Gibson Guitar Acknowledges Exotic Wood Violation

[David]

Well well well, news from Nashville this morning.

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/19205247/gibson-guitar-acknowledges-exotic-wood-violation

[Markus]

Thanks for the link.

It would seem this only applies to the earlier Madagascar-related case and not the more recent Indian ebony case?

Either way, it is good news for forests in Madagascar, hopefully. Not a lot of those ancient trees left anymore.

[allenhopkins]

This thread is a good candidate for early lockdown, but before the axe falls, just to say that if we want our future instruments made of the woods we've grown to love, conservation of what's left of these trees is necessary.

Undoubtedly some toes will be stepped on as restrictions are enforced, but the alternative is no ebony, no rosewood, mahogany only at premium prices. Seems the greater of two evils.

[David]

Markus, the details of the agreement and nations involved are in the court document pdf attached to the story.

[stonefingers]

While I fully agree that NO ONE should be using any "protected" materials for the production of any product, and I agree that all laws in place should be followed for such productions; this article is one of the most biased, "slanted", mis-leading culmination of words that I have read recently.
As Markus already pointed out, this "agreement" is related to the 2009 case and has nothing whatsoever to do with the 2011 case involving India wood.
Clearly the "author's" closing statements is a perfect example of his/her desire to lump the cases together so that a "political statement" could be made.

"Gibson's decision to cooperate with federal laws banning the import of endangered wood products stands in contrast to a 2011 publicity campaign mounted after agents raided Gibson facilities in Memphis and Nashville in 2009 and 2011."

"Republicans and tea party members rallied behind CEO Henry Juszkiewicz as he denounced the raids as overzealous federal regulation that threatened American jobs."

I respect Mr Schelzig's right to free speech, but I would appreciate it if he would follow some basic journalistic guidelines and not intentionally muddy the facts together from different cases and stories just to get something published.

-SF

[stonefingers]

Yes David, the attached PDF does in fact mention the Indian ebony, but only to state that those charges will not be prosecuted as part of this "agreement". I did not see anywhere in the document, including the Appendixes, where the India wood is mentioned again. In fact the document clearly specifies that time frame as June 2008 through Sept 2009.
I'm not a lawyer, but I do not see where this has anything to do with India other than to get rid of it.
-SF

[David]

Stonefingers, I recognize that there are two different cases and this involves the first one, but to me the author's closing statement is true, those things did in fact happen. I ask this with respect and not trying to start a war here, but are you saying that two cases are not related, and that Gibson didn't protest the 2009 Madagascar raid during its 2011 tea-party backed PR campaign?

[Markus]

I would suggest we discuss the facts of the settlement, not the take of the author or PR related events.

These threads get closed when it goes to politics, the actual facts of the case are unlikely to be a problem ... but outside of the court documents/settlement there are other places to talk politics and non-wood ramifications.

I hope Gibson can put this in the past, get focus back to making great instruments.

[brunello97]

Stonefingers, I recognize that there are two different cases and this involves the first one, but to me the author's closing statement is true, those things did in fact happen. I ask this with respect and not trying to start a war here, but are you saying that two cases are not related, and that Gibson didn't protest the 2009 Madagascar raid during its 2011 tea-party backed PR campaign?

Here we go. :popcorn:

My reading of paragraph 3 of the linked agreement (and I am not a lawyer) seems to tacitly roll the 2009 and 2011 cases together

Gibson Settlement (http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wtvf/PDF/2012/gibsonguitaragreement.pdf)

stating that government will not prosecute Gibson from a time period "..from the beginning of this matter through the date of execution of this Agreement…."

Which would seem to include 2011. I'm not sure if I am interpreting that correctly, but if I were Gibson's lawyers I would certainly want to deal with both cases in one agreement if possible.

I appreciate that more and more judicial records are being linked to the news articles. It helps in trying to sort out what is going on.

Mick

[JEStanek]

Giving the thread a Yellow Card re: politics. Lets keep this ONLY limited to the case not exegesis on the article reporting on it.
90049

Jamie

[David]

I'll stay away from the politics of it. Anyway, I agree with Brunello's assessment, re-reading it I think this agreement deals with both cases.

[almeriastrings]

There is no doubt whatever it pertains to both cases. It explicitly says so:

"This Agreement is part of a resolution of criminal matters relating to allegations that Gibson ordered, purchased or imported ebony originating in Madagascar, and ebony and rosewood originating in India, to the United States in violation of the Lacey Act..... and other criminal and civil laws....including, but not limited to conspiracy"

It appears total penalties are in the order of $350,000 ($300,000 + $50,000 to USFWS).

[northfolk]

What does the "Republican and Tea Party" comment have to do with this article anyway; I suppose Gibson is a successful company?

[Texas]

Well well well, news from Nashville this morning.

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/19205247/gibson-guitar-acknowledges-exotic-wood-violation

What I have never understood about this case and it's also what has made me skeptical of the DOJ case is that most exotic wood is farmed and a close watch is kept on exotics from farm to retail. So, how could Gibson knowingly use an endangered wood? It never made sense to me and still does not make sense that Gibson did not take precaution when buying wood.

However, if I read this correctly, Gibson admits to wrongdoing.

I buy exotic wood frequently from a couple local retail stores here in the DFW area and there is always a paper-trail from farm to retail should you want to track the wood back to the source.

[Canoedad]

$300,000 or $350,000 settlement isn't much. Practically nuisance value for a case like this. And it may even settle both. Sounds like both parties would like to move on.

[brunello97]

What does the "Republican and Tea Party" comment have to do with this article anyway; I suppose Gibson is a successful company?

Please see Jaimie's post (#10) above.


My eyes glaze over quickly when reading this kind of material but a couple things of note:

It does sound like Gibson has to forfeit the seized material. (Am I interpreting that correctly?)

Also that the government acknowledges problems with the Indian laws that form a basis of the that part of the issue with Gibson (2011). Perhaps why that case is being rolled away. But also implying that some action will be taken to help clarify those laws.

My brother (who is a lawyer) often says that court cases can sometimes make for improvements in laws (and the opposite as well). Hopefully the former is the "case" here.

Mick

[allenhopkins]

What does the "Republican and Tea Party" comment have to do with this article anyway...?

Henry Juszkiewicz of Gibson held news conferences, released statements, and went on Fox News after the second raid, expressing Gibson's point of view and alleging government persecution. Became a bit of a cause celebre among those who consider some environmental regulations to be "anti-business." It would seem that Gibson's legal advisers decided that a consent decree, with some admission of wrongdoing, made more sense than a prolonged fight in court. This well could be a business decision based on cost/benefit analysis -- cheaper to go along with the government's claim, than to go to court and get tied up for years -- rather than a real acknowledgement of guilt, but we can't know that.

Apparently Madagascar has a recent history of corruption, and export licenses for "exotic" and protected woods have been obtained fraudulently by bribing government officials. So it's possible that the normal "close watch from farm to retail" could be short-circuited. The question is, to what extent did Gibson's people know that the documents weren't kosher?

As opined above, hope this case and the related controversy are "well astern" and Gibson can concentrate on building great mandolins.

[Ted Eschliman]

If we can't run this topic without mentioning "tea party" four times in just the first page, I suspect we can't run it at all. If you're new around here (even if you aren't) please review Discussion Guidelines (http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/faq.php). The part about no politics.