Whites tree frogs - legal stuff only - NO SLANGING.

[acanthurus]

Hi all,

Seems things ended up getting a little off topic today. In my original post I was honestly just trying to set people straight on the actual findings of the case, and clear up much of what seemed to be hear say both on the forum and in the media. I will repost my original (minus one line) and hope that poeple will take the opportunity to discuss the legal aspects of the case further.

NO PERSONAL REMARKS/SLANGING PLEASE.

Original post.....

After reading this thread with some interest over the past few months a though it was time to make a comment and to put some of those pointing fingers straight. I have to say its been a little sad to see how many of you have jumped on the band wagon with accusations based on no actual knowledge of the events.

I also think its a little wrong that admin has allowed this thread to go on as it has with direct accusations. As they have left these up for some time I hope they will leave my comments up as a direct reply to those accusations and therefore hopefully save Haisley's name from being tarnished any further.

I have been lucky enough to have read the judges statement, as well as much of the "evidence" in this case, including witness statements.

I would like to make a point that this case was not a win for MAF as THEIR press release pretended to be, but was actually a major loss for them. Im sure many peoples jobs are on the line for this one and maybe they were hoping a few false statements would distract from this. Lets just say the judges findings were scathing of MAF to say the least and I only wish Haisley could put them up on here so you could all have a read.

Just a couple of points the judge made:

1) Haisley had NO knowledge of any information that the frogs may be smuggled, and that MAF had shown no evidence that they were ever smuggled to start with.

2) He believed Haisley to be selling them openly and legally at the time, and that he had no doubts that Haisley did not know that it may be wrong to do so. He pointed out that Haisley was not being criptic with his dealings (they were advertised on trademe).

3) He points out that one of the accusations states that Haisley was knowingly selling an "unwanted oragnism". He notes that the frogs were only declared an unwanted oragnism by MAF 3 months after Haisley was found to have them.

4) He notes that another of the accusations states that Haisley as an expert in the field should have known that the frogs were not meant to be here. The judge points out that it took MAF a month and many many experts to work this out themselves ( a side point here is that one of the experts made a statement that he did not think the frogs had been in NZ since the 70's. The same expert is found in a later statement to say that he had kept a group of these frogs into the 80's and that he had personally seen them in peoples collections in the 90's).

5) Haisley had stated where the frogs came from and that it was MAF who had not been able to track the source from here.

6) Haisley had not sold any of the frogs, more importantly none were sold after MAF put a hold on their sale.

Event though he believed the case to be rubbish, a not guilty finding could only be delivered by a jury.

In the end he gave Haisley 2 choices

1) Plead guilty and get discharged without conviction, move on and pay a share of MAFs costs.

2) Chose to fight the case in front of a jury at a later date - please note that this would have envolved legal costs of many tens of thousands of dollars.

You all know which option Haisley chose, and Im sure given the choices most of you would have made the same one.

Cheers.

[acanthurus]

Sorry,

Just a few more facts from the case.

1) There were never any "arrests", of anyone, in the entire case.

2) No one was 'fined'. The final judgement was that Hailsey was to be discharged without conviction and to share some of MAF's costs (probably more than $100,0000).

3) The vast majority of the search warrants (excluding those on Haisley and Henward) were based simply on being a contact on a mobile phone and having an interest in the hobby. (I always thought more was needed to tear someones house apart).

[alanmin4304]

When Maf biosecurity turned up at my place after I bought a plant from Plantman on Trademe (he was subsequently convicted on a number of counts) I was shown the ID and a copy of their right of entry. I remember commenting that the wording looked very familiar. As a retired Envirnmental Health Officer I was aware that the wording was virtually the same as in the Health Act (and no doubt had been copied from there). They don't need a search warrent, they need to have good cause to believe that a breach of the relevent Act has occured. The police need a search warrent if they were present (unless there are drugs involved).

[repto]

and who might you be,with no location on your profile and the grand total of 5 posts?

[henward]

yeah, acanthurus.... who are you?

you seem to be some specialist?.... we are all curious as who you may be.

haisley's solicitor?

Fact: I never bought frogs

fact: i never offered 'MORE' Money knowing maf was after then.

Fact: Haisley did in fact tell me and many others that the frogs were legal and maf has seen them already.

also, maf searched me purely because they saw my emails and calls to haisley....nothing more, nothing less.

why do you think they contacted me?

Informant, funny - this is not some hollywood movie me thinks.

I really really wish you wo uld tell people who you are....

i guess, that would give you some credibility - other than being some phantom fact bearing entity.

(Mods, my above post is not slagging is it?)

as for legal stuff

legal stuff can always be argued.

frankly, murdered, drunk drivers, ch ild abusers have the right to 'defend' themselves.

and.... they do so!

legal stuff is a funny thing. The law is a funny thing.

Solicitors know how to manipulate the law, interpretation is sometimes never cut and dry or clear cut.

the people vs haisley for example -there was so much wiggle room.

If you are such a principle individual, you could have gotten off wtih n o conviction - then pursued MAF for wasting your money.

it happens all the time, govt wastes your money in court you then as for compo.... which usually is a private arrangement and settlement betwen you and the courts and the other party involved.

[henward]

Also, confirming where the frogs are from.

funny, giving a general vacinity of where they are from is not giving their source.

That is false - You could not PROVE where they were from here.

Anyway, people can make up their minds, it was nice posting while having breakfast. but life goes on.

if this mysterious phantom decides to tell us who he is...... i may be back! 8) :bounce:

[livingart]

keep to the legal facts of this case please

[alanmin4304]

It does not matter who it is if we are only stating facts. That is why we all use pseudonyms.

[acanthurus]

Steady on Henward,

Please read the title. No slanging please. You are welcome to post, although I'd rather your involvement in the entire affair stays off this thread as I think its been pretty well discussed already. My post above was a simple statement of facts. As I have stated, unless you know what you are saying is true then please keep it to yourself, or state that it is based on your own opinion.

MAF was going to pursue a charge on the zoophoba (giant mealworms) that were found. They decided not to when they realised half of the keepers in NZ had them and they were being openly sold (i.e. no case). Nothing to do with a 'smaller issue'.

It is true that the original source of the frogs was not determined, but the judge found that this was not due to any wrong doing on Haisley's behalf, hence offering the discharge without conviction. There are several witness statements in both Haisley's and (believe it or not)MAF's evidence that state the frogs have been know in private collections in NZ for some time. There is reference to a MAF official who did know of the frogs being in private collections and believing them to be legit. The same difficulty in origin could be said for many reptiles in NZ and I would argue this is more a fault of the system in place than the keepers. Keepers in NZ are as a group very gaurded. I would argue with good reason, for fear of theft and over zealous MAF employees.

As for "legal stuff" being argued and "sometimes never cut and dry or clear cut" (love the wording here), I once again urge people to read the judges findings. Lets just say it doesn't leave much room for interpretation, and as stated above was quite scathing towards MAF.

As for my identity, lets just say I'd rather keep in private. I'm sure those of you who have been unfortunate enough to have contact with MAF would understand why. Please note that everything I am saying here is freely available through the freedom of information act.

Cheers.

[sneaky2]

Henward re your comment(And sneaky:

I don't know whos side you are on. But the end of the day, taking haisley side, either means you are his friend, or you are stupid. the guy was arrested for obtaining and owning and trying to sell illegal animals!! for crying out loud.)

I don't believe there are sides.in fact if as hobbyists we split into sides,then in the long run we are all screwed...I would predict that within ten to fifteen years all reptiles on (the list) will be declared unwanted organisms!!! if we don't unite as hobbyists.

I am very interested in the legal aspect of this bumbling persecution(not prosecution) the facts should be made public.if nothing changes then it could be me ,you or anyone next!

[Varanophile]

If you are such a principle individual, you could have gotten off wtih n o conviction - then pursued MAF for wasting your money.

it happens all the time, govt wastes your money in court you then as for compo.... which usually is a private arrangement and settlement betwen you and the courts and the other party involved.

Henward, read the previous posts slowly. You need to read it SLOWLY......if you sucessfully defend yourself against MAF you do not get compensation for your costs. The only way to hit them up to sue them. And I am working on that...but these things take time.

Anyone who has experience of White's Tree Frogs in NZ(Not you Henward)...I would like to discuss with you- if you are willing to supply an affadavit. Plenty of you make lots of noise but when it comes to signing your name you shirk away, understandable with reference to MAF playing dirty, but unfortunate for the hobby.

[acanthurus]

Thanks sneaky,

I was hoping someone would pick up on this. Unless you have the actual documents of importation then you could theoretically be charged.

One of the things that is obvious when looking at the evidence in the case is that MAF does rely heavily on one thing. Their faith in their ability to outmatch anyones budget. During the case vast volumes of "evidence'' was collected and sent. Im sure Haisley will be able to tell you in more detail, but I do know that it was many thousands of pages. When you read the pages you realise that more than 90% of it has very little to do with the case, or is simply repititious. Many of the "witnesses" lack credibilty, contradict themselves, or provide no useful information (and some succeed in all three), yet these are sent anyway. Much of the information has not been proof read and either supports Haisley's case or is almost unreadable.

Why would they do this? One simple reason. They send all this "evidence" to a lawyer who then has to be paid to read it. The more they send, the more you pay. There are not many who can afford legal costs of tens of thousands of dollars. All they have to do then is keep sending and wait for a white flag, i.e. chose one of the free lawyers, or plead guilty (same outcome either way).

[nativelover]

Are their any whites tree frogs left in nz?

[Varanophile]

Spot On!

How many of the 200 or so exotic birds available in New Zealand does MAF have import permits for?

Answer: Less than 20 species

Why: Because they have no records and were poorly administrated

They could jump on any of these birds and it would be the same as the Whites tree Frog thing...persecuting as a direct result of their own incompetence.

The same difficulty in origin could be said for many reptiles in NZ and I would argue this is more a fault of the system in place than the keepers. Keepers in NZ are as a group very gaurded. I would argue with good reason, for fear of theft and over zealous MAF employees.

[Varanophile]

Are their any whites tree frogs left in nz?

officially no. but some experts believe their to be some in the Coromandel Ranges....Joan Robb is the author.

[acanthurus]

Actually you could argue that the Whites were infact less dodgy as there is well documented evidence of them being both imported and released into the wild in NZ by a certain government department. They are thought to have died out in the wild, but no one is sure given they were last seen in the 70's and can live for decades.

I am sure there are still some in peoples collections, but I'm not picking anyone to be game enough to speak out.

[Insect Direct]

Sad how the current system or lack of is. I for one just want to persue my passion for breeding. But no one knows whats here legitimately and whats not.

The rest of the world must laugh at us.

[acanthurus]

Come on guys, please keep the personal shots off the thread (we were doing so well)....

[Zev]

Posts removed

[sneaky2]

Are their any whites tree frogs left in nz?

supposedly alive and well in the coromandle ranges....I would assume here and there in private collections around nz. :lol:

[Varanophile]

Asking a question as to whether someone did something is not slanging, nor is it personal. The whole disagreement stems from one point...someone did something and then feigned innocence.

[Varanophile]

swap you 2 komodos and an african tree snake skink for a pair?

supposedly alive and well in the coromandle ranges....I would assume here and there in private collections around nz. :lol:

[livingart]

Asking a question as to whether someone did something is not slanging, nor is it personal. The whole disagreement stems from one point...someone did something and then feigned innocence.

it was a post intended to create a reaction

any more and it might be

hammer time

[Varanophile]

it was a post intended to create a reaction

any more and it might be

hammer time

I prefer 'Can't Touch This'

[livingart]