rambleon
Here is a link to the BLM Eastern States Office in Virginia that has all survey records for BLM.
The township in question is in Florida and is; T. 14 S., R. 24 E., in Marion County, Florida and the specific section where the Rivers v Lozeau case is in section 15.
The court case is Rivers v. Lozeau, 539 So.2d 1147
Have fun!
Keith
linebender posted some thoughts about this case
and maybe he might want to repeat it here?
His post had a great analysis of the corners, lost and otherwise, in this court case.
Keith
Keith
Thank you for the details.
This will get quite interesting; I look forward to hearing the response. I will look up the case you cited.
I see so much written on related subjects, cases (not neccisarily PLSS) where the elements of convention, intention, interpretation and what some call "reasonableness tests" are all contrasted.
That the PLSS served as the framework for nearly all land aportionments in subject states leads some to discount nearly every other element of evidence and may in some ways endanger bona fide rights along the way. Clarification on an important matter is not any kind of dead horse.
I am certainly not versed deeply enough in the subject to hold too strong a view either way, so am definitely interested in the outcome.
Farsites
I am glad you are interested and I am sure that many more are too, just have not taken the time or effort to make a considered post!
Bona fide rights, might just have something to do with it????;-)
Rivers v Lozeau
Here is a link to the case:
http://www1.co.weber.ut.us/rs/surveyor/S-LS-Data/Survey-laws/cases/Rivers_v_Lozeau.htm
linebender posted some thoughts about this case
Why am I being dragged into this ? 🙂
breifly...
The 1835 notes call for a pond half a chain north of the quarter corner.
The line surveyed in 1969 appears to be based on a monument half a chain south of the pond.
The 1982 resurvey proportions a corner in a chain and one half south of the pond and even rejects a found monument half a chain south of the pond.
The rejected monument is about in the middle of road. Any bets that the road was not established on the quarter line??
The rejected monument is about midway between the section corners.
Let the fun and litigation begin!!
The case should have been a slam dunk the other way.
Thanks linebender
Thanks and I know you know a lot of the details to this case.
Keith
linebender posted some thoughts about this case
and of course all the interior subd. of sec. corners line up with this rejected 1/4 cor. monument, they were all rejected, and all new subd. of sec. corners were set on the projected line to this proportioned 1/4 sec. cor.
And nobody wants to step up and explain the circumstance that led to this fiasco!
linebender posted some thoughts about this case
Since you appear to be having a conversation about this case with the BLM, has the BLM ever given any indication that they are willing to review and explain their reasoning behind rejecting what seems to be the commonly accepted 1/4 corner? Or ever explain how they calculated their position, since both seem to defy logic?
Wouldn't it be something if the BLM changes their mind about this survey? Where does that leave the land owners in the original case?
TPR
Well I have thought about that and wondered how the BLM could back out now and in effect, go against the Appeals Court decision that ruled in their favor?:-/ :-S
I would think that they would be highly embarrassed at this point to attempt to convince the court that they in fact committed the error and would like to be forgiven and back out gracefully!;-)
Never happen at this point, and of course nobody is stepping up to explain/defend the resurvey.
That tells a bunch in itself.;-)
We shall see if the powers that are, respond to my inquiry?
If they don't, they are not the last step in running it up the flagpole!
I can tell you though, that it will be much easier to answer the questions now, rather than later!
Keith
TPR
To answer your question directly; no, I have not talked about or written about BLM changing their mind on the resurvey.
I guess it might be possible for the Secretary to withdraw the Statute authority for this individual case from BLM and reverse the argument?
At this point, I would not expect it to happen, unless certain staff people in the Secretary's office would recommend such action and prepare a Secretarial Decision stating so!
I do recall an instance where I was called to the Director's office and was told to write a Secretarial Decision that directed a certain resurvey in Calif. to be done a certain way. By 10:00 AM, I wrote the decision, was typed on Secretarial letterhead and some staffer from the Secretary's office had it signed by the Secretary by noon.
The effect of that decision was that the Secretary acted upon his own Statute authority and issued an order on how to do the resurvey.
Ya, just never know.;-)
I might add that politics was involved!
Keith
I admire and respect the fact that you retain such a keen interest in matters relating to the BLM and to fundamentals of land surveying. How long have you been retired from the bureauacracy? Is there a reasonable expectation that they will respond to you?
I like it that you still care. When I retire, you'll find me fishing without a thought of surveying in my brain 🙂
C. Campbell
Clyde
I retired in 1992 after 31 years with BLM and have been involved in many key arguments over the years and I came into the position of being responsible for the final interpretation of the Manual on Surveying Instructions, 1973 for the BLM. Naturally, I took that responsibility very serious and still am very interested in what is the policy of BLM in their surveying procedures. I have stated and I know that it is no secret within BLM on this bogus theory of subdividing only by useing the protracted lines on the original GLO/BLM survey plats.
I also know that the majority of those BLM land surveyors believe as I do, that it is a bogus theory.
Therefore, I can do more in my retired capacity as most within BLM can do to address the problem.
It became very apparent to me, some years ago, that I had to be serious about any correspondence that I wrote for the signature of someone above me.
A little secret that most people have no idea of how it works in the bureaucracy in Washington, DC.;-)
A letter would come to our office from some landowner that was not happy with an ongoing resurvey being done by a BLM land surveyor. I would send a letter to the BLM State Office and asking for an explanation of what was going on. If that explanation was satisfactory, I would respond to the land owner and explain what was going on.
The land owner would not be satisfied with my answer, that was signed by the Director, BLM and would write to the Secretary of the Interior and express his dissatisfaction with the Director's answer. The letter would come down through channels and I would write the response back for the Secretary's signature.
The land owner obviously would still not be satisfied with the answer and would then write the President. Well, it came down through channels, and I would write the response for the President's signature.
The land owner obviously would still not be satisfied, so would write to his congressman. The letter would come down through channels and would be in the blue folder that signafies a response to the Congressman. I would write the response back to the Congressman and that response would then go to the landowner.
One can readily see that is how the bureaucracy works and why I took my position serious. When I knew that the land owner had no clue that I was the one writing the responses, it did make my responses serious. It is not a flippant responsibility!
Hence, I still have an interest in BLM survey procedures and will point out to the powers that are, those bogus theories, as I see it.
To any land surveyor that is concerned with survey procedures; don't simply take the word of authors of books that may or may not know what they are talking about and in fact promoting bogus theories that have no place in the protection of bona-fide rights of land owners.
The bona-fide rights of land owners is the most important concept of land ownership and was expressed very well in the 1909 Resurvey Act.
In my opinion of course.
Keith R. Williams
Chief Land Surveyor GM-15
Washington, DC, (retired)
Some woodworker thoughts too!
Clyde,
I can't really think of the time that I will get away from the survey world, it is my life.
But, I do make big boards into little boards and do a lot of volunteer time in our great Paso Robles Pioneer Museum and helping to restore old wagons that are being pulled in our big parade of the year. I also did not know that my work there, would make me the chief tongue maker for the horse drawn wagons. (seems that way anyway)
Keith R. Williams
Woodworker
Clyde
Your statement:
Is there a reasonable expectation that they will respond to you?
Oh ya, somebody up the line will respond!;-)
If in fact it is a non-bureacratic answer, I will post it to show their interest.
Clyde
Would you suppose that these messages are being read and passed along on the rumor mill?
Hell, I invented some of the methods of spreading rumors!;-)
Clyde
It's an interesting case but one of the points is that as you said, Robillard and his team seems to have blown the other surveyor out of the water. Morehead obviously either was completely overmatched, the attorneys failed to make an adequate case for the defense, or the court was prejudicial to the BLM surveys. Regardless of the truth behind the surveys, it is clear that the court found that Morehead was a terrible witness and could not explain his survey. In my thinking that could be as much the attorneys fault as the surveyors.
Thank you, Mr. Williams
You seem an incredible asset to this forum which is, itself, an incredible asset to us all.
C. Campbell
And thank you Mr. Campbell
It is appreciated.
But I try to do what I can do and mostly it is for the benefit of those who might question the entire teaching of land surveys.
Everything that one reads in a book, does not make it gospel.
I have history to this bogus theory and will see if it will withstand the light of rejection.
Keith
Lane Bouman and Corky Rodine
How about telling the board what happened in the resurvey that ended up in the Rivers v Lozeau court case.
Corky, you did the resurvey and Lane , you approved it.
What say you?
I am not going away, so one day you just as well come on and tell us what you know.
Keith
