Today is a sad day

bumpus · #21 10/23/04, 09:24 PM

.
No one has said why the horse were in the condition that they were in.
We have not heard his ( the owners ) side of the story ! ! !

But the law and the courts said that the horses where his ( the rightful owner ) and that he could do what he wanted to do with them. Not what some one else says or feels should be done.

You decided to take the horse that you took for freem, and now you have changed your mind and want to be paid for your loving care for the horse.

Did you take the horse because you really cared for the horse, or did you just want a free horse, or do you now just want to make a profit.

The horses are not yours or ours. The horses belong to the man who rightfully owns them, and he has the right to do what he wants to do with them, as long and the law and courts says so.

Not what other people feel, and think ! ! !.
.

superduperchickenman · #22 10/23/04, 10:20 PM

I was thinking, Thou Shalt Not Covet, Thou Shalt Not Steal
I was thinking, Thou Shalt Not Covet, Thou Shalt Not Steal
I was thinking, Thou Shalt Not Covet, Thou Shalt Not Steal
after every post I read. But now it looks like the horses were properly bought and payed for, now, "for the rest of the story..." eagerly waitin in anticipation.

entertainin. LOL

Quote:

Originally Posted by bumpus

.
No one has said why the horse were in the condition that they were in.
We have not heard his ( the owners ) side of the story ! ! !

But the law and the courts said that the horses where his ( the rightful owner ) and that he could do what he wanted to do with them. Not what some one else says or feels should be done.

You decided to take the horse that you took for freem, and now you have changed your mind and want to be paid for your loving care for the horse.

Did you take the horse because you really cared for the horse, or did you just want a free horse, or do you now just want to make a profit.

The horses are not yours or ours. The horses belong to the man who rightfully owns them, and he has the right to do what he wants to do with them, as long and the law and courts says so.

Not what other people feel, and think ! ! !.
.

bubbba · #23 10/23/04, 10:45 PM

No one has said why the horse were in the condition that they were in.
We have not heard his ( the owners ) side of the story ! ! !

But the law and the courts said that the horses where his ( the rightful owner ) and that he could do what he wanted to do with them. Not what some one else says or feels should be done. ..............Bumpus

er um well lets see according to the first post the horses where in a horrible situation and being abused but here you are jumping all over the thread goin on about the original owners rights and the rescuers motivations. I looked at Bumpuses website and I find it pretty weird that someone apparantly so religous would be so worried about some animal abusers rights.

superduperchickenman · #24 10/23/04, 10:56 PM

2 words

NOT GUILTY

uhhhh, according to the first post, uh, 1 side of the story.

If?, I repeat if? the story were true. where was all that christian compassion before he was turned into the civil authorities.

What happened to "if your neighbors ass falls HELP HIM LIFT THE ASS UP? & Don't sue your neighbor in civil court/world secular?

As for as Bumpus jumping in here, I say Hu-ray!!! someone needs to jump in in defense of people (created in His image) every once in while instead of being always in favor of the animals and the ARM.

It's truelly lopsided. why does one desenting voice disturb you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bubbba

No one has said why the horse were in the condition that they were in.
We have not heard his ( the owners ) side of the story ! ! !

But the law and the courts said that the horses where his ( the rightful owner ) and that he could do what he wanted to do with them. Not what some one else says or feels should be done. ..............Bumpus

er um well lets see according to the first post the horses where in a horrible situation and being abused but here you are jumping all over the thread goin on about the original owners rights and the rescuers motivations. I looked at Bumpuses website and I find it pretty weird that someone apparantly so religous would be so worried about some animal abusers rights.

cafeaulaitinfj · #25 10/23/04, 11:09 PM

Gosh, let me see, Painterswife fostered this horse, paid for her board and her vet bills, and nursed her back to health. She was emaciated, her hair was falling out, and she was hand shy (to use a dog term, b/c I don't know diddly about horses). This guy has connections, but the condition of his horses was so bad (did you guys read that part?), they were taken away.

He's on drugs and doesn't have adequate food or fencing, but b/c of his connections, he was getting the horses back and Painterswife is is an evil, coveting thief because she doesn't want this horse that she cared for to go back to a place where she would likely be neglected to the point of death.

She's struggling with the ethical dilema of wanting to save the horse vs. not wanting this guy to 1.) be rewarded for his bad behavior and 2.) have more money to spend on drugs. Yeah. What an evil, immoral person. For shame!

Oh and this poor victim of a man was trying to extort a lot of extra money from the volunteers who took care of his horses at their own expense for eighteen months because they are people who care about the horses enough to not want to see them back with him. Sounds like a really sweet guy.

sisterpine · #26 10/24/04, 02:05 AM

Hi stranger! Thought you folks were seriously considering not being horse folks LOL. What a kind and tender heart you have...a special place is made in heaven for those who are kind to animals you know! So now you will have 3? Way cool! j Good luck with the new gal, I bet she is wonderful after being with you for over a year!

Irish Pixie · #27 10/24/04, 07:45 AM

Doesn't matter if the SOB was convicted or not. Painterswife is due compensation for 18 months of board. I can't see any coveting or theft only someone with the compassion to help an animal that was neglected. I'm glad your getting to keep the filly.

Stacy in NY

painterswife · #28 10/24/04, 08:59 AM

The man was found not guilty, that is true. I was perfectly willing to send this horse back. I had and still have no legal right to the horse.I had even made arrangements to go with the Sherrif when the horse went back and offer any help to this man that I could. I have no ill will against him.

He did not feed the horses. There was plenty of proof. The sherrif visted his house several times before seizing the horses and even took food that was left in the driveway and not given to the horse.

But still he was found not guilty, that does not mean "innocent" The court case was over in 5 months. I still had this horse 4 months after that without a word from him about taking her back. Am I expected to feed and care for a horse that he gets back for free for as long as he wants?

Others offered time and again to buy the horses from him but he would not budge.

The horses should have gone back yesterday. I have been told that the fence is down around the corral and there is no feed in sight.

It was wrong that he did not properly care for his animals. If his circumstances were bad he should have asked for help. It was offered and he refused!

He will now be overpaid for horses that he neglected. He will profit from a wrong. So be it! The horses are loved and cared for. I will not profit one bit from the whole deal. I will lose money. I don't care a bit.

Life is not fair, but it is worth living!

bumpus · #29 10/24/04, 09:41 AM

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by painterswife

But still he was found not guilty, that does not mean "innocent" The court case was over in 5 months. I still had this horse 4 months after that without a word from him about taking her back. Am I expected to feed and care for a horse that he gets back for free for as long as he wants?

According to the information that you provide I would say ( YES FOR FREE ) because you volunteered to do this and you had around 9 months to say I want money to take care for someone elses horse. You did not do this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by painterswife

He will now be overpaid for horses that he neglected. He will profit from a wrong. So be it! The horses are loved and cared for. I will not profit one bit from the whole deal. I will lose money.

We should stop and think before we jump in and get into something not knowing what or who has the final say, and what it will cost us. You took on a task without enough information. This could still turn out to be a good lesson, for the future.

A person who does not look a gift horse in the mouth is not wise ! ! !

Quote:

Originally Posted by painterswife

I don't care a bit.

We know that you do care about your loss or you would not have talked it or brought it up.

The horses ( just like everything else ) are worth just as much as someone is willing to pay. Even if it is 3 times what you or I would pay. Look at the prices of some homes and property.

.

painterswife · #30 10/24/04, 10:40 AM

I don't care about the money it cost me. I did it for the good of the horse. I do not beleive though that he should be able to leave the horse with me for months after being found not guilty and not expect to at least cover the costs of basic needs.

I did ask for money! Leins were filed 4 months after the court case.

I did all this because I wanted to, I am and was happy to help the horse.
I would still tommorrow let him take possesion of the horse. It is the principal of the thing ! If you can not afford to feed and care for animals, you should not have them.

It was a sad day because a horse I took in was going back to the home that had left it in bad shape(for what ever reason) not because I was out money!

Why should I have to defend myself to you for doing something good! Can you not understand that I could feel sadness for the situation?

Would you gladly send an animal back to a home that had had not cared for it properly?

wr · #31 10/24/04, 11:06 AM

Many people have taken in livestock that was neglected and it costs a lot of money in vet care and feed and most of them are entitled to compensation for their efforts. It is not stealing or ill gotten money, it is compensation for their out of pocket expenses. It's also a very accepted legal maneuver to prevent animal abusers from just walking in, taking the animals back and starting the cycle all over again or selling the animal and profiting from someone else's care and efforts. painterswife, I wish you well and do sincerly hope that you end up with the filly before she's injured from poor fences or starved out again, failing that, I hope that she ends up with a decent and caring owner in the near future. I tend to feel that if someone neglects their animals in favor of an addiction that they shouldn't have animals. I wouldn't even say this is a case of not being able to afford them, if they can afford to feed an addiction, they can afford to feed livestock.

superduperchickenman · #32 10/24/04, 11:59 AM

what's wrong with you people?
the system works only when your side wins?
I say the system never works, that there is a better way. i.e. love thy neighbor. not his horse, not his possesions. thou shalt not covet. Help him re-build his fences. NOT GUILTY. what is love? doing a good deed and expecting to be paid for it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wr

Many people have taken in livestock that was neglected and it costs a lot of money in vet care and feed and most of them are entitled to compensation for their efforts.

yes, and when the owner was found guilty those people are compensated. That makes them employees, paid for a service. Is that good?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wr

It is not stealing or ill gotten money, it is compensation for their out of pocket expenses.

So, if I take my neighbors ass, feed it, doctor it, care for it, and the judge says, return it. It's not yours, I'm supposed to be compensated? Or will I count my lucky stars that I'm not being charged with a theft?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wr

It's also a very accepted legal maneuver to prevent animal abusers from just walking in, taking the animals back and starting the cycle all over again or selling the animal and profiting from someone else's care and efforts. painterswife,

accepted legal maneuver? animal abuser? What lawless individual came up with this scheme? what cycle? NOT GUILTY. Is this good?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wr

I wish you well and do sincerly hope that you end up with the filly before she's injured from poor fences or starved out again, failing that, I hope that she ends up with a decent and caring owner in the near future. I tend to feel that if someone neglects their animals in favor of an addiction that they shouldn't have animals. I wouldn't even say this is a case of not being able to afford them, if they can afford to feed an addiction, they can afford to feed livestock.

addiction? where's your proof? ill-cared for? where's your proof? Who testified against this man at the trial? I see lots of allegations. Did one of you posters testify in behalf of the state against this man?

You can't white wash "stealing or ill gotten money" with innuendo, unacceptable legal wranglings, so called "good intentions".

I've some questions?
Has he not recieved his horses back yet because of so called "accepted legal maneuvers"?

Have the people who took the horses in the first place loaded them up and driven them back?

Or are thehorses locked up behind padlocked gates unaccessable to their true owner?

Why weren't the STATES witnesses believed at the trial? Were that uncreditable?

When did volunteers start expecting to be compensated?

Why hasn't the STATE compensated you for your work, Did you enter into a contract with the Humane Society or locol government (sign contracts) whereby they would not compensate?

Really, who's responsibilty was it to return the horse promptly. In order to relieve you of your burden?
1) The ones who took the horse in the first place?
2) The man who was put throu this ordeal? Who you redily admit has no money or limited means?

Is this a case of class warfare? Where the rich take from the poor because the poor is disadvantaged due to his lack of education, finances, condition of his home, etc... but this time it backfired?

Love thy neighbor, thou shalt not covet, thou shalt not steal,,,

cursed are ye lawyers, you hold the keys (you know the Law) .... you entered not yourselves (you don't apply it) and them that were entering in you hindered (you do your best to keep those that want to keep the Law from doing so)...

you lay people with grievous burdens (bad laws/man made traditions) , and you yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

Love thy neighbor, thou shalt not covet, thou shalt not steal,,,

2 Samual 12:1-7

Irish Pixie · #33 10/24/04, 01:17 PM

Superduperchickenman,

If Painterswife had taken/stolen the horse I could see your point. However, the horse was seized from a dirtbag that didn't feed it. It came to Painterswife starving and ill from a government agency that declared the animals neglected. She nursed the filly back to health. The dirtbag somehow gets found not guilty over four months ago, never contacts anyone regarding "his" horse, liens were filed for it's care, and you're saying she's stealing the horse from its rightful owner. Five months of board at $150.00 a month (low in my area) is $750.00 since the dirtbag was found not quilty. The horse may or may not even be worth $750.00. In my book, the dirtbag has stolen $750 worth of service from Painterswife. She may have donated her time and money while the dirtbag was being charged and during the trial but after he was found not quilty he is required to pay upkeep on the horse. It's perfectly legal for her to accept the horse in lieu of compensation.

Stacy in NY

painterswife · #34 10/24/04, 01:43 PM

Horse Seized in early 2003

Found not guilty June 2003

Leins filed Nov 2003

It's now Oct 2004

The horse is not worth over 650.00 in this area

HilltopDaisy · #35 10/24/04, 01:47 PM

Superduperchickenman, I think you need to go back and reread this entire thread from the beginning.

superduperchickenman · #36 10/24/04, 02:34 PM

Return the horse

If Painterswife had taken/stolen the horse I could see your point.

Someone took the horse, if it wasn't painters wife someone did.

However, the horse was seized from a dirtbag (where I come from, we call this hurling rotten eggs, we do this when we don't have valid reason or argument, can't win an argument, we call people names) that didn't feed it. It came to Painterswife starving and ill from a government agency that declared the animals neglected.

Well then, get the agency that made the false allegations to return the horse and compensate painters wife.

She nursed the filly back to health. The dirtbag somehow gets found not guilty over four months ago, never contacts anyone regarding "his" horse, liens were filed for it's care, and you're saying she's stealing the horse from its rightful owner. Five months of board at $150.00 a month (low in my area) is $750.00 since the dirtbag was found not quilty. The horse may or may not even be worth $750.00. In my book, the dirtbag has stolen $750 worth of service from Painterswife. She may have donated her time and money while the dirtbag was being charged and during the trial but after he was found not quilty he is required to pay upkeep on the horse. It's perfectly legal for her to accept the horse in lieu of compensation.

dirtbag, dirtbag, dirtbag,,, i.e. hurling rotten eggs.

Let the agency that made the false allegations pay the price or buy her a horse. Painters Lady nor An innocent man shouldn't be made to pay the price/suffer because an "agency" made false allegations.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please answer my first questions.

then answer these.

Horse Seized in early 2003
How did you get involved?

Found not guilty June 2003
why didn't the persons that siezed the horse take him back right away?

Leins filed Nov 2003
why hadn't the horse been returned?

It's now Oct 2004
why hasn't the horse been returned?

The horse is not worth over 650.00 in this area
what does this have to do with, the horse isn't yours to keep?

Did you ever think, he might not want to sell the horse, or maybe it's you? I mean, If someone was going around town calling me a scumbag I wouldn't want to sell them my horse.

painterswife · #37 10/24/04, 03:37 PM

I have not called him any names or bad mouthed him to anyone where I live. I do not even know him. I live half an hour from where he does. The drug problem seems to be common knowledge and is from some kind of drug convictions he and family members have had.

The Sherrif seized the horses on recomandation of a Vet who had been to the property on two occasions with the sherrif, I beleive several weeks apart.

There was article in the paper asking for people to help care for the horses. I offered to do that for one of the horses.

I do not know why he did not take the horse back right away. I have heard that he had court bills to pay before they were released but that is just hearsay and I have no first hand knowlege.

I was not contacted by in any way from the end of the trial until after the leins were filed.

I was not ever asked for the horse back until Friday. At that time his lawyer had posted a cash bond to satisfy the leins. I agreed to hand back the horse. No problem. It was a legal, the courts would decide who owed and if they did any funds for the care of the horse

I have had this horse for over a year since the end of the court case.

I never withheld this horse at any time. He never asked for it back. I have never talked to his lawyer or him. I hold no ill will against him.

I do however think that the right thing is that someone is respnsible for the care and feeding of this horse. At the very least from the end of the trial on.

I was asked to care for this horse until the case went to court. Funny thing is I still have it. No one has come to get it.

If it was my horse, I would have been there the next day.

This horse may still go back. I don't know. I don't need another horse and most likely if for some reason it becomes mine,( because of the courts or whatever) we be looking for a good home for her.

The 650.oo is what the horse might sell for. That courts here would sell the horse use the money to pay the lein if that is what the courts decide
I was saying that amount would not cover my costs in the care feeding and vet bills.

Have I answered your question?

Can you tell me why my story makes you so mad at me?

Irish Pixie · #38 10/24/04, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superduperchickenman

[COLOR=Red]dirtbag, dirtbag, dirtbag,,, i.e. hurling rotten eggs.

Where I come from anyone that doesn't feed their stock and lets them starve is a dirtbag. Dead animals, starving animals = dirtbag. Shoe fits.

I'm not going to argue with you anymore...kinda like hitting my head against the wall and I'm not into pain. Painterswife has the right to be compensated for caring for this filly.

Stacy in NY

cafeaulaitinfj · #39 10/24/04, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superduperchickenman

what's wrong with you people?
the system works only when your side wins?
I say the system never works, that there is a better way. i.e. love thy neighbor. not his horse, not his possesions. thou shalt not covet. Help him re-build his fences. NOT GUILTY. what is love? doing a good deed and expecting to be paid for it?

yes, and when the owner was found guilty those people are compensated. That makes them employees, paid for a service. Is that good?

So, if I take my neighbors ass, feed it, doctor it, care for it, and the judge says, return it. It's not yours, I'm supposed to be compensated? Or will I count my lucky stars that I'm not being charged with a theft?

accepted legal maneuver? animal abuser? What lawless individual came up with this scheme? what cycle? NOT GUILTY. Is this good?

addiction? where's your proof? ill-cared for? where's your proof? Who testified against this man at the trial? I see lots of allegations. Did one of you posters testify in behalf of the state against this man?

You can't white wash "stealing or ill gotten money" with innuendo, unacceptable legal wranglings, so called "good intentions".

I've some questions?
Has he not recieved his horses back yet because of so called "accepted legal maneuvers"?

Have the people who took the horses in the first place loaded them up and driven them back?

Or are thehorses locked up behind padlocked gates unaccessable to their true owner?

Why weren't the STATES witnesses believed at the trial? Were that uncreditable?

When did volunteers start expecting to be compensated?

Why hasn't the STATE compensated you for your work, Did you enter into a contract with the Humane Society or locol government (sign contracts) whereby they would not compensate?

Really, who's responsibilty was it to return the horse promptly. In order to relieve you of your burden?
1) The ones who took the horse in the first place?
2) The man who was put throu this ordeal? Who you redily admit has no money or limited means?

Is this a case of class warfare? Where the rich take from the poor because the poor is disadvantaged due to his lack of education, finances, condition of his home, etc... but this time it backfired?

Love thy neighbor, thou shalt not covet, thou shalt not steal,,,

cursed are ye lawyers, you hold the keys (you know the Law) .... you entered not yourselves (you don't apply it) and them that were entering in you hindered (you do your best to keep those that want to keep the Law from doing so)...

you lay people with grievous burdens (bad laws/man made traditions) , and you yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

Love thy neighbor, thou shalt not covet, thou shalt not steal,,,

2 Samual 12:1-7

So are you saying the state is good and just or are you saying the rich use the state for their own means? It sounds like you are saying both, which is somewhat contradictory.

I suspect you or someone you care about has had a bad experience with something like this.
So have I in another area. Sometimes the law screws you over because you don't have enough money. They punish you for being poor without offering to help or they try to help by taking over your life. And you're doing the best you can, but stuff still happens. I do know that that kind of thing happens.

There are other times when someone has the right connections and/or resources so they get away with murder. (Which sound more like the case here to me.)

You're right, we can't know for sure what's going on here b/c we are only getting one side. Maybe the guy was doing the best he could, wasn't physically well (instead of being a druggie or maybe he doesn't want to be a druggie, but doesn't know how to stop), and didn't have the means to take care of his animals. Maybe he was intimidated or felt intruded upon by the help that was offered (assuming there was help offered). That's possible. So he was unable to do anything to keep his animals from being confiscated. NOW, say all this is the case, he would most likely have not had a snowballs chance in court. He wouldn't have been able to hire a decent defense attorney and his appointed attorney would most likely would not have been able to help him, even if he'd tried. The state would have beat him hands down unless there was some miraculous incident of justice against all odds. It could happen. It's just unlikely.

Of course it's wrong to covet and it's wrong to steal. Now if painterswife had driven by this guy's place, seen this horse that she really liked and wanted, then called the animal cops out in hopes of getting her, that would be what I would consider coveting and theft, as well as deception. It sounds more like she's a good samaratin who was worried about a horse that she cared for and became attached to. It just isn't the same thing in my book.

She didn't take her neighbor's horse. The gov did. After they took it, they needed a place for it to go. Painterswife said she could take it in for awhile. The gov did not win the case, for whatever reason. Painterswife is sorry to see the horse to go back to a place where it may not be well cared for.

I think you are reading a lot into this situation that just is not there.

What if, just what if, painterswife is right on and you are tearing her guts out for caring and doing the right thing?

superduperchickenman · #40 10/24/04, 05:24 PM

No, you have been very thorough in your reply. Why am I mad at you? I'm not.

But I do see divers means have been employed to withold from this man his property.

I've seen a mob become angry with this man and they don't even know him,over a horse, they've cursed, persecuted, condemned, lied about, slandered, hated, advocated violence, need I say more?

I see that nobody has made an effort to return the horses, you only heard that they were being returned this past friday, while you mave suffered some damages from this legal fiasco, I'm sure the other party has suffered finiancially as well. I'm sure both parties have spent well beyond the value of these horses in ironing out the issues. He's innocent. (NOT GUILTY; innocent or he had a legal defense for his actions) Return the horse. (the people that brought you the horse should return it.)

In the end, someone will end up with the horse. Whither justice prevails or not, who can say, but, you are not the only victim here.