Mike Krause Discussion

Edward Tinker · 03-22-2004, 11:19 AM

I would like to state that I was the one that deleted the thread on this, I had observed the thread and probably "jumped the gun" by deleting it.

My reasons were the following;

1. It specifically brought up an individual by name, was pure conjecture and there was no facts stated (once it went into conjecture of whether Mike had known the gun was "stolen").

2. With the following above information, I deleted it, as without facts, it is libelous and not simply opinions of many posters to this forum. A topic like this is perfect for personal e-mail, but once there became conjecture and libelous comments (in my opinion, but I have a law enforcement background for the last 24 years, so look at things differently), I then deleted the thread.

It was an interesting discussion and I read it with interest, but felt it was more prudent to delete it then leave it closed.

3. If I was wrong in this regard, I apoligize, but I did not feel it was constructive to this forum or the hobby, once there became conjecture over whether Mike did or did not know he had done something illegal.

Edward Tinker
Moderator

Pete Ebbink · 03-22-2004, 07:06 PM

Hello Ed,

Seems like I missed a bit while flying across the country today...probably for the best...

Sorry the discussion de-generated...certainly was not my intent with the info. posting I made...

I trust your judgement in matters of Forum decorum...

Regards,

Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

drbuster · 03-22-2004, 10:01 PM

Ed, YOU DID THE RIGHT THING!!! Preserve the dignity of a fine man whom we all benefit from. Innuendo and conjecture has no place here if it hurts a non-deserving person.

John Sabato · 03-22-2004, 11:50 PM

Thank you for doing your job Ed. It isn't always easy to do the right thing.

wterrell · 03-23-2004, 07:52 AM

If you will suffer a differing opinion, I do not think the deletion of the thread was the correct thing to do. I would also hope that you will not consider one with a dissenting opinion as a "troll" on this forum. (This label has not been used, but it is the next step.)
There was no libel, slander, or accusations in the thread. Ed, you were wrong.

John Sabato · 03-23-2004, 09:39 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> There was no libel, slander, or accusations in the thread. Ed, you were wrong. <hr /></blockquote>Wes, I couldn't disagree (in a gentlemanly manner) more with this statement. The thread has been deleted, not hidden, but I distinctly remember that Mike's integrity was being questioned without anyone knowing the complete facts about the transaction that resulted in him owning the pistol... We may never know the truth, but in cases such as this, where the facts are not public, comments that denegrate someone's integrity are not called for... patience is until we learm the facts... and if we never do learn all the facts surrounding the transfer of the gun in question, we, as a forum, a "fraternal" organization if you will indulge me, should certainly not be casting the first stone. I know that there is probably not one among us that hasn't regretted at least one transaction in our history... Mike is just as capable of making mistakes and having to live with them as I am...and I make them all the time.

If Ed was overzealous in your opinion, that is fine and I encourage your participation and comment, but your opinion doesn't make Ed wrong, anymore than my opinion makes him right.

The last time I looked, we don't have a list of folks from this group of over 2000 who are waiting in line to volunteer to donate their time and effort to moderate the individual forums... and take flak for their decisions.

Ed, like all the rest of us, has to formulate his decisions on his observations and experience. I applaud his action to try and put a halt to what appeared to be a rapidly deteriorating situation.

Had I been more available when this incident took place, I probably would have terminated the situation even earlier than he did...I might have just edited some comments, but I wasn't around and Ed was... his decision might be considered hasty by some, but his intentions and actions were made with the best interest of the whole group in mind.

I came to his defense to encourage his participation and moderation of the forum discussion... just as I would come to your defense to speak your mind...

We can sum up our thoughts and speculation on the origin, quality, quantity, and authenticity of a particular specimen of the Luger, without denegrating the owner, seller or buyer... I think that should remain our primary focus on this forum.

wterrell · 03-23-2004, 07:53 PM

John, at the risk of seeming contrary, I will answer with my understanding of the content of the thread. There is a chance that I did not see all of the posts, but had read all as of 5 am GMT of 3-22-04.
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Mike's integrity was being questioned <hr /></blockquote>I do not know that Mike's integrity was brought into question, rather there was question of judgment concerning provenance and research required in a major purchase. If there was a statement concerning his integrity, I did not read it.
No one was accused of being dishonest. No one was called names. No one was libelled. If there were statements concerning anyone's honesty, they were posted after my last reading.
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> but your opinion doesn't make Ed wrong <hr /></blockquote>Ed stated that if he was wrong in this action he has offered his apologies. Ed is a wise man and knows that there are only two types of people in the world: those who are right; and those who are wrong. I wanted to assure him that he was wrong.
You are entitled to a differing opinion concerning this, and power to you. (I have kept my response concerning "decisiveness" in the same vein of gentlemanly civility as you generously displayed toward me.)

The disposition of this particular pistol is germane to the Luger collecting community. We and our collective reputation are now in the public view. We must not bury our heads in the sand but learn and profit by the misfortune of one of our fraternity.

Steve Richards · 03-23-2004, 07:54 PM

I have been a member of this forum from its start and a member of the old forum for a short while. I have only seen about 3 or 4 threads deleted. This leads me to believe that this power is used very judiciously by the moderators. They should therefore be given the benefit of the doubt when they take this serious step. Their ability to delete threads does not appear to be abused.

I am a moderator on the Post WWII section so I may be biased, but this is my opinion. I did not see this particular thread but will assume that Ed was justified.

Steve

Thor · 03-23-2004, 08:07 PM

Steve, I would agree with you. I am also a moderator on the restoration section and I dont think (I am 50 now so my memory is not perfect) I have ever deleted a post there. I have been a member of the Luger forum since March of 1998 and by and large I think our moderators are fair.

Imperial Arms · 03-24-2004, 03:08 AM

While attempting to keep an unbiased position, Wes is correct in highlighting the following:

'I do not know that Mike's integrity was brought into question, rather there was question of judgment concerning provenance and research required in a major purchase. If there was a statement concerning his integrity, I did not read it.
No one was accused of being dishonest. No one was called names. No one was libelled. If there were statements concerning anyone's honesty, they were posted after my last reading.'

Bearing this comment in mind, I see no harm in discussing the initial details of a very important pistol which was stolen even if we know the involved parties. In my opinion, to block/delete a thread which has no 'finger-pointing' involved, only shows protectionist, defensive or preferential treatment for a person. If we were restrict interesting information or news on the Luger Forum and mainly discuss aspects of the Luger pistol, then many developing topics would remain in darkness. I believe that we have learned from past experiences a code of conduct on this forum and, therefore, threads should not be quickly closed/deleted because a moderator senses that the issue might get out of hand. If a member happens to stain another person's name or reputation or use false references, then the appropriate action should be taken.

Respectfully,
Albert

Edward Tinker · 03-24-2004, 06:44 AM

Albert I am confused?

You state <blockquote>quote:<hr />Bearing this comment in mind, I see no harm in discussing the initial details of a very important pistol which was stolen even if we know the involved parties. <hr /></blockquote>I left this thread, as did Ron, because of this very reason. <blockquote>quote:<hr />In my opinion, to block/delete a thread which has no 'finger-pointing' involved, only shows protectionist, defensive or preferential treatment for a person. <hr /></blockquote>Krause was "fingered" as having possibly sold a stolen gun. In the article it did not state him by name. So DIRECT finger pointing was made. This conjecture was raised by Pete who stated that Krause showed this gun around several gun shows, a truthful statement. Wes stated and made a side comment about how it had to be obvious that he should have known better. And to me it appeared that Wes was meaning that Mike knew it was a stolen gun and still continued with the deal.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I believe that we have learned from past experiences a code of conduct on this forum and, therefore, threads should not be quickly closed/deleted because a moderator senses that the issue might get out of hand. <hr /></blockquote>I don't believe this and on other gun forums flames and name callings quickly get out of hand. The initial discussion was a valid one, although it was treading on thin ice. If you, Wes and others think otherwise, fine. Then that is okay, but in my opinion I felt it was not what this forum was about. <blockquote>quote:<hr />If a member happens to stain another person's name or reputation or use false references, then the appropriate action should be taken.<hr /></blockquote>Albert if you had one of your guns on your website discussed and it was claimed that you had received stolen property, what would you think? Would you believe it was okay to let that be left here on the forum? What would the appropriate action be? Lock the thread? That means that the entire thread stays where it is, to be seen again and again, leaving doubt in every new reader that sees it.

If the initial article had stated that Krause was convicted of receiving stolen property, then that would be different. It did not state that:

The link is included here:
http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/new...ger_020604.pdf

<blockquote>quote:<hr />During the ceremony, Garcia also returned to Switzerland a rare, 106-year-old, Luger pistol that had been stolen from a Swiss museum in 1996 and was recently recovered by ICE agents in the United States.

and

The U.S. Attorney contacted Vincent G. Klink, the ICE Resident Agent in Charge in Austin, TX, who opened an investigation into the stolen pistol. After four months of extensive investigation by ICE agents, the pistol was recovered from an internationally known antique firearm collector during the execution of search warrants last July. <hr /></blockquote>In no way does this state Mike Krause by name. Although this "news" might be known to collectors, it is libelous to put his name to stolen property until convicted by a court of US law.

Definition of libel:
http://www.hvgateway.com/jrnl015a.htm
<blockquote>quote:<hr />N.Y.A.D. 1979. Generally words are libelous which directly tend to injure or prejudice the reputation of an individual in any profession carried on by him, and are actionable without proof of special damage. Terry v. Orleans County, 422 N.Y.S.2d 826, 72 A.D.2d 925

and

http://www.legal-definitions.com/I,%20J,%20K/libel.htm

libel definition Ã¢?? libel means to defame or harm oneÃ¢??s reputation is writing.

and

Read this small section

...it clarified that the repeating or republishing of someone else's libel or slander can, and most likely will make you a part of the underlying action.

and

http://www.hfac.uh.edu/comm/media_libel/libel/

Published material meeting three conditions: the material is defamatory either on its face or indirectly; the defamatory statement is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons; and the material must be distributed to someone other than the offended party; i.e. published; distinguished from slander. (For more details, see http://192.41.4.29/def/l032 ).
<hr /></blockquote>If anyone can tell me that it was in the best interests of this forum to keep this thread, then fine, but UNTIL Mike Krause is convicted, it is conjecture and hearsay to bring up ANYONEÃ¢??S name in discussing this incident from the initial article. I do not care if MANY collectors knew of this incident, it is NOT legally appropriate to this board until proven by a court of law and someone is convicted of a crime.

This has nothing to do with Free Speech, this has to do with legality. Wes, you are always stating that we must be careful of how we portray ourselves, well, UNTIL Krause is convicted, this is not the truth, but mere conjecture.

And if anyone wants the position of moderator and look out for the entire broad picture, then ask John Dunkle and he will be glad to think about it.

Ed

wterrell · 03-24-2004, 07:36 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Krause was "fingered" as having possibly sold a stolen gun. In the article it did not state him by name. So DIRECT finger pointing was made. This conjecture was raised by Pete who stated that Krause showed this gun around several gun shows, a truthful statement. Wes stated and made a side comment about how it had to be obvious that he should have known better. And to me it appeared that Wes was meaning that Mike knew it was a stolen gun and still continued with the deal. <hr /></blockquote>Ed, I made no comment concerning the gun being displayed at the gun shows. I let the statement of Pete go without a response because of the reason that you stated.
I did not make any statement that Mike knew the pistol was stolen and that he continued with the deal.
I cannot help the conclusions that you reached concerning the pistol and Mike. As you stated, these are your conclusions about the subject, not mine.
I did not say that he received stolen property. The only one who has brought up this line of conversation is you.
I trust to your integrity to admit to the veracity of my above statements.

If a man received provenance and documentation, and then does not research the facts, his actions are not wise.
That is the reason that in a real estate transaction, the abstract of title will not be sufficient to conclude the purchase but also requires an abstract opinion and also title insurance.
If a man buys property based upon a fake abstract he is not accused of stealing the property, but he has acted very foolishly in the purchase.
That is the conclusion at which you should have arrived, Ed.

jamese · 03-24-2004, 08:30 AM

Ed,
You have my support, (for whatever thatÃ¢??s worth)
I like others expressed an option on the original thread, but it was ONLY an option based
on the facts as reported and my 25 years law enforcement experience.

I can also say this based on my years of law enforcement experience:
(1) The gun was recovered during the execution of a search warrant.
(2) Search warrants are issued by a judge based on probable cause of a crime. Law enforcement officers must articulate to the judge in an affidavit the level of involvement of the person that is the target of the investigation and the premises to be searched.

If a person is an INNOCENT 3 party to a crime, why not just ask them to turn over the gun instead of serving a search warrant.

One can draw their own conclusions, based solely on known facts.

Jim

Lugerdoc · 03-24-2004, 08:51 AM

Jamese, I don't know if this applies to this particular case, but I've found that "law enforcements" lack of knowledge concerning collectable pistols, to be part of the problem. Twice in 30 years, I've sold German pistols that were questioned by law enforcement, only to find that they had either neglected to include the suffix letter as part of the serial number (on a CYQ P38, that I purchased from the importer) or the year date of a luger, and as we know that both DWM & Mauser repeted the same serials over the years. I appreciate any efforts on the behalf of knowledgeable collector to educate those in law enforcement, whether it on a local level or the ATF. TH

John D. · 03-24-2004, 09:08 AM

This is about the silliest dialog I've read.

First - I didn't see the thread. Second, if I did see it - I would have made a judgement call as well. Third - I'll back Ed's decision without question - so if you need to bitch and gripe about it - feel free to do so. You can e-mail me at any number of the e-mail addresses throughout this site.

Now - I believe I'm correct that over the past 4 or 5 years of hosting this site - maybe a handful of posts have been deleted. If it were more then 2 a year - I'd be shocked. So, for that - if you think you can do a better job at Moderating - Hosting - you have some choices...

1) You can choose not to post here;

2) You can set up your own Forums - and Moderate to your way of thinking;

3)... Hmmm - I guess the first two options are about it..?

As for Ed's decision - or any Moderator's decision - give it a rest. The odds are we can please about 80% of the folks about 20% of the time. So - if you don't like the "odds", see Option 1 or 2 above. In the meantime - I'll be doubling their "salary" for supporting these Forums.

Oh - and I'm moving this to the General Discussion area. I'm pretty convinced this has NOTHING to do with Early Lugers.

MauserLugers · 03-24-2004, 12:20 PM

I did not have a chance to read this thread but looks to me like there could have been some interesting information shared within it. I heard about this "deal" some time ago, so this is not anywhere close to current information. What was shared with me was that the gun was known to have been in a Swiss museum and it was known to have been stolen. This was common knowledge to collectors for some time. So, you come to your own conclusions as to why someone would spend "big" money on this prototype when it was known to be rare and known to be stolen. -- Bill

03-22-2004, 11:19 AM	#1
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,928 Thanks: 2,028 Thanked 4,525 Times in 2,090 Posts	Mike Krause Discussion I would like to state that I was the one that deleted the thread on this, I had observed the thread and probably "jumped the gun" by deleting it. My reasons were the following; 1. It specifically brought up an individual by name, was pure conjecture and there was no facts stated (once it went into conjecture of whether Mike had known the gun was "stolen"). 2. With the following above information, I deleted it, as without facts, it is libelous and not simply opinions of many posters to this forum. A topic like this is perfect for personal e-mail, but once there became conjecture and libelous comments (in my opinion, but I have a law enforcement background for the last 24 years, so look at things differently), I then deleted the thread. It was an interesting discussion and I read it with interest, but felt it was more prudent to delete it then leave it closed. 3. If I was wrong in this regard, I apoligize, but I did not feel it was constructive to this forum or the hobby, once there became conjecture over whether Mike did or did not know he had done something illegal. Edward Tinker Moderator __________________ Edward Tinker ************ Co-Author of Police Lugers - Co-Author of Simson Lugers Author of Veteran Bring Backs Vol I, Vol II, Vol III and Vol IV

03-22-2004, 11:50 PM	#4
John Sabato Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The Capital of the Free World Posts: 10,153 Thanks: 3,003 Thanked 2,304 Times in 1,096 Posts	Thank you for doing your job Ed. It isn't always easy to do the right thing. __________________ regards, -John S "...We hold these truths to be self-evident that ALL men are created EQUAL *and are endowed by their Creator* with certain UNALIENABLE* rights, and among these are life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness..."*

03-23-2004, 07:52 AM	#5
wterrell User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,096 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	If you will suffer a differing opinion, I do not think the deletion of the thread was the correct thing to do. I would also hope that you will not consider one with a dissenting opinion as a "troll" on this forum. (This label has not been used, but it is the next step.) There was no libel, slander, or accusations in the thread. Ed, you were wrong. __________________ Noli me vocare, ego te vocabo, wes --------------------

03-23-2004, 09:39 AM	#6
John Sabato Lifer Lifetime Forum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The Capital of the Free World Posts: 10,153 Thanks: 3,003 Thanked 2,304 Times in 1,096 Posts	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva"> There was no libel, slander, or accusations in the thread. Ed, you were wrong. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Wes, I couldn't disagree (in a gentlemanly manner) more with this statement. The thread has been deleted, not hidden, but I distinctly remember that Mike's integrity was being questioned without anyone knowing the complete facts about the transaction that resulted in him owning the pistol... We may never know the truth, but in cases such as this, where the facts are not public, comments that denegrate someone's integrity are not called for... patience is until we learm the facts... and if we never do learn all the facts surrounding the transfer of the gun in question, we, as a forum, a "fraternal" organization if you will indulge me, should certainly not be casting the first stone. I know that there is probably not one among us that hasn't regretted at least one transaction in our history... Mike is just as capable of making mistakes and having to live with them as I am...and I make them all the time. If Ed was overzealous in your opinion, that is fine and I encourage your participation and comment, but your opinion doesn't make Ed wrong, anymore than my opinion makes him right. The last time I looked, we don't have a list of folks from this group of over 2000 who are waiting in line to volunteer to donate their time and effort to moderate the individual forums... and take flak for their decisions. Ed, like all the rest of us, has to formulate his decisions on his observations and experience. I applaud his action to try and put a halt to what appeared to be a rapidly deteriorating situation. Had I been more available when this incident took place, I probably would have terminated the situation even earlier than he did...I might have just edited some comments, but I wasn't around and Ed was... his decision might be considered hasty by some, but his intentions and actions were made with the best interest of the whole group in mind. I came to his defense to encourage his participation and moderation of the forum discussion... just as I would come to your defense to speak your mind... We can sum up our thoughts and speculation on the origin, quality, quantity, and authenticity of a particular specimen of the Luger, without denegrating the owner, seller or buyer... I think that should remain our primary focus on this forum. __________________ regards, -John S "...We hold these truths to be self-evident that ALL men are created EQUAL *and are endowed by their Creator* with certain UNALIENABLE* rights, and among these are life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness..."*

03-23-2004, 07:53 PM	#7
wterrell User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,096 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	John, at the risk of seeming contrary, I will answer with my understanding of the content of the thread. There is a chance that I did not see all of the posts, but had read all as of 5 am GMT of 3-22-04. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Mike's integrity was being questioned </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I do not know that Mike's integrity was brought into question, rather there was question of judgment concerning provenance and research required in a major purchase. If there was a statement concerning his integrity, I did not read it. No one was accused of being dishonest. No one was called names. No one was libelled. If there were statements concerning anyone's honesty, they were posted after my last reading. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva"> but your opinion doesn't make Ed wrong </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Ed stated that if he was wrong in this action he has offered his apologies. Ed is a wise man and knows that there are only two types of people in the world: those who are right; and those who are wrong. I wanted to assure him that he was wrong. You are entitled to a differing opinion concerning this, and power to you. (I have kept my response concerning "decisiveness" in the same vein of gentlemanly civility as you generously displayed toward me.) The disposition of this particular pistol is germane to the Luger collecting community. We and our collective reputation are now in the public view. We must not bury our heads in the sand but learn and profit by the misfortune of one of our fraternity. __________________ Noli me vocare, ego te vocabo, wes --------------------

03-22-2004, 07:06 PM	#2
Pete Ebbink User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: The USA Posts: 5,919 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Hello Ed, Seems like I missed a bit while flying across the country today...probably for the best... Sorry the discussion de-generated...certainly was not my intent with the info. posting I made... I trust your judgement in matters of Forum decorum... Regards, Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />

03-22-2004, 10:01 PM	#3
drbuster User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: San Mateo, California Posts: 1,432 Thanks: 2 Thanked 71 Times in 56 Posts	Ed, YOU DID THE RIGHT THING!!! Preserve the dignity of a fine man whom we all benefit from. Innuendo and conjecture has no place here if it hurts a non-deserving person.

03-23-2004, 07:54 PM	#8
Steve Richards User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Beaverton, Oregon Posts: 487 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I have been a member of this forum from its start and a member of the old forum for a short while. I have only seen about 3 or 4 threads deleted. This leads me to believe that this power is used very judiciously by the moderators. They should therefore be given the benefit of the doubt when they take this serious step. Their ability to delete threads does not appear to be abused. I am a moderator on the Post WWII section so I may be biased, but this is my opinion. I did not see this particular thread but will assume that Ed was justified. Steve

03-23-2004, 08:07 PM	#9
Thor User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Rio Rancho, New Mexico Posts: 4,583 Thanks: 958 Thanked 970 Times in 276 Posts	Steve, I would agree with you. I am also a moderator on the restoration section and I dont think (I am 50 now so my memory is not perfect) I have ever deleted a post there. I have been a member of the Luger forum since March of 1998 and by and large I think our moderators are fair. __________________ Thor's Luger Clinic http://members.rennlist.com/lugerman/ Ted Green (Thor Yaller Boots) 725 Western Hills Dr SE, Rio Rancho, NM 87124 915-526-8925 Email thor340@aol.com ----------------------------------- John3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

03-24-2004, 03:08 AM	#10
Imperial Arms Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Malta, EU Posts: 579 Thanks: 0 Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts	While attempting to keep an unbiased position, Wes is correct in highlighting the following: 'I do not know that Mike's integrity was brought into question, rather there was question of judgment concerning provenance and research required in a major purchase. If there was a statement concerning his integrity, I did not read it. No one was accused of being dishonest. No one was called names. No one was libelled. If there were statements concerning anyone's honesty, they were posted after my last reading.' Bearing this comment in mind, I see no harm in discussing the initial details of a very important pistol which was stolen even if we know the involved parties. In my opinion, to block/delete a thread which has no 'finger-pointing' involved, only shows protectionist, defensive or preferential treatment for a person. If we were restrict interesting information or news on the Luger Forum and mainly discuss aspects of the Luger pistol, then many developing topics would remain in darkness. I believe that we have learned from past experiences a code of conduct on this forum and, therefore, threads should not be quickly closed/deleted because a moderator senses that the issue might get out of hand. If a member happens to stain another person's name or reputation or use false references, then the appropriate action should be taken. Respectfully, Albert

03-24-2004, 06:44 AM	#11
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,928 Thanks: 2,028 Thanked 4,525 Times in 2,090 Posts	Albert I am confused? You state </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Bearing this comment in mind, I see no harm in discussing the initial details of a very important pistol which was stolen even if we know the involved parties. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I left this thread, as did Ron, because of this very reason. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">In my opinion, to block/delete a thread which has no 'finger-pointing' involved, only shows protectionist, defensive or preferential treatment for a person. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Krause was "fingered" as having possibly sold a stolen gun. In the article it did not state him by name. So DIRECT finger pointing was made. This conjecture was raised by Pete who stated that Krause showed this gun around several gun shows, a truthful statement. Wes stated and made a side comment about how it had to be obvious that he should have known better. And to me it appeared that Wes was meaning that Mike knew it was a stolen gun and still continued with the deal. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I believe that we have learned from past experiences a code of conduct on this forum and, therefore, threads should not be quickly closed/deleted because a moderator senses that the issue might get out of hand. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I don't believe this and on other gun forums flames and name callings quickly get out of hand. The initial discussion was a valid one, although it was treading on thin ice. If you, Wes and others think otherwise, fine. Then that is okay, but in my opinion I felt it was not what this forum was about. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">If a member happens to stain another person's name or reputation or use false references, then the appropriate action should be taken.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Albert if you had one of your guns on your website discussed and it was claimed that you had received stolen property, what would you think? Would you believe it was okay to let that be left here on the forum? What would the appropriate action be? Lock the thread? That means that the entire thread stays where it is, to be seen again and again, leaving doubt in every new reader that sees it. If the initial article had stated that Krause was convicted of receiving stolen property, then that would be different. It did not state that: The link is included here: http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/new...ger_020604.pdf </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">During the ceremony, Garcia also returned to Switzerland a rare, 106-year-old, Luger pistol that had been stolen from a Swiss museum in 1996 and was recently recovered by ICE agents in the United States. and The U.S. Attorney contacted Vincent G. Klink, the ICE Resident Agent in Charge in Austin, TX, who opened an investigation into the stolen pistol. After four months of extensive investigation by ICE agents, the pistol was recovered from an internationally known antique firearm collector during the execution of search warrants last July. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">In no way does this state Mike Krause by name. Although this "news" might be known to collectors, it is libelous to put his name to stolen property until convicted by a court of US law. Definition of libel: http://www.hvgateway.com/jrnl015a.htm </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">N.Y.A.D. 1979. Generally words are libelous which directly tend to injure or prejudice the reputation of an individual in any profession carried on by him, and are actionable without proof of special damage. Terry v. Orleans County, 422 N.Y.S.2d 826, 72 A.D.2d 925 and http://www.legal-definitions.com/I,%20J,%20K/libel.htm libel definition Ã¢?? libel means to defame or harm oneÃ¢??s reputation is writing. and Read this small section ...it clarified that the repeating or republishing of someone else's libel or slander can, and most likely will make you a part of the underlying action. and http://www.hfac.uh.edu/comm/media_libel/libel/ Published material meeting three conditions: the material is defamatory either on its face or indirectly; the defamatory statement is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons; and the material must be distributed to someone other than the offended party; i.e. published; distinguished from slander. (For more details, see http://192.41.4.29/def/l032 ). </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">If anyone can tell me that it was in the best interests of this forum to keep this thread, then fine, but UNTIL Mike Krause is convicted, it is conjecture and hearsay to bring up ANYONEÃ¢??S name in discussing this incident from the initial article. I do not care if MANY collectors knew of this incident, it is NOT legally appropriate to this board until proven by a court of law and someone is convicted of a crime. This has nothing to do with Free Speech, this has to do with legality. Wes, you are always stating that we must be careful of how we portray ourselves, well, UNTIL Krause is convicted, this is not the truth, but mere conjecture. And if anyone wants the position of moderator and look out for the entire broad picture, then ask John Dunkle and he will be glad to think about it. Ed __________________ Edward Tinker ************ Co-Author of Police Lugers - Co-Author of Simson Lugers Author of Veteran Bring Backs Vol I, Vol II, Vol III and Vol IV

03-24-2004, 07:36 AM	#12
wterrell User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,096 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Krause was "fingered" as having possibly sold a stolen gun. In the article it did not state him by name. So DIRECT finger pointing was made. This conjecture was raised by Pete who stated that Krause showed this gun around several gun shows, a truthful statement. Wes stated and made a side comment about how it had to be obvious that he should have known better. And to me it appeared that Wes was meaning that Mike knew it was a stolen gun and still continued with the deal. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">Ed, I made no comment concerning the gun being displayed at the gun shows. I let the statement of Pete go without a response because of the reason that you stated. I did not make any statement that Mike knew the pistol was stolen and that he continued with the deal. I cannot help the conclusions that you reached concerning the pistol and Mike. As you stated, these are your conclusions about the subject, not mine. I did not say that he received stolen property. The only one who has brought up this line of conversation is you. I trust to your integrity to admit to the veracity of my above statements. If a man received provenance and documentation, and then does not research the facts, his actions are not wise. That is the reason that in a real estate transaction, the abstract of title will not be sufficient to conclude the purchase but also requires an abstract opinion and also title insurance. If a man buys property based upon a fake abstract he is not accused of stealing the property, but he has acted very foolishly in the purchase. That is the conclusion at which you should have arrived, Ed. __________________ Noli me vocare, ego te vocabo, wes --------------------

03-24-2004, 08:30 AM	#13
jamese User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: South Florida Posts: 789 Thanks: 0 Thanked 84 Times in 34 Posts	Ed, You have my support, (for whatever thatÃ¢??s worth) I like others expressed an option on the original thread, but it was ONLY an option based on the facts as reported and my 25 years law enforcement experience. I can also say this based on my years of law enforcement experience: (1) The gun was recovered during the execution of a search warrant. (2) Search warrants are issued by a judge based on probable cause of a crime. Law enforcement officers must articulate to the judge in an affidavit the level of involvement of the person that is the target of the investigation and the premises to be searched. If a person is an INNOCENT 3 party to a crime, why not just ask them to turn over the gun instead of serving a search warrant. One can draw their own conclusions, based solely on known facts. Jim __________________ The "truth" is a matter of Perception

03-24-2004, 08:51 AM	#14
Lugerdoc Patron LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: POB 398 St.Charles,MO. 63302 Posts: 5,089 Thanks: 6 Thanked 736 Times in 483 Posts	Jamese, I don't know if this applies to this particular case, but I've found that "law enforcements" lack of knowledge concerning collectable pistols, to be part of the problem. Twice in 30 years, I've sold German pistols that were questioned by law enforcement, only to find that they had either neglected to include the suffix letter as part of the serial number (on a CYQ P38, that I purchased from the importer) or the year date of a luger, and as we know that both DWM & Mauser repeted the same serials over the years. I appreciate any efforts on the behalf of knowledgeable collector to educate those in law enforcement, whether it on a local level or the ATF. TH __________________ Tom Heller POB 398 ST.Charles, MO. 63302 Tel 636-447-3006 lugerdoc@charter.net

03-24-2004, 09:08 AM	#15
John D. Administrator & Site Owner LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Little NE of Somewhere... Posts: 2,651 Thanks: 477 Thanked 514 Times in 128 Posts	This is about the silliest dialog I've read. First - I didn't see the thread. Second, if I did see it - I would have made a judgement call as well. Third - I'll back Ed's decision without question - so if you need to bitch and gripe about it - feel free to do so. You can e-mail me at any number of the e-mail addresses throughout this site. Now - I believe I'm correct that over the past 4 or 5 years of hosting this site - maybe a handful of posts have been deleted. If it were more then 2 a year - I'd be shocked. So, for that - if you think you can do a better job at Moderating - Hosting - you have some choices... 1) You can choose not to post here; 2) You can set up your own Forums - and Moderate to your way of thinking; 3)... Hmmm - I guess the first two options are about it..? As for Ed's decision - or any Moderator's decision - give it a rest. The odds are we can please about 80% of the folks about 20% of the time. So - if you don't like the "odds", see Option 1 or 2 above. In the meantime - I'll be doubling their "salary" for supporting these Forums. Oh - and I'm moving this to the General Discussion area. I'm pretty convinced this has NOTHING to do with Early Lugers.

03-24-2004, 12:20 PM	#16
MauserLugers User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Philipsburg, Montana 59858 Posts: 250 Thanks: 0 Thanked 8 Times in 1 Post	I did not have a chance to read this thread but looks to me like there could have been some interesting information shared within it. I heard about this "deal" some time ago, so this is not anywhere close to current information. What was shared with me was that the gun was known to have been in a Swiss museum and it was known to have been stolen. This was common knowledge to collectors for some time. So, you come to your own conclusions as to why someone would spend "big" money on this prototype when it was known to be rare and known to be stolen. -- Bill