How is Andrew Wyatt getting your info?

Hammer them Ken, hammer the bloody hell out of them all.

What the Hell is wrong with these people?

Anyone who supports USHA and their ethics will never get my support.

This just keeps getting crazier... Its funny, USHA has more likes on facebook than USARK. The only reason that is so is because he STOLE the mailing list.

Wow. I had no idea that it was the deep and stinky. Just- wow.

A statement by Ken on the last page:
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...d.php?t=372641

All I can say is wow.... And did Andrew Wyatt think the truth would never come out? This will spread like wild fire through the herp and pet industry and he will never get support. He should walk away. Does anyone here know where he came from, what his background in herps is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucille

A statement by Ken on the last page:
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...d.php?t=372641

---

Absolutely disgusting. I hope these two pieces of offal are now done for good.

I am not a fan of Ken Foose. I don't have anything against him personally, I just don't care for him.

Even I(as a non-friend/fan) think that spreading a lie like pedophilia deliberately, knowing it for a lie is so reprehensible that if there is not some serious punishment/fines coming to both of them, I'll lose more faith in the world. That is ridiculous and neither one of those two is stupid enough to think that spreading rumors/lies is somehow okay legally, morally or any fashion you'd like to use as an excuse. "I didn't know it was untrue" is no excuse, and I hope Ken can prove they DID know it false and gets them for everything.

We do NOT need a person like Walsh or Wyatt representing the hobby.

They make me sick.
Everyone kept saying "let's wait for the dust to settle". Well is it clear enough for you yet??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3skulls

They make me sick.
Everyone kept saying "let's wait for the dust to settle". Well is it clear enough for you yet??

---

Well, you got two camps.

There are people who support Wyatt, and by associated, Walsh. They will be asking Ken for something other than his word - and this is a reasonable request.

I would hope that Ken plays this the right way - namely lets it sink in, lets USHA deny some more and then when everything is just right, lays everything out on the table.

Otherwise this will devolve into a he said/she said type of thing. The USARK board apparently either can't or won't comment.

In the meantime there are two other things people who are leaning towards USHA should look into:

(1) USARK's 2012 financial statements - these should illustrate how much of YOUR donations went to buy Wyatt out (if any did at all). If he did - what does that say about how your donations were handled? More importantly, what does it say about Wyatt, Walsh and the circumstances under which they left?

(2) Walsh was using the title "Vice President" for a goodly part of 2012. She herself noted in her interview with Dan Krull that the Board never voted her as such and that she had not idea what her title was at the time of her leaving.

This should be looked at very closely. Not only does it jive with part of Ken's account, it is obvious at some point that the USARK B.O.D made her stop using that title. Why?

Something happened late last year which led to Wyatt and Walsh leaving....and something happened at Tinley. It is also fairly obvious that by the fact that NARBC has posted Ken's account, that they appear to be backing what happened. If these centered around what Ken Foose alleges, then wow. Unfortunately, the split is cloaked under a cloak of mystery from both USARK and USHA.

In 2007 I left a company I had been with for almost 20 years that I was a shareholder and officer of to go somewhere else. The split was due to a difference in philosophy and my dissatisfaction with where the company was headed. At the time, this was one of the top 50 heavy engineering and construction companies in the country. I was never required to sign a non-disclosure agreement - even though my reasons for leaving could have been interpreted to reflect bad on the company.

Non-disclosure agreements are utilized for a specific reason - why was one allegedly utilized here?

Something does not smell right around the this whole thing. These are items that will clarify what really happened.