4 Men Face Years In Prison for Metal Detecting Viking Coins and Not Reporting Them

[ARC]

Reading this thread I have to say reminds me a lot of the time I kept hitting my head against a brick wall until I knocked myself out.

I had some of that Rum once... bad batch I think.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[ARC]

The Fugitive Slave Act was once the law, as well. Yes, the 4 men were greedy; There is no excuse for not telling the landowner about what they found. But it's wrong for government to be able to claim what is found on private land. Fortunately, that's not the case in the United States...yet.

I will toss this out there...

Actually... Its not that it will be "taken" from them IF they disclosed the find.

It is required that ALL finds like this be reported... after that it's decided IF they want it... and if they do... the finder is compensated...

Which I think is a "fair deal".

The person who can elaborate and or cooberate this best would be Cruzader.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Actually it does have a lot to do with the Fugitive Slave Act for the purpose of comparison. You state that, "England has the right to set their laws on their antiquities". As it relates to the law, "antiquities" are property. In 1793 in the United States, slaves were property. So just as "England has the right to set their laws on their [property]", so does the United States. Which they did. And as @Jason in Enid stated, "Gov't law does not equal moral". So I ask again, would you have violated or adhered to the requirements of the Fugitive Slave Act?



I can't argue with the basic facts of what you say. But neither does it have anything to do with the morality of the law. Jack Miller was a terrible example to challenge the law that prohibited sawed-off shotguns because he was a criminal. But that didn't change the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the 2nd Amendment it must have a military use/function, and no evidence was presented at his trial to support that. Had Miller not gotten himself shot up and killed before the case could be reheard, such evidence would have been presented and sawed-off shotguns would be legal, which would have on balance been a good thing. Not only do they have a military purpose as a close quarters weapon, they are excellent for home defense or when being attacked by multiple attackers.



Had the Vikings not raided Europe, they might not have taken women back north and we might not have all the hot northern European women we now see in Scandinavian countries. I'm in the group that colonialism was a good thing in the past, and served the world very well. Imagine what the world would look like today if Columbus never came to the Americas and the United States never existed. The world would still be a hell hole.

Last I looked it was 2020, not 1800. England has set their antiquities law and if you break that law then you pay the consequences. Still no sympathy from me, they knew the law and penalties just as I knew if I snuck into a state or national park to nighthawk relics and get caught I'm going to jail.

You can own land here but not own the minerals rights to what is below the surface so even though your property is fenced the owner of the mineral rights has legal authority to come on the property and remove the oil below if they so choose.

 

[Megalodon]

Which brings us back to the Fugitive Slave Act, which was also once federal law here. Would you have violated the Fugitive Slave Act, i.e. "knowingly and willingly obstruct or hinder" efforts to return a slave to their owner, simply because it was a federal law?

IMO, the two situations are not comparable. In one, ignoring a federal law by harboring slaves was an act of conscience. The other, failing to report finds as required by law in England was an act motivated not by good, but by simple greed.

The first site I detected in the mid-1960's was a home site of a distant relative who hosted Frederick Douglass in MA and helped to harbor escaped slaves. Not only did he not profit by this choice of conscience, but he missed out on reward money and also divided a family into two distinct groups - the staunch abolitionists like himself and the "mind 'yer business" sides of the family. Those two sides of the family, once first cousins, did not speak to each other for over 100 years. I tried but deep seated hatreds and prejudice run deep. The two sides still do not speak to the other and by now, most don't even know why.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Not government's fault, mineral rights would have been sold by previous owner prior to the sale of the land and would be listed on the deed.

 

[Megalodon]

Which is complete BS... and another prime example of rights and freedom getting stomped by the greed fueled machine.

IF that doesn't sound communistic I don't know what does.

I believe a seller of land where mineral rights do not convey, is required to disclose that fact. It materially reduces the value of the property. Much worse is the eminent domain epidemic enjoyed by the oil & gas interests. When they want your land, the feds help them take it, complete with fully automatic weapons:

https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsyl...ut-to-make-way-for-the-constitution-pipeline/

 

[MiddenMonster]

Actually... Its not that it will be "taken" from them IF they disclosed the find.

It is required that ALL finds like this be reported... after that it's decided IF they want it... and if they do... the finder is compensated...

WHICH I think is a "fair deal".

I would agree that it's a fair deal if the entity deciding the "if" and value of the compensation is a neutral party with no fiduciary responsibility to the contesting parties. But that's not the case in England. The entity requiring that all finds be reported, deciding if they want it and how much any compensation is due is the government, which is the same entity that stands to benefit from the outcome they decide. All the people involved in the decision are paid by the government and serve at the whim of the government. They know who butters their bread and who can end their careers. In this country, there are laws on the books that require property owners to do nothing if an "protected species" invades their property and prevents the owner from developing it. That gave birth to the "3 S's"--Shoot, shovel and shut up. In Missouri, it is illegal to kill any snake unless it is a threat to you, even if it is on your own property. Is a rattlesnake in your yard a threat? Gee, report it to the Conservation Department and let them decide.

Last I looked it was 2020, not 1800. England has set their antiquities law and if you break that law then you pay the consequences. Still no sympathy from me, they knew the law and penalties just as I knew if I snuck into a state or national park to nighthawk relics and get caught I'm going to jail.

You can own land here but not own the minerals rights to what is below the surface so even though your property is fenced the owner of the mineral rights has legal authority to come on the property and remove the oil below if they so choose.

The year or era doesn't change whether or not a law is moral, just or good. Sharia law in Muslim countries can hold that a woman who has been raped is an adulteress unless she has three witnesses--preferably male, who are willing to testify that she was in fact raped. It's the law. It's 2020. Does that make the law moral, just or good? And I again ask the question: Would you violate or adhere to the Fugitive Slave Act if you were alive in 1793?

By the way, I leased my gas rights to a company that wanted to drill in the area and was able to negotiate the price I wanted. They had the right to come on to my property as needed, but also had to pay me for any changes made to the property. No government involved. It was purely a transaction between private parties. And I still own the gas rights after the lease expires. I think it is 30 years.

IMO, the two situations are not comparable. In one, ignoring a federal law by harboring slaves was an act of conscience. The other, failing to report finds as required by law in England was an act motivated not by good, but by simple greed.

That is factually incorrect. The right to private property and the right to manage it as one desires is as much an act of conscience as any other. And greed is universal, and could play a part in either side of the equation you present. A person might be motivated by greed to violate the Fugitive Slave Act because they profit, directly or indirectly from doing so.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

You owned the land and leased the mineral rights you owned so your entitled, not all people are aware of their mineral rights when buying and many are not aware they dont own the mineral rights under their feet.

There is a huge difference between slavery and metal detecting. I'm not going to argue the difference in the morality of slavery vs England's Treasure trove laws you either see it or you don't, this isnt the politics forum. Bottom line is they intentionally broke the law and they are paying the price.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Last post deleted for politics. No politics in thread.

 

[Megalodon]

I'm thinking the sentences were too harsh. Sure, they're liars and according to the law, thieves, but come on. No weapons or threats, or bodily harm. The landowner deserves restitution. Maybe a short sentence, followed by a really long garnishment of wages, payable to the land owner, not the state, from all guilty.

I don't know if sentences in England are as much for show as they are in the US, or if they are quietly "re-visited" for some of the convicted, or if pardons can be purchased there. Sentences are sometimes minimized for first offenders and those who admit their guilt and display some acceptance and contrition - whether it is sincere or not. What will not impress a sentencing judge is obvious guilt but defiance of the law itself. Sometimes a sentence that appears overly harsh is considered locally necessary to deter others.

Judges generally don't care what we little people think about a law. We often hear "if you don't like a law, work to get it changed". In reality, that option is only available to corporations, with many lobbyists and much influence-peddling, acting for their own selfish benefit.

 

[teleprospector]

Just keep yourself out of the element I say, then you won't have issues.
Jon

 

[Davers]

No sympathy here, they broke the law and they also tried to rob the land owner of his share too. Turned it in they would have earned millions, instead they tried to steal it and they earned prison time.

Sounds like greed was the wrong decision to make here. Way wrong!

 

[Davers]

I'm thinking the sentences were too harsh. Sure, they're liars and according to the law, thieves, but come on. No weapons or threats, or bodily harm. The landowner deserves restitution. Maybe a short sentence, followed by a really long garnishment of wages, payable to the land owner, not the state, from all guilty.

I have seen violent people who hurt others get less time.

 

[Davers]

I wouldn't have reported it either. Would have moved it out of the country asap. No evidence, no crime. Also, to the ones who turned them in, why turn in someone just because they chose to not to report? People think it's up to them to administer justice. The treasure was open to anyone to find and they found it. People are just jealous so they turn them in.

Ahhh.
The "Lex Luthor" line of thinking . Cool.

 

[Davers]

Just keep yourself out of the element I say, then you won't have issues.
Jon

Or "Don't start none & there won't be none".

 

[T.C.]

Cant really play the "it's the law" card. That's lame.
Too be fair i remember laws where Japanese Americans lost everything and were put in internment camps because they were considered a threat.
Blacks rode in the back of the bus.
Women couldn't vote.


"Its easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled" -Mark Twain

...no comparison...

 

[ARC]

I believe a seller of land where mineral rights do not convey, is required to disclose that fact. It materially reduces the value of the property. Much worse is the eminent domain epidemic enjoyed by the oil & gas interests. When they want your land, the feds help them take it, complete with fully automatic weapons:

https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsyl...ut-to-make-way-for-the-constitution-pipeline/

Yeah I misunderstood last night... was tired.

Was thinking it was being said that Gov could just take minerals from private property... :/

 

[Jason in Enid]

Yeah I misunderstood last night... was tired.

Was thinking it was being said that Gov could just take minerals from private property... :/

they can if they want to. Just use imminent domain, throw the people off the land for pennies on the dollar in land value, then do as they wish. Done it thousands of times.

 

[CRUSADER]

They knew the law and chose to ignore it, now they have to pay the piper.

Agreed, they also got greedy & when the investigation started because of the idiot why they tried to sell the stuff they didn't tell the investigators where the rare coins were sold. (hence the harsh sentence) Many over seas without an Export Licence & now all the valuable data about the hoard is lost forever.

Now they will chase all their money under the proceed of crimes Act & have NOTHING to show for it. They deserved what they got.

 

[ARC]

Agreed, they also got greedy & when the investigation started because of the idiot why they tried to sell the stuff they didn't tell the investigators where the rare coins were sold. (hence the harsh sentence) Many over seas without an Export Licence & now all the valuable data about the hoard is lost forever.

Now they will chase all their money under the proceed of crimes Act & have NOTHING to show for it. They deserved what they got.

Agreed.

Was awaiting for you to chime in on this.