"The indictment alleges Ralph secretly paid executives of Glock to receive preferential treatment over other distributors of firearms, including directing potential customers to his company, giving his company priority access to limited products, steering government contracts and sales to government agencies of firearms and accessories to his company, and providing confidential Glock information to him."
I'm scratching my head wondering why the federal government should care if a private business wants to pay another private business extra money to get preferential treatment.
Gaston Glock might have a good reason to fire some people, but that would seem to be his problem, not the DOJ's.
is it the blue label vs. red label issue maybe?
Or is the "buying an unfair advantage" over his competitors. I could potentially see that being a problem.
I'm thinking it's this:
It still seems to me like much more if an HR issue that a DOJ. And from that standpoint, I'd be more concerned about the folks who took the bribes than the guy that paid them.The indictment alleges that from 2003 to 2009, Ralph used the U.S. Postal Service to send and receive approximately 140 bribes and kickbacks that were delivered to defendants Lisa Dutton and Paula Wood. Between 2009 and 2011, the indictment alleges, Ralph used wire transfers to send approximately 80 bribes and kickbacks.
All part of the Anti-gun PR Circus.Originally Posted by Bigguy
If they could have found grounds for RICO, I'm sure they would have thrown that in as well.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
Does anyone else find the timing of this… interesting?
I mean, the day after HK announces a new pistol aimed squarely at LE, with some not-to-be-mentioned federal agencies neck-deep in evaluating same?
Just sayin'… or perhaps I need some more tin foil???
.
I'm scratching my head wondering why the federal government should care if a private business wants to pay another private business extra money to get preferential treatment.
Gaston Glock might have a good reason to fire some people, but that would seem to be his problem, not the DOJ's.
I am lost as well. If we aren't talking about manipulation of gov contracts or funds I do not get why they would care.
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
Thinking it has to be more about the wire fraud, and the wives setting up dummy companies to take the payments (money laundering).
In a world where "Operation Choke Point" is being used against legitimate businesses trafficking in explicitly constitutionally-protected merchandise, I'm getting tinfoil-er by the day.
Definitely more tinfoil.Does anyone else find the timing of this… interesting?
I mean, the day after HK announces a new pistol aimed squarely at LE, with some not-to-be-mentioned federal agencies neck-deep in evaluating same?
Just sayin'… or perhaps I need some more tin foil???
.
Reply With Quote
