|
5.
Plaintiff’s sent the check to Debra Allen in
the mail from their home on or about Feb 16
2005 for their litter listing.
Plaintiff’s sent the CHIC certificate as
received from the stud dog owner which was
rejected by Debra Allen via a phone call to
Plaintiff’s on Feb 19 2005 as she
Debra required the individual
clearances. When Plaintiffs could not
get individual clearances from stud dog in a
timely manner, Debra Allen told Plaintiffs on
February 25 2005 that she had the individual
clearances as she had a stud packet for the
same stud dog Plaintiff’s utilized for subject
litter. Litter was listed for the first
time starting the weekend of February 25 2005
which was to run for 8 weeks.
6. Plaintiff Alan Meyer
stated on April 12 2005 at the Board meeting
that all the available puppies were sold but
that Plaintiff still had 3 females that they
hadn’t decided on yet. Not that the
litter should be removed but as a courtesy,
notified Debra Allen that at that moment there
was nothing immediately available from
Plaintiff’s litter. Debra Allen did not
notify the volunteer on duty to remove the
litter from the listing. Plaintiff’s
Exhibit 4, page 4, Debra Allen states “And,…
al, also that day, later that, early Wednesday
morning I talked to Linda Marquart because she
had just realized she was on Puppy Referral
and didn’t want to be on it anymore and did
not give her the Meyer’s no, litter because
she had said, he had said he wanted
off.”
8.
Again, Debra Allen now has the date wrong,
Plaintiff’s puppy buyer returned their puppy
on April 13 2005. It is becoming
apparent at this point that not only did the
Board conspire before the charges were
preferred and the hearing and sanctions
imposed on Plaintiff’s but that Defendants
again are conspiring within these affidavits
as this is now the second affidavit with dates
incorrectly cited. BJ Elliott did not
leave Judy Word a message that he returned a
puppy due to health problems. Exhibit 4,
pg 5, “When I contacted Judy Word I contacted
her to find a new puppy. Not to tell
anybody about what happened with, with
yours. The only reason why it came up
was (inaudible) why they’d want to know is
because they want to make sure, you know why,
we know, if we already provided a puppy for
you on Puppy Referral, and you bought it, why
did you return it… before we give you the name
of another breeder, you know...what happened…”
Puppy Referral does not have the
right to require any information from a
caller, their job is to educate and refer out
litters listed with puppy referral only.
Judy Word was acting outside of her role of
DFWMGRC President by requiring this
information from BJ Elliott.
9. Again, here the date
is wrong, the next day per Debra Allen’s
affidavit would be Thursday April 21
2005. Timeline has been consistently
incorrect on part of Debra Allen. She is
then speaking about the weekend after
Plaintiffs discovered their litter listing was
not reinstated. We now have hearsay as
Debra Allen did not have any first hand
knowledge what transpired between Judy Word
and Plaintiffs. Debra Allen states
‘harassment’, yet all Plaintiffs were trying
to do was correct a business transaction
between themselves and the Club.
Plaintiff’s paid for a service, the service
was then denied and Plaintiff’s were damaged
at that point not being able to reach their
target clients. The GRCA at that time
did not release the new Puppy Referral manual,
such release was not until June/July
2005. Judy Word was not appointed to the
GRCA Puppy Referral Committee until April 23
2005, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 43, but Judy Word
was participating on the GRCA Puppy Referral
email list as shown with her email on Friday,
April 15 2005 whereby she gives false
information with regards to the scenario with
Plaintiff’s puppy, Plaintiff’s Exhibit
14. However, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 40,
PUPPY REFERRAL as published by the Golden
Retriever Club Of America is a 20 page
document. There are two small paragraphs
in that entire document. First paragraph
is on page 7 which states: “In addition,
your club may want to include in its mail-out
packet a written disclaimer that the club is
providing a referral only, that it is the
buyer’s responsibility to check out every
breeder and make their own decision about
buying a puppy, and that any problems that
arise with the puppy or from their purchase
decision are not the responsibility of your
club. Appendix 4 contains a generic
disclaimer statement that you may use or
modify to suit your club’s needs.” Page
3, Section 2 essentially sums up what this
case is really about… 2. WHERE to
Draw The Line? There is often temptation
on the part of puppy referral volunteers to
make puppy purchase decisions and judgments
for callers, by directing them towards or away
from specific breeders for various
reasons. Problems arise within clubs if
there is a sense that the puppy referral
person is not grating all breeders equally, or
that personal bias on the part of the referral
person is affecting how referrals are made to
the public. The puppy referral person
should simply provide education a materials
and referrals of all breeders that meet the
standards set for that puppy referral
program. It is up to the public how they
use this educational information to make the
best decision they can when buying a
puppy.
It is not unusual for someone to call puppy
referral personnel and ask, “Is this a good
breeder?” or “Should I buy this puppy?”
If the puppy referral person answers such
questions, this club is then set up for
potentially serious liability situations,
depending on the answer. In addition,
answering such questions can stir up conflict
among breeder members of the club. It is often
best if the puppy referral person can limit
answers and advise to comments such as:
‘Our club recommends that you buy only from
someone with these characteristics (state the
standards that your club has established for a
breeder to be listed): Hopefully the
club’s standards are based on the GRCA’s Code
of Ethics and related breeder resolutions.”
It is clear to see that Judy Word drew a very
different picture of what the GRCA was
instituting with regards to liability issues
in order to abuse her power to oust
Plaintiff’s from utilizing the DFWMGRC puppy
referral service.
10.
If Judy Word had a puppy listed on Puppy
Referral, she was ineligible to handle calls
for Puppy Referral, Section II, Standing Rules
For Puppy Referral. Melissa Kato’s email
to Judy stated that Melissa had Judy’s 18
month old listed. Debra Allen was Puppy
Referral Chair at this time, yet neglecting
her duty, told Judy Word to find out who
listed the Plaintiff’s puppy, Judy Word’s
affidavit, paragraph 15, Debra Allen’s email
to Judy Word on May 18, 2005. Debra
Allen neglected to return Plaintiff’s phone
calls with regards to their litter listing so
Plaintiffs and called the volunteer
directly to inquire if their litter was listed
as contracted. Alan Meyer has never been
on the puppy referral committee, only Ellen
Meyer. Alan Meyer called Linda
Marquart. There is nothing in the
Standing Rules or Bylaws that state one cannot
call a member of a committee when the Chair is
neglecting their responsibilities.
Plaintiff’s phone call was not to list a new
listing, it was to verify if a previously
approved and standing listing was being
honored.
11. It
is out of order to discuss preferring charges
with the Board without submitting such charges
and as Debra Allen admits here, that the Board
decided that she should prefer the
charges. Please note that the charges
actually preferred were more than what Debra
Allen states in this paragraph. It is
obvious that the Board already decided what
charges to prefer and that they would uphold
such charges, already finding Plaintiff’s
guilty. It is a violation of the Club
Bylaws to call a board meeting via email and
the Board would have had to call a Special
Meeting. All procedures here are in
violation of the Bylaws. Plaintiff’s
would like to see Debra Allen’s the canceled
check and see what the date was that it was
written.
13.
Board did not hear testimony from Ellen Meyer
with regards to charges preferred against her,
only Alan Meyer was addressed and he attempted
to testify in his defense.
14.
Plaintiff’s puppy was not unhealthy.
Debra Allen, in her capacity as Committee
Chair for Puppy Referral, aside from receiving
litter listings, has not complied with the
duties of Chair for this committee. She
does not have up to date records or any
records. Plaintiff Ellen Meyer had been
a puppy referral volunteer for 10 years and
was never asked during Debra Allen’s tenure as
Chair for any information as required in the
Standing Rules For Puppy Referral. Debra
Allen ran Puppy Referral purely as a litter
listing service, not an educational
service. Section IX: “This
committee shall send informative packets to
inquiring parties (i.e., Acquiring a Golden
retriever, “So you want to breed…” and other
available information.” One cannot send
out any information when one doesn’t follow up
to get the information from the
volunteers! During the time frame
in which Plaintiff’s contract should have been
enforced, Debra Allen had first hand knowledge
that Dick Caldwell’s litter had a puppy(s)
with undescended testicle(s) and did not
require that Dick Caldwell provide a statement
or that the volunteers be required to disclose
that litter had known health issues which
could have potentially required serious
invasive abdominal surgery. Any actions
towards Plaintiffs were made in bad faith,
arbitrary and with malice as Plaintiffs were
not being treated equally to other Club
members who were related to Board member’s
dogs. If Debra Allen was truly doing all
she could to protect the integrity of the Club
and the Golden Retriever Breed, she would
require that any litters to be listed on
DFWMGRC Puppy Referral at the very least, meet
the requirements of clearances that the GRCA
requires for advertising in the GRCA
publications. Debra Allen has served on
the Club’s Bylaw Committee and neglected to
recommend that the DFWMGRC meet those minimum
requirements. DFWMGRC Constitution and
Bylaws, Article 1, Section 2, Club Objectives,
letter B states “and additionally to follow
the GRCA’s Code of Ethics regarding
responsible breeding. The GRCA Code Of
Ethics, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 44, bottom of
page, “GRCA members are expected to follow AKC
requirements for record keeping,
identification of animals, and registration
procedures. Animals selected for
breeding should: section (iii) possess
the following examination reports in order to
verify status concerning possible hip
dysplasia, hereditary eye or cardiovascular
disease, and elbow dysplasia” Yet, the
DFWMGRC does not require the elbow dysplasia
report. By not requiring that report, as
stated in the GRCA Code Of Ethics, which in
Article I, Section 2B of the DFWMGRC Bylaws
states that the DFWMGRC Club Objective is to
following the GRCA’s Code of Ethics regarding
responsible breeding. Plaintiff’s had
all four of the examination reports available
for both the sire and dam of their listed
litter which went above and beyond the
requirements for the DFWMGRC puppy referral
service! The unlisted litter that was
referred out by a puppy referral volunteer did
not have all the GRCA recommended clearances,
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 45. Yet sire and dam of
Plaintiff’s litter did have those clearances
and Plaintiff did adhere to the DFWMGRC
Constitution, Bylaws and Standing Rules.
|
