In the face of town fines accruing at the rate of $300 a day, the Garde family of Tisbury has renewed its legal fight to keep its three delinquent husky dogs.

Last week the family patriarch, Kenneth C. Garde, filed a motion for a stay of execution against an order made by the Edgartown district court, requiring compliance with last October’s order of the Tisbury selectmen which banned the dogs from town for repeated escapes and poultry-killing incidents.

The same day, Friday, he filed a motion for relief which claimed the court order was “based upon evidence which was misrepresented to the town and based upon fraud.”

The motion gives no details of alleged fraud, but draws a distinction between the threat the dogs pose to poultry and the threat they pose to people.

His motion says: “... there are compelling reasons to vacate the judgment pursuant to rule, for example, no credible evidence exists which would support the conclusion that any of the dogs in question are a danger to any person on the Island of Martha’s Vineyard.

“No evidence exists that the dogs threatened or attacked any person at any time during their existence.”

Although he conceded there was evidence the dogs “may have” destroyed poultry, “that fact, standing alone does not compel the conclusion the people of Martha’s Vineyard would be better off by having the dogs banished.”

He says the court should require Tisbury to hold a new hearing.

The latest legal gambit by Mr. Garde is seen as a stalling tactic by town officials. Tisbury’s travails with the Gardes’ various dogs already have extended over several years, and to date an estimated $14,000 in legal and administrative time.

It follows a letter sent to Mr. Garde, his son Daniel and daughter Hannah, each of whom owns one of the three dogs under the ban order, on March 17 by town administrator John Bugbee.

Since the appeals process had come to an end, Mr. Bugbee’s letter says, the town expected them to comply promptly with the selectmen’s order of Oct. 13 last year, in which their respective dogs Sundance, Kya and Sasha were banned from the town.

“The town is aware of the fact that the dogs continue to be kept inside your home at 139 Spring street in violation of the selectmen’s order. If this is incorrect . . . please notify the ACO [Animal Control Officer] immediately,” the letter says.

It threatens each of the three dog owners in the Garde family with fines: a one-off $25 penalty for violating a selectmen’s order, and a $100 fine for each day each dog continued to reside within the Tisbury town lines.

“You will be subject to the aforementioned fines 10 days from the issuance of the letter,” Mr. Bugbee writes.

“If no proof is shown to the town after 10 days that the dogs no longer reside in Tisbury, they will be assumed to be living in Tisbury in violation of the selectmen’s order.”

That assumption, and the daily fines of $100 per dog, would continue until the Gardes showed proof, including a verifiable address in a new location, that the dogs had been removed permanently from town.

The recent Garde dispute dates to Oct. 13 last year, when the selectmen banned Sundance, owned by Ken and Nina Garde, Sasha, owned by their son Daniel, and Kya, owned by their daughter Hannah, after repeated escapes and poultry killings.

In all, five of the family’s dogs have been banned, beginning with Storm, in September 2008. Two dogs, Storm and Mussa, have been removed from the Island.

Mr. Garde appealed the Oct. 13 ban. But in court, the town’s counsel argued that the appeal was past the deadline. Clerk magistrate Liza Williamson agreed with the town. Mr. Garde appealed that decision to district court Judge Joseph Macey. The judge also ruled that it was too late.

Then Mr. Garde filed again, appealing the selectmen’s decision not to reopen the case. In January, Judge Macey found against him on that one too.

At that time, Mr. Bugbee told the Gazette he hoped that would be the end of the matter. But Mr. Garde responded by reregistering the dogs.

On the same day, he also took out papers to recontest his position on the town’s board of health. He will face stiff competition on polling day, April 27, from a popular challenger, Michael Loberg.

As to where the legal issue goes now, Mr. Bugbee said he had received advice from counsel that the new Garde motions raised no new issues; thus counsel would urge the court to dismiss both motions without hearing.

And if Mr. Garde still failed to comply with the selectmen’s order?

“We will return to court and look at other mechanisms of relief to enforce these orders.

“The orders are not going away. This issue is not going away. The dogs, in the eyes of selectmen, are a direct threat to the safety and property of other residents living in the area,” Mr. Bugbee said.