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

[Treasure_Hunter]

How funny would it be if Norway or Sweden pulled a Spain and demanded that England return this treasure to its rightful place of origin? That's what I'm expecting Mexico to do when I find the Lost Aztec Gold in Texas and announce that I'm keeping it.



Well, not so fast. They would have earned whatever the British government decided they should get. Might have been millions. Might have been a few hundred thousand.

Way it was described it sounds a lot more than few hundred thousand.



"Four men face years of incarceration for failing to report Viking treasure worth an estimated $3 million........Discoverers can be paid up to the treasure’s market value."

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Jason in Enid]

Way it was described it sounds a lot more than few hundred thousand.



"Four men face years of incarceration for failing to report Viking treasure worth an estimated $3 million........Discoverers can be paid up to the treasure’s market value."

Thats the prosecution value of the treasure. No different than when your local street-corner dealer gets picked up with a few ounces of marijuana and the headlines claim he was in possession of $50,000 of drugs.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

The value is what ever the museums are willing to pay it could be less and it could be a lot more just like in auctions. One thing for sure, they would have gotten a lot more than they got now.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lo...1/the-most-valuable-metal-detector-finds-ever

 

[MiddenMonster]

The value is what ever the museums are willing to pay it could be less and it could be a lot more just like in auctions. One thing for sure, they would have gotten a lot more than they got now.

Technically, that's true. But we're not talking about Mark Zuckerberg's Treasure Museum or the Bill Gates Galleries bidding on the hoard. The museums that will be making the payout are government owned museums, and represent the interests of the British government. So the value they are "willing to pay" is going to be the value that is best for the British government. And there will be taxes to go along with that payout. British taxes at British rates that cause rock stars and others to flee to America. So the equation will read "Government approved payout - High British tax assessment = Take it and be happy, sucka". The end payment is going to be $1 into the tax bracket that nets the British government the most money. Let the government owned museums compete with bidders from private museums around the world, give the British government the right to beat the high bid and everything changes.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

No, they will get even less because they chose to break the law, as well as rob the land owner of his share. No sympathy here.

 

[MiddenMonster]

No, they will get even less because they chose to break the law, as well as rob the land owner of his share. No sympathy here.

I don't have sympathy for them either. But only in regard to their not cutting the land owner in. Chances are that they would have done what they did even if the law had not been unjust. And the law is unjust because they would have been in trouble even if they had found this hoard on their own land. Bad laws cause people to do things they wouldn't ordinarily do. The housing/bank crisis 10 years ago came about because bad law forced banks to give loans to people who were bad risks. The banks wouldn't have made those loans if the law didn't force them to do so in the name of "fairness". So what did the banks do? They bundled those bad loans and sold them to foreign investors for less than their face value to insure they weren't caught chairless when the music stopped. Money wants to flow, and when the law impedes that natural flow, it moves like water where it can, i.e. the path of least resistance. Most people don't want to break the law. But when the law puts their labor, capital or wealth at risk those same people will do what they can to mitigate that risk. If you found $25,000 in cash would you declare it and pay taxes on it? The law requires that you do, but most people wouldn't even consider it. For starters, most people believe that the government would seize it on some tenuous pretext. Declaring it puts it at risk. So to mitigate that risk they don't pay taxes on it, either.

 

[Rookster]

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.

In most cases it depends on who you are I’m sure. Like here in the states. NFL or MLB players get a slap on the wrist for what A lot of folks will get major time.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

I don't have sympathy for them either. But only in regard to their not cutting the land owner in. Chances are that they would have done what they did even if the law had not been unjust. And the law is unjust because they would have been in trouble even if they had found this hoard on their own land. Bad laws cause people to do things they wouldn't ordinarily do. The housing/bank crisis 10 years ago came about because bad law forced banks to give loans to people who were bad risks. The banks wouldn't have made those loans if the law didn't force them to do so in the name of "fairness". So what did the banks do? They bundled those bad loans and sold them to foreign investors for less than their face value to insure they weren't caught chairless when the music stopped. Money wants to flow, and when the law impedes that natural flow, it moves like water where it can, i.e. the path of least resistance. Most people don't want to break the law. But when the law puts their labor, capital or wealth at risk those same people will do what they can to mitigate that risk. If you found $25,000 in cash would you declare it and pay taxes on it? The law requires that you do, but most people wouldn't even consider it. For starters, most people believe that the government would seize it on some tenuous pretext. Declaring it puts it at risk. So to mitigate that risk they don't pay taxes on it, either.

I see England's law as the same as our law on illegally hunting National battlefields in the States. Someone digging relics inside Gettysburg national battlefield is caught and sentence to prison earned their sentence one year or 10 years, they knew it was illegal..

It is Englands national law, England claims artifacts of its long history, when people violate that law they are endangering the entire hobby as England could claim metal detecting completely illegal.

Lived in Missouri, I knew where there were indian burial mounds in state park, I knew people living on border of park I could have parked at and entered park through remote areas, I could have done so and dug the mounds full of artifacts, I didn't do so because I knew it was against the law and I knew I did not want to end up in court fighting for my freedom, instead I hunted the farm fields surrounding the park with land owner's permission and found hundreds of artifacts legally and no concerns of ending up in court, prison time and heavy fines.

 

[MiddenMonster]

I see England's law as the same as our law on illegally hunting National battlefields in the States. Someone digging relics inside Gettysburg national battlefield is caught and sentence to prison earned their sentence one year or 10 years, they knew it was illegal..

That would be an incorrect way of looking at it. The law in the United States applies to federal land, while England's law applies to all land, including private property. That's a big difference. The conflict here should be between the 4 men and the owner of the land where the hoard was found, not between the government and the 4 men--and by extension the owner of the land who also had no legal claim to the find. Had the owner of the land found the coins and tried to sell them, he would be facing time in prison. That's just wrong.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Your correct, it is there country their law and they broke the national law on treasure trove for United Kingdom, no different than breaking federal law here. They knew the law and chose to ignore and break it, now they have to pay the penalty. .

 

[MiddenMonster]

Your correct, it is there country their law and they broke the national law on treasure trove for United Kingdom, no different than breaking federal law here. They knew the law and chose to ignore and break it, now they have to pay the penalty. .

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?

 

[WG2020]

While the government may claim, they still have to pay fair market value for the find.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

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?

Has absolutely nothing to do with fugitive slave law, England has the right to set their laws on their antiquities. The same reason we cant detect on National Seashores, National Parks and National Battlefields, it's the law. If you do it and get caught you can expect to pay a price.

 

[teleprospector]

They pulled a smash and grab, knew what they were doing, didn't want to follow procedures, ruined any future opportunities for themselves as regards any type of searches either on their own or with archaeologists, government, ect., made it harder for someone to search who is following the rules and above all CAN'T BE TRUSTED, PERIOD! Once the trust is gone you can't turn the clock back on it. There's no room for excuses for what they did. And as for the person who dropped a dime on them, that's the risk THE FINDERS TOOK. If they would have gotten away with this one it's just a matter of time till they got caught trying to pull another fast one!
Jon

 

[Jason in Enid]

Has absolutely nothing to do with fugitive slave law, England has the right to set their laws on their antiquities. The same reason we cant detect on National Seashores, National Parks and National Battlefields, it's the law. If you do it and get caught you can expect to pay a price.

It has everything to do with it. Gov't law does not equal moral.

 

[Force_of_Iron]

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.

 

[nomad 11]

nooooooo ! its the vikings fault in the first place for even going there

 

[Megalodon]

I see England's law as the same as our law on illegally hunting National battlefields in the States. Someone digging relics inside Gettysburg national battlefield is caught and sentence to prison earned their sentence one year or 10 years, they knew it was illegal..

It is Englands national law, England claims artifacts of its long history, when people violate that law they are endangering the entire hobby as England could claim metal detecting completely illegal.

Lived in Missouri, I knew where there were indian burial mounds in state park, I knew people living on border of park I could have parked at and entered park through remote areas, I could have done so and dug the mounds full of artifacts, I didn't do so because I knew it was against the law and I knew I did not want to end up in court fighting for my freedom, instead I hunted the farm fields surrounding the park with land owner's permission and found hundreds of artifacts legally and no concerns of ending up in court, prison time and heavy fines.

In addition to the possibilities for court, incarceration and fines, being caught doing something wrong includes the loss of reputation and honor. To me, that is worse than the financial loss of a fine. The only way to avoid that loss is to avoid the temptation in the first place. That may seem easy to say - but look back on a long life, as TH has here, and you will find many times when you might have "gotten away with something". What a person does when nobody is looking partly defines his character.

I have donated a relic to a museum and received nothing at all for it. I could have kept it and enjoyed looking at it - or sold it at auction (this was pre-eBay). But I hope others learned something by seeing it on display.

 

[MiddenMonster]

Has absolutely nothing to do with fugitive slave law, England has the right to set their laws on their antiquities. The same reason we cant detect on National Seashores, National Parks and National Battlefields, it's the law. If you do it and get caught you can expect to pay a price.

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?

They pulled a smash and grab, knew what they were doing, didn't want to follow procedures, ruined any future opportunities for themselves as regards any type of searches either on their own or with archaeologists, government, ect., made it harder for someone to search who is following the rules and above all CAN'T BE TRUSTED, PERIOD!

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.

nooooooo ! its the vikings fault in the first place for even going there

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.

 

[MiddenMonster]

I have donated a relic to a museum and received nothing at all for it. I could have kept it and enjoyed looking at it - or sold it at auction (this was pre-eBay). But I hope others learned something by seeing it on display.

The fact that you donated your property to a museum without expectation of compensation is very admirable. Would it have been equally as admirable if you had donated your neighbor's property to a museum? Or turned a runaway slave so he/she could be returned to their owner? How is theft of private property by government any less immoral than theft by an individual?