IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
                           DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN


WAYNE         D. CALLWOOD                                  )   CASE NO.   ST-2026-CV-00033
                                                           )
                                    Petitioner.            )   PETITION FOR WRIT OF REVIEW
                                                           )
                    vs                                     )
                                                           )
GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS     _)
DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND          )
CONSUMER AFFAIRS and VIRGIN ISLANDS )
BOARD OF ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS &     _)
LAND SURVEYORS                       )
                                                           )
                                    Respondents            )

                                          Cite as 2026 VI SUPER 20U

                              MEMORANDUM            OPINION AND ORDER

jl         Pending before this Court are

      I.   Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Review, filed January 26, 2026;

     2.    Petitioner’s Brief, filed March 16, 2026; and

     3.    Respondents’    Brief, filed April 28, 2026

For the reasons set forth below, the Virgin Islands Board of Architects,            Engineers & Land
Surveyors’     Order of January     15,   2026, will be affirmed as it pertains to Petitioner Wayne   D
Callwood

                          I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL               BACKGROUND

q2       Petitioner Wayne D. Callwood (“Callwood”) seeks judicial review of the Government of
the Virgin Islands Department of Licensing and Consumer Affairs and Virgin Islands Board of
Architects, Engineers & Land Surveyors’ (the        “Board”  or, collectively, “Respondents”)
Memorandum of Opinion, Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order, issued
on or about January 15, 2026, in Lawrence Best v. Wayne D. Callwood and Francisco A. Nadal
Case No. BC-2687-23 (Administrative Complaint No. 2687), 27 V.LC. § 288 Action for
Revocation

43     On or about May 5, 2023, Lawrence Best filed a complaint with the Board against
Callwood and Francisco A. Nadal (“Nadal”), entitled Complaint No. 2687/CPS Case No. 2023
Calbvood v, Govt of the VI Department of Licensing     & Consumer Affairs et al.         

Case No. ST-2026-CV-00033
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 2 of 10


05-007, and the Board held a hearing in response, which occurred on April 11, 2025, and was
continued to June 27, 2025. As stated in its Memorandum of Opinion

          The complaint alleged that Respondent Callwood was contracted to produce a
          recorded survey, but the final survey bore the stamp of Respondent Nadal, a
          different surveyor. The core allegation is that Respondent Nadal did not prepare the
          survey, and that Respondent Callwood, acting as a Public Surveyor, fraudulently
          submitted and recorded the survey under Respondent Nadal’s professional stamp,
          thereby committing potential fraud and misrepresentation.'

The Board stated that

                 The Board heard testimony from Respondent Callwood, who testified that
          he works at the Lieutenant Governor’s Office as the Public Surveyor and he has
          degrees in civil engineering and surveying. With respect to Parcel 13Ba-3
          Respondent admitted that it was a survey done bm [sic}; that the initials cc are his
          initials and it meant that the survey was checked by him and that the seal was
          Respondent Nadal’s seal. When asked if he placed the seal on the survey,
          Respondent Callwood responded that it was a computer-generated seal that goes on
          all surveys and that it was placed there by him. Respondent Callwood testified that
          both he and Respondent Nadal jointly did the survey of Parcel 13Ba-3. Respondent
          Callwood testified that Respondent Nadal has two seals; one for surveying and one
          for when he’s doing his personal engineering work.”

As a result of the hearing,’ the Board stated that

          Additionally, Respondent Nadal testified that he had not been to the site known as
          Parcel 13Ba-3; that he had not been to Cadastral to look at the map for Estate Hard
          Labor; was not aware of the make and model of the satellite location system used;
          did not know the accuracy rate of the satellite information system used; did not
          review Respondent Callwood’s field notes; and did not have photographs or other
          documentary evidence of bound posts found by Respondent Callwood        4

The Board stated: “Nadal also testified that he did not prepare surveys for Carolina Parcel 8-4-14
1, or 126A or 126B Estate Chocolate Hole.” The Board wrote that “Respondent Nadal testified
that Respondent Callwood does the surveying work (all of the field work) and he does the
engineering part and signs.” Notably, the Board found that



 ' Certified R. of Admin. Proc.,    DLCA000001
? Certified R. of Admin. Proc.,     DLCA000003
3 The Board also heard testimony that at least one survey completed by Callwood had alleged inaccuracies, but “the
Board was not in a position to discuss the accuracy of any survey.” DLCA000002
4 Certified R. of Admin. Proc., DLCA000003
5 Certified R. of Admin. Proc.,     DLCA000003
° Certified R. of Admin.   Proc.,   DLCA000004
Callwood v. Govt of the VI Department of Licensing & Consumer Affairs et al.    

Case No. ST-2026-CV-00033
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 3 of 10


                     Specifically, Respondent Nadal permitted his professional seal to be used
          by Respondent Callwood on surveys intended for official recording. Although
          Respondent Callwood held the necessary license to prepare such surveys, he was
          required by law and professional standards to affix his own signature and seal to
          each survey prior to filing. However, as the Public Surveyor, Respondent Callwood
          faced a clear conflict of interest in signing and sealing the surveys himself. To
          circumvent this ethical and legal requirement, he instead used Respondent Nadal’s
          seal—either with or without Nadal’s explicit knowledge

                     Nevertheless, Respondent Nadal was aware of this misuse. He admitted to
          knowledge of Respondent Callwood’s actions in his response to Mr. Wisehart and
          further evidenced this awareness by allowing Respondent Callwood to review his
          draft response to the Complaint. Additionally, Respondent Nadal admitted that he
          had not visited the sites for the surveys completed by Respondent Callwood, further
          underscoring his lack of professional oversight and direct involvement.’

q4        The Board found that Callwood (and Nadal)           “violated 27 VIC § 286(b) by Respondent
Nadal allowing Respondent Callwood to use Respondent Nadal’s Professional Engineer stamp on
surveys that Respondent Nadal had not reviewed or supervised in any way.”® The Board found
Callwood “[g]uilty of engaging in activities constituting misconduct in the practice of engineering
and that he “failed to maintain the integrity and high standards of skill and practice of engineering
profession.”

q5        On or about January 15, 2026, the Board ordered, inter alia, that: Callwood’s professional
license suspended immediately for a period of six (6) months; Callwood take an eight (8) hour
ethics course prior to the end of the suspension period; and Callwood must serve a one (1) year
probationary period after the six (6) month suspension period has been lifted. On January 26, 2026,
Callwood, pro se, filed before this Court the Petition for Writ of Review. Subsequently, in March
and April of 2026, Callwood and Respondents filed their respective briefs. Callwood seeks to have
this Court vacate the Board’s ruling and remand with instructions to dismiss the case against him
and restore his license, and Respondents seek to have this Court affirm the Board’s ruling

                                            Il. LEGAL   STANDARD

46      This Court, when evaluating a writ of review, has the “power to affirm, modify, reverse, or
annul the decision or determination reviewed, and, if necessary, to award restitution to the plaintiff,
or, by mandate, direct the officer, board, commission, authority, or tribunal to proceed in the matter
reviewed according to its decision.”'° “Upon each appeal all findings, decisions, or determinations
by the Board as to questions of fact shall be deemed final in the absence of conclusive showing to
the Court of fraud or arbitrariness.”'' However, the Court will exercise plenary review concerning

? CertifiedR. of Admin.      Proc., DLCA000005
8 Certified R. of Admin.     Proc., DLCA000001
° Certified R. of Admin.     Proc., DLCA000006
 '0'V.1. CODE ANN. tit. 5,    § 1423
1127 V.LC. § 288(d)
Caltwood v. Govt of the VI Department of Licensing & Consumer Affairs et al.                  

Case No. ST-2026-C V-00033
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 4 of 10


legal findings, statements of law, and the application thereof. !?

                                                       Itt. ANALYSIS

q7       As a preliminary matter, the Board had statutory authority over this matter under Title 27
as the issue concerned misconduct with licenses. Under 27 V.I.C. § 282a, the Board is empowered
to “issue, suspend, revoke, refuse to renew, or reinstate licenses as provided in this chapter.”
Additionally, the Board “may suspend, refuse to renew, or revoke the license of any licensee who,
after due notice and hearing by the Board, is found guilty of” any “gross negligence, incompetence,
or misconduct in the practice of architecture, engineering, or land surveying.”'4

A. The participation of the Board Member at the hearing

48      At the center of one of Callwood’s arguments is the involvement of Board Member Ryan
Wisehart (“Wisehart”’) during the hearing. In the Board’s Memorandum, the Board discussed how
the Board heard testimony from Wisehart and that Wisehart would recuse himself from voting
The Board wrote

                  The Board heard testimony from Mr. Ryan Wisehart regarding an email he
          sent to Complainant on October 16, 2020, indicating that Respondent Nadal was
          stamping Respondent Callwood’s survey and that he had an email from Respondent
          Nadal admitting to doing it. Mr. Wisehart emailed Respondent Nadal on June 10,
         2019, asking him if he was stamping surveys for Respondent Callwood.                         On June
         12, 2019, Respondent Nadal responded yes to Mr. Wisehart.'*

q9       First, Callwood argues that Wisehart’s involvement in the hearing was improper as it
allegedly denied him the constitutional guarantee of due process through a fair trial with an
impartial judge and infringed upon his property interest. In his Brief, Callwood states

                   Although, the Board claimed that Wisehart would recuse himself from
         voting, the damage was already done; Wisehart’s partiality affected the whole
         Board as the Board entertained Wisehart’s beliefs, views, perceptions and mindset
         during the Board’s conferences and discussions. Thus, whether Wisehart voted or
         not, his influence help shaped the Board’s decision. As a matter of fact, Wisehart’s
         attendance at the time of the vote and whether he voted are mysteries to all except
         the Board. This enigma could have been avoided if the Board had just recuse
         Wisehart and remove him for the panel                        8

q!O      Second, Callwood argues that the Board abused its discretion by allowing Wisehart to

2 VIR. CIV. P. 91(i); see Milligan v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands, No. SX-00-CV-443,        

, at *2
(Super. Ct. Nov.   18, 2015);   see Bryan v. Fawkes,   

 (V.I. 2014)
13.97 V.LC. § 282a(f)(4)
1427 V.LC. § 288(a)(2)
'S Certified R. of Admin. Proc.,    DLCA000003
'6 Pet’r’s Br. 6
Callwood v. Govt of the VI Department of Licensing          & Consumer Affairs et al.             

Case No. ST-2026-CV-00033
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 5 of 10


participate in the proceedings. “The Board's action to allow Wisehart to remain seated as part of
the adjudicatory panel, over the objection of Petitioner’s counsel for recusal, was arbitrary and
irrational as it failed to consider Petitioner’s right to a fair and impartial hearing, a judicially
recognized factor, especially knowing that Wisehart would be called as a witness to give testimony
against Petitioner.”!’

{11     In response, the Respondents first argue that Wisehart’s participation in the hearing and
presence on the panel is not a basis for reversal. For instance, under 27 V.I.C. § 288(d), findings
and decisions by the Board concerning questions of fact are deemed final in the absence of
conclusive showing of fraud or arbitrariness. Here, Respondents claim that Callwood has alleged
 neither fraud nor arbitrariness” and that Callwood’s argument concerning Wisehart is not
properly based upon the governing standard.'* Second, Respondents argue that Wisehart’s
testimony did not require his removal from the panel because his testimony concerned facts Nadal
and Callwood stated in their own testimony. For instance, Respondents claim that ‘“Wisehart’s
testimony was not needed” to support the establishment of the charge and that “Nadal and
Callwood admitted the predicate misconduct.”'? “Nonetheless, Wisehart took the prophylactic
measure of recusing himself from voting.” Third, Respondents argue that even if any error
occurred (and they claim no error occurred), such error was harmless as it did not impact
Callwood’s substantial rights

ql2     This Court finds that Wisehart’s involvement did not deny Callwood of his constitutional
guarantee of due process. Wisehart did not act as a fact finder in this case as he did not vote
Callwood asserts that Wisehart influenced the entire Board and its decision. But Wisehart’s
testimony proved unnecessary in light of the total evidence presented before the Board. Wisehart’s
involvement did not impact Callwood’s rights as the Board based its independent decision upon
the evidence presented at the hearing.”' Lastly, abuse of discretion is not the correct standard in
this case, and Callwood has not made a conclusive showing to the Court of fraud or arbitrariness
as to the Board’s findings of fact

B. Application of 27 V.LC.          § 286(b)

ql3      At the center of Petitioner’s other arguments is 27 V.I.C. § 286(b), which states

         (b) Each licensee hereunder shall, upon receipt of his license, obtain a seal of the
         design authorized by the Board, bearing the licensee's name and the legend
          Architect‘,   ‘Engineer‘, or ‘Land Surveyor‘, as the case may be. Plans,
         specifications, reports, maps, plats, surveys, or other documents prepared by the
         licensee shall, when issued for filing with public authorities, be signed and stamped
         with the said seal. It shall be unlawful for an architect, engineer, or land surveyor
         to affix, or permit his seal to be affixed, to any plans, specifications, reports, maps

" Pet’r’s Br. 7
'8 Resp’ts’ Br. 7
' Resp’ts’ Br. 8
 ° Resp’ts’ Br. 8
' See Williams v. Pennsylvania,   

, 

,   

 (2016)
Callwood v. Govt of the VI Department of Licensing & Consumer Affairs et al.    

Case No. ST-2026-CV-00033
Memorandum          Opinion and Order
Page 6 of 10


          plats, surveys, or other documents after expiration of a license or for the purpose of
          aiding or abetting any other person to evade or attempt to evade any provisions of
          this chapter

[4      Callwood claims that the “Board committed clear error in its findings of fact that the
surveyors aided or abetted to evade or attempted to evade the provisions of Chapter 8, Title 27 of
the V.I. Code.””? Callwood argues that his actions were lawful and that the “Board’s finding of
misconduct was not an objective view of the facts” and that the Board sought to “stretch the facts’
to depict Callwood’s and Nadal’s actions “as nefarious.” For instance, Callwood states how it
was not unlawful for him to prepare private survey maps outside of his government job as public
surveyor. Callwood and Nadal had known each other for over thirty years, and “the two surveyors
working and collaborating for over thirty years with each other in performance to better serve their
clients does not rise to the level of aiding or abetting to evade or attempt to evade any provisions
of Chapter 8 of Title 27.4

15       In response, first, Respondents argue that: “Callwood does not contest the Board’s factual
findings, with one exception: Callwood insists that it was not misconduct because it was not
unlawful for him to use Nadal’s seal.”?> Respondents emphasize that Callwood is incorrect when
Callwood argues that no law exists prohibiting public surveyors from performing private work
Instead, Respondents argue that many laws exist that address conflicts of interest, including for
public officials, and Callwood had a conflict of interest but used Nadal’s seal to obscure that
conflict of interest.2° Second, Respondents state how Callwood knew that he and Nadal were
licensed and that each possessed their own seals. “When Callwood used Nadal’s seal for surveys
Callwood had prepared for filing with public authorities, he broke the law.”’ Respondents claim
that this alone is sufficient to support the Board’s finding that Callwood engaged in misconduct in
the practice of land surveying

416     Pursuant to the standard set forth in 27 V.I.C. § 288(d), this Court finds that Callwood has
not made a conclusive showing to this Court of fraud or arbitrariness. For instance, Callwood does
not contest the Board’s finding that: (1) Callwood used Nadal’s seal on at least one survey, (2)
Callwood and Nadal were aware of Callwood’s use of Nadal’s seal, and (3) Nadal lacked direct
involvement in the surveying and did not visit the sites for the surveys completed. The Board found
that Callwood had admitted to intentionally using Nadal’s seal.”* Callwood claims that Callwood
and Nadal had worked and collaborated with each other for over thirty years and that a public
surveyor can do private survey work. But, in this specific case, the Board found that Nadal did not
extensively review or examine the surveys prepared by Callwood, but Callwood still utilized
Nadal’s seal.” This Court finds that Callwood acted unlawfully by using Nadal’s seal because,

? Pet’r’s Br. 9
3 Pet’r’s Br. 9
4 Pet’r’s Br. 9
°5 Resp’ts’ Br. 5
26 Resp'ts’ Br. 5
27 Resp’ts’ Br. 6
§ DLCA000003-DLCA000004
° See, e.g., DLCA000141-DLCA000143
Callwood v. Govt of the VI Department of Licensing & Consumer Affairs et al.                      

Case No. ST-2026-CV-00033
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 7 of 10


under 27 V.L.C.       § 286(b), when an individual licensee alone completes a survey, that individual is
required to use his own seal on his survey.*° The Board also stated that, as the Public Surveyor,
 Callwood faced a clear conflict of interest in signing and sealing the surveys himself” and that
Callwood instead used Nadal’s seal.>' This Court finds no reason to disturb this specific finding
Given the facts of this case, this Court finds that the Board did not err in its findings of misconduct
and that Callwood violated 27 V.1.C. § 286(b)

C. The void for vagueness doctrine

417 | Callwood argues that 27 V.I.C. § 289(3) and 27 V.LC. § 286 are unconstitutional under the
void for vagueness doctrine. 27 V.I.C. § 289(3) states that any person who “presents or attempts
to use the license or seal of another” shall “be guilty of a misdemeanor and may, upon conviction,
be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”*? In Codrington v
People, the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands stated that

          “(T]he void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the
          criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand
          what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and
         discriminatory enforcement.” Therefore, a statute                   “is unconstitutionally vague if it
         ‘fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited,
         or is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory
         enforcement.””?

“[I]f a reasonable person ‘would know that their conduct puts them at risk of punishment under
the statute’ then a challenge for vagueness can be overcome.”*4 But in Monelle v. People, the
Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands stated

         Notwithstanding the two requirements under the void for vagueness doctrine, in
         raising a challenge to a statute that does not involve First Amendment freedoms,
         defendants must first establish standing by demonstrating that the statute is vague
         as applied to the facts of the particular charge against them. See United States v.
         Mazurie, 

 (1975). A person whose conduct unequivocally falls
         within a statute may not successfully challenge the same statute for vagueness
         Parker v. Levy, 

 (1974).*°

ql8       Callwood claims that 27 V.I.C.           § 286(b) and 27 V.I.C. § 289(3) are opposite of each other


3 See Utesch v. Atlas Motor Inns, Inc.,    

 (3d Cir. 1982)
3! Certified R. of Admin,   Proc.,   DLCA00000S.   Callwood denied any conflict of interest, but when asked about why
he did not stamp his own work, Callwood replied:        “Because I'm the public surveyor and that would shed a cloud
over me doing something like that.”     Certified R. of Admin.   Proc.,   DLCA000143
3227 V.LC. § 289(3)
33 Codrington v. People, 57 V.1. 176, 187 (2012) (citations and footnote omitted)
4 People v. Henderson, 2022 V1 SUPER 74U, 4 4 (Super. Ct. Aug.             19, 2022) (citing Brathwaite v. Vir ‘gin
Islands, 

 (2014))
S Monelle v. People, 

 (2015)
Callwood v. Govt of the VI Department of Licensing & Consumer Affairs et al.                  

Case No. ST-2026-CV-00033
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 8 of 10


and that 27 V.LC. § 286(b) and 27 V.I.C. § 289(3) are confusing for surveyors as to how the two
Statutes correlate to each other. Callwood asserts that: “Under 286(b) a signing or sealing done
without evading or attempting to evade is not unlawful while under 289(3) any signing or sealing
is unlawful.’?° Callwood states that 27 V.I.C. § 289(3) encourages arbitrary and discriminatory
enforcement. For instance, Callwood claims that 289(3) encourages discriminatory enforcement
between surveyors employed in firms and individual surveyors not employed by firms because
two or more surveyors in a firm could “collaborate with each other and place their respective seals
on each another surveys” while individual licensed surveyors not employed by firms (or
partnerships) “are easily conspicuous to be detected for infractions by law enforcers under this
section.”?’ Callwood also claims that “Section 286(b) mirrors the same scenario as 289(3) as it
encourages discriminatory enforcement” among surveyors

4!9      In response, Respondents argue that Callwood’s argument concerning the void for
vagueness doctrine fails for at least three reasons. First, Respondents claim that 27 V.I.C. § 286(b)
and 27 V.I.C. § 289(3) are not opposite as they are directed to different types of misconduct
Second, Respondents argue that Callwood lacks standing to challenge 27 V.LC. § 289(3). For
instance, citing People v. Aponte (which concerns the firearm regulatory scheme), Respondents
argue that this case does not involve the application of 27 V.I.C. § 289(3) to Callwood and that
statute is not at issue.** Additionally, Respondents state that “collaboration is not at issue here” so
Callwood “lack[s] standing to challenge § 286(b) as void for vagueness.’*’ Third, Respondents
argue that         “{o]n its merits the §§ 286(b) and 289(3) challenge would fail.’“° For instance,
Respondents argue that the two statutes give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what
is prohibited and that Callwood has not highlighted any impermissible delegation of basic policy,
which is needed to demonstrate discriminatory enforcement. Instead, Respondents state that
Callwood’s “argument is only that it would have been more difficult to detect his misconduct if he
had partnered in a firm with Nadal. This is not the basis of a valid constitutional challenge.”

420     This Court finds that 27 V.I.C. § 289(3) is irrelevant to this case. The Board found that
Callwood violated 27 V.I.C. § 286(b), but the Board did not base its decision upon 27 V.LC. §
289(3). Other than Freeman v. People (concerning 14 V.I.C. § 625(a)), Callwood presents no
authority to support his argument.** Therefore, this Court will decline Callwood’s invitation to
review the constitutionality of 27 V.IL.C. § 289(3)

421      Next, it is not fully clear in Callwood’s Brief whether he is claiming both 27 V.LC. § 289(3)
and 27 V.I.C. § 286(b) are unconstitutional or only 27 V.I.C. § 289(3). Callwood only expressly
claims that 27 V.LC.            § 289(3) is unconstitutional but later states that “Section 286(b) mirrors the
same     scenario      as   289(3).?          If Callwood     is   also    challenging   27   V.I.C.   §   286(b)   as

© Pet’r’s Br. 10
7 Pet’r’s Br. 11
8 People v. Aponte,   78 V.1.     16, 2023 VI SUPER 51 (Super. Ct. 2023)
 * Resp'ts’ Br. IL
* Resp’ts’ Br. 10
1! Resp’ts’ Br. 11
? Freeman      People, 61 V.1.     537,   545 (2014)
% Pet’r’s Br. 11
Callwood v. Govt of the VI Department of Licensing      & Consumer Affairs et al.         

Case No. ST-2026-CV-00033
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 9 of 10


unconstitutionally vague, then it is worth noting that the void for vagueness doctrine is often argued
in the context of criminal statutes, but 27 V.I.C. § 286(b) is not a criminal statute.“ However, the
void for vagueness doctrine         “has been extended to civil cases”      and a lesser degree of specificity is
generally required in a civil context than with criminal contexts.> Assuming Callwood is
challenging 27 V.I.C. § 286(b) as unconstitutional, this Court will extend the analysis in this case
to 27 V.LC. § 286(b) even though it is not a criminal statute

422     This Court finds that 27 V.I.C. § 286(b) is not vague as applied to the facts of the allegations
against Callwood and he lacks standing for this challenge. In this case, the Board found that
Callwood prepared the surveys but used Nadal’s seal instead of his own seal. 27 V.I.C. § 286(b)
plainly indicates that each licensee shall obtain a seal bearing the licensee’s name and that surveys
“prepared by the licensee shall, when issued for filing with public authorities, be signed and
stamped with the said seal.’*° Additionally, the civil statute states: “It shall be unlawful for an
architect, engineer, or land surveyor to affix, or permit his seal to be affixed, to any plans,
specifications, reports, maps, plats, surveys, or other documents after expiration of a license or for
the purpose of aiding or abetting any other person to evade or attempt to evade any provisions of
this chapter.” Also, a lesser degree of specificity is required in the civil context with 27 V.LC. §
286(b). Callwood completing the surveying work alone and using Nadal’s seal violated 27 V.I.C
§ 286(b) and constituted misconduct

423      Callwood’s main argument concerning 27 V.I.C. § 286(b) compares the facts of this case
to a separate situation (not at issue) with licensed surveyors potentially collaborating together
within a firm, allegedly resulting in discriminatory enforcement. But Nadal did not actively
participate in the surveying work with Callwood. Callwood’s hypothetical is separate from the
facts of this case, and 27 V.IL.C. § 286(b) pertains to Callwood’s conduct at issue. As this Court
has previously held

         When the options before the Court are a plain and straightforward reading of a
         statute that results in a rational, easy-to-understand scheme, or an intricate and
         convoluted reading of a statute that results in an irrational and unworkable
         scheme, the answer is simple, do not do the latter.**

Callwood’s conduct fell within the bounds of what was clearly proscribed by the statute.*? As


4 Donastorg v. Gov't of Virgin Islands ex rel. Departments & Agencies & its Comm'rs & Directors, No. CIV
20/1998, 

 (Terr. V.I. June 24, 2003) (“The Supreme Court, however, has recognized that a
non-criminal statute is unconstitutionally vague under the due process clause, where its language does not convey
sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct, when measured by common understanding and practices

a cen of Virgin Islands v. Thomas, 53 V.1. 319, 331 n.t6 (V.1. Super. 2010) (citing Vill, of Hoffman Ests. v.
Flipside, Hoffman Ests., Inc., 

 (1982))
4627 V.LC. § 286(b)
727 V.LC. § 286(b)
48 People v. Clendinen, 2024 V1 SUPER 33U, ¥ 15 (V.L Super. Sept. 26, 2024)
‘9 See LeBlanc v. People, 56 V.1. 536, 541 (2012) (citation omitted); see Gonsalves v. People, 70 V.1. 812, 843 n.19
(2019) (citations omitted)
Callwood v. Govt of the VI Department of Licensing & Consumer Affairs et al.    

Case No. ST-2026-C      V-00033
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 10 of 10


such, Callwood lacks standing to challenge the statute on the ground of purported vagueness.*™”

                                             IV. CONCLUSION

924      For the foregoing reasons, this Court will affirm the Board’s Order of January 15, 2026, as
it pertains to Callwood

         Accordingly,     it is hereby

         ORDERED          that the Government of the Virgin Islands Department of Licensing and
Consumer Affairs and Virgin Islands Board of Architects, Engineers & Land Surveyors’
Memorandum of Opinion, Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order, issued
on or about January 15, 2026, in Lawrence Best v. Wayne D. Callwood and Francisco A. Nadal,
Case No. BC-2687-23 (Administrative Complaint No. 2687), 27 V.I.C. § 288 Action for
Revocation is AFFIRMED solely as it pertains to Wayne D. Callwood; and it is further

         ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be mailed to Wayne
D. Callwood at P.O. Box 304126, St. Thomas, VI 00803; and a copy thereof directed to Assistant
Attorney General Daniel Morris


DATED:      S laze                                    Nawerense                Paw
                                                               DENISE M.         FRANCOIS
                                                   Judge of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands



ATTEST

TAMARA CHARLES
Clerk of the Court


wr: Dellabth BPO _
     (   DONNA        D. DONOVAN
         Court Clerk Supervisor 5        /{\_/ we




°° See Henderson,   2022 VI SUPER 74U, 4 8