Vom FELSENHOF - VomFelsenhof - Melanie Williams Parsons -Melanie Williams - KreighauserGSD ROBBING the HANDICAPPED STEALING my DOG DOGNAPPING RIPOFF Belen New Mexico

This has been brought to my attention as being an ongoing issue for German Shepherd lovers around the world. I have decided to post "THE REST OF THE STORY." Remember there are always two sides to every story. I have documentation to back up each of my claims in my lawsuit AGAINST Ms. Jan Corso--SHE was the defendant in this matter. Anyone can post anything on this site, be it true, false, or somewhere in between.

I have Ms. Jan Corso's (of Von Hasental German Shepherds) legal response to this civil suit filed with the court, and later responses filed with the court, which are not even self-consistent. Her story changes every time she tells it. Anyone is welcome to email me at vomfelsenhof at aol dot com, and I will provide all documentation, including the original certificate of receipt, showing shipping to New Mexico and all court documents. I have repeatedly attempted to refund Ms. Corso's money in full, until it ended up costing me more to have the dog here than was paid for the dog. Each item mailed to Ms. Corso was returned "REFUSED." I have scanned copies of these as well for anyone who would like to see them. Ms. Corso and I attended court-ordered mediation, during which we could not mediate a solution to the problem (my giving on my end, and no giving on the part of Ms. Corso--all documented). I finally ended up dismissing my lawsuit against Ms. Corso, as it had cost an obscene amount of money, and we were no closer to an end than when we had begun. The court trial would have cost thousands more for both myself and Ms. Corso, which is why (I assume) that she agreed to the dismissal.

Ms. Corso of "von Hasental German Shepherds" is not the pillar of the community and poor elderly disabled person who has been "robbed" as she would have you believe; rather, she is on full disability and lives with her mother, who is also on full disability in a mobile home in Evansville, Wyoming. She claims to "train service dogs" when she has trained her "Teka" (Canisphere's Alura, who has been and continues to be bred (see her "C" and "E" litters von Hasental, although she is severely dysplastic (notice ALL of her other dogs proudly have hip ratings posted on her website of vonhasental dot com) not to mention having horribly weak ears which had to be taped up in order to even stand) to pick up items off the floor, carry items, and put her slippers on for her. (This dog was highly aggressive towards another female b***h she purchased through me, and though claims the dog is worthless in her response to the court, this dog has also been bred several times, each time producing puppies which Ms. Corso has sold for thousands of dollars.) I highly doubt that Ms. Corso is claiming/reporting ALL of the thousands of dollars of income to the state disability board that she has made selling these many, many puppies. Ms. Corso claims in responses she's made that she is "not a breeder." (do a search on "hasental" and I think you will find otherwise)

It was a mistake of mine to ever become "friends" with Ms. Corso, as I was clearly being used the entire time, and was only good as a "friend" until I was no longer willing to give more to the taker. It was a bigger mistake to find any dogs for her to breed to "help [her] make enough money to live." Life has many regrets, but we all must move on.

Here is a copy and paste of the "OTHER SIDE" of the story, taken from filed court documents:

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

COUNTY OF BERNALILLO

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT



CAUSE NO. CV 2006-10831



Melanie Williams-Parsons, )

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) ss.

)

Jan Corso, )

Defendant. )


AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT

... (deleted to remove names and addresses of parties)

FACTS
3. Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an oral contract for the importation, breeding and delivery of one female GSD. The agreed-upon terms were as follows: Plaintiff agreed to use her established contacts in Germany to locate a suitable GSD b***h, to assist in the importation thereof, to accept delivery of the GSD b***h at the Albuquerque Sunport airport and transport b***h to Plaintiff's residence in New Mexico, to breed the b***h to Plaintiff's stud dog, and to deliver the b***h to Defendant in Colorado Springs, CO, a point approximately halfway between Plaintiff and Defendant's residences. Defendant agreed to pay all costs of purchasing and importing the GSD b***h including any transportation and customs charges, to pay Plaintiff's expenses in boarding the b***h while in Plaintiff's care for breeding to the stud dog, to meet Plaintiff approximately halfway to take delivery of the pregnant b***h and to pay Plaintiff for gas expenses, and to pay Plaintiff's $800 stud fee.

4. Through her contacts in Germany, Plaintiff did locate a suitable b***h for Defendant to purchase and import: Tammyna von der Michaelswiese, German registration number 2137116, d.o.b. November 22, 2003, rated Excellent in a German conformation show and having earned a Schutzhund I title, certifying that the b***h had passed an examination in tracking, obedience and protection and was thus suitable for breeding under German rules. On behalf of Defendant, Plaintiff negotiated a purchase price of $3,100 including shipping and a portion of the customs fee.

5. Defendant apparently obtained a loan from a third party to pay for the b***h, and in any event the Plaintiff wired the purchase and shipping money to and was received by Plaintiff's contact in Germany, who shipped the b***h to Plaintiff as agreed.

6. Almost immediately after the arrival of the b***h, Defendant began requesting revision of the contract. Defendant requested that Plaintiff advance all costs associated with breeding and/boarding, with such costs to be paid from the first two deposits Defendant received from future purchasers of puppies resulting from the breeding. Defendant also requested Plaintiff's assistance in advertising the litter on Plaintiff's website and other marketing means. In good faith and in consideration of her friendship with Defendant, Plaintiff agreed to these modifications of the original terms.

7. Defendant sent Plaintiff some faux jewelry and other hand made art objects as gifts entirely unrelated to the contract. Once the "gifts" were received by Plaintiff, Defendant claimed that the objects sent to Plaintiff were worth $1300, and that the gifts had been made in lieu of the agreed-upon cash payment for Plaintiff's stud and boarding fees. This was never agreed to by the Plaintiff.

8. Defendant subsequently stated that she wanted any puppy deposits sent to the third party who had loaned her the money for the dog, and no deposits would be given to or kept by the Plaintiff. Defendant then told Plaintiff that Defendant would not pay the agreed-upon stud fee and boarding costs, and that the Defendant would pay the costs some other time.

9. Concerned that Defendant was abusing their friendship and that Plaintiff would be stuck with costs Plaintiff had never agreed to bear, Plaintiff requested that a written contract be drafted and signed by both parties to ensure that the parties' legal rights and responsibilities were laid out clearly. Plaintiff's request to memorialize the agreement was sent to the Defendant via email, who refused to sign any contract.

10. In the meantime, the b***h remained unclaimed at Plaintiff's residence, accruing both costs of feeding and Plaintiff's time to care for the b***h. Defendant then demanded that Plaintiff deliver the b***h to Cheyenne, Wyoming, notwithstanding that Defendant knew that Plaintiff is currently pregnant, the pregnancy is high-risk, and Plaintiff has been instructed by her physician to avoid driving long distances, which could cause premature birth and significant risk to both Plaintiff and her unborn child. As this bad-faith demand was unacceptable to Plaintiff, Plaintiff told Defendant that Defendant's purchase amount of $3,100 minus Defendant's previously owed expenses would be refunded, and that Plaintiff would sell the b***h to someone else, as the Plaintiff was unable and unwilling to accommodate the Defendant any further than Plaintiff already had.

11. Plaintiff also provided Defendant with the option for Defendant to come pick up the b***h, after paying the previous balance owed for customs clearance ($172.50) advanced by Plaintiff , a previous balance owed by Defendant for costs associated with a prior breeding ($325.43), and Plaintiff's costs for boarding the b***h.

12. Since Defendant refused to read or respond to Plaintiff's emails, Plaintiff then mailed out two copies of a letter, Dated December 9th, 2006, to Defendant that gave Defendant 7 business days to respond, or Plaintiff would be forced to sell the b***h. Plaintiff sent one copy to Defendant's PO Box and one to her physical address via Priority USPS Mail, return receipt requested. Defendant refused delivery of the Priority mailings, which were both returned "REFUSED" to Plaintiff unopened. Plaintiff wanted to return the "$1300" worth of "gifts" received from Defendant, but since mail was being refused, did not want to incur this cost just to have the package returned refused. Plaintiff also had reason to believe that even if Defendant accepted the return of these "gifts", Defendant would claim they had not been returned. These gifts will be brought to the Hearing for the Judge to see, and will then be returned to the Defendant.

13. Subsequent to Defendant's refusal to respond to Plaintiff, Plaintiff's contact in Germany who assisted Plaintiff and Defendant in the initial transaction to import the b***h has been forwarding emails that Defendant wrote to the German contact, who was trying to mediate a resolution to this matter, as a favor to the Plaintiff. All of these emails sent by Defendant contain false statements, and are also libelous to and impugn the reputation and profession of Plaintiff in a clear effort to harm Plaintiff's relations with her connections in Germany.

14. Following the libelous emails, were made additional unprivileged internet postings on the websites www.ripoffreport.com and www.pedigreedatabase.com, which are the first things seen worldwide if an internet search for the Plaintiff's kennel name or actual name is made, in which the Defendant published defamatory and libelous statements and accusations of moral turpitude against the Plaintiff that Defendant knew were false, in a direct attempt to injure the Plaintiff's reputation and profession. This Defamation per se did and continues to do harm to Plaintiff and expose the Plaintiff to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, and degradation from others in the GSD business, as well as any potential clients, as the internet is the sole venue of advertising for Plaintiff.

15. Through the German contact, Defendant demanded that Plaintiff ship the b***h to Defendant "COD" on United Airlines via a 7:30am flight to Billings on Monday, December 18, 2006. Defendant's demand contained no offer to pay any previous balance owed, the unpaid customs fee, the stud fee, or any boarding costs. Plaintiff would have had to transport the dog to a veterinarian and pay for a health certificate to ship the dog as cargo. Plaintiff spoke with United Airlines, and was told that the dog could not be shipped on the flight requested, due to temperature restrictions. United Airlines also stated that the Plaintiff would have to sign a contract agreeing that if the Defendant did not pick up the dog and pay for shipping at the airport in Billings, that all shipping costs including a return flight to Albuquerque would have to be paid immediately by the Plaintiff. Defendant repeated these demands on December 31st, 2006 and January 2, 2007, with a shipping date demanded of Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007 and Thursday, December 4th, 2006, respectively.

16. Accordingly, for multiple reasons, including, but not limited to the possibility that Plaintiff would incur even more costs in this matter, Plaintiff could not agree to shipping the dog. Plaintiff explained this to the German contact, who told the Defendant, since the Defendant would not speak directly to the Plaintiff. At the present time, the b***h continues to remain at Plaintiff's residence, incurring additional expenses to Plaintiff, and Defendant refuses to contact Plaintiff to resolve this matter.

17. Plaintiff did reply to the Defendant's demands for shipping and emailed a SETTLEMENT OFFER, in which the Plaintiff agreed to release the dog for shipping once the following stipulations were adhered to: 1) Pay the Plaintiff's costs thus far, which totaled $918.50, OR Defendant could permit Plaintiff to sell the dog, pay Plaintiff's costs from the proceeds, and return any excess money to Defendant, and 2) Defendant would write, sign and notarize an apology to Plaintiff for Defendant's libelous and defamatory remarks, agreeing never to libel, slander or defame Plaintiff again. Defendant did read, but has not responded to Plaintiff's emails, and refuses still to communicate with Plaintiff to resolve this matter.

COUNT I: BREACH OF CONTRACT

18. Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an oral contract for the purchase, breeding and delivery of the b***h, the terms of which are described in Paragraphs 1 through 15 above and are incorporated herein by reference. Plaintiff acted in good faith throughout this matter.

19. Defendant has consistently breached her duty of good faith and fair dealing ever since the parties agreed to the contract terms and has refused to comply with either the original contract terms or any agreed-upon modifications thereto.

20. As a result of Defendant's multiple and serial breaches, Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur both restitution and expectation damages for which she is entitled to judgment against Defendant.

COUNT II: QUASI-CONTRACT

21. Plaintiff herein incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 18 above. Plaintiff maintains that Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a valid bilateral oral contract enforceable at law relating to the importation of the b***h and associated costs.

22. In the event the Court finds that the contract is void, voidable or otherwise unenforceable, however, Plaintiff alternatively states a claim of Quasi-Contract for the agreements between the parties relating to both the importation of the b***h and associated costs, and also seeks recovery for amounts incurred in the prior transaction relating to the prior breeding.

23. Plaintiff, therefore, is entitled to recover from Defendant reliance damages and/or restitution for which Defendant is liable.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

24. Plaintiff requests this Court to award her $1727.03 in damages against Defendant, including, without limitation, restitution of the customs fee of $172.50, the prior balance of $325.43 for the previous breeding, and boarding fees to the date of December 22, 2006, in the amount of $270.00 ($3.00 per day for 5 days (to the time of Defendant's final breach of Contract) and then $15 per day for 17 days), attorney's fees of $150, costs of $9.10 for Priority Mail which was refused, and Plaintiff's expectation damages for the stud fee of $800, as well as all of Plaintiff's future costs including court costs and fees and additional costs relating to the continued boarding by Plaintiff of the b***h, with interest as allowed.

25. Even in the event Plaintiff receives from the Court judgment in her favor upon Counts I and/or II assessing money damages upon Defendant, such damages are insufficient to fully resolve Plaintiff's claims in this action or to protect Plaintiff from incurring additional costs associated with boarding the b***h.

26. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests this Court to grant an Order permitting Plaintiff to sell the b***h and for Plaintiff to recover from such sale all costs already incurred and to be incurred, with any amounts remaining therefrom to be sent to Defendant, by the same form of payment sent to the Plaintiff, Cashiers Check, via Certified USPS mail. Alternatively, in the event Defendant seeks possession of the b***h, Plaintiff requests this Court for an Order instructing Defendant to pay all damages owed to the Plaintiff prior to requiring Plaintiff to release the b***h to the Defendant.

27. Plaintiff also requests that this Court grant an Order and Judgment as the Court sees fit for the Defendant's libel and defamation per se, to include an Order to the entities maintaining the www.ripoffreport.com and www.pedigreedatabase.com websites, ordering the immediate removal of the libelous and defamatory posts against the Plaintiff.


JURY TRIAL WAIVER



28. Trial by jury is not demanded.

Tammyna is now living on Cape Cod, just to let you know. She is also being registered with the AKC with false papers so that she may be bred. Just an FYI.

Tammyna is now living on Cape Cod, just to let you know. She is also being registered with the AKC with false papers so that she may be bred. Just an FYI.

Tammyna is now living on Cape Cod, just to let you know. She is also being registered with the AKC with false papers so that she may be bred. Just an FYI.

It has been almost 14 months now and Melanie Williams still will not give me my dog, Tammyna von der Michaelswiese, that she sold or Brokered to me back in November of 2006.

Ms Williams admits I have paid in full, including the cost of importing and having her shipped here from Germany, but she still will not give me my dog. This woman is sneaky, underhanded, a busybody, deceptive and untrustworthy. I am so sick of her games and rantings and ravings that she still gives me nightmares even after all these months have gone by.

My wish for you all is that you use extreme caution in whom ever you deal with in any purchase, especially one involving a living animal like this. I feel so sorry for this poor dog having to live in a cage all it's young life like this and to not have love and caring from me, her true owner. This dog was in top condition, a young 2 year old when I bought her, she was in daily training for her titles and training for the Showring and given much attention and care at her home in Germany, and then to come here under deception to this uncaring, money hungry breeder to lose her youth and self esteem as a well bred and well trained young adult it just gets me sick!

Someone will step up soon and aid me to rescue this poor young dog while she still has a life ahead of her to live. I wish there were someway to let Tammyna know that I still care and am still trying to find a way to get her rescued and back home here to me and a loving home. As far as you Melanie Williams, God cares for his own, somehow he will let you know how it feels to live a confined, useless, empty life like you are forceing Tammyna into, and lets just see how you like it then. It's what you deserve after the things you have done.

so what is the end of this story have you heard anything has anyone stepped forward with news? omn these breeders? so this broker took your money sent it to germany and purchased the dog and had it shipped to her but is it not in your name. i dont unr

This woman is unbelievalbe. I would suggest you get an attorney. And I would suggest you file theft and fraud charges against her.

If you have the paperwork showing you paid in full for this dog, I am at a loss as to how she can get away with this.

If possible, you should go to her town in person with your paperwork and go to the police.

In November of 2006 Melanie Williams Parsons of Belen New Mexico, using the name of vom Felsenhof German Shepherd Dog Broker, contacted me to buy a female German Shepherd that she had heard of that was in Germany & that was for sale by her German owner. Melanie told me to send her $3,142.00 directly to buy the b***h, and refused to give me the contact name or information of the dogs owner or the agent in Germany advertising the b***h. The female's name is Tammyna von der Michaelswiese, and I was to sent payment in full and it would cover her importation, shipping, health certificate, papers and crate, and she would be delivered to me to the Denver International Airport in Denver, Colorado. I sent payment in FULL within 48 hours directly to Melanie Williams-Parsons as directed. I was told the b***h would arrive within one week. I was given a receipt stating that I had paid in full and her sale was finalized and Tammyna was put in my name. I have a copy of my bank Cashiers Check and the receipt. The day I bought and sent the Cashiers Check as directed to Melanie directly, I came home and went online to inform vom Felsenhof that the money had been sent her via USPS Priority Mail.

Surprise! Knowing I had taken a loan to pay for the dog and the money was on it's way to her, Melanie then turned around the very next day and put MY dog for sale on one of her websites, www.vomFelsenhof.com with intensions to resell her for even more profit! I immediatly sent her an email asking her why was she putting my dog on her website and making her available for sale AFTER she had already sold her to me. She emailed me back telling me how she could make a much higher profit on my dog and gain another $2,000.00 Plus profit by reselling her and she was just seeing what kind of "offers" she would get. My dog, Tammyna's papers have been signed over to me from the seller/owner in Germany back on Nov. 21,2006. He was informed that it was me buying the dog by the agent in Germany and so he signed Tammy's papers over to me directly. BUT, my dog never arrived! Melanie of vom Felsenhof decided she couldn't resist the higher offers on my dog so she decided to have my dog shipped to her airport directly instead of to Denver where I was to pick her up, so she would have possession of her to resell her.

It has been over SEVEN months now! I have never even seen my dog yet. She never arrived. Vom Felsenhof has keep every penny of my money! She is a sneaky, untrustworthy, con artist and criminal in my eyes and NOT to be trusted. She has been reported for various crimes in the past, including phishering website traffic and using many alias's to conduct other shoddy business practices.

I would not trust doing busines with anyone, any kennel or any other dog business in New Mexico under ANY name until you fully investigate exactly who it is you are doing business with and that it is NOT this person using any name as she has been known to do business under several names, kennel names, business names and alias's. vom Felsenhof has been known to use several different kennels names in the past, many many different email addresses & many different online screen names and several different mailing addresses. So, when dealing with ANYONE or any persons dealing in Import and German bloodline German Shepherd Dogs, be SURE to do a search online via the Better Business Bureau, the ripoffreport.com, german shepherd forums and any and all means you can to verify that you are NOT dealing with a crook and thief such as this crooked business that I got suckered by!

BEWARE!