Bob,

Quote:

Here's the hard part guys. The affidavit is 32 pages of legalese. You need to read it and digest it before you can make some of these statements I see here.



I read the whole thing! Whew. I guess I’m now qualified to speak. The first thing I’ll say is that no one should feel compelled to read it, IMHO, since there is only a few pages that actually have anything of value to the discussion. Most of this can be found on pages 8-10 under “Investigation”.

The rest is legalese nonsense.

Quote:

All I see from Juszkiewicz is spin. He's not talking about the specific merits of the case. There's an old legal dictum that goes like this:

"If you can't argue the facts, argue the law. If you can't argue the law, argue the facts. If you can't argue the law or the facts, blow smoke."



Of course he’s giving “spin”. That’s his job to win public support. It’s working. Its his lawyers job to argue the law.

I’m surprised that you’re ready to declare Gibson “guilty”, especially based on info from the affidavit. After all, are the Feds going to say they don’t know for sure if Gibson should be charged, or are they going to say they have proof?

The whole thing is based on a technicality, and probably on political motivation from people using federal resources to further their agenda. It has NOTHING to do with saving trees, or even illegal wood species.

Bob
................................
http://soundcloud.com/bobcflatpicke/music-in-the-mountains