Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

And that make logical sense to lose property over a clerical error?

---

If it means keeping the company open then it was there decision to fight it or not. At this point as part of the settlement it appears the forieture of the property was part of the deal. They had a claim against it and were told to back out to make the settlement go through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Border guards have been seizing thousands upon thousands of items at the borders everyday for decades, is that government seizure of private property?

---

Mostly it depends on what laws allowed them to take items. There have been many check points along state lines to aid in stopping infestation of agriculture products produced in a state. So again its how the law reads and what items your talking about. If it is forbidden or over the given limit then it is subject to seizure.

Quote:

---

there have been many check points along state lines to aid in stopping infestation of agriculture products produced in a state.

---

but they are seizing private property!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

but they are seizing private property!

---

Yes they are. But here is the difference. The property was illegal to begin with. There is a huge difference. Where it becomes a problem is when they take property not associated with the crime being committed like they do with drugs and prostitution. They take related items in the form of government seizure. The items are not related nor banned in any way.

What your trying to compare is items that have been deemed illegal and those that are not and saying they are one in the same. I believe there is a differnce.

Quote:

---

The property was illegal to begin with.

---

Same with the Lacey Act. Get the act changed, not the people who enforce it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Same with the Lacey Act. Get the act changed, not the people who enforce it.

---

Other then clerical error there was no evidence that proved the wood wasn't what it was suppose to be. How do you justify that?

It has been amended several times, by Congress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdad

Other then clerical error there was no evidence that proved the wood wasnt what it was suppose to be. How do you justify that?

---

Got a link that supports your assertions other than what the "victim" alleges?

Here you go...


In light of Gibson’s acknowledgement of its conduct, its duties under the Lacey Act and its promised cooperation and remedial actions, the government will decline charging Gibson criminally in connection with Gibson’s order, purchase or importation of ebony from Madagascar and ebony and rosewood from India, provided that Gibson fully carries out its obligations under the agreement, and commits no future violations of law, including Lacey Act violations.



“As a result of this investigation and criminal enforcement agreement, Gibson has acknowledged that it failed to act on information that the Madagascar ebony it was purchasing may have violated laws intended to limit overharvesting and conserve valuable wood species from Madagascar, a country which has been severely impacted by deforestation,” said Assistant Attorney General Moreno. “Gibson has ceased acquisitions of wood species from Madagascar and recognizes its duty under the U.S. Lacey Act to guard against the acquisition of wood of illegal origin by verifying the circumstances of its harvest and export, which is good for American business and American consumers.”




Linkage:

USDOJ: Gibson Guitar Corp. Agrees to Resolve Investigation into Lacey Act Violations

Gibson is acknowledging guilt. Where's the "clerical error"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Gibson is acknowledging guilt. Where's the "clerical error"?

---

The error occurred in the debate over the product. There is nothing in the settlement that admits to it being illegal. It only states they may have not followed all the rules properly. Im sure part of the blame goes to the exporter of the blanks. That is where the error comes in. It appears that so far as they (Gibson) knew they were acting legally and in compliance. They were the third step in the line and not directly importing.

Ignorance of the law is no defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Ignorance of the law is no defense.

---

I agree with that. In this case what doesn't make sense is that there is no admission from the government that the wood was illegal. They use the term "may" which has no legal standing inside a courtroom. All of this took place outside a courtroom. It was a forced settlement. If they didn't then they had to close the doors. That doesn't make it right for the government to do that on the chance it may be illegal. If that were the case then anything and everything is subject to confiscation on the premise it may become or may be used in illegal activity.

You guys want all those illegals breaking the law by sneaking in to not only get a pass, but flood them with government benefits my disabled daughter can't get then have the audacity to preach to me about the law.

Again, why was Gibson's competitor given a pass for doing the same thing?

So much for the few rogue Cincinnati agents defense. What was claimed last week is now hard copy proof in NBC's hands.

Quote:

---

IRS higher-ups requested info on conservative groups, letters show

Additional scrutiny of conservative organizations’ activities by the IRS did not solely originate in the agency’s Cincinnati office, with requests for information coming from other offices and often bearing the signatures of higher-ups at the agency, according to attorneys representing some of the targeted groups. At least one letter requesting information about one of the groups bears the signature of Lois Lerner, the suspended director of the IRS Exempt Organizations department in Washington.

---

One of their 10 clients that still have not received a determination got another request for more information this month - they've been pursuing the exemption for at least 2 years according to a date in the letter.

Nice try but the spin of the lawyers for their client is hardly objective. Federalcourt sounds like a good place to get some facts, despite the one way spin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Nice try but the spin of the lawyers for their client is hardly objective. federalcourt sounds like a good place to get some facts, despite the one way spin.

---

?? I don't believe you actually read anything, you just have that one knee jerk answer for everything. There is absolutely ZERO spin in my post, just FACTS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Nice try but the spin of the lawyers for their client is hardly objective. federalcourt sounds like a good place to get some facts, despite the one way spin.

---

So you agree there should be a special prosecutor assigned to empanel a Grand Jury.

I prefer a court battle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I prefer a court battle.

---

You guys just want it to drag out and siappear in the Twitter universe until after the election. You know this is bad.