HELP with AKC - Page 13

Like sands through the hourglass.....oh hell,you all know the rest! I cannot believe the drama that unfolds here so regularly these days! Not new for sure,but it gets old very quickly!!  I will just throw in my 2 cents worth,since this thread seems to be a free-for-all....I have known Daniela Huppe for a few years now (and yes,that means that we have ACTUALLY MET IN PERSON!!!) and I just have to say that I am hardpressed to buy some of the crap that is spewed here as nothing more than a character assassination!!  Daniela, aside from being one of the MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE people ever to contribute to this board,has and does show tirelessly,the quality of her character and does not deserve to be drug through the mud in such a public way!  I first contacted her via the PDB to inquire about training. She returned emails and phone calls promptly and was very forthright in terms of what she could and could not offer.....I appreciated that then,and still do! More importantly she has shared very generously her profound knowledge of this breed that we all profess to love so much,as well as her knowledge of training and canine behavior.

Over the course of 2 Sieger shows and countless hours on the phone discussing just about everything under the sun,we have established a very good rapport and she is someone that I can call upon at a moment's notice for input on any number of topics. And with a very healthy,real world perspective! Not that easy to find these days. The only piece of advice that I did not take from her, I have and do regret profoundly ! But that is stuff for another thread (which may be soon forthcoming...). All of this I should say,Daniela has done without expecting or requiring one red penny or promise in return!

Given what I know of Daniela (and it is probably fair to say that I know her at least as well as some of the bashers) I could'nt read this thread and not comment on the kind of person that she is. I would think that others who know her would offer some support as well, as I know for a fact that she has helped many on this board! It's times like this when you find out who is in your corner.....I am certainly in Daniela's !!

Kenneth Gantt

Daniela..you are full of a continual supply of untruths.  You must be sitting all day pouring over the wording of every document you believe will bring in some cash to you, and reinterpret them into your own favour? Your interpretation of the above is a stretch at best...it says..."on the condition of sale from his original owner to you"...not..."on the condition of sale to you from his original owner".  That means that he was "transferred" under conditions set forth by his owner.  I know the terms of this dog coming over to the US.  I've seen the letter from the previous owner...and yes, Nando was GIVEN AWAY...But not to you.  He was initially advertised for sale FOR FREE..with certain conditions   According to his letter you were acting as agent of the sale, as is clearly spelled out in the letter presented by Nando's owner to the SV, stating he wanted the dog to be under the ownership of Kim. Agents and brokers often write in their name during the transfer process of the dog to another buyer, but the honest brokers write in the name of the intended new owner, not just leave their name there, becoming the dog's new owner instead!!
 
According to prev. owner's conditions, Nando was to remain in a forever home and was not to be removed once placed there.  You agreed to bring the dog over on those terms, and believed from the beginning that his forever home should be KIMS home, otherwise you would have never had him be sent there in the first place...and this is therefore where he should remain till he dies, as was one of the conditions of his placement.  You can't just change this condition because you want to take possession of him now.  You tried to instead SELL Nando.  He had never been in your care, you knew the kind of care he was receiving at Kims, yet you decided you would Sign him over to Jonathan to prevent Kim from getting the litters registered. You prevented the SV from putting Nando in Kims name as the owner stated he wanted done, with your "attorney Buddy's" simple letter in which he directs them to ignore Kim's court order. And why does that make everything come to a halt,  when you have no evidence of proof of claim to the dog? And you even contradict yourself further in not supplying papers to Kim by saying that Kim says she was leasing Nando.  In reality if she was, then she would yet again be entitled to having right to the papers for Nando within your lease terms, so that she has the right to sign off on the litters as leasing owner.  Either way she is entitled to papers for Nando, showing at least partial interest and ownership rights in the dog for his use as stud,  from the time he arrived to her.  That was the deal.  It's obvious that you believe you are the only one who is to show a return or profit, on each and every deal you do, at everyone else's expense.  Let us all hear your reasons why you still have not supplied me with the papers on the dog Gesi you sold me for breeding?? To refresh your memory..I deposited the full amount for her, $5,500.00 and oh, I also paid you for the shipping cost $440.00, (that Kim actually paid out of pocket on your behalf) deposited directly, in cash, into your bank account in Washington, just outside the canadian border in Blaine? 

Your references in your critiques of your  email postings above...how Nando was shooting blanks when he was bred to Gesi...ooops...I thought you said G wasn't bred before, she only had outside ties..was quite a different story you portrayed to me from what I later learned, and that was that G was mated under the supervision of Kim herself, at your direction and with two different males including Nando, both times coming up empty. Later you lied about Gina, Gesi's sister saying that she had produced two litters for the new owner in Holland...but he seems to disagree with that story DH..he said that he bred her twice, to two differnt studs, came up empty both times,,,then did an AI...empty again, and he also had his female spayed and placed her in a pet home. 

What is it you think people should actually get when they buy a dog from you Daniela?...
Lots and Lots of very descriptive and knowledgeable emails about the dog they are paying you for?

To recap...Gesi was in the US for somewhere near a year before I bought her...you didn't register her with AKC because you didn't have your name on her paperwork: of course I found out this fact well after my purchase...and once I paid for her, you continued to string me along for 4 or 5 more months assuring me that papers were in the works...then...finally, you told me your trainer (who I found out was David Buss) had sent, at your request, the paperwork for MY dog to your father in Germany, for "safe keeping" as you said to me...I contacted Mr. Buss, who assured me he would send me the contact info for your father so I could request he send them back to me directly...imagine...he never did send me that contact info for your father.   But he did have a good laugh at my expense,when he found out what you clipped me for in the purchase price you got on Gesi...

And can you explain why you would have sent Gesi's paperwork to your father ?...Wasn't the next step after you get my money to send ME those papers?  Oooopps, Sabine stated that you had tried to supply her with a personal, written letter showing transfer of ownership for Gesi over to my name.  I guess you thought that would be better than actually having to get her papers from the owner... But Sabine informed you that this was not the proper paperwork required for doing a transfer of ownership, (Like you wouldn't know THAT!!)  and ooops.....that you were not the registered owner of record of the dog Gesi that you sold to me and took all that cash for...

Hi Yevette,

      If you noticed we haven't posted in a couple of days. We were hoping the thread would die down and just let the lawyers or themselves figure it out. It's a lot of he said she said. As far as reading my SchH3 article, cool. That's what it was there for :) By the way the year was wrong. He got his IPO3 in 2007. Hope everything works out.

    Mark

P.S. we're real people too.

This is so simple, Retired means-no more work of any kind, that means also no breeding! So what is the problem? If he is a pet dog now you don't need paper work! Greed is the root of all evil! Kim is right, retired, no work no breeding, so no need for paper work! Problem solved! That is what Kim said, so now, who is greedy? Who bred the dog? Did D.H. breed the dog? Answer the questions and you will have the one that is at fault for this problem! One more question, Who made any money on this dog? Simple!!!!!!!!!!!!

bump for la

All I have to add, is   D H is a bold face liar.....

YR

 greatestgsd

We must assume that in posting what you state here that you are only trying to help..This is so simple, Retired means-no more work of any kind, that means also no breeding! So what is the problem? If he is a pet dog now you don't need paper work! Greed is the root of all evil! Kim is right, retired, no work no breeding, so no need for paper work! Problem solved! That is what Kim said, so now, who is greedy? Who bred the dog? Did D.H. breed the dog? Answer the questions and you will have the one that is at fault for this problem! One more question, Who made any money on this dog? Simple!!!!!!!!!!!!.

But yet again, you don't have nearly all the facts.  Breeding was definately an approved condition of the gifting by Nando's owner, stating that he wanted to allow him to be able to breed and be used for stud. 
 And since you brought this up,  this was also the main reason that Daniela agreed that Kim would be part owner of Nando shortly after he arrived to Kims...

You might have noticed the gap in Daniela;s posting of emails above..

It is highly probablle that Kim's part ownership of Nando most likely became necessary at some point to be revisited by Kim,  to FULL OWNERSHIP, due to the many other dogs which Daniela had placed into Kim's care.
These dogs of Daniela's also remained under Kims care for quite a length of time,  without usual and customary reimbursement to Kim for costs incurred by her in order to house these additional animals.  

Hi Mark, 
I just wanted to clarify some points from your post below.., 

----DDR, papers are important because she paid 1,800 for a fullbred GSD from a breeder that were suppose to have papers. If she didn't want papers she could of adopted a dog. The dog has a natural nose for tracking and could do a BH in the future. Why should she do things like this and then have a score book that says MUTT/MIX BREED. An $1,800 MUTT. Come on. Why are you putting so much effort into a post that really doesn't concern you? Pretty interesting emails i just read above. I have nothing against you DDR but stop with the "it's ok not to have papers". Maybe for you but not for everyone.

I didn't say papers are not important...they are very important, and every dog I own is registered...
with one exception:  Gesi von uns Heimaturt, sold to me by Daniela Huppe. 

But you did purchase Voxi with limited registration. I never said anyting about her being a mutt...and she would not be presented as one with a pedigree which shows parentage.  You can DNA test to show proof of parentage for those who wish to continue to say she is a mutt..  If she is worthy of obtaining her title, and can be successful in this endeavour, Kim can upgrade eventual paperwork to full registration, making her eventually titled, AND breedable.  You know why Voxi's paper problem exists...and you also now have been shown that Kim is not the cause for this problem. I understand not having papers can delay your plans to obtain titles on Voxi, but you will benefit in the end by showing patience toward Kim, while Kim works toward obtaining papers for this and her other litters.

Mark..this thread post concerns me a great deal. I have been deliberately scammed by Daniela, overall I have invested over $9,000.00 into purchase price and vet costs for the dog she sold me, by time all is said and done. 
BUT>> I refuse to sit by and watch DH rip off one more buyer as she has Kim,  myself and others before / after us without doing everything possible to bring her to be made accountable. The attitude that it isn't "my/your/their problem is exactly the problem, and this remains the biggest reason why Daniela continues to conduct her fraudulent business without consequences, as she has for all these years. 
If you all sit back and do nothing, she will certainly continue.  To me that is much like knowing your neighbor is beating his wife every night, or the stepfather down the block is molesting his stepdaughter...and you do nothing to stop it...but hey, it doesn't involve you or your loved ones so "not my responsibility".  I believe it is all of our responsibility, to protect others that we know or suspect are in harms way...We all benefit in doing what is right by others.  It may not be the easiest road but it is important that we all put forth the integrity that we all possess inside, and to stand up and do what is right.