gibson fined for wood

When I heard of this on Monday I regurgitated.

Gibson pled guilty to what I would call 'nothing' and was fined $350k. Specifically, "after it admitted to possible illegal purchases of ebony from Madagascar, authorities said on Monday".

A plea that they admitted to "possible illegal purchases". Now we can be found guilty of "possibly" doing something. What happened to reasonable doubt?
 
Joe Barringer said:
When I heard of this on Monday I regurgitated.

Gibson pled guilty to what I would call 'nothing' and was fined $350k. Specifically, "after it admitted to possible illegal purchases of ebony from Madagascar, authorities said on Monday".

A plea that they admitted to "possible illegal purchases". Now we can be found guilty of "possibly" doing something. What happened to reasonable doubt?
Click to expand...

It's just shakedown money.

Ever see the movie, Goodfellas? It's JUST like that...only "legal."

Jeff Livingston
 
I would guess it was a plea agreement met after bean counters on both sides figured what the gamble money for winning or losing was.

The question in my mind is what are they going to do with all the confiscated ebony? You can't replant it.
 
"Possible Illegal Purchase" that's like saying you "Possibly had sex" lol you either did or you didn't. But the govt can make wax paper stick to a greasy pig, so there you are.
 
Either everyone here is feigning ignorance or you just think that the damn gubbmint is evil.
Gibson pleaded to what they did because they were guilty of smuggling CITES banned hardwoods and this was the best they thought they could do. They don't just use one piece, they use one part of a forest. The government does to the wood what they do to illegal ivory, they burn it.
 
Paul, I know you are right, knew it when I asked the question. Thats a lot of Ivory and thats a lot of Ebony. You can't replant Ebony wood and you can't superglue Ivory back on an Elephant. I find it just as sinfull to burn as to have taken in the first place. It could be Auctioned off and the money used for something good.
 
Who actually administers the rules of CITES??

Is if federal marshals, police, FBI?

Kim
 
Kim,

Since you asked. The little guys in the trees in my Backyard do, but its a secret.
 
Paul Dayton said:
Either everyone here is feigning ignorance or you just think that the damn gubbmint is evil.
Gibson pleaded to what they did because they were guilty of smuggling CITES banned hardwoods and this was the best they thought they could do. They don't just use one piece, they use one part of a forest. The government does to the wood what they do to illegal ivory, they burn it.
Click to expand...


Paul....

With all due respect....


1) Gibson was buying, not smuggling anything. There was no mention of the word "smuggling" in their plea because there was no "smggling". Let's not make this into something it's not.

2) There was no "Cites banned hardwoods" that Gibson was buying. All the woods they were purchasing were legally harvested however in the case of India, the wood was mislabeled upon export. I am intimately familiar with regards to ebony as we have imported quite a bit.

Additionally...
If they were smuggling, the Government would have went to court and gotten a felony conviction. There would have been no plea deal. Gibson was buying wood from India marked as a finished product; eg: fret boards. These are shipped out with the approval of the Indian Govenment who requires only finished goods be shipped out. The sellers in India were mislabeling the wood in order to be able to ship the wood out. It is not a requirement of USA citizens to monitor the laws and requirements of other countries on their shipments. It is up to the Indian Government to crack down. Our Government has taken it upon itself to police the world markets and fine great businesses such as Gibson. They may have unwittingly purchased the wood and not known the law with regards to finished products shipping from India. And this is especially true if they were purchasing it from a middleman.

If the Government had an airtight case there would have been no plea. Their case was riddled with holes. The only reason Gibson took the deal which was basically extortion was due to the legal costs which would have undoubtedly been much higher than $350k to prove their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.

And persoanlly if anyone believes otherwise, I have a bridge that's for sale. Gibson was a target; period!

The whole case stunk!
 
Gibson released a statement that they "Were gratified" that the government decided not to follow up with a criminal prosecution. The Madagasgar ebony cost was over $260,000 and Gibson gave it up. No they didn't smuggle anything, they just illegally imported it.

Who knew?????
 
Paul Dayton said:
Gibson released a statement that they "Were gratified" that the government decided not to follow up with a criminal prosecution. The Madagasgar ebony cost was over $260,000 and Gibson gave it up. No they didn't smuggle anything, they just illegally imported it.

Who knew?????
Click to expand...


Oh and what were they suppose to say. The Feds targeted us and we agreed to this because it would cost us the same or more to defend it and prove the government wrong?

Paul... You don't have a clue. They didn't illegally import anything. They gave it up as part of the deal because the government wanted something when they had nothing. They needed to justify the mistake in being over zealous with their warrant just like other cases that I am intimately familiar with.

This is a large company. Do you think they could stick out their middle finger! I bet they would but they have a company and image to protect. The feds had nothing except extortion and they had Gibson over a barrel in legal costs so this was their best out.

Don't believe everything you read!
 
Joe,

Tthis is just a question as I will admit I know little of this sort of thing.

Gibson is as you say a big company, solid reputation.

They now have some soil. If they were 100% in the right would not a big company with a great reputation not fight to keep it?
 
TomHay said:
Joe,

Tthis is just a question as I will admit I know little of this sort of thing.

Gibson is as you say a big company, solid reputation.

They now have some soil. If they were 100% in the right would not a big company with a great reputation not fight to keep it?
Click to expand...


Guys... This is a phony BS PR plea to not make the govt look like the pinheads that they are. Gibson pled to "possible illegal purchases". What kind of a BS plea is that. The govt practically begged Gibson to plea and take the deal. "possible illegal purchases" it's a joke!

Gibson wanted it over and this would have been hanging over their heads for a couple more years but by pleading to nothing (possible illegal purchases), Gibson put it behind them and the Govt can chalk one up for the "good guys" with the confiscation. It was a matter of dollars and sense with Gibson. They still have a stellar reputation. They pled to nothing.

Gibson gave up a lot less than $200k worth of wood; that's the estimate to make it look like a large amount of money. I once read where an Ohio businessman cooperated with the Feds and the deal was for about 100 pounds of ivory and they put a value of something like $150k on that. The actual value of the ivory was maybe $20k. They inflate the numbers to make themselves look like heroes.

It's all BS! Believe what you want; I'm done.
 
TomHay said:
Joe,

Tthis is just a question as I will admit I know little of this sort of thing.

Gibson is as you say a big company, solid reputation.

They now have some soil. If they were 100% in the right would not a big company with a great reputation not fight to keep it?
Click to expand...

Some "soil" will not keep anyone with a clue from buying one of their guitars. To keep the soil off and lose another few hundred grand or spend millions in court over many years. Hmmm, not a hard choice for me and apparently not hard for Gibson. You might pay particular attention to this part of the statement by the gooberment -"purchasing may have violated laws intended". The gooberment are crooks.
 
The Feds won't go after you unless they have you 'dead to rights'.
They (the Feds) had a solid case and Gibson knew it. Ignorance of the law is no exception.
You want to 'play', you're gonna pay. Gibson knew what they were doing and got caught.
I have no tolerance for cheats.
Most of us play by the rules everyday because it's the right thing to do.
If someone feels they have to cheat to get an advantage, they deserve the consequences.
Sometimes they get lucky and 'get over', sometimes they don't.
If Gibson felt in their heart that they were innocent, they would have fought it.
You're innocent until proven guilty. It's the Fed prosecutor's job to PROVE guilt.
Apparently, Gibson knew the Feds had a slam-dunk.
Their (Gibson's) lawyers knew the skinny and advised them to take the deal.
Had they lost at trial, the outcome would have been much worse.
Given what the Feds had on them, they made the best deal they could.
They saved a portion of their image and minimized collateral damage.

This is only my take on the matter and speculation at best.
I wasn't in the room when the deal went down......but then, neither were any of you.

KJ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top