Important and Relevant Documents Provided by Tony Silva from Prison in the United States and/or his agents, are reprinted below. This material has been placed on an Australian site to help prevent potential attempts by the US Government to wipe this material from the internet. It has been published here in the public interest by Australians Against Corruption (AAC). AAC have also sought specific documents from the US Government and the Judge who heard the case. As of 1st October 1997, no material had been forthcoming from the Government side, in spite of several requests, which was almost a year after the initial request.

The following has been converted from typed documents using OCR technology.

Most typo errors resulting from the OCR process have NOT been corrected due to time constraints. The errors in the transcript material and documents will be fixed up when time permits. However most material in the following material is both legible and understandable to most readers

Summary

During its entire existence, no case brought to the courts by Fish and Wildlife Service has elicited as much publicity as that brought against parrot expert Tony Silva and his mother, Gila Daoud. The story of this case has appeared as a result of the widely circulated Government press releases in newspapers,' prestigious news magazines, a documentary by Nova and in countless television and wire service reports throughout the world.

Tony Silva is a reknown parrot expert who has written a series of much acclaimed books, including A Monograph of Macaws and Conures and A Monograph of Endangered Parrots. He has lectured extensively and has long been critical of Fish and Wildlife Service. Gila Daoud was brought into the case as a leverage tool against Silva. At one point it was stated by then Prosecutor, Patrick Murray, that she would be left out if Silva plead guilty. Silva steadfastedly refused to plea, but a change of situations, all described in the ensuing pages, eventually saw him capitulate. Silva later wrote Australian investigative writer Ray Hoser a private letter, which was posted on the lnternet. This so infuriated the Prosecutor that took over from Murray, Sergio Acosta, that a motion for downward departure for the infirm 66 year old Daoud was trashed and a stern prison sentence requested. Her guilt was to sign an IRS (Internal Revenue Service) tax declaration for her son, then living overseas.

The facts in this case have been overlooked by overzealous agents and a Prosecutor who have malinformed the media, have distorted the facts and reacted with a vicious vengence when Silva has tried to get his side across. The following pages describe the players in the case and what the facts are. Each point has been adequately referenced so that, in contrast to the Prosecution's erroneous presss releases, the reader can request the proper document and verify that what is stated is accurate beyond a modicum of doubt. Five principal sources are referenced. Tape recorded conversations commence with two or more numbers followed by a dash and then more numbers; for convenience, a page is given where the statement reference appears. Obviously the page refers to the tape transcript. A number followed by a slash and then another number refers to the court transcript. The first number is the volume; the number(s) after the slash refers to the page number. In the case of Hector Ugaide and Lawrence Lafeber, part of their testimony does not appear in the volumes, and thus is referenced under their name, followed by the page number.

Government reports, apparently forgotten by the Prosecution because they often errode the credibility of their witnesses, are referenced as 'reports', followed by the date when the report was completed. These reports are available for viewing in the offices of Silvals defense attorney, David P. Schippers. Lastly, Grand Jury testimony is listed as such. No page is given because there are several versions.

The Government has repeatedly stated that they are in pursuit of the truth. Silva, they claim, is a liard. One wonders then why, if the truth is so important, the Prosecution would state that the basis for most of their accusations is hearsay (1/5-6). This statement was made at the opening of the evidentlary hearing. What the Prosecution failed to say was that most of the hearsay was double or tripple hearsay. The facts in this case are obfuscated by a Prosecution team that would not allow this case to fall apart at any cost. What follows clearly demostrates this view.

Government Witnesses and the Facts in the Case

The credibility of all Government witnesses is dubious at best. All have or have had legal problems and in most cases they have willingly perjured themselves to satisfy the demands of the Government.

Mario Trabaue was arrested and subsequently incarcerated for drug trafficking; at least one and possibly two murders were attributed to him (2139). During his neferious career, Trabaue had several boats running drugs from South America. He was never investigated or questioned by Fish and Wildlife Service, but rather was interviewed through intermediaries. Trabaue was all too willing to cooperate with the Government in order to receive a sentence reduction; the Government agreed to this and has petitioned the courts on his behalf. Trabauels credibility, however, is spurious. Frederick W. Mance, Jr, a Correctional Counselor at the Metropilitan Correction Center in Miami, Florida,' wrote the following after an incidence with Trabaue, while he was held there (Attachment A, brief for Appeal by Defendant Tony Silva): The impression 1 got from Mario Trabaue now is that he would say whatever is necessary, including lying to get himself off because he is still trying to gain credit for cooperating with this investigation. Mance concluded:... it is my opinion that Mario will use any means to get what he wants and he will continue to do whatever it takes to manipulate the system for his gain.

Kevin Moss, Special Agent for the IRS, said at Silva's Evidentiary Hearing that the sworn testimony of a Federal Agent is more credible than that of a criminal (61125). In this case he was specifically referring to Mario Trabaue.

Trabaue, however, has been given credibility by the Prosecution because, as he is prepared to say whatever they need, he can help them with the case.

Trabaue and Silva traded birds during the 1980s, but in this case Trabaue claims that he was provided 35 Hyacinth Macaws and a group of other parrots and mammals by Silva, a] 1 claimed by the Prosecution to have been smuggled. There is no evidence as to the existence of the wildlife apart from Trabaue's claims. His claims were reported at the evidentiary hearing by Fish and Wildlife Service (henceforth F&WS) Agent Richard Marks; Trabaue had been transferred to a correctional center in Chicago and was going to be placed under oath, but at the last minute he was not. The Judge, Elaine Bucklo, accepted the hearsay accusations and gave Trabaue the credibility that he did not deserve.

The supposed corroborating evidence used to give credibility to Trabauels claims was provided by his veterinarian Thomas Goldsmith. More on Goldsmith will be stated later; for now let us concentrate on the accusations of Trabaue.

Trabaue's claims were used by Agent Marks in his Affidavit for a Search Warrant. He did not state in the Affidavit that Trabaue was not credible-the search was conducted on 17 January 1992 and the Mance report was filed on 18 May 1991-- nor that he had not interviewed Trabaue (1117, 212-8). To have stated so would have diminished the credibility of the Affidavit, which was made under oath. What was stated was that Trabaue acquired 35 Hyacinth Macaws from Silva. According to Trabaue 12~15 of these birds survived; the treating veterinarian, Goldsmith, says that only two birds survived (21176, 11129). Goldsmith considers himself at the cutting edge of avian medicine, so either someone is lying or he is unable to differentiate between a dead and a living bird. The supposed corroborating evidence provided by Goldsmith is that he claims Trabaue said the birds came from Silva. Goldsmith worked at the same facility that received all the drugs smuggled by Trabaue and claims he did not see anything; he also acknowledged that it was �

Goldsmith supposedly treated the sick Hyacinth Macaws but kept no notes (2/197); did not indicate in his diary what medications were being given to the birds or had been ordered; or made any reference to the birds in his diary (21169-196). In other words, there is no reference whatsoever in his medical records as to the existence of the birds.

In a documentary called The Great Wildlife Heist by the production company Nova-- which, as an aside. altered greatly the voice recording of a person similarly accused as Silva of smuggling (see 1997, On Wings. 3(2):44 and 3(3):32-33, for details)-- Goldsmith claimed that he participated in the chopping off' of the heads of the dead birds. He made a similar claim to Marks, who included the comment in the Search Warrant (see Shirley McGreal's posting on the lnternet of 8 June 1995). In court, however, Goldsmith denied participating in the grisly event. He then said that he only heard about this event (21178).

Goldsmith claimed that he had traveled to Chicago in the 1980s to surgically sex birds, presumably smuggled, for Silva (21181). The surgical sexing was conducted at a hotel room, as several other people also had their birds sexed and everyone agreed on a central location; also no one wanted to risk bringing someone easels birds, which could carry hidden diseases, into their homes. The surgical sexing at such an unusual locale is nothing out of the ordinary. Only after taking the stand did, the good veterinarian remember that he in fact had flown to Wisconsin, where he sexed some birds before coming to Chicago (21207). Suddenly the sinister aspect of the surgical sexing had vanished.

Goldsmith considers himself an outstanding veterinarian and person. Yet he would refuse to testify in court by invoking the Sth Amendment if asked about his involvement in drugs with Trabaue (21164). A man of his supposed high morals should not fear questions... unless of course he was something to hide. The fact is that there exists a recording between Trabaue and a Federal Agent by the name of Jacques Meshell where Trabaue acknowledged doing drugs with Goldsmith. This suggests that Goldsmith knew far more than he alluded to about Trabauels sordid trade. Perhaps his involvement would be 'overlooked' by Agents in return for his testimony? We will never know: the Judge prevented the Defense from investigating that area.

To sum the 'existence' of the Hyacinth Macaws claimed by Trabaue can be done in one sentence: the birds never existed! If we deduct these 35 birds and an additional group of 15 birds portrayed in photographs as dead (6113), what remains is a group of legal Hyacinth Macaws owned by Silva and registered in. a Studbook for the species (61162). None of these birds could be described by the agents as smuggled (61123), and the dead birds in the photographs could not be assigned to a locality or dated (2140), thus the birds Silva had and sold were all legal and accounted for.

Horacio Cornejo is listed as one of the sources for the smuggled wildlife, yet he is unworthy of belief and his allegation of supplying countless numbers of illegal wildlife is both uncorroborated and unreliable. It is interesting to. note that while Cornejo was available to testify, the Prosecution chose not to call him as a witness and thus subject him to cross examination. Perhaps the following explains why. Cornejo supposedly formed part of this conspiracy (supplier), yet he was never investigated (7161) and operated under a Grant of Immunity (2/18) from the US Government even though the Government was well aware that he had a long history of smuggling wildlife (2/17). He was barred from working as a Custom's Broker from 1982 to 1999 and thus export wildlife under his name from his home country of Argentina (71148). Unquestionably Cornejo was prepared to say and do whatever the Government wished in order to avoid interference from Federal Agents in whatever activities he was engaged in. Cornejo suggested 'blackmail' in order to collect moneys due to him by a Chicagoland bird importer (3/107, 2140). Furthermore, the stories provided to the Agents prove his unstable character and that fact, as indicated above, that he is prepared to say whatever the prosecution desires.

Cornejo told Agents that a man by the name of 'Jose Antonio' was Silva's cousin (report 4-3~1995). In fact, Jose Antonio is a politician in Buenos Aires, Argentina, unknown to Silva and a person that Cornejo bribed in order to be able to export given his 'black listing'. Cornejo said that Gisela Caceres owned a plane (report 8-1-1992) and then that she did not (report 4-3-1995). The claim that Caceres owned a plane was made to boulster the veracity of the charge by Agents that Caceres supplied birds to Silva, yet eventually the truth emanated and Cornejo had to rectify his allegation. Cornejo visited in 1987 a number of US cities, including Chicago. Initially he claimed that he stayed at Silva's home (error; Silva did not own a house at the time but lived with his mother, Gila Daoud) but then he recanted his story and stated that he never saw the upstairs, suggesting a second story to the house (reports 8-3-1992, 4-2-1995); in fact, the house had but one story-- it is a ranch style home. Cornejo claimed that he could ship birds to Chicagoland bird importer Lawrence Lafeber very quickly (report 4-3-1995), yet records from the Department of Agriculture in Chicago, which issued the import permits, suggests that invariably permits expired because Cornejo could not ship.

He is claiming here that he could ship-- but why is it that Cornejols name or the name of his firm (Criadero el Virrey) does not appear on any of the export documents for the birds sent to Lafeber? Cornejo initially said that he exported to Lafeber 100 endangered Red-fronted Macaws (report 8-3-1992) but only three years later recanted the story and said that at most he sent 15 individuals (report 4-3-1995). Silva was supposedly the recipient of these birds and the government claimed these were the birds that Silva had in his possession. The fact is that the speciments Silva owned had been legally acquired and the original airbill, cancelled check and receipt were shown in court (7/96). Cornejo also initially claimed that he sent Silva, though Lafeber, 12 Andean Cock-of-the-Rocks (report 8-31992) and then that he did not send any (report 4-3-1995). Similar discrepancies exist with other species. Cornejo made some incredulous statements. He told the Agents that he kept accurate records of all transactions (report 4-3-1992) but when presented with a specific document (later listed as exhibit 9B (attached to report of 4-3-1995)) he could not remember if it was an offer or actual wildlife shipped. What about verifying his records? Perhaps they never existed. Given all this, can Cornejo honestly be considered credible? Apparently yes~- Judge Bucklo charged Silva with the illegal importation of every species indicated by the very 'credible' Horacio Cornejo, even though at one point in the Evidentiary Hearing Judge Bucklo asked for corroborating evidence for Cornejols allegations (719-12). The Government responded by citing once again the explanations provided by Cornejo. Anyone that examines the record would find Cornejo to be unbelievable, but Judge Bucklo had to give Fish and Wildlife Service its victory.

Judge Bucklo was supposed to be impartial in this case. But was she? It appears that most of the cases involving wildlife are funelled to her, even though a computer is supposed to randomly assign cases to judges. Perhaps the general attitude of Judge Bucklo on wildlife keepers can be seen in the case of Animal Kingdom, a pet store in Chicago. Judge Bucklo signed a Search Warrant for Fish and Wildlife Service Agent Dick Dickinson; Dickinson was also involved in the Silva case, by being the initial contact person for James Mackman (more on him later). Dickinson carried out the raid on the pet store. The raid, conducted commando-style, started in the morning but it was in the afternoon of that day that the Search Warrant, needed for the raid, was requested and signed by Judge Bucklo. The gravity of this case is that the most simple of human rights were violated. When the Agents realized that they were being video-taped, they became agitated that their violations had been captured on film. They proceeded to chase the person making the video down the very busy Milwaukee Avenue. They then knocked the person down and seized the tape, but the individual was wise enough to exchange the tape, tendering over a different tape to the Agents. When they relized the trick, they went on another rampage but by then the tape depicting the gross violations had been duplicated and distributed.

Another agent involved in this case, by working closely with James Mackman, was Rick Leach. Leach was involved in a similar sting operation during the 1980s called 'Operation Falcon'. In a book called The Pilgrim and the Cowboy by Paul McKay (McGraw-Hill Publishers.} the falsities of that operation, including erring press releases, entrapment, perjury, and the like are revealed. Leach is clearly not the law-abiding Agent he claims to be. He was also the only Agent interviewed by Nova in the program The Great Wildlife Heist. Judy Franklin, in her editorial in the February 1997 (3(2):44) issue of On Wings points out how a very innocuous comment was distorted, to give a totally illegal connotation. The discussion was between Nan Crandal and Agent Leach and leads either to Nova or Fish and Wildlife Service as the tamperer. Inquiries as to who is the culprit have resulted in both parties responding 'no comment'. Perhaps this is the only way to respond to an illegal act.

Agent Leach operated a quarantine station during 'Operation Renegade' , a Fish and Wildlife Service sting operation on parrots and which spanned several continents. Silva and his mother were two of the principal targets of this operation. Leach was the key person in this operation and during its tenure worked closely with James Mackman, who sold the birds Leach illegally imported. Mackman could have had no better teacher, especially if we consider the allegations of entrapment in 'Operation Falcon'.

James Mackman was a Wisconsin aviculturist who in 1987 approached Silva with the request that he was interested in learning more about parrots. During a visit he told Silva that he had been both sexually and physically abused and that he found the birds relaxing; this story was denied in court (5110) but there are people who Mackman told similar stories to who can be questioned. Mackman also told one individual that his grandfather could get people killed. Mackman slowly began to spend more time at Silva's house and in April 1989, after Silva moved to Spain to take over as Curator of Birds at Loro Parque, Mackman applied for a job there. He was never hired and subsequently travelled to Spain. That trip and his potential reason for befriending Silva appear to suggest that he was prepared to entrap Silva.

Mackman admits to acquiring some endangered parrots illegally at the behest of Fish and Wildlife Service in 1988 or 1989 (418-9) and he admitted to working for that agency before 1990 (5/35); the key word is before: Mackman claims that in early 1990 he was called to Spain, that there Silva proposed a deal to smuggle Hyacinth Macaws to the US (31116, 31125), and that he did not commence working for Fish and Wildlife Service until 16 January 1990, when he discussed signing a contract to become a paid informant (4/14). If Mackman was working for Fish and Wildlife Service prior to 1990 and Agent James Scott Heard admits that Silva had been a target before January 1990 (819), and during the time of their acquaintance Mackman pretended to be a friend of Silva's (51133), then it appears that the Government had a scheme to net Silva long before any illegal activity, per Mackman's claims, was proposed, and long before the signing of the contract to become a paid informant. Mackman was supposed to be doing the 'righteous' thing (51142) by exposing Silvals neferious activity, yet he did not do this for gratis: he received at least $36,450.00 (51126). Mackman also left for Spain with the understanding that, as Agent Heard so clearly put it, 'We told him we would pay him when he came back with information .,',-(emphasis added) (8123). Clearly there could have been no greater incentive for Mackman to entrap and return with stories of international intrigue, smuggling and neo Nazi's. His stories appear as if they were taken from a spy novel. How Mackman reached Spain is worthy of analysing. The Prosecution claims that he was 'requested'; Mackman says that he was 'solicited', 'invited' and that his visit was suggested 'pretty regularly' (31116-122). Fish and Wildlife Service says that he went to Spain at their request (5/56) to 'plant a seed' about illegal activities (8129). This latter sentence contradicts Mackman's claim but the Prosecution has done their utmost to suggest that Mackman did not go over to Spain with any plan in mind but at the suggestion of Silva. They even played a tape recording (22-03) between Mackman and Daoud, where Daoud tells Mackman that he should try and visit the Loro Parque once in his life time. This, the Government argues, is the evidence that he was requested. The facts, however, prove otherwise. Daoud merely suggested he visit the park because Mackman had already expressed his intentions in a previous conversation. This conversation was recorded on tape (22-02) but interestingly enough the tape was not transcribed -- perhaps to prevent it from being cited easily and thus errode credence from their lie. Perhaps the Government had forgotten the Agent's report of 5~22-1990. This report gives the date of the recording of tape 22~02 as 9 February 1990, or almost a month before tape 22-03 was recorded.

The report also notes that Mackman both 'wants to go to Spain' and 'has already made up his mind to go'. Nothing illegal had ever been discussed prior to Mackman's flight to Spain, though he did indicate to Daoud that he needed to talk to her son from a 'safe phone', 'confidentially', that he had some 'big questions' and needed to 'talk to Tony about going into business'. When asked during the Evidentiary Hearing why he needed to talk to Silva from a 'safe phone' and 'confidentially' Mackman gave a most feeble excuse: he said that Silva wanted to maintain their relationship secret (5/42-44). The fact is that if Silva wanted to maintain their relationship secret, he would not have travelled with Mackman to aviculture[ events, where everyone would see them socializing (71192). Clearly the secrecy of their relationship was merely an excuse to cover an overwhelming fact-- that Mackman had alterior motives.

During the first 23 taped conversations there was no discussion of any illegal activity. When Mackman arrived in Spain he knew that Silva had a major problem looming: Bonnie Doane, who kept most of Silva's birds on loan, wanted to return them and he had no one qualified to care for them. Mackman said that he would take the birds but only if Silva agreed to acquire for him some illegal Hyacinth Macaws (7/198). Silva at first could dodge Mackman; he spent most of his time away from his home, sleeping in the park owner's residence when he was away, as when Mackman visited the park (22-20, p. 9-10). Woifgang Kiessling, the park owner, returned a couple of days before Mackman departed and Silva returned to his hdme, where Mackman's pressure mounted. Finally Silva agreed and called, in Mackman's presence, a bird dealer in Paraguay to request information on the status of Hyacinth Macaws. Birds were not ordered, purchased or requested (71214-215. 71199-202), but Mackman was told they would eventually come.

Mackman was then satisfied and when he returned he collected the Doane birds, holding them on breeding loan; to this group some additional birds were added, but more on those later. Mackman was repeatedly given various stories that the birds would eventually come, that they were on their way, etc., but the birds were never acquired, never came and were never going to come. It was all a stall technique to prevent Mackman from returning the birds he had on loan. Even Fish and Wildlife Service knew that the birds were never going to enter the US (5/84) and that no money was ever sent to Paraguay for their purchase or upkeep (6163); prior to 1989 Silva had sent some money to South America for, amongst others things, the creation of a breeding farm but there is clearly no link between the pre-1989 funds and the adquisition of birds in 1990; indeed, even the Agents admit that money sent prior to 1989 could not be linked to illegal wildlife purchases (2/25).

When Mackman returned to the US from Spain, he not only reported to Fish and Wildlife Service success on the adquisition of Hyacinth Macaws but his stories could fill a novel. He claimed that on arrival in Spain he was forced to swim with the parkls dolphins, so that Silva would have someone go through his suitcase (5160, report 6-18-1990). He also said that the driver that collected him at the airport, Esteban Escobar, went through his suitcase (report 6~18-1990), presumably to look for recording devices. This is one of many lies. Exhibit 26 (71207) is a sworn document from all of the staff at the dolphinarium and from Esteban Escobar stating that Mackman is lying; no one went through his clothes or suitcase and he was not forced to go swimming with the dolphins.

The dolphin incidence can further be discounted by looking at Mackman's arrival time in Tenerife, the Canarian Island on which the park is located. According to Silva, Mackman arrived, after experiencing delays at Madrid's Barajas Airport, on Iberia Airlines flight 960, which arrived at reina Sofia Airport at approximately 8:00 pm. Mackman collected his suitcase and was then driven to Puerto de La Cruz, the town the park is located in. This would have placed Mackman at the park at 10:00 pm, or after dark. Mackman claims that he arrived at the park at 7:00 pm (report 6-18-1990), but even this time refutes the possibility of his claim: the dolphinarium closes at 6:00 pm and the staff 10 immediately goes home. Silva neither knows how to swim nor how to control the dolphins (which can be dangerous), making it impossible for Mackman to have gone swimming or for any staff, ::long gone, to have gone through his belongings. The second important point implied is that Silva did not trust Mackman or he would not have considered having his suitcase and clothing 'examined'. If that would have been the case, Silva would not have allowed Mackman in his home, or even have received him in Spain. Mackman could have done as do millions of visitors annually: rent a hotel room, pay the entrance fee and see the park. Mackman was never suspected and thus there would have been no reason to inspect either his clothing or suitcase.

Mackman also claimed that his suitcase was also regularly inspected by the cleaning lady, presumably at the request of Silva, and that he proved this to himself by tying a strand of his hair-- he sported a crew cut (as evidenced from a photograph taken at the time)-- to the suitcase handles (report 6-18-1990). Presumably film of the park and its collection vanished from his suitcase. This is ridiculous and laughable. The park is visited by in excess of 1 million people annually, who see the collection of birds; the birds are also featured in a guidebook and video and are seen annually by hundreds of experts that are given access to the entire park, including the veterinary clinic, hand-rearing facility and food preparation area. It is therefore absurd for Mackman to claim that he 'managed to take numerous photos of Loro Parque in spite of their obvious efforts to prevent' him from doing so (report 6-18-1990). If we look at the photos that he 'snuck' out and supplied to the Agents (all attached to the same report) and compare them to the guidebooks, all the species are depicted! So much for the supposed secrecy.

Mackman claims that Wolfgang Kiessling told him he was a neo-Nazi (report 5-11-1990) but then Mackman changed the facts and claimed that Silva said Kiessling was a neo-Nazi (5/68). There is a big difference between the person telling him and someone else telling him... but this - change about is evident in most of Mackman's accusations. He claims that he was restrained from calling his wife from Spain because Silva 'tried to prevent' him from 'making any telephone calls' while on the island. Imagine an island visited by millions of tourists annually with hundreds of telephones available. It would be physically impossible to prevent a person from making a telephone call and this is why Mackman admitted in court that he could have called anybody he wanted from outside the park (5/57). Mackman also claimed that Silva refused to talk on the telephone (1120), but then he admitted staying in touch with him (4165). Mackman claimed that Loro Parque received planeloads of illegal birds from Antonio de Dios (report 4-18-1990) in the Philippines. This implicated Silva, who was Curator of Birds and thus sounded like a good story to relate. Mackman described the smuggling thus:

Once a deal was made ... de Dios would ship the birds by airplane to Mainland Spain, where they would not be inspected by any government officials. From there the plane-load of birds would go to the Canary Islands ... and, again no government inspection would take place.

The physical impossibility of this occurring denigrade Mackman's claim. The distance between Spain and the Philippines prevents direct flights; indeed, there are no direct flights from Europe to the Philippines. A plane flying from Manila to Madrid would have to stop in Hong Kong, Dubai and either London or Amsterdam, making detection of any illegal wildlife a guarantee. Even the Agents apparently considered the event an impossibility, failing even to investigate the claim or to notify the CITES Secretariat (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, an agency that regulates trade in wildlife) or Spanish authorities (8/11-13).

Mackman also claimed that Silva offered to send birds from Loro Parque, all supposedly illegal (reports 4-18-1990, 5-11-1990 and 6-18-1990). Mackman further claimed that Silva instructed him to rent a quarantine station in Miami for the 'illegal birds from Loro Parquel. He even stated that Silva wanted to continue' to send him birds from Loro Parque. The fact is that all tape recorded conversations invariably describe sending legal birds from Loro Parque (examples evident in 22-24, page 5, and 22-116, page 10). In fact, no birds were ever sent from the park. Mackman did, however, suggest to Silva that he tamper with DNA material in order to send him endangered Red-spectacled Amazons (22-176, page 22-23). Silva responded that he was not interested in doing anything illegal.

Mackman's charges could fill volumes. For the sake of brevity it is not possible to expound on them all; what follows is a list of the more creative.

Mackman claims he was It-equested' to visit the Philippines with Silva, who, he claims, was going there to collect some illegal birds for the park (report 12 6-18-990). In fact, Mackman was not 'requested' but himself offered to go (tape 22-03, page 10). The birds that Silva collected were all legal; the documentation for their importantion into Spain was authorized by both the Spanish and CITES authorities. All correspondence on this point is available for verification.

Mackman claimed that Obdulio Menghi of the CITES Secretariat and Juan S. Vilialba-Macias of Traffic (South America) were involved in Silvals smuggling activities', advising him 'when it is favorable to move birds across international borders' (report 1-9-1991). This accusation, involving men of prominence in the conservationist community, was obviously never investigated by the Agents. It would have proved a mockery of Mackman's accusations-- and destroyed their case!

Mackman also said that someone investigating Silva mysteriously died (report 5-11-1990), that drugs would be smuggled with the birds he would be getting (report 6~18-1990), that Silva described how child sex would be used to blackmail individuals (reports 5-11-1990, 4-18-1990), and that Silva had knowledge of past and present Fish and Wildlife Service covert operations, including Operation Renegade (reports 6-18-1990, 11-27-1990). These would have been ideal subjects to enquire about on tape, but this was not done and the Agents failed to investigate these most serious of charges. Why? Because they would have destroyed Mackman's credibility as a witness... and besides catching a bird smuggler was more important than ferreting out a murderer/ drug dealer/ blackmailer.

Two of the most interesting accusations involve international intrigue and the smuggling of Principe African Grey Parrots; for the latter Silva was charged. While in Spain Mackman told his wife that he would be making a brief trip to Africa to collect what he later described as Principe African Greys; in all 50 birds were supposed to be imported as 'pets' (report 6-18~1990). How 50 birds of the same species could be imported as pet and now draw the attention of the authorities is beyond imagination, but the story gets better:Mackman did not know the country involved and when he asked Gila Daoud about this she had not the foggiest idea of what he was talking about (22-43, page 42-43). Mackman claims he discussed this with Silva again but the conversation was not recorded. It is ironic that Silva was never asked about these birds on tape. The birds never entered and the Covernment's claim that the bird is an endangered species compounded the gravity of the crime. What is interesting is that the African Grey from Principe Island is not different from that found on the mainland of Africa, which is exported in large numbers and which Mackman sold for Agent Leach to countless American aviculturists. The main reference book used by, Fish and Wildlife Service describes this species on Principe Island as 'common' (see Joseph Forshaw's Parrots of the World, 3rd rev. edn., page 314). The story started when Mackman saw a stamp on an envelope from Silvals uncle, then stationed on Sao Tome, who also has a population of African Greys. So much for the smuggling of Principe African Grey Parrots.

Mackman claims that: ... sometime in 1989 [Lawrence Lafeber, Antonio de Dios, Silva and he] dined together at a Sicilian Restaurant in Chicago, which Silva described as a 'safe house' ... and there Lafeber discussed a method he had incorporated to smuggle birds out of quarantine before their scheduled time of release.' (Report 4-18-1990). During the conversation quick deals involving rare birds and arms dealings, including supplying guns to both sides of a conflict in Nicaragua, were discussed. Mackman was asked by the Agents what kinds of guns were involved, but he did not know; what else could be expected from such a credible witness. Mackman apparently failed to realize that if de Dios could acquire export permits-- Mackman as one of his lies said that de Dios could purchase the CITES permits necessary for the birds to be shipped internationally (report 3-13-1990)-- his exports would have been legal and the legal birds would have been worth far more than the supposedly illegal ones. De Dios subsequently sent Silva two birds with permits; both were released by Fish and Wildlife Service after serving quarantine in a Government operated quarantine station.

After telling the Agents that he was present at the restaurant, at a dinner replete with bodyguards, Mackman changed the facts: he claimed in court that he was not present but had heard the story (5130). Apparently under pressure because his lies were becoming too evident, he did a turn around and then stated that he indeed was present and saw how the birds would be smuggled out of quarantine (5/174). Mackman then insisted that he was present at the quarantine stations 'just before August 19891 (5128). This is a prime example of how far Mackman is prepared to go with his lies, defending even what is indefensible. Lafeber had closed his quarantine station down in January 1989 (3113-14), thus whittling down the possible days that Mackman could have been present at the quarantine station to 31. Perhaps it would not surprise readers to learn that de Diosls passport shows he was not present in the US in 1989 and that Lafeber denies the meeting taking place (report 10-13-1990). Lafeber also stopped associating with Silva from mid-1988 onwards (same report). What truth could be expected from Mackman if he is prepared to go so far with his stories and lies?

Given his creative mind, it should come as no surprise to the reader that Mackman was merely interested in acquiring illegal birds. Offer him a legal bird and he was not interested, but append an 'illegal' tag on the bird and he would take it immediately. This is how three Yellow-shouldered and one Lilacine Amazons were transferred to him (22-46, page 2); invariably the bird's 'illegality' was confirmed after Mackman asked if it was illegal (see for example 22-46, page 2, and 22-49, page 3). Those birds were, in fact, legal. TheLilacine, for which Silva was charged with smuggling, was purchased in California. Fortunately Silva had placed the airbill, health certificate and receipt in a book, which was not seized by agents during their raid; everything else taken during the raid, including receipts, slides and documents vital to the defence, has still not been returned. At one point the Government offered to show the documents but what they brought were nonsensical papers, all placed in padded envelopes to create bulk. Sometime later the Government tendered over microfiched photo copies of all irrelevant documents, including magazine articles, warrantees to all the appliances in Silva's home and the corresponding operating manuals, and countless copies of transcripts of Silvals already published books. In the seized files there is an airbill attached to a small letter describing the Yellow-shouldered Amazons as captive-bred and therefore legal. These birds were acquired in trade from Hector Ugaide, who claimed to have captive-bred them. Ugaide attempted to sell some to Mackman and also described those birds as captive-bred (report 11-26-1991). Instead of acquiring the Yellow-shouldered Amazons, which Mackman was after, he purchased some Cuban Amazons, violating the law and involving Ugaide in the conspiracy; because Silva provided the phone number, Ugaide was included as a co-conspirator. After that point Ugaide said that the Yellowshouldered Amazons were smuggled (Ugaide testimony, page 10) but when reminded that he said they were captive-bred he suffered from a lapse of memory and could not recall (Ugalde testimony, page 10-12).

Ugaide met Mackman through Silva. Mackman called and asked for a breeder of Yellow-shouldered Amazons. Ugaidels name was provided and Mackman called Ugaide, purchasing the Cuban Amazons rather than the Yellow-shouldered Amazons is he was after (3141-43). Ugaide fell into the net of Operation Renegade.

With Mackman's mounting pressure to procure for him the Hyacinth Macaws, Silva was forced to call someone in his presence. Evidence that there was pressure can be seen in a series of recorded conversations, as follows:

22-49 Mackman is disappointed birds have not arrived; complaints that he has spent a lot of money on an aviary. (Such an aviary was rented against the will of both Silva and his mother and this can be seen in, tapes 22-72, page 4, and 22-94, page 14.)

22~141 Mackman insists he needs to talk to Silva and offers to even call in the middle of the night.

22-149 Mackman mentions pressure he placed on Silva in Canada, and claims that illegal birds are widely available, that pet stores are full of them and that everyone was saying that Howard Voren and Silva were smuggling both Hyacinth Macaws and Vinaceous Amazons (see pages 10-21 for an idea of the Mackman accusations of Voren and Silva smuggling birds). (Silva categorically denies any smuggling and Fish and Wildlife Service never charged Silva with any smuggling involving Voren. It was just another pressure tactic by Mackman.) Daoud clearly told Mackman that the birds would never arrive. An example of this is found in the following taped recorded conversations:

22-27, page 6:'Blues [=Hyacinth Macaws] possibly will not come'

22-58, page 10:'Forget Blues'

22-123, page 4:'if birds coming is going to bring problems, I don't want them'

22-141, page 14: 'Forget blues, do things legally'

Fish and Wildlife Service knew all along that the birds were never going to come (5/84), but they had to do whatever was necessary to make this case stick.

Mackman insistence resulted in Silva calling Ugaide in his presence; that conversation, surprisingly, was not recorded, even though Mackman was aware that the call was going to be made and that he had recorded part of the meeting. One must wonder why this conversation was not recorded? Perhaps it was to be able to change the facts at a later date. Silva then had learned that Ugaide had for sale the three illegal Cuban Amazons that Mackman subsequently purchased; he learned this from Mackman himself (22~176, page 35) and their illegality is what led to Silva suggested that they call Ugaide regarding the Hyacinth Macaws (22-176, page 92). Ugaide in court stated that in the mid-1980s he had sold Silva an illegal Cuban Amazon (Ugaide testimony, page 6-7). He stated the same in Agent's report of 3-15-1992. This reflects a hundred degree turnabout from what he had stated to the Agents at another time (report 11-5-1993), when he said that the bird had been acquired by a friend of Silvals. The Prosecution undoubtedly got Ugaide to try and pin the sale of the bird on Silva but the facts had been stated and in addition there was evidence presented, including a photograph, showing that Silva was clearly not the purchaser (Ugaide testimony, pages 33 and 37) but had merely come along to see the bird. Silvals dealings up until this time had been perfectly legal: the trade of some captive-bred African Grey Parrots for the aforementioned Yellow-shouldered Amazons, which Ugaide claimed had been aviary breed, and the loaning of a conure bred by Silva and which Ugaide needed for a breeding program. When Silva learned that Ugaide had illegal birds, he called him and suggested that he could illegally import the Hyacinth Macaws for Mackman (Ugaide testimony, pages 12-16). The birds had never been acquired in South America and thus the transaction would never take place, but at least it would keep Mackman content and insure that he continue to maintain Silva's birds on loan. It was the fear of these birds being returned that kept the story alive. Ugaide in court, as in the aforementioned case with the Cuban Amazon, changed the story wildly. He claimed he sent a Fred Martinez to Mexico to arrange the off-loading of the birds (Ugaide testimony, page 15). Ugaide claims this was in 1988 or 1989-- the Government wanted to backdate the event to make it a continuing conspiracy-- but when the Prosecution was asked for an exact date, Sergio Acosta responded 1990 (Ugaide testimony, page 63). Immediately the Government realized they had made a grave mistake-the separation of the supposed event and thus severing the continuing conspiracy theory-- they soon came back with a remark that a passport was not truly indicative of whether Martinez did or did not enter Mexico in 1990. They then cited a letter from the Mexican Embassy which lists all sorts of travel documents acceptable to enter Mexico. The first document listed is a valid passport. Martinez had also mentioned the word 'passport'-- in reference to him verifying the date he travelled to Mexico. (This, by the way, was not the sole time the Prosecution changed the evidence in the course of the hearing. Exhibit 170 was changed after the Government realized that it was showing that Silva was telling the truth.)

Ugaide claimed that Martinez had gone down to Mexico specifically to check into the smuggling, yet Martinez refutes this claim, saying that he had travelled to see family and that he never met the person that could have arranged the off-loading (report 8-23-1993). On Martinez's supposed results in Mexico, Ugaide gives three versions: that the birds would be too noisy and thus the smuggling attempt would not be possible; that Martinez's contacts were used to dealing with 'smaller, more compact' commodities (eg, drugs); and that Martinez made no contact and as a result nothing was planned (reports 10~5-1992, 3-31-1993, .8-23-1993). This clearly shows that there was absolutely no plan; quite possibly Martinez never even looked into the issue. The Government, nonetheless, insists that there was a plan between Silva and Ugaide and that this is borne out in the following conversation between Ugaide and Mackman recorded on 11-18-1991:

Mackman:I ... the other thing I've been trying to get is, you know, is some of those macaws and stuff, and, um, man! They're all just full of pap[iilomas] and pacheco's [parrot disease]. And they just-- you know. [Mackman was referring to birds he had seen on sale during a recent trip to Miami.]

Ugaide: 'Do you breed any Hyacinths?'

Mackman: 'Um, no. And, in fact, you know, um, I-- and 1 think, uh, Tony's talked to you some about-- about trying to obtain some, and,um-um, and, you know-- you know, we've talked about that. And I-- you know, I'm very, very ancious to get some, um--'

Ugaide: 'Unintelligible'

[The Coverment would want to lead you to believe this part of the recording is unintelligible, as this changes the entire meaning of the conversation, but in fact it is perfectly _intelligible.. Ugaide says 'It's becoming so difficult'. In other words he was describing the fact that Hyacinths had recently been protected in their countries of origin, resulting in people having them not wanting to sell them. He did not refer to any smuggling plan. By cunningly inserting 'unintelligible' here, however, the entire meaning of the conversation is altered.]

Mackman: 'Um, well. Y-- it's just-- sounds crazy. It sounds crazy. Um, but, you know, that un-- they're golden right now. I'll tell ya.' [Mackman here confirms that birds were difficult to acquire, given the aforementioned situation.]

Ugaide: 'Yeah'

Mackman: 'So--'

.Ugaide:'Just a little bit. Well, but you never know.' [Ugaide had earlier told Mackman that he knew a breeder of Hyacinth Macaws who produced many young (tape 110-05) and the 'you never know' undoubtedly refers to an idea that Ugaide had to try and procure birds from that individual for selling to Mackman. He had similar tried to procure an additional Cuban Amazon for Mackman. The rest of the tape refers to the sale of three Cuban Amazons]

.Ugaide: 'We'll see what happens. Okay, Jim. Let me think about it, and, uh, you know, I'll try to come up with something that, you know, is fair. 1 don't-- 1111 get back with you.' [Ugalde later called with his asking price for the three Cuban Amazons.]

Ugaide's attempts to illegally import the Hyacinth Macaws, if they were made, were, in Ugaidels own words, for Mackman (Ugaide testimony. page 43). Mackman asserted pressure on Ugaide to procure for him the Hyacinth Macaws (Ugaide testimony, page 42). Mackman further pressured Ugaide to acquire for him illegal Yellow-shouldered Amazons; in total Mackman made 3-5 calls pressuring Ugaide (Ugalde testimony, page 62). Silva never pressured, nor did anything for the illegal importation of the birds, and this is perfectly clear in the record.

Dr Donald Bruning was the Government's expert on parrots; he has in the past testified whatever the Government Prosecutors wanted to hear and this time was a perfect replica of his past behavior. Bruning and Silva have had a long public argument based on Bruning's disinformation of a program to save the Spixls Macaws from extinction which Silva, the World Wildlife Fund, the CITES Secretariat, and the Brazilian Government created (see 1997, A Monograph of Macaws and Conures, pages 84 and 85). Bruning had done all he could to join the committee and when he could not attempted to destroy its credibility with falsities. Bruning appears to make a career of denigrading people. He attempted to do so with Bern Levine, who subsequently sued him for slander; the law suit was settled. Bruning said in the Nova documentary The Great Wildlife Heist that Silva had tried to bribe Caribbean officials in order to obtain birds. This was not true, and in court when he was asked about this he admitted that it was pure hearsay (2/141). Nonetheless, Silva's reputation had been called into question because the 'honest' Dr Bruning never said in the Nova interview that the bribing was pure hearsay. Bruning claimed that the wild population of Hyacinth Macaws in 1966 numbered between 100-200,000 birds (2/112), yet he could provide no scientific basis for his claim. He used this number to imply that illegal trade had nearly decimated the numbers of this species. Counting birds, which are highly mobile, is difficult and in a country as vast as Brazil nearly impossible. Any census is therefore based on pure speculation. Bruning tried to cite a report of a supposed census to suggest the low existing population, yet he was unaware that Silva had a part of the study that had never been circulated. It showed that most of the 'field work' had been done in hotel rooms! The principal investigator was none other than Dr Charles Munn. Bruning also testified that molted feathers are frayed, trying to imply that a headdress which Silva owned and for which he was charged for smuggling could not have been reconstructed with moited feathers, as Silva claimed (2/124). Only after being questioned again did Bruning admit the truth~- that it is possible for the headdress to have been made from moited feathers (2/143).

The headdress originally contained chicken feathers, which were removed by Silva and replaced with feathers molted by his birds (11168). Silva even exhibited in court one of the original headdresses containing chicken feathers and a second with part of the chicken feathers replaced by moited parrot feathers (7/226-227). Agent Marks then noted the similarity between the first and second reconstructed headdresses. Nonetheless, Silva was charged with smuggling the headdress. (it is worth wondering if Disney Productions will be charged with a Federal wildlife violation for using in the advertisement for the movie Jung1e2Jungle a headdress constructed of parrot feathers! (See advertisement in People magazine for 3-3-1997, page 69).

The story of the headdress commenced, with whom else, but Mackman. During one of his visits, Mackman saw one of the chicken headdresses on the wall, which Daoud said she had brought from Paraguay; in no way does she refer to a 'parrot headdress' in the recorded conversation as the Government claims (22-49, page 26). Daoud has been to Paraguay but once, in 1987, but the Government accused her and Silva of smuggling the headdress in 1990. Where the Government derives the date is beyond anyone's imagination. Quite possibly it was moved forward to insure that the five year statutes of limitation (which could prevent either of them being charged with its smuggling) had not run. The headdress, as has been demonstrated, was not smuggled.

During the same visit that Mackman detected the headdress he 'saw' an ivory tusk, which had been at Silvals house for many years; it was in plain view. Mackman got into a conversation with Daoud about a small ivory bracelet, which she had brought from Spain. He asks her if she was strong enough to carry it while recording the conversation. Nowhere in the tape is the word 'tusk' utilized and by Government calculations it only weighs 6 pounds (22-48, page 28; 11167). Undoubtedly Mackman used the key question of weight to try and later tie in the tusk, as the Prosecution attemped and succeeded. Daoud and Silva initially visited Spain in 1986, and in the tape a date when she acquired the bracelet is not given.The smuggling date for the tusk is given as August 1990-- undoubtedly post dated after President Bush signed an executive order banning the import of ivory, on 5 June 1989; prior to this date it was legal to import ivory. Silva has reiterated that the tusk was acquired in Chinatown, Chicago, where ivory was sold openly for many years. There is also an article that appeared in On Wings (April 1995, page 1) where the tusk is referenced as having been seen at Silvals house in 1989. So much for the supposed pursuit of the truth by the Prosecution.

Roberta (Robbie) Harris is a California aviculturist that visited Silva and that Silva visited on several occasions. She claimed that Silva received in her presence a group of Flamingos, supposedly purchased for $50.00 each (11153) and recently smuggled from Mexico. The story regarding these Fbmingos is one of the most outlandish in the case. Harris initially said that the group consisted of 15 Flamingos but the Agents soon whittled down the group to 9; perhaps the only photograph they could locate was one depicting nine birds and this explains the sudden reduction in numbers. The birds in the photograph are Chilean Flamingos, a species found in Argentina and Chile; in those countries they sell for about $200.00 each. To transport the nine birds from South America to Mexico would probably cost a minimum of $1000.00; surreptitiously driving them to Tijuana, where they were supposedly crossed into the US and then smuggling them into the US would probably have cost $2000.00. This brings the cost of each bird to more than $500.00 each. The seller, however, was in the business of selling birds at a loss... a great loss, so he sold them to Silva for only $50.00. Does the story sound credible? Absolutely not, but then let's look at the remaining facts. Agent Marks found no evidence of the existence of the Flamingos (11183~184). He also admits that he could not say the Flamingos were smuggled (11183), but he did suggest that IATA (international shipping association) rules were violated in the way the birds in the photographed were packaged; in other words, their bodies were contained in a stocking~- a common shipping method at the time the offense supposedly occurred (mid-1980s), this done to prevent the very fragile legs from breaking. Marks cited the most recent IATA rules (11203), which no longer allow for such a shipping method. This alone made his testimony deceitful... but then this was to be expected given the trend in the case.

Harris was apparently compensated by Fish and Wildlife Service for conjuring the story of the Flamingos. In a key report produced by Agent Leach and dated 4 June 1992 and which was never tendered over at discovery for obvious reasons, the underlying cause for Harris's claim stand out. Leach writes: Harris was interviewed as Philip Morrison stated that Steve Carvin introduced him to Harris, the three went to luch, and Garvin asked Harris to supply eggs to be smuggled to New Zealand. Morrison stated that Harris supplied psittacine eggs on multiple occasions and that he sent payment to her, via courriers, on five or six occasions. In New Zealand Morrison showed S[speciall A[agents] Heard and Leach Senegal parrots that he identified as having come from eggs supplied by Harris.

Such an act is illegal and punishable by fines and a jail term, but Harris was never charged. Perhaps it was a kind gesture in return for her story on the Flamingos. Judge Bucklo only too readily believed the story and charged Silva for their smuggling.

Philip Morrison is another interesting person. Morrison was arrested and served a jail sentence for bird smuggling in the US, but nonetheless the Judge found his story, related by Agent Marks just like Harris's, to be credible. Morrison claims that he received from Silva four African Grey Parrots, smuggled by John Paul Butler into New Zealand on 2 March 1989 (l/160-161). Silva had been living in Spain and not Chicago, whence the birds supposedly originated, from April 1989 onwards (6163), thus this fact alone makes it impossible for Silva to have been the supplier. Butler did visit Silva and stayed at his house, where he was learning about birds, but he subsequently travelled to California where he boarded his plane for New Zealand. Given the contacts Morrison had with Harris and others, including a couple that had bought African Greys in partnership with him for breeding, it is clear that Silva was not the supplier. Judge Bucklo, however, believed the Prosecution's story.

Dr Charles Munn considers himself an expert on New World parrots and as such testified indirectly: he submitted a document (11143) to the court where from a photograph he did the almost unbelievable: he identified birds as smuggled. When Agent Marks tendered the photograph to Munn, he did not give to Munn any information in order not to dice his observations (l/180). Such information, however, would have probably contributed to a report less favorable to the Prosecution. The birds had been transported in a kennel a number of hours--shipping invariably results in broken feathers-- and were visibly shaken from the trip, having been photographed on emerging from the box. Marks never asked the person that provided the photograph what the condition of the feathers was, nor did he ask to see the kennel (11179-180). Munn also stated that the birds had to be smuggled because they only weighed some 1100 grams. Munn argued that adult Hyacinth Macaws weigh 1500 grams (11176) and thus the birds were terribly undernourished. The Prosecutor cited as evidence an article by Silva (2179) where the weight for a single, unweaned Hyacinth is given as 1500 grams. This single case shows how ill informed the Prosecutor is. Young birds, before they leave the nest, are invariably heavier than adults; when they fly they shed the baby fat and then their weight approximates the standard for the species. In the case of Hyacinths, all avian veterinarian references, articles and books give the average weight as 1100-1300 grams, or far below what Munn considers to be the 'standard' of 1500 grams. Munn has virtually no experience with captive birds and there is documented evidence that only two years before Munn wrote his expert testimony he had written Silva to learn more about the Hyacinth Macaw. This single act, once public, erroded considerable credibility from Munn, who clearly appears prepared to state whatever the Government wants to hear, regardless of the truth.

The case for the condition of the birds can be made from the Government's own reports. Dr Valery Campbell told Marks (report 6-11-1993) that short tails (eg, broken tail feathers) are not incriminating, or, in other words, do not suggest that the bird has been smuggled. Campbell also observed the birds sometime after the photograph was taken and found them to be in overall good shape (same report). This observation further negates the claims by Munn.

The birds mentioned in the Munn report were acquired by the partners of Charles Lemorzellec and Frank Dombrowski in July 1988 (l/139). The birds were collected from Silva but belonged to Lawrence Lafeber; Silva merely served as an agent for their sale for Lafeber. The Government claims that the birds were smuggled and tried to build a case from the Grand Jury testimony of Dombrowski and Lemorzellec. Only fragments of their Grand Jury testimony was cited for, as will shortly be seen, obvious reasons.

The discrepancy that exists between Lemorzellec and Dombrowski are innumerable and this errodes what credibility their testimony could have. When they visited Silva, Dombrowski claims he never saw Silvals bird collection; Lemorzellec said they did and then Dombrowski said that he saw one part of the basement

(Grand Jury testimony) and there he saw such species as Scarlet and Buffon's Macaws. The fact is that the basement only had one area-- it was wide open-and Silva never owned either of these two species. Dombrowski suddenly remembered seeing hundreds of birds; Lemorzellec contradicted him and said there were only 30~40 birds. Neither of the men can remember paying for the birds, which were supposedly brought by Silva in a sport's car. (Remember Hyacinth Macaws measure 40 inches in length, thus it would be nigh impossible to fit even six in a sport's car!) When they returned to Virginia, supposedly two died immediately (report 6-17-1993), but in the Grand Jury testimony Dombrowski said that two escaped immediately. This fact negates Munn's claim of malnourished birds, for ill or weak birds would lack the power of flight. It also leaves four birds-if we consider the absence of two (the story becomes even more incredible if we exclude four, the two that escaped and the two that died)-- but there was a signed breeding loan agreement between the two men (see report 10-71 13-1993) that says two pairs were retained and one bird was sold. Perhaps the sixth bird was also sold. Dombrowski later (in 1989) purchased some of Silva's birds, at a time when Silva was moving to Spain. Dombrowski never paid for the entire group of birds and claimed that they had died from illness. He also claimed they lacked a 'certificate of origin' (Grand Jury testimony). The fact is that there is no such thing as a certificate of origin. This is like the story, when Marks showed Dombrowski Silvals signature, he remarked 'that's not Tony's signature' because it was not the same as on the 'original receipt', yet Dombrowski had claimed that Silva wanted cash to leave no trai]-- a definite 'trail' is left by a receipt (what Dombrowski refers to as not being Silva's signature is completely enigmatic, as the document was not presented in court). The birds died from no other cause than sheer neglect. This is seen in the necropsy reports by Valery Campbell (report 10-7113-1993) who clearly showed starvation; she even remarked that the caretaker had 'ran out of seed'. Lemorzellec goes further and told Agent Marks (same report) :

... many of the birds died a short time after their arrival and, in his opinion, it was not due to disease but rather to starvation. He felt that when Dombrowski went on his honeymoon [shortly after receiving the birds], he did not have the birds adequately cared for.

Marks also references the fact, unbeknownst to Silva, that the birds were not collected for two days; they sat at the airport all that time (report 10-5-1993).

Dombrowski has a criminal record and was probably playing the tune of the the Prosecution for having swindled Silva out of some $30,000.00-~ the sun for the birds he acquired but never paid for. Their death, as has been seen, was due to neglect and not to any form of illness. This makes Dombrowski liable for the debt, but by siding with the Government any legal recourse would be hampered. Dombrowski and Lemorzellec then severed all ties with each other.

Gisela Caceres is the daughter of a well-known Paraguayan animal dealer, Ernst Koopmann. Mackman once asked Daoud if her name was 'Ann Kaufmann', a bastardization of her father's name, and she, unaware of what he was talking about, agreed (22-35, page 3). From that date on the Government has considered this name an alias (31125). All attempts to correct this matter have been futile. Caceres, according to the Prosecution, was going to send the 50 Hyacinth Macaws that Mackman wanted. She was indicted, yet she was never notified of this and she is listed by the US Government as a 'fugitive'~- an unsual description for someone living in her home, openly, and that has never fled, hid or pretended to be anyone else. Caceres has stated that she never acquired the birds (pages A17-A19 attached to Silvals brief for Appeal). No one from Fish and Wildlife Service bothered to attempt to interview Caceres, who lives in Paraguay, though they did visit Cornejo in nearby Argentina and interviewed him twice. Perhaps Fish and Wildlife Service did not want to hear.

Caceres supposedly kept the birds at a farm owned by Enrique Ekkert, near Asuncion, the capitol of Paraguay. Mackman, ever so eager to comply with the Government, when asked about the man said that he had been arrested in 'Mexico' with illegal birds (4170). It took the Prosecution to lead Mackman, after stating clearly that the country was Paraguay, to get him to change his story (4171). He then said Ekkert was arrested in Paraguay. Ekkert was never arrested (4174). Some birds were confiscated from his land-- in total 16 Hyacinth Macaws belonging to himself (he was an aviculturist and animal lover and maintained wild colonies of parrots, Howler Monkeys and deer on his property)(qv, Traffic South America Newsletter for August 1991)-- because he lacked the necessary permits. The number was not the '50' that Mackman claimed. Mackman immediately responded with 'Mexico' because had hoped it would lead credibility to one of his stories involving the smuggling of wildlife from that country. Mackman told Agents that Silva had asked him for help in smuggling rare Amazon Parrots from Mexico (reports 6-18~1990, 11-27-1990). The Agentsnever followed the lead or had Mackman ask Silva about this on tape, undoubtedly because they feared another of his lies would become unraveled.

What the Defense knew and the Prosecution hoped they would not was that Mr Ekkert had long been dead. This was unfortunate, for he could have clarified the issue. In pursuit of the truth, even the dead are revived so that their names can be used in vain.

Lawrence Lafeber was another key witness for the Prosecution. He illegally imported a number of birds in the 1980s. The Government heard Lafeber testify that only a few birds were imported in a single box during five shipments (Lafeber testimony, page 89). The Government, however, claims that included in these shipments were several hundred Hyacinth Macaws, each measuring more than three feet in length; the boxes were approximately 2 feet square and 4 feet long. This alone makes the Government's claim impossible, but they persisted and Judge Bucklo agreed, blaming Siiva as the importer and for the hundreds of birds. The evidence, however, clearly suggests that the illegal importation was not conceived by Silva but by Lafeber and that Silva merely acquired a few birds for breeding. Such adquisition was illegal but in the mid-1980s the mentality in aviculture-- and Silva is an aviculturist-- was to acquire as many birds by any means possible for breeding; aviculturists at the time considered themselves modern day Noah's and their responsibility as saving species by captive breeding them. In fact, many of the species in aviculture today were illegally imported, having been transhipped through a second country where they did not occur. Examples include Jenday and Golden-capped Conures, all Hyacinth Macaws, Brazilian Hawk-headed Parrots, Bodin's Amazons, Diademed Amazons and many others. Lafeber clearly admitted in court that the smuggling was his idea (3/38, 3164) and that he masterminded the method (3/40, 3/47, 3173), though it should be born in mind that he was a Government witness and was there to try and put as much of the blame for his actions on Silva. Perhaps he was trying to receive special considerations for the fact that he has not filed his Federal Income Tax for five years! (Lafeber testimony, page 65). He was aware at the time that a potential jail sentence could be imposed on him for his failure to file taxes (3/29-30) but possibly felt secure, having already obtained an immunity letter from the Government for his smuggling. Perhaps the Government would give him immunity for the taxes as well.

Lafeber's entire testimony clashed with that of Cornejo, who supplied him with the birds, and perhaps this was the principal reason why Cornejo was never brought to testify. Cornejo would have had to then answer why he sent Lafeber birds with invalid CITES permits (317), he would have had to answer questions in regards to attempted blackmail of Lafeber (3/10), he would have had to answer questions about credibility, in particular on his varying stories-- Agent Marks even adduces to this fact when he pointed out in court that Cornejo 'first stated' (1149-52)-- and the fact that he could not export under his name (verifiable by examining export documents accompanying every shipment that was received by Lafeber). Presenting only one, however, permits the version the Government wishes to make public appear solid, firm; presenting both would have made a mockery of their case, as they would have had conflicting views on every point and thus raising the question of their credibility. In pursuit of the truth, however, this was not possible.

Two species in the possession of Silva and given to Mackman on loan were considered smuggled by the Government and listed as such in the plea agreement. Silva signed this agreement figuring that the truth would surface in court and rectify the matter. The two species are the Crimson-bellied and Blue-throated Conure.

The Crimson-bellied Conures will be discussed first. The plea reads:

On or about August 13, 1990, defendant knowingly caused to be received, possessed, transported, and delivered three Crimson-bellied Conures after importation....

This clearly suggests that the birds were smuggled in August, but in fact those three birds were listed on a breeding loan agreement between Silva and Bonnie Doane in August 1989 and there are witnesses that saw the birds in Silvals collection long before this date. The birds were acquired in 1987, from an individual that owned them and who sold them to Silva while he still owned the pet store, Tropifauna. Mackman was told repeatedly that this was the story behind the birds, but he repeatedly asked for another. Finally, Silva said that they came from breeder Nelson Kawall of Brazil (22-176, page 16). This story was incorrect but it satisfied Mackman, who was interested only in birds with an illegal past (see, for example, tape 22-162, page 20, where he is offered legal birds but where Mackman makes a multitude of excuses not to take them). If the Government would check with Nelson Kawall, he would deny ever having sold, traded, given or loaned any bird to Silva; his passport would show that he never entered the US to visit Silva. Those birds were legally in Chicago and there is no evidence that disproves this claim. The Blue-throated Conures were acquired long before the Crimson-bellied Conures. The plea reads:

On or about July 7, 1990, defendant knowingly facilitated the transportation after importation of merchandise... knowing the same to have been imported and brought into the United States contrary to law.

The date of 1990, as that given for the Crimson-bellied Conure, is when Mackman received the birds on loan; it is here used by the Prosecution to claim that that is when the birds arrived in the US. The Blue-throated Conure are listed on the same breeding loan that lists the Crimson-bellied Conure. Those birds were likewise seen in Silvals collection by a number of individuals; there are slides taken of them in 1986 and 1987 by Silva (interestingly, these are some of the missing slides mentioned earlier); and at one point the Government was prepared to return these birds to Silva. (The Government falsely claimed they were ill and Silvals mother informed them that euthanasia would be the most logical step, given the birds precarious and uncurable health status. This was another lie. The fact is, however, that if the Government was then prepared to return the birds as legal, they could not now charge Silva with their illegal importation. In court the Prosecution argued that this species has never been imported into the US, yet this is just another attempt at obfuscating the truth. Silva has a document that proves this species was imported in 1983 and Denna Ferris, a California aviculturist, informed Marks that her birds had come from a pet store in North Carolina and that a group had been imported at one time into the US (report 10-24-1991). These birds were clearly legal, but in pursuit of the truth the Government had to alter their status. The Judge agreed with the Prosecution.

Apart from the aforementioned Blue-throated Conures, Silva was also charged with the illegal importation of Philippine Red-vented Cockatoos and Mt Apo Lorikeets. The latter never arrived in the US and there is no way the Prosecution would honestly say they were going to be illegal. Only Mackman hinted at that-- and as usual it was believed by the Prosecution and Judge. When Daoud told him that a very rare species would be imported and that she was unsure how this could take place, Mackman immediately suggested that they should be imported as something else (22-167, page 2 and g). The reference by Daoud proved her ignorance of the bird trade. Any species could have been imported into the US at the time provided it was accompanied by the required permits. The birds would have been perfectly legal; indeed Daoud herself told Mackman repeatedly that the birds would be perfectly legal (see, for example, tapes 22-43, page 33, 22-49, pages 14 and 15, and 22-141, page 32); de Dios would have been the exporter of the Mt Apo Lorikeets. The Government valued and got a price valuation from James Dolan for the Mt Apo Lorikeets at $5000.00 a pair, which is exactly the price Silva related to Mackman they were worth some years before (22-146, page 12). The birds at the time were only worth $495.00 each, but Dolan was undoubtedly told by Bruning Wiat to value the birds at; Bruning obtained the valuation for the Government. Dolan valued three species and listed a 'pair' price only for the Mt Apo Lorikeets. In fact, all parrots can be sold as singles or pairs, so the valuation of Dolan of just this species per 'pair' and the actual valuation shows tampering.

One species which de Dios did send was the Red-vented Cockatoo. The plea agreement reads as follows:

On or about June 6, 1991, defendant [Silval knowingly caused to be possessed and facilitated the transportation and concealment of certain merchandise after importation, that is, two Red-vented Cockatoos, knowing the same to have been imported and brought into the United States contrary to law. Specifically defendant knowingly received [them] ... from a U.S.D.A. [United States Department of Agriculture] quarantine facility....

In actuality the birds were imported by Mackman, who made all the necessary arrangements: he forwarded the import permit to de Dios, arranged for their quarantine, and collected them at the airport after they had been released by the Department of Agriculture from quarantine (22-43, page 11, 22-94, page 24, and 22-121, page 5). Silva made arrangements to obtain 4 wild Red-vented Cockatoos from de Dios during a visit to Manila, to obtain the previously discussed birds for Loro Parque (22-40, page 17). Silva and Mackman spoke initially on the birds on 7 August 1990. In late October of that year Silva wrote Mackman that the birds were going to be captive-bred (Attachment 1, report 11-27-1990). De Dios and Silva had talked and at Silvals request de Dios offered to send two captive-bred birds, both sexually mature; the difference is that initially de Dios was going to send four but now he would only send two and that both would be captive-bred. During one of the many unrecorded conversations between Mackman and Silva, Silva told Mackman that the birds would be captive-bred but Mackman argued heatedly that he did not want captive-bred birds, which would in all probability be related to the Red-vented Cockatoos Silva already owned and which had been purchased from Peter Hill, who obtained them from de Dios (cancelled checks available as evidence); de Dios and Hill were partners in a bird importing business, Epic Birds. De Dios would breed the birds and send them to Hill, who would sell them in the US. Silva hesitatingly agreed that, he would get de Dios to ship wild birds to pacify Mackman, but he never communicated this to de Dios. Mackman thought the two birds, which arrived 10 months after Silva visited Manila, were wild caught; Silva knew they were aviary-bred. The Government only too willingly believed Mackman's story, which was in their best interest, but they could well have verified the fact by requesting DNA tests immediately after the raid on Silvals house on 17 January 1992. DNA has been used to prove whether certain birds were the offspring of a certain pair; the precedent was established in the 1980s in Holland, with birds belonging to Peter Kooy and Jan van de Gulik, and lead to a successful conviction. Mackman acknowledged the existence of the DNA test (5198) but the Government chose not to pursue the testing, undoubtedly because the results would destroy one of their charges. Fish and Wildlife Service also chose not to question de Dios when he entered the US, long after the 1992 raid (7/92-95). De Dios has also written a document stating that the birds were captive-bred. Although in supposed pursuit of the truth, the Government only too willingly seems to overlook the truth.

During the phone conversation between Silva and Mackman of 7 August 1990, Silva offered Mackman the possibility of importing birds bred by de Dios, including some 30 Hyacinth Macaws (22~40, page 2). Mackman never did anything to get the birds imported. In court, Mackman denied the existence of the birds (5174) but when presented with the facts, said that they would have been legal. Almost immediately after he saw the look of displeasure on the Prosecutor's face, he changed the facts. He then stated that CITES permits would not have made the birds legal (5/91), though Mackman had asked Silva while he was still in Manila about the CITES permits and Silva said they were legal (22-60, page 8). Mackman also acknowledged that if illegal, they would have nabbed both Silva and de Dios (5193), making for an even greater international scandal ... and having the birds as tangible proof. Mackman then put his foot in his mouth and admitted that it was a missed opportunity (5195), that the birds would have been illegal (note how without having concise information the birds are automatically 'illegal') but that Fish and Wildlife Service did nothing to get them imported. Clearly the Government did not want the birds imported for a simple reason: they would have been legal and this would have destroyed their big case. It is therefore not surprising that the Prosecution would want two birds imported and not 30 of the Hyacinth Macaws that they so wanted to get imported. The,explanation is simple enough: it would be easy to distort the truth on two-- but on 30 birds the argument would have required hard facts, such as DNA, and this would not have been so easily distorted.

Agent Bob Prather was also initially involved with the case. He subsequently left the service and started a company called FaunaLink, incorporated in 1994 (Franklin, 1997, On Wings, 3(2):3 and 43). Franklin published the following on Prather's involvement with FaunaLink:

A retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Agent, Bob Prather, is also on the board of FaunaLink. Prather was a Senior Agent who worked on Operation Renegade, in which a number of birds were seized. Some are still unaccounted for. According to FaunaLink's pamphlet, "Since retirement, he has accumulated a small collection of psittacine [=parrot] birds and has successfully bred several species........ he maintains a collection of smaller birds acquired by FaunaLink....

Some of Silva's birds are unaccounted for; it is quite possible that FaunaLink, of which Dr Bruning is a key member of the board, ended up with them. Bruning denied receiving any of Silvals birds in court but it appears that he received them indirectly from a source with which Fish and Wildlife Service placed them. Silvals mother, unbeknownst to her son, gave up ownership of the birds after Fish and Wildlife Service claimed they were ill. Mackman claimed all along that the birds were in fine health, but in court he admitted lying to Silva and Daoud at the orders of Fish and Wildlife Service (5146-47). (A question to ponder is: what else did he lie about?) The facts surfacing now are that Fish and Wildlife Service lied also when they said the birds were so ill that they should humanely be destroyed. They were given to cooperating parties and may well have ended up at such places as FaunaLink.

FaunaLink's address, telephone and telefax number are the same as retired bird dealer Ron lec]airls. Rather than conserving species, as FaunaLink claims, the birds they are breeding and selling are hybrids-- mongrels of little value for conservation, which is the supposed dictum of FaunaLink.

Franklin summarized the problem-- perhaps more descriptive would be the conflict of interest-- of Bruning, Prather and FaunaLink as follows:

The oversight that should have been provided to ensure that Prather (or Bruning, for that matter) does not benefit from confiscations stemming from investigations in which he participated has not materialized. My August Freedom of Information Act request for an accounting of birds he has received from the Service since January 1991 is still being stalled.

Clearly there is something awry with every aspect of the Silva and Daoud case.

Readers will be now be wondering how is it that Silva and Daoud lost the case. They did not. They ended up pleading guilty, this the result of a myriad of pressures: evidence which they could have used in their defense was not forthcoming-- the Government to this day, some five months after they were sentenced, still refuses turn over even copies of all the seized material, even though this does not guarantee that what could prove helpful has not been 'discarded' (key slides which would have proven the legality of certain birds were removed when part of Silvals slide collection was returned); witnesses which could have testified were intimidated, with an IRS Agent and not the customary US Marshall's or Fish and Wildlife Service Agents taking the necessary subpoena; the Prosecution met with defense attorney's, showing them select material and distorting the facts before the trial, to erringly convince them that the case could not have been won; and lastly, from a physical wearing down of fighting a public war in which disinformation played a key role. Silva and Daoud expected the Judge to see the facts, which almost invariably clashed with the plea, and for virtually everything to get tossed aside. (The Probation Officer that reviewed the case, Pene Mulliken, called Silva and Schipper's to her office and said that either Silva change his facts to reflect the plea, or that she may recommend that the plea not be accepted. In the end, Mulliken sat and joked with the Prosecution during the evidentiary hearing and did not make her recommendation to the court. What got her to change her mind? Perhaps pressure from the Prosecution, for during a call to Silva she said that in her final Pre-Sentencing Investigation Report she would include basically the Government's version, because this case was 'so complicated'. This says much for an officer who is supposed to be impartial.) The Judge proved not to be impartial, as well. After the second day of hearings, on 3 April 1996, Silva petitioned the court to withdraw his plea; he had spoken only two words up until that time-- one 'yes' and one 'no'. Silva's decision to withdraw his plea was based on the fact that evidence which he had claimed existed suddenly started surfacing. By that time only a relatively small part of the Government's evidence had been produced, thus it is erring to imply, as the Prosecution has repeatedly done, that Silva was scared with what was coming and decided to try and recover his lost reputation amongst aviculturists.

The Judge denied the motion to withdraw the plea, claiming that Silva was not credible; how this decision was arrived at is surprising given the lack of testimony at the time on the part of Silva. (The Judge made a similar remark about Daoud. even though she had spoken also only two words.) The Prosecution did their utmost to prevent Silva from withdrawing his plea. One is therefore forced to wonder: if the Prosecution's case is so solid, why so vehemently oppose giving Silva a trial, where he could ostensibly be found guilty and given a far longer jail sentence?

Silva is now appealing the Judge's decision.

The Government has done everything within its power to sway public opinion on this case, often resorting to outright lies. There appears to be some evidence surfacing that Nova produced their documentary The Great Wildlife Heist at the suggestion of Fish and Wildlife Service; this program was repeatedly aired at about the time Silva was going to trial and then just before the evidentiary hearing, undoubtedly to effect the outcome of the case. The producer of this documentary lied to the participants, including Silva, about his motive. The producer, Alan Austin, wrote in 1993: 'The very last thing we want to produce is something false or unfair' and 'there is reason to believe the recent efforts to catch the smugglers may have been extreme' (quote in Franklin, 1997, On Wings, 3(2):44). The truth, however, was not pursued and there is evidence that tapes played by Nova were tampered to alter the entire meaning of the conversation. Attempts to reach Alan Austin have failed: he refuses to return phone calls... perhaps because he would have to answer the truth behind the documentary.

The Prosecution also played his part in the disinformation, informing The Miami Herald (Spanish edition, 25 September 1995, page 12A) :

According to the Prosecutor, Silva... imported more than 100 parrots listed as endangered and with the value of $10,000.00 each. Apparently he did this [importation] with the help of a daughter of the ex-president of Paraguay, Alfredo Stroessner, in his private plane .

Stroessner has no daughter and his plane never entered the US. The story sounded good and was sure to elicit a strong response in the Miami area, where many dissidents from Paraguay lived. The Government initially claimed in their press releases that Silva and Daoud had smuggled $4-5,000,000.00 worth of wildlife into the US. Eventually this number was reduced and in the evidentiary hearing the figure oscilated between $800,000.00 and $1,500,000.00. This included all the wildlife that Cornejo, Mackman and Trabaue claimed existed but for which there was not evidence-- only hearsay. This amount was further reduced by IRS Special Agent, Kevin Moss, who looked at all of Silvals bird sales and could only claim that he failed to declare $168,325.00 (61152). However, if you deduct the moneys claimed by Trabaue, moneys returned to persons who bought birds when Silva was disbursing his collection to move to Spain and then returned them (the remaining part of the collection was handed to Bonnie Doane, who later passed it to Mackman), and moneys for birds which Silva sold and which were not his, the actual amount underreported is zero. Moss found no hidden acounts (61127) and could not point to one of the birds that Silva sold and say it was smuggled (6123). He did, however, try to imply that double mortgage payments and the adquisition of a plot of land next to a house Silva owned was made with 'illegal' money (6/29-30). Finally, when questioned, Moss admitted the truth. that Silva moved to Spain in April 1989 (6163) and that the purchases were made with salary earnings after that date; the double mortgage payments and land purchase were made after August 1989 (6130), or some four months after Silva left for Spain. Even after Silva and Daoud were sentenced, the Government could still not permit the truth to emenate.

The Prosecution informed the Chicago Tribune (19 November 1996, page 4, section 2) that Silva smuggled birds in '... cardboard containers without food, water or fresh air and hidden in false bottom suitcases....' This story was obviously slanted to play the cruelty issue; it is undermined by certain obvious facts: no one smuggles to have the wildlife perish in transit, the invariable result if they had no fresh air; parrots are notorious chewers and would easily have freed themselves from 'cardboard containers'; and, most important,there was noevidence to support such claims. The story gave a new twist to the case-- it disclosed a method of smuggling never even alluded to in court. Perhaps the Prosecution feared that someone with brains would verify that Stroessner had no daughter and that his plane never landed in the US, but in changing the 'facts' made the story even more incredulous.

The Government had previously referred to cruel smuggling methods-- all based on equal conjecture. Based on a Government press release, it was posted on the lnternet by a government sympathiser (name deleted) on 8 June 1995 that Silva smuggled the birds inside pvc pipes inside the door panels of automobiles for the trip across the border from Mexico to the US. As with cardboard containers inside suitcases, there was no evidence; but to a public not priviledged to the facts, the story would raise screams of horror. The story about the pvc was invented by none other than Mackman, who saw a series of articles in the magazine Australian Birdkeeper showing birds in pvc pipes, all confiscated by Customs in Australia. Immediately Silva was accused of such a smuggling method, even if the evidence was lacking. Agent Marks admitted that the claim was based on 'hearsay' (2110) and that they found no pvc pipes during the raid. Agent Marks, however, did his best to disinform the Grand Jury when he testified that 'Tony Silva described... the use of pvc as a smuggling method (2/12). In fact, Silva and Marks had never talked or even met at the time. So much for the pursuit of truth!

Silva had stated his views publicly twice prior to sentencing, and both times the Government objected with fury. Once this was put on paper (see page 9, Government's Response to Defendent's Motion to Withdraw Plea) and once just prior to the sentencing, when the Prosecutor called David Schippers and admonished him for Silva posting his views on the lnternet; similar comments were made at the evidentiary hearing. Apparently the Prosecution believes that freedom of speech, an inelienable right bestowed upon the citizens of the United States by the First Amendment of the Constitution, should be abolished. Silva has in fact not posted his views on the lnternet, but another person, Raymond Hoser, had posted a letter sent to him. Not surprisingly a few days later Hoser's lnternet supplier prevented him from having further access to the lnternet-- a clear case of violation of freedom of speech! (Access http://www.smuggled.com/vac.htm for details of that censorship).

Silva and Daoud were charged with obstructing justice. 'The Judge only too readily included this additional charge in their sentence. According to IRS Agent Kevin Moss, both Silva and Daoud tried to impede the investigation by disguising their hand-writing; yet during the endless hours required to give the exemplars Daoud complained repeatedly about the pain in her hand, brought about by systemic arthritis; her fingers also became visibly swollen. Moss admitted in court that arthritis could contribute to differences in the hand-writing (6197-102), but he nonetheless requested the charge, even though he told the hand-writing examiner that in his view both Silva and Daoud tried to 'disguise their hand~writing' (61102-103). It was obvious that this poisoned the examiner's mind, long before he had even looked at the first example. What Agent Moss failed to notify the examiner was that Silva and Daoud had already spent countless hours providing samples of their hand-writing, and that never had they denied their writing on any one document (61105). Obviously this was just another game on the part of the Prosecu tion to get additional charges levied.

Finally, in an attempt to cover the clear entrapment by Mackman and Fish and Wildlife Service, the Prosecution brought forth a book called Entrapment and the Federal Courts (ex. 200), which they initially claimed was found during the raid on Silvals home (see Covernment's Response to Defendent's Motion to Withdraw Plea) and later in Daoud's (813-5). The Prosecution claimed that Silva was expecting to get caught and had prepared himself for the case. This was both amusing-- if that was the case, why has the Government gone to such an extreme to alter the facts?-~ and surprising. Silva had never seen the book. Fortunately the day the book surfaced, Oriando, Silvals brother was in court. He immediately pointed out that the book was part of the curriculum when he took (and graduated) from police sciences (813-5). Another accusation shot down.

Silva has repeatedly asked that the truth be disseminated and for the final judgement to be made by persons from an informed position. Perhaps this is what the Prosecution so worries will happen that they must quash the truth and spread hersay and pure speculation. Silva only wants. a chance at a trial, where he could face his accusers, rather than have Agents, who are only too aware of how to filter information, repeat what the supposed witnesses are prepared to say, without giving the Defense a chance at cross examination. The sentence Silva got was 82 months and Daoud 27 months. The former is not even given to murderers, but then this case was not about truth of justice: it had to be won at any cost. The Judge, given her apparent views of individuals that- keep animals in captivity, could only give the Prosecution a resounding victory. Perhaps this is why the first word that emanated from her mouth at sentencing was that she would base her sentence on 'hearsay'.

Letter From Tony Silva Dated 19 April 1997

Dear Dave:

Thank you for sending me the Government's response. As you can see from the ensuing, I have dissected it thoroughly. They purposely take many Points out of context and disregard some glarings facts. I hope this will aid you in the reply.

On another subject, I am at a loss for words to express my gratitude to you for everything. All that I can say is that you and your family are in my prayers and that God will reward you for everything you are doing with health and eternal happiness.

Note: Numbers is brackets [ ] refer to the page and paragraph in Government's response; numbers in parenthesis ( ) refer to court transcript volume and page number. fin [2/21: There was no full-day of briefings after motion to withdraw plea. It was just a brief court appearance. They are trying to imply that the Judge heard an argument and then decided-- she did not'

Substantial income/conspiracy [3/31: Government alledges that,the conspiracy started in 1986 and continued until 1991 and that I made a substantial income. The facts negate this claim. Marks noted that no money sent to South America could be linked to illegal wildlife purchases (2/25), and Moss could not point to a single bird that I sold and say it was smuggled (6/23). Moss found no hidden accounts (6/127) and what he alludes were purchases with illegal funds is a distortion of the truth: Moss implies that double mortgate payments and a plot of land acquired next to the house I then owned was made with illegal funds (6/29-30). The payments and purchase were made after I moved to Spain, or after August 1989-- not before April 1989 (6/63, 6/30) --- thus with my salary from the park.

There was no conspiracy extending beyond 1989. Last funds were sent to South America in 1989 (6/63). You can't acquire birds without money and thus this proves that no wildlife was ever going to enter the US in the second conspiracy.

The Government claims I smuggled $1,356,900.00 worth of wildlife, yet Moss found all the buyers and could only claim that I failed to report $168,325.00 (6/152). This money was either returned, the birds belonged to McAlpine (and sold for his behalf-- there is a clear record that the money was sent to him) or is claimed by Trabaue. This clearly shows that I made no substantial income.

[6/21 Money was not sent for the upkeep of the Hyacinths after their purchase. This refers to the birds Mackman claims were going to be smuggled. The Government's Agents found no evidence of money going to Gisela Caceres (supposed supplier and the person they claim was holding them) after 11/29/1988 (l/120) or to South America after 1989 (6/63). There is clearly no evidence that the birds were (1) acquired or (2) that funds were send for their upkeep.

[19/21 Silva did not continue his efforts to smuggle the Hyacinth Macaws after moving to Spain. There is no evidence that the birds were acquired, and even the Agents admit that the birds were never going to come (5/84) because they did not exist.

[22/11 There is no substantial evidence separate from plea agreement that supports I was engaged in an ongoing conspiracy. The government would have provided such in coutt...or Mentioned it in their response.

Caceres and money for upkeep of Hyacinths [6/21. I did not provide additional money for their upkeep ... or even money for their initial purchase! Agents found that the last funds going to South America was in 1989 (6/63) and that the last time any money was sent to Caceres was on 11/29/1988 (l/120). This fact destroys all claims that the birds were acquired and maintained for the second conspiracy.

[27/21 The Government claims that the evidence that the birds existed is in the phone calls to Caceres. In my book A Monograph of Macaws and Conures I reference Enrique Bazan, whom lived with Caceres. He was called many times for information. Also note that exhibit 170 was changed in the middle of the evidentiary hearing.

[27/2 and 28/11 Birds seized in Paraguay, the Government claims, were those awaiting transport. The person from whom they were confiscated, Enrique Ekkert, is dead. Mackman was supposed to get 50 birds but Ekkert had 16 and the Paraguayan officials conducting the raid never mentioned the existence of others. Mackman was told about the raid, but this occurred long after both my mother and myself read about it in Traffic South America Newsletter for August 1991. Paraguayan reports claim that the birds were held for 'Koopmann' but Caceres is Gisela's married name and Koopmann would have been her father, whom she does not talk with. In truth Ekkert had a small zoo at his property and the birds were his, but his fear of fines undoubtedly got him to blame Koopmann as their owner.

Entrapment [8/2, 28/2, 20/3, 31/1 and 42/21. Government claims that recordings disprove entrapment. In fact, the conversation that could prove entrapment was not recorded. There were 23 calls before that point where smuggling was never discussed; Mackman did say in those calls that he needed to talk to Silva 'confidentially', from a 'safe phone', that he had 'big questions' etc. He claims this was to keep his relationship with me secret, per my wishes, but he was saying those things to my mother and he went with me to avicultural events (5/42-44, 7/192), thus refuting his claim.

There is, in fact, a clear record of entrapment. Mackman admits that from the first meeting with Fish and Wildlife Service, which took place in January 1990, the idea of him going to Tenerife was discussed (5/39); the first suggestion that the Government refers to that my mom or I made that he visit me was on March 1990. It is clear from the record that long before 1990 Mackman was already working for Fish and Wildlife: he admits buying birds for them in 1988 or 1989 (4/8-9) and working for them before January 1990 (5135). I suspect that when he first came to me in 1988 he was already working for Fish and Wildlife Service.

The Government claims that Mackman was 'solicited' ?requested' in Spain (3/116-122) but a number of facts refute this claim. Fish and Wildlife admits that he went at their request (5/56) to 'Plant a seed' (ie, to entrap) (8/29), and there is a tape recorded conversation (tape 22-02 (never transcribed for obvious reasons)) made on 9 February 1990 where Mackman points out that he wants to go and has made up his minc to go to Spain (see also Agent's report of 5-22-1990). This recording was made about a month before tape 22-03 which the Government claims shows that Mackman was invited to Spain. The record is therefore clear that Mackman was not invited but was told to go.

Mackman had the incentive to entrap. Agent Heard said: 'We told him we would pay him when he came back with information.' (8/23). Mackman thus had the incentive to come back with information and ultimately he was paid $36,450.00 (5/126) for his information, though he claims he turned me in for the 'righteous thing'.

Mackman: Mackman claims that I informed him of my plan to smuggle the Hyacinths during his trip to Spain, when he was 'recruited' [24/3, 38/21. Mackman could just as easily been recruited, if that was my intention, on the phone. Initially he claimed that I refused to talk on the phone (l/20) but after questiortingadmitted that he stayed in touch via the phone with me (4/65). This would have been easier. There is in fact no evidence to suggest that he was requested, but there is evidence that he wanted to talk to me from a 'safe phone', 'confidentially' and that he had 'big questions' and (as pointed out above) that he had a motive for going to Spain.

Lastly it should be pointed out that in the conversation in which Ugalde and Mackman do talk about the plan-- made after I called Ugalde in front of Mackman-Ugalde lied to Mackman about the events and later admitted doing so in court.

[7/11 Mackman was a friend but he wa s not offered a job at Loro Parque as the Government claims. Mackman admitted 'pretending to be a friend' (5/133) (perhaps because, as I said previously, he was initially sent to entrap me?) and he wrote Loro Parque looking for a job-- he was not offered one. My response to him, shown in court, shows this: Mackman requested a job and I answered with the conditions.

[7/21 Mackman's story about visiting Lafeber's quarantine station with Antonio de Dios and myself is a lie. Mackman has repeatedly lied. He claims that when he visited Loro Parque he was forced to swim with the dolphins, so that his belongings could be investigated (5/60), but the facts clearly show this did not occur and there is a sworn affidavit proving that Mackman lied (exhibit 26, 7/207).

The story about the quarantine was originally cited in Agent's report of 4-18-1990. The report states: 1 ... sometime in 1989 [Lawrence Lafeber, Antonio de Dios, Silva and he] dined together at a Sicilian Restaurant in Chicago, which Silva described as a ?safe house'... and there Lafeber discussed a method he had incorporated to smuggle birds out of quarantine before their scheduled time of release'. During the conversation international arms deals were also discussed.

In court Mackman said that the meeting occurred 'just before August 1989' (5/28) but then changed the story to hearing about it (5/30). Later he reaffirmed being present at the quarantine to see how the procedure would be carried out (5/174). Several facts negate the existence of this claim: de Dios's passport shows that he was not in the country in 1989; Lafeber had closed the quarantine station in January (3/13-14) and the building was subsequently demolished; and Lafeber had stopped associating with Silva from mid-1988 (Agent's report 10-13-1990).

[8/11 Mackman now claims that I admitted to him being a smuggler. In court Mackman stated that I had touched the subject only.'peripherally' (7/189) and that I had purposely limited his knowledge of smuggling, including my activities (3/129). Clearly prior to Mackman returning from Spain the subject was never discussed, though Mackman did invent all sorts of stories about my activities and these are borne out in Agent's reports. These include child sex, murder, drug smuggling, etc.

Plea and withdrawal of plea [9/11: Government claims plea negotiations occurred as far back as in 1994, but this is not true. Murray suggested that I plea but that was all and in return he would keep my mother out. A suggestion and negotiations are separate issues.

[9/2] Plea negotiations did not ensue and continue through late January. Final changes were made the day of the plea, and the Government several times changed its mind. As an example, initially it was going to be two misdemeanors for my mom, then something else, etc. The same for me.

[10/2]. My only comment in court was a 'yes' and a 'no'.

[10/3] After testimony was presented I decided to withdraw my plea and they claim it was not timely [14/11. Dave, you can most accurately respond to this issue.

[17/2] I never testified, so how could the Judge have made her comments to affirm decision to prevent me from withdrawing plea?

[17/4] Government entrapment was realized long before plea. Dave, you spoke to Acosta about this on the phone.

[29/3] I did not decide to withdraw plea after previewing the Government's case it was just that suddenly we had evidence available. Remember they still refuse to return my things; what slides they returned were picked over to remove any that could have been used in court; what they.returned was nonsense-- appliance warrantees, manuals, etc; and when they claimed they were going to bring things in for us to preview, they brought items of no value and all in padded envelopes to give the impression that far more was available. Suddenly some of this was available.

[30/2] I may have waited two months to withdraw my appeal, but my version was already available and Rene Mulliken called you and me over and said she was even going to suggest that the plea be withdrawn, unless I changed my version of events.

Judged erred on side of defendant [35/2]: Nothing can be further from the truth. Judge Bucklo believed every single accusation the Gov ' ernment made. For example Lafeber testified that during the time Cornejo was sending birds, he only received 5 boxes and that each contained only a few birds (Lafeber testimony/ 89*).

Bucklo accepted the Government's incredulous suggestion that the boxes contained 60 Yellow-faced Amazons, 70 Yellow-collared Macaws (7/33), 30-35 Golden or Queen of Bavaria's Conures (7/27), 10 Red-fronted Macaws (7/29), 14 Illiger's Macaws (7/26), in excess of 79 Hyacinth Macaws (Government's response to appeal motion, page 6, parag. 1), one Wooly Spider Monkey (6/36)(the largest primate in South America weighing between 25 and 30 pounds and measuring 5 feet long) and some other wildlife. Corneio was not even sure of what primates he exported (6/201) but whatever was proposed was accepted. Photos of dead birds were also accepted, even though the Agents testified that they could not be dated or given a locality (2/40). She also accepted all of the Government's double and tripple hearsay, all expounded by less than credible witnesses. She could not have erred more on the side of the Prosecution! To state anything else is to be blind to reality.

Court findings [11/2]: Same as above.

Obstruction of justice [12/l]: I was charged with obstruction of justice, even though this was premeditated by an agent. Moss admitted telling the hand-writing examiner that my hand-writing was disguised (6/97-103). This poisoned the examiner's mind. I had already spent hours providing hand-writing exemplars and, in addition, had never denied a single document that contained my hand-writing (6/105).

Alfredo Fuentes [37/2, 38/1]: Shipments were never received fron Fuentes, and they deduce his name from notes to 'Alfredo'. Lafeber says that any reference to 'Alfredo' is to Alfredo Rackauskas (my former pet store partner) (3/74). Fuentes merely supervised shipments on the way to Chicago, to prevent tampering in Mexico (5/175). The shipments were legal and the problem was contained baby birds, very susceptible to cold weather.

*Part of Lafeber and Ugalde's testimony does not appear in volumes, but in Government's response to motion to withdraw appeal. When this is referenced, the name of Lafeber or Ugalde appears before the page number.

Perjury to Probation officer [42/2]. The Government claims that I lied to Probation officer because I did not expound their views. I could not give their version-it was not correct!

My version of offense [42/2]. My version contained the truth. How could I accept having smuggled Crimson-bellied Conures and Blue-throated Conures in 1990 when I had long owned them, and there is even a breeding loan agreement containing these birds dated August 1989? The Red-vented Cockatoos from Antonio de Dios were not illegally imported; Mackman made all the arrangements and they were legal. Mackman wanted wild birds, to insure that they were not related to those I already owned which had been acquired from de Dios (via Peter Hill), so I went along with the story, but they were captive-bred. The Government could have demanded DNA tests of the birds, to prove their legality. DNA has been used in court and a precedent was long ago established. The Mt Apo Lorikeets were never imported, so how could they be illegally imported? The Government never even saw the paperwork! The headdress was reconstructed-- not smuggled in 1990 (my mom had been in Paraguay in 1987, as her passport shows, where she acquired the chicken feather headdresses). The ivory tusk was purchased in Chinatown. My mom mentioned ivory-- never a tusk in the recorded conversation. She was referring to a bracelet made of ivory, acquired in 1986 when she first visited Spain. The same applies for the rest of the events described in the plea.

Smuggling conspiracy [39/2]: I was, according to the Government, involved in every aspect of the conspiracy. There is no evidence of this. Ugalde was getting the Hyacinth Macaws for Mackman (Ugalde/ 143) and because Mackman pressured (Ugalde/ 42). Mackman also tried to get illegal birds from Ugalde and pressured him to acquire those birds (Ugalde/ 62), without my knowledge. The first conspiracy had terminated and this is evident in the facts: Lafeber had closed his quarantine station, we no longer talked and I moved overseas. The second was a clear entrapment case and nothing whatsoever was done to acquire the birds.

[41/3] The Government claims that Lafeber was not the sole owner of the birds, both legal and illegal. The facts are that he owned the quarantine station and suggested the illegal activity; that he had complete control; that the export and import permits were issued under his name; and that many of the birds which the Government claims I smuggled, were purchased from Lafeber! This is clear proof that he was the owner. A case in point are the Toco Toucans (l/101), which 1 purchased from Lafeber; these birds are given as having been smuggled by me.

[028/1-2] The Judge found me guilty of smuggling every single species suggested by the Government. That all of that wildlife was smuggled is impossible, as indicated under Judge erred on side of defendant, page 4, this letter). Had this wildlife existed, it would have reflected in the amount Moss claimed was not reported-- and not a mere $168,325.00 (6/152), of which $50,000.00 is attributed to Trabaue, another large amount belongs to birds sold and belonging to McAlpine (moneysubsequently sent to him), and the rest was money returned after the buyers returned the birds. Moss could not point to one bird that I sold and say it was smuggled (6/123) and he found every buyer and bird sold (6/152). Clearly that the wildlife claimed was smuggled is not the case, or the $1.3 million in sales would have been found.

[029/3] The Judge claims that sales were in excess of $1.3 million, yet Moss found that during the years the conspiracy was supposed to be taking place I only under reported $168,325.00. Moss located every Hyacinth Macaw I sold (6/13) and if we deduct from these the 15 dead in the photographs (6/125), which cannot be dated or given a locality (2/40) and the 35 Trabaue claims he purchased (6/16) but for which there is no cheek or cash transaction, the remaining group is accounted in a studbook for the species (61162). None of the other wildlife sold could be questioned, as almost all was bred by me.

Silva was not entrapped into the second conspiracy [23/11. Apart from the fact that the most incriminating conversations were not recorded, this accusation is answered under Entrapment, page 2 of this letter.

The Government charges that there is no evidence of two conspiracies [24/11: The first conspiracy terminated when Lafeber closed his quarantine station down in January 1989 (3/13-14) and by the facts that no money was sent to Gisela Caceres (Lafeber's last supplier) after 11-29-1988 (l/120). Lafeber himself has stated that no birds were received after 1988 (Lafeber/92). This conspiracy was dead. The second commenced as a result of the entrapment elucidated on page 2 of this letter.

The Government charges that I continued to work with Caceres and others towards the illegal goal through early 1990s [26/1]. There is no evidence that I sent Caceres any money after 11-29-1988 (l/120), or that she acquired any birds to further the conspiracy. The Agent's themselves found no evidence of money going to South America after 1989 (6/63).

Trabaue was a part of the conspiracy [32/2]. The Government claims that Trabaue was part of the conspiracy, yet he was jailed in 1987; Lafeber and I stopped associating, per his own testimony, in 1988.

Cornejo's smuggling notes [37/2]: The Government gives Cornejo a level of credibility that he does not deserve. In fact there are serious problems with his credibility. He could not export from Argentina under his name (7/148 and Lafeber's shipment documents) and was barred from working in his profession from 1982 to 1999 (7/148). He suggested blackmail when Lafeber did not pay for a shipment which was seized for Cornejo failing to send the adequate documentation (2/40, 3/107, 3/84, 3/7), which resulted in wildlife being seized by Fish and Wildlife Service. It is also clear from a remark by Marks that Cornejo varied his story each time he was interviewed. Marks said 'he first stated...' (l/49-52). That this was the case is evident by the recanting of stories told in the first of Agent's interview (report 8-3-1992) and the second (4-3-1995). Cornejo is clearly not a man of any credibility.

Cornejo and Trabaue both indicated that it was Silva, not Lafeber, who was primarily responsible for smuggling [38/3]: Trabaue never made this reference, thus it is a misleading claim. Lafeber and Trabaue never met. Cornejo is not being truthful about the wildlife he exported: all shipments were sent to Lafeber, under Lafeber's name and import license, and this is borne out by the fact that when Lafeber's checks bounced, Cornejo threatened to blackmail him and expose the fact that he had sent him illegal wildlife.

Hearsay and credibility of witnesses [25/1 and 35/2]: The credibility of any hearsay is contigent on the credibility of the witness. In this case, none are credible. Cornejo: See previous paragraph. Trabaue: Letter of Bureau of Prison (Attachment A, motion for appeal) says much, as does the fact that Agent Marks totally overlooked this document when he requested the search warrant. Agent Moss discount's Trabaue's credibility by pointing out that the testimony of a Federal Agent is more credible than that of a criminal (6/125).

Mackman: The incidence with de Dios and Loro Parque illustrated on page 4, the level to which Mackman is prepared to lie. In addition.. when the late Enrique Ekkert's name surfaced in,court, Mackman immediately stated that he had been arrested in Mexico with illegal birds (presumably for Silva) (4/70). The Prosecutor had to lead Mackman to get him to change his version to the truth... but even then he went beyond the truth, claiming that Ekkert had been arrested in Paraguay (4/70-71). Ekkert was never arrested.

Lafeber: Lafeber has not paid taxes in five years (3/29-30) and was working under a letter of immunity for his crimes. His testimony clashes with that of Cornejo, who said for example that he sent in excess of 79 Hyacinth Macaws. Lafeber says that in total only 5 boxes containing a few illegal birds were received (Lafeber/ 89). Lafeber kited checks (3/13) and many of his statements in court are outright incredulous. Ugalde: Ugalde had to try and make his stories as convincing as possible, so that his sentence would be as lenient as possible. Nonetheless, he was prepared to distort the truth to achieve this means. In court he testified that he had sold me a rare and illegal Cuban Amazon in the mid 1980s (Ugalde/6-7). In fact he had previously told the truth to the Agents, that the bird was purchased by someone else but that I was present (report 11-5-1993). Only after evidence surfaced did Ugalde admit the truth: that the bird was in fact not bought by me (Ugalde/ 33-37). Ugalde admitted lying about Martinez's efforts in Mexico, on my mother telling him not to 'turn on us' (Ugalde 56-59), and admitted to giving the Grand Jury incorrect data as to the Hyacinth Macaw smuggling scheme (Ugalde/ 37-38).

Goldsmith: Goldsmith and his former employer Trabaue clashed in their testimony: Goldsmith claims that of the 35 Hyacinths that I supposedly sent to Trabaue only 2 survived, while Trabaue says that 12-15 survived (2/176, 1/129). Goldsmith claims he treated the birds but kept no records (2/197), did not write down the medications they were supposedly given (2/169), and his diary contains no reference to the existence of the birds (2/169-196). He claims he travelled to Chicago to sex birds for me (2/181) but then when faced with the truth-which would take the sinister aspect out of the sexing-- admitted that he had first been in Wisconsin before coming to Chicago (2/207). Goldsmith worked where Trabaue trafficked in drugs and claims he saw absolutely nothing, though there is a recording which proves that he did drugs with Trabaue (Bucklo would not admit this in court), and after telling Marks that he participated in the chopping off of the heads of the dead Hyacinths (mentioned in search warrant) now he says he only heard about this taking place (2/178).

Mackman testified that a Philippine smuggler, Antonio de Dios, and Lafeber were at the quarantine station along with me and that this proves I was the leader of the conspiracy [38/2~31: The meeting never occurred, as pointed out in page 4, this letter. This is another case where the Government makes accusations that are just untenable.

Affidavits [35/2]: The Government argues that I should not attack the credibility of the witnesses and argues that the credibility of the hearsay is good. Apart from all that previously stated, perhaps they should answer why they never brought Cornejo to testify, who was prepared to come, and why they brought Trabaue to Chicago and then never placed him on the stand? These two incidenses say much about the credibility of their witnesses.

Lafeber and I separated the boxes, according to the Government [5/21: This is absurd, and even Lafeber admits to removing the boxes (Lafeber/89) and tampering with the seal (3/47).

[6/11: The Government claims that more than 79 Hyacinths and a whole list of other species (enumerated under Judge erred on side of defendant, page 5, this report) were imported through Lafeber's quarantine station. Lafeber says that in all five boxes containing a few birds passed through his quarantine station (Lafeber/ 89). This clearly undermines' the claims.of the Government and suggests very clearly that the Judge erred on the side of the Prosecution.

Silva did not organize the conspiracy [26/1]: Lafeber says that the smuggling was his idea (3/38, 3/64), that he suggested the method to be used (3/46, 3/73), that he tampered with the seal (3/47) and that he removed the birds (Lafeber/ 87). Lafeber had the power to stop all further imports, as he controlled the quarantine station, license and the means to remove the birds.

Silva maintained the critical contacts that initiated the illegal importations [36/21: Lefeber has pointed out that the smuggling was his idea (3/38, 3/64) and that he was the mastermind behind the scheme (3/40, 3/47, 3/73). Lafeber knew Caceres before me, having purchased birds from her many years before, and he was introduced to Cornejo at the same time as I was.

Alfredo Fuentes [38/l]: Alfredo Fuentes merely kept an eye on shipments, to reduce mortality. The Government never questioned him. The many calls to him were to reach him; he had no phone and thus you would have to call 20 times in the hopes of finding him once(he visited that house periodically). Blank invoices were to ship things to Loro Parque, who bought supplies from Lafeber. Spain required an invoice prior to allowing a check in US dollars to be produced.

Lafeber claims Silva was sole owner of illegal birds [41/31: This is difficult to accept given what is stated above. Lafeber had total control to stop further shipments; he Profitted from them. If I had control, why would I have bought from him Toco Toucans (3/81-82) which he claims were mine?

Pressure [18/11: The Goverment questions the fact that I only took steps to avert Mackman's pressure. His pressure is well illustrated in tape 22-149A and Mackman acknowledged this pressure in court (5/87) and the fact that is was used at Fish and Wildlife Service's request (5/88). This also shows that when the pressure was exerted, the conversation was not recorded.

Cornejo and the adquisition of birds [411]: Cornejo, the Government claims, arranged for the birds to be smuggled out of Paraguay and Brazil, and this wildlife was then maintained by Caceres before sending it to Corneio. There is no evidence of this in the court transcripts.

Caceres meeting with Silva in Chicago [5/3]: It is impossible for anyone to know what was or was not discussed during her visit to Chicago; the Government can't even decide on the year (1987 or 1988). She had come to a wedding and visited me. It is foolish to suggest, as the Government, does that she came to discuss sending 79 Hyacinth Macaws through Lafeber's station. Lafeber admitted that he stopped associating with me in mid 1988 and that he closed his'quarantine station down in January 1989 (3/13-14). In addition, as previously pointed out, Lafeber says that only a few birds in five boxes were received in his quarantine station during the entire time.

Purchase of Hyacinth Macaws [6/2, 19/21: The Government claims that I purchased a substantial number of Hyacinth Macaws in 1989. There is clearly no evidence for this, except conjecture. The Government itself admits that I sent no money to Caceres, the supposed supplier, after 11-29-1988 (I/120). Clearly this proves that the birds were never acquired.

Ugalde claims plan to get Hyacinth Macaws existed in 1988 and before Silva went to Spain in 1989 [22/1, 24/3]: This claim can be refuted by the fact that if birds were acquired in 1988 they could not be acquired again in 1989. The various Agent's reports contradict his claim,for-,Ugalde gives different numbers and varies the percentage that he was supposed to get. If the birds existed, Ugalde would have verified this to Mackman during the conversation pointed out on page,3; he never mentioned them because the subject was first discussed much later.

Ugalde claims to have discussed conspiracy with Silva in 1988 and 1989 [22/1]:

If this is the case, why isn't Ugalde able to remember the number of conversations or specifics (Ugalde/ 14)?

Silva recruited Ugalde to smuggle Hyacinth Macaws [38/21: I merely called once, to satisfy the demands of Mackman. Ugalde admits that any attempts to procure the birds were made for Mackman (Ugalde/ 43, 48).

Calls to Ugalde 1988-1990 [25/1]. If there was an ongoing conspiracy, the calls would have extended up until the search warrant. They did not. It should be noted that exhibit 170 which reflects the number of calls was changed in the middle of the hearing. I spoke to Ugalde about his attempts to sell Loro Parque some birds, which the park never bought because he could not obtain the necessary documentation; about a bird I had loaned to him; and to answer Ugalde's questions, as he himself tells Mackman in their recorded conversations. It is incorrect to claim, as the Government does, that every call was to discuss smuggling.

Goldsmith corroborates Trabaue, claims the Government [39/l]: This is refuted on page 8. There was a major discrepancy between Trabaue and Goldsmith as to the numbers of birds that survived. Goldsmith also assumed the birds came from me; he never saw an airbill or other evidence.

Martinez and his visit to Mexico [18/l]: Ugalde claims he sent Fred Martinez to Mexico in 1988, but Martinez's passport shows an entry in January 1992, which is right after I called Ugalde about procuring the birds for Mackman. The Government tries to destroy this claim, which proves that there were two separate conspiracies. Ugalde had said 1990 (Ugalde/ 39, 41) and Martinez's passport indicates his entry in January 1992. The year 1992 is more plausible for several reasons: I had not discussed the issue with Mackman until mid-1990 and I called Ugalde, as can be seen in a recording (tape 22-176, page 92), in front of Mackman; Mackman was aware that the call was going to be made but purposely removed the recording device before the call was made, so as not to record it; undoubtedly because it would have destroyed the future Government claim of one continuing conspiracy. This would have been in December 1991, or just before Martinez went to Mexico.

Ugalde may now change his facts, but this merely destroys his credibility. As to Martinez's results, he has given three versions: that Martinez contacts were used to dealing with 'smaller, more compact' commodities like drugs; that the birds would be too noisy; and that Martinez made no contacts and as a result nothing was planned (Agent's reports 10-5-1992, 3-31-1993, 8-23-1993). Martinez refutes two claims and says that he travelled to Mexico not to check on the possible smuggling method but to visit family and that he never talked to the person who could have arranged the off-loading (Agent's report 8-23-1993). This clearly suggests that Martinez is more credible and as a result Ugalde's varying claims should be disregarded.

Martinez's passport has little meaning, according to the Government [22/l]: The Government is now trying to errode the date stamped on the passport, to suggest that the trip occurred earlier. They now argue that a US Citizen can enter Mexico without a passport. This may be true, but it does not apply here. Acosta, when asked for the date that Martinez travelled to Mexico, said his passport reflects the date (Ugalde/ 63). Note that Acosta, the Prosecutor, did not discount then the passport; that was done later when they realized the facts that it would show two separate conspiracies. Martinez himself, when asked the date in the Grand Jury, said his passport would reflect it, and the Mexican Embassy document, displayed in court to try and errode the credibility of the passport, lists the first document as a passport. Martinez should know the travel document he used and it is clear from his Grand Jury tetsimony that it was a passport. In addition, if his passport was not valid, why would the Government have a copy on hand?

Well Dave, this is it. I've tried to point out the major areas. I believe that we need to include as much of this as possible, as it reveals some important issues: the passport, the Judge erring on the side of the Prosecution even when the facts suggets otherwise, and it addresses the credibility issue.

All the best, and again, thanks!

God bless!

Tony Silva (end of this letter)

From Tony Silva 25 May 1997

Dear Friends:

On Monday, 19 May 1997, David P. Schippers, my attorney, appeared in front of the Appelate Court for the 7th Circuit. He was there to defend the appeal, which was made on one ground: Judge Elaine Bucklo should have allowed me to withdraw my plea and take the case to trial. Several facts never before elucidated were expounded by Schippers. These were:

-- That I was opposed to pleading guilty and had maintained my innocense all along;

--That after meeting with the Prosecution he told me I had no alternative but to plea;

--That this decision was based on information given to him by the Prosecution, and that based on such information he saw no alternative but to get me to plea guilty;

--That the Government then misled him and that the evidence they claimed existed never existed;

-- And finally that the Government also misled me.

The Government basically responded by saying that I had signed the plea and thus was guilty. Obviously they were not interested in discussing the issue of misleading me. I had maintained my innocense and only signed because the Government claimed certain evidence existed. I doubted that such evidence had existed, as I had not committed a crime, but my attorney who is a leading expert said I had no alternative. This was yet another reason for signing; the others were previously expounded.

In the Motion for Appeal, David P. Schippers raised several issues, including the credibility of the witnesses. The Government basically responded that their witnesses were credible. Since when is a drug dealer/murderer who has obstructed justice and who is known to lie credible? Since when is Mackman credible? They cited an incidence they claimed occurred in August 1989, when according to Mackman, who claims to be present, Antonio de Dios and myself visited Lawrence Lafeber's quarantine station, to show him how birds would be illegally imported. This single claim unmasks Mackman as a liard: de Dios's passport shows that he was not in the US, and, most importantly, Lafeber's quarantine stpti.or, supposedly where the meeting took place, had been closed for over eight months! Better yet, Lafeber admits that he did not talked with me at the time for over a year. The same applies to the other 'credible' witnesses.

Recent evidence indicating clearly that Fish and Wildlife Agents are prepared to falsify evidence-- they entered animal rightists into a quarantine station under the guise of Fish and Wildlife inspectors-- and the fact that NOVA's famous documentary contained doctored tapes, almost certainly supplied by Fish and Wildlife Service, raises some questions.

I am now awaiting response from the Appelate Court. Fortunately, several more persons have jumped on the defense and one of these is a prominent professor at law.

Until next time,

Warmest regards

Tony (end of this letter)

Appearance Of Justice Argument

1) Bucklo was a relatively new Judge when she accepted Silva's plea. There is no testimony of standard plea procedures from lawyers, including Defense, oh what the Istandard plea proceeding history' in her court was. She was sworn on 10~11-94 and a little over a year later accepted Silva's plea.

Even experienced Judges in the Northern District of Illinois have been misled by reliance on US Attorney's Office in the Northern District of Illinois. See US v Boyd 833 F. Supp. 1277.

Rule 11 colloquey never adequately addressed the issues of whether Silva's plea was coersed by the prosecution's knowing use of perjured testimony and evidence, or whether as a matter of both fact and law there was an adequate factual basis for Silva taking a guilty plea.

Silva's attorney was purposely misled by the government, even if it was only by one out of control agency, and that is all the more reason why any errors of what could be a ritualistic procedure should not be overlooked. See 21 AmJur 2d Sec 489, page 489, note 51, and also cases cited therein.

The learning process for Federal Judges does not allow for violations of structural or constitutional rights, due process, use of perjured statements by the prosecution to obtain guilty pleas and indictments, and so forth, especially when a defendant steadfastedly maintains his innocense.

To do so would be a novel reincarnation of the Star Chamber and would give the government the ability to use Rule 11 colloquey to elevate form over substance .by using fear and coersion to accomplish a complete miscarriage of justice. This is the appearance of justice argument.

Courts in the northern district of Illinois and the 7th Circuit itself can no longer be surprised following US v Boyd 833 F Supp 1277 and related cases (see Boyd, page 1283, 1993) where prosecutorial misconduct and knowing use of perjured testimony was rampant in a number of unfairly obtained convictions. A judge new or experienced cannot sit idly by and let the government rewrite either the Constitution or the de minimus requirements of Rule 11.

Standards Silva must meet

2) Under miscarriage of justice, a federal judge has discretion even after sentencing to allow the withdrawal of a guilty plea.

To be valid, a guilty plea must meet standards set forth by the Supreme Court and repeatedly analyzed and articulated by the 7th Circuit and others. For example to be valid, .. a guilty plea acts as a waiver of several federal consitutional rights; therefore, in order to be valid, a guilty plea must be entered intelligently and voluntarily. Boyken 395 US at 242 89 S Ct at 1711-12. Voluntariness is determined by considering all relevant circumstances surrounding the guilty plea. Brady v US 397 US 742 749 90 S Ct 14,63 1469 25 L Ed2d 747 (1970).A plea may be involuntary if the defendant does not understand the nature of the Constitutional rights he is waving, or unintelligent if the defendant does not understand the charges against him, See US v McGlokin 8 F3d 1037 (6th Circuit, 1993), page 1047:

A waiver of these rights is not presumed from a silent record US v de Forest 946 F2d 523, page 525, represents post-Boykin standards being applied in the 7th Circuit:

The transcript of the case

Under Boykin the defendant must plea guilty voluntarily and with knowledge that in doing so he waives his priviledge against self-incrimination, his rights to a jury trial, and his rights to confront his accusers.

Mr Schippers could not testify that Rule 11 proceedings for Silva was sufficient to demonstrate compliance.

Factors Ignored Below and Credibility Determined by ESP 3) Even if the record is not silent, what are the factors the trial court could have considered in deciding to withdraw the guilty plea, post plea or at sentencing. While de Forest lost his appeal, he lost because: de Forest offered no evidence, other than his own self-serving testimony, to prove that his plea violated preboykin standards.

The Judge questioned de Forest about:His prior burglary convictions; his educational background; his mental state leading up to the guilty plea proceedings; his understanding of the maximum sentence he could receive; and the facts surrounding the burglary case.

Regarding the issue of coersion see page 526 citing factors that could be considered as evidence contesting coersion. One of the most egregious error committed by the trial court during this plea process was the trial courts making determinations as to defendant Silva's 'credibility' before SIlva had even taken the stand. Allowing that determination to support the validity of the plea colloquey would in itself be a novel interpretation of the law.

Did Silva's Plea Provide for a No Appeal under Tollett v Henderson ?

4) Basically attacking a plea-- or refusal of the court to allow one to withdraw a plea-- means attacking the plea was not knowing, voluntary or intelligent. One way is to attack under Rule 11 and to show that the Judge did not follow or that the prosecution did not abide by the requirements to disclose what it new was perjured statements by government spokespersons or witnesses at the grand jury, indictment, proffer or other stages such as the search warrant.

See 108 F3d at page 204 US v Floyd argued by Kirt Hopson of Downey, California.

An unconditional guilty plea constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal all non-jurisdictional antecedent rulings and cures all antecedent constitutional defects. See US v Cortez 973 F2d 764 766 CA 9 1992. As the Supreme Court has stated:

When a criminal defendant has solemly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea. He may only attack the voluntary and intelligent character of the guilty plea. Tollett v Henderson 411 US 258 36 L Ec 2d 235 (1973).

5) The issue of ambiguity in Rule 11 proceedings. See 21 AmJur 2d at 5 471, in determining whether a plea of guilty was voluntary the sole inquity should be whether the plea was made under such circumstances as to contitute it reliable and trustworthy evidence of the accused's guilt of the offense with which he was charged.

See Kackson v Denno 378 US 368.

The record did not establish with 'unmistakable clarity' that a trial judge reliably determined the voluntariness of defendent's confession where the confession was admitted in evidence before the defendant took the stand to give his version of the events leading up to the signing of the confession, where defendent's version of events surrounding the confession raised serious doubts as to its voluntariness, and where it could not be determined whether the trial court re-evaluated voluntariness after hearing defendent's testimony. If allegations that defendant, an illiterate Mexican American was tricked into signing a statement that unbeknownst to him contained material inaccuracies were true, such trickery constituted a violation of due process offending the principals of Jackson v Denno. See Martinez v Extrelle CA 5 612 F2d 173, and 25 L Ed 2d, pages 1025 and especially 1056 and 1058 regarding the Supreme Court's teachings on guilty pleas and how to overturn them.

See especially page 1030 in 25 LEd 2d Annotations gerading whether a plea in knowing, voluntary and intelligent and the right to counsel and the right to accurate evidence and elements of crimes charged as essential to uphold validity of Rule 11 analysis.

Abuse of Discretion Not to Overturn Withdrawal of Guilty Plea

6) Motions made under Rule 32(d) to withdraw a guilty plea can be granted to ?correct manifest injustice'. See page 1031 25 1 Ed 2d and see 99 L Ed 217 regarding Rule 32(d) on withdrawal of plea after sentencing. See also Marzchibroda v US 368 US 487 7 L Ed 2d 473 and see cases on page 1034 running from Brady v US 397 US 742 25 L Ed 2d 747 to Mampa v Rhay 19 L Ed 2d 336 389 US 128 due to harassment when prosecution knew government witnesses were giving perjured statements.

In Brady the Supreme Court pointed out that the agents for the state or government may not produce a plea by actual or threatened physical harm or by mental coersion overbearing the will of the defendant. See Waley v Johnston 316 US 101 regarding coersion and loss of reputation threatened by government as basis to overturn plea and where defendant is deceived, tricked and misled into pleading guilty is invalid. See pages 1038-1039.

Under Rule 11 colloquey did court determine that defendant admitted to all the essential elements? See Amiur 2d at 5 490 following regarding guilty plea.

Silva shows by the 25% Test UnderI_les v Whitley that 5th Amendment Violations Were Material And Prejudicial And Could Also Meet Tests Under Strickland v Washington Which Schippers Cannot Argue Here.

7) Government submissions via defense counsel of key facts which were false or mistated as relates to coersion of defendant to plea guilty. See Hockett v Duckworth 999 F2d 1160 CA 7 1993 regarding 5th Amendment violations and the totality of the evidence test.

Silva had no prior experience with criminal proceedings. See US v Henry 933 F2d CA 7 1991, page 560. See also transcript in Hockney v Duckworth, pages 1166-1167 and totality of the evidence on pages 1162-1164.

Hockett testified [at a hearing] that he agreed to plead guilty to the four count indictment after his attorney told him they had seen his tennis shoes stained with the victim's blood because "then they knew that if the State had a pair of tennis shoes to go in front of a jury, that I in all likelyhood would go to the electric chain".

Then the panel in Hockett v Duckworth noted that given the almost overwhelming evidence of Hockett's guilt, and the complete record including credibility determinations made by the trial court during full and fair hearings-- Hockett was not entitled to overturn his guilty plea since he got what must be deemed not only a complete and adequate Rule 11 colloquy but significant consideration-- no death penalty possibility.

Hockett's claim relied primarily on the issues related to the accuracy [or actual falsity of the "tennis shoe blood evidence"] and the legal implications that his own counsel informed him of such information, when the government itself knew that it was false.

Silva contends that he would have gone to trial, but for the erroneous transmission of information. That is sufficient to show prejudice under Strickland v Washington and also under Kyles v Whitley and Brady and Agurs and Napue v Illinois.

Summary of Factors in Silva's Favor

The timing of the request

Silva has maintained his innocense in the conspiracy to smuggle the Hyacinth macaws

The Government used false claims and was not up-front with its information.

See 954 F. Supp pages 30-21 US v Velez Carrero.

Subject:
Tony Silva Appeal Denied
Date:
Tue, 2 Sep 97 23:09:58 BST
From:
bruce_weissgold@mail.fws.gov
Reply-To:
cites-l@wcmc.org.uk
To:
Multiple recipients of list

On August 18, 1997 the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court (District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division) ruling which denied the appeal filed by Tony Silva asking that his motion to withdraw his guilty plea be permitted. Also affirmed was the District Court's ruling regarding Mr. Silva's claim that errors were made in the sentencing process (No. 96-4026). Circuit Judges Kanne Ripple and Diane P. Wood heard the appeal on May 19, 1997 and Circuit Judge Ripple wrote the Circuit Court's decision.

Regarding the matters related to Mr. Silva's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, the Seventh Circuit wrote: "The decision of the district court to deny the motion to withdraw the guilty plea was hardly as abuse of discretion. It was grounded in a commonsense evaluation of the representations made...in light of the unchallenged testimony presented...and the witnesses heard by the court during the sentencing hearing."

Regarding the matters related to Mr. Silva's claim that errors were made in the sentencing process, the Seventh Circuit wrote: "The district court...determined that the reduction [in Mr. Silva's sentence] was not warranted. The court concluded that, despite his guilty plea, Mr. Silva denied his guilt in seeking to withdraw the plea and to shift blame to Mackman and the government for having entrapped him. The court further found that he had not been truthful in his own testimony during sentencing and his version of the offense submitted to the probation office...The district court's decision not to award the reduction was well 'within a zone of reasonable responses to the facts.'"

The decision is cited as: 1997 WL 469036 (7th Cir. (IL))
-----
Bruce J. Weissgold, CITES Policy Specialist
Office of Management Authority
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 430
Arlington, VA 22203
Tel: (703) 358-1917
Fax: (703) 358-2280
E-mail: Bruce_Weissgold@fws.gov

Subject:
Silva information (Name details of sender and recipient have been deleted).
Date:
Tue, 14 Oct 1997 17:54:53 -0700
From: Name deleted
To: Name deleted

There seems to be some question on this list about when information regarding the disposition of Tony Silvas birds was published. Perhaps we can be of some help in resolving this issue.

On December 17, 1996, I spoke via telephone with Sergio Acosta, who was the prosecutor on the Silva case. Acosta reported to me that Silvas birds were sent to a number of institutions. Recipients were:

Cornell University 49
Colorado State 9
University of Wisconsin 18
Kansas State 4
University of Georgia 3
Kaytee/Univ of WI 37

This was published in the January 1997 issue of On Wings ( Vol. 3, No.1, p.36), so this information has indeed been out there for some time. There are still many questions as to the circumstances surrounding the disposition of Silvas birds, however, and we intend to continue looking into them. Time constraints make it difficult for us to keep up with this list on a regular basis, but if people are interested in what we find, or have pertinent information, we will be glad to respond via private email as best we can. Regards, Name deleted.

Second e-mail

Subject:
Re: What happened to Tony Silva's Birds? The answer, at last. (fwd)
Date:
Tue, 14 Oct 1997 18:00:37 -0700
From:
Name deleted
To:
Name deleted

In a message dated 97-10-12 14:47:22 EDT, you write:

Many birds were obtained prior to all the regulation and needs for permits.

In the early 80's I remember seeing red-vented cockatoos for sale in a pet store, I don't think it would be realistic to assume that one would have had a CITES permit if these birds were purchased prior to the time. The recent uplisting of several finches makes me nervous if this is the case. How many Java Rice Birds, Pekin Robins, and Mesias are out which people own and will never have CITES paperwork on them.

I had a friend who is now a bird dealer/broker but who used to own a pet shop in the old days. He said one guy he knew came by with a load of green birds. I think he said he told him they were large white eyed conures or something, I forget. Anyway, he wanted him to take them on consignment and sell them in his pet store.

Anyway, they were green. UNTIL they started playing in their water bowls and then they were very very YELLOW. Apparently they were baby Queens, and this guy had a fit and when the guy walked back in again he told him to get them outta there yesterday.

Now I've known this guy for ten years and it was sometime before that; I'm not sure how long regs have been in effect for Queens. (yes I know Queens are large birds)

name deleted

Letter from Tony Silva dated 11 September 1997

Dear (name deleted):

Howdy! I just heard from (name deleted) that the response to the FOIA, which has taken over 14 months, has been finally received. Guess what -- they lied! The birds were not ill. They were only poorly kept, perhaps neglected, and they had always intended to steal them.

Could you please send me a copy of the letter which they wrote claiming they were ill and had to be euthanized? Thanks.

I can summarize events surrounding the status of these birds very briefly.

Mackman always said the birds were doing good or great; that they were breeding. This is repeated time and time again in the tapes. In truth, however, he was neglecting them. On tape 22-47, recorded on 18 August 1990, Mackman discusses with his wife the aviary. He noted that the birds were without perches and that the aviary was trashed and mentioned financial problems as an aside. I have always said and will always say that he did what he did for financial reasons and this is evident here when he ends the recording with: 'I better go and take care of the aviary, as that's what I get paid to do.' Note the word paid. The birds were not as he said being cared for but were being neglected. He admitted lying about them in court, saying that Fish and Wildlife told him to lie about their condition (transcript 5, pages 46-47).

Mackman had been very critical about the care Bonnie Doane had given the birds when she had them. On tape 22-23, pages 2-3, he goes on about how poorly kept they were, how their nails were overgrown and their plumage was bad.

Guess what -- the FOIA shows that the birds were not ill but poorly kept: their plumage was bad, etc. He kept them exactly as he critized Doane for.

They lied and duped everyone with the claim that they were all ill and had to be euthanized. None ever died from wasting, for if you listen to tape 22-162 Mackman clearly says that a bird which died had not died from wasting! If some died from wasting, then they were the birds he added to the collection from his dealings with others in efforts to entrap them. It is clear that the government gave away more birds than mine, and thus far they have not accounted for the young produced. Where are they? And which were my birds and which were the ones the government had Mackman purchase from others? I suspect it was the latter that were dying, but somehow I had to pay the price and loose my collection.

I believe we can shed some light into this by contacting Cornell University and Kaytee Products (who is a seed manufacturer -- if the birds were ill they would not go to a seed manufacturer!). Mackman had several kids working for him in the aviary. They were paid with taxpayer's money and thus we should have access to them, to ask them what precisely was going on.

The loss of my bird and the fine proves double jepordy. (There are case laws on this). Also, if we look at case laws the Red-vented Cockatoos which came from de Dios and which they claim were illegal should not have been released from quarantine (US v 53 Eclectus Parrots 685 F2d 1131 (9th Circuit, 1982))and the onus was on the government to prove that a foreign law was violated (US v Gehl, et al. 852 F Supp. 1150 (NDNY 1994 and USC Cong. and Administration News vol 3 at 1751 (1981). Even better the Lacey Act has a 5 year statute of limitations

(see US v-- 929 F Supp 502 (D Mass 1996) and 18 USC 3282).

If we can get 19 CFR I believe we will learn about all sorts of ways the government broke the laws in this case.

This is all for now. If you would like to see the FOIA response call (name deleted). The phone number is (number deleted).

Regards to everyone,

Tony Silva

Note:

Plea agreements under the law must be voluntary, knowing and intelligent. There is no question that my guilty plea was not voluntary, and the ensuing proves that I plead guilty to something that was not knowing or voluntary.

Under US v Romano 929 Federal Supplement 502 (at page 510) the courts found:

'This court does not credit the argument that multiple acts of "transporting" wildlife -- ie, ones necessary to "complete" the offense-- may each establish new beginnings for purpose of the statute of limitation.-,.That construction would result in indefinite exposure to criminal liability virtually meaningless.'

This clearly makes the vast majority of the plea illegal, and this explains why the government gave recent dates for the ivory, headdress, Crimson-bellied and Blue-throated Conures, Yellow-shouldered Amazons and so forth. All of these were acquired legally, but suppose they were not. There is ample evidence that I had the Crimson-bellied and Blue-throated Conures, ivory tusk and headdress, and Yellow-shouldered Amazons, to name just a few, prior to August 1989; if the government would return my records this would push back the dates even further. I was not indicted until August 1995. The government distorted the facts and gave the 1990 dates for all these birds and articles to fall within the statute of limitions. In so doing, they violated the law.

* Records show legal adquisitions.