Bad Guy Craig Wyatt Scammer Bad Guy Selling Sick Animals

[LauraB]

At this point, does it really matter what time of that particular day Dr. Chris went to see the animals? He went to see them at Jason's home, as what would appear to be a favor to a friend. Period.

He did visual check of the animals, and based on his visual only exam at a friend's or acquaintance's home (no X-rays, no blood work, no invoice, no nothing), determined those animals had medical problems, and that Jay had received unhealthy animals unfit for sale. Dr Chris S. has NO clue if he is examining animals recently sent by Craig or animals that Jay already owns.

However, based upon the hearsay he is told and "examining" those visually unhealthy animals, he then proceeded to write not just one, but TWO undated letters on the letterhead of the practice that employs him and naming Craig as the seller of the animals when he had NO reason to believe that, and certainly NO reason to put it in writing. As Dr. Stancel himself stated in an email, "how was I to know?" You DO NOT know for a fact, Dr. Stancel, therefore you don't cast baseless judgments against an unknown party based on hearsay and then sign your name on your company letterhead stating same. Really simple and common sense .. especially as someone who is supposed to be an educated professional with some sense of ethics.

Remember, not just one, but two letters. Then when questioned, he cites a NJ Pet Protection Law that surely he should already know explicitly is in place for domestic dog and cat transactions/sales, not exotics.

I understand why he would not come here to defend his actions. Yes, MBD is easy to spot visually, but IMO Dr. Chris Stancel acted unethically and unprofessionally provding those letters to Jay solely based on what was told to him by Jay.

Not a vet I would recommend. I wonder what his boss would think.

 

[Lucille]

Fauna Boi is not my boss none of the people on here dictate anything to me especially CRAIG WYATT. I took my time and did all of this the proper way. They banned me....!!!!!!!!!!! Because my name was not correct I did not hide

The above excerpt is from the very first post on this thread. Jay, if you wanted to do things the proper way, you would have straightened out your name situation. Instead you spent countless hours and posts in evasion. You've done NOTHING the proper way.
There is no question in my mind that if someone can't even get it together to prove and post their actual name, whatever else they say is suspect.
There is no question in my mind that Jay will shaft anyone- business or personal. I think for some people there is more to it than lying to make money, some people actually enjoy the shafting process.

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

At this point, does it really matter what time of that particular day Dr. Chris went to see the animals? He went to see them at Jason's home, as what would appear to be a favor to a friend. Period.

He did visual check of the animals, and based on his visual only exam at a friend's or acquaintance's home (no X-rays, no blood work, no invoice, no nothing), determined those animals had medical problems, and that Jay had received unhealthy animals unfit for sale. Dr Chris S. has NO clue if he is examining animals recently sent by Craig or animals that Jay already owns.

However, based upon the hearsay he is told and "examining" those visually unhealthy animals, he then proceeded to write not just one, but TWO undated letters on the letterhead of the practice that employs him and naming Craig as the seller of the animals when he had NO reason to believe that, and certainly NO reason to put it in writing. As Dr. Stancel himself stated in an email, "how was I to know?" You DO NOT know for a fact, Dr. Stancel, therefore you don't cast baseless judgments against an unknown party based on hearsay and then sign your name on your company letterhead stating same. Really simple and common sense .. especially as someone who is supposed to be an educated professional with some sense of ethics.

Remember, not just one, but two letters. Then when questioned, he cites a NJ Pet Protection Law that surely he should already know explicitly is in place for domestic dog and cat transactions/sales, not exotics.

I understand why he would not come here to defend his actions. Yes, MBD is easy to spot visually, but IMO Dr. Chris Stancel acted unethically and unprofessionally provding those letters to Jay solely based on what was told to him by Jay.

Not a vet I would recommend. I wonder what his boss would think.

If trying to accurately retell the story, then yes, it does matter because it frames the context of the narrative. The visit occurred regardless and I do not think anyone disputed it, but the circumstances of the visit were said to be one way (during business hours) when they may not have been that way and -at least for me- details like that matter if I am going to place stock in other details contained in a narrative.

I do not agree with Craig Wyatt being named in those letters.

 

[Craig Wyatt]

Did he say opening in his day or an opening in his work day? Not the same thing.

I had no openings during business hours today for extraneous travels because I was booked up with appointments, but I have an opening right now in my day.

He said he had no appoints scheduled at the time he saw Jay.(an opening in schedule) So unless he schedules appointments on his his days off I think it's pretty safe to assume it was in the middle of his work day.
If anyone can see where there could possibly be another assumption please share it.
He did not say I was at work then left work and then came back to work. But he did say my above text which I would interpret as the same thing.

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

He said he had no appoints scheduled at the time he saw Jay.(an opening in schedule) So unless he schedules appointments on his his days off I think it's pretty safe to assume it was in the middle of his work day.
If anyone can see where there could possibly be another assumption please share it.
He did not say I was at work then left work and then came back to work. But he did say my above text which I would interpret as the same thing.

July 7th was a Thursday, so not a typical day off, but the options are not limited to days off versus business hours and nothing else. He said it was after work in his email. He would have no appointments scheduled at that time after work. Why select interpretation over what he said?

Things you said:

So after work Chris stopped by his house.

Chris stated that he had an opening slot of time during that day with no appointments and he drove to Jays house during his work day.

Plus 100% I believe nothing happened on July 7 at all.

Things Chris said:

I never said I left the office during my work day to go look at the chameleons. I told him I went after my regular hours were done as he lives in the same town from the clinic not very far and would take a look at them for him.

So back to the original statement I never said I left the office during hours I told him it was after.

Things you said:

So basically Chris said he had a couple empty slots in the day. He did not say he left work early. He insinuated that he left and came back to work.

I know he said he had a couple of slots open and went during his work day.

So either Chris didn't go back to work or he's flat out lying now.

He's a 100% liar saying that he went after hours. He specifically said he an opening during his work day.

He told me he had an opening in his day. He did not say there were no more appointments at whatever time at the end of the day.

You originally said it was after work (which is what Chris said as well). Then you said it was not after work, but during the work day (which Chris asserted was not the case). You use basically, insinuated, and interpret. You say he specifically said he had an opening in his work day and then you say he said he had an opening in his day. Him not saying there were no more appointments is not relevant.

Your accounting of what he told you went from after work to during the work day to a basically insinuated interpretation of the conversation.

Your accounting of what he specifically said went from an opening during his work day to an opening in his day.

There was a conversation between you two. Your retelling of it has changed ever so slightly from post to post.

What does it make you when you call him "100% a liar" if you claim that he is changing his story when you have changed yours?

This is why people asked you about things in the James Bland situation, too.

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1875502&postcount=129

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1875507&postcount=131

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1875633&postcount=151

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1875729&postcount=195

An inconsistent account is my issue with this.

---------------------------------------------------

I think you got a bum deal here. Jason Ciccone has been caught in lie after lie. That has been demonstrated repeatedly. I do not think your name should have been put on those vet letters by Chris. The chain of custody for the animals that may have been examined versus the animals Ciccone received from you is interrupted. Unless photographic evidence was obtained and collected by Chris at the time of the examination and letters, it does not even factually identify the animals in question as being the same. I think things should have been kept more distanced and objective.

Also, looking at the red flags in this situation and in the James Bland one, you really ought to learn to read red flags better. You were issued a freaking chargeback here before this deal was even completed and you went ahead and pressed forward afterwards anyway. Be a better friend to yourself.

As for switching back and forth regarding the retelling of your conversation, the changing of the story and selective interpretations do not inspire much confidence. The details of the situation can only have been one set, but the description keeps being altered. In short, let evidence do the talking for you, as you might not be your own best eyewitness. Your tendency to boil things down to a level you still find acceptable causes some problems for those who might not accept the information integrity loss.

 

[Craig Wyatt]

That James bland story taught me a valuable lesson. Don't give into bullies when they threaten to come here. As long as the truth is told atleast my me that's all I can do.
Now as far as the vet Chris I'm just going in circles. I see I have irritated you nick buy talking about our conversation between me and your aquaintanence but I've come this far should I start leaving out stuff now?
A blind man can see your irritated with me because I posted what was said in our conversation.
If he would lie about a little thing he would lie about a big thing. I can only speculate on what the bigger lies can be so I will not post anything that is a hypothothis type maybe, coulda, woulda shoulda.
By my posting facts I keep it impossible for anyone to trip me up.

 

[Craig Wyatt]

Nick don't take any part of this personally.

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

That James bland story taught me a valuable lesson. Don't give into bullies when they threaten to come here. As long as the truth is told atleast my me that's all I can do.
Now as far as the vet Chris I'm just going in circles. I see I have irritated you nick buy talking about our conversation between me and your aquaintanence but I've come this far should I start leaving out stuff now?
A blind man can see your irritated with me because I posted what was said in our conversation.
If he would lie about a little thing he would lie about a big thing. I can only speculate on what the bigger lies can be so I will not post anything that is a hypothothis type maybe, coulda, woulda shoulda.
By my posting facts I keep it impossible for anyone to trip me up.

Unfortunately, you do not see. Maybe a blind man could lend you some assistance with that.

There is one and only one sentence in this entire thread that I find irritating and nothing else and that would be when you told me what I know when I asked you if you had text backing something you claimed.

I am not irritated at all by you talking about your version of what the conversation was, but I will point out that you have bounced around on the details (which changes the story). When you give differing descriptions of the same event, at least one of those retellings is going to be less than truthful.

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

Nick don't take any part of this personally.

Craig, you keep assuming and asserting things that are not in play. Possibly a habit.

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

I am not irritated at all by you talking about your version of what the conversation was, but I will point out that you have bounced around on the details (which changes the story). When you give differing descriptions of the same event, at least one of those retellings is going to be less than truthful.

As for this point, it is not unique to this thread or situation. It is why I cannot take you at your word across the board and why I feel it best to request evidence instead.

 

[Craig Wyatt]

And if recanting one little part of a conversation and immidiately correcting myself is the worst thing I've done this far well in my eyes that's not too bad. Not bad all. That little conversation is the only thing I can't prove and by the looks of it Chris seems to agree with everything I said besides that actually time he went to his buddy Jays house.
Now either way he went during his work day or after hours is pretty much the same thing. But now that I'm able to see he said one little lie well that tells me for every lie you see there's more you don't about.
Kinda like for every rat you see there more you don't see.
I can only speculate more so I won't go any further.

 

[Craig Wyatt]

As for this point, it is not unique to this thread or situation. It is why I cannot take you at your word across the board and why I feel it best to request evidence instead.

I have nothing else to give. I've already gave everything I have.

 

[Lucille]

And if recanting one little part of a conversation

But now that I'm able to see he said one little lie

You possibly said something incorrect. He possibly said something incorrect. If he has more rats then does anyone saying something incorrect have more rats?

I think Dr. Stancel has acted unprofessionally in this instance and should not have put your name on those papers. I'm sure by now if he is reading this thread, he rues the day he ever laid eyes on Jay, but I'm sure that is true of a lot of people.

I think Jay's absence in this thread is creating some pent up aggravation, that can't be helped. I'm sure Jay is reading this thread and I'm sure he is delighted that the vet got to sit in the hot seat for a while and give his butt a rest.

 

[Big Borg Reptiles]

I expect that anyone I do business with is going to handle things professionally and not overstep their bounds, but in.particular I expect doctors, vets, pharmacists, etc to exhibit the pinnacle of professionalism simply based on their position regarding liability and also the amount of training they have received.

That being said, I went to a mechanic because my vehicle was malfunctioning, and he determined that a part which was recently purchased from an auto parts store was the cause of all of my troubles. He told me that there was no question and that I should get a refund and expect them to pay the repair costs, but he REFUSED to mention the store's name in his report simply because it wasn't his place to do so. He stated the facts and nothing else, and left it up to me to take care of the rest.

I dont mean this as a knock against auto mechanics in any way at all, simply that you would hope a veterinarian would exhibit at least the same level of professionalism and caution as someone who didn't go to school for 8 years and isn't dealing with living beings.

 

[Snake-Queen]

Craig, for the time line to fit for the vets visit to Jay's home, after he left the office would be the way it happened … meaning it didn't have to happen before 7pm, he'll it could've been 11:59pm and still be the 7th.

Regardless of when it was, the letters hold no weight, there are too many issues with them.

 

[Michael Brown]

I expect that anyone I do business with is going to handle things professionally and not overstep their bounds, but in.particular I expect doctors, vets, pharmacists, etc to exhibit the pinnacle of professionalism simply based on their position regarding liability and also the amount of training they have received.

That being said, I went to a mechanic because my vehicle was malfunctioning, and he determined that a part which was recently purchased from an auto parts store was the cause of all of my troubles. He told me that there was no question and that I should get a refund and expect them to pay the repair costs, but he REFUSED to mention the store's name in his report simply because it wasn't his place to do so. He stated the facts and nothing else, and left it up to me to take care of the rest.

I dont mean this as a knock against auto mechanics in any way at all, simply that you would hope a veterinarian would exhibit at least the same level of professionalism and caution as someone who didn't go to school for 8 years and isn't dealing with living beings.

As a pharmacist, I agree 100%. Pretty mind blowing he would sign off on an undated document that was clearly drafted without proper research. I mean he is referencing a law that does not even cover exotics. As someone who specializes in exotics, how the hell does he not know that? It sounds like reptiles are his job as well as hobby, how does that get past a very well educated individual with access to the google machine... idk