Forums » Local & National Politics

All Forums:  Advertisers | Book Club | Community Watch | General Discussion | Politics | Recipes | Support     New Topics & Replies

Levee Protection

    • 4977 posts
    201
    May 25, 2017 4:34:55 PM PDT
    What's the name of the legal entities or experts taking on your allegations?

    Oh, that's right.....none.
    • 1140 posts
    202
    May 25, 2017 8:00:26 PM PDT
    So the truth has finally come out, cleanup has finally admitted he is looking for a payout on his "evidence" of alleged wrong doing by numerous wrong doing by officials. The obstacle he faces is the fact there is no wrong doing. If there had been the Attorney General would have been all over the case.

    Thankfully everyone sees through your
    • 6429 posts
    203
    May 26, 2017 12:35:51 PM PDT
    "The obstacle he faces is the fact there is no wrong doing".

    When I look at the stealing of our tax funds by the Liberals, I see corruption and law breaking, When the two liberals posting here see what the officials are doing, they see no wrong because they are liberal.

    The two factions grew up in the USA following the God given laws of Right and wrong as shown in the bible until about the sixties when the morals began to erode and the two factions became as stated in the bible wrong became right and right became wrong. In California the left have elected liberals to most offices and when " the fact there is no wrong doing" is said by the liberal he sees no wrong because his mind no longer follows the rule of law.

    • 1140 posts
    204
    May 26, 2017 1:33:09 PM PDT
    So because I don't support you I'm a liberal Ernie?

    I'm definitely more conservative than liberal, as such your statement is very much amusing. You should ask my liberal friends where they would place me in the political spectrum, though I can guarantee they wouldn't classify me as a liberal by any stretch of the imagination.

    Any the problem you have is that despite your efforts you aren't going to see any "reward" money.

    That is because there is no apparent wrong-doing and despite what you have stated to the contrary the State has indeed had audits performed.

    Keep up the amusement for your fellow Yuba County citizens on this site.
    • 4977 posts
    205
    May 26, 2017 5:48:38 PM PDT
    Do we really have to go back to name calling, Pervie Ernie?
    Do we have to discuss motives like a failed campaign for Sheriff, failed campaign for Supervisor, failed recall effort, and then very public court procedures on child molestation charges? Do we have to discuss your conviction that you and only you know the truth - and it is all a big conspiracy against you? A coordinated conspiracy between numerous agencies local, state, and federal, and then a massive cover-up only to ruin your reputation with Child Molestation charges? Charges your own son said are true?
    And how you have demanded "proof" in your Child Molestation case but don't offer the same "proof" when it comes to when you make the allegations against others?
    Or should we discuss how you attack others when asked to prove your claims or provide verifiable evidence to support your claims?
    You have no credibility because you can't get one reputable engineer, one authority, or one legal entity to come out publicly and support your claims.

    On top of the revenge motivation factor it also appears by your own admission there is a financial reward component. You're just another greasy politician only you failed at politics.

    You're a snowflake Rex (before it was cool!). You just can't accept reality and the results of the will of the voters.
    As far as labeling me being liberal: this further proves you have credibility issues as I have stated time and time again how I lean and I've done it in threads where you have joined in.

    Way to enjoy your retirement.
    • 6429 posts
    206
    May 26, 2017 6:20:40 PM PDT
    The "new way"of accrediting or certifying levees is not people friendly because politicians and crooked officials can get a levee "system" certified even if Federal requirements of a solid foundation are not there, How? They do not inspect known defects such as NO FOUNDATION in a levee and certify the levee "system".

    The Yuba River South Levee was not certified , accreditation or any safe notice from the people, the false paid certification by a Engineer who worked for TRLIA was the only person who could be forced to sign his name, even though the forced , paid certification fits the needs of the officials, TRLIA, politicians, groups but it does nothing for people.

    Progress because of people having a desire to come here for work is one thing, but progress from officials wanting to fill up homes like is happening from Lincoln to Sacramento already, is fool hardy.
    • 6429 posts
    207
    May 26, 2017 6:57:53 PM PDT
    Embankment and Foundation Stability –
    Required under 44 CFR 65 10
    Engineering analyses that evaluate levee embankment stability must be submitted. The analyses provided shall evaluate expected seepage during
    loading conditions associated with the base flood and shall demonstrate that seepage into or
    through the levee foundation and embankment will not jeopardize embankment or foundation
    stability.

    AS can see, the foundation is destroyed so the missing foundation can not be certified as required.
    • 4977 posts
    208
    May 26, 2017 7:20:41 PM PDT
    It's called proof, Cleanup.

    You have made accusations but have zero that will create a call to action, and you have no credible entity that will take the issue to court.

    No change in the years and years of trying to avenge your personal issues by blaming others.
    • 6429 posts
    209
    May 28, 2017 1:31:34 PM PDT
    2Grands said:
    Do we really have to go back to name calling, Pervie Ernie? Do we have to discuss motives like a failed campaign for Sheriff, failed campaign for Supervisor, failed recall effort, and then very public court procedures on child molestation charges? Do we have to discuss your conviction that you and only you know the truth - and it is all a big conspiracy against you? A coordinated conspiracy between numerous agencies local, state, and federal, and then a massive cover-up only to ruin your reputation with Child Molestation charges? Charges your own son said are true? And how you have demanded "proof" in your Child Molestation case but don't offer the same "proof" when it comes to when you make the allegations against others? Or should we discuss how you attack others when asked to prove your claims or provide verifiable evidence to support your claims? You have no credibility because you can't get one reputable engineer, one authority, or one legal entity to come out publicly and support your claims. On top of the revenge motivation factor it also appears by your own admission there is a financial reward component. You're just another greasy politician only you failed at politics. You're a snowflake Rex (before it was cool!). You just can't accept reality and the results of the will of the voters. As far as labeling me being liberal: this further proves you have credibility issues as I have stated time and time again how I lean and I've done it in threads where you have joined in. Way to enjoy your retirement.

    Uh, hi. I am Robert Archer... not Rex typing here. I am using my real name instead of hiding behind some user name like a coward throwing rocks from behind a car. Dad asked me to post a couple pictures or documents from time to time. I will be posting one about the NEVER PROVEN, NEVER CONVICTED charges you mention. Good lord, 2Grands.. how small are you? This was years ago and no guilt was admitted or proven. You bringing it up in light of a post about levees shows how small mentally you are. Yep, I don't normally attack people.. especially useless opinions of faceless, nameless hiding internet wannabe warriors like you. Why he goes on and on with you I don't know. I tried telling him you are not worth the words you type without showing an ounce of credibility by saying WHO you are. Now, below will be a letter from the lawyer that took his case after the first. I am not sure you were there the last day of the deciding if the case should be retried, but for those reading... not so much for 2Grands who is not brave enough to be known, the lawyer passed out memos to people in the attendance showing how Dad's rights were violated, The DA assistant got one and surprise, surprise.. the case was thrown out at that point.

     

    Full disclosure, I had a run in with the law at a dark point in my life. If you want to throw that out there to somehow discredit me.. go ahead. It seems to be your M.O.

     

    Calling him Pervie Ernie is so childish I cannot believe you even typed it. You are a one trick pony.. debate, debate, then bring up the charges. Do you think that makes a case for yourself?.

     

    Anyway.. I made my own account to answer you, but I have to be approved first. I WILL NOT be going back and forth with anyone. I am not saying anything about the levee.. and I have said all I will to the "snowflake" who gets so frustrated they have to bring up unproved and unconvicted FALSE accusations as a rebuttle.

     

    Here is what was sent to Appeal Democrat that RYoung DID not publish. AD was slanted.

     

    Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 5:19 PM

    Subject: Dismissal of Charges against Rex Archer

     

    Dear Mr. Young,

     

    With respect to this afternoon's dismissal of the charges against Rex Archer, he & I appreciate the fact that the dismissal was published in the appealdemocrat.com.  And, while the motivation for the district attorney to dismiss the case may have been as stated by Mr. Enos, there were many other good reasons for doing so.

     

    Since being retained by represent Mr. Archer in this case, I have thoroughly reviewed the charges, all of the reports regarding this case and the transcript of the first trial of the matter.  Based on all of the available information, it was apparent to me that this was a case which ought not to have been tried a second time.

    Some of the reasons for my conclusion in this regard include:

    1)            The allegations in this case date as far back as 2004.  While that in and of itself is not necessarily a problem, it does raise serious issues regarding the ability of minors as young as AM and JA to accurately recall and relate their experiences.

    2)            The evidentiary issues in the case are such that it is unlikely that any jury of 12 people would ever be able to arrive at a unanimous decision to convict.

    3)            No expert testimony was offered by either side in the first trial, despite the obvious need for such testimony to help explain to the jury the underlying psychology and motivation for the claims of these girls.   In fact, members of the first jury made a point of commenting on the lack of such evidence after the mis-trial was declared.  There is no doubt that the minors have suffered severe emotional and psychological distress, dating back to their infancies.  There appears to be good reason to believe that both of these girls are suffering from reactive attachment disorder (RAD), rooted in the dysfunctional home lives through which they suffered during their formative years.

    4)            One specific aspect of RAD that I would have raised in a re-trial is the all too common consequence that children suffering from this disorder make false allegations of physical or sexual abuse against successor caretakers, particularly foster or adoptive parents.    There are several underlying motivations and/or explanations for such false allegations, including the fear of the child in forming an intimate familial relationship;  the anger and hurt they are feeling from their previous neglect or abuse;   confused memories on the part of the child which are projected onto the successor caretaker;   and misunderstanding or misinterpretation by the child of normal, non-sexual, parent-child love interactions, including such physical intimacies as hugging, kissing, cuddling and other physical contact.

    5)            In a re-trial of the case, I would have offered the full panoply of evidence with respect to the psycho-sexual history of the two girls, including the lack of contemporaneous complaints of misconduct by Mr. Archer.  The lack of such claims during contemporaneous counseling sessions is particularly significant. 


     

    6)            Relatively little character evidence was offered on behalf of Mr. Archer in the first trial.  I would have called a number of character witnesses on his behalf in a second trial.  I am in possession of numerous character testimonials which provide considerable insight regarding Mr. Archer and the extreme unlikelihood that he would or could have committed the alleged offenses.

    7)            I filed a number of motions earlier this month by which all of the appropriate evidence could and would have been presented in this case.

    8)            There were also a number of legal issues with respect to the manner in which this case was prosecuted in the first trial, including improper pleading and jury instructions.  I also filed motions with the court to correct those improprieties during any second trial.

    9)            The nature and extent of the pretrial and trial publicity regarding this case, as well as Mr. Archer's prominence in the community otherwise, suggest that a change of venue might have been appropriate and I filed another motion for such a change of venue. This motion would have been evaluated based on the response of prospective jurors to a questionnaire designed for that purpose.  A change of venue would have insured that Mr. Archer received a fair trial, untainted by the news coverage of the case to date and/or Mr. Archer's previous political activities.

    As a former prosecutor myself for ten years in Orange County, I fully understand and appreciate the need for aggressive prosecution of appropriate cases, particularly those involving sexual abuse of children.  On the other hand, I have always believed that the exercise of appropriate prosecutorial discretion includes forbearance when a case does not warrant, for whatever reason, further prosecution.  Mr. Archer did not commit the offenses with which he was charged and it is my opinion that this case could never be successfully prosecuted.  Therefore, regardless of the reasons for the decision of the district attorney to dismiss the charges, it is the correct decision and this result in the best interests of Mr. Archer and the minors.

    Thank you very much for your continued attention to this case.

    Sincerely,

    JAMES T. REILLY, Attorney at Law

    California State Bar No. 67254

     

    Summit Defense, A Professional Law Corporation

    102 Washington Avenue
    Point Richmond CA 94801

    510-412-8900 Office
    510-439-2855 Fax
    415-913-0787 Cell

    • 6429 posts
    210
    May 28, 2017 3:06:35 PM PDT
    Oh, and one final thought RE: "Charges your own son said are true?"

    Bill left home at about 18 years and has lived in the Los Angeles area ever since. He came up maybe twice a year since then and did not have the insight or connection to Dad to know a thing about what he is like. Bill saw NOTHING. He had no evidence and in truth reported it because a church member told him to. He follows his church in an almost cultic way...so using that as some basis of evidence of wrong doing is laughable when you are actually part of the family... not some arm chair, anon. who had ZERO to do with the case. Unless of course you did have something to do with the case? Being you are a hider, I can't tell.

    Take care.
    • 4977 posts
    211
    May 28, 2017 4:40:11 PM PDT
    Funny, an easy google search will bring up quite a bit of information about one Earnest Rex Archer.
    We've been down this road with him name calling, attacking those like myself who asked for substantiated proof, and gets angry if challenged. He demands one thing while refusing to hold himself to the same standard - then attacks when that is pointed out.

    A lawyer's letter on behalf of a client? Of course it won't be negative.
    I didn't start the name calling. I will not play cleanup's game. I've been accused of all kinds of stuff by cleanup. He is reaping what he's sown. No one to blame but himself.
    It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that there is a motive of revenge and financial reward.

    Maybe I did go too low. I'm frustrated at your Dad's double standard and narcissistic attitude about everything. Only he knows and everyone has an ulterior motive or are inferior.
    He was a better Sheriff, better Supervisor, better Levee District President, better recall person, better election expert, better water manager, better civil engineer, better lawyer, better financial auditor, better investigator, and better judge according to his posts and arguments.

    No, I had nothing to do with the case. No, I've never been in government. Yes, I've been flooded. Yes, I did some investigating of my own about cleanup's claim. No, I don't have anything to do with law enforcement. Yes, I tried to get onboard and help Cleanup with other but he attacked me for asking questions before sticking my neck out.

    Cleanup is out for revenge and recently posted financial reward.

    Thinking about what I posted you're right; I shouldn't have said that. It was my frustration coming through and I was wrong. My bad.
    • 6429 posts
    212
    June 2, 2017 9:20:09 AM PDT
    Embankment and Foundation Stability –
    Required under 44 CFR 65 10
    Engineering analyses that evaluate levee embankment stability must be submitted. The analyses provided shall evaluate expected seepage during
    loading conditions associated with the base flood and shall demonstrate that seepage into or
    through the levee foundation and embankment will not jeopardize embankment or foundation
    stability.

    AS you can see, the foundation was destroyed in the flood of 1986 so the missing foundation can not be certified as required.
    • 4977 posts
    213
    June 2, 2017 11:10:57 AM PDT
    Than why won't any entity jump all over this?
    • 6429 posts
    214
    June 2, 2017 2:21:54 PM PDT
    I only know attorneys that I contacted that advertised Qui Tam services after a week or so sent us refusals, all 65 of the firms. Our state is different now especially if we try to protect our constitutional rights.
    • 6429 posts
    215
    June 2, 2017 2:27:06 PM PDT
    State Law 12650 12656 are the applicable laws .
    • 4977 posts
    216
    June 2, 2017 4:49:43 PM PDT
    cleanup said:
    I only know attorneys that I contacted that advertised Qui Tam services after a week or so sent us refusals, all 65 of the firms. Our state is different now especially if we try to protect our constitutional rights.

     

    65 law firms refused to take this on by your own admission.

     

    I am fairly certain this is the answer to all the questions about improper activities. 65 firms said no case, no thanks. 

    • 1140 posts
    217
    June 3, 2017 7:07:09 PM PDT
    So what I'm getting from this Ernie is that you submitted your "proof" of alleged wrong doing to the Attorney General and they apparently determined there was no wrong doing.

    You also approached 65 different legal firms that handled such cases and they reviewed the "evidence" and also determined there is no wrong doing.

    Essentially the Attorney General and 65 law firms told you that there is no case. This upsets you because you apparently you could get an easy payday out of this.
    • 6429 posts
    218
    June 6, 2017 9:29:55 AM PDT
    Looks like I said something I shouldn't have.
    I would like to apologize to cleanup for crossing the line of civility.
    No defense; I made a mistake.
    • 6429 posts
    219
    June 7, 2017 11:57:42 AM PDT
    To the people who live in and have friends and relatives in Plumas lake, Arboga, Olivehurst , West Linda, I have tried to protect you when I was in command of the Reclamation District 784 and it was my duty to watch for possible levee defects along the Yuba , Feather, and Bear rivers. In 1995-96 winter , I warned the State Department of Water that a large Boil had shown on the East side of The feather River that had increased in volume since the development of a large Mitigation pond near to the East feather river Levee constructed by Nordic Industry with no approval or knowledge of Reclamation District 784 officials , could cause the levee to break at the Country club road .
    The State Department of water came down after I had told the Construction officials to cease the construction , The DWR officials said they would investigate the Boil. The DWR failed to cause the construction to cease and at the next RD 784 meeting, I resigned as President of RD 784 ( April 1996) and the levee broke at the site of the boil the following winter.

    I have been Ridiculed by a person in Plumas Lake , known as Javadad and another known as "2 Cents" due to my writings warning of Levee defects, and in 1997 my warnings came true when the Feather River broke at the site of the mitigation pond. Now, I have warned the people that the Yuba River Levee that has no required foundation under the Levee where the yuba river Failed in 1986 and Giant Boulders dumped into the break site permit the High flood water to leak through the boulders and exit on the land side. The break site has had no work at all on the break site since 1986 even though the local government has had hundreds of Millions of dollars in "reimbursements " that were for supposed work along the Yuba River.
    • 4977 posts
    220
    June 7, 2017 12:13:13 PM PDT
    1997 was 20 years ago. There has been work done and a set back levee. The dynamics are different.

    All you have been asked to do, out of all of this, is to get a professional or expert or legal entity to validate your claims. By your own admission, 65 entities refused to get on board.

    Please explain why no legal, professional, our expert entity or individual will support your claims;
    please explain how the people are supposed to follow one person who by his own admission has been rejected by every legal entity in the state plus over 50 legal firms?


    • 4977 posts
    221
    June 7, 2017 12:14:30 PM PDT
    That's not ridicule Rex; that's asking for proof.
    You really, really struggle with the notion of independent verification and proof.
    • 4977 posts
    222
    June 7, 2017 1:32:23 PM PDT
    C'mon cleanup:
    There's no ridicule or offensive language in asking questions about your alleged improprieties and results. Why the silence? Does this mean I'm correct in my estimations?
    • 6429 posts
    223
    June 7, 2017 5:55:32 PM PDT
    "1997 was 20 years ago. There has been work done and a set back levee. The dynamics are different. "

    2 Grands, I am not going back and forth with you on past issues such as whether or not Yuba county done levee work on the YUBA RIVER LEVEE at the site of the Levee break, However, there has been no work at all on that levee. Yuba County did construct a sand berm from the Shad Pad road east to the Union Pacific Rail ROAD but that is not working on the defective levee. again, YUba County did not construct any work AT ALL on the LEVEE ITSELF. There has been no work to remove the Giant Boulders that will let flood water flow through after weeks of rain.

    YUBA County hired a professional engineering firm who warned Yuba County they should fix several major defects in the Levee and YUBA COUNTY did not fix any of them.

    You say they built a set back levee but that was on the Feather River levee NOT the YUBA.

    Please explain why no legal, professional, our expert entity or individual will support your claims"

    The Kleinefelder engineering firm as shown above believed my statement of the defective levee that broke in 1986 , and i was given a copy of the engineering firms work.

    Again, I will not go any further with you on this.
    • 4977 posts
    224
    June 7, 2017 7:38:23 PM PDT
    I don't really care if you won't go further; it proves my point. You don't have a case!

    You have told us soon, those that need to know do, you will see, and so on.
    The document you have must mean zilch because 65 law firms told you to pound sand.
    Again, the statute of limitations has most likely run out after 20 years and over 30 since the 86 flood.
    Keep chasing it. You are like a moth chasing a light: you are only hurting one person.
    • 4977 posts
    225
    June 7, 2017 10:59:50 PM PDT
    Have to bring forth facts and getting authoritative support sure quiets you down, cleanup.
    • 2564 posts
    226
    June 8, 2017 7:14:56 AM PDT
    Flood insurance. Help or hazard? The National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, expires in September 2017. NFIP runs at a deficit of about $25 billion.
    NFIP is expected to be renewed. Most likely, properties will be insured up to only $250,000. Private insurance is expected to be available for greater losses.
    If the financial power of the United States stands behind flood insurance, there is temptation to build additional houses and commerce in flood plains. After all, someone else is paying for losses from the flood. What's not to like about having someone else pay?
    Is global warming a hoax? If so, does it really matter what is causing the property losses due to rising water in Florida? A loss is a loss, no matter what causes the property to get wet.
    • 6429 posts
    227
    June 8, 2017 2:59:36 PM PDT
    Dick Boyd, one reason that causes property to get wet is FEMA and the Corps not following levee safety requirements such as 44CFR 65.10 one of the requirements that is required for our safety is the Levee must have a foundation under it to prevent sloughing off , or sinking because of the heavy levee having no support from a foundation.

    The corps of engineers would never certify a levee that does not have a foundation as the levee at 0.79 levee mile marker of the Yuba River does not.

    Back in 2009 in some way the corps of engineers in Sacramento certified the levee but did not follow the 44 CFR 65.10 requirements of having a foundation under it but the Home office in Washington removed the certification. The corps would not re-certify it but a engineer working on the levee certified it without installing a new foundation, then went around the Corps of engineers and had FEMA accredited it, not certify it but accredited it which meant the levee was accredited on " Paper" ! , accredited on Paper.

    The Levee still has no foundation, is still not certified, is just as dangerous as it was when it broke in 1987 to we the people but the county of yuba on paper says their levee is accredited.

    • 4977 posts
    228
    June 8, 2017 11:17:07 PM PDT
    65 law firms, to quote cleanup, refuse to support the claims of improper work, improper certification, improper anything.
    65 law firms said "no case".

    This fact must weigh in when evaluation allegations of wrongdoing. In a litigious state like California, the fact that 65 agencies refuse to take the issue on tells us what we need to know.

    The other thing you must evaluate are the dates of cleanup's information. It does not appear to be current or reflect additional work done sine 1997 and into the 2000's, including a setback levee.
    • 1140 posts
    229
    June 9, 2017 8:00:37 AM PDT
    Give it up 2grands!!

    Ernie is just blowing smoke and always has been. He is trying to stay relevant in YubaCounty even at 80 years old. He is also upset that he has no money, which is why he is trying to get someone to take his case for a big payday that will never happen. He understands nothing about how State contracts work and how moneys are paid out. There have been audits, he simply doesn't want to admit his mistakes.
    • 1140 posts
    230
    June 9, 2017 8:01:12 AM PDT
    Like 45 it is easy to see that Ernie is a narcissist.
    • 1140 posts
    231
    June 9, 2017 8:02:17 AM PDT
    Thankfully Ernie doesn't appear to have a twitter account. Though like his failed blog no one would care what he says.
    • 4977 posts
    232
    June 9, 2017 12:11:38 PM PDT
    He keeps tossing softballs that are easy to hit out of the park.
    • 2564 posts
    233
    June 10, 2017 7:08:29 PM PDT
    cleanup said:
    Embankment and Foundation Stability – Required under 44 CFR 65 10 Engineering analyses that evaluate levee embankment stability must be submitted. snip
    Three points of departure, in my opinion:
    1. One prercent flood or one hundred year design
    2. Three foot freeboard.
    3. "May"
    In my opinon the design target should be the thousand year flood. One tenth of one percent probablity in any year.
    Three foot freeboard should be modified to allow for notched levees. Notches which define the location where the levee will  overtop if the waters rise above the design level. The notch flow to be into designated flood plain. A flood plain that has constraints on land use.
    The word "may" is permissive, not mandatory. Like Moses and the ten suggestions. Specifiy the Army Corps of Engineers Manual which MUST be used. "May" allows a jurisdiction to choose whatever authority they want to use.
    • 6429 posts
    234
    October 18, 2017 9:21:24 AM PDT
    Dick Boyd, one reason that causes property to get wet is FEMA and the Corps not following levee safety requirements such as 44CFR 65.10 one of the requirements that is required for our safety is the Levee must have a foundation under it to prevent sloughing off , or sinking because of the heavy levee having no support from a foundation.

    The corps of engineers would never certify a levee that does not have a foundation as the levee at 0.79 levee mile marker of the Yuba River does not.

    Back in 2009 in some way the corps of engineers in Sacramento certified the levee but did not follow the 44 CFR 65.10 requirements of having a foundation under it but the Home office in Washington removed the certification. The corps would not re-certify it but a engineer working on the levee certified it without installing a new foundation, then went around the Corps of engineers and had FEMA accredited it, not certify it but accredited it which meant the levee was accredited on " Paper" ! , accredited on Paper.

    The Levee still has no foundation, is still not certified, is just as dangerous as it was when it broke in 1987 to we the people but the county of yuba on paper says their levee is accredited.