• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Missing person : Betsy (username: "wstphal")

What you need to do is send her something by certified mail along with two copies of the letter via regular mail demanding the return of the snakes. Put wording in there that there will be recourse if she doesn't respond in ten days. Even if she doesn't accept the certified letter, she is bound to the wording inside it because you sent it and two copies of the letter by regular mail. Keep all receipts and when you do the postage for the certified letters buy the postage of the two regular letters. Photocopy everything including the front of the letters.

If she doesn't respond to you then you should file a claim against her in civil court. Maybe just having the sheriff show up to serve her will be enough to get a reaction. Certainly a judgement against her will grab her attention.

Wayne
 
That sounds like an excellent idea Wayne. It sounds like that might be the only way they will be able to get any answers out of her at this point.
 
What you need to do is send her something by certified mail along with two copies of the letter via regular mail demanding the return of the snakes. Put wording in there that there will be recourse if she doesn't respond in ten days. Even if she doesn't accept the certified letter, she is bound to the wording inside it because you sent it and two copies of the letter by regular mail. Keep all receipts and when you do the postage for the certified letters buy the postage of the two regular letters. Photocopy everything including the front of the letters.

If she doesn't respond to you then you should file a claim against her in civil court. Maybe just having the sheriff show up to serve her will be enough to get a reaction. Certainly a judgement against her will grab her attention.

Wayne

This is a pretty good idea, but I'm not sure someone can be bound by a contract they do not respond to. Sending a certified letter doesn't guarantee or imply acceptance of any contract, as far as I know, and wouldn't be binding, especially if she shows up in court with 2 unopened letters, and a refusal of acceptance for 2 more.

As far as legality, as much as it sucks, she hasn't actually stolen anything. People willingly handed over their property to her care. She didn't take it. I don't know if the police would respond to a dog or cat any different then they are here. It's a definite grey area in the law and the police may err on the side of caution in this day of Civil Liberties violations litigation.

I'm not defending her actions by any means. I'm merely trying to view it from different angles and playing devil's advocate for a moment.

For those of you that have lost a friend in this, you have my sympathies. I don't know what more I could offer that hasn't been said...
 
I look at it like a car. If I hand my car keys to Chris and say "Sure, take it for a few days/weeks/months because I don't need it or want it right now," then he has not done anything wrong.

If, however, Chris takes my car, drops off the face of the Earth, and when I call asking about it he says he "doesn't want anything to do with me" and I should respect that, then he HAS stolen my car.

He did NOT steal it at first-- he was borrowing it. But if it is not returned when I want it back, it is stealing.
 
I look at it like a car. If I hand my car keys to Chris and say "Sure, take it for a few days/weeks/months because I don't need it or want it right now," then he has not done anything wrong.

If, however, Chris takes my car, drops off the face of the Earth, and when I call asking about it he says he "doesn't want anything to do with me" and I should respect that, then he HAS stolen my car.

He did NOT steal it at first-- he was borrowing it. But if it is not returned when I want it back, it is stealing.
Absolutely. When I ride out on my own on Merlin, Kim fully expects me to take him back afterwards, not to meet up with a horsebox and never contact her again! There's no contract involved, he's her property!
 
I look at it like a car. If I hand my car keys to Chris and say "Sure, take it for a few days/weeks/months because I don't need it or want it right now," then he has not done anything wrong.

If, however, Chris takes my car, drops off the face of the Earth, and when I call asking about it he says he "doesn't want anything to do with me" and I should respect that, then he HAS stolen my car.

He did NOT steal it at first-- he was borrowing it. But if it is not returned when I want it back, it is stealing.
I was thinking of house-sitting or baby-sitting. When you return from vacation, or go to pick up you child...it is not natural to be told to naff off, don't bother me,...and to have to walk away empty-handed and content with 'house taken over' or 'baby kept'.
I don't personally own a house or a baby....so please correct me if I am wrong about all this.

Someone mentioned livestock, although I don't think of my snakes as livestock, but I would think the same would go for cows and pigs and horses.
 
I was thinking of house-sitting or baby-sitting. When you return to your house, or go to pick up you child...it is not natural to be told to naff off, don't bother me,...and to have to walk away empty-handed with 'baby kept' or 'house occupied'.
I don't personally own a house or a baby....so please correct me if I am wrong about all this.

Someone mentioned livestock, although I don't think of my snakes as livestock, but I would think the same would go for cows and pigs and horses.
Personally, I think you are exactly right, Eric.
 
This is a pretty good idea, but I'm not sure someone can be bound by a contract they do not respond to. Sending a certified letter doesn't guarantee or imply acceptance of any contract, as far as I know, and wouldn't be binding, especially if she shows up in court with 2 unopened letters, and a refusal of acceptance for 2 more.

As far as legality, as much as it sucks, she hasn't actually stolen anything. People willingly handed over their property to her care. She didn't take it. I don't know if the police would respond to a dog or cat any different then they are here. It's a definite grey area in the law and the police may err on the side of caution in this day of Civil Liberties violations litigation.

I'm not defending her actions by any means. I'm merely trying to view it from different angles and playing devil's advocate for a moment.

For those of you that have lost a friend in this, you have my sympathies. I don't know what more I could offer that hasn't been said...

It's not about accepting or being bound to a contract but giving fair warning. If a utility wanted you to pay a bill or they would shut it off, they would send a certified letter. Does that mean if you don't accept it that they couldn't shut it off? Nope! It means they made every effort within reason, for you to rectify the situation.

You are sending her a letter with the expectation that she open dialog which is reasonable. I also think it's a reasonable assumption that if a person drops off the face of the earth, won't respond to phone calls, emails and even tells the police to tell you not to make contact, then you have a right to demand you property back. After all, it is YOUR property.

If you loan your rake to your neighbor and all he says is he will return it when he is done using it, does that entitle him to hold it forever because he may still have use of it? :nope: If your going to say that it's just a rake, then insert some other device like your camera, car, pet elephant or whatever......

There is a reasonable expectation of the person you are loaning your property to.

Wayne
 
Last edited:
This has confused and bothered me from the beginning. I have used and let other people use various animals in breeding loans, usually with a verbal on splitting the offsrping or next year we'll use my male. There have been problems along the way with this, but never to this degree.
I see it as some others; we are leaving tomorrow for a week, while we are gone a few people check in our cats, garden and make sure hubbies shop is locked. I expect if anything happens any or all of these people will call and let me know something is amiss. I also usually call them and make sure things are OK.
So for Betsy to have these animals and have no regard for the owners, doesn't sound right. I just hope she is OK, not defending her actions, but it doesn't sound like the person I chatted with a few times or the things she posted.
 
It's not about accepting or being bound to a contract but giving fair warning. If a utility wanted you to pay a bill or they would shut it off, they would send a certified letter. Does that mean if you don't accept it that they couldn't shut it off? Nope! It means they made every effort within reason, for you to rectify the situation.

You are sending her a letter with the expectation that she open dialog which is reasonable. I also think it's a reasonable assumption that if a person drops off the face of the earth, won't respond to phone calls, emails and even tells the police to tell you not to make contact that you have a right to demand you property back. After all, it is YOUR property.

If you loan your rake to your neighbor and all he says is he will return it when he is done using it, does that entitle him to hold it forever because he may still have use of it? :nope: If your going to say that it's just a rake, then insert some other device like your camera, car, pet elephant, whatever......

Wayne
Please don't misunderstand. I agree with you 100%. I'm just trying to see all the angles.

With your first example, the electric company has a signed contract wherein you are obligated to pay for services recieved. When you sign up for service, you sign a contract stating that you will be responsible for any power used at current market value plus any necessary taxes. If you don't pay, you default, and you get sued.

With your other examples, I think the law is open to interpretation. Without a loaning contract, this interpretation can be opened up and exploited by a good lawyer for either side. Without some contractually binding obligation to return the property, it becomes a matter of legal "he said, she said".

I also think that a question of property value, both real and percieved will come into play. A $5 garden rake is not going to warrant the type of legal intervention than a $5,000 riding lawn mower would. Likewise, a $100 cornsnake won't hold the same ground as a $1,000 stallion, or AKC Registered Champion Mastiff.

The point I was trying to make is that the local police may have no choice but to err on the side of caution to protect their department from unnecessary Civil Liberties lawsuits. I don't know that this is the case, but it certainly seems a reasonable position for the department to take.

The truth is, no matter how much percieved personal value these snakes may have to the original owners, their actual dollar value is almost definitely below that of a misdemeanor theft charge. What is there, really, that a police department can be required to do? If the dollar value of the property isn't high enough to qualify as a misdemeanor charge, the police are not likely to get involved. Small claims would still take the case, and it seems a fairly cut-&-dry case from where we sit. But in as much as criminal intent and police intervention...I'm not sure there is much to go on...

I think your idea was fantastic, and certainly a good way to get the small claims ball rolling. I just don't think the letters will imply any obligation on her behalf, even in so far as to obligate her to open communication. This line in your post--

Even if she doesn't accept the certified letter, she is bound to the wording inside it because you sent it and two copies of the letter by regular mail.

--is where I think you might be expecting too much. She cannot be "bound to the wording inside" simply because you sent a certified letter. She has no obligation to accept, open, read OR respond to any correspondance, legally, and as such, she cannot be held liable or obligated to any implied contract.

I still think it's a good idea, as these letters can work as favorable evidence for the plaintiff in many different ways. I just don't think there is much more than a potential small claims suit to retrieve the property value from all of this. That in itself may be valuable enough to those who've lost animals in this, but I doubt there is any actual criminal recourse in this situation.

Morally...I agree that she is obligated to respond and repair this mess. Legally...not sure there is much that can be done...
 
I also think that a question of property value, both real and percieved will come into play. A $5 garden rake is not going to warrant the type of legal intervention than a $5,000 riding lawn mower would. Likewise, a $100 cornsnake won't hold the same ground as a $1,000 stallion, or AKC Registered Champion Mastiff.

The point I was trying to make is that the local police may have no choice but to err on the side of caution to protect their department from unnecessary Civil Liberties lawsuits. I don't know that this is the case, but it certainly seems a reasonable position for the department to take.

The truth is, no matter how much percieved personal value these snakes may have to the original owners, their actual dollar value is almost definitely below that of a misdemeanor theft charge. What is there, really, that a police department can be required to do? If the dollar value of the property isn't high enough to qualify as a misdemeanor charge, the police are not likely to get involved. Small claims would still take the case, and it seems a fairly cut-&-dry case from where we sit. But in as much as criminal intent and police intervention...I'm not sure there is much to go on.....

It varies from state to state, I know a few years ago when I was working as a LPO (Loss Prevention Officer, I caught shop lifters) Unless it has changed since then, theft of any thing over $50 in Alaska is a misdemeanor charge. And in some cities such as Anchorage any thing over $15 is!

And for this woman to tell the police to tell the owners of the snakes "not to bother her" should be a clear sign she has no intention in giving back the snakes or she would have contacted the owners. She sounds to me like a Con artist, to take some ones animals and then just vanish is a pretty shady move.
 
It varies from state to state, I know a few years ago when I was working as a LPO (Loss Prevention Officer, I caught shop lifters) Unless it has changed since then, theft of any thing over $50 in Alaska is a misdemeanor charge. And in some cities such as Anchorage any thing over $15 is!
It's definitely a variable law from state to state, at least, and possibly even by county or city in some places. In NY, as a youngster, petite larceny was $300 an up. I have no idea what it is now...

And for this woman to tell the police to tell the owners of the snakes "not to bother her" should be a clear sign she has no intention in giving back the snakes or she would have contacted the owners. She sounds to me like a Con artist, to take some ones animals and then just vanish is a pretty shady move.
Just to clarify, unless I am mistaken, the individual told to leave her alone is not involved in the snake issue, just a concerned friend. Certainly, those involved, feel free to correct me if that is wrong, but I thought Eric was told to stop trying to contact her, not those with snakes in her possession. But I certainly am not positive of that...
 
Please don't misunderstand. I agree with you 100%. I'm just trying to see all the angles.

With your first example, the electric company has a signed contract wherein you are obligated to pay for services recieved. When you sign up for service, you sign a contract stating that you will be responsible for any power used at current market value plus any necessary taxes. If you don't pay, you default, and you get sued.

With your other examples, I think the law is open to interpretation. Without a loaning contract, this interpretation can be opened up and exploited by a good lawyer for either side. Without some contractually binding obligation to return the property, it becomes a matter of legal "he said, she said".

A contract isn't necessary when there is a reasonable presumption to repayment or return of property. ie. a breeding loan.

I also think that a question of property value, both real and percieved will come into play. A $5 garden rake is not going to warrant the type of legal intervention than a $5,000 riding lawn mower would. Likewise, a $100 cornsnake won't hold the same ground as a $1,000 stallion, or AKC Registered Champion Mastiff.

That's why I included the whole part about a camera, car, pet elephant or whatever.... I didn't want to be taken so literal on the whole "rake" thing. ;)
The point I was trying to make is that the local police may have no choice but to err on the side of caution to protect their department from unnecessary Civil Liberties lawsuits. I don't know that this is the case, but it certainly seems a reasonable position for the department to take.

The truth is, no matter how much percieved personal value these snakes may have to the original owners, their actual dollar value is almost definitely below that of a misdemeanor theft charge. What is there, really, that a police department can be required to do? If the dollar value of the property isn't high enough to qualify as a misdemeanor charge, the police are not likely to get involved. Small claims would still take the case, and it seems a fairly cut-&-dry case from where we sit. But in as much as criminal intent and police intervention...I'm not sure there is much to go on...

I think your idea was fantastic, and certainly a good way to get the small claims ball rolling. I just don't think the letters will imply any obligation on her behalf, even in so far as to obligate her to open communication. This line in your post--



--is where I think you might be expecting too much. She cannot be "bound to the wording inside" simply because you sent a certified letter. She has no obligation to accept, open, read OR respond to any correspondance, legally, and as such, she cannot be held liable or obligated to any implied contract.

I still think it's a good idea, as these letters can work as favorable evidence for the plaintiff in many different ways. I just don't think there is much more than a potential small claims suit to retrieve the property value from all of this. That in itself may be valuable enough to those who've lost animals in this, but I doubt there is any actual criminal recourse in this situation.

Morally...I agree that she is obligated to respond and repair this mess. Legally...not sure there is much that can be done...

I don't think the local police are going to want to get involved in this. It is a civil issue and they will refer you to civil court. Whether or not the property gets returned is a different story. Civil courts will assess a monetary value to the property and rule on that fact.

This is where my experience is going to play in my thinking. A few years ago, I made a loan to a "friend". This "friend" basically did the same thing Betsy has done and dropped off the face of the earth.

Now, I didn't have a contract per se, but as two friends will do, it was the old "pay me back when you get it" agreement.

When my "friend" dropped off the face of the earth I got concerned. He didn't respond to my calls, texts or emails. I was left in the dark. He then moved and forgot to let me know about it. I was dumbfounded.

I then started demanding repayment of the loan because of his actions. All of my attempted correspondence went unanswered. I even went and taped a note on his door when I found where he lived.

My next course of action was to consult an attorney. It wasn't a great deal of money but enough to be concerned about and it wasn't a great amount of time since he borrowed it. Less than six months actually. The lawyer told me to send one certified letter and two regular letters. In his opinion I was making an attempt at a reasonable notice of repayment and that my friends actions made a reasonable presumption that I wouldn't be repaid.

I went to court on my own, filed paperwork and he was served by a sheriff. He actually decided to let this go to court and tried to say that it was a gift and not a loan. The judge in the case saw different. My actions, sending three letters, one certified, my calls, texts, emails and subsequent filing of a civil suit were all indicative of a person trying to collect a debt, reasonably.

Now, whether my experience applies to property instead of money is yet to be seen. I could only assume that it would since the property has a monetary value that would fall under the jurisdiction of a civil court. The method I used to put my "friend" on notice would be a reasonable method to put Betsy on notice that they are expecting a return of their property.

Wayne
 
This is where my experience is going to play in my thinking. A few years ago, I made a loan to a "friend". This "friend" basically did the same thing Betsy has done and dropped off the face of the earth.

Now, I didn't have a contract per se, but as two friends will do, it was the old "pay me back when you get it" agreement.

When my "friend" dropped off the face of the earth I got concerned. He didn't respond to my calls, texts or emails. I was left in the dark. He then moved and forgot to let me know about it. I was dumbfounded.

I then started demanding repayment of the loan because of his actions. All of my attempted correspondence went unanswered. I even went and taped a note on his door when I found where he lived.

My next course of action was to consult an attorney. It wasn't a great deal of money but enough to be concerned about and it wasn't a great amount of time since he borrowed it. Less than six months actually. The lawyer told me to send one certified letter and two regular letters. In his opinion I was making an attempt at a reasonable notice of repayment and that my friends actions made a reasonable presumption that I wouldn't be repaid.

I went to court on my own, filed paperwork and he was served by a sheriff. He actually decided to let this go to court and tried to say that it was a gift and not a loan. The judge in the case saw different. My actions, sending three letters, one certified, my calls, texts, emails and subsequent filing of a civil suit were all indicative of a person trying to collect a debt, reasonably.

Now, whether my experience applies to property instead of money is yet to be seen. I could only assume that it would since the property has a monetary value that would fall under the jurisdiction of a civil court. The method I used to put my "friend" on notice would be a reasonable method to put Betsy on notice that they are expecting a return of their property.

Wayne
Absolutely. It's a fantastic idea, and a great way to start the process of filing a small claims suit against her. I agree 100%, and I would also recommend those with snakes in her possession speak with a lawyer, and start this process.

The difference is going to be in the interpretation, and likely the percieved vs. actual value of the animals. Monetary value is easy to measure. We all know how much $10 is. Property value of a pet will be much harder to prove, especially in an industry as relatively young and only very loosely and informally established in terms of "market value" as the snake hobby is. We don't have an established, registered trade with marketed values the way dogs and cats do, so establishing the actual value of these snakes could prove difficult. We all know that there are websites out there selling higher-end morphs far below market value, and these dealers can be used to establish low market value in the same way that reputable breeders can be used to establish high market value. How the judge interprets these values, the law, and the representations made at the exchange may be very different than in a monetary case.

There have also been cases concerning "temporary homing" of animals where it was established that the original owners abandoned their pets, for all intents and purposes, and were not entitled to get them back. There are timelines, costs incurred vs. percieved value, and failed communication involved in most of these cases, but every one of them was open to a judge's interpretation of the intent, the practices, and the percieved values of the original owners, the caregivers, and the animals.

Again...i'm NOT defending the actions of Betsy. I'm simply trying to point out some of the variables that a court will have to consider.

I still think it's a great idea to send the letters, and start the ball rolling. These variables, possibilities, and potentialities are exactly why small claims courts exist...
 
DYK, new update.
Her city police made contact.
He advised that...She says...
....she is fine, but does not want to be a part of whatever it was she was a part of with us, to stop calling her, to stop calling her work, and to stop trying to contact her in any way at all, to leave her alone and desist....
So.......................I wonder what or who...could or would...have poisoned her vision of us to cause her to so suddenly and completely sever all ties......hmmmmm.........
So for Betsy to have these animals and have no regard for the owners, doesn't sound right. I just hope she is OK, not defending her actions, but it doesn't sound like the person I chatted with a few times or the things she posted.
Susan, you hit upon an excellent point.

Back at the time, in December, the message relayed by the policeman struck me intensely at the time to be...
...1) Not her own text,...not the words or sentence structure she would use, and
...2) Not the form,...not the thematic way she would form a thought, nor the essence with which she would convey it.
You can see from the first (old) quote above, at that time, that I reacted as if I suspected another/other party or parties were involved.
It was like a generic scripted rehearsed statement. That could have been conveyed by anyone,.....or everyone, for that matter, in a similar situation.
 
Last edited:
Just to clarify, unless I am mistaken, the individual told to leave her alone is not involved in the snake issue, just a concerned friend. Certainly, those involved, feel free to correct me if that is wrong, but I thought Eric was told to stop trying to contact her, not those with snakes in her possession. But I certainly am not positive of that...

I may have misunderstood what was said and it may not have been the snake owners that were told that.

But still, to disappear like that and then when people try to contact you about the situation and you tell the police to tell them not to contact her still sounds fishy to me. Sounds to me like she knows the snake owners are concerned and has done nothing to contact them. And also I would not be surprised to find out she has not been logging in but read this thread. Not saying she has but I wouldn't be surprised if she was.

On the other hand from what others have said it does not sound like her to do such things so I could be totally wrong about what I have said. I just hope all the snake owners get their pets back and this whole thing is just a big misunderstanding.
 
Some excellent points and ideas made in this thread, thanks everyone. Especially Chris and Wayne, I really appreciate it! Im not going to announce my plans on here for fear she may be lurking. But it will be pursued, that is for sure.

I do want to state that when I shipped the snakes to her via Fedex, I declared their value at $600. I have the Fedex airbill showing that. Where do I stand with that paperwork, does it mean anything in that can I use it to establish the value of the snakes?
 
Allalaskan, Chris (tyflier) is right. I got told to stop...so I stopped. (And anyone can see in the fauna thread I don't ask for contact, I merely want to know she is OK.) And no, I do not have any animals or money involved,.....but to be honest, back in December, we (or I) was more concerned and worried about her abrupt absence....and her well-being,...about her personally.
This whole thing has changed over time, since her first startling absence.

Note, another member loosely around the same time contracted Rat Bite Fever, and almost died. Seriously. And her absence was obvious and worrisome. So the 'climate' of the whole affair in the beginning was of concern and worry. Only over time did it begin to appear like some sort of significant "big deal event" transpired in a focused time period between Dec 8 and 24.
 
Some excellent points and ideas made in this thread, thanks everyone. Especially Chris and Wayne, I really appreciate it! Im not going to announce my plans on here for fear she may be lurking. But it will be pursued, that is for sure.

I do want to state that when I shipped the snakes to her via Fedex, I declared their value at $600. I have the Fedex airbill showing that. Where do I stand with that paperwork, does it mean anything in that can I use it to establish the value of the snakes?
Purchasing insurance and declaring a value with no foreknowledge of a lawsuit *should* go a long way towards establishing a net worth. It shows what you value these snakes at before any percieved wrongdoing. The courts are well aware that most property values are inflated during a small claims suit in an effort to recieve higher compensation. A reciept establishing a value long before any court appearances or even any trouble *should* help to establish a "fair" value for your animals.

Erc-
I really feel for you, man. I know it is possible to grow very close to people on this forum, even if you never meet. To lose contact, willfully or not, is heartbreaking. I feel your pain, and I truly hope that whatever rift was caused between you two is somehow healed. Even if you are never close again, I hope you, personally, can at least get some satisfactory closure, for your own sake.
 
From my point of view, I can certainly understand why this is so troublesome. I always liked Betsy, and always respected her. She always presented herself in a fair and even manner, true to both herself and the facts, of whatever debate or discussion she was participating in. I always felt she was one of the more upstanding individuals on this forum, and I agree wholeheartedly that this seems to be completely and entirely outside of character.

I hope that whatever is going on with her is resolved, and that she is OK, and able to reconcile this situation without any real loss, for anyone involved...
 
Back
Top