The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 54
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan. 11, 2011
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThirdCharm View Post
    Devastated? Devastated?

    I could understand 'annoyed', just on the basis of "well, I shoulda been more specific in the contract, that was stupid of me"-- because really, this is a contract dispute, not a criminal case, unless the mare was an Olympic horse given the expense of ET no sane judge is going to consider the embryo valuable enough to qualify as a legit 'crime'.... Or 'angry' if there is now a personal problem between the two and they're mad he benefitted more than they expected..... But devastated?

    Also confused who the plaintiff is.

    She was devastated because when the mare was returned to her, she was at death's door.

    Jennifer
    She was devastated because when the mare was returned to her, she was at death's door.



  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb. 3, 2000
    Location
    Nokesville, VA
    Posts
    35,218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ponytailponygirl View Post
    She was devastated because when the mare was returned to her, she was at death's door.
    Being devastated at the mare's condition is one thing, and perfectly justified.

    But that is not what you said. You said she was devastated that an embryo had been taken without her knowledge, which is something quite different entirely.
    Janet

    chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle and Tiara. Someone else is now feeding and mucking for Chief and Brain (both foxhunting now).


    5 members found this post helpful.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov. 5, 2000
    Posts
    9,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Janet View Post
    Reading between the lines. I think that the "question form the court" is referring to the live birth as the "first embryo", and the ET embryo as the "second embryo" .

    The plaintiff on the other hand seems to want to use the term "embryo" only to refer to the ET, not the live birth. So in saying "there was no second embryo", he seems to be saying " There was only one embryo used for ET, not 2".

    I am curious why the "trainer" is the plaintiff, presumably suing the owner.
    I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV, but I agree with the above. I also feel that the court document itself was a bit unclear.

    "19. Admit that you extracted a second embryo from the horse S, without prior consent from the horse's owner,"

    Plaintiff (i.e., the trainer) either mistakenly assumed the question referred to extraction of two embryos, or deliberately chose to interpret it that way.

    But if there wasn't a written contract between owner and trainer specifying the trainer had the right to only ONE foal, my guess is the owner is out of luck. I wouldn't think a court would rule against the trainer based on the owner's "assumption" the trainer would only use the mare one time for a foal. Sucks for the owner, and while I feel the trainer is both sneaky and rather shady, I would be surprised if the court found in the owner's favor on this issue.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov. 5, 2000
    Posts
    9,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ponytailponygirl View Post
    Sorry. My mistake. He's the Plaintiff, AND the counterdefendant. The parties he sued, have sued him in turn. It's a hot mess.
    Why is he suing the owner? He was the one that extracted the embryo without her knowledge or consent.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov. 30, 2005
    Location
    Northfield MN
    Posts
    1,016

    Default

    I don't understand this thread at all.

    First we have a mare owner irate that an embryo was taken from her mare without her knowledge, then it's disclosed this might have occurred during a breeding lease. Now we find out that the owner is really upset because the mare was returned "at death's door." Seriously??? At death's door and that doesn't come up until page 2?

    As I'm sure the owner had a vet out immediately upon the mares return, she should have unbiased documentation on the mare's condition. Personally, I would forget about trying to sue over an oral contract where the parties don't agree about what was said. Instead, I would be posting the vet's report, along with before and after photos, stating the trainer and location where the mare had been cared for over the past year.

    Jingles for the mare.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Sep. 23, 2008
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ponytailponygirl View Post
    It's a hot mess.
    Everything around him usually is.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan. 11, 2011
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DownYonder View Post
    Why is he suing the owner? He was the one that extracted the embryo without her knowledge or consent.
    He's not suing the owner. He's suing someone else for being vocal about his "shady" practice of helping himself to embryos, regardless of the terms of the contract.



  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan. 11, 2011
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cranky Agnes View Post
    Everything around him usually is.
    You made me spit out my coffee!!! LMAO!! And I thought I was being discreet.



  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan. 11, 2011
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tuckawayfarm View Post
    I don't understand this thread at all.

    First we have a mare owner irate that an embryo was taken from her mare without her knowledge, then it's disclosed this might have occurred during a breeding lease. Now we find out that the owner is really upset because the mare was returned "at death's door." Seriously??? At death's door and that doesn't come up until page 2?

    As I'm sure the owner had a vet out immediately upon the mares return, she should have unbiased documentation on the mare's condition. Personally, I would forget about trying to sue over an oral contract where the parties don't agree about what was said. Instead, I would be posting the vet's report, along with before and after photos, stating the trainer and location where the mare had been cared for over the past year.

    Jingles for the mare.
    I apologize for all the ambiguity. In an effort to protect identities, (not from Cranky Agnes!), I have made it difficult to follow my thread. Be that as it may, all of your comments have been very helpful.



  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan. 11, 2011
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cartier View Post
    Not to muddy the waters here, but my take on this is that there is the lawsuit and a counter claim, where the defendant is pro se (but probably filed the counter claim naming himself as the plaintiff in the case caption). And the only attorney involved in this fell asleep a few years ago, but no one has noticed (which accounts for the answer to #19). Or, what we have in the OP’s post is just a summary of an interrogatory answer.

    I suspect that the pro se party has already seen some interrogatory answers (possibly in this action) that “admit” in part, and “deny” in part… and he/she has used “admit” in a novel / colloquial manner. E.g. "I would like you to admit that you are wrong and I am right."

    We did an ET with a 22 year-old donor mare... she was absolutely fine and got in foal twice after the ET. I think there's a bit of blame for all parties: there is no excuse for returning the mare in poor condition, I don't see a cause of action for the ET, and I would not use this trainer, but I also would not allow someone to breed my mare without a well written contract.
    This post blew my mind, and made me laugh. You are either a gifted psychic, a brilliant attorney, or you know the parties involved. I think there was a written contract, but was trying to avoid bringing the aforementioned mare owner into a legal "hot mess". Thanks for your comment.



  11. #31
    Join Date
    Sep. 23, 2008
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ponytailponygirl View Post
    You made me spit out my coffee!!! LMAO!! And I thought I was being discreet.
    Before I even read the thread, I had a pretty good idea of who you were talking about. But that's only because his life is so "out there" for the world to see via the person who is suing him.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Jun. 20, 2000
    Location
    Full time in Delhi, NY!
    Posts
    6,398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ponytailponygirl View Post
    He's not suing the mare owner. He's being sued by someone else.
    Then he's the DEFENDANT not the Plaintiff. Plaintiff brings the complaint.
    ~Kryswyn~ Always look on the bright side of life, de doo, de doo de doo de doo
    Check out my Kryswyn JRTs on Facebook

    "Life is merrier with a terrier!"



  13. #33
    Join Date
    Jan. 11, 2011
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryswyn View Post
    Then he's the DEFENDANT not the Plaintiff. Plaintiff brings the complaint.
    Actually, he is both. The person he's suing, turned around and sued him; thus, the "hot mess" I was referring to.



  14. #34
    Join Date
    Jun. 21, 2004
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,068

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cranky Agnes View Post
    Before I even read the thread, I had a pretty good idea of who you were talking about. But that's only because his life is so "out there" for the world to see via the person who is suing him.
    Damn ... I must not be in the " know". Sucks to be under this rock
    *^*^*^
    Himmlische Traumpferde
    "Wenn Du denkst es geht nicht mehr, kommt von irgendwo ein kleines Licht daher"


    1 members found this post helpful.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Mar. 1, 2005
    Location
    Wellborn, Florida
    Posts
    698

    Default

    This thread was started by Paula Estess, aka ponytailponygirl. She has absolutely nothing to do with horses - she has never owned or bred a horse in her life. The only reason being here is to accuse me with things that either never happened or situations that are grossly misrepresented and misinterpreted. He only reason being on the Forums and on other internet outlets is to try to ruin my business, as she has stated in writing, numerous times (along with attempting to get rich on a book, TV or radio deal that she will secure by "exposing" me). She not only accused me with doing despicable things along the way, she has attacked my wife and her business, attacked some of my clients, but called my unborn son, in writing a "devil spawn". She has also maintained websites like dainagreenepaysforsex, andrasszieberthliesabouteverything, andrasszieberthconspiracy, andrassecrets, andrasszieberthrealhousewives, andrasdainasecrets etc

    For the past almost 3 years there has been no reprieve from this persons personal attacks, so I had no choice but to turn to the courts. Now, that the tables are turning, Paula Estess has filed a counter-suit for "malicious prosecution" as a desperate measure to delay the inevitable.

    Everyone who knows me and my operation understands that I always do my best and go beyond to get the job done and give my clients the best possible service. As in any business, there are some things that will not work out 100%.

    Make no mistake: Paula Estess has nothing to do with any horse, any embryos or any business deals. She has never owned a horse, let alone the horse in question. What happened is the following:
    I was helping out a client who was in financial straights, who needed a long-term layup for the mare they had. We agreed in a 1 1/2 year term breeding lease. There were NEVER any agreements or limitations on what type of breeding I was allowed to do or where the horse has to be stabled, only that all customary care will be given. I also agreed in evaluating the recovery of the horse to riding soundness. Upon returning the horse (in very good condition for a mare who just carried and nursed a large colt), I reviewed everything that was done to the horse, including the embryo transfer. All seemed to be fine by the owner, until 1 1/2 years later these accusations show up on Paula Estess' blogs.

    Besides the fact that Paula Estess has nothing to do with any of this, so her suit is baseless, has anyone considered the following:

    1) What was the harm that was caused by the breeder to the mare owner? Nothing. The mare owner got what she wanted: her mare was taken care of for 1 1/2 years for no charge to her, recovered to riding soundness. If it were such a surefire, lucrative business to sell embryos of this particular mare (or any mare as the matter of speaking), why wouldn't the mare owner do that?
    2) A term breeding lease is incredibly risky because what happens if the mare does not take/absorb/abort or if the foal dies? The breeder is out of a whole lot of money, while the mare owner gains everything. The only way a breeder MIGHT hedge his/her investment, at no cost to the mare owner, is to maximize production (by investing a ton more money on ET, hoping it will pay off years down the line, if he/she is lucky).
    3) What if the mare had live twins? Would that be considered "stealing" by Ms Estess?`
    4) As far as the mare's condition upon return goes: I have pictures to show that the mare was in fine condition for a lactating broodmare. Nobody in their right mind can compare the physical condition of a broodmare right after weaning (a very large colt) to that of a show hunter.

    Again, when you run a business, you can't keep everyone absolutely happy at all times. I have always been honest and upfront with my clients. And despite all the current reality in the U.S. I have done a lot of business on a handshake and a given word because that's how I was brought up, that MEANS something to me. I know that I always seek the best interest of my clients, and if someone does not think so, they are welcome not to do business with me.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Mar. 1, 2005
    Location
    Wellborn, Florida
    Posts
    698

    Default

    The fact that the mare was returned "at death's door" is an absolute blatant LIE. I have pictures of the mare and witnesses from when the mare left my farm AND when the mare arrived at the destination.

    Quote Originally Posted by Janet View Post
    Being devastated at the mare's condition is one thing, and perfectly justified.

    But that is not what you said. You said she was devastated that an embryo had been taken without her knowledge, which is something quite different entirely.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Jan. 11, 2011
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Make no mistake: Paula Estess has nothing to do with any horse, any embryos or any business deals. She has never owned a horse, let alone the horse in question.


    Thank you Lord!



  18. #38
    Join Date
    Jun. 9, 2003
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    5,497

    Default

    What is with all the mudslinging of late out of the blue on this message board? If the OP doesn't have a "dog in the fight" - what is the big deal and the axe being ground by her? Sounds more like a vendetta regarding someone else's business. Get a life!
    PennyG


    8 members found this post helpful.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Jun. 21, 2004
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,068

    Default

    The OPs last comment? WTF was that point?
    *^*^*^
    Himmlische Traumpferde
    "Wenn Du denkst es geht nicht mehr, kommt von irgendwo ein kleines Licht daher"


    2 members found this post helpful.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Jan. 11, 2011
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TKR View Post
    What is with all the mudslinging of late out of the blue on this message board? If the OP doesn't have a "dog in the fight" - what is the big deal and the axe being ground by her? Sounds more like a vendetta regarding someone else's business. Get a life!
    PennyG
    If you go back and read my prior posts on this thread, you'll see that I was discreet, did not name names, and was searching for information regarding a subject that I have limited knowledge of. There is only one poster doing any mudslinging.



Similar Threads

  1. Freezing Embryos
    By Bent Hickory in forum Sport Horse Breeding
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May. 30, 2012, 10:47 AM
  2. Freezing Embryos
    By Bent Hickory in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May. 30, 2012, 10:38 AM
  3. freezing embryos
    By omare in forum Sport Horse Breeding
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: Jan. 5, 2011, 08:27 AM
  4. Replies: 13
    Last Post: Apr. 2, 2010, 12:50 PM
  5. Selling Embryos
    By jse in forum Sport Horse Breeding
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: Feb. 5, 2009, 12:03 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness