Pages Navigation Menu


☛ Letter from Gang of 21 – 1-12-13

Posted by on Jan 12, 2013 in TO THE EDITOR | 6 comments


Dec. 12, 2013


Following is a link to an unsigned letter that I received today, Dec. 12, from the unidentified “The Gang of Twenty-One.  The letter was mailed from a Phoenix, Ariz., post office. A copy of the envelope is also attached.


Click here for copy of letter>>

Read More

☛ An NCHA history lesson 1-7-13

Posted by on Jan 7, 2013 in TO THE EDITOR | 9 comments



Jan. 7, 2013

Glory Ann,

I am sending this to you not knowing if you will pass it on to the general NCHA membership through your website or not. I would like to remain anonymous. AS you’ve pointed out and I’ve seen, retaliation is alive and well in the NCHA.


I’ve been a member of the NCHA for over 40 years and I believe some of us need to remember a few things and the newer folks could use a small history lesson.


Mr. Dunn has stated that the Whitmires could be denied membership due to their “integrity.” Mr. Dunn, I believe, was also passing a veiled threat to anyone that would buck the system or not meet certain standards in his eyes. A short history lesson: “Mr. Dunn in the early ‘80s was appointed to the EC due to one EC member quitting the board over not agreeing with their actions. Dan Lufkin was one of the power players on the board at that time, as he had certain controls over other board members due to some personal and business interests. He got Dunn appointed to the board; this was the first board member ever appointed, NOT elected.


That is also about the time the NCHA went from 5% to 6% (all done in the middle of the year). This 1% increase was used to offset a $300,000 cost of an overall broad-span review of the NCHA and projection survey. This was performed by a group out of West Texas. There were also some attorney fees needing to be covered and a payout to a North Texas NCHA judge as he had taken the NCHA to court for their wrongfully taking away an A rating on his AAA card over a proposed rule infraction.


In that time period, EC members Jim Milner and Dennie Dunn started rewriting the old NCHA By-laws. This rewrite took certain general membership powers away and also took some governing rules from the director pool.


But now back to Mr. Dunn’s integrity. In the ‘80s, Mr. Dunn left two different trainers’ barns owing them money, had an ongoing lawsuit with his family members and business partner in Utah, filed for divorce from Sue Dunn, which became Jack Waggoner’s girlfriend for a while, later

marrying her current husband Mr. Stevens.


Point being, everyone has history, good and bad. Now a small history about Mr. Eldridge Goins or as he’s known in East Texas: the Big L. Many people think this nickname refers to “loser.” His horse trainer is Punk Carter, EC member and the guy that is very involved in the Celebrity Cutting, also a past NCHA President. The Big L has had a couple of wives, one of them being Susan West, which is now Bob McBride’s wife.


The NCHA has been good for the Big L; the membership needs to remember he has been cashing checks from us for a while now. He helped keep the Robert/Wade Rust problem going on forever. The general membership spent over $250,000 in the early ‘90s on that one, and for what?  Next you get him leading the charge on the Millie Kay, Bob Bouget mess. That one took a man’s living away from him; they never proved anything, just got them both on a Rule 40, owing attorney fees. By the way, Dunn was also on that committee that went forward with the charges against the Bougets and virtually got them banned for life.


As a forty-year member, I feel that many, many things are not treated fairly. The EC doesn’t govern impartially or with openness and never has. Members forget or never know some of the things that have happened, if you’re not in the loop. If you don’t conform, sooner or later the NCHA will give you a wedgie.  What new members don’t realize is that some of the things that we go through now are because of what has happened 20 years ago.


There are many things in the past years that are hidden in Jimmy’s woodpile. Strong feelings from me about why I wish to stay anonymous.


But some of these little secrets and left out facts need to be known. In the future I will pass those on but I sure don’t want the NCHA coming after me, I don’t need the problem.


What I pass on can be checked I’ve got no problem with that.  The only way the NCHA is going to be cleaned up is to let all the facts be known to everyone about everything. The general membership needs to know but the general membership need to have some guts and band together and take control.


Now this is just a personal observation and opinion. Kenny Emigh should have had a chance to bid on the futurity coverage; Shelly Burmeister Gaylord Mowery should have had a chance if she wanted to. Anyone that was qualified should have had the chance, but the general membership didn’t

know this was coming up. Ride-TV really sucked. Craig with his little potbelly hanging out was pretty comical with this trusty side kick that couldn’t pronounce names. It was a lot like watching Laurel and Hardy when the picture did come in.


But what I cannot understand is why has the EC not run Morris off? You have a member threatening another member in writing; then you add in there that this clown is an EC member. Rule 35 and 39 clearly covers these actions.  Morris would probably beat up on a horse or a woman, but I don’t believe you could melt him and pour him on a man in a fair fight. But I’m not saying Emigh is much of a man either.


Name Withheld by request


Read More

☛ Pot sweetened for aged events?

Posted by on Sep 15, 2012 in TO THE EDITOR | 0 comments


Dear Editor,

June 15, 2012

Just a thought….as I read the ‘adopted’ recommendations from the convention, they now take 50 horses to the semi’s. I believe it was 40 before, or paid thru 40 places. Another 10 places paid at $4000 each – WOW another $40,000 out to one NCHA produced event. I think a reasonable amount might be your entry fee back, but seriously, that’s better odds than at a weekend show (most classes 1 money for every 4 horses, but lower percentages to lower end) The 2012 Summer Spect. was better percentage than that in the NP, paying the 40 places.

Some weekend affiliates are struggling to break even on shows, with paid (mandatory certified) secretary, paid (mandatory certified) videographer, 8% to NCHA, $2 per cut to Nat’l Finals fee ( that now goes to Reno again???) I’m not sure some weekend cutters realize just how many places get paid at those major events. I feel NCHA (Executive Board) is trying to sweeten the pot more for the aged event group, and forgot the weekend cutter.

But of course, in case of repercussions, I prefer to remain anonymous ~

Thanks~ vg

Read More

☛ Description of a “Set Precedent”

Posted by on Sep 4, 2012 in BREAKING NEWS, RICK'S CORNER, TO THE EDITOR | 0 comments



 Sept. 4, 2012

Glory Ann,

Since the release of your news article I have received myriad inquires asking for an analysis that provides further information on my last article, as well as a expanded information process.  More specifically, SET PRECEDENT and Trainer-issued earnings checks.

Therefore please accept the following:  (First):  When a corporation or organization establishes a normal manner in conducting business on a regular basis thus A SET PRECEDENT is established. It does not matter, in this instance for clarification purposes, whether such business manner is legal or not it’s still establishes A SET PRECEDENT or an established way of conducting business by a corporation.

Differentiation between the two is critical when such actions are identified as unorthodox or defined as illegal business practices. Its under this veil, a corporation subjects itself to a host of criminal and civil liability factors due to this SET PRECEDENT business practices thus placing same on a path of self destruction; and

(Second):  As this addendum relates to horse earnings checks being made payable to Horse Trainers I offer the following:  A Horse Owner is the (ONLY) rightful and lawful recipient and payee of all horse earning checks issued by the Horse Organization or (Payer/Issuer),except when such horse owner specifically and legally appoints a (nominee/middleman) recipient as an Agent by executed legal doctrine.

At no time, with specificity, does a Horse Organization or a Horse Trainer have the authority or binding legal power to supersede the lawful rights of an owner by arbitrarily appointing a (nominee/middleman) as the recipient of horse earnings checks or funds won during an equine competition that actually belong to another. With this over reach of authority such horse organization subjects its self to liability by using this unorthodox SET PRECEDENT business practice.

It’s imperative to note, all IRS 1099 reporting doctrine must be followed during and exchange of earned income by the Issuer and the Payee or recipient. Period.

Submitted with respect

Rick Dennis
Wind River Company LLC

Read More

☛ Legal implications regarding 1099s

Posted by on Sep 2, 2012 in BREAKING NEWS, RICK'S CORNER, TO THE EDITOR | 0 comments



Sept. 2, 2012
Glory Ann,
Heretofore, you have had commentaries from two purported attorneys representing two separate Cutting Horse Organizations offering conjectural opinions on the actual
powers endowed to a Horse Trainer in representing the horse owner in his/her absence. In fact, same represents Horse Trainers are empowered with actual implied
and automatic authority to act as an actual legal Agent for such horse owners(s) by virtue of their trade name, e.g., Horse Trainer.

For the Record, each purported attorney suggests a Horse Trainer is cloaked with absolute authority to legally act in the owner(s) behalf in each ones absence. Therefore, it should be noted the actual definition of (AGENT) in commercial business is defined as follows:  With specificity, (“AGENT IN LAW) – In commercial law, is a person authorized to act on the behalf of another, (called the principal), to create a legal relationship with a third party.

In the absence of a fully executed POWER OF ATTORNEY specifically authorizing the above, by legal definition, a Horse Trainers actual authority is limited in scope of authority by virtue of this definition and absence of the executed legal document between the party(s).

Also, For the Record, please be advised of the following:  More specifically, when a corporation operates and continues to operate under a same set of guidelines a (SET PRECEDENT) is established, i.e., by definition (“Something done or said that may serve as an example or rule to authorize or justify a subsequent act of the same or analogous kind.”).

Therefore, if it’s an established business practice for such horse organization to operate in such a repetitive  manner, quite simply a precedent is established by operating in the same and usual customary business manner, e.g., providing horse owners earnings checks in the name of the Horse Trainer and not the owner(s).  Each purported attorney represents this is the usual and customary business practice of each separate horse organization named therein.  Thus, (A SET PRECEDENT) of a usual and customary business practice has been established by each entity.

Effectually, such a precedent could be argued the horse organization utilizing (A SET PRECEDENT) in its normal course of business, I.e., providing owner checks to Horse Trainers, is also establishing another set (SET PRECEDENT)  which would endow
and designate, by such set precedent, the Horse Trainer as (NOMINEE/MIDDLEMAN) for the horse owner(s) thus enacting the established IRS 1099 reporting doctrine set
forth in the IRS (nominee/middleman) provision of the federal tax code FOR REPORTING EARNED INCOME.

As the IRS TAX CODE STATES – Each nominee/middleman must register with the IRS as well as providing the name and tax identification for each owner named therein.
Click for IRS 1099 tax law>>

Essentially, this requires the Horse Trainer or (nominee/middleman) to be in possession of all relevant tax identification information relative to each owner(s) to include, but not limited to name, address, social security number or tax identification number, W4 information, etc.  actually, this horse trainer is in possession of the most private and guarded information available for an individual.

My question is, where’s the security to insure safe keeping and prevention of identify theft.  Is it in his/her barn for ease of access by anyone or in a file cabinet in his residence which also offers ease of access.  We all know horse training facilities, especially, in the border states are subject to being infiltrated by illegals and other transients.

Thus, it’s argued that a corporation utilizing such an unorthodox accounting method is virtually guaranteeing the absolute security of owner tax information, all rules of the Federal Tax Code 1099 reporting requirements, as same applies to reportable income, will be adhered to by its utilization of the (nominee/middleman), i.e. Horse Trainer/Horse Owner(s) check issuance, and the rightful and legal owner of such funds will receive full ownership of same from the (nominee/middleman) or Horse Trainer, as well as the Horse Trainer is legally in the U.S.

Notwithstanding, such an unorthodox accounting method subjects the horse owner(s) with the liability of the Horse Trainer complying with all Federal and State tax laws and that such individuals accounting records are legal, accurate, up to date and legally filed on an annual basis.

A non-profit corporation is compelled to operate within the full and absolute letter of the laws of the state it’s organized in, as well as the United States Criminal/Civil Code or in certain circumstances of impropriety the Officers and Directors of same are open to culpable liability and the protective veil of the corporation can be pierced.

Further, it’s not out of the realm of possibility when improprieties are found for a 501c  Corporation to lose its coveted nonprofit status.  As previously stated, and
as a Risk Analysis Expert, it’s incumbent on and advantageous for corporations to perform a Risk Analysis and a Forensic Audit to insure complete legal compliance of daily business practices, as well as insuring complete transparency. Transparency is especially essential with non-profit organizations.

For simplicity, accuracy legality and security my posture remains the same. Horse Earnings Checks should be issued directly from the Horse Organization (PAYER) to the rightful and legal owner (HORSE OWNER(S).  The horse owner can then issue the Horse Trainers portion of such earnings and this accounting method keeps the accounting records clean, accurate and legal.

In closing, perhaps both purported attorneys, as well as each Horse Organization should rethink their opinions and established (SET PRECEDENT) business practices.

Submitted with respect:

Rick Dennis, CPP
Wind River Company L.L.C.
Managing Member

Read More

☛ Rick Dennis response to 1099 letter

Posted by on Aug 31, 2012 in RICK'S CORNER, TO THE EDITOR | 0 comments


Aug. 31, 2012
Glory Ann,
I am in receipt of a copy of Mr. Brown’s correspondence containing his statements and assertions pertaining to a news article published in a prior issue of your online

First, and for the record, Mr. Brown asserts he is the attorney of record mentioned in the news article. Second, Mr. Brown’s assertion is without validation or verification due to the fact I have never personally visited with or spoken to him about any matter concerning the American Cutting Horse Association, much less the news article herein. Furthermore, for the record I have never met or spoke with Mr.Brown on any occasion. Therefore, I have no binding knowledge of who he is.

Second, Mr. Brown includes in his commentary, additional assertions stating he completely disagrees with all of my stated assertions in the news article, listing a litany of purported uncorroborated grievances and denials that at this point only he can validate as authentic and factual.

For the record my rebuttal is as follows:
1. Correspondence was scribed, by me, and forwarded not only to the American Cutting Horse Association but also to Mr. Bobby Bouget; Branch, Louisiana, delineating a list of grievances with specificity. Such correspondence addressed several grievances and/or complaints against both parties both separately and jointly. The American Cutting Horse Association after which (ACHA) received theirs and Mr. Bouget refused his certified mail.

Notwithstanding, and pursuant to the ACHA’S receipt of same, I was telephonically contacted and informed, by an employee of the ACHA, both letters were openly read at an ACHA Board of Directors meeting, copies provided to each Board Member, subsequently assigned to an unnamed attorney, also a Board Member, and a resolution on the matter would be forthcoming.

Pursuant to same, I received a phone call from the same ACHA employee who provided me with the following detail, More specifically, said ACHA employee stated with specificity,”the attorney assigned to your case completely agrees with you, he quit the board and I have been charged, by the board, to set the record straight.” Since the record has been set straight and I’m in possession of the requested documents and other items it seems the ACHA employee provided factual information and not hypothetical uncorroborated assertions as provided by Mr. Brown’s correspondence.

2. For the record, let me correct Mr. Brown’s statement pertaining to waiting 7 years to bring this to the attention of the ACHA. Let me state clearly and unequivocally, I entered into a written binding contract with the ACHA pertaining to donated Stallion breedings for this organization’s Youth Scholarship Program. I fulfilled my portion of the contract and the ACHA failed to fulfill their scribed and stated portion of the contract.

Thereafter, I contacted the ACHA requesting my tax information each succeeding year thereafter. ACHA failed in it’s fiduciary obligation to provide me with this contractural information until 7 years later and only after receiving my demand for same. Therefore, a breech of contract exists between the parties. It’s not my job to perform theirs or run an over sight committee to insure contract compliance.

Furthermore, it’s my full intention of amending my tax returns at the end of the year with this accounting bill being passed by me to the rightful parties due to this issue and breech of contract and failure to fulfill fiduciary obligations.

3. Mr. Brown challenges my authenticity in reporting the factual transpiring events at the 2005 ACHA World Show. My statement of fact has previously been reported but for the record let me reiterate without being redundant:

a. I personally attended this event. I transported my horse to this event. I paid all relative charges for this horse. I originally entered up as the exhibitor on this horse. At the last minute, I succumbed to Mr. Bouget’s
request. While present, I furnished the show secretary with all applicable information necessary to provide me with this horse’s earnings check. At no time did any Officer, Director, Contractor or Employee of the ACHA have the approval or authority to exceed my explicit instructions in providing this check to Bouget nor did the exhibitor have such authority to request.

b. Since 6 years passed and I was never informed of the existence of this check, either by the issuer or Bouget, I can only surmise and take the posture the funds were stolen. Period. It was only after I made light of my intention of proceeding with possible prosecution with the US Attorneys Office, as well as the Texas Attorney Generals Office against both parties, was this check made available to me by the ACHA. I find Mr. Brown’s statement of statue of limitations expiration incredulous since he is an attorney he should be well versed on the subject matter and be aware of the revised statue of limitations on specific criminal offenses by the court entering into Federal jurisdiction.
Mr. Brown should also be aware of and know the definition of culpable liability as this law pertains to Officers and Directors of Corporations.

4. I completely disagree with Mr. Browns referral to the apparent authority owners cloak trainers with. As previously stated, in the absence of a fully executed Power of Attorney, a Trainer’s scope of legal and binding authority is limited and does not supersede the legal and rightful authority of the horse owner. Both Mr. Tynes and Mr. Brown assert Horse Trainers are endowed with super and mystical powers adorned to their trade name, i.e., Horse Trainer, which is simply not true, e.g., let that
horse kick an individual at a show and see who bears the burden of the liability: the horse owner or the trainer.

5. As for reporting horse earnings, I have simply and previously stated the correct manner in reporting horse earnings earned during equine competition, i.e., Horse
Earnings can and should be issued to horse owners. Period. However, since both Attorneys are in favor of Trainers receiving horse-earning checks, I have taken the liberty of researching the IRS doctrine for same and reported as follows:

a. 2012 General Instructions For Certain Information Returns (Forms 1097, 1098, 1099, 3291, 3222, 5498, and W2G.) Nominee/middleman Return. Generally, if you receive a form 1099 for amounts that actually belong to another person, you are considered a nominee recipient. You must file a Form 1099 with the IRS (the same type of Form 1099 you received) for each of the owners, showing the amounts allocable to each. File the new Form 1099 with the Form 1096 with the Internal Revenue Service Center in your area. On each new Form 1099, list, yourself as the “payer” and the other owner as the “recipient”. On Form 1096 list yourself as “Filer”.

b. Any deviation in the above is circumventing established IRS earned-income reporting requirements. Any deviation from 1099 reporting doctrine subjects each issuer to providing false and erroneous tax reporting information, as well as failure to follow same. If a rule is implemented to use more than one earned income reporting requirements then such rule should also specifically delineate the manner and charges the recipient is endowed with, e.g., explicit record keeping for compliance and where appropriate, the issuance of Form 1099.

6. In closing, it should be noted that a 501c Non Profit can lose its coveted status for failure to adhere to, operate and comply within the full letter of the
law. Period.

Also, Mr. Brown asserts this was an oversight by the ACHA. For the record, Mr. Brown, a purported and alleged ACHA board member, should be fully aware it’s a
common and well-established practice of the ACHA to provide horse-earnings checks to the Trainers instead of the rightful owners of these funds and/or the horse owners.

An ACHA show secretary I interviewed stated it’s the manner, means and established common practice by which the ACHA instructs it’s show secretaries to disseminate horse-earnings checks after a competition event. Same also stated it’s a common practice with the NCHA and she was taught by the NCHA to disseminate horse earnings checks in this manner.

Therefore, this willful and deliberate act committed by the ACHA in conjunction with Bouget joins both parties in complete liability for the recovery of assets, as well
as all related costs to include, but not limited to, e.g., court costs, attorneys fees, accountant fees, etc. Quite simply, if the check would have not been sent to
Bouget it couldn’t have been stolen. If the ACHA would have fulfilled its contractural obligation, I wouldn’t have to amend my tax returns. Period. It took 7 years on the part of ACHA to rectify this situation. Clearly a stall. Period.

Mr. Brown, as an attorney you should also be aware of the definition of theft. Louisiana revised statute (LA RS 14:67 Subpart C, BY MISAPPROPRIATION WITHOUT VIOLENCE), part A: Theft is the misappropriation or taking of anything of value which belongs to another, either without the consent of the other to the misappropriation or taking, or by means of fraudulent conduct, practices, or representations. An intent to
deprive the other permanently of whatever may be the subject of the misappropriation
is essential.

When such theft and/or criminal act occurs and the US Mail is used to perpetuate the
Crime (Mail Fraud) and when a Federal Bank is used to perpetuate the crime (Bank Fraud). Period.

Final Analysis: ACHA mailed this check, via, US Mail to Bouget from Texas to Louisiana without the knowledge or consent of the rightful owner, Bouget deposited this check into his bank account without an endorsement to specifically conceal the identity of the depositor and has never informed me to date of the existence of this check which clearly states Bouget’s intentions after 7 years.

In an abundance of caution, perhaps Mr. Brown should rethink his position on this

More specifically, Mr. Brown should ascertain and support the relevant facts in this case and not disseminate his personal conjecture which is simply designed to confuse the issue and offer excuses in his commentary.

The facts are the facts and are supported by an overwhelming abundance of credible documented evidence. Relevant Documented Facts do not change. Period.

Respectfully Submitted
Rick Dennis
Wind River Company LLC

Editor’s Note:
Click below for a copy sent to me by Mr. Dennis regarding the Internal Revenue Service’s rules on 1099s. The particular rule mentioned by Mr. Dennis is on page 2, Column 1, A. Who Must File, “Nominee/middleman returns”
Click here for IRS 1099 instructions>>

Read More