The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting Hunting Reports - Africa Zimbabwe illegal huntingGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Zimbabwe illegal hunting | Login/Join |
| Administrator |
In his case this is true. But, other stories coming out regarding Nixon letting clients be guided by his unlicensed son is putting a fair dent in the argument. Of course, we have not gotten down to the truth yet. | |||
|
| one of us |
Saeed, Any issues Nixon has should be dealt with on their own merits; they should not absolve Phifer in any way. My guess is that you feel the same way. In fact, my guess is most of us feel that way. BTW, my steak tasted really good last night. Not sure if it was the steak or the fact that I set up a TV tray and watched your hunting vid while I ate. Thanks again. | |||
|
one of us |
Simon has PH license number 6267b. As I understand it, the "b" indicates that he can hunt elephant under the instruction of a fully licensed PH such as Nixon. "There are worse memorials to a life well-lived than a pair of elephant tusks." Robert Ruark | |||
|
| One of Us |
I would hunt with Nixon in a heartbeat, and will given the chance. I hope He is able to survive this episode and continue to hunt. I feel certain accounts will be paid UP FRONT. A buff hunt in 2011 (late) should be just the ticket, if I can stand the heat. Or maybe early, with a leopard added. Adrian | |||
|
| Administrator |
You are very welcome my friend. Glad you are enjoying our hunt. I had a call from Alan Vincent a couple of days ago, telling me that he has booked our hunt for this year. | |||
|
| one of us |
Preserved for when I decide to forward this thread to the University of Utah. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Seems to me that Pfifer is willing to go to arbitration and the only thing left is for Nixon to agree, Pfifer to put the money in trust and no non-disclosure agreement. If Pfifer puts $26K in trust then he has something to lose. If everyone that has offered to pay legal fees for Nixon pays towards arbitration and travel expense then Nixon has no skin in the game if there is a non-disclosure agreement, just a free trip to America that nobody can talk about. If it turns out Pfifer is telling the truth then he is still out the expenses of arbitration and travel, yet the only up side is that his name is cleared to a bunch of people he doesn't know on the internet....... Nixon's name actually means something in this ordeal, in that if he turns out to be a liar, or more than a liar, he stands to lose clients. I won't be running off to Africa anytime soon, but if I were it wouldn't be to Nixons hunting camp. Not because I believe one party over the other, but because right now I wouldn't know who to believe and would not want to put myself into a mess if it turns out that Nixon is a shady character. I wouldn't book a hunt with him until I was convinced he's not, only he can prove his case. Now if he were to step forward and show verifiable evidence to an arbitor, prove his case, then I would have no problem using his service. Surely Nixon has pictures of the tropheys, dip/pack reciepts, licenses showing the game was taken and a written agreement on costs. Pfifer claims to have all the documentation that all the payments were made. So all it comes down to is presenting the proof in arbitration, neither party would even have to physically be there. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Bryan27,
Phifer can post all his "proof" of payment in full on AR. Then there would be no reason for arbitration....would there? It would be settled and Nixon would be a lair. Phifer has lied so many times (based on written documents produced)...it is hard to count. 5-6 times? dale | |||
|
| One of Us |
If I remember correctly, Phifer is not the one who brought this all to air on the internet, dukxdog did. Some were suprised he kept quiet and seem to think his silence is an admission of guilt. Phifer claims he had the ball rolling on having some legal matter taken up with Nixon, in light of which it behoves him not to go blabbering all over the internet. Only an idiot would post financials on the internet with the intent on having the whole world seeing them. If he were to produce all the documentation there are few here that may want to start kissing some ass, as there have been some very slanderous accusations and even threats towards Phifer in these threads. Not really something anyone should be doing unless we know the WHOLE TRUTH, which none of us do. If I were in Phifers shoes and could prove my case it still wouldn't be on an internet court, it would be between me and the other party and I'd be telling everyone else with an opinion to mind their own business (aka pound sand). If my case was proven to be the one with merit I would likely post the details and the outcome, if I was proven to be in the wrong I have no doubt I would be thrown to the wolves, rightly so. | |||
|
| one of us |
Summary: There is a claims that an additional 26k is owed, but nothing to prove it is owed. People want proof that the 26k was paid? How can anyone provide proof they are paid up without a full acount of what is billed? From what I have read it appears he was paid in full before the trip in what they had agreed he would hunt. This leaves the additional 26k in question, but without proof that he took on this expense why would he have to prove he did or did not pay it. Prove that he knowingly took on the 26k in charges and then ask for proof that he paid. | |||
|
| one of us |
Regardless of who shot what, there remains the issue of the Traveler's Checks. Nixon claims Phifer signed them; Phifer claims they were stolen. If they were stolen, then they were stolen by Nixon, as he was the one who presented them to the bank. Two things are certain: one of these guys is lying. And the one doing the lying is incredibly stupid. | |||
|
| one of us |
I disagree. I thought I had read emails confirming he was paid in full before the hunt started. 9k in travelers checks is a moot point unless it can be proven he owed more money over the original 19k. It needs to be proven he shot more animals and what the agreed upon pricing was. Without that our tail is wagging our dog since how could he stiff someone of money that was not owed. Once it is documented what the charges are, then you need to prove Pfiefer had agreed to the charges and indeed shot those animals. Once that is proven, then you are to where you want to jump to and that is the payment of the debt. | |||
|
| one of us |
I will say it again: Phifer claims his TCs were stolen Nixon claims Phifer signed those TCs to pay for the TFs he owed. Nixon presented the TCs for payment. Now, one of two things is true: either Phifer is lying, or Nixon is. Either Phifer reported the checks as stolen because he didn't want to pay for his TFs, or Nixon decided he could steal the TCs from Phifer and then try and forge his signature. We know this to be true: 1. Phifer never reported his TCs as missing here on AR. He has gone to great lengths to share all kinds of personal details about his new house, trophy room, etc. He has not demonstrated shyness here. But yet, he doesn't say one word about an operator that steals 9K from him in camp. Strike 1 against Phifer. 2. Phifer claims he paid all of his TFs. Nixon acknowledges he still has the trophies. Again, Phifer doesn't make ONE comment about Nixon failing to ship his trophies. Okay, some guys might hunt and leave the trophies in Africa. But not elephant! If your intention is to leave the ivory in Africa, shoot a damn PAC elephant. Who on earth would pay for a trophy ele and leave the ivory in Africa? Strike 2 against Phifer. 3. We get the mysterious "AFR Hunter." If this isn't Phifer in cognito trying to smear Nixon I will personally apologize. Go look at that thread. Strike 3 against Phifer. 4. Nixon claims Phifer shot "x" number of animals, yet we don't have a license posted here. Strike 1 against Nixon. When a reasonable person steps back and looks at the data presented, most people would draw a conclusion that Phifer has more unanswered questions than Nixon. | |||
|
| one of us |
What you are posting is all white noise. Just speculation in lieu of their being many facts. Travelers checks mean nothing unless they have Pfiefers signature on them. Nixon could have stole them, or he could have been piad with them, you do not know. All is here nor there unless you can prove there is a debt that they both agreed to. I think some of you that have no skin in the game are so caught up emotionally in this that speculation and conjecture are ruling. It would be very easy for Nixon to prove that additional animals were shot, yet they choose not to share that information. Prove it so there is no question that a debt existed. Then travelers checks and remaining payment can come into the conversation. | |||
|
| one of us |
The traveler's checks were reported stolen by Phifer. He does not dispute that. He claims they were stolen. Nixon claims Phifer did sign the checks in camp. Let's put it this way: if I get arrested for fraud for claiming TCs were stolen when in fact I signed them, do you think the judge is going to make me prove I was sold something? Suppose my nieghbor claims I owe him $9,000. I pay with TCs but then report them as stolen. He files a fraud claim. Would I have a case if I said, "Wait, you need to prove I had a debt before you prove the TCs were reported stolen?" I think the answer to both questions is obvious. | |||
|
| one of us |
"Let's put it this way: if I get arrested for fraud for claiming TCs were stolen when in fact I signed them, do you think the judge is going to make me prove I was sold something? " Your missing the point. We don't know how Nixon came about having the travelers checks. No fraud committed if Pfifer didn't provide them as payment and they were in fact stolen. There has been no proof that he signed them. Even if he signed them and gave them to Nixon, that doesn't prove anything. It may be a 9k tip, it may be he owed exactly 9k or it may be 9k of a 26k debt. That is if Pfifer signed the checks, which we don't know. "Suppose my nieghbor claims I owe him $9,000. I pay with TCs but then report them as stolen. He files a fraud claim. Would I have a case if I said, "Wait, you need to prove I had a debt before you prove the TCs were reported stolen?"" No, not if your signature is on them, since if you signed them you rendered them for payment. But then again you are missing the point. Until you can prove that he rendered the checks for payment, it is moot. The first part of the claim is Pfifer incurred a debt to Nixon of 26k. Easily proven, so prove it. The second part becomes were the travelers checks rendered as partial payment of a debt, a gift, or were they in fact stolen. Easy to prove with Pfifer's signature. If they have his signature, he owes the 9k, but this does not mean that he incurred a debt of 26k, just that he committed to giving Nixon 9k for something, we don't know what unless #1 is proven. | |||
|
one of us |
------------------------------- Some Pictures from Namibia Some Pictures from Zimbabwe An Elephant Story | |||
|
| One of Us |
GMaxon--Then there is the little matter of a number of trophies (dead animals) in Zim with Pfifer's name on them. Dead animals on your safari mean that you pay the trophy fee. And yes, Pfifer had an agreement with Nixon. Do you honestly think that Pfifer would have traveled to Zim, have Nixon pick him up and take him to camp WITHOUT an agreement? Get a life, man. | |||
|
| one of us |
Gmaxon, You are correct in that we don't know if Phifer did indeed sign them. What we do know is that Phifer claims they were stolen. We do know Nixon tried to cash them. Therefore, one of two things is true: Nixon is lying, or Phifer is. Let's settle that before anything. It should be easy enough to prove. I have spoken with AMEX. If someone reports a check as stolen prior to the guy who has it presenting it for payment, it will most likely be rejected by AMEX as stolen. Think about that...Nixon would have had to have deposited those checks before Phifer reported them stolen. Not likely. What I am baffled at is no explanation on the part of Phifer on why he never reported his checks missing, and why he would leave his trophies in Zim if he paid the TFs; esp the ele. And to not mention one word of it on AR...bizzare. Have you ever hunted in Africa? If so, would you ever do this? Would anyone? | |||
|
| one of us |
Gentlemen, The traveler's checks are not being posted because they show the checks were improperly counter-signed - my name isn't spelled correctly. There is an uncanny resemblence to the spelling in some of daleW's posts. This issue was a red-herring from day one. Between daleW posting purported e-mails that don't even have my correct address line / name, and the wild speculation offered by others, there is little to be gained from this thread. Many of you have read enough between the lines to know why I will never post a trip report, or air all of the details publicly. I have stated previously my concern that SSG does not always conduct legal hunts. I will not import any trophy's, and obviously won't be conducting any business with them in the future. You should do your own research and form your own conclusions. I accepted previously one members' suggestion to arbitrate this dispute in the U.S. That offer stands. I would expect Nixon to have some skin in the game, as mentioned previously. I would expect to recover a refund of the difference between the cost of an exportable, trophy ele hunt, and the cost of a PAC, non-exportable hunt. I'm not holding my breathe waiting to see if this offer is accepted. I know the documents I can present at such a hearing. At present, I'm perfectly willing to let my attorney pursue the libelous claims made on this and one other thread. I won't post any documents here, and apparently Nixon's agent won't either. It is time to get on with the important things in life. Go hunting, and enjoy the days you have in the field. Bill | |||
|
One of Us |
Here are a few simple questions in search of simple answers: What did you shoot? Did you pay the trophy fees for what you shot? Did you endorse the traveler's checks in favor of SSG? (Given the proper motivation, I suppose that I would be able to misspell my name as well as the next guy.) Are you now using technicalities to justify stiffing an outfitter? Simple questions. How about some simple answers? Mike Wilderness is my cathedral, and hunting is my prayer. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Phifer/llamapacker, 1. Did you shoot 2 elephant, 2 buff, 1 croc, 1 leopard, 1 giraffe, and a number of plains game for bait during your hunt with SSG? yes or no. If the above is incorrect, specify which animals you shot. 2. Explain to AR members exactly how your traveler checks were stolen. 3. Explain your email indicating to Nixon that you were bringing laptop, camera and other items as gifts and then these were later stolen. 4. Did you receive emails from Nixon or his staff for the last several months requesting 26k for trophy fees for the above animals you shot? Did you respond to Nixon's emails? 5. If you can explain these points, why would you want an arbitration hearing? 6. According to your emails, you wired 8k and then an additional 12k (total 20K) for an elephant hunt. Did you pay any additional monies. yes or no. If yes, how much. These are simple question you refuse to answer. Only a coward, a liar, charlatan, and/or a liberal-progressive would avoid answering these questions. As for letting your attorney pursue "libelous claims made on this and one other thread"; I eat lawyers for breakfast. Bring it on. dale | |||
|
| one of us |
Careful Dale, MR and the Judge are lawyers, and they ain't no dummies. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Not speaking for llamapacker, but would like to comment on this. Arbitration or going eyeballs deep into the legal system are the only two ways either party is ever going to be made whole. Neither party would benefit from showing their hand on a public website to satisfy a kangaroo court of lurkers. Going through the legal processes, hiring attorneys, travel, etc. on an international dispute would be cost prohibitive especially for the amount of money being talked about. Arbitration would be a cost effective solution. Back to my point.....if all the proof that either party has was posted up for all of us to see then I imagine it would be pretty clear who is right and who's not. Say llamapacker has in his posession a peice of damning evidence against Nixon, you ask why wont he show us if he has such evidence? Now think, if you're Nixon and you know that llamapacker has this since he posted it on the internet, would you submit to arbitration? I wouldn't! You'd make them jump through every legal hoop you could, then you make them try to collect on the courts decision. I may not be sugar coating it, but that's the way the legal system works. I'm sure their attorneys would tell them the same, "For x-thousand dollars I will get the court to make a decision on the case, there's a x% chance they will rule in our favor and almost zero chance on collecting. I get paid up front." Or.....you could both ante up into an escrow account the dollar values in question, submit your proof and in a short time with little red tape put this behind you. To the victor goes the spoils. But, you ante up before you play your cards....... | |||
|
| One of Us |
I just don't see any purpose to respond to any allegations by an anonymous poster. Three pages of giberish after he posted his/her comments. Just allow the thread to die. This is almost as bad as the California Rigby double rifle garbage. My biggest fear is when I die my wife will sell my guns for what I told her they cost. | |||
|
| One of Us |
You are quoting the number of a Leaner Professional Hunter. Simon does not hold even a 'restricted' PH license. He may conduct a hunt only if a fully licensed professional Hunter is 'present'...Ie within rifle range to bail the client out if needed. Simon my only legally conduct hunts for plains game in areas where there are no lion, elephant or buff. Many an operator has tried to claim the same 'loop hole' saying that a Learner PH was taking out clients 'under their direction'. It failed to hold up in court - The man holding the valid license must be present. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Bryan27
Your comment speaks volumes of the USA legal system. What a joke....USA judical system has nothing to do with innocent or guilt, right or wrong.The USA judicial system is a mechanism for extorting monies from the public and corporations to fill lawyers/judges pockets. It really is embarrassing. dale | |||
|
| One of Us |
I'd disagree with that. In a cause and effect kinda way it's not perfect, just because the court determines guilt or innocence or liability doesn't mean it has a no fail method of collecting judgements. You can sue me for ten million dollars, I wouldn't even put up a defense and when you win the only thing you'd have is a bill from your attorney. You can't get blood from a turnip. Our legal system may not be perfect, but there isn't one better anywhere. | |||
|
one of us |
One 'free' way for Nixon to address the traveler's checks issue is to contact AMEX himself amd give the other side of the story. And doing that would be free. If someone gave me a check as payment for services rendered, you can bet the first call I would make would be to the bank if payment was stopped due to claims of forgery. I seriously doubt AMEX is in cahoots with Americans trying to defraud foreign nationals while on vacation overseas. This is so obvious, I wonder why neither Nixon nor his US agent seemingly haven't done this yet.  Hunting: Exercising dominion over creation at 2800 fps. | |||
|
| one of us |
Duckear: Go to the AMEX website and you will all kinds of countries in which you can report fraud, etc. Zim is not one of them. I don't know how easy it would be. I suspect Nixon is best of getting a Power of Attorney and letting his agent here file the lawsuit. Or he could file one in Zim. Maybe Phifer never shows up, there is a warrant for arrest, and he never returns to Zim. I also suspect there legal actions taking place that we don't know about. | |||
|
| Moderator |
I suspect that little titbit is causing a sharp intake of breath from some of Nixons former clients.... | |||
|
One of Us |
Dale: Perhaps you'd rather stand trial in Cuba, China, Afghanistan, Iran, or any of the other hundreds of countries whose legal systems are less of a "joke" than ours. Countries who've not yet heard of trials, human rights, due process, the right to counsel, or the concept of presumed innocence. Countries where justice is not so . . . . "embarassing". Yeah, I didn't think so. Dale, it is a virtual certainty that you'll ultimately find your way into a situation that a lawyer will have to haul you out of. When that happens, I doubt you'll be embarassed. However, I hope it costs a fortune. Will J. Parks, III | |||
|
| One of Us |
Safari lawyer, Not much of an argument. Your position is the US legal system compares favorably with Cuba, China, Afghanistan, Iran etc. So what. I sure as hell hope our system is better than your four named counter examples. I agree with what you meant to say. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Safari-lawyer, Interesting you cite the legal systems in China, Afghanistan, Iran and Cuba, but neglect to mention European countries and the English Rule. I will enlighten our AR members and explain the English Rule. If someone drags you to court and costs you plenty in legal fees, and you finally show you were right, why should they walk away? If they'd hurt you in any other way, wouldn't they have to compensate you? The "loser" should pay all of your legal expenses. In a civil lawsuit, a "loser-pays" is the standard in England, so it is sometimes know as the "English Rule." But it has no special connection with England. "Loser-pays" developed over a millennia ago in Roman Law and quickly established in all of the European countries. Japan has curbed suing in another way. For example, it charges a fee for lawsuit -filling that is proportional to the claim of damages, so that the more the plaintiff says he deserves, the more he must pay up front. American law is a brand of extortion by which lawyers use the cost of the process itself, or the risk of a fluke outcome found in any trial, to strong-arm their opponents into settlement. It is domestic terrorism. It is a multi--billion dollar scheme that fills the pockets of lawyers and judges. You will often hear lawyers use power words like "justice", "fairness" , "due process' or my favorite--"reasonable doubt", to manipulate the public for their personal financial gain. Ever notice that the courts never want to find the absolute truth? Recall the Korean couple who were sued for 60 million for losing a Judge's pants from their dry cleaning business? It cost them 60k to defend the frivolous lawsuit. Or the Carolina District Attorney that continued with criminal action against several Duke lacrosse players knowingly they were innocent from the outset, Just for political gains. It is fascinating that 99.9999% of lawyers are the major supporters of the democratic- liberal-progressive party. And that lawyers are number one financial contributor to the democratic party? Safari-lawyer, your own words say it all..."I hope it costs a fortune." dale PS Safari-lawyer, when you refer to "Afghanistan, Iran, or any of the other hundreds of countires whose legal systems are less of a "joke" than ours.".....Are you refering to Islamic Law? | |||
|
| Administrator |
Very true. And a terrible reflection on Nixon as well. | |||
|
One of Us |
Huh??? 99.9% of the lawyers I know are moderate to very conservative. So split the difference in our unscientific survey, and I think one would find that lawyers fall across the same spectrum of most Americans, moderate to conservative. I know a little something about disputes with a PH and the garbage and accusations that can be slung But I note, as in my experience, the basic questions are never answered because they will end the discussion quickly and the side issues thrown in to distract and malign will suddenly become unimportant. Llama- can't you just answer the questions posted above, the real straightforward questions? It would help those of us who may hunt in the future decide on PHs. Thank you ______________________________ "Are you gonna pull them pistols,...or whistle Dixie??" Josie Wales 1866 | |||
|
one of us |
404, I was thinking the same thing. Maybe it's just the area I live and work in but I deal with attorneys on a daily basis and I can only think of one that would be classified as a liberal. "...Africa. I love it, and there is no reason for me to explore why. She affects some people that way, and those who feel as I do need no explanation." from The Last Safari | |||
|
| One of Us |
So far as I know, there is no legal process that requires by law that an attorney represent you. I wouldn't suggest that route in most cases, but if you have such ill feelings towards lawyers then it may be best you don't use them. Afterall, you "eat lawyers for breakfast"....don't you? Sueing someone should cost a lot of money for both sides, imo, but it doesn't have to. You could sue me for a lot of money, pay a lawyer big bucks and I just may win my case based on the facts and evidence I present to the court at a cost of nothing more than my time. You CHOOSE to make legal matters expensive, just like lawyers can CHOOSE to work for professional wages. I find it a little bit confusing that you seem to be against arbitration but are for this "English Rule" that you speak of. "English Rule" sounds like arbitration to me, all you'd have to do is make legal fees and expenses part of the arbitration award. As far as legal systems in other countries go, I wouldn't want any part of it. I'll take the rights granted to us here in the USA over what some other countries have. You gotta take the good with the bad, I'm sure other countries have complaints with their legal systems as well. When it all nets out, we have it pretty good here. It just is what it is........ | |||
|
| One of Us |
Bryan27
What you are refering to is "pro se." It means you represent yourself. With the exception to small claims court, you will get hammered. The courts hate when a defendant/plaintiff is "pro se" and the court will put as many road blocks in your way until you surrender. The court/lawyers/judges will beat you by attrition. There is a moral and legal double standard in the USA judicial system. dale | |||
|
One of Us |
Varies Most Texas Probate Courts REQUIRE an attorney. Not that any of this is particularly useful for the two parties here. Best Result : Private agreement ( unlikely here it would appear) 2nd Best: Binding (Confidential) Arbitration 3rd Best: Court Proceedings -- -- LAST best: Internet Trial DuggaBoye-O NRA-Life Whittington-Life TSRA-Life DRSS DSC HSC SCI | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting Hunting Reports - Africa Zimbabwe illegal hunting
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
