No he is not being punished for thinking and speech.
You're treating the documents containing his proposal as a completely separate issue from his claim of professional status, but the documents are a doubling down upon his original and repeated false claim of being an engineer, which claim he was warned he should not be making.
If I hold out a mystery pill and invite you to swallow it, how you react will differ considerably depending on whether or not you believe I'm a doctor. This is in no way a commentary on the efficacy of the pill, but only on whether I am likely to have the appropriate medical knowledge that would justify my suggestion.
The Board's Final Report said, in a separate paragraph (14), that because "thinking and speech" (speech about his thinking, not "I'm an engineer")[1] were a violation of the law.
If you're arguing the board doesn't actually think that's a violation unless one also said one is an engineer, great, I've never disagreed with that; but they explicitly said "because [action definition X] you are in violation" and [definition X] pointedly does not include saying anything but "here's a creative application of math and stuff".
1. not the part where he said "I'm an engineer" -- the other paragraphs deal with that
Stop ignoring the context in which the violation occurred. You are treating them as two separate behaviors when one is in fact pendant on the other.
I've seen this in so many legal cases - people file appeals arguing that the law is terribly wrong and their arguments are beautifully logical but for the fact that they are asking the appeal court to forget some very salient fact.
Imagine you go to a party and pee in the punch bowl. It doesn't matter how many times you subsequently offer a great recipe for punch in a demonstrably clean bowl, nobody is going to forget about the fact that you pissed in it the first time. I apologize for employing such a crude metaphor but I am baffled by your refusal to acknowledge the context in which the investigation occurred, so I'm resorting to shocking imagery in the hope of opening your eyes to this.
The court (or similar administrative body) should not have to spell the context out over and over and over again for every bit of the case under discussion. When you read the judgement in a legal case you are expected to hold that idea in your head unless you're explicitly told that X and Y are entirely separate issues. Parsing bits of the decision out of context will lead to errors of interpretation. I don't know how to explain this any more clearly to you.
The final court document does not seem to conform to your argument. Section 13 for example, does conform to your points. It states that "By purporting to be able to perform engineering services or work, Jarlstrom engaged in the practice of engineering...".
However, section 14 is very different. It does not rely on his use of the title of engineer. Instead it states "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... Jarlstrom applied special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such create 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 engaging in the practice of engineering (specifically, traffic engineering) without registration, Jarlstrom violated ORS 672.020(1), and OAR 820-010-0730(3)(c) on a second occasion."
Section 14 never cites the use of the title "engineer" as relevant for violating ORS 672.020(1), only his engaging in the "practice of engineering." As a practical matter, they may not have brought legal action if he had not used the title, but they certainly believe the law states that disseminating his findings certainly count as "practicing engineering" and is illegal without certification.
Actually, I wonder if the court didn't misinterpret 672.005(1)(b). I've cited it below and it seems to rely on the work in question being used for the purpose of ensuring compliance.
672.005(1) states: "Practice of engineering" or "practice of professional engineering" means doing any of the following:
(b) Applying special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such professional services or creative work as consultation, investigation, testimony, evaluation, planning, design and services during construction, manufacture or fabrication for the purpose of ensuring compliance with specifications and design, in connection with any public or private utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, works or projects.
For the last time, these are not separate issues and treating them as such is erroneous. Section 13 establishes the context in which the facts in section 14 were evaluated.
I'm exhausted trying to explain this and frankly annoyed that I've wasted most of my afternoon trying to provide legal insight to people who refuse to listen to reason that contradicts their preconceptions.
WHY do you think section 14 should be interpreted in isolation from section 13? Do you think that makes it like a new function or procedure in which all the scope rules are reset? Why are you ignoring 672.007?
It's really frustrating that programmers seem to think that working with logical constructs makes them lawyers. Maybe you would take me more seriously if I charged you $250/hour?
While I understand your exhaustion, I wonder why they aren't suing companies providing certifications with 'Engineer' in the title. Say, Cisco Certified Engineer, MCSE, etc. It would seem that it would be a far more egregious violation to offer to certify someone as an engineer. Do they not go after the companies claiming to provide these resources as a service? I'm just wondering why it seems so selectively enforced.
This is another common misunderstanding. There is an "industrial exception" for engineers working under the umbrella of a corporation.
From Texas engineer board code (I think other states are similar):
§ 1001.057. Employee of Private Corporation or Business Entity
(a) This chapter shall not be construed to apply to the activities of a private corporation or other business entity, or the activities of the full-time employees or other personnel under the direct supervision and control of the business entity, on or in connection with:
(1) reasonable modifications to existing buildings, facilities, or other fixtures to real property not accessible to the general public and which are owned, leased, or otherwise occupied by the entity; or
(2) activities related only to the research, development, design, fabrication, production, assembly, integration, or service of products manufactured by the entity.
[Sections (b) and (c) omitted for clarity]
(d) For purposes of this section, “products manufactured by the entity” also includes computer software, firmware, hardware, semiconductor devices, and the production, exploration, and transportation of oil and gas and related products.”
Meaning, engineers can perform engineering work for a company without being licensed.
He did not give a mystery pill to an unwashed commoner. He wrote to a specialist board who are supposed to be experts. If they claim they were misled by his claims they all should be fired, since they are not competent enough to distinguish between a real engineer and a quack. But looks like they weren't misled at the least, and he wasn't a quack either - they just went on a power trip, probably because he annoyed them by questioning them.
> I am likely to have the appropriate medical knowledge that would justify my suggestion.
One can have relevant knowledge without being an MD. E.g. by being a biochemist. Having license for particular profession is not the same as having knowledge.
You're treating the documents containing his proposal as a completely separate issue from his claim of professional status, but the documents are a doubling down upon his original and repeated false claim of being an engineer, which claim he was warned he should not be making.
If I hold out a mystery pill and invite you to swallow it, how you react will differ considerably depending on whether or not you believe I'm a doctor. This is in no way a commentary on the efficacy of the pill, but only on whether I am likely to have the appropriate medical knowledge that would justify my suggestion.