In article ,
Ignoramus15879 wrote:

On 2009-10-17, cavelamb wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Oct 16, 11:37 am, Ignoramus15879 ignoramus15...@NOSPAM.
15879.invalid wrote:
On 2009-10-16, Ignoramus15879 wrote:

On 2009-10-16, Randy wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:57:00 -0500, Ignoramus5648
wrote:
I will not go this year... Some fun marvels avaiolable for yer perusal
http://www.hilpipre.com/equipment_search.asp?aid=155
Looked at the CNC lathes, every one ends with "needs EUC" what's
"euc"?
End Use Certificate. You would have to certify that you are not a spy
and that you will not export this lathe without govt permission.
And let me warn you that dealing with the EUC bureaucrats is a real
pain in the ass. Do not get me started on this or how they demanded
EUCs on some old crap that I bought without EUC and sold without any
record.

i

Correct me if I am wrong but I also believe that they can come look
you up years later and demand the item back.

I would not consider that impossible.

In my case, it is even worse, they came after me for stuff for which I
never signed any EUC and demanded that I file one.

In that instance, not only I no longer had that stuff, I did not even
have any records. So I considered any EUC filed over this to be false
automatically and exposing me to legal trouble.

As Ig said...a real PITA.

TMT

How about a conviction for making false statements to the police?

Not sure what your question is in regards to this, but I would not
want to make any false statements on those forms.

The classic solution is to hand write in ink a statement on the form
that you no longer have the records for or possession of the item in
question having sold it on, or the like, and that at purchase no EUL was
requested. Be sure to give the dates of purchase and sale, if known.
This way, the form as signed is not false.

It doesn't matter if their database has no way to handle this, or any
other such excuse, as the legal copy is the piece of paper with the
original signature. It's also useful to annotate and sign in blue ink,
so the difference from the printed text is obvious, as are ordinary
xerox copies.


There is a parallel while selling a house. One of the many forms I was
asked to sign was one saying that there was no UFFI or asbestos in the
house. I balked, saying that while I had no reason to believe that
either substance was present, without tearing all the walls open for
inspection I had no way to attest to any such thing. So I initially
declined to sign the form. I don't recall which house this was, but I
recall signing at least one such form after adding a "to the best of my
knowledge" qualifier. This same qualifier is on all the lead-paint
disclaimers, so there already was legal precedent.


Joe Gwinn