Comments on: Brian Majeski: Sending a SWAT Team to Collect a Parking Ticket

By: Paul M

Paul M — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 03:05:08 +0000

And its a statement about the sheer thuggery of law enforcement and society in general. Gibson is a reputable, internationally known company. All that was needed to seize these materials was a weedy old guy armed with a clipboard and a court order.

But no. There’s no problem that cannot and should not be addressed by sending in a bunch of trigger-happy meatheads with testosterone poisoning and enough guns to outfit a small army.

By: Personanongrata

Personanongrata — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 22:36:53 +0000

However, there is something wrong with abandoning basic concepts of due process and proportionality, and creating scapegoats in the name of a worthy cause. It isn't about a worthy cause. It is extortion.

By: Boyd Durkin

Boyd Durkin — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:22:14 +0000

Nice write-up as I was looking for info on Gibson’s resolution. To say the least, this is a good example of why a lot of businesses say it’s easier to do business in China and Singapore than in the USA.

By: Whappan?

Whappan? — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 18:31:32 +0000

“The biggest argument against the amended Lacey Act is that it holds U.S. companies liable for violations of the laws of all the world’s 200 countries. But if the U.S. Department of Justice, with its virtually unlimited resources, has a demonstrated problem grasping the nuance of foreign law, is it fair to hold private enterprises like Gibson to a higher standard?”

That’s SOP, ignorance of the law is only a viable defense if you are law enforcement.

“Odd that the full police powers of the Federal Government are being used to harass a domestic company that produces a quality product but does ignores the parasitic financial capitalists that have wrecked us? Justice has declined to prosecute Goldman Sachs. A behemoth that produces no commodity. because that’s what I’m getting here?”

Not odd at all. How many ex Goldman exec’s are government officials? How many ex government officials get cushy” jobs” in Wall Street firms, essentially cashing in on their connections? How much money do Goldman exec’s give to both parties?

By: William Anderson

William Anderson — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 17:49:28 +0000

This isn’t just about the inability of the DOJ lawyers to have a clue about foreign law. This is a statement by the DOJ and, more specifically, the Obama administration (or whatever administration is in power at the time) that it always is right, and when the government claims a citizen or a company is wrong, then it is wrong.

Law has nothing to do with it. Why does this continue? It continues because such actions are politically useful to various organizations. This time, it is the environmental lobby; the next time, it will be for someone else.

I think we have to understand that law in the USA is dead. The representatives of government can prattle on about “rule of law,” but we now have rule of people, period.

By: Leon Wolfeson

Leon Wolfeson — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 17:08:45 +0000

@2 – It’s called due dilligence. As usual, you’re just engaging in union-bashing. How DARE employees talk to each other!

By: divadab

divadab — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 15:54:36 +0000

How are we as citizens to respect an agency that harasses a legitimate business making a good faith effort to comply with the law, but lets criminal behavior on Wall St. go not only un-indicted, but apparently un-investigated? Standard and Poors, for example, rated securitized junk mortgages as AAA, taking their lucrative fees and letting investors who relied on them lose billions. How is this not at best criminal negligence?

When I see Wall St. fraud artists in chains I will regain my respect for the DOJ. IN the meantime, they seem to me to be just another corrupt agency of a corrupt government.

By: demize!

demize! — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:48:36 +0000

So the government wants an American co. to either hire, or act as an international police apparatus to ensure they don’t violate foreign law? Is this correct? Isnt the Federal Govt supposed to monitor materials entering this country? Odd that the full police powers of the Federal Government are being used to harass a domestic company that produces a quality product but does ignores the parasitic financial capitalists that have wrecked us? Justice has declined to prosecute Goldman Sachs. A behemoth that produces no commodity. because that’s what I’m getting here?

By: Andrew_M_Garland

Andrew_M_Garland — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 06:19:11 +0000

The Lacey Act: Protectionism through Criminalization Cato At Liberty === === [edited] You can learn a lot about a law by identifying its key supporters. It’s worth noting that proponents of the the Lacey Act include environmental organizations, the American lumber industry, and labor unions. Why this peculiar alliance of enemies? The cost of complying with reporting requirements, and the risk of huge fines and criminal charges for paperwork errors, push companies to avoid buying foreign lumber. American consumers of lumber include productive, job-creating businesses like Gibson Guitars. They cannot reasonably control whether a foreign supplier has all the right licenses and has followed all local laws. Ultimately, the Lacey Act enables domestic suppliers to suppress competition from imported wood. This harms lawful foreign suppliers, American consumers, and all sectors of the U.S. economy that make or use wood products. === ===

By: Marty

Marty — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 04:08:43 +0000

Rock on, DOJ! good grief, what a bunch of maroons… a tip of the hat to Gibson for standing up to them.