Seriously?

Merida Initiative
Project Gunrunner(s)

Nice that Darryl Issa - who voted for the Meridia Initiative, and multiple approvals under Project Gunrunner for President Bush - is just now worried about guns that were walked into Mexico and given to drug cartels. How dare the Obama administration stop a Bush-approved ATF project because it was crap.

Still waiting for the rest of the testimony and evidence introduced, which may have something to do with why the Ebelings and Ann Romney were dismissed from the complaint, and why the vet didn't pay any damages. One person's testimony does not a slam dunk make.

you are wasting your time. If Riot reads something and forms an opinion based on what she believes that person is guilty. End of story. There is no gray area, no presentation of facts, and definitely no use of our constitutional legal system prior to passing judgement.

wait, so a person not named in the suit, and a person removed from the suit, a suit ultimately settled without money being paid...is still a legit suit against those two? now, that is interesting.
i guess anyone ever charged or anyone who has a suit filed against them, is guilty regardless of the ultimate outcome. that's scary. good thing that isn't actually how things work here. hopefully it will always remain innocent til proven guilty, and not the other way around.

check out this absurdity, on fast and furious:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/26/opinio...ntent=My+Yahoo


i am amazed that a reporter would write this. unreal.

LOL. Romneys pay off the filer of the lawsuit, try to have them sign confidentiality agreements (fail), and after the lawsuit moves through court for 18 months, panic and settle immediately before lawsuit goes to a judge in exchange for removing Romneys name from it ... and you think there was no money exchanged? And there was "no basis" for the suit?

:D

Reality. Clearly not for everyone.

How's that information about the defense attorneys in Walker's John Doe information being found to be the ones spreading the leaks sitting with you?;)

No. One person's testimony caused Romney's to rush to settle the lawsuit, after 18 months, immediately before it was supposed to go before a judge. Unfortunately for Romney's, they failed to get confidentiality agreements signed. The other parties refused.

Once again the arrogant omniscient crazy lady proves she has no concept of the legal system, law or lawsuits. Thanks for the laughs!

How many cats do you own?

The lawsuit was not dropped. The lawsuit wasn't dismissed. After 18 months, immediately before the lawsuit was to be heard in court, the lawsuit was settled out of court, at the request of the Romney's, in exchange for reimbursement of the sale price of the horse, Ann's name being taken off the papers legal, and no further action.

Nobody has to be a lawyer to be able to read ;)

Watching the Obama-haters trip over themselves to defend the drugging a lame horse with painkillers to sell it is telling. And sad.

What is sad is that numerous posters in numerous threads have told you how arrogant and stupid you are and you believe that everyone else is the problem, not you.

What I "believe" is that Derby Trail is inhabited by several well-known common bullies, dick.wads that clearly possess very small, and very insecure, egos.

That is hilarious coming from the biggest bully on Derby Trail!

Let's look back at the content that you've contributed to this thread ...


:D

Justing pointing out the fact that you are an omniscient arrogant moron who has no concept of the legal system is volumes more than the never ending nonsense you continue to contribute not only to this thread, but to this board in general.

What time do you get your meds, crazy lady?

Shorter Pointman: Blah, blah, name-calling, blah, blah, insult, blah, blah I hate you! Foot stomp! Anger! How dare you post when I don't like you!

You're pretty much a predictable, one-trick bully, Pointman :D

Oh - and speaking of arrogant morons, you spelled omniscient wrong :tro:

You really need a life crazy lady. You are an arrogant bully who thinks she knows everything. I am far from the bully you are. Go ask a psychiatrist if it is likely that when numerous people tell you that you are the problem and you are the only one telling those people they are the problem, that you are not the problem.

You really need to look in the mirror, though it is obvious that you cannot stomach what you see.

Yet I'm not the one who is actually being the child-like dick.wad, who jumped into this thread for the sole purpose of spending post after post screeching names and hate at another poster I don't like :D

RE: "Payoff the filer," "in exchange for reimbursement of the sale price of the horse." Do you have any proof, or are you speculating? How do you know that there was a settlement "at the request of the Romneys?" How do you know that the filer didn't simply decide that she didn't have a good case against them? And IF they were "paying off" the filer, why wouldn't a confidentiality agreement have been a part of any settlement? More likely the absence of an agreement that the Romneys supposedly sought indicates that there was no payoff.

lol wow bullies @DT. very funny wow hahahahah

It's threads like these that make you wish Morty was back :rolleyes:

dude.. Riot. After this thread you should never bash dell again.

it's ridiculous, an obvious attempt to smear someone who wasn't even involved with the suit, or the horse.

but hey, it's obviously THE number one thing to worry about. not the economy, not wars, drone strikes, ndaa, unemployment, fast and furious, banking, housing, etc, etc.
witch hunts are sooo much more fun, and a distraction from all that really ails us. but why worry about what affects us all? rather, go after a woman who isn't a candidate, who was removed from the suit-how dare she be rich and ride horses. and this topic, on a website devoted to following a sport involving rich people with horses.
it is hilarious when you really start thinking about it. here, look at the jingly keys!

Ziggy I CAN'T BELIEVE you hate Obama more than you love Horseys!! ;)

She's pulled that out about a half a dozen times in this thread :zz::zz:

:tro:

The statements of the horse owner, and of her lawyer, and of opposing lawyers, publicly, combined with what ultimately happened to the horse.

Continuing to say, "Ann Romney wasn't involved in the suit" shows undeniable ignorance of how the lawsuit, after 18-months of going through the court system, and days from going before a judge with a jury trial, was settled.

I dont think anyone is denying that Ann Romney's name at one time was on the currently resolved lawsuit.

The problem with this thread starts with the title of the thread... which is disingenuous at best.. and an outright lie at worst.

Mitt Romney was not involved in this lawsuit, and it wasnt even his own horse!

end of story.

Mitt Romney pays the bills, takes the horses as a deduction on his joint return as an owner in the Romney "horse farm business", benefited from the profit from the sale, gave the trainer the loan to purchase the land that the Romney's have a house upon (the farm) on the west coast, hired the trainer, pays his salary, continues to work intimately with the trainer as an employee.

The Romneys made $20,000 profit over their original purchase price by selling the lame, but doped sound, horse with ringbone. Excellent horse business deal.

And after the lawsuit, the Romneys still support this trainer.

i don't hate obama. and i don't care what she says, and enjoy not being able to read her drivel.

I know, just joking... ;)

Where are these statements published? I would like to read them so that I might be "ignorant" no more.

Good grief? why start now? :D You've already offered your opinion, apparently before reading what has been publicly available on the subject. As have many others on this thread :tro:

I posted a couple links with link-throughs and detailed info at the start of the thread, and a simple google gives much information. The expert witness testimony, and parts of Ann Romneys deposition.

You know - for those folks that want information before they make up their minds :rolleyes:

Maybe one of the highly-educated lawyers around here could offer an opinion on what the "Defendant Sanctions" the judge placed upon Romney and her trainer could involve? I seriously don't know - what type of stuff gets a judge angry enough to sanction the defendants before the jury trial occurs?

Why did the defendant's lawyer try to get the suing party to sign "keep silent" agreements? (refused)

Or, we can discuss what Thoroughbred racing and sport horse owners should do, when they have a lame horse, uninsured for that lamness, that can no longer do their job, and their trainer/legal agent sells the animal for them as "sound", but then the owner is sued as the horse actually was not sound, ends up not being able to do the work as alleged when sold, and was found to be loaded with multiple painkillers during the sale. What should that owner do? Should they stick with that trainer? Enjoy the $20K profit and say "suck it, buyer" and settle out of court? Fire the trainer and make the sale right with the buyer?

Caveat Emptor.

That's how and why the seller got caught drugging the horse ;)

How about this situation?

A race horse owner has a $100,000 allowance/grade 3 level horse. It has developed a coffin joint abnormality that had made it chronically, worsening lame (cannot be "fixed). That lameness has decreased it's performance, caused tendon problems in the other front leg due to the horse trying to avoid the sore foot. It has required regular steroid injections into the joint to keep the horse sound, but it's performance has deteriorated as expected with that problem, and it hasn't been able to run for a year. It's clear the horse has ringbone in the lower coffin joint. The horse isn't insured for loss of use due to ringbone. As the ringbone worsens, the horse will quickly be a pasture ornament. That's the only option for worsening, severe low ringbone.

Should that horse be sold privately as a $125,000 allowance/Grade 3 level horse, with the seller actively denying there are any known factors limiting it's performance at that level? The seller literally calls the horse, "the soundest horse in the barn". Even when the seller's agent is asked specifically about specific problems, the agent/trainer lies to the buyer.

What about the owner who uses the trainer as their legal selling agent. The trainer dopes the horse up with four painkillers to make it sound for the sale. And sells the horse for $20,000 more than they originally purchased the horse for.

Is the owner legally liable when the fraud is discovered?

What about the veterinarian doing the local prepurchase exam? (drawing blood and rads) Referred by the seller? The vet tells the buyer that the radiographic ringbone abnormalities are "cosmetic only and of no consequence to the intended use" (a clear lie). When the positive drug tests come back, the veterinarian calls, not the purchaser, but the owner via the owner's agent (trainer) to let them know the bad result. Vet denies giving 2 of the painkillers found. Trainer denies giving two of the painkillers found.

Should the owner continue using that trainer?

The new owner left the horse with the original trainer. The horse continues to move funny, be lame off and on, and cannot be used at the allowance level - or any level. The trainer blames the gallop riders of the horse for making the horse "move funny" to the owners eye.

The owner hires another vet to obtain all the horses documented medical history, and discovers everything said about the horse they purchased was a lie.

thou shalt not feed thy trolls.

i figured...but some on here would think i really did hate him, so a reminder once in a while doesn't hurt!

I'm no more a troll than you are demonstrating in this thread, 'Zig. "How dare she be rich and ride horses. and this topic, on a website devoted to following a sport involving rich people with horses". That's nothing but baloney troll - because nobody on this thread has attacked Romney for being rich or riding horses, especially me. Just like nobody here thinks this is "the number one thing to worry about".

You like posting inflammatory stuff nobody has said?

You don't want to discuss the doping of horses - and those associated with it, especially when it's the trainer of a presidential candidate when selling the candidate's wife's horse - stay off the thread.

BS You posted a link to one testimony, with a link to the NYT article that I quoted, to which you responded
Okay, where is the complaint? I've asked you for more information and asked you your sources for statements that you've made that aren't in your link, but you haven't provided them. I've searched for more information, but all I find are variations of the NYT article and web blog posts. I'm finished searching for links to substantiate your claims.

Links. Post them if you want anyone here to believe that your initial post was anything more than a smear attempt. Otherwise it's just more politically motivated BS.

Once you buy something it is yours and you deal with it. If you didnt do your homework or research correctly that is your problem. Falls under the personal responsibility theory the courts are very diligently removing.

:tro:

But then of course she couldn't take 6 pages of posts to smear a guy who most likely had no idea whatsoever that he even owned the friggin horse in the first place, much less connived a scheme with a vet to purposely unload damaged goods.