Judge dismisses Thompson Hine lawsuit against Smoking Everywhere

[Bill Godshall]

Law firm's fee dispute with ex-client goes up in smoke

 

[Vocalek]

Is attorney Zaslow willing to work for Smoking Everywhere pro bono? If not, I hope he got a hefty retainer up front.

 

[Scottinboca]

Smoking Everywhere's Chief Executive Officer Elicko Taieb. Look at the CEO's name. Would you trust someone with the name "Elicko Taieb"?

 

[fumarole]

This leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth with regard to Smoking Everywhere. Previous accusations about Ray Storey's conduct were unsubstantiated but this is different.

Allegedly, SE refused to pay, and then there were various shenanigans at SE in order to hide the funds, then they defeated the action for their attorney's fees with a jurisdictional defence. Morally, Thompson Hine appear to have had the right to claim their fees in Washington DC because that's where they did the work. Apparently, that was not a legally valid argument.

This is an example of nastiness that taints the whole electronic cigarette industry, especially when Thompson Hines' work defeated the FDA and allowed US vapers the right to buy and use e-cigarettes without hindrance. No doubt SE could argue that the fees were not exactly insignificant, but that's the cost of high court law. If you don't have the chips then don't play.

Anyway it's probably only three months' profit for SE, they can certainly afford it. In fact this makes it look uncomfortably like theft, a plea of poverty just doesn't fly. If they had some sort of cost-limiting agreement or estimate, then let's see it.

 

[Luisa]

This leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth with regard to Smoking Everywhere. Previous accusations about Ray Storey's conduct were unsubstantiated but this is different.

Allegedly, SE refused to pay, and then there were various shenanigans at SE in order to hide the funds, then they defeated the action for their attorney's fees with a jurisdictional defence. Morally, Thompson Hine appear to have had the right to claim their fees in Washington DC because that's where they did the work. Apparently, that was not a legally valid argument.

This is an example of nastiness that taints the whole electronic cigarette industry, especially when Thompson Hines' work defeated the FDA and allowed US vapers the right to buy and use e-cigarettes without hindrance. No doubt SE could argue that the fees were not exactly insignificant, but that's the cost of high court law. If you don't have the chips then don't play.

Anyway it's probably only three months' profit for SE, they can certainly afford it. In fact this makes it look uncomfortably like theft, a plea of poverty just doesn't fly. If they had some sort of cost-limiting agreement or estimate, then let's see it.

Is that dreadful SE still in business? If so,I hope no one purchases from them. I,also,hope the law firm continues legal action against them --and the legal firm wins.

 

[Timtam]

Is that dreadful SE still in business? If so,I hope no one purchases from them. I,also,hope the law firm continues legal action against them --and the legal firm wins.

I don't know about that. We need the huge companies to represent our interests, if laws are passed disallowing sale, distribution, or even use indoors, it hurts their sales. With the US suppliers not really doing anything to get some sort of union or organisation together to represent the e-cigarette industry, they are a needed evil. If every supplier in the US maybe gave a small percentage of profits to some sort of organisation which could be big enough to possibly representatives in every state.

Ah, we can dream.

 

[frosting]

I don't know about that. We need the huge companies to represent our interests, if laws are passed disallowing sale, distribution, or even use indoors, it hurts their sales. With the US suppliers not really doing anything to get some sort of union or organisation together to represent the e-cigarette industry, they are a needed evil. If every supplier in the US maybe gave a small percentage of profits to some sort of organisation which could be big enough to possibly representatives in every state.

Ah, we can dream.

Just a thought... suppliers could team up with CASAA and give something like 5% of profit to them to help fight for the cause.

 

[Thulium]

Just a thought... suppliers could team up with CASAA and give something like 5% of profit to them to help fight for the cause.

CASAA doesn't endorse or promote any particular brands or products so it might not be a good idea to directly tie sales of a product to a non-profit organization. However, vendors and manufacturers can certainly follow the lead of some Tobacco companies that have made significant investments into research to improve the safety, effectiveness, and quality of their products...Unfortunately, any research with ties to Big Tobacco is likely to be stigmatized. Donate to CASAA and encourage the vendor you trust to donate what they can to defend and promote tobacco harm reduction, but making smoke-free products more expensive by 5%--even if it goes to a great cause--kinda defeats the purpose.

 

[frosting]

Well, I didn't mean it quite like that more as a donation. But I get what you're trying to say Thulium.

 

[Eddie.Willers]

How about encouraging vendors to give the customer a click-button option at the checkout to make a donation to CASAA? The vendor is then simply the collector rather than the direct donor.
Do-able?