copyright 2013 EarlvilleChickens.com
What does this mean? See below for history.
Welcome to Earlville, Home of Spite Law #1 of 2007, the targeted law against the one owner of animals in the village that has written permission to keep animals and on two occasions by the village board according to the previous 1963 ordinance. See "The Story" from the Home page for more details. This law is still on the books as of this writing (Dec 2013) but likely not to be enforced because of complaints from village residents and the fact that they have accomplished their goal of harassment and inflicting damage on the targeted resident and family over the last 6 years. This law was targeted against one resident but infringes on all village property owners and residents property rights and usage.
Shown are sihoettes of all animals banned in the village, giving exceptions to keeping an unlimited number of horses on any sized property in the village.
Credit given to main elected public servants from the past (two disgraced mayors, author of the law campbell and lawsuit fearing "no bull" party member doeberl) and the 2013 village board that voted unanimously to continue with the criminal trial charging violation of the 2007 spite law.
At the last minute the charges were dropped, though arguments unrelated to the charges were presented to the judge by the village attorney.
Summary of case from the beginning:
1. 2003 - Village Resident granted variance to keep 60 chickens, 30 hens/30 meat, per village ordinance of 1963.
Village attorney william getman of waterville presented a village board statement to the judge saying the charges are being dropped because the village verified that the number of chickens did not exceed the 2003 agreement, per forced entry of property by search warrant. Remember, after passing Spite Law #1 of 2007, the village refused to recognize the variances they granted in 2003 and 2006, charging the Resident with a violation of the 2007 law. At court, they recognized the 2003 variance but failed to address the charges of violating the 2007 law. The judge ignored the charges of violating the 2007 law and signed for a search warrant unrelated to the charges. The village twisted the facts of the case, changing it from the appearance ticket for violating the 2007 law to an unfounded violation of the 2003 variance agreement. All along the village refused to recognize the variance and terms of the agreement while persuing criminal charges of violating the 2007 law. In court the village recognized the variance agreement while telling the judge the Resident was "uncooperative" in telling the number of chickens. The Resident has never violated the variance agreement and has always told the village that he has never violated the agreement including never exceeding the agreed upon number of chickens. The Resident stood firm and defended his rights while the village abused their power, forced their way on the Resident's property without cause, and presented the resident as being "uncooperative" when speaking to the judge. The village continues to refuse to fix the damages of the past, including lies in the village meeting minutes and related personal damages and legal fees of the Resident. The village deliberately inflicted damages on the Resident during the 5-1/2 year court case and then dropped the charges just before trial based on the 2003 variance granted by the village.