A woman that inherited a farm, that formerly housed a puppy mill, has filed a lawsuit against a animal rights group for subjecting her to years of ongoing false accusations, threats, intimidation and defamation, as reported buy the Courthouse News Service.
R.B., a fourth-generation farmwoman in Wisconsin, filed her personal injury lawsuit naming the Wisconsin Citizens Against Puppy Mills, D.G. and M.P. as defendants.
R.B.'s family has owned the Franklin, Wisc., farm for four generations. When R.B. obtained ownership in 1982 she began operating a home-based office providing tax and bookkeeping services.
Along with R.B., the property is also populated with dogs, ducks, geese, chickens and roosters.
Beginning in 2007, according to the suit, R.B. began receiving "a continuous flow of hang up calls." In the same year she also began finding several letters and handbills stuffed into her mailbox that were meant to inform her that "she has been watched over for 1 and a half years and was being monitored daily. The postings suggest that (R.B.) either relinquish ownership rights to her dogs or face further action."
R.B. admits that the farm did once house a puppy mill, but that was when her grandmother lived there and ran the business. The puppy mill was discontinued in 2007 at the time of the elder woman's death.
R.B. claims that she has never run a puppy mill – in the past or present.
Defendant M.P. allegedly filed a complaint against R.B. with the Franklin Police Department in September of 2011. M.P. had claimed that R.B. had been in violation of the Wisconsin Criminal Code. However, according to the suit, a police investigation of R.B.'s property led to no action and the complaint was deemed merit less.
One year later, according to R.B., she found a string of cruel Internet posts "falsely" accusing her of "mistreating animals and violating Wisconsin Criminal Code" that had been posted by the Wisconsin Citizens Against Puppy Mills.
According to the lawsuit, the website's administrator is believed to have been the author of the malicious posts. Allegedly the posts, continuing for several days., were accompanied by threats and mean commentary – posted by M.P., D.G. and others.
As recently as September 17, 2012, R.B. noted that that M.P. was parked in the circular driveway of her home. When R.B. approached the vehicle, M.P. allegedly told her "one way or another, I will get those dogs from you!"
R.B. reported the incident to the police and they advised her to padlock her kennels and barns to protect her animals. According to the suit, "The officer informed (R.B.) that persons like (M.P.) will not stop even when ordered by law enforcement and the only way to protect her property and her rights was to spend additional money on security features."
The suit states, "Defendants have engaged in an ongoing pattern of activity intended to harass, intimidate and harm plaintiffs. Defendants have stated that their patterns of activity will not cease and more aggressive tactics will be employed."
R.B. is seeking an injunction as well as damages for defamation, libel, trespassing, malicious interference and injury to her business, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
If you have suffered a personal injury contact a personal injury lawyer to discuss your case. Monetary awards are often made for the damages you have suffered.