Trying to gather more details as this is posted...have determined that New Jersey ABC (Alcoholic Beverage Control) has seized a shipment of California wine destined for a number of eastern states. ABC is declining comment because of "ongoing criminal investigation," and so far Criminal Justice Dept. flak hasn't returned calls.
If anyone has inside contact with ABC or Criminal Justice in NJ, would love to know the following:
Where exactly (warehouse, on the road, etc.) shipment was seized?
Why they chose this one shipment out of many?
What specifically is the criminal charge?
How many and what states were confiscated shipments destined for?
What winery brands were involved?
To be continued,
P.S. E-Mail to Winetrader@AOL.com or call (800) 845-9463
Return to list of articles
Unbelievable! In the past week or maybe two, New Jersey ABC and Criminal Justice department have seized a consolidated shipment of wine (500-600 cases) from numerous California wineries destined for address all over the East Coast. That is a fact that has been confirmed by this reporter via numerous sources.
Now get this! Officials of both ABC and Criminal Justice (I've got names, but this ain't a news report so not important to point being made) refuse to confirm whether there is or is not an ongoing criminal investigation or whether indeed a shipment has been seized.
My gawd. We're not dealing with some top secret undercover drug deal or espionage case.
But in the US of A in 1994 a government can confiscate a shipment of goods (including the truck is was being transported in, we're told) and not even acknowledge that fact. These goods were in interstate commerce, are the property of numerous individuals and companies, yet they can be confiscated under some bullpoopy law in NJ and done under a complete cloak of silence. Let's hear it for the New Jersey Gestapo.
Why is this happening?
Well, ABCs around the country, and ATF at federal level have the power to offer something called "offers in compromise." Translation, "Extortion by government fiat."
These agencies have such omnipotent power that they can be compared to IRS. What they do is say, "Give us lots of money and we'll never file the criminal charges, if you promise not to do what we say you did, whether you admit you're guilty or not. And because we're only asking $25,000, that's a lot cheaper than defending yourself in court even if you're innocent."
"Offer in compromise," then, is an offer of lots of money in compromise of your right to due process, and these sleezy bastards get away with it year after year. OH! Guess who gets the money from the "offer"? Well, in most instances the agency doing the extortion gets to keep the money it extorts...sort of like drug agencies seizing someone's personal property because they found a single joint in that boat, or car, or house, or whatever. The same agency that rips of the goods gets the profits from its sale at auction, or in some cases the drug cops get to drive around in the fancy cars, boats, planes they steal from often innocent people. I'm pissed.
If anyone knows anything more about what's going on with this case in NJ I would welcome E-mail.
I suspect they are refusing to acknowledge any investigation because there are no plans to file criminal charges, but that the government agencies are negotiating there extortion deal as we speak. Watch the news reports in coming weeks for the following statement: "The New Jersey State Police and ABC announced today the acceptance of a $25,000 offer in compromise in lieu of criminal prosecution in a case involving illegal interstate shipment of California wine by a small shipping firm called Ameripac Express."
I hate being right when government is being this bad.
To be continued,
Return to list of articles
New Jersey State Police and ABC officials still playing silent about their seizure of tens of thousands of dollars worth (hundreds of cases) of California wine in interstate commerce destined for various eastern destinations.
This morning, agents of Maryland ABC seized three palates of wine from a transit warehouse, representing more than 1000 bottles, mostly packed in 1 and 2-packs as gifts.
The shipping handler in both instance was a firm called Ameripac Express.
Meanwhile, enemy of free enterprise, the American way and interstate shipments of wine, Walter Gray, editor of Texas Beverage News, illegally ordered a special bottling of Single Malt Scotch from a New York retailer, and then went crying to TABC (Texas ABC) that he got what he ordered. Now he wants new legislation that would allow for arresting the carrier. Hey TABC! Why don't you arrest old Walter for illegally ordering and receiving the goods?
All lovers of fine wine and the U.S. Constitution had be better be on guard, because the bureaucrats, politicians and other state and federal fascists appear to be on campaign to put a stop to any shipping of wine, beer or spirits to individuals across state lines.
Let your politicians and ABC bureaucrats know you don't approve.
New Jersey resident in particular, someone needs to bring your police state into line. They may confiscate your property next and then refuse to even confirm that it happened. Lying bastards.
To be continued,
Return to list of articles
Regarding the great wine confiscation caper in New Jersey, and the one a few days later in Maryland, the regulators in those states are asking California regulators to bring pressure on California wineries and retailers which are shipping wine to other states...even though there is no specific law banning California licensees for shipping out of state. Beware! It wouldn't be the first time a California ABC official came up with a new interpretation of an old law, or decided something says something it never said before. In talking to a top Cal. ABC official, got a strong feeling that might happen. Anything can happen, I guess, in a state that would reelect both Pete Wilson and Willie Brown.
Is there no defender of the Constitution of the United States to take up the defense of the commerce clauses against the puny power of the 21st amendment. We need a wine-loving attorney with huevos and a specialty in constitutional law. Is there such an animal out there?
To be continued,
Return to list of articles
Those redneck, bible-belt, alcohol police in Texas, where they still have dry precincts (and you thought Prohibition ended in 1933!), will not permit wine salesman to call on retail accounts unless a wholesalers travels with him (what about free speech guys?) and where they actually have a law that prevents out of state individuals or corporations owning liquor licenses (Texas still thinks it's an independent country, I guess) is sending out harassing letters to to retailers advertising in The Wine Trader magazine.
The strange thing is these same businessmen are advertising in several larger publications which are not mentioned in the TABC (Texas Alcoholic Beverage Control) threatening letters.
Could it be that Texas is attempting to turn advertisers away from The Wine Trader because it is the only magazine that actively editorializes and campaigns against the dumb (and quite possibly unconstitutional) laws against interstate shipment of wines.
Is this part of a national crackdown on interstate shipments, wine and beer clubs and retailers willing to ship out of state, as exemplified by gestapo-like seizures of goods in transit in New Jersey and Maryland in the past week?
Are freedom loving Americans gonna put up with these alcohol fascists forever?
Probably...we're a pretty meek bunch as a group.
To be continued,
Return to list of articles
An example of E-mail response
"Come on Jerry, tell us how you really feel. The laws will never change until someone who is bankrolled makes a test case out of the issue. How come the Wine Institute does not offer to back an individual or company, and put it to the Federal Courts for an answer!! Every thing is done tongue in cheek now - I've had wine shipped to me in NC, OK, TX, WA, MD, and HI. Never a problem, and everyone seems happy, but I know what you mean. It all seems pretty stupid - not that the BATF would ever do anything stupid%*&?#! I paid $90.00, got a Federal Firearms license, and could ship all sorts of weaponry, powder, primers, and ammo to myself, yet I can not legally purchase a case of wine. Something is a little skewed here!!"
Return to list of articles
Response from another reader
The hard facts are that the same Constitutional amendment which repealed Prohibition granted to the states the right to regulate alcohol distribution. Thus all antitrust laws, the First Amendment, etc. are inapplicable. Yes, the state laws in the various states do show just how the individual states react to the possibility of 'legal graft'.
Here in Virginia the wine distribution laws are carefully crafted to allow excessive profits for distributors. Each retailer is 'assigned' to a distributor for each wine. No importer can have a 'duplicate' channel of distribution. So in any given area only one distributor offers a specific wine. Many distributors double their money on wine! There are major distortions in pricing -- Moet & Chandon Imperial Burt is more than twice as costly as Pol Roget's comparable offering. And Virginia is a wine producing state.
Return to list of articles
To answer LuvWine, you're right about everyone receiving shipments with no problem. Me, too. I have three to five different freight companies at my door everyday here in Nevada, which is not a reciprocal state.
But beware. It seems to be a concerted effort by a bunch of states to act in unison, at holiday time and against a smaller shipper.
In the past week there have been large seizures in New Jersey and Maryland, and Texas is sending its threatening letters again. A few weeks before that Florida was trying to get ATF to do their dirty work for them and Hawaii is sending out letters similar to those of Texas, though not mentioning any particular publication.
Tell 'em what I really think? You betchum Red Ryder. Today The Wine Trader magazine retained the law firm of Hinman & Carmichael of San Francisco, California, to take legal action against Texas ABC for infringing on the magazine's first amendment rights by threatening our advertisers and implying that their is something illegal about their advertisements.
To be continued,
Return to list of articles
To the attention of AnkerStein: You and I read the U.S. Constitution a little differently. The commerce clauses guarantee no restrictions of free trade and commerce between the states.
Granted the states have usurped the authority to restrain trade in this one area, and have thusfar been allowed to get away with it because no one with the will and the wherewithal has challenged them.
But! Every time the 21st Amendment has come up against the body of the Constitution the Constitution has won...as it should have. Price fixing ("fair trade") and other anti-trust issues have all gone to the good guys.
So why hasn't this issue been resolved in the courts? Because Gallo, Seagram, Canandaigua and Heublein own or control their own wholesalers in all 50 states and therefore have a vested interest in protecting the existing monopolized 3-tier system. And they're not much interested in shipping 6-packs of wine or beer direct to consumers.
So the big guys who could afford to take it to the Supreme Court have no interest (note: It has taken Coor's five years to try to get an order saying they can make a truthful statement of alcohol content on their containers, and it is only now being considered at the top court.) and the little guys, the small wineries, entrepreneurial retailers and the wine and beer of the month club types, can't afford the lawyers.
There's another factor at play here. The state ABC's treat these cases like prostitution cases...they only bust the hookers and don't do a thing to the customers. Wouldn't it be lovely if they started busting all the upstanding citizens (doctors, lawyers, politicians even) who order wine my mail? We might get these stupid laws repealed without a Supreme Court test yet. To be continued,
Return to list of articles