The health account
“Just some more perfect boys from your kennel.”
Carol A. reports negative results for 194 tested genetic disorders in three NAIDs. The kennel publishes this favorable owner account.1
Read the testimonialMAJESTIC VIEW KENNELS / AN INTERNET RECORD
One breeder.
Across the web.
Majestic View Kennels in Lowell, Michigan, sells Native American Indian Dogs and related crosses. This notebook brings together the kennel’s website and social posts, buyer accounts published elsewhere, and the supplied sales agreement. Read them beside one another, with each source visible.
THE SAME SUBJECT / THREE DIFFERENT RECORDS
Health, care and responsibility.
What picture emerges when the kennel’s selected praise, a buyer’s reported experience and the written agreement are read together?
The reported experience
Purchaser reports a heart defect diagnosed after purchase, alleges that the breeder suggested euthanasia, and says the family chose to keep and care for the puppy.2
20 January 2016 · marked “Verified customer” by ComplaintsBoard.
Read the testimonialThe stated remedy
“Animal must be euthanized, with authentic documentation provided to the breeder and a replacement pup will be provided.”
This wording follows the two-year genetic-health provision.3
Read the 2026 sales agreementThe buyer account is from 2016; the supplied agreement is current for 2026 onward.
IMAGES SUPPLIED FROM THE REVIEW DISCUSSION
What the buyer photographed.
Hyattsville, US · 20 January 2016
2“We have seen her kennel in person, the amount of dogs on her land is mind boggling. She has her dogs birthing litters every month, by the masses. How do you feel about your new puppy (you already put a deposit on) trying to feed on raw meat through a thick plastic bag?”
The reviewer’s words describe the visit and feeding allegation. The images alone do not establish the feeding practice or frequency of litters.
THE KENNEL’S OWN POSTS / HERITAGE & CONTROL
Whose breed?
The kennel invokes Indigenous heritage and restoration while claiming authority over who may breed the dogs. These posts place care for a shared legacy alongside private control.
August 9, 2026
The government-remorse statement
“Maybe the U.S. Govt. Felt some remorse for treating indigenous people's so badly and decided to let the type of dog that was utilized for millennium be their own breed.”
View the post screenshot
August 8, 2026
The authorized-breeder statement
“There is only 1 (one) Authorized breeder of the NAID(R) and the NAID designer dog mixes, besides myself the creator, founder and owner of the U.S. Trademark on the breed.”
View the post screenshot
Original wording retained. The government-remorse statement is the breeder's self-authored speculation; the authorization statement is her published claim. History places these beside the trademark record.
The trademark-certificate post · August 9, 2026
The breeder displays a registration certificate and states that an animal was trademarked.
Open the trademark-certificate post The agreement claims continuing control.
It reserves confiscation “at any time” if the kennel “feels” the dog’s environment is unsuitable. It separately claims offspring following an unauthorized breeding, with financial demands in the same clause.3
After purchase and transfer to the buyer, the kennel still claims authority to take the dog back under its stated conditions and to claim offspring following unauthorized breeding. These are the documented conditions presented before an adoption is agreed.
Read the 2026 sales agreement (PDF)COURT RECORD / 2019
Silas v Markel: what the docket records.
In case 2019-D19C00303-GZ, the 63rd District Court in Kent County lists Robin E. Silas as plaintiff (P1), and Karen Markel and “Majestic Kennel” as defendants (D1 and D2). The case was filed on 9 January 2019.5
The docket records a “MOTION FILED FOR POS PND FINL JUDGT” on 9 January 2019 under P1. On 22 January 2019, it records “MOTION DENIED FOR POS PND FINL JUDGT,” again under P1—the plaintiff, not the kennel.
It later records bench trials, followed by “JUDGMENT ENTERED WITHOUT JURY” on 8 April 2019, with $764.08 entries associated with each defendant. Judgment-issued and amended-judgment entries follow on 15 April. The case is closed.
This docket does not establish that the breeder sought to confiscate a buyer’s dog: the possession motion is attributed to the plaintiff. The property sought, reasons for denial, and final relief require the underlying filings and amended judgment. This record also predates the supplied 2026 agreement.
Read the court docket (PDF)FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE
Notes & sources
Majestic View homepage, owner account signed Carol A., selected and published by the kennel. Publication date unstated. Read the testimonial ↩
Purchaser15, ComplaintsBoard, 20 January 2016. The platform marks this commenter as a verified customer. That label does not independently verify the reported diagnosis, advice or feeding practices. The photographs accompany the same account. Read the review in context ↩ ↩
2026 sales agreement.pdf, supplied directly to the editor as current for 2026 onward. The PDF is linked unchanged. Reproducing its claimed terms does not establish a lawful power of unilateral seizure. Read the 2026 sales agreement ↩ ↩
Editor-supplied screenshots of Majestic View Kennels posts: August 8, authorized breeders; August 9, government-remorse statement; August 9, trademark certificate. The editor confirms these posts are from 2026. The supplied Facebook share links are listed with the excerpts. Open its Facebook page ↩
MiCOURT case-details printout supplied by the editor, Silas v Markel, 63rd District Court, Kent County, case 2019-D19C00303-GZ. Parties on pages 1–2; possession motion filed 9 January 2019 under P1 and denied 22 January under P1 on pages 7–8 and 6; judgment entries on pages 2–3. The printout does not include the complaint, motion, orders or amended judgment. Read the court docket (PDF) ↩