What's the status of the DOJ raid on Gibson?

[Searcy]

If you want to tell when somebody knows they broke the law, take what they say before they talk with their lawyers and see how they change their tune after they talk with their lawyers. The difference in their story tells you exactly what they know they did wrong.

 

Actually if you want to know if someone knows they broke the law you charge them, bring them before a judge and jury, present your evidence allow the accused to make their case and render a verdict all in a timely manner. If they are found guilty you asses them a penalty in accordance with established guidelines allowing them to pay their debt to society and move on.

[milod]

Searcy...

 

But if you want to damage somebody for whatever reason, you get their property confiscated and then drag on litigation until the property loses its value and they've spent bundles defending themselves - and drop the case.

 

I've seen that in other litigation. It's unfortunately not uncommon. It's one of the most damaging things I've seen. A peripheral issue - as in the Gibson case, that's essentially "civil" although technically criminal - can be used as a weapon to damage or destroy a defendant who then wonders what hit him and why as he spends thousands just to try to get discovery of the case involved.

 

That's why I keep thinking we've got something of the human element involved here more than politics, although I think regional "political culture" probably also plays something of a role.

 

When I say "political culture," you've got to consider that it's not really the same as "party politics," even when it may be easy to point a finger at one party or another. Regional political cultures can be quite different in the sense that a rural perspective inevitably will have some different perspectives on more than a few issues than an urban perspective - and that is far more than a matter of agricultural policy.

 

One part of "political culture" is how activist one believes government should be in terms of pushing for case law to promote a given agenda - and certainly what that "given agenda" might be.

 

Unfortunately that "given agenda" too often is personal and/or group promotion rather than any political ideals. Unfortunately that's too common in all governmental bureaucracies where survival or advancement of the bureaucrat trumps whatever the agency is charged to achieve.

 

Frankly I'm still guessing there's somebody past or present unhappy at Gibson and hit somebody in the feds who saw an opportunity to press their own personal agenda. At that point, let's even assume Gibson pushed the law willfully and wrongfully, according to some interpretations of U.S. law, we still have something of a vendetta rather than anything approaching a traditional "white collar crime."

 

m

[martinh]

If anyone doesn't see anything wrong with what the Feds are doing, you have missed the point.

 

I find that that requires the same degree of pre-judgement that you accuse the Feds of .

 

How do you reach the conclusion that the Feds have done something wrong? Do you have inside information that the factual allegations involved in the case are untrue, and the feds know them to be so? If so, present yourself to Gibson's lawyers as a material witness. Or are you arguing that it is "wrong" based on your idea of proper regulation in this field? If so why is it your view more valid than another view? It is human nature to declare than someone with a different view 'missed" you point, rather than accept it is possible to hold a rational interpretation different from your own

.

But I can almost gaureentee if and when it happens to you, you will feel it is wrong as well.

 

I can guarantee that almost anyone who gets caught in any sort of statutory or regulatory violation finds the law, the facts demonstrating their own alleged violation of it, or the actions of the authorities "wrong." That's another essential part of human nature. Every drunk driver feels especially singled out for attack because he is sure there were hundreds of people doing the same thing that night. Every environmental violator feels the regulations are unjust,or unjustly applied. Every losing party in a court case thinks there was an error, or the other side cheated in some way. These simple defenses against the cognitive dissonance created when the world does not appear to conform to one's own interests and desires do not settle a matter, or make anyone with a contrary view "wrong"

 

In my experience ( yours may differ, and probably will) whenever a defendant attempts to take a matter out of ther regulatory arena and into the political one, it is because their counsel has advised them that they have a very poor chance of winning a dispute based on the law and the facts . In that case, the best tactic is to attempt to pressure the agency , or attack the basis of the regulation politically , rather than attacking it in the court process.

[santacruzom]

Martin said,

 

"In my experience ( yours may differ, and probably will) whenever a defendant attempts to take a matter out of ther regulatory arena and into the political one, it is because their counsel has advised them that they have a very poor chance of winning a dispute based on the law and the facts . In that case, the best tactic is to attempt to pressure the agency , or attack the basis of the regulation politically , rather than attacking it in the court process."

 

In my opinion, this is spot on. Not that it matters (and it certainly represents nothing but MY PERSONAL OPINION), but I have been with the Florida Supreme Court for 15 yrs and can attest that this tends to hold true.

[jannusguy2]

Me thinks Henry doth protest too much.

[zigzag]

Me thinks Henry doth protest too much.

 

That's what I said almost a year ago. Henry J took this out of the legal and into the political arena primarily because he couldn't get his day in court. He figured by trying to shame the government publically, he'd get public support, and it couldn't hurt him or his case any more than the Feds already had. Believe me, I'm no fan of Henry J, but were I him, I'd probably have done the same thing. Henry J and Gibson may be guilty as hell, but there is no excuse for the way that the government has screwed them without a hearing or a trial.

[jannusguy2]

That's what I said almost a year ago. Henry J took this out of the legal and into the political arena primarily because he couldn't get his day in court. He figured by trying to shame the government publically, he'd get public support, and it couldn't hurt him or his case any more than the Feds already had. Believe me, I'm no fan of Henry J, but were I him, I'd probably have done the same thing. Henry J and Gibson may be guilty as hell, but there is no excuse for the way that the government has screwed them without a hearing or a trial.

I agree, something seems quite wrong but without being privy to the details it's all speculation. I hope it works out for the rank and file folks who work at Gibson. I'm sure of one thing, they don't deserve to have this hanging over their heads regardless of whom is at fault.

[milod]

The problem for HJ and Gibson is that they have their materials confiscated, complete to business computers - and can't really "discover" the specifics of what they're claimed to have done. Meanwhile their equipment and materials are sitting somewhere, the computers unusable when they're returned after more than a year and their materials ... well, who knows what might happen to wood left somewhere...

 

That's over a year.

 

Frankly that's why I'm outa the political side on this one and more into the personal and bureaucratic side.

 

Let's take the reverse of the argument against HenryJ.

 

If somebody was convinced they had a case and a smoking gun, it would have been out there long ago. They had the paperwork, Gibson records and the wood itself.

 

If the case is questionable at best, but with feelings that Gibson just had to have done "something" wrong, it can drag on forever citing "ongoing investigation" while Gibson functionally already has received the equivalent of one heck of a huge fine through loss of its computers (and the work material that likely had to be recreated at what cost?) and materials as well as work flow.

 

OTOH, federal courts have a tendency also to be somewhat slower than the seven-year itch. That's been increasingly worse over the past number of years. Again, that's not anything specific against the current administration, but simply a reflection of what's been going on in the judicial system in general over the past 30+ years.

 

I think the point made elsewhere that if this might happen with Gibson, it can happen to anyone. Frankly I've seen it happen to others in a number of variations. Bottom line is that even if you win litigation against the government, you lose.

 

Also I agree that the personality of HenryJ is irrelevant. More than a year after confiscations at gunpoint? More than a year with your property functionally destroyed, including work computers as well as manufacturing materials perhaps being destroyed, and still not knowing what you're charged with? Who ain't gonna be upset?

 

As for "politics," let's put it this way: If there were a GOP administration in Washington during this situation, can you imagine the press reaction? That's not a partisan comment, but simply the perspective from a guy who's been in "the media" since 1965. It's not "politics" so much as differentials in response due to politics.

 

m

[stein]

I find that that requires the same degree of pre-judgement that you accuse the Feds of .

 

How do you reach the conclusion that the Feds have done something wrong? Do you have inside information that the factual allegations involved in the case are untrue, and the feds know them to be so? If so, present yourself to Gibson's lawyers as a material witness. Or are you arguing that it is "wrong" based on your idea of proper regulation in this field? If so why is it your view more valid than another view? It is human nature to declare than someone with a different view 'missed" you point, rather than accept it is possible to hold a rational interpretation different from your own

.

 

 

Here is my "pre-judgement":

 

Innocent until proven guilty.

 

The right to a fair trial.

 

I don't believe that any proper regulation of ANY field should be allowed to violate these principles. I believe that harming anyone in the corse of an INVESTIGATION violates these principles.

 

We should all try and remember that Gibson has motioned the court to have charges brought and return the property, some of it a year sinse being taken. This was DENIED by the court. This case hasn't even ENTERED the judicial system for Gibson, and they have been denied a trial. Two raids in which a substantial amount of property was taken each time.

 

I have reached a point that I am no longer concerned with what Gibson has done or if they are guilty. I am concerned with the idea that ANY entity, Gov't or otherwise, would be allowed to do as the Fish and Widlife has done here. It violates the principles of AMERICA to do such to even the guilty.

[FenderGuy1]

Nope, i just think, that if Henry wants to use rosewood, let him do it for gods sake!! America, WTF is wrong with you -Australia

[cookieman15061]

I plussed many of you as I read everyone's take on this situation. Good read. Here's hoping none of us are subjected to this kind of "justice".

[bluzhammer]

Federal Courts, are in themselves an adventure in double talk, misrepresentation, and intimidation. Speaking from personal experience in Federal Tax Court, I discovered that green is red and blue is black when interpreting USC 26. Each section has it's own set of definitions for common words and phrases. In some areas " person " is to be defined as a corporation, and the " person made liable for the tax " is an officer of a corporation. I also discovered that, when the Feds want to enforce their will upon you, the codes be damned. This is especially true when dealing with the IRS, no written code stands in their way when it comes to collection.

 

Should you want to start investigating Federal overreach motivated by political agendas, look into the cases of Randy Weaver or The Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas. I am in no way condoning the actions of the Davidians response to the initial raid, but the raid was in itself a political show of force. As the sheriff explained, had the feds not wanted the confrontation, they could have easily arrrested Mr. Koresch at the local Piggly Wiggly grocery store most any Thursday.

 

Point being is that we as Citizens of these united States of America, should always cast a skeptical gaze at Federal activity and prosecution of Federal law.