91 year old man collects artifacts over 8 decades; FBI seizes collection

unsung

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/03/thousands-cultural-artifacts-seized/7244431/

Federal Government: serving and protecting.

No charges filed, no expected return date.

"Legal" theft.

rgambs

bummer for this guy! At least they didnt take his house!
It is very likely a collection like this has many stolen/illegally obtained items...but why not charge the man and make it on the up and up..this fella will pass before his collection is scrutinized and his items will be dust in the wind.

callen

This is fked. Innocent till proven guilty.

go pre

bummer. how about the story that follows this one when you click the right arrow?
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/news/local/2014/04/06/savannah-shooting-death-boy/7379477/
odd how that's possible.

and apparently, this one did shoot itself, says the article: "Police say the boys were handling a gun at a house on Church Street around 9 p.m. Friday when it fired."

brianlux

My immediate reaction is that at 91 I don't really care if the guy is charged or not, it just seems great to me that these items have been confiscated and will hopefully end up in museums where they belong.

unsung

So you're ok with theft?

vant0037

So hypothetically, if these were cultural items that had been taken illegally by this guy over decades and the government was reclaiming them to return to their rightful owners (think: a scenario like in "Monuments Men"), would you still have a problem? I read the whole article. It didn't mention how the guy got them, and it also didn't mention why the FBI's "art crime" team was involved. But just because those tidbits aren't in a story doesn't mean they don't exist. My guess? They've got a warrant and this is part of an investigation.

But as always, shoot first, ask questions later, right?

unsung

I prefer to side with the individual until proven guilty, unlike yourself that sides with government on nearly every thread I post on these forums.

Didn't you have to take some type of Oath, Counselor?

vant0037

You can paint me as a government apologist all you want. I can just as easily paint you as someone who jumps to conclusions without knowing all the facts, or worse, someone who trusts everything he reads in the media because it serves his view of things. Trust the government or trust the media. Pick your poison I guess.

As far as an oath, yes I took one. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Was the Constitution violated here? If so, please articulate the facts that prove it. I read your article and it looked to me like these things were seized as part of a criminal investigation.

I'm not sure why my profession offends you. But I challenge you on your threads because I think you place too much trust in things you read on the Internet. Trust in government isn't warranted either, but there is at least a process to challenge the things government does. This 91 year old man has a court process to challenge the taking of his property. By what method would you challenge the media? It's not that I trust the government and it's motives; it's that I trust media and corporations less. With government, facade or not, there's at least a process with which I can challenge it.

You didn't answer the question either.

brianlux

Obviously this thread is not about stolen or lost artifacts or the guilt or innocence of the man in possession of the artifacts. Its about being unhappy with government. Maybe even about anarchy. Want some anarchy? Here ya go! :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbmWs6Jf5dc&feature=kp

unsung

vant0037 said:

You can paint me as a government apologist all you want. I can just as easily paint you as someone who jumps to conclusions without knowing all the facts, or worse, someone who trusts everything he reads in the media because it serves his view of things. Trust the government or trust the media. Pick your poison I guess.

As far as an oath, yes I took one. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Was the Constitution violated here? If so, please articulate the facts that prove it. I read your article and it looked to me like these things were seized as part of a criminal investigation.

I'm not sure why my profession offends you. But I challenge you on your threads because I think you place too much trust in things you read on the Internet. Trust in government isn't warranted either, but there is at least a process to challenge the things government does. This 91 year old man has a court process to challenge the taking of his property. By what method would you challenge the media? It's not that I trust the government and it's motives; it's that I trust media and corporations less. With government, facade or not, there's at least a process with which I can challenge it.

You didn't answer the question either.

I did answer your question, maybe the answer given just wasn't suitable for your needs.

A seizure took place, no charges have been filed as of yet, so maybe once the investigation is complete this 91 year old man will still be alive to accept the return of his belongings. I'm sure they will find some violation to be sure that they will "hopefully end up in museums where they belong" as someone else advocated.

Your profession does not offend me, neither do you, I simply don't understand your decision to always side opposite of the individual. Does it matter if the Constitution was violated? To me, that's a minimum standard. Imminent Domain and Income Taxation are technically Constitutional, but it doesn't mean that they are right or that I will agree with them.

vant0037

unsung said:

I did answer your question, maybe the answer given just wasn't suitable for your needs.

A seizure took place, no charges have been filed as of yet, so maybe once the investigation is complete this 91 year old man will still be alive to accept the return of his belongings. I'm sure they will find some violation to be sure that they will "hopefully end up in museums where they belong" as someone else advocated.

Your profession does not offend me, neither do you, I simply don't understand your decision to always side opposite of the individual. Does it matter if the Constitution was violated? To me, that's a minimum standard. Imminent Domain and Income Taxation are technically Constitutional, but it doesn't mean that they are right or that I will agree with them.

No, you didn't answer the question. I said: if it's determined that these items were illegally obtained by this guy, and this whole seizure was part of criminal investigation, would you still have a problem with it?

You keep pointing out that no charges were filed; so what? Criminal investigation doesn't require instantaneous charges. Seizure doesn't require instantaneous charges. It requires a warrant. Are you sure there wasn't a warrant? How do you know there aren't charges coming? How do you know the items aren't subject to, say, a sacred items reclamation law (e.g. laws that require the return of even legally purchased religious items to Indian tribes).

You keep saying that the Constitution was violated; please provide the facts that support it. You've provided a link to a news story and boldly proclaimed it as an example of government abuse. I've asked to you articulate - WITH FACTS - from the story that prove, for example, that these items weren't subject to a criminal investigation, or that there was no warrant, or that the warrant was faulty etc. In short, I've asked you to do your homework.

Does my asking you to do that mean I'm "siding against the individual?" I don't even know what that phrase would mean. I am however unwilling to conclude that every time I read something I don't like means it's unconstitutional or illegal or immoral etc. It might just mean - gasp - that I don't have all the information, or that it's incomplete picture.

So. That's leaves us with your implication this is an example of unconstitutional government tyranny. You've cited a news story that says a large collection of items were seized from a 91 year old guy and that the FBI's "art crime" team was involved.

You're the proponent of the claim that the government was wrong here. What are your facts for backing that up?

callen

If they have hard proof dude stole this stuff it's one thing. Having a hunch and breaking into an individuals home sucks. He could of bought stuff fair and square. Course I don't have details but understand the frustrations people have with the fkn man.

callen

And doesn't matter if it's Native American as long as it wasn't stolen. Makes no difference.

Jason P

It's a true sign that we don't actually own anything in The United States of America. We only rent.

Wish I would have understood that when I "bought" my house and land ....

JWPearl

I found this interesting though quick tell your mother, i go tell my father..lol..its really annoying when your told you cant keep what belongs to you properly.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2569963/Couple-10-million-haul-gold-coins-forced-half-new-fortune-taxman.html

unsung

Jason P said:

It's a true sign that we don't actually own anything in The United States of America. We only rent.

Wish I would have understood that when I "bought" my house and land ....

So very true. Everything is allowed until you don't want to p(l)ay, then they take it all.

vant0037

Again, a lot of speculation with not a lot of information. But hey, it's the Internet right?

vant0037

callen said:

And doesn't matter if it's Native American as long as it wasn't stolen. Makes no difference.

That's really not true. There are lots of laws specifically regulating the collecting of Indian artifacts.

And even still, what if these items were obtained illegally?

What I don't get is, on its face, this looks like a criminal investigation. I could be way off, but at face value, that'd be my assumption. Some people have reached the opposite conclusion, without any more facts than I have. Why? Are we desperate for stories or news that "proves" some political point that we'll race to any conclusion, with or without facts to support?

I've still yet to hear from OP what facts he's found that make this whole operation unconstitutional. I've looked, and there isn't any info out there to conclude one way or another. So how are people sure this is government abuse and not law enforcement or criminal apprehension (something most of us would agree is important, right? Right?! ) )

unsung

I never said it was unconstitutional. Go back and show me where I said that. I said its a gross abuse of power. It reminds me of the raids on Gibson Guitars. Are they following their laws written to aid themselves? Quite possibly. Does that make it right? No.

I don't trust government to keep itself in check, that goes against their self preservation.

Halifax2TheMax

unsung said:

I never said it was unconstitutional. Go back and show me where I said that. I said its a gross abuse of power. It reminds me of the raids on Gibson Guitars. Are they following their laws written to aid themselves? Quite possibly. Does that make it right? No.

I don't trust government to keep itself in check, that goes against their self preservation.

What about the three branches of "government?" You know, checks and balances. Or is it all one huge giant web of abuse of power and conspiracy to you? Time for an Issa lead congressional oversight committee hearing or two or three, dontcha think? You act like this stuff happens in a vacuum or only started since January 2009. Where you been? And instead of voting for the 49th repeal of Obamacare, maybe the house should take up these "abuses" of power and taking away your "freedom" issues. But me thinks there might be more to this story than what your "sources" are telling you or maybe the family of the shrunken head would like it back, regardless of how it was "obtained."

Peace.

vant0037

unsung said:

I never said it was unconstitutional. Go back and show me where I said that. I said its a gross abuse of power. It reminds me of the raids on Gibson Guitars. Are they following their laws written to aid themselves? Quite possibly. Does that make it right? No.

I don't trust government to keep itself in check, that goes against their self preservation.

Get serious. You've implied as much. You asked at one point, something to the effect of "does it matter if the Constitution was violated?".

Sure. Of course it does. Now show me why you think it might have been here.

Now...does it matter if these items were taken illegally?

unsung

Halifax2TheMax said:

unsung said:

I never said it was unconstitutional. Go back and show me where I said that. I said its a gross abuse of power. It reminds me of the raids on Gibson Guitars. Are they following their laws written to aid themselves? Quite possibly. Does that make it right? No.

I don't trust government to keep itself in check, that goes against their self preservation.

What about the three branches of "government?" You know, checks and balances. Or is it all one huge giant web of abuse of power and conspiracy to you? Time for an Issa lead congressional oversight committee hearing or two or three, dontcha think? You act like this stuff happens in a vacuum or only started since January 2009. Where you been? And instead of voting for the 49th repeal of Obamacare, maybe the house should take up these "abuses" of power and taking away your "freedom" issues. But me thinks there might be more to this story than what your "sources" are telling you or maybe the family of the shrunken head would like it back, regardless of how it was "obtained."

Peace.

Actually where have you been? My criticism didn't begin in 2009. It began long before that.

I have little faith in checks and balances. The President writes laws now and SCOTUS doesn't keep anyone in check. Forgive me if I don't trust federal government with keeping itself reigned in.

Halifax2TheMax

So, when did your opposition begin? I'm wondering. When did you wake up to the tyranny? Serious questions. What was the defining act of government malfeasance for you? That has made you what you are today?

The president, not this one or any previous to him, "write laws." They issue rules. Executive orders. Been going on since day one. And this president, Barack Hussein Obama, has issued fewer than GWB, Clinton, Carter, and Nixon, Oh, the tyranny!

SCOTUS doesn't keep anyone in check? How about those gay marriage haters weren't kept in check? How about the campaign finance reformers? Were they kept in check? Define the "federal government."

Which articles of the constitution do you believe in? First and foremost, we're a nation of laws. Do you disagree?

Answers would be appreciated for an honest discussion.

Peace.

Pingfah

unsung said:

"Legal" theft.

You mean legal "theft".

callen

vant0037 said:

callen said:

And doesn't matter if it's Native American as long as it wasn't stolen. Makes no difference.

That's really not true. There are lots of laws specifically regulating the collecting of Indian artifacts.

And even still, what if these items were obtained illegally?

What I don't get is, on its face, this looks like a criminal investigation. I could be way off, but at face value, that'd be my assumption. Some people have reached the opposite conclusion, without any more facts than I have. Why?) )

And there are a lot of laws that suck. So laws have absolutely no value for the sake of being a law. Debating on merits of collecting certain Native American items probably requires another thread, not in scope.

And as I wrote in previous post, if they were indeed stolen another matter and I don't have all the facts.

Understand how Unsung and many others including myself get pissed at the states easy ability and socially acceptable means of infringing on private property rights.

vant0037

callen said:

Understand how Unsung and many others including myself get pissed at the states easy ability and socially acceptable means of infringing on private property rights.

Again, that's a huge conclusion to reach when in the same post, you concede that you don't have all the facts. It's getting way ahead of yourself to say that, on the one hand, this is a case of the "states easy ability to..infring[e] on private property rights" and yet, on the other hand, that the method with which these items were obtained would influence your view.

In other words, if you don't know that how these items were obtained by this guy (namely: legally vs. illegally), then how you can determine whether this is an abuse of state power or an appropriate exercise of it?

If someone is going to post a link and call it abuse, at least have the facts to back it up. Why is due diligence in backing up your arguments no longer important? That has been my whole point here. If this is in fact an example of the state abusing its power, then fine. But at least support it with facts. I've yet to see anything that points to, say, the legal status of these items or that the state/FBI didn't have a warrant. In fact, OP's own story confirms that the FBI's art crime team was involved. And from that we conclude that the state is acting beyond it's power? That's a huge conclusion to reach and if true, we definitely need more facts. To argue otherwise without said facts is irresponsible, perhaps purposefully. But as I'm starting to finally learn, being responsible with what we do and say isn't always a concern for some of us here.

Maybe that's the whole point...

callen

Your reading too much into my response. What is my point? This particular case? No. Does this case make one question the states power to enter your private property and seize assets without having hard evidence?Yes.

rgambs

vant0037 said:

callen said:

Understand how Unsung and many others including myself get pissed at the states easy ability and socially acceptable means of infringing on private property rights.

Again, that's a huge conclusion to reach when in the same post, you concede that you don't have all the facts. It's getting way ahead of yourself to say that, on the one hand, this is a case of the "states easy ability to..infring[e] on private property rights" and yet, on the other hand, that the method with which these items were obtained would influence your view.

In other words, if you don't know that how these items were obtained by this guy (namely: legally vs. illegally), then how you can determine whether this is an abuse of state power or an appropriate exercise of it?

If someone is going to post a link and call it abuse, at least have the facts to back it up. Why is due diligence in backing up your arguments no longer important? That has been my whole point here. If this is in fact an example of the state abusing its power, then fine. But at least support it with facts. I've yet to see anything that points to, say, the legal status of these items or that the state/FBI didn't have a warrant. In fact, OP's own story confirms that the FBI's art crime team was involved. And from that we conclude that the state is acting beyond it's power? That's a huge conclusion to reach and if true, we definitely need more facts. To argue otherwise without said facts is irresponsible, perhaps purposefully. But as I'm starting to finally learn, being responsible with what we do and say isn't always a concern for some of us here.

Maybe that's the whole point...

this is a current events discussion on the forum of a goddamned bands fan club...lighten up!! "Being responsible with what we do and say" "due diligence"...this isn't Reuters, we all jump to conclusions here because if we didn't then we couldn't discuss CURRENT events as we never have all the facts. Debate the issue if you want but leave that drivel about due diligence out of it!

callen

Vant:

No we don’t have all the facts (as we’ve repeatedly pointed out) and we’ll likely never know everything FBI had prior to obliterating the owners privacy but that’s the reason for this thread….does the state abuse its powers over private citizens and their rights. And even go as far as “seizing” property, as they do when they feel capital was created using illegal means and then this property becomes the property of the state, even the seizing entity…ala Corvette cop cars, nice boats..etc.

Also love it when I hear people use the, “ well I don’t do anything wrong so listen into my conversations, read my emails, come into my living room…….by golly no problem.”


Now the following doesn’t inspire confidence. One would think that everyone would want to side on requiring preponderance of evidence prior to invading someone’s house.



http://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2014/04/02/fbi-seizing-artifacts-rural-indiana-home/7210675/

However, the FBI was careful not to say whether they believed the man, Don Miller, had knowingly broken any laws. The FBI's aim is to catalog the artifacts and return them to their countries of origin.

"We're collecting and analyzing with the goal of repatriation," FBI Special Agent Drew Northern said.

The aim of the FBI's efforts is to determine what each artifact is, where it came from and how Miller obtained it, Jones said, to determine whether some of the items might be illegal to possess privately.

Jones acknowledged that Miller might have acquired some of the items before the passage of U.S. laws or treaties prohibited their sale or purchase

The FBI and its partners might have a daunting task determining the origins and provenance of all of the items, Thom predicted.
"It may be 30 years — or never — before they have it all cataloged."

vant0037

callen said:

Vant:

No we don’t have all the facts (as we’ve repeatedly pointed out) and we’ll likely never know everything FBI had prior to obliterating the owners privacy but that’s the reason for this thread….does the state abuse its powers over private citizens and their rights. And even go as far as “seizing” property, as they do when they feel capital was created using illegal means and then this property becomes the property of the state, even the seizing entity…ala Corvette cop cars, nice boats..etc.

Also love it when I hear people use the, “ well I don’t do anything wrong so listen into my conversations, read my emails, come into my living room…….by golly no problem.”


Now the following doesn’t inspire confidence. One would think that everyone would want to side on requiring preponderance of evidence prior to invading someone’s house.

Of course I want a standard of proof before the state can perform ______ (think: warrants). But that sort of proves my point: how do you know a judge didn't approve a warrant here?

Bottom-line: if you're going to make a claim (maybe you didn't, but others did), please have the facts and evidence to back it up. All that's been cited is a story and a lot of speculation. Is it concerning if the state is abusing it's power? Of course. How do we know that's the case here? We don't. There are no facts that prove this is or isn't a permissible exercise of state power.