Ernie gets probation
- Thread starter Mr. Bond
- Start date
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.
Probably the most ignorant, ill conceived post ever made on AZB!..Ernie is an accepted member of our pool community, and a damn good one!..I doubt that he is a millionaire, but even if he were, the punishment meted out to him, was grossly unfair!
I am sure he was not in favor of the killing, or poaching of elephants, to obtain ivory for his works of art as a top rated cue maker!..He has been a victim of vague and changing laws, re; the use of ivory, and would have gladly used an alternative material, had he known where this was headed!
PS..To call him a "lowlife", makes everyone question your intention, and certainly your sanity!..(you were very clever in remaining 'incognito')
Last edited:
I'm not offended. I find what you implied offensive.
Which is clearly just your opinion, albeit an uninformed one.
Problem is, when an uninformed opinion is recklessly directed at the reputation of another person, it illustrates not only a lack of basic reading comprehension, but also a complete disregard for the feelings of the person of whom you are speaking, along with those who may also hold that person in high esteem.
Insisting that your ill-informed and derogatory opinion be heard, no matter what the cost to that person or anyone else, as a child might do when they throw a tantrum, is the epitome of selfishness.
As if you are qualified to pass judgement on anyone.
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.
Probably the most ignorant, ill conceived post ever made on AZB!..Ernie is an accepted member of our pool community, and a damn good one!..I doubt that he is a millionaire, but even if he were, the punishment meted out to him, was grossly unfair!
I am sure he was not in favor of the killing, or poaching of elephants, to obtain ivory for his works of art as a top rated cue maker!..He has been a victim of vague and changing laws, re; the use of ivory, and would have gladly used an alternative material, had he known where this was headed!
PS..To call him a "lowlife", makes everyone question your intention, and certainly your sanity!..(you were very clever in remaining 'incognito')
SJD, I would like to say a couple things and be honest about it as I always do. First; I've made it crystal clear I support Ernie, and have since the get. In NO WAY do I think another human should be locked up for using whatever from an ANIMAL, PERIOD. Do yall remember the triangles they used to use back when we were in school showing the food chain? We ( humans ) were ( AND HOPEFULLY STILL ARE LOL ) were at the top of that food chain. DO I want elephants to go extinct ? NO, DEFINITELY NOT. But do I want to see a good man lose everything including his freedom that he has worked his ENTIRE LIFE for due to one of those animals? FUUUCK NO I DONT!!!!!!
The use of ivory is supposedly cut and dry according to the gub. No grey area, supposedly. Either it is pretty ban, or it is not. You have paperwork, or you dont. Due to the outcome of this case we all HAVE TO ASSUME GINA'S paperwork was not in order. THEN you throw in the fact that MAYBE some folks that he sold to " legally " was gonna take it out of the country. Adds a whole nother can of worms to the equation.
We all can debate this portion till we are blue in the face. I 100% stand by my original opinion that he IS NOT, AND SHOULD NOT BE responsible for what an individual does with the product once he ( Ernie ) legally sells something to them !
Speculate all yards want whether he did or did not know this or that, but bottom line is this is A VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE once it is determined the government is able to " KNOW " what you are thinking ! !!!
SJD, what I was actually trying to get at with you is while I totally support Ernie and do think this ENTIRE THING is nothing but HORSESHIT, with his back against the wall ( time frame wise ) and knowing the climate in which he was operating he absolutely decided to roll the dice and sadly he capped out!!!!
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.
Prosecutors are not the ones who decide whether a law is right or wrong. That is a matter for legislators and judges.
Are you? It is you and the whole pool culture that is essentially, morally exonerating him for what was pretty clearly engaging in a criminal conspiracy. I know that in the pool world talent trumps everything. But criminal behavior is criminal behavior.
The final disposition seems entirely reasonable to me. Craftsmen do not get their own set of laws or standards.
Ernie always bought his ivory legally. But he got caught between eras.
For decades no one gave a rat's ass about ivory in pool cues other than to appreciate the artistry. Wrapping up his long, illustrious career Ernie was creating his last masterpieces. He's a master craftsman and a pool institution and got caught at the crossroads of changing times. You might as well call Antonio Stradivari and Guarneri del Gesù low lifes.
Lou Figueroa
FWIW.. I just read the new USA laws have not slowed the slaughter, and that this will all depend on the Pacific Rim Countries. (Called it.. 
) Nice try libtards.. got rope.. plenty of trees..
JV
) Nice try libtards.. got rope.. plenty of trees..JV
FWIW.. I just read the new USA laws have not slowed the slaughter, and that this will all depend on the Pacific Rim Countries. (Called it..
JV
How are they satisfying all the demands for ivory in China ?
By buying more newly poached ivory of course.
But, let's blame the cues, gun grips and knife handles in the US.
Save your ivory. When elephants become extinct, they might become legal again.
Last edited:
Low life behavior lol that's a little harsh ,, We in the rest of the clear thinking World hardly see the deaf dumb and stupid laws that come out of California anything other than a joke
If the state fell of into the ocean the rest of the country could care less
1
Save an elephant.. vote GOP... lol
Seriously.. who were they kidding? These are just special interest groups that take money and donations and NOT put a dime into the effort, just their pockets and lib politicians. They could give a rats a$$ about the elephants, this is how much money can we get from these tree huggers till they catch on.
Poor elephants... these wildlifers are wild life railbirds.. all talk, no get off the stool...
JV
Seriously.. who were they kidding? These are just special interest groups that take money and donations and NOT put a dime into the effort, just their pockets and lib politicians. They could give a rats a$$ about the elephants, this is how much money can we get from these tree huggers till they catch on.
Poor elephants... these wildlifers are wild life railbirds.. all talk, no get off the stool...
JV
I'd like to be in the room when you say that to his face. But you won',t because you have no balls.
According to this article dated November 8, the two customers, Huang Ching Liu and Wen Shou Wei Chen, have only been indicted as yet.
http://worldanimalnews.com/vanguard-pool-cue-maker-sentenced-aiding-illegal-ivory-trade/
This site is animal-specific, so don't jump on me, I am just providing a link.
Personally, if I thought there was a direct link between Ernie and the death of elephants I would wish for a longer sentence; but without such justification, all I see here is a hungry prosecutor trying to make a name, and using the enormous cost of defending oneself, and the threat of long jail terms (life, basically, in Ernie's case) to extort a plea bargain.
These extortionist plea bargains happen each and every day across America, but we seldom hear of them unless we have ties to the black and Hispanic and poor white community. Those guys get threatened with twenty years for 'assault on a police officer' when all they did was fall wrong when told to 'get on the ground, scumbag'. They have to plead guilty to crimes they did not commit, because the threat of standing in front of a jury of their peers, none of which are truly their peers, is a threat to send them to prison for many, many years - for crimes they did not commit.
Don't even get me started on the extortionist bail bond system in state and local courts... where a guy can lose everything he owns, his motorhome filled with his life's stuff, for lack of $50 cash to buy a $500 bond to get out of jail for a charge that wasn't real in the first place, and that was later dismissed for lack of evidence - but by that time the impound fees were near $1400, and all he could do was take the bus ticket paid for by some social do-gooders and leave town.
In this article linked above, the prosecutor says that Ernie somehow is responsible for something bad happening to wildlife, which is just not true. He was not charged with owning illegal ivory, just with aiding and abetting the illegal export of ivory, and there is a big difference - if he had illegal ivory, why was he not charged for it? Because they had no case against him for illegal ivory. Matter of fact, if I am in possession of correct facts, the federal prosecutors had no case at all until those guys tried to take the ivory cues on a plane headed to Taiwan. At that point, with the Feds waiting to jump in, Ernie was a trapped animal. Trapped by the Feds.
I guess now every cue maker or cue owner who has ivory in the cue(s) must know prior to the sale the exact intent of what their customer will eventually do with the cues. It the buyer intends to head for Taiwan, better know it in advance. Matter of fact, it they have slanted eyes, epicanthic folds, yellow skin, or talk funny - then don't sell them anything, or if they have a certain accent, or look African, or whatever.
Better safe than sorry.
I'm gonna say again what I said when I first heard of this : I personally think this case is about as retarded as one could be. Regardless of the emails or whatever else if anything, I whole heartedly think it is utter BS to think every and any merchant is going to know or really have any idear what his customer's intentions are FOR ANY item he / she may sell them. Sounds like merchants better start taking some psychic classes or something so they can stay out of jail lol SMH.
In my mind; to be totally fair and objective in this situation, I believe the determining factor in this instance should have been this : If these cues / parts were sold by Ernie to these two guys and they were acting as Brokers to a third party for someone in Chinatown ( Asia ) and he was not paid in full before giving possession to these guys then yes Ernie could be considered Aiding ( or whatever the bs charges were ). But if in fact he sold the cues outright to the two guys then it was just a normal transaction that seems to be totally in compliance with the current laws and he should have no culpability if these two morans try to take them onto an international flight then I truly do not see how Ernie nor anyone else should be held accountable for someone elses actions. Just my opinion and really seems like common sense to me ( which btw, no one has ever accused the law / government of having lol ). Apparently the law does not see it the same way as I do ( which is not the first time nor probably the last
), so with that being the case I'd say Ernie was pretty " lucky " all things considered.
I didnt say that Ernie is blameless and I never suggested that his punishment is unreasonable.
.... " the whole pool culture" is doing no such thing.
Please explain the alleged 'criminal conspiracy' with supporting evidence for those of us who don't understand as much as you do.