jmavl said:
Agreed that this was a nitpick allegation. At issue was not whether the wood in question was endangered, but whether the wood was the correct level of thickness and finish before being exported from India---
The US has similar export controls. EVERY country has similar export controls on something or another. This particular law is important to India because it protects a LOT of their jobs. Think of how much wood we source from there, and think about how many of their internal jobs would be completely lost if they were able to export whole logs to the US. They have to protect themselves as much as we do.
jmavl said:
It only became illegal once American workers began crafting it.
It was illegal the moment it set pallet on US soil. The Lacey Act was designed as an environmental protection act. If something is illegal to export from another country, it is illegal to import that item into the US. This ensures US companies are following appropriate environmental policies everywhere in the world. Much like the export controls I mentioned above, every country has import controls as well.
jmavl said:
The Justice Department & the Environmental Investigation Agency (no kidding-- there is such a bureaucracy) raided Gibson with automatic weapons
The EIA did not have any part in the raid that I have read anything about anywhere. If you have some proof to this effect I would very much like to read it. They're a Non-Governmental Office. They have nothing to do with the government aside from occasionally working together WITH governmental offices during investigations. They're as likely to raid Gibson as Jimbo Wales is to raid your local library.
Secondly, when you conduct any kind of police activity you bring guns. People flapping their arms about the fact that FEDERAL OFFICERS executing a WARRANT brought guns... ummm... yeah. That's what you do. You have no idea who is going to do what. This is like being amazed whenever a mechanic shows up to work with a wrench. For all you know Kevin in accounting could have been running a meth lab for the past five years, is tweaked out as we speak, and carries a Glock in his backpack. If fifteen people from the Justice Department show up with a warrant he's going to flip out, shoot nine co-workers and five cops before offing himself without any of the law enforcement officers being able to stop it.
You plan for the worst, not the best. Ask my grandfather who had a couple of potshots taken at him over the years while serving warrants.
jmavl said:
for using an inappropriate tariff code on wood from India, which was a violation of the anti-trafficking statute known as The Lacey Act.
It wasn't so much about an inappropriate tariff code as it was outright documentation forgery on the part of SOMEONE. Which is where the case gets really interesting...
jmavl said:
Was it an unintentional mistake by Gibson? Doesn't matter, it's their responsibility to know the rules and do their due diligence.
Here's where it gets strange, and where I think this investigation may end up with a few more heads rolling in the months and even years to come (this stuff takes time, as Fish and Wildlife is nowhere near as large as, for example, the ATF).
Basically the import documents were very questionable. They listed the ultimate consignee as Luthiers Mercantile International, and claimed the wood fit into a specific export code from India. It did not. Further, LMI was NOT the ultimate consignee. Gibson was. So that's two areas where the documentation was incorrect. Making this even more egregious was the fact that Gibson has had run-ins for the same thing (improper documentation) before.
You're entirely correct that it is ultimately their responsibility. The question is who will share that responsibility? LMI, from reading the original affidavit leading to the search warrant, was just as involved in the situation as Gibson was.
jmavl said:
Gibson settled and agreed to pay a $300,000 penalty and forfeit claims to about $262,000 worth of wood seized by federal agents and contribute $50,000 to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to promote the conservation of protected tree species. So, was the wood ultimately returned to Gibson, or are these guitars made with properly imported wood from India?
The Indian wood that was seized was ultimately returned. The wood from Madagascar was forfeited. That's IF the information I'm reading is correct. It seems a bit hazy on this point, to be honest. The official statements from the DoJ read that Gibson forfeited all of the wood, so I really am not sure.
For all we know it's Henry J being full of crap as usual.
jmavl said:
And finally, we should be reminded that Gibson does not mind to nitpick when it comes to litigating against other manufacturers producing similar model guitars...
No kidding. That's the psychopathic right-wing mentality though. "Government is bad and horrible for business, unless of course it's MY business then screw you all have a lawsuit."
BTW, if you have any more info sources on anything pertaining to this case do share! It's obviously something that I'm quite interested in. Haha.
