Department of Justice

The Great Gibson Guitar Raid: Months Later, Still No Charges Filed


"They…come in with weapons, they seized a half-million dollars worth of property, they shut our factory down, and they have not charged us with anything," says Gibson Guitars CEO Henry Juszkiewicz, referring to the August 2011 raid on his Nashville and Memphis factories by agents from the Departments of Homeland Security and Fish & Wildlife.

The feds raided Gibson for using an inappropriate tariff code on wood from India, which is a violation of the anti-trafficking statute known as The Lacey Act. At issue is not whether the wood in question was endangered, but whether the wood was the correct level of thickness and finish before being exported from India. "India is wanting to ensure that raw wood is not exported without some labor content from India," says Juskiewicz.

Andrea Johnson of the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) counters that "it's not up to Gibson to decide which laws…they want to respect." She points out that Gibson had previously been raided under The Lacey Act for imports from Madagascar.

This much is clear: The government has yet to file any charges or allow Gibson a day in court to makes its case, much less retrieve its materials. "This is not about responsible forestry and sustainable wood or illegal logging, this is about a bureaucratic law," argues Juszkiewicz, who testified last year before a congressional hearing convened by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). It is, he says, "a blank check for abuse."

About 6 minutes. Written, produced, and narrated by Anthony L. Fisher; shot by Joshua Swain.

Music: "Improvisation: Fast Blues in A" by Rev. Gary Davis

Go to for downloadable versions and subscribe to's YouTube Channel to receive automatic updates when new material goes live.

NEXT: Drug Paraphernalia Raids Make Books Disappear

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA)
    Another one I never heard of, and they got guns.

    1. Every day I drive by a police station with SUV’s with police lights emblazoned with the logo of the Massachusetts Environmental Police.

      And I believe they carry guns too.

      1. The Police for the Promotion of Virtue and the Suppression of Vice.

        1. Bitch-slap that feckin’ bitch! Drink! Arse! Girls (except her)!

      2. But Universal Health Care is evil.

        Because heroic industrialist polluters don’t have any personal responsibility.

        Only those who are sick have personal responsibility.

        Environmental Pollutants Increase Birth Defect Risks…..t-risks-2/

        1. Thanks for clueing us in on your damage, Corky.

          1. …on a tailpipe again?

            1. You Fat Cow

            1. Everything you say to me
              Takes me one step closer to the edge
              and I’m about to break!

              1. You have macroagressed upon me by posting a Lincoln Park video. DIAF

        2. …TEAM BLUE.

          1. They think agricultural city-Statism is grand. Just like you do.

            1. Hey fat boy, you eat like killer whale!

              Maybe we rename you ‘Chief Running Buffet’

        3. Sounds like those affected should sue… but kind of irrelevant to Gibson, huh?

          1. …if you’re rich.

            High Money = High Justice
            Low Money = Low Justice
            No Money = No Justice.

        4. Precious wood for a beautiful musical instrument. EVIL EVIL EVIL. Call the Door-Smashing EnviroKOPS.

          1. Name corrected

        5. How does importing pieces of wood, equal “environmental pollutants”?

          Fucking moron.

      3. Haha, yep, I’ve always got a kick of the Mass Environmental police in their SUVs

        1. Hey, they only use them to drive around in the forests. What’s the worst that could happen?

          1. They might hit the [GAMBOLER].

            1. That sounds like the best think that could happen.

    2. Hey, even the Department of Education apparently has a SWAT team now. For what purpose? Who the fuck knows.



      2. It’s been going on a long time.

        a policy to encourage the “civilizing” process….._Americans

        Got a problem with that? Hell, even Mises knows the shit of civilization has to be beat into kids:

        Man is born an asocial and antisocial being. The newborn child is a savage. Egoism is his nature. Only the experience of life and the teachings of his parents, his brothers, sisters, playmates, and later of other people FORCE him to acknowledge the advantages of social cooperation and accordingly to change his behavior.

        ~Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government, p. 241

        So much for civilization being “voluntary.”

        1. I told you I was a dishonest prick!

          1. …the violence inherent in the system.

            Civilization originates with conquest abroad and repression at home.

            ~Stanley Diamond
            In Search of the Primitive: A Critique of Civilization
            (first sentence, p. 1)

            Tell us how good the glorious savior city-State has been to you, Fibertarian.

            1. Suck it you fat loser you’re stuck here with the rest of us AGrikuLtuRAL City STATIsts.

              No gamboling for you.

        2. You’re stupidity FORCES me to call you out as retarded.

          So much for being free.

          1. And my typo FORCES me to point out Joe’s Law…

            1. the violence inherent in the system


              1. Always cites fake anti-state screeds written by TENured State Employees dependent on that GOVT check. Loves Public InDOCTRINation.

                1. …is a fat turd, too.

      3. What do you mean ‘who the fuck knows?’. Why the fuck do you think every department of the government would have trained and equipped paramilitary police?

        1. Also – why do most of the entrenched Beltway pols (mostly on the left, but some establishment repubs as well…) want to severely restrict firearms ownership by private citizens? Just a rhetorical….

    3. Juszkiewicz, who testified last year before a congressional hearing convened by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

      Well, that explains the reason for the raid.

      1. I think the hearing was after the raid, but he probably gave money to Rand Paul’s campaign, and maybe his father’s too.

        1. That will guarantee a raid.

    4. EIA is basically an NGO that narcs you out to the appropriate government when you commit what they see as crimes. Why they included some NGO twaffle’s commentary is beyond me.

    5. Fuck the conservation police.

    6. My neighbor just met a bisexual man on —datebi*cOMit’s where for men and women looking
      for bisexual and bi-curious individuals to meet in a friendly and comfortable environment.
      It’s a nice place for the people who have the same sexual orientation.

      1. He calls himself the White Indian…and there’s a whole lot to love. Once you get past the odor issue.

        1. +100 cocks in WI.

  2. At this point, the Gibson guys might want to consider playing hardball: sue for a return of the property and declaratory judgement that the are clear of wrongdoing.

    At this point the feds should have all the info they need to conclude the investigation. Haul them into court and make them put their cards on the table.

    If Gibson handles the publicity correctly, the judiciary won’t just rubber stamp the prosecutors decisions – they have to maintain a pretense of being independent of each other when they are being watched.

    1. But then they will be subject to more raids, and more seizure of inventory. Subsequent raids will be different cases.

      Shorter: Nice business you have there, shame if anything should happen to it.

      1. Hire a mercenary army and ambush any raids that come.

    2. Stop being naive. The courts are rigged. Government thugs have gotten away with much worse.

  3. This story has it all: bureaucrats, stupid fucking laws, armed raid over wood, protectionism, constitutional violations, and guitars. God damn our government is fucked.

    1. No, silly. The government is fine. We’re fucked.

      1. Yeah, we are. Very fucked.

      2. Blame your family and friends who goose-step to work every day, pay their taxes, respect our laws, and consider Ron Paul a radical loon.

        1. BWA HA! HA! HA! HA!

          Yes Epi! Stop being such a statist!

    2. You can say that again.

      1. IRONY IS DEAD!

    3. If it were about any of that, they would have already filed charges. This is about punishing people who don’t give money to Obama. It is that simple. You raid them, slander them on the news, take their stuff, and then never file charges so you don’t have to explain anything to a judge.

      Pretty slick eh?

    4. armed raid over wood

      Wait, I thought they were a raiding a guitar company, not a whorehouse.

  4. I love the smell of discretion in the morning. It smells like. . .abuse.

  5. Isn’t this basically what the feds did to the folks who were accused of “counterfeiting” Ron Paul coins a few years back?

    I am pretty sure they just confiscated their stuff and never charged them with anything.

    1. I know this is hopelessly na?ve, but how is that possible? It’s a taking without compensation, there’s no due process, and I just can’t take it anymore.

      1. Simple. You seize the stuff as evidence to a crime. Then you let the investigation drag out for years. And there is basically nothing you can do about it.

        This kind of stuff happens all of the time to victims of crimes. Let’s say someone steals your TV and the cops find the guy. The TV goes into the evidence locker. You don’t get it back until the trial is over, sometimes not even then if the guy appeals. And you get no compensation. And there is not a damn thing you can do about it.

        1. And, let’s not forget civil asset forfeiture.

          1. You at least get a hearing there, albeit a bad one. If they take your stuff as evidence of a crime, you get no due process. They just keep it until the case is closed.

        2. Where’s the due process? Right to a speedy trial? And the Fourth Amendment rights that were probably violated when they got the stuff in the first place?

          1. Are you serious?

          2. Are you serious? Are you serious?

          3. You had your 4th Amendment Rights protected when they had to get a warrant. As far as speedy trial, the clock only starts after you are charged, not during the investigation. If they never charge you, no speedy trial clock. And if the investigation is never closed, they still keep your stuff.

            Now, most jurisdictions don’t just want to keep your stuff. They want to sell it. It costs money to store it. So, they generally give evidence back where they can. But if you are just a gang of hoodlums from Chicago who happen to be running the federal government and happen to want to make an example of someone, this is a pretty good way to do it.

          4. ” And the Fourth Amendment rights that were probably violated when they got the stuff in the first place?”

            Yeah, probably. Let’s just assume they were…

            1. Generally a good assumption anymore. Not always, but generally…

              1. Sorry, but the .gov gets no benefit of the doubt anymore. Unless the story specifically includes mention of pesky little details like warrants and probable cause, we’re free to assume they weren’t there.

                1. Actually, this is what I like about libertarians (the real ones, not the conservatives acting like ones). government is so potentially potent for abuse we always need a group that reacts to it with knee jerk skepticism. I mean that.

                  1. government is so potentially potent for abuse we always need a group that reacts to it with knee jerk skepticism. I mean that.

                    Except when Obama is in charge. That made me laugh MNG. You just spent the entire thread rejecting any suspicion of the government’s motives.

                    In which posts were you lying?

                2. the .gov gets no benefit of the doubt anymore

                  yeah, what’s the opposite of “giving the benefit of the doubt”? That’s what the gov’t gets.

                  1. it used to be the benefit of the doubt went to the accused….now we are much to smart for that.

      2. “”I know this is hopelessly na?ve, but how is that possible?””

        I think most people who is facing charges would rather not be charged. If the choices are they keep the stuff and charge you, or keep the stuff and not charge you, many people would choose the latter.

        In Gibson’s case, they can lose 500k worth of product, or 500k of product and possibly millions of dollars in fines and legal fees. If Gibson did in fact fail to apply the right tarriff code on the wood, they are likely to be found guilty.

        It’s like settlements and plea deals. Considering the options, just cutting your current losses makes sense.

        It’s a rigged game in favor of authority.

        1. You keep telling me it was fair.

        2. I should think there is some sort of lawsuit that can be filed. You know those suits where the seized property is actually named as a party? Something like that.

          But most of us here have no idea how these things work, so we’re just speculating as to why this or that has not been done.

          But of course, that’s what the internet is for…

          1. Against law enforcement? Using courts that are in the same government you’re trying to deal with? Not to mention the limits on any action presented by various kinds of sovereign immunity.

            1. Yes Pro L, because you know no one has ever won a lawsuit against our government. Because it’s in THEIR courts!


              1. I’m also pretty sure they cannot sue for their property back since it’s been seized as “evidence” in an “ongoing investigation.” And barring a judge holding them in contempt for violation of due process, which should have happened in my opinion, they can tell Ghit, but it’s the way ibson to pound sand because the case is still open.

                This is total bullshit, but it’s becoming more and more common.

                And as far as suing the government, you have to admit, it’s their court, and they can pretty much do what they want to Gibson consequence-free.

                1. If holding the property is unreasonable for any reason, to the extent that it is unreasonable, the accused should have a right to compensation. It might make the government a little less willing to drag crap like this out.

              2. Sarcasm noted, but the government has a massive advantage. Not only do their attorneys interact with judges, etc on a regular basis – the government has nearly unlimited funds to fight you with. Meanwhile, you’ll be stuck with a legal bill that makes our national debt look surmountable.

          2. I am not speculating at all. I know exactly how it works. That product is evidence of a crime and the feds get to keep it until they decide to end the investigation.

            And it is not clear that the civil forfeiture laws apply in this case. Regardless, no such case has been filed. Gibson has a huge amount of property seized, were slandered in the media, and now have no way to get their day in court until the feds decide to give them one. This could go on for years and then one day quietly on a Friday afternoon, the feds could give them their product back and drop the whole thing. And Gibson will be out their legal fees and lost use of the product with absolutely no method of compensation.

            1. You know, in pure takings cases (where there aren’t any criminal allegations), I think compensation is due for temporary takings as well as permanent ones. So unreasonable times holding property for investigation should, in theory, be actionable.

              1. If you win your takings case. But this isn’t a takings case. Understand, this happens to victims of crimes. If your stuff is evidence in a criminal case, the cops just keep it until the trial is over. And there is nothing you can do about it. Maybe you could sue and get some kind of compensation for lost use. But I have never heard of that.

                1. No, no, I understand that. I’m talking about the way things should be, not the way they are.

              2. “it is not clear”
                “I think”

                Jesus, why can’t you guys just admit:”I don’t know the law here that well.”

                Is it because then you’d have to hesitate before concluding this is “obviously” legally improper?

                1. MNG, when someone says of the law “its not clear”, that’s often a sign that they understand it. Similarly, there are issues where, if I hear a lawyer say “Clearly”, I know he’s full of shit.

                  1. What is funny RC is that he doesn’t bother to read the rest which is “regardless no such case has been brought”. Apparently DOJ agrees with me.

                    1. OMG, are you claiming that is is unusual to not bring a case in such a period?

                      It’s not, as my example below shows.

                2. Yes MNG pick out two words and then scream about them. Don’t respond to the arguments. Don’t even attempt to explain why no charges have been filed and why Gibson’s stuff hasn’t been returned. Just pretend that doesn’t exist.

                  Do you realize what a fool you make of yourself on these LE threads? You really set a low bar on fast and furious. But you seem to be aiming even lower here.

                3. Also, MNG, John (aka NCS) and RC are actual lawyers(*) so they tend to qualify all their statements when offering legal opinions in internet fora such as here. Perfectly understandable.

                  *Verified in RC’s case; claimed but unverified in John’s case.

                  1. Neither are criminal lawyers to my knowledge.

                    1. MNG I have forgotten more about criminal law than you will ever know. How many jury trials have you done? I guessing about 15 fewer than I have. I am fully aware of how this works. And I know bullshit when I see it.

                      You in contrast know nothing. Zero. All you know is that Obama could never be guilty of any real misconduct and all facts must be seen in such a light.

                    2. “You in contrast know nothing.”

                      I dunno John, I knew that the warrantless exception for a fleeing felon existed when you didn’t, and that it is not so unusual to hold seized property for months without charging when you didn’t…

                      “MNG I have forgotten more about criminal law”

                      I believe this part!

                    3. No MNG you ran a google search and learned just enough to be dangerous about the subject. It is your favorite trick.

                      Instead you get on here and argue with people who actually work in a field you have only watched on TV. Oh and then you insult every one.

            2. Motion for speedy trial, John?

              1. Speedy trial clock doesn’t start until charges are filed. And since charges have been filed, there is no where to file the motion. No court has the case.

                You might be able to go to court and sue the government for a declaratory judgment saying you are innocent. But I have never heard of such a thing in a criminal case. In a criminal case, the government can investigate for as long as they want. The only limit is the statute of limitations.

                1. I agree and would go further and say Gibson is probably better shutting up.

                  As others had mentioned, suing would likely guarantee more raids, but also with some stupid nebulous law with regards to thickness and Indian-labor added value and the government with all the crap in their hands for months on end….they would likely loose this case as well as invite more incentive based training to respect their elders decision regardless of its idiotic or abusive underpinnings.

                  Side note – how about a Whistler blower law that protects Gibson against the government in this case?

  6. I’m charging you with illegal possession of whatever we happen to have down there.

    One more peep out of you and I’ll do you for heresy.

    1. Say Constable, this stake you’re about to tie me to and all this firewood is really nice. Is it endangered hardwood? Do you have all of you import paperwork in order? Was this stake whittled in Madagascar, or was the wood shipped to the US unfinished for carving? If you let me leave now, I won’t report you.

      1. Oh, no, I’m to be set free! Yeah, really!

        Nope – I’m just joshing! It’s crucifixion for me….

  7. Because fuck you. That’s why.

  8. That woman from the EIA was pretty smug about her ‘allegations’… simply stating, “Gibson has been raided *twice*!…”

    … as though any act by the government justifies itself. They were raided! Twice! they MUST have been guilty!

    The woman asserts its simply about respecting ‘rule of law’…. without any consideration of how arbitrary and disproportionately punitive said ‘laws’ may be.

    Reminds me of the anti-immigration people. “its against teh lawz!!!” No shit sherlock. The laws are idiotic.

    1. “GILMORE” – suspiciously close to “GIBSON” in the phone book. He looks like a troublemaker.

      Round him up with the others…

      1. Just grab everyone in the phone book. They are guilty of something.

  9. Alt text suggestion: Got Wood?

  10. We all know why this happened: to plant guns to instigate support for gun control.

    It’s the only imaginable reason.

    1. Huh. And I thought it was all about TRAKTOR PULLZ!

      1. Oh, we’ll get to those Wal-marters next. It’s in the next Secret Liberal-Muslim Socialist Cabal meeting Sunday.

        Right after the West Wing re-runs.

    2. Why did it happen? Why haven’t there been any actual charges? Why hasn’t the case been closed and the stuff returned? Give a benign explanation. And at some point, doesn’t the track record of this administration start to cause it to no longer receive the benefit of the doubt?

      1. I’m just askin’ questions…

      2. Do you think it’s a good kind of reasoning that forms conclusions because one can’t think of another reason? Especially when it is about a subject that pretty much everyone here is less than expertly informed on (prosecutions, criminal law, etc)?

        1. “Do you think it’s a good kind of reasoning that forms conclusions because one can’t think of another reason?”

          Oh, I didn’t know that was John.

          So his answer will be yes*

          *if liberals are involved

        2. When the government raids a hundred year old otherwise law abiding company with SWAT team and seizes a bunch of said company’s stuff and months later still haven’t filed charges or provided any explanation, yes I think government owes an explanation.

          Essentially your position seems to be “it is the federal government why would you ever think they have done anything wrong?”

          1. Yes, of course that is what I’m arguing John. It’s so plain that is what I’m saying you have to wonder why you bother repeating it.

            1. Do you think it’s a good kind of reasoning that forms conclusions because one can’t think of another reason?

              What is that supposed to mean other than “just because the government hasn’t given you a reason doesn’t mean they don’t have a good one”?

              1. You really don’t see what’s wrong with that reason, do you?


                1. Sigh.

                  Here it is John.

                  There are various ways to prove something. One way, though a weak one, is what you do, it’s called arguing from explanatory value alone. It’s what Freud did with his theories. You are faced with X and it needs an explanation. And you can say “Ok, well, this explains it.”

                  But it’s a very weak proof of anything. It only holds as long as there is no possible other explanation.

                  Considering that you don’t know if this fits with current LE practice and caselaw, it’s an even poorer instance of this reasoning.

                  You’re basically saying “We have these facts. I don’t know if what was done here was unusual or illegal, but that’s an explanation I’m going to accept until I hear better.”

                  And we all know you, even if someone gave you another entirely plausible explanation you would stick with your conclusion.

                  1. And you are basically saying the exact opposite. You think that because they haven’t offered an explanation it must be all okay.

                    You are right. I don’t give Obama the benefit of the doubt. You in contrast will never admit that he has done anything wrong no matter how obvious. Just like you still claim Fast and Furious was just an innocent mistake.

                    We get it MNG. Obama is always right.

                    1. I think it’s some kind of birth defect you have that gives you this bizarre grasp on logic John.

                      Look how you do it here: because I don’t buy your charge against Obama here therefore I never admit Obama is wrong. Apart from that being easily demonstrated false (on many occasions I can point to I’ve conclused Obama to be wrong), but it is TERRIBLE logic.

                      Like the logic you are using in general here.

                    2. The charge is Obama politicized the justice department and went after Gibson because they donate to the other side. They ran a raid, took thousands of dollars worth of property. And now they are going to keep it for months or years. I bet charges are never filed in this case. This was done totally as political revenge.

                      I can understand why you get so defensive about this and fast and furious. Obama has turned out to be so bad that I would imagine someone who supported him probably doesn’t want to face the truth of it. Sort of like people who still Watergate was a set up.

                    3. “The charge is Obama politicized the justice department and went after Gibson because they donate to the other side.”

                      And what is your evidence? Your “evidence” is: none of this makes sense unless interpreted as an act of political revenge. At best this is what I called it: an argument based on “explanatory value” alone. That’s a weak argument John.

                      But in your case it is even worse! Because you don’t know if the facts of this case are that unusual or illegal.

                    4. The circumstances point to no other explanation. Other companies use the wood and they have never been raided. The president of Gibson is the only president of such a company who is out spoken politically.

                      Here we are months later, no charges. And again, there will never be any charges. That wasn’t the point.

                      In the end, your only defense is “well Obama would never do that”. really? I have 500K worth of Gibson product sitting in a DOJ evidence locker that says he would. And I have a few thousand guns in Mexico that say the same thing.

                    5. “Other companies use the wood and they have never been raided.”

                      My god, you are compounding it!

                      Because there has never been an arrest or investigation of one law breaker without one of another that was not explained as an act of political revenge!

                      Jesus, what is this, a half a dozen fallacies in one train of thought so far?

                    6. Just because selectively chose a company on the other side politically to enforce an obscure law is no reason to suspect their motives. LOL

                    7. I mean, let’s take a look at your “evidence” for your charge.

                      1. “They ran a raid, took thousands of dollars worth of property.”

                      This could be explained by your theory. Of course, it could also be explained by “this is what LE agencies do when they investigage alleged lawbreaking.”

                      2. “And now they are going to keep it for months or years.”

                      They’ve kept it for months it seems, you’re speculating on the years (but hey, don’t let that stop you from using such a speculation as evidence for your conclusion). But of course, you have no idea if such a thing is somehow unusual and therefore can’t be explained by normal LE tactics. In fact it is WORSE: you actually hing that you know it IS normal above!

                      3. “I bet charges are never filed in this case.”

                      And the cherry on top is another speculation.

                    8. So here is what the facts are.

                      Gibson was the target of a search and seizure on the alleged grounds that they were breaking the law.

                      It’s perfectly normal and not unusual for property to be seized for evidence in cases like this. It’s also perfectly normal the property will be held for months before charges, even civil forfeiture ones, are filed.

                      I found this case in one minute on google:


                      notice the months that elapsed between the seizure and charges (civil foreiture) filed (from August to March).

                      So, can we conclude that the Bush administration was exacting political revenge against this fishing company?

                      Laughable, just laughable.

                    9. August to March is less than a year. We have already gone passed that with Gibson.

                      Sorry, your example doesn’t fit. Don’t you get tired of defending Obama? Doesn’t it embarrass you? Are you capable of embarrassment?

                    10. “August to March is less than a year. We have already gone passed that with Gibson.”

                      Oh my God look how careless you are.

                      In this case it is August to Feb., so it is SHORTER.

                      ” the August 2011 raid on his Nashville and Memphis factories”

                      You are an idiot!

                    11. Helllllooooo? Johnny? Johnny?

                      So what’s shorter Johnny, August to Feb. or August to March?



                      Just admit it: you are a careless, sloppy thinker.

                    12. It’s also perfectly normal the property will be held for months before charges, even civil forfeiture ones, are filed.

                      And that doesn’t bother you?

                    13. Of course it doesn’t bother him RC, provided the Obama justice is doing it. Now if it were Bush or a Republican he would be appalled. But you have to understand, to MNG Obama might make mistakes, but he would never do anything wrong or abuse someone’s rights. It just can’t happen.

                    14. No, no, I think it’s bad.

                      But notice the goal post change: John’s original argument was “this is so unusual it can only be explained as political vengance.”

                      Now you are saying “but isn’t this sort of thing, while not unusual, a bad thing?”

                      That’s a different thing. My answer is “yup, it’s terrible.” But let’s get back to seeing John eat the crap breakfast he made for himself!

                    15. I had to chuckle at your placement of “alleged” here, MNG.

                      Gibson was the target of a search and seizure on the alleged grounds that they were breaking the law.

                      Isn’t that pretty much what NGS is saying? That the pretext for this search and seizure was just that, a pretext?

                    16. He is on a roll today RC. This looks really bad for Obama. And MNG is out to make sure that no one notices. The worse it looks for Obama the more nasty, personal, and incoherent MNG gets.

                    17. “He is on a roll today RC.”

                      I’ve yet to make the argument that Aug-Feb is longer than Aug.-Mar…

                    18. They have already kept it for nearly a year. And there is no sign of them ever filing charges. Charges will never be filed in this case. And you can’t tell me why they will be other than your usual “Obama would never do that”

                      Yes Obama would and has.

                    19. August to February is “nearly a year”?

                      It’s that careful attention to details of John’s that impresses me almost as much as his “logic.”

                    20. And I am sure there will be charges filed next month. Gibson is going to get its day in court any day now.

                      Why don’t you just save time and say “Obama would never do that” for every post because that is the only argument you have made.

                    21. No, no my lil’ dodger, let’s hear it: what’s longer, August to Feb. or August to March? Because a minute ago you accused me of being a hopeless Obama dupe based on this, and you were wrong, flat, idiotically wrong.

                    22. So let’s review, shall we?

                      John thought that the fact that they’ve kept the property without a charge from August to Feb. is a sign that this is so unusual and improper that it can only be explained as political revenge.

                      And then I presented a case where property was seized and kept for a longer time period before any filing.


                      I guess we can conclude that Bush’s DOJ was just out to get that fishing vessel, right John? I mean, how else can it be explained?


                    23. If you can show me that the fishing vessel’s President had a history of being an outspoken critic of Bush and that it was a selective enforcement against that guy, maybe we could.

                      Of course we can do none of that. All you can do is lie and pull shit out of your ass MNG. You are just sorry.

                    24. No, no, here is John from the past:

                      “They ran a raid, took thousands of dollars worth of property. And now they are going to keep it for months or years. I bet charges are never filed in this case. This was done totally as political revenge.”

                      Your entire second premise there is “And now they are going to keep it for months or years” which is now demonstrably not unusual.

                      Yep, only an Obama shill could see the hole in your logic there John. Only an Obama shill could think Aug.-March is longer than Aug.-Feb.

                      You’re hilarious.

                    25. Now that you’re shifting the goalposts John let’s stipulate: it is not unheard of for LE to keep property seized in a raid for months before charging, right? That part of your argument is now demonstrably incorrect. Can you admit it now?

                    26. Sure it is not unheard of. But Obama has done nothing to give himself the benefit of the doubt. The day Gibson is actually charged and convicted, you can come back and say you were right. Until that time, Obama is going to be assumed to be the crook that he has shown himself to be during the last three years.

                      That is what this comes down to. You will always give Obama the benefit of the doubt no matter what. The rest of this board is a lot more skeptical. If the Gibson CEO hadn’t been an outspoken Republican, and if this law were ever enforced any other time, you might have a point. But he wasn’t and it isn’t. And that means this whole thing stinks to high heaven.

                    27. “I can understand why you get so defensive about this and fast and furious. Obama has turned out to be so bad that I would imagine someone who supported him probably doesn’t want to face the truth of it. Sort of like people who still Watergate was a set up.”


                      I do battle on a daily basis with such people.
                      John, you missed my story the other day of when a friend of mine defended Obama’s stance on gun control for an hour, then before I left asked me to check the pistol I lent her for self-defense.

          2. *slurp slurp*

    3. Sorry MNG, you can’t post when John’s not here, it’s like a law or something.

      1. Nigerian Climate Scientist is John. Look at the email.

      2. I think John is here using a joke handle.

        1. That would mean that John is Nigerian CLimate Scientist’s secret identity! Madre de Dios!

        2. John is always here, what are you thinking?

          1. You’re thinking of me.

      3. Well, we shouldn’t answer. It’s rude to hit on somebody else’s date when they get up to go to the bathroom (or get some work done).

    4. We all know why this happened: to plant guns to instigate support for gun control.

      That one still stings, doesn’t it, MNG?

      That’s OK. We’ve mostly forgotten about it (until you brought it up, anyway). Your performance on the state employee seizing the child’s lunch thread surpassed it, IMO.

      1. I missed that one RC. That is even low for him.

  11. See, this right here is why I have two Fenders and a Rickenbacker – cause the Almanian don’t support no company breakin’ no…doing stuff that’s….

    I’m sure whatever Gibson did is bad and they deserve what they’re getting from our Heroes? in…whatever color uniform the Gestapo is we..err…the SWAT guys are wearing these days.

  12. Let me be clear: you are either my friend or my enemy. And I reward my friends, and punish my enemies.

  13. What’s interesting here to me is that it is libertarians who have often reminded me that the nature of any government rule or law is that, in the end, they send guys to break down your door and arrest you if break them. That’s why they should all be weighed very carefully.

    But then when it happens it’s like “OMG, can you believe they actually raided this place and stuff?”

    That’s how laws are eventually enforced. The law might be stupid and the penalty too, but this is how laws work…

    1. Do they enforce laws by kicking doors down and taking things? I always thought they enforced laws by going to court and charging people with crimes. That doesn’t seem to be happening here.

      1. Well, often there is this thing called an investigation, which often involves search and seizure I’ve heard, and an “arrest” that kind of starts the ball rolling.

        1. Cardinal Fang! Read the charges!

          Oh – there are no charges. WEIRD!

        2. Maybe. But considering this administration’s abysmal law enforcement record, and the complete lack of progress in this case, that justification seems doubtful.

      2. Do they enforce laws by kicking doors down and taking things?

        Sure looks that way, doesn’t it?

    2. Yeah, we shouldn’t be surprised that in MuNG’s world the gummint is all about kickin’ down doors rather than using their warrant to request entry to a premises WITHOUT knocking down a door.

      Like they do all the time when it’s not a political hit like this one.

      “Cause that’s how laws are enforced eventually.”

      Really? Always? Oh, right – in MuNg’s world.

      1. Look, you’re completely missing the point. This is why we should always be hesitant to make laws, because this is the nature of laws. It’s strange to acknowledge this and then to be shocked when the law does what it does.

        On another matter, were any doors in this instance?

        1. You’re missing the point.

          This isn’t about the law.

          It’s about arbitrary abuse of power.

          1. But we don’t know that is what is going on, because no body here likely knows if this investigation is being carried out unusually or not.

            1. Some things are obvious.

              1. But when you DON’T KNOW it is not obvious dude.

                And you don’t know. You’re not a criminal lawyer or prosecutor or something (God help your clients if I’m wrong)

                1. The obvious need not be explained because if someone can’t see the it, then no amount of explaining will help.

                  1. Now this is the last refuge of the dull witted.

                    “My conclusion is so obvious, if you can’t see it I can’t explain it!”

                    1. And now on to why water is wet…

        2. I always thought we enforced laws by going to court and providing people due process meaning the government put forth the evidence against the defendant and the defendant had a chance to answer.

          There should be nothing inherently unfair or abusive about the enforcement of laws. It shouldn’t involve seizing huge amounts of property and holding it without bringing any charges or explanation why you have taken it.

          You are just amazing. The feds totally abuse their authority here and your excuse is “well that is how laws are enforced”. Are you fucking kidding me?

          1. This reminds me of the case from the other day where there was a warrantless search and shooting in NYC, the story was actually posted by John. He launched into what an abuse this was because there was no exception to the warrant requirement that would cover what happened. He railed agains the reporter of the story for not pointing that out.

            Then I pointed out that actually there was SCOTUS caselaw directly on point that covered it.

            So John said “man, I was wrong about that. I’ll think more carefully before I make such a charge.”

            Nah, I’m just joking, John said “but see, it shows abuses happen in Blue States!”

            The point is, John has no idea what the criminal law is here. I bet no one here does. So we’re not sure if this is being done arbitrarily or what.

            But hey, don’t let that stop anyone from speculating and holding out as if it were from a base of knowledge…

            1. Change the subject MNG. That right. You have talked yourself into a corner on this and cant’ defend Obama. So talk about something else.

              It is your move. Fuck you. We are not changing the subject. We are talking about this. And specifically your contention that this is just how laws are enforced. Really? You think this is fair and how laws ought be enforced?

              1. You are so dumb you can’t see I’m not changing the subject at all, I’m telling of another instance in which you made the exact same mistake, in order to illustrate the mistake you are making NOW. That’s not changing the subject. I’m illustrating what you are doing HERE: basing a conclusion on a position of ignorance.

                Does one have to be actually retarded to be a conservative, or does it just help?

                1. *slurp slurp*

                  Oh baby, that’s how I like it!

                  *slurp slurp slurp*

                  Oh yeah! A little to the right!

                  *slurp slurp*

                  1. If this passes for discourse in conservative circles perhaps it would explain John’s logic lapses.

                  2. How does one go “a little to the right” when sucking someone off?

                    Just curious.

                2. Q: OH, oh I’m sorry, but this is abuse.
                  M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
                  Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
                  M: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
                  Q: Not at all.
                  M: Thank You.
                  (Under his breath) Stupid git!!

        3. So let me see if I got this straight. You’re saying that libertarians are shocked when stupid laws are enforced? Of course we are! It should never have been law in the first place, and the US should not have signed whatever treaty bound us to this law. I don’t think you’ll get an argument for the law here. Or maybe I’m still missing your point?

          1. No, I’m saying you shouldn’t be shocked when laws are carried out via coercive measures. That is, according to libertarians, the very nature of laws.

            1. Deliberately obtuse as usual.

            2. Oh ok, I see. Well at least we have a place like H&R to vent and bitch and moan. It’s healthier than running around the streets in berzerker mode punching cops and throwing bricks at hippies.

              1. I like that one guy says “Deliberately obtuse” and the other “Oh ok, I see.”

                Sarcasmic sees it as “obvious” because he’s a hopeless partisan who uses his rage where most people use thinking.

                1. “Obvious” was mentioned in the other thread. Here sarcasmic correctly pointed out deliberately obtuse behavior.

    3. Well that only happens (with impunity) when there’s a monopoly on force

      If they did not have such an ability, they can “pass” all the laws they want that people didn’t consent to, it wouldn’t matter and we avoid this.

      When they do, but only consider laws as simply enumerating things derived from the NAP, then we avoid this.

  14. What’s additionally funny is that this seemingly silly provision is one of those provisions we adopted to faciliate trade agreements with another nation (in this case India).

    1. Tut tut, you are contradicting yourself. I doubt you are an expert on Indian wood thickness, so you are making a conclusion based on ignorance. There must be a whole set of reasons the provisions were created. Stop jumping to conclusions.

  15. “So you want your shit back, eh?”
    “Say what, you gonna sue?”
    “Might I remind you that we haven’t filed any charges–criminal charges, that is… yet

  16. Just think of all the jobs that are created when the feds shut down factories!

    1. No, no, you’re going about it all wrong.

      Try “se, this provides work and therefore jobs for the unionized cops at the expense of the non-unionized guitar workers”

      That way you don’t just poke the Dem with the jobs stick, but you get to work the union and corruption angle too!

      1. Obvious is obvious.

  17. Mick Jones (The Clash/Big Audio Dynamite/ Carbon/Silicon) used a Les Paul Junior, Les Paul Standard, several Les Paul Customs, and a Melody maker during his tenure with The Clash. He currently uses a Les Paul Junior Double Cut.

    1. We’re gonna be raiding that motherfucker!

  18. Long delays after searches are SOP with the federal government. The more minor or obscure the type of legal violation being investigated, the longer the typical delay. It’s routine, in my experience, for people investigated for “environmental crimes” to wait years to see if they will be charged — often at the last moment before the statute of limitations runs.

    So: the fact that the government hasn’t charged Gibson does not mean anything, one way or the other, about the merits of the case. It’s just the way the feds do business.

    1. IOW they abuse their power because they can.

      1. It’s all such a mess now. Losing property or liberty for being a suspect should be a very short process–you’re investigated, held, if called for, tried, and either convicted or freed (and either lose or keep your property) in a very short amount of time. Nowadays, not so much. Delays can be caused by defense maneuvers, too, but the idea of a speedy trial seems lost.

        1. We are all guilty until proven otherwise.

          1. That’s just the way it is dude. That’s how laws are enforced, so don’t complain about it.

    2. That is very true Ken. But MNG will tell you that is a ok. That is just how laws have to be enforced.

      1. My point is not that it’s OK. It’s not. My point is that you can’t infer anything about the government’s views of the merits of the case based on a delay this long.

  19. My job is giving the business.

  20. Selective enforcement of the law (and they even admit to it)? Yet another sign of tyranny.

  21. Suppose they cut a deal with the Government for return of the guitars: will there be strings attached?

    1. Smooth. 🙂

      1. I dunno. I felt it fell a little flat.

  22. Andrea Johnson = nasty statist cunt

  23. Being in law enforcement means never having to say you’re sorry.

    1. If they loose they may be singing a different tune.

    2. If you work for Obama, you will always MNG here to defend you.

  24. Gibson: just close shop. fuck the products, fuck the jobs, just fucking quit.

    Let Fender deal with this shit.

  25. Cops say to-may-to
    Civilians say to-mah-to police brutality.

    But in their defense, according to the city manager, “All three officers had strong performance records… up to this particular time.”

    None were charged with a single offense.

    1. I love the manager quote.

    2. I look forward to the day when bad cops are found dead in the street.

      1. Nice. Who’s gonna do the killing? You?

    3. I can’t be arsed to find it, but one of the Leon County “top cops” with the fraud division got caught scamming a 90 year-old man. Sheriff’s priceless quote: “I would have considered him a good officer and a good friend up until yesterday.”

      1. I can understand that. Hell, most of us found out someone we knew ended up being a dirtbag.

        And I don’t care what he thought of him up to that day. I’m solely concerned with whether or not he treated the guy like a suspect or like a cop who needed discipline.

  26. The American State is the biggest crime syndicate in world history.

    Rackets and annual scores/spoils: Tax ($2T), Banking ($10T in 2008), Education ($1T), Healthcare ($1T), Retirement($1T), Housing($5T in 2008), Energy ($1T), Infrastructure ($1T) and Imperialistic “Defense”($1T).

    Don Bush and Don Obama have doubled the Family Fortune in 4 years. Not too fuckin shabby. The next moves are to collapse the currency and start a world war to consolidate a full fascist empire.

    1. “I promise you ‘Five Long Years’ more.”

  27. OK wow man, so why didnt I think of that? Seriously.

  28. I hope you people who encouraged MNG in his trolling are happy with yourselves.

    1. He has studied trolling extensively.

    2. Or do you want our trolls to be amateurs, Warty?

    3. Or do you want our trolls to be amateurs, Warty?

      1. I didn’t get that PhD in Troll Studies for nothing, you know. I have studied the trolling tables extensively, and I can tell that you are just not trolliatve.

        1. You went to a party troll school. I bet they had a tractor pull team.

  29. The smugness of that federal bureaucrat is beyond the pale. Either charge Gibson or give them their wood back. This all reminds of of the argument of how many angle will fit on the end of a pin. And easier argument 🙂

  30. “referring to the August 2011 raid on his Nashville and Memphis factories by agents from the Departments of Homeland Security and Fish & Wildlife.”

    What does this have to do with Homeland Security?


    1. Team Blue should, in theory, be against DHS and the Patriot Act, among other things… but they go along with it because it give them powers they can use when they have the majority.

  31. The US Attorney is famous for filing Lacey Act charges on the last day of the statue of limitations. It is a form of punishment. Gibson has money tied up and cannot conduct business as usual. This is punishing a corporation without conviction, or even a day in court.

    I predict one of two things will happen. First charges will be filed in August 2016 on the last business day before the 5th anniversary of the original seizure or charges will never be filed but the confiscated materials will never be returned.

    RE: The fourth amendment argument, Gibson waived fourth amendment rights to obtain an import permit from the feds. Fourth amendment appeals are a non-starter.

  32. Note to Gibson: Wood from the USA would fix that problem.

    1. Of course! Why didn’t Gibson think to use all that plentiful and cheap american rosewood, mahogany, and ebony? You should be their new CEO!

  33. Everyone – get out and vote – stop the insanity and arrogance of this regime. Vote to restore the country to us, the people.

  34. You’re all missing the point. Gibson has no business making guitars in the US. They should be making them in China.

  35. See GOP guitar czar Chris Holly make a statement on the raid w/ Herman Cain.

  36. buddy’s step-aunt brought in $21917 last month. she is making an income on the laptop and bought a $513400 home. All she did was get fortunate and set to work the tips written on this website makecash16. ?om

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.