• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

Marsha Parkinson breeding horses, again, still, never quit?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Originally posted by caballero View Post
    This attitude of "the end justifies the means" is truly frightening.
    I've got to agree. The end rarely (if ever) justifies the means, just in general terms.

    Comment


    • #42
      I post it on such a regular basis...Leo Maxwell Coutts, Alberta 5 minutes from the Montana border. Fairfax Farms was the name I used for showing Arabians. I showed at my first major show, Estes Park Colorado (it became the National Show) in 1958 when I was 8. I bred and or showed US and Canadian Top Tens, Halter, EP and Park..I also showed the U.S. National Reserve Futurity Champion (those were the days when there were 40 or more in a class.

      I owned *Luxxor by Patron, Bur Basta by Ferzon, Torodansk by Gdansk (co-owned with another breeder) , Serinado by Serinask etc.

      Our family sent the first two out of the country mares to Bask after he won at Scottsdale. I sold *Pagana III to Bru Mar Ba Arabians when they were founding their Spanish program.

      I was also very active in Arabian Horse Racing..Bur Basta sired Race Filly of the Year and she also became U.S. Race Horse Arabian of the Year.

      I acquired Saddlebreds about 10 years ago and have had them shown from North Carolina to Scottsdale.

      Maybe we know each other if you were showing over 10 years ago. Yes..it is a very small world..I am happy that so many know me. The U.S. Nationals and Scottsdale Shows are always like a family reunion for me
      The Elephant in the room

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by Bluey View Post
        No one is excusing the skinny horses.
        "Looking at the pictures" only is not helping anyone understand this a bit more complicated case than what pictures show.

        I am noting that there is more to this story than the horses, already explained why I think so.
        Remember, two wrongs never make anything right.

        You can do what is right for the horses without doing wrong while doing it AND the court seems to have agreed in this case.
        Well not quite. Fairfax‘s tge horses were fed, they were old, 75% of them were not in a seize-able state seems pretty excusey to me. No acknowledgement that yes, clearly at least some of them were downright starved (not just oops they‘re a bit skinny because age blah blah).

        Sure if there‘s a bigger story about legal shenanigans that‘s fine, if the county did wrong they should be punished. But the horses in the pictures are starved.
        Proud Member Of The Lady Mafia

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by microbovine View Post
          The bottom line is that if you aren't doing it wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
          That's why these guys have really nothing to do

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by Fairfax View Post
            Oh...wait....you are impowered by the internet and your ability to slander and assault anyone you wish WITHOUT disclosing who you are../..

            I am very happy that after February Marsha will be able to formally file lawsuits against many of the agencies AND individuals.
            Dear Fairfax,
            Slander refers to spoken words or gestures. Libel refers to written words or gestures.

            Please stop using ad hominem arguments, as they only serve to increase the credibility of the opposing side, which helps them and harms you.

            I work in dispute mediation (disclaimer: I am not an attorney). My experience is that those with the weakest cases use threats and ad hominem attacks in an effort to assuage narcissistic injuries, and to draw attention away from the inherent weakness of their cases; those with strong cases have no need to resort to such tactics, as the facts speak for themselves.

            The general rule that we use is "the stronger you feel about a case, the less emotion you should show" in both speech and writing, as strong emotion is seen as a sign of weakness, vulnerability.

            Please also refrain from using gendered language (e.g., "carry on ladies") in your arguments, as that gives the reader the impression that the writer (i.e., you) believes females to be of lower status, than the male writer, which weakens your position even further.

            Very Respectfully,
            Amber
            Last edited by californianinkansas; Feb. 17, 2013, 10:39 AM. Reason: Punctuation. I need more Diet Coke to wake me up.
            PA Hi-Ly Visible [PA Hi-Noon (by Magnum Psyche) x Takara Padrona (by *Padron)]

            Proud member of the Snort and Blow Clique

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by Coanteen View Post
              Well not quite. Fairfax‘s tge horses were fed, they were old, 75% of them were not in a seize-able state seems pretty excusey to me. No acknowledgement that yes, clearly at least some of them were downright starved (not just oops they‘re a bit skinny because age blah blah).
              If I'm remembering correctly, the last time this went down on this board, Fairfax and crew also tried to claim that the photos of the horses had been photoshopped and or someone had added stripes of dirt and fluffed and flattened hair to simulate ribs, hips and spines showing.
              "Aye God, Woodrow..."

              Comment


              • #47
                Please explain that to DEFHR. They recently posted a picture of one of the older mares and they stated she needed a special home as she suffered by old age anorexia and therefore was unable to retain any weight despite the best of care and feed.

                Marsha was wrong to care so deeply. She had put down horses the previous fall as they "lost their spark" She had these horses for most of all of their lives and when they no longer wanted to snort, blow, perk their ears and or went off their feed, the vet was called. I told her she should have just killed them...would have saved her a bundle...when I posted that...oh oh...now I hated horses...hated people...Bottom line...the case is over EXCEPT for Marsha's day in court

                The bullies on this forum can continue but everytime they post they also expose who they are and what they are not.

                There is a lot of information on this forum and other forums regarding the legalities etc. Most of the anti Marsha posters are, in fact, volunteers or supporters of the rescues of HSUS and in one case a couple from New York State who were befriended by Marsha who helped them with their breeding program, sold them mares at low prices to assist them..and then they turned on her and and tried to work with the Polish Breeders Group and DEFHR to get the cream de la cream for the adoption fee. THAT is why these little groups stated they wanted the horses to go WITH THEIR PAPERS.

                As for the New York Couple...they just post on here and ABN under a "new name" ..

                How about COTH adopt a policy from A Black Horse. You do not have to sign who you are UNLESS the post is negative in nature or accusatory.

                Only Bullies hide behind an avator name. And for those new to the foruy...Women against Women...GG rescue group stated on their blog that Marsha was an elderly SINGLE woman, living alone and this is her phone number AND how to locate her farm.

                Until Phyllis Chesler's now-classic book A Womans Inhumanity to Women, a profound silence prevailed about woman’s inhumanity to woman. Women's aggression may not take the same form as men's, but girls and women are indeed aggressive, often indirectly and mainly toward one another. They judge harshly, hold grudges, gossip, exclude, and disconnect from other women
                The Elephant in the room

                Comment


                • #48
                  Fairfax, I definitely did not show at the levels you did, but I was part of a barn that did - do you remember the name of a barn in NC called Brasswood Arabians? I definitely know of the stallions and lines you speak of. Very nice horses! Dixieland Arabians is another barn I spent a lot of time with at shows.

                  One of my childhood friends owns and shows Saddlebreds. She trains with Omega.

                  Since I showed in the early 90's and I had a horse that did the hunters (which was so very different from the real thing!), I was kinda the black sheep of the barn. They were supportive of me, of course, but they were hoping I would at least switch to Country English Pleasure LOL!

                  I do not give my name openly here due to my profession as well as simply not wanting to. However, many of us know each other IRL. Now that I know more about you, I suppose I am even more confused about your position in all of this; I know you would never allow any of your horses to get as thin as the ones shown. I am sure Marsha is not the devil incarnate, but her horses were not in good condition by any true horseman's opinion. The hooves alone were a major give-away. I know what it is like to learn that a friend has been accused of wrong-doing. You want to be supportive, but there is an inner conflict regarding the facts presented. You can still care about and support your friend as well as acknowledge that the horses were in very poor condition.
                  Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people.
                  W. C. Fields

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by californianinkansas View Post
                    Dear Fairfax,
                    Slander refers to spoken words or gestures. Libel refers to written words or gestures.

                    Please stop using ad hominem arguments, as they only serve to increase the credibility of the opposing side, which helps them and harms you.

                    I work in dispute mediation (disclaimer: I am not an attorney). My experience is that those with the weakest cases use threats and ad hominem attacks in an effort to assuage narcissistic injuries, and to draw attention away from the inherent weakness of their cases; those with strong cases have no need to resort to such tactics, as the facts speak for themselves.

                    The general rule that we use is "the stronger you feel about a case, the less emotion you should show" in both speech and writing, as strong emotion is seen as a sign of weakness, vulnerability.

                    Please also refrain from using gendered language (e.g., "carry on ladies") in your arguments, as that gives the reader the impression that the writer (i.e., you) believes females to be of lower status, than the male writer, which weakens your position even further.

                    Very Respectfully,
                    Amber
                    Dear Amber

                    I guess there truly is an age barrier. I was raised to believe you still call a woman, a lady, even if you are giving her the benefit of the doubt. I guess you never read Dorothy Parker, nor Clare Luce Booth.

                    The attacks on Marsha, by a group of posters is nothing less than malicious and in many cases involved slander.

                    The turfing of the case due to fraud most certainly points to malicious intent. Call it what you may.

                    For those, who have read about the case and continue to repeat over and over and over the same stories is libel and what many posters do not understand..IF the person wronged goes to court they can serve the moderators of a forum with papers to have them disclose the true identity of the posters.
                    The Elephant in the room

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by californianinkansas View Post
                      Please also refrain from using gendered language (e.g., "carry on ladies") in your arguments, as that gives the reader the impression that the writer (i.e., you) believes females to be of lower status, than the male writer, which weakens your position even further.
                      LOL....at you......

                      Comment


                      • #51
                        Originally posted by Eye in the Sky View Post
                        Fairfax, I definitely did not show at the levels you did, but I was part of a barn that did - do you remember the name of a barn in NC called Brasswood Arabians? I definitely know of the stallions and lines you speak of. Very nice horses! Dixieland Arabians is another barn I spent a lot of time with at shows.

                        One of my childhood friends owns and shows Saddlebreds. She trains with Omega.

                        Since I showed in the early 90's and I had a horse that did the hunters (which was so very different from the real thing!), I was kinda the black sheep of the barn. They were supportive of me, of course, but they were hoping I would at least switch to Country English Pleasure LOL!

                        I do not give my name openly here due to my profession as well as simply not wanting to. However, many of us know each other IRL. Now that I know more about you, I suppose I am even more confused about your position in all of this; I know you would never allow any of your horses to get as thin as the ones shown. I am sure Marsha is not the devil incarnate, but her horses were not in good condition by any true horseman's opinion. The hooves alone were a major give-away. I know what it is like to learn that a friend has been accused of wrong-doing. You want to be supportive, but there is an inner conflict regarding the facts presented. You can still care about and support your friend as well as acknowledge that the horses were in very poor condition.
                        Thank you for your response. I did not know Marsha until I heard about the seizure. I knew of her breeding program and a quick survey of many of the tope breeders in the U.S. confirmed something was amiss.

                        It is fascinating reading and no one has denied there was a lack of QUALIFY feed. But there were many reasons for that...This is a case that could have been corrected and was in the process AFTER the lawyers removed a blockage on a piece of property she had for sale. This other side refuses to acknowledge that the conditions were met..on a 30 day order and the HSUS rep Stacy decided to push it and seize all of the horses as it would be a good training opportunity for her equine division. The courts determined she illegally cancelled the order (also without authority) and the county of Queen Anne was remise as they also allowed that to happen

                        I had worked on some other cases and there was a group of us who became known to each other and we independantly decided to offer our assistance. By doing research for no charge, we were able to give cases to the lawyers and also continue our research on HSUS and their assault against horse and livestock breeders and producers.

                        There were problems however as previously stated...this is a woman who was so very well respected and did not have any history of a skinny horse...she had been approved to import major stallions, Equifor and Ganges from Poland and she had a herd of mares unrivaled in the U.S. The Economy, Equifor producing over 40 colts before he was returned...she had deposits on 30 plus fillies...and the famous hindsight is 100%.

                        It is hard for those who simply own a horse...are not breeders...to understand.

                        This was a case that could have been resolved and the horses could have stayed at the farm. But that was not the agenda of HSUS and DEFHR and they also sold the kool-aid to other affiliates that they could rake in millions in donations AND force Marsha to sell her remaining farm and they could take that money also.

                        This was NEVER about the horses.
                        The Elephant in the room

                        Comment


                        • #52
                          And Nancy Mackall was on the USPA's polo pony welfare committee....she killed at least 20 horses and starved 10 more. Past history and reputation mean nothing really...facts matter, that's all.

                          Do you deny that Marsha had extremely thin, unhandled horses?

                          Comment


                          • #53
                            Originally posted by Fairfax View Post
                            Lets see...SHE WON...and if she could have spent another $75,000 there would have been no conditions...



                            Blue...what ever you are...DEFHR stated old age anorexia...Marsha never did....
                            Let me see...

                            Um, no she didn't win. She plead No Contest as part of a plea deal. Now, before you (Leo) start to yap about how plea deals are only offered or accepted when the prosecuting attorney is worried about losing in court? I am sure you (Leo) are aware that 98% of all animal neglect cases end in this way...if charges are even brought in the first place. A plea deal doesn't mean she won anything. It doesn't mean there wasn't enough evidence to convict her through trial. It means that most of our criminal cases in this country (FYI, not Leo's country) end in plea deals.

                            If she had WON she would have gotten back ALL her horses, not just a number stipulated in the plea deal, where she had to prove that she had a way to afford that number before getting a single one back. If she had WON she would not have had to accept surprise site checks from animal control. An agency that, by the way, you swore she was in the process of suing. How far as that law suit gotten, Secret Squirrel?

                            She LOST. Just because her verdict was stipulated doesn't mean she won. Anything. At all. She didn't go to jail, but animal neglect cases almost never end in jail time. Of course, you (Leo) should know that, since you are such a crack investigator and all.

                            As for the defense of old age anorexia? Haven't you (Leo) been saying for almost three years now that you are an INSIDER in the Canterbury case? Haven't you been swearing up one forum and down another that you are intimately involved in every aspect of Marsha's defense? And haven't you (Leo) been advancing the, "Well, those skinny horses are all old broodmares and everyone knows that the old horses are supposed to look like sh*t"? Then, when the ages of some of the skinniest horses were released, the refrain from you (Leo) became, "Yes, but...those pictures have been Photoshopped or the horses were cosmetically altered to make it look like they were skinny"?

                            Think long and hard before you answer, Leo. Because, indeed, you have been saying it was old age anorexia for a long, long time. And you have also been saying you have Marsha Parkinson's full support in everything you say. All that insider stuff you talk about. Not DEFER. Not HSUS. YOU.

                            I have yet to see a post from you, on any forum, where you have openly signed your name. I have seen you hound women on forums that disagree with you. I have seen you mount a public smear campaign against women who disagree with you. I have seen you belittle and use derogatory language towards women who disagree with you. I have personally seen your creepy stalking behavior towards women who disagree with you, me included. But I have NEVER seen you sign your NAME to any forum post.

                            Stick a fork in your a**. You are done.
                            Sheilah

                            Comment


                            • #54
                              It was stated that there was hay and it was fed daily however it was from the local producer as Marsha was unable to raise more money to purchase top line hay from New York State. The wife of the Animal Control had been the head of the lande development department for the county that put the restriction on the tract of land she had a buyer for. That property was her "safety net" in her business plan as it was very desirable and would always find a buyer. Coupled with the down turn in the economy, the collapse of the horse market..she thought she was still going to be okay. Then the seizure. And, as you know, she was unable to raise any money (a friend had purchased $15,000 worth of hay and the first load arrived just after the conditions were laid out by the A.C. A second load arrived on the day of the seizure and was re-routed elsewhere...Our group was able to access money for Marsha by finding a major buyer for her library. That gave her the money to hire a top law firm...and their first act was to challenge the county and have the block removed. Then, she had sufficient capital to pay for their services and fight to get her horses back. Her legal fees were in excess of $700,000. I should note that the complaint against Marsha was signed by a land developer who wanted THAT tract of land however did not want to pay the price she had on it. She had another buyer...

                              Just consider the alternative...the AC would not have worked with HSUS to seize the horses. The hay would have arrived and been top quality because there would not have been an agenda driven ban blocking the sale of the property.

                              We have a woman who NEVER had a history of neglect caught doing her best because of orchestrated events. That money, rather than going to lawyers would have gone into the horses, and she would have also been able to board fence an ajoining piece of pasture property she also owned.

                              I have said and will continue....this was an agenda driven seizure. It had nothing to do with the horses except for those who wanted to acquire them for pennies on the dollar from DEFHR

                              Her horses have been inspected monthly for one year. The draught is over and her farm land was able to produce amounts of hay to support all of the horses returned.

                              Rather than harshness and judgements..put yourself in a similar position. this was not a case where Marsha dined out and travelled. It was shocked to discover she had no heat for one year..no hot running water..as she put the money into feed rather than her own comfort.

                              That is one of the many many reasons I defend this woman. There, but for the grace of GOD ..go I
                              The Elephant in the room

                              Comment


                              • #55
                                Like a dog with a bone.......
                                ************************
                                \"Horses lend us the wings we lack\"

                                Comment


                                • #56
                                  Originally posted by Fairfax View Post
                                  There, but for the grace of GOD ..go I
                                  No. Absolutely not, not in a million years.

                                  Because if any of my horses were in the sack-of-bones condition (and really, less-than-top-line hay did this? Really?) shown in the linked pictures, they'd have been euthed. I've euthed my beloved elderly pets before they got to looking like that, gobbledygook about "sparks in their eyes" notwithstanding.

                                  Heck, my own parents were unfortunately unable to see that our 19 year old family cat was looking like a bonerack, and that cat wasn't as bad as some of those horses. I got home on a Fri, and cat was euthed on Sat before noon.

                                  No. I will NOT be going there, grace of God notwithstanding.
                                  Proud Member Of The Lady Mafia

                                  Comment


                                  • #57
                                    Originally posted by IdahoRider View Post
                                    Let me see...

                                    Um, no she didn't win. She plead No Contest as part of a plea deal. Now, before you (Leo) start to yap about how plea deals are only offered or accepted when the prosecuting attorney is worried about losing in court? I am sure you (Leo) are aware that 98% of all animal neglect cases end in this way...if charges are even brought in the first place. A plea deal doesn't mean she won anything. It doesn't mean there wasn't enough evidence to convict her through trial. It means that most of our criminal cases in this country (FYI, not Leo's country) end in plea deals.

                                    If she had WON she would have gotten back ALL her horses, not just a number stipulated in the plea deal, where she had to prove that she had a way to afford that number before getting a single one back. If she had WON she would not have had to accept surprise site checks from animal control. An agency that, by the way, you swore she was in the process of suing. How far as that law suit gotten, Secret Squirrel?

                                    She LOST. Just because her verdict was stipulated doesn't mean she won. Anything. At all. She didn't go to jail, but animal neglect cases almost never end in jail time. Of course, you (Leo) should know that, since you are such a crack investigator and all.

                                    As for the defense of old age anorexia? Haven't you (Leo) been saying for almost three years now that you are an INSIDER in the Canterbury case? Haven't you been swearing up one forum and down another that you are intimately involved in every aspect of Marsha's defense? And haven't you (Leo) been advancing the, "Well, those skinny horses are all old broodmares and everyone knows that the old horses are supposed to look like sh*t"? Then, when the ages of some of the skinniest horses were released, the refrain from you (Leo) became, "Yes, but...those pictures have been Photoshopped or the horses were cosmetically altered to make it look like they were skinny"?

                                    Think long and hard before you answer, Leo. Because, indeed, you have been saying it was old age anorexia for a long, long time. And you have also been saying you have Marsha Parkinson's full support in everything you say. All that insider stuff you talk about. Not DEFER. Not HSUS. YOU.

                                    I have yet to see a post from you, on any forum, where you have openly signed your name. I have seen you hound women on forums that disagree with you. I have seen you mount a public smear campaign against women who disagree with you. I have seen you belittle and use derogatory language towards women who disagree with you. I have personally seen your creepy stalking behavior towards women who disagree with you, me included. But I have NEVER seen you sign your NAME to any forum post.

                                    Stick a fork in your a**. You are done.
                                    Sheilah


                                    Sheila...so many have asked you to quit stocking me. On THIS forum. They have even posted their requests. I don't know which forums these would be...I have only posted on COTH Speak Easy and rarely on ABH.

                                    You have accused me of stalking however I find that difficult to understand as I am on dial up...I did post against your buddy who joined the ranks of DEFHR and was so proud to brag to a director of AHA that she was brining down one of the major breeders of Arabians and it would shock the world. You are correct. I confronted her on FB...

                                    Guess this is the Make me feel special day for you Sheila. You already know that the courts determined that she could file her intent for lawsuits against the county, HSUS and other players and individuals...she did have that filed...and she could also proceed AFTER the end of this month.

                                    We already know what HSUS was suggesting for the photo ops. It was included in the DEFHR notes turned over when the horses were released.

                                    Marsha was asked HOW MANY horses she wanted to return. She consulted with her lawyers and as previously stated..she could have them ALL but her fees would increase by another $75,000 or so.

                                    She actually achieved what she was trying to do. She reduced her numbers by 50%. Now who is the idiot

                                    Please show me where I have ever used the word anorexia priot to DEFHR just using it. . Hasn't occured. Ever. Marsha never posted so we know she didn't state it. Her defence team do not have a record of it. ONLY DEFHR have used it as THEIR defence as to why the old horses have not been able to sustain a healthy weight balance.

                                    The seiazure was deemed illegal. And..as I posted before...the courts actually encouraged her to file lawsuits by removing the amount the county could be sued for (usually there is a civic amount but this has been over ruled)

                                    So Sheila...I don't care what you say avbout me as what you think of me is none of my concern.

                                    You have been accused by the COTH community of continuing to stalk me...I really don't care.

                                    Did you ever think you can just google my name Fairfax and you will discover who I am. I have also pointed that out. As I have a business I do not direct anyone to my website as that would be a violation of this forums rules.

                                    As for you...care to share your last name for those who don't know it to be informed> Remember how you posted on one of the threads about having to move your horse (one horse) to another facility. When I asked you if you found a spot you accused me of stalking...eh????how does one stock when they repeat what you had posted. ???? As for your Oklahoma buddy...very quiet isn't she...no more posting as the roving reporter as the seiaure was taking place. Rightfully so, she has earned the contempt of the Arabian Horse community and the majority of the BOD.

                                    Not one horse died on the property. Marsha had euthanized some before the winter and HSUS demanded she put some down or they threatened her with immediate jail time . Courts took note of that little point.

                                    Also Sheila...since you are a self proclaimed authority...did you know that where a plea bargain happens they give the person a ban from ever owning a pet, horse, bird ..not only did she not receive any ban...she was asked how many she felt she could financially take care of. ...Facts have always been ignored by you and the truth is not your friend.
                                    The Elephant in the room

                                    Comment


                                    • #58
                                      Originally posted by Fairfax View Post
                                      We have a woman who NEVER had a history of neglect caught doing her best because of orchestrated events.

                                      Her horses have been inspected monthly for one year. The draught is over and her farm land was able to produce amounts of hay to support all of the horses returned.

                                      Rather than harshness and judgements..put yourself in a similar position.
                                      Too bad that "doing her best" included protecting her reputation for MONTHS prior to the horses actually being seized. Remember her public outrage when the rescue questioned the condition of the young stock she "donated"? How much time elapsed between that and the seizure? How many days did those 150+ horses in her care and control go without in order for her to say that everything was hunky-dory at Canterbury? Too bad that "doing her best" required criminal charges in order for her to actually take steps to provide adequately. Of course, once the horses were seized, the gig was up and she no longer had anything to protect. Right? THEN she started to say that she had money issues, and couldn't get quality hay. After the fact. Because before that she was extremely clear about the state of her affairs being just fine, thank you very much!

                                      If you are able to acknowledge that she has had court ordered inspections, how in God's name can you claim that she "won"? People who win don't have court ordered inspections.

                                      And since you have such an insiders view of the goings-on at Canterbury, how many of the unhandled, unregistered young stock did she take back when she decided which horses would make up the court ordered number she could have? Did she take back the horses with papers already intact, the ones that she wouldn't have to spend a penny of her newly amassed kitty on getting up to speed, or did she take responsibility for the youngsters that had never been seen by a vet, a farrier or the AHA's registry? Did she claim THOSE horses"? The ones that she had breed, even while knowing that she couldn't afford to care for the ones she already had? Give them an identity within the breed? Start them in some way to give them a value beyond the curiosity of being a seized Canterbury horse?

                                      If it is all about the horse for her, which horses did she choose to stand behind when she was given the opportunity to so?
                                      Sheilah

                                      Comment


                                      • #59
                                        Leo. Answer the questions. Don't try to divert attention. Your constant refrain of, "I know you, but what am I" is doing nothing to further your agenda.
                                        Sheilah

                                        Comment


                                        • #60
                                          Originally posted by californianinkansas View Post
                                          Dear Fairfax,
                                          Slander refers to spoken words or gestures. Libel refers to written words or gestures.

                                          Please stop using ad hominem arguments, as they only serve to increase the credibility of the opposing side, which helps them and harms you.

                                          I work in dispute mediation (disclaimer: I am not an attorney). My experience is that those with the weakest cases use threats and ad hominem attacks in an effort to assuage narcissistic injuries, and to draw attention away from the inherent weakness of their cases; those with strong cases have no need to resort to such tactics, as the facts speak for themselves.

                                          The general rule that we use is "the stronger you feel about a case, the less emotion you should show" in both speech and writing, as strong emotion is seen as a sign of weakness, vulnerability.

                                          Please also refrain from using gendered language (e.g., "carry on ladies") in your arguments, as that gives the reader the impression that the writer (i.e., you) believes females to be of lower status, than the male writer, which weakens your position even further.

                                          Very Respectfully,
                                          Amber
                                          You know, all that sounds so nice and concerned, except that when you only pick on one poster, when others have been and are even more objectionable in their personal attacks, well, all that seems for naught, just one more way to nicely sounding stick your own dagger into the mix for your side.

                                          Example: "Stick a fork in your a**. You are done.
                                          Sheilah"

                                          Honestly! Unbecoming.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X