this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2023
576 points (97.8% liked)
Not The Onion
12224 readers
789 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The title is a bit misleading. The state went after him because he doesn't have an engineering license in the state. I used to be a P&C insurance agent and one of the things that we were cautioned about was using our expertise in insurance outside of our job duties. There is a degree of liability there that you don't really want to be taking on. While on the job, you are covered by professional liability insurance if you make a mistake that causes harm to clients. Outside of your job though, the company you work for has no obligation to protect you as you aren't acting as an agent of that company on your own time. In this case, itd be a bit of a stretch to equate the two in that there isn't really a scenario where him talking about the infrastructure causes the state harm as far as a court would be concerned but I can kind of see where the case might have even gotten to court in the first place rather than dismissed off the bat as frivolous by the judge.
But he was just talking about engineering things on the internet, as far as I can tell. Doesn't feel like he should need a license for that
Seems like someone on the NC Board of Examiners and Surveyors didn't like being called out so they tried to bully him into stopping and it backfired
You should check out what happened to Chuck Marohn in Minnesota: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/5/23/lawsuit
A fully-qualified engineer discussing the politics of engineering -- not acting in any way as an engineer -- fined, censured, and defamed in the public record by the state board of engineers. Because of a pretty obtuse technicality that absolutely no reasonable person would have interpreted as an issue and which only exists in the record thanks to actual perjury. All because he expressed sincerely-held beliefs as part of his political advocacy that could be interpreted as very embarrassing to the (incredibly incompetent) board. Things that even the board acknowledged were not related to the practice of engineering but that didn't matter to them.
These conservative organizations do not care about your civil rights. They only care about not being embarrassed. They will wield the powers of the state to silence anyone seen as a dissenter without shame or remorse. The guy in this article was very lucky indeed a federal court was willing to take the appeal. If they get any power over you, they will use it to get you to get you to bend to knee.
He lost in state court because he signed an affidavit that said he hadn't referred to himself as a professional engineer when he didn't have a license, and the court found that he had done that and his federal lawsuit was dismissed about as soon as it was filed as not being significant enough to intervene in ongoing civil enforcement actions.
https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2023/OPa221099-041023.pdf
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/minnesota/mndce/0:2021cv01241/194678/20/
I mean the fact that he had a license accidentally let it lapse then was able to get it back doesn't change the fact that he was and is a professional engineer.
Yes but during that period he didn't have a license.
Without a doubt it's someone on a vendetta against him, but those regulations aren't weird, hidden ones.
If you call yourself a professional engineer, that's a protected title and you must actually be a professional engineer. Part of being a professional engineer is paying dues to the organization in your area.
This is not true. I can call myself a doctor a lawyer or a cop or anything like that and it is protected speech so long as I am not attempting to perform the professional duties of that job.
It's free speech.
It's not up to the board of engineers to arbitrarily decide what isn't isn't the professional duties of a job and then punish people who say things they don't like. It's statutorily defined and this activity was not.
The courts made the entirely wrong decision which is very normal for the US.
It actually is true, unless MN has weird rules compared to other states. I'm not a lawyer, but the code here, sec. 326.02 seems pretty clear.
You actually can't call yourself a professional engineer if you're not - theres several lrgal cases where i am that are ongoing due to people calling themselves engineers while being realtors, for example, and trying to use the title to advertise (IE John Doe, P.Eng), which is not allowed.
United States v. Alvarez is the relevant case law here.
There are tons of on-the-books statutes that are not in line with Alvarez. And we should presume they would fail in a full legal challenge if a full legal challenge to them were mounted. But not everyone has the resources or dedication to try and take something all the way to the totally-political, capricious SCOTUS.
Interesting! Thanks for sharing that. I found a Cornell Law paper breaking down the decision and how/what things could have changed the decision (ie what things the govt is allowed to ban despite the amendment)
It's not the strongest decision, but I think it represents well how these identity claims intersect with free speech. That is, the law seems to tell us that a statement being false is not sufficient for it to be illegal per se.
Now, had Marohn actually been reviewing engineering specs or analyzing plans or other clearly-engineering activities during the lapse while identifying himself as a PE, then of course that would be fraud even if it was inadvertent. But, of course, if that had happened he would've checked the box admitting to it on his renewal. Paid the fine. Accepted whatever censure it resulted in. That's honestly a pretty routine licensure error. It's why the form specifically asks about it.
But failing to update his letterhead in political speeches made during a totally accidental lapse that was corrected in due haste and before he was even aware there were complaints does not make him a fraudster. You could claim that being a PE is what made people want him to deliver those speeches, but that's pretty flimsy -- first of all he WAS fully-trained, educated, and qualified as a PE. Not to mention he's the founder of a major advocacy organization and would certainly still be giving those speeches even if he intentionally stopped renewing the license, and would be legally in the right to do so (but yes, should change the "PE" on the letterhead to "former PE" or no claim at all).
And it means that the board are fucking liars for claiming otherwise.
No he signed an affidavit which said he had not acted as a professional engineer during the time it was lapsed which was true. Because he hadn't done any engineering work.
The entire "representation" was just a title on a single slide of a PowerPoint presentation.
He lost in state court because the MBoE lied about the order of events and decided to "make an example" out of him. And the reason they decided to do that was 100% because they didn't like the content of his political speech.
And that's the point. These organizations will use and abuse their power to punish dissent. Period.
The argument wasn't about a matter of fact, but a matter of law. He didn't argue against their matter of fact per the appeals court decision.
That's because the appeals process does not allow disputes over matters of fact. The lower court he did dispute the matter of fact. And multiple times offered to pay the fine and accept censure for the error if the factual recorded were amended to comport with what actually happened rather than being recorded in false terms as it was. But the MBoE wanted to defame him in the public record. It was their primary goal. So they refused to do so and kept the record fraudulent.
But the outcome was ALSO wrong as a matter of law.
It was a summary judgement in the lower court because there was no dispute in fact in the lower court. If there was a dispute in fact there would've been a trial. I agree that this was malicious, but I'm a registered nurse so I also have a protected title with similar ramifications to professional engineer and with similar restrictions on license renewal. Essentially if I did not have an active license, it would be illegal by my state law/BON regulations to tell you that I was a registered nurse in this comment. If I instead said "engineer" or "nurse", the courts will generally find that within free speech, like in Jarlstrom. I don't particularly think the courts were wrong here.
Again, the matters of fact were established by the board and could not be disputed, which is why during appeals they had to shift to matters of law.
It is provable fact that he disputed the matters of fact multiple times in both formal letters and sworn statements made during the hearings prior to the appeal. The Board of Licensure had sole discretion to update the matters of fact. The process was totally broken in a way that made it nearly impossible for him to defend himself.
And, just to really make the point of the injustice of this, had he instead checked the box on his renewal that said he had practiced engineering during the lapse, the result would've been a fine and reprimand for the error. The reason he didn't check the box saying he had practiced engineering during the lapse is because he believed in good faith that he had not. Instead, the board seized the opportunity to punish a political enemy by creating a fraudulent factual record to call him a liar when no such thing happened.
Not really what was said based on my reading of the court documents. They said he checked a box that he didn't present himself as a professional engineer, when he published articles that said he was. And based on other internet discussions with links to articles, that was exactly what happened and he doesn't really deny that.
The matter of law is "is it right to prosecute someone based on this form" and the appeals court decided it was as you could see in the decision.
Overall I find the court documents seem pretty comprehensive as to why and how it all went down, and they describe him refusing to sign things based on his belief that he wasn't lying.
The 'articles' I'm aware of claiming the PE were published/written before or after the lapse, as I understand it. But the factual record was generated prejudicially to imply otherwise because the objective of the board was to defame him. The prejudicial record is what is now in the court documents because that was what the board intended. Chuck's written and interviewed all over the place on the subject.
There WAS an example of Chuck being identified as a PE during the lapse. It was a name card in a PowerPoint presentation for a political speech. A presentation that was prepared when he was a PE and simply not updated when the license lapsed. Of course it wasn't, he didn't realize it had lapsed because the notice of the lapse was sent to the wrong address (an error that was his fault, but by no means fraud or a lie, ESPECIALLY since he was NOT doing any of the work of a professional engineer and therefore saying he was 'presenting himself as an engineer' is dishonest). Again and hopefully for the last time I will say: failing to update a letterhead cannot possibly be the same thing as lying absent any other misconduct, ESPECIALLY when the failure was entirely accidental. I believe this is also where the claims of articles comes from -- his bio on the website was not updated to reflect the lapse, so anyone clicking through to his about page would see him ID'd as a PE.
If they had just fined him as usual for this kind of error, that would've been annoying but would be no story. If they had fined and reprimanded him, it would've showed their naked political goals as well -- and I'd still object to that -- but it still would be whatever. But they used the board's power to defame him in the permanent public record, in a situation where he had basically no recourse. That is the story of why this situation was so incredibly unjust.
You're repeatedly referring the the factual record established by the board. The very record I have told you over and over and over again is false. It's falsity is the entire reason this situation is so infuriating and unjust. You keep going back to it over and over again. Every time I tell you it is a false record and that the lies in it ARE the story, you point at the same false record and say "but see, it says something different!" I've said over and over again why it is different and what the proper facts should've been, and you keep pointing at the same fraudulent public record and telling me "that's not what this says!" This is totally infuriating for me.
I added to the comment to address this.
He was testifying in front of a commission, about a bad designed drain, for a HOA, or similar.
You're correct that the headline is misleading. He's not just posting in some forum. He is testifying as an expert. So there is a little more subtly.
I would like to add. He was not paid. He also was not certifying any designs as safe. You should not need to be a licensed expert to show faults in existing designs.
They can and will fire you for posting things they don't like on social media on your own time, whether you're right or wrong, though. With the justification that you ARE acting as a representative of the company.
If I had a dollar for every time someone got fired for saying anything remotely supportive about Palestine or criticizing cops for being bastards, I'd have enough to buy Boston.
It isn't about being fired for a viewpoint.
Something that would happen a lot on some engineering forums is that someone without any experience would ask if something looked structurally ok and provide a photo. Now, if a PE said it looked ok but something happened to the building and the person was hurt, there may be a liability problem for the PE.
Yeah, but he DOES have the necessary experience to know and he's pointing out that there IS a flaw, so your hypothetical doesn't apply to the actual case here.
They're trying to use his license being temporarily lapsed to keep him from embarrassing them with the knowledge he's had the entire time.
Your forum example is different from this.
The forum poster is soliciting advice, for the purpose of continuing use of the construction. The poster is relying on the engineer for their safety.
If a neighbor looks over the fence, and tells you "looking good Joe!", it won't create any sort of relationship between you, and if it is in fact not good the neighbor isn't liable. You weren't relying on their comment.
The engineer is publishing an open letter about work that somebody else completed, that they were never involved in. They aren't being relied on to approve the continued use of the construction. This is the same as lawyers blogging dissenting opinions on rulings or commenting on legal proceedings in areas they haven't passed the bar.
I can't see that anything like that would get anywhere if there was no compensation or contract entered into for that advice.
The point is that you dont need comp or contract.
This is the same principle that spurs the IANAL tag people slap on to any and all posts that discuss a legal situation. Because if you let someone think you are speaking from an educated authority, you are offering them a level of expert approval or advice. And thus, any misled person can blame you for making them think you were speaking from experience and knowledge.
You don't necessarily need compensation or a contract.
If you're working for or licensed by a government agency in the USA, it gets more complicated. Your 1st ammendment rights carry more weight since firing you or pulling your license is the state taking action against you.
Obviously they can still punish you if you're bringing "disrepute" to your employer/professiom: bigotry, obscenity, misrepresentation, ethics violations, etc.
Hard to judge, but from what's written in the article, the ban sounds stupid enough to me, an engineer.
This random person from the internet agrees.
This random person from the internet agrees,
That random person from the internet makes an irrelevant aside suggesting your comment is invalid,
and THIS random person from the internet went WEEWEEWEE all the way home
Seems kind of harmfully protectionist; people who know what they're talking about can't share what they know, except when paid and contracted to do so. That's just going to lead to a public that is more ignorant on the topic than they otherwise would be, and realistically it isn't possible for most people to consult an expensive expert every time they have to make a decision that expertise may be relevant to.
So, just to be clear, if I have some experience with something I would better keep quiet about it or prepend any opinion with a huge legal disclaimer, otherwise I may be sued over someone listening to what I say, is that correct?
I may see how that could be reasonable with advices (and that's exactly why those come with "not an advice" disclaimer) but fail to see how that is reasonable in case of opinions or general statements however ridiculous they might be.
P&C means property and casualty in case anyone didn’t know