Comments on: Balli Exec Tells Alma Mater His Defense to Iran Export Charges http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/1378 Latest News on DDTC, BIS, OFAC, and other export law matters Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:06:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Jim Dickeson http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/1378/comment-page-1#comment-93061 Jim Dickeson Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:55:44 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=1378#comment-93061 What? You're a convicted felon, out on probation, and you can't get a permit to buy this firearm from me? How 'bout I just let you borrow it for a while? Then I haven't actually sold it to you. My real estate attorney says it will be OK. Just bring it back to me whenever you're done whatever it is you plan to do with it. Jim Dickeson Import Export Geeks <a href="http://www.importexportgeeks.com" rel="nofollow">Desktop Import Export Compliance Training</a> What? You’re a convicted felon, out on probation, and you can’t get a permit to buy this firearm from me? How ’bout I just let you borrow it for a while? Then I haven’t actually sold it to you. My real estate attorney says it will be OK. Just bring it back to me whenever you’re done whatever it is you plan to do with it.

Jim Dickeson
Import Export Geeks
Desktop Import Export Compliance Training

]]> By: Hillbilly http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/1378/comment-page-1#comment-93011 Hillbilly Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:31:55 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=1378#comment-93011 Clif: This would not be the first time that British solicitors have incorrectly advised on the application of U.S. export "laws" (its hard to call the EAR "law" given that there is no valid statute and the expiration of an act of Congress by its express terms is hardly an emergency within the meaning of 50 USC 1701, not to mention that reinstitution of an expired law against clear statutory mandate to the contrary is a violation of the Constitution). Even so, your conclusion, based upon the presumption that "Anybody with even a smidgen of familiarity with U.S. export laws" would know better, is dependant upon that presumption, when in fact, in the real world, few people in the United States, let alone outside of United States, are aware of the wierdness embodied by bureaucratic spawned export regulations, and presume, as they are entitled to under the canons of statutory construction, that words have their ordinary meaning. Granted that BIS has a better record of outreach than DDTC or OFAC; DDTC and OFAC lavish their attention on making nice with big banks and corporations who will give them jobs after their time in government, and then pluss up their body count with prosecutions of indivuduals and SMEs who can't afford a proper defense. Clif: This would not be the first time that British solicitors have incorrectly advised on the application of U.S. export “laws” (its hard to call the EAR “law” given that there is no valid statute and the expiration of an act of Congress by its express terms is hardly an emergency within the meaning of 50 USC 1701, not to mention that reinstitution of an expired law against clear statutory mandate to the contrary is a violation of the Constitution). Even so, your conclusion, based upon the presumption that “Anybody with even a smidgen of familiarity with U.S. export laws” would know better, is dependant upon that presumption, when in fact, in the real world, few people in the United States, let alone outside of United States, are aware of the wierdness embodied by bureaucratic spawned export regulations, and presume, as they are entitled to under the canons of statutory construction, that words have their ordinary meaning. Granted that BIS has a better record of outreach than DDTC or OFAC; DDTC and OFAC lavish their attention on making nice with big banks and corporations who will give them jobs after their time in government, and then pluss up their body count with prosecutions of indivuduals and SMEs who can’t afford a proper defense.

]]>