If the wood hadn't been cleared by U.S. Customs would that not have been smuggling? U.S. Customs, to my guess, probably can't tell one species of rosewood from another. They probably saw documentation and let it move on. If they checked every piece of wood... $$$. It would be easy to falsify paper work or 'accidentally' get the wrong wood somewhere in the shipment.

Very interesting!

SlacktoneDave wrote:

Hypothetical:

If eleven separate international shipments to the USA were secretly tracked by the Feds, and all of the eleven shipments used techniques to falsify the exact nature of the shipment contents, then, they could have "cleared", but, may have been in violation of this:

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/cites.pdf

Here's an interesting piece:

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2010/05/20/madagascar_logging_crisis/

carry on.

WOW!!! Tremendously informative links, Dave. thank you!

Bob

I think there may be too issues, two raids... alleged contraband wood {Ebony, Mahogany?} from Madagascar, and secondly, questionable Rosewood fretboard blanks from India that may violate agreements made by the USA to self regulate the harvesting of raw, natural resources from developing countries without the local population being part of the wealth creation process. I'm no expert on this issue, but creating a market force {i.e. go to jail} to handicap the illicit trade of Ivory, rare, rainforest woods, tortoise shell, etc.is what our country has chosen as a value a long time ago.

Perhaps, the Feds watching shipments over time led to the discovery of the India Rosewood alleged violations.

PURE speculation on my part.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

~d

Wood & Steel now available on Taylor's website for .pdf download. Again, fascinating read - highly recommended for anyone interested in the topic at large.

image

Download Wood & Steel (.pdf - English).

Also available in Español, Française, and Deutsch.

Fady

El Mirage @ ReverbNation

Here is my favorite part of the Justice Department press release:

"This case was investigated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with assistance from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement."

I guess the Department of Education and NASA took a pass.

DOJ Press Release

Sean

So they've admitted to not verifying the source, or is this seen as a tacit admission of "We knew we were buying illegally sourced wood and didn't care"?

Gibson admitted violating the Lacey Act, which requires firms to know that timber they use is legally obtained.

The FWS found evidence that an employee had told Gibson two years previously that its Madagascan imports might be illegal, but that the company had nevertheless ordered further stocks.

The article goes on to say it again; that Gibson failed to act on an employee's assertion that the wood "may" have been harvested illegally. What I haven't seen stated is the source of the wood. If they can prove Gibson's guilt, they must know, right?

The Mystery Men?
El Capitan and The Reluctant Sadists
SSS Agent #31

Last edited: Aug 06, 2012 21:06:19

Here's an interesting Wall Street Journal op-ed on this issue. (Just to clarify, I'm not posting it because I agree with it. I really just don't know. But the piece brings up some interesting issues.)

The Wall Street Journal
OPINION
August 20, 2012

Gibson Is Off the Feds' Hook. Who's Next?
The guitar company settlement reveals a disturbing effort by federal prosecutors to silence their corporate targets.
By HARVEY SILVERGLATE

Gibson Guitar Corp. got lucky. Its looming federal prosecution for claimed violations of vague, protectionist export regulations involving imports from Madagascar and India ended abruptly after the absurdity and unfairness of the case spread virally. Apparently the Justice Department couldn't handle the heat of news reports on how armed federal agents twice in two years dramatically raided guitar factories full of unarmed luthiers.

On Aug. 6 prosecutors agreed not to prosecute Gibson provided the company adheres to some remedial measures meant to assure that it never again violates regulations—regulations that it likely didn't violate in the first place. The company also agreed to pay a modest (as these things go) $300,000 monetary penalty to the government, along with a $50,000 contribution to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. (The Justice Department always looks for an opportunity to portray itself as benign and even philanthropic—with other people's money, of course.)

Did Gibson acquiesce in this settlement solely to end the expense, distraction, danger and agony of a federal criminal prosecution—the usual reasons for shouting "uncle" to Uncle Sam? We will never know. Why? Because federal prosecutors required, as part of the "criminal enforcement agreement," that Gibson not only "accept[s] and acknowledge[s] responsibility for the conduct" alleged, but also that the company's "public statements regarding this Agreement will not contradict the statement of facts" set forth in an appendix to the settlement agreement.

Put another way, Gibson is now forbidden to tell the world the whole truth about its conduct and its reasons for settling a case it previously claimed publicly, including in an opinion piece in this newspaper, involved no criminal conduct on its part. In exchange for agreeing to read the government's script, Gibson regained its ability to conduct business without a federal sword of Damocles dangling over its corporate head.

This naked effort by federal prosecutors to control both news and outcomes, not to mention their own reputations, does not surprise those familiar with the modern federal criminal justice system. The accounting firm KPMG was strong-armed into a similar agreement in 2005 when threatened with indictment. In exchange for not being prosecuted for its role assisting lawyers in devising aggressive tax shelters that many experts at the time deemed lawful, the firm agreed not only to cooperate with the government in going after former clients and partners involved in the shelters, but it also signed a stipulation that the firm, its employees and its lawyers would not "make any statement, in litigation or otherwise, contradicting the Statement of Facts" set forth in the settlement agreement.

Federal prosecutors, in other words, wrote the script that anyone connected with KPMG had to follow, even while under oath in court. If anyone other than a federal prosecutor suggested, much less imposed such a stipulation on a party, he would promptly be indicted on a charge of obstruction of justice.

This obsession with controlling the "truth" is not limited to federal prosecutors offering to settle a threat of indictment against a vulnerable corporation or individual. The FBI has a formal, binding policy that forbids its agents from conducting witness or target interviews with the aid of electronic recording—in contrast to the practice of recording custodial interviews, which is now in wide use by law enforcement officials on the state and local levels.

Instead, one federal agent does the questioning while the other takes notes. Those notes, once typed up in a "Form 302 report," become the official version of what the interviewee said. A witness deviating from that version risks up to five years imprisonment for making a false statement to a federal official, even if the statement was not made under oath. In this way, it is the FBI agent, not the witness, who controls the witness's official story.

Through these and myriad other techniques, federal investigators and prosecutors create an alternative reality that favors their own institutional interests, regardless of the truth or of justice. All citizens and companies have become subject to the Justice Department's essentially unfettered power.

Remedying this problem cannot be left to the victims of this governmental extortion, because their risks are too high if they fight; nor will their lawyers likely blow the whistle, since the bar makes a tidy living by playing the game. It is up to the rest of civil society to let the Justice Department emperor know that we see he is not wearing clothes.

Mr. Silverglate, a lawyer and writer, is the author of "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent" (Encounter Books, updated edition 2011.)

Ivan
Lords of Atlantis on Facebook
The Madeira Official Website
The Madeira on Facebook
The Blair-Pongracic Band on Facebook
The Space Cossacks on Facebook
The Madeira Channel on YouTube

This makes me want to buy one. A big FU to the man! Lol

I did have to chuckle, however, when Gibson started making Government Series 2 guitars using woods they've got back from the U.S. government.

Fast Cars & Loud Guitars!