On 2009-10-17, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
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.

I tried this, they did not accept the forms, at which point I sort of
gave up. I also thought that there was a small chance that it was some
sort of a sneaky tactic to make me incriminate myself in some way.

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.

If only.

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.

This is very sensible.

i