Lending Boa out for breeding was a mistake I guess

Rachel post.
Unfortunately you need to be a member to view the page.
So I have c&p'd it to here.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
From: &nbsp;Rachel Rodgers <BoaBabe@r...>
Date: &nbsp;Mon Sep 23, 2002 &nbsp;4:39 am
Subject: &nbsp;My Absence




Just in case anyone was wondering, I have not been ignoring you (or the group).
As most of you can probably imagine, I have been quite busy lately with....let
me put it this way...things that have transpired lately. Soooo, I have been
deleting alot of e-mail from the group lately just to ensure my mailbox has
space for other e-mail that is VERY important. Not to mention, many other
things have been going on lately. I am currently working on becoming associated
with a local zoo, along with some volunteer work with NJHS (missed you today
Drew&#33<img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=''> If anyone is interested in adopting, please e-mail me offlist.
Currently, I have available for adoption 2 small iguanas. Others are in my my
care, but are not quite healthy, and must recover before becoming available for
adoption.

Thanks,
Rachel Rodgers
All Species Reptile- Rescue & Adoptions
</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

The weekend is now gone and with no further word nor info from Rachel, yet according to this post she made, she has been keeping her mailbox empty due to the events that have transpired here.
I know Lori well enough to be reasonably sure that on a matter as large as this one now is, that she (Lori) has mailed her to work out more details etc on whatever Rachel seems to think is right in her own mind.
(4 babies)

Odd, cause she claims to be keeping her box empty etc....
Looks like this may become another quick, not too well thought out excuse from Rachel, once again.

So wow, from 21 to 4. &nbsp;And not even from the nicest babies. &nbsp;How generous!!! &nbsp;Remind to put Rachel Rodgers on my breeder loan list when I want to produce babies with her females and get SCREWED!!! &nbsp;

And now she admits to selectively deleting e-mails. &nbsp;Great person to deal with. &nbsp;

Sorry for your troubles with her Lori.

I'll clarify on that email that was posted here that Rachel sent out that got posted 2 above this post. I did receive an email from &nbsp;Rachel in which she did state that she would most likely NOT be getting back with any responce to an email I would send her as she would be out of town. I also know for fact that she was out of town as she said she would be. &nbsp;I have NOT expected any reply from her till now due to such, if she will be replying to the email that is even, as she did say that she wouldn't get back to any reply I sent her for a few days time.
The referencing that was made in relation to 21.. I believe came from the two clutch totals that Rachel has had.. 25 & 17 = 42..and half = 21. Rachel has admitted that the June clutch of 17 was sired by my male but says the September clutch of 25 is not. Just trying to clarify all those #'s is all basically.
At this point
she has offered 4 of the September babies for compensation for selling out the June clutch and what was owed me from her perspective. That is not correct from my perspective to say the least though. I am working on getting verification from known breeders as to the "loan % due in resultive clutches from breeding loans" atm. Then I shall have ALL that is needed and if NOT fully compensated adequately... I shall seek restitution through legal channels if neccessary at that point. I have been in contact with atty and shall do as advised in the matter at this point also should adequate compensation NOT come forth prior to my moving forward in the legal sense with the matter.

Lori,

the last couple lines of your last paragraph confused me a bit, but no biggie. heheh &nbsp;Happens all the time. &nbsp;
But anyway, I have done a few breeding loans myself and it has always been a 50/50 split of the babies/earnings from the pairing. &nbsp;And all of the other people that I know that do breeding loans are on the same plan pretty much(I do know of a couple 60/40 loans, but these are the exception). &nbsp;

But to make sure I am understanding it correctly, Rachel sold off ALL of the babies from the June clutch sired by your male but never informed you of the babies and never offered any recompense to you for the use of your male(an obvious breeding loan situation)to produce that clutch. &nbsp;But NOW, she is offering you 4 babies from a clutch that she claims are not sired by your male(I personally kind of doubt that given all the circumstances, but I will let that go for now)and monetarily are not of the same value(I am assuming circebacks are worth more? &nbsp;Sorry, not big on the BCI market)or even displaying the qualities that were trying to be achieved by breeding your animal to hers. &nbsp;And she is not offering any kind of monetary recompense for the progeny of your male that she sold off. &nbsp;Do I have that right? &nbsp;I have been keeping up on this thread, but just wanted to recap real quick &nbsp; &nbsp;<img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=''>
If so, to me that sounds like theft by deception or possibly theft by conversion(I often get these two confused).

Good luck with the legal assault! &nbsp;Also, just out of curiosity(may have missed it, still half asleep), are there any pictures of the babies from your male?

Hi Rob,
The pics of SOME of the babies are here -Baby pics.

If it gives an error, jusy refresh on it and you should see them.

As for you understanding it, you got it right!
The terms are different state to state, but still basically the same as 'obtaining property/monies under false pretenses.
Rachels hubby is also defending her actions, so technically, it could be seen as a conspiricy also, or at least aid and abet.

Lori,

To me it is plain and simple. spam_ Any snake breeding project that uses animals from 2 different owners, should result in an exact split of either offspring or value. spam_This is not rocket science. spam_Unless their is another written (email, contract, etc) agreement then the simple and basic 50/50 rule should apply.

You should be entitled to either half of the babies or half of the profit resulting from the sale of these babies.

An exception to this rule would be the "value" part of the equation. spam_

Take this example....
I have an albino boa, and you have a het for albino boa. spam_Here I think the agreement would have to be made so that the owner of the albino, receives a higher compensation from the results of the offspring, which would average twice the number of albino offspring than if I just owned a het. Of course with a situation like this example I feel like their would definately be more of a written agreement but if there was no agreement made at ALL then this would still be a 50/50 split.

Your situation is a plain 50/50 pure and simple.

I am "loaning" a female to a guy I met at a local show, who lives in my area. spam_He wants to try his hand at breeding boas this fall, and he has a male. spam_I told him when he comes to pick up the female that I would copy his drivers license for my records. spam_We have talked about the 50/50 split, and have agreed to it. spam_But now I think based on how you are being treated, that I should have a legal team, devise a strategy, create a legal contract, and get it notorized. spam_Geeeeeeez, how do some people sleep with themselves.

Rob;
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But to make sure I am understanding it correctly, Rachel sold off ALL of the babies from the June clutch sired by your male but never informed you of the babies and never offered any recompense to you for the use of your male(an obvious breeding loan situation)to produce that clutch.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

100% CORRECT!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But NOW, she is offering you 4 babies from a clutch that she claims are not sired by your male(I personally kind of doubt that given all the circumstances, but I will let that go for now)and monetarily are not of the same value</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

Umm.. That is also my understanding as well. Such being done AFTER I found out about the clutchings even and brought such to "light" so to say.

&nbsp; &nbsp; As for your letting it go for now etc comment.. UMM.. I am in the same thought as you on that atm

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(I am assuming circebacks are worth more? </td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

Really all depends actually. I have had circlebacks that I have let go for like $60 as babies even. I have also had circlebacks that I have let go at like $200 or more even. Really all depends on the individual snake itself and the degree of circlebacking that it possess' actually among other attributes of the individual snake too.
On the other hand, in this specific case, the June babies were LIGHT CREAM/Pastel colored with striped tails from the pics I am seeing of some of them. I also was informed that the ones that were sold at the NJHS picnic which are not in those pics btw, were also like this from someone who saw them firsthand there.
NOW...With that in mind.. The pricing on the June clutched babies would have been MUCH higher than the ones that clutched out in September that she is offering me 4 of to compensate for what she did. She sold them, by her own words even in regards to the whole sale pricing, at $150 on the average [ from the listed pricing on the ones in the pics basically, she did have some listed at lower pricing though like $115 I believe as well on the ones pictured also.] The pricing she did was HER pricing for whole sale, I had nothing to do with that and NEVER even knew about the clutch, let alone agreed to such pricing either. She claims to have NOT been able to sell the babies individually and resorted to wholesaling them from what she has said that I have seen. She also only had like 6 of the babies left only a short time after they had clutched from what I can tell and such would IMO relate to someone having resorted to
wholesaling the babies in order to move them out fast..ie...they possibly wanted to get them out really fast to "hide" their existance..OR they did not have adequate facilitation to care for them all for a length of time possibly...I dunno what the exact reasoning was [ I have my thoughts though] as to why that was done. I for one can wait for a length of time and house/care/feed etc the babies I have in clutches myself np. I even still have 7 of my May clutch still here with me at this time. Soo for me, moving them out fast is not an issue or warranted at all.
&nbsp;Now as for the pricing/value of the babies from that June clutch...IMO of course.. They are/were worth MORE than the September ones she is offering for compensation by far. here's an example.. I just recently helped someone sell off a clutch that was striped tails. The babies in that clutch were normal colorings, NOT the LIGHT CREAM/PASTEL like the June clutch in question here. They were sold at anywhere from $250-$600 each [ the ones that had the striped tails, reversed stripers etc]. IMO The June clutched babies in this case are worth more than those ones that I helped out with would have been even AND would have sold np in the same pricing range of $250+. BUT Of course that is only my opinion and I don't have the babies to sell as such either, nor was I ever given the chance to do such with my share of them either.. AND I do not have any of them to keep as hold backs either for future breeding projects even as well [ THANX to all of you that have pointed that one out to me ! LOL]
As one MAJOR breeder has already put it when I asked for their input in relation to the babies that could be seen on that pic page....</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
"I certainly would not
have sold those babies as cheap as they did."</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

AND NEITHER WOULD I HAVE.


</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And she is not offering any kind of monetary recompense for the progeny of your male that she sold off. &nbsp;Do I have that right? &nbsp;</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

UMm.. I take it you are refering to a "cash payment" ie monetary payment here ? If so.. Then your answer is NO. Unless you want to consider the 4 babies that she has offered from the September clutch and I could obtain such via the sale of them for about $240 possibly from doing such, or possibly a lil more than that if I went higher on pricing ? In any case, that does [b/NOT[/b] suffice for what is due me at all for the June clutching monetarily IMO.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If so, to me that sounds like theft by deception or possibly theft by conversion(I often get these two confused).
</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

theft by deception ..IMO= What has been done by NOT notifying me of the clutch and then selling them off and retaining ALL the acquired funds from doing such.

theft by conversion..IMO [ may be wrong even ]= What has been done by offering to compensate with inadequate compensation of the 4 babies offered from the September clutching. ie.. converting the compensation due from babies clutched in June with babies clutched in September. Am I understanding what you are saying here Rob ? &nbsp;<img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='???'>

ANYWAYS... Bottom line being at this point...

17 babies were clutched as a result of my male having sired them [ in June= clutching].

50% of those babies are/were due me from the clutch of June.

With an odd # of babies , 8 would be due me from that clutch.

ALL babies were sold at wholesale by Rachel without even so much as notifying me that they had clutched even.

Going with a figure of $150 per baby @ wholesale pricing that she seems to have utilized in their selling by her own accord for the most part. [i]The total figure monetarily for what was "taken" [ HEY! I am being nice here..] from me in what she did.. Would =

8 babies x $150 = $1200.00 { If one goes by what she went with in figures from what we are finding]

Which would relate to $1200.00 due me in the least were I to accept such and go with the wholesale amount[s] we found.

NOW if I were to utilize amounts that I know the babies could have sold at , &nbsp;retail, then it would relate to this even...

8 babies x $250+ = $2000.00+ in the least

I do suggest that adequate compensation be made to me by Rachel at this time. I am in the process of moving forward with legal action[s] , and should such become neccessary to follow through with all the way by submitting it into a court of law, then I shall also seek the [bFULL amount allowable under law for comepensation in the whole matter at that point. ie.. I shall NOT be filing for the wholesale cost that she decided to sell the babies at and furthermore shall also seek any other damages such as atty. fees, court fees and the like that can be sought from her as well. Bottom line..
Making restitution in the amount of the wholesale pricing total of $1200.00 at this time shall stop any further action[s] on my part as far as obtaining adequate compensation for what has been done to me in this matter. Papers reflective of such shall be sent to Rachel accordingly also.
NOTE: In the state of Massachusetts it is also possible to utilize CMR 94 in most cases involving acts of theft by fraudulent and/or deceptive means and could also possibly involve the awarding of what is refered to in the legal system as "TREBLE" damages in court cases. What that means is the awarding of THREE times actual monetary damages. We're looking into utilizing such at this time in case we need to seek court ordered compensation in this matter fully.

Might be in one's best interest to just compensate adequately at this time utilizing the wholesale pricing that was done possibly in the sale of the babies...ie $1200.00. BUT That is just my opinion &nbsp;basically ....

DANG! That's long ! SORRY..

Clay.. THANX for your input ! &nbsp;<img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=''>

Well even with Rachel being out of town this weekend, 2 whole days is plenty of time for her to have written AND sent an email to Lori, but as of this time, nothing from her at all.

I wonder if she's lurking somewhere trying to ditch the newest clutch as quick as she can... like she did with the first one.

I wonder if there's any way to track down one of the buyers for a DNA test. Think that might be possible? It could be pretty damning to Rachel's case, or it could prove beyond doubt who the sire really was...


Just a thought...

-Joshua Gates

Anubis.. She has admitted that the June clutch was sired by mymale. The September one she has not though. She states that that female she recently acquired from a shelter as a rescue [ think a pet store was mentioned also even.. I dunno] and that it was gravid when she got it.