Petshack Chihuahua's Nancy White review: Sells Sick Dogs 225

I will say this once again, and I'm sure alot of people will agree, if you check out these breeders sites, you will see, they are exactly what everyone is saying about them.They do not show these dogs, nor do they try to better the breed, they are, in it for the money, and that is all.SAVE A DOG AND ADOPT DO NOT BUY. http://pdfcast.org/pdf/robert-chris-taylor

stupidassbybs666 where in the hell did you read that? This is how ### gets turned around from ###s like yourself.

puppy mills & bybs SUCK! i find it funny, she says she rescues, and when she does, and gets a pure breed female that is not spayed, she breeds the dog, to make money off the pups.How sad it that.

What a cute picture JDH55, love it! Wouldn't that be hilarious if dogs actually had real hair like that with their ears barely poking out on the top? Think of the hair styles we as owners would try to pull off! Our pets would hate us. Lmfao . . . .

Thank you Nancy. It just seemed that you were totally ignoring what I had to say in my first post on this board. There is always two sides to a story and I wanted to hear yours. I apologize if I came down a little harsh on you. As I stated early on in my second post, I am not here to judge anybody by any means. Especially what I do for a living, I'm in no position to do so.

What I'm trying to accomplish with everything that I'm saying here, is that you and Lista have to stop with all this negative clucking back and forth. It gets everybody involved absolutely nowhere! Especially the puppies and dogs! My opinions on breeding, and let me reiterate "opinions" on breeding dogs (and cats) will never change as long as millions upon millions of animals are dying every year in animal shelters across the nation. I'm pretty sure I do not stand alone on this, and many others out there share in my same opinions as well on this matter. I was also wondering if you implement any sort of control over the buyers of your puppies, discouraging them not to breed these dogs, but instead having them spayed and neutered once they're old enough?

That brings me back to my original beef, why do you breed your dogs then if it isn't for the money? I know it's not for you to generate grooming business, because Chihuahuas and Dachshunds do not require much grooming if any, other than the very basic bath from time to time and nail trimmings. Dental cleanings are obviously done by a veterinarian or a trained individual who specializes in non-anesthetic dentals. Also having the knowledge on the tragic pet overpopulation in our animal shelters, not to mention all the families who go through rescues in hopes to have their beloved pet re-homed due to financial hardship through these hard economic times. So why? I'm completely mind boggled! You rescue and you breed, that to me is an oxymoron in which it contradicts itself! I just don't see the point if you're rescuing than why breed? You're not helping matters any if you participate in the latter of the two.

As far as what I do for a living, which should not matter and does not matter when it comes to the well being of animals and animal rights. I am a prostitute! A profession that has been around long before individuals were breeding dogs for profit! I also help in the rescuing of Greyhound dogs from race tracks. I don't plan to remain in the business of selling sex for money, but for now it's what I choose to do to get by. All I know is at the end of the day when I lay down to fall asleep, I am ok with myself and what I do, because I'm not ripping anybody off and most importantly I'm not involved in any way or somehow responsible for the premature deaths in the millions of innocent dogs (and cats) that are living in animal shelters everyday! As far as those pearly gates I mentioned at the end of my second post, here it is. If I'm sent the other way because of what I do for a living, than oh well. I'll be dead! Will I even care? No! I'm alive on this earth right now, and it's right now that matters!

MY remarks are not FALSE! So this is why you have No recourse!.. Thats a joke!

this does not scare me and if you look at my web page ALL my photos including the ones on FB are copyright also. And you Lista took 22 of them and made you own comments on them. Do you really think you are above the law? Is hacking legal ? My Yahoo account was down for 3 weeks due to hacking, and funny during this time you called Farrah telling her you did. I also got letter today from "myspace" saying someone was trying to hack that account also. Let me find out this is you also, Im waiting I have wrote for IP address from whom is trying to hack it. I will find this out trust me.

one last thing Lista ;

this is from other thread ;
voicefortheanimals, 13 hrs 47 mins ago
You are the only lonely people on here Farrah and Petshack! Learn how to spell too! Now that you know it is "Freedom of Speech" Duh then you know I can say what I want about a BAD BUSINESS deal I had with you! You are a Back Yard Breeder and Everyone will know it soon! It is spreading Fast on th einternet I see. You both are making it so bad on yourselves!

Really Lista, you are a "so called "business women ... I beg the differ you do not own a business.. you my friend are a Nurse asst. You wipe butts & empty bed pans... and before that you where a nail tech! These are just a few lies That I will post & show others.

What I will prove is that
You my friend bought a Puppy that was in my shop that you knew my friend ***** bred ... and you talked to him I just happen to give you my guarantee as I stand behind my word unlike you, you never sent the clothes or the money for them that was owed. { don't forget I have it in emails, text & IM's and have copies of all} I wanted to see vet records and my vet has waited.. hmm what 11 months now and still has not got them. So if you puppy that you bought from my shop is what you say then prove it! As the 1st picture is the puppy you bought from my shop{ she sure does look happy & healthy playing } not the one in 2nd picture as you claim { PS head shapes & ears do not change, color sometimes yes}

19 hrs 37 mins ago by cookiecocoaandpants 0 Votes

The pic of the pig and the dog is insulting, but not beneath someone like LISTA LUCY FAIRCLOTH, THAT'S HER PICTURE BELOW! No, you aren't seeing things. She IS dressed up like Lucille Ball. And she isn't going to a costume party. SHE LOOKS LIKE THAT EVERY DAY! She thinks she IS LUCILLE BALL! Even her DOG is named Lucy! This is the SockPuppet Queen who is posting most of the rubbish you see above. Don't know what a Sockpuppet is? A Sockpuppet is a false identity someone uses on the web to conceal who he or she really is. A Troll, goes from forum to forum, just to pick fights. Doesn't matter with who. Trolls are also people who go to websites to talk trash for their friends. By the way, THAT'S CALLED FLAMING! Lista Faircloth has been bad mouthing a friend of mine for some time now, on Facebook, and elsewhere. Her friends have even tried to draw me into it because I said something in my friend's defense. They tried the same shennanigans you're all seeing her, except that I'm NOT Nancy White, and I wouldn't tolerate it. I blocked them, sent copies of their offensive posts to Facebook (who would do nothing, of course), but also to THEIR local authorities. All I needed to do was run their IP numbers, and trace them back to their state and city. Easy. Took all of ten minutes for the lot of them. Each set of IP numbers is totally unique to each and every person. No two people have ever been given the same numbers. Also, there is NO Internet Service Provider with the same numbers. As for you Lista, and I don't care what Sockpuppets you're using today, you need to be aware that you are pushing this into a very dangerous and quite probably, very costly affair. Even though you use a number of different computers to post this stuff, which by the way is actually LIBEL, CHARACTER DEFAMATION, AND SLANDER both things you can be sued for, even though you are using different computers, each post you make is given a unique Date/Time/Location stamp. Each of the computers you used had it's own unique set of IP numbers. Those are the identifying numbers issued to your Internet Service Provider, plus the unique numbers that same provider issues to each account holder. AOL, Earthlink, MSN, your cable company, etc., each as it's own set of numbers that no one else has. It can tell a lawyer, or anyone else looking to track you down, EXACTLY who provides you with internet access, and identify YOU as the owner of the numbers your provider assigned to YOU. It's like ethernet fingerprinting. Cool, huh? Another thing you need to worry about is using those computers in the Courthouse to send this stuff out. Phew! Now that's serious business there! Those Courthouse computers are GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, and misusing them is a CRIME! Even worse, Dear Lista, the Courthouse Computers are ALL on a NETWORK, all attached to one another! Those computers are attached to their own servers, with massive storage capabilities. EACH AND EVERY KEYSTROKE IS RECORDED AND STORE FOR FUTURE REFERENCE. Didn't know that, did 'ya? That's right every key you tapped, every click of the mouse, every photo, or bit of data attached to your messages were recorded and stored. If a lawyer, if Nancy decided to sue you, something I've repeatedly advised her to do, it would take that lawyer only a few moments to pull up, every message you sent, including the precise date and time sent. That's pretty damning evidence. Also there were also mot likely cameras recording the people using those computers as well. Government offices have cameras everywhere. They have to! As for those other computers you've used, you know, friend's computers, computers at work, library computers...they also have identifying numbers. The public library and computers at a worksite are ALWAYS monitored, and transmissions and receptions are recorded for safety. What if you had a serial killer working for you, or maybe a terrorist? Keeping records of all computer usage is a necessary tool in this modern times. And I DO hope you haven't used your own or someone else's IPhone or Blackberry. Heck, those transmissions are nothing more than radio broadcasts, and can be pulled right out of the air with little or no effort at all. The provider services for these devices MUST keep careful records of every message, text, or voice call transmitted. You've got yourself into quite a mess, you see. Every word, of every message you send can be traced right back to you. No one is annoymous on the internet...or anywhere else really. Hooray for the information age! So sorry for Lista Lucy Faircloth! By the way, your post above this one, using the troll name gofurself, is so blatanty obvious. By denying that you know yourself, you point the finger right in your own direction. The FIRST thing any criminal, or anyone else who gets caught in the act, always responds with "Who? I never heard of XYZ! But the remark afterwards, all in caps, you know, the way you type when you're feeling frustrated because things are going your way, clearly identifies you. EVERYONE HAS A STYLE, Lista, a certain way of speaking or writing, and it can't be concealed. Not even a trained actor can do it. And the problem of writing "voice", or writing style has spelled the end for many spies, as well. Your own unique voice comes through with every message you type. Now matter how hard you try to sound like someone else, and really Lista, you DON'T try very hard, you always end up announcing just who you really are. You learn things, when you're working in the legal profession, you know. So, now I hear you are planning to make a one hundred percent, solid gold [censored] of yourself on the "Judge Judy Show". That's all it really is, you know, a SHOW. The program is for entertainment purposes only, and neither Nancy nor Farrah are going to loose more than a few dollars, IF THEY LOSE THE CASE. No one is going to jail. No one is going to be charged with anything, and no one wins or loses. Except the sponsors, of course, and the audience that is going to get one hell of laugh from the entire situation. Damn, aren't the owners of those snooty little dogs a ridiculous buncha loonies? is what everyone watching is going to be thinking. The majority or dog owners in the US consider Chihuahuas overpriced RATS! USELESS TOYS OF RICH WOMEN! In the US we love BIG dogs, Rotweillers ( you know about Rotweiller's don't you, Lista, I mean you DO remember that Rotweiller you HAD PUT TO DEATH, just to keep Nancy from rescuing it!), Dobermans, Labs, Golden Retrievers. THOSE are the popular dogs in the good old USA! Yep, I's say your appearance on Judge Judy is going to be one hell of a show! I know I'm going to record it on my DVR! Better make sure you have COMPLETE AND ACCURATE DOCUMENTATION TO BACK UP EVERY WORD YOU SAY, Lista. Judy DOES know her law. And she CAN spot a Cuckoo like YOU any day of the week. Just start in about the dog you say Nancy bred, but was actually bred by someone else! NANCY Has the papers to prove who DID BREED LIL BELLA LUCY! She also has your signature indicating you KNEW who the breeder was, but wanted the dog anyway. Nancy DID offer to replace the dog, even after you CALLED HER AND TOLD HER YOU HAD DROPPED HER! And make sure Judge Judy knows about how many kids you have. Maybe those kids dropped her a time or two? Or maybe stepped on her...I had a couple of kids, I know who rough they play sometimes. AND I ALSO KNOW YOU DON'T BRING A CHIHUAHUA INTO A HOME WITH SMALL CHILDREN! By the way, there's nothing wrong with small breeders. They produce far healthier and better adjusted dogs than people with larger kennels. Funny, you DON'T seem to have a problem with the DOZENS OF OTHER BREEDERS YOU CHIT CHAT WITH ON FACEBOOK! Just Nancy, and now Farrah because she took Nancy's side in this little war of yours. I am Facebook friends with quite a few of those BREEDER FRIENDS of yours, so I do get snippets of YOUR conversations with them. Facebook publishes everything that's exchanged between friends, and FRIENDS OF FRIENDS on down the line. Remember, owner Mark Zuckerberg loves a good laugh, and he likes to print out conversations of people bickering back and forth, and share them with his friends at all those millionaire parties. Makes him feel superior, I guess. I've read a lot of what you've said on F acebook and had quite a few laughs. What DOES raise my hackles though is this constant BS claiming that Nancy's house is dirty, and YOURS IS SO SPOTLESS! Can you people get any more arrogant or ignorant? What right have ANY of you got to call another person's house dirty, then go about sharing CERTAIN photos, that SEEM to back up your insults with everyone and anyone. Those of you who have children and pets and certainly NOT claim your homes are pristine and spotless! Both kids and dogs are dirty. I've had them both. They'll wreck it as fast as you clean it, and THAT is the truth. Unless of course, you are all so filthy rich you can employ maids to pick up after your kids and your dogs, or cats, or birds. I've been in Nancy White's house, a number of times, and not always expectedly. No matter when I've been there, I have NOT seen a single thing to even think about calling it dirty! Yeah, it's a bit cluttered. She Does live in a place above her shop, so her space is limited. She has a lot of dogs. NO KIDDING! SHE IS A DOG BREEDER! If a breeder doesn't have a LOT of dogs, the dogs can end up being INBRED! All of Nancy's dogs and puppies, the ones I've personally seen, were very friendly, had beautiful, clean coats (no bite marks from fighting for their food, Lista!), bright eyes, and wonderful personalities. Yeah, she had a cage or two, but the cages were FOR THE PROTECTION AND WELL BEING OF SICK OR RESCUED DOGS. You do NOT allow a sick dog, or a rescue animal to mingle with your others. The sick one because it's too weak, the rescues because you mus be sure they are disease free before letting them join the others. THOSE are the ONLY cages Nancy has! Period! Anyone who tell you different is a liar! Nancy's dogs are all kept in separate quarters. The males in one area, the female in another, to prevent unwanted, uncontrolled breeding. Nancy's Rotweillers interact very well with her Chis, but all the same, she never allows them to hang out together without supervision. Her exotic birds, are kept mainly in cages. Doh! Who want's bird's pooping everywhere, and large birds can be destructive and chew things. My Cockatiels have chewed up a lot of things when they were out for exercise, believe me. By the way, Lista, even Chihuahuas in SMALL groups, INCLUDING LITTER MATES, will squabble over food! I have three young pups, Chihuahuas, and even though they love each other at other times, running and playing together and sharing toys, they FIGHT AT MEAL TIME. Face it! Chihuahuas are a hot tempered species. They also tend to want their own way about everything. All of my pups and adults get equal servings of food I prepare for them. No commercial garbage for my dogs. There is road kill and dead, euthanized pets in that crap! All the same, my dogs, growl, and bite, and occasionally attack one another at meal time. It has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE NUMBER OF DOGS. Only in temperament. My pups came from a gentle, adorable little sire, but Momma was and is strictly AGRO. She's spoiled rotten, and Queen of the House, and KNOWS it! She my husband's little girl, and demonstrates a LOT of his traits, especially his temper. The babies all ended up with Momma's temperament, and noting from Daddy that I've seen so far. All of this clap trap you've been spreading, Lista, is WRONG and you know it. Problem is, you don't know when to quit and start acting like an adult. Just because you have the deluded idea that you look like Lucille Ball - Trust me. I've circulated your pictures. Everyone agrees. You look nothing like her, no matter how much make up you slap on! You may THINK you look like Lucy. You may dress like some addle-headed woman from the 1950s, and strike poses to imitate her, but that doesn't make it so. YOU ARE NOT LUCILLE BALL! YOU DO NOT REMOTELY LOOK LIKE HER. THIS IS NOT THE 1950s, AND YOUR HUSBAND ISN'T CUBAN BANDLEADER NAMED DESI! You are Lista FAircloth, of Florida. Nothing more, and nothing less. You spend a dangerous amount of time watching old black and white reruns, and playing I Love Lucy dress up. Does your life suck so bad that you need to immerse yourself in this Lucy fantasy? Who in the hell told you you resembled Lucille Ball in the first place? Yikes! Get yourself some therapy woman, before to fall ALL THE WAY off your rocker! Get your hair styled. Let it return to it's natural color, and buy some new clothes. Trust me, your kids will thank you for it. I mean, have you ever thought about your kids. I bet they're all laughing stocks in school! I know that I would be ashamed to have a mother that looks and dresses like YOU do! Stop annoying other people. If you have a legitimate case against Nancy, and can PROVE IT WITH DOCUMENTATION AND WITNESSES, then sue. If not, and this is just something that boiling on the back burner in your head, dump it. I assure you, Nancy DOES HAVE PROPER DOCUMENTATION TO PROVE EVERYTHING SHE SAYS, AND MANY, MANY, MANY SATISFIED, HAPPY CUSTOMERS! She has many friends who will stand by her. WILL YOUR FRIENDS STAND BY YOU IN A COURT OF LAW, OR WILL THEY RUN FOR COVER TO PROTECT THEIR OWN ###. You'd be wise to expect the latter. No one will stick his or her neck out, unless they are a hundred percent sure of the outcome! It's one thing to talk trash on the internet, and another to face a judge in a court of law. This is a case you cannot win.

17 hrs 20 mins ago by cookiecocoaandpants 0 Votes

Hey Lista, Don't try to pull your wounded DIVA act on me, it doesn't work! And anyone who behaves like you do is CERTAINLY NOT A CELEBRITY! What you ARE is a fat head who thinks far too highly of yourself. If yous are so famous, and everyone in the world loves you, then how come no one that I know has ever heard of you. As a writer, I've had many contacts with stage, and television producers, as well as script editors. I called some of them. THEY have never heard of you either! They had a good giggle when I faxed them your photos! I don't care if you pile on a ton of make up, and wear the ugliest, frumpy clothes you can find, you will NEVER RESEMBLE LUCILLE BALL! NOT WITH THAT FLAT TIP ON THE END OF YOUR NOSE, LADY! By the way, I DID NOT COMPLIMENT YOUR WARDROBE. I called it what was, COSTUMES! COSTUMES THAT MADE YOU LOOK LIKE SOMETHING OUT OF THE 40S AND 50S! It certainly doesn't look good! And you look worse and ridiculous wearing it. Another wake up call for you, Lucille BAll may have had a lot of fans around the world, but for every one who liked her there were THREE who didn't! No one is ever loved by everyone! My husband hated her! Hated Desi Arnaz, too, he was a drunk and a womanizer who was never faithful to Lucy or anyone else. She, in turn, had a number of lovers on the side as well. She was far from being the saint you are trying to make out she was. She is also VERY, VERY DEAD, and has been for some time. Nothing that YOU do will resurrect her! Did you say your husband was Cuban? Funny, I've never in my life heard of a Cuban named Faircloth! An ENGLISHMAN, yes, but not a Cuban. Do try to stop making things up!

And now, let me warn you, Before you go accusing ME of anything you had damn well get your facts straight, and have them legally documented. It might be a good idea to have a couple of witnesses, too! MY ATTORNEY'S DO NOT PLAY GAMES! I DID NOT NOW, OR AT ANY TIME, HIRE SOMEONE OR ASK SOMEONE TO SPY ON YOU! I DO NOT KNOW YOU OR DESIRE TO KNOW YOU, NOR HAVE I EVER BEEN NEAR YOU, YOUR FAMILY OR PLACE OF RESIDENCE! ALL THE INFORMATION I HAVE ABOUT YOU IS EASILY, AND LEGALLY AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET! IN SHORT, PUBLIC INFORMATION. Before you accuse me of spying on you, or hiring someone, you better make sure you can prove it! Unlike Nancy, I DON"T make a habit of warning anyone before I file a suit. They'll find out when the summons is served. Those ridiculous photos I've posted of you? They came from Facebook. A couple of them popped up on my message stream, or on my wall, as the regulars choose to call it, so I popped on over to your profile page and had a look around. That's also perfectly legal, my dear! I can see you've learned a bit of computer lingo, and a few stupid, college texts like ROTFLMAO. Good for you! I had no idea you had enough space in your head for that much info. Tell ya what tho, I am a writer, by trade, made a pretty good living at it, and I've been around the internet since it's inception. I can still remember typing out lines and lines of tedious DOS code just to get one or two commands to work! But, if you want to get into a war of lingo, don't try it with someone who has ten times the vocabulary that you do. You are a circle-thinker, and keep coming back to the same tired subjects. You yell, and scream, and stamp your feet, but you just can't seem to get your way, can you. How many times did you type LOL, LMAO, etc? Must've been ten, maybe fifteen times, including a He, he. Made you sound like a laughing idiot. So you drive around in SEVERAL MERCEDES (that is legally verifiable, by checking with DMV, you know) well, la di dah and woop ti doo! Does that make YOU any better than anyone else? Hardly. Osama bin Laden is DRIVEN around in several chauffered ROLLS ROYCE limosines, but we all know how the world feels about HIM! No one cares if that mini van was given to you, or thrown at you. Having it STILL doesn't make you into anything resembling a celebrity! By the way, before you start calling ME a liar, make Damn sure you can prove THAT as well! All of your loony ranting and raving and self-important bragging about how famous you are and how much people love you, doesn't impress me one iota. Now, Time for a warning, and a reality check. I have read the Terms Of Use for this board. I read everything before I sign it. Obviously you, and your spamming friend oktamus have never bothered to read the contract before you signed it. It plainly says that SPAMMING and PROFANITY are strictly prohibited! And you can be BANNED from this board for doing so without warning. The terms also state that disrupting ANY board is cause for termination. Well, I have sent full complaints to both the owners and sponsors of this site, complete with a copy and paste of oktamus ENTIRE FILTHY POST, making sure I highlight each and every filthy, dirty word he used. I also included YOUR POST, Lista, inciting him to make the post, and I quote, SPAM ATTACK! LET THEM HAVE IT OKTAMUS! Don't try to lie out of THAT one MY dear, it is spelled out in black and white, and in plain site on this board where ANYONE can read it. I've also printed it out, so if you try to delete it, there's STILL documented proof that YOU ARE INCITING SPAM ATTACKS TO DISRUPT THIS FORUM WHEN THINGS DON'T GO YOUR WAY! Why don't you get out one of lacy Lucy hankies and start sobbing now, before you get kicked off this forum, and You ARE GOING TO GET KICKED OFF! No matter how highly you think of yourself, on the internet you are just another trouble maker, a troll that goes from forum to forum disrupting conversations to get attention and the owners of this site don't care didley squat WHO you THINK you look like! Break the rules, off you go! That's it! And see Ya later, fruitcake! BY the way, I've copied your above attempt to incite oktamus to disrupt this site, once again, and I'll be passing THAT along to the owners and sponsors as well. Before you try to play dirty, learn the rules. You CAN NOT just go onto ANY forum and post things you cannot prove, as you claimed above. It is certainly NOT LEGAL! All INTERNET FORUMS HAVE TERMS OF SERVICE RULES. You must agree to them before you join. Violate those rules and your account is not only terminated, but EVERYTHING you posted is deleted as well. In this day and age, when the internet, and forums like this are taking flack from a hundred directions, NO site owner or webmaster is going to let some one like you or your buddy oktamus get his site shut down by spamming and running page after page of filthy text. By the way, they have rules against dirty pictures, too...remember the pic of the pig and the dog. Against the rules, baby! Oktamus filthy spam DIDN'T shut the site down, by the way, I posted after him, and immediately reported the both of you for TOS violations and profanity. You just can't go around spitting out filth on these boards, you know. Oh, and don't try to hack into MY Facebook account. Only an idiot would use his own name on boards like this. Used a fake name to register as well, and a disposable email addy. You aren't the only one who can make up sockpuppets, hun! It's sad, and in a small way I feel sorry for you. When some one has to go to such extremes to gain attention, their lives must really suck. When someone spends so much time, and wastes so much effort, just to paint a picture of famous she is, or much she is loved and supported, that tells me, how desperate for affection she really is. There are doctors and therapy groups that can help you. All have to do is ask. Things will look a lot better when you stop playing dress up, and face the fact you're plain old Lista Faircloth, and no one else.

1 hr 11 mins ago by cookiecocoaandpants +1 Votes

Some Reading for Lista...

Defamation, Libel, and Slander: Background

The law of defamation protects a person's reputation and good name against communications that are false and derogatory. Defamation consists of two torts: libel and slander. Libel consists of any defamation that can be seen, most typically in writing. Slander consists of an oral defamatory communications. The elements of libel and slander are nearly identical to one another.

Historically, the law governing slander focused on oral statements that were demeaning to others. By the 1500s, English courts treated slander actions as those for damages. Libel developed differently, however. English printers were required to be licensed by and give a bond to the government because the printed word was believed to be a threat to political stability. Libel included any criticism of the English government, and a person who committed libel committed a crime. This history carried over in part to the United States, where Congress under the presidency of John Adams passed the Sedition Act, which made it a crime to criticize the government. Congress and the courts eventually abandoned this approach to libel, and the law of libel is now focused on recovery of damages in civil cases.

Beginning with the landmark decision in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the law of defamation has a constitutional dimension. Under this case and subsequent cases, the Court has balanced individual interests in reputation with the interests of free speech among society. This approach has altered the rules governing libel and slander, especially where a communication is about a public official or figure, or where the communication is about a matter of public concern.

Click here to find out more!
1 hr 8 mins ago by cookiecocoaandpants +1 Votes

Defamation, Libel, and Slander: Background

The law of defamation protects a person's reputation and good name against communications that are false and derogatory. Defamation consists of two torts: libel and slander. Libel consists of any defamation that can be seen, most typically in writing. Slander consists of an oral defamatory communications. The elements of libel and slander are nearly identical to one another.

Historically, the law governing slander focused on oral statements that were demeaning to others. By the 1500s, English courts treated slander actions as those for damages. Libel developed differently, however. English printers were required to be licensed by and give a bond to the government because the printed word was believed to be a threat to political stability. Libel included any criticism of the English government, and a person who committed libel committed a crime. This history carried over in part to the United States, where Congress under the presidency of John Adams passed the Sedition Act, which made it a crime to criticize the government. Congress and the courts eventually abandoned this approach to libel, and the law of libel is now focused on recovery of damages in civil cases.

Beginning with the landmark decision in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the law of defamation has a constitutional dimension. Under this case and subsequent cases, the Court has balanced individual interests in reputation with the interests of free speech among society. This approach has altered the rules governing libel and slander, especially where a communication is about a public official or figure, or where the communication is about a matter of public concern.
1 hr 7 mins ago by cookiecocoaandpants +1 Votes

Defamation Law: The Basics

When an official is criticized in a false and injurious way for something that relates to their behavior in office, the official must prove all of the above elements associated with normal defamation, and must additionally show that the statement was made with "actual malice."

"Actual malice" was defined in a Supreme Court case decided in 1964. There, the court held that certain statements that would otherwise be defamatory were protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court reasoned that the United States society had a "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."

This meant, according to the Court, that public officials could only win a defamation suit when the statement that was made was not an honest mistake and was in fact published with the actual intent to harm the public figure. According to the Court, actual malice was only found when the statement maker knew the statement was not true at the time he made it, or had reckless disregard for whether it was true or not.

For other people that are in the public eye, but not public officials, the defamation laws are also different. These people, such as celebrities and movie stars, must also prove, in most situations, that the defamatory statements were made with actual malice.

Freedom of speech is less meaningful when a statement is made about a private individual because the statement is probably not about a matter of public importance. As noted above, a private person has no need to show that the statement maker acted with actual malice in order to be victorious in their defamation lawsuit.
1 hr 6 mins ago by cookiecocoaandpants +1 Votes

Elements of Libel and Slander

Specific requirements that a plaintiff must prove in order to recover in a defamation action differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which is drafted by the American Law Institute and has been influential among state courts, a plaintiff must prove four elements.

1. First, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff.
2. Second, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made an unprivileged publication to a third party.
3. Third, the plaintiff must prove that the publisher acted at least negligently in publishing the communication.
4. Fourth, in some cases, the plaintiff must prove special damages.

Defamatory Statements

One essential element in any defamation action is that the defendant published something defamatory about the plaintiff. The Restatement defines a communication as defamatory "if it tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating with him." Examples of defamatory statements are virtually limitless and may include any of the following:

* A communication that imputes a serious crime involving moral turpitude or a felony
* A communication that exposes a plaintiff to hatred
* A communication that reflects negatively on the plaintiff's character, morality, or integrity
* A communication that impairs the plaintiff's financial well-being
* A communication that suggests that the plaintiff suffers from a physical or mental defect that would cause others to refrain from associating with the plaintiff

One question with which courts have struggled is how to determine which standard should govern whether a statement is defamatory. Many statements may be viewed as defamatory by some individuals, but the same statement may not be viewed as defamatory by others. Generally, courts require a plaintiff to prove that he or she has been defamed in the eyes of the community or within a defined group within the community. Juries usually decide this question.

Courts have struggled to some degree with the treatment of statements of opinions. At common law, statements of opinion could form the basis of a defamation action similar to a statement of pure fact. Generally, if a statement implies defamatory facts as the basis of the opinion, then the statement may be actionable.
Publication Requirement

Another requirement in libel and slander cases is that the defendant must have published defamatory information about the plaintiff. Publication certainly includes traditional forms, such as communications included in books, newspapers, and magazines, but it also includes oral remarks. So long as the person to whom a statement has been communicated can understand the meaning of the statement, courts will generally find that the statement has been published.
Meaning of a Communication

In some instances, the context of a statement may determine whether the statement is defamatory. The Restatement provides as follows: "The meaning of a communication is that which the recipient correctly, or mistakenly but reasonably, understands that it was intended to express." Courts generally will take into account extrinsic facts and circumstances in determining the meaning of the statement. Thus, even where two statements are identical in their words, one may be defamatory while the other is not, depending on the context of the statements.
Reference to the Plaintiff

In a defamation action, the recipient of a communication must understand that the defendant intended to refer to the plaintiff in the communication. Even where the recipient mistakenly believes that a communication refers to the plaintiff, this belief, so long as it is reasonable, is sufficient. It is not necessary that the communication refer to the plaintiff by name. A defendant may publish defamatory material in the form of a story or novel that apparently refers only to fictitious characters, where a reasonable person would understand that a particular character actually refers to the plaintiff. This is true even if the author states that he or she intends for the work to be fictional.

In some circumstances, an author who publishes defamatory matter about a group or class of persons may be liable to an individual member of the group or class. This may occur when: (1) the communication refers to a group or class so small that a reader or listener can reasonably understand that the matter refers to the plaintiff; and (2) the reader or listener can reasonably conclude that the communication refers to the individual based on the circumstances of the publication.

Click here to find out more!
1 hr 5 mins ago by cookiecocoaandpants +1 Votes

The Requirement of Fault

One of the more difficult issues in a defamation case focuses on whether the defendant is at fault for publishing defamatory comments. Common law rules created strict liability on the part of the defendant, meaning that a defendant could be liable for defamation merely for publishing a false statement, even if the defendant was not aware that the statement was false. Cases involving an interpretation of the First Amendment later modified the common law rules, especially in cases involving public officials, public figures, or matters of public concern.
Common Law Rules

At common law, once a plaintiff proved that a statement was defamatory, the court presumed that the statement was false. The rules did not require that the defendant know that the statement was false or defamatory in nature. The only requirement was that the defendant must have intentionally or negligently published the information.
Public Officials and Public Figures

In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court recognized that the strict liability rules in defamation cases would lead to undesirable results when members of the press report on the activities of public officials. Under the strict liability rules of common law, a public official would not have to prove that a reporter was aware that a particular statement about the official was false in order to recover from the reporter. This could have the effect of deterring members of the press from commenting on the activities of a public official.

Under the rules set forth in Sullivan, a public official cannot recover from a person who publishes a communication about a public official's conduct or fitness unless the defendant knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of the statement's truth or falsity. This standard is referred to as "actual malice, " although malice in this sense does not mean ill-will. Instead, the actual malice standard refers to the defendant's knowledge of the truth or falsity of the statement. Public officials generally include employees of the government who have responsibility over affairs of the government. In order for the First Amendment rule to apply to the public official, the communication must concern a matter related directly to the office.

Later cases expanded the rule to apply to public figures. A public figure is someone who has gained a significant degree of fame or notoriety in general or in the context of a particular issue or controversy. Even though these figures have no official role in government affairs, they often hold considerable influence over decisions made by the government or by the public. Examples of public figures are numerous and could include, for instance, celebrities, prominent athletes, or advocates who involve themselves in a public debate.
Private Persons

Where speech is directed at a person who is neither a public official nor a public figure, the case of Gertz v. Robert Welsh, Inc. (1974) and subsequent decisions have set forth different standards. The Court in Gertz determined that the actual malice standard established in New York Times v. Sullivan should not apply where speech concerns a private person. However, the Court also determined that the common law strict liability rules impermissibly burden publishers and broadcasters.

Under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a defendant who publishes a false and defamatory communication about a private individual is liable to the individual only if the defendant acts with actual malice (applying the standard under New York Times v. Sullivan) or acts negligently in failing to ascertain whether a statement was false or defamatory.
1 hr 3 mins ago by cookiecocoaandpants +1 Votes

Defenses to Libel and Slander

A defendant in a defamation case may raise a variety of defenses. These are summarized as follows:
Truth

The common law traditionally presumed that a statement was false once a plaintiff proved that the statement was defamatory. Under modern law, a plaintiff who is a public official or public figure must prove falsity as a prerequisite for recovery. Some states have likewise now provided that falsity is an element of defamation that any plaintiff must prove in order to recover. Where this is not a requirement, truth serves as an affirmative defense to an action for libel or slander.

A statement does not need to be literally true in order for this defense to be effective. Courts require that the statement is substantially true in order for the defense to apply. This means that even if the defendant states some facts that are false, if the "gist" or "sting" of the communication is substantially true, then the defendant can rely on the defense.
Consent

Where a plaintiff consents to the publication of defamatory matter about him or her, then this consent is a complete defense to a defamation action.
Absolute Privileges

Some defendants are protected from liability in a defamation action based on the defendant's position or status. These privileges are referred to as absolute privileges and may also be considered immunities. In other words, the defense is not conditioned on the nature of the statement or upon the intent of the actor in making a false statement. In recognizing these privileges, the law recognizes that certain officials should be shielded from liability in some instances.

Absolute privileges apply to the following proceedings and circumstances:

(1) judicial proceedings
(2) legislative proceedings
(3) some executive statements and publications
(4) publications between spouses
(5) publications required by law

Conditional Privileges

Other privileges do not arise as a result of the person making the communication, but rather arise from the particular occasion during which the statement was made. These privileges are known as conditional, or qualified, privileges. A defendant is not entitled to a conditional privilege without proving that the defendant meets the conditions established for the privilege. Generally, in order for a privilege to apply, the defendant must believe that a statement is true and, depending on the jurisdiction, either have reasonable grounds for believing that the statement was true or not have acted recklessly in ascertaining the truth or falsity of the statement.

Conditional privileges apply to the following types of communications:

* A statement that is made for the protection of the publisher's interest
* A statement that is made for the protection of the interests of a third person
* A statement that is made for the protection of common interest
* A statement that is made to ensure the well-being of a family member
* A statement that is made where the person making the communication believes that the public interest requires communication of the statement to a public officer or other official
* A statement that is made by an inferior state officer who is not entitled to an absolute privilege
1 hr 2 mins ago by petshack +1 Votes

Lista you are nothing more then a butt whiper & change bed pans as a nurses aid ..lmao want me to post lic#
59 mins ago by cookiecocoaandpants +1 Votes

What is ‘defamation’?

Defamation, sometimes called "defamation of character", is spoken or written words that falsely and negatively reflect on a living person's reputation.

If a person or the news media says or writes something about you that is understood to lower your reputation, or that keeps people from associating with you, defamation has occurred. Slander and libel are two forms of defamation.

Articles on Internet SlanderArticles on SlanderNet Slander Blog Community Net Blogging
What is ‘slander’?

Slander is a spoken defamation.
What is ‘libel’?

Libel is a written defamation. Generally, radio and television broadcasts that are defamatory are considered to be libel, rather than slander.
Can I sue someone who says or writes something defamatory about me?

In order to prove defamation, you have to be able to prove that what was said or written about you was false. If the information is true, or if you consented to publication of the material, you will not have a case. However, you may bring an defamatory action if the comments are so reprehensible and false that they effect your reputation in the community or cast aspersions on you.
What about insults and epithets? Are they defamatory?

Generally, no. Usually they are seen as outbursts of emotion, with no real substance, except to show intense dislike.
Don't I have a right to express my opinion?

Yes, so long as your statement of opinion is just an opinion, not containing specific facts that can be proved untrue.

Are there defenses to defamation?

Establishing the truth is the single most effective defense that can be offered. If the remark is truthful and it "hurts", is embarrassing, or subjects you to ridicule, there is little you can do. Unfortunately, unless the remark is false, you have no recourse.
What are the defenses to a libel claim?

There are three main defenses to a libel claim (other than asserting that it never happened or that you were never involved):

The first is claiming, and proving, that the statement was privileged (and thus not public). Only certain professions (doctors, lawyers, psychologists), or individuals (chiefly your spouse) can maintain that privilege; and if any non-privileged third party was part of the communication, the privilege is broken. (Employees of a professional are only partially covered, to the extent that you needed to use them to contact the professional. Don't expect to tell your deepest, darkest secret to your attorney's secretary, and maintain that privilege.)

The second defense is claiming, and proving, that the statement is true, for "truth is an absolute defense".

The third defense is claiming, and proving, that the statement was an opinion, not an assertion of a fact. Since this last defense is only as good as the weakest or worst, but still reasonable, misinterpretation, it's not one you really want to rely on. There's a world of difference between saying "I think he's a crook, " and "he's a crook". Especially if a third party might inadvertently leave out the first two words when passing your message on.
What damages are available for slander or libel?

If you have been defamed you may seek both actual damages, to recover the harm that you have suffered, and punitive damages to punish the person who made the remark (and serve as an example to deter others).

If the defamation improperly accused you of a crime or reflected on your profession, the Court or jury can assess the damages. For other types of defamation you must prove some actual damage to be able to recover.
Voice Message Broadcasting - Bulk voice mail deliveries to answering machines and interactive voice response (ivr) to live answers, drive sales, branding, web site traffic via our automated voice broadcasting system or auto dialer.

Internet Law Today - The new site to find all your need to know about current laws on the internet. Internet Law is a fascinating area of the law which is constantly changing everyday.

Covert Spy Shop for the best in Cheap Spy Gear and Equipment found anywhere on the world wide web.

Key Vip Las Vegas NV, the number VIP Service Company in Sin City. Call KEY VIP, for VIP treatment at all clubs and entertainment facilities.

I'm writing a book about the very small town I grew up in and changing the names of the people involved. Can I be sued for slander?

If it's the truth, no. Also, if you place a "disclaimer" at the beginning that the people and events have been changed to protect the innocent, and that any similarities to actual persons, either living or dead, are merely coincidental, then no. Remember, you have the First Amendment, which gives you freedom of speech.
57 mins ago by cookiecocoaandpants +1 Votes

Pay attention to the opening statement of this article, Lista!

Internet Defamation Law
Internet Defamation is a very exciting and developing area of law. An Internet defamation lawyer with our firm frequently handles issues related to Internet defamation law. Some of the old defamation laws are now applied to the Internet. Some common topics and questions about Internet defamation law include.

What is Internet defamation?

Defamation is a false statement of material fact that damages the reputation of the target. Internet Defamation presents a dilemma to courts who have to balance the damage to the reputation of one person against the Internet free speech rights of another.

Under basic defamation law principles, there are two types of defamation, libel and slander. Libel is a published defamatory statement. Under traditional defamation law principles, slander is spoken statements. With the advent of the Internet, the terms Internet defamation, Internet libel, and Internet slander are used interchangeably . However, in the true sense of the word, slander only applies to spoken statements and therefore there is no such thing as Internet slander. The terms is nonetheless used to refer to Internet defamation.

The following are types of Internet Defamation:

* Statements that are defamatory on their face - Under Internet defamation law principles, these statements are obviously defamatory. This type of Internet defamation usually results in the largest awards in online defamation litigation.

* Internet defamation through false innuendo - Individuals possessing necessary contextual knowledge can appreciate the defamatory nature of the statement.

* Internet defamation through legal innuendo - These statements are not defamatory on their face, but is defamatory when viewed with extrinsic information.

What are some defenses to accusations of Internet defamation?

Truth - A statement that is true cannot be defamatory. However, some States recognize other torts, such as false light invasion of privacy. In this case, truth is not a defense.

Opinion - Only statement of facts can be defamatory, opinions are not. However, if you are a victim of Internet defamation and the post, blog entry, or forum article contains the qualification "in my opinion, " you may still pursue your Internet defamation claim. Disguising a defamatory statement as an opinion does not make it such.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act - Sections 230(c)(1) and 230(e)(3) provide that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider, " and that "[n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section." However, there are several limitations and exceptions to this rule. It is interesting how many operators of Internet sites attempt to find their unwarranted solace behind this law when many times, given the specific design or operation of their website, the immunity provision may not apply.

Additional discussion regarding Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act may be found on Domingo Rivera's Blog. Some articles regarding this issue include:

* The CDA, cyber-racketeers, the DMCA, and changes to Section 230 by Domingo Rivera
* Internet Bloggers Beware: Ohio Court Lands Another Blow Against Those Engaging in Internet Defamation
* Internet Defamation Law - Website owners and bloggers beware - The latest interpretation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

For a statement posted on the Internet to be defamatory, it must be a statement of fact, by definition opinions posted on the Internet cannot be defamatory. Also some service providers are immune under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Contact us to discuss specific issues and circumstances.
When you need your online reputation protected from Internet defamation, an Internet Defamation Lawyer, Cyber defamation law attorney, Internet Libel Law practitioner, and Cyber slander law attorney from our firm is an Internet defamation law counsel. An Internet defamation lawyer with our practice possesses qualifications to handle Internet defamation matters.

By using people's names and providing their addresses, you put people's lives in danger. I hope you realize that. The Internet is filled with predators and schemers just waiting for some one to do something like this. Here you've provided MORE than enough information for some one to hijack these people's identities. You've also made us targets for every animal rights fanatic or crackpot on the internet. Unless you can absolutely, beyond any doubt, prove what you're saying here, and have documented records to back up your charges, do NOT go around posting stuff like this. I've also filed a complaint with MySpace for improperly sharing private names and addresses, which is in violation of their TOS regulations.

December 19, 2010 at 12:59pm Report
I had commented on one of the posts either you or Farrah had and this was what she sent me. I didn't know how to take it so I didn't reply to her. Maybe that was rude of me, but I just didn't want to deal with her. It seems she has had a rough life but that doesn't give her the right to be so mean. Sounds like she needs some counseling. Hope she stops harrasing you and Farrah.

one of the many emails I got from friends.

Nevertheless Nancy you seem to have all kinds things to say to the people on here, but for whatever reason you choose to ignore me. So be it. Continue with your unethical way of living. Your day will come and when you're standing in front of those pearly gates, don't be surprised when you're sent the other way!

LOL and just what does this mean? No I had one thing to say to One person, same person who has stalked me for 1 yr now. And ask her what this has to do with ? she is lost in all her lies and bet has no clue!

Unethical way of living?
Tell me what do you do for a living? I 'm a business owner of a grooming shop for 6yrs with over 500 clients .

LOL why, I'm tried of all the BS .
Yes I breed and so does Lista.. since she has not admit it I guess you believe that she does not...lol joke on you! And she fooled another one, trust me she BOUGHT a puppy from me, was given a Blue Merle that was to be FIXED & she has bred him, she also BOUGHT 2 unfixed females { that she wanted breeder size} from Farrah's Chihuahua's. Trust me she Deoes not do all that she says in her post... I have to laugh as I know better, just like she said " I was never a Nail tech"..LOL I posted her Lic # etc on her... with no reply from her.. why BUSTED!
I'm still trying to find her Nursing Lic# as I think this is a lie also, and why not asked around in the Rescue's in FLA and see what they say about this "wonderful" person Lista...will make you puke trust me as she has pulled one over on you also. I say it like it is, I see you are against dog breeders and that is your choice, I do not like PITA myself as they kill more dogs then the shelters do.

All I can say is I do not live off the system, I support myself, dogs, birds & rescues from what I make through my shop, this also cover vets costs & transport. I have always said " if your gonna breed then you should also rescue" most have a hard time with this. I have given my puppies away to people who want one but cannot afford one of my puppies.. I'm more then what you think I am. My biggest support in my town is my 2 vets, shelter & 3 rescues .. I help all including the Sheriff dept when they find a stray's I house them and post till I find owners, been in the paper for this many times. I save dogs from death row that need more time to find a home and are great dogs & would make a awesome pet... I test them out and then place them. before you judge on another person words you may want to ask ... so many people can hide behind a PC screen and talk the talk ... when really they are no better then you or I.

I just want to say thank you to those who read my comment, in particular Lucy. Thank you for responding back to me, I really appreciate it. I'm not here to judge anybody, but it means a lot to me if someone can take something I said and learn something from it. Especially when it has to do with the well being of animals! I wish you all the luck in continuing your plight, fighting for animal rights and all the wonderful volunteering and fostering that you do. You won your battle against cancer because of good karma. Not to mention many more animals out there need your help, and it was not your time to leave them. Keep up the great work you are doing for these amazing little dogs and ignore that woman over there at the Petshack. She will get hers!

As for you Nancy I'm still waiting to hear what you have to say. I'm sure you read my post/comment. Are you even going to try to defend yourself? Probably not, because there is no excuse you can come up with. Why? Maybe because you know it is wrong to breed your dogs when millions of other dogs around the world are being put to death prematurely, partly because of breeders like you! I have a real hard time swallowing the fact that you say you love animals when you are behaving in this manner. Meaning your continuing in the practice of dog breeding. Somehow I can't stop from thinking that you are indeed in it for the money. If not, than why not rescue and foster, or volunteer at local shelters like your arch enemy Lucy does?

Nevertheless Nancy you seem to have all kinds things to say to the people on here, but for whatever reason you choose to ignore me. So be it. Continue with your unethical way of living. Your day will come and when you're standing in front of those pearly gates, don't be surprised when you're sent the other way!

Yes Lista you do breed, you are such a liar. You have bought 1 from me, 2 from Farrah and was given Merlin all UNFIXED ... you wanted them for your breeding lines. Wow you amaze me, and what about the liter of Chiweenies? Litter of Chihuahuas? & Litter of Doxies? You my friend need to be exposed! As you have bred brother to sister together... how do I know YOU told me! Get a life Lista you are not who you say you are I know first hand.

To celebrate, the company first anniversary, Some commodities have been, discount .Anti-purchase at this site Any goods, we will giving a Christmas gift .In addition Buy $ 300 and receive a free glasses or a wallet, as a Christmas gift . welcome all friends to order. Reputation, quality, absolute guarantee. please log in: http://www.fashionsb.com . so what, move your mouse .

Lets see how many phone calls you get when i put you on some dating sites...lmfao

i forgot, i was told you live with your mom, in your state i believe having a kid at that age is about right.how do you have the time to help your mom and breed all those dogs.looks from that picture, that you live in deplorable conditions, where the hell does all the money go that you make on your poorly bred chis.you should be proud of yourself, living at home with mommy, no job.Must be your mom that takes care of you and the dogs.she needs to give you a wake up call, and kick your fat ### to the curb.

Miss farrah, needs a job.NO WAY THIS BEONGS TO A 27 YR OLD.YOU ARE A DUMB ### LISTA IS NOT EVEN ON.YOU ARE PATHETIC..

someone shut this fat ### up.I have never seen a 60 yr old NORMAL woman act like this.

I am going to be the adult here and stop this, please do the same Lista

then you try to sue for (deformation of Character) LMAO .. you have no clue Lista do you, are really that far from reality?

I 'm from FLA :)

Lista you started this long time ago.. what almost 1 yr. You get all you deserve and more .. no pity by me for you :)

farrah & Pethag seem like a bunch of old woman, thinking that its ok to keep breeding.They both sicken me.

don't worry, I will put a stop to this. I have police reports, FBI reports & filed in the courts. This is all BS, does not matter what anyone of you think or say. I will continue what Im doing and doing it the way I have been doing it.. done :)

I think that everyone here has lost track of what's really important! The puppies/dogs! What seems to have taken precedence over the well being of the innocent ones, ie; the puppies and dogs in case anyone else has lost sight as well from all the click clacking bibble babble senseless chatter between these two clucking hens going at it. Threatening court on one another in every other post when firing back at each other, with the same crap just re-worded might I add. Clearly both of them talking ###, because from what I gather here neither one of them has seen a court room regarding this particular issue, gripe, complaint, snivel or whatever you want to call it. If these two were actually in the middle of a "court" battle this whole thread of jibber jabber would have ceased by now. Obviously it isn't happening.

I have a suggestion for the both of you ladies, Petshack Nancy and VoiceForTheAnimals Lucy. I need to tell you first that the both of you are behaving like ###s on here, 2 bitter old ladies at each others throats getting nothing accomplished to say the least! You need to start acting like adults or nobody is going to take either one of you seriously anymore. Concentrate on the needs and well being of these dogs you both are speaking of.

Lucy you need to stop with the back and forth ### and antagonizing. If there is a problem at Petshack like you say, then call any and all authorities necessary to look in and investigate the allegations that you are claiming. You need nothing else. Just one complaint or call to the proper authorities or animal rights organizations is all it takes these days and someone will be out there to see what's really going on. As you are already aware of I'm sure, when the word "Puppy-Mill" is mentioned people listen. If suspected that one is in operation by some undesirable seedy individual the SPCA, ASPCA, HSUS, ALF, etc... etc... will be on it like stink on ###. So stop what you're doing here and get right. Here's a little common sense . . . Say you make 3 phone calls to the proper authorities in your or better yet in Nancy's (dba Petshack's) area and file a complaint, stating the facts only and leaving out all the nonsense vs. the alternative, which is firing back at Nancy in yet another nonproductive post. The time that you will save by not having to strike back every time she rebuttals against you, you could use positively by applying it toward something productive like TAKING CARE OF THE SICK PUPPIES that are sitting there staring at you while you're on your computer arguing with an alleged puppy-mill owner!

As far as what I've got to say to you Nancy, whether it is true or not you allegedly operating a puppy-mill in the guise of a legit breeder, and indeed if this is true I hope you burn in hell! However if it is not true my question still remains, as well as my thoughts and concerns particularly towards your integrity and moral values. You claim to love these dogs and I would assume all dogs, seeings that you are in the business that you're in. So if you're not in it for the money, why do you choose to continue breeding your dogs when you know that in the United States alone something like 12 million dogs a year are euthanized in shelters because there are not enough homes out there for these dogs to be adopted out to? In part due to people like you who sell dogs to individuals or families thus only preventing yet another shelter dog from being able to find his/her forever home. I think you need to have a sit down with yourself and get your ethics in line missy. In knowing all of that, and at the same time you're not in it for the big money, why do you do it then? You and Lucy quack back and forth accusing each other of killing dogs or being the main reason as to why some dogs were euthanized instead of being given the chance to be adopted out to homes. When all along, and I'm sure that I'm not the only one who sees it like this, but what you do by breeding these dogs over and over again is inadvertently participating in the murdering of 12 million dogs in a years time. It's the classic snowball effect or as some would relate better with, the trickle down factor. We as a society in whole all have to participate in making the lives of every living being better, including dogs and you're not helping! The tragic epidemic of our out of control pet population and the overcrowding of our nations animal shelters, if you are indeed breeding dogs for any reason, huge profits or otherwise you are making what is already an ugly truth that much more of a disgrace.
One more thing Nancy . . . You had stated in a post 16 days ago, "They come to my place THEY BETTER HAVE WARRANT IN HAND, and a damn good reason and not just "Because" of someone who is jealous and wants to start more trash". Those were you exact words, word for word might I add. If you are denying the allegations made toward you and also claim to have absolutely nothing to hide, than why would the authorities or anybody for that matter need a warrant or a damn good reason to come inside your store or facility to have a look around? If you have nothing to hide or anything to worry about, why wouldn't you just offer up the opportunity to authorities that they are more than welcome to stop by at any time and visit my place of business, no warrant needed? Don't you want to clear your name from these unsavory allegations? I don't know anybody that wouldn't if put in your position.

Nevertheless I hope one of you learns something from this, because my fingers hurt and frankly I'm over you two. Handle your business ladies like two mature adults! Have a wonderful day & a prosperous new year! Bye bye.

maybe not to you .. but you would never be as lucky as to own one either... sorry no hard feelings

davey70 0 Votes

there are german rottis, you idiot its even posted on your byb site.i'm dealing with uneducating hags here, i see.

OK .. whatever

A rotty is a rotty ... they are German Rotts.. mine lines where imported from the Von lines. You have to put that as other like yourself think their are two kinds...lol just like a chihuahua.. it is a Chihuahua.. end of story

davey70 0 Votes

compared to back yard bred chis

that sounds about as stupid as your last two post.

davey70 0 Votes

no, just posting examples of what real chis should look like.
to who YOU? ... please, you need to stop while ahead ... Really.

GERMAN ROTTIS, THEY ARE AMERICAN ROTTIS.

dumb (_!_) a rotty is a ROTTY! No German/American .. stupid butts like you came up with that along with "teacups' & "micro's".. make me puke . have to say that was pretty stupid things to say. Tisk Tisk Tisk!

25 mins ago by davey70 0 Votes

I have seen your picture on your site, what a HAG, are you also missing teeth.Why would someone in the right state of mind, give you a dog to rescue, when they walk into your shop, can't they see that you keep chis in cages, that my dear, is not normal.admit that you are a byb and not a good one at that, your dogs are no wheres near show quality.

I have not one in a cage :) and nor are any puppies.. NONE! I had a very nice lady fly in from Cali and took back 2 of my dogs.. she spent 3 days with us... hmm I guess she likes trash? You guys make me laugh .

dave you know how to dbl click on a picture.. proud of you... I saw these where NOT yours but from AKC site...make me fall out of my chair.

davey70
Member since Jan 10, 2011
Southern Pines, North Carolina
United States

Add to my Associates
Invite Member to a Group
Send Message
Posting summary
Complaints -
Comments 11

smells fishy to me .. LISTA

Dave you seem to know more about me then I ...lol No I gave my EB away, I do have 3 rotties love them, bred then for 14 yrs before retiring all of them. My oldest is 13 and looks like he is 2~ yep I bred him :) and very proud of him also.

Ya OK Dave... your right ! :)

some of my beauties that I bred and damn proud of them also.

Lista you had farrah as your puppet .. and you U'ked up again as you told her way to much either by phone, text or emails .. guess what I have copies of them also. You may fool some, most are catching on and Farrah knows me personally, like Tammy and unlike you. You where so jealous you would call one, then the next and also me until I blocked your (_!_) as I figured you out pretty fast.. took Farrah a bit longer but that is OK she apologized and knew that she feel into your trap ... then she woke back up .. we have been friends for awhile we needed to use her to get more information from YOU ... Cheers. She my friend is also smarter then you think.. you have never meet her either.

davey70 0 Votes

another thing i find it funny, how all us, dog lovers, me being a rescuer as well.Try to help dogs, but these two hippy woman, just want to make $ off of them.Then, if you go to their face book pages, they slander all the rescuers.Something not right there.Rescued dogs are the best, and God will judge these woman in the end, , lol if that is where they will end up. LMAO what drugs are you on? More lies .. I sure would like to see where I talk bad about any rescues you freak a noid... Hippie I am and some call me a "Tree hugger" cool I say! I rescue you dumb (_!_) ~ Lista My friend is being banned from the "rescue people" she u'ked up 1 to many times and has been caught and the dogs where PTS or brought back to the shelter.. and it was found through a micro chip... Busted!

Someone gave petshack dogs due to their declining health and she even sold some of them and gave some away and she continued to breed them! One of her latest litters was from the rescue mom and she has double cherry eye poor baby! you give two craps about your animals or you would STOP!

LOL where do you get this from ? You have to much time on your hands . I placed the mall in homes & would not give you one to breed. I have not heard you tell anyone on here that you breed Lista... Hmm 2 litters of Chiweenies, 3 litters of Chihuahuas... and I know the story behind one litter of Chiweenies, in fact that is how I meet you .. Oh yes coming back to me now.. you contacted 3 of my buyers and tried to talk them into your "Chiweenies puppies" ... and in same breath you called me to buy a puppy ... what you did not know is I got a call or email from each .. oh BTW I have copies still...OOPS. You are a trip and really need major help GF. Sick, Sick SICK! .. Don't let her fool YOU SHE BREEDS! LISTA LUCY ANN FAIRCLOTH ... BREEDS~ that is what so funny about this whole complaint... just another lie. Tisk Tisk ... you will never own one of my dogs, SORRY :) oh I know you are going to post here say how crazy I am for posting this, Right 'O.. well I have in a email.. that YOU Lista Lucy Faircloth wrote & it says from your words that YOU wanted my dogs taken from me, why others ask
it is simple she wanted Jose, Diablo, Tequila, Pedro & Tinker Bell for herself... and thought if they went to rescue and she was know in the "rescue world" she would have first choice on the ones she wanted to "rescue" .. now do you all see the big picture.

And this is why she wants you to spread it etc .. well do what you have to do ... I will survive & so will my dogs~ bring it all on I can take it, trust me I'm a big girl and I don't fall easy. OH BTW this my friends is NOT by name of my dogs lines that I breed, this name "Pet Shack" is my grooming business of 6yrs.. I know some call it a "Pet Shop" call it what you want I pay the taxes

what a trip :) glad I'm normal

You breed for quality When is the last show your animals were in? LMAO! The Europe ring :) last yr