OK, let's think about this rationally:

• I alone spent $75,000  publishing The Naked Truth - yet Amy calls herself the "publisher" too. She literally didn't spend a dime on any phase of this work.

• I alone spent $4,000 on computer equipment for her to use for an upcoming book project. She now claims this equipment is hers.

• I alone spent $20,000 having my puppies boarded, trained and groomed. Yet she believes the handler should keep them.

• Amy sent me several handwritten notes that stated, because of my continued financial generosity towards her, she would no longer be charging me for any of her dogs. But yet, these supposedly "free" dogs revert back to her when she invents something to be pissed off about!! Seems like that's a mighty high "price" to pay for "free puppies". And she demands that I sign over their registration papers, so she can sell them again to some new unsuspecting "checkbook".

To rationalize another way:

• Amy's entire line of Cresteds aren't worth the money I spent on the book.

• These two puppies aren't worth the money I spent on just the computer equipment.

Yet somehow in her mind she's found a way to "equalize" our contributions and state that she's the injured party, therefore "owed" even more!!

And because I wanted to fire the handler and hire a real professional and ethical handler, this did not mean my "agreement to campaign" was being dishonored. As the person paying the handler, I had every right to fire an incompetent, dishonest person.

I don't know of an owner or backer out there that spends upwards of $20,000 on the belief that the dogs don't  belong to them. And no, I didn't have a gun to my head to spend that exorbitant amount. But I did it in "good faith", with the knowledge that these two dogs were mine, were to come live with me and be used in my breeding program. Had it been a "conditional" arrangement, that for whatever reason I didn't "live up to" whatever she chose to trump up, they could be yanked back, I would never have invested the money--who would.

How can that be? I've been the one all along paying for everything of Amy's, whether personal, professional or dog-related expenses. So now Amy apparently believes she can simply renege on her meager "contribution" of 2 puppies, AFTER I've invested all my money and time. Because of that unbelievable reversal, I'm absolutely going to demand to be reimbursed for my contribution!! How exactly can she or anyone else [especially a court of law] quantify the staggering differences in "contributions". She's NEVER met anyone willing to give so much in exchange for so little--yet she's stolen back what little she did give--how dare her. While certainly she's had other backers for her dogs, some even paid quite a bit of her personal expenses--but none to the extent that I spent on just the book alone, and in such a short amount of time.

While I'm at it, she can also reimburse me for the money I wasted having "the handler" train and condition my dogs--I got nothing but a big fat blabbermouth, gossip-spreading bitch for my trouble! And one that stole my dogs for her own personal pets.

Oh yes, and while I'm at it, Amy can just return the $500 I prepaid for the commissioned artwork of my Whippet, as well as the $489.45 for her tickets to England. I'm not about to pay for that kick in the teeth! Up until Amy sent that nasty note about staying somewhere else, I had perfectly planned on picking up all expenses--even AFTER her nasty notes following Westminster.

Well no, Amy doesn't have any money to settle a lawsuit, but that's never prevented her from conning someone else into forking over the money. Either way, she does have my books, computer equipment and dogs. But the thinking isn't that I'll sue her, what's she's done is much bigger than that. She pulled a scam of the largest magnitude. So the question is not whether I'll sue her, it's whether I'll file fraud charges against her with the NYPD! People in this country get taken to court, and thrown in jail for stealing $100--but Amy's grift is in the grand larceny scale of scams. After all, there are plenty of criminals sitting in New York prisons and jail cells that have stolen much less. On the advice of my attorney, I've given her [and Pam] more than a year to make any type of restitution, but have not heard anything one way or the other, so their time and my patience is almost out. 

[Please keep in mind, Amy and Pam did this to me specifically at a time when they knew I would be distracted and unable to fight back. So that's why this information is just now coming to light. Had they done this when I had free time, the outcome would've been completely different.]

News Flash: Isn't it just a bit ironic that one of the latest dogs Amy is showing is called RMT Grand Larceny. Sounds like the true Amy coming to light.

It was quite premeditated too. The male puppy "Flame" was always known to come back from New York with me, for me to special in the Northwest. [Hmmm, then why would Pam have made entries for him AFTER Westminster if he was indeed to go home with me? Since Pam never told me where/when my dogs were going, or when she used my credit card, how was I to know. This was another reason I wanted to fire her. That's a handler's job--to inform the clients where/when the dogs are going and how they did when they got there. But Pam never did--ever.]

That entire NY weekend neither Amy or Pam said anything to the contrary about Flame not going home with me. I didn't even realize it until ~15 minutes before Pam was leaving for the airport. She had both my dogs piled in crates rather than just Electra. I asked what it was all about--as Flame was to come home with me. They explained that they thought Electra should take a break from showing while she matured a little more [first I'd heard of this.] I was thinking at the time, how strange, how can Pam show Flame anyway since the entry deadlines had been missed. I only found out later when checking my visa statement, that she'd entered him before we spoke, and verified as such on the super's site. So the "change" of plan was definitely premeditated.

This is also when Amy decided that I ALREADY had a special to show--[see discussion of Carmel previously in 1.6.]

I'll bet Pam has all my dogs crammed in her tiny home--or at least both puppies. Which in itself is really scary, as between three adults, Pam, Paul and Shawn, they don't even have the money to pay their mortgage--much less essentials such as dog food. And we all know that Pam's gonna feed herself first before anything goes to the dogs, she's got quite the appetite and she's constantly talking about food. This is not a slam against her increasing girth, but the fact that that's all she talks about--food, constantly. This is another reason I wanted my dogs back after New York--I was concerned for their safety under Pam's care.

You mean the same computer equipment that she's been using to talk to everyone online now--the computer that brought her into the 20th Century, just in time for the 21st!! The same computer that was loaded with expensive software and included a printer.

The computer equipment was bought and sent to her solely under the assumption of the next book project we were going to work on--one I'd invited her to join me on. For the purpose of facilitating her sending me the chapter excerpts on computer disk, rather than her indecipherable longhand.

I'd invited her to join me on this project even though I didn't know what role she'd play, as Victor Joris had wanted me to work with him--not me and Amy. I was trying to come up with something she could do, even though I knew that having her on the project would just make things that much more difficult to manage, as all the work eventually ends up on my desk. But she still kept the $4000 worth of equipment after she'd destroyed that book deal too.

Of course not. First, she'd have to con her latest "mark" into forking over the money to hire the lawyer. Then if she got that far, she'd have to prove that what I've written is untrue--and the facts are that she cannot. As they say in legal circles--"there's no defense against the truth". Third, she'd have to prove that she's financially harmed by what I've written--which would require her to say and provide written documentation that she's breeding dogs for profit!

For my part, I've got invoices and receipts galore to prove the money trail. I've got the marked-up manuscripts and all hard/softcopy versions to prove who really did the work on the book. I've got emails from Amy that include full headers, as well as letters in her handwriting with her signature to prove the ownership of the dogs, the agreement about the books and the computer equipment. I've got bills submitted from Pam, with drug store receipts showing makeup purchases, mismanaged invoices, etc.

Plus Amy's spent the better part of 20 years trying to disprove that she's living off the backs of her dogs.

Just to hear about the book as if it's "her book" is really hard to take. The project started back in April of 97 when I asked Amy to write a book with me. The only reason I gave Amy top billing on the book was because of her experience and reputation in the breed, and that it would be her name that would sell them--it was just a stupid marketing decision of mine--certainly not based on what her overall contribution to the book would be. But I wrote more than 75% of the whole thing, edited 100% of it. I taught myself how to use Quark software, then did 100% of the design and layout too [which was really hard]. I also had to figure out how to write an index [even harder], and the glossary, reference, etc. I designed all the fliers that went out, the postcards and matching fullsize-cards, then even the colored mailing labels. Then I had to figure out how to create and design a dust jacket...very hard!

I then paid 100% of everything, all the scanning and publishing costs too--which were staggering. Not to mention the nearly $25,000 that it cost in lawyers and buyoff to get the rights back from the former publisher. I even paid for the mailings that she sent out--I sent her lots of money for stamps, with the boxes of envelopes, flier material and the labels to go with them. Of course, she had to complain that she was doing ALL this work!!

What gets me with her trying to lay claim to my contribution, is that if it really is all hers, then that just begs the question...why did it take nearly 20 years in the breed before the book got written? Hmm, makes one wonder what [or whom] could possibly be different in this equation?!!

I think one of the reasons things got "over" so quick is that people were starting to question my part in "her" book. All the emails of congrats she forwarded to me, they only ever mentioned "her book, her book, her book". She never set them straight at all--I couldn't believe she'd then forward me the emails, but she did. But the people sending congrats to me knew enough to acknowledge BOTH our parts. What does this say about her--that she surrounds herself with people that think she's omnipresent.

Oh, and almost 99% of the non-recent photos in the book are all mine. I found them doing months and months of research on the web--most images she hadn't even seen before, much less known what to write about. It's just unbelievable how she speaks to the entire product as her own--that's just garbage. She didn't even have contacts with the Peruvian, American Hairless or Sphynx people at all--it was all my work--from contacts I'd discovered doing online research.

In hindsight it shouldn't have been. Of course in hindsight everything should've/would've/could've gone smoother and been much cheaper. But the facts at the time were that neither of us had ever done anything like this before. There weren't any resources at our disposal, other than what I could find on the internet. We couldn't really discuss the project with anyone, so I was left with what I could find online.

Please note that many times throughout  the project cycle, Amy wanted to give up. I found this quite interesting as she wasn't the one doing the majority of the work--yet to her, the meager tasks she had to accomplish were simply too staggeringly difficult for her.

Based on my calculations according to any standard publishing contract, a co-author  would be entitled to 5%, with another $2,000 for the cover art and $1000 for the illustrations. Which means Amy is only entitled to 150 books, at a value of $6,413--plus the additional $3,000. Plus she would be entitled to BUY author's copies at a 40% discount, over and above what she would receive as compensation.

Since Amy was sent 60 cartons of inventory [16 books per carton] that amounts to 960 books, at a value of $41,040 [$42.75 per book]. But since my financial backing was done in "good faith" based on future reprints and an upcoming project, Amy has no legal right to keep these books, nor sell them. She would need to either send back 810 books [received intact, at her expense] or send me a cashier's check or money order in the amount of $34,627.

And this is JUST what she owes me for the book expenses alone--this doesn't include her part of the ~$25K in publishing lawsuit and payoff I financed. She also understood that any profit that would be gleaned from From A to B would be mine, seeing as I again would have been paying all expenses, doing most of the work, and her again riding my coattails to take credit for all I did. But she understood and agreed to this. In hindsight, of course she agreed, because she knew she hadn't planned to follow thru--she could promise me anything, just as long as I agreed to do the work..

She did the watercolor for the cover, a few illustrations and sketches. She submitted photos of recent dogs [for which I had to obtain permission to print.] But she only wrote ~50% of the main book sections. Although I have to say her writing "style" leaves something to be desired as it continually caused a great deal of confusion for me trying to follow her train of thought. For example, in one version she would put a paragraph in say, Section 1, the second version she'd tell me to move it to Section 2, and by the third version, she'd scream at me for moving it--saying I needed to PUT IT BACK where it belonged--in Section 1. The whole thing was maddening. She had no concept of what she was writing, whether she'd written it before, what the point was she was trying to make. This "style" is better suited for 1000 words or less puff pieces--the type of stupid articles she typically wrote before I came onto the scene.

Since I was the sole publisher / financier of the hairless book, I sent her 1/3 of the inventory [way more than the 10% payment [not in books] she'd receive on any other book publishing deal. But she wouldn't have received the full 10% since there were two co-authors--that's why I mentioned her being entitled to 5%.] But my overall costs were astronomical, so all the copies I'll sell, I'll NEVER break even. But any copy she sells is PURE UNREPORTED PROFIT as she had no expenses. I only sent her the number of books I did because of expected returns on the next printing and on another book project. She knew all of this full well, and knew that because of my unbelievable generosity I would have the lion's share of profit on the next project--to make up for the extraordinary losses on the first book. She also knew I only structured it this way because otherwise she wouldn't have made a dime on the book until years later. That's why it's illegal for her to keep the books she's got--over and above the 5% payment of a normal contract.

I'm not asking for all the credit...not even half the credit...it's not even "about" credit. Obviously I didn't do it for financial gain either. What I didn't expect was to get negative credit [as in who the hell are you and why are you here]. Sure most people don't know me or my face like they do Amy [which was why the top billing--in hindsight, I can't believe it was even MY idea!], but that doesn't explain her friends saying the same thing--and Amy never setting them straight.

I guess you could say that. Amy's just got the "starving artist" scam going to the hilt though. Something about that made me, and others put our good sense aside and support her. As many others before me, I only did what I did out of a misplaced sense of responsibility and loyalty towards Amy-again, what a fool I've been. She's a master grifter!! I just can't believe I was duped by her...and all her hangers-on that have fallen in right behind her.

As those who came before me, we are all just pawns in her web of deceit. The others that choose to follow her in spite of everything, it's just because they want something from her, so they're no better. I on the hand, was giving to her [not taking].