Laurie, gotcha. I've obviously following as this is so horrific. As I'm sure many others are. Hard to tame down the angered masses that actually got this exposed.
And that's probably not a bad thing. Were there not so much ire that showewd up here, that would be pitiful from our industry.
At this point the JB case it might be a double sided sword. Nevertheless, the feelings and facts should not be silenced.. the those things got this the attention out there.
We cannot control everything. And sometimes I personally thing we shoudn't.;)
Maybe this was already discussed.
A link to this new article probably has already been posted somewhere here. No one appears to officially know (or can't say) which stallion was injured and removed, but interesting that that particular stallion appears to be sold. Doesn't someone here (I can't remember the name of the farm--it's the one who sponsors the stallion testing) have a lien on one of the stallions?
"Weems, whose office is in Fairfax, said she also represents a Georgia woman who bought the stallion and was waiting for it to be shipped before it was injured and confiscated. According to Weems, the stallion was hurt not from abuse or neglect, but in a fight with another stallion."
Is this old news?
I think the lien is on Aloha, as he is the one that was at the test, if I am not mistaken.
But it costs very litle to file a lawsuit against her. California has "fill in the blank" forms; you do not even need an attorney. If you fill in the form and pay the filing fee you don't have to serve her right then. Just get the dispute filed in the court's database. The more lawsuits that are on record, the less likely other people (who think to check things like this) will do business with her.
Originally Posted by Callmeacab
When I was an attorney in California I had to do this against a contractor who had done shoddy work on my house. Within several days of the lawsuit being filed I received calls (this was before the Internet) from other people who had had trouble with this same contractor. He saw the writing on the wall and brought his work up to code.
If everyone with a legal dispute files a complaint ("in pro Per" -- acting as his/her own attorney) against JB they will each: 1. Toll the Statute of Limitations and 2. Create a public record. If there are enough complaints filed agaisnt her, then, at a later date if the Plaintiff's want, they can be consolidated and each Plaintiff can substitue in an attorney who will represent all the Plaintiffs who have similar interests.
ETA: I just saw that John French (and Peter Pletcher?) got a default Judgment against JB. All he had to do was fiile a complaint, have her served by a process server, and show up at the hearing. If Jill Doesn't appear, then Plaintiff wins, and the Judgment is a matter of public record. Easy Peasy.
Point being: there is no excuse for doing nothing.
Originally Posted by Appsolute
I forwarded all of this information to Gary Klein from the Marin Independent Journal. Wonder if he will do more than Brent would?
Originally Posted by Daventry
If there are all these outstanding judgements against her, couldn't her assets, i.e. horses, ordered to be sold to satisfy said judgments ?
So wouldn't it be in the best interest of anyone who is owed money to file in order to get a judgment ?
That is what we have been saying all along. Hopefully now that there is an auction to raise funds for legal fees among other things that will be exactly what happens.
Originally Posted by Elfe
From COTH article, and anyone that watches Animal Cops ;)
Originally Posted by Pixtwo
"Carrie Harrington, spokesperson of the MHS, spoke generally about the process the MHS investigators undergo during potentially neglectful or abusive situations. She explained that there are instances in which animals are not receiving proper care—generally food, water, shelter and adequate veterinary attention. If the animals are in immediate danger, the investigators may have grounds to immediately impound the animals.
“There might be an instance where the animal is not receiving proper shelter but not in immediate danger,” Harrington said. In those cases, the investigators often work with the owners and caretakers to improve the living conditions. Usually the process involves specific instructions to increase education and follow up visits to ensure compliance."
Your statement that Marin felt only 2 horses were being neglected is ignorant and wrong. Marin may feel all horses are being neglected, only the 2 were in "immediate danger," as in Marin felt they would likely die in a matter of hours or days without their intervention. The other 28 horses are being neglected, and per their policy, they are working with the owner with specific instructions and timelines to get those horses properly cared for. If any horse's condition deteriorates in that time frame where the horse is in danger of death, Marin will seize them. Which is what happened on January 4th when they seized 2 more.
Jill's neglect is not as simple as the horses being fat and seeing a vet when needed. It also includes adequate shelter and containment. Something it sounds like she's having a difficult time providing right now. The 26 horses still on the property may very well be the picture of health, but they'll still be seized if she doesn't provide shelter and containment per Marin's instructions and within the time frame they demand.
Regarding your other 2 ignorant points:
The proof will be provided by Marin in due time.
The secrecy and lack of names is for legal purposes. It not only helps protect Marin's case against Jill, but it also helps protect Jill! Jill Burnell and her attorney should be happy for the current level "secrecy".
my guess, based on hunch and also wording of what Weems said - is that none of the horses (or only Ahoha?) are in her name anymore.
my guess is that they all belong to others.....
and to be clear: i am absolutely supporting those that have been wronged... however, i would hate to see JB get out of anything because of this thread or posts on FB etc.
I have suspected the bolded part of your statement to be true for some time now. I'm betting that they are in her husband's name or another close friend or family member and have been since the very first lawsuit against her popped up.
Originally Posted by mbm
Correct Greenie, (not so Green at all it seems). Mr. Adamo is alive and well in Sonoma County w/ no connection to this case and no plans for a trip to Georgia.
Not everyone lives in CA though. So it does make it quite a bit more difficult.
Originally Posted by Lord Helpus
[QUOTE=trubandloki;6771312]Not everyone lives in CA though. So it does make it quite a bit more difficult.[I]
It has been mentioned several times on this thread by real life lawyers that you don't necessarily have to file in CA. There is no excuse for not pursuing this to the fullest extent of the law. That is the only way to make sure there are no new victims. You saw her newsletter, it has a buy in now link. Some poor sap clicks that button and there is now one new victim. Only the victims have the power to put an end to this.
Perhaps someone has already pointed this out but if a stallion is injured in a fight with another stallion that is NEGLECT.
Fair Winds Farm
I did see that, I was responding to that one poster who was talking about how easy it is in CA so therefor it is easy for everyone.
Originally Posted by Laurierace
You do not have to live in California to sue in California. JB lives in California and that gives the state jurisdiction over her.
Originally Posted by trubandloki
The forms are probably available on line.
The only problem with filing in California is that the Plaintiff will have to make an appearance in California for the hearing. Perhaps a current California attorney could confirm the law on this point, but I would be surprised if an agent (friend) couldn't make an appearance in your behalf. Or an appearance via Skype, etc.
Bottom line, you need to appear at the hearing in order to get a default judgment against her. If you file in small claims court, then JB's attorney CANNOT make an appearance on her behalf. I do not know the maximum award available to Plaintiffs is in small claims court; it is probably in the ballpark of $10,000. If she owes you more and you file in small claims court, then you waive the right to collect any damages in excess of the maximum award.
But, it appears that the goal of actually getting money out of her is secondary to having a lot of Judgments against her on the record. And $10,000 is better than not doing anything.
In the state of Maryland the district court handles small claims up to $5,000. It is as simple as filing a complaint form and having the out of state person served by certified mail.
Originally Posted by trubandloki
PS: I have no idea if other states will recognize jurisdiction over JB in small claims court. Plaintiff will have to establish that jurisdiction is appropriate (i.e. that Plaintiff lives in ND and the agreement to sell/loan/lease the horse was made in ND.
That is certainly possible, and, if filed in Small Claims court, JB's attorney may not be able to question jurisdiction.
Gotta run now, but if anyone has questions they can PM me.
NOTE: I am not a current member of the California Bar, and so the suggestions explained above MAY NOT represent current law in that (or any other) state. These are just examples of what might happen. Everyone needs to do their own checking and find out the current law for their state.
I believe all the forms you need for small claims in CA can be found here:
All other possible forms needed can also be found at that link by changing the option in the dropdown box.
Information about SC in CA.
Info on California small claims court can be found here -
It says County of Los Angeles, but is based on California law. Pay particular attention to the statute of limitations listed on the above link.
Forms are here - http://www.courts.ca.gov/forms.htm?filter=SC .