Steve
I know that I get caught up in these insults too, but simply won't take any crap from Kent.
Keith
> It is also difficult to imagine that one needs to be an “expert” measurer to get a point within 4 inches of a 210 foot line. Beyond that, MONUMENTS DO NOT CONTROL OVER SENIOR RIGHTS.
Absolutely right, Mike. Monuments do not control over senior rights. I would never say anything contrary. It's the law.
However, as surveyors, we too often find ourselves "measuring" ourselves against ourselves. Yes, I agree that 4 inches in a 210 foot line is a travesty from a measurement standpoint. There is nothing in the law, however that gives any concern over that fact. Yes, there are administrative remedies to employ to sanction a crappy surveyor. That has nothing to do, however, with boundaries and the law about boundaries.
Kent has portrayed my position as advocating this "pipe." That is entirely false, misleading and has never been my position. He's flat out lying about it. His words are not to be trusted. He's lying.
I have only taken the position that it's nice to know the numbers and it's fun to play geometrician, but WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE THAT MATTERS? A surveyor cannot tell if the pipe controls this boundary or not from the information that Kent posted. All we're given is a bunch of numbers and presuppositions. What is the real evidence that will matter in a court of law? Kent hasn't presented it because he 1) hasn't gathered it, and 2) doesn't think it's important enough to gather.
If you'll look closely at Kent's "sketch" you'll notice that the pipe at the northeast corner of the west 100 feet (119) is accepted by Kent and a bend is placed his precious "senior line" between 114 and 123. We're also made to blindly accept that 128 and 130 are original undisturbed monuments when the whole 210x210 lot is completely distorted. We're going to complain about 0.32' when the original surveyor couldn't mark a 210' box within a foot? Kent's story has a lot more to it than meets the eye.
But then, we all know if anyone were to ever question Kent's process or procedure for determining a boundary, they must be a lunatic. If so, maybe Kent has properly portrayed me as one. So far, he's been unable to prove his point without misstating my opinions and flat out lying about my views. He needs to learn how to present his own views without misstating others'.
JBS
> Kent has portrayed my position as advocating this "pipe." That is entirely false, misleading and has never been my position. He's flat out lying about it. His words are not to be trusted. He's lying.
Well, the good news is that what J.B. posted will probably eventually be available in the POB Message Board archives. They apparently aren't available for search at the moment or I'd read his words back to him so that we might all marvel at what he actually posted that he now wants to deny.
> A surveyor cannot tell if the pipe controls this boundary or not from the information that Kent posted. All we're given is a bunch of numbers and presuppositions. What is the real evidence that will matter in a court of law? Kent hasn't presented it because he 1) hasn't gathered it, and 2) doesn't think it's important enough to gather.
Actually, in the thread in which J.B. made free with his opinions, there was plenty of information presented that showed the situation. Just because J.B. evidently can't recall either what I posted or what he did doesn't mean that I don't. :>
> If you'll look closely at Kent's "sketch" you'll notice that the pipe at the northeast corner of the west 100 feet (119) is accepted by Kent and a bend is placed his precious "senior line" between 114 and 123.
Obviously J.B. doesn't remember the problem, that line is not in fact the line of a senior survey. Several lots merged into one ownership and that angle point is a corner on the subsequent division of them.
> We're also made to blindly accept that 128 and 130 are original undisturbed monuments when the whole 210x210 lot is completely distorted.
It sounds as if J.B. wants to object that the original monuments can't be original because they don't match the platted calls between them! LOL!
> We're going to complain about 0.32' when the original surveyor couldn't mark a 210' box within a foot?
See, that in a nutshell (and I do mean "nut") is the problem with the J.B. postings. He objects that original monuments can't define a boundary because there is an excess of distance between them over the platted call of 210 ft.! How else to understand what he writes?
In other words, J.B. apparently is confused about what is one of the most fundamental principles of boundary control, that of original monuments over calls for course and distance. Since there were errors in the original survey of the subdivision, apparently in J.B.'s view that means that no boundary may be definitely determined in spite of the fact that the original corner monuments are in place! Once again, that fails the laugh test.
