5 ms·

The fact that you can't read the article shows. You are totally misrepresenting what is happening now and what happened in the past to push a particular politic

The fact that you can't read the article shows. You are totally misrepresenting what is happening now and what happened in the past to push a particular political agenda. This has nothing to do with export laws. The documents were the property of Oxford in a collection that he oversaw. Now Oxford discovered that he sold the documents. Also, ancient artifacts are protected regardless of their value. That is what keeps their value in check. If every patch of dirt in Italy could be excavated and whatever is found sold on the international market, there would be a crazy land rush. So no. The rules never changed. They were not his items, they were Oxford's. And Hobby Lobby is totally accurate. They're a hate-filled group that somehow people still shop from. You are also significantly and intentionally warping what happened with some of their prior dealings where they smuggled artifacts into the country. They had to pay a 3 million dollar fine, return 3800 stolen items, when they intentionally forged documents. They didn't "not have a proper chain of custody" they faked the import country and contents of shipments to get them past customs after being repeatedly warned about not doing this. This is just a matter of looking up on wikipedia. When you lie to protect an evil corporation like Hobby Lobby, you don't get to say that somehow other people are bigots. Why is it that the Christian right in the US is ok with lying all the time? Isn't there a commandment in the bible about this?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 7y ago
Your post is extremely misleading with respect to the Iraqi antiquities case. Here is the Government's complaint in that case: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/press-release/file/978096/download https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/press-release/file/978096/.... And here is the stipulation of settlement entered into by the Government and Hobby lobby: http://www.artcrimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/353711907-Stipulation-of-Settlement-in-Hobby-Lobby-Antiquities-Case.pdf http://www.artcrimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/3.... First, "they" did not "intentionally forg[e] documents" or "fak[e] the import country and contents." The government never accused them of that. That conduct is all attributed to Hobby Lobby's dealers, which are addressed under the heading "Additional in rem Defendants" in the complaint. The government never alleges that Hobby Lobby knew about any of that conduct. Second, Hobby Lobby did not "pay a 3 million fine." That implies that the government proved the allegations in the complaint. It is critical to understand that the government didn't need to prove that Hobby Lobby itself did anything wrong or knew anything. The government seized the incoming shipment under civil asset forfeiture. Under the customs laws, it only needed to establish that it was more likely than not that the items were exported in violation of Iraqi law. Hobby Lobby, as the buyer, had the right to contest that allegation, but it could not prevail simply by showing that it was innocent. Hobby Lobby agreed to forfeit the items and settle for $3 million, but the stipulation of settlement does not admit wrongdoing. The company has consistently maintained that its dealers told it the origin of the items was Israel, and that their failure was not exercising proper precautions in verifying that information.
- mannykannot 7y ago
  The law rightly sets a high bar for accusations of intent, but when someone who is knowledgeable about the antiquities market turns up as the recipient of misappropriated property in multiple cases, it raises questions of both intent and ethics. Your post persuasively refutes some of the claims in the post you are replying to. As you present it, however, neither party seems to have had much reason to raise the issue of intent, and consequently your narrow focus on the legal claims does not go far towards resolving that question.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    > The law rightly sets a high bar for accusations of intent It doesn't. The bar for making an accusation is merely having a good faith belief that you will be able to prove the existence of intent. You don't even need evidence in order to make the allegation. It is therefore critical to note that the government didn't accuse Hobby Lobby of knowingly or intentionally buying looted artifacts. While intent isn't an element of the civil forfeiture claim, if there was a good faith basis for asserting intent or knowledge, it would have been added for "color."
TimTheTinker 7y ago
> They're a hate-filled group That's quite a claim - by the definition of "hate", you're saying that the individuals who run Hobby Lobby "feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone)". You may not like certain specifics of their employee healthcare policy, but having such a policy does not imply hate on their part -- such a conclusion doesn't follow logically. Or is there another fact that would imply hatred on their part?
- mmanfrin 7y ago
  > You may not like certain specifics of their employee healthcare policy, but having such a policy does not imply hate on their part I personally disagree, and I disagree strongly.
  - TimTheTinker 7y ago
    You're saying that in order to enact such a policy, a person would have to feel "intense or passionate dislike" for certain people. I don't see the logical connection between the two. Could you explain how the one implies the other?
    - mmanfrin 7y ago
      How on earth did you get that from what I said? I think they are a hateful group because they so vehemently wanted to deny medical access through their mandated healthcare program.
      - TimTheTinker 7y ago
        > How on earth did you get that from what I said? You said you disagree with my statement that "having such a policy does not imply hate on their part" -- which I take to mean you think having such a policy does imply hatred. I just repeated that, but replaced the word "hate" with its definition -- "feeling intense or passionate dislike for (someone)". > I think they are a hateful group because they so vehemently wanted to deny medical access through their mandated healthcare program. You're using emotionally loaded terms that assume a particular attitude on their part. My point is that if you don't start by assuming any particular attitude and evaluate their actions alone, those actions don't necessarily imply an intense dislike for anyone (i.e. hatred).
dang 7y ago
Your comment crosses into personal attack. That breaks the site guidelines and we ban accounts that do that, regardless of how wrong or annoying another comment is. You also can't take HN threads into religious flamewar, and we ban accounts that do that as well, so please don't do that either. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: I should add that there's a fine factual comment struggling to get out of what you wrote there; had you edited out the personal and flamey bits, the comment would be a good contribution to the thread. Unfortunately the guidelines violations cause more harm than the factual information adds value.
- microtherion 7y ago
  These criteria are reasonable, but it seems to me that they also need to be applied to the grandfather post. Surely, it's not OK to preemptively fling accusations of anti-Christian "bigotry" against people who would like "Christian" businessmen to take that "shalt not steal" bit more seriously?
  - dang 7y ago
    Yes, that bit was flamebait. I didn't see it earlier, and have replied now. Religious flamewar grows exponentially. First step flamebait, second step flame comment, third step entire thread flamewar. What it does to the site, exercise for the reader.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 7y ago

Your post is extremely misleading with respect to the Iraqi antiquities case. Here is the Government's complaint in that case: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/press-release/file/978096/download https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/press-release/file/978096/.... And here is the stipulation of settlement entered into by the Government and Hobby lobby: http://www.artcrimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/353711907-Stipulation-of-Settlement-in-Hobby-Lobby-Antiquities-Case.pdf http://www.artcrimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/3.... First, "they" did not "intentionally forg[e] documents" or "fak[e] the import country and contents." The government never accused them of that. That conduct is all attributed to Hobby Lobby's dealers, which are addressed under the heading "Additional in rem Defendants" in the complaint. The government never alleges that Hobby Lobby knew about any of that conduct. Second, Hobby Lobby did not "pay a 3 million fine." That implies that the government proved the allegations in the complaint. It is critical to understand that the government didn't need to prove that Hobby Lobby itself did anything wrong or knew anything. The government seized the incoming shipment under civil asset forfeiture. Under the customs laws, it only needed to establish that it was more likely than not that the items were exported in violation of Iraqi law. Hobby Lobby, as the buyer, had the right to contest that allegation, but it could not prevail simply by showing that it was innocent. Hobby Lobby agreed to forfeit the items and settle for $3 million, but the stipulation of settlement does not admit wrongdoing. The company has consistently maintained that its dealers told it the origin of the items was Israel, and that their failure was not exercising proper precautions in verifying that information.

mannykannot 7y ago
The law rightly sets a high bar for accusations of intent, but when someone who is knowledgeable about the antiquities market turns up as the recipient of misappropriated property in multiple cases, it raises questions of both intent and ethics. Your post persuasively refutes some of the claims in the post you are replying to. As you present it, however, neither party seems to have had much reason to raise the issue of intent, and consequently your narrow focus on the legal claims does not go far towards resolving that question.
- rayiner 7y ago
  > The law rightly sets a high bar for accusations of intent It doesn't. The bar for making an accusation is merely having a good faith belief that you will be able to prove the existence of intent. You don't even need evidence in order to make the allegation. It is therefore critical to note that the government didn't accuse Hobby Lobby of knowingly or intentionally buying looted artifacts. While intent isn't an element of the civil forfeiture claim, if there was a good faith basis for asserting intent or knowledge, it would have been added for "color."

TimTheTinker 7y ago

> They're a hate-filled group That's quite a claim - by the definition of "hate", you're saying that the individuals who run Hobby Lobby "feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone)". You may not like certain specifics of their employee healthcare policy, but having such a policy does not imply hate on their part -- such a conclusion doesn't follow logically. Or is there another fact that would imply hatred on their part?

mmanfrin 7y ago
> You may not like certain specifics of their employee healthcare policy, but having such a policy does not imply hate on their part I personally disagree, and I disagree strongly.
- TimTheTinker 7y ago
  You're saying that in order to enact such a policy, a person would have to feel "intense or passionate dislike" for certain people. I don't see the logical connection between the two. Could you explain how the one implies the other?
  - mmanfrin 7y ago
    How on earth did you get that from what I said? I think they are a hateful group because they so vehemently wanted to deny medical access through their mandated healthcare program.
    - TimTheTinker 7y ago
      > How on earth did you get that from what I said? You said you disagree with my statement that "having such a policy does not imply hate on their part" -- which I take to mean you think having such a policy does imply hatred. I just repeated that, but replaced the word "hate" with its definition -- "feeling intense or passionate dislike for (someone)". > I think they are a hateful group because they so vehemently wanted to deny medical access through their mandated healthcare program. You're using emotionally loaded terms that assume a particular attitude on their part. My point is that if you don't start by assuming any particular attitude and evaluate their actions alone, those actions don't necessarily imply an intense dislike for anyone (i.e. hatred).

dang 7y ago

Your comment crosses into personal attack. That breaks the site guidelines and we ban accounts that do that, regardless of how wrong or annoying another comment is. You also can't take HN threads into religious flamewar, and we ban accounts that do that as well, so please don't do that either. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: I should add that there's a fine factual comment struggling to get out of what you wrote there; had you edited out the personal and flamey bits, the comment would be a good contribution to the thread. Unfortunately the guidelines violations cause more harm than the factual information adds value.

microtherion 7y ago
These criteria are reasonable, but it seems to me that they also need to be applied to the grandfather post. Surely, it's not OK to preemptively fling accusations of anti-Christian "bigotry" against people who would like "Christian" businessmen to take that "shalt not steal" bit more seriously?
- dang 7y ago
  Yes, that bit was flamebait. I didn't see it earlier, and have replied now. Religious flamewar grows exponentially. First step flamebait, second step flame comment, third step entire thread flamewar. What it does to the site, exercise for the reader.