CDFG

[YakDout]

^ did you get OJ off the hook??

[wiredantz]

And I quote:Hello Mr. Gonzalez:

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

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

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



End of quote

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


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


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

[Silbaugh4liberty]

Originally Posted by wiredantz

And I quote:Hello Mr. Gonzalez:

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

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

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



End of quote

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


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


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

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

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

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

Good job on standing up to the man!

So who's fishing this weekend??



Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[jorluivil]

Originally Posted by Silbaugh4liberty

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

[wiredantz]

O4

Originally Posted by wiredantz

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

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


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

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



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



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

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


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

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




I replied to Mrs. ORME Liz from CDFW:












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

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




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



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

[Mr. NiceGuy]

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

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

"principles are expensive."

OK, then let's go to trial.



I'm enjoying your efforts