By the public and interested or effected owners supporting appeal relating to sections 9, 10, 27 and 28 in T5N, R28W S.B.B.M

1) Whereas, The Rancho Los Prietos e Najalayegua had for its south boundary in the area of Paradise road, the south line of the most northern tier of sections in the township, where north and south dimensional differences may be assigned.

2) Whereas, Ralph Norris, deputy county surveyor had described only that southern rancho boundary line with the Township and range lines in 1858.

3) Whereas, W.H. Norway 15 years later, in 1873, had the benefit of testimony and witnesses to the location of lines and corners of Norris's survey of the Rancho line.

4) Whereas, the senate and congress had not yet decided the fate of the rancho related to the Guadalupe Hidalgo treaty.

5) Whereas, because of the preceding, W.H. Norway was bound by law to follow the lines drawn by Norris of the southern boundary of the rancho.

6) Whereas, W.H. Norway faithfully described the southern boundary as the south section lines of the northern most tier of sections of the township as, "Land lies along foot of hills" with a fence running 13 chains north of the line along the western half and that fence is located at the south side of Paradise road.

7) Whereas, W.H, Norway described the north 1/4 corner of section 10 as "a post in a mound of rock at the foot of a large sand rock".

8) Whereas, W.H. Norway in 1873 set a sand rock in a mound of rock as the north east corner of section 9, and another "sand rock, 18 x 12 x10 in a mound of rocks" as the north 1/4 of section 9.

9) Whereas, J.K. Harrington described in his notes of 1891describing the north 1/4 section corner of section 9 set by W.H. Norway as a "stake in a mound of rocks, 2 ft. high 3 ft base marked 1/4 S. as established by Norway as Deputy Surveyor" , when Norway has set a stone in a mound of rock, and this fact is omitted from the Gap Fire Survey Investigation report when BLM surveyors were shown the fact in their own copy of notes.

10) Whereas, the topography Harrington described bears no resemblance to that which stopped W.H. Norway from surveying westwards from the north 1/4 corner of section 9 as the last point set of that portion of Norway’s survey.

11) Whereas, the potentials for telegraphed transcriptions of GLO notes in the 1890's created useless, erroneous notes causing some surveyors to create false points of beginning and fraudulent notes of their own to complete their contracts.

12) Whereas, Surveyor Berkeley Blake, P.L.S. 4786, saw the discrepancy in the notes of Harrington and Norway in 1979 regarding section 9's north 1/4 corner and stated he was looking at "fraud".

13) Whereas Frank Fetcher, USFS surveyor in 1989+- examined the N.E. corner of section 9 as found by Christopher A. Brown, regarding it’s appearance as genuine, then exclaiming “no way” when shown its location on the USGS map.

14) Whereas, surveyor Mark Reinhardt P.L.S. 639 in 1992 refused to examine the NE corner of section 9 when asked by Christopher A. Brown then filed a map using Harrington’s position on the ground monumenting the north line of section 11 of T5N, R28W S.B.B.M.

15) Whereas, Harrington describes Norway’s section 9 north 1/4 as a "stake in a mound of rock" when Norway set a "sand rock".

16) Whereas, Harrington in 1891 describes the point set by Norway, a "W.P" between section 27 and 28 as a “WC” or "witness corner" and similarly inconsistent topography indicates his copy of notes was erroneous.

17) Whereas, the swapping of monumentation notes for the east and south _ corners of section 28 was not known by all resurveys prior to 2011.

18) Whereas, the east 1/4 corner topography of section 28 matches the south 1/4 topographic description of Norway’s 1873 notes, and the south 1/4 corner topography description matches the east 1/4 topography.

19) Whereas, Bruce Barton P.L.S 5555 found Redwood roots identified by an arborist described as an accessory tree of the south 1/4 of section 28 at the location of the east 1/4 with topography matching the south description. Good evidence of corner notes being swapped by Norway.

20) Whereas, stones with tool marks were found at the monument location related to the redwood accessory tree.

21) Whereas, Bruce Barton P.L.S 5555 then measured from the site of the stone with tool marks and redwood roots of an accessory tree with Norway’s record bearing to the area of the "W.P." set by Norway to find a freshly destroyed rock face with marks of relatively new hammer blows upon it. Evidence showing efforts of obliteration.

22) Whereas, the topography northwards from that "W.P." site is extremely rough fully matching Norway’s description.

23) Whereas, the topography Harrington describes north of the "witness corner" he claims to have found has no resemblance to what Norway’s description is north from the "W.P." he set and stopped his survey.

24) Whereas, Bruce Barton P.L.S 5555 returned to the east 1/4 corner site of section 28 to measure back from the redwood roots to find a 5" diameter pit, 15" deep cut into sandstone formation, with a rock jammed into its opening obliterating it from view earlier.

25) Whereas, the gap fire resurvey investigation report omits the fact of Harrington’s prima facie fraud at the north of section 9 and the fact of the hammer marks shown in photos of the broken rock mantle where the "W.P." was cut by Norway.

26) Whereas, no surveyor describes setting or finding the "+" mark purportedly found by Rodger Frank P.L.S. 4215 and redundantly supported with a 32 page report by Gregory Aten, not a California surveyor.

27) Whereas, Tim Jackson, a California surveyor with the BLM who recognized the prima facie fraud of Harrington’s 1891 notes did not author the March 4, 2011 gap fire survey investigation.

We the undersigned, who are not surveyors, understand the above history and accounting of surveying and believe for good reason shown above that the BLM report supporting the survey of Rodger Frank is indeed perpetuating fraud within a conflict of interest benefitting the United States Forest Service.


1. _______________________________________ DATE:________________


2. _______________________________________ DATE:________________


Evidence of Perpetuation of Fraud