Chief District Judge Andy Corbett dismissed five animal cruelty charges against Barbara Woodley in Lee County District Court.
Woodley, who owns a large number of dogs which she keeps at her home in the Tramway area, was accused of neglecting or mistreating some of the animals. Woodley's opponents have accused her of running a "puppy mill" from her isolated property near a motel and nursing home, although none of the charges dismissed Tuesday were related to that allegation.
The judge voluntarily dismissed two of the five charges, and accepted a motion to dismiss the remaining three because prosecution documents "failed to adequately allege a violation of the law."
After the decision, a pair of Woodley's opponents said they were not discouraged by the dismissal and actually believe Corbett may have opened the door for them to pursue greater charges against her.
Woodley said she was very satisfied with the court's action.
"I am so happy. I am tickled to death," Woodley said outside the courthouse. "I felt this was wrong from the start. If somebody does somebody wrong, God will always pay them back."
As she spoke, her attorney, George Whitaker, watched the small group of people who came to court to testify against Woodley as they entered the nearby magistrate's office. Whitaker said he anticipates they will continue their campaign against his client.
"We fully expect they will attempt to bring further charges. If they do, we'll be ready," he said.
Peter MacQueen III, president of the Humane Society of Eastern North Carolina, said he was contacted four to five months ago to assist prosecutors with the case against Woodley. While he has never been to Woodley's property, he cited 15 years of experience investigating animal abuse and neglect charges as background for the testimony he hoped to provide. The dismissal was "good news and bad news," MacQueen said, adding he felt "a laundry list" of specific allegations against Woodley should have been presented to the court.
"We are preparing to re-file the charges and provide them with the information required," he said.
Based on the evidence he has seen, MacQueen said "there should be no problem with the court finding her guilty and punishing her to the fullest extent of the law."
"From the pictures and evidence we have, she should not be allowed to own an animal of any kind," MacQueen added. "And, when you add the profit she makes at the expense of these animals, it is immoral. It is immoral to treat animals like that and make money from it."
Cindy Bristow of Solutions For Animals Inc., has been to Woodley's property. Tuesday, she carried sandwich bag files of photos she says were taken at the Woodley home, and a ball of fur, flies and feces which she was prepared to testify was "one clump off of one foot" of a small dog she bought from Woodley.
"Don't get too close to this or you will gag," she cautioned, as she offered the ball of fur and other matter for examination. The photos she carried showed unwashed kennels with what appeared to be weeks worth of animal waste inside, and dogs with skin ulcers and matted fur.
"We feel we have sufficient evidence for any judge to find her guilty," Bristow said after the charges were tossed out Tuesday.
During her time at Woodley's place, Bristow said she "was sickened" by what she saw and smelled.
"The conditions were deplorable, horrifying," she said, noting she also wanted to present the veterinary records of the three dogs she bought from Woodley as evidence against her.
Woodley's attorney said he has also visited the property, where he says he observed "clean, well-nourished animals," under his client's care.
"It is obvious every single one of them loves her," Whitaker said. "It is absolutely outrageous for these people to come in and accuse her of neglecting those dogs."
The attorney also refuted reports that Woodley has nearly 400 dogs in the kennels and other buildings which surround her home, saying the actual number of dogs under Woodley's care is "probably less than 200," including "many" puppies.
Barbera and Richard Woodley are listed under the AKC suspensions listings as being suspended from March 13, 2000 through March 13, 2010, "for failure to comply with recordkeeping and identification requirements". Case Updates| Posted on Apr 15, 2005 - 7:12AM | About 200 dogs were removed Wednesday from the Lee County home of a couple who were sentenced last month to five years probation for animal cruelty.
Veterinarians found the dogs suffered from blindness and skin scalding caused by ammonia, internal parasites and dental decay.
Volunteers including veterinarians and animal control workers marked the dogs with plastic collars, loaded them onto animal control vans from Wake and Lee counties and took them to a warehouse in downtown Sanford. There, the puppies and adult dogs joined 250 already seized from the property under an earlier court order.
The volunteers were allied with the Animal Legal Defense Fund, a Petaluma, Calif.-based animal-rights organization that sued Robert and Barbara Woodley.
In March, District Court Judge Albert A. Corbett sentenced the Woodleys to five years of probation. During that time, they may not keep animals at their home. He also sentenced them to two 45-day periods in jail each, suspended for five years.
In December, District Court Judge Resson Faircloth allowed veterinarians to examine the dogs and take them for treatment if needed.
The Woodleys are appealing the conviction, but Corbett ordered the Animal Legal Defense Fund to care for the dogs until the appeals process is finished.
"There's no animal here that's not threatened with serious health problems," said Bruce Wagman, litigation director for the animal-rights group.
Barbara Woodley also was found guilty earlier this year of making a death threat against a veterinarian and technician, who were on the Woodleys' property to care for the dogs. Her attorneys have appealed. | | Source: The Herald Sun - April 14, 2005 |
| Posted on Apr 9, 2005 - 12:02AM | Barbara Woodley swayed slightly and collapsed to the courtroom floor Thursday after Judge Andy Corbett found her and husband Robert guilty of criminal animal cruelty and ordered all dogs remaining at their Sanford home surrendered to representatives of the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
The Woodleys, of 500 Westover Drive, had an estimated 400 to 500 dogs, along with a number of birds, in their home and on their property before legal charges and a civil lawsuit were filed against them in late 2004.
Animal rights advocates, along with representatives and witnesses for the ALDF cheered openly as emergency medical technicians responded to the Lee County Courthouse shortly before 1 p.m. Lying on the courtroom floor, Woodley tapped her chest and gave the paramedics abbreviated verbal responses as they worked to determine if she had suffered a heart attack after hearing the verdict. Woodley was reportedly taken to the emergency room at Central Carolina Hospital for evaluation.
Corbett announced his decisions almost as soon as the last attorney to present closing arguments took his seat. Corbett found Robert and Barbara Woodley guilty of all charges of animal cruelty, sentencing both to 45 days in jail suspended for five years with conditions including a year of supervised probation. The Woodleys will pay court costs and must forfeit of all animals in their possession or under their control to ALDF representatives. The couple is not allowed to own, possess or control any animals during their probationary period, according to the judge's ruling.
Attorney Chip Post, who represented the Woodleys during the majority of the civil portion of this week's trial, said the judge's decision on the criminal charges "was erased," by their notice of appeal on the criminal charges. The appeal notice takes the case to Lee Superior Court for a jury trial. Post said he expects the new trial may be heard in Superior Court this summer.
"They are no longer convicted. They are now accused and have no restraints on them except to show up for court," Post said Thursday afternoon.
Corbett said statutes do not allow either the Animal Legal Defense Fund or the Woodleys from seeking damages or reimbursement for expenses related to the case. Veterinary bills for dogs taken from the Woodley property in January have been estimated at $100,000 for problems including blindness and ocular problems, parasitic infestations, open wounds and sores, and "scalded" body parts caused by constant exposure to feces and urine.
Agents for the ALDF must care for the animals throughout the appeals process, the judge said, and are forbidden from "disposing of any of them," during that undetermined time. ALDF attorney Woody Webb Sr. told the judge that several of the dogs are in immediate need of euthanization and asked for permission to have those animals destroyed. Corbett repeated his orders and said ALDF agents must "follow the process" and submit a formal request to the court before any such action is taken.
Barbara Woodley was found not guilty of simple assault against a court-approved veterinarian working at her home. Dr. Laureen Bartfield accused Woodley of assaulting her by grabbing her sleeve and saying, "No pictures," when the vet began photographing animals and conditions at the Woodley property. The judge based his not-guilty decision on the fact that a police officer present when the alleged assault occurred determined no legal action was called for.
Attorney George Whitaker, who helped represent the Woodleys, said he was surprised at the reaction of ALDF supporters to Barbara Woodley's post-verdict collapse.
"What I saw was them hugging each other, laughing and high-fiving, even as they sneered at Barbara laying on the floor. When the bailiff asked them to leave the courtroom, they went outside and were yelling, whooping and hollering. The callousness of their actions says a lot about them and their warped point of view," he said.
Attorney Woody Webb Jr. of Raleigh, who helped represent the ALDF during the civil phase of the trial along with his father, said the ALDF supporters in court Thursday were purely celebrating their legal victory and were not reacting to Woodley's courtroom collapse.
"It had nothing to do with Mrs. Woodley," Webb said late Thursday, noting that the ALDF organization's supporters, "were obviously gratified with the ruling for defenseless and helpless animals." Webb said the judge's decision is a reflection of community standards in Lee County and North Carolina in general. | | Source: The Sanford Herald - April 1, 2005 |
| Posted on Feb 5, 2005 - 10:09PM | A team of veterinarians and animal technicians have filed eight new criminal animal cruelty charges Tuesday (Feb 1, 2005) against Barbara Woodley and husband, Robert, as part of an ongoing effort to take possession of hundreds of dogs owned by the Woodleys and maintained in kennels and enclosures on their property.
Barbara Woodley was also charged with misdemeanor simple assault Tuesday after veterinarian Laureen Bartfield accused Woodley "grabbing her by the shirt and coat as the victim was pulling a camera out of her pocket and stated to her while shaking her back and forth, 'I told you no pictures.'" The charge has been scheduled for hearing in Lee District Court Feb. 16.
Last week, Barbara Woodley was found guilty of making a death threat against the same veterinarian and a technician, who were on the Woodleys' property to care for the dogs. Woodley entered a not guilty plea to the charge, and her attorneys have filed an appeal of the decision.
A press release from the Animal Legal Defense Fund says the new animal cruelty charges are, "based on evidence of horrific acts of abuse and neglect collected under a preliminary court injunction obtained by the (ALDF)."
Judge Resson Faircloth granted a preliminary injunction against Woodley, allowing a team of six veterinarians and their technicians to visit the Woodley property during pre-determined times and days to examine and treat any dogs found to be in need of medical care.
ALDF representatives maintained the judge's order, "allowed veterinarians to remove some of the dogs in need of urgent medical care that could not be administered on the site." Woodley's attorneys contend the judge's order did not grant permission for dogs to be removed from the property.
A second court appearance before Faircloth to clarify terms of the preliminary injunction established dogs could be removed from Woodley's property only if either of her two veterinarians agree with any of the four ALDF vets that a dog needs medical treatment, which can't be provided at Woodley's home. The judge allowed dogs which have been taken from Woodley to remain in custody of volunteers and veterinarians, and did not order any of the animals returned to the owner.
ALDF spokesmen told the judge they had removed dogs believed to be in the most immediate need of medical attention, although skeptics have noted the presence a three high-spirited boxer pups which volunteers have said "appear to be completely healthy" among the dogs taken from the Woodley property and housed in an exhibition hall at the Lee County Fairgrounds.
The statement from ALDF's attorney said vets and technicians have discovered several intolerable situations at the Woodley property.
"For example, a red miniature pinscher was found in a cage roughly 24 inches by 18 inches, lying in a puddle of her own urine and feces, in a room with six other dogs. She had obviously been in that exact spot for a prolonged period. The overpowering stench of urine in the room caused the eyes of the attending veterinarians and technician to burn. Emaciated and unable to rise more than part way before collapsing, this ravaged dog was taken from the property for medical treatment and euthanized two days later," the press release said.
"A red-black male Dachshund was found that day as well, the bottom half of his broken jaw literally hanging down. The jaw had apparently been fractured for quite some time. He was missing most of his teeth, and subsequent examination showed the fracture was related to untreated, severe dental disease," the statement continued. "The veterinarians found these two dogs in the Woodleys' house on January 14. On that day, 14 dogs were in the house in rooms that had piles of old and fresh dog feces and puddles of urine. Dogs were eating feces and urinating on the walls and floors of the kitchen and other rooms."
"The other six dogs who are specifically mentioned in the criminal complaint all suffered from an assortment of ailments, including partial or total blindness; severe dental disease; respiratory problems; ulcerations of the skin; missing teeth; open and infected wounds; and emaciation."
ALDF spokesmen said more than 100 dogs remain on the Woodleys' property, "many of them in need of medical treatment, but the Woodleys and their veterinarian have refused to authorize the treatment and removal which was recommended by local veterinarians."
Chip Post, one of two attorneys representing Barbara and Robert Woodley, did not return calls seeking comment Wednesday. Woodley's other attorney, George Whittaker, was out of town and not available. | | Source: The Sanford Herald - Feb 5, 2005 |
| Posted on Jan 6, 2005 - 3:40AM | Judge Resson Faircloth heard testimony about alleged photos of animals purchased from Barbara Woodley in August during the early session of civil court Thursday and decided to visit the Woodley property after the lunch break during Wednesday's hearing.
The judge, accompanied by two bailiffs, Barbara Woodley and her attorney Chip Post, as well as attorneys Woody Webb and Woody Webb Jr., who represented the American Legal Defense Fund, inspected each of the kennels and shelters at the Woodley property. The judge showed no sign of emotion during the tour, although he later said he was not pleased with what he saw there.
As the court officials and attorneys peered through windows at her home, Woodley approached Woody Webb Sr. and asked, "What kind of criminal am I?" showing both restraint and aggravation with the situation.
The attorney softly replied, "This is a civil proceeding," and turned away as Woodley said, "This is invading my privacy for (another person's) little agenda."
Upon return to the Lee County courthouse, attorneys on both sides of the case offered final statements.
Post said the morning's session offered testimony from one person who alleged she saw problems no greater than a skin lesion on one dog and dental problems for another.
"You made a visit to the premises," Post said to Faircloth. "I submit all those dogs looked healthy. They didn't look diseased. But, you saw what you saw."
Post argued that the Woodleys' kennels aren't fancy or expensive, but are secure, with a roof and warm shelter along with concrete pads and gutters for hosing out the kennels and runs.
"They were all out there healthy and active and barking. There may have been a problem out there four months ago, but the question before us now is if there is a problem out there today," he argued, ending with a motion to deny the complainant's request for an injunction against Woodley. An injunction is a court order commanding or preventing an action - in this case the continued upkeep and breeding of dogs at the Woodley property.
Webb Jr. argued that the evidence shows a pattern of animal neglect over a period of time.
"It is our contention right now to show these animals are now suffering from permanent and irreparable harm," Webb said.
At precisely 3 p.m. Faircloth asked the court to give him a few minutes to review his notes before announcing his decision on the animal right's group's request for an injunction against the Woodleys.
For the next 20 minutes, Woodley sat quietly, looking anxious and agitated as she shifted her view from the floor to former attorney George Whitaker and then to Post before eventually settling down and relaxing in her chair, propping up her chin with her hand as the judge quietly sifted through his documents.
When the silence ended, Faircloth announced that he had decided to issue a permanent injunction against Robert and Barbara Woodley, prompting Post to rise from his seat and remind the judge that he hasn't yet had a chance to respond to that injunction request. Judge Faircloth amended his ruling to a preliminary injunction, allowing Woodley to keep her animals if she complies with an added order, which will allow representatives of the complainant to visit the dogs between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
The judge then made clear his evaluation of the Woodleys' dog situation.
"I didn't count them (dogs), but there are far too many of them for the space they are in," the judge said. "The facilities were relatively clean today, but it hasn't been kept that clean. And, I saw no puppies today and the evidence shows they were there before."
Webb told the judge a team of volunteers and veterinarians were on standby to remove each of the dogs from the Woodleys' property and take them to the Sanford Lions Club livestock facility, where they would receive food and water. Post said the livestock barn isn't much larger than the Woodleys' kennels, prompting the judge to say, " It can't be any more cramped."
The judge looked to Webb and added, "If you've got some place to keep them, I'll let you take them today."
Post again reminded the judge he has 30 days to file a written response to the complainant's injunction request, and said the Lions Club's holding facility isn't heated, while the Woodleys' kennels have heat in place for the dogs.
Going with the preliminary injunction until Post can file an official response on Woodley's behalf, Judge Faircloth also agreed to allow the Woodleys to sell of give away any dogs deemed healthy by the panel of six veterinarians and assistants authorized to visit the Woodley property. The judge said any sick or neglected animals discovered by the vet team "could be used as evidence" and made it clear any such dogs were not to be sold, given away or otherwise removed by the Woodleys.
The case, including Post's response, has been given priority for the next civil court session, which begins Jan. 24. | | Source: The Sanford Herald - Dec 31, 2004 |
| Posted on Dec 29, 2004 - 12:00PM | The Animal Legal Defense Fund, a national non-profit organization that advocates for humane treatment of animals, filed a complaint and motion for preliminary and permanent injunctions against the Woodleys in Lee County District Court Dec. 23.
The complaint cites cruelty, abuse and neglect of the dogs, estimated to number more than 200, which they keep on their property.
The case will be heard by Judge Resson Faircloth at 9 a.m. Thursday in Courtroom 1 of the Lee County Courthouse.
Professor William Reppy of Duke University Law School and Peter MacQueen, president of The Humane Society of Eastern North Carolina, who were involved in another recent case against the Woodleys, approached the ALDF about being the plaintiff in the animal-cruelty suit.
According to MacQueen, the ALDF studied the Woodley case and decided it is significant enough to take it on because it allegedly involves "puppy-mill" breeders who keep large numbers of dogs in cramped and filthy conditions without adequate medical care.
The ALDF is asking the court to give it custody of the dogs, terminate the Woodleys' ownership of them and prohibit them from further violating state laws against abuse, cruelty and neglect of animals.
The couple was taken to court on animal cruelty charges by Lee County several months ago. Chief District Judge Andy Corbett dismissed those charges in November because the prosecution documents "failed to adequately allege a violation of the law."
Lee County Attorney K.R. "Dick" Hoyle said that the county is not a plaintiff in the suit to be heard Thursday, but is assisting the ALDF where needed, such as providing records of the county's investigation of the Woodleys' dog-raising and breeding facility at their home.
Several Lee County residents are also working with the ALDF on the case. One of those is Pat Sprouse, a former president of Carolina Animal Rescue & Adoption.
"This situation has been going on for a long time," she said. "We tried to do something four years ago, but to no avail. In the ALDF, we've got the right people this time who know the laws about animals. I hope Thursday the judge will award the animals to us and get them out of there into homes."
The Woodleys could not be reached for comment on this case. At the time of the earlier legal action, Barbara Woodley denied all the charges, saying that she keeps the dogs "fed, watered, vaccinated, clean and in good shelter."
She said that she feels she is running "a rescue mission" for dogs that have been abandoned or can no longer be kept by their owners.
Four years ago, the city inspected the Woodleys property and found no evidence of abused animals. The city did require the Woodleys to hook up to the city sewer line, remove trash and debris and exterminate rats and insects.
Barbara Woodley said that the previous case was inspired by "revenge" on the part of county officials and by adjacent property owners who, she said, want her land to expand an existing nearby business.
Sprouse said she hoped that a victory in the hearing Thursday will give momentum to the effort to close down places that neglect and abuse dogs while breeding them for profit. | | Source: The Sanford Herald - Dec 29, 2004 |
References« Back to Search Results
|
