So how about if the lawyers here get serious - Amicus Brief in Byrd v. Tennessee

WINE TALK
21

I have to think through how to organize this but I’m getting really psyched. First read all 21st amendment case law. Brainstorming to outline points to argue. Divide up points, draft, circulate, redraft, someone draft the wrapper. This is not what I do. Any thoughts.

22

Not an attorney so I sent a tweet to you know who about unfair trade here between states, driven by distributors who didn’t support him in 2016. I may have suggested an executive order that all interstate sales/shipments will have a 2% federal tax and no state can tax or demand tax on the sale, thus creating fair trade among the states. I might have also given him some numbers on that tax that could reduce the deficit or be seed money for the USA Space Force.

I have a number of years as an intelligence officer, crime analyst, investigator and am a great collator of data if there is anything I can do to assist the attorney team. I still have a half dozen 3 inch ring binders laying around. Computer data isn’t as impressive as 6 three inch ring binders with real paper and an index. [wink.gif]

23

I was making an easy joke on phrasing. Honestly, the line for bowing out starts right behind me. No reflection on anyone stepping up. I’m all for it.

This isn’t a find-and-replace project. This is working up new arguments. Lots of time. If an attorney (and his or her firm) is on board with that, then the professional risk is probably limited to being embarrassed in a footnote.

I think it would be great if it could be pulled together, but there’s likely to be more “do it!” than “hold my beer.”

24

I had a brilliant but somewhat erratic colleague who went through a period where he found a way to cite the Magna Carta in virtually every brief he touched. I was particularly impressed when he worked it into a motion to dismiss a qui tam complaint.

25

Jay,

Although, WineFreedom.org is aldready overseeing the writing of an Amicus Brief in Byrd v Tennessee that specifically addresses the interests of wine consumers that is funded not by reteailers, wineries or wholesalers, I support the Berserkers’ efforts to submit an Amicus in the case. If for no other reason because I relish idea knowing the clerks at the Court will pick up a brief that is headed, with “On Behalf of the Wine Berserkers”. That would make me smile and make me happy.

The only thing I’d suggest is that if the Berserkers choose to do this, you ought to coordinate with the others who are writing briefs on behalf of the free trade angle so that the arguments you make niether step on the arguments of the others, contradict them or repeat them.

If in the end, you all choose not to submit a brief, please consider help funding the WineFreedom brief at GofundMe.

26

while noble, this seems rather redundant. i wrote my law school thesis on this subject back in 1999 and even then there was a mountain of journal articles on the subject. so the arguments needed to be made have already been made. if there’s a cool internet community aspect to it, i suppose that’s at least novel. but the constitutional arguments are out there already.

for board lawyers that are interested in the issues, this is a very good primer: "The Direct Shipping of Wine" by Gordon Eng

“There are only two ways an ordinary citizen acting in a private capacity can violate the United States Constitution. One is to enslave someone, violating the Thirteenth Amendment, and the other is to bring a bottle of wine into a state in violation of its alcoholic beverage control laws.”

27

Jay –

I think it might be fun in theory, though difficult to pull off. I’m happy to assist, but it probably helps if we consider creating a shared google document. Once we have an outline of the brief, it would probably help to divide the work so that the volunteers focus on certain sections.

I note that the closest I’ve ever come to anything like this, is the lone Appellate brief that I drafted on an obscure matter pertaining to property tax litigation. But at least I’m a better writer than Alfert.

28

I’m going to ignore the Debbie Downers. The first thing I need to figure out is what is the deadline and whether the various consents that have been filed are blanket consents filing amicus briefs, which are allowed under Rule 37. If they are blanket consents, then it appears that we do not have to make a motion. Have any of you guys actually done this before? I guess I will have to spend the weekend reading up on amicus briefs.

29

You can also find a variety of journal artiles on the issue here: Info & Reports

And background and briefs on the Byrd case can be found here: Tennessee Wine v Thomas

30

Okay. I just put my $50 where my mouth is.

31

Here is the link to the SCOTUS Docket for the case:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-96.html

32

Thank you, Jeff!!!

33

I am interested and I am admitted to practice in the Supreme Court. Never did it, but when I clerked on the 6th Circuit, we got admitted. What’s the next step?

34

I’m going to do some background reading to see what i can figure out, but as a transactional attorney who last wrote an appellate brief in moot court, I’m open to suggestions. As I just said to one of our brethren, fools rush in where heroes fear to tread.

35

Then we would argue in some way (to be determined) that interstate commerce in wine should not be unduly burdened by state regulation and that the 21st amendment (which repealed prohibition but left alcohol regulation to the states) is designed to deal with entirely intra-state issues subject to state regulation.

Jay - didn’t the Court already opine on the question as to the burden on interstate commerce in Granholm and elsewhere? The Court itself said in Granholm that interstate commerce should not be unduly burdened by the states and that the 21st amendment only restored states to their positions prior to Prohibition, which allowed them to regulate alcohol within their boundaries but didn’t allow them to discriminate against other states.

But isn’t this case a little limited to be of real use to us? In other words, the case isn’t about whether retailers are to be treated as wineries, but whether there’s a legit reason to require a long residency for retailers. The issue at hand isn’t about state discrimination, it’s about regulations requiring wannabe retailers to live in the state for a while before opening a shop.

It’s related, but not really on point.

Or am I missing something?

Obviously it’s a a BS rule in TN, but the case is not a slam dunk to open all states to mail order retailers. To get to a point that’s really useful, the Court would have to issue a very broad ruling concerning retail matters.

I’m not arguing anything here, just wondering what the tenor and relevance of an amicus brief would be.

36

I am more than happy to help as well. I think an important first step is contacting the attys on our side to see what is missing and what would be useful. When I used to do things like this ages ago, the best planned cases farmed out different types of arguments to different amici. So the question is what issue or angle is not currently being prepared by other amici. If it turns out there is nothing, then perhaps we should just support the wine consumers brief. But I suspect there may be other arguments or angles that we could provide – if only to explain the what a wineberserker is. :slight_smile:

37

I just hire people that are smarter and better than me, sorta like the way I married.

38

Interesting email from Sokolin:

Dear Wine Lover:

The Supreme Court will hear a case early next year that has the potential to overturn the many state laws that bar consumers from receiving wine shipments from out-of-state wine stores, internet retailers, wine-of-the-month clubs and wine auction houses. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT WINE CONSUMER CASE TO COME BEFORE THE COURT IN YEARS.

There is an important effort led by WineFreedom.org to issue a wine consumer-oriented “Friend of the Court” brief so that the U.S. Supreme Court justices understand why this issue of wine shipping is so important to wine lovers.

This important Wine Consumer “Friend of the Court” amicus brief is to be funded entirely by consumers.

PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT AND HELP THIS EFFORT. $5,000 MUST BE RAISED TO PAY FOR THE WRITING, PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF THIS IMPORTANT CONSUMER-ORIENTED SUPREME COURT BRIEF.

CLICK HERE TO DONATE VIA GOFUNDME TO HELP FUND THE FRIEND OF THE COURT CONSUMER BRIEF.

The first 50 people who contribute $50 or more to this important effort will have their name on the brief and help make history.

We thank you for your support, for your support of free trade in wine and for your help in bringing Wine Freedom to all the United States.


Thank you,
David Sokolin

39

An amicus brief that merely regurgitates the arguments made by the parties is unhelpful and is unlikely to be read by the court. An amicus from wine consumers should be devoted to bringing to life the practical and logistical impediments current law poses to interstate commerce. A spotlight on the real-life consequences of current restrictions on consumers would be helpful. Making the argument without sounding whiney about the ultimate first world problem will be the “art” of such a brief

40

What Neal says! Interfering with my right as a citizen/consumer to unrestricted right of commerce under our constitution should not be allowed. I am not a lawyer.