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

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.

callen

Vant: Granted I haven't read warrant and don't have all details judge received but you have to question based on the excerpts I pulled from story quoting the FBI. And again the guy may be a stealing POS but feel OP has a valid concern and posting this story had merit. Plus it's pretty dead in MT so thank goodness for Unsung.

And your insights as well. All good. BUT FK THE MAN.

vant0037

callen said:

Vant: Granted I haven't read warrant and don't have all details judge received but you have to question based on the excerpts I pulled from story quoting the FBI. And again the guy may be a stealing POS but feel OP has a valid concern and posting this story had merit. Plus it's pretty dead in MT so thank goodness for Unsung.

And your insights as well. All good. BUT FK THE MAN.

I appreciate a healthy debate and skepticism. I just get tired of all the jumping to conclusions that gets done on the internet and by the media. That's all.

callen

Houston just passed a hoarding law. So if the law or relatives or landlord claims you hoed they can fine you and more. Total bs.

Godfather.

if you have something the government wants they will take it even if it means destroying everything you've worked for all your life.


Godfather.

Kat

Just a fascinating story and Don Miller worked on the Manhattan Project too.
https://www.vocativ.com/culture/art-culture/indianas-real-indiana-jones/

I found this story on Cornelius Gurlitt after I found the Don Miller story. I'm just glad the art and artifacts are preserved and hopefully all rightful owners will recover any property they deserve to recover. There's a slideshow of some of the art on this one.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cornelius-gurlitt-infamous-german-art-collector-dies-at-81/

goingtoverona

@Kat, so it looks like the guy left his entire estate to a museum in Switzerland. I wonder if his heirs will dispute the will and try to keep the art since the statute of limitations ran out for the art theft and technically it would belong to his family.

http://news.yahoo.com/swiss-museum-named-sole-heir-gurlitt-142848643.html

Kat

@goingtoverona, I guess it's going to depend on the laws they follow but I hope the art will end up in the hands of the rightful owners in spite of that statue of limitations. It doesn't seem right that the ownership should change if/after something was determined to have been stolen. It's such an amazing collection and should be in the public's eye too, not hidden in a private collection. It's inspiring and educational for everyone, artists and art lovers.

PJ_Soul