Gibson raided by the feds:

[Lee Flier]

 

And after re-reading what I just wrote, it begs another question: How did these news organizations get the idea it was about the illegal harvesting of wood, anyway? I doubt it was from Gibson. Do they just make stuff up these days? Wouldn't surprise me...

 

 

I think it was a reasonable assumption, given that the main purpose and focus of the Lacey Act is to protect the illegal harvesting of wild plants and animals. Sure, they should have researched it further and realized that the Lacey Act does apply to other foreign laws governing export, having nothing to do with the environment. But they weren't exactly just making up that assumption out of thin air.

[The 615]

 

There's something here that just doesn't add up.

 

 

Yes it does!!! Gibson= Non union and the CEO is republican.

CF Martin and the others = UNION..

 

Follow the money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lee Flier]

My problem isn't that a raid on that level happened to a guitar company (although that certainly got my attention), but that it happened to a relatively small, easy-to-pick-on company. Gibson's a $500 million dollar company, which at least in my world is pretty huge. But compared to companies like GE, Halliburton (who frickin' electrocuted soldiers from faulty showers!), BP (which still hasn't paid the compensation they promised to people in the Gulf), and their ilk, Gibson would fit in their petty cash drawers, with plenty of room to spare. I don't recall seeing armies of Federal agents raiding BP to seize documents and find out the real story behind the Gulf oil spill, although maybe there was more important news that day...like Kim Kardashian walking her dog or something.

 

Completely agree with you there, and I've already said that I know other companies do this crap all the time and get away with it. And in fact it's a very common tactic for them to "set up" smaller competitors in that way. But it's also common for companies to use public sympathy as a shield when their back is against the wall - "Oh look, this could happen to you too" - when depending on the details of the case, maybe it really wouldn't. Again... we just don't know in this case.

[Lee Flier]

Yes it does!!! Gibson= Non union and the CEO is republican. CF Martin and the others = UNION..

 

Yeah. That must be it. Just like the oil companies.

[pinkfloydcramer61]

Why hasn't a judge slapped a restraining order on Henry J, to keep him from influencing public opinion with his rounds of interviews and press releases? Legal eagles, please explain..

[Lee Flier]

 

And where did we say Gibson was innocent? From our position paper:   "If the company knowingly imported endangered wood, they should be prosecuted under environmental laws."   "In the hours after the raid, our best guess was that there was probably some kind of technicality that was violated."   "However, while it

[pinkfloydcramer61]

Yeah. That must be it. Just like the oil companies.

 

If Gibson has been buying blanks the same way for years, 2/3rds finished (which has been, and AFAIK, is still enough to satisfy the Indian authorities in charge of enforcing their own country's laws), then the only thing that could have changed is the US' level of concern for Indian woodworkers (as evidenced by the Feds telling Henry J that his problems would go away if he outsourced more labor to India).

 

But WHY? What does the US stand to gain from that? Then look at the DOJ and NLLB's attempt to keep Boeing from relocating to a right-to-work state, and the current administration's stance on just about every other union vs non-union controversy.

 

Of course it would be WRONG for the government to put the screws to a company just because said company was either anti or pro-union, but that doesn't mean you should rule out that possibility. So while 615's comment is speculation, it is at least reasonable speculation IMO and hardly deserving of .

[Lee Flier]

 

If Gibson has been buying blanks the same way for years, 2/3rds finished (which has been, and AFAIK, is still enough to satisfy the Indian authorities in charge of enforcing their own country's laws), then the only thing that could have changed is the US' level of concern for Indian woodworkers (as evidenced by the Feds telling Henry J that his problems would go away if he outsourced more labor to India).

 

 

No, that is the point I've been making this whole time - that is NOT the only thing that has changed. Gibson is apparently being accused of falsifying documents - of saying that a shipment contains one type of wood (which happens not to be subject to restrictions) when it actually contained something else that was subject to restrictions.

 

And IF they actually, knowingly are doing that (which we don't know), then the feds have every right to have raided them. It's a bit like committing perjury - the offense itself may not be serious, but if you lie about it under oath or in legal documents, that is serious business.

 

Again, WE DON'T KNOW whether they actually did this, and I'm not trying to claim they did or didn't. But that is the actual accusation, and most of the media reports seem not even to mention this. It's all about "labor content" and "concern for Indian workers"... no it isn't.

[spokenward]

The US imports stuff. Some would say a ton. It's actually much more than that. (I'm pretty sure about this.)

 

Around 1998 there was an effort to simplify and automate processes.

 

A couple of statistical things had become apparent. While a very few hundred thousand entities might import something, more than 50% of the imports were done by the top 1000 importers.

 

The government set about simplifying and automating the reporting of customs entries. Business, especially big business, likes this.

 

It requires you to describe the goods that you are importing. Those descriptions are to be true, accurate, detailed and timely.

 

The benefits are reduced costs of handling, fewer delays for clearances, and faster availability of imported goods for resale or manufacturing. When the system works it is good for everybody in the chain. This informed compliance is intended to be a sort of "grown-up" process.

 

So, since the affidavit is linked now from the NYT in an earlier post we can compile a list of reasons why one particular entry was in for special scrutiny. Not selective enforcement, but scrutiny. When that scrutiny produced unsatisfactory flags it would have escalated because -

 

CBP already had an interest in Gibson's imports from an earlier contact. They would have more questions to answer if they did not proceed.

 

The reason why this would be a big ugly multi-agency raid is because that is the way this is set up now. CBP is now part of DHS (it was once Treasury). The investigation of the Lacey Act fell to FWS as part of the Department of the Interior and APHIS as part of the Department of Agriculture. One agency is responsible for wildlife and the other for plant health and import. The two agencies - FWS and APHIS have provided the rules and the scheduled phase-in of Lacey Act enforcement. The DOJ already had an interest because of the earlier investigation. The Inspector General of the USDA and the USFS can also join this enforcement party.

 

This whole Gibson-the victim approach seems to have taken our attention off the Bill that amended the Lacey Act and was reconciled by the Senate and the House. The purpose of the act was to reduce imports by making you ask more questions about your sources and what you really needed to import.

[Anderton]

 

I don't think I've ever seen HC publish a "position statement" all over the forums like this, and I just don't think it was a great idea to have done so in advance of knowing all the facts.

 

 

I believe the only way we're going to get all the facts is to bring attention to the situation - and we had plenty of facts to work with anyway, like the complete text of the affidavit to represent the Government's position, statements from Gibson that represented their position, and statements from environmental groups that commented on both positions.

 

 

It contains a number of statements which, as I've said, I think are misleading and certainly slanted in Gibson's favor, in spite of the statement that they should be prosecuted if they did knowingly import endangered wood. Saying you "have yet to see any evidence" isn't really saying anything

While we're on the subject of misleading, the COMPLETE sentence was "We have yet to see any evidence related to the recent raid that Gibson violated the letter or the spirit of environmental regulations intended to protect endangered species." The government hasn't made ANY charges that relate to the protection of endangered species (e.g., "Gibson knowingly brought in wood that is protected and was illegally harvested in defiance of that protection"). Nor have any environmental organizations lined up to say that Gibson has been importing illegal wood. Let me re-iterate that when this story broke, the assumption was that the raid related to harvesting of illegal wood. It didn't, it doesn't, and I truly doubt that it will.

 

What are we supposed to wait for before drawing a conclusion like that? The government saying "Oooops, we completely forgot to mention that Gibson has been harvesting illegal wood?" In this raid Gibson is accused of violating the Lacey Act, which involves much more than protecting illegal wood.

 

 

...because what evidence there is, other than the affidavit, hasn't been released yet.

The affidavit was the basis for the raid. That's all we have to go by, and it DOES NOT MENTION harvesting of illegal wood. Period. It mentions violations of import/export laws relating to labor content. That doesn't mean the law hasn't been violated. But there is NOTHING to indicate that laws about harvesting illegal wood were violated. Had there been, then I would think that would have been the government's strongest card to play if they wanted to sway public opinion in their favor, as well as truly impact the trade of prohibited materials (e.g., elephant tusks).

 

 

So it comes off to me as "painting Gibson as the innocent victim." Readers could easily interpret this statement to mean "we haven't seen any evidence and no charges have been filed; therefore there's a good chance they didn't actually do anything wrong." When all it really means is the investigation is still ongoing.

I'm not responsible for people not reading what was written. Those words were chosen very carefully, but if people don't want to read them carefully and instead read imaginary things between the lines, there's not much we can do about it.

 

Once more: I don't know whether or not Gibson did anything illegal. That is for a court of law to decide. But regarding this recent raid, I'm pretty sure they didn't harvest illegal wood, and I've seen no evidence from anyone that supports that contention.

 

 

Does it? That's just it: we don't know that.

Yes, we do. The government can enforce the Act the way they enforced it against Gibson, because they just did. Will they do it with others? That indeed we don't know, and that's why NAMM is seeking to open a dialog with Washington that clarifies the meaning and intention of the Lacey Act.

 

Please remember that we covered this issue LAST MAY, long before the whole Gibson flap, and warned that the act was so overreaching and poorly written that it was ripe for abuse. And now it's happened, three months later. We're not psychic; we drew logical conclusions.

 

 

And again, this is a completely typical tactic used by many companies: try to minimize and blur the differences between their case and a more typical case, in order to undermine legislation that they don't like.

Then in that case, I guess that as a Big Guitar Manufacturer, Harmony Central was trying to undermine the legislation last May.

 

 

Even if Gibson themselves aren't doing that, you can bet other companies are going to seize on this opportunity in order to weaken Lacey and similar legislation, and that's why we have to be extremely careful in the way we represent what actually happened to Gibson and which Lacey amendments need to be addressed, and how they are addressed.

That is why we are supporting NAMM, and that's why I wrote all my representatives about the need to clarify the Lacey Act before we start seeing raids on Guitar Center. Or your Les Pauls taken away from you. Obviously, I absolutely do not have a problem minimizing the negative environmental impact of manufacturing musical instruments - nor does Harmony Central, as stated in the Dear Musician editorial in issue 132 of the newsletter (and the position paper states "Regardless of the heavy-handed nature of the raid on Gibson, if the company knowingly imported endangered wood, they should be prosecuted under environmental laws") - but I do have a problem will ill-defined and poorly-written laws. But don't take my word, or Gibson's, about that: Take NAMM's, which has really studied this issue as it affects the everyday life of all their members, including mom and pop stores that could be ruined if the Lacey Act is selectively enforced.

 

Don't focus exclusively on Gibson. They're just the canary in the coal mine.

 

 

I think that HC's decision to take such a strong stand in the specific case of Gibson was a bit premature and it surprised me.

If you're happy with armed Feds coming in and treating American workers as if they're narco-terrorists, based on an affidavit that has nothing to do with violating laws that protect the harvesting of illegal woods, that's fine. But, I think it's also fine that I'm not happy with it.

 

I just can't help but feel you read that position paper with preconceptions. As we said in the second paragraph: "The reason we must speak out is that regardless of how anyone feels about Gibson, its guitars, its pricing, etc., this issue goes well beyond a single company to something that can potentially affect virtually all retailers, suppliers, sellers, and buyers (yes, even you) in the music industry."

 

That's why we covered this subject last May. And that's why we'll continue to cover this developing story, until we can rest assured that the next time you go into Guitar Center to buy strings there won't be armed Federal agents pulling guitars off wall without good reason, and that Chuck Surack won't be hauled off to jail for sending "tainted" guitars of which he had no knowledge across state lines. Extreme? Maybe. But I think the raid was extreme.

 

No, I don't think America is a police state. But as the British politician Leonard H. Courtney said, "There is an imperialism that deserves all honor and respect

[Lee Flier]

 

While we're on the subject of misleading, the COMPLETE sentence was "We have yet to see any evidence related to the recent raid that Gibson violated the letter or the spirit of environmental regulations intended to protect endangered species." The government hasn't made ANY charges that relate to the protection of endangered species (e.g., "Gibson knowingly brought in wood that is protected and was illegally harvested in defiance of that protection"). Nor have any environmental organizations lined up to say that Gibson has been importing illegal wood.

 

 

I know that. But my point is that the actual accusation against them has nothing to do with the illegal harvesting of wood. That is fine for you to clarify this point, but it doesn't mean Gibson hasn't done anything wrong, and I believe a reader could easily come away with that impression.

 

 

Let me re-iterate that when this story broke, the assumption was that the raid related to harvesting of illegal wood. It didn't, it doesn't, and I truly doubt that it will.

 

 

Me too. And I think it wasn't an unfair assumption given the nature of the Lacey Act. But once the facts came to light, the responsible thing to do would be to say "It doesn't look like the government thinks Gibson has been harvesting illegal wood, BUT that doesn't mean they're completely innocent either, and here are the actual charges." I'm not seeing that last point. That is, I'm seeing a lot of statements about Indian labor laws and nothing about the falsification of documents charge. I consider that a serious charge because if companies are allowed to get away with that, it will undermine the spirit of the Lacey Act.

 

I'll reiterate again that I have no idea if Gibson is guilty of the charge. I'm just disappointed that the media haven't been more responsible in reporting all of the facts.

 

 

I'm not responsible for people not reading what was written. Those words were chosen very carefully, but if people don't want to read them carefully and instead read imaginary things between the lines, there's not much we can do about it.

 

 

Sure there is - you can report the entirety of the accusations against them, not just selected ones.

 

 

Yes, we do. The government can enforce the Act the way they enforced it against Gibson, because they just did.

 

 

Did WHAT? Busted them for something that, maybe, they are doing wrong (falsifying documents) and other companies and individuals are not doing wrong and therefore would be in no danger of having the same thing happen. We just don't know yet.

 

 

Will they do it with others? That indeed we don't know, and that's why NAMM is seeking to open a dialog with Washington that clarifies the meaning and intention of the Lacey Act.

 

 

And I applaud that.

 

 

Don't focus exclusively on Gibson. They're just the canary in the coal mine.

 

 

I'm not focused exclusively on Gibson, and I've said repeatedly that I agree there are numerous problems with the recent amendments to the Lacey Act. ALL I'm saying is that it's a very common tactic for companies to put up a smokescreen around their own wrongdoings by equating their situation to other companies who actually haven't done what they have. And we need to be VERY careful about the way we approach any dialog with Washington because it's imperative that we change anything that needs to be changed without actually weakening the Act in favor of big business. This is something that has happened over and over again with all sorts of legislation and that is why I'm so adamant that this case not be misrepresented in any way.

 

 

If you're happy with armed Feds coming in and treating American workers as if they're narco-terrorists, based on an affidavit that has nothing to do with violating laws that protect the harvesting of illegal woods, that's fine.

 

 

I'm not happy with it and again, that's an unfair characterization of my position. My position is very nuanced, and it needs to be.

 

 

I just can't help but feel you read that position paper with preconceptions.

 

 

If I have a preconception, it's what I said above: that this is not a black and white issue and that it's dangerous to characterize it that way. I don't believe your paper adequately addressed the possibility that Gibson actually did something wrong, even though it had nothing to do with their harvesting illegal wood. For that reason, the emphasis on "harvesting illegal wood" and "Indian labor laws" comes off as a smokescreen to me. The Lacey violation is not the only violation cited in the affidavit and the Title 18 violation is never even mentioned.

 

 

That's why we covered this subject last May. And that's why we'll continue to cover this developing story, until we can rest assured that the next time you go into Guitar Center to buy strings there won't be armed Federal agents pulling guitars off wall without good reason, and that Chuck Surack won't be hauled off to jail for sending "tainted" guitars of which he had no knowledge across state lines. Extreme? Maybe. But I think the raid was extreme.

 

 

Again... although we can be quite sure that Gibson wasn't harvesting illegal wood, we can't be sure they didn't commit any other offenses, and falsifying documents is serious business. IF that's what they did, and/or the government had pretty compelling evidence that they were doing this, then the raid wasn't quite so extreme. And it wouldn't, in fact, happen to most of those other people you mentioned.

 

So... all we can do in this case is wait and see whether the government does, in fact, have a case against them beyond "illegal harvesting of wood" or "Indian labor law violations" and we won't know that for awhile. That doesn't mean we can't focus on the broader impact of the Lacey amendments and get more clarification from Washington. We just need to keep a sharp eye on what is proposed, and by whom, and that's where I think that the Gibson case currently is muddying the waters.

 

 

We need to be vigilant. The time to put on the brakes is before the car crashes.

 

 

Couldn't agree more. We just seem to have slightly different ideas about how to be vigilant, and at whom to direct our vigilance. I believe we need to approach the bigger MI players' intentions and actions with the same skepticism that we approach the governments'.

[Anderton]

 

I know that. But my point is that the actual accusation against them has nothing to do with the illegal harvesting of wood. That is fine for you to clarify this point, but it doesn't mean Gibson hasn't done anything wrong, and I believe a reader could easily come away with that impression.

 

 

I don't know how to make it any clearer than "However, while it

[Anderton]

Oh, and regarding not mentioning things...there's LOTS we didn't mention. Several media outlets made a big deal of the CEO being a Republican donor, Tennessee being a right-to-work state, that if the wood had been finished by Indian workers instead of Americans it wouldn't have been an issue, there was coercion to use workers from Madagascar...blah blah blah. I didn't think those had much to do with the environmental angle, and that those kind of conspiracy theories distracted from the real issues.

[pinkfloydcramer61]

No, that is the point I've been making this whole time - that is NOT the only thing that has changed. Gibson is apparently being accused of falsifying documents - of saying that a shipment contains one type of wood (which happens not to be subject to restrictions) when it actually contained something else that was subject to restrictions.

And I'm just saying that something changed, in the Fed's collective mindset, BEFORE the bust, which caused the bust itself. My chicken is your egg. But I will grant you that I am speculating, and that it is easier to read an affidavit than a massive government's collective mind.

I find it hard to believe that "6mm vs 10mm" and "veneer vs solid" amounts to much of anything (especially if some of the blanks in the same shipment were labelled correctly), that discrepancies of that nature are particularly rare, and that their discovery (either bust) was what set these events in motion. But what do I know? ..Hell, I don't even re-package wiki!

I'm bowing out of the Gibson threads for awhile, bye!

[Ernest Buckley]

There are already several threads about this, but I'll add my voice: This is ridiculous. Gibson was raided in 2009 and no charges were ever filed. The fact that the agents were armed is absurd - what were they expecting, people attaching nuts to necks to pull out AK47s and start a firefight? What's more, like in 2009, Gibson has not been charged with wrongdoing. Regardless of your opinions regarding Gibson, IMHO this is outrageous. If we don't fight this now, then the next time you take your guitar across state lines and you don't have paperwork PROVING that all the materials in it are legal, expect to have it confiscated.

Thats why I only buy Epiphone.

Seriously, this is truly crazy. Times are so tough for the government, they are auditing the entire middle class and going after companies like Gibson... big but not too big.

[Lee Flier]

I don't know how to make it any clearer than "However, while it

[Zooey]

There must be some fans of Oberheim and Opcode working at the Justice Department.

[Anderton]

Well here's the other thing: while your statement is true regarding the most recent (2011) raid and the shipment of Indian rosewood that was seized in Dallas, it is not true of the 2009 bust, in which it is alleged that Gibson knew it was buying endangered ebony from Madagascar, which is illegal to export. And again, although "no charges have been filed" in that case, the investigation is still ongoing and a motion was just filed by the DOJ in June of this year, alleging that Gibson did know the Madagascar wood was endangered. http://news.mongabay.com/2011/0706-ebony_gibson.html So it seems that the media are currently reporting on two separate incidents (seeing as the '09 thing is still ongoing) and one of them does, in fact, have to do with violating the intent of the Lacey Act. So again, it's kind of misleading to isolate the 2011 raid.

 

Well, the 2011 raid is all we're talking about. I don't know enough about the 2009 raid to comment on it, but based on the very limited research I've done, it's an incredibly complex situation because there had been a coup and the government itself was considered illegal, so buying from government authorized channels would be illegal...or maybe not...the 2009 thing makes my head explode, so I'll just wait to see what the courts say about that one.

 

And, as I've already said multiple times, I support any effort to clarify these things.

 

Now would be an excellent time to write your representatives about this while we have their attention, and reference NAMM's desire to clarify the Lacey Act.

 

Ummm... that kind of stuff most certainly does still go on, and when I was younger I quite often put myself in the middle of it. I'm pretty intimately familiar with the {censored}ed up things the government often does, and has done in the recent past. You don't have to go back to the 60s for that. However, I've seen just as much abuse of power happen in the name of private industry.

Very, very, very true.

 

So it really has to be taken on a case by case basis and neither "the government is evil" or "industry is evil" is true as a blanket statement. They both do evil things in some cases and good things in some cases. Whether the government or Gibson or both acted immorally or illegally in this particular case, we do not know yet, and my point is that certain things that have been trumpeted by the media have been misleading or at least premature.

Like this?

 

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1147697313001/gibson-guitars-raid-and-fallout-over-illegal-wood/

 

That was posted TODAY, it's not a week or two old. Think there's an agenda?

 

I know, and I really sympathize with that concern. But on the flipside, if the rainforests go away, so do we all. If instrument makers or anybody else really are buying gray market hardwoods, or falsifying documents to get around export restrictions, then we have a problem that goes beyond our collective love of fine wooden instruments. So it's important to make sure they are not doing that, and that no other company gets the idea that they can do that and get away with it.

Agreed. The only thing I'd add to that is that I would put export restrictions on labor content for wood that is not endangered in a very different category than export restrictions on illegally-harvested wood, which it looks like could be the crux of this situation.

 

I kinda think we're doomed anyway...one or two more Fukushimas, and that's all she wrote. I do hope this whole focus on wood and rainforests also brings attention to the plight of "non-glamorous" rainforests in temperate zones, like in British Columbia, that don't have cute little furry animals and pretty flowers. They're just as important but people don't seem to be paying much attention.

[Beck]

The rainforest and other environmental considerations are not at issue here. It

[Anderton]

The rainforest and other environmental considerations are not at issue here. It

[Lee Flier]

Well, the 2011 raid is all we're talking about. I don't know enough about the 2009 raid to comment on it, but based on the very limited research I've done, it's an incredibly complex situation because there had been a coup and the government itself was considered illegal, so buying from government authorized channels would be illegal...or maybe not...the 2009 thing makes my head explode, so I'll just wait to see what the courts say about that one.

 

Me too, but all I'm saying is that the media haven't been completely out of line in reporting that Gibson is suspected of importing endangered wood - they could be referring to the 2009 case, which is still ongoing and for which a motion was recently filed.

 

Now would be an excellent time to write your representatives about this while we have their attention, and reference NAMM's desire to clarify the Lacey Act.

 

And I certainly will do that!

 

Like this? http://video.foxnews.com/v/1147697313001/gibson-guitars-raid-and-fallout-over-illegal-wood/ That was posted TODAY, it's not a week or two old. Think there's an agenda?

 

Well of course there is. All I'm saying is the MI appear to be reporting this with an agenda, too, and I think it's important not to do that.

 

Agreed. The only thing I'd add to that is that I would put export restrictions on labor content for wood that is not endangered in a very different category than export restrictions on illegally-harvested wood, which it looks like could be the crux of this situation.

 

In the 2011 case, yes. And morally, you're right that labor content falls into a different category. Legally, though, the Lacey Act as it stands now says it doesn't, so it doesn't. And even if the Lacey Act didn't exist, there would probably still be something in our legal code that says we have to respect other countries export laws when we import from them - I mean, duh. So if there was falsification of paperwork going on, to get around the labor content restrictions, the government can't just look the other way on that. Because somebody - not necessarily Gibson, but somebody - will say "oh look, all Gibson got was a slap on the wrist for falsifying import documents!" and then we're completely screwed.

 

It is also very likely that once international treaties like this were signed, many countries (maybe even us) started scrambling to introduce labor content provisions into their export laws so they could corner some labor markets for their own people. So there's that.

 

There are also other advantages, including environmental ones, to not exporting raw lumber. For one thing, if you finish wood products locally, you get to keep the byproducts, such as wood chips and sawdust, which can be used to make other products (like veneer and particle board) that not only represent more income but are also more environmentally friendly than either discarding the wood or harvesting more virgin wood to make things that can be made from wood byproducts. Plus, fingerboards and guitar bodies (and any other solid wood products) that are already at least roughly cut out weigh less than raw lumber, which reduces shipping weight and volume. So it does make a certain amount of sense to have at least the rough cuts made by local labor - and since we can't grow rosewood or ebony in the U.S., that may mean the locals get to do the first part of the job. Hopefully we have similar laws in place when other countries buy our maple, cedar, redwood, poplar, etc.

 

I kinda think we're doomed anyway...one or two more Fukushimas, and that's all she wrote. I do hope this whole focus on wood and rainforests also brings attention to the plight of "non-glamorous" rainforests in temperate zones, like in British Columbia, that don't have cute little furry animals and pretty flowers. They're just as important but people don't seem to be paying much attention.

 

Yeah.. actually they do have cute little furry animals and pretty flowers, but people often take for granted what's in their own back yards. Temperate forests are both beautiful and necessary to our survival like like tropical ones.

[Huh?]

This thing is all over Fox News.

Check this out.....Henry is going to Obama's job speech and is sitting in Boehner's box.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1148107208001/white-house-goes-after-gibson/?playlist_id=86858

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1147697313001/gibson-guitars-raid-and-fallout-over-illegal-wood/?playlist_id=86858

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1139489818001/gibson-guitar-ceo-dont-know-why-were-targeted

[Anderton]

 

So if there was falsification of paperwork going on, to get around the labor content restrictions, the government can't just look the other way on that.

 

 

Here's the latest info I've found:

 

There was a discrepancy in the import of this latest shipment of wood. It was listed with an improper tariff code, which the importer, Luthiers Mercantile International of Windsor, Calif., claimed was a clerical error by a junior employee and tried to clear up. But rather than talk to the importer and Gibson about it, the Justice Department dispatched U.S. Fish and Wildlife and DHS agents to raid the Gibson compounds.

[Huh?]

I am inclined to go with......there was indeed a clerical error......but it was just an excuse to dispatch the Woodstapo.......because HJ is a Republican and makes sizeable contributions to republican candidates and also because Gibson is a non-union shop. They wanted to give them a spanking in public. There is also the fact that this administration wants to ship work out of the country. It's all a part of their effort to destroy life in this country as we know it. Spread the wealth around, open the borders, collapse the economy, destroy the values this country was built on, traditions, over regulate the {censored} out of everything....{censored}....yada yada yada....it nakes me sick! We better watch out and pay attention or we are all going to be forced to call each other Comrade pretty soon.


Did you know his nibs was at Gibson the day of the raid?

Here he is sneaking out the back way with his schwag! Something to keep in the Beast or Air Force 1, so he can jam out whenever.



LOL!!

[Visconti]

When is John M. Rayfield going to file charges against Gibson?

Rayfield has had the ebony and rosewood for 2 years and now the new raid on Gibson the other day.

Is Rayfield waiting on DNA analysis? The OJ Simpson case took less than 2 years and that was a lot of evidence.

This is about some stupid wood that grows in abundance. The wood is like plywood to India and Madagascar.

I have a feeling this Rayfield is a wannabe somebody. He's probably a complete dork and he thought he would go after Gibson Guitars and make a name for himself. It could have been political, I don't know, but there will have to be a complete investigation to find out if it was political.

Rayfield is hated by thousands of guitar builders all around the world and he will lose to Gibson.

Gibson should sue Rayfield and F&W for $100 million dollars for what they have done to their good name.

John M. Rayfield should lose his job and he should be cleaning toilets for living because he abused his power.