CDFG

[Silbaugh4liberty]

Originally Posted by Mahigeer

That is an incorrect assumption and statement.

As the former southern California representative and board member of United Pier and Shore Anglers of California (UPSAC), I have spent a lot of time fishing California piers.

I have been inspected many times at different piers. I have made friends with the wardens, and know them by name. I have even been given their private cell numbers and business cards.

Each warden is a fish and game warden. That encompasses a large area for each warden to inspect.
Our licenses pay some toward hiring of more wardens. They are underpaid and over worked.

I have fought the City of Manhattan Beach when they closed the pier due to a shark incident.The city lawyer cited the California fishing constitution law, yet they closed the pier for nearly three months and put regulations that they had no right to do.

Thus, my recommendation is to have the license, to be polite to the wardens, and fight any injustice you feel in the court, not on the water.


By the way if the warden who checked the OP is named John Potter, he is the nicest warden that I have met. He used to have Catalina, now he is in SD.

I'm just speaking from my own experience that I have never seen DFG officers at the pier. I've only seen survey takers in which they asked if you'd like to participate in a survey and that's it. Thus far I haven't had any unpleasant encounters with DFG officers and I've always been respectful to them. However it seems that other people have had some unpleasant experiences. And I definitely don't intend to be confrontational with any or police officers for that matter. The best thing to do is be courteous, but put them on notice that you're invoking your constitutionally protected rights and if you do happen to get a ticket, then you have the ability to not only challenge the ticket in court but also go on the offensive in filing your own complaint against the officer if that were to happen. Standing up for yourself doesn't mean being an a****** to everybody you come across with a badge. You have to take in consideration they only know what they have been taught. They do not realize what they are enforcing is a violation of constitutional rights, so it is your duty to politely advise them that you are invoking your constitutional rights if you wish to do so. You do not have to do exactly as they say just because they have a badge, but if they pull out their gun, or tackle you to the ground, I would not resist in fear of my life. That is when you do sign the ticket with 1-308 (under duress, without prejudice), basically advising them that you're signing under the threat of force, and then you can fight it legally.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[monstahfish]

Someone cited section 25 stating it gives the state the right to set the conditions and restrictions. Sounds like an open and shut case to me. It's the same thing as the second amendment argument where people either due to ignorance or willfulness forget the first part about a well regulated militia. Would a well regulated militia have an unchecked armory? I'm not anti gun, I own guns, but I went through a background check and show my id when I buy ammo and follow storage regulations. I don't feel like my rights have been infringed and if I were to read the 2nd amendment in a textualist manner, I would imagine I should have to be a member of a local militia, which I would imagine if it's well regulated would also have safety training etc...

[Silbaugh4liberty]

uploadfromtaptalk1472234737800.jpg

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Silbaugh4liberty]

This is information they should be teaching in schools! But the system doesn't want that, they only want good obedient workers, soldiers, etc.

Remember, it was illegal to teach slaves. Then they realized that free range slaves were far more productive, so they let us think we're free, and give us misinformation (brainwash us), and teach us that obeying authority is patriotic.




Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[makobob]

Jim, I support CCA Cal, bought fishing licences for years, just in case, but as most know only fished CALIFORNIA 3 times in the last 4 years. As to Baja, bought that fishing permit too, used over 400 times in the last couple years. Put up or shut it. Bye and tight Lines, BTW Jim you are AWESOME!! Thnk you For your service.

[alanw]

I didn't voluntarily buy a license, I bought one under threat of force - aka extortion.

[wiredantz]

I was thinking about something last night, can anyone help me on to why is a public pier the only place you don't need a fishing license?

According to:ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS Section 25. The people shall have the right to fish upon and from the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the State shall ever be sold or 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 the different species of fish may be taken.


I was thinking about what public land of the state means and in the water thereof?

I found this website that's said;The definition of territorial waters is as follows http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters "Territorial waters, or a territorial sea, as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, [1] is a belt of coastal waters extending at most 12 nautical miles (22.2 km; 13.8 mi) from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state. The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state"

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/conventi...clos/part2.htm


So then I got too thinking, that the right to fish is only defined in section 25 of the CA constitution to be on firm ground of public land and it's lakes rivers... but it may not legally apply to its 12 mile coastline, as section 25 does not define it.....

It can be argued that the right 12 mile coastline of the whole state are waters that belong to the state. Section 25: in the waters of the state.

[YakDout]

^ did you get OJ off the hook??

[wiredantz]

And I quote:Hello Mr. Gonzalez:

First, Article I, Section 25 of the California Constitution primarily applies to public access to land owned by the State. Second, Article I, Section 25 is specifically conditioned on the legislature’s authority to provide by statute “for the season when and the conditions under which the different species of fish may be taken.” The Legislature did establish by statute the conditions under which fish may be taken in Fish and Game Code Section 7145, which requires a license. The problems Article I, Section 25 was intended to address when it was added to the California Constitution by the voters in 1910 are explained in In Re Quinn (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 473, 485, which also explains that this constitutional provision does not apply to all state lands. The government’s authority to exercise its police power to regulate fishing was confirmed shortly after 1910 in Paladini v. Superior Court (1918) 178 Cal. 369, 372-373 and In re Parra (1914) 24 Cal.App. 339.

The notion that the California Constitution includes a right to unregulated fishing has been consistently rejected in court decisions upholding statutory and regulatory requirements to possess a valid license to fish in California and to comply with seasons, bag limits, methods of take, and other legal requirements.

The Department appreciates your interest in fishing, and encourages you to take advantage of lawful sport fishing opportunities in the State.



End of quote

OK I think we good a good answer from the CDFW.


I need to go read all the Supreme Court cases mentioned in this case. This will keep me busy for a bit as I need to go to the library and read the verified sources instead of the Internet mumbo junbo.


I even ordered the black law definition book, to verify the actual defintions.

[Silbaugh4liberty]

Originally Posted by wiredantz

And I quote:Hello Mr. Gonzalez:

First, Article I, Section 25 of the California Constitution primarily applies to public access to land owned by the State. Second, Article I, Section 25 is specifically conditioned on the legislature’s authority to provide by statute “for the season when and the conditions under which the different species of fish may be taken.” The Legislature did establish by statute the conditions under which fish may be taken in Fish and Game Code Section 7145, which requires a license. The problems Article I, Section 25 was intended to address when it was added to the California Constitution by the voters in 1910 are explained in In Re Quinn (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 473, 485, which also explains that this constitutional provision does not apply to all state lands. The government’s authority to exercise its police power to regulate fishing was confirmed shortly after 1910 in Paladini v. Superior Court (1918) 178 Cal. 369, 372-373 and In re Parra (1914) 24 Cal.App. 339.

The notion that the California Constitution includes a right to unregulated fishing has been consistently rejected in court decisions upholding statutory and regulatory requirements to possess a valid license to fish in California and to comply with seasons, bag limits, methods of take, and other legal requirements.

The Department appreciates your interest in fishing, and encourages you to take advantage of lawful sport fishing opportunities in the State.



End of quote

OK I think we good a good answer from the CDFW.


I need to go read all the Supreme Court cases mentioned in this case. This will keep me busy for a bit as I need to go to the library and read the verified sources instead of the Internet mumbo junbo.


I even ordered the black law definition book, to verify the actual defintions.

I wouldn't expect anything less from them. Of course they're not going to admit it's a right, because they're not going to bite the hand that's feeding them. My next question would be, when did statutes trump the state Constitution? Its the law of the land. The truth of the matter is, all statutes are under Admiralty Jurisdiction (UCC). They won't admit that though. I had a judge say that traffic laws are Statutory Jurisdiction. Then I asked where is that in the Constitution. He said to go to the public library and look it up. The truth is, there's no freaking such thing as Statutory Jurisdiction in law. So don't expect the truth from these criminals. And ultimately, the best defense is to go on the offense and sue them (pro se).

BTW, the government just lost (LOST) $6 TRILLION DOLLARS, and the only thing that's in the news is some football player that didn't stand for the National Anthem, which wasn't even the freaking national anthem until 1931, might I add.

The sooner the brainwashed portion of people in this country accept the fact that government lies, your money is fake, and your food is fake, the better off we'll all be. Plain and simple.

Good job on standing up to the man!

So who's fishing this weekend??



Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[jorluivil]

Originally Posted by Silbaugh4liberty

The sooner the brainwashed portion of people in this country accept the fact that government lies, your money is fake, and your food is fake, the better off we'll all be. Plain and simple.

[wiredantz]

O4

Originally Posted by wiredantz

the notion that California Constitution includes a right to unregulated fishing has been consistently rejected in court decisions upholding statutory and regulatory requirements to possess a valid license to fish in California and to comply with seasons, bag limits, methods of take, and other legal

The right to unregulated fishing, was never my argument. My right to regulated fishing, is my right, without a fishing license. This is my argument.


I need to go understand the cases that went to court.

My understanding of the court system, is that the lower court will never allow a case to go to federal court, they will dismiss it or lie to you so you miss you court date if your right....



Something interesting I found out, is that the word fishery in the black law dictionary is defined as the liberty to fish.



Well the US Constitution by law gives enforcement to the declaration of independence. Because it is always in succession. Meaning it enforces it.

So if fishing is a liberty, shouldn't it be a right?


Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....

Going to the book store tommorrow, I have a little fascination on law right now.




I replied to Mrs. ORME Liz from CDFW:












And I quote:Thank you for providing court cases in which all anglers are able to understand and comprehend the laws and it's principles in accordance to fishing.

Now that we have gone in a full circle, and I have read the court cases, I can formulate a better question:




Since Marbury v Madison 5 US 137 (1803) states the U.S. Constitution as the Supreme law of the land and no other law can conflict it with it,do I, myname,have the California Constitutional REGULATED Right to fish on California public coastal waters on a boat, without a paid fishing license? (Murdock vs. Pennsylvania 1943)



According to the decision of the Supreme Court case of Murdock vs Pennsylvania(1943) A constitutional right, even if its a regulated right can not be turned into a privilege,license, and then be charged a fee. If the state does turn my regulated right into a paid license , I can ignore ignore the law and I will not be punished. Shuttlesworth v burningham (1969).

[Mr. NiceGuy]

And as a matter of Natural Law, it's probably safe to say that big fish eat little fish. Right? That's a fundamental truism of life.

Standing before a settlement judge once upon a time, stating that I will not capitulate because I've done nothing wrong, he replied with beady eyes and a drippy smirk:

"principles are expensive."

OK, then let's go to trial.



I'm enjoying your efforts

[Silbaugh4liberty]

uploadfromtaptalk1472828809690.jpg

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Silbaugh4liberty]

It specifically states that by "statute", may regulate the season and method of take only. If your not being cited for taking fish out of season, or for catching fish with a throw net, or using more than 2 hooks on rockfish, then there is no crime the way I see it.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[wiredantz]

If the state can not collect money legally by charging us a license on our regulated fishing right.


We all know CDFW will be out a lot of money, if no one buys there fishing license, instead to control and enforce these regulation a fish tax should be imposed on people who buy fish from commercial fisherman.

Which in turn will make the market price of fish go up on the consumer side.

Or b.


The consumer should be charged the fish tax once they buy it, if exporting... then collect a tax on exporting the fish.

This extra revenue should then be made to enforce and create fish hatcheries for saltwater and freshwater.



Just my two centss.....

[Deamon]

Good morning Mr. Gonzalez,

Can you please forward your home address and SS# at your earliest opportunity? Thank you.

Sincerely,


Liz Orme
CA
Department of Fish & Wildlife
Law
Enforcement Division
(916)
717-9064

[wiredantz]

Ok so this looks to be the final answer from CDFG:


And I quote:

Hello Mr. Gonzalez,

There is no federal constitutional right to fish, the California constitutional provision you cited does not allow you to fish without a license, and if you are encountered fishing without a license, you will be cited. You may direct further inquiries to CDFW's General Counsel:

Nathan Goedde
Senior Staff Counsel
California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife
1416 Ninth Street, 12th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
nathan.goedde@wildlife.ca.gov

Thank you


End of quote










This will be a long battle, one that I'm not willing to fight, unless I forget my fishing license.




If I did forget my fishing license and got cited for it:


My argument would be that under the 9th ammendment,


"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[1]"


This means that the rights we had before US Constitution.


In my honest opinion you could argue that it's your right to feed your family. Weather or not you win is how prepared you are.




This court case says the Constitution has to be resolved in your favor, your the primary beneficiary.

[Silbaugh4liberty]

Originally Posted by wiredantz

Ok so this looks to be the final answer from CDFG:




Hello Mr. Gonzalez,

There is no federal constitutional right to fish, the California constitutional provision you cited does not allow you to fish without a license, and if you are encountered fishing without a license, you will be cited. You may direct further inquiries to CDFW's General Counsel:

Nathan Goedde
Senior Staff Counsel
California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife
1416 Ninth Street, 12th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
nathan.goedde@wildlife.ca.gov

Thank you

#challengejurisdiction

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Silbaugh4liberty]

They'll say the same thing about a driver's license too.

https://youtu.be/cV8gRA-JYeg

https://youtu.be/Z0HdpzyUhbo


Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk