• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US agents raid Gibson Guitar over ebony

Re: Is your guitar DOJ approved?

Catawba said:
Fortunately, our laws are based on the court's interpretation of the Constitution, not on your interpretation, or the conservative Claremont Institute's interpretation.
Click to expand...
This we will have to wait and see.
 
Re: Is your guitar DOJ approved?

deltabtry said:
What it all boils down to is that the authorities may have skipped a constitutional processes. I only interested in the constitutional rights being protected from a ever increasing aggressive government. Whether Gibson is guilty or not will be for the courts to decide but Gibson should be afforded all constitutional rights. Have been raid in 2009 and no charges brought forth...what's going on? Then yet another raid and no charged being brought forth, if a crime has been committed the charge the accused.
Click to expand...

And what "constitutional process" has been skipped?

Once again, you make wild charges and have nothing to back it up with. And then you complain when others point out your lack of clarity and detail
 
Re: Is your guitar DOJ approved?

justabubba said:
yes
your being unable to articulate what you intend to say is our fault
your being unable to defend what you post is our fault
got it
Click to expand...
I shouldn't have to do any of the above, read the amendments for yourself and explain to me why you think I am wrong.
 
Re: Is your guitar DOJ approved?

deltabtry said:
I shouldn't have to do any of the above, read the amendments for yourself and explain to me why you think I am wrong.
Click to expand...

i see no unConstitutional behavior

i cannot prove a negative

will you next ask that i show you how to divide by zero?
 
Re: Is your guitar DOJ approved?

sangha said:
And what "constitutional process" has been skipped?

Once again, you make wild charges and have nothing to back it up with. And then you complain when others point out your lack of clarity and detail
Click to expand...
sangha go back to your own post 282 and read your post where you quoted me and behold you will have your answer.
 
Re: Is your guitar DOJ approved?

deltabtry said:
What it all boils down to is that the authorities may have skipped a constitutional processes.
Click to expand...

If that were the case, the courts would not have issued the search warrants. As I stated previously, your personal interpretation of the Constitution has no bearing on this case.
 
Re: Is your guitar DOJ approved?

deltabtry said:
This we will have to wait and see.
Click to expand...

No, as a matter of fact, we don't have to wait and see. The court has already issued a search warrant. If the process were unconstitutional, the search warrant would not have been issued by the court.
 
Re: Is your guitar DOJ approved?

justabubba said:
i see no unConstitutional behavior

i cannot prove a negative

will you next ask that i show you how to divide by zero?
Click to expand...
What are the specific charges against Gibson guitar?
 
Re: Is your guitar DOJ approved?

Catawba said:
No, as a matter of fact, we don't have to wait and see. The court has already issued a search warrant. If the process were unconstitutional, the search warrant would not have been issued by the court.
Click to expand...
Not referring to the warrants, but the number of searches without being charged with a crime within a reasonable time frame.
 
Re: Is your guitar DOJ approved?

deltabtry said:
What are the specific charges against Gibson guitar?
Click to expand...

As per usual, an investigation precedes charges.
 
Re: Is your guitar DOJ approved?

deltabtry said:
What are the specific charges against Gibson guitar?
Click to expand...

have you not been following
this is the investigative period
the typical process is to file charges AFTER the evidence has been acquired


granted, you defended the shrub/republican era of governance when the approach was different
fortunately, Obama has abandoned the following neocon order of operations: ready ... fire ... aim !!!
 
Re: Is your guitar DOJ approved?

deltabtry said:
Not referring to the warrants, but the number of searches without being charged with a crime within a reasonable time frame.
Click to expand...

Show me the Court decision that backs up your contention that investigations must conclude with charges being placed, and that if you are investigated once, you can never be investigated again at any point in the future?
 
Re: Is your guitar DOJ approved?

Catawba said:
As per usual, an investigation precedes charges.
Click to expand...
This true but with a reasonable time frame and the accused should be informed of the proposed charges which claims it has not been informed of.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
 
Re: Is your guitar DOJ approved?

Catawba said:
Show me the Court decision that backs up your contention that investigations must conclude with charges being placed, and that if you are investigated once, you can never be investigated again at any point in the future?
Click to expand...
I will will refer you to the 4th amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

I highlighted in black above, because being raided the first time (we will say it's warranted) was but as of now not being charged and yet raided again and again not being charged with in a reasonable time frame, I think there is a argument here. Who says that Gibson or anyone else can't be raided on a yearly bases and never be charged.
 
Re: Is your guitar DOJ approved?

deltabtry said:
I will will refer you to the 4th amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

I highlighted in black above, because being raided the first time (we will say it's warranted) was but as of now not being charged and yet raided again and again not being charged with in a reasonable time frame, I think there is a argument here. Who says that Gibson or anyone else can't be raided on a yearly bases and never be charged.
Click to expand...

Again the Constitution does not specify that Constitutional interpretation is decided by deltabtry, it specifies that Constitutional interpretation by the Courts,

If the court felt the Affidavit for the Gibson case was unreasonable, it would not have issued the search warrant. Are you saying that the search was conducted without a search warrant???

And please show me the Court decision that backs up your contention that investigations must conclude with charges being placed, and that if you are investigated once, you can never be investigated again at any point in the future?
 
Re: Is your guitar DOJ approved?

Catawba said:
Again the Constitution does not specify that Constitutional interpretation is decided by deltabtry, it specifies that Constitutional interpretation by the Courts,

If the court felt the Affidavit for the Gibson case was unreasonable, it would not have issued the search warrant. Are you saying that the search was conducted without a search warrant???

And please show me the Court decision that backs up your contention that investigations must conclude with charges being placed, and that if you are investigated once, you can never be investigated again at any point in the future?
Click to expand...

Again the Constitution does not specify that Constitutional interpretation is decided by deltabtry, it specifies that Constitutional interpretation by the Courts
Click to expand...
The trial hasn't become yet that is if there is ever trial, and who knows the courts may like deltabtry's argument and a new interpretation may be born. I only bringing up a proposed argument which I think would be valid. So the feds can continue to raid Gibson for years to come until they can decide what Gibson will be charged with, would you advocate this policy.

And please show me the Court decision that backs up your contention that investigations must conclude with charges being placed, and that if you are investigated once, you can never be investigated again at any point in the future?
Click to expand...
There is a point when it becomes harassment. Not arguing the validity of the warrant, I am arguing the harassment on Gibson which can be construed as unreasonable searches IMO.
 
Re: Is your guitar DOJ approved?

deltabtry said:
The trial hasn't become yet that is if there is ever trial, and who knows the courts may like deltabtry's argument and a new interpretation may be born. I only bringing up a proposed argument which I think would be valid. So the feds can continue to raid Gibson for years to come until they can decide what Gibson will be charged with, would you advocate this policy.

There is a point when it becomes harassment. Not arguing the validity of the warrant, I am arguing the harassment on Gibson which can be construed as unreasonable searches IMO.
Click to expand...

The point being

The government currently it argueing that Gibson importerd ebony wood claiming it is a veneer, while the wood actually brought into the US is too thick to be a veneer.

If this is the case then Gibson violated the law, the government of course needed to gather the wood and associated documents in order to either proof or disprove their case. As for the length of time, the vast majority of court cases vs corporations take years to work through the system


I have a strong feeling that the Indian company and Gibson made an arrangement for the Indian company to glue thick pieces of Ebony wood to other pieces of wood and claim it is veneered Ebony wood. Then when the wood came to the US Gibson would remove the non ebony wood and finish the Ebony wood as required. This would be a case of fraud and a violation of the Lacey act if I recall correctly. If so Gibson does deserve to be punished, no less so then any importer of illegal goods or people who commit fraud
 
Re: Is your guitar DOJ approved?

sangha said:
You are wrong. The police often get more than one warrant before charging anyone of a crime. Your dishonest portrayal of the process is not evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the Feds. It is evidence that the rightwingers have no principles, though
Click to expand...

Ya, but if they raid your place and you are not charged with a crime, then you are released.

There are also issues like statutes of limitation... I'm not sure what they would be for this case, but still, we're not talking about a murder charge or some other SERIOUS crime. Even on face value, at worst their "crime" is that they were victims of fraud and sold what they bought under false pretenses.

Not quite deserving of the SWAT style raid of the place, when a visit from 2 officers with a warrant would have been sufficient, they sell guitars not crystal meth.
 
Re: Is your guitar DOJ approved?

deltabtry said:
sangha go back to your own post 282 and read your post where you quoted me and behold you will have your answer.
Click to expand...

If you went back to #282, then why didn't you quote from it?

Again, what constitutional process has been skipped? It takes less effort for you to just say it than it does for you to dance around and not answer this simple question
 
Re: Is your guitar DOJ approved?

deltabtry said:
Not referring to the warrants, but the number of searches without being charged with a crime within a reasonable time frame.
Click to expand...

What is unconstitutional about multiple warrants?

Or is this just another effort by you to make some hazy accusation without backing it up?

All these posts from you and you still can't describe what your complaint is. It would take less effort for you to just state what constitutional process was skipped than it would for you to do all this dancing around
 
Re: Is your guitar DOJ approved?

deltabtry said:
What are the specific charges against Gibson guitar?
Click to expand...

Asking a question is not an answer. Why won't you answer the simple question?

What is unconstitutional about multiple warrants?
 
Re: Is your guitar DOJ approved?

deltabtry said:
Not referring to the warrants, but the number of searches without being charged with a crime within a reasonable time frame.
Click to expand...

Again, what is unconstitutional about multiple searches/warrants without being charged with a crime?
 
Re: Is your guitar DOJ approved?

justabubba said:
have you not been following
this is the investigative period
the typical process is to file charges AFTER the evidence has been acquired


granted, you defended the shrub/republican era of governance when the approach was different
fortunately, Obama has abandoned the following neocon order of operations: ready ... fire ... aim !!!
Click to expand...

To be fair, I'm sure deltabtry protested when the clinton admin was subjected to multiple warrants during the Lewinsky investigation :roll: :lamo
 
Re: Is your guitar DOJ approved?

deltabtry said:
This true but with a reasonable time frame and the accused should be informed of the proposed charges which claims it has not been informed of.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Click to expand...

Your quote shows that there are protections for "the accused". Since Gibson hasn't been charged, those protections do not apply.

And your welcome.
 
Re: Is your guitar DOJ approved?

deltabtry said:
I will will refer you to the 4th amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

I highlighted in black above, because being raided the first time (we will say it's warranted) was but as of now not being charged and yet raided again and again not being charged with in a reasonable time frame, I think there is a argument here. Who says that Gibson or anyone else can't be raided on a yearly bases and never be charged.
Click to expand...

Warrants were issued by the courts. Why do you persist with this nonsense?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom