On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:49:51 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 8/7/2012 12:55 PM, Bill wrote:

That will look good in their annual report! I have heard that everyone
who is incarcerated "Didn't do it!". I"m sorry, my tolerance for
double-talk gets lower by the year.

And mine for those who speak without bothering to inform themselves of
the particulars.

Once again:

To illustrate the ridiculousness and overreaching of this action by the
DOJ against Gibson, you have to read the affidavit filed in support of
the search warrant:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...sonWarrant.pdf

The seized wood is described in the affidavit as in the form of "sawn
logs" 510-530 x 75/70 x 10mm.

IOW, each of the 1250 pieces seized is roughly 20" x 3" x 13/32".

Read paragraph 14, page six of the affidavit and you will see that India
allows export of this particular wood up to 6mm thick (due to the high
complexity of involved in cutting these thin sheets to a uniform
commercial quality)

IOW, it must be cut to that thickness by Indian workers at Indian
factories, insuring Indian jobs.

And India's gov't either:
1) didn't know about it.
2) didn't care about it.
3) allowed it to get exports made.
or
4) allowed it to permit later prosecution.

My guess is 5) All of the above.


IOW, the raid on Gibson's facilities, disrupting the production and jobs
of workers at one of the few American companies still "manufacturing"
products is based on a difference of 5/32" of thickness, AND TO PROTECT
INDIAN WOODWORKING JOBS.

How many of you, experienced woodworkers, could look at bundles of these
pieces and tell that there is up to 4mm (5/32") difference in thickness
in the pieces?

Roughly ALL experienced woodworkers could have seen the difference.
10mm is nearly double the thickness of 6mm. Any inspector at Customs
or an export company could have easily told, too. They look for that
type of thing on a daily basis. This means that noone (in every
company and gov't) cared to do their job, all the way around the
world. Why couldn't Gibson just ship the excess sawdust back?



Do you really think that Gibson should be held accountable, and be
subject to a police action, computers seized, production disrupted, jobs
lost, by buying rough stock, sight unseen, that is approximately 1/8"
thicker than it's supposed to be?

Absolutely not.


What it boils down to is that US is enforcing India's laws to protect
the woodworking jobs at the expense of American jobs. And apparently,
the Indian woodworker aren't doing their jobs very well, at least when
it comes to "uniform commercial quality".

If Gibson would only move their operations to India, there would be no
problem.

That appears to be the motive of some gov't agencies. grrrr

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

On 8/7/12 6:20 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
On 8/7/12 2:33 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
dpb wrote:


What they spent to date and faced continuing to fight in direct
legal costs is just the tip of the iceberg...but to build enough of
a case to actual stand in federal court against DOJ I wouldn't be
at all surprised if it at least pushed the six figure amount for
legal costs alone.

Pushed "six figures" is a lot different than "millions" as was
previously stated. Does anybody even read posts anymore?


I never stated they spent millions. Maybe you should read the post
again? :-p
I was simply speculating as to a possible motivation behind settling
and posed a hypothetical question.
I think you're getting a bit too wound up.

Ok - I'm going to my corner to unwind. I hate that damned corner...


I have my own chair in the corner. :-)


--

-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

Bill wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:


That will look good in their annual report! I have heard that
everyone who is incarcerated "Didn't do it!". I"m sorry, my
tolerance for double-talk gets lower by the year.


Bill - you should not speak outside of your area of expertise. Please
explain (you cannot...), how this will appear and how it will
appear favorably in an annual report. You really should not speak a
about things you only speculate on.

Well, we can watch for the annual report. Do you believe that the
board of directors and others who prepare annual reports won't show
any bias? Have you ever read an annual report? I expect it will say
something to the effect that "The CEO and other leaders in the company
acted quickly, smartly, and prudently in looking-out for the forward
interests of the company", or an equivalent self-pat on the back.
It's true that I didn't review all of the specifics of this case, as
Swingman suggested. I do recall some of the details now from a few
months back. I am in favor of all companies being good world
citizens. Particularly Gibson, since I like some of their guitars (as
everyone knows, guitars carry a huge amount of Karma!)

Well - let's watch for it. I'll guess it simply shows the expense with at
the most, a brief description. I'll guess they don't bother to pat
themselves on the back. As for Karma - you're spot on!


And you know nothing at all about the details - but in your secluded
little academic world, you feel priviledged to make this suggestion?

It is my privilege to make this suggestion under the 1st Ammendment to
the Constitution. No kiddding! Look it up, it's true!

You are correct. I sir, will honor that! (I'm too lazy to look it up...)


--

-Mike-

What gets me is that the DOJ will probably burn the ebony.
So not only did it not go to product, but it was wasted, and Gibson will
still have to get more to make more product.

But that's only an assumption.


On 8/7/2012 2:35 PM, dpb wrote:
On 8/7/2012 1:21 PM, Bill wrote:
...

To consumers who are interested in Gibson, it exposes all that they need
to know about it, if they wish to make politicial statements with their
purchases.

Only if they only care of the result but not the motivation or real
cause. Many think DOJ went after Gibson only as punitive action not
really because there was any significant violation.

If I governed a nation with a rainforest to protect, it would say to me
that I better watch the dealings with Gibson a little closer.

Well, the people you had best be watching would be your own citizens who
are the ones who have to be doing the "on the ground" poaching if such
it is. And, undoubtedly, the members of your own government who are
undoubtedly receiving the kickbacks and may well be the
ringleaders/organizers...as well as you as imperial leader yourself

...

We may do well to go back to "The buck stops here!" and quit the legal
and political angle-shooting. We are getting so "smart" we are going to
bust our country.

As the comments from Gibson's prez show, you can get in trouble w/o even
knowing it despite your best efforts to the contrary.

We've already made ourselves almost totally noncompetitive globally in
many areas and every year just adds more levels to the mix...

--

On 8/7/2012 4:44 PM, Stuart Wheaton wrote:
Snip



If it means the difference between legal and not, I think I'd be
measuring it and reject the shipment if it fell out of specs. That much
wood has serious value, maybe you should have a local employee checking
it when you buy it.

If I opened a box and found it full of marijuana, I wouldn't just stick
it into the storeroom.

These woods are regulated, if you want to use them, you need to know the
regulations and stay within them. Ignoring the rules isn't the way to
win in business.

So don't you think that they should have actually been in possession
before being charged?

Let's say you are the guy in charge of ordering materials at Gibson and
place your order. It is confiscated in route and found to not have
legal sized contents. Should you be arrested?

It is a very common occurrence for the contents of any shipment,
regardless of what the contents is, to not exactly match the packing
slip. Mistakes are a daily fact in shipment preparation.

On 8/7/2012 10:21 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
What gets me is that the DOJ will probably burn the ebony.
So not only did it not go to product, but it was wasted, and Gibson will
still have to get more to make more product.

Apparently the wood seized in the last raid was indeed returned to
Gibson, but you won't read about it in the press.

There is a common misconception, even here, that the Lacey Act is all
about protecting an endangered species, and that is certainly NOT the
case in this instance as the product in question was _legally_ harvested
by the country of origin.

The Lacey Act, in its current iteration, is designed to enforce the laws
of other countries, ... in this case, insuring that the job of
dimensioning the product remains in the country or origin.

This is about selective enforcement and using buzzword topics to further
what amounts to government extortion and example making by an
administration directing lawyers (DOJ) in an exercise of gaming the
legal system ... the only hot button terminology that wasn't used, by
both the government and pres, in this entire episode was "save the
children" ... but "save the rainforest", and "endangered species" were
both implied and used in abundance, although that was actually never at
issue.

What it all proves, once again, is that you can indeed fool most of the
people ALL the time; that it is almost impossible to protect yourself
when operating in a confusing array of federal and foreign laws; and
that the government has no limits when using subterfuge in attempts to
criminalize what was not a criminal matter to start with.

Once again ... if Gibson were to move their operation overseas, or even
outsource that particular process to any other location in the world,
there would never have been an incident ... that is an inarguable FACT.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Swingman wrote:

Apparently the wood seized in the last raid was indeed returned to
Gibson, but you won't read about it in the press.

There is a common misconception, even here, that the Lacey Act is all
about protecting an endangered species, and that is certainly NOT the
case in this instance as the product in question was _legally_
harvested by the country of origin.

The Lacey Act, in its current iteration, is designed to enforce the
laws of other countries, ... in this case, insuring that the job of
dimensioning the product remains in the country or origin.

This is about selective enforcement and using buzzword topics to
further what amounts to government extortion and example making by an
administration directing lawyers (DOJ) in an exercise of gaming the
legal system ... the only hot button terminology that wasn't used, by
both the government and pres, in this entire episode was "save the
children" ... but "save the rainforest", and "endangered species" were
both implied and used in abundance, although that was actually never
at issue.

What it all proves, once again, is that you can indeed fool most of
the people ALL the time; that it is almost impossible to protect
yourself when operating in a confusing array of federal and foreign
laws; and that the government has no limits when using subterfuge in
attempts to criminalize what was not a criminal matter to start with.

Once again ... if Gibson were to move their operation overseas, or
even outsource that particular process to any other location in the
world, there would never have been an incident ... that is an
inarguable FACT.

I left Swingman's comments intact in order to agree with all of what he has
said. This is much more a political move than it is anything else.

--

-Mike-

On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 12:47:38 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Swingman wrote:

Apparently the wood seized in the last raid was indeed returned to
Gibson, but you won't read about it in the press.

There is a common misconception, even here, that the Lacey Act is all
about protecting an endangered species, and that is certainly NOT the
case in this instance as the product in question was _legally_
harvested by the country of origin.

The Lacey Act, in its current iteration, is designed to enforce the
laws of other countries, ... in this case, insuring that the job of
dimensioning the product remains in the country or origin.

This is about selective enforcement and using buzzword topics to
further what amounts to government extortion and example making by an
administration directing lawyers (DOJ) in an exercise of gaming the
legal system ... the only hot button terminology that wasn't used, by
both the government and pres, in this entire episode was "save the
children" ... but "save the rainforest", and "endangered species" were
both implied and used in abundance, although that was actually never
at issue.

What it all proves, once again, is that you can indeed fool most of
the people ALL the time; that it is almost impossible to protect
yourself when operating in a confusing array of federal and foreign
laws; and that the government has no limits when using subterfuge in
attempts to criminalize what was not a criminal matter to start with.

Once again ... if Gibson were to move their operation overseas, or
even outsource that particular process to any other location in the
world, there would never have been an incident ... that is an
inarguable FACT.

I left Swingman's comments intact in order to agree with all of what he has
said. This is much more a political move than it is anything else.

Policital in that the issue has nothing to do with any of the facts raised in
the case but on who is in the White House.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 12:47:38 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Swingman wrote:

Apparently the wood seized in the last raid was indeed returned to
Gibson, but you won't read about it in the press.

There is a common misconception, even here, that the Lacey Act is
all about protecting an endangered species, and that is certainly
NOT the case in this instance as the product in question was
_legally_ harvested by the country of origin.

The Lacey Act, in its current iteration, is designed to enforce the
laws of other countries, ... in this case, insuring that the job of
dimensioning the product remains in the country or origin.

This is about selective enforcement and using buzzword topics to
further what amounts to government extortion and example making by
an administration directing lawyers (DOJ) in an exercise of gaming
the legal system ... the only hot button terminology that wasn't
used, by both the government and pres, in this entire episode was
"save the children" ... but "save the rainforest", and "endangered
species" were both implied and used in abundance, although that was
actually never at issue.

What it all proves, once again, is that you can indeed fool most of
the people ALL the time; that it is almost impossible to protect
yourself when operating in a confusing array of federal and foreign
laws; and that the government has no limits when using subterfuge in
attempts to criminalize what was not a criminal matter to start
with.

Once again ... if Gibson were to move their operation overseas, or
even outsource that particular process to any other location in the
world, there would never have been an incident ... that is an
inarguable FACT.

I left Swingman's comments intact in order to agree with all of what
he has said. This is much more a political move than it is anything
else.

Policital in that the issue has nothing to do with any of the facts
raised in the case but on who is in the White House.

Correct.

--

-Mike-

Swingman wrote:
On 8/7/2012 10:21 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
What gets me is that the DOJ will probably burn the ebony.
So not only did it not go to product, but it was wasted, and Gibson will
still have to get more to make more product.

Apparently the wood seized in the last raid was indeed returned to
Gibson, but you won't read about it in the press.

There is a common misconception, even here, that the Lacey Act is all
about protecting an endangered species, and that is certainly NOT the
case in this instance as the product in question was _legally_ harvested
by the country of origin.

The Lacey Act, in its current iteration, is designed to enforce the laws
of other countries, ... in this case, insuring that the job of
dimensioning the product remains in the country or origin.

You make it sound as though they don't have a perfectly legitimate
right to do that!




This is about selective enforcement and using buzzword topics to further
what amounts to government extortion and example making by an
administration directing lawyers (DOJ) in an exercise of gaming the
legal system ... the only hot button terminology that wasn't used, by
both the government and pres, in this entire episode was "save the
children" ... but "save the rainforest", and "endangered species" were
both implied and used in abundance, although that was actually never at
issue.

What it all proves, once again, is that you can indeed fool most of the
people ALL the time; that it is almost impossible to protect yourself
when operating in a confusing array of federal and foreign laws; and
that the government has no limits when using subterfuge in attempts to
criminalize what was not a criminal matter to start with.

Once again ... if Gibson were to move their operation overseas, or even
outsource that particular process to any other location in the world,
there would never have been an incident ... that is an inarguable FACT.

Bill wrote:
Swingman wrote:

The Lacey Act, in its current iteration, is designed to enforce the laws
of other countries, ... in this case, insuring that the job of
dimensioning the product remains in the country or origin.

You make it sound as though they don't have a perfectly legitimate right to do that!

That is _you_reading something into a factual statement that does not
exist, except in your own mind.

Show me where any other country involved complained ... the fact is they
declined the opportunity to be involved.

--
www.ewoodshop.com

Swingman wrote:
Bill wrote:
Swingman wrote:

The Lacey Act, in its current iteration, is designed to enforce the laws
of other countries, ... in this case, insuring that the job of
dimensioning the product remains in the country or origin.

You make it sound as though they don't have a perfectly legitimate right to do that!

That is _you_reading something into a factual statement that does not
exist, except in your own mind.

Fair enough. I'm sorry if I misunderstood.


Show me where any other country involved complained ... the fact is they
declined the opportunity to be involved.

On 8/8/2012 1:42 PM, Bill wrote:
Swingman wrote:
On 8/7/2012 10:21 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
What gets me is that the DOJ will probably burn the ebony.
So not only did it not go to product, but it was wasted, and Gibson will
still have to get more to make more product.

Apparently the wood seized in the last raid was indeed returned to
Gibson, but you won't read about it in the press.

There is a common misconception, even here, that the Lacey Act is all
about protecting an endangered species, and that is certainly NOT the
case in this instance as the product in question was _legally_ harvested
by the country of origin.

The Lacey Act, in its current iteration, is designed to enforce the laws
of other countries, ... in this case, insuring that the job of
dimensioning the product remains in the country or origin.

You make it sound as though they don't have a perfectly legitimate
right to do that!




Why on earth should we enforce laws of another country when they see no
need to do so themselves?

Leon wrote:
On 8/8/2012 1:42 PM, Bill wrote:
Swingman wrote:
On 8/7/2012 10:21 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
What gets me is that the DOJ will probably burn the ebony.
So not only did it not go to product, but it was wasted, and Gibson
will
still have to get more to make more product.

Apparently the wood seized in the last raid was indeed returned to
Gibson, but you won't read about it in the press.

There is a common misconception, even here, that the Lacey Act is all
about protecting an endangered species, and that is certainly NOT the
case in this instance as the product in question was _legally_ harvested
by the country of origin.

The Lacey Act, in its current iteration, is designed to enforce the laws
of other countries, ... in this case, insuring that the job of
dimensioning the product remains in the country or origin.

You make it sound as though they don't have a perfectly legitimate
right to do that!




Why on earth should we enforce laws of another country when they see no
need to do so themselves?

I don't know, good PR? My main thought is that capitalism does not
justify violating the laws of another country even if one is pretty sure
they won't get caught. There was an article out today (yahoo or cnbc)
about how CEOs of companies who commit crimes rarely face any personal
punishment themselves.

I don't have any skin in the Gibson/DOJ affair, but I would like to see
"honest corporations". I think that creating a more litigous society
full of angle-shooters is not the answer we need, although
angle-shooting seems to be popular sport. Believe there is any insider
trading going on these days?

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet writes:
On 8/8/2012 1:42 PM, Bill wrote:
Swingman wrote:
On 8/7/2012 10:21 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
What gets me is that the DOJ will probably burn the ebony.
So not only did it not go to product, but it was wasted, and Gibson will
still have to get more to make more product.

Apparently the wood seized in the last raid was indeed returned to
Gibson, but you won't read about it in the press.

There is a common misconception, even here, that the Lacey Act is all
about protecting an endangered species, and that is certainly NOT the
case in this instance as the product in question was _legally_ harvested
by the country of origin.

The Lacey Act, in its current iteration, is designed to enforce the laws
of other countries, ... in this case, insuring that the job of
dimensioning the product remains in the country or origin.

You make it sound as though they don't have a perfectly legitimate
right to do that!




Why on earth should we enforce laws of another country when they see no
need to do so themselves?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacey_Act_of_1900

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 10:05:51 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 8/7/12 8:14 AM, 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.

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.


It was three hundred grand... they probably considered it a bargain. How
many millions were they paying to their lawyers? How much would would
another 6 months cost them? When you're dealing with the DoJ, who can
just keep reaching into *our* pockets to fight in the courts, most of
the time it's better to settle and sacrifice principle for profits.

Agreed. With the cost of a top end Gibson being over $15 grand
$300,000 was a slap on the wrist.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:20:01 -0400, Nova wrote:

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 10:05:51 -0500, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 8/7/12 8:14 AM, 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.

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.


It was three hundred grand... they probably considered it a bargain. How
many millions were they paying to their lawyers? How much would would
another 6 months cost them? When you're dealing with the DoJ, who can
just keep reaching into *our* pockets to fight in the courts, most of
the time it's better to settle and sacrifice principle for profits.

Agreed. With the cost of a top end Gibson being over $15 grand
$300,000 was a slap on the wrist.

A $300k fine for NOT checking paperwork before signing a contract
seems a bit stiff to me. YMMV.

--
We are always the same age inside.
-- Gertrude Stein

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:17:56 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:20:01 -0400, Nova wrote:
snip

Agreed. With the cost of a top end Gibson being over $15 grand
$300,000 was a slap on the wrist.

A $300k fine for NOT checking paperwork before signing a contract
seems a bit stiff to me. YMMV.

Gibson was first raided in 2009 and then again in 2011. After the
first raid they should have gotten a clue something was amiss.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

"John Grossbohlin" wrote in message
m...
http://www.marke****ch.com/story/gib...me_latest_news

The Wall St Journal reported that the fine was $300K, Gibson also agreed to
$50K being paid to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, plus they
withdrew their claims to the ebony seized and valued at $261,844. Total out
of pocket here is $611,844. Add in the legal fees and lost productivity
(reported to be about $2 million) and the figure becomes significant. What
was not mentioned was the nearly 100 guitars that were also confiscated.

"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 species..."

Rightly or wrongly, on both Gibson's part and the Fed's part, this is how it
played out. I suspect it may alter the business and personal practices of
some here in the U.S.. There are surely others that will not care and who
will continue doing what they are doing figuring that they are flying under
the radar. Gibson's products end up on stage, on TV, and in myriad
photos... harder to hide perhaps than that nice jewelry box someone made for
their wife?

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:17:56 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:20:01 -0400, Nova wrote:
snip

Agreed. With the cost of a top end Gibson being over $15 grand
$300,000 was a slap on the wrist.

A $300k fine for NOT checking paperwork before signing a contract
seems a bit stiff to me. YMMV.

Gibson was first raided in 2009 and then again in 2011. After the
first raid they should have gotten a clue something was amiss.

Personally I think we need another Constitutional amendment to the
effect that no failure to properly fill out forms shall carry a penalty
greater than that for event the slightest violent crime or property
crime.

On 8/9/2012 3:02 PM, John Grossbohlin wrote:

"John Grossbohlin" wrote in
message m...
http://www.marke****ch.com/story/gib...me_latest_news


The Wall St Journal reported that the fine was $300K, Gibson also agreed
to $50K being paid to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, plus
they withdrew their claims to the ebony seized and valued at $261,844.
Total out of pocket here is $611,844. Add in the legal fees and lost
productivity (reported to be about $2 million) and the figure becomes
significant. What was not mentioned was the nearly 100 guitars that were
also confiscated.

"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 species..."

Rightly or wrongly, on both Gibson's part and the Fed's part, this is
how it played out. I suspect it may alter the business and personal
practices of some here in the U.S.. There are surely others that will
not care and who will continue doing what they are doing figuring that
they are flying under the radar. Gibson's products end up on stage, on
TV, and in myriad photos... harder to hide perhaps than that nice
jewelry box someone made for their wife?







as Pogo said, "We has met the enemy, and they is us".

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 15:42:15 -0400, Nova wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:17:56 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:20:01 -0400, Nova wrote:
snip

Agreed. With the cost of a top end Gibson being over $15 grand
$300,000 was a slap on the wrist.

A $300k fine for NOT checking paperwork before signing a contract
seems a bit stiff to me. YMMV.

Gibson was first raided in 2009 and then again in 2011. After the
first raid they should have gotten a clue something was amiss.

True, but is it amiss at the Gibson plant or with the regulators/laws?

--
We are always the same age inside.
-- Gertrude Stein

On 8/7/2012 3:22 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:

I've learned, mostly from watching CNBC, not to take the statements
of anyone with a vested interest too literally. I have nothing against
Gibson's president or CEO, I don't even know their names.

Believe me, I'm watching this with interest! Hopefully technology will
help foster more positive than negative (or passive) attitudes.

Technology will help? How does technology replace brain power?

How do you "learn" anything watching CNBC?

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 8/7/2012 7:18 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
dpb wrote:
On 8/7/2012 12:43 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:

Please go back to the original posts. They probably did not, and
perhaps would not have spend "millions" on this. All of the rest
that you posted is not relevant.

Sorry - that was abrupt. Better stated... It appears they did not spend
untold amounts to date (though we don't really know...) and what they could
or would have spent is pretty much speculation. I do agree with you that to
fight DOJ - whether they are off base with their case or not, is going to be
expensive.

More over, after they spend $X and win, the dirty, stinking, rotten,
lousy, corrupt, left wing socialist piece of **** government will
likely, the next day, file suit against them for breaking a different,
but equally stupid foreign law. A prime reason our founding fathers
recognized the need for a [very] limited centralized government.

--
Jack
A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!
http://jbstein.com

On 8/8/2012 2:42 PM, Bill wrote:
Swingman wrote:

The Lacey Act, in its current iteration, is designed to enforce the laws
of other countries, ... in this case, insuring that the job of
dimensioning the product remains in the country or origin.

You make it sound as though they don't have a perfectly legitimate
right to do that!

Would be nice if they would enforce our own laws, immigration laws
perhaps, or even the immigration laws of Mexico, at our boarders, but
no, the pricks choose to enforce Indian laws against a great US company
even though India seemed to have no problem with the their laws being
broken.

--
Jack
Got Change: Democratic Republic ====== Banana Republic!
http://jbstein.com

On 8/8/2012 11:44 PM, Leon wrote:
On 8/8/2012 1:42 PM, Bill wrote:

The Lacey Act, in its current iteration, is designed to enforce the laws
of other countries, ... in this case, insuring that the job of
dimensioning the product remains in the country or origin.

You make it sound as though they don't have a perfectly legitimate
right to do that!

Why on earth should we enforce laws of another country when they see no
need to do so themselves?

Or enforce our own laws, immigration laws, or Voting rights laws for
example. No, instead, they choose to enforce some bazaar Indian law that
India themselves had no problem with.

Makes one wonder to which political party Gibson leans?

--
Jack
News Flash: Government Motors (GM) fines their top competitor $16 Mil.
http://jbstein.com

On 8/9/2012 9:59 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet writes:

Why on earth should we enforce laws of another country when they see no
need to do so themselves?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacey_Act_of_1900

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (Pub.L. 82-414, 66 Stat.
163, enacted June 27, 1952)

We have millions of laws, most stupid or unnecessary, like the
Lacey_Act. Yet simple laws to protect our boarders from foreign
invaders are ignored, simply because the tend to vote for the same type
of leaders that made their own countries worthless places best to flee.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 8/9/2012 3:17 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
Nova wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:

It was three hundred grand... they probably considered it a bargain. How
many millions were they paying to their lawyers? How much would would
another 6 months cost them? When you're dealing with the DoJ, who can
just keep reaching into *our* pockets to fight in the courts, most of
the time it's better to settle and sacrifice principle for profits.

Agreed. With the cost of a top end Gibson being over $15 grand
$300,000 was a slap on the wrist.

A $300k fine for NOT checking paperwork before signing a contract
seems a bit stiff to me. YMMV.

A $300,000 fine for violating a foreign law that the foreign country
didn't think they violated is a bit stupid to me.


--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

Jack wrote:
On 8/7/2012 3:22 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:

I've learned, mostly from watching CNBC, not to take the statements
of anyone with a vested interest too literally. I have nothing against
Gibson's president or CEO, I don't even know their names.

Believe me, I'm watching this with interest! Hopefully technology will
help foster more positive than negative (or passive) attitudes.

Technology will help? How does technology replace brain power?

How do you "learn" anything watching CNBC?

Numerical facts are prominently displayed. I am leary of any other
"information" disseminated.

Jack wrote:
On 8/9/2012 3:17 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
Nova wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:

It was three hundred grand... they probably considered it a
bargain. How many millions were they paying to their lawyers? How
much would would another 6 months cost them? When you're dealing
with the DoJ, who can just keep reaching into *our* pockets to
fight in the courts, most of the time it's better to settle and
sacrifice principle for profits.

Agreed. With the cost of a top end Gibson being over $15 grand
$300,000 was a slap on the wrist.

A $300k fine for NOT checking paperwork before signing a contract
seems a bit stiff to me. YMMV.

A $300,000 fine for violating a foreign law that the foreign country
didn't think they violated is a bit stupid to me.

But - it fits the political agenda...

--

-Mike-

Bill wrote:
Jack wrote:
On 8/7/2012 3:22 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:

I've learned, mostly from watching CNBC, not to take the
statements of anyone with a vested interest too literally. I have
nothing against Gibson's president or CEO, I don't even know their
names. Believe me, I'm watching this with interest! Hopefully
technology
will help foster more positive than negative (or passive)
attitudes.

Technology will help? How does technology replace brain power?

How do you "learn" anything watching CNBC?

Numerical facts are prominently displayed. I am leary of any other
"information" disseminated.

I'm not sure there really is such a thing as "numerical facts" Bill. It
almost seems like a contradiction in terms to me...

--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:
Jack wrote:
On 8/7/2012 3:22 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:

I've learned, mostly from watching CNBC, not to take the
statements of anyone with a vested interest too literally. I have
nothing against Gibson's president or CEO, I don't even know their
names. Believe me, I'm watching this with interest! Hopefully
technology
will help foster more positive than negative (or passive)
attitudes.

Technology will help? How does technology replace brain power?

How do you "learn" anything watching CNBC?

Numerical facts are prominently displayed. I am leary of any other
"information" disseminated.

I'm not sure there really is such a thing as "numerical facts" Bill. It
almost seems like a contradiction in terms to me...


That the Dow Jones Industrial Average is 13155 at this moment (2:43 PM,
EST) is, IMO, a numerical fact. The word "numerical" is an adjective.
Where is the contradiction?

Bill wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:
Jack wrote:
On 8/7/2012 3:22 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:

I've learned, mostly from watching CNBC, not to take the
statements of anyone with a vested interest too literally. I have
nothing against Gibson's president or CEO, I don't even know their
names. Believe me, I'm watching this with interest! Hopefully
technology
will help foster more positive than negative (or passive)
attitudes.

Technology will help? How does technology replace brain power?

How do you "learn" anything watching CNBC?

Numerical facts are prominently displayed. I am leary of any other
"information" disseminated.

I'm not sure there really is such a thing as "numerical facts" Bill. It
almost seems like a contradiction in terms to me...


That the Dow Jones Industrial Average is 13155 at this moment (2:43 PM,
EST) is, IMO, a numerical fact. The word "numerical" is an adjective.
Where is the contradiction?

That the integer number 9 is odd, less than 10, and a perfect square are
3 more numerical facts, I think. Numerical facts appear to exist in
numerous quantities. In fact, to be more scientific, in
uncountably-numerous quantities at least as great as the infinite
ordinal aleph-naught. If you enjoy rigor, see here for mo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number

Bill wrote:
Bill wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:
Jack wrote:
On 8/7/2012 3:22 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:

I've learned, mostly from watching CNBC, not to take the
statements of anyone with a vested interest too literally. I have
nothing against Gibson's president or CEO, I don't even know their
names. Believe me, I'm watching this with interest! Hopefully
technology
will help foster more positive than negative (or passive)
attitudes.

Technology will help? How does technology replace brain power?

How do you "learn" anything watching CNBC?

Numerical facts are prominently displayed. I am leary of any other
"information" disseminated.

I'm not sure there really is such a thing as "numerical facts" Bill. It
almost seems like a contradiction in terms to me...


That the Dow Jones Industrial Average is 13155 at this moment (2:43 PM,
EST) is, IMO, a numerical fact. The word "numerical" is an adjective.
Where is the contradiction?

That the integer number 9 is odd, less than 10, and a perfect square are
3 more numerical facts, I think. Numerical facts appear to exist in
numerous quantities. In fact, to be more scientific, in
uncountably-numerous quantities at least as great as the infinite
ordinal aleph-naught. If you enjoy rigor, see here for mo

Oops, replace aleph-naught with aleph-one.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number

Bill wrote:
Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:
Jack wrote:
On 8/7/2012 3:22 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:

I've learned, mostly from watching CNBC, not to take the
statements of anyone with a vested interest too literally. I have
nothing against Gibson's president or CEO, I don't even know
their names. Believe me, I'm watching this with interest!
Hopefully technology
will help foster more positive than negative (or passive)
attitudes.

Technology will help? How does technology replace brain power?

How do you "learn" anything watching CNBC?

Numerical facts are prominently displayed. I am leary of any other
"information" disseminated.

I'm not sure there really is such a thing as "numerical facts" Bill.
It almost seems like a contradiction in terms to me...


That the Dow Jones Industrial Average is 13155 at this moment (2:43
PM, EST) is, IMO, a numerical fact. The word "numerical" is an
adjective. Where is the contradiction?

The context was CNBC and numerical facts. Very few "numerical facts" are
agreeably inarguable on any news coverage.

--

-Mike-

On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 10:05:51 AM UTC-5, -MIKE- wrote:


It was three hundred grand... they probably considered it a bargain.

I agree. Any time you get the DOJ or State Department involved the fines that are published might be the negotiated slap on the wrist that comes before they drop the hammer.

I managed International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) compliance for a company that didn't take it too seriously until they got in trouble. I got in when they realized that a few, stupid clerical errors made by us, and some more serious infractions by a customer, violated the ITAR. The initial fine was going to be in the $2M-$3M area but we negotiated it down by basically pleading, groveling and begging and agreeing to some special terms. We ended up with a $150K fine plus another $50K allocated for a mandatory training program and some systems changes. At the end of the day the training and systems changes cost more than that but we were happy to comply. If we had a second infraction within a 3-5 year window the fine could have been quite large.

RonB

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 12:40:23 -0400, Bill wrote:

Jack wrote:
On 8/7/2012 3:22 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:

I've learned, mostly from watching CNBC, not to take the statements
of anyone with a vested interest too literally. I have nothing against
Gibson's president or CEO, I don't even know their names.

Believe me, I'm watching this with interest! Hopefully technology will
help foster more positive than negative (or passive) attitudes.

Technology will help? How does technology replace brain power?

How do you "learn" anything watching CNBC?

Numerical facts are prominently displayed. I am leary of any other
"information" disseminated.

Are you, Timothy?

--
We are always the same age inside.
-- Gertrude Stein

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 12:40:23 -0400, Bill wrote:

Numerical facts are prominently displayed. I am leary of any other
"information" disseminated.

Are you, Timothy?

You know I stopped and thougt about the spelling of that word for about
20 seconds. I just checked and dictionary.com seems to suggest that
either spelling is okay! : )

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 21:58:10 -0400, Bill wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 12:40:23 -0400, Bill wrote:

Numerical facts are prominently displayed. I am leary of any other
"information" disseminated.

Are you, Timothy?

You know I stopped and thougt about the spelling of that word for about
20 seconds. I just checked and dictionary.com seems to suggest that
either spelling is okay! : )

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I grew up with "stony", "bulky", and "horny"
(mostly that), but now stoney, bulkey, and horney are all OK.
It sucks.

--
We are always the same age inside.
-- Gertrude Stein

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:14:40 -0700 (PDT), RonB wrote:

On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 10:05:51 AM UTC-5, -MIKE- wrote:


It was three hundred grand... they probably considered it a bargain.

I agree. Any time you get the DOJ or State Department involved the fines that are published might be the negotiated slap on the wrist that comes before they drop the hammer.

I managed International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) compliance for a company that didn't take it too seriously until they got in trouble. I got in when they realized that a few, stupid clerical errors made by us, and some more serious infractions by a customer, violated the ITAR. The initial fine was going to be in the $2M-$3M area but we negotiated it down by basically pleading, groveling and begging and agreeing to some special terms. We ended up with a $150K fine plus another $50K allocated for a mandatory training program and some systems changes. At the end of the day the training and systems changes cost more than that but we were happy to comply. If we had a second infraction within a 3-5 year window the fine could have been quite large.

ITARs are a slightly different thing than some greenie detail that even the
source country doesn't care about. ...unless the deal involves campaign cash
(on one side or the other).