Re Ex Yes68

39B65 O66
MD 8-511 Lv or Ct NS S In & Re & O69 Ex
MA 17 Lv or Ct or O Yes S In & Re Ex Yes70

&S
MI 7.306 & O72 NS O73 NS O74 Yes75
7.21271
MN 129 & 1176 Lv & O77 No O78 In & Re & O79 Yes Yes80
6
motion?
NS = not
specified
file ordinary
reasons
MS 29 Lv & O82 Yes O83 O84 Ex Yes85
MO 375 & 26 Lv or Ct or Wr Yes S O87 O88 Yes89

& 84.0586
MT 24 Lv or Wr NS NS In & Re Ex
NE 9 Lv NS O90 NS NS Yes91
NV 29 Lv or Ct or Wr No S92 In & Re Ex
NH 3093 Lv or Wr94 O95 S O96 Yes Yes97
NJ 1:13-998 Lv NS Ct O99 Yes Yes100
NM 12-215 Lv No S In & Re Yes101 Yes102
NY 500.4 & Lv103 NS NS O104 Yes Yes105

500.11 &
530.7
NC 28 Lv or Ct No S106 In & Re & O107 Ex Yes108
ND 29 Lv or Ct No S In & Re Ex
OH 17 Lv or Ct or Wr NS S109 In & Re Ex
OK 1.12110 Lv or Wr NS S111 O112 Ex Yes113
OR 8.15 O114 O115 O116 In & O117 Yes Yes
PA 531 Not Required Does Not O118 Does Not Apply Ex Yes119
Apply
RI 16 Lv or Ct or Wr No S120 In & Re Ex
SC 213 Lv or Ct No NS In & Re NS Yes121
SD 15-26A Lv or Ct122 NS S In & Re O123
TN 31 Lv or Ct No Ct In & O124 Yes & O125
TX 11 NS NS NS NS O126 Yes127
UT 25 & 50 Lv or Ct or Wr NS S128 In & Re Ct
VT 29 Lv or Ct or Wr No S129 In & Re See Rule Yes130

&S #34(I)
VA 5:30 & Lv or Wr & S No S NS O132
5A:23 &
5:35131
7
motion?
NS = not
specified
file ordinary
reasons
WA 10.3 & Ct or Wr or No Ct In & Re & O135 NS Yes136
10.6 & O134
10.8
WV 19 Lv or Ct & S No S In & Re Ex
WI 809.19 Lv Yes 10137 In & Re NS
WY 7.12 Lv & Ct Yes 11138 In & Re & O139 Ex140 Yes141
ENDNOTES
1
Alison Lucas, Friends of the Court? The Ethics of Amicus Brief Writing in First Amendment Litigation,
26 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 1605, 1607 (1999).
2
Articles of Incorporation for The National Association of Counsel for Children. Article III(a) states, The
purposes for which the corporation is formed are: (a) to support the position of children through amicus
curiae briefs (1977).
3
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57; 120 S. Ct. 2054 (U.S. 2000).
4
Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading, 125 F.3d 1062 (7th Cir. 1997).
5
Id.
6
Paul M. Smith, The Sometimes Troubled Relationship Between Courts and Their Friends, 24 NO. 4
LITIG. 24, 26 (1998).
7
Luther T. Munford, When Does the Curiae Need an Amicus?, 1 J. APP. PRAC. & PROCESS 279, 280
(1999).
8
Paul M. Sandler & Andew D. Levy, APPELLATE PRACTICE FOR THE MARYLAND LAWYER: STATE AND
FEDERAL: AMICUS BRIEFS 331 (1994).
9
Munford, supra note 3, at 280.
10
Mary-Christine Sungaila, Effective Amicus Practice Before the United States Supreme Court: A Case
Study, 8 S. CAL. REV. L. & WOMENS STUD. 187,190 (1999).
11
Smith, supra note 2, at 26.
8
12
Id.
13
Id.at 25.
14
Sungaila, supra note 6, at 189.
15
Reagan W. Simpson, How to Be a Good Friend of the Court: Strategic Use of Amicus Briefs, 28 SPG.
BRIEF 38, 42 (1999).
16
Id.
17
Rathkamp v. Department of Community Affairs, 730 So. 2d 866 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999); Long v.
Coast Resorts Inc., 49 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (D. Nev. 1999).
18
FED. R APP. P. 37.
19
Michael Rustad & Thomas Koenig, The Supreme Court and Junk Social Science: Selective Distortion in
Amicus Briefs, 72 N. C. L. REV. 91, 100 (1993).
20
Generally, a party may ask the Court for a different length of time for filing.
21
Rule of Criminal Procedure #31.25.
22
Court may provide otherwise.
23
Applicant must also provide a statement that the applicant has read the relevant brief, petition, or motion.
24
Counsel for parties may not write the brief in full or in part and all parties participating should be
identified. In addition, reply briefs to the amicus are permitted within 20 days after the Court grants the
motion for the amicus to file. This time may be extended upon a showing of good cause. Briefs must not
exceed 12,000 words if proportionately spaced typeface is used or 35 pages if monospaced typeface is
used.
25
Permission of the Court required.
26
If neutral, brief due at same time as that of appellant.
27
Amici not permitted to file petitions for rehearing.
28
Must file a request with the clerk of the Justice and serve all parties with a copy of the brief.
29
Unless otherwise provided by the court, the brief must be filed within 30 days of the briefs filed by the
parties.
30
The motion must also contain the facts or questions of law that have not been adequately presented by
the parties and their relevancy to the disposition of the case.
31
Reply briefs may be filed within 20 days after the filing of the amicus brief and served on all parties.
The length and form must comply with Rule #29.3.
32
Must complete an application and must provide notice on or before filing the brief. The Attorney
General does not need permission to file in cases involving constitutionality of state statutes.
33
An application for permission to appear as an amicus curiae and the brief must be filed within 20 days
after the filing of the brief by the party supported or within 20 days of the filing of the appellees brief if
neutral.
34
Must also describe why the brief should be permitted.
35
The brief may not exceed 10 pages unless a specific request is made justifying the reasons for a brief of
more than that length. The form of the brief must comply with Ch. 67 rules.
36
Supreme Court Rule #28.
37
Motion must contain the reasons for the request and the party or interest on behalf of which the brief is
being filed.
38
Rule of the Supreme Court #23 and Rule of the Court of Appeals #25.
39
No permission is required to file an amicus brief.
40
Although no motion is required, the brief must contain the identity and interest of the persons on whose
behalf the brief is being filed. Only members of the Bar of that particular court, or those appearing be
courtesy, may file.
9
41
Amicus briefs permitted only be order of the Court, however, the Attorney General may file without
permission.
42
The length of the brief may not exceed 35 typed pages. The form must conform to Rule #32 and #38
specifications.
43
Oral or written application must be served on all parties and accepted by written order of the Court.
44
The application must: 1) set forth the particular employment or interest of the applicant, 2) state the name
of the party supported, and 3) state whether permission is sought to file the brief or participate in oral
arguments or both.
45
Request for participation in oral arguments must be part of written application.
46
Any objections to the appearance of an amicus curiae must be made by motion within 14 days of service
of the application.
47
Supreme Court Rule #345.
48
The amicus must be identified on the cover of the brief and shall conform to any conditions imposed by
the court. The requirements regarding the length and format of the brief are the same as those for the
appellee.
49
Rule of the Supreme Court #6.06.
50
An application must be served on all counsel of record and the court must then order that participation is
permitted.
51
Brief must be filed not less than 30 days before oral argument.
52
No amicus briefs are allowed in expedited appeals by an unemancipated minor for waiver of parental
notification requirement.
53
Rule of Civil Procedure #76.12.
54
Court may order pursuant to an application filed by potential amicus.
55
Brief must be filed within 15 days of the filing of the brief of the appellee.
56
The applicant must specify: 1) the nature of the movants interest (with particularity), 2) the points to be
presented, and 3) their relevance to the disposition of the case.
57
Amici must pay a filing fee as specified in Rule #76.42(2)(a). The brief may not exceed 15 pages.
58
Rule of the Supreme Court #7 and Uniform Rules, Court of Appeals #2-12.
59
For the Supreme Court: Lv and must provide notice to the parties. For Appellate Courts: Lv and $100
filing fee.
60
For the Supreme Court: Yes. For Appellate Courts: NS.
61
For Supreme Court: The brief must be filed within the time allowed for the party the brief supports. For
Appellate Courts: NS.
62
For Supreme Court: Must satisfy one of the following criteria: 1) amicus has an interest in a similar case,
or 2) there are matters of law or fact that may escape the Courts attention, or 3) the amicus has substantial
interests. For Appellate Courts: NS.
63
For Supreme Court: NS. For Appellate Courts: No.
64
The Supreme Court does not permit reply briefs and places a 15 legal page or 20 letter page limit on
length
65
Rule of Civil Procedure #75A and Rule of Criminal Procedure 39B.
66
The Attorney General may participate without permission if tort claims are alleged.
67
Unless otherwise provided by the court or stipulated by the parties, the brief must be filed on the date
which the brief of the appellee is filed.
68
Reply briefs are permitted. A 50-page maximum applies to the length of the brief.
69
Motion must also state the issues that the amicus intends to raise.
70
See Rule #19(b) for requirements regarding the number of copies that must be filed and served.
71
Supreme Court Rule #7.306 and Rule of Appellate Procedure #7.212.
72
For Supreme Court: Lv and must conform to subrules (A) and (B) or MCR #7.309. For Appellate
Courts: Must make a motion within 15 days of the filing of the brief of the appellee.
73
For Supreme Court: The brief must be filed within the time allowed for the party whose position the brief
supports. For Appellate Courts: Time will be stated in order granting the motion to file.
74
Oral arguments permitted only by order of the Court.
75
The Appellate Court rules indicate that the issues addressed in the brief must be limited to those raised by
the parties.
76
Rule of Appellate Procedure #129 and Special Rule of Practice for the Court of Appeals #11.
10
77
The motion must be filed within 15 days after the notice of appeal.
78
The brief must be filed no later than 7 days after the time allowed for the filing of the brief of the party
whose position the amicus supports on appeal, or the appellant, if the amicus is neutral. Must be
accompanied by proof of service of process.
79
The amicus must identify if their interest is public or private in nature and identify the party or
disposition which the amicus supports.
80
If the same attorney or law firm represents a party and a proposed amicus curiae, leave to file will only
be granted upon a showing that the brief's position is not already before the court and the interests of justice
require. A 20-page limit exists for briefs filed in civil cases.
81
82
The state, attorney general, and guardian ad litem may file without permission when not parties.
83
The brief must be filed no later than 7 days after the filing of the initial brief of the party the amicus brief
will support on appeal.
84
The motion must include one of the following: 1) identification of interest in case involving a similar
question, or 2) counsel or the brief are inadequate, or 3) matters of fact or law will otherwise escape the
Courts attention, or 4) the amicus has substantial unprotected interests.
85
The brief may not exceed 15 pages. Reply briefs are permitted under Rule #28(b) or (c) and must be
filed within the time specified by Rule #31(a).
86
Eastern District Court of Appeals Special Rule #375 (ED) and Written District Court of Appeals Special
Rule #26 (WD) and Supreme Court Rule #84.05 (SC)
87
Motion must include: 1) identification of parties refusing consent, 2) nature of applicants interests, and
questions of fact or law not adequately addressed and their relevancy to the disposition of the case.
88
ED = Yes, WD and SC = NS
89
A party may file an objection to the filing that states their reasons for refusing consent. The briefs must
be accompanied by proof of service when filed and may not exceed 5 pages.
90
Brief will not be considered if filed within 20 days of oral arguments.
91
Briefs may not exceed 15 pages and form must comply with lengthy specifics described under Rule
#9(B).
92
If all parties consent to a different time frame for filing, the court shall allow it.
93
Rule of the Supreme Court #30.
94
The State or Attorney General may file without permission when not parties.
95
If consent is denied by the parties, then a brief may be conditionally filed at this time.
96
Motion must include: 1) the nature of the movants interest and 2) the facts or questions of law not
adequately addressed and their relevance.
97
A motion stating the reasons for withholding consent from an amicus to file a brief may be seasonably
filed.
98
Rule of General Application #1:13-9.
99
Motion must include: 1)identity of the applicant, 2) issues to be addressed, and 3) the nature of the
applicants interest, involvement or expertise.
100
Motion to file will be denied unless the Court is satisfied the brief assists in resolving an important
public issue and does not unfairly prejudice any party. Once the court grants permission, the amicus may
participate in any appeal without further leave.
101
The amicus may share the time allotted to the party whose position it supports on appeal but no
additional time shall be granted.
102
The form of the brief must comply with rules #12-213 and #12-305.
103
Motion must be made sufficiently in advance of calendaring of the requested review.
104
Motion must contain a statement of one of the following: 1) Party or parties not capable of full or
adequate presentation, or 2) law or arguments otherwise missed, or 3) why brief would be of special
assistance to the Court.
105
Specific Department Rules: 1)Dept 2: Brief may not exceed 25 pages of standard type or 35 pages of
printing by duplication or copying and see Rule #670.11 for more requirements. 2) Dept. 4: See Rule
#110.13 for more requirements.
106
If all parties consent, a different time for filing may be permitted.
107
Motion must also state the questions of law to be addressed and the applicants position on those
questions.
11
108
Form of brief must comply with Rule #26.
109
If all parties consent to a different time frame for filing, the court shall allow it.
110
Supreme Court Rule #1.12.
111
If filed in an original appeal, the Court shall govern the time to file.
112
Motion must include: 1) The nature and extent of the interest of the applicant, 2) facts or questions of
law not adequately presented by parties and their relevancy to the disposition of the case. For criminal
cases, see Rule of Court of Criminal Appeals #3.4.
113
Form of brief filed in a civil case must comply with Rules #1.10, #1.11, and #1.19. Criminal cases not
specified. Length of all briefs must not exceed 25 pages and may not include exhibits or appendices. Brief
is confined to issues raised by the parties on appeal.
114
A member of the Oregon Bar must file a written application for permission and serve a copy on all
parties.
115
Supreme Court: Yes. Appellate Courts: No.
116
Supreme Court: See Rule #8.15(5) for lengthy description. Appellate Courts: S unless Neutral = date
the opening brief is due.
117
Motion must also state whether the applicant intends to present a public or private interest. No
arguments on the resolution of the case are permitted.
118
If neutral, brief is due within the time allowed to the appellant.
119
The Western District Court Local Rule #3.2 requires filing of a disclosure statement. See rule.
120
If all parties consent, the time may for filing may be changed.
121
The brief is limited to argument on the issues on appeal as presented by the parties. Form must comply
with Rules #207(b) and #210.
122
Must serve parties.
123
Oral arguments permitted only if party agrees to share their time with amicus.
124
Must also include how the brief will assist the Court.
125
Court may request oral arguments by amicus.
126
Oral arguments permitted only if party agrees to share time and the Court permits.
127
This rule requires the disclosure of the identity of all persons or entities on whose behalf the brief is
tendered and the source of any fees paid to prepare the brief. Copies of the brief must be served on all
parties.
128
If all parties consent, time for filing may be changed.
129
Time for filing may be changed if all parties consent.
130
The form of the brief must comply with Rule #28(h).
131
All rules are Rules of the Supreme Court.
132
Oral arguments permitted only if jointly requested with the party supported. The request must specify
the amount of time the party supported is willing to yield to the amicus.
133
134
May also demonstrate the brief's assistance to the Court.
135
Brief must also: 1)Demonstrate familiarity with issues and scope of parties arguments, 2) List specific
issues to be addressed. Brief must be filed by a member of the Washington State Bar or an attorney in
association with such.
136
An objection must be made to an amicus within 5 days of receiving the motion. Brief must conform to
Rule #10.2(a)(1) and (2).
137
Brief must be filed no later than 10 days after the brief of the Respondent is filed.
138
Brief must be filed no later than 11 days after the principal brief of the party the brief will support on
appeal, or if amicus is neutral, 11 days after the first brief of any party.
139
Must also include: 1) view on competency of representation of the party, 2) any interests in other cases
affected by this decision, 3) unique perspective or information.
140
Party supported must also consent to share time for oral arguments.
141
Form must comply with Rule #7.01 except no statement of issues, case, or appendix required. Cover of
brief must identify the party and disposition it supports.
12
DOCUMENT DIVIDER

Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
Media Group
Group
STAN J. and
and Stan J. Caterbone
CATERBONE, PRO SE Copyright 2016
2017
AMICUS BRIEF
%
!"" # $
&! ! '" !
()*+
, # $ (-.+/
000 &&" " ! & 1#
# 2& !" #
3333333333333333333333333333333333
4 , 5 # !1 6 78! " " 0 5 ! !
5 & ! ! " 6 1 ! "
" ! & , # 9
33333333333333333333333333333333
)$ )+(.
: ;
@ A ) + " #
+ % +
+4
+ 5 ) + $:9
$ 5 - ! # + B $:9
& ' + (
$:9 # C% $:9 + 2 /? 1
5 - D - , + , + *
5 1 # % % $$ + +
1 , + 5
5 @ 5 &&. + +
+ - + % %
B + 1 , + $:9
1
+ > $:9% C 5 -
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
Control Transcripts
INTER-AMERICAN Testimonies
Mind Control
COMMISSION of ON
Intelligence OfficersPage
HUMAN RIGHTS Page
Page 2 of
No. 23673
173
183
548
of 29 Tuesday
Saturday
December
Sunday,
September
Tuesday June
27th17,
of
5, 2016
August 8, 2017
Published
Publishedby
bythe
theAdvanced
AdvancedMedia
Media Group
Group
STAN J. and
and Stan J. Caterbone
CATERBONE, PRO SE Copyright 2016
2017
AMICUS BRIEF
+ ! - " + /
$:9% + + - / + +
C% $:9 + /? 1
% % % 5
) % !- ; -
+ + % 2
# % @ 3 # E- 6, %
1-, - / 62, F% !/,, F13-, -
E # - 1 > # 1 % %
5 1 ! + 2
# &&. + + 3 # E- 6, 2
#
% , - G, -H +
> + 2 #
- + 5 !
> > % +
5 $$ ; + > - G -H
+ B D
" + +
- 6 - > &
C I $:9% $$ %
&&.% ! @ $$8 +
+ 5 - + *21 -
% > '% $:. ! +
#*21 - &% && , +F
+ - # ; 2
> % / > ! , &'( ::% &8(.8'&% .(
& ''$% I , &:( CC9C 1
!
MindSponsored
U.S.
Whistleblower
Control Transcripts
INTER-AMERICAN Testimonies
Mind Control
COMMISSION of ON
Intelligence OfficersPage
HUMAN RIGHTS Page
Page 3 of
No. 24673
173
183
548
of 29 Tuesday
Saturday
December
Sunday,
September
Tuesday June
27th17,
of
5, 2016
August 8, 2017
42 U.S.
AMICUS CURIE IN THE CASE OF SIRHAN SIRHAN FOR THE Inter-American Code
STAN 1983
J.on
Commission - Civil action
CATERBONE,
Human forStan
RightsPRO
by deprivation
SE J.
AMICUS of rights
BRIEF
Caterbone, Pro Se
F # ! 1 7! & 18'
3 # ! 1$ ! $ 0 $
(=4- 5 7 ! " $ , $ ! $ , ! " ! , $ $

- $ + " $ 5 $ - - , 7 , $ +$ ! $ " -
, " ((% ! $ $ , $ -$ 8 " $ 0 "" , $ # $ ,
$ " $$ . ! ,5 , . #, $ , - , $" $+ , !$ #" &
9 , $. 5 7 " ! $+ : " , 7 + , ()4 "
! $ " "$ $+. , , % / 5 7 " ,
, % / - % / & , $ "0 " $ #$ " # ,, # !
.3 ,. .3 7 + ! $ " ,3 " , " !, !
$, $ $ .5 ; $ ,5 # $ $. ,5 , $# ! <#, 3 , !
"# $ ,,3 !, " "! , ! #$ " # ,3 " " $ #$ $ #+ #,
! "$ " $+. " , " , #,# . ! $ !$ 8# . $ + $+.
$+ " , ,, # , " + , # #, .
! + ! ! " $ & ,$ #$ 5 $ => 2 , $ # . 6$ , 5 5
$ / %%)) , ,, # + ! $ " $, $ . $ "?,. $ : " @
$ . " !! $ , " , $ , ! ,
+. , 5 7 , " % ?4 , $, " $ ,
. , , 7 $ . $ #$, ! . $, 5 7 "
, % 7 $, , " , . $, $. + " " !$
$ " , # ,# ,, 0 , & + + , $ !#, $ 5 "
" $ >#$ # ! - , + " & $ .A, !! $ !#, "
# $ #, ! $ , $ ! " $$ , !! , 0 , , $ ! #, "
$ # : A, ! $+ " " "# #" + # " , 7 +5
$ ,, 5 $ ,5 " , 5 ! ,5 ; $ 5 #$+ $ ,5 ! , $, ,5 ! $ "
$$ , $ # $. ,5 " $ #$ ".5 " , !
#, ! , $# ! <#, , # $ 7 +
5 7 " $. , , " " # $ $. ! " ! #, ! &

, $ " 0 " $ + , . ! $ " $ $ " , 7 ( A,
. ! $ , & . ! $ +$ "# " $, !$ $ B# $,
$" 5 #" + !! " $: " " # " . . ! $ (( 0. $ $
, $ " & $ ! $ " , 2 ; $ , ! ! #, 0C&2 =
$ +$ ( A,
)+(. 5 7 , 0- & ! $ 6 ,. $ . B $ C C
6 ,. # $ $ #$ , % 00 D 2 9 6 E21 -
C #" " $<#$. $+ , "#$ + + " 7 + ! +$ " <#$. ! $
C C 7 FB " " > .G $7 $ + $" + <#" $ ! $
!6 ,. !! $ $" , ! +, " + # $$#
$ + , " !$ ! $ # $ #$ @#, ,5 " $.
)+(* 5 7 ! " #, #$ ! ! 2, 0 2 $ , "

((% ! #$" $ ! 2 #$ 5 ! 2 , $5 6 ,. 5 7 #$$ .
+ & $" $ # #$ ! , " $# $. ! % 2, 0
2 $ # , " $ 7 " F $$# 2 , $ # . H 0. $.G5 ,
7, $ , " : 5 7 ! !$ 8# $ # $5
>$ !6 " 56 ,.
)++= 5 7 6$ , " =B -I 2C- B -= =BE D 6

9 = 0 >-22 6 ,. 9 #, ! = $ , 07 #$ J2 , $5
6 ,. K " . !2 , $0 . $= $" B$ . % ( "$ ! +, , $7
! 0 ,, #$ 9 #, != $ , @ B# , 5 , $7 + + , ! ,
$$ " #, $ , ! $ . $, $ " $ , " "# , $ +
16-cv-4014 AMENDED
INTER-AMERICAN COMPLAINT
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSPage
Page 3 of
No. 25120
of 29 Friday December
Tuesday 30, 2016
August 8, 2017
UNITED NATIONS COMPLAINT Page 1250 of 2593
42 U.S.
STAN 1983
J.on
CATERBONE,
Human forStan
RightsPRO
by deprivation
SE J.
AMICUS of rights
BRIEF
Caterbone, Pro Se
$ ,, "5 , 7 "5 $ " . ,#$ 5 " ,, # "3 , , $ , 7

" "# , !$ + # $ , $ ,# < ,5 $ #$ "5 " 7 " . $ !$ 8# .
" ,5 " $ " $+. " ,5 ,5 " "$ " $+. , 5 7 +
$ $ "# " 6 ,. B $ ,, . % / " !$ 8# "
6 ,. $. + ! " ,# $ " , , $3 5 7 , " ," .
)++. 5 7 + , $ , , $ " $ ! $ # 5 ,
, " , L &2 L M , 7 ; + , ! # " $ ! 0 + B$ # 5
2 " 5 !# , $ ! !$ 5 @ $ , "$ # ,# ,, " +
,$ + , ! $ , . " ; $ + " "$ + + !! $, " #
!! $ + !! $ , " + # 5 7 " $ " , #,, ,
# > $" ! $ $, $ + $", $ #, ," + ,# ,,# ,
, = , #$ > 7 8# , " ,# $ ! #$ , 5 7 , #
", + $ ++$ ,, A, , $ + + "
$! $ ; , !$ A, + $" $ $ , , $ " $ #
; " + ! $ ! $ + 7 , . " " $ , ,
,, ; , !, $ " $, 2 , $ # . ,, , $ 7 +
, # , 8# $ " . $+ $ $ + 7,5 #, $ , + #
, A, $7 , , A, $ + ! $
)++* 5 7 5 , 6$ 2 + ! " , $ , , 5 7 N $
#$$ + & " , ,$ #$ ! $ , $ ,$ !6 ,. 5
& " , $" , $ #$ ! ,5 6 ,. # $ #$ 5 6 ,.
# $ $ #$ 5 #$ ! 6 ,. 5 #$ ! 6 , !
2 , $ # .5 6 ,. , + , #" , ! # $ $ . $ + ,5
$#, ,5 " $! $ ! $ ,$ + , $ #, ,, $ ,, $
, + , + 0 5 + + ,5 0 + B$ # 5 2 "5? 0B
" , $.5 2 " 5 " N, !! " #, ,, , + " $ , , $ " $
D , $, $ + $" + !$ !- $ + " $ 5 6 5 J- K O >
$ $ #" " ; $ , ! , + $ , # !$ " -$ 8 , +
" , 7 ()4 @ $ , , $ " $ ! - 5 " , , " . -
; # , ! $ $ ! ,, , $ , " $ , , , #$$ . $ ! =-
& " , ,$ #$ ! $ , $ ,$ !6 ,. " $"
$ # #$ ! ,5 , " 7 / %%))
)++* 5 7 " " 0 " B$ # ?6$ < 9 ! " #$ !
6 , ! 2 , $ # . + , $ " " = , $ - ! $ $
, " #$ , ; " 9 ; ,# $, 2 , $
$ P 0 $$ D , $ , " $
$ 9 >$# , 7 " 2 , $ 8# $ ! < $ , 7 " $,
2 , $ # . $ , ! . # " $ , $# 0 $ % ( +
"
)++* 5 7 0 " # 8 "! " " ! ! ! E $7 .
! $ ,# ,, ! ,, . " 5 7 $ " !$
>$# = 2 ", .5 ! ; # !! $ ! D @ # "
)++* 5 7 + #$ $ " $, . , " + #$ $+ , " $7 +
,# $+ : , ,3 $+5 2 , $ + $+5 D # " "D $$ $, $+5 B
- 52 , $ $ # $ .5 2 , $ $ ! $ 5 N, 6$ <
9 5 6 6 - $ 5 B D $ + $+5 2 , $?% 9 #$ # "
9 5 $ $6 " $ $5 " # $ #, $,
)++; 5 7 $7 " #$ , " $, #, " $
"#, $ , ,, ,, , +! $ ! $ " 8# ", $ # ! $ ,, $+ , "
$ . , !+ + , $ $ . D " ,, , " +
#, ,, " , ""$ ,, $+ ! ., " $ " # ,3 , ", ,
$ . , " $ # , ! $ , $ +5 $ +5 " " $ + $ + ! $
$ ,, $7,
16-cv-4014 AMENDED
Page 4 of
No. 26120
Tuesday 30, 2016
August 8, 2017
42 U.S.
STAN 1983
J.on
CATERBONE,
Human forStan
RightsPRO
by deprivation
SE J.
AMICUS of rights
BRIEF
Caterbone, Pro Se
)+++ )++) 5 7 " " $$ . ! $7 + " # , ! $

, $, ! -0 - , B$ # " + " , $ # $ +$ , ! $
, $ ! . , $, $ #+ # & " , " , = D , +
. $ " + $ < , "# % ,# ,,
(=== 5 7 " " $ , #, ,, " ! $ $ $ $
>$ $.5 7 , ; , $ ># " + C + $ 5 2 , $5 6 ,. ,
, " " <# $ , 6 ! $
= : ! 2 , $ " 2 , $ $ ! $
! $ $D P " # " +
(=== 5 7 $ # " " 5 $ , $ 5 " ! ,$ + ,
# $ !! , ! + E%C $ $ ", # $ + , 5 7
" " & , $ " E%C ,. ,# " ! $ D , + 5 , " .
E%C # " $D >
(==4 5 7 " + " , $ $ . + + ! N, 6$ < 9 5
$ ! $+ : $ + "# " $ ,, ! $ ,, " ,# " $
D " $ " " !# " + ! $ 0 9 ! 2 , $ # .5 2
, $
J % ?4 # " 6$ 9 K5 $ $ 6 " $ $5 " $ $
$+ : , " ! , " $ , " L # $, A 2 L ", $ # "
, ,5 $ ! $+ : ,5 ! , " ,5 " # , $ " "#
,# $ ! $ $ ! ,# " " $ + $ ,, ,, $ ,
(==. 5 7 " " ,# + ! $ , # " $ C 25 - 5 "#$ +
5 7 , $ $ ! 6! # $ $,5 - 5 5 7 , $ " . B
= ,, = , #$ "> $ # $: " $ # + "$ $", + !$
5 7 " , $ " " ,# + ! $ # $: ! # + "
.$ ! $ 2 , $ $5 - 5 ! D , + > $ 5 7 , $ " #
"" +$ - ! $ , + , ! @ . B$ # 5 ! $ . !
= 7,5 6 5 $ " O% 0 $ "8# $ $, " D , 9 ! "
, !2 , $ # . @ . B$ # " #, + ->0 !$ + , , "
. # $ " , $ $ 5 7 , ,# + $ , ! +$ +
6 , " $ $7 + ,., $ #+ # $ $+ : #$$ . @ .
B$ # . ,, / . , $ # , ; ,, ! O/ 0 $, $. $
(==/ 5 7 , $ " . 6! # $ $,5 - 5 , $ $5 " ,
$ , , ! $ , + . !$ 7$# . 5 "# , $
# " $ ,5 . , ! + ;$ $ ,,#$ !$ " $, " " +
,#$ . D $ $ , , ! $ + # $: " # +5 # +
" $ , " $ "#$ ,5 # $ , #$ , " $ "#$ ,5 $7 +
,$ + ,5 $! $ ,#$ $ $ +5 " + ! $ . ! # "
$ , " + . , , . $ 5 , , ! #
$7 " "" + ! $ # $ , > 7 ! 2 , $ # . " " "
# + ! $ , $" $ , !! " ! # , " , , " +
D ,, .$ " $ $ D * . $,5 .$ : " $ ,
$ ! , !* , , $ #, . $,5 "$ $" $ # ,
(==( 5 7 , " 6 6 - $ " : ,, " $
6$ +$ 5 , ! # " " . 6$ , " + , $ (/ $ +$ ,
! # " " F + , , , !$ $ #+ # $ " +$ $ $ # , $7 + $
" !! . # $,5 : ,, " $ $ +$ " , $, !
! , ! 5 5 " $ ! ,, ; + , $ #+ # $" - ( 5 # " $
6$ , " @ C ".5 $ , , " $ ! $ ! # "
" , $ $ +$ D $ , "# " #$ & " , $ #$
" , #,, $ + " # , + + , , ,, " , $ # " $"
(==+ 5 7 " $7 " " + $ + ,., ,! $ + $ N,
+. 7 7 - J - , # ! $ " $", P +.K 5 7
# $ " $ F , + & ; $ 6 G , , !$ - , # , "
+ : F - G5 ! " + # , ! $ = 0 "#, $. " .5 ,
16-cv-4014 AMENDED
Page 5 of
No. 27120
Tuesday 30, 2016
August 8, 2017
42 U.S.
STAN 1983
J.on
CATERBONE,
Human forStan
RightsPRO
by deprivation
SE J.
AMICUS of rights
BRIEF
Caterbone, Pro Se
$, " . +. $ . # ) # $5 " $ + ,
$ . , ! , + # ,
(=4= 5 7 "! # " " " " 0 " B$ # 5 2 " 5 " , ! ./ $ &
" , , " . #! #$ = 0A, D " " #, ,,
$ ,5 + $ + ,5 "# , # ,5 " ! $ + ,
5 7 $! $ " , $ , " $ , ! $ $ ! ! , 5 5
- , # ! " $", P +. J - K5 $ ! ! , 5 ! , " "
= , $ 6$ < , + . J =6 K5 " ! , 0 + + .5 $ - +
+ .5 J - K5 ->05 0 $ , ! 5 065 " $ # $,5 $ > 7 $, > " >#. $,5 "
, ! $, 5 7 , , $7 + = =5 .A, B ., ,5 ,
" + $ #, $ + + ,5 , < $ ,, ! 0 M# ,
0 M# , , $ $ $ " $ ! + , ! $ " , ! $ $ " ,
! #, " " $ + , " "$ , ! $ $# / , D " $$ + " ! $
9 + - "#, $ , , $ 9 ;5 #! #$ $ ! " , ,5 == . D
" $ 7 $ " " " ; # , !$ .N, + "8# $ $, ! 2 , $
" , #,, " " $! $ "# " + ! #! #$ + ! . "
B$ ! " - "#, $ 6 $7
(=4- 0 ! ! 9 0 6 B 5 ' 7 &! ! $ " 5 7 ,
; # $ "# $ ! #$ $ < $ " " $ , ,
" $ " "+ ! $ 3 ! $, ! N, 7 " D " $+ " $7 + ! $
+.5 " $ " ! $ 6 $ + 0 ., J6 0 K5
#" ! .$ + " $7 +! $ # ! 2>E +. $ " $7
5 7 " , $ " "" " $7 + " $ , $ ! $ "
" $ : ! 8# " " #! #$ " $7
$ $" + "#, $. ! #$ + "+ +. " 5 B " 5 B " $5 " 56 !
6 " , " !$ D " $ " ! $ $ < 6 $
#" , , $ " ! . > + 5 " + + $ + + #, " , $ " . 0
, / . "6 $ #" , , ! " +$ $" + , #" ,
# $.5 " $ $ , , ! $ " + > @ 5 #, 6 $ #" , ,
#" "3 >$# $ +, 5 = ,,5 . " 2 # $5 7 + 9 ",5 0 " 5 = ,5
D "5 " . $, . " 6 $ #" , " $ "# " $+
# " $ 7 ! $ $+ F $ D $,G #$ - , $ , " ! $ ", $ # " ,
# $ # " $ 7$ $" + ! ,
5 ' 7 &! ! , , $7 + " $ , $ + " !! $ $ , + , Q
5 7 "" " " # $ " @ 1 #$ 6$ , ! $ E $ $ #,
" $ + + 0 " N, $ " + , $7 #$ ,
#" $ : ! + ,5 . > + " " " ! $
$ $" + "#, $. , # #, . $ , ! + 0
5 7 , $ " ! $ 6 0 $ " $75 , $ " $7
+ ! $ +.5 , $ 2>E , # " ,., N, $ " $7 $ . N, , "! $
6 $ + 0 ., " .5 1 , , . ! $ " $ + "+ ,
$ "# 5 ",
(=4- 5 7 " $ " "" " 0B 0 $ + + > 7 +5 . ,

!# " " . < $ 7 + !$ 9 #, ; , D " . ! $ < , !$
O* O " $, #$ $ , " $ , $ , $ " 8# 7 . $ "
, , !$ " $, $ ,, # $. D $ , $. $ ,
" $ , #" " " 8# . $ #+ . .5 0B5 #"
$ , 8# . !# " + $ #+ $ ,5 " " !# " + $ #+ 0B 0 $ + +
> 7 + D $ $ " . B #" , ! 9 . "5 ! $ , #$ ! + !
$ , $ "# #" , 7 + $ $ $ D " , #$ "
$ ! + 7 + , ! $ $$ , > ." ! " " 9 7 $. " $ ", ! $ +
#$$ , > 7 D " +, " " , #,, ,
$ ! " = , $5 ! $ $ ! + $ ! , " $! D $
16-cv-4014 AMENDED
Page 6 of
No. 28120
Tuesday 30, 2016
August 8, 2017
42 U.S.
STAN 1983
J.on
CATERBONE,
Human forStan
RightsPRO
by deprivation
SE J.
AMICUS of rights
BRIEF
Caterbone, Pro Se
8# 7 . , 7 + , ! $ $ , " , !$ E $7 ! $ D , "
# $ ! $ $ " $, , 7 + #$ !# " +5 #" +
C#+ 5 9 + - "#, $ ,5 " 0 $. #+ $ $ ! , $ B$ # J $ ! =
* # ,K D $ , . " #$ ! + 7 + , $ $
, # ,
(=4. 5 7 " ! # " " 0 + B$ # 5 2 " J 0BK3 $+ !
, $ , $+ : $, " ! $ . ! $ ! ,, , $ + D "
" " , 7 #$ , $ +$ ! $ $ $. " $# . ! $ 8# .
$, !$ 0B " ! $,5 , + $,5 # ,5
$ .,5 $ $,5 . ,#$ , $ ,5 ; $ $ $,5 " , $, $ + #
! #$ $ $ "8# $ $, 2 , $ - . $5 " % , !!5 "
$ ; . % !! , 6 ,. 5 " , $ , !! , $ , , D "
; ,, ! O/ # " $ + 5 " #$ " , $, $ + $ + , O !
,, ,5 "" #" ! , !$ $ $ ! ,, , 5 7 "
8# $ " #$ >$ 7 $ $ !$ " $ # " # O* O
(=4* 5 7 " " , $ = + $ + 5 ! $, $ +
! $ 6$ ! ,, "#, $.3 , " " ! $ ", $ # ,
, # + " $ , J D , + 6 , R + $ ! 0 $ % 5 ()/K #$$ ,
$ " " , #, $ !$ , , 7 + ! $ $ $# , D "
" " ,$ +. ! " + " ", $ # + .5 !$ ! $+
,5 ! , # + " $ , ! $ , $ +# , 25 2 " D 2 0.
$ $ , ,+ " . = #+ $ " $, ! 25 "
" + $ $ @ D , , ! +# , , $ 8# $ $ 7, 0.
$ $ , . " % . $, 0 , 0 $ , , $ + 8# $ $ 7
D $ $ ! " + ! $ 2 +# 6 . $, ,, B & , 5
6$ , " ! 26 " + , !# , ! $ . 5 $
! $ ! $ + , ! 2 D , + 6 , $ !# + $ # #$
" ,, " $ , $ 8# , # $ $ , # .5
, $. $ , ! $ #$ D " " " . $ , $ # " # $.
$ $. $+ : " " $ " ! ! . , #, D " # $ ,5
. $ + !$ , ! $ . , 9 D " 2 , $ 5
$ ! ,, $ "# . ! + $ 5 5 7 "" " + "
$ "# " " $ , " " " . " $ ! ,, ! , #5 B
>$ " 5 ! , .,5 "+ ,# $ ! $ . "#$ + , $, ,D
" ", " 7 " ! $ $" $ + ,! $ . !# $ $# ,
(=4* 5 7 , " 1 6$ , " ! $ 6 ,. $ !
- $ ,, ! 6 $,5 " " # " $ . $ , +
$, * , D " $, . $ " . " " .
,. " " 6 $5 0, ; "$ $ ,$ + ! D , + 3 , < $
!# "$ , $ 0 $ / $ ! ,, , " " " $ , " "
= , $ P ! $ $ 0, $ , $ + " , #,, " ! + " !
$ ! ,, , " " $7 + $ $" $ , !! ! $ $ , D $ "
" $ . ! $ ! ,, , #" +3 $ 7 $,5 . $,5 # ,5 $ $,5 ; , , ,5
, $,5 7 $,5 " , " , $, " .5 , " !
+ , . ! !# #$ - () ; # , $ " #, !$ ># >
> 7 " 6 +" $ $ 7
(=4; 5 7 " " " ,$ + +! $ ". D 5 ! $ $ 6$ , "
! B$ # J $+ , 7 + . & K D $ ! , $ ,, , ,7 "
" , !# #$ ! 6 + " #" $ 7 $ + "
, "#, $. $+ 0$ D , $! $ + "# " + ! $ $+ $ ! $
; $ ,, " - J- , $, $, ! " $ ,K D $ " $
. " $ + > , " 6 + $ ,5 ,
, # . " ,$ , $, , " . " . ,
, " , $,
16-cv-4014 AMENDED
Page 7 of
No. 29120
Tuesday 30, 2016
August 8, 2017

LETTER Re APPLICATION FOR AMICUS CURIE IN THE CASE OF SIRHAN SIRHAN FOR THE Inter-American Commission On Human Rights AUGUST 8, 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LETTER Re APPLICATION FOR AMICUS CURIE IN THE CASE OF SIRHAN SIRHAN FOR THE Inter-American Commission On Human Rights AUGUST 8, 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STAN J.

CATERBONE, PRO SE AMICUS BRIEF

THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

re: William F. Pepper, Ed.D., J.D., SIRHAN SIRHAN PETITION

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

Please correspond in writing as to your handling of my AMICUS BRIEF, or if you

Thank You in advance for your considerations.

If you have any questions, please call at (717) 327-1566.

INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

ACTIVE COURT CASESACTIVE COURT CASES

INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Notre site en Franais: mondialisation.ca

Search... GR Newsletter, Enter Email GO

Latest News & Top Stories

Hiroshima: A Military Base according to

Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Our Government Has

By J. Michael Springmann Region: USA

On the Beach 2017. The War was Over Was

This article was originally published by Haus Frau Leaks.

Featured image from the author

The original source of this article is Global Research

Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research

INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR FILING AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS

Appropriate Roles of Amicus Curiae

Effective Preparation Strategies

Specific Writing Techniques

Common Pitfalls To Be Avoided

Summary of Rules of Amicus Practice

TABLE 1: AMICUS RULES BY STATE

AZ 16 & Lv or Wr or O Yes 4022 In & Re & O23 Yes Yes24

CA 14 O28 Yes 3029 In & O30 NS Yes31

CT 67-7 O32 Yes 2033 Id & O34 Yes Yes35

GA 23 & 2538 O39 Does Not NS Does Not Apply NS Yes40

ID 8 O43 NS Ct O44 O45 Yes46

KS 6.0649 O50 NS 3051 NS No Yes52

KY 76.1253 O54 Yes 1555 O56 NS Yes57

LA 7 & 2-1258 O59 O60 O61 O62 O63 O64

ME 75A & Lv or Wr or NS O67 In & Re Ex Yes68

MA 17 Lv or Ct or O Yes S In & Re Ex Yes70

MO 375 & 26 Lv or Ct or Wr Yes S O87 O88 Yes89

NH 3093 Lv or Wr94 O95 S O96 Yes Yes97

NJ 1:13-998 Lv NS Ct O99 Yes Yes100

NM 12-215 Lv No S In & Re Yes101 Yes102

NY 500.4 & Lv103 NS NS O104 Yes Yes105

OK 1.12110 Lv or Wr NS S111 O112 Ex Yes113

OR 8.15 O114 O115 O116 In & O117 Yes Yes

SC 213 Lv or Ct No NS In & Re NS Yes121

SD 15-26A Lv or Ct122 NS S In & Re O123

TN 31 Lv or Ct No Ct In & O124 Yes & O125

UT 25 & 50 Lv or Ct or Wr NS S128 In & Re Ct

VT 29 Lv or Ct or Wr No S129 In & Re See Rule Yes130

WI 809.19 Lv Yes 10137 In & Re NS

WY 7.12 Lv & Ct Yes 11138 In & Re & O139 Ex140 Yes141

INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

(=4- 5 7 ! " $ , $ ! $ , ! " ! , $ $

5 7 " $. , , " " # $ $. ! " ! #, ! &