US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
Transcript of US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
1/111
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 3:10-cv-0074
)
EBONY WOOD IN VARIOUS FORMS, ) Judge William J. Hayn)
Defendant. )
CLAIMANT GIBSON GUITAR CORP.S RESPONSE
TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STRIKE
Claimant, Gibson Guitar Corp. (Gibson), opposes the United States of A
U.S. Government) motion to strike (Docket Entry 30). The U.S. Governme
transcends the heights of irony, asking the Court to protect Madagascar law by
official acts of the very Madagascar Government officials charged with inte
enforcing that law. To accept that position would be stretching the Lacey
recognition.
The circular logic supporting the U.S. Governments motion is novel and t
Government contends that, even though the Madagascar Government officially
export of the ebony wood at issue in this case, the wood is nevertheless contrab
someone in the United States has rejected the Madagascar Governments approva
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
2/111
case (i.e., whether the wood is legal or contraband), Gibson may not c
determination. The U.S. Governments startling position smacks of something fr
novel and lacks any legal support even among the authorities cited in the U.S. G
own brief. Gibson plainly has standing to challenge the forfeiture of ebony wood
the U.S. Government concedes is not contrabandper se.
In actuality, not only is the ebony wood at issue not contraband per se, it
matter of law. Sworn affidavits from Madagascar officials and certified copies o
Government documents establish beyond doubt that the wood at issue was legally e
German supplier that sold it to Gibson. The U.S. Government faces an insurmoun
for it cannot overcome the undisputed proof that the wood at issue was exported wit
written approval of the Madagascar Government. The U.S. Government has no
overrule the official acts of the Madagascar Government in matters concerning Mad
In search of a villain to divert the Courts attention from the actual facts of
U.S. Governments papers demonize Gibsons efforts to support sustainable forest
in Madagascar. Gibson devotes substantial resources to supporting legal and sustai
of wood, including in Madagascar. Nevertheless, the U.S. Government has select
Gibson employees emails to create the illusion of some nefarious ulterior motive.
is pure fiction.
Gibson requests that the Court deny the U.S. Governments standing motion
unfounded forfeiture proceeding, and order the immediate return of Gibsons prop
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
3/111
continuing to hold it. Accordingly, Gibson requests an award of all of its costs and
to 28 U.S.C. 2465(b).
ARGUMENT
The U.S. Governments motion fails for at least the following reasons. Firs
prudential standing because it has shown a colorable interest in wood that migh
possess. This is all that is required for purposes of prudential standing. Seco
Gibson does not bear the burden of proving the legality of export and its possession
certified documents and sworn statements from Madagascar Government officia
those officials inspected the wood at issue, determined that the wood at issue is
defined by Madagascar law, and authorized its export in accordance with Mad
Third, try as it might to build its case on innuendo, the U.S. Government simply has
the specific wood at issue was illegally exported and certainly cannot o
uncontroverted proof from the Madagascar Government officials.
1. Gibson has prudential standing.
The U.S. Governments only standing argument is that the ebony woo
contraband and not legal to possess.1
But ebony wood is not contrabandper se. So
legal; sometimes it is not. Hence, the U.S. Government must prove its case by a p
of evidence at trial. In the meantime, Gibson may challenge the U.S. Governme
that the wood is illegal.
1Gibson has shown a facially colorable interest in the property sufficient to satisfy C
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
4/111
Contraband per se encompasses things that are intrinsically illegal to pos
illegal narcotics, counterfeit money, or sawed-off shotguns, whereas derivative co
things that are only illegal if tied to a specific criminal act. U.S. v. 37.29 Pou
Precious Stones, 7 F.3d 480, 485 (6th Cir. 1993). The government does not ow
contraband until it proves its right to the property under the applicable forfeitu
[T]he forfeiture of such an item is permitted only as authorized by statute and su
are subject to scrutiny for compliance with the safeguards of procedural due proces
City of Greenwood, 904 F.2d 302, 305 (5th Cir. 1990). In this case, because
premised upon a violation of the Lacey Act, the U.S. Government must establish
foreign law before the property can be forfeited.
The U.S. Government has conceded that some ebony wood from Madag
legally exported and that Madagascar Order No. 16.030/2006 specifically a
exportation of ebony wood in finished form, including musical instrument part
words, if the U.S. Government cannot convince a jury that the wood at issue
exported from Madagascar in violation of Madagascar law, it loses. Because ebon
Madagascar might be legal, it is not contraband per se, and Gibson may h
Government to its burden.
Even the cases regarding contraband cited in the U.S. Governments own
clear that the U.S. Government cannot avoid Gibsons challenge with a circul
argument, but rather must prove its case or return Gibsons property. The U.S
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
5/111
relies heavily upon United States v. 2,507 Live Canary Winged Parakeets, 689 F
(S.D. Fla. 1988), for the proposition that items imported in violation of the L
contraband that must be forfeited. (Gov. Memo. 14, 22.) In that case, howe
Government had to meet its burden of proving a violation of foreign law at a trial
after discovery. 689 F. Supp. at 1109. The case provides no support for the prop
claimant with an ownership interest lacks standing to appear and to require the U.S
to prove its case. To the contrary, the claimant in the Parakeets did participate
litigated the merits.3 Likewise, the U.S. Government mistakenly relies upon U
Pounds of Semi-Precious Stones, 7 F.3d 480, 485 (6th Cir. 1993). (Gov. Memo. a
case, the U.S. Government made the same argument that it attempts to make in this
the precious stones at issue were contraband per se because they were imported in
States in violation of law. The Sixth Circuit rejected this argument, noting that pr
are notper se illegal to possess. 7 F.3d at 485. Rather, the U.S. Government had to
importation before the stones would be deemed contraband. Id.
Here, ebony wood is notper se illegal. Because ebony wood from Madaga
legal, the U.S. Governments standing motion has no merit. More importantly,
below, the ebony wood at issue was legally exported, and its possession by Gibs
legal.
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
6/111
2. The ebony wood is legal as a matter of law because the Madagascar
inspected the wood and approved its export.
The uncontroverted proof establishes that the appropriate officials of the
Government inspected the wood at issue in this case, determined that it is finishe
meaning of their own laws, and expressly authorized the export of the wood
Government cannot second-guess the decision of a sovereign foreign government c
export its own natural resources. See World Wide Minerals, Ltd. v. Republic of Ka
F.3d 1154, 1164-1165 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (refusing to second-guess the export decisio
sovereign with regard to its own natural resources and noting that U.S. courts ma
into the validity of the public acts a recognized foreign sovereign power commit
own territory); Bokkelen v. Gruman Aerospace Corp., 432 F.Supp. 329 (E.D
(same); MOL, Inc. v. Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, 572 F. Supp. 2d 79 (N.
(refusing to second guess foreign sovereigns regulation of its own wildlife). As the
Minerals court noted, the right to regulate imports and exports is a sovereign prer
F.3d at 1154. Second-guessing such decisions disrupts international comity and i
the conduct of foreign relations. Id.
This is not a case of inaction by the Madagascar Government, nor is it
ebony wood was cut and shipped under cover of darkness without the knowledge o
officials. Indeed, the U.S. Government contends that the ebony wood at issue
seized in place (meaning it was never moved from Thunams facility) while th
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
7/111
According to the Madagascar Governments official files, in March 2009, T
through a lengthy and well-documented government procedure involving at least 10
Government officials, all of whom approved the export of the wood at issue. Thun
permission from the Madagascar Minister of Environment Forest and Tourism (
approval to export ebony and other woods. (Exhibit A, Declaration of Guy Shepher
Decl.), 2.4) MEFT is the department of the Malagasy government responsible
and approving the export of ebony wood. (Shepherd Decl. 2.) The Madagascar
inspected and approved the wood consistent with the following process:
1. Thunam submitted consolidated packing lists and invoices to
authorities describing the contents of three shipments of wood, e
ebony, that he wanted permission to export. The Regional Direc
stamped and approved these.5 (Shepherd Decl. 3 and pages 5-7, 8-
Translations, pages 1-13.)
2. On March 26, 2009, MEFT issued an official government record r
in accordance with the orders of the Regional Director of MEFT, tw
agents inspected the ebony wood that Thunam desired to export. The
that the ebony wood inspected in each of Thunams shipments
(Shepherd Decl. 4 and page 11; Exhibit B, Translations, pages 14-1
4Gibson retained Guy W. Shepherd, who has been involved in importing and expfrom Madagascar for over 20 years, to investigate the wood at issue. As desdeclaration (Exhibit A), his colleagues visited the government offices located in th
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
8/111
3. Based upon Thunams request, the inspection performed by ME
approval of MEFT, the Regional Director of MEFT issued Thunam
authorizations bearing the following numbers: No. 455-09/MEFT
SAVA; No. 458-09/MEFT/SG/DREFT SAVA; and
09/MEFT/SG/DREFT SAVA.6 (Shepherd Decl. 5 and pages 1
Entry 5, pages 5-13.) The Export Authorizations grant Thunam
export three shipments containing, among other things, a total of 1,
of finished ebony wood products. (Docket Entry 5, 5-13.) The se
each Export Authorization states that it is based, in part, upon t
report above. Id.
4. MEFT issued statements assessing export taxes and fees on each
issued a receipt to Thunam after he paid the taxes and fees. (Sheph
and pages 18-21, 22; Exhibit B, Translations, pages 16-25.)
5. On March 27, 2009, the Malagasy customs authorities issued t
declarations for Thunams shipments, each reflecting that the
intended for Theodor Nagel in Germany. Box 31 of each declarati
description of the wood that expressly states that (1) the wood is fin
the wood is going to be used for carpentry and other construction pur
Designation of Merchandise:
Other pieces of woodwork and carpentry for c
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
9/111
(Shepherd Decl. 7 and pages 23-25; Exhibit B, Translations,
(emphasis in original). In other words, the Madagascar authori
recognized that the wood at issue would be cut, fitted, shaped, etc
Madagascar. Of course, consistent with Madagascar law, they classi
as finished.
6. Malagasy customs also issued a container loading statement for each
shipments. These loading statements are official governm
acknowledging that the wood actually loaded into the shippi
complied with the documentation authorizing export. Each loading
signed by the customs inspector who conducted the loading. (Sheph
and pages 26-28; Exhibit B, Translations, pages 32-37.)
7. The loading statements also bear the stamps and signatures of five
officials. Each of these officials has provided Gibson with a swo
Each official re-affirms that each of Thunams March 2009 shipmen
with the official documentation authorizing export. Further, each o
that he would not have signed the loading statements if the wood in
had been illegal to export or had been illegally logged. (Shepherd
pages 29-33; Exhibit C.)
8. Finally, the customs inspector issued a customs release note for each
shipments indicating that the shipments were ready for export. T
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
10/111
The evidence is clear that the appropriate Madagascar government officia
the export of Thunams ebony and that the customary procedures were followe
Decl. 10.) The appropriate customs authorities charged with monitoring export k
wood was (i.e., ebony intended for carpentry and woodwork), made an informed d
was finished, and approved its export. Further, as Mr. Shepherd, who has
experience with Madagascar logistics can attest, if the wood had not been sub
exportation, or if Thunam had not had government authorization to export the wood
the many Madagascar officials involved in the process would have prevented the sh
leaving the country. (Shepherd Decl. 10.)
This evidence of legality is overwhelming. Although the U.S. Government
is no indication that these alleged [export] authorizations related to the Mada
delivered to Gibson (Gov. Memo. at 13), the U.S. Government ignores that A
affidavit filed in support of the search warrant specifically states that the seizure
property concerns three shipments of ebony wood that left Madagascar on Mar
(Docket Entry 12.1, paragraph 15.) Consistent with this affidavit, each of the
Authorizations specifically states that the anticipated date of departure from M
March 27, 2009. (Docket Entry 5, pages 6, 9, 12.) Each of the three customs d
dated March 27, 2009; the loading sheet states the date of loading is March 27, 2
customs release notes are dated March 27, 2009. (Shepherd Decl. 7 and Translatio
31 (Box A), pages 32-37 (second box), pages 38-39.) The U.S. Government ha
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
11/111
Government bears that burden. To date, the U.S. Government has not produced
evidence that is directly related to the specific pieces of wood that it seized.
3. Even if the U.S. Government had the right to second-guess the
Governments determination that the wood was legal to export, that d
was reasonable and consistent with Madagascar law.
Even if the U.S. Government could properly ask this Court to review the
Governments decision to authorize export of the ebony wood at issue, which
decision of the Madagascar Government was an entirely reasonable interpretation o
law. The U.S. Government concedes, as it must, that Madagascar law permits
finished ebony wood products. In fact, Order No. 16.030/2006 lists nonexclusiv
such ebony products that Madagascar considers finished for purposes of export. (
No. 8-1, Page 3, Article 6.) That list expressly includes musical instrument part
fingerboards at issue here. (Docket Entry No. 8-1, Page 3, Article 6.)
Gibson and the U.S. Government have offered competing interpretations o
instrument pieces specifically listed in the Order.8 Nevertheless, the goods des
Order are nonexclusive examples of finished goods. Order No. 16.030/2006 e
etc. after the listed examples of musical instrument parts. (Docket Entry No.
Article 6.) The Madagascar Governments determination that the pieces of wood
finished for purposes of the Order was plainly reasonable.
This interpretation is consistent with the rest of the Order, despite the U.S. G
argument that the fingerboards required further cutting and modification for us
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
12/111
construction materials, such as casing/forms, molding, flooring, bo
baseboards, and bannisters, all of which are listed as finished goods that are l
despite the unremarkable fact that each such product typically must be cut, fitted, a
something else in order to be useful for its intended purposes. (Docket Entry No.
For musical instruments, the other example is piano keys, which, like fingerbo
combined with other parts and fitted and installed for final use. See also argumen
Gibsons Reply in Supp. Mot. Dismiss, Docket Entry No. 17, pages 5-9.
This interpretation is also wholly consistent with the declaration from
customs, which expressly described the wood as [o]ther pieces of woodwork and
carved wood construction. FINISHED EBONY ROSEWOOD AND FAHO. (She
7 and pages 23-25, Box 31; Translations, pages 26-35, Box 31). The Madagasc
recognized that the wood at issue would be cut, fitted, shaped, etc., after it left Ma
consistent with the Order, they classified the wood as finished.
Further, as the U.S. Governments argument makes clear, in making the fi
determination, the Madagascar Government must take into account the limitation
Madagascar manufacturing facilities. Simply put, a finished wood product from
may be significantly less refined than comparable products from more develop
countries. The U.S. Government concedes that the Madagascar manufacturing fac
primitive to do anything more to the fingerboards that Gibson purchased. (Docket
1, page 3, 6.) It would be unfair to second-guess the Madagascar Governments
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
13/111
Ultimately, the Madagascar Governments determination that the woo
finished and may be exported under its own laws is reasonable given the language
the law. It should not be disturbed.
4. The U.S. Government has not offered any admissible evidence.
The U.S. Governments argument relies upon the Affidavit of Agent Kevin
Seilers statements are overwhelmingly inadmissible hearsay, if not double h
instance, as proof that fingerboards are not finished, Agent Seiler states that he has
recording that some unidentified third party conducted with a former Madagascar o
issue. (Docket Entry 31-1, 7.) He attests to what some other unnamed federal a
when that agent swore under oath that he was seizing fingerboards. (Docket Ent
Agent Seiler attests that he watched a television news report that featured allege
Thunams Madagascar facility and that the facility featured in the news report
primitive to produce what Agent Seiler considers finished fingerboards. (Docket En
Agent Seiler then attests to what unnamed others observed in Gibsons manufact
(Docket Entry 31-1, 11.) Similarly, in his prior affidavits, Agent Seiler attests
transcript that some unnamed third party told him was the transcript of an intervie
Thunam. (Docket Entry 21-1, 16.) He also vaguely refers to other unnamed int
cooperating parties who provided him with nonspecific information. (Docket Entr
Docket Entry 3, 16.) Agent Seiler also attests to other hearsay statements by
(Docket Entry 21-1, 20, 21.)
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
14/111
proof concerns the specific wood that left Madagascar on March 27, 2009, and th
by armed federal agents at Gibsons plant in November 2009.
5. The U.S. Governments factual assertions are unsupported by its docum
Instead of producing any evidenceadmissible or notabout the specific w
the U.S. Government distorts documents that are not pertinent. The U.S. Governm
to convince this Court that Madagascar orders say something that they do not; t
made statements about the wood at issue, which he did not; and that the U.S
somehow affect the interpretation of the Malagasy Orders regarding ebony wood, w
not.
a. Madagascar Order 003/2009 Has Nothing to Do with the Ebony W
The U.S. Governments entire argument relies upon its assertion that Thuna
ebony wood must have been illegal because Madagascar Order 003/2009 does no
wood in its inventory table. (Gov. Memo. 7, 22.) For instance, the U.S. Gover
[Andrew] Keck provided [Gibson employee Gene] Nix with a file that showed
was the only person the Malagasy government had given the right to export ebony
exception, and in March 2009, by law Thunam had no legal stock of ebony. (G
7, 22.) The U.S. Governments authority for these statements is Madagascar Or
The U.S. Government also broadly claims that this same Order is evidence that Th
of ebony wood had been inventoried and declared illegal by the Madagascar G
(Gov. Memo. at 13.)
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
15/111
other unsawn wood in its raw, natural state: Authorizing an extraordinary exp
forest wood in its raw state. (Docket Entry 33.2, page 17, heading) (emphasis
terms of the Order make clear that it applies only to unsawn, raw wood: Each of
mentioned in the table below shall be given an extraordinary authorization to e
forest wood in its raw state in accordance with the quantities and types of rare w
inventoried . . . . (Docket Entry 33.2, page 17, Article 1) (emphasis added). Th
Order that inventories the wood refers to logs and small pieces of wood. (Id
Nothing in the table or the rest of the Order mentions sawn wood or finished wood
issue.
By contrast, Order No. 16.030/2006 authorizes the export of finishe
rosewood; it does not allow the export of logs. Order 003/2009, upon wh
Government relies, grants new, extraordinary permission to export logs and uns
its natural state. Put another way, Order 003/2009 is a special exception to the r
Order No. 16.030/2006, the latter of which permits the export of finished ebony a
products such as the musical instrument parts at issue here.
No argument has been made that the ebony wood at issue consists of log
wood. Even under the U.S. Governments position, the wood at issue was sawn,
outside the scope of Order 003/2009. The U.S. Governments argument that Or
somehow conclusively proves that the wood at issue is illegal is simply without mer
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
16/111
b. Mr. Keck did not tell Gene Nix that ebony fingerboards are illegal.
Ignoring the uncontroverted proof that the ebony wood at issue is le
Government attempts to use snippets from a Gibson employees emails t
misimpression that the employee, Gene Nix, understood that ebony from Madagas
For instance, the U.S. Government wrongly claims that environmentalist Andre
Gene Nix that all ebony wood from Madagascar is illegal. In actuality, Mr. Keck t
that ebony fingerboards are legalto export. (See Docket Entry 8-1, page 1, paragrap
3, Article 6.)
The U.S. Governments brief also suggests Mr. Nix made the following co
emails: there was a considerable stockpile of wood, including with Mr. Thunam,
provisionally seized pending investigations to determine its legality . . . . (Gov. M
Gene Nix did not make this statement. Rather, this quote appears in an email from
Nix, not from Gene Nix to Keck. (Docket Entry 33.3, bottom of page 1.) Moreo
specifically states that the wood that was provisionally seized pending inv
determine its legality was eventually determined to be legal and allowed to be ex
Minister was bitter and the government gave the OK for the wood to be expor
Entry 33.3, page 2, first paragraph.) Thus, the U.S. Governments smoking
actually support Gibson and are wholly consistent with the fact that Madagascar
inspected the ebony wood at issue and approved it for export in 2009.
c. Uncertified wood is not illegal wood.
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
17/111
5.) The U.S. Government then draws the following conclusion: if there are no cer
of ebony, then Gibsons argument that finished wood is legal to import is irrelevan
import of uncertified wood from Madagascar in finished or unfinished form is il
Memo at 5.)
This conclusion is unfounded. First, the quotation that there are no certifie
present is in a Trip Justification Report dated 2007. (Docket Entry 33, page
explained in depth above, the Madagascar Government inspected and approved the
at issue in March 2009. The suggestion that the 2007 Reportwhich was prepar
Nix even went to Madagascarhas anything to do with wood the Madagascar
approved in 2009 is preposterous.10
More importantly, Gene Nixs comments about certification in his Trip
nothing to do with the legality of ebony wood at any point in time. As is clear fro
the Report, the reference to certified sources is about FSC certified sources.
Forest Stewardship Councilis a private, third-party service that enters into c
landowners to assess the landowners forest managem
http://www.fscus.org/faqs/what_is_certification.php. FSC wood is wood that has b
in a sustainable manner and has met the highest international standards for harvest
FSC certification, though, is not a legal requirement under any law. The U.S. G
sleight of hand to equate FCS certification with the legality of wood under Ma
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
18/111
simply underscores the dearth of pertinent, admissible evidence that the U.S.
actually has to support its claim.
11
In fact, contrary to the U.S. Governments statements, the Trip Report p
Madagascar ebony is not included on the IUCN Red List. (Docket Entry 33, 4
words, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
consider ebony wood from Madagascar a threatened species. Ebony wood is also
or any other list of endangered species. The U.S. Governments suggestion to thi
contrary finds no support in any domestic or international law.
d. The U.S. Government has presented no proof that Thunam en
wrongdoing with regard to the specific wood at issue.
The U.S. Government boldly claims that Thunam was involved in a Mad
case that resulted in a guilty verdict for some unspecified conduct. (Gov. Memo,
The U.S. Governments support for this accusation is hearsay in the form of som
investigative report. Assuming that the report is admissible proof of anything, the r
states that Thunam paid an out of court settlement in late 2008, which yet again w
Madagascar Government inspected and approved the actual wood at issue in 2
Entry 31-2, page 22.) The environmental report also opines, without any
whatsoever, that paying a settlement assumes the guilt of the accused. (Docke
page 22.) The U.S. Government has not produced an actual court opinion explai
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
19/111
about the case, and it certainly has not established any link between the purported
specific wood at issue.
e. The tariff classification of the wood under U.S. law has nothin
Madagascar law.
The U.S. Government claims that the wood at issue must be unfin
Madagascar law because Hunter Trading (which is not even a party to these
declared the wood as sawn ebony under the United States Tariff Schedule and bec
Government issued tariff rulings about other pieces of wood at some point in time.
at 8-9.) U.S. Customs declarations and documents are irrelevant and have no m
Madagascar law. Further, the U.S. Governments choice to classify fingerboards a
in various tariff rulings under U.S. law has nothing to do with the Madagascar G
decision to define fingerboards and other musical instrument parts as finished goo
2006 Order. The U.S. Governments tariff rulings also have nothing to do with th
Governments decision to declare that the specific ebony wood at issue in this case
and legal to export.
Conclusion
The undisputed proof in this case is that the Madagascar Government inspec
wood at issue, determined that it is finished under Madagascar law, and approved
export. No fewer than 10 Madagascar officials participated in the process of a
wood. The Madagascar Government collected taxes on the export of the wood.
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
20/111
dismiss this unfounded forfeiture proceeding, order the immediate return of Gibso
and award Gibson all of its costs and fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2465(b).
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Tim Harvey
Steven A. Riley (BPR # 6258)Tim Harvey (BPR # 021509)W. Russell Taber, III (BPR # 24741)Riley Warnock & Jacobson, PLC1906 West End AvenueNashville, TN 37202(615) 320-3700 telephone(615) 320- 3737 facsimile
[email protected]@[email protected]
Attorneys for Gibson Guitar Corp.
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
21/111
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that, on July 15, 2011, a true and correct copy of the foregoing ha
upon the following Filing Users through the Courts Electronic Filing System:
Jerry E. MartinUnited States Attorney for theMiddle District of Tennessee110 Ninth Avenue South, Suite A-961Nashville, Tennessee 37203-3870
Debra Teufel PhillipsUnited States Attorney for theMiddle District of Tennessee110 Ninth Avenue South, Suite A-961Nashville, Tennessee [email protected]
Attorneys for the United States of America
Alexander Fardon315 Deaderick Street, Suite 1800Nashville, TN [email protected]
Attorney for Theodor Nagel GMBH & Co KG
/s/ Tim Harvey
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
22/111
Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-1 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 714
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
23/111
Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-1 Filed 07/15/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 715
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
24/111
Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-1 Filed 07/15/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 716
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
25/111
Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-1 Filed 07/15/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 717
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
26/111
5Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-2 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 718
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
27/111
6Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-2 Filed 07/15/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 719
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
28/111
7Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-2 Filed 07/15/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 720
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
29/111
8Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-3 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 721
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
30/111
9Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-3 Filed 07/15/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 722
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
31/111
10Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-3 Filed 07/15/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 723
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
32/111
11Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-4 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 724
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
33/111
12Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-5 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 725
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
34/111
13Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-5 Filed 07/15/11 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 726
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
35/111
14Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-5 Filed 07/15/11 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 727
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
36/111
15Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-5 Filed 07/15/11 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 728
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
37/111
16Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-5 Filed 07/15/11 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 729
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
38/111
17Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-5 Filed 07/15/11 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 730
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
39/111
18Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-6 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 731
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
40/111
19Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-6 Filed 07/15/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 732
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
41/111
20Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-6 Filed 07/15/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 733
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
42/111
21Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-6 Filed 07/15/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 734
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
43/111
22Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-7 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 735
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
44/111
23Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-8 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 736
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
45/111
24Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-8 Filed 07/15/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 737
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
46/111
25Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-8 Filed 07/15/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 738
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
47/111
26Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-9 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 739
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
48/111
27Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-9 Filed 07/15/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 740
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
49/111
28Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-9 Filed 07/15/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 741
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
50/111
29Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-10 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 742
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
51/111
30Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-10 Filed 07/15/11 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 743
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
52/111
31Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-10 Filed 07/15/11 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 744
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
53/111
32Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-10 Filed 07/15/11 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 745
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
54/111
33Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-10 Filed 07/15/11 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 746
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
55/111
34Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-11 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 747
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
56/111
35Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-11 Filed 07/15/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 748
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
57/111
36Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-11 Filed 07/15/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 749
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
58/111
1Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-12 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 750
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
59/111
2Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-13 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 751
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
60/111
3Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-13 Filed 07/15/11 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 752
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
61/111
4Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-13 Filed 07/15/11 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 753
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
62/111
5Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-13 Filed 07/15/11 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 754
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
63/111
6Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-13 Filed 07/15/11 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 755
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
64/111
7Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-13 Filed 07/15/11 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 756
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
65/111
8Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-14 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 757
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
66/111
9Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-14 Filed 07/15/11 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 758
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
67/111
10Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-14 Filed 07/15/11 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 759
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
68/111
11Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-14 Filed 07/15/11 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 760
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
69/111
12Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-14 Filed 07/15/11 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 761
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
70/111
13Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-14 Filed 07/15/11 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 762
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
71/111
14Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-15 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 763
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
72/111
15Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-15 Filed 07/15/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 764
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
73/111
16Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-16 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 76
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
74/111
17Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-16 Filed 07/15/11 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 76
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
75/111
18Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-16 Filed 07/15/11 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 76
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
76/111
19Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-16 Filed 07/15/11 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 76
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
77/111
20Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-16 Filed 07/15/11 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 76
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
78/111
21Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-16 Filed 07/15/11 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 77
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
79/111
22Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-16 Filed 07/15/11 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 77
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
80/111
23Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-16 Filed 07/15/11 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 77
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
81/111
24Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-17 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 773
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
82/111
25Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-17 Filed 07/15/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 774
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
83/111
26Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-18 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 775
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
84/111
27Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-18 Filed 07/15/11 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 776
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
85/111
28Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-18 Filed 07/15/11 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 777
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
86/111
29Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-18 Filed 07/15/11 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 778
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
87/111
30Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-18 Filed 07/15/11 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 779
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
88/111
31Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-18 Filed 07/15/11 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 780
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
89/111
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
90/111
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
91/111
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
92/111
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
93/111
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
94/111
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
95/111
38Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-20 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 787
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
96/111
39Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-20 Filed 07/15/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 788
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
97/111
1Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-21 Filed 07/15/11 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 789
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
98/111
2Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-21 Filed 07/15/11 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 790
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
99/111
3Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-21 Filed 07/15/11 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 791
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
100/111
4Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-21 Filed 07/15/11 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 792
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
101/111
5Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-21 Filed 07/15/11 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 793
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
102/111
6Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-21 Filed 07/15/11 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 794
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
103/111
7Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-21 Filed 07/15/11 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 795
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
104/111
8Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-21 Filed 07/15/11 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 796
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
105/111
9Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-21 Filed 07/15/11 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 797
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
106/111
10Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-21 Filed 07/15/11 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 798
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
107/111
11Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-21 Filed 07/15/11 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 799
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
108/111
12Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-21 Filed 07/15/11 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 800
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
109/111
13Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-21 Filed 07/15/11 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 801
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
110/111
14Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-21 Filed 07/15/11 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 802
-
8/4/2019 US v Ebony Wood - Gibson's Resp to Motion to Strike
111/111
15Case 3:10-cv-00747 Document 40-21 Filed 07/15/11 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 803