As of this writing there are 12 pages of replies in this thread.
And I intend to address nearly every single one of them within this.
In the state of Oregon, Nikki Brownell has no legal or moral requirement to complete a transaction from another person unless there is a binding agreement between both parties involved in the aforementioned transaction.
There is not. And this is the point almost all of you are missing.
I realize this sounds like a scandal to many of you and it seems insane from your blessed lifestyle(s) where nobody ever seperates and nobody gets hurt. There has been plenty of issues on both sides of this upcoming trial upon which I will not comment because it is neither my place nor any of yours. You don't know these girls, you don't know what's going on in their personal lives, and they have no requirement to share them with you.
Nikki and Lea were never partners in any business sense. Whether Lea or Nikki own the geckos will be decided by the courts. There are many things going to trial in this case, the animals being one of them. Nikki is exhausted from all of this, as would anyone be. Because she is not particularly careful with her wording, you have decided to scream at her and treat her like she is some sort of pariah for doing what she is legally bound to do.
Personally, anyone encouraging me to break the law is not someone I would do business with in the future anyway. Your snarled threats of "I would never do business with either of them!" are completely out of line. This thread is two days old.
And it is still long prior to when the buyer originally intended to get the animal. It is August, not October. The original intended shipping weather is a very long way away. With the current temperature in her area, it is not safe to send them right now.
Hopefully, by the time that shipping weather is here the legal ownership status of these animals will be decided. Courts take time, as anybody who has ever dealt with them is well aware. As I'm sure this legal student will agree with, in fact.
Speaking of which, laws are very different on abandonment state to state. The letter of the law cannot be trusted over a certain amount of money without a court order to back it up since there are many cases in which there are amendments that are not mentioned in public script because they apply only in certain statuses and issues.
This is why lawyers are involved. When they have these pending legal issues sorted out, let me explain to you what will happen.
If the animals belong to Nikki by the court order, she has already stated that she will sell the gecko to the buyer at a discounted rate due to all of this. Lea would be responsible for a refund. If Lea does not provide a refund, it is not Nikki's fault because they are not inhabiting the same body and are therefore separate people.
If the animals belong to Lea by court order, Nikki will give the animals over to Lea and Lea will ship the gecko as intended if she so decides to. That, again, does not involve Nikki.
The only reason Nikki is involved in this transaction at all is because someone attempted to sell the geckos she currently posesses and the law is deciding the status of.
If all of you want to encourage someone to break the law over $225 when the fines could be so much higher, you have no grasp on reality. You are willfully telling her to that because of your imposed "morals" that she must send this animal, which may or may not be decided to be her own, to this wonderfully understanding buyer.
You are encouraging her to scam herself. And that is completely ridiculous. Nobody in this business would do what any of you are suggesting.
I am, however, disappointed by the moderators in this thread. Dennis is outright egging all of you on, which is rather surprising since I'm used to him conducting himself in a completely professional manner. Webslave seems to be simply concerned about the names which I understand more. Webslave, she simply has multiple email accounts like many of us do. One is her business acccount. Lea did not give the buyer that account's email address. I can certainly see where you're confused because multiple accounts can, indeed, become confusing. Still, much of what's being said is being said in a very unnecessarily accusatory way. Having multiple emails isn't a crime. I've had dozens over the past 18 years I've been online, myself. Several are still active. I'm sure you're both the same, or your kids are.
Since I realize you both can see that I am over 1000 miles away from these ladies, I will happily verify that Nikki's name is Brittany (Nikki is a nickname that literally everyone knows her by) Brownell. Pardalis is an online nickname that she uses in many places. I am also willing to verify that Lea Hurst and Nikki Brownell are completely different people. A quick look on Facebook would tell you that, too.
Brittany, in the end of all of this, I certainly hope that you get Fangorn or you get your money back. But as it seems you've come to understand, that depends on the courts more than anything.
Exactly. The legal issues were only brought up because that's what I was being fed. After gathering further information and having the lawyer excuse used multiple times as a cure-all reasoning, I find it obvious that their legal issue has nothing to do with me and that was only used to try to throw me off.