LEGAL?

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Tue May 14, 2013 10:50 am

The map posted does list a firm. This firm ought to have an Org form filed with the board. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that there have been requests already to find out whose name is on the Org Form and whose work product it is that is under discussion here.

I think there is plenty to learn from work product examples that represent the BEST WORK PRODUCT.

Dave Lindell · Post by **Dave Lindell** » Tue May 14, 2013 11:49 am

The Secretary of State (of California) has a listing of corporations.

You have to enter the name EXACTLY as shown.

A responsible person's name will show up.

coast · Post by **coast** » Wed May 15, 2013 6:11 am

Yeah, yeah....great discussion!

BUT IS ANYONE OTHER THAN DAVE DOING ANYTHING BUT YAKING ABOUT IT?

Everyone seems to believe that on its face, this map is not legal....BUT:

1. Has anyone sent this map to the JPPC?

2. Has anyone filed a complaint with the Board?

3. Has anyone checked to see if a Record of Survey has been filed or one submitted to the County Surveyor?

We all need to help police our own profession. Support your local JPPC if you have one. If you don't have one, why not start one?

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Wed May 15, 2013 9:43 am

Inquiry sent to the Riverside Chapter JPPC

7702 · Post by **7702** » Thu May 16, 2013 6:17 pm

Another cite to consider from our Code of Professional Conduct, relating back to the defamation defense of being truthful:

(10) A licensee shall not falsely or maliciously injure or attempt to injure the reputation or business of others.

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » Thu May 16, 2013 8:33 pm

Thanks Mark, I would hole heartily agree.

The unfortunate thing though ... this is not a professional submittal. Why? not only for the reasons DWooley submitted, but also Board Rules 411 (g)(2)!

So therefore, this map is not of a professional opinion.

I may find a "Monument" (I use the term losely) and either accept or not accept it, either way ... it will be described as "Not of Record", If there is no record of it submitted to the local authority.

LS_8750 · Post by **LS_8750** » Thu May 16, 2013 8:47 pm

Still, Snoopy could put together a better presentation than that.

7702 · Post by **7702** » Fri May 17, 2013 3:09 am

Snoopy?

Maybe so, but he was also the "Flying Ace of World War 1". Obviously a very talented beagle, and not a fair comparison!

7702 · Post by **7702** » Fri May 17, 2013 12:00 pm

I may find a "Monument" (I use the term losely) and either accept or not accept it, either way ... it will be described as "Not of Record", If there is no record of it submitted to the local authority.

Off the track a bit for this thread, but I prefer to refer to such monuments as "Origin Unknown" as opposed to "Not of Record". There might be a record somewhere, but for whatever reason, I didn't/couldn't find it.

btaylor · Post by **btaylor** » Fri May 17, 2013 3:24 pm

7702 wrote:Off the track a bit for this thread, but I prefer to refer to such monuments as "Origin Unknown" as opposed to "Not of Record". There might be a record somewhere, but for whatever reason, I didn't/couldn't find it.

Everyone has their own style of course, but I prefer saying "origin unknown" if not tagged, and if tagged I say "NRF" for no record found. There may be a record, but I could have missed it.

7702 · Post by **7702** » Fri May 17, 2013 3:34 pm

Bryan,

I agree. If it's tagged, then the origin, as far as who supposedly set it anyway, is known.

btaylor · Post by **btaylor** » Fri May 17, 2013 4:57 pm

7702 wrote:Bryan,

I agree. If it's tagged, then the origin, as far as who supposedly set it anyway, is known.

Yes that was why I used that. "Origin unknown" did not sound literally correct to me, because I knew the origin. I just did not see a record of it.

dmi · Post by **dmi** » Fri May 17, 2013 7:40 pm

Map statements such as UNKNOWN ORIGIN OR NO RECORD, or no reference, tend to lead me to arrive at the opinion that the surveyor who recovered monuments, so labeled, was not able to, or did not, establish a pedigree for the such monuments.

E_Page · Post by **E_Page** » Mon May 20, 2013 3:36 pm

Nobody has made excuses. They've only said that there are those who haven't even asked the basic questions of: Who was this prepared for? What was its purpose? Was there an RS filed with more complete and explanatory info? Was it even a document intended for out-of-office use? Was it an exhibit that was intentionally simplified so that an audience such as a jury, a judge, or an arbitrator could focus on certain info, having been provided with a more detailed map containing all pertinent info.

Some are so eager to lead the witch hunt that it is proclaimed that there is no need to ask these questions. "We've seen the map!" "We know the person behind it is a scofflaw scoundrel!" "Burn the witch! Burn the witch!"

I wonder if it just makes some people feel superior about their own professionalism to denigrate others, and they need that feeling of superiority so much that they feel no need to gather all the facts prior to proclaiming judgment?

I find it embarrassing.

7702 · Post by **7702** » Mon May 20, 2013 5:24 pm

Personally, I think the document appears suspect, and the additional information provided of found "survey marker" monuments does nothing to extinguish the torch of any angry mob hell bent on justice. However, I think that the offending document could have been tastefully reviewed, and any necessary follow up complaints taken up with the local JPPC and/or the Board, without the need to identify the company in question on this forum.

That's just me, though. I feel if I set the bar unreasonably high for others, then I, too, should have to abide by it.

LS_8750 · Post by **LS_8750** » Mon May 20, 2013 8:15 pm

Please, everybody, concerning the topic at hand, and for the sake of maintaining the highest level of integrity for our dear profession, our dear Board, and our dear brethren the civil engineers.... Please, I urge you to click on the following link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU

It concerns the very subject of this thread, the sanctity of our profession, and society, as a whole.

And I urge you to contemplate the following: In this thread, who is playing the character of the newt?

Lee Hixson · Post by **Lee Hixson** » Tue May 21, 2013 4:23 am

Sorry, but that does not elevate the discussion (regardless of whether or not you were being facetious).

bryanmundia · Post by **bryanmundia** » Tue May 21, 2013 4:57 am

Evan,

I don't know that it matters as to the actual use of the document or what map creator intended for the plat or map. The fact at hand is that it made it into the public eye somehow. That document to the layperson could in all actuality be construed as a boundary survey.

Now, I have been taught that a map should stand alone. Whether it is an exhibit for a court case, preliminary exhibit for a boundary survey, or just a draft of a project you are currently working on, the map should stand by itself to explain what it's purpose is and why it is even being produced.

This can be done with a preamble or title on the map or you can simple put "draft" across the page if it is intended to be revised.

I think that those questioning what the maps use is and why it is being scrutinized are walking around with blinders on.

Simply put, if it goes out of the office either as a dwg, PDF, tiff, etc. and is delivered by hand, email or snail mail, you better be able to back up what is on the map.

Quit making excuses and take it for what it is, a substandard map that can inevitably harm the people we are trying to protect, the public.

I apologize in advance for any spelling errors, typing this on a phone is sometimes difficult.

California Surveyors Forums

LEGAL?

Ryan, I just sayin'

On its face not legal

OKAY COAST DONE

Bryan/Mark