-MIKE- wrote:
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.

Agreed. Point taken. Both posibilities though point to the same thing - ya
just can't know base on what is published...

--

-Mike-