Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?

[wingless]

jimmywalt, a lot has happened this year, but one thing that has not changed is our Right to Farm law. In 1999 our legislators voted and approved an amendment to RTF that clearly and unambiguously prohibits townships from and cities from enacting regulations that are more strict than that law, and that amendment stands.

I am not a lawyer, but my personal view is that my farm operation, which is commercial and follows good management practices, is protected by Right to Farm even though I live in a residential area, and even though some of my farm practices are not allowed by local ordinances.

If you would like to access free legal advice for farmers through the good work of the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund, please contact me and I'll make sure that happens.
[email protected]

 

[RTFchickens]

Is obtaining a variance an option for you? I know I've been against the idea myself, but so far my township has backed down after contacting the attorney group that wingless has mentioned above. Farm To Consumer Legal Defense Fund. As wingless said, you can get free advice through her contact through Michigan Small Farm Counsel.

Jimmywalt, aren't you located in Grand Haven?

 

[Teery]

You mean Michigan has a privilege to farm law.

"A privilege is a special entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. It can be revoked in certain circumstances. In modern democratic states, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth."

If Michigan had to write a law to grant something (in this case farming) then it was never a "right". Now you can argue you have the right to eat, but that doesn't mean you have the right to grow your own food on your own land...Still, I don't have to read the law to tell you that under most circumstances it is not enforceable. A DA would be hard pressed to bring a "valid" civil or criminal "cause of action" against someone for growing food or raising chickens.

edited by staff

 

[mcbeers]

I'm pretty sure there are some people who would disagree with you about the attorneys being hard pressed to bring something against them for raising chickens, etc. You did say "valid". But what do you do when a judge decides against you?

 

[Teery]

I'm pretty sure there are some people who would disagree with you about the attorneys being hard pressed to bring something against them for raising chickens, etc. You did say "valid". But what do you do when a judge decides against you?

Appeal...But it should never get to court. You can kill most plaintiffs actions in pretrial motions and discovery if a invalid cause of action was filed. You will never hear about those who get charges thrown out as it would undermine the politicians. A invalid cause of action is why some people will never pay a traffic ticket vs. those who will always pay..The mindless robots that believe that whatever a politician writes or says has to be valid is beyond belief..The key is understanding the civil and criminal "elements" needed to bring a valid cause of action before the courts..Another key is understanding the court rules and procedures. The problem why most lose in court is because they are caught off guard..They are unaware of the law and all of a sudden they are under the gun to learn it..They try and argue statutes, rules, regulations, etc. instead of challenging the court and the plaintiff on the elements required in a valid cause of action..

Valid cause of action are not my rules, they are the legal systems rules...learn them..

 

[mcbeers]

I can't speak for the people who have fought their cases, and I can't say I know enough about the legal system, because I haven't had to fight my own case. But some of these people have appealed. We shouldn't have to go to court in the first place, let alone appeal. We shouldn't have to pay court fees to keep taking this up and up until there is a reasonable judge. Are you a lawyer Teery?

edited by staff

 

[Teery]

I can't speak for the people who have fought their cases, and I can't say I know enough about the legal system, because I haven't had to fight my own case. But some of these people have appealed. We shouldn't have to go to court in the first place, let alone appeal. We shouldn't have to pay court fees to keep taking this up and up until there is a reasonable judge. Are you a lawyer Teery?

I will again post in this thread what I posted on a couple times in other threads.This is in regards to "legitimate legal "rules,"

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...

 

[Blooie]

<sigh> Sometimes it's the better part of valor to put my dunce cap on and go back into my corner.

 

[mcbeers]

Thanks. I wish you would have just copied and pasted that from your previous threads in the first place, instead of insulting the people who are doing all that they know how to do to stay out of jail and keep their chickens. I enjoy learning information like this, and I'll keep it all in mind for myself and look into it more, in case I ever have to use it. The reality is that people not knowing this has nothing to do with laziness. You said it yourself they don't teach it in public schools. Unless we were lawyers ourselves, why would we know it? How would we know to look for it?

 

[Ridgerunner]

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?

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.


What you are talking about here is "Innocent until proven guilty". That's a basic concept of our legal system. You don't have to prove your innocence, they have to prove your guilt. But I think you missed something that may be pertinent. That evidence must be obtained legally. These are the technicalities that get a lot of cases throw out of court or allow people to escape punishment. Another name for these technicalities is "Constitutional Rights". If your constitutional rights are violated when they collect that evidence then that specific evidence cannot be used against you.

An example: If someone takes a photo of your private house or property, they have invaded your privacy unless they have a warrant. If they take a photo of the middle of a public street and you are caught on the side of that photo (the camera was not aimed at your private property) then it might be legal evidence.