Dale,

Seems a more logical and resonable claims could filed by Amer Express or the banks involved. Possiblities of fraud, deception and wire fraud surely exist here. Possibly contract laws are in violation.
I have never read the fine print when purchasing a TC, But I am sure there is a fiduiciary responsiblity to insure the contracts of monitary exchange / international commerce is executed in good faith.

Not sure where Amer Express claims it's headquarters. Website shows FL as business contacts.
Probably need an International attorney or contract attorney for opinions.

There was no violation of the Lacey Act in the Phifer/Nixon situation as I see it. I cannot remember who brought up the Lacey Act, but it does not apply here.

We all have made assumptions what a Lacey Act involves. Outdoor writer said in as simplist terms as possible.

A person or persons do not need to worry about the Lacey act if they didn't violate a wildlife law. So where is the problem?

What we have is problem between the outfitter (Nixon) and client (Phifer). This is a civil matter.

These two individuals need to sit down and work it out.

Right now we are making a mountain out of mole hill.

quote:

Originally posted by Brooks Carmichael:
There was no violation of the Lacey Act in the Phifer/Nixon situation as I see it. I cannot remember who brought up the Lacey Act, but it does not apply here.

We all have made assumptions what a Lacey Act involves. Outdoor writer said in as simplist terms as possible.

A person or persons do not need to worry about the Lacey act if they didn't violate a wildlife law. So where is the problem?

What we have is problem between the outfitter (Nixon) and client (Phifer). This is a civil matter.

These two individuals need to sit down and work it out.

Right now we are making a mountain out of mole hill.

I agree. Will2Hunt makes a good suggestion.

I called AMEx today.

Nixon should file a fraud claim on the AMEX website. If he has witnesses that saw Bill sign those checks, then Bill is in deep shit. It would help if Nixon could state that Bill had access to a Sat phone to report the checks missing. If he wants help, Duck you can send me a PM and we can communicate via reg email.

Of course, we are still waiting on Bill to post copies of his wire transfers. Who wouldn't keep those?

The silence is deafening

Will2hunt & AnotherAZwriter,

I stand corrected on the Lacy Act. The Amex fraud route seems reasonable at this time.

I doubt if Amex will relaese the money without phifer's consent, in addition Phifer probally already has been returned the 9k from Amex.

The question is will Amex initiate fraud charges against Phifer?

dale

Dugga,

If you're still reading here, I believe the incident in regards to the video case you mentioned might have involved the guy who illegally killed critters in Russia from a helicopter. See this thread

Again, the reason he was cited under Lacey was because he IMPORTED the game into this country.

From the news article: "It wasn't until he was recently contacted by U.S. investigators that he learned the practice was illegal in Russia and that by bringing the trophy heads back to the U.S., he violated a law here known as the Lacey Act."

The video of the illegal hunting was merely part of the evidence against him.

quote:

Originally posted by daleW:
Will2hunt & AnotherAZwriter,

I stand corrected on the Lacy Act. The Amex fraud route seems reasonable at this time.

I doubt if Amex will relaese the money without phifer's consent, in addition Phifer probally already has been returned the 9k from Amex.

The question is will Amex initiate fraud charges against Phifer?

dale

Nixon should file a claim. AMEx isn't going to a thing on their own.

I spoke with an AMEX rep today. She said they have questions they ask to determine is the TCs were stolen. The date of reported theft is an improtant one - if the checks were dated Dec 8 for example, but reported stolen on Dec 1, that is a significant red flag. I suspect Bill Phifer claims he was in the bush and he couldn't report them. Well, did Nixon have a Sat phone? That is a key issue here.

In any event, it would be interesting if someone could look into the legal issues of filing suit against Bill Phifer. But Nixon has to get involved. I know his English isn't great, but...

A US Judge was appointed to oversee the 100 or so cases of Lacy act violations resulting from hunting on stolen land in Zim. I was asked if I was prepared to give evidence and got to know a couple of the investigations offficers reasonably well. All of the folk charged or even under investigation involved those who had IMPORTED trophies into the USA. Two years ago a senior investigations officer was looking into an illegal hunt in Hwange National park conducted by a fairly well known American National. The hunt was videoed...It was clearly identifiable as Hwange...There was no valid NP10 let alone TR2 etc. The client was never charged becuase he didn't import his trophies (which included a 90+lb Ele and a nice lion).

One can argue this point to death...there are senior agents at the shows...go in and ask. From the zim experience, charges are only filed once stolen, poached or illegally aquired trophies land on US soil.

Adrian..." This is like a grenade, too much opportunity for collateral damage."...you are right...but I fear it is a WP Grenade...the s@!t sticks, folk are going to get burnt and the scars never heal.

A neutral negotiator/moderator is needed - and with some urgency!

Thank you, Ganyana.

And if someone else other than the hunter knowingly acquired or received those critters here in the US in interstate or foreign commerce, they also would be in violation of the Lacey Act.

Also, one addition to "charges are only filed once stolen, poached or illegally aquired trophies land on US soil" for domestic violations.

That would be: Or if illegally acquired trophies cross state lines (interstate).

quote:

Originally posted by Ganyana: A US Judge was appointed to oversee the 100 or so cases of Lacy act violations resulting from hunting on stolen land in Zim.

Good!

But lets say you are this guy:

http://www.africahunting.com/h...k-ship.html#post8288

And you unwittingly violated the terms of the Lacey Act...maybe you don't want your trophies. Interesting.

Bill,

That link brings up a "Page Not Found, If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator."

EDIT: As you were. Seems to work now.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill C:

quote:

Originally posted by Ganyana: A US Judge was appointed to oversee the 100 or so cases of Lacy act violations resulting from hunting on stolen land in Zim.

Good!

But lets say you are this guy:

http://www.africahunting.com/h...k-ship.html#post8288

And you unwittingly violated the terms of the Lacey Act...maybe you don't want your trophies. Interesting.

Notice the guy's booking agent was Arnold Payne? AP is the same guy that was pimping the 50" buffalo in the discounted hunts page here on AR.

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:
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.

The fact of the matter IS the interstate commerce occurs when the person is not within his jurisdiction of residence.

HE has therefore engaged in interstate acivities and any violation in the jurisdiction of the hunt (not just the kill0 HAS in point of fact been used ALREADY in prosecutins WITHOUT physical evidence of the kill.

I did not write the law nor was I involved in the case.

I am aware of prosecutions.

My position IS--

You may belive or contend your interpretation--
good luck using your interpretation as a defense.

I would prefer not to test the law as currently being interpreted BY the US courts as evidenced by prosecutions which I am aware of.

I do belive this law, like far too many others, is poorly constructed and injudicitiuosly applied, particularly after its merger with the Black Bass act and the 1988 revision.

quote:

The fact of the matter IS the interstate commerce occurs when the person is not within his jurisdiction of residence.

Not sure I understand. So if I travel to New Mexico to visit a cousin, I'm engaged in interstate commerce??

If I go to Colorado on a mule deer hunt, then illegally shoot a bull elk and leave it lay, will I be charged under the Lacey Act when I return to my "jurisdiction of residence" if the CDOW finds out I did it?

FWIW, this is the definition of "commerce" used for the Lacey Act:

"Commerce means trade, traffic, transportation, or other commerce: (1) Between a place in a State and any place outside of such State, including any foreign country, or between points within the same State but through any place outside thereof, or within any territory, possession, or the District of Columbia; or (2) Which affects the commerce described in this part."

quote:

HE has therefore engaged in interstate acivities and any violation in the jurisdiction of the hunt (not just the kill0 HAS in point of fact been used ALREADY in prosecutins WITHOUT physical evidence of the kill.

So what was the exact charge under Lacey? And if the person didn't transport illegally taken game back to his "jurisdiction of residence," or elsewhere across state lines or from a foreign country, how did the Feds even get involved in the case? The "violation in the jurisdiction of the hunt" would be nothing more than a violation of the laws in that jurisdiction, i.e. state wildlife statutes.

quote:

I did not write the law nor was I involved in the case.

I am aware of prosecutions.

So then you have an actual case in mind? Can you point to some place where the specifics are shown? Is it only the prosecution you're aware of? What about the verdict?

quote:

My position IS--

You may belive or contend your interpretation--
good luck using your interpretation as a defense.

I would prefer not to test the law as currently being interpreted BY the US courts as evidenced by prosecutions which I am aware of.

I doubt I'll have to use my interpretation any time soon since I obey the laws wherever I hunt. For the most part, I do not have a problem with the Lacey Act as written, and until I see ACTUAL examples with specific details of these supposed blatant abuses, that opinion will stay that way.

Sooo...in the interest of getting some of my work done and not continuing to bore others here, I'll let you have the last word.

Have a great week.

Seems pretty clear to me:

16 U.S.C. § 3372. Prohibited acts

(a) Offenses other than marking offenses

It is unlawful for any person—

(1) 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;

(2) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce—

(A) any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation
of any State or in violation of any foreign law;

(B) any plant—

(i) taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State, or any
foreign law, that protects plants or that regulates—

(I) the theft of plants;

(II) the taking of plants from a park, forest reserve, or other officially protected area;

(III) the taking of plants from an officially designated area; or

(IV) the taking of plants without, or contrary to, required authorization;

(ii) taken, possessed, transported, or sold without the payment of appropriate royalties, taxes, or
stumpage fees required for the plant by any law or regulation of any State or any foreign law; or

(iii) taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any limitation under any law or regulation
of any State, or under any foreign law, governing the export or transshipment of plants; or

(C) any prohibited wildlife species (subject to subsection (e) of this section);

(3) within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States (as defined in section 7 of title 18)—

(A) to possess any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation
of any State or in violation of any foreign law or Indian tribal law, or

(B) to possess any plant—

(i) taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State, or any foreign law,
that protects plants or that regulates—

(I) the theft of plants;

(II) the taking of plants from a park, forest reserve, or other officially protected area;

(III) the taking of plants from an officially designated area; or

(IV) the taking of plants without, or contrary to, required authorization;

(ii) taken, possessed, transported, or sold without the payment of appropriate royalties, taxes, or stumpage
fees required for the plant by any law or regulation of any State or any foreign law; or

(iii) taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any limitation under any law or regulation of any State,
or under any foreign law, governing the export or transshipment of plants; or

(4) to attempt to commit any act described in paragraphs (1) through (3).

(b) Marking offenses

It is unlawful for any person to import, export, or transport in interstate commerce any container or package containing
any fish or wildlife unless the container or package has previously been plainly marked, labeled, or tagged in accordance
with the regulations issued pursuant to paragraph (2) of section 3376 (a) of this title.

(c) Sale and purchase of guiding and outfitting services and invalid licenses and permits

(1) Sale

It is deemed to be a sale of fish or wildlife in violation of this chapter for a person for money or other consideration
to offer or provide—

(A) guiding, outfitting, or other services; or

(B) a hunting or fishing license or permit;

for the illegal taking, acquiring, receiving, transporting, or possessing of fish or wildlife.

(2) Purchase

It is deemed to be a purchase of fish or wildlife in violation of this chapter for a person to obtain for money or other consideration—

(A) guiding, outfitting, or other services; or

(B) a hunting or fishing license or permit;

for the illegal taking, acquiring, receiving, transporting, or possessing of fish or wildlife.

I am as guilty as anyone of highjacking a thread, but can we please stick to the issue: getting to the bottom of Bill vs Nixon?

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
I am as guilty as anyone of highjacking a thread, but can we please stick to the issue: getting to the bottom of Bill vs Nixon?

Has anyone called the Hardy boys???

Brett

Whether the Lacey Act does or doesn't apply here is really irrelevant.

When the .gov decides they don't like something you did, they go after you. If the Lacey Act or whatever other law makes it 'easier' or justifies their action, they use it.

Do you really think the framers definition and intent of interstate commerce worries our current crop of elected officials or courts?

This actually goes back to Bill C's post (where the client hunted on land stolen from a murdered US Citizen).

If you found out that importing the trophies MAY result in a lacy act violation would that justify you comminting fraud and reporting legitimately signed TC's as stolen...

I was not aware that the Malapati concession was stolen and given to Nixon.

interesting.

I am betting he is referring to Karna Ranch in the Gwaii river valley.

It was owned by Americans (mostly). One of them was killed over there a number of years ago.

My first African hunt was on the Karna Ranch in 2002. At that time half had already been taken over by war veterans (16 out 32k acres) with a lot of the fencing already removed for snares. I shot a good buffalo and 41" Sable there. The American Doctor who had owned it had been murdered the year before. I guess I got there early enough as I was able to get my trophies home without problems. I don't think it lasted much longer after that.

quote:

Originally posted by Ganyana:
...If you found out that importing the trophies MAY result in a lacy act violation would that justify you comminting fraud and reporting legitimately signed TC's as stolen...

Hmmm... I wonder if hunting with a non-PH would make the products of such a hunt in violation of Zim law, and thus Lacy material?

And if so would characterizing the TC's as stolen even be fraud?

Les

BBC,

That was a hell of a ranch before they took it. I was there twice to hunt. Years before you.

One of my friends was part owner with the Doctor.

He was a good old man. If he had kept his nose out of African politics, he may still be alive.

quote:

If he had kept his nose out of African politics, he may still be alive.

It was his home. Should he have given up without a whimper?

Lots of questions, not sure of the answer.

Yes - refering to Kama ranch. Nixon didn't steal malapati from anyone- it is a parks concession, and the area arround is tribal (communal) land.

Big Bore...a perfect example...unless you payed Roy Rhab's widdow, or one of his other two partners (Stanaford??) or W Jardine for the animals...you were poaching...

quote:

Originally posted by LHowell:

quote:

Originally posted by Ganyana:
...If you found out that importing the trophies MAY result in a lacy act violation would that justify you comminting fraud and reporting legitimately signed TC's as stolen...

Hmmm... I wonder if hunting with a non-PH would make the products of such a hunt in violation of Zim law, and thus Lacy material?

And if so would characterizing the TC's as stolen even be fraud?

Les

Or would signing TC under duress be considered fraud?

You all may want to check out this thread asap. It seems someone is throwing gasoline on this fire.

http://forums.accuratereloadin...891024421#8891024421

So let's see what we can learn from this thread through a little critical reading and analysis. Three of the major Nixon supporters on this thread have admitted to major violations of Zimbabwe hunting laws while hunting with Nixon.

Scott Terry (SBT) and Hartley Kittle (H. Kittle) each have separate threads where they talk about dangerous game hunting (elephants, no less!) with an unlicensed PH (Simon). Simon even shoots the elephant that gets away! Some time ago, Bobby Lowe (Dukxdog) related his experience with Nixon hunting at night with spotlights on a government concession, and exceeding Nixon's quota.

From any of the Lacey Act interpretations posted on this thread, these folks can be in real trouble if they ever take possession of these illegally obtained trophies.

While Lama has said very little, it isn't too hard to read between the lines if you want to. There are a few other irregularities in this long, sordid thread.
The original post said that Nixon was in trouble with Parks due to unpaid trophy fees. Later, Bobby claimed the trophy fees had all been paid by Nixon and were ready for shipment. Which is it? Problems with Parks don't just go away overnight. Both of Bobby's statements can't be true.

Did anyone notice Dale W seemed to admit that Nixon screwed up on a ele hunt this year, and offered Lama extra animals as some sort of compensation? Does any PH really have that sort of extra quota lying around? Was Nixon overshooting his quota and bribing the game scouts and Parks to look the other way? Dale W also posted a hunt report with Nixon some time ago. Maybe he knows more than he is saying?

What about the e-mails Dale W posted indicating Lama's hunt was to be a LION hunt? Does Nixon even have a lion on quota for Malapati? There has been no mention of harvesting a lion in this thread, just a veiled reference to Fair Chase Hunting. Isn't $25K (the disputed amount) about the going rate for a caged lion in Zimbabwe? Maybe Lama learned about the caged lion, refused to shoot it, and refused to pay for it. I know I certainly wouldn't pay for a canned lion hunt. Maybe their was some other legal problem that led to this falling out - we'll probably never know.

It seems a lot of people were happy to jump to conclusions. Possibly their willingness to try to throw Lama under the bus is an attempt to save their own hides. Others seem to just enjoy piling on for sport.

The only thing that can be proven conclusively from this thread is:

Scott Terry of Wyoming (SBT) admitted to felony violtions of Zimbabwe hunting laws, and is subject to Lacey Act prosecution if he imports his trophies.
Hartley Kittle of Mississippi (H. Kittle) admitted to felony violations of Zimbabe hunting laws, and is subject to Lacey Act prosecution if he imports any of his trophies.
Bobby Lowe of Idaho (Dukxdog) admitted to felony violations of Zimbabwe hunting laws, and apparently he already HAS imported his trophies into the US.

Several others, like Dale W, have implicated themselves, but so far haven't quite admitted to their own violations of Zimbabwe law. (At least that I could find, maybe he has.)

One other thing is certain - these same people have done irreparable harm to Nixon's business.

Who would hunt with Nixon now?

AFR. Hunter

ARF has three posts to date. That, in and of itself, means nothing... but is interesting in that the third claims that folks have committed felonies. All three posts are concerning Nixon and Llama. Whew! Is this controversy so important that people are joining just to throw stones! BTW, IP addresses aren't really private.

I sincerely suggest again that Llama and Nixon figure out a way to settle their differences without creating a scenario more bizzare than the original... with or without the help of their friends (or "friends")... if you get my drift???

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
You all may want to check out this thread asap. It seems someone is throwing gasoline on this fire.

http://forums.accuratereloadin...891024421#8891024421

More turns than the road to Hana!

It is obvious llamapacker has a new name at AR ....AFR.hunter. Or he has a new buddy as a mouth piece?

Either is cowardly.

Please explain to me what USA or Zim law that I violated regarding my hunt with Nixon in April 2008. Or any other hunts that took place in Africa.

Unlike William Phifer, I can prove with written documentation every animal I shot in Africa. Including the elephant I shot with Nixon. The documents include all trophy fees paid in full, daily rates paid in full, all my dip and pack paid in full and all my transportation of trophies into USA paid in full.

Curiously, there is a serial number engraved into my ivory tusks by the Zim government indicating that it was legal ivory. I am uncertain what all the numbers mean, but I suspect that the government officials can clearly identify were, when and which PH hunted with me when the elephant was harvest.

I would have no issue with USF&W investigating me.

As a matter of fact, I hope they contact me....I think I may be able to provide information on a game violator. I real bad apple...if you know what I mean.


dale

Lacey Act stuff is all interesting but does not apply here.
Do any of you read National Geographic magazine?
Interesting article about the illegal trade and sale of exotic animals throught the world and the single guy responsible for running the operation. He is living in South East Asia, can't recall his name right now. It is a billion dollar / yr business. This guy will sell you anything you want, tigers, bear bile, a unicorn doesn't matter he will get it. He was caught once during a sting operation in Mexico a few years ago, was convicted under the Lacey Act and served less than 2 years jail time and a few thousand dollar fine. He is fully back in business. This is what the Lacey Act is for.
Legal hunting operations in Africa are not the intentions of the Lacey Act. However, it does encourage a clean business and accountability for animals taken. It also minimizes the sale and transport of plants and animals via umbrella ficticous hunting outfitters. However these rapists of our envirnment still operate this way, read the national geographic article.

Just my thoughts.
The crimes involved here still rest on basic contract law. Plus it is easier to prosecute.

Did Phifer have a contract either written or verbal. It is a contract. HE had a contract.
At the end of each hunt it is customary to receive an itemized receipt of the hunting expenses and that my fellow sportsman is an implied contract.
Did Phifer pay according to the contract or not.

There are several people with very low post counts on this thread, and to my knowledge, I don't know any of them. Some seem as interested in defaming me as Bobby. They do seem to be muddying the waters more than anything, but confusing the issues does not seem to apply only to new members.

For the record, I am not aware of any canned Lion hunts on Malipati. Reread my earlier post if you want more information.

And still, I have not been contacted by Nixon or anyone on his staff - unless you count Dukxdog or SBT - I HAVE heard from them, and I've archived that correspondence. I've also heard from quite a number of people relating their own horror stories who wish to remain anonymous. They will tell their own stories in their own time. I have no way of knowing if they are true or not.

I've also recieved many messages of support. I thank you for those as well - you know who you are.

Whether you side with me or not, all seem to agree with Shakari. None of this is good for hunters in Zim.

Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Will2Hunt:
........

Just my thoughts.
The crimes involved here still rest on basic contract law. Plus it is easier to prosecute.

Did Phifer have a contract either written or verbal. It is a contract. HE had a contract.
At the end of each hunt it is customary to receive an itemized receipt of the hunting expenses and that my fellow sportsman is an implied contract.
Did Phifer pay according to the contract or not.

Will2Hunt...

Based on your understanding of "Contract Law" don't give up your current job

The very best written contracts are subject to litigation.... verbal contracts are "a pissing match waiting to happen".

All contracts require: Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Consent, Competence, & a Legal Activity...

Basically everyone of those concepts is being disputed in this situation...

Hope they get it solved fairly and that it never happens to ME!!

quote:

Originally posted by AFR. Hunter:
Some time ago, Bobby Lowe (Dukxdog) related his experience with Nixon hunting at night with spotlights on a government concession, and exceeding Nixon's quota.

The original post said that Nixon was in trouble with Parks due to unpaid trophy fees. Later, Bobby claimed the trophy fees had all been paid by Nixon and were ready for shipment. Which is it? Problems with Parks don't just go away overnight. Both of Bobby's statements can't be true.

Bobby Lowe of Idaho (Dukxdog) admitted to felony violations of Zimbabwe hunting laws, and apparently he already HAS imported his trophies into the US.

AFR. Hunter

You have not said a truthful word about me in this post. I do not know who you are and where you get off thinking that you can tell blatent lies about me or make up stories about my hunt.

We did NOT hunt at night or use any form of spotlight.

I NEVER stated that Nixon was in any form of trouble with National Parks. I did say that the trophy fees had been paid to National Parks and Export tags and Ivory Ownership tags were issued for the animals killed. I never stated the trophies were ready for shipment. The hunter has not paid the trophy fees for the animals he killed. THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS WITH NATIONAL PARKS over these animals.

Your last LIE is that I "admitted to felony violations of Zimbabwe hunting laws" and you have no knowledge of any of my tropies.

You are an OUTRIGHT LIAR and you do not have any facts for what you chose to throw out in your post.

quote:

Originally posted by AzGuy:
The very best written contracts are subject to litigation.... verbal contracts are "a pissing match waiting to happen".

Obviously you don't watch Judge Judy, because a verbal contract is still just that ... a contract, verbal or not!

For once and all, please.

Every contract must be and is verbal.

One of the two classes of contract is oral - that is to say, spoken.

The better of the two classes is the written contract - better because there is less room (but often still room) for misunderstanding.

What AFR. Hunter is doing, or trying to do, here and in other posts on this forum, is reckless, ill-advised and to me, repugnant.

I'm certain that many Zimbabwe operators violate the posted speed limits to and from the airport.

So, do we not pay them their just rates and fees?

As I've said, much more in the way of verifiable fact will have to be revealed here for me to be swayed to the side of the defaulting hunter.

But I'm not holding my breath while awaiting such revelations.

quote:

Originally posted by AzGuy:
All contracts require: Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Consent, Competence, & a Legal Activity...

Basically everyone of those concepts is being disputed in this situation...

Hope they get it solved fairly and that it never happens to ME!!

I think you are wrong with respect to some of your above statements, because a question within one of those situations (concepts) would not have constituted the others.

Llamapacker knew what the offer was, accepted the offer = paid the deposit, considered the offer = he traveled to Zimbabwe, consented to the offer = he was willing to hunt and pull the trigger, and he did, was competent to the offer = he pulled the trigger multiple times, and now is trying to go the other direction with the legal stuff because = he didn’t want to pay the bill.

So, are you telling me he knew this hunt was illegal from the get go and decided to fight the hunt after he pulled the trigger and after he returned from Zimbabwe to the USA? Sounds a bit fishy to me? If he knew all the above was illegal prior to sending his deposit, traveling to Zimbabwe, hunting, pulling the trigger, signing TCs, and returning to the USA, why would he put himself in this position?

Seems to me like buyer’s remorse and trying to get out of it any way he could/can!!!!!!

I'm just a simple guy but smarter than the average bear, and I'm NOT staying at a Holliday Inn Express tonight, but I am staying at a Hilton, and I've stayed at a Marriott since Monday of this week!!!

AMEN!!!! That it never happens to either you or me!!!

quote:

Originally posted by graybird:

quote:

Originally posted by AzGuy:
All contracts require: Offer, Acceptance, Consideration, Consent, Competence, & a Legal Activity...

Basically everyone of those concepts is being disputed in this situation...

Hope they get it solved fairly and that it never happens to ME!!

I think you are wrong with respect to some of your above statements, because a question within one of those situations (concepts) would not have constituted the others.

Llamapacker knew what the offer was, accepted the offer = paid the deposit, considered the offer = he traveled to Zimbabwe, consented to the offer = he was willing to hunt and pull the trigger, and he did, was competent to the offer = he pulled the trigger multiple times, and now is trying to go the other direction with the legal stuff because = he didn’t want to pay the bill.

So, are you telling me he knew this hunt was illegal from the get go and decided to fight the hunt after he pulled the trigger and after he returned from Zimbabwe to the USA? Sounds a bit fishy to me? If he knew all the above was illegal prior to sending his deposit, traveling to Zimbabwe, hunting, pulling the trigger, signing TCs, and returning to the USA, why would he put himself in this position?

Seems to me like buyer’s remorse and trying to get out of it any way he could/can!!!!!!

I'm just a simple guy but smarter than the average bear, and I'm NOT staying at a Holliday Inn Express tonight, but I am staying at a Hilton, and I've stayed at a Marriott since Monday of this week!!!

AMEN!!!! That it never happens to either you or me!!!

Bill Phifer:

Since you are back on AR, how about answering a few questions:

1. Did you have access to a SAT phone in Africa? If so, why didn't you report the checks stolen as soon as you could?

2. Why did you not complain about the missing checks on AR?

3. Why can't you provide proof you wired the money to Nixon as you stated?

4. How come if you paid the TFs as you claim and DIDN'T GET YOUR TROPHIES did you not complain about on AR. I can ABSOLUTLELY GUARANTEE I would be bitching up a storm if I paid 25K in TFs and did not get my trophies. Funny, not a word from you at all.

So why do we all think you are the liar????