Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ABC CHARTERS, INC., a Florida Corporation; MARAZUL CHARTERS, INC., a Florida Corporation; XAEL CHARTERS, INC., a Florida Corporation; DAMUJI SERVICES INC., a Florida Corporation; WILSON INTERNATIONAL SERVICES, Inc.; a Florida Corporation; CUBA TRAVEL SERVICES, Inc.; a California Corporation; CELIMAR TRAVEL SERVICES, INC., a Florida Corporation; PARADISE INTERNATIONAL INC, a Florida Corporation; COJIMAR EXPRESS SERVICES, INC., a Florida Corporation; CUBA EXPRESS, INC., a Florida Corporation; CUBAMERICA IMMIGRATION SERVICES CORP., a Florida Corporation; HAVANA EXPRESS, INC., a Florida Corporation; a Florida Corporation; TELLEZ’S TOUR AND TRAVEL AGENCY, INC., a Florida Corporation;
CASE NO: 08-21865-CV-GOLD/McALILEY
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
CHARLES H. BRONSON, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services,
Defendant,/
BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TRAVEL AGENTS, INC. (“ASTA”) IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS
Daniel R. Zim, Esq. VSB No. 70364 American Society of Travel
Paul M. Ruden, Esq.VSB No. 13572American Society of Travel
Agents, Inc. (ASTA)1101 King St., Suite 200 Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Pro Hac Vice for ASTA
Agents, Inc. (ASTA)1101 King St., Suite 200 Alexandria, Virginia 22314Pro Hac Vice for ASTA
Catherine M. Rodriguez, Esq. Fla. Bar No. [email protected], Filler, Rodriguez, Kelso & Debianchi, LLP Plaza Venetia555 NE 15th Street, Suite 104Miami, FL 33132Telephone Number: (305) 371- 5250 Facsimile Number: (305) 371- 5752Local Counsel for ASTA
September 10, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................................i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES............................................................................................ii
INTERESTS OF AMICUS CURIAE..............................................................................1
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................4
ARGUMENT......................................................................................................................5
I. The Florida Seller of Travel Act Affects Countries In Addition to Cuba....5
A. The Plain Language of Section 559.9285 Allows for an Expansive Application of the Certification and Penalty Provisions.................................................................6B. The Inclusion of Local Services in the Definition of “prearranged travel, tourist-related services, or tour-guide services” Indicates That the Statute Was Intended to Extend Beyond Cuba.........................................7C. The Reach of the Travel Act Can Change Over Time.....................................8
II. The Travel Act Unconstitutionally Infringes Upon Federal Authority to
Conduct Foreign Affairs.............................................................................................18
III. The Travel Act Places an Unconstitutional Burden on International
Commerce.....................................................................................................................21
IV. The Sellers of Travel Act Impermissibly Infringes Upon the Fundamental
Right of Travel.............................................................................................................22
IV. The Seller of Travel Act Violates the Eighth Amendment
By Imposing Penalties that are Cruel and Unusual.......................24
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................27
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226, 293, fn. 10 (1964)..........................................................23
Cooper Indus. v. Leatherman Tool Group, 532 U.S. 424, 433 (U.S. 2001)......................25
Crosby v. Nat'l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 372-73 (2000).............................13
Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941).....................................................................23
Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 21 (U.S. 2003).............................................................25
Faculty Senate of Florida International University v. Winn, No. 06-cv-21513 (US Dist.
Ct. So. Dist. Fla. August 29, 2008)................................................................................17
Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941)..........................................................................18
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1204, 78 S Ct 1113 (1958)..............................23
Kraft Gen. Foods, Inc. v. Iowa Dep't of Revenue & Fin., 505 U.S. 71, 81 (1992)............21
Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459, 463 (1946)....................................25
Nat’l Foreign Trade Council v. Natsios, 181 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 1999)...............................19
Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980)............................................................................25
United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 331 (1937).........................................................18
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936)................................18
Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429, 434-435 (1968)..........................................................18
Statutes
22 U.S.C. § 6002................................................................................................................13
22 U.S.C. § 6003................................................................................................................14
50 U.S.C. § 1701...............................................................................................................15
50 U.S.C. § 1702(b)...........................................................................................................15
50 U.S.C. Appx. § 5(b)......................................................................................................14
50 U.S.C. Appx. § 5(b)(4).................................................................................................14
Fla. Stat. § 1011.90(6).......................................................................................................17
Fla. Stat. § 559.927..............................................................................................................8
Fla. Stat. § 559.927(12).......................................................................................................9
Fla. Stat. § 559.928(2)(a)(2) and (3)....................................................................................4
ii
Fla. Stat. § 559.9285............................................................................................................7
Fla. Stat. § 559.9285 (3)(c)..................................................................................................4
Fla. Stat. § 559.9285(1)(a),(b) and (c).................................................................................6
Fla. Stat. § 559.929..............................................................................................................4
Fla. Stat. § 559.9355(1)(c)...................................................................................................5
Fla. Stat. § 559.936(3).........................................................................................................5
Fla. Stat. § 559.937(2).........................................................................................................5
Fla. Stat. § 775.082............................................................................................................26
Pub. L. 104-172, §§ 5(a) and 9(c)(l)..................................................................................15
Regulations
31 C.F.R. § 500.563...........................................................................................................16
31 C.F.R. § 515.564...........................................................................................................14
31 C.F.R. § 538.212...........................................................................................................15
31 C.F.R. § 542.206(c)......................................................................................................16
31 C.F.R. § 560.507...........................................................................................................15
Constitutional Provisions
U.S. CONST. Art. 1, § 8, cl. 3.............................................................................................21
Other Authorities
Bachelet, Pablo U.S. may add Venezuela to list of terrorist states, McClatchy
Newspapers, March 10, 2008 available at
www.mcclatchydc.com/244/story/29944.html...............................................................15
Country Reports on Terrorism, Released by the Office of the Coordinator for
Counterterrorism, Chapter 2 -- Country Reports: Western Hemisphere Overview,
published on April 30, 2008 available at
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2007/103710.htm.......................................................15
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 12(2) (entered into force
March 23, 1976).............................................................................................................29
iii
List of Authorized Providers of Air, Travel and Remittance Forwarding Services to Cuba
(May 5, 2008) published at
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/cuba/cuba_tsp.pdf............7
U.S. Department of State, List of State Sponsors of Terrorism, published at
www.state.gov/s/ct/c14151.htm.................................................................................7, 14
Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 13(2) (December 10, 1948)...................29
Wikipedia State Sponsors of Terrorism published at
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._list_of_state_sponsors_of_international_terrorism..........14
iv
INTERESTS OF AMICUS CURIAE
The American Society of Travel Agents, Inc. (“ASTA”) respectfully submits this
brief as amicus curiae in support of Plaintiffs.
ASTA was established in 1931 and is today the leading retail professional travel
trade organization in the world, with over 12,000 members serving the traveling public in
170 countries throughout the world. ASTA members include all segments of the travel
industry with the core voting membership made up of travel agents. ASTA’s members
include travel agents and the companies whose products they sell such as tours, cruises,
hotels, car rentals. One of ASTA’s primary functions is to advocate to ensure a level
playing field and fair competition throughout the travel industry for the benefit of
industry professionals as well as consumers. Travel agents , including traditional and
online agents, are responsible for the sale of some 55% of all domestic U.S. airline tickets
and 77% of all cruises and tours. The American public overwhelmingly looks to travel
agents as their preferred source of travel information and advice.
ASTA's corporate purposes specifically include promoting and representing the
views and interests of travel agents to all levels of government and industry, promoting
professional and ethical conduct in the travel agency industry worldwide, and promoting
consumer protection for the traveling public. It is an ASTA core principal that travel
restrictions should not be used as an instrument of governmental policy. Travel and
tourism are essential to fostering constructive interactions for the benefit of all peoples
and in furtherance of world peace.
Many of ASTA’s members sell travel to nations designated by the U.S. State
Department as state sponsors of terrorism which include Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan,
1
and Syria (hereinafter the "designated countries").1 Federal restrictions on travel to Cuba
are overseen by Office of Foreign Assets Control (a part of the Department of the
Treasury) (“OFAC”) which authorizes selected travel agencies to sell travel to Cuba.
Several members of ASTA have been designated by OFAC as travel agents authorized to
sell travel to Cuba.2 One of the named Plaintiffs in this case, Marazul Charters, Inc.,3 has
continuously been a member of ASTA for the past 25 years. ASTA’s membership
therefore has a particular and deep interest in preserving the unrestricted right to travel to
the designated countries.
As a result of recent amendments to the Florida Sellers of Travel Act which
increased restrictions on the right to travel to the designated countries, the membership of
ASTA found it necessary to publicly express its opposition to the severely punitive and
unconstitutional measures that these amendments impose on representatives of our
industry.
Even though ASTA is filing this brief in support of Plaintiffs, ASTA believes the
amendments to the Florida Sellers of Travel Act potentially have an impact on sales of
travel to any of the designated countries. Under Plaintiffs’ narrower interpretation, only
1 See U.S. Department of State, List of State Sponsors of Terrorism, published at www.state.gov/s/ct/c14151.htm (last visited September 3, 2008).2 See List of Authorized Providers of Air, Travel and Remittance Forwarding Services to Cuba (May 5, 2008) published at http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/cuba/cuba_tsp.pdf (last visited September 3, 2008). Due to privacy concerns, ASTA does not name which of its member agencies appear on the list.
3 The statements made herein regarding the affiliation of Marazul Charters, Inc. with ASTA should in no way be inferred by this court as any type of legal representation in these proceedings. ASTA’s counsel have never provided any legal advice to Marazul Charters, Inc.
2
businesses that sell travel to Cuba are affected.4 By filing this brief, ASTA hopes to
articulate its distinct views before this Court.
ASTA members, who sell travel (or who could sell travel) to nations designated
by the United States Department of State as state sponsors of terrorism have an active and
direct interest in the disposition of this case. Most immediately, if the amendments to the
Florida Sellers of Travel Act are permitted to remain in effect, many of ASTA’s members
will face the prospect of either turning away business or pay the financially prohibitive
bonding and registration fees that the law requires and/or face a lengthy prison term if
they violate the law.
4 See Plaintiffs’ Complaint at p. 3 where they make the following assertion:
Although the Travel Act’s ostensible aim is to regulate direct travel from Florida to federally designated “terrorist states (i.e. Sudan, Syria, Iran North Korea and Cuba) travel to other designated states is minimal and, on information and belief, there are no direct flights from Florida to any designated state but Cuba.
3
INTRODUCTION
At issue in this case is the validity of Florida statue S.B. 1310, amendments to the
Florida Sellers of Travel Act, Chapter 559 (“Travel Act”) which went into effect on July
1, 2008 but have been enjoined by this Court. The amended Travel Act, among other
things, significantly increases registration fees, security bonds and potential fines for
businesses that sell travel directly to any nation that has been designated by the State
Department as state sponsor of terrorism, namely, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Sudan and North
Korea (hereinafter “designated countries” or “designated country”).
Under the amended Travel Act, firms that sell travel originating in Florida to a
Florida consumer to any of the designated countries must pay an annual registration fee
of either $1,000or $2,500 (See Fla. Stat. § 559.928(2)(a)(2) and (3)) and post a
performance bond, ranging from $100,000 and $250,000. Fla. Stat. § 559.929.
The Travel Act also requires sellers of travel to submit an annual certification to
the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs covering all business
activities related to any designated country, including listing all customers, travel
suppliers and proprietary contacts. The Act specifically removes any protection as trade
secret or confidential and proprietary information otherwise afforded to sellers of travel
and likely exceeds the requirements of federal law regarding reporting of traveler
personal information to the federal government. Fla. Stat. § 559.9285 (3)(c).
Under the Travel Act, a seller of travel faces a $10,000 fine for not
disclosing travel activities pertaining to one or more of the designated countries or for
violating any state or federal law restricting or prohibiting commerce with terrorist states.
(Fla. Stat. § 559.9355(1)(c) and 936(3)). Any person or business who violates the Travel
4
Act’s provisions that relate to the sale of travel to one or more of the designated countries
faces a third-degree felony conviction. Fla. Stat. § 559.937(2).
This statute is preempted by federal law, impermissibly intrudes on the conduct of
United States foreign policy pertaining to designated nations, and violates the foreign
commerce clause of the United States Constitution. The Florida Seller of Travel Act also
impinges upon the fundamental right to travel protected under the due process clause of the
Fifth Amendment. In addition it violates the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the
Eighth Amendment. For those reasons, we urge this Court not only to find in favor of
Plaintiffs, but to enjoin enforcement of the amended statute as to any country that is
designated by the U.S. State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism.
ARGUMENT
I. The Florida Seller of Travel Act Affects Countries In Addition to Cuba
The Travel Act substantially hinders the provision of certain travel services to
individuals seeking to travel to or from nations designated by the United States
Department of State as "terrorist states," specifically Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria and
Sudan. Plaintiffs argue that the Travel Act does not have a significant impact on travel to
designated countries other than Cuba, the reason being that there are no direct flights
from Florida to any designated country other than Cuba.5 While Plaintiffs’ contention is a
5 See Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction p. 5. The relevant section states:
Most of the new Travel Act requirements apply not to travel agencies [footnote omitted] doing business in Florida or all travel related businesses, but only to businesses providing such services to individuals traveling to or sending humanitarian aid to families in certain designated “terrorist states”, including Cuba. However, direct travel from Florida to any other federally designated terrorist state (i.e. Sudan, Syria, Iran, North Korea) is de minimis and, on information and belief, non-existent. Affidavit of Maria Teresa Aral at ¶5; see also Statements of the sponsor of the bill referring to the need to pass the law to avoid benefiting the Cuban government. (Reference omitted). The law was aimed principally, if not solely, at travel to Cuba.
5
rational and plausible interpretation of the statute, the plain language of the statute
indicates a much broader impact.
A. The Plain Language of Section 559.9285 Allows for an Expansive Application of the Certification and Penalty Provisions
The outcome on this point hinges on the correct meaning of the term “directly to
any terrorist state.” Fla. Stat. § 559.9285(1)(a),(b) and (c). The term most notably
appears in the section entitled “Certification of business activities” which provides as
follows:
Certification of business activities.—
(1) Each certifying party, as defined in s. 559.927(2):
(a) Which does not offer for sale, at wholesale or retail, prearrangedtravel, tourist-related services, or tour-guide services for individuals orgroups directly to any terrorist state and which originate in Florida;
(b) Which offers for sale, at wholesale or retail, only prearranged travel,tourist-related services, or tour-guide services for individuals or groups directlyto any terrorist state and which originate in Florida, but engages inno other business dealings or commerce with any terrorist state; or
(c) Which offers for sale, at wholesale or retail, prearranged travel, tourist-related services, or tour-guide services for individuals or groups directlyto any terrorist state and which originate in Florida, and also engages in anyother business dealings or commerce with any terrorist state (Emphasis added).
Fla. Stat. § 559.9285
6
Plaintiffs’ seemingly construe the term “directly to any terrorist
state,” as it is used in the statute, to mean a non-stop flight between
the state of Florida and a designated country. ASTA does not believe
the term is limited to non-stop flights.
The term is not defined in the definition section of the statute
and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs has not
provided one through regulatory action.
Since the Department has no administrative regulations to guide
in the construction of the term, the Department could ascribe a
definition that has a meaning other than “non-stop.” The Department
could, for example, determine that a flight reservation for travel from
Miami, Florida to Tehran, Iran with a 45 minute layover in Vienna,
Austria constitutes the sale of travel “directly to” a designated country.
It could also decide that “directly to” includes published connecting
flight schedule obviously intend to facilitate travel to the ultimate
destination.
B. The Inclusion of Local Services in the Definition of “prearranged travel, tourist-related services, or tour-guide services” Indicates That the Statute Was Intended to Extend Beyond Cuba
The definitions section of the statute defines the term “prearranged travel,
tourist-related services, or tour-guide services” which is found in section
559.9285 as follows:
Definitions.—For the purposes of this part, the term:
…….
7
(7) “Prearranged travel, tourist-related services, or tour-guide services” includes, but is not limited to, car rentals, lodging, transfers, and sightseeing tours and all other such services which are reasonably related to air, sea, rail, motor coach, or other medium of transportation, or accommodations for which a purchaser receives a premium or contracts or pays prior to or after departure. These terms also include services for which a purchaser, whose legal residence is outside the United States, contracts or pays prior to departure, and any arrangement by which a purchaser prepays for, receives a reservation or any other commitment to provide services prior to departure for, or otherwise arranges for travel directly to a terrorist state and which originates in Florida. (Emphasis added).
Fla. Stat. § 559.927
By applying the statutory definition of the term “prearranged travel,
tourist-related services, or tour-guide services” to section 559.9285, the act
of offering for sale local car rental or lodging reservations, among other things, for use in
a designated country constitutes an activity that is regulated by the statute. This would
have the effect of bringing any related air travel, non-stop or otherwise, within the reach
of the statute.
C. The Reach of the Travel Act Can Change Over Time
Like Plaintiffs, ASTA recognizes that Cuba is the only known destination of the
designated countries to which non-stop airline passenger service originating from Florida
is available. But even if the term “directly to any terrorist state” is construed to signify
only non-stop flights to designated countries, the reach of the law could change to
regulate: (1) travel to other already designated countries, and/or (2) travel to future
designees added to the State Department’s list at the behest of the President.
Under the first scenario, the facts could change regarding points to which direct
flights are going so that connectionless travel between Florida and another designated
8
country such as Iran or Syria could be established. Under the second and more likely
scenario, the designated countries that fall within the reach of the Travel Act could
change over time. The Travel Act ostensibly regulates travel to any “terrorist state” and
defines a “terrorist state” as “any state, country, or nation designated by the
United States Department of State as a state sponsor of terrorism.” Fla.
Stat. § 559.927(12). As this definition suggests, it is inherently within the
federal Executive Branch’s discretion to decide whether a particular nation deserves to
belong on the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism. 6 Any new
designation would automatically extend the reach of the Travel Act because newly
designated countries would be incorporated by reference under the statutory definition of
“terrorist states.
The 29-year history of the list shows that the countries
designated as sponsors of terrorism have not remained static. In fact,
only one nation (Syria) has remained on the list since it was started on
December 29, 1979.7 On information and belief, the administration of George W.
Bush began a preliminary legal inquiry in or about March 2008 to determine whether it
6 See U.S. Department of State, List of State Sponsors of Terrorism, published at www.state.gov/s/ct/c14151.htm (last visited September 3, 2008). On this webpage, the State Department establishes its legal authority to name nations as state sponsors of terrorism as follows:
[C]ountries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.
7 See Wikipedia State Sponsors of Terrorism published at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._list_of_state_sponsors_of_international_terrorism (last visited September 5, 2008).
9
should place the nation of Venezuela on the State Department’s list of state sponsors of
terrorism.8
If Venezuela were to suddenly become a designated country, it would not matter
whether a narrow or expanded interpretation is ascribed to the term “directly to any
terrorist state” as it appears in the statute, because, on information and belief, Venezuelan
cities are currently serviced by flights with both non-stop and connecting routes. A great
deal of airline traffic to Venezuela originates from airports in Florida. If the Travel Act is
allowed to remain in force and if Venezuela becomes a designated country, the resulting
negative impact on travel agencies and their clients would be enormous due to the
8 News reports have indicated that the Bush Administration began the inquiry in March 2008 but no news has emerged if the inquiry has concluded or when it is expected to conclude. See Bachelet, Pablo U.S. may add Venezuela to list of terrorist states, McClatchy Newspapers, March 10, 2008 available at www.mcclatchydc.com/244/story/29944.html
In addition, the State Department sharply criticized the Venezuelan government’s flirtation with terrorist sponsors and terrorist organizations in a report issued on April 30, 2007 suggesting that it could be a prime candidate for its terrorism list. The relevant portion of the report states:
In May 2007, Venezuela was re-certified as ‘not cooperating fully’ with U.S. antiterrorism efforts under Section 40A of the Arms Export and Control Act, as amended (the “Act”). Pursuant to this certification, defense articles and services may not be sold or licensed for export to Venezuela from October 1, 2007 to September 30, 2008. This certification will lapse unless it is renewed by the Secretary of State by May 15, 2008.
President Hugo Chavez persisted in his public criticism of U.S. counterterrorism efforts and deepened Venezuelan relationships with state sponsors of terrorism Iran and Cuba. Chavez's ideological sympathy for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN), along with high levels of corruption among Venezuelan officials, limited Venezuelan cooperation with Colombia in combating terrorism. FARC and ELN units regularly crossed into Venezuelan territory to rest and regroup.
It remained unclear to what extent the Venezuelan government provided support to Colombian terrorist organizations. However, limited amounts of weapons and ammunition, some from official Venezuelan stocks and facilities, have turned up in the hands of Colombian terrorist organizations.
See Country Reports on Terrorism, Released by the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Chapter 2 -- Country Reports: Western Hemisphere Overview, published on April 30, 2008 available at http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2007/103710.htm.
10
economic importance of Venezuela to the United States. Despite worsening relations with
Venezuela, businesses in Florida and other states still conduct a large amount of trade and
commerce with the South American nation and a sizeable diaspora of Venezuelan
immigrants live in Florida as well other states. If the Travel Act is allowed to remain in
force and if Venezuela becomes a designated country, travel agencies would be forced to
either pay unconscionably expensive registration and bonding fees, turn away sales to the
designated country because they could not afford the registration and bonding
requirements, or, in the case of businesses that specialize in Venezuela travel, shut down
their businesses.
It is also significant that travel to the designated countries of Iran
and Syria could be severely curtailed if the amended Travel Act is not
permanently enjoined. Since the Travel Act was enacted, ASTA has
fielded concerns from a number of its members who sell travel to Iran
and Syria. Some members specialize in Middle Eastern travel and
others sell trips to those nations on less frequently. But, regardless of
the amount of trips an agency sells to the designated countries, it only
takes a single transaction to expose an agent to exorbitant fines and
criminal liability.
The Travel Act would require travel agencies that choose not to
file a certification for designated countries for financial reasons to
implement an unreasonable degree of auditing procedures. Each of
these travel agencies would have to engage in the burdensome task of
supervising and constantly monitoring each of its employees to ensure
11
that it does not inadvertently sells travel to a designated country in
violation of the Travel Act. For large agencies that make thousands of
daily transactions and experience an ordinary amount of employee
turnover, as well as travel agencies that operate under an online
business model such procedures would be unfeasible to implement.
Therefore, the Travel Act imposes restrictions that are nearly
impossible to comply with and no amount of due diligence could
completely avoid the burden of this law.
12
II. The Travel Act is Preempted by the Supremacy Clause.
The Supremacy Clause establishes federal law as "the supreme law of the land."
U.S. CONST., ART. VI, cl. 2. A fundamental principle arising from the Supremacy
Clause is that Congress and the President have the power to preempt state law. See
Crosby v. Nat'l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 372-73 (2000). Under the
preemption doctrine, state law must yield to a congressional act when: (1) Congress
intends federal law to "occupy the field;" and (2) even if Congress has not occupied the
field, state law is naturally preempted to the extent of any conflict with a federal statute.
Id.
Federal law specifically preempts the Travel Act because the Act conflicts with
federal laws and other regulations concerning the United States' relations with the
designated countries. In this case, Congress has "occupied the field" and "closed off the
area to state regulation." Federal laws and regulations relating to the United States’
relationship with Cuba that conflict with the Travel Act include: the Cuban Democracy
Act ("CDA");9 the United States embargo of Cuba, enacted pursuant to the Trading With
9 22 U.S.C. § 6002 states in relevant part that:
It should be the policy of the United States--(1) to seek a peaceful transition to democracy and a resumption of economic growth in Cubathrough the careful application of sanctions directed at the Castro government and support for theCuban people; ...(7) to be prepared to reduce the sanctions in carefully calibrated ways in response to positivedevelopments in Cuba.
22 U.S.C. § 6003 states that the President should encourage governments of countries to restrict trade withCuba and permits the President to sanction foreign governments that assist Cuba. (Emphasis added). Nothing in this law states, including the State of Florida, to engage in similar activities.
13
the Enemy Act ("TWEA")10; and the Cuban Assets Control Regulations ("CACR”)11. In
addition, the Travel Act is preempted by several federal laws related to the other
designated (Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Sudan), including the International Economic
Powers Act (“IEEPA”)12, the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act;13 and several regulations
10 50 U.S.C. Appx. § 5(b) of the TWEA states:
During the time of war, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, and undersuch rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise--(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit orpayments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, and the importing, exporting,hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion, currency or securities, and(B) investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisitionholding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, ordealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving,any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, ...
50 U.S.C. Appx. § 5(b)(4) limits the President's power such that it does not apply to anyinformation or informational materials, "including but not limited to, publications, films, posters,phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs,artworks, and news wire feeds."
11 31 C.F.R. § 515.564, entitled "General license," states in relevant part:(1) The travel-related transactions set forth in $ 5 15.560(c) and such additional transactions thatare directly incident to professional research by full-time professionals who travel to Cuba toconduct professional research in their professional areas are authorized, provided that:(i) The research is of a noncommercial, academic nature;(ii) The research comprises a full work schedule in Cuba;(iii) The research has a substantial likelihood of public dissemination; and(iv) The research does not fall within the categories of activities described in paragraph (c), (d), or(e) of this section.
Paragraph (c) lists the purposes of travel that are impermissible, including: recreational travel; tourist travel;travel in pursuit of a hobby; research for personal satisfaction only; and any travel for an authorized professionalresearch purpose if the schedule of activities includes free time, travel, or recreation in excess of that consistent with a full work schedule of professional research or attendance at professional meetings or conferences.Paragraph (d) states that "[a]n entire group does not qualify for the general license in paragraph (a) of thissection and will not be issued a specific license under paragraph (b) of this section merely because some members ofthe group could qualify individually for such licenses."Paragraph (e) states that "[a] person will not qualify as engaging in professional research merely becausethat person is a professional who plans to travel to Cuba."31 C.F.R. § 515.564, entitled "Specific institutional license," states in relevant part:Specific licenses for up to one year in duration may be issued to an accredited U.S. undergraduateor graduate degree-granting academic institution authorizing the institution, its students enrolled in
14
related to travel to Iran, Syria, North Korea and Sudan.14 The extensive provisions found
in this exhaustive list of federal laws and regulations demonstrate that the federal
government intends to control the field of determining United States economic sanctions
policy toward foreign governments.
an undergraduate or graduate degree program at the institution, and its full-time permanentemployees to engage, under the auspices of the institution, in the travel-related transactions setforth in § 515.560(c) ...(5) Sponsorship, including the payment of a stipend or salary, of a Cuban scholar to teach orengage in other scholarly activity at the licensed institution ...
12 50 U.S.C. § 1701, entitled "[u]nusual and extraordinary threat; declaration of national emergency;exercise of Presidential authorities," states:(a) Any authority granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may be exercised to dealwith any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outsidethe United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if thePresident declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.(b) The authorities granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may only be exercised todeal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has beendeclared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose. Any exerciseof such authorities to deal with any new threat shall be based on a new declaration of nationalemergency which must be with respect to such threat.
50 U.S.C. § 1702(b) states that:The authority granted to the President by this section does not include the authority to regulate orprohibit, directly or indirectly-(4) any transactions ordinarily incident to travel to or from any country, including importation ofaccompanied baggage for personal use, maintenance within any country including payment ofliving expenses and acquisition of goods or services for personal use, and arrangement orfacilitation of such travel including nonscheduled air, sea, or land voyages.
13 The relevant sections of the lran and Libya Sanctions Act include Pub. L. 104-172, §§ 5(a) and 9(c)(l), which obligate the President to impose sanctions on individuals making certain contributions to lran and permits the President to waive such sanctions.
14 31 C.F.R. § 560.507 of the Iranian Transactions Regulations states:(b) Persons leaving the United States for Iran are authorized to export from the United Statesaccompanied baggage normally incident to travel.(c) This authorization applies to accompanied baggage that includes only articles that are necessaryfor personal use incident to travel, not intended for any other person or for sale, and are nototherwise prohibited from importation or exportation under applicable United States laws.
31 C.F.R. § 538.212 of the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations states:(d) Travel. The prohibitions contained in this part do not apply to transactions ordinarily incidentto travel to or from any country, including exportation or importation of accompanied baggage forpersonal use, maintenance within any country including payment of living expenses and acquisitionof goods or services for personal use, and arrangement or facilitation of such travel including
15
The Travel Act - which includes prohibitively expensive registration and bonding
requirements, exorbitant fines and a felony conviction for those who fail to comply with
the law - attempts to indirectly impose economic sanctions on foreign governments. The
effect of the Travel Act is that it will put travel agencies that sell to designated countries
out of business and raise agency costs of doing business so that the price clients would
have to pay to purchase airline tickets to designated countries would become so excessive
that travel to those destinations would sharply diminish. The net impact of the Travel Act
is to reduce or eliminate trade and commerce with designated countries. It performs the
same function as a direct economic sanction.
This court has court has previously considered the issue of preemption in a case
with similar facts. See Exhibit A - Faculty Senate of Florida International University v.
Winn, No. 06-cv-21513 (US Dist. Ct. So. Dist. Fla. August 29, 2008). In Faculty Senate
of Florida International University the issue was the constitutionality of a Florida law
(Fla. Stat. § 1011.90(6)) that prohibited nonstate funds including private and federal
funds from being used to pay for trips to nations on the State Department’s terrorism list
by scholars, researchers and any other officials from state universities. Id at p.3. The
non-scheduled air, sea, or land voyages.
31 C.F.R. § 500.563, entitled "Transactions incident to travel to and within North Korea," states:(a) All transactions of persons subject to US. jurisdiction, including travel service providers,ordinarily incident to travel to, from, and within North Korea and to maintenance within NorthKorea are authorized. This authorization extends to transactions with North Korean carriers andthose involving group tours, payment of living expenses, the acquisition of goods in North Koreafor personal use, and normal banking transactions involving currency drafts, charge, debit or creditcards, traveler's checks, or other financial instruments negotiated incident to personal travel.
31 C.F.R. § 542.206(c) of the Syrian Sanctions Regulations states:Travel. The prohibitions contained in this part do not apply to transactions ordinarily incident totravel to or from any country, including exportation or importation of accompanied baggage forpersonal use, maintenance within any country including payment of living expenses and acquisitionof goods or services for personal use, and arrangement or facilitation of such travel includingnonscheduled air, sea, or land voyages.
16
court determined that this aspect of the law “functions as a sanction because it effectively
prevents not just state funds, but other sources of funding be they private or federal, from
being used to travel to the designated countries.” (Emphasis added). Id at p.26.
In this case, the registration, bonding and penalty aspects of the Travel Act make
the cost of selling travel to the designated countries too high. It is a cost of doing business
that most travel agencies would not be able to absorb without radically raising the service
fees they charge to their clients. Consequently, if the Travel Act deters a single travel
agent from selling a trip to a designated country or it deters a single tourist from visiting a
designated country, it performs the function of a sanction.
By implementing its own sanctions regime, the state of Florida has established its
own foreign policy toward the designated countries, a foreign policy that is distinct and
unique from that of the United States. The Travel Act impedes the President's authority to
speak with one voice for the nation in managing relations with states that sponsor
terrorism. Id. at p.29. In doing so, the state of Florida impermissibly interferes in the
regulation of foreign affairs and foreign commerce which are within the exclusive
domain of Congress and the President.
II. The Travel Act Unconstitutionally Infringes Upon Federal Authority to Conduct Foreign Affairs
Under our federalist constitutional framework, the conduct of foreign policy is the
exclusive domain of the executive and legislative branches and individual states do not
have any role in determining foreign affairs for the nation. In Hines v. Davidowitz, 312
U.S. 52 (1941), the Supreme Court stated that “our system of government is such that the
interest of the cities, counties and states, no less than the interest of the people of the
17
whole nation, imperatively requires that federal power in the field affecting foreign
relations be left entirely free from local interference.” Id. at 63. See also United States v.
Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, 331 (1937) ("In respect of our foreign relations generally, state
lines disappear."). In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936),
the Court explained that when it comes to foreign affairs, the powers of the federal
government are not limited. A state statute infringes upon the federal foreign relations
power if it has more than “some incidental or indirect effect in foreign countries.”
Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429, 434-435 (1968).
In Nat’l Foreign Trade Council v. Natsios, 181 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 1999), the First
Circuit upheld an injunction of a Massachusetts law that prohibited the state and its
agencies from purchasing goods or services from firms that do business with Burma. It
found that the Massachusetts law went beyond an incidental or indirect effect on foreign
affairs and was thereby constitutionally impermissible. Finding that the Massachusetts
law encroached upon federal foreign relations power, the First Circuit concluded that: (1)
the design and intent of the law is to affect the affairs of a foreign country; (2)
Massachusetts, with its $ 2 billion in total annual purchasing power by scores of state
authorities and agencies, was in a position to effectuate that design and intent and has had
an effect; (3) other states were likely to follow Massachusetts example and experiment
with similar types of laws; (4) other countries had lodged protests against the law; and (5)
the Massachusetts law was significantly different from federal and sister state
approaches. Id. at 53.
Applying the five factor test set out in Natsios, it is evident that the Travel Act
impermissibly challenges federal authority to conduct foreign relations. The first Natsios
18
factor analyzes the “design and intent” of the law. The fact that the Travel Act requires
travel agencies selling trips to designated countries to post bonds far beyond the range of
affordability demonstrates that the “design and intent” of the law is to censure and
ostracize the designated countries. As a point of reference the bond that U.S. airlines
require of start-up travel agencies is only $20,000 and after two years in business the
minimum drops to $10,000 and it can never exceed $70,000 regardless of agency sales
volume.
The second Natsios factor examines the economic impact of the legislation. In
this case, the economic impact for the designated countries would be more than incidental
or indirect. The Travel Act would cause businesses that specialized in selling travel to a
designated country15 to either shut down or substantially raise service fees in order to
recoup the costs of the bonding and registration requirements. Either way, the cost to
consumers would skyrocket causing would-be visitors of Cuba to stay home instead.
Tourism revenue in designated countries would sharply decline. The Travel Act could
have a substantial impact on the economies of designated countries which would thereby
affect the federal government’s ability to conduct foreign affairs.
The third Natsios factor probes the likelihood of other states following Florida’s
example by enacted similar legislation. In Faculty Senate of Florida International
University, U.S. District Judge Patricia A. Seitz was concerned about this trend-setting
tendency. She noted that the “effects of the Travel Act enacted by the nation's fourth
largest state, which curtail the exchange of ideas with the designated countries, if
replicated by other states or local governments, would be magnified to a great degree in
15 Agencies that sell travel to Cuba would be particularly affected because OFAC requires them to obtain a special license which qualifies them to be Cuba travel specialists.
19
that all state sponsored academic/educational travel to the designated countries could
effectively end.” See Exhibit A at p. 24. There are no scientific means of determining
whether the Travel Act could prove to be a bellwether for other states but the prospect of
additional international travel restrictions based on the shifting political mood of the
individual states is reason enough to reject the legislation.
The fourth Natsios factor asks whether foreign governments have lodged protests
against the Travel Act. This factor is neutral in this case because there is no evidence
either way regarding the attitude of foreign governments toward the Travel Act.
The fifth Natsios factor probes the differences between the state and federal
approaches. It is clear that the registration, bonding and penal aspects of the Travel Act
starkly contrast with federal law which does not compel such restrictive compliance. It is
therefore evident that the Travel Act has more than an “incidental or indirect” effect on
foreign affairs and thereby impinges upon federal authority to conduct foreign relations.
III. The Travel Act Places an Unconstitutional Burden on International Commerce.
Under the Commerce Clause, Congress has the power “to regulate Commerce
with foreign Nations, and among the several States.” U.S. CONST. Art. 1, § 8, cl. 3. In
Am. Ins. Ass'n v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396 (2003), the Supreme Court said that the
Foreign Commerce Clause protects the federal government’s ability to speak with “one
voice” in regulating commerce with other nations. Japan Lines Ltd. v. County of Los
Angeles, 441 U.S. 434, 449 (1979) “Absent a compelling justification…. a State may not
advance its legitimate goals by means that facially discriminate against foreign
commerce.” Kraft Gen. Foods, Inc. v. Iowa Dep't of Revenue & Fin., 505 U.S. 71, 81
(1992).
20
As main consequence of the Travel Act, travel to the designated countries from
Florida could be eliminated, or at least severely curtailed because the excessive bonding
and registration fees and extraordinary penalties would deter travel agencies from
booking reservations to those nations. Consumers would likewise be deterred by the
increased costs in associated with embarking on voyages to those destinations. In Natsios,
the First Circuit declared that a Massachusetts law boycotting Burmese products and
services is unconstitutional and held that the law “regulate[s] conduct outside of [the
state] and outside of this country’s borders.” See 181 F.3d at 67. By enacting the Seller of
Travel Law amendments, the state of Florida impermissibly forces changes in
commercial and consumer conduct with respect to travel to the designated countries. The
effects of the state regulations are not only felt outside of the state of Florida, but also
outside the United States. Therefore, the Travel Act violates the Foreign Commerce
Clause on its face.
IV. The Sellers of Travel Act Impermissibly Infringes Upon the Fundamental Right of Travel
No greater interest has motivated ASTA to involve itself in this case than to
preserve and defend the liberty we hold dearest – the right to travel. It is impossible to
separate the economic loss from lost business opportunities, 16 and the loss of choice in
individual consumption, which is the end product of production, from the intrusion upon
personal liberty interests occasioned by travel restrictions. Perhaps, among all human
16 It is some measure of the economic importance that Cuba was to travel agents as a destination for their clients that ASTA’s own annual membership meeting, the ASTA World Travel Congress, was held in Cuba in 1959.
21
rights, the most precious in and of itself, is the right to go somewhere else, which is why
ASTA refers to travel as the “perfect freedom.”
Recognition of a right to travel dates to as early as the Magna Carta for nations
following the Common Law Tradition. According to Blackstone, the “personal liberty of
individuals” embraced “the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or moving one’s
person to whatsoever place one’s own inclination may direct, without imprisonment or
restraint, unless by due course of law.” 1 Blackstone, Commentaries (Lewis ed 1902),
134, quoted in Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226, 293, fn. 10 (1964).
Explicit recognition of a right to travel appears in Article IV of the Articles of
Confederation.17 Although the Constitution contains no reference to a right to travel in
those terms is so fundamental to American thought that it is variously found to inhere in
different parts of the Constitution. It is said to arise from the Commerce Clause, Edwards
v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941) as well as to be a liberty of which a person cannot be
deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment, Kent v. Dulles, 357
U.S. 116, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1204, 78 S Ct 1113 (1958).
Freedom of travel is not just an American right but a globally recognized human
right. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights under Article 13(2) establishes the
principle that “[e]veryone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to
17 The relevant portion of Article IV of the Articles of Confederation states:
The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.
22
return to his country.” Article 12(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights similarly establishes that “[e]veryone shall be free to leave any country, including
his own.”
The Travel Act imposes severe restrictions which are designed to restrain
Floridians and other persons in the United States from moving freely from Florida to the
destinations regulated under the Act. For some individuals the expected heightened cost
of travel to the designated countries will make such trips seem less attractive. For others
it will serve as an insurmountable financial impediment. Either way, the Travel Act
deprives citizens of the right to travel without due process of law under the Fifth
Amendment.
IV. The Seller of Travel Act Violates the Eighth Amendment By Imposing Penalties that are Cruel and Unusual
The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits excessive bail or fines, as
well as cruel and unusual punishment, under that Amendment and the disproportionately
punitive measures associated with the amended Travel Act are clearly unconstitutional.
The Eighth Amendment guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment is applicable to
the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Louisiana ex rel.
Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459, 463 (1946). Despite the broad discretion that States
possess with respect to the imposition of criminal penalties and punitive damages, the
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause imposes substantive limits on that discretion.
Cooper Indus. v. Leatherman Tool Group, 532 U.S. 424, 433 (U.S. 2001). The Eighth
Amendment prohibits imposition of a penalty that is “grossly disproportionate to the
severity of the crime.” Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 21 (U.S. 2003).
23
The Supreme Court has offered an important guide post that is particularly
instructive in determining the proportionality issue this instant case. By way of dicta,
former Chief Justice William Rehnquist has aptly noted in Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S.
263 (1980) that the proportionality principle "would . . . come into play in the extreme
example . . . if a legislature made overtime parking a felony punishable by life
imprisonment," Id. at 274, fn 11. Such a statute, if it ever came into existence, would be
declared unconstitutional as a violation of the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the
Eighth Amendment. Consequently, it is not a felonious act in the state of Florida to
neglect to pay a parking meter. It is also not a felony to operate an automobile without a
license or without registering the automobile. Yet, under the Travel Act, it is a felony of
the third degree18 for a travel agency to fail to properly register with the correct
certification prior to selling a trip to Cuba, Iran, Syria, North Korea or Sudan.
Not only are travel agents exposed to felony liability but they may also have to
pay a $10,000 fine for failing to disclose the information required in the certification
requirement and failing to adhere to any state or federal law which restricts or prohibits
commerce with terrorist states. In no other state do administrative monetary penalties for
violating the state seller of travel even approach a five figure sum. In fact, the majority of
states do not regulate the sale of travel under special statutes.19 The administrative fine is
entirely disproportionate when Florida’s penalty provision is juxtaposed with sister state
provisions.
18 Under state sentencing guidelines, a person who has been convicted of felony of the third degree can receive a prison term of up to five years. See Fla. Stat. § 775.082.
19 On information and belief, states universally regulate the activities of travel agencies through general consumer protection statutes. It should also be noted that the number of states with seller of travel laws on the books has been diminishing in recent years. Ohio and Rhode Island recently repealed their laws regulating travel agents.
24
The penal aspects of the Act lay a vicious trap for the unwary. Travel agencies
like all other businesses are not immune to failure. Operational failures occur for all sorts
of reasons and sometimes they can occur without fault. Among other things, the Travel
Act punishes firms for not paying enough attention. It would be nearly impossible for
large agencies to implement completely error-proof quality control measures that would
guard against inadvertent travel bookings to designated countries. To penalize individuals
for seemingly blameless infractions would inflict a grossly disproportionate level of
punishment on those who breach this law. The Travel Act therefore violates the Eighth
Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause.
CONCLUSION
By requiring sellers of travel to certify their sales activities, pay exorbitantly
priced bonds and registration fees in order to sell travel to the designated “terrorist
states,” the Travel Act is preempted by federal law because by conflicting with federal
statutes and other regulations concerning the United States' relations with those countries.
Since the Travel Act has more than an “incidental or indirect” effect on foreign affairs it
also impermissibly infringes upon federal foreign relations power. The Florida Seller of
Travel Act violates the Foreign Commerce Clause on its face by regulating conduct
outside of the state and outside of this country’s borders. The Act also deprives citizens
of the right to travel without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. In addition,
it violates the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause by imposing
grossly disproportionate penalties for seemingly minor violations. For these reasons
Plaintiffs should prevail.
Respectfully Submitted,
25
By: s/Daniel R. ZimDaniel R. Zim VSB No. 70364 American Society of Travel Agents, Inc. (ASTA)1101 King St., Suite 200 Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Pro Hac Vice for ASTA
By: s/Paul M. Ruden Paul M. RudenVSB No. 13572American Society of Travel Agents, Inc. (ASTA)1101 King St., Suite 200 Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Pro Hac Vice for ASTA
By: s/Catherine M. RodriguezCatherine M. Rodriguez (Fla. Bar No. 896993)[email protected], Filler, Rodriguez, Kelso & Debianchi, LLP Plaza Venetia555 NE 15th Street, Suite 104Miami, FL 33132Telephone Number: (305) 371- 5250
Facsimile Number: (305) 371- 5752
Local Counsel for ASTA
26
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 10th, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing
document is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on
the attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of
Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those
counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic
Filing.
: s/Catherine M. RodriguezCatherine M. Rodriguez (Fla. Bar No. 896993)[email protected], Filler, Rodriguez, Kelso & Debianchi, LLP Plaza Venetia555 NE 15th Street, Suite 104Miami, FL 33132Telephone Number: (305) 371- 5250
Facsimile Number: (305) 371- 5752
Local Counsel for ASTA
27
SERVICE LIST
ABC CHARTERS, INC., a Florida Corporation; et al v. CHARLES H. BRONSON, in his official capacityCase No. 08-21865-CV-GOLD/McAliveyUnited States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Eric H. Miller (Fla. Bar No. 410586) [email protected] Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services 2005 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 Telephone: (850) 410-3775 Facsimile: (850) 410-3797 Attorney for Defendant Charles H. Bronson
Louis E. Stolba [email protected] of Agriculture & Consumer Services 2005 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 Telephone: (850) 410-3701 Facsimile: (850) 410-3797 Attorney for Defendant Charles H. Bronson
Raymond C. Conklin [email protected] of Agriculture & Consumer Services 2005 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 Telephone: (850) 410-3701 Facsimile: (850) 410-3797 Attorney for Defendant Charles H. Bronson
Leonard M. Collins [email protected] House of Representatives515 The Capitol 402 S. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1300Telephone: (850) 413-8949Facsimile: (850) 488-1506Local Counsel for the House of Representatives
Jerimiah M. Hawkes [email protected]
28
General Counsel Florida House of Representatives515 The Capitol 402 S. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1300Telephone: (850) 488-7631Facsimile: (850) 488-0376Attorney for the House of Representatives
Ira J. Kurzban, Esq. [email protected] Kurzban Kurzban Weinger and Tetzeli, P.A. 2650 Southwest 27th Avenue Second Floor Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 444-0060 Facsimile: (305) 444-3503 Attorney for Plaintiffs ABC Charters, Inc., et al.
Steven M. Weinger, Esq. [email protected] Kurzban Kurzban Weinger and Tetzeli, P.A. 2650 Southwest 27th Avenue Second Floor Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 444-0060 Facsimile: (305) 444-3503 Attorney for Plaintiffs ABC Charters, Inc., et al.
Helena M. Tetzeli, Esq. [email protected] Kurzban Kurzban Weinger and Tetzeli, P.A. 2650 Southwest 27th Avenue Second Floor Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 444-0060 Facsimile: (305) 444-3503 Attorney for Plaintiff(s) ABC Charters, Inc., et al.
29
