This is a placeholder text
Group text
by D.H. on 04 January 2009 - 11:01
same ol', same ol'... why would the 'owner' need to worry about how this is going to work, signatures, etc... Then it seems Nando is shooting blanks (pay attention to this Jean of SchraderhausK9, because Gesi was bred to Nando during that time)
I must say I really did appreciate that Kim kept be abreast of all these things at the time...
by D.H. on 04 January 2009 - 11:01
As to comments on the von Hayden website that the dogs I had sent to Kim were of poor quality and not what I had described....
The dogs listed in the eMail below, and there were no more sent to her after them, had been at Kims for some time before she had sent the eMail above. So Kim had had plenty of time to evaluate the dogs. She obviously made her decision based on what she saw in these dogs, and the fact that she liked them enough to pursue purchase. Gesi vom uns Heimaturt, called G. by Kim, was originally sent to Kim on a breeding lease. Kim was given an option to purchase her after Gesi had produced at least one litter on a breeding lease (split litter), with the option to me to have one more lease litter with Kim before releasing Gesi for purchase, but no more than that. Price was locked in at 3900 Euros. Kim was originally not under the obligation to buy Gesi after the lease, but with the eMail below she placed herself into that obligation. Asta vom Berry Hof was originally just supposed to be up for sale. Her original purchaser did not get along with Asta, so I sent a replacement. Since these two were within driving distance Kim was nice enough to take Asta in til she'd be sold. After Asta arrived Kim approached me about purchasing her, but on payments. I agreed, but under the condition that Asta will be on a breeding lease with Kim for one litter and then Kim could pay her off from her half of the litter. Price was set at $6500US. Same as what the previous buyer (who loved her replacement) had originally paid. Remember Esie from earlier emails. Esie was still not paid off. Since her arrival at Kims at the end of February. She came up emtpy after being bred to Nando. Now all of the sudden I am told I can sell her... That was not the original agreement. And Kim had a price on Esie since before she was shipped out. Wenke is a DDR line pup that was sent together with Vito. These two were sent to Kim for re-sale. Kim then approached me about buying Vito herself. I had no problem with that. Whether she would buy him or someone else would have been the same for me, but the object here was that these two would be sold asap. Again, I was asked to accept payments. But was told he would be paid off quickly. As a pup Kim was offered the purchase price of only $1100US for him, providing the exchange rate would remain the same. As you can see Vito is not paid off yet at the time of that eMail. That situation is still unchanged. The original puppy price is no longer acceptable or applicable. I am not a bank.
by D.H. on 04 January 2009 - 11:01
Things certainly started to turn 'sour'.
Again, the above is not something an owner would convey to me about "their dog".
I let Kim know, in the spring of 07 mind you, that this was no longer acceptable. If the females were not successfully bred by their next heat, they would be put up for sale.
If I would not get access to any outside breedings to Nando, he would have to be moved.
Kim did not meet the terms of the leases, which were very simple (people who have done leases with me can confirm these terms, they have not changed, except for the fact that I longer do them): I supply female, lessee supplies male or stud fee, lessee ships in, I ship out, lessee gets a free-lease dog to have a litter with during the time the dog resides there and is responsible for all cost while the dog resides there, dog remains in my ownership of course, litters are split 50/50, and usually lessee is responsible for selling pups, but I will assist. With Nando we both had access to breeding our own females, outside stud fees would be split. He was also supposed to be collected to store some frozen semen. Did not happen either. And of course, no outside breeding. That there was no interest is a bunch of hogwash, Kim had sent me emails from interested parties herself. And when you scroll back up, I was quite clear from the beginning that that was the intent here, to stud the dog out.
Yes, I held back on paperwork re Nando because things were not going the way they were supposed to. At all.
I still had no final payment on Vito.
Wenke was 'adopted' out. More on that later.
by D.H. on 04 January 2009 - 11:01
So, now here it is spelled out for once
For everyone to see in Kim's own words: lease agreement.
If you look at her website, she claims I abandoned my females, which I had "boarded".
How can I board females that she agreed to purchase?
Then confirms also has lease agreements on?
Oh, if this was not so sad I would laugh.
Says quite clearly above: sale from his original owner to you (meaning the person addressed by that eMail, that would be me).
So I would say that quite clearly establishes me as owner, even on Kims terms.
Whatever agreement I had with Wolfgang, Nando's previous owner, is of no concern to her. The dog was transferred into my ownership in Germany. If Nando is in a situation that no longer suits me, the owner, I am well within my right to adjust the circumstance.
by D.H. on 04 January 2009 - 12:01
And then this was the very sad camel that broke the proverbial back...
Kim had notified me indeed the day before that one pup was sick and no one knew what was wrong. There were 6 pups in that litter (Elly -x- Nando, the other hope). The pup that got sick did not live through the night. The vet advice Kim referred to in her eMail was over the phone, the vet did not see these pups til they were dropped off to be put down. Kim had her cell phone off when I received above email, or would not answer it, I could not contact her directly. Though apparently Elaine, her supposed business manager, could. I could not reach her. No info on where the pups had been taken. On a hunch I had asked Jean, Gesi's new owner, for the vet info on Gesi's health certificate just a few days earlier. I phoned that clinic and got lucky, Kim was there with the pups. I discussed the situation with the vet, but later realized not thoroughly enough. The pups really did not have much of a fighting chance. The comments above are a bunch of cowpaddies. The pups were 3 months old, born July 17th. We had been trying to get them out of there for about a month, no success. They would not have gotten sick if they had been released as requested. I was suddenly faced with decisions without any idea really of what I was dealing with. The vet and I decided to put the weakest pup down right away. I made one crucial error and that was that I forgot to ask the pups weights at that time. It would have given me an indicator of their condition. I found out later that the pup that was euthanized right away was just under 16lbs. The others were 18, 19 (2) and one was 22 lbs. At 3 months! Any breeder here knows what these weights mean for the age of these pups. And they supposedly just got sick the day before and otherwise well taken care of. The numbers suggest otherwise. And at these weights had just recently been vaccinated by Kim herself, not a vet. According to the vet, the treatment Kim provided was to inject fluids under the pups skin. She happened to have some at home still. Anyone who has ever dealt with parvo knows that that was at best a feeble attempt. These pups did not receive the care they needed. And then it was decided that treatment was simply.... too expensive. The pups were treated at Mineral Wells Vet Clinic, Dr. Leslie R Elliott, Mineral Wells, WV 26150. Only one pup survived.
by D.H. on 04 January 2009 - 12:01
Opps! How did that suddenly happen?
We were just at a lease agreement a moment ago!
Kim and Jonathan (new owner) have some interesting eMail exchanges, then Kim calls in the reinforcements:
Take note - Lawyer Dude knows that he now needs to address Jonathan in matters concerning Nando.
by D.H. on 04 January 2009 - 12:01
Then Lawyer Dude has something for me too
Again, no info who the vet is, I am supposed to be responsible for cost, which had never incurred had the dog been returned to her rightful owner, moi.
by D.H. on 04 January 2009 - 12:01
No proof of ownership, no proof of purchase.
Then Kim and her lawyer go a step further - both claim that my whereabouts is unknown, I am believed to reside somewhere in the Dominion of Canada. Interesting that other people could find me, like Liz Gruen, who was named in the same lawsuit in a totally unrelated matter. Since my whereabouts was unknown, I was never served. Because I was never served, Kim received a default judgement in her favor. Here is the lawsuit she brought forth
by D.H. on 04 January 2009 - 12:01
by D.H. on 04 January 2009 - 12:01
In addition, that judgement regarding Nando is totally irrelevant. I was not registered owner of Nando at the time of that lawsuit. Laywer Dude was well aware of that, see above eMails. Furthermore, did this brilliant Lawyer Dude Richard Hayhurst committ perjury before his very own court by claiming my whereabouts is unknown when he had had direct eMail exchange with me just a short while before. Also see above. Plus a simple google search will produce at least one mailing address that I have had since the year 2000, or he could have just sent me another eMail asking for my mailing address using the same process he used before in January 08, or they could have contacted the SV for my mailing address, or posted something here for my mailing address, etc. So the questions are now: Why does someone as honorable as Kim want to sue another party like me without that other party knowing about it? Logic dictates only two possible answers: 1) To present a very one-sided story to the court
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top