[Victims of Court Corruption] California Fish & Game Challenged in Court

California Fish & Game
Challenged in Court

When is the Law not the Law? This is the challenge asserted by Mr. Don Bird of Tehama County, California, in which he is cited for fishing in California. The California Constitution, Article I, Section 25 states as follows;

"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."

Mr. Bird's position is that the later provision has not been violated, and thus, the State of California cannot make a crime out of his right under the Constitution to fish upon the public lands of California.

Below is Mr. Birds' declaration to the Superior Court of Tehama County. Those wishing to contact Mr. Don Bird regarding this issue may do so at patriot@rtr.net.

Superior Court of Tehama County - Declaration to the Court

            I have enclosed documents that support my plea of innocence in this case, and ask the Court to agree and dismiss. If the Court grants a dismissal with an explanation, I will continue this matter with the Fish & Game and the Legislature. The Alternative of what I will enact reads as follows.

            If the Court ignores the well defined wording of Article I, Section 25 of the California Constitution and assess a "Fine", I will then declare that I am unable to pay any fine of any amount. My subsistence is totally dependent on Social Security ($750 monthly). I will declare to the Court that I have provable medical reasons why I am now and in the future unable to perform any community service. It is my sincere hope the Court agrees and finds in my favor.

            My closing statement will better explain my position in this matter.

            If the unconstitutional denial of my 6th Amendment Right had been supported, Article 1, Section 25 of the State Constitution would have been settled. Now we move to the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The wording clearly indicates "until I am duly convicted of a crime", "Involuntary Servitude" applies to me. The demand for a Jury Trial is also supported in Article I, Section 16 of the California Constitution.

            I will appear for an interview to perform community service. This will be my non-negotiable position:  I am not physically fit to do any work now or in the future. If I am required to present a letter from a doctor, I will require the County to contact my doctor for this information. I will provide my doctor's name and contact number -  nothing more. I will appear for this interview once, and it will be video recorded.

            The Following statements alert this Court as to my primary reason why I will never pay a fine or do any community service.

           
            Article 1, Section 16.  Trial by Jury is an inviolate right and shall be secured to all, but in a civil cause three-fourths of the jury may render a verdict. A jury may be waived in a criminal cause by the consent of both parties expressed in open court by the defendant and the defendant's counsel. In a civil cause a jury may be waived by the consent of the parties expressed as prescribed by statute.

            In civil causes and cases of misdemeanor the jury may consist of 12 or a lesser number agreed on by the parties in open court.

            Amendment XIII, Slavery, Section 1.  Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

            Black's Law, 7th Edition, Crime:  A social harm that the law makes punishable; the breach of a legal duty treated as the subject-matter of a criminal proceeding - Also termed criminal wrong. SEE OFFENSE.

            "Understanding that the conception of Crime, as distinguished from that of Wrong or Tort and from that of Sin, involves the idea of injury to the State of collective community, we first find that the commonwealth, in literal conformity with the conception, itself interposed directly, and by insolated acts, to avenge itself on the author of the evil which it had suffered." Henry S. Maine, Ancient Law 320 (17th ed. 1901).

            " It is a curious fact that all the minor acts enumerated in the penal code of a state like, say, New York are in law called crimes, which term includes both murder and overparking. It is a strong term to use for the latter, and of course the law has for centuries recognized that there are more serious and less serious crimes. At the common law, however, only two classes were recognized, serious crimes or felonies, and minor crimes or misdemeanors." Max Radin, The Law and You 91 (1948)

            Note:  The word "infractions" is never mentioned.

            If this Court is able to produce any evidence that trumps Article I, Section 25 and have  a Jury deliberate the arguments, this issue will be settled. Until that time I will keep on fishing until I am proven guilty by a Jury.

            I have stated all the valid reasons why it would be prudent for this Court to dismiss this citation.

                                                Thank you,

 

                                                Donald M. Bird