I could have chosen from 3-4 different categories for this question, but I'm just curious. I went to the POB website where you can usually click the "Columns" button to see Lucas' "Traversing the Law" (I think it's called) and to my surprise there were a couple of nicely done columns there, but no Lucas!! I was disappointed because I always go there to see if I'm a footnote to the column, and if I don't have a stroke while reading it, I assume my blood pressure is in check. Anybody know if he has bailed from POB or is on another sabbatical or what? I would have asked on the POB forum but I don't want to wait two weeks for somebody to read my post. I went over there today and I read over a week's worth of posts in about 5 minutes, and no offense to the people over there, but I didn't find any topics worth the time investment to engage in.
maybe he's starting a new column
Static Surveying the Law.
well, it could be.
> I could have chosen from 3-4 different categories for this question, but I'm just curious. I went to the POB website where you can usually click the "Columns" button to see Lucas' "Traversing the Law" (I think it's called) and to my surprise there were a couple of nicely done columns there, but no Lucas!! I was disappointed because I always go there to see if I'm a footnote to the column, and if I don't have a stroke while reading it, I assume my blood pressure is in check. Anybody know if he has bailed from POB or is on another sabbatical or what?
Steve, I'll bet that Jeffrey Lucas, Esq. is just busy on the seminar circuit at the moment. I mean, surely there's an end-of-the-year rush to get CEU's in other states aside from Texas and I'll bet the material for those columns works one heckuva lot better in a darkened hotel ballroom than it does in print.
Kent - I looked at his website and it didn't mention ever having been a columnist in POB that I could see, and his seminar schedule seemed very light for the next few months. I just hope he's OK and that the decline of POB hasn't affected his livelihood in any way.
Ka-ching!
> Kent - I looked at his website and it didn't mention ever having been a columnist in POB that I could see ...
Okay, so maybe the better question is "who's Lucas?" :>
> > Kent - I looked at his website and it didn't mention ever having been a columnist in POB that I could see ...
>
> Okay, so maybe the better question is "who's Lucas?" :>
"If not the Lucas, then who?"
Lucas-is scheduled to be at the NY, PA and NJ conferences in Jan and Feb.
As stated above, he's probably already doing some of the earlier conferences.
Alabama surveyors: Was he at Alabama's conference last month?
Yes, he was at the ASPLS conference last month. He is in Kansas today. On Tuesday, he and I were at the Alabama Department of Conservation checking documents as they pertain to leases on public lands.
For those suffering from missing your monthly professional spanking here is a snippet from the Oct. Lucas Letter. I'm sure if you subscribe you can feed the need to fill the void.
The Legal Angle: By Jeff Lucas, Editor
Working as an expert, especially working as an expert in jurisdictions where I do not hold a land surveyors license,I generally do not perform another survey of the property involved. In most cases there are already two or three competing surveys. What will be gained from performing yet another survey of the property involved, especially when these other surveys are available for review and inspection? There is always some amount of field investigations that needs to be conducted and in some cases even a few basic measurement may need to be performed. In other cases some courthouse or legal research may also be involved. It never ceases to amaze me that the opposing side always tries to make a federal case out of the fact that I didn't perform my own survey of the property; as if the only function of the land surveyor is making measurements and mapping the results. This really shouldn't amaze me, in many cases this is the only argument they have. No—what really amazes me is that many surveyors have the same opinion about the function of the land surveyor.
More than amazing, it’s shocking that there are land surveyors who think so little of the profession that they see our only role as measurer and mapper. This is the same attitude that has tended to turn the profession of land surveying into a technical trade. If the land surveyor can only gather measurement facts and then represent those facts on a map of survey, then land surveying is just a technical trade. Trained monkeys can gather facts in the form of data points and it doesn’t take much more training to connect those dots on a computer screen. It’s one thing
to encounter this mindset from an opposing side in a legal battle, it’s another to encounter this mindset in supposed colleagues. One of my questions in “Point to Ponder” is; where is this written?
The answer to the question is it isn’t written anywhere. To the contrary, as this month’s case points out, there is more to land surveying than measurements and maps. The definition of surveying as found in every code section or administrative rule that I have ever read says as much. In my own homes state of Alabama it includes, “consultation … investigation, testimony, evaluation … and interpreting … information relative to … property lines.” Sec. 34-11-1(8), Code of Alabama, 1975. You will find a similar definition in your state law. It’s time to strap up our professional boots and quit acting like technicians. It’s unbecoming.
It is not only 'unbecoming', it is much less lucrative doing the typical half-a$$ed job and then hoping the lawyer can finish.
Years ago I said that shilling for lawyers is not a professional activity.
Our job is not finished until the public record is accurate.
Deed staking is not professional land surveying, that should be evident when an apellate court judge calls deed staking a 'bogus survey' but some 'surveyors' apparently can't understand plain english.
Richard Schaut
Mr. Schaut
I also remember you saying years ago that case law is not a reliable guide for surveyors. I happen to agree with you when the courts get the facts wrong due to bad lawyering and other factors and they rule on that basis. I don't remember the part of your statement, though, where case law is reliable if it allows you to post veiled insults against another surveyor even though you don't know what you're talking about. I would be happy to discuss that case with you or anyone else for that matter but I don't think you've ever shown an ability to have an actual two-sided conversation. Maybe you can find one of your half-dozen canned posts to insert at this point.
Mr. Schaut
case law is not a good guide particularly since a lot of actual appellate cases were not ultimately resolved the way the appellate court ruled because all they do is reverse (erase) the previous rulings so the parties get the joy of doing it all over again.
Mr. Karoly
Another reason is that they don't retry the facts, they take the facts that the podunk lower court decided were the facts and if the statute and case law fits the so-called facts brought up from the lower court decision, the decision stands whether or not the facts are true or not. I think it's more likely for a trial court to get the facts wrong than it is for them to apply the law incorrectly to the "facts" but the appellate system doesn't work that way.
The trial courts, in my limited experience, involve a game between the parties' attorneys to exclude evidence, true or not, that harms their clients and to include evidence and testimony that helps their clients. A search for truth may be the court's goal but the process doesn't facilitate that. It reminds me of my secretary's divorce proceedings she told me about where the judge told her "If you came here for justice, you came to the wrong place."
Mr. Gardner
imagine doing everything in a question and answer format. Not very efficient.
