Ty park/ ty lizards FL

Originally Posted by zovick

It seems quite possible that this corporation may have filed in AZ as well just as Mr. Fleming suggests above since it appears that the top officers moved from CA to AZ a few years ago.

If not, and they are "suspended" in CA, what exactly does that term mean? Can they still hold raffles legally at all, no matter where they are held? The drawing for this one was in AZ as we have seen, so what are the consequences of those two things combined (suspended corporation holding raffle drawing outside of the state of incorporation)?

I can't find the filing in AZ. Maybe someone else can. I would guess the worst case scenario for the IRCF if there is no filing is that what was supposed to be a raffle is instead seen by AZ as a lottery.
I have queried AZ, hopefully they will answer tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Lucille

I can't find the filing in AZ. Maybe someone else can. I would guess the worst case scenario for the IRCF if there is no filing is that what was supposed to be a raffle is instead seen by AZ as a lottery.
I have queried AZ, hopefully they will answer tomorrow.

If the IRCF is not a registered non-profit corporation in AZ, and the "raffle" is therefore deemed a "lottery", what are the legal ramifications?

Originally Posted by Mike (The M)

My point is simply, if it fell squarely upon Ty to provide the prize, is it necessary to drag them into it? My question was also whether or not this was simply the case of Ty saying, "Hey, I'm raffling off some stuff, and choosing a cause" or if it was in an official capacity. If it was not in an official capacity, then they would have nothing to do with it, and then yes, it would be a witch hunt. As has been confirmed by more than one person, it is in an official capacity.

I believe they drew the winning ticket, on their property..they seem pretty involved. As far as them getting dragged into this, yes it's unfortunate. It's unfortunate that TY has gotten them dragged into this by HIS actions *. Let's not blame the victim here (who is not Ty, no matter how he might perceive it). The OP has done nothing more than pursue her rightful winnings.

It's great that this charity is doing work for herps. But there is a reason we have laws regulating raffles and these sort of things - to protect people from getting taken advantage of. If they are running raffles/lotteries outside of the law, they need to get that straightened out. It's not the fault of the OP that the laws may not have been followed.

*Although, now that I think of it, the charity had an opportunity to at least try to make this right but chose to put it back on Michelle.

Ty you have painted folks into corners, you obviously worked hard to get where you are at and it seems money is not your primary motivator as it is for so many of us who want to " pay for our hobby". Why don't you step up and make this a truly joyful holiday season and come off of one of those $5K purple t+ animals. What Michelle has gone through that would be fair compensation. If money is not that big a deal why would you not take the high road, like so many of us wish we could afford to do? You've done a lot of good tings, I hope you do the right thing here

Originally Posted by DavidBeard

You can't complain about being drug through mud when you poured the water, made the mud yourself and then burned any alternative routes around or over the mud with your own actions.

DING DING DING!!!!!

Originally Posted by zovick

If the IRCF is not a registered non-profit corporation in AZ, and the "raffle" is therefore deemed a "lottery", what are the legal ramifications?

I did some looking around this morning. It appears that the IRCF may qualify, by virtue of it's 501 non profit status, as a tax exempt organization qualified to run a raffle.

Here is its status:

Originally Posted by bcr229

Info from CharityNavigator on IRCF:

EIN 91-2166685
Name in IRS Master File INTERNATIONAL REPTILE CONSERVATION FOUNDATION
Street Address 5008 W PLACITA DE LOS VIENTOS
City, State, Zip TUCSON, AZ 85745-9235
NTEE Code D30
NTEE Classification Wildlife Preservation, Protection
NTEE Type Animal-Related
Classification Charitable Organization
Subsection 501(c)(3) (View the list of codes)
Activities
Foundation Status Organization which receives a substantial part of its support from a governmental unit or the general public 170(b)(1)(A)(vi)
Deductibility Contributions are deductible
Affiliation Independent - the organization is an independent organization or an independent auxiliary (i.e., not affiliated with a National, Regional, or Geographic grouping of organizations).
Group Name [Not Applicable]
Ruling Date March, 2002
Asset Amount $270
Income Amount $0
Form 990 Revenue Amount $0
Latest Form 990 Return December, 2015
Filing Requirement 990 - Required to file Form 990-N - Income less than $50,000 per year
Fiscal Year End December

But these additional rules apply:

B. An organization that has qualified for an exemption from taxation of income under section 43-1201, subsection A, paragraph 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 or 11 may conduct a raffle that is subject to the following restrictions:

1. The nonprofit organization shall maintain this status and no member, director, officer, employee or agent of the nonprofit organization may receive any direct or indirect pecuniary benefit other than being able to participate in the raffle on a basis equal to all other participants.

2. The nonprofit organization has been in existence continuously in this state for a five year period immediately before conducting the raffle.

3. No person except a bona fide local member of the sponsoring organization may participate directly or indirectly in the management, sales or operation of the raffle.


"Regulated gambling" means either:

(a) Gambling conducted in accordance with a tribal-state gaming compact or otherwise in accordance with the requirements of the Indian gaming regulatory act of 1988 (P.L. 100-497; 102 Stat. 2467; 25 United States Code sections 2701 through 2721 and 18 United States Code sections 1166 through 1168); or

(b) Gambling to which all of the following apply:

(i) It is operated and controlled in accordance with a statute, rule or order of this state or of the United States.

(ii) All federal, state or local taxes, fees and charges in lieu of taxes have been paid by the authorized person or entity on any activity arising out of or in connection with the gambling.

(iii) If conducted by an organization which is exempt from taxation of income under section 43-1201, the organization's records are open to public inspection.

(iv) Beginning on June 1, 2003, none of the players is under twenty-one years of age.

There is a small raffle exception, but I do not believe the IRCF qualifies
"A nonprofit organization that is a booster club, a civic club or a political club or political organization"

I am still researching, and await answers to my queries from AZ.


For those who do not qualify for the exception categories:

As I said I am still researching, but based on some of the information above:



No person except a bona fide local member of the sponsoring organization may participate directly or indirectly in the management, sales or operation of the raffle.

(iv) Beginning on June 1, 2003, none of the players is under twenty-one years of age.

The screen shot in post 210 shows Ty specifying the rules of the raffle. This sounds to me like participation in sales.
Also, there does not seem to be a requirement in the screen shot that participants be over 21.

Originally Posted by tlmoon

I believe they drew the winning ticket, on their property..they seem pretty involved. As far as them getting dragged into this, yes it's unfortunate. It's unfortunate that TY has gotten them dragged into this by HIS actions *. Let's not blame the victim here (who is not Ty, no matter how he might perceive it). The OP has done nothing more than pursue her rightful winnings.

It's great that this charity is doing work for herps. But there is a reason we have laws regulating raffles and these sort of things - to protect people from getting taken advantage of. If they are running raffles/lotteries outside of the law, they need to get that straightened out. It's not the fault of the OP that the laws may not have been followed.

*Although, now that I think of it, the charity had an opportunity to at least try to make this right but chose to put it back on Michelle.

Nowhere have I blamed Michelle, or said Ty was a victim. I've stated MULTIPLE times that I agree Ty is wrong and handled this inappropriately, and sided with her that she is owed what she is entitled to.

My question was whether or not the charity was directly involved, and yes, it was already confirmed here and elsewhere to me that they had involvement.

I understand the position of the charity, Ty has donated a ton of money to them and I feel they kind of have to side with him, because for all we know Ty might be the only reason they exist with the amount of money he's donated over the years, I think they are between a rock and a hard place and even if they are wrong for siding with Ty I can only imagine I'd do the same. What can they really do threaten a major contributor? Say hey you've given us tens of thousands of dollars but we need you to shell out more to this lady or we'll disown you? The position Ty has put the charity in pisses me off just as much , if not more than what he's pulling with Michelle. I really hope nothing bad falls on the charity because of this reptiles are diapering from this planet and these days humans don't even seem to care about the human race much less the animals who actually earned the right to exist on this planet.

Originally Posted by Bobby Douglass

If that's all you see then you're either not paying attention or you're biased. This isn't about who Ty is, who he knows, how much money he has or what good he does. In this situation he is not following through with his obligation. It's pretty simple really.

I am sure I am biased, although I understand the basics of this dispute, and I do not think that Ty has gotten (nor does he want) fair representation here on the BOI. He has chosen to let his lawyers handle this, but many of you seem like you are offended because he has not come to this forum to plead his case. "because his time is too valuable". but that does not make him a "bad guy"
There are a lot of very bad people in this industry, and in my opinion his actions in this instance do not warrant the "bad guy" label some of you want to attach to him.
Do I think he screwed up? yeah.
Do I think he should be admired? Hell yes.