Gibson admits wrong doing

[Guest farnsbarns]

The difference between an "environmentalist" and somebody who considers "environmental science" is that the latter considers long term ecology which, like it or not, includes the fact that we have doubled the human population just this past half century, and that humans are part of the environment.

 

Ecosystems change for numbers of reasons. Lately, it's IMHO largely due to expansion of human residential development and often ill-advised contrary attempts at controlling various systems for conflicting reasons.

 

Those over-populated forests to the south of me have been burning. Lives are risked and sometimes lost not to protect valuable natural resources, because tree disease already has destroyed that. No, it's to save rich city folks' mountain retirement hideaways.

 

The latest "funny" here came when one of leaders of the "Thou shalt not touch a tree, but for heaven's sake, make sure the forest fire doesn't burn my $!!!!!! house," guys figured how to improve his mountain views. Trees being taken down because of disease caused by tree overpopulation and fire danger had an extra one or two marked for removal...

 

There has to be a less harmful way to recognize that even two centuries ago humans - "native" as well as "European" - were making some major changes to ecosystems.

 

In North America's more populated areas, folks already destroyed much that remotely resembles pre-1490 systems. Now, without a vision that is systemic, scientific and a political consensus, "we" instead pick away at ecosystems in ways that are counterproductive for humans, flora and fauna - and the very earth itself.

 

That's my complaint: Lack of long-term vision by non-scientific sorts who grasp this or that cause and seem somehow to fail to see that systems are involved, not the well-advertised causes of the day.

 

But ... for the folks who make their living that way, causes of the day bring in more cash than long-term vision.

 

I was writing far too long for this forum and just erased examples I've documented for print media of results of all sides vesting into "causes of the day" rather than looking up from their dining room conversations.

 

Yet neither "The State," "The Wheels" nor "The saviors of the environment" could bring themselves to talk about such stuff after a couple of newspaper stories blew over.

 

Publicity of bad science ignoring work just a few miles away slowed them, but nothing really changed. It didn't fit the paradigm they'd invented and that they were vested into.

 

Yeah, I'm cynical.

 

EDIT: Farns, I believe sincerely that in essence, you're correct on long-term populations. I also believe unscientifically that the world until there's a population drop is not one I'd care to contribute to, nor to live in. No blood of my own goes into that increase.

 

m

 

There's some evidence of environmentalists at work, well said. I also have no kids and no intention so there's a few less between us Milo.

[Enmitygauged]

I am at a loss why some are so wanting to label Gibson so guilty as well.

 

What I read in the settlement statement (appendix "A") is that this whole this is about the single stock (of which there were 4 shipments) or Madagasgar ebony from R.T. And of this particular stock, it is at best questionable, as the Govt. can't prove it was illegally harvested, and Gibson (R.T. as well) can't prove it wasn't.

 

Of this stock, the Govt. acknowledges THEY are aware that 1) Gibson did not know this wood was a problem until AFTER the first raid and 2) Gibson had nothing to do with any labeling of ANY of the woods coming into the country. 3) Gibson made efforts to be "complient" with the law. Again, this is what I am reading from appendix "A".

 

What the Govt. has on Gibson regarding this stock from this supplier is according to the Lacey act, it must have the full amount of paperwork with it as it comes. In this case, it followed the wood here.

 

To me, I call this a MISTAKE, but not GUILT. I see a big difference there. The difference is that a "mistake" is something that someone does wrong in the corse of trying not to break the law, and "guilt" is intentionally breaking the law.

 

It's turning into a mean, mean world folks. Mistakes will happen, especially as laws get more complex, and change at that. When we make mistakes, we should hope we are allowed to correct them, as opposed to being labeled "guilty" and having "mistakes" used as a reasoning to be made to pay fines or be the subject of judgement against you.

 

To those that are so wanting to label Gibson as "guilty" and accuse them of wrongdoing and be glad to see them hit with this fine, I hope you are not a bill collecter, lender, employer, or work for the IRS. I would hate to be on the other side of you.

 

I suggest this is part of the problem as opposed to the solution.

 

A "mistake" doesnt admonish guilt. You can mistakingly run some one over. You're still Guilty of Dangeous driving. If you kill someone by accident no matter how it happens its still Man Slaughter (at least here in Australia).

From what I've read in media reports Gibson set about trying to hide what had happened and it also knew the Madagascar Ebony was not legal.

 

If you make a mistake that breaks the law... you are guilty of making a mistake that breaks the law..... I'll put it in the simplest senario. If you go away on holiday and enter most countries you go through customs. If they ask you if you have any (from a list) banned products and you say no (because you legitimently forgot) and they search your luggage and find something illegal off that list. They will fine you and confiscate the goods. Because you have tried to import illegal goods. they maybe in somecases products you are allowed to bring it but must advise customs.

 

They will still fine you for filling out the form incorrectly. I read in this thread that a gibson employee notified Gibson about the Ebony before shipment. they still chose to import it. If thats true im sorry but thats out and out guilt.. I love Gibsons I have 6 of them I dont play any other guitar. I never will. in the end the situation worked out for the best. For Gibson and for us.

[stein]

A "mistake" doesnt admonish guilt. You can mistakingly run some one over. You're still Guilty of Dangeous driving. If you kill someone by accident no matter how it happens its still Man Slaughter (at least here in Australia).

From what I've read in media reports Gibson set about trying to hide what had happened and it also knew the Madagascar Ebony was not legal.

 

If you make a mistake that breaks the law... you are guilty of making a mistake that breaks the law..... I'll put it in the simplest senario. If you go away on holiday and enter most countries you go through customs. If they ask you if you have any (from a list) banned products and you say no (because you legitimently forgot) and they search your luggage and find something illegal off that list. They will fine you and confiscate the goods. Because you have tried to import illegal goods. they maybe in somecases products you are allowed to bring it but must advise customs.

 

They will still fine you for filling out the form incorrectly. I read in this thread that a gibson employee notified Gibson about the Ebony before shipment. they still chose to import it. If thats true im sorry but thats out and out guilt.. I love Gibsons I have 6 of them I dont play any other guitar. I never will. in the end the situation worked out for the best. For Gibson and for us.

When I make the distinction between a "mistake" and "guilty", I am not making an effort to explain away any wrong-doing on Gibson's part, but more to put things into a perspective.

 

We can say "Gibson is guilty or making an error", if we want to include the word "guilt". Really the question SHOULD be, did Gibson INTENTIONALLY break the law. I say this is different than failing to meet the responsibilities of insuring you haven't. And when it somes to that subject, I think it fair to consider WHAT is the amount of burdon placed by the law on the business, AND what level of effort has the company in question taken as opposed to lack of effort.

 

In many cases with many laws and companies, this burdon is certainly enough to ensure that breaking the law is inevitable. IS this the case here? If all we are concerned about is the errors and the guilt and what Gibson SHOULD have done, how would it ever come to light what Gibson HAS done to prevent this or any evidence of thier innocence? This additude or view will always result in a one-sided result. No one wins these.

 

I might suggest that there is no accountability here for the actions of the government and what harm they have done to Gibson, either on a legal basis or simply an ethical basis. We SHOULD be all asking that. It's the more important question.

 

Gibson was made to pay a fine for their "guilt" of making errors. But what of any restitution paid to Gibson of "errors" made by the Govt.? Did they make any that cost Gibson?

[Jeff-7]

I bet Guitarest is having a field day with this.

[sok66]

Gestapo tactics??? ....... Before he died, I had the opportrunity to talk with Justice Opala of the Oklahoma Supreme Court regading his fighting in the Polish Resistance and his capture by the Gestapo. Maybe you should talk to to one of the few survivors who have experienced "gestapo tactics" before making such a comparision

 

Yes, Gestapo tactics. This is a clear abuse of Federal power to TWICE send heavily armed SWAT teams into a business, terrorize their employees and confiscate their property, all over interpretations of other countries laws. This was intended to intimidate, plain & simple, and should be a warning to all how far this country has slipped towards a police state. The entire matter could have been handled by the respective lawyers, proper investigation & consideration of all facts taken before any such military-style police action was taken. Nothing in this sad episode justifies the Governments heavy handed actions. Gibson has been severely injured, which IMHO was the intent all along.

[brundaddy]

Yes, Gestapo tactics. This is a clear abuse of Federal power to TWICE send heavily armed SWAT teams into a business, terrorize their employees and confiscate their property, all over interpretations of other countries laws. This was intended to intimidate, plain & simple, and should be a warning to all how far this country has slipped towards a police state. The entire matter could have been handled by the respective lawyers, proper investigation & consideration of all facts taken before any such military-style police action was taken. Nothing in this sad episode justifies the Governments heavy handed actions. Gibson has been severely injured, which IMHO was the intent all along.

 

Gibson admitted they were down bad. You're trippin. You want to talk about Police state? Talk about Ruby Ridge then.

[Malchik]

Yes, Gestapo tactics. This is a clear abuse of Federal power to TWICE send heavily armed SWAT teams into a business, terrorize their employees and confiscate their property, all over interpretations of other countries laws.

 

Yeah, those heavily armed SWAT teams...

[damian]

Laminated fretboards seem quite illegal IMHO..... [flapper] .....I hope the Feds stop that real soon..........:unsure: ......

[cookieman15061]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiZdY9rw-uo

[sheraton]

GIBSON FOUNDATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS:

Henry Juszkiewicz, CEO, Gibson Guitar Corp.

Dave Berryman, President, Gibson Guitar Corp.

Senator John Breaux, Former US Senator (D-Louisiana)

Patton Boggs, Senator

Orrin Hatch, United States Senator (R-Utah)

Karen Giberson, President, Accessories Council

Bob Ezrin, Producer, Gibson Guitar Corp.

Daniel Katz, The Overbrook Foundation

 

Even though the stock is not public, I'm sure that there is stock.

 

Believe me, even though Henry is owner, chairman of the board, CEO, and chief bottle washer, he is accountable to someone. The BOD can recommend a change in leadership, and it might be good for the face of Gibson, not to mention sales and profitablility, for Henry to step down as CEO while maintaining ownership and board status.

 

PATTON BOGGS are a law firm in DC not a senator. Hale Boggs was a senator, his son is the named partner of the law firm. Hale Boggs daughter is Cokie Roberts, comentator on National Public Radio and some time TV talking head.

[badbluesplayer]

Egocentric scofflaws are a dime a dozen in my business. The business that I started in 1991. I can see these guys coming a mile away. They fit a pattern of behavior that I can recognize in a heartbeat.

 

People don't like scofflaws. Nothing amoral about that!

[zigzag]

PATTON BOGGS are a law firm in DC not a senator. Hale Boggs was a senator, his son is the named partner of the law firm. Hale Boggs daughter is Cokie Roberts, comentator on National Public Radio and some time TV talking head.

 

... also from Louisiana.

[milod]

RE: "Scofflaws," etc.

 

I think we have some problems here with emotional rather than logical response to political overtones on this one.

 

It's not just Gibson, but something I see as an increasing trend because of the way our culture and media attention seems to be going.

 

In terms of this type of "business crime" charge, first notice that the government's news release does not state that Gibson was guilty of any crime and that this settles a criminal action. Most criminal plea bargain type arrangements have an admission of "guilt" and then a mode of settling what would follow for the "guilty" party.

 

Secondly, in terms of criminal guilt in any action, even manslaughter as one of our Australian friends noted, there must be an affirmative showing of either willful wrongful action or negligent inaction. For example, if one is otherwise driving in a reasonable, proper and prudent mode and someone pops out of a ditch into the roadway to get killed, there is no manslaughter. Negligence must be proven as much as an affirmative illegal action. A death, per se, is not an automatic conviction.

 

Unfortunately we see here the polarizing factors involved in today's media coverage in that attitudes and opinions, not solid facts, tend to get the coverage.

 

No charges were filed, but Gibson was twice raided by obviously armed officers who certainly intimidated workers. Somebody in the feds was convinced they had enough to attack Gibson's business, including computers as well as wood and corporate expenses in time and legal support. Whether or not they truly believed they had a case or had some other unknown motivation is strictly conjecture.

 

It appears now that they did not have enough for a slam dunk case. Again, note that criminality is not mentioned. We're talking about interpretations of several nations' laws and the effect thereon for the Lacey Act and the degree of due diligence may or may not have been adequate to keep the feds off Gibson's back.

 

Also, as I've noted above, there is a point at which "due diligence" in determining a chain of provenance comes into question.

 

That's an ongoing problem with art and artifacts worldwide. What changes in law, and/or interpretations of law in multiple jurisdictions might affect a given purchase? Good luck. If your great grandpa gave you a bit of art

from certain countries, for example, it may be as illegal to possess as a nuclear device.

 

This sort of thing also brings into question the degree to which civil and criminal law seem to intercept in ways that may or may not make sense to many of us.

 

As I see it, the bottom line is that both sides backed off from an expensive litigation that in the long run would see nobody winning much of anything. This way Gibson got the feds off their back with probably less spent in the "agreement" than already was spent in getting back into daily business and legal fees. The feds escape a lawsuit that could reveal a number of problems in their own house. As for costs, $500,000 doesn't take long to get spent on the fed side if one considers the cost of several attorneys and secretaries for a couple of years and costs of the raids and subsequent messing with the "taken" equipment and merchandise.

 

But I'm kinda bothered by ascribing nastiness either to Gibson or to the feds. Yeah, I think the feds themselves probably believe collectively at this point that they overreached. That doesn't mean somebody necessarily was evil. I've seen it among a number of criminal lawsuits. Sometimes, in fact, the overreaching was itself a prosecutor's device to achieve a lesser aim. As for Gibson, one might ask the degree to which a business need play games to buy from a third or forth party distanced from an original supplier - or get burned by the feds. In this case, it appears they need spend and play more than they'd been doing. Did they walk a thin line and stumble onto the wrong side? It appears so, but is that truly criminal to be treated at gunpoint?

 

m

[quapman]

This thread is very informative if one disregards the fact that no one actually know the facts. Beyond that, I don't know either.

 

That would be the smartest post on this entire ridiculous thread.

[FenderGuy1]

I just think: let Gibson make their guitars the way they want em to be!!!

[milod]

Fenderguy...

 

That's a nice thought, but it's not likely given a whole batch of laws governing various bits of materials that have been used on guitars that no longer would be legal.

 

m

[martinh]

RE: "Scofflaws," etc.

 

 

In terms of this type of "business crime" charge, first notice that the government's news release does not state that Gibson was guilty of any crime and that this settles a criminal action. Most criminal plea bargain type arrangements have an admission of "guilt" and then a mode of settling what would follow for the "guilty" party.

 

 

 

Gotta call you on that one Milod. This was not a criminal plea bargain, in which the defendant is requiored to plead guilty to a specific (often lesser) offense as a result of the bargain. (Although "no contest" , which is not an admission of guilt has become more common in criminal plea cases recently). This was an administrative/regulatiory action with potential statutory criminal penalties for a regulatory violation, IMO there is almost NEVER an admisson of guilt in any settlement of these type of actions. That is the one of the main attractions of settlement to the violator.

 

For a couple of examples, look at the settlement between UNUM Provident and the 23 States attorney generals over disability insurance claims practices, and the recent settlement with almost all the state AG's over improper mortgage forcelosures . In each case, the business or businesses get to pay the penalty or some portion of it, but save public face because the claims were settled without "any finding of wrongding on the part of the company/industry." The regulatory agency gets to discourage the behavior it is intended to discourage by pointing out that that industry had to pay a settlement (pour encourager les autres),and avoid the possibility fof something going wrong at trial.

 

In cases without criminal penalties,i.e. pure civil cases, The plaintiff usually signs an agreement with the stock phrasing that the settlement is to close "dubious and doubtful" claims agains the defendant. In most cases, the claims are neither dubious nor doubtful but allowing the defendat this fig-leaf is a price the plaintiff pays to get to a settlement. Settlements also usually contain ironclad confidentiality agreement that are entirely to the benefit oif the defendant.

 

Outside of plea bargains, one of the major atrtactions of settlement is to avoid a potential finding of guilt. Consquently, such settlements seldom iinclude one.

 

PS Im not sure that "business crime" is somehow different, or should be distinguished from "crime," The only difference I have seen is that its purportrators seem to expect better treatment and lighter sentences for a $1,000,000 mediacre fraud that that meted out for stealing $25 worth of goods from a supemarket (a felony in Oklahoma that carries carry jail time if you can't pay the fine ).

 

PPS: SORRY - NO SPELLCHECKER....MH

[milod]

Martin...

 

Actually you and I are saying the same thing from different directions.

 

I had hoped I had been sufficiently clear that this was not in the form of a plea bargain as is common in criminal cases, but was something else handled prior to anything having to do with guilt.

 

But... as long as there are "criminal penalties," I think we're still talking about what "we" have allowed to go into our federal and state law books as "criminal." That's certainly how people take it, not as "a regulatory agency's penalties for not doing what it thinks you should do according to their interpretations of their rules."

 

Yeah, I also agree with your suggestion that white collar crime and variations of regulatory transgressions that may have "criminal" penalties are in something of a gray area in treatment by various states' justice systems.

 

Although... I once lived in a town where there was a federal pen for mostly "white collar - nonviolent" criminals who really weren't bad folks - and proceeded to have a rather credible death threat from the pen for myself and spouse within a week of taking a job as a news guy. I decided not to ask to use their tennis courts.

 

<grin>

 

Seriously, you and I are "arguing" (as in a courtroom) from a degree of experience with the law, both criminal and civil, and the oddities of how processes work. You and I likely both consider such stuff great fun and would likely love doing so over a cup of coffee or extended dinner.

 

But I also have to be concerned with how people will translate it into what they believe they know from watching television "courtroom drama" or listening to pundits from both right and left ascribing guilt or innocence before even the half-truths of a courtroom are revealed.

 

Media representations today get me a bit frustrated because so few understand procedures and "news" coverage seems more a matter of asking people about how they feel as opposed to a precis of testimony and explanation of what comes next.

 

BTW, in this particular case I did in earlier stages have a bit of insight into the government side; there were strong, strong feelings there that aren't, IMHO, truly reflected in the agreement.

 

m

[MissouriPicker]

There's a place on the internet called Back Yard Music Banjos. He makes his banjos out of lightweight wood and paper and they only weigh 2-3 lbs.. So far, paper hasn't been banned. Maybe this is the way Gibson should go. Imagine the new Futuristic J45: selected hardwood neck, cardboard ebony-stained fretboard, rolled parchment sides and back, solid NY Times/KC Star top (buyer's choice), advanced "twig bracing." I almost know as much about making guitars as other people know about this legal situation and Henry J. And I know very little about making guitars.

 

BTW, Back Yard Music Banjos is a real place with real and different banjos. Haven't bought one, but I might. I like different kinds of guitars/banjos, etc.

[Guest farnsbarns]

There's a place on the internet called Back Yard Music Banjos. He makes his banjos out of lightweight wood and paper and they only weigh 2-3 lbs.. So far, paper hasn't been banned. Maybe this is the way Gibson should go. Imagine the new Futuristic J45: selected hardwood neck, cardboard ebony-stained fretboard, rolled parchment sides and back, solid NY Times/KC Star top (buyer's choice), advanced "twig bracing." I almost know as much about making guitars as other people know about this legal situation and Henry J. And I know very little about making guitars.

 

BTW, Back Yard Music Banjos is a real place with real and different banjos. Haven't bought one, but I might. I like different kinds of guitars/banjos, etc.

 

It's also known as richlite.

[martinh]

Martin...

 

 

Although... I once lived in a town where there was a federal pen for mostly "white collar - nonviolent" criminals who really weren't bad folks - and proceeded to have a rather credible death threat from the pen for myself and spouse within a week of taking a job as a news guy. I decided not to ask to use their tennis courts.

 

<grin>

 

m

 

 

[biggrin]

[milod]

Martin...

 

If you got a kick out of that, consider also then that the first adjutant general of the Oklahoma National Guard applied in secret for a pardon from the governor or Texas - given that he had escaped "justice" in Texas where he was held as a convicted robber. He became a Wyoming sheriff and deputy U.S. Marshal, too, before the appointment as adjutant general.

 

Life can be ... interesting.

 

The Wikipedia version of his life is, IMHO, somewhat inaccurate, but it does give a good concept of an interesting human being. When he was a sheriff, he was called to quell a riotous situation in a nearby town. Supposedly - and I believe it - when they heard he was en route, things got a bit more peaceful. <grin>

 

It's a life one can't imagine being duplicated today, but ... it was a better time for people to reinvent themselves in those days if they chose to be better than what they had been.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_M._Canton

 

m

[Thunderhorse71]

Martin...

 

If you got a kick out of that, consider also then that the first adjutant general of the Oklahoma National Guard applied in secret for a pardon from the governor or Texas - given that he had escaped "justice" in Texas where he was held as a convicted robber. He became a Wyoming sheriff and deputy U.S. Marshal, too, before the appointment as adjutant general.

 

Life can be ... interesting.

 

The Wikipedia version of his life is, IMHO, somewhat inaccurate, but it does give a good concept of an interesting human being. When he was a sheriff, he was called to quell a riotous situation in a nearby town. Supposedly - and I believe it - when they heard he was en route, things got a bit more peaceful. <grin>

 

It's a life one can't imagine being duplicated today, but ... it was a better time for people to reinvent themselves in those days if they chose to be better than what they had been.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_M._Canton

 

m

 

 

 

Indeed a better time. Sorry fellas...but I would have sided with the Natives during that time though.

 

Milod, what you said earlier about buying a Lakota head dress was interesting because if you go to gunshows throughout South Dakota, there are a ton of such items on display that have been handed down through time. Does a person have to show provonance on that stuff to display or are they always under the threat of confiscation? There is even human skin on display on occasion with no one speaking of it's origins.

[milod]

Wakinyan Tschunka?

 

(Sorry, my translating is horrid, but there was a Wankinyan Taschunka family translated as Thunder Horse. It also might be translated as "thunder-being (or bird) horse." I don't know if that's one of George Eastman's or not. Even now I see spelling variations)

 

Most of the more recent materials I've seen "on sale" at various places in South Dakota with L(D or N)akota materials have been far more modern and with turkey rather than eagle feathers. I've never seen personally, at gunshows or elsewhere, materials I'd question. Museums can bring points of dispute in this part of the country, especially since grandfather and great grandfathers' generations were there during huge changes. (My maternal grandfather was born 1873.)

 

I personally find it hard to believe, but some of the Wacipi dress I've seen the past 20-30 years have even had dayglow orange and pink feathers. It's fairly difficult to find quillwork and old style beadwork. The Sisseton-Wahpeton also had more of a forest style on that than the more geometrics I'm used to West River.

 

Even 50 years ago - I hate admitting I remember that far - the Gildersleeve store at Wounded Knee and similar places were swapping food and supplies for crafts of various sorts.

 

But I think even then, and at the short-lived Great Sioux Encampment at Wasta, most showpieces, even, weren't "old." But some gullible folks liked to think otherwise.

 

Then again, the 1890s through WWII, especially, were interesting times for people on and around the reservations. One might easily make a case on that up into the 1980s as well. The reservations remain still a difficult place to live in many ways.

 

But the various breakdowns of families and bands make following the politics difficult and frankly I think most "non-Indians" don't have a clue that such politics and family splits even exist.

 

Back to the artifacts... it seems to me that as long as real eagle feathers aren't involved, the provenance tends not to be a big deal any more than someone having materials from the early Hutterite colonies.

 

I've personally never seen or heard of human skin materials being sold at gun shows, although, although years ago I've been privileged to be at some seldom-seen Lakota ceremonies.

 

I've also seen a lot of bull-pookie sold, both in artifacts and in "oral history," that didn't exist.

 

As for questionable material at gun shows... as I say, I've not seen any. OTOH, some old timers can tell some stories and ... some may have some of their grandpa's stuff they shouldn't have.

 

m

[AXE®]

From the Horses" mouth.

 

http://youtu.be/u6uWYoKZd4c