Ty park/ ty lizards FL

Originally Posted by bcr229

Search in AZ not CA.

Thanks. I was expecting info in Ca because they are a California corporation.

So, I'm off to investigate California non profit raffle law.


That is interesting. The non-profit is out of California so California law would apply. They simply have their mailing address out of Tucson. Also, their status is suspended. Under Arizona law they would not be able to conduct a raffle in this state. That said, you will have to check with the laws of California concerning raffles since that is their jurisdiction for this particular non-profit unless they have filed in Arizona as well. You’re a better researcher than you give yourself credit for.

Thank you,
Aiden Fleming
Government & Tribal Relations Manager
Arizona Department of Gaming
1110 W Washington Street, Suite 450
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Office: 602.255.3879

This is starting to sound like some kind of weird money laundering project directed by JJ Abrams, lol.

Originally Posted by Lucille

So, I'm off to investigate California non profit raffle law.

Wondering if Ca's DoJ website is maybe not thoroughly updated, or what. Considering what part of the first screenshot says, outlined in red, it seems like we should be seeing where IRCF filed the necessary forms to run a raffle. However, when I enter the area where I can view which forms they've filed over the years, I'm not seeing anything regarding raffles. Wonder what that could mean?

To view the site yourselves, follow This Link, and then enter 'International Reptile Conservation Foundation' in "Organization Name" text field.

Originally Posted by Fangthane

I was wondering how long it would take for more of the groupies to put in an appearance. I'm not sure how someone could even make such posts after having had the decency to do the reading necessary to come to an informed decision. I have to surmise that you either didn't feel the need to do so; or you decided that protecting the name of a once-good man is more important than trying to see his wrong righted. Either way, you're just

If Ty Park is covered in mud, it's simply because he started flinging it at the OP and his efforts ultimately backfired once the situation was brought here, where most of us are much more interested in helping victims than we are in protecting those who've actually done the victimizing. Gotta love seeing how easily some can set integrity aside when it may not be a matter of convenience; when those who've clearly wronged another don't happen to be some faceless, unknown villain who's easily condemned without some personal cost.

I agree that Ty is in the wrong here, and that there are people who are blind followers. I don't agree with the way he has gone about handling things.

But, does this instance invalidate him as a good person? From all we can see, he believes he tried to make an effort to right the situation by providing an albino blue produced by someone else.

His terms didn't read that way, but he felt it was reasonable.

Does that warrant the witch hunt for the charity he donated the money to, or the maelstrom that could ensue for them?

Did Ty hold the raffle in association with the IRFC? There is so much repetition here, it's hard to find "just the facts."

Here is some statutory language about raffles. From this chapter, although there may be updates or exceptions, it appears that the raffles are supposed to take place in California

http://law.justia.com/codes/californ...319-329/320.5/

Originally Posted by Mike (The M)

But, does this instance invalidate him as a good person? From all we can see, he believes he tried to make an effort to right the situation by providing an albino blue produced by someone else.

His terms didn't read that way, but he felt it was reasonable.

Yes, I think it goes pretty far in showing that he's not a particularly good person, despite whatever he may have done for charity. To righteously judge a situation like this, I think it needs to be looked at in a vacuum. Anything outside of that which directly applies to this dispute shouldn't come into play.

It seems he was unable to procure said replacement animal from an unnamed source, so that's a fairly moot point. However, him deciding that a course is reasonable to him doesn't equate to that idea being a universal fact. Although he's trying to hide behind some pretty flimsy semantics, I think it's pretty clear that he was to provide either an animal hatched by him, from his own stock; or give the winner $3000 if he was unable to produce them. He made a contract and eventually decided to change the terms when he couldn't live up to the original ones.

The OP only wants what any reasonable person should expect - what the terms dictated she'd receive. Once the dispute arose, I can't see much of anything even remotely laudable about how Ty Park chose to handle their disagreement. So, yeah, as I'd said before, I think adversity has forced some of his true colors to shine through. To my eyes, they're not very flattering shades.

Originally Posted by Mike (The M)

Does that warrant the witch hunt for the charity he donated the money to, or the maelstrom that could ensue for them?

It's looking like the responsibility for ensuring that all winners receive their prize may very well fall at the IRCF's feet. When given a chance to intervene and involve themselves in actively helping someone who never received their prize, the person who runs the IRCF seemingly couldn't care less about her plight. If his organization hasn't done anything wrong, this "maelstrom" won't really impact them in any way. If, on the other hand, their fundraising efforts aren't entirely on the up-and-up, Mr. Binns may end up regretting his disinterest in being more concerned and helpful.

Originally Posted by Mike (The M)

Did Ty hold the raffle in association with the IRFC? There is so much repetition here, it's hard to find "just the facts."

Yes, that's been established and covered repeatedly.

So this is turning out to be a bumpy ride:


From: "Raffles" <raffles@doj.ca.gov>
To: jackthesmack9000@comcast.net
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2016 2:24:58 PM
Subject: RE: Form submission from: Contact the Registrar

If you are conducting any raffle activities in California you must register and report in California, and the draw must be conducted here.

If you are not sure that the raffle your organization is holding is in compliance with section 320.5, you may wish to seek legal counsel if you deem appropriate. You may also wish to review the information on the websites listed below:
https://oag.ca.gov/charities/raffles
https://oag.ca.gov/charities/faq#raffles


Thank you,
Raffle Desk
Department of Justice/Attorney General’s Office
Registry of Charitable Trusts
P.O. Box 903447
Sacramento, CA 94203
(916) 445-2021 Ext. 9
http://oag.ca.gov/charities



If no raffle activities were conducted in California then the organization would need to adhere to Arizona laws.

Thank you,
Raffle Desk
Department of Justice/Attorney General’s Office
Registry of Charitable Trusts
P.O. Box 903447
Sacramento, CA 94203
(916) 445-2021 Ext. 9
http://oag.ca.gov/charities

Originally Posted by Mike (The M)

I agree that Ty is in the wrong here, and that there are people who are blind followers. I don't agree with the way he has gone about handling things.

But, does this instance invalidate him as a good person? From all we can see, he believes he tried to make an effort to right the situation by providing an albino blue produced by someone else.

His terms didn't read that way, but he felt it was reasonable.

Does that warrant the witch hunt for the charity he donated the money to, or the maelstrom that could ensue for them?

Did Ty hold the raffle in association with the IRFC? There is so much repetition here, it's hard to find "just the facts."

As far as I can see the only reason that a witch hunt may ensue is because of Ty,s pure arrogance in this matter.
As stated earlier 3k may be chump change to the fallout that looks like is developing

I fail to see how people bringing up the moral/ethical short comings of having a "charity" raffle by offering high dollar animals or the promise of cash prizes and then refusing to deliver those prizes as promised qualifies as a "witch hunt".....seems like bringing dishonest practices to light in several arenas.