Cease and Desist

(click on the links to review the documents)

1.    A legitimate FOIA (freedom of information act) request was mailed and emailed by Linda Sue to Charleston Animal Society February 8, 2016 with a listed address. 

2.    A Cease and Desist Letter (regarding defamation, threatening and intimidating conduct) was sent by “Email” to Linda Sue from Charleston Animal Society’s Attorney; Chris S. Inglese, Esquire dated April 14, 2016,  noting an unknown address.

3.   Representing Linda Sue; Attorney Taylor M. Smith of Harrison & Radeker, P.A. (referred by the  South Carolina Press Association) sent a written response to Chris S. Inglese, Esquire regarding the Cease and Desist.  Inglese ltr RE FOIA request Charleston Animal Society

4.  A second response was received by Taylor M. Smith of Harrison & Radeker, P.A. from Chris S. Inglese, Esquire  –  FOIA Request Denied CAS ltr re Malie SCFOIA request

Funding is not available for further Attorney correspondence or for fighting in court for the FOIA.

Rebuttal/Statement by Linda Sue

Intake and all records regarding the confiscated rabbits should exist by Law at the CAS facility.
South Carolina FOIA provides the right of every person to request, in writing, the records of public bodies located in this state and FOIA defines a “public body:”
According to the CAS 2014 Annual Report, Government Vendor Contracts make up 23% of their financials.  SC FOIA provides a public body must “within fifteen days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) of the receipt of any such request notify the person making such request of its determination and the reasons therefor.” S.C. Code Ann. §30-4-30(c).  If written notification of the determination of the public body as to the availability of the requested record is neither mailed nor personally delivered to the person requesting the document within the fifteen days allowed herein, the request must be considered approved.  There was no response by CAS or their Attorney within the required 15 days.

The Allegations presented by Chris S. Inglese, Esquire against Linda Sue regarding defamation, threatening and intimidating conduct are baseless.

At no time did Linda Sue (myself) state the rabbits were at the Charleston Animal Society Facility.

CAS stated the “facts” were clear: ” The rescue we contacted, which has a positive record of contract with HHS since 2012, agreed to make the rabbits a priority while acting swiftly over the holidays to facilitate housing”.

The facts acquired about the established rescue partner Jason Hoffman are not credible.   In fact, according to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Mr. Hoffman at that time was not currently authorized by FWCC to possess wildlife for exhibition, sale, or wildlife rehabilitation purposes.


1 & 3.   Petition – all facts on the Petition are referenced by News articles, Charleston and Halifax Facebook posts, or Facebook posts by Jason Hoffman the “trusted rescue partner”.  These documented facts can be found on this website under the tab ” Irresponsible Shelters” in the drop down menu.
Facts are not considered misinformation, questions are not considered defamatory statements and stating opinion or belief is a personal judgement not to be confused with a fact.  Everyone has a right to freedom of opinion and expression/speech.  Petitioning is a Constitutional right.

2.  a. “Definitioof undisclosed –  unrevealed covert secret or “hidden”; not openly practiced or engaged in or shown or avowed”.

Definition of “possibly” – used to say something might happen, exist, or be true but is not certain.

2. b.  According to the “Rescue Partner”  Jason Hoffman, the Rabbits were in fact, given to him – Wildlife and Predator owner.   and then were distributed to 3 farms.

2. c.  All questions are valid concerns regarding the rabbits welfare after promises of adoptive homes were not given; as well as valid concerns on who transported the rabbits, and distributed to undisclosed “farms” with no further updates on spay, neuter or Vet care given.

Local and out of state rescues were working behind the scenes with CAS to find placement for the rabbits.  (this information is documented in valid emails and available to the Authorities per request).
The rabbit community and myself asked for full transparency on the welfare of the rabbits thereafter.

2. d.  The BBB Review mentioned was Denied and never publicly posted by BBB.


4.  Original post from the “Rabbit Rescue Update”.   No updates with facts were posted on the welfare of the rabbits here or on the updated version later.

Rabbit Rescue Update – Charleston Animal Society 1.4.15

5.   This reference is not related to Linda Sue or the Petition.

The director of Halifax Shelter – Miguel Abi-hassan spoke with Margo DeMello from HRS regarding the confiscated rabbits.
Miguel Abi-Hassan Quote:
“We did get a visual on the rabbits and all is well. I have been waiting for some pictures to send you and should have those later today. We did run into issues spaying and neutering all the rabbits remotely so we are arranging transport to have any remaining unsterilized rabbits visit our award winning S/N Clinic in Daytona Beach. You will be happy to know that in the time since the case we have taken an additional 9 rabbits and placed them in Rabbit Rescues or homes in record time. The awareness of House Rabbit Society and their passionate work has certainly brought attention to the plight of rabbits in our community and beyond”.

To date: 8/22/2016, there have been no photos or updates given to HRS or the Rabbit Community on the rabbits.

1. What is a SLAPP?

The rights to speech and petition are enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Free speech and healthy debate are vital to the well-being of a democracy. In fact, the United States Supreme Court has said that the right to petition the government is the very foundation of our democracy.

SLAPPs are Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.  These damaging suits chill free speech and healthy debate by targeting those who communicate with their government or speak out on issues of public interest.

SLAPPs are used to silence and harass critics by forcing them to spend money to defend these baseless suits.  SLAPP filers don’t go to court to seek justice.  Rather, SLAPPS are intended to intimidate those who disagree with them or their activities by draining the target’s financial resources.    Read more here

South Carolina
SECTION    1.    The General Assembly finds that:

(1)(a)    the framers of our Constitutions, recognizing citizen participation in government as an inalienable right essential to the survival of democracy, secured its protection through the right to petition the government for redress of grievances in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 2 of the South Carolina Constitution, 1895;

(d)    such lawsuits, called “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” or “SLAPP”, are typically dismissed as unconstitutional, but often not before the defendants are put to great expense, harassment, and interruption of their productive activities;

(e)    the number of SLAPPs has increased significantly over the past thirty years;

(f)    SLAPPs are an abuse of the judicial process; they are used to censor, chill, intimidate, or punish citizens, businesses, and organizations for involving themselves in public affairs, and controlling SLAPPs will make a major contribution to lawsuit reform;