Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="deleted member" data-source="post: 364634" data-attributes="member: 816"><p>no.&nbsp; i hadn't bothered to read it.&nbsp; i've got limited time during the day to peruse this site and sometimes i've got to triage what i read and participate in.&nbsp; the reason i asked if the &quot;freeloader&quot; was present was because someone else hinted at those decoys being abandoned property that the farmer can do with as they see fit.&nbsp; i've now read the article.&nbsp; the decoy owner was there filming.&nbsp; so, they clearly weren't abandoned.&nbsp; the farmer is another lessee.&nbsp; so, not sure what gives him legal authority to destroy someone else's property as a third party to a possible civil eviction action.&nbsp; even if he was the landowner, i fail to see how he couldn't be held civilly and possibly even criminally liable in this situation.&nbsp; the article seems to indicate an &quot;eviction order&quot; was served.&nbsp; i am inclined to think it was a notice to vacate.&nbsp; the two are way different.&nbsp; and even if it was an eviction order, you generally aren't allowed to destroy property as part of said order until a certain period of time has lapsed.&nbsp; anyway, carry on.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="deleted member, post: 364634, member: 816"] no. i hadn't bothered to read it. i've got limited time during the day to peruse this site and sometimes i've got to triage what i read and participate in. the reason i asked if the "freeloader" was present was because someone else hinted at those decoys being abandoned property that the farmer can do with as they see fit. i've now read the article. the decoy owner was there filming. so, they clearly weren't abandoned. the farmer is another lessee. so, not sure what gives him legal authority to destroy someone else's property as a third party to a possible civil eviction action. even if he was the landowner, i fail to see how he couldn't be held civilly and possibly even criminally liable in this situation. the article seems to indicate an "eviction order" was served. i am inclined to think it was a notice to vacate. the two are way different. and even if it was an eviction order, you generally aren't allowed to destroy property as part of said order until a certain period of time has lapsed. anyway, carry on. [/QUOTE]

Verification

What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA