Pages Navigation Menu

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

☛ NCHA Suspension and Appeal Guidelines Getting An Overhaul 9-21-18

Posted by on Sep 21, 2018 in BREAKING NEWS, COW HORSE NEWS, CUTTING NEWS, FROM THE EDITOR, HORSE LAWSUITS, HORSE ORGANIZATIONS, INDUSTRY NEWS, LAWSUITS & INDICTMENTS, WHO, WHAT & WHERE | 11 comments

NCHA SUSPENSION AND APPEAL GUIDELINES GETTING AN OVERHAUL

 

STANDING RULE 37 AND 38 UPDATED FOLLOWING DUFURRENA/VOGEL CASE

 

By Glory Ann Kurtz
Sept. 21, 2018

According to an interesting e-mail that I received, following the Dufurrena/Vogel situation I previously wrote about, the NCHA is revising Standing Rule 37 and 38, which cover members who have done something that places them on probation or suspends them from the NCHA by the Grievance Committee, Amateur, Non-Pro Review Committee, Medication Review Committee or any other committee authorized by NCHA for violating any rule.

 

Following are the major parts of the new suspension and appeal guidelines:

 

Rule 37: Non-members involved in NCHA rule violations may also be denied privileges of the Association for “violation of or assisting in the violation of NCHA rules.”  When the NCHA rule in question contains specific provisions concerning disciplinary actions or burdens of proof, any disciplinary action taken by an initial Hearing Committee, the Executive Committee or an Appeal Committee should be consistent with that provision.

 

Any member can file a complaint regarding any alleged violation of NCHA rules by submitting the complaint in writing to the NCHA Executive Director (ED), signed or identified by the person filing the complaint, and sent with a check or credit card payment for $50, payable to the NCHA, unless the person filing the complaint is an NCHA Director, a class representative, show management or a judge. Anonymous complaints will not be accepted, investigated or acted on by the NCHA, with the exception if a complaint is reporting a violation of the Zero Tolerance policy or for a complaint submitted by an NCHA Director, a class representative, show management or a judge. Anonymous complaints will not be accepted, investigated or acted on by the NCHA.

 

A complaint must be filed, postmarked, faxed, emailed or hand-delivered within seven (7) days of the closing date of the show involved or within seven (7) days of the alleged rule violations. The timing for filing a complaint alleging a violation of the Zero Tolerance Policy is contained in Standing Rule 35.6. No complaint is required regarding a member’s competitive status (non-pro or amateur rules) or for violation of the NCHA Medication and Drug Rules.

 

The ED will refer complaints to (1) Grievance, (2) Medication Review, (3) Non-Pro Amateur, (4) or any other hearing or review committee. A quorum of an initial hearing committee will consist of three members with one being elected chairman.

 

The NCHA will notify the alleged violator in writing of the complaint and alleged action being investigated, each NCHA rule(s) potentially violated, the disciplinary actions applicable to the alleged violation and request that the violator file a written election with the ED to contest or not contest the alleged violation within 10 business days. If not received in that timeframe the case will be deemed not contested.

 

Initial Hearing:

The initial Hearing Committee shall schedule a hearing not less than 15 days‘ notice of the hearing date but not less than five business days notice of the hearing date. The alleged violator and NCHA shall exchange all proposed documents and evidence to be considered in the hearing no less than three days prior to the hearing. Legal counsel for NCHA and the alleged violator may appear and participate in the evidentiary position of the hearing. The hearing committee shall deliberate in private and shall render a decision in contested matters by majority vote and shall notify the EC of the decision in writing. The initial Hearing Committee will only be required to note in its report the NCHA rule(s) violated and will not be required to provide a detailed reason or opinion for its decision.

 

The Medication Review Committee shall consider potential violations of the Medication and Drug Rules and guidelines. Potential disciplinary actions for proceedings relating to alleged violations are contained in Rule 35A.7. The alleged violator bears the burden of proof to establish that he or she has NOT administered any drug or medication in violation of the NCHA Medication and Drug rules.

 

The Non-Professional Amateur Review Committee shall initially consider all violations of the NP and Amateur rules. The potential disciplinary actions for proceedings relating to alleged violations are in rules 50-51. The alleged violator bears the burden to establish entitlement to hold NP and/or Amateur status.

 

The Grievance Committee (GC) shall initially consider all violations of rules relating to alleged violations of NCHA Zero Tolerance Policy (35A) alleging improper conduct toward judges and monitors (35B), alleged improper conduct by and between members (35C) and alleged violations of other rules that are not considered by the Medication Review Committee, the Non-Pro Amateur Review Committee or Executive Committee.

 

For matters for which the rule allegedly violated contains suggested disciplinary action, the GC should consult those provisions in connection with discipline to be assessed for such rule violations. In cases where the rule allegedly violated does not contain suggested disciplinary action, the GC should consult the following general guidelines:  (i) First Offense: fine, probation or both. A first offense will be removed from a member’s record if that member has no further infractions for two years after the first offense is committed. (ii) Second offense within 2 years of first offense (a) increased fine (b) increased probation, (c) suspension or all of the foregoing. (iii) Additional offenses within 2 years will be dealt with severely, including heavy fines, lengthy probation and suspension will be increased as deemed appropriate by the committee.

 

Effects of Membership Probation and Suspension: Probation will be for a length of time decided by appropriate committee and also set a term of suspension imposed in the event the probation is violated. The term of suspension shall only become effective upon the probated member’s violation of the terms of his probation. In the event suspension is imposed for subsequent rule violation(s), the balance of the probated suspension shall begin on the day after the suspension for the subsequent rule violation s completely served.

Any membership Suspension that went into effect on or before Aug. 21, 2018 will not be allowed to participate in any way (owner, agent of horse, contestant, helper mounted  or on foot, in an NCHA approved or sponsored cutting horse contest. A suspended person can only attend an NCHA approved or sponsored cutting horse contest as a spectator seated in the stands. Any horse owned or controlled in whole or part by a suspended person will not be allowed to enter or compete in an NCHA approved or sponsored cutting. In the event a suspended person violates this rule, an additional six months will be added to his suspension. The rider of any horse ineligible to enter or compete in an NCHA-approved or sponsored cutting horse contest under this rule will be subject to a six-month membership suspension.

 

Membership Suspensions that went into effect after August 21, 2018:

Any person who has had their membership suspended, where suspension commences after August 21, 2018, will not be allowed in the premises of an NCHA approved or sponsored cutting contest. “Premises” include all show arenas, practice pens, loping arenas, sales barns, exhibit halls, trade shows and all other parts of the show grounds.

Any horse owned or controlled in whole or part by a suspended person or in which the suspended person holds any future rights of any kind, will not be allowed to enter, compete or transfer existing entries in an NCHA-approved or sponsored cutting horse contest. This includes horses owned by a corporation, partnership or any entity in which the suspended member has any ownership interest. If a suspended person violates this rule, an additional six (6) months will be added to his suspension. The rider of any horse in any NCHA approved or sponsored horse contest which is ineligible to enter or compete under this rule will be subject to six-month membership suspension.

 

Failure to timely pay fine:  When a member is assed a fine in addition to a suspension and/or probation, as a result of a committee finding made after Aug. 21, 2018, such fine must be paid in full within 15 days after the fine is assessed. In the event the fine is not paid in full in that timeframe, the corresponding suspension and/or probation will be extended by a period equal to the number of days over 15 that it takes for the member to pay to fine in full.

 

Transfer of horses owned by suspended member: This applies to all membership suspensions that went into effect after Aug. 21, 2018. A horse owned by a suspended member at the time of his/her suspension that is sold, gifted or for which ownership is otherwise transferred to an immediate family member, or that is sold, gifted or for which ownership is otherwise transferred to any corporation, partnership or any other entity of any kind in which the suspended member has any present or future ownership interest will not be allowed to show in any NCHA approved or produced event during the term of that member’s suspension. In the event the NCHA questions the legitimacy of a transfer made by a suspended person during his/her suspension, the suspended person shall bear the burden of proof to establish the legitimacy of the transfer.

 

Suspension by other associations: Every person suspended by the AQHA or APHA for unsportsmanlike conduct at a show or contest or for inhumane treatment of horses, shall stand suspended by the NCA upon official notification to this Ass’n from the AQHA or the APHA of any such disciplinary action which has become final and  non-appealable. The NCHA may honor the disciplinary actions of its affiliate organizations when supplied with satisfactory evidence that the person so disciplined has been given a full and impartial hearing by the affiliate organization involved; however, any action taken by an affiliate will not limit any authority of jurisdiction of the NCHA.

 

Publication of Findings:When disciplinary action is taken the results will be published in the Cutting Horse Chatter. Also, all decisions a final and binding unless subsequently overturned by an appeal committee under NCHA Standing Rule 38.

 

Rule 38: Appeal Guidelines:

Appeal Prerequisites: (a) Anyone found in violation of any NCHA rule by an Initial Hearing Committee, is entitled to appeal so long as (1) written notice of such request for appeal by each person appealing the ruling is received by the NCHA ED within 21 days of the date of the letter notifying the person of such action taken by the Initial hearing Committee and (2) an appeal fee as required by section (b) below is also received by the NCHA ED within the 21-day period.

 

(b) The appeal fee is $6,000 per person appealing that decision. For cases in which the Initial Hearing Committee has assessed a suspension of membership or competitive status, the appealing party shall have the right to request an expedited appeal as described in section (c) below. The appeal fee for an expedited appeal is $10,000 for each person filing an expedited appeal of the decision of an Initial hearing Committee. Appeal fees will not be refunded unless all findings of the initial Hearing Committee are completely overturned by an Appeal Committee.

 

(c) In the case of a non-expedited appeal, the appealing member(s) shall be given not less than 15 days notice of a time and place for appeal hearing to be heard by the EC or by an Appeal Committee appointed by the NCHA President. In cases of an expedited appeal, the appealing member(s) shall be entitled to an appeal hearing no more than five business days after the expedited appeal is perfected.

 

Appeal Proceedings: (a) An appeal is a “de  novo” proceeding that could result in a new finding concerning whether or not there was a violation of any NCHA rule(s) and either an affirmation, enhancement or decrease in the disciplinary action taken by the Initial Hearing Committee. (b) Eight members of the Executive Committee shall constitute a quorum. (c) The NCHA President may appoint a Special Appeal Hearing Committee  (the “Appeal Committee”) to conduct any appeal hearing or disciplinary actions. This Committee shall have a minimum of five members and a maximum of nine. Each member must be a member in good standing of the NCHA. Five members of the Appeal Committee members shall constitute a quorum for hearing an appeal. (d) No continuance of an appeal hearing shall be granted unless a written request is received by the ED at least 7 days prior to the hearing and good cause is shown as determined at the sole discretion of the President or Chairman of the Appeal Committee. (e) At the hearing the appealing member shall have the opportunity to be heard, be represented by legal counsel, present evidence in his/her own behalf and to hear and refute any evidence offered against them. (g) The decision of the EC or Appeal Committee in an appeal proceeding under this rule shall be final and binding on all parties. The committee hearing an appeal shall only be required to note in its report the NCHA rule(s) it found were violated and shall not be required to provide a detailed reasoned option for its decision. (h) When disciplinary action is taken, the results in probation or suspension, the person’s name, the rule violated, and the disciplinary action taken will be published in the Cutting Horse Chatter.

 

From the Editor:

As a member of the NCHA for close to 20 years, I was sued at one time by the NCHA for asking for Rick Ivey’s salary and refusing to sign a non-disclosure form to prevent my dissemination of the information I was provided. (They dropped the suit when I told them I didn’t need his salary, I found it out another way.) As an investigative journalist and the owner of this website, my only remark about the above Guidelines is that they should include: “Any NCHA member who loses a lawsuit filed by another NCHA member regarding the other member’s actions, including taking advantage of the elderly, providing false or erroneous invoices to an NCHA member by a trainer, running an illegal business or training operation within the confines of the NCHA as defined by the State of Organization or Operation, providing false documentation to an NCHA committee during an appeal or suspension committee hearing, the loss of a customer’s horse due to abuse by the trainer or the trainer’s agent or assign including, but not limited to, employees, contractors or subcontractors, or charging exorbitant fees for other services, such as double dipping customers for travel or hauling expenses, should receive a lifetime suspension, without preferential treatment or exception.”

 

The trainers are basically unregulated by the above problems.  I hear these complaints all the time and instigating these rules could bring back some of the many well-heeled members who have left the NCHA…..and get rid of some the bad actors or unscrupulous trainers contributing to the demise of the membership numbers.

Glory Ann Kurtz

Read More

☛ Oregon horse sues former owner for neglect 8-23-18

Posted by on Aug 23, 2018 in BREAKING NEWS, HORSE ABUSE, HORSE LAWSUITS, LAWSUITS & INDICTMENTS, WHO, WHAT & WHERE | 1 comment

OREGON HORSE SUES FORMER OWNER FOR $100,000 CITING NEGLECT

 

IF SUCCESSFUL, THE CASE WILL BE FIRST TO ESTABLISH ANIMALS LEGAL RIGHTS TO SUE THEIR ALLGED ABUSERS IN COURT

 

Reprint from The Oregonian/Oregon Live
By Everton Bailey Jr.
ebailey@oregonian.com
May 4, 2018

 

Justice, an AQHA horse emaciated from months of little food or shelter. His owner was later convicted of animal neglect and now the horse is being represented in a lawsuit against the ex-guardian seeking damages for pain and suffering. (Animal Legal Defense Fund photo)

A horse is suing his former Washington County owner for $100,000 in damages in a rare case in which an animal is listed as a plaintiff in legal action against its guardian.

 

The Animal Legal Defense Fund in Portland has filed suit against former owner Gwendlyn Vercher, 51, of Cornelius on behalf of the horse. Justice, an 8-year-old AQHA horse is seeking damages for negligence that left him 300 pounds underweight and afflicted with lice, a skin infection and damaged genitals from severe frostbite, according to the lawsuit filed in Washington County Circuit Court. He will require special medical care for the rest of his life, the suit said.

 

Justice, formerly known as Shadow when he lived with Vercher, was removed from the Cornelius property in March 2017 and now lives at a horse rescue in Troutdale.

 

horse lawsuit

 

Sarah Hanneken, one of the attorneys representing the horse in the case, said state case law has shown animals have legally protected rights. She said Justice should be allowed to recover the costs of damages for pain and suffering, just as a human victim would.

 

 

“The Oregon legislature clearly established an anti-cruelty statute for the safety and protection of animals,” she said. “Victims of crimes can sue their abusers and animals are sentient beings that are recognized as victims under Oregon law. So with that premise, we’ve come to the conclusion that animals can sue their abusers and we’re confident of our stance in this case.”

Read More

☛ NCHA gives Janie Vogel 3 years probation 8-21-18

Posted by on Aug 21, 2018 in BREAKING NEWS, COW HORSE NEWS, CUTTING NEWS, HORSE LAWSUITS, INDUSTRY NEWS, LAWSUITS & INDICTMENTS, REINING NEWS, WHO, WHAT & WHERE | 14 comments

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

 

NCHA GIVES JANIE VOGEL, THREE YEARS PROBATION FOR “AIDING AND ABETTING” RIETA TO RIDE STEVIE REY VON IN NCHA FUTURITY

 

By Glory Ann Kurtz
August 21, 2018

 

In a recent meeting of a chosen NCHA committee that was to determine blame in the Ed Dufurrena/Don & Janie Vogel case, it’s plain to see that the NCHA protects its trainers. The committee, almost unanimously, determined that Janie Vogel had “aided and abetted”theDufurrenas because she “allowed” Rieta Dufurrena to ride one of the Vogel’s horses in the 2015 NCHA Futurity.

 

Records indicate that Rieta Dufurrena a total of $14,145 when she won the NCHA Non-Pro Limited Class at the NCHA 2015 Futurity on Stevie Rey Von, collecting $9,145 and $5,000 in the Non-Pro. For the record, Stevie Rey Von was the 2015 NCHA Futurity Champion, ridden by Ed Dufurrena, for take-home pay of $200,000.

 

Yet, in reality, in a recent conversation with Janie Vogel, who is in ill-health, she told me she didn’t even know that the NCHA Futurity was going on or that one of her horses was showing in it. The first she knew about it was when a friend in attendance called her and told her that one of her horses made the NCHA Futurity finals. The only thing she did know was that Ed Dufurrena was training several of her horses – including Stevie Rey Von. When she called Shona, who received no penalties for aiding and abetting her kids riding in the event, to ask her about the win, Shona replied, “Oh, I thought you knew!”

 

The problem becomes even more exasperating, when the actual facts surrounding the Dufurrenas and the Vogels are delineated and the real facts are known in this continuing saga of nightmarish events that started long ago.

 

The events started when Ed Dufurrena was sued in a prior lawsuit entitled: Minshall vs Ed Dufurrena, et al, with the Plaintiffs claiming advertising fraud by Dufurrena for advertising “Auspicious Cat” as HERDA Negative when, in fact, the horse is HERDA positive.This fact was confirmed by AQHA registration records. For the record, advertising fraud was proven in court, during the Hartman trial, and the jury assigned 60 percent responsibility for the damage to Dufurrena. The Minshall lawsuit alleges the Dufurrenas concocted a fraudulent advertising scheme which resulted in their foal by Auspicious Cat being HERDA positive, thereby, causing permanent injury and damage to the foal which requires enumerable funding during its lifetime for maintenance costs.

 

The curious nature of the Minshall lawsuit is that it also included the “Dos Cats Partners” being sued along with all of its members, except the Vogels – who were never mentioned. Perhaps, the reason the Vogels were never mentioned is that no one knew about the Vogels and the second “Dos Cats Partners” and perhaps by Dufurrena design.

 

Again, and for the record, the Vogels entered into what they thought was a “hand-written contract” named “Dos Cats Partners,” which was the identical (dba) or “an assumed name” used in the Minshall lawsuit that the Dufurrenas executed on March 25, 2011, between the parties and in consideration of the Vogel’s $105,000 investment.

 

 However, my investigation proves the Vogel’s were duped into investing in an unregistered Dufurrena business entity, operating without registration or legal status as required by Texas business law. Further, the Dufurrena’s duped the Vogels into investing in an unregistered Texas business entity called “Dos Cats Partners” when, in fact, Dufurrena had already sold shares in the business which was revealed in the Minshall lawsuit.

 

The simple fact is that if the Vogel’s would have been told by the Dufurrenas that “Dos Cats Partners” wasn’t in compliance with Texas Business Law and there were other pre-existing investors in the bogus business entity of the same name, I’m sure it’s safe to say they would have saved their money!

 

More specifically, how is it feasible or possible for the Dufurrenas to sell a 49 percent share to the Vogels when a 49 percent share had already been sold to the “Dos Cats Partners” identified in the Minshall lawsuit? A good question and perhaps the NCHA would like an answer too! That is, if the TRUTH can be determined. One sure fire way to figure this out is by an IRS audit, an Investigation by the Texas Attorney General’s office or a law enforcement investigative agency in Cooke County. I’m sure they could clear all of this business maneuvering by the Dufurrenas right up.

 

UNREGISTERED DUFURRENA BUSINESS ENTITIES

 However, the problem for the Dufurrenas in this matter, that is perhaps a little tricky for the NCHA, is that NONE of Dufurrena’s dba’s or “an assumed name” business entities were legally registered in the State of Texas at that time, as required by law, including Ed Dufurrena Cutting Horses, Dos Cats Partners, Dufurrena Cutting Horses and “Dos Cats.”  According to the Texas Secretary of State filings, the foregoing listed dba’s or “an assumed name” Dufurrena business entities had never been registered with the State of Texas, as required by law.  Yet Dufurrena is allowed to participate in NCHA cutting events and even earn money. Therefore, according to the Texas Businesses Practices Act, this is an unconscionable contract.

 

For the record, Dufurrena received a check for some $200,000.00 for winning the 2015 NCHA Futurity on Stevie Rey Von and Rieta won $14,145 for a total of $214,145. However, reviewed documents, including Dufurrena invoicing, indicate the Vogels were 49 percent vested interest partners in Stevie Rey Von when the horse won the Futurity, yet the Vogel’s have never received a dime of the winnings.  In fact, to illustrate how enlightened the Vogels were, they didn’t even know the horse was in the NCHA Futurity or the Finals until they were tipped off by a friend who was at the event.

 

However, the NCHA allowed Dufurrena to change the ownership records on Stevie Rey Von from Brandon Dufurrena to Ed Dufurrena in the middle of the 2015 NCHA Futurity, or right before the finals on Dec. 1, 2015,, so that any earnings checks would be distributed to Ed Dufurrena (ONLY) and thereby bypassing the Vogels completely. The Vogels did not get Stevie Rey Von transferred into their company name, Jandon Ltd., until Feb. 6, 2018, during their meeting with the lawyers. But the Vogels hit back, as on Feb. 10, they sold the stallion to Fults Ranch Ltd., Amarillo, Texas, for $2 million.

Stevie Rey Von AQHA ownership record

 

The unfortunate aspect of this Dufurrena “Shell Game of Horse Ownership Records” is that the NCHA “aided and abetted” re-enactment of this “Shell Game” at the NCHA Summer Spectacular, when at the last moment Brandon Dufurrena was allowed to transfer ownership of his horses, to his mother – Shona Dufurrena, in-order for them to be shown, as by then Brandon had been suspended from the NCHA. (Tom Dvorak rode the horse attaining the NCHA Open Finals)

 

Of course, the horses were gifts to Shona Dufurrena – if you can believe that?  My questions is, when did the NCHA become an agent for the AQHA? My information is, that the AQHA transfers and the money were held at the NCHA office while the horses were showing. For the record, ownership transfers aren’t in full force and effect until AFTER AQHA records them in their data base which is accomplished during usual and customary business hours.

 

Also, my business records investigation proved:  NONE of the Dufurrena (dba) or “an assumed name” business entities have ever been recorded or registered with the Cooke County Clerks Office, as required by law.Therefore, NONE of the Dufurrena (dba’s) or “an assumed name”  business entitieswere in compliance with “LEGALLY” operating a business in the State of Texas.  I wonder if the NCHA knows that?

 

An even better question is: How is Dufurrena going to file taxes on business earnings or business entities that are unregistered and don’t exist by lawful requirements and standards?

 

Info-Secrertary of State – Aug 15, 2018

 

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

According to Texas Law, an individual operating an unregistered (dba) or “an assumed name” business entity in the State of Texas is ONLYallowed to answer or defend a lawsuit brought against him or her, NOT institute one. Therefore, the problem for Dufurrena, in this “Shell Game of Mystery and Intrigue” of who he is “from day-to-day” is that filed court documents indicate that he has brought legal action against individuals under the unregistered business name of “Ed Dufurrena Cutting Horses” which is contrary to Texas State Business Law. According to my information, these individuals have the legal right to bring a “counter-action” against the Dufurrenas for filing an “unlawful lawsuit.”

 

Reddish

Claudon lawsuit

 

 

DUFURRENA INVOICING

 

During my investigation, the sound of bad invoicing rang out loud and clear from my interviewees. Each individual, separate and apart from each other, clearly outlined a business operation, i.e., Ed Dufurrena Cutting Horses invoicing that were so convoluted and filled with inaccuracies that Einstein couldn’t make heads or tails of them. However, one common denominator existed with all of the interviewees: inflated billing information. Another common denominator with the Dufurrena invoicing is that they were sporadically submitted, with some invoicing dates being monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, annually and even exceeding annually.

 

To further illustrate Ed Dufurrena’s invoicing dilemma, the Vogels claim that they have never received any portions of any earnings check from the Dufurrenas, not even any part of the NCHA Futurity earnings for Stevie Rey Von. Could the NCHA have some culpability by allowing these unorthodox business practices, especially, by a trainer who is entrusted with supposedly operating lawful business practices within the association.

 

Also, its been reported that the Dufurrenas issue “training credits” instead of cash to eliminate the necessity of issuing year-end IRS 1099s. Again, we all know how and why that one works. It eliminates 1099s from being in the IRS system for tax auditing purposes as well as bringing attention to a specific business entity.

 

For the record, the Vogel’s – as did the Minshalls – reached an out-of-court settlement with Dufurrena with the Vogel’s paying a sum total of $1,150,000for Stevie Rey von and two other horses and Dufurrena’s allegedly 51 percent interest in an unregistered Dufurrena Texas business entity – “Dos Cats Partners.”

 

Since the NCHA has aProfessional Trainers Standing Committee, with Morgan Cromer being the Chairman and Bret Davis the Vice Chairman, what has their role been in this fiasco? As I understand it, this group is suppose to make sure the trainers are treating the horses they have in training as well as their ownerscorrectly. Do they not have any authority? I haven’t heard a word out of them. Are they afraid of Dufurrena?

 

 

ED DUFURRENA VIOLATES SUSPENSION AT NCHA SUMMER SPECTACULAR

 

According to an article I’ve previously released on my site, Ed Dufurrena violated the provisions of his suspension by being in the practice pen that required the aid of law enforcement to remove him. According to the anonymous source letter, a written complaint was signed and submitted, by an NCHA member, who  adamantly opposed Dufurrena being in the NCHA practice pen.  However, the problem for the NCHA in this matter is multiple issues, e.g., Ed Dufurrena shouldn’t have been in the practice pen or on horseback for that matter, as NCHA rules of suspension say he is only “allowed to sit in the stands.” NCHA President-elect Ron Pietrafeso wrote on my Facebook page that Dufurrena wasn’t in violation of NCHA rules, when in fact and according to the filed and signed complaint he was, and now the NCHA is strapped with the arduous task of adding six months to Dufurrena’s suspension time for this act according to the NCHA rule book.

 

 

Now, my question is – “Exactly why is NCHA aiding Dufurrena to show horses and why are they protecting Shona?” My next question is – “Exactly why is the NCHA President Phil Rapp insulating Ed Dufurrena?”

 

Ladies and gentlemen, this is how you run valuable, investing members out of the horse business – which the NCHA just did – and keep the trainers who ran them out.

 

 

Read More

☛ 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

☛ 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

☛ 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