Holy Cow, post: 439344, member: 50 wrote: In the distant (internet-based) past there was a label applied here by one poster on another. Who was who in the matter has been forgotten, but I believe the term used was "mental midget in the corner" and I believe said individual was being chastised for speaking up.
Actually, it's revealing that you have inserted the adjective "mental" that wasn't present in the original posting which was "pay no attention to the midget in the corner". It's no secret that the midget in question went on to convince the Oklahoma licensing board to give him a license that a search of the roster indicates is no longer in force. So, you may be correct.
I can't recall whether he rode for Paden Cash's rodeo or not.
Kent McMillan, post: 439339, member: 3 wrote: Actually, the principles laid out in the US Supreme Court's decision in Clement v. Packer have been cited in other states, referring specifically to Clement v. Packer. While I appreciate your desire to relitigate Clement v. Packer, you're wandering in more than a century late and with no visible support.
Well, Kent. The fact that other courts may have found Clement v. Packer as persuasive argument does not make it precedent setting for all 50 states. You were wrong in 2011 and you are wrong now. Just because you find the facts inconvenient to your position does not make those facts meaningless or wrong. In case you forgot here is Clement v. Packer. For your convenience see the underlined text below from the decision.
In an action of ejectment in a circuit court of the United States sitting in the Pennsylvania which involves a question concerning the location of the boundary of a private estate, that rule of evidence respecting the admission of declarations of deceased persons touching the disputed boundary which is laid down by the highest court of that state is the rule to govern the action of the circuit court at the trial, and it is well settled in that state that declarations of a deceased person touching the locality of a boundary which was surveyed and located by him, which declarations were made to the witness in, pointing out that locality, are admissible in evidence
I presume that you know that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. When the litigants are from different states, a federal court may be petitioned to hear the case based on diversity. The Erie Doctrine states that the federal court will use the state's substantive law to frame their decision. The Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938) decision by the U.S. Supreme Court settled how to apply a prior decision of the U.S. Supreme Court based on diversity. I'm not relitigating Clement v. Packer, I am stating that it is only a precedent for the state of Pennsylvania.
I'm sure you recall that you used Clement v. Packer back in 2011 to whack Keith Williams over the head with a precedent setting SCOTUS case. You and other seemed to take delight in attacking him because he did not accept it as a precedent for other states. Your lack of civility and shoddy scholarship in quote mining from Clement v. Packer that it was a precedent in all 50 states, was and remains incorrect. I know you are incapable of admitting a mistake, but facts are facts. If you truly wanted to know more about diversity and the Erie Doctrine, you would have done some reading rather than continue with your stylistic insults. Sorry, if this shocks you Kent, but I could care less about your maudlin feelings towards me. My interest in 2011 and now about the Clement v. Packer case is to show that not all SCOTUS decisions are the same. Some only apply to one state.
Cheers
Kent McMillan, post: 439347, member: 3 wrote: ..I can't recall whether he rode for Paden Cash's rodeo or not.
Nope. Not even close.
However what is revealing is that he now resides and works in Texas. This only confirms a developed hunch of mine. 😉
paden cash, post: 439349, member: 20 wrote: However what is revealing is that he now resides and works in Texas. This only confirms a developed hunch of mine.
When Oklahoma sends its people, they??re not sending their best. They??re not sending you. They??re sending people that have lots of problems, and they??re bringing those problems with them. They??re bringing RTK. They??re bringing trailers. They??re button pushers. And some, I assume, are good people.
Gene Kooper, post: 439348, member: 9850 wrote: I'm sure you recall that you used Clement v. Packer back in 2011 to whack Keith Williams over the head with a precedent setting SCOTUS case. You and other seemed to take delight in attacking him because he did not accept it as a precedent for other states.
You've obviously forgotten the context of the discussion, but want to wander in without any means of support to wave aroud your pet ideas of what it was about. Surely there's a phrase for that, isn't there?
The rest of the claims you make are non-germane and not worth discussion. Is "intellectual vagrant" really too strong a phrase for someone who wants to relitigate a question without actually remembering what the question was?
Kent McMillan, post: 439353, member: 3 wrote: When Oklahoma sends its people, they??re not sending their best. They??re not sending you. They??re sending people that have lots of problems, and they??re bringing those problems with them. They??re bringing RTK. They??re bringing trailers. They??re button pushers. And some, I assume, are good people.
Sounds like Texas needs to build a wall.....
Tom Adams, post: 439357, member: 7285 wrote: Sounds like Texas needs to build a wall.....
To keep the Texans IN???
😎
Loyal, post: 439359, member: 228 wrote: To keep the Texans IN???
😎
I am thinking Texas wants to build it and have OK pay for it to keep the Okies out .....but we don't need to discuss some of the other side-benefits.
Kent McMillan, post: 439354, member: 3 wrote: You've obviously forgotten the context of the discussion, but want to wander in without any means of support to wave aroud your pet ideas of what it was about. Surely there's a phrase for that, isn't there?
The rest of the claims you make are non-germane and not worth discussion. Is "intellectual vagrant" really too strong a phrase for someone who wants to relitigate a question without actually remembering what the question was?
No, Kent. You are the one that is being intellectually dishonest. You posted the Clement v. Packer case and represented it as a U.S. Supreme Court case that set a nationwide precedent regarding junior senior lines. Remember when Keith asked for a case that would apply to western states and you brought it to his attention....repeatedly!! You do realize that anyone can use the search function and reads your 2011 posts, don't you?
As surveyors we are tasked with applying the law. That requires a wee bit more effort than the shabby quote mining you did. If you invest a little time and critically read the Erie Doctrine you would reverse your position (I won't be holding my breath).
As an aside, back in 2011 I mentioned to an attorney your ignorance of diversity cases and your erroneous assertion that the Clement v. Packer case was a precedent for all 50 states. He was still giggling an hour later. You go ahead and hold dear to your false data and misinterpretation of the applicability of the case. Everyone knows that you will never concede that you are wrong. Texas courts may very well have determined that the above case is persuasive argument for dealing with senior and junior lines in Texas. That doesn't mean that either Clement v. Packer or Texas case law is precedent in Colorado. Colorado courts are free to regard them as persuasive argument or to ignore them completely.
What can I add, We have the Red River that will swallow people and then the Feds get involved and build bridges.
It's so easy to see the attraction. Here's a photo of one of the Texas/Oklahoma state corners. Looking southeast from Oklahoma at Texas. This is the tri-corner with New Mexico.
That would have to be the loneliest survey marker I've ever seen. Certainly stands alone. Probably what those that try and act with Collegiality do too.
Re the topic. Here one is made to feel guilty and put down even if the only misdemeanor is not to agree with the other person.
Public vilification follows.
It happens in all walks and seems for many the only way they know to deal with matters.
Disrespectful, offensive, typically 'you've hurt my feelings' and now apologise.
I think we've moved past even congenial or Collegiality.
A sad state of affairs.
Gene Kooper, post: 439364, member: 9850 wrote: You posted the Clement v. Packer case and represented it as a U.S. Supreme Court case that set a nationwide precedent regarding junior senior lines.
Not at all. As I recall, what I posted was that in its 1888 decision of Clement v. Packer (125 U.S. 309), the US Supreme Court had made the obvious observation that:
"It is unquestionably true that a junior survey cannot control or enlarge the dimensions of a senior survey."
This was made as an unqualified statement of jurisprudence, as if it were something so obviously true as to require no further discussion. It did tend to pull Keith Williams teeth out since as far as he was concerned, any monument supposedly marking the corner of a junior grant would immediately readjust the boundaries of the senior grant it supposedly adjoined.
Should we understand that you also believe that any marker set by a surveyor on the line of a junior grant in conflict with some senior grant also automatically adjusts or redefines the boundaries of the senior grant?
Intermission time. Gotta make popcorn to survive this.
A short film:
[MEDIA=youtube]mp-WQX2nACg[/MEDIA]
Kent McMillan, post: 439353, member: 3 wrote: When Oklahoma sends its people, they??re not sending their best. They??re not sending you. They??re sending people that have lots of problems, and they??re bringing those problems with them. They??re bringing RTK. They??re bringing trailers. They??re button pushers. And some, I assume, are good people.
Te quiero como a un hermano..pero....It's not Oklahoma that is sending, it's Texas that is buying folks. And it's not unique to just Texas and Oklahoma. A vacuum in the workforce numbers in a profession sucks up all the human debris that is available. Survey gypsies have been around as long as there has surveys.
I'm assuming you are blaming poor surveys in Texas on surveyors trained up in rectangular systems that go down there and "screw things up" with their RTK. I'm sure that happens. But I've ran into a number of newly licensed folks here in Oklahoma from Texas that brought with them some really awkward procedures with the influx of pipelines and wind farms. Some have created havoc.
I guess I'm just glad the two states could reciprocate in trading off the dregs of the profession. 😉
.."they??re not sending their best. They??re not sending you"...oh you sliver tongued devil, you make me blush. Flattery will get you everywhere.....even it's really not true...
Randy Rain, post: 439283, member: 35 wrote: A general disinclination towards common courtesy, and collegiality. Discourse in general is becoming impossible without vitriol and contempt
Holy Cow, post: 439344, member: 50 wrote: In the distant (internet-based) past there was a label applied here by one poster on another. Who was who in the matter has been forgotten, but I believe the term used was "mental midget in the corner" and I believe said individual was being chastised for speaking up.
I'm not sure I see a downward progression. Let us not forget how several years ago many of us proudly wore the title "dippy idiot" when we disagreed with a certain poster, nor how many were banned for uncivil talk in the early days of this forum incarnation.
Kent McMillan, post: 439371, member: 3 wrote: Not at all. As I recall, what I posted was that in its 1888 decision of Clement v. Packer (125 U.S. 309), the US Supreme Court had made the obvious observation that:
"It is unquestionably true that a junior survey cannot control or enlarge the dimensions of a senior survey."
This was made as an unqualified statement of jurisprudence, as if it were something so obviously true as to require no further discussion. It did tend to pull Keith Williams teeth out since as far as he was concerned, any monument supposedly marking the corner of a junior grant would immediately readjust the boundaries of the senior grant it supposedly adjoined.
Should we understand that you also believe that any marker set by a surveyor on the line of a junior grant in conflict with some senior grant also automatically adjusts or redefines the boundaries of the senior grant?
Kent, please feel free to continue with your, DID TOO, DID NOT alternative to addressing what you said in 2011....yawn.
And, if you are truly interested in my views regarding the topic, please read the thread I started on <a href="" http://" ;" https://surveyorconnect.com/community/threads/special-surveys-and-mineral-surveys-chapter-x-2009-manual.330583/ ">Special Surveys and Mineral Surveys - Chapter X, 2009 Manual. I didn't choose the land tenure system in Colorado, nor do I find it particularly entertaining to wax philosophic about its strengths or weakness. The Colorado Board promulgated rules that the 2009 Manual should be used as a guide (Hint: use it unless you have a good reason not to). Chapter X has instructions on how to deal with technical gaps and overlaps. I am also aware that the BLM is authorized to determine the boundaries of the Public Lands. In that thread, I suggested how a private surveyor might handle situations where bending a line through intermediate corners is appropriate and when it is not. Please comment there if you have any questions about my views on the topic.
One thing I would never do is to invoke the Clement v. Packer case to support a decision not to bend a line through intermediate monuments. It has NO precedent in Colorado, so why would I? You attacked Keith with a, "U.S. Supreme Court" opinion by declaring it to be a nationwide precedent. In reality it is a Pennsylvania case with a fact set that was not applicable nor precedent for PLSS states (or Texas for that matter). And you wonder why Keith and I dismissed your obtuse rhetoric? Really?
Cheers
(With snoot pointed skyward) May I please have those three minutes of my life back to put to far better use, Mr. FL/GA?
Gene Kooper, post: 439380, member: 9850 wrote: One thing I would never do is to invoke the Clement v. Packer case to support a decision not to bend a line through intermediate monuments. It has NO precedent in Colorado, so why would I?
So, what you're saying is that you agree with Keith Williams' nutty views or are you saying that you actually agree with the general principle stated as if it were an obvious proposition in Clement v. Packer, i.e,
"It is unquestionably true that a junior survey cannot control or enlarge the dimensions of a senior survey."
but just don't think that as a general principle it applies to Colorado? it seems to me that you can't have it both ways, eh?
