At the second official one the respondant didn't show up. Bad move. The decision went in my favor, albeit months later, but he was reissued his license based on several mandated stipulations including wearing a anti-barking collar when alone, and anyone who had him in their care was to prevent him from barking. They didn't. I never saw any such collar on the dog ever and testified as such. At this one he showed only remembering the first informal affair and repeated the same accusations along with this gem he'd taken notes on while I talked: other neighbors had seen the collar on the dog, would testify as such, and thus I had just perjured myself.
The Hearing Examiner stopped that charge cold scarcely believing her ears.
"Sir, he testified he rarely ever sees the dog, and the black box could be hidden from his view" and so on. Shot down cold. No one was there to testify to anything. For once I held my tongue and from the questions only had to demurr to her as they were clearly inadmissable based on the date and she said so repeatedly. Heh heh. And false besides that. He then went on a tirade about my complaint to the landlord back in May, and again I demurred.
"This is not pertinent to his testimony," she said.
He folded like a cheap suit and under oath had to admit the dog barks, and claimed he bought three bark collars because he didn't think they worked. Gee ya think? The taped barking spells proved that even if the tape had issues with speed and drag. The barking came through despite that.
Do you have any evidence that your dog didn't bark after this order was issued by the department as evidenced by Mr. York?
"No, I don't."
The idiot made as ass of himself again, but with enough personal sob stories to possibly get him yet another chance. Who knows since it seems the complainant gets the worst of it for bringing it up in the first place?