molly graf loosing court case for 18989..00 due to breach of contract in clearfeild pa.... - Page 4

^^^ "I think Hundmutter is  refering to the fact that no one in the organisation
ever puts together the never ending string of issues that engage this breeder"

Thank you, Bee, absolutely.   I do not have 'any dog in this fight',  and I am
not eligible to be a member of USCA nor any of its Regions (being in the UK !),
but if I can see there have been too many queries about the way Molly apparently
does things - in the short years I've been using PDB - then surely those who are
in such a position to examine the situation should do so ?  It's not as though we
are talking about fining or imprisoning her if they find against her;  just that she no
longer be held up as a fitting person to hold the office of Breed Warden.  

Any dog (or other sort) of Club that will only act on such issues if the immediate party
who complains about one thing they say has happened to themselves and of which they
can offer (some/any) proof, is missing a trick when it comes to long term abuses of power,
by anybody.  I am not singling Molly out, she has done that by herself.  In this latest
court case, she did lose, did she not ?  I don't think that's the first time.  Either your
Justice system is for some reason completely biased against dog breeders, or that
was a fair decision based on facts presented, and no doubt argued against by Molly.
No one has suggested that USCA should waste time and money investigating every
time there is a complaint against a breeder put on the Internet.  But there ought to
be a point where one kennel is mentioned time and again, on & off the 'Net, and
that person is an Officer of the Club or a Breed Warden or similar, when the organisation
says: even if most of these allegations are wrong / there are other parts to those stories
which need bringing out, the responsible thing to do is to  have an inquiry, and be seen
by the membership to be doing so.   Who knows, that might clear her of everything
(except the Helser thing she admits she was in error about, and anything she has lost
in a courtroom). 

Beetree and Hundmutter



 What you are not "getting" is USCA has a set of Bylaws and we MUST follow them. USCA Can not just investigate anyone based on anonymous internet accusations.

And again, USCA does not monitor the PDB to see if an anonymous person is making accusations against a member.


I'm sorry if you can not understand this, but we can not violate the bylaws of which the organizaions operates.

Unknown,

I am only going to speak for myself, here, but I do think Hundmutter and I understand the issue differently than you. And I want you to know I really am not trying to be argumentative for its sake, because I do think I do understand.

The point is not to suggest every disgruntled voice warrants an initiative to investigate everyone, but rather that no one has seen fit to investigate the obvious one. Without knowing all the nitty gritty proofs, only that a judge seems to have already done that, (and that is good enough for me), it seems logical to consider what aspects the title of Breed Warden might be affected by such a judgment. That I think is what I would be looking at, if I wanted to make improvements. 

Now, I know, no one was asking for non-members opinions suggesting improvements, lol Any way, still, you might be curious to know that some people without a "dog in the fight", would get the impression that the status quo is seen as just fine by the organization. You pay the dues, so you make the rules, I get it!

Afwark15: "(Third party asked Molly to sell this dog for her while she was across the country). Third party asked Molly to put in sale contract that breeding rights would remain for the breeder. "

I don´t know any of the parties involved, but the statement above makes me wonder - a breeder is able to SELL a dog, but the breeding rights will remain for the breeder?
This is ridiculous!

Besides that I´m with unknown - there are BOI´s and people did vote for Molly as a breed warden.
Real " dog people " often are not very social, most of them are stubborn and narrow minded, as soon as their dogs are involved, but they do want the best for the breed.

I´d like to see BOTH sides of the medal.

Beetree and Hundmutter,
Frank (Unknown) and I both have both served on the USCA executive board with him currently. As a protection AGAINST undue or self serving persecution of ANY of our membership by "those in power" an independent Board of Inquiry elected every two years by the membership was empowered to consider grievances or misdeeds. 
ANY one of our 4000 members may initiate such an action but the executive board as a general rule and to alleviate appearances of bias typically does not. 
The BOI Is currently comprised of members with legal, investigative, law enforcement and other backgrounds and is indeed quite competent and very diligent in the execution of their duties. 
They have historically acted upon allegations regarding members at every level of the USCA from the executive board, to judges, regional directors and on down. 
To infer Molly or any member is "protected" from such scrutiny is WAY off base and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of our bylaws, their institutional protections for our membership, and ample historical precedent. 
Regards,
Kevin Nance
 

Kevin,

You made that leap to "protected member" and you missed the whole point. You clearly have the Breed Warden you want. No where did I infer you have incompetent board members. 

My two cents was all it was worth.

Beetree

The USCA has a clear record (historical precedent??) of breaking the bylaws and the constitution of the WUSV which the USCA is a member of .. it appears the bylaws are just a guideline and can be ignored or broken when it is convenient when deemed convenient by the USCA .    The idea that favoritism for those in the inner circle of any organization does not exist is laughable and doubly so for the USCA that conducts campaigns of favoritism for their own members and against others not in the USCA at joint qualifiers and competitions.



Moderator edit. Stick to the subject of this thread please.  mrdarcy

Beetree,
Molly is neither "my" breed warden nor have I ever met her.  IF due recourse through the BOI is incurred, either she, Frank, me, or any other member should be accountable. 
It was Hundmutter who implied "protection" as a possible intent. 
Best to all.  Bubba now has (and will retain) the floor....

Moderator comment. Oh no he won't. mrdarcy.

Beetree said "Now, I know, no one was asking for non-members opinions suggesting improvements, lol Any way, still, you might be curious to know that some people without a "dog in the fight", would get the impression that the status quo is seen as just fine by the organization. You pay the dues, so you make the rules, I get it!"


No Beetree, you still don't get it... It's not that we make the rules, it that We FOLLOW the rules...and the rules (USCA Bylaws) say someone must file charges for there to be a BOI investigation. No one has filed charges, so no investigation. We do not have a choice in the matter. No matter how many anonymous internet complaints.

Now that BooBoo is here spouting his crap, I'm out....