Gibson has obtained sworn statements and documents from the Madagascar government and these materials, which have been filed in federal court, show that the wood seized in 2009 was legally exported under Madagascar law and that no law has been violated.
And the federal response is a 2nd raid. My question stands, where is that million dollars worth of Madagascar Ebony, right now? Why didn't the government ever file charges if the first raid did indeed net illegal exotic woods?
Maybe you have greater faith in the Holder Justice Department, but I don't. If you ask me whose word I'm going to trust, well it ain't the DOJ's.
It's in one of two places:
Martin guitars, where Obama's supporter ar using the free wood to lower thier costs
On pallets on the loading dock of some US government warehouse. Soaking in the sun and rain until such time that it actually gets returned. Of course it's now ruined but who cares, right?
I understand that's what Gibson's press release says.
At the time Gibson obtained the Madagascar Ebony on what it's own emails termed the "grey market," Madagascar's government was under the control of Marc Ravalomanana, right? And under Marc Ravalomanana's government, export of the unfinished Madagascar Ebony was generally illegal, right? (As it had been under previous governments, except for some occasions when storms had knocked down large amounts of ebony).
And there was a military coup in March 2009, right? And Andry Rajoelina is now in power? And armed rebels during the political strife that brought Andry Rajoelina to power were involved in the illegal logging of Madagascar's national forests, primarily for rosewood and ebony, which was 'laundered' through the nations of Reunion and Mauritius, among other countries, right?
So the question is, does Gibson have sworn statements from the government that was in power when Gibson, by its own emails, bought 'grey' market Madagascar Ebony , the same government that made the exports illegal at that time . . . or does Gibson have sworn statements from the 'current' government, which had no say as to the legality of export of Madagascar Ebony at the time Gibson decided to buy 'grey market' products because its own employees say there was no way to legally buy the ebony?
I don't know. If you know, then I'd love it if you would send me the links to the references.
Because otherwise, it sounds as if Gibson is trying to cover its butt today with letters from a government that wasn't even in charge when the product was considered illegal to export.
As for the Madagascar Ebony itself, if you read the style (the United States v. X) of a lot of import-type cases, you'll find funny styles. Things like "United States vs. 302 Pound of Ground African Elephant Tusk." Sometimes, when a product is brought illegally into the United States, the product is simply considered contraband. It's illegal to own. It's like when the agents at the Mexican border taken away the wallets, belts, and cowboy boots made from sea turtle that people buy in Mexico. They don't press charges against the purchaser.
Do I trust the DOJ? No. Do I trust Gibson? No. Gibson's press releases are full of half-truths and conveniently leave out all of the negative facts. For example, were you aware from Gibson's press release that Gibson's own employee sent to Madagascar had sent back an email saying there was no legitimate way to buy the ebony, and that it was only available on the grey market?