Rivers v Lozeau
> The C 1/4 corner should have no more influence on the established N line of the SE 1/4 SW 1/4 than the W 1/4 corner. Why would you stub in the C 1/4 corner anyway? Why not stop stubbing at the NE cor SE1/4 SW 1/4 if you are stubbing?
>
> While its correct that the BLM was not on trial the results of a private survey using the BLM resurvey were and the court was talked into beleiving the 1986 private survey reran the origianl line. Poppycock! The 1986 survey was an illegal independent resurvey at best.
>
> And here we go with incorrect location again. Should stubbing in have been used? No
> Should that make the corners accepted by the owners no good? NO! For goodness sake, if every incorrectly located monument is no good, why set any? What's the purpose of land surveying?
I'm not defending the Whit Holley Britt survey, the Moorehead survey, the BLM survey or the Court's decision. My opinion matters little.
I am simply trying to provide clarity on the facts as they are written.
From the writings in "Clark", Moorehead stubbed in the C-1/4 and based his breakdown of the SW 1/4 on his stubbed work.
Lozeau's surveyor in 1986 did not accept Moorehead's method. The court agreed.
I don't know the specifics on testimony heard during trial court and presented to the court of appeals. I don't know what arguements were made other than those discussed in the appeals court opinion.
All I do know is that information being spread by Lucas and Williams about the case is contradicted by the writings of someone with first hand knowledge of the court's proceedings (see Clark). And I am discussing those contradictions, plus some revelations therefrom which have been absent from these discussions.
Take from it what you will.
Rivers v Lozeau
> So you are telling us that there is no FS survey in section 15?
To be clear, I am saying that one of the authors of "Clark on Surveying" has first hand knowledge of the case due to his involvement as a testifying witness. And in the supplement to his book, in Section 30.10, he states that the 1986 survey was a survey performed for, and hired by, Lozeau.
You're the only one I've heard claim the USFS performed a survey, you tell me if they did or didn't.
Rivers v Lozeau
Tell us who the FS surveyor was who did the subdivision of section survey that rejected the Moorehead previous survey?
I don't have your document that you refer to, so who is: You might also read there as to who the author of Clark was consultant expert for. You might find that surprising.
Rivers v Lozeau
Maybe there is/was a reason that I kept requesting the surveyor and the approving official to explain what happened?
Would you think that they should be proud of explaining the survey/resurvey that won in Court and clear up any questions on what happened?
Rivers v Lozeau
> Tell us who the FS surveyor was who did the subdivision of section survey that rejected the Moorehead previous survey?
>
> I don't have your document that you refer to, so who is: You might also read there as to who the author of Clark was consultant expert for. You might find that surprising.
I am unaware of any FS survey, only the survey performed for Lozeau.
The document, once again, is from the 2012 supplement to "Clark on Surveying", Section 30.10. This section provides the author's first hand account of the case facts.
Rivers v Lozeau
> Maybe there is/was a reason that I kept requesting the surveyor and the approving official to explain what happened?
>
The (BLM) surveyor and approving official were not part of the case. Their work was not disputed by the court or opposing sides. You seem to have a hard time grasping this
> Would you think that they should be proud of explaining the survey/resurvey that won in Court and clear up any questions on what happened?
One more time:
THE BLM SURVEY DID NOT WIN OR LOSE IN COURT. It was never on trial.
clearcut
So, you think they would be unable to comment on and explain the court case?
Rivers v Lozeau
> So, you think they would be unable to comment on and explain the court case?
Why would they? Their work was not on trial. They weren't involved in the case proceedings.
Its not their battle.
Contrary to the writings of some who should know better.
Rivers v Lozeau
Whether you want to believe it or not, it was their west 1/4 cor. that mucked up the section.
Period!
Rivers v Lozeau
> Whether you want to believe it or not, it was their west 1/4 cor. that mucked up the section.
>
> Period!
What I believe is of no matter and I am not offering my opinion either way.
What I do know is that the location of the 1/4 corner between Sections 15 and 16 was never questioned as part of the case between Rivers and Lozeau.
Contrary to what some have been claiming.
Rivers v Lozeau
Well you are right about that, and the losing side lost their case because of it.
Rivers v Lozeau
> For goodness sake, if every incorrectly located monument is no good, why set any? What's the purpose of land surveying?
I keep reading Hodgman's little book:
– New surveys disturbing old boundaries are not to be encouraged.
Toby v. Secor, Wis., N.W. Reporter, Vol. 19, p. 79.
– Lines long unquestioned ought not to be disturbed upon a mere disagreement among surveyors, especially when the last survey made is under the unfavorable circumstances of corner posts and witness trees being gone, which it is probable to suppose were in existence at the time of the first survey. Case v. Trapp, 49 Mich., 59.
-The lines run to divide sections into halves and quarters, if erroneous, may be corrected, for they are subdivided by law; and if the officer in running the subdivision line makes a mistake, it can be corrected by running the line according to law.
Nolin v. Parmer, 21 Ala. 66, 70.
- in A manual of land surveying: comprising an elementary course of practice with ...
A Manual of Land Surveying
and leads me to this
—in which Mr. Justice Simpson wrote: "*** It is well settled that the government survey of lands into sections does not establish the ground location of the interior subdivision lines, such as we have here, but provides a basis for locating such lines.”
- in Deese v. Odom, 1969
Rivers v Lozeau
:good:
The BLM should have used the 400'-offset marks as evidence to help them determine the original location of the section corners in their dependent resurvey in my opinion. The private survey was basically a "dependent resurvey". Some may say that a private surveyor isn't authorized to do a dependent resurvey, but I would argue that that is what we do all the time whether you call it that or not.
Rivers v Lozeau
The document, once again, is from the 2012 supplement to "Clark on Surveying", Section 30.10. This section provides the author's first hand account of the case facts.
I don't have that section and don't plan on getting it!
Rivers v Lozeau
I don't think "stubbing out the C1/4", even if true, has much to do with why the Moorhead and Holley surveys disagree by 30'+/-.
In 1965 Moorhead surveyed in the interior lines using the W1/4 corner that was in the state road bed and very close to the midpoint of the W section line.
In 1982, the BLM resurveyed the exterior of the section, disagreed with the established W1/4 by 139 links (92'), for a so called "proven" corner, which by their notes, they found nothing. No monument or accessories.
The 1986 Holley survey followed the BLM's 1982 work. Do the math based on the BLMs 1982 plat. Then do the math again based on the W1/4 being 139 links north ... not surprisingly, that 139 links makes a difference of about 28 feet at this location...
Forest Surveyors, Private surveyors, stubbing corners is just a smoke screen. No one can explain why the mysterious W 1/4 corner moved. It was this movement that caused the Rivers case.
To me, given that timeline, there is no reason to think that Morehead didn't base his 1965 survey on the best evidence at the time. He did not know the BLM was going to effectively move the W1/4 nearly 20 years later. This case says to me that all aliquot parts lines are subject to change in the future if a government surveyor decides to reject an established corner for a "proven" corner.
Tom
I am sure you are right and even though I don't have the first subd. of sec. survey plat, I would bet that their monuments line up with that "other monument" in the road for the 1/4 sec. cor.
And that first subd. of sec. survey was ignored by BLM and the Court.
Rivers v Lozeau
You have nailed it Pseudo and is why I keep hammering on the bogus theory that only takes the protracted lines as evidence of those lines and forget any previous surveys that are not on those lines.
And you are right about the west 1/4 sec. cor. position. Very flakey!
Maybe why I am pushing for an official opinion from the Director on this bogus theory?
Wouldn't it be a hoot if BLM decided they did not like their resurvey on that 1/4 sec. cor.?
Probably can't ask for that much!
Rivers v Lozeau
Too bad that somebody with standing did not officially protest the BLM resurvey on the west 1/4 sec. cor. and let IBLA have a hearing and get the facts out for all to understand.
And it is never too late for a protest!
Rivers v Lozeau
> I don't think "stubbing out the C1/4", even if true, has much to do with why the Moorhead and Holley surveys disagree by 30'+/-.
>
> In 1965 Moorhead surveyed in the interior lines using the W1/4 corner that was in the state road bed and very close to the midpoint of the W section line.
>
I'm unclear by your statements as to whether you've actually reviewed the 1965 Moorhead survey.
Have you, and if so can you provide a copy?
How about the 1948 Moorhead survey that the BLM based their reestablishment on?
thanks in advance.
Rivers v Lozeau
Moorhead doesn't share their information, I've tried, others have tried. Just do the math based on the 1982 BLM plat. If you use the alternative locations of the W1/4, It works out nearly perfectly with the 28.31' discrepancy between the Moorhead and Holley survey. And yes, I know the BLM claims to have used Moorhead field notes to "prove" the W 1/4. However, if you noticed, they also point out that even Moorhead did not rely on their so-called "proven" corner, and instead used the established corner.
To me, there is no debate that the W1/4 corner that Holley relied on is wrong. Given that the state road runs E - W, west of the W1/4 corner, pull up some the legals to the west ... they all seem to think their north and south boundaries runs along the road, and centerline of section, rather than 90' south of the road ....... should we move those lot lines, too? The Florida courts think so.
http://pubarcims.marioncountyfl.org/arcimsweb/MCBCC_General/viewer.htm
