Illegal Serial Animal Feeding

[XLFD]

About three weeks ago, I admitted to a serious breach of the laws of my municipality, the City of Ludington, when I related my transgression and took a picture for posterity in this thread:  Cat and Mouse.  I definitely violated a City Code and was guilty of a civil infraction, and felt guilty enough to contact the Chief of Police, the City Manager, and the Mayor by E-mail, immediately notifying them of my violation.

For some reason, I never got called for my actions.  Was it okay to feed someone else's cat outside my residence?  The law says no; the inaction by the officials says it was okay.  Is this not a republic, governed by laws, and not by whether these three enforcers of the laws of Ludington overlook that fact and decide not to do their jobs?

The one thing it does mean is that the law apparently has no bite to it.  I can go completely against it, report my actions, admit I did it willfully, and still not get a civil infraction from doing it.  The consequence is that if you or someone you know ever decides to feed a stray kitty and some Ludington Code-enforcing Fife tries to invoke this law on you, you can point to my unpunished civil disobedience here and claim that they are unfairly administering this ordinance.  Pretty neat, eh?  Maybe we can nullify other really stupid ordinances as well, that were passed by some local legislators who had nothing better to do at the time.

I had some striped shortbread cookies that had been opened and forgot about (very stale), and a discarded copy of the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews) just to verify that these weren't older pictures taken before the seagull-feeding law took effect.

Now here's another ordinance that was passed by the same people who gave us the cat feeding ordinance.

Section 34-99   Animals creating disturbances or nuisances

(f)   Feeding of other animals. No person shall intentionally feed, make available, nor assist another person to make food available, for seagulls, geese or other wildlife in city parks, marinas and beaches.

(g)  Violation. A violation of this section shall constitute a municipal civil infraction.

There's probably few things funnier at the beach than seeing someone leave some food on their beach blanket as they walk the beach or go out in the water, and see the seagulls come down and make quick work of their lunch.  But thanks to the Ludington City Council, they no longer have to just feel stupid, they have to worry about getting a citation.  I don't think stupidity should be a crime, even from a fudgie, and so for their benefit, I decided to willfully feed these birds and suffer the consequences.

These guys love those stale cookies and the past-due pretzel sticks they were fed that day.  And someone was insistent on being able to do it too when they heard what I did.  But I told them it was against the law, and they could get in trouble.

"Feeding seagulls is illegal?  That's silly.  What do they want me to do with these old crackers that we would put in some landfill if we didn't feed them to the seagulls.  Save the Earth."

How do you argue with that?  Recycling food that you would just throw away, if you didn't feed them to the seagulls.  You provide nourishing food that seagulls really like, and save yourself some trash bags.  Killing two birds with one stone, so to speak.

Our trip to the waterfront had us see only one seagull near the water, once we started feeding him some crackers, the word got out, and we had a crowd of these scavengers with wings pretty quick.

Once again, I will try to see whether the City law enforcers will want to enforce this section of the law in the local court system or defer their response to some real problem, some real crime.  In the meantime, I will feed whatever animal I feel like feeding and who accepts my food unless I am given some sort of good reason for not doing so. 

And I will advise anyone else not to yield their right to show compassion because some restrictive law with no basis for its enaction is in force.  Otherwise, like the City leaders of Philadelphia did, the next thing they'll go for is to make it illegal to feed the homeless.

[Willy]

The city will not issue a citation unless an officer sees you feeding the animals. Sending them an Email doesn't make you guilty of a violation because there are no witnesses. If they acted on your email then you would have to admit in court that you indeed feed the gulls and cat, then your case would be over because you are taking responsibility. If an officer witnesses  your act then you could challenge them in the court with a not guilty plea and request a jury trial, but you would loose because the Court will weigh the officers testimony over yours. Your recourse then would be the appeal process and if you have the time and money for that then I'm sure the City would oblige you and match your efforts. A much easier way to fight this would be a petition drive to put this matter on the ballot for a vote of Ludingtons citizens.

[XLFD]

I can be charged with a civil infraction without having an officer eyewitness the offense; I am admitting my transgression just like someone involved in an auto accident might when they say when the officer arrives  "I was speeding at the time of the accident."  or "I did not stop at the stop sign."  That person will get the ticket. 

As it is a civil infraction, a jury cannot be asked for, but a formal or informal hearing before a magistrate or judge can.  The motorist above cannot claim his speeding or negligence was not against the law, and the LEO can use his admission against him, and any other proof he got at the accident scene. 

In my seagull feeding municipal civil infraction, I am admitting I did not follow the ordinance, I did so willfully, and I am not repentant for doing so.  I deserve a fine, and yet, I will contest it in a hearing because I do not believe the City has the statutory power to prevent someone from feeding birds in a public place they help pay the upkeep for.  No more than it has the power to prevent a citizen from utilizing public places they help pay the upkeep for.  

[AQUAMAN]

I see "dueling torches" here right now, and it's a moot point on both sides for me, know why? Now the web has a victimless civil crime, stupid as the ordinance is from the get-go, not just admitted to, but proven with digital pics., and well documented in several pics., for a possible civil ticket being sent by mail. That's pretty funny, but at the same time, a fact that could bite back too, with more wasted time and money, but it's not mine to say either way. I say leave sleeping dogs stay asleep, like they usually are, and don't push the statutes of reasonableness, unless of course you're intent on being a rascal about the issue..........lol. Methinks there are already alot of pokers in the fire already, why invite more? Get the current fires put out, in other words, before getting more started, jmo.

[XLFD]

I've more than enough pokers in the fire, but I still have more than enough time to poke fun at silly laws passed (during the time a citizen was prohibited from going to City Hall to address them at a public forum) that would only become more silly if the City tried to enforce them.  Thanks for your concern, because you do speak wisely.

[AQUAMAN]

On the lighter side of this thread, they sure would look pretty silly trying to push this, in the public eye at least, and continue to pester you X, but, they've proven over and over there is no limit to their audacity and iron fist methodology in defending unethical laws/ordinances just for their own aloof and condescending attitudes sake. And have the good ole COLD news to back them up, fully on a one-sided news reporting show. Good luck anyhow, either way........lol.

[Willy]

I forgot that a jury trial is no longer allowed in a civil infraction case. I still contend you will receive no citation unless the police witness it. They're not going to waste their time when someone admits to feeding birds when the birds and food are non existent. You must have them witness you feeding the birds contrary to the ordinance because when you go before the Magistrate there will be no evidence to present that you fed or did not feed the animals. Just the fact that you claim to have violated the ordinance doesn't make it true. The police always have crazies [not you] who have not committed any crime  but will  confess to every crime in the book just to get attention and the police know that unless there is some supporting evidence there is nothing they can or will do.  At least in a crash there is damage to observe and police do issue citations at accidents after they have arrived.  If the police do have proof and issue you a citation, then, as I understand it, you can claim responsibility with no explanation or responsibility with an explanation in an informal hearing with the Magistrate. The Magistrate will listen to your admission of responsibility with an explanation but unless there are circumstances about your case that  apply to the law, the Magistrate will have no choice but to find you responsible and set a fine. The Magistrate does not decide if a law is fair or just, only if you have violated the law.   Your next step as I understand it is to file, within 7 days, an appeal for a formal hearing before a Judge. The same will hold true there. The judge is not there to decide the merits of the law but only if you violated it and if you admit that you have violated the law and there is supporting evidence then your not going to win unless the judge feels sorry for you but I doubt that will happen.

[XLFD]

Most of your assertions are truth or close enough to the truth, Willy, but if the original arbiters do not want to address the underlying fact that the Home Rule Cities Act allows a City the enforcement of police, sanitary, and other ordinances that are not in conflict with the general laws; as limiting someone's ability to feed birds or other animals (other than the rare instances cited in state law) is in conflict with the rights guaranteed in the Constitution of the State.  And if they don't want to address the issue, I will continue up the ladder as I will be doing with the first FOIA lawsuit I was rumored to have lost. 

Sooner or later, the Ludington City Hall will get the idea that passing nuisance laws is not worth it.  But I believe they already got that message-- even with three new councilors the only ordinance of substance they have passed this year is the med. marijuana one which was years in the making.   I am hoping for even more improvement in the future when they repeal the Workplace Safety Policy, because it would be real dumb if they didn't with the Rotta v. Shay suit out there.  

[XLFD]

Thanks for regularly helping me 'get it'.  When your City has more out-of County attorneys on their payroll than they do City Councilors, you know that the law is going to be twisted around the necks of the taxpayers, at the taxpayer's expense not only in money, but also in basic civil rights. 

[AQUAMAN]

Nice accurate analysis, that's what I was trying to say Willy, but I got overzealous and convoluted there for a moment, so deleted it.

[Willy]

Thanks Aquaman. Before you erased your post I was going to state you were right on about the judge or magistrate  judging a case on the existing law. It is not their job to determine it's Constituionality, I think.

[XLFD]

Nope, it's a borrowed (and suitably defaced) copy.  The seagulls had little regard for the paper, but were driven into a frenzy by the stale cookies on it. 

[Willy]

X, why can't you file a law suit challenging the Constitutionality of the law instead of getting a citation. It would certainly shorten the process a bit?