Hobby Lobby fined 3 MILL over antiquities

The international trade in antiquities of questionable provenance is nothing new, but historically the buyers are individuals - museums learned their lesson long ago - and I'm a bit surprised that any corporate entity would put themselves on the hook the way HL has in this example.

Maybe they thought that the artifacts had some religious connotation and their possession of them constituted a question of religious freedom.

Whatever their rationale, they've found out the hard way.
 
BStrong said:
The international trade in antiquities of questionable provenance is nothing new, but historically the buyers are individuals - museums learned their lesson long ago - and I'm a bit surprised that any corporate entity would put themselves on the hook the way HL has in this example.

Maybe they thought that the artifacts had some religious connotation and their possession of them constituted a question of religious freedom.

Whatever their rationale, they've found out the hard way.
Click to expand...

In this case the "corporation" is obviously the Green's will. So this is just another example of someone rich wanting something and not understanding that them wanting something does not make it right. (As a note it is of course not only the rich that suffer from this, it is that they have more resources.)
 
BStrong said:
The international trade in antiquities of questionable provenance is nothing new, but historically the buyers are individuals - museums learned their lesson long ago - and I'm a bit surprised that any corporate entity would put themselves on the hook the way HL has in this example.

Maybe they thought that the artifacts had some religious connotation and their possession of them constituted a question of religious freedom.

Whatever their rationale, they've found out the hard way.
Click to expand...
The artifacts were falsely labelled. Green oversaw the whole thing and it was intentional criminal smuggling. The "rationale" was to commit a crime and get away with it. If it was something else then the pieces would not have been misdescribed.
 
William Parcher said:
The artifacts were falsely labelled. Green oversaw the whole thing and it was intentional criminal smuggling. The "rationale" was to commit a crime and get away with it. If it was something else then the pieces would not have been misdescribed.
Click to expand...

There are a whole slough of crimes committed because the actor believes they are acting under religious authority.

I believe Green et al may have been operating under that premise.
 
BStrong said:
There are a whole slough of crimes committed because the actor believes they are acting under religious authority.

I believe Green et al may have been operating under that premise.
Click to expand...

They've been allowed to ignore at least one law for religious reasons so it's not really surprising
 
BStrong said:
There are a whole slough of crimes committed because the actor believes they are acting under religious authority.

I believe Green et al may have been operating under that premise.
Click to expand...
You are not making sense and the reason is because the artifacts were not labelled as religious antiquities.
 
William Parcher said:
You are not making sense and the reason is because the artifacts were not labelled as religious antiquities.
Click to expand...

From my first post in this thread:

Maybe they thought that the artifacts had some religious connotation and their possession of them constituted a question of religious freedom.

To the best of my knowledge, peculation isn't out-of-bounds on this forum.
 
BStrong said:
From my first post in this thread:

Maybe they thought that the artifacts had some religious connotation and their possession of them constituted a question of religious freedom.

To the best of my knowledge, peculation isn't out-of-bounds on this forum.
Click to expand...
They didn't "maybe think" that the artifacts were religious, they knew it and that was the whole reason for purchasing. It was an illegal act of smuggling. Green knew that what he was doing was illegal and dangerous (because his legal counsel told him that), but he went ahead with the crime anyway.

Your speculation has no real foundation.
 
www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/nyregion/hobby-lobby-artifacts-smuggle-iraq.html

In 2010, as a deal for the tablets was being struck, an expert on cultural property law who had been hired by Hobby Lobby warned company executives that the artifacts might have been looted from historical sites in Iraq, and that failing to determine their heritage could break the law.

Despite these words of caution, the prosecutors said,*Hobby Lobby bought more than 5,500 artifacts*— the tablets and clay talismans and so-called cylinder seals — from an unnamed dealer for $1.6 million in December 2010
Click to expand...

For the record, I actually do find it interesting and relevant there seems to be no attempt by the owners here that religious expression supersedes federal regulations.
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
They didn't "maybe think" that the artifacts were religious, they knew it and that was the whole reason for purchasing. It was an illegal act of smuggling. Green knew that what he was doing was illegal and dangerous (because his legal counsel told him that), but he went ahead with the crime anyway.

Your speculation has no real foundation.
Click to expand...

My speculation that they might have believed the articles had a religious significance is wrong because they knew the items had religious significance?
 
Darat said:
In this case the "corporation" is obviously the Green's will. So this is just another example of someone rich wanting something and not understanding that them wanting something does not make it right. (As a note it is of course not only the rich that suffer from this, it is that they have more resources.)
Click to expand...

Sir, I don't think you understand: he wants it more.
 
BStrong said:
My speculation that they might have believed the articles had a religious significance is wrong because they knew the items had religious significance?
Click to expand...
The entire premise for the purchase was because of the religious significance. Your speculation was based on HL possibly being uncertain. It's a baseless speculation.
 
Is there any pending criminal action coming or is this another case of the corporation committing the crime so the actual human beings who stood to materially benefit are magically absolved of responsibility?

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
 
Argumemnon said:
Silly question: were those smuggled out by ISIS? I think they did stuff like that to fund themselves, right?
Click to expand...

The dealer hasn't been identified so we don't know. Selling artifacts is one way they fund themselves.
 
BStrong said:
From my first post in this thread:

Maybe they thought that the artifacts had some religious connotation and their possession of them constituted a question of religious freedom.

To the best of my knowledge, peculation isn't out-of-bounds on this forum.
Click to expand...
Have to note the typo here, and remark that although speculation is fine on this forum, we can indeed hope that peculation is not, here or in the holy of hobbies.
 
There's a buried lede here when you think about who's been profiting from the smuggling of Iraqi artifacts.

That's right--Hobby Lobby funded ISIS.
 
Hobby Lobby accused of hypocrisy amid smuggling case

Associated Press said:
One shipping label listed 300 clay tiles valued at $1 each, when they were, in fact, clay bullae with a combined value of $84,120, prosecutors said.
Click to expand...
They claim that they made mistakes because they are newbies to artifact collecting. No, they knew exactly what they were doing when they committed organized smuggling crimes.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/cri...ed-3-million-over-smuggled-Iraqi-11268856.php
 
"Lying for God is no sin." *

Or some such crap like that. :rolleyes:



(* It may however be a felony. :D )
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
Hobby Lobby accused of hypocrisy amid smuggling case


They claim that they made mistakes because they are newbies to artifact collecting. No, they knew exactly what they were doing when they committed organized smuggling crimes.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/cri...ed-3-million-over-smuggled-Iraqi-11268856.php
Click to expand...


A claim they make even after they were explicitly warned before the purchases by a professional who they hired, and then after knowingly receiving goods which were mislabeled as to contents, value, and country of origin.

Goods which they had been cautioned were probably stolen and illegal. Which might account (to the uncharitable) for the fact that they were willing to receive them mislabeled as to contents, value, and country of origin.

Somehow "hypocrisy" doesn't seem like the right word to use.

Must be some more o' them there Christian values.
 
quadraginta said:
A claim they make even after they were explicitly warned before the purchases by a professional who they hired, and then after knowingly receiving goods which were mislabeled as to contents, value, and country of origin.

Goods which they had been cautioned were probably stolen and illegal. Which might account (to the uncharitable) for the fact that they were willing to receive them mislabeled as to contents, value, and country of origin.

Somehow "hypocrisy" doesn't seem like the right word to use.

Must be some more o' them there Christian values.
Click to expand...

No one ever takes the bearing false witness part of the Ten Commandments seriously, it is the ones about contraception that are the important ones.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Is there any pending criminal action coming or is this another case of the corporation committing the crime so the actual human beings who stood to materially benefit are magically absolved of responsibility?

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Huge fines are the penalty to those who made the decisions (or the owners, who allowed it to happen). The company accepts this, which avoids a trial. It's a lot harder to prove they knew this stuff beyond a reasonable doubt. But that threat makes them cave to the fine.
 
Beerina said:
Huge fines are the penalty to those who made the decisions (or the owners, who allowed it to happen). The company accepts this, which avoids a trial. It's a lot harder to prove they knew this stuff beyond a reasonable doubt. But that threat makes them cave to the fine.
Click to expand...
Still, that's a very different philosophy of correctional behavior than most of us will find access to.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
 
While that sounds like is a lot of money is it actually going to have any significant impact on those responsible or the company?
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Still, that's a very different philosophy of correctional behavior than most of us will find access to.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Aren't something like 98% of court cases plea bargains rather than trials? In both cases, they get off lighter than they otherwise would (if a conviction) and the DA gets a free notch in his belt to brag about at the next election.

There are civil libertarians agitating to change this because it smacks of abuse of government power to threaten massive punishment to coerce guilty pleas rather than going through the theoretical requirement to have a trial and conviction before punishment can be applied.
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
Aren't something like 98% of court cases plea bargains rather than trials? In both cases, they get off lighter than they otherwise would (if a conviction) and the DA gets a free notch in his belt to brag about at the next election.

There are civil libertarians agitating to change this because it smacks of abuse of government power to threaten massive punishment to coerce guilty pleas rather than going through the theoretical requirement to have a trial and conviction before punishment can be applied.
Click to expand...
But they are usually still pleading guilty to a criminal offense, serve time (jail or probation), do community service and such. This is in addition to fines, court fees, restitution to the injured party, etc.

Most burglars and shoplifters don't face a mere civil claim and judgement.

Taking possession of stolen goods in a blatantly shady transaction in most any other context means potential criminal liability. I'm fairly certain if you or I did so in a way that money might have gone to help some violent international cartel we'd be in a CCU at a federal super-max awaiting terrorism charges.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom