Ordinances and statutes and zoning code are legitimate legal "rules," and people within those jurisdictions must abide by htem. If they do not like those "rules," they have the option of "taking on city hall" by either starting a grassroots campaign for the changes they want, work with the city staff to incorporate those changes, vote for new city officials that have a similar mindset, etc. A body is not the only evidence that can exist. Eyewitness observation of non-compliance (including photos) is legitimate testimony and evidence. You are speaking more like requirements for a tort case when you are talking about damage, injury, remedy, etc. Cases involving keeping chickens against code are civil cases. Cases where a chicken has been injured or a chicken injured someone or damaged something are tort cases.
"Ordinances and statutes and zoning code are legitimate legal "rules," Well lets see if this statement can be proven from a "legal" stand point..
First lets address innocents. If I have no chickens, can I be legally charged with a crime or civil action over having chickens? If not, the question becomes why? The legal answer is corpus delecti which means in simple form evidence. No evidence of a crime or civil violation, no case can be brought before a court (jurisdiction).
In a criminal or civil case, the plaintiff (District attorney / private party) has to meet certain requirements (which are also known as elements) that a wrong doing occurred. These are not my rules, they are the legal system rules. In other words, just because a DA, a private person, state, city. or federal government, states that a wrong doing occurred, there has to be facts and evidence to support the claim. Are you with me so far?
Lets discuss the element...again these are not my rules they are the legal systems...
From wiki: an
element of a crime (or
element of an offense) is one of a set of
facts that must all be proven to convict a defendant of a crime. Before a court finds a defendant guilty of a criminal offense, the prosecution must present
evidence that, even when opposed by any evidence the defense may choose to present, is credible and sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed
each element of the particular crime charged.
From wiki: To commit a crime there are elements that need to occur
1)
Mens rea ...Mens Rea refers to the crime's mental elements of the defendant's intent. This is a necessary element—that is, the criminal act must be voluntary or purposeful.
2)
Actus reus. That is, a criminal act or an unlawful omission of an act, must have occurred. A person cannot be punished for thinking criminal thoughts.
3)
Concurrence: In general,
mens rea and
actus reus must occur at the same time—that is, the criminal intent must precede or coexist with the criminal act, or in some way activate the act. The necessary
mens rea may not continually be present until the forbidden act is committed, as long as it activated the conduct that produced the criminal act. However, for criminal liability to occur, there must be either overt and voluntary action or a failure to act when physically able as required by statute or law.
4)
Causation Many crimes include an element that
actual harm must occur—in other words, causation must be proved. For example, homicide requires a killing, aggravated battery requires serious bodily injury and without those respective outcomes, those respective crimes would not be committed. A causal relationship between conduct and result is demonstrated if the act would not have happened without direct participation of the offender.
[5] Causation is complex to prove. The act may be a "necessary but not sufficient" cause of the criminal harm. Intervening events may have occurred in between the act and the result. Therefore, the cause of the act and the forbidden result must be "proximate", or near in time.
[1]
Corpus delecti is required in both criminal and civil courts with different elements. In essence
Corpus delecti of crimes refers to a palpable harm. In civil, where there is no violation of an established right there can be no wrong.
For a valid civil cause of action the elements are;
1) a violation of a legal right
2) damage or injury
3) redress-ability by the court.
Most chicken violations are civil in nature and are considered infractions. So consider the above definitions and if you are accused of being a chicken ordinance violator ask yourself the following...Mens rea; did you have intent ? Actus reus; did you commit a criminal act? Concurrence; did you intend and then commit a criminal act? Causation; did you
actually harm? Civil: did you violate a legal right? did you injure or damage?
Now rethink your logic of "legitimate legal "rules," and compare it to the elements of a valid cause of action. The "legitimate legal rules" are not enforceable in a court unless they meet the criminal or civil "elements".
A city, state, federal government can write anything they want and try and enforce it.They can even get away with it as the
courts are not the defendants advocate....Politicians can mandate that everyone in the state must where pink hats on Tuesday but a crime or civil violation does not occur unless the elements exist. If these elements do not exist, the court has no jurisdiction to here the case and the plaintiff has no standing to bring suit. Unless a person challenges (properly) and forces the plaintiff during discovery to present corpus delecti, the courts will presume the evidence and facts exits and will continue with the hearing.
Unfortunately, they don't teach this in public schools and they never will. The legal system extorts billions of dollars annually from the ignorant..And no, a defense attorney isn't there to help. He / she is part of that multi billion dollar a year industry.
Now, lets look at a HOA...Can they enforce there rules? Absolutely...Why? they have a written agreement that was signed by the homeowner. That is evidence...
