On Wed, 25 Oct 1995, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Michael Froomkin writes: {words to the effect of "enough already"}
I was unaware, Mr. Froomkin, that the legal system of our country had the right to arbitrarily ignore its own rules and refuse to answer a question. The munitions T-Shirt was not, in my opinion, substantially
Yes, it has an obligation to answer.
more frivolous than Phil Karn's floppy, which was rejected. I do not
We disagree.
believe that the state department has the right to reject such things by refusing to accept their mail, and I do not believe that they have
This assumes a conscious decision was made; I'm more inclined to think it's a screw up. In any case, sending it registered mail, or by courrier, would remove the doubt.
the right to violate their own proceedures. If someone asks "is this captain midnight decoder ring exportable" they are legally obligated to answer, one way or the other, unless we live under a government of men, and not laws.
Yes. I just hope the members of this list have more sense than to do frivolous things, although of course I defend their legal right to do so. Of course, one part of being wise is picking the right fights. This will be my last comment on this thread. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin@law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's hot here. And humid.