Today's "reveal" is regarding CERF ..."Canine Eye Registry Foundation"
On September 17, 2006 Judge Douglas Robinson ruled that we, Kathy & Todd Babbitt had lied about the CERF testing of Echo and Carson and that Carson had never
been tested, finding us guilty of fraudulent and misleading advertising, a violation of the Consumer Protection Act. He also ruled it unintentional.
Nevertheless, on October 10, 2007, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law & Order was filed, to include the following:
[2.5 Babbitt's website and the Purchase Agreement and Bill of Sale (Contract) affirmatively stated that Carson and Echo were certified by the Canine Eye Registration
Foundation (CERF) ... These representations were not true. Carson never had a CERF.]
This blog will provide PROOF that, in fact, BOTH of these dogs were CERTIFIED free from heritable eye disease and clear for breeding.
I want to offer education along with this "reveal", so I will provide this information about CERF to give you an idea of what is being presented. Much of this is cut and paste
direct from the CERF website.
For more indepth information, visit their website at: www.vmdb.org/cerf.html
[CERF is a centralized, national registry of dogs certified free of heritable eye disease by members of the American College of Veterinary Ophthalmologists]
The importance of the testing procedure is to breed away from dogs with heritable eye diseases. Although the breed of Doberman rarely presents with eye disease, it is
good to have the test done, in my opinion, at least once, for rule-out. Since CERF's Mission is clear, they recommend it be done annually, lifelong. I chose to follow my
well-educated, yet, unbiased veterinarian's recommendation on whether or not I needed to have re-testing done on Echo. Thus far, he feels repeated testing would be
redundant for Echo ... and as well, all of my other dogs.
That said, here is a quote from the CERF website:
[If the dog is certified to be free of heritable eye disease, you can then send in the completed owner's copy of the CERF form with the appropriate fee, ($12.00 for the
original CERF Registration, or $8.00 if it is a recertification or kennel rate).]
This states, if read verbatim, that FIRST, the dog is CERTIFIED to be free of heritable eye disease via the clear test result itself. NEXT, the owner sends in the owners copy
of the test results, (the CERF form), with another fee to be REGISTERED. When CERF receives that fee & the Certification (the owners form), THEN CERF will send you a
secondary piece of paper, (a one year 'keepsake' ... certificate), and the dog will be placed on a public database. But again, it is abundantly clear, whereas, verbiage
states the dog is CERTIFIED at the time of the test, IF the dog is found to be free of heritable eye disease. The CERF testing procedure, itself, is the avenue by which
CERTIFICATION is determined, not the secondary piece of paper called the certificate. It should be noted, also, that once the second fee is paid to CERF, the dog is
REGISTERED and placed on their database. Being REGISTERED is not the same as being CERTIFIED.
In March of 2003, at the age of 1 yr. 8 months, Echo was CERTIFIED free of heritable eye disease AT the time of the test, even though Echo has a "freckle" on her lens.
The freckle is small and unobtrusive, and was categorized: "punctate cataract, significance unknown". The specialist stated I had nothing to worry about in that it was
benign and would probably never change or alter her vision. Nevertheless, since ALL marks of ANY kind on the lens must be noted, a freckle would still CERTIFY her
'normal' and clear for breeding, and would carry what they call a "Breeder Option" categorization.
Here is what CERF says about that category diagnosis:
[*"breeding is not recommended for any dog demonstrating partial or complete opacity of the lens or its capsule unless the examiner has also checked the space for
significance of the above punctate cataract unknown."]
Echo was Certified, I sent in the form, and paid the additional fee for: REGISTRATION, a paper certificate, and placement on the CERF database website.
Here is Echo's 2003 Registration information directly from the CERF webpage today:
[Breed / Registration Number / Dog Name / Birth Date / CERF Number / Most Recent CERF Exam / Previous Years Registered / Breeder Option Diagnosis
DOBERMAN PINSCHER / WR04040604 / SUDAHR'S RAINDANCE / 7/29/2001 / DP-1526 / 3/22/2003 / 03 / E1 - Punctate cataract - significance unknown]
There is the "PROOF" of Echo's CERF Certification.
So, here is the back story on Carson and his CERF test:
On August 21, 2005, Carson was CERF tested in Enumclaw, WA. The breeding between Echo and Carson had already occurred, but I was wanting to have this test done
on him before the puppies arrived so that we would have more statistics to offer prospective buyers. Carson's owner/breeder, Tammy Markey, agreed to have the CERF
done, at my request, on that weekend, because there was a clinic being offered by the host club of that weekends show circuit. I was present - in the room - when the
CERF test was performed on Carson; I was witness to the results, both seen and verified by the Specialist doing the test. I also had my dog, (Rock, who was Carson's 1/2
brother), tested the same day - in the same room with Carson. Kudos to Tammy, who bred them both ... THERE is an example of breeding for impeccable temperament.
That said, once Carson, (and Rock as well), had been Certified by the vet to be free from heritable eye disease, (NORMAL), I rushed home to post the results on the
website** I had at that time.
(Teaser): **My website, prior to and until after the pups in that litter were placed, was NOT www.katoba.com as stated in the court order, but was in fact a small, limited,
free website: www.geocities.com/katobadobermans , consisting mostly of pictures of the dogs and puppies.
But, THAT "reveal" is for another day :)
So, once I faced false accusations against me regarding Carson's CERF test and results, I responded, giving all the factual information I had ... and contacted Tammy
regarding the CERF test paperwork. I knew the fact of his status to be true so I did not choose to remove it from the website. I also, DID include the information in the puppy
packet of information available to each prospective puppy buyer, along with contact info for the owner/breeder of the sire, and the specialist who performed the CERF test,
etc. The same information is also available when discussing pedigrees and contract, for those who are interested in learning. All said info is also sent home when a puppy
goes to an approved home. Nevertheless, I thought is would be better to have the paperwork to show regarding Carson as well. Tammy stated she did not remember ever
having sent the CERTIFICATION form to CERF ... and since he was not appearing on the CERF database either, she began searching.
Long story short - Tammy had misplaced the owners form. At that time, she was dealing with the loss of three of her dogs, in addition to the stresses of finishing the build of
and moving into their beautiful home ... having been living in an apartment above their garage for 4-5 years. There was easy reason to understand how such a small
document to get lost amongst the disarray over this time. Yes, it would have been ideal for her to have sent the CERTIFICATION form into CERF right after the testing ...
but not everything is ideal. It would have been more ideal to have the test done prior to the breeding ... but, in all honesty, I had NO reason to believe the dog had eye
disease; this was not a test done heavily in the Doberman community ... and selfishly, I had only asked the test be done for "me" - and my attempts to be able to provide as
much health info on both parents as possible by the time the pups were placed. That said, I was also trying to be a compassionate friend, providing understanding to
Tammy's grieving, as well as a stressful house situation. So, I waited patiently.
In my response to the civil complaint, I provided all of the above information and signed, under penalty of perjury, that it was true and correct. I also submitted the actual
ophthalmologists contact information, and Tammy's, as well. AND ... I, later, testified under oath to ... the FACTS. WHY do we do this when it truly means NOTHING? Now,
due to these continued false accusations, I was needing paperwork for the court ... "physical proof". We were soon short on time for court presentation. I was still trying to
get a response from CERF, but they continued to claim they could not help me because they did not get copies of the tests unless they were submitted by owners. WHAT?
Then I contacted Northwest Canine Specialists (NWCS), who claimed, initially, that they do not have to keep CERF test records done from "clinics", and then said they were
sent to CERF. WHAT? I got repeated run-around, but stayed the course. We put the public word out that we were trying to obtain this document and asked if anyone
ELSE knew the procedure. In the meantime, I had been informed that "Dr. Skaer" had been in contact with both CERF and NWCS - copies of her emails, to both, were
made available for me to review. We had put the word out that we needed this document and asked host clubs and others what the procedure was as they knew it to be.
The run-around continued until finally, after pleading for information from every angle, things were explained to me by a very helpful gal at NWCS. She admitted that the
record-keeping for the "CERF clinics held at dog show" was done differently than that offered in the NWCS facility itself, given the vast number of dogs who participate in
the clinics. No files are made and all the forms are put into boxes and "stored". It is a HUGE undertaking to find just one form and it is a rarity to be asked to do so. After
explaining my situation, though, she stated she was 'so appalled', that she was 'willing to put someone in charge of finding that form and sending me a copy'. She did say it
would 'take some time though'. Time is NOT something I had much of, but believed I would get better results if I did not impose pressure. So, I waited .... and waited... and
then I began to call. I was given no return call for days ... and when I did, I was informed they had not contacted me because there had been more contact by someone
again claiming to be "Dr. Skaer", with regard to the ownership of Carson and the release of records. Since NWCS still had not heard from Tammy Markey, Carson's
breeder/owner, they had decided then, NOT give me a copy of Carson's CERF form, and the search had ceased, without notice to me. It was now the week before the
trial. I contacted Tammy in a sad panic of sorts. She thought I had gotten this all taken care of. After explaining, Tammy agreed to contact the NWCS office that very day.
She had to start the entire process all over again ... and that meant ~ MORE time. The NWCS re-initiated the search ; they were also given permission to now speak with
me regarding Carson. Since no written proxy had been sent, though, they would have to send any documentation to the Owner. My response: YAY ... FINE ... just do it!
Unfortunately, the "proof" did not come soon enough. The trial had come and gone that next Monday. I lost the bulk of my credibility in that I had no PROOF that Carson
had been tested - except for the fact that I DID give testimony, UNDER OATH, to all the FACTS presented above ... and I DID sign documents, whereas, I SWORE, under
penalty of perjury, that what I had stated was true and correct. Why, again, do we do that if it amounts to .... NOTHING!
Since Skaer has the personal need to seek out great public attention to feed her false ego, it has remained no secret that we, (Kathy & Todd Babbitt, and Katoba
Dobermans), lost the trial ... and to a unfair level of great magnitude, (once paid in full - it reached $20K +/-). For over 2.5 years now, Skaer has been posting and boasting
her "gloat" to all of the gossip forums & email trash lists she is on. I will even add that Skaer presented as someone that she is not to be able to post the Court Ordered
results of this well-orchestrated-litigious-joke-of-a-trial regarding canine contract issues, to an online forum, (having NOTHING to do with ANY of that subject matter), of
which Todd is a member. To be more specific ... that forum is specifically MUSIC based - focusing on guitar players, musicians, gear, and issues only related to that venue
... NOT lawsuits and Dobermans, etc. Skaer showed her continuation of malicious and harassing behaviors in those sort of repeated, devious ways. Additionally, Skaer has
chosen to publish, (publicly posted to her website), several "stories" about "Katoba". There have been many revisions of said stories, all aimed at slandering Kathy & Todd
Babbitt, and Katoba Dobermans. There have been many revisions of libelous innuendo and defamation, (including but not limited to accusing me of being prejudice
against other races), and now just concentrates on the most current "Recruit Effort" to Blacklist me and Katoba Dobermans. We continued to print out the "story" revisions
from her website, and now ... we are also VERY blessed to have caring people who forward us forum posts, chat records, email lists, and private emails that pertain to this
situation ... and the continued efforts to keep me informed after [your] discussions details with Skaer is greatly appreciated !!!! Those documents & recordings continue to
accumulate, but ...... that is a "reveal" for another day, as well.
Once the order was entered with the findings of fact, conclusions of law, & judgement order against us, we were given the "opportunity" to file an appeal. I laugh in disgust
every time I see or hear that phrase - OPPORTUNITY to appeal - which Skaer and her co-horts throw around readily. We are real people, with real careers, real middle
class household income, and real health events to address. So, while I did seek legal direction, we could not afford to retain an attorney for the process of court and full
representation. That said, I was represented Pro Se. My word ... against the manipulators of fact. I will offer this: Todd and I are honest, well-intended people, who do not
understand the likes of others who have separate agendas, are sly and devious, jealous and conniving, or thrive on conflict. That said, the ONLY reason Todd's name was
ever brought into this was because Echo was listed as Co-owned and Co-Registered on Echo's AKC paperwork ... that means that when I bred Echo, Todd was
automatically listed as a co-breeder, ONLY per the AKC registration guidelines. The dog fancier venues are my passion, and the dogs are just "loves" in Todd's life. I
wanted a puppy out of Echo and felt a responsibility to try to protect all the other pups in the litter as best as I could since they did not choose to be here ... in doing a
diligent job as a breeder, where the PUPPIES best interests are concerned, I should NEVER have expected to have been required to sustain wealth enough to afford
protection against this type of malicious and greedy attack. And make sure you understand - Tracy Skaer's dog has NO health problems, has been successful in the Show
ring, is both Canine Good Citizen Certified and Working Aptitude Certified, and is according to Skaer, her soul mate. Ask yourself this: WHY would she sue??? And WHAT
type of court would rule that she had been injured? WHAT is the injury exactly?? THAT information was never truly detailed ... just that Saker had been injured.
The ruling came down in September; and in October, I had to undergo yet another cancer-related surgery. It should be clear by now that during that time in our lives,
neither money, emotion, nor health could be wasted on the despicable results of this tainted trial. The VERY day the appeals option ran out, Skaer had a garnishment filed
against Todd's wages. There was NEVER a discussion of how or when it would be paid ... just a garnishment that had been readied. Her attorney continued to add multiple
charges to those allowed fees - thousands - by sending unnecessary additional letters and garnishment reminders, etc, when the County had already set him up for payroll
garnishment, until they received notice of satisfaction of judgement. It should also be noted that Skaer's attorney, Colleen Harrington, is also the interim judge for the same
court.
[Harrington is being recognized for her dedication to pro bono service, particularly with Whitman County Legal Services ... She is currently in private practice ... She serves
as president of the Whitman County Bar Association as a judge pro tempore for Whitman County District Court] ~ Washington State Bar Association for the media release
Trust me, the public opinion on these conflicts-of-interest compound ... but those are better left as reveals for another day, as wel.l
I do want to make one more point VERY CLEAR:
It was MY decision to breed Echo. The dogs are my passion and the dog show venues ... MY hobby. Other than feeding or playing with them and helping ME in their care
when I was away, Todd had NOTHING to do with ANY of the breeding decisions, whelping, or rearing of the puppies - nor more that YOU, who are reading this, did. Yet,
Skaer proved that she is an opportunist, as she chose to maliciously name him in the suit, as well our marital property, AND to garnish only his wages so she could get to
where the bigger money in the household was, further manipulating and harassing Todd. All Todd EVER did to/for her was to pay for two meals that Skaer sloppishly
shovel down, and to welcome Skaer into our home and tolerate her during several visits - where she even had the nerve, (without asking us), to invite HER out of town
family members to come to OUR house in expectation that they would be welcome to play with the puppies & dine in our home. WHAT?!?! Oh yes, lets not forget the ONLY
non-doberman interaction between Skaer & Todd - when Todd bought two Apple Cup Football game tickets that Tracy had available ... to elaborate on her OTHER show
of greed, she required him to pay $110.00 for the tickets that we later noticed had a printed price of $50.00 each. This would mean she sold these tickets with a 10%
mark-up. I believe the term for that is SCALPING.
"Hey, administrators of WSU, I ask you this... it is legal or even ethical for a WSU employee to SCALP tickets for a football game, played by WSU students, at a WSU
football stadium, for the biggest WSU game of each year ... or, at ALL ??
We did confront Skaer on the issue of it being a possible mistake; Todd did not get any reimbursement ... but ... THAT is a reveal for another day.
Todd recommended AGAINST placing a puppy with Tracy Skaer ... so did several of the other people involved in the planning/breeding, and/or those present during her
visits to my house.
I will offer ... in all humility ... I should have listened.
Back to the CERF issue:
Even after the trial and through my surgery ... Tammy stayed on top of things regarding the NWCS and CERF, despite her own life events. In January 2008, Tammy
received an envelope in the mail from NWCS. It contained a copy of the form they had in archives, which proved the test was done, with signature and dates, and the result
being that Carson was Certified free from heritable eye disease. Tammy gave me that form in March 2008. I called NWCS to thank them for their efforts and follow through,
at which time it was suggested that we submit it to CERF with additional payment, requesting a certificate for the actual year it was valid, (08/05-08/06), because regardless
of current date, for THAT periods of time, he was "certified" by the vet on the day of the test. That said, I made even more copies of that copy ... and I did submit it to CERF
as was suggested. CERF refuse to provide a 'certificate' ... based ONLY on the fact that the submitted document was a photocopy, and not the ORIGINAL form. I had
Tammy contact them again, at which time, they released the ONLY original left in existence to her. Tammy was gracious enough to give me that ORIGINAL form. I will NOT
send the original in to CERF for an outdated certificate now, as I cannot trust it will not be "lost" ... then there will be NO proof for me, for Tammy, for Echo, or ... for Carson.
The facts remain ~ both Echo and Carson HAD been tested and both "Certified" free of heritable eye disease at the time of each test. Echo's REGISTRATION was paid for
in 2003; she appears on the website database. Tammy never did send in the Certification with fee to CERF ... therefore, Carson did not appear on the website database
nor did he get a purchased 'certificate', (a redundancy).The important thing was that he did have the test done - even though it was not a test that MOST have done ... and
he had been Certified free of heritable eye disease per the CERF exam form.
And here is where "it all comes back around" .........
You are invited to CLICK ON THE DOCUMENTS BELOW, TO ENLARGE.
This is the photocopy of the original test form, sent to Tammy Markey, (Carson's owner/breeder), from NWCS ...
On September 17, 2006 Judge Douglas Robinson ruled that we, Kathy & Todd Babbitt had lied about the CERF testing of Echo and Carson and that Carson had never
been tested, finding us guilty of fraudulent and misleading advertising, a violation of the Consumer Protection Act. He also ruled it unintentional.
Nevertheless, on October 10, 2007, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law & Order was filed, to include the following:
[2.5 Babbitt's website and the Purchase Agreement and Bill of Sale (Contract) affirmatively stated that Carson and Echo were certified by the Canine Eye Registration
Foundation (CERF) ... These representations were not true. Carson never had a CERF.]
This blog will provide PROOF that, in fact, BOTH of these dogs were CERTIFIED free from heritable eye disease and clear for breeding.
I want to offer education along with this "reveal", so I will provide this information about CERF to give you an idea of what is being presented. Much of this is cut and paste
direct from the CERF website.
For more indepth information, visit their website at: www.vmdb.org/cerf.html
[CERF is a centralized, national registry of dogs certified free of heritable eye disease by members of the American College of Veterinary Ophthalmologists]
The importance of the testing procedure is to breed away from dogs with heritable eye diseases. Although the breed of Doberman rarely presents with eye disease, it is
good to have the test done, in my opinion, at least once, for rule-out. Since CERF's Mission is clear, they recommend it be done annually, lifelong. I chose to follow my
well-educated, yet, unbiased veterinarian's recommendation on whether or not I needed to have re-testing done on Echo. Thus far, he feels repeated testing would be
redundant for Echo ... and as well, all of my other dogs.
That said, here is a quote from the CERF website:
[If the dog is certified to be free of heritable eye disease, you can then send in the completed owner's copy of the CERF form with the appropriate fee, ($12.00 for the
original CERF Registration, or $8.00 if it is a recertification or kennel rate).]
This states, if read verbatim, that FIRST, the dog is CERTIFIED to be free of heritable eye disease via the clear test result itself. NEXT, the owner sends in the owners copy
of the test results, (the CERF form), with another fee to be REGISTERED. When CERF receives that fee & the Certification (the owners form), THEN CERF will send you a
secondary piece of paper, (a one year 'keepsake' ... certificate), and the dog will be placed on a public database. But again, it is abundantly clear, whereas, verbiage
states the dog is CERTIFIED at the time of the test, IF the dog is found to be free of heritable eye disease. The CERF testing procedure, itself, is the avenue by which
CERTIFICATION is determined, not the secondary piece of paper called the certificate. It should be noted, also, that once the second fee is paid to CERF, the dog is
REGISTERED and placed on their database. Being REGISTERED is not the same as being CERTIFIED.
In March of 2003, at the age of 1 yr. 8 months, Echo was CERTIFIED free of heritable eye disease AT the time of the test, even though Echo has a "freckle" on her lens.
The freckle is small and unobtrusive, and was categorized: "punctate cataract, significance unknown". The specialist stated I had nothing to worry about in that it was
benign and would probably never change or alter her vision. Nevertheless, since ALL marks of ANY kind on the lens must be noted, a freckle would still CERTIFY her
'normal' and clear for breeding, and would carry what they call a "Breeder Option" categorization.
Here is what CERF says about that category diagnosis:
[*"breeding is not recommended for any dog demonstrating partial or complete opacity of the lens or its capsule unless the examiner has also checked the space for
significance of the above punctate cataract unknown."]
Echo was Certified, I sent in the form, and paid the additional fee for: REGISTRATION, a paper certificate, and placement on the CERF database website.
Here is Echo's 2003 Registration information directly from the CERF webpage today:
[Breed / Registration Number / Dog Name / Birth Date / CERF Number / Most Recent CERF Exam / Previous Years Registered / Breeder Option Diagnosis
DOBERMAN PINSCHER / WR04040604 / SUDAHR'S RAINDANCE / 7/29/2001 / DP-1526 / 3/22/2003 / 03 / E1 - Punctate cataract - significance unknown]
There is the "PROOF" of Echo's CERF Certification.
So, here is the back story on Carson and his CERF test:
On August 21, 2005, Carson was CERF tested in Enumclaw, WA. The breeding between Echo and Carson had already occurred, but I was wanting to have this test done
on him before the puppies arrived so that we would have more statistics to offer prospective buyers. Carson's owner/breeder, Tammy Markey, agreed to have the CERF
done, at my request, on that weekend, because there was a clinic being offered by the host club of that weekends show circuit. I was present - in the room - when the
CERF test was performed on Carson; I was witness to the results, both seen and verified by the Specialist doing the test. I also had my dog, (Rock, who was Carson's 1/2
brother), tested the same day - in the same room with Carson. Kudos to Tammy, who bred them both ... THERE is an example of breeding for impeccable temperament.
That said, once Carson, (and Rock as well), had been Certified by the vet to be free from heritable eye disease, (NORMAL), I rushed home to post the results on the
website** I had at that time.
(Teaser): **My website, prior to and until after the pups in that litter were placed, was NOT www.katoba.com as stated in the court order, but was in fact a small, limited,
free website: www.geocities.com/katobadobermans , consisting mostly of pictures of the dogs and puppies.
But, THAT "reveal" is for another day :)
So, once I faced false accusations against me regarding Carson's CERF test and results, I responded, giving all the factual information I had ... and contacted Tammy
regarding the CERF test paperwork. I knew the fact of his status to be true so I did not choose to remove it from the website. I also, DID include the information in the puppy
packet of information available to each prospective puppy buyer, along with contact info for the owner/breeder of the sire, and the specialist who performed the CERF test,
etc. The same information is also available when discussing pedigrees and contract, for those who are interested in learning. All said info is also sent home when a puppy
goes to an approved home. Nevertheless, I thought is would be better to have the paperwork to show regarding Carson as well. Tammy stated she did not remember ever
having sent the CERTIFICATION form to CERF ... and since he was not appearing on the CERF database either, she began searching.
Long story short - Tammy had misplaced the owners form. At that time, she was dealing with the loss of three of her dogs, in addition to the stresses of finishing the build of
and moving into their beautiful home ... having been living in an apartment above their garage for 4-5 years. There was easy reason to understand how such a small
document to get lost amongst the disarray over this time. Yes, it would have been ideal for her to have sent the CERTIFICATION form into CERF right after the testing ...
but not everything is ideal. It would have been more ideal to have the test done prior to the breeding ... but, in all honesty, I had NO reason to believe the dog had eye
disease; this was not a test done heavily in the Doberman community ... and selfishly, I had only asked the test be done for "me" - and my attempts to be able to provide as
much health info on both parents as possible by the time the pups were placed. That said, I was also trying to be a compassionate friend, providing understanding to
Tammy's grieving, as well as a stressful house situation. So, I waited patiently.
In my response to the civil complaint, I provided all of the above information and signed, under penalty of perjury, that it was true and correct. I also submitted the actual
ophthalmologists contact information, and Tammy's, as well. AND ... I, later, testified under oath to ... the FACTS. WHY do we do this when it truly means NOTHING? Now,
due to these continued false accusations, I was needing paperwork for the court ... "physical proof". We were soon short on time for court presentation. I was still trying to
get a response from CERF, but they continued to claim they could not help me because they did not get copies of the tests unless they were submitted by owners. WHAT?
Then I contacted Northwest Canine Specialists (NWCS), who claimed, initially, that they do not have to keep CERF test records done from "clinics", and then said they were
sent to CERF. WHAT? I got repeated run-around, but stayed the course. We put the public word out that we were trying to obtain this document and asked if anyone
ELSE knew the procedure. In the meantime, I had been informed that "Dr. Skaer" had been in contact with both CERF and NWCS - copies of her emails, to both, were
made available for me to review. We had put the word out that we needed this document and asked host clubs and others what the procedure was as they knew it to be.
The run-around continued until finally, after pleading for information from every angle, things were explained to me by a very helpful gal at NWCS. She admitted that the
record-keeping for the "CERF clinics held at dog show" was done differently than that offered in the NWCS facility itself, given the vast number of dogs who participate in
the clinics. No files are made and all the forms are put into boxes and "stored". It is a HUGE undertaking to find just one form and it is a rarity to be asked to do so. After
explaining my situation, though, she stated she was 'so appalled', that she was 'willing to put someone in charge of finding that form and sending me a copy'. She did say it
would 'take some time though'. Time is NOT something I had much of, but believed I would get better results if I did not impose pressure. So, I waited .... and waited... and
then I began to call. I was given no return call for days ... and when I did, I was informed they had not contacted me because there had been more contact by someone
again claiming to be "Dr. Skaer", with regard to the ownership of Carson and the release of records. Since NWCS still had not heard from Tammy Markey, Carson's
breeder/owner, they had decided then, NOT give me a copy of Carson's CERF form, and the search had ceased, without notice to me. It was now the week before the
trial. I contacted Tammy in a sad panic of sorts. She thought I had gotten this all taken care of. After explaining, Tammy agreed to contact the NWCS office that very day.
She had to start the entire process all over again ... and that meant ~ MORE time. The NWCS re-initiated the search ; they were also given permission to now speak with
me regarding Carson. Since no written proxy had been sent, though, they would have to send any documentation to the Owner. My response: YAY ... FINE ... just do it!
Unfortunately, the "proof" did not come soon enough. The trial had come and gone that next Monday. I lost the bulk of my credibility in that I had no PROOF that Carson
had been tested - except for the fact that I DID give testimony, UNDER OATH, to all the FACTS presented above ... and I DID sign documents, whereas, I SWORE, under
penalty of perjury, that what I had stated was true and correct. Why, again, do we do that if it amounts to .... NOTHING!
Since Skaer has the personal need to seek out great public attention to feed her false ego, it has remained no secret that we, (Kathy & Todd Babbitt, and Katoba
Dobermans), lost the trial ... and to a unfair level of great magnitude, (once paid in full - it reached $20K +/-). For over 2.5 years now, Skaer has been posting and boasting
her "gloat" to all of the gossip forums & email trash lists she is on. I will even add that Skaer presented as someone that she is not to be able to post the Court Ordered
results of this well-orchestrated-litigious-joke-of-a-trial regarding canine contract issues, to an online forum, (having NOTHING to do with ANY of that subject matter), of
which Todd is a member. To be more specific ... that forum is specifically MUSIC based - focusing on guitar players, musicians, gear, and issues only related to that venue
... NOT lawsuits and Dobermans, etc. Skaer showed her continuation of malicious and harassing behaviors in those sort of repeated, devious ways. Additionally, Skaer has
chosen to publish, (publicly posted to her website), several "stories" about "Katoba". There have been many revisions of said stories, all aimed at slandering Kathy & Todd
Babbitt, and Katoba Dobermans. There have been many revisions of libelous innuendo and defamation, (including but not limited to accusing me of being prejudice
against other races), and now just concentrates on the most current "Recruit Effort" to Blacklist me and Katoba Dobermans. We continued to print out the "story" revisions
from her website, and now ... we are also VERY blessed to have caring people who forward us forum posts, chat records, email lists, and private emails that pertain to this
situation ... and the continued efforts to keep me informed after [your] discussions details with Skaer is greatly appreciated !!!! Those documents & recordings continue to
accumulate, but ...... that is a "reveal" for another day, as well.
Once the order was entered with the findings of fact, conclusions of law, & judgement order against us, we were given the "opportunity" to file an appeal. I laugh in disgust
every time I see or hear that phrase - OPPORTUNITY to appeal - which Skaer and her co-horts throw around readily. We are real people, with real careers, real middle
class household income, and real health events to address. So, while I did seek legal direction, we could not afford to retain an attorney for the process of court and full
representation. That said, I was represented Pro Se. My word ... against the manipulators of fact. I will offer this: Todd and I are honest, well-intended people, who do not
understand the likes of others who have separate agendas, are sly and devious, jealous and conniving, or thrive on conflict. That said, the ONLY reason Todd's name was
ever brought into this was because Echo was listed as Co-owned and Co-Registered on Echo's AKC paperwork ... that means that when I bred Echo, Todd was
automatically listed as a co-breeder, ONLY per the AKC registration guidelines. The dog fancier venues are my passion, and the dogs are just "loves" in Todd's life. I
wanted a puppy out of Echo and felt a responsibility to try to protect all the other pups in the litter as best as I could since they did not choose to be here ... in doing a
diligent job as a breeder, where the PUPPIES best interests are concerned, I should NEVER have expected to have been required to sustain wealth enough to afford
protection against this type of malicious and greedy attack. And make sure you understand - Tracy Skaer's dog has NO health problems, has been successful in the Show
ring, is both Canine Good Citizen Certified and Working Aptitude Certified, and is according to Skaer, her soul mate. Ask yourself this: WHY would she sue??? And WHAT
type of court would rule that she had been injured? WHAT is the injury exactly?? THAT information was never truly detailed ... just that Saker had been injured.
The ruling came down in September; and in October, I had to undergo yet another cancer-related surgery. It should be clear by now that during that time in our lives,
neither money, emotion, nor health could be wasted on the despicable results of this tainted trial. The VERY day the appeals option ran out, Skaer had a garnishment filed
against Todd's wages. There was NEVER a discussion of how or when it would be paid ... just a garnishment that had been readied. Her attorney continued to add multiple
charges to those allowed fees - thousands - by sending unnecessary additional letters and garnishment reminders, etc, when the County had already set him up for payroll
garnishment, until they received notice of satisfaction of judgement. It should also be noted that Skaer's attorney, Colleen Harrington, is also the interim judge for the same
court.
[Harrington is being recognized for her dedication to pro bono service, particularly with Whitman County Legal Services ... She is currently in private practice ... She serves
as president of the Whitman County Bar Association as a judge pro tempore for Whitman County District Court] ~ Washington State Bar Association for the media release
Trust me, the public opinion on these conflicts-of-interest compound ... but those are better left as reveals for another day, as wel.l
I do want to make one more point VERY CLEAR:
It was MY decision to breed Echo. The dogs are my passion and the dog show venues ... MY hobby. Other than feeding or playing with them and helping ME in their care
when I was away, Todd had NOTHING to do with ANY of the breeding decisions, whelping, or rearing of the puppies - nor more that YOU, who are reading this, did. Yet,
Skaer proved that she is an opportunist, as she chose to maliciously name him in the suit, as well our marital property, AND to garnish only his wages so she could get to
where the bigger money in the household was, further manipulating and harassing Todd. All Todd EVER did to/for her was to pay for two meals that Skaer sloppishly
shovel down, and to welcome Skaer into our home and tolerate her during several visits - where she even had the nerve, (without asking us), to invite HER out of town
family members to come to OUR house in expectation that they would be welcome to play with the puppies & dine in our home. WHAT?!?! Oh yes, lets not forget the ONLY
non-doberman interaction between Skaer & Todd - when Todd bought two Apple Cup Football game tickets that Tracy had available ... to elaborate on her OTHER show
of greed, she required him to pay $110.00 for the tickets that we later noticed had a printed price of $50.00 each. This would mean she sold these tickets with a 10%
mark-up. I believe the term for that is SCALPING.
"Hey, administrators of WSU, I ask you this... it is legal or even ethical for a WSU employee to SCALP tickets for a football game, played by WSU students, at a WSU
football stadium, for the biggest WSU game of each year ... or, at ALL ??
We did confront Skaer on the issue of it being a possible mistake; Todd did not get any reimbursement ... but ... THAT is a reveal for another day.
Todd recommended AGAINST placing a puppy with Tracy Skaer ... so did several of the other people involved in the planning/breeding, and/or those present during her
visits to my house.
I will offer ... in all humility ... I should have listened.
Back to the CERF issue:
Even after the trial and through my surgery ... Tammy stayed on top of things regarding the NWCS and CERF, despite her own life events. In January 2008, Tammy
received an envelope in the mail from NWCS. It contained a copy of the form they had in archives, which proved the test was done, with signature and dates, and the result
being that Carson was Certified free from heritable eye disease. Tammy gave me that form in March 2008. I called NWCS to thank them for their efforts and follow through,
at which time it was suggested that we submit it to CERF with additional payment, requesting a certificate for the actual year it was valid, (08/05-08/06), because regardless
of current date, for THAT periods of time, he was "certified" by the vet on the day of the test. That said, I made even more copies of that copy ... and I did submit it to CERF
as was suggested. CERF refuse to provide a 'certificate' ... based ONLY on the fact that the submitted document was a photocopy, and not the ORIGINAL form. I had
Tammy contact them again, at which time, they released the ONLY original left in existence to her. Tammy was gracious enough to give me that ORIGINAL form. I will NOT
send the original in to CERF for an outdated certificate now, as I cannot trust it will not be "lost" ... then there will be NO proof for me, for Tammy, for Echo, or ... for Carson.
The facts remain ~ both Echo and Carson HAD been tested and both "Certified" free of heritable eye disease at the time of each test. Echo's REGISTRATION was paid for
in 2003; she appears on the website database. Tammy never did send in the Certification with fee to CERF ... therefore, Carson did not appear on the website database
nor did he get a purchased 'certificate', (a redundancy).The important thing was that he did have the test done - even though it was not a test that MOST have done ... and
he had been Certified free of heritable eye disease per the CERF exam form.
And here is where "it all comes back around" .........
You are invited to CLICK ON THE DOCUMENTS BELOW, TO ENLARGE.
This is the photocopy of the original test form, sent to Tammy Markey, (Carson's owner/breeder), from NWCS ...
 |
| Copyright 2006-2010 KBabbitt. All Rights Reserved. use of ANY materials on this site or its linked pages is explicitly prohibited. |
| "The CERF ... The PROOF" |
 |
| Here is the envelope it came in, (noting the date of postmark) ... |
At trial, Skaer claimed she should be awarded damages for the years she was now going to have to suffer, as Drago would need repeated health testing and possible
care for all the concerns she had about his health ... including, the future blindness concerns she had for Drago, as a result of Echo's "cataract", (freckle) ... more so,
due to Carson's supposed lack of ever having been tested.
Here is today's cut and paste from Drago's page which appears Skaer's website. This is the last time Drago was CERF Certified:
[Eyes: 10/05/06, 09/15/07 CERF OFA# DP-1868 Normal]
Based on both the Judge AND Skaer's collaborative claims ... if it isn't on the CERF website, it isn't Certified, and so it was not done.
That said, here is a cut and paste of the results found for Drago on the CERF website:
[Breed / Registration Number / Dog Name / Birth Date / CERF Number / Most Recent CERF Exam / Previous Years Registered / Breeder Option Diagnosis
DOBERMAN PINSCHER WS14917404 KATOBA'S FIRE ROLLER 9/18/2005 DP-1868 10/5/2006 06,07
DOBERMAN PINSCHER WS14917404 KATOBA'S FIRE ROLLER 9/18/2005 DP-1868 9/15/2007 06,07]
To help you actually line up dates, that means the last CERF test Drago had done was two days before the trial. That is now almost 2.4 years ago.
NONE of the other health test results for Drago on Skaer's website, nor OFFA database, show that ANY further health testing has been done on Drago after/since the
trial, (with the exception of a follow up thyroid panel which proved to be normal).
Ironically, (but not surprisingly), it appears as though MONEY took away all the
fears Tracy Skaer claimed to have regarding Drago's health or testing.
If you are interested in the detailed story of Drago, and our subsequent dealings with Tracy Skaer, I invite you to click on this link:
"The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth"
I just keep reminding myself that God is in control of this, not me, and that ...
... "it all comes back around."
care for all the concerns she had about his health ... including, the future blindness concerns she had for Drago, as a result of Echo's "cataract", (freckle) ... more so,
due to Carson's supposed lack of ever having been tested.
Here is today's cut and paste from Drago's page which appears Skaer's website. This is the last time Drago was CERF Certified:
[Eyes: 10/05/06, 09/15/07 CERF OFA# DP-1868 Normal]
Based on both the Judge AND Skaer's collaborative claims ... if it isn't on the CERF website, it isn't Certified, and so it was not done.
That said, here is a cut and paste of the results found for Drago on the CERF website:
[Breed / Registration Number / Dog Name / Birth Date / CERF Number / Most Recent CERF Exam / Previous Years Registered / Breeder Option Diagnosis
DOBERMAN PINSCHER WS14917404 KATOBA'S FIRE ROLLER 9/18/2005 DP-1868 10/5/2006 06,07
DOBERMAN PINSCHER WS14917404 KATOBA'S FIRE ROLLER 9/18/2005 DP-1868 9/15/2007 06,07]
To help you actually line up dates, that means the last CERF test Drago had done was two days before the trial. That is now almost 2.4 years ago.
NONE of the other health test results for Drago on Skaer's website, nor OFFA database, show that ANY further health testing has been done on Drago after/since the
trial, (with the exception of a follow up thyroid panel which proved to be normal).
Ironically, (but not surprisingly), it appears as though MONEY took away all the
fears Tracy Skaer claimed to have regarding Drago's health or testing.
If you are interested in the detailed story of Drago, and our subsequent dealings with Tracy Skaer, I invite you to click on this link:
"The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth"
I just keep reminding myself that God is in control of this, not me, and that ...
... "it all comes back around."
| Below, left: the rejection letter and form CERF, based on this not being the "original form" Below right: the BACK of the form they returned, including their post-it note which is still attached ... they kept the copy of the front side. |
| Below, is the envelope it came in, showing postmark date, THREE months later, (yes it took them THAT long to respond) |
| Here is the original CERF form, released to Tammy Markey by the NWCS. It is the last and ONLY "original" copy of said document, and it is now in my possession. THIS is Carson's actual "CERTIFICATION" as describe by CERF above. Left - front, Right - back. |
| There is the PROOF of Carson's CERF Certification. |
Carson Drago Echo |
| Published and posted by Kathy Babbitt January 10, 2010. Edited for spelling and structure. |
