[QUOTE=carolprudm;6785964]
LOL, nice try. I had no idea who JB was before I was asked to donate to the auction. I don’t frequent this forum, thanks for the reminder[/QUOTE]
LOL, perhaps you ought to take the thirty seconds to google the thread & refresh your memory before you cast aspersions on someone’s character.
Caffeinated, I never said they were defending Jill. I said I’m shocked at those still BELIEVING her lies (in this case, that Dr. Ellis is their and said vet says none of the horses were neglected, abused, or malnourished).
There’s a BIG difference between supporting/defending and believing a web of lies. I have not found one person actually defending JB, but there were a large number ready to take the vet to task just because she was named by the JB/Weems team.
[QUOTE=Kenike;6785877]
So all those lynchmob posts against Dr. Ellis last night weren’t people taking Jill and/or Maggie Weems at their word when they stated Dr. Ellis is their vet and she feels all the horses are in great shape with no signs of abuse or neglect? Interesting.
(Though one DID say “IF it turns out she is their vet and passed this mare as healthy.”* that individual showed plenty of doubt in their thought process and rightly opted to wait for firm facts before saying she’d take action with the licensing board. That wasn’t a post throwing direct blame; rather it was emtional disbelief)
*paraphrased[/QUOTE]
Actually, if even ONE other horse currently on JB’s property is in as bad of condition as Devil’s Sis, the most reprehensible party in this whole mess (after JB) would be the MCHS, which has the legal authority and legal obligation to seize such an animal.
And yet they have not.
And it’s not like they have stood up in front of a judge and lost either. So I wouldn’t think they are holding back on necessary seizures due to an over abundance of regulatory caution.
So do you think they are not doing their duties? Or do you think there is a possibility that the other animals are not in as poor condition at this time? Because I don’t see a lot of other choices.
What I think - based on the actions of MHS to date and what I know about horses and where JB’s income level has been headed is that the easier keepers still do not meet the legal requirements of neglect. If I was a betting person, I would bet that the other two horses seized are either TBs or older mares. In short this is a situation that has been addressed BEFORE it is completely out of hand. Those horses that are older, infirm, not easier keepers are the canaries in the coal mine of neglect. There is nothing new about that. In the case of abuse/neglect that is much further down the road, they are generally the bones found on the property.
So I think MHS is probably doing their job to the best of their ability, and part of that job includes keeping an eye on JB to either take care of the horses she has or reduce the herd to a level she can afford (0?) and if she fails that, then they can take action. I also think that the attorney is doing her job, what with people having the right to due process and representation. And I’m betting that when the vet retained by the attorney inspected the remaining horses, they were probably all still in a condition that does not rise to the level of legal neglect.
I also think the horses live in atrocious conditions, but unless there is a law specifically governing fencing and shelter, that is a tough case to make for seizure, especially when the owner has an attorney.
I also think that it takes money to feed even easy keepers, and I suspect money is not something JB has much of, so those remaining horses are not going to stay/improve in their current condition for very long. And that is on top of the issue of being able to legally stay on the property (although that could take months or years to play out).
I don’t think any of this is rocket science, but I am in awe of the idiocy of people trashing the attorney, the vet, buyers of the horses … and then when anyone raises even a modicum of common sense, the howls of outrage commence because such a person must be siding with JB. This thread might function equally well as an IQ test.
Auction Updates
Auction Items Closing This Evening, Thur Jan 17 2013:
[SUP](Note that auction closes at time indicated or approximately 5 minutes after last bid)
[/SUP]
21:10:00 EST One website design or one website redesign by Daventry Web Productions
21:25:00 EST 1 Breeding to the Oldenburg stallion, Gatsby
21:40:00 EST 1 Breeding to Welsh Section B Stallion, Daventry’s Power Play
21:55:00 EST Winner’s choice of a videography or photography session, both with all usage rights
22:10:00 EST 1 breeding to the Welsh stallion, *Telynau Bronze Statue
Items We Have Added Today
1 breeding to the Hanoverian stallion, Schwarzenegger
1 (LFG) Breeding to Lifetime Approved Danish Warmblood Stallion, Cobra One
Acrylic 10" x 8" Horse Head Painting
Acrylic 12" x 12" Unicorn Foal Painting
Acrylic 16" x 20" Horse Painting
Tally to Date/Time of Posting
[table=“width: 70%, class: grid, align: center”]
[tr]
[td]Date[/td]
[td]Total
Winning
Bids[/td]
[td]Payments Received to Date
[SUP](Google Checkout, PayPal or other payment commissions not deducted)[/SUP][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]January 10, 2013[/td]
[td]$2,119.00[/td]
[td]$1,570[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]January 11, 2013[/td]
[td]$2,110.00[/td]
[td]$910[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]January 12, 2013[/td]
[td]$1,805.00[/td]
[td]$745[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]January 13, 2013[/td]
[td]$1,755.00[/td]
[td]$990[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]January 14, 2013[/td]
[td]$2,980.00[/td]
[td]$1,730[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]January 15, 2013[/td]
[td]$1,290.00[/td]
[td]$540[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]January 16, 2013[/td]
[td]$3,515.00[/td]
[td]$400[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]TOTALS:[/td]
[td]$15,574.00[/td]
[td]$6,785[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]
Are my posts really that hard to comprehend? 
I am NOT defending Jill. I am NOT accusing anyone here of defending Jill. I AM saying that people are seeing or hearing her and her attorney name others as defending them (i.e. Dr. Cheryl Ellis) and immediately attacking those others. Just because Maggie Weems tells the press Dr. Cheryl Ellis is the Burnell’s veterinarian and she never saw an issue with the condition, treatment, or housing of the horses doesn’t make it so.
THAT is my issue! Quit attacking those who are being named without definitive proof the named individuals are actually doing what their being said to be doing!
[QUOTE=Kenike;6786059]
Are my posts really that hard to comprehend?
I am NOT defending Jill. I am NOT accusing anyone here of defending Jill. I AM saying that people are seeing or hearing her and her attorney name others as defending them (i.e. Dr. Cheryl Ellis) and immediately attacking those others. Just because Maggie Weems tells the press Dr. Cheryl Ellis is the Burnell’s veterinarian and she never saw an issue with the condition, treatment, or housing of the horses doesn’t make it so.
THAT is my issue! Quit attacking those who are being named without definitive proof the named individuals are actually doing what their being said to be doing![/QUOTE]
this is from Rate My Horse Pro:
“Court records state that veterinarian Cheryl Ellis, DVM submitted a declaration on behalf of Burnell regarding her horses’ care.”
Do we know what’s in that declaration? no, but I can’t imagine it would have been submitted on Burnell’s behalf had it been a disparaging report.
[QUOTE=Kenike;6786059]
Are my posts really that hard to comprehend?
I am NOT defending Jill. I am NOT accusing anyone here of defending Jill. I AM saying that people are seeing or hearing her and her attorney name others as defending them (i.e. Dr. Cheryl Ellis) and immediately attacking those others. Just because Maggie Weems tells the press Dr. Cheryl Ellis is the Burnell’s veterinarian and she never saw an issue with the condition, treatment, or housing of the horses doesn’t make it so.
THAT is my issue! Quit attacking those who are being named without definitive proof the named individuals are actually doing what their being said to be doing![/QUOTE]
My point is more specific. Just because a vet was hired by an attorney to evaluate horses that the MCHS chose not to seize for whatever reasons, does not make that vet wrong, unethical, incompetent or involved in a giant conspiracy (a time honored crazy coth breeder favorite). And if that vet allegedly represents in a court document that said horses are in adequate condition and you (a generic “you”) do not like that answer, it does not make that vet wrong or again, involved in a giant conspiracy. More importantly, you (again in the generic sense) look reprehensible for attacking the professional conduct of that individual on a public bulletin board.
Ditto for the attorney, any buyers involved and anyone just teasing out known facts from a garbage dump of speculation.
So yes, you made your point clear, but it wasn’t my point.
I have been talking this morning with Devil Sis’s breeder. She is sickened and heartbroken by this and is contacting the MHS and wants to get her back where she can live out her days being pampered. I love good thoroughbred breeders!
Stop trying to be fact based, DMK. If you have a point to make, make it speculative. :mad:
Pretty standard practice in cruelty cases for the accused* to be required to have a veterinarian of their choosing (ie, independent of the legal authority’s veterinarian) inspect animals and facilities, and provide advice to the accused. If a lawyer asks a vet “Are the horses in immediate danger?” and the horses that are present on the farm are not, in fact, in immediate danger of starving, have water, do not have injuries in need of veterinary attention, then guess what? The vet has to say no, they’re not in immediate danger. The vet might go on to say that the facilities need X, the horses need Y, but the standard for immediate seizure in a new case usually means something that presents a threat to health within 24 - 48 hours.
Stop bashing and threatening board reports for some poor vet who was just doing what some vet had to do.
*accused = legal term, not a judgement that I think Burnell is innocent. Critical thinking involves being able to consider multiple possibilities, some of which might be contradictory.
DL- I’ll stop being fact based when you give up that fancy schmancy “critical thinking”!
How far down can we drag this thread with our wild ways?
DMK & Dead Lame, I can’t believe you’d try to inject sanity and logic into this discussion!! :mad: Here are all these good people trying to find anyone they can to blame, and you go and ruin it. Y’all otter be hashamed…
Okay, so maybe it wasn’t stated in any of the articles (I swear I remember reading Dr. Ellis outed in one or two of them…), but the article on TheHorse.com quotes Weems as saying two vets and two farriers confirmed the condition of the horses were typical to winter pasturing and healthy.
Dr. Ellis appears to have been named here…and some (not all) ran with it.
She was doing a job she was hired to do: evaluate the remaining, unseized horses. She submitted the paperwork required of her position. Nobody here really knows what that paperwork says. Not even her daughter.
I’m still just wondering WHY this professional is/was being raked over the coals for doing her job?
I fully admit I am suspicious of Maggie Weems, but she has also been hired to do a job. Doesn’t mean I like it, or agree with it.
Lastly, I apologize for my being incorrect in stating it was Weems/JB who were quoted giving the name of the vet. I was wrong, and I am sorry.
Please DO NOT lump me in with those who support this animal abuser. I’d like nothing more than to see her behind bars for her MANY offenses to both animals and humans.
you did see it–it was Rate My Horse Pro who indicated that she was the vet for JB. Personally, the fact that people are taking the reporting on a Gossip Website as verbatim reporting really has me scratching my head.
[QUOTE=Kenike;6786322]
Okay, so maybe it wasn’t stated in any of the articles (I swear I remember reading Dr. Ellis outed in one or two of them…), but the article on TheHorse.com quotes Weems as saying two vets and two farriers confirmed the condition of the horses were typical to winter pasturing and healthy.
Dr. Ellis appears to have been named here…and some (not all) ran with it.
She was doing a job she was hired to do: evaluate the remaining, unseized horses. She submitted the paperwork required of her position. Nobody here really knows what that paperwork says. Not even her daughter.
I’m still just wondering WHY this professional is/was being raked over the coals for doing her job?
I fully admit I am suspicious of Maggie Weems, but she has also been hired to do a job. Doesn’t mean I like it, or agree with it.
Lastly, I apologize for my being incorrect in stating it was Weems/JB who were quoted giving the name of the vet. I was wrong, and I am sorry.
Please DO NOT lump me in with those who support this animal abuser. I’d like nothing more than to see her behind bars for her MANY offenses to both animals and humans.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Kenike;6786322]
I’m still just wondering WHY this professional is/was being raked over the coals for doing her job?[/QUOTE]
She submitted a declaration in support of the writ filed by Jill’s attorney seeking return of the horses that allegedly supports the proposition that “[n]one of the horses are or were at risk or in distress due to a failure to provide care. All of the horses are receiving and have been receiving adequate care.” Dr. Ellis’ declaration is Exhibit D to the petition. AFAIK nobody has a copy of the declaration, the exhibits to the petition are not on the RMHP website, only the petition is there. I agree that one should not jump to conclusions without seeing what that document says. I am sure that a copy will turn up eventually, it is a public record after all…
[QUOTE=dilligaff2;6786341]
you did see it–it was Rate My Horse Pro who indicated that she was the vet for JB. Personally, the fact that people are taking the reporting on a Gossip Website as verbatim reporting really has me scratching my head.[/QUOTE]
So true. It’s not like they have not been asked to correct inaccurate statements that have been previously corrected by actual real sources of journalism. For a group that professed a goal of trying to shine a light on unethical practices, it starts at home…
That poor mare. Glad she is in better hands now.
[QUOTE=dilligaff2;6786341]
you did see it–it was Rate My Horse Pro who indicated that she was the vet for JB. Personally, the fact that people are taking the reporting on a Gossip Website as verbatim reporting really has me scratching my head.[/QUOTE]
Thank you! You understood what I was trying to say all along. 
I misunderstood the writ, then. I thought it was the attorney who submitted it, not the vet.
From what the vet’s daughter has said, I still don’t see the need to criminalize her when she was hired by the attorney AFTER the four horses were seized. I still am suspicious of her words being twisted, but obviously can’t prove it. That’s all.
[QUOTE=Sheila A;6786383]
She submitted a declaration in support of the writ filed by Jill’s attorney seeking return of the horses that allegedly supports the proposition that “[n]one of the horses are or were at risk or in distress due to a failure to provide care. All of the horses are receiving and have been receiving adequate care.” Dr. Ellis’ declaration is Exhibit D to the petition. AFAIK nobody has a copy of the declaration, the exhibits to the petition are not on the RMHP website, only the petition is there. I agree that one should not jump to conclusions without seeing what that document says. I am sure that a copy will turn up eventually, it is a public record after all…[/QUOTE]
It certainly would be nice to see as it seems very odd that 4 horses could be seized yet 20? ish remain and according to Dr. Ellis they are in good health? Is she only feeding certain horses? Will be glad when this is over and the horses are feeling loved.
It doesn’t mean that the horses left are in great condition, it means that they don’t yet meet the parameters for instant seizure and are ok for now. I’d bet that the horses taken were some combination of older, hard keeper, pregnant, and unable to compete for food with the horses in their group. That’s genreally how one horse in a group ends up looking like hell. That’s what happened to the Arabians that were seized.
[QUOTE=horsenut93136;6786451]
It certainly would be nice to see as it seems very odd that 4 horses could be seized yet 20? ish remain and according to Dr. Ellis they are in good health? Is she only feeding certain horses? Will be glad when this is over and the horses are feeling loved.[/QUOTE]
Not all horses (or people) do the same on the same dietary program, right? You have easy keepers, you have hard keepers. You have older horses and younger horses. You have fast eaters and slow eaters, horses high on the pecking order and low in rank. But if your facility requires that all horses are eating together in a field, the horse that is not an easy keeper and a slow eater/low on the pecking order (and they always seem to go together) will be the one getting less calories.
So even if you do have the money to feed your horses and are technically providing enough food to meet the nutritional needs of the group, if you do not have the knowledge, finances, facilities or inclination to separate those “special needs” horses, you will end up with some thin horses in a herd that does not otherwise meet the standard for neglect.
If you feed that same group of horses, but are not providing their full nutritional requirements (due to knowledge, finances, facilities or inclination) and those horses are really competing aggressively for any available calories, the above scenario is both more rapid and the decline is more marked. But that still means the ones who can get the calories they need will manage for longer.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
