Rosanne did have a contract in place, however what isn't understood here is that Diane and Rosanne "were" friends. The friendship was dishonored. It's a situation where friendship and trust took a backseat to money.

Diane is the one to blame! Plain and simple. You cannot blame the others if they did not know. Marshall may have ended up in the wrong hands, but it was Diane who placed him there and no one else! Did Rosemark's contract state right to first refusal or that Marshall had to be given back to her, if he was ever rehomed? Or he had to be altered before being rehomed, if Rosemark could not take him back?

I do feel extremely sad for Rosemark, but there is only one person to blame.

That is something you'll have to ask Rosanne. We are close, but I've never asked to see her contract.

I will say that I have sold a show dog, my breeding and the person that I sold the dog to went to my breeder to obtain permission to have her lines. She did not want to ever be viewed as obtaining a pedigree via the backdoor. That's pretty much how it should be, when done correctly.

Now thats just wrong, IMO. How sad. I guess I didnt read the part that she did have a contract. My bad. Rosanne must be soooo hurt by this whole thing.

Yes and so many others.

It says it in early posts. This is why I'm really upset. It's not about then it's about now. You can go through legal. But is Sue really this mean? Is she actually going to do this? I wasn't being mean to her, as my early posts reflect, if she did not know I think I even said I felt bad for her. But now there are so many people that are absolutely devastated. Why are we going through this? She SAID she had good intentions for him. By the looks of things, the whole thing was masterminded, all planned out. The puppy market is slow so import Rosanne's little boy. He's not a money maker. Championing is about a bond spent earning such title that says you thought even of your dog to put a title on him, not a cash cow. It doesn't increase the value of the dog. The value lies in the breeders heart.

Roseanne spent her whole entire life trying to figure out how to do this. All for what? Have you ever bred a show dog? How about his parents? To get up every day, take him out on a lead over, over. Evaluate him. The bridge of helping another person that wanted the same dream or so she thought. See, somebody helps each of us. We're called to help others. To be betrayed and deceived then knowing all of it was done for what?

Can I please ask what you believe is the "right thing" that Sue should do?

How you and others view the people involved is your right. However, what is not right in my opinion is to write all this information using peoples legal full names as has been done as well as Kennel names. Doing this on the internet for the world to see in my opinion is unethical. There is private messaging on YT and that should be used to discuss this matter if need be. This has been my whole point all along in my postings

My question was not about your connection with Marshall and his breeder. My question was regarding the 3 other people you have posted many things about and I quote "You're right and really wish Marshall had the ability to speak/act in his own behalf. In 3 seperate homes since October; 2 of which have only the goal on capitilizing on his Championship and background. One I we know had in excess of 30 dogs, not all of one breed. This is the home he's in now. He also was kept in a barn during the winter months.

But, lets not excuse the original owner that sold him, all in the name of money." This is what you said correct? You also said many other things about the other 2 ladies involved using their Legal names correct? So my question was and is are you sure about what you are saying? Do you have your facts straight before you post things that could destroy someone's reputation?
__________________

How could making people aware of this fact be unethical? If I were buying a dog from a breeder, I would want to know if she got the line ethically or unethically. This says a lot about the breeder and her values. Someone who gets a line via the back door and without the original breeders blessings, should return the dog to original breeder.

Now you are changing your story. You wanted these answers before didn't you? Now you don't care? What, on with the next round of questions? Why? What about Marshall? You seem to be more concerned on the online image of what has happened than the events. This is bothersome to me. I don't know why you come here posting questions expecting answers. We want answers. Do you have any? You've received plenty of information for your questions already. Why do you continue to keep asking?

We all know the right thing to do. This is just getting worst as time goes on. It would not matter if Marshall went to live in the greatest situation (which I know is absolutely FAR FROM THE TRUTH). The breeder did not give him up to sell. He should not be out where he is.

Golddust, DO YOU KNOW WHAT HE'S BEEN THROUGH? DO YOU KNOW WHAT TYPE OF "HOME" HE'S BEEN IN?

Why are YOU asking so many questions? You seem to have no emotions for anyone in this.

Now I wanted to quote the original poster here to make sure that I got this right. The OP states that she DID NOT have a contract with this dog. She sold him with full registration. She trusted this person and that person broke her trust and she will now change her ways of selling show dogs and maintain co-ownership. She then tells Crestwing she is happy that Crestwing loves Marshall Dillon and that she breeds him wisely and for the betterment of the breed. Then further states that she knows that Marshall is capable of producing wonderful puppies when bred correctly.

WHY THE ANGRY COMMENTS?? Do any of you know how the Crestwing lady intends to breed this boy? Have any of you asked?
Then people come on her and start calling people unethical? Do you know that person? Have you seen their ethics first hand? Where did you get your information? Is it reliable? Proof?

I do not know any of the people involved in this. Maybe I should just turn cheek and mind my own, but I cannot seem to do that in this case.

Why such angry comments about the person who obtained Marshall Dillon? How do you know she does not intend to breed him correctly. Maybe I looked at the wrong website, but her adults have some names in their pedigrees ( CH Stardust Spirit Of Bluegrass, Ch. Ron-Del's Lil' Bita Nitro and dam is Ch. Ron-Del's Lil Bita Sparkler, Lil' Blast Jordan Of Siller's Farms out of Ch. Ron-Del's Lil' Bita TNT and M-N-M's Chase A Bunny whose sire is Ch. Chobie's Chu Bear, h. Glenmar's Lord Of The Rings and Ch. Glenmar Ribbons and Roses, CAN CH Glaranik Star Choice, ROM and his dam is CAN CH Precious Gem Shatzi Gold). They may not be the names you might chose to breed, however these people took the time and championed out their dogs. They bred them and placed pups that got into this "unethical" persons hands?? It seems like she is obtaining the best she can to have a chance in producing a champion. She at least said that in her post. Maybe there is something that I am just not seeing.
The OP clearly states she hopes that Marshall Dillon can produce wonderful puppies when bred to a quality bitch. Who is to say that with the above names in her dogs pedigrees that her bitches are not quality. I have not seen them, HAVE YOU?

I have really lost a lot of faith in some of the people on here :thumbdown:thumbdown:thumbdown

Will also add this from a legal website so that people might stop and read what they wrote:
Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.

Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:

A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
Damage to the plaintiff.
In the context of defamation law, a statement is "published" when it is made to the third party. That term does not mean that the statement has to be in print.

Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish.

Did you see her website before she took off the information about a couple of pups being a "rare" chocolate parti?

It sounds like one seller sold to her directly - but the rest seem to have Ch's from back a couple of generations (grandsire). Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Marshall is the only Champion - the rest are sired by one. That's the difference.

WHO is trying to get Marshall back???