|
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.
|
