Pages Navigation Menu


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




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.”



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.



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.




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.





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.





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!”


Richard E. “Rick” Dennis (CPP)
Managing Member
Professional Reined Cow Horse Trainer
Quarter Horse Breeder and Enthusiast
Office/Mobile: (985) 630-3500
Web Site:


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






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




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

Read More

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







July 16, 2018
By Glory Ann Kurtz


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


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


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


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


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


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


  1. AQHA registry records for “Auspicious Cat”.


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


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


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


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


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




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

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

2.     The Vogel’s versus Dufurrena lawsuit.

3.    AQHA “Auspicious Cat” registry records.


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




Texas Business and Commerce Code.

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

Chapter 71.001. Assumed Business or Professional Name.

Subchapter A. General Provisions.

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


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


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

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


(2)     If the registrant is:

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

(B) a partnership:

(i)      The venture or partnership name,

(ii)     The venture or partnership office address,

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

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


Sec. 71.053. Execution of Certificate.

 (a)     The certificate must be executed and acknowledged:

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


Sec. 71.054. Place of Filing.

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

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

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


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


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


Subchapter E. Penalties.

Sec 71.201. Civil Action; Sanction.

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


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


Sec 71.202. Criminal Penalty: General Violation.


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

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


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


 Click for Title 5 information>> 


Class A Misdemeanor – Definition:


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


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


Read More

☛ Letter to NCHA from the Vogels 7-5-18


July 6, 2018

Officers and Directors
National Cutting Horse Association 260 Bailey Avenue
Fort Worth, Texas 76107

Re: Correspondence from Ed Dufurrena Dated June 14, 2018

Post Office Box 610 Saint Jo, Texas 76265


Dear Members of the Executive Committee:

I would like to take the opportunity to respond to the letter from Ed Dufurrena dated June 14, 2018. Janie and I have been encouraged by a number of people to respond to the personal attacks and insults Mr. Dufurrena has directed towards us. I am writing this letter on behalf of Janie and me due to Janie’s temporary difficulties with recent surgeries and a new medication which has temporarily affected her memory. Janie asked me to author this letter.

Mr. Dufurrena has appointed himself as the sole arbiter of facts. His baseless and pejorative attacks on Glory Ann Kurtz and us are based on a twisted interpretation of events. Essentially, Mr. Dufurrena’s actions regarding our agreement sometimes labelled Dos Cats Partners deliberately created confusion as will be detailed below. Mr. Dufurrena has used the confusion he created not only as a shield to defend his position, but also as a sword to attack us. I will address major contentions of Mr. Dufurrena.

Exhibit 1 to Mr. Dufurrena’s letter purports to be a Statement of Ownership History (the “Statement,” Vogel Exh. 1) of horses that were involved in an agreement between us and Mr. Dufurrena. His allegation is that the Statement of Ownership History proves we never had an interest in any of the horses listed on the Statement. The Statement proves nothing of the kind. First, the Statement was carefully worded to indicate we did not dispute what the AQHA records showed regarding ownership history. We did not affirm that the AQHA records were complete nor did we affirm that we never had an interest in the horses listed.

The history reflected in the Statement was provided by counsel for Mr. Dufurrena. We subsequently obtained copies of the AQHA ownership records. The actual AQHA records we obtained and a corrected version of the Schedule are attached as Vogel Exh. 1. It is evident that the AQHA records on their face incorrectly omit our ownership interest. This omission is despite the fact that the handwritten owners agreement prepared by Mr. Dufurrena and dated March 25, 2011 (the “Owners Agreement”) provides for a 49% ownership interest in the listed horses and embryos (Dufurrena Exh. 2). Mr. Dufurrena never complied with the Owners Agreement; he never

Officers and Directors
National Cutting Horse Association July 6, 2018
Page 2

put any of the listed horses and embryos in the name of Dos Cats Partners, nor did he add our name to the ownership records as the attached AQHA records attest. It is readily apparent that the information provided by Mr. Dufurrena’s counsel and reflected on the Statement is incorrect.

I would like to review the five horses listed in the Statement, one by one, beginning with Stevie Rey Von.

You may be aware that Janie Vogel appeared before the Non-Pro Committee on June 4, 2018. Janie’s testimony regarding Stevie Rey Von begins at page 21. I will paraphrase that testimony and include copies of the cited transcript excerpts as Vogel Exh. 2. (All citations to transcripts are in Vogel Exh. 2.)

When we signed the handwritten Owners Agreement, Janie believed the embryo by Metallic Cat out of Miss Ella Rey, 6th on the list, had already been flushed and placed in a recipient mare (Vogel Exh. 2, Tr. p. 21, line 4 through p. 22, line 8). The embryo Mr. Dufurrena now asserts was on the Owners Agreement was not even conceived until over a month after the Owners Agreement was signed (Dufurrena Exh. 5).

Mr. Dufurrena’s allegation that the Owners Agreement embryo was the one spontaneously aborted is contradicted by the following: in early of 2012, Shona Dufurrena called Janie to come and see the foal that resulted from the embryo transfer (Vogel Exh. 2, Tr. p. 23 lines 3 through 14). That foal was Stevie Rey Von. The other recipient mare slipped the foal at the end of January 2012 (Dufurrena Exh. 5). We received charges for Stevie Rey Von (named Red Solo Cup on Invoice 1852) dating from January 4, 2012 and continuing thereafter through the Futurity in 2015 (Vogel Exh. 2, Tr. p. 22, lines 17 through 24; and Vogel Exh. 3). (Copies of all invoices cited are included in Vogel Exh. 3.) The charges for Stevie Rey Von included the practice pen in December 2015 as well as meal expenses, show stalling expenses, training for the month of November 2015, and other charges.

One example of the Dufurrenas’ effort to create confusion is reflected in the horse names for Stevie Rey Von on the invoices. Beginning with Invoice 1852, Stevie Rey Von was first identified in January 2012 as “Red Solo Cup.” Invoice 2983 for December 2015 identified him as “S Roanie.” (Invoices in Vogel Exh. 3.) Note, this December 2015 invoice is dated after Stevie Rey Von’s win at the 2015 Futurity, but still uses an incorrect name. Mr. Dufurrena claims we did not assert an ownership interest of 49% in Stevie Rey Von until 2017. This statement is very curious as we had been receiving invoices for our 49% interest since the time of his birth in January 2012.

Next, I would like to address Auspicious Cat. The Owner’s Agreement lists Auspicious Cat as the first horse and places our investment at $49,000 for 49% (Dufurrena Exh. 2). Mr. Dufurrena asserts at page 3 of his letter, paragraph 7, that he purchased our interest in Auspicious Cat on January 1, 2016. As proof, Mr. Dufurrena attaches Invoice No. 2390 which shows a credit of $20,000 for that so-called purchase (Dufurrena Exh. 14). The very first time we saw that invoice was when it was included as an exhibit to Mr. Dufurrena’s letter. We NEVER received that invoice in the ordinary course. While Mr. Dufurrena’s claim is he purchased Auspicious Cat in January of 2016, he still

Officers and Directors
National Cutting Horse Association July 6, 2018
Page 3

prepared invoices for Auspicious Cat for the entire year of 2016 (Vogel Exh. 3, Invoice 3249 dated December 31, 2016). We were also distressed to see the price purportedly paid by Mr. Dufurrena was $20,000, which would mean we took a loss of $29,000 based on our investment of $49,000. We were never even asked if we agreed to the transaction.

The third horse is Creyzy Train. At page 3, paragraph 6 of his letter, Mr. Dufurrena claims he purchased our interest in Creyzy Train for $10,000 as reflected on Dufurrena Exh. 13. Once again, we NEVER saw this particular invoice until we saw Mr. Dufurrena’s letter. The invoice was not sent in the ordinary course. The AQHA ownership records do not show a transfer to Mr. Dufurrena at any time. The AQHA record shows the mare registered to Brandon Dufurrena on January 1, 2012, and then no other transfer until the transfer to us in February of 2018 (Vogel Exh. 1). Mr. Dufurrena sent invoices for Creyzy Train through 2016 (Vogel Exh. 3, Invoice 3255 dated December 31, 2016). The horse was variously referred to in invoices as Vella Rey and Creyzy Train thereby adding to the confusion.

Ozzum Man is the fourth horse. Mr. Dufurrena asserts at page 3, paragraph 5 of his letter that Ozzum Man was sold to a third party, and that proportionate payments were made to the co- owners. Mr. Dufurrena attached Invoice 2344 dated October 31, 2013, as proof (Dufurrena Exh. 12). The pattern continues. We NEVER received a copy of that invoice and learned of it when we saw Mr. Dufurrena’s letter. It was never sent in the ordinary course. The Statement represents that the Dufurrenas acquired all rights to Ozzum Man on October 28, 2013. The AQHA record shows no such transfer in 2013, only a transfer in May of 2016 (Vogel Exh. 1). Mr. Dufurrena nevertheless sent invoices for Ozzum Man through 2016 (Vogel Exh. 3, Invoice 2850 dated December 31, 2014; Invoice 2985 dated December 31, 2015; Invoice 3216 dated December 31, 2016).

Finally, I will address What A Sneaky Cat, the fifth horse. At page 3, paragraph 3, Mr. Dufurrena asserts that he purchased our interest on November 29, 2012, as reflected on Invoice 2055 (Dufurrena Exh. 10). Once again, we NEVER received a copy of this invoice in the ordinary course and only saw it when we saw Mr. Dufurrena’s letter. The Statement asserts that Dufurrenas acquired the horse November 12, 2012. The AQHA records show the Dufurrenas’ acquired the horse October 15, 2010 (Vogel Exh. 1). The AQHA records also show that the horse was transferred to Brandon Dufurrena on November 29, 2012, the same day Mr. Dufurrena purportedly purchased our interest. Dufurrena continued sending invoices despite the purported sale (Vogel Exh. 3, Invoice 2357 dated October 31, 2013; Invoice 2850 dated December 31, 2014; Invoice 2985 dated December 31, 2015).

We had been requesting correct invoices from the Dufurrenas from at least the year 2014 forward. Mr. Dufurrena alleges we were behind on payments and the Owners Agreement allowed him to take possession of the horses if the Vogels become 90 days delinquent paying invoices. What Mr. Dufurrena conveniently fails to reveal is that we refused to pay invoices that were blatantly erroneous. Despite our frequent and persistent requests for correct invoices, Mr. Dufurrena did not provide any corrections until we initiated litigation, and even then, the invoices were incorrect. I strongly believe a forensic audit of the invoicing practices of the Dufurrenas is warranted.

Officers and Directors
National Cutting Horse Association July 6, 2018
Page 4

On Sunday, February 5, 2017, we went to Dufurrena’s to pick up the horses remaining at their facility. Mr. Dufurrena demanded a $100,000 deposit against expenses he alleged we owed. Mr. Dufurrena said he would not cash the check until the disagreement regarding expenses was settled. This was February of 2017, and we had just received the invoices for 2015 a few months earlier. The billing for the entire year of 2015 was batched up and delivered at the same time. We were expecting overdue payouts from breedings and purse winnings, so were surprised at the demand for a deposit. We were also still waiting for the 2016 invoices as of February 2017. We gave Mr. Dufurrena a check for $100,000 while we continued efforts to dissolve our relationship with the Dufurrenas. On the advice of our then attorney, we stopped payment on the check four and one- half months later, while still waiting for the 2016 invoices. We then commenced litigation to dissolve that relationship. In a counterclaim, Mr. Dufurrena alleged we tried to cheat him with a bad check. This was yet another bogus allegation.

On page four, in the third full paragraph, Mr. Dufurrena asserts that Janie improperly obtained breedings to Stevie Rey Von on the pretext she had lifetime breeding rights. Mr. Dufurrena attached Exhibits 18 and 19, each with a handwritten notation “Lifetime Breeder Janie Vogel.” As a 49% owner of Stevie Rey Von, Janie certainly had every right to expect she would obtain breedings to Stevie Rey Von without paying the stallion fee. Mr. Dufurrena attached, as Exhibit 20, portions of a transcript from Janie’s deposition. Janie did testify that the two stallion contracts were not true copies of the contracts that she signed and that they had been altered. Janie was referring to the notation “Lifetime Breeder Janie Vogel.” That handwriting is certainly not Janie’s; her handwriting is shaky due to her Parkinson’s symptoms. Janie does not know who placed that notation on the contracts. We certainly do not contend, nor do we want to imply, that EE Ranches or whomever placed that notation on the two contracts did anything wrong or inappropriate; it is just not Janie’s handwriting.

Mr. Dufurrena alleges, at page 2 in the third full paragraph that he offered, and Janie accepted, a foal out of a mare named Nievas as a substitute for the embryo that the recipient mare slipped. Janie did not accept that substitution but did accept the foal. Note that the so-called substitute Nievas foal was born a full year after Stevie Rey Von. I also want to note that Janie should have had a rebreed right to Metallic Cat if the embryo she owned had been slipped by the recipient mare. Mr. Dufurrena never made that known nor did Janie get a rebreed. We believe Brandon Dufurrena got the rebreed.

Mr. Dufurrena attached an affidavit from Sharon Baker attesting to the honesty and integrity of the Dufurrenas. I suggest Mr. Dufurrena frame this document as it is surely as rare as a Rembrandt or a collector’s coin. Janie vehemently denies and disagrees with the statements in Ms. Baker’s affidavit, particularly the statements in paragraphs six and eight.

Finally, I want to note that in our settlement of the litigation with Mr. Dufurrena, the basis for the money we paid was buying out Mr. Dufurrena’s 51% interest. Janie gave her own appraisal of the value of Stevie Rey Von, Auspicious Cat and Creyzy Train. Mr. Burg asked if she would be willing to pay 51% of that amount and Janie said yes. The 51%, based on Janie’s values, was $994,000

Officers and Directors
National Cutting Horse Association July 6, 2018
Page 5

(Janie Vogel Deposition taken January 24, 2018, p. 50, line 9 through p. 51, line 13, Vogel Exh. 2). A full settlement required $156,000 money on top of that. We understood we were buying out Mr. Dufurrena’s 51% interest and calculated our settlement on that basis.

Janie strongly disagrees with the bulk of the assertions in Mr. Dufurrena’s letter. We had elected to keep a low profile regarding the allegations surrounding our lawsuit and Stevie Rey Von. Sadly, the outrageous allegations in Mr. Dufurrena’s letter require us to respond; we will no longer remain quiet.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,

Don Vogel (Jul 6, 2018)

Don Vogel Enclosures


Read More

☛ “Dufurrena Cutting Horses” – the Untold Story 7-5-18






By Glory Ann Kurtz
July 6, 2018

 A person can be blessed in a lot of ways, for example family, friends, fame and fortune.  However, my best attributes are family, friends and avid readers of and  I have a loyal group of readers who bless me with the gift of giving, and they just keep on giving – information that is!

Recently, I received a packet of information, from an unknown source, containing a stack of Ed Dufurrena Cutting Horses invoices addressed to Janie Jandon, Ltd./Vogel, and spanning a time period coinciding with the Dufurrena/Vogel – “Dos Cats Partners”: “agreement-contract.”

After reviewing the mysterious documents there are several which caught my eye:

The first Ed Dufurrena Cutting Horses invoice that I reviewed was:

Invoice No. 1852
Invoice Date: 1/31/2012
On  Receipt – Open
Previous Balance: $10,649.91
From: Ed Dufurrena Cutting Horses
Janie Jandon Ltd.,/Vogel.

I Initiated a trial balance, i.e.:
     Previous Invoice Balance: $10,649.91
     New Charges this invoice:
Red Solo Cup/Metallic  x Ella, colt 2012 – $658.56
        Billing for Jolenna – $1,245.00

 Total Charges this Invoice:     $12,553.47

  Less applied credits received – Vogel’s:
       Breeding Fee M. Cannon         $735.00
        O.V. Charge for advertising    $3,035.00
        Win check Silverado:               $278.81
        Win Ck./Augusta:                     $784.00

     New Invoice Total                 $7,720.66


 Dufurrena Accounting Method as per his submitted Invoice:

Invoice No. 1852
Invoice Date:
On  Receipt – Open
Previous Balance: $10,649.91
Ed Dufurrena Cutting Horses
Janie Jandon Ltd.,/Vogel.

 New Charges this invoice
Red Solo Cup/Metallic Cat, Colt 2012  $658.56
Jolenna      $1,245.00

Payments and credits received – Vogel’s:
     Breeding Fee M. Cannon        $735.00
     O.V. Charge for advertising   $3,035.00
     Win check/Silverado               $278.81
     Win check/Augusta:                 $784.00

Charges this invoice:                $11,460.56

Payments Received:                 ($4,832.81)          

 Balance Due:                              $17,277.67


My Calculations vs Dufurrena:

Dufurrena Balance Due:                   $17,277.67

Less My Invoice above:                      $7,720.66

Over Charges To Vogels =          $9,557.01

The difference between my accrued Charges: identified in “New Charges This Invoice” above or $12,553.47 vs Dufurrena’s accounting method  above, or $11,460.56, computes to a difference in “Charges This Invoice”, between my calculations and Dufurrena totaling $1,092.91.

 However, this doesn’t compute using “standard accounting practices !

Invoice 1852


Another invoice that caught my eye is Invoice 2850:

“What Sneaky Cat” billing from Ed Dufurrena Cutting Horses to “Janie Jandon, Ltd./Vogel on Invoice 2850. Invoice Date: 12/31/2014. “For board and training, What Sneaky Cat from October 2014 through December 2014.

  1. For the record, this is clearly an invoice requiring a lot of explaining and for a myriad reasons. As you may remember in Ed Dufurrena’s letter to the NCHA, he stated he bought back this horse from the Vogel’s on 11/29/12.  However, Dufurrena references an Exhibit 10; Invoice Number – 2055, Invoice Date – 12/31/2012, to substantiate this alleged “buy-back.” Exhibit 10 is an invoice From: Ed Dufurrena Cutting Horses, to Janie Jandon Ltd./Vogel which clearly denotes; Payments/Credits: 12/01/2012. pymt no. 2700. ($11,000.00) “Bought Back Sneaky.” This horse was sold to Brandon two days prior to the listed buy back date; or 11/29/2012.

2. This is evidenced by AQHA transfer records and Ed Dufurrena’s letter to the NCHA on June 14, 2018.

  1. However, there are two horses listed on Invoice 2850, which require scrutiny, or more specifically: Stevie and Whata Sneaky Cat.  Both horses are showing a 49 percent ownership by the Vogel’s which coincides with the stated partnership agreement in the March 25, 2011 Dufurrena/Vogel “Dos Cats Partners” agreement-contract. The billing on this invoice reflects their 49 percent vested interest partner share, yet this ownership is being denied by Dufurrena.

My question is: Why would the Dufurrena’s be billing the Vogel’s for a horse, i.e., WHATA SNEAKY CAT, they allegedly bought back on 12/01/2012, as per Invoice 2850 in the foregoing??  AQHA records clearly denote on the Sale and Transfer Registry that the horse was purchased by Brandon Dufurrena; from Ed Dufurrena, on 11/29/2012.  It’s a mystery or creative writing? You decide!

Whata Sneaky Cat

Invoice 2850

Another interesting feature of invoice 2055 is trying to verify its accounting numerical values. (i.e.)

Previous Invoice Balance:                       $20,688.79
New charges this invoice:                        $600.00
New invoice Sum Total:                            $22,426.29

Less Payment Credits:                              -$6,091.68

New Invoice Balance:                          $3,771.81


Dufurrena Accounting;

Charges this invoice:                                  $14,717.20
Payments received:                                    ($18,654.48)
Balance Due:                                                $16,751.51


There is no way that this accounting is correct!

If you subtract the Dufurrena Balance Due of $16,751.51, with the new invoice balance in the foregoing, or $3,771.81, it results in “over charges” of $10,999.39!

In its original form, and using the computations on it, this invoice doesn’t balance out to the numerical values as recorded in Dufurrena’s accounting method!

Invoice 2055


Read More