PDA

View Full Version : CP cruelty charges dismissed



Isabeau Z Solace
May. 24, 2012, 04:51 PM
http://www.nj.com/hunterdon-county-democrat/index.ssf/2012/05/hunterdon_prosecutor_dismisses.html


"Animal cruelty charges have been dismissed against Olympian Cesar Parra, Hunterdon County Prosecutor Anthony P. Kearns III announced this morning, May 24.
In March 2012, the Hunterdon County SPCA issued four summonses to Parra, 49, of Whitehouse Station after a complaint was made regarding an incident that occurred almost three years prior. Parra was accused by the SPCA of “torture or torment to a living animal” after a horse he was training was injured in June 2009.
Kearns said, “Of the four summonses issued to Parra, one was related to a fourth degree crime, one was for a disorderly persons offense, and two were civil complaints.”
The one criminal summons related to the disorderly persons offense was reviewed by the Hunterdon County Prosecutor’s Office. Prosecutor Kearns noted, “This incident occurred almost three years prior to the complaints being issued and the Statute of Limitations on Disorderly Persons offenses is one year, therefore that summons was dismissed.”
Kearns added, “In regards to the remaining fourth degree criminal complaint, a thorough investigation into this matter was completed by my office, including multiple witness interviews. It has been determined that there is insufficient evidence to proceed with criminal charges in the case. The summons will be dismissed. The two civil complaints have been referred back to the Readington Township Municipal Court for appropriate disposition.”
Meanwhile, a trial in a lawsuit between Miranda and Parra is scheduled to go to trial in July.
Miranda filed suit in June 2011 against Parra, claiming Parra was negligent in the way he handled the horse and how he cared for him after the injury. On March 16, Miranda’s motion to file an amended complaint was granted. The amended complaint adds that Parra acted with wanton disregard to the rights of others. She claims that the release she signed just before the incident is not enforceable due to Parra's negligence.
In April, Parra filed a counterclaim against Miranda and asked the judge to conduct a jury trial.
The trial is scheduled to start on July 12."

2tempe
May. 24, 2012, 08:13 PM
the silence is deafening......

Liz
May. 24, 2012, 10:06 PM
He is not someone I would support on the team.

SnicklefritzG
May. 24, 2012, 10:32 PM
I definitely wouldn't want someone on the team who looks like the Pillsbury Dough Boy

ise@ssl
May. 24, 2012, 11:26 PM
"insufficient evidence to proceed" is not a vote of innocence.

TemJeito
May. 25, 2012, 06:45 AM
"insufficient evidence to proceed" is not a vote of innocence.

No. But, when a prosecutor refuses to go forward, if means she or he thinks there isn't enough evidence for any jury to find the person guilty - which is worse than a "not guilty" verdict where at least there was enough evidence to take the case to a jury. I hope Dr. Parra will get his justice one day (and I don't mean exoneration), but this prosecution offended me as a lawyer. I don't know if you recall - I reached out to you politely in a PM, and you didn't want to hear it ;)

I imagine CP will see this as vindication. He's showing Van the Man this weekend at the NJHP and will undoubtedly be as cocky as ever.

carolprudm
May. 25, 2012, 07:41 AM
the silence is deafening......

So say something.......

ise@ssl
May. 25, 2012, 08:03 AM
Discobold - I honestly don't remember you.
What was disturbing to me as a resident taxpayer in Hunterdon County was the fact that the County Investigator assigned to this case didn't bother to contact ALL of the individuals who came forward. Additionally, the ones he did speak to were limited to answering Yes or No to questions he asked them and he did not allow them to give full statements. So the issue of "insufficient evidence" is questionable due to the limited effort for discovery.
It's rather unfortunate but horse people have to understand the legal system does not consider equine abuse issues to be a pressing matter. Even the laws on the books consider horses to be "property". The fact that they are living, breathing animals for many of us more like part of our family - doesn't equate with existing law. And I'm NOT in any way shape or form taking the PETA approach - which Mr. Davis - CP's benefactor was espousing in his press release.
CP can continue with his proud strutting around at horse shows. But I'm one person who will NEVER watch him ride.

alibi_18
May. 25, 2012, 10:19 AM
You guys sound like the RaRA PETA groups agains't the NYC carriage industry. No matter what happen, CP (or the Carriage industry) will undoubtly always be guilty.


What was disturbing to me as a resident taxpayer in Hunterdon County was the fact that the County Investigator assigned to this case didn't bother to contact ALL of the individuals who came forward. Additionally, the ones he did speak to were limited to answering Yes or No to questions he asked them and he did not allow them to give full statements. So the issue of "insufficient evidence" is questionable due to the limited effort for discovery.

How do you know that ALL of the individuals weren't contacted and/or allowed to give full statement? They called you?

Who came forward?!? Mr. Buck?!? You really believe he is to be listened?!? (We haven't heard from him much lately...)

**ALL** How many witnesses were there?!? In the video we could see like max 10 people... Doesn't take that long to question each ones.

Oh.... They should have get the testimony of every individuals for the past 10 years who have something to say agains't CP, no matter if it is relevant or not to this case... as long as it is **proving** that CP is a mean person and beats horses on a daily basis. :rolleyes:

As for me, CP will remain innocent in this case until proven guilty.

But I guess the Olympic torch could be used to burn him alive! :uhoh: :lol:

CFFarm
May. 25, 2012, 10:22 AM
I think he should take up bicycling.

carolprudm
May. 25, 2012, 10:36 AM
You guys sound like the RaRA PETA groups agains't the NYC carriage industry. No matter what happen, CP (or the Carriage industry) will undoubtly always be guilty.



How do you know that ALL of the individuals weren't contacted and/or allowed to give full statement? They called you?

Who came forward?!? Mr. Buck?!? You really believe he is to be listened?!? (We haven't heard from him much lately...)

**ALL** How many witnesses were there?!? In the video we could see like max 10 people... Doesn't take that long to question each ones.

Oh.... They should have get the testimony of every individuals for the past 10 years who have something to say agains't CP, no matter if it is relevant or not to this case... as long as it is **proving** that CP is a mean person and beats horses on a daily basis. :rolleyes:

As for me, CP will remain innocent in this case until proven guilty.

But I guess the Olympic torch could be used to burn him alive! :uhoh: :lol:
As the Casey Anthony trial demonstrated there's guilt innocence and that which can be proved in court

DownYonder
May. 25, 2012, 10:59 AM
FWIW, I know someone who trained with him most of this past winter. While he certainly demands top effort from both horse and rider, she never saw anything that came close to “abuse”, and she has seen much more aggressive and assertive methods used at some very high end barns in Germany and Holland. She also talked to a few of his people that were present for the incident in question, and their version of the horse’s behavior differs from the owner’s version (one of his people described the horse as “a striker that had to handled with care”).

That being said, CP will need a very good show this weekend to move up the ranking list. He is currently ranked #18 on the USEF High Performance GP ranking list, and the top 15 get invites to Gladstone (I believe it will be the top 16, since Steffen Peters has two horses in the top spots). I think CP’s chances of making the Olympic team are pretty slim.

ptownevt
May. 25, 2012, 11:14 AM
It is often difficult to find sufficient proof so long after the fact, especially when the incident in question was not viewed as a possible criminal act and investigated as such at the time.

Petstorejunkie
May. 25, 2012, 11:46 AM
I think he should take up bicycling.

Believe me, as a cyclist we wouldn't want him either.

SnicklefritzG
May. 25, 2012, 12:48 PM
@DY who said: "one of his people described the horse as “a striker that had to handled with care”). "

Of course CP's people are going to say that. Do you honestly think they would say something that would benefit William's owner and speak against CP?? Of course they wouldn't, particular not with a man that wants all "his people" to sign confidentiality agreements.


I would LOVE to see him on a bike. Put him in a Peloton of 50 guys going 28+ mph in a crit. The man wouldn't last 2 seconds. He would be decimated after the first turn. lol.

DownYonder
May. 25, 2012, 01:11 PM
@DY who said: "one of his people described the horse as “a striker that had to handled with care”). "

Of course CP's people are going to say that. Do you honestly think they would say something that would benefit William's owner and speak against CP?? Of course they wouldn't, particular not with a man that wants all "his people" to sign confidentiality agreements.

So you are attesting that this person was lying? Do you think she (or he) also "lied" to the investigators? That would take a lot of chutzpah - it could be a bit embarassing getting pulled into court and having to tell a different story while under oath. :lol:

Calhoun
May. 25, 2012, 02:00 PM
So you are attesting that this person was lying? Do you think she (or he) also "lied" to the investigators? That would take a lot of chutzpah - it could be a bit embarassing getting pulled into court and having to tell a different story while under oath. :lol:

Totally agree. I don't think there is anything wrong with having employees sign confidentiality agreements, the internet can be a dangerous place, just look at this thread as an example.

ise@ssl
May. 25, 2012, 02:21 PM
Alibi - I spoke with Trudy personally. And the individuals that were not contacted by the Investigator had called her to say THEY WERE NOT CONTACTED even though the were on the list. Others called her to say they tried to explain their experiences but were told to just answer yes or no to questions asked.
I do not know, nor have I ever communicated with Mr. Buck nor do I intend to do that.
I'm an anti - PETA person.

netg
May. 25, 2012, 02:32 PM
While the amount of smoke makes me think there's a fire somewhere in the barn in question, I felt the case appeared to be a witch hunt, and the way everything was phrased, the "evidence" involved, etc., all made it appear much more similar to the anti-carriage folks than legit.

dudleyc
May. 25, 2012, 02:38 PM
That being said, CP will need a very good show this weekend to move up the ranking list. He is currently ranked #18 on the USEF High Performance GP ranking list, and the top 15 get invites to Gladstone (I believe it will be the top 16, since Steffen Peters has two horses in the top spots). I think CP’s chances of making the Olympic team are pretty slim.

I know it's not on point, but heather blitz, on dressage radio, said that ravel is an automatic in and will not be going to Gladstone. SP will be competing on his 2nd horse.

alibi_18
May. 25, 2012, 02:40 PM
Alibi - I spoke with Trudy personally. And the individuals that were not contacted by the Investigator had called her to say THEY WERE NOT CONTACTED even though the were on the list. Others called her to say they tried to explain their experiences but were told to just answer yes or no to questions asked.

Maybe the list was filled with storytellers where most answered "No" at the first and simple "Were you there when it happened?" question. Maybe the Investigator felt his time was a bit waste by so much non sense going on at some point. Especially if he spoke with Mr. Buck and friends. Less is often better!

What is your take in this story?

You might not be a PeTA fan, maybe a Conspiracy theorist?

ise@ssl
May. 25, 2012, 02:41 PM
Downyonder -
I'm trying to understand this quote you posted from your friend relative to the time line.
"She also talked to a few of his people that were present for the incident in question, and their version of the horse’s behavior differs from the owner’s version (one of his people described the horse as “a striker that had to handled with care”)."

William arrived at CP's farm after shipping from upstate NY. He was put in a stall for less than an hour, next to another stallion and within hearing distance of mares. CP wanted to lunge him right away - so he was tacked up with different side reins (with elestic) which were then changed by CP in the arena to side reins with no elastic. The horse reacted to something, couldn't move his head up and flipped. He remained at CP's after the injury because he wasn't stable enough to be moved. He was physically unable to strike.

So when did this person who worked for CP come to the conclusion that William was a "striker"??

ise@ssl
May. 25, 2012, 02:47 PM
Alibi - ...What is my take in this story? Odd question. Conspiracy theory?? Odd comment. I prefer facts not fiction. If you want to make personal comments to me and about me - please send me a PM.

DownYonder
May. 25, 2012, 02:59 PM
Downyonder -
I'm trying to understand this quote you posted from your friend relative to the time line.
"She also talked to a few of his people that were present for the incident in question, and their version of the horse’s behavior differs from the owner’s version (one of his people described the horse as “a striker that had to handled with care”)."

William arrived at CP's farm after shipping from upstate NY. He was put in a stall for less than an hour, next to another stallion and within hearing distance of mares. CP wanted to lunge him right away - so he was tacked up with different side reins (with elestic) which were then changed by CP in the arena to side reins with no elastic. The horse reacted to something, couldn't move his head up and flipped. He remained at CP's after the injury because he wasn't stable enough to be moved. He was physically unable to strike.

So when did this person who worked for CP come to the conclusion that William was a "striker"??

I have no idea, I wasn't there. Maybe the horse was striking on the way to the stall, or on the way from the stall to the arena, or while being lunged. Only the true witnesses know.

I do have trouble, though, understanding why someone would tell an outright lie knowing full well there was an investigation going on and that he/she might end up on the witness stand having to testify under oath. I think one would have to either be stupid or have no respect for the legal system to not be concerned about the possibility of having their lies exposed in court and maybe even charged with perjury. I also have signed confidentiality agreements with my various employers through the years, but there is no way I would consider perjuring myself on their behalf.

And I think Alibi may be on to something - I know if *I* was investigating this case, my first question would be "Were you present when the incident occurred?" If the answer was "No", I would cross that person off my list. If they weren't there, they aren't a credible witness. I'm not an attorney, but I understand they generally don't like "hearsay" in court.

ise@ssl
May. 25, 2012, 03:30 PM
Alibi - Downyonder - you both make me laugh. Will enjoy reading your posts on this matter as the Civil trial evolves.......Ciao

dragonharte8
May. 25, 2012, 04:15 PM
The theory of the rule excluding hearsay is that assertions made by human beings are often unreliable; such statements are often insincere, subject to flaws in memory and perception, or infected with errors in narration at the time they are given. Furthermore, someone testifying in court regarding another's out-of-court statement may have misheard or misremembered that statement, in addition to possibly having misinterpreted the speaker's sincerity, etc. The law therefore finds it necessary to subject this form of evidence to “scrutiny or analysis calculated to discover and expose in detail its possible weaknesses, and thus to enable the tribunal (judge or jury) to estimate it at no more than its actual value”.[3]

Three tests are calculated to expose possible weaknesses in a statement:
1.Assertions must be taken under oath
2.Assertions must be made in front of the tribunal (judge or jury)
3.Assertions must be subject to cross-examination.

Assertions not subject to these three tests are (with some exceptions) prohibited insofar as they are offered testimonially (for the truth of what they assert).

Whitfield Farm Hanoverians
May. 25, 2012, 04:51 PM
Sorry but I stopped reading when posters were saying CP is innocent until proven guilty. Well a picture says a 1000 words & I saw the pictures of this stallions head tied to his chest. THAT is all the proof I'll ever need. You just DO NOT DO THAT! It is wrong wrong wrong. PERIOD!

DownYonder
May. 25, 2012, 05:25 PM
The theory of the rule excluding hearsay is that assertions made by human beings are often unreliable; such statements are often insincere, subject to flaws in memory and perception, or infected with errors in narration at the time they are given. Furthermore, someone testifying in court regarding another's out-of-court statement may have misheard or misremembered that statement, in addition to possibly having misinterpreted the speaker's sincerity, etc. The law therefore finds it necessary to subject this form of evidence to “scrutiny or analysis calculated to discover and expose in detail its possible weaknesses, and thus to enable the tribunal (judge or jury) to estimate it at no more than its actual value”.[3]

Three tests are calculated to expose possible weaknesses in a statement:
1.Assertions must be taken under oath
2.Assertions must be made in front of the tribunal (judge or jury)
3.Assertions must be subject to cross-examination.

Assertions not subject to these three tests are (with some exceptions) prohibited insofar as they are offered testimonially (for the truth of what they assert).

Yes, Rev. Buck, this is the verbiage regarding hearsay from Wikipedia. ;)

But I guess it came down to the investigator's judgment as to whether he wanted to pursue getting "hearsay" assertions done under oath, etc. And it appears he didn't think it worth pursuing.

Just wondering - how many witnesses were there who will testify in court on behalf of the plaintiff?

DownYonder
May. 25, 2012, 05:32 PM
Sorry but I stopped reading when posters were saying CP is innocent until proven guilty. Well a picture says a 1000 words & I saw the pictures of this stallions head tied to his chest. THAT is all the proof I'll ever need. You just DO NOT DO THAT! It is wrong wrong wrong. PERIOD!

Agree the sidereins were WAY too tight. But Parra didn't invent this technique. It is sadly practiced in some VERY BNT barns in Europe, and no doubt, also here. Reminds me a bit of an episode a few years ago where a stallion's head was tied around to the side to his girth and left for a few hours like that. Guess that trainer should have been run into court, also.

dragonharte8
May. 25, 2012, 08:20 PM
The original complaint was for 'deceptive trade practices, fraud resulting in the abuse of the horse.'

What is appalling is that these investigators did not even investigate the 'direct and proximate' causes of the gross negligent actions of Mr. Parra, and instead chose to focus on the abuse, which, despite Mr. Kearns personal opinon, can be proven in a court of law before a jury.

Deceptive trade practices is both a State and Federal crime as Mr. Parra is directly involved with interstate commerce.

Every professional horsewoman and horseman who earns a living with horses in their 'care, custody and control' has fiduciary respondibilities directly to the horses in their care and training.

chisamba
May. 25, 2012, 08:59 PM
Lets see, horse on property for one hour, brought out to work, first time ever, immediately put in side reins so tight the horse i severly injured. He may have avoided prosecution, but lets be sure, he is guilty of very poor training.

siegi b.
May. 25, 2012, 09:11 PM
I witnessed CP at Devon many moons ago and he was a total s'it in the warm-up arena acting like it was there for him only! To me CP is only in it for himself and couldn't care less for anybody else. What happened to this horse is very indicative of what he's like.
Sorry if that isn't what some folks want to hear.....

Justice~for~Horses
May. 25, 2012, 09:37 PM
Sayonara, Van the Man. You will be on a plane bound for Europe as soon as the paper work is complete.

carolprudm
May. 25, 2012, 09:51 PM
Sorry but I stopped reading when posters were saying CP is innocent until proven guilty. Well a picture says a 1000 words & I saw the pictures of this stallions head tied to his chest. THAT is all the proof I'll ever need. You just DO NOT DO THAT! It is wrong wrong wrong. PERIOD!
Yup, but there is morally guilty and proven in a court of law guilty

NOMIOMI1
May. 25, 2012, 09:54 PM
Fact: The horse was bitted very tightly and an accident occured

That is ALL the proof we have for or against the party.

Witness statements are not unbiased being that the parties either were with the defendent and had prior history or the owner and so on.

In itself that is not abuse.

This was a civil matter to begin with.

dragonharte8
May. 25, 2012, 10:25 PM
This was a civil matter to begin with.

Read NJ animal abuse laws <> Read NJ deceptive trade laws.....this is criminal and to say otherwise is to placate and justify those who incure criminal abuse arising out of criminal deception.

NOMIOMI1
May. 25, 2012, 10:27 PM
Read NJ animal abuse laws <> Read NJ deceptive trade laws.....this is criminal and to say otherwise is to placate and justify those who incure criminal abuse arising out of criminal deception.

I deal with real criminal (with actual intent) damages daily.

Please stop waisting the courts time and clogging the system with your vendetta.

dragonharte8
May. 25, 2012, 10:49 PM
I deal with real criminal (with actual intent) damages daily.

Please stop waisting the courts time and clogging the system with your vendetta.


"Willfully, Intentionally, and Knowingly" :D
These can clearly be applied to the deceptive actions and lack of actions by Mr. Parra which resulted in the gross negligence by Mr. Parra which resulted in the injury to the horse.

As for a vendetta, how can a vendetta exist when there is no feud?
How can vengence be in play when the legal system is being used to bring justice for William PFF?

The application of law in the United States is to every individual and therefore, your statement seems contradictive of an individual who deals with 'real' criminal intent.

NOMIOMI1
May. 25, 2012, 11:20 PM
Look.


I am a little busy trying to get over the fact that the neighboring property to my current boarding facility couldn't get criminal charges pressed against the guy who let his horse starve to death, and then his starving dogs (30) ate his OTHER starving horse.

The animal control, police, and every other person withing writing, calling, and visiting distance was aware of this situation and these type of things are happening...

YOUR supposed matter where you are SUPPOSEDLY now involved is a civil matter plain and simple. The man never set out to destroy this horse >. < (that is a period)

You want to involve yourself in matters of cruelty? Contact your local rescue and they will point the way.

They too cannot be bothered with these competition "climbers" who utilize BNT's who use high pressure tactics to quickly train the next "star", because they are knee high in criminal action.. REAL criminal actions.

I am not saying what he did was right. But she should have filed a civil suit within the time allowed, and she should have discussed this matter with her attorney and no one else.

If she wants to notify the masses in regards to this matter then she should do that and refuse to sign a hold harmless... But if he offers her money will she then decide to remain quiet?

Again. Civil. Matter.

Equibrit
Jun. 5, 2012, 04:38 PM
http://www.co.hunterdon.nj.us/prosecutor/pressrelease/2012/May23-OlympicEquestrianCleared.pdf

Whitfield Farm Hanoverians
Jun. 5, 2012, 06:45 PM
Let's hope that CP learned something in all of this. Maybe?

skydy
Jun. 5, 2012, 09:48 PM
I hope that anyone who has a legal dispute ,either civil or criminal, with any other person in the horse business has learned something from this mess and is now astute enough not allow Mr. Buck to become involved.

Credibility is important and if you really want to pursue a case in court and have a chance of success, it is helpful to begin with expert and credible people in your corner.

I can't imagine why Mr. Buck thought to involve himself in the matter (I have read his explanation and don't believe a word of it, considering his past behaviour and propensity for filing lawsuits that he inevitably loses.)

The whole matter is very sad and I do hope that C. Parra has learned something from this.

Such a terrible experience for William and his owner.:no: