quote:

Originally posted by Alan Bunn:


In fact, him running his mouth to me about how glad he was that Mugabe had run the whites out, and that "we don't want them in South Africa either" was what first put him on my radar screen.



~Alan

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
I bet he squeals like the fat guy in "Deliverance" when the Judge mentions the death sentence to him.

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by Karoo:
The SA legal system is still pretty sound and, assuming the evidence is good, they stand a strong chance of conviction.
The National Prosecuting Authority is very capable and put the ex head of police away just a few months ago.

quote:

Originally posted by zimFrosty:
Folks there is an awful lot of heresay regarding OoAS and the Groenewalds.

This however is not heresay, it is fact. I was present and witnessed it for myself.

In 2006 while hunting in the Rutenga area of Zimbabwe, we were twice disturbed by Groenewald and his trackers in vehicles . he was not entitled to be on the land or even in the area and the land owner told him so in no uncertain terms. He merely laughed and told the landowner that he wasnt worried because the landowner wouldnt be there for very much longer and he(groenewald) would soon own the whole area.
There was an American client with Groenewald, who we identified . SCI was informed of this but no response to numerous emails was ever received.No action was ever taken against the American client.The Ranch was invaded by war vets less than 6 weeks later and after a 3 month struggle the owner was forced to move off.

I personally feel that SCI simply has to completely distance itself from this man and all of those who surround him. If Anderson wishes to represent them, then his SCI days are over.

I find it unconscionable that the head of the Ethic committee is even allowed or would even consider representing or aligning himself to an accused party. If Groenewald was found innocent in the SA court of Law, he would still have to face charges from the ethics committee, and their lawyer would be required to represent them.....to who...himself??

Sorry folks but Rhino protection is very close to my heart and if SCI wont take a stand against this , then I am afraid that I personally will never have anything to do with them again. This may not amount to much, but at least I can sleep at night.

quote:

Originally posted by zimFrosty:
There was an American client with Groenewald, who we identified . SCI was informed of this but no response to numerous emails was ever received.No action was ever taken against the American client.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Howard,

If the American is hunting in an area he's not allowed to hunt then he's poaching and therefore in breach of the Lacey Act.

Incidentallly, whilst it doesn't appear to be the case here. If he's hunting on seized land then he's also open to prosecution in the US.... in I think, also as a breach of the Lacey Act.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Howard,

I don't understand it very well either and I reckon it's a real stuff up piece of legislation but I think you'll find that it also applies to the breaking of game laws in any foreign country.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
What we need is a lawyer who specialises in these cases to give us a translation from legalese to sensible and understandable.

Have we got anyone like that out there?

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Larry,

I didn't suggest that anyone has a 'duty' to explain the act to us. I just asked if we had any members who could.

Nor did I try to 'degrade SCI'. In fact, if you check my posts on the various threads, you'll see I suggested we avoid a witch hunt of SCI members.

PM sent BTW.

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
Maybe what we really need is to stop making assumptions on things we really have no expertise and knowledge of??

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
As it relates to the Lacey Act, I think the point here is quite simple. Anyone who hunted with OOA MAY have broken the law and had no knowledge of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
just an opinion, but...

The government can choose to prosecute someone under the provisions of the Lacey Act, even if a conviction is unlikely. The fact that you will spend many thousands and thousands of dollars to defend yourself against the charges is enough to make them happy. These days the FedGuv is big into punitive actions via the court system.

Rich
DRSS

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Howard,

I wouldn't put anything past the USF&WS.

As far as I'm concerned they consider themselves a complete law unto themselves and at the risk of going off topic for a moment, the ongoing court case between them & John Jackson/ Conservation Force proves they're even willing to defy the American courts... not just for days, weeks or even months but in some cases, years.

If they can do that, (as would appear to be the case) I reckon they can do anything.

I hope I'm wrong for the sake of any bugger that was unaware of wrongdoing but I wouldn't rule anything out.

quote:

Originally posted by Howard:
Basically we give our government too much money which they then use to torment us with.

quote:

Originally posted by Howard:
United States of America

United States Code Annotated Currentness. Title 16. Conservation. Chapter 53. Control of Illegally Taken Fish and Wildlife.

Statute Details
Printable Version
Citation: 16 USC 3371 - 3378

Citation: 95 Stat. 1073

Last Checked by Web Center Staff: 11/09

Summary:

The Lacey Act provides that it is unlawful for any person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law whether in interstate or foreign commerce. Violation of this federal act can result in civil penalties up to $10,000 per each violation or maximum criminal sanctions of $20,000 in fines and/or up to five years imprisonment. All plants or animals taken in violation of the Act are subject to forfeiture as well as all vessels, vehicles, aircraft, and other equipment used to aid in the importing, exporting, transporting, selling, receiving, acquiring, or purchasing of fish or wildlife or plants in a criminal violation of this chapter for which a felony conviction is obtained where the owner should have known of the illegal transgression.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Why did Kevin Anderson not charge the two people based on the complaint?

I'll give you 3 guesses!