“When the legislature enacts provisions of a uniform or model act without significant alteration, it may be generally presumed to have adopted the expressed intention of the drafters of that uniform or model act.” Heirs of Ellis v. Estate of Ellis, 71 S.W.3d 705, 346 (2001) (“We hold, as have the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions, that the offense of wilfully selling unregistered securities requires proof only that the defendant intended to do the act prohibited by the statute.”); Greenhill v. State, 199 Ga.App. 218, 404 S.E.2d 577, 581 (1991) (“The trial court’s instruction that willful means knowingly and intentionally [selling unregistered securities when the defendant himself was unregistered] was not in error.”); State v. Kershner, 15 Kan.App.2d 17, 801 P.2d 68, 70 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Allen, 441 S.W.2d 424, 427
holding that clearly established means the contours of the right were so clear at the time the officials acted that a reasonable official would have understood that what he was doing violated that right holding it immaterial that one charged with willfully selling unregistered securities had no actual knowledge that he was violating the law because he was presumed to have and is chargeable with knowledge of the laws under which he was undertaking to do business holding that for purposes of the second question the right must have been clearly established in a particularized sense such that a reasonable official would have understood that what he was doing violated that right holding that willfully violating the prohibition on engaging in business as a brokerdealer or agent without registering with the state means the defendant acted intentionally in the sense that he was aware of what he was doing holding that the evidence at trial showed hart was aware that what he was doing was wrong