Copy right laws and Tim Bowels

You know, Tim is, in my opinion, a bad guy. But what separates the good guys from the bad guys?
Simple, the good guys do do the things bad guys do. It's very rudamentary, kindergarden logic if you will.

Bad guys do things like:
misrepresent animals
sell sick/dying animals
steal photos and use them for their own
take money and never send out animals in return
etc....

Good guys don't do those things. Period.

Why encourage someone to do something illegal? Why encourage someone to become a bad guy?

And if you think it is such a good idea, why don't you do it your self?

I know that someone mentioned having emailed the lawyer with regard to this situation. Have you heard back from him? I am dying to hear his thoughts on tim using his name to bandy about useless threats.

Sincerely,

Gino 'In Da Bronx' Beniquez

LMAO......Who is being a troll now, Richard? You come onto one of the most respected and integral forums in the herp community and make an a$$ out of yourself. Way to go!

As far as the lawyer goes...

Brett Nelson is a good buddy of Bobby Pruett's and Tim Bowles (according to Bobby) and most likely has already given Tim the go ahead to use his name.

All "legal" actions or warnings from the aformentioned individuals have come from the same lawyer. I wonder if this lawyer is licensed to practice out of the state of Indiana?

Why encourage someone to do something illegal? Why encourage someone to become a bad guy?

I would, but I dont have a site up. Tim is one of the worst guys in my book, and everything that he and Bobby did to Jim is in no way near posting a pic of an animal that jim currently owns. Its not even like Jim is claiming credit for the picture, he now owns the snake and wanted to represent it by using a picture tim gave him of it.

What are some other things we can do topiss Tim Bowles off?

David, i wouldnt even go there about making a totalass of yourself on one of the popular forums!

I finally herd back from MR.Nelson ( Tims Lawyer) I sent him a copy of the E-mail and this is what he had to say.

-----Original Message-----
From: Brett Nelson [mailto:bnelson@psrb.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 9:39 AM
To: coolcritters@netonecom.net
Cc: sbowles@insight.rr.com; suticat@insight.rr.com
Subject: RE: About Brett Nelson ( Attorney) (not spam)


Mr. Scharphorn:

Please note my correct e-mail address, in case you no longer have it in your records from our previous communications. I discussed this matter with Mr. Bowles when the first e-mail you sent to my firm finally made its way to me at the correct address. To be direct, I don't believe the e-mail you have forwarded is what you received from Mr. Bowles. Instead, I believe the e-mail you forwarded has been altered and that it originally was clearly from Mr. Bowles to you and suggested that you contact me directly (and provided my contact information) in the event that you had any further questions about the e-mail Mr. Bowles sent. I don't believe Mr. Bowles represented that he was me or that the e-mail was from my firm. If he did so in the way that you suggest, it would not only be improper but would be a very poor attempt indeed, given that (even in the version you forwarded) his name appears at the bottom of the e-mail and it came from an e-mail address unassociated with me or my firm.

In response to your questions: The e-mail message you referenced was not from me and was not from my firm. It does not appear that you believed to the contrary. The e-mail has nothing to do with how I or my firm "do business". You may not purport to be me. If you would like to hire someone to provide advice as to whether it is lawful for you to impersonate an attorney, you will have to look elsewhere as such representation would conflict with my representation of Mr. Bowles.

If your goal was to stimulate a conversation between myself and my client and draw attention to your copyright infringement, you have succeeded. You should be aware that there are significant statutory damages available for copyright infringement. Mr. Bowles has not yet hired me to represent him regarding his copyright infringement claim, though I would surely provide that service if he asked. Indeed, I might be willing to do so on very favorable terms given your actions to date.

Please don't hesitate to contact me directly with any additional questions or concerns.

Very truly yours,

Brett E. Nelson

Plews Shadley Racher & Braun
1346 N. Delaware St.
Indianapolis, IN 46202
(317) 637-0700
(317) 637-0713 Fax
http://www.psrb.com


Confidentiality Notice:

This message is being sent by or on behalf of an attorney. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.

Sorry, just woke up, brain cells are still not firing exactly right.

Is this lawyer saying the following:

1. That you (Jim) faked the email the "lawyer" sent you and that the lawyer never sent you the email?

Please note my correct e-mail address, in case you no longer have it in your records from our previous communications.

The e-mail message you referenced was not from me and was not from my firm.... The e-mail has nothing to do with how I or my firm "do business". You may not purport to be me.

2. That you (Jim) are therefore trying to impersonate a lawyer with all the accompanying legal ramifications.

You may not purport to be me. If you would like to hire someone to provide advice as to whether it is lawful for you to impersonate an attorney, you will have to look elsewhere as such representation would conflict with my representation of Mr. Bowles.

3. That you (Jim) in attempting to impersonate a lawyer, and in faking his letter, did Tim and said lawyer a favor by bringing to their attention the copyright infringement?

If your goal was to stimulate a conversation between myself and my client and draw attention to your copyright infringement, you have succeeded.

4. That there is a monetary repercussion to Tim for you (Jim) having a picture of YOUR snake on YOUR website? (yes, it was bad for the photo to be there, but you HAVE remedied it, nor were selling the photo, nor were trying to profit off the PHOTO, nor would have "injured" Tim in any way that could be proven monetarily)

5. That the lawyer never sent you the previous email but you (Jim) are a bad guy for showing it to hiim and trying to impersonate him, and for having HAD (but do not HAVE) copyright infringement, your actions have stimulated his interest in representing Tim....

Mr. Bowles has not yet hired me to represent him regarding his copyright infringement claim, though I would surely provide that service if he asked. Indeed, I might be willing to do so on very favorable terms given your actions to date.

Again, I am totally confused by this message you received, as it makes less sense than the "armature" one.

I would also question why a lawyer would be letting someone know he might actually give his client very 'favorable' terms because of Jim's actions to date. Does this means 'Tim' gets a discount because of Jim actions? Why would Jim need to be told that? Seems silly.........

Sasheena, You may want to use your full name ( Required)

You confused me on that one, LOL

When I sent the E-mail Tim sent me, I asked the lawyer if this is the way he does business and if he sent me the original, and if it is legal to impersinate a lawyer the way it was done to me.

He claims that I altered the E-mail and it was not original.

As I can see it, when he called Tim Bowles on this ordeal that Tim pulled one of his stunts and Lied to his Lawyer and said that it was altered and he did not send that type of letter.

It just goes to show that you can be a bad guy and lie and hire a lawyer to fix it for you.

Just to anyone reading this, stay away from Tim Bowles ( Arboreals of the rainforrest )
It does not matter if its a snake or a picture, he is bad business.

( Just for those that do not know ,,, Tim hired this lawyer last fall to get me to pay for a snake Tim sent me,, We had a aggreement that I would pay by a certain date, Two weeks before that date I recieved the letter from this Lawyer to pay up within a week or be summonds.) Tim found out that I was unhappy with this snake because of the potential virus. (Tim had a snake turn up possitive for paromixo virus that was detected on a snake from his collection)

To try and explain what the lawer was saying on this responce.

That he may take me to court as a favor...The Lawyer says something like ( because of my previous actions )
My thought is, what actions was that ? Paying for a snake that I was unhappy with ? or was it because when he told me to send the money to him I sent it directly to Tim ? or was it because I told him( Lawyer) to not E-mail me again or I would press charges for hurassment ?

Sorry for my bad spelling and grammer.

Sorry Sasheena, I did not see your name the first time.