Do new laws over ride older ones?

[Teery]

I live in a residential zone in Jenks Oklahoma. Just over 2 years ago I did some research on what laws applied to keeping chickens here. At that stage I found information on the Jenks City website that stated that if you have no roosters you are allowed to keep up to 6 hens in your back yard as long as their coop was at least 40 feet away from the closest neighbor. So that is what I did.

This week I received a letter from the city stating that it is illegal to have chickens in our zone and that I have to dismantle my coop and remove the chickens by July 10th.

Going back to the website, I cannot find any rules about the 6 hens being allowed, and for the life of me, I cannot find the printed pages that I had that confirmed that I could have them.

Is there a way to find out as I have been unsuccessful all morning today. Are there archived kept anywhere?

If they changed the law after I got them, do I still have to abide by it? or can I insist that I keep them seeing I got them before the laws changed?

I'm so frustrated at the moment. I have a daughter who shows these hens in 4-H shows, she's devastated that we have to get rid of her chickens.

Any help right now will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Efi

How far do you want to take this? Are you really willing to fight? Are you willing to go to court? If not, comply. It matters not what laws are in affect...You received a letter.

If you are willing to fight, right them back and state that you are willing to comply if they can provide you with empirical facts and evidence that the law applies directly to "you." A statute, regulation, ordnance, etc. is not fact or evidence.

 

[Greeks]

Well, I went and had several meetings with them. I eventually gave in and moved the chickens thankfully to a friends farm where she gave us space for them and we still take care of them. We drive 7 miles there and another 7 miles back every day to take care of them, but it's worth it as they are my daughters 4-H project / Show chickens. I felt that the whole process was stressing her out and she suffers from severe anxiety and is prone to panic attacks. Cutting a long story short, I didn't want her to get traumatized if they confiscated her chickens or worse destroyed them. She still cares for them and showing chickens has helped her with a variety of her anxiety issues (Germophobia is one of the issues), and it has been very therapeutic for her to own these chickens. You can't own chickens and love them and also be germophobic- thankfully she loved her chickens enough to overcome the germophobia and also to stand up at shows in front of judges without melting down and having panic attacks.

The things we do for our children ... some people have no clue !!!!

 

[Teery]

Well, I went and had several meetings with them. I eventually gave in and moved the chickens thankfully to a friends farm where she gave us space for them and we still take care of them. We drive 7 miles there and another 7 miles back every day to take care of them, but it's worth it as they are my daughters 4-H project / Show chickens. I felt that the whole process was stressing her out and she suffers from severe anxiety and is prone to panic attacks. Cutting a long story short, I didn't want her to get traumatized if they confiscated her chickens or worse destroyed them. She still cares for them and showing chickens has helped her with a variety of her anxiety issues (Germophobia is one of the issues), and it has been very therapeutic for her to own these chickens. You can't own chickens and love them and also be germophobic- thankfully she loved her chickens enough to overcome the germophobia and also to stand up at shows in front of judges without melting down and having panic attacks.

The things we do for our children ... some people have no clue !!!!

Ask yourself one question. Where does the city get its jurisdiction from to write such ordinances? If you think you know the answer like many do, show me the facts or empirical evidence to support your answer....try not to get caught up in a circular argument...and try not to enter the rabbit hole...I am on your side, I am just trying to give you food for thought.

Now, in a court of law the plaintiff (city) has to prove a case with "facts" and "evidence" Statutes, regulation, rules, etc. is not a fact or evidence...In order for a court to have jurisdiction the plaintiff has to present corpus delecti (a body) To do this, they have to have evidence that a legal right was violated and/or actual damage or injury occurred and that a court can give a remedy.

You can normally prevail in pretrial motions if you write the motion properly and ensure whoever wrote the original complaint (citation) gets a copy of the the motions. They likely will be instructed not to appear in court..If you want to learn more visit marc stevens website and youtube video's..He has been pretty effective...

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Quote:
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.

 

[Teery]

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...