South African Professional Hunter Charged with Federal Crimes for Illegal Elephant Hunts

[johnnyblues]

Yes they should handle the outfitter and we should handle the hunter. I’m totally against this country policing wildlife overseas.

 

[Fred Gunner]

The Director of the Dallas Safari Club shot and wounded an Elephant. The Director of the Dallas Safari Club then paid bribes to government officials in a protected park in Zimbabwe to hunt another Elephant. The Director of the Dallas Safari Club then bribed more African officials to illegal export poached ivory into the USA. Did I get that all basically correct?

The real story is that the Anti-hunting media has totally missed the fact that the Director of one of the largest Pro-Hunting lobbyist organizations in America is a convicted Poacher!

Oh and the former Director of the Dallas Safari Club is now an informant for the US Justice Department...(AKA Rat, snitch, stool pigeon?)

 

[mdwest]

It would be like me arresting someone just because they say they can sell me drugs. Not an offense, but once they actually sell them to me then a crime has been committed. Otherwise your arresting someone on the belief they will commit an offense in the future. That can not legally be done.

You could probably get a solicitation charge to stick in most states.. all you really need is to prove someone requested someone else engage in criminal conduct, and that they intended on participating in that criminal activity in some capacity..

But solicitation is a misdemeanor.. hardly enough to even considering dragging someone into court thats even out of state, much less someone located in another country..


The original post says the South African was charged with federal crimes.. Im not sure which federal crime he violated.. but if thats the case they have a felony or two hanging over his head.. The only thing I can figure out is maybe they have him on violations of the Endangered Species Act as well, and that maybe there is some sort of provision in the ESA that creates a felony for soliciting its violation? (I should read the act and try to figure it out..)...

 

[Hogpatrol]

Elephants are on the list of endangered species in the ESA? I wasn't aware of elephants being native to the United States. Then again as our RIGHT to be the world's police in all matters, I guess it doesn't matter.

 

[lwaters]

He could be arrested if he came back to the states. I do not think the US could get him in RSA. His career is most likely over with.

 

[Fred Gunner]

You could probably get a solicitation charge to stick in most states.. all you really need is to prove someone requested someone else engage in criminal conduct, and that they intended on participating in that criminal activity in some capacity..

But solicitation is a misdemeanor.. hardly enough to even considering dragging someone into court thats even out of state, much less someone located in another country..


The original post says the South African was charged with federal crimes.. Im not sure which federal crime he violated.. but if thats the case they have a felony or two hanging over his head.. The only thing I can figure out is maybe they have him on violations of the Endangered Species Act as well, and that maybe there is some sort of provision in the ESA that creates a felony for soliciting its violation? (I should read the act and try to figure it out..)...

The Lacey Act makes it unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any illegally captured or prohibited animals.

Conspiracy has been defined in the United States as an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions. A conspiracy does not need to have been planned in secret to meet the definition of the crime.

Conspiracy law usually does not require proof of specific intent by the defendants to injure any specific person to establish an illegal agreement. Instead, usually the law requires only that the conspirators have agreed to engage in a certain illegal act. There is no limit on the number participants in the conspiracy and, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect.

So at the very least this South African PH is nailed on Conspiracy to violate the Lacey Act. That conspiracy took place at a hunting convention on US soil so he will be held accountable by the US Justice Department since he violated US Law in the USA. But my reading of the Lacey Act we could charge him even if he never set foot in America?

 

[mdwest]

Everything I have ready about Lacey is that it only applies to US flora and fauna.. an elephant wouldnt be covered under Lacey.. (unless there is an amendment to the law out there that I am unaware of.. I plan on looking today)..

My guess is there is a provision embedded in the Endangered Species Act that would allow prosecution of a foreign national under either a solicitation or conspiracy charge..

I do agree with you on being able to charge whether he set foot in the US or not... I dont think either Lacey or the ESA require you to actually be in the US..

A court could apply for extradition in this case.. but I seriously doubt SA or Zim would arrest him and put him on a plane bound for Colorado due to a charge under either of these acts..

He just wont be attending any DSC or SCI shows for the rest of his life (you can almost guarantee that as soon as he attempted to enter the country, he'd be picked up by ICE at the port of entry)..

 

[mdwest]

But my reading of the Lacey Act we could charge him even if he never set foot in America?

Looks like youre right on this one Fred.. Lacey is what they are using to go after him...

It looks like he is being charged with 3 counts of wire fraud as well.. in addition to a violation of Lacey and conspiracy.. AND an Endangered Species Act violation (I was right a little bit too )...



DEFENDANT: Hanno Van Rensburg
YOB: 1974
COMPLAINT
FILED?
______ Yes ___X____ No
If Yes, MAGISTRATE CASE NUMBER_____________
HAS DEFENDANT BEEN ARRESTED ON COMPLAINT? ________ Yes _____X__ No
If No, a new warrant is required
OFFENSE(S): COUNTS ONE - THREE: Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 2)
COUNT FOUR: Conspiracy, (18 U.S.C. § 1349)
COUNT FIVE: Lacey Act Violation (16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(a)(2)(A) and
3373(d)(1)(B)
COUNT SIX: Attempted Lacey Action Violation (16 U.S.C. §§
3372(a)(2)(A); 3372(a)(4); 3372(d)(1)(B))
COUNT SEVEN: Endangered Species Act Violation (16 U.S.C. §§
1538(a)(1)(G) and 1540(b)(1); 50 C.F.R, §§ 17.11, 17.21(e), 17.31(a), and
17.40(e)(6)(ii); 18 U.S.C § 2)
LOCATION OF
OFFENSE:
Mesa County, Colorado and elsewhere
PENALTY: COUNTS ONE-FOUR: NMT 20 years’ imprisonment; NMT fine greater
than or equal to 2X the loss, or $250,000, whichever is greater (or both a
fine and imprisonment); NMT 3 years’ supervised release; $100 Special
Assessment, Restitution.
COUNTS FIVE-SIX: NMT 5 years’ imprisonment; NMT fine greater than
or equal to 2X the loss, or $250,000, whichever is greater (or both a fine
and imprisonment); NMT 3 years’ supervised release; $100 Special
Assessment; Restitution.
COUNT SEVEN: NMT 6 months’ imprisonment, NMT $25,000 fine, or
both, $10 Special Assessment
AGENT: FWS-OLE Special Agent Anne-Marie Sharkey
AUTHORIZED
BY:
Bryan David Fields
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Case 1:18-cr-00238-PAB Document 1-1 Filed 05/17/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2
ESTIMATED TIME OF TRIAL:
X five days or less____ over five days ____ other
THE GOVERNMENT
will seek detention in this case based on 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1)
__X____ will not seek detention
The statutory presumption of detention is applicable to this defendant.
OCDETF CASE: Yes X No

 

[BRICKBURN]

That’s a pretty grey area and weak at best. I’m not saying he was right to do so but “conspiring” to commit a crime isn’t illegal. If money changed hands then that would be a little stronger case but even then really he would have to sell the hunt and do it illegally for it to be an actual crime. Then you could look at it that he intentionally sold an illegal hunt in the US but the problem is still going to occur that the offense happened 17,000 miles away.

If I understood the scenario correctly.
Van Rensburg admitted to having already committed these various offenses earlier with an American hunter .

I would then infer that Van Rensburg's disclosure lead to the Colorado man, under threat of conviction, sharing his side of the story.

I think the attempt to sell another hunt to the officer was just icing on the cake.

 

[BRICKBURN]

Quite a list of charges.

 

[gizmo]

If I understood the scenario correctly.
Van Rensburg admitted to having already committed these various offenses earlier with an American hunter .

I would then infer that Van Rensburg's disclosure lead to the Colorado man, under threat of conviction, sharing his side of the story.

I think the attempt to sell another hunt to the officer was just icing on the cake.

I agree 100% that what he did was wrong morally but no offense occurred on US soil. You cannot convict someone of a crime that happened outside of your jurisdiction. It is against the laws of the US. Nor can you get a conviction for a crime that has not been committed yet. To be found guilty you have to prove the incident happened beyond a reasonable doubt within the jurisdiction in control of the agency. In this case USFW. That would limit it to the US and all US property. Unless they poached the elephant in the front lawn of the US embassy (if there is one) in Harare then they cannot get a conviction. Any decent lawyer will claim non jurisdiction and get it thrown out.
I think they are filing the case and issuing the warrant in the hopes the guy will never come to the US again or at least until the statute of limitations expires.
The only thing they could go after the “hunter” for would be importing illegal ivory, which, is enough as it carries the same punishment under the Lacey act if I’m not mistaken.
The problem here is that while we all agree the guy should be buried under a jail it must be gone about properly and within the scope of the law. Otherwise it’s going to open the door to illegal arrests, searches, and seizures. I have a real problem with the way our Federal Gov’t over reaches its authority with no consequences. They believe their reach has gone very long indeed if they think they can get a conviction here for the outfitter. It would also be a very sad day for our justice system if they do. I’m not saying that because I like what happened but it is not our job to police the world. What needs to happene is all of the evidence be turned over to the Zimbabwean gov’t and then USFW can assist in getting a conviction where the offense occurred. For what it’s worth, they could file on the hunter over there too and I’d be perfectly fine with that. On the actual poaching incident t side of things this has no business in the US court system.

 

[gizmo]

The only exception to this would be our military court system but that is a totally different animal and only applies to soldiers active under the control of military rule. Such as an enlisted person commits a crime while in the military on approved leave in some foreign country etc....

 

[gizmo]

You could probably get a solicitation charge to stick in most states.. all you really need is to prove someone requested someone else engage in criminal conduct, and that they intended on participating in that criminal activity in some capacity..

But solicitation is a misdemeanor.. hardly enough to even considering dragging someone into court thats even out of state, much less someone located in another country..


The original post says the South African was charged with federal crimes.. Im not sure which federal crime he violated.. but if thats the case they have a felony or two hanging over his head.. The only thing I can figure out is maybe they have him on violations of the Endangered Species Act as well, and that maybe there is some sort of provision in the ESA that creates a felony for soliciting its violation? (I should read the act and try to figure it out..)...

Possibly in some jurisdictions but no way that would ever fly where I’m at, we’ve tried it. Not to mention if it ever made it to the Supreme Court I’d bet dollars to donuts it would be overturned. I’m trying to remember case law on that. We ran into this problem with some prostitution stings we did. Mind you our local DA is a dipshit but none the less getting a conviction on the poaching incident will never fly. Now, on the ivory maybe there would be a way to get that to fly on the Outfitters part but even still I think you’d have a hard time. The hunter absolutely. Wire fraud maybe. There is generally more than one way to skin a cat and I’m cool with that. I hope they nail the bastard I just want to make sure it’s within the scope of our justice system to do so.
Not to mention that just because one of our Fed Laws claims we can enforce something somewhere else doesn’t mean that we really can. First of you have to get the local authorities or agencies elsewhere to actually follow the extradition request. Then we have to send someone to go get him on tax payer dime and even still have to get a conviction. Realistically on the poaching side of things there is no way it should ever happen. Now if he was selling illegal ivory here, had a warehouse full of the stuff here or something like that, ya by all means.

 

[gizmo]

The only thing is see in the indictment that has any hopes is the wire fraud. The rest is a violation that occurred elsewhere, conspiracy, or attempt. Weak at best. Remember the only thing that ever got to stick to Al Capone was tax evasion.

 

[BRICKBURN]

............ I have a real problem with the way our Federal Gov’t over reaches its authority ............

I can see that!

 

[Fred Gunner]

I can see that!

That’s just how our U.S. Dept. of “Justice” played our beleaguered SA PH. They pile on every possible violation until he begs for a plea bargain. “Bless their Harts”

 

[BRICKBURN]

Tis the way of the prosecutor.

 

[gizmo]

Thing is they know 99% of it is BS, sooooo get a good attorney and give them the middle finger. They tend to back off after that. Not saying they drop everything but when you come back at them with reality it takes them down a peg or two.
What really irritates me about this is they have a guy they can absolutely go after and are playing ball with him to get a guy that will likely never see a trail here. It is truly disgusting that the Director of DSC would participate in that crap. He should be strung up for that shit and they could absolutely fk him over with the import of illegal ivory which would be much easier to prove and convict on considering at least that happened within US jurisdiction. That asshole broke public trust, the trust of his office, and disgraced DSC.

 

[gizmo]

Turn Douche Canoe Mc Outfitter guy over to the Zimbabweans, something tells me the accommodations in a Zimbabwean jail are much less satisfactory than that of the US Federal Prison System.

 

[wesheltonj]

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



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

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

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


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

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

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




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




D. Defendant's Waiver of Appeal

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

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




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

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

III. STATUTORY PENALTIES

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

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




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




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

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

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

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

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




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




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

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

ivory ."

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




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




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

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




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

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

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

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




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




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




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

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




VI. ADVISORY GUIDELINE COMPUTATION AND §3553 ADVISEMENT

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




VII. ENTIRE AGREEMEMT

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