On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 18:16:29 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Aug 26, 8:48*am, JustWait wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57653052047122...

This **** is getting old.

This is only one part of the article that gets me, Scott.


"Consider the recent experience of Pascal Vieillard, whose Atlanta-
area company, A-440 Pianos, imported several antique Bösendorfers. Mr.
Vieillard asked officials at the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species how to fill out the correct paperwork—which simply
encouraged them to alert U.S. Customs to give his shipment added
scrutiny.

There was never any question that the instruments were old enough to
have grandfathered ivory keys. But Mr. Vieillard didn't have his
paperwork straight when two-dozen federal agents came calling.

Facing criminal charges that might have put him in prison for years,
Mr. Vieillard pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of violating the
Lacey Act, and was handed a $17,500 fine and three years probation. "

So, he agreed that he violated the law and was fined. I don't
understand why you're upset. He did have to plead guilty.

wrote in message
news
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 18:16:29 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:


Facing criminal charges that might have put him in prison for years,
Mr. Vieillard pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of violating the
Lacey Act, and was handed a $17,500 fine and three years probation. "

So, he agreed that he violated the law and was fined. I don't
understand why you're upset. He did have to plead guilty.

--------------------------------------

Obviously you have completely missed the point.

In article ,
says...

wrote in message
news
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 18:16:29 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:


Facing criminal charges that might have put him in prison for years,
Mr. Vieillard pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of violating the
Lacey Act, and was handed a $17,500 fine and three years probation. "

So, he agreed that he violated the law and was fined. I don't
understand why you're upset. He did have to plead guilty.

--------------------------------------

Obviously you have completely missed the point.

The only point is this guy broke the law.
Why are defending a smuggler?
http://tinyurl.com/3j7qbbm
Do want all import laws and endangered species laws made null and void?
Anybody with a sense of decency wants to protect endangered species.
Does that exclude right-wingers trumping up bogus charges about some
"inconvenience" to business?
Is it okay with you to let right-wing politics allow species to become
extinct?
Have some decency!
If these guitar and piano sellers could overcome their fetish for
endangered species maybe they could educate their customers to rid
themselves of the same fetish.
There is NO reason for using rosewood or ivory except fetish.
If Gibson had a brain they would use a substitute, make it a selling
point, and sell more guitars.
But they have fetish instead of brain.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 09:26:43 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...

wrote in message
news
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 18:16:29 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:


Facing criminal charges that might have put him in prison for years,
Mr. Vieillard pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of violating the
Lacey Act, and was handed a $17,500 fine and three years probation. "

So, he agreed that he violated the law and was fined. I don't
understand why you're upset. He did have to plead guilty.

--------------------------------------

Obviously you have completely missed the point.

The only point is this guy broke the law.
Why are defending a smuggler?
http://tinyurl.com/3j7qbbm
Do want all import laws and endangered species laws made null and void?
Anybody with a sense of decency wants to protect endangered species.
Does that exclude right-wingers trumping up bogus charges about some
"inconvenience" to business?
Is it okay with you to let right-wing politics allow species to become
extinct?
Have some decency!
If these guitar and piano sellers could overcome their fetish for
endangered species maybe they could educate their customers to rid
themselves of the same fetish.
There is NO reason for using rosewood or ivory except fetish.
If Gibson had a brain they would use a substitute, make it a selling
point, and sell more guitars.
But they have fetish instead of brain.



Change your handle back to Loogy, Kevin. You're still displaying the same amount of sense.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 09:26:43 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...

wrote in message
news
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 18:16:29 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:


Facing criminal charges that might have put him in prison for years,
Mr. Vieillard pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of violating the
Lacey Act, and was handed a $17,500 fine and three years probation. "

So, he agreed that he violated the law and was fined. I don't
understand why you're upset. He did have to plead guilty.

--------------------------------------

Obviously you have completely missed the point.

The only point is this guy broke the law.
Why are defending a smuggler?
http://tinyurl.com/3j7qbbm
Do want all import laws and endangered species laws made null and void?
Anybody with a sense of decency wants to protect endangered species.
Does that exclude right-wingers trumping up bogus charges about some
"inconvenience" to business?
Is it okay with you to let right-wing politics allow species to become
extinct?
Have some decency!
If these guitar and piano sellers could overcome their fetish for
endangered species maybe they could educate their customers to rid
themselves of the same fetish.
There is NO reason for using rosewood or ivory except fetish.
If Gibson had a brain they would use a substitute, make it a selling
point, and sell more guitars.
But they have fetish instead of brain.



Change your handle back to Loogy, Kevin. You're still displaying the same amount of sense.

ESAD

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:04:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



wrote in message
news
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 18:16:29 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:


Facing criminal charges that might have put him in prison for years,
Mr. Vieillard pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of violating the
Lacey Act, and was handed a $17,500 fine and three years probation. "

So, he agreed that he violated the law and was fined. I don't
understand why you're upset. He did have to plead guilty.

--------------------------------------

Obviously you have completely missed the point.

Obviously, I didn't. He pled guilty. That's the point. If he was
innocent, he should have fought it.

I believe in plea bargains when the person pleading knows that it's
easy for the prosecutor to prove his case. I don't believe in them
when the defendant is pushed into it because the lawyer is lazy or too
busy.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:04:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



wrote in message
news
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 18:16:29 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:


Facing criminal charges that might have put him in prison for years,
Mr. Vieillard pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of violating the
Lacey Act, and was handed a $17,500 fine and three years probation. "

So, he agreed that he violated the law and was fined. I don't
understand why you're upset. He did have to plead guilty.

--------------------------------------

Obviously you have completely missed the point.

Obviously, I didn't. He pled guilty. That's the point. If he was
innocent, he should have fought it.

I believe in plea bargains when the person pleading knows that it's
easy for the prosecutor to prove his case. I don't believe in them
when the defendant is pushed into it because the lawyer is lazy or too
busy.

Just because someone chose not to fight the charges doesn't mean that
he's guilty.

On 8/30/2011 3:41 PM, iBoatMore wrote:
In ,
says...

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:04:29 -0400, wrote:



wrote in message
news
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 18:16:29 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:


Facing criminal charges that might have put him in prison for years,
Mr. Vieillard pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of violating the
Lacey Act, and was handed a $17,500 fine and three years probation. "

So, he agreed that he violated the law and was fined. I don't
understand why you're upset. He did have to plead guilty.

--------------------------------------

Obviously you have completely missed the point.

Obviously, I didn't. He pled guilty. That's the point. If he was
innocent, he should have fought it.

I believe in plea bargains when the person pleading knows that it's
easy for the prosecutor to prove his case. I don't believe in them
when the defendant is pushed into it because the lawyer is lazy or too
busy.

Just because someone chose not to fight the charges doesn't mean that
he's guilty.

She is Soooo naive.

On 8/30/2011 1:51 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 18:16:29 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Aug 26, 8:48 am, wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...57653052047122...

This **** is getting old.

This is only one part of the article that gets me, Scott.


"Consider the recent experience of Pascal Vieillard, whose Atlanta-
area company, A-440 Pianos, imported several antique Bösendorfers. Mr.
Vieillard asked officials at the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species how to fill out the correct paperwork—which simply
encouraged them to alert U.S. Customs to give his shipment added
scrutiny.

There was never any question that the instruments were old enough to
have grandfathered ivory keys. But Mr. Vieillard didn't have his
paperwork straight when two-dozen federal agents came calling.

Facing criminal charges that might have put him in prison for years,
Mr. Vieillard pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of violating the
Lacey Act, and was handed a $17,500 fine and three years probation. "

So, he agreed that he violated the law and was fined. I don't
understand why you're upset. He did have to plead guilty.

Read between the lines, dopey.