Perhaps Ms Peslar did not personally pay that much for the mare. But perhaps her mother did…
1 Like
I figured it was more like Ots gave up part of his commission so it wasn’t that much.
This is an interesting development. I thought the parties involved in the lawsuit were under a gag order.
Perhaps the legal beagles on this board can opine on what happens when a 3rd party who is not the plaintiff or defendant posits these opinions to the public.
1 Like
People read it and make conjectures on what happened.
You can’t mean you think someone who wasn’t part of a lawsuit or settlement can be required to give up their first amendment rights?
1 Like
Obviously not.
Yes, people and and read it and make conjectures on what happened. Happens all the time. Like on this forum.
But Peslar isn’t just “anybody”. She was scheduled to be deposed.
This is just a way for caroline to violate a NDA without violating the NDA.
super obvious
3 Likes
Exactly. It could have been $899,999 and the statement would be true. It doesn’t matter, so it’s interesting that they bothered at all.
1 Like
The writing style is certainly familiar. “…a mainstay in the dressage community in southern Florida and in the hotbed of horse show activity that is Wellington.” Why don’t they trowel on a few more superlatives? “whirlwind of controversy” “the rumor mill has stirred” “Peslar has paid the price of bad press and ensuing misinformation about her prestigious business.” Yeeesh.
And the passive tone is not new to those familiar with reportage in the hotbed that is Wellington. I’d love to know whether the version that was originally emailed to Horses Daily used Canadian spellings.
4 Likes
She was not part of the lawsuit. Obviously.
So your obviously appears to be that obviously, yes, that is what you think.
How do you know what I think??? Or are you just being argumentative.
I was asking an honest question about a legal point. I was curious about what happens when someone who is involved in a lawsuit but is not officially a party to the legal proceedings as plaintiff or defendant, starts to publicize details of the suit that are under a gag order.
If the legal answer is “nothing happens”…then that is an answer to my question.
Nothing nefarious to infer…
Did I ask if you were being argumentative?
I think you’re misunderstanding what a gag order is versus a nondisclosure agreement. Gag orders do not apply to the details of the case, specifically, but they prevent specific people from discussing the facts of a case with third parties, and to do so is to be in contempt of court (a criminal penalty). They may also prevent only discussion of specific things - for example, jurors may talk about a verdict but not about the deliberations, or witnesses can make general statements but cannot discuss items entered into evidence. Gag orders are assigned by courts or, in some cases, the government, and are not a person-to-person agreement. Courts have historically been very loath to uphold gag orders that extend beyond the conclusion of court proceedings. I don’t think a gag order ever existed in this case since it was settled before hearings, correct? I would think not since the full details and filing were available publicly.
A nondisclosure agreement is a mutual agreement between two or more parties to not discuss something publicly - can be anything, really, from facts of case to terms of settlement to even if a case ever existed. These are enforced with civil breach of contract penalties.
Both are to some degree subject to first amendment rights as they relate to the press. Hence why an “article” that is not a “press release” can be a way to evade an NDA as another poster alluded to. Facts of cases that are under gag order are published fairly often under the first amendment right when “leaked.”
6 Likes
Thank you for that concise explanation, Soloudinhere.
1 Like
Thank you. Very clear and helpful to make this distinction. I have learned something new. Clarifies what I was curious/confused about and is why I asked the question.
And why I thought you were contradicting yourself each sentence. 
Thanks @soloudinhere for getting where the confusion was!
And just to reiterate - being a witness is not being “part of the case.” I could see someone running from a murder scene and be called as a witness. Doesn’t make me a part of the case, though. Same thing here, just civil. Unless there were a gag order (and there’s no reason to restrict free speech here), she wouldn’t be held to any reason not to speak or write about it.
It appears the Plaintiff filed a motion to amend her complaint in order to add an additional count, civil theft.
From the Docket, Rockefeller-Silva has filed that he is indigent whose income is $100 a week from his father.
Thanks for the heads up. This thing is BEYOND crazy. And interesting.
The Rockefeller guy is a complete and utter head scratcher. I wonder if he formerly was Richard P Silvia jr and changed his name legally in order to pretend to be a Rockefeller. That’s what it seems like. Weird, weird weird.
For anyone else who is curious as to what is going on, click on the link to Palm Beach clerk of courts, then just enter “Roffman” as a last name to pull up the case. I read through some of the documents… Especially the “Answers and affirmative defense.” That document gives Roffman and Meredith’s side of the story. Silvia’s side of the story is laid out in the Motion to Dismiss document that immediately follows the claim he is indigent. The next to last document I think.
I’m exhausted from a long day… Someone else should take a long look at this thing and give their run down on who is accusing who of what. In short though, Roffman and Meredith are claiming Ruthann and Rockefeller-Silvia conned them, and were operating as partners. Silvia is claiming Roffman and Meredith conned him… And alleging another odd wire fraud situation involving another Grand Prix jumper rider from Spain who is a longtime friend of Meredith. A few other names get dragged into this saga involving these two horses (Blackjack and Lebron).
In case anyone else was wondering… Lebron is supposedly suffering from a tendon injury as well and was uninsured. What a total and utter mess. It sounds like ownership of Blackjack is in dispute still as well and even though Rockefeller is filing a claim saying he’s indigent, he sent a shipper to pick up Blackjack from a third party’s farm and Caroline’s father got involved and put a stop to it. Hopefully that means that horse is still being well cared for somewhere at this point.
Holy moly. I think it’s a weird case of multiple people conning one another and involving a contract killer unintentionally, because they all mistook her for a little old lady they could swindle. Karma… On top of it, sweet little old Ruthann seems to be quite a legal bulldog too, and now wants to sue the stuffing out of all of them. Yikes.
4 Likes
Update… It looks like the plaintiff has amended her complaint against all three to include civil theft. Defendents filed motions to delay, but their responses to the request for production were due a few days ago. No settlement yet.
1 Like
post on watching Garcia v Porter boxing match has been reported
As of November 25, the second lawsuit involving plaintiff Ruth Ann Green, against Caroline Roffman, Ben Meredith, and Rockefeller-Silvia is still alive… and doesn’t appear like it will be going away quietly.
The plaintiff, Green, filed a number of documents on November 25th, including interrogatories for Roffman and Meredith. Interrogatories are clearly fishing for as much information as they can related to prior sales, and ownership interests in other horses. Additionally, a motion to compel Rockefeller-Silvia to produce a response to earlier discovery requests, and appear for a deposition was filed. That motion alleged he has fled Palm Beach County. Plaintiff Green also filed an answer to Roffman and Meredith’s earlier request that the case be referred to mediation - Green seems to want to fight rather than mediate or settle. Go figure.
Most interestingly though, Green filed a request for admissions on the part of Roffman. Green is requesting Roffman admit she committed fraud in the course of the sale of Tarjan’s horse Faberge. Specifically, Green’s lawyers requested an admission Roffman advised Tarjan to accept a $300,000 offer for the horse from Peter Eeckman Horses. They also want an admission that Peter Eeckman did not pay $300,000 for the horse, and that a third party buyer did actually pay $900,000. They want an admission that Peter Eeckman retained $10,000 for the use of a bank account, and wired the remaining $890,000 of the actual purchase price to Lionshare Dressage. And they want an admission that Roffman is the sole member and manager of Lionshare Dressage. Last, but not least, they want an admission from Roffman (oddly enough) that she knew Richard Rockefeller-Silvia wa not related to “the magnate” John D Rockefeller, and that Roffman knew this when Rockefeller-Silvia first introduced Green to Roffman.
11 Likes
