CDFG

[radastaff]

Originally Posted by east county dirtbag

Huh.

I mean... why should you even go to work, right?

Could just fish all day long, every day.
But then,
that would be work.

work aint work if you love doing it
can you keep loving it


Fight the good fight Frank..

P

[Mr. NiceGuy]

Originally Posted by wiredantz

Order it online....


I just sent a certified letter to CDFW, explaining that I want a Free 2017 Fishing license, and i listed all the court cases.

wonder if they will respond...

Sounds about like asking the people who work the counters at the local DMV for legal rulings. Good luck with that.

But I like the logic, poetry and passion of the way you think.

A girl can dream, can't she?


PS, please don't vote for Hillary.

[Silbaugh4liberty]

Originally Posted by wiredantz

Order it online....



I just sent a certified letter to CDFW, explaining that I want a Free 2017 Fishing license, and i listed all the court cases.

wonder if they will respond...

I never knew that the words the law use are NOT the same ENGlish definition we know them as, they are defined under a very different definition when you look at the Black Law Dictionary.

Nice! Let me know how they respond. Did you notarize the letter? Just curious.

Who's fishing Laguna this weekend???



Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[wiredantz]

Originally Posted by Silbaugh4liberty

Nice! Let me know how they respond. Did you notarize the letter? Just curious.

Who's fishing Laguna this weekend???



Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Nope, just wanted to know if they were going to respond.
2017 licenses are not even out yet... but i want to know what kind of BS there going to come up since the right to fish is defined.


CA does not stand alone declaring Fishing a right
https://www.nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/...ttoHunFish.pdf

[Silbaugh4liberty]

Originally Posted by Mr. NiceGuy

Sounds about like asking the people who work the counters at the local DMV for legal rulings. Good luck with that.

But I like the logic, poetry and passion of the way you think.

A girl can dream, can't she?


PS, please don't vote for Hillary.

Lmao!!! I love that last line! Honestly, I feel sorry for anyone dumb enough to vote for Hillary. The body count surrounding the Clinton's, the arrogance, the lies, etc. should speak for itself!!! But who am I kidding, voting is like a slave picking his new master. Therfore, I don't support voting for anyone for the President of the United States Corporation (yes, each alleged government agency is in fact a corporation/ company, check out www.dnb.com if you don't believe me). That's Dunn & Bradstreet, which you can find all corporations on.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[wiredantz]

they said:

That California
Constitution does indeed guarantee the right of citizens to
fish in waters located upon public lands.


"The people
shall have the right to fish upon and from the public lands
of the State and in the waters thereof"

If you read the section
thoroughly however, you will see that this section of the
Constitution also recognizes the authority of the
Legislature to impose seasons, limits and other regulations
pertaining to fishing.

“….the
legislature may by statute, provide for the season when and
the conditions under which the different species of
fish
may be
taken”

The fact that you have
to buy a fishing license, and abide by the seasons and bag
limit laws, does not take away your right to fish.

Thanks for asking.


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





My reply was:

Thank you for your prompt reply,


I recently sent a letter and a fax to the Los Alamitos Office requesting a free license for 2017 because i believed the state was infringing in my right to fish for free.


You explained that you are using the word "Condition" as the legal statute to License Fishing.





The way "condition" is written is not legalese:

So the argument is that:

A license is a condition, but it is not one that has any connection to any specific species of fish to be taken. This language is very specific and refers to such things as tackle, bait, chumming, lures, etc. A fishing license has nothing to do with any such condition and it is not therefor not an included condition. If you disagree, please tell me one specific fish species that will more likely be induced to take my bait or lure depending upon whether or not I have a fishing license in my possession.


Please help us in this matter so to avoid confusion...

I would like to be referred to a or any supreme court case that has addressed this matter. As there is a debate within the CA fishing community of 3000 people of this very subject. We do not want them to get cited, so we are seeking lawful clarification.



Thanks,

[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

[wiredantz]

I found all these cases, i think it will help for a motion to dismiss:




The Nature of a License:

A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful. Payne v. Massey, 196 S.W. 2d 493; 145 Tex. 237, 241.

The purpose of a license is to make lawful what would be unlawful without it. State v. Minneapolis- St. Paul Metro Airports Commission, 25 N.W. 2d 718, 725.

A license is a right granted by some competent authority to do an act which, without such license, would be illegal. Beard v. City of Atlanta, 86 S.E. 2d 672,
676; 91 Ga. App. 584.

A license confers the right to do that which without the license would be unlawful. Antlers Athletic Ass̢۪n v. Hartung, 274 P. 831, 832; 85 Colo. 125

A license is a mere permit to do something that without it would be unlawful. Littleton v. Burgess, 82 P. 864, 866; 14 Wyo. 173.

Generally, a license is a permit to do what, without a license, would not be lawful. Bateman v City of Winter Park, 37 So. 2d 362, 363; 160 Fla. 906.

Definition: License: A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal,
or would be a trespass or a tort. Black’s Law Dicti0onary, 2d Ed. P. 723 (1910)