quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by mdwest:

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Larry,

The Lacey Act is a really poisonous piece of legislation & can be be applied to anyone, anywhere for breaking any game law anywhere in the world no matter what passport they hold....... Whether they can be deported to the US is a different matter but this case proves the US is willing to try.

I agree with the above statement..

but..

I am pretty sure Lacey only applies to US flora and fauna..

They can go after a foreign national and ask for that person to be extradited..

But I dont think they can apply Lacey to an Elephant..



I was going to go read the Endangered Species Act today (what they used to go after the US hunter) and see if there is a provision in there that they might use against the PH..

They can apply it to anyone who breaks any game law anywhere in the world & it has been applied (or perhaps misapplied?) to s number of non US citizens over the years.

I can't remember the exact details but seem to remember at least one SA PH (some years ago) being arrested when he went to the US for convention season & IIRC it had something to do with a leopard being shot in one country & smuggled over the border to another so they could claim it was shot elsewhere.

In this case, I'd guess the biggest hurdle will be getting the guy extradited to the US.

As Todd quite rightly says: " They'll use it where and when they desire, and stretch it far and wide beyond its original intent".

May be they should start investigating the South African professional hunters who supply SCI award winning trophies then!

We all know good trophies do not grow on trees, and some of those crooks in South Africa supply them on demand!

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
No, “we” don’t deserve this.

The hunter obviously knew he was trying to get around things...$25 k and an agreement not to hunt for 4 years?

The hunter, and the PH sound like common poachers.

I wish they would face the music in Zimbabwe rather than in US court...where it rightly belongs. And I bet 2 months in a Zim jail is harder time than 5 years in a US one.

quote:

Originally posted by Kathi:
Case 1:18-po-07002-STV Document 7 Filed 04/24/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 18
.I



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAUL ROSS JACKSON,

Defendant.


PLEA AGREEMENT


The United States Attorney' s Office for the District of Colorado (the "Office"), by and through, Suneeta Hazra and Bryan David Fields, Assistant United States Attorneys for the District of Colorado, and the defendant , Paul Ross Jackson, personally and by counsel, Daniel T. Smith, submit the following Plea Agreement, pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCrR 11.1.
I. PLEA AGREEMENT

A. Defendant's Obligations

1. The defendant agrees to plead guilty to an Information charging him with a misdemeanor violation of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(l)(G) and 1540(b)( l ).
2. The defendant recommends and will agree that a fine of $25,000 is sufficient, but not greater than necess ary, to accomplish the goals of statutory sentencing codified at 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). Accordingly, the defendant agrees not to argue for or otherwise seek a lesser sentence. The defendant further agrees that he shall not hunt any endangered or threatened wildlife listed in

, . , Case 1:18-po-07002-STV Document 7 Filed 04/24/18 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 18



50 C.F.R. § 17.11, including as it may be subsequently amended, for a period of four years from the date of the entry of any judgment entered in connection with this plea agreement (the "Hunting Ban" ). The defendant further agrees to assist the United States in the enforcement of the Hunting Ban by providing to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as soon as practicable but not less than two weeks in advance, any and all documents and correspondence relating to any hunt outside of the United States, in cluding, but not limited to, hunting permits, agreements, itiner aries, receipts, and invoices . The government will provide the defendant with the name and contact information of the Fish and Wildlife Service employee to whom the defendant shall report this information . The defendant further agrees that, as soon as is practicable , but no later than within four years from the entry of any judgment entered in connection with this plea agreement, he will transfer to the government of Zimbabwe ivory tusks identified with stamp numbers ZW 20152603 7 and ZW 201526038 that were obtained as a result of the conduct described in the stipulated statement of facts set forth in paragraphs 16-57.
B. The Office's Obligations

3. In exchange for the defendant's plea of guilty to the count charged in the Information , the Office agrees, subject to the exceptions described in paragraphs 6 through 9 below , not to file any additional criminal charges in the District of Colorado against the defendant based on information presently known to the Office, as outlined in the statement of facts set forth in paragraphs 16-57.
4. The Office recommends and will agree that a fine of $25,000 is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to accomplish the goals of statutory sentencing codified at 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a). Accordingly, the Office agrees not to argue for or otherwise seek a higher sentence.

.I ' Case 1:18-po-07002-STV Document 7 Filed 04/24/18 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 18


5. This agreement does not bind any federal, state, or local prosecuting authority other than the Office, and does not prohibit the Office from initiating or prosecuting any civil or administrative proceedings directly or indirectly involving the defendant.
C. Defendant's Agreement to Toll the Applicable Statute of Limi.tations

6. The defendant is aware that he could be indicted for other crimes arising from the conduct agreed upon in the stipulation of facts set forth below, including charges related to violations of the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. § 3372(a)(2)(A), wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and conspiracy to violate those offenses, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1349. The defendant has discussed the penalties for these crimes with his attorney and understands that the most severe combination of penalties may include up to twenty years ' imprisonment , a fine of $250,000 or two times the loss/g ain, which is greater, supervised release for up to 3 years following any term of imp risonment, and forfeiture of the proceeds of any violation. He further understands that penalties imposed for multiple counts of conviction may be imposed consecutively.
7. However, in exchange for the concessions in this agreement, the defendant agrees that any statutes of limitation and any defenses arising therefrom, applicable to violations
described in the previous paragraph shall be tolled from the date on which this agreement is .
+."'(
accepted by the Court for a period of years (hereinafter the " Tolling Period" ). The defend t

further understands that, upon material breach of this agreement, the Office shall have reserved the right to bring charges related to the crimes described above in paragraph 6 within the Tolling Period . The defendant concedes that violation of the Hunting Ban, or a failure to transfer to the government of Zimbabwe ivory tusks identified with stamp numbers ZW 201526037 and ZW
201526038 as soon as is practicable, but no later than within four years from the entry of any




judgment in connection with this plea, would be a material breach of this agreement. The defendant understands that the Office, in its sole discretion, will determine whether the defendant has materially breached any term of this agreement, including the terms related to the Hunting Ban, and that the Office's good faith determination as to whether there has been a material breach shall be binding upon him . Should the defendant bring a claim that the Office has not acted in good faith, the defendant shall bear the burden of supporting that claim by a preponderance of the evidence.
8. The defendant understands that the law provides that in the absence of any waiver of the statutes of limitation , and except as otherwise provided by law, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3282, any criminal charge pursuant to the violations described above in paragraph 6, must be brought within a five-year limitations period beginning on the date of the commission or conclusion of the offenses alleged.
9. The defendant understands that by executing this agreement, he is giving up any defenses related to any applicable statutes oflimitations as to any of the violations described above in paragraph 6 that might be brought against him for which any applicable statutes of limitation would have otherwise expired during the Tolling Period, that the Tolling Period will not be considered in determining whether charges are barred by any applicable statutes oflimitation, and that any applicable statutes oflimitation are accordingly tolled with respect to such charges during this period. The defendant understands, acknowledges , and agrees that the period of time covered under the Tolling Period will not be used in calculations determining whether any criminal proceedings against him are within any applicable statutes of limitation .




D. Defendant's Waiver of Appeal

10. The defendant is aware that 18 U.S.C. § 3742 affords the right to appeal the sentence, including the manner in which that sentence is determined . Understanding this, and in exchange for the concessions made by the Office in this agreement, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to appeal any matter in connection with this prosecution, conviction, or sentence unless it meets one of the following criteria: (1) the sentence exceeds 6 months' imp risonmen;t or (2) the Office appeals the sentence imposed . If any of these two criteria apply, the defendant may appeal on any ground that is properly available in an appeal that follows a guilty plea.
11. The defendant also knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to challenge this prosecution, conviction, or sentence in any collateral attack (including , but not limited to, a motion brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255). This waiver provision does not prevent the defendant from seeking relief otherwise available in a collateral attack on any of the following grounds: (1) the defendant should receive the benefit of an explicitly retroactive change in the sentencing guidelines or sentencing statute; (2) the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel; or (3) the defendant was prejudiced by prosecutorial misconduct.
II. ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE

12. The parties agree that the elements of the offense to which this plea is being tendered are as follows :
First, the defendant knowingly violated an implementing regulation issued under the Endangered Species Act regarding the delivery, receipt, carrying, transportation, or shipment of threatened wildlife in the course of a commercial activity in foreign commerce;




Second, the animal delivered, received, carried, transported and shipped was an African Elephant (Loxodonta Africana) which is, in fact, threatened;

Third, the defendant acted unlawfully, that is without permission from the United States Department of the futerior.

III. STATUTORY PENALTIES

13. Pursuant to Title 16, United States Code, Section 1540, the maximum statutory penalty for a violation of Title 16, United States Code, Section 1538(a)(l )(G), as charged in the fuformation , is not more than 6 months ' imprisonment , a fine of $25,000 (or both imprisonment and a fine) and a $10 special assessment. There is no restitution in this case.
14. A violation of any condition(s) of probation may result in a separate prison sentence and additional supervision .
V. STIPULATION OF FACTS

15. The parties agree that there is a factual basis for the guilty plea that the defendant will tender pursuant to this plea agreement. That factual basis, accurate at all times relevant to this agreement, is set forth below in paragraphs 16-57. As part of this agreement, the defendant admits, accepts and acknowledges that the facts described in paragraphs 16-57 are true and accurate. Should the defendant breach this agreement, including a breach related to the Hunting Ban, the defendant agrees that he will not contest the admissibility of, nor contradict, in any prosecution of the crimes described above in paragraph 6, this Stipulation of Facts. If any such prosecution is brought, the defendant waives all claims under the United States Constitution, Rule 1l(t) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, or any other federal statute or rule that statements made and adopted by the defendant
as part of this stipulation of facts, or any leads derived therefrom, should be suppressed.




16. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (" CITES"), was signed by the United States in 1973 and became effective in 1975. CITES regulated the international trade in wildlife by placing species onto three " Appendices" based on the species' relative threatened status: species on Appendix One are the most seriously threatened and, therefore , the most restricted ; species on Appendix Two, such as the African Elephant (Loxodonta Africana) are not as threatened and can be traded with an appropriate permit; species on Appendix Three are those that are of concern only in a particular country and are the least regulated .
17. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service implemented CITES in the United States through the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") and its associated regulations. See 50
C.F.R. §§ 17. l(a) and 23. l (c) . The ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)( l )(G), made it unlawful to violate any regulation pertaining to a threatened species.
18. The African Elephant (Loxodonta Africana) was listed as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, which executed the CITES by establishing a program for the conservation of endangered and threatened species designated as such by the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce . 50 C.F.R. § 17.11.
19. It was a violation of the ESA's regulations to deliver, receive, carry, transport or ship in foreign commerce , by any means whatsoever, and in the course of a commercial activity, any threatened wildlife. See 50 C.F.R. § 17.31 (applying provisions of 50 C.F.R. § 17.21). However , the regulations at M C.F.R. §17.40 contain a special rule for the African Eleph (Loxodonta Africana) .




20. The special regulations for the African Elephant made it unlawful to deliver,

receive, carry, transport or ship in interstate or foreign commerce and in the course of a
so
commercial activity any sport-hunted African Elephant (Loxodonta Africana) trophy. C.F.

§ 17.40(e)(6)(ii). Furthermore , only trophies taken legally in an African elephant range country
ft>
qualified as sport-hunted . Pr C.F.R. § 17.40(e)(6)(i)(A).

21. The Zimbabwean Parks and Wild Life Act made it unlawful, with certain exceptions granted by the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Authority that did not apply, to hunt any wildlife in a national park or to sell any animal or any part of an animal which has been hunted in or has died in or has been removed from a national park. That same act designated a 505,300 hectare area of the Chiredzi District of Zimbabwe as a national park called Gonarezhou National Park.
22. The defendant was a resident of Evergreen, Colorado, within the State and District of Colorado.
23. H.V.R., was a resident and citizen of the Republic of South Africa ("South Africa"). He was a professional hunter who owned and operated A.A.A, a company known to the parties, through which he marketed, sold, and carried out hunts in South Africa and Zimbabwe.
24. A.H. was a resident and citizen of the Republic of Zimbabwe ("Zimbabwe").

A.H. was a professional hunter who owned and operated a Zimbabwe-based outfitting company, the identity of which is known to the United States Attorney, through which A.H. provided hunting-related services, including guided hunts, dipping and packing, and the facilitation of
export permits .




25. R.Q. was a resident of New York. R.Q. was an employee of a S.S.I., which was in the business of facilitating the import of hunting trophies by coordinating with the foreign exporter, the professional hunter, the taxidermist, and shipping companies . R.Q. was given a power of attorney by the defendant to handle all of his importing and exporting matters and the defendant willfully caused R.Q. to perform acts on his behalf related to shipping and transporting his hunting trophies.
26. T.M., whose identity is known to the United States Attorney, worked for R.Q. from approximately March 2014 to July 2016 as an administrative assistant.
27. On or about and between April 29, 2015 and May 5, 2015, PAUL ROSS JACKSON and H.V.R. shot and killed an African Elephant inside Gonarezhou National Park in violation of the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Act.
28. After taking the African Elephant in Gonarezhou National Park, PAUL ROSS JACKSON worked with others to effectuate his intent to export the African Elephant from Zimbabwe to South Africa where he could use casts of the elephant's tusks for his trophy and then sell the ivory in foreign commerce for approximately $300 per pound.
29. On June 3, 2015, T.M., working under JACKSON ' s power of attorney, sent an email to A.H. stating, among other things, " I am just touching base regarding Mr . Jackson' s trophies ... he is very excited about this elephant and has called a few times to make sure everything is under control."
30. On June 3, 2015, A.H . responded to T.M. in an email stating, among other things,
" I have been able to collect his trophies which included : 1 skull, 1 cape, 3 panels skin, 4 feet and 4 bones.. [sic] There appears to be an issue with the ivory (which have not yet been registered)




and these are being held by National parks as apparently the bull was killed within a National Park?? I don ' t know any details but I am concerned."
31. On June 3, 2015, T.M., working under JACKSON' s power of attorney, forwarded

A.H. ' s previous email to, among others, JACKSON, H.V.R. and A.H., adding, among other things, the statement that A.H. " was able to pick up the highlighted items but not the ivory due to the elephant being killed in a National Park. I have copied [H.V.R.] as he needs to sort this out asap because arrangements were made through him and we do not want this to sit for too long . Please let us know next steps so we can proceed accordingly and have [A.H.] pick up the ivory asap."
32. On June 3, 2015, JACKSON responded to T.M.' s email: " we want to obtain the

ivory ."

33. On June 17, 2015, T.M. working under JACKSON ' s power of attorney, responded to an email from A.H. by stating , among other things, "Thank you [A.H.]. Do you have an expected time frame that you will be able to pick up the ivory" The email from A.H. stated " herewith the latest on the ivory," and forwarded an email from C.K. stating, among other things, "The ivory for Mr . Ross Jackson has been released by Parks . . . and will be delivered ... today. The ivory weighed 26 and 27 Kgs respectively."
34. On July 22, 2015, T.M., working under JACKSON ' s power of attorney, forwarded to JACKSON and another individual an email from A.H. in which A.H. stated, among other things, " his tusks are in my possession now -Weights - 26kg/ 57 lbs & 27kg/59.5 lbs . Please let me know where these are going to as I need the address for the export permit." In
T.M.'s email to JACKSON, T.M. stated , among other things, " [A.H.] received your ivories today




and please find the weights he forwarded. Ross, please call me as it is important. I need to discuss the tanning of the elephant skins in [A.H.]'s possession."
35. On September 21, 2015, T.M., working under JACKSON's power of attorney, wrote to A.H. and another, stating "we will obtain this document for you and be in touch shortly. We will also be in touch with the payment for your dip/pack/tanning invoice." T.M. was responding to an email sent that same day by A.H. in which A.H. stated, among other things,
"Our CITES authority ... has thrown a curve ball at me with regards to Ross Jackson Export application for his elephant trophy .... To wit, they want an notarized affidavit from yourself and or Ross Jackson stating that the elephant is not going to imported into the USA ie to South Africa only. Please would you compile such a document and email it to me asap so I can get these people to issue his export permit. Kindly note I am also waiting for payment so can pay the tannery and my pack & dip fees."
36. On November 13, 2015, R.Q., working under JACKSON ' s power of attorney, sent an email to, among others, JACKSON, and A.H., addressed to A.H., in which R.Q. stated, among other things, "I want to take this opportunity to personally thank you with Mr. Jackson in copy, for the tremendous maneuvering you did to get his ivories out of Zimb Parks. It took quite some time and if it was not for you, Mr. Jackson would not have his ivories today. Once he is back and in addition to the payment , I will also send you the required Affidavit stating that the ivories will only be exported to RSA."
37. On January 29, 2016, T.M., working under JACKSON ' s power of attorney, sent an email to, among others, JACKSON and R.Q. stating, among other things, " I wanted to give a
heads up since [R.Q.] has not received a phone call or text back. This week we heard from a




very upset [A.H.] due to an 'overnight decree' by Zim Parks that they will no longer issue export permits to RSA for any hunter outside of RSA wanting to send their trophies (any trophies) to RSA for taxidermy work or further processing. They will only issue expert permits for the country where the hunter resides."
38. On January 29, 2016, JACKSON responded to T.M., stating "Bad news .... Just talked to [R.Q.]."
39. On February 7, 2016, H.V.R. sent an email to A.H. stating, among other things,

"Ross Jackosn [sic] told me there a problem on the export of elephant tusk to south Africa ... can you please update me about the problem, I did booked Ross Jackson with [J.N.] in Zimbabwe Outfitter camp. Ross is long time client of he [sic] hunting the last 5 years with me."
40. On February 7, 2016, A.H. responded to H.V.R.' s email , stating , among other things, " On 8 January 2016 I was advised by our Parks Authority that with immediate effect no export permit would be issued to any clients wanting to send trophies to any Country other than the Country stated on the TRAS2 (Hunting Permit). This has not only affected Jacksons [sic] trophies but a score of others as well. Ross Jackson' s address on his TRAS2 Permit shows an address in Colorado USA and we have applied for an Export permit to a South African destination. I will write an appeal to this Expert permit rejection but it may help if we can prove Mr . Jackson has a residence in RSA."
41. On February 10, 2016, R.Q., working under JACKSON's power of attorney, sent an email to A.H., H.V.R., JACKSON, and others stating, among other things:
We just got back from SCI and jumping into full speed to make sure this export to RSA situation is resolved swiftly. [H.V.R.] may be travelling home now so I am trusting that he will be replying soon. Please know I went to visit [H.V.R.] at his booth but both




times, he was with clients . Instead , I spoke with his assistant about your instructions that was further confirmed by Emmie at SCI so I am hopeful [H.V.R.] got the message and we will hear back soon. Whilst we are waiting to proceed with the residency paperwork noted above, I've also included Mr Jackson on this email so he is aware of my formal request to you on his behalf for the making of three sets of replica tusks . Please send me the cost and estimate time needed to make these natural color (no stand) replica sets.

42. On February 19, 2016, R.Q., working on JACKSON' s behalf, sent an email to H.V.R., A.H., JACKSON, and others, stating, among other things
As of this writing, I confirm the following : . . . (2) On January 8, when [A.H.] followed up regarding to the export permits from Zimb Parks, he was given a letter of rejection by Zimb Parks, which I hereby include for reference. (3) [H.V.R.] is aware of the need to obtain a certified letter of RSA Residency for Mr. Jackson. (4) Unless and until we know a residency letter has been issued and accepted by Zimb Parks, there cannot be the export of these trophies into RSA.

43. On February 22, 2016, H.V.R. replied to R.Q.' s email, copying JACKSON and another, stating, among other things , " Hello Every one I arrive back at my house yesterday and will start working on this today. I will go to SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE station and get a letter to confirm this."
44. On March 8, 2016, JACKSON sent an email to an employee of the company retained to make replicas of the eleph ant' s tusks in which he responded to an earlier message informing him that his ivory was with the company. In the email JACKSON stated, among other things, " I would like two sets made up. After that is done am I at will to sell or direct the disposition of the ivory? If so can I sell it to a party outside of Zim or must I be limited to a party inside of Zim? Can I have it shipped to my alternate residence in SA?"
45. On March 13, 2016, A.H., who had received the March 8, 2016 email after it was

forwarded to R.Q. and A.H., responded to JACKSON stating, among other things, "I was




expecting a letter proving you had a residence in SA to try and appeal to the rejection of your application to ship your trophies to the Taxidermist in SA. So far I have not yet received that letter so have not been able to appeal. As far as I am aware it is not possible for sport hunted ivory to be sold as these are hunted and become personal items/trophies - I will however enquire at our Parks Office and see if they will allow it due to the circumstances we are in right now."
46. On March 13, 2016, JACKSON responded to A.H. in an email asking "Can they be given away."
47. On March 16, 2016, A.H. responded to JACKSON in an email in which he stated, among other things, " They have advised me to first bring the letter from [H.V.R.] and then make an appeal to have the decision changed to allow these trophies to go to SA. Sport Hunted Ivory cannot be sold. You can donate the tusks to anyone as long as they are in Zimbabwe and you will need to write a letter stating you are giving the ivory away - with full details of name address ID number etc."
48. On March 16, 2016, JACKSON responded to A.H. in an email stating, among other things, "Thank you for the information . I am sure the letter from [H.V.R.] will be forthcoming shortly."
49. On April 19, 2016, T.M., working under JACKSON' s power of attorney, responded to an email from A.H. in which A.H. had stated, among other things, " I guess we need the letter from [H.V.R.] first and see if our CITES will allow the export to go to SA or not." In
T.M.'s response T.M. stated , among other things, " We will continue to follow up with [H.V.R.]




to push for this letter. I know we are just in a holding pattern with all of the trophies until it is received."
50. On May 4, 2016, T.M., working under JACKSON's power of attorney, sent an email to W.D.C., copying A.H., R.Q., JACKSON and another individual, stating, among other things "I spoke with Ross today and it seems that no one, including Ross, has been able to get in touch with [H.V.R.]. This is not good and holding up progress with Ross ' s shipment in
Zimbab we. In hopes of speeding up the process, Ross is asking for your assistance with obtaining the notarized RSA residency letter that [A.H.] needs in order to proceed with the export for you. Is this something you can help with? Please expect to hear from Ross separately but in the meantime he asked that we reach out to your for a heads up on his behalf "
51. On May 4, 2016, W.D.C. responded to T.M.'s email, copying JACKSON, stating , among other things, " I have spoken to my daughter who is an attorney and she has stated that a residency letter would not be possible as that has to be issued by the department of home affairs. I can have a letter notarized to say that Ross visits South Africa on a number of occasions each year and stays with my daughter when he is here, if this would help."
52. On August 30, 2016, A.H. sent an email to R.Q. stating , among other things, "My constant pressure has paid off- Ihave finally won with Ross Jacksons first export permit for his elephant hunt. The draft copy was issued today and I will process the same this afternoon."
53. On or about October 12, 201, R.Q. sent an email to A.H. in which R.Q. stated, among other things, "Ross Jackson is back in the US and on board with next steps. First, he is making payment to TCI for the Replicas today and then we wait for tusks and replicas to make
their way up to you, [A.H.]. [A.H.], who pays for the charges back up to you? How does this




work? Next, while the tusks make their way up to [A.H.], we can proceed with getting all permits in place for both export and import into RSA."
54. On October 12, 2016, A.H. responded to R.Q.' s questions, stating , with regard to the charges for transporting the replicas that "I expect if TCI has a vehicle coming up or if Im going down we will get these back to Harare. There4 [sic] should be no charge for that."
55. On October 12, 2016, R.Q. sent an email to A.H. in which she stated, among other things, " Thank you and I will wait for a separate email with the full list of trophies so I can triple check with Ross. You' re a STAR!"
56. On October 12, 2016, R.Q . sent an email to A.H. in which she stated, among other things, "Thank you so much, [A.H.]." R.Q. was responding to an earlier email in which A.H. had provided a list of JACKSON's trophies. Included on that list, under the hearing
" SERENGETI/SSGHUNT" was "ELEPHANT - 2X TUSKS (ZW 2015 26037/28- 26KG/27KG" and "ELEPHANT - IX SKULL, 1 XCAPE, 3 XPANELS TANNED SKIN, 4
X FEET, 4 X LEG BONES" and "Replica tusks?"

57. The defendant did all of the above in a knowing effort to violate Fish and Wildlife regulations related to African Elephants that implemented the Endangered Species Act. The defendant knew that the animal he killed inside Gonarezhou National Park was an African Elephant (Loxodonta Africana ). The African Elephant (Loxodonta Africana) was a threatened species. At no time did the defendant obtain permission from the United States Department of the Interior , or any other department or agency of the United States, for any of the conduct described in the preceding paragraphs.




VI. ADVISORY GUIDELINE COMPUTATION AND §3553 ADVISEMENT

58. The parties understand that the imposition of a sentence in this matter is governed by 18 U.S.C. §3553 . In determining the particular sentence to be imposed , the Court is required to consider seven factors. One of those factors is the sentencing range computed by the Court under advisory guidelines issued by the United States Sentencing Commission (the "Commission" ). However, pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline § l Bl. 9, the Commission has determined that the advisory sentencing guidelines do not apply to cases such as this one that involve Class B misdemeanors . The parties agree that there is no restitution for the crime charged in the Information .
59. The parties understand that the Court is free, upon consideration and proper application of all 18 U.S.C. §3553 factors, to impose that reasonable sentence which it deems appropriate in the exercise of its discretion and that such sentence may be up to imprisonment for the statutory maximum term, regardless of any term of this agreement or position of any party on any 18 U.S.C. §3553 factor.




VII. ENTIRE AGREEMEMT

25. This document states the parties' entire agreement. There are no other promises, agreements (or "side agreements"), terms, conditions, understandings or assurances, express or




Date :"\ \ <-}l (




·- - / \ ( t,''-.L l .. -\-e·'-





Date: '-/- bt/1/ 'I:

quote:

Originally posted by SafariSean:
I have watched all the speculation go on about this hunt and since the full listing of the charges has been posted here feel it is time to tell what I know. Ross Jackson is a friend and has been a repeat client he is NOT THE DEVIL, I have been aware of this case since February and heard the entire story from Ross face to face. Did Ross make some questionable decisions yes but let me make these few points that USFWS seem to ignore in favor of propaganda.

1st. As hunters we all want to make a clean kill, in this case that did not happen a very large ele bull was shot on a legal hunt in the presence of a registered ZPWMA PH and on ZPWMA leased land. They DID not just take off into Gonarezhou National Park. They first returned to Nixon's camp and PHONED Gonarezhou National Park staff seeking permission to enter the park to retrieve the bull which was believed to have expired very near the boundary due to the heavy blood spore present on the Safari Area side. The former Gonarezhou National Park administrator was sent and he personal led the entire group into the park to recover the wounded animal. If you were hunting a deer lets say next to a National Wildlife Refuge here in the USA (where control hunts are a common management form) and a FEDERAL Game Warden came at your request and said sure we can go get your wounded deer would you protest?? I think not.

2nd. the bribe. USFWS was so uniformed that they could never put a precise $$ value on the so called bribe they speculated it was between $5000 and $9000 US$. What they portrayed as happening concerning this bribe is absurd, do any of you think that Ross stood around Nixon's camp casually discussing illegal activities with several PH's and other hunters present?? What happened was that after the successful retrieval of the bull tips were handed out there was no pre-negotiation about how much was to be paid and if there had been no recovery I am sure this would not have ever been prosecuted and tips would have been of no consequence. Any hunter entering the RSA that has used an expediter has paid a bribe simple fact ever try and get thru the SAP office in Joberg without one?? So to make out paying a tip or bribe as some unheard of crime shows a clear lack of how Africa operates. I will here and now state that last year I was driving my defender through the Caprivi and a Guinea fowl took my mirror which at the next check point caused me to pay a "fine" or out right bribe to be able to drive on to Katima Mulio for spares directly to a Namibian Police officer, anyone think he reported the 'FINE"?.

3rd. The accusation that another bull was shot not the one previously wounded. This may seem simple but remember the bull was wounded and when the deed was finally done he was full of bullet holes and Ross claims he was identical in size and appearance. Maybe it was a different bull but again if you were standing there and a high level ZPWMA warden and 2 PH's are telling you to pull the trigger what would you do?? From what I know of Ross Jackson he was trying to do the ethical thing and finish off a wounded animal.

4th. Ross does own a home in the RSA and ivory exported there was 100% legal if legally acquired, given the ban here and that he was paying for an "exportable" trophy what he did with his tusk are his own business not USFWS business. More overreach period.

There were some questionable decisions made but the gross over reach of USFWS is evident. If you were involved and the USFWS is threatening years of jail time and knowing they have UNLIMITED legal resources what would you plead to? If any of you think USFWS under Trump is no longer a bunch of game gestapo since their fearless leader Dan Ashe has quit you are wrong they are still a bunch of antis that have unlimited power and god help anyone caught in their sights. This is just more hype to end African trophy hunting and my fellow AR reader and posters they ARE WINNING.

quote:

Now lets look at what really happened here . . .

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
This question is a bit of a tangent to the current discussion but I noticed some comments that perked my interest.

In the past, when discussing the USFWS import ban on certain animals such as elephant, and lion, we had people openly advocating for US citizens to purchase a second home in places like Canada or Belize. It was openly advocated, and I do not remember a single instance of anyone raising objections for USA citizens, that this second home could serve as a place where these USA import banned items could be imported to and enjoyed in a trophy room, outside of USFWS overreach. I never heard anyone state such actions would be illegal.

So if this Ross fellow wanted to import his Zim ivory to be stored in a 2nd house he owned in RSA, is the argument now that since he is not a RSA citizen, that would be in violation of the Lacy Act? If so, why is this different from the scenario I've seen advocated as described above?

Maybe I misunderstand the entire issue with this Ross fellow. I thought the problem, other than possible illegalities with shooting within the park boundaries using a follow up as a ruse, was that he was attempting to import the ivory to RSA, and once inside RSA, was trying to import it to the USA claiming it had been originally taken in RSA, where at the time there was no ivory import restriction into the USA? Have I completely misunderstood this entire matter?

quote:

he was attempting to import the ivory to RSA, and once inside RSA, was trying to import it to the USA claiming it had been originally taken in RSA, where at the time there was no ivory import restriction into the USA? Have I completely misunderstood this entire matter?

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:

quote:

he was attempting to import the ivory to RSA, and once inside RSA, was trying to import it to the USA claiming it had been originally taken in RSA, where at the time there was no ivory import restriction into the USA? Have I completely misunderstood this entire matter?

No, he was attempting to import it in the RSA where he could sell it for $300 a pound. Illegal to sell sport hunted ivory in Zimbabwe.

He wanted to import the copies that he had made into the USA.

quote:

It was a violation of the ESA's regulations to deliver, receive, carry, transport or ship in foreign commerce , by any means whatsoever, and in the course of a commercial activity, any threatened wildlife. See 50 C.F.R. § 17.31 (applying provisions of 50 C.F.R. § 17.21). However , the regulations at M C.F.R. §17.40 contain a special rule for the African Eleph (Loxodonta Africana).

The special regulations for the African Elephant made it unlawful to deliver, receive, carry, transport or ship in interstate or foreign commerce and in the course of a so commercial activity any sport-hunted African Elephant (Loxodonta Africana) trophy. C.F. § 17.40(e)(6)(ii). Furthermore , only trophies taken legally in an African elephant range country qualified as sport-hunted . Pr C.F.R. § 17.40(e)(6)(i)(A).

quote:

It is illegal to sell ivory in RSA? I honestly don't know. And if it is legal to sell sport hunted ivory in RSA, is it ONLY legal to sell ivory sport hunted in RSA?

But really, before that question is answered, let's go back to my first question / scenario as has been discussed on AR previously as a perfectly acceptable practice. That was my main reason for entering this thread. That is, can a USA citizen, who owns a 2nd home in a foreign country that does not have an import ban on elephant trophies, import his legally sport hunted ivory into that country were he can store it in that 2nd home. If the answer to that is no, there are some threads here on AR that should be revisited and the remainder of this question becomes moot.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I am having a hard time following the exact violation he pled guilty to as well.

As I understand it the violation was shooting an ele in a park. I can see this as a violation of the Lacey Act...but it is a reach for me under the ESA...which was the statute quoted in the plea agreement.

Since ele can be shot legally outside of a park in Zim...it seems the only potential law violated was hunting in a park. That would be a violation of the Lacey Act...can someone explain how that violates the ESA?

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
But really, before that question is answered, let's go back to my first question / scenario as has been discussed on AR previously as a perfectly acceptable practice. That was my main reason for entering this thread. That is, can a USA citizen, who owns a 2nd home in a foreign country that does not have an import ban on elephant trophies, import his legally sport hunted ivory into that country were he can store it in that 2nd home. If the answer to that is no, there are some threads here on AR that should be revisited and the remainder of this question becomes moot.

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
But really, before that question is answered, let's go back to my first question / scenario as has been discussed on AR previously as a perfectly acceptable practice. That was my main reason for entering this thread. That is, can a USA citizen, who owns a 2nd home in a foreign country that does not have an import ban on elephant trophies, import his legally sport hunted ivory into that country were he can store it in that 2nd home. If the answer to that is no, there are some threads here on AR that should be revisited and the remainder of this question becomes moot.

IF...everything else about the taking of the animal is on the up and up -- i.e. no laws broken -- then the above is quite possible. In that scenario, the USFWS has no legal authority to intervene. It's no different than if someone legally kills a polar bear up north and leaves it at his summer home in Canada.

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Todd Williams:
But really, before that question is answered, let's go back to my first question / scenario as has been discussed on AR previously as a perfectly acceptable practice. That was my main reason for entering this thread. That is, can a USA citizen, who owns a 2nd home in a foreign country that does not have an import ban on elephant trophies, import his legally sport hunted ivory into that country were he can store it in that 2nd home. If the answer to that is no, there are some threads here on AR that should be revisited and the remainder of this question becomes moot.

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:

IF...everything else about the taking of the animal is on the up and up -- i.e. no laws broken -- then the above is quite possible. In that scenario, the USFWS has no legal authority to intervene. It's no different than if someone legally kills a polar bear up north and leaves it at his summer home in Canada.

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:

IF...everything else about the taking of the animal is on the up and up -- i.e. no laws broken -- then the above is quite possible. In that scenario, the USFWS has no legal authority to intervene. It's no different than if someone legally kills a polar bear up north and leaves it at his summer home in Canada.

No it's not, and yes the USFWS does have legal authority to intervene over a US citizen.

It was a violation of the ESA's regulations to deliver, receive, carry, transport or ship in foreign commerce , by any means whatsoever, and in the course of a commercial activity, any threatened wildlife. See 50 C.F.R. § 17.31 (applying provisions of 50 C.F.R. § 17.21). However , the regulations at M C.F.R. §17.40 contain a special rule for the African Eleph (Loxodonta Africana).

The special regulations for the African Elephant made it unlawful to deliver, receive, carry, transport or ship in interstate or foreign commerce and in the course of a so commercial activity any sport-hunted African Elephant (Loxodonta Africana) trophy. C.F. § 17.40(e)(6)(ii). Furthermore , only trophies taken legally in an African elephant range country qualified as sport-hunted . Pr C.F.R. § 17.40(e)(6)(i)(A).

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:

IF...everything else about the taking of the animal is on the up and up -- i.e. no laws broken -- then the above is quite possible. In that scenario, the USFWS has no legal authority to intervene. It's no different than if someone legally kills a polar bear up north and leaves it at his summer home in Canada.

No it's not, and yes the USFWS does have legal authority to intervene over a US citizen.

It was a violation of the ESA's regulations to deliver, receive, carry, transport or ship in foreign commerce , by any means whatsoever, and in the course of a commercial activity, any threatened wildlife. See 50 C.F.R. § 17.31 (applying provisions of 50 C.F.R. § 17.21). However , the regulations at M C.F.R. §17.40 contain a special rule for the African Eleph (Loxodonta Africana).

The special regulations for the African Elephant made it unlawful to deliver, receive, carry, transport or ship in interstate or foreign commerce and in the course of a so commercial activity any sport-hunted African Elephant (Loxodonta Africana) trophy. C.F. § 17.40(e)(6)(ii). Furthermore , only trophies taken legally in an African elephant range country qualified as sport-hunted . Pr C.F.R. § 17.40(e)(6)(i)(A).

There would be no commerce or commercial activity involved in the scenario Todd asked about.

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:

IF...everything else about the taking of the animal is on the up and up -- i.e. no laws broken -- then the above is quite possible. In that scenario, the USFWS has no legal authority to intervene. It's no different than if someone legally kills a polar bear up north and leaves it at his summer home in Canada.

No it's not, and yes the USFWS does have legal authority to intervene over a US citizen.

It was a violation of the ESA's regulations to deliver, receive, carry, transport or ship in foreign commerce , by any means whatsoever, and in the course of a commercial activity, any threatened wildlife. See 50 C.F.R. § 17.31 (applying provisions of 50 C.F.R. § 17.21). However , the regulations at M C.F.R. §17.40 contain a special rule for the African Eleph (Loxodonta Africana).

The special regulations for the African Elephant made it unlawful to deliver, receive, carry, transport or ship in interstate or foreign commerce and in the course of a so commercial activity any sport-hunted African Elephant (Loxodonta Africana) trophy. C.F. § 17.40(e)(6)(ii). Furthermore , only trophies taken legally in an African elephant range country qualified as sport-hunted . Pr C.F.R. § 17.40(e)(6)(i)(A).

There would be no commerce or commercial activity involved in the scenario Todd asked about.

Sir, no disrespect but how is he going to get the 'trophy" from one point to another? Please read the ESA regulation. . . deliver, receive, carry, transport or ship in foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever, and in the course of a commercial activity, any threatened wildlife.

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:
The question was can you as a US citizen ship your trophy to a third country, while waiting out a ban. Lion and Elephant are ESA species and require a permit from USFWS to ship to the USA, if you can get one. The answer is no.

Transporting back to camp, is not foreign commerce. Transporting it back to camp in another country is.

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:
The question was can you as a US citizen ship your trophy to a third country, while waiting out a ban. Lion and Elephant are ESA species and require a permit from USFWS to ship to the USA, if you can get one. The answer is no.

Transporting back to camp, is not foreign commerce. Transporting it back to camp in another country is.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:
The question was can you as a US citizen ship your trophy to a third country, while waiting out a ban. Lion and Elephant are ESA species and require a permit from USFWS to ship to the USA, if you can get one. The answer is no.

Transporting back to camp, is not foreign commerce. Transporting it back to camp in another country is.

And just one more comment to put a fine point on it. The question is NOT can a US Citizen ship to a third country while waiting out a ban. I assume this comment means "waiting out a ban" so that it can be later imported to the USA.

That IS NOT the question. The question is can a USA citizen who legally and legitimately owns a 2nd home in a third country, ship his legally hunted lion or elephant trophy, with legitimate CITES import / export permits for that third country, to that specific third country as a FINAL destination to be enjoyed in his trophy room of his legitimately owned 2nd home in said country, with never the intent of attempting to later import it to the USA.