And the waters are indeed muddy...Note- not one Zim PH has joined in on Nixons side...and there is a very good reason for this.

Still - if the TC's were countersigned and then cancelled that is fraud QED. Even if the embassy in Harare recomended cancelling the cheques they will a) Never admit in court that they advised you to do so and b) it is still fraud..so pay up!

Ganyana,

Not to muddy the waters even further - but if I were listing technicalities under the general heading of what a US hunter can and cannot do when booking and conducting a hunt with a Zim operator in Zim - I could fill an encylopedia with them.

And if all US hunters who hunt in Zim were to assert those technicalities as excuses for non-payment of hunting fees to their Zim operators - then you tell me, how many operators would be paid, and how many would not?

We will need a lot more in the way of specifics before the stink of this will dissipate.

quote:

there is a very good reason for this.

I'm not sure what that is implying but I'm not fond of innuendos without facts. I recognize you're well respected, and I certainly respect you, but this is not up to your usual standards.

reading between the lines gato he knows something, by virtue of being a well respected ZIM hunting figure and he can't go into specifics for the reasons outlined earlier on this thread.

I do sympathise with your attitude though.

This is a real mess when all is said and done, we may never what the truth is. themselves. You need an independent party and go through all the paperwork and get statements from as many people that were involved in this hunt. Only then you can even come close to what happened.

In the end the two people may have to just sit down in room and work this out amongst themselves.

I do not know where the Lacey act violation comes into play because if Bill Phifer has not imported any animals that were in violation of Zim law, there is no Lacey Act violation.

Well I may look like I came in on the last turnip truck but I still manage to dress myself.......

My point is, what purpose did the statement serve besides to muddy the waters further. Since it added nothing, and apparently is not going to be expanded upon, then it should not have been made in my opinion.

BTW in the US both sides in a civil suit normally have to pay their own legal bills unless the suit is found to be frivolous (good luck with that) or it is some kind of a contract dispute which specifies that the loser must pay all legal expenses. This is fairly common in real estate leases.

Brooks,

The LA is very wide ranging and as I understand it, amongst other things, it can be applied to any US citizen who breaks any law of any overseas country.

More generally, I'd suggest accusations, insults and speculation might easily weaken the argument for one side or the other at the very least.

I'd suggest we try to leave them to (hopefully) come to some sort of settlement on their own...... at least for now.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Well I may look like I came in on the last turnip truck but I still manage to dress myself.......

My point is, what purpose did the statement serve besides to muddy the waters further. Since it added nothing, and apparently is not going to be expanded upon, then it should not have been made in my opinion.

BTW in the US both sides in a civil suit normally have to pay their own legal bills unless the suit is found to be frivolous (good luck with that) or it is some kind of a contract dispute which specifies that the loser must pay all legal expenses. This is fairly common in real estate leases.

I didn't mean to cause offense Gato, and apologise if I did, but then what could Ganyana say after, as you put it, saying a little too much?

With a bit of luck what was and was not said on this thread won't be the subject of a preliminary hearing to see if the evidence has been compromised by improper disclosure and therefore has prejudiced one or more of the parties.

Until then mate what can anyone profitably say on this thread apart from nothing?

It's good to hear that costs aren't apportioned as a matter of course, they are not here either, the British position is that one writes a pre-action protocol letter presenting your evidence and stating why you believe your action will succeed and warning the other party to proceed in the claim at the risk of a cost exposure.

Even if the US civil legal system differs massively, such a letter might be a good idea (ASK YOUR OWN <AMERICAN> LAWYER FOLKS I TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY ETC).

It is in effect that letter and reply you want to see in this case, sadly that letter would not only be privileged but also confidential.

Regards,

A

Ganyana,

Are the reasons the other PHs haven't supported Nixon on this situation exclusive to this occurrance, or other things? Has he hunted on confiscated properties? Does he get unfair advantage over others in acquiring gov't. or tribal concessions?

Having hunted in Zim twice and presently looking to book a hunt in 2011, guidance would be helpful. I would not hunt with someone on a stolen farm, nor "on the list", or knowingly with someone affiliated with either.

I will not avoid a ph strictly along racial lines assuming similar cultural and cleaniness standards, the ability to communicate is also important.

I am fairly certain that his pricing practices cause quite a lot of consternation in some circles. Could this be a (the) reason? A pm with an honest assessment would be appreciated.

Adrian

The bottom of the bottom line is that llamapacker--whatever his name is-- apparently shot a lot of animals, and Nixon, not llamapacker, had to pay the trophy fees to the Zim government.

Now granted, I have only been to Africa twice, but I fully understood before I went the first time, that if you pull the trigger, and there is blood on the ground, you pay for the animals you shoot. As far as I know, that rule has not been changed.

25K is a lot of money. llamapacker should not have continued to pull the trigger if he was not prepared to pay Nixon for the hunt. If he shot the animals, he owes the money, plain and simple. Not to mention the issue of the Traveler's Checks.

This is a hell of a mess, any way you slice it.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Brooks,

The LA is very wide ranging and as I understand it, amongst other things, it can be applied to any US citizen who breaks any law of any overseas country.

It has to involve the game as explained in the summary below. In most cases, the LA kicks in only when illegally taken game is brought into the US or moved across state lines within the US.

If someone poaches a deer in AZ and gets caught here with the dead deer, he can be charged and punished only under the laws of AZ. If that same hunter is from NM and transported the illegally taken deer into that state -- or any other state, for that matter -- he has violated the Lacy Act.

If the subject of this thread takes possession of a game animal killed illegally in Zim, he would thus be susceptable to charges under the LA. Absent that, nothing that solely occurred in ZIM with no importation or possession of said game into the US would qualify.

Summary:

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

We now have two very respected Zim PHs, Buzz and Ganyana, who have (insofar as I interpret it) insinuated that Nixon might not be as innocent as this forum is making him out to be.

Can't quite get my head wrapped around the motive here for SSG to try to fleece this guy, but it sure is food for thought, now isn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by Vanderhoef:
We now have two very respected Zim PHs, Buzz and Ganyana, who have (insofar as I interpret it) insinuated that Nixon might not be as innocent as this forum is making him out to be.

Can't quite get my head wrapped around the motive here for SSG to try to fleece this guy, but it sure is food for thought, now isn't it?

Nowhere in this thread are the allegations in your post made.

If you follow me.

quote:

Originally posted by Ghubert:

quote:

Originally posted by Vanderhoef:
We now have two very respected Zim PHs, Buzz and Ganyana, who have (insofar as I interpret it) insinuated that Nixon might not be as innocent as this forum is making him out to be.

Can't quite get my head wrapped around the motive here for SSG to try to fleece this guy, but it sure is food for thought, now isn't it?

Nowhere in this thread are the allegations in your post made.

If you follow me.

Buzz simply stated that Bill P was a good client. He made no comments that he knew anything below the table about Nixon.

Gayana commented that no Zim PHs have come to his defense. That implies "they" know something. Well, what is it? You either know something or you don't. Or you don't have the balls to say it. But you know what the Queen said about balls..."If I had them I would be king."

But Gayana does bring up the point about the TCs. If Bill signed them, and then lied about it, he made a huge mistake.

Bill, we all make mistakes. Come clean on this and come back to AR. You make ammends with Nixon and I won't ever bring it up again.

quote:

Originally posted by Buzz Charlton:
I am very interested how this will all pan out. I believe that it will surprise the majority here.

We booked Bill for a PAC hunts 2 years ago and he was every bit the gentleman we expected him to be. He paid the full daily rate and then paid the trophy fee on his return. I would not hesitate to hunt with him again based on OUR experience. If proved guilty then he must face the music.

We often let/ reccommend clients settle their outstanding trophy fees by wire transfer on their return and touch wood , to date we have had no issues whats so ever. I hope that, when we see the out come of this fiasco, I will not have reason to change our policy!

In Buzz's first paragraph above it seems to me he's leading us somewhere. While he doesn't come right out and defend Bill, he sure has good things to say, all the while failing to mention his fellow PH.


I'm not smart enough to figure out how to quote another source here but Ganyana's first statement in his post on the top of page 7 sure seems to say that he doesn't think Nixon is very popular.

Ghubert-

I don't know but it does indeed seem to me that both of these guys are trying to tell us something.

You've stated that you're an attorney so I would assume that you would know the definition of the word, but I don't believe I made any "allegations", but only stated that my interpretation of their statements made me think that they may know something negative about SSG.

I'm all ears so please enlighten me...

Seems to me that there is a LOT that's not being said. The stories are much too different. Supporters of SSG who are clients/associates of the operation vouche for his credibility and support his statements. Based on their experiences with him they find it hard to believe he would be in violation of any poor business practices/illegal acts or plain bad sportsmanship. Likewise, the few people who have spent time around, guided and had past business dealing with llamapacker have all had good experiences with him and have cause for concern that he is the victim in this situation as it would be out of character for him to be dishonest/criminal in his dealings. Both sides seem to have credibility, the only bad things said about either one is said by the other side......nobody has come forth and said that in the past SSG or llamapacker has screwed them too. We can cuss and discuss this until there is nothing else to say, but until the rest of the facts are put on the table then we don't know the whole story.

If yall want to see some REAL bullshit, pull a boat down here and go duck hunting on some public hunting areas. Fist fights, slashed tires, burning blinds, cussing matches, death threats, busted windows, theft.....and on and on and on.........Hell, hunting Bayou Meto, the white river bottoms and Reelfoot is like a modern day wild west show sometimes!

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Brooks,

The LA is very wide ranging and as I understand it, amongst other things, it can be applied to any US citizen who breaks any law of any overseas country.

It has to involve the game as explained in the summary below. In most cases, the LA kicks in only when illegally taken game is brought into the US or moved across state lines within the US.

If someone poaches a deer in AZ and gets caught here with the dead deer, he can be charged and punished only under the laws of AZ. If that same hunter is from NM and transported the illegally taken deer into that state -- or any other state, for that matter -- he has violated the Lacy Act.

If the subject of this thread takes possession of a game animal killed illegally in Zim, he would thus be susceptable to charges under the LA. Absent that, nothing that solely occurred in ZIM with no importation or possession of said game into the US would qualify.

Summary:

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

My understanding is any violation of any game rule involving the TAKING (killing) of the game (or non-game species) in any location (aside from your state-unless it involves tribal land) can trigger Lacey act involvement-- it does not therefore specifically require or involve the importation or possession.

I recall reading of a case where no skull,pelt etc was found and the conviction was based on a video and testimony.

Maybe we should have a seperate thread on the Lacey Act and it's interpretation? This one is getting hard enough to follow without all the side bars!!

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
Maybe we should have a seperate thread on the Lacey Act and it's interpretation? This one is getting hard enough to follow without all the side bars!!

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

The allegations of potential illegalities in the taking of the game was,
I believe,
implied by lp himself in one of his early responses.

(Edit: incorrect having reviewed his post, he only implied non-fair chase in collecting animals on a short safari)

IF, there are potential undiscovered (even inadvertent) violations of game laws --

It provides a even greater impetus to settle this matter expeditiously and without legal wrangling--

as Judge G and others have opined
( and I concur)

Outdoor writer is correct in synopsis of Lacey Act. And it can include Tribal Land. You can google Lacey Act and get the Law itself, when it was inacted 1900 and all amendments including the one in 2008 that added plants. It was original intended to stop the comercialization of wildlife across state lands. But, has been expanded over the last hundred plus years.

Bold emphasis mine:

quote:

It also is illegal for a person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce: fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of a state law, state regulation or foreign law; plants taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of a state law or regulation.

That pretty well covers the territory IMO.

The more I read about the LA, the more confused I become and I'd dearly like to find a US lawyer who's familiar with the act not only explain it to me properly but I'd also love someone appropriatly qualified to write a piece on it for our shakariconnection.com website.......

I've been doing some more research on it today and also going through my old notes and knowing I had this: http://video.google.com/google...833865&hl=en&fs=true I viewed it again...... maybe I mis-recollected what the guy said in the video...... If I did, then you guys are right and I'm wrong..... Either way, it seems to me to be a shit piece of legislation that needs to be kicked into touch.

Regarding the original argument: It seems to me there's gonna be a lot of he said, she said type of arguments, a lot of which will probably be unproveable either way...... I'd say the best thing we can do at this point is to hope it can be sorted out in private so that no-one loses their reputation or their money unjustly.

As I've said before, I'd also suggest name calling and statements that may not be 110% proveable be avoided like the plague.

I appreciate I could be wrong on the LA but I know I'm not wrong on the internet libel laws. It isn't a case of the truth will protect you, it's a case of can you 100% prove that truth.

I do not know the truth. BUT… I am only too well aware of the line of questioning that certain American officials are taking …and in a community the size of ours in takes all of 0.2 nano seconds for that to go around. Whether this line of enquiry refers to this particular client or another, I do not know…and I assure you, I am not going to wonder down town to ask!

For the record as far as I can tell
1)Reporting genuinely signed TC’s as stolen after you have countersigned them is fraud. Even if the operator has stitched you properly (and I am not implying that Nixon has stitched anyone!!!), Once you sign those cheques…they are cash. Have your buyers remorse before you sign.
2)I have never heard of Nixon hunting on an occupied farm in recent years – and time distorts the truth about what happened years ago anyway. The usual complaint (insinuation – not verified ) is that he lets his son act as PH on some hunts instead of bringing in a licensed PH (as H Kittle, in his hunting report says Simon was acting as PH ) . I don’t think though that Prior to this I have heard anything about Nixon that would cause me to recommend to a client that he not book with him.
3)If US F&W agent starts putting 1 + 1 together he will probably come up with 2
4)When a Clown In Action starts putting 1 + 1 together the answer will be anywhere between 1½ and 13 but is highly unlikely to be 2!

quote:

We can cuss and discuss this until there is nothing else to say, but until the rest of the facts are put on the table then we don't know the whole story.

Hmmmm this sounds vaguely familiar to a few others who have posted here. Don't suppose anyone will listen!

Brett

Ganyana,

I admitt that I have no real knowledge of how the PH system works in Zim. My understand is that Simon (Nixon's son) has completed most if not all of the requirements of becoming a fully liscensed PH. Is there such a thing as an apprentice PH?

H. Kittle

I don't suppose we've got any lawyers out there who are familiar with the act and could give us an informed opinon of this bloody act have we?

The more I look at it, the more confused I get and the more I want to tear my hair out in frustration.

I've just taken a quick look at this: http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovuslaceyact.htm and going from that, it looks like I was probably wrong...... but frankly, I'm not anywhere near being certain.

One thing's for sure, the penalties can be a real bastard!

H. Kittle - Yes.. An Aprentice PH my conduct clients to hunt for plainsgame in areas where class A game (Elephant, Buff and Hippo) will not be encountered.

Simon is nowhere near getting his PH license yet. (needs to pass shooting test, first aid, then come for the interviews and perhaps be invited along on proficiency...)

Two white safari operators made frequent use of their sons as 'assistant' PH's sending them out 'under their direction' with clients 'to gain experience'. It has come back to bite both...and, sadly, it is the young hunter who has paid the price not dad!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Bold emphasis mine:

quote:

It also is illegal for a person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of a state law, state regulation or foreign law; plants taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of a state law or regulation.

That pretty well covers the territory IMO.

You failed to highlight the most important part -- in interstate or foreign commerce! That means the movement of "fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of a state law, state regulation or foreign law" across state lines or from foreign countries.

The LA was first brought into play to stop the commercial sale of wildlife but it now involves everything else as noted above.

Also note that no where in the Lacy Act does it say, "it is illegal to kill or take a game animal in violation of a law in any state or foreign country or tribal land" or some such thing. It merely addresses the possession, sale, etc. of illegally taken game if it is imported into the country or transported interstate.

If the Lacy Act involved the mere illegal take of game, EVERY poaching case would violate its provisions.

The Lacey Act
(18 U.S.C. 42; 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378)

The amending of the act in 1988 allowed for prosecution for

--the sale OR PURCHASE of GUIDING or OUTFITTING services in violation of statues of US, Tribal or Foreign statutes

and/or the INVALID use of a license or permit.

Implying,

the act of purhasing or selling the SERVICE was tantamount to the sale or purchase( possession) of an animal.

Example--

IF the Killing of a protected animal or a non-protected animal violated a statute(Foreign,Tribal) ,

EVEN if no importation was involved--
simply the violation was the TAKING (killing, possessing)

---whether or not importation to the U.S.A. was invoved, the killing need only violate a statue where the killing (taking, possession) took place.

In other words the killing or EVEN the purchase OR sale of the services to pursue the kill became a violation if the INTENT of either party was a violation of staute.

Such as the convictions revolving around the situation I mentioned previously-- where video evidence and testimony were used in lieu of actuall animal parts to effect the conviction.

Ganyana,

Thanks for your information in this matter. let's hope this matter gets settled by the only two who can settle it. This is like a grenade, too much opportunity for collateral damage.

In a worst case scenario this type of "goat rope" has the ability to materially change lifestyles. IF, animals were taken with no intention of paying, lp needs to "man up" and take responsibility for his petulance. If not, Nixon needs to come clean.

Adrian

Dugga,

That amendment simply expanded the scope of the LA to include guides and outfitters who contributed to the other provisions already in the law. The importation or interstate transportation must still apply.

Example:

Joe Sixpack goes deer hunting in AZ and intentionally shoots his trophy at night while his hired guide holds the spotlight. Joe then tags it, and heads to his TX home with his "well-earned" trophy.

Well, it just so happens another person was sitting up on a hill with his video camera and recorded the violation of AZ law. He later reported the violation and turned in the video to AZ G&FD.

When the TX game department and Feds, in co-op with AZ, served a search warrant at Joe's, they found the deer antlers and charged him. They used the video to implicate the guide in the violation of AZ statutes.

The Feds then charged Joe under the Lacey Act with the TRANSPORTATION of illegally taken wildlife.

And...under the 1988 amendment, the Feds also charged Joe's guide with a Lacey Act violation BECAUSE JOE BROUGHT THE DEER INTO TEXAS.

Had Joe been an AZ resident and committed the same violation with no transportation across state lines, he could only be charged under state law and be subject to the penalties in AZ. Likewise for the guide.


From the link Steve posted, the explanation from the U of Michigan law school:

"In 1988, the role of guiding or outfitting services were added to cover a new threat to big game species under the ambit of "sale." Prior to the amendment, big game guides who provided illegal hunts were immune to prosecution for violation based on commercial activity. The amendments also created a separate and distinct violation for the intended falsification of documents pertaining to the exporting, importing, or transporting of wildlife, fish, or plants. The felony provision of this part of the act was amended such that one could be convicted if he or she either knew of the import or export of the species or where he or she was involved in the sale or purchase of wildlife, fish, or plants with a market value greater than $350."

Guyana,

Thanks for the reply. As you pointed out, signing checks and then reporting them as stolen is fraud. And if found guilty, it means Bill Phifer of the University of Utah (I use his real name here so it gets indexed by Google) will lose his right to own firearms.

Sounds like that ought to be the case rather than the LA. Easier to prove. Since they were reported stolen in the US, seems like it could be filed here as fraud. But then again, I am not a lawyer.

quote:

You failed to highlight the most important part -- in interstate or foreign commerce! That means the movement of "fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of a state law, state regulation or foreign law" across state lines or from foreign countries.

quote:

You failed to highlight the most important part -- in interstate or foreign commerce! That means the movement of "fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of a state law, state regulation or foreign law" across state lines or from foreign countries.

The LA was first brought into play to stop the commercial sale of wildlife but it now involves everything else as noted above.

Also note that no where in the Lacy Act does it say, "it is illegal to kill or take a game animal in violation of a law in any state or foreign country or tribal land" or some such thing. It merely addresses the possession, sale, etc. of illegally taken game if it is imported into the country or transported interstate.

If the Lacy Act involved the mere illegal take of game, EVERY poaching case would violate its provisions.

I'll start with the last, "every" poaching case is not a violation of the Lacey Act primarily because most poaching cases do not involve "taking" of animals that are regulated under Federal Law. While not usually enforced in that manner, an illegal "taking" of a Grizzly or Polar Bear or similarly regulated species, even in a State, IMO COULD be prosecuted under the Lacey Act. It is normally not since there are other statutes that apply and are more commonly used.

Finally, if you think that "interstate or foreign commerce" is really just the simplistic concept of movement of goods, etc across state or national boundaries, your interpretations are way too literal (and some might say logical ) for Federal law. Here is a general summation of the meanings of commerce under current Federal interpretations: (bold emphasis mine)

quote:

"But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to, the rationales by which manufacturing, mining, business transactions, and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power."

I'm not a lawyer and I don't care to argue this ad infinitum, but if you think the Lacey Act is as literal as you would have it, I believe you are mistaken.

PS: Shakari, you are dead right, it is a terrible piece of legislation, but getting the feds to scrap or recreate something which MIGHT limit their powers is absolutely not going to happen without vast public outrage. Too many Disneyphiles in the US for that. Much more likely that it will be extended and made even more invasive than it currently is. Legally, the "quaint" concept of states rights is either outright dead or flat lining in the ICU.....

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

I'll start with the last, "every" poaching case is not a violation of the Lacey Act primarily because most poaching cases do not involve "taking" of animals that are regulated under Federal Law. While not usually enforced in that manner, an illegal "taking" of a Grizzly or Polar Bear or similarly regulated species, even in a State, IMO COULD be prosecuted under the Lacey Act. It is normally not since there are other statutes that apply and are more commonly used.

A grizzly in Canada is not regulated by US federal law. But if someone illegally kills a grizz in BC and imports it into the US, he will be charged under the Lacey Act if he gets caught.

Any wildlife actually regulated by the Feds is covered under the federal game laws that exist. Such wildlife is normally that which crosses state lines such as migratory birds and waterfowl. Normally, however, enforcement of the laws covering these are left to the state. The Lacey Act kicks in only when a provision of such is violated.

Lastly, ANY wildlife, whether under Federal regulatiuons or not, comes under the Lacey Act if that wildlife is taken, sold, exported, imported, bent, stapled or mutilated illegally and imported into the US or moved interstate.

quote:

Finally, if you think that "interstate or foreign commerce" is really just the simplistic concept of movement of goods, etc across state or national boundaries, your interpretations are way too literal (and some might say logical ) for Federal law. Here is a general summation of the meanings of commerce under current Federal interpretations: (bold emphasis mine)

"But most important of all there was the development of, or more accurately the return to, the rationales by which manufacturing, mining, business transactions, and the like, which are antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines, are conceived to be part of an integrated commercial whole and therefore subject to the reach of the commerce power."

I'm well aware of what "commerce" means in relation to the ICC as a stand-alone word. That's why the Lacey Act defines it further with interstate or foreign. Regardless of that, even if the meaning you quote is applicable, it still addresses actions taken -- either before or after -- to MOVE SOMETHING ACROSS STATE LINE as defined by "antecedent to or subsequent to a move across state lines."

Thus, the actions of a guide "antecedent" to the movement of illegally taken wildlife becomes a Lacey Act violation, but only AFTER the wildlife is imported or transported or across state lines. See Joe Sixpack example above.

State and Federal prosecutors regardless of the offense will throw every violation on the books at the defendant and then stand back and see which one sticks.
This is the US legal system. Unfortunately as the Defendant you must answer each and every charge and that costs money. Besides, any legal charge once entered into court becomes PUBLIC RECORD.
Once public, anyone has an open invitation to view the details, freedom of information act, thats when things can get ugly.

Best for both parties to communicate and settle their differences without involving the legal system. Once lawyers get involved, it is all over and will get ugly.

Don't forget the harrassments from wacko activists organizations like PETA , SPCA, GREEN PEACE, and ELF that would love to carry a bunch of signs in front to the court house.

They will even burn you house down if knowing you have tropies of exotic animals on your wall.
These nuts are crazy and should be classified as terrorists.

For an author, you really seem to have a reading comprehension problem, if you care to research the current legal definition of commerce you will find that you are not nearly as "well aware" as you seem to think you are of its legal applications.......I'm going to repeat this and not argue the point further......(again bold emphasis mine)

quote:

It also is illegal for a person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce: fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of a state law, state regulation or foreign law; plants taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of a state law or regulation.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
For an author, you really seem to have a reading comprehension problem, if you care to research the current legal definition of commerce you will find that you are not nearly as "well aware" as you seem to think you are of its legal applications.......I'm going to repeat this and not argue the point further......(again bold emphasis mine)

quote:

It also is illegal for a person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce: fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of a state law, state regulation or foreign law; plants taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of a state law or regulation.

Maybe if you break that paragraph down in the way the punctuation means it to read yet not be repetitive, you'll see what my "reading comprehension problem" sees. Note the colon after the first clause and the semi-colon between the other two clauses. They are all dependent clauses, so each sentence should be taken as a whole, as in:

It also is illegal for a person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of a state law, state regulation or foreign law; It also is illegal for a person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce plants taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of a state law or regulation.

Now, to simplify so even you can understand, let's remove the multiples (those are the things separated by commas) of everything and include only one of the multiples and the other necessary phrases.

It also is illegal for a person to transport in interstate or foreign commerce wildlife taken in violation of a state law.

or...

It also is illegal for a person to import in interstate or foreign commerce wildlife sold in violation of foreign law.

And so on and so forth...If you did this with each multiple, it would result in about two dozen separate sentences to make the same point as the short quoted paragraph.

And..what should seem quite obvious, absent the actual importation or transportation of something, there cannot be an "antecedent or subsequent" action. Both require something to happen.

It is obvious the Lacy Act was written with the intention of broad interpretation. It seems if the prosecutors want you, they can totally F....you all they want.

They will beat you by attrition for sure.

How do you file an action with the Attorney General? Lets test the Lacy Act on the Phifer/Nixon situation and file a complaint. It will be a learning experience of all of us.


dale

What part of the words, "receive" or "acquire" or the word "or" can't you understand?

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
What part of the words, "receive" or "acquire" or the word "or" can't you understand?

None of the above.

What part of the defining phrase, "in interstate or foreign commerce," do you not understand in the following:

It also is illegal for a person to acquire in interstate or foreign commerce wildlife taken in violation of a state law (or foreign law).

It also is illegal for a person to receive in interstate or foreign commerce wildlife taken in violation of a state law (or foreign law).

It also is illegal for a person to receive OR acquire in interstate or foreign commerce wildlife taken in violation of a state law (or foreign law).