Agent Orange victims’ brief to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York on September 30, 2005, showed that Judge Weinstein was erroneous in his decision—that Agent Orange was a mere “herbicide” whose undeniably poisonous component dioxin was “unintended” and “collateral”…

Lawyers of the Agent Orange victims, represented by Jonathan Moore, submitted their brief ton September 30, 2005 o the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Hon. Jack Weinstein). The conclusion paragraphs read

” Contrary to the district court’s faulty factual assumptions, the harm caused by the presence of dioxin in Agent Orange, as well as the toxic poisons in the other herbicides manufactured by the defendants and used during the Viet Nam War, was neither unintended nor collateral. The defendants knew that dioxin was a poison.

They knew it was in their product in amounts far in excess of what was safe. They knew how their product was going to be used in Viet Nam. Perhaps most troubling of all these facts, they knew how to keep the poisons out of their product but chose, because of their greed, not to do so. It is this conduct upon which plaintiffs have sued these defendants and it is this conduct which is actionable under the ATS as a violation of international law.

For all the above stated reasons, and because equal justice demands that those who were the intended victims of this poisonous campaign should be compensated just as those who administered the poisons have been, this Court must reverse the decision of the district court granting the defendants
motion to dismiss and allow the plaintiffs international law claims to go forward.

Likewise, this Court should reverse the grant of summary judgment as to the plaintiffs’ state law claims against the defendants.”

[pdf-embedder url=””]

[pdf-embedder url=””]