Round of applause to smoking everywhere. Another reason why I don't think they are evil. I feel a lot better about having over paid for one of their products knowing that I am funding soldiers in the good fight.
FDA Sued Over Electronic Cigarette Embargo
- Thread starter Sun Vaporer
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- baker fda legal regulation usa
- Status
I'm hoping for the best and preparing for the worse.
Stock up people! ...just in case.
Stock up people! ...just in case.
Take some good advise from Nitewriter here folks--if you have not done so already---stock up!!!! Sun
I have to agree with Kate on this one. While its great that SE is taking on the FDA, even a victory seems like it may be a double edged sword for us in the long run. Will be interesting to see how this plays out though.
Whether we are comfortable with their angle or not, they are the ones who spent the money to step up to the plate and fight this battle and obviously it will be fought with their immediate best interests in mind. The rest of us will simply have to live with the result good or bad as it will probably be precedent setting.
This is how war is waged. You can't expect every soldier to be fighting out of a sense of duty. They did step up. Not only that but Smoking Everywhere has been doing something else that will be benificial to us. As the most exposed US provider of E-cigs they are increasing our numbers. Thats going to become important. What I would also like to see are teams beating the FDA to the research, peer reviewing long before they can. That way we can call BS if they make unproven claims.
So, what was decided as far as our actions?
This still sounds like a plausable idea to me. (Originally suggested by Chuck)
Amicus brief legal definition of Amicus brief. Amicus brief synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
Aparently they are used often in tobacco cases. (Links at the bottom of this page) Amicus Briefs - William Mitchell College of Law
Amicus curiae:
Literally, friend of the court. A person with strong interest in or views on the subject matter of an action, but not a party to the action, may petition the court for permission to file a brief, ostensibly on behalf of a party but actually to suggest a rationale consistent with its own views. Such amicus curiae briefs are commonly filed in appeals concerning matters of a broad public interest; e.g., civil rights cases. They may be filed by private persons or the government. In appeals to the U.S. courts of appeals, an amicus brief may be filed only if accompanied by written consent of all parties, or by leave of court granted on motion or at the request of the court, except that consent or leave shall not be required when the brief is presented by the United States or an officer or agency thereof.
An amicus curiae educates the court on points of law that are in doubt, gathers or organizes information, or raises awareness about some aspect of the case that the court might otherwise miss. The person is usually, but not necessarily, an attorney, and is usually not paid for her or his expertise. An amicus curiae must not be a party to the case, nor an attorney in the case, but must have some knowledge or perspective that makes her or his views valuable to the court.
The most common arena for amici curiae is in cases that are under appeal (are being reconsidered by the court) and where issues of public interest—such as social questions or civil liberties—are being debated. Cases that have drawn participation from amici curiae are those involving Civil Rights (such as 1952's brown v. board of education), Capital Punishment, environmental protection, gender equality, infant Adoption, and Affirmative Action. Amici curiae have also informed the court about narrower issues, such as the competency of a juror; or the correct procedure for completing a deed or will; or evidence that a case is collusive or fictitious—that is, that the parties are not being honest with the court about their reasons for being there.
The privilege that friends of the court are granted to express their views in a case is just that: amici curiae have no right to appear or to file briefs. Unless they represent the government, amici curiae must obtain leave (permission) to do so from the court, or consent of all parties in the case, before filing. No court is obligated to follow or even to consider the advice of an amicus curiae, even one it has invited.
The principle that guides the appropriate role of a friend of the court is that he or she should serve the court without also acting as "friend" to either of the parties. Rules of court and case law (past court decisions) have attempted to spell out the sometimes tricky specifics of how an amicus curiae should—and should not—participate in a case.
The amicus curiae walks a fine line between providing added information and advancing the cause of one of the parties. For instance, she or he cannot raise issues that the parties themselves do not raise, since that is the task of the parties and their attorneys. If allowed by the court, amici curiae can file briefs (called briefs amicus curiae or amicus briefs), argue the case, and introduce evidence. However, they may not make most motions, file pleadings, or manage the case.
Whether participating by leave or by invitation, in an appearance or with a brief amicus curiae, a friend of the court is a resource person who has limited capacity to act.
Sorry for the long post, but I wondered what happened to us taking action? I agree with Chuck that this might be an answer.
Opinions???
This still sounds like a plausable idea to me. (Originally suggested by Chuck)
Amicus brief legal definition of Amicus brief. Amicus brief synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
Aparently they are used often in tobacco cases. (Links at the bottom of this page) Amicus Briefs - William Mitchell College of Law
Amicus curiae:
Literally, friend of the court. A person with strong interest in or views on the subject matter of an action, but not a party to the action, may petition the court for permission to file a brief, ostensibly on behalf of a party but actually to suggest a rationale consistent with its own views. Such amicus curiae briefs are commonly filed in appeals concerning matters of a broad public interest; e.g., civil rights cases. They may be filed by private persons or the government. In appeals to the U.S. courts of appeals, an amicus brief may be filed only if accompanied by written consent of all parties, or by leave of court granted on motion or at the request of the court, except that consent or leave shall not be required when the brief is presented by the United States or an officer or agency thereof.
An amicus curiae educates the court on points of law that are in doubt, gathers or organizes information, or raises awareness about some aspect of the case that the court might otherwise miss. The person is usually, but not necessarily, an attorney, and is usually not paid for her or his expertise. An amicus curiae must not be a party to the case, nor an attorney in the case, but must have some knowledge or perspective that makes her or his views valuable to the court.
The most common arena for amici curiae is in cases that are under appeal (are being reconsidered by the court) and where issues of public interest—such as social questions or civil liberties—are being debated. Cases that have drawn participation from amici curiae are those involving Civil Rights (such as 1952's brown v. board of education), Capital Punishment, environmental protection, gender equality, infant Adoption, and Affirmative Action. Amici curiae have also informed the court about narrower issues, such as the competency of a juror; or the correct procedure for completing a deed or will; or evidence that a case is collusive or fictitious—that is, that the parties are not being honest with the court about their reasons for being there.
The privilege that friends of the court are granted to express their views in a case is just that: amici curiae have no right to appear or to file briefs. Unless they represent the government, amici curiae must obtain leave (permission) to do so from the court, or consent of all parties in the case, before filing. No court is obligated to follow or even to consider the advice of an amicus curiae, even one it has invited.
The principle that guides the appropriate role of a friend of the court is that he or she should serve the court without also acting as "friend" to either of the parties. Rules of court and case law (past court decisions) have attempted to spell out the sometimes tricky specifics of how an amicus curiae should—and should not—participate in a case.
The amicus curiae walks a fine line between providing added information and advancing the cause of one of the parties. For instance, she or he cannot raise issues that the parties themselves do not raise, since that is the task of the parties and their attorneys. If allowed by the court, amici curiae can file briefs (called briefs amicus curiae or amicus briefs), argue the case, and introduce evidence. However, they may not make most motions, file pleadings, or manage the case.
Whether participating by leave or by invitation, in an appearance or with a brief amicus curiae, a friend of the court is a resource person who has limited capacity to act.
Sorry for the long post, but I wondered what happened to us taking action? I agree with Chuck that this might be an answer.
Opinions???
This is good. Well done.
I had actually just before reading this emailed Smoking everywhere directly. I just said that I am aware of the law suit, that me and a lot of other people beleive in personal vaporizers and related products, and that I would like to know if there is anything I could do to help.
This is a good option. I like this.
I had actually just before reading this emailed Smoking everywhere directly. I just said that I am aware of the law suit, that me and a lot of other people beleive in personal vaporizers and related products, and that I would like to know if there is anything I could do to help.
This is a good option. I like this.
Does this affect relatively small shipments from China? Of course, it had to fall in the Chinese Holidays - that as far as I know, Ruyandirect is closed till May 3rd, and I was about to order some spare atomizers for my 4081 and 901.
I did, needed some juices, so I ordered a little bit from MVS and TW... but probably only would last maybe 2 months, if not shorter...
I did, needed some juices, so I ordered a little bit from MVS and TW... but probably only would last maybe 2 months, if not shorter...
Chuck7403 in post #62
I noticed it when he said it and did a little reading. The more I read, the more it sounded like the right thing to do.
Nitewriter--I know!!!! That is why I could not understand why he was relcutant to write the the Court!!! Just did not make sense to me---LOL--Well my letter is done so it will be off in the morning. Clean, and to the point.
As for the Amicus curiae Brief, we would need leave of the Court for premission to submit it. The standard is "a vested interest in the stake or outcome of the case at Bar with knowledge that would aid the Court"---sounds about right to me Nitewriter!--------Sun
Chuck said his legal understanding was limited and he was educating himself. Maybe that was his hesitation?
I wonder how we begin to create the brief and file it? Would it be through SE's attorney or the court? Do you know?
I'd love to see your letter Sun, I bet it's great!
I wonder how we begin to create the brief and file it? Would it be through SE's attorney or the court? Do you know?
I'd love to see your letter Sun, I bet it's great!
Sorry for the double post, but I'm also curious to hear what Bill Godshall thinks of this idea.
Nitewriter--Absent hiring Counsel, it would need to be done Pro Se---problem is who--as we are not an orginzation. You need an enity--either a person, corporation, or reckonized orginization to file Pro Se and we, collectively do not fit in that catagory as members of a Forum---not to say that we could not try. But then you have to Motion the Court to be heard to as to why they should entertain us and request permission file. If it is granted, then a pleading would have to be drafted in proper form to be submitted. Remember that Amicus Briefs are usually done at the Appellant Level and the case is only at the trial level. But it is something to consider---the question though is who is the entity filing as the Court will more then likely not reckonize a Forum??----Sun
Wonder if Lacy's Group is Viable--but I do not know the status of it---Sun
Last edited:
Except for the vast multitude of us who do not have health insurance. Mere possession of a prescription product (which current nicotine inhalers are) without said prescription is a felony. This would be almost the worst outcome for many. Plus all personal 'stockpiles' become a ticket to jail time the instant these products become legally classified as NRT requiring a prescription. Just something to think about for those advocating such an outcome.
Caffeine is GRAS (generally regarded as safe), and nicotine is likely at least a decade or more away from getting on *that* list - if ever.
Last edited:
I agree that Bill's opinion would be helpful...I also believe that once the FDA files its answer, we will have a much better understanding of how this case could possibly play out...I think they have 20 days...
The argument that these are tobacco products because the nicotine is derived from a tobacco plant is interesting...
The Complaint raises some interesting issues of Administrative law which should be explored...As I mentioned earlier, I do not know whether an "import-alert" is subject to formal or even informal rule making procedures...
Basically, when an Administrative Agency does something, they have to follow certain procedures...SE is arguing that the FDA failed to follow such procedures...
There is so much going on with this, it is truly fascinating...I don't mean to state the obvious, but it appears that injunction or no injunction, this case will change the personal vaporizing world...
The argument that these are tobacco products because the nicotine is derived from a tobacco plant is interesting...
The Complaint raises some interesting issues of Administrative law which should be explored...As I mentioned earlier, I do not know whether an "import-alert" is subject to formal or even informal rule making procedures...
Basically, when an Administrative Agency does something, they have to follow certain procedures...SE is arguing that the FDA failed to follow such procedures...
There is so much going on with this, it is truly fascinating...I don't mean to state the obvious, but it appears that injunction or no injunction, this case will change the personal vaporizing world...
I am in no way disputing anything you say Sun. I have no legal knowledge beyond running a business, but the language is confusing if what you say is so. This is from the state of NJ and I'm not sure it's the same in US court, but if it is, it seems we wouldn't have to be an organization.
I also wondered about Lacey's group and Right to Vape if an organization is needed.
Council On Local Mandates | Council Rules of Procedure
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
COUNCIL ON LOCAL MANDATES
RULES OF PROCEDURE
Rule 7. Amici Curiae.
a. Who May File.
Any group or individual may file a request with the Council to appear as amicus curiae. P.L. 1996, Chapter 24, Section 12(c).
b. Form and Content of Request to Appear and Accompanying Information Sheet.
(i) A Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae shall be in writing and shall identify the Complaint with respect to which the group or individual seeks to appear, the identity of the group or individual seeking to appear, the issue it wishes to address, the nature of the public interest therein, the nature of the requester's interest, and the requester's involvement or expertise with respect to the issues involved. P.L. 1996, Chapter 24, Section 12(c).
(ii) A Request to Appear must be accompanied by a Request Information Sheet, a blank copy of which is attached to these Rules as Appendix 1-C, that is completed and signed by any individual requesting amicus curiae status or, if represented, by the attorney or other authorized representative of that individual, or by the attorney or other authorized representative of any group requesting amicus curiae status.
(iii) The Council may require that a Request to Appear be accompanied by any affidavit, written statement, brief, or other written documents on the issue the requester wishes to address should amicus curiae status be granted.
I can't sleep for thinking about this and thought this a worthy ponder.
I also wondered about Lacey's group and Right to Vape if an organization is needed.
Council On Local Mandates | Council Rules of Procedure
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
COUNCIL ON LOCAL MANDATES
RULES OF PROCEDURE
Rule 7. Amici Curiae.
a. Who May File.
Any group or individual may file a request with the Council to appear as amicus curiae. P.L. 1996, Chapter 24, Section 12(c).
b. Form and Content of Request to Appear and Accompanying Information Sheet.
(i) A Request to Appear as Amicus Curiae shall be in writing and shall identify the Complaint with respect to which the group or individual seeks to appear, the identity of the group or individual seeking to appear, the issue it wishes to address, the nature of the public interest therein, the nature of the requester's interest, and the requester's involvement or expertise with respect to the issues involved. P.L. 1996, Chapter 24, Section 12(c).
(ii) A Request to Appear must be accompanied by a Request Information Sheet, a blank copy of which is attached to these Rules as Appendix 1-C, that is completed and signed by any individual requesting amicus curiae status or, if represented, by the attorney or other authorized representative of that individual, or by the attorney or other authorized representative of any group requesting amicus curiae status.
(iii) The Council may require that a Request to Appear be accompanied by any affidavit, written statement, brief, or other written documents on the issue the requester wishes to address should amicus curiae status be granted.
I can't sleep for thinking about this and thought this a worthy ponder.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
