Gibson Guitar in settlement on illegal wood imports

[martin H]

Originally Posted by KSG_Standard

In the end, the DOJ admitted what the Indian gov't and Gibson both said...there were ZERO Indian laws broken and therefore ZERO infractions of the Lacey Act with regards to the second raid. And the DOJ couldn't make a case for trial on the Madagascar wood, for several reasons apparently.

1) The Madagascar wood was legal prior to the coup
2) The new gov't of Madagascar isn't recognized by the international community as legitimate...therefore the Madagascar law that made the export of the wood illegal, may or may not have been a legitimate law
3) The only difference between "legal" cutting and export of ebony and rosewood from Madagascar is whether the foreign wholesaler pays the graft to the new illegitimate gov't in Madagascar.
4) They apparently were unable to prove whether Gibson's wholesaler shipped wood cut prior to the change in Madagasky law or after the law was changed.
5) The law is too vague to interpret with any certainty.

.

so as you see the situation (though I find none of this in the statement)
[1] Doj admitted it has no case on the Rosewood
[2] DOJ admitted it had no case on the Ebony

AND THEN GIBSON SETTLED
BS.

[martin H]

Originally Posted by MeKevin

When I climb tress I feel funny in my pants.

Is Tress a person, or did you mean Trees?

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Ddavid

It appears that you narrowly believe that if someone reads exactly that you've read they will come to no other conclusion than your correct one.

I disagree with you. (it's ok, it happens sometimes...) I don't believe the government's case is as strong as they claim.

Perhaps HS Codes 4407, 4408 & 4409 are figments of people's imaginations.
Perhaps Natalie Swango is not a real person.
Perhaps the Judge who read the affidavit and granted the Government Agency permission to pursue the case is a thick shit and a dumb cluck.
Perhaps the documents seen by the Government Agency were all false and constructed solely to ensure Gibson took a 'hit'?

Do me and everyone else a favour, and wake up to reality. You're making yourself look a total thick shit and twat over this issue. Beggars belief...!

[KSG_Standard]

Originally Posted by martin H

so as you see the situation (though I find none of this in the statement)
[1] Doj admitted it has no case on the Rosewood
[2] DOJ admitted it had no case on the Ebony

AND THEN GIBSON SETTLED
BS.

Lawsuits are settled regularly...it could have cost more than a million dollars to fight the lawsuit...it's a business decision normally and not an admission of guilt. The gov't has unlimited resources, private citizens and companies don't.

Upthread, I posted the US legal definition of what an affidavit is and it's value in court. I don't think, and the definition doesn't show, it to mean what many folks in this thread think it does.

At any rate, I have no loyalty to Henry or to Gibson. I haven't bought a NEW Gibson in 5 years and don't plan on buying any more new ones. I don't care if they use epoxy and woodchips for fretboards or ebony or the dried skins of baby seals and polar bears. I do want to see my gov't act in a more responsible manner though, and I do care about how the DOJ does business. As a citizen, business owner and taxpayer...I expect more from the people in charge of enforcing the law and running the legal system.

Cheers.

[MeKevin]

Trees. Trees make me feel funny in the pants. So do affindavids.

[SteveGangi]

Originally Posted by KSG_Standard

The gov't has unlimited resources...

I thought government was going broke, and that's why they HAD to trash benefits and retirements and "services"?


They LIED?????

I'm shocked. Shocked.

[bertzie]

Originally Posted by KSG_Standard

The gov't has unlimited resources, private citizens and companies don't.

Then why would they need to shake anyone down? They could just print more money.

[FennRx]

Originally Posted by SteveGangi

I thought government was going broke, and that's why they HAD to trash benefits and retirements and "services"?

they did. the military.

thank god that welfare and food stamps are easier to get though.

[FennRx]

and since we are a country of fatasses, shouldn't foodstamps be made harder to get? Afterall, the fattest people I have ever seen come in as customers and are on ...you guessed it!...MEDICAID!

Why do food stamps, I mean SNAP Cards, cover candy, Mountain Dew, and pork rinds? All the shit that causes obesity, HTN, DM, CAD which leads to bariatric surgery (which is covered!!! WTF!?), dialysis, angioplasty, etc.

[Gooner]

KSG, I think you've missed the purpose of the affidavit and I have a response to your view of the settlement.

Originally Posted by KSG_Standard

Lawsuits are settled regularly...it could have cost more than a million dollars to fight the lawsuit...it's a business decision normally and not an admission of guilt. The gov't has unlimited resources, private citizens and companies don't.

If the Government didn't have a case Gibson would win in court, get compensation and costs, why would they choose the alternative?

As you know the Laws in our countries are very similar, and in some cases identical. In the UK for certain low level offenses where the likelyhood of prison being an unlikely outcome the LEA will offer a penalty rather than go to court. It is your choice.
So what has happened here is that Gibson have the money to pursue this case, but choose not to because they feel that they would not win their case in court.

Originally Posted by KSG_Standard

Upthread, I posted the US legal definition of what an affidavit is and it's value in court. I don't think, and the definition doesn't show, it to mean what many folks in this thread think it does.

I think you have missed the points made by Roberteaux re the affidavit. The purpose of the affidavit is to legally bind the LEO to the evidence he is using in his application for a search warrant and to show he has suspicion that would need a search warrant to seize goods or evidence connected to that offense. Should that evidence presented in the affidavit not exist, then the search is illegal and the LEO prosecuted, case thrown out. In the UK the application is made in court and the officer swears in the application, again if that evidence does not exist or he lies in court, he will be prosecuted and the case thrown out. It is part of the system put in place to ensure the LEO's do not exceed their powers.

Therefore it is very unlikely that the evidence presented in the affidavit does not exist.

Good post from the EIA, by the way, it seems that the trade in these woods is being tackled seriously with China requiring significant pressure from the international community to cease their involvement in this trade. In particular the US and Europe were lauded for for their work using Lacey and CITES.

[KSG_Standard]

In the USA, we don't have a loser pays judicial system. If charges had been filed and the case had gone to court and the DOJ had lost...Gibson would still be out all of the money they spent on legal fees and assorted costs.

We have an entire industry here of lawyers suing private businesses over alleged violations of the Employees with Disabilities Act...the accused almost always settle out of court because it's cheaper to settle than it is to go to court.

I understand Roberteaux's post and agree with most of it...and I'm not accusing the the LEOs of lying on their affidavit. However, it is a fact that an affidavit is not proof of anything...in this case, it was used to convince a judge that PROBABLE CAUSE existed for a search warrant.

The judge who signed the warrant likely didn't review Indian law or Madagasky law and he didn't hear cross examination of witnesses or see Gibson's evidence...he had no context with which to place the LEO's affidavit. That's what a trial is for.

In the end, the DOJ had no case on the Indian RW, but they were able to hold the wood as evidence for over a year...which created at least some difficulties for Gibson as their investment was stranded and they had to look for other materials for their manufacturing.

On a side note, do those of us that have rosewood boards on our guitars made before 1991 or so, have Braz rosewood?

[bertzie]

Originally Posted by FennRx

and since we are a country of fatasses, shouldn't foodstamps be made harder to get? Afterall, the fattest people I have ever seen come in as customers and are on ...you guessed it!...MEDICAID!

Why do food stamps, I mean SNAP Cards, cover candy, Mountain Dew, and pork rinds? All the shit that causes obesity, HTN, DM, CAD which leads to bariatric surgery (which is covered!!! WTF!?), dialysis, angioplasty, etc.

Because healthy food is expensive.

[MeKevin]

America makes me feel funny in my pants.

[Gooner]

Originally Posted by KSG_Standard

In the USA, we don't have a loser pays judicial system. If charges had been filed and the case had gone to court and the DOJ had lost...Gibson would still be out all of the money they spent on legal fees and assorted costs.

That doesn't seem very fair Are you sure there is no way of gaining compensation for loss of business etc.?

Originally Posted by KSG_Standard

The judge who signed the warrant likely didn't review Indian law or Madagasky law and he didn't hear cross examination of witnesses or see Gibson's evidence...he had no context with which to place the LEO's affidavit. That's what a trial is for.

Absolutely. Gibson chose not to not the Government.

Originally Posted by KSG_Standard

In the end, the DOJ had no case on the Indian RW, but they were able to hold the wood as evidence for over a year...which created at least some difficulties for Gibson as their investment was stranded and they had to look for other materials for their manufacturing.

In the end they felt they had no case because of the Indian Law situation, however there is the false declaration made by the shipping agent which renders the wood liable to seizure. The DOJ may be restoring the wood to Gibson free of charge or for a fee, we do not know, however Gibson have signed to say that the wood was legally seized by relinquishing their right to challenge the seizure.

Originally Posted by KSG_Standard

On a side note, do those of us that have rosewood boards on our guitars made before 1991 or so, have Braz rosewood?

Why? I thought it was only illegal if it was illegally harvested.

[FennRx]

Originally Posted by Gooner

That doesn't seem very fair

you think this is about fairness?

[Gooner]

Originally Posted by FennRx

you think this is about fairness?

That is why you have a legal system and constitutional rights

[martin H]

Originally Posted by KSG_Standard

Lawsuits are settled regularly...it could have cost more than a million dollars to fight the lawsuit...it's a business decision normally and not an admission of guilt. The gov't has unlimited resources, private citizens and companies don't.


Cheers.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with the concept that defense would have cost millions. I was a trial lawyer for ten years (although I generally try not to admit it). If, as you stated the government had admitted having no case on either shipment of wood, IMO a simple motion would be sufficient.

The reason that many cases do cost so much is because both sides nowadays naturally adopt a strategy of avoiding a final combat at trial for as long as possible. I continue to be amazed at the number of cases that I saw in which both sides claimed to have a watertight case, but no one seemed in any hurry to get to trial for the “inevitable” victory.

Now admittedly, much of this must be blamed on the trial lawyer profession itself. The modern civil trial lawyer strategy on all sides is to jockey for position regarding an eventual settlement. Trail is pretty much the last resort. This in turn, involves a huge amount of motions to the judge, hearings, disputes about the slightest item that can be dragged on for months, etc. One side hires an expensive expert – the other side must now hire another expensive expert to counter the first one. Then the experst are challenged in a motion hearing. The idea of each side is to wear the other down until they are inclined to settle. Eventually, the plaintiff becomes discouraged about the amount of time this is taking, and the amount it is costing, and the defendant becomes discouraged by the defense costs. With everyone’s expectation of total victory diminished, the parties settle. It works, but it is a ridiculously costly and inefficient way to bring the parties to the table.

I have seen many cases that I consider to be unjust because the defendant can't match the resources of the state. However, the people who can't match the resources of the government are generally those with no money. Those are the poor suckers who take plea deals on things they didn't do, because the public defender system is so overloaded that they have no chance against the prosecutor's office if the DA decides to put money and resources into the case. If the defendant is wealthy, the resources battle reverses. I have watched $60,000 a year DA's swamped by teams of private lawyers who make millions a year. - OJ Simpson comes to mind - under resourced government lawyers overcome by the "dream team." Massey Coal buying itself a new judge on the Virginia Supreme Court to overturn a decison against it is another. It’s an unfortunate truth that the quality of justice you receive is to some degree, tempered by how much you can afford to pay for it.

Cheers

MH

[b3john]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

In reply, I would say: Go read the 30 page affidavit presented to the court. All will become crystal clear. Thos other companies obviously filll out their paperwork correctly, and do not try to import wood which is not in the correct form for importation in the first place.

I would respectfully suggest you check ALL the facts and information before posting on this issue...

I gotta be honest, Vasco, I couldn't give two sh!ts about the paperwork. That's a separate issue.

My point -- and I think I've been consistent and clear on this -- is that the same IRW fretboard material that was allegedly illegal for Gibson to import (according to the original raid documentation) has continually been imported by Gibson's competitors; before, during, and after last year's IRW raid.

Now it turns out that Eric Holder's minions, great legal minds that they are, have finally determined eleven months down the road that India's law was ambiguous (at best) and that the IRW in question may not be illegal to import after all.

So my premise still stands that either the IRW fretboard material should be legal to everyone to import or illegal for anyone to import. In fact, it turns out that according to this agreement, anyone (paperwork notwithstanding) can import IRW for fretboard material -- regardless of whether it was finished or not.

My sole objection was whether the law was being applied evenly for those that choose to donate to the current administration's political party, than those that don't.

[Gooner]

Originally Posted by b3john

I gotta be honest, Vasco, I couldn't give two sh!ts about the paperwork. That's a separate issue.

My point -- and I think I've been consistent and clear on this -- is that the same IRW fretboard material that was allegedly illegal for Gibson to import (according to the original raid documentation) has continually been imported by Gibson's competitors; before, during, and after last year's IRW raid.

Now it turns out that Eric Holder's minions, great legal minds that they are, have finally determined eleven months down the road that India's law was ambiguous (at best) and that the IRW in question may not be illegal to import after all.

So my premise still stands that either the IRW fretboard material should be legal to everyone to import or illegal for anyone to import. In fact, it turns out that according to this agreement, anyone (paperwork notwithstanding) can import IRW for fretboard material -- regardless of whether it was finished or not.

My sole objection was whether the law was being applied evenly for those that choose to donate to the current administration's political party, than those that don't.

Just a suggestion, but if you do read the affidavit, you will see that this whole thing started from a Customs spot check and at that time they were unaware that Gibson was the consignee so this whole thing could have been any of the other companies. They noticed that what was declared on the paperwork which was legal to import happened to be different and was to their knowledge at the time illegal. It goes further that the accompanying Lacey documentation requires the end user/consignee to be stated. Gibsons name was nowhere to be seen.
Check out Paragraph 21 of the warrant application,

1. Luthier Merchantile were falsely declared as the consignee
2. Imported wood was falsely declared as something that would not violate the Lacy Act when it clearly did. (6mm veneer instead of 10mm
fretboards)

Paragraph 22 goes on to show that the export document also supplied false information to allow exportation which would contravene Indian Law and shows that the accompanying documentation was fraudulent.

With the Lacey infractions put aside, I suspect the misdeclaration of goods leave them liable to forfeiture and the way it was misdeclared into the US and out of India with totally different ITC's smacks of smuggling.

Have you proof that any of the other guitar companies have been complicit in similar activities? If you have I suggest you contact APHIS.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by b3john

I gotta be honest, Vasco, I couldn't give two sh!ts about the paperwork. That's a separate issue.

If you couldn't give two shits about the paperwork, you are ignoring the inital premises upon which the raid was sanctioned.

Being selective is a wonderful thing, is it not...?

[Ddavid]

Originally Posted by Gooner

Have you proof that any of the other guitar companies have been complicit in similar activities? If you have I suggest you contact APHIS.

Have you proof that Gibson is guilty of the articles in the aftdavit? Apparently the charges aren't being pursued.

Also it appears that Americans require the legal bar to be a bit higher than you guys do.

[Ddavid]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

If you couldn't give two shits about the paperwork, you are ignoring the inital premises upon which the raid was sanctioned.

Being selective is a wonderful thing, is it not...?

It's ironic that you selectively ignored the rest of his post...

[MeKevin]

Oh fvck.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Originally Posted by b3john

My sole objection was whether the law was being applied evenly for those that choose to donate to the current administration's political party, than those that don't.

And this is a retarded objection.

HJ and Gibson, together, in the period 2001-2008, donated a total of about $18,000 to the RNC. In that same time period, Outback Steakhouse donated over $1.6 million dollars to the RNC.

You would have us believe that Obama set the DoJ on Gibson/HJ for $18,000 in RNC donations, and turn a blind eye to Outback's $1.6m?

I don't buy it. For your hypothesis to hold water, you need to explain not only why they went after Gibson, and then present evidence; you also need to explain why they didn't go after companies like Outback, whose RNC donations dwarf Gibson's.

Bring evidence, because you're really straining credibility with such a silly assertion.

[b3john]

Originally Posted by Gooner

Just a suggestion, but if you do read the affidavit, you will see that this whole thing started from a Customs spot check and at that time they were unaware that Gibson was the consignee so this whole thing could have been any of the other companies. They noticed that what was declared on the paperwork which was legal to import happened to be different and was to their knowledge at the time illegal. It goes further that the accompanying Lacey documentation requires the end user/consignee to be stated. Gibsons name was nowhere to be seen.
Check out Paragraph 21 of the warrant application,

1. Luthier Merchantile were falsely declared as the consignee
2. Imported wood was falsely declared as something that would not violate the Lacy Act when it clearly did. (6mm veneer instead of 10mm
fretboards)

Paragraph 22 goes on to show that the export document also supplied false information to allow exportation which would contravene Indian Law and shows that the accompanying documentation was fraudulent.

With the Lacey infractions put aside, I suspect the misdeclaration of goods leave them liable to forfeiture and the way it was misdeclared into the US and out of India with totally different ITC's smacks of smuggling.

Have you proof that any of the other guitar companies have been complicit in similar activities? If you have I suggest you contact APHIS.

I realize making this point is really important to your feelings of self-worth, but go re-read my first sentence, re: not giving two sh1ts about the paperwork. I know you guys have an axe (no pun intended) to grind with Henry J, but that misses my point.

The larger issue is that, if these imports really were to "contravene Indian Law" (ambiguous, at best) then it's a "miracle" how every other guitar manufacturer or builder (Bob Taylor, Chuck Martin IV, Paul Reed Smith, etc.) that use IRW fretboards or acoustic guitar sides/backs (and advertise that fact) are able to get that wood into the country. And the head of a federal agency doesn't investigate to see how deep that well is? Either IRW fretboards are legal for everyone to import, or they are illegal for anyone to import.

BTW, this is the interesting section of this document (N.B. this agreement only covers Gibson):

The Government and Gibson acknowledge and agree that certain questions and inconsistencies now exist regarding the tariff classification of ebony and rosewood fingerboard blanks pursuant to the Indian government's Foreign Trade Policy. Accordingly, the Government will not undertake enforcement actions related to Gibson's future orders, purchases, or imports of ebony and rosewood fingerboard blanks from India, unless and until the Government of India provides specific clarification that ebony and rosewood fingerboard blanks are expressly prohibited by laws related to Indian Foreign Trade Policy. The Government agrees to provide Gibson notice of any such clarification from the Government of India in the future and a reasonable period of time (60 days or as otherwise agreed) to address the potential change in the understanding of the law as it relates to shipments received by or en route to Gibson.

[b3john]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

If you couldn't give two shits about the paperwork, you are ignoring the inital premises upon which the raid was sanctioned.

I'm ignoring "the inital [sic] premises upon which the raid was sanctioned", because I'm far more concerned about corruption at the highest levels of the US Government, namely at the office of the Attorney General of the United States.

[Gooner]

Originally Posted by Ddavid

Have you proof that Gibson is guilty of the articles in the aftdavit? Apparently the charges aren't being pursued.

Also it appears that Americans require the legal bar to be a bit higher than you guys do.

Re the Indian rosewood,
Customs examined a consignment of wood from India going to LM.
It was found to be misdeclared and contravened the Lacey Act.
Gibson were later found to be the consignee,
they were in reciept of (at the time ) illegally imported goods.
The import documentation was dodgy.
The affidavit was to get a search warrant to see if they were complicit or part of a conspiracy.
APHIS got their search warrant.
They seized the wood and anything they deemed may be evidence from several sites.
It's taken a year to investigate.
The DOJ prior to lodging charges have given Gibson the option of paying a fine or going to court.
The fine in total is $350,000 plus the loss of a similar amount in the wood that was seized.
Gibson have relinquished any claim that the wood seized was done so illegally.
Gibson are getting this wood back. (Whether free of charge or paying for it, we do not know)

That is how it has panned out. This penalty is instead of facing charges.
If Gibson had gone to court and won they would pay nothing and get their wood back for free.

[b3john]

Originally Posted by Thumpalumpacus

And this is a retarded objection.

HJ and Gibson, together, in the period 2001-2008, donated a total of about $18,000 to the RNC. In that same time period, Outback Steakhouse donated over $1.6 million dollars to the RNC.

Thump, your reading comprehension isn't what is should be. You are arguing the wrong side of the equation.

I didn't suggest Henry J got the treatment for supporting the RNC, I questioned whether Bob Taylor and Chris Martin IV are getting a pass due to their support of the DNC. That is, if importing IRW fretboard blanks really "contravene(s) Indian Law".

Originally Posted by b3john

My sole objection was whether the law was being applied evenly for those that choose to donate to the current administration's political party, than those that don't.

Also, I had you figured for a far better person than to use the word "retarded" in that fashion.

[Thumpalumpacus]

If the Holder DoJ went after Gibson for $18,000 in donations, what are they waiting for with these guys?





Source: The 20 Biggest Donors of the 2012 Election (So Far) | Mother Jones

[Thumpalumpacus]

Originally Posted by b3john

Thump, your reading comprehension isn't what is should be. You are arguing the wrong side of the equation.

I didn't suggest Henry J got the treatment for supporting the RNC, I questioned whether Bob Taylor and Chris Martin IV are getting a pass due to their support of the DNC. That is, if importing IRW fretboard blanks really "contravene(s) Indian Law".

You're missing my point. You're arguing that the Holder DoJ is out hunting chump-change donors and violating the Consitution based on tiny political donations. (Also, I'm sure that there are restaurant chains that donate largely Democrat, meaning that if we so desired we could slot my argument into yours exactly. The only thing I'm doing here is not mentioning Democratic restaurant donors. I will do the legwork, if you're unable to find it yourself ... for whatever reason.)

I presented a situation where a restaurant chain is outdonating to the RNC 86 times over. You're arguing that the Administration is going to risk scandal and opprobrium over $18,000 -- yet you provide no evidence at all, and expect to have your point considered as anything other than laughable? You're normally smarter than this.

If you have evidence, then present it.

Originally Posted by b3john

Also, I had you figured for a far better person than to use the word "retarded" in that fashion.

I had figured you to be sensible enough to not fall for such a simplistic, and unsupported, line of claptrap.

I suppose, therefore, that there's plenty of disappointment to go around, and won't waste much time on mourinng your taking leave of your common sense.