OK
 

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...
 

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.

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/SB100014...68563658319196
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-onc...source/5320469
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/the-w...the-wolf/4312/
https://fee.org/articles/government-...e-environment/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ry-sonar-kill/
http://www1.american.edu/ted/project...s/xoilpr15.htm
http://www.academia.edu/3266058/DEPL...E_PLANET_EARTH
http://www.brighthub.com/environment...les/68899.aspx
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26124989

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.

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.

I didn't voluntarily buy a license, I bought one under threat of force - aka extortion.

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/conventi...clos/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.

isn't the common name for that congress?

Attachment 20017

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

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.

license
 

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...

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?

@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.

Our Government is Great but it's what we have....
 

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. ;)

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?

https://pp.vk.me/c619521/v619521221/...FhEc70id2k.jpg

Fish free or die

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.

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

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.

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/...ttoHunFish.pdf

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

Good NEWS CDFW Responded:
 

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,

^ did you get OJ off the hook??

response from CDFW
 

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

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

O4
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).

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...333_pWvM9.jpeg

I'm enjoying your efforts :)

Attachment 20039

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

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

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.....

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

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/w...psvo4wemww.jpg

#challengejurisdiction [emoji6]

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

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

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)