by Mark J. Fitzgibbons
American Thinker

Excerpts:

An Army veteran of the war in Afghanistan, he served from 2003 to 2006, and was recalled in 2009.  Now he’s back home trying to raise a family.

The City of Northwood, Iowa censored Mr. Hendrick in a trial with potential criminal implications — over a dozen chickens.

This past summer Leo decided to raise chickens on his property to help feed his family of four.  He believes in the health benefits of chemical-free food, and thought it important to teach his two children lessons of responsibility.

Northwood is city in northern Iowa of about 2,000 residents.  It has an ordinance that prohibits livestock within the city limits “except by written consent of the council or except in compliance with the city’s zoning regulations.”

Hendrick had asked the city council to change the ordinance, but received a cold reception.

Northwood’s attorney John Greve prosecuted Mr. Hendrick over the chickens.  He told me it’s nothing personal against Leo, but he did, however, sound agitated that Hendrick wanted to argue his constitutional rights.  “The Constitution doesn’t mention chickens,” Greve told me.

Greve is right, obviously.  No chickens mentioned in the Constitution.  But the Constitution also doesn’t mention Greve’s car, watch or other individual items of property.

The Constitution does, of course, protect speech.  Greve filed a motion in limine — a motion to limit what Hendick could say before the jury.

Hendrick served his country to protect property rights and other liberties that Greve and all of us exercise — and the very justice system that prosecuted him. Leo, however, was censored before a jury of his peers.  He was prohibited from raising facts about other jurisdictions with no such limits on chickens, and “asking questions about or making comments or arguments about:

• any other violations of the City of Northwood, Ordinance with respect to livestock, including poultry;
• the beneficial attributes of home grown chickens or food in general;
• Jury Nullification including any comments contrary to the proposition that the sole duty of the jury is the trier of facts and not the law; and
• any individual disagreeing with Northwood’s ordinance.

As to the last bit of censorship, Hendrick’s neighbors supported him.  That’s a fact that the city lawyer surely wanted to keep away from the jury, for it would make the city look foolish and overbearing.  Can’t have that, now.

Under these conditions, Hendick lost his case, of course.