Watch your backs gents...and for God's sake, if you plan to lie to USFWS, don't do it repeatedly! Just a question, and I am not defending the guy who seems like a scammer of the first order, but are we really to believe that every bit of ivory or hide that we see sold at game auctions or conventions is somehow pre-ban and not legally identical to more recent "sport hunted" material?

Thursday, May 23, 2013

African Trophy Hunter Indicted for Lacey Violations

Charles Kokesh was indicted by a federal grand jury in Pensacola, Florida, for violating the Endangered Species Act and the Lacey Act by selling two African elephant tusks and for making false accounts of wildlife related to that sale, the Justice Department announced today.

The three count indictment returned yesterday alleges that Kokesh legally imported a sport-hunted African elephant trophy mount from Namibia, but thereafter illegally sold the two tusks, from New Mexico to a buyer in Florida. The sale price was approximately $8,100, to be paid in a combination of currency and guns. After the sale, Kokesh allegedly falsely described that sale, in an email to personnel at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as a shipment to an appraiser in anticipation of a donation to a non-profit entity. Kokesh similarly falsely accounted for the location and disposition of the tusks in subsequent correspondence. Each false account and record is charged under the Lacey Act.

African elephants are protected under the Endangered Species Act and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Both the United States and Namibia are signatories to CITES. African elephant populations in Namibia are listed in Appendix II of CITES, which includes species that are not necessarily threatened with extinction now, but may become so unless trade in specimens of such species is strictly regulated. Since 2000, the Namibian African elephant listing has specified that the species cannot be used for commercial purposes.

The United States implements CITES through the Endangered Species Act and regulations issued thereunder. To implement the CITES prohibition against commercial use of African elephant specimens, regulations issued under the Endangered Species Act proscribe the commercial use, including sale, of sport-hunted African elephant trophies, even if the trophies are legally hunted and imported.

According to a recent report produced by CITES and partner organizations, entitled "Elephants in the Dust -The African Elephant Crisis," populations of elephants in Africa are under severe threat as the illegal trade in ivory grows - with the number of elephants killed doubling and the amount of ivory seized tripling over the last decade. An estimated 17,000 elephants were illegally killed in 2011 to feed the illegal trade. More information is available at www.cites.org/eng/news/pr/2013/20130306_ivory.php.

An indictment is merely an accusation, and a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.

The maximum penalty for the charged violation of the Endangered Species Act is up to six months in prison and a $25,000 fine. The maximum penalty for making a false statement is up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

The case was investigated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and is being prosecuted by the Justice Department's Environmental Crimes Section of the Environment and Natural Resources Division and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Florida.

For more information about CITES visit www.CITES.org.

Lying to a federal officer is a crime. And each time you lie it is another crime. The counts can add up in a hurry, as can the penalties. Don't be foolish. The punishment will be a helluva lot less if you fess up early.

quote:

Originally posted by LionHunter:
The punishment will be a helluva lot less if you fess up early.

Or just say, "Look, if you have something to ask me, ask my lawyer". You would think with his history, Kokesh would have that phrase on a looped recording ready to play into the phone.

Is this the Dakota gun guy?

quote:

Look, if you have something to ask me, ask my lawyer".

That about sums it up"

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
Is this the Dakota gun guy?

I remember dealing with Kokesh about 8 years ago or so. I couldn't remember if he was Swarovski or Dakota. I guess it must be Dakota, if it is the same Charlie Kokesh.

Lawyering up removes many possibilities of a favorable resolution in many cases. But everyone knows what the truth is and must make their own call.

I have friends who have answered the door to federal agents (now that IS a big surprise) and came off much better because they cooperated than they would have if they went the "speak to my lawyer" route. Just saying.

Do a little search on this guy. He has some serious SEC problems.

Yes. This is the azzhat who raped Dakota Arms and left it for dead.

There's no reason to lie to cops because you shouldn't be talking to them without counsel, ever.

From the Sunday Albuquerque paper: If you are interested you will be able to read his name and some other details of the person. i will not post the story.

The man in question is from Santa Fe, New Mexico.

this person is having some money issues and owes a substantial sum of money to others.

His legal issues are heating up and the selling of his elephant tusks is adding to the list.

He has some fairly serious SEC issues. See below. I am told he got 15 years but I have not checked the validity of that claim.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/...s/2009/comp21264.pdf

The forums occasionally get posters asking about how or if they can sell ivory etc and this proves how inadvisable such actions are.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
The forums occasionally get posters asking about how or if they can sell ivory etc and this proves how inadvisable such actions are.

Are you saying that we shouldn't even ask about the legality of selling ivory? That seems a bit extreme.

Jason,

No. I'm not saying that......... I'm saying it's inadvisable to discuss ways of circumventing the law (especially) on a public forum.

Perhaps I phrased my previous statement rather vaguely.