Doing business with JILL BURNELL? BEWARE.

[Callmeacab]

[QUOTE=vineyridge;6788787]
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 it’s 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.[/QUOTE]

Interesting. Makes me wonder what the vet’s original notes look like.

[Kenike]

[QUOTE=vineyridge;6788787]
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. :)[/QUOTE]

That was my initial thought, too.

I actually have another thought on these two declarations…but I’m also questioning that because of the statement about the improper trim and abscess on the returned mare. I can’t necessarily blame him for the lack of bar shoes since I’m willing to bet he never actually received those instructions.

But my thought process may still hold true. I’m not completely convinced the declarations aren’t very detailed on purpose.

[Nosey_Parker]

[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]

It’s worth noting that Dr. Ellis is using the Kentucky Horse Council’s “minimum standards for care” wherein below 3 is where law enforcement would investigate. (And I consider her “3 with notes” rankings to be sub-3). She says so in her declaration, Page 3.

HOWEVER, the group she “quotes” has this page: http://www.kentuckyhorse.org/henneke-body-condition-scoring/ where as you can see, they consider 4 to be the minimum ideal, and pregnant mares should be 6-8. So, Dr. Ellis’ document clearly shows that, while possibly not critical, the horses’ conditions ARE below standard. NONE of the pregnant mares are in the ideal range. THREE to FIVE points below, in fact. And few of the other horses meet even the bottom of the ideal set by the very organization she’s using as her guideline.

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that, in cross-examination, pointing this out would be to the prosecution’s advantage.

[COTHalter44]

[QUOTE=Nosey Parker;6788848]
It’s worth noting that Dr. Ellis is using the Kentucky Horse Council’s “minimum standards for care” wherein below 3 is where law enforcement would investigate. (And I consider her “3 with notes” rankings to be sub-3). She says so in her declaration, Page 3.

HOWEVER, the group she “quotes” has this page: http://www.kentuckyhorse.org/henneke-body-condition-scoring/ where as you can see, they consider 4 to be the minimum ideal, and pregnant mares should be 6-8. So, Dr. Ellis’ document clearly shows that, while possibly not critical, the horses’ conditions ARE below standard. NONE of the pregnant mares are in the ideal range. THREE to FIVE points below, in fact. And few of the other horses meet even the bottom of the ideal set by the very organization she’s using as her guideline.

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that, in cross-examination, pointing this out would be to the prosecution’s advantage.[/QUOTE]

Relative of Roy Parker? :lol:

(Sorry, couldn’t resist. Good post.)

[horsenut93136]

[QUOTE=Daventry;6788782]
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]

Thanks for clarifying Obviously no pics coming from her end

[horsenut93136]

[QUOTE=Kenike;6788834]
That was my initial thought, too.

I actually have another thought on these two declarations…but I’m also questioning that because of the statement about the improper trim and abscess on the returned mare. I can’t necessarily blame him for the lack of bar shoes since I’m willing to bet he never actually received those instructions.

But my thought process may still hold true. I’m not completely convinced the declarations aren’t very detailed.[/QUOTE]

I’m guessing the shoer was paid for the trim and the amt paid for proper shoes pocketed

[Kenike]

[QUOTE=horsenut93136;6788872]
I’m guessing the shoer was paid for the trim and the amt paid for proper shoes pocketed :([/QUOTE]

Yeah, me, too.

And I’m sorry. My phone rang and I must have posted without finishing my sentence when I went to answer the call. facepalm I’m editing as soon as I post this.

[Joanne]

Is there any news on “Blaze” the yearling that MCHS was going to seize due to his/her condition? I am wondering if “Blaze” is one of the yearlings that the vet couldn’t examine because they couldn’t be caught and conveniently had a blanket on.

Years ago, I boarded at a very knowedgeable horsewoman’s barn. She was telling me that on occasion she would rescue a really thin horse and she always would turn it out with a sheet on so as not to be reported to the humane society.

[sid]

All that caught my eye in his letter was a constitent use of…

“I think, I believe” we did such and such.

I’m 61 years old and my memory is failing trying to remember specifics about what happened 3 mos ago.:lol:

I keep good calendars for all horse needs that I refer to for worming, immunization, farrier and dental schedules to make sure they are up to date constantly. And am down to 11 from 23 for a whole lot of years!

Seriously, this statement was made on “recall”, not by fact or invoice. My farriers of 20+ years, always leave a receipt or work performed, as most “normal” business people do.

How the heck can a professional farrier recall which horses he/she did for a client 3 months later?..especially when there are so many of them.

What is also “telling” to me is that they would just wander the pastures and paddocks to see who needed doing, as a collaborative decision. He took the bait and made what should have been her mgmt decisions, his.

Poor guy, it seems to me, he’s stepped into the JB quicksand. .

[mbm]

[QUOTE=Callmeacab;6788709]
An IRS auditor would have a field day with all of JB’s transactions and associates. :lol:[/QUOTE]

@FalseImpression;6788715

I think the IRS is going to love checking JG and that farrier…

i know plenty of farriers that do similar to the farrier here. they walk the fields and trim as needed. They charge as they see fit. I dont think I can tell you the last time i got any kind of paper record from my farriers. if i wrote them a check my check is the proof of payment. if i paid cash? well then i would need some kind of invoice from them if it was over $75.00

as for proving income and expenses… income can be proved via bank statements and calendars - expenses can be proved via bank statement (if it has the name of the vendor) canceled check or invoice from said vendor.

On the IRS website it also states that receipts (or proof) is needed for any expense over $75.00

[inca]

My farrier gives me a receipt every time. It does not have horses’ names on it but does have a record of how many full shoes, front shoes and trim only were done with the date. So, today for instance, I got a receipt that shows I paid $265 for 1 full set of shoes, 2 sets of front shoes and 1 trim only.

[FalseImpression]

Well, I get an invoice every time my farrier comes, and it’s only $40 + tax. I do believe that everyone, as a professional, has an obligation to keep records and show honesty!
I don’t see the actions of a “professional” at all… but then, birds of a feather…

[mbm]

i think the last time i got any kind of invoice was when my farrier used to do my horse when i wasn’t there and i hadn’t left a check for him. Other than that - it’s the same amount every time… so its pretty easy to know how much to pay him

[Dazednconfused]

[QUOTE=vineyridge;6788787]
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. :)[/QUOTE]

I tend to agree with this. This is exactly what is being done for me currently (auto accident). I compiled information for the interrogatories and requests for production, and the attorney & paralegal put them together into appropriately-worded text.

[QUOTE=FalseImpression;6789021]Well, I get an invoice every time my farrier comes, and it’s only $40 + tax. I do believe that everyone, as a professional, has an obligation to keep records and show honesty!
I don’t see the actions of a “professional” at all… but then, birds of a feather…[/QUOTE]

Couple of things - nowhere in there does it say he didn’t have records of the work performed or amount paid. That’s a whole lot of assumption. Secondly, he may not have had easy access to that in a quick fashion. My aforementioned situation required a LOT of information in a very short amount of time, some of which I didn’t have or didn’t have time to get. I doubt at his age this farrier has his records in digital form.

I do think it’s interesting that both farrier and vet are getting totally lambasted here. If they are just being honest and observing what they see, they are doing the job they were hired to do by the attorney. Also, wasn’t the mare in really bad condition gone by the time the vet/farrier assessed them? Obviously that mare isn’t at appropriate weight at all and should have been seized. But again if that mare wasn’t there and she’s just assessing the ones that are there, she’s doing the job she was hired to do, and it doesn’t mean there’s any funny business here.

I don’t even have a problem with feeding the hay out of a pickup truck…not really a long term solution, but out here in CA - the bales are pretty hefty (at least 100lbs, and that would be a light one - I could see fitting 20 bales in a long bed pickup pretty easily). Lots of people out here feed all alfalfa and they do fine (I don’t, I like feeding timothy or bermuda or oat along with it, personally, but I grew up with horses getting 100% alfalfa…).

It just seems there is a whole lot of crazy assumptions going on here. The biggest issue with this crazy situation (chestnut mare in bad shape aside) is the fraud being committed, really…

[Lulu]

I’m confused by the farrier’s report. Am I reading correctly? He says he was out November 13 and attended to all horses’ farrier issues as needed. He returned the day before Thanksgiving (that would be 8 days later) and trimmed 15-20 horses. Then returned January 5 and only trimmed 2 yearlings and a mare?

[mbm]

i would caution damning the farrier based solely on his connection with JB and his statements here.

[appyreiners]

I read he was there on 11/13/12 and does not know what he trimmed, was there on the day before Thanksgiving and charged for 15 trims (60 feet trimmed) and that could have been some just fronts and some trimmed all four, and just trimmed three horses total on 1/5/13.

How do you have 30+ horses, its been six weeks since the last visit, and the farrier only does three head when he comes out?

[Kenike]

Well, we know he was last there around the end of November, so it’s possible the three mares seized were okay then…

But I sincerely hope someone who has, by his own admission, been the consistent farrier for Jill for the past 4 years would not hesitate to report dire body conditions. It seems like he only visits and checks the horses there every 6-8 weeks. Not unusual, but a lot can change in that timeframe.

[mbm]

so i will address the possibility as above: the farrier may be coming again in a few days time…

also, i used to board a few miles away… basically the same geography - and i am not sure if it was the hills or the type of dirt or the ground - or the amount the horses moved around in the big fields - but my farrier would rarely need to actually trim mine… he would rasp a tiny bit here and there and would need to trim the one with front shoes - but mostly the feet that were shoeless self trimmed.

so who knows…

fwiw, i think that the likely hood of the horses getting seized at this time is about nil… so if folks want JB to be be punished for her alleged crimes - they need to go after her for her crimes… because she isnt going to pay via the horses being taken from her… so hopefully there is a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes here ?

[Dazednconfused]

[QUOTE=appyreiners;6789061]
I read he was there on 11/13/12 and does not know what he trimmed, was there on the day before Thanksgiving and charged for 15 trims (60 feet trimmed) and that could have been some just fronts and some trimmed all four, and just trimmed three horses total on 1/5/13.

How do you have 30+ horses, its been six weeks since the last visit, and the farrier only does three head when he comes out?[/QUOTE]

I don’t think that’s that strange. Winter, feet are growing slower, these horses are turned out on pasture (dunno what the ground is like), and not in any kind of work/program. I like horses to be on a 6 week schedule personally, but I don’t think it’s out of line for them to go 8-9 if they are maintaining (esp. since none are apparently wearing shoes).