Legal battle hindering sale- Lea Hurst and Nikki Pardalis

Figures, it's just me. Carry on

Originally Posted by Dennis Hultman

Clicking on it I go right to her page.

Oh, You have to be logged into facebook. I just logged out at got "content not found"

Logged back in and there it was.

Ah, okay ... I really don't do FB, so rarely log in. Thanks.

Originally Posted by bcr229

If there is a lawsuit between Lea and Nikki then anyone with a PACER account can look up the attorney info.

PACER is a Federal Court system and it is highly unlikely that their case, if there is indeed one, is filed in Federal Court.

I don't know what type of access Oregon provides to its state court system, it varies from state to state.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Heilbrunn

PACER is a Federal Court system and it is highly unlikely that their case, if there is indeed one, is filed in Federal Court.

I don't know what type of access Oregon provides to its state court system, it varies from state to state.

Mea culpa, you're right. Looks like Oregon requires a written request for records.

I, absolutely, do not believe that Lea's alleged attorney advised her to not refund the OP. Well, unless Lea did not disclose everything to this alleged attorney.
If a partnership - they can either keep the money or keep the gecko. They cannot, regardless of dispute/s, keep both.
If not a partnership - the money/payment, itself, is not part of a partnership (which frees it from "business/ownership" disputes). It also means that Lea (as an individual) made the sale, Lea received payment (has/had the money), Lea cannot send the gecko to the OP (and Nikki, of course, will not). Thus, Lea owes the OP a refund. Now, not later.

Originally Posted by Pasodama

I, absolutely, do not believe that Lea's alleged attorney advised her to not refund the OP. Well, unless Lea did not disclose everything to this alleged attorney.
If a partnership - they can either keep the money or keep the gecko. They cannot, regardless of dispute/s, keep both.
If not a partnership - the money/payment, itself, is not part of a partnership (which frees it from "business/ownership" disputes). It also means that Lea (as an individual) made the sale, Lea received payment (has/had the money), Lea cannot send the gecko to the OP (and Nikki, of course, will not). Thus, Lea owes the OP a refund. Now, not later.

You're absolutel right. Although Lea an Nikki both have means to do the right thing here, I question Lea's integrity alot more. Why? Let's go back to the first post in this thread. Lea directs Brittany to with Nikki, then cautions her to "be careful in dealing with her, claiming Nikki is a pathological liar, bipolar and violent. Who's the liar here? Would Lea's lawyer say it's feesable for Brittany to have any correspondance with a dangerous (alleged) person like that? Doubt it. Lea's statement..."my lawyer says it's best to contact her through written means. Is there one person here who would take that advice if they thought the person they were being told to cantact as a dangerous, bipolar pathological liar? What lawyer would say that? If Brittany is the dangerous one, why did she get a restraining order against Lea? Nikki said she had to "go to the extreme of a restraining order to protect" herself. Does Lea deny that? Yet Lea claims she was "endlessly contacting her to get her to return her animals. Also, Lea states, "I'm getting out of the reptile world for good". Then, "not going to focus on reptiles for a while". Then, "if I ever decide to get onto cresties again, you can bet you'd get as many freebie's as you could ever want". THIS JUST IN...Lea is not getting out of reptiles! Lea, who are you trying to kid? I knew from the first post here that you have zero integrity when you solicited Brittany to do your dirty work for you. Your exact words were, "I'd also welcome you to make one (boi post) for me if you feel like it". Really Lea? First of all, that's against the rules here. I guess your lawyer said not to discuss anything here, but it's okay if someone does it for you. And you call Nikki a pathological liar???

Originally Posted by Chris Kennard

You're absolutel right. Although Lea an Nikki both have means to do the right thing here, I question Lea's integrity alot more. Why? Let's go back to the first post in this thread. Lea directs Brittany to with Nikki, then cautions her to "be careful in dealing with her, claiming Nikki is a pathological liar, bipolar and violent. Who's the liar here? Would Lea's lawyer say it's feesable for Brittany to have any correspondance with a dangerous (alleged) person like that? Doubt it. Lea's statement..."my lawyer says it's best to contact her through written means. Is there one person here who would take that advice if they thought the person they were being told to cantact as a dangerous, bipolar pathological liar? What lawyer would say that? If Brittany is the dangerous one, why did she get a restraining order against Lea? Nikki said she had to "go to the extreme of a restraining order to protect" herself. Does Lea deny that? Yet Lea claims she was "endlessly contacting her to get her to return her animals. Also, Lea states, "I'm getting out of the reptile world for good". Then, "not going to focus on reptiles for a while". Then, "if I ever decide to get onto cresties again, you can bet you'd get as many freebie's as you could ever want". THIS JUST IN...Lea is not getting out of reptiles! Lea, who are you trying to kid? I knew from the first post here that you have zero integrity when you solicited Brittany to do your dirty work for you. Your exact words were, "I'd also welcome you to make one (boi post) for me if you feel like it". Really Lea? First of all, that's against the rules here. I guess your lawyer said not to discuss anything here, but it's okay if someone does it for you. And you call Nikki a pathological liar???

Sorry. I meant to say if Nikky is the dangerous one. Not Brittany.

Thanks Dennis for looking, I guess I was wrong and what I thought was coincidental.


I don't have a Facebook so that explains why the link didn't work, your not going nuts Laura...

I am in contact with another buyer who Lea is refusing to refund. They were set to pick their gecko up in person this weekend but she got back to them around two weeks ago saying she didn't have their purchase or a refund and to just track me down to badger said gecko from me.

They have chosen to not post here but are aware of the thread and we are working out a solution that leaves them as happy as anyone could be through this mess.

I will be updating this thread as I see relevant, likely after the upcoming trial regarding Lea contesting the protective order against her.