<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sins of the Father</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/170/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/170</link>
	<description>Latest News on DDTC, BIS, OFAC, and other export law matters</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:45:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/170/comment-page-1#comment-2462</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Jun 2007 20:58:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/170#comment-2462</guid>
		<description>This is funny. Curtis Debord SR, while on travel restriction, flew to Thailand and Malaysia, and represented US ORD. in an attempt to sell to the militaries of those countries, M60 E4 upgrade kits. At the same time he tried to broker a deal to bring a cache of antique rifles back for credit against these parts kits.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is funny. Curtis Debord SR, while on travel restriction, flew to Thailand and Malaysia, and represented US ORD. in an attempt to sell to the militaries of those countries, M60 E4 upgrade kits. At the same time he tried to broker a deal to bring a cache of antique rifles back for credit against these parts kits.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clif Burns</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/170/comment-page-1#comment-2284</link>
		<dc:creator>Clif Burns</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2007 16:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/170#comment-2284</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m sure we&#039;ll see the District Court opinion used to support the position that everything that DDTC does is not subject to judicial review.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m sure we&#8217;ll see the District Court opinion used to support the position that everything that DDTC does is not subject to judicial review.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Deal</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/170/comment-page-1#comment-2283</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Deal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2007 16:55:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/170#comment-2283</guid>
		<description>Clif:  Thats for the links to the district&#039;s opinion and DC Circuit&#039;s order. I note that the DC Circuit did vacate the district court&#039;s decision, albeit not on the merits but because the case became moot while the appeal was pending.  Given that it appears that the district court opinion was a published opinion, I sure hope we won&#039;t see the government try to use it as precedent anyway.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Clif:  Thats for the links to the district&#8217;s opinion and DC Circuit&#8217;s order. I note that the DC Circuit did vacate the district court&#8217;s decision, albeit not on the merits but because the case became moot while the appeal was pending.  Given that it appears that the district court opinion was a published opinion, I sure hope we won&#8217;t see the government try to use it as precedent anyway.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RS</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/170/comment-page-1#comment-2282</link>
		<dc:creator>RS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2007 16:51:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/170#comment-2282</guid>
		<description>Sounds like the misuse of 19 CFR 111.42 - Relations with person who is notoriously disreputable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sounds like the misuse of 19 CFR 111.42 &#8211; Relations with person who is notoriously disreputable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
