Bad Guy Scammed by Andrew Michael Popp Las Vegas, NV

[calebroad]

I understand getting ripped off sucks. I'm not saying I agree or disagree you were (still don't know). calebroad....maybe just enjoy the turtles for what they are and any het traits that pan out are a bonus. that's part of the fun anyway is seeing what goodies are at the end of the tunnel.
like I said....getting ripped off sucks. maybe do ALOT more research next time before spending so much money. anyone not willing to give up the info, move along.

The size difference in the turtles.....that seems minor to me. keep in mind that ive never owned a turtle in my life (had a tortoise once). I say that because maybe ill be seeing it the same way a judge would be seeing it.

The het traits, to my knowledge (I'm no expert), need to be proved out. I would think at a minimum, the judge will require you wait and see, specifically if the defendant is saying they are hets. that's word against word and the judge isn't going to make a judgment based on hunch. he wouldn't want the embarrassment of making a judgment against anyone only to be proven wrong later.

it seems like you cant take the advice (from your legal team I assume as well) and be quite. just stop reading this all together until you have factual, postable evidence, or you have a resolution to your case.

being in law enforcement school, I would think you have at least the basic understandings of the Miranda warnings?? specifically the part that says you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. the supreme court has ruled that statements made under Miranda warnings cannot be used in court to help you. they can only be used against you.

same with this thread....there is NOTHING here that is helping you so do yourself a favor and remain silent. the element of surprise is your best bet. your legal team is paid to do the work for you with the evidence you provide. this thread is not doing anything for you or your legal team except making life harder...however minor it may be.

not to be a rude or anything....but the comment chris Kennard made about the het for diamond rocks.....you've got to admit that was the funniest thing youll hear all week. I woke my fiancé by laughing. it should bring to light the fact that you had what appeared to be a serious problem early on, now people are talking about het for diamond rocks. think about that! it should be showing you that this thread is not being taken seriously. it might be looked at the same way in court. I'm just saying.

I categorically NEVER read any Kennille posts, since I deem them as offensive and trolling. They are designed to bait, demean, and cause havoc, of which they often do. Not just this post, but many many posts where offensive trolls dominate a ruin a discussion, in its entirety.

Since I absolutely do not even read the first letter of those, I would have not seen anything funny. They are immediately scrolled through without further consideration. Any comments I would ever make, to those folks - is nothing more than troll slop food. I remember when my son was born, he had brain surgery, and trolls took his photos and said aweful things about my boy - they are a different breed of F Up.

However, with regards to your post. I do think you brought up some great points, and what you said about part of the fun being the surprise, - I cannot deny that is very true. Also, your perspective as a non-turtle guy, gives me a sense of what a court may perceive. I can see where your going with that.

Based on your rational comment on the post, I will speak with my council about delaying the actions until they prove out as not het. It would likely be very simple to dismiss without prejudice, and re-file once more information is collected.

Or file a motion for more time, for discovery purposes. I am no attorney, but I will explore ways to extend this. The seller insists they are hets, and make no mistake - I want to believe them.

And, I believe the statute is three years, so your logic that waiting to prove them out, would likely be a smarter decision. Since your post is actually meaningful and thought out, it may serve to benefit me. I will explore some more avenues.

I have not compromised any information that I did not want to release, because I do have the right to remain silent, and I was never buckled under pressure to compromise items of surprise nature, I only disclosed the claim, exactly as it was presented to the defendants and their attorneys.

Anything else you have to add would be greatly appreciated.

 

[coreydh9]

I live in the Vegas area and will spread the word to folks I know. Seems like scammers are rampant in the herp industry, never buy without concrete proof.

 

[bcr229]

And, I believe the statute is three years, so your logic that waiting to prove them out, would likely be a smarter decision. Since your post is actually meaningful and thought out, it may serve to benefit me. I will explore some more avenues.

Since you have a written contract I believe you've got six years in NV.
http://statelaws.findlaw.com/nevada-law/nevada-civil-statute-of-limitations-laws.html

You'd want to ask your NV attorney if the document you have qualifies as a contract.

 

[Chris Kennard]

I understand this forum has not necessarily gone in my favor, but some great points have been raised, and one cannot expect to come on here and not risk criticism.

Besides trolls, everything is fine. I'm going to court with my case, and the judge can decide. I think I have a strong case. Someone saying that I went here and accepted the size would likely not be admissible and even if it was, it would be argued that he promised a full refund later.

And that more info surfaced that made any offers null and void. I'm happy to come in here and have a debate. It's not personal for me and it's a hobby. I am suing them and I am sticking to my claim.

That will never change, I wish the accused would come on here and argue his case, but instead he created a proxy fauna account and vouched for his own character. Then got caught and bailed out.

Meanwhile, I have stuck around and argued valiantly about my cause. I would not change anything about my inquire. At the end of the day, the courts will decide. And no info that I felt needed to be withheld was ever jeopardized. So it is what it is.

Lmao! You've argued NOTHING! You have stuck around long enough to incriminate yourself with hearsay, lack of proof, and an uncanny ability to answer questions that would never back up your tall tales. The only "argument" you have for those pertinent questions asked by those who see through your crap is..."stop trolling me". Puh-lease.

 

[Lucille]

If Andrew is being pursued through legal means over the matter, he might want to wait to share that information (if he has it; he might or might not have it).

I agree, it would not be to Andrew's advantage to disclose such information at this point. I'm sure that any legal advice he might be receiving includes advice to be silent and especially not to volunteer requested information from you.

Am I responsible for my loss?

That is an extremely complicated question because, besides the factual content of the issues, some of your own behaviors have probably permanently affected the transaction.
Some of the answers to your factual issues can be found in Article 2 Section 2, the Sales section, of the UCC, the Uniform Commercial Code, which governs the sales of goods, and every state except Louisiana has some version of it.

The turtles are goods, and as such, governed by the UCC. The UCC governs contracts for sale by specifying what happens when, as happened here, the goods are 'nonconforming'. Close attention should be paid to all of the sections talking about 'acceptance', 'rejection', and 'nonconforming'.

At some point after receiving the turtles I believe you did accept them. Of course, you have said there are additional factors, but if you truly do have an attorney at this point you should be consulting him/her, because in the UCC, after a 'reasonable' amount of time, some doors to remedies may close.

One subject not discussed so far is the risk of loss. I am not disparaging your husbandry at all, but we all recognize that under some situations, animals die. If they die prior to having a chance to prove out, if you ultimately decide to go in that direction, you need to have an already prepared game plan.

 

[Lucille]

from you.

From Chris Davis, not from you Nick

 

[nickolasanastasiou]

No worries. I so gathered.

 

[tlmoon]

Lucille has given you some excellent information there Chris, I hope you will read it and consider it. It's laudable that she would help you after some of the things you've said in this thread to and about her, and I think a very good example of someone taking the higher road.

 

[calebroad]

Lucille has given you some excellent information there Chris, I hope you will read it and consider it. It's laudable that she would help you after some of the things you've said in this thread to and about her, and I think a very good example of someone taking the higher road.

Okay, I did go ahead and read that post, since you pointed it out. That post seemed aimed at providing good resource and value. It was not troll material like most others from Lucille or certainly not cringe worthy like Kennard posts.

I do appreciate the input. Thank You Lucille - I am not here to say I am right, however, I do believe I am right, and obviously I stand ready for what our legal system may dish out for me.

At no point, do I ever request, or want the support or backing from a troll, since they will never ever have my respect.

With that said, criticism does not bother me, and I respect a non troll opinion, there is a stark difference. Since nothing one could ever say, would satisfy a troll, they would always continue on with their mission of causing forum havoc, and interrupting constructive comments, such as Lucilles last post.

 

[Chris Kennard]

I categorically NEVER read any Kennille posts, since I deem them as offensive and trolling. They are designed to bait, demean, and cause havoc, of which they often do. Not just this post, but many many posts where offensive trolls dominate a ruin a discussion, in its entirety.

Since I absolutely do not even read the first letter of those, I would have not seen anything funny. They are immediately scrolled through without further consideration. Any comments I would ever make, to those folks - is nothing more than troll slop food. I remember when my son was born, he had brain surgery, and trolls took his photos and said aweful things about my boy - they are a different breed of F Up.

However, with regards to your post. I do think you brought up some great points, and what you said about part of the fun being the surprise, - I cannot deny that is very true. Also, your perspective as a non-turtle guy, gives me a sense of what a court may perceive. I can see where your going with that.

Based on your rational comment on the post, I will speak with my council about delaying the actions until they prove out as not het. It would likely be very simple to dismiss without prejudice, and re-file once more information is collected.

Or file a motion for more time, for discovery purposes. I am no attorney, but I will explore ways to extend this. The seller insists they are hets, and make no mistake - I want to believe them.

And, I believe the statute is three years, so your logic that waiting to prove them out, would likely be a smarter decision. Since your post is actually meaningful and thought out, it may serve to benefit me. I will explore some more avenues.

I have not compromised any information that I did not want to release, because I do have the right to remain silent, and I was never buckled under pressure to compromise items of surprise nature, I only disclosed the claim, exactly as it was presented to the defendants and their attorneys.

Anything else you have to add would be greatly appreciated.

You read my posts. I know it, and you know it. The only thing my posts "ruin" for you is your ability to pull the wool over people's eyes, which, thanks to those you repeatedly call trolls here, you have failed to do. How convenient for you to say you don't read posts that shed light on your inability to answer pertinent questions and your inability to provide proof of so many accusations here. If and when a judge asks any questions that I have asked here, make sure you call her/him offensive, trolling, demeaning, havoc causing etc. and will only be listening to the judges first word and nothing beyond. I will personally call the judge for you to let her/him know that your response will be nothing more than "troll slop food".

 

[Chris Kennard]

Okay, I did go ahead and read that post, since you pointed it out. That post seemed aimed at providing good resource and value. It was not troll material like most others from Lucille or certainly not cringe worthy like Kennard posts.

I do appreciate the input. Thank You Lucille - I am not here to say I am right, however, I do believe I am right, and obviously I stand ready for what our legal system may dish out for me.

At no point, do I ever request, or want the support or backing from a troll, since they will never ever have my respect.

With that said, criticism does not bother me, and I respect a non troll opinion, there is a stark difference. Since nothing one could ever say, would satisfy a troll, they would always continue on with their mission of causing forum havoc, and interrupting constructive comments, such as Lucilles last post.

Wow! You continuously call Lucille a troll here, she gives you some great advice, yet she'll get no respect from you because you didn't request, or want the support or backing from a troll".

 

[Lucille]

There is no doubt that there have been people who have tried to take advantage of Chris Davis. And I seriously do not think anyone should take unfair advantage of others.
But in many ways I feel he is his own worst enemy. Since he has been caught in some lies, trying to make the situation look more 'official' than I believe is actually the case, it is hard to know what is true.
I'm thinking that with all this huffing and puffing about having the situation under control, then with him asking for advice later, then disparaging those who ask questions, request evidence, etc. he is simply building a reputation as an easy mark.

Chris Davis, for your own sake, look at what you are doing.

 

[Chris Kennard]

There is no doubt that there have been people who have tried to take advantage of Chris Davis. And I seriously do not think anyone should take unfair advantage of others.
But in many ways I feel he is his own worst enemy. Since he has been caught in some lies, trying to make the situation look more 'official' than I believe is actually the case, it is hard to know what is true.
I'm thinking that with all this huffing and puffing about having the situation under control, then with him asking for advice later, then disparaging those who ask questions, request evidence, etc. he is simply building a reputation as an easy mark.

Chris Davis, for your own sake, look at what you are doing.

Couldn't agree more. I am no fan of scammers or deceptive behavior, obviously. I think the accused here was one-upped by the accuser with regard to deception. Thus my lack of sympathy. Using this forum to manipulate people to sympathize with you by bending the truth and attacking people who see through the BS is, in my opinion, a scam in itself and an insult.

 

[Chris Kennard]

Maybe I'm wrong, but somewhere in this thread I thought there was a court date for February?

 

[DavidBeard]

A fool and his money is soon parted. We've seen a couple instances where Chris Davis has parted with money and is looking for recourse. I'm sure you see the correlation I'm making.

 

[Chris Kennard]

Humiliating me would be easy enough - Andrew Popp said he came across proof they are carsno het after he "bought" them from his employer.

Andrew Popp is following This thread.

Come on here and post the source.

Mitch Cowell, Clive Longdon, or Mike Fedzen could confirm or deny the claim fairly easy in my opinion. Since Carsno is not extremely widespread.

So stop challenging me for something the court must decide, and challenge him to come on here and humiliate me and destroy my claim.

I have to wonder why these people haven't defended you here.

 

[Chris Kennard]

Right, I can't 100% prove that one inconsistency yet, but I can prove all the others.

I feel very safe saying they are absolute not hets. He posted them six months earlier as not hets, then lied about them being the same.

Then it became revealed that the turtles were sold to his employer, nobody ever said anything about hets.

Andrew said to me "I didn't think het gene would cause a fuss either way"

And said he doesn't know much about het. His employer was originally shocked - then lawyered up.

There are folks in this biz that are extremely knowledgeable about carsno gene. These turtles are not het.

I don't need 100% (even though I will have soon anyway) I have the reasonable doubt. And the scam is a scam - he waited six months and added tremendous size and genetics thus drastically increasing the value.

The employers involvement needs to be decided by a court. I'm willing to stand by my claim, and I'm willing to accept another loss, if that's what happens to me.

You're willing to accept another loss? That's a stark contrast to your statement in post #154, where you stated, "I'm gonna' put you on a stand In front of a judge and I'm gonna tear you apart". You better pray the judge doesn't see this thread. It has not yet been proven that Andrew lied. But your pants have been on fire throughout this whole thread.

 

[Mistyck]

I think if his employer decides to file a countersuit against you for libel they have a good chance of winning it. Just because Andrew told you he worked there doesn't mean they're responsible for the personal deals he makes outside of work.

I would assume you were correct as well. The store did not enter into the agreement with the OP. It does not matter where the original seller got the turtles, it matters who the OP did the deal with. The original seller was not selling them as an employee of the store, he merely stated that's where he was a part-time employee, but he did not state that he was selling them for the store or as store goods.

Now, if the OP wants to sue the original seller as an individual selling the turtles under false pretenses, then that's all good and well. But he cannot name the original seller as an acting employee of the store when the store is not the one who listed the original ad or had the original seller list the animals. Especially when the original seller never said he was selling them FOR the store. He said HE was selling them (as an individual.)

The court will more than likely see that this is the case and throw out the filings since the OP is not suing the correct person, then tell the OP to refile the paperwork citing the correct person he is suing.

Just FYI - I don't read or respond to troll comments, I don't even read the first letter or even process anything at all on those.

They come here and rant and rant, once I see something normal, I go back to reposting.

Any comments on those is simply troll slop food

You sir need to slow your roll, shut your trap and listen.

The more you act like a damned child, the longer you will be treated as such. You cannot stomp around her acting like you own the world, calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll and then expect sympathy. It does NOT work that way in the real world. As a former "law enforcement officer" you should know this. You should also know how much people hate it when other people are acting entitled. As a former LEO, you should also know that when you act like an idiot you get treated as such. I would assume that when you were an LEO and you had people who were kind, followed orders or requests and worked with you in a manner that was pleasant, that you were more inclined to help them out a bit more. When they were the opposite, you probably were a bit more of a jerk to them.

I know plenty of LEO's that would rather work with people who are kind than acting like a jerk. I would assume that YOU would rather have people be nice when you're interacting with the public (even on a public forum) so the key to getting others to be nice, is YOU being nice. You being an outright jack** to others, no matter if they've ever wronged you or not; proves that you think you can act like the world revolves around you, and you expect others to think the same. It does not work that way. You may think it does, but it does not.

10-1 you will ignore this whole post, or call me a troll but truthfully; it doesn't matter to me either way. I'm not the one who brought this thread to this forum; you did. You chose to bring this thread to the forum, yet you can't take it when the pan gets too hot for you. You need to learn to take a damn chill pill and then respond. Or else you're going to look like an idiot every time...

Good luck out there dude. You're going to need it.

 

[Chris Kennard]

BRAVO!!!

 

[calebroad]

I would assume you were correct as well. The store did not enter into the agreement with the OP. It does not matter where the original seller got the turtles, it matters who the OP did the deal with. The original seller was not selling them as an employee of the store, he merely stated that's where he was a part-time employee, but he did not state that he was selling them for the store or as store goods.

Now, if the OP wants to sue the original seller as an individual selling the turtles under false pretenses, then that's all good and well. But he cannot name the original seller as an acting employee of the store when the store is not the one who listed the original ad or had the original seller list the animals. Especially when the original seller never said he was selling them FOR the store. He said HE was selling them (as an individual.)

The court will more than likely see that this is the case and throw out the filings since the OP is not suing the correct person, then tell the OP to refile the paperwork citing the correct person he is suing.



You sir need to slow your roll, shut your trap and listen.

The more you act like a damned child, the longer you will be treated as such. You cannot stomp around her acting like you own the world, calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll and then expect sympathy. It does NOT work that way in the real world. As a former "law enforcement officer" you should know this. You should also know how much people hate it when other people are acting entitled. As a former LEO, you should also know that when you act like an idiot you get treated as such. I would assume that when you were an LEO and you had people who were kind, followed orders or requests and worked with you in a manner that was pleasant, that you were more inclined to help them out a bit more. When they were the opposite, you probably were a bit more of a jerk to them.

I know plenty of LEO's that would rather work with people who are kind than acting like a jerk. I would assume that YOU would rather have people be nice when you're interacting with the public (even on a public forum) so the key to getting others to be nice, is YOU being nice. You being an outright jack** to others, no matter if they've ever wronged you or not; proves that you think you can act like the world revolves around you, and you expect others to think the same. It does not work that way. You may think it does, but it does not.

10-1 you will ignore this whole post, or call me a troll but truthfully; it doesn't matter to me either way. I'm not the one who brought this thread to this forum; you did. You chose to bring this thread to the forum, yet you can't take it when the pan gets too hot for you. You need to learn to take a damn chill pill and then respond. Or else you're going to look like an idiot every time...

Good luck out there dude. You're going to need it.

I understand what your saying, I hope that I can win the case, and I would not move forward if I felt I could not.

If I lose, it will be inconvenient. Either way, I will be more careful in the future. I should have been more careful, and when buying in the future, I will use escrow services or extremely careful measures to avoid these things.

My claim remains that funds were obtained under false pretenses. And we are taking measures to prove out the het problem quickly.

I had two bad transactions among many, and one of those was recently resolved. So I am somewhat greatful that my loss is limited.

In a worse case scenario, I will have to suck up the entire loss, and try to recoup the funds from these turtles he sent me. If they ended up being het, I know it's very unlikely. But I would surely get a big huge laugh in the face of the trolls. - lol

Anyway, we will see. Thanks