CDFG

[Sully1]

CDFG checked my license yesterday at LJ, it was the first time, outside of diving, I've been checked while fishing on a kayak. Make sure to bring that fishing license ladies and gents.

[Mr_Fixit]

CDFG checked my license yesterday at LJ, it was the first time, outside of diving, I've been checked while fishing on a kayak. Make sure to bring that fishing license ladies and gents.

Did they come up to you in a boat, or while you were on shore? Mine is always in my dry-bag, so all is good. I just dont want them coming up when I am actively fishing.

[Sully1]

I was cranking an iron up when he motored by. Nice guy, he just wanted to see my license and asked if I had any fish. I did not have any fish to show him. I keep my lic in a dry bag in my PA. On a different note, pretty amazing temp drop on the beachfront. Those recent winds must have rolled colder water in.

[King Saba]

I've been checked 4 times since I started kayaking back in 14'. Two out the four times was at the sewer.

[Dannowar]

I was cranking an iron up when he motored by. Nice guy, he just wanted to see my license and asked if I had any fish. I did not have any fish to show him. I keep my lic in a dry bag in my PA. On a different note, pretty amazing temp drop on the beachfront. Those recent winds must have rolled colder water in.



I went for a surf in my spring suit and froze my dick off! Dropped a good ten degrees!!

[onetriphudson]

I was cranking an iron up when he motored by. Nice guy, he just wanted to see my license and asked if I had any fish. I did not have any fish to show him. I keep my lic in a dry bag in my PA. On a different note, pretty amazing temp drop on the beachfront. Those recent winds must have rolled colder water in.

No doubt, the temp drop is steep. Hope it doesn't completely shut off the late summer, early fall opportunities.

[Harry Hill]

I went for a surf in my spring suit and froze my dick off! Dropped a good ten degrees!!

I'm old but I don't want my dick froze off, I don't want to have to wear a strap on just to take a leak.

[Silbaugh4liberty]

Roger that!

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160819/b1decfb45b6ec9e8ae860cb3aaa8de10.jpghttp://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160819/3c60cac2d76115d7d7c5cbf91e32c7f2.jpg

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[wiredantz]

Has anyone ever taken these to court and won...



How did the dfg find a way around the constitution of CA.



Going to have to keep a laminated copy in my kayak, I hate when the come bother me. Then they will probably hassle me, and take my kayak away....


You know how cops act when you get all smart ass with them.... they get the dogs out so they can find probable cause to search your car for being a jerk.

[The pelican]

Has anyone ever taken these to court and won...



How did the dfg find a way around the constitution of CA.



Going to have to keep a laminated copy in my kayak, I hate when the come bother me. Then they will probably hassle me, and take my kayak away....


You know how cops act when you get all smart ass with them.... they get the dogs out so they can find probable cause to search your car for being a jerk.


Ever had the dogs search your Yak?

[Saba Slayer]

First off it's CDFW now...

Sarge...you are more than welcome to hire a lawyer and spend ALL your money fighting this in court...I guarantee you will spend ALL your money on this and it will not be resolved to your liking.
It's one thing to stand there and spout off about your rights and another to actually be proactive about it and take it to the courts...I've seen you push this constitution idea around for a few years now...and I haven't seen you gain any traction...maybe you should take over a harbor patrol office or a DFW office and encamp there...it would give you a great audience with all the TV and news coverage...!:confused:
It's one thing to post on BWE and another to actually do something...I'll tell you this...If I brought this up at the last CCA CAL Government Relations Committee meeting...the boys would have run me out of the room laughing the whole while.
The San Diego and OC chapters could use someone on their GRC committees...maybe you should put your ideas and passion to work somewhere that they can do some good.

Oh Yea...Wiredantz...keeping a copy of the Constitution in your yak and fighting with the DFW LEOs will really cement your relationship with them and I'm sure things will go much smoother with enforcement...GOOD LUCK...maybe not such a good way to try and get out of a ticket or make friends with the LEOs...:iamwithstupid:

Buying a license supports CDFW with the additional funds needed to stay in business...could you imagine the free-for-all on the resource if there was license, no rules, or enforcement...THE LAW OF THE COMMONS...read it and weep...!:roll eyes:
The resource would last one or two years and we'd have a desert out there with nothing but Lizard fish...!

OK...morning political rant over...! Time for some coffee...!

JOIN CCA...we are fighting for your fishing rights thru the system and with national support in Washington...this national support by our lobbyist in DC is important with issues like the potential for BFT to become a endangered species and the Monument Act that wants to make the Tanner and Cortez Banks off limits for fishing....state wide we are also working on the Toxic lead ban...the relaxing on Stripper regs to protect the Salmon (when it's really all about the water flows)...Gill nets and deep set bouy gear with the pacific fishery management council...and on and on...It's a 5 page list of the issues that the CCA CAL GRC is working on...!
PLEASE JOIN AND SUPPORT OUR FISHING RIGHTS...please don't wait until the next battle starts and it's too late to organize...! It's important we fight battles we have a chance to win...look what happened to United Anglers...they are in the process of selling their Signal Hill club house and property to PAY THE LAWYERS FEES ON THE MLPA Battles...!
CCA CAL has only a little over 2000 members...that's pretty pitiful when you look at the number of anglers in So.Cal alone...why the apathy........? :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :confused::confused:

One last thing...Hey Sarge...did you buy a fishing license this year...come on now, please answer and be honest...?

[wiredantz]

If the constitution actually held up, then MLPA would have no ground to stand on.


We had lawyers, money, we had people stand up against the MLPA, yet we lost our rights to fish upon certain state own lands.


The reason that this probably does not hold up in court is because of the loop holes.....

How do you take the rights to fish from the people?.... make it a fish hatchery... ( per the CA constitution)


How do you get people to buy fishing licenses:
Well you have the right to fish, but to keep the fish is a different story...

{Per the CA Constitution Section 25:)
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.}


The Legislature might of said well if you want to keep the fish you need to have a license as a condition....



United State's law, even worse CA laws are fairly new compared to other countries who have been around for centuries.

When taking said things to court, statues are always getting amended. That's why every year we have new laws and rules to cover the loops holes of the prior laws. it is sad to say but it's the interpretation of the law, and not always in our favor.





I don't know if what i said is actually true or will be held up in court as things might be subjective... just my own interpretation from what i read.


I do know that to take things to court and supreme court, you need time and money...

DFG, or WIlderness whatever... has plenty of time and money... we pay a fishing license fee to DFG/Deparment of taking rights of people.... so they can find loop holes and spend their resources on people standing up against them and protect some fish at the same time.....and they also have different groups of people who pay them donations...


honestly we are outgunned here...



Let say for example:

I fight this thing, and i somehow get the supreme court attention after losing at the lower level courts on this matter... and by some random odd number they do decide to not throw out my case and actually hear it...

They will say, well Mr. Nacho.... you have a right to fish and not pay a fishing license..... but we need a way to pay for control and enforcement....

So then CA Legislature go back to the drawing board.... and now we have a fish tax or something to that matter.....
(is it really worth it then)

either way we are going to get screwed eventually....



just pay the damn fishing license... most kayak fisherman are already broke that is why we fish on plastic bathtubs.


Now if i ever got a ticket... for forgetting my fishing license, you bet your bottom dollar I am taking this court... I will fight tooth and nail... but i have not forgotten my license yet. lol

[Mr_Fixit]

This whole talk of the constitution and court challenges is really interesting. While you guys are talking about all this, you need to keep one thing in mind here.

CA has changed. It is no longer the state of free-thinking intelligent creative artistic ground breaking inventors. It has, in almost all ways, become a socialist state where the government controls as many aspects of our lives as possible no matter what some crusty old Constitution or Judge decided back in another age.

I am going to be good and keep it at that. Otherwise I will sit here all damn morning going on tangents on this topic.

[alanw]

I've been checked on the water with lines out. I've had armed DFW climb into the back of my truck and search through all of my kayak hatches while at the launch ramps.

As far as a license goes, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says. All that matters is that some bureaucrat with a cherry picked lawyer redefined some other statute into a legal opinion that justifies limiting a right as being in the best interest of the government. It's sort of like how you have a Constitutional right to due process, except when the government decides you don't, and can drone kill you without due process because of some lawyers' redefinition or reinterpretation of the laws. Buy a license, be prepared to show your papers, and go fishing.

[Mr_Fixit]

I've been checked on the water with lines out. I've had armed DFW climb into the back of my truck and search through all of my kayak hatches while at the launch ramps.

As far as a license goes, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says. All that matters is that some bureaucrat with a cherry picked lawyer redefined some other statute into a legal opinion that justifies limiting a right as being in the best interest of the government. It's sort of like how you have a Constitutional right to due process, except when the government decides you don't, and can drone kill you without due process because of some lawyers' redefinition or reinterpretation of the laws. Buy a license, be prepared to show your papers, and go fishing.

Someone wants to search the inside of my car, kayak, or anything else, they better damn well have a Warrant or some legitimate probable cause.

[alanw]

Someone wants to search the inside of my car, kayak, or anything else, they better damn well have a Warrant or some legitimate probable cause.

DFW wardens have more power than police. They do not need a warrant to search you or your vehicles.

[Silbaugh4liberty]

Lol, I really got you guys going!! Look Jim, I greatly appreciate all you efforts and attending meetings and everything. The fact of the matter is, look at the number of fish, lobster, etc. that recreational anglers take versus Commercial anglers. Second, let's see how much of this money from the licenses go into things such as the WSB hatcheries or other hatcheries for that matter. All these government kooks don't give a damn, and that's my honest to God opinion, take it or leave it.

Secondly, all licenses are contracts with the government via your strawman (all caps, corporate fiction, name) created at birth with your birth certificate, in order to do business with us. Which is the reason why millions of unconstitutional laws have been created since our last bankruptcy (U.S.) in 1933, and since the creation of HJR. 192.

Third, I don't hire lawyers, because they're officers of the court. Therfore I will always go Pro per/ pro se. It's actually funny how nervous I make judges and prosecutors when you actually KNOW your rights and the laws.

And yes, I am too a sucker and purchased a license. So I don't try to push the limits.

Think about this, how come you never see DFG at the piers? These people use way too many poles, keep short fish etc. Even calling to report people, the DFG don't care, why? Because they have no jurisdiction, since all those pier fisherman have no license , aka contract with them.

By the way, I'm not just a talker. I've defeated crap charges before for traffic, and I would easily do the same from a ticket from DFG. I've actually used the laws I've learned to clean some junk off my credit report too. So I'm not just a talker, I put things into action, and with this knowledge and experience I don't fear this false belief that others have called "Authority". I'm a free man, and as long as I don't violate others life, liberty, or property, then there is no crime, end of story!

What ever happened to land of the free, home of the brave? We Americans really need to grow a pair, seriously.

Sgt Silbaugh out!

Cheers

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Mr_Fixit]

Lol, I really got you guys going!! Look Jim, I greatly appreciate all you efforts and attending meetings and everything. The fact of the matter is, look at the number of fish, lobster, etc. that recreational anglers take versus Commercial anglers. Second, let's see how much of this money from the licenses go into things such as the WSB hatcheries or other hatcheries for that matter. All these government kooks don't give a damn, and that's my honest to God opinion, take it or leave it.

Secondly, all licenses are contracts with the government via your strawman (all caps, corporate fiction, name) created at birth with your birth certificate, in order to do business with us. Which is the reason why millions of unconstitutional laws have been created since our last bankruptcy (U.S.) in 1933, and since the creation of HJR. 192.

Third, I don't hire lawyers, because they're officers of the court. Therfore I will always go Pro per/ pro se. It's actually funny how nervous I make judges and prosecutors when you actually KNOW your rights and the laws.

And yes, I am too a sucker and purchased a license. So I don't try to push the limits.

Think about this, how come you never see DFG at the piers? These people use way too many poles, keep short fish etc. Even calling to report people, the DFG don't care, why? Because they have no jurisdiction, since all those pier fisherman have no license , aka contract with them.

By the way, I'm not just a talker. I've defeated crap charges before for traffic, and I would easily do the same from a ticket from DFG. I've actually used the laws I've learned to clean some junk off my credit report too. So I'm not just a talker, I put things into action, and with this knowledge and experience I don't fear this false belief that others have called "Authority". I'm a free man, and as long as I don't violate others life, liberty, or property, then there is no crime, end of story!

What ever happened to land of the free, home of the brave? We Americans really need to grow a pair, seriously.

Sgt Silbaugh out!

Cheers

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

AMEN! Especially that last part!

I have also been actively fighting unjust laws nationwide. I dont typically go to court because I have been able to resolve issues via leveraging public officials and the media. I have been on 10 News a few times fighting complete nonsense from various sources. Escondido School district backed down on some stupidity when I made them look like morons during a news interview.

Once these "Officials" realize you are not going to simply pay your ticket and vanish into the herd of cattle, but step up and take a stance, they tend to back down. I think the reason for this is, as Silbaugh pointed out, an empowered individual with the cahones to stand up to them is far too intimidating. Standing up to the bully does not always defeat him, but it usually does. And when it doesnt, the bully is more insecure.

That being said, I also dont break the law simply because I disagree with them. I also carry my expensive piece of paper "Contract" with me every trip.

[wiredantz]

I read the Murdock v. PEnnsylvania case and the effects were:


"The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution." The state does not have the power to license or tax a right guaranteed to the people.

To my knowledge our state constitution has not been amended and the right to fish is not a federal right. A class action law suit should be filed against the state if it is found that the state is illegally penalizing people for not having a fishing license....


I emailed the fish licensing board on what grounds is the Fishing License being enforced if its out constitutional right to fish and i outlined the different sections in question.

I have yet to receive an answer....


I will document any answer if any, and i will gopro the discussion when i get harassed on the water again from DFG, wildlife or whatever....



Either they will have to amend the constitution, or they will have to penalize heavily for fishing fines... i am still not aware of how the state is able to enforce fishing license.






just like when CHP puts up DUI check points...


ill research the matter more...



*keep in the mind that many people work for Ca wildlife DFG, i am specifically talking about fishing not hunting.*

[Mahigeer]

Think about this, how come you never see DFG at the piers? These people use way too many poles, keep short fish etc. Even calling to report people, the DFG don't care, why? Because they have no jurisdiction, since all those pier fisherman have no license , aka contract with them.



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.

[Silbaugh4liberty]

I read the Murdock v. PEnnsylvania case and the effects were:


"The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution." The state does not have the power to license or tax a right guaranteed to the people.

To my knowledge our state constitution has not been amended and the right to fish is not a federal right. A class action law suit should be filed against the state if it is found that the state is illegally penalizing people for not having a fishing license....


I emailed the fish licensing board on what grounds is the Fishing License being enforced if its out constitutional right to fish and i outlined the different sections in question.

I have yet to receive an answer....


I will document any answer if any, and i will gopro the discussion when i get harassed on the water again from DFG, wildlife or whatever....



Either they will have to amend the constitution, or they will have to penalize heavily for fishing fines... i am still not aware of how the state is able to enforce fishing license.






just like when CHP puts up DUI check points...


ill research the matter more...



*keep in the mind that many people work for Ca wildlife DFG, i am specifically talking about fishing not hunting.*
License & Registration = contract. They don't care if something is unconstitutional because everything now days is under UCC (Uniform commercial code). Just know your rights, and if you feel that they've been personally violated after you've put them on notice, then you can go after them in litigation.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Silbaugh4liberty]

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

[Silbaugh4liberty]

20000

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[wiredantz]

License & Registration = contract. They don't care if something is unconstitutional because everything now days is under UCC (Uniform commercial code). Just know your rights, and if you feel that they've been personally violated after you've put them on notice, then you can go after them in litigation.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


(learning= Frank)


THe federal constitution is the supreme law of the land.
So is the CA Constitution right under the Federal Constitution?

Is the UCC below the Constitution of CA?

So for California resident is it:
1) Federal Constitution
2) State Constitution
3) UCC - The Fishing license could be null and void if it is a breach of CA constitution

The only person who has a legal contract fishing license is yourself, i mean you have the only legal contract. If you don't sign it or its missing they don't have a contract because the signed fishing license is the legal contract.

So in terms my fishing license does anyone know what percentage actually goes into fish hatcheries- salt or fresh?

[Silbaugh4liberty]

(learning= Frank)


THe federal constitution is the supreme law of the land.
So is the CA Constitution right under the Federal Constitution?

Is the UCC below the Constitution of CA?

So for California resident is it:
1) Federal Constitution
2) State Constitution
3) UCC - The Fishing license could be null and void if it a breach of CA constitution
They operate in parallel. Not one over the other or vice versa.

https://youtu.be/-Cmc12Dvqhs



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.


http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160826/453a422de388c681bbf9469d7d21ab13.jpg

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Silbaugh4liberty]

(learning= Frank)


THe federal constitution is the supreme law of the land.
So is the CA Constitution right under the Federal Constitution?

Is the UCC below the Constitution of CA?

So for California resident is it:
1) Federal Constitution
2) State Constitution
3) UCC - The Fishing license could be null and void if it is a breach of CA constitution

The only person who has a legal contract fishing license is yourself, i mean you have the only legal contract. If you don't sign it or its missing they don't have a contract because the signed fishing license is the legal contract.

So in terms my fishing license does anyone know what percentage actually goes into fish hatcheries- salt or fresh?
Notice how they say the fishing license is not valid until you sign it???? Think about that!!

Then check your driver's license--> it's got your signature too!!! Oh shit

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[LSmoot]

This is probably the most interesting thread I've seen on this site. I appreciate the info and opinions of all. It would be good to know if anyone has tried using the CA constitutional defense in court (article I, section 25), and if so how it turned out. I would seriously consider doing so should I ever get ticketed for accidentally forgetting my license at home. I wonder if CDFG (I like Game better, so that's what I call it) has seen this defense and therefore would be ready for it.

[alanw]

UCC 1-308 is interesting to learn about. I wonder what's the downside to becoming sovereign..

[da22y]

Two days ago, when I already loaded my kayak and ready to leave LJ. around 1:30 pm.

2 CDFG drove their truck toward me at launch area and said " Wow, wow, don't go, can I check your catch ?"

I stopped my truck and came down explained to them my catch was under my truck bed ( Honda Ridgeline) and it will need to unload the kayak to access the cooler. One officer said "OK, you can go ". So I drove off.

They follow my truck for about a mile and then flash their red light to stop me again.

They said " Sorry , man , one of our officer said you can go, but I think we need to check you catch".

So I had to unload my PA14 and they check every fish I catch and also my license. Of course , I came out clean .

Never had a traffic stop by CDFG ever, first time !!!

[bolocop]

Been buying my license for 4 years now. Hoping to show it some officer soon.

[ghotion]

Hey guys, just make sure you have your license and follow the regs and you'll be alright. A couple of years ago my son was caught w/o a license ($900 fine). He went down and bought one that day and when he went to court he told the judge he had left it in his car, fine was dropped to about $100. I now buy licenses for everybody on Christmas.

[Silbaugh4liberty]

UCC 1-308 is interesting to learn about. I wonder what's the downside to becoming sovereign..
Getting placed in the domestic terror watch list by the Obama Regime!!![emoji23]

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[alanw]

Getting placed in the domestic terror watch list by the Obama Regime!!![emoji23]

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
:eek:

[Silbaugh4liberty]

:eek:
Lol......

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/72-types-of-americans-that-are-considered-potential-terrorists-in-official-government-documents

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[alanw]

Lol......

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/72-types-of-americans-that-are-considered-potential-terrorists-in-official-government-documents

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Well apparently I'm on the list multiple times already, so what's one more gonna hurt? :D

[Silbaugh4liberty]

Well apparently I'm on the list multiple times already, so what's one more gonna hurt? :D
Lol, no kidding. I probably cover at least half the list if not more!!!

#challengejurisdiction

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[wiredantz]

I think it's going to come down like this:

Information taken from another site:

If you read the law you will see the language is not legalese, but it is very clear and concise: Fishing is a stated absolute right. Meaning it is irrevocable. You can have free speech without a license, you can go to church without a license, Will you be stopped, harassed and even arrested, YES. Will you prevail in court if you cite you Federally and State protected priveleges, YES. Most cases challenged in this manner get thrown out of court in the interest of justice. There is a key statement that a person must make in court and it requires testosterone: Your Honor, I am here because of what is a clear and flagrant violation of my Federal civil right to freedom from unjust detention, equal protection under the law, and my black letter law State of California constitutional right to Fish. Your honor I remind the court that it is the sworn duty of every officer of this court to uphold and defend the Constitution of the State of California, and that there is no immunity for public officials who knowingly or unknowingly violate the civil and constitutional rights of the citizenry. Further Your Honor, I would like to state that such executive an judicial violations are classified as punishable incompatible activities for which a formal complaint can be filed and action taken against the offender. Your Honor I therefore motion the court to rule a factual finding of innocence and an order to all the parties taking action against me to expunge their records of as required by law under such a ruling. End of Statement. If you have testosterone to stand in court and make such a statement, you will enjoy a lifetime of fishing without a license and all your other rights that your grandfathers fought and died for you to keep. The easiest way about this though is to carry a copy of the constitution on your phone and show it to any game warden who attempts to deny you your absolute right to fish! You'll find that if you are polite, they will succumb, if they don't then start your speech (as stated above) and remind them of their sworn duty and how you will respond with an equal amount of paperwork for them violating your rights.

[Saba Slayer]

BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA...Now lets see one of you big talkers go without buying a fishing license...please post up photos and a description of your fun time spent in the court system. I'm sure you all bought and signed a fishing license.
By the way that "constitution stuff" worked really good for the lawyers during the MLPA closures...NOT...United Anglers is still paying the lawyers...!
Yea I know....you don't need lawyers and your going to handle it all yourself!
Frank...you seem so sure of your above statement to the court...have you tried it before or is this just something you've read on the internet from another site...?
:roll eyes:
Talk and internet posting is always easy to do...!
Let's see one of you jokers really step up and defend our fishing rights...I predict it won't happen...it will be nothing but HOT AIR once again...!!!!!!!!

[Silbaugh4liberty]

I think it's going to come down like this:

Information taken from another site:

If you read the law you will see the language is not legalese, but it is very clear and concise: Fishing is a stated absolute right. Meaning it is irrevocable. You can have free speech without a license, you can go to church without a license, Will you be stopped, harassed and even arrested, YES. Will you prevail in court if you cite you Federally and State protected priveleges, YES. Most cases challenged in this manner get thrown out of court in the interest of justice. There is a key statement that a person must make in court and it requires testosterone: Your Honor, I am here because of what is a clear and flagrant violation of my Federal civil right to freedom from unjust detention, equal protection under the law, and my black letter law State of California constitutional right to Fish. Your honor I remind the court that it is the sworn duty of every officer of this court to uphold and defend the Constitution of the State of California, and that there is no immunity for public officials who knowingly or unknowingly violate the civil and constitutional rights of the citizenry. Further Your Honor, I would like to state that such executive an judicial violations are classified as punishable incompatible activities for which a formal complaint can be filed and action taken against the offender. Your Honor I therefore motion the court to rule a factual finding of innocence and an order to all the parties taking action against me to expunge their records of as required by law under such a ruling. End of Statement. If you have testosterone to stand in court and make such a statement, you will enjoy a lifetime of fishing without a license and all your other rights that your grandfathers fought and died for you to keep. The easiest way about this though is to carry a copy of the constitution on your phone and show it to any game warden who attempts to deny you your absolute right to fish! You'll find that if you are polite, they will succumb, if they don't then start your speech (as stated above) and remind them of their sworn duty and how you will respond with an equal amount of paperwork for them violating your rights.
That pretty damn good, I might have to plagiarize that!!! The only thing I would add before that is that I would make sure you're on the record ("you're honor is this a court of record"), if he says yes, then I would then state, " for the record, I reserve ALL RIGHTS, not to be bound by any written or unwritten contracts"! I said this one time, and the judge started clowning on me. Before I left court, I demanded a copy of the court minutes, and guess what, THEY RECORDED ON RECORD, ( Defendant reserves rights)!

After putting them on notice that you're reserving your rights, I would then steal your statement because it's really good, I like it.

I'm going to get going on drafting a motion to dismiss as well. This is something that you would first file in the DA's office, and then file a copy with the clerk of court. And most importantly have your own copy with stamps from each of those two offices. This makes it official when you motion to dismiss, and they HAVE TO address it since your paperwork is filed on record.

Good stuff Wiredantz, I dig it!!!

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Saba Slayer]

OK...so just imagine you figured out how to go fishing without buying a license...now the DFW is cash strapped because no one is buying a license anymore to legally fish...so there is no more cash to hire DFW Wardens to enforce the F & G laws...they have no money for computers, weapons, vehicles, or vessels to protect the resource...DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT COMMON FOLKS WILL BE GOOD PROTECTORS OF THE RESOURCE???
HELL NO... THEY WILL RAPE AND PLUNDER UNTILL THERE ARE ONLY SEA CUCUMBERS AND KELP IN THE OCEAN...HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THE "TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS" ?
The amount of poaching that goes on now is unreal...could you imagine it without Wardens?
GET REAL AND QUITE LIVING IN YOUR PRETEND ANARCHY WORLD...!
Please tell me how this will be a better state of affairs than buying a damn license and obeying a few rules to support the resource and habitat...?
No BS...just concrete facts...!

[Saba Slayer]

The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory of a situation within a shared-resource system where individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting that resource through their collective action.

[Silbaugh4liberty]

OK...so just imagine you figured out how to go fishing without buying a license...now the DFW is cash strapped because no one is buying a license anymore to legally fish...so there is no more cash to hire DFW Wardens to enforce the F & G laws...they have no money for computers, weapons, vehicles, or vessels to protect the resource...DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT COMMON FOLKS WILL BE GOOD PROTECTORS OF THE RESOURCE???
HELL NO... THEY WILL RAPE AND PLUNDER UNTILL THERE ARE ONLY SEA CUCUMBERS AND KELP IN THE OCEAN...HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THE "TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS" ?
The amount of poaching that goes on now is unreal...could you imagine it without Wardens?
GET REAL AND QUITE LIVING IN YOUR PRETEND ANARCHY WORLD...!
Please tell me how this will be a better state of affairs than buying a damn license and obeying a few rules to support the resource and habitat...?
No BS...just concrete facts...!

Jim, I am so sorry, you're absolutely correct. The DFG is sooooo cash strapped, that they're even hiring NEW OFFICERS!! Because that makes complete economic sense from a business prospective right?

Second, you're basically assuming that we as a recreational fishing community sucks, and we don't give two shits about our fishing resource. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If you can’t trust ordinary people not to victimize each other or our resources, how can you trust the state not to victimize us all or our resources? Are the people who get into power so unselfish, so dedicated, so superior to the ones they rule? The more you distrust your fellows, the more reason there is for you to become an anarchist. Under anarchy, power is reduced and spread around. Everybody has some, but nobody has very much. Under the state, power is concentrated, and most people have none, really. Which kind of power would you like to go up against?

Just FYI JIM, "Tragedy of the Commons" is an economic "THEORY". Definition of Theory= a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. Key words, (ideas, independent, to be explained). I didn't see: Facts, research, proof, results in there at all. Not to mention that it's a theory from someone with a degree in political science who spent their entire career teaching in colleges, so I'm sure she has a TON of experience with the wildlife. What I don't understand is why people think Anarchy is some fantasy, yet we participate in voluntary activities on a daily basis without the threat of force from government. And at the same time act as hypocrites, stating some THEORY as if its some sort of fact?? So please, stop acting like we're all a bunch of pirates raping the booty of the sea. If anything, it's the Commercial Anglers who are fucking up our resources, not the recreational guys.

A perfect example of communities who work together to protect their local resource can be seen on two episodes of Local Knowledge when they go down to Mexico, and learn that they protect their grouper, and have abalone collectives. Also, if the DFG cared about educating anglers, then why isn't there any required classes before getting the license? There are required classes before getting your hunting license, but not fishing. Why is that? You're connected with the DFG people right? Ask them that next meeting. Don't you agree that we could better protect our resources with knowledge, instead of GUNS? I know, because us fishermen are pretty damn scary.

You want some facts?? The first fishing licenses were issued in China in 1765! Before the chinese government stepping in, we had almost ZERO FISH in the ocean, thank god for the government and fishing licenses, :shot:

So let me ask, are we going to need to wait another 5 years for the "cash strapped" DFG to do some research on their MLPA's?? Us recreational anglers have yet to see any "FACTS" thus far. And we have YET to see the financials on how much of the license fee's are put back into the resources. Are we just supposed to blindly believe that it is, especially when the DFG reneged on the MLPA deal?

Do you honestly think the government gives a damn about our natural resources??

Here's a list of government's achievments:
1) 110,000 containers of nuclear/radioactive waste dumped into the ocean
2) mining has produced a legacy of toxicity–mercury, arsenic, cyanide, cadmium, lead, and zinc into fishing rivers
3) fracking’s toxic wastes stay in the ground and seep into aquifers, destroying the water supply
4) America’s Campaign to Eradicate the Wolf
5) Nonfarm citizens also have their water costs subsidized by people in other parts of the country. Dam construction and artificial waterways designed to transport that water enable people to populate such arid regions as Arizona and southern California->encouraging settlement of these areas at a higher level than would otherwise occur.
6) Death of whales, dolphins and other marine life, the use of underwater sonar by the U.S. Navy
7) Oil spills- yet we continue ocean drilling, and shipping of oil (even though healthy natural resources that are renewable remain outlawed due to power of the oil monopolies)
8) It is estimated that40% of the area of the oceans is severely degraded by human activities (COMMERCIAL FISHING)
9) Fertile lands have been transformed into highways, grazing fields, residences and commercial centers, AND non-fertile lands are turned into farms artificially greatly consuming water in great measures hurting fish and other natural resources
10) Exporting California water to China, amid a drastic drought (crony capitalism caused by government subsidies and intervention)

Honestly, I could probably make a book out of the information showing how Government is NOT the answer to protecting our natural resources, and how they honestly don't give a damn. But I'm sure all Government worshippers out there will just keep telling me to obey their arbitrary laws, and pay them to participate in my God given, Constitutionally protected rights.

Just remember, if you use the State as a measure of ethics, you're going to be disappointed every time. (slavery and genocide have been legal by governments in recent past).


http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304773104579268563658319196
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-once-lovely-green-planet-natures-capital-is-the-limiting-resource/5320469
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/the-wolf-that-changed-america-wolf-wars-americas-campaign-to-eradicate-the-wolf/4312/
https://fee.org/articles/government-versus-the-environment/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-military-sonar-kill/
http://www1.american.edu/ted/projects/tedcross/xoilpr15.htm
http://www.academia.edu/3266058/DEPLETION_OF_NATURAL_RESOURCES_OF_THE_PLANET_EARTH
http://www.brighthub.com/environment/science-environmental/articles/68899.aspx
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26124989

[wiredantz]

I don't think it's right, that they issue citations when it our California freedom and right to fish. ESPECIALLY SINCE THIS Fishing license is illegal.


For 2017 what I might do is buy the license and won't sign it, and go from there.
Just because if this gets out of hand they may close the fish hatcheries because the state can't manage their money.



I also dont want some unemployed disgrunteled warden to follow me home and kill me, because he doesn't have a job anymore. Or worse run me over with their boat. Some wardens can get all up and mighty on you, for being defiant.


But if anyone forgets there fishing license, this might be a good start. My court date will come, but choose your battles wisely.

BTW I think I am owed an annual fish pass as a remedy to shut me up.



I remember there was a town in northern California where a fire department was collecting an illegal fire fee and making it mandatory. One dude decided not to pay, his house caught on fire. Fire department never showed up.

So in other words fish and game might not look too kindly on this.


I will respectfully fight for my rights as a CA born citizen, and fight for my legal righs on a fish less day or maybe I'll start the next Ceaser Chavez movement and start the Nacho Libre fishing right activist group.

Anyways tight lines....

Thanks for informing me of my rights, I'll use when I need it.

[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/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/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.

[Harry Hill]

The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory of a situation within a shared-resource system where individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting that resource through their collective action.

isn't the common name for that congress?

[Silbaugh4liberty]

isn't the common name for that congress?
20017

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Orca Winfrey]

OK...so just imagine you figured out how to go fishing without buying a license...now the DFW is cash strapped because no one is buying a license anymore to legally fish...so there is no more cash to hire DFW Wardens to enforce the F & G laws...they have no money for computers, weapons, vehicles, or vessels to protect the resource...DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT COMMON FOLKS WILL BE GOOD PROTECTORS OF THE RESOURCE???
HELL NO... THEY WILL RAPE AND PLUNDER UNTILL THERE ARE ONLY SEA CUCUMBERS AND KELP IN THE OCEAN...HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THE "TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS" ?
The amount of poaching that goes on now is unreal...could you imagine it without Wardens?
GET REAL AND QUITE LIVING IN YOUR PRETEND ANARCHY WORLD...!
Please tell me how this will be a better state of affairs than buying a damn license and obeying a few rules to support the resource and habitat...?
No BS...just concrete facts...!

Tragedy of the commons. I haven't heard that term since freshman biology. I understand the posters that feel we are being screwed by The Man but I'm old enough to have fished cattle boats and piers since the 70s. Those were boom times for fish takes. We brought home gunny sacks full of sandbass and calicos. They would bite on anything. The size limit was 12" and the take limit was 10 but there was never a warden in sight so...... On the piers, it was "kill them all". I stopped fishing during the lat 80s and 90s but when I started fishing again, it was depressing to see how decimated the stock was. It has come back some but it's nowhere where it was in the days that we kept everything. Anyways, though I do not like an excess intervention of government, I also feel a lack of oversight will allow A-holes to rape and pillage because I've seen it first hand. That being said, as far as I can tell, everyone on this site seems to be a responsible steward of our fish. I think it's primarily the a-holes that are causing the increase in regulations.
Ps. I do feel that the MLPA zones were an environmentalist snow job and that severly restricting commercial fishing or making them C&R only zones would have been an acceptable compromise.

[Saba Slayer]

BLA BLA BLA...please get back to me on this once you guys stop buying a California Fishing License and test your theory...until then it's all BS...and it's nothing but talk!!!
And talk is CHEAP...!:mad::mad::mad:

[wiredantz]

BLA BLA BLA...please get back to me on this once you guys stop buying a California Fishing License and test your theory...until then it's all BS...and it's nothing but talk!!!
And talk is CHEAP...!:mad::mad::mad:


It is not up to the enforcement party to say who is right. If the enforcement is illegal than it is illegal.

The state can find ways to collect, they can issue more citation. They can follow you home and find those extra lobster in the freezer. Trust me they will collect their money.

In the case of Murdock vs Pennsylvania, that case had to go to supreme court in order to fight for their religious freedom because the state was adamant about collecting their fees.

I am trying to find all the legal reason why i would lose in court, but no one has come up with a valid legal reason.

The only reason that has come up is because I can't.

Well why can't I?

what are the legal reasons why?


If those guaranteed rights, offer equal protection to all:
Why do i have to pay for a recreational fishing license just because you say i have to?

o' because you(DFG,Fish&game,Local law enforcement, the STATE OF CA) threaten me... i see


i don't fish every day or every week. So my encounters with the wardens are few, but when i encounter them. It will begin...

[cabojohn]

This thread has turned south.
Stop pissing and moaning about having to buy a license to fish...either pay and play or get a citation. Pretty simple. NOBODY gives two shit weather YOU buy a license of not. However we are interested in how busted you actually get. :)


FWIW- the only way I know out of purchasing a fishing license is if your are an American Indian (CA) and can prove it.
*You still must purchase a lobster tag IF you desire to fish them.
Please note that you will have long visits the with DFW and you still may get a citation. Good luck. lol

[Mr_Fixit]

This thread has turned south.
Stop pissing and moaning about having to buy a license to fish...either pay and play or get a citation. Pretty simple. NOBODY gives two shit weather YOU buy a license of not. However we are interested in how busted you actually get. :)


FWIW- the only way I know out of purchasing a fishing license is if your are an American Indian (CA) and can prove it.
*You still must purchase a lobster tag IF you desire to fish them.
Please note that you will have long visits the with DFW and you still may get a citation. Good luck. lol

And this is how a conversation turns south. Gotta love when someone takes a conversation and translates it into something more hostile.

Sad....

Now, lets get back to fishing?

[LSmoot]

@wiredantz I thought about your idea of not signing the license, but if I remember correctly the retailer (I usually buy from Big 5) always has made me sign right there at the register before I pay for it. I would bet they would not sell it to me if I don't sign it. Interesting to think about.

On another note, I understand we all may not agree with each other on this issue, but I do not understand why trying to defend one's rights provokes such a protest by some of us. To be clear, I am not saying we must or should agree with each other. But whatever you believe, it is beyond me why we get so worked up about it. When defending your rights is met with such anger and protest, it is just sad in my opinion. It’s already an uphill fight against the government, we don’t need to fight each other too.

What is so wrong about trying to defend one’s rights? It may be true that using a Constitutional defense is an uphill battle, or even impossible, but I say that is all-the-more reason to do so. On the other hand, it may not be. I’m sure it is also true, as I’ve read here, that such a defense would be laughed at. But, is that not the problem to begin with? After all, we either have a Constitution or we don’t.

Now, you may disagree with what the Constitution says, but then the battle you must fight is changing the Constitution, not beating down others who happen to disagree with you.

I do believe we need to manage the fisheries and stock - I get it. I don’t even mind paying for this service. I do think the MLPAs are ridiculous, as are fees for not having your license on you.

Bottom line for me is that an unchecked government of any kind tends to eventually result in a reduction of individual rights, so whenever I see some folks using their heads to fight for their rights, I say go for it.

[Kayak_Bernie]

No one is forcing you to buy a license, you have the choice to fish and if you choose to fish then you must buy a license , or suffer the consequences. Period

No government or society is ideal, but if you think its bad here. Try living in a country that will execute its own citizens for trying to educate themselves. Or in a country where all of the fish and game are property of the King and taking even one small bird can result in you and your family being put to death. Sure our laws and regulations aren't great, that is something we can ALL agree upon, but they are what we have and we have to play with the hand we are dealt, and work within a given framework to change and amend these laws. The pure and simple fact is that we as Americans have it way better than most people living on the planet earth right now. Over 2.9 BILLION or 33% of people on this planet make less than $3/day and 1.6 BILLION people lack sufficient housing. Just be glad that you have a roof over your head and a few bucks in your pocket. It can ALWAYS be much worse than forking over $50 bucks to a Tyrannical Oligarchy. ;)

[radastaff]

just consider it a tax
its all funny money fiat anyways
faith and credit

P

[east county dirtbag]

just consider it a tax
its all funny money fiat anyways
faith and credit

P


Huh.

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

[Mr. NiceGuy]

https://pp.vk.me/c619521/v619521221/1c8d/9FhEc70id2k.jpg

Fish free or die

[wiredantz]

@wiredantz I thought about your idea of not signing the license, but if I remember correctly the retailer (I usually buy from Big 5) always has made me sign right there at the register before I pay for it. I would bet they would not sell it to me if I don't sign it. .

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. :rolleyes:

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.

[radastaff]

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]

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. :rolleyes:

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]

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. :rolleyes:

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???

[emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23]

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[wiredantz]

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

Who's fishing Laguna this weekend???

[emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23]

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/StateRighttoHunFish.pdf

[Silbaugh4liberty]

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]

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??[emoji476] [emoji476]



Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[jorluivil]

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.




http://img.memecdn.com/matrix-morpheus_o_1136489.jpg

[wiredantz]

O4the 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.

http://c8.quickcachr.fotos.sapo.pt/i/m7102e13c/6062333_pWvM9.jpeg

I'm enjoying your efforts :)

[Silbaugh4liberty]

20039

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.



http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w21/darkmatrix84/Mobile%20Uploads/20160902_181229_zpsvo4wemww.jpg

[Silbaugh4liberty]

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 [emoji6]

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 Ass’n 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)

[Silbaugh4liberty]

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 Ass’n 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)
Nice! I'd make a copy and scan it to pdf of your letter you got back from them for future reference as well. Good stuff, I'm going to have to save these case laws.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[wiredantz]

CDFW- sent me the hardcopies of the supreme court cases regarding my argument.


Mr. _____________,

The information provided by Ms. Orme is correct, and it seems pretty clear and straightforward. Except for on free fishing days, or from specific public piers in ocean waters, fishing licenses are required in California. Also, In re Quinn is not a federal case. You seem to be making an argument that was rejected by the courts long ago. I encourage you to review the attached court decisions or consult private counsel, but there is not much more to be said regarding this matter. Thanks,


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


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w21/darkmatrix84/supreme%20court%20cases001_zpsmom5btpo.jpg

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w21/darkmatrix84/supreme%20court%20cases002_zpswdig6hpi.jpg

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w21/darkmatrix84/supreme%20court%20cases003_zps7d49xn61.jpg

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w21/darkmatrix84/supreme%20court%20cases004_zpsczcfvjsh.jpg





http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w21/darkmatrix84/supreme%20court%20cases007_zpsbczx1wi7.jpg








http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w21/darkmatrix84/supreme%20court%20cases008_zps3wczifnw.jpg


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w21/darkmatrix84/supreme%20court%20cases009_zpslbqhvk8o.jpg


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w21/darkmatrix84/supreme%20court%20cases010_zpsm6kkoweq.jpg


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w21/darkmatrix84/supreme%20court%20cases011_zpsulnfl6oe.jpg






CDFW has not provided any other court case other than these two.....

[wiredantz]

I think they are trying to tell me something...


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w21/darkmatrix84/Mobile%20Uploads/20160906_184955_zpstrjvftvt.jpg

[jruiz]

They're mocking you Frank!! Show them you mean business!

[alanw]

Those cases refer to the right as a privilege, and seem to deal with fishing for profit.

[jorluivil]

And at the end of the day, or year, we will still go out and purchase our annual fishing license with ocean enhancement stamp.

[Silbaugh4liberty]

They're mocking you Frank!! Show them you mean business!
No kidding. Their stupid asses have the very first case stating "fishing for profit". Who ever said anything about fishing for profit? SMH[emoji23]

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Silbaugh4liberty]

And at the end of the day, or year, we will still go out and purchase our annual fishing license with ocean enhancement stamp.
Just to feed the MLPA machine!!!

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[wiredantz]

After all the research i did... I am going to put it into perspective:

Liberties and rights before the constitution are still granted by the constitution...


When cases go up to the supreme court, they get to pick and choose their cases. Why?

The Court receives approximately 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each Term. The Court grants and hears oral argument in about 80 cases. (a lot of the cases are so controversial that the supreme court rules them 5-4)


THERE IS NO WAY IN THE WORLD THERE GOING TO HEAR A CASE THAT WILL BREAK THE SYSTEM.



After all the research that i did, and the CDFW issues you a complaint.
The judge will ask you how do you plea?


You are not going to plea....

Your going to ask for a demur for a motion of dismiss with prejudice.

CDFW filed that complaint they have to prove they have jurisdiction over your right to restricted fishing.

that is going to cost them money to defend.



At the end of the day, the Judge does not want to be held liable for breaking the system so if you know your rights it will probably be dismissed.

and if it is dismissed you can submit your bill to the court for wages you lost, copies, faxes. etc....

But once again, take my words with a grain of salt...( im learning)


we still pay for registration of guns, mirage licenses, driver licenses,, and many other things.


im getting a fishing license...for 2017 unless i can claim i have a disability.


IF CDFW files the complaint ( citation) you have a right to trial by jury. They pay, you don't pay...
If you lose and want to appeal, then you pay....

correct me if im wrong...

[Silbaugh4liberty]

After all the research i did... I am going to put it into perspective:

Liberties and rights before the constitution are still granted by the constitution...


When cases go up to the supreme court, they get to pick and choose their cases. Why?

The Court receives approximately 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each Term. The Court grants and hears oral argument in about 80 cases. (a lot of the cases are so controversial that the supreme court rules them 5-4)


THERE IS NO WAY IN THE WORLD THERE GOING TO HEAR A CASE THAT WILL BREAK THE SYSTEM.



After all the research that i did, and the CDFW issues you a complaint.
The judge will ask you how do you plea?


You are not going to plea....

Your going to ask for a demur for a motion of dismiss.

CDFW filed that complaint they have to prove they have jurisdiction over your right to restricted fishing.

that is going to cost them money to defend.



At the end of the day, the Judge does not want to be held liable for breaking the system so if you know your rights it will probably be dismissed.


But once again, take my words with a grain of salt...( im learning)


we still pay for registration of guns, mirage licenses, driver licenses,, and many other things.


im getting a fishing license...for 2017 unless i can claim i have a disability.


IF CDFW files the complaint ( citation) you have a right to trial by jury. They pay, you don't pay...
If you lose and want to appeal, then you pay....

correct me if im wrong...
Agreed, they're not going to bite the hand that's feeding them. I'm not going to test it until I know how to file a lawsuit first. I'm down for taking risks, but a calculated risk is a little better than just winging it.



Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Silbaugh4liberty]

https://steemit.com/voluntaryism/@jaredhowe/allegiance-for-protection-anatomy-of-a-citizen

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[PapaDave]

Hmmm, let me see, spend a lot of time, and perhaps money, challenging a license fee of $52 or pay the fee and spend the same amount of time, and money, fishing....

Have fun in court y'all...

[Mr. NiceGuy]

"Please review all applications, and choose which one is appropriate for your entitlement."

Signed anonymously, "CDFW"


DEF: "entitlement" (according to the government)


2 : a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program



An entitlement is a government program guaranteeing access to some benefit by members of a specific group and based on established rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_right) or by legislation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislation).<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference">[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement#cite_note-1)</sup><sup id="cite_ref-2" class="reference">[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement#cite_note-2)</sup> The term may also reflect a pejorative connotation, as in a "sense of entitlement". A "right" is itself an entitlement associated with a moral or social principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle), while an "entitlement" is a provision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provision_%28accounting%29) made in accordance with a legal framework (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law) of a society. Typically, entitlements are based on concepts of principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle) ("rights") which are themselves based in concepts of social equality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_equality) or enfranchisement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfranchisement).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement

[wwkf]

Hmmm, let me see, spend a lot of time, and perhaps money, challenging a license fee of $52 or pay the fee and spend the same amount of time, and money, fishing....

Have fun in court y'all...

X2 :luxhello:

[Silbaugh4liberty]

Hmmm, let me see, spend a lot of time, and perhaps money, challenging a license fee of $52 or pay the fee and spend the same amount of time, and money, fishing....

Have fun in court y'all...
It's a matter of principle, not price to me. Enjoy your privilege, I'll enjoy my right! #challengejurisdiction

20070

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[YakDout]

And at the end of the day, or year, we will still go out and purchase our annual fishing license with ocean enhancement stamp.

Too bad we can't just buy the 5 buck ocean stamp. I never fish freshwater.

[wiredantz]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bodbVsXAQmw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


This guy is an attorney and he says get your fishing license....

So it's going to be like 100 dollars soon with all those stamps...



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xZAy1Ek-szs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



Here is a federal fishing act from 1950s


https://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/FASPORT.HTML

[PapaDave]

It's a matter of principle, not price to me. Enjoy your privilege, I'll enjoy my right! #challengejurisdiction


Like I said, have fun with that....

[Silbaugh4liberty]

Like I said, have fun with that....
I sure will. See, people are too used to being comfortable, and afraid of a challenge. Without taking risks in life, you're already dead in the mind. With every single risk you take, you build confidence, then you're willing to take more risks, and it creates the snowball effect, and you're more capable of achieving your goals. My goal= Freedom (hence my screen name is made over 2 years ago). You can have safety and security (in a jail cell, and most are already there mentally because they're scared). The choice is yours.

"Give me liberty, or give me death" ~Patrick Henry~



Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[wiredantz]

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w21/darkmatrix84/Mobile%20Uploads/Frank%20photo_zpsyjcy5vfi.jpg



Someone go find a recently graduated college kid that wants to make a name for himself!

[Silbaugh4liberty]

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w21/darkmatrix84/Mobile%20Uploads/Frank%20photo_zpsyjcy5vfi.jpg



Someone go find a recently graduated college kid that wants to make a name for himself!
By the way, Mark Stevens sort of bursted my bubble yesterday when I was on a conference call with him and he stated that those case laws such as shuttles worth v. Birmingham, and those other cases stating that you can't license a right are referring to Federal rights, so he advised that the state can issue a license. So the angle you need to approach it from its if they have jurisdiction over you. So there's still remedy, just not in the way that I thought you could approach it apparently. However I did read through a lot of those papers they sent you and everything in there is relating to Commerce. Which is obvious proof that they don't know what they're talking about since we are not trying to fish to sell them. Just like driver's license relates to Commerce and yet most of us don't drive to make money. It's just a matter of looking up the legal definition of words in Black's Law Dictionary, because they are different than what we think they mean

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[wiredantz]

By the way, Mark Stevens sort of bursted my bubble yesterday when I was on a conference call with him and he stated that those case laws such as shuttles worth v. Birmingham, and those other cases stating that you can't license a right are referring to Federal rights, so he advised that the state can issue a license.



http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w21/darkmatrix84/Mobile%20Uploads/20160908_095903_zpskwqjecn4.jpg


http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w21/darkmatrix84/Mobile%20Uploads/20160908_095656_zps58afjcub.jpg


Here is the angle, on the condition that the state uses taxpayer money to plant fish in the pacific ocean....:

"CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
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."



Isn't that essentially what they have done... they have made it a crime to fish coastal water...


Pay me, CDFW, for your right to fish, or its a crime!

This does not apply to county owned land, as it is described in the same case.


I don't know if this angle would work, just a theory.

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w21/darkmatrix84/Mobile%20Uploads/20160908_102338_zps27k93dow.jpg




The real question is what year was the State Fish Exchange Act written; how long ago have CA people been required to buy a fishing license?

[LSmoot]

I sure will. See, people are too used to being comfortable, and afraid of a challenge. Without taking risks in life, you're already dead in the mind. With every single risk you take, you build confidence, then you're willing to take more risks, and it creates the snowball effect, and you're more capable of achieving your goals. My goal= Freedom (hence my screen name is made over 2 years ago). You can have safety and security (in a jail cell, and most are already there mentally because they're scared). The choice is yours.

"Give me liberty, or give me death" ~Patrick Henry~



Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

x2 :luxhello:

[wiredantz]

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w21/darkmatrix84/Mobile%20Uploads/20160908_141044_zps94vcayhn.jpg



The interpretation of the Supreme Court of CA was that we the people do not have an abolute right to fish by Article 1 section 25.



They concluded that the Fishing License was a protection for the fish and it was upheld.

Case Closed.



https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Publications/history


Department of Fish and Game celebrates 130 years of serving California

From Outdoor California, November - December 1999

Original Article with Photos (PDF)

In 1970, the Department of Fish and Game turned 100 years old. At that time, a history of significant events over that 100 years was published. A frequently requested item, the history was updated in 1980, and now we have another 20 years to add. We look forward to seeing where fish and wildlife activities lead us in the next millennium. —Editor, Outdoor California Magazine

1849. California Territorial Legislature adopts common law of England as the rule in all state courts. Before this, Spanish and then Mexican laws applied. Most significant legal incident was the Mexican government decree in 1830 that California “mountain men” were illegally hunting and fishing. Captain John Sutter, among others, had been responsible for enforcing Mexican fish and game laws.
1851. State of California enacts first law specifically dealing with fish and game matters. This concerned the right to take oysters and the protection of property rights of persons planting oysters. 1852. First California game law is enacted for 12 counties. It protected elk, antelope, deer, quail, mallard, and wood ducks for six months of each year. Also passed was the first law protecting salmon runs. Enforcement was the responsibility of local authorities.
1854. Game laws are extended to all counties in the state.
1860. The beginning of statewide control. First license act provides that no Chinese or Mongolian could take fish in state waters without a four-dollar monthly license. Collectors of fees were appointed by the governor.
1861. Closed seasons for trout are established.
1869. Lake Merritt (City of Oakland) is made the first state game refuge, believed to be the first in the country.
1870. The Board of Fish Commissioners, forerunner of the Fish and Game Commission, is established “to provide for the restoration and preservation” of fish in California waters. This was the first wildlife conservation agency in the country, even predating the U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries. Ca1ifornia’s three “fish commissioners,” appointed by the Governor, received no compensation, but the Legislature appropriated $5,000 to the board for the first two years’ operations. This same year the first fish ladder is built on a tributary of the Truckee River, and a state hatching house is established at the University of California in Berkeley.
1871. First importation of fish-1,500 young shad. Two full-time deputies (wardens) are appointed, one to patrol San Francisco Bay and the other the Lake Tahoe area.
1872. The Legislature passes an act enabling the commission to require fishways or “in-lieu” hatcheries where dams or other obstacles impede or prevent fish passage.
1878. The authority of the Fish Commission is expanded to include game as well as fish.
1879. Striped bass are introduced from New Jersey and planted at Carquinez Strait. 1883. Commissioners establish a Bureau of Patrol and Law Enforcement. Jack London switches sides from oyster pirate to Commission deputy. His forays form the basis for his novel, Tales of the Fish Patrol.
1885. First compilation of California fish and game laws is published. The first fish and game marine patrol is instituted with the placing in operation of the 46-foot patrol boat Governor Stoneman.
1887. Market fishing boats and crews are licensed.
1889. The commission is authorized to import game birds.
1893. The commission engages its first attorney.
1901. After the turn of the century, the administration of fish and game laws was strengthened and expanded. The deputy force reaches 50 men, and the first bag limits are set-deer, three bucks; ducks and doves, 50; quail, 25. Night hunting is outlawed.
1907. First hunting licenses are issued at $1 for everyone hunting certain game birds and animals. Money from the license sale and from fines was credited to the Fish and Game Preservation Fund. The deputy (warden) force expands to 73.
1908. One of the first expenditures from the Preservation Fund is for the establishment of a game farm at Hayward.
1909. Name is changed from the Board of Fish Commissioners to the Fish and Game Commission, which reflects the growing importance of game conservation. The complex fish and game administration of today dates from these years when the commission was given more authority to expand and to undertake new responsibilities. This year marks the last legislative appropriation for fish and game administration. Commercial licenses for fishermen are inaugurated (commercial fishing boats had been licensed in 1887).
1913. The first general angling license ($1) is required for all persons over 18. A law is adopted prohibiting the taking of the endangered sea otter. The first field study of duck disease (botulism) is conducted.
1914. The Commission creates the Bureau of Education, Publicity and Research because of the need for development in these areas. Publication of a quarterly journal, California Fish and Game, starts.





After all this researching, i never want to see this case law again

I am surprised that the anglers who stood up were able to stop MLPA from taking everything,
this is how much power they have to protect the fish.

[Hunters Pa]

After all this researching, i never want to see this case law again

I am surprised that the anglers who stood up were able to stop MLPA from taking everything,
this is how much power they have to protect the fish.



MLPA wasn't about protecting fish. It was about rich Malibu residents not wanting to have to see people fishing in their view. It was about rich corporations trying to ease their social conscience for past transgressions (Packard). It was about Laguna residents trying to restrict more non-residents' activities to make it less attractive to come to THEIR beach (yeah, protecting the "natural state"? How much SAND do they truck in to cover up what is TRULY the natural state of that coastline?). It was about animal rights activists trying to stop the "killing of ocean-puppies". It was about Surfrider taking it out on fishermen that there have been conflicts around piers.

If it was about the fish then someone should tell the fish to stay in the MLPA. What's that? They migrate out? Hmm, doesn't fit the "science" presented.

Yeah it was painful to watch the process proceed according to the bought and paid for commission.

[wiredantz]

BLAST FROM THE PAST


One of my friends just pointed out, that the supreme court cases they gave me, never addressed the issue if the fishing license was deemed appropriate for the protection of fish.... the only thing that was determined was that that its not an absolute right!!!!:mad:

AND IM NOT FISHING FOR PROFIT!!!!!!!!!

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w21/darkmatrix84/not%20handled_zpslnuehnzp.jpg


I emailed DFG , i want to know what the money for the ocean enhancement stamp is used for, and how the money for the fishing licenses are distributed.



I have a right to know how these fish are being protected if they want to use that excuse in court!

[Silbaugh4liberty]

20076

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[alanw]

I think they'd say that keeping your recreational catch is for profit because you profited dinner, which has monetary value.

[Silbaugh4liberty]

I think they'd say that keeping your recreational catch is for profit because you profited dinner, which has monetary value.
It's because they treat you (the living soul, living breathing flesh, person), as a corporation. Look up the legal definition of "person", and they categorize it the same as a corporation. Watch this video, it'll explain it better. Keep in mind, Article 1 Section 25 went into effect nearly 30 years before they made this transition to converting us into corporations in this country (before our bankruptcy in 1933).

https://youtu.be/-Cmc12Dvqhs

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[wiredantz]

Just wanted to keep you guys all updated:


Mr. Don Bird went to court and fought his right to fish. He was found liable and cited $740.00 by the judge and granted no jury.

http://www.redbluffdailynews.com/article/ND/20150618/NEWS/150619853

http://www.redbluffdailynews.com/article/ZZ/20130903/NEWS/130908131

and by the way he did not get a trail by Jury because the Court said : Infractions do not get Jury Trials.

http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/42/supp4.html


by the way if you start fighting the state and system, they can declare you a Vexatious Litigant. A Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action.

[Silbaugh4liberty]

Just wanted to keep you guys all updated:


Mr. Don Bird went to court and fought his right to fish. He was found liable and cited $740.00 by the judge and granted no jury.

http://www.redbluffdailynews.com/article/ND/20150618/NEWS/150619853

http://www.redbluffdailynews.com/article/ZZ/20130903/NEWS/130908131

and by the way he did not get a trail by Jury because the Court said : Infractions do not get Jury Trials.

http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/42/supp4.html


by the way if you start fighting the state and system, they can declare you a Vexatious Litigant. A Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action.
https://youtu.be/Gil5ZtLO4po

https://youtu.be/Pi_3qP5ZLt8

https://youtu.be/zGNJ7ma-NHE


Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[jorluivil]

This thread is like herpes.........................just when you think its gone:eek:

[Silbaugh4liberty]

This thread is like herpes.........................just when you think its gone:eek:
It's just proof that statists and slaves are still the majority in this country. We just need to "drain the swamp" [emoji38]

Either that, or my buddy Kevin suggests that we need a Purge!! [emoji6]

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[DPevin]

Just drop links to the free thought project and its social media outlets so people can go see their memes and catch phrases for themselves and we can stop beating this dead horse...

I agree with the sentiment that government is run by corporations and doesn't give two rips about its people (or those that actually do aren't able to get anything done regardless of their efforts due to said gov corruption.)

Points have been made, minds ultimately won't change....

You all are better than most for standing by your convictions and taking action on them.

:cheers1:


It's just proof that statists and slaves are still the majority in this country. We just need to "drain the swamp" [emoji38]

Either that, or my buddy Kevin suggests that we need a Purge!! [emoji6]

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...

[MITCHELL]

CDFG checked my license yesterday at LJ, it was the first time, outside of diving, I've been checked while fishing on a kayak. Make sure to bring that fishing license ladies and gents.

But I was working a combination of three poles fishing for a trout limit of 5 after that I move on to another fish species. So one pole soaking and the other 2 being rotated with bait and lures. Well the game warden had binoculars on me.
And went and got a boat to come out to me and wrote me up for to many poles. Not knowing if I broke the law or not. I signed the ticket and thought to my self a $150 fine no big deal. Well hi way fking robbery the fine was $1180.00 who's the crook here. So I decided to go to court and fight it. The game warden didn't show and it was dropped. I would have paid $150 or $200. But I got off
Scott free

[JohnMckroidJr]

But I was working a combination of three poles fishing for a trout limit of 5 after that I move on to another fish species. So one pole soaking and the other 2 being rotated with bait and lures. Well the game warden had binoculars on me.
And went and got a boat to come out to me and wrote me up for to many poles. Not knowing if I broke the law or not. I signed the ticket and thought to my self a $150 fine no big deal. Well hi way fking robbery the fine was $1180.00 who's the crook here. So I decided to go to court and fight it. The game warden didn't show and it was dropped. I would have paid $150 or $200. But I got off
Scott free

Wow, that would have sucked to pay $1180.0 for using an extra rod! Good thing the warden was a no-show.

Glad they don't have any rules like that in Florida, I routinely drag 2 live baits while casting ahead with a lure. We do get visited on the water periodically to check licenses and catches, but all the wardens I have dealt with have been very courteous.

Wardens do monitor YouTube in Florida. A fellow yaker was ticketed for what the warden though was an offense on a video, but we had email correspondences from his headquarters to prove him wrong, so the ticket was invalidated.