More on the Gibson raid

[Dave W]

Little doubt that was behind their justification for the raid, it's their common practice now instead of issuing subpoenas. But IMHO it wasn't needed here and isn't needed except in extreme cases.

Another thing to keep in mind here is that the feds didn't know Gibson was involved here until they contacted LMII -- which was after the shipment was intercepted.

[uwe]

Gibson's official site is one untidy, unkempt affair and as an illogical as an outdated place. And a typo howler such as this one on their raid "defense" site has me gasping for air.

"Gibson Employee Fearful that Government Raids will Effect Jobs."

Sic!

Maybe that is not quite what they meant. Maybe they did not want to say that Fed raids effect new jobs. Maybe they wanted to use the word "affect", but who knows? This has been up since August, it's inexcuseable to let a gaffe such as this stand as long uncorrected. Utterly unprofessional.

Reminds me of a former senator and vice-president who was "not Jack Kennedy" and how he heralded that American families needed more "bondage" when he meant bonding. Speak English please. Or shut the f*** up.

Uwe

[Pilgrim]

The Engrich, badly she is mangled, no?

[Dave W]

I just looked at Gibson's statements on their site. I'm not surprised at the exaggerations, but this bullshit lie really gets me:

“The Federal Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. has suggested that the use of wood from India that is not finished by Indian workers is illegal, not because of U.S. law, but because it is the Justice Department’s interpretation of a law in India. (If the same wood from the same tree was finished by Indian workers, the material would be legal.) This action was taken without the support and consent of the government in India.”

In fact, they didn't suggest any such thing. In fact, they said that Gibson got an export permit by falsely certifying to India that they were exporting finished products. BIG difference.

What F&W seized were unfinished roughsawn boards which they say Gibson had told India were finished products and then told US Customs were (unfinished) veneer.

And Gibson is omitting many more details about the allegations.

Now, if Gibson was being honest about what was being alleged, and had evidence to refute F&W's statement that India has a moratorium on the export of rough boards, then I might decide that F&W could be wrong. But when I see Gibson deliberately misrepresenting what happened, I have to conclude the opposite.

[999]

Mother Jones was being more than a little hyperbolic; they're the left's equivalent to the Wall Street Journal and Faux News.

My point was not the article itself, it was the DOJ/DOI letter that it linked to.
Interesting to me was that letter specifically denies use of SWAT or similar tactical teams re: Gibson - while this has been the characterization (often with the obligatory Nazi references) and de facto perception by many (an at least equally reactionary version here: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/278379/gibson-raid-much-fret-about-pat-nolan?page=1 ) but also in less obviously political coverage. This made me think that I had, in fact, seen no evidence of SWAT personnel, gear, helmets, flak jackets or weapons beyond standard side arms (all the photos showing the investigation team seem to support DOJ/DOI's assertion), and realize that the only evidence I am aware of are Henry J's assertions (hardly a disinterested source - and, yes, one could say the same for DOJ/DOI) and that of those repeating him. I could be wrong - and am not really arguing that there were no SWAT teams - only that there seems to be a conspicuous lack of evidence beyond hearsay for something that many are throwing around as absolute fact - especially in an age when everyone has instant photo/video capacity - and it is certainly possible I've missed something that would back up Henry's version.

I do think the virtue of the Media Matters piece is that it is non-hyperbolic, well researched and substantiated.

[Psycho Bass Guy]

My point was not the article itself, it was the DOJ/DOI letter that it linked to.

..and I was just addressing Uwe's comment that was obviously informed by the Mother Jones article. Unlike their conservative counterparts, the folks at Mother Jones have a sense of humor and sometimes use their hyperbole jokingly, and I just wanted to make it clear to him that calling Henry the 'darling of the Tea Party' was a half-joke in case he wasn't familiar with the source.

Interesting to me was that letter specifically denies use of SWAT or similar tactical teams re: Gibson - while this has been the characterization (often with the obligatory Nazi references) and de facto perception by many (an at least equally reactionary version here: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/278379/gibson-raid-much-fret-about-pat-nolan?page=1 ) but also in less obviously political coverage. This made me think that I had, in fact, seen no evidence of SWAT personnel, gear, helmets, flak jackets or weapons beyond standard side arms (all the photos showing the investigation team seem to support DOJ/DOI's assertion), and realize that the only evidence I am aware of are Henry J's assertions (hardly a disinterested source - and, yes, one could say the same for DOJ/DOI) and that of those repeating him. I could be wrong - and am not really arguing that there were no SWAT teams - only that there seems to be a conspicuous lack of evidence beyond hearsay for something that many are throwing around as absolute fact - especially in an age when everyone has instant photo/video capacity - and it is certainly possible I've missed something that would back up Henry's version.

The audience for the "SWAT team" comment is the same people who believe Obama is a muslim socialist hell bent on destroying the country. Facts are immaterial to them.

[999]

..and I was just addressing Uwe's comment that was obviously informed by the Mother Jones article. Unlike their conservative counterparts, the folks at Mother Jones have a sense of humor and sometimes use their hyperbole jokingly, and I just wanted to make it clear to him that calling Henry the 'darling of the Tea Party' was a half-joke in case he wasn't familiar with the source.

The audience for the "SWAT team" comment is the same people who believe Obama is a muslim socialist hell bent on destroying the country. Facts are immaterial to them.

Agree and agree.

[uwe]

Looking at the fretboard material on Gibson's latest bass releases, the raid was - in education, training and betterment terms - a huge success for F&W, no doubt. And Gibson proved surprisingly agile. Under pressure. Doodooduhduh doodooduhduhduh ...

[Freuds_Cat]

     


               

[ramone57]

stumbled onto this related article

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20111008/ARTICLES/111009532?p=1&tc=pg

[Dave W]

stumbled onto this related article

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20111008/ARTICLES/111009532?p=1&tc=pg

Other letters from the Indian government say that the wood the shipment did contain — ebony fingerboards — was legal to export from India.


They still don't seem to get it.

The feds allege the approval was given because the shipment was certified to the Indian government as finished goods, which would be legal, while what they seized was rough sawn boards, which they allege are not legal.

It just floors me that this is so hard to follow for so many people. We don't know if the allegations are true, but we do know what the allegations are.

[Psycho Bass Guy]

To those with passing to marginal interest in the Gibson name and even less familiarity with its business practices, it's easy for Henry to make the 'Pollyanna argument' sound legit; the brand supercedes the facts, just like in a celebrity criminal trial.

[the mojo hobo]

Chuck Norris weighs in: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=353865

I think I see a gray area here. What are finished goods? If Gibson built cars and the hoods or doors had to come from another country would they be classified as finished goods, or because they needed to be fit and finished would they be raw materials?

From Wikipedia: "Finished good" is a relative term. Finished goods of a supplier can be the raw material of the buyer. For example when the supplier sells paper and the buyer is a book publisher.

Could peices of wood the size of a fretboard be classified as finished product? I think so.

[Dave W]

That's the big question, Fish & Wildlife says no. It isn't clearly defined, though.

It is a relative term. Think about this: you want to put up some shelves. You can go your home improvement store and buy wood shelving in the widths and lengths you need, or you can go to your lumber yard and buy roughsawn 4/4 stock and make your own. The shelving at Menard's or Home Depot isn't finished and isn't made into a bookcase, etc. but it's definitely a manufactured product -- it's been ripped, jointed, planed and trimmed to length in a factory. So it's considered finished goods. OTOH I don't see how you can consider the roughsawn boards to be finished. The only processing that's been done on them is the saw marks from where the log was cut up.

Make sense?

[uwe]

I believe Gibson knows the difference between a finished fretboard piece and a slab of rosewood or ebony which can bee sawn into fretboards. Or should know it.

And give me a break, Gibson Inc is not "a small business". They are a century old company with an upmarket product sold internationally, headed and owned by investment bankers for the last 25 years, worldwide sales in the hundreds of millions and a workforce of no less than 2.800. That doesn't make it GE, GM, Apple or Microsoft, but one of the giants in the music market, only Fender is larger in the US. They are a mid-sized company, nothing less. Henry J, however, acts as if the Feds led him out of the carpentry in a leather apron while he was honing maho necks ...

And another thing: The confiscated wood has a value of only 200,000 USD, while that is money too, Gibson probably saws up guitars and basses in excess value every month for not meeting their standards.