Beaubell Persians' Defense Against the Smear Campaign by Devanchire Cattery

This rebuttal is in defense for Lyn & Colin Bayliss of Beaubell Persians against the defamation by Kimera Hoga of Devanchire Cattery, Michigan. Ms. Hoga has distorted the truth on her website and tried to smear Beaubell's name, under the cynical guise of doing so “in the public interest”. It is unfortunate that the rebuttal has become necessary, but Lyn & Colin , together with those breeders who have invested in Beaubell Lines, are still being victimized after a 7 year long, Systematic Smear Campaign by Ms. Hoga.

Background :

Cowardly, internet based smear campaigns are becoming ever more popular. The Cat Fancy Association has recently banned a member, for life, for hosting an example of these smear campaigns on a website. Beaubell have been the victims of one such vicious smear campaign.

Lyn & Colin passed their Beaubell breeding program to friends around 2009, after 15 years of successful exhibiting, and have been placing their remaining cats in selected homes. They entered a cat show only a few times since then, on behalf of new owners.

Yet, Ms. Hoga has recently stepped-up her campaign against Beaubell by adding numerous links to the smear page on her website. She constantly re-arranges the wording and adds links to it through her bogus websites, for example “www.beaubell.yolasite”. This rebuttal will no doubt prompt her to make further changes. Copies of the smear page are available for each year from it's inception.

Her libel was first generated in 2006 and it is obvious that it is a personal vendetta against Lyn & Colin. What else explains subsequent years of continually harassing a retired couple, who are no longer active in CFA? ............  As recently as Aug, 2011, breeders in Russia were sent links by email to the Devanchire smear page.

Beaubell had originally decided not to react to Ms. Hoga, for reasons discussed later. Considering that Lyn & Colin are no longer showing frequently in CFA,  Devanchire are not only harming themselves, but also the innocent owners of Beaubell breeding lines. Lyn & Colin have now agreed to allow the publishing of a rebuttal, to spare the owners of the Beaubell lines further embarrassment, loss of kitten sales and the hurt that the Devanchire website tries to inflict.

A more comprehensive rebuttal exists, with additional transcripts, emails and written evidence that supports the following, and is available through Beaubell’s attorneys.

1)  Court Actions against Kimera Hoga / Devanchire Cattery for Fraud, Breach of Contract and Deception

For clarity, there have been 2 court actions against Ms Hoga, an investigation by the Michigan Attorney General and a Civil Action by a Canadian breeder. This information is a matter of public record and details can be obtained from the Michigan Attorney General Court and 7th Circuit Court records.

Ms. Hoga has alleged that Lyn & Colin encouraged this $43,000 Lawsuit by the Canadian breeder against Ms Hoga. It can be seen on Ms. Hoga's website that she originally inserted details from this lawsuit amongst her libel against Beaubell, when in fact Beaubell had not known the Canadian breeder.

The first they heard about a court action against Ms. Hoga was when a Michigan Detective phoned to inform Lyn & Colin that he was investigating charges against Ms. Hoga on behalf of the Michigan Attorney General. He asked them to confirm that a cat was bred by Beaubell and still under contract. The detective was investigating alleged breach of contract and fraud by Ms. Hoga concerning the Beaubell cat and other non-Beaubell cats. The Attorney General deferred in favor of the the Civil Action.

The Canadian breeder sued Ms Hoga in a civil court case for fraud, breach of contract and deception. The case alleged that Ms. Hoga had cashed checks from the Canadian breeder and not honored the shipping of the cats. Ms. Hoga settled out of court on November 14th, 2008 and paid remuneration to the Canadian Breeder.

On her website, Ms Hoga takes revenge by damning innocent “Nova Scotia Breeders”. She dare not mention the Canadian Breeder’s name because, when Ms. Hoga settled, she accepted a “Gag Order”.  However, see "notice" page on her website, where she makes accusations about a "scam" and openly invites people to call her for information.

2) Devanchire’s hypocrisy over breeding & selling PKD positive and Sick cats.

Devanchire tries to misrepresent Beaubell’s policy concerning PKD Positive and sick cats (see also next section).

Ms. Hoga claims on her site that “Beaubell’s Hi Flute ’N” (AKA "Flutes") was DNA tested positive on February 28th, 2006. Yet, following  receipt of the test results, Ms. Hoga knowingly bred 3 more litters from Flutes in 2006, 2007 and 2008. She then re-sold Flutes as a breeding queen, at age 8 years, to a Ms. Turner, WV in 2010, breaking the contract and knowing the cat to supposedly be PKD positive.

Ms. Hoga claims that “Beaubell’s Purr Say” was also DNA tested positive on February 28th, 2006. Yet, following these test results, Ms. Hoga knowingly bred 3 more litters from Purr Say, twice in 2006 and once in 2007. She then re-sold Purr Say on to the Snowfaerie cattery, MI in 2008, breaking the contract and knowing the cat to supposedly be PKD positive.

Note on the Devanchire website that there is a “Devanchire’s Hi Flute ‘N Again” and a “Devanchire’s Purr Say Again”. One cat each saved from “Flutes and “Purr Say” litters.

If what Ms Hoga claims against Beaubell is true, why did she breed 6 more litters and is still using offspring in her breeding program?

See below an extract from an email, where Devanchire admit their PKD records are “mixed up”. The first paragraph below the 'header' is Lyn commenting on Devanchire using PKD Positive Cats. The second paragraph (underlined in red) is the Devanchire reply.



Beaubell saves DNA swabs from all cats/kittens sold, to preserve evidence of their true status and identity. Our advice is that all breeders do the same to ensure that false DNA swabs cannot be used against them.

3) The Truth about Beaubell Selling PKD Positive Cats

Devanchire exhibit two DNA PKD Positive tests on their site, one for “Flutes” and one for “Purr Say”. These cats were purchased by Devanchire before 2005, and before when DNA PKD testing first became commercially available. The Beaubell cats had been ‘Ultrasonically Scanned’ by a Nashville veterinarian in April 2004 and the results were provided before purchase. (See Flutes scan below)


Beaubell's Contract stated at that time that it did not guarantee PKD status, when using Ultrasonic Scanning as the form of testing and Ms. Hoga accepted the situation. (See page 2, item 10 of in the 2004 contract below)


Ms. Hoga had no problem continuously breeding and selling PKD positive cats herself; however, Beaubell subsequently took advantage of DNA testing and changed their guarantee accordingly, to show that all their cats to be tested DNA PKD Negative.

4) Replacement of “Deceased” Cats

In 2006 Ms. Hoga asked to sell cats she had bought from Beaubell. Lyn reminded her that the contract stated that the cats must be spayed or neutered first. Within one week Ms. Hoga announced that a first cat had died. This was quickly followed by more. Lyn & Colin naturally became suspicious and insisted on necropsies, as per contract. (See item 8. in the 2004 contract below)

 Ms. Hoga claimed that necropsies had been performed and insisted on refunds, for which the contract did not provide. She shows letters on her site from her vet that are NOT necropsy reports and the Veterinarian stated that she DID NOT perform any actual necropsies on any of the cats; neither did she send samples to the State of Michigan University, as is required. Neither Beaubell, nor the Vet, has any proof that the cats in question were in fact Beaubell cats.

 Regardless, the Beaubell contract at that time required that another, independent veterinarian must verify the diagnosis, and this was not done either. (See item 8. in the 2004 contract below)


 In spite of Devanchire’s contracts being expired, not adhered to and no valid necropsy reports provided,

 Beaubell replaced ALL cats, as gifts.

Beaubell also settled a Devanchire debt, with another breeder, to whom Ms. Hoga had promised a replacement kitten. Hence the additional breeder’s name on the “Sneckenberger” contract (see section 7). Ms Hoga had commandeered a kitten, allocated to that breeder from 2 years previous, and still had not replaced it, as agreed.

Alleging that cats have died and then claiming a refund or replacement is a common scam. Also selling-on a cat and claiming it has died. It is essential that Breeders, who are selling, take DNA swabs and secretly insert microchips before shipping. If a “customer” claims a cat has died, insist that a reputable veterinarian of your choice contacts you, DNA swabs the cat and gives you the scanned microchip number, whilst the deceased cat is in the vet’s possession. The peace of mind is worth the vet’s fee.

5) Harassment on Christmas Day, 2006 and the Start of a 6 Year Smear Campaign

On Christmas Day, 2006 Ms. Hoga and her Husband Ed Hoga emailed Lyn & Colin repeatedly throughout the day, threatening to sue them within 30 days if they didn't pay $7,300 compensation for the supposed “deceased” cats, which only cost them $3,200.

The Hoga’s were informed, in a telephone conversation and by email, two day's prior that Colin had been diagnosed with lung cancer. With this news hanging over Lyn & Colin from the Hospital, they had to endure this harassment from the Hogas by a total of 10 emails on Dec 25th. (See following extracts from the threatening Christmas emails)



Lyn & Colin agreed that they would consider the options, but Christmas day was not an appropriate time.  Lyn worked quickly to defuse the situation, in spite of the anguish she was going through. The Sneckenberger contract/agreement concerning the gifted replacements was drawn up on Dec 28th, signatures collected and the gifted kittens shipped with Delta Airlines on Tues 9th Jan.

Four days after Christmas, Colin was rushed to a Chattanooga Intensive Care Unit with a collapsed lung.  As absurd as it may seem to offer this personal information, Lyn & Colin have done so to disprove the claims by Ms. Hoga and certain of her “friends” that Lyn was exaggerating Colin’s condition, when  in fact she had been informed that Colin was not expected to survive. Lyn & Colin assume this rumor was generated to detract from the gross insensitivity of the emails and telephone calls, made by the Hogas during this Christmas period. (Full email history available)

Lyn & Colin have asked at this juncture that their heart-felt thanks go out to their true CFA friends worldwide, who supported them with comfort and offers of help at that time.

An Emergency Living Will had been drawn up for Colin by his Lawyers, “Sneckenberger and Sneckenberger Law firm”. Sneckenberger seeing the mental and physical suffering that Lyn & Colin were going through, suggested that they also have the contract drawn up which, by Beaubell offering to gift Ms. Hoga cats, she would bring closure to the harassment. Ms. Hoga still has to this day 50+ pages of the smear campaign against Beaubell on her website.

In addition, Ms. Hoga has used her friends to post requests, privately and publicly on “lists”, and also she used her website, to solicit insults toward Lyn & Colin. Due to the lack of response, she resorted to “doctoring” and repeating the same insults, to increase the size of her smear page.

Devanchire also tracked down and contacted previous Beaubell customers, to solicit even more information that could destroy their good name. Lyn & Colin were forced to remove any catteries’ prefixes, other than Beaubell’s, from their website to save friends from the harassment. Some of the websites posted letters in support of Beaubell, on their own websites, to show their disgust at Devanchire’s smear campaign.

 6)  Email Complaints posted

Of all the emails posted on Ms Hoga’s website, Beaubell recognize only two. Both these breeders were dealt with fairly and absolutely to their contract. The others either do not exist, and/or never contacted Beaubell with any complaints.

The first breeder received a FULL refund before the smear campaign had even started. She later insisted that Ms. Hoga remove her email from the Devanchire site, but to this day it still remains. Some breeders managed to get their emails removed from the original smear pages.

The second breeder ignored the offer of replacements from Beaubell and allowed Ms. Hoga to post an incomplete email string that did not include the subsequent offers of replacement. (Full email history available)

7) Broken Contracts

Ms. Hoga has displayed 'the Beaubell' contract on her own website reading as if it was her own. As previously stated, it was drawn up by “Sneckenberger and Sneckenberger”, to protect Beaubell from Ms. Hoga. (See their contract on Hoga’s own website, notarized and signed by her. Also page 1 is below). Unlike the Devanchire website, the second breeder’s information has been blocked out here. This breeder insisted that Ms. Hoga remove her information from the smear page, but Ms. Hoga refused.


 Ms. Hoga claims that all previous contracts are null and void because of this Sneckenberger contract, but it only concerned the Kittens that were gifted. She tries to twist the meaning, but the contract refers to kittens i.e. “felines up to 8 months of age”.  (See last paragraph below)


 Ms Hoga also broke contracts on adult cats by selling them and entering in to Co-ownership without authorization. (See extract from CFA offspring records and Page 1, item 3) of the “Boomerang” contract documents below).


This reads:   0140-1508218 CH BEAUBELL’S BOOMERANG OF DEVANCHIRE 12/01/04 C85159  08/11/04  4 KIMERA HOGA – DARRELL L ADAMS  



8) Ms. Hoga announced on her website, initially in 2006, that Beaubell is under investigation by CFA.

Beaubell has never been under investigation and never had protests filed against them in 18 yrs of exhibiting in CFA. (see below letter from CFA dated August, 2011).



Psychiatry authors advise against reacting against smear campaigns, as it only “adds fuel to the fire” and it is exactly what the perpetrator wants.  Lyn & Colin followed this advice for 5 years and did not react, but when innocent by-standers are being harmed, they now believe the risks that defense carries, are necessary.


This Rebuttal is presented on behalf of Lyn & Colin Bayliss of Beaubell.

September 1st, 2011


 Some Insight for Other Victims of Smear Campaigns

If you are the victim of a vicious smear campaign, the following book extracts and quotations help reveal the personality traits often seen in obsessive abusers, and may help you to understand the type of person you could be dealing with:

 Judge Harold Medina:

"Criticizing others is a dangerous thing, not so much because you may make mistakes about them, but because you may be revealing the truth about yourself".

R. Lundy Bancroft, author of “Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men”: 

"Abusers increasingly use a tactic I call ‘preemptive strike,’ where he accuses the victim of doing all the things that he has done." 

 "The abuser certainly does not care about the hurt and emotional devastation he creates .

Wikipedia: Cyber-bullying

"Common tactics used by cyber stalkers is to vandalize a search engine or encyclopedia, to threaten a victim's earnings, employment, reputation, or safety. Various companies provide cases of cyber-stalking (involving adults) follow the pattern of repeated actions against a target. While motives vary, whether romantic, a business conflict of interest, or personal dislike, the target is commonly someone whose life the stalker sees or senses elements lacking in his or her own life. Web-based products or services leveraged against cyber stalkers in the harassment or defamation of their victims.

The source of the defamation seems to come from four types of online information purveyors: Weblogs, industry forums or boards, and commercial Web sites. Studies reveal that while some motives are personal dislike, there is often direct economic motivation by the cyber stalker, including conflict of interest, and investigations reveal the responsible party is an affiliate or supplier of a competitor, or the competitor itself."

Dr. Shmel (Sam) Vaknin, author of “Malignant Self Love, Narcissist Revisited”:

 “An abuser's preferred tactics is the Smear Campaign. They spread lies, character assassination, malicious gossip, backstabbing with factless innuendo and cruel insinuation. Smearing the reputation of someone else, (often using projection, accusing them of doing what the abuser has done), is a major indicator of personality disorders.”

 “He will increase his attempts to provoke his victim into some reaction - the more emotional the better. For heaven sakes, don't fuel this behavior by taking his bait. Do NOT take his bait. It is his trap and setup. Provoking you into a reaction is his goal”.

Gabriel Mirabeau : "Nothing baffles the schemes of evil people so much as the calm composure of great souls."

G. H. Pollock :  "The malignant narcissist is presented as pathologically grandiose, lacking in conscience and behavioral regulation, with characteristic demonstrations of joyful cruelty and sadism."

Oldest recorded victim of a Smear Campaign: Genesis 39, The Holy Bible, Joseph in Potiphar’s House
Joseph was a man of God. He was purchased by Potiphar to serve in Potiphar's house. However, Potiphar's wife made advances to Joseph.

 When Joseph rejected her, she went to her husband claiming Joseph had tried to rape her. Joseph landed up in jail, but prevailed and latter prospered.