• In case most of you have not noticed, I made changes to the donation amounts as well as the durations for all of the paid membership levels. Things are winding down here, and this seems to be the most prudent way to deal with the "end of life" period of this site.

    Contributor level members - $10 per 30 days
    Sponsors - Eliminated
    Benefactor level members - $25 per 30 days
    Endowment level members - $50 per 30 days

    Account Upgrades Page
  • 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.

Bad Guy Ty park/ ty lizards FL

Kristi23 said:
It's possible you read it right and she was wondering about sexism though. I might have just read it as the animals sex.
Click to expand...

I'm the person who asked Michelle about the gender of the winners. I was asking for my own edification and wasn't planning to bring it to the thread but, since it's been brought up, I'll just say that I was curious whether his dismissive, arrogant attitude toward her might be partly due to her gender. As I understood Michelle's answer, the woman was just a donor, not a winner, but perhaps I misunderstood.
 
Sofia said:
I'm the person who asked Michelle about the gender of the winners. I was asking for my own edification and wasn't planning to bring it to the thread but, since it's been brought up, I'll just say that I was curious whether his dismissive, arrogant attitude toward her might be partly due to her gender. As I understood Michelle's answer, the woman was just a donor, not a winner, but perhaps I misunderstood.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anything that would make me think gender is a factor. At least I hope not. I know Ty has a daughter and daughter in law that he posts about a lot. But they are family, so I'm not sure if that would be the difference. Sorry I misunderstood. I figured the sex of the tegus could have been a deciding factor (wanting to get rid of males vs females). Either way wouldn't make a difference on the money though.
 
I did not detect sexism in the conversation between Taesoon and the OP. I think it was simply one person treating another with less decency than warranted for being called out on his own decision to fail to uphold his word.
 
I can't imagine a judge not in favor of the OP. She was not solicited by the IRCF. She was not promised animals from IRCF. She was not promised money from IRCF. No communication with IRCF. Ty owns this debacle!
 
Chris Kennard said:
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.
Click to expand...

Judge Judy show
Contacted me. I spoke to the producers and they wanted us to go but ty refused
 
The picture in post #200 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 against the IRCF.

Ty certainly had a major part in this debacle.
 
That would be an easy way out for Ty. Thought Judge Judy show pays the awarded person. Meaning if you won the $3000.00 claim, that show pays it. Part of the incentive to go there to make the tv show. Unlike a normal court setting where even if you win you still have to collect which could be an even longer process.
 
brosborough said:
That would be an easy way out for Ty. Thought Judge Judy show pays the awarded person. Meaning if you won the $3000.00 claim, that show pays it. Part of the incentive to go there to make the tv show. Unlike a normal court setting where even if you win you still have to collect which could be an even longer process.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct, the show pays ALL costs including travel, accommodations, damages etc. They obviously know what the awards are going to be before they solicit the plaintiff. They peruse recent small claims records and contact the plaintiff to see if they are interested, unfortunately it does require both parties to consent.
This would have been a very easy out for Ty so now it seems increasingly obvious that his stubborn pride is what is standing in the way of resolving this matter.
Unless he truly believes his counter claim is all he needs to take care of this.
 
I can understand not wanting to air dirty laundry to the world but not going on the judge judy show probably wasn't the best decision because the show settles disputes through arbitration and not litigation, ty wouldnt have any civil judgement added to his record if he loses. Plus as already stated the show would have paid whatever they decided was fair to award michelle so not only would he get a free all expense paid trip to LA, his wallet and record wouldn't take a hit. Sure I can understand not wanting to have a televised record of you being wrong but I'd definitely have to seriously consider going on the show to avoid there being a court record plus having someone else pay my debt for me and a paid vacation are pretty tempting.
 
If it were me, I'd MUCH rather risk losing in small claims court, than doing so on national TV, regardless of Judge Judy paying the award.
 
Any comment or attempt at an explanation for the email sent to Rich from his "attorney"? I wonder if hes saying anything about the situation on FB....
 
juliasara said:
I can understand not wanting to air dirty laundry to the world but not going on the judge judy show probably wasn't the best decision...
Click to expand...
Wrong. It was the smartest decision Ty could make.

Go back to the letter that the IRCF wrote, where it stated that Ty "organized and manged" the raffle. The problem is that as a non-charity, Ty legally can't hold any raffles. The last thing you want to have hanging over your head in a civil suit is, as I heard a judge rather delicately put it a few years back, "Fifth Amendment issues".

Further, the IRCF doesn't get to benefit from Ty's illegal acts by stating that they had no involvement - but oh by the way, we're happy to take the cash from it and run.

That is not the kind of information you want aired on national television if you're either Ty or the IRCF.
 
I was extatic to win
I have had tegus and know their care and all I want or my tegu or the cash that was promised.
I am completely baffled that ty took everyone's money for raffle tickets and refuses to give me the prize.
I just wanted my tegu. If not yes I wanted the cash but a ty park tegu was always my first choice!!!!

Because he had an illegal raffle the small claims courts may not be able to force him to give me a tegu or award me the money because the raffle was illegal even though they know he should give me either a tegu or the money. :(

This may be a criminal thing for him holding an illegal raffle , this is something the FL and AZ attorney generals will most likely be investigating

Giving me the prize he promised would be much easier for/on everyone involved.
It's unfortunate his ego and narcissism is getting in the way of us being able to just settle this
 
Is there any way of finding out if ty actually sent the IRCF the whole $14,510??



bcr229 said:
Wrong. It was the smartest decision Ty could make.

Go back to the letter that the IRCF wrote, where it stated that Ty "organized and manged" the raffle. The problem is that as a non-charity, Ty legally can't hold any raffles. The last thing you want to have hanging over your head in a civil suit is, as I heard a judge rather delicately put it a few years back, "Fifth Amendment issues".

Further, the IRCF doesn't get to benefit from Ty's illegal acts by stating that they had no involvement - but oh by the way, we're happy to take the cash from it and run.

That is not the kind of information you want aired on national television if you're either Ty or the IRCF.
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top