On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:33:29 -0400, 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*?

Too bad they didn't simply require the proper paperwork from their
sources, so they could be found "not guilty."

--
Another belief of mine: that everyone else my age is an adult,
whereas I am merely in disguise.
-- Margaret Atwood