Mark Miller of Loco-Lizards Liar and a Thief

[KelliH]

Not that it's definite that any vet would have been able to diagnose or treat the animal successfully, but it would lend credance to treating the animal yourself if you've also gone the 'extra' mile and taken it to the supposed experts too.

I would and have taken snakes to our vet on a few occasions; most of the time the animals got better with the care/medicine, only once did they not. We tried everything with my pet Super Tiger retic that stopped eating: fecals, bloodwork, X-rays, different meds etc. but sadly she died a few months later. The necropsy stated that the cause of death was inconclusive. The point of this is that she was only a $500 snake (but was worth much more to me), but a $6500 snake!? Come on, at least make a real effort to find out what might be wrong.

 

[Griz]

I spoke with Mark about this situation earlier this afternoon and because of some actions taken part by the other party he will not be posting on this thread again until this is decided by the court system. All I can say is that physical threats are not the way to get things fixed.

I know if this was me, I would be implying the "I wish" factor. "I wish" that the threats would be carried out by the other party. It'd be much easier to take care of that way.

Oh, that's right Jason, it's perfectly fine to be a hypocrite so long as it is favoring your friend?? You want to call me out for "gossip" when the only "gossip" I stated was the fact that people are talking and that it's up to each person to do their due diligence. I never once stated that what was being said was negative or positive. I simply stated that the information is out there to be found. That's hardly an anonymous posting.

So Jason, since you are so found of men with big ca-hones, why doesn't Mark come here and defend himself? Oh that's right, he's down to #4 on the typical scammer list of excuses.....my attorney told me not to.

If, AND IT'S A BIG IF, Mark took this animal back out of the KINDNESS OF HIS HEART, then why did it take him 2 months to tell John? You would think that since his motives were altruism at it's best that he would have called John immediately to express his DEEPEST SYMPATHY and to show John that a proper and full burial was had. After all, it was the animal that Mark was concerned with. Right......that sure passes muster doesn't it?

Griz

 

[hunterreptiles]

Mark Miller:?

I Agree with Griz:

Lets examine facts:

Mark did take the snake back, Voiding the Tos

Mark did not keep John updated on the animals worsening condition.

Mark did not ask John if he should take it to a vet or take it on his own.

Mark did not act responsibly for the animals health.

Mark did not inform John that the animal died until 2 months later !!!!

Mark did not return Johns calls when he knew it was compensation time.

If Mark is worried about his reputation especially if this is his livelihood and he is so kind and caring as I keep reading I think it is time for him to (make it right) Work it out, Offer compensation in whatever form that makes both of them feel they have resolved this issue. Its not to late to settle this. $6500. is alot of money to just bury in the sand Mark!

Fred & Debbie
Hunterreptiles

 

[romad119]

I Agree with Griz:

Lets examine facts:

Mark did take the snake back, Voiding the Tos

Mark did not keep John updated on the animals worsening condition.

Mark did not ask John if he should take it to a vet or take it on his own.

Mark did not act responsibly for the animals health.

Mark did not inform John that the animal died until 2 months later !!!!

Mark did not return Johns calls when he knew it was compensation time.

If Mark is worried about his reputation especially if this is his livelihood and he is so kind and caring as I keep reading I think it is time for him to (make it right) Work it out, Offer compensation in whatever form that makes both of them feel they have resolved this issue. Its not to late to settle this. $6500. is alot of money to just bury in the sand Mark!

Fred & Debbie
Hunterreptiles

The TOS expired two weeks after purchase, it didn't get voided by Mark. It was already a non factor by then.

And is this Fred or Debbie posting?

 

[Griz]

I agree with you Alan about the expiration of the TOS. However, when Mark accepted delivery of the animal he also accepted a certain amount of responsibility. Such as, the responsibility to do what was necessary to help the animal (ie vet visit).....the responsibility to keep John informed.......the responsibility to our hobby to not scam people out of their money.....

When you add 2+2 nobody can say that Mark is in the right here. It simply does not add up.

Griz

 

[liquidleaf]

I also agree with Griz. I understand what others are saying that the TOS ended a long time ago - but hefty purchases between big breeders don't always fall under those TOS.

We still don't know under what premise Mark accepted the snake back. True, according to him, he could have been trying to 'help out' and get the snake feeding.

BUT the snake died in his possession and he didn't notify the other party. The snake could well have died from a bad force feeding.

Logically, why would someone return a $6500 snake to the seller, just to have him try to nurse it back to health? If nothing had been agreed to verbally before shipment, don't you think John would have taken it to the vet? If Mark had agreed to take the snake back and "make" the situation "right", John wouldn't have needed to take the snake to the vet, since Mark was accepting the return (regardless if it was for a refund or for another animal in the future).

Why would Mark not tell John about the death for two months after trying to force feed?

Mark violated his own TOS when he accepted a snake back. Moreover, he did not take the snake to the vet to cover his own butt, he kept it and didn't disclose when it died. There was no necropsy to tell for sure what happened. Mark didn't even return the corpse to John, so John has no options.

This is why I dislike talking on the phone, and like email. Sure, the lack of tone of voice can cause misunderstandings, but when something is in PRINT, it's harder for someone to weasel out of a verbal agreement!

Terms of Service are only good if the seller upholds them. By not telling John "I'm sorry, my health guarantee is for so many days", and instead saying "I'll make it right" and whatever else he verbally said, and then accepting the returned snake.... he voided his own TOS in this case. He accepted a return outside his own TOS.

If he wanted to cover his butt, immediately informing John of the death (as in "Sorry, YOUR snake died even after I tried to save it, do you want me to ship you the corpse or have a necropsy done, since it's YOUR snake?") would have been the thing to do. He didn't. So, something's stinky, and it's not the poor snake.

 

[monkeywrench133]

I agree with you Alan about the expiration of the TOS......


the responsibility to our hobby to not scam people out of their money.....

If the TOS were expired, how is Mark scamming anyone out of anything?

the responsibility to do what was necessary to help the animal (ie vet visit)..

Wouldn't that have been John's responsibility primarily, during the four months he had the animal in his care? How can you hold Mark at fault for not taking the animal to the vet when it's owner didn't see fit to take it?

 

[Griz]

Erin, I am not debating whether John had culpability in this as he did. He should have brought it to a vet during it's time with him. However, as I am sure you well know, often times we know more than the vet does. But, both parties fail in that respect however neither issue is really what's at hand now is it? My point in stating Mark's responsibility was simply to address Jason's questions. I would have answered similarly if it had been asked about John with the scamming being the exception.

Erin, there is no doubt that both parties failed in varying aspects of this trade. However, ultimately Mark took the animal back, accepted responsibility for the animal, refused to tell John the animal died and then refused to accept John's phone calls and emails. If you were taking the animal back out of the "goodness of your heart" then why said behavior? It's clear. He's scamming. If he pays John then he can't pay Peter or Paul so lie and hope that everything ends up ok. Classic behavior that the BOI is no stranger to. How unfortunate.

Griz

 

[ravensgait]

Ew Boy, OK I can go along with the TOS having expired. The animal going back to the breeder starts something new.

So the guy takes the snake back and at some point it dies . he doesn't let the owner(former owner?) know about the death of the snake. If I remember correctly John heard from someone else that it had died. Seems strange to me that he didn't let the John know that the snakes was dead well unless he considered himself the owner. Mark took the decision away from John as to wheather or not he wanted to have a necropsy done. Now if John would have decided to have one done or not is a moot point.

What was said between the two before the animal was returned doesn't really matter now as who knows what was said over the phone.. What I see that bothers me the most about this Deal is that Mark cut off communications and avoided John. Which makes me think that Mark did a bad thing to the pooch.

I have no dog in this hunt, I'm not even into those critters. Just looking at this story makes me think that yeah John should have done more for the animal than he did.
I look at Mark's actions and well they just sort of reek of guilt and knowing that (from his other thread) that he has trouble giving up money he owes just adds to that feeling


Question John did he ever send you a photo of the dead snake??as many here know, it is a common practice to send a photo of a deceased animal... If not how do you know it's dead?? Randy

 

[johnmartino]

Actually Randy, excellent point. Mark was so intent of avoiding contact that I NEVER did recive photos of a dead animal. Hmmm.....

 

[romad119]

Neither one is getting away unblemished here, either seller or buyer. It seems that we are all now trying to apportion blame: Seller is X%, Buyer is X % in the wrong due to A,B, and C.

Liquid Leaf's quote:

"I also agree with Griz. I understand what others are saying that the TOS ended a long time ago - but hefty purchases between big breeders don't always fall under those TOS."

If there isn't a separate TOS or written conditions they do. Otherwise you open the can of worms of what is a large breeder? Will I get those special terms? Or you? Just who qualifies. After two weeks, mark could have said, "Sorry but the TOS has expired as of X date...."

I am playing devil's advocate for the seller, it doesn't mean I don't agree with those playing the same for the buyer. I'm just focusing on the TOS piece of the puzzle.

 

[monkeywrench133]

Erin, there is no doubt that both parties failed in varying aspects of this trade. However, ultimately Mark took the animal back, accepted responsibility for the animal, refused to tell John the animal died and then refused to accept John's phone calls and emails. If you were taking the animal back out of the "goodness of your heart" then why said behavior? It's clear. He's scamming. If he pays John then he can't pay Peter or Paul so lie and hope that everything ends up ok. Classic behavior that the BOI is no stranger to. How unfortunate.

Griz

I can see some of your point Bob, but any conjecture involving scamming is unwarranted at this point.

I can't speak for Mark, but I put myself in his place, and this is how I can see myself reacting to this situation:

I produce an animal, I then sell that animal. Regardless of the price of that animal, I produced it, and while my financial attachment may be severed at this point, my sentimental one is not. I still care about that animal. So, then I happen to call the buyer one day and find out that the animal isn't doing well, I am concerned for the animal I produced and try to help the buyer by giving what advice I can. As the situation continues to deteriorate, my concern mounts, and I start feeling frustrated. I can very easily see myself saying "send me back the animal, I'll do what I can" because of that frustration, and my concern with the animal. I can also see myself being appalled, and severely pissed off by the condition of the animal once I actually see it. Pissed off enough that when the animal continues to fail to respond, I'm going to blame its death directly on the buyer. And at that point, I'm not gonna call him. In my mind, I'd ask myself why bother? And then if the buyer did start calling me and leaving nasty messages, I'd dig my heels in and vow never to talk to him again.

Now, That's my reaction, putting myself in Mark's position. Would that be the smartest course? No, not from a business stand point. But its the course I can see myself taking so that I could sleep better at night.

So, I can see Mark taking that animal back for no other reason than to try and help.

Also, while my informing him of this thread was the first direct contact I've ever had with Mark, he and I have participated on another forum for almost two years. I have seen Mark be very generous with his time on that forum. And with his animals, he just gave away a hypo in a Fourth of July contest. And that is the 3rd animal I can recall off the top of my head that he has given away on that forum. So, from what I have seen of him, he really is a nice guy, and I don't doubt that his intentions were good in taking this snake back. I don't see it making him a scammer in anyway, nor do I see it making him indebted to John in any way.

 

[liquidleaf]

Yeah, my point was just that with nothing documented about the situation as to WHY Mark accepted the return of the animal, the TOS may or may not still be valid. Big breeders aside (that may have clouded what I wanted to convey).

It's a very sticky situation. If Mark caused the animal's demise by a force feeding gone wrong, is he at fault? If he doesn't have proof that he was ONLY trying to get the animal healthy again for John, what is to show that he didn't accept it as a return?

If, if, if, if Mark said "send back the snake, I'll make it right", we may never know. I also agree that the snake should have gone to the vet, but again, if Mark told John "I'll take care of it", and we don't know he didn't... sigh.

Still. Regardless of the real reason Mark accepted the snake, he was in possession of it when it died and there is no necropsy to prove why it died. If he had stuck to the letter of his TOS, he would not have had the snake in his possession again, looking at just the 'letter of the law' so to speak.

Unfortunately, documentation is important. If you trust someone's word, they shouldn't have a problem putting their words on paper when push comes to shove. A simple email "I am shipping the snake to you, Mark, per our conversation earlier because..." or likewise Mark writing "John, I received your snake and in an effort to get it healthy I will..." detailing their expectations... well, this wouldn't be an issue now.

I hope both John and Mark can conclude this amicably. Unfortunately, Mark indicating that he would wait for legal action to resolve the situation means that both will be out a lot more money before it gets resolved, rather than coming to a compromise here. And also unfortunately, Mark was in possession of the snake, so likely he will not win from a legal aspect.

It sucks to have to break this down so coldly, but in speaking about terms of service, and if they are broken or upheld, a court won't really care about Mark caring only about the welfare of the snake. He accepted responsibility when he accepted the snake back.

Just more of my opinions. You don't have to agree with 'em!

 

[Griz]

Erin, your story might hold water if people did not know better. Again, giving away a $200 hypo is not even comparable to a $6500 blood. Two completely different leagues. Also, it's obvious from your previous postings that you know nothing about John or his background. If you did you would see that the idea of John sending the animal back to Mark to be nursed back to health is preposterous at best. If that portion makes no sense, and it doesn't, then none of the rest of Mark's story can be believed either.

Given that 2+2 = lying, and Mark is the one holding the money, then yes, it is safe to say he's scamming. It would be real easy for Mark to come on here and show the email correspondance that he stated he had prior to accepting the animal back. But, he can't. Why? It was only AFTER Mark realized that this animal was going to die that he realized that he needed to present some physical email evidence in this case hence the email stating that the death of the animal was outside of the TOS so John's screwed.

Griz

 

[dberes]

I've been following a long this thread since it started and I feel the majority of us have come to the conclusion that this is a tricky scenario anyway we put it.

1.) We have decided the TOS is long gone.

2.) We have come to the conclusion that Mark took back a sick animal. Mark says to try and help it. John says for compensation. Either way we will never know for sure. Both have long histories and are considered some of the best in the biz to my understanding.

3.) After all Mark did take the animal back and it did die in Mark's care (after neither took it to the vet).

4.) Mark stopped communication between the two of them (which I don't agree with unless it was really from the advice of an attorney).

Here is the next question that needs to be answered. Let's just say we agree Mark owes some compensation (He took it back and it did died in his care).

How much compensation is John entitled too?

Both made quite a few mistakes during this transaction. Personally I don't feel he is entitled to the full $6,500, but to what amount is he entitled too is the real question?

Thank you,
Drenton Beres

 

[VFR!]

Wow, I just spent over an hour reading everything and now I get to post. Though many may not agree with it it is only my opinion so don't go and try to bite my head off.

Erin, I have to agree with Griz when he stated "John sending the animal back to Mark to be nursed back to health is preposterous at best". It is almost the equivalent as saying Steve Irwin (RIP) has sent back a crocodile to Mark to get nursed back to health.

Next, I did not see too much emphasis put on this but both John and another person stated that Mark promised John some sort of credit or compensation. Why would John or the other witness make up this info? Did they both conspire this? I know people lie but I just don’t see John making such an extraordinary lie. Mark does also hint of this in his posting. If this promise is true then there needs to be no more discussions about Mark’s TOS for the TOS would be broken by Mark and not John when he promised compensation after the TOS expired. The questions should be “do you really think John would make up a lie stating Mark promised to compensate him”?

I so also believe it seems suspicious that someone would create a paper trail ONLY after it seems that someone may come after you legally for compensation.

 

[VFR!]

Forgot to mention -

I also found it suspicious that Mark did not take it upon himself to contact John after the animal died. John had to be told by someone else that the boa died. I am not even sure if anybody even knows the exact day the boa died, we only know that John was informed of it by someone else after the incident.

Again, these are just my opinions and are based on what actions I would have taken like contacting John to let him know of a death immediately. After all if I am taking care of someone else’s animal, it would be the right thing to do, right? The only time I would not worry to contact someone was if the animal was mine or wanted to hide something.

 

[VFR!]

Oh, I also wanted to mention about quarantines. Sooooo many breeders out there will do breedings with other breeders without putting animals on quarantine. If I purchased from John Doe then quarantine is a must but if I’m purchasing a breeder from Peter Kahl from which I purchased great animals before and he tells me that the boa I’m receiving is in great condition and ready for breeding then I would take his word. I think John felt the same way about Mark.

Okay, I'm done

 

[Wolfy-hound]

Why is it so preposterious that JOhn would send a NON-feeding deteriating animal to someone else to see if they would have better luck?
If John was so much better an expert, then why didn't he get it eating? From what I've seen on both parties, BOTH are respected breeders of reptiles, and I can't see how that if John didn't get it better, it's so strange that he'd let someone else also qualified try.
Saying that John would never have sent it to someone else because John is soo great with snakes makes it seem weird that he couldn't fix that snake. BUt then again... Mark didn't get it feeding either.
I'd think that they should be able to work it out between them, but if one person got unreasonable early on, then it might well take an attorny to do so.
I still wouldn't call it scamming when no one has proof of anything. Mark accepted the snake, so most would say he should accept some burden of responsibilty, and offer some compensation.
If the snake HAD recovered, would John have gotten it back? If yes, then John should be owed SOME compensation.
If he wasn't expecting that snake back even if it immediately ate and recovered, then I'd expect to see a larger compensation.
By Mark saying he offered to make a 'deal' or "good deals" on other snakes, it seems he was willing to offer something.
By being willing to offer SOMETHING he opens it up to say he feels some responsibilty. That doesn't mean he's "guilty of scamming" and that he owes a full $6500 credit or refund. But he should get that attorney to answer questions and take care of this one way or the other quickly.
Word of mouth is everything it seems, and a bad deal goes a long ways in future business.
Alll only MHO only, as I have no interest either way, I don't even keep boas(although most of my reptiles DON'T have legs! LOL)
Theresa Baker

 

[Griz]

Really Theresa? Why is it so absurd? What pre-tell was Mark going to do with that animal that John had not done? The fact remains that this animal was sick and was probably sick while Mark owned it. It showed signs upfront that indicated it could be sick but was explained away by Mark's story enough so that John put more stock in what Mark stated then what the evidence exhibited. However, given the fact that the animal never did get better it would only stand to reason that it's original illness that it incurred while with Mark was the culprit.

I am not as experienced as John but I can tell you that through my own resources I would never ship an animal to someone else should it get sick. I would exhaust my resources first and then let mother nature take it's course. Why? Because I have enough resources to know that if I can't fix this through my efforts then the odds of someone else doing so is slim to none. It's absurd.

Could it be that Mark wanted the animal back so that no testing was done? One would think that since it was clearly evident that the animal was sick from the get go that Mark would have a vested interest in a pathology exam. Or, maybe it stands to reason that Mark has a vested interest in making sure nobody see's a pathology exam. Makes you go hmmmmm.....doesn't it?

I am not asking you to simply look at the acceptance of the animal back by Mark. I am asking you to add together that fact, the fact the animal was sick from the onset, the fact that Mark knowingly took a sick animal back into his collection, the fact that Mark did not notify John EVER of the death, the fact that Mark cut off all communications with John after the death....... You know what that adds up to? I do and I am confident it is why many people will NEVER do business with Mark Miller of Locolizards again should he not rectify this immediately. It's hard enough to keep robbing Peter to pay Paul especially when your pool of Paul's is getting less.

Griz