Home
The Story
The Case
The Lawyers
Press Releases
News Updates
Sign the Petition

The Story
Contact
Us
   Private Page
Honduras case - Transcripts
Nicaragua case - Transcripts

You may need

to view some of the files on this site
Please read and sign our "Petition" about a TRUE LOBSTER "TALE"


The Victims:
Robert Blandford started in the seafood business in Florida under the Seamerica Corp. to primarily import Lobster Tails and Shrimp from the Central American country of Honduras.
In 1991, Blandford met Abner Schoenwetter (Miami) who was then a partner in the Honduran Lobster plant, Mariscos Islenos. A solid business relationship soon developed between them. The relationship still exists to this day, but one thing changed, Schoenwetter became a co-defendant along with Blandford.
In 1995/1996 Blandford along with his former customer, now co-defendant, Diane Huang (New Jersey) sold lobster to Red Lobster Restaurants, Orlando, Florida. The product was imported from McNab (Honduras) and further packaged in Alabama to Red Lobster specifications.
Lobsters tail

Shrimps

Fishing Boat In 1995, Blandford through Schoenwetter met with David Henson McNab a Honduran and the largest vessel-operator of Lobster and Shrimp vessels in Honduras. An agreement among the three was established and continued through to February 3, 1999, when National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) took steps to begin seizure of a shipment of about 71,000 lbs of Lobster in Bayou La Batre, Alabama. McNab was also later to become a defendant in what would become the largest Lobster case seizure in U.S. history.

At present time, Mr. McNab has served almost two and one-half years of his eight year and one month sentence in a jail located in Arkansas. Mr McNab was incarcerated by the U.S. government immediately after sentencing because he is a foreign national (Honduras) and that the government feared he was a flight risk. All of this in spite of McNab faithfully attending all matters relative to his case including; travelling back and forth from Honduras for Hearings, Motions, Pretrial, Trial, and Sentencing.
His Lobster Tails to this day are purchased by Red Lobster Restaurants through an exporting company in Honduras.

Note: None of the defendants had previously been charged with a crime.

The Seizure:

What went wrong? Why the seizure? Why all of a sudden after five years of doing business in the same manner did NMFS show up to seize McNab's Lobster on February 3, 1999 in Bayou La Batre? After all, for each shipment arriving in the United States with Lobster, U.S. Customs and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has to be cleared and be approved ("May Proceed") before taking possession. On some occasions, FDA would even request samples for testing which, among other things, on several voyages Lobster Tails samples were submitted to FDA, for analysis of salmonella. This day, February 3, 1999, was different, NMFS got involved for inexplicable reasons and prevented us from offloading the Lobster. National Marine Fisheries Services NEVER in the 5 years of us doing this business in the exact same manner did NMFS ever get involved, only FDA, U.S. Customs, and Immigration.
HOW DOES SMUGGLING AND MONEY-LAUNDERING BECOME CHARGES?

The Alleged Crime Honduras' Objection and Result:

Six months of investigations and holding the vessel Caribbean Clipper ransom at Bayou La Batre, the U.S. Government finally figured out what they were going to charge us with. The four defendants were charged with Lacey Act Violations, which says, "Fish and Wildlife law permits the government to indict individuals for importing "fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of … any foreign law." In other words, break the law of a foreign country (in this case Honduras) and you will be indicted in the United States. There was one big problem, HONDURAS INDICATED THAT NONE OF THEIR LAWS WERE VIOLATED! Please refer to Honduras' Attorney General, Dr. Sergio Zavala Leiva's letter below to John Ashcroft:
Attorney General
John Ashcroft, Attorney General
(Letter from Dr. Leiva, Attorney General of Honduras to John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States).
AttorneyGeneralHondLtr.pdf 228 k
    (Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Brief from Honduras - amicus curiae) AttyGenHond-Constitution.pdf 6.58 meg
Furthermore, rather than a civil suit for a first-time offense the government took the route to charge criminal proceedings against us in order to trump-up the charges so that eventually they were able to bring in; money-laundering, smuggling, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice charges. Through the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines this drove the sentences from 97 to 121 months in the case of three defendants, and two years to another defendant. At the top-end, defendants must spend eight years and one month behind bars and after release, an additional three years probation! (These sentences are longer than some drug cases). This does not include monetary fines and forfeitures or, substantial legal fees. Please bear in mind that the "crime" is for Lobsters Tails which are classified as a non-endangered species. Lobsters do NOT appear in the government's endangered species list.


Government Evidence Exposed:

Anonymous Fax:
The government through testimony of their various officials, including Special Agents of National Marine Fishery Service collectively have said, "If it were not for the anonymous fax ( click on copy here) that this case would never have been tried in court." The fax was sent from Kinkos (office store), Coral Gables, Florida on February 3, 1999 to NMFS, Titusville, Florida. It indicated, among other things, that out of the 70,000 lbs of Lobster Tails on board, 30,000 lbs were illegal (less than 5.5" tail length. Wrong again,

After the government analyzed the shipment it was shown to have only 2.5 percent of Lobster Tails with a length shorter than 5.5", and not 30,000 lbs as the Anonymous fax indicted.

However, this statement does not jibe with court testimony, because a NMFS official in Niceville, Florida spoke to a U.S. Customs official in Mobil, Alabama about the vessel Caribbean Clipper on January 25, 1999 - a full eight days before the actual seizure! The defendants reason that NMFS made a request to Customs to approach a local judge requesting that he issue an Order of Seizure. With the Order Seizure assured, the only thing missing was Probable Cause. Does the anonymous fax foot that bill?

Why would the government maintain that the anonymous fax is what "triggered" the investigation which eventual led to criminal charges, while on the other hand, NMFS investigation had already started eight days prior to seizure ( January 25, 1999 telephone call between NMFS and U.S. Customs and, at that time, there was no anonymous fax until February 3, 1999 )?

Liliana Patricia Paz - "Star-Witness" for the U.S. Justice Department:
The crux of the case at trial was the testimony of the prosecution's "star-witness" Ms Liliana Patricia Paz, introduced by the U.S. government as the highest-ranking legal official within SAG (DIGEPESCA) in Honduras. Liliana Paz started to work as Secretary General on May 1,1999 only three months prior to the government's seizure of the Caribbean Clipper! There are documents filed by the US Government at the beginning of the case that are still signed by the previous Secretary General, Ildefonso Paredez, who was an economist and not a lawyer. Ms Paz's job at the Court was what you refer to in Honduras as, "escribiente" which translated is "typewriter" and not actually clerk. Ms Paz was in charge of typing the proceedings on the record and nothing more -since Honduras' legal system does not include oral hearings, all items have to go on record. One could say that Ms Paz's comparative position is that to a custodian of records with a fancy title.

Judge Vollmer declares her to be an "expert-witness" for the prosecution. Thus, Ms Paz's testimony states, "that charges against the defendants were valid laws of Honduras." Judge Vollmer, in turn, relying on Ms Paz's testimony especially on Resolution 030-95 "shorts" resolution (see below) declared this a valid statute, or law in Honduras. Case proceeds to trial.

Ms Paz RECANTED (see her recanted statement - (click here for CasePaz-HumanRightsCommCertifications.pdf 2.7meg) her testimony post trial! She was requested after a investigation by the Honduran Human Rights Commission to write a letter of retraction declaring her testimony to be erroneous, and furthermore, her testimony was illegal, and she was unauthorized to offer her legal opinions about the laws of Honduras. It is interesting to note that Judge Vollmer disqualified at pretrial the only two witnesses for the defendants, one being a LSU Law Professor, Dr. Saul Litvinoff (click here for CaseLitvinoffAffidavit.pdf ) and Dr Silva from Honduras, a former Justice Minister, now practicing attorney. Dr Litvinoff's testimony per his affidavit was in direct agreement with how the Honduran Courts and Honduras' Attorney General would eventually rule; that resolution 030-95 was just that, NOT LAW .


overcriminalized.com
Here's what overcriminalized.com said about Ms Paz: "Government prosecutors somehow convinced the court to ignore McNab’s extensive evidence and instead accept the testimony of a single, mid-level Honduran bureaucrat, Liliana Paz. For reasons that remain unexplained, the “Secretary-General” of the Honduran Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock – an official whose primary duty is to be “an instrument of communication” and who has no expertise or authority to render legal opinions – boldly testified that all the regulations were valid and had the force of law."

One problem......the government got it all wrong!

ButterFlied Lobster Tail
ButterFlied Lobster Tail
RESOLUTION 030-95 "SHORTS"
(LOBSTER TAILS SHORTER THAN 5.5 INCHES)
WAS NOT, or EVER A VALID HONDURAN LAW!
Why? Because Mr McNab being a Honduran citizen has the right to take up these challenges in the Honduran Court system, especially now that the U.S. government cited Resolution 030-95 as the main thrust of their case against defendants. McNab won his challenge in the Lower Court, and later, the Supreme Court of Honduras upheld the Lower Court's decision; that: Resolution 030-95 had NOT been promulgated properly and was render of nullity, or, never having the effect of law! Remember too, that Congress' wording in the Lacey Act specifically contains the words; "Foreign Law." NOT Foreign Resolution or Regulations, Foreign Law! (See below for the majority reasoning to deny setting-aside the verdict or, even consideration to reduce the sentencing.


seal



Judge Peter Fay, a Senior Court Judge appointed by then President Richard Nixon in 1976, was in the minority from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and who dissented so compellingly, click on the file CaseDecisionFay.pdf for the twelve page dissent he wrote
Judge Fay reasoned that at the time of trial the Honduran Courts had not ruled on 030-95. NOW THEY HAVE through means of the Honduran amicus curiae brief presented by their attorneys in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. This brief clearly states that NO violations of Honduras Laws have occurred. He further stated, "It was the courts of Honduras that eventually answered the question."

Imagine, the country of Honduras felt so strongly in their position that Honduran laws were NOT VIOLATED, they appointed Washington attorneys to appeal (amicus curiae) brief to the 11th Circuit and to the Supreme Court of the United States. Honduras' Embassy in Washington contracted with Seth Waxman, Former Solicitor General in the Clinton administration to do the appeal (see Waxman and his Profile here):
1) http://goldsteinhowe.com/blog/files/AmicusHonduras.PDF
2) http://iamnotguilty.org/CaseWaxmanProfile.pdf


Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals - Majority Position:
The crux of the majority position can be summed up in a short brief. The majority maintains that the Honduran government had "shifted" their position post trial. The comparison made to come to this conclusion is the illegal (as declared by the National Honduran Human Rights Commission) testimony provided at trial by Ms. Paz, versus that of the Honduran courts (lower and upper Honduran courts), the Honduran amicus brief, the Attorney General in both prior and existing political parties, the Justice Minister, and many Writers and Professors, in the United States were all WRONG! The majority, simply, and wrongly, chose to disregard many case law decisions rendered by other Federal District courts in which judicial deference was, and correctly applied for other foreign sovereigns. Honduras should have been accorded the same deference.

For those interested in reading the majorities' full decision can click here ( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/11th/0115148p.pdf )


Back to the Top



Hosting by Club Plus Internet Copyright © 2004 Club Plus Internet All Rights Reserved.