SISTER BIG LICK MOTHER SUPERIOR ISSUES STERN WARNING TO SORE BIG LICKERS AFTER TRAINER BOYZ RANDALL JONES IS SLAPPED WITH 4 YEAR SUSPENSION AND $4,400.00 FINE

 THETA, TN – As explained last week,  the Sound  Horse Effort is a “MOVEMENT”,   while the Big Lick is a “WAY OF LIFE”.

A prime example is the September 24, 2014,  email from Sister Big Lick Mother Superior to the Licker Faithful.

SISTER BIG LICK MOTHER SUPERIOR

BIG LICK MOTHER SUPERIOR

SISTER BIG LICK MOTHER SUPERIOR

————————————————————–
From: SISTER BIG LICK MOTHER SUPERIOR
Sent:  “ŽWednesday”Ž, “ŽSeptember”Ž “Ž24″Ž, “Ž2014 “Ž5″Ž:”Ž31″Ž “ŽPM
Another email about the Scar Rule – sorry, but it is rather important.
Attached is a copy of a federal Order involving a scar rule violation.
Although it is a matter of public record, I have removed the person’s name and the horse’s name as well. The name of this document is Decision Without Hearing by Entry of Default Against Respondent. That simply means that the person accused of violating the scar rule (the respondent) failed to answer or respond to the Complaint filed against him by the USDA.
When a federal Complaint is filed against you for violating any aspect of the Horse Protection Act, you have 20 days to file a written response. If you do not file a written response, you are in default and the Judge can and will rule against you and in favor of the USDA.   This person has been  suspended for four years for a scar rule violation and has been fined $4400.00.Please remember if anyone gets one of those certified manila envelopes, you only have 20 days to respond so act quickly.Another good thing to keep handy is the list of tips for the show horse owner that I previously emailed and that is posted on  www.facebook.com/twhfacts   Using that list might prevent you from receiving one of those dreaded certified manila envelopes, but if you do get a federal Complaint filed against you and you have followed those tips, you will be in a much better position to defend yourself, your reputation and your horse.    You should always seek a vet’s opinion any time your horse is disqualified or turned down by the USDA regardless of the reason.Although the person involved in the attached case failed to respond, a four year suspension over a scar rule violation is very serious.   If at any time in the past you have had a horse disqualified by the USDA for scar rule and then sought evaluation by a veterinarian post disqualification,  PLEASE contact the vet and give them approval  to provide me with a copy of their exam results/report, any photographs taken or other documentation they or you may have that proves your horse was wrongly disqualified.   It is critical that this information be organized in order to determine if/what can be done to have the scar rule applied as it was intended.   This information can be emailed to me at xxxxxx. If you are submitting anything by regular mail, please make sure your copies are legible and photographs are clear and in color.As always, please do not reply to this email as multiple replies are sent to over 1000 people and leads to chaos.SISTER BIG LICK MOTHER SUPERIOR

—————————————————————————-

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

Docket No. 13-0053

In re:

RANDALL JONES,

Respondent.

DECISION WITHOUT HEARING BY ENTRY OF DEFAULT AGAINST RESPONDENT

I. Preliminary Statement
The instant matter involves allegations by the Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”) of the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”; “Complainant”) that Randall Jones (“Respondent”) violated provisions of the Horse Protection Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §1821 a et seq. (“the Act; “HPA”).

II. ISSUES

1. Whether default should be entered in this matter;
2. Whether a hearing is necessary in this matter;
3. Whether Respondent willfully violated the Act;
4. Whether the sanctions recommended by Complainant should be imposed.

III. Procedural History

On October 23, 2012, Complainant filed a complaint with the Hearing Clerk, Office of
Administrative Law Judges (“OALJ”; “Hearing Clerk”). On October 25, 2012, the Hearing Clerk served the complaint on Respondent by certified mail, and informed Respondent that an Answer should be filed pursuant to the Rules of Practice Governing Formal Adjudications before

the Secretary of USDA (“the Rules”). Respondent failed to file an Answer.

The case was assigned to me, and by Order issued March 7, 2014, I directed Respondent to show cause why a Decision and Order upon entry of default should not be entered. Respondent failed to respond to my Order. On March 10, 2014, counsel for Complainant entered an appearance and moved for the entry of default judgment. The motion was served upon Respondent, who filed correspondence with the Hearing Clerk on March 27, 2014.

IV. Discussion
The Rules require the filing of an answer within twenty (20) days of the service of the complaint.
7 C.F.R. § 1.136. Pursuant to 7 C.F.R. § 1.136 (c), in the absence of an Answer that specifically addresses the allegations of the complaint, Respondent is deemed to have admitted the allegations set forth in the complaint. The failure to file an answer constitutes a waiver of hearing, and in the absence of meritorious objections to a proposed decision, entry of Default is appropriate, pursuant to 7 C.F.R. §1.139.

Respondent did not file an answer to the complaint that was served upon him at the address that Respondent provided in his correspondence of March 27, 2014. Respondent did not file a response to my Order, which was served upon him at the address that Respondent provided in his correspondence of March 27, 2014. The correspondence that Respondent filed in response to Complainant’s motion did not address the substantive grounds of Complainant’s motion, which included proposed findings of fact adopting the allegations of the complaint. Respondent’s correspondence stated in the entirety as follows:

“I have not received any info concerning this issue and have no knowledge of any deliveries to my address. Please forward any info concerning issue at hand and I will respond in a timely manner.”

I reject Respondent’s contention that he had “no knowledge of any deliveries to [his] address.” He responded to the delivery of the motion at the address he provided. All of the Hearing Clerk’s mailings were addressed to the address that Respondent provided, and no mail  was returned as “undeliverable”. Moreover, Respondent’s only correspondence failed to address in any way Complainant’s motion, which summarized the violations alleged in the complaint.

I find that Respondent has failed to file a timely answer, and has failed to raise meritorious objections to Complainant’s motion. Respondent has waived his right to a hearing, and the entry of default is appropriate. Complainant’s proposed sanctions are warranted.

V. Findings of Fact

  1. Respondent Randall Jones is an individual with a mailing address in Pembroke, North  Carolina.
  2. The Hearing Clerk for the Office of Administrative Law Judges served Respondent with  a complaint alleging violations of the Horse Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. §1821 a et seq. at  the address acknowledged to be Respondent’s.
  3. Respondent did not file an answer to the complaint.
  4. The Hearing Clerk for the Office of Administrative Law Judges served Respondent with an Order to show cause why the matter should not be decided in favor of Complainant due to Respondent’s failure to file an answer at the address acknowledged to be Respondent’s.
  5. Respondent did not file a response.
  6. The Hearing Clerk for the Office of Administrative Law Judges served Respondent with  Complainant’s motion for a Decision by reason of default at the address acknowledged to  be Respondent’s.
  7. Respondent filed correspondence that failed to address the motion or the allegations in  the complaint.
  8. None of the correspondence was returned as undelivered.
  9. At all times material hereto, Respondent Randall Jones was the owner of a horse known as “Jammin The Blues”.
  1. On or about May 29, 2010, Respondent entered the horse known as “Jammin The Blues”, entry number 336, class number 47, for the purpose of showing or exhibiting at the 40th Annual Spring Fun Show in Shelbyville, Tennessee.
  2. Respondent entered the horse “Jammin The Blues” for show or exhibition while sore by virtue of being scarred.

VI. Conclusions of Law

  1. The Secretary has jurisdiction over this matter.
  2. On or about May 29, 2010, Respondent violated sections 5(2)(A) and (D) of the Act (15 U.S.C. § § 1824(2)(A) and (D)), when he entered and allowed the entry of, for the purpose of showing or exhibiting, the horse known as “Jammin The Blues” entry number 336, class number 47, at the 40th Annual Spring Fun Show in Shellbyville, Tennessee, while the horse was sore by virtue of being scarred as defined in the prevailing regulations at 9 C.F.R. § 11.3.ORDER
    Respondent Randall Jones is disqualified for four years from showing, exhibiting, or  entering any horse, directly or indirectly through any agent, employee, or other device, and from judging, managing or otherwise participating in any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction. “Participating” means engaging in any activity beyond that of a spectator, and includes, without limitation, transporting or arranging for the transportation of horses to or from equine events; personally giving instructions to exhibitors; being present in the warm-up or inspection areas, or in any area where spectators are not allowed; and financing the participating of others in equine events.
  3. Respondent Randall Jones is assessed a civil penalty of $4,400.00.

This Order shall have the same effect as if entered after a full hearing.
Pursuant to the Rules, this Decision and Order shall become final and effective without  further proceedings 35 days after the date of service upon Respondent, unless it is appealed to the Judicial Officer by a party to the proceeding within thirty (30) days after service, pursuant to the Rules, 7 C.F.R. § §1.139 and 1.145.

Copies of this Decision and Order shall be served upon the parties by the Hearing Clerk. So ORDERED this 9th day of April, 2014 at Washington, D.C.

Janice K. Bullard,  Administrative Law Judge

———————————————————————————————

Sister Big Lick Mother Superiors emails will be featured here from time to time as long as Harold is able to stay on the  performance-horse-support@googlegroups.com

BGBHEADSHOT01