I wish everyone a nice day.
Gee, I was under the impression that a horse trainer would be busy actually WORKING this time of day. No wonder some end up working until 11pm.
[QUOTE=Ponytailponygirl;6977692]
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![/QUOTE]
Why are you thanking the lord that your yourself have nothing to do with horses? Yet here you are on a horse BB. 
[QUOTE=Janeway;6978076]
Why are you thanking the lord that your yourself have nothing to do with horses? Yet here you are on a horse BB. [/QUOTE]
Because now there’s more proof that he lied to the court about us having a “business relationship”.
Now that I have heard the “other side of the story”, I take back my comments about the trainer. He took the mare on a 1-1/2 year breeding lease, and there were “no agreements or limitations on what type of breeding” he could do. So he bred her, re-bred her after she foaled, and harvested the embryo. I see no harm in that, and I suspect there are many breeders who would be tempted to do the same - esp. if the mare was on their payroll for 1-1/2 years, and doubly so if they had their own stallion(s) on the property (no stud fees to worry about losing if the mare doesn’t catch or the recip loses the ET).
It does sound like a hot mess, but apparently not between the trainer and the MO, but rather between the trainer and a 3rd party. If she has done / is doing as he claims - i.e., trying to ruin his reputation and business - I don’t blame him for taking legal action against her. It will be interesting to hear down the road how it all turns out.
If the OP doesn’t have a horse and doesn’t know diddly about horses, why in God’s name is she going to such lengths to involve herself in this? As I said – get a life of YOUR OWN! The horse business doesn’t need any more people like you.
PennyG
Not sure if the OP has counsel, or is pro se… but when a litigant choses to be pro se, the court does not give them special consideration because they do not know what they are doing. Going to court is real life - "The Adult Version” with real consequences. Pro se litigants are held to the same standard as those who pass the bar. In every sense, you will be held accountable for what you do.
For example, the title of this tread is “Stolen Embryo?.” And there is this post
[QUOTE=Ponytailponygirl;6977510]
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.[/QUOTE]
It is now very clear that Andras did not steal an embryo. Accusing some one of stealing - when in fact they did not - is defamatory on its face. Disseminating this false claim to a third party[ies], as in this instance where you have disseminated your false defamatory claim, in writing – here on COTH - is defamation per se, and in this instance, Andras (who is either a private person or a limited purpose public figure) would not have to prove malice to prevail against you. Not sure if the question mark will protect you, given the claim that there is a history here. You may find yourself on the receiving end of another nasty law suit. Might be time to re-think the claims you are making.
We all can get very angry at each other (it seems to happen daily on this forum :yes:), but that does not mean we are on the right side of applicable law. Just saying…
[QUOTE=Cartier;6978167]
Not sure if the OP has counsel, or is pro se… but when a litigant choses to be pro se, the court does not give them special consideration because they do not know what they are doing. Going to court is real life - "The Adult Version” with real consequences. Pro se litigants are held to the same standard as those who pass the bar. In every sense, you will be held accountable for what you do.
For example, the title of this tread is “Stolen Embryo?.” And there is this post
It is now very clear that Andras did not steal an embryo. Accusing some one of stealing - when in fact they did not - is defamatory on its face. Disseminating this false claim to a third party[ies], as in this instance where you have disseminated your false defamatory claim, in writing – here on COTH - is defamation per se, and in this instance, Andras (who is either a private person or a limited purpose public figure) would not have to prove malice to prevail against you. Not sure if the question mark will protect you, given the claim that there is a history here. You may find yourself on the receiving end of another nasty law suit. Might be time to re-think the claims you are making.
We all can get very angry at each other (it seems to happen daily on this forum :yes:), but that does not mean we are on the right side of applicable law. Just saying…[/QUOTE]
I appreciate your thoughtful comment. However, I did NOT say WHO was being sued. Someone, as per usual couldn’t keep their mouth shut.
Also, you’re taking the explanation on face value. There are other mare owners who are upset because of this practice besides the one I referenced. One of them is the wife of a State Attorney. There is a history of baseless litigation here, which is why my Malicious Prosecution claim withstood dismissal, so far.
Also, you have to prove damages. How did I damage anyone’s finances, when they are able to dump twice what they claim they make per year, on legal fees, in a pursuit against someone who is in foreclosure, in debt to the IRS for 70,000, and self employed? It doesn’t make any sense. In the unlikely event a judgment would be ordered, there would be nothing to collect, ever.
[QUOTE=TKR;6978152]
If the OP doesn’t have a horse and doesn’t know diddly about horses, why in God’s name is she going to such lengths to involve herself in this? As I said – get a life of YOUR OWN! The horse business doesn’t need any more people like you.
PennyG[/QUOTE]
I am so sorry. I wasn’t aware that there was a prerequisite to being able to comment on this forum. My bad.
[QUOTE=Ponytailponygirl;6978370]
I appreciate your thoughtful comment. However, I did NOT say WHO was being sued. Someone, as per usual couldn’t keep their mouth shut.
Also, you’re taking the explanation on face value. There are other mare owners who are upset because of this practice besides the one I referenced. One of them is the wife of a State Attorney. There is a history of baseless litigation here, which is why my Malicious Prosecution claim withstood dismissal, so far.
Also, you have to prove damages. How did I damage anyone’s finances, when they are able to dump twice what they claim they make per year, on legal fees, in a pursuit against someone who is in foreclosure, in debt to the IRS for 70,000, and self employed? It doesn’t make any sense. In the unlikely event a judgment would be ordered, there would be nothing to collect, ever.[/QUOTE]
My overarching point is, “you might want to re-think your goals here, and re-assess whether any of this is worth the risk.” It’s entirely up to you. But, it is clear that your statements are of or concerning Andras. Your opinion of how he spends money is entirely irrelevant to a judgment entered against you. I think that punitive damages would be problematic… here’s a bit of info from a simple Google search
Florida Arbitration Code and the Finality of Arbitration »
Defamation – Slander Per Se under Florida Law and Punitive Damages
Published April 3, 2012 | By Mark Schecter
Defamation is generally defined as the unprivileged publication of false statements which naturally and proximately result in injury to another. Wolfson v. Kirk, 273 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). To establish a cause of action for defamation, a plaintiff must show: (1) That the defendant published a false statement about the plaintiff; (2) To a third party; and (3) That the falsity of the statement caused injury to the plaintiff. See Razner v. Wellington Regional Med. Ctr., Inc., 837 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Only those statements that are false rise to the level of defamation. Id. Also, statements of pure opinion are not actionable. Florida Med. Ctr., Inc. v. New York Post Co., Inc., 568 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
There are four categories of statements that constitute slander per se:
- Imputing to another a criminal offense amounting to a felony;
- Imputing to another a presently existing venereal disease or other loathsome and communicable disease;
- Imputing to another, the other being a woman, acts of unchastity;
- Imputing to another conduct, characteristics or a condition incompatible with the proper exercise of his lawful business, trade, profession, or office.
See Wolfson, 273 So. 2d at 777 (internal citations omitted).
In a slander per se action, “punitive damages may be awarded even though the amount of actual damages is neither found nor shown, for in such a case, the requirement of a showing of actual damages as a basis of an award for exemplary damages is satisfied by the presumption of injury which arises from a showing of libel or slander that is actionable per se.” Saunders Hardware Five and Ten, Inc. v. Low, 307 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).
The application of the punitive damages rule above was recently made by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Lawnwood Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Sadow, 43 So. 3d 710 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), where a surgeon (Dr. Samuel H. Sadow) brought an action against a hospital for breach of contract and slander per se seeking compensatory damages for both claims and punitive damages for the slander per se action. In the trial court proceeding, the jury found the hospital liable on the breach of contract claim and fixed damages at $2,817,000, reduced to $1,517,000. In separate proceedings on the slander per se claim, the jury found Lawnwood liable for the slanders; that Lawnwood specifically intended to harm him by its per se slanderous statements; that, in fact, it had actually injured him by the statements; and that he suffered no compensatory damages from the slanders but that he was entitled to punitive damages of $5,000,000 from the hospital. Id. at 712. The Fourth District Court of Appeal, affirmed the punitive damages award, and set forth the following interesting discussion in its supporting opinion.
…[W]hen the claim is defamation per se, liability itself creates a conclusive legal presumption of loss or damage and is alone sufficient for the jury to consider punitive damages. […] To sum up, Florida’s unusually high protection of personal reputation derives from the common consent of humankind and has ancient roots. It is highly valued by civilized people. Our state constitution and common law powerfully support it. This is a value as old as the Pentateuch and the Book of Exodus, and its command as clear as the Decalogue: “Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” The personal interest in one’s own good name and reputation surpasses economics, business practices or money. It is a fundamental part of personhood, of individual standing and one’s sense of worth. In short, the wrongdoing underlying the punitive damages in this case has Florida law’s most severe condemnation, its highest blameworthiness, its most deserving culpability. For slander per se, reprehensibility is at its highest.
Lawnwood, 43 So. 3d at 727-29, review denied, 36 So. 3d 84 (Fla. 2010), and cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 905 (U.S. 2011) (footnotes omitted).
Again, this is an issue that I have researched extensively. I have NEVER given anyone a cause of action for defamation. It’s not defamation if it’s true. You have NO IDEA how much he fits the criteria for your above posted comment, and I have clear cut evidence, and witnesses, to prove it. But more importantly, I have nothing to lose, in part due to my opponent’s emotional extortion, so what? Who cares? He’s not even a citizen. What is he going to gain from this, other than the Streisand Effect? He’s a professional victim…there’s ALWAYS been someone “after him”, since the day I met him. There has always been some crazed stalker. Same song, 34th verse.
To answer your question, is it worth the risk? What risk? Thanks to him, I have NOTHING and I mean NOTHING to lose. I could write a book about defamation law from memory, with Florida case law, so you don’t need to waste your time copying and pasting what is permanently imprinted into my memory. I’ve been studying this subject extensively for a year and a half, but thank you for your information.
[QUOTE=Ponytailponygirl;6978602]
Again, this is an issue that I have researched extensively. I have NEVER given anyone a cause of action for defamation. It’s not defamation if it’s true. You have NO IDEA how much he fits the criteria for your above posted comment, and I have clear cut evidence, and witnesses, to prove it. But more importantly, I have nothing to lose, in part due to my opponent’s emotional extortion, so what? Who cares? He’s not even a citizen. What is he going to gain from this, other than the Streisand Effect? He’s a professional victim…there’s ALWAYS been someone “after him”, since the day I met him. There has always been some crazed stalker. Same song, 34th verse.
To answer your question, is it worth the risk? What risk? Thanks to him, I have NOTHING and I mean NOTHING to lose. I could write a book about defamation law from memory, with Florida case law, so you don’t need to waste your time copying and pasting what is permanently imprinted into my memory. I’ve been studying this subject extensively for a year and a half, but thank you for your information.[/QUOTE]
From what I have read, I think Abraham Lincoln Had It Right - “He who represents himself has a fool for a client”
But do as you please, no one can stop you. With access to a keyboard, a printer and the price of the filing fee, most anyone can sue anyone. Litigation will suck you into a black hole of misery, with no predictable outcome, becoming nothing more than a huge waste of time and resources. I think even you will admit that there is a convoluted subtext here that goes well beyond the claims you are making (none of which are now relevant to this forum). Your anger is readily apparent, as is your state of mind. And even you seem to recognize this is all a frustrating waste of time.
Your life is your own. It’s your choice how you spend your time and resources. Each day that you waste on this utter nonsense is a day you will never get back. Each and every moment you waste trying to get back at him is a moment not spent improving your situation in life (better education, better job skills, better personal life). Your future is in front of you, with whatever positive energy and effort you put out, to create something good for yourself. This other crap is the past, and pursing it will not bring one positive thing to your life.
PTG, it sounds like you spend every waking moment going out of your way to make the lives of others miserable (from reading your posts in this one thread).
That is not a healthy way to live at all. Time to get a real life and move on.
As this thread involves active litigation involving the parties posting here, we’re going to close this thread and leave it to the courts to decide.
Thanks,
Mod 1
