This is a placeholder text
Group text
by WHochland on 12 February 2014 - 20:02
Oh god, just when I was getting into the intelligent discussion ensuing, Bubbaboo has nothing better to do than troll this thread.
by Bob McKown on 12 February 2014 - 20:02
See what you guys have done!!! I hope you all feel better. You plunged this toilet hard enough and brought back up a turd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Hundmutter on 12 February 2014 - 20:02
Ok, any Club has Rules, 'Bye-Laws', a Constitution, whatever. They are not set
in stone. While it is quite possible that WUSV membership conveys some
obligations, there is little to prevent USCA's Board coming up with something
new - and putting that to its members - if a situation warrants it. (Even if it takes
a year to change, to allow such an investigation as I suggested, things can hardly
be slower than taking no action at all). If all the expertise Kevin lists is not actually
used to deal with any given problem, because no member(s) have initiated the
complaint within the Rules, then it isn't worth much to have it.
I could equally well have reminded you guys that there have been problems in the
past with USCA acting counter to its own Rules, not least the most recent kerfuffle
with the WUSV, but I refrained from that. Now Buba has done it for me. Like it / him
or not, you have to admit he's at least partly correct !
Just as binding IMHO are the criterion for being a Breed Warden, set down by the
SV / World Union. Does the USCA Board think it can ignore those, just so it does
not have to "upset the apple cart" ? What you are asking us to believe is that the
Board may have taken note of things which may be said against Molly, but 'privately',
and these have all been quietly proved to be without foundation. But you cannot just
ignore Court judgements, surely ?
As far as protecting versus protectionism goes, Kevin says he is glad the Board
protects members, i.e. from spurious internet accusiations or unwarranted interference.
Probably every organisation that ever wanted to resist any accusations has fallen back
at some point on that line;
"well they would say that, wouldn't they."
in stone. While it is quite possible that WUSV membership conveys some
obligations, there is little to prevent USCA's Board coming up with something
new - and putting that to its members - if a situation warrants it. (Even if it takes
a year to change, to allow such an investigation as I suggested, things can hardly
be slower than taking no action at all). If all the expertise Kevin lists is not actually
used to deal with any given problem, because no member(s) have initiated the
complaint within the Rules, then it isn't worth much to have it.
I could equally well have reminded you guys that there have been problems in the
past with USCA acting counter to its own Rules, not least the most recent kerfuffle
with the WUSV, but I refrained from that. Now Buba has done it for me. Like it / him
or not, you have to admit he's at least partly correct !
Just as binding IMHO are the criterion for being a Breed Warden, set down by the
SV / World Union. Does the USCA Board think it can ignore those, just so it does
not have to "upset the apple cart" ? What you are asking us to believe is that the
Board may have taken note of things which may be said against Molly, but 'privately',
and these have all been quietly proved to be without foundation. But you cannot just
ignore Court judgements, surely ?
As far as protecting versus protectionism goes, Kevin says he is glad the Board
protects members, i.e. from spurious internet accusiations or unwarranted interference.
Probably every organisation that ever wanted to resist any accusations has fallen back
at some point on that line;
"well they would say that, wouldn't they." by Hundmutter on 12 February 2014 - 20:02
Apologies for double post 
by OGBS on 12 February 2014 - 20:02
Hundmutter,
How do you know that what someone posted here is an actual court document?
Someone could easily have written that up on their own.
I'm not saying they did, but, it could happen and has happened on this site.
The other aspect of this is that these were civil proceedings, not criminal.
She was not convicted of any crime. She, supposedly, lost a lawsuit presented against her.
Molly is not the National Breed Warden of UScA. She is a regional breed warden.
Since most people now microchip instead of tatto, they bascially do nothing. She has no influence over the organization.
The SV and WUSV have zero say in what a regional breed warden does for UScA or any other club outside the SV.
Regional breed wardens are elected by their own region, usually at the yearly regional meeting and some hold the position for two years.
Quite possibly there are provisions within her region for removing her if it ends up being warranted, possibly not.
And,.... since you seem so interested in the business of the UScA why not join and file BOI charges against her?
You do not have to be a resident of the U.S. to be a member of UScA.
The whole process will cost you $115 (foreign membership) to join and $150 to file the BOI charges.
If the BOI finds in your favor you get your $150 back.
Please, will all your expert knowledge, come show us how it's done!
If not, think of these two very important years in U.S.- British relations.
1776 and 1812 when we said, Thanks, but, no thanks!!!
How do you know that what someone posted here is an actual court document?
Someone could easily have written that up on their own.
I'm not saying they did, but, it could happen and has happened on this site.
The other aspect of this is that these were civil proceedings, not criminal.
She was not convicted of any crime. She, supposedly, lost a lawsuit presented against her.
Molly is not the National Breed Warden of UScA. She is a regional breed warden.
Since most people now microchip instead of tatto, they bascially do nothing. She has no influence over the organization.
The SV and WUSV have zero say in what a regional breed warden does for UScA or any other club outside the SV.
Regional breed wardens are elected by their own region, usually at the yearly regional meeting and some hold the position for two years.
Quite possibly there are provisions within her region for removing her if it ends up being warranted, possibly not.
And,.... since you seem so interested in the business of the UScA why not join and file BOI charges against her?
You do not have to be a resident of the U.S. to be a member of UScA.
The whole process will cost you $115 (foreign membership) to join and $150 to file the BOI charges.
If the BOI finds in your favor you get your $150 back.
Please, will all your expert knowledge, come show us how it's done!
If not, think of these two very important years in U.S.- British relations.
1776 and 1812 when we said, Thanks, but, no thanks!!!
by kitkat3478 on 12 February 2014 - 23:02
Well, seems it must be true, Afwark is good friends with Molly, trains with her, and obviously is privy to one side of the story, which is Mollys side.
It also seems, if it is a contract dispute, over the sale of a dog, the actual contract would have been presented in court, as would the actual owner of the dog, if itvwere not Molly.
And, it also appears the OP was done dirty by Molly, not someone else, or their name would have also appeared on the docket..
It is no wonder why there is so much uupheaval from within the organization. ?.
IIntegrity seems to be missing from some members. Anyone that threatened to dump a litter of perfectly fine pups in the dog pound , plus, flat out refused to return a dog to its known owner, should be questioned on their ethics.
If I recall correctly, Shellys poor dog was passed around to a few homes, under the guise of money owed, despute the offers from numerous people to pay the debt. The dog was subjected to undue stress, for poor spite, from your NE breed warden.
It also seems, if it is a contract dispute, over the sale of a dog, the actual contract would have been presented in court, as would the actual owner of the dog, if itvwere not Molly.
And, it also appears the OP was done dirty by Molly, not someone else, or their name would have also appeared on the docket..
It is no wonder why there is so much uupheaval from within the organization. ?.
IIntegrity seems to be missing from some members. Anyone that threatened to dump a litter of perfectly fine pups in the dog pound , plus, flat out refused to return a dog to its known owner, should be questioned on their ethics.
If I recall correctly, Shellys poor dog was passed around to a few homes, under the guise of money owed, despute the offers from numerous people to pay the debt. The dog was subjected to undue stress, for poor spite, from your NE breed warden.
by KileysHuman on 12 February 2014 - 23:02
I knew the name Molly Graf (aka "eichenluft"), but for the life of me couldn't remember where from. Luckily I keep records just for this purpose. Molly Graf had supplied the infamous and allegedly wildly abusive Timothy Helser with a rescue dog that she felt was aggressive. She emphatically stated that she would never give this guy one of her own dogs and in fact, even posted herself that his methods were abusive, but she saw fit to provide him with a rescue dog. That speaks volumes about her character or rather, her lack thereof.
by OGBS on 13 February 2014 - 02:02
So there is no mistake, I am not defending or condoning anything that Miss Graf has done in theses instances.
I AM defending what Frank and Kevin have repeatedly said.
If no one files BOI charges, this is the system in place to deal with potential misconduct, then nothing can be done.
The UScA Board of Directors does not have in its powers the ability to censure, suspend, or dismiss a member without the issue first going through the BOI.
I AM defending what Frank and Kevin have repeatedly said.
If no one files BOI charges, this is the system in place to deal with potential misconduct, then nothing can be done.
The UScA Board of Directors does not have in its powers the ability to censure, suspend, or dismiss a member without the issue first going through the BOI.
by afwark15 on 13 February 2014 - 06:02
Why would UScA have anything to do with this dispute? Tracy is not a member of UScA or any dog sport organization for that matter.
Yes, I happen to train with Molly, but just because she got on here and stirred the pot in regards to the Shelly issue, does not mean that any of it is true! Has anyone ever thought that maybe Molly came on here and said things just to torture Shelly after she freeloaded for months...?
People on here like to spew shit about people, but nobody ever comes up with hard facts. Remember when Molly "said" she took the pups born from shelly's female to the pound? YOU PEOPLE REALLY BELIEVE THAT? c'mon now...Molly may not always make the best moves when it comes to internet arguing, but she, like anyone, gets a good laugh by stirring the pot! LOL
This board needs to be aware that what you hear is not always the facts- facts such as Tracy had a backyard breeder...a husband wife team lie under oath saying they were seperate breeders with 6 breeding females, when in fact they only own 3 collectively who both testified that they would breed every female they had every heat to Tracy's dog---adding up to a lot of money lost according to Tracy! Just so happens that Molly did not find out this info until after the hearing.
Just as unkown said - an issue occured with a member of his region, and the PDB jurors had all the facts wrong.....it is just never smart to pass judgement on someone based on these types of threads- you have people with agendas come on here and spew half truths.
And as far as being "privy" to Molly's side....let me tell you all this...
I knew Tracy before anyone in the dog world spoke her name. I bought horses from her that turned out to not be what they seemed. So it is not that I am "for" molly, but rather "against" Tracy! Tracy has 18 pages of criminal complaints against her that came up in court- mainly for fraud,check fraud, etc.
I am just trying to warn everyone of this thread that not everything is as it seems- and be careful who you are getting your information from....(follow link below)
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/specific_search/equine%20fx
Amanda
Yes, I happen to train with Molly, but just because she got on here and stirred the pot in regards to the Shelly issue, does not mean that any of it is true! Has anyone ever thought that maybe Molly came on here and said things just to torture Shelly after she freeloaded for months...?
People on here like to spew shit about people, but nobody ever comes up with hard facts. Remember when Molly "said" she took the pups born from shelly's female to the pound? YOU PEOPLE REALLY BELIEVE THAT? c'mon now...Molly may not always make the best moves when it comes to internet arguing, but she, like anyone, gets a good laugh by stirring the pot! LOL
This board needs to be aware that what you hear is not always the facts- facts such as Tracy had a backyard breeder...a husband wife team lie under oath saying they were seperate breeders with 6 breeding females, when in fact they only own 3 collectively who both testified that they would breed every female they had every heat to Tracy's dog---adding up to a lot of money lost according to Tracy! Just so happens that Molly did not find out this info until after the hearing.
Just as unkown said - an issue occured with a member of his region, and the PDB jurors had all the facts wrong.....it is just never smart to pass judgement on someone based on these types of threads- you have people with agendas come on here and spew half truths.
And as far as being "privy" to Molly's side....let me tell you all this...
I knew Tracy before anyone in the dog world spoke her name. I bought horses from her that turned out to not be what they seemed. So it is not that I am "for" molly, but rather "against" Tracy! Tracy has 18 pages of criminal complaints against her that came up in court- mainly for fraud,check fraud, etc.
I am just trying to warn everyone of this thread that not everything is as it seems- and be careful who you are getting your information from....(follow link below)
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/specific_search/equine%20fx
Amanda
by Dawulf on 13 February 2014 - 07:02
" Has anyone ever thought that maybe Molly came on here and said things just to torture Shelly after she freeloaded for months...? "
Is that supposed to be a redeeming quality?
Is that supposed to be a redeeming quality?
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
