If there are all these outstanding judgements against her, couldn’t her assets, i.e. horses, ordered to be sold to satisfy said judgments ?
So wouldn’t it be in the best interest of anyone who is owed money to file in order to get a judgment ?
[QUOTE=Elfe;6770979]
If there are all these outstanding judgements against her, couldn’t her assets, i.e. horses, ordered to be sold to satisfy said judgments ?
So wouldn’t it be in the best interest of anyone who is owed money to file in order to get a judgment ?[/QUOTE]
That is what we have been saying all along. Hopefully now that there is an auction to raise funds for legal fees among other things that will be exactly what happens.
[QUOTE=Pixtwo;6770451]
I find it interesting that out of 30 horses, the MHS could only find two that they felt were being neglected.
I’ve seen no pictures of the horse to show body condition or needing hoof attention. Yet most of you seem to think all the horses are going to be seized in a day or two because they are in deplorable condition.
Where’s the proof? Why not name the confiscated horses? Why the secrecy?[/QUOTE]
[I]From COTH article, and anyone that watches Animal Cops 
"Carrie Harrington, spokesperson of the MHS, spoke generally about the process the MHS investigators undergo during potentially neglectful or abusive situations. She explained that there are instances in which animals are not receiving proper care—generally food, water, shelter and adequate veterinary attention. If the animals are in immediate danger, the investigators may have grounds to immediately impound the animals.
“There might be an instance where the animal is not receiving proper shelter but not in immediate danger,” Harrington said. In those cases, the investigators often work with the owners and caretakers to improve the living conditions. Usually the process involves specific instructions to increase education and follow up visits to ensure compliance."[/I]
Your statement that Marin felt only 2 horses were being neglected is ignorant and wrong. Marin may feel all horses are being neglected, only the 2 were in “immediate danger,” as in Marin felt they would likely die in a matter of hours or days without their intervention. The other 28 horses are being neglected, and per their policy, they are working with the owner with specific instructions and timelines to get those horses properly cared for. If any horse’s condition deteriorates in that time frame where the horse is in danger of death, Marin will seize them. Which is what happened on January 4th when they seized 2 more.
Jill’s neglect is not as simple as the horses being fat and seeing a vet when needed. It also includes adequate shelter and containment. Something it sounds like she’s having a difficult time providing right now. The 26 horses still on the property may very well be the picture of health, but they’ll still be seized if she doesn’t provide shelter and containment per Marin’s instructions and within the time frame they demand.
Regarding your other 2 ignorant points:
The proof will be provided by Marin in due time.
The secrecy and lack of names is for legal purposes. It not only helps protect Marin’s case against Jill, but it also helps protect Jill! Jill Burnell and her attorney should be happy for the current level “secrecy”.
my guess, based on hunch and also wording of what Weems said - is that none of the horses (or only Ahoha?) are in her name anymore.
my guess is that they all belong to others…
and to be clear: i am absolutely supporting those that have been wronged… however, i would hate to see JB get out of anything because of this thread or posts on FB etc.
I have suspected the bolded part of your statement to be true for some time now. I’m betting that they are in her husband’s name or another close friend or family member and have been since the very first lawsuit against her popped up.
Correct Greenie, (not so Green at all it seems). Mr. Adamo is alive and well in Sonoma County w/ no connection to this case and no plans for a trip to Georgia.
[QUOTE=Lord Helpus;6770878]
But it costs very litle to file a lawsuit against her. California has “fill in the blank” forms; you do not even need an attorney. <snip>
Point being: there is no excuse for doing nothing.[/QUOTE]
Not everyone lives in CA though. So it does make it quite a bit more difficult.
[QUOTE=trubandloki;6771312]
Not everyone lives in CA though. So it does make it quite a bit more difficult.[I]
It has been mentioned several times on this thread by real life lawyers that you don’t necessarily have to file in CA. There is no excuse for not pursuing this to the fullest extent of the law. That is the only way to make sure there are no new victims. You saw her newsletter, it has a buy in now link. Some poor sap clicks that button and there is now one new victim. Only the victims have the power to put an end to this.
Perhaps someone has already pointed this out but if a stallion is injured in a fight with another stallion that is NEGLECT.
Chris Rush
Fair Winds Farm
It has been mentioned several times on this thread by real life lawyers that you don’t necessarily have to file in CA. There is no excuse for not pursuing this to the fullest extent of the law. That is the only way to make sure there are no new victims. You saw her newsletter, it has a buy in now link. Some poor sap clicks that button and there is now one new victim. Only the victims have the power to put an end to this.[/QUOTE]
I did see that, I was responding to that one poster who was talking about how easy it is in CA so therefor it is easy for everyone.
[QUOTE=trubandloki;6771312]
Not everyone lives in CA though. So it does make it quite a bit more difficult.[/QUOTE]
You do not have to live in California to sue in California. JB lives in California and that gives the state jurisdiction over her.
The forms are probably available on line.
The only problem with filing in California is that the Plaintiff will have to make an appearance in California for the hearing. Perhaps a current California attorney could confirm the law on this point, but I would be surprised if an agent (friend) couldn’t make an appearance in your behalf. Or an appearance via Skype, etc.
Bottom line, you need to appear at the hearing in order to get a default judgment against her. If you file in small claims court, then JB’s attorney CANNOT make an appearance on her behalf. I do not know the maximum award available to Plaintiffs is in small claims court; it is probably in the ballpark of $10,000. If she owes you more and you file in small claims court, then you waive the right to collect any damages in excess of the maximum award.
But, it appears that the goal of actually getting money out of her is secondary to having a lot of Judgments against her on the record. And $10,000 is better than not doing anything.
[QUOTE=trubandloki;6771312]
Not everyone lives in CA though. So it does make it quite a bit more difficult.[I]
In the state of Maryland the district court handles small claims up to $5,000. It is as simple as filing a complaint form and having the out of state person served by certified mail.
[QUOTE=trubandloki;6771312]
Not everyone lives in CA though. So it does make it quite a bit more difficult.[/QUOTE]
In the state of Maryland the district court handles small claims up to $5,000. It is as simple as filing a complaint form and having the out of state person served by certified mail.
PS: I have no idea if other states will recognize jurisdiction over JB in small claims court. Plaintiff will have to establish that jurisdiction is appropriate (i.e. that Plaintiff lives in ND and the agreement to sell/loan/lease the horse was made in ND.
That is certainly possible, and, if filed in Small Claims court, JB’s attorney may not be able to question jurisdiction.
Gotta run now, but if anyone has questions they can PM me.
NOTE: I am not a current member of the California Bar, and so the suggestions explained above MAY NOT represent current law in that (or any other) state. These are just examples of what might happen. Everyone needs to do their own checking and find out the current law for their state.
I believe all the forms you need for small claims in CA can be found here:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/forms.htm?filter=SC
All other possible forms needed can also be found at that link by changing the option in the dropdown box.
Information about SC in CA.
Info on California small claims court can be found here -
http://dca.lacounty.gov/tsHow2SueSmalClaims.html
It says County of Los Angeles, but is based on California law. Pay particular attention to the statute of limitations listed on the above link.
Forms are here - http://www.courts.ca.gov/forms.htm?filter=SC .
[QUOTE=Daventry;6769129]
Can someone please confirm what DAY you received the newsletter?[/QUOTE]
Note the address on the ad.
Gray Fox Farm | 324 Hannan Ranch Lane | Petaluma | CA | 94952
fwiw, it looks like that blast was sent via constantcontact - and online email blast provider.
you can create blasts to be sent at a future date as well as have them sent right away…and also the business info, including address is part of the subscription info… so i am not sure the address points in any direction except maybe that they forgot to update their address when they moved (pretty sure we all have dont that before, i know i have)
COTH updated their article.
http://www.chronofhorse.com/article/updated-humane-society-seizes-four-horses-gray-fox-farm
“the Marin Humane Society responded to a complaint about the property, at which time they impounded one of the stallions, Romantic Star, and an older mare, Devils Miss” (actual name per GFF site is Devils Sis)
The humane society returned to the farm on Jan. 4 and took two additional mares.
“They were thin and requiring rehabilitative care, so they are on an off-site location under veterinary care,” said Harrington of the second seizure.
Poor Romantic Star (and all the others)… I pray Marin County can get all these horses out and hopefully put an end to all this.
