|
|
Post by sumgai on Aug 27, 2011 2:42:09 GMT -5
I'd like to be irreverently funny about this, but that ain't gonna be possible.
In my view, this is a sensitive issue. Your comments are welcome as usual, but if you post flame-bait.... I think you can figure out the rest, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by roadtonever on Aug 27, 2011 4:25:38 GMT -5
Can't say I'm sorry for Gibson they've been sitting on their high horses for ages. The scrutiny seems ridiculous though and and I hope things get worked out soon for the sake of the workers. Hope this incident raises awareness...
Maybe future Gibsons will have to use Fender woods. Fancy a Alder body, maple neck Les Paul? How about a Swamp Ash body? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by newey on Aug 27, 2011 8:32:11 GMT -5
The story ain't funny, but some of the news coverage is unintentionally hilarious, like this photo and caption from the Daily Mail:  On the serious side, the government of course won't comment on a pending investgation, so we've only heard one side. Two points from a legal perspective: First the story said that the FBI seized a shipment of logs back in June, so Gibson must have learned when their logs didn't arrive. If their hands are truly as clean as they claim, there's been plenty of time for their lawyers to take action- get an injunction, get the logs released, etc. Second, if Indian law does prohibit this, there had to be a complaint from the Indian Government or the FBI wouldn't be investigating. |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Aug 27, 2011 14:09:26 GMT -5
Worse, I'd tend to think that if a foreign government wanted to claim violations of its laws, there would first have to be a reciprocal agreement between them and us, or else there's no jurisdiction. I'd also tend to think that any such claims would have to be on the order of intentional malice aforethought, and/or intentional duplicity (bribery, etc.) on the part of not only Gibson but any parties within Indian jurisdiction (the people who sold the wood, knowing it was going out of country; the customs brokers; other government officials; etc.). Meaning, Gibson has been doing this for decades, nearly centuries, and I'm morally certain that they don't intentionally flout the law just because they think they can get away with it. Say what you will about how they price their goods on the retail market, companies like this just don't continue existance for this long, if they're miscreants of the first order. I'm thinking more along the lines of over-zealousness on the part of our gendarmes. Only a maroon fails to research his/her target thoroughly enough to understand that no guns will be brought into play, should they walk in and ask politely to see all the appropiate paperwork, and if it's all in order. Of course, Gibson isn't without fault here, but only for stupidity in the highest degree. C'mon, if you know "they" are gonna seize your raw materials before they even get to your door, do you really think you should blow some more coin in the hopes that the next shipment will arrive without any problems?  Right at that point, Gibson should've said "thanks, but we'll get our materials elsewhere, until this is all settled." If Gibson were public (it's not), then I'd've sold my holdings instantly - this was a bad management decision, IMHO, and indicates a deep misunderstanding of the difference between sound business practices and faith that the government will do right by you. The latter is what I term "wishful thinking".  Hmmm, maybe they outta hire Ted Nugent to fix things right up. Could probably pay him in Byrdlands or sumpin'.  sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Aug 27, 2011 14:24:46 GMT -5
I think the provisions of the WTO treaties provide the jurisdiction, upon complaint by the Indian authorities.
Our government spends a good deal of effort trying to convince several Asian governments to crack down on pirated US music and movies, among other things. I don't doubt that when we get a complaint coming the other way, we have to be johnny-on-the-spot.
One wonders if the recent scandals in India over official corruption haven't caused some Indian Officials to pursue things that they may not have gone after for years.
|
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Aug 27, 2011 15:49:50 GMT -5
I think the provisions of the WTO treaties provide the jurisdiction, upon complaint by the Indian authorities. No argument there, even if it's on the order of "gentlemen's agreement" - it didn't go through any kind of World Court proceedings - but I'm in favor of such 'shortcuts'.... one shouldn't trot out the big guns until they're needed. That doesn't mean that Johnny needs to bring in the SWAT team, not by a long shot. It wasn't so long ago that the government might've swept in and seized all the files they could find, but even just a decade ago, they wouldn't've used a SWAT team. 25 years and further back, it would've started with a visit to Gibson's offices by one or two "suits", accountants and/or lawyers with a list of questions, possibly hard ones to answer, but again, no SWAT team. Said suits having done their due diligence, of course. Nowadays, it's looking more and more like "What, me do research ahead of time? Why should I, when I can just take a bunch of guns and get the same results.... and have more fun, too?" While we all know that I'm not a Gibson fanboi, I still take the sensible business view. The company has been through several owners, lasting nearly 125 years through thick and thin alike. You don't manage to pull that off, and remain one of the top two guitar makers in the world, if you pull shenanigans like the company is currently accused of. My money is on Gibson having continued the same purchasing practices for more than half a century, ones that they had known to be valid, legal, proper, and all those other nice words. After all, experience is usually a pretty good teacher. I can imagine that if a very crafty bureaucrat (on the Indian side of the equation) were to learn of a change in his country's laws, and somehow devise a way to hide that change from his buyers (Gibson, et al), then Gibson need only point to this person as an accomplice to the alleged crime, and see what shakes out from there. Laws in various countries differ, but at least here in the US, one is usually deemed innocent until evidence to the contrary is gathered and subjected to rigorous examination. Garnering such evidence is not usually the domain of a SWAT team, or at least that's what we (the public at large) were told when SWAT teams were first formed by major city police departments. Garnering such evidence is properly the domain of the courts and the lawyers, armed with briefcases full of subpoenas duces tecum. That's my take on it, so far. sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by jcgss77 on Aug 27, 2011 17:13:04 GMT -5
At first sight to me, I have to believe that Gibson is not guilty such illegal practices. Completely, at least. I am also by no means a fan of Gibson and their business decisions, and do believe that they don't just get lucky for all these years. I do believe the company is up to something, however. I think it would be easy to appoint a patsy to "switch" harvesting techniques and/or sites from legal to shady, and have them take all the fall, in India, of course, where they would likely get a slap on the wrist. After all, the money is in the bank. And Gibson gets off scot free.
Is this what happened? Maybe, maybe not. But I do agree that perhaps the swat decision was a bit rash. Do I enjoy seeing Gibson on the hotseat again? Yeah, maybe more than a little.
At the bottom of it all, it does look like our gov doesn't like the competition in the realm of ripping off the masses to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by newey on Aug 27, 2011 18:39:29 GMT -5
Actually, I was wrong on the jurisdiction. Federal Jurisdiction is predicated on the Lacy Act, which has been on the books for a century or so, but was amended a few years ago. It makes it a Federal criminal offense to import any plant material which is not legally exported under the laws of its country of origin.
And this isn't Gibson's first go-round on this. There was a prior raid in 2009 based upon a complaint regarding Madagascar Rosewood. The case on that is still pending as United States of America v. Ebony Wood in Various Forms, U.S.D.C., M.D. Tenn. Case No: 3:10-cv-00747.
As far as using "the SWAT team" to make the raid, it's Gibson that said it was "a SWAT team". No doubt Federal agents went in armed, and in body armor, as is the protocol. A raid may always meet with resistance; if you're going to go into some gang's clubhouse armed to the teeth, you do the same on every occasion. Trying to "select out" the dangerous situation from the benign is an exercise in which no commander wants to engage. Guess wrongly, and it'll be your job if not worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by gumbo on Aug 27, 2011 18:48:15 GMT -5
Hmmmm... ...thank you for the video, sg... ....will be interesting to see where this all goes....at least it proves to me that our Government here doesn't have a monopoly on rushing in where it possibly shouldn't tread..let alone exhibiting a degree of forethought before it stamps its foot...  I'm not, and never have been, a Gibson Guy, but I think my main point is that with the current economic, political and natural problems facing the global scene...perhaps a few people in power should examine their priorities from time-to-time.... ...it seems too often voters forget these antics when it rolls around to election time.. I believe that we DO all have a finite time to continue as temporary inhabitants of this Ball, and frequently we should examine just what we do with our (remaining) time..... ......have a nice (what's left of the) day.. |
|
|
|
Post by asmith on Aug 27, 2011 19:40:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jcgss77 on Aug 27, 2011 21:32:52 GMT -5
Oh, yeah. So everybody is talking about the rosewood, which of course was the target of the last raid. But what about the mahogany? There are types of that wood that are protected also, and aren't Gibbys made of that type of mahogany, every one? Or am I wrong? Dare I ask why that is not being investigated?
Apparently, the Lucy Act is lucrative. The article asmith so kindly linked us to has a detail of an unfortunate soul who dealt with pianos being fined 17 1/2 big ones for importing what seem to be obvious antique pianos for simply not filling out the paperwork correctly.
That is pretty low. Anyone fill out government papers lately? Newey, I bet even you have trouble with them sometimes. I go crosseyed just thinking about filling out such paperwork.
Oh, yeah-just where is the Mjolnir? I hope it isn't rusty...
|
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Aug 27, 2011 23:33:14 GMT -5
I too saw that bit about the Lacy Act, something that had heretofore been hidden from my purview. In my personal opinion, it was aimed at corporations - as was all similar legislation in the early 20th Century - not individuals who were carrying their own personal items with them across national borders. I take this to be yet another abuse of power, as are several other blatant examples that I could name, but won't (for fear of running afoul of my own warning, vis-a-vis my opening post).
I also wish to point out that in times past (prior to 9-11), many government-types did plan ahead, and choose the appropriate path of entry. When field commanders are allowed (or worse, told) to "take the easy way out", i.e. not think about the consequences beyond the immediate future, just do the same thing over and over, then we have lost control to "The Book". (And obviously, to whomever wrote that book - I know it wasn't the general populace!) If no case-by-case variations are allowed, then we'll get exactly what we asked for.... aka, just what we allowed by not stepping up and telling our employees "NO!".
I can see Gibson having some deeper level of culpability here, but the fact remains above all else - you don't go in with all guns blazing in order to deliver a 'cease and desist' order (metaphorically speaking, of course). That's the kind of thing we need to get our government out of the habit of doing "on autopilot". Moreover, I can't see that Gibson should be hung out to dry for an ipso facto creation. Even the Lacy Act has no force or effect until a foreign nation notifies us, officially, that it has formulated laws regulating the export of whatever materials it wishes to control.
All of which harkens back to my earlier statement that Gibson has been making some classically Stupid business decisions (as verified by many Harvard Business School case studies), since this whole thing started. I really don't believe any court in this land will abide the excuse "but Your Honor, we simply must use this wood, it's what our customers expect from us". Bologna. If you can't get it legal and proper, then tell your customers the truth, and change to something that doesn't cause tiny ripples to become tidal waves - pure and simple.
sumgai
Oh, and jc: Never fear, Mjolnir is made of rust-proof Asgardium! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Aug 28, 2011 18:54:26 GMT -5
I think everyone here knows my take on corporations in general, so I won't retread familiar ground.
Impartially speaking, a corporation is a legal fiction (despite what the Supreme Courts has to say about elections) formed to generate a profit which allows a return to share holders, or in Gibson's case, its core owners. What they produce and how they produce it is inconsequential to the core mission. If, said corporation participates in amerciable, felonious, malfeasant or illegal acts or actions it will circumvent said core directive. This will cost the corporation more then it will gain, as a rule, and prevents them from participating in overt acts of this nature.
Does this formula work 100% of the time. No. Corporation are full of lawyers looking for holes to legally push profits, or justify actions to do the same. The more powerful ones merely influence elected officials either through direct support, or indirect opposition to gain favorable legislation.
This tends to make me agree with SG's perspective. Gibson is only truly guilty of a random act of stupidity. Not in their import of the wood, but in their belief that they had no culpability and could challenge a US Government action, versus just trying to cut a deal and get around the nasty stuff quietly. The US Government has a long standing history of taking a dim view of anyone who attempts to litigate against their actions or decisions. I wouldn't be surprised if the second raid wasn't enacted to bolster the case they are still litigating regarding their first raid.
I believe Gibson was truly surprised by the actions of the Federal Government in their latest raid. Odd, considering they're still fighting the legality of the last raid... I believe this surprise was genuine because I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that the export of the wood in question from India was legal and known to all parties involved to be so.
I have to wonder what the real reason was for this raid. What was happening at a higher level that precipitated the first raid on Gibson, versus all of the other guitar builders out there? Was it because they are a privately held company with no shareholder lawyers to involve? Were they an easy target due to the fact that they're a big name company in a struggling industry with limited cash reserves to fight this action?
Like many of you, I have no vested interest in Gibson, or their long term survival. I don't own a Gibson, and in all likelihood never will. What does concern me is that the Federal Government feels the need to involve themselves in strong action against them exclusively, seeming to ignore all others actively participating in the exact same activity.
And using the Lacy Act to justify their actions is a predicable move. Granted, this law has been around for a while, but as newey pointed out it was recently amended in 2008 under the Farm Bill. An obvious mood to bolster demand for US harvested timber by complicating the export process.
Gibson could have made a raw material switch. After all, they did move from Rock Maple to Western Maple...two distinctly different variations from the species...and no one seemed to notice or care. Actually, Western Maple share many characteristics with Mahogany...but I digress...
If this is an attempt to signal the rest of the import markets that there's a new Sheriff in town and you better buy more American timber, then going after Gibson, right or wrong, makes sense. If it's a move to rein in a problem endemic to an industry it is a very mixed and dysfunctional statement.
We really won't know anytime soon, as the Federal Government is still dragging it's feet on the litigation stemming from the first raid in 2009. And while the case drags on they will refuse to comment. And since no charges appear to be forthcoming in the second raid, we still won't know.
Here's my intial take on all of this:
US Timber Lobby:1
US Luthier's Lobby: 0
However, we can still go on buying guitars built in China from timber harvested from a God only knows method and produced in factories offering God only knows what type of protections for it's workers, financed with currency artificially manipulated in the World market.
But God help Gibson.
Happy Trails
Cynical One
|
|
|
|
Post by gumbo on Aug 29, 2011 5:09:06 GMT -5
Yep....
+1, C1.....Down Here just about everything you buy including your breakfast cereal comes from China.. and what's made Here is made in factories or by companies with significant foreign ownership..... but just you try to put up a mailbox that doesn't comply with the Local Government regulations or cross a street against a 'Don't Walk' sign....let alone attempt to start and conduct a local small business.... you'll be buried under red tape for years...
....I'm going to sit with the cat now....he doesn't seem to be worried about these things...
|
|
|
|
Post by thetragichero on Aug 29, 2011 17:54:38 GMT -5
i've seen topics about this on other forums, but i've got to commend you guys for commenting in an educated and thoughtful (not to mention loquacious!) manner
i suppose i've come to expect that from such a small community that's been together for years, but it doesn't mean i appreciate it any less
|
|
|
|
Post by newey on Aug 29, 2011 22:15:47 GMT -5
I was early on this: Green Guitars, Anyone?Sounds like Gibson should have put more emphasis on their "Smartwood" line discussed in that thread. In all of this, it should be remembered that, regardless of what one thinks of the means of enforcement, the trade in exotic woods is not benign for people of countries involved in it. The trade in Madagascar Rosewood (now banned completely, apparently) has been likened to the "blood diamond" trade of West Africa, at least in the sense that poor folk are exploited so that their resources can be profitably denuded. |
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Aug 30, 2011 18:16:59 GMT -5
Not to drag this any further off topic then it already is, but I've used architectural salvage wood to build guitars in the past. The wood was always stable, optimally cured and when you cut and plane it there was no movement. It was also usually harder then the same species of a newer variety. Depending on their previous life, the wood also picks up colors it never would have had if freshly harvested. Roof rafters absorb the minerals of decades of rain water, floor beams absorb the color of the soil they rested above. Wherever the wood was used it took in some piece of its past life. And since a good percentage of it is old growth timber the grain patterns are just unavailable in timber these days. Just plane off the top 1/4" and it's like Christmas. Take a look at these basses, made from Douglas fir previously used as barrel staves to hold cherries.  Back in the 70's and early 80's it was relatively cheap and available. As the whole "Green" marketing machine has taken hold it has gotten pricey and good pieces are more then import wood of more exotic lineage. Odds are that if you structured a business around building guitars from recycled timbers you'd price yourself out of the market. The average buyer will still grab a Squier made from whatever wood the Chinese are tearing down this week, and the customers with money will still buy the exotics because they can afford it. Status is. And while 100 year old pine will knock the socks off new alder it is shunned by the people who buy guitars. As with most things, the industry panders to the misinformed rather then educate them on alternatives. While it's warm and fuzzy to talk about saving the rain forest and protecting the livelihood of third world inhabitants, no one is going to give away their Alembic, Gibson, Wahl or any other instrument over a politically correct sentiment. If you change the buyers mind by breaking the myths will their hearts, minds and dollars follow? Gibson finds itself in trouble for buying wood that it's build up as the Holy Grail for decades. Being such an iconic force in the industry you would think jumping on the "Green" bandwagon would be a no brainer. However, to do this you have to invalidate decades of marketing gospel. Can you blame them for not wanting to be the next guy to introduce "New Coca-Cola" to the marketplace? Happy Trails Cynical One |
|
|
|
Post by roadtonever on Sept 1, 2011 14:46:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by irwired on Sept 19, 2011 14:07:42 GMT -5
Here Here. You guys rock... Wirey |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Dec 10, 2011 0:20:37 GMT -5
This article speaks more to the Lacey act itself, then lightly treats Gibson's problems: To Fret Or Not To FretAs most of us have said all along, it's probably not so much a case of Gibson "doing the dirty", as it is a matter of power-crazed bureaucrats in a feeding frenzy, becoming exceedingly incapable of making rational findings and decisions. Note that the article says several things, sort of a see-saw about "who said this, who said that", but it never cites any sources. Makes independent verification that much harder, but then again, I posted it more for the low-down on the Lacey Act, in nearly-normal English. HTH sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Dec 10, 2011 0:54:24 GMT -5
It wouldn't surprise me if this bureaucratic assault was the result of Gibson giving campaign contributions to a losing political candidate, and the winner exacting his revenge.
|
|
|
|
Post by lpf3 on Dec 10, 2011 10:15:39 GMT -5
It wouldn't surprise me if this bureaucratic assault was the result of Gibson giving campaign contributions to a losing political candidate, and the winner exacting his revenge. It would appear that Gibson's campaign contributions are somewhat evenly spread out; I doubt that either the winner or the loser has a dog in this fight. I found this article pretty interesting, if not long. I think ol' Henry J. simply tried to get away with something and got pinched and it's no more complicated than that. (faux alarmism notwithstanding ) -lpf3 |
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Dec 10, 2011 11:16:47 GMT -5
Well, it's not terribly surprising that Fox News played up the partisan perspective.
And both raids stem from paperwork irregularities. But this is hardly an anomaly in import\export paperwork. Gibson just happened to be the last one in line and was holding the bag when the music stopped.
What is more disconcerting is how the Lacey Act has been the vehicle to manipulate the market by domestic private interests outside of Washington. Go back and read the articles posted here, as well as others detailing how and why a 100 year old law was so massively expanded. By influencing policy you eliminate competition. While this is nothing new, either, it has reached a point that it no longer raises an eyebrow. Look up the Koch Brothers for a bit more insight.
This is not a simple partisan issue. Nor is it merely an end around by Gibson to circumvent import\export regulations. Gibson is far from the baddest actor in import\export, they were just the best target.
By making an example of a well known, but relatively small American company, privately held with no shareholder backlash to contend with, was the perfect target to put the fear of God into anyone currently importing, or contemplating importing their raw materials.
I have no hard data to back this up, but I'd bet what's left of the farm that domestic timber markets saw an uptick in business, and certainly much more interest in their offerings after the Gibson raid. Indirectly, all of the Fox coverage kept this interest active.
I'll stop here, before I have to get the soapbox out again... I would offer that rather than following the Gibson story specifically, read up on the parties and claims forwarded when the Lacey Act was amended. Almost 40 years ago Mark Felt told a young journalist to "...follow the money..." Still sound advice.
Happy Trails
Cynical One
|
|
|
|
Post by lpf3 on Dec 10, 2011 11:30:51 GMT -5
It's clear that the Lacey Act will have to be tweaked at the very least.
I read an article recently that covered how the law adversely affects traveling musicians; and even if you have a pre- CITES treaty guitar, a pre-war Martin for example, it could be confiscated by customs unless you can provide necessary documentation. Ridiculous.
Hopefully some good will come from all this attention and things like this aspect of the law can be ironed out.
lpf3
|
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Dec 10, 2011 18:40:55 GMT -5
MMfA? Whodat? Benefactors and staff
MMfA started with the help of $2 million in donations from liberal philanthropists connected to the Democratic party. According to Byron York, additional funding came from MoveOn.org and the New Democrat Network.[14][15][16]
In 2004 MMfA received the endorsement of the Democracy Alliance, a partnership of wealthy and politically active donors. The Alliance itself does not fund its any of its endorsees, but many wealthy Alliance members acted on the endorsement and donated directly to MMfA.[17][18][19] Media Matters as a matter of course has a policy of not comprehensively listing donors. Hmmm. Interesting lineage. In 2010 David Brock said MMfA would focus its efforts on Fox and select conservative websites in what Brock called an "all-out campaign of 'guerrilla warfare and sabotage'" against FoxNews.[63] I dunno about you, but anyone who claims to be engaging in "guerrilla warfare and sabotage" seems a bit suspect to me. *shrug* sauce: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America#Benefactors_and_staff |
|
|
|
Post by lpf3 on Dec 10, 2011 19:24:27 GMT -5
Easy now, reTread....... Your post shows that you don't like the messenger, but I don't think you can dispute the message. I think the article clearly shows that: 1) Gibson's campaign contributions have not unfairly supported one party over another; and 2) DOJ's decision to go after Gibson was not politically motivated. That's all. I stand by my earlier comment that no candidates for public office, on either side of the aisle, have a dog in this fight, nor do I believe that any political party or candidate stands to gain from the pickle that Gibson is in. IMHO, Gibson's wounds were self inflicted. Peace  lpf3 |
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Dec 10, 2011 20:30:04 GMT -5
The 2008 amendments to the Lacey Act were nothing more then protectionism with green lipstick. Using the mantra of protecting natural resources and saving the planet have been used as a guise for all sorts of legislation...with little effect or sincere intention seen from them.
Gibson is not a saintly organization. But they have maintained a successful American presence in an industry dominated by offshore concerns. They may not be stupid, or reckless, but I doubt seriously that they saw this second raid coming. There was already one indictment pending on them from a previous raid and I find it difficult to believe they would offer themselves up to government prosecutors by willfully importing raw material with such a thin cover as false import documentation...but I could be wrong...
While it seems unlikely that there was any political axe to grind in the government's raid on Gibson, I can't help but feel they were being used to promote the protectionist objective of the revised Lacey Act.
I also can't help but feel that someone in the prosecutor's office realizes they've been used and is waiting for the political winds to change so they can drop this litigation quietly and move on.
Again, there is much more to this then a simple corrupt corporation, or a politically zealous agency. One day the story may come out. Just don't sit up waiting for it any time soon.
Happy Trails
Cynical One
|
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Dec 10, 2011 21:25:56 GMT -5
Easy now, reTread....... Your post shows that you don't like the messenger, but I don't think you can dispute the message. "Like" is an emotional term. A more objective term would be "credibility". My post shows that I believe the credibility of your source to be low. Of course I can dispute the message. You're basing your conclusions on an article written by what I consider to be a highly biased source. You're certainly within your rights to take the contents of the article at face value, but when you say "I don't think you can dispute the message.", I say: Think again. I think the article clearly shows that: 1) Gibson's campaign contributions have not unfairly supported one party over another; and 2) DOJ's decision to go after Gibson was not politically motivated. That's all. Let's examine what else it "clearly shows"... My take is that the 2009 and 2011 seizures are related in that Gibson's conduct has given USFW [US Fish and Wildlife Service] officials probable cause to be suspicious of Gibson's wood-buying activities. In 2008, Gibson, Martin, and Taylor officials [Guitar companies] toured Madagascar and observed the illegal logging operations. Martin and Taylor promptly stopped using Madagascar woods; Gibson did not. Internal Gibson emails, as quoted by the US Attorney's office appear to indicate that Gibson knew that it was buying illegal woods. What's clear is that we are suppose to believe that at some unspecified date in the year 2008, unspecified officials from at least 3 guitar companies (were there more? unspecified.) toured Madagascar. Were these "tours" together as a group, or did they occur on separate occasions? Unspecified. We are further supposed to believe that they observed "illegal logging operations". What was it about these logging operations that made them illegal? Who witnessed these officials observing these so-called illegal operations? How did these official know that these logging operations were indeed illegal? Unspecified. By implication, we are led to believe that Martin and Taylor "promptly" stopped using Madagascar woods, because they recognized the illegality of logging operations. What does "promptly" mean? Within a day? Within a week. Within a month? By the end of the year? As you might have guess by now this is another case of "unspecified". Were these "observations" the reason Martin and Taylor stopped using Madagascar woods? Or were there other factors affecting their choice to do so? Unknown. All we know for certain is that at some unknown time after this trip (or is it these trips?) they did stop. Meanwhile Gibson, who (implicitly) observed the very same illegal operations at the very same time, continued to use these woods. We are meant to believe that Gibson willingly and intentionally flaunted the law. We are meant to believe this is affirmed by "Internal Gibson emails, as quoted by the US Attorney's office" (whose content is unspecified) "appear to indicate that Gibson knew that it was buying illegal woods." Who made this judgement that these emails "appear" to indicate what Gibson knew? The US Attorney's office? The person being quoted at that point in the article (W. John Thomas)? Unspecified. I only have a slight proficiency for recognizing when tiny bits of facts are being organized to give the "appearance" of authoritative proof. But at the moment, my bs detector is going off like gangbusters. I have no strong opinions about how clean or dirty Gibson's hands are in this case. This "article" does absolutely nothing to affect my opinion about that, or whether there were underlying political motivations. If you're willing to accept a source like this to substantiate your claims, that's your prerogative. As for what message I can or can't dispute, that's my prerogative. tl;dr Conclusions based on a questionable and quite obviously biased source don't impress me much. *shrug* |
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Dec 10, 2011 21:30:49 GMT -5
One day the story may come out. Just don't sit up waiting for it any time soon. In this instance, consider me more cynical than cynical. |
|
|
|
Post by lpf3 on Dec 10, 2011 22:30:41 GMT -5
What does this have to do with my response to your earlier statement about political revenge? :
I'm simply saying that Gibson was not singled out and persecuted because of their political contributions.
From the article:
But Juszkiewicz does not appear to be a major Republican donor. In fact, his most recent contribution was $2,000 to Democratic Congressman Bob Cooper, according to FEC records. His donations for the 2008 presidential election were limited to Mike Huckabee's primary campaign. The vast majority of the contributions listed for Juszkiewicz over the past decade went to the Consumer Electronics Association, which has donated $52,000 this year to Republicans and $39,000 to Democrats.
Fox News correspondent John Roberts, who delivered 8 live reports for Fox News and Fox Business from a Gibson factory in Nashville, provided inconsistent information about Juszkiewicz's campaign donations. In a September 7 FoxNews.com article, Roberts wrote that Juszkiewicz "has contributed to Republican candidates (as well as some Democratic candidates)." But during his appearance on Fox News' America Newsroom that same day, Roberts said only that Juszkiewicz "has donated heavily to Republican candidates." In three other live reports that day, Roberts forwarded the allegation that Gibson was targeted because Juszkiewicz "donated to Republican candidates," without mentioning that he has also supported Democrats.
I'm simply saying that Gibson was not singled out and persecuted because of their political contributions.
Also from the article:
An affidavit filed by career Fish and Wildlife Service official John Rayfield spells out the government's case for searching Gibson property, as Reuters reported on August 25. The affidavit details a recent shipment of Indian ebony wood that was intercepted by Customs officials for possible Lacey Act violations and referred to the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Customs entry form listed California importer Luthier Mercantile International as the final destination for the shipment, when in fact, it was bound for Nashville for Gibson Guitars, according to the affidavit.
But that wasn't the only problem. The affidavit states that the Customs form falsely labeled the wood as veneer sheets and listed a false tariff code "to match the false description." The Indian export declaration also misrepresented the shipment, classifying it under the tariff code for finished parts of musical instruments. The reason this matters is that, according to the affidavit, veneer sheets (less than 6mm) and finished parts are legal to export under Indian law, but unfinished wood larger than 6mm is not. Juszkiewicz contends that the U.S. government has misinterpreted Indian law.
And later in the article:
The 2011 seizure concerned Indian woods that would be legal but for the thickness. I believe that USFW is investigating because of suspicions due to 1) Gibson using the same wood supplier as it did for the Madagascar woods, 2) irregularities in the wood designations on the paperwork that could be due to innocent error or intentional attempt to deceive officials as to the thickness of the wood and 3) though Gibson is the ultimate purchaser, the paperwork lists an intermediary, LMI, which delivers the wood to a warehouse near the Nashville airport. Gibson retrieves a bit of the wood at a time when it needs it.
Looks to me like Gibson bought fingerboard blanks (which are illegal) and represented them as veneers (which are legal). Maybe by mistake, maybe clerical error, maybe they were just trying to circumvent the system.
This was simply not a case of some kind of political revenge carried out by "the winner" against some hapless small businessman.
-lpf3
|
|
Right at that point, Gibson should've said "thanks, but we'll get our materials elsewhere, until this is all settled."
