Let's get back to your examiner's original thought line:
Last edited by Maytagman; 02/03/09 11:02 PM.
A. The White House designates areas as HIDTAs.
B. MN is not one of them, as anyone can verify easily.
C. Regardless, you should treat MN as a HIDTA (a non-HIDTA HIDTA, if you will) because maybe a state government decided it wasn't going to play by the HIDTA rules.
Use extreme caution with this examiner's criticisms of anything and everything. I love that examiner's logic. (Maybe I should treat all my U.S. Citizen customers as nonresident aliens?) Apparently, according to them, if something is not high-risk, maybe you should pretend that it is high-risk, because, after all, you have to have something be high-risk.
"It is natural to give a clear view of the world after accepting the idea that it must be clear." - Albert Camus