Here's a good quote from that thread:

quote:

Originally posted by Hunt Fisher:
We gave this hunt to our father on Christmas Day of 2008. I paid the first $35,000 in Dec. '08. My brother paid the remaining $35,000 in Dec. '09 and the hunt was suppose to take place January 2010. There are lawyers hired and legal action is currently in process.

So all this time later the lawyers that were hired and the legal action in process has been....... what? - Delayed, cancelled or found to be not valid....... what?

And after that, the contract got thrown away?

Again, I'm not suggesting BWW and Heathington are not dodgy nor that they shouldn't be punished but I am AGAIN suggesting it was bang out of order to try to blackmail innocent parties into doing as you wish (it is after all, their business and not yours) and that I suspect there's more to this than we know because the family were squealing like stuck pigs in the original post and suddenly don't want to know and have thrown the contract away now.

Anyone that thinks that story is kosher probably also believes in the tooth fairy, santa claus and that Barack Obama is genuine & means what he says!

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

. . . as the family appear not to want to pursue the matter because they (presumably) believe they'd lose any claim that was made . . .

. . . and let's face it, for all we KNOW (as opposed to what we believe) bearing in mind how the family have failed to respond, there's always the chance (perhaps albeit a remote chance) that things might not have been exactly as they were presented.

If what has been said is true then I agree it is indeed morally reprehensible but if the family care so little about it they firstly fail to take action for 2 years or however long it'd been & then throw all the paperwork away I'd suspect the issue probably isn't as clear cut as has been suggested.

Their actions & lack of actions also might perhaps suggest the bad publicity given to the previously named honest outfitters was unwarranted & unfair & I have no doubt cost them money for no good reason.

If there's cause for legal action then the family should have taken it (they had plenty of time to do so) and if not, there's no point in pursuing the matter . . . .

. . . I suspect there's more to this than we know because the family were squealing like stuck pigs in the original post and suddenly don't want to know and have thrown the contract away now.

Not so fast, counselor.

No matter how strong the merits of the case, civil litigation in the USA is a useless remedy for breach of contract, unless the damages claimed, if awarded, would more than repay the legal fees and court costs incurred. It's a scandal that justice is so expensive, but it's true. Sometimes I think the British rule, where the loser pays the winner's fees and costs, would be better.

And I would suggest that you go back and read the original thread more carefully before reporting on what is known and unknown in this matter.

mike

Hey, if you feel the US legal system is wrong then take it up with your elected representative. Us Brits gave up when we gave you independence. (only pulling your leg!)

Perhaps you can tell us what is actually known rather than believed because I haven't seen a signed contract stipulating anything so far.

Even the original thread that has just been posted is as far as I can see, only full of accusations and opinions but is remarkably short of facts that would stand up in any court of justice.

but putting that aside for a moment. My point is I don't have a problem with the attacks on BWW but I do have a BIG problem with the way Drummond has tried to drag innocent parties that are struggling to run their businesses into all this crap.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Drummond

I'm not defending Blair at all. I'm defending the innocent outfitters YOU named in the hope of blackmailing them into doing as you wanted them to do.

You know, I went back and apologized for the confusion and tried to clarify my post on the other thread. Your response was appreciated and I felt that you then understood where I was coming from. If you understood last week where I was coming from and understood my apology for not being more clear then I find it a little disingenuous to then come back and try to use that against me in a debate about Jeff Blair.

There were a handful of people that didn't understand what I was trying to say but the majority of them got it and knew that I wasn't trying to do anything but make Martin and the other operators aware of what was going on and bring Jeff Blairs reputation to their attention. They deserve better than to have Jeff Blair riding their reputations to get business because his reputation sucks.

You keep saying that there is "more to the story" yet haven't even read the thread that started this mess.

I have talked with the family and read Jeff Blairs response so let me give it to you in a nutshell. Jeff Blair feels that he is legally protected in keeping the commission and because of that he basically said "fuck you" to the people that trusted him with $70,000. He says in his response on that other thread that he is "like a travel agent" and now he's out of the equation and its up to Heathington to provide the hunt. In my opinion if the family had decided to press the matter they would have won because I know for a fact that the paperwork that they paid Blair to have done WAS NEVER DONE in Mexico. The money never made it to Mexico

I guess your right, there is more to the story and all of it confirms that Jeff Blair is an asshole and he "legally" fucked a family out of a lot of money. The fact that you have not read the thread and you admittedly do not know the facts that have been uncovered makes you look like a fool for implying that there is anything out there that makes Jeff Blair anything other than a piece of shit.

Maybe there wasn't a "legal" obligation for Jeff Blair to return his commission but morally there was and he chose not to do it. Thats all there is to it

Drummond

your apology made a difference but it didn't excuse your original posts and it doesn't remove those original comments from the internet. Those posts will be on the net forever and could well cost the guys you so unfairly named lost business for years to come.

I respect your apology but that apology doesn't excuse anything and it doesn't repay those guys the lost business you've cost them. It's far too early to know how much they'll have lost and we probably will never know but you just might see one or more go out of business in the next few years and it's not impossible that you could possibly have been a contributory factor in that. - Tell me, do you honestly feel that your actions would justify that?

Funnily enough, I looked at just the first 2 pages of that thread you posted and made a few hurried notes (see below) and as I see it, I'm bloody right!

OK, so let’s take a look at the thread that Drummond was kind enough to post the link to. I’ve only looked/quoted from the first 2 pages. Especially note the last quote.
I wholeheartedly agree that the agent and outfitter behaved atrociously and that money should be refunded but we have all 3 members of the family concerned posting on this and that family have now supposedly decided they are either not interested any more or don’t have a case.

I might be wrong but believe the American justice system has two types of compensation (repayment & punitive?). The first for the amount lost and the second for damages/compensation to discourage similar behaviour in the future...... please correct me if I’m wrong?

I also believe the US has plenty of lawyers willing to work on a no win no fee basis so if there is a case to answer, I’m sure it would be possible to pursue such case:

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
I note that you are still not supplying details such as when you committed to buying the hunt, when you sent the money, when the hunt was scheduled, when was it cancelled (lead time)etc.

Nothing personal, but if I was going to send $70,000 to someone for a hunt, I'd spend some serious time researching that someone.

IMO if you're not willing to sue, there is something wrong with your statements.

quote:

Originally posted by Hunt Fisher:
We gave this hunt to our father on Christmas Day of 2008. I paid the first $35,000 in Dec. '08. My brother paid the remaining $35,000 in Dec. '09 and the hunt was suppose to take place January 2010. There are lawyers hired and legal action is currently in process.

quote:

Originally posted by larryshores:
I would like to ask a question sir. Actually three questions. I ask these in the spirit of trying to understand.

Why has it taken 13 months to bring this up?

Has a lawsuit been filed? If so, when and where?

Have you filed a complaint with the police? If so, when and where?

I have been on the receiving end of something like this before. The amounts were much smaller ($12,000) and in another country. I had a civil judgment and had the gentleman arrested in substantially less time than 13 months.
Once again, I am trying to understand and not badger you.
There is one other thing I just noted. You did not just show up. You registered almost a year ago.

quote:

Originally posted by Hunt Fisher:
Larry,
I signed up to be a member of Accurate Reloading last April to do exactly what I did today. This was when the hunt was officially cancelled and we were out the $70,000. After I signed up, I took a deep breath and told myself that this is not the right way to go about this matter. This is not the type of person I am to complain about the actions of another publicly. I thought we could handle this not in the public eye but do it as a standard business transaction, I was wrong. When we asked for at least what he made on the sale of this hunt, we were shocked with his response, "Welcome to the real world of hunting" Can you believe that. We did not file a complaint with the police, but we did file one with Arizona's Attorney General and Arizona Consumer Fraud. We filed a judgment on May 3rd 2010 against Larry Heathington, for he has most of the $70,000. There has been no signs that Jeff Blair is going to do anything to help us cut our losses and at least give us back his profit. So now, 13 months later, I want to make all the hunters aware of his shady business moves, so they don't get duped.

quote:

Originally posted by Hunt Fisher:
As far as the pricing of the sheep hunts, you are exactly right. I take full responsibility for not looking into his pricing as much as I should have. This was the first and only hunt that I have ever booked through an outfitter. I used Blair because I knew my dad had used him many times before and trusted him. Jeff knew that I wasn't going to look into going with anyone else after our first phone call. I was only 28 years old when I paid $35,000 (my portion) for this hunt and he took full advantage knowing that he had a green-horn client that trusted him. That is the biggest reason I want his commission profit back. As far as a claim against Blair, you are also right. He had it worded in his contract that he is not resposible for anything after he hooks a client and a guide up. Ethically and morally, if I was him I would feel partially responsible for the events that happened. I have never asked him to repay the entire $70,000 nor do I think that he should. I do not want Jeff to lose money with us, but I don't think that he should have profited as much as did and all of that profit coming from two sons giving their father a CHRISTMAS present. I don't know what his profit was, he won't tell us, but we paid $70,000 and you know people that paid less than $40,000. That is easy math, $30,000. Merry Christmas Jeff Blair!!!

quote:

Originally posted by northface:
I am the father who received the $70,000 desert sheep hunt from my sons for Christmas. What an incredible present!
I have booked numerous hunts with Jeff Blair. These would include many North American hunts and hunts to other countries. I would report that all went as advertised and I've had confidence in Blair Worldwide Hunting. This is the reason my kids booked this surprise Christmas present with him. So--just because you have had good hunting experiences with him does not mean you won't be screwed on your next one.
I had the pleasure to talk to Jeff Blair at the Grand Slam/Ovis convention on Wednesday, Feb. 23rd. I again asked him if he planned to return the $10,000 he overcharged for the hunt and his $6,000-9,000 in commission for a total of $16-$19,000. His response was "our conversation is over and you know who my attorney is". I said he was going to regret that. His response as he rudely walked away was "Bring it on".

quote:

Originally posted by Brother:
I am the brother who put up the other half of the $70,000. I can still picture the face on my father when he opened his present on Christmas Eve. He deserved it completely. There is no better Dad out there. Like my brother, my check for $35,000 was written out to BLAIR WORLDWIDE HUNTING -still have a copy of it. I was confident in our decision. It was suppose to be a trip where he would hunt until harvest, no matter how long it took, a supposed guarantee, if guarantees exist at all. JEFF BLAIR was well aware of this as well. ONE MAJOR PROBLEM --- The money was taken, cashed, and no hunt was provided through BLAIR WORLDWIDE HUNTING. $70,000 gone and not a dime returned. It is an unbelievable mishap. How could such a thing happen in the United States of America with no punishment to anyone? I am perplexed. I have seen less severe thefts end up on television - 20/20, Fleecing of America, etc. This is a severe crime. My dad taught us about ethics and morals, that is what I care about. A phone call and reasonable explanation from Larry Heathington and Jeff Blair would make my day. Getting the $70,000 back would be nice too. If either of you read this, please call me and explain your train of thought. Both have had health problems and I sincerely hope they heal well; I also hope they heal in a more spiritual sense.

quote:

Originally posted by Hunt Fisher:
As far as the judgement, a law suit was filed and there is a judgement against Heathington. So in reality, we are out a lot more than $70,000 if you include attorney fees.

quote:

Originally posted by Hunt Fisher:
Through our attorneys advice, he suggested that we file against Heathington and it was not contested to my understanding. Blairs contract is worded in a way that he has no legal responsibilities for what happened.

Now bearing all that in mind, I simply fail to see how anyone could justify naming honest outfitters on a public forum in an attempt to cost them business when they have done nothing wrong and most were probably unaware of the agent’s past activities.

I can understand contacting the honest outfitters privately and making them aware of the situation and even ask them to stop dealing with said dodgy bastards but to name them in the way they were is nothing short of shameful and the naming didn’t affect BWW one iota firstly because they don’t care and secondly because they apparently (according to the last quote) have a contract that says they haven’t done anything illegal.

I agree their behaviour was highly immoral but if it’s not illegal then complaints to SCI etc won’t achieve squat.
If the family (all 3 of whom incidentally are members of AR) have been told there’s no case to answer and if they no longer want to be involved in it – to the degree that they threw the contract away, I have to ask you Drummond, WTF has it got to do with you and why do you feel you have the right to conduct a personal vendetta not only against the agent and outfitter (both crooks) but also against innocent and good men who are busting their arses to try and maintain a business?

also bear in mind that according to the timeline, lawyers were consulted and legal action was taken and only after that did the lawyer advise they didn't have a case. - HTF does that work then because I always thought it should be the other way around. surely a lawyer would be consulted and then if appropriate, legal action taken?

Like I said before: Anyone that thinks that story as we've heard it is kosher probably also believes in the tooth fairy, santa claus and that Barack Obama is genuine & means what he says!

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

Now bearing all that in mind, I simply fail to see how anyone could justify naming honest outfitters on a public forum in an attempt to cost them business when they have done nothing wrong and most were probably unaware of the agent’s past activities.

I can understand contacting the honest outfitters privately and making them aware of the situation and even ask them to stop dealing with said dodgy bastards but to name them in the way they were is nothing short of shameful and the naming didn’t affect BWW one iota firstly because they don’t care and secondly because they apparently (according to the last quote) have a contract that says they haven’t done anything illegal.

I agree their behaviour was highly immoral but if it’s not illegal then complaints to SCI etc won’t achieve squat.
If the family (all 3 of whom incidentally are members of AR) have been told there’s no case to answer and if they no longer want to be involved in it – to the degree that they threw the contract away, I have to ask you Drummond, WTF has it got to do with you and why do you feel you have the right to conduct a personal vendetta not only against the agent and outfitter (both crooks) but also against innocent and good men who are busting their arses to try and maintain a business?

also bear in mind that according to the timeline, lawyers were consulted and legal action was taken and only after that did the lawyer advise they didn't have a case. - HTF does that work then because I always thought it should be the other way around. surely a lawyer would be consulted and then if appropriate, legal action taken?

Like I said before: Anyone that thinks that story is kosher probably also believes in the tooth fairy, santa claus and that Barack Obama is genuine & means what he says!

Steve, am I safe in assuming that "shakari" doesn't mean "lawyer" in any known African language?

Forgive me for saying so, but you are truly confused.

There were at least two potential defendants in any legal action the family might bring.

They reported that they filed suit against and secured a judgment against the outfitter, Heathington.

They also reported that they were advised by their counsel not to file suit against BWW, apparently because their counsel felt they would not prevail.

Got it?

And for you to suggest that Drummond has done anything wrong (much less "shameful") by calling BWW's behavior to the attention of the outfitters BWW has named on its website, and to fellow hunters, is not only wrong, it's ludicrous.

So Drummond is conducting a "personal vendetta" against "innocent and good men"?????

Gatogordo is right. You really are coming across as a drama queen - completely divorced from reality and over the top.

Unbelievable.

Shakari doesn't mean anything in any African language.

If they got the money from Heathington then all the talk of US$70K being owed is bollocks then?

As for Blair, if his contract is clear then whilst his behaviour is disgraceful he isn't required to repay anything by law.

If that's the sole issue then (as I keep saying) go after Blair by all means. I'd support that completely but to blackmail good honest Outfitters who have done nothing wrong and are just running THEIR business (NOT your or Drummond's business but THEIR business) is nothing short of a fucking disgrace!

Such action could easily put people who have done 1000 times more for conservation of African game than you, Drummond & Gator combined out of business!

If the family concerned who incidentally are all AR members who apparently choose not to comment don't want to know WTF has it got to do with you guys?

I'll say it again. By all means go after Blair & I'll be happy to support you in that but leave the innocent alone because they haven't done anything wrong, have done a whole lot right, don't deserve to be persecuted by you guys & it's up to them NOT YOU how they run their businesses!

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
If they got the money from Heathington then all the talk of US$70K being owed is bollocks then?

Securing a judgment and collecting on it are two different things. My bet is that Heathington is what is termed "judgment-proof," meaning that he has no assets worth pursuing. I could be wrong, but even if I am, that's just Heathington. Collecting anything from BWW is apparently not going to happen.

As for the rest - including your accusations of blackmail and persecution - please see above.

I, at one time, had all of the documents. The judgment was a default judgment. They got this judgment because Heathingtion never showed up or mounted any defense.

MR is absolutely correct. This judgment was meaningless to the family in the final analysis.

From what I know, it was not handled well. They were intimidated by some blustery BS. Blair is lucky he didn't screw someone a little more savvy.

quote:

I'll say it again. By all means go after Blair & I'll be happy to support you in that but leave the innocent alone because they haven't done anything wrong, have done a whole lot right, don't deserve to be persecuted by you guys & it's up to them NOT YOU how they run their businesses!

Or up to you. If they choose to run their business by KNOWINGLY working with a crook and others choose not to hunt with them for that reason, then it is EXACTLY THEIR choices of how and with whom they do business and they can reap the benefits of associating with Blair, if any, or suffer the consequences, if any.

You can bluster, scream, yell, stomp, rant, throw all the little drama queen hissy fits you want and it will not change the above.

I feel confident that most if not all of the outfitters named by Blair will, like Mr. Pieters, choose to severe ties with Blair once they are aware of his shenanigans. If they do, great, less money for Blair, and if they don't, that is their choice and hunters who think Blair should be out of business can make theirs.

May be we should not hold people responsible for other's crimes.

But, I would certainly avoid doing business with anyone who KNOWINGLY CONTINUES to deal with a crook, especially after this was brought up to his attention.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

You can bluster, scream, yell, stomp, rant, throw all the little drama queen hissy fits you want

I haven't done any of those things.

All I've done is debate as I always do with logic, truth, politeness and as far as possible, diplomacy. nothing more and nothing less.

You on the other hand, (as shown by your above comment) have used childish personal insults in an attempt to defend a weak and illogical argument.

I've pointed out that all 3 members of the family concerned are members of AR but have chosen not to comment and I've pointed out the timeline of the thread posted by Drummond seems to imply that legal action was taken and cases filed before a lawyer was consulted. I guess that implication might be wrong and simply bad grammar could explain it but frankly, I don't see how.

I also pointed out that none of this seems to have affected either Blair or Heathington but has and will affect and continue to affect the African guys who were almost certainly unaware of the situation for no good reason.

Also that had they been approached privately, they would almost certainly have dropped Blair immediately and like a ton of bricks.

My other point was that these events would cost those aforementioned African outfitters business for no good reason. I'm sure they will drop Blair now they know of his past shennanigans but am equally sure this particular approach has cost them business for no good reason and that point is proven by the comments where people swear never to do business with them again.

As I've previously said, the sensible thing would have been to approach them privately and tell them about Blair and I'm pretty damn sure none would have continued to allow him to even use their names let alone do business with him.

I'm all for going after Blair and Heathington but honestly reckon the way it's being done here is wrong.

With that, I don't think there's much more to be said from my point of view so I'll rest my case for now at least.