On 8/7/12 12:33 PM, Bill wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
John Grossbohlin wrote:
http://www.marke****ch.com/story/gib...me_latest_news


Yep. They caved and I lost all respect for the company.

They had, as best I understand, a defensible position on the merits.
I'd be
hard-pressed to imagine a jury finding against them.

This article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19153588)
says"

Gibson admitted violating the Lacey Act, which requires firms to *know*
that timber they use is legally obtained.

From this, it appears they violated the law as charged. What is the
defensible position--that they *didn't know*?


I don't know the particulars, nor do I have a dog in the race, but they
wouldn't be the first to admit to a lesser charge to avoid the
possibility of being convicted of a higher one, even knowing there were
guilty of neither.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply