mvolcjak - Posted - 09/06/2011:  21:48:32

As per the Duke:

"Here's what the Lacey Act primer says: “The underlying violation need not be committed by the person charged with violating the Lacey Act – a third party might have taken the property illegally. ” It has to do with what's called a "chain of custody", where if anyone who handled the material before you did broke a law, you can be held just as legally responsible."

Ahh - So my Wal-Mart bowl example is not that far fetched - unlikely perhaps - but it would be something that could be enforced via Lacey - if the gov't had an interest to enforce it - for whatever reason...

Take it Easy ... MarK....

whiskeyjack - Posted - 09/07/2011:  00:05:04

You guys are trying to make sense of this?. . .! There ya go....thinkin' agin'.



It's government. One step further, it's CITES.



I knew a guy who worked for Customs and Border Protection for most of seven years. Please understand....it doesn't matter what the Lacey Act says. It doesn't matter which CITES appendices you find Dalbergia nigra aphis.usda.gov/import_export/p...cites.pdf.  Customs can and will do any damn thing they want to with your guitar and you'll be helpless to do anything about it once it's in their possession. It's all about hubris at some ports and getting that feather in their hat that says they made a CITES seizure. Be careful crossing an international boundary (even between Canada and US) with a wooden instrument of any kind. If CBP Ag Specialists can't definitively determine the makeup of various components of your stringed instrument they can legally seize it and ship it somewhere to find out, i.e. if there's some question about whether your saddle & nut are ivory or bone, you'll lose the instrument just for posterity and might have to spend lots of money to get it back....if you ever do. 



Whether Gibson did anything wrong or not doesn't matter....it's all about scaring people into submission.  It's possible that they got into some fraudulently documented endangered wood tracked to the U.S. by one of our regulatory agencies.  In any case, you can bet your ass somebody in CBP, FWS, ICE or SITC got a huge award for this shakedown behind the scenes whether it was legitimate or not. Those agencies have a very broad scope of authority and you should count on them using it even if the circumstance is unreasonable. You are guilty and it will be very expensive and time consuming to prove your innocence where CITES is concerned. . . .if you ever do.

 

CITES was once a good thing...because it was reasonable.  But, it has become a can of worms.  Not even FWS staffers (the people who are supposed to administer CITES protocol) know how to administer the program.  For example, there are supposed to be forms you can complete to verify the origin and date of CITES-regulated finished wood products.  But the forms are unavailable on the CITES website.  FWS can't even tell you where to find them or how to complete them. 

ron6827 - Posted - 09/07/2011:  00:14:36

While Gibson has not been criminally charged, wildlife agents reportedly
suspect it might have violated a US law that forbids the import of wood
exported in violation of another country's laws!

Two of Gibson's factories are not allowed to ship product even though the
wood in question has been removed. Again, no charges and no court
action.

Due process under the law and assumed innocence before being proven guilty are two concepts that are apparently no longer applicable in the United States of America, at least as far as the federal government is concerned.

Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/07/2011:  01:17:17

Quote: "One step further, it's CITES ."

Did you even read what was posted a couple back?  The raids last week have nothing at all to do with CITES, since the Indian woods aren't endangered or listed.  The only reason Gibson became involved is because they were mistakenly entered on the paperwork as the consignee when it should have been LMI, and already being under investigation for Madagascar woods (which are endangered and listed) another paperwork HTS error made it look like Gibson was involved in wood not legal to export from India.  Read the post.

TB-4 Guy - Posted - 09/07/2011:  06:35:07

quote:

---

Originally posted by ron6827

While Gibson has not been criminally charged, wildlife agents reportedly

suspect it might have violated a US law that forbids the import of wood

exported in violation of another country's laws!



Two of Gibson's factories are not allowed to ship product even though the

wood in question has been removed. Again, no charges and no court

action.



Due process under the law and assumed innocence before being proven guilty are two concepts that are apparently no longer applicable in the United States of America, at least as far as the federal government is concerned.

---

 You are correct. Unfortunately, no one on this list is permitted to talk about the elephant in the room. Suffice it to say that this is apparently part of an overall program, the details of which we can't talk about on this list. That being the case, I shall now unsubscribe from this thread.

horseman - Posted - 09/07/2011:  08:52:45

elephant? what elephant? made of ebony? is he the one who stole the emperor's clothes?

banjomikey - Posted - 09/07/2011:  12:21:51

I've had to hide two political posts on this page alone. Please stop posting political comments and links. I don't want to lock this thread since it's important to all of us, but I will if this continues. 

Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/07/2011:  12:54:47

Toss people off who just don't "get it" about lame political rants but please keep the thread going!  It can't be overstated how important is is to understand what's going on right now, things that could potentially ruin many businesses as well as instrument owners.  Thanks.

Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/07/2011:  13:56:03

For what it’s worth, Indian wood dealers are organizing and involving their government: articles.economictimes.indiati...kiewicz/2

 

AndyM - Posted - 09/07/2011:  13:57:50

Just heard about 5 minutes ago on Fox News that a Congressional Investigation is being requested ~ maybe things will become MORE interesting!!

Bill Rogers - Posted - 09/07/2011:  14:25:03

So holding material that's in violation of the Lacey Act is like "receiving stolen property?"  In other words, you may not have been involved in the procurement off it, but sincy you have it and it's in violation, tough luck for you.

sugarinthegourd - Posted - 09/07/2011:  14:25:53

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke of Pearl

For what it’s worth, Indian wood dealers are organizing and involving their government: articles.economictimes.indiati...kiewicz/2

 

---

That's very interesting. This one comment caught my eye:

"It's a strong European wood broking lobby that is fomenting trouble," said BH Patel of Mumbai-based Patel Wood Syndicate. "Indian exporters, unlike their foreign counterparts, do not sell wood through European brokers. We deal with foreign companies directly. European wood brokers have always disapproved our way of cutting deals directly."

That doesn't seem to be the case here, anyway, as I believe Theodor Nagel brokered this deal (as they did the wood Gibson bought from Malagasy "timber king" Roger Thunam).

banjoak - Posted - 09/07/2011:  18:49:06

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke of Pearl

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 in courtheir ierr Dd

---

There is no US interpreting Indian law.

The US (as does every country) makes determinations about it's IMPORTS, when it arrives in the US. Which includes various restrictions, prohibitions, tariffs, rates, quotas, and most important in this case CLASSIFICATION under the WCO Harmonized System. It does not matter what a foreign entity decides to call something (which HS code), when it is imported into this country, our government will decide if a duck is a duck. So it looks at what is really being imported and assigns the HS code according to what the US calls things. If you need I can give you plenty of examples (toys, drugs, weapons) why this needs to be, and not just go by another entity's document.

It is not interpreting other country's laws.

In the US, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the only agency that can provide legally binding advice or rulings on classification of imports.

As far as Special Agent Rayfield's private interpretation of Indian law about semi-finished raw materials or component parts.  He clearly cites how CBP has ruled on this matter, so not really his private interpretation.

So CPB, as cited in the warrant affidavit has consistently ruled wood in this matter should be classified as 4407, basically raw material, and does not meet the US standard as 9209.99 parts. It matters not what country of export, nor species for this classification.

So the wood got assigned 4407, as it has in the past. It is not a new thing. By the way Gibson seems to be aware of the Governments position.

from another document involving Gibson

scribd.com/doc/63755524/US-v-E...to-Strike

Gibson well knows that blanks are not finished products. The Ruling Gibson received in 1990 from USCS makes clear that wood that must be cut and reshaped for use, as the blanks intended for transformation into fingerboards must, undergoes a “substantial transformation. Cust.B&Dec. HQ 733299. (Exhibit 6:Ruling HQ 73329).



The Defendant Property was simply rough sawn wood which had to be cut,shaped, bent and the like to be substantially transformed into a finished product known as a fingerboard.(Exhibit 1: Seiler Affidavit).



Further Gibson knew that blanks were not finished products because the corporation had been working with Music Wood Coalition in an attempt to eventually change the law, not only to promote an independent sustainable source of legal, certified Madagascar Ebony, but to change the definition of a finished product to allow export of blanks. (Exhibit 1-: Seiler Affidavit, Program for Information gathering trip to Madagascar, 2, 3).

 

As far as the simple paperwork error, it looks like more than that.

Once the US government classifies it, the only law they need to be concerned with is whether that country prohibits or restricts export of that classification. India prohibits export of 4407. US does not prohibit import.

India could change their prohibit of 4407, to restricted, and spell out the terms. That's up to India, not the US.

DanielT - Posted - 09/07/2011:  20:42:28

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke of Pearl

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

---

No, I'm listening.  What I should have probably said is "LMII" and not "Gibson."

All the other points I raised have been addressed by others.

DanielT - Posted - 09/07/2011:  21:21:09

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke of Pearl

it was Luthiers Mercantile International  (LMI) who actually ordered and bought the wood, to satisfy a sale of theirs to Gibson; but rather than take delivery in CA and then spending money reshipping to Nashville, LMI simply had the wood drop-shipped (a common business practice) to the people who are in charge of warehousing woods for Gibson (so it wasn't going directly to Gibson's plant address). 

---

Wait a second.  What I'm reading is this: LMII brings the wood in, holds on to it for a while, and then sells the wood unchanged to Gibson. LMII performs no labor on the wood save for simply holding onto it.  Once Gibson gets it, though, they change the wood by inlaying it, fretting it, gluing it onto a neck and binding it, etc.  So tell me what doesn't make Gibson the final consignee of the product as shipped?

Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/07/2011:  21:41:46

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.

That's LMI, not Gibson.  Gibson simply purchasing wood from LMI is totally irrelevant.  That's what most importers do -- buy stuff there and sell it here, without remanufacturing anything.  Go look around Costco, Walmart, and Target; these companies are consignees for the imported products and it all gets resold without anything being done except sticking a price tag on it.

DanielT - Posted - 09/07/2011:  21:44:50

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke of Pearl

Go look around Costco, Walmart, and Target; these companies are consignees for the imported products and it all gets resold without anything being done except sticking a price tag on it.

---

Do they import wood that falls under the Lacey act?

Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/08/2011:  01:29:19

Here are 179 pages showing a Nashville, TN, court memorandum, a search warrant affidavit, and an Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) report concerning the 2009 Gibson raids and Madagascar and U.S. wood Tariff regulations (courtesy Stephen Bacon, on Musical Instrument Makers Forum/MIMF): scribd.com/doc/63755524/US-v-E...to-Strike.  

Edited by - Duke of Pearl on 09/08/2011 01:30:48

banjomikey - Posted - 09/08/2011:  11:56:16

Okay, I've hidden two more posts, and I'm growing tired of having to hide links to the same articles. Seriously, knock it off guys. If an article suggests that things are being done because of some sort of political conspiracy, it doesn't belong on the hangout. I don't care how relevant you think it is. 

RevPee - Posted - 09/08/2011:  12:08:56

It's a hell of a topic, but where do I find the artical about the Feds and Gibson?

Roll Player - Posted - 09/08/2011:  13:11:14

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevPee

It's a hell of a topic, but where do I find the artical about the Feds and Gibson?

---

Ever heard of Google?

sugarinthegourd - Posted - 09/08/2011:  15:08:54

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevPee

It's a hell of a topic, but where do I find the artical about the Feds and Gibson?

---

This is a pretty decent summary, especially with the corrections noted at the top.

Mike Casey - Posted - 09/08/2011:  16:04:55

Just saw Henry J. on the news this evening. He is visiting the capitol and perhaps some influential representatives and senators? I'm sure his story has been heard. I've written my representative and both senators. The more reps and senators who know about it and how their constituents feel about it the better. It only takes a moment to Google the email addresses and email them.

HARDROCK KID - Posted - 09/08/2011:  17:53:51

For what it's worth; noisyroom.net/blog/2011/09/08/...-million/ 

DanielT - Posted - 09/08/2011:  20:52:06

At this point, if I'm a instrument manufacturer in competition with Gibson I think I would be kind of irritated by Boehner's grand gesture because it's not support of my industry per se, but support of Gibson in the name of partisan politics.  There are many companies that are playing by the Lacey rules -- if Gibson gained (or at least maintained) market share by breaking the law (and people seem to agree that they did in 2009 but opinion's divided on whether they did in 2011), then their market share was unfairly achieved.  I'd be pissed at this.  What kind of message does this send to businesses that play by the rules and suffered because Gibson willfully skirted the law.  I mean, they're being rewarded for being scofflaws!

Bill Rogers - Posted - 09/09/2011:  02:50:56

Hid another post that began arguing about gov't policy.  It's okay to relay what the gov't did, but not to characterize, support or condemn those actions--that makes it political commentary.  Thanks.

sugarinthegourd - Posted - 09/09/2011:  04:57:29

Thanks banjoak. Very well said!

HARDROCK KID - Posted - 09/09/2011:  09:46:56

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjoak

There is a tendency to seek to confirm the information we already believe (that supports our view) - rather than question what we believe.

 

---

 A better example couldn't possibly be expressed. you completely missed the point of my post . At least Bill gets it............."Hardrock"

Gymbal31 - Posted - 09/09/2011:  10:26:13

"I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on Banjo Hangout."

DanielT - Posted - 09/09/2011:  10:33:25

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjoak

so far I haven't seen evidence EVIDENCE of what FWS did that wasn't in line with what they are supposed to do.

---

Absolutely, this.  Gibson's publicity campaign is just bluster and smokescreen intended to rally support and distract attention.

Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/09/2011:  12:02:45

DanielT, you got that right!  Typical of the media reports is this interview featuring Henry J.'s feigned innocence:  foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/0...atestnews

Quote: “Had Gibson imported finished parts from Madagascar instead of ‘blanks,’ it would have been perfectly legal” – Wrong!  This wood came from protected stands of CITES-listed endangered national forests, logged/sold during a time of political upheaval and questionable governmental control.  The other large U.S. guitar companies backed out on using the wood, but Gibson didn’t.  One wonders why?  Any “finished” parts or guitars out of Madagascar would have generated exactly the same problems.

Quotes: “We are being singled out. Very much so” and “We really don’t know why they are picking on us” – As this piece points out, Gibson got themselves in trouble back in 2009 (by purchasing wood that nobody else wanted anything to do with, obviously for good reason).  Paperwork errors by LMI and their broker on the Indian shipment would usually have been fixable, but those errors seemed to implicate Gibson in an illegal import so U.S. authorities initiated the raids and refused to respond to the correction request.  Gibson actually had nothing to do with purchasing or importing the Indian shipment, but since one of the paper errors had been naming LMI’s customer (Gibson) as the “consignee” instead of themselves, that’s all the feds needed to go after them.



Henry J.’s media rants about being “singled out” and “picked on” are pure dissembling, to garner public support and obscure the fact that not one but two totally separate issues are involved: possible CITES violations on the endangered Madagascar woods, and Lacey Act paperwork mistakes on the non-endangered Indian woods.  And as has  been correctly pointed out, Gibson's been battling court rulings on the tariff definition issues since 1990 -- is it believable that Henry J. didn't know anything about either this or the highly questionable source of the Madagascar woods, and was completely blindsided about the issues?  Gibson could be in deep trouble on the Madagascar stuff and might skate free on the Indian.  If Henry J. feels the same, it would be to Gibson's P.R. advantage to lump the two together and then feign innocence on the Indian as though that carried over to the other without anyone noticing there are 2 different things involved.  Of course, this conclusion is pure speculation; but Gibson's more than 2 decades of fighting the regs is solidly documented.

carlos - Posted - 09/12/2011:  22:04:21

the president of   gibson  was on hannity the law  they  supposedly   broke  was  passed in  1900  he   sent a  letter to  obama  he left him hanging    he has  proof  it  was  totally legal , once more  we  are  drivng  the  workers  out of  our  country wake  up  america    I  will buy  anything   Gibson  any  day of the  week 

Roll Player - Posted - 09/13/2011:  01:15:11

So carlos, I guess you haven't read anything Chuck (Duke of pearl) has been writing on this topic. His excellent posts have been very even handed and not political, but have effectively pointed out all the holes in both the regulations and Gibson's actions.

I own three Gibsons, an Earl Scruggs Standard, an A9 mandolin and an old LG1 guitar. All of them were bought new, but I don't have your blind allegiance to Gibson. I lost what little of that I had when they decided to sue Elderly Instruments a few years back.

I guess Hannity didn't bother pointing out that the 1901 law was recently amended in 2008 with support from both parties, and it is these recent revisions that Gibson is alleged to have violated... Fair (not good) and balanced (Hannity didn't fall down).... you betcha!

It's clear the current legal and regulatory situation needs lots of work if musical instrument makers are going to continue to build, but don't blindly buy into the attempts by some to politicize a complex situation.

carlos - Posted - 09/13/2011:  05:27:27

once again laws are  passed by the lawless enjoy  your  chinese made  GIbsons

DanielT - Posted - 09/13/2011:  06:52:21

quote:

---

Originally posted by carlos

once again laws are  passed by the lawless enjoy  your  chinese made  GIbsons

---

Carlos, back up your statement with actual sources or GTFO.

Richard Dress - Posted - 09/13/2011:  07:03:54

quote:

---

Originally posted by DanielT

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjoak

so far I haven't seen evidence EVIDENCE of what FWS did that wasn't in line with what they are supposed to do.

---

Absolutely, this.  Gibson's publicity campaign is just bluster and smokescreen intended to rally support and distract attention.

---

Hey, shouldn't you back up your statement with actual sources?

Nick Danger - Posted - 09/13/2011:  07:24:43

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Dress

quote:

---

Originally posted by DanielT

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjoak

so far I haven't seen evidence EVIDENCE of what FWS did that wasn't in line with what they are supposed to do.

---

Absolutely, this.  Gibson's publicity campaign is just bluster and smokescreen intended to rally support and distract attention.

---

Hey, shouldn't you back up your statement with actual sources?

---

Excellent come-back, Richard.  Back up your 'bluster and smokescreen' statement with actual sources, DanielT, or just 'GTFO'.

Duke of Pearl - Posted - 09/13/2011:  08:57:51

Everyone here has already been over all of this, but will repost this quick little review for Carlos, Nick Danger, and anyone else showing up with a knife at this gunfight.  To get up to speed on this forum's conversation without needing to go back and actually read 8 pages of boring stuff, first get a basic overview of the Lacey Act at: aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/la...rimer.pdf, followed by the actual Indian tariff codes involved as shown at EximGuru, a site that lists Indian regulations (eximguru.com/):

HST 4407 "sawn wood" classification: eximguru.com/hs-codes/44-chapt...cles.aspx,

HTS 9209.92.00 ("parts and accessories" - note that this does not include the critical word "finished" as misquoted by the feds, although Madagascar regs do use the word): eximguru.com/hs-codes/9209-PAR...-FOR.aspx  

Indian ban on HST 4407 exports: eximguru.com/exim/dgft/itc-hs-...coal.aspx ; regarding the 9902.92.0    

Then, read these 179 pages of court documents and EIA reports regarding the 2009 Gibson raid details: (scribd.com/doc/63755524/US-v-E...to-Strike.

Now read this search warrant affidavit used for the recent raids: google.com/url?sa=t&source...S_-iGsDpA 

Finally, watch this typical media coverage of Henry. J. explaining his version of Gibson's problems: foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/0...atestnews.

Quote: “Had Gibson imported finished parts from Madagascar instead of ‘blanks,’ it would have been perfectly legal."  Response: Wrong!  This wood came from protected stands of CITES-listed endangered national forests, logged/sold during a time of political upheaval and questionable governmental control.  The other large U.S. guitar companies backed out on using the wood, but Gibson didn’t.  One wonders why?  Any “finished” parts or guitars out of Madagascar would have generated exactly the same problems.

Quotes: “We are being singled out. Very much so” and “We really don’t know why they are picking on us."  Response: As the article points out, Gibson got themselves in trouble back in 2009, by purchasing wood that nobody else wanted anything to do with (obviously for good reason).  Paperwork errors by LMI and their broker on the Indian shipment would usually have been fixable, but since those errors seemed to implicate Gibson in an illegal import the U.S. authorities initiated the raids and refused to respond to the correction request.  Gibson actually had nothing to do with purchasing or importing the Indian shipment, but since one of the paper errors had been naming LMI’s customer (Gibson) as the “consignee” instead of themselves, that’s all the feds needed to go after them.



Comments: Henry J.’s continuing media rants about being “singled out” and “picked on” are pure dissembling, to garner public support and obscure the fact that not one but several issues are involved: possible CITES violations on the endangered Madagascar woods; Lacey Act paperwork mistakes on the non-endangered Indian woods; and questionable tariff definitions on both the Madagascar and Indian material.  His proclaimed innocence about the issues is also suspect, since Gibson has known since 1990 through U.S. Customs rulings that fingerboards can not be imported as “finished” HTS 9209 items and are thus considered to be illegal HTS 4407 “sawn wood”.  Gibson’s wood specialist Gene Nix is quoted from several emails confiscated in the 2009 raid as reporting back to Gibson that he knew the Madagascar wood at that time was illegal, but thought he could get it anyway (“Mr. Thunam on the other hand should now be able to supply Nagel with all the rosewood and ebony for the grey market”).  Further, Gibson had to be aware that fingerboard blanks were not considered a legal “finished” product since they had been working with Music Wood Corporation before 2009 to change laws and tariff classification numbers in an effort to eventually make the woods legal.

It remains to be decided by the courts if the interpretations of tariff definitions have legal standing.  Gibson could be in deep trouble on the Madagascar stuff and might skate free on the Indian.  If Henry J. feels the same, it would be to Gibson's P.R. advantage to lump the two together and then feign innocence on the Indian as though that carried over to the other without anyone noticing there are 2 different things involved, or that Gibson knows perfectly well what the issues are and why they were again raided. 

Now that you've thoroughly read all the above, feel free to jump in with some informed analysis that we can all discuss, and please cite any authoritative references that back up your statements.

Edited by - Duke of Pearl on 09/13/2011 08:59:33

DanielT - Posted - 09/13/2011:  08:57:52

Nick and Richard,

Since you're asking for asking for sources, I expect that neither of you has actually read this thread through thoroughly.  If you do, though, you'll find there is plenty of primary and well-vetted secondary source material for the reading in the preceding pages.  Duke of Pearl has cited some, banjoak has cited some, sugarinthegroud has cited some and yes even I have cited some. It's been a rather fascinating analysis and based on the material that's out there, it is pretty clear that there were enough irregularities in the paperwork to justify an investigation, that Gibson may or may not have done anything wrong and that by publicizing his version of the story to legions of Gibson fans and to a very receptive conservative media whose audience lives on confirmation bias, Henry J. is being entirely disingenuous in his outrage.

What's important are what the primary sources, not necessarily what Gibson says.  Henry J will say anything to make people think he's in the right because a vested financial interest in doing so.  You can't possibly not see that, can you?

Best,

DanielT

Sheldon - Posted - 09/13/2011:  09:18:53

I don't see it . . .

Sheldon

Richard Dress - Posted - 09/13/2011:  10:29:16

quote:

---

Originally posted by DanielT

Nick and Richard,

Since you're asking for asking for sources, I expect that neither of you has actually read this thread through thoroughly.  If you do, though, you'll find there is plenty of primary and well-vetted secondary source material for the reading in the preceding pages.  Duke of Pearl has cited some, banjoak has cited some, sugarinthegroud has cited some and yes even I have cited some. It's been a rather fascinating analysis and based on the material that's out there, it is pretty clear that there were enough irregularities in the paperwork to justify an investigation, that Gibson may or may not have done anything wrong and that by publicizing his version of the story to legions of Gibson fans and to a very receptive conservative media whose audience lives on confirmation bias, Henry J. is being entirely disingenuous in his outrage.

What's important are what the primary sources, not necessarily what Gibson says.  Henry J will say anything to make people think he's in the right because a vested financial interest in doing so.  You can't possibly not see that, can you?

Best,

DanielT

---

Please read my post.  I required a yes or no answer.  That's all.

You hurt your case with all long legal BS that nobody reads.  This isn't a legal issue with lots of people.  Some of us are more motivated by rightness or wrongness of an act than we are of legality or not.  What has law to do with right or wrong?  I don't think most of the readers care if a violent, unnecessary act is technically legal or not.  That's not really an issue, I don't believe.  Trying to shove the law where it doesn't belong isn't helping your argument.  In my opinion, of course.

Bill Rogers - Posted - 09/13/2011:  11:08:13

Unfortunately "rightness or wrongness of a law" is a political discussion, so we'll have to get by with looking at the law and how it's, in fact, applied (or not).

minstrelmike - Posted - 09/13/2011:  11:41:23

So rightness or wrongness of the law is political, but the application of it--right or wrong--isn't.

That may make sense to some but it's about as clear as mud to me.

Sorry that I'm so dense and keep complaining about how the rules here on BHO appear to be randomly applied.

kipperr - Posted - 09/13/2011:  12:47:49

quote:

---

Originally posted by DanielT

if Gibson gained (or at least maintained) market share by breaking the law (and people seem to agree that they did in 2009 but opinion's divided on whether they did in 2011),

---

What "people" "seem" to agree that they broke the law in 2009? Can we have some actual sources, or this this very generalized statement meant to sway an unthinking public?  What charges stemming from 2009 have been proved?

Gymbal31 - Posted - 09/13/2011:  12:52:36

You know "GIBSON" spelled backwards is "SATAN".

bobbybanjo - Posted - 09/13/2011:  13:02:32

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Casey

I've written my representative and both senators. The more reps and senators who know about it and how their constituents feel about it the better.

---

Optimist!

Richard Dress - Posted - 09/13/2011:  13:09:51

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Rogers

Unfortunately "rightness or wrongness of a law" is a political discussion, so we'll have to get by with looking at the law and how it's, in fact, applied (or not).

---

Sorry I wasn't clear when I chose the word 'act',  I meant activity, not anything legal.  Going into the legal aspects is verging on political.  Staying with morality is absolutely NOT political the way I see it.  My intention was to steer it away from law and politics.

sideways - Posted - 09/13/2011:  14:17:21

But it makes our resident "Gibson haters" slobber and drool.

DanielT - Posted - 09/13/2011:  14:50:19

quote:

---

Originally posted by kipperr



What "people" "seem" to agree that they broke the law in 2009? Can we have some actual sources, or this this very generalized statement meant to sway an unthinking public?  What charges stemming from 2009 have been proved?

---

Well, I don't know if they broke the law in 2009 - that's why I said "seem." And I think the "people" in my statement referred to people earlier in the thread who seemed to have a better insight on that than I. (I believe I was thinking about something Duke of Pearl posted in that specific instance.)  But you asked for a source, so I might refer you to the document Duke of Pearl posted "showing a Nashville, TN, court memorandum, a search warrant affidavit, and an Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) report concerning the 2009 Gibson raids and Madagascar and U.S. wood Tariff regulations" that suggest wrongdoing:

scribd.com/doc/63755524/US-v-E...to-Strike

Search that document for the name Roger Thunam (pointed out to me by sugarinthegourd) and tell me what you find - it shows up in that document quite a few times.  Don't know anything about him?  Well, check out this article about him.  It is a little on the journalistic side, but it contains some fairly useful information.  Thunam is quoted fairly candidly about his ethics so you might consider it something of a primary source.  Then again, you may consider National Geographic an organization of treehuggers and dismiss it out of hand - I don't know.