Lake City Collies

We request the orders issued by your Code Enforcement Board to Mr. Ronald Nims resulting from the hearings on April 13, and May 11, 2004, be rescinded immediately.

Not only did the board find Mr. Nims collie dogs guilty of creating a barking nuisance without benefit of an investigation or the presentation of objective evidence, the orders issued are, in our opinion, a clear violation of a U. S. citizens personal rights under law and the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution.

No citizen should be expected to have his/her rights trampled upon by any legal body, especially one made up of ordinary citizens with no legal training or advice from competent counsel. It is abhorrent to us that Mr. Nims and his mother were subjected to the following orders:

1. RELOCATE 2 OF HIS 5 COLLIES. You had no authority to arbitrarily decide he had to reduce the number of collies he owned. The number of dogs (whether one, three, or five) has nothing to do with nuisance barking and there are no limits to the number of dogs a citizen can own under your ordinance.

2. OBTAIN BARK (SHOCK) COLLARS FOR THE REMAINING 3 COLLIES TO WEAR AT ALL TIMES OUTDOORS. Although you had the right to order Mr. Nims to comply with the ordinance, you should not have ordered him to use a device he, and many others, consider cruel.

3. THE NIMS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE VISITING DOGS. This is a blatant violation of his civil rights and an unjustified intrusion into his personal life. It is an abuse of power for a civil government body to tell a law abiding citizen who can and cannot visit his home.

4. RETURN HIS BROTHERS DOGS. His brothers dog and four puppies (which he was caring for until the puppies were weaned) were never named in the barking dog violation. This order is based on the board members personal opinion that he had too many dogs and is not based on any law or ordinance.

The justification by the Citys attorney and used by the local judge to uphold the orders are at best ludicrous and illogical in a democratic society.

1. EVIDENCE: There should never have been a determination of guilt in the first placed based on a) the City attorneys admission that the only evidence presented by the Animal Control Officer was hearsay from the complainant, b) the lack of any objective evidence, and c) Mr. Nims' various statements that he and the dogs were not guilty.

2. TIMELINESS: The Citys argument that because orders were issued on April 14th and May 12th, the appeal was not filed within 30 days is fuzzy math. Since each set of orders gave Mr. Nims his right to appeal within 30 days, his June 9th appeal was timely. Even the judge admitted this is an odd statement that The appeal may be untimely, but will be considered timely based on Mr. Nims' arguments.

3. MR. NIMS AGREED TO THE ISSUES APPEALED. Mr. Nims agreement to the boards various suggestions, after being interrogated for over one hour, does not mean they should have been issued as official orders. The judge stated that Issues now argued by Appellant Nims were agreed upon by Appellant at the hearing, and have therefore been waived (invited error, if error at all). Citizens should be shocked that our judicial system would permit unfair and unauthorized limits to this citizens freedom because he agreed to recommendations by a civil board out of fear. Mr. Nims had no way of anticipating the board would issue them as official orders at the end of the hearing when he could not protest.

Please free Mr. Nims from these unreasonable orders. It would also be beneficial to have your attorneys educate your Code Enforcement Board members regarding the proper interpretation and application of city ordinances. Guidelines for interviewing witnesses would also be appropriate.