Ernie gets probation

[Texdance]

You can sugarcoat it anyway you want, but that is the very definition of conspiracy. His behavior was lowlife behavior.

But this is the pool culture. If someone does one thing well enough they get a free pass on other things.

Nobody has said Ernie should get a free pass for any crime, at least from what I've read so far. The only out he's been given is the possibility that he sold the cues legally to be possessed legally in the US, then was blindsided when the buyers attempted to take them to Taiwan.

I am sure you have never had the misfortune to stand before a prosecutor and hope to hell to get a plea bargain for a lesser charge, because what they are really threatening you with is effectively a life sentence, a death sentence, for what is a he-said-she said crime of 'did he know they were going to Taiwan' and 'did he try to help them smuggle ivory out of the country', or was he just unable to come up with a defense he could trust would lead to a verdict he could live with.

Your balls will climb up into your stomach if ever charged with a felony. You will have to decide what is best for your life - plead not guilty because you are not guilty, or plead guilty to some charge because you can't afford the legal fees, can't afford the bad publicity, and most especially can't serve the draconian sentence you might get were you to plead not guilty, but lose your case.

Worst case is to be of limited means and to know there is no money to investigate your case, no money to hire a dream team of lawyers, while the government has a blank check to hire use as many lawyers and investigators as they can get their boss to approve... the sky is the limit for their staffing and funding. It is the entire judicial system of the Federal Government for crying out loud, against the resources of one citizen.

When your life is on the line, as Mr. Gutierrez's has been due to his age, you have to take the best deal you can get and live with it.

But that does not make Ernie a conspirator (the charge was not conspiracy) nor does it make him a low life (not a charge, either). It just means an ordinary citizen, faced with the extraordinary might and money of the federal judicial system, had to make a pragmatic decision based his judgment of the potential outcomes.

It happens daily, the extortion of a coerced or semi-coerced plea bargain, but it usually happens in state courts, and to inner city blacks, Hispanics and poor whites. Guilty or not, he took a plea of guilty and will have to live with it, though no court or jury found him guilty prior to his plea of guilt, which may or may not have had an element of coercion behind it.

I'm waiting for the book.

 

[chefjeff]

Regardless of whether or not value is subjective, you can have property rights without allowing human beings to own and mistreat other animals, just like you can have property rights without allowing human beings to own and mistreat other human beings.

The answer to the problem of how humans mistreat other animals is not to let us own them and mass produce other animals for our owns ends.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Are you claiming that a Person cannot own an animal? Or that an animal can claim it owns itself?


Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

Maybe so, but if you have laws people have to follow them. Sure one can engage in civil disobedience if one is willing to pay the price, but this wasn't civil disobedience, this was breaking the law to make a profit. He deserved to be punished, IMO, but for someone with a clean record it would have been grotesque to put him in prison. But he should pay and I believe he has paid, a price for his criminal behavior. He knew exactly what he was doing and got caught. Legal fees, court costs, a fine, and seizing the property and cash in question seem like very reasonable consequences to me. It could have been much worse. I'm sure he would prefer these financial consequences and 2 years probation over no financial consequences and 2 years in prison.

If the legislation is not law but merely disguised as law, it SHOULD BE broken. That is a freeman's duty, and that is what America was really founded upon, common law, natural law, universal law, god's law. The Declaration of Independence was quite clear about this. fwiw

Again THE point of justice: you got ONE victim of Ernie's?? Just one? that's all it takes.


Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

You can sugarcoat it anyway you want, but that is the very definition of conspiracy. His behavior was lowlife behavior.

But this is the pool culture. If someone does one thing well enough they get a free pass on other things.

So he and two others conspired to trade stuffs. ooo, some "crime."

Got a victim, yet?


Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

Prosecutors are not the ones who decide whether a law is right or wrong. That is a matter for legislators and judges.

The prosecutors decided he was guilty and offered him an extortion deal, a deal he couldn't refuse: pay up or sit in a cage and pay up.

Who made the decision that Ernie was "guilty?" A jury? nope. The judge conspired with the prosecutors, as they do in 90% of cases, and figured out how to get their stuff without too much cost to them. When was justice ever a part of that?

Got a victim of Ernie's yet? No? Ergo, he is, in reality, not guilty of violating real law. I.e., he is innocent.


Jeff Livingston

 

[cueaddicts]

Obligatory ivory thread with the same players and a few anonymous trolls.

Nothing new here, run along.

Glad Ernie isn't faced with the prospect of jail time. But this is still very sad.

 

[MuchoBurrito]

If the legislation is not law but merely disguised as law, it SHOULD BE broken. That is a freeman's duty, and that is what America was really founded upon, common law, natural law, universal law, god's law. The Declaration of Independence was quite clear about this. fwiw

Again THE point of justice: you got ONE victim of Ernie's?? Just one? that's all it takes.


Jeff Livingston

The victim is the Elephant that was killed for it's Ivory. No different than the victim in an animal cruelty case being a dead dog or something. There's the victim, it's very obvious and direct.

And not for nothing, but you used "common law", "natural law" and "god's law" as though they have anything in common. They are nearly antonyms. And I'm sorry to say that legislation is law, that's like, literally the definition of legislation. Some sovereign citizen nonsense about "god's law" or whatever is basically just trolling society.

And again, the idea that privatization is better because it would result in... what, fewer prosecutions? Fewer dead Elephants? What would be better? You're saying there would be a stronger incentive to protect Elephants if they were privately owned, which means that there would be MORE prosecutions for illegal trading in Ivory, not less. There would be MORE people like Ernie prosecuted, not less.

I think you're argument is self defeating tbh.

And please don't mistake this to be my endorsement of the American "judicial" system. It's a joke and a mess that overincarcerates and oppresses people for profit. I personally don't think a 75 year old man should be in prison for buying/selling Ivory, I do obviously think it is right to be considered a crime (which it is), but not one that necessarily merits prison time.

 

[chefjeff]

The victim is the Elephant that was killed for it's Ivory. No different than the victim in an animal cruelty case being a dead dog or something. There's the victim, it's very obvious and direct.

And not for nothing, but you used "common law", "natural law" and "god's law" as though they have anything in common. They are nearly antonyms. And I'm sorry to say that legislation is law, that's like, literally the definition of legislation. Some sovereign citizen nonsense about "god's law" or whatever is basically just trolling society.

And again, the idea that privatization is better because it would result in... what, fewer prosecutions? Fewer dead Elephants? What would be better? You're saying there would be a stronger incentive to protect Elephants if they were privately owned, which means that there would be MORE prosecutions for illegal trading in Ivory, not less. There would be MORE people like Ernie prosecuted, not less.

I think you're argument is self defeating tbh.

And please don't mistake this to be my endorsement of the American "judicial" system. It's a joke and a mess that overincarcerates and oppresses people for profit. I personally don't think a 75 year old man should be in prison for buying/selling Ivory, I do obviously think it is right to be considered a crime (which it is), but not one that necessarily merits prison time.

It used to be "legal" to own others, for just one example. It was never lawful. There are thousands of other examples.


Jeff Livingston

 

[MuchoBurrito]

It used to be "legal" to own others, for just one example. It was never lawful. There are thousands of other examples.


Jeff Livingston

Yes, it was lawful, by definition.

You are correct though that "legal" and "right" are not the same thing.

 

[chefjeff]

Yes, it was lawful, by definition.

You are correct though that "legal" and "right" are not the same thing.

That was my point here.

Nice talking with you and I think we both agree that Ernie's nightmare is coming to an end.



Jeff Livingston

 

[MuchoBurrito]

That was my point here.

Nice talking with you and I think we both agree that Ernie's nightmare is coming to an end.



Jeff Livingston

You as well.

I am glad an old man doesn't have to go through the system nonetheless. That would have been injustice as well.

 

[PoolBum]

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Are you claiming that a Person cannot own an animal? Or that an animal can claim it owns itself?


Jeff Livingston

I'm saying that it's no solution to the problems about animal welfare posed by the ivory market that we allow humans to simply own and produce elephants for our own ends. That would obviously not eliminate the cruelty inflicted on these animals by humans.

 

[robertno1pool]

Ernie

So who get $10,000.00 USD and what is it being spent on?


My guess is the elephants see zero (0) US dollars or a more reproductive lifestyle.

 

[chefjeff]

I'm saying that it's no solution to the problems about animal welfare posed by the ivory market that we allow humans to simply own and produce elephants for our own ends. That would obviously not eliminate the cruelty inflicted on these animals by humans.

Yes, it would.

Sometimes.

But without property rights, that choice doesn't even exist. Without property rights, no substitute for ivory pool balls would have been possible. And so forth. It all ties together in the long run as long as a guy knows that what he owns he controls.

There is no Utopia.



Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

So who get $10,000.00 USD and what is it being spent on?


My guess is the elephants see zero (0) US dollars or a more reproductive lifestyle.

The victims.

But wait....


Jeff Livingston

 

[PoolBum]

Yes, it would.

Really? Because we treat the animals that we currently own and mass produce for our own ends so well?

But without property rights, that choice doesn't even exist. Without property rights, no substitute for ivory pool balls would have been possible. And so forth. It all ties together in the long run as long as a guy knows that what he owns he controls.

There is no Utopia.

Jeff Livingston

I haven't said anything to the effect that we shouldn't have property rights. Having property rights doesn't mean we have the right to inflict unnecessary suffering on other animals.

 

[one stroke]

I think Ernie dodged a bullet. The charges was quite serious.
I hope this will result in more custom cues without ivory or other materials from endangered species.

Well it might in the breast feed leader of the bleeding hart states but I doubt it changes much in the rational thinking population who understand cue makers already have ample supply of legal acquired stock of ivory


1

 

[Lonestar_jim]

These ivory threads...as one cue guy stated.

After reading this one I assume some here to be reliving the days you spent in debate class. I know the type well. He likes to be right or argue for the sake of arguing.

Ernie caught between the new law and the old. That is certain.

Now half of you can go bugger off.

I hear Trump gonna XO them bullsht ivory laws.

Alas you will surely find something to argue about. Enjoy.

 

[one stroke]

These ivory threads...as one cue guy stated.

After reading this one I assume some here to be reliving the days you spent in debate class. I know the type well. He likes to be right or argue for the sake of arguing.

Ernie caught between the new law and the old. That is certain.

Now half of you can go bugger off.

I hear Trump gonna XO them bullsht ivory laws.

Alas you will surely find something to argue about. Enjoy.

You can add that to the things he said he will do and not get done

1

 

[chefjeff]

Really? Because we treat the animals that we currently own and mass produce for our own ends so well?

.

That's ONE choice made with property. My point is property must exist and be protected or else EVERYTHING goes violent, including wasting ALL resources, animals and what not.

I haven't said anything to the effect that we shouldn't have property rights. Having property rights doesn't mean we have the right to inflict unnecessary suffering on other animals.

Yes, it does. IF one truly owns the animal. Now, would it be better if the owner did this or that re the animal? Could be, but justice demands that other ways beside the justice system deal with such things. Culture, for just one example, saves more animals than does bad law.

Just because someone does something with HIS property that you don't like does not mean you can violate his property rights to stop him, IF you actually believe in property rights.

Some here may recoil at what I'm saying, but if the principle holds the principle holds. Libertarianism is based on self ownership, not based on a system to make each of us moral humans. It isn't that inclusive, that isn't its purpose. That quest to treat animals as you wish isn't so simple as scratching words onto parchment. This thread is a demonstration of that fact.

Regardless, without full rights to control what one owns, doom.


Jeff Livingston