Justice for Gracie the ICT affected Puppy (2024)

31/08/2022

Part 9:

And so, in conclusion I ask you all to ask yourselves, is this a “witch hunt” against this poor victimized Defendant by members of the MHGRC and the GRCA? Or is it just maybe plausible that the Hearing committee and the GRCA Board determined that the actions, and intent of the Defendant were so deplorable that they warranted EXPULSION from the GRCA.

For those of you still willing to stand behind the Defendant and call her a victim, I ask you to put yourselves in the shoes of the Dam Owners that bred to what they were told was a genetically clear stud dog, when in fact, he was a carrier of ICT and in the case of Gracie’s breeder, ended up with an ICT affected puppy that as you can see in the profile picture was severely symptomatic as young as 8 weeks old.

So again, who is the victim in this situation, the Defendant or the DAM OWNER!!!!!!! I believe the majority of those of you that read this will agree it most certainly is not the Defendant.

I hope many of you will be at the GRCA annual meeting and will make an informed decision and vote based on the facts as you have seen them here and not based on the stories, rumors, or gossip that you have been told.

This is not just about producing an affected puppy, nor is it the same as two owners deciding to intentionally breed 2 ICT Carriers. This is about a fraud, a deceit, a CRIME of forgery, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, the appearance of an INTENT to defraud and deceive other Dam Owners in the future.

I believe it is because of this INTENT that the GRCA Hearing Committee and Board is recommending EXPULSION.

31/08/2022

Part 8:

So what have we learned? What FACTS have we seen for ourselves? Well, let’s recap shall we.

Here are the undisputable facts:

1. The defendant sent the dam owner a Paw Print Certificate for “Homer” via FB Messenger Chat. - Fact

2. Paw Print says that note only has “Homer” never been tested through them, but that the Defendant hasn’t tested ANY dogs through Paw Print and that the information on the purported report for Homer belongs to a dog named Zach. - Fact

3. Paw Print deems the Certificate on Homer “Not Valid” and “Fraudulent”. – Fact

4. The purported Report on Homer contains a microchip number that is no where close to the microchip number “scanned and verified” on Homer’s Eye Certificate, but rather it contains a microchip number that is identical to “Zach” with the exception of missing a “3”. And let’s not forget that the laboratory report # is also assigned to “Zach” – Fact

5. The Defendant states that she is going to treat “Homer” as an ICT Carrier, regardless of pending test results from UC Davis and admits that “He HAS to be” a Carrier because the litter also produced clear and carrier puppies as well as the affected puppy. – Fact

6. The Defendant logs in to K9data.com and changes the health clearance profile for “Homer” from “Clear by Parentage” to “Clear by Paw Print” one hour after making this statement. – Fact

7. The Defendant NEVER removed the fraudulent profile from K9data.com, ultimately it required removal by an administrator of the site to protect other possible Dam owners from the same fate. – Fact

8. The Defendant then responds to being caught producing a forged document by offering “hush” money to the Dam owner attempting to by her silence from reporting this unethical and prejudicial conduct to the AKC, UKC, MHGRC and GRCA. – Fact

9. The Defendant admitted that she has, “had nothing but positive things to say about you.”, in reference to her dealings with the Dam owner. – Fact

These are the undisputed, verifiable FACTS in this horrible situation. Now let’s turn our attention to the conclusion part of this story.

Remember me telling you to ask yourself “why would the Defendant change the K9data.com profile for “Homer” to Clear by Paw Print? Well, that answer should be obvious by now.

She changed the profile because she was proud of the forgery she created. She believed it was good enough to pass most “sniff” tests.

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT SHOWS THAT SHE INTENDED TO USE THIS FORGED DOCUMENT IN THE FUTURE TO PASS OFF “HOMER” AS A GENETICALLY CLEAR STUD DOG.

Are you not incensed at this possibility??? I know I am.

Read on to Part 9 for the conclusion.

31/08/2022

Part 7:

Now let’s see how the Defendant responded when confronted with producing a “fraudulent and forged” health clearance on Homer to the dam owner. Did she apologize? No. Did she offer to make things as right as possible? No. You might be asking yourself, what did she do? How did she respond. Read the attached for yourselves.

Let’s point out the fact that when speaking about the Dam owner, she admits, “I will be clear, I have not, nor will I ever speak poorly of you, I have had nothing but positive things to say about you.”.
So, who is really the victim in this whole messed up situation? Is it the Defendant who claims that she is the victim of some “witch hunt” or is it the Dam owner who was defrauded by the Defendant, and through no fault of her own, bred an ICT affected puppy when that was the first and most important criteria to avoid in her search for a suitable stud.

Don’t forget to continue on to Part 8 where everything gets wrapped up with a nice little bow.

31/08/2022

Part 6:

So let’s see what Paw Print Genetics has to say about all of this.

Attached you will find the email that was sent to the Dam owner advising that the Health Certificate provided by the Defendant is “NOT VALID” it is “FRAUDULENT”.

Also attached is an email from Paw Print provided to the Mile High Golden Retriever Club during their investigation stating that, “She [the Defendant] has never tested any dogs with us.” and that “the certificate is clearly fraudulent because dog Homer was never tested by us and the laboratory number and date on the certificate belong to a different customer’s dog [Zach].”.

I’ll just leave this right here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

31/08/2022

Part 5: Photos of documents referenced in Part 4.

31/08/2022

Part 4:

So now let's go back to another screenshot of the FB Messenger chat wherein on July 29, 2021 between 9:01 pm and 9:08 pm, the Defendant says that she is testing "Homer" through UC Davis. She also says "He HAS to be. I agree." [an ICT Carrier] since the litter produced clears, carriers, and affected puppies.

Pay attention to this timeline folks......

At 9:08 pm on Thursday July 29, 2021, the Defendant says, "I don't care what results I get from UC Davis, I'm treating him as a carrier.".

Now switch over to Homer's K9data.com profile. You can find it at this link and verify all of this yourselves. Seriously, clink on the link and get informed, don't take my word for it. Scroll all the way to the bottom of the page and click on "View change history". https://k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=605004

Alright, so lets look at this change history on July 29, 2021. We see that the Defendant logged in and changed the health clearances from "Clear by Parentage" to "Clear by Paw Print"; that's right, you read that correctly, but wait there's more. The logged in time is 10:19 pm. But wait just a sec, didn't she just say at 9:08 pm, a mere hour before, that she didn't care what the results were from UC Davis, she's "treating him as a carrier.". Yes, you are remembering that correctly. But go back and re-read the documents. Make sure you got it right.

It is important to note that the Defendant NEVER went in and removed this inaccurate and "fraudulent" information. It wasn't removed from this public database until an administrator was made aware of the situation that the information was removed on August 9, 2021. Now I ask you to ask yourselves, 1. Why was the information changed to clearances by Paw Print to begin with, and 2. why didn't the Defendant go in and remove the information......

Have you answered those questions yet? I'll tell you my answers in the finale.

Continue on to Part 5 for the documents referenced in this Part 4.. Things are getting good......

31/08/2022

Part 3: Compare the Microchip number from the "forged" Paw Print Report in Part 1 to the Microchip number assigned to the same dog "Homer" on the eye clearance report provided by the Defendant to the Dam Owner.

Still not convinced that the Defendant provided dam owner with a forged health certificate resulting in an ICT affected puppy that the dam owner was adamantly and ethically trying to avoid happening?

Continue on to Part 4 for more evidence.

31/08/2022

Part 2: More evidence of forged Paw Print Certificate. Compare the Microchip number and Lab Report Number (4504) from the "forged" Paw Print Certificate attached to Part 1, to the the publicly available Report for the real dog assigned that lab report number and microchip number "Zach" attached and viewable at: https://www.pawprintgenetics.com/pedigrees/dogs/details/338/

You can clearly see that the results are for Zach, the microchip number (minus the missing "3") belongs to Zach, the Laboratory Report # belongs to Zach.

31/08/2022

Part 1: For all the Golden People saying that there is a "witch hunt" going on by members of the Mile High Golden Retriever Club and the Golden Retriever Club of America against Defendant Jennifer DeLaurent my hope is that seeing the evidence for yourselves will not only prove that the Complaints filed against Jennifer were based on provable facts, but more importantly that the findings and disciplinary recommendation of the GRCA is absolutely founded and reasonable under the circumstances.

Let's start of with a screenshot of the FB Chat wherein Jennifer sends a copy of a Paw Print Genetic Certificate to Traci, the Dam Owner.

Now when you look at the actual Certificate, compare the "color coded circled fonts" and ask yourselves why would a company use different fonts throughout their certificates? Pull out your own certificates and review them and see if any of your certificates from Paw Print contain different fonts. The answer is no, they don't use different fonts and none of your certificates contain different fonts.

This is 1 way we know this Certificate to be a forgery.. More evidence will also support this fact. Stay tuned.

Justice for Gracie the ICT affected Puppy

31/08/2022

31/08/2022

31/08/2022

31/08/2022

31/08/2022

31/08/2022

31/08/2022

31/08/2022

31/08/2022

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share