Some key questions
still not answered:
Why did the Dallas-Ft. Worth Metro Golden Retriever Club Board deny
Plaintiff's Puppy Referral listing for their puppy but allowed another
Puppy Referral listing that included a puppy known to have undescended
testicles?
Why did the Dallas-Ft. Worth Metro Golden
Retriever Club (DFWMGRC) Board refuse to show Plaintiffs
the letter Judy Word solicited from BJ Elliot? Why did BJ Elliot not
want the Plaintiffs to see the letter that Judy Word requested? If what
was written by BJ Elliot was an accurate portrayal of the situation, there should
have been no hesitation to disclose its contents! That letter from
BJ Elliot was used as the basis to not allow Plaintiff's litter listing
to be re-activated on Puppy Referral.
Had the DFWMGRC
Board disclosed to Plaintiffs the email attachment (letter) that was requested by Judy Word of
BJ Elliot, this matter could have been resolved immediately. The type
of umbilical hernia BJ Elliot described in the email solicited from him by
Judy Word was a situation whereby Dr. Esmond was describing of another
litter in another breed and was actually referring to littermates that had
very large hernias. During that conversation, Dr. Esmond was describing
what 'could' happen with hernias as large as those he had witnessed in that other
breed and littermates. He was not referring to Plaintiff's puppy. Dr. Esmond stated that Plaintiffs puppy's hernia could wait to be repaired
at the time of his neuter. Dr. Esmond also quoted to Plaintiff after BJ
Elliott left with the puppy after Dr. Esmond's exam that the additional
charge to repair Plaintiff's puppy's umbilical hernia at the time of
neuter would be $65. Plaintiffs were fully prepared to pay for the
additional cost had BJ Elliot kept the puppy. Plaintiffs did pay the
$65 additional cost when the puppy was neutered by his forever home.
Had Dr. Esmond
been allowed by the Dallas-Ft. Worth Metro Golden Retriever Club Board to testify at Plaintiff's Disciplinary Hearing
(Board denied Plaintiff's right to call this witness), and had
Linda Marquart been called as a witness by the DFWMGRC Board for
Plaintiffs to cross examine
with regards to the timeline, this entire matter would have been
immediately resolved and the subsequent lawsuit never would have been needed to be filed.
However, that not
having been the case, please read on...
The Plaintiffs
learned that their puppy was being denied being listed by the DFWMGRC
Board after, the Plaintiffs had spoken with Judy Word on the evening of
April 22, 2007 whereby she referenced a letter from the Board that she
stated was
sent to the Plaintiffs detailing the Board's reasons for denying listing
the puppy. Plaintiffs had not received any such letter.
Plaintiff's issue was that the DFWMGRC
Board had known of other dogs/puppies listed on DFWMGRC Puppy Referral that were
not 'perfect'. Umbilical hernias and undescended testicles can
potentially both correct themselves but also both potentially will require
surgery. There has never been a requirement by the DFWMGRC to disclose
ANY imperfection with a puppy through Puppy Referral. That is what
Plaintiffs were opposed to, and Plaintiffs also had the knowledge that
Dick Caldwell had a litter of puppies whereby within that litter there were puppy(s)
with an undescended testicle and two Board members, Judy Word and Debra
Allen, had first hand
knowledge of his puppy's condition(s). Did the fact that Dick
Caldwell's litter was related to Judy Word's breeding program make a
difference to her? Plaintiffs contended that
this was simply a Constitution and
Bylaws issue and stated to the Board that they fully intended to disclose
the umbilical hernia to any inquirers. A tape-recorded conversation
with Judy Word speaking
with Plaintiff on 4/23/05 substantiates her having knowledge that Plaintiff
had already disclosed the
hernia to a puppy inquirer and that this whole scenario was in reality a
non-issue.
