quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

If he has a judgment against him and he comes to the states and you (or your attorney) notify the correct authorities...it could be collected. Martin does come to the states and it is fairly public knowledge...thus possible.

Getting personal jurisdiction over someone does not give you access to their assets overseas. Sure, someone could be served at the shows . . . assuming they were stupid enough to continue coming to the shows with the lawsuit pending . . . but even if you did serve them and get a default judgment that is not going to give you jurisdiction over their assets, accounts, etc. not in the US. You would have to get an order here then get an order from a court in the country where the assets are located accepting the US order and allowing assets to be seized to satisfy the judgment. Want an idea of how good such a lawsuit would be . . . take it to a contingent fee lawyer and see if you can get them to take the case on a contingent fee . . . if you can get an answer out of them despite the laughter.

Agreed...but it still can be accomplished. I know from experience. With a judgement...they can be held in- country until they wire funds...or make other arrangements to pay. But you are correct...they would be smart to stay out of country...then you would be screwed for sure.

I am agreeing with you that it is a long-shot...but if your goal is retribution...it can change their life.

Paul Singer/Elliot went an seized an Argentina war ship (historical one) on defaulted sovereign default judgement. This was when argentina was a G20 member.

If you get a default/damages it all depends on how determined and aggressive one is.

For hunting contracts the dollars are irrelevant to do anything real via legal mechanisms. But one can do real damage to an outfitters reputation. I think Martin Pieters reputation has suffered far more than the $90K damages that would have been awarded for contract breach (in a optimal contracting world).

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wesheltonj:
It's possible that you need not sue the other party their the home country, but in the good old US of A. Easy enough to obtain personal jurisdiction over the subject at one of the events he attends in the USA. Of course, if there is a forum clause that might not work.

. . . and how are you planning to collect your judgment?

Well, I guess that I would Abstract the Judgment, and when he or his company shows up for a show, have the sheriff levy against all that money he just collected.

. . . and I guess he would be too stupid to stop coming to the shows in the US?[/QUOTE

Which he in fact did when he was subject to a certain frivolous lawsuit which for the record he got out of without paying a single cent in damages.

if the judgement did cause him to stop attending shows here, it would not make you whole, however, it might yield some personal satisfaction and give others pause for thought.

Just talked to a member on here that's booked for a lion/leopard in July with MP.
He's read this and the other post thru at least once and is still going.

Wish him the best with the hunt and all the rest.

George

quote:

Originally posted by georgeld:
Just talked to a member on here that's booked for a lion/leopard in July with MP.
He's read this and the other post thru at least once and is still going.

Wish him the best with the hunt and all the rest.

George

. . . and there is a rumor that one of the two brothers in the original post has rebooked a hunt with MP . . .

For me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me....

Things that make you go hmmmmmm.......

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:
Larry,

The poll only allows one answer be chosen. I would actually vote the last two choices.

I think an attempt should always be made to directly resolve issues both during a hunt and after if needed. I also would not hesitate to give an honest representation of the issue here on AR even though some posters would immediately define the action with their own myopic psychic viewpoint.

Cheers
Jim

Exactly. You work to resolve it privately, but if you get the Martin Pieters treatment, then you post an honest representation of issues on AR. The vast majority on AR will thank you, and a very small group will call you call you a cry baby for not quietly taking your screwing like a real man.

I'm just really glad I've never had an experience anything like the recent MP shit show (elephant hunt). I tend to over research anything I buy that cost more than $300 or so. It drives my wife crazy, and sometimes I eventually pay a higher price, but I normally avoid the big dollar shit shows. I'm also a physical oil trader, which has given me a deeply ingrained distrust of nearly everyone on big dollar purchases or sells.

quote:

Originally posted by Texas Blue Devil:

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:
Larry,

The poll only allows one answer be chosen. I would actually vote the last two choices.

I think an attempt should always be made to directly resolve issues both during a hunt and after if needed. I also would not hesitate to give an honest representation of the issue here on AR even though some posters would immediately define the action with their own myopic psychic viewpoint.

Cheers
Jim

Exactly. You work to resolve it privately, but if you get the Martin Pieters treatment, then you post an honest representation of issues on AR. The vast majority on AR will thank you, and a very small group will call you call you a cry baby for not quietly taking your screwing like a real man.

I'm just really glad I've never had an experience anything like the recent MP shit show (elephant hunt). I tend to over research anything I buy that cost more than $300 or so. It drives my wife crazy, and sometimes I eventually pay a higher price, but I normally avoid the big dollar shit shows. I'm also a physical oil trader, which has given me a deeply ingrained distrust of nearly everyone on big dollar purchases or sells.

I have a similar view - $5K cut off. Above $5K i worry about loss below $5K i am willing to write it off.

I dont do any research I just buy stuff from costco where I have them do the work for me and an excellent return policy.

I buy guns used on AR cause gun nuts normally do the work for me.

On hunts - I only hunt with people I have hunted with before or who they or other AR members I know personally recommend. I have little interest in new things or trophies in hunting.

If I want to try something new in hunting and fishing $5K cut off. Most fishing trips fall in the cut off - not most hunting.

If I get screwed over by a outfitter like I was by Tom Shankster in Alaska. I will do my best to put him in jail.

Also 95% plus of hunting contract dispute amount will be below $75K which is the cut off for federal jurisdiction. Litigating hunting/fishing contracts under American Rules (you pay your attorney fees) is really not economic or practical.

AR does a damn good job in sorting out frauds. Tough place - great results.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Texas Blue Devil:

. . . then you post an honest representation of issues on AR.

. . . hopefully that will happen one day in this instance.

I { and apparently most others here} believe it already has. You missed it...

I'll take the under on that bet (that we have received a full and fair representation of the facts). Your prerogative to feel otherwise.

Mr Jines
Do you know something that has not been disclosed on the forum in terms of the MP safaris incident? Do you know of any other facts/hearsay that might indicate the OP(Drazan)has not told the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Here in the RSA the burden of proof in a civil case is "on the balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt" in a criminal case. From my perspective, examining the evidence brought to the table by both parties (OP and MP) the scale tips in favour of the OP on a balance of probabilities, but not "beyond reasonable doubt" as it is after all just an internet forum. However it is enough to make one think twice about what payment/contractual arrangements to consider when dealing with MP Safaris or any other operator for that matter.

JCHB

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I'll take the under on that bet (that we have received a full and fair representation of the facts). Your prerogative to feel otherwise.

+1
Much has been insinuated. Very little has been proven.

Jeff

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I'll take the under on that bet (that we have received a full and fair representation of the facts). Your prerogative to feel otherwise.

+1
Much has been insinuated. Very little has been proven.

Jeff

The only proof you need is to read MP's response...IMO that's enough to deter me and apparently many others to scratch him off the list. Which is all the proof I need.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I'll take the under on that bet (that we have received a full and fair representation of the facts). Your prerogative to feel otherwise.

+1
Much has been insinuated. Very little has been proven.

Jeff

Yup.

I tended to believe the brothers. If the allegations of re-booking are true, I don't know what to think.

quote:

If the allegations of re-booking are true, I don't know what to think.

You should think "someone" got a sweet deal and lots of reassurance

quote:

Originally posted by Heym 450/400:

quote:

If the allegations of re-booking are true, I don't know what to think.

You should think "someone" got a sweet deal and lots of reassurance

. . . and a Kleenex to wipe away all the crocodile tears.

I think my first bet would be:
-try to settle it privately then if settled to everyone's satisfaction
-THEN post a report that "things went sideways and were taken care of"

if NOT settled to everyone's satisfaction then make a public report stating how things went sideways how you tried to resolve it privately but it isn't going to happen so warn others.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Heym 450/400:

quote:

If the allegations of re-booking are true, I don't know what to think.

You should think "someone" got a sweet deal and lots of reassurance

. . . and a Kleenex to wipe away all the crocodile tears.

And a couple of guys are being awfully quiet about it.

Now I see another thread on a Houston businessman suing a RSA operator in the US. We will see how that turns out. Of course, those circumstances are different. A lot different.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Heym 450/400:

quote:

If the allegations of re-booking are true, I don't know what to think.

You should think "someone" got a sweet deal and lots of reassurance

. . . and a Kleenex to wipe away all the crocodile tears.

And a couple of guys are being awfully quiet about it.

Now I see another thread on a Houston businessman suing a RSA operator in the US. We will see how that turns out. Of course, those circumstances are different. A lot different.

. . . and the Plaintiff in that case has a lot of money to use to make his point and blow off some steam.

My educated guess is that the defendant has a lot more assets than Martin.

Money vs. Money, those are generally entertaining fights to watch, only fights that may be better are when it is Principle vs. Principle.

Yes.

And the only winners are the vultures

. . . when you come up with a better system let us know.

Kathi posted a link that has a copy of the lawsuit. It seems that the safari company has a Texas office, Texas employees, A Texas bank account and the owner lives in Texas at least part time.