Gibson Guitar to pay big fine related to wood...

-MIKE- wrote:
> On 8/7/12 8:14 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gibson-guitar-paying-300000-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.
>>
>> 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.

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-
[email protected]

-MIKE- wrote:
> On 8/7/12 12:33 PM, Bill wrote:
>> HeyBub wrote:
>>> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>>> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gibson-guitar-paying-300000-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*?
>>
>
> 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-
[email protected]

Bill wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>> Jack wrote:
>>>> On 8/7/2012 3:22 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've learned, mostly from watching CNBC, not to take the
>>>>>> statements of anyone with a vested interest too literally. I have
>>>>>> nothing against Gibson's president or CEO, I don't even know
>>>>>> their names. Believe me, I'm watching this with interest!
>>>>>> Hopefully technology
>>>>>> will help foster more positive than negative (or passive)
>>>>>> attitudes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Technology will help? How does technology replace brain power?
>>>>
>>>> How do you "learn" anything watching CNBC?
>>>
>>> Numerical facts are prominently displayed. I am leary of any other
>>> "information" disseminated.
>>
>> I'm not sure there really is such a thing as "numerical facts" Bill.
>> It almost seems like a contradiction in terms to me...
>
>
> That the Dow Jones Industrial Average is 13155 at this moment (2:43
> PM, EST) is, IMO, a numerical fact. The word "numerical" is an
> adjective. Where is the contradiction?

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

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Bill wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gibson-guitar-paying-300000-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*?
>

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-
[email protected]

-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-
[email protected]

On 8/9/2012 3:02 PM, John Grossbohlin wrote:
>
> "John Grossbohlin" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
>> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gibson-guitar-paying-300000-fine-doj-2012-08-06?link=MW_home_latest_news
>>
>
> The Wall St Journal reported that the fine was $300K, Gibson also agreed
> to $50K being paid to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, plus
> they withdrew their claims to the ebony seized and valued at $261,844.
> Total out of pocket here is $611,844. Add in the legal fees and lost
> productivity (reported to be about $2 million) and the figure becomes
> significant. What was not mentioned was the nearly 100 guitars that were
> also confiscated.
>
> "Gibson has acknowledged that it failed to act on information that the
> Madagascar ebony it was purchasing may have violated laws intended to
> limit overharvesting and conserve valuable species..."
>
> Rightly or wrongly, on both Gibson's part and the Fed's part, this is
> how it played out. I suspect it may alter the business and personal
> practices of some here in the U.S.. There are surely others that will
> not care and who will continue doing what they are doing figuring that
> they are flying under the radar. Gibson's products end up on stage, on
> TV, and in myriad photos... harder to hide perhaps than that nice
> jewelry box someone made for their wife?
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

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-
[email protected]

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

But that's only an assumption.


On 8/7/2012 2:35 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 8/7/2012 1:21 PM, Bill wrote:
> ...
>
>> To consumers who are interested in Gibson, it exposes all that they need
>> to know about it, if they wish to make politicial statements with their
>> purchases.
>
> Only if they only care of the result but not the motivation or real
> cause. Many think DOJ went after Gibson only as punitive action not
> really because there was any significant violation.
>
>> If I governed a nation with a rainforest to protect, it would say to me
>> that I better watch the dealings with Gibson a little closer.
>
> Well, the people you had best be watching would be your own citizens who
> are the ones who have to be doing the "on the ground" poaching if such
> it is. And, undoubtedly, the members of your own government who are
> undoubtedly receiving the kickbacks and may well be the
> ringleaders/organizers...as well as you as imperial leader yourself :)
>
> ...
>
>> We may do well to go back to "The buck stops here!" and quit the legal
>> and political angle-shooting. We are getting so "smart" we are going to
>> bust our country.
>
> As the comments from Gibson's prez show, you can get in trouble w/o even
> knowing it despite your best efforts to the contrary.
>
> We've already made ourselves almost totally noncompetitive globally in
> many areas and every year just adds more levels to the mix...
>
> --

-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-
[email protected]

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-
[email protected]

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-
[email protected]

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-
[email protected]

Jack wrote:
> On 8/9/2012 3:17 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> Nova wrote:
> -MIKE- wrote:
>
>>>> It was three hundred grand... they probably considered it a
>>>> bargain. How many millions were they paying to their lawyers? How
>>>> much would would another 6 months cost them? When you're dealing
>>>> with the DoJ, who can just keep reaching into *our* pockets to
>>>> fight in the courts, most of the time it's better to settle and
>>>> sacrifice principle for profits.
>>>
>>> Agreed. With the cost of a top end Gibson being over $15 grand
>>> $300,000 was a slap on the wrist.
>>
>> A $300k fine for NOT checking paperwork before signing a contract
>> seems a bit stiff to me. YMMV.
>
> A $300,000 fine for violating a foreign law that the foreign country
> didn't think they violated is a bit stupid to me.

But - it fits the political agenda...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

-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-
[email protected]

Han wrote:
> Bill <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> HeyBub wrote:
>>> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>>> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gibson-guitar-paying-300000-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-
[email protected]

Swingman wrote:

> Apparently the wood seized in the last raid was indeed returned to
> Gibson, but you won't read about it in the press.
>
> There is a common misconception, even here, that the Lacey Act is all
> about protecting an endangered species, and that is certainly NOT the
> case in this instance as the product in question was _legally_
> harvested by the country of origin.
>
> The Lacey Act, in its current iteration, is designed to enforce the
> laws of other countries, ... in this case, insuring that the job of
> dimensioning the product remains in the country or origin.
>
> This is about selective enforcement and using buzzword topics to
> further what amounts to government extortion and example making by an
> administration directing lawyers (DOJ) in an exercise of gaming the
> legal system ... the only hot button terminology that wasn't used, by
> both the government and pres, in this entire episode was "save the
> children" ... but "save the rainforest", and "endangered species" were
> both implied and used in abundance, although that was actually never
> at issue.
>
> What it all proves, once again, is that you can indeed fool most of
> the people ALL the time; that it is almost impossible to protect
> yourself when operating in a confusing array of federal and foreign
> laws; and that the government has no limits when using subterfuge in
> attempts to criminalize what was not a criminal matter to start with.
>
> Once again ... if Gibson were to move their operation overseas, or
> even outsource that particular process to any other location in the
> world, there would never have been an incident ... that is an
> inarguable FACT.

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

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dpb <[email protected]> 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/opinions/ops/200115148op2.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

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.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:17:56 -0700, Larry Jaques
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:20:01 -0400, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:
> <snip>
> >>
> >>Agreed. With the cost of a top end Gibson being over $15 grand
> >>$300,000 was a slap on the wrist.
> >
> >A $300k fine for NOT checking paperwork before signing a contract
> >seems a bit stiff to me. YMMV.
>
> Gibson was first raided in 2009 and then again in 2011. After the
> first raid they should have gotten a clue something was amiss.

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

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


>
> If it means the difference between legal and not, I think I'd be
> measuring it and reject the shipment if it fell out of specs. That much
> wood has serious value, maybe you should have a local employee checking
> it when you buy it.
>
> If I opened a box and found it full of marijuana, I wouldn't just stick
> it into the storeroom.
>
> These woods are regulated, if you want to use them, you need to know the
> regulations and stay within them. Ignoring the rules isn't the way to
> win in business.

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

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

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

"John Grossbohlin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gibson-guitar-paying-300000-fine-doj-2012-08-06?link=MW_home_latest_news

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

"Gibson has acknowledged that it failed to act on information that the
Madagascar ebony it was purchasing may have violated laws intended to limit
overharvesting and conserve valuable species..."

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

"Swingman" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

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/packages/pdf/arts/GibsonWarrant.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.

Bill <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> HeyBub wrote:
>> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gibson-guitar-paying-300000-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

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/packages/pdf/arts/GibsonWarrant.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

On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 10:05:51 AM UTC-5, -MIKE- wrote:
>=20
>=20
> It was three hundred grand... they probably considered it a bargain.=20

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

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

RonB

[email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 12:47:38 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Swingman wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently the wood seized in the last raid was indeed returned to
>>> Gibson, but you won't read about it in the press.
>>>
>>> There is a common misconception, even here, that the Lacey Act is
>>> all about protecting an endangered species, and that is certainly
>>> NOT the case in this instance as the product in question was
>>> _legally_ harvested by the country of origin.
>>>
>>> The Lacey Act, in its current iteration, is designed to enforce the
>>> laws of other countries, ... in this case, insuring that the job of
>>> dimensioning the product remains in the country or origin.
>>>
>>> This is about selective enforcement and using buzzword topics to
>>> further what amounts to government extortion and example making by
>>> an administration directing lawyers (DOJ) in an exercise of gaming
>>> the legal system ... the only hot button terminology that wasn't
>>> used, by both the government and pres, in this entire episode was
>>> "save the children" ... but "save the rainforest", and "endangered
>>> species" were both implied and used in abundance, although that was
>>> actually never at issue.
>>>
>>> What it all proves, once again, is that you can indeed fool most of
>>> the people ALL the time; that it is almost impossible to protect
>>> yourself when operating in a confusing array of federal and foreign
>>> laws; and that the government has no limits when using subterfuge in
>>> attempts to criminalize what was not a criminal matter to start
>>> with.
>>>
>>> Once again ... if Gibson were to move their operation overseas, or
>>> even outsource that particular process to any other location in the
>>> world, there would never have been an incident ... that is an
>>> inarguable FACT.
>>
>> I left Swingman's comments intact in order to agree with all of what
>> he has said. This is much more a political move than it is anything
>> else.
>
> Policital in that the issue has nothing to do with any of the facts
> raised in the case but on who is in the White House.

Correct.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:49:51 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> 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/packages/pdf/arts/GibsonWarrant.pdf
>
>The seized wood is described in the affidavit as in the form of "sawn
>logs" 510-530 x 75/70 x 10mm.
>
>IOW, each of the 1250 pieces seized is roughly 20" x 3" x 13/32".
>
>Read paragraph 14, page six of the affidavit and you will see that India
>allows export of this particular wood up to 6mm thick (due to the high
>complexity of involved in cutting these thin sheets to a uniform
>commercial quality)
>
>IOW, it must be cut to that thickness by Indian workers at Indian
>factories, insuring Indian jobs.

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

My guess is 5) All of the above.


>IOW, the raid on Gibson's facilities, disrupting the production and jobs
>of workers at one of the few American companies still "manufacturing"
>products is based on a difference of 5/32" of thickness, AND TO PROTECT
>INDIAN WOODWORKING JOBS.
>
>How many of you, experienced woodworkers, could look at bundles of these
>pieces and tell that there is up to 4mm (5/32") difference in thickness
>in the pieces?

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



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

Absolutely not.


>What it boils down to is that US is enforcing India's laws to protect
>the woodworking jobs at the expense of American jobs. And apparently,
>the Indian woodworker aren't doing their jobs very well, at least when
>it comes to "uniform commercial quality".
>
>If Gibson would only move their operations to India, there would be no
>problem.

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

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

"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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/SB10001424053111903895904576542942027859286.html
Those weren't brad nailers on their hips.

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

Bill wrote:
> Jack wrote:
>> On 8/7/2012 3:22 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've learned, mostly from watching CNBC, not to take the
>>>> statements of anyone with a vested interest too literally. I have
>>>> nothing against Gibson's president or CEO, I don't even know their
>>>> names. Believe me, I'm watching this with interest! Hopefully
>>>> technology
>>>> will help foster more positive than negative (or passive)
>>>> attitudes.
>>>
>>> Technology will help? How does technology replace brain power?
>>
>> How do you "learn" anything watching CNBC?
>
> Numerical facts are prominently displayed. I am leary of any other
> "information" disseminated.

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

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Bill wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> That will look good in their annual report! I have heard that
>>> everyone who is incarcerated "Didn't do it!". I"m sorry, my
>>> tolerance for double-talk gets lower by the year.
>>>
>>
>> Bill - you should not speak outside of your area of expertise. Please
>> explain (you cannot...), how this will appear and how it will
>> appear favorably in an annual report. You really should not speak a
>> about things you only speculate on.
>
> Well, we can watch for the annual report. Do you believe that the
> board of directors and others who prepare annual reports won't show
> any bias? Have you ever read an annual report? I expect it will say
> something to the effect that "The CEO and other leaders in the company
> acted quickly, smartly, and prudently in looking-out for the forward
> interests of the company", or an equivalent self-pat on the back.
> It's true that I didn't review all of the specifics of this case, as
> Swingman suggested. I do recall some of the details now from a few
> months back. I am in favor of all companies being good world
> citizens. Particularly Gibson, since I like some of their guitars (as
> everyone knows, guitars carry a huge amount of Karma!)

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

>>
>> And you know nothing at all about the details - but in your secluded
>> little academic world, you feel priviledged to make this suggestion?
>
> It is my privilege to make this suggestion under the 1st Ammendment to
> the Constitution. No kiddding! Look it up, it's true!

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


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

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-
[email protected]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:14:40 -0700 (PDT), RonB <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 10:05:51 AM UTC-5, -MIKE- wrote:
>>
>>
>> It was three hundred grand... they probably considered it a bargain.
>
>I agree. Any time you get the DOJ or State Department involved the fines that are published might be the negotiated slap on the wrist that comes before they drop the hammer.
>
>I managed International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) compliance for a company that didn't take it too seriously until they got in trouble. I got in when they realized that a few, stupid clerical errors made by us, and some more serious infractions by a customer, violated the ITAR. The initial fine was going to be in the $2M-$3M area but we negotiated it down by basically pleading, groveling and begging and agreeing to some special terms. We ended up with a $150K fine plus another $50K allocated for a mandatory training program and some systems changes. At the end of the day the training and systems changes cost more than that but we were happy to comply. If we had a second infraction within a 3-5 year window the fine could have been quite large.

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

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 10:05:51 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 8/7/12 8:14 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gibson-guitar-paying-300000-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.
>>
>> Secondly, had they just strung (no pun intended) things out for a few
>> months, it's possible a new administration would have dropped the entire
>> business.
>>
>
>It was three hundred grand... they probably considered it a bargain. How
>many millions were they paying to their lawyers? How much would would
>another 6 months cost them? When you're dealing with the DoJ, who can
>just keep reaching into *our* pockets to fight in the courts, most of
>the time it's better to settle and sacrifice principle for profits.

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

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:20:01 -0400, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 10:05:51 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>On 8/7/12 8:14 AM, HeyBub wrote:
>>> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>>> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gibson-guitar-paying-300000-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.
>>>
>>> Secondly, had they just strung (no pun intended) things out for a few
>>> months, it's possible a new administration would have dropped the entire
>>> business.
>>>
>>
>>It was three hundred grand... they probably considered it a bargain. How
>>many millions were they paying to their lawyers? How much would would
>>another 6 months cost them? When you're dealing with the DoJ, who can
>>just keep reaching into *our* pockets to fight in the courts, most of
>>the time it's better to settle and sacrifice principle for profits.
>
>Agreed. With the cost of a top end Gibson being over $15 grand
>$300,000 was a slap on the wrist.

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

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

On 8/8/2012 1:42 PM, Bill wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> On 8/7/2012 10:21 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
>>> What gets me is that the DOJ will probably burn the ebony.
>>> So not only did it not go to product, but it was wasted, and Gibson will
>>> still have to get more to make more product.
>>
>> Apparently the wood seized in the last raid was indeed returned to
>> Gibson, but you won't read about it in the press.
>>
>> There is a common misconception, even here, that the Lacey Act is all
>> about protecting an endangered species, and that is certainly NOT the
>> case in this instance as the product in question was _legally_ harvested
>> by the country of origin.
>>
>> The Lacey Act, in its current iteration, is designed to enforce the laws
>> of other countries, ... in this case, insuring that the job of
>> dimensioning the product remains in the country or origin.
>
> You make it sound as though they don't have a perfectly legitimate
> right to do that!
>
>


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

On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 12:47:38 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Swingman wrote:
>
>> Apparently the wood seized in the last raid was indeed returned to
>> Gibson, but you won't read about it in the press.
>>
>> There is a common misconception, even here, that the Lacey Act is all
>> about protecting an endangered species, and that is certainly NOT the
>> case in this instance as the product in question was _legally_
>> harvested by the country of origin.
>>
>> The Lacey Act, in its current iteration, is designed to enforce the
>> laws of other countries, ... in this case, insuring that the job of
>> dimensioning the product remains in the country or origin.
>>
>> This is about selective enforcement and using buzzword topics to
>> further what amounts to government extortion and example making by an
>> administration directing lawyers (DOJ) in an exercise of gaming the
>> legal system ... the only hot button terminology that wasn't used, by
>> both the government and pres, in this entire episode was "save the
>> children" ... but "save the rainforest", and "endangered species" were
>> both implied and used in abundance, although that was actually never
>> at issue.
>>
>> What it all proves, once again, is that you can indeed fool most of
>> the people ALL the time; that it is almost impossible to protect
>> yourself when operating in a confusing array of federal and foreign
>> laws; and that the government has no limits when using subterfuge in
>> attempts to criminalize what was not a criminal matter to start with.
>>
>> Once again ... if Gibson were to move their operation overseas, or
>> even outsource that particular process to any other location in the
>> world, there would never have been an incident ... that is an
>> inarguable FACT.
>
>I left Swingman's comments intact in order to agree with all of what he has
>said. This is much more a political move than it is anything else.

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

On 8/7/12 8:14 AM, HeyBub wrote:
> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gibson-guitar-paying-300000-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.
>
> 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
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

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
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

HeyBub wrote:
> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gibson-guitar-paying-300000-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.
>
>

On 8/7/12 12:33 PM, Bill wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gibson-guitar-paying-300000-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*?
>

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
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

-MIKE- wrote:
> On 8/7/12 12:33 PM, Bill wrote:
>> HeyBub wrote:
>>> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>>> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gibson-guitar-paying-300000-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*?
>>
>
> 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 <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> HeyBub wrote:
>>>> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>>>> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gibson-guitar-paying-300000-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...

--

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 8/7/12 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/packages/pdf/arts/GibsonWarrant.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
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

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
[email protected]
---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!

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/packages/pdf/arts/GibsonWarrant.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.
>

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 8/7/12 6:20 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 8/7/12 2:33 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> dpb wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What they spent to date and faced continuing to fight in direct
>>>> legal costs is just the tip of the iceberg...but to build enough of
>>>> a case to actual stand in federal court against DOJ I wouldn't be
>>>> at all surprised if it at least pushed the six figure amount for
>>>> legal costs alone.
>>>
>>> Pushed "six figures" is a lot different than "millions" as was
>>> previously stated. Does anybody even read posts anymore?
>>>
>>
>> I never stated they spent millions. Maybe you should read the post
>> again? :-p
>> I was simply speculating as to a possible motivation behind settling
>> and posed a hypothetical question.
>> I think you're getting a bit too wound up.
>
> Ok - I'm going to my corner to unwind. I hate that damned corner...
>

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


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Swingman wrote:
> On 8/7/2012 10:21 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
>> What gets me is that the DOJ will probably burn the ebony.
>> So not only did it not go to product, but it was wasted, and Gibson will
>> still have to get more to make more product.
>
> Apparently the wood seized in the last raid was indeed returned to
> Gibson, but you won't read about it in the press.
>
> There is a common misconception, even here, that the Lacey Act is all
> about protecting an endangered species, and that is certainly NOT the
> case in this instance as the product in question was _legally_ harvested
> by the country of origin.
>
> The Lacey Act, in its current iteration, is designed to enforce the laws
> of other countries, ... in this case, insuring that the job of
> dimensioning the product remains in the country or origin.

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



>
> This is about selective enforcement and using buzzword topics to further
> what amounts to government extortion and example making by an
> administration directing lawyers (DOJ) in an exercise of gaming the
> legal system ... the only hot button terminology that wasn't used, by
> both the government and pres, in this entire episode was "save the
> children" ... but "save the rainforest", and "endangered species" were
> both implied and used in abundance, although that was actually never at
> issue.
>
> What it all proves, once again, is that you can indeed fool most of the
> people ALL the time; that it is almost impossible to protect yourself
> when operating in a confusing array of federal and foreign laws; and
> that the government has no limits when using subterfuge in attempts to
> criminalize what was not a criminal matter to start with.
>
> Once again ... if Gibson were to move their operation overseas, or even
> outsource that particular process to any other location in the world,
> there would never have been an incident ... that is an inarguable FACT.
>

Leon wrote:
> On 8/8/2012 1:42 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>>> On 8/7/2012 10:21 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
>>>> What gets me is that the DOJ will probably burn the ebony.
>>>> So not only did it not go to product, but it was wasted, and Gibson
>>>> will
>>>> still have to get more to make more product.
>>>
>>> Apparently the wood seized in the last raid was indeed returned to
>>> Gibson, but you won't read about it in the press.
>>>
>>> There is a common misconception, even here, that the Lacey Act is all
>>> about protecting an endangered species, and that is certainly NOT the
>>> case in this instance as the product in question was _legally_ harvested
>>> by the country of origin.
>>>
>>> The Lacey Act, in its current iteration, is designed to enforce the laws
>>> of other countries, ... in this case, insuring that the job of
>>> dimensioning the product remains in the country or origin.
>>
>> You make it sound as though they don't have a perfectly legitimate
>> right to do that!
>>
>>
>
>
> Why on earth should we enforce laws of another country when they see no
> need to do so themselves?

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

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

On 8/7/2012 3:22 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>> I've learned, mostly from watching CNBC, not to take the statements
>> of anyone with a vested interest too literally. I have nothing against
>> Gibson's president or CEO, I don't even know their names.
>>
>> Believe me, I'm watching this with interest! Hopefully technology will
>> help foster more positive than negative (or passive) attitudes.
>
> Technology will help? How does technology replace brain power?

How do you "learn" anything watching CNBC?

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

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

>> Please go back to the original posts. They probably did not, and
>> perhaps would not have spend "millions" on this. All of the rest
>> that you posted is not relevant.
>
> Sorry - that was abrupt. Better stated... It appears they did not spend
> untold amounts to date (though we don't really know...) and what they could
> or would have spent is pretty much speculation. I do agree with you that to
> fight DOJ - whether they are off base with their case or not, is going to be
> expensive.

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

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

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

>> The Lacey Act, in its current iteration, is designed to enforce the laws
>> of other countries, ... in this case, insuring that the job of
>> dimensioning the product remains in the country or origin.
>
> You make it sound as though they don't have a perfectly legitimate
> right to do that!

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

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

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

>>> The Lacey Act, in its current iteration, is designed to enforce the laws
>>> of other countries, ... in this case, insuring that the job of
>>> dimensioning the product remains in the country or origin.
>>
>> You make it sound as though they don't have a perfectly legitimate
>> right to do that!

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

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

Makes one wonder to which political party Gibson leans?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>> It was three hundred grand... they probably considered it a bargain. How
>>> many millions were they paying to their lawyers? How much would would
>>> another 6 months cost them? When you're dealing with the DoJ, who can
>>> just keep reaching into *our* pockets to fight in the courts, most of
>>> the time it's better to settle and sacrifice principle for profits.
>>
>> Agreed. With the cost of a top end Gibson being over $15 grand
>> $300,000 was a slap on the wrist.
>
> A $300k fine for NOT checking paperwork before signing a contract
> seems a bit stiff to me. YMMV.

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


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

Jack wrote:
> On 8/7/2012 3:22 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>> I've learned, mostly from watching CNBC, not to take the statements
>>> of anyone with a vested interest too literally. I have nothing against
>>> Gibson's president or CEO, I don't even know their names.
>>>
>>> Believe me, I'm watching this with interest! Hopefully technology will
>>> help foster more positive than negative (or passive) attitudes.
>>
>> Technology will help? How does technology replace brain power?
>
> How do you "learn" anything watching CNBC?

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

Mike Marlow wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> Jack wrote:
>>> On 8/7/2012 3:22 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've learned, mostly from watching CNBC, not to take the
>>>>> statements of anyone with a vested interest too literally. I have
>>>>> nothing against Gibson's president or CEO, I don't even know their
>>>>> names. Believe me, I'm watching this with interest! Hopefully
>>>>> technology
>>>>> will help foster more positive than negative (or passive)
>>>>> attitudes.
>>>>
>>>> Technology will help? How does technology replace brain power?
>>>
>>> How do you "learn" anything watching CNBC?
>>
>> Numerical facts are prominently displayed. I am leary of any other
>> "information" disseminated.
>
> I'm not sure there really is such a thing as "numerical facts" Bill. It
> almost seems like a contradiction in terms to me...


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

Bill wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>> Jack wrote:
>>>> On 8/7/2012 3:22 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've learned, mostly from watching CNBC, not to take the
>>>>>> statements of anyone with a vested interest too literally. I have
>>>>>> nothing against Gibson's president or CEO, I don't even know their
>>>>>> names. Believe me, I'm watching this with interest! Hopefully
>>>>>> technology
>>>>>> will help foster more positive than negative (or passive)
>>>>>> attitudes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Technology will help? How does technology replace brain power?
>>>>
>>>> How do you "learn" anything watching CNBC?
>>>
>>> Numerical facts are prominently displayed. I am leary of any other
>>> "information" disseminated.
>>
>> I'm not sure there really is such a thing as "numerical facts" Bill. It
>> almost seems like a contradiction in terms to me...
>
>
> That the Dow Jones Industrial Average is 13155 at this moment (2:43 PM,
> EST) is, IMO, a numerical fact. The word "numerical" is an adjective.
> Where is the contradiction?

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

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

Bill wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>> On 8/7/2012 3:22 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>>>> Bill wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've learned, mostly from watching CNBC, not to take the
>>>>>>> statements of anyone with a vested interest too literally. I have
>>>>>>> nothing against Gibson's president or CEO, I don't even know their
>>>>>>> names. Believe me, I'm watching this with interest! Hopefully
>>>>>>> technology
>>>>>>> will help foster more positive than negative (or passive)
>>>>>>> attitudes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Technology will help? How does technology replace brain power?
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you "learn" anything watching CNBC?
>>>>
>>>> Numerical facts are prominently displayed. I am leary of any other
>>>> "information" disseminated.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure there really is such a thing as "numerical facts" Bill. It
>>> almost seems like a contradiction in terms to me...
>>
>>
>> That the Dow Jones Industrial Average is 13155 at this moment (2:43 PM,
>> EST) is, IMO, a numerical fact. The word "numerical" is an adjective.
>> Where is the contradiction?
>
> That the integer number 9 is odd, less than 10, and a perfect square are
> 3 more numerical facts, I think. Numerical facts appear to exist in
> numerous quantities. In fact, to be more scientific, in
> uncountably-numerous quantities at least as great as the infinite
> ordinal aleph-naught. If you enjoy rigor, see here for more:

Oops, replace aleph-naught with aleph-one.

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

Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 12:40:23 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Numerical facts are prominently displayed. I am leary of any other
>> "information" disseminated.
>
> Are you, Timothy?

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

On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:33:29 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>HeyBub wrote:
>> John Grossbohlin wrote:
>>> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gibson-guitar-paying-300000-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*?

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

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:17:56 -0700, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:20:01 -0400, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>Agreed. With the cost of a top end Gibson being over $15 grand
>>$300,000 was a slap on the wrist.
>
>A $300k fine for NOT checking paperwork before signing a contract
>seems a bit stiff to me. YMMV.

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

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 15:42:15 -0400, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:17:56 -0700, Larry Jaques
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:20:01 -0400, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:
><snip>
>>>
>>>Agreed. With the cost of a top end Gibson being over $15 grand
>>>$300,000 was a slap on the wrist.
>>
>>A $300k fine for NOT checking paperwork before signing a contract
>>seems a bit stiff to me. YMMV.
>
>Gibson was first raided in 2009 and then again in 2011. After the
>first raid they should have gotten a clue something was amiss.

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

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

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>On 8/8/2012 1:42 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>>> On 8/7/2012 10:21 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
>>>> What gets me is that the DOJ will probably burn the ebony.
>>>> So not only did it not go to product, but it was wasted, and Gibson will
>>>> still have to get more to make more product.
>>>
>>> Apparently the wood seized in the last raid was indeed returned to
>>> Gibson, but you won't read about it in the press.
>>>
>>> There is a common misconception, even here, that the Lacey Act is all
>>> about protecting an endangered species, and that is certainly NOT the
>>> case in this instance as the product in question was _legally_ harvested
>>> by the country of origin.
>>>
>>> The Lacey Act, in its current iteration, is designed to enforce the laws
>>> of other countries, ... in this case, insuring that the job of
>>> dimensioning the product remains in the country or origin.
>>
>> You make it sound as though they don't have a perfectly legitimate
>> right to do that!
>>
>>
>
>
>Why on earth should we enforce laws of another country when they see no
>need to do so themselves?

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

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 12:40:23 -0400, Bill <[email protected]> wrote:

>Jack wrote:
>> On 8/7/2012 3:22 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've learned, mostly from watching CNBC, not to take the statements
>>>> of anyone with a vested interest too literally. I have nothing against
>>>> Gibson's president or CEO, I don't even know their names.
>>>>
>>>> Believe me, I'm watching this with interest! Hopefully technology will
>>>> help foster more positive than negative (or passive) attitudes.
>>>
>>> Technology will help? How does technology replace brain power?
>>
>> How do you "learn" anything watching CNBC?
>
>Numerical facts are prominently displayed. I am leary of any other
>"information" disseminated.

Are you, Timothy?

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

John Grossbohlin wrote:
> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gibson-guitar-paying-300000-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.

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.