A couple of Years ago Robert Bendorf, Yuba County Administrator, was quoted in the Appeal democrat Newspaper as “Finding “ several millions of Dollars. I asked County Auditor Dean sellers where Mr. Bendorf could have found many Millions of Dollars , but no answer from him was forthcoming.  a couple of years before that “Find” Mr. Bendorf “Found” some more millions as reported by The A-D. and to this day no report of where the Money came from has surfaced. I may have located the Source in Recent dealings with State DWR Engineers , Chiefs, and other workers in unraveling why DWR would issue six encroachment permits for TRLIA levee work on the South bank of the Yuba River from The Confluence of the Feather River and the Yuba River just west of the Highway 70 bridge.  The DWR Engineer who created “ All those permits” as he told us, was Steve Dawson PE, and he never explained why he created the Revised permits but he did tell us why the Section of levee that broke in 1986 can not be repaired. Dawson said  the giant boulders dumped into the levee break to stop the flow of flood water had destroyed the Foundation under the levee and would take acres of work to restore the foundation. He never answered our question of why he continued creating permits to upgrade that levee knowing with the Foundation gone, the levee could not be certified under Federal law of levee safety, 44 CFR 65.10  and in fact The US Army Corps of Engineers had withdrawn their certification of 2007. This remains a mystery especially since TRLIA project Engineer RIC  Reinhardt of MBK engineers recently certified the Levee as a 100 year level levee after the  Corps Of engineers withdrew their certification as not meeting federal requirements.!  Even more of a mystery is why the FEMA accredited the levee using Ric Reinhardt s certification after the Corps withdrew.

One thing led to another and soon a series of E-Mails flowed under the freedom of information Act 6250 et.seq. The series ended with Steve  Dawson PE  when I inquired of him who asked him to revise the permits to show only the work TRLIA did , why did they especially since FEMA accredited the levees apparently not knowing TRLIA had not done any work on the waterside of the South Yuba levee , required under 18095GM, and certified by Ric Reinhardt?

I asked a DWR Chief Engineer if he could help me in getting a Engineer to accompany me on to the Yuba River left bank and determine if TRLIA did work or not, and DWR advised me a Engineer named Charles Rabamad, Project engineer would be in my area on June 16th  and he could briefly meet with me. DWR contacted me again and asked to move the meeting up to the 15th and I agreed.  On the 15th at 9:30 am, Mr. Rabamad and Two other DWR officials met with me and two other interested citizens at my home where we moved to the Yuba River Left bank levee.

I had in my possession Documents sent to me by DWR Engineers showing TRLIA had requested $43,000,000 aggregate in reimbursement from DWR for Sand/ seepage Berms  supposedly constructed by TRLIA using Local funds and requesting DWR to reimburse the local funds spent from Prop 13 and IE tax funds.  The Six of us in attendance observed the described site TRLIA has stated they did the  levee work at and used for juistification . We could not see the Sand berms  described by TRLIA as constructed. We had in our possession spread sheets showing DWR had reimbursed TRLIA for the work TRLIA claimed done in the amount listed above.

The question is, since no work was done, and TRLIA filed for work done and were reimbursed, what did Yuba County do with the Money? Under the Yuba Levee Finance Authority it appears The County Administrator, Robert Bendorf,  Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority, Paul Brunner. and County Auditor Dean Sellers are the finance authority that find Money and  those who receive TRLIA funding are  Dan Meirzwa, county Treasure , Tib Belza , Yuba County Water Agency , Curt Akins Yuba County Water Agency, and Robert Bendorf , County administrator, who sits on both agency’s, I am told.

The State of California needs to audit TRLIA/Yuba County to see if TRLIA through MBK engineer Ric Reinhardt and others, filed a false claim for our tax funds ASAP, IMO.





The Smart Growth planned by Yuba County apparently includes the eastern part of the county in future growth to the  detriment of the west Yuba County area of Linda, but Smart Growth to one person is not necessarily Smart growth to another person, that is why we elect our neighbors who feel the same way we do and those from out of the area can either choose to live here or not. However, those who come here to change the peoples way of life to meet the Smart Growth that meets their plans, with out the vote or other approval of the people, need to be brought to a stop.  Elected and appointed officials of Yuba County have a plan as one Engineer and State reclamation board member said,” to build housing in the flood plains come hell or high water.”

How did the people of Yuba county unknowingly permit the Smart growth of building environmentally equitable living communities ( See internet ) ? The County officials even changed the Motto on Our Squad cars from.” To protect and serve “  to ” To build safe Communities,” using our tax funds without a Vote. No person in Yuba County was told of this plan. a plan that could remove thousands of people from their homes in Linda through changing the levee system to protect the new Smart Growth developments east of the existing population center. In 2004 the County began negotiations with the Federal postal service to remove the name Linda from the town of Linda and place the name on Edgewater and east Linda, and placing the City of Linda in the Olivehurst 95961 zip code area.

The first thing County Supervisors done was take away our Name of Linda, then they said we were Olivehurst, but I convinced the Postal service in Sacramento to at least let us use the name West Linda but they said we had to use 95961 because Linda 95901 was going to get a post office. The next thing the County did was permit the broken window syndrome to grow in West Linda, closed down a decades old school called ,Alicia, because of a Gas pipe line that had been there forever, and perhaps the most despicable act was to fail to upgrade the Yuba River South bank levee, where the levee failed in 1986.

The County received State and developer funds to upgrade that levee but did not Touch the Levee at 0.79 Levee mile marker that had been filled with Giant Boulders and cobble Stones in 1986 to stop the flow of Flood water through the levee. apparently, the County supervisors were aware of the failure but insisted the Levee was safe as told to them by a local Engineer who worked for the Corps of Engineers in Sacramento. Subsequent investigation with the Home office of the Corps in Washington D.C. revealed the Local certification did not meet Federal levee safe requirements of 44 CFR 65.10 requiring the levee Foundation, Sides and Top to be analyzed as to stability, and the Evidence sent to the Corps for certification. However, the local Engineer certified it himself under Authority of the State Flood Control system, nothing to do with the Federal safe Levee requirements, as well as the Home office sent me rules showing that the Corps is permitted to certify only levees they own and operate such as the Mississippi River and its tributaries. However, the county still uses the local Corps engineer and now also uses the Countys project Engineer who failed to do all the upgrades himself.

Smart growth, How far will County officials go to bring the plan to frutation? There was no accounting of State granted money earmarked for Levee upgrades, there was a great increase in salary and benefits for these officials through a salary adjustment in 2005, the source of which is highly suspicious because the County was not in a position to grant enormous increases and the lack of County official auditing of the income from State taxes and Developer fees, add to the Suspicion. How far? In 2008, the County Officials arrested the only person who spoke against the levee failures, non accounting, and failure to follow State Constitutional laws. As the trial progressed, it became apparent there was no evidence to prove the County’s allegations as the District Attorney, after a few minutes closed his closing statement with no evidence presented, which should have ended the case since he could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt his allegations.

The Court told the Jury Four times to follow CalCrim 220 which says a person is presumed innocent unless the Prosecution proves his case beyond a reasonable doubt or the person is to be found not guilty. The court read this to the Jury before they were sequestered and when the Jury came out asking for explanations as to presumed Innocent and Beyond a reasonable Doubt, and each of the three times, the Court repeated the answer. Still after Four days of deliberations, the jury did not understand the CalCrim rule of  presumed innocence, so they said they could not agree on a verdict. Under Penal code 1096 and CalCrim 220, the jury was instructed Four times, if the prosecution could not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, they must acquit, still they were confused.

None the less, under the Judges instructions, my attorney should have reminded the jury to find not Guilty because the  Prosecution failed their duty. Even though the Court had no duty to read the instructions again, the Court in the interest of Justice, should have reminded the Jury of their duty under State Penal Code Jury Instructions 1096. That failure by my attorney and the Jury caused me to have to prepare for a second trial on the same charges. I felt that my attorney was not up to the trial by his failure to gain acquittal and I hired another from the bay area. That attorney after finally getting the trial transcripts filed 14 motions for failure to properly instruct the Jury, failure to Timely bring evidence to the Jury, false charging of alleged charges, and others, the day of the Hearing for Motions, the County District attorney dismissed all charges.

During this time, I attempted to gain public office through the election process. In 2005, an ex Yuba County Sergeant and I decided to run against the Current Sheriff to return Visible Street patrol to the Department which the Current Sheriff had removed in favor of having Deputies park out-of-the-way and commit reports to the portable Computer’s they were issued. The new way removed the Deputies from patrolling the Beats of the County, looking for crimes in progress and placed them out of sight, writing reports. The Ex Sergeant was offered a job somewhere for $100,000 dollars a year which was just a couple thousand more than the Sheriff received, $ 98,000 at that time, he took it and I tried to get other ex officers to run but time ran out and I decided to run myself.

I approached the County Clerk and asked for papers to run for the office and she said I needed to meet Statute law 18095.3, installed in 1989 and I said I am running under my constitutional Rights. She agreed and said if I would sign a paper saying I believed the Constitution was superior to the Statute, she would give me papers. I did so but when I took it to her,  she had changed her mind and said I would have to meet the statute or have a judge sign a paper showing the Statute was unconstitutional. The Clerk stuck with that. I asked for Papers to run for Supervisor Of Linda and she readily gave them to me. Logue won the race by 34 votes, a group of Linda citizens tried to recall him to no avail. elsewhere on this blog shows activities by the County Clerk that helped Logue stay in office and keep the Smart Growth plan going.

In checking the Smart growth beginnings, I found that some County supervisors had went to a College in Merced and were taught the Smart Growth way and recently Four more Supervisors of yuba County went to a meeting in Yosemite National Park, attending the,  building livable communities conference, March 18,2011 which was sponsored by the Local government  Commission ( LGC ) .

I have no problem with County Supervisors following General plans, but when a group of Supervisors decide to change the Face of Linda by leaving a Levee defect deliberately unfixed, by not accounting for Multi Hundreds of Millions of Dollars, by not doing the needed upgrades of the Linda levee and then writing letters signed by two separate County Administrators to FEMA and The Corps of Engineers, saying the Linda levee was completed and safe when they knew it was not, leaving Thousands of Citizens behind or before the levee, that borders more on Criminal activity rather than Malfeasance.

Rex Archer

The Smart Growth planned by Yuba County apparently includes the eastern part of the county in future growth to the detriment of the west Yuba County area of Linda, but Smart Growth to one person is not necessarily Smart growth to another person, that is why we elect our neighbors who feel the same way we do and those from out of the area can either choose to live here or not. However, those who come here to change the peoples way of life to meet the Smart Growth that meets their plans, with out the vote or other approval of the people. Elected and appointed officials of Yuba County have a plan as one Engineer and State reclamation board member said,” to build housing in the flood plains come hell or high water.”

How did the people of Yuba county unknowingly permit the Smart growth of building environmentally equitable living communities ( See internet ) ? The County officials even changed the Motto on Our Squad cars from.” To protect and serve “  to ” To build safe Communities,” using our tax funds without a Vote. No person in Yuba County was told of this plan. a plan that could remove thousands of people from their homes in Linda through changing the levee system to protect the new Smart Growth developments east of the existing population center. In 2004 the County began negotiations with the Federal postal service to remove the name Linda from the town of Linda and place the name on Edgewater and east Linda, and placing the City of Linda in the Olivehurst 95961 zip code area.

I contacted the U.S. Postal service in Sacramento and inquired why the Appeal democrat newspaper in marysville was referring to my hometown of Linda as Olivehurst. The Postal service they had nothing to do with the names of towns, only zip codes that make delivering mail easier. I asked if I used my address in conjunction with zipcode 95901 which is Marysville zip code. I was told I could continue as I had since moving here in 1958.

Who started this boondoggle? Local officials bent on removing not only the name of Linda but the people of linda also in my opinion. I then located the Board of geographic place names, GNIS, the agency in charge of Listing towns and their borders. I found that both linda is an unincorporated town with no borders, and can use the Marysville zip code 95901 and the name of Linda.

The first thing County Supervisors did was take away our Name of Linda, then they said we were Olivehurst, but I convinced the Postal service in Sacramento to at least let us use the name West Linda but they said we had to use 95961 because Linda 95901 was going to get a post office. The next thing the County did was permit the broken window syndrome to grow in West Linda, closed down a decades old school called ,Alicia, because of a Gas pipe line that had been there forever, and perhaps the most despicable act was to fail to upgrade the Yuba River South bank levee, where the levee failed in 1986.

The County received State and developer funds to upgrade that levee but did not Touch the Levee at 0.79 Levee mile marker that had been filled with Giant Boulders and cobble Stones in 1986 to stop the flow of Flood water through the levee. apparently, the County supervisors were aware of the failure but insisted the Levee was safe as told to them by a local Engineer who worked for the Corps of Engineers in Sacramento. Subsequent investigation with the Home office of the Corps in Washington D.C. revealed the Local certification did not meet Federal levee safe requirements of 44 CFR 65.10 requiring the levee Foundation, Sides and Top to be analyzed as to stability, and the Evidence sent to the Corps for certification. However, the local Engineer certified it himself under Authority of the State Flood Control system, nothing to do with the Federal safe Levee requirements, as well as the Home office sent me rules showing that the Corps is permitted to certify only levees they own and operate such as the Mississippi River and its tributaries. However, the county still uses the local Corps engineers certification and now also uses the County’s project Engineers certification who failed to do all the upgrades himself. 

Smart growth, How far will County officials go to bring the plan to fruition? There was no accounting of State granted money earmarked for Levee upgrades, there was a great increase in salary and benefits for these officials through a salary adjustment in 2005, the source of which is highly suspicious because the County was not in a position to grant enormous increases and the lack of County official auditing of the income from State taxes and Developer fees, add to the Suspicion. How far? In 2008, the County Officials arrested the only person who spoke against the levee failures, non accounting, and failure to follow State Constitutional laws. As the trial progressed, it became apparent there was no evidence to prove the County’s allegations as the District Attorney, after a few minutes closed his closing statement with no evidence presented, which should have ended the case since he could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt his allegations.

The Court told the Jury Four times to follow CalCrim 220 which says a person is presumed innocent unless the Prosecution proves his case beyond a reasonable doubt or the person is to be found not guilty. The court read this to the Jury before they were sequestered and when the Jury came out asking for explanations as to presumed Innocent and Beyond a reasonable Doubt, and each of the three times, the Court repeated the answer. Still after Four days of deliberations, the jury did not understand the CalCrim rule of  presumed innocence, so they said they could not agree on a verdict. Under Penal code 1096 and CalCrim 220, the jury was instructed Four times, if the prosecution could not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, they must acquit, still they were confused.

None the less, under the Judges instructions, my attorney should have reminded the jury to find not Guilty because the  Prosecution failed their duty. Even though the Court had no duty to read the instructions again, the Court in the interest of Justice, should have reminded the Jury of their duty under State Penal Code Jury Instructions 1096. That failure by my attorney and the Jury caused me to have to prepare for a second trial on the same charges. I felt that my attorney was not up to the trial by his failure to gain acquittal and I hired another from the bay area. That attorney after finally getting the trial transcripts filed 14 motions for failure to properly instruct the Jury, failure to Timely bring evidence to the Jury, false charging of alleged charges, and others, the day of the Hearing for Motions, the County District attorney dismissed all charges.

During this time, I attempted to gain public office through the election process. In 2005, an ex Yuba County Sergeant and I decided to run against the Current Sheriff to return Visible Street patrol to the Department which the Current Sheriff had removed in favor of having Deputies park out-of-the-way and commit reports to the portable Computer’s they were issued. The new way removed the Deputies from patrolling the Beats of the County, looking for crimes in progress and placed them out of sight, writing reports. The Ex Sergeant was offered a job somewhere for $100,000 dollars a year which was just a couple thousand more than the Sheriff received, $ 98,000 at that time, he took it and I tried to get other ex officers to run but time ran out and I decided to run myself.

I approached the County Clerk and asked for papers to run for the office and she said I needed to meet Statute law 18095.3, installed in 1989 and I said I am running under my constitutional Rights. She agreed and said if I would sign a paper saying I believed the Constitution was superior to the Statute, she would give me papers. I did so but when I took it to her,  she had changed her mind and said I would have to meet the statute or have a judge sign a paper showing the Statute was unconstitutional. The Clerk stuck with that. I asked for Papers to run for Supervisor Of Linda and she readily gave them to me. Logue won the race by 34 votes, a group of Linda citizens tried to recall him to no avail. elsewhere on this blog shows activities by the County Clerk that helped Logue stay in office and keep the Smart Growth plan going.

In checking the Smart growth beginnings, I found that some County supervisors had went to a College in Merced and were taught the Smart Growth way and recently Four more Supervisors of yuca County went to a meeting in Yosemite National Park, attending the building livable communities conference, March 18,2011 which was sponsored by the Local government  Commission ( LGC ) .

I have no problem with County Supervisors following General plans, but when a group of Supervisors decide to change the Face of Linda by leaving a Levee defect deliberately unfixed, by not accounting for Multi Hundreds of Millions of Dollars, by not doing the needed upgrades of the Linda levee and then writing letters signed by two separate County Administrators to FEMA and The Corps of Engineers, saying the Linda levee was completed and safe when they knew it was not, leaving Thousands of Citizens behind or before the levee, unsafe.  that borders more on Criminal activity rather than Malfeasance in my opinion.

Rex Archer

As stated, I am well experianced in levee matters in Yuba Countys RD 784 district and what I see now is not Good. From my experiance I know Officials in the County are not the best information givers regarding the truth, if they even know it, of the levees protecting thousands of citizens behind the Yuba River South bank levee. Just recently I inquired of FEMA why they accredited the Yuba River South Bank levee where it broke in 1986, of course , no answer because to admit TRLIA left the Levee unfixed in 2006 when Dan Logue stated “We have fixed the Linda levee and it only cost us 23,000,000″, When in reality, the levee was without a foundation and had no stability from the Missing Foundation, would put certain officials in a bad light! This is for sure the same situation that is in effect now, no foundation and in fact as Flood control officials told those of us in the DWR meeting in Sacramento, there is a great Void (cavern) where the Foundation used to be and I say thank you to them!

Citizines! TRLIA had the money in 2005 -07 to upgrade that levee properly by setting the Levee forward out of the destroyed foundation area, and build a solid foundation on the Cobble stones the width of the Levee and redirect the levee from the Shad Pad straight across to the Simpson lane road which would have lasted at least as long as the old levee did, upwards of a Hundred years. Why they did not do that is beyond me. Instead, TRLIA officials pretended all was well and even though I have made it known from FEMA to the Corps of Engineers and south to the State Department of Water Resources, but citizines, they still to this day pretend all is well. These people are not elected officials but appointed officials with an agenda that has greed written all over it.

Having been involved in two evacuations here in Yuba County from two different Rivers, I can speak from experiance which is the best teacher. My first experiance was in 1986 during the Winter of 1986-87 which saw water from rains resulting in Oroville Dam Reservoir, Shasta Dam Reservoir and other local Reservoirs near capacity and as suspected by some, the State held back the water in Lake Oroville so Southern California, who had financed the Oroville dam, could be assured of water and Rice Farmers would have ample water also.

Then, after the high water had sat against the Yuba River South bank levee for several days, soaking the levee from the River and from continuing rain, the Rivers began to drop causing People to feel relieved and start to come back to Linda where they had chosen to leave from during the extended raining and High water, some had gone to Sutter city, others to grass valley or other high places, staying with Friends or relatives out of the danger.  My family who had been through the 1955 flood in Yuba City, chose to stay in Sutter a while longer, I was still here in Linda, running my Truck Tire Business and Patrolling at night with the Sheriffs Department.  I was getting ready to go in to the Sheriffs Office for patrol duty, when I heard on my Police scanner the Sheriff dispatch a Deputy to the  area of Feather River Blvd. and LindHurst to check out a report of a Levee leaking water behind Cal Trans. What was happening was the Soaked Levee could not dry out fast enough to keep up with the dropping water and Large Chunks broke off, opening avenues for the remianing Flood water to work through the Levee and collaps it, Rapid Draw Down, it is called.

I decided to Drive my Tire Service Truck out to Sutter in case the Levee was in danger so I would have a way to service my accounts. As I left my House, a neighbor who had stayed at her home and told me if she saw me leave, she would be right behind, did follow me out later but as she started to go through the Underpass on F.R.B., her car became flooded and she had to be lifted out by Sheriffs Deputys. As I went up to the High way 70 I saw Flood water flowing from the Levee, spreading out over the Open field next to Caltrans, going South. I continued on to Sutter and returned for duty with the  Department. We chased looters out of West Linda who were in Boats with our own boats, We knocked on the Roofs of Homes that were under water to see if any one was inside, we patrolled the low water areas in Patrol cars. The Water flowed through West Linda, Edgewater, Arboga to settle in Plumas lake for 19 days.

My next experiance was the Winter of 1996-97.  The prior winter of 1995-96 was Like 1986, high water near the top of some levees and I was President of RD 784 and conducted the Flood watch. We had several Boils near our levees on the Feather River and a leakage through the Scour trench under the Levee where it broke in 1986. I was fortunate to have Naumes Farms supply us with Workers to sand bag the Boils and we contained the Water behind the levees. In 1996-97, I had resigned from RD 784 in February of 1996 and like all other citizens South of the Yuba River listened for orders to evacuate from our Supervisors who were standing by at the Court house.

The water stayed against the Levee banks for weeks, the Tropical Pineapple expresses were stacked up one behind the other out past Hawaii and hit the west Coast one after another. I gathered my Family together during a time when internal Flooding was occurring all over the South County, and we locked up our houses, and drove to New castle the night before the Country Club Levee broke, where we slept in a Mall Parking lot in our RVs. The Next day I rented three Motel Rooms where we stayed for Five days. During the First night at the Motel we listened for news and were finally tolsd teh Levee had broken at Country Club. No warning was given to evacuate by RD 784 The County or any one, three people were drowned trying to escape, others barely escaped with what ever goods they  could grab. The Water from the Country Club Break only barely reached west Linda because that was a uphill direction, then it again settled in the Plumas lake area for 19 days.

We were fortunate to have Money available for Motels, Food, Gas for the duration in 1997 and fortunate to have many Reletives in Sutter to put us up for duration in 1986. You have a feeling of Being lost, your home is not available to you, you are displaced and it is terrible. Then When you are let back in to the area, the Water system is No good, Electricity is off, and no stortes are open. Beale Air Force base sent daily Water Trucks with Fresh Drinking water that we met at the same time every day with Buckets or pots that we filled up with Water, God Bless the Air force! Be vigilant.

I checked the Oroville dam water depth today, February 11, 2011 and found it was 824. Back on December 5, 2010 the depth was 746 so after all the rain from december up to February 8, 2011 raised the level by 78 feet. I found that there is rain forecast for Next week at least, which will raise the level higher.

Then begins the states gambeling as it did in 1986, they will either start releasing water into the Feather River now in anticipation of higher levels or they will as they did in 1986, keep all the water behind the Dam in order to have plenty of water for farm and urban use from here to L.A.

If the warm rains come as they did in 1986, the Snow will melt for the Spring runoff and fill the Reservoir, which will force the state to release. Having been in charge of RD 784 in 1995-96 when those conditions caused extreme water flows, I recommend people living below the Yuba River be extra prepared to leave because the Feather will cause the Yuba to back up and put pressure on the Levee that BROKE IN 1986, especially given the Breaking news I posted above regarding the State flood Control Engineer telling us in a meeting that the Foundation under the Levee was destroyed.

Today, 2/10/11 there was a story in the Appeal Democrat about a Hung Jury in Sutter county that reminded me of a Hung Jury in Yuba County where the Court ordered the defendant to be tried again. The posting did bring out that naysayer of old, Tom Ericson ( Javadad ) of Plumas lake who took up his habit of bad mouthing any post I do. The issue in the thread I was posting in was the Double Jeopardy Clause of Our USA Constitution, Bill of rights, that protects the Citizens from the Government trying a person in a court two times for the same charges. Every Grade school kid up until recently knew the constitution clause that said you can only be tried once, but there are posters who have forgotten what they learned and they insist that the Government can in fact over rule the constitution!

The issue is simple, the State and Federal constitutions both state the Double Jeopardy clause can not be nullified by the Government by stating the Defendant is presumed innocent unless the Prosecution proves Guilt beyond a reasonable Doubt. Then if the Prosecution does not, through the evidence, prove to the 12 Jurors beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant was guilty, the defendant is to be acquitted. The posters who have forgotten their school learning, say the Supreme Court ruled that a person can be tried twice but the Sipreme Court gets its power from the Constitution and can not overrule its master, therefore that reason doesn’t cut water.  

People, the bill of rights are our only protection from the Government oppression of nullifying our bill of rights and requireing us to be retried for the same charges. This becomes closer to home when you have been placed in the position of Double Jeopardy by a local County. This Government wrongdoing must be stopped by the people through elections and reporting wrongdoing to as you see it.

The ‘Big One’ might be a flood

The Meeting in Sacramento at DWR regarding the TRLIA Boondoggle of upgrading parts of  the South bank of the Yuba River Levee waterside with a partial Slurry wall, a partial triangle sand berm, and leaving proper upgrades not done at all along with the foundation under the break site demolished by the Giant boulders dumped into the breach in 1986, was shocking enough given the fact TRLIA has led the people to believe the levee is safe. See past issue of Appeal democrat 2007 “County says levee is safe, Archer says it is not safe”, which further convinced people to buy homes in the flood plain! These officials have misled the people who rely on the officials to do the job they are supposed to do, not mislead, not fail to account for Funds, not give themselves a cushy living at the expense of safety for the people but to protect the people!

The Knowledge that was known in 2004 by Daniels Logue, Kevin Mallen, Kent McClain, of the true condition of the levee was passed off by Logue as “the Linda levee is a seepage issue”, that is an under statement. We learned this week that if we have the type of Spring runoff we had in 1986, 1996 or 1997 it is almost a foregone conclusion the Levee will again break by Flood water flowing through the Scour hole under the levee, because the New Setback levees on the Bear and Feather Rivers are stronger now and the pressure will be on the weak spot, the Yuba River South bank at Levee mile marker 0.79.

The Conditions are ripe now after the blanket of water dumped on the sierras this winter to almost insure a levee break at LMM 0.79, right behind WalMart. See below.

Another major let down  has been the Appeal Democrat who apparently has a reason to not bring the true facts of the West Linda levee to the people living below the Yuba River South bank levee that protects Plumas lake, Parts of Olivehurst, Arboga and Linda, but only Len la Barth  knows the reason. The Certification and accreditation of that levee is a farce to say the least because to assign those titles to a levee,  the Foundation must meet 44 CFR 65.10 and a Blown apart foundation can not support a levee certification or the levee!  That Levee section at Levee Mile marker 0.79 is known to officials since the  2003 Kleienfelder engineering firm  inspected the levee and Assistant County Administrator Randy Margo told the Appeal Democrat’s ace reporter, Harold Kruger “it is not feasible to upgrade that section.” The appeal democrat let that stand and did not inquire as to why it was not feasible.

They left it to us to find out how not feasible the levee repair is, IT CAN NOT BE FIXED! However, though the true situation was known to Yuba County Officials, Dan Logue , Richard Webb, Kevin mallen, Kent McClain, and later Robert Bendorf and Paul Brunner, they requested Permits from the  State Reclamation Board to upgrade other parts of that same levee while knowing it was for naught because the LMM 0.79 could not meet a 20 year level of safety because the under foundation was destroyed by the Boulders in 1986! This is the ultimate corruption, keeping the citizens living behind the defective foundation under the levee from the knowledge the officials knew! Here it is January 19, 2011 and it took two private citizens traveling to Sacramento to finally hear the true story of the Foundation from State Flood control Engineers, and finally  report it to citizens.

Prior to 2011, I have brought the facts of certain Yuba County officials who purposely failed to account for over $405,000,000 in funds from the State tax funds and Developer Fees for levee upgrade received during the years 2004-2007 to no avail, I was arrested by the County on allegations that were improperly plead by the Sheriff and District Attorney on February 7, 2008 and it was shown by the Jury trial transcripts that the Court failed to properly instruct the jury as to the legal requirements for conviction of the charged counts by the officials. A Motions hearing was called for October 25 2010 and on October 12 My new counsel Filed motions for dismissal and on October 22, he filed more motions showing wrongdoing by the officials and my trial defense  attorney. The District Attorney, Patrick Mc Grath upon court coming to session on October 25th, immediately Dismissed all charges. McGrath stated he did not want to make the children go through another trial, we knew he did not want the wrong doing by the Officials to be tried in open court during a re trial. Citizens of Yuba County know my investigation of and reporting unaccounted for funds by certain county officials, were the reason for the arrest.

During 2005 the County officials changed the Allocation schedule to reflect a high increase in elected and appointed Yuba County officials and hundreds of new titles added. The only source that would supply the funds to sustain the new titles and their substantial salary increase over the years from 2005 through now, is Levee funds in my opinion. So far, that is all I can give is a opinion because the County Officials will not permit an outside audit or accounting. The County when it finds $10,000,000 here or $ 10,000,000 there or $ 6 OR 4 000,000 over there they say it is from house fees in the plumas lake development.Sure!

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/01/14/3323275/the-big-one-might-be-a-flood.html

Share

By Matt Weiser
mweiser@sacbee.com

Published: Friday, Jan. 14, 2011 – 12:00 am | Page 1A

Last Modified: Friday, Jan. 14, 2011 – 8:51 am

California has more risk of catastrophic storms than any other region in the country – even the Southern hurricane states, according to a new study released Thursday.

The two-year study by the U.S. Geological Survey is the most thorough effort yet to assess the potential effects of a “worst-case” storm in California.

It builds on a new understanding of so-called atmospheric rivers, a focusing of high-powered winds that drag a fire hose of tropical moisture across the Pacific Ocean, pointed directly at California for days on end. The state got a relatively tame taste of the phenomenon in December.

The team of experts that developed the scenario can’t say when it will happen. But they do say it has happened in the past and is virtually certain to strike again.

“This storm, with essentially the same probability as a major earthquake, is potentially four to five times more damaging,” said Lucy Jones, USGS chief scientist on the study. “That’s not something that is in the public consciousness.”

The study aims to fix that.

A conference on the subject, ending today at California State University, Sacramento, brings together hundreds of emergency planners to discuss the worst-case storm and how to prepare for it.

The USGS is assessing a variety of natural hazards across the country. California was chosen for the latest project, called ArkStorm, because the state “has the potential for the biggest rainfall events in the country,” Jones said.

In December, an atmospheric river threw a series of wet storms at the state, breaking rainfall records in many areas across California. One part of Los Angeles County got 17 inches of rain in three days. Disasters were declared in 11 counties.

In the study, researchers used computer models and a composite of three historical storms to estimate a worst-case event: a torrent of tropical rain for nine straight days.

It amounts to a 500-year storm. In the lingo of disaster managers, that does not mean it happens only once every 500 years, but that it has two-tenths percent chance of occurring in any given year.

The Central Valley and the Sacramento region are likely to suffer the worst effects because they lie within a funnel for the state’s biggest rivers.

Such storms have happened. The primary example in the study occurred over December and January, 1861-62. Rain fell on and off for 45 days. Sacramento was inundated, and Gov.-elect Leland Stanford famously took a rowboat to his inauguration.

The researchers used soil samples to estimate that similar megastorms hit the state on at least six other occasions in the past two millenia, at 200- to 400-year intervals.

Of course, a lot has changed since 1861 – for better and for worse. Central Valley levees are generally stronger and more comprehensive now. On the other hand, millions more people and more economic activity depend on those levees.

The report acknowledges that some experts disagree with the severity of the scenario, especially in Sacramento and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Joe Countryman, president of MBK Engineers in Sacramento, who has decades of flood-control experience in the region and saw a draft of the study several months ago, said it lacked detailed analysis of reservoir operations and river flow capacity.

“As an exercise to test emergency procedures, OK. I’m not against it,” he said. “It seems to me much bigger than anything could actually be.”

But the researchers also note that none of the levees is built for a 500-year storm. The best – such as those in Yuba County’s Plumas Basin and parts of Sacramento – are built for a 200-year storm.

Potential consequences include:

• $1 trillion in damages statewide – five times worse than a massive earthquake, which likely would affect only one region.

• 1.5 million people displaced, about the same number affected by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005.

• Potentially hundreds of people killed, based on the inability of some vulnerable groups to evacuate, or for help to reach them.

• Pollution from flooded wastewater treatment plants, refineries and dairies. Some sewer plants might not return to operation for months.

“For a lot of people in California, we don’t think of ourselves as being this flood-prone,” said Laurie Johnson, an urban planning and disaster recovery expert, and co-author of the report. “It’s just too difficult to comprehend.”

What should people do?

Anyone living behind levees should buy flood insurance, Jones said. Only 12 percent do currently.

Citizens can also support urban planning efforts to steer development away from floodprone areas, and support continued levee improvements.

The study estimates that upgrading urban levees to withstand the worst-case storm might cost $25 billion – a sum that pales next to the potential for hundreds of billions in storm damages.

Officials hope emergency planners use the ArkStorm report to prepare for the worst.

The next step is to develop a storm-rating scale similar to that used for hurricanes. It would assign a number to a storm based on predicted severity.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

History of Rex Archer Public Service in Yuba County, California Began in 1974 when he took tests to become a Reserve Deputy Sheriff under then Sheriff Gary Miller, passed the tests and became A Reserve Deputy Sheriff. He served under four Sheriffs rising in rank to 2nd in command of the reserve forces with the rank of Lieutenant, spanning 25 years of service. He was sworn in and like all reserves, donated their hours of Duty to the county. He also became a Director of a local Reclamation District that was charged with maintaining flood water Levees for the State at a pittance of $100 per month from 1989 through 1996, and took them out of Debt from a 1986 Levee break.

He and his wife also cared for Foster children in their home for several years with no complaints from the Children or the State or County agencies who visited the home weekly, until they could no longer handle the Children’s violence and mean spirited actions.

In 2005, he chose to run for Sheriff against the current sheriff, Virginia Black who had changed the Proactive, proper visible street Patrol activities to Reactive report writing on computers. In 2006, after the Officers of the County Sheriffs Department refused to Support her in her re Election bid, she chose not to run again. Rex Archer applied for papers from the County clerk, Terry Hansen to run for sheriff but she said Rex had to meet  ss 24004.3, ( 1989 ), or papers could not be given. Rex showed Hansen the SS 24004.3 required a member of a group or individual of a group to be elected Sheriff, was in violation of California State Constitution Article 2 section 12, ( 1879 ) “ No group or individual can be named by statute to hold any office,” Hansen said,” Rex I am not even going there.” In 2010, Rex again asked County clerk Hansen if she would permit him to run against the Former Under Sheriff under Black, Sheriff Steve Durfor, who was continuing ex Sheriff Blacks re active police methods, Hansen said no, I will not.

Hansen was upholding a Legislated statute that violated the State Constitution, a higher authority than the Statute and any act or law of any officer or body assuming to act under the constitution, as the state legislature did In 1989.

In March of 2006 after the refusal of the County clerk to follow the State constitution, Rex applied for Papers to run against the incumbent, Daniels R. Logue for District 1 Supervisor, and even with The County Clerk placing Blocks in his way, Rex came within 34 votes of beating the incumbent, and along with two other Supervisors, returning the County to the people. In late 2006, Rex discovered that Logue who was Chairman of the Board of a Joint venture formed In 2004 to upgrade Flood Prevention levees in Yuba county, had failed to account for 100’s of Millions of State grants and developer fees granted to the Joint Venture between 2004 and 2007 , The Three Rivers Levee Improvement authority ( TRLIA ). Rex asked the CEO of TRLIA and the County Auditor in Early 2007 if either of them had ever accounted for the 100’s of Millions and both said they had not. Further Investigation by Rex and others determined  TRLIA under Logue’s management had failed to upgrade the West Linda levee by following State Reclamation Board/ Corps of engineers approved permit # 18095GM, ( 2006 )  calling for Boulders and cobble stones to be placed along the base of the levee from the Highway 70 bridge to prevent the Massive Flood waters from eroding out the levee, and the Levee waterside to be Sloped properly to permit rain water to flow off without eroding the levee. ( In 2009 TRLIA, with no notice at all, Sloped the levee, but did not place the Boulders and cobble stones to stop erosion) . The sloping of the waterside was to be done in 2006 in Exchange for the State Reclamation Board letting TRLIA increase more housing development in Plumas lake.

On February 7, 2008, the Sheriff , Steve Durfor ordered six deputies to arrest Rex at his home on Charges of Child Molestation on two of the Foster Children he and his wife had cared for in the past. The Sheriff And District attorney Patrick Mc Grath after swearing out a warrant, applied seven charges illegally against Rex after which both the D.A . and Sheriff gave a press release stating the Charges were true and they had Probable cause Evidence, to the Appeal democrat. After two and one half years, during which the D.A. implied he had evidence to be brought out that proved beyond a reasonable doubt his charges. During the Jury trial, the D.A. brought no evidence except the two girls and one each of their parents, and after a short closing argument, rested his case, without bringing the implied Culpable evidence he had implied for two and one half years. After the Jury was unable to Find Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, instead of finding Rex acquitted under CalCrim 220 Jury instructions, the Judge Julia Scrogin after nullifying the State penal code Law 1096, called a mistrial and The D.A. said he would try Rex again. Scrogin had read the instruction s three times to the jury stating if the Prosecutor could not prove Guilt beyond a reasonable Doubt, under CalCrim 220 Rex was to be acquitted.

Rex Hired another attorney, James Reilly of the Bay Area, who after reading the transcripts of the Trial, determined Rex’s  Prior Attorney, David Vasquez had failed to properly defend Rex leaving Him with no representation, as well as The District Attorney had improperly pled the Charges which sensationalized  and caused the Judge and Citizens to look down on Rex, who was presumed to be innocent under the Constitution. Rex’s Attorney, James Reilly, filed four Motions to dismiss on October 12, 2010, and on October 22, 2010 before the 2nd Trial was to begin on October 29 ,2010, filed seven more Motions. On Friday the 22nd Of October, The D.A. Dismissed the charges. The Motions showed Improper pleadings, improper Court Instructions to the Jury, Failure of The D.A. to prove Guilt beyond a reasonable Doubt,  and others. The D.A. Knew in 2008 when he filed the charges against Rex they were not properly Pled and still he did not change the improperly pled charges, for his unkown reasons.

It is worthy to mention, During 2005, The Yuba County Board of Supervisors approved employee allocations and Salary Increases to the Department Heads and the other upper management of Massive proportions when given Yuba County’s Meager funds, and it is suspect to me that the Funds came from the Unaccounted State Grants and developer fees that Dan Logue and other Upper management such as The Sheriff, the D.A., the Auditor,  the County Clerk, and Others failed to account for, and still to this  day in 2010, still will not audit or account for.

It is for the protection of the Levee funds granted to TRLIA and spread out who knows where that no accounting of the 100’s of Millions of dollars granted to TRLIA in 2004-2005-2006-2007 will be done by the Upper Management of Yuba County. They have been asked by a Group of Citizens but declined. It is because Rex tried to Bring Corruption to light in Yuba County that False, improperly pled Charges were brought against him by Political Foes, the Sheriff, the District Attorney, and possibly the original County Officials who “ Found a New Source “ of Funding to Balance The Budget with and Award themselves with High salary Increase’s in 2005.

Signed———————————————————-  Date——————————

I am taking a moment to do something I rarely do on this site, which is post a blog article. Most readers will have never heard of me as I just do uploading on rare occasions when needed. I am posting today in answer to the article in the Appeal Democrat. Yubacounty59 (my big Sister)made a series of posts explaining how things really led to the DA dismissing the case. We did not expect District Attorney Pat McGrath to do anything other then cover his political rear end, which he thinks was accomplished today. The Appeal Democrat slanted to give the DA plenty of face time and minimizing the statement made by attorney, James T. Riley of Summit Defense. Rather than printing the statement in it’s entirety, the writer of the article keyed in on one point and left the rest out. No surprise there. I am sure if the Appeal Democrat actually called out some of the points against the District Attorney’s office and Court proceedings they would lose access to quotes in the future. I do not read the Appeal Democrat because there are superior ways of getting news on the internet without needing the A.D. The lack of printing the statement below in it’s entirety just solidifies my choice.

Much can be brought out on this, but I am leaving that to the discretion on how and when and if my Father would like to release it. I will be around to scan and upload whatever he needs. I do want to offer the scans of the complete statement as written by Mr. Riley since the Appeal Democrat saw fit to gloss over. I hope they are large and clear enough. If not I will happily adjust them tomorrow. The statement says much about what a professional lawyer who is not part of the system here in Yuba County can see just from the Court Transcripts of the first trial.

If this worked right you should be able to click on the pages and they will open in a larger format in a window. If not, I will fix it ASAP. Compare those statement pages to that article in the Appeal Democrat and I think you will see why I have no care to use them as a source of news.

–Piraterob

On February 7, 2007 I was arrested, Booked, arraigned and transferred to Colusa county Jail, by the Yuba County Law enforcement officials. I spent three weeks in Colusa County Jail awaiting my attorney to get my Bail dropped to $100,000 and get me released. I pled Not guilty in one of upwards of Fifty appearances in court I have made. I have had several  different trial dates come and go over the time line from February 7, 2008 to November 2, 2010, including a Jury trial on April 27, 2010. That trial lasted two days. The Jury which was instructed by the Judge three separate times to follow CalCrim 220 jury instructions which say if the Prosecution can not prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt the Defendant Must be acquitted.

After four days of deliberations and When the Jury could not find the Prosecution met his burden of proof, instead of finding for acquittal as the Judge had instructed, the court permitted the prosecution to have time to decide if a retrial would be ordered. The prosecution in June after conversing with the two children’s adoptive parents, said they were going to  retry the case. There were ten more hearings after the prosecution said they were going to retry the case, with another due on October 25 and another on October 29.

I had my attorney tell the court I would not waive my right to a speedy trial beyond November 2, 2010. the scheduled date for the Jury trial to begin.  In the meantime my Attorney filed motions on 10-18-10  with the court to Dismiss counts 1 through 1V for improper pleadings, Improper instructions, violation of due process and denial of a fair trial, Motion to dismiss count 1V for failure to state a cause of action , Improper pleading, improper instruction, insufficient evidence, violation of Due process and denial of a fair trial, Demurrer to Counts 11 through 1V of the information pursuit to California Penal code Section, subdivision 288.5, Subdivision ©, demurrer to Count V1, Motion to preclude instructions on any attempted,Offense.

Filings Continued  Motion to Change of venue October 18,2010 due to Substantial News articles both in print and online including a Yuba County Sheriffs department online news release February 7, 2008 , regarding the arrest of me and a motion for the court to use its discretion under Penal; code Section 1385 to dismiss the charges in the interest of justice.

It is my contention the District attorney and Sheriff used their offices maliciously to arrest and prosecute a citizen with only stacked allegations for almost three years.

Rex Archer

In my recent Trial,  April 2010, in yuba county superior court, according to the transcripts of the trial, which took me two months to get, Her Honor Julia Scrogins, Department four, instructed the jury under Calcrim 220, ( rules of court based on State penal code 1096), to read the rule in common, everyday language, as the Law of PC 1096 is written, Government must prove beyond a reasonable Doubt, to all 12 jurors, the Governments case is true. PC 1096 says A defendant is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved, and in case of reasonable doubt whether his or her guilt is satisfactorily shown, he or she is entitled to an acquittal.. This state law comes from the Magna carta, passed down through the U.S. Constitution, and onto the State of California Constitution as a protection against Government oppression on the People.

I discovered during the Trial there are two “systems” in Yuba County law enforcement, one follows the constitution and is for people who do not question the new way officials as to where the Money comes from to afford the High benefits they now enjoy. The other “System” is reserved for “Indigents” and violate the Constitution by nullifying the constitution,  so called because the Prosecutor illegally pleads false charges and the Judge improperly instructs Jurists, the second system has as its goal a plea bargain. Having been associated with law enforcement for more than twenty five years, I know proper law and improper law and the new way in yuba county is to protect and prosper the Officials.

The Trial progressed through Jury impaneling, the D.A. and defense arguments were presented to the jury, and the Jury was given instructions as stated above. The Jury was out for Four days of deliberations, and had requested four times for clarification of “Reasonable Doubt” as instructed under CalCrim 220, and after they still were unclear, on the Fourth day, Her honor read the Jury  instructions from the older CalJic  rules that had been  replaced by the newer CalCrim Rules. Both CalJic and CalCrim rules of Jury Instructions were Based on the State law, Penal Code 1096 but the Rules from CalJic and CalCrim seemed to confuse the Jurors regarding Reasonable Doubt.

There is no Confusion in PC 1096, it states in Common , everyday language, that the Judge instructed the Jurors to follow, the Government has to Prove beyond a doubt his case by the evidence he Presented all through the trial to the Jurors or the Court must find the Defendant Not Guilty. The clear, Common sense PC 1096 law is the Protection for Citizens against Government Oppression, but the CalCrim Rules if not used in the shadow of PC 1096, are against the people. For instance, CalCrim 220 rule follows PC 1096 law up to a point. That point is when the sequence of 1096 has reached the point when the unanimous  12 member Jury has to say the D.A. has met his burden beyond a reasonable doubt or he has not met it. If there is one not convinced, then the Government has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

In my case, though unofficial, the Madam foreperson estimated 7-5, showing the government were far from a unanimous decision of the Government meeting their burden. Under PC 1096, since the Government had not met his burden , there was only one way for the Jury to go, and that was Not Guilty.

After the Jury had failed to follow PC 1096, and find Not Guilty, The Judge declared a Mistrial due to a Locked Jury. The Jury was not Locked, they met their duty, they followed the Judges instructions to the letter, read the Instructions to read with a common, everyday language, could not find the Government met their Burden as a unanimous group, but failed to follow through in the sequence and Find Not Guilty.  Why the Judge declared a Mistrial with no shenanigans, Paper Glitches, or Lawyer shenanigans, is beyond belief. PC 1096 does not list it as an alternative to Finding Not Guilty or Guilty, the Jurors had decided after Four days, they could not believe the Government Met their Burden, but some one decided even if PC 1096/CalCrim 220 were met and the Government had lost the alleged case, they were going to throw a Monkey wrench into the Peoples law, by ignoring the Obvious verdict, and Retrying the Defendant again.. His Name?  Yuba County District Attorney Patrick McGrath. His Motive?  Political Witch-hunt!

I am still appearing in Court this Tuesday, 10 12-2010, fighting the District Attorney Patrick MC Grath’s illegal Malicious Prosecution. I thank those of You who have helped me Financially to fight this Peoples war against The  Yuba County District Attorney, Patrick McGrath who alone is carrying on with the peoples Money, a Witch Hunt to protect the Upper Management of Yuba County Government’s salaries gained from what I believe was the Failure of Daniels Logue,  Former Supervisor Of Yuba County, Former V.Chairman of TRLIA,  a Joint venture of Yuba County and RD 784 in a levee construction update , who had control of upwards of Half A Billion ( B )  Dollars in State Grant funds, Fish & Game and Developer Funds, received but not accounted for in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 which I brought to the attention of  Yuba County Media in 2007 and  that the County will not account for even at this day and time. They were requested to do so in 2009 by Citizens, but declined, citing $200,000 (T) was to much to spend to locate $450,000,000 (M) .

Under The D.A.s new rules, the Court can follow the Peoples laws through the Sequence of presenting arguments, Jury deliberations,  and finally to the point when the jury must find Guilt or not Guilt.  However under Patrick’s rules of law, If the jury finds he did not meet his burden of proof, Patrick gets a Mistrial and gets to retry the defendant over again, and again, and again….

Under the Peoples Protection Law of State of California Penal code 1096, District Attorney MCGrath  brings his Evidence of the alleged Crime before the 12 Members of the Jury and if he does not convince all 12 of the defendants Guilt, the Defendant Must be held Not Guilty!  That is the peoples centuries old protection  law.

On 10 12 010, we filed several motions with the court, including a Change of venue, a Motion to dismiss, and last week we filed more motions based on the transcripts of the Trial and they are to be ruled on next week. My attorney Jim Reilly,  has filed motions against my Former attorney, Vasquez, the District Attorney, the Court for wrong doing so I am feeling a little justified finally, but we will see how the Judge rules on the motions.

We had a Motions hearing scheduled for October 25 and we appeared. Upon opening Court, Her Honor Judge Scrogin read from a note from the District Attorney asking for dismissal of all charges because he did not want to put the children through another trial. That is a weasel weaseling out when his corruption is brought to light. He for sure seeked dismissal rto avoid the corrupt Trial to be exposed for what it was, a attempt by Yuba county officials to silence a Citizen who was bringing out corruption to the eyes of the public.  Fortunately, their are learned, honest attorneys who will travel to bring justice to Citizens. I found one and I recommend his firm, Summit Defense to all who need a honest knowledgeable counsel.

In November of 2003, The California court of Appeals ruled the State of California was liable for Flood control damage due to faulty Levee construction.  The Case was Paterno v. State of California , case No.C040553, ( 3rd Dist. Nov. 26, 2003) and placed liability on the State. Inverse condemnation was applied on the theory that the West Linda  levee had failed after the Levee was accepted by the State of California into the Sacramento River Flood Control Project.

The Court found that the West Linda  levee had been improperly constructed years before out of sandy materials from the River bottoms by Farmers to keep the Yuba River off their crops in the farm areas.  The Court found that acceptance of of that stretch of Levee from Highway 70 to the SPRR tracks, constituted a plan which, after application of the various factors, the court found to be unreasonable.

Where is the liability placed  today?  The State has a hold harmless agreement with TRLIA that places levee failure on TRLIA and by extension on the People of Yuba County but the State still has the Levee in  the Sacramento Flood Control project and they own the Levees. Since the State owns the levee and no one has upgraded the Section of the West Linda levee at LMM 0.79, the exact site of the 1986 levee break, who is responsible for a levee break at that site? After upwards of $450,000,000 HAS BEEN SPENT ON LEVEE UPGRADES IN rd 784, 0.79 on the water side has not been touched!

Under Paterno, the State is liable, but RD 784 was found not at fault by the Court because RD 784 was not involved in the Construction or the acceptance of the levee into the flood control project but in the TRLIA levee work, RD 784 was active being a member of the joint venture. Yuba County also is also a member of the Joint venture, so is RD 784 and Yuba County liable for levee failures now along with the State?

Since the Levee was deemed Faulty in 2003 by the court, why is the FEMA office accrediting the Levee ? FEMA says they are not involved in levee safety, and only rely on a Engineer certification of the levee so they are not liable, The Corps of Engineers home office of Levee safety says they can not certify a levee unless they own or maintain it and they don’t own or operate the West Linda levee so they are not Liable. Who is liable?

At least the State.

TRLIA after having their Project manager Ric Reinhardt P.E. certify the South bank of the Yuba River from Highway 70 to the UPRR tracks just behind Walmart is a 100 year level of safety levee, sent data from the certified levees to FEMA along with a letter asking for accreditation.  The Information on the 44 CFR 65.10 federal rules for safe levees was to show what TRLIA done to meet those rules of levee safety.  RD 784 Member Jeff Phinney posted on the Appeal Democrat the Web Page of TRLIA ( RD 784 / Yuba County) the supposed data and after reading it, I saw what I had been saying all along, there was no data showing any work at all on the section of Levee from the Highway 70 bridge to the Union Pacific Rail Road tracks, just behind the Super Wal mart store in Linda.  The failure of TRLIA to upgrade that section of levee leaves the Thousands of citizens living below that Levee in Danger of flood waters if as very well may happen this winter, we get another 1986 type winter.

I have contacted the Corps Of engineers and FEMA and have again made them aware of TRLIA failures in that area, and it remains to be seen if they stop this TRLIA fiasco. The Corps told me they would be re assessing the Certifications and FEMA told me they only accredited levees after a federal Agency with Levee certification Powers or a Professional Engineer, sends proof of 44 CFR 65.10 analysis.

This levee broke in 1986 from Rapid Draw Down, a Rapid dropping of water that leaves the levee saturated and it begins to break off in large chunks, causing levee failure. The levee break in 1986 was plugged by dumping Giant Boulders into the breach and also the Deep, wide trench torn out by the flood waters flowing through the collapsed levee. Those Boulders are still in the levee and in 1996 and 1997  during extreme high water against the Levee, water leaked through the Boulders and out on to the land side.

There are Plumas lake citizens ( two ) who state the levee as upgraded by TRLIA is safe as does the Yuba county Board of Supervisors and of course TRLIA. They all profess safety, even in the light of no work done on the levee waterside since 1986.  At the basis of this in my opinion is the location of the $ 450,000,000 state tax funds and developer fees unaccounted for  in 2004-05-06-07, who received the money who spent the money? The West Linda Levee was shorted in 2004 and 2006 as shown elsewhere in this blog , in fact Dan Logue who was Supervisor of Yuba county and Vice Chairman of TRLIA , was reported to the FPPC for receiving Many thousands of dollars from Developers and Trucking Firms who Logue then voted lucrative awards to.

The sad part of this is Corrupt officials did not upgrade this levee, received many hundreds of Thousands of dollars in Campaign Donations while the Local Newspaper the Appeal Democrat, looked the other way, as did Good men and Women.  The Cover up continues today as the two Plumas lake citizens defend TRLIA in their attempt to Slide a defective levee in with possible good levees, to get the whole system certified as the Corps requires.

Just a few short years ago we elected our neighbors to local offices to follow the State and federal Constitutions as applied to those offices. As time passed we left the offices to those we had elected and paid no attention unless we were affected ourselves or knew some one who was, after all the office holders had laws to follow and we could vote them out of office if they changed laws without our approval. Not that long ago, the District attorney of Yuba county worried about getting a reputation for “Plea bargaining” because it was frowned upon by the people and could win or lose an election. A sheriff derived his longevity in office by making sure the Deputies patrolled their assigned beats, protecting and serving  the People of the County. The Legislature legislated laws, the Law enforcement officers enforced the law and the judicial system judged the law according to the Constitution of the State and Federal Governments. A Brick wall was driven between the Judicial and Legislative branch’s with all laws coming from the Legislative branch and none from the Judicial branch.

Recently in Yuba county that status quo has been challenged when a Superior court instead of following the State legislated penal code 1096, which is Jury instructions legislated by elected legislators for that purpose and having no reason to be changed by the legislature, followed instead a non law “Rule” created by the Judicial Branch of the State that permitted the Court to let the District Attorney re try a citizen on the same charges twice.  Without a doubt, that Rule violates article 1 section 15 of the State Constitution ” Persons may not twice be put in jeopardy for the same offense”, but the court permitted it to happen.  The state law has not changed in meaning or writing, only the Judicial Council  has added the Instructions, and the Yuba County Court has chosen to follow the Judicial Rule instead of the State legislated Law they took an oath to uphold.

In the Yuba County Court there is Legislated Law pc 1096 stating if the District Attorney can not prove his allegations to the Jury, the Jury must find the defendant Not Guilty. Conflicting with that state law is a Non State Judicial Council Rule 3550 stating a citizen can be retried on the same offense if the D.A. can not prove his allegations. That is a direct violation of The State and Federal constitutions!

Calcrim 3550, permitting the D.A. to try a person again because he failed to convince the jury in the first trial is not for the benefit of the Citizens of Yuba County but, is for the benefit of the District Attorney! It permits the D.A. to use his office to go after Political enemies or citizens who know where the bodies are buried. If the Yuba county D.A. gets a second or third try at a citizen, who approves it? The Constitution can only be changed by the People through a Vote, that has not happened so the “RULE” of Calcrim 3550 is not legal law so why did the Court use it ? A citizens Life may be at risk from the CalCrim ruling and only legislated law can be used for that.

The Court has chosen to follow a non law, CalCrim 3550, against the oath they took to uphold the Constitution pure and simple. The Court can not legislate laws from the Bench, remember the Separation of powers,  no more than they can apply Rules from a Judicial council in a Supreme Court of California. We are a State of law abiding people and are expected to follow the legislated law and we certainly expect those we elect and appoint,  to follow those same laws.

The Law said If the D.A. can not prove his allegations to the 12 jurors the Jury must acquit the defendant. The Jury failed to follow State law PC 1096 by  finding not guilty,  and after dismissing the jury, the Court asked the D.A. if he wanted to retry the defendant and the D.A. said Yes. This is not the system of law we the people installed under Legislative law, so where did it come from?  We have followed the law for the most part and we would not think of following something other than the law if we were in office so what possessed these people who now hold offices?

In 1989 The Legislature brought a Statute to bear that conflicts with the State Constitution and blocked we citizens from running for and attaining the office of Sheriff, the Most powerful office in a county, and restricting the office to Law enforcement officers  from the group of Law enforcement. The Sheriff under that statute needed help from the County Counsel and County Clerk to block Constitutional candidates and keep the office restricted. Where did the recent office holders go to learn Political skills to follow “Rules” instead of the State laws? There are colleges that teach elected officials method such as Merced State college under a program called,” GREAT VALLEY” which I was told specializes in office holders training for the better way they feel the state needs.It is as though the Tail is wagging the dog in the case of Judicial Counsel Calcrim Rules, the People we elected or appointed are bringing in Non legislated  law related Rules such as Calcrim 3550 to violate state and Federal constitutional law that prevents twice trying a citizen for the same alleged offense.  Who besides the Judicial Branch supports this?

In 1993 the Yuba County Board of supervisors created the Plumas lake specific plan which called for thousands of Homes to be developed in the flood plains of south Yuba County. Part of their plan was for the Reclamation District 784 of which I was president, to convert our reclamation plans from Farming to housing developments. We were against housing there because the Levees were built to keep water off of the farmers crops, not protect homes. RD 784 was a maintenance district maintaining the State of California levees and interior ditches and not having any control over the stability or strength of the Levees, we could not change the states reclamation plan. The Board of Supervisors plan for housing in the flood plains required the levees to be strengthened to 100 level strength and that required the Corps of Engineers and the state water department participation along with contracts to be signed. One of the requirements the State required to increase the Levees to that level was for RD 784 to sign a contract that holds the state Harmless from levee failure and places the liability on RD 784.

As president I declined to sign the contract unless the  Hold harmless words were removed, and after several meetings and after the words were removed, I signed for the District in 1995. However, before the levee work could begin, The feather River levee broke, inundating the Plumas lake area and sitting for weeks, 17 feet deep. The interest in Developing the Flood zone subsided until 2004 when the Yuba county Board of Supervisors Joined in a joint venture with Reclamation District 784, ( TRLIA )  to find money and fund upgrades on the levees in RD 784 to the level of 200 year strength.  One of their first projects was to find money from the State Department of Fish & Game and Developers to fund a 50 foot deep slurry cutoff wall for approximately 2200 lineal feet along the South bank of the Yuba River, from Highway 70 to the UPRR tracks. This Project was permitted under the State Reclamation board permit number 17828 GM, dated September 7, 2004. The Slurry cutoff wall was to be placed in the center of the levee from the Crown down to 50 feet below the crown and stop water from the waterside from flowing through the Levee and causing levee failure.

On April 13, 2006 Charles K. McClain, Executive director Of Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority ( TRLIA ) who was also The County Administrator, sent a letter on TRLIA Letter Head to Colonel Ronald N. Light, District Engineer for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Sacramento, requesting assurance of Certification of levee remediation by TRLIA. According to Mr. McClain “the Levee from Highway 70 to the Union Pacific Rail Road was found to have under seepage, Through Seepage and Stability problems, remediation construction was initiated in September of 2004 and has been completed. “

On July-26-06 I Wrote a letter to Colonel Light advising him the Letter from TRLIA was not true, in fact the Slurry wall did not go from Highway 70 to the Union Pacific R.R. as Mr. McClain had stated in his letter, rather the Slurry wall was stopped approximately one half way between the Highway and the R.R. tracks, leaving over One Half of the levee not protected.

On December 4, 2006, Colonel Ronald N. Light wrote me on the Department Of The Army Letter Head saying He agreed with my concerns with the conditions at the break site, and my letter had reminded them they must carefully examine the area by focusing their attention on the junction between the Cutoff walls and the seepage berm to insure they will not have internal erosion at the junction. Colonel Light ended his letter with the comment “ We Share your concerns about the effectiveness and viability of the levee improvements made by TRLIA” This statement from the District Engineer of the Corps, verified my concerns.

On August 24, 2006 TRLIA requested from the State a permit to upgrade the Same South bank of the Yuba River by a series of projects listed as Reach A through Reach E, and reaching from the Highway 70 bridge to the Simpson Lane Road, a distance of approximately 6,800 Linier feet. “A” Reach consisted of 18” diameter Rip Rap, 3 foot thick on the waterside to protect against Erosion, “B” Reach consisted of Levee flattening and Cobble Stones placed along the Toe of the levee for erosion control, Reach “C “ consisted of Material being placed along the toe and levee flattening, Reach “ D’’ was the same as C. There was a large section of levee untouched and not planned for upgrading, that was The Area of the 1986 levee break. Reach “ E “ was the East Linda Levee upgrades. The Complete levee upgrade was to be completed by September 30th, 2006.

TRLIA began work on State Reclamation Board Permit 18095 GM at the East End of the East Linda levee and completed reach “ E “ except for the Triangle Berm next to the ready Mix Plant. I went before the State Reclamation Board, The TRLIA Board, The Yuba county Board Of Supervisors and RD 784 Boards all in Joint session and brought to their attention that TRLIA had not upgraded the West Linda Levee water side in Permit 18095GM. Various reasons such as the “ Corps said we do not need to upgrade them,” ( Ric Reinhardt Project Engineer) “ The Sand berm mitigates the waterside and Buttresses the levee,” (Don Schrader Yuba County Supervisor), “We have faith in that Sand berm and that is our Stand” (John Hess Corps Engineer) were given but none erased the Need for the upgrades. One Example of Covering up the non work was accomplished in March 2, 2007, Seven full months after TRLIA had said the Levee upgrades were completed, The State Reclamation Board issued another permit 18095-Rev. GM that only covered the Work TRLIA had done.

On January 6, 2008 I requested the engineering analysis for data outlined in Federal law 44 CFR 65.10 from TRLIA’s Mr. Paul Brunner which are required for Certification, but Mr. Brunner said, In lieu of these structural requirements a Federal agency with responsibility for levee design may Certify that the Levee has been adequately designed and constructed to provide protection against the base flood, 100 year. AS stated if TRLIA had chosen to certify the levee itself, it would have had to supply all the design information to satisfy Certification criteria as well as as-built plans to FEMA. However, TRLIA chose to ask the Corps of Engineers to provide certification to FEMA. Because the Corps is certifying to FEMA TRLIA does not have to submit the data, but Mr. Brunner said  TRLIA did provide the Engineering analysis and as-built plans to the Corps because they requested them as a condition of Certification. I contacted TRLIA and asked to see the criteria they sent to the corps and after being given the criteria I saw it was only the Sand Berm information!  More TRLIA spin.

On February 9, 2008 I was to conduct a tour of citizens from south Yuba County to show the Undone Work under Permit 18095GM , On February 7, 2008 I was arrested by the County officials.

On November 28, 2009, I contacted the Head of levee Safety for the Corps of Engineers in Washington D.C., Ms. Tammy Conforti and advised her The Sacramento Branch of the Corps of Engineers, Thomas E. Trainer, P.E. Had certified the West linda levee as a 100 year levee under the Sacramento Flood Control System Evaluation .  Ms. Conforti advised me that “since the Corps was not involved in the Levee upgrades, we would not certify it.” She said she would be re-visiting the Certifications to be sure they are compliant with the Corps process, it does not seem like our policy was followed.”

Since TRLIA chose to have Thomas trainer certify the west Linda levee and Mr.Trainers certification was not corps certified, the West Linda levee is not certified as TRLIA states. Recently, TRLIA has certified the Levee itself, But they have to send the 44 CFR 65.10  Data to FEMA. It is my belief there is no data because in the Court case from the 1986 flood suit, it was stated by an Engineer, “ The Linda Levee has never met a standard of Design in its life. “  The Section of levee that broke in 1986 has never been worked on since the break on the waterside!

FEMA ACCREDITS LEVEES! TRLIA advises FEMA accredited the levee work done by TRLIA, but without 44 CFR 65.10 criteria being sent to FEMA that can not happen.

When you add in the Failure of TRLIA/ Yuba county Officials failing to account for Upwards of 400,000,000 of funds from Taxes, developers in 2004-2005-2006 and until 2007 when I asked them if they had ever been audited, they then had an CPA do a mini audit, they have a lot of reason to not like me, especially since when during the non accounting years by TRLIA, the County gave huge increases in salaries to the Sheriff, D.A., and all upper management which I believe came from the non accounted Funds.

I believe every American has in their mind  what beyond a reasonable doubt means,  it varies a little, but usually means a jury is Fully satisfied or entirely convinced the government in a trial has eliminated all reasonable Doubt of innocence, they will find guilty.  On the flip side, if the Jury has not been fully satisfied or entirely convinced the Government has eliminated all possible doubt of innocence, they will find Not guilty.

These are iron clad results as shown by the California State Penal code 1096, ” A defendant in a criminal action is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved, and in cases of  a reasonable doubt whether his guilt is satisfactory shown, he is entitled to an acquittal. “  Reasonable Doubt is defined , ” It is not a mere possible doubt but a doubt that leaves the jurors in that condition that they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the  charge.” If the Unanimous verdict is required that verdict requires the District Attorney to entirely convince or fully satisfy all 12 jurors in a criminal case by bringing evidence to the  jury that convinces them the allegations are true.

Now, given all this from the laws of California, why did the Superior Court not follow Penal code 1096, which also Calcrim 220 is based on, after the D.A. did not meet his burden of proof and acquit me?

According to one argument the problem with Double Jeopardy Article 1 section 15, is that people are clearly guilty because of new evidence emerging , or because of an confession,  are not being punished for crimes they have committed. We believe that guilty people should be punished for their crimes they have committed, and our justice system should be tailored to allow that.

The most important thing a justice system can provide is a clear result, something that the State penal Code 1096 does, if followed . The Jury is instructed to find if the District Attorney proved the allegations  he brought to trial and if did not, then the defendant was not guilty. That is a clear result. However, the rule of #3550, requires a unanimous verdict and conflicts with the penal code 1096 law, and is far from clear to juries. In recent cases in Yuba county the juries have asked for more proof from the D.A. because they were confused, lost, unable to agree.

Penal Code 1096 is designed for a one shot deal for the D.A. to prove his case or he loses it because he supposedly has investigated both sides of the issue and knows how to proceed or he would not be proceeding. Under the Calcrim 3550, the D.A. knows if he fails, he gets another try, that is dirty pool if I have ever seen it, not a level playing field, bad karma. The D.A. has Tax funds to prosecute with and also tax funds to persecute with, and the defendant does not have that luxury. Therefore,  the reason for the Checks and balances article 1 section 15 prohibition against the retrying on the same charges or rearranged same charges.

It appears there is a “New” law used by the System as spoken by an attorney who said we are not under that . ( Meaning the Constitution) That should bring citizens to their feet!  Openly admitting the system is not following the Constitution bill of rights or the Federal. That is the only protection we have against government oppression!

In debates on the Appeal democrat and Yuba foothills forums, I have  endeavored  to bring out the facts the use of Calcrim Jury instructions #3550 is a violation of the State constitution article 1 section 15 ( and most probably the Federal Bill of Rights also) and the use of it needs investigation. two posters, Javadad ( Tom Erickson) and Dabluman, (Jeff Phinney)  Both of Plumas lake.have followed the debate from forum to forum bringing their version of what gives the Calcrim Jury instruction its base in legislated law that lets it over rule the State penal code and the State articles 1 section 15 forbidding putting a citizen twice in jeopardy for the same charges as the Yuba County Superior Court did to me.

After weeks of debate with various supporters of each faction joining in, with some forums removing the debate, finally on the Foothills forum the truth came to light. The subject is the requirement that the Yuba County superior court used in my jury trial as instructions to the Jury, “You must find unanimously for guilt or not guilty”.

Javadad stated in Yuba foothills forum, 7/16/10, post # 162 ” as a matter of fact there is no legislated law regarding unanimous verdict, why is this?”  He continues, “It clearly specifies in the calcrim section notes ( in this instance Calcrim # 3550) the requirement for a unanimous verdict is in the California Constitution, Article 1 section 16.”  I researched the Article 1 section 16 and found no such mention of unanimous jury required finding although for sure the Calcrim instructions state they are there. I believe Javadad did not research his source in his haste.

I also researched the Calcrim Jury instructions mentioned by Javadad and found the following. In the judicial council, copyright 2009, it states under Bench notes, The court has a sua sponte Duty to instruct that the jury’s verdict must be unanimous. The page gave cites of cal. cases, but no constitutional or Legislated cites. In fact, Sua Sponte is a action that can be taken by the Court independently of any request of either of the party’s according to calcrim , and is not based on any legislated Law. A citizen can not be placed in Jeopardy by a unelected council as long as we follow the Constitution!

The Calcrim Instruction to jury’s the Yuba county Superior court gave to the Jury under CalCrim 220 -221 was in fact based on the Penal code of California, a Legal legislated law, but, after the jury met the requirements of the penal code and it was determined the District Attorney had Not proved beyond a reasonable doubt his allegations were true, the Court then brought in calcrim #3550, Jury instructions which nullified the Jury instructions under calcrim 220-221, and permitted the District Attorney to retry me again on the same charges as in 2008, in violation of the State of California Constitution Article 1 Section 15, and  possibly Federal violations.

It remains to be seen what basis the Court used as authority to violate my Constitutional Rights under Article 1 section 15  on June 18, 2010 in Yuba county Superior Court.

As you all know, I am very active in civic affairs in Yuba county and there are those in Yuba county Government who need to be investigated by outside authorities with no axe to grind. One of the investigations needs to center on the Tax and developer funds received by Yuba county in 2004 through 2007, which were not accounted for during the years when they should have been. The County authorities have violated the State Constitution by adhering to State Statutes instead, the County Clerk not following the state constitution Article 2 section 12 and instead following a statute 24004.3,  Not following Article 1 section 15 and instead following Calcrim no. 3550.

I was associated with the Yuba county Sheriff’s Department in various positions from 1974 through 1999 until ex Sheriff Virginia Black upon being elected, fired me and after I retained competent council, Mastasqi Holstedt & Amick , I won a successful Law suit against the Sheriff for Wrongful termination, Yuba County political maneuvers in its infancy.

My wife and I were foster care parents for 10 years or so, rescuing abused children and caring for them until they were adopted or returned home . I saw the devastation of their home life when I was called to a home to keep the peace and if the Parents were to be arrested, CPS was called to care for the Children until they could be returned or placed in Foster care, this was a need that was filled by my wife and I until it got too much to handle for my wife, some kids struck her in the back, tripped her, closed doors on other kids, so we retired from that. Through close to 50 foster kids, not one complaint was made, even though case workers were in our home sometimes two times a week, and never less tahn one time a week, so they had many opportunities to complain  if needed.

In February of 2008, the Sheriff of Yuba county sent several Officers and Detectives to my Home where they arrested and transported me to Yuba county Jail, where I was interviewed by Mikiel Williamson, Detective Sergeant, from 9:30 to 12;15 in short spurts of 10 -15 minutes each . After the interview , at 12:15, I was given a sandwich and processed to a holding cell. At about 2:30, Newly appointed judge, Julia scrogin, at my arraignment, lashed out at me saying I could spend 30 years in prison, assigned an Public defender to me, remanded me to jail, on $ 500,000,00 Bail. I was then transferred to Colusa county Jail where I stayed for 21 days until we placed our home up for the bail to get me released.

On 2-20-2008, I attended a pre-trial conference before Judge Curry where my bail was lowered to $ 100,000.00 and I was released on Bail. On 3-12-08 I attended another pre trial event and was told No judge in Yuba County would hear my case, so the Honorable Julia Scrogin was assigned . A series of other pre trial conferences and other events during which Judge Scrogin, returned my Property bond , continued until  I finally was able to get my case heard at Jury trial in May of 2010.

During the Jury Trial, My attorney , David Vasquez did not put on my defense plan developed By Attorney Donald Wahlberg, and in fact did not protest when the Judge let the D.A. say he was going to retry me again. I was given papers to that effect showing I was to return on July 9th with my new counsel if I find one and begin a second placement in Jeopardy on the same charges.

The Jury was given instructions under Jury instructions Rule No. calcrim 220 which is based on the penal code, saying the D.A. must prove his allegations beyond a reasonable Doubt based on evidence given during the Trial and if the Jury was not convinced by that evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, then under 220, the defendant must be found Not guilty. The Jury deliberated for Four days, asking for More evidence to evaluate, but were told there is no more evidence because the D.A. did not bring any to the Jury!

The Jury gave up and told the Judge they could not come to a agreement on any of the allegations. At that time the Jury had done their duty, and should have said, Not Guilty under CalCrim 220, however Judge Scrogin, invoked Cal Crim 3550 , and asked if the D.A. was going to Retry me again., He later at a court hearing on 6-18-2010, said yes,  he was going to try me again.  The Judge gave me until 7-09-2010 to appear in court with counsel to proceed with a second trial on teh same charges.

Under the State constitution Article 1 section 15, ” Persons may not be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense”  was violated by Yuba county since I was  placed in Jeopardy in May in a jury trial, and after that on June 18, 2010, I was again placed in jeopardy by being ordered to again stand trial for the Same charges.  a Stare decises is spot on, ” The constitution of the state is a higher authority than an act or law of any officer or body assuming to act under it, and in case of conflict, the Constitution must govern, and the act or law in conflict with it must be held to have no validity. The State legislature derives its power to legislate law from the State Constitution and can not over rule the constitution that the legislature getts its power from. “  Johnson V. Duke  180 M.D. 434.

Under Article 1 section 15, of our constitution any legislated law, decree, stated posted statute or any other writing that conflicts with it, and purports to let a County D.A. to violate either a federal or State constitution  restrictions against Twice placing a Citizen in jeopardy for the  same offense Must be held to be not valid!

Under the Yuba County following non constitutional law,  we the citizens are subjected to Double jeopardy by those we placed in office to protect us from Jeopardy Twice put in.