• Why not take a moment to introduce yourself to our members?

sdcfish

Junior Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Marc,

I think Righty said it correctly already:


Guys, lets avoid writing stuff that amounts to 'I know something but cant tell'. It mires discussion in vague finger pointing and I don't think that serves anyone
.

What stated these accusations was from a question from Mitch:

Eric,
How about making a statement about the implications that you allowed someone in SDC to photograph livestock after hours, in an effort to help them set up an internet site to compete against the brick and mortars you sell to. Is Marc falsely accusing you? If you are seriously planning a run as AMDA President you need to give us your side of this.
Thanks,
Mitch

I think I have answered that question very clearly. So can you please tell me what is your real problem here if I already said I don't discriminate and allow people to take photos.

You say "spin control", but I am just trying to participate in this thread and keep it real.

Anyway, we all know how you feel as you made if very clear:

In my opinion, you are part of the disease in this industry, and certainly not part of the cure.

Which part of the cure are you with? I would be very interested to know what you are doing to improve the industry and environment?

I am sure you can articulate yourself in a different manner and I am happy to continue if you can keep it fair and reasonable. If you think you are making a statement not appropriate for everyone to read, feel free to pm if you want to.

I will send you a pm.

Best regards

Eric



Best regards

Eric
 

danieldm

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I give up!

You are not worth my time any longer. I refuse to continue going round/round with you as you side step the issue. I, as well as everyone reading this thread can see you dancing the jig of your life. You have done nothing but side step direct questions/accusations, and my favorite one is your "I think I have answered that question very clearly. So can you please tell me what is your real problem here if I already said I don't discriminate and allow people to take photos."

The point is that you lied about letting people in after hours to take pictures. The point is that you lied about making customers adhere to order minimums. The point is that your story in regards to your involvement with Craig and the Clarions has changed from I knew absolutely nothing about them being illegal to you know, I thought at the time that they may have been illegal. You have tried to distance yourself from Craig and make it appear that there was no relationship beyond some business dealings. When in fact you have known Craig personally for a long time.

So one has to ask, well if Eric isn't telling the truth about these very small things, why would he hesitate to lie about the big things...like JT's accusations regarding the Clarions, like whether or not you had advanced notice that they were coming in, and on down the line.

Your innocent deer caught in the headlights act is so see through as to be laughable. A lot of people are seeing the true Eric for the first time. It opened some peoples eyes, and my only regret is that it reached such a small audience.

Do not PM me again. I have absolutely nothing to say to you that I wouldn't say in public.
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Marc,
You may have explained it earlier, but just what went wrong with Craig's internet scheme.
Mitch
 

sdcfish

Junior Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Marc,

Please don't give up! I can't just leave it at I am a liar and you give up......no way!

I am not sure where the fine lines are here....but I think here are your points:

You say I lied about people taking pictures. I have not. You say I let Craig into our facility late one Sunday night....but I wasn't there and would not have allowed it to continue if it actually had happened. BIG DEAL!

I have been accused of having clarions confiscated.....but I have told you all the truth and you simply ignore it and say I am lying. There is a big difference in cooperating with a federal investigation and having items confiscated. You will never see the word confiscated anywhere because they weren't because they weren't illegal and others have already told you and everyone that...supporting my statements.

Did I know the Clarions were coming in before hand? Yes.....I already told you that we were the last company to be sold Clarions. Everyone already had them and it was big news. We were the last ones. So yes, I knew they were available, but did not know they were illegal, nor do I believe anyone who did have them and listed them on their stocklist knew they were.....but actually, they weren't illegal.....only imported falsly on the import documents....so again....where did anyone do anything wrong.

I think I just got it. You are against Craig! You have stated this many times about how he is such a thief and stuff....well, I think we all agree with you there.

Anyway....that's about it I guess......

Eric
 

danieldm

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
JT hit the nail on the head, Craig is what went wrong. That and he was in business with someone that had ethics.

February 2004 Craig told me that someone had approached him with a project to bring 500+ Clarions into the US. I won't say who he told me it was because of the whole heresay issue. He was very nervous because of the money involved. Over the next several months Craig kept me informed on their collection efforts. During several of my trips to LA I overheard Craig speaking by phone with various industry insiders about the Clarions. With Craig running such an illegal operation, in retrospect, I am shocked that he let me know so much about what was going on and who was involved.

Early May I was having a conversation with Craig, and somehow we started talking about law enforcement. Craig started going into how cops were just out to get people, and on, and on. I then told Craig about my numerous connections with the law enforcement community.
Father - Retired Local Officer
Grandfather - Retired Federal Officer
Cousin - Active Border Patrol
Cousin - Active ICE
Not to mention the myriad of family friends in various agencies, and the fact that if it wasn't for a terrible back injury, I would probably be working for DOJ or ATF as an investigator. .

After this conversation Craig's behavior towards me changed somewhat. I got curious and started doing some checking and found out that the Clarion's were illegal to collect in Mexico. I confrontd Craig to which he replied that he has been down there for yars, and that he can get special permits. I treid contacting the Mexican government to verify the legality, and also the US government. No one knew anything.

The first week of July when people started getting raided, Craig's story did an abrupt 180. I confronted him and then promptly shut the company down from under his feet.

That's what happened.
 

JennM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
What I don't understand is this...

The red flag was raised here on May 5, 2004. Kalk announced they were "coming" and the next post, by "Aquarius" speculated that they would be smuggled in as Juvenile Passers. Right there was enough to pause for thought and anyone contemplating buying these, who reads this forum, had enough information to question the manner in which these were brought in.

That, in and of itself, would have raised a red flag with me, if they were offered to any of us to purchase - one would think that regular readers of this forum might have been a bit leery about the source, OR would have double-checked to make sure they were legally imported - but hey that's just me. I would have hated to "voluntarily surrender" a shipment of fish that probably cost a good bundle because I was wrong. I'm a gambler by nature, but even I wouldn't have taken that bet.

I'd never heard of Craig Lightner before his name was released in regards to this debacle - if someone knew him and his checkered past, that's another red flag.

I dunno - it all just smelled at the time, and it still smells now.

Jenn
 

JennM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Further to my thoughts above, can somebody explain to me why it's not illegal to possess (a Clarion), if it's illegal to import one? They aren't native to the US.

That's like saying it's not illegal to own a TV purchased from a burglar. Ignorance is no excuse either (Officer, I didn't know it was stolen... even though I bought it off the back of a truck in that alley over there...).

I'm not disputing what's been said (vis a vis confiscated vs. voluntarily surrendered), rather, I'm just trying to understand how only the smuggler is culpable, and not the persons or entities that purchased the contraband?

Seems to me there's flaws with the "system"... what it tells me is that if you can sneak it in and get away with it, you're home free... once the hot potato gets passed out of the importer's hands (in this case, Lightner) then anyone else who was involved, is in the clear. That just doesn't seem right to me.

JMHO

Jenn
 

nanocat

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
sdcfish":19q3chk1 said:
You say I lied about people taking pictures. I have not. You say I let Craig into our facility late one Sunday night....but I wasn't there and would not have allowed it to continue if it actually had happened. BIG DEAL!
Eric

Huh? Well, actually it is sort of a big deal. You want to spin this as a "he said - I said" deal, but it looks like Marc's story rings true and your's sort of smells IMO. You met Craig coming out of the gate and asked if he'd finished taking pictures and NOW you want us to believe you "would not have allowed it to continue" :?:

Look I don't think anyone expects you to come forward on line and make self incriminating statements, but at least stop trying to wet our legs and convince us it's raining :roll:
 

sdcfish

Junior Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Nano....

That's not true. I did not meet Craig late on a Sunday night.....I do not work on Sundays. I don't think Marc said I was there on a Sunday night. If he did....he's totally lying about that. I do remember telling Craig it's ok to take photos....maybe that's my problem. I am too nice....I give courtesy access to many. If I was a tight a&*, then I would not be involved in this debate about letting people take photos.

What I was saying is no big deal is that he took photos. If he had tried to come in after hours....now that's a big deal and would not have been tolerated. If you know Craig, he would have tried to push the limits of an offer and you know the saying...give an inch, take a mile? Well, that's probably what happened in this case.

This guy Marc knows alot more than I do about the Clarions.....so why am I the one trying to be made to look like the bad guy....I just don't get it.

Jen,

The problem is that Clarions are sometimes found in local waters, and that would be fine. They are only protected in the areas that are marine reserves. From what I understand from the officials, is that the problem was that so many angels at one time could only have been collected from a restricted area....that was when the red flag came up. Fish and wildlife asked for all the doc's and fish to give evidence to how many came in and prove they must have come from a protected area.

I hear about ones and twozies coming in all the time....but I never see those. I know that even hybrids are found quite regularly.

And just for the record, I was not the person who was plotting with Craig to import 500+ Clarions. Like I said, I was the last to know, which kinda pissed me off, because I would have liked to have had a chance to market them all, but would not have been part of an illegal scheme...which is the reason imo that I was not involved from the beginning.

Best regards

Eric
 

danieldm

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Eric and SDC were not the individual/company that Craig told me had approached him.

Nanocat said nothing about it being Sunday night, just that you met us going out as you were coming in. That took place Monday morning. Remember when I said;
"That explains Monday morning when we were driving out of SDC as you were driving in (in your dark green pickup) and stopped to talk to Craig. During the conversation you asked Craig if he got his check last night." (Sunday night) "and asked how long he had been there taking pictures." Sunday night.

Jenn-
To simplify the law, it's sort of like stolen property. It isn't illegal to own stolen property, but it is illegal to knowingly own stolen property. Also, if someone approached me and told me they were going to steal a stereo, or if I had prior knowledge that the stereo was going to be stolen prior to my buying it, a case could then be made against me for conspiracy since my action is helping to enable the crime in the first place. Depending upon the depth of my involvement upfront I could also be charged as an accomplice to the crime.

Basically, the same can be said about Craig's crime. If someone had reason to believe that the fish were coming in illegally, and still purchased them, then depending upon the scope and the available evidence a case could probably be made for at least conspiracy.
 

danieldm

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
And just for the record, I was not the person who was plotting with Craig to import 500+ Clarions. Like I said, I was the last to know, which kinda pissed me off, because I would have liked to have had a chance to market them all, but would not have been part of an illegal scheme...which is the reason imo that I was not involved from the beginning.

But earlier you said
Anyway, thinking back, I did wonder if they were legal or not
So you did have reason to believe that the may have been illegal, and went forward with marketing them anyways.

That's quite different from
I would have liked to have had a chance to market them all, but would not have been part of an illegal scheme...which is the reason imo that I was not involved from the beginning.

So on the one hand
a) you say that you wouldn't have had anything to do with an illegal scheme
but on the other hand
b) you say that you had reason to believe that they may have been illegal, but went forward anyway.
 

JennM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Eric said:

Anyway, thinking back, I did wonder if they were legal or not

Did nobody else at SDC (or any of the other entities that bought these fish) wonder that too? Or did nobody wonder *quite enough* to investigate before buying them? Like I said that would have been a bet I wouldn't have taken. That's why I mentioned the May 5, 2004 thread that raised red flags here, if noplace else...

Jenn
 

sdcfish

Junior Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jenn,

I did not see any posts about illegal Clarions. I also was never told by former employess that they were illegal, although they now say they did tell me.

As I mentioned, they were not illegal...that's very clear. Only that they were not imported properly and doc's were falsified which I have no way of knowing.

I did say, after many posts, that I may have thought they were illegal, but my thought process was only that I wanted to make sure we were not doing anything wrong just in case. Does that mean I thought they were illegal? I don't think so. I was simply doing business as always and the same think I do whenever I receive local California fish....I make sure that the person I am buying from has their permits and invoices in order. Same exact thing I did when I purchased some Clarions.

My statement was made after many people had called me a liar about it and I was trying to appease those....giving some benefit of the doubt to them.

My comment that is now being used against me is now being taken totally out of context and very unfairly I believe.

Just being honest has put me into this whole mess......and I don't think there is anything new for me to post....I am just correcting peoples comments that are not accurate.

Can we get back to the fun stuff?

Eric
 

IslandDiver

Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Daniel.....? I think you are Daniel?

I don't think the Daniel who worked for Craig has the command of the English Language that "Danieldm" is demonstrating here.

As for another Daniel that Craig tried to set up as a front for his illegal shinnanigans and who worked briefly for SDC, He's out of the tropical fish business completely. There would be more money in Alaska Crabbing if he wants to "die gloriously" than getting an air line run over by an idiot off San Clemente Island diving for Catalina Gobies. Never got much good at the wholesaling end of it anyway.

Even more profits making shows and studying Law. Probably pop up in the future as an AUSA or ADA.

Obviously there are some issues to be resolved in the Industry. Nothing like a squabble in a public forum to keep the occasional interloper entertained.

One thing about Craig...controversy and conflict follow him like flies in a cow pasture. It's how he always operates; lie, create a diversion, obfuscate and evade the point to someone else. His ego nailed him this time, he couldn't keep his mouth shut and he forgot to read PT Barnum's adage on who you can and cannot con.
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
IslandDiver":2a6aehkj said:
Smuggler receives 46-month sentence

The San Pedro man also will have to pay a fine of $60,000 for his role in a human-trafficking operation.
By Matt Krasnowski and Alison Hewitt
Copley News Service

A San Pedro man who took part in a human-trafficking operation that was cracked nearly two years ago when officials intercepted a yacht in Los Angeles Harbor crammed with 50 illegal immigrants was sentenced Monday to 46 months in prison and fined $60,000.

Craig Lightner, 41, admitted taking part in the smuggling of Mexican citizens in August 2004 and on four other occasions, court papers state. He also pleaded guilty to smuggling protected angelfish from Mexico and was under investigation for trafficking marijuana and cocaine but never charged.

With his wife and father looking on at his sentencing hearing, Lightner apologized to U.S. District Judge Gary Feess.

"I'm sorry for my actions that have brought me to this court," Lightner said. "This situation has truly taught me a lesson, and I will never commit a crime again."

In determining Lightner's sentence, Feess noted that Lightner has an extensive criminal history, but the judge did not take into account all of his "brushes with the law."

"One could argue that the criminal history might even be understated, but I'm not taking that position," Feess said.

Outside of court, Lightner's lawyer, Daniel Thorr Hustwit, called the sentence "a fair resolution of the case."

Lightner was the third person charged in connection with the Aug. 30, 2004, interception of a 44-foot yacht packed with immigrants -- the largest incident of maritime immigrant smuggling the region had seen in many years, officials said. The boat was designed to sleep eight people.

Gregory LaBono, 50, of Lomita, and Vernon Eugene Siegel, 23, of Florida, were initially charged after U.S. Coast Guard officials boarded the C'est La Vie near Angels Gate in the harbor.

At the time of the arrests, officials vowed to open an aggressive investigation. The immigrants reportedly told officials that they paid $3,000 each in smuggling fees.
Investigators eventually turned their attention to Lightner, who runs an exotic fish company, and he pleaded guilty last year. In his plea agreement, he acknowledged directing LaBono and others in an Aug. 18 smuggling of 20 immigrants from Ensenada on a 47-foot yacht called Soul Mates and the Aug. 30 trip on the C'est La Vie. The agreement also said he and others were involved in the smuggling of at least five loads of illegal immigrants from Mexico into the United States.

The agreement states that Lightner and others would drive a van to Mexico through the San Ysidro crossing and gather prospective immigrants in Tijuana.


Later Lightner would drive the immigrants to the docks in Ensenada, where they would board a boat piloted by LaBono.

LaBono would sail to the Cabrillo Marina, and Lightner would instruct him where to dock, according to the agreement. Then Lightner and others would unload the immigrants and transport them from the port.

In the fish case, Lightner pleaded guilty last year to one count of smuggling 160 Clarion angelfish, worth an estimated $360,000, from Mexico. He admitted arranging for the collection of the bright orange fish from Mexican waters without government permits and then shipping the fish to Los Angeles International Airport while trying to hide the contents from authorities.

In a civil lawsuit seeking the forfeiture of vehicles and cash from Lightner, officials alleged that Lightner "headed a drug trafficking organization selling large quantities of cocaine and marijuana" and was arrested but released a short time after Drug Enforcement Administration agents searched his house.

That search turned up 17 large duffel bags that lab tests verified contained marijuana residue, the lawsuit states.

No criminal charges were filed against Lightner in that investigation.

Lightner has been in custody since October 2004, when he was jailed for a probation violation on a state charge.

He was charged by federal prosecutors with fish smuggling in January 2005 and with immigrant smuggling in August. His sentence on Monday includes both federal charges.

How much of the 46-month sentence he still has left to serve depends on the how the U.S. Bureau of Prisons credits him for time he has already spent behind bars.

Defense attorney Hustwit said it could date back to January 2005, when Lightner was charged with fish smuggling.

Prosecutors say it could date back to March 2005, when he was moved to federal lockup.

Once he is released from prison, Lightner will serve three years of supervised release.


He was fined $30,000 for the immigrant smuggling scheme and $30,000 for the fish smuggling.

Today is Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Originally published Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Updated Monday, June 12, 2006

Given Craig's extensive criminal history he really got off incredibly light in this situation. He gets a $30,000 fine for smuggling in 50 illegals at $3,000 a pop. That's a tidy $120K in pocket change to pay the attorney to get him a light sentence. Then he gets another $30K fine for smuggling in $360K worth of Clarions. It was really nice of the judge not to strap him financially. Left Coast justice is kinder and gentler than the rest of the country. Ain't that right OJ. Does anyone wonder what happened to the marijuana in the 17 large duffle bags? I'm also wondering why these poor illegal immigrants would pay someone $3,000 each for a short ride across a border that is so easy to sneak across anyway. :roll: It must be that he promised them some type of employment as well, once they were here. So given his ties to the wholesale fish biz I just have to wonder if any of those illegals from the previous five smuggling trips are working in the biz today? Chances are the INS could have a field day on 104th Street. 8O
 

danieldm

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Mitch-

The US Atty also filed against a lot of Craig's personal stuff...
including cash, 2 cars, a large fishing boat, some Rolex watches, etc. He's lucky he didn't lose his home.
 

Sponsor Reefs

We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.

Click here to sponsor $10:


Top