Gibson vs Martin

Aside from the targeting done by the IRS, I wonder who directed this apparent targeting.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/05/2...id-and-government-targeting-republican-groups

 

Being a guitar player myself, I've been following the controversy over using certain types of wood for decades. To this day, I am of two minds on it, but if the law clearly states that certain types of wood are illegal to harvest, import, buy, and or sell, then anyone harvesting, importing, buying, and or selling that wood is guilty of a crime, and I would support the government's prosecutions of suspected violators.

The issue I'm having is with existing supplies. I hate waste, but I also don't want to encourage the harvesting of any more of the endangered wood (I believe all the types in question are listed as endangered, but there may be other mitigating factors I'm not aware of that are likely to be just as valid a reason to make the acts above illegal). IMO, the "tonal qualities" argument is over-rated, but I'm not some rich guy wanting the best of the best, or a master musician trying to create the most perfectly-toned piece of art.

Ivory is a more well-known example of the controversy. Existing supplies can be bought and sold, but efforts are made to stop any fresh supplies from reaching the underground markets. The same is true for certain types of wood, typically referred to as "exotic woods".

Gibson is in a dilemma, since many of those exotic woods are highly prized for there tonal qualities, but the legal supply of them is limited to what's been deemed legal, which is usually stock purchased prior to the law becoming active.

This demand for exotic wood is what is creating Gibson's dilemma. While there may be more to it, should Gibson be proven to have purchased or possessed exotic woods illegally, in direct violation of law, it's my opinion that Gibson should be allowed to bring that legal product to the legal market.

(Edited: The last paragraph is worded incorrectly. I meant to say that, illegally gained woods should be confiscated, not sold on the legal market...while legal stocks should be allowed to be sold on the legal market. I apologize for any confusion resulting from my lack of editing skills. My excuse is that I was tired by that time, and hadn't noticed my mistake until today lol)

 

It has already been proven that the Indian company supplied the wrong wood to BOTH Gibson and Martin Neither company actually did anything wrong, And even if Gibson had done something wrong, this would have been a CIVIL wrong. So whosoever when after Gibson with a SWAT team tried to enforce a CIVIL wrong with CRIMINAL enforcement and it now looks suspiciously like the IRS targeting.

 

I don't agree that it is a civil infraction, and support the government's decision.

The wood in question should be confiscated, as obtaining it in the manner that they did is an illegal act. While that illegal act may have been committed by another company (according to you), the law clearly states that the wood must be confiscated as it was illegally obtained.

They apparently refused, claiming that the wood is essentially now considered to be existing stock. That claim is incorrect. The wood was illegal to sell to the company. As such, it should have been turned over to the feds. By not doing so, they are clearly breaking the law, and the feds are well within their rights to conduct a criminal investigation into that allegedly illegal activity.

 

Maybe an example will help people understand my point.

To the best of my knowledge, Ivory is illegal to sell here in America, and I am working under that assumption.

Should a company be allowed to harvest all the available ivory in the World, and sell that product here in America? To be clear, all the elephants they find will be slaughtered as a result.

The same principle applies to exotic woods.

So, should the company be allowed to bring exotic woods to market here in America? To be clear, all the trees they can find will be killed.

In both cases, the government is attempting to protect an endangered species. If they didn't make those efforts, there may not be a product available to bring to market in the future.

People over-harvest. People are greedy.

What these guitar manufacturers want you to believe is that they are not complicit in any wrongdoing, where the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that they are indeed complicit.

 

I suppose every infraction and seizure and arrest and inquiry from here on out is going to be part of some elaborate conspiracy by the Obama administration to snuff out any dissidents or those who may in some unfathomable way be on the wrong side of the political line.

 

He did hire someone to walk his dogs. The madman! I smell another bs congressional kangaroo court a-comin'...

 

I'd like to point out something:

This judge is likely going to have to explain himself to the Bar. He has NO right to call the government's actions criminal. In fact, his comments may be grounds for a criminal investigation in their own right, though that is unlikely to occur. Censure, or whatever it's called, probably applies, ...at least from what I understand of the laws governing misconduct among judges.

 

It makes no difference whether or not you agree with it, it is the law and the law says it is a civil infraction.

And, everything think is wrong (from confiscation on) has been proven that the company did not do it. Again, Gibson did nothing wrong nor did Martin. The company in India made the mistake - the same mistake - to both companies.

And, even if you were correct in any of your assumptions, why was Martin not subjected to the same treatment?

 

Eh, so much for sentence-structure ...but I think my point comes across OK. The judge is not in a position to express his opinion, from what I understand. He cannot call something criminal in this manner, though he may say that it MAY be criminal. He didn't, so censure (or whatever) should apply.

 

NO RIGHT? Have you ever heard of the Constitution? It says we as well as he have "freedom of speech". Interesting document, but, FWIW, it applies to ALL of us.

 

So you believe in "censure (or whatever)" opinions that you don't agree with?

 

Good questions, but I'm not in a position to answer them as I do not have all the information. My earlier opinions did not require the level of information that this follow-up question requires for an accurate answer, so if you have additional information that can mitigate that dilemma, share it, otherwise the point is moot: I don't have the necessary information to conclude anything, so any answer I give is pointless.

That said, some of my assumptions, some of my conclusions, may be mistaken, but the general principles reiterated within my comments are highly likely to be sound, and therefore accurate.

I've noticed the republicans have zeroed in the question of whether or not this is a civil action. I can't say with 100% certainty that they are incorrect, but it smells of bs. You say this is a civil case, prove it to me, show me what you base your conclusions on. But beware, ignoring law in favor of a specific outcome is negligent, and as such will ultimately prove to be unwarranted. That means that if federal law dictates one thing, and you are relying on something else, and ignore the federal laws, your argument becomes invalid.

 

Incorrect, from my understanding of the rules governing judges. Judges are held to a higher standard than other citizens, that much you cannot deny.

As an example:

What if he was a Supreme Court member? (to exaggerate the obvious)

It would be an aggregious error for someone on the Supreme court to call something criminal, whether they have direct involvement in the case or not, before a verdict is rendered. The reason why SHOULD BE OBVIOUS to anyone.

The same standard applies to all judges. They must not convict an act or person when they have no legal reason to do so. In this case, the judge is essentially convicting someone, and that is an aggregious error in judgement, one that the Bar MUST act on, per their rules (as I understand them).

If that assumption is incorrect, that the Bar does not have the authority to govern the behavior of lawyer and judges, then you may be correct to say he is permitted to call it criminal, however, I do not believe that to be the case.

 

Rephrase the question. In it's current form it is not clear enough for me to address.

 

In other words, you are opinionating without knowing the facts.
a.) Any judge is perfectly free to express his opinion on any case that he is not directly involved in. BTW, members of the supreme court earn beau coup money traveling around the country (and other countries) giving their opinion on the law.
b.) Napolitano is an EX- New Jersey Supreme court judge now retired. So even IF your mistaken assumption that judges should not express their opinion on the law, it would no longer apply to him.

Oh, and despite all of your posts, you have totally missed the point. Why Gibson, but not Martin for the fourth time?

 

I'll attempt to answer these again, but separately, so as to avoid potential confusion.

That has not been proven to my satisfaction. If it is indeed a civil infraction, you have a point. At this time, I don't believe this to be true, given the information I am aware of. If you can prove otherwise, do so, but be clear about it. An acceptable answer would show how any federal point of view is incorrect on that point. It would show that the civil infraction charge is more suitable over what the feds are charging, and it would spell that out clearly. To simply say it is so isn't enough for me to change my opinion on that point, but you may or may not have information that I lack. Show it, or my opinion will remain as it is.

I'm going to ramble a bit, because I feel like it.

I disagree completely with your conclusions stated above. All of them, but I will address the idea of "wrong" in particular.

Once it was discovered that the wood was illegally obtained, the companies have no choice in the matter, and must forfeit the wood. The law is very very clear on that, at least, as I understand the law.

Unless you can show me otherwise, my opinion stands, and your argument will no longer be valid for me to address, as I've addressed it enough, in clear enough terms, for you to understand. I'm not going to argue a point over and over again simply to point out that you are incorrect. I'll move on to something else entirely, as I have already done once or twice here.

Show me where the companies are allowed to keep the wood within federal law, and I'll address that, but you claiming the companies did nothing wrong is inaccurate, at best.

There is nothing within your arguments that proves they are innocent of wrong-doing, or did you forget the lessons you attempted to preach to me in the Martin/Zimmerman case? As you may recall, guilt or innocence has yet to be proven. To claim one or the other, without expressing that as an opinion, is what you were complaining about in that thread, and I state the same to you here.

For the record, all of my comments, all of them, always, should be considered opinions, until consensus is achieved, and I show you the same courtesy. Provide enough evidence though, and it becomes a stronger opinion. A strong enough opinion, with truthful and accurate information to back it up, becomes a fact. As we all know, or should know, all facts are merely a consensus of opinion, so if you have the relevant information that I requested, show it, and consensus might be possible.

I do not have that information. I have not read the charges, nor the facts of the case regarding the government conducting the raids.

My knowledge in this matter deals with the past forty years of the controversy, the questions surrounding the legality of harvesting (etc.) exotic woods and the counter-arguments to the law as well, but not the current legality of the government's prosecution, other than what has been stated previously.

 

Again, I am relying on what I know, and I've stated repeatedly that I may be wrong. In that sense, I will concede you the point, in order to move the debate on to the more important question, which you raised earlier, of this being a civil case. I'm still waiting for a response on that.

I've addressed that several times. I do not have direct knowledge of the reasons why, and I don't intend to state my opinion given that I lack sufficient knowledge on it. I will NOT address that again.

 

WOW! You say you know the law better than an ex-judge - and a supreme court judge at that! I should be impressed, but somehow I am not.

And again you have posted nothing regarding why Gibson was assaulted, but Martin still has the wood (despite you opinion to the contrary).

 

Freedom of speech has restrictions, but you know that. To not include that in your comment above is misleading, at best. I stated my opinion as to why judges are held to a higher standard, and why they are not allowed to speak about a case, but I have already conceded your point. Now you should address the point I raised, which is that freedom of speech is not as you've suggested, universal. I expect you to concede the point, and would appreciate you stating so. Whether or not you do can and will be used in later replies, if I choose to do so. After which, we can move on to another point, as this particular argument will have consensus. At the moment, it does not.