Happy, careful what you say, Pam was not a plaintiff in this lawsuit, and you don't clarify that but make it look like "she" took what you thought was yours. Your free choice to do bidding and buying, but this was a court decision, and was court ordered, and not her lawsuit. Good to retract things like that.
If you'd like to provide a document number for this appeal, then you put that on this forum, unless you don't be careful about hear say information and your ultimate involvement.
Do yourself and me a favor, get me a copy of that appeal, or the number and I'll get you a copy.
Carol - I called Tom and requested permission to post the number for the Petition for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, NO.2007 SU 1061-Y01. This appeal was filed by Tom to stop Pam and Gene from selling the horses they had confiscated, claiming they were in the process of filing a suit that included an agisters lein. They strategically waited until after this hearing to file their suit against Tom, and when that lawsuit was finally filed, the agister's lein was NOT a part of it, because it didn't exist. I also have a copy of that suit, but you can get it from Pam, since you are such close gossip buddies.
The final outcome of that petition hearing is available to the public if you call the York County court of common please office, and pay them 10 bucks. They'll send a copy right to you. I won't post it here although I have it in electronic form, because the details that don't pertain to me, are not my business to publish.
I will tell you that that ruling Clearly states that I provided evidence IN COURT UNDER OATH in the form of their RMHA registration papers, cancelled checks and a bill of sale, that those 2 colts were MINE, MONTHS BEFORE they were confiscated, and should not have been included in any sale Pam and Gene may have been entitled to, because these babies were no loger Tom's. Coincidentally, well prior to the hearing, Pam and Gene allowed me to "have" my Palomino mare, and NOT the two colts, although I provided the exact same proof of purchase for all three horses.....curious don't you think? They kept the promising colts and not the 12 y/o broodmare?
In a petition of this type, the only way an owner can win a permanent injunction for no sale is for the owner to prove the item is "invaluable" and can't have a dollar amount placed on it.
The judge ruled that since the colts had a declared value, that value could be recouped in a civil lawsuit, and that I should sue Gene and Pam to regain my losses.
What it did NOT do was give them permission to actually SELL the horses I had already purchased, and had tried to retrieve prior to a March 31st deadline, but couldn't get on the property to get, because of altercations between Tom and Gene/Pam (pictures like you already have, emailed to you by Pam). The judge specifically noted in his ruling that I had provided solid proof that they were MINE and not Tom's, yet they STILL sold them, KNOWING that. Now, what would you call that?? I would encourage you to pay the 10 bucks and read it for yourself.
As soon as the hearing was over, Pam called Ruth at the RMHA, and told her to reissue the paperwork on them, because they had a "court order" stating they could be sold. Subsequently, they sold those colts to the Appels with re-issued paperwork.
Their names are: KY Joe RMHA number 2006014320, and;
RRF's Captain Hook RMHA number 2006014498.
I STILL hold the ORIGINAL RMHA paperwork on both colts. Go ahead and give Ruth a call and ask her if she has a copy of an actual court order telling her MY colts could be sold, or a copy of an agisters lein. THEN talk to me about how Pam/Gene are "victims" and I'm not.