3 ms·
Paragraph 14[0] clearly states violations as a consequence of ORS 672.007(1)(c)[1] using the definition in ORS 672.005(1)(b)[2]: "by [critiquing an engineering
by echion 9y ago
Paragraph 14[0] clearly states violations as a consequence of ORS 672.007(1)(c)[1] using the definition in ORS 672.005(1)(b)[2]:
"by [critiquing an engineering formula] and submitting the critique [...] to members of the public" [...he...] thereby engaged in the practice of engineering [...] specifically, traffic engineering [...and thus] violated ORS 672.020(1), 672.045(1) and OAR 820-010-0730(3)(c)".
I agree his affirmative defenses are inadequate, but I'm not taking issue with the analysis of his defense. I simply am pointing out the justification used in Paragraph 14 is concerning. ORS672.005(1)(b) is way too broad.
[0] - https://www.scribd.com/document/346354146/mats4#from_embed https://www.scribd.com/document/346354146/mats4#from_embed
[1] - https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.007 https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.007
[2] - https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.005 https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.005
- anigbrowl 9y agoBut your argument only makes sense if we forget about the fact that he knowingly made a false claim to be 'an engineer' after the inappropriateness of that had been explained to him. You could be right if that false claim hadn't happened. But it did, and everything subsequent has to be evaluated within that context. Think of the difference between global and local variables, and the sort of bugs you get if you ignore scope rules (I'm guessing you're a coder, ignore if that's not the case).