Us
Print
E-mail
Rate
Wyndham gets her day in court
 |
| Fort White resident Judy Wyndham (from left) states her case Tuesday morning to Third Judicial Circuit Judge Wetzel Blair and Terry Marques, assistant director of the Lake City/Columbia County Animal Shelter. Judge Blair ruled in favor of the shelter, citing that Wyndham was in violation for refusing to produce current rabies vaccination documentation. JASON MATTHEW WALKER/Lake City Reporter |
Despite ruling, Fort White woman says she will appeal
By MICHAEL MITSEFF
mmitseff@lakecityreporter.com
Fort White resident Judy Wyndham has had an ongoing dispute with Lake City/Columbia County Animal Shelter Director Margaret Smith for nearly 10 years.
Wyndham’s recent troubles began last year when — in response to a complaint — Smith requested proof that Wyndham’s dogs had current rabies vaccinations. Wyndham refused and was cited by Smith for failure to provide the requested proof.
On Tuesday morning, Wyndham finally had her day in court.
Smith was unable to attend the Tuesday morning hearing as she had been hospitalized several days before the hearing.
Smith briefly participated in the hearing via speakerphone from her hospital room, when Madison County Third Judicial Circuit Judge Wetzel Blair determined the hearing would proceed without her physical presence.
In little more than 30 minutes, and after testimony from Wyndham; Terry Marques, assistant director of the animal shelter; and Dist. 4 County Commissioner Stephen Bailey, Wetzel ruled that Wyndham was indeed in violation for not providing the shelter with proof of rabies vaccinations.
Wyndham was fined $443 plus $75 court costs to be paid within 30 days unless she files an appeal within that time.
“I believe that this was basically a kangaroo court,” Wyndham said after the hearing. “I proved in court that they (the animal shelter) had no right to even write citations.”
Wyndham said she plans to hire an attorney and file an appeal.
“Obviously, this court cannot see its own mistakes or interpret the law as well as a lay person can,” Wyndham said. “The entities in this county are running rampant, interpreting the law after their own wants.”
In addition to Wyndham’s claim that the shelter has no authority to write citations,
she disputed the testimony of Bailey, a witness she had invited to her home to help verify the number of dogs she owned.
Bailey testified that Wyndham had seven dogs on her property at the time of his visit.
“Mr. Bailey, our commissioner, lied,” Wyndham said. “He never saw more than three dogs on my property.”
Bailey said that he went out to Wyndham’s property at her request, and even offered to serve as a mediator to help resolve the dispute between Wyndham and the animal shelter, but Wyndham adamantly refused.
“I was summoned to appear through the animal shelter in my role as Ms. Wyndham’s commissioner but, unfortunately the case didn’t turn out as she had expected, but I stand by my testimony given under oath,” Bailey said.
Wyndham claims she told Bailey she had six dogs and that she was fined for eight dogs, but in the end, Blair said the number of dogs was irreleveant.
“They (the shelter) have still not shown to me any proof that says they have the right to walk on my property, much less my county commissioner to come to my property, invited or not, and ask for proof of rabies vaccinations for my dogs,” Wyndham said.
“There is no law that says they can come to my property and ask for that proof of the rabies vaccination unless my dog has bitten, scratched or viciously attacked someone.”
Wyndham said she believes the many calls and complaints lodged against her over the years were made personally by Smith, a charge Marques denies.
Marques also said he wasn’t surprised by the judge’s decision.
“Under the law, it’s black and white,” he said. “Judy Wyndham obviously interprets the law a different way, but I knew the judge would correctly interpret the law. If we go out on a call of a nuisance dog barking or running at large, then certainly secondary to that we are going to confirm that the dog has a current rabies vaccination.
“It’s required if you own animals,” he said.
Marques said that even if the complaint is unfounded, animal control will request proof of rabies vaccinations from the owners of the animal.
“Unfortunately, we are a re-active agency at this point because we don’t really have the staff or funding to do a lot of pro-active enforcement,” Marques said. “In other jurisdictions, they do get very pro-active and will actually go door-to-door checking for proof of rabies and licenses.”
Wyndham’s recent troubles began last year when — in response to a complaint — Smith requested proof that Wyndham’s dogs had current rabies vaccinations. Wyndham refused and was cited by Smith for failure to provide the requested proof.
On Tuesday morning, Wyndham finally had her day in court.
Smith was unable to attend the Tuesday morning hearing as she had been hospitalized several days before the hearing.
Smith briefly participated in the hearing via speakerphone from her hospital room, when Madison County Third Judicial Circuit Judge Wetzel Blair determined the hearing would proceed without her physical presence.
In little more than 30 minutes, and after testimony from Wyndham; Terry Marques, assistant director of the animal shelter; and Dist. 4 County Commissioner Stephen Bailey, Wetzel ruled that Wyndham was indeed in violation for not providing the shelter with proof of rabies vaccinations.
Wyndham was fined $443 plus $75 court costs to be paid within 30 days unless she files an appeal within that time.
“I believe that this was basically a kangaroo court,” Wyndham said after the hearing. “I proved in court that they (the animal shelter) had no right to even write citations.”
Wyndham said she plans to hire an attorney and file an appeal.
“Obviously, this court cannot see its own mistakes or interpret the law as well as a lay person can,” Wyndham said. “The entities in this county are running rampant, interpreting the law after their own wants.”
In addition to Wyndham’s claim that the shelter has no authority to write citations,
she disputed the testimony of Bailey, a witness she had invited to her home to help verify the number of dogs she owned.
Bailey testified that Wyndham had seven dogs on her property at the time of his visit.
“Mr. Bailey, our commissioner, lied,” Wyndham said. “He never saw more than three dogs on my property.”
Bailey said that he went out to Wyndham’s property at her request, and even offered to serve as a mediator to help resolve the dispute between Wyndham and the animal shelter, but Wyndham adamantly refused.
“I was summoned to appear through the animal shelter in my role as Ms. Wyndham’s commissioner but, unfortunately the case didn’t turn out as she had expected, but I stand by my testimony given under oath,” Bailey said.
Wyndham claims she told Bailey she had six dogs and that she was fined for eight dogs, but in the end, Blair said the number of dogs was irreleveant.
“They (the shelter) have still not shown to me any proof that says they have the right to walk on my property, much less my county commissioner to come to my property, invited or not, and ask for proof of rabies vaccinations for my dogs,” Wyndham said.
“There is no law that says they can come to my property and ask for that proof of the rabies vaccination unless my dog has bitten, scratched or viciously attacked someone.”
Wyndham said she believes the many calls and complaints lodged against her over the years were made personally by Smith, a charge Marques denies.
Marques also said he wasn’t surprised by the judge’s decision.
“Under the law, it’s black and white,” he said. “Judy Wyndham obviously interprets the law a different way, but I knew the judge would correctly interpret the law. If we go out on a call of a nuisance dog barking or running at large, then certainly secondary to that we are going to confirm that the dog has a current rabies vaccination.
“It’s required if you own animals,” he said.
Marques said that even if the complaint is unfounded, animal control will request proof of rabies vaccinations from the owners of the animal.
“Unfortunately, we are a re-active agency at this point because we don’t really have the staff or funding to do a lot of pro-active enforcement,” Marques said. “In other jurisdictions, they do get very pro-active and will actually go door-to-door checking for proof of rabies and licenses.”
 |
||
| Proclamation revised to match street name |
Tony Clark wrote on Jun 4, 2008 10:59 AM:
The shelter called the police who made the owner pay a fee to the shelter before releasing the dog.. The dog had been stolen from it's residence by the shelter yet a fee had to be paid to get the dog back..
Margaret Smith has her own ideas about what is right andn wrong and acts on her own beliefs, not on the law.. I have no doubt she's harrassed Mrs. Wyndam.
Margaret Smith has no business in the position she's in.. just my opinion after the dealings I've had with her.. If she doesn't like it, it's wrong.. regardless of what the law says.. "