GLOCK

Department of Justice Press Release:

TOPEKA, KAN. – A Georgia woman was sentenced to 12 months and a day in federal prison for helping conceal bribes an executive of the company that makes Glock firearms received from a Kansas firearms distributor for preferential treatment, U.S. Attorney Barry Grissom said. Lisa Delaine Dutton, 43, Acworth, Ga., pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy. In her plea, she admitted she assisted her husband, co-defendant James “Craig” Dutton, 43, Acworth, Ga., who was the Assistant National Sales Manager for Glock, to . . .

receive bribes from co-defendant John Sullivan Ralph, III, 41, Olathe, Kan. Ralph was owner of Global Guns & Hunting Inc. of Olathe, Kan., doing business as OMB Guns.

Lisa Dutton created a company called Supreme Solutions LLC and used it to receive payments from Ralph to James Dutton. The bribes were to pay James Dutton for helping Ralph to receive preferential treatment over other distributors of firearms, including directing customers to OMB Guns, giving it priority relative to the allocation of limited products, steering government contracts and sales to government agencies of firearms and accessories to OMB , as well as providing confidential Glock information to Ralph and OMB Guns.

Co-defendants include:

John Sullivan Ralph, II, who is set for sentencing Sept. 28.

James Craig Dutton, who is set for sentencing Sept. 22.

Welcome D. “Bo” Wood, Jr., who is set for sentencing Nov. 16.

Paula Ann Wood, who is set for sentencing Nov. 16.

Click here to read the original indictment. [h/t BA]

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

48 COMMENTS

    • Agreed; this is a NON-gun event. Only thing to note is that we PotG need to be alert to the fact that this conviction has nothing to do with arms per se. The precise set of circumstances might have arisen with respect to soap or cars; the crime would have been the same.

      There is no “gun” there.

  2. On the other hand, if it was Planned Parenthood involved in a bribery scheme for infant parts…best I can tell DOJ = see nothing, hear nothing, know nothing.

    • Can you prove that ever happened? Because it is against the law already. There was a drunken dinner party where an activist brought up and pursued the subject. If there is any proof, someone should go to jail. But I don’t think it ever happened.

    • That’s what I thought. 12 months and one day actually sounds contrived, intended to remove her forever from dealing with firearms, as opposed to any real punishment, which 364 days would be exactly the same.

      • There is some technical reason why they do the “year and a day” thing, but I can’t recall what it is. Could be similar to the way we used to sentence someone to 72 hours in jail, rather than 3 days, so the sheriff couldn’t kick them loose after a day and a half.

  4. They shouldn’t have done this but I would rather see the Fed’s spend their time stopping or punishing someone that caused physical harm to others.

    • There may not have been physical harm, but corruption, as seen here, causes severe economic harm and generally goes hand in hand with physical violence (you’ll notice that most corrupt countries have severe violence problems).

      After all, I’m pretty sure most of the country still thinks more than a few bankers should be in jail for their role in the 2008 financial collapse.

  5. And here you see how GLOCK has become the preferred handgun of LEO’s and government agencies.

    • Really? And here for the last 27 years I thought the reason Glock established a stellar reputation that earned them an astounding 65% share of U.S. law enforcement duty pistol market was because the company delivers a simple dependable pistol at a price much lower than other high quality pistols on the market (Sig), and much more reliable than lessor quality pistols on the market (S&W).

      • Nope.

        You need to peek behind the curtain and find out how GLOCK has marketed their guns to law enforcement. To say that their sales tactics are shady is an understatement.

        • DG you’re usually a good source, but in this case you’re looking opinionated rather than informed. Corruption in selling GLOCK brand Glocks (presumably fueled by the massive demand) is not in any way related to any kind of true crime I can think of… Share more info or butt out.

    • Back in the ’80s during the time many departments were switching from revolver to semi-auto, payoffs and favoritism was commonplace. I was intimate to the process. In one instance we got a late call from a rep congratulating us on winning a contract only to wake up the next morning to another manufacturer signing. MONEY changed hands!

      Same thing goes on regarding military contracts……it’s the way the ‘game’ is played!

  6. We’re safe now. Ms. Dutton is going to prison, Kim Davis was in jail and Hillary is on MSNBC getting thoroughly brown-nosed by Andrea Mitchell.

    We can all sleep soundly tonight.

    • Ah, but Kimmy baby is out now, can’t wait to see if she lets her deputies keep issuing certificates to same sex couples??
      If she’s smart, she’ll keep her mouth shut!

    • Slight difference between the two. Dutton isn’t a public official denying government services to the public.

      • Still with you on this one Grindstone. But I can’t say I care for the way the Federal judge has apparently arrogated to himself the power to appoint county officials, if indeed that has happened. Last I heard, the clerks were issuing the licenses, but without any signatures from the clerk’s office–which, of course, makes them void. And the judge was telling folks they would just have to take the chance that the licenses would not be ‘legal”, so maybe he is still playing within his proper authority.

  7. What’s the crime? A businessman and his wife gave preferential treatment to some customers? In a time when this was a free country that was called good business.

  8. This story still wont help the average person see that they are overpaying for Glocks by about $200 each pistol.

  9. I am tired today and when I first glanced the at headline I thought it was a “Nickleback” conspiracy. Glock and Nickleback would indeed be an unholy alliance.

    • “I am tired today and when I first glanced the at headline I thought it was a “Nickleback” conspiracy.”

      Holy crap, you just hit on something.

      Every time you hear ‘Rock Star’, replace it with ‘Glock Star’…

      (This video is about a rock band that just hit super-stardom and is now enjoying the trappings…)

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmeUuoxyt_E

  10. How is charging a distributor money to be first in line a crime? How is charging money to be a “middleman” a crime? (If Mrs. Dutton was a “middleman” and directed sales to a certain distributor, how is that a crime?) That sounds like capitalism to me.

    What am I missing?

    • Everything…..apparently. Bribery, conspiracy to defraud….these are crimes…get it? Better yet, educate yourself and go to the included link to read the criminal complaint. Come back when you have a clue.

      • John Ralph (a gun dealer) paid James Dutton (a Glock sales manager) to get shipments of Glock products before other gun dealers who did not pay James Dutton. In other words a customer paid a premium to get products before other customers. Why is that a crime?

        Demand exceeded supply and a buyer paid more to purchase the limited supply. How is that a crime?

        • Duh, because Dutton cut a deal on the side with the Dealer his employer didn’t know about or authorize then pocketed the money. Not only did Dutton screw Glock by taking a kick back, he screwed other dealers and distributors who unfairly lost business they should’ve had if not for the brother-in-law arrangement between Dutton and Ralph.

        • Think of it this way, if it were a government bureaucrat cutting deals on the side with a supplier to take delivery of an inferior product than what their competitors provide at the same price in exchange for a kick back it would essentially be the same thing. I know your thinking this is the free market at work but it is essentially a criminal action that actually hurts free market competition. Crap like this is why we are strangled with government regulation in every aspect of business in the first place.

    • I can’t generate a lot of enthusiasm for this law, but I’ll try to make the arguments.

      What the distributor (manager and wife) did was a fraud upon the employer, Glock. Glock owns it’s trademark and its product line. It decides how it wants to sell through distributors to dealers who promote the brand on the sales floor. Whether Glock’s policies of rationing supply to dealers is wise or unwise, that decision belongs to Glock. For the distributor to violate his distribution agreement was a disloyalty to Glock.

      Generally, our system of government takes a very dim view of fraud. Should the perpetrator of a fraud be free to plunder the general public who may lack the means of detecting evidence of fraud? If no, then government ought to prosecute fraud. And, if the government prosecutes fraud perpetrated upon the poor and is supposed to treat citizens equitably, then it should make some effort to protect Mr. Glock as well.

      A more pertinent argument is that US Federal law prohibits selling goods (products or commodities) at different prices to different customers. Services may be sold at different prices to different customers. At a time when large manufacturers were viewed with great popular suspicion there was something unseemly about a seller vending 1 unit of “stuff” to different customers at different prices at the same time and under the same terms. Different prices for customers buying 1 vs. 1000 units was OK, but the same quantity should bring the same price at the same time on the same terms to different customers.

      If you remain unsatisfied with my explanation, that’s fine. I’m not sure the arguments are especially compelling.

      • Ah, and the key is, “For the distributor to violate his distribution agreement was a disloyalty to Glock.” If James Dutton was a Glock distributor, had a distributor agreement, and profited from violating that agreement, then I can see where Glock was entitled to monetary damages. I am not entirely convinced that should translate into prison time beyond the monetary damages.

        If James Dutton was a Glock sales manager and employee of Glock, I don’t see how Glock can do anything other than fire him and possibly claim that the premium that John Ralph paid belongs to Glock, not Dutton. I suppose if they can make that claim, they could argue that Dutton stole from Glock and ask the feds to imprison him for theft. But that is a gray area. It wasn’t fraud in the classic sense if Dutton actually delivered what he promised. And it wasn’t embezzlement in the classic sense since Dutton didn’t siphon away money that was already in Glock’s possession.

        Who knows. I am not going to waste any more brain cells on this ordeal.

    • Now, THAT I can agree with. From the beginning of the “investigation” to the end of the incarcerations, how much did this silliness cost the taxpayer, who doesn’t care?

      • It only just now occurs to me: Why was this particular case of sufficient interest to justify the expenditure of scarce resources to prosecute?

        Here, I present no quarrel with the laws being prosecuted. Let’s assume that these laws are appropriate. No doubt, such manipulations of commerce occur frequently, whether they involve fish or fowl. It doesn’t matter what commodity or product was manipulated in interstate commerce.

        How many cases under this law were prosecuted in the past few years? What were the magnitude of the violations? The products involved? Suppose, for example, that there were cases involving DoD procurement of munitions. Or, pharmaceuticals; truck air-break repair parts. Certainly, such merchandise would be so affected with the public interest as they are profoundly connected with public safety. If the laws are justified in the first place then these products might justify prosecution. How about doggy-chew-toys; fashions; flowers?

        Glocks? Sold to civilians? Was this case brought because it was concerned with the maintenance of a well regulated militia necessary to the safety of a free state?

        Or, possibly, was this case brought because it targeted citizens engaged in selling guns to civilians? Could this be a malicious prosecution meant to serve as a warning to the PotG? ‘ Beware! If you keep or bear arms the government will look for any opportunity to prosecute you – in particular – for any law violation that would otherwise be ignored. ‘

  13. Well, looks like there’s an opening at Glock for a new assistant sales manager (and wife).
    Where does an honest lawyer/Glock fanboy go to apply for this job?
    P.S.
    Willing to move to Ga.

  14. So who do I have to bribe to get my hands on the porcelain Glock 7??? I know they’ve got it in their super secret labs somewhere!!!

    • I’m no conspiracy theorist, but I do notice they skipped from 0 to 17 pretty fast. Are they hiding something like the Glock 7 that more perfect than perfection itself that jihadis and clandestine agents alike are willing to pay $50k each to get their hands? I don’t know, I’m just sayin.

  15. It is an article the the anti-gunners will use for their cause and they will spin it. Look what happened to the Mexican drug loads and the US federal government that supplied them with guns and then the anti-gunners tried to blame it on illegal guns. mrpresidenr2016.com

Comments are closed.