http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-gibson-guitar-20140215,0,6391484.story#axzz2tQUFQW9V
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 07:31:49 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 3/1/2014 11:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 23:51:23 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> Considering that the DOJ thought they had sufficient reason to go
>>>> after Gibson for illegal use of certain woods, what's to stop the DOJ
>>> >from coming after Gibson again in the future?
>>>
>>> Nothing, other than another election. Maybe.
>>
>> Well that stinks. What kind of f**ked up justice is that?
>
>The legal system in this country is indeed a fucked up thicket of
>extortionate practices, where participants are taught to game it to the
>max, and a proliferation in the use of the ever increasing number of law
>enforcements agencies to push political and corporate agendas has
>shifted the concept of 'justice' away from the individual citizen to
>those in power.
The Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.
On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 10:30:58 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>Have you not been paying attention to the news the last 5 years?
>Neither legality nor "sufficient reason" have *anything* to do with the
>Obama DOJ's and IRS's targeting of Republicans and Conservatives.
I'm Canadian. The only US news I really pay attention to is the news
that I feel might have an effect on Canada. On occasion, I might read
something else that's US centric, but my eyes usually gloss over when
reading US news.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 23:16:03 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> Huh? Why would they have to prove that it was obtained legally.
>> Doesn't the government have to prove the opposite?
>>
>
>Oops. Typo. Of course I meant legally.
Is there another try?
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-gibson-guitar-20140215,0,6391484.story#axzz2tQUFQW9V
>
Brilliant. He took a big hit from the government and now can make some of
it back by using this horrible experience to market some product. Talk
about making lemonade out of lemons.
Reminds me of what happens when the catholic church "ban" a movie. It
becomes an instant hit and folks (mostly Catholics) line up to see it. It
does wonders for the film's box office numbers.
Now if we could figure out a way for the gubnint to size and return some
more wood and have it not cost anything. Some marketing guys are scheming
on that right now. ;-)
"-MIKE-" wrote:
> Nothing. Especially is the owner of Gibson continues to donate
> large
> amounts of money to Republican election campaigns.
>
> Have you not been paying attention to the news the last 5 years?
> Neither legality nor "sufficient reason" have *anything* to do with
> the
> Obama DOJ's and IRS's targeting of Republicans and Conservatives.
> It is
> a grossly corrupt misuse of power and violation of the public trust
> and
> there are no apologies or admission coming from this administration.
>
> The only "sufficient reason" needed by the Holder's DOJ is that
> someone
> is supporting the other side.
----------------------------------------------------------
Paranoia in full bloom I see.
Lew
"-MIKE-" wrote:
> You might want to pay more attention.
> The US is the only thing that has kept you guys from becoming an
> occupied territory of Russia or China for the past century.
> As the US begins its slow, slip down the slope to socialism, and
> China
> owns more and more and more of our money and property, it's only a
> matter of time before this great experiment in Democracy falls under
> the
> noses or a collective citizenry who's memory of history only goes
> back
> to the last election.
--------------------------------------------------
More paranoia I see.
Lew
On 2/18/2014 8:41 AM, Swingman wrote:
> http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-gibson-guitar-20140215,0,6391484.story#axzz2tQUFQW9V
>
>
Nice that they reclaimed it, but not nice about the cost to them.
I agree with the Lacey act, we need to protect the gorillas, the
elephants, and the wood.
But I can see the other side of it too. How it can destroy a business. I
think Gibson needs to make sure it buys legal wood in the future.
--
Jeff
On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 10:30:58 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 3/1/14, 10:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 07:26:44 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Gibson made a business decision and agreed to a "settlement" for
>>> $350k instead of spending millions on legal fees and thereby being
>>> put out of business defending themselves against what was arguably
>>> an egregious political action, while facing the same type of
>>> overzealous prosecutorical misconduct of the current DOJ we saw
>>> with the Aaron Swartz case.
>>
>> Just out of interest's sake, was Gibson forced to make any changes
>> to their suppliers of construction materials?
>>
>> Considering that the DOJ thought they had sufficient reason to go
>> after Gibson for illegal use of certain woods, what's to stop the
>> DOJ from coming after Gibson again in the future?
>>
>
>Nothing. Especially is the owner of Gibson continues to donate large
>amounts of money to Republican election campaigns.
>
>Have you not been paying attention to the news the last 5 years?
>Neither legality nor "sufficient reason" have *anything* to do with the
>Obama DOJ's and IRS's targeting of Republicans and Conservatives. It is
>a grossly corrupt misuse of power and violation of the public trust and
>there are no apologies or admission coming from this administration.
>
>The only "sufficient reason" needed by the Holder's DOJ is that someone
>is supporting the other side.
...but you understate the problem.
On Sunday, March 2, 2014 10:30:58 AM UTC-6, -MIKE- wrote:
> > Considering that the DOJ thought they had sufficient reason to go
>=20
> > after Gibson for illegal use of certain woods, what's to stop the
>=20
> > DOJ from coming after Gibson again in the future?
>=20
> >
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Nothing. Especially is the owner of Gibson continues to donate large
>=20
> amounts of money to Republican election campaigns.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Have you not been paying attention to the news the last 5 years?
>=20
> Neither legality nor "sufficient reason" have *anything* to do with the
>=20
> Obama DOJ's and IRS's targeting of Republicans and Conservatives. It is
>=20
> a grossly corrupt misuse of power and violation of the public trust and
>=20
> there are no apologies or admission coming from this administration.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> The only "sufficient reason" needed by the Holder's DOJ is that someone
>=20
> is supporting the other side.
MIKE -
Your response should be in all caps, in red, and three font sizes larger th=
an anything else on this group. The quoted for truth as needed to remind f=
olks how the common citizen has completely lost control of this country as =
well as many of their personal and civil rights.
Robert
On 3/2/2014 10:30 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
>
> Have you not been paying attention to the news the last 5 years?
> Neither legality nor "sufficient reason" have *anything* to do with the
> Obama DOJ's and IRS's targeting of Republicans and Conservatives. It is
> a grossly corrupt misuse of power and violation of the public trust and
> there are no apologies or admission coming from this administration.
>
> The only "sufficient reason" needed by the Holder's DOJ is that someone
> is supporting the other side.
Stand back and watch - the new Surgeon General, if confirmed, will soon
be in control of anti-gun/anti-2nd Amendment efforts; through schools by
kids being required to answer questions about whether there are guns in
their homes (IOW, report on their parents); and by doctors requiring the
same question be answered by patients before treatment under ACA.
Freedom in this country is fast becoming nothing more than a mouthed
perception in the last decade.
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On 3/1/2014 2:47 AM, Mac Cool wrote:
> Just Wondering:
>
>> Since Gibson committed no crime, to what crime do you refer?
>
> Read the documentation rather than headlines.
You would do well to do the same yourself.
There was a criminal investigation, but no criminal charges were ever
brought against Gibson, only the threat of same.
The DOJ had did nothing but "allege"; and the agreement between Gibson
and the DOJ specifically uses that phrase, as well as the phrase "_may
have_ violated laws ..." but those "allegations" was never proven.
Gibson made a business decision and agreed to a "settlement" for $350k
instead of spending millions on legal fees and thereby being put out of
business defending themselves against what was arguably an egregious
political action, while facing the same type of overzealous
prosecutorical misconduct of the current DOJ we saw with the Aaron
Swartz case.
IOW, Gibson was never found guilty of any "crime" ... damned Uncool of
you to say so.
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On 3/1/2014 11:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 23:51:23 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>> Considering that the DOJ thought they had sufficient reason to go
>>> after Gibson for illegal use of certain woods, what's to stop the DOJ
>> >from coming after Gibson again in the future?
>>
>> Nothing, other than another election. Maybe.
>
> Well that stinks. What kind of f**ked up justice is that?
The legal system in this country is indeed a fucked up thicket of
extortionate practices, where participants are taught to game it to the
max, and a proliferation in the use of the ever increasing number of law
enforcements agencies to push political and corporate agendas has
shifted the concept of 'justice' away from the individual citizen to
those in power.
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 2/18/2014 10:05 AM, woodchucker wrote:
>>>
>> Nice that they reclaimed it, but not nice about the cost
>> to them. I agree with the Lacey act, we need to protect
>> the gorillas, the elephants, and the wood.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> This had nothing to do with an endangered species of wood.
> The act itself was subverted from its original intent so
> far as to be unrecognizable in the way it was wielded in
> this case.
>
> IOW, and for the umpteenth time, THERE WAS NEVER ANY
> ENDANGERED WOOD INVOLVED ... see why below.
>
> What was involved was that the action was a punitive one
> taken by the government/administration under the guise of
> protection of jobs for the country involved, NOT the wood.
>
> Had that same wood, imported by Gibson, been _dimensioned_
> in thickness according the export laws of the originating
> country, AND BY WORKERS IN SAID COUNTRY, there would have
> been NO grounds for what was arguably nothing but a
> politically inspired action.
>
> That is why the administration had no ultimate recourse but
> to return the seized material.
>
> That act of returning the material, under the "agreement"
> between the administration and Gibson, is, in itself, an
> absolute, unquestionable tacit admission by the
> Administration that this was never about the wood in the
> first place.
>
> Why?
>
> Had the wood seized by the government indeed been
> endangered, the Administration would have then been in
> direct violation of the Lacey Act themselves by returning
> it to Gibson.
>
> Sad that folks were happy to be mislead by an agendized
> media and spin machine (using buzzwords fed to them by the
> media that appeal to progressive though processes:
> "endangered species, "for the children", et al, ad
> infinitum), and either did not bother to read the
> affidavits that were the basis for the government's
> actions, or were too fucking stupid to understand the
> issues in the first place.
>
Not to mention the inexcusable act of an armed swat team of
Feds raiding the place. Completely unnecessary and nothing
more than arrogance on the part of the Justice Dept.
Swingman:
> IOW, Gibson was never found guilty of any "crime" ... damned Uncool of
> you to say so.
Well I certainly can't risk being "Uncool" with a capital "U". You sir were clearly
the masterdebator of your primary school. Obviously your only argument, the only
possible retort, is that Gibson was never brought to trial which is why you repeat
it and never use any of the seized Gibson documents. In the end, you ignore the
documenation because if you have read it then you know there is nothing there to
help you and if you haven't read it then you probably still know there is nothing
there to help you. So we both know that Gibson knowingly imported illegal
Madagascar ebony and if that puts me at risk of being "Uncool" in Candyland then so
be it.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Mac Cool <[email protected]> wrote:
> Swingman:
>
>> IOW, Gibson was never found guilty of any "crime" ... damned Uncool of
>> you to say so.
>
> Well I certainly can't risk being "Uncool" with a capital "U". You sir were clearly
> the masterdebator of your primary school. Obviously your only argument, the only
> possible retort, is that Gibson was never brought to trial which is why you repeat
> it and never use any of the seized Gibson documents. In the end, you ignore the
> documenation because if you have read it then you know there is nothing there to
> help you and if you haven't read it then you probably still know there is nothing
> there to help you. So we both know that Gibson knowingly imported illegal
> Madagascar ebony and if that puts me at risk of being "Uncool" in Candyland then so
> be it.
Actually, you have proven, all by yourself, to be well beyond the "risk"
stage of being uncool; and totally ignorant of the facts of the issue as
well.
What the liberal mindset refuses to accept, because the facts don't fit
their warm fuzzy "save the forest/save the children" mindset, is that while
the "finger blanks", sold to Gibson by a third party supplier, were indeed
"illegal" under Madagascar's export laws, they were NOT "illegal", as
liberals like to imply, because they were somehow on an endangered species
list.
The "finger blanks", subject of the DOJ's charges, were deemed "illegal"
specifically because they were not "finished", IN THICKNESS, to the proper
dimensions by LABOR from the exporting country.
It is an inarguable fact that a difference in dimension of the
incriminating Madagascar ebony "finger blanks" (ingeniously called "lumber"
in the infamous affidavit, for greater effect) of approximately -1/8" would
have made the transaction "legal for export" under Madagascar's LABOR laws.
A fact which begs the question as to WTF would the DOJ take it upon
themselves to enforce the LABOR laws of another country, except that it
gave them a convenient, albeit nefarious, excuse to exert political power?
What we had here is a perverse use of an American law, the Lacey Act, in
part for for political reasons, and justified not by the preservation of an
endangered species for which the law was originally intended, but, in
effect, to enforce the protectionist LABOR laws of another country.
That unarguable fact is specifically outlined in the original, and only,
affidavit used as justification for the charges against Gibson, as well as
for the warrant resulting in the SWAT team action ... BUT, you'd have to
read it to know that, something you have amply proven yourself to have not
done.
The endangered species mantra/illusion of "illegal Madagascar ebony", of
which you so uncooly seem fond of repeating, is nothing but red herring
buzz words used to make liberals feel good about their peculiar mental
deficiency when it comes to basing their controlling political tendencies
on how they feel, instead of on facts.
You would have done well to have better informed yourself before attempting
rebuttal had you wished to keep that self delusion of somehow being Mr.
"Cool" intact ... a bit too late now, Bubba.
--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 07:09:09 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>You would have done well to have better informed yourself before attempting
>rebuttal had you wished to keep that self delusion of somehow being Mr.
>"Cool" intact ... a bit too late now, Bubba.
Saturday morning musings over a cup of coffee? :)
On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 17:16:09 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>You might want to pay more attention.
>The US is the only thing that has kept you guys from becoming an
>occupied territory of Russia or China for the past century.
Sure, I'm aware of that. But, if or when it happens, it will be
several hundred years before it gets to that point. The US is
currently, the world's only existing super power. Despite ongoing
woes, I'd expect that position to be one of the last things that the
US would give up. War, or the threat of war is very effective when it
comes to building economies. The threat of Russia moving into Canada
and becoming a border threat to the US would mobilize your country
like never before.
Anyway, we'd willingly become a part of the US by choice long before
we'd let our country be taken over by Russian invasion.
On 3/3/2014 12:06 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 3/2/14, 11:29 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------- Paranoia
>> in full bloom I see.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>
> Paranoia? All this shit's public information, Lew? Get your head out
> of the sand.
> This isn't some conspiracy-nut BS trumped up by mere psychotic
> speculation.
> Every IRS and DOJ investigation is public info and well documented by
> the press, both left and right. Where the hell have you been hiding?
With literally dozens upon dozens of posts about someone "jerking his
chain", it's clearly evident that it is Lew himself who is suffering
from "paranoia". ;)
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:05:36 -0500, woodchucker <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 2/18/2014 8:41 AM, Swingman wrote:
>> http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-gibson-guitar-20140215,0,6391484.story#axzz2tQUFQW9V
>>
>>
>Nice that they reclaimed it, but not nice about the cost to them.
>I agree with the Lacey act, we need to protect the gorillas, the
>elephants, and the wood.
>
>But I can see the other side of it too. How it can destroy a business. I
>think Gibson needs to make sure it buys legal wood in the future.
...and donate to the Democratic party, rather than the other guys.
Lesson learned!
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 9:49:25 AM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>=20
> Yeah!!!!! The little guy, so to speak, wins the battle with a cherry=20
>=20
> on top. One has to wonder if the sales of this series of guitars even=20
>=20
> comes close to the expense of defending themselves in court and getting=
=20
>=20
> back what is rightfully theirs to begin with.
Not remotely close. When the government wants to bring the full weight of =
its bullying stupidity to bear, they don't mess around.
Karl's link says they made and sold 1750 guitars. So let's say that they a=
ctually made 2000 of them to go to private hands, friends of the factory, a=
nd any other folks that get those deals we don't hear about. The link also=
says that the base model starts at $1099 (irony not lost on me!) and we ca=
n bump it to a $1500 average to take in some higher priced models.
So... 2000 X $1500 =3D $3,000,000 gross. Take away the fact that it cost t=
hem money (say they keystone and simply double the cost to manufacture) and=
half of that is what they keep. Now you are looking at a possible income =
of about $1,500,000.
Nowhere near the $5,000,000 Juszkiewicz says the company paid to defend its=
elf and its property against the illegal government seizure.
There is no cherry on the top. There is no victory here except the hollow =
victory of "being right". And that is a pile of shit since they were never=
in the wrong, not even with the government making two runs at them. The g=
overnment simply screwed yet another small business and go away with it. S=
omeway, the Gibson folks found a way put the time and energy together and f=
ocus on turning this into something positive instead of simply walking away=
from it all. I don't think I could have done that, personally.
Robert
On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 00:02:16 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 23:51:23 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>Considering that the DOJ thought they had sufficient reason to go
>>>after Gibson for illegal use of certain woods, what's to stop the DOJ
>>>from coming after Gibson again in the future?
>>
>>Nothing, other than another election. Maybe.
>
>Well that stinks. What kind of f**ked up justice is that?
Now *THAT'S* funny!
On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 23:02:01 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 07:26:44 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Gibson made a business decision and agreed to a "settlement" for $350k
>>instead of spending millions on legal fees and thereby being put out of
>>business defending themselves against what was arguably an egregious
>>political action, while facing the same type of overzealous
>>prosecutorical misconduct of the current DOJ we saw with the Aaron
>>Swartz case.
>
>Just out of interest's sake, was Gibson forced to make any changes to
>their suppliers of construction materials?
>
>Considering that the DOJ thought they had sufficient reason to go
>after Gibson for illegal use of certain woods, what's to stop the DOJ
>from coming after Gibson again in the future?
Nothing, other than another election. Maybe.
On 2/18/14, 11:23 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 9:49:25 AM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>>
>> Yeah!!!!! The little guy, so to speak, wins the battle with a
>> cherry
>>
>> on top. One has to wonder if the sales of this series of guitars
>> even
>>
>> comes close to the expense of defending themselves in court and
>> getting
>>
>> back what is rightfully theirs to begin with.
>
> Not remotely close. When the government wants to bring the full
> weight of its bullying stupidity to bear, they don't mess around.
>
> Karl's link says they made and sold 1750 guitars. So let's say that
> they actually made 2000 of them to go to private hands, friends of
> the factory, and any other folks that get those deals we don't hear
> about. The link also says that the base model starts at $1099 (irony
> not lost on me!) and we can bump it to a $1500 average to take in
> some higher priced models.
>
> So... 2000 X $1500 = $3,000,000 gross. Take away the fact that it
> cost them money (say they keystone and simply double the cost to
> manufacture) and half of that is what they keep. Now you are looking
> at a possible income of about $1,500,000.
>
> Nowhere near the $5,000,000 Juszkiewicz says the company paid to
> defend itself and its property against the illegal government
> seizure.
>
> There is no cherry on the top. There is no victory here except the
> hollow victory of "being right". And that is a pile of shit since
> they were never in the wrong, not even with the government making two
> runs at them. The government simply screwed yet another small
> business and go away with it. Someway, the Gibson folks found a way
> put the time and energy together and focus on turning this into
> something positive instead of simply walking away from it all. I
> don't think I could have done that, personally.
>
> Robert
>
To top that off, they never actually proved the wood was attained legally.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 2/18/14, 7:26 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:13:34 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/18/14, 11:23 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 9:49:25 AM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yeah!!!!! The little guy, so to speak, wins the battle with a
>>>> cherry
>>>>
>>>> on top. One has to wonder if the sales of this series of guitars
>>>> even
>>>>
>>>> comes close to the expense of defending themselves in court and
>>>> getting
>>>>
>>>> back what is rightfully theirs to begin with.
>>>
>>> Not remotely close. When the government wants to bring the full
>>> weight of its bullying stupidity to bear, they don't mess around.
>>>
>>> Karl's link says they made and sold 1750 guitars. So let's say that
>>> they actually made 2000 of them to go to private hands, friends of
>>> the factory, and any other folks that get those deals we don't hear
>>> about. The link also says that the base model starts at $1099 (irony
>>> not lost on me!) and we can bump it to a $1500 average to take in
>>> some higher priced models.
>>>
>>> So... 2000 X $1500 = $3,000,000 gross. Take away the fact that it
>>> cost them money (say they keystone and simply double the cost to
>>> manufacture) and half of that is what they keep. Now you are looking
>>> at a possible income of about $1,500,000.
>>>
>>> Nowhere near the $5,000,000 Juszkiewicz says the company paid to
>>> defend itself and its property against the illegal government
>>> seizure.
>>>
>>> There is no cherry on the top. There is no victory here except the
>>> hollow victory of "being right". And that is a pile of shit since
>>> they were never in the wrong, not even with the government making two
>>> runs at them. The government simply screwed yet another small
>>> business and go away with it. Someway, the Gibson folks found a way
>>> put the time and energy together and focus on turning this into
>>> something positive instead of simply walking away from it all. I
>>> don't think I could have done that, personally.
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>
>> To top that off, they never actually proved the wood was attained legally.
>
> Huh? Why would they have to prove that it was obtained legally.
> Doesn't the government have to prove the opposite?
>
Oops. Typo. Of course I meant legally.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 2/19/14, 6:26 AM, Markem wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 23:16:03 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>> Huh? Why would they have to prove that it was obtained legally.
>>> Doesn't the government have to prove the opposite?
>>>
>>
>> Oops. Typo. Of course I meant legally.
>
> Is there another try?
>
WTF!!?!!! Is there auto correct on my computer, now!?
"i l l e g a l l y"
I give up.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
-MIKE- wrote:
> On 2/19/14, 6:26 AM, Markem wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 23:16:03 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Huh? Why would they have to prove that it was obtained legally.
>>>> Doesn't the government have to prove the opposite?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oops. Typo. Of course I meant legally.
>>
>> Is there another try?
>>
>
> WTF!!?!!! Is there auto correct on my computer, now!?
>
> "i l l e g a l l y"
>
> I give up.
Too late. Your credibility has now been brought into question by the agency
responsible for determining credibility. You must now re-apply, and submit
something to satisfy our internal staff of your qualifications. Please
await further correspondence from our agency. It could take a while -
storms in the area, staff cutbacks, global warming, etc. all seem, to be
getting in our way right now...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Markem wrote:
>
> Do not worry Mike. I was working on a bench fixing circuit boards,
> quick fix spotted reversed IC, zip zap boom chip replaced. Plug it in
> WTF, damn chip still in backward.....
>
> did it three times in a row.
Dude! You are a man after my own heart! Don't know how all these people do
everything right the first time, but I've sure as hell proven myself very
capable of not doing that, from time to time.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 2/19/14, 11:00 AM, Markem wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:56:25 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/19/14, 6:26 AM, Markem wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 23:16:03 -0600, -MIKE-
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Huh? Why would they have to prove that it was obtained
>>>>> legally. Doesn't the government have to prove the opposite?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oops. Typo. Of course I meant legally.
>>>
>>> Is there another try?
>>>
>>
>> WTF!!?!!! Is there auto correct on my computer, now!?
>>
>> "i l l e g a l l y"
>>
>> I give up.
>
> Do not worry Mike. I was working on a bench fixing circuit boards,
> quick fix spotted reversed IC, zip zap boom chip replaced. Plug it
> in WTF, damn chip still in backward.....
>
> did it three times in a row.
>
> You got it right in less.
>
> (feel better now)
>
> Mark
>
I did a LOT of soldering at my last "real" job.
One day I was making a bunch of audio cables with 1/4" connectors. You
have to put the cable through the outer metal casing before soldering
the inner connections. Well, about the third time in a row I forgot to
do that on the *SAME* 1/4" connector, I was really pissed and started
the process over for the forth time. Suddenly, I realized that I was
working with a bare cable with no connecter on the other end. I
could've just slid the casing onto the cable from the other cut end,
like I'd done a hundred times before!
I tossed the thing down on the bench, turned off the iron, said fu@k it!
and went home for the rest of the day. I figured at that point I was a
safety hazard. :-)
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:56:25 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 2/19/14, 6:26 AM, Markem wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 23:16:03 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Huh? Why would they have to prove that it was obtained legally.
>>>> Doesn't the government have to prove the opposite?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oops. Typo. Of course I meant legally.
>>
>> Is there another try?
>>
>
>WTF!!?!!! Is there auto correct on my computer, now!?
>
>"i l l e g a l l y"
>
>I give up.
Do not worry Mike. I was working on a bench fixing circuit boards,
quick fix spotted reversed IC, zip zap boom chip replaced. Plug it in
WTF, damn chip still in backward.....
did it three times in a row.
You got it right in less.
(feel better now)
Mark
Swingman wrote:
> On 3/1/2014 11:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 23:51:23 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> Considering that the DOJ thought they had sufficient reason to go
>>>> after Gibson for illegal use of certain woods, what's to stop the DOJ
>>> >from coming after Gibson again in the future?
>>>
>>> Nothing, other than another election. Maybe.
>>
>> Well that stinks. What kind of f**ked up justice is that?
>
> The legal system in this country is indeed a fucked up thicket of
> extortionate practices, where participants are taught to game it to
> the max, and a proliferation in the use of the ever increasing number
> of law enforcements agencies to push political and corporate agendas
> has shifted the concept of 'justice' away from the individual citizen
> to those in power.
>
I had a friend from high school who went on to become a corporate
lawyer. His job was to try to "find other entities to blame" to
mitigate damages--think of the BP incident, or the O-ring (on the space
shuttle) one. I guess he went on to become too important to keep in touch.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 07:26:44 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Gibson made a business decision and agreed to a "settlement" for
>> $350k instead of spending millions on legal fees and thereby being
>> put out of business defending themselves against what was arguably
>> an egregious political action, while facing the same type of
>> overzealous prosecutorical misconduct of the current DOJ we saw with
>> the Aaron Swartz case.
>
> Just out of interest's sake, was Gibson forced to make any changes to
> their suppliers of construction materials?
>
> Considering that the DOJ thought they had sufficient reason to go
> after Gibson for illegal use of certain woods, what's to stop the DOJ
> from coming after Gibson again in the future?
The DOJ doesn't need sufficient reason to go after a company - just the
belief that they can either intimidate, or rattle enough public sentiment to
push their point. As it is, the reality is that it doesn't have to be right
or wrong - just less costly not to fight the DOJ when they pursue something.
The J in DOJ is something of a misnomer.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 3/1/14, 10:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 07:26:44 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Gibson made a business decision and agreed to a "settlement" for
>> $350k instead of spending millions on legal fees and thereby being
>> put out of business defending themselves against what was arguably
>> an egregious political action, while facing the same type of
>> overzealous prosecutorical misconduct of the current DOJ we saw
>> with the Aaron Swartz case.
>
> Just out of interest's sake, was Gibson forced to make any changes
> to their suppliers of construction materials?
>
> Considering that the DOJ thought they had sufficient reason to go
> after Gibson for illegal use of certain woods, what's to stop the
> DOJ from coming after Gibson again in the future?
>
Nothing. Especially is the owner of Gibson continues to donate large
amounts of money to Republican election campaigns.
Have you not been paying attention to the news the last 5 years?
Neither legality nor "sufficient reason" have *anything* to do with the
Obama DOJ's and IRS's targeting of Republicans and Conservatives. It is
a grossly corrupt misuse of power and violation of the public trust and
there are no apologies or admission coming from this administration.
The only "sufficient reason" needed by the Holder's DOJ is that someone
is supporting the other side.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 3/2/14, 4:04 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 10:30:58 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> Have you not been paying attention to the news the last 5 years?
>> Neither legality nor "sufficient reason" have *anything* to do with
>> the Obama DOJ's and IRS's targeting of Republicans and
>> Conservatives.
>
> I'm Canadian. The only US news I really pay attention to is the news
> that I feel might have an effect on Canada. On occasion, I might
> read something else that's US centric, but my eyes usually gloss over
> when reading US news.
>
You might want to pay more attention.
The US is the only thing that has kept you guys from becoming an
occupied territory of Russia or China for the past century.
As the US begins its slow, slip down the slope to socialism, and China
owns more and more and more of our money and property, it's only a
matter of time before this great experiment in Democracy falls under the
noses or a collective citizenry who's memory of history only goes back
to the last election.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 3/2/14, 11:29 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "-MIKE-" wrote:
>
>> Nothing. Especially is the owner of Gibson continues to donate
>> large amounts of money to Republican election campaigns.
>>
>> Have you not been paying attention to the news the last 5 years?
>> Neither legality nor "sufficient reason" have *anything* to do
>> with the Obama DOJ's and IRS's targeting of Republicans and
>> Conservatives. It is a grossly corrupt misuse of power and
>> violation of the public trust and there are no apologies or
>> admission coming from this administration.
>>
>> The only "sufficient reason" needed by the Holder's DOJ is that
>> someone is supporting the other side.
> ---------------------------------------------------------- Paranoia
> in full bloom I see.
>
> Lew
>
Paranoia? All this shit's public information, Lew? Get your head out
of the sand.
This isn't some conspiracy-nut BS trumped up by mere psychotic
speculation.
Every IRS and DOJ investigation is public info and well documented by
the press, both left and right. Where the hell have you been hiding?
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 3/2/14, 11:31 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "-MIKE-" wrote:
>
>> You might want to pay more attention.
>> The US is the only thing that has kept you guys from becoming an
>> occupied territory of Russia or China for the past century.
>> As the US begins its slow, slip down the slope to socialism, and
>> China
>> owns more and more and more of our money and property, it's only a
>> matter of time before this great experiment in Democracy falls under
>> the
>> noses or a collective citizenry who's memory of history only goes
>> back
>> to the last election.
> --------------------------------------------------
> More paranoia I see.
>
> Lew
>
Let me guess. You voted for him. Some people will never admit their
errors.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 3/3/14, 11:47 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 00:07:58 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/2/14, 11:31 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> "-MIKE-" wrote:
>>>
>>>> You might want to pay more attention.
>>>> The US is the only thing that has kept you guys from becoming an
>>>> occupied territory of Russia or China for the past century.
>>>> As the US begins its slow, slip down the slope to socialism, and
>>>> China
>>>> owns more and more and more of our money and property, it's only a
>>>> matter of time before this great experiment in Democracy falls under
>>>> the
>>>> noses or a collective citizenry who's memory of history only goes
>>>> back
>>>> to the last election.
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> More paranoia I see.
>>>
>>> Lew
>>>
>>
>> Let me guess. You voted for him. Some people will never admit their
>> errors.
>
> Sure, some have never read a history book or watched the evening news,
> for that matter. They're sometimes known as "Lew information voters".
>
I'm not one for ad hominems, but that is hysterical.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 23:16:03 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 2/18/14, 7:26 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:13:34 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/18/14, 11:23 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 9:49:25 AM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah!!!!! The little guy, so to speak, wins the battle with a
>>>>> cherry
>>>>>
>>>>> on top. One has to wonder if the sales of this series of guitars
>>>>> even
>>>>>
>>>>> comes close to the expense of defending themselves in court and
>>>>> getting
>>>>>
>>>>> back what is rightfully theirs to begin with.
>>>>
>>>> Not remotely close. When the government wants to bring the full
>>>> weight of its bullying stupidity to bear, they don't mess around.
>>>>
>>>> Karl's link says they made and sold 1750 guitars. So let's say that
>>>> they actually made 2000 of them to go to private hands, friends of
>>>> the factory, and any other folks that get those deals we don't hear
>>>> about. The link also says that the base model starts at $1099 (irony
>>>> not lost on me!) and we can bump it to a $1500 average to take in
>>>> some higher priced models.
>>>>
>>>> So... 2000 X $1500 = $3,000,000 gross. Take away the fact that it
>>>> cost them money (say they keystone and simply double the cost to
>>>> manufacture) and half of that is what they keep. Now you are looking
>>>> at a possible income of about $1,500,000.
>>>>
>>>> Nowhere near the $5,000,000 Juszkiewicz says the company paid to
>>>> defend itself and its property against the illegal government
>>>> seizure.
>>>>
>>>> There is no cherry on the top. There is no victory here except the
>>>> hollow victory of "being right". And that is a pile of shit since
>>>> they were never in the wrong, not even with the government making two
>>>> runs at them. The government simply screwed yet another small
>>>> business and go away with it. Someway, the Gibson folks found a way
>>>> put the time and energy together and focus on turning this into
>>>> something positive instead of simply walking away from it all. I
>>>> don't think I could have done that, personally.
>>>>
>>>> Robert
>>>>
>>>
>>> To top that off, they never actually proved the wood was attained legally.
>>
>> Huh? Why would they have to prove that it was obtained legally.
>> Doesn't the government have to prove the opposite?
>>
>
>Oops. Typo. Of course I meant legally.
Jus' checkin'. ;-)
<saw the followups>
On 18 Feb 2014 23:57:08 GMT, Larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 2/18/2014 10:05 AM, woodchucker wrote:
>>>>
>>> Nice that they reclaimed it, but not nice about the cost
>>> to them. I agree with the Lacey act, we need to protect
>>> the gorillas, the elephants, and the wood.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> This had nothing to do with an endangered species of wood.
>> The act itself was subverted from its original intent so
>> far as to be unrecognizable in the way it was wielded in
>> this case.
>>
>> IOW, and for the umpteenth time, THERE WAS NEVER ANY
>> ENDANGERED WOOD INVOLVED ... see why below.
>>
>> What was involved was that the action was a punitive one
>> taken by the government/administration under the guise of
>> protection of jobs for the country involved, NOT the wood.
>>
>> Had that same wood, imported by Gibson, been _dimensioned_
>> in thickness according the export laws of the originating
>> country, AND BY WORKERS IN SAID COUNTRY, there would have
>> been NO grounds for what was arguably nothing but a
>> politically inspired action.
>>
>> That is why the administration had no ultimate recourse but
>> to return the seized material.
>>
>> That act of returning the material, under the "agreement"
>> between the administration and Gibson, is, in itself, an
>> absolute, unquestionable tacit admission by the
>> Administration that this was never about the wood in the
>> first place.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Had the wood seized by the government indeed been
>> endangered, the Administration would have then been in
>> direct violation of the Lacey Act themselves by returning
>> it to Gibson.
>>
>> Sad that folks were happy to be mislead by an agendized
>> media and spin machine (using buzzwords fed to them by the
>> media that appeal to progressive though processes:
>> "endangered species, "for the children", et al, ad
>> infinitum), and either did not bother to read the
>> affidavits that were the basis for the government's
>> actions, or were too fucking stupid to understand the
>> issues in the first place.
>>
>
>Not to mention the inexcusable act of an armed swat team of
>Feds raiding the place. Completely unnecessary and nothing
>more than arrogance on the part of the Justice Dept.
Which makes it clearly obvious that it was a power play, specifically
intended to intimidate Gibson. Rather like the IRS audits.
On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 00:07:58 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 3/2/14, 11:31 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "-MIKE-" wrote:
>>
>>> You might want to pay more attention.
>>> The US is the only thing that has kept you guys from becoming an
>>> occupied territory of Russia or China for the past century.
>>> As the US begins its slow, slip down the slope to socialism, and
>>> China
>>> owns more and more and more of our money and property, it's only a
>>> matter of time before this great experiment in Democracy falls under
>>> the
>>> noses or a collective citizenry who's memory of history only goes
>>> back
>>> to the last election.
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> More paranoia I see.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>
>Let me guess. You voted for him. Some people will never admit their
>errors.
Sure, some have never read a history book or watched the evening news,
for that matter. They're sometimes known as "Lew information voters".
On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 07:26:44 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>Gibson made a business decision and agreed to a "settlement" for $350k
>instead of spending millions on legal fees and thereby being put out of
>business defending themselves against what was arguably an egregious
>political action, while facing the same type of overzealous
>prosecutorical misconduct of the current DOJ we saw with the Aaron
>Swartz case.
Just out of interest's sake, was Gibson forced to make any changes to
their suppliers of construction materials?
Considering that the DOJ thought they had sufficient reason to go
after Gibson for illegal use of certain woods, what's to stop the DOJ
from coming after Gibson again in the future?
On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 23:51:23 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>>Considering that the DOJ thought they had sufficient reason to go
>>after Gibson for illegal use of certain woods, what's to stop the DOJ
>>from coming after Gibson again in the future?
>
>Nothing, other than another election. Maybe.
Well that stinks. What kind of f**ked up justice is that?
On 3/21/2014 3:54 PM, Mac Cool wrote:
> Swingman:
>
>> IOW, Gibson was never found guilty of any "crime" ... damned Uncool of
>> you to say so.
>
> Well I certainly can't risk being "Uncool" with a capital "U". You sir were clearly
> the masterdebator of your primary school. Obviously your only argument, the only
> possible retort, is that Gibson was never brought to trial which is why you repeat
> it and never use any of the seized Gibson documents. In the end, you ignore the
> documenation because if you have read it then you know there is nothing there to
> help you and if you haven't read it then you probably still know there is nothing
> there to help you. So we both know that Gibson knowingly imported illegal
> Madagascar ebony and if that puts me at risk of being "Uncool" in Candyland then so
> be it.
>
> ---
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
> http://www.avast.com
>
What the hey, it took you more than a month to jump on this thread?
--
Jeff
On 2/18/2014 7:41 AM, Swingman wrote:
> http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-gibson-guitar-20140215,0,6391484.story#axzz2tQUFQW9V
>
>
Yeah!!!!! The little guy, so to speak, wins the battle with a cherry
on top. One has to wonder if the sales of this series of guitars even
comes close to the expense of defending themselves in court and getting
back what is rightfully theirs to begin with.
I find it interesting that the guitars made with the seized and returned
wood are termed Government Series guitars. LOL
Now normally one would not want to have a thing to do with something
that has the association of Government Series attached to it.
I'm guessing that the majority of the buyers are liberals. If the
government is involved it must be better. ;~)
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:32:21 -0700, Just Wondering
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/24/2014 10:25 PM, Mac Cool wrote:
>> Swingman:
>>
>>> http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-gibson-g
>>> uitar-20140215,0,6391484.story#axzz2tQUFQW9V
>>
>> I guess crime does pay.
>>
>Since Gibson committed no crime, to what crime do you refer?
Government's use of force, perhaps?
On 02/19/2014 08:57 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
snip
> I tossed the thing down on the bench, turned off the iron, said fu@k it!
> and went home for the rest of the day. I figured at that point I was a
> safety hazard. :-)
I make those my shop cleaning days. Figure anything more dangerous than
a broom will just have to wait...
...Kevin
--
Kevin Miller
Juneau, Alaska
http://www.alaska.net/~atftb
"In the history of the world, no one has ever washed a rented car."
- Lawrence Summers
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:13:34 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 2/18/14, 11:23 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 9:49:25 AM UTC-6, Leon wrote:
>>>
>>> Yeah!!!!! The little guy, so to speak, wins the battle with a
>>> cherry
>>>
>>> on top. One has to wonder if the sales of this series of guitars
>>> even
>>>
>>> comes close to the expense of defending themselves in court and
>>> getting
>>>
>>> back what is rightfully theirs to begin with.
>>
>> Not remotely close. When the government wants to bring the full
>> weight of its bullying stupidity to bear, they don't mess around.
>>
>> Karl's link says they made and sold 1750 guitars. So let's say that
>> they actually made 2000 of them to go to private hands, friends of
>> the factory, and any other folks that get those deals we don't hear
>> about. The link also says that the base model starts at $1099 (irony
>> not lost on me!) and we can bump it to a $1500 average to take in
>> some higher priced models.
>>
>> So... 2000 X $1500 = $3,000,000 gross. Take away the fact that it
>> cost them money (say they keystone and simply double the cost to
>> manufacture) and half of that is what they keep. Now you are looking
>> at a possible income of about $1,500,000.
>>
>> Nowhere near the $5,000,000 Juszkiewicz says the company paid to
>> defend itself and its property against the illegal government
>> seizure.
>>
>> There is no cherry on the top. There is no victory here except the
>> hollow victory of "being right". And that is a pile of shit since
>> they were never in the wrong, not even with the government making two
>> runs at them. The government simply screwed yet another small
>> business and go away with it. Someway, the Gibson folks found a way
>> put the time and energy together and focus on turning this into
>> something positive instead of simply walking away from it all. I
>> don't think I could have done that, personally.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>
>To top that off, they never actually proved the wood was attained legally.
Huh? Why would they have to prove that it was obtained legally.
Doesn't the government have to prove the opposite?
On 2/18/2014 10:05 AM, woodchucker wrote:
>>
> Nice that they reclaimed it, but not nice about the cost to them.
> I agree with the Lacey act, we need to protect the gorillas, the
> elephants, and the wood.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
This had nothing to do with an endangered species of wood. The act
itself was subverted from its original intent so far as to be
unrecognizable in the way it was wielded in this case.
IOW, and for the umpteenth time, THERE WAS NEVER ANY ENDANGERED WOOD
INVOLVED ... see why below.
What was involved was that the action was a punitive one taken by the
government/administration under the guise of protection of jobs for the
country involved, NOT the wood.
Had that same wood, imported by Gibson, been _dimensioned_ in thickness
according the export laws of the originating country, AND BY WORKERS IN
SAID COUNTRY, there would have been NO grounds for what was arguably
nothing but a politically inspired action.
That is why the administration had no ultimate recourse but to return
the seized material.
That act of returning the material, under the "agreement" between the
administration and Gibson, is, in itself, an absolute, unquestionable
tacit admission by the Administration that this was never about the wood
in the first place.
Why?
Had the wood seized by the government indeed been endangered, the
Administration would have then been in direct violation of the Lacey Act
themselves by returning it to Gibson.
Sad that folks were happy to be mislead by an agendized media and spin
machine (using buzzwords fed to them by the media that appeal to
progressive though processes: "endangered species, "for the children",
et al, ad infinitum), and either did not bother to read the affidavits
that were the basis for the government's actions, or were too fucking
stupid to understand the issues in the first place.
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)