TNJ........................ BG's Just in Case Fatal Flaw.................

Part One

When it came to the next two items on BG's "Just in Case " charges, I must admit for months I read them wrong but by the time I began building my discovery requests the light bulb in my head finally went on. Thank goodness, there was an important piece of evidence there and I was totally missing it.

Stated as item i) The stall here for Rising Rainbow was used to float a horse that was currently being trained but needed additional work either on the day of training and days where horses were not being transported. These horses are not listed as charges by month and should be accountable. Percy, Tag, Louie or Vee....On Occasion another horse would be left. (stall was provided until Region !V 2009. (approx daily $13.04)

First off I must confess I originally read this item as being about the board for the pen that a horse of mine stayed in part of the time. That pen had been charged as a monthly charge as a full care stall and so I thought BG was double billing for the stall.

It was only once I began figuring out what I needed to clarify in discovery, so that BG and WF couldn't manipulate what they said, that I realized it was not the board BG was claiming I still owed but the training of this horse, as well as the training of Reflection that was stated in the next item on his list.

That was when the light bulb went on and I realized BG's own numbers could not be supported by the number of horses actually worked. In his manipulation of the numbers, he'd gotten so creative he had figured himself right out of what was possible.

I will explain what I mean but first off I want to address the fact that BG had already listed Percy as an additional charge included it the totals for the month of Dec. on page one of his accounting sheet. This, too, showed he wasn't doing a very good job of keeping up with his manipulations.

Since he'd listed him separately from the number of horses claims that month, he could say that was a one time thing. But why had he done it the one time and not the others instead of adding the horse onto the last sheet? What was up with that. It was a very weird way to do accounting, that's for sure. This was something that needed to be addressed in discovery to close doors so he couldn't escape being accountable for this statement.

That, however, was not the big issue that I really hadn't realized because I was focused on the charge being about board. BG's charges are way above what work he actually did BUT his total number had made sense to me based on his manipulations. He was claiming a horse had been there in a pen the whole time and Reflection was there to so if we had worked two loads of horses and he worked the 2 he claimed to be there, the total would indeed be 8.

Now, I knew he wasn't entitled to claim 8 horses for an assortment of reasons. Most of them I've already stated and there was Legs too which I haven't really dealt with in the context of court yet. For me, I was looking at the number of figuring out I'd understood how BG had manipulated the numbers to get to that figure.

You see the list of horses that BG wrote in his email to me http://risingrainbow.blogspot.com/2011/02/fork-in-road-worm-turns.html is an accurate list of what horses were worked at BG's facility up to regionals with the exception of Reflection. BG left Reflection off for whatever reason or more likely forgot him. Once I understand that BG way saying two of my horses are not included in his totals, the alarm bells rang in my head. How did he think he could justify his numbers and leave 2 horses off.

When I go down that list of horses looking at when they were worked or how many times they were worked, knowing that BG claims two horses do not count in his numbers, the possibilities change. I suddenly realized when Reflection and the horse in the pen are excluded, there are not enough horses left on the list to reach the number BG claims to have worked.

That is easiest to see on the first months before I began conditioning halter horses but it works consistently throughout the whole course of his monthly charges.

To see what I mean, it goes like this. There are 12 horses on BG's list of horses he said he worked over time. Again, Reflection is not included. Since BG claims he did not include him on the accounting sheet, I will leave the list as BG sent it to me. Those horses are Legs, Dandy, Percy, Louise, Tag, Love, Rhett, Scarlett, Dancer, Gypsy, Hope, Lucy.

In his "Just in Case" list he claims two horses were not included in his monthly charges, Reflection and the horse living in the pen. Since Reflection was left off the list, I will just remove one horse from his list to reflect possible horses BG could charge me for. For the sake of simplification I am going to remove the name of Percy to represent the horse living in a pen although the horse in the pen was rotated. The horses left are Legs, Dandy, Louise, Tag, Love, Rhett, Scarlett, Dancer, Gypsy, Hope, Lucy. There are 11 of them.

Then since Rhet, Scarlet, Gypcy and Dandy did not begin work at BG's facility until after the first of the year, I removed their names from the list so I could compare his numbers before that time to horses on the list. That brought his list down to 7 horses that could have been worked from Oct through Dec. Legs, Louise, Tag, Love, Dancer, Hope, Lucy

Dancer and Lucy were each only worked about 5 times. Each was worked in the place of a horse that was out due to soreness etc. That means in terms of just numbers (which is how BG charged me) Dancer and Lucy are both part of a number belonging to another horse. Neither gets a number of their own so they can be removed from the list. When I do that it leaves only 5 horses left that could possibly have been worked by BG per his own information. Legs, Louise, Tag, Love, and Hope.

BG's own accounting sheet states he worked 8 horses a month from Oct through Dec, yet there are only 5 horses left on his list that could have been worked. Those 5 include Legs who wasn't even a training horse for him. Without going into the specifics of why Legs shouldn't count and what work I did with the others, BG's own documentation shows his numbers do not add up. There is no way he could have worked the number of horses he claims to have worked.

His own greed caught him trying to manipulate the charges to add up to as much as possible. He lost track of what he did and didn't charge for, or maybe he didn't care. Because he didn't do the simple math, he was caught and it was my job to be sure he couldn't wiggle out of this in court with more lies. That's where discovery comes in.

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

Wrapping Up Loose Ends.........

This is another picture of Scandalous MizScarlet. Since she has an admirer, or two, who missed the posting of her first foal pic, I thought I'd post another.

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