Bad Guy Gastro3003 aka Dr. Robert Brunner -- Scam Artist, Forger, Beware!

[worldismarble]

Yes, you have wronged the community. You cried "Wolf", announcing publicly that the communities in danger from a scammer, but now that the person who YOU said is a scammer has paid you off, you no longer wish to inform the community.

You USED the community for your own interest, and now abandon the community's interests now that you have "got yours".

~Beau

And what is it exactly you wish to be "[informed]" of on my end?

 

[BeauBoi]

Just to be specific: I could care less about the stud number. Answer the questions you avoided earlier.

Is the animal alive?
Who has possession of the animal?

~Beau

 

[worldismarble]

Just to be specific: I could care less about the stud number. Answer the questions you avoided earlier.

Is the animal alive?
Who has possession of the animal?

~Beau

Your questions indicate a lack of understanding of the case on your part, which is troubling given your persistent accusations towards me that I am being unfair to the community. Have you read this entire thread in its entirety? It appears that you are missing key details in your understanding of the case. I sold a tortoise and no longer have possession of the animal -- is that clear to you?

As I indicated in many of my posts, the actual owner of the animal has contacted me privately, but you'll have to speak with Tuan regarding the specifics of the animal if you have questions.

 

[BeauBoi]

Your questions indicate a lack of understanding of the case on your part, which is troubling given your persistent accusations towards me that I am being unfair to the community. Have you read this entire thread in its entirety? It appears that you are missing key details in your understanding of the case. I sold a tortoise and no longer have possession of the animal -- is that clear to you?

As I indicated in many of my posts, the actual owner of the animal has contacted me privately, but you'll have to speak with Tuan regarding the specifics of the animal if you have questions.

So you still won't g Ve a straight answer. Ok. Your silence on the relevant questions is deafening and your arrogance just proves that you earned that red chicklette under your name (you should probably expect more of those, by the way).

I am done with you, and I suspect that the rest of the community is done with you as well.

Don't misunderstand, that doesn't mean this thread is done, because it isn't.

~Beau

 

[JButera]

You have every right not disclose info, yet others will draw their own conclusion, here's mine:
1.) Tuan has nothing to do with your decision of non-disclosure.
2.) The tortoise is alive and well.
3.) Dr. Brunner paid you the full amount and some extra to keep quiet.
4.) You and Dr. Brunner's credibility flew out the window.

 

[acecurl16]

I for one would love to have the answer to the following:
Who has the tortoise?
Please don't reference those infamous posts .. I do not read them to mean the same as you .. I read them to mean Tuan was in process of buying but wished to confirm lineage .. unable to from you as apparently you don't seem to remember where you got the tortoise from ... and Bill certainly has no record of you having it .. I conclude he may well have NOT completed the deal. Why does this matter .. because if it is not the son of the registered tortoise you advertised it to be from .. then you scammed the Dr. to start with .. value of tortoise would be effected if indeed not the son of #443.
Of course the Dr could come here and clear up as to where the tortoise is .. he has it still or sold to Tuan ... regardless it is alive and it will be interesting to see what Parrots of the World have to say about that paperwork Also .. please direct me to where you were contacted privately by Tuan .. I see lots of texts posted here and you do indicate he can contact you if he wishes ... but I do not see where he has contacted you privately ... those posts are public and you never answered his question anyway.

 

[Michael Brown]

I knew when you were flexing about selling high end items, and how its not about the money, that as soon as you got yours you would be out. I mean a lot of people talk a big game, but clearly you don't back it up, disappearing after your private resolution. What happened to that #1 google search to inform the public of the "fraud".

 

[bcr229]

As I indicated in many of my posts, the actual owner of the animal has contacted me privately, but you'll have to speak with Tuan regarding the specifics of the animal if you have questions.

I think people want to know simply to verify whether or not Dr. Brunner sold the very much alive tort - whether to Tuan or someone else - after informing you that the "sick" tort you sold him had passed away.

 

[Lucille]

The BOI's purpose is not to satiate your "[curiosity]." Its purpose is to solve problems by laying out the facts and carefully analyzing these facts. Obviously, the evidence I presented was substantial enough for a resolution to be made, and I have the community to thank for that.

This forum is designed to serve the purpose of giving anyone interested in the buying and selling of herptile related merchandise the opportunity to inquire about, or find already existing information concerning a person or business with whom they are considering doing business with.

Please note that inquiries (curiosity) is very much a part of this forum.

 

[zovick]

Here is a theory which I find rather plausible: Dr. Brunner received the tortoise from Ici Li back in May. He then traded it to Tuan for some other animals. Tuan then offered to trade the tortoise to my friend Jerry Carucci in July. Jerry was wise enough to ask Tuan for some kind of proof that the tortoise really is a son of legendary dam #443 before agreeing to any deals involving it. Hence, both Tuan and Jerry contacted me within about 36 hours of each other asking me to verify that Ici Li had indeed ever owned a son of that dam.

I told both of them that Ici Li had never bought one of her offspring from anyone who has owned her but that did not rule out the possibility that he could have bought the tortoise from its original buyer and that knowing the person from whom Ici obtained him might allow me to verify that that person had bought one or more offspring of dam #443 making it possible that Ici did have such a son.

Tuan asked this question of Ici Li at some point, possibly even before he decided to ask me, which tipped Ici off to the fact that the tortoise was not dead. Upon learning that Tuan had the tortoise, Ici started the bad guy thread about Dr. Brunner and refused to name the source of the animal in order to make it more difficult for anyone to sell it.

Facts: Jerry Carucci told me that Tuan had the tortoise when he first made his inquiry of me. Tuan told me he did not buy the tortoise from Ici because the price was too high, but was "interested" in the tortoise from the original ad (April). When I asked him if he had gotten it from someone else and why he only became interested in its backgroundr 2-3 months after it was advertised and when someone to whom he had offered it wanted to verify the background, he reiterated "I did not buy it" in several emails and then stopped communicating.

I believe semantics are in play here. He did not "buy" it, but with all the deals he does, he could very easily have traded something to Dr. Brunner for it, which I suppose means he didn't "buy" it. That doesn't mean he doesn't have it, though, a question which he won't answer in spite of being asked repeatedly via email.

Ici steadfastly refuses to name the source of the tortoise, telling me it is irrelevant to the bad guy thread. I told him that it could only help him and his credibility to get that information out in the open, but he still refuses.

 

[Mistyck]

Here is a theory which I find rather plausible: Dr. Brunner received the tortoise from Ici Li back in May. He then traded it to Tuan for some other animals. Tuan then offered to trade the tortoise to my friend Jerry Carucci in July. Jerry was wise enough to ask Tuan for some kind of proof that the tortoise really is a son of legendary dam #443 before agreeing to any deals involving it. Hence, both Tuan and Jerry contacted me within about 36 hours of each other asking me to verify that Ici Li had indeed ever owned a son of that dam.

I told both of them that Ici Li had never bought one of her offspring from anyone who has owned her but that did not rule out the possibility that he could have bought the tortoise from its original buyer and that knowing the person from whom Ici obtained him might allow me to verify that that person had bought one or more offspring of dam #443 making it possible that Ici did have such a son.

Tuan asked this question of Ici Li at some point, possibly even before he decided to ask me, which tipped Ici off to the fact that the tortoise was not dead. Upon learning that Tuan had the tortoise, Ici started the bad guy thread about Dr. Brunner and refused to name the source of the animal in order to make it more difficult for anyone to sell it.

Facts: Jerry Carucci told me that Tuan had the tortoise when he first made his inquiry of me. Tuan told me he did not buy the tortoise from Ici because the price was too high, but was "interested" in the tortoise from the original ad (April). When I asked him if he had gotten it from someone else and why he only became interested in its backgroundr 2-3 months after it was advertised and when someone to whom he had offered it wanted to verify the background, he reiterated "I did not buy it" in several emails and then stopped communicating.

I believe semantics are in play here. He did not "buy" it, but with all the deals he does, he could very easily have traded something to Dr. Brunner for it, which I suppose means he didn't "buy" it. That doesn't mean he doesn't have it, though, a question which he won't answer in spite of being asked repeatedly via email.

Ici steadfastly refuses to name the source of the tortoise, telling me it is irrelevant to the bad guy thread. I told him that it could only help him and his credibility to get that information out in the open, but he still refuses.

Well now if this isn't an interesting post.

Ici, your ATTITUDE (Damn that word seems to pop up every time someone's acting a fool.) makes all of us sick. No matter how you try to explain your attitude away you're still coming across as an

The fact that you're still being flippant about the whole thing makes you look just as bad as Dr. Brunner. Go sell your "high end" watches and grow up.

 

[JButera]

You have every right not disclose info, yet others will draw their own conclusion, here's mine:
1.) Tuan has nothing to do with your decision of non-disclosure.
2.) The tortoise is alive and well.
3.) Dr. Brunner paid you the full amount and some extra to keep quiet.
4.) You and Dr. Brunner's credibility flew out the window.

Sorry, to disclose.

 

[BeauBoi]

Let us not forget, there remains the issue if Forged Documents to be discussed....
~Beau

 

[Big Time Reptiles]

That doesn't mean he doesn't have it, though, a question which he won't answer in spite of being asked repeatedly via email.

Not that it matters, I just completed a sale with Tuan, and in one of my emails to him, I asked, do you have the tortoise in question?

His answer (copied & pasted): yes Lynn i saw the post on fauna BOI , as it is their problems , not my problems so i dont care for whatever they were saying or talking in that ad ,,,, also i called both of them and talked. clearly to. them that there are their problems , do not bring my name inside their problems, and do not get. me involve in any of their argument, dont give me any headache ........

i do not need to explain or say anything to those 2 guys problem , that's all

As with everyone else, he avoided my question like the plague.

I don't know if he's a player in this tortoise deal or not, as far as my deal with him, he was on the up & up and straight forward, did everything he said he would.

Lynn Peterson
Big Time Reptiles

 

[BeauBoi]

Thank you, Lynn. So basically....

1) Ici is a scammer, who sold a tortoise as being from a particular blood line and the originator of that bold line has no record of ever selling to Ici

2) the Dr. is a scammer, who bought the tortoise and then forged documents so he could claim it had died in an attempt to avoid payment

3) the guy who now has the tortoise doesn't care if it is really descended from the valued blood line, nor does he care to expose scammers in the community

Got it!

Lesson if this BOI? Avoid these people like the plague!

~Beau

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

Thank you, Lynn. So basically....

1) Ici is a scammer, who sold a tortoise as being from a particular blood line and the originator of that bold line has no record of ever selling to Ici

2) the Dr. is a scammer, who bought the tortoise and then forged documents so he could claim it had died in an attempt to avoid payment

3) the guy who now has the tortoise doesn't care if it is really descended from the valued blood line, nor does he care to expose scammers in the community

Got it!

Lesson if this BOI? Avoid these people like the plague!

~Beau

I am not sure how you are concluding #1 and #3 (and #2 is not fully confirmed with respect to the forgery, although it looks...not so wonderful).

Re: #1 - If I produce a tortoise of bloodline X from parent A and sell it to person one and that person one sells it without my knowledge to person two, that does not mean the animal suddenly loses its heritage if sold by person two to a third buyer. Whether that information is revealed to me or anyone else, the animal is still the animal. I have a particular male tortoise that produces especially robust offspring with impressive fertility. If his offspring change hands and I am not told, that does not mean those offspring were not sired by him and it does not necessarily mean the person reselling them as his offspring without my knowledge is a scammer in any fashion. As for not revealing it, I can imagine some reasons why. A lot of people protect their buyers and sources for multiple reasons (some want to prevent badgering of those people, some want to conceal the financial details, and some want to keep sources for their own future "exclusive" use). Do I want to know the answers to some of the questions in this thread? I do. Is it knowledge that I am owed or that I deserve? Not at all.

Re: #3 - I do not see any evidence here indicating that the person possessing the tortoise does not care about the bloodline. As for the scammer exposure, that is a personal call on the balance between service and headache. The act of exposure does not come without blowback at times, so some people may value their involvement according to differing tolerances. Would I prefer that such a person weigh in here? I would. Do I understand reasons why they might not? I do.

 

[ElexisC]

Beau, I'm confused about your insistence that I somehow wronged the community. Can you clarify?

Is there anything you feel I did wrong besides not wishing to disclose the studbook number of the tortoise I sold? I'm confused about how and why this detail is relevant to the entirety of this case.

I'm not sure I'm following your logic.

Oh so NOW you don't want to disclose but we're putting it in your ads. Could it be because it was a lie to sell quicker and for a higher price?

Also you were very adamant in having us believe the tort was alive and well but now don't want us to know where it is? Hmm.

Sent from my N9132 using Tapatalk

 

[BeauBoi]

I am not sure how you are concluding #1 and #3 (and #2 is not fully confirmed with respect to the forgery, although it looks...not so wonderful).

Re: #1 - If I produce a tortoise of bloodline X from parent A and sell it to person one and that person one sells it without my knowledge to person two, that does not mean the animal suddenly loses its heritage if sold by person two to a third buyer. Whether that information is revealed to me or anyone else, the animal is still the animal. I have a particular male tortoise that produces especially robust offspring with impressive fertility. If his offspring change hands and I am not told, that does not mean those offspring were not sired by him and it does not necessarily mean the person reselling them as his offspring without my knowledge is a scammer in any fashion. As for not revealing it, I can imagine some reasons why. A lot of people protect their buyers and sources for multiple reasons (some want to prevent badgering of those people, some want to conceal the financial details, and some want to keep sources for their own future "exclusive" use). Do I want to know the answers to some of the questions in this thread? I do. Is it knowledge that I am owed or that I deserve? Not at all.

Re: #3 - I do not see any evidence here indicating that the person possessing the tortoise does not care about the bloodline. As for the scammer exposure, that is a personal call on the balance between service and headache. The act of exposure does not come without blowback at times, so some people may value their involvement according to differing tolerances. Would I prefer that such a person weigh in here? I would. Do I understand reasons why they might not? I do.

I think you missed my point. Without any of the three involved willing to tell us what as tulle transpired, they leave us with no chOnce bit to come to our own conclusions. Those are the conclusions I came to for myself, and others can come to whatever conclusion they want, but without any actual information from the people involved, none of us really know the truth. High is apparently tha way they want it.

~Beau

 

[BeauBoi]

Dang phone!

* Whish is apparently the way they want it.

~Beau

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

I think you missed my point. Without any of the three involved willing to tell us what as tulle transpired, they leave us with no chOnce bit to come to our own conclusions. Those are the conclusions I came to for myself, and others can come to whatever conclusion they want, but without any actual information from the people involved, none of us really know the truth. High is apparently tha way they want it.

~Beau

I do not think I missed your point. I simply disagree with it.

Lacking the additional details, forming a conclusion would require filling those gaps with assumptions. Those assumptions may not reflect the truth and alternative possibilities may exist based on what evidence is present. Stating someone is a scammer as a conclusion with an absence of evidence of a scam is unjustified and unfair to the person being prematurely judged.

Sometimes it is perfectly fine to admit that there is nothing more to the story that one is going to be permitted to learn and then let it exist as it is without a curiosity-satisfying conclusion.