strip banner

new-logo25Don Bird


How Clear Can Law Be?

We all know what the term, Supreme Law of the Land, means. Well, every one of the fifty states have a supreme law of the state, which is its Constitution, to which every state official is bound by an Oath of Office. The California State Constitution sets forth in Article I, Sec. 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 …”
Nonetheless, a criminal complaint is proceeding within the Tehama County Superior Court, California, seeking prosecution of Don Bird for executing his constitutional right of fishing upon the open waters of California. Below is his argument in his defense;

*                  *   *

Fish  & Wildlife Finally Hooked

I have a mandatory appointment with the Tehama County Superior Court    September 23, 2013 at 1:30 PM. My “Fishing Without A License” citation (so called infraction) will be my  showcase Declaration of Three of our Constitutional Rights. The following Quotes should enlighten the Judge to  dismiss this citation because my plea will be “Innocent”  until Proven Guilty.

“The  state cannot diminish rights of the people”  And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,

“Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.”

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to  the point – that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to  the people? Other cases are even more straight forward:

“The assertion of Federal Rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under name of local practice.” Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate  them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

” The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”

Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489

“There  can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of  this exercise of Constitutional Rights.” Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946

We  could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question –  Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which  shall be made in Pursuance thereof;…shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one  word withstanding.”

In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the  Members of the Several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States  and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or  Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”

Here’s an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials?

If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony  and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their Constitutionally protected rights. Our system of  law dictates that there are only two ways to legally  remove a Right belonging to the people. These are:

1.  by lawfully amending the Constitution, or

2.  by a person knowingly waiving a particular Right

I had a brief discussion with the Game Warden on the wording of Article One, Section 25. He refused to cite me on our first meeting and expressed he would be consulting with his superiors, and get back to me. Mr. Mitch Carlson called me late that afternoon and advised me that I was interpreting Article I, Section 25 wrong. I believe he was referring to the word “conditions”. The reasoning of his reading cannot ever usurp or trump the key word “Right”. This is the reason I demand my Jury “Right”. The Jury of my peers will make the decision – not a Judge or Fish and Wildlife              Representative. Any and all court cases that were argued on this exact issue, that decided against this well defined Constitutional “Right” is Null & Void. Any Judge who ruled in favor of Fish and Wildlife hasn’t the  intellectual integrity to understand the words of the  “Oath” of office.

Don Bird