Bill wrote in :

HeyBub wrote:
John Grossbohlin wrote:
http://www.marke****ch.com/story/gib...00000-fine-doj
-2012-08-06?link=MW_home_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*?



Secondly, had they just strung (no pun intended) things out for a few
months, it's possible a new administration would have dropped the
entire business.

Seems to me Gibson chose the lesser of 2 evils:

from the BBC article referenced above:
quote
"As a result of this investigation and criminal enforcement agreement,
Gibson has acknowledged that it failed to act on information that the
Madagascar ebony it was purchasing may have violated laws intended to
limit overharvesting and conserve valuable wood species from Madagascar,
a country which has been severely impacted by deforestation," said
Assistant Attorney General Moreno following the settlement.

The ebony was mainly in the form of strips that would be fashioned into
fretboards for guitars, mandolins and banjos.
/quote

Apparently the DoJ evidence was such that Gibson decided not to fight it
further.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid