> Check this out:> > ....LRDay,I notice that on the 1st and each succeeding page of the document you have linked, that there is a particular ...
I've got to say I had a different view of the latest issue. Mostly seemed like a lot of sour grapes, not only the one article blasting the BLM, but al...
you made me laugh. thanks.
Rivers v Lozeau> Rivers is the innocent party who was "screwed."> > Geez talk about getting slammed despite acting in nothing but Good Faith....
Rivers v Lozeau> So you posted earlier that BLM accepted every other corner around Sec. 15 during their resurvey, right?... I don't recall saying ...
Rivers v Lozeau> I think that Lozeau simply did not have competent legal advice or competent expert surveyor advice.> > Lozeau was screwed!FY...
Rivers v Lozeau> You are making assumptions. With regards to the W 1/4 corner, The BLM referenced a page in Moorhead's field book, not a plat. Do...
Rivers v Lozeau> I don't buy that Moorhead found the original corner in 48 based on the difference in the resurvey notes and the original notes. Th...
Rivers v Lozeau>....> At the west quarter section corner they proportion some Moorhead notes (???) while disregarding the Moorhead monument (???...
Rivers v Lozeau> Then you must know that the BLM surveyor accepted, apparently without any existing evidence, a position that the surveyor who supp...
Rivers v Lozeau> I'm unclear by your statements as to whether you've actually reviewed the 1948 and 1965 Moorhead survey.> > Have you, and if...
Rivers v Lozeau> So let me get this straight.> > * BLM takes the missing 1948 Moorhead W 1/4 corner when there is an existing mark 70 ft nort...
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'+/-. ...
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...
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 were...
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)...
Rivers v Lozeau> Tell us who the FS surveyor was who did the subdivision of section survey that rejected the Moorehead previous survey?> > I ...
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 Surve...
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...
Rivers v Lozeau> You are purposely misleading the facts on this case. Why?> > Tell us who the FS surveyor was who did the subdivision of sect...