Update: (City Oppression) Milford tickets 93 year old man for hens

[wingless]

Quote:
I agree that is your stated opinion, but I have yet to see a judgement that explicitly said that.

Then you haven't looked in the right place, which is the actual judgements. I have posted several already. The actual rulings are easily obtained online. I am no longer sure of everyone's reading ability so I will just post the information for each person to do their own research. Look at:

Jerome Township vs Milchi (1990 Circuit Court of Appeals). Cut and dry case of RTFA not applying because farm is illegal. Court flat out states that the logic of many here is wrong.

Padgett vs Mason County (2003 Circuit Court of Appeals). Nice example of what a non-conforming farm is and isn't. RTFA didn't apply because Farm was illegal.

Troy vs Papadelis (2007 Michigan Supreme Court) Nice statement by court in ruling that implies if farm not legally created then their ruling doesn't apply.

There are others but these are easy to find. These are also so simple that everyone should be able to understand them.

Thank you.

I have read Troy vs Papadelis, 2007, and don't see the language that you say implies that farms illegally created are not covered by RTFA. Which part - which words- do you think make that specific point?

 

[dianaross77]

Quote:
So, just because people disagree with your opinion and the courts' means they're illiterate?

 

[Your_neighbor]

Quote:
Then you haven't looked in the right place, which is the actual judgements. I have posted several already. The actual rulings are easily obtained online. I am no longer sure of everyone's reading ability so I will just post the information for each person to do their own research. Look at:

Jerome Township vs Milchi (1990 Circuit Court of Appeals). Cut and dry case of RTFA not applying because farm is illegal. Court flat out states that the logic of many here is wrong.

Padgett vs Mason County (2003 Circuit Court of Appeals). Nice example of what a non-conforming farm is and isn't. RTFA didn't apply because Farm was illegal.

Troy vs Papadelis (2007 Michigan Supreme Court) Nice statement by court in ruling that implies if farm not legally created then their ruling doesn't apply.

There are others but these are easy to find. These are also so simple that everyone should be able to understand them.

Thank you.

I have read Troy vs Papadelis, 2007, and don't see the language that you say implies that farms illegally created are not covered by RTFA. Which part - which words- do you think make that specific point?

Are you trying to tell me you don't understand this statement direct from the ruling?

"assuming that the plaintiffs' acquisition of additional land entitled them under the city's zoning ordinance to make agricultural use of the north parcel, a point on which we express no opinion, ..."

The last part is saying the court doesn't want to get involved in the actual argument over with whether or not the required local zoning ordinances were met. By this time the parties were all in agreement that they were, so why did the court make this strange statement? Because they were specifically saying that if they did NOT meet the local zoning ordinances to be a legitimate operation then everything from here on does not apply. You may be confused by this, but no attorney or judge will be.

 

[Your_neighbor]

"So, just because people disagree with your opinion and the courts' means they're illiterate?"

Some people aren't disagreeing with what the courts have said. They are indicating the courts didn't say it. Some people here are in a remarkable state of denial about what the courts have said. It's all in black and white, very explicit, and has been posted here. If people can't understand it, that suggests they are illiterate. It's not an insult. It's a statement of fact based on their behavior. A significant percentage of the US population is illiterate.

 

[wingless]

Quote:
Thank you.

I have read Troy vs Papadelis, 2007, and don't see the language that you say implies that farms illegally created are not covered by RTFA. Which part - which words- do you think make that specific point?

Are you trying to tell me you don't understand this statement direct from the ruling?

"assuming that the plaintiffs' acquisition of additional land entitled them under the city's zoning ordinance to make agricultural use of the north parcel, a point on which we express no opinion, ..."

The last part is saying the court doesn't want to get involved in the actual argument over with whether or not the required local zoning ordinances were met. By this time the parties were all in agreement that they were, so why did the court make this strange statement? Because they were specifically saying that if they did NOT meet the local zoning ordinances to be a legitimate operation then everything from here on does not apply. You may be confused by this, but no attorney or judge will be.

Surely you can understand how a reasonable person might interpret the judges words to mean exactly what they said ("... a point on which we express no opinion,..."), rather than your assertion ("Nice statement by court in ruling that implies if farm not legally created then their ruling doesn't apply.")

Will I find language that is more clear with respect to the point you're trying to make in the other cases? What words convinced you?

 

[mcbeers]

Quote:
Neighbor, you can't have it both ways. If court cases set precedents, which you have made clear is the case, then when the courts decide to have their interpretation "bent" they are setting a precedence. If it is so clear cut, they should have followed previous precedence. It is pretty clear that there is reason for interpretation. Furthermore, you keep saying what the laws intent is. If there is so much confusion to it's interpretation, there is obviously confusion as to its intent. Unless you can tell me you have spoken with legislators who actually signed that bill into law, I find it hard to believe you know what the actual intent is. I think that you make a lot of valid points. However nothing you say should be considered finite. You are not the judge, though you obviously wish you are. Please at least change your tone from matter of fact to opinion. We all would get along a lot better.

 

[Your_neighbor]

"Neighbor, you can't have it both ways. If court cases set precedents, which you have made clear is the case, then when the courts decide to have their interpretation "bent" they are setting a precedence. If it is so clear cut, they should have followed previous precedence. It is pretty clear that there is reason for interpretation. Furthermore, you keep saying what the laws intent is. If there is so much confusion to it's interpretation, there is obviously confusion as to its intent. Unless you can tell me you have spoken with legislators who actually signed that bill into law, I find it hard to believe you know what the actual intent is. I think that you make a lot of valid points. However nothing you say should be considered finite. You are not the judge, though you obviously wish you are. Please at least change your tone from matter of fact to opinion. We all would get along a lot better."

This is where a lack of legal background hurts many of you. You people are confused because you don't understand how the law works. In point of fact there is no confusion as pertains to how the law is being implemented. The courts CAN have it both ways and they often do. The bending of the rules allows for implementing the INTENT of the law, which is to protect legal commercial farms This sort of thing happens now and then. The important thing to note is that the law won't be bent unless it is clear that not doing so would violate the intent of the law. That is what Shelby vs Papesh and Troy vs Papadelis were all about. Both were CLEARLY legitimate commercial farms and it was only special circumstances that kept RTFA from applying to them. From what I have seen so far no one here has a prayer of getting that bending to occur for them.

 

[Your_neighbor]

OK, we are playing poker and you guys just called by saying I was just voicing my opinion. I have shown my hand through court cases with clear wording. I wasn't bluffing. My opinions are actually the courts opinions. Anyone who can read pretty much has to agree at this point. My hand is strong, full house aces over jacks. Your turn to show your hand.

WHERE ARE YOUR CASES SUPPORTING YOUR OPINIONS? I'll even give you Shelby vs Papesh, although your odds of winning the lottery jackpot are better than your odds of getting it to apply to someone here. That means you have a pair of twos so far. Now for the rest of your hand.

WHERE ARE YOUR CASES SUPPORTING YOUR OPINIONS?

I eagerly await your response and look forward to reading them with gusto!

 

[mcbeers]

Quote:
There you go again. You are so sure of yourself, but the "law is bent" on occasion from what you perceive it to mean. Regardless of the reasoning for it. You are quite sure of everyone's outcome. The fact is, you are trying to discourage people from fighting their own fights. Giving information, and even your opinion is fine with me. You keep talking like you are the one who wrote the law. You aren't, nor are you the one who is judging these people on the law. I'm sure you are going to keep doing what you are doing, but I hope that the good people on this board will take what you say with a grain of salt and not be completely discouraged to do some investigation on their own. Thanks to people like wbanka and dianaross77 for continuing to look into the matter without blindly believing the "lawyer" in the room, whose legal background and knowledge of the world in general is clearly far superior to any of the rest of us.

 

[Your_neighbor]

I have cases supporting my opinions, which are based on those cases. Our opinions are in direct contradiction. Do you have any cases supporting your opinions? Do you have ANY legal basis for supporting your opinion? I think the answer is probably no but I am asking. If not, why are you spreading disinformation and encouraging people to follow your interpretation of the law instead of the one the courts will actually follow? Do you want people to get ticketed and shut down?