Jeane Best- River City Reptiles (Bad Guy)

With reasonable self restraint, this will be the last efforts I waste in this thread. BTW Sammy, thanks for the invite. Some day it will have to happen. Nothing like leaving the snows of Indiana in January for the short sleeves of Florida though. I'm 35 miles form Disney too, and you do have a young'un .

I have seen many references to Jeane's "past questionable deals", or "lack of ethics", etc. I have no desire to rehash 1000 post threads about two dead geckos bought by her daughter, or any other thread with Jeane's name in it. All of those threads soon became mudfests about Wendy the pornstar, etc, etc. JUST AS A FEW TRIED TO DO HERE. Praise God that this time enough good folks stepped forward to keep it in the here and now. I obviously loathe those small minds that cannot debate in the moment, and must rely on mud and innuendo spilled before.

I have known Jeane for several years. I am very familiar with all the BS of past threads, as I also wasted good time in them. Every thread is massively crushed by the lesser angels of otherwise good people's nature, constantly impugning the one for the sins of the other. Everyone is welcome to think as they like, not do business with whomever, etc. But in rebuttal to all who refer to these past transgressions of Jeane, I choose to not rehash the muck there, but will state that IMMHO Jeane always conducted the transactions in ways that a reasonable vendor would, not necessarily every vendor, and IMMHO, is not of the mud flung by others here. As pointed out by another poster here, also intimately familiar with things, she bore many slights and situations that were not of her doing, and not with her approval or cooperation, to include emails from her account not of her doing. She did tire of being called a whore and a slut, etc., which were the sins of the daughter, among other transgressions. Again, just IMMHO, but there are posters in this thread of far less moral and ethical fiber than Jeane. By a country mile.

Originally Posted by forever29

I find this odd, as earlier in the thread you mentioned how you were told he was one of "last years hold backs". Now I may not have a professional opinion on beardies but from the work I have done with them I know anyone who "raises 400 babies per year" should clearly be able to tell the difference between a lethargic 3 year old and a healthy one year old holdback.

She never said that. Someone else was relating an experience they had regarding a bad deal when they thought they were buying last year's holdbacks and later came to find out they were actually retired breeders.

Originally Posted by forever29

I find this odd, as earlier in the thread you mentioned how you were told he was one of "last years hold backs".

Originally Posted by Wraith

She never said that. Someone else was relating an experience they had regarding a bad deal when they thought they were buying last year's holdbacks and later came to find out they were actually retired breeders.

Thanks....I didn't think I was just blind when I couldn't find her saying any such thing.

Originally Posted by monkeywrench133

Jim, you've made reference to Nicole having a track record of lying before, could you point to specific examples of such past behavior?

Jim has no more proof of Nicole lying than we do of her NOT lying at this point...though from what I've seen from Laura's post of the note sent to Jeane, it does seem to indicate that previous notes were indeed sent. But since Nicole didn't save the emails with full headers....take it as you will, I guess.

Originally Posted by Cat_72

Jim has no more proof of Nicole lying than we do of her NOT lying at this point...

I agree sincerely with the above sentiment.

A lack of proof, or an inability to provide such proof, doesn't automatically indicate that a statement is untrue. And an untruth isn't always a lie- a lie being a conscious manipulation to present an untruth.

Nicole can't prove she sent emails because she is unable to provide the headers.

Even if she could prove she sent them, nobody can prove one way or the other that they were read or that Jeane was aware of them. Something as simple and easily explained as a spam filter set too high on an email account can result in sufficient miscomunication to drive any deal, between any two parties, sideways into a bad place.

This doesn't mean either of them is consciously lying. It does mean that any reasonable individual will not attempt to unfavorabally color either party with accusations, insinuations or reflexive nastiness... 'course not everyone who has posted is reasonable. About this subject anyway.

That said, given Jeane's history, which is negative as a result of her own actions in addition to those of her daughter, no matter what Jim would have the naive believe to be the case- a reader is left looking at what is known versus what is suspected. What is probable versus improbable. My opinion of Jeane was already sufficiently formed as a result of her past misdeeds to find it highly likely that she blew Nicole's concerns off without response or regret. That said, many of Nicole's concerns are things that lack sufficient merit (or proof of merit) to label this incident any kind of malicious passing of low quality animals onto an unsuspecting buyer. Furthermore, the timeline of events, even as presented without proof by Nicole, are such that little blame can be placed on Jeane for anything other than craptacular customer service in addressing the concerns of a buyer. Which is frankly about what I would have expected of Jeane at absolute best anyway.

Rest assured that while some of us were in fact born at night, it most assuredly was not last night.

Uh oh. I am really sorry for the screw up. Two many late nights reading BOI threads.
Need to get more sleep. All the posts are mushing together. LOL

Originally Posted by monkeywrench133

Veterinarians can be sued for Malpractice. The OP's Vet failed to diagnose the animal correctly, who knows if there might have been a hope of treating this animal if the problem had been diagnosed correctly the first visit.

I really enjoyed this attempt at humor. Oh wait, you didn't mean it to be funny.


C'mon Erin, you can do better than that. Look at the four elements required to collect damages in a malpractice suit, namely duty of care (conceded in this situation), negligence, causation, and damages. Before you get to monetary damages you have to prove negligence, and that said negligence was the cause of monetary damages.

In order to prove negligence, generally the standard applied is that of the "average qualified [professional -in this case a veterinarian] in the community". Reading through this whole silly thread I'm thinking that the "average qualified veterinarian" would have thought of simple things first and not rushed to look for a spinal malignancy as the cause of illness in an animal still well enough to breed. The animal was not that sick. He would have thought of common and treatable things first (when he hears hoof beats outside his office he thinks of horses not zebras). Even if the diagnosis was made earlier, what are the odds that a successful intervention could have been made on a Bearded Dragon with a malignancy? Radiation? Chemotherapy? Potentially crippling surgery? Thousands of dollars of expenses to try to save an already dying animal? Get real.

But even if the attempt were made to sue, in order to prove professional malpractice, one needs an "expert" to explain to the jury why an "average qualified veterinarian" would have done something different and how that would have made a difference. That "expert" is going to charge perhaps $300 to review the records and another $500-1000 plus expenses (travel, meals, lodging) to testify at trial. So we already have perhaps $1300 in expenses, for a suit that the plaintiff will lose. No reasonable attorney will take such a case on a contingency fee basis, because it's a loser from the start. So add $300/hour for a malpractice attorney, costs of depositions (court reporter, etc.), court filing fees, etc. On the other hand, the veterinarian is defended by his insurance company so it costs him nothing. He has the deep pockets here. In his defense also is the fact that she thought the animal was "off" from the beginning but didn't bring it in. So who is the negligent (from a strictly legal perspective) party in that case?

Even if Nicole wins a lawsuit here, which even she (I'm sure) has more than enough sense not to file, what are the monetary damages? A couple of hundred dollars? Not even close to enough to make it financially worthwhile.


Erin, I'm not disputing that the veterinarian had motivation to fabricate, or at least to embellish, but fear of a lawsuit was not one of the motivating factors. I thought that his whole story was a crock from the start, but raising the lawsuit issue was silly.


Reference: http://www.animallaw.info/articles/a...alpractice.htm

Threat of lawsuits in the BOI ? Nah !!! No disrespect meant to Erin, but I know from your background Jim, and I believe you know from mine, that what many people assume about the civil process is a far cry from reality. It helps that I have a brother who is a civil/business law attorney, and now a daughter who is likewise. But the best teacher is to actually help an attorney put their kid thru college. Done that more than once. Doing it again now, as a matter of fact.

BTW, the veterinarian told a different story than Nicole related of what he had, and had not, stated regarding diagnosis and how far back one could reasonably assume the illness had begun. He was adamant that without a necropsy it was very difficult to draw such conclusions, and even then would have been a good deal conjecture. His verbatim words were much more as one would expect of a professional than what Nicole led us to believe. So who do we trust, the vet or Nicole ? That's a tough one !

Hope all is well.

So who do we trust, the vet or Nicole ? That's a tough one !

No, that's not tough at all. The answer is neither. No evidence was provided to back up anything allegedly said by either vet. No evidence was provided by Nicole to back anything she said. And the threat of a lawsuit is laughable at best.

Laura,
To each his own basis for logic and truth. I would note that Dan pointed out early in the thread that certain conclusions that Nicole credited as having been made by the vet did not seem valid. Not that everyone should call the vet, although I thank him for his time with me and another, but he also spoke as one would expect of a professional in his field, and not as had been alleged. The vet specifically stated that he had not said what had been attributed to him, and he explained why such conclusions were not reasonable.

To the greater body of folks out there, should you ever sit on a jury. The threshold for "proof" in order to convict someone is not that it be absolute. only that it be "beyond a reasonable doubt". You will get this in your instructions. If you or I have a contradiction over how we see things, its a difference of opinion. When the plaintiff has contradictions within her own testimony and allegations, I guess its just having a difference of opinion with oneself ... LOL.