Pages Navigation Menu

ON-LINE MAGAZINE & WEB SITE - SCROLL DOWN FOR NEWS

☛ Understanding and learning about Risk Management 8-1-18

Posted by on Aug 1, 2018 in BREAKING NEWS, COW HORSE NEWS, CUTTING NEWS, HORSE LAWSUITS, HORSE NEWS, HORSE ORGANIZATIONS, INDUSTRY NEWS, LAWSUITS & INDICTMENTS, REINING NEWS, WHO, WHAT & WHERE | 6 comments

UNDERSTANDING AND LEARNING ABOUT RISK MANAGEMENT

 

By Richard E. “Rick” Dennis
Certified Protection Professional
Aug. 1, 2018

 

You’re on the board of a horse association, or the owner of a large horse facility, and a major problem erupts when a situation has risen that could compromise the financial stability of your organization or horse facility and maybe even you personally. Your first instinct? “Call a lawyer!”

 

However, there is another answer called “Risk Management.” Managing your “risk” is what you can do before that major problem erupts. A Risk Management program can save you a lot of money in legal fees so perhaps you should consider counseling with a Risk professional first.

 

Also, a Risk Management program may also have kept you out of the dispute in the first place, by implementing “common-sense and  risk-avoidance practices in your business or personal dealings to heighten your awareness of “Risks in the horse business.”

 

DEFINING RISK MANAGEMENT:

Risk management is the identification, evaluation and prioritization of risks (defined in ISO 31000 as the effect of uncertainty on objectives), followed by coordinated and economical application of resources to minimize, monitor and control the probability or impact of unfortunate events or to maximize the realization of opportunities.

 

Risks can come from various sources including uncertainty in financial markets; threats from project failures (at any phase in design, development, production or sustainment life-cycles); legal liabilities; credit risk; accidents; natural causes and disasters; deliberate attack from an adversary (personal protection) or events of uncertain or unpredictable root-cause. There are two types of events i.e. negative events can be classified as risks while positive events are classified as opportunities.

 

Several risk management standards have been developed, including the Project Management Institute, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, actuarial societies, and ISO standards [2][3] methods, definitions and goals which vary widely according to whether the risk management method is in the context of project management, security, engineering, industrial processes, financial portfolios, actuarial assessments or public health and safety.

 

Strategies to manage threats (uncertainties with negative consequences) typically include identifying the threat, avoiding the threat, reducing the negative effect or probability of the threat and implementing counter-measures which are maintained on a regular basis to prevent future occurrences.

 

OVERVIEW OF RISK MANAGEMENT:

Risk Management is the continuing process to identify, analyze, evaluate and treat loss exposures and monitor risk control and financial resources to mitigate the adverse effects of loss.

 

 

WHO USES RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES?

There’s a litany of businesses and government agencies that use Risk Management  and Risk Analyst services on a daily basis:

 

  1. Insurance companies: to minimize accidents, loss payouts and maximize loss prevention.

2. Financial institutions: including banks, investment firms, Wall Street and the U.S. Government.

3. The Federal Government: the United States Department of Defense (DOD), including all military applications, as well as: DEA, IRS, FBI, CIA, etc.

4. Law enforcement agencies: to combat crime and dismantle criminal enterprises.

5. The petro-chemical industry: including oil and gas Drilling, production, and refining.

6. The telecommunications industry: including computing.

7. The U.S. mining industries.

8. The U.S. agriculture industry.

9. The U.S. aviation industry.

10. The U.S. marine industry: maritime shipping.

 

 

WHO DOES NOT USE RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, EXCEPT ON A VERY LIMITED BASIS?

 

One industry not yet fully indoctrinated and inclined to use Risk Management services is the U.S. equine (horse) industry. Conventionally, when conflicts arise between individuals in the horse industry, the first thing that comes to mind is the injured party utilizes a law firm and a lawyer to settle disputes and provide a legal remedy.

 

In the end, after a very expensive litigation process, the parties usually end up in an “out-of-court” settlement, which may or may not be exactly what the Plaintiff desired. However, there’s another “over-looked option” to the injured party that’s usually never considered and that is: law enforcement processes or criminal arrest and prosecution.

 

During my tenure in the horse industry, I’ve been involved in a litany of legal disputes from a Risk Management and Analyst perspective, where my Risk Analysis expertise has been utilized to offer clients a list of alternative options, i.e. civil, criminal or both, providing referrals, after reviewing the client-provided documents. Instead of a client being limited to just one legal option, e.g., the civil litigation option, I also provide the client with the criminal review option when it’s warranted and applicable. However, only a law enforcement agency or an attorney at law can approve and apply my suggested areas for professional review.

 

However, and for the record, most civil lawyers, adamantly detest hearing the word “law enforcement” used in the same context as “civil litigation,” simply due to the fact that a criminal court can usually perform the function as a criminal prosecutor to convict and imprison the violator, as well as the court acting as a civil lawyer for a recovery of assets for the victim. This one-stop shopping is “free” to the victim and reduces or eliminates the vast amounts of wealth that a civil attorney can accumulate during a lengthy litigation process.

 

Notwithstanding, various criminal applications can be used in the civil litigation process. One of my favorites is the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act called (RICO). The risks and dangers of the RICO act to the criminal violator is that it carries criminal fines and penalties, civil fines and penalties, as well as asset recover for the victim. However, not all criminal cases are eligible for the RICO Act application. Actually, when I was in Drug Enforcement, this single law is where I honed my skills as a Risk Analyst and learned the most while writing RICO conspiracies for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Orleans, Louisiana.

 

Under the guidance of the United States Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service – Enforcement Division, I learned a myriad of ways to combat crime, protect and recover assets and criminally charge and prosecute criminal violators. Vice-Versa, I’ve transposed those much-needed and learned lessons from my prosecutorial refinements, into the private security sector in performing Risk Management and Risk Analysis services – and at a high success ratio, I might add.

 

 

THE REINCARNATION OF THE WILD WEST:

 

Today, the American Horse Industry seems to be nothing more than a reincarnation of the old “Wild West”, which is directly due to the fact it’s a virtually unregulated industry. Essentially, the only protection members and participants have against roving pilfers and con artists infiltrating the industry is by relying on law enforcement. However, this false security is usually and unfortunately realized as a reactionary approach, meaning after a crime is committed rather than a pro-action approach to prevent crime before it happens. If your reliance is on the 501 (C) (3) nonprofits, then your assurances are certainly misguided – unless the violator is a horse abuser.

 

It’s been observed through time and memory, that nonprofits seem to have no interest in preventing criminals and those with immoral character from entering the industry, even after it’s been proven in court of his or her criminal activity while in the industry. Notwithstanding, the violator usually continues their criminal activity on another victim after being relinquished from a previous violation by an out-of-court settlement. However, there are ways the American Horse enthusiasts can protect themselves and their family members from the “pitfalls” associated with the American horse industry, i.e.:

 

  1. In my book, “THE AMERICAN HORSE INDUSTRY, Avoiding the Pitfalls” I offer real-life solutions to these inherent risks and problems associated with the American Horse Industry. In fact, this book was written entirely from my expertise as a Risk Manager, analyst and former law enforcement professional, as well as my personal knowledge of the con artists I’ve observed at work, who have caused a litany of problems for their unsuspecting victims in the horse industry. One of my favorite cliches that I use in my book is, Trust But Verify.”

 

  1. Whenever you engage in a training, boarding or showing agreement with a boarding facility or horse trainer, have an attorney at law draw up the document in order to cover all the bases ahead of time. If the individual or facility won’t sign a contract agreement, find someone else.

 

  1. In the event you become involved in any circumstance where a law enforcement agency can be used to prosecute an individual for an applicable law violation, i.e. padded billing, mail fraud, wire fraud, conversion, (converting your personal property to his or her use unlawfully, etc.), one should use law enforcement instead of civil litigation as a “first-line-defense” for a remedy. When a person is arrested, prosecuted for a crime and possibly imprisoned and they’re looking at you from behind a set of prison bars, it makes them think twice about pulling another stunt like that on another unsuspecting victim.

 

Until the industry takes a proactive stance of prosecuting frauds, con artists and other criminal violators in the industry and punishing them for their crime, I’m afraid we’ll just see the “same ole’, same ole’.”

 

“Until Next Time, Keep ‘Em Between The Bridle!”

 

WIND RIVER COMPANY LLC
Richard E. “Rick” Dennis (CPP)
Managing Member
Professional Reined Cow Horse Trainer
Quarter Horse Breeder and Enthusiast
Office/Mobile: (985) 630-3500
Email: windrivecompany.rd@gmail.com
Web Site: http://www.richardedennis.net

 

Wind River Security, Personal Protection, Risk Management (Analysis)
Wind River Employee Drug and Alcohol Testing Consortium Services
Wind River Stock Horses – Breeding, Training, Exhibition, and Sales

Read More

☛ Have the Dufurrenas already broken their suspensions? 7-30 -18

Posted by on Jul 30, 2018 in BREAKING NEWS, COW HORSE NEWS, CUTTING NEWS, FROM THE EDITOR, HORSE NEWS, HORSE ORGANIZATIONS, INDUSTRY NEWS, LAWSUITS & INDICTMENTS, REINING NEWS, WHO, WHAT & WHERE | 10 comments

HAVE ED AND BRANDON DUFURRENA ALREADY BROKEN THEIR NCHA SUSPENSION RULES?

 

IS THE NCHA AIDING THEM DURING DERBY?

 

By Glory Ann Kurtz
July 30, 2018

It’s only been 11 days since NCHA Executive Director Lewis Wray sent out an e-mail to the membership of the NCHA saying “Ed Dufurrena and his son, Brandon, and daughter Rieta, have each been suspended from the NCHA for 150 days and fined due to their improprieties within the association. Ed Dufurrena was also fined $10,000 for aiding and abetting Rieta in violating NCHA non-professional rules and an additional fine of $10,000 for aiding and abetting Brandon Dufurrena in violating NCHA non-professional rules. He will be on membership probation for a period of three years following the end of his membership suspension. Pursuant to the NCHA rules, those results will be published in the Chatter. “

 

A look at the 2018 NCHA RULE BOOK regarding a member being suspended:

 

  1. Any person who has been suspended by the NCHA will not be allowed to participate in any way (as owner or agent of a horse, contestant, or as a helper mounted or on foot) in an NCHA- approved or sponsored cutting horse contest.A suspended person may only attend an NCHA approved or sponsored cutting horse contest as a spectator seated in the stands.Any horse that is owned in whole or part by a suspended person or that has a suspended person as its agent will not be allowed to enter or compete in an NCHA approved or sponsored cutting horse contest. In the event a suspended person violates this rule, an additional six (6) months will be added to his suspension.The rider of any horse which is ineligible to enter or compete in an NCHA approved or sponsored cutting horse contest under this rule will be subject to a six (6) month suspension.

I received numerous e-mails from individuals watching the event, saying that Dufurrena was allowed on the arena floor during the NCHA Super Stakes Open Derby being held at the Will Rogers Coliseum, and was helping turn back and they had a video!  After checking into it, I was told the video was posted on Facebook. Since I am not a Facebook follower, I personally did not see that and have no evidence of that. Announcer Tom Holt later told me that he had watched carefully and had never seen Dufurrena turn back. However, I was also told that Dufurrena was in the practice pen on horseback helping a client, when he was removed by a policeman.  When he was removed NCHA President Phil Rapp took his place helping the client. However, the rule says “a suspended person may only attend an NCHA approved or sponsored cutting horse contest as a spectator seated in the stands.

 

Horse Ownership:

Also, since the above rule says, “Any horse that is owned in whole or part by a suspended person or that has a suspended person as its agent will not be allowed to enter or compete in an NCHA approved or sponsored cutting horse contest. In the event a suspended person violates this rule, an additional six (6) months will be added to his suspension.”

 

In order for this collusion to work for the Duffurenas to not conflict with this NCHA rule, Ed and Shona Dufurrena would have to get a divorce. Example, by virtue of the fact that Texas law marital law states a 50-50 property ownership between husband and wife; therefore by placing these horses in Shona Duffurena’a name, Ed, who is suspended, is in violation of this rule, as is Shona. Also, the NCHA is in violation of its own rule by allowing it to happen in the first place.

According to the draw sheet, Shona Dufurrena had three horses entered in the Open Division of the Derby. However, upon checking AQHA ownership records, I found that all three of these horses were actually owned by Brandon Dufurrena, who is under suspension, rather than Shona.

 

Those three horses include Draw No. 82, Mizpah Cat, shown on the drawn sheet as being owned by Shona but but according to the AQHA Ownership Summary was owned by Brandon and ridden by Tom Dvorak in the first go-round. The pair scored a 216, advancing to the second go-round.

Mizpah Cat ownership

 

Cherry Chapstick, Draw No. 158, shown owned by Shona on draw sheet, yet AQHA Ownership Summary says owned by Brandon.

Cherry Chapstik

 

Razzbery Beret, Draw No. 210, shows owned by Shona on draw sheet; AQHA Ownership Summary says owned by Brandon.

Razzbery Beret

 

I don’t understand why the NCHA Derby show management doesn’t escort Ed Dufurrena out of the show ring when he is turning back for someone and refuse to allow Mizpah Cat, Cherry Chapstick and Razzbery Beret to show!

 

Will Ed and Brandon both get an additional six months added to their suspensions as the NCHA Rules state???

 

Only time will tell if the NCHA or show management is brave enough to enforce their rules.  If not, I’m afraid their membership numbers will continue to suffer – even at a faster pace than it has in the past.

 

 

 

 

 

Read More

☛ Has the horse industry become numb to corruption? 7-29-18

Posted by on Jul 29, 2018 in BREAKING NEWS, COW HORSE NEWS, CUTTING NEWS, FROM THE EDITOR, HORSE LAWSUITS, HORSE NEWS, HORSE ORGANIZATIONS, INDUSTRY NEWS, REINING NEWS, WHO, WHAT & WHERE | 32 comments

PRELUDE TO FINALITY

 

HAS THE HORSE INDUSTRY BECOME NUMB TO CORRUPT AND ABUSIVE HORSE TRAINERS AND MEMBERS?

 

By Glory Ann Kurtz
July 29, 2018

 

It appears, the American Horse Industry has become so numb to corrupt and abusive horse trainers and members, that acceptance of illogical, immoral, unorthodox and “in some cases” illegal action has become the norm, rather than the exception.

 

Case-In-Point: It’s been my experience that 501(C)(3) non-profit equine corporations are more interested in establishing “user friendly” rule violations than they are in establishing “hard rules” to exclude criminal violators and those with criminal histories – except when it comes to horse abuse. Fraudulent and illegal business practices by a member, especially horse trainers who are also advertisers in a horse publication, are often overlooked or put off in favor of recurring and contributing revenue by the offender.

 

In historical comparison, it seems the equine industry, more specifically, the 501 (c) 3 nonprofits, don’t have the wisdom or foresight to exclude undesirables from the industry, nor do the 501(C)(3) nonprofits have rules in place to address fraudulent activities among its members engaged in this type of abhorrent business practice. Instead, of establishing rules to address illegal, immoral, fraudulent and unorthodox acts – more specifically abhorrent business practices – the nonprofits, instead, opt for the criminal and civil courts to preside over disputes arising between members. Notwithstanding, and even upon conviction, the offender usually isn’t banned from the organization, with the nonprofit citing, “we don’t have a rule that covers, immoral behavior, except when it comes to horse abuse.”  How about “making one before more members get fleeced and leave the industry!”

 

This exact analogy is demonstrated in the Minshall’s vs Ed Dufurrena and Dos Cats Partnerslawsuit whereby open court records indicate the Minshalls were injured in a business dealing with Ed Dufurrena and they proved fraudulent advertising on behalf of Auspicious Cat’s HERDA designation, i.e., Auspicious Cat was advertised as HERDA Negative when, in-fact, AQHA records prove the stallion is HERDA Positive. In the HERDA trial, Dufurrena was assigned 60 percent responsibility by the jury as the Minshall foal was born with HERDA. For his trouble, Dufurrena was sued and engaged in an “out-of-court” settlement. Today, Ed Dufurrena is still a member of the American Quarter Horse Association.

 

Furthermore, in the Vogels vs Dufurrena lawsuit, Dufurrena’s practice of using AQHA-owned Quarter Horse papers in lawsuits surfaced again. More specifically, in the Dufurrena-Vogel settlement agreement, which was “approved by the lawyers on both sides of the case,” resulted in a Vogel payout of $1.2 million to Dufurrena. Verbiage in the settlement agreement includes a request verification by Dufurrena for the Vogel’s to agree to the accuracy of the AQHA ownership and registration papers – as written. My research proved the AQHA horse ownership, transfer and registration papers, which coincidentally are the same AQHA registration papers Dufurrena submitted to the NCHA, were anything but correct.

 

Notwithstanding, my research concluded the AQHA registration papers are absent of the “Dos Cats Partners” transfer, i.e.: 1) the horses included in the Dufurrena/Vogel handwritten March 25, 2011 “Dos Cats Partners” agreement, were never transferred into the AQHA 2006 Dufurrena “Dos Cats Partners” registry and 2) in some instances, Ed Dufurrena’s name never appeared on the horses’ AQHA registration papers, for which he stated to the National Cutting Horse Association that he “acquired all rights to” in his letter to the NCHA.  By Dufurrena bypassing the AQHA horse transfer and registration requirements altogether, he eliminatedthis organization of their rightful registration and transfer fees, as indicated in the AQHA rulebook, being necessary.

 

Using analytical reasoning, it can be deduced that instead of receiving protection from the nonprofit, members, (including injured members) are left to fend for themselves among the unchartered and shark-infested waters of the American horse industry. Usually, the end result is a very expensive legal learning process.

 

The curious nature of this event is that the AQHA owns the papers for each registered American Quarter Horse. Surely, they would be offended if an individual included their papers and DNA testing results in a fraudulent scheme as well as being included in an “unconscionable settlement agreement.” But as far as I know, the AQHA has done nothing about it!

 

Furthermore, the second non-profit feeling the sting of Ed Dufurrena’s unorthodox business practice, is the National Cutting Horse Association (NCHA). However, I must applaud this organization for taking decisive action to “right-the-wrong,” so to speak, with the suspension and fining of Ed Dufurrena, Rieta Dufurrena, and Brandon Dufurrena for violating NCHA rules. However, many NCHA members are upset by the short length of the suspension, as they feel the suspensions should have been lifetime.

 

However, the foregoing aren’t isolated cases. It’s just being used as an example. Over the years, other questionable individuals have surfaced and been identified but the elite equine magazines usually elect not to produce an article to alert the horse community of such practices, as well as identifying the offender, simply due to the illogical reasoning: “The offender may also be an advertiser.” This non-engagement and not taking a proactive stand, by the 501(C)(3) nonprofits, generally results in a profound adverse impact on the horse industry, especially after a lengthy and expensive litigation process by the Plaintiff that usually results in the individual(s) leaving the horse industry disillusioned, sometimes broke and never returning.

 

In my opinion, it behooves the 501(C)(3) Nonprofit to undertake a proactive stand and establish proactive rules to exclude individuals conducting such abhorrent acts, if for nothing else but to protect their financial interests and its members. However, absence of specific rules to counter these types of abhorrent acts generally places the nonprofit, in the appearance, “of being in a position of complicity,” while the honest membership are at a decisive disadvantage. The end result is an enrichment of the court system and lawyers – all of whom are eager to engage in a dispute, as well as a depletion of the member’s bank account, and which probably could have been avoided by the expulsion of a specific individual member who is practicing abhorrent business practices in the equine industry.

 

To further illustrate how one individual’s unorthodox actions affected a litany of individuals, the following lawsuits were brought about by Ed Dufurrena’s actions while he is engaged in an unregistered dba (doing business as) an assumed namein Texas, i.e., Ed Dufurrena Cutting Horses.  In Texas, specific laws govern the registration of a dba, as well as imposing fines and penalties for the violator. The specific penalty and fine for engaging in an unregistered dba business name is one (1) year in jail and a $4,000.00 fine for conducting business in Texas with an unregistered dba or “assumed name.”

 

Since Dufurrena has self-admitted, in his letter to the NCHA, to the use of three – separate dba’s, i.e. “Ed Dufurrena Cutting Horses,” “Dos Cats Partners” and “Dos Cats,” it’s conceivable this Texas statute provides for three years in jail and $12,000 in fines and penalties, also, due to the fact, each dba or assumed name is unregistered with the Texas Secretary of State as well as the Cooke County Clerks Office.

 

Additionally, this specific statute also states that “an individual can defend an action brought against him or her, but while unregistered, the same individual cannot maintain an action against anyone resulting from the unregistered business activities.” 

 

Again, Dufurrena is impacted and placed in a precarious legal situation of the “double edge sword” type. For example, on one hand, he’s fined and faces penalties for operating and conducting an unregistered business in Texas from inception and he can be countersued for bringing legal action against an individual while being unregistered.

 

Lastly, in addition to the lawsuits in the foregoing, I was able to locate two other lawsuits brought against individuals by Dufurrena Cutting Horses, while being in the capacity of an unregistered Texas business entity: Ed Dufurrena Cutting Horses.

 

The following lawsuits are named accordingly and for the record are two more partnerships devised by Dufurrena. The one individual sustaining two lawsuits because of Dufurrena is Butch Redish. He is one of the individuals sued by the Minshall’s in the “Dos Cats Partners” lawsuit and he was also sued by Dufurrena on behalf of the “Parking My Assets” partnership lawsuit.

 

  1. Ed Dufurrena Cutting Horses vs Butch Redish. CV 1200760. Filed in the Justice Court, Precinct 1, Cooke County, Texas.

 

  1. Ed Dufurrena Cutting Horses vs John Claudon. CV 1200759. Filed in the Justice Court, Precinct 1, Cooke County, Texas.

 

For the record, there are common denominators existing in the Dufurrena business dealings and lawsuits, including inflated and irreconcilable invoicing, three unregistered dba’s or “assumed name” Texas business entities, and “FRAUD,” which can be alleged in each lawsuit brought against him.

 

Isn’t it time for the 501(C)(3) nonprofits to take a stand to protect the equine industry against egregious actions committed by individuals whose purpose is to take advantage of others in the industry by using illegal and fraudulent practices?

Read More

☛ McQuay Stables to hold complete dispersal 7-26-18

Posted by on Jul 26, 2018 in BREAKING NEWS, COW HORSE NEWS, HORSE NEWS, INDUSTRY NEWS, REINING NEWS, SALES INFORMATION, WHO, WHAT & WHERE | 0 comments

MCQUAY STABLES TO HOLD COMPLETE DISPERSAL

 

Press release from McQuay Stables
July 26, 2018

 

On Sept. 28, 2018, the Legacy Sale will host the Complete Dispersal Sale of the legendary McQuay Stables. Both NRHA Hall of Fame members, Tim and Colleen McQuay have raised, trained and shown some of the best horses in the industry. The McQuays have helped to shape the sport of Reining, through the breeding programs of Hollywood Dun It, Gunner and now Yellow Jersey, along with major innovations in developing new classes and raising the standards in horse show management.

 

The McQuays said, that this was not an easy decision to make, but that they felt it is time to slow down and enjoy their grandchildren. Colleen added, “We will not be closing our doors; we will remain very active in both the Reining horse industry and the Hunter/Jumper world.”

 

The McQuay Stables brand will continue, only on a smaller scale. Tim and Colleen will be available for training lessons, horse sales, consulting and clinics as usual. They will remain involved in the production and management of both the National Reining Breeders Classic and The Tulsa Reining Classic. They will also continue to work with the National Reining Horse Association, US Equestrian, and the US Hunter Jumper Association.

 

This sale will offer Weanlings, yearlings, two year olds, three year olds, stallions, and Broodmares in foal. For details and videos please contact Tim McQuay. Please check McQuay Stables and Legacy Sale Facebook pages for updates.

 

This sale is your chance to own part of the legacy of the most successful breeding and training program in the history of the NRHA. The bloodlines and records of the horses offered are second to none.

 

www.McQuayStables.com

www.legacysale.com

email: sellalegacy@gmail.com

email: hdunit@aol.com

(940) 367-0073 Tim

(940) 367-3030 Colleen

(940) 453-7543 Mandy

Read More

☛ Dufurrenas suspended from NCHA and fined 7-19 -18

Posted by on Jul 19, 2018 in BREAKING NEWS, COW HORSE NEWS, CUTTING NEWS, HORSE LAWSUITS, INDUSTRY NEWS, LAWSUITS & INDICTMENTS, REINING NEWS, WHO, WHAT & WHERE | 13 comments

DUFURRENAS SUSPENDED FROM NCHA AND FINED

 

By Glory Ann Kurtz
July 19, 2018

 

Within an e-mail today from Lewis Wray, the NCHA temporary Executive Director, to the membership of the NCHA, members were informed that Ed Dufurrena and his son, Brandon, and daughter Rieta, have each been suspended from the NCHA for 150 days and fined due to their improprieties within the association.

 

According to the e-mail, “Edward Dufurrena’s NCHA membership has been suspended for a period of 150 days. He has been fined $10,000 for aiding and abetting Rieta Dufurrena in violating NCHA non-professional rules and an additional fine of $10,000 for aiding and abetting Brandon Dufurrena in violating NCHA non-professional rules. He will be on membership probation for a period of three years following the end of his membership suspension. Pursuant to NCHA rules, those results will be published in the Chatter.

 

Dufurrena’s son, Brandon, has been suspended for a period of 150 days. His Non-Professional card has been suspended for three years. He will be on membership probation for a period of three years following the end of the membership suspension and he has also been fined $10,000.

 

Rieta Dufurrena’s NCHA membership and Non-Pro card have also been suspended for a period of 150 days. She will be on membership probation for one year following the end of the suspension and she has been fined $10,000.

 

The suspensions and fines are due to their part in the Minshalls and Dufurrrena partnership and Vogels and Dufurrena partnership, both called Dos Cats Partners. Neither followed the law of being recorded with the Texas Secretary of State and both resulted in lawsuits.

 

The full story on both of these partnerships and court cases have been well documented in past articles published in www.allaboutcutting.net.

Read More

☛ Dos Cats Partners – Legal Fact or Creative Writing 7-16-18

Posted by on Jul 16, 2018 in BREAKING NEWS, COW HORSE NEWS, CUTTING NEWS, HORSE LAWSUITS, HORSE ORGANIZATIONS, INDUSTRY NEWS, LAWSUITS & INDICTMENTS, REINING NEWS, WHO, WHAT & WHERE | 0 comments

.

DOS CATS PARTNERS – LEGAL FACT OR CREATIVE WRITING

 

ADDENDUM I

 

July 16, 2018
By Glory Ann Kurtz

 

On, July 1, 2018, I released an article on allaboutcutting.net entitled “Dos Cats Partners” – Legal Fact or Creative Writing?” The first paragraph specifically states, “The Dos Cats Partners name is identified, referenced to and provable as a Dufurrena operated “business entity” by Dufurrena, in Texas, and is identified in a myriad of provable and “identifiable locations”, (i.e.)

 

  1. In legally filed, open-record court documents in the Minshall Versus Dufurrena and “Dos Cats Partners” lawsuit.

 

  1. In legally filed, open-record court documents in the Vogel’s Versus Dufurrena lawsuit and “Dos Cats Partners” Receivership Appointment Request.

 

  1. In Dufurrena’s June 14, 2018 letter to the Officers and Directors of the National Cutting Horse Association (NCHA).

 

  1. In the March 25, 2011 “Dos Cats Partners” agreement by and between Eugene and Janie Vogel and Edward L. Dufurrena and Shona Dufurrena, that is included in Dufurrena’s June 14, 2018 letter to the Officers and Directors of the NCHA.

 

Since the release of the first article, my investigation “has-confirmed” the use of the “Dos Cats Partners” name is also included in an AQHA transfer and registration registry for “Auspicious Cat.” As you may remember, Dufurrena states in his June 14, 2018 letter to the NCHA that this stallion is owned by Dufurrena.  Notwithstanding, this stallion was also the central focus of the Minshall Versus Dufurrena and “Dos Cats Partners” lawsuit for fraudulent advertising due to falsely advertising the stallion as HERDA NEGATIVE, when AQHA registry records “unequivocally verify”  that Auspicious Cat is HERDA POSITIVE.

 

  1. AQHA registry records for “Auspicious Cat”.

 

Furthermore, Dufurrena’s June 14, 2018 letter to the NCHA, reflects Dufurrena’s own  self-admission” of his use and ownership of the “Dos Cats Partners” moniker. Additionally, Dufurrena’s June 14, 2018 letter to the NCHA, along with other areas of identification, also proves that Dufurrena has used “Dos Cats Partners”, as a (dba) or an assumed nameidentifier. For the record, the use of the acronym (dba) or “doing business as” moniker, is identified under Texas Law as “an assumed name.”  Therefore, this acronym is a word formed from the initial or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term. For example:

 

Evidence of such use and “self-admitted ownership”, by Dufurrena, is reflected in his June 14, 2018 letter to the NCHA, whereby he states as follows:  “On January 1, 2016, I purchased the Vogel’s share of “Auspicious Cat” –  Exhibit 14. At that time, the co-ownership agreement was over as there were no horses remaining. Auspicious Cat was owned by me before the Vogel’s acquired (49) percent of him. The horse was originally part of “Dos Cats Partners” that was, at one time, a partnership. I ultimately bought out the other partners and kept the name. The partnership ceased to be such an entity when there were no other partners. I used it like an assumed name,” or “dba”. Once the Vogel’s no longer owned (49) percent, I kept the horse under the same name.”

 

In the Dufurrena/Vogel – March 25, 2011 hand-written “agreement”, Dufurrena refers to this agreement as being: “also known as Dos Cats Partners.

 

Acting on the foregoing information and facts, I furthered my investigation as an investigative journalist, and discovered that a (dba) or “an assumed nameused in Texas for business purposes. is subject to filing requirements by law, with the Texas Secretary of State, as well as with the county clerk the business is operating in?

 

My Dufurrena  “Dos Cats Partners investigation” revealed: 1) “Dos Cats Partners” doesn’t have a record of “ever being registered” with the Texas Secretary of State and 2) the “Dos Cats Partners” doesn’t have a record of ever being registered with the Cooke County, Texas Clerks Office. Both of which are required by Texas Law.

 

INVESTIGATION CONCLUSION:

 

Essentially, open-record court documents, as well as Dufurrena’s “self-admission” statement included in his June 14, 2018 letter to the NCHA, proves Dufurrena’s use of the “Dos Cats Partners” moniker, a (dba) or “an assumed name,” through three separate instances, i.e., 1) in the Vogel’s Versus Dufurrena lawsuit, 2)in the Minshall’s Versus Dufurrena lawsuit and 3) in the Dufurrena 2006 AQHA registry, which includes “Auspicious Cat.” This is evidenced by:

1.   The Minshall Versus Dufurrena and “Dos Cats Partners” lawsuit.

2.     The Vogel’s versus Dufurrena lawsuit.

3.    AQHA “Auspicious Cat” registry records.

 

I also discovered that Texas Law dictates written signatures of all participants in the partnership are required upon filing. Pursuant to the original article filing, my expanded investigation concerning the filing requirements of a “dba” or “an assumed name” in Texas, revealed the following facts.

 

TEXAS (“dba”) or “AN ASSUMED NAME” FILING REQUIREMENTS.

 

Texas Business and Commerce Code.

Title 5: Regulation of Businesses and Services, Subtitle (A). General Practices.

Chapter 71.001. Assumed Business or Professional Name.

Subchapter A. General Provisions.

Sec.71.001. Short Title. This chapter may be cited as the “Assumed Business or Professional Name Act.

 

Sec. 71.051. Certificate for certain unincorporated persons. A person must file a certificate under this subchapter if the person regularly conducts business or renders a professional service in this state under an assumed name other than a corporation, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, limited liability company or a foreign filing entity.

 

Sec 71.052. Contents of Certificate. The certificate must state:

      (1)     The assumed name under which the business is, or is to be, conducted or the professional service is or is to be rendered

 

(2)     If the registrant is:

(A)     An individual, the individual’s full name and residence address

(B) a partnership:

(i)      The venture or partnership name,

(ii)     The venture or partnership office address,

(iii)    The full name of each joint venture venturer or general partner and

(iv)    each joint venturer’s or general partner’s residence address if the venturer or partner is an individual.

 

Sec. 71.053. Execution of Certificate.

 (a)     The certificate must be executed and acknowledged:

(1)     by each individual whose name is required to be stated in the certificate or the individual’s representative or attorney-in-fact.

 

Sec. 71.054. Place of Filing.

A person shall file the certificate in the office of the county clerk in each county in which the person:

(1)     has or will maintain business or professional premises, or

(2)     conducts business or renders a professional service, if the person does not or will not maintain business or professional premises in any county.

 

Subchapter D. General Provisions Regarding Assumed Name Certificate.Sec. 71.151. Duration and Renewal of Certificate.

 

(a)     A certificate is effective for a term not to exceed 10 years from the date the certificate is filed.

 

Subchapter E. Penalties.

Sec 71.201. Civil Action; Sanction.

 (a)     A person’s failure to comply with this chapter does not impair the validity of any contract or act by the person or prevent the person from defending any action or proceeding in any court of this state, but the person may not maintain in a court of this state an action or proceeding arising out of a contract or act in which an assumed name was used until an original, new or renewed certificate has been filed as required by this chapter.

 

(b)     In an action or proceeding brought against a person who has not complied with this chapter, the court may award the plaintiff or other party bringing the action or proceeding expenses incurred, including attorney’s fees, in locating and effecting service of process on the defendant.

 

Sec 71.202. Criminal Penalty: General Violation.

 

 (a)     A person commits an offense if the person:

(1)     Conducts business or renders a professional service in this state under an assumed name and (2) intentionally              violates this chapter.

 

(b)     An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

 

 Click for Title 5 information>> 

 

Class A Misdemeanor – Definition:

 

“Criminal Offenses in Texas are divided into two main categories: felonies and misdemeanors. A Class A Misdemeanor carries punishments of a fine of up to $4,000.00 and/or imprisonment of up to one year in a county jail.”

 

Therefore, my investigation has concluded with backup documents as usual: Dufurrena’s “Dos Cats Partners” – (dba) or “an assumed name”, hasn’t been in compliance with Texas business law through two lawsuits, i.e., Minshall’s and Vogel’s.  This is evidenced by my records check with the Texas Secretary of State and the Cooke County Clerks Office.

 

Read More