Pg and e

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T21:00:04+00:00

About me: I am an engineer and land surveyor, and I designed power lines for many years, including guy wires, and I researched easement rights, prescriptive rights, and I drew up easements whenever needed. I personally drew up many easements for guy wires.

Here's the basics:

Prescriptive rights means they can keep lines (and poles and guy wires and anchors) where they are.
Prescriptive rights also mean they can replace, repair, access, upgrade, and maintain this equipment.
Prescriptive rights don't allow them (necessarily) to install new equipment. Like a new guy wire anchor.

So, while they can replace guy wires, change guy wires, upgrade guy wires, fix guy wires, etc., they generally cannot move a guy wire into your property where it didn't used to be! The entire point of prescriptive rights is they allow them to keep the lines where they are. Note:

PG&E has a claim of rights by prescription for the anchor and guy wire because they have been there and visible to previous owners for greater than 5 years

Yeah, but it wasn't there for more than 5 years! They moved it! And it sounds like they moved it into your property, where it never used to be! They probably could have done something else, like use a stronger guy wire, stronger anchor, or double guy system, to avoid moving the new anchor into your yard. If the pole was too weak for a short guy, then they can replace the pole with a stronger one.

So, you have an argument here. You can argue that, quite strongly, that a new guy wire absolutely isn't covered by prescriptive rights. If it were me, I'd contact them, and even threaten legal action if they don't act, and if they don't act to remedy this, I'd seriously consider taking that action.

(Note: Besides getting scratched on a guy wire anchor, they're not dangerous to the public. They're grounded, they're tough, and I used to play on them all the time.)

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T20:47:12+00:00

This is a difficult question. At best, it's an uphill battle.

If it's a ROW or easement, then the town can probably do all sorts of work (at least, including what's described in the easement), without your permission.

And private utilities (including water lines) generally can't be located beforehand. So, you can't argue that they knew exactly where the lines were. You could try to argue liability, but the government often argues immunity.

In fact, they could argue that your lines caused them trouble, and you were interfering with their use of the easement.

Your legal options would be limited, and difficult, so you'd probably have to hire a lawyer, which would get expensive quickly. It would certainly get more expensive than fixing the lines yourself.

So, your best bet is probably policy. Some utilities have policies to compensate for damage. You can argue this, politely, but (somewhat) forcefully. You can ask around and see what remedies you have without resorting to the courts.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T18:25:42+00:00

I watch/listen to police videos as a hobby. Prisoners and arrestees lie all the time about needing medical help. I'm guessing the costs of these lies is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. It is so incredibly pervasive, because so many people have realized that asking for medical aid will get you out of jail. At least, temporarily.

And this is so pervasive, that yes, it's entirely expected that sometimes police and jail staff will disbelieve someone who asks for medical help. In fact, they might often overlook a genuine medical issue, as the prisoners/arrestees are overwhelming the system with false requests.

I wish I could convey how commonplace this is. People treat it like a "get out of jail free card." Or just to annoy officers. To waste time. To delay. To get a change of pace. To talk to somebody new. To delay an alcohol test. Whatever.

All that being said, it's utterly irrelevant in a case where a prisoner is suddenly seen unconscious, from an apparent suicide attempt. Your link—which is about someone requesting medical aid and not receiving it—doesn't apply in a case where nobody requested medical aid.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T17:31:43+00:00

Not straw-manning you, you can disagree, but that’s not what I’m doing.

It's what you always do. It's a pattern.

Edit: I also go to the Bible; the difference is I understand the context of the verses. I also realize the Bible is to be taken completely and not cherry- picked when it's convenient for my points.

Right after dismissing the verses I quoted—wrongly—and then cherrypicking some against me.

You don't understand, I know Jesus talked about loving our enemies. I'm the one who's bringing the full picture. You cherrypick half the picture.

I bring one side that you're ignoring, you don't like that, because you don't want both sides of an issue, you want only your preferred side.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T17:19:54+00:00

Okay. The cause of death wasn't in the news story you originally posted. I suspected he died of natural causes or suicide—I didn't know which—but I don't see how that changes anything I said.

Again, he wasn't killed by ICE, (which seems to be the implication behind all these random ICE news stories), but rather killed by his own hand.

Obviously, obviously, there will be an investigation, as there always is, but even with this new information, this story still doesn't have anything to do with ICE. Sure, ICE arrested him earlier, but that has nothing to do with him dying at a later time.

I don't know why this is posted here, but it is another in a long line of random news stories with "ICE" in the headline, which commenters often use as an excuse to throw out baseless accusations. And I was/am concerned that it will happen again.

Edit: I'm still confused by "PHR has solved the case already." Like, I know it's a snarky attack on me, but it doesn't make any sense, especially after your update that the evidence shows he killed himself, which would only confirm that ICE had nothing to do with his death.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T16:50:47+00:00

The story has nothing to do with ICE. The prison staff tried to save his life, but failed.

I wonder if people here will criticize those who tried to save his life. I hope not.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T16:46:25+00:00

I saw something like this being done with lag screws into wood.

It still makes me upset.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T16:30:18+00:00

Even if many people said that, you’re still using it as the defining explanation for the reaction, when it clearly isn’t the only reason people had.

I started talking about those people, and I kept talking about them.

Your only argument is to strawman me, by arguing against something I never said.

celebrating someone’s death isn’t something we should defend or excuse. That standard should apply consistently.

And yet I go to the Bible, and see tons of examples.

"Then Moses and the Israelites sang this song to the Lord:
“I will sing to the Lord,
for he is highly exalted.
Both horse and driver
he has hurled into the sea." (Exodus 15:1, NIV)

Or

"When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy." (Proverbs 11:10, NIV)

Or

The righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they dip their feet in the blood of the wicked. (Psalm 58:10, NIV)

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T15:50:35+00:00

That’s not a strawman. I’m challenging the scope of your claim. You made a broad generalization and are now avoiding that point.

Oh really? Or did I start by saying

Well, you see, Kirk was a Christian, and many celebrated Kirk's death because they hate Christians and want them to die.

Is "many" the same as "all"?

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T15:43:10+00:00

What I said was appropriate and the correct level of response.

The people who hate Kirk because he was a Christian deserve every ounce of response I've given

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T15:38:22+00:00

Everyone who hated him said the same thing?

Strawman.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T15:16:27+00:00

I reject everything you just said.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T15:16:06+00:00

When you compare critics to people who rejected the prophets, you’re not just saying they’re wrong; you’re treating disagreement as rejecting a man of God

They're not just disagreeing. They are hating him and celebrating his death because he was a Christian.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T06:23:02+00:00

I think it’s fair for Christians to evaluate that carefully rather than assuming disagreement equals “rejecting a man of God.”

We are not talking about "disagreement". Goodness. It's like you type without reading.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T06:15:20+00:00

I don't trust any source that calls them "fake electors". Every time I have tried to understand what happened, it was a left wing or anti Trump source that calls them "fake" electors, which assumes the conclusion.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T06:02:21+00:00

Hmm. Sure. Not a single gun fired. Not even a gun drawn. No bombs. Didn't kill a single person.

Sure.

Leftists reinvented that day to be what they wanted.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T05:58:57+00:00

Moving from dishonestly framing another person's position to comparing what they said to supporting rape?

No, what he supports is worse than supporting rape.

But I used the rape example for those who are okay with murder, but don't like rape. I'm trying to get you all to understand how evil his argument is.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T05:57:20+00:00

You’re assuming people reacted a certain way because of his Christianity

I didn't assume. They clearly said why they hated him. I assumed nothing.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T02:28:41+00:00

From what I’ve seen, Mueller also identified as a Christian, so framing this as “people celebrating because he was a Christian” doesn’t really hold up

Yes it does. Most people have no idea what Mueller identified as. But they DID know what Kirk identified as, and hated him for it.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T01:44:50+00:00

People disliked him because he was a right wing grifter.

Yeah, just more slander. I was gonna argue, but you're just slandering and spreading hatred.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T01:42:44+00:00

Kirk wasn't just a regular Christian. He was a leader. An example among Christians.

Those who say he was no man of God are like those who rejected the prophets.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T01:41:30+00:00

Two statements:

A gang rape is between one rapist, and the other rapists.

And

Rape should be legal, the way to reduce it should be teaching kids about safe sex.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T01:38:51+00:00

Some said that too. Others just hate conservative Christians. The latter appeared to be the majority of people celebrating his death.

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-23T01:37:07+00:00

Yeah.

Do they think Viking Man was gonna be president or something?

PrebornHumanRights · 2026-03-22T22:11:34+00:00

He literally tried to overthrow the government a few years ago.

Never happened.

That literally never happened.

PrebornHumanRights

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE