Comments on: Don’t Forget Poland http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/302 Latest News on DDTC, BIS, OFAC, and other export law matters Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:45:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Mike Deal http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/302#comment-8652 Mike Deal Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:44:23 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/302#comment-8652 There were several problems with the OEE charging letter and the ALJ decision. First, it appears that the investigators failed to check Companies House - which in England is the registrar for corporations much like secretaries of state or corporation commissions do in the U.S. - for the registered agent of the two companies involved, which would have been the person to serve for the companies named in the denial order. Had they checked, they would have found that there never had been a company named Preston Technical Service, Ltd., and that Baronmode, Ltd. had been dissolved in 2006, so serving the Respondent at that "alternate address" a year after dissolution is a nullity. Now perhaps using a false company name on the PO and invoice should have counted as an additional charge, not to mention a violation of English law, but the failure of the investigators to discover that is just plain sloppy. And sloppy counts: There is a completely unrelated and perfectly respectable and upstanding industrial adhesives company called "Preston Technical, Ltd" that now can look forward to being nailed as a false positive on most compliance software by virtue of the denial order. As to the ALJ decision, the ALJ in footnote 2 cites the Times Mirror and Wisconsin Project cases as authority for the proposition that IEEPA serves as authority to keep the EAA in effect. This is simply false. Both cases dealt the FOIA exclusion in EAA 12(c). The Wisconsin Project case dealt with a FOIA request filed by that had been filed before the temporary reenactment of the EAA and the DC Circuit held that specific language in that statute grandfathered pending FOIA requests. Both cases should be confined to their facts because neither plaintiff raised th There were several problems with the OEE charging letter and the ALJ decision. First, it appears that the investigators failed to check Companies House - which in England is the registrar for corporations much like secretaries of state or corporation commissions do in the U.S. - for the registered agent of the two companies involved, which would have been the person to serve for the companies named in the denial order. Had they checked, they would have found that there never had been a company named Preston Technical Service, Ltd., and that Baronmode, Ltd. had been dissolved in 2006, so serving the Respondent at that “alternate address” a year after dissolution is a nullity. Now perhaps using a false company name on the PO and invoice should have counted as an additional charge, not to mention a violation of English law, but the failure of the investigators to discover that is just plain sloppy. And sloppy counts: There is a completely unrelated and perfectly respectable and upstanding industrial adhesives company called “Preston Technical, Ltd” that now can look forward to being nailed as a false positive on most compliance software by virtue of the denial order.

As to the ALJ decision, the ALJ in footnote 2 cites the Times Mirror and Wisconsin Project cases as authority for the proposition that IEEPA serves as authority to keep the EAA in effect. This is simply false. Both cases dealt the FOIA exclusion in EAA 12(c). The Wisconsin Project case dealt with a FOIA request filed by that had been filed before the temporary reenactment of the EAA and the DC Circuit held that specific language in that statute grandfathered pending FOIA requests. Both cases should be confined to their facts because neither plaintiff raised th

]]>