Comments on: Prosecution’s Argument in Mak Trial Makes Exports of 757s to China Illegal

By: ExportLawBlog » Mak Prosecutors Come to Their Senses on Public Domain Issues

Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:36:30 +0000

[...] As we’ve reported before, the prosecution in the Mak trial tried to claim that the ITAR forbids export of public domain data on military items to China. The prosecution also argued that the State Department “certification” that the documents in question were “technical data” under the ITAR was a conclusive and unreviewable determination that they were not. We explained here, here and here, why these arguments were wrong. [...]

By: Clyde

Clyde — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 20:40:46 +0000

Mr. Burns:

I have to agree with Slinger’s comments. As an avid reader of your blog (I, too, also agree that it is a leading blog in the field), I was disappointed to find no discussion or commentary on both the Tyco settlement and the ITT case.

If you cannot or choose not to write about such cases because you have professional obligations to existing or former clients, it would be wise to so advise your readers.

You are so outspoken on the issues, that the silence was ultimately deafening on these two cases.

I look forward to your candor on such issues in the future and hope to see more if your excellent analysis and commentary.

By: Slinger

Slinger — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:48:21 +0000

Wow, to say that the leading blog has NOTHING to say on the ITT settlement is amazing for a “leading blog”!! I suspect that the truth lies in your statement regarding “professional obligations to existing and former clients.”

I would expect you to advise your readers when such seminal cases are openly “ignored” in your blog.

By: Mike Deal

Mike Deal — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 06:18:18 +0000

I have every faith in our learned Brother Burns discretion and good taste, and appreciate his yeoman-like efforts in maintaing this space. But now that you mention it Slinger, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that ICE and DDTC were paying a Chinese hacker ring to delete portions they didn’t like.

By: Clif Burns

Clif Burns — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 01:38:28 +0000

Slinger — I am a lawyer and not a journalist. The purpose of this blog is to stimulate discussion of export law issues with, hopefully, stimulating commentary not found elsewhere. So, unlike the NYT or the WaPo, I don’t have the time or ability to cover every export story. Reasons for not covering a story include limited time on my part, my perception that what I have to say about a case is not interesting, availability of adequate coverage from other sources and, obviously, professional obligations to existing and former clients.

But I do thank you for calling this effort a “leading blog”

By: Slinger

Slinger — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 01:21:58 +0000

How is it that a leading blog publishes zilch on the Tyco Valves and the ITT Corp. case? The mystery befuddles me. Perhaps Mr. Deal has a conspiratorial retort.

By: Mike Deal

Mike Deal — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:14:24 +0000

You have to wonder whether the AUSAs working this case got review and clearance for their motion and brief from Main Justice, like th’re supposed to do, or just winged it on their own. If they did, then we have to presume that someone at State reviewed it, but if so that begs the question whether it was someone in the Legal Advisers office or someone actually in DDTC. All the more reason for DDTC to add its own chief counsel’s office to give it legal advice on not only the AECA, but administrative procedures and criminal law as well.