Saturday, February 26, 2011

The New Journey...........The Counter Claim..........

Part One

The following week I received a letter from their attorney stating she was legal representation for BG and WF in this case, 706500. As far as I knew the next thing to happen would be the actual hearing which was scheduled for 1:30 PM June 24 in courtroom 101 at the Pierce County District Court.

Then just a couple days before the hearing I received paperwork of the Counterclaim filed by the defendants. In that paperwork was a sworn declaration made by BG claiming his version of how he had fulfilled the terms of our contract. Now, not only had BG lied to me and Dave, he had perjured himself in documents filed with the court.

I also thought it was interesting he claimed to have provided me with what he called a "detailed itemization of the services provided.' I couldn't help but wonder if the court would see that accounting sheet as inadequate in regard to detail as I did. I saw this claim as just another exaggeration showing how inflated BG's statements about what he does can be. Talk about a perfect example to show the court. All I needed to do was show the court why the detail was inadequate. Considering the number of horses worked and the number of days involved, I didn't think that would be too hard. I was pleased.

The attorney responded on behalf of the defendants to my charges with an affirmative defense and some challenges to my paperwork. According to her version of things my claims were barred under the doctrines of estoppel and/or waiver and also stated that allowing me to regain possession of my horse would be unjust enrichment. In addition they were seeking damages for the harm I had caused their business as well as legal fees.

The first thing I did was look up those legal terms to to see exactly what they meant in terms of my case. That was my first experience with seeing how the law can be manipulated to support a lie.

Imagine my surprise to see that estoppel means "a bar preventing one from making an allegation or a denial that contradicts what one has previously stated as the truth." By using this term, the attorney was basically saying that I had no claims because they had the signed registration papers which they had obtained from me and that meant the contract had been properly fulfilled. Obviously the lawyer could see no other reason for them to have the registration papers. Wasn't she going to be surprised to find out not only was there a reason, but that reason was a standard practice in the industry?

Then for unjust enrichment, I found it means "when a person unfairly gets a benefit by chance, mistake or another's misfortune for which the one enriched has not paid or worked and morally and ethically should not keep. A person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another must legally return the unfairly kept money or benefits. Unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine applied in the absence of a contract and used to prevent one person from being unjustly enriched at another's expense." According to their attorney that pretty much meant if the court gave me the horse, I was getting something that shouldn't belong to me. Interesting concept for a horse that hadn't been paid for, don't you think?

Then there was that claim that there was not a signed, sworn statement in my paperwork. That statement should have been the declaration paperwork that had not been provided in the bundle of documents . However, one of the other papers I'd provided did have a signed, sworn statement included within its contents. I was prepared to point that out to the court should the need arise because the way I had done it was still adequate to provide what was required by the court even if it wasn't the way their attorney expected to find it.

The fact the lawyer had not noticed my statement made me think she really was not very thorough. Between that and inconsistencies in her own paperwork, from one document to the next with statements sworn to by BG and WF, only reinforced that belief.

I noted those inconsistencies as well as discrepancies between their statements of what happened and what I knew to be true so I could use them later in court. By knowing how they were mixing things up ahead of time, I could use those things to trip them up for court. I saw them as just more pieces to the puzzle. Each time they told the story, the version changed because they couldn't keep track of all the lies, not even when talking to their own attorney.

Also included in that paperwork provided to me and the court, as an exhibit, was a copy of that accounting sheet WF had given to Dave and interestingly enough there were even inconsistencies between that sheet and what was sworn to in court documents. I couldn't have been more excited to see the document let alone find more things to discredit in it. The discrepancies between it and their paperwork was just more frosting on the cake.

Here I had been wondering how I was going to build a foundation to get that accounting sheet into evidence and it was provided to me by his lawyer. I was pretty sure that lawyer had no clue at all the anomalies that thing held and now there was no way they could stop me from using it at trial. I was definitely tickled.

Also included in those exhibits were copies of the boarding contract I had signed for Reflection and the purchase agreement on the boxer puppy. In addition there was a copy of Storm's papers showing a date and signature as well as paperwork from the registry showing their attempt to transfer ownership had not been completed because those original papers were now useless.

That document from the registry also showed the postmark date of their attempt to get papers on my horse. It was exactly the day I thought it would be. They had put those papers in the mail the day after I told them they had not satisfied the terms of our contract because BG had not done all the work required. Still they had tried to negotiate those papers so they didn't have to deal with my claims.

There was something else interesting in those papers. In their paperwork to the court, terms of the contract were provided, not all the terms, but some very important ones. The price of the horse was stated. The fact training was to be traded in lieu of payment. The amount per month per horse for training was stated at $300 AND they also listed the training was to be based on a five day work week.

What was not stated was that training was to be for up to five horses per day. Nor were the exceptions to which horses were not to count or the fact the training was to used towards starting young horses under saddle which had always been my intent.

Even though everything wasn't there, things were looking good. I had most of the doors opened that I needed and I didn't even have to do any work to get them there. If they thought I was intimidated by their lawyer and this paperwork, they were very wrong. I was happy at this new turn of events. It played right into my plans.

All the little pieces of my puzzle were falling into place. While each one independently didn't look like much, together they told a story of a very deliberate plan of deceit, manipulation and deception. I was convinced once all the information was exposed there would be a clear picture of two people who told so many lies they couldn't keep their stories straight and maybe even that their plan all along had been to defraud me. This "he said/she said" case was getting more solid all the time.

The challenge I saw was how to present the evidence in a manner that wouldn't bore a judge or jury to death and that would be understandable to them at the same time. The odds were that anyone making the legal determinations in this case was going to have no knowledge of horses or what any of this technical stuff really meant. I was going to have to figure out how to take something that would be as clear as mud to them and turn it into something that made perfect sense.

To be continued...............................

A Little Theory......

Note: I have decided that I am going to try to put all legal terms in red. Knowing the correct term to use is imperative in the legal process and it sure helps when doing searches on the internet or even in the law library. Once I figured out the correct terms, I was in good shape. Sometimes it took me hours to get to those things.

Visit Blog Village and vote daily for this blog Here They are now measuring the rankings by votes out, so if you find my blog on the site, please click that link too to improve my rankings. TY


  1. Wow sounds like they just expected everyone to believe what they were saying as the truth withough question. Amazing to have that much belief in themselves. Im so glad this was finally turning around for you.

  2. Because of their outright dishonesty and lies you would think that the court and judge could see right through them. Sometimes the truth isn't always so easy to prove when people don't mind perjuring themselves though.

    I'm sure it was hard to get people to understand and sympathize with the aspects of this case because it concerned the horse business which is unfamiliar to most. Also, and I hate to say this, this business attracts some of the most dishonest people around. Not all are dishonest of course but horse businesses have their fair share of charlatans.

    We'll just have to wait and see what happens in court.

  3. I'm so impressed at your ability to find your way through all of this - the legal system and incorrect information being presented. I'm afraid I would have gotten very discouraged, but you saw the approach needed, even through all the smoke and mirrors. Good work.

  4. i'm curious if the detailed recordkeeping that he provided the court was the same type of generalization as what he gave you - "October, 5 horses, 2K$" etc.

    it is so good that your horses did not actually live with him during that time, because you had to bring them to be worked, you were keeping daily records of which horses were, day by day. what was a huge hassle at the time, hauling horses back and forth, worked out in your favor in this case.

    is it perjury if he actually believed what he wrote? curious.

    most people are basically lazy - i think homer simpson nailed it, "If you don't like your job, don't quit, just go in and do it really half-assed. It's the American way!"

    sorry but it seems to fit with this trainer!

  5. Sounds like BG was the one trying for unjust enrichment.

  6. I'm impressed, too, a lot of people would have been intimidated taking on so much and going up against a lawyer. I'm starting to think that the biggest story in this story is this one--that you navigated the legal system by yourself and succeeded. That's the way it should be! The systems should be there to help us get justice--without having to mortgage our homes to pay attorneys.

  7. I agree with Linda! The biggest story is that you stood up for yourself and had the wherewithal to follow through on this case without benefit of an attorney! Hurray for Mikael! I for one am glued to this accounting of what happened, but very happy to already know a little bit about the outcome ;) It keeps me from despairing.

  8. Cystal, I think you are absolutely right. I think they thought they could say anything they wanted and it would be believed without question.

    Arlene, I suspect it was the fact this was about the horse business that they thought their deceit wouldn't be seem. It was clear their lawyer was snowed by their lies.

    Carol, I was very motivated. My reputation is important to me and so is my dream. Both were on the line here.

    lytha, it was the exact same document that was why I believed I could show the court how he exaggerates about what he does.

    You're right about it being good I hauled my horses to him to work because there was no way he could have worked them without my knowledge or Dave and Lindsay's as well. But then he was blatant enough to say he worked horses here on my place when that never happened.

    As for your question about perjury, you are assuming that BG believes all this lies, then??

    redhorse, you are absolutely right. BG was seeking unjust enrichment. You picked up on that much quicker than I did. Good for you!

    Linda, I guess it will depend on people's perspective what is the biggest story here. For me it is the one with MG and GD.

    I do believe, however, that I surprised them that I navigated the system as well as I did.

    I agree that our legal system should be such that you don't have to mortgage your house to have legal counsel. Unfortunately I learned that the courts are really not about the truth, they are about the process. I will be posting my discoveries about that because one cannot be successful in the courts without understanding this. If you don't do it exactly their way, it is hard to even get their attention. I was very lucky I got the assistance I did along the way that helped me understand what I needed to do before I made any really big mistakes.

  9. Wilson, I think the fact the clerk was so clear with me at the start emphasizing "you CAN do this!" that really helped give me believe it was possible to be successful. Then knowing I had nothing to lose by trying because if I didn't try I was going to lose for sure really got me through. All I had was me and the truth.

    I can understand about the despairing. I had to be careful not to fall into that along this journey.

  10. A lot of people think they can get their way with the threat of an attorney. I used to be a city employee and when people would pull that on me, I'd just say, "Go ahead," knowing the city had a whole department full of attorneys. You are right about it being more about the process than the actual right or wrong of an issue. I've seen many cases settled out of court because it was less expensive to pay the plaintiff off than to incur the time and legal fees to fight it. Very aggravating.

  11. Ms Martyr, I've seen a lot of what you described as well. But what surprised me was to know how important documenting precedence is in a case. It's not really about evidence as much as if you are entitled to that evidence and whether or not you are or aren't is based on precedence and that you prove that precedence is there. Talk about a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo to confuse the law.

  12. Again with the delusional thinking on his part. "I'm so great that because I say it, you will automatically believe it."

    I can see where your challenges lie in trying to make your case without bogging the court down in minutiae.

  13. My hat is really off to you MiKael. My experience with court was awful. I ended up settling because I couldn't pay the attorney fees any more. I'm still fighting to get my life back and it happened in 2006.
    I really admire what you were able to accomplish.

  14. Leah, you are right about the thinking. It really was and is dillusional. What gets me is the people sucked in by it. Heck, I was sucked in for a while.

    Nicole, I'm sorry you had a case that you had to settle against what you wanted. Attorneys are so expensive it's hard to digest how much they make an hour. I can imagine how long it would take to pay off a case. I figured if I could get a lawyer on contingency if I lost it would take me the rest of my life to pay off the debt.

  15. with all of the excuses (weather, sicknesses, out of town, etc), i think he must know that 5 horses a day is a lie. i also wonder how delusional he is though!

  16. Oh my! I am hoping this goes so much better for you than the custody case for my daughter did last year. Unfortunately, the Ex and his family lied and manipulated throughout that process. I was especially heartened to hear when my ex-MIL made a statement about my daughter, only to have both lawyers and the Guardian Ad Litem correct her and the judge ignore the lawyers and the GAL completely, eating up what my ex-MIL had to say (NOT!).

    Even then, if he was working 5 horses for $2k a month, it was going to be a long, long time until he worked off the $30k of Storms price.