Pages Navigation Menu

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

☛ The business of running a “business” 9-3-18

Posted by on Sep 3, 2018 in BREAKING NEWS, COW HORSE NEWS, CUTTING NEWS, HORSE ORGANIZATIONS, INDUSTRY NEWS, LAWSUITS & INDICTMENTS, REINING NEWS, RICK'S CORNER, WHO, WHAT & WHERE | 11 comments

THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING A “BUSINESS””

 

By Richard E. “Rick” Dennis
September 2, 2018

 

On July 18, 2014, I authored and released an article, on allaboutcutting.net, entitled; “WHERE’S THE HORSE INDUSTRY HEADED?”  The article covers a myriad of topics that were plaguing the American horse industry back then, and in some degrees, with exception, are still plaguing the equine industry today. This article had the most comments ever, with 99 – all agreeing.

 

However, we haven’t seen much progress in two of the focal points of the article, directly contributing to a loss of membership, investors, and participation in the industry: bad horse trainers and the mismanagement of a 501(C)3 Nonprofits. It’s been established that equine nonprofits are very reluctant to intervene in helping to eradicate immoral, unethical, abusive and downright bad horse trainers from the industry, except for animal abuse.

☛ Where is the horse industry headed? – 7-18-14

Well ladies and gentleman, what about member abuse? During my tenure in the horse industry, I’ve witnessed an increase in civil litigation involving horse trainers and their client or clients battling it out in the court system over a fraud dispute that usually emanates from some horse trainer’s bad, unethical, and in some cases just outright – bad and illegal business practices. In fact, there’s a large populous of unsuspecting newcomers to the horse industry who are victims of unscrupulous horse trainers, on an annual basis. The sad commentary to this ever-increasing problem is, that every time these victims turn to the 501(C)3 nonprofit for assistance or relief, the victim hears the same old pathetic excuse: We Don’t Have a Rule For That ! ”

 

Perhaps it’s time for the “Powers-That-Be” running these struggling multi-million dollar 501(C)3 non-profits, to get together and design and adopt specific rules to govern its horse trainers, as well as, in some cases, their illegal and unscrupulous bad business practices. After all, investors and members are the backbone of any 501(C)3 nonprofit horse organization and not the horse trainers, as they often recite. I know these facts to be self-evident because I’ve been involved in a myriad of unethical business practices in the industry, committed by horse trainers,  from a “Risk Analyst’s” perspective.

 

When appropriate and where probable cause exists, I have on more than one occasion recommended a further review by law enforcement to ascertain whether or not prosecution for specific law violations are warranted and as a result of my Risk Analyst determinations. However, a 501(C)3 nonprofit doesn’t have any problems asking members for free time and donations to support these “over-priced” individuals occupying management positions within the organization.  For doing what?  protecting bad horse trainers and their unethical conduct and actions, which usually results in running good people out of the business!

In my opinion, when a horse organization doesn’t establish rules and regulations to protect innocent and unsuspecting members, investors and newcomers to the industry, then they are essentially condoning these types of unethical business practices. They are ostensibly going right along with the bad actors!

 

Case-in-point, when a horse trainer is sued in court by two separate horse organization member Plaintiffs and accused of fraud involving hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages, my question is, “Why is this individual being sued still a member of any horse organization?” Or better yet, “Why isn’t this individual in jail and being prosecuted?”

 

For the record, I’ve been in business, in the private sector, since January 28, 1984.  Since inception, my company has been registered in the state of organization, both my Federal and State taxes have all been filed and paid on a recurring annual basis – when necessary, all business licenses are up-to-date, issued 1099s are accounted for and my company has an A+ business rating with the Better Business Bureau. If I have to comply, why shouldn’t everyone else calling themselves a business owner?  Especially, the ones operating with a 501(C)3 nonprofit organization and using a business moniker such as “Incorporated,” Limited Liability Company,” “Sole-Owned-Proprietorship,” a “Doing Business As (dba)” or “an assumed name?”

 

In business, we call this being fiscally responsible. In addition to being fiscally responsible, I also have another prudent business practice: “I offer a “100 percent, full-satisfaction money-back guarantee” on all of my business products and services, including “horse training.”  It’s just “good business practice.” However, there’s one difference that separates my company’s clientele from the horse industry. It’s referred to as “over-sight.” Unlike 501(C)3 nonprofits in the horse industry, that don’t exercise any or very little “over-sight” of horse trainers except horse abuse or issuing a bad check, my clients demand “over-sight” and I either adhere to compliance protocol or I find another place to work.

 

Obviously, that’s the difference between governmental agencies like the Department of Defense and the petrochemical industry versus the unregulated horse industry. Another major difference between my business criteria and the horse industry is by example: background checks, criminal record checks and drug and alcohol tests. Alone, these criteria strictly separate the good from the bad so-to-speak. The latter is also the criteria, which is lacking in the horse industry and allows individuals with criminal records to infiltrate and seemingly blend in with the overall good and excellent horse trainers in the industry, who bad horse trainers and their unscrupulous and often times “illegal” business dealings, give a bad stigma also.

 

Therefore, until the “powers-that-be” take the “reins of responsibility” and move to enact membership rules to “counteract” unscrupulous horse trainers and their diabolical practices, I’m afraid the horse industry is going to continue to experience a significant decline in membership, participation, investors and sponsors.

 

In the mean time, there are a lot of changes that 501(C)3 nonprofits can enact to enhance the viability of an organization, i.e., 1) term limits for how long and how many times an individual can occupy a seat on an organizations executive committee, 2) the removal of horse trainers from the Executive Committee and decision-making status, 3) a financial restructuring to reduce employees and overhead expenses (i.e., expenses and salaries for executives and employees, to come in-line with available cash-flow), 4) and enacting rules to address fraud and unscrupulous acts committed by its members.  After all, the horse industry is suppose to be fun and not a legal exercise in a courtroom because of fraud and illegal business practices.

 

As a professional reined cow horse trainer, my job is to train horses, students and prepare them for the show ring. I’m a big believer that businesses should be run by successful business people with expansive business experience and logic – not by horse trainers whose primary mission is to protect their food source “so-to-speak,” as well as other horse trainers when necessary, as we’ve all seen in the past. A horse trainer’s job is to train horses, bring new customers into the industry and represent themselves, their clients and the association in an ethical business manner and atmosphere. As we see today, well-run organizations, like the National Reined Cow Horse Association are flourishing, while others that are not practicing prudent and fiscally responsible business practices, are on a rapid decline in members, sponsors and investors.

 

NON-PROFIT INSTABILITY

 During my tenure in the horse industry I’ve witnessed a lot of regime changes over the years, but one in particular stands out: the National Cutting Horse Association.  When I first came into the industry, Jeff Hooper was the Executive Director, next came Allen Stein then Jim Bret Campbell. The next interim Executive Director was Ernie Beutenmiller, then Chuck Smith and now the interim Executive Director is Louis Wray. It’s my opinion that when these many executive employee changes transpire in such a short period of time, it’s usually a result of inexperience within the executive staff.

 

However whatever the cause, instability with upper management within an organization exhibits nothing else but unsound business experience within the rank and file of upper management, a fight for power dominance within the organization and subsequently translates in the long run into a reduction in membership and loss of sponsor revenue. The tragedy in this “helter-skelter” ring around the rosy of Executive Director roles is that it’s a very expensive proposition for the nonprofit, especially when they have to pay a former Executive Director the full amount of his employment contract financial agreement – even after the individual has left employment with the organization before his full tenure is up. This is not a very good, sound or prudent business practice!

 

Over-all, now’s the time for 501(C)3 nonprofits to perform a little “soul-searching” and determine the best course of action for them to viably sustain the organization in the future. Remember, horse trainers are not the backbone of an organization.  The real money that makes the “world-go-round” comes from investors, METF funds, members and sponsors. Without these entities, nonprofits wouldn’t exist and neither would horse trainers. As my contribution to the horse industry I wrote a book many years ago entitled: THE AMERICAN HORSE INDUSTRY, Avoiding The Pitfalls which was written to provide members in the horse industry with common-sense business practices to avoid the pitfalls inherent in the industry and some of which are covered in this article. If an individual really wants to know how financially responsible your 501(C)3 nonprofit is doing, you can go to Guidestar.org, enter your nonprofit’s name and research a specific year’s IRS 990 tax filing to see exactly what’s going on financially with them, including the amount of salaries being paid and who they are paid to.

 

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

 

WIND RIVER COMPANY LLC
Richard E. “Rick” Dennis
Managing Member
Freelance Writer and Author
Office/Mobile: (985) 630-3500
Email: richardedennis51@gmail.com
Web Site: http://www.richardedennis.net

 

Read More

☛ The ABCs of hiring a professional horse trainer 8-12-18

Posted by on Aug 12, 2018 in BREAKING NEWS, COW HORSE NEWS, CUTTING NEWS, HORSE NEWS, INDUSTRY NEWS, REINING NEWS, RICK'S CORNER, WHO, WHAT & WHERE | 5 comments

THE ABC’S OF HIRING A PROFESSIONAL HORSE TRAINER

 

DON’T BE A FOOL WITH YOUR MONEY!

 

 

By Richard E. “Rick” Dennis
Aug. 12, 2018

 

So, you’ve made the decision to enter the horse industry. Your reasoning may include a myriad of ideological thought processes, including for an investment purpose, just to enjoy the equestrian life, a reenactment with the Old West lifestyle, or simply your love of horses and the ability to engage with one of the most marvelous animals on planet earth.

 

Regardless of what your reasoning is, one of the most important investment decisions the equestrian will make, besides the horse, is locating and retaining the right professional horse trainer. However, and for the record, the horse industry, unlike other professions requiring either a college degree or a degree from a vo-tech school, professional horse trainers occupy a unique niche in our society: “a niche that’s virtually unregulated and likened to the unregulated society of the Wild West.”

 

In a sense, horse trainers are unique in that they learn their trade on a generational basis, i.e., the training techniques are passed down from generation-to-generation. However, and contrary to popular belief, horse trainers aren’t Gods and they can’t walk on water! In some cases they think they are lawyers but a majority percentage dictates they aren’t one of those either.

 

Another satirical moment in history has taught us that some horse trainers think they can run a multi-million-dollar 501(c)3 nonprofit but they can’t do that either.

 

However and for the record, there are a lot of really good horse trainers out there; however, the corrupt, immoral, fraudulent and imbecilic individuals operating within the industry, as well as the ones causing the abhorrent abuses and fraudulent activities, are unfairly stigmatizing the honorable ones. For the record, not all horse trainers are created equally or share the same moralistic values of trust, duty of loyalty, honor and country.

 

Therefore, there aren’t any degrees to obtain, either from an accredited college or a vo-tech school, to vouch for their training. And there aren’t any governmental or 501(c)3 non-profit horse organization licensing requirements that I’m aware of, except the Thoroughbred racing industry, which is designed to regulate a horse trainer within a specific industry, as well as the AQHA Professional Horseman group. Unfortunately, in today’s society and especially in the performance horse industry, the only requirements for an individual desiring to be a professional horse trainer is to hang out his or her shingle and proclaim, “Today, I’m a professional horse trainer.”

 

In an abundance of caution, the investor or newcomer to the industry should also be aware that there’s absolutely no way for an individual to know whether or not an horse trainer has a prior criminal history or an existing criminal record of wrong doing, unless you ask, or the trainer agrees to a background check. Don’t rely on the 501(c)3 nonprofit to assist you in this matter because, to my knowledge, there’s no rule in their rule books to address pre-existing criminal record exclusions, except for “horse abuse.”

 

In my line of work, as a security consultant and risk analyst, I have to undergo an annual background check, including a urine drug screen, fingerprints check and a financial checkup, just to stay within my licensing requirements.  Therefore, my question is, “If I have to undergo those checks to operate within my jurisdiction, why shouldn’t horse trainers have to be subjected to the same scrutiny, especially in lieu of the fact that in some cases, horse trainers operate using millions of dollars of other peoples’ money?”

 

WHAT IS NOT REQUIRED OF TRAINERS?

Individual background checks are essential in maintaining safety standards within certain industries of our society; however, unfortunately it’s not a requirement with performance horse trainers in the reining, cutting or cow horse industry. Equally, it’s also not a requirement for an individual to be subjected to pre-access, random, probable-cause, or post-accident individual drug and alcohol screening requirements.

 

WHAT IS REQUIRED OF TRAINERS?

However, there are governmental licensing and taxing requirements for the individual proclaiming to be a professional horse trainer. More specifically, the professional horse trainer has to adhere to the taxing requirementsof the state he or she operates in, as well as the federal government taxing requirements for both the individual and the business name he or she is operating under. For example, in the event the professional horse trainer’s name is John Doe and he is operating a (dba) “doing business as” or “an assumed name” business, i.e., John Doe Cutting Horses, then, he or she has to register his or her business with the secretary of state that he or she is operating in, as well as the county the business is located in. This is also the same for partnerships.

 

In the absence of legal registration requirements, the owner of the (dba) or “an assumed name” doesn’t have the legal protections provided by the legal requirements or have the state’s authority to operate a business in the state of the domicile; nor does the owner or operator have the legal authority to engage in contracts or enforce contracts while being unregistered, such as filing or maintaining lawsuits within a specific legal jurisdiction. Furthermore, the individual operating an unregistered or non-legal business has to absorb all of the liability for operating an unregistered business, by his or herself.

 

Each state and county has their own licensing requirements, so the best avenue for obtaining this information is through either the Secretary of State’s office or the County Clerk’s office of your county.

 

RESEARCH:

Therefore, your only available option is left up to you to conduct your own research.  For the record, an individual’s failure to register a (dba) “or an assumed name” when required to do so, could result in fines and penalties to the trainer, which also can include incarceration, prosecution and imprisonment upon a guilty verdict.

 

One essential element, which appears to have escaped most 501(c)3 nonprofits, is the absence of enforcement rules to govern the moral behavior of certain individuals in the industry. This has also contributed to the withdrawal of existing members and is perhaps stymying new investors and members. Therefore, this analytical reasoning can be deduced as one of the “direct causes” to the rapid decline of participants and members in the specific performance horse groups.

 

Your Research:

The due-diligence doesn’t end after you locate a prospective training facility and horse trainer. The next step is to gather as much background or intelligence information as you can on the training facility itself, as well as the trainer. This can be done by:

 

  1. Ask for references. An excellent place to start is talking to prior or existing customers to find out what their experiences with a specific trainer have been. This can be done by asking the professional horse trainer for a list of references.

 

  1. Check with the Better Business Bureau. If any complaints were filed against an individual or his or her company over the years, this information will be located with this agency.

 

  1. Check with your state, county or parish licensing agencies for a particular business license requirement. Ascertain whether or not this particular individual’s business is currently registered and up-to-date, if required.

 

  1. Check with the local sheriff’s office or the SPCA to ascertain whether or not your potential trainer has ever had an animal abuse complaint filed against him or her. If so, obtain the judicial disposition of the case.

 

  1. There are two ways to research an individual’s background.1) Do it yourself or hire someone to do it after you obtain a signed release from the trainer, or 2) simply go to the local civil records section of the court house yourself and ask the clerk of court in the civil records section for all public arrest and filed lawsuit records for a specific individual. After all, arrest and lawsuit records are public documents.

 

B – Business Contracts and Insurance Policies

 

         The Business Contract:

 

  1. One of the most vital aspects of any business arrangement in today’s society is reducing the business arrangements to legal and notarized writings. A competent attorney at law should be used to draw-up the particulars for you.

 

  1. NEVERexecute or sign a “hand-written” contractual document with anyone. This type of scribed document is suspect in the first place. You may be signing a scheme to defraud, which has been proven factual in certain filed legal documents and circumstances. After all, you need all the legal protection you can muster-up in the event a dispute arises and you require an attorney at law to enforce a specific performance clause in the contract.

 

  1. A contract keeps everything clean and neat.If a trainer won’t sign a contract, this is a “red flag,” simply walk away and find someone who will.

 

         Business Insurance:

 

  1. Unfortunately in today’s marketplace, we all need insurance to protect our valuable assets. This is especially true with a horse.As my old veterinarian use to say, “A horse is just an accident looking for somewhere to happen.”  Therefore, common sense tells us “We all need to insure our horses while they’re in training.”

 

  1. Common sense also tells us, that the training facility, where the horse is boarded, as well as the trainer, should also have a liability insurance policy in the unlikely event that an incident happens and client damages can be recouped for injury, illness, or even death to a particular horse, while under trainer care, custody and control.

 

  1. As a Risk Manager, I feel two of the most important aspects of any insurance liability policy are: a) having the client named as “additionally insured” on the trainer’s liability policy and b) an “error and omissions” clause. Still another important aspect, is to have the insurance company notify the client in the event of policy cancellation and/or at least (30) days in advance of the cancellation date. This provision can be included in the business contract between the parties.

 

C – Maintaining Contact With Your Horse While It Is In Training:

 

As a Risk Manager, I believe in the practice of, “seeing what you getand what you’re paying for.”  Since, you’re paying the bills, it’s a good practice to make regular trips to see your horse while it’s in training. That way, you can see for yourself exactly how the horse is being trained and how the horse is progressing during training with the trainer. If you aren’t satisfied with the horse’s progression, it’s a good idea to speak to the trainer about it.

 

NEVER, get caught in the trap of being a victim or a life donator to a trainer’s 401 K retirement plan, especially with a horse that’s never going to make it in a specific performance horse discipline in the first place. It is a fact of life that not all horses are destined to become “superstars” no matter what the breeding sheet tells you and no matter how long they are in training. Therefore, your only reliance on this fact is in the opinion of your horse trainer’s credibility. That is, unless you’re an experienced horseman yourself, as well as being a good judge of horseflesh and training methods. So live by this rule: “Trust But Verify.”

 

Making regular visits to the horse-training facility will allow you to judge that for yourself. If your horse trainer objects to your regular visits to ascertain how your horse is being treated and trained, simply find another horse trainer. The plain truth is: Your trainer is going to know in very short order whether your horse is a worthy candidate or not for a specific horse discipline or event in the performance horse industry. It’s not going to take a year or longer.

 

D – Money Earnings Split:

 

NEVER engage in a practice where a horse trainer is allowed to have a winning’s check issued in his or her name and NEVER opt for a deal with the trainer to maintain control of your share of earnings and apply it to your bill balance. The “pitfall” of this accounting method is that you’re relying on the horse trainer to act as your accountant. This is exactly how financial disputes arise in the first place. Be smarter than that!  Essentially, the horse trainer is your “contract laborer,” not an agent for your accountant.  The proper way to handle the “money/split” is for the client to receive the earnings’ check, pay the trainer his or her portion and issue the trainer an IRS form 1099 form at the end of the year for the tax filing purposes of both parties.

 

The client should always pay their board, training and entry fees separate and apart from money-earning check payouts. At the end of the year, it’s the client’s responsibility to issue the IRS form1099 to the trainer, which includes what you paid him or her – not, vice-versa.

 

E – Fraudulent Acts:

 

If at anytime you determine your trainer is “padding” invoices, i.e., adding expenses that aren’t usual and customary, this is a red flag! Immediately address this with your trainer and refuse to pay the bill until it is rectified. If this practice persists after the initial finding, fire the trainer and find someone else. Beware, of a facility that desires to provide you with multiple months’ billing all at once – or even on a quarterly, semi-annual, bi-annual or annual basis. This should raise a serious red flag to the client as it relates to the accuracies of the contents identified as billable services.

 

Another avenue available to the individual, who has been the victim of a fraudulent act, is to consult with law enforcement, rather than a lawyer, for asset recovery. In my opinion, those identified as operating fraudulent business practices should be evicted from the business on a permanent basis.

 

F – Money-back Guarantee:

 

If the trainer you pick is the really “fire-bang wizard” he or she proclaims, then speak to them about a “Money-Back Guarantee” on their training. At my company, I offer a “Money-Back-Guarantee” on all of my business products and services, including horse training. The guarantee states: “If a Client isn’t completely satisfied with my products or services, they’re entitled to a full refund, or a “money-back guarantee.”  If the trainer balks, you might want to find another trainer. To date, I haven’t returned anyone’s money and I’ve trained a lot of horses in my time. This separates the really confident trainers from the wanna-be’s, “so-to-speak.”

 

Overall, the bad trainers in the industry are making the good trainers and the industry suffer. That’s a sad commentary for the industry. In recent years I’ve seen highly publicized increases in animal abuse cases among trainers, as well as an increase in lawsuits, because of business dealings that have gone bad or have been fraudulent.

 

One trainer to avoid is the one who always wants you to engage in some sort of partnership with him or her. This is just another way for them to use your money. From what I can tell, most of those partnerships don’t have happy endings. Therefore, be frugal with your money, diligent in your research and prudent in your business practices and you’ll more than likely be happy in the industry.

 

Another option for guidance is to purchase my book: “THE AMERICAN HORSE INDUSTRY, Avoiding the Pitfalls.”  This book was written to address the many “Pitfalls” the equine enthusiast may encounter in the industry, as well as the ways to avoid them, including the ones in this article.

 

Until Next Time, Keep ‘Em Between the Bridle!

 

WIND RIVER COMPANY LLC

Richard E. “Rick” Dennis
Managing Member
Professional Reined Cow Horse Trainer.
Freelance Writer and Author
Office/Mobile: (985) 630-3500
Email: windrivercompany.rd@gmail.com
Web Site: http://www.richardedennis.net

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read More

☛ When is a gift really a gift? 8-7-18

Posted by on Aug 7, 2018 in BREAKING NEWS, COW HORSE NEWS, CUTTING NEWS, EQUI-VOICE, HORSE NEWS, INDUSTRY NEWS, REINING NEWS, RICK'S CORNER, RODEO & BULLRIDING NEWS, WHO, WHAT & WHERE | 5 comments

WHEN’S YOUR GIFT, REALLY A GIFT?

 

Which Gifts Are Taxable and What Can Be Excluded?

 

By Richard E. “Rick” Dennis
Aug. 7, 2018

 

Have you given or received a large gift? Do you know what the tax consequences are? You may be subject to the 40% Federal Gift Tax.

 

According to the IRS, a gift is “Any transfer to an individual, either directly or indirectly, where full consideration (measured in money or money’s worth) is not received in return.”

 

The gift tax is the responsibility of the person who gives a gift (i.e., the donor), and the amount of tax due is based on the value of their gift. The person who receives a gift (i.e., the donee) is generally not responsible for paying the gift tax. However, if the donor does not pay the gift tax, the donee may have to pay the tax instead.

 

The gift tax was implemented in order to stop people from dodging the Estate Tax by giving away all of their money before death. While most individuals don’t need to worry about having to pay the gift tax, there are a lot of people who neglect to file the proper paperwork.

 

Seven things you should know about the Federal gift tax:

 

  1. Gifts to Family Members Count. The gift tax and exclusion limit (below) apply whether you are making the gift to a complete stranger, a nephew or your own children. The only person you can give a gift to that is exempt from the gift tax is your spouse. Gifts to your spouse qualify for the marital deduction.

 

  1. There Is an Annual Gift Tax Exclusion.You do not have to pay tax on gifts that are less than the annual exclusion limit, which generally changes every year. Currently, the annual exclusion for 2018 is $15,000 per recipient, up from the previous $14,000 exclusion limit. In other words, you can give up to $15,000 to each of your children this year without having to pay any gift tax. However, anything of value given as a gift and the amount exceeding the exclusion limit is taxable.

 

  1. There Are Also: Educational and Medical Exclusions. Payments that you make on someone’s behalf for qualified tuition or medical expenses do not count toward the annual limit for gift tax purposes. However, your payment(s) must be made directly to a qualifying educational organization or medical care provider in order to qualify for the exclusion. You can also place funds directly into a 529-education savings plan to avoid the gift tax — but note that certain rules apply.

 

  1. You May Need to File a Gift Tax Return (Form 709). In general, you must file a Federal gift tax return (IRS Form 709) if you gave someone more than $15,000 during the 2018 calendar year. In some cases, you are required to file Form 709 even if your gift was below the $15,000 annual exclusion. Note that only individuals are responsible for filing gift tax returns — corporations or trusts that make gifts will pass the filing and payment responsibilities onto their individual stockholders or beneficiaries. Additionally, a married couple cannot file a joint gift tax return.

 

Form 709 is an annual return that is due by April 15 of the year after the gift was made. While this is the same deadline as the individual income tax return (Form 1040), the gift tax return must be filed separately. You can request a 6-month filing extension for your gift tax return with Form 8892 (Application for Extension of Time to File Form 709 and/or Payment of Gift/Generation-Skipping Transfer Tax). Furthermore, if you use Form 4868 (Application for Automatic Extension of Time to File U.S. Individual Income Tax Return) to obtain a tax extension for your 1040 return, you will automatically receive an extension for Form 709.

 

  1. Married Couples Can Give Twice As Much.Spouses can each give up to $15,000 to the same recipient and still stay within the annual exclusion threshold. Together, a married couple can give $30,000 to each donee without incurring the gift tax. Most tax professionals recommend that married couples give money in the form of two separate checks, and each signed by one of the spouses, to avoid any confusion.

 

  1. Each Donor Has a Lifetime Exemption.This refers to the total amount that an individual can give away during their entire lifetime. If your gift exceeds the $15,000 annual threshold, it must be reported as a taxable gift on Form 709 — however, that doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll have to pay the gift tax. Instead, you can apply the gift toward your lifetime exclusion from the Federal estate tax.

 

The “basic exclusion” (also known as the “unified credit”) represents both the lifetime gift tax exemption and the estate tax exclusion, signified as a total amount of $5.34 million. The current law allows individuals to give away up to $5.34 million over their lifetime without having to pay gift or estate taxes.

 

But keep in mind; any portion that’s used to avoid the gift tax reduces the amount that will be exempt from estate tax. For example, if you used $2 million of the exemptions to make taxable gifts during your lifetime, you will only be able to exclude $3.34 million from the estate tax. If you surpass the $5.34 million limit, you (or your heirs) will have to pay up to 40% tax.

 

You can give someone $15,000 per year and it won’t affect your lifetime exemption (because gifts below the annual threshold are not considered taxable). If you exceed the $15,000 annual gift tax threshold, you must file Form 709 and report the amount that counts against your lifetime exemption. You should also hold onto any relevant paperwork so your heirs can properly compute the estate tax later.

 

  1. Promotional Gifts Aren’t Considered “Gifts.”If you receive a gift as part of a promotion — for example, a car is given away to every member of the studio audience — then it does not count as a “gift” by IRS standards because the giver is getting something in return, namely self-promotion. This means that the tax burden for a promotional gift falls on the recipient (because it increases their wealth) and is not eligible for the annual gift tax exclusion. Example, if you give a horse as a gift for promotional purposes it may be disqualified under the gift tax law and may not be considered a gift at all, e.g., if the horse is excluded from showing under certain circumstances, and providing it as a gift is your alternative to allow promotion to continue, it may not qualify as a gift under IRS tax law.  Check with your CPA or the IRS.

 

By the same token, if your providing a gift to someone for a “self-serving purpose,e.g., a house – in the event an individual has IRS tax issues, then this may be considered tax evasion and the one who knowingly receive such a gift under this circumstance to avoid a tax lien or seizure may be considered a co-conspirator.  Therefore, its imperative for the recipients of a large gift to be fully cognizant of any and/or all prior motives the donor may have in providing the gift.  It’s especially important for the recipient to have a fully executed and notarized IRS form 709 in his or her possession, and upon taking possession of the gift.  IRS requires a form 709 to be filled out for each gift whose fair market value exceeds the $15,000 exclusion.

 

In closing, please be advised that it’s always prudent business practices to have a thorough understanding what your getting yourself into before you do it.  Always, “Trust, But Verify.”

 

“Until Next Time, Keep Em Between The Bridle”

 

WIND RIVER COMPANY LLC
Richard E. “Rick” Dennis CPP
Managing Member
Freelance writer and author
Office/Mobile: (985) 630-3500
Email: windrivercompany@gmail.com
Web Site: http://www.richardedennis.net

 

Divisions:

 

Wind River Security, Personal Protection, Risk Management and Analysis.

Wind River Employee Drug and Alcohol Testing Consortium Services.Wind River Stock Horses – Breeding, Training, Exhibition, and Sales.

 

 

 

 

 

Read More

☛ Wild Horses escape chopping block 5-16-18

Posted by on May 16, 2018 in BREAKING NEWS, COW HORSE NEWS, CUTTING NEWS, HORSE NEWS, REINING NEWS, RICK'S CORNER, WHO, WHAT & WHERE | 0 comments

Wild Horses Escape The Chopping Block

In Ombinus Spending Bill

 

By Richard E. Dennis
May 16, 2018

 

Wild Horses are as symbolic of the American West as:  Cactus, Mountains, Prairies, Buffalo, and Native Americans. For centuries Wild Horses have embodied the American Spirit, roamed the mountains and plains of America, and engaged daily in a never ending struggle for survival.  Today, Wild Horses and Burros are confronted with an even greater predator threat to their survival besides Mother Nature and predators, (e.g. The Bureau of Land Management and Domestic Cattle and Sheep producers grazing on public grasslands).  The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Domestic Livestock producers are constantly engaging in FALSE propaganda narratives claiming the Wild Mustang and Burros are eating themselves out of “House and Home” from over population.

 

However, this man made False Narrativeis filled with half truths which only depicts one sided narratives, derived from their interpretation and doesn’t take into account the actual facts and causative factors involved in the Wild Mustang and Burros plight.  Statistical data has proven over and over, the actual cause of the Wild Horses and Burros plight is directly due to one of mans oldest sins – GREED. Instead of proposing a reduction in livestock, Bureaucrats and Ranchers propose a reduction in wildlife including Wild Mustangs, Burros, and predators. Of course these individuals don’t correctly inform the public the overgrazing and sustainable water reductions are directly contributed to overstocking Domestic Livestock populations.

 

Our public grasslands and parks were set aside for the wild life and Citizens of the United States of America and not for the exclusive use of domestic livestock ranchers.  The dichotomy of the ranching philosophy is that it embodies two ideological concepts: 1) They feel it is their right to make a living off the American public from a reduction in grazing fees and government tax payer provided subsidies, and 2) their rights as livestock producers take precedent over the rights of wildlife living in our parks and on our public grasslands. Thus, this dichotomy makes cohabitation unrealistic.

 

These two ambiguous philosophies directly contribute to diametrical conclusions for our public grasslands, wildlife, as well as the past, present, and future of our heritage.  In a recent article by the Washington Post entitled “Wild horses escape the chopping block in spending bill”, by By Karin Brulliard March 22, 2018, the author states: Among the winners in a $1.3 trillion spending bill congressional leaders agreed to Thursday: wild horses. Negotiators said nay to a House proposal to allow the culling of tens of thousands of horses and burros that roam the West or are held in government-funded corrals and ranches. Proponents of the idea, including its sponsor, Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah), described “humane euthanization” as a last-ditch tool for controlling an escalating equine population that is degrading public land and causing horses to starve.

 

But the proposal was vigorously opposed by wild horse advocacy groups, which have long resisted efforts to limit the federally protected animals that have become symbols of the American West. The groups accuse the Bureau of Land Management, which manages the wild horse and burro populations, of bowing to demands from cattle ranchers who view equine herds as competitors on grazing land.

 

“We are thrilled that Congress has rejected this sick horse slaughter plan,” Marilyn Kroplick, president of the animal rights group In Defense of Animals, said in a statement that claimed horse lovers had “jammed Congressional phone lines with calls and sent tens of thousands of emails” to make their case. The 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act gave the animals federal protections, and it also permitted the interior secretary to sell or euthanize older and unadoptable animals. But for much of the past three decades, Congress has used annual appropriations bill riders to prohibit the killing of healthy animals and any “sale that results in their destruction for processing into commercial products.”

 

In July, however, the House Appropriations Committee voted to remove Interior Department budget language banning culls. Stewart said at the time that the proposal would not permit horse sales for commercial processing — including for meat. The last U.S. horse slaughterhouse closed in 2007, but meat-processing plants in Mexico and Canada slaughter tens of thousands of domestic American horses each year for export to Europe and Asia. A Senate proposal retained the protections.

 

Although the spending bill negotiated this week keeps horses off the chopping block, it does not put forward solutions to what people on all sides of this heated issue agree is a problem. About 46,000 wild horses and burros are in corrals that cost the BLM nearly $50 million to maintain each year, and 73,000 others run free in western states. That’s nearly three times the 27,000 animals the bureau says the land can sustain. Horse advocacy groups say that reducing the free-roaming herds to that figure would risk their extinction.

 

Adoptions, which have been the bureau’s primary tool for shrinking the population, totaled just 3,517 in 2017. Among other proposals, horse activists have called for wider use of contraception, which skeptics say would be impractical for large-scale reductions.

 

Neither the BLM nor Stewart’s office responded to requests for comment on the spending bill. In a New York Times column in December, the lawmaker described himself as a horse lover but lamented the funding for corralled horses, saying it would total $1 billion over the animals’ lifetimes.

 

“That’s $1 billion we could otherwise spend on defense, education, job training or any other worthy cause,” Stewart said. “But the alternative for these horses is starving in the wild.”  The Trump administration’s fiscal 2019 budget calls for doing away with the usual rider that prevents their sale or killing in favor of allowing the bureau to use a “full suite of tools” to manage the herds.

 

“Until Next Time, Keep Em Between The Bridle”

 

Richard E. “Rick” Dennis

Office/Mobil: (985) 630-3500

Email: richarde.dennis@yahoo.com

Web Site: http://www.richardedennis.net

Read More

☛ Wild horses winners “this time around” 5-12-18

Posted by on May 12, 2018 in BREAKING NEWS, COW HORSE NEWS, CUTTING NEWS, HORSE HEALTH, INDUSTRY NEWS, MAJOR EVENTS, REINING NEWS, RICK'S CORNER, WHO, WHAT & WHERE | 0 comments

WILD HORSES WERE THE WINNERS IN A $1.3 TRILLION GOVERNMENT SPENDING BILL …

 

THIS TIME AROUND!

 

May 12, 2018
By Glory Ann Kurtz

Karin Brulliard recently wrote an article in the Washington Post entitled, “Negotiators said “nay” to a House proposal to allow the culling of tens of thousands of horses and burros that roam the West or are held in government funded corrals and ranches.”

 

The proponents of the proposal included its sponsor Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah).

 

However, the proposal was vigorously opposed by wild horse advocacy groups, which have resisted efforts to limit the federally protected animals and accuse the Bureau of Land Management of bowing to demands from cattle ranchers who view equine herds as the real competitors on grazing land.

 

The attached article published in the Washington Post describe the ongoing battle over what to do with the nation’s wild horses, including the some 46,000 wild horses and burros in corrals that cost the BLM nearly $50 million to maintain each year and 73,000 others that run free in western states. They claim the number is three times the 27,000 animals the bureau says the land can sustain.

Wild horses escape chopping block 5-18

 

However, if you want the “real story” about what’s going on with the wild horses, go back to the article “Horse slaughter – Facts and Fiction, written by Risk Analyst Rick Dennis and published on July 23, 2015 on this very subject on this website.

 

In the article, Rick separates “Facts” from “Fiction” of this problem, giving the real figures and facts so you can make your own decisions on who the guilty parties are.

☛Horse Slaughter – Fact & Fiction 7-23-15

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read More

☛ Would the real Dos Cats Partners Please Stand Up 5-2-18

Posted by on May 1, 2018 in BREAKING NEWS, COW HORSE NEWS, CUTTING NEWS, HORSE LAWSUITS, INDUSTRY NEWS, LAWSUITS & INDICTMENTS, REINING NEWS, RICK'S CORNER, WHO, WHAT & WHERE | 1 comment

☛ Would the real Dos Cats Partners Please Stand Up 5-2-18

WOULD THE REAL “DOS CATS PARTNERS” PLEASE STAND UP!

 

THE TALE OF TWO “DOS CATS PARTNERS” WITH BOTH ENDING IN LAWSUITS

 

 

By Glory Ann Kurtz and Rick Dennis, Contributing Risk Analyst
May 2, 2018

 

Just when we all thought the final hand had been played in the Dufurrena – Vogel lawsuits, the plot thickens. On Feb. 18, 2018, after close to eight years of disagreements and lawsuits and only weeks after a private settlement was agreed on by the Plaintiffs, Donald Eugene Vogel, Janie Vogel and Jandon Ltd., Saint Jo, Texas, and Defendants Rieta, Brandon and Edward Dufurrena, Gainesville, Texas, were still in a dispute over the ownership of three horses: Stevie Rey Von, Auspicious Cat and Creyzy Train, as well as Ozzum Man and Whata Sneaky Cat.

 

According to court documents (No. 1) in the District Court of Montague County, Texas, 97thJudicial District Court, Exhibit A: “all issues were settled between the Vogels and the Dufurrenas who were parties to the lawsuit. The Vogels, Ed Dufurrena, Shona Dufurrena and Brandon Dufurrena entered into a settlement agreement, Plaintiff Rieta Dufurrena did not participate in the lawsuit or the release.

 

The “Full and Final Release (Exhibit A of No. 1) stated that Donald Eugene Vogel, Janie S. Vogel and Jandon, Ltd., paid the sum of $1,150,000 to Ed Dufurrena and Shona Dufurrena, who tendered a bill of sale to the horses Stevie Rey Von, Auspicious Cat and Creyzy Train.

 

The court document stated that each party agreed to and does release and discharge each other party from any and all claims, actions, causes of action, demands, complaints, allegations, obligations, losses, detriments, counter claims, gross claims, third-party claims, subrogation claims, defenses, rights, damages, costs, penalties, fines, expenses, attorneys’ fees, compensation and relief of any kind whatsoever, whether known or unknown, whether fixed or contingent, whether liquidated, whether legal or equitable, and whether administrative, statutory or common law and whether under federal, state or municipal law, law of a foreign country or any other type of law, which any of the Parties now have or which may hereafter accrue on account of or in any way growing out of or resulting from the Pending Litigation, save and except the obligations and rights arising under this Agreement and the document signed by the parties on Jan. 24, 2018 and Feb. 7, 2018. The parties expressly agreed that the intent of each of the parties is to release all claims one against another regarding the litigation pending between them.

CASE OVER!!! THINK AGAIN!!!

 

1-Original PetititonDufurrena v Vogels 4:13:18

 

HISTORY OF THE OVERUSED DOS CATS PARTNERS PARTNERSHIP NAME:

 

FIRST DOS CATS PARTNER LAWSUIT:

 Federal Court filings in the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division lists a lawsuit entitled Shawn, and Lisa Victoria Minshall, and Lauren Victoria Minshall versus Ed Dufurrena, Ed Dufurrena Cutting Horses LLC, Anthony and Dufurrena, INC., Hartman Equine Reproduction Center (HERC), and DOS CATS PARTNERS dated October 30, 2015.

 

The filed public court records allege the Plaintiffs suffered specific damages arising from the material fact that the Plaintiffs bred their mare to Auspicious Cat, a stallion owned by the Defendants, and the produced foal owned by the Plaintiffs suffers from HERDA.  The court filings continue to state the Defendants specifically misrepresented the HERDA designation on Auspicious Cat both verbally and in an advertisement prior to the breeding, stating the stallion was HERDA negative or was free of the HERDA GENE by the American Quarter Horse Association 5 panel genetic test designation: HERDA N/N.

 

Court records verifies the misrepresentation of material fact or “false and fraudulent advertisement,” with the inclusion of a copy of a web-page ad with Ed Dufurrena riding Auspicious Cat, noting he stood at Pinnacle Equine Veterinary services, with Chelsea Makloski – Colhorn with a $2,500.00 stud fee and marked HERDA N/N – meaning the stud didn’t have the HERDA gene.  However, court records indicate Auspicious Cat is HERDA POSITIVE (carries the HERDA gene and can pass it on to his offspring).

 

As a result of the filed Minshall’s lawsuit, court records also indicate an “Out-Of-Court” settlement was reached on April 26, 2016 by and between the Plaintiffs – Minshall’s, and Defendants EDWARD L DUFURRENA,EDWARD DUFURRENA CUTTING HORSES LLC, ANTHONY AND DUFURRENA, INC., DOS CATS PARTNERS, KAREN CLAYCOMB, TOM DONAHUE, LINDA DONAHUE, GARY CRAIGHEAD, BARBRA HANSELMAN, MICHAEL NOLAN, TRACY A. AGRALL, BUTCH REDISH, and BLAIR VISSAR. The Order Of Dismissal (WITHOUT PREJUDICE) was filed by the Plaintiff Attorney and signed by Federal District Court Honorable Judge Amos I. Mazzant, United States District Judge.

 

SECOND DOS CATS PARTNERS LAWSUIT:

 

DOS CATS PARTNERS – VOGEL AND DUFURRENA PARTNERSHIP SECOND LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST EDWARD L. DUFURRENA AND “DOS CATS PARTNERS”

The curious nature of the “Out-Of-Court” settlement without prejudice listed in the paragraph above, is that it doesn’t include Donald and Janie Vogel who entered into a separate contractual agreement with Edward L. Dufurrena on March 25, 2011 and/or four years prior to the Minshall’s litigation and is also entitled: “DOS CATS PARTNERS”, whereby the Vogel’s paid Dufurrena $105,000 for a 49 percent market ownership share in the partnership which included a 49 percent interest in horses and frozenembryos. Dufurrena is listed as 51 percent owner in this “DOS CATS PARTNERS”and the Vogel’s are listed as 49 percent interest investment partners, except the Miss Hickory Wheel X Auspicious Cat embryo which they are listed as 100 percent.  The listed horses and embryos on the hand-written Dufurrena “DOS CATS PARTNERS” 2011 contract are:

 

Auspicious Cat, Ozzum Man, Ozzum Cat, Whata Sneaky Cat, and three embryos designated as:

  1. Miss Ella Rey x Auspicious Cat – a 2011 embryo,
  2. Miss Ella Rey x Metalicat – a 2011 embryo (Stevie Rey Von), and
  3. Miss Hickory Wheel x Auspicious Cat – 2011 embryo

 

Dufurrena-Vogel agreement 3-25-11

 

For the record, and according to the hand-written contract between Edward L. Dufurrena and Donald and Janie Vogel AUSPICIOUS CAT was included in the 49 percent investment in “DOS CATS PARTNERS,”legally making the Vogel’s 49 percent “vested interest partners” in this horse who is the “SUBJECT” of the Minshall’s lawsuit. However, according to AQHA records, AUSPICIOUS CAT was recorded into the “DOS CATS PARTNERS” in 2006, or four years prior to the Vogel’s and Dufurrena partnership. Also, AQHA records indicate AUSPICIOUS CAT was purchased by “DOS CATS PARTNERS” on 12/30/2006 with the date of transfer being finalized by the AQHA on 01/16/2008.

3-Auspicous Cat owners 4-30-18

 

One would think, all of the horses included in the Vogel/Dufurrena “DOS CATS PARTNERS” executed in 2011 agreement, as well as any resulting foals from the embryos listed in the agreement, would’ve been transferred into the pre-existing “DOS CATS PARTNERS” on file with the AQHA which included AUSPICIOUS CAT, to make everything tidy and legally binding in lieu of the executed agreement between Vogel and Dufurrena orchestrated on March 25, 2011 along with the issuance of a $105,000.00 check to Dufurrena by the Vogel’s, which effectively makes it a binding and fully enforceable contract with performance clauses.

 

Therefore, how in the world could the Vogel’s as 49 percent “vested -interest partners” in the 2011 Vogel/Dufurrena “DOS CATS PARTNERS,”including AUSPICIOUS CAT – a subject of the Minshall’s lawsuit, be excluded from the Minshall’s  2015 lawsuit, as well as the 2016 “out-of-court” settlement between the “DOS CATS PARTNERS,”Dufurrena, and the Minshall’s?  The court settlement document specifically lists the current members as defendants. However, the Vogel’s are absent from court-settlement records.  Perhaps: coincidence, oversight by the Plaintiff attorney, intentional error, or intentional non-disclosure.  Another theory is no one was ever informed of the separate existing partnership by and between Edward L Dufurrena and Donald and Janie Vogel entitled “DOS CATS PARTNERS.”It’s a mystery !

 

One specific validation vehicle of use to verify whether or not the Vogel’s were ever included in the “DOS CATS PARTNERS”on file with the AQHA as 49 percent “vested interest partners,” in lieu of their $105,000.00 monetary investment would be to use the newly filed lawsuit against the Vogel’s, by Dufurrena, to issue a subpoena duces tecum to the American Quarter Horse Association including a production of documents request to ascertain:

 

  1. Any and/or all horses listed in the partnership – from inception, and
  2. The names of any and/or all members included as partnership since its organization along with membership date of entry as well as the partnership organizer(s), and
  3. The percentage of legal investment interest each member holds in the partnership by each ones specific monetary investment amount and what horses or embryos are included in respect to the investment fee

 

A cross section analysis of the three lawsuits in question, the two apparent separate and referred to “DOS CAT PARTNERS,”in two separate lawsuits, as well as the hand-written 2011 contract between the Vogel’s and Dufurrena indicate the 2011 embryo by Metallic Cat and out of Miss Ella Rey – later was born, and is alleged by court documents to be Stevie Rey Von, the NCHA Futurity Champion.

 

The curious nature of the researched AQHA ownership records indicates this horse was never placed in the “DOS CATS PARTNERS” name even though the Vogel’s owned a 49 percent share of a Metallic Cat X Miss Ella Rey embryo as indicated in the 2011 hand-written contract by and between Donald and Janie Vogel and Ed Dufurrena, also known as “DOS CATS PARTNERS,” as well as the later lawsuit instituted by the Vogel’s against Dufurrena and the“DOS CATS PARTNERS.”

 

This matter intensifies when AQHA horse registration records indicate Stevie Rey Von was placed in the name of Ed Dufurrena’s son: Brandon Dufurrena, instead of the “DOS CAT PARTNERS” on his birth date of 01/02/2012.

 

The horse registration records become more complicated when the horse is transferred from Brandon Dufurrena to Edward L. Dufurrena on 12/01/2015 right in the middle of the NCHA Futurity.

4-Stevie Rey Von – ownership 2018, AQHA.

 

THE SETTLEMENT:

 

However, pursuant to a filed lawsuit by the Vogel’s and a return lawsuit by Dufurrena, a settlement agreement was reached between Vogel and Dufurrena on January 28, 2018.  The agreement provides as follows with Exhibit C further complicating matters:

 

  1. EXHIBIT A: Donald Eugene Vogel, Janie S. Vogel and Jandon, Ltd., having paid the sum of $1,150,000 to Ed Dufurrena and Shona Dufurrena who have tendered a bill of sale to the horses Stevie Rey Von, Auspicious Cat and Creyzy Train, hereby enter into this release agreement. Each Party hereto agrees to and does release and discharge each other party.

 

  1. EXHIBIT B: Bill of Sale. For the sum of One Million One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,150,000) “Consideration” Edward L. Dufurrena, an individual, Brandon Dufurrena, an individual, and Edward L. Dufurrena, doing business as “DOS CATS PARTNERS” (collectively, “Sellers”), hereby agree to sell to Jandon, Ltd. (“Buyer”) all of Sellers’ right, title and interest, free and clear of all encumbrances, in and to the following horses:
  2. Stevie Rey Von, AQHA No. 5557563;
  3. Creyzy Train, AQHA No. 5655857, and
  4. Auspicious Cat, AQHA No. 4639993

 

Sellers acknowledge this sale includes rights to frozen semen of Stevie Rey Von and Auspicious Cat as provided in the Memorandum of Settlement dated January 24, 2018.

 

  1. EXHIBIT C: STATEMENT REGARDING HORSE OWNERSHIP HISTORY. A dispute arose among Donald Eugene Vogel, Janie S. Vogel and Jandon, Ltd, on one hand, and Edward L. Dufurrena, Shona Dufurrena, and Brandon Dufurrena, on the other hand, regarding the ownership of the horses listed below.  Donald Eugene Vogel, Janie S. Vogel, and Jandon, Ltd., acknowledge and confirm and do not dispute the AQHA records of ownership of the following horses as set forth below:

 

  1. Stevie Rey Von,
  2. Auspicious Cat,
  3. Creyzy Train,
  4. Ozzum Man,
  5. Whata Sneaky Cat.

 

As of November 12, 2012, Edward L. Dufurrena and Shona Dufurrena acquired all rights to such horses. This agreement was signed 02/7/2018 as part of the Dufurrena/Vogel settlement. Since then, the Vogels, who obtained Stevie Rey Von in the settlement, have sold him to Alvin and Becky Fults, Amarillo, Texas for $2 million. The stallion was ridden by Beau Galyean for a win at the most recent NCHA Open Super Stakes with a record score.

 

See article in link No. 1

 

This is one of the most incredulous series of lawsuits I have ever covered. It has all the makings of a Hollywood movie. However, this is a real life series of events rather than a fictional hypothesis scribed by a Hollywood writer!

 

The attached chart with important dates puts this story in perspective for the reader.

5-Chart of history of DOS CATS PARTNERS Lawsuits

Read More