Offtopic, but I just wanted to point out that your comment looks like this:
http://imgur.com/FGi9jsvIt's quite difficult to read, and even harder for mobile users. It might be better to use > or asterisks for quoting.
For anyone else who was trying to read the quoted parts, here they are:
He's perfectly at liberty to [share the information]
No, he's not according to the violations cited in Final Order, page 6, section heading #14; in particular:
> By reviewing, critiquing, and altering an engineered ITE formula,
and submitting the critique and calculations [...] 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).
...and summarizing:
> By engaging the practice of engineering [...] without registration,
Jarlstrom violated [laws]. [...] By again providing the public with
his traffic engineering calculations for the modification of
Beaverton's traffic signal timing, Jarlstrom again engaged in the
practice of engineering and, specifically, the practice of traffic
engineering. He thereby violated [laws] on a third occasion. By
providing his publicly released traffic engineering calculations to
the sheriff of the 20 county where he advised changes in traffic
signals, Jarlstrom again purported to be authorized to engage in, and
did engage in, the practice of engineering. He, therefore, violated
[laws] on third and fourth occasions.