Are Surveyors Immune to Prosecution?

[Jim Frame]

The thread subject is the title of a Jeff Lucas article in the November issue of XYHT (though I corrected the improper use of the possessive seen in the magazine). Lucas concludes that it's very unlikely that a surveyor will get sued over a negligent boundary. The one case in which I was involved -- a clearly negligent disregard for field evidence of a long-established boundary that ended up costing both plaintiff and defendant well north of $100k apiece -- didn't touch the offending surveyor, his employer or their insurance carrier (though his employment ended soon after the judgment against).

However, I've often seen Dave Woolley speak of surveyors who got their financial clocks cleaned due to malfeasance. So is Lucas just blowing smoke, or is there something to his claim?

The digital version of XYHT can be found here: https://issuu.com/diversionspub/docs/xy ... KAE9_zU1NQ
The Lucas article is on the last page.

[RAM]

Good question, at a minimum, the individual is more exposed to licensing action by the Board. If enforcement action is taken, ALJ has awarded restitution to the client. The ability to continue to practice is a significant consequence.

[Ric7308]

In California, I believe if licensed land surveyors were immune there would not be a need for 8776. But it is there, and likely for a reason...and been used...

8776.
(a) A licensee shall report to the board in writing the occurrence of any of the following events that occurred on or after January 1, 2008, within 90 days of the date the licensee has knowledge of the event:
(1) The conviction of the licensee of any felony.
(2) The conviction of the licensee of any other crime that is substantially related to the qualifications, functions, and duties of a licensed land surveyor.
(3) A civil action settlement or administrative action resulting in a settlement against the licensee in any action alleging fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, breach or violation of contract, negligence, incompetence, or recklessness by the licensee in the practice of land surveying if the amount or value of the settlement is greater than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).
(4) A civil action judgment or binding arbitration award or administrative action resulting in a judgment or binding arbitration award against the licensee in any action alleging fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, breach or violation of contract, negligence, incompetence, or recklessness by the licensee in the practice of land surveying if the amount or value of the judgment or binding arbitration award is twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or greater.
(b) The report required by subdivision (a) shall be signed by the licensee and set forth the facts that constitute the reportable event. If the reportable event involves the action of an administrative agency or court, the report shall set forth the title of the matter, court or agency name, docket number, and the dates the reportable event occurred.
(c) A licensee shall promptly respond to oral or written inquiries from the board concerning the reportable events, including inquiries made by the board in conjunction with license renewal.
(d) Nothing in this section shall impose a duty upon any licensee to report to the board the occurrence of any of the events set forth in subdivision (a) either by or against any other licensee.
(e) Failure of a licensee to report to the board in the time and manner required by this section shall be grounds for disciplinary action.
(f) For purposes of this section, a conviction includes the initial plea, verdict, or finding of guilt; a plea of no contest; or pronouncement of sentence by a trial court even though the conviction may not be final or sentence actually imposed until all appeals are exhausted.

[DWoolley]

I appreciate Jeff Lucas writing these articles and starting a discussion. Hat tip to Jim Frame for posting the Lucas article "Are Surveyors Immune to Prosecution?".

Jeff Lucas’ closing line “Consequentially, the land surveying profession is slipping away right in front of our eyes, the question remains, are we going to do anything about it”? As regular readers know, I certainly share his sentiments. A “sky is falling” compadre.

The premise of the article is correct. There are a lot of donk boundary surveys and very few of the land surveyors will get sued for their work. These same land surveyors would be vulnerable to a lawsuit.

I will address a couple of specifics from the article. Any land surveyor or person that states “they can sue me” has never been sued. I have little trouble visualizing a land surveyor saying it. Anyone familiar with the process would work very hard to avoid being sued. Anyone that would say “they can sue me” is a fool and the listener would do well to put some distance between yourself and them, quickly.

As to the statute of limitations for land surveyors, Lucas is from Alabama (I believe), are governed by state law. California statute of limitations begin upon discovery. A problem found today on a boundary established ten years ago begins tolling today. The California boundary surveys are sleeping liabilities until the land surveyor’s death.

In my experience, naming a land surveyor as an individual in the lawsuit is usually something the attorney has thought through and has a reason for doing so. When I was sued, the plaintiff named the company and named me as an individual. The specific reason for naming me as an individual was an effort to intimidate me and/or to try to influence my testimony on a case in which I was the designated expert witness. A story for another day, maybe an episode for a Ten-Minute Surveyor.

Again, in my experience, a California attorney has no issues with naming the land surveyor as an individual if it serves the purpose. A reason for not naming the individual is because the individual does not carry a separate insurance policy outside of the company policy. When named as an individual the land surveyor is required to answer the complaint and this may be on the individual's dime, who else would pay for it? The same guy that says “they can sue me” is sure to think he can represent himself – another hassle for the attorneys, including the judge. The judge gives a lot of procedural latitude for pro per defendants. The plaintiff’s attorney runs the risk of getting on the bad side of the judge in presenting a case against an individual that is in pro per. I have seen this firsthand.

The other side of the coin is the individual land surveyor has assets and the damages being sought are not covered by the policy or a lack of a policy. In California, the protections provided by being an entity i.e. corporation are not as stringent or may not be as clearly defined as in other jurisdictions, like Alabama. Typically, the attorney would have to prove the business, and the individual are the same entity, alter ego doctrine. The corporate veil protection is not absolute in California. See California Labor Code 558 for an example of naming individuals for corporate misdeeds and liabilities not being sheltered under the corporate umbrella.

I have several recent firsthand examples of land surveyors being named individually:

1. The land surveyor makes an alleged $5 million error. The company policy is good for $2M. The insurance company offers the plaintiff $2 million, and the plaintiff sues the individual land surveyor for the remaining $3 million. Apparently, the land surveyor is near retirement age and has a house without a mortgage. Besides being illegal, it is to late now to try to hide the assets.

2. A boundary is incorrectly established, the lawsuit is eight figures (this means there are eight numbers, and two commas left of the decimal point). In addition to the company, the first land surveyor named as an individual in the lawsuit no longer works for the firm, the second named individual land surveyor still works for the company.

Personally, in addition to being sued as an individual, I have seen several land surveyors sued as individuals. It is more of an exception than the rule.

Jeff Lucas touches on “detrimental reliance” and “does not include the next-door neighbor”. Generally, this is true. I believe Lucas is referring to privity of contract for standing. However, in California, there can be liability for third party reliance – this is the neighbors. Ten years ago, I wrote a white paper on this topic that is specific to land surveyors referencing Biakanja v. Irving, 49 Cal. 2d at 650 i.e. Biakania factors.

My paper can be found online. I found this link that offers the correlation to professional services: https://casetext.com/case/biakanja-v-ir ... -ascending

There is sure to be many legal aspects that I do not know or have not yet experienced.

Bottom line, land surveyors are not "immune to prosecution" in California.

DWoolley

[Jim Frame]

The specific reason for naming me as an individual was an effort to intimidate me and/or to try to influence my testimony on a case in which I was the designated expert witness.

I'm under the impression that California's litigation privilege provides nearly iron-clad immunity for expert witnesses. How did your plaintiff's attorney propose to get around that?

[DWoolley]

The specific reason for naming me as an individual was an effort to intimidate me and/or to try to influence my testimony on a case in which I was the designated expert witness.

I'm under the impression that California's litigation privilege provides nearly iron-clad immunity for expert witnesses. How did your plaintiff's attorney propose to get around that?

You are 100% correct, sincerely impressive for any land surveyor to know that. However, that does not mean that I could not be sued - as I was.

I was named as an individual and a corporation in a class action for slander of title, cancellation of instrument and declaratory and injunctive relief for a record of survey I filed. The "class" in class action was every lot in the neighborhood "...in excess of 50 members of the Plaintiff Class". The lawsuit included salacious terms like "co-conspirators, aiders and abettors" and "agency, joint venture, alter ego". The Defendant "...moved and/or removed nine (9) pre-existing survey monuments...".

The first trial was paused until my trial was concluded.

My good fortune includes knowing some legal gangster attorneys that offer no quarter to those wishing to harm me.
I have been in and around a lot of nasty litigation, I was protected and I can earnestly state nobody wants to be named as a Defendant.

Another day, another thread or a Ten Minute Surveyor episode I will do the Paul Harvey "Rest of the Story". Oddly, I had forgotten about this experience until this thread came up, repressed memory?

DWoolley

[desert turtoise]

The American justice system is setup to encourage young people to gain wealth by becoming corporate lawyers. Did you know recruits just out of law school are signing for $200k corporate slots their first year of employment ?
So I am a CA LS who happens to live in Mexico. Fortunately, the legal system is simplified here in both civil and criminal cases. The party who is able to pay the judge wins the case. The other party understands that and lengthy, costly litigation is minimized. Sometimes the corrupt system is the better system.

[DWoolley]

The American justice system is setup to encourage young people to gain wealth by becoming corporate lawyers. Did you know recruits just out of law school are signing for $200k corporate slots their first year of employment ?
So I am a CA LS who happens to live in Mexico. Fortunately, the legal system is simplified here in both civil and criminal cases. The party who is able to pay the judge wins the case. The other party understands that and lengthy, costly litigation is minimized. Sometimes the corrupt system is the better system.

Desert turtoise:

I do not think we can place the blame on corporate lawyers. Don’t hate the players, hate the game. There are many forms of corruption. I suspect your system has a form of means testing i.e. a Defendant pays what he can afford. Our system of justice is more exclusive - the more wealthy, the more justice you can afford. Exhibit A, see Sackler family.

Regular folks, like most readers on this forum, can be targeted and ultimately, indiscriminately crushed from professional existence and/or the ability to earn a living. Whether or not a person is honest, dishonest or simply, ignorant is not the consideration. My resume includes destroying small tenured family-owned businesses (and wrecking havoc on big businesses), freezing bank accounts, suspending licenses, maintaining judgements against businesses and individuals and other permanent life altering legal actions. There were some bad actors in the mix, but in hindsight, many of these folks unwittingly slow walked into the deep end of the regulatory pool and they were summarily drowned by my team.

If a regulatory body specifically targets an individual in California there is no escape and there will be hell to pay. I have maintained a clean house and yet, I will not be immune or given any quarter if they come for me. I believe 100% regulatory compliance in California is impossible - the Legislature passes thousands of laws each year. I have no idea which laws I may be out of compliance in following.

Unsolicited advice? Keep your head down, stay off everyone’s radar and hope to die in your sleep before you are old enough to collect social security. As a younger ambitious idealist, I missed that train years ago and await an enemy's knock on the door. I will not cry foul - I have chosen to live and work in the state of California.

It has been my observation, on the way up you'll find you have many friends and on the way down you will be alone.

DWoolley

[Jim Frame]

Keep your head down, stay off everyone’s radar and hope to die in your sleep before you are old enough to collect social security.

I think Dave is being hyperbolic. I'm down with the first two suggestions -- they've allowed me to make a comfortable living without having a big target on my back, and I've been collecting Social Security for awhile now -- but I don't think the third one is good advice for anyone practicing responsibly. ("Responsibly" includes carrying adequate insurance, and "adequate" depends on the size of the target on your back.)

[Peter Ehlert]

Dave: I do my best to keep my head down. So far I have been lucky (knock on wood). Never been investigated.

Jim: I don't dis-agree, I just don't like having to ask Government to give me permission to earn a living... and I prefer to be self insured

Desert Tortoise: my Personal experience with the legal system in Mexico has been favorable, and I have seen no evidence of inappropriate behavior. Perhaps your Personal experience has been different.
What part of Mexico are you in?

[LS_8750]

To echo Mr. Lucas' question, "what are we going to do about it?"
Ventilator Blues.

What is there to do about it?

Boundary work boils down to knowledge of the law of boundaries and practicing within the framework of the law.
Either one practices within the framework or not.

Voodoo = Ego = Sue me mentality = outside the framework of the law of boundaries.

There ain't no money in boundary litigation. Except when one or both (or multiple) parties have the money to play the game.
Does money guide the law?
How much justice can you afford?

How often does big money with bad surveyors win over modest means and quality surveyors?
Intimidation is a huge strategy in our legal system.

How is it that intimidation strategists find "sue me mentality" type surveyors to do their dirty work?
Again, ain't no money in boundary litigation. Cheap = Cheap.

What is there to do about it?

[Peter Ehlert]

For me: first step: keep my client out of trouble...
Whatever that takes, just do it.
... every case is different

[jamesh1467]

The American justice system is setup to encourage young people to gain wealth by becoming corporate lawyers. Did you know recruits just out of law school are signing for $200k corporate slots their first year of employment ?
So I am a CA LS who happens to live in Mexico. Fortunately, the legal system is simplified here in both civil and criminal cases. The party who is able to pay the judge wins the case. The other party understands that and lengthy, costly litigation is minimized. Sometimes the corrupt system is the better system.

I got a good chuckle out of this. I don't mean to pick on you, but it gave me a good laugh.

It is the recruits out of the top law schools that get that money, the Top 14 to be exact. Everyone else for every other school, its only the top of their classes that get a slot in a firm like that, and even then they have to be pretty lucky. They work or worked pretty hard to get to that level where they get paid that much. It didn't just happen.

Most people who get a slot with those firms don't want it and want to do other things with their lives to make a bigger difference in the world. That's what realistically qualifies them for those slots to make that much money and to go to those schools. They have ambition, drive and a vision for what our world could be and those schools gave them the tools to change the law, not just use it. Thats why they get paid so much. Because they know how not just to win for their clients but also to change the law as they go in favor of their clients.

At the higher levels, its typically a revolving door between politics and private practice. Thats where the political appointees go between administrations on both sides. Thats why the money rolls in. Because the partner on your case when you are being investigated by the SEC used to be the head of the SEC in the last administration or something. The system is what it is, its been around for a long time. Both sides of the political spectrum support it. Its not really going anywhere. But it has also always been there.

Our system is over 200 years old. It could probably use a little tweaking. But don't pretend that those guys 250 years ago didn't have good ideas. I've been on a Federalist Papers kick lately, so to quote Madison:

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

The judicial/legal system we have today all comes from our constitution and our system of government they gave us. If you are saying Mexico's system is better, you are implying that we should change to their system. And if we are going to change it, by definition, you are saying the founders got it wrong, and it needs to be changed. Most of what most people are actually pissed about comes from the things we have done to adapt our founder's ideas to the modern age. Not the underlying system itself. But again... what's the solution? We were a country of about 3 million people at the founding and scaled by a factor of 100. Things had to change and we had to build the government after they died. To expand on Federalist 51 implication, our government reflects our human nature. Its a reflection of who we have been and how we have adapted our founder's ideas over the past 2 centuries. And in comparison to Mexico..........

As far as this whole post.....it’s a shit show. Contrary to what I have seen implied here, there is no right answer. The original article in that magazine is both right and wrong. People squeeze through all the time without liability, and some people who don't deserve it get liability for no reason. Life is a shit show. It really is. I've seen blatant errors that I was so sure I was going to be deposed about or potentially named because millions were on the line on something that I knew was a blatantly negligent boundary decision. Nothing ever happened. The things I have seen my firms or people I know named in....they did not deserve it at all and people just dragged it out to get payouts when they didn't deserve it. Just wait to get named in an ADA lawsuit as a small business. You will know what I mean.

At some point, you just have to accept that you have no real control over it other than the decisions that are in front of you and that the system does well in the aggregate, even if it gets it wrong sometimes. My biggest problem with surveying after having pretty decently dived into the system for California is that I question whether it does well or provides value in the aggregate anymore. At least compared the advancements we have made in the last 50 years in modern technology. Half the conversations I ever hear about is how surveyors question the accuracy of modern technology. Looking backward at labor-heavy past methods, saying those are the only ones that can be trusted instead of going forward towards innovation in our industry. The world is moving on. We cannot be a profession that constantly looks behind us, being an anchor on society that drags it down. I'm pretty fearful that is who the surveying profession has become.

Also if you’re wondering, surveying licenses are one of those things we created after our founders died off. It’s something we did to adapt their ideas to a growing nation because we couldn't just send every boundary issue to the courts. But just because it’s an old idea doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not a fundamental idea that cannot be changed. Governments evolve with the people they are governing. Constantly.

Assuming we get past this little hiccup at the Supreme Court. (again, I massively disagree with not filing an amicus; it became a 100% unnecessary risk to not file something the second it went to conference and they asked for a response, even if the risk of them granting cert of low, the consequences if they grant it warrants a response) The absolute best thing that could happen right now is that young people start joining the CLSA and that young people get the PLS. With all due respect, there are way, way too many old voices and not enough young ones here. Really with everything I am seeing in Surveying. I know union chiefs who left the industry in their late 20s after 10 years in to pursue other fields. Its not good. It really isn't.

To give you a direct example of all this so you know I am not bullshitting because the surveyor who signed it (one of my old mentors) has passed. He did not make the error, and he was a good guy who put up with a lot of shit from higher-ups at the company with incredible skill, (he was the survey department head) but he didn't catch the error by unlicensed staff. We were the surveyor for both of these new buildings. This blue line was mistakenly placed for the building on the bottom. I think it was a 5' error in our boundary determination for the building on Hawkings. Overlap between the parcels. We said 5' of land existed that did not exist. 3 other PLSs confirmed it was placed in error internally because we were so worried about what to do. As in, we remeasured like 4 or 5 times, I think, with multiple different crews? These buildings went up without any concerns. One after another. If you are wondering, I was the one who found the error, not the one who made it. If I know the old owner, he found a way to weasel out of it somehow with a zoning variance or something due to housing needs. I never found out whether it just was never discovered, and everyone (including all the LS's) swept it under the rug or if a deal was made because I left before the second building got started. My guess is that they swept it under the rug because both buildings went up way too fast for there to have been any kind of disagreement or complication. I think there was only a year between them being built.

Again, life is a shit show. There is no right answer for the civil cases. Make the best decision you can right in front of you and try to live up to your own ethics. That's all you can do. Hopefully the 4 LS's let you into the profession judged your ethics well. If not, that's kind of on them, and the board is probably coming for you eventually anyway because some people here will try to put you on the Board's radar to try and come at you from the licensure perspective. The board is going to do what it is going to do and this whole fear tactic thing that the board is going to come down on you is getting a little old. Its the SME's at the board that are running this thing and it seems like it could be getting pretty damn out of control because we didn't do anything to follow our founding father's guidance when we made this system for determining board violations.

To tie this whole SME thing back into Federalist 51's determination: You all gave the SMEs the rights to control you, but you don't have a single damn control over them. The way I see it, you have 3 options:

• Make an actual standard of care for California that SME's will not be able to deviate from. This is the easiest and simplest and requires very, very little change to our current structure at the board. Every other state has done it, almost every other profession has done it (including attorneys, which says something), and its what I am was trying to do to get some kind of order back into this system. (again, I did publish a draft standard of care).

• Put some kind of check on SME's by having some kind of election once every few years from all licensed surveyors as to who gets to judge the actions of other surveyors outside of a court of law via board violations. Basically, make the SME's semi elected offices from within the pool of licensed surveyors in California (follow our founders ideas and basically create a republic)

• Remove the SMEs from the equation altogether for licensed professional violations and force the board to have every surveyor judge the decisions of all licensed surveyors who come under rule violations every year. Once a year, everyone with a license gets to vote on the actions of each surveyor that comes up for violation every year. All of our funds we currently spend on SME's with enforcement of licensed persons get a summary created by the board and everyone with a current license gets to vote on whether or not the surveyor broke our standard of care (this may seem enticing, but our founders would have been against it, they were pretty against a direct democracy)

Otherwise, I am just going to say it: this system with the board and SME's is very ripe for corruption. I don't have specific evidence that it has happened, but this shit stinks. Anyone can anonymously report someone to the board and then someone get paid to review that case? I would be absolutely amazed if that hasn't been exploited yet.

But in summary, from a civil perspective, unless you are an a**hole that pisses people off all the time so they want to sue you, there is no use worrying about a civil suit. Its either going to happen or its not going to happen and there's not a lot you can do about it. In my opinion, any surveyor's primary concern should be with an overzealous board action that (potentially??) has ulterior motives in reporting you to the board anyway. Ask practicing surveyors. Everyone with experience knows: the biggest fear for someone with a license in surveying is the board, not the courts. And it seems like its completely out of control. Thats is not how its supposed to work. You aren't supposed to fear an unelected body of bureaucrats.

I don't really have any reason to blame staff at the board, either. Their only job is to implement the system you give them, not change it. They are civil servants. Not policy makers. If you want things to change, tell them they have to change it.

In any case, enjoy the forum content.

[Jim Frame]

Ask practicing surveyors. Everyone with experience knows: the biggest fear for someone with a license in surveying is the board, not the courts.

As a practicing surveyor, I can say that I don't fear BPELSG, nor do I fear the courts. I do think that if I ever get called on the carpet for a boundary decision, it'll come from a client's disgruntled neighbor, not another surveyor, but that's what E&O insurance is for. As far as statutory compliance is concerned, I reckon I can demonstrate it well enough. (Well, except for that *one* project that fell out of bed in the mid-'90s that I *should* have filed a ROS on...but that's another story.)

I sleep well at night. Any practicing surveyor who doesn't might want to review his ethics.

[DWoolley]

...
Otherwise, I am just going to say it: this system with the board and SME's is very ripe for corruption. I don't have specific evidence that it has happened, but this shit stinks. Anyone can anonymously report someone to the board and then someone get paid to review that case? I would be absolutely amazed if that hasn't been exploited yet.

But in summary, from a civil perspective, unless you are an a**hole that pisses people off all the time so they want to sue you, there is no use worrying about a civil suit. Its either going to happen or its not going to happen and there's not a lot you can do about it. In my opinion, any surveyor's primary concern should be with an overzealous board action that (potentially??) has ulterior motives in reporting you to the board anyway. Ask practicing surveyors. Everyone with experience knows: the biggest fear for someone with a license in surveying is the board, not the courts. And it seems like its completely out of control. Thats is not how its supposed to work. You aren't supposed to fear an unelected body of bureaucrats.
...
In any case, enjoy the forum content.

Nonsense Discussion of the Mechanics

In my experience, the Subject Matter Experts (SME) - I am not sure they are called an SME - have varying levels of skill and knowledge. I have seen good expert reports and testimony and equally, some poorly written reports coupled with disjointed incorrect testimony. The rules would prohibit someone from reporting a person and serving as the expert for that case. The BPELSG staff will first ask if the expert knows the licensee before discussing the case. Again, in my experience, I would be surprised if there were SME grifting shenanigans. The grifting land surveyors have better paying gigs that are less subject to scrutiny – they may not be good at surveying, but they know the grift.

Typically, the expert is limited to the number of hours dedicated to reviewing the work product. It takes at least twice as long as the hours offered i.e. the expert will spend 10 hours on a 5 hour review – cutting the meager hourly review wages in half. I do not know any experts that didn’t put in more hours than will be allowed under the billing structure. Most of them view the work as giving back to the profession – oftentimes, they are feeding their curiosity and ego in equal parts. Fair enough, whatever gets them on the job for half the pay.

As stated above, there are some weak experts in the current system that lack competencies. The incompetency is not always readily observable and Dunning-Krieger tells us incompetent people actually believe they are awesome. For example, I sat through a hearing and listened to the expert testify he was licensed in 1982 had performed numerous BPELSG reviews and yet, in the 25 years of licensure he had never attended a single class, seminar or done anything to further his knowledge (not.one.thing.). He went on to misread and misapply Brown’s boundary book. The final kicker? He had only filed 6 or 7 records of survey, mostly lots in a modern tract, in only 2 or 3 local cities in the same county, during his 25 years of licensure and he was testifying as to another person's record of survey procedure and boundary establishment failures on a difficult boundary. Wonder how he came by way of the boundary knowledge? Yeah, me too. Last I knew, he still serves as an expert.

Fear Not BPELSG Enforcement

This SME portion of the discussion above, in all practicality, is nonsense. Remember that about 10% of the complaints will be referred to a formal disciplinary action (AG/hearing process), real rubber, real road. Most of these cases are settled before a hearing. Another 30% of complaints are referred for a citation that may not actually result in a citation. This leaves approximately 60% of the complaints to be washed without action – historically this has been closer to 70%.

For Joe Average, there should be no realistic fear of being in the 10% - unless the respondent gets stuck on principle or will not swallow an incorrect SME opinion, the pride will cost. The surveyor working a grift should not fear the citation process. The maximum citation is $5000 – the grifters are likely to purloin more than that any given week in the 60+ weeks of investigation. Besides, seldom is a $5000 citation issued. A DMV late registration fee is more comparable to a typical citation. Based on my observations, the citation seldom disrupts or impacts any flimflam operations.

If BPELSG looks at you, be aware of your rights – there was an article in a past CalSurveyor explaining your rights – be responsive, flop around a bit, cry as needed, feign contrition, kiss the ring (forget the ring, return to GO) and hopefully, end up in the 60% of no action taken or in the alternative, pay the citation and spend the rest of your life bemoaning the unfairness of it all.

Unsolicited advice, BPELSG is not the place to look for or to expect even-handed justice or professional vindication, save your money, pay the citation and get on with your life. You are not going to change the system and they are not going to break the grift – this leaves many practitioners in the middle.

Another observation, the grifters are not exclusive to the unlicensed or small garage operations. This is our ecosystem, don't spend your days like Diogenes of Sinope looking for one honest man.

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

There is a hearing today for a 30+ year licensee in the heart of the Benson Bullseye. The licensee is facing license revocation for performing two monument tangos and filing records of survey showing the same. Additionally, apparently a lack of knowledge on the California Public Resource Code (CPRC) requirements. The CPRC is specific to the use of GPS and the California Coordinate System, initially enacted in 1996-97, and yet, amazingly, I find land surveyors having no knowledge and/or willfully violating these laws.

Imagine a 30+ year licensee that firmly believes boundary surveying is calculating the boundary from the underlying record, finding two monuments and setting the lot corners at the record location, ugh. Now imagine how many incorrect boundaries were performed over a 30 year career, staggering. It is impossible to quantify the damage. I am left to wonder how many folks were "mentored" under this licensee.

This licensee didn't get the chance to pay the citation and pass GO. Nothing says Christmas like a hearing to revoke a license. Nothing says Hope like a licensee being taken to the wall for two monument tangos and not knowing the CPRC. The wildcard will be the BPELSG expert. I have seen them unable to articulate land surveying fundamentals under scrutiny.

DWoolley

[LS_8750]

Ah yes, quite the kaleidoscopic wonderland the Bullseye is....

[Peter Ehlert]

Ah yes, quite the kaleidoscopic wonderland the Bullseye is....

Yes it is.
I was Always checking for possibly fraudulent, maybe not.

....and how to Prove, beyond a shadow, my opinion is correct. And properly documented publicly.
I don't need any skeletons.