• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Jail for math

If youre trying to say a licensed engineer is more competent then a non licensed engineer, I have some bad news for you!

Ill take the non licensed engineer with 20-40 years experience over the young guy that just passed his PE anyday! I cant really think of a scenario where i wouldnt take the experienced guy.

This applies to life in general.
No one has said anything about newly licensed engineers.

And apparently no one can read. The comparison I made was someone with 35 years experience testifying in a court.


But for the sake of argument, the licensed guy has more legal liability than the non licensed veteran. That's the way it works. It's also why new engineers are dangerous and usually have supervision of more experienced ones
 
Strictly from the video. They should have increased the drainage capacity of the system.

AND the home owners shouldn’t have built in a flood plain.

Fuck you people
 
After working on cars trucks tractors and heavy equipment for a long time, I will tell you engineers are the dumbest mother fuckers in the world.

Let me see something groundbreaking that you ever did

Let me see a car, truck, or tractor that YOU designed, you engineered, you tested, and that you brought to market successfully.

Take all the time you need
 
I was with you.....right until the last sentence....ive seen a thing or two.
Okay I’ll give that. Point was though, if a licensed electrician was doing it, and permits were pulled it would have been inspected, and would have been much less likely to have ever gotten by and not had to rely on the welder to catch the fuck up.
 
Do you know enough to judge the efficacy of their past works? Can you discern if there is a difference between what logic tells you and and what's correct?

The participation trophies, licenses, certifications at least ensure that some fundamental standards in education, experience, and practice are met (and often much more than that). And they can help protect you ...

Yes, as can anyone who can do a little research, read, write, can do basic math. and has a bit of common sense.

Show me your past works, have they been a success? Have they needed much re working? Are they still there? How do the people who use them respond to questions as to the quality and reliability etc etc
 
If youre trying to say a licensed engineer is more competent then a non licensed engineer, I have some bad news for you!

Ill take the non licensed engineer with 20-40 years experience over the young guy that just passed his PE anyday! I cant really think of a scenario where i wouldnt take the experienced guy.

This applies to life in general.

try anything involving liability...pressure vessels, anything structural...

if that pressure vessel explodes, are you going to say "yeah we just had a guy whos done this a lot design it".....or are you going to say, "we had a certified, licensed, and insured engineer design this pressure vessels.
 
Here, no matter what it is, ill blow his argument out of the water:

"without calibrated and accurate rainfall data at the site in question, we cannot determine what design frequency storm event effected the structure on May 32nd, 2020.
I think I found the problem. NO engineer could have had the foresight to design for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thejeep
You shouldn't need to drop $350k to be an attorney. You should have to pass the bar. Whether you taught yourself or learned your shit in a classroom is largely irrelevant. You know your stuff or you don't.

Agreed. There are very few professions where I would agree an higher level education should be required by law. I can agree with licensing certain professions, but you can't have systems that clearly create barriers to protect classes of people.

I strongly agree that a good education is a powerful thing and can equip you with resources that can accelerate your personal growth. However, the institution is not the only place to obtain these things. Universities do not have a monopoly on knowledge and wisdom. They are but one source from which you can obtain it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Choid
Nothing to see here folks, retired chemical engineer has a first amendment right to state his opinion of what he sees and thinks. He could even serve as an expert witness. However, judges and juries most likely will listen to the engineer who has a PE license, has years of experience designing said systems, and has seen enough good and bad to know how to do things well.
I‘ve seen a Designer with 30 years of experience run circles around a young PE who spends 2-3X the hours designing and drawing sections for a clarifier or splitter box - but the Designer would always rely on the PE to calculate the hydraulic grade line and set the elevations. World needs them both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: E. Bryant
try anything involving liability...pressure vessels, anything structural...

if that pressure vessel explodes, are you going to say "yeah we just had a guy whos done this a lot design it".....or are you going to say, "we had a certified, licensed, and insured engineer design this pressure vessels.
I don't know you, what you do, what your about, but I am not sure you understand how this works. Do you think the stamp/seal on a drawing is the person that actually designs things? That is not how it works. In an office of 10-50 employees with half licensed engineers, only one or two actually seal a drawing. If they have time, they might actually look at it before they seal it, but not usually. The guy with 10-30 years experience that may or may not be licensed is the one doing the design and managing projects. The seal, is the guy that carries the liability insurance, he typically has his name on the door, signs checks, plays with book keeping shit all day, chats and drums up business, but he doesn't design shit! He hasn't much of a clue as to what is actually going on with a design, he just puts his seal on it when it is ready to be sent out the door. That is how it works.
 
I don't know you, what you do, what your about, but I am not sure you understand how this works. Do you think the stamp/seal on a drawing is the person that actually designs things? That is not how it works. In an office of 10-50 employees with half licensed engineers, only one or two actually seal a drawing. If they have time, they might actually look at it before they seal it, but not usually. The guy with 10-30 years experience that may or may not be licensed is the one doing the design and managing projects. The seal, is the guy that carries the liability insurance, he typically has his name on the door, signs checks, plays with book keeping shit all day, chats and drums up business, but he doesn't design shit! He hasn't much of a clue as to what is actually going on with a design, he just puts his seal on it when it is ready to be sent out the door. That is how it works.

This is false.
 
He hasn't much of a clue as to what is actually going on with a design, he just puts his seal on it when it is ready to be sent out the door. That is how it works.
that has not been my experience at any company ive worked for.

ive designed pressure vessels, ive designed nuclear containers, ive designed industrial oil equipment...ive been the one to crunch the numbers and do the design....

and for everything ive designed that needed a stamp, i have always sat down with the PE to go over numbers, design, and codes...and theyve either approved it, or requested changes.....but they have never been just a bureaucratic rubber stamp.

if your experience is different, im sorry, mostly sorry for the PE thats stamping and approving designs without actually knowing whats going on....once he stamps it, its "his design", and should it fail, hes the one with his neck on the line, not the CAD monkey that modeled it up.
 
I'm jus gonna leave this here....in MN the I-35 bridge was designed by "engineers"......
 
Here is the thing, if he was presenting information as a lay member of the public he has every right to raise any mathmatical issue to the government. That is covered speech under the constitution. Frankly, mistakes happen.

That being said if he was implying that his work would meet legal scrutiny in a court of law for the purposes of refuting expert witness testimony of a licensed civil engineer with expertise in drainage systems, then yes he likely violated state law by holding himself out to be qualified to respond.

For us mere plebians, engineering is a closed wall garden that rivals on the medical field in terms of its protectionist tendencies. Milton Friedman need not apply.
 
Here is the thing, if he was presenting information as a lay member of the public he has every right to raise any mathmatical issue to the government. That is covered speech under the constitution. Frankly, mistakes happen.

That being said if he was implying that his work would meet legal scrutiny in a court of law for the purposes of refuting expert witness testimony of a licensed civil engineer with expertise in drainage systems, then yes he likely violated state law by holding himself out to be qualified to respond.

For us mere plebians, engineering is a closed wall garden that rivals on the medical field in terms of its protectionist tendencies. Milton Friedman need not apply.
exactly, and thats why without knowing what he wrote, and how he represented himself....this thread is pure speculation.

what i do find troubling is how quickly everyone all of a sudden believes everything they see in a 6 minute youtube video presenting only one side, and immediately take sides over that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charger442
I can’t speak for all state statutes but the majority rule would be that there is no requirement to be a licensed engineer to be qualified to give expert testimony in a trial where engineering questions are at issue

certainly, that’s something that would be explored on cross examination but the common thing for a judge to say would be that goes to the weight given to the evidence not the admissibility of it


Wayne’s trouble started when he volunteered to testify as an expert witness in a case his son, an attorney, was litigating. The case involved a piping system in a housing development that allegedly caused flooding in nearby areas, and Wayne, who had designed plenty of pipes in his day, volunteered to testify about the volume of fluid that pipe could be expected to carry. Wayne still had a copy of the leading sourcebook on his bookshelf, and the analysis itself seemed pretty easy—at least for Wayne. But it was also—according to the Board—illegal. After Wayne’s deposition in the case, where he truthfully testified that he was not (and never had been) a licensed engineer, someone complained to the Board that he was practicing engineering without a license, which is a criminal misdemeanor.

  1. Authority: Only PEs can sign and seal engineering drawings; and only PEs can be in responsible charge of a firm in private practice or serve as a fully qualified expert witness. Also, many government agencies and educational institutions are emphasizing licensure among their engineers as well.
 
that has not been my experience at any company ive worked for.

ive designed pressure vessels, ive designed nuclear containers, ive designed industrial oil equipment...ive been the one to crunch the numbers and do the design....

and for everything ive designed that needed a stamp, i have always sat down with the PE to go over numbers, design, and codes...and theyve either approved it, or requested changes.....but they have never been just a bureaucratic rubber stamp.

if your experience is different, im sorry, mostly sorry for the PE thats stamping and approving designs without actually knowing whats going on....once he stamps it, its "his design", and should it fail, hes the one with his neck on the line, not the CAD monkey that modeled it up.
Ive been a PE for 25 years and never once have I signed/sealed a document in that time frame. Except my own house design. More than one company for experience. Over 100 of times I have sent out stamped/sealed drawings by those carrying the liabaility insurance, without so much as a glance. Maybe it's the difference between the trades. I am in the architectural design field....buildings, industrial, pharma, education, etc. Same holds true for the designers around me that don't hold a PE. It's just the way it works. When your one of a few that holds the reigns, there is just no way you have time to review everything with your seal on it. I would like to say it unique to here, but everywhere I have been. And I am not talking about small projects, couple of these have been in the $300 million range. It's like saying Zuckerberg hits the ban button on the violators.

Oh, and the lawsuits "neck on the line" statement. It's not like that either. The things that I have seen go to shit, it involves 6 months of attorneys filing shit, they settle for some amount and move on. I have yet to see a person walk out in cuffs because somebody got hurt......
 
Ive been a PE for 25 years and never once have I signed/sealed a document in that time frame. Except my own house design. More than one company for experience. Over 100 of times I have sent out stamped/sealed drawings by those carrying the liabaility insurance, without so much as a glance. Maybe it's the difference between the trades. I am in the architectural design field....buildings, industrial, pharma, education, etc. Same holds true for the designers around me that don't hold a PE. It's just the way it works. When your one of a few that holds the reigns, there is just no way you have time to review everything with your seal on it. I would like to say it unique to here, but everywhere I have been. And I am not talking about small projects, couple of these have been in the $300 million range. It's like saying Zuckerberg hits the ban button on the violators.

Oh, and the lawsuits "neck on the line" statement. It's not like that either. The things that I have seen go to shit, it involves 6 months of attorneys filing shit, they settle for some amount and move on. I have yet to see a person walk out in cuffs because somebody got hurt......

i found your issue.
 
Ok, basically what we have in this thread is a bunch of people who dont understand engineering, licensing and liability, and the law.....and I cannot explain this to you guys in the level of detail you apparently need to understand it.


You guys are commenting based on false assumptions and how you think the law SHOULD be.

Basically you had a guy operating in a capacity he was not qualified or licensed for, in accordance with industry standards and the laws of his state.

Despite how he tries to spin it, this is not a 1A issue.

If you cannot grasp that concept, I suggest you come take one of my classes and I'll happily explain the law, Industry and ethics to you.
 
Lol, sometimes the irony is so thick, all you can do is laugh

it’s peak irony and peak 2021 for someone to make a statement that’s 100% contrary to well established case law and then claim others don’t understand the law or the situation in a bombastic overly emotional illogical way

there’s no need to do over complicate the issue, there is no law in North Carolina which prohibits an unlicensed engineer from being qualified to and testifying as an expert
...you are mistaken...

 
...God give me strength...
proxy-image (5).jpeg
 
...God give me strength...


Frustration understood.

Can you shed some light on the following?

"These questions must find resolution within each state on a case-by-case basis, depending upon the nature of the services provided, the language contained in the state registration law, and other considerations. Nevertheless, as a general proposition, it is generally acknowledged that an individual may be qualified as a technical expert by a court without possessing the minimum legal recognition as demonstrated by a professional license. Both state and federal courts adhere to this rule, and thus it would appear that unless a particular state licensing law prohibited individuals from performing services as an expert, there would not be any legal impediment to prevent an unlicensed individual from functioning as an expert. This being the case, it would appear that Engineer A's failure to be licensed in state 4 would not cause his actions in testifying in state 4 to be illegal."

- Case 90-3 National Society of Professional Engineer (NSPE) www.nspe.org BER

See attached.
 

Attachments

  • Ber90-3.pdf
    251.7 KB · Views: 41
lol

so, using the logic you're using in this thread, you should be charged with the crime of unlawful practice of law because you're holding yourself out as an expert, saying other people don't understand the law as well as you, and then go on to provide clearly inaccurate statements about whether an unlicensed engineer can testify as an expert in NC and the general rule?
Are you trolling now or are you just unable to read?
 
i found your issue.
Me too....I have to tuck my long Johnson into my right shoe every morning just to keep it out of my way, so there its settled. Mine is longer! Carry on with explaining how engineering works.....
 
The issue of whether he violates the unlawful practice of engineering statutes by testifying is completely separate from the issue of whether a Court would allow him to be qualified as an expert witness and give testimony as an expert witness

exactly as my first post in this thread indicated

the above statute is complete bs but it is the law of the land so there is a scenario where he could testify as an expert if the court allows him to be admitted as one which does happen with unlicensed engineers in NC that aren't charged with crimes in other cases


this is from the dumbass who quoted the rules of professional conduct for engineers as the controlling authority for evidentiary issues? LOL
Ok it's clear you are just a moron and are trying to argue a completely different point than what the thread was about.

You were claiming he is being sued by the "corrupt mafia" in an attempt to "shut him up"....

Now you are trying to claim he should be able to testify as an expert, even though he is breaking the law to do so.

I literally posted the NC law that proves my position, and destroys yours.....but now you are trying to semantic your way out of it to act like I'm somehow the moron?

This isn't even NC having some backwards ass law....damn near 1/2 the country has similar laws.

Dude, I literally teach this shit for a living....so unless you have anything constructive to say....shut the fuck up
 
the NC Supreme Court setting out the Howerton rule, the current controlling case law on rule 702 and evidentiary rules in NC involving expert testimony

Interesting stuff. I couldn't help but spend some time reading about it.

Let me see if I have this correct. Admittedly, I am often dense and it has been a long day, so correct me as necessary.

Your position is:

- The court (judge) has the final say at trial whether witness testimony is admissible by applying the Howerton or Daubert test.
- It may be against the law to represent oneself as an engineer or a surveyor but it is irrelevant when assessing admissibility at trial.
- If the act of testimony is in itself illegal, then the government in the subject case is applying the punitive element of the statute selectively for the purposes of witness intimidation/suppression and not the equitable pursuit of law enforcement.

mcameron's position is simpler,
-Do not offer testimony to things that could broadly construed to be classified as engineering expertise. It is against the law, so don't do it as you can be charged.
-IF you are an engineer of a particular specialty do not violate the ethics rules and offer testimony in a unrelated specialty or you open yourself to punitive actions.



Point of interest. In research I saw that NC updated their laws to 702(a) for the purpose of bringing the state to be more in line with the Daubert test in 2013. (see attached) Let me know if I misunderstand the legal change.
 

Attachments

  • R09 judges conf october 2013 expert gatekeeping basics rule 702.pdf
    205 KB · Views: 31
Howerton and Daubert have the same three step inquiry. Only the level of rigor of the three step inquiry is slightly different. All precedent under Howerton is still binding that is consistent with Daubert

Thanks for the clarification regarding precedent. The UNC law school had some great explanatory pieces on the subject. An article noted, "Daubert and amended Rule 702 have frequently been criticized for attempting to turn a trial judge into a scientist or other expert in order to exercise a gatekeeping function." I can see the trouble there.

I was going to look up the Frye test, but then I saw that only California uses it, and well... I lost interest after reading that.

Mcameron is a grade a dumbass who likes to spew shit that he can’t backup and is factually inaccurate.

Meh. For what its worth, I disagree. It seems that the two of you were arguing viewpoints from professional fields that have opposing views. As a layman to both, the contrast was informative.
 
so, its engineering principals, physics, and standard practices used within the industry. with stormwater, he has to make some assumptions about the rainfall data and intensities.

Here, no matter what it is, ill blow his argument out of the water:

"without calibrated and accurate rainfall data at the site in question, we cannot determine what design frequency storm event effected the structure on May 32nd, 2020. Using standard industry calculations we show, based upon a conservative runoff coefficient, that the structure was built to handle the 0.1% chance storm. Because it did not, its reasonable to assume the localized rainfall intensities that impacted the structure were much higher than the design storm. "
That’s basic physics. I have a chemistry degree and actually tested products for a commercial filtration company. I went to all 3 major car manufacturers, calculated the viscosity and flow rates to help design pumps for primer bathes filters. At other customers I had to find issues with catylists and flow rates with back pressure clean outs applying my lab tested principles to recommend backflow psi and schedules with filtration change outs recommendations. isolating catylysts or foreign compounds was by far the hardest part of the job(liability situations due to our products failing). calculating Flow rates, simple soil absorption rates and average rainfall vs heavy flow; with grade elevation and runoff principles I studied in biogeography = piece of cake vs adding the heat coefficient from 4 compounds and it’s effects upon my filter. Have you ever seen 400 level chemistry equations? I’m just a lowly bachelors guy and could guarantee you drainage Would be the easiest thing a chemist would ever encounter. This man is an engineer at that so his background is designing chemicals to be applied after I tell him my small lab formula. Think of any product and how it is applied is what they do. Like say a water pump and drainages system for lets just go with the chemical compound H2O. Who knew we studied water and it’s flow rates, turbidity and viscosity. Want to know how a corrugated pipe impedes flow rate of H2O vs smooth bore ask a chemical engineer. full disclosure I haven’t done chemistry in 20 years. I took comp 1 and 2 the same semester and my absorption rate was minimal at best. Sorry for the grammar issues.
 
An engineering board does not dictate who can tesify in court and about what. The court decides who is an expert.
Yes but the whole purpose of this thread was that this guy is being sued to "shut him up" because he "made the state look bad" and that his "1A rights are being violated unjustly"

None of that is true

He is being sued because he is operating as an unlicensed engineer....ergo, he is not qualified, by the engineering board, and the laws of NC, to offer testimony, or operate independently as an engineer.

The rules of the court really do not matter here, as it's not the judge that is investigating him...it's the state engineering board...


2 different things are now being argued here....the courts law vs state law...but at the end of the day, what this guy did was not proper, and he's being investigated for it.

It's not a witch hunt, it's not an attempt to shut him up, it's not because he made the state look bad.....it's because he was giving expert testimony he was not licensed (aka qualified) to give.
 
Yes but the whole purpose of this thread was that this guy is being sued to "shut him up" because he "made the state look bad" and that his "1A rights are being violated unjustly"

None of that is true

He is being sued because he is operating as an unlicensed engineer....ergo, he is not qualified, by the engineering board, and the laws of NC, to offer testimony, or operate independently as an engineer.

The rules of the court really do not matter here, as it's not the judge that is investigating him...it's the state engineering board...


2 different things are now being argued here....the courts law vs state law...but at the end of the day, what this guy did was not proper, and he's being investigated for it.

It's not a witch hunt, it's not an attempt to shut him up, it's not because he made the state look bad.....it's because he was giving expert testimony he was not licensed (aka qualified) to give.
Don't you ever get tired of arguing your points? I see you do it a lot. It seems like a lot of work on your part, when most people just shrug off what you post and forget about it the miinute they log out. I don't know that I see any enjoyment in that. Why is it that everyone that has an opposing view of yours is a moron, a dipshit or whatever demeaning words you drum up? This all seem exhausting and raising of blood pressure to me. I guess we all do what we do. I am guessing you feel some internal satisfaction if you feel you win an argument? You know you don't, right?

I am just trying to understand this, and in no way berating you. Although posting it in public seems berating, right? I guess some people hate guns, some love them. This must be the same kinda thing.

Oh, and where do you teach law?

Carry on.........................
 
Don't you ever get tired of arguing your points? I see you do it a lot. It seems like a lot of work on your part, when most people just shrug off what you post and forget about it the miinute they log out. I don't know that I see any enjoyment in that. Why is it that everyone that has an opposing view of yours is a moron, a dipshit or whatever demeaning words you drum up? This all seem exhausting and raising of blood pressure to me. I guess we all do what we do. I am guessing you feel some internal satisfaction if you feel you win an argument? You know you don't, right?

I am just trying to understand this, and in no way berating you. Although posting it in public seems berating, right? I guess some people hate guns, some love them. This must be the same kinda thing.

Oh, and where do you teach law?

Carry on.........................
The pit is where I come to vent all my frustration I cannot vent during the day.

Also I've stopped dipping and I've stopped sugar and carbs, so I'm crankier that I usually am
 
Yes but the whole purpose of this thread was that this guy is being sued to "shut him up" because he "made the state look bad" and that his "1A rights are being violated unjustly"

None of that is true

He is being sued because he is operating as an unlicensed engineer....ergo, he is not qualified, by the engineering board, and the laws of NC, to offer testimony, or operate independently as an engineer.

The rules of the court really do not matter here, as it's not the judge that is investigating him...it's the state engineering board...


2 different things are now being argued here....the courts law vs state law...but at the end of the day, what this guy did was not proper, and he's being investigated for it.

It's not a witch hunt, it's not an attempt to shut him up, it's not because he made the state look bad.....it's because he was giving expert testimony he was not licensed (aka qualified) to give.

I thought the engineer was being investigated. Having dealt with boards and courts for the last 25 years I have a feeling how this one is gonna go: nowhere.
 
i found your issue.
Mechanical engineers are able in many states to provide designs for "engineer designed structures" usually things like sheds.

They and structural engineers generally perform specific designs within the overall plan set for public or commercial habitable buildings.

Architects are generally the professional in responsible charge for the overall building project. There were a few states, like Texas, that had such pompous civil engineers that they had allowed in state law an exception for older engineers to offer architectural design services without an Architect's license and training.
 
Last edited:

There are a lot of good examples of members of the public raising concerns in a public forum.

But in this example, he is not holding himself out as providing engineering services. The state licensing acts are both protective of the title (e.g. a title act) and of restricting the practice.

To that end and to your points: yes, in this modern age where the public should be at the table providing input and engaging the government there is a need to reform some the professional engineering licensing acts because honest citizens are being unfairly silenced.

I have another example that's far more complicated for you all: Charles Marohn.
 
this case is about storm water drainage not landing on the moon

I think it’s safe to say that people that aren’t licensed professional engineers in the state of NC discuss storm water drainage in NC that aren't fined or charged with a crime for violating the unlawful practice of engineering statutes which is what mcdouche is saying should happen to nutt and it’s not unusual at all for non licensed engineers to be qualified as experts and to testify as experts in storm water drainage cases, surface water runoff cases and other construction defect cases in general

McDouche's position borders on the absurd and is mind numbingly dumb to say that these issues don’t involve the first amendment

if this guy is a law professor, it truly is a clown world and no one else should tell anyone else that they won’t be able to do "anything" one day LOL
All licensed P.E. engineers think that way because it supports occupational closure. It protects their high wages and societal status. That is not really shocking or unusual if you think about it.

I mean lawyers do this too with the BAR exam and state or local admittance requirements. My Cousin Vinny is the corollary practicing law without a license example 🤣
 
The point is well taken but it appears that the board of engineers in NC is going after nutt for violating both "title" laws and "practice" laws. So, to the extent that the NC board of engineers is going after nutt for describing himself as an engineer, it is fairly closely analogous to Jarlstrom. In Jarlstrom, the Court ruled that"Title laws restrict constitutionally protected speech." Jarlstrom described himself as an engineer to the media that he had performed engineering calculations and determined that the length of the yellow light was too short. He developed a different formula than the city used. Jarlstrom's new formula was later adopted by an engineering publication/body on traffic safety.

Here is a verbatim quote from the fact section in the final order of the Jarlstrom case: (https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/5671551/jarlstrom1.pdf)

On February 12, 2015, the Board’s Law Enforcement Committee conducted a preliminary evaluation and voted to open a “law enforcement case” against Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶ 43; Answer ¶ 32.) In November 2016, the Board imposed a $500 civil penalty for Plaintiff’s violations of Or. Rev. Stat. § 672.020; Or. Rev. Stat. § 672.045(1) and (2); and OAR 820-010- 0730. (Compl. ¶¶ 72-74; Answer ¶¶ 50-52.) Specifically, the Board concluded that Plaintiff violated Or. Rev. Stat. § 672.020(1), Or. Rev. Stat. § 672.045(1) and (2), and OAR 820-010- 0730(3)(a) and (c) by critiquing the traffic light timing formula and submitting his critiques to members of the public, and by “asserting to the public media” and “to a public body” that he is an engineer. (Mats Järlström Decl., Ex. 14 ¶¶ 13-17.) Plaintiff paid the $500 penalty.

Here is a verbatim quote from a portion of the Jarlstrom opinion where the Court discussed whether the Oregon "title" laws for Engineers were violative of the first amendment:

So construed, the Title laws threaten a substantial amount of protected activity. First, the statutes prohibit truthfully describing oneself as an “engineer,” in any context. This restriction clearly controls and suppresses protected speech, and enforcement of the statute against protected speech is not a hypothetical threat. The record before this Court demonstrates that the Board has repeatedly targeted individuals for using the title “engineer” in non-commercial contexts, including core political speech such as campaigning for public office and advocacy against a local ballot initiative. (Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. at 6-11.)
Your chasing a narrowly tailored argument though. The broader problem is that title and license laws for engineering have been around since the 1920s and most challenges have resulted in failure. For those us not blessed with a license to practice law or the resource of having a good lawyer on hand, we are best off staying away for the mere threat of the big legal stick the state engineering board can wave.
 
modified on site, huh? it happens, definitely. but in a court of law this happens "Your honor, how can the prosecution claim the engineering design was negligently deficient when the contractor did not build what was designed? The contractor deviated from the design without the responsible engineers approval and that was the cause of the failure." case dismissed.
This is the truth, have been in the construction business all my life and remember many times I have have looked at drawings and just went WTF are these arch/engineers thinking this shit is not going to work. Does it need to be changed, yes am I going to change shit without some engineers stamp on it F--- no, if anything were to happen no matter what the cause some court will look at you and say you changed this without approval you're screwed.
 
Contractors need to be licensed and bonded/insured on public works projects. Why shouldn’t the engineer and architect?
 
Contractors need to be licensed and bonded/insured on public works projects. Why shouldn’t the engineer and architect?

Thats a different problem. What’s at issue here is whether the government can silence a retired engineer from offering his opinion about how a licensed engineer fucked something up.
 
Thats a different problem. What’s at issue here is whether the government can silence a retired engineer from offering his opinion about how a licensed engineer fucked something up.
What's at issue here is a retired engineer didn't follow the laws of his state.

He wasn't offering his opinion as a private citizen, which would have been 100% in the clear

He was offering his opinion as an expert witness, which in NC, is clearly defined as "operating as an engineer", which falls under the perview of the state engineering board, which requires you to be licensed, which he was not.


The other thing you guys keep saying is, "he proved the state was wrong!"

.....how do you know?....

Have you seen his math? Have you run the calcs?.....you are taking his word for it......what if he's lying?

What if he's actually just a moron and his numbers are wrong?

You blindly trust that a guy who is being investigated and looking for money is correct or 100% truthful because he made 6 minute YouTube video where he told his tail of woe??
 
Last edited:
What's at issue here is a retired engineer didn't follow the laws of his state.

He wasn't offering his opinion as a private citizen, which would have been 100% in the clear

He was offering his opinion as an expert witness

No, he was offering his opinion as a private citizen. He wrote a letter to home owners involved in a lawsuit, in which he expressed his opinion why a drainage pipe failed. He probably identified his credentials. He probably stated he was a retired engineer. The plaintiffs lawyers prolly ran with it and the defense did him dirty by stabbing him in the back with this license bullshit.

We don’t have all the fact. But I doubt any court will find that his conduct rose to the level of “practicing engineering.” So the board can investigate all they want. District attorneys are too busy prosecuting real crime to charge this guy.