this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2023
594 points (97.9% liked)
Not The Onion
11929 readers
2 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
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.