Stolen embryos?

[Ponytailponygirl]

[QUOTE=ThirdCharm;6976470]
Devastated? Devastated?

I could understand ‘annoyed’, just on the basis of “well, I shoulda been more specific in the contract, that was stupid of me”-- because really, this is a contract dispute, not a criminal case, unless the mare was an Olympic horse given the expense of ET no sane judge is going to consider the embryo valuable enough to qualify as a legit ‘crime’… Or ‘angry’ if there is now a personal problem between the two and they’re mad he benefitted more than they expected… But devastated?

Also confused who the plaintiff is.

She was devastated because when the mare was returned to her, she was at death’s door.

Jennifer[/QUOTE]
She was devastated because when the mare was returned to her, she was at death’s door.

[Janet]

[QUOTE=Ponytailponygirl;6976887]
She was devastated because when the mare was returned to her, she was at death’s door.[/QUOTE]

Being devastated at the mare’s condition is one thing, and perfectly justified.

But that is not what you said. You said she was devastated that an embryo had been taken without her knowledge, which is something quite different entirely.

[DownYonder]

[QUOTE=Janet;6975970]
Reading between the lines. I think that the “question form the court” is referring to the live birth as the “first embryo”, and the ET embryo as the “second embryo” .

The plaintiff on the other hand seems to want to use the term “embryo” only to refer to the ET, not the live birth. So in saying “there was no second embryo”, he seems to be saying " There was only one embryo used for ET, not 2".

I am curious why the “trainer” is the plaintiff, presumably suing the owner.[/QUOTE]

I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV, but I agree with the above. I also feel that the court document itself was a bit unclear.

“19. Admit that you extracted a second embryo from the horse S, without prior consent from the horse’s owner,”

Plaintiff (i.e., the trainer) either mistakenly assumed the question referred to extraction of two embryos, or deliberately chose to interpret it that way.

But if there wasn’t a written contract between owner and trainer specifying the trainer had the right to only ONE foal, my guess is the owner is out of luck. I wouldn’t think a court would rule against the trainer based on the owner’s “assumption” the trainer would only use the mare one time for a foal. Sucks for the owner, and while I feel the trainer is both sneaky and rather shady, I would be surprised if the court found in the owner’s favor on this issue.

[DownYonder]

[QUOTE=Ponytailponygirl;6976882]
Sorry. My mistake. He’s the Plaintiff, AND the counterdefendant. The parties he sued, have sued him in turn. It’s a hot mess.[/QUOTE]

Why is he suing the owner? He was the one that extracted the embryo without her knowledge or consent.

[tuckawayfarm]

I don’t understand this thread at all.

First we have a mare owner irate that an embryo was taken from her mare without her knowledge, then it’s disclosed this might have occurred during a breeding lease. Now we find out that the owner is really upset because the mare was returned “at death’s door.” Seriously??? At death’s door and that doesn’t come up until page 2?

As I’m sure the owner had a vet out immediately upon the mares return, she should have unbiased documentation on the mare’s condition. Personally, I would forget about trying to sue over an oral contract where the parties don’t agree about what was said. Instead, I would be posting the vet’s report, along with before and after photos, stating the trainer and location where the mare had been cared for over the past year.

Jingles for the mare.

[Cranky_Agnes]

[QUOTE=Ponytailponygirl;6976882]
It’s a hot mess.[/QUOTE]

Everything around him usually is.

[Ponytailponygirl]

[QUOTE=DownYonder;6977356]
Why is he suing the owner? He was the one that extracted the embryo without her knowledge or consent.[/QUOTE]
He’s not suing the owner. He’s suing someone else for being vocal about his “shady” practice of helping himself to embryos, regardless of the terms of the contract.

[Ponytailponygirl]

[QUOTE=Cranky Agnes;6977466]
Everything around him usually is.[/QUOTE]

You made me spit out my coffee!!! LMAO!! And I thought I was being discreet.:lol:

[Ponytailponygirl]

[QUOTE=tuckawayfarm;6977452]
I don’t understand this thread at all.

First we have a mare owner irate that an embryo was taken from her mare without her knowledge, then it’s disclosed this might have occurred during a breeding lease. Now we find out that the owner is really upset because the mare was returned “at death’s door.” Seriously??? At death’s door and that doesn’t come up until page 2?

As I’m sure the owner had a vet out immediately upon the mares return, she should have unbiased documentation on the mare’s condition. Personally, I would forget about trying to sue over an oral contract where the parties don’t agree about what was said. Instead, I would be posting the vet’s report, along with before and after photos, stating the trainer and location where the mare had been cared for over the past year.

Jingles for the mare.[/QUOTE]

I apologize for all the ambiguity. In an effort to protect identities, (not from Cranky Agnes!), I have made it difficult to follow my thread. Be that as it may, all of your comments have been very helpful.

[Ponytailponygirl]

[QUOTE=Cartier;6976625]
Not to muddy the waters here, but my take on this is that there is the lawsuit and a counter claim, where the defendant is pro se (but probably filed the counter claim naming himself as the plaintiff in the case caption). And the only attorney involved in this fell asleep a few years ago, but no one has noticed (which accounts for the answer to #19). :lol: Or, what we have in the OP’s post is just a summary of an interrogatory answer.

I suspect that the pro se party has already seen some interrogatory answers (possibly in this action) that “admit” in part, and “deny” in part… and he/she has used “admit” in a novel / colloquial manner. E.g. “I would like you to admit that you are wrong and I am right.”

We did an ET with a 22 year-old donor mare… she was absolutely fine and got in foal twice after the ET. I think there’s a bit of blame for all parties: there is no excuse for returning the mare in poor condition, I don’t see a cause of action for the ET, and I would not use this trainer, but I also would not allow someone to breed my mare without a well written contract.[/QUOTE]

This post blew my mind, and made me laugh. You are either a gifted psychic, a brilliant attorney, or you know the parties involved. I think there was a written contract, but was trying to avoid bringing the aforementioned mare owner into a legal “hot mess”. Thanks for your comment.

[Cranky_Agnes]

[QUOTE=Ponytailponygirl;6977514]
You made me spit out my coffee!!! LMAO!! And I thought I was being discreet.:lol:[/QUOTE]

:lol: Before I even read the thread, I had a pretty good idea of who you were talking about. But that’s only because his life is so “out there” for the world to see via the person who is suing him.

[Kryswyn]

[QUOTE=Ponytailponygirl;6976013]
He’s not suing the mare owner. He’s being sued by someone else.[/QUOTE]

Then he’s the DEFENDANT not the Plaintiff. Plaintiff brings the complaint.

[Ponytailponygirl]

[QUOTE=Kryswyn;6977592]
Then he’s the DEFENDANT not the Plaintiff. Plaintiff brings the complaint.[/QUOTE]

Actually, he is both. The person he’s suing, turned around and sued him; thus, the “hot mess” I was referring to.

[Nootka]

[QUOTE=Cranky Agnes;6977566]
:lol: Before I even read the thread, I had a pretty good idea of who you were talking about. But that’s only because his life is so “out there” for the world to see via the person who is suing him.[/QUOTE]

Damn … I must not be in the " know". Sucks to be under this rock

[szipi]

I wish everyone a nice day.

[szipi]

I wish everyone a nice day.

[Ponytailponygirl]

Make no mistake: Paula Estess has nothing to do with any horse, any embryos or any business deals. She has never owned a horse, let alone the horse in question.

Thank you Lord!

[TKR]

What is with all the mudslinging of late out of the blue on this message board? If the OP doesn’t have a “dog in the fight” - what is the big deal and the axe being ground by her? Sounds more like a vendetta regarding someone else’s business. Get a life!
PennyG

[Nootka]

The OPs last comment? WTF was that point?

[Ponytailponygirl]

[QUOTE=TKR;6977859]
What is with all the mudslinging of late out of the blue on this message board? If the OP doesn’t have a “dog in the fight” - what is the big deal and the axe being ground by her? Sounds more like a vendetta regarding someone else’s business. Get a life!
PennyG[/QUOTE]

If you go back and read my prior posts on this thread, you’ll see that I was discreet, did not name names, and was searching for information regarding a subject that I have limited knowledge of. There is only one poster doing any mudslinging.