The New Journey...........Exposing the Contradictions and the Lies

Part One

To show how I developed the requests I did for the court, I'm going to specifically explain the inconsistencies I already had in evidence. To build a stronger case I planned to utilize that information to seek items in discovery. Gathering more information either to prove I had received those items or to get another statement on the subject would help reinforce their inconsistencies. I think if you can see those issues, then you'll be able to make sense of my motivations for the particular things I requested in Discovery.

I think the best way to do this is to follow the progression of how this evidence came to me. The first of those things were the FB comments and the resulting emails based on this post from my blog, Catching Up...........

The important piece of information in the blog post was BG had not been working my horses on a regular basis until just the week before. WF's comment on FB did not dispute that information. As a matter of fact, if you look closely you'll see she chastised me for what she saw as complaining about the fact that BG had not been working my horses. She defended his actions stating reasons why it was appropriate for him to not have worked them during that time.

The important thing is that she agreed the man had not worked my horses on a regular basis until just the week before. Weeks later she would be claiming he had worked horses during this time as noted on the months work shown on the accounting sheet. This contradiction on her part would be only the first of the inconsistencies about what worked BG actually did.

There was another important issue in WF's comments on FB as well. That was her statement, " I figure if he touches it, it counts." Obviously in the horse world touching a horse does not constitute training but this statement had a direct correlation between the number of horses BG claimed to have worked and the numbers I claimed for an important period of time during the beginning of the contract.

The fact I was doing all of the grooming type duties on all the horses probably 99% of the time and the fact she and BG didn't think it mattered was important. Then when you added in the fact I was riding half of those horses each day and lunging the ones being conditioned, but they were still claiming credit, made it all a information to prove to the court their mindset. It wasn't about being fair, it was about taking whatever you could get.

I needed WF to own that statement and even to clarify it if she would. AND I had not doubt that she would own it. I knew she thought there was nothing wrong with the statement even though most horse people would cringe at it. How far she would be willing to go in clarifying it, I wasn't so sure, but I needed to try and get as much information as possible about how much of the work she knew I was doing. Then I could use her own words to prove they had engaged in Unfair Business Practices and they were in violation of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Practices.

In this email from BG he makes it sound like he thought I gave him the horse when his mother was sick. " So it was our understanding at that point we were good, and that we agreed on the obligation / terms we were even. I have continued to work the horses due to me enjoying them."

In that same email once he realized that wasn't going to work he added in another set of circumstances he claimed should have paid for the horse. "I feel I have. When you count into the training of the 12 horses I worked with, lessons either with you or with others on your behalf, breeding your horses for you , show fees ( helping you at the shows) boarding of the horse for 5 mos. hauling your horses including gas and time it took." and then he went on to list the horses "In case you don't remember which ones I worked with here's this list. Some of them I might have only worked with a few times and some a lot. Legs, Dandy, Percy, Louise, Tag, Love, Rhett, Scarlett, Dancer, Gypsy, Hope and Lucy "

It's important to note in this writing he referred to 5 months of board which would have been right at that point his mother was sick. However, it was at the point that I took Reflection home (which is in fact when there was no more board) that BG really cut way back on working my horses. He treated his obligation to me much like an afterthought from that point forward. While the time reference of 5 months was incorrect, in his mind there was something there that made him think he could do as he pleased from the time Reflection left his facility on. Adding those other charges was an after though just in case the totals didn't add up.

Obviously the person who hadn't done the math with this time frame was BG. However,I knew it was up to me to find out what that reference meant to BG so I could make it work for me. Knowing what his thought process was at that time would give me information to trip him up later. I knew if I asked my questions right the odds were I could get to the root of his thought process at the time.

It should be fairly easy to take him down the road of that five month/board time frame and training etc to set him up to show he'd really tried three different tactics to say the debt on the horse had been paid. Those three claims were: I'd given him the horse, 5 months of board and training plus miscellaneous expenses and then the final accounting sheet with it's $38,000 worth of charges.

Another inconsistency in when the horse was paid off had to do with that boxer puppy. If he indeed thought I gave him the horse in March, why would he put on a document in August of that same year that the purchase price of the dog was to be credited towards money owed on the horse, if there was no money owed on the horse at the time because I gave him the horse when his mom was sick. There was definitely some kind of shaky ground there and I needed to explore that too.

It made it look to me like he would say most anything to claim the horse had been paid. If I could get the court to see it that way, it certainly should help in the process of destroying their credibility.

In my email response to the man, I explained to BG why he could not charge me for all of those miscellaneous expenses he'd added on. Keep in mind here that the contract only stated training and in BG's own court documents it only stated training and board. Nowhere other than in his emails or on the accounting sheet are there any references to additional expenses being a part of our contract by him or me.

Since I could prove by the documents already filed with the court that miscellaneous expenses weren't even covered, the fact I could prove his charges were inappropriate for other reasons as well would also help to reinforce the picture of BG manipulating the figures to suit his own purposes.

Then taking into account in the email the man tried to charge me for lessons the following information is pretty important. Not only does the man not charge for lessons which I could prove, he never gave me any lessons, which I could also prove. He also told clients he wouldn't presume to tell me how to ride. I could prove that too. The fact he was trying to charge me for something he did for his clients for free was one more piece of the puzzle and would also fall under the law for Unfair Business Practices and violations of the Covenants of Good Faith and Fair Practices.

The lessons he gave "on my behalf" were for his clients on my horse, Dandy. It would be fairly easy to verify that and so information on Dandy's use would be part of any requests for information I sought. If they didn't own up, I had pictures, blog posts and video of his client on my horse and the horse's show record showing he was only shown by BG's kids that year. Not only that but most of the time those lessons were given by me. Bg was there but he was always looking to me for guidance with the horse.

In addition he did not help me at horse shows and he only hauled horses from my place to his a couple of times. I had an email sent to another client saying they did not charge their clients for show fees and I could prove how many times he had hauled horses for me which didn't amount to as much as a tank of gas. Yet the way he uses that information suggests a considerable expense. Expanding the possibilities of his "convenient" recollections just added to the picture.

When all of these things in the email did not add up to the total he needed, BG came up with even more things for the list on his accounting sheet. He dropped the lesson part and the show fees but added some new ones to take their place. The difference between the two lists is important. It shows a pattern of manufacturing charges to bring his totals up.

I think the fact these statements about how he paid for the horse don't make sense when they're all together, and really even separately. That alone makes for a place to corner BG and WF. With this information, along with the issues in his accounting sheet, I suspected there was enough confusion to make the judge's eyes cross trying to figure out what BG was trying to say.

I figured it was in my best interests to give them as much rope as possible clarify what they meant and you can bet my admissions had lots of subtle references to the things involved. Getting BG and WF to explain what they meant should be some show.

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

BG's Accounting........ A Little Talk about Board.........

This picture is of Vee when she was a baby. With spring coming, I am having serious withdrawal because we're having no foals coming this year so I thought I'd soother my soul with some baby pics.

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