Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/02/2011:  15:34:00

It happens to every business on those occasional days when the whole universe gets slippery. Instead of bursting through Gibson's doors with flak jackets and loaded guns it wouldn't have taken a huge effort to just contact LMII and ask a few questions. But that's not how police state mentality works...

LMII's probably going to get involved in a few press releases of their own, no doubt! Stay tuned.

DanielT - Posted - 09/02/2011:  17:56:41

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke of Pearl

Instead of bursting through Gibson's doors with flak jackets and loaded guns it wouldn't have taken a huge effort to just contact LMII and ask a few questions. But that's not how police state mentality works...

---

I get that there are hardships in this law for people in this business and I understand that you have a dog in the race, but comments like this make me instantly suspect of your objectivity.  Up until this point you've presented a very balanced account, providing details and a set of facts based on personal knowledge.  But words like "burst" may mischaracterize the facts of the raid.  Were you there?  The only "facts" of the raid I've heard come from Gibson.  Did the feds literally break down any doors? And what is Gibson or LMII going to say if they call?  "Oh yeah, we're screwing up?"  No bloodly likely.

We live in a society where people have guns.  I think it would be foolish to not carry as a matter of procedure in this situation (it was their second offense). Tennessee as I understand it lets anyone with a permit carry a concealed handgun.  You never know what's going to happen in a state with that kind of law.  It's not about living in a police state, it's about being prepared.

Edited by - DanielT on 09/02/2011 18:00:26

Earls 5 - Posted - 09/02/2011:  19:26:02

yeah - workers in a guitar shop in a "state like Tennessee" probably all carry .44 magnums. I read the Duke's post as stating "police state mentality" - which is how the whole incident appears to have been handled. "Raid first - ask questions later" kinda deal. A little honest investigating would have cleared things up to start with is what duke is saying I think. But then again I am from a state like Georgia!

DanielT - Posted - 09/02/2011:  19:29:27

quote:

---

Originally posted by Earls 5

yeah - workers in a guitar shop in a "state like Tennessee" probably all carry .44 magnums. I read the Duke's post as stating "police state mentality" - which is how the whole incident appears to have been handled. "Raid first - ask questions later" kinda deal. A little honest investigating would have cleared things up to start with is what duke is saying I think. But then again I am from a state like Georgia!

---

Not what I'm saying.  But I do have a friend who works in a university a state like Vermont (which is actually Vermont) who brings a loaded handgun to class because of what happened in a state like Virginia (which is actually Virginia).  It's not the possibility that all of them are carrying a .44 magnum, it's because one of them might be carrying a .44 magnum.

Why do you think police carry guns, anyway?

Edited by - DanielT on 09/02/2011 19:30:24

mvolcjak - Posted - 09/02/2011:  19:32:16

Daniel,

The Duke was probably being a little overly dramatic in his description.  He has be a voice of reason in all of this so cut him some slack.  And from what I can tell, no person here can be totally objective..

I do know if there was any real "screw up", but even if there was, or if this was merely a simple paperwork issue, wouldn't it make sense to contact Gibson (or LMII) and arrange a meeting to see if the issues could be resolved?  If this failed, then a raid could be the next step.  I fail to see why it was the first step, since Gibson would not destroy what they believed to be "legal materials".

As far as this being a society of guns, and since Gibson is a "repeat offender" that the agents needed to be armed  - do you really think Gibson has acquired an armed security force to repel government agents after the 2009 raid?  Come on - let's keep this real. 

Finally, this is not Gibson's second offense, technically, this is the second "raid".  They have never been charged with, nor convicted of, anything from the first raid in 2009, so they technically have committed no offenses - yet.

Hopefully we will know the truth (if not the facts) about all of this one day.

Take it Easy ... MarK

paulrobertwagner - Posted - 09/02/2011:  20:06:33

quote:

---

Originally posted by mvolcjak

Hopefully we will know the truth (if not the facts) about all of this one day.

---

And, presumably, whether or not any banjos were involved.

Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/02/2011:  21:50:44

Of course the raid didn't involve actually battering down Gibson's doors (it was, after all, during business hours)   and brandishing drawn weapons, but it was a surprise appearance of openly armed agents with trucks who took immediate control of 4 locations.  Sorry about losing it and resorting to the old literary device of hyperbole to emphasize a point, and sincere apologies to anyone who thought it was a statement of fact!

HARDROCK KID - Posted - 09/02/2011:  21:57:48

This post reflects my assertion that "It is impossible to rationalize with a crazy person." It's interesting that there are only a couple of individuals here who almost doggedly support the tactics used by the Dept. of Justice in this matter with the raid on Gibson. C'Mon folks this is America, not some third world banana republic! The point being missed is whether the DOJ is being heavy handed and operating within reasonable search and seizure boundaries of the law. The Doj obtained a search and seizure warrant from a judge who was willing to accept the evidence presented as fact and issue approval for the raid. The federal agents showed up in force rounded up all of the workers at gun point, herded them out to parking lots and other areas, locked the doors and proceeded to take anything they felt was necessary as evidence, and haven't seen the need for it's return. To try and rationalize this as normal and acceptable behavior is beyond reason and in my mind shows a slippery slope toward a police state authority. Gibson has subsequently been notified by the DOJ that if the company would simply move it's operation out of the country this problem would go away. Gibson employs over 1200 employees in the USoA who will be affected by this latest job creation attempt by the current administration.

I also have issues with Gibson because they don't make enough banjos to suit my taste (Banal Humor), however Gibson is kind of like "Mother, Country and Apple Pie" to us banjo and guitar pickers. It Just wouldn't be the same if it was made in another country. Can you imagine value of owning a PRE-DOJ Gibson banjo, especially if this is the end? OMG say it ain't so!            "Hardrock"

DanielT - Posted - 09/02/2011:  22:10:41

quote:

---

Originally posted by mvolcjak

 

I do know if there was any real "screw up", but even if there was, or if this was merely a simple paperwork issue, wouldn't it make sense to contact Gibson (or LMII) and arrange a meeting to see if the issues could be resolved?  

---

You are trusting Gibson's word that they were not​ contacted.  Thus far we have word from LMII that there were errors and all we have from Gibson political spleen.  If there were any kind of federal communication between Gibson and the feds, do you realistically think we'd know about it?  The feds aren't going to comment and they haven't.  All I've seen from Gibson is spit and vinegar.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mvolcjak

As far as this being a society of guns, and since Gibson is a "repeat offender" that the agents needed to be armed  - do you really think Gibson has acquired an armed security force to repel government agents after the 2009 raid?  Come on - let's keep this real. 

---

There is nothing that makes me think that Gibson keeps an armed security force.  But no one expects a potentially armed student body to attack other students or a professor.  Nor does anyone realistically expect a citizen to shoot a politician.  My point - and my ​real​ point - is that you never know who will bring a gun to a wood fight.

DanielT - Posted - 09/02/2011:  22:18:38

quote:

---

Originally posted by HARDROCK KID

This post reflects my assertion that "It is impossible to rationalize with a crazy person."  [...] Gibson is kind of like "Mother, Country and Apple Pie" to us banjo and guitar pickers.

---

Forget it Donnie, you're out of your element.

HARDROCK KID - Posted - 09/02/2011:  22:27:22

Originally posted by HARDROCK KID



This post reflects my assertion that "It is impossible to rationalize with a crazy person."  [...] Gibson is kind of like "Mother, Country and Apple Pie" to us banjo and guitar pickers.

---

Forget it Donnie, you're out of your element.

---

 Hey Buddy, you got the name wrong, like the rest of the crap you post! Why do you have it in for Gibson? You don't work for that Chinese banjo maker do you?    "Hardrock"

DanielT - Posted - 09/02/2011:  22:42:29

quote:

---

Originally posted by mvolcjak

I do know if there was any real "screw up", but even if there was, or if this was merely a simple paperwork issue, wouldn't it make sense to contact Gibson (or LMII) and arrange a meeting to see if the issues could be resolved? 

---

Seriously, you don't know if this did or didn't happen.  Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, there isn't​ a reliable source.

DanielT - Posted - 09/02/2011:  22:47:50

quote:

---

Originally posted by HARDROCK KID

 

Hey Buddy, you got the name wrong, like the rest of the crap you post! Why do you have it in for Gibson? You don't work for that Chinese banjo maker do you?    "Hardrock"

---

Donnie, you're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie...wait, what?  Hold on.  "Work for a Chinese banjo maker?"  First off, what's wrong with you--what difference would that make?  Second, didn't you read what I posted earlier in the thread? 

quote:

---

Originally posted by DanielT

 

I assure you, I've not only never worked for Gibson, I've never worked for any instrument company in my life ever, nor have I even ever worked for a music store.

---

Yeah, that's the truth.  You need a new argument.

banjoak - Posted - 09/02/2011:  23:21:32

quote:

---

Originally posted by HARDROCK KID

The point being missed is whether the DOJ is being heavy handed and operating within reasonable search and seizure boundaries of the law. The Doj obtained a search and seizure warrant from a judge who was willing to accept the evidence presented as fact and issue approval for the raid. The federal agents showed up in force rounded up all of the workers at gun point, herded them out to parking lots and other areas, locked the doors and proceeded to take anything they felt was necessary as evidence, and haven't seen the need for it's return. To try and rationalize this as normal and acceptable behavior is beyond reason and in my mind shows a slippery slope toward a police state authority. Gibson has subsequently been notified by the DOJ that if the company would simply move it's operation out of the country this problem would go away. Gibson employs over 1200 employees in the USoA who will be affected by this latest job creation attempt by the current administration.

 

---

At gunpoint?? I missed that part of the story.

Federal agents (and local police forces) do "raids" - that yes often involve armed officers. Yep they kick the employees out while they do their search. They have reasonable cause (from other surveillance, evidence, tips, informers), as part of a much longer investigation of criminal activity, signed off by a judge. They do this because they do not want evidence to mysteriously disappear, or get destroyed. The evidence besides the actual wood, was in paper and computer form. To secure evidence, they need to get folks out of the building, and it often involves a lot (what might seem overkill) of officers. It is just not that unusual. Think Enron; 3Com; or in Alaska senators and representatives that the government did raids on. Armed officers were present, but I don't think they were concerned about a gunfight. They take anything they think might be necessary, why wouldn't they?

I am not trying to blindly back the DOJ, nor do I have anything against Gibson.  I own Gibson's, and am quite happy with them.

I find it a bit disheartening in the way the story was reported as sensationalism media, not good reporting, and how quick folks were (and still are) to just quickly sided with Gibson, I think because it is Gibson (if it were a Wal Mart or WallStreet, or a tattoo parlor?) just the possibility that they should be under investigation. They already decided Gibson must be totally innocent, the DOJ has absolutely no reason (their motivation would be?) Not assuming Gibson is guilty of anything. But I would be highly surprised if the DOJ's case (enough for a prosecutor to move forward, and get a warrant from a judge) is based on just a simple innocent clerical error. If were as simple as that, or just confirmation from LMII, or could have been cleared up in easy way, I don't think it would have or continue to be a story; and why would a prosecutor not immediately drop it. Prosecutors hate to bring cases to court that have little or no chance of winning.

HARDROCK KID - Posted - 09/02/2011:  23:22:18

Originally posted by DanielT

 

I assure you, I've not only never worked for Gibson, I've never worked for any instrument company in my life ever, nor have I even ever worked for a music store.

---

Yeah, that's the truth.  You need a new argument.

---

 Hey DanielT, you are a good sport, no offense intended and none taken. All the best.       "Hardrock"

DanielT - Posted - 09/03/2011:  09:27:44

Look at the links posted in this thread:

banjohangout.org/topic/214899

Especially Rick Polston's.  What I was saying about kneejerk reporting?  That is what I was talking about.

horseman - Posted - 09/03/2011:  09:49:02

"an armed society in a polite society"

horseman - Posted - 09/03/2011:  09:52:43

typo, sorry 

minstrelmike - Posted - 09/03/2011:  09:58:20

If you're going to investigate a company and the crux of the case is paperwork (or emails), then giving them advance notice is probably going to completely kill your case.

That's why they come in and grab all your computers and kick the employees out and lock the doors.

Evidence gathering.

In my parlance, 'jack-booted thugs' don't give a carp about gathering evidence. They are solving what they think is the social issue of the day. (The fact that it never gets solved is an indication to enlightened folks that we're going about this process wrong but that has nothing to do with basic law enforcement)

wrangler - Posted - 09/03/2011:  10:07:32

Somebody please correct me or at least clear up my facts where they are in error. In 2009, the Fed confiscated a sizable amount of rosewood and still has not charged Gibson with anything, has not charged Gibson with a crime and has not given the wood back. Recently, an armed swat team raided several Gibson facilities and charged them with breaking an Indian (India) law which states that all the work on the wood must be done by Indian workers. At the same time, India thought that their law was was being honored and shipped the wood to Gibson. It was not India but the US govt. that brought the charges or at least the investigation.

This seems like a no brainer to me. Where am I wrong?

DanielT - Posted - 09/03/2011:  11:12:59

Wrangler, yours is the take on the story that will garner the most support of Gibson and provoke the most suspicion of government motives.  Throughout this thread, my goal has been to show that there are biases in how the 2011 case is being reported that make it important to not spring immediately to Gibson's defense.  What I've been suggesting - only in relation to the 2011 case - is that the narrative was set by Gibson early on and widely publicized before anyone took a look at the government's affidavit.  This version of the story has been politicized in the media without regard for whether the basic facts of the case were correctly gathered.  (You see the effects of this very clearly in the links in the thread I just referenced.)  However, what LMII's own statement suggested (it's the second to last post on page 4 of this thread) is that there were irregularities.  You may not think these irregularities should be investigated and you may disagree with the method of investigation, but they had reason to investigate and to collect evidence.

The 2011 raid is only a no-brainer if you want it to be.

I can't comment about the 2009 seizure, but if the facts of 2009 were set by Gibson, fed to the guitar community and then politicized in a way at all resembling 2011 (and something tells me the were), I feel like I should be suspect of any story I hear about it.

Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/03/2011:  11:29:44

To repeat from an earlier post:

I can personally verify that LMII (who shipped the Indian wood to Gibson) physically holds notarized paperwork dated July 13th, 2011, from the Government of India Ministry of Commerce and Industry and signed by Daya Shankar, the Deputy Director of Foreign Trade, which states under “Subject – Clarification regarding export of Fingerboards made of Rose Wood and Ebony” that "…the Fingerboards made of Rose wood and Ebony [ITC (HS) Code 92099200] is freely exportable", and that "This issues with the approval of Director General of Foreign Trade.” 

So, you understand correctly, but a couple of things need clarification.  The wood was not being shipped from India to Gibson, but from India to LMII's storage facility which they pay rent on (and was invoiced to LMII, not Gibson); LMII was bringing it in to fill an order they had from Gibson, and the wood was being drop-shipped to the storage address that Gibson also uses and which is close to their factory.

The Indian government obviously understands the fingerboard material to be an instrument part that has been as finished as it can be exclusively by native labor.  Processing it any further would make it a different item, being both impractical and impossible for India to do, since each guitar manufacturer needs to do proprietary work from that point on, and Indian quality control is completely not up to making useable final parts -- as witnessed by the junk quality "finished" guitar and violin fingerboards that do arrive here through eBay and other sources.

The paperwork had the correct tariff number as approved in writing by the Indian government when it left India, but then a brokerage service mis-entered another number which applies to veneers and not the fingerboard blanks.  Since the export from India was completely legal and signed off at the Indian port, what reason would LMII then have to change the paperwork since there was nothing to hide?  Without the clerical error the shipment would have been cleared and never challenged by U.S. authorities.  LMII's mistake in naming their customer (Gibson) as the ultimate consignee when in fact LMII was the consignee, compounded the misunderstanding and triggered the raids.

In the normal course of any business mistakes like this frequently occur and are easily corrected.  Making the same errors on federal documents usually means having to amend or re-file and waste a lot of extra time; but with Gibson already under investigation it's probably understandable why the feds were more than willing to assume the worst and jump on the chance to really nail the company.  Ironically (and speaking from personal experience), government agencies are among the worst offenders when it comes to screwing up names, numbers, and other details on paperwork they process, so they're not exactly walking the high road on error-free paperwork either...

wrangler - Posted - 09/03/2011:  11:47:21

So this is a classic clusterf***.

banjonz - Posted - 09/03/2011:  13:43:01

quote:

---

Originally posted by DanielT

The post above me exactly embodies the hysterical anxiety I'm talking about. Gibson's CEO is banking that by framing it this way people will say "government overreach" (which they are) and it'll get coverage in Murdoch-type newspapers (which it is, and then some).

---

I don't feel it is a government overreach. A number of years ago the US Federal Government tried to shut down the marzipan industry there. As you know marzipan is what cake icing is made of. The reason they tried to shut it down was someone(s) of power and authority within the American Medical Association determined that marzipan contained almonds (which is does). People were eating and using almonds ( amongst other seeds) to combat cancer. At the time, over 70% of decision makers in the AMA had financial interests with the pharmaceutical industry and that the pharmaceutical companies were providing anticancer drugs. You can see the connection here and the financial ramification to all of this, especially to those AMA people who stood to gain financially from closing down the marzipan industry. The feds came in heavy handed as they have done in this Gibson case. They caused a lot of damage. Thankfully the feds case failed. In a country that promotes the 'right' of individuals and espouses the rule of law and due process, there sure is a lot of suppression of those right.

sugarinthegourd - Posted - 09/03/2011:  14:49:14

All this discussion but I don't see Roger Thunam mentioned once. If it is true, as reported, that Gibson employees traveled to Madagascar and reported back to Gibson mgmt that all exports of ebony and rosewood from that country were illegal, but that they could get "gray market" wood from the infamous Thunam via Nagel, then someone at Gibson is guilty as hell.

Sounds like the govt will be showing it's hand shortly, and when they do, it may not be pretty for Henry & co. Meanwhile, the WSJ and the rest of Murdoch's media try to turn this story on its head and make it into something it's not.

Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/03/2011:  17:34:13

Of the two separate incidents Madagascar is by far the more serious for Gibson, but will affect almost no one else; the Indian issue will probably shrivel to nothing more than document errors, but affects almost every factory, boutique builder, materials vendor, music store owner, collector, and musician (in other words, the entire music industry as well as many others both here and abroad).  Gibson and the media are exerting their own agendas on the way it gets spun for public consumption, but the thing they're at least partially correct about is how important the outcome will be -- but it's the Indian and not the Madagascar issue that's so critical.

sugarinthegourd - Posted - 09/03/2011:  17:52:08

The search warrant affidavit can be seen here:



graphics8.nytimes.com/packages...rrant.pdf         [Fixed.  BR]

(sorry, I can't do links on BHO via the iPhone/iPad).



The big question I guess is whether or not is illegal under Indian law to export Ebony lumber > 6mm from India.



I note that the FSC certification to Atheena for ebony extends only to wood dust and veneer, not to sawn lumber. And the June 27 shipment was very conveniently marked as veneer.



Gibson had previously imported Indian ebony repeatedly using the correct import code. Why did they suddenly switch to using LMII? And why the "wrong" code? Had the govt previously warned them that the imports of sawn lumber were in violation? If so (and we don't know, but if that WERE the case) and they suddenly switched to importing under another company's name, without their being listed as the consignee, and with the conveniently "wrong" (but legal) tariff code...that would (along with the repeat involvement of Theodor Nagel) be enough that you could understand FWS seeing intentionally illegal activity and wanting to see what records and conversations were in Gibson's computers. Again, just one of many "what if" scenarios that would explain this a bit.



One other thought from reading the affidavit: I don't believe that Gibson was at all surprised by the raid...maybe the timing but I have to believe that LMII or Gibson's warehouse co, both of whom were contacted by FWS, would have let Gibson know they were in the crosshairs. This would help explain why Henry's PR blitz to the right-wing media was so quick & so well-coordinated.

Edited by - Bill Rogers on 09/03/2011 19:15:55

Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/03/2011:  19:22:43

We're sort of covering old ground here on stuff that's already been posted, but here's a review.

Here's a statement from Natalie Swango at Luthiers Mercantile International (LMII), who imported the wood involved in Gibson's latest raids:

“The exporter entered the correct code for his country's export according to Indian customs.  I incorrectly listed Gibson as the consignee on the Lacey paperwork...the material was destined for them, but at this time LMI owns and is (was, ?) warehousing it.  The broker made a mistake and listed the material as veneers, although all other paperwork correctly listed it as fingerboards (they have remedied this with an oops letter).  The warehouse employee incorrectly informed the feds as to the ownership (although they bill me for the storage fees).  The officers incorrectly came to the conclusion that we are smuggling wood.”

I can personally verify that LMII (who shipped the Indian wood to Gibson) physically holds notarized paperwork dated July 13th, 2011, from the Government of India Ministry of Commerce and Industry and signed by Daya Shankar, the Deputy Director of Foreign Trade, which states under “Subject – Clarification regarding export of Fingerboards made of Rose Wood and Ebony” that "…the Fingerboards made of Rose wood and Ebony [ITC (HS) Code 92099200] is freely exportable", and that "This issues with the approval of Director General of Foreign Trade.”

A couple of things need clarification.  The wood was not being shipped from India to Gibson, but from India to LMII's Nashville storage facility which they pay storage fees on (and was invoiced to LMII, not Gibson).  LMII was bringing it in to fill an order they had from Gibson, and the wood was being drop-shipped to the storage address that Gibson also uses and which is close to their factory, making wood transfers quick and easy.

The Indian government obviously understands the fingerboard material to be an instrument part that has been worked as much as possible exclusively by native labor.  Processing it any further would make it a different item, being both impractical and impossible for India to do, since each guitar manufacturer needs to do proprietary work from that point on, and Indian quality control is completely not up to making useable final parts -- as witnessed by the junk quality "finished" guitar and violin fingerboards that do arrive here through eBay and other sources.

The paperwork had the correct tariff number as approved in writing by the Indian government when it left India, but then a brokerage service mis-entered another number which applies to veneers and not the fingerboard blanks.  Since the export from India was completely legal and signed off at the Indian port, what reason would LMII then have to change the paperwork since there was nothing to hide?  Without the clerical error the shipment would have been cleared and never challenged by U.S. authorities.  LMII's mistake in naming their customer (Gibson) as the ultimate consignee when in fact LMII was the consignee, compounded the misunderstanding and triggered the raids.

In the normal course of any business mistakes like this frequently occur and are easily corrected.  Inconsistent tariff codes are something that's happened on a couple of our own shell import shipments when some desk jockey at the brokerage decides to change the correct tariff codes we supply (thus instantly converting a load of shell blanks into a shipment of "jewelry", for instance!).  Making the same errors on federal documents usually means having to amend or re-file and waste a lot of extra time; but with Gibson already under investigation it's probably understandable why the feds were more than willing to assume the worst and jump on the chance to really nail the company.  Ironically (and speaking from personal experience), government agencies are among the worst offenders when it comes to screwing up names, numbers, and other details on paperwork they process, so they're not exactly walking the high road on error-free paperwork either... 

jbalch - Posted - 09/03/2011:  19:43:04

That search warrant affidavit is an interesting read. I suspect that the FWS folks are professionals and have done their homework. Sounds to me like Gibson may be in some real technical / legal hot water over this and the previous Madagascar ebony. No doubt they have some “splainin’” to do.

Lots of responders seem to take one side or the other almost as if cheering either for or against Gibson (or the government). Many comments seem colored by a political leaning...one way or the other. But I think both views miss a very important point:

Regardless of how you feel about Gibson or the FWS, who you think is right or wrong, or who you think is trying to spin the story for a political purpose.... the bottom line is this potentially impacts all instrument builders and musicians. Bart Reiter summed it up well in his comment on another thread. He obviously feels threatened and just wants to be out of the banjo business.

If you do believe in the justice of the relevant laws and the enforcement ... and that Gibson is guilty of heinous offenses ... ask yourself this: where did the wood in your banjo or guitars come from? Do you know for sure? Was it legally exported? Was all the paperwork 100% correct at every stage?

The fact that a banjo was made in a small shop somewhere (under the radar) may mean that no one has busted down the door to raid the place (yet). But that builder bought the wood from somebody...who bought it from somebody else...is it any more legal or really any different from Gibson?

When this is all said and done... I’m not worried about who wins.  I think we all may lose.

pick1936 - Posted - 09/03/2011:  20:33:30

  I  am  going  to  tell  You  what  happened  today.    Of  course  You  already  know  I  prefer  Gibson  guitars  over  Martins.   I  went  to  Guitars  Center  in K.C. today.  I  play  on most all the acoustics  They  have. I  picked  up,  and  played  for  about  25  min.  on  a  Martin,  It sounded   dead, and  muffled. I  started  checking  up  and  saw  where  it's  a  DRM 1.  D  for  Dread.    S  is  for  sapelle    The  wood  it's  made  from.---Back  Sides,  and  Top.  The  bridge, and  Finger  board  are  made  from   Recycled  paper,  thats  what the  R.  stands  for,   I was    joking   before  about  Martins  made  from  Card  board.  I was  pretty  close,  Bridge  and  board---Recycled  paper  and  Resin..   The 1.  hope  stands  for  the  Only  one  they make.  900  dollars.  and  to  Me   worthless.  Now  don't  jump  on  Me  to  hard.  Go   check  one  out.   I  forgot  the  neck  is  laminated  plywood  I  think  Oak??   have  to  recheck  that.

Nechville.  In  Higginsville.

Lee  Kelso

Edited by - pick1936 on 09/03/2011 20:38:41

Randy Escobedo - Posted - 09/04/2011:  07:09:17

There's more today in The Tennessean:

tennessean.com/article/2011090...yssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE 

Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/04/2011:  08:34:59

I have copies of the latest (July 13, 2011) Indian ruling on fingerboards being legal to export, and that official Clarification is something that can't be argued by the U.S. government or anyone else.  This ruling is nothing new, since India has allowed many millions of fingerboards to be exported for decades with no problem.  There are also other factors involved:

1) The U.S. has absolutely no laws prohibiting the use of Indian (or Madagascar!) rosewood and ebony as such, only general laws that require no tribal, state, national or international laws have been violated.

2) None of this has anything at all to do with overharvesting, illegal logging, or any other environmental issues.  Veneers, guitars or anything else made of these same Indian woods would have been completely legal.

3) The supposed violations named in Special Agent Rayfield's warrant affidavit concern his private interpretation of Indian law about semi-finished raw materials or component parts.  Lacey doesn't allow the U.S. to disagree or argue about another country's regulations, only to enforce their compliance (which in the matter of India were being complied with according to their own written document).

4) Lacey is what's called a "fact-based" as opposed to a "document-based" statute.  In other words, simply possessing legitimate-looking paperwork  won't protect anyone from confiscation, fines or imprisonment if indeed laws really were broken.  It's the same legal principle that has always applied in U.S. mining law, that it's not how technically accurate the filed paperwork description of a claim's boundaries are but how it's actually marked out and posted on the ground.

Several complicating and confusing glitches were made on the paperwork from LMII's Indian ebony shipment, but what counts is whether or not any actual regulations were violated.  They don't seem to have been (in the case of India, at least), but it's up to the courts and not us to decide guilt or innocence.  Hopefully, they'll toss this one out no matter how foolish it makes Special Agent Rayfield and the USFWS appear.

The Madagascar wood remains problematic since it does involve endangered trees, logging in a national forest, and a questionable state of political unrest in the country at the time the wood was exported with questions about the government's validity as a legitimately recognized power. 

DanielT - Posted - 09/04/2011:  12:01:47

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke of

Pearl

...but

what counts is whether or not any actual regulations were violated. 

---

It counts when it comes to pressing charges, but it doesn't for an investigation.  For an investigation you only need the appearance of or reasonable suspicion of violation, and from what you yourself have posted there are clear inconsistencies.  Even with your additions there remain inconsistencies.  For example, in Natalie Swango's statement you provided it says she "incorrectly listed Gibson as the consignee on the Lacey paperwork," which supports your claim that it was a mere clerical error.  However, in the warrant (line 20) Swango identified Gibson as the final consignee when an agent questioned her about it - this goes beyond paperwork. 

If Gibson's paperwork from the Indian government is on the up and up then fine, they'll beat this, which would be great - we could get back to caring about pick1936's preference for Gibsons over Martins.  My point is that in this particular case - 2011 - we have the appearance of violation and perhaps the suspicion of it as well because of the 2009 case.  Note, though, how the media narrative remains focused (and will continue to be, I'm sure) on buzz worthy phrases like "government overreach" and "bullying" - with little to no regard whatsoever for whether Gibson maybe did something wrong - because it "sells" the story.  Making people think that the government is after their stuff is what sells newspapers.

The bottom line is that the investigation happened because there was the appearance of, or reasonable suspicion of violation.  Of course Gibson got cranky about being investigated, so their PR team quickly marketed a version of their story to a largely conservative media base to rally support for their cause.

Edited by - DanielT on 09/04/2011 12:03:55

Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/04/2011:  13:58:20

Gibson wasn't the one bringing the Indian wood in, since it had been sold to and was being imported by LMII, as can easily be backed up with the purchase and sales invoices involved.  19 CFR Part 142.3(a)(6) identifies the consignee as:

(6) Identification. When merchandise is imported having been sold, or consigned, to a person in the United States, the name, street address, and appropriate identification number of that person, as provided in §24.5 of this chapter, shall be shown on the entry documents 

As pointed out in point 5) of the earlier post, Lacey is what's called a "fact-based" as opposed to a "document-based" statute.  In other words, simply possessing legitimate-looking paperwork won't protect anyone from confiscation, fines or imprisonment if indeed laws really were broken.  So it doesn't matter if the declaration documents had typos, what counts is determining who actually did purchase the wood from India.  It also doesn't matter at all how the U.S. interprets Indian law -- what counts is the Indian government's official clarification letter which names the blank fingerboards as an instrument part which satisfies their native labor requirement.

DanielT is correct that all of this will need to be sorted out by the courts because of the inconsistencies, and until that time none of us are qualified to pronounce ultimate guilt or innocence. 

DanielT is correct that all of this will need to be sorted out in courtheir ierr Dd

PD Kirby - Posted - 09/04/2011:  14:40:00

---

Originally posted by mvolcjak

​I read the posts in the collectors section, (and there was useful, non-political info in there), as well as actually "googling" this law and the Gibson raids.

I am merely stating the facts as I know them.  If I am incorrect, please enlighten me... 

---

Then please allow me to enlighten you, At present there is only two facts, 1) The Gibson factory was raided by ARMED FEDERAL AGENTS period! This I know to be a fact because I have family working there and folks around that area and most of the South know what an ARMED FEDERAL AGENT looks like. 2) The ARMED FEDERAL AGENTS removed materials that they suspected to be in violation of the Lacy Act... Everything else stated in this thread, the other threads and news agencies articles and reports is opinion which should never be confused with or misrepresented as facts.  I don't put any stock in the written word from any news agency as facts. All media outlets rarely let facts get in the way of a good story. Whether or not Gibson has broken any laws will be decided by a Federal Court not a BHO thread. Whether or not US Customs or any other Country's Customs agencies have confiscated any musical instruments or furniture for Lacy Act violations is merely hear say information being repeated from news articles and sound bites taken from the news outlets. Again not facts but merely the news outlets opinion. If you weren't at the Gibson Factory for the raid and you have never personally had any instrument or banned item confiscated by any customs agency for a Lacy Act infraction then you and everyone else posting here trying to propagate or dispel these rumors are just stating your opinion of some article you read or your opinion of the news outlet you trust. The only FACT I find disturbing is that we need ARMED FEDERAL AGENTS to raid any respected business in military fashion unless innocent lives are in jeopardy. Now there's the real facts!!!   

 

---

DanielT - Posted - 09/04/2011:  14:41:11

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke of Pearl



...this will need to be sorted out by the courts because of the inconsistencies, and until that time none of us are qualified to pronounce ultimate guilt or innocence. 

DanielT is correct that all of this will need to be sorted out in courtheir ierr Dd

---

This is precisely what I'm saying.  I wish more people would say this.  I wish this would be how this incident was reported from the start.  Instead, the internet with awash with one sided editorializing about the injustice imposed on Gibson and it's masquerading as news.  There's more to the story and the fact that it isn't out there being talked about in the media is doing more damage than good.

Earls 5 - Posted - 09/04/2011:  15:10:58

PD Kirby - the 2nd to the last statement in your post has been dispelled by DanielT earlier in this thread. " a state like Tennessee " has citizens with concealed gun permits. Workers could have had .44 magnums in their work aprons, and the feds needed to be prepared to gun them down with alot more fire power.



Why do you think cops need guns anyway? Just sayin. 

Edited by - Earls 5 on 09/04/2011 15:16:04

TB-4 Guy - Posted - 09/04/2011:  17:25:02

quote:

---

Originally posted by pick1936

  I  am  going  to  tell  You  what  happened  today.    Of  course  You  already  know  I  prefer  Gibson  guitars  over  Martins.   I  went  to  Guitars  Center  in K.C. today.  I  play  on most all the acoustics  They  have. I  picked  up,  and  played  for  about  25  min.  on  a  Martin,  It sounded   dead, and  muffled. I  started  checking  up  and  saw  where  it's  a  DRM 1.  D  for  Dread.    S  is  for  sapelle    The  wood  it's  made  from.---Back  Sides,  and  Top.  The  bridge, and  Finger  board  are  made  from   Recycled  paper,  thats  what the  R.  stands  for,   I was    joking   before  about  Martins  made  from  Card  board.  I was  pretty  close,  Bridge  and  board---Recycled  paper  and  Resin..   The 1.  hope  stands  for  the  Only  one  they make.  900  dollars.  and  to  Me   worthless.  Now  don't  jump  on  Me  to  hard.  Go   check  one  out.   I  forgot  the  neck  is  laminated  plywood  I  think  Oak??   have  to  recheck  that.

 

 

Nechville.  In  Higginsville.

Lee  Kelso

---

 You were looking at one of their "environmental models". Gibson has made some bad guitars down through the years, too, but I don't run them down. Both Martin and Gibson are great companies and have brought a lot of pleasure to musical instrument buyers. Martin is attempting to conserve wood and still build instruments that are affordable and renewable.

So you don't like Martin guitars. If you like Gibsons, buy some but leave Martin out of it.. I hope Gibson is still in business after all of this hullabaloo. They are a fine company and I hate to see people jump on them, or on any manufacturer. They are mostly made in America with American labor and that's an important issue.  

Edited by - TB-4 Guy on 09/04/2011 17:26:27

dmiller - Posted - 09/04/2011:  18:41:23

Gotta agree with TB-4. Lee.  I've had several Gibson guitars over the past umpteen years.  

Nice guitars, but not what I personally like to hear in a bluegrass setting.

I can "guar-own-tee you" my Martin isn't made of (or sounds like) cardboard.  

When it comes to guitars for bluegrass - -  Martin beats Gibson every time.  

When it comes to banjos for bluegrass - - Gibson beats Martin every time.

Just (as usual) my imo.  OK - - back to topic.  

pick1936 - Posted - 09/04/2011:  22:39:41

My  point  was.  why   build  a  mostly  artificial guitar??    And  as  far  as  Gibson &  Martin.   It,s  really  of  what  You  like.    You  are  partly  right  TB4.   But  who   would  want  to  buy   a  Renewable  guitar?   I   did  not  want  to  run  down  a  company.  just   a  follow  up  on  cardboard  guitars  Ha..  But  honestly.  I  want  to  see  Gibson,, Martin,, Collings,,   Gallager,  and  on, and  on.  I  want  all  of  these   company;s  to keep  going.   Keep  as  many  people  working  as  possible.   I  may  even  buy  a  Martin  again  someday,  I,m  always  on  the  look  out  for  good  guitars,  and  banjo,s      We  do  need  to  lighten  up  sometimes   with  a  little  humor.   Hope  all  this  legal   battle  will  soon  be  settled,  with  no  plants  closing,  and  no  jobs  lost.   My  Gibson  flat--top  is  52  years  old  with  lot  of  pickin   and  no  needed  repairs.   it  is  not  for  sale,  sounds  to  good,  and  My  wife  bought  it  for  Me  on  our  25  anniversary    it,s  a  keeper,  just  like  My  Nechville   banjo.

Pick  What  You  Like.

Like  What  You  Pick.

Nechville.  In  Higginsville.

Lee  Kelso

banjoak - Posted - 09/05/2011:  00:45:45

quote:

---

Originally posted by DanielT

Note, though, how the media narrative remains focused (and will continue to be, I'm sure) on buzz worthy phrases like "government overreach" and "bullying" - with little to no regard whatsoever for whether Gibson maybe did something wrong - because it "sells" the story.  Making people think that the government is after their stuff is what sells newspapers.

You forgot the other buzz worthy phrases, along the lines of  "foreign labor" (as per headline of a fox news story) and "shutting down American businesses" -

Speaking of buzz, as far as the ARMED FEDERAL AGENTS -

That also is a bit of "what sells the story" (as well as blog reports that use the term "heavily armed" and even of a SWAT team)

Some are a bit more realistic and state "half a dozen armed federal agents" or sometimes get the term "federal government" in there.

I guess it wouldn't sound so dramatic if it just said "six USFW agents conduct a raid of suspected smuggling operation"  accompanied by these photos.

I just don't find it odd that any law enforcement officers would be carrying guns, especially in a suspected smuggling raid. Heck they carry guns when writing a parking ticket.

I agree with DanielT's sentiment that this is incredibly one-sided. I see nothing wrong with taking neither side until we know the whole story.

As informative as Duke of Pearl is, I seriously doubt he has access to the governments case, their side. The more old-fashioned legitimate news sources don't have access to that info - they all state that the the DOJ does not comment on ongoing investigations. It is nothing but speculation until they talk.

Edited by - banjoak on 09/05/2011 00:47:49

The Old Timer - Posted - 09/05/2011:  18:52:28

I don't nohting about what has happened here, but it was discussed on the Glenn Beck Radio Program today, Monday, Labor Day. You might be able to guess the viewpoint of the radio host (it was Beck's substitute, a guy in Richmond VA I think).

Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/05/2011:  21:11:51

Just discovered (thanks to Lance Peck) is that counter to what I'd run across in a court decision about another agency, the Lacey Act DOES after all allow the U.S. to interpret another country's laws differently than they themselves do. There can be a violation even if the foreign law isn't enforced in that country, and even though the violation may not be a criminal one in the foreign country it will be here. (see: aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/la...rimer.pdf). In other words, you could be totally compliant according to foreign law as required by Lacey, and yet be arrested because the U.S. decides to interpret those laws differently! Am I missing something here?

The Lacey primer also states that for both paper and electronic submissions, the steps used in processing any submission will include:

"Declarations vetted for accuracy and compliance."

"Importer contacted if vetting reveals errors."

But Natalie at LMI says this not only didn't happen, but that FWS refused to talk to them when LMI found the error and tried to get it corrected:

"The broker for LMI had someone new working in their office who listed the "entry" as veneers <6mm despite all other paperwork listing it as sawn wood and fingerboards in excess of 6mm. The broker sent a letter explaining the error and attempted to contact FWS to correct the entry, but they refused to speak to him. A copy of the letter was sent to LMI as well as FWS.”

My apologies for the error.  If you’ve passed that earlier  info along, please also forward this correction – there’s enough wrong stuff circulating already without us adding to it! 

dmiller - Posted - 09/05/2011:  21:30:32

Good grief.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  

I don't like that 'U.S. interpreting other country's laws" aspect.

Duke - - thanks for the link to that primer.  I'm "chewing" my way through it.

DanielT - Posted - 09/06/2011:  07:26:45

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke of Pearl

the Lacey Act DOES after all allow the U.S. to interpret another country's laws differently than they themselves do. There can be a violation even if the foreign law isn't enforced in that country, and even though the violation may not be a criminal one in the foreign country it will be here.

[...]

But Natalie at LMI says...

---

So, this confirms that the note from the Indian government doesn't matter.  Honestly, the outrage over the US Gvt "enforcing Indian law" never made sense because the way I interpreted the original Lacey links I posted was like this: countries decide on a set of international laws, laws become independently enforceable in each country.  If one country amends the law locally, it doesn't mean that another country can stop enforcing the law as they originally agreed to.  It was never enforcing Indian law, it was upholding international law agreed to in part by the United States. 

Here's the thing - Gibson had the same access to this document as we do - did they just willfully disregard what this document was telling them? 

As for LMII:  it's interesting that LMI says there was no communication with FWS and maybe that's true, but I will assume that there is more to this detail as there has been with all the other details in this case.

Thank you for posting this, though, because it helps develop the story and contributes to a more balanced understanding of what's going on.

By the way: something that I've been curious about and maybe you can shed some light is what LMII does to the fingerboards before getting them to Gibson?

Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/06/2011:  13:23:15

Quote: "It was never enforcing Indian law, it was upholding international law agreed to in part by the United States."

 Two international agreements enforced by the U.S. through Lacey are:

1) The CITIES pact listing various classes (Appendices I, II, and III) of threatened/endangered/protected animal and plant species.  The Lacey provision for complying with laws of individual foreign countries has nothing to do directly with CITES, but is unique to the U.S.

2) The international Harmonized Tariff System (HTS or HS) assigns specific numbers to specifically defined items of commerce, but it's a finite system attempting to classify an almost infinite number of things.

In attempting to understand what's going on with the Gibson situation  – and it's critical for all of us in the music industry to understand as much as possible right now  – we need to be careful about painting several separate issues together with a broad brush.  Referring to the quote, the Lacey Act is specifically enforcing Indian law, but only as it pertains to tariff issues and not CITES regulations (which deal with endangered species).  The issue with the tariff interpretation on blank "fingerboards" is that each country is free to define what exact meaning applies to "sawn wood" (or "logs"), "finished", or "instrument part", each of which carry a different HS number.  A few years ago India decided that they no longer wanted their native wood resources making labor-based profits for everyone but them and initiated laws which require at least a minimum amount of Indian labor be involved before any wood products over 6mm thick could be exported – this is Indian and not American law.  Logs and roughly cut boards direct from the mill don't satisfy the labor requirements; but India has for many years officially and at the highest governmental department level issued rulings and clarification letters from its Ministry of Commerce & Industry which explicitly state that rosewood and ebony "fingerboards" (in their blank form) do meet the labor requirement and are thus exportable as "parts for instruments" (and nowhere mentioning the term "finished").  For 2 decades millions of fingerboard blanks which are legal under India's laws have been supplying a worldwide stringed instrument industry, not the smallest of which is in the U.S., involving huge shipments which have never before been contested by U.S. authorities. 

These blank “fingerboards” are not “finished” (a term not used by the Indians, but only in the warrant affidavit) in the sense that they are ready to be immediately installed in an instrument , but they certainly are “finished” as far as possible for what their intended purpose is.  Making them in India involves enough labor to satisfy Indian authorities: felling, trucking, sawing, sorting, grading, sizing, planing, waxing, palletizing, phytosanitizing, etc.  The Indian government obviously understands the fingerboard material to be an “instrument part” that has been worked as much as possible exclusively by native labor.  Processing it any further would make it a different item, being both impractical and impossible for India to do, since each guitar manufacturer needs to do many different proprietary manufacturing steps from that point on, and Indian quality control is completely not up to making useable final parts – as witnessed by the junk quality "finished" guitar and violin fingerboards that do arrive here through eBay and other sources.  Most of the labor on a “finished” fingerboard can only be done once the board is glued to the neck and processed through proprietary machining sequences, so for USFWS to suggest that boards be somehow brought into the U.S. in some sort of highly “finished” state is not only abusive but insane. 

Years ago, there was a commercial classification which allowed for “semi-finished raw materials” or “semi-finished parts”, but since the current HS definitions don’t make that distinction the “finished” fingerboard blanks don’t neatly fit into the available taxonomy.  They are certainly more than just “sawn logs” but definitely less than ready-to-install instrument parts.  The tariff classifications need to be amended to conform to reality, not just Indian or U.S. interpretations, and this can be proposed by NAMM as an industry organization.

Quote: “So, this confirms that the note from the Indian government doesn't matter.” 

It “confirms” no such thing.  The paperwork will be very important evidence for the court to consider, as will the interpretation of Indian law and the tariff definitions.  The paperwork on the Indian wood that LMI was selling to Gibson had the correct tariff number as approved in writing by the Indian government when it left India, but then a brokerage service mis-entered another number which applies to veneers and not the fingerboard blanks, and this is part of what triggered suspicions of smuggling and the raids.

Quote: “Gibson had the same access to this document as we do - did they just willfully disregard what this document was telling them?”

You don’t seem to be listening.  Gibson wasn’t bringing the wood in so had nothing to do with the declaration documents. 

Quote: “…what LMII does to the fingerboards before getting them to Gibson?”

They don’t do anything to the boards.  The boards are manufactured in India to LMI’s specifications, and then are sold as-is to Gibson.  It might then be asked why a big company like Gibson doesn’t buy directly from India instead of depending on LMI.  The answer may involve financial details concerning Gibson’s relationship with some parts and materials vendors, something we have direct experience with but are not willing to comment on publicly.     

mvolcjak - Posted - 09/06/2011:  18:58:27

So Gibson "purchased" these fingerboards from LMII. Gibson did not import these finger boards. but purchased them, openly, from an importer, LMII.  How does this make Gibson guilty of anything?

It would seem if anything, LMII, as the actual importer, should be under scrutiny not Gibson.  LMII should incur all legal costs and re-imburse Gibson if the material was in fact (technically or actually), illegal.

I mean if I buy something from Wal-Mart, (10 wooden bowls as gifts), that later turn out to be illegal due to Lacey or CITES am I not also a victim here?  I purchased these items openly & as legal products.  Is the government saying that I would be guilty of a Lacey violation as well, come to my house, seize the bowls and anything else they feel may be relevant to the crime?  How can this be?  I did not import these items.  Is Gibson's situation here any different?

Am I not understanding something here? 

Take it Easy ... MarK

banjoak - Posted - 09/06/2011:  20:35:33

quote:

---

Originally posted by mvolcjak

So Gibson "purchased" these fingerboards from LMII. Gibson did not import these finger boards. but purchased them, openly, from an importer, LMII.  How does this make Gibson guilty of anything?

It would seem if anything, LMII, as the actual importer, should be under scrutiny not Gibson.  LMII should incur all legal costs and re-imburse Gibson if the material was in fact (technically or actually), illegal.

I mean if I buy something from Wal-Mart, (10 wooden bowls as gifts), that later turn out to be illegal due to Lacey or CITES am I not also a victim here?  I purchased these items openly & as legal products.  Is the government saying that I would be guilty of a Lacey violation as well, come to my house, seize the bowls and anything else they feel may be relevant to the crime?  How can this be?  I did not import these items.  Is Gibson's situation here any different?

Am I not understanding something here? 

Take it Easy ... MarK

---

Gibson has not officially been charged with anything; the raid was part of an investigation involving smuggling. For all we know LMII might be the target. And it appears the investigation started way before the raid.

But I think they are making a case against Gibson, it has to do with "final consignee" - in other words, who is the actual importer? Not just some middleman - and yes final consignee is responsible for knowing where their wood came from. If LMII is importing illegal materials (4407 wood), on behalf of Gibson, making no modification to it )or even physically handling it) - I would say both LMII and Gibson have some potential legal battles in front of them.

This case at this point does not seem to have anything to do with CITES.

Your Wal-Mart analogy is invalid on many levels.

mvolcjak - Posted - 09/06/2011:  21:00:17

From all that I have read here I do not think this case involved "smuggling", (specifically), but rather a US gov't interpretation of Indian regulations/laws and paper work issues.  While I admit, that my "bowl" example is somewhat different in that the bowls were not secured for me in particular, I would still be receiving "illegal" goods.  It would still appear that LMII is the importer, therefore; would be the "primary" defendant here.  Gibson may be a knowing or unknowing "accomplice", before or after the fact, but the bottom line here - to me - is that Gibson did not import this wood.

I am not defending Gibson nor am I condemning LMII here as I am not privy to the details on all sides - but I can not defend the new Lacey regulations either.

Take it Easy ... MarK