# Petition for a Writ of Certiorari — Ruth v. Blue River Constructors > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385602_1708%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for a Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1966 - **Citation:** 385 U.S. 920 ## Text ‘Gioleanis Cat Os TRIE ED AUG.17 1968 ( ~ SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES | no 45 3 JOSEPH P. BUTE, titioner individual, BLUE RIVER coftsrnuctons, an 20 unincorporated moet Ee CON. MID-VALLEY; STRUCTION COMPANY. a S. HORNER CONS: UCTION ¢ cO., INC., CHAS. H. TOMPKINS CO., the “unineopor INC., co-members comes resgeiston ub LUE RIVERS CONSTHU .OF DENVER, ‘acting by and RS, and THE CE _ 50, OF “WATER COMMISSIONERS, CITY AND COUNTY’OF DENVER, a municipal ation of the State of Colorado, acting by and achat its B BOA OF WATER ‘COMMISSIONERS, Party Plaintiff; Fe SN ee vs. ee S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY and “THE .AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, Third Party Defendants, - PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS __FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT cee ae Ses —- * JOSEPH P. RUTH, Respondent. Bro Se a. ) 1325 Glenarm Stree a . Denver, Colorado Messrs, Oberlin, Maky & Donnelly : 1405 East —_ Street E. MacDougall, Esq. 144 West Colfax Avenue ' . Denver, Colorado * a és Charles D. B , Esq. &) : : : 330 Majestic B ilding ‘ . Denver, Colorado Counsel of Record for Respondents. July 29, 1966 . : EASTWOOD PRINTING CO. ® 2654 LARIMER STREET ° DENVER, COLORADO _- "Opinions below .....~ 2 J urisdiction | Se, 2&7. | | Gisitiions presented oe 4 ee Constitution invovled i ise ‘ 7 “ . 10: 2 ie os Statement .. eee 10 Reasons for granting the writ ... , ane 13 | coe : | <4 e %. a ad g = a ae oN THE a, SUPREME COURT OF in UNITED STATES — ue | ‘Ocross ‘Tanne, yes | No. ' JOSEPH P. RUTH, an a individual, { vs. . BLUE RIVER _CONSTRUCTORS, an uninco rated association, and MID-V. INC., HEALY C d.: JONES "CON- a ON LN COMPANY, 2 Ss. HORNER CONSTRUCTION COo., . H. TOMPKINS CO., COLORADO CONSTRUCTORS, ING. co-members | com rising "the unincorporated" association UE RIVERS CONSTRUCTORS, and THE C AND COUNTY am or DENVER, acting by and through its BOARD OF WATER. COMMISSIO NERS, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado, acting ad and through its eee OF WATER . COMMISSIONERS, a wee Plaintiff. - vs. FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY -and THE AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, Third Party Defendants, PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO. THE ° UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS A - FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT oe 4 TO: The ‘Honorable, ~The Chief Justice, and Associate | Justices of a Supreme Court of the United States: J ae P: . Rath: the petitioner herein, prays that writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit entered in the above-entitled case on June 14, 1966. —32 — Opinions Below ‘The opinion, of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is unreported, and is ‘contained in letter from the Clerk dated J une 14, 1986. | : ee J urlsdiction ‘The judgment of the Gireait Court of wails was entered on June 1, 1966. Rehearing was denied on June 14, 1966. The jurisdiction of. the Court is invoked under 28 US. C. §1254(1), Revised Rule 23. : “My patent No. 2,611,680 (Exhibit 1) was: held valid a ~ in the United States District ‘Court for the Southern’ | ' Jurisdiction "(Sixth Circuit) by Judge. Druffel on Sep- My. attorneys prevented me from’ making before - Judge Christenson in Denver the same demonstration of _ the evidence of invention that I presented to Judge Druf- . fel i in Cincinnati (Exhibit a . Exhibit 4 is the Court Reporter’s: eae of the con- ; “duct ‘of Exhibit ‘‘59’’ in Cincinnati, and Exhibit 5.is the - _ graphic representation of Exhibit ‘‘59’’ which would have made known to Judge Christenson the health hazard that results from the 50 pounds of toxic nitric acid gas,: in- herent in all diesel bus exhaust, which each diesel bus in city transit service discharges each day in city air. From the exhaust of any General en diesel — t ean by my © ——— : conditioner method patent No. 2,611,680, convert. the 50 gallons of water in the MRX-40-S conditioner, the size. for the: 6-71 General Motors diesel engine, to 2.65 pH nitric acid liquid (HNO,) in ten minutes. General Motors | Corporation, which builds 90% of the. diesel power used.i in- inter- and intra-city: transit service, controls all of the~ major newspapers in the’ United States by. the $114 million: . it: spends annually for advertising, and hides this deadly, ' characteristic of diesel bas exhaust by corrupting pseudo- scientists and public health officials, who feloniously at- > _ .. tribute the blinding and toxic smog that diesel exhaust creates in our cities to the public’s.-gasoline automobiles, — | the trash they burn, and the cigarettes they smoke. See ‘letter: to Joseph. Polomba. of ‘ 8/30/61 (Exhibit 6), and letter to Scientific Amerionp ‘4 dated March 27, 1963 fou hibit i | The demonstration: of the operation of my sates No. . 2,611,680 by Exhibits 4 and 5 herein, prohibited ‘by. my lawyers, would have shown that it is the nitric acid gas inherent in diesel exhaust and put out, by the preponder- ance of Genera] Motors diesel power in city transit service, ‘ and not the public’s autos.and trashburners and cigarettes, which is responsible for the city air. pollution debacle General Motors diesel power has wrought on the. public - health and which their public relations adroitly lay onto the publi¢ (Exhibits 6 and 7 }, ‘My method patent dstutitios the ‘iertinte nitric acid gas in diesel exhaust from hundreds of - General - Motors 6-71 diesel engines in order that’ they may be used safely monteiiice (Exhibit 8). . “ . —4— - - Questions Presented ott. . This writ, if granted, will force the disclosure of the : hidden public-health hazard resulting from the indiscrimi- nate discharge of the 0.1% of toxic anhydrous nitric aqid | gas inherent in diesel bus exhaust, (Exhibit 9), which by industrial hygienists is rated 20:times more toxic than is the carbon monoxide in gasoline automobile exhaust (Ex- ‘hibit 10). .. By. the same dtmonstration, in the same machine, using the same size gasoline engine’s exhaust, it will. be shown that this smog-forming toxic nitric acid gas is not present in normal gasoline enginé exhaust. 4p fact, there is no acid i in nen exhaust. It will also be shown that General Motors knew, in ‘April of 1951 (Exhibit 11), .of this deadly characteristic of their 6-71 diesel bus engine exhaust, but persisted in. selling buses for. use ‘in city transit service with their 6-71 diesel engine, attributing the same death and smog they _ brought to our cities (Exhibit 11) it created in the Idarado mine, and which they now, by pseudo press releases (Ex- hibit 7), attribute to the public’s gasoline automobiles, the trash they: burn, and the cigarettes they smoke. | With this knowledge about: the deadly toxic nitric acid gas inherent » in their diesdl bus engine’s exhaust, General Motors, by control of the press, has made an enigma out of the city | air pollution which their diesel busés. have wrought on our’ -cities, thereby forcing’ our government and the ‘public to “ spend billions -in a futile effort to escape the silent killer that stalks our streets and which my Cincinnati Exhibit ‘59’? would show comes from their diesel bus. | Pe) _ The 400% 1 rise in “emphysema in our cities: dates from ‘the displacement of ‘the electric street car by General Motors diesel buses. The destruction ‘to the lungs of our children, 75% of whom live in our’ cities, by this nitric acid gas from General Motors .diesel buses will prevent. - their . lungs from’ ever reaching’ full development. The honest doctor is helpless in this General Motors-made | dilemma, as recognized by Dr. Fredrick G. Burke, Pro- fessor of Pediatrics at Georgetown University, ‘who says: ‘*An entirely new, broad«adyance in the field of chronic respiratory ailments in children is needed if significaut medical breakthroughs are to be achieved.”’ Obviously, he _ is unaware of the 3.93 P.P.M. of NO, in Los Angeles air 24 hours ‘Per day (Exhibit 12). If miners can’t live in toxic oxides of nitrogen for ‘8 hours per day, how cdn children in cities do it for 24 hours per day? Detoxifying. all of the diesel exhaust in our cities, or outlawing, diesel power in our cities as the Communists do, is the only way to restore dur cities’ air as it was before the advent of the General Motors diesel bus in our, cities a — From my certified copy of Colorado Industrial Hy- gienist Jack Torrey’s report (Exhibit 11), wherein -he testified that from his analysis of the Idarado mine air the Idarado mine air contained from three to five times © tolerance of oxides of. nitrogen, and from certified death certificates contained in Exhibit 6 proving that he was right, I decided to expose General Motors, who also had a~ copy of the,same report (Exhibit 11).in 1951, but used it to hide this deadly constituent (anhydrous nitric acid gas) inherent in their diesel bus éxhaust (Exhibit 9) from the public by corrupting ‘doctors, public health officials, and : aa eaanate as vase in Exhibits 6, 7, 23, and 16, - 2 — § — _ ie being to. Polomba, Scientific American, Governor Ed C. Johnson, and Mrs. Jack Foster. ‘This. group, towing | that General Motors a ‘the press, were not fearful of’ being exposed, indicted every aspect of combustion ‘by the public in cities as being - ‘the cause of the toxic, deadly, anhydrous nitric acid air pollution and smog (Exhibit 12) being created, with im- purity, by General Motots diesel bus engines in our cities. In addition, their-lobbyists induced our academic Congress _to appropriate millions to look for the cause of the air pollution brought to our cities, with their full knowledge, ‘ by General Motors diesel buses and railroad locomotives (Exhibits 10, 11, and 12). é I bought a 10-horsepower Wisconsin gasoline engine, — and for one hour the exhaust was run into Exhibit ‘‘59’’ - and no acid was created in the conditioner water—it re- . _ mained neutral. This engine also had the fumes from the ' oil filler plug gonnected to: the carburetor, therefore the gasoline engine exhaust contained all of the supposedly deleterious gases from the public’s gasoline automebile engine that General Motors’ pseudo-scientists, in phony articles, said was coming from .their autos, and this ‘test shows there was none. The same conditioner recovered, and, when calcite was added, detoxified the 0.1% of toxic anhydrous nitric acid gas inherent in all diesel exhaust and absent from gasoline automobile exhaust. ~ ‘Exhibit 20 shows that I had made arrangements with a competent chemist to prove to the Court in my forth- coming trial that diesel exhaust was‘laden with toxic nitric acid gas and that my method patent detoxified this-toxic — —\ gas inherent in diesel exhauste.My lawyers refused to permit me to make this complete physical and chemical démonstration of Exhibit ‘59’’ to. the Denver Court. My attorneys, Ed Geer, —_ bol and David -Manter, conspired to prevent me from making the demon- stration of my method patent No. 2,611,680, which dis- closes how this nitric acid gas is absogbed from diesel | exhaust and) then detoxified. Exhibits 3, 4, and 5 are, _ respectively, exhibits explaining the circulation, the. ab- sorption, neutralization of the acid principle to Judge Druffel; the exact copy of, the Court Reporter’s notes of the test; and the graph (Exhibit 5)- depicting the test step-by-step on a chart’; and, last, a pictute (Exhibit 14) | of Cincinnati Exhibit ‘‘S,*’ the machine in which the test was conducted before Judge Druffel. | wi Judge Druffel held this ies valid September 18, 1959 (Exhibit 2), and it is valid~in every state except | Colorado ; Judge Christenson héld it invalid in Colorado - October 18, 1963, and this was because I.was not permitted : ' by my attorneys to make the same ‘physical and chemical presentation, of Exhibit ‘*59,’’ exemplifying the chemical ~~ method ‘of my patent No. 2,611,680 (Exhibit.1) to Judge Christenson in the Tenth Circuit that I made before Judge Druffel of the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati. | >? ? We are spending billions to fight aggression in Viet | Nam. What aggression on humanity could be worse than General ‘Motors selling diesel buses that Exhibit ‘‘59’’ would show are polluting our cities’ air with. anhydrous . nitric acid gas, the effects of which doctors recognize ag: | lung-heart disease and say is destroying our health, and : @. ieee 7“ chicanery and control of the press General Motors is placing: their diesel bus air pollution debacle on the shoul- - ders of the public. What is worse, these pseudo-scientists, on high salaries paid by the public, are making an enigma out of the nitric acid diesel exhaust air pollution from G.M/: diesel buses, and have the public spending billions of public money looking for what they are knowingly hiding ‘for General Motors (Exhibits 6 and 7). Colorado Indus- trial Hygienist Jacoe refuses to analyze and report the toxic oxides of nitrogen in General Motors diesel bus ex- -haust ¢ on the Denver streets. # These two ‘toate 1 suggested to be denionstrated to the ‘Court would show the untold numbers of diesel buses to be discharging tons of toxic nitric acid ‘gas each day in our cities’ air, which could be detoxified, and would show that the public’ s gasoline autos are innocent. - The conclusion would. be that it:is the deadly an- hydrous nitric acid gas inherent in diesel exhaust which since the advent of the diesel bus permeates our city air, and not cigarette smoking, which causes the 400% rise in emphysema and lung cancer in our cities; it is, rather the 3.93 P.P.M. of oxides of nitrogen inhaled with the cigarette smoke (Exhibit 12). * . , es ° > -~ My lawyers unquestionably sacrificed 30% of $8 mil- lion, the amount Blué River saved by using diesel instead of electric haulage (Exhibit 18), when they refused to per- mit me to demonstrate Exhibit ‘“59”’ ent. They.sacrificed the public’s health whpen they refused — rous nitric acid © to permit me to show that it was the ank gas in General Motors diesel engines ih city transit serv- ice, and not the public’s gasoline autos, that engendered ge “eas a on the toxie air pollution we are now, by General Motors’ control of the press, forced to live with. Thirty per cent of $8 million is. $2, 400, 000. What would General Motors ‘pay to keep the public ignorant of the fact that it is nitric acid in ‘their diesel-exhaust, and not the cigarettes the pub- . _ lic smoke or the autos they drive, which has brought this air pollution debacle to our cities? More important than a war to guarantee the Viet-— ~ namese the right to vote is the -U. S. public’ s right to | ' know where the toxicity in our-cities’ air comes from that elicited this hopeless, pathetic editorial in the New York ‘Times: ‘‘Even the layman can draw one basic conclusion: The air we breathe is killing -us.’’ The United States Supreme Court’ can by Exhibit +59” inform the U. 8. pub- lic that the diesel engines in city transit service are-pollut- — ing our Cities’ air each day with tons | aries nitric : acid gas. tit sa) In the history of man it has _ a simple truth that corruption ends‘ when action by an aroused citizenry be- oo. ate le ee. The United States Supreme Court can “eorreet this miscarriage of justice. : 4 Statutes Involved _ I feel that this writ will force the disclosure of a pub- lic health hazard from diesel exhaust that is hidden from _ the public by my attorneys’ refusal to permit me to make the same. demonstration of my chemical method patent to Judge Christenson in the Tenth Circuit at Denver, who s 7 _™» oa held my patent invalid, as was made before Judge Druffel in the Sixth Circuit, who held the same patent valid.. By . this impasse, my constitutional right to a fair trial under Article V of opr Constitution was. violated, and I was not accorded due process of law. ) Statement © I did not appeal from Judge Christensoa’ s decision of October 18, 1964, because the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals would not have before it the evidence of Exhibit ‘59’ which Judge Druffel, in Cincinnati, had before him . when he held my patent was valid. . - : I felt® that -had a case agninst Utah Construction and Mining Company, who made the $8 million excavation for NORAD in Cheyenne Mountain, who: by interroga- tories had admitted infringement; and that in suit against - them I would be able to demonstrate my Exhibit ‘‘59.’’ However, this case was dropped when Judge Christenson " -held my patent invalid, because my attorneys claimed I . patent No. 2,611,680. had signed in Mr. Geer’s office a.stipulation.that I would not pursue this case if I lost my case against Blue River Constructors. I misplaced, but recently found, the agree- ment (Exhibit 15) that I maintained I had signed in Mr. ‘Ed Geer’s office five days before the trial against Blue River Constructors. This was an agreement between my : | lawyers and me, and not a stipulation to drop the case against Utah Construction and Mining Company, Civil ‘Action No: 7899. This agreement (Exhibit .15) is prima facie evidence that my attorneys had a 30% interest in all moneys recovered for a and waiieenaetie of my atieet . a DIESEL HAULAGE Is 60% MORE EFFICIENT UNDERGROUND THAN ELECTRIC HAULAGE. ef Based on using 23, 000 volts for long distance-power trans- mission, with transformers _everyfew miles to cut the . voltage to 440 0. volts-which was the permissible voltage and that-required | by the mine trolley locomotive that was to furnish’ haulage for the 23-mile Denver Water Board” tunnel, Morrison-Knutson and Peter Kiewit bid $41 mii- /~ lion to drive the 23-mile Denver Water Board tunnel. Blue River Constructors, composed of several multi- -- milion dollar. ‘contracting firms, bid $33 million, because their superintendent, Ted Adams, .was«in the same’ area when in 1951 my diesel exhaust gas conditioner on diesel . mine .locomotives increased ‘the tunnel footage driven using electric mine locomotives, from 24 feet to 48 feet in _ a 24-hour work day. This amounted to an increase of 57% in one day’s footage driven with the same crew (Exhibit 19). It costs over $1,000 per day to pay a tunnel crew. In 1953 the U. S. Bureau of. Mines purchased a dupli- cate of- the mine locomotives I had sold to the U. S. Steel . Corporation for usé in its: Tennessee zinc mines. From . their tests they claimed that my limestone conditioner did * not take out the .1% of toxic oxides of nitrogen from diesel engine exhaust. If this was true, obviously my patent was invalid for lack of utility. However, they found by analysis and kept secret from me that py method detoxified. the toxic oxides. of nitrogen, NO,, in diesel > “exhaust to non-toxic” oxides of: om va(NOs), but did not take them out of the exhaust... ~ thé: U.S. Bureau of Mines, Safety ‘Division, after tests in their Pittsburgh laboratory, refused if 1953 to | ap- prové for me my diesel exhaust gas eoaditiahin 2 ' g method . ws —lR-— |. F% > P for use underground, but they approved a Chinese copy of : my method patent to be used by Blue River Constructors on-fourteen Plymouth diesel locomotives they purchased in 1957 for use in the aie Denver Water Board tunnel. The Blué Rive group of six multi-million dollar con: traétors who saved $8 million in driving the 23-mile tunnel _ for the Denver Water Board using Plymouth diesel loco- motives with my limestone conditioners approved by the U. 8S. Bureau. of I Mines, against: the $41 miHion bid of Morrison-Knutson, et al, using electric mine locomotive haulage, were guilty i in 1957 of willful infringement, aided and abetted by the U. S. Bureau of Mines, which said my | patént was invalid for lack of utility because it did ‘not take out the oxides of nitrogen, and hoped by their testi- mony to get my patent held invalid in’ the rn: trial before Judge Druffel i in 1959. Now, my three lawyers, with a‘ 30% ‘interest (Exhibit - 15) in the $8 million. damages which I felt an accounting would show if my patent should be held valid: in this, the ., Tenth Cirenit, refused to permit mé to make the same ‘demonstration of my Exhibit ‘‘59,’’ disclosing the detoxifi- cation of diesel exhaust, which evidence was uncontra _ dieted by cross examination and unanticipated by the cited | ‘prior art in. the Sixth Circuit, and in the Tenth Circuit) Exhibit “59” would have sustained its vak ity and would also have refuted any claimed anticipation, had they per- ’. mitted me to demonstrate Exhibit ‘59’ in its entirety ad the Coust as I had done in Cincinnati.. _—- I appealed the Utah Construction Company case, No. 7899, and Chief Judge Murrah said to me, ‘‘Mr. Ruth, we want to help you. gYou are in the: wrong court. You see, “we have no Court Reporter here ; we do not Swear wit- Xe — 13. | nesses; we do not ‘take testimony. You get a lawyer and go back -to ‘the District Court.’’ ) Again, I went to three lawyers who in turn refused . to take the case, the same as the first set refused, because, they said, it was: the prerogative of lawyers to decide what ~ evidence was to be presented to the courts. -If*this holds, lawyers can usurp the prerogative of judges. . I felt that my lawyers had no right to withhold the evidence of Exhibit ‘59° which Judge Druffel witnessed and from which he held my patent valid in the Sixth Cir- cuit, from Judge Christenson. who in the Tenth Circuit was permitted to see only the ‘mechanical patent the va- lidity of which Judge Druffel raled I had not sustained " (Exhibit. 2). By withholding this demonstration of my Exhibit *‘59,’’ ‘my constitutional right to a fair trial by ’ due: process of law was denied me by my lawyers, and I decided to present the case myself, to the best of’ my ability, in the interest of humanity, by exposing the nitric acid in diesel bus exhaust that my lawyers, in effect, were hiding from the court and the public. | | Reasons For Granting This Writ * . The District Court in Cincinnati held my patent No. 2, 611, 680 valid after »witnessing Exhibit ‘‘59.”’ At the out- - set, this demonstration in Cincinnati was to be run in a , 10-horsepower replica of my large commercial conditioner *» (Exhibit ‘*59’’) but with a glass side. The unit was con- cre ‘nected to the exhaust of a 10-horsepower diesel engine. My’ Exhibit ‘‘60’’ was made the same size as my Exhibit a2 _ 59’? with glass sides, from the drawing the Eagle-Picher: \ \ —14— Company gave me of its scrubber, designated as their Exhibit ‘‘S,’’ at the trial in Cincinnati, which I contended infringed my patent No. 2,611,680. Eagle-Picher’s counsel insisted I must demonstrate infringement of my method patent in their Exhibit ‘‘S,” which was my Exhibit ‘‘60,’’ the herein Exhibit 14. Ac- ° cordingly, I disconnected from my BExhibit ‘‘59’’ the ex- haust pipe from the 10-horsepower diesel engine and con- nected it to their Exhibit ‘“‘S’’ aad my Exhibit ‘‘60.’’ © Consequently, thenceforth, my Exhibit ‘59’? was demon- strated in their Exhibit ‘‘S,’’ and it is so noted by the ; ‘Reporter, whose transcript (Exhibit 4) states as follows: ° Exhibit “‘S’—Model of defs. ° machine ar. con- necter diesel Ex to Ex ‘‘S.” | 08. 00—the test. was started at 8:00 AM. The water ‘was saturated with the nitric acid from the dieseh. exhaust to pH 2.65 at 08. 38. ‘Took sample of- water y wood Ex “8” and took pH eat reading—reading 2. 65. At pH 2.65. the conditioner water was saturated with | ‘nitric acid gas—the water could absorb no more nitric acid _. gas from the diesel exhaust. . At this point, the nitric acid _ gas in the diesel exhaust went out-as an acid water vapor — as.fast as it came in. Exhibit 4 continues: At 8.46 put calcite in Ex ‘‘S”’ without removing. water ‘and while Ex ‘‘S’’ is continued to be operated—took movie scenés of insertion of calcite through outlet of - Ex “sg. ee 09.32—Took sample of water from Ex ‘‘S’*—took pH reading—reading 6.2—cleaned electrodes. | Pe » i oe a The calcite revivified the water’s ability to again absorb toxic nitric acid gas from diesel exhaust, by con- verting the chemically: soluble toxic nitric acid gas’ in the . conditioner water to. non-toxic calcium nitrate, COCs): 3 + 4°H,0. Christenson’s decision’ shows, how the absence of the _ above demonstration of. Exhibit ‘‘59’’ ae his deci- sion: | There was - evidenee from a ‘chemical ‘cnginker, Dr... Gary, tending’ to establish that the removal of -such constituents can be better accomplished with a - chemically inert, rather than an alkaline, diffusing medium such as limestone. (or calcite).. The test upon which the conclusion of defendants’ expert was based, however, was over a short period of time and involved -old equipment the efficiency of which was in question. Dr. Gary was ; asked what he understood the Ruth pat- : ent in suit ‘to. teach regarding the removal of acid constituents. He replied, ‘‘Nothing.”’ It was not until - the question was rephrased to ask him, ‘‘What does the patent: purport to teach with regard to the re- -* ‘. moval of acidic [sic] constituents?”’ that he replied, : ‘that by using an alkaline medium, a higher percent- _ age of the acidic constituehts would be remoyed.’” Dr. | Gary then further indicated. that this was not true in fact and that in the context of the patent it was not eee to —— chemical theory. . ; Bxhibit **59”” would have. blasted this dialogue.. & : Had my . attorneys eniieaithed me to demonstrate Ex- — hibit ‘‘59’* to Judge Christenson in Eagle-Picher ’s Ex- ro” e The “following quotation from page 13 of Judge: 4 . 3 oie” _with the diesel exhaust. By thus revivifying the with ah alkaline medium, the soluble acid was at the same Secon ety ee eo ue Pape | -- £ a hibit ‘‘S,‘’’? as I did to Judge Druffel, he would have — known: ‘es a. | : a | . R . 1. Diesel exhaust was laden with nitric acid gas; and the public, as well as the Judge, would have known that diesel combustion engenders toxic nitric acid gas in their cities. , |. -: 6 a. Raat . 2: The conditioner chemically absorbs diesel exhaust nitric acid gas to the saturation point in water; this saturation amounts to pH ». 65,,and thereafter the water can absorb no more as from the ae. engine exhaust. 3. To the pH 2.65 saturated nitric acid water in the. conditioner was added an alkaline medium identical chem- ically to limestone (calcite) ; this revivified the conditioner — water, and the nitric eeid gas now coming in with the diesel exhaust was again being absorbed, as indicated by . the higher pH 3.1; this incoming nitric acid gas, together withthe prior 2. 65 saturation of nitric-acid gas in the con- ditipner water’ was gradually neutralized up to pH 6.2. (Expert Gary did not know how this’ method detoxified - diesel exhaust, in the absence of Exhibit 5, depicting o* tes hibit “59. 7) ~~ The caltite revivified the mee oA ability after satura- ‘tion to again absorb’ the nitric Acid from the diesel engine exhaust. This is the invention. Without limestone, or cal; - cite, the saturated nitric acid as acid water vapor would go out as a nitric acid water vapor as fast.as it "ee in ater time converted to the neutral non-toxic salt, Ca(NO;). + g.. ~) Oa! 2 am i * 1 Oe ree e- oOo ~) ) 64 me 17 sie 4 H,O, thereby dctoditying he diesel exhaust as fast as the conditioner. water absorbed the nitric acid gas. This,’ Dr. Gary says, ‘‘was not. according to accepted + chemigal theory.’’ This is not true, but by my lawyers’ - preventing me from running Exhibit ‘‘59’’ I had no way _ in the record to prove it, and nothing on which to base an — appeal. - « It appears to me that my lawyers, by preventing me from demonstrating Exhibit ‘‘59,%shave made ‘it possible - for the respondents surreptitiously to hide from the ‘court | and from the public the tons of synthetic toxic anhydrous nitric acid gas (NG,) discharged daily into city air: by . General Motors railroad diesel locomotives and their diesel » buses used in city transit service. I studigd civics in school, and I was taught that cor- porations ‘were formed by groups of people whose com- bined resources created something that would manifestly benefit all of the people, which as individuals alone they could not accomplish. or their altruistic investment, they get a dividendé Now, jin’ the United States we have a cor-.’ poration that reverses this precept. General Motors found out in April of 1951 that deaths in-the Idarado’mine were caused in the three years past by the toxic oxides of _ nitrogen from’ their diesel engine exhaust. This report. © (Exhibit 11), made in April, 1951, by Jack: ‘Torrey, of the Colorado Department of Public Health; on cross examina- tion, page 12 of: his report, admits the miners were per. - mitted: to work and die in air containing ‘from three to - five times tolerance of gxides of nitrogen..(NO,), anhy- - _ drous nitrie acid gas. With this knowledge,’ Dr. Cleere, ; . tant i. “ 4 — 1§ — head of the Colorado Department of Public Health (Ex- . hibit 23), was duty-bound to shut down the Idarado mine ‘in 1951. This would have notified the State of Colorado and the State of California where Los Angeles was dis- placing its electric street cars with General Motors diesel buses, that diesel exhaust was laden with a unique, toxic, ' smog-forming nitric acid gas, called oxides of nitrogen. This would also have notified public health departments * throughout the United States, and the use of diesel power in city transit service would have begn ostracized. Jack ° Torrey testified the miners (those who did not quit in 10 days) had for years worked in mine air five times toler-* ance of oxides of nitrogen, but none of the 14 cases before the Colorado Industrial Commission were compensated, nor were those: who died outside the mine from oxides of nitrogen, emphysema caused by breathing the low concen- trations of oxides of nitrogen in the mine over an extended . period. See page 5, Exhibit 16, and ‘the report of post- _moftem of Irving J. Ivie, Exhibit 17. Dr. Good testified the labor turnover was, great, or more would have died: ‘In Los. Angeles, in 1952, when the General Motors - diesel buses were displacing the electric street cars, the © same toxic, blinding smog beset that city. See C. L. Hamb- lin letter of 8/12/60, Exhibit 6. Jack Torrey, the only man with first-hand analytical knowledge that General ‘Motors 6-71 diesel bus engines engendered in the Idarado mine toxic anhydrous nitric acid and blinding smog, went out to Los Angeles for two years, apparently not to warn — the public about the toxic, smog-forming oxides of nitro- | "gen inherent in General Motors diesel bus engine exhaust, because the press releases by scientists and health offi- cials in California and Los Angeles from that time on attributed the cause of this new smog to inversion, to , —19— : 4° the gasoline. fumes that:came out of a gasoline truck when, it was again’-filled with gasoline, to olefins, to auto ex- haust, ozone, trashburners, and. cigarettes. You will note that the press is silent about the 0.1% of toxic oxides of nitrogen inherent in General Motors diesel bus “exhaust; a diesel. bus in a day’s operation ° will ‘discharge 00. pounds ‘of. this toxic gas in its exhaust into a city’s air (this is proven by. Exhibit ‘‘59’’). It is obvious that. Jack Torrey ‘went out to California: to corrupt’ public health officials _ and scientists and tell them what to hide, which is ob- viously the oxides of nitrogen and smog engenderéd from General Motors diesel bus — in Los y ngee as it _ was in the Idarado mine. Here we have a corporation organized to make money by the sale of diesel ‘power in city transit service and | which destroys the public’s health, byncos them out of their money, and by phony press releases makes an — enigma out of diesel smog, costing our unwary public: billions, of dollars for the witch hunt set up by General Motors public relations to hunt for the cause * the smog . damage. ; i? -The United States Supreme Court can, by ordering _ Exhibit. ‘*59”’ demonstrated to the District Court in the Tenth Circuit,.subject to scrutiny” and cross examination, ‘as it was demonstrated in the Sixth Circuit, disclose to the court and to the public that one- tenth of one per cent of ’ diesel exhaust is toxic, smog-forming, anhydrous nitric’ acid gas; that this gas is unique to diesel engine .combus- tion and is not present in gasoline automobile combustion ; and that the nitric acid gas in diesel exhaust is 20 times. . more toxic than carbon monoxide in automobile exhaust o -—20—-" (Exhibit 10). With this knowledge, which the United States press must follow as it| comes from a Federal ' Court, an enlightened public wil eradicate this phasé of deadly air pollution, which is substantially responsible for the 400% rise in emphysema, lung cancer, and bronchial . ailments in children. In the U. S. Burden of Mines Information Circular Bulletin I.C. 7222 dated in 1942 (Exhibit 16) is.the follow- _ ing statement about oxides of nitrogen in 1 diesel engine exhanst:, The controlling noxious gases are nitrogen oxides, which, under currently accepted tolerance limits, are 10 times more deadly than carbon monoxide. ~ _ Although acute poisoning’ from toxic ‘gases may be fatal, nevertheless the most important hygienic risk from any poisonous, substance is that which Te sults from constant and, ee exposure. > Exhibit 9 ions G.M. diesel 6-71. exhaust to’ contain, 954 parts per million of oxides of nitrogen. Exhibit 12 shows Los Angeles air to contain 3.93 P.P.M. of oxides of nitrogen. - With the knowledge of tke death and destruction _ wrought in the Idarado mine from 1947 to 1952 by. the oxides of nitrogen in diesel exhaust which confirmed. their findings about diesel exhaust i in their I.C. 7222 Bulletin in 1942, they testified and ‘permitted General Motors to put . in their diesel bus sales manual the following (Exhibit 6): 4 ae a@- t ‘ — 21 — The report of the Buréau of Mines on the GM diesel exhaust definitely shows that there is [sic] no harmful parts in same. The excerpt of testimony before Illi- — nois Commerce Commission: is very clearcut and fact- ual. Both of these copies have béen sent to the field and if more copies are needed they.are available. * With this knowledge, in 1955 I deprecated the dis- placement of our electric coaches in Denver by General ‘Motors diesel buses. I notified the City Council, the: Mayor, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, and the Governor, and was thwarted by Dr. Cleere (Exhibit 23). I then panne over all of my data on the toxicity of diesel exhaust to the United*States Federal Trade Com- . mission by’ which’ they could. ‘prove General Motors was practicing deception in selling their diesel buses by mis-: representation, by advertising and promoting the sale of their diesel buses on the basis that there were no harmful parts in their diesel buses’ exhaust when they knew their diesel. bus exhaust contained one-tenth of one per cent (954 P.P.M.) of .toxic, smog-forming, anhydrous nitric acid gas (oxides of.nitrogen). The U. S. Bureau of Mines R. I. Report 4032 of January 1947 shows that diesel ex- - haust contains 996 P.P.M. of NO,. ‘ went to: Washington and put the facts to Samuel - L. Williams, chief prosecuting attorney for the United .. States Federal Trade Commission. He’ said, ‘‘All very — well; if we filed-a suit against General Motors, and the | U. S. Bureau of Mines testified that there are no harmful . parts in their diesel bus exhaust, it would collapse.’ — After two years of — operation of my diesel mine locomotive in a Wyoming mine from 1942 to 1944, I ¢ @ . = . . . ° ae ee ee betes - a+ - eo A et pak ne 22 3 é . : . ° ‘ presented this data to the Colorado Commissioner -of Mines, Fred Jones, and obtained permission for the. - Idarado Mining- Company to use one diesel mine locomo- tive (Exhibit 24), which they operated safely from 1944 -to 1947, when the U. S. Bureau of Mines sent a letter (Exhibit 25) to the Idarado Mining Company which they interpreted as permission to put in four more diesel mine locomotives over the head of Fred Jones, Colorado: Com- missioner of Mines, without my conditioners, by-passing the permission granted by Fred Jones in 1944 (Exhibit 24) for one diesel locomotive, with disastrous results. All this time, the U. S. Bureau of ‘Mines maintained there were no harmful parts in. General Motors diesel bus ex- haust, so that General Motors diesel bus sales in our cities . ; would not be impaired (Exhibit 22). “In 1953 the U. S. Bureau of Mines ordered one of my $9,000, 3-ton diesel. mine locomotives, specifying that it be a duplicate of the six standard 3-ton diesel mine locomo- tives with limestone detoxifying conditioners*I had sold to the U. S. Steel zinc mine in Jefferson City, ‘Tennessee (Exhibit 10). I put up $400 for them to make tests and analyses of the. exhaust, leading to their approval which they: refused. . After seven months theye. found. the an#wer to the ° quandary, why the U. S. Steel zinc mine air had less than 3 P.P.M. of oxides of nitrogen, whereas the Idarado mine “air had over 100 P.P.M., when their colormetric Ywethod — of analysis for the eatieh of nitrogen from the exhaust of the diesel engine showed the same amount ‘of oxides of nitrogen coming out of my conditioner with limestone as. came out of a. water-only Idarado scrubber which was ° “ ad made from‘a | drawing recommended by the U. S. Bureau - of Mines. My conditioner exhaust contained the same amount of oxides of nitrogen as Ca(NO,), + 4 H,O as the diesel “engine exhaust, but their. colormetric analysis could not distinguish the toxic oxides of nitrogen (NO,) coming out of the diesel engine exhaust from the non-toxic oxides of. nitrogen, calcium nitrate with four molecules of water of crystallization—Ca(NO;), + 4 H,O—which at 100° F., the temperature of the conditioner water, had the same vapor pressure as the water and therefore the detoxified oxides © of nitrogen were eahausted out of the conditioner as vapor with the water vapor. Having put up $400, I expected, eat they refused to © give me any of the analytical results nade in their Pitts- burgs weceioaes i hoping . to use it to. defeat my patent. When Mr. James, head of the U.S. Bureau of Mines Pittsburgh testing laboratory, testified before’ Judge Druffel that test after test of my limestone “conditioner showed that it did not take out the toxi¢ oxides of nitro- gen, as he stepped from the stand Judge Druffel, wise ‘in - the wiles of witnesses, asked him, ‘‘ Did the U. S. Burean . of Mines ever approve a diesel mine locomotive with a limestone conditioner for use underground?’ Mr.. James - answered, ‘‘Yes.”’ Judge. Druffel asked, ‘‘How many?” Mr. James. replied, for two companies—Plymouth Loco- | . motive Works ~— Gitman nano. In 1953, ‘ate testing my unit, they refused me their ' approval. In 1956, using the same method, they granted : sppeyrel to by ai ls — 24 — } “A letter from Congressman Powell (Exhibit 21) ex- poses this perfidy of usurped authority by the U. S. * “Bureau of Mines in stating they had no statutory right to aid and assist General Motors’ in buneoing the public out of their health and their money and me out of my patent, ‘and stating: ‘‘I do know, however, that the Bureau of Mines never has had. and does not now have any authority conferred by Federal statute to inspect mines other than coal mines nor to approve or disapprove the use of equip- ment ‘in those minés. = Conclusion al a f “‘fime j is of the. essence. IT note in the ‘proceedings b be- fore our Federal courts that Sam Slieppard was.not ‘ forced to abide by the judgment of a ten-year-old decision, in which this honorable Court decided he had not received a fair trial. I plead that this honorable Court not consider the intervening time in this case, and that I be granted the right to a fair trial and given. the right to demonstrate — Exhibit ‘‘59”’ to a judge in the Tenth Circuit. as I did in | the Sixth Circuit. ; For the 8 bregoing reasons, this petition for a writ of | certiorari should be granted. i | Respectfully submitted, | JOSEPH P P. RUTH, Respondent, Pro ‘Se . 1325 Glenarm Street mi, — a , Denver, Colorado — --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385602_1708%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.