US Suppliers Call to Action!! Join the Fight!!

[Haytoni]

Not quite. The judge said that FDA cannot regulate e-cigs under the banner of "drug/delivery device". He said the e-cig is to be classified as a tobacco product.

But FDA now has regulatory authority over tobacco products (as of June 09), but has not yet classified the e-cig as either a tobacco product or a reduced harm tobacco product.

Until they do so, e-cigs remain at the very least legal, and completely legal to distribute whatever product you currently have in your hands at this point.

The political gridlock situation stands as follows: FDA will stonewall on the return of any seizures made up to Jan 14 2010 (Leon's ruling), and will continue random seizures of non-SE, non-njoy product as long as those individual companies don't have the balls to take them to court.

What this means in practical terms, until further rulings are made, is that you stand a good chance of getting product in because FDA simply cannot stop ALL shipments -- only a fraction of them. The best way to stay under the radar is simply to not make VERY LARGE AND CONSPICUOUS orders of e-cig inventory. Make smaller orders from a wider net of large scale inventory suppiers -- that way most orders will get through, and the ones that don't get through is to be considered the cost of doing e-cig business for now.

That is the pits, fed up with the government, seems they stop anyone from making a living, here's hoping you get back in business.

 

[Haytoni]

Why can't they shut the Cig. producing companies down, they won't because it is a revenue producing product, and I think those companies pay off the big guys, to keep rolling the cancer bombs out.

 

[ChipCurtis]

Why can't they shut the Cig. producing companies down, they won't because it is a revenue producing product, and I think those companies pay off the big guys, to keep rolling the cancer bombs out.

In a nutshell, all that is happening with the e-cigarette and all the political fallout surrounding it is a simple process of human progress stifled by an entrenched political class who simply want to continue things "the way they have been done" because it benefit$ them enormously. Public health be damned.

Every step of human progress has not been done without turmoil or bloodshed. Copernicus was persecuted for claiming that the Earth is round. Galileo was persecuted because his telescopic studies revealed that the Sun did not revolve around the Earth. When you tell the aristocracy of your country that they are not the center of the Universe, retaliation of some kind is imminent. Human progress is slow, and always stifled by other humans who intrinsically believe that they are gifted by God to rule over others and tell them how to live their lives and how to think.

Someone on this forum posted a comment that this country is ripe for revolution. I have to agree.

 

[voltaire]

I wouldn't be very surprised to find out that the SE/NJOY lawyers had something to do with the wording of the court order only applying to them specifically and not all importers in general. It's semi-understandable, they paid for the lawyers, and they didn't want ALL of their competitors benefiting from their efforts. It's more the judge's fault, if he ruled that shipments being seized was wrong, then it's wrong for everybody and should apply to everybody - regardless of what the plaintiffs may have "encouraged" him to do.

 

[yvilla]

I wouldn't be very surprised to find out that the SE/NJOY lawyers had something to do with the wording of the court order only applying to them specifically and not all importers in general.

Voltaire, you're way off base with that. It's even been posted before (I know I did a while ago) - the scope of the order on a motion for an injunction, whether it be preliminary or final, is governed by STATUTE. It's Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

(2) Persons Bound.
The order binds only the following who receive actual notice of it by personal service or otherwise:
(A) the parties;
(B) the parties' officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and
(C) other persons who are in active concert or participation with anyone described in Rule 65(d)(2)(A) or (B).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule 65

 

[voltaire]

You may be right, like I said it was just a hunch. And I'm far from being well-versed in law, but wouldn't "Person's Bound" refer to the FDA/Customs? After all, the ruling is directed towards their actions, no?

 

[TaketheRedPill]

wasn't there a bunch of folks from here who signed onto a [motion????] to join the suit in some way? (friend of the court status?) so if vendor xyz was one of those who "signed on" already, would that possibly give vendor xyz a loophole and class them with s/e, etc. Under Rule 65C? Wild try.

TTRP

 

[Momof3]

That was consumers, not vendors. Don't know about the rest of your question.

 

[Taelor]

We now have 11 US Suppliers Interested. I sent an email about a lawyer's estimate yesterday. Myself and afew others are checking with other good attorneys to find the best one at the best price. I believe the estimate was a little aggressive, but I wanted to give everyone the latest info that I get as I get it. No secrets here. Please check your PM for that info. As soon as I get the other quotes, I will share them with you via PM as well.

Remember if we can get another 20-25 suppliers on board all our costs would significantly drop. For example, $50,000 divided by 10 suppliers is $5,000 each, but $50,000 divided by 20 is only $2,500 each. The more the better. I would really like to see about 30-40 total suppliers involved in this. ***SNIP***

Keep Vaping,

Adam

With all the members we have here, not a lawyer among us that can handle this suit