... Gibson’s very success made it a fat target for federal prosecutors, whom Juszkiewicz alleges were operating at the behest of lumber unions and environmental pressure groups seeking to kill the market for lumber imports....
Two months before the raid, lobbyists slipped some arcane supply-chain reporting provisions into an extension of the Lacey Act of 1900 that changed the technical definition of “fingerboard blanks,” which are legal to import.
With no clear legal standards, a sealed warrant the company has not been allowed to see too this day, no formal charges filed, and the threat of a prison term hanging over any executive who does not take “due care” to abide by this absurdly vague law, Gibson settled.
May 28, 2014
"Lumber Union Protectionists Incited SWAT Raid On My Factory."
"Says Gibson Guitar CEO."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
121 comments:
Besides which I believe Henry Juszkiewicz has contributed to proscribed 501(c)(4)'s.
Instapundit has a tagline that consists of "tar and feathers" that applies to this story.
How can a sealed warrant possibly be allowed?
(Except, maybe, in some kind of FISA national security case?)
whom Juszkiewicz alleges were operating at the behest of lumber unions
Who, not whom. Idiot Forbes writers.
"A government powerful enough to give you everything you need is powerful enough to take everything you have."
--Ronald Reagan
Lawfare + noble cause corruption. What could go wrong? It would, however, be satisfying if the smug little Brownshirts who conduct such operations (and vandalize and terrorize legitimate businesses in pursuit of their ever-so-moral agenda) would just once have to taste the medicine they are so ready to dispense.
It's also possible that EPA workers wanted to guarantee their own future employment and suggested the change to the bill.
Perhaps the Union Protectionists and the EPA worked together.
Seems like a waste of time and money to me.
Liberals used to cry about "where did all the factory jobs go?" and yet their political kin are always the ones beating on corporations that make stuff in America. Put two and two together you Keystone-stopping, Gibson-raiding, Boeing-suing bureaucratic bastards.
That being said, I LOVE my 1984 Gibson SG Special. Best electric guitar I ever played. Made in the USA.
I would say that this is the kind of Chicago style politics that got Jesse Jackson's son a Budweiser distributorship, but that would be racist.
Another example of our lawless government. Punishing enemies, like those who contribute to another political party are the thing these people are good at.
Governing ? Nope.
Ask the GM and Chrysler bondholders and auto dealers.
Sad. For our country. Made my SG tat cry.
This case made it to the media. But it is not rare.
The Federal DAs can and do select cases to make headlines. They are free to and raid businesses and arrest innocent people with small armies of of militarized teams all being photographed for that day's PR release accompanied by made up cases involving Federal Reg. violations.
The defendant is put out of business, financially ruined by million dollar Defense attorney retainers and threatened with life in prison if they do not plead out to a small violation.
After the case has been used as fun and games by the young Federal trainee attorneys for a year or two years and no evidence has been found, they threaten to go to trial unless the victim pleads to a high fine or else. Given the odds and costs and jail time threat that closes out the case.
There is no shame in the system anymore, only a power mad cadre of young up and comer Federal attorneys using the Federal Apparatus to poach innocent people whose only crime is to have been successful enough to irritate some politically connected competitors.
"a sealed warrant the company has not been allowed to see too this day"
That is completely and utterly a wrong.
A SWAT raid.
Forcing secretaries to the floor and jamming machine guns into their ears over the "technical definition of 'fingerboard blanks'".
Jesus Christ, the federal government has lost it's mind.
Why was a Nazi-style SWAT raid needed. Certainly, there was no reasonable (Can Mr. Obama's Administration be held to that standard?) expectation of physical resistance.
If it wasn't raids, it would be Holder's DOJ and Operation Choke Point. Welcome to the police state. They are begging for armed insurrection, and they may get it.
It's very troubling when the federal government can be misused in this manner. The line between law enforcement and blatant extortion seems to have been crossed. Now we have DOJ's Operation Choke Point intended to harm legal businesses that are not in favor with the ruling regime.
Labor union against guitars do not sound right, and a lumberjack union should certainly be expected to know guitars are not made from lodgepole pines.
Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent
The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior. The volume of federal crimes in recent decades has increased well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, handing federal prosecutors an additional trove of vague and exceedingly complex and technical prohibitions to stick on their hapless targets.
I guess Gibson forgot to make a sufficient "donation" the Democratic National Racketeering organization and to Obama.
Bureaucracy weaponized.
This can't end well.
It will not be a good time to be alive when scores are settled.
But D.F.Martin guitars were not raided, and they import the same material. It appears that, the Gibson Company sends to many donations to the wrong party.
Ho hum, all in a days work for democrats.
Don't fool with the Mafia, best pay the damn protection money.
Our current government is a criminal enterprise. Where does that leave the law?
Little more than acriminal enterprise. (Obama administration that is)
"...intent used to be fundamental to the mens rea required for criminal liability. It no longer is,..."
Bad,very bad indeed. We are sinking back into primitive thinking.
"...the Feds routinely take advantage of the vagueness of many of our laws by starting from the target and working backwards, selectively prosecuting people they want to go after by charging them with crimes they often don’t even know exist."
In other words we now live in a full blown tyranny. Because the kangaroo courts are targeting a small number of people most Americans don't yet realize that the basic rule of law is gone.
"This is neither a Democratic problem nor a Republican problem. Abuse of justice by federal prosecutors has ballooned under both parties."
Moral equivalence is so soothing. Perhaps I'm showing my ignorance, but could someone give examples of instances when Republicans have acted this way?"
"Atlas Shrugged" has become a how too manual instead of the cautionary tale Ayn Rand intended.
At this point, the US becoming a banana republic is looking like a best case scenario. We're talking about industrial strength corruption across government. That's ths Chicago Way.
“We have a warrant!” Well, lemme see the warrant.” “We can’t show that to you because it’s sealed.”
The existence of sealed warrants for a case like this bothers me. There are no extraordinary factors like national security at play in this case, as far as I can tell. If a warrant is sealed against being read by the very people it's executed against, then in what sense has the government obtained a warrant at all? Certainly not in the sense that its actions are constrained by a public set of laws that citizens can appeal to through the courts.
This is why the Founders gave us a Supreme Court. Unfortunately the Roberts Court is one of the worst in our history when it comes to restraining government.
What will be the Obama legacy? Illegal law.
This whole incident - especially the confiscation without charges being filed - stinks to high heaven. There have been so many dueling press releases that I'm not sure Gibson is completely clean, but this really seems like a case where the prosecutors can make up the charges as they go along. (And I say this as a Fender/Martin/Taylor guy. The two Gibsons I've owned were disappointments.)
They took the barre! The whole g-ddamned barre!
There is no justice in the world for the enemies of Good King Barack and his minions. Gibson executives were damned lucky they weren't burnt at the stake.
You voted for JUST THIS SORT OF SHIT when you TWICE voted for Obama, Althouse, yet you STILL play the sophist in your failure to totally repent your errors of judgement..
Our criminal justice system is in need of reform. Criminal laws should be clear. That's not the case with far too many laws. Federal agencies too often use vaguely written laws to their advantage, by threatening criminal penalties to intimidate individuals and companies into complying with policy choices that were never passed by Congress. Corrupt federal officials use vague laws to punish their enemies and to reward their friends.
A vague law was the first of the things that went wrong in the Gibson case. The next was the use of a SWAT team to enforce what was at worst a paperwork issue. Federal, state, and local governments are far too quick to pull out their guns. The rules need to be changed so that the threatening of violence by government actors is only tolerated when warranted. Paperwork issues do not warrant threats of violence.
A related issue, but not part of the Gibson case, is the enforcing of warrants in ways designed to inflict inconvenience or embarrassment. Warrants (generally) should be enforced during business hours -- not early in the morning to attract attention from the neighbors and scare kids.
Not the sweetest tune for those who advocate for the rule of law.
In the end, formal charges were never filed, but the disruption to Gibson’s business and the mounting legal fees and threat of imprisonment induced Juszkiewicz to settle for $250,000—with an additional $50,000 “donation” piled on to pay off an environmental activist group.
There was a crime committed alright, but it wasn't by Gibson Guitar.
He also happens to be an outspoken conservative, but I am sure that didn't play into this. I am proud to be the owner of a Gibson Government Series Flying V guitar made from the very wood the jackbooted thugs confiscated. Nothing could sound sweeter.
Cordially,
Jim
I can't believe there is such a thing as a "sealed warrant", at least for a search/raid that doesn't involve national security (i.e. where the warrant may reveal intelligence methods that would endanger innocents). And, I really can't believe that this warrant is still sealed, after the case has been settled. How can we correct mistakes in our system if the basic facts of legal/police procedure are unknowable to the public?
Can a knowledgable someone explain this to me?
I'm a bit confused here about the concept of a "sealed warrant". I wasn't aware that such a thing even exists.
Since it does, does it automatically become "unsealed" once the case is settled?
This should be an enormous scandal. But, somehow, I don't think it will be.
David in Cal
You voted for Obama. You voted for this.
I cant tell you how much this pisses me off. SEALED search warrants? Bullshit! Then get the fuck off my property or shoot me. There has got to be a way to fight this violation of basic rights without going bankrupt in the process. If the fucking government keeps getting away with these sleazy fucking tactics they will take it further and further until some innocent schmoe does get killed. Our government is out of control and needs to be stopped legally. I don't know how you would do that but someone needs to figure it out quickly..
This is my image of present reality which explains the Gibson raid.
The situation in this country has changed so much and so suddenly that we are living in "the Wild West", (in a lawless area. This lawlessness has several forms one of which is NSA invasiveness and another is government over regulation.) The powerful are acting like cattle barons sending herds (of regulations) trampling over farmers (the citizens) in order to control everything. They have hired gunslingers (government prosecutors) at their beck and call. The only US marshal in the territory is too far away (the law has not caught up with the changed reality). And so ... what should a law abiding citizen who wants to uphold law do?
This is my image of present reality which explains the Gibson raid.
The situation in this country has changed so much and so suddenly that we are living in "the Wild West", (in a lawless area. This lawlessness has several forms one of which is NSA invasiveness and another is government over regulation.) The powerful are acting like cattle barons sending herds (of regulations) trampling over farmers (the citizens) in order to control everything. They have hired gunslingers (government prosecutors) at their beck and call. The only US marshal in the territory is too far away (the law has not caught up with the changed reality). And so ... what should a law abiding citizen who wants to uphold law do?
What happened to Gibson is sickening, and it goes on and on.
To paraphrase Glenn Reynolds, tar and feathers are too good for the perpetrators.
Considering the amount of official immunity provided to the officials who get to threaten a prison term to company executives who may seek legal recourse in this matter, I don't think I'm being too extreme to say that those officials should, in turn, feel uncomfortable in their own well-being when they abuse their power and exploit the law to bully and threaten without a clear common good.
Time and again, when normal people feel immune from response and empowered to bully - they do. See: Standford prison experiment by way of example.
When it comes to government, one of the few recourses the common citizen has when the legal system itself has been captured and provided "official immunity" is to make the involved officials feel unsafe: that they themselves could be forcibly incarcerated or have their rights taken away by force at the whim of someone not truly within their control.
This is such a core root and principle of constitutional law and the bill of rights. It makes me sick to see this, because it is a true breach of freedom to Gibson and those involved.
Isn't it clear, yet? We live in a police state, and have been for some time. They're becoming more bold, more brazen, more overt, more emphatic, more contemptuous, more fearless...more brutal.
It will get worse.
On second thought, secret warrants may be just the thing! I'm gonna get a bunch of my buddies with tazers and head down to the nearest sorority house claiming I have a warrant to strip search all the sisters.
When they ask to see the warrant? Sorry ... secret search warrant. Can't show it to you.
Think I could claim precedence has been set when they throw me in Gitmo? Worked for the feds!
I would like to see these Federal Department SWAT teams start raiding each other and start picking each other off. That's how fed up I am about the proliferation of SWAT teams.
There are a few things that bother me about this story that others haven't mentioned.
1) This is Gibson Guitars version of the story. We officers are never allowed to tell our side of the story. I'm thousands of miles away from his incident and I know as much about it as everyone else here. However, I can tell you, having worked on the border for 18 years now, that every single time I have been involved in an incident that included the media, the story was so wrong it was infuriating. And guess what? The media only got half of the story, and it wasn't my half. Why? Because I'm not allowed to talk to the media. Never.
I have even seen and heard a story that was on Instapundit some years back where I was directly involved. Totally wrong. And just like in this thread here on Althouse, people were up in arms and angry about the mistreatment of this person. But I couldn't say anything then, and those involved in this case can't say anything now.
My point is, this is why we have law and not lynch mobs in this country. Don't become the lynch mob.
2) SWAT. Some people have talked about how this was a SWAT style raid. Again, I wasn't there. But this is how we are trained. And if we do not follow our training, the government will not support us if we get hurt or hurt someone. We must follow our training.
In this case, whenever we serve a warrant, we wear all of our protective gear. Why? Because when I come to your home or your business, I have no idea what I'm going to encounter. Safety first. We served a warrant on an elderly couple not too long ago. We were 99% sure that there wasn't going to be any issues. But we still put on all of our gear and followed our training, because no one wanted to be the one carried to their grave that day. And in the end, no one was hurt.
On the other hand, just over a decade ago, one of our bosses got the idea that we needed more community relations. They got the idea that we shouldn't pat anyone down in the public eye, because that would make us look bad. We had to take them into a private area and pat them down, this was new policy to give us better press.
This elderly man was stopped because the K-9 alerted to his vehicle. Normally, we would have searched him immediately upon his exiting the vehicle. But because of new policy, we escorted him into a private area first. He pulled a 22 from his waist and shot two officers. Then he was shot in the head and died instantly. Both officers survived, thank God, but it's because of times like this we train. We train to behave a certain way in all cases in order to be safe. Which is why we look like SWAT even though we're not SWAT.
Maybe someday we'll find out the truth of this case, meaning, we will get to hear both sides.
Until then, I'd hope most Althouse commenters were wise enough not to take Gibson at their word when you haven't heard both sides.
Once more Congress fails to do its one job, read the bills and know what is in them.
In a article involving a SEALED warrant you complain about not hearing the government side?
"1) This is Gibson Guitars version of the story."
Great. So let's hear an honest account of the government's case against Gibson.
Never mind.
No one has ever heard of a sealed warrant that remained so after settlement even ... but people are quick to rush to believe it. Because of politics, nothing else.
Not the finest hour here. Zero skepticism, just lapping up what Henry lays down.
The acoustic guitar forum I was on had people campaigning to have people contact their Congressmen prior to the last re-up of the Lacey Act .... but Gibson Guitar was unaware. Some people have no B.S. detector. Gibson's story has plenty of that mixed Into their version of this.
This is not a Republicans vs the Democrats issue. Both power structures want to use the Federal Criminal Law as tool for assasinating the innocent when a political contribution is backhandedly offered.
Why the ethics of the Federal Attorneys is now MIA is the real question. They stink far worse than the VA that lies for bonus money, but can be exposed at anytime. The Federal DAs are unstoppable because the public cannot get past the idea that Law Enforcement Feds are catching Criminals. all according to the Feds super lyer PR Departments.
The young assistant attorneys have plum jobs and careers ahead of them to lose, so none of them squeal to the Press. Their are no Snowdens among them.
Eric, YOU are part of the problem. You don't know what you will encounter, so YOUR safety first, not the safety of citizens. You don't know WHAT you may encounter at the Gibson Guitar factory - perhaps a James-Bond-villain-style secret army preparing for global domination? That doesn't fucking fly for me. It would have been acceptable risk to walk right up to the Gibson Guitar factory and knock politely on the door.
Dude.
Serve a "sealed warrant" against an American citizen not involved in any national security issues and not issued by a FISA court and don't be surprised if some lead finds its way heading in your direction. I won't be sorry.
You should refuse to serve such warrants, thug.
I remember doing laundry in a laundromat in Chicago and I see two middle age guys walk up to some kid around 20 years old. The kid just walked out of his house. I looked down for a moment and then back up and noticed about eight Chevy Caprices (some of them marked cop cars) surround the three. About ten or twelve more guys popped out of the cars. All of them appeared to be in street clothes or standard police uniforms. As they put the kid in the car, some went up to the house and walked in (I didn't see anyone knock. I wasn't watching that closely). They walked out with weapons and some boxes. And then the cop cars drove away. No battering rams, no tactical gear, no balaclavas. It was so quiet. Not even a siren. I thought about how professional this arrest was. How come cops can't operate like that today?
"Don't become the lynch mob."
Yeah, well, don't become the enemy, eric.
Works both ways.
Eric's safety first (for police, not the public) is why the level of respect for and trust in his profession is eroding. Plus, as we all know, it doesn't always end with no one getting hurt. Especially in those fun no-knock raids on the wrong address.
Scratch a librul and there is a bloody tyrant screaming to get out. Honestly, everything they do is just another positioning play to advance their determination to control the rest of us.
- Krumhorn
eric: ""1) This is Gibson Guitars version of the story."
LOL
Wow.
Those guitar factories must be hotbeds of illicit and violent activity.
I wonder what the stats say about violent crime in guitar factories?
Must be pretty heavy to warrant (see what I did there?) such a strongarmed reaction.
So, what was the "crime" again?
Oh yeah.
Not ponying up enough cash to the dems.
Hey eric, hope you enjoy acting as the enforcement arm of the democrat "protection" racket.
'Nice little guitar business you've got there. Be a shame if something happened to it. Have you considered a donation to groups affiliated with the democrat party?'
Extortion racket.
Lucky Luciano would be proud.
Oso Negro,
You're mistaken about safety. Its for my safety and yours. Remember the elderly gentlemen who died after shooting two officers with a pistol he pulled from his waistband?
Had the officers pat him down immediately he may still be alive today. But the officers, due to policy, let their guard down. He thought he could take them and paid a heavy price. His life.
Our first level of force is known as officer presence. If you're a filthy, unkempt, out of shape slob, its been shown people think they can take you. And they try. As opposed to an officer who is in shape, clean uniform, focused, etc.
Our training helps us protect everyone involved, even those who would mean to do us harm. And if someone does mean us harm we always want to have an unfair advantage over them.
Eric, YOU are part of the problem. You don't know what you will encounter, so YOUR safety first, not the safety of citizens.
I wouldn't say that Eric is the problem, but rather, he works for the problem. He is not the one setting the policy that officer lives are substantially more important than the lives they endanger by their SWAT type raids. As he points out, he is screwed if he doesn't do things by the book, and something goes wrong, and the book says to don their protective gear, shoot the dogs, break down the doors, throw in flash bangs, and then hold everyone at gunpoint until the area is secured. So, they do, because things occasionally go wrong, and if they do, having done things by the book gets you off the hook. Only the procedure was maybe wrong, and that isn't his fault, and, indeed, it isn't anyone's fault. Sorry about the person shot because they were reaching for their glasses, but at least the officers were safe. The indictment should be of the system that fosters SWAT raids, with little, to no, accountability, and not the officers who take part in them. Oh, and added to the guilty here are the politicians, bureaucrats, and the powerful people pushing them, who instigate these raids for personal or political reasons. (And, yes, that includes Harry Reid, who got his former staffer, the BLM director, to use a SWAT team to round up cattle interfering with his son's client's solar panels). The U.S. attorney who authorized this raid, and his colleagues who do the same on a daily basis, should live through one on the receiving end.
Eric said:
"And guess what? The media only got half of the story, and it wasn't my half. Why? Because I'm not allowed to talk to the media. Never"
Perhaps that's correct for a low level grunt but not for the higher level government officials. Somehow the government's case always gets out somehow. Duke Lacrosse case anyone?
"SWAT. Some people have talked about how this was a SWAT style raid. Again, I wasn't there. But this is how we are trained."
Absolutely correct. That is probably why so many unarmed civilians are being shot now days. After the police shoot someone they make up stories to justify themselves and usually get away with it. Recently a father called 911 because his mentally incompetent son was sitting in a chair in the middle of the road and he was worried about his son's safety. Big mistake. Of course the police shot him first and then checked to see if he were armed. They made up a story claiming that he was aiming a gun at them. Contrary to what you claim the victim was dead so no one heard from him but the police did plenty of talking. They made up the story that he attacked them. Fortunately someone filmed the whole thing and guess what - the police were lying. The man just stood there next to his chair the whole time and made no threatening move whatsoever.
About a year ago the police in a neighboring city went to the wrong house in SWAT team mode and broke in. The elderly owner of the wrong house came to investigate and of course in typical SWAT fashion they shot him dead in his own garage. He was armed since he thought he was in the middle of a burglary but since there were no cameras this time the police just made up a story to justify why they shot him.
"Until then, I'd hope most Althouse commenters were wise enough not to take Gibson at their word when you haven't heard both sides."
Do you in fact know that there is another side? You haven't provided any documentation to support your claim. Who says that Forbes has relied on Gibson spokesmen for their information rather than doing a research for themselves? Again evidence? Last I heard, Forbes is a respectable magazine not a yellow journal.
Mark Steyn this last May 11 wrote on this general subject, in a dialogue with several U.S. police officers, who sound much like Eric above, but I'd say that Steyn has much the better of the argument. As he writes (but please read the whole thing):
You say, “Go tell the [German] Polizei to f*** off and see what it gets you.” In none of the examples I've cited has anyone told you or your colleagues to “f*** off”. In the Supreme Court case, a law-abiding citizen was lawfully parking his lawfully-acquired and lawfully-registered vehicle outside his parents' lawful home when the police showed up and shot him.
How often do the Polizei do that?
Well, in 2011 the German police fired 85 bullets. That's all of them. The entire police force. The whole country. Eighty-five bullets in one year. That's seven bullets per month. One bullet for every million German citizens. The same year — 2011 — the Miami Police Department blew through the German Polizei's annual bullet allowance on just one traffic incident:
‘Police killed Raymond Herisse, 22, of Boynton Beach in a barrage of gunfire after they said he refused an order to pull over while speeding down a crowded Collins Avenue in his Hyundai…
‘Twelve officers — from Miami Beach and Hialeah — unleashed more than 100 rounds at Herisse, police said. The hail of bullets also struck and wounded three bystanders.’
The good news for those three bystanders is that, as John Thomas can assure you, that's “standard procedure”. And he's right. Which was the point of my original post: the “standard procedure” is the problem. It needs to change.
(/Unquote)
As are others, I too am highly bothered by the idea of a sealed warrant that the company STILL can't see. I don't see how that can happen in a free country. I don't even see how it could happen in a security case and that is not even the situation here.
Ann, this seems like a constitutional law issue and thus right up your alley. Could you give us a 50 cent layman's explanation about sealed warrants in this kind of case?
I wonder if it would be possible for someone other than Gibson to request a copy of the warrant under FOIA? Is this kind of thing exempt under FOIA? And if so, on what grounds.
I would imagine that as part of the settlement Gibson agreed not to ask for a copy of the Warrant. That doesn't stop the rest of us from having the right to see it, I would not think.
This whole episode is shameful.
Worse, it is un-American.
John Henry
Someone said that there is so much information swirling about both sides of this that they believe that there is something there and that Gibson's hands are not completely clean.
Bullshit!
That is what makes me believe that Gibson's hands are clean.
It reminds me of 1989 when I sat next to dinner with a reporter from the Louisville Courier Journal. Somehow we got started talking about the McMartin pre-school case and all it's weird accusations of Satanic abuse of pre-school children.
She agreed that the charges and statements were completely over the top and not believable.
Still, she told me, there had to be something there or it would not have gotten so much coverage in the press.
I have pretty much zero respect for journalists. This is one of the reasons.
John Henry
1) What did Gibson do that allegedly violated federal law? Apparently, it imported guitar necks that had been not been processed by Indian workers as required by Indian laws intended to protect Indian workers against foreign competition. Instead, they were processed by American workers in Gibson's factory. Those are the facts that created the Lacey Act claim. If you think it's insane to create criminal liability under the Lacey Act for a violation of a foreign country's protectionist laws, you are not alone.
2) I do not buy the bullshit about machine-gun armed SWAT agents being necessary to serve this search warrant. Hell, they could have had the US attorney call the company's attorney and arranged for the allegedly illegal guitar necks to be surrendered.
3) Add me to the list of lawyers here who do not understand the legal basis for a sealed search warrant.
Tar and feathers would be the proper response to this kind of abuse.
So Eric, have you ever served a sealed warrant?
Could you tell us how that works? If it is sealed, do you get to see it?
If you don't, how do you know what you are looking for?
John Henry
In the 70's and 80's I worked for a major American pharma company (Alcon Laboratories) as facility operations manager for the PR plant.
One of our products (WANS)combined phenobarbitol and something else in a suppository.
In the 70's the FDA decided to go after drugs with 2 active ingredients. Probably not a bad idea but WANS was grandfathered and they could not stop us from making and selling it.
So they decided to seize any raw materials as well as packaging materials.
A couple FDA guys showed up at the plant with a couple of marshals. They were in suits and, if armed, I saw no guns.
They inventoried what we had put yellow tape around it and declared it seized. They never did remove it from our warehouse but we could not touch it. I wound up wrapping it in chainlink to prevent any mistakes.
All very civilized.
Bizarre as all Hell but civilized.
They kept coming back when they heard we had gotten new materials and would seize that. We wound up having our supplier stage truckloads of materials near the plant when we were going to run production. For some reason they could not seize it until Alcon actually took physical possession.
This cat and mouse went on for 5 years. Was still goiing on when I left the company. Alcon continued selling more or less the same amount of product.
Some background here:
http://openjurist.org/636/f2d/876/united-states-v-alcon-laboratories
John Henry
"2) SWAT. Some people have talked about how this was a SWAT style raid. Again, I wasn't there. But this is how we are trained. And if we do not follow our training, the government will not support us if we get hurt or hurt someone. We must follow our training."
SWAT teams were originally set up to be used in the most extreme circumstances, where hostages had been taken, where armed perpetrators were involved, to prevent violence (or respond to violence already done), etc. What jusification is there for using SWAT teams, as is becoming common practice, for more and more ordinary police functions, such as serving search warrants--(i.e., shouting "POLICE!" then smashing down the door)?
Why do we need a militarized police response in so many law enforcement activities?
(Answer: we don't.)
"We train to behave a certain way in all cases in order to be safe. Which is why we look like SWAT even though we're not SWAT."
Sure, but what about the safety of the public you're supposed to serve?
"...I'd hope most Althouse commenters were wise enough not to take Gibson at their word when you haven't heard both sides."
Um, isn't this the American way? To presume innocence until guilt is proven? In the case where a sealed warrant is presented, we don't even know the charges, much less has there been evidence presented of a crime, or a conviction obtained.
It is the state's burden to prove any accusations against a defendant, and until such time as evidence shows otherwise, we have an obligation to believe Gibson's side of the story, and to doubt the authorities.
I have a Goya G-10 so don't care.
Gibson's story and journalistic lynch mobs, blah, blah, blah.
This was a dispute about imported lumber with a well established firm of excellent reputation. There is no possible justification for the tactics used.
Actually, there were two disputes. One was about the Indian rosewood for which Gibson had completed all the necessary paperwork, including certified export permits from the Indian government. Gibson contested the Government's contention that they had violated the Lacey act in this case.
The other was for a smaller purchase of wood from Madagascar for which Gibson had slipped up and had failed to get at least one required document. Gibson freely admitted this and did not object to paying a fine for this omission.
The Government has consistently tried to conflate the two cases and make it sound as if the omission was in the Indian case and was deliberate rather than a simple slip-up.
Some more thoughts on SWAT raids. I think the problem, at least with the federal agents, is that lots of agencies have now created their own specialized police forces who are for the most part unnecessary and in great part under- or un-qualified. A great part of the problem is that these specialized police forces enforce laws that should not be criminal laws at all but just civil laws. The Lacey Act would be Exhibit 1 on the list. But the result is that these various specialized police forces never have to face violent criminals - mobsters, drug dealers, gun runners, counterfeiters - but they still act as if they did have to deal with violent and dangerous criminals.
What is the right way to do things? Well, first of all, consider that the SEC does not have its own armed police force. When it finds what appears to be a criminal violation of the securities laws, e.g., a blatant insider trading violation, it refers the matter to the FBI and the DOJ, and the FBI investigates and executes any search warrants that may be necessary.
Now for some reason, we never read in the press about the FBI executing a SWAT-style, heavily armed, no-knock raid against a suspected white collar criminal. Why is that? Could it be because the FBI has enough experience and knowledge to be able to distinguish between dangerous and violent criminals, on the one hand, and non-violent, white collar criminals, on the other hand, and they use the level of force appropriate to the occasion? That seems to be the case.
The answer then is to eliminate all of the specialized federal agency police forces that have grown like weeds in recent years, transfer the funding to the FBI as and if necessary, and let the FBI act as the sole federal police force (except for the Secret Service). If the Interior Department or the EPA suspects a criminal Lacey Act violation, they should refer the case to the FBI. If they want to pursue civil remedies, then they use lawyers and subpoenas like the SEC.
Anyway, that's my suggestion.
In my community the local police wear the SWAT gear all the time. Cargo pants, boots, frayed baseball caps. Unshaven. They hang around Starbucks at the beginning of the shift dressed like that. Looking like absolute crap.
I was recently watching a video of a traffic stop. Cop pulled a guy over for expired tags or something.
An elderly guy, moving slow, got out of the truck, and went back to the bed to get his cane.
The cop kept yelling "sir! Sir! Sir!" And then shot him.
The cops on the board said 'the cop didn't do anything wrong.'
BS. Take some responsibility for your shot.
An innocent man was shot. The cop's attitude is that the cop didn't do anything wrong because 'he followed procedure.'
That shit didn't work in Nuremberg.
It's amazing how fast the LEO community is blowing their goodwill even with conservatives, who are traditionally supportive of law and order.
And it's amazing how the dolts in the LEO community don't see it.
The raids on Gibson Guitar and the Cliven Bundy ranch were politically motivated and directed by politicians. They were not instigated by the agents sent out to conduct them.
The murder of the homeless man in Bear Canyon by the Albuquerque police recently was a failure consequent of the SWAT training and mentality that have been sweeping the police departments across the country.
This man was well known to the police from several prior encounters; they knew very well who and what he was. With no training, they would have left one squad car to keep an eye on him until the ambulance and mental health specialist arrived while the rest of them went on about their business.
It was their SWAT training that caused them to act like they did, and it was wrong.
And the Albuquerque Police Dept. is now in a heap of trouble, have got the media and the DoJ down on them big-time, and no way is this going to go well for either the APD or us citizens.
It is getting to the point where the only thing that will restrain the out of control thuggery of the government is some targeted violence by citizens to push back. They knew how to handle tyranny back in the revolutionary days, which is why the government works so hard to make pussies out of all the young men these days through indoctrination and psychiatric drugs, as well as attempts to disarm the citizenry.
This is no different than Venezuela, and the remedy is the same.
Oh, and thanks again Althouse for voting for this.
Fuck you Eric.
I hope you catch a bullet next time you go out and act as enforcer for the criminal Obama cartel.
Sealed search warrants and SWAT raids for non-violent crimes started becoming popular when Reagan escalated the War on Drugs. Nice to see some folks on the right are finally getting pissed about these tactics.
Tyrone Slothrop said:
"They are begging for armed insurrection, and they may get it."
Just remember before you have an armed insurrection you pretty much have to have a series of Boston Massacre, Bloody Kansas, or Harper's Ferry type events. Who's signing up to die in, what at the time, seems to be a fruitless gesture?
We are now experiencing a Cold Civil War, let's see where that gets us.
I do agree with your sentiment and advise any reasonable person to: "Arm up."
"We train to behave a certain way in all cases in order to be safe. Which is why we look like SWAT even though we're not SWAT."
Dude. It's wood.
Look. Thus endeth the discussion:
(1) the Feds attacked Gibson
(2) the Feds chose not to attack Martin
You don't need an entire article about this stuff to see the criminality of Eric Holder, Barack Obama and the rest of the Gang that Raped America.
"Now for some reason, we never read in the press about the FBI executing a SWAT-style, heavily armed, no-knock raid against a suspected white collar criminal. Why is that?"
Actually, it's because you want to arrange a 'perp walk' against a suspected white collar criminal. You call the press, have them waiting outside the door, walk him out in handcuffs to the vehicle while the press gets all kinds of scary pictures that last forever.
Those luthiers are a dangerous bunch.
Robert Cook wrote;
"What jusification is there for using SWAT teams, as is becoming common practice, for more and more ordinary police functions, such as serving search warrants"
Exhibit A:
"Fuck you Eric.
I hope you catch a bullet next time you go out and act as enforcer for the criminal Obama cartel."
The warrants I serve are typically for illegal aliens, people who are here contrary to US Law. But some people see the enforcement of any US Laws (IE: President Mom Jeans above) as being enforcer for the Obama administration.
When Bush was President, there were people who felt the same exact way as President Mom Jeans feels about the Obama Administration.
It doesn't matter to me in how I do my job who is President. I have a job to do. But I'm not so foolish or naïve to think that there aren't people out there who either A: Want me to catch a bullet or B: Want to send a bullet flying my way.
Therefore, my wife and children appreciate it that I wear all the armor I can wear, bring all the friends I can bring, and make sure the odds are stacked in my favor.
madisonfella: "....blah...blah...Reagan!!!...blah..blah..."
Poor obama.
He and his administration are simply powerless against the forces of his administration.
Besides, "Reagan".
And, coming soon: "Bush/Cheney".
Not to mention: "Tea Party".
John wrote;
"So Eric, have you ever served a sealed warrant?
Could you tell us how that works? If it is sealed, do you get to see it?
If you don't, how do you know what you are looking for?
John Henry"
I've never served a sealed warrant. They are too difficult to get and pointless, for what I do, so I don't even know why we would ever get one. Also, they are supposed to be unsealed within 180 days of arrest.
Tyrone,
"Welcome to the police state. They are begging for armed insurrection, and they may get it."
Not only may get it, they so totally and richly deserve to get it. Hard. With both barrels.
But none of the rest of us, right or left, R or D, deserve to undergo that kind of overwhelming catastrophe. So let's hope they don't get it, that Claire Wolfe is wrong, and that we can pull back from the abyss somehow.
eric,
"In this case, whenever we serve a warrant, we wear all of our protective gear. Why? Because when I come to your home or your business, I have no idea what I'm going to encounter. Safety first. [emphasis added] "
Please pay attention, I'm saying this carefully so you'll get it: Go To Hell. You're part of the problem.
PW,
"Yeah, well, don't become the enemy, eric."
Too late, I fear.
Eric, there are, I am sure, those who can accept your sophistry concerning safety, but I am not among them. There are, I am sure, those who can be bullied into submission by an oppressive government hand, but I am not among them. Storm my property, shoot my dog, terrorize my family, you had better kill me in the raid. If you think these policies of violence against, and intimidation of the citizenry the government has chosen is just and wise for our society, I am sorry for you.
Federal pigs.
The next thing eric will ak us,"what do you need an AR15 for?"
To which we must reply,"because you have one."
Rusty wrote;
"The next thing eric will ak us,"what do you need an AR15 for?"
To which we must reply,"because you have one."
Actually, no, I don't have an AR15. I have a semi automatic pistol that shoots .40 rounds.
However, I'm all for you owning an AR15. Or five AR15's if you'd like. I own several guns myself.
I can't figure anything I've ever said on the Althouse blog that would make anyone think differently.
"Eric, there are, I am sure, those who can accept your sophistry concerning safety, but I am not among them. There are, I am sure, those who can be bullied into submission by an oppressive government hand, but I am not among them. Storm my property, shoot my dog, terrorize my family, you had better kill me in the raid. If you think these policies of violence against, and intimidation of the citizenry the government has chosen is just and wise for our society, I am sorry for you."
I'm willing to listen to reason.
Tell me a better way I ought to serve warrants. I'm listening.
Kirk Parker wrote;
"Please pay attention, I'm saying this carefully so you'll get it: Go To Hell. You're part of the problem."
I'm paying attention.
Explain how putting safety first is a part of the problem.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2011/08/31/140090116/why-gibson-guitar-was-raided-by-the-justice-department
I'm no fan of NPR, but at least when a Democrat is in the oval office they'll report a story like this straight. I can't imagine if it were a Republican they'd do the same.
Oh, and look at that picture of those agents. Doesn't seem to jive with the SWAT charge.
I do like the last paragraph though, "What constitutes that responsible way may only become clear when the government finally charges Gibson and the company gets the day in court it says it wants so badly."
I think Gibson did the smart thing with settling. This way, they can continue to claim to be the victim. They can continue to say whatever they want and convince people they were in the right. And this will no doubt help them to sell more guitars.
Had they gone to court, well, things might not have looked so rosy for them.
Guess we'll never know.
Rusty,
"because you have one"
Brilliant!
That's as good as the finale to Suzanna Gratia Hupp's famous testimony.
In case not everyone knows the video I'm talking about, here it is. The link is fast-forwarded to the end of her testimony, where the particular part I've referenced is found; but I encourage you to rewind it and listen to her entire account of surviving the madman's attack at Luby's Cafeteria.
Eric, I'm one of those wimpy people who hate to sound mean or hateful, and I do appreciate that you are in an anomalous situation. However, I have to land on the side of this is, with rare exceptions, excessive, not justifiable or acceptable. Your justification is not acceptable. The thing is that you have to do better. If you don't like it, don't be a cop.
Whatever the K9 found with the old man, maybe skip the K9 searches. Enough with the dragnets. If you are telling me that we can't have drug enforcement without this happening all the time, maybe that's a reason why we have to legalize drugs and accept the consequences of that. You can't just serve every traffic ticket with battering rams and dog shootings.
Is it - no. Maybe it would be better to do - no. Do I really have to have man traps and claymores in the hallway? You shouldn't be doing this. It's not right. I may submit if it ever happens to me because of course in New York, guns are impossible more or less, but it won't make it right. This just - no.
Sorry if it hurt your feelings and I'm really sorry if people's outrage leads you to double down and say well then I'm going to put on two vests and shoot the dog twice. It's - no. Someone has to tell you no.
Define the circumstances in which this is necessary to - define all the cases where a no knock forced entry service like this is necessary. You cannot tell me that an established from like Gibson guitars needs to be raided by paramilitaries who are evidently one bark away from hosing down the entire place. It's just, no, you may not have that much power. Please give it back.
If you don't want to be cops, serving the public, then stop being cops, well just everybody will have to have their own guns and protect themselves. It's better than this.
"Tell me a better way I ought to serve warrants. I'm listening."
Go to the door and knock, announcing yourself, and wait for someone to open the door. You show your identification and your warrant and enter.
Don't try to tell us that shouting "police" and immediately bashing down the door with a battering ram and rushing the premises with scores of officers is the way police have always served warrants in this country.
http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/05/30/toddler-critically-injured-during-police-raid/
Feel proud Eric? Your homeboys all got home safe, and that is the most important thing right?
Keep on "just following orders."
"Go to the door and knock, announcing yourself, and wait for someone to open the door. You show your identification and your warrant and enter. "
I do appreciate your experience in these things and telling us the best way to do our jobs. Probably as much as Russell Wilson appreciates your advice to him on how he should play better and win games better.
But what you're not telling me is how that makes anyone safer. How does giving the person inside time to barricade themselves in a room, run out the back door, ditch evidence, take hostages, grab a gun or other weapons, get organized, help anyone?
100% of the warrants I have served no one has been injured. This is because we train and practice to do things a particular way. It's a shame we didn't have Robert Cook around sooner, because now we know how to do it the right way. Thanks to his experience.
President Mom Jeans (Who wants me to take a bullet) says;
"Feel proud Eric? Your homeboys all got home safe, and that is the most important thing right?
Keep on "just following orders.""
Why would I feel proud when children are hurt? I'll admit my ignorance here, as we don't use any sort of grenades or flash bangs when we serve warrants. So this isn't my area of expertise. My guess would be that these officers are going to lose their jobs though. But that doesn't make me feel any better about a child being hurt.
Does it make you feel good that you could snark about it?
Nichevo writes;
"Whatever the K9 found with the old man, maybe skip the K9 searches. Enough with the dragnets. If you are telling me that we can't have drug enforcement without this happening all the time, maybe that's a reason why we have to legalize drugs and accept the consequences of that."
Well, to be honest, it's not just drugs. It's illegal aliens too that the K-9's find, as these searches are being conducted on the southern border, while cars are waiting in line to cross the border. We are also looking for aggravated felons, murderers, kidnappers, and a host of other criminals.
But, it's dangerous business. Sometimes people get hurt and killed. But as you say, you want to be nice and friendly. Why stop at legalizing drugs? People get hurt when they are apprehended for murder and rape and theft too. If our goal is, no one gets hurts, then we ought to make those legal too, right?
Misuse of powers of federal government is very disappointing. D.F.Martin guitars have not been raided even when they import similar stock. Or has the Gibson Company been sending its many donations to the wrong parties?
Keep trying to rationalize your crimes against citizens Eric.
Until the militarization of the police and the myriad of abuses of power end, the sweetest sound in the world will continue to be "officer down."
Rusty said:
The next thing eric will ak us,"what do you need an AR15 for?"
To which we must reply,"because you have one."
Amen, Amen and again I say Amen.
Best thing I've read on the net all week.
John Henry
To Eric:
First, go fuck yourself. As several others have mentioned, you are part of the problem.
To the point, I fully agree with SWAT type raids when they are merited. Raiding a drug house, meth lab or the like where it is likely that violent people are present?
Sure, gear up and arrive with overwhelming force. I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with that.
Did Gibson have a history of violent activity or was there any reason to suspect there might be violence? I've seen nothing to indicate this but perhaps you know better.
If there is a possibility of drugs (or other evidence) being ditched, go in with a no-knock raid. I don't like it but, assuming that a judge authorizes it, I could live with it.
Was there a possibility that Gibson was going to flush the wood down the crapper? Again, perhaps you know more about this than I do.
Worried about people fleeing out the back door? Put a couple other cops on the other exits to catch anyone who does that.
Was there any evidence that the Gibson folks might flee when the warrant was served? Again, since you seem so familiar with the case perhaps you can tell us.
As a liberal, I believe that the monopoly of force is pretty much the sole legitimate role of govt. So I don't want to hobble the police in their role of keeping bad guys from doing violence.
But you motherfuckers have gotten waaaaay out of control.
And it is not just that you have gotten waaaay out of control but it is shiteaters like you and the attitude that you are displaying here that are going to cause a revolution in the US. Hopefully a peaceful one at the ballot box but if that doesn't work, we will likely get a violent one. I hope I am right on the first and wrong on the second.
So in closing, let me just reiterate: Go fuck yourself.
John Henry
Eric,
Consider this scenario:
You are going to serve a warrant on someone in the middle of the night (why in the middle of the night? What are we, Stalinist Russia?). You and 5-6 others show up, kick down the door rush up the stairs bust into the bedroom where the householder (who may or may not the the person you are looking for) sees a bunch of guys with guns in disguise, faces covered and so on.
Fearing for his life, he pulls a legal, licensed, gun from under his pillow and shoots your partner?
Who is in the wrong here?
Your partner, and the rest of you?
Or the householder that shot them?
Who should be forced to face ordeal by court? You and your department or the householder?
John Henry
John Henry
"100% of the warrants I have served no one has been injured. This is because we train and practice to do things a particular way."
How many people--police or citizens--were typically injured when serving search warrants the old-fashioned way, without SWAT teams or SWAT team tactics? I doubt you'll find significant incidence of injuries there.
"It's a shame we didn't have Robert Cook around sooner, because now we know how to do it the right way. Thanks to his experience."
Um, no. Not my experience; the experience of police all over America before our historically recent period of militarizing the police.
That's okay, I understand; I have a very close relative who is a recently retired DEA agent. Like you, he has a cop's mindset: innately authoritarian, conformist, seeing everyone as a potential perp rather than as a citizen with rights to due process and the presumption of innocence.
eric,
Are you serious??? It's the "officer-safety-ueber-alles" approach, that results in large-scale felony stops and actual SWAT raids for stuff like student-loan-fraud or illegal-home-gambling-club arrests.
As far as your disagreement with Robert Cook's idea of how warrants should be served in cases where there's no reason to expect violent resistance: I want to get back to the world Cook describes (and yes, that IS the way it used to be done), and away from the world you are taking us into.
Robert Cook,
It's a rare day when I agree with you, and so I like to acknowledge it when it does happen.
It's even rarer when I agree with every single word, as I do with your 8:04am comment. Well said, brother!
eric,
One final word for now, then it's your turn to respond.
I should be a law-and-order guy. Heck, I used to be a law-and-order guy. I know some LEOs who are every bit as upset with SWAT overuse and heavy-handed policing as I am; you on the other hand just seem to reinforce my misgivings.
Eric,
Arrests have been made for murder, rape, etc., for thousands of years without the use of no-knock raids. I think that is a red herring.
Start from the premise that no-knock is mostly unacceptable and work backwards. If you have no better ideas, quit the force. Actually I don't care what you do to immigrants, drug kingpins or whoever, but aside from that being considered nasty, I will eat that flip remark when you get the wrong house number and do me.
One reason police are given elevated privileges is "they are highly trained." Well then, we have to expect better of you.
I'd like you to admit that there is a problem here.
Well, thank you, Kirk, for the nod.
Robert,
Every little sign we're not headed for Civil War II is eagerly glommed onto by me.
It’s not fair if these claims are true. I agree that it’s not a rare case and made it to the media like all other issues only.
Post a Comment