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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
DIRECTLY INTERESTED SIGNATORIES