Florida Lozeau Resurvey

Not that I know of.

An aluminum monument was found in 1986 at the SW1/16th corner with no indication of who set it but it is probably not the Moorhead monument (I'm guessing that is a 5x5 concrete post). It is unknown if there is an aluminum monument at the CS1/16th corner.

I haven't heard anything either, but next Friday at the ISPLS conference, this is slated for an afternoon discussion:

Stanley French: "2009 BLM Manual of Surveying: Serious Items"

Could be interesting..............

I would like to be there to hear that!

Suppose the bogus theory of subdividing sections will be discussed?

In reading the case I get hung up on a basic premise underlying the court's opinion:

"Sections were divided into squares of quarter sections containing 160 acres. The quarter-quarter section corners are placed on the line connecting the section and quarter-section corners, and midway between them. Although theoretically conceived and invisible, these lines are not merely theoretical concepts but are real lines, actually run and marked on the ground with terminal points monumented by surveyors acting under the authority of the cadastral engineer of the Bureau of Land Management. "

That is an ignorant misunderstanding of the facts, to say the least.

The original survey of T14S R24E was done in 1835 and the plat accepted by the Surveyor General in 1837. The original plat is available on the BLM website. It shows no protracted lines of any kind within section 15, and shows no quarter or quarter-quarter corners from which to protract lines. Even if it did, a referral to the instructions in use in 1835 would show that deputy surveyors were not tasked with running interior lines "marked on the ground" in sections, so the concept that they did so, and did so under the authority of the cadastral engineer of the BLM, which did not exist until more than one hundred years later, seems totally fictional to me.

If the quoted premise is wrong, then what value is rest of the case?

Darn good question and reading of the bogus premise of this case.

Can we suppose that the court got it's decision language from expert testimony on how to subdivide a section?

The Court completely misread any and all facts that had to be testified to and can only guess that the opposing counsel did not have the ability/knowledge to refute the obvious misleading statements.

Some may understand why I am constantly putting this issue up front and continually bringing it up and just maybe, the BLM powers that are, will actually address the bogus issues in this case and actually write a response to my questions on what the BLM policy is?

The BLM that I know and love, did not shirk from stating their policy up front and explained in detail what that policy was and why.

Some may think I am burning bridges in BLM and maybe so, but do you see anybody else that is issuing a challenge to what I believe to be the number one survey/resurvey issue that demands an explanation?

I have 31 years experience in BLM having to do with cadastral surveys that are performed by BLM Land Surveyors and about 20 of those years, I was in the Washington Office of the Division of Cadastral Survey and can address these issues as they should be addressed.

One gets to see it all when in the headquarters office of an organization and I have been there.

Those in BLM have to be aware that I will not quit this endeavor until they issue their opinions. They read these threads and I can understand why they do not respond to certain issues, publicly, but they can be expected to respond to me privately.

As I have stated in other places, that I have not received mail in the last 15 or so days, I will pick up the mail tomorrow and if there is a letter from the BLM Director, I will so respond here.

Hey guys in DC. , wake up! It is only going to get worse!

Keith