I have read most of this thread but have refrained from comment. However, as a veterinarian (and UCD grad) I always wonder why a vet would write a legal document supporting a negligent animal owner. According to her own observations the vast majority of these breeding stock animals are below the ideal score of 5. It would seem to me that your final report might state more something “this owner is in need of further education and guidance with improving the health and care of her herd. I recommend the following to be done: adequate hay storage, adequate housing structures for individual feeding, adequate record keeping of vaccinations, deworming, medical treatments, etc”. It would seem counter intuitive to her own reputation and possible litigation to dismiss the lack of those things and deem that things are sufficient. I have been involved in animal neglect cases of puppy mill facilities in our area at the request of breeders and/or animal control. I was bluntly honest about the poor living conditions, poor animal care with regards to vaccinations, deworming of puppies, poor whelping areas, and neglect of grooming/dental care and foot care (these dogs are houses/ raised 100% of the time of metal grates) of their breeding stock. The puppy mill owners were not happy with me but at least I could sleep at night.
[QUOTE=Nootka;6788225]
http://westwoodfarmsllc.com/WestWoodFarmsllc/Foals.html
This farm has been having good luck with Jill. Hmmmmmm
Purchased a 2012 inutero out of Pop Tart and the 2013 inutero out of Corlandia[/QUOTE]
I thought I read just a few pages back that Corlandia is not owned by JB/GFF??
[QUOTE=jilltx;6788630]
I thought I read just a few pages back that Corlandia is not owned by JB/GFF??[/QUOTE]
She isn’t any longer but that has not stopped her selling 2 in utero foals from her. It’s plain as day on the website.
Yes, according the the GFF website, in the 2013 Warmblood Foals section of the Nursery, Corlandia’s 2013 inutero foal has been purchased by WestWood Farms, and by Sidney of Tennessee! She has the exact same photos and paragraph for both, and one is right below the other. Obviously the website is mostly fiction. I hope that is entirely false, and that neither one has actually paid for a foal.
The farrier’s statement is up at RMHP.
http://www.ratemyhorsepro.com/userfiles/files/Farrier%20Declaration.pdf
[QUOTE=Kenike;6788672]
The farrier’s statement is up at RMHP.
http://www.ratemyhorsepro.com/userfiles/files/Farrier%20Declaration.pdf[/QUOTE]
There is no record keeping for invoice purposes? Where is the paperwork charging for X trims for X horses - that any business wants (customer and provider) for tax and record keeping? Business 101 is not in play here. Not cool.
[QUOTE=Justa Bob;6788695]
There is no record keeping for invoice purposes? Where is the paperwork charging for X trims for X horses - that any business wants (customer and provider) for tax and record keeping? Business 101 is not in play here. Not cool.[/QUOTE]
You read my mind…I sat here thinking “wow, not much for keeping records, is he? Not a farrier I’d use…not with business practices that negates paperwork.”
An IRS auditor would have a field day with all of JB’s transactions and associates. :lol:
[QUOTE=Kenike;6788672]
The farrier’s statement is up at RMHP.
http://www.ratemyhorsepro.com/userfiles/files/Farrier%20Declaration.pdf[/QUOTE]
ok no conspiracy theory here. But if all of these declarations are obtainable by the public (because it seems there has been no “gag” order or anything preventing the release of them) Why are we getting a daily tidbit? and how come we can’t just see MHS’s case against Jill including the pics of the 3 other horses seized??? because presumably these were all filed with the court and obtaining them would just require getting them from the court?
I think the IRS is going to love checking JG and that farrier…
[QUOTE=bluehof;6788628]
I have read most of this thread but have refrained from comment. However, as a veterinarian (and UCD grad) I always wonder why a vet would write a legal document supporting a negligent animal owner. According to her own observations the vast majority of these breeding stock animals are below the ideal score of 5. It would seem to me that your final report might state more something “this owner is in need of further education and guidance with improving the health and care of her herd. I recommend the following to be done: adequate hay storage, adequate housing structures for individual feeding, adequate record keeping of vaccinations, deworming, medical treatments, etc”. It would seem counter intuitive to her own reputation and possible litigation to dismiss the lack of those things and deem that things are sufficient. I have been involved in animal neglect cases of puppy mill facilities in our area at the request of breeders and/or animal control. I was bluntly honest about the poor living conditions, poor animal care with regards to vaccinations, deworming of puppies, poor whelping areas, and neglect of grooming/dental care and foot care (these dogs are houses/ raised 100% of the time of metal grates) of their breeding stock. The puppy mill owners were not happy with me but at least I could sleep at night.[/QUOTE]
At the bottom of the Vet Declaration, it shows that the veterinarian has only been practicing for 2 years. While I totally agree with what you suggested above of what should have also been in the letter, I’m betting inexperience played a roll in missed information i.e. blunt suggestions included at the end of the letter).
What I don’t understand, her daughter’s filly (Rendition and then renamed Rapture) is the one featured in Jill’s blog http://grayfoxfarm.blogspot.ca/2012/03/how-to-feed-and-care-for-your-baby.html, in which Jill humiliates the breeder (vet’s daughter) about the filly’s supposed condition when she arrived at Jill’s. Why on earth would you then go to Jill’s farm and make a Declaration on behalf of her? 
:no:
[QUOTE=horsenut93136;6788710]
ok no conspiracy theory here. But if all of these declarations are obtainable by the public (because it seems there has been no “gag” order or anything preventing the release of them) Why are we getting a daily tidbit? and how come we can’t just see MHS’s case against Jill including the pics of the 3 other horses seized??? because presumably these were all filed with the court and obtaining them would just require getting them from the court?[/QUOTE]
I went ahead and asked that, as I know myself and a lot of people are confused. The farm photos are part of a public record with the Marin County Community development violations. This is totally separate from the seized horses that were taken by the Marin Humane Society. The vet and farrier declarations are part of the Writ of Mandate Ms. Weems filed. So, one part is action taken by the County itself regarding what was happening on the land, one part is the Writ of Mandate filed by Ms. Weems and the other part is dealing with the horses by Marin Humane Society. The County violations records are public record, the Writ of Mandate is public record, but the Marin Humane Society actions…not so much. 
That is why no further photos of the horses have been released.
[QUOTE=Daventry;6788721]
At the bottom of the Vet Declaration, it shows that the veterinarian has only been practicing for 2 years. While I totally agree with what you suggested above of what should have also been in the letter, I’m betting inexperience played a roll in missed information.
What I don’t get, her daughter’s filly is the one featured in Jill’s blog http://grayfoxfarm.blogspot.ca/2012/03/how-to-feed-and-care-for-your-baby.html, in which Jill humiliates the breeder over the filly’s condition. Why would you then go to Jill’s farm and make a Declaration on behalf of her? [/QUOTE]
That is perplexing why would you take a client on that has in the past disparaged your own daughter publicly ?? Could she have refused the case or is it part of a hired position and she had no choice.
Furthermore why would Jill’s lawyer choose a vet that has a conflict of interest …unless of course she is hoping to use that fact in her favor.
That farrier declaration answered my question. Yep, that’s the same farrier that I had paid for bar shoes and pads on my mare while she was at GFF (she came home completely barefoot, misshapen and abscessed). I have pictures to backup what his “trims” did to my mare’s feet in the course of a few short months. I actually called to speak with him after my mare came home. Seems like an old cowboy type, but he made a mess of my mare’s feet.
[QUOTE=Daventry;6788738]
I went ahead and asked that, as I know myself and a lot of people are confused. All of the Declarations (vet/farrier) and the farm photos are part of a public record with the Marin County Community development violations. This is totally separate from the seized horses that were taken by the Marin Humane Society. So, one part is action taken by the County itself regarding what was happening on the land, the other is dealing with the horses by Marin Humane Society. The County violations records are public records, the Marin Humane Society…not so much. That is why no further photos of the horses have been released.[/QUOTE]
I could see the original pics we saw on RMHP did seem from the county (why would Jill let MHS into her trailer), But are you saying the vet/shoer declarations are part of the county’s case against her? I would have thought they would have been part of MHS’s case.
Confusing 
but am glad more pics/documents are getting out because they speak so much more than words especially for anyone who might have been left on the fence.
Shoer’s statement is part of JB’s defense.
[QUOTE=Callmeacab;6788764]
Shoer’s statement is part of JB’s defense.[/QUOTE]
Well I would think so, but that should mean that the file is open for anyone to see right? If you go to the courthouse/records dept and ask for a file it is not a one sided file, it contains documents from both sides.
[QUOTE=horsenut93136;6788767]
Well I would think so, but that should mean that the file is open for anyone to see right? If you go to the courthouse/records dept and ask for a file it is not a one sided file, it contains documents from both sides.[/QUOTE]
See my post above, I corrected it. The vet and farrier declarations were part of the Writ if Mandate. The farm photos were part of the County violations public records.
[QUOTE=equitruth;6788599]
Here we go…looks like she now has her attorney going in circles and forgetting what the sociopath told her originally. Didn’t she try and say RS was not hers? Then she said she sold him. Leave it to JB to continue to try and sell breedings to an animal that she said was not hers in the first place. Now she is going to try and use RS as a law suit about how her business has suffered from the truth being public. JB you sold the horse, right??[/QUOTE]
Which is why I wondered a week ago if money had actually changed hands for this horse. Seems a little suspicious that the “new” owner couldnt find out any information on him. Maybe there was a contract, and he really is in bad enough shape that she backed out of it.
I may be completely wrong, but I would bet that most of the language of the vet declaration was drafted by the lawyers. One would speculate that the vet made notes on each horse and its condition and recommendations, and the lawyer drafted the declaration from the notes. Then the vet read what the lawyer had drafted and signed it.
Reason I believe this is because of the constant repetition of the language that horse condition was sufficient. That language sounds very lawyerly to me and not something an ordinary person would have repeated over and over.
Of course another reason is that that’s how lawyers generally do things. 
