Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Subject
Comment
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


any of you been in a will dispute?

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 15 May 2022 23:10:45 EST 6LZ/uBKi No.46950
File: 1652670645473.jpg -(397642B / 388.32KB, 1920x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. any of you been in a will dispute?
my mom threatend to take me off her will if i ever saw my dad again "" her words

is this illegal? thats extortion or something right?

also, if i had proof of family abuse, will that overturn the will so that i inherit it?
i have proof for years
and my family is the cause of some issue and ongoing therapy type shit
>>
Martin Macklecocke - Fri, 20 May 2022 20:05:56 EST s4MnW6nY No.46952 Reply
I'd get a consultation with an estate lawyer and ask them these questions. It's probably not illegal because it's her property, but it's also probably unenforceable. I doubt testifying about family abuse would help your case unless you were seeking damages against your mother

Leaving notes

View Thread Reply
- Fri, 22 Apr 2022 23:22:42 EST 7kYH8a9E No.46932
File: 1650684162541.png -(215664B / 210.61KB, 1200x675) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Leaving notes
My neighbors are always ass holes and constantly making loud noise and always being ridiculous and have made my life hell since they moved in.

Is it legal to leave non threatening but vulgar notes on their door once in awhile when no ones around? I hate them so fucking much and after 12+ hours of noise I do stupid shit
User is currently banned from all boards
>>
Ernest Ciggleduck - Sun, 15 May 2022 22:52:48 EST 6LZ/uBKi No.46948 Reply
>>46932
you probably wouldn't get in trouble legally for saying cut the fucken shit but also don't leave your name.. infact.. write multiple notes in different handwritings
maybe they'll think everyones in on it and they'll think twice
>>
Martin Macklecocke - Fri, 20 May 2022 20:02:28 EST s4MnW6nY No.46951 Reply
They're undoubtedly breaking local noise ordinances if you're in the States, so you can call the cops on them or threaten to do so in a note. You can also threaten legal action even if you have no intent of taking them to court lol

drunk at work

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 27 Dec 2021 03:30:29 EST YSICtYX8 No.46908
File: 1640593829070.jpg -(1168443B / 1.11MB, 2400x1800) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. drunk at work
question about going to work drunk. I know you would get fired if you showed up at work drunk, but would the supervisor or boss suppose to call the cops or allow you to call someone for a ride home? they can't just allow you to leave work and drive drunk home, cause if you get into a accident they can be liable.
>>
John Huppernire - Wed, 12 Jan 2022 13:57:06 EST 1aUAu2Dj No.46910 Reply
this shows such a poor understanding of the law and the world that I don't know where to start
>>
Ernest Ciggleduck - Sun, 15 May 2022 23:05:46 EST 6LZ/uBKi No.46949 Reply
i think its based on what behaviors would be observed.. .slurred speech is one but swervin while you walk would be obvious i need to call an uber for you... i doubt they would call the cops unless your boss is super tight ass...

i imagine though if you are caught drunk at work and are fired.. that they would add a "find a ride home, you're obviously to drunk to drive."

i think that once they fire you, you are no longer their responsibility... sstilll though, if i saw you as to drunk to drive i would call an uber or something

Grills banned. Smoker?

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 09 May 2022 15:56:43 EST uKwq5PEA No.46945
File: 1652126203854.jpg -(136886B / 133.68KB, 897x1024) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Grills banned. Smoker?
My lease says I am not allowed to use basically any kind of grill on my balcony. Even bans electric unlike my other leases. Only grill I could find that wouldn't violate the lease would be a solar one but I don't get enough sun.
Would a smoker solve the issue, at least if I was really willing to press that it technically wasn't a grill until they ban them in the new lease next year? I'm in Ohio if it matters.
>>
Molly Tootfield - Sat, 14 May 2022 06:21:57 EST 4mKpsxtv No.46946 Reply
You don't have any kind of right to use a grill on the balcony or anywhere else prohibited by a contract you willingly signed. And if the building is made partially or largely of petroleum products, as a shit load of new construction is, getting something fire hot next to the siding is a terrible idea.
>>
Ernest Ciggleduck - Sun, 15 May 2022 22:49:44 EST 6LZ/uBKi No.46947 Reply
>>46945
i think if you got a smoker.. yeah , they'll just prohibit that also. then you spent 300 for 3 months.
dangerous is dangerous and it sucks when it impedes you but if you are trying to grill.. maybe you can get a fan and grill inside and blow the smoke out? idk i mean other than knocking the grill over i can't think of a saftey concern

Any ideas on how I can retain a Lawyer?

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 21 Feb 2022 03:43:29 EST ZWAkioFO No.46926
File: 1645433009376.jpg -(2258227B / 2.15MB, 3120x4160) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Any ideas on how I can retain a  Lawyer?
Mendocino county jail's water is severely contaminated. Showers caused severe wrinkling, Perma dandruff, crowsfeet, lizard scales, rashes, chemical burns that turn into bloody sores, etc. Drinking water caused a fuckton of stomach, gas, and intestinal problems all of the sudden after 2.5 years housed there.

I was coerced into over 8 gladiator fights, infact my nickname was Rooster and I hated it. I came in with Anterior Wedging of Thoracic segment 11, and I came out with a shattered spine, levo scoliosis, bone spurs, narrowing of the spine, arthritis in the sacroiliac joints, and age deterioration despite being 30 yrs old

frequent thirst, dry mouth, bloody coughs from likely sinus or lung infection trapped by deformed spine , debilitating migraines every other day, lost two teeth from dry mouth despite brushing and flossing daily,

I was denied college, and c.os would call us Alligator men and Rollypollys based on shower waters damage, it happened to about 30+% of detainees alot were unaware or in denial.

This case should b able to pull someone multimillions based on related cases, my future ability to enjoy life is destroyed, I got mental anguish, PTSD, ADHD, and lots of incurable medical damages.

I have shopped up and down California for 8 years contacting police misconduct lawyer s but no one will offer to champion for me

I was wrongfully convicted of 500 lbs marijuana cultivation in 2014 where I first experienced the shower's wrinkling of my skin , this lead me subliminally to kill my father via baseball bat in 2015 even though there was alot of self defense elements to the story as well (he was in the middle of a psychotic break knife lunging frenzy). I fought it until spring 2019 when I was medically coerced into a plea deal for 8 years voluntary Manslaughter. It is easily appealable as I had constitution violations for speedy trial, ineffective counsel, medically coerced confession, and federal double jeapordy as a tribal court considered me not guilty before the superior court s decision. Even tho obvious self defense elements involved.

Later In prison a Southsider stole my corn chips and walked off so I limped after him and shoved him against the tray serving slot a couple times until a Mexican c.o. bashed me in the head with a nightstick, made me seizure out for the first time, broke my jaw, caused hematoma of the brain, verebral bleeding, and brain swelling, my head hurt so bad I got sent to an outside hospital for 2 weeks where I watched Anime and was put on morphine temporarily.

My statute of limitations is still active for 2+ years as I was denied law library and phone calls for 10 years and I have documentation of this....



Also I am currently illegally committed to an electronics less rehab in Lake County. And wouldn't mind an injunction out of it...

I am a 2nd or 3rd generation victim of police harassment and misconduct. My dad would get gangbeat and tased by Mendocino PD on his own property my entire life . He got his property via motorcycle accident settlement that cut up his brain tissue . He was not mentally functioning and abused me physically, sexually, mentally. It was like being nurtured by a single bridge bum. He was medically diagnosed skizophrenic and prescribed Prozac And some witnesses claimed I was a 12 year old taking care of a mentally disabled adult.

It's a long story and not many get much worst than this. Please be the one to champion for me and avenge the class warfare I've had to endure. Or else I'll go to my 420channel .org folks, or even file the motions myself. i got all the paperwork necessary and would very much appreciate a jury decision. A settlement, an acquittal, a release from parole conditions so I can travel to Japan and Costa Rica someday with my homie Cricket who owns a coffee plantation, and cafe in Costa Rica and wants to experiment with cannabis fusion recipes. As some of my immediate family are two of the most earliest pioneer potfarmers of the emerald triangle grow scene. We just fell behind the regulated end of the weed game so now we are the underdog in this battle. thank you.https://www.circlejerk.com/r/legal/comments/sxoe0r/im_trying_to_sue_mendocino_county_jail_for/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
>>
Charlotte Clocklekedge - Fri, 06 May 2022 18:44:07 EST s4MnW6nY No.46943 Reply
The ACLU might be able to help you: https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/get-help, or another civil rights org. There are a number dedicated to incarcerated people. You could also contact local newspapers to see if they'd be willing to share your story. Beyond that I'm not sure, but 420chan isn't the place you'll find it

studying law

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 09 Dec 2015 20:40:36 EST YLjaZSmH No.44885
File: 1449711636916.jpg -(38456B / 37.55KB, 517x469) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. studying law
Does /law/ have any actual lawyers or law students? I'm a history teacher who is considering a career change. And one option I'm weighing is going to law school. I'm not really sure what area I want to specialize in, though I know I don't want to do criminal law.

So is it worth it to go to law school? What's the best field to study not just for money but reliable employment? I'm just now starting to research it, since I'm far away from actually having to make a decision.
11 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Jarvis Budgenutch - Thu, 03 Mar 2022 16:23:13 EST 1aUAu2Dj No.46929 Reply
>>46912
Thanks! I got a 167 and have been accepted into one of my top schools with a pretty fat scholarship, feels good.
>>
Ghengis Dong - Fri, 04 Mar 2022 06:57:39 EST z+QfnKD8 No.46930 Reply
1646395059430.gif -(360184B / 351.74KB, 478x368) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>46929
Hell yea! Congrats. I have flirted with the idea of going into lawschool for years but absolutely can't go into any more debt and my undergrad GPA was shit so I don't know if I could get a lot of aid even if I nailed the LSAT
>>
Basil Funderpetch - Mon, 07 Mar 2022 17:20:54 EST 1aUAu2Dj No.46931 Reply
>>46930
my GPA was pretty so-so, its worth a try. I would suggest taking a free practice LSAT somehow (I think you can do that), and if you do well on it you should try for real.

disolving a defunct LLC in california

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 28 Feb 2022 18:40:22 EST jMHR/xeh No.46928
File: 1646091622155.png -(258302B / 252.25KB, 529x404) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. disolving a defunct LLC in california
hey, when we were homeless and trying to make a start up, my friend registered the buisness as a LLC in california ((where we were at the time)) and forgot to disolve it before this fiscal year

If he hasn't done anything with it this year, can he simply disolve it and reincorperate in a state without insane fucking laws? The state is saying he owes 800 usd and that's a lot for us, even though we're not homeless anymore. ((he isn't, i am))

plz help with this, that 800 is a month of rent for him

Law breaking discord server

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 08 Feb 2022 20:45:16 EST 4nTDswIO No.46921
File: 1644371116073.jpg -(54773B / 53.49KB, 800x800) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Law breaking discord server
I am scared right now and terrified I can not stop crying and breaking down. I checked a incel server on discord and it is all these older males discussing rape in extreme detail. I am scared for the world and what will happen I think they are dangerous. I think I am going to make a police report right now.

This is the server if you want to see how bad it actually is

https://discord.com/invite/yUvtxdv9Sf

Report it please

Search the words rape , kill and foid.
User is currently banned from all boards
>>
Thomas Pudgestone - Mon, 28 Feb 2022 11:18:52 EST Uilit8+t No.46927 Reply
>>46921
INCEL is a private corporation, they can do what they sneed

not filing taxes

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 16 Feb 2022 19:40:28 EST B7xjS/M4 No.46925
File: 1645058428900.jpg -(89459B / 87.36KB, 640x626) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. not filing taxes
What happens if you dont file for tax return in the U.S.? I worked 3 jobs over the pat year and 1 gives you no option to request for a w-2 copy to be sent out (my address changed multiple times in that year and i never got the original) and apparently if you ask for a copy through the IRS you need to give them 75 days to "process" your request (in addition to a fee of course). i usually wind up owing 100-200 to state and being owed 1000+ from federal. i sure would like to have the money im owed but looks like i cant get the proper forms before the deadline; so how stretched is my asshole gonna get from this?

Organization in Times of Oppression General (The Natural Law)

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 30 Jan 2022 08:32:42 EST HOOOhw2/ No.46915
File: 1643549562782.png -(828465B / 809.05KB, 1000x3500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Organization in Times of Oppression General (The Natural Law)
>Previous thread:
https://imgur.com/a/jZ5QUCo

BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT NATURAL LAW:
>What is The Natural Law?
Natural law is a philosophical theory. It involves the idea that rights, values, responsibilities are inherent in human nature.
It doesn’t require and should in fact replace political "order" which always inevitably results in chaos.

>Does that mean anarchy? But isn't anarchy basically chaos with no rules?
Anarchy is without rulers, not rules. It is the opposite of chaos. The more systematic laws we have, we are enslaved, which brings chaos. If you have internal anarchy, you will have external monarchy. But if you are a sovereign being with principles, you will have internal monarchy, which will result in external anarchy.

>Example:
One example of natural law includes the idea that it is universally accepted and understood that killing a human being is wrong. However, it is also universally accepted that punishing someone for killing that person is right. The idea demonstrates that without the requirement of legislation, such beliefs are something that human beings understood inherently as wrong, without the requirement of law.

>Here is the difference between the Natural Law and the Man's Law:
>https://imgur.com/a/MAT5RYD

>What do I need to do now?
  1. Read the infographic on picrel
  2. Read this pastebin:
>https://pastebin.com/ZvVy41Hm

>Link for the seminar:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChgCh2Gui5M

>An article for the basic understanding of what Natural Law is about:
>https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/natural-law/

ADDITIONAL:
YOU WANNA OPPRESS THE GOVERNMENT IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE? READ THIS PASTEBIN:
>https://pastebin.com/Bt7xUBqr

Bear in mind, the seminar is here to expand upon the points you might not quite understand.
1 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Ghengis Dong - Sun, 30 Jan 2022 10:05:40 EST z+QfnKD8 No.46917 Reply
1643555140639.jpg -(76769B / 74.97KB, 458x576) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>46916
So, I'm an anarchist because the State is an atavism, but this smacks a lot of some pseudo law sovereign citizen nonsense.

https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/2018CanLIIDocs90#!fragment/zoupio-_Tocpdf_bk_1/BQCwhgziBcwMYgK4DsDWszIQewE4BUBTADwBdoAvbRABwEtsBaAfX2zhoBMAzZgI1TMAjAEoANMmylCEAIqJCuAJ7QA5KrERCYXAnmKV6zdt0gAynlIAhFQCUAogBl7ANQCCAOQDC9saTB80KTsIiJAA
>>
Oliver Clunningfoot - Sun, 30 Jan 2022 21:09:19 EST 1aUAu2Dj No.46918 Reply
I don't think killing a human being is wrong
>>
Rebecca Greenwater - Mon, 14 Feb 2022 18:50:26 EST 7Tr3bTmF No.46924 Reply
1644882626029.jpg -(17388B / 16.98KB, 390x310) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>implying universal objective truth actually exists

Being racist to get out of jury duty

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 06 Feb 2022 11:55:30 EST NX+rX/0Z No.46920
File: 1644166530781.png -(214170B / 209.15KB, 430x608) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Being racist to get out of jury duty
Its unpopular but does it work?
While bias can be attractive depending on the specifics, but is it an automatic strike?
>>
Thomas Pittshit - Sat, 12 Feb 2022 11:30:48 EST 1r5GI6E3 No.46923 Reply
>>46920
All kinds of shit can happen in jury selection. Depending on how flagrant your racism is, certain lawyers could want a kind of racist person on the jury. Probably no lawyer wants a flagrantly racist person on their jury because if you're that flagrant about a bias, you're probably just unpredictable.

Then a lot of it depends on what direction the lawyers take voir dire. If it's a murder trial where race is an issue - like a white cop killed a minority - you'll probably get questions in voir dire about race. And if you say you're racist, you'll probably get struck for cause. But if it's a wire fraud trial where race isn't an issue, you probably won't get a chance to say you're racist (and it might not even matter in a case like that). You could also put that you're racist on the jury questionnaire and you'll probably get struck for that too in most cases.

So yeah it works.

Cops are fucked up

View Thread Reply
- Thu, 17 Aug 2017 16:03:30 EST eeF1X3/S No.45898
File: 1503000210850.jpg -(114429B / 111.75KB, 960x540) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Cops are fucked up
My buddy was driving to electric forest music festival back in June. He got pulled over. The police searched his car, they found an empty bag of coke and took it and said he'd get a ticket in the mail. They also took his girlfriends 5-htp assuming that it was molly "To get tested"

Now he gets a notice that he got a felony drug charge and was found with 25 grams of cocaine. This kid is totally fucked. He doesnt live in michigan where he was charged.

Whats gonna happen to him? He was honestly not found with any cocaine except the empty baggy, and no arrest was made. He does not live in the state of michigan where the supposed bust took place.
7 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Samuel Girringspear - Sun, 12 Dec 2021 15:59:40 EST BAgJ64Yz No.46906 Reply
1639342780839.gif -(1721328B / 1.64MB, 400x300) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>45898
Even though this post is old, there are important lessons for the kids to learn from your buddy’s situation. The discussion that follow applies Michigan and related federal law as your buddy was pulled over in Michigan. This is not legal advice.

To clear something very important up at the outset, your buddy was not charged with possession of 25 grams of cocaine. He was charged with possession of 25 grams or less of a schedule 2 controlled substance, to wit: cocaine - under Michigan law. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 333.7403(1), (2)(a)(v) (West); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 333.7214(a)(iv). This means that under Michigan law, whether your buddy possessed .001 grams of cocaine or 25 grams of cocaine, he technically faces criminal exposure of up to 4 years imprisonment and a $25,000 fine. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 333.7403(2)(a)(v). Because it sounds like your buddy had a bag with cocaine residue, the charge is correct, though it appears to be the most serious readily provable offense that could have been charged.

Regarding your buddy’s exposure, anywhere in the United States a police officer needs reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop as this is a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 11 of the Michigan Constitution. See generally Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, see also People v. Hyde, 775 N.W.2d 833, 838 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (“In order to effectuate a valid traffic stop, a police officer must have an articulable and reasonable suspicion that a vehicle or one of its occupants is subject to seizure for a violation of law.”). “The reasonableness of a search or seizure depends on whether the officer’s action was justified at its inception, and whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.” Hyde, 775 N.W.2d at 839.

In order to search a vehicle as part of a traffic stop, the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 11 requires the police officer to have probable cause that a crime has been committed or is being committed. People v. Kazmierczak, 461 N.W.2d 667 (Mich. 2000). In order to show a vehicle search passes constitutional scrutiny, the police officer must show that the officer had a warrant or the conduct fell into one of the specific exceptions to the warrant requirement such as: (1) searches incident to arrest; (2) automobile searches and seizures; (3) plain view seizure; (4) consent; (5) stop and frisk; (6) exigent circumstances. People v. Avery, 2019 WL 1302207 at 2 (Mich. Ct. App. March 21, 2019). In Michigan, where a search or seizure is conducted in violation of law, the fruits (evidence) of that search or seizure may not be used in the government’s case in chief against a defendant. See People v. Goldston, 682 N.W.2d 479, 483 (Mich. 2004).

You don’t provide any facts about the circumstances of the stop, but the first thing to look at is whether the stop was valid at its inception, i.e., did your buddy violate any traffic law, even to the slightest extent, resulting in the stop? If not, he could argue, he could argue the evidence seized should be suppressed based on an invalid stop. Challenging the stop at a suppression hearing will be an uphill battle because it will come down to the credibility of the stopping officer’s testimony that your buddy committed a traffic violation. However, his attorney should make documented requests for Giglio information - that is, any information that tends to impeach the character or testimony of the testifying officer. This could include investigations into the stopping officer for administrative violations, a history of making bad arrests, using excessive force, conducting unlawful searches, etc. If there is any Giglio out there, it may help the judge to reject the stopping officer’s testimony regarding the basis of the stop as lacking credibility.

If the stop is valid, the next thing to look at is whether the search of your buddy’s vehicle was lawful. Since this was a traffic stop, I assume there was no warrant. Therefore, the lawfulness of the search comes down to whether a warrant exception applies. Your buddy wasn’t arrested, so there was no search incident to arrest. You describe no urgency, so exigent circumstances does not apply. And stop and frisk generally does not apply to traffic stops.

This leaves us with consent, plain view, and probable cause automobile searches. The vast majority of traffic stop automobile drug seizures stem from the driver consenting to the search. So I ask, did your buddy consent to the search? If he did, the search was lawful. Always be respectful to law enforcement (so you don’t get shot), but never consent to a search, whether it be a hand search by a human or a K-9 sniff. You do not have to consent to searches, no matter what the law enforcement officer says to you.

If your buddy, did not consent, then was either the 5HTP or bag with cocaine residue in plain view to the stopping officer? Because if it was, that is, the officer could see either of these items or other suspected contraband like a weed roach, etc., the officer likely had authority to conduct a limited search based on what he saw.

If there was no consent or plain view exception at play, then I assume the officer conducted a probable cause search. The law recognizes a diminished expectation of privacy in an automobile. Avery, 2019 WL 13002207 at 2. As a result, “an automobile may be searched without a warrant . . . provided there is probable cause to believe that the car contains articles that the officers are entitled to seize. Whether probable cause exists depends on the information known to the officers at the time of the search.” People v. Garvin, 597 N.W.2d 194, 200 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). Specifically, “[a] finding of probable cause requires a substantial basis for concluding that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing. There must be a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will b…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Tachibana - Sun, 30 Jan 2022 01:09:01 EST jutwLma6 No.46914 Reply
sup my cali jails shower water perma damaged my skin and intestines + more... and i was coerced into literally 8 gladiator fights, ive been calling lawyers allover state but no one will take my 10 million dollar case.. ne1 willing to help me or give advice...

im a 40chan user thats been here since launch making posts surprisingly ..
>>
Hugh Pickshaw - Mon, 31 Jan 2022 21:29:13 EST jutwLma6 No.46919 Reply
>>46914
then at prison, co`s broke my jaw, made me seizure out, and brain swelling, had to send me o fresno hospital put meon morphine.i got bad luck...

Right to forage

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 07 Dec 2021 14:05:08 EST KgbJ1rDs No.46903
File: 1638903908423.jpg -(309581B / 302.33KB, 1080x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Right to forage
Is anyone brushed up on the right to forage? I was under the impression that this is a constitutional right and supersedes other laws in regards to licenses and poaching. I remember watching a court case about a man challenging a poaching charge in regards to his fishing, claiming he was foraging to provide food. I believe the case was thrown out and he wasn't actually charged. Licenses are for sport. I know for a fact you can fish anywhere (at least in california) without a license if you're "foraging" and that fishing licenses are for "sport" fishing, but if you're using a "reel" it is defined as sport fishing, where as if you're just using a stick and line you can't be charged with anything. anyone have knowledge with foraging meat?
>>
Lydia Blytheville - Sat, 11 Dec 2021 14:46:20 EST BAgJ64Yz No.46905 Reply
1639251980945.jpg -(640329B / 625.32KB, 1000x700) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>46903
If you want big picture overview of the law of foraging, I’d recommend you read: Baylen J. Linnekin, Food Law Gone Wild: The Law of Foraging, 45 Fordham Urb. L.J. 995 (2018), https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2740&context=ulj. If you want more in-depth understanding, follow the cites in the footnotes. What follows is not legal advice.

To address your specific question, we need to define pertinent terms. “Foraging refers to the harvest of foods which are not cultivated by man but that grow spontaneously in the wild, regardless of whether the ‘wild’ is an urban, suburban, rural, or wilderness area.” Id. at 999. This distinguishes foraging from farming and gardening. Id. As such, while picking a crab apple from a cultivated tree in a suburban backyard is not foraging, while “wandering by or through one’s own (or another’s) property in search of a wild apple tree or other food source is foraging.”

Foraging also differs fundamentally from hunting, trapping, and fishing because foraging involves no “chase.” Id. As such “gathering snails, mussels, clams, or seaweed is foraging, though a squirrel of spearing a lobster is not.” Id.

With these definitions in mind, our discussion will proceed in three parts: (1) the roots of foraging in the English/American common law tradition; (2) how the common law roots have developed into the modern and highly legislated and regulated area of law of foraging/hunting/fishing that is inextricably intertwined with environmental and wildlife preservation and conservation policy; and (3) analysis of the authority you cited in support of your impression that foraging “is a constitutional right and supersedes other laws in regards to licenses and poaching.”

  1. Roots of Foraging Law in the English/American Common Law Tradition

Linnekin observes that “p to and including Independence, American colonists enjoyed broad foraging rights not just in the commons but also on others’ private lands” based on the recognized liberty “to use the open land” Id. at 1009-10 (internal quotation marks omitted). The right to use the land, whether for foraging, hunting, fishing, or otherwise, have never been recognized as absolute. Id. at 1010. Thus since at least the 1800s, American law has regulated against foraging on “improved lands” like farms, vineyards, and orchards. Id. However, as more and more Americans began moving into urban centers after Independence, the strength of foraging laws likewise declined. See id. Linnekin posits that “[t]he history of early American anti-foraging rights typically grounded their efforts in racism, classism, colonialism, imperialism, or some combination” of all these drivers. Id. at 1011. See id. at 1011-14 for additional commentary on how Linnekin believes anti-foraging laws may have roots in targeting African-American, Native Americans, and Rural Americans for the benefit of wealthy landowners.

2. Modern Regulation of Foraging in the United States

Because the act of foraging (and hunting/fishing) is inextricably intertwined with environmental and wildlife conservation, it exists within the penumbra of federal, state, and local law and regulation. For example, in New York, the City of New York has an ordinance on the books that prohibits the destroying, cutting, or pruning trees, or severing or removing plant vegetation in New York City Parks. See N.Y.C., RULES OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK tit. 56 § 1-04(b)(1)(i)-(ii) (2017). This is commonly interpreted as New York City’s anti-foraging law.

In contrast, in Alaska, pursuant to Alaska’s “Subsistence Statute,” it is lawful to engage in the “noncommercial customary and traditional uses of wild, renewable resources by a resident domiciled in a rural area of the state for direct personal or family consumption of food.” Alaska Stat. Ann. § 16.05.940 (2000). However, even the statutory right to subsistence foraging in Alaska remains subject to restriction and regulation by the State of Alaska. See Alaska Fish & Wildlife Conservation Fund v. State of Alaska Dep’t of Fish & Game, 289 P.3d 903, 908 (Alaska 2012).

The takeaway is that the state of the law of foraging is completely dependent on the area - areas with more rural land tend to have broader rights to foraging than highly urban areas. Furthermore, any residual liberty interest in foraging in the United States is subject restriction and regulation.

3. Analysis

Having considered the roots and modern structure of foraging law in the United States, we now turn to your specific question regarding foraging as a constitutional right.

In support of your assertion that foraging “is a constitutional right and supersedes other laws in regards to licenses and poaching” you cite three sources of authority: (1) Article 1, Section 25 of the California Constitution; (2) Murdock v. Com. of Penn., 313 U.S. 105 (1943); and (3) Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham Ala., 394 U.S. 147 (1969).

Before we consider these authorities further, we must highlight that neither of the quotations attributed to the Court in your attachment are found in those cases. Furthermore, the citation to the United States Reporter for the Shuttlesworth case is also wrong - Shttlesworth is found at 394 U.S. 147, not 399 U.S. 147.

Because you cited the California Constitution, we will assume you are a resident of California and limit our discussion to the nature and extent of the right conferred to Californians under Article 1, Section 25 of the California Constitution.

Pursuant to Article 1, Section 25:

The people shall have the right to fish upon and from the public lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the State shall ever be sold of transferred without reserving in the people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water containing fish that have been planted therein by the State; provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season when and the conditions under which different species of fish may be taken.

This constitutional provision confers multiple discrete rights: (1) people have a general right to fish on public lands; (2) the State may not sell any public land without the terms of the sale including a covenant for the people to fish on that land; (3) no laws can be passed making it a crime to cross land needed to get to fishing areas; (4) the state may regulate fishing, including regarding the season, conditions, and species that may be harvested.

California courts that have interpreted this constitutional provision have made the following pertinent holdings:

The provision of the California Constitution conferring a right to fish does not elevate to the level of a “fundamental right” for purposes of the Equal Protection clause of the United States Constitution as the provision expressly authorizes state regulation of fishing, thus creating only a “qualified right” to fish. Cal. Gillnetters Ass. V. Dep’t of Fish & Game, 46 Cal.Rptr. 338, 342-43 (Cal. App. 1995). Subject only to constitutional limitations against discrimination, the California legislature, to conserve and protect fish, may pass laws as it seems wise to conserve fish and game. People v. Monterey Fish Products Co., 234 P. 398 403-04 (Cal. 1925). The right to fish in California is a privilege granted by the State, and may be taken away in the exercise of its police power. Paladini v. Superior Court, 173 P. 588, 590 (Cal. 1918).
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

Just going to leave this here

View Thread Reply
- Fri, 12 Nov 2021 10:52:23 EST tI2Y1VdE No.46901
File: 1636732343096.gif -(27909B / 27.25KB, 468x498) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Just going to leave this here
Venting my frustration at how some current high profile trials appear to be going

Move along. Nothing to see here

Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.