Elaine
06-23-2008, 10:28 AM
It’s come to my attention the Ms. Skaer is unhappy with things I’ve said here on DSNN about Skaer v. Babbitt. Rather than fishing around on DSNN for what I’ve said, I thought I’d just start a thread on the subject.
But first, I want to be very clear here that I do not know Skaer and have no recollection of every having a conversation with her. Nor do I know Ms. Babbitt (though I did see her in the ring at the 2007 DPCA National, and I checked her out very carefully, she does not have horns and a tail :D). I have no personal agenda here one way or another, I simply feel that the decision is Skaer v. Babbitt is hideous and if we (breeders) were all held to it, none of us would ever sell another puppy, for fear we’d be sued and get a judgment against us for treble damages, even though the dog we sold was healthy.
By way of background, this all came to my attention months ago, when Elaine Hopper and Ms. Skaer made a series of posts on CyberDobes, trumpeting the fact that Skaer had won a judgment against Babbitt in a civil case. In my opinion, the posts (with McNealy's input), went well beyond the simple fact that Skaer had won in a civil dispute. In a typical CyberDobes feeding frenzy of lunacy and stupidity, the posts went after Ms. Babbitt personally. I found Hooper’s, Skaer’s and McNealys posts offensive, reflecting ignorance of the law... they were far too personal about Ms. Babbitt and overall I thought they were repugnant. That is not to say that I might otherwise find Ms. Skaer a charming and wonderful individual, but she presented herself to me, on CyberDobes, on a trash can lid. She alone is responsible for the low esteem I have for her.
To the best of my knowledge, the facts of the case are these, as briefly as possible: Skaer purchased a puppy from Babbitt. Skaer asserts that prior to purchasing the puppy, she relied upon claims Babbitt’s made about health testing she [Babbitt] had done. Prior to trial the puppy (now a mature dog) was extensively tested and is in fact healthy. (So what are Skaer's damages you might ask? She can not claim to have a genetically perfect dog. But, can any of us make that claim?) The OFA records show that Babbitt did in fact do extensive health testing prior to the breeding (though for some reason the results were not listed with OFA until later). At some point, more than a year after Skaer purchased her puppy, two of the dogs in his pedigree died of DCM. One was the damsire's sire, Ch. Soquel’s Distant Thunder, the other was the sire of Skaer’s puppy. Babbitt did not own either of these dogs. It is reasonable that she relied upon health related claims that their owners made.
Skaer is a doctor of Pharmacy with some financial resources. Skaer could afford an attorney. I hope Ms. Babbitt is not offended by what follows here, but I suspect that Babbitt is more financially marginalized than Skaer. Babbitt did not retain an attorney, I suspect that she could not afford one, so she represented herself. It’s fair to observe that Babbitt was not particularly effective as her own legal counsel. We hear that she did not call witnesses in her defense, and it seems from reading the decision that the judge was largely ignorant about breeders and what we do.
Prior to the breeding, Babbitt had done the following testing:
DP-CA412/25F/C-PI-ECHO CARDIAC Sep 7 2003 Jun 11 2007 25 NORMAL - CARDIOLOGIST, ECHO
DP-TH475/20F-PI THYROID Apr 3 2003 Jun 11 2007 20 NORMAL
DP-VW339/17F-PI-CAR VON WILLEBRANDS Jan 3 2003 Jun 11 2007 17 GENOTYPIC CARRIER FOR VON WILLEBRAND'S
DP-12479E46F-PI HIPS Jun 9 2005 Jun 13 2007 46 EXCELLENT
By the standard of "Good Responsible Breeders in 2005" this testing was sufficient. With respect to DCM... even in June of 2008, there is NO test that will tell us that a dog will not transmit DCM. There is no test that Babbitt failed to do.
So was any of this about justice and right vs. wrong? I think not! Skaer could afford an attorney, Babbitt could not. Babbitt represented herself, and like most pro se defendant’s, she stunk. But then, one has only to read the front page of Skaer’s website to realize that she too would have stunk up the place had she defended herself.
Skaer called Elaine Hooper as a witness, Babbitt reportedly didn’t even understand that she could call witnesses in her defense. The judge, who may have been a dim bulb to begin with, somehow came away with the impression that breeders repeat all healthy testing before each breeding, i.e. that we re-OFA, re- vWD our dogs BEFORE each breeding. Is it any wonder that Babbitt lost?
My impressions at the time of the CyberDobe posts was that Skaer, Hopper and McNealy were acting like a pack of rabid Hyenas... and I had the strong impression that they hadn’t a clue about the judicial system, an impression that is born out by Skaer on her website... to quote Skaer: “This civil law case was determined by a judge to be a violation of the Consumer Protection Act involving dishonest business practices, specifically false statements and misleading advertising or fraud (civil law violation or tort)... Fairly read as written, Skaer’s sentence indicates that Skaer’s “case” (i.e. “this civil law case”) was fraud. So I surmised two things: Skaer isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed, and, she, Hopper and McNealy seem to revel in acting like nasty pubescent teenagers. It’s fair to say that I abhor their conduct... but then, our DSNN Hot Topic Forum is filled with people who find McNealy’s conduct repugnant. Do the McNealy's of the world ever walk a mile in the other person's shoes? Were there ever ads on Thunder making claims that he was Health Tested. Should Hoff / McNealy now be charged with FRAUD because he later died of DCM? Should breeders who used Thunder and claimed to have "studied pedigrees" be charged with fraud because Thunder died of DCM?
McNealy, Hopper and Skaer went on and on about fraud, as though this civil judgment is a sweeping condemnation of Babbitt as a person across the board. It is not.
In fact, when you approach an attorney with a set of facts and a complaint, the attorney is first going to assess if you can afford them... do you have enough $$$$ in your bank account. If yes, then they are going to plug your version of the facts into some applicable law. The complaint against Babbitt alleged fraud, the judge found in favor of the plaintiff, ipso facto, Babbitt was guilty of fraud. That’s all it was folks, a judgment in a civil case. One side wins; one side doesn’t. Judgments in civil cases are not sweeping condemnations of a person across all walks of their life. The judgment simply means that one side was more persuasive than the other, typically the standard of proof is low, i.e. it is 51 % more likely than not that the facts are true. And winning in a court of law is not about justice or right and wrong as much as it is about who has the most money to spend on legal counsel. O.J. Simpson made that glaringly obvious years ago.
Ms. Skaer, Ms. Babbitt and/or anyone else is welcome to come here and correct any errors or misstatements of fact. They will be treated with the utmost courtesy and respect, because that is the standard we are going to abide by here. This is not a personal attack on anyone, rather, it is a sharp criticism of the conduct I witnessed on CyberDobes and of the decision on Skaer v Babbitt.
Links
Skaer’s Website:
http://www.dragonheartdobermans.com/Judgement.html
The DobeQuest pedigree of Skaer's dog: http://www.dobequest.org/profile.php?DOGID=19364
OFA website showing the dates testing was done: http://www.offa.org/display.html?appnum=1270639#animal
But first, I want to be very clear here that I do not know Skaer and have no recollection of every having a conversation with her. Nor do I know Ms. Babbitt (though I did see her in the ring at the 2007 DPCA National, and I checked her out very carefully, she does not have horns and a tail :D). I have no personal agenda here one way or another, I simply feel that the decision is Skaer v. Babbitt is hideous and if we (breeders) were all held to it, none of us would ever sell another puppy, for fear we’d be sued and get a judgment against us for treble damages, even though the dog we sold was healthy.
By way of background, this all came to my attention months ago, when Elaine Hopper and Ms. Skaer made a series of posts on CyberDobes, trumpeting the fact that Skaer had won a judgment against Babbitt in a civil case. In my opinion, the posts (with McNealy's input), went well beyond the simple fact that Skaer had won in a civil dispute. In a typical CyberDobes feeding frenzy of lunacy and stupidity, the posts went after Ms. Babbitt personally. I found Hooper’s, Skaer’s and McNealys posts offensive, reflecting ignorance of the law... they were far too personal about Ms. Babbitt and overall I thought they were repugnant. That is not to say that I might otherwise find Ms. Skaer a charming and wonderful individual, but she presented herself to me, on CyberDobes, on a trash can lid. She alone is responsible for the low esteem I have for her.
To the best of my knowledge, the facts of the case are these, as briefly as possible: Skaer purchased a puppy from Babbitt. Skaer asserts that prior to purchasing the puppy, she relied upon claims Babbitt’s made about health testing she [Babbitt] had done. Prior to trial the puppy (now a mature dog) was extensively tested and is in fact healthy. (So what are Skaer's damages you might ask? She can not claim to have a genetically perfect dog. But, can any of us make that claim?) The OFA records show that Babbitt did in fact do extensive health testing prior to the breeding (though for some reason the results were not listed with OFA until later). At some point, more than a year after Skaer purchased her puppy, two of the dogs in his pedigree died of DCM. One was the damsire's sire, Ch. Soquel’s Distant Thunder, the other was the sire of Skaer’s puppy. Babbitt did not own either of these dogs. It is reasonable that she relied upon health related claims that their owners made.
Skaer is a doctor of Pharmacy with some financial resources. Skaer could afford an attorney. I hope Ms. Babbitt is not offended by what follows here, but I suspect that Babbitt is more financially marginalized than Skaer. Babbitt did not retain an attorney, I suspect that she could not afford one, so she represented herself. It’s fair to observe that Babbitt was not particularly effective as her own legal counsel. We hear that she did not call witnesses in her defense, and it seems from reading the decision that the judge was largely ignorant about breeders and what we do.
Prior to the breeding, Babbitt had done the following testing:
DP-CA412/25F/C-PI-ECHO CARDIAC Sep 7 2003 Jun 11 2007 25 NORMAL - CARDIOLOGIST, ECHO
DP-TH475/20F-PI THYROID Apr 3 2003 Jun 11 2007 20 NORMAL
DP-VW339/17F-PI-CAR VON WILLEBRANDS Jan 3 2003 Jun 11 2007 17 GENOTYPIC CARRIER FOR VON WILLEBRAND'S
DP-12479E46F-PI HIPS Jun 9 2005 Jun 13 2007 46 EXCELLENT
By the standard of "Good Responsible Breeders in 2005" this testing was sufficient. With respect to DCM... even in June of 2008, there is NO test that will tell us that a dog will not transmit DCM. There is no test that Babbitt failed to do.
So was any of this about justice and right vs. wrong? I think not! Skaer could afford an attorney, Babbitt could not. Babbitt represented herself, and like most pro se defendant’s, she stunk. But then, one has only to read the front page of Skaer’s website to realize that she too would have stunk up the place had she defended herself.
Skaer called Elaine Hooper as a witness, Babbitt reportedly didn’t even understand that she could call witnesses in her defense. The judge, who may have been a dim bulb to begin with, somehow came away with the impression that breeders repeat all healthy testing before each breeding, i.e. that we re-OFA, re- vWD our dogs BEFORE each breeding. Is it any wonder that Babbitt lost?
My impressions at the time of the CyberDobe posts was that Skaer, Hopper and McNealy were acting like a pack of rabid Hyenas... and I had the strong impression that they hadn’t a clue about the judicial system, an impression that is born out by Skaer on her website... to quote Skaer: “This civil law case was determined by a judge to be a violation of the Consumer Protection Act involving dishonest business practices, specifically false statements and misleading advertising or fraud (civil law violation or tort)... Fairly read as written, Skaer’s sentence indicates that Skaer’s “case” (i.e. “this civil law case”) was fraud. So I surmised two things: Skaer isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed, and, she, Hopper and McNealy seem to revel in acting like nasty pubescent teenagers. It’s fair to say that I abhor their conduct... but then, our DSNN Hot Topic Forum is filled with people who find McNealy’s conduct repugnant. Do the McNealy's of the world ever walk a mile in the other person's shoes? Were there ever ads on Thunder making claims that he was Health Tested. Should Hoff / McNealy now be charged with FRAUD because he later died of DCM? Should breeders who used Thunder and claimed to have "studied pedigrees" be charged with fraud because Thunder died of DCM?
McNealy, Hopper and Skaer went on and on about fraud, as though this civil judgment is a sweeping condemnation of Babbitt as a person across the board. It is not.
In fact, when you approach an attorney with a set of facts and a complaint, the attorney is first going to assess if you can afford them... do you have enough $$$$ in your bank account. If yes, then they are going to plug your version of the facts into some applicable law. The complaint against Babbitt alleged fraud, the judge found in favor of the plaintiff, ipso facto, Babbitt was guilty of fraud. That’s all it was folks, a judgment in a civil case. One side wins; one side doesn’t. Judgments in civil cases are not sweeping condemnations of a person across all walks of their life. The judgment simply means that one side was more persuasive than the other, typically the standard of proof is low, i.e. it is 51 % more likely than not that the facts are true. And winning in a court of law is not about justice or right and wrong as much as it is about who has the most money to spend on legal counsel. O.J. Simpson made that glaringly obvious years ago.
Ms. Skaer, Ms. Babbitt and/or anyone else is welcome to come here and correct any errors or misstatements of fact. They will be treated with the utmost courtesy and respect, because that is the standard we are going to abide by here. This is not a personal attack on anyone, rather, it is a sharp criticism of the conduct I witnessed on CyberDobes and of the decision on Skaer v Babbitt.
Links
Skaer’s Website:
http://www.dragonheartdobermans.com/Judgement.html
The DobeQuest pedigree of Skaer's dog: http://www.dobequest.org/profile.php?DOGID=19364
OFA website showing the dates testing was done: http://www.offa.org/display.html?appnum=1270639#animal