|
![]() The Story |
|
Please read and sign our "Petition" about a TRUE LOBSTER "TALE"
| 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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
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. |
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:
![]() 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 |
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 .
![]()
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 |
RESOLUTION 030-95 "SHORTS" (LOBSTER TAILS SHORTER THAN 5.5 INCHES) WAS NOT, or EVER A VALID HONDURAN LAW! |
|
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 |
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 )