- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,909
- Reaction score
- 11,003
- Location
- New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
there is no link to post
Therefore, you lose the argument.
Thanks.
there is no link to post
it is the only one believed to be in violation of the lacey act, hence the federal raids to which you have objected
It's up to the govt to prove its case, not vice versa, or have you forgotten that?
Sent from my blasted phone.
Some have been trying to say this investigation is due to Obama and his justice department. So that is the reason I made it clear the law was amended by Congress in June 2008 to include plants, including timber, paper and other forest products.
That is one huge assumption on your part. Where do we find the conclusion by the Feds as to "believe".? That is also not the standard. The standard is to be charged, and with due process. Can you show us the "due process" of four years without being charged ?
Trust me. I know one Helluva lot more about this process than you. As I said earlier, they have not been charged because our Fed cannot make the case to pin this specific wood on illegal origins. If you would read, I noted some of the differences between CITES Appendix I, II, and III. Much of this wood is Appendix III, and the claim to its illegality is not that it was above or in excess of allowable export quota, but rather that it was illegally harvested from protected land in its country of origin.
That is incredably difficult to prove after the wood has been processed through a third country. Cause it looks just the same as legally harvested wood.
When something is listed as CITES Appendix I or II, each increment of it is counted, with documentation every step of the way. The government over-reached trying to bust Gibson on a problem that is for the country of origin to stop.
Strawman... I'm not claiming proof.
And it's up to Ockham to prove his case, or have you forgotten *that*?
Obviously it would prove that Gibson was not singled out, as you claim. I don't see a link though.... did you forget to paste it in your post?
See, without evidence, my point will be correct... and as you've no doubt already Googled it... you'll see that Gibson has been the only guitar company in the past 4 years, singled out twice for raids.
The Presidency and who held office is irrelevant to the context and subject matter, as you well know.
Ockham has laid out his case in detail, and has been quite detailed as to the assertions he has made with linked back up for those assertions. What is it that you would consider as "proof" to be satisfied?
j-mac
Ockham has laid out his case in detail, and has been quite detailed as to the assertions he has made with linked back up for those assertions. What is it that you would consider as "proof" to be satisfied?
j-mac
Yes, I'm refusing to prove a negative. Silly me.he has insisted gibson was singled out
yet he is unable to point to another known lacey act violator the government refuses to raid
he insists the 16th amendment is being violated
yet we find that no person has been arrested for an illegal act
Yes, I'm refusing to prove a negative. Silly me.
Incorrect - I am making a claim the 6th amendment may have been violated. I also find the 4 years as being excessive and unreasonable.
The government has issued no additional warrants nor arrests, therefore since there is a presupposition of charges being brought (ie., the warrant, the raid), the 6th amendment has been violated.
what we know, is that there have been no other manufacturers raided because the government has reason to believe they have violated the lacey act
noYes, I'm refusing to prove a negative. Silly me.
my bad. it is the sixth amendmentIncorrect - I am making a claim the 6th amendment may have been violated. I also find the 4 years as being excessive and unreasonable.
even tho there have been ZERO arrestsIn 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 defense.
no
you want to believe there are other lacey act violators
but you have no basis to make such a statement
'which causes you to wrongly insist that gibson has been singled out ....
Actually, the notion that Gibson has been targeted, and that there have been no legitimate Lacey Act violations by anyone, is also compatable.
That still doesn't support Ockhams delusional claim that Gibson was targeted
Actually, the notion that Gibson has been targeted, and that there have been no legitimate Lacey Act violations by anyone, is also compatable.
Wrong. I am saying there are NO other guitar companies which have been raided; Gibson was singled out.no
you want to believe there are other lacey act violators
Don't forget zero charges filed, zero hearings held....my bad. it is the sixth amendment
the one that tells us:
even tho there have been ZERO arrests
I believe no such thing. I believe 4 years is excessive and an unreasonable amount of time to wait for charges to be filed after 2 raids.somehow, you believe there must be a prosecution prior to arrest
a position amazingly devoid of any form of logic
It does to some of us.
Speaking of which, don't you think that a dozen posts saying essentially the same thing over and over is .... well ... targeting the rest of us with drivel ?
Wrong. I am saying there are NO other guitar companies which have been raided; Gibson was singled out.
Keep trying to change my words though... :lol:
he has insisted gibson was singled out
yet he is unable to point to another known lacey act violator the government refuses to raid
he insists the 16th amendment is being violated
yet we find that no person has been arrested for an illegal act
No, we do not know that.
What we know is that the government has raided only Gibson, confiscated their assets, but has yet to charge them after four years.
Now, you can make assumptions off that, as you have, but clearly there are other explanations. I would suggest that our government made a token effort to pacify some other party, either such as India, or the tree-hugging voter block, or both. It did not need to raid anyone else as there is a huge diminishing political return after the first such action. Further, as it has not brought charges, it is fully aware of the difficulty in supporting this over-reach.
you abandoned logic which would tell those who used it that there are no other known violators of the lacey act for that to be the actual circumstanceI have searched, and can find no other guitar manufacturer in the US, that I assume uses the same woods that Gibson was raided for, having been raided themselves...Therefore, I, unless shown that others have had the same treatment as Gibson, would have to conclude that Gibson is being singled out.
sixth amendment - my badI don't follow you. the 16th amendment is about laying and collecting taxation, it mentions nothing about arrest.
j-mac