Dfwmgrc-lawsuit.com contains historical info about Texas lawsuit
Title
DFWMGRC Law Suit
Description
Excerpted from the website:
- Plaintiff's Phone Call with BJ Elliott morning of 4/23/05 Plaintiff's Phone Call with Judy Word after BJ 4/23/05
Opening Statement:
There are two sides to every story, the facts in this case speak for themselves.
This website has been established to give the facts from start to finish with regards to the lawsuit against the DFWMGRC and Judy Word. Events will be documented illustrating a time line beginning in April 2005 until the date of the Settlement Agreement with the DFWMGRC on August 27, 2007. Through this website, you will be able to see clear and concise evidence from the Plaintiffs and additional documentation received from the Defendants supporting the charges against the Defendants in this lawsuit.
Who would have thought that a puppy with a repairable umbilical hernia, estimated surgical cost of $65 at time of neutering, would be center stage of a Golden Retriever Club lawsuit?
Who would have thought that a private transaction completed to the satisfaction of a breeder and their client would be cause for interference after the fact by a Golden Retriever Club President ?
Who would have thought that a Golden Retriever Club President would go on a public forum and describe a scenario that simply didn't exist as she stated?
Who would have thought that a Golden Retriever Club Board (of which Plaintiff had just recently resigned from!) would then seek to remove that resigned Board member's breeding program and other innocent Club members from the Club's puppy referral service?
Who would have thought that while it was clear that while there was no violation of any Board directive or 'hesitation' by the Board that charges would be preferred and upheld against innocent Club members?
Who would have thought that so many Bylaws and Standing Rules would be broken by a Golden Retriever Club Board in order for them to achieve their political agenda?
Who would have thought that a Golden Retriever Club Board wouldn't inform their membership of what was really happening and the only way for the 'innocent' to resolve the situation would be through litigation?
The answers to these and many other questions to follow can be found here on this website.
You may ask yourselves, “why did the Plaintiffs tape record selected conversations?” Great question! That act alone by the Plaintiffs gives you an idea of the history known to the Plaintiffs with regards to the Dallas Ft-Worth Metro Golden Retriever Club and Judy Word and that the Plaintiffs recognized that there was a need to protect themselves and took the actions that they deemed necessary at the time.
The information you will be able to read and hear on this website may be upsetting in that you may not have ever thought that the Defendants were capable of what it appears that they did and how they did it. However, over the course of history, there are many people who have done a lot of good but to then also be guilty of some very negative actions. These types of actions must be exposed so that others can protect themselves from those types of people. The actions of the Defendants appear to not only have attempted to harm the Plaintiffs within the Golden Retriever world but also more recently went 'outside the box' attempting to cause harm to the Plaintiff's business career and source of income to support his family. These types of actions are not acceptable and should not be tolerated by the Golden Retriever community.
At this time we offer you an example of what you will see on this website. Please direct your attention to what was the last document received by the Plaintiffs with regards to the Defendants action before the Court ordered Mediation:
On July 31, 2007, a letter was received by the Plaintiffs in an attachment from the office of the Sr. VP & General Counsel of The Neiman Marcus Group in Dallas. To give you some factual background:
Sherri Farmer was on the 2004-05 Board of the Dallas Ft-Worth
Metro Golden Retriever Club.
Sherri Farmer had knowledge that Plaintiff worked at a Neiman Marcus
office location while they served on the Board together in 2004.
Sherri Farmer works for Thompson & Knight under Jack Balderson
who was the Defendant's attorney handling the Defendant's case
Pro Bono.
Neiman Marcus is a long time client of Thompson & Knight and that fact
was stated by Mr. Balderson to the Plaintiffs' attorney Michael Moore
after the Plaintiffs forwarded the letter linked below to Michael Moore.
Sherri Farmer is a webmaster for numerous Golden Retriever Club sites.
Sherri Farmer has viewed Plaintiffs' website in the past which was
stated by her in an email to another DFWMGRC member.
Sherri Farmer is the webmaster for a private site for a select
group of breeders (DFW Golden Breeders) in the Dallas Fort Worth
area of which Spirits Golden Retrievers is also a member of that group.
After Plaintiffs received the letter linked below from Neiman Marcus that
therein contained instructions on how to 'right click' to view a source
document, Plaintiffs noticed that the key words from their own site also
appeared in exactly the same order, word for word, case for case, in
the source document of a private website (DFW Golden Breeders) of which
Sherri Farmer is the webmaster and member of which is competition for
Plaintiffs for Golden Retriever puppy sales in the Dallas area.
Back on May 10, 2006, soon after the DFWMGRC membership meeting adjourned on that evening, the Plaintiffs received a harassing anonymous post, the (NotSo) Anonymous Email, please click on the link below. Look at the evidence of who wrote this (not so) anonymous post and then compare the format used in that email and the Neiman Marcus letter. (yellow highlighting). Consider the factual background mentioned above. Then look at the letter forwarded to the Plaintiffs from Neiman's legal counsel. Who do you think wrote this letter to Neiman's?
(Not So) Anonymous Email Neiman Marcus Letter
Immediately after receiving the letter from Neiman's legal counsel, the Plaintiffs followed the instructions for the right click, saw what the problem was and immediately corrected it to the satisfaction of all involved. The Plaintiffs had no knowledge that their website picked up the Neiman's 'tag' while Plaintiff was putting up the template for their website in 2005. It appears that the letter sent to Burton Tansky, President and CEO of Neiman Marcus was clearly an attempt to harm the Plaintiffs.
Another document needed to be seen at this time is Judy Word's public post to Golden Retriever Club Of America (GRCA) members with regards to the Plaintiff's puppy with the umbilical hernia. Please look first at the vet report link below to the left and then look at link to the right to see what Judy Word posted. Please note the dates on those reports as those dates will conflict with other statements made by Judy Word in other documents posted within this website.
Plaintiff's Vet Report Judy Word's initial post to GRCA Puppy Referral
Judy Word portrays the hernia as over 2 1/2 inches long by 1/2 inch wide.
Measurements: 2 and 1/2 inches _____________________
by 1/2 inch ____
Dr Kirk Esmond DVM report
Measurement: 1 and 1/2 cm _____
It appears that Judy's Word's description of the hernia is not only incorrect but far from the truth of which can be told from Dr. Kirk Esmond's Vet report. Not only does Judy Word misrepresent the size of the puppy's hernia but she also misquotes Dr. Kirk Esmond as saying that he 'notices' the heart murmur. It is clearly written in Dr. Esmond's report that there was no audible abnormality under Heart, he heard no murmur. In BJ Elliot's phone call with Plaintiffs that you will hear and see later as you follow through this website, that BJ Elliot concurs that Dr Esmond found no heart murmur. Dr. Esmond is a well respected Veterinarian in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, is used by a large portion of the dog show community in this area, and much of his work is done with the Reproduction portion of his practice. Dr. Esmond is also a frequently invited guest speaker at AKC dog breed clubs in the Dallas Fort Worth area. You can view the Josey Ranch Pet Hospital website at www.joseyranchpethospital.com .
What reason could Judy Word have had to misrepresent this puppy's hernia on April 15, 2005, the date of the above linked post (take note of that date for later) and misquote this very well respected veterinarian that she also has a client relationship with? The Plaintiff did offer to compensate for the vet bill on that day. That is proven with a letter (see link on top of page) from former DFWMGRC President Terry Combs who personally spoke with BJ Elliott on April 25, 2005. BJ Elliott also stated to Plaintiffs that he spoke with Terry Combs in a phone conversation with the Plaintiffs. (Terry Comb's statement regarding phone call with BJ Elliott) Judy Word states in documentation in this case that BJ Elliott refused to speak with Terry Combs. Why would she have made that statement when in fact that statement is not true?
It should also be mentioned at this time that it was obvious that Judy Word had contact with BJ Elliot some time between April 12 & 15 as her post to the GRCA_Puppy_Referral was posted the afternoon of April 15, 2005. However, in other documents and more importantly, in her legal Affidavit in the Defendant's Motion To Dismiss Judy Word tells a different story. (Defendant's Affidavits - Motion To Dismiss w/Plaintiff Rebuttals)
In a nutshell... Plaintiffs called a puppy referral volunteer early in the evening of April 22, 2005 to inquire if their litter listing was on her referral list. After learning from this volunteer that their puppy was not on the referral list, Plaintiffs called Judy Word. Plaintiffs spoke to no other DFWMGRC club member that evening after speaking with Judy Word. Judy Word sent an email to Plaintiffs after midnight as in early in the morning April 23, 2005 stating the Board was 'hesitant' to list Plaintiff's puppy. Email dialogues went back and forth between the Board and Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs dropped the matter after those dialogs and sold the puppy through a personal reference. Approximately two months later Plaintiffs then received charges preferred against them for violating a Board directive which was IMPOSSIBLE as Plaintiffs had spoken with the puppy referral volunteer BEFORE speaking with Judy Word on 4/22/05. And that is what this case specifically stems from... a alleged violation by Plaintiffs, subsequent charges preferred against Plaintiffs, the Disciplinary Hearing and Sanctions against Plaintiffs and other innocent DFWMGRC members, and the DFWMGRC Board's refusal to apologize for their unsubstantiated actions and sanctions.
The DFWMGRC had lost 18 memberships in 2006 (documented in their Newsletter) and had lost another 10 memberships in 2007 (documented elsewhere) that did not pay their dues to renew their memberships. In addition, in 2007, one Board member and his spouse resigned from the DFWMGRC after just a month or so of his being in office, and now two more memberships have resigned as a part of the settlement agreement of this lawsuit. The DFWMGRC membership is approximately half of what it was when Plaintiffs first joined in the mid 90’s. According to documentation, the DFWMGRC has lost over 30 memberships since 2006. There are currently 54 memberships at the time of this writing (2007). That is a loss of over 1/3 of of the membership during the period under the leadership of the Boards addressed in the lawsuit. These statistics in and of themselves speak volumes as to what can be perceived as the status of the DFWMGRC in recent years.
After Court-ordered Mediation, Defendants (DFWMGRC) agreed to pay Plaintiffs $7500 to settle the Lawsuit out of Court. Plaintiffs refused for the settlement agreement to be confidential so that the facts of this case could be made available to the Public and the Golden Retriever Community. Check from Defendants to Plaintiffs from Settlement
The fact is that Plaintiffs agreed to settle this case out of court as the Defendants had unlimited resources with a Pro Bono attorney, and Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants were going to throw every legal maneuver/roadblock that they could in order to deplete the Plaintiffs' financial resources. This is evident by reviewing the Legal Register Of Actions. Register of Actions The fact is that Plaintiffs spent close to $25,000 in legal expenses in order to resolve the situation created by the DFWMGRC and Judy Word's actions. At the time of Mediation, the Plaintiffs already had in their possession enough evidence, and had gathered more than enough additional evidence in Discovery, to prove that the Plaintiffs did nothing wrong at any time during their membership in the Dallas Ft. Worth Metro Golden Retriever Club. The fact that the DFWMGRC paid $7500 to Plaintiffs to settle the case also speaks volumes. It would be our contention that if the DFWMGRC were innocent of any wrong-doing, they would have moved forward as their costs in this case were minimal!
To the Dallas-Ft.Worth Metro Golden Retriever Club members: The Club as a whole was not informed of the entire truth of what was going on and here is your opportunity to learn the truth. Considering the Plaintiffs 12 years of active membership in this Club, you should take the time to learn the factual events that took place rather than the minimal information provided by the DFWMGRC Board.
To the Golden Retriever Club Of America members: Your visits are also welcome and it is the intent of this website that any negative information you may have previously heard with regards to any innocent members of the GRCA and/or DFWMGRC involved in this case may not have been the truth. This website is here to state the truth and the facts and evidence behind the truth in this case.
Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a Settlement Agreement on August 27, 2007. Defendants DFWMGRC paid Plaintiffs $7500. Plaintiffs and Defendant Judy Word (and her husband Mark) resigned from the DFWMGRC as members in good standing according to Article 2, Section 6 (a) of the DFWMGRC Bylaws. Plaintiffs refused the Defendants request for confidentiality of the Settlement Agreement and the settlement agreement is not confidential. Plaintiffs refused for the settlement agreement to be confidential so that the facts of this case could be made available to the Public and the Golden Retriever Community.
The purposes of this web site are:
To dispel all rumors and untruths that may have been perpetuated with regards to this case about the Plaintiffs and to undo any and all damage that may have been done to their good name and reputation.
To have all the facts and circumstances exposed of what was going on behind the scenes that the DFWMGRC Board members would not disclose to their membership.
To prevent what happened to the Plaintiffs from happening to any other GRCA member or member of an affiliated Golden Retriever Club.
Related Domains
External Links
- America
- Breeders
- Club
- DFWMGRC
- DFWMGRC Lawsuit
- DFW Breeders
- DFW Golden Breeders
- DFW Golden Retriever Breeders
- DFW Golden Retriever Puppies
- Dallas
- Dallas-Ft
- Dallas Ft
- Debra Allen
- Debra Allen Puppy Referral
- Dfw Golden Breeeders
- Fort
- GRCA
- Golden
- In
- Judy Word
- Judy Word President
- Lawsuit
- Metro
- Meyer V DFWGRC
- Of
- Puppies
- Puppy
- Puppy Referral
- Referral
- Retriever
- Sherri Farmer
- Sherri Farmer Recording Secretary
- Texas
- Worth
- Worth Golden Breeders
- Worth Golden Retriever Breeders