And the beat goes on with this North Carolina Slapp Suit

If you thought this case was over after both sides came out saying the Michigan Judge threw this case out for multiple reasons, well you and I would all be wrong.

It appears Susan Barrett of North Carolina has had her fill of not only this SLAPP Lawsuit but the issues that seem to still be taking place on Facebook surrounding the County Shelter Animals in her State.

My question is, where are the other 4 Defendants or the 3 original Plaintiffs? Did they all go into hiding after this lawsuit or what?

At first I must say I was not sure why Susan Barrett kept keeping the “HEAT” on her as she did but after following this Federal Lawsuit for the entire year of 2012, catching up on all the players of this game on Facebook it seems that there is a huge possibility that a much bigger issue is taking place here. Is Susan Barrett onto something that we haven’t caught up on yet? If nothing else I will say that she seems to be very confident on the issue at hand and it doesn’t seem like anyone or anything is going to stop her from telling her side of the story. So for that reason alone Susan Barrett,I say POWER On as if you keep going down this same path I have no doubt at some point you will get what you are looking for or what you’re working on as with determination like this there is no way you won’t find it.

Story line listed below

WILMINGTON, NC (WSFX) – “As a physician I am sworn to protect the health of the people I take care of in any way possible,” said Dr. David Hill, Pediatrician.
Additional Links
In February of 2010, he and a woman named Kayne Darrell took concerns about Titan cement coming to New Hanover County straight to the county commissioners.

By February of 2011 both were facing a $75,000 lawsuit. Titan called the public comments slander and in the lawsuit claimed they were made knowingly without facts just to cause public friction. Dr. Hill says otherwise.

“After researching the affects of the sorts of pollutants that cement plants put out, I was quite convinced that increases in those pollutants in our area would endanger the very children that I take care of, including my own children,” said Dr. Hill.

Animals are Susan Barrett’s passion. She is the founder of North Carolina Shelter Rescue Inc. “I’m definitely a North Carolina animal advocate, I do rescue shelter animals that are on death row,” said Susan Barrett, North Carolina Rescue League.

She and four other people, including two from Southport and Whiteville, were sued individually for a total of $150,000 for speaking out on facebook about another animal rescue group called Seven Star Sanctuary. That group has people in Michigan, Wisconsin and England.

“Some of us kind of watch how many animals someone is pulling. This particular group out of Michigan started pulling a tremendous amount of animals from Columbus County. Then when we started pulling the kennel cards but none of their names were on any of the kennel cards. They were actually using a NC registered rescue 501C-3,” said Barrett.
Barrett and others then found out the same group was taking the animals they took out of the shelter to several veterinarian offices and leaving them and enormous vet bills behind. We found at least seven vets offices that cared for these animals.

We did a news story on one in Pender County that has yet to be paid in full. Other vet’s offices involved are in Robeson County and Dunn. The vet bills totaled more than a $130,000. When I called those offices, I found many have not been paid in full yet. And many have cut all ties with Seven Star Sanctuary.

It was after all this happened, that Barrett and started posting things on facebook.

“We only posted exactly what took place here in North Carolina that the Vet’s backed up with their own unpaid bills and with the kennel cards from the shelter,” said Barrett. But Seven Star Sanctuary sued saying the posts damaged their credibility.
But these citizens were speaking their beliefs. And in a country filled with free speech, some say, it’s a dangerous precedent to have citizens getting sued.

“It’s not just what’s going on with my case. I’ve started researching it we have a tremendous amount of these slap suits going on in North Carolina. They’re clogging up our court system that is already over burdened. The legislators here need to realize what’s going on and jump on board like some of the other states do and get that anti-slapp regulation passed,” said Barrett.

State Rep. Susi Hamilton believes legislation called ANTI-SLAPP is needed. SLAPP stands for strategic litigation against public participation.

“It provides them with some protection for speaking their opinion and giving their thoughts to whatever the issue is at hand without being threatened by a lawsuit by a larger industry or organization with deep pockets and lawyers and attorneys and staff that can pursue those kinds of lawsuits where in the case of the private citizen who is speaking out about a certain issue those citizens would be responsible for their own legal fees, ” said Rep. Susi Hamilton.

“I had no idea that I could be persecuted in that way for doing what I felt was my job,” said Dr. Hill.

Right now there are 28 states with ANTI-SLAPP laws. The North Carolina bill introduced by Representative Hamilton did not make it out of committee last year. But Hamilton says it could be brought up again this year.
Copyright 2012 Fox Wilmington. All rights reserved.

Link to watch the video, (please click below)


Here’s What the Civil Justice System does with Frivolous Lawsuits

Attorney (877) 377-7848

Posted by Mark BelloAugust 31, 2011 12:31 PM

One of the catch phrases of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and tort reform groups is “frivolous lawsuits” – a lawsuit that has no legal basis, or is so petty, that suit isn’t justified. Unfortunately, more often than not, these pro-business, billion dollar corporate lobbying groups are claiming “lawsuit abuse” when they know the cases they seek to place restriction upon are anything but frivolous. Common sense will tell you, for example, that a “frivolous case” does not need a damages cap.

Today, I read about a case that illustrates what the system does with truly “frivolous” cases; I thought I would share it with you so that, hopefully, you can see the difference between what the tort reform groups are trying to regulate and a real “frivolous” case. The case I refer to involves an Illinois woman who was sued by her two adult children. The children alleged she was a “bad” mom. Their parents were divorced and the children lived with their dad in a $1.5 million home. They claimed their mother failed to send money inside their birthday cards, called her daughter home early from homecoming, and threatened to call the police on her son, then 7, if he didn’t buckle up in the car. The children sought $50,000 for emotional distress. The children’s lawyer was the woman’s ex-husband, the children’s father. The case was dismissed by a circuit court; the kids appealed. Last week, an Illinois appellate court ruled that the Circuit Court was correct in dismissing the case.

If the Chamber decided to lambast the filing of this case, I would agree with them. However, the Chamber would go too far in its criticism; the pro-business, anti-justice organizations would lie and say that a case like this is why the system needs to be reform and why we need damages caps and limited access to the civil justice system. But, let’s look at how the civil justice system handled this “frivolous” case.

The civil justice system has mechanisms in place to prevent and dismiss “frivolous” lawsuits, and mechanisms to punish those who bring them. The circuit court judge, who first heard the case, dismissed it without much consideration. The appeals court panel that reviewed the dismissal upheld that dismissal. Still to be determined is whether the plaintiff will be forced to pay court costs and attorney fees, a “frivolous” filing penalty that judges have discretion to assess.

The typical frivolous case ends with serious consequences to the lawyer and the plaintiff who brought it; the plaintiff who files suit, most often, loses and is assessed costs. The system built in these checks and balances so courts and juries will not waste time on meritless cases. Anyone can file a lawsuit, but the real question is whether the litigation has enough merit to sustain itself. If it doesn’t, as in this case, it will be dismissed and it will never see an impaneled jury. So, ask yourself why tort reform lobbying groups are seeking damages caps to combat “frivolous lawsuits”. Obviously, it is because they don’t want to tell you the truth. The truth? These pro-business lobbyists and public relations manipulators want to place damages caps on serious lawsuits, those with serious consequences, the ones that actually impact the profits of billion dollar corporations. The use of the buzz word “frivolous” is a smoke screen. They are masters at manipulating the truth to their greedy end.

So, now you know. The civil justice system already has checks and balances to eliminate “frivolous” cases. There is no need for “tort reform” to root them out. I blog, frequently, about this issue because I can’t stand the injustice of it. I can’t stand to see politicians, who I used to respect, taking campaign money from these billion dollar organizations knowing that the premise of tort reform is based upon lies and deceit, then introducing or voting for legislation that seriously hurts innocent citizens. Afterwards, these despicable politicians brag about their bills or their votes; they campaign on them, as if they actually accomplished something “good” for America. I can’t stand that they think it is “good” to beat up on the weak and powerless. I can’t stand to see seriously injured or disabled people left to fend for themselves because billion dollar corporations responsible for their injuries have bought off state or federal politicians. I can’t stand it because I know, first hand, that tort reform does nothing to curb “abuse” or “frivolity”; reform only restricts access and damages in serious cases with serious issues and serious injuries to real victims. I just can’t stand it!

Mark Bello has thirty-three years experience as a trial lawyer and twelve years as an underwriter and situational analyst in the lawsuit funding industry. He is the owner and founder of Lawsuit Financial Corporation which helps provide legal finance cash flow solutions and consulting when necessities of life litigation funding is needed by plaintiffs involved in pending, personal injury litigation. Bello is a Justice Pac member of the American Association for Justice, Sustaining and Justice Pac member of the Michigan Association for Justice, Business Associate of the Florida, Tennessee, and Colorado Associations for Justice, a member of the American Bar Association as well as their ABA Advisory Committee, the State Bar of Michigan and the Injury Board.

CCAC Rescue Team, Foster’s Home Raided by local North Carolina Authorities

I don’t see Pet-Abuse.Com being listed in the Michigan Federal Court Case as a defendant however there are references about this issue listed as a common allegation in the Lawsuit.

Now why is it this group picked these 5 Defendants out of all of the hundreds of people calling them out via FaceBook, TV News Station, Newspaper Articles and .com sites? For those of us following along this is starting to look like nothing more than a personal attack from these Plaintiffs versus any real facts for such a lawsuit.  ( click picture for a larger view) To read the entire listing on Pet-Abuse.Com see below:

Also see previous post showing the connection between CCAC Rescue Team and Cathy Campbell. A Chip In for her legal fee’s are posted and screen shots of the Pookie Page that was created via FaceBook.

The Barclay Foundation needing help with Parvo puppies

The Barclay Foundation found themselves not only being lied to by Seven Star Sanctuary and Rescue employee’s about these non-existent health certificates, but now a huge Vet bill and to make it worse the CCAC Rescue Team took out their anger with TBF for publically telling the truth on the situation at hand and reported their Facebook posts and reported them to the State of Iowa Department of Agriculture in  which TBF License to operate was temporally suspended pending a full investigation.

We are starting to see a pattern emerge with this mean-spirited behavior from this same group women time and time again. If you don’t do as they tell you they go into attack mode and run a negative campaign on you in hopes to force you to shut up and not speak out on their reckless behavior.

So now this same group of 3 women have filed a Federal Lawsuit in Michigan on 3 North Carolina Residents, 1 in Pennsylvania and 1 in South Carolina. Another attempted attack to shut down anyone who speaks out about their bad behavior.  I do know that this case is being watched by many and let me warn everyone this is a case for trying to squash your Freedom of Speech.  How can any of us allow this type of behavior to take place in our court system? When you create issues such as what took place here, people are allowed to come out and voice their thoughts on the matter. It’s your right to have your views and to speak out when you see an injustice and not be in fear of being sued. I do find it odd of all the hundreds of screen shots that I am being sent, so far to date only 2 have been against that Defendants and I wont post them as they are not even relevant to this Columbus County Animal Shelter issue.  Please send any evidence on either side to .

( click on picture for larger view)

The Barclay Foundation, we were lied to.

Iowa based The Barclay Foundation not happy that they were lied to by the CCAC Rescue Team of Melissa Impens, Mary J Thomas and Penelope Ashenhurst and Seven Star Sanctuary and Rescue.

It seems they were under attack from the Plaintiffs in this Michigan lawsuit when TBF came out exposing that all these animals had been transported by this team very sick with parvo and not one health certificate.

Case in point that this Team does not follow the current State, Federal and USDA APHIS laws in the Animal Rescue arena.

( click on picture for large view)

For a better view of this incident you can read about it here:

CCAC Rescue Team Transporting Sick Animals without Health Certs.

Responsible Animal Rescue has been a “hot” topic on Facebook for some time now and here we start to see how some of these out-of-state animal rescuers operate and the alarm for not following proper State and Animal Transport Laws.

In this post we have Penelope Ashenhurst explaining how her group is going to go to North Carolina and rescue a load of what looks to be 50 or so dogs.  That Melissa Impens is driving down from Wisconsin to meet with Mary Jo Thomas of Seven Star Sanctuary in Michigan to then head down south to Columbus County in Whiteville North Carolina to transport these animals back up North.

The Barclay Foundation has offered to take in some 20 plus puppies to their rescue in Iowa.

We also see this group asking for donations for the CCAC Exodus which is not a registered business or USDA Licensed Animal Transporter.

( click on picture for larger view)

For a better understanding of Animal Transport Laws I suggest reading:  To contact a USDA Office in your State with question or concerns I sugges:t                                        To find the State Requirements for your state I suggest:

Plaintiffs post DNA/DNR on another party

Posted openly for all to see is a DNA/DNR on a Sara Willmott in CT via the CCAC Rescue Team. Now I don’t know who this Sara Willmott is and that’s not even the issue here, what I find more interesting is the content itself.

CCAC Rescue Team just publically slandered and defamed the name of one Sara Willmott yet this is the same group that filed in a Michigan Federal Court for the exact same thing on another set of individuals. ( Ever heard of crying wolf?)

So what’s good for the Goose isn’t good for the Gander, is that how the ole saying goes.

( Click on picture for larger view)

This case is getting very interesting with each day I’m in receipt of multiple of screen shots/ screen captures showing the Plaintiffs in this case for their own handy work. It’s taking me a great deal of time to sort thru all of this information and decide what I should post out. Yet to date I have only been sent 2 emails about the Defendants and those were not even relevant or about this situation.

Note: This page covers information specific to Michigan. For general information concerning defamation, see the Defamation Law section of this guide.

Elements of Defamation

In Michigan, the elements of a defamation claim are:

  1. a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff;
  2. an unprivileged publication to a third party;
  3. fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
  4. either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm (defamation per se) or the existence of actual harm caused by the publication.

These elements of a defamation claim in Michigan are similar to the elements listed in the general Defamation section, with the following exceptions:

Defamation Per Se

Defamation per se exists if the communication is false and imputes a criminal offense or lack of chastity. Unlike in many other states, defamation regarding one’s business or profession is not defamation per se in Michigan. See George v. Senate Democratic Fund, 2005 WL 102717 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005); Pierson v. Ahern, 2005 WL 1685103 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).