• Responding to email notices you receive.
    **************************************************
    In short, DON'T! Email notices are to ONLY alert you of a reply to your private message or your ad on this site. Replying to the email just wastes your time as it goes NOWHERE, and probably pisses off the person you thought you replied to when they think you just ignored them. So instead of complaining to me about your messages not being replied to from this site via email, please READ that email notice that plainly states what you need to do in order to reply to who you are trying to converse with.

  • IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ!! About the Google Adsense ads being displayed

    =====================
    Posted 08/15/2025
    =====================


    Yeah, I know. They are a pain in the butt. But they pay the bills to keep my server running. Just a fact of life, I am afraid.

    Want to get rid of them? Simple. Just become a Contributor level member or above and they will be gone. -> Please click HERE."

    Is that too much for me to ask of you to keep this site running? Well, sorry about that. I too wish I could get everything for free. But alas.....

    =====================
    Addendum: 01/10/2026
    =====================


    Google Adsense ad revenue for December, 2025 was just $30 over the cost of the lease for the server running this site. So, in effect, the money providing the incentive for me to continue running this site is coming SOLELY from the paid memberships and sponsorships here. Which honestly ain't much....

Bad Guy Ty park/ ty lizards FL

I would not accept 400$ to settle out of court. Imagine if I bought a lotto ticket, managed to win the jackpot, and then they offered me my 1.25$ back? Of course, no one would accept that given the risk they took and managed to win.
 
Settling for the $400 and letting Ty set the precedent that he can do this to other people is the wrong resolution IMO.
 
Alexandersalamander said:
his pocket, not from the ICRF
Click to expand...
I think the legal circumstances, and as a result the finances, are very intertwined in this case. The IRCF would love to disavow connections, but I think the states may say different. We'll see.
I've sent out emails to California, Arizona, and Florida this afternoon, will start on links to newspapers tomorrow.
 
Again, as the first post here clearly displays, Ty solicited people to get involved with his fundraiser, not the organization involved, with his post stating "How many of you would be interested if "I" ran an online raffle...". And, "I would pay the winner $3000 out of my own pocket". HE IS RESPONSIBLE...PERIOD!
 
My point? The OP entered a contest as a result of the solicitation of Ty, with promise of animals Ty produced and money out of Ty's pocket as a last resort. This is Ty's puppy, not ICRF
 
But the raffle was for their Benifit the tickets sold were 100 each and money's went to them and they pulled the tickets.
They did have some involvement
And ty raised $14,510 from this raffle that they held.
IMO if ty isn't gonna step up the IRCF should because one of them should make this right.

Someone asked me an intersting ? Today. They asked me if I knew what genders the other winners that did get their t+ albinos were. As far as I know the 3 others were males.

Alexandersalamander said:
I'm not quite sure that the IRCF is in the wrong. It seems like they were kinda dragged into this simply by being the beneficiary of the raffle. The only way that they could help would be to give an albino tegu to Michelle, because the $3,000 was offered on Ty's part, and was to come from his personal funds.
Click to expand...
 
But the problem is that it is illegal for him to have a raffle if he is not a non profit and pulled the proper licenses. So essentially all the people that paid for the tickets were played.


Chris Kennard said:
Again, as the first post here clearly displays, Ty solicited people to get involved with his fundraiser, not the organization involved, with his post stating "How many of you would be interested if "I" ran an online raffle...". And, "I would pay the winner $3000 out of my own pocket". HE IS RESPONSIBLE...PERIOD!
Click to expand...
 
Sugarhedgie said:
But the problem is that it is illegal for him to have a raffle if he is not a non profit and pulled the proper licenses. So essentially all the people that paid for the tickets were played.
Click to expand...

YOU didn't know it was illegal. You were solicited by Ty. You were promised animals or money by Ty. YOU HAVE PROOF OF THAT! Present that case.
 
Sugarhedgie said:
But the problem is that it is illegal for him to have a raffle if he is not a non profit and pulled the proper licenses. So essentially all the people that paid for the tickets were played.
Click to expand...

And the fact that Ty's involvement in issue might be illegal further puts him in a bad light in the eyes of any honest judge. Run with it. You have a solid case based on the fact that the advertisement and communication were all with Ty. Take it to Judge Judy. She'll destroy this guy.
 
The picture in post #299 shows a raffle taking place in Arizona, with the IRCF staff congratulating Michelle on her win.
If this was not an Arizona non profit raffle,which is one of the exceptions, there are some criminal statutes against gambling in Arizona which may apply. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
As I said, the number of different states make this a complex situation, but I think as more people from different states are contacted, they will begin talking to each other.
 
Good luck Michelle. Don't even know how he's trying to skirt out of a promise he wrote in pretty plain text with his own two hands. Do not let him or anyone else tell you that you're "greedy" or unreasonable for wanting what was exactly promised to you.
This wasn't a free raffle (not that it would be any better if it was) and you deserve what you signed up for, nothing less.
 
Going back to the part about the gender of the winners, the one tegu that he auctioned off that was supposedly for Michelle was won by a woman. So I don't think you can get a solid sexist claim there. However my concern is that if the judge awards Michelle the tegu or money what's going to make ty actually pay up?
 
Each state has slightly different methods, they are all pretty easy to find.
 
KelcifersDragons said:
Going back to the part about the gender of the winners, the one tegu that he auctioned off that was supposedly for Michelle was won by a woman. So I don't think you can get a solid sexist claim there. However my concern is that if the judge awards Michelle the tegu or money what's going to make ty actually pay up?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing she meant that the tegus were male. Females would be held back more for breeding. Extra males are usually sold.
 
Kristi23 said:
I'm guessing she meant that the tegus were male. Females would be held back more for breeding. Extra males are usually sold.
Click to expand...

It's possible you read it right and she was wondering about sexism though. I might have just read it as the animals sex.
 
Back
Top