Slashdot Mirror
Oregon Man Fined For Writing 'I Am An Engineer' Temporarily Wins Right To Call Himself An 'Engineer' (vice.com)
Mats Jarlstrom, an electrical engineer fined by the Oregon engineering board for calling himself an "engineer" and talking about traffic lights, has been granted the temporary right by a judge to both publicly call himself an "engineer" and talk about traffic lights. Jason Koebler reports via Motherboard: Last month, Jarlstrom sued the engineering board for violating his First Amendment rights, and Tuesday a federal judge gave Jarlstrom the temporary right to call himself an engineer, pending the results of his case. "Plaintiff Jarlstrom may study, communicate publicly about, and communicate privately his theories relating to traffic lights throughout the pendency of this litigation as long as [his] communications occur outside the context of a paid employment or contractual relationship," Anna Brown, a federal district court judge for the district of Oregon, ordered. He "may describe himself publicly and privately using the word 'engineer' throughout the pendency of this litigation." Jarlstrom's attorneys say this is a promising sign and a "critical first step in protecting Oregonians' First Amendment rights."
This is surely a triumph for sanitation engineers everywhere!
Except the dude is an engineer. He's an electrical engineer
SJW n. One who posts facts.
you ignorant cunts.
Having an engineering degree makes you an engineer, in the same way that having a PhD makes you a doctor, or having a masters in the universe makes you He-Man. If Oregon wants to legislate having a specific certification to call yourself a very specific title and practice a very specific profession, fine but they can't change the English language where the word engineer has already meant something for centuries, nor can the change the fact that he practices electrical engineering in a professional manner.
He didn't lie about his qualifications. He is fully qualified as an engineer - with a degree from a top-notch university.
He just isn't certified as one in Oregon because he has never worked as one there.
He did not present himself as one in any scenario where government has reasonable justification to restrict the usage of the title. He wasn't trying to sell a bridge design or anything. He was just publicly commenting on public infrastructure and stated the qualifications he has to form those opinions - he didn't try to get employment.
It is a much more complicated case than you let on.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Reminds me of a Jewish clerk in a Swiss patent office who dabbled in physics and thought he was a Physicist.
if he doesn't know the law about his own profession, what does he know about traffic lights?
I'd rather have the one with knowledge about traffic lights than legalese. There are too many around already who haven't got a clue about the real subject of their profession.
> under Oregon law you must be licensed to be an engineer
To work as an engineer, you mean.
There can be a slight tension between degreed engineers who don't especially need registration for large employers, research or other well paid jobs not requiring their registration, and some registered engineers. Some registered engineers have overblown egos, that I think suffer from "big fish in a small pond" conceits in small, pedestrian firms. Obviously there are some small firms that are not "pedestrian".
I worked for a large, wealthy company, decades ago. Some of the best hotshots, including MIT, CalTech etc alums, never got registered, and worked with the most difficult, advanced stuff. Some registered discipline engineers were viewed as lesser lights that were less intellectually powerful and somewhat expendable, best given the more routine work, checking the others work and signing off...
He shouldn't be allowed to call himself an engineer
The guy is an engineer. Why should he have to lie about that fact?
While generally true, in Oregon they are only given the power of regulating certain trades and types of engineering.
You can absolutely write words in a non-commercial setting and claim anything, their rules don't (can't) touch that.
All the industry boards like this are full of rednecks in Oregon. It is unlikely they consulted anybody with a clue before issuing the fine. These would be civic engineers with experience mostly in road building.
Interesting. Now I believe lawyers are also effectively registered in one state. So has a lawyer ever been fined for referring to themselves as a lawyer in a state other than that in which they are registered?
Just wondering if this has only been applied to engineers or has it also been applied to other professions.
Why does there need to be a distinction in name?
What someone refers to themselves as "engineer", "technician", "manager", "consultant", etc. is arbitrary and liable to interpretation, misrepresentation (e.g. a "doctor" of mathematics), etc.
If you are AT ALL interested in hiring a qualified person, you go by qualifications. Being a member of a particular organisation, holding a certain certificate or licence, etc. Not by what they refer to themselves as.
Given that every electrician, gas-fitter, window-installer, etc. in my country has to be registered for their work to be building-reg compliant or legal, no matter what they call themselves or whether they were calling themselves an electrician for 30 years before "part P" certifications were a thing, I don't see that it's a burden.
And then you don't have to live in fear that, despite calling myself a mathematician because I have a mathematics degree, and calling myself a scientist because I have a scientific outlook on life and a computer science degree, someone might take me to court for saying that informally in a complaint letter.
Protecting a generalised word like "engineer" should be treated like trademarking it. You shouldn't be able to. But equally someone shouldn't be able to say they are a "Engineer Registered with the Institute of Engineering" unless they actually are.
"Doctor" is the precedent here. Doctor's of geography, mathematics, art, even are all over the world. But you wouldn't expect them to be able to work in a hospital performing surgery without being appropriately qualified. You wouldn't expect them to be able to misrepresent their doctorate (e.g. by saying "it's okay, just take your top off and show me, I'm a doctor"). You also wouldn't expect them to be fined to oblivion for booking a restaurant table in the name of Dr Smith, either. Because that's what they are and referring to that title isn't compulsory or indicative of a specific qualification at that point.
The judge has called this right.
And if you want to protect something, protect the qualification. Which you can certificate, number, provide a searchable list so anyone can verify that Fred Bloggs is actually the Dipl.Ing. that he claims to be and it hasn't been rescinded in the years since. And which anyone who relies on them actually BEING a qualified engineer (e.g. skyscraper building firms, aircraft manufacturers, etc.) is required to check before they rely on their work.
Never saw that one during my engineering degree.
But I do remember "Economics degree. Please take one." written above the toilet paper dispenser in one toilet.
The only bit of specific engineering mockery I recall (it was a long time ago) is it being said that the Yellow Pages entry for boring said "See civil engineers".
Not meaning to offend any 'official' engineers here - I understand the work that goes into an engineering degree, and I understand the legal and ethical need to protect the title from pretenders. What I really don't get is that people automatically place more trust in the opinions of an engineer, (or a doctor, etc), than people who don't hold the title, yet have similar or greater accomplishments in the field.
I've spent my life working in the electronics field. I once worked for a degreed electrical engineer whose idea of heatsinking a component on a PCB was blobbing some heatsink compound on it. (No, I'm not kidding). This same engineer casually implemented some resistor-diode logic between 74HC logic inputs and the outside world, without so much as a couple of protection diodes from the inputs to the supply rails. In this case the 'outside world' happened to be various points in the noisy, spikey electrical system of a large military vehicle. The design was being field-tested just prior to production. 'Nuff said. A bit later in my career, I worked for a guy who, (thankfully), actually merited his engineer's title. But he told me about an engineer who once worked for him, who couldn't understand why trying to start his car with a 12-volt lantern battery wasn't working.
There are smart, knowledgeable, competent people, and there are incompetent fools. In my experience, a degree, (or lack thereof), is no kind of an indication of which category a given person falls into.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Licensing is not a prerequisite to work as an engineer, but it is a prereq to sign official design documents that fall under various public safety regs as required by state law. Nearly all engineers working are not PEs. It is actually more unusual to have a PE as most states make this expensive to maintain.
The whole concept of not being allowed to say that you're an engineer when in fact you are one is preposterous.
The man is totally in his right to sue for his free speech and against a totally unfair an ridiculous fine.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Earnest trainspotters in Britain (and we are many) mostly would have preferred in another, steam-age, life to have been long-apprenticed 'engine-drivers' (Brit-English), but have always understood that that function in the USA has been called 'engineer' for a century. How do such (esteemed) USians describe their job-title today?
I'm a engineer from Virginia. If I go to Oregon, and tell someone I'm an engineer, I'd apparently be breaking Oregon law because I'm not licensed in Oregon. That doesn't make me any less of an engineer, it only makes me ineligible to practice engineering when I cross the Oregon state line. These officials are clearly stepping all over this engineer's constitutional right to call himself an engineer, and if you don't believe me, you can simply google some case law at the SCOTUS level.
Just another day in Paradise
When someone is titled as an engineer in one location, and they cross the Oregon border, they don't suddenly become a non-engineer. They simply are not allowed to practice, or be called a PE. This is a clear case of officials who fucked up, but don't like being called out for it, so let's screw with the guy who did.
Just another day in Paradise
"there was fuck all need for him to claim himself a professional engineer"
He did not claim to be a "professional engineer", he claimed to be an engineer. He is an engineer, he has a degree in engineering and does engineering for his work. The powers that be in Oregon got upset about this guy pointing out that those so called "professional" engineers that work for the state did not do their job correctly. They thought they could shut him up with a fine. It blew up in their face and now the distinction between "engineer" and "professional engineer" will be set in law with this case.
I suspect they pulled this stunt before to make people keep quiet about where they screwed up but this guy fought back. If there is anyone making a mockery of being a "professional engineer" it is the people in the Oregon government.
There is an examination process to get a license to practice engineering in all states and many countries.
No, you need a license to practice under the title "Professional Engineer", and to perform certain duties such as signing off on certain things. You do not need a license to actually practice engineering. As such its reasonable to call oneself an engineer, but not Professional Engineer. If not you end up with absurdities like not refusing to call Isenbard Kingdom Brunel an engineer.
I call myself an engineer. I think that's reasonable since I've got a degree in engineering, and I've designed from scratch and made (as in taken through to mass manufacture) things within quite strict regulatory frameworks. What would you call someone who does such things?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Technically, (at least in most US states) a lawyer is is anyone who graduated law school. It is an attorney-at-law that is licensed to provide legal representation and appear in court on behalf of a client. That said, you can still get yourself in trouble calling yourself a lawyer in any context in which it seems you might be acting as an attorney.
In other words, the government's power to control speech, censor in First Amendment terms, is only permissible here in the context of commercial speech (some think even that is an overreach, but that's an argument for a different day.)
So if you are advertising for clients, or dealing with a client, the government can make sure you are a Professional Engineer, or whatever they define there. He isn't, so they tried to punish him for claiming so.
The difference here, though, was that the government isn't one of his clients, and anybody has infinite First Amendment rights to beak off about the government and its behaviors. That is the most highly protected of all speech (even knowing lies are protected, IIRC, lest the government become the Decider of Truth in speech against it.)
And in that context, the commercial concept does not apply, so the government has no power to stop him from calling himself an engineer. The takeaway: Courts treat the First Amendment seriously and delimit the government's powers to censor to very strictly-controlled areas.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
All the industry boards like this are full of rednecks in Oregon. It is unlikely they consulted anybody with a clue before issuing the fine. These would be civic engineers with experience mostly in road building.
The NY Times had an article about this case a month or two ago and in the article they listed multiple other cases in Oregon where this sort of thing had happened. That included a person who had been licensed in Oregon for decades and then retired, but then testified in court on behalf of his daughter in a land dispute.
So it's not a one-off problem. It's standard operating procedure there.
A judge is rather a different thing- seeing as you can't get a degree in "judging", the vast majority of people with law degrees do not become judges and there is thus no correlation whatsoever between "judges" and "law graduates". Most of what you learn to become a judge rather than a lawyer you learn AFTER you finish university - by working in the field.
This is now how engineering works - you get a degree in engineering you can do an engineer's job. You may not be as good as the guy who has been doing it for longer, but it's not like only one in a thousand engineering graduates become engineers. It's basically a 1:1 ratio. And in fact, the vast majority of engineering grads are engineers by default since in almost every territory you are automatically registered when you graduate.
He never claimed "I am an engineer in Oregon", just "I am an engineer" - since Sweden is a country where all grads are automatically professionally registered this claim is a factual truth. He graduated with an engineering degree in Sweden, and is thus an engineer.
Saying "I am an engineer" in his case is factual truth - it would only be a false claim if he added "in Oregon".
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
So you choose two fields where graduation does not usually come with automatic professional accreditation and claim this means the same is true of a field where, in almost the entire world in fact, graduation DOES come with automatic accreditation ?
He didn't claim to be an engineer in Oregon, just to be an engineer. Since he graduated in Sweden where all engineering graduates get automatic accreditation he IS an engineer, and indeed an accredited engineer- he just isn't accredited as an engineer in Oregon - but he never claimed he was.
Legal definitions vary by region - if you make a claim that's true in ANY region and you don't SPECIFY a region then that claim is factually correct.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Under Oregon law, you have to be a licensed engineer to call yourself one publicly. For other states, they add clarifications like "professional engineer" or "licensed engineer"
No, Oregon Revised Statutes 672.020, 672.045 do not allow someone to practice engineering in Oregon without a license. Oregon Administrative Rule 820-010-0730 states that no unregistered persons may hold themselves out as an engineer in Oregon by use of the title “professional engineer,” “registered professional engineer,” or any of their abbreviations or derivatives. Mats Jarlstrom did no such thing. He was very specific about what his credentials were and in no way misrepresented himself as holding a valid certificate in Oregon or any other US state or territory. His exact words are displayed below, and they are both very specific about his credentials and completely void of any mention of being a professional or registered professional engineer.
My Swedish engineering degree is in electronics and I’m an expert in motional feedback (displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback) of powered speakers which includes the full understanding of motion of an object such as a loudspeaker cone (or a vehicle stopping or traveling through an intersection as in ORS811.260(4)).
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Common sense would be not to write to the engineering licensing body while illegally and falsely claiming to be an engineer.
Common sense would dictate it, which is why Mats Jarlstrom never did that. Oregon Revised Statutes 672.020, 672.045 do not allow someone to practice engineering in Oregon without a license. Oregon Administrative Rule 820-010-0730 states that no unregistered persons may hold themselves out as an engineer in Oregon by use of the title “professional engineer,” “registered professional engineer,” or any of their abbreviations or derivatives. Mats Jarlstrom did no such thing. He was very specific about what his credentials were and in no way misrepresented himself as holding a valid certificate in Oregon or any other US state or territory. His exact words are displayed below, and they are both very specific about his credentials and completely void of any mention of being a professional or registered professional engineer.
My Swedish engineering degree is in electronics and I’m an expert in motional feedback (displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback) of powered speakers which includes the full understanding of motion of an object such as a loudspeaker cone (or a vehicle stopping or traveling through an intersection as in ORS811.260(4)).
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
So much wrong here. No, you don't have to add PE to the title engineer for it to be the illegal use of the term. Using the title engineer where professional engineering can reasonably be assumed is the test. He crossed the line on this by using "engineer" to reinforce his opinions on a technical subject. I hope it costs him a small fortune in court.
But it could not be reasonably assumed that he was a PE based on his words, which were as follows:
My Swedish engineering degree is in electronics and I’m an expert in motional feedback (displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback) of powered speakers which includes the full understanding of motion of an object such as a loudspeaker cone (or a vehicle stopping or traveling through an intersection as in ORS811.260(4)).
He doesn't even call himself an engineer. He just says he has an engineering degree from Sweden.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
He is not a licensed engineer in the state of Oregon. Claiming to be an engineer is lying about his qualifications, because to claim to be an engineer you must be licensed.
His exact words were:
My Swedish engineering degree is in electronics and I’m an expert in motional feedback (displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback) of powered speakers which includes the full understanding of motion of an object such as a loudspeaker cone (or a vehicle stopping or traveling through an intersection as in ORS811.260(4)).
No reasonable person could believe he is implying he is a registered professional engineer in the state of Oregon from this statement.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Dropping the title "engineer" to reinforce your point when discussing a technical subject, meets the test of implying professional engineering.
It isn't clear that the case law actually says this, and even if it does it isn't clear that this would pass a first amendment test. If you have links to actual case law backing up your point that is one thing, but your baseless statements are meaningless. The Oregon statutes mentioned in the complaint only claim he cannot practice engineering, so any case law which defines practicing engineering as merely mentioning your prior education in engineering in a public discussion would suffice to back up your claim.
Although even if you do that, it doesn't have much bearing on this case. He was very specific about his credentials and no reasonable person could assume he was implying he had a PE license. His words were as follows:
My Swedish engineering degree is in electronics and I’m an expert in motional feedback (displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback) of powered speakers which includes the full understanding of motion of an object such as a loudspeaker cone (or a vehicle stopping or traveling through an intersection as in ORS811.260(4)).
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
What he was fined for doing was using the term "engineer" to describe himself while doing it.
No, it is much more sinister, the board wouldn't tolerate that he was using methods used by engineers.
You don't believe that, did you? I didn't.
But there was a thread about this on a Danish engineering forum some time ago, and someone dug up this:
"By reviewing, critiquing, and altering an engineered ITE formula, and submitting the critique and calculations for his modified version of the ITE formula to members of the public for consideration and modification of Beaverton, Oregon 's and worldwide traffic signals, which signals are public equipment, processes and works, Jarlstrom applied special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such creative work as investigation, evaluation, and design in connection with public equipment, processes, and works. Jarlstrom thereby engaged in the practice of engineering under ORS 672.005(1)(b).
By doing so through the use of algorithms for the operation of traffic control systems, and through the use of the science of analysis, review, and application of traffic data systems to advise members of the public on the treatment of the functional characteristics of traffic signal timing, Jarlstrom engaged, specifically, in traffic engineering under OAR 820-040-0030(1)(b) and (2)(a).
By engaging the practice of engineering (specifically, traffic engineering) without registration, Jarlstrom violated ORS 672.020(1), 672.045(1) and OAR 820-010-0730(3)(c)"
From the correspondance: https://motherboard.vice.com/e...
That is not what he stated in his complaint. He said he was an engineer.
In a later document he did use the words: "And yes, I'm an excellent engineer." This was after he had specifically established his credentials as an engineer, which was very specific. Once again, no reasonable person could look at his discussions with the Oregon Board and believe he was presenting himself as a licensed professional engineer in the state of Oregon.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
There are thousands of working engineers in Oregon who do not have any "Professional Engineer" licensure but yet have engineering degrees, refer to themselves as engineers, practice engineering, and get paid for it. For example, think of the thousands upon thousands of engineers that work at Intel in Oregon. Is there a PE exam for semiconductor engineering? Hardware design verification?
You DO NOT need a state license [even in Oregon] to get hired as an engineer by a private company. If you are an engineer working for Intel, you don't need a license. The PE license is focused on engineers who market themselves to the public and/or work on public works projects (bridges, buildings, drainage, etc.)--the idea being that you need some level of state license to prevent charlatans from building bridges that collapse.
Now it turns out that if you read the letter of the law in Oregon, they have pretty restrictive laws on referring to oneself as an "engineer"--whereas most states just protect the term "Professional Engineer" (or similar). However those laws are clearly not enforced, or enforced very asymmetrically, because it would take 5 minutes on LinkedIn to find 10,000 violators.
I doubt it's complicated at all, he is a pain in their ass, they brought suit to attempt to stifle him, and they stretched the law past the breaking point in said attempt.
Our legal system being what it is, I can't say whether he will win or lose - I do hope for his sake that his trial is heard by the same judge who "granted his temporary right to speak."
In this case, the law says he can't call himself that.
Bzzzzt. WRONG! Obviously YOU don't understand the difference between an engineer and a professional engineer. Oregon Administrative Rule 820-010-0730 states that no unregistered persons may hold themselves out as an engineer in Oregon by use of the title “professional engineer,” “registered professional engineer,” or any of their abbreviations or derivatives. You see that? They specifically say "professional engineer" and "registered professional engineer", neither of which he claimed. He merely stated that he had an EE degree.
Now get off my lawn.
Is that a roll of dimes in your pocket or are you happy to see me?
Eh. I'm pretty sure the "public" in your "public opinion" above doesn't give a hell about this case because:
1) They don't know about this case, nor do they care, nor will they ever.
2) They think this is how things work anyway, because it is. Language is a shared construct and the consensus is "engineer" means you have an engineering degree, while more formal terms ("licensed" or "professional" etc.) signify greater formality when needed.
3) The plaintiff has a commonsense, grokable, gut-feeling-it's-right position. The OR board has a nitpicky, facially counterintuitive position that manages to come across as both unfair and "over-regulatory". Which one sounds like an argument that tends to go over well with "the public"?
4) The public is generally aware of the 1st Amendment and has a vague notion that it's good. To the extent they understand what it protects, I'd wager they believe it covers "stopping the government from fining you for truthfully describing yourself in a public consultation regarding government activity."
5) If you took a nationwide poll of the non-technical folks that make up "the public", asking them why they don't like—or don't trust, or have a low opinion of—engineers and other science-types, "'misrepresenting licensure status' by truthfully communication educational background" wouldn't make the Top 25. In fact, it may not be mentioned once by a single person.
So... no, I don't think this case lowers "public opinion for all engineers." On the other hand, the handwringing pedantry (in favor of the OR board) you see all over this thread probably only reinforces low public opinion of engineers as handwringing pedants.
Nothing posted to
He didn't lie about his qualifications. He is fully qualified as an engineer - with a degree from a top-notch university.
He just isn't certified as one in Oregon because he has never worked as one there.
He did not present himself as one in any scenario where government has reasonable justification to restrict the usage of the title. He wasn't trying to sell a bridge design or anything. He was just publicly commenting on public infrastructure and stated the qualifications he has to form those opinions - he didn't try to get employment.
It is a much more complicated case than you let on.
He did not take the PE exam, passing that exam is a qualification he does not possess. It is no easy task to pass that test. He is also not an engineer in the technical field he is making an argument in.
Anyhow, the case has not been decided yet, this is just temporary until the case is tried.
The Professional Engineer (PE) certifications only apply to review and submission of official documents as required by the specific regulating agency (and there is a lot of variability), otherwise "engineer" is just a word that holds no special legal meaning. The PE test and certification is very generic too... all engineers get the same PE certification regardless of their specific field expertise, so having a PE license grants no de-facto credentials in other engineering fields and if anyone thinks it does they are lazy dolts. It's up to us to look into a person's credentials in the specific field, regardless of certifications, just like we would if someone says they are a scientist, doctor, pilot, financial advisor, etc. FWIW, I work for an engineering company, many of my colleagues and friends are state-certified Professional Engineers, and I personally hold state-certified licensure in a science-related field. I also know and work with many non-certified science/engineering professionals who are just as and sometimes more knowledgeable and experienced as those with certifications... you have to dig behind any titles to see who you can trust, to do otherwise is negligent.
That's not how he phrased it in his innitial communication with the egg heads at the Engineering Board.
But they are still being a bunch of Pedantic fools.
Perhaps I am misreading the court documents, but this is the document presented by the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying investigator when informing Mats Jarlstrom he was in violation of their laws. It appears to be the first communication, and it would be odd for them to only attach this communication if there were other communications where he actually did potentially violate their laws.
From:
Mats Jarlstrom [mailto:mats@jarlstrom.com
Sent:
Wednesday, September 03, 2014 9:24 AM
To:
OSBEELS
Subject:
Help and support "to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public"
To whom it may concern,I would like to have your support and help to investigate and present the laws of physics related to transportation engineering in the State of Oregon. I am already working to “protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public” especially in the City of Beaverton where the two transportation engineers are misreading Oregon Vehicle code, how the law applies to the laws of physics for a vehicle in motion traveling through an intersection and the well-known engineering practices. By misapplying engineering practices and Oregon law they are putting the public at risk.
I have spent a year investigating and I have a clear understanding how the law should be applied and why it is written the way it is. I have source documents for the wording of ORS811.260(4) which is the main misunderstanding by the City of Beaverton but also by the Oregon Department of Transportation. I would like to present these facts for your review and comments.If you are looking for a Board member I might be interested since I’m already doing this kind of work and it would be nice to get paid.
My Swedish engineering degree is in electronics and I’m an expert in motional feedback (displacement, velocity and acceleration feedback) of powered speakers which includes the full understanding of motion of an object such as a loudspeaker cone (or a vehicle stopping or traveling through an intersection as in ORS811.260(4)).
Thank you.
Best regards,
Mats Järlström
13520 SW Hart Road
Beaverton OR 97008 USA
503-671-0312 Phone
503-671-0454 Fax
mats@jarlstrom.com
www.jarlstrom.comwww.jarlstrom.com/redflex
Complaint Ex. 1 Page 2 of 2
Case 3:17-cv-00652-SB Document 1-1 Filed 04/25/17 Page 2 of 2
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
this man has never been licensed, he has no credentials as an engineer other then having a degree in electrical engineering, but as I am sure you know a degree alone does not make you an engineer.
In Sweden, that degree is the license. He is licensed in Sweden if he does, in fact, hold that degree, and that is his engineering credential.
Where he earned his degree, the degree alone does make him an engineer. He was also clear about where he earned his degree and which specific field his degree covered; he also never claimed to be licensed by the state of Oregon, nor did he use either of the specific terms covered by Oregon's laws, nor did he attempt to practice as an engineer in Oregon without being licensed in that state.
In short, yes, he is an engineer and, based on the information presented in court filings, no, he did not violate Oregon's law regarding the use of the title. Of the licensing board left some detail that proves otherwise out of their filings, well, the court can not and should not consider that detail; effectively, those court filings represent the sum total of the facts of the case and those facts support the position that this man did not break the law.
While I do have a strong legal background, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. It would seem, though, that at least one Oregon judge agrees with this opinion, so maybe take it with half a grain of salt, rather than a whole one.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
There is also a distinct difference between an Engineer and an engineer, which only makes your point stronger. He did say, at one point, "And yes, I'm an excellent engineer." That's engineer with a little-e, not Engineer, though his degree does so entitle him. If anything he under-represented himself, likely because he was commenting outside of his field of expertise and did not want to mislead.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
You're half right; Engineer is a legal title, but engineer is just a word. I know, millennials have trouble with syntax such as capitalization, but it's really not that difficult to follow if you slow down and realize that taking the extra second to apply what you were taught in middle school English class isn't going to cause you to miss out on life.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
The letter Mr. Jarlstrom received stated he violated two laws. The first was claiming to be an engineer without being registered as an engineer in Oregon or any other jurisdiction in the USA. The second was "practicing engineering" without a license. By writing his letter stating he did a study on traffic patterns and the layout of the roadway he "testified" or "investigated" on matters concerning "public utilities, processes, works, or projects" as defined in 2007 ORS 672.005.
What is worse is that the law defines such acts on private property as "practicing engineering". Practicing engineering without a license is a violation of the law. So, you measure a room and compute the wall area so that you can make sure you buy enough paint to cover the walls you are "practicing engineering" under the law. If you take those calculations to the hardware store to buy paint, and you are not a licensed engineer in Oregon, then you have violated the law.
If you measure out your yard so that you can buy enough fertilizer for your grass then you have done "surveying to determine area or topography" or "surveying to establish lines, grades or elevations, or to determine or estimate quantities of materials required, removed or in place" as defined by the law. Even on private property this applies. Since Mr. Jarlstrom did some surveying on public property, the intersection in question, and stated so in his letters to the various government agencies then he's been "practicing engineering" without a license.
The $500 fine he paid was for claiming to be an engineer when he was not, under the law. What got him in trouble in the first place was showing expertise in engineering and using that knowledge to complain, or "testify"", to the government. It seems they thought they could not get him on that law, or they didn't want to bother arguing that to a judge. I lost where I saw it but it seems there is a statute of limitations of two years on this violation. Since he keeps talking about the problems with the traffic lights to anyone that asks him about it the clock keeps getting reset on this violation and/or he is committing multiple violations of this law. Each violation carries a possible fine of up to $1000.
After receiving these letters the Oregon state government could have done one of two things, fine him for violating the law, or shut up and listen to what he was telling them. If they didn't fine him then others would have got the crazy idea in their head that they could use devices that measure time and distance, and "apply special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences" to check the work of government "engineers". I suspect the government wants him to shut up so that they can keep collecting fines on people running red lights.
He's paid his fine, can the government come back and fine him again if he doesn't stop talking? I guess that's why the federal courts are now involved.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.