Comments on: Acquitted Export Defendant Seeks Legal Fees from USG http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/297 Latest News on DDTC, BIS, OFAC, and other export law matters Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:22:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Clif Burns http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/297#comment-8359 Clif Burns Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:28:54 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/297#comment-8359 1. No such marking is required by law for a drawing to be export-controlled under the ITAR or the EAR. 2. Prior exports of technical data do not make subsequent exports exempt from licensing requirements. 3. Whether the drawing is clearly marked or contains "critical characteristics" is not relevant to whether it was export controlled or not. 4. If Sikorsky said the drawing was not ITAR-controlled, that could be evidence that there was a lack of criminal intent. 5. If the prosecution was vexatious, then Mr. Latifi should prevail on his Hyde Amendment motion and have his attorneys' fees reimbursed. Although I disagree with Ms. Latifi's interpretation of ITAR requirements in her comments, it seems to me that there is a good case that the drawing was public domain under section 120.11 and therefore not export restricted, but this is for reasons other than the ones articulated by Ms. Latifi. 1. No such marking is required by law for a drawing to be export-controlled under the ITAR or the EAR.

2. Prior exports of technical data do not make subsequent exports exempt from licensing requirements.

3. Whether the drawing is clearly marked or contains “critical characteristics” is not relevant to whether it was export controlled or not.

4. If Sikorsky said the drawing was not ITAR-controlled, that could be evidence that there was a lack of criminal intent.

5. If the prosecution was vexatious, then Mr. Latifi should prevail on his Hyde Amendment motion and have his attorneys’ fees reimbursed.

Although I disagree with Ms. Latifi’s interpretation of ITAR requirements in her comments, it seems to me that there is a good case that the drawing was public domain under section 120.11 and therefore not export restricted, but this is for reasons other than the ones articulated by Ms. Latifi.

]]> By: BETH LATIFI http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/297#comment-8358 BETH LATIFI Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:12:01 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/297#comment-8358 1. THE DRAWING WAS NOT MARKED "EXPORT RESTRICTION" ARMS EXPORT CONTROL ACT (TITLE 22,U.S.C. SEC 2751,ET SEQ.) OR EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1979, AS AMENDED,TITLE 50, U.S.C., APP. 2401 ET. SEQ. WHICH IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE MARKED CLEARLY TO MAKE THE DRAWING RESTRICTED. 2. THE DRAWING IS STILL NOT RESTRICTED AND CAN NOT BE RESTRICTED SINCE SIRKORSKY AIRCRAFT HAS ALREADY PROVIDED THESE TO CHINA WHEN THEY SOLD THE BLACK HAWK HELICOPTORS TO THEM. 3. THE DRAWING IS CLEARLY MARKED (THESE DRAWINGS CONTAIN NO CRITICAL CHARACTERISTICS) 4. HOPKINS CALLED SIRKORSKY DOCUMENTATION OFFICE AND REQUESTED PERMISSION TO DRAW THE DRAWING AND ASKED IF THERE IS ANY RESTRICTION TO DRAW THE DRAWING AND WAS TOLD THERE WAS NO RESTRICTION. 5. THIS PROSECUTION WAS VEXACIOUS AND UNLAWFUL AND COMPLETELY WAS BASED ON MY HUSBAND'S BECAUSE WAS BORN IN IRAN. 1. THE DRAWING WAS NOT MARKED “EXPORT RESTRICTION” ARMS EXPORT CONTROL ACT (TITLE 22,U.S.C. SEC 2751,ET SEQ.) OR EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1979, AS AMENDED,TITLE 50, U.S.C., APP. 2401 ET. SEQ.
WHICH IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE MARKED CLEARLY TO MAKE THE DRAWING RESTRICTED.
2. THE DRAWING IS STILL NOT RESTRICTED AND CAN NOT BE RESTRICTED SINCE SIRKORSKY AIRCRAFT HAS ALREADY PROVIDED THESE TO CHINA WHEN THEY SOLD THE BLACK HAWK HELICOPTORS TO THEM.
3. THE DRAWING IS CLEARLY MARKED (THESE DRAWINGS CONTAIN NO CRITICAL CHARACTERISTICS)
4. HOPKINS CALLED SIRKORSKY DOCUMENTATION OFFICE AND REQUESTED PERMISSION TO DRAW THE DRAWING AND ASKED IF THERE IS ANY RESTRICTION TO DRAW THE DRAWING AND WAS TOLD THERE WAS NO RESTRICTION.
5. THIS PROSECUTION WAS VEXACIOUS AND UNLAWFUL AND COMPLETELY WAS BASED ON MY HUSBAND’S BECAUSE WAS BORN IN IRAN.

]]>