Ian Curtis - Stolen African House Snakes

Originally Posted by jaygib9

As I said on page 8 "On that picture of Wills response, which was November 20th, which was when Sarah sent a very long letter to Ian, I see no specific names or situations being mentioned. It appears to be a response to a generic comment. I can't speak for Will or anyone else, but this could easily be taken out of context and assigned to this specific situation without the people responding even knowing the full story at the time of their response."

Justin..seriously? You can actually type that out without feeling some pangs of "oh no, i hope they buy this"?

Here, let me help. This was on page one of this thread. Please look at the dates:



If you TRULY think that what he said was taken out of context, then you sir are one gullible person....just saying.

John, you must have forgotten about the Death in the Family. That perfectly justifies no response for 3 months. .

Originally Posted by laterob

I think this is a lose-lose for KHS.

First, there's nothing to really be 'mediated'. What are they going to do...share custody? There is no 'middle ground' or 'median'.

1. Lawyer sides with Ian. Possession is 9/10 of the law, after all. Sarah doesn't have enough proof. Ian wins, people still think he's shady and KHS, too, by extension.

2. Lawyer sides with Sarah. Ian loses, KHS loses.

What am I missing?

Where did Sarah agree to binding arbitration, could you please post that, I didn't see it but it has been a long thread.?

Originally Posted by jaygib9

I'm sorry that some of you are holding this against the KHS, I truly am. Nice way to throw more accusations Lucille, go back to trolling on ESPN, they like trolls there. Ian told me he has a lawyer, I have no reason to doubt him. It's between the two of them, just because I consider Ian a friend don't mean it's my place to do anything other than try to protect the KHS. They can resolve it themselves without my involvement other than to back the KHS. The meetings are open to the public, you're more than welcome to attend.

Originally Posted by jaygib9 View Post
That's not the case, the KHS is trying to stay out of it, hence deletions of posts, etc... I'm not the one deleting posts, but I concur that it's in the best interest of the club to allow them to resolve it their own way without our intervention. I am an officer of the KHS, but as I've said, I wasn't there, I didn't witness it, it's not my place to say either way. People are judging based on opinions, instead of fact, nobody knows what happened other than Sarah and Ian. Regardless of who pays the lawyer, if it's brought to court, they make a solemn vow to speak the truth. I'm just watching to see how it works out. Because he called on friends that are in the KHS makes it a KHS matter? Unless the KHS specifically states that it/we are involved, then it's an outside matter.

The posts are being selectively deleted while Ian's remains.

Deleting all opposing, probing type posts and banning the posters but leaving Ian's post and two other officers that are all friends as the final statement until Friday shows no bias or involvement? If anything it shows unity.

Chris stated he would leave the posts up until Friday

It is also the KHS stance that we do not get involved in any pending legal action. Therefore these posts will be removed on Friday. This will allow the involved parties a chance to read this message. Thank you for your cooperation. - Chris Barmore

I guess he meant selectively to convey a single message. It happens to be the same message as only one of the parties involved.

This is a private matter, not related to the KHS and it's being handled through legal channels now

That was pretty much stated by Chris as well.

and I hope that with a lawyer mediating, they can get their personal issue resolved.

Seems to me that taking a non-involvement stance would not be listening to one party and parroting what they state back. That is exactly what is being done.

He's handling it via legal means,

Sarah hasn't mentioned legal action. Just that she wants her snakes back. The officers of the organization including Ian are the ones mentioning legal action. You guys are uniformly speaking together.

Deleting all the in-between posts and leaving Ian's, yours and Chris's posts speaks to that as well.

"Justin..seriously? You can actually type that out without feeling some pangs of "oh no, i hope they buy this"?"
I saw the dates on those, but that don't mean that Ian told Will all about it. As I said, I can't speak for anyone else, but don't assume that he rushed to tell everybody exactly what was going on, you've seen his response time. Fair enough? I'm not gullible, I take people at their word unless they give me reason not to. I'm trusting. I'm going to bed, I wish you all well, and I do sincerely hope they figure it out. However it works out, I'm sure sides will be taken and decisions will be made after that.

As I stated, I'm not the one deleting any posts. Whether it's Chris, or Will, or someone else doing so, that's their decision. I haven't deleted anything. I'm not parroting anything, I just said what Ian told me, that there's a lawyer involved. So from that point forward, it's irrelevant how any of us feel about it or think who's right or wrong. The law will handle it. I'm done putting anything on here, the KHS meetings are open to the public. I'm here to protect the KHS. I really don't see how the KHS can make everybody happy, unless we vote as a club to suspend or remove a member who's done a lot for the club, for something that happened outside the club. One person don't make or break a club, there are members and officers that attend and further the agenda of reptile/amphibian enthusiasts, breeders, and the industry as a whole. Good night all.

You would think that the KHS would be trying to bring MORE people in, rather than alienating them for the sake of the former officers' groupies.....the attendance at KHS meetings has been abysmal compared to what it once was.....I know that for a fact. They are on their last legs and if this is how they run their organization, by condoning and protecting theives then I cannot forsee them lasting much longer in their present state.

And if thats the case, then I say good riddance.

Originally Posted by Lucille

Where did Sarah agree to binding arbitration, could you please post that, I didn't see it but it has been a long thread.?

All I have seen is that Sarah did NOT want to be bound, she refused to sign off and be bound. So where did all this talk of the 'law sorting it out' come from if there was no valid agreement from Sarah?

Also.....one has to wonder if Ian's attorney is the same one being mentioned by Chris. If that is the case, then Chris' statement of the attorney having never met Ian or hearing of him would be of course false.

And with that, the link to this BOI post in that conversation on Facebook was just deleted.