TexasCHLforum.com

mamabearCali wrote:

C-dub wrote:A couple things IIRC.

1. The Lois Lerner thing wouldn't apply because they are going after her. She is protecting herself by choosing to remain mostly silent. That and Holder won't go after her anyway.

2. I thought there was a law that spouses could not be forced to testify against each other.

I think there is....but I am betting that if you want that protection you had better put a ring on it. With the way things are going they might even try to reach around that.

mojo84 wrote:I've heard the comment that the typical citizen breaks three laws a day but haven't heard three "felonies" a day. I find that hard to believe.

mojo84 wrote:I've heard the comment that the typical citizen breaks three laws a day but haven't heard three "felonies" a day. I find that hard to believe.

Hypothetical: You are a small business proprietor who supplies restaurants with fish and produce. One shipment of lobsters comes in unusual packaging—usually sent in cardboard boxes, these lobsters arrived in clear packaging. By purchasing this shipment, you have arguably committed a federal felony. The imported lobsters originated in a country that bans the shipping of lobsters in clear plastic bags, and the U.S. Lacey Act makes criminal an importer who violates “any foreign law”—regardless of whether you knew of the foreign regulations.

Real-life example: American businesswoman Diane Huang was convicted under this far-reaching provision, despite her unawareness of the supposed Honduran law banning the shipment of lobsters in clear plastic bags. Lack of criminal intent, the Washington Legal Foundation argued on behalf of Huang and her co-defendants, should make the government’s criminal charges inappropriate. To make matters worse, the Honduran law governing such shipments was not valid at the time of Huang’s arrest—a fact that the Honduran government pointed out to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Nonetheless, the federal court found Huang guilty in March 2003 and imposed a two-year prison sentence.

VMI77 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I've heard the comment that the typical citizen breaks three laws a day but haven't heard three "felonies" a day. I find that hard to believe.

Normally I don't even read what Ellis has to say but I didn't log in before I entered this thread and saw his comment. If you ignore his the government is never wrong apologetics, I'd say his summary of the book is more or less accurate. As usual though, he ignores what matters.....yes, the so called average person is not likely to be a target...there aren't going to be nation wide dragnets sweeping the country for average people in violation of vague Federal laws; and that is completely irrelevant. If you find yourself a government target, for whatever reason, these laws allow unethical prosecutors to do just about whatever they want to assure a conviction (which is all they care about).

If you're interested, check out these hypotheticals and real life examples. How about a 2 year prison sentence for shipping lobsters in plastic bags?

Hypothetical: You are a small business proprietor who supplies restaurants with fish and produce. One shipment of lobsters comes in unusual packaging—usually sent in cardboard boxes, these lobsters arrived in clear packaging. By purchasing this shipment, you have arguably committed a federal felony. The imported lobsters originated in a country that bans the shipping of lobsters in clear plastic bags, and the U.S. Lacey Act makes criminal an importer who violates “any foreign law”—regardless of whether you knew of the foreign regulations.

Real-life example: American businesswoman Diane Huang was convicted under this far-reaching provision, despite her unawareness of the supposed Honduran law banning the shipment of lobsters in clear plastic bags. Lack of criminal intent, the Washington Legal Foundation argued on behalf of Huang and her co-defendants, should make the government’s criminal charges inappropriate. To make matters worse, the Honduran law governing such shipments was not valid at the time of Huang’s arrest—a fact that the Honduran government pointed out to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Nonetheless, the federal court found Huang guilty in March 2003 and imposed a two-year prison sentence.

http://allstaractivist.com/2014/07/05/t ... -innocent/

I also misquoted the claim for the book......it claims the average "professional" violates Federal law three times a day, not the average "person."

Gibson will publish the agreement and the attached Statement of Facts that both the Government and Gibson agreed to, so anyone can independently draw their own conclusions.
Possible questions and answers Gibson would give:
Q.1. In light of your previous outspoken condemnation of the Government's conduct in this case, why are you taking such a moderate, mild-mannered approach in your official statement?
A.1.1. The company is gratified that the Government ultimately saw the wisdom and fairness in declining to bring criminal charges in this case.
A.1.2 The "Criminal Enforcement Agreement" we have entered into straightforwardly recognizes that it was inappropriate to criminalize this matter.

Q.2. In light of the Government's lenient treatment here, does Gibson still believe that amendments to the Lacey Act are necessary to make the law more fair and reasonable?
A.2. Yes. The outcome here deals only with the particular controversy about the particular fact pattern. A true legislative reform is necessary to avoid systemic criminalization of capitalism, as I explained in my recent Wall Street Journal article.

Q.3. Wasn't the Government's conduct here, with its armed raid on your headquarters and manufacturing facilities, so outrageous and overreaching as to deserve further Congressional investigation, just calling a spade a spade?
A.3. I don't retreat from any of my prior commentary, but I am gratified that this resolution puts the matter behind us. We are a forward-looking company hoping to move our business ahead in an environmentally forward-thinking way.

Q.4. The statement of facts includes Gibson's official acknowledgement that you could have and should have exercised greater due diligence in regard to the importation of the questionable wood from Madagascar. Doesn't this amount to an admission that the company violated the law, notwithstanding all your previous protests?
A.4. Gibson is strenuously dedicated to continuous environmental improvement. We want to be leaders in our business, and our business includes protecting the environment. We can always do better.

Q.5. This is a pretty unusual legal deal being executed here. It's not a plea bargain, and it is not a traditional deferred prosecution agreement because there is no draft indictment or other criminal-charging document. But it's apparently not a complete declination, as Gibson is at least paying a nominal penalty. How did you settle on this unique form of agreement, and doesn't it represent just a fig leaf to cover the Government's naked surrender?
A.5. The case is behind us. The extensive negotiations to reach this agreement succeeded in finding a balance that Gibson supports.

In August 2011, the US Fish and Wildlife Service confiscated hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of wood from guitar giant Gibson's Tennessee locations, the second raid in two years. The incident blew up into a big brouhaha over federal regulations and enforcement: Gibson claimed no wrong-doing in regard to wood from both Madagascar and India, and the company and its right-wing allies flipped out, painting the incident as Big Government coming to take away "your right to rock." Now, nearly a year later, the government and Gibson have reached a settlement.

Under the settlement, Gibson agreed to pay a $300,000 fine for the ebony from Madagascar that was taken in the first raid. The company also agreed to make a $50,000 donation to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to promote conservation work and forfeited the seized illegal wood, which was valued at $261,844.

The company also acknowledged its violations. Sort of. In a statement, CEO Henry Juszkiewicz said that the company "felt compelled to settle as the costs of proving our case at trial would have cost millions of dollars and taken a very long time to resolve." The agreement allows Gibson to keep the rosewood and ebony from India that was taken in the second raid and continue importing from India. Juszkiewicz also didn't drop his claims that his company was "inappropriately targeted" in the raids and that the matter "could have been addressed with a simple contact" from a "caring human being representing the government." Gibson published all the settlement documents on on its website.

The Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative groups puts the federal government’s raids on Gibson Guitar Corp. in a new light, according to a recent Investor’s Business Daily editorial.

The government has accused Gibson of obtaining wood that was illegal in India and Madagascar. The government argues that this is a violation of the Lacey Act of 1900, which outlaws the use of plants and wildlife that have been taken or traded in violation of foreign law.

Gibson stressed in 2011 that its Indian wood, which was seized by the government in a raid, was obtained via a Forest Stewardship Council-certified supplier, and that the Madagascar wood in question was obtained without violating Madagascar law.

Shortly after the raid, Gibson Guitars CEO Henry Juszkiewicz said that his company used the same wood as its rivals, and that he was unsure why raids on the company’s facilities in Memphis and Nashville took place.

“We don’t what is motivating it,” Juszkiewicz said on the Hugh Hewitt Show. “It is…clear to me that there is some terrific motivation because we are not the only company that uses this type of wood. Virtually every other guitar company uses this wood and this wood is used prominently by furniture and architectural industries, and to my knowledge none of them have been shut down or treated in this fashion.”

The Annoyed Man wrote: THAT is the federal government that EEllis extolls. He can have it.

EEllis wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: THAT is the federal government that EEllis extolls. He can have it.

I didn't extoll crap. I explained where a phrase came from and why it wasn't true none of which you contradicted in your little rant. Isn't there a conspiracy theory site you can vomit your bile all over instead of making your messes here? Progressive? Sure don't dink the Koolaid and say how tasty it is then out come folks who insult and try to marginalize.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Ah, you added a sentence just before I hit the reply button. Touched a nerve, did we?

EEllis wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

EEllis wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: THAT is the federal government that EEllis extolls. He can have it.

I didn't extoll crap. I explained where a phrase came from and why it wasn't true none of which you contradicted in your little rant. Isn't there a conspiracy theory site you can vomit your bile all over instead of making your messes here? Progressive? Sure don't dink the Koolaid and say how tasty it is then out come folks who insult and try to marginalize.

Ah, you added a sentence just before I hit the reply button. Touched a nerve, did we?

Shockingly enough most people do not like to be insulted or marginalized. You are using a debate tactic called a logical fallacy. It's where you say something bad about me so you can discredit my arguments without actually having to address my arguments. Now you are gleefully gloating about it like a child. Now maybe I have something wrong, interpreting your statements in a manner in which you do not mean. As I read them they are offensive to me and there's no reason for them to be that way. You don't have to be offensive to make your point.

The Annoyed Man wrote:And let's not forget the Gibson Guitars case: http://www2.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/F ... lemen.aspx. The CEO of Gibson has been a republican contributor. His rivals at Martin Guitars, and other manufacturers were buying exactly the same woods, from the same sources in Madagascar, but the "Justice" department went after Gibson while leaving the others completely alone. The others are all democrat contributors. And the Gibson factory was raided, during business hours, by SWAT jackboots..........over some flippin' exotic wood for guitar-making......for allegedly violating some other country's law (because they probably didn't pay enough baksheesh to the right corruptible bureaucrat). The way the federal government was acting, you'd have thought they were smuggling tons of crack cocaine into the country. Quoting their press release about the settlement: