May

14

Intrigue in the Blogosphere: Export Law Blog Gets an Anonymous Call


Posted by at 12:33 pm on May 14, 2009
Category: General

No Image AvailableAt 11:30 this morning, an unidentified caller rang me and said that he was responsible for the blog that I discussed yesterday that principally consisted of posts copied in their entirety from this blog. The man on the other end of the line told me that he meant no harm, that he thought this was a permissible use of this blog’s RSS feed, and that he would remove my posts from his site, which he has done.

Intrigued by why a steadfastly anonymous individual would be trying to run an export compliance blog in an obvious attempt to garner export compliance business, I asked him directly who he was, and he declined to identify himself. I asked him why he didn’t want to identify himself. “I’d rather not say,” was the response. He did indicate that the purpose of his blog was “to generate email leads” and that it had been successful in doing that. And he sent me an email from a gmail account using a misspelled pseudonym (“Herbert Bloomffield”), confirming that he had deleted my posts.

All of this faux cloak-and-dagger stuff — Ukrainian pornographers, anonymous phone calls, pseudonymous emails — suggests to me that Mr. “Bloomffield” was being far from straightforward in his proclamation of naive innocence. And the next time this fellow wants to put on his Maxwell Smart cap and make a call from his shoe phone, he might remember that there are these marvelous technologies called Caller ID and reverse lookups on the Internet. Throughout my conversation with Mr. “Bloomffield,” there was the name of his (large) export compliance company on my telephone display. A telephone number was displayed too. A reverse-lookup showed that number belonged to the company shown on the telephone Caller ID display.

Now that I know who the caller was and where he was calling from, it’s perfectly clear that Mr. “Bloomffield” knew what he was doing and knew that what he was doing was questionable, both legally and ethically. He just didn’t want his company — with more than 100 employees and well-known probably to most, if not all, of the readers of this blog — connected with Ukrainian pornography sites, RSS feed scraping, and the use of someone else’s work to generate business for his own company.

Oh, and just so Mr. “Bloomffield” knows that I’m not bluffing about knowing who he really is, I just filled out a contact form on his website asking to be sent information on his company.

UPDATE: The culpable employee has now identified himself in an email to me, indicating that his company was in no way involved in this purloined blog affair. He appears to have been an overzealous sales person looking for leads.

Permalink

Bookmark and Share

Copyright © 2009 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)


7 Comments:


Clif: I can certainly understand why you won’t say what company this is and wholeheartedly agree with your reasons but… Their actions are so unprofessional, unethical and immoral I wish I knew so I’d never do business with them. Not to mention how lame is it to not realize that you’d have caller ID and be able to trace back the call. This whole thing shows an amazing lack of reasoning on their part.

Comment by ldm on May 14th, 2009 @ 12:51 pm

Good for you! I was somewhat captivated by your previous comments surrounding this incident. When used correctly, technology is a very potent tool in flushing out those who employ shyster tactics. Thanks for sharing.

Comment by Alfred Furrs on May 14th, 2009 @ 1:06 pm

Whatever happened to payphones?

Comment by Chris W. on May 14th, 2009 @ 2:00 pm

The incorrect information may not be something covered on the person’s errors and omissions, depending on the contract language. It is certainly a potential claim. Also, I would think that this behavior is sanctionable under the RPCs.

Separate topic: Is it me or are there a huge number of illegal exports going on on a routine basis? I know of several cases which appear to be out right ITAR violations. Is there a qui tam type proceeding within federal law which can be used to bring these type of violations to the attention of the US Attorney?
Denny Andrews

Comment by Denny Andrews on May 14th, 2009 @ 5:47 pm

This would make for a good short story.
I hope you make contact with the CEO of the company. Either they truly are the victims of a rogue employee, in which case they need to terminate their relationship with him, or they were an involved party, in which case they need to know they have been caught.

Comment by Bob on May 15th, 2009 @ 10:50 am

There is not a direct qui tam, and in 1995 the DC District court held there is no private right of action under ITAR and that a competitor did not have standing under the APA to challenge a classification determination made by the government. That said, given Section 790 of the Defense Authorization Act of 2007 and the subsequent amendment of the DFARS to include a export compliance clause in DoD contracts, a hungry trial lawyer could probably cobble togther an action against a defense contractor if the subject matter of the undocumented export was related to a post-2007 DoD contract. I also note that there was a fraud count in the Roth/Atmospheric Glow indictment, so it is conceivable to build a qui tam action under the False Claims Act when the potential defendant is a defense contractor. In fact, the government has on occasion indicted for fraud only in order to get extradition when an extradition treaty limits the scope of crimes for which extradition may be sought.

Comment by Hillbilly on May 15th, 2009 @ 11:53 am

Alas, Clif, idiocy is one thing that continues to be manufactured in abundance no matter what the economy is doing. Glad you rooted out the offender.

Comment by Joey on May 15th, 2009 @ 1:22 pm