http://www.marke****ch.com/story/gib...me_latest_news

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.

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.



--

-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

-MIKE- wrote:


It was three hundred grand... they probably considered it a bargain.
How many millions were they paying to their lawyers?

Probably none. Corporate attorneys do not run in the millions - nor do
those on retainer. That would have to be one helluva big case. Most people
don't realize this, but then most people have never really been in the know.

How much would
would another 6 months cost them?

Good question. I thought the same thing. The thought occurred to me that
this may have been an "agreed" upon settlement that has some other political
overtones...

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.

Yup - and/or... favoritism...

--

-Mike-

On 8/7/12 12:10 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:


It was three hundred grand... they probably considered it a bargain.
How many millions were they paying to their lawyers?

Probably none. Corporate attorneys do not run in the millions - nor do
those on retainer. That would have to be one helluva big case. Most people
don't realize this, but then most people have never really been in the know.


Except that most in-house corporate attorneys aren't used to running up
against the DoJ every day, so outside counsel is often sought from firms
who do have experience with the Fed.

Of course, if I want to get it from someone who is really "in the know,"
I 'll just call one of my buddies down at Gibson or stop by for lunch.


--

-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

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*?



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.

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.


--

-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

-MIKE- wrote:


Except that most in-house corporate attorneys aren't used to running
up against the DoJ every day, so outside counsel is often sought from
firms who do have experience with the Fed.


Yup - but it's still not likely that they spent or faced millions. Maybe -
I really don't know myself, but I doubt it. I would more likely suspect a
deal was put on the table immediately by DOJ so they could show a "win".
Was probably not a bad deal, all things considered - but we'll never know
the "all things" part of that...

Of course, if I want to get it from someone who is really "in the
know," I 'll just call one of my buddies down at Gibson or stop by
for lunch.

Only if he is high enough up. Not likely that even a mid-level VP would
know much about it.

--

-Mike-

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-

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

-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-

Han wrote:
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.

Clearly so. But that by itself does not say much.

--

-Mike-

-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.

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.

If we give a darn about our system (s), perhaps we should encourage
companies to pursue their innocence by making them pay more for their
(admitted) guilt. Our media systems have the power! Just a thought...

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


Except that most in-house corporate attorneys aren't used to running
up against the DoJ every day, so outside counsel is often sought from
firms who do have experience with the Fed.


Yup - but it's still not likely that they spent or faced millions. Maybe -
I really don't know myself, but I doubt it. I would more likely suspect a
deal was put on the table immediately by DOJ so they could show a "win".
Was probably not a bad deal, all things considered - but we'll never know
the "all things" part of that...
....

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.

From a letter Gibson president wrote the NY Times not long ago...

"...they shut down production, sent workers home, seized boxes of raw
materials and nearly 100 guitars, and ultimately cost our company $2
million to $3 million worth of products and lost productivity."

In the end, one has to do what one has to do to survive.

--

Mike Marlow wrote:
Han wrote:
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.

Clearly so. But that by itself does not say much.


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.

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.

It's hard to say which side the Gibson's shareholders would be on.
Maybe some of them don't really care what the company has to do to boost
it's EPS if it can get away with it.

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.

On 8/7/2012 12:33 PM, Bill wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
....

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'd say the actual facts are indeterminate as others have noted--that
Gibson was in the crosshairs of DOJ pretty much forces their hand to
find a way to settle irregardless of the actual facts of the case.

Gibson president also wrote the following -- now, again, how much has
been conveniently left out of this narrative is also unknown--it doesn't
mention Madagascar, only India.

If indeed there were indications that something had come that wasn't
fully under certification and Gibson management chose to "overlook"
that they could well have been in violation. OTOH, as the story of
the other cases points out, it's not at all hard to imagine virtually
anybody could get caught out in a technical violation whether it was
willful or not.

The fingerboards of our guitars are made with wood that is imported
from India. The wood seized during the Aug. 24 raid, however, was
from a Forest Stewardship Council-certified supplier, meaning the
wood complies with FSC's rules requiring that it be harvested legally
and in compliance with traditional and civil rights, among other
protections. Indian authorities have provided sworn statements
approving the shipment, and U.S. Customs allowed the shipment to pass
through America's border to our factories.

Nonetheless, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided to enforce
its own interpretation of Indian law, arguing that because the
fingerboards weren't finished in India, they were illegal exports. In
effect, the agency is arguing that to be in compliance with the law,
Gibson must outsource the jobs of finishing craftsmen in Tennessee.

This is an overreach of government authority and indicative of the
kinds of burdens the federal government routinely imposes on growing
businesses. It also highlights a dangerous trend: an attempt to
punish even paperwork errors with criminal charges and to regulate
business activities through criminal law. Policy wonks call this
"overcriminalization." I call it a job killer.

In America alone, there are over 4,000 federal criminal offenses.
Under the Lacey Act, for instance, citizens and business owners also
need to know—and predict how the U.S. federal government will
interpret—the laws of nearly 200 other countries on the globe as
well.

Many business owners have inadvertently broken obscure and highly
technical foreign laws, landing them in prison for things like
importing lobster tails in plastic rather than cardboard packaging
(the violation of that Honduran law earned one man an eight-year
prison sentence). Cases like this make it clear that the justice
system has strayed from its constitutional purpose: stopping the real
bad guys from bringing harm.

Again, the fact is that once you're a DOJ target your only real choice
is to cut a deal 'cuz you'll go broke before you can defend yourself
owing to the disparity of resources and the punitive measures they can take.

--

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 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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.



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

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

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.

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.


But Japanese guitar makers don't have that little legal restriction...

So they can make all the "Gibson" guitars they can sell.

Especially it Gibson can't.

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.

Which all by itself says nothing - expect that some idot wants to make a
political statement. Which - all by itself is a totally meaningless
statement. Except to the speaker who is a totally meaningliess idiot.


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.

Unless you were on the take - which does not contratradict your statement,
but might just reflect real life a bit more.


It's hard to say which side the Gibson's shareholders would be on.
Maybe some of them don't really care what the company has to do to
boost it's EPS if it can get away with it.


For a lot of companies - this stuff has just nat mattered. For others - it
has mattered a great deal. I suspect that for Gibson, it will probably
matter to a significant degree.

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.

Huh?

--

-Mike-

On 8/7/12 1:49 PM, 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.

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?

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?

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.


Brilliant.


--

-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:

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?

--

-Mike-

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.

If we give a darn about our system (s), perhaps we should encourage
companies to pursue their innocence by making them pay more for their
(admitted) guilt. Our media systems have the power! Just a thought...

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

--

-Mike-

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?


From a letter Gibson president wrote the NY Times not long ago...

"...they shut down production, sent workers home, seized boxes of raw
materials and nearly 100 guitars, and ultimately cost our company $2
million to $3 million worth of products and lost productivity."

In what terms of "cost"? Retail? This is the CEO speaking. Do you think
he is minimizing those costs? Come on...

I'm on both sides of this. I'm not a Gibson advocate, but I'm not more the
advocate of those who simply knee jerk their response to a stinking web
release of a "news" article.

--

-Mike-

dpb writes:
On 8/7/2012 12:33 PM, Bill wrote:

Gibson president also wrote the following -- now, again, how much has
been conveniently left out of this narrative is also unknown--it doesn't
mention Madagascar, only India.



Many business owners have inadvertently broken obscure and highly
technical foreign laws, landing them in prison for things like
importing lobster tails in plastic rather than cardboard packaging
(the violation of that Honduran law earned one man an eight-year
prison sentence).

So, this statement by the President of Gibson Guitars made me go do
some research into this case. It's not as simple as he made it out
to be - note that the defendents (McNab, et. al.) in that case were
convicted after a trial by jury in federal court in which sufficient
evidence was presented to convince the Jury in 'bama to convict.

The appeals court opinion when they contested their conviction
contains a concise legal summary of the case including a de novo
review. c.f.

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinion...0115148op2.pdf

Cases like this make it clear that the justice
system has strayed from its constitutional purpose: stopping the real
bad guys from bringing harm.

After reading the appeals court opinions, it seems clear that the
justice system worked exactly has it was supposed to. BTW, the law
in question (The lacey act) dates from the year 1900.

That said, one could argue that the sentences were a bit on the
harsh side.

scott

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


Except that most in-house corporate attorneys aren't used to running
up against the DoJ every day, so outside counsel is often sought
from firms who do have experience with the Fed.


Yup - but it's still not likely that they spent or faced millions.
Maybe - I really don't know myself, but I doubt it. I would more
likely suspect a deal was put on the table immediately by DOJ so
they could show a "win". Was probably not a bad deal, all things
considered - but we'll never know the "all things" part of that...
...

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.

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.

--

-Mike-

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
On 8/7/2012 12:55 PM, Bill wrote:

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?

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?

There is a pattern...

The whole Randy Weaver/Ruby Ridge case involved what was arguably less than
a 1/4" variance from "legal length. " People were murdered over that so
Gibson got off easy with loosing $265K of product, $300K of fine and as I
recall $50K of community contributions... they didn't have their staff shot
up by the armed government agents during the raid. See the enlarged version
of the photo at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...027859286.html
Those weren't brad nailers on their hips.

There is no "reasonableness" test in this stuff.... regulators run amuck.

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.


--

-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

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.

If we give a darn about our system (s), perhaps we should encourage
companies to pursue their innocence by making them pay more for their
(admitted) guilt. Our media systems have the power! Just a thought...

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


I made my comment as a voter and an observer for about half a century,
period. My thoughts and concerns extend beyond my immediate employment.

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?


Well it helps in some ways. When I wrote the comment, I was thinking
that technology was *undermining* brain power!!!

Mike Marlow wrote:
Bill wrote:

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.

Huh?

Too much crapola!

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

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.

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?
================================================== =================================
I could.

-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.

Well, it sure cost them my business. And the business of millions of
right-thinking potential buyers the world around.

And the DOJ is not invincible. Back in the 60's, the DOJ sued IBM for
monopolistic and unfair trade practices. IBM had more lawyers on the case
that were in the ENTIRE anti-trust division of the DOJ. IBM strung out the
case for ELEVEN years.

Just to show you how stupid the DOJ was, they allowed CDC, Control Data
Corporation and a co-plaintiff, to do virtually all of the discovery.

IBM then reached a secret deal with CDC: IBM would pay CDC big bucks and
give them the Service Bureau Corporation to go away. In return, CDC had to
affirmatively destroy every scrap of discovery garnered over eleven years.

All this book-burning was done over a weekend. Tapes were degaussed, disks
deleted, paper records shredded, tape recordings destroyed. On Monday, IBM
announced ready for trial.

On 8/7/2012 2:49 PM, 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.

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?

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.




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?

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.

Stuart Wheaton wrote:


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.

Exactly what I was talking about with regard to being ill informed, even
when presented with the link that lays out the purported facts according to
the governments own affidavit.

Had you bothered to read the affidavit before commenting you would have
seen that the 1250 pieces in question were picked up at Dallas customs,
addressed to a shipping agent's facility, _BEFORE_ they got anywhere near
a Gibson's facility.

(Just hope someone doesn't ship some of that marijuana you spoke of via
FedEx with your name on it.)

--
www.ewoodshop.com

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!)


If we give a darn about our system (s), perhaps we should encourage
companies to pursue their innocence by making them pay more for their
(admitted) guilt. Our media systems have the power! Just a thought...

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!

If we give a darn about our system (s), perhaps we should encourage
companies to pursue their innocence by making them pay more for their
admitted) guilt. Our media systems have the power!

Some of our systems (look at congress and our political parties) are
being "angle-shot" to high heaven!

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

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


Except that most in-house corporate attorneys aren't used to
running up against the DoJ every day, so outside counsel is often
sought from firms who do have experience with the Fed.


Yup - but it's still not likely that they spent or faced millions.
Maybe - I really don't know myself, but I doubt it. I would more
likely suspect a deal was put on the table immediately by DOJ so
they could show a "win". Was probably not a bad deal, all things
considered - but we'll never know the "all things" part of that...
...

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.

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.

--

-Mike-

-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...

--

-Mike-