Doing business with JILL BURNELL? BEWARE.

[Lord_Helpus]

[QUOTE=saje;6794963]
A question for lawyers:

If a potential client comes to you asking you to take their case, how much research (beyond what the client tells you) do you do? If you know nothing or next to nothing about the client, but have some interest in the basic subject of their case, does it make a difference in your approach?[/QUOTE]

Not much, if any research. Your profession is to help clients who come to you with a problem. If a client tells you that he has legal troubles and needs your help, you ask enough questions to determine if your client really has a legal problem (one for which the courts can grant relief).

Unless the client is not getting his story straight or gives you outright reason to believe that what he says is not true, you accept the case.

If later you find out that your client was not entirely truthful, your effort becomes one of mitigating damages.

But he is still your client. It is not up to an attorney to help the opposing party. You are there to represent your client. Sometimes the best way to do it is with a vigorous approach, and sometimes it is trying to perorm damage control.

It is not an attorney’s job to prejudge. That is the job for the courts.

Rule 11 reads like it is a big deal. But an attorney’s behavior must be really egregious before he is sanctioned. It is one thing to judge behavior with the benefit of hindsight, and another to put yourself in the attorney’s shoes at the time everything is happening.

I do not ascribe impure motives to JB’s attorney. She is doing the job she has been trained and paid to do: represent her client. Not only squeaky clean people wearing white robes and a halo deserve to have an attorney. Life is much muddier and more complex than that.

Easy to be a monday morning quarterback. And irrelevant.

[DMK]

[QUOTE=Lord Helpus;6796448]
It is not an attorney’s job to prejudge. That is the job for the courts. [/QUOTE]

So I guess if an attorney was to represent someone in a USEF case, for example, a drug violation hearing like the Carolina Gold hearings going on, even though my gut reaction is "how could they represent that person and how could an attorney actually believe them if they had any equine background?!?!" a more mature and appropriate reaction is to think “everyone deserves fair representation, no matter how reprehensible and stupid a person is” and then just hope that the wheels of justice take care of the matter… and then I can giggle at an adverse verdict AND healthy legal fees? I mean if the USEF handed down any kind of serious penalties for that sort of thing, but I digress…

[Lord_Helpus]

[QUOTE=Acertainsmile;6795901]
Wow, some of you just don’t get it, or are lost in the reading for comprehension aspect of it all. Amazing!

I have zero conspiracy theory, I just go by what I see. A woman who supposably purchased a stallion, but to date still doesnt have any information on him. This isn’t heresay, she’s posted about it on her FB page. I suppose instead of saying that she doesnt have any information, she could always update and say she does, but can’t post about it.[/QUOTE]

Now this is making me angry. HOW the HELL do you know that Ronda doesn’t have any information about RS?!?!?!?!? What do you know that the rest of us do not know? Because she posted many days ago that she had no information, does that equate with not having information now? Are you a FB friend? Why don’t you ask her?

Oh right. You don’t know her from Adam and she doesn’t know you either.

And WHY SHOULD she want to come onto a COTH thread which has disparaged and cast suspiction on her? Does she “owe” you that? Why do you believe that she has an obligation to talk to ANYONE? Much less the circle of swimming sharks, just looking for some chum to be thrown into the water, that some of the posters on this thread have become.

She has a lot of information. But on a need to know basis, you are WAAAAY down the line. In fact you are not in line at all.

Get of your high horse and give it a rest.

[skydy]

[QUOTE=sid;6796213]
It’s discouraging to see the incredible “splitting of hairs” on every single subject, every single opinion of others’ posts and personal quibbling and attacks on motives for posting that has taken this thread “way out there”. In fact, it’s way beyond me and is really quite sad, at least for me to read.

The direction this has gone has confirmed that many horse people are control freaks and uber competitive – and that’s okay if the best, EDUCATED interest of the horses (and also mentor owners who may not be that experienced in “breeding”), are always first.

But get to the low level of having to confirm (by validation by others) to always be “right” and try to take others down to in the process, often by “speculation” does not do the horse industry proud – whether one is a “professional” or a “hobbyist”.

That is what it has turned into.

Yes to a poster a few pages back…this makes the GOV/IRS “wars” look like child’s play (for those us that remember it…;)) But that was about registering horses and approvals as the ISR and GOV worked out their corporate war for control of the Oldenburg registry here in the U.S. and the brand.

In that case, the war wasn’t about horse abuse, their welfare and fraud, which in my mind, is much more important.

Most of the well respected breeders left this thread a LONG time back as we watch this play out among those who just want to tarnish others, just to feel they are “right”…the concern for the horses in question seems to have left the stage.

Even Leg Up’s desire to do the auction and the stallion owners who anti-upped to help with the potential costs to care for these horses (if more horses in JB’s “care”–loosely said) will hit the “body-score” required to be seized legally …and help the unsuspecting that were financially burned, was questioned. That’s pretty darned sad.

Egad.:no:[/QUOTE]

Spot on Sid. Thanks for saying what many of us have been thinking. This thread has become ugly :eek: and not helpful to anyone.

[Long_Spot]

[QUOTE=Lord Helpus;6796483]
Now this is making me angry. HOW the HELL do you know that Ronda doesn’t have any information about RS?!?!?!?!? What do you know that the rest of us do not know? Because she posted many days ago that she had no information, does that equate with not having information now? Are you a FB friend? Why don’t you ask her?

Oh right. You don’t know her from Adam and she doesn’t know you either.

And WHY SHOULD she want to come onto a COTH thread which has disparaged and cast suspiction on her? Does she “owe” you that? Why do you believe that she has an obligation to talk to ANYONE? Much less the circle of swimming sharks, just looking for some chum to be thrown into the water, that some of the posters on this thread have become.

She has a lot of information. But on a need to know basis, you are WAAAAY down the line. In fact you are not in line at all.

Get of your high horse and give it a rest.[/QUOTE]

Thank you.

[3Dogs]

LH. Everyone does deserve representation.
Sid. The horses welfare …every horses welfare …is the paramount concern for all!
Those who have generously supported an auction for this particular cause are to be applauded and may LegUp continue to get support for any and all situations of seizure/ terrible situations etc of in danger equines.
May those who have had mares go to GFF - may you find them or at least know they are safe.
For those with contracts that went sour, may you have some resolution.

The rest is all distraction. It is very old news that many many not paid for years, no one seems to know any of the facts re RS sale, so immaterial, don’t know nor care re the VET who may or may not be in cahoots with GFF, nor the farrier who did not go to a business 101 class.

But besides the horses, the former horse owners, the shafted breeders to be? I care that GFF be put out of business. And I add that some here enabled despite what known because of THEIR businesses. Silence, ignoring the facts, the prospect of “rewards” above and beyond the “norm”? (Cheap stallion fees, baby deals, mare swaps etc in this equine case). All the lure of a Bernie Madoff. Too good to be true!
May those working torwards the ultimate goal, if sufficient proof can be found, to put GFF out of the equine business for good? Thank you

[vineyridge]

Heck, after being in practice in a small town for several years, I came to the conclusion that most people seeking counsel rarely if ever told the unvarnished truth. They have grievances against someone, are defending their pocketbooks, or are facing prison. So they will usually try and put themselves in the best light possible, even if it doesn’t jibe with reality. So you take every client with a handful of salt and just do the best that you can–as LH said, to mitigate the damage the distorted reality can cause.

Wills were about the only things that didn’t involve egos.

Question: is the horse world unusually corrupt? There are the drugging threads on HJ, many horror stories involved with horse sales, more than one story about breeders who fabricate in utero foals and starve horses, shamateurs on the eventing board, and rollkur and blue tongues in dressage. It’s a bleak picture.

[Renascence]

[QUOTE=horsenut93136;6796172]
The picture of the mare made me sick. But if you are now saying this means that we can attribute ANYTHING to JB. Any act of cruelty etc. and just be ok with that?

Well yes! Now that you mention it. The picture of that starved pregnant mare does prove to me that I do not know what act of cruelty I would not put past Jill. It does give credence to all other rumours and allegations on this ugly thread, and I will not be shamed or ridiculed into not trying to stop Jill.

I suppose when you get in a mudpit with a pig you get dirty. Oh well, it is a dirty job, but someone has to do it.

[Jeito]

[QUOTE=Lord Helpus;6796448]
Not much, if any research. Your profession is to help clients who come to you with a problem. [/QUOTE]

A good attorney does research to verify essential facts. If you don’t, you’re hurting your own client. That is not the same thing as “prejudging.” You do a client no service if you file pleadings without a basic grasp of whether the facts can be proven or disproven.

I don’t know anything about JB’s attorney and am not criticizing her. Good attorneys do represent clients of dubious character; it’s all about HOW you do it. But we are never under an ethical obligation to take a civil case, or even a criminal case unless it’s a court appointment.

I apologize for this digression, but I don’t want to leave the impression that we are just hired guns and mouthpieces

[saje]

[QUOTE=DMK;6796471]
So I guess if an attorney was to represent someone in a USEF case, for example, a drug violation hearing like the Carolina Gold hearings going on, even though my gut reaction is "how could they represent that person and how could an attorney actually believe them if they had any equine background?!?!" a more mature and appropriate reaction is to think “everyone deserves fair representation, no matter how reprehensible and stupid a person is” and then just hope that the wheels of justice take care of the matter… and then I can giggle at an adverse verdict AND healthy legal fees? I mean if the USEF handed down any kind of serious penalties for that sort of thing, but I digress…[/QUOTE]

Thank you! There are a lot of people here who need to read this, AND read for comprehension.

And no, I am NOT defending Burnell or her actions, she has a lot to answer for.

[Acertainsmile]

[QUOTE=Lord Helpus;6796483]
Now this is making me angry. HOW the HELL do you know that Ronda doesn’t have any information about RS?!?!?!?!? What do you know that the rest of us do not know? Because she posted many days ago that she had no information, does that equate with not having information now? Are you a FB friend? Why don’t you ask her?

Oh right. You don’t know her from Adam and she doesn’t know you either.

And WHY SHOULD she want to come onto a COTH thread which has disparaged and cast suspiction on her? Does she “owe” you that? Why do you believe that she has an obligation to talk to ANYONE? Much less the circle of swimming sharks, just looking for some chum to be thrown into the water, that some of the posters on this thread have become.

She has a lot of information. But on a need to know basis, you are WAAAAY down the line. In fact you are not in line at all.

Get of your high horse and give it a rest.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like you need anger management…Just going by what I see, nothing more, nothing less. Just like everyone else. Never once did I mention she come on here. Not once. Curious as to how you know she has any information.

You know whats funny? My first response about this stallion was actually in defense of Rhonda, when people were speculating a “cover up” of RS. It made more sense (to me) that the transaction just hadn’t been completed. Nothing more, nothing less. However, if it makes you feel better to read more into it knock your socks off.

[dilligaff2]

[QUOTE=Acertainsmile;6796853]
Sounds like you need anger management…Just going by what I see, nothing more, nothing less. Just like everyone else. Never once did I mention she come on here. Not once. Curious as to how you know she has any information.[/QUOTE]

Ya. Lordhelpus! How come you know stuff and Acertainsmile doesn’t??? Don’t you know that now puts you in cahoots with the enemy?

FFS people! Why do you think you deserve to know about a person’s private business dealings? Why would that person come on here and broadcast it when certain participants of this thread seem to exist only for the DRAAAAAMA and others have such thinly veiled agendas, it makes saying anything akin to walking in a mine field. All the little nudge nudge/wink wink postings about the ‘truth’ and the ‘facts’ coming out do not make them so.

Why not let the MHS do it’s job and the courts do theirs?

[dilligaff2]

[QUOTE=Acertainsmile;6796853]
Sounds like you need anger management…Just going by what I see, nothing more, nothing less. Just like everyone else. Never once did I mention she come on here. Not once. Curious as to how you know she has any information.[/QUOTE]

Ya. Lordhelpus! How come you know stuff and Acertainsmile doesn’t??? Don’t you know that now puts you in cahoots with the enemy?

FFS people! Why do you think you deserve to know about a person’s private business dealings? Why would that person come on here and broadcast it when certain participants of this thread seem to exist only for the DRAAAAAMA and others have such thinly veiled agendas, it makes saying anything akin to walking in a mine field. All the little nudge nudge/wink wink postings about the ‘truth’ and the ‘facts’ coming out do not make them so.

Why not let the MHS do it’s job and the courts do theirs?

[daisycutter87]

Keep it up and the thread will be closed

[dilligaff2]

As it probably should have been when innocent people started getting dragged into the court of CoTH opinion.

[BaroquePony]

Posted by mbm (from the other cross-posted thread):

Even tho there is the drama of the seized horses i would not rely on that shutting down Ms Burnell.

therefore i suggest anyone that has been allegedly wronged by Ms Burnell to gather all your paperwork, facts etc and contact Daventry here on COTH - she has said she will help folks find legal help.

I would hope that folks can band together and work to bring justice.

This is the main goal ^.

[Acertainsmile]

[QUOTE=dilligaff2;6796886]
Ya. Lordhelpus! How come you know stuff and Acertainsmile doesn’t??? Don’t you know that now puts you in cahoots with the enemy?
FFS people! Why do you think you deserve to know about a person’s private business dealings? Why would that person come on here and broadcast it when certain participants of this thread seem to exist only for the DRAAAAAMA and others have such thinly veiled agendas, it makes saying anything akin to walking in a mine field. All the little nudge nudge/wink wink postings about the ‘truth’ and the ‘facts’ coming out do not make them so.

Why not let the MHS do it’s job and the courts do theirs?[/QUOTE]

The bolded is exactly what is creating the drama…who called her the enemy??? Take a good look in the mirror before looking around.

[horsenut93136]

Cheap stallion fees, baby deals, mare swaps etc

3Dogs I hate to burst your bubble but have you taken a look around you recently? There are quite a few who do business this way and they aren’t all shady.

[dilligaff2]

No,the bolded is sarcasm. I will try better to point it out directly next time. [/sarcasm]

[DMK]

[QUOTE=3Dogs;6796536]
the prospect of “rewards” above and beyond the “norm”? (Cheap stallion fees, baby deals, mare swaps etc in this equine case). All the lure of a Bernie Madoff. Too good to be true![/QUOTE]

I am a bit lost on how you are making connections between those actions and Madoff, because if a breeder - ANY breeder - owns the stock, then they have the right to sell, give away, discount, trade that stock however they please. It’s their property. So I am not sure what is illegal or unethical about that? It might be a stupid business practice, one they cannot afford to do and still meet their financial obligations, or it might actually improve their position in the market and give them a better “product”.

Either way, it’s pretty standard stuff in the breeding world, be it horse, other livestock, dog or even cats . Breeders trade stock or breedings to build up a base that suits the type of animal they are trying to develop. Nothing new or radical about that. If Ogden Phipps and Claiborne swapped a few mares and foals or breeding seasons because Claiborne had a mare that worked better with Easy Goer and Phipps had a mare that would have suited Pulpit perfectly, would you be all aflutter? Because that sort of trading is how we got Secretariat. It kind of worked out well for the world, don’t you think?

So implying that is like the lure of Bernie Madoff (whose crime was taking other people’s money, not wasting his own) is either falsely provocative or just plain not SMRT.

A case (many cases actually) needs to be made against the illegal activities that JB has conducted and there is no shortage of those, but when you muddy the waters by implying things to suit your own private little agenda against (yet another) third party, you probably damage the efforts of those actually wronged by JB and trying to seek restitution or resolution. Pat yourself on the back, enablers and dogs come in all shapes and sizes apparently…