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*?


Maybe nothing. But these things tend to be orchestrated statements that
satisfy the needs of both parties - the prosecutor and the defendent (to
some degree). Very often it is a fool's folly to take them at face value.
You really can't know if you don't have access to the inside information -
and we never will.

--

-Mike-