Posted on 08/29/2011 12:09:44 PM PDT by Shout Bits
Last week, Gibson Guitar made the news as armed agents of the Division of Fish and Wildlife raided its factories in Tennessee. The gist of the federal complaint is that Gibson may have violated the laws of Madagascar and India by importing only partially finished guitar components and then further processing the materials with US labor. The 'may' qualifier refers to the fact that the multi-year investigation has yielded no charges whatsoever against Gibson. Whatever the specious merits of the government's investigation, the broader lesson is that federal regulatory authority is so expansive and vague, it enables corrupt bureaucrats to intimidate and punish nearly any honest business that falls under Washington's crosshairs.
It's worth mentioning that Gibson is a successful domestic manufacturer that employs hundreds of people that would normally work overseas. Musical instruments are a labor intensive product, and Gibson could easily reduce its costs by moving its operations to Asia. Like a few iconic brands like Harley Davidson, Gibson trades on its reputation for quality by maintaining US operations. To many professional musicians, Gibson is synonymous with guitars, the USA, and quality. While the US is losing its manufacturing base, especially where labor is a dominant component, Gibson has found a way to prosper, and provide employment to Americans.
Rather than thanking Gibson for its entrepreneurial spirit and being an ambassador for the US everywhere guitars are played, the Obama Administration has used a book of dirty tricks to stymie Gibson. Gibson's factories were raided two years ago, when government agents seized valuable inventory, yet the government never brought charges and refused to explain why it was still keeping Gibson's property. When Gibson sued the Federal Government for its right to private property, the Obama Administration responded with last week's new raid. One theory posits that Gibson is being targeted for retribution after it moved its factories from union friendly Michigan to right-to-work Tennessee – just as Boeing is being sued for opening a factory in South Carolina.
The government's motivation to punish a US manufacturer for using small amounts of rare woods is open only to speculation, but its tactics are textbook. Unlike any other litigant, the government has enormous advantages when it sets it sights on a victim. The government can confiscate any property it wishes without probable cause, as Gibson has learned. Such victims must sue to prove their innocence, which can take years. Meanwhile, the government's victim may not be able to continue to earn the profits required to defend itself. The government may time its action to inflict the most damage, as it did with Boeing by suing the airplane manufacturer only after it had invested $750mm in a new factory. Worst of all, the government frequently sidesteps or simply ignores court orders to cease its abuses.
The Gibson story is not a unique case of the government's capricious attitude toward the rights of businesses. There are so many laws and regulations that any company can become entangled in the web of a crafty bureaucrat. The Gibson abuses call for serious regulatory reform, and Shout Bits has a few ideas to start the process: 1.Congress should pass a law that requires agencies that seize property to either file a complaint against the alleged violator or return the property within 90 days. This is clearly the intent of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, but somehow the Executive Branch does not read the Constitution honestly. 2.Pres. Obama should issue an executive order stating that companies, such as Gibson, that have longstanding non-violent histories may not be subject to violent military-style raids. One of the government's dirty tricks is to raid the offices of mid-level managers with guns drawn, as was the case with Gibson. This tactic is nothing more than violent intimidation designed to coerce disclosure without the trouble of subpoenas or Miranda rights. The US does not need to resort to Stasi tactics to protect rosewood trees. 3.Congress should pass a law requiring agencies to publish safe harbor standards for its regulations. Even if Gibson is somehow guilty of misusing rare woods, the Government has never stated how Gibson could legally obtain and use these essential materials. As with many regulations, Gibson is forced to guess what procedures might comply with an ever shifting government interpretation of the law. On its face, the lack of known compliance standards is arbitrary and capricious, as that allows bureaucrats to upend decades old practices without warning.
Of course real Washington reform can only come from denying rogue agencies the free-time to concoct novel prosecutorial theories such as Gibson's reworking of fret-board wood as a violation of Indian law, or Crocs claim that its shoes are anti-microbial as a violation of pesticide laws. A Congressman needs to ask these would-be Napoleons 'by how much do we need to cut your budget for these abuses to stop?'
When you made that statement, did you have any source - any at all - for that, other than Gibson's press release?
I said, and I quote "I don't know that it's a black-and-white case that Gibson "legally imported" the Madagascar Rosewood seized in the first raid."
When you made the statement, did you know about the internal email saying "all legal timber and wood exports [from Madagacar] are prohibited."
When you made the statement, did you know that Gibson's ebony came into New Jersey without listing the country of origin on the paperwork?
When you made the statement, did you know the ebony was missing the Lacey tag as required by law?
When you made the statement, did you know the Madagascar government in charge at the time didn't authorize Gibson's source to deal in anything other than finished ebony products?
If you did, then how can you state that Gibson "legally imported" the Madagascar Rosewood seized in the first raid without any doubt?
If you didn't, then why were you making black and white statements without beginning to know the facts?
I'll say it again: "I don't know that it's a black-and-white case that Gibson "legally imported" the Madagascar Rosewood seized in the first raid."
Please. I love my Gibson electrics. I love my Gibson acoustic guitars. I love my Gibson F-5 mandolin. I love my Gibson banjos. How do you know that Gibson "legally imported" the Madagascar Rosewood seized in the first raid?
I know that most American businesses honestly try to comply with laws and regulations, despite Hollywood portrayals.
I know that when a regulatory regime is new or newly expanded, compliance is difficult because getting the correct information is often difficult to obtain or non existent, often because businesses are required to comply before the regulatory agency has decided what that means or how it will look (or they change their minds five times).
I know that when a prosecutor dicks around for more than a year without filing charges that they don’t have squat.
I know that when you request return of evidence or seized materials and the government responds with a bull shit raid that odds are high that theft/corruption has occurred and they are in panic CYA mode.
I know that Leviathan is out of control and the burden is on the government to prove it’s case, not on Gibson to prove it’s innocence.
Although I’m willing to consider the possibility that this whole mess was caused by an ignorant and inexperienced gov’t functionary assuming that “grey market” was a euphemism for “black market” instead of a legitimate business term.
I’m curious though as to why you are shilling so hard for the DOJ. Do you work there (and are you wasting my tax dollar)?
Lennon, Harrison, and McCartney played Epiphone Casinos. The guitar was very similar to the Gibson ES-330, but it was called a "Casino.".
Most of the guitars in Gibson's ES line had a matching Epiphone that used the same "ES" model name; the Casino didn't and (trivia fact) was the only Epiphone in the Gibson/Eiphone semi-hollow body line where the Epiphone was the higher-quality and more expensive guitar in the 1960s.
McCartney bought his Casino in 1964 at the same time he bought his Ephiphone Texan, the acoustic on which he wrote and recorded "Yesterday."
McCartney's been quoted as saying that if he could have only one electric guitar, it would be an Epiphone Casino.
In December of 1965, George Harrison and John Lennon each got an Epiphone Casino. Harrison's had a factory Bigsby tremelo; Lennon's came with standard trapeze. For reasons nobody's ever been able to explain, Lennon's came with a black grommet around the tone selector switch.
Lennon eventually gave up his Rickenbacker 325c58 and used the Casino as his main guitar.
After the Beatles went to India, Lennon came back and sanded the sunburst finish off his Casino, taking it down to bare wood. That's the Casino most people remember, from the rooftop concert and the movie "Let It Be."
Lennon (and Harrison) each also owned a Gibson J-160e, and Harrison owned a Gibson J-200. On the electric side, Harrison owned an SG as well as a Les Paul ("Lucy") that Eric Clapton gave to him.
Thanks for the research, Scoutmaster.
I'm the owner of twelve Gibson products. This - Gibson, Gibson's CEO, the first raid, the status of the litigation, the emails, the woods involved, the political situation in Madagascar, the fact that goods can be seized as "contraband" and the government doesn't have to bring suit (think of a state trooper catching you with out-of-state liquor, where that's illegal, and simply confiscating it) - were all things that I knew something about. Am I an expert? Heck, no. Is it apparent from posts that I knew more about the back story that most people. Well, yes. Which is why I say it's not black-and-white certain to me that Gibson legally imported its Madagascar Ebony.
Out of all the things you 'know,' I noticed you didn't answer my question about how you 'know' that Gibson's import of Madagascar Ebony was legal.
As for your statement:
Although I’m willing to consider the possibility that this whole mess was caused by an ignorant and inexperienced gov’t functionary assuming that “grey market” was a euphemism for “black market” instead of a legitimate business term.
My guess is that the government didn't have a single email from Gibson until after it raided Gibson the first time and took computers.
One thing is, Epiphone often makes several different qualities of the same type. Not sure what model you have, but some are indeed not so good. For example, the SG style has 3 different versions. The G400 is basically a copy of the Gibson SG, with set neck, trapazoid inlays, seperate controls for each pickup and quality Alinco pickups. The G300 is the same electronics, but they save money using a bolt on neck and dot inlays. I recently owned one for about a week, and it was pretty nice. Then they have the Special model, with only one set of controls for both of the cheaper quality pickups. The Special models can be pretty poor quality. They also made some mediocre strat copies for a while.
They also make a few that Gibson doesn’t make. The Casino as noted by other posters is one. Another one I like is the Wilshire, sometimes called a “Batwing Epiphone” because of the headstock shape. It’s kind of like a telecaster but with humbuckers and a set neck. They were originally made in the 60s, but have been reissued occasionally.
http://www.musiciansfriend.com/guitars/epiphone-limited-edition-wilshire-pro-electric-guitar
I’m willing to accept Gibson’s word that they were legal, based on the fact that they were willing to introduce their supporting documents to the court and the DOJ response is a 2nd spurious raid based on dubious Lacey Act grounds.
Like I said, it’s the government’s job to prove otherwise and no doubt this 2nd raid on a dubious Lacey Act interpretation was really a fishing expedition looking for evidence to counter the civil suit (and to intimidate).
I have zero good faith belief in the credibility and honesty of prosecutors, sorry, I’ve seen to much evidence to the contrary and the Holder Justice Dept. is on corruption steroids.
I stand corrected. I used to own one back in the 70s but it didn’t have a model name on it, so I always just called it an Epi 330.
My guess is that the government didn't have a single email from Gibson until after it raided Gibson the first time and took computers.
I meant that after the first raid, their ineptitude and pugnaciousness kept them from backing down and returning the ebony because they thought they had "gotcha" emails because they were ignorant of the actual meaning of grey market as you were.
Regardless of the mess in Madagascar in 2009, the ebony seized was probably not cut and exported in that year and may have been at least a couple of years old and possibly even 5-10 years old and Gibson probably had to scramble to get all the relevant documents and affidavits tracing the chain of possession to document the fact that the shipment was originally legally exported before eventually being purchased by Gibson.
This was the reason why the Founders were so against the idea of standing armies. The British Army in colonial times acted in the role of enforcer of the King's will upon the people, when they weren't fighting wars.
Fish and Wildlife still should not have a SWAT team.
Armed foreign nationals coming onto US soil and taking hostile possession of territory is properly called invasion, and should be dealt with as such by the Army, using military rules of engagement.
Fish and Wildlife still should not have a SWAT team.
Armed foreign nationals coming onto US soil and taking hostile possession of territory is properly called invasion, and should be dealt with as such by the Army, using military rules of engagement.
It is not necessary for me to know that it was "legally imported".
Under the Constitution that I grew up with, it is the DUTY of the accusers to be able to PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that it was ILLEGALLY imported.
The wood that is used here is used by many other US companies, and not just guitar companies. Furniture companies use this wood, for example.
The thugs who did this are murderous thieves and should all be thrown in jail. Obama should be impeached and thrown in prison for this type of thuggish activity. I will pray and I hope all God-fear FReepers will pray for justice against the thugs who run this current regime.
Why aren’t Republican leaders howling about this?
That's exactly right Hemingway's Ghost. The Obama administration is not enforcing an Indian law. The Obama administration's thug force is enforcing the Indian law in the way that Obama and his thugs FEEL the law SHOULD BE written. GD that demon.
Here’s an explanation for this seemingly bizarre behavior - the USG is evil.
Never be surprised by evil acts ordered by the government - nothing is more predictable or certain.
Ever hear of the Posse Comitatus Act? If you don't like F&W having a SWAT team, you would hate having the military enforcing the law at home. Were talking criminal gangs here, not a foriegn army.
“This was the reason why the Founders were so against the idea of standing armies.”
Indeed! So DOE has 10,000 men in arms, the last estimate I heard. How many do other departments in the Executive Branch have? FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, Interior, State? EPA, OSHA, BIA?
Why does the Education Department need short-barreled shotguns “compatible with their other shotguns”?
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=cb68cf9f3fa2fe18a83d1c3dee0039b2
Plus the fact that we do have a standing army.
And at what point do we get the Youth Camps in the Edward M Kennedy Serve America Act?
Or the civilian security force “better funded than the United States Army?
Respectfully, I think my question is being taken out of contact.
A poster stated "the madagascar rosewood taken in the first raid was legally imported."
He offered no details.
As a guitar collector and the owner of numerous Gibsons, I knew there were a lot of details out there, never mentioned in this post, that suggested there wasn't a black-and-white answer as to whether the wood taken in the first raid was legally imported.
Those details included the failure to state nation of origin on the import papers, the lack of the Lacey stamp on the wood, the internal emails from Gibson from its employee sent to Madagascar saying there was no legal way to get the wood, the Madagascar government's position in 2008/2009 and the overthrow of the government by rebels who had been logging national forests and 'laundering' illegally logged wood, and similar details.
What it meant to me was that there were so many unanswered details out there that it wasn't possible for me - somebody who, not an expert, had been following the Gibson situation since the first raid and knew a number of details - to state conclusively that the wood taken in the first raid was "legally imported."
Yet the other poster continued to state that it was 'legally imported" without offering any real basis for that position other than Gibson's own press release saying the wood had been imported legally.
So, it's not necessary for you to know that it was legally imported. You never made that claim.
My comment followed numerous posts pointing out facts unknown to the poster who stated there was no doubt that the wood was imported legally. I'm saying only that the known facts do not make it clear that the wood was imported legally.
Under the Constitution that I grew up with, it is the DUTY of the accusers to be able to PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that it was ILLEGALLY imported.
I agree that is generally the rule. Some items, however, are considered contraband. If you vacation in El Paso, cross the border into Ciudad Juárez, and buy a paid of cowboy boots made from sea turtle, and attempt to bring them back into the U.S., the border guards will seize them as 'contraband.' Ownership of them is simply illegal. They won't arrest you. They'll take the boots.
If you're pulled over and you have two open cartons of cigarettes in full view on the passenger seat, and the packages are missing the tax stamps, the police officer is going to seize the cigarettes as contraband. He or she made not arrest you.
If you come through customs at LaGuardia and they find five baby Northern Hairy-nosed Wombats in your luggage, the custom officers will seize them as contraband. They may not arrest you (although I'll bet they will).
So . . . my "legally imported" comment was not targets at you. It was targeted at someone who stated to know, without any question, that the wood from the first raid was legally imported.
The facts I know lead me to say that I don't think it's perfectly clear that Gibson legally imported the ebony. I didn't comment on who would have to prove that. I only commented on my believe that anyone who says it's an open and shut case for Gibson can't be looking at all of the facts.
Yes, it is.
But that's not the point.
The point is whether the wood used by those other companies was obtained through the proper channels using the proper paperwork.
Let's put it this way: It gets leaked to the press that Rachel Maddow's cigarettes are provided to her by Camel before the cigarette taxes are paid, and before the tax stamps are applied. Ten cartons of cigarettes are seized.
Wouldn't it be silly if MSNBC ran a news story with the headline "John Boehner smokes the same brand of cigarettes as Rachel Maddow, and his cigarettes weren't confiscated!"
We would all be sitting here screaming: The brand of cigarettes isn't the issue! The issue is that Rachel Maddow cut corners and didn't get her cigarettes legally!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.