REGISTRY, Breed & kennel Club NEWS

Dog Show Judge Bites Back - Civil Lawsuit - Part II

 by Louis Fallon

 (See # Handy Links at end of Article for Reference Material)

In the real world, which includes the world of the sport of purebred dogs, there are facts and there are opinions.   Every person is entitled to their opinion, as long as it does not infringe on another person's rights or is contrary to a fact. 

The fact is that dog show judge Philip H. Martin is not the first dog show judge to file charges against a person that has defamed him, and knowing human nature he will not be the last.   Mr. Martin stands in a long line of dog show judges, men and women included, that have stepped up and filed charges both during the operation of a dog show or in a civil court.    For those people that did not read TheDogPress' Dog Show Judge Civil Lawsuit, Part I (link below), Mr. Philip Martin, an AKC dog show judge has filed a civil defamation lawsuit against Ms. Sandra Teague, who wrote defamatory comments about his integrity as a dog show judge on Cyberdobes.com (Ref. Link #2),, an Internet email list with 2,000 readers.   The lawsuit was filed on October 24, 2006 in Broward County Circuit Court in Orlando, Florida, and states that Ms. Teague has defamed Mr. Martin’s good name and reputation by writing libelous statements that were published.

The AKC Gazette Secretary's Page published in both printed form and at AKC website (ref. #3) lists the names of persons that have been found in violation of a dog club or AKC article of incorporation, bylaw, rule, regulation, or policy.  Almost every year, there are people that open their big uninformed opinioned mouths at dog shows to attack and defame a hard working dog show judge in conformation, in obedience, at field trails, agility, herding and every aspect of the sport of pure-bred dogs.  The Event Committee of the dog club is then called and it provides a fair and impartial hearing, rendering a verdict, which may include a suspension and or a monetary fine against the big mouth opinionated person.   I have served on Event Committees. 

The late Mr. William H. Kendrick of Pennsylvania was the Best in Show judge at the AKC Centennial Dog Show held in Philadelphia in 1984.   Mr. Kendrick was an all-rounder dog show judge, eligible to judge all breeds of dog, every group and Best In Show at a dog show.   Bill Kendrick was the president of the Kennel Club of Philadelphia from 1960 to 1990 and was also a member of the Montgomery County Kennel Club.  He began his dog judging career while he was a twenty year old student at Princeton University.  His late uncle, W. Freeland Kendrick, once Mayor of Philadelphia, was the owner of Queensbury Bull Terrier Kennels and Mr. Kendrick started out as a Bull Terrier fancier, later breeding and showing Manchester Terriers, Airedale Terriers and other Terrier breeds.   As a dog show judge Mr. Kendrick's list of honors and awards in the world of the sport of purebred dogs was overwhelming.  His wife Mrs. William (Vernelle) L. Kendrick is still an active dog show judge.  Like today's dog show judge Mr. Philip Martin, the late Mr. William Kendrick also filed charges against a person that defamed him as a dog show judge, and Mr. Kendrick was vindicated. 

The words  “you must do everything possible to keep your reputation above reproach”  are found in the AKC Guidelines for Conformation Dog Show Judges, amended to November 1, 2004, sub-section  “Ethics: Honesty Plus Common Sense”, both printed and on their site Guidelines/Judges-pg4 (ref. #4) .  Like the late Mr. Kendrick I believe that the words require dog show judges to stand up and prove in court, if necessary, that as a dog show judge he or she does both possess and project an unwavering air of integrity and ethical behavior that protects the good name and reputation of dog shows as being fair and well-judged.    Having someone defame your good name and reputation as a dog show judge before an email list audience of 2,000 people, fellow dog fanciers and dog show judges alike, without response could be interpreted as acceptance of those vile and false words by people. 

In 1983 the Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper ran a series of newspaper articles that suggested that a Pennsylvania Supreme Court Judge was guilty of influence peddling.   The jurist sued the newspaper and won a $6 million libel verdict in December 1990.   In September 2006, a Florida woman won an $11 million defamation verdict in Broward County Circuit Court over statements that were posted on an Internet bulletin board.   Of course, each civil case has its own merit. 

A dog show judge is a purely private individual, as the late Mr. Kendrick was and as Mr. Martin and the other 3,300 dog show judges are today.  In the case of a private person the legal test for proving defamation is not as difficult to prove as it might be for a public person.  Although United States Supreme Court rulings such as the 1964  New York Times Co. v. Sullivan  decision apply everywhere in the United States, Florida like most states continues to have their own libel laws that cover private individuals.  Because private individuals have more reason than public officials to be left alone, American libel laws recognize that private people are entitled to more legal protection against false statements made about them.

Doberman Pinschers.  First I will make the statement "Doberman Pinschers are a wonderful breed of dog" as both a fact and my opinion.  I recognize there have been contrary opinions to those words from individual trial court judges adjudicating dog bite cases and dog situations throughout the USA.  I happen to like Doberman Pinschers, but I recognize that not everyone does, and that some people will actually cross the street rather then walk near a nice friendly Doberman Pinscher. 

Ms. Cheri McNealy, part-owner of the Cyberdobes Email List sent TheDogPress.Com a copy of a fifty page Phillip Martin email thread postings from Cyberdobes, along with her own commentary on the situation, and asked us to review them.   I did read each and every one of the fifty pages and commentary that were received, slowly and carefully, taking notes as I read.  In my opinion, some of the Cyberdobe email posters should have their PC's turned off and be fined $1,000 payable to Doberman Pinscher Rescue for their false, untrue, misleading and distorted written comments about the Santa Barbara Kennel Club dog show and their slights and written attacks against some of their fellow Doberman Pinscher fanciers.   Shame on them, shame!    Their Doberman Pinscher dogs should give their owners lessons in civility and socialization. 

The facts in the Martin v. Teague situation:  It is a fact that Mr. Philip Martin of Florida  provided stud service from his Doberman stud BIS BISS CH. Phillmar X-Static to dog breeder Donald K. Holder of  California.   It is a fact that Mr. Holden's bitch CH. Holder Parks Elsa whelped on 4/24/2005.  On 6/22/2005 dog breeder  Mr. Holden sold a puppy named  'Holder Park's Red Hot Cayenne' to Mrs. Judith K. Walter of Phoenix, Arizona   It is a fact that Mrs. Judith K. Walter of Phoenix, Arizona entered her dog Cayenne in the Santa Barbara Kennel Club dog show on 8/26/2006.  It is a fact that Mr. Philip Martin of Florida judged the Doberman Pinschers at the Santa Barbara Kennel Club dog show and that the dog Cayenne was awarded winners dog and best of winners ribbons with one championship point on 8/26/2006.   It is a fact that the dog's owner Mrs. Judith K. Walter of Arizona had no financial contact or any other contact and had never met, talked with or knew dog show judge Mr. Martin before seeing him for the first time in the Santa Barbara Kennel Club dog show ring eighteen months later.  

Dog show judge Mr. Martin did not violate any AKC incorporation article, bylaw, rule, regulation, guideline, code or policy by judging Ms. Walter's dog Cayenne.  

The official results of the Santa Barbara Kennel Club dog show are found at the AKC website, at AKC Events and Awards (ref #5) then drill down to the Doberman details (ref. #6) 21 Entries - 12 dogs - 9 bitches.

The Doberman Pinscher Cayenne has a webpage on his breeder, Mr. Holder's website  HolderPark.com (ref. link #7) .   An AKC Awards Certificate dated 9/27/2006 is reproduced there so that any person, including the 2,000 Cyberdobe readers can view Cayenne's show record.    Between 11/17/2005 and 09/10/2006, ten different AKC licensed dog show judges awarded a total of eighty dog show awards to the dog Cayenne including fifteen championship points.  I am not a Doberman Pinscher person, and if I could find the dog Cayenne's webpage, I believe that any and all of the 2,000 Cyberdobe readers could find Cayenne's webpage also. 

In the fifty page printout of the Phillip Martin email thread on Cyberdobes, Mrs. Grace A. Black, an AKC Judge since 1984 and a Doberman Pinscher owner since 1964, was correct in writing that people should read the 'AKC Guidelines For Conformation Dog Show Judges' before making opinion comments.  It is my opinion that the 2,000 people on the Cyberdobe email list should have embraced Mrs. Black’s words of wisdom and stopped posting their uninformed opinions about the Santa Barbara Kennel Club dog show - but the mob did not, the mob continued to rant and rave and post uninformed, opinionated garbage.  Then on September 14, 2006, Ms. Sandra Teague posted her infamous and defamatory words - Cyberdobe  #66382,  "My thoughts on this Phillip Martin thing" on the Cyberdobes email list of 2,000 readers.  I will not reproduce those defamatory words.  The Florida trial judge and jury can deal with those words.  

On October 24, 2006 Mr. Martin's lawyer filed his defamation civil lawsuit # 06-16864-09, in the State Court of Florida against Ms. Sandra Teague stating that she had defamed his good name and reputation by writing libelous statements that were published on  Cyberdobes.com (ref #2).   The lawsuit includes as "Exhibit A" Ms. Teague's September 14, 2006 email posting.  The AKC words “you must do everything possible to keep your reputation above reproach” come to mind.

On October 30, 2006 Ms. Sandra Teague posted an email apology of sorts (ref #8) on the Cyberdobes email list that was obviously written by her attorney.   Ms. Teague’s email apology post has no legal value and might be regarded by a Florida jury as an admission of guilt and responsibility.

American founding father Benjamin Franklin of Philadelphia is reported to have said the words "Once the bell has been rung you cannot un-ring it."  Lawyers and American judges have often used those words in courtroom situations and decisions.  A thief may apologize and offer to give back the money to avoid going to prison.  An armed robber handcuffed by the authorities cries crocodile tears and is sorry that he pistol-whipped an innocent person.  But the bell cannot be un-rung.  

The AKC Disciplinary Guidelines, found on their website and mailed to every show giving dog club, provide that Misconduct Against a dog show Judge is punishable by up to ten years suspension from AKC events and a $5,000 fine.  Unsportsmanlike conduct during an event is punishable by up to a five year suspension from AKC events and a $1,000 fine.   Each and every show giving dog club is required to follow the AKC Disciplinary Guidelines. 

The mob’s email postings on the Cyberdobe list show a lack of sportsmanship, a lack of knowledge about the sport of purebred dogs and of the AKC.   Postings that were done even after dog show judge Mrs. Black's informed educational posting of the AKC Guidelines for all of them to read.

All of the 2,000 participants on Cyberdobes have email and web access.  All of the 2,000 readers can easily visit the AKC website and then go to the Dog Show Judges Index (ref link #9) and read all about dog show judges.  Included are these words or pertinent interest;

"Conflict of Interest  Guidelines/Judges-pg 5 (ref. #10)  

AKC recognizes you cannot control who enters under you. Consequently, situations may arise that require you to excuse an exhibitor due to a conflict of interest known to you. Some examples of exhibits or exhibitors that meet the criteria are:

* a dog which you or a member of your immediate family has owned, co-owned, sold, boarded, etc., within one year prior to the show date (emphasis added).  

* a person who has handled for you within four months prior to the show date (emphasis added). 

* a person with whom you have a business relationship.  Conversely, it would be a conflict of interest for you to handle a dog not owned or co-owned by you or a member of your immediate family (refer to "Handling" section)."

Mr. Martin had done nothing wrong in his judging of the twenty-one Doberman Pinscher entries at the Santa Barbara Kennel Club dog show.  Mr. Martin of Florida had no financial contact, or any other contact, with Mrs. Judith K. Walter of Arizona, the owner of the Doberman Pinscher Cayenne. 

For additional information about dog show judges, please visit the AKC website and read;

Guidelines for Conformation Dog Show Judges (ref #11), Amended to November 1, 2004, several pages.

Conformation Judges: Applications and Announcements (ref #12)

and AKC Conformation Judging Policies;

Adjunct Approval (April 1994 Board meeting)

AKC Board Household Judges (July 2000 Board meeting)

Best in Show Approval (January 1996 Board meeting)

Correspondence (January 1988 Board meeting)

Delegate Judges (May, 1993 Board Meeting)

Denials of Judging Reinstatement (February 2000 Board meeting)

Directories and Business Cards (January 1984 Board meeting)

Disabled Handlers (March 1998 Board meeting)

Fitness to Judge (February 2003 Board Meeting)

Judges Unable to Perform (May 2000 Board meeting)

Judging Assignment Solicitation (September 1999 Board meeting)

Ramps (May 1997 Board meeting)

Reinstatement/Reactivation of Judges (April 2001 meeting)

Salesman or Solicitor (April 2000 Board meeting)

Visiting Judges (Adopted July, 2005 and amended at February, 2006 Board Meeting)

Of the 3,300 licensed AKC dog show judges there are at least 500 with a Florida mailing address.  There are at least 25 senior AKC dog show judges that are also retired experienced lawyers who reside in Florida.  The plaintiff's attorney will have his pick of expert witness dog show judges to testify on his behalf. 

In summary;

+ On September 14, 2006, Ms. Sandy Teague posted her email #66382 "My thoughts on this Phillip Martin thing" on the Cyberdobes email list of 2,000 readers.   

+  On October 24, 2006 Mr. Martin's law firm filed his defamation civil lawsuit # 06-16864-09, in the State Court of Florida stating that Ms. Sandra Teague had defamed his good name and reputation by writing libelous statements that were published on  Cyberdobes.com, an Internet email list.   The lawsuit includes as "Exhibit A" Ms. Teague's September 14, 2006 email posting.

+  On October 30, 2006 Ms. Teague posted an email apology of sorts on the Cyberdobes email list that was obviously written by her attorney. 

The defamation civil lawsuit having been filed, the matter is now before the State Court of Florida.  The civil court calendar waiting time from filing to trial is about two years.   I suggest that we all return to the care and training of our dogs, and use our time and energy to raise money for a donation to our favorite dog breed rescue organizations.  Let justice run its course in the State Court of Florida.

more article links below "Handy Links"

Handy links:______________________