BTW, I thought that most every software used to create contours has an option to ignore points with zero elevations.
Most every job I have some point data that was collected or created in the office that does not amount to a hill of beans and does not get into the final product.
I also create points by entering deed and easement calls into my work that have no elevations and sometimes they do not even truely relate to exisiting locations because there are no shared points.
When the other party does not actually have proof, they introduce doubt anyway they can. I think the legal term is called "muddying the waters".
I have had more than one attorney attempt to get me to agree to a lie while on the stand by talking senseless garbage. That is part of their job to get you to discredit your own testimony.
It is a hard process to find an opening among the garbage questions being presented to relate the truth of the matter.
When a professional is spewing lies and garbage, that is unforgiveable. It is expected from the attorney, not from the expert witness.
Apparently some of you haven't dealt with lawyers and court much.?ÿ Was he unethical??ÿ Not really.?ÿ He took the data, looked at and said there were problems.?ÿ Its sort of true.?ÿ It up the other lawyer to show how this bad data wasn't important and wasn't used.?ÿ?ÿ I personally would find it hard to testify in such a case and might refuse but I'm not sure it unethical.?ÿ
One thing to keep in mind lawyers are a persons advocate.?ÿ They can actually believe their client is wrong but still go to bat for him.?ÿ While this lawyer may know and understand the original surveyor didn't use the wrong data he will still try to paint him as mistake prone.
An "expert witness" has a lot more leeway in answering questions than to simply be guided to a predetermined answer by an attorney painting a picture for his client's behalf.
Apparently some of you haven't dealt with lawyers and court much.?ÿ Was he unethical??ÿ Not really.?ÿ He took the data, looked at and said there were problems.?ÿ Its sort of true.?ÿ It up the other lawyer to show how this bad data wasn't important and wasn't used.?ÿ?ÿ I personally would find it hard to testify in such a case and might refuse but I'm not sure it unethical.?ÿ
One thing to keep in mind lawyers are a persons advocate.?ÿ They can actually believe their client is wrong but still go to bat for him.?ÿ While this lawyer may know and understand the original surveyor didn't use the wrong data he will still try to paint him as mistake prone.
He should not have generated a topo that included information that Surveyor A did not see fit to include in his final product.?ÿ There is a reason those points were not used.
?ÿ
?ÿ
I started to reply to this but the angle on my right shoulder said: "If you can't say something nice it probably is not worth saying".?ÿ
Sorry, Daniel.?ÿ ?ÿI can't resist.
?ÿ
Unless the question was framed by the attorney so that this is the answer, it appears to qualify as slander and therefore unprofessional - notify the State Board.?ÿ
Witnesses are often asked to educate the judge by one or the other attorney, so the answer should be: "most, or all documents prepared by surveyors contain data that is properly analyzed or adjusted, and does NOT include some data regurgitated from the machines that are purposely left out".?ÿ "The lawyer is trying to get me to say that good survey work means taking raw data from the machines and stamping it, and that is not my answer" (ok, the lawyer and judge only want "yes" or "no", but that is what they SHOULD ask)
?ÿ
?ÿ
What is ethics or the standard in our?ÿ current society? Dont answer that. I don't think that any statues will be erected or prizes given for ethical behavior since the bar has been lowered to the ground. Tossing aside here the ethic complaining and chatter of professional courtesy, civil slander, prevarications with inflection etc, what is happening here is bad testimony. Stretching the truth or what appears to be true is common testimony. The tactic to discredit?ÿ the A survey and to disparage A's ability to complete the work is stretching the truth. Attorney B will twerk this argument before the court for his clients benefit hence the wacky plat offered by B. That is why there are objections and cross examination of evidence. I would suppose that A would have the wacky plat tossed out of the case. You would think that the A team would be jubilant if this was B's only line of BS to argue A. As others have mentioned, data sets with null elevation are common because of software inputs or instrument setting error.?ÿ
I've never seen a "Be Nice or Leave" sign in a courtroom only in bars and restaurants.
This was bad testimony.?ÿ
context is everything.
We are beating a dead horse. We only have a report of a small fraction of the proceedings to review.
Perhaps @frank-willis will be able to enlighten us someday.
We don't even know why A was in court in the first place... was he a Defendant or Respondent? (it matters)
I keep going back to the original post and trying to stay with black letter, but fill in the blanks.
It could have gone like this 30 minutes into his testimony:
Prosecuting atty: Mr B, can you tell us how these errors can happen?
Surveyor B: (responding with less than eloquent examples)
give him a break, he spends most of his life alone and his forte is measuring and analyzing and drawing pictures... not much time speaking in front of a court (probably his first and last time)
Perhaps he was slanderous, and unethical, and evil.
When we have that as Known Fact, then we should crucify him.
Due Process.
Depends
What is meant by "submits his survey"? ?ÿ Sealed paper print? ?ÿDigital files with contours? DTM? Any combination thereof? ?ÿWas the zero elevation information in the raw data submitted but edited out of the surface? Was the surface model bad and the contours edited so they didn't reflect the underlying data? What was the purpose of the original survey? Ad infinitum.?ÿ
Without more detail it's just an exercise in conjecture and confirmation bias
Depends...
...Ad infinitum.?ÿ
Without more detail it's just an exercise in conjecture and confirmation bias
Litigator B and hired gun expert B are playing the credibility game. Litigator A??s job (with the help of Surveyor A??s help) is to demolish Surveyor B??s testimony on cross examination?ÿ
This is a fictitious case, although I have seen things like this happen in the past.?ÿ I am preparing to teach a state seminar in one of the southern states for CEU on ethics and am trying to feel the pulses of the surveyors and engineers in order to develop an ethics seminar that might actually be interesting.?ÿ I appreciate all the input.?ÿ I have sat through ethics seminars and sometimes have almost fallen asleep.?ÿ I am hoping an ethic seminar with good examples will be useful.?ÿ I have a good many that are true in real life in addition to this that I'll be presenting.?ÿ I hope if stirs up a lot of conversation and isn't boring.?ÿ A mock trial is the best setting.
This is a fictitious case, although I have seen things like this happen in the past.?ÿ I am preparing to teach a state seminar in one of the southern states for CEU on ethics and am trying to feel the pulses of the surveyors and engineers in order to develop an ethics seminar that might actually be interesting.?ÿ I appreciate all the input.?ÿ I have sat through ethics seminars and sometimes have almost fallen asleep.?ÿ I am hoping an ethic seminar with good examples will be useful.?ÿ I have a good many that are true in real life in addition to this that I'll be presenting.?ÿ I hope if stirs up a lot of conversation and isn't boring.?ÿ A mock trial is the best setting.
mock trials are the best if you have good players. Glenn Kent in Louisiana did some excellent mock trials for ethics and such that were far from boring.?ÿ?ÿ
I??m in favor of mocking our trial court process which is the last vestige of medieval culture.
It would be good if more emphasis was placed on finding truth and fairness and less on testing the cleverness of the attorneys.?ÿ
Judges should ask a lot of questions and if there is a jury they should be able to submit questions to the judge who would ask the witnesses if the questions are reasonable.
The Attorneys hate it when the Judge asks questions.
The question and answer format is a big part of the problem.
No other major decision making process relies solely on questioning like that.
It would be good if more emphasis was placed on finding truth and fairness and less on testing the cleverness of the attorneys.?ÿ
Judges should ask a lot of questions and if there is a jury they should be able to submit questions to the judge who would ask the witnesses if the questions are reasonable.
Is it possible to "like" a statement X10.
Well said!
I would hope that we as Surveyors would have a higher Standard of Ethical Conduct than what attorneys display in court. I heard a well known attorney say:
When the Law is on your side, you agure the Law.
When the facts are on your side, you agure the facts.
When nothing is on your side, you just sgure.
I would hope that we as Surveyors would have a higher Standard of Ethical Conduct than what attorneys display in court. I heard a well known attorney say:
When the Law is on your side, you agure the Law.
When the facts are on your side, you agure the facts.
When nothing is on your side, you just agure.
Was at a seminar this weekend (MALSCE State Convention) where the speaker said that attorneys are legally and ethically bound to present the best possible advocacy for their clients.?ÿ He said that they were trained in law school by the maxim you stated, but with slightly different wording:
"When the law is on your side, hammer the law.
When the facts are on your side, hammer the facts.
When nothing is on your side, hammer the table."
By the way, he was an excellent speaker, and provided a great handout on the topic to the attendees.?ÿ Michael Pill, an attorney from western Mass.